2020-04-14T13:53:16-04:00

Last updated on: April 14, 2020 at 1:53 pm   By

Studies in Flew’s Justification of His Change of Mind and the Predictable Reaction of Atheists

[Antony Flew’s words will be in blue]

***

For a prior overview about Flew’s importance in the world of philosophy and the resurgence of theism in those circles, see Dr. Phillip Blosser’s blog article (filled with links to interesting related materials), Former atheist, Antony Flew, now believes in God. See also his page on infidels.org, which gives several links to older papers.

The flurry of stories on this topic which were prevalent in the media around 9 December 2004, were typified by the following, in the Guardian Unlimited:

Famous Atheist Now Believes in God [link from The Guardian now defunct]Thursday December 9, 2004 10:01 PM

By Richard N. Ostling

AP Religion Writer

NEW YORK (AP) – A British philosophy professor who has been a leading champion of atheism for more than a half-century has changed his mind. He now believes in God – more or less – based on scientific evidence, and says so on a video released Thursday.

At age 81, after decades of insisting belief is a mistake, Antony Flew has concluded that some sort of intelligence or first cause must have created the universe. A super-intelligence is the only good explanation for the origin of life and the complexity of nature, Flew said in a telephone interview from England.

Flew said he’s best labeled a deist like Thomas Jefferson, whose God was not actively involved in people’s lives.

“I’m thinking of a God very different from the God of the Christian and far and away from the God of Islam, because both are depicted as omnipotent Oriental despots, cosmic Saddam Husseins,” he said. “It could be a person in the sense of a being that has intelligence and a purpose, I suppose.”

Flew first made his mark with the 1950 article “Theology and Falsification,” based on a paper for the Socratic Club, a weekly Oxford religious forum led by writer and Christian thinker C.S. Lewis.

. . . biologists’ investigation of DNA “has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved,” Flew says in the new video, “Has Science Discovered God?” . . .

The first hint of Flew’s turn was a letter to the August-September issue of Britain’s Philosophy Now magazine . . .

[Here is what he wrote, in his now-online letter: “Probably Darwin himself believed that life was miraculously breathed into that primordial form of not always consistently reproducing life by God, though not the revealed God of then contemporary Christianity, who had predestined so many of Darwin’s friends and family to an eternity of extreme torture.“But the evidential situation of natural (as opposed to revealed) theology has been transformed in the more than fifty years since Watson and Crick won the Nobel Prize for their discovery of the double helix structure of DNA. It has become inordinately difficult even to begin to think about constructing a naturalistic theory of the evolution of that first reproducing organism.”]

. . . if his belief upsets people, well “that’s too bad,’‘ Flew said. “My whole life has been guided by the principle of Plato’s Socrates: Follow the evidence, wherever it leads.”. . . Flew told The Associated Press his current ideas have some similarity with American “intelligent design” theorists, who see evidence for a guiding force in the construction of the universe. He accepts Darwinian evolution but doubts it can explain the ultimate origins of life.

The Sunday Times of Britain (12-12-04) took a similar view, in its article, Sorry, says atheist-in-chief, I do believe in God after all, by Stuart Wavell and Will Iredale:

One of the most renowned atheists of the past half century has changed his mind and decided that there is a God after all . . . Flew, the son of a Methodist minister, is keen to repent. “As people have certainly been influenced by me, I want to try and correct the enormous damage I may have done,” he said yesterday.But he is unlikely to proclaim his faith from a pulpit. He is still not a Christian and dismisses the conventional forms of divinity as “the monstrous oriental despots of the religions of Christianity and Islam”. He also stands by his rejection of an afterlife.

. . . Darwin’s theory of evolution does not explain the origin and development of life to Flew’s satisfaction. “I have been persuaded that it is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinarily complicated creature,” he said.

Flew finds the conventional explanation that life arose out of a complex chemical brew or primordial soup “improbable”. So he is emulating Socrates and “following the argument wherever it leads. The conclusion is — there must have been some intelligence”.

His volte face is all the more remarkable given his vehement denial of internet rumours in 2001 that he had renounced his atheism. His response was entitled: “Sorry To Disappoint, but I’m Still an Atheist!”

The latter article (8-31-01), however, reproduced on The Secular Web, contains fascinating tidbits that go far beyond the usual atheist party line. For Flew wrote:

[I]t can be entirely rational for believers and negative atheists to respond in quite different ways to the same scientific developments.We negative atheists are bound to see the Big Bang cosmology as requiring a physical explanation; and that one which, in the nature of the case, may nevertheless be forever inaccessible to human beings. But believers may, equally reasonably, welcome the Big Bang cosmology as tending to confirm their prior belief that “in the beginning” the Universe was created by God.

Again, negative atheists meeting the argument that the fundamental constants of physics would seem to have been ‘fine tuned’ to make the emergence of mankind possible will first object to the application of either the frequency or the propensity theory of probability ‘outside’ the Universe, and then go on to ask why omnipotence should have been satisfied to produce a Universe in which the origin and rise of the human race was merely possible rather than absolutely inevitable. But believers are equally bound and, on their opposite assumptions, equally justified in seeing the Fine Tuning Argument as providing impressive confirmation of a fundamental belief shared by all the three great systems of revealed theistic religion – Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

. . . In short, I recognize that developments in physics coming on the last twenty or thirty years can reasonably be seen as in some degree confirmatory of a previously faith-based belief in god, even though they still provide no sufficient reason for unbelievers to change their minds. They certainly have not persuaded me.

I’ve been contending for years that theism is at least as reasonable a position as atheism, particularly in the context of attempts to interpret Big Bang cosmology. It is very nice to observe one of the world’s leading atheists “concede” or agree with this (when he was still a card-carrying atheist). Many atheists have no toleration whatever for the eminently reasonable (and, I think, rather obvious) position which holds that theists (not Christians: one subset of the larger group, involving many more tenets and presuppositions) are at least as reasonable and epistemically justified as atheists — wholly apart from the opposite conclusions that each party arrives at.

For them, Christians and even theistic philosophers must be seen as simpletons and ignoramuses (or reasonable facsimile thereof), caught in a medieval belief-system and hopelessly behind the times. Not so, said Flew, over three years ago.

The best source at present to learn about Flew’s newly-adopted opinion (from his own words), seems to be an interview by evangelical Protestant philosopher Gary R. Habermas; subsequently published in the Winter 2004 issue of Philosophia Christi: the journal of the Evangelical Philosophical Society, considered one of the best journals of philosophy of religion in the world. The article notes that Habermas “has debated Flew several times.

They have maintained a friendship despite their years of disagreement on the existence of God . . . Over the next twenty years, Flew and Habermas developed a friendship, writing dozens of letters, talking often . . .” Furthermore, the introduction states that the interview “took place in early 2004 and was subsequently modified by both participants throughout the year.” Habermas’ words will be in green; Flew’s still in blue:

. . . I don’t believe in the God of any revelatory system, although I am open to that. But it seems to me that the case for an Aristotelian God who has the characteristics of power and also intelligence, is now much stronger than it ever was before.Once you mentioned to me that your view might be called Deism. Do you think that would be a fair designation?

Yes, absolutely right. What Deists, such as the Mr. Jefferson who drafted the American Declaration of Independence, believed was that, while reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual human beings.

Then, would you comment on your “openness” to the notion of theistic revelation?

Yes. I am open to it, but not enthusiastic about potential revelation from God. On the positive side, for example, I am very much impressed with physicist Gerald Schroeder’s comments on Genesis 1. That this biblical account might be scientifically accurate raises the possibility that it is revelation.

. . . [you commented] that naturalistic efforts have never succeeded in producing “a plausible conjecture as to how any of these complex molecules might have evolved from simple entities.” . . . You mention a number of trends in theistic argumentation that you find convincing, like big bang cosmology, fine tuning and Intelligent Design arguments. Which arguments for God’s existence did you find most persuasive?

I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. I’ve never been much impressed by the kalam cosmological argument, and I don’t think it has gotten any stronger recently. However, I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.

So you like arguments such as those that proceed from big bang cosmology and fine tuning arguments?

Yes.

. . . when I was in college, I attended fairly regularly the weekly meetings of C. S. Lewis’s Socratic Club. In all my time at Oxford these meetings were chaired by Lewis. I think he was by far the most powerful of Christian apologists for the sixty or more years following his founding of that club.

Although you disagreed with him, did you find him to be a very reasonable sort of fellow?

Oh yes, very much so, an eminently reasonable man.

. . . So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?

Absolutely. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.

. . . If God is the First Cause, what about omniscience, or omnipotence?

Well, the First Cause, if there was a First Cause, has very clearly produced everything that is going on. I suppose that does imply creation “in the beginning.”

. . . In your view, then, God hasn’t done anything about evil.

No, not at all, other than producing a lot of it.

. . . I still hope and believe there’s no possibility of an afterlife.

. . . you have also written to me that these near death experiences “certainly constitute impressive evidence for the possibility of the occurrence of human consciousness independent of any occurrences in the human brain.”. . . Elsewhere, you again very kindly noted my influence on your thinking here, regarding these data being decent evidence for human consciousness independent of “electrical activity in the brain.” If some near death experiences are evidenced, independently confirmed experiences during a near death state, even in persons whose heart or brain may not be functioning, isn’t that is quite impressive evidence? Are near death experiences, then, the best evidence for an afterlife?

Oh, yes, certainly. They are basically the only evidence.

. . . So you think that, for a miracle, the evidence for Jesus’ resurrection is better than other miracle claims?

Oh yes, I think so. It’s much better, for example, than that for most if not of the, so to speak, run of the mill Roman Catholic miracles.

. . . You have made numerous comments over the years that Christians are justified in their beliefs such as Jesus’ resurrection or other major tenants of their faith. In our last two dialogues I think you even remarked that for someone who is already a Christian there are many good reasons to believe Jesus’ resurrection. Would you comment on that?

Yes, certainly. This is an important matter about rationality which I have fairly recently come to appreciate. What it is rational for any individual to believe about some matter which is fresh to that individual’s consideration depends on what he or she rationally believed before they were confronted with this fresh situation. For suppose they rationally believed in the existence of a God of any revelation, then it would be entirely reasonable for them to see the fine tuning argument as providing substantial confirmation of their belief in the existence of that God.

. . . What do you think that Bertrand Russell, J. L. Mackie, and A. J. Ayer would have thought about these theistic developments, had they still been alive today?

I think Russell certainly would have had to notice these things. I’m sure Mackie would have been interested, too. I never knew Ayer very well, beyond meeting him once or twice.

Do you think any of them would have been impressed in the direction of theism? I’m thinking here, for instance, about Russell’s famous comments that God hasn’t produced sufficient evidence of his existence.

Consistent with Russell’s comments that you mention, Russell would have regarded these developments as evidence. I think we can be sure that Russell would have been impressed too, precisely because of his comments to which you refer. This would have produced an interesting second dialogue between him and that distinguished Catholic philosopher, Frederick Copleston.

In recent years you’ve been called the world’s most influential philosophical atheist. Do you think Russell, Mackie, or Ayer would have been bothered or even angered by your conversion to theism? Or do you think that they would have at least understood your reasons for changing your mind?

I’m not sure how much any of them knew about Aristotle. But I am almost certain that they never had in mind the idea of a God who was not the God of any revealed religion. But we can be sure that they would have examined these new scientific arguments.

C. S. Lewis explained in his autobiography that he moved first from atheism to theism and only later from theism to Christianity. Given your great respect for Christianity, do you think that there is any chance that you might in the end move from theism to Christianity?

I think it’s very unlikely, due to the problem of evil. But, if it did happen, I think it would be in some eccentric fit and doubtfully orthodox form: regular religious practice perhaps but without belief.

I ask this last question with a smile, Tony. But just think what would happen if one day you were pleasantly disposed toward Christianity and all of a sudden the resurrection of Jesus looked pretty good to you?

Well, one thing I’ll say in this comparison is that, for goodness sake, Jesus is an enormously attractive charismatic figure, which the Prophet of Islam most emphatically is not.

In his review of Christian Roy Varghese’s book, The Wonder of the World: A Journey from Modern Science to the Mind of God, Flew wrote:

I pointed out, after quoting a significant sentence from the fourteenth and final chapter of The Origin of Species, that one place where, until a satisfactory naturalistic explanation has been developed, there would appear to be room for an Argument to Design is at the first emergence of living from non-living matter. And, unless that first living matter already possessed the capacity to reproduce itself genetically, there will still be room for a second argument to Design until a satisfactory explanation is found for its acquisition of that capacity. You have in your book deployed abundant evidence indicating that it is likely to be a very long time before such naturalistic explanations are developed, if indeed there ever could be.Our disagreements begin with any shift from the God of natural theology to the God of a Revelation.

In a December 2004 phone conversation with humanist Duncan Crary [link defunct], Flew stated:

We must follow the argument wherever it leads. I’ve never thought I knew that there was no God. I merely thought there is no sufficient reason that there is . . . I’m quite happy to believe in an inoffensive inactive god.

The Sunday Times article of 19 December 2004: In the beginning there was something (an interview by Stuart Wavell; link now defunct]) offers more fascinating information:

I’ve never thrown my weight about as an unbeliever. I’ve joined unbelieving organisations but I haven’t attacked belief.. . . My positive belief is in an Aristotelian God. Aristotle never produced a definition, but his God was not interested in human beings. He would have said that if God had really been concerned with human behaviour he would have made us behave according to his own way . . . On the Aristotelian view, the question doesn’t arise about the nature of God.

. . . I don’t want a future life. I want to be dead when I’m dead and that’s an end to it. I don’t want an unending life. I don’t want anything without end.

. . . there’s a world of difference between finding that there’s some very powerful, intelligent being in the background and finding that what you’ve discovered is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Israel.

. . . Darwin saw that there was a problem with the origin of life. It had to begin with a creature capable of producing creatures that are not always identical to their parents. It is simply out of the question that the first living matter evolved out of dead matter and then developed into an extraordinary, complicated creature of which we have no examples. There must have been some intelligence.

. . . I don’t consider the question of God is definitively proved. All Schroeder is saying is that all the chemical complexities that have to be dealt with are such an enormous improbability. This is not a proof but it will do until a proof comes along.

Now that we have a basic understanding of Antony Flew’s thinking, I thought it would be fun and interesting to briefly examine how atheists and agnostics are reacting to it. I am as interested in the psychology and sociology of unbelief as in the philosophy of it. I immediately predicted in my mind when I heard about Flew’s change of opinion, that many in the community of atheists and secularists and skeptics, and so forth, would immediately start to (more or less irrationally and emotionally) minimize and dismiss both his thinking process and he himself.

They would be willing, so I thought (based on my own significant experience in dialogue with them), to cast him to the wind just as quickly as they formerly thought he was an able and worthy representative of their position.

In fact, the entrenched, knee-jerk, almost intellectually reactionary position that many atheists have assumed almost requires this. A search on the Internet tonight quickly confirmed my strong suspicions. In fact, the article just cited reports the hysterical atheist reaction. Wavell writes:

With equal alacrity, the wrath of unbelievers has rebounded on Antony Flew, the philosophy professor responsible for this heresy, leaving him shaken and not very philosophical.

Flew himself complains:

I have been denounced by my fellow unbelievers for stupidity, betrayal, senility and everything you could think of. And none of them have read a word that I have ever written.

Richard Carrier, a frequent contributor to The Secular Web, in his article, Antony Flew Considers God…Sort Of (10-10-04), provides a good insight into atheist / agnostic reaction:

Antony Flew is considering the possibility that there might be a God. Sort of. Flew is one of the most renowned atheists of the 20th century, even making the shortlist of “Contemporary Atheists” at About.com. So if he has changed his mind to any degree, whatever you may think of his reasons, the event itself is certainly newsworthy. After hearing of this, I contacted Antony directly to discuss it, . . . Antony and I exchanged letters on the issue recently, and what I report here about his current views comes from him directly.. . . he is increasingly persuaded that some sort of Deity brought about this universe, though it does not intervene in human affairs, nor does it provide any postmortem salvation. He says he has in mind something like the God of Aristotle, a distant, impersonal “prime mover.” It might not even be conscious, but a mere force. In formal terms, he regards the existence of this minimal God as a hypothesis that, at present, is perhaps the best explanation for why a universe exists that can produce complex life.

. . . Flew’s tentative, mechanistic Deism is not based on any logical proofs, but solely on physical, scientific evidence, or the lack thereof, . . .

. . . Flew took great care to emphasize repeatedly to me that:

My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species … [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms. [letter of 19 October 2004]

After presenting a fairly accurate picture of Flew’s opinions, Carrier then assumes the usual (almost obligatory) “smarter-than-thou” atheist routine and belittles Flew:

. . . he confesses he has not been able to keep up with the relevant literature in science and theology, which means we should no longer treat him as an expert on this subject . . .. . . there is much to criticize in his rationale even for considering Aristotelian Deism.

Flew has thus abandoned the very standards of inquiry that led the rest of us to atheism. It would seem the only way to God is to jettison responsible scholarship.

This would appear to be his excuse for everything: he won’t investigate the evidence because it’s too hard. Yet he will declare beliefs in the absence of proper inquiry. Theists would do well to drop the example of Flew. Because his willfully sloppy scholarship can only help to make belief look ridiculous.

This comes as no surprise at all, to anyone familiar with the dripping atheist disdain of theism and especially Christianity. Yet, to be fair to Carrier, he does present some late information (less than three weeks’ old, as of this writing) from Flew which shows that he thought some of his earlier rationale for the adoption of deism (while not sufficient to reverse his newfound belief) was flawed:

I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction.. . . I have been mistaught by Gerald Schroeder . . . it was precisely because he appeared to be so well qualified as a physicist (which I am not) that I was never inclined to question what he said about physics. (Letter to Richard Carrier, of 29 December 2004)

Carrier has a field day with this information:

Apart from his unreasonable plan of trusting a physicist on the subject of biochemistry (after all, the relevant field is biochemistry, not physics–yet it would seem Flew does not recognize the difference), this attitude seems to pervade Flew’s method of truthseeking, of looking to a single author for authoritative information and never checking their claims (or, as in the case of Dawkins, presumed lack of claims).

But he concedes: “Despite all this, Flew has not retracted his belief in God, as far as I can tell.”

For another subtle, but definite dig at Flew’s reasoning processes, see “Flew’s Flawed Science,” by Victor J. Stenger (Professor of Physics and Astronomy). The unproven and gratuitous atheist assumptions here are legion. But then, what choice does a materialistic scientist have? The universe could only have come about by other physical processes, as matter is all that there is. God and spirit are ruled out beforehand, so the materialist is confined within his own self-created box of epistemological and metaphysical premises and possibilities (and non-possibilities). Flew dared to try to step outside the “orthodox box” of scientific and philosophical materialism, so he is quickly becoming anathema.

One Internet Infidels Discussion Board will provide a representative (I’m quite sure, typical) example of atheist / agnostic spin on former hero Flew (“how the mighty have fallen”).

“JSWilkins” starts in on the ridicule, right on December 9th, when the story was breaking:

. . . his reason is surprisingly weak – he cannot conceive how DNA got going . . . the conclusion is based on an argumentum ad ignoratium. There is no logical conundrum here. It concerns me that Flew does not see this, but then he is only following the standard opinion of hard selectionists like Dawkins. But his argument is an argument from ignorance. He may find it compelling personally, but it is not compelling logically.

Jeff Lawson gives us the patented materialist circular argument:

Well, I have news for Flew: this is not science! I hate to have to espouse the scientific method, so I won’t. Suffice to say, Flew is proffering macro-level conjecture in place of sound theory. In this day and age, rational interpretation of observations must be encoded in productive theories, i.e. theories that are not only entirely consistent with a precise subset of reality but that tell us more than we knew before. Relativity and Quantum Mechanics do this in spades. In comparison, Flew’s ideas are little better than the utterances of the religious: someone who claims to have ‘scientific evidence’ for his creationist ideas but in reality is about as far removed from science as it is possible for an academic to be; I suppose, after all, he’s only a philosopher.

Vinnie provides us with sanctimonious atheist dogmatism:

. . . we have to ask, is Flew a deist or does he subscribe to the absurdity presented by supernatural theism?The last argument raises the issue of an “immaterial being” (in the sense of being non-universal!) interacting with a material world. How is this notion even meaningful?

[i.e., “how could anything possibly be true in any possible world, but materialism? Nothng else can even have meaning, let alone be true”]

E. Garrett (of presumably agnostic persuasion) is one ray of light in this sad spectacle:

Carrier is all too willing to write off one of the brightest minds for our cause. Carrier has devoted his life to studying the origins of life, which those of us who have only spent 50 or so years at should strongly consider. Carrier’s comments of how Flew is forgetful, is petty at best. We all are forgetful and that doesn’t make us any less intelligent.Being that we are capable of higher thinking, let us exercise our brains. Rather than writing off such a smart man, let us spend time studying what he has to say. Read what Flew has read so that we can be a little better informed than the man that would rather insult a great thinker than to do his homework and study for himself.

mike a. is also quite refreshing:

I suggest the secularists force naturalism to either come up with a better story (good luck), or take the lead in opening the door to “other than natural” sources of intelligence (maybe this is the “metaphysical naturalism” your moderator speaks to?)–no “G” word required. The train is going in that direction anyway, as Anthony Flew recognizes. It is possible that, like religious fundamentalists, no amount of evidence will allow secularists to consider forces acting outside the observable space-time framework. Just remember that if that is the case, you don’t have an opinion–you have a dogma.

Then the “true believers” start in again with the condescension. Jehanne opines:

Flew’s “conversion” should not be surprising to those who are true materialists. It just means that “his genes” have finally conquered “his intellect”.

Vinnie concurs with what is now becoming the fashionable spin:

Flew still accepts that “neo-Darwinian evolution” occured to the best of my knowledge as well. I don’t know what the hell he is thinking. I think his genes may have finally caught up….

“macula2020” shows a bit more sophistication and suggests that the whole thing is a plot to sell books, because Flew could not be so stupid as to believe in any sort of God;

I’ll preface my syllogism with the reminder that it represents my opinion only.Although it may at first appear to be an ad hominen attack on Flew, it is not. It is simply a rational hypothesis that illuminates less transparent aspects of Flew’s announcement.

Premise 1. Flew, as an expert in critical thinking and atheistic philosophy, would not commit the fallacy of using a God of the Gaps argument to conclude that God existsPremise 2. Flew, as an expert in critical thinking and atheistic philosophy, would stimulate widespread public attention and interest by announcing his personal belief that God exists

Conclusion: Flew has announced his belief that God exists in order to generate attention and controversy.

Evidence:-Flew or his agent contacted the Associated Press newswire and NBC News via press release with this “story” on or around the same day that his new video, “Has Science Discovered God?” was released.

-every publisher and author knows that controversy sells books; not only has his video just been released, but the new edition of “God and Philosophy” is scheduled for upcoming release.

Administrator DM (former evangelical Christian) feels a need to go after C.S. Lewis, because Flew spoke so highly of him:

Lewis was, in my opinion, both a weak atheist and a weak theist in the sense that he has an extremely poor understanding of correct reasoning (as demonstrated in his book “Mere Christianity,” for example, where he commits one reasoning error after another) . . . Lewis and McDowell–especially–are lightweights when it comes to the quality of their reasoning.

Dominic Milioto brings strict ad hominem to the table:

Flew is a cop-out that’s what. Sounds to me like an old man, confronted by the end of life, making one final desparate attempt at salvation. He has little faith in future generations separating the chaff from the wheat: explaining what now is not.

“tw1tch,” on the other hand, gives us the fair-minded, charitable approach:

Huh…just read Richard Carrier’s updated article on Anthony Flew’s change of viewpoint.I must admit that I am disappointed in the tone of Carrier’s article. Here, in front of God (pardon the expression) and man, the perennial atheist…indeed the foremost thinker of modern atheism…in his twilight years simply changes his mind. Flew has probably done more for atheism, its philosophy and furtherment than any living person. In all probability, he has done more for atheism than infidels.org ever will.

That’s quite a sobering thought. Even more sobering is how, Carrier, in an almost unbelievably comical display…nonchalantly dismisses Flew’s reasoning as ‘willfully sloppy’ and levels charges against Flew of intellectual laziness. Sigh. Intellectually laziness….again, this is a man who has written more books on the subject of athiesm than Mr. Carrier most likely ever will.

Sour grapes are natural fellas. I can’t hold this against you. However, I can’t help but to think that this sheepish (and rightfully so) dismissal of Flews reasoning is more pychological defense mechanism than honest, unbiased assessment.

Perhaps he just changed his mind…no need get ugly about it.

Y.B nevertheless chimes in with more patronizing snobbery:

Erm? Sorry, but I and many others would have been like “Anthony who?” until the ID camp started spinning his “conversion”.

Richard Carrier then sophomorically responds:

Flew’s actual impact on contemporary atheism is virtually nil . . . by his own admission, Flew’s methods have sunk beneath even that of college freshmen.

So what’s the fuss about, since this is a “nobody” we’re dealing with? These guys are quick; you gotta give ’em that . . .

Nothing the least bit surprising here, to those of us who have dealt with the hyper-polemical brand of “Internet atheists.” Many atheists “in real life” (even on the Internet) are fine people, with great integrity (I have atheist friends, and have greatly enjoyed dialogues with several of them), but unfortunately, when they mass together online, the sort of insulting snobbery seen above usually predominates (even, alas, against one from their own camp until about two months ago).

But then, I hasten to add that the same sort of thing occurs in Christian circles, too, so one might say that original sin (along with huge shortcomings in both charity and logic) has been amply proven in the observation of both camps.

Atheist prejudice and condescension is far more likely to usher Flew into Christianity than any arguments by (apologist) folks like myself. You learn all sorts of fascinating things when undergoing a conversion from one thing to another . . .

***

(originally posted on 1-18-05)

Photo credit: photo of Flew’s 2008 book on Amazon.com.

***

2020-04-12T12:03:15-04:00

Last updated on: April 12, 2020 at 12:03 pm   By

 

Easter: Myth, Hallucination, or History? (Edwin M. Yamauchi, 1974)

Was the Tomb Really Empty? (Robert H. Stein, 1977)

The Shroud of Turin and its Significance for Biblical Studies (Gary R. Habermas, 1981)

The Shroud of Turin: A Rejoinder to Basinger and Basinger (Gary R. Habermas, 1982)

Knowing that Jesus’ Resurrection Occurred: A Response to Stephen Davis (Gary R. Habermas, 1985)

Review of William Lane Craig’s Book, The Historical Argument for the Resurrection of Jesus During the Deist Controversy (Gary R. Habermas, 1988)

Resurrection Claims in Non-Christian Religions (Gary R. Habermas, 1989)

Jesus’ Resurrection and Contemporary Criticism (+ Part II) (Gary. R. Habermas, 1989 and 1990)

The Recent Evangelical Debate on the Bodily Resurrection of Jesus: A Review Article (Gary Habermas, 1990)

In Defense of the Resurrection (Norman L. Geisler, 1991)

The Disciples’ Inspection of the Empty Tomb (William Lane Craig, 1992)

Evidence for the Resurrection (Josh McDowell, 1992)

Evidence for the Resurrection of Christ (Peter Kreeft, 1994)

Refuting the Myth Theory: 6 Reasons Why the Resurrection Accounts are True (Peter Kreeft, 1994)

The F-E-A-T That Demonstrates the Fact of Resurrection (Hank Hanegraaff, 1998)

The Truth-And the Comfort-of the Resurrection (Gary R. Habermas, 2000)

Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? (William Lane Craig vs. Marcus Borg, 2001)

Explaining Away Jesus’ Resurrection: The Recent Revival of Hallucination Theories (Gary R. Habermas, 2001)

The Late 20th-Century Resurgence of Naturalistic Responses to Jesus’ Resurrection (Gary R. Habermas, 2001)

Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying? (Gary R. Habermas, 2005)

Experiences of the Risen Jesus: The Foundational Historical Issue (Gary R. Habermas, 2006)

Debate: Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? (William Lane Craig vs. Bart Ehrman, March 2006)

Making the Case for the Resurrection at 36,000 Feet (Michael Licona, 2006)

Collapsing the House of Cards Over the “Lost Tomb of Jesus” (Paul L. Maier, 2007)

The Lost Tomb of Jesus: A Response to the Discovery-Channel Documentary Directed by James Cameron  (Gary R. Habermas, 2007)

Was Jesus Bodily Raised from the Dead? (William Lane Craig vs. James Crossley, 2007)

Resurrection of Jesus (William Lane Craig, 2007 [podcast] )

Dale Allison on the Resurrection of Jesus (William Lane Craig, 2007)

“Dale Allisons’s Resurrection Skepticism: A Critique” A Review of Resurrecting Jesus: The Earliest Christian Tradition and its Interpreters.”  (Gary R. Habermas, 2008)

Old Testament Prophecies of Jesus’ Resurrection (William Lane Craig, 2008)

Easter: Part 2 (William Lane Craig, 2008)

‘Noli Me Tangere’: Why John Meier Won’t Touch The Risen Lord (William Lane Craig, 2009)

Hoax or History: Did Jesus Rise from the Dead? (William Lane Craig vs. Shabir Ally, 2009)

The Argument from Miracles: A Cumulative Case for the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth (Lydia & Timothy McGrew, 2009)

The Witness of the Pre-Pauline Tradition to the Empty Tomb (William Lane Craig, 2010)

Resurrected as Messiah: The Risen Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King (Gavin Ortlund, 2011)

Evidence for Jesus’ Resurrection (William Lane Craig, 2011 [+ video] )

The Minimal Facts Approach to the Resurrection of Jesus: The Role of Methodology as a Crucial Component in Establishing Historicity (Gary R. Habermas, 2012)

Resurrection (Gary Habermas, from Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization, 2012)

Shroud of Turin (Gary Habermas, from Encyclopedia of Christian Civilization, 2012)

The Probability of the Resurrection of Jesus (Richard Swinburne, 2012)

How Do We Know Jesus Was Raised From the Dead? (William Lane Craig, 2013 [+ video] )

Eliminating the Impossible: Can a Scientist believe the Resurrection? (John Lennox, 2014)

The Resurrection of Jesus: A Clinical Review of Psychiatric Hypotheses for the Biblical Story of Easter (Joseph W. Bergeron & Gary Habermas, 2015)

A Recent Attempt to Disprove the Resurrection of Jesus and Supernatural Beliefs (Gary Habermas, 2018)

Two Questions on the Origin of the Disciples’ Belief in Jesus’ Resurrection (William Lane Craig, 2018)

Unknown Date:

The Resurrection of Jesus: a Clinical Review of Psychiatric Hypotheses for the Biblical Story of Easter (Joseph W. Bergeron, M.D. & Gary R. Habermas)

Visions of Jesus: A Critical Assessment of Gerd Lüdemann’s Hallucination Hypothesis (William Lane Craig)

The Resurrection of Jesus (William Lane Craig)

Jesus’ Resurrection (William Lane Craig)

The Historicity of the Empty Tomb of Jesus (William Lane Craig)

The Guard at the Tomb (William Lane Craig)

The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus (William Lane Craig)

Forum on the Resurrection (William Lane Craig)

Reply to Evan Fales: On the Empty Tomb of Jesus (William Lane Craig)

Resurrection (Veritas Forum interviews William Lane Craig) [+ video] )

From Easter to Valentinus and the Apostles’ Creed Once More: A Critical Examination of James Robinson’s Proposed Resurrection Appearance Trajectories (William Lane Craig)

***

Related Reading

Silly Atheist Arguments vs. the Resurrection & Miracles [2002]

Jesus’ “Three Days & Nights” in the Tomb: Contradiction? [10-31-06]

Dialogue w Atheist on Post-Resurrection “Contradictions” [1-26-11]

God: Historical Arguments (Copious Resources) [11-9-15]

Did Jesus Descend to Hell, Sheol, or Paradise After His Death? [National Catholic Register, 4-17-17]

Seidensticker Folly #15: Jesus’ Ascension: One or 40 Days? [9-10-18]

Seidensticker Folly #18: Resurrection “Contradictions”? [9-17-18]

Seidensticker Folly #31: Jesus’ Burial Spices Contradiction? [4-20-19]

***

Photo credit: Christ’s Appearance to Mary Magdalene after the Resurrection (1835), by Alexander Ivanov (1806-1858) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

2020-03-16T11:14:09-04:00

Last updated on: March 16, 2020 at 11:14 am   By

[extracted from Vs. Atheist David Madison #37: Bible, Science, & Germs]

*****

Hippocrates, the pagan Greek “father of medicine” didn’t understand the causes of contagious disease. Nor did medical science until the 19th century. But the hygienic principles that would have prevented the spread of such diseases were in the Bible: in the Laws of Moses.

St. Augustine in the 5th century and St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th, both rejected astrology long before modern science, while even the most prominent modern scientists in the 16th-17th centuries, such as Galileo, Tycho Brahe, and Kepler firmly believed in it.

I could go on and on, but just a few examples suffice . . .

And of course, modern science (virtually the atheist’s religion: “scientism”), for all its admirable qualities and glories (I love science!) is not without much embarrassing error and foolishness, and skeletons in its own closet: like belief in the 41-year successful hoax of “Piltdown Man”. This is true even up to very recent times, as I have detailed for atheists’ convenience.

Here, then, is my reply to charges of alleged ignorance of God and the Bible regarding germs and their devastating effects:

The Bible Ask site has an article, “Did the Bible teach the germs theory?” (5-30-16):

The Bible writers did not write a medical textbook. However, there are numerous rules for sanitation, quarantine, and other medical procedures (found in the first 5 book of the OT) . . . Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis (1818 –1865), who was a Hungarian physician, . . . proposed the practice of washing hands with chlorinated lime solutions in 1847 . . . He published a book of his findings in Etiology, Concept and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever. Despite various publications of his successful results, Semmelweis’s suggestions were not accepted by the medical community of his time.

Why was Semmelweis research rejected? Because germs were virtually a foreign concept for the Europeans in the middle-19th-century. . . .

Had the medical community paid attention to God’s instructions that were given 3000 years before, many lives would have been saved. The Lord gave the Israelites hygienic principles against the contamination of germs and taught the necessity to quarantine the sick (Numbers 19:11-12). And the book of Leviticus lists a host of diseases and ways where a person would come in contact with germs (Leviticus 13:46).

Germs were no new discovery in 1847. And for this fact, Roderick McGrew testified in the Encyclopedia of Medical History: “The idea of contagion was foreign to the classic medical tradition and found no place in the voluminous Hippocratic writings. The Old Testament, however, is a rich source for contagionist sentiment, especially in regard to leprosy and venereal disease” (1985, pp. 77-78).

Some other interesting facts regarding the Bible and germ theory:

1. The Bible contained instructions for the Israelites to wash their bodies and clothes in running water if they had a discharge, came in contact with someone else’s discharge, or had touched a dead body. They were also instructed about objects that had come into contact with dead things, and about purifying items with an unknown history with either fire or running water. They were also taught to bury human waste outside the camp, and to burn animal waste (Num 19:3-22; Lev. 11:1-47; 15:1-33; Deut 23:12).

2. Leviticus 13 and 14 mention leprosy on walls and on garments. Leprosy is a bacterial disease, and can survive for three weeks or longer apart from the human body. Thus, God commanded that the garments of leprosy victims should be burned (Lev 13:52).

3. It was not until 1873 that leprosy was shown to be an infectious disease rather than hereditary. Of course, the laws of Moses already were aware of that (Lev 13, 14, 22; Num 19:20). It contains instructions about quarantine and about quarantined persons needing to thoroughly shave and wash. Priests who cared for them also were instructed to change their clothes and wash thoroughly. The Israelites were the only culture to practice quarantine until the 19th century, when medical advances discovered the biblical medical principles and practices.

4. Hippocrates, the “father of medicine” (born 460 BC), thought “bad air” from swampy areas was the cause of disease.

See also: “Old Testament Laws About Infectious Diseases.”

The entry on “Health” in Baker’s Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology reveals that ordinary medicinal remedies were widely practiced in Bible times. There wasn’t solely a belief that sin or demons caused all disease. There was also a natural cause-and-effect understanding:

Ordinary means of healing were of most diverse kinds. Balm ( Gen 37:25 ) is thought to have been an aromatic resin (or juice) with healing properties; oil was the universal emollient ( Isa 1:6 ), and was sometimes used for wounds with cleansing wine ( Luke 10:34 ). Isaiah recommended a fig poultice for a boil ( 38:21 ); healing springs and saliva were thought effectual ( Mark 8:23 ; John 5 ; 9:6-7 ). Medicine is mentioned ( Prov 17:22 ) and defended as “sensible” ( Sirach 38:4). Wine mixed with myrrh was considered sedative ( Mark 15:23 ); mint, dill, and cummin assisted digestion ( Matt 23:23 ); other herbs were recommended for particular disorders. Most food rules had both ritual and dietary purposes, while raisins, pomegranates, milk, and honey were believed to assist restoration. . . .

Luke’s constant care of Paul reminds us that nonmiraculous means of healing were not neglected in that apostolic circle. Wine is recommended for Timothy’s weak stomach, eye-salve for the Thyatiran church’s blindness (metaphorical, but significant).

Doctors today often note how the patient’s disposition and attitude has a strong effect on his health or recovery. The mind definitely influences the body. Solomon understood this in several of his Proverbs: written around 950 BC (Prov 14:30; 15:30; 16:24; 17:22).

Also, since Jesus observed Mosaic Law, including ritual washings, etc., He tacitly accepted (by His example of following it) the aspects of it that anticipated and “understood” germ theory. The knowledge was already in existence.

***

Related Reading

Is It Always God’s Will to Heal?: Biblical Refutation of “Hyperfaith” / “Name-It-Claim-It” Teaching [1982; slightly rev. 7-5-02]

Dialogue w Atheist on Christianity & the Scientific Method [7-19-01]

Dialogue on “Natural Evil” (Diseases, Hurricanes, Drought, etc.) [2-15-04]

Old Earth, Flood Geology, Local Flood, & Uniformitarianism (vs. Kevin Rice) [5-25-04; many defunct links removed and new ones added: 5-10-17]

Flat Earth: Biblical Teaching? (vs. Ed Babinski) [9-17-06]

Atheist Myths: “Christianity vs. Science & Reason” (vs. “drunkentune”) [1-3-07]

Thoughts on Divine Healing [8-3-12]

Simultaneously Dumb & Smart Christians, Atheists, & Scientists [10-9-15]

Does God Ever Judge People by Sending Disease? [10-30-17]

Dialogue w Agnostic on Proof for Miracles (Lourdes) [9-9-18]

Seidensticker Folly #8: Physics Has Disproven Souls? [8-16-18]

Seidensticker Folly #14: Something Rather Than Nothing [9-3-18]

Seidensticker Folly #21: Atheist “Bible Science” Absurdities [9-25-18]

Seidensticker Folly #23: Atheist “Bible Science” Inanities, Pt. 2 [10-2-18]

Miracles, Materialism, & Premises: Dialogue w Atheist [2-20-19]

Madison vs. Jesus #10: Universal Answered Prayer & Healing? [8-7-19]

Loftus Atheist Error #7: Christian Influence on Science [9-9-19]

Loftus Atheist Error #9: Bible Espouses Mythical Animals? [9-10-19]

Seidensticker Folly #36: Disease, Jesus, Paul, Miracles, & Demons [1-13-20]

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and two children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2700 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
*
***
*
Photo credit: Pool of Bethesda – model in the Israel Museum; taken by deror avi (8-18-06) [Wikimedia Commons / The copyright holder of this file allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed. Redistribution, derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is permitted]
*
***
2020-03-10T16:01:28-04:00

Last updated on: March 10, 2020 at 4:01 pm   By

This is an exchange with four people: from my old Internet discussion group (3-20-99). Words of the first person (Catholic) will be in brown, two Orthodox participants’ words in blue and green, and a Protestant in purple.

*****

A Catholic wrote:
*
I was thinking about this Catholic/Orthodox, or Orthodox/Catholic, thing last night and I started wondering . . . Why is it that you see Catholic Christians leaving the Catholic Church for the Orthodox Church but you never see Orthodox Christians leaving the Orthodox Church for the Catholic Church? In an effort to clarify this, I am not referring to folks who left the Catholic Church, became Orthodox and then returned to the Catholic Church.

I have heard of many Orthodox Christians who are former Catholic Christians but I have yet to hear of any Catholic Christians who are former Orthodox Christians. I would love to hear your views on this. By the way, I am not trying to start a list war. I am just genuinely curious.

Interesting observation and question. My speculations (and I reiterate that they are no more than that) would be the following:

1) There are many more Catholics than Orthodox (especially in the US), so you would expect to find more movement in the Catholic —-> Orthodox direction, by sheer force of numbers.

2) The false equation of Catholicism with theological liberalism, whereas Orthodoxy is perceived as pure Christian traditionalism and a refuge from modernism (I have argued the contrary – in essence – in my paper: Is Orthodoxy Immune from Modernism and Dissent?). For example, I myself ruled out Orthodoxy as an option early on because of its acceptance of divorce and contraception: precisely some of the areas I had come to disavow as an evangelical, and of the essence of a theologically liberal outlook, as I understood it, then and now.

3) Liturgical abuse in Catholic circles is quite real, troubling, and widespread, of course, and that scandalously leads many conscientious, pious folks to Orthodoxy, which has done a commendable job of preserving reverence and piety and beauty in its liturgy (my response would be that such considerations are too limited to warrant abandoning a faith — truth or falsity not being determined by abuses).

4) Orthodoxy suffers from much incipient anti-Catholicism, whereas Catholicism has no similar strain of anti-Orthodoxy. We are officially ecumenical. The Orthodox are divided on this issue (as is so often the case). Therefore, we would expect to see Catholic —> Orthodox movement, because we regard Orthodoxy as a “sister Church” and accept her apostolicity and sacraments. In other words, it is more conceivable to move from one apostolic Church to another than it is to move from the Church to the apostate, heretical “church” with neither valid sacraments nor apostolicity;

5) I would contend that many Orthodox hold a purely “fideistic” notion of their faith. As such, they are less open to reason and rational analysis in matters of faith. Assuming the truth of the foregoing, it would stand to reason that Orthodox would not as readily convert, since they have less reason to. ) One Orthodox on our list, for example, strongly implied in dialogue with me that no one can really comprehend Orthodoxy short of espousing it. I stated that if there was no reason to join Orthodoxy, then I could not join it, since I value God-given rationality too much. He has as his motto “I believe because it is absurd” — case in point. Converts to Catholicism, on the other hand, often have lengthy theological, moral, historical, or experiential reasons as to why they converted (indeed, all four variables were involved in my own conversion);

6) I would highly suspect that such converts (like many many converts to Protestantism from Catholicism) were also usually weak in their Catholic faith, particularly in those areas where the Orthodox sharply disagree: development of doctrine, the papacy, some Marian doctrines, contraception, divorce, philosophical apologetics, etc. Not knowing their faith, they are easy prey for Orthodox apologists who stress the horrible liberalism in the Catholic Church, which they take to be its essence, when in fact it is a corruption (albeit tragically widespread at the moment);

7) Orthodoxy is much less prone to bashing from the overall society, since it is basically insulated (by choice) from the larger society. With less lies told about it, and less prejudice (from sheer unfamiliarity), it is less likely to be seen as “undesirable” by converts to it. Catholicism, on the other hand, is subjected to a constant barrage of disinformation and propaganda. That makes it much harder to convert to it.

I know of at least one published convert from Orthodoxy to Catholicism: James Likoudis. His story is recounted in Spiritual Journeys (edited Robert Baram, Boston: St. Paul Books & Media, 1988). I’m sure there are others published. This is the only one I recall offhand.

But why exclude the ones who started out Catholic? Since Orthodox make a big deal about the Catholic —> Orthodox journey, why should we minimize or dismiss those who made that journey and then felt compelled to return to Catholicism? Their odysseys are just as valid and worthy of consideration. I know of two such people personally.

There are also many Catholic converts who seriously (with a great deal of comparative study) considered Orthodoxy and Catholicism, and decided upon Catholicism. I know four such people just among my circle of friends, including Steve Ray, author of Crossing the Tiber, and Al Kresta, whose story appeared in Surprised by Truth after mine.

When all these factors are taken into consideration, I don’t think the observable trends are especially troubling or a negative reflection of the Catholic claim to preeminence over against the Orthodox claim. That’s just my opinion, and I acknowledge that this subject matter is highly subjective, but that’s the explanation of the situation, as far as my own analysis, for what it’s worth.

An Orthodox member of the list responded:
*
[regarding my point #3 above] The Liturgy is at the very center of our worship, and the provider of our spiritual nourishment. This reduction of the importance of the Liturgy is a very modern notion.

I didn’t reduce its importance in the slightest, I was simply acknowledging that abuses occur. But it is simple enough for a Catholic to attend a Mass where they do not occur. It is not a reason to reject Catholicism and go to Orthodoxy simply because of these abuses. That was my argument.

[regarding my point #4 above] This is simply not true. You notice anti-catholicism because you are Catholic, and therefore sensitive to it.

You deny that Orthodoxy has a pronounced anti-Catholic strain???!!!

Case in point: Frank Schaeffer’s Christian Activist has produced yet another ranting and raving diatribe against Catholicism, replete with half-truths, flat-out lies, slander, historical revisionism, glaring omissions, one-sidedness, countless barbs and insults, gratuitous and unnecessary slams, etc. It is a pathetic rag, and Schaeffer (for whom I have a great deal of respect in other ways) ought to know better. But this merely reinforces my point that Orthodoxy (like fundamentalism and much of Calvinism) almost has to be anti-Catholic, by its very nature.

In the latest issue (vol. 13: Winter/Spring 1999), they go after the history of the papacy, papal infallibility, St. Augustine, and Scott Hahn’s understanding of Orthodoxy before he converted. Isn’t it possible for these folks to present Orthodoxy proactively without lying about us? It is so childish, and embarrassing to observe. Then in the cover story, of a conversion, by Professor William Bush (“The Mystery of the Church: The Pilgrimage of an Orthodox Convert”), we see such silly and fatuous remarks as the following:

[M]edical tribunals must verify miracles, thus betraying the Roman Church’s overweening desire to be respected of men by submitting the works of God to the standards of western technology. (p. 11)

I guess, then, that Jesus was compromising with “western technology” when he allowed Doubting Thomas to feel the wound in His side. In case anyone didn’t notice, this is empirical (scientific) proof. He went on to say that those who didn’t see, yet believed were more blessed (John 20:24-29), but the point was that empirical evidence was okay. But — our Orthodox friend would have us believe — even so, just forget all about “proof” and reason and “just believe.”

The Resurrection itself is also something which is historically verifiable, and in an eyewitness sense. All through the Bible God manifested Himself miraculously and physically in order to bolster the faith of His people. But it is wrong to attest to miracles, according to our critic. He shows himself very ignorant of a constant biblical theme. And is it true that, for example, Orthodox weeping icons are never allowed to be tested by scientists? Is there a refusal to ever do that? I would like to know.

Bush goes on to wax eloquent about the glory days of the Byzantine Empire, from 330 to 800 and beyond, comparing it to Rome being overrun by barbarians, the “illiterate” Charlemagne vs. the “highly literate Byzantine counterpart,” etc. (p. 11). It’s the same old stupid and silly prejudice against the West . . . Of course he never once mentions stubborn facts such as that there were at least 42 heretical patriarchs of the three major Sees of the East during that same period, while Rome remained orthodox at all times (see that documented in my paper: Roman See as Historic Standard-Bearer of Orthodoxy). That wouldn’t fit in with the myth he wishes to put forth, so he conveniently omits it.

Then — as always — he has to bring up the sack of Constantinople in 1204 (p. 13) and go on and on about how wicked the “western” Crusaders were. I don’t mind that. It was an unspeakably abominable incident. What I do mind is the one-sided presentation (similar to many Protestant treatments of the 16th century), as if the Easterners were squeaky-clean throughout this period, and the westerners bloodthirsty barbarian murderers and rapists en masse. The truth (as usual) is much more complex. For some balance, and brief recountings of similar Eastern horrors and persecution, see my paper: Sack of Constantinople (1204) & Unknown Byzantine Atrocities.

One could find dozens of ridiculous examples of falsehoods and misrepresentation in this article. Some few selections:

[T]his experiment with Renaissance humanism . . . Rome’s own innate Protestant sectarianism has become more and more blatantly manifest in all she does.  (p. 14)

[A]t . . . Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II, Rome . . . thanks to her totalitarian organization, set aside ancient traditions touching upon all aspects of the Christian life. (p. 14)

Thanks to the rise of the papacy, the Roman Church has thus virtually lost all sense of the sacred character of Holy Tradition as understood by the Orthodox. The indispensable role of Holy Tradition in the mystery of the Church has thereby largely disappeared in the whole of western Christendom. (p. 14)

The Orthodox rightly suspect that all Rome really wants is to effect a political union such has been brought through all her schemes to join the ‘eastern rite’ churches to herself. (p. 14)

Catholicism has openly — and, as it were, with a vengeance — repeatedly confirmed her own latent Protestantism. (p. 15)

[I]incumbents of St. Peter’s throne have left the West with a church that would be unrecognizable to one of their predecessors of a thousand years ago. (p. 15)

On and on it goes. Note the sweeping, extremely judgmental language, with little concern for fairness or accuracy, let alone charity. But alas, my Orthodox friend sees no major problem of anti-Catholicism in Orthodoxy’s ranks.

I am Orthodox and am therefore more sensitive to anti-Orthodoxy. If there is less anti-Orthodoxy among Catholics than anti-Catholicism among the Orthodox it is because many Catholics are not even aware of Orthodoxy, while all Orthodox are aware of the RCC.

That doesn’t mean they have to be “against” it, yet so often they are.

The RCC has been “officially ecumenical,” as you say, since the 1960’s. Prior to that they were anything but.

It has been a development (and much more so in the last century). But it is a fallacy to think that it sprang out of nowhere in the 60s. See, for example: Ecumenical Gatherings at Assisi: A Defense: Ecumenism in St. Thomas Aquinas (Fr. Alfredo M. Morselli).

Quite the opposite. After centuries of bad blood it might take more than 30 years to totally reverse the hard feelings.

Is this only our problem, or that of human nature in general (including the Orthodox)?

Actually, most of the Catholics I know who have become Orthodox were extremely well educated in the faith.

I would like to “test that” myself. Would any of them be willing to dialogue? I shall see how well they knew their former faith. Certainly some did, but I would highly suspect that many didn’t. For example, I have rarely met any Orthodox who rightly understand the Catholic notion of development of doctrine. It is one thing to adopt the view, but quite another to at least understand what it is.

Trust me, the more the media learns about Orthodoxy the more they will hate us. We are much more at odds with western culture than is the RCC.

I agree. My point was the existing situation, not the potential or future one.

The Orthodox on my list to whom I referred in my point #5 responded to that argument:
*
[I]n terms of Orthodox experience of faith….it’s precisely where no one can go. Let me explain.

The experience is so direct that you can experience directly in the liturgical actions of Holy Church. Outside of Her, it’s the will of God– but it all goes back to Holy Church eventually. Now, when the faith (not of this world, and incomprehensible) is intertwined with that of this world (say, the Holy Spirit guiding a particular office by default) we get…nervous. Do you see the difference here?

I don’t even understand what you are saying (let alone judging whether I think it true or not). This has been our problem in the past. But you are living out your motto again, from where I sit . . . :-)

You may view this as an odd interpretation, but “render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, render to God what is his.

Are you saying that reason is one of the things of Caesar?

Well, Orthodoxy, brother, is not contrary to reason– it loves reason. But it certainly does not view a lack of reason as central.

So if a particular Orthodox view is unreasonable, that is okay? How far do you take this?

We like to keep reason about 12 steps below God.

The very fact that you feel the need to imply an opposition of reason against God (as if that were possible) is indicative of the problem. God is truth, and truth is not opposed to (right) reason. We can arrive at truths by means other than reason (e.g., experience, intuition, revelation, faith, etc.), but that is a different proposition from saying that reason is somehow “unclean” in and of itself. But your statement has little meaning. It’s like saying:

  • “We like to keep chastity about 12 steps below God”; or
  • “We like to keep helping the poor about 12 steps below God”; or
  • “We like to keep soteriology [the theology of salvation] about 12 steps below God.”

A Protestant on the list then chimed in:
*
[regarding my point #5 above] Well, about the, ‘no one can really comprehend Orthodoxy short of espousing it’, I’d like to suggest [as a former Atheist] that this is true with Christianity in general. You can hear all the arguments you want [and no I’m not saying reason is bad], but at the end of the day you don’t really understand Christianity until you become Christian. Why then would it be so incomprehensible to think the same could be true with the ‘Church’?

There is a measure of truth to this. Obviously a thing isn’t fully known until one experiences it. But that’s not really what I was driving at. Like all philosophical (in this instance, epistemological) issues, there are many subtleties and nuances. My point was that one can’t fully rejoice in and espouse something he can’t understand. Secondly, that a viewpoint must present itself at least as not contrary to, or apathetic towards reason (plausibility is a further step), in order for any rational person to accept it.

If in fact Orthodoxy is incomprehensible to the outsider, and must be accepted with blind faith, then my original point stands, and this is indeed the perspective known as fideism. Personally, I cannot join such a faith (assuming for the sake of argument that Orthodoxy is to be characterized as such — I would suspect there are internal disagreements), as it would do violence to the reason I believe God gave me in the first place. I take a very dim view of any attempts to oppose reason and faith, rather than synthesizing them into a harmonious whole.

She cited my words:

Converts to Catholicism, On the other hand, often have lengthy theological, moral, historical, or experiential reasons as to why they converted.

I’m sure converts to Catholicism have those ‘reasons’, but are you suggesting converts to Orthodoxy don’t?

Not in every case; of course not. I was speaking very generally (by the nature of the subject). I would say, however, that Orthodoxy places reason lower in the scheme of things than I think it should. This is indicated — in my humble opinion — by the constant Orthodox disdain of Scholasticism and what it calls “western rationalism,” etc. It views rational inquiry into the mysteries of faith and intricacies of theology as somehow an unseemly, improper enterprise (yet, paradoxically, it does much the same in certain selected areas such as the filioque controversy).

Catholics, on the other hand, utilize reason as far as it can take us, while fully aware at all times that we can never fully plumb the depths of the Christian mysteries. As usual, I think a lot of the Orthodox objection to our “undue speculation” is based on misunderstanding as to its nature, scope, and purpose, from a Catholic perspective.

It’s purpose being?

To understand Christian theology, doctrine, spirituality, and God better, in order to more fully enter into it, live it, and to become closer to God, enter into personal relationship with Him, to serve Him, and to become more holy (and — if needs be — to defend the Church, so as to bolster the faith of others as well as one’s own). One can’t fail to be impressed by the number of times the Bible talks about “wisdom” or “knowledge” — or the opposite notions of “folly” and “fools” (look through Psalms and Proverbs, or check out any concordance). This is a given in the biblical worldview — it is assumed throughout (though in a very different sense from pagan Greek philosophy).

The biblical / Hebrew notion of “wisdom” meant the pursuit and/or possession of more knowledge of God and His precepts, for the purpose of living for Him more wholeheartedly; in other words, it is always a “practical wisdom,” never to be understood apart from concrete spiritual reality, as opposed to being considered merely abstractly as its own end (i.e., simply as syllogisms or logical analysis, or Enlightenment-type agnostic-oriented so-called “rationalism”).

That’s why the silly and tired perpetual Orthodox slander against St. Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics (as exemplars of a “reasonable faith”) is an outrageous bum rap, because they completely understood this (esp. St. Thomas himself). Martin Luther did the same thing (as I have previously documented on this list), so I suppose it shouldn’t surprise us. Non-Catholics so often commit the same fallacies and “tactics” against the Catholic Church independently of each other (and sometimes not so “independently”). But I digress . . .

It is only the deliberate attempt to denigrate the reasoning process, or the intellect, or mental effort, or “philosophy,” or logic, which undermines what is clearly a biblical viewpoint and creates a false and unbiblical dichotomy between reason and faith. I could go on and on about this, but I trust that this short answer will suffice for now.

Luke 10:27 (NRSV) You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind.

***

See much related material on my Eastern Orthodoxy web page.

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and two children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2700 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
*
***
*
Photo credit: travelspot (6-16-14). Orthodox church interior [Pixabay / Pixabay License]
***
2020-03-03T11:00:47-04:00

Last updated on: March 3, 2020 at 11:00 am   By


The following is a compilation of some of the more explicit patristic, medieval, and post-Renaissance statements of Fathers, Doctors, and other eminent theologians, on the subject of Mary as Mediatrix of all Graces, Advocate, and Co-Redemptrix. Vatican II, papal encyclicals, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church are also cited.

Sources Used

St. Alphonsus de Liguori, The Glories of Mary, Brooklyn: Redemptorist Fathers, 1931 edition.

C. X. J. M. Friethoff, A Complete Mariology, Westminster, Maryland: Westminster Press, 1958.

Hilda Graef, Mary: A History of Doctrine and Devotion, vol. 1, New York: Sheed & Ward, 1963.

W. A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, vol. 1, 1970.

W. A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Collegeville, Minnesota: Liturgical Press, vol. 3, 1979.

Mark Miravalle, editor, Mary: Coredemptrix, Mediatrix, Advocate: Theological Foundations, Santa Barbara, California: Queenship Publishing, 1995.

William Most, Mary in Our Life, Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1954.

***

I. Western Church Fathers and the Second Council of Nicaea (787)
***
St. Irenaeus (130-202), in his famous work, Against Heresies (bet. 180-199) wrote:

[S]o also Mary . . . being obedient, was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith. (III, 22, 4; from Jurgens, vol. 1, p. 93, #224)

[F]or in no other way can that which is tied be untied unless the very windings of the knot are gone through in reverse: so that the first joints are loosed through the second, and the second in turn free the first . . . Thus, then, the knot of the disobedience of Eve was untied through the obedience of Mary. (III, 22, 4; from Most, p. 25)

Just as the human race was bound over to death through a virgin, so was it saved through a virgin: the scale was balanced — a virgin’s disobedience by a virgin’s obedience. (V, 19, 1; cited in Most, p. 274)

William Most comments:

Mary, says St. Irenaeus, undoes the work of Eve. Now it was not just in a remote way that Eve had been involved in original sin: she shared in the very ruinous act itself. Similarly, it would seem, Mary ought to share in the very act by which the knot is untied — that is, in Calvary itself. (Most, p. 25)

St. Ambrose of Milan (c. 339-397):

Let us not be astonished that the Lord, who came to save the world, began his work in Mary, so that she, by whom the salvation of all was being readied, would be the first to receive from her own child its fruits. (Miravalle, p. 14; from In Lk. II, 17; ML 15, 559)

Mary was alone when the Holy Spirit came upon her and overshadowed her. She was alone when she saved the world — operata est mundi salutem — and when she conceived the redemption of all — concepit redemptionem universorum. (Miravalle, p. 14; from Epist. 49,2; ML 16, 1154)

She engendered redemption for humanity, she was carrying, in her womb, the remission of sins. (Miravalle, p. 14; from De Mysteriis III, 13; ML 16, 393; De instit. Virginis 13,81; ML 16, 325)

She stood before the Cross and looked up full of pity to the wounds of her Son, because she expected not the death of her Son but the salvation of the world. (Exp. in Luc., 10, 132; in Graef, p. 82)

When the Lord wanted to redeem the world he began his work with Mary, that she, through whom salvation was prepared for all, should be the first to draw the fruit of salvation from her Son. (Exp. in Luc., 2, 17; in Graef, p. 82)

The Virgin has given birth to the salvation of the world, the Virgin has brought forth the life of all. (Ep. LXIII, 33; in Graef, p. 83)

Hilda Graef comments:

He interprets the sword in the prophecy of Simeon quite differently from Origen and the Greek fathers following him. In the view of Ambrose this sword is rather Mary’s foreknowledge of the Passion, because she is ‘not ignorant of the heavenly mystery.’ (Graef, p. 81)

St. Jerome (c. 343-420)

Death came through Eve, life through Mary. (Ep. XXII, 21; in Graef, p. 94)

Every torture inflicted on the body of Jesus was a wound in the heart of the Mother. (De 7 Verbis D. tr. 3; in St. Alphonsus, Part 3: The Dolors of Mary; Reflections, p. 519)

St. Augustine (354-430) wrote:

[J]ust as death comes to us through a woman, Life is born to us through a woman; that the devil, defeated, would be tormented by each nature, feminine and masculine, since he had taken delight in the defection of both. (Jurgens, vol. 3, p. 50, #1578; from Christian Combat, c. 397, 22, 24)

. . . plainly she is [in spirit] Mother of us who are His members, because by love she has cooperated so that the faithful, who are the members of that Head, might be born in the Church. In body, indeed, she is Mother of that very Head. (Jurgens, vol. 3, p. 71, #1644; from Holy Virginity, A.D. 401, 6, 6)

The cross and nails of the Son were also those of his Mother; with Christ crucified the Mother was also crucified. (St. Alphonsus, p. 519)

St. Peter Chrysologus (c. 400-450; an influence on the Council of Chalcedon in 451):

‘Hail, full of grace’; . . . the Angel offered her this grace. The Virgin received Salvation so that she may give it back to the centuries. (Miravalle, p. 16; from Sermon 140)

[A] young maiden receives as a reward of the womb (Ps 126) salvation for those who were lost: — salutem perditis pro ipsius uteri mercede. (Miravalle, p. 17; Sermon 140, 6)

Commenting on this text, St. John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote:

It is difficult to state more explicitly, although rhetorically, that the Blessed Virgin has fulfilled a real meritorious cooperation, a participation with the reversing of the fall as its price. (Miravalle, p. 17; from “Letter to Pusey,” in Difficulties of Anglicans, II, pp. 43 and 42, London, 1900)

The Second Council of Nicaea (787), the seventh Ecumenical Council, which is fully accepted by the Orthodox, declared:

The Lord, the apostles and the prophets have taught us that we must venerate in the first place the Holy Mother of God, who is above all the heavenly powers . . . If any one does not confess that the holy, ever virgin Mary, really and truly the Mother of God, is higher than all creatures visible and invisible, and does not implore, with a sincere faith, her intercession, given her powerful access (parrhésia) to our God born of her, let him be anathema. (Miravalle, p. 30; Session IV; Mansi XIII, 346)

Fr. Bertrand de Margerie, S. J. comments:

This important, and no doubt little known, declaration of an ecumenical council presupposes, implicitly but surely, the acknowledgement of a privileged participation of Mary, as Mother of God incarnate, in the work of our salvation. (Miravalle, p. 30)

II. The Witness of Early Eastern Christian Tradition
***
Fr. Bertrand de Margerie, S. J., sums up:

Since the fourth and especially the fifth centuries, the Greek Fathers, expounding the views of Irenaeus, have become the clearer and more active witnesses of the unfathomable mystery that constitutes the privileged and unique mission of the Virgin Mother in the economy of Redemption. This role was magnificently summed up by the fifth century Fathers in these statements: Mary is the ‘Mother of the Economy’ (Theodosus of Ancyra, MG 77, 393 C), the ‘Mother of Salvation’ (Severien of Gabala, MG 56, 4) and ‘the one who gives birth to the Mystery’ ( [Patriarch] Proclus of Constantinople, MG 65, 792 C). “All these expressions signify that Mary was, in dependence of the unique Savior and Redeemer, an active cause of our redemption. In the eighth and ninth centuries, the more abundant testimony of the Greek Fathers adds nothing essential. It will be enough here to quote Saint Andrew of Crete: Mary is ‘the first reparation of the first fall of the first parents’ (MG 97, 879). (Miravalle, pp. 20-21)

St. Ephraem of Syria (c. 306-373) taught that Mary is the only virgin chosen to be the instrument of our salvation [Sermo III] and called her the “dispensatrix of all goods.” (Most, p. 48)

St. Gregory of Nyssa (c. 330-c. 395):

Eve brought in sin by means of a tree; Mary, on the contrary, brought in Good by means of the tree of the Cross. (Miravalle, p. 18; from Sermon for the Nativity of Christ; MG 46, 1148 A, B)

St. John Chrysostom (c. 347-407)

A virgin [Eve] has cast us out from paradise; through a virgin [Mary] we have found eternal life. (Expositio VII in Ps. XLIV, vol. 5, 171D; in Graef, p. 75)

Whoever then was present on the Mount of Calvary might see two altars, on which two great sacrifices were consummated; the one in the body of Jesus, the other in the heart of Mary. (St. Alphonsus, p. 519)

St. Cyril of Alexandria (d. 444), at the Council of Ephesus in 431 (which both Orthodox and Anglicans accept), prayed:

Hail, Mary, Mother of God, . . . by whom the human race reaches the knowledge of the truth. (Miravalle, p. 12)

Hail, Mary, Mother of God, by whom all faithful souls are saved [sozetai]. (Miravalle, p. 13; from MG 77, 992, and 1033; also from Ephesus)

In what some consider the greatest Marian sermon of the patristic period, St. Cyril states:

[I]t is through you that the Holy Trinity is glorified and adored, through you the precious cross is venerated and adored throughout the world . . . through you that churches have been founded in the whole world, that peoples are led to conversion. (Miravalle, p. 134; from Homilia in Deiparam; PG 65, 681)

Theodotus of Ancyra (d. c. 445), a prominent Father at the Council of Ephesus, called her “dispensatrix of good things.” (Most, p. 48)

The expression Mediatrix or Mediatress was found in two 5th-century eastern writers, Basil of Seleucia (In SS. Deiparae Annuntiationem, PG 85, 444AB) and Antipater of Bostra (In S. Joannem Bapt., PG 85 1772C), 500 years before any Latin writer used it (apart from a direct derivation from the east). The theory developed in the work of John of Damascus (d.c. 749; see Homilia I in Dormitionem, PG 96 713A) and Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople (d.c.733; see Homilia II in Dormitionem, PG 98 321, 352-353). (Miravalle, pp. 134-135)

The Protestant reference Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (edited by F. L. Cross, 2nd edition, Oxford Univ. Press, 1983, p. 561), states concerning Patriarch Germanus:

Mary’s incomparable purity, foreshadowing the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and her universal mediation in the distribution of supernatural blessings, are his two frequently recurring themes.

St. Germanus, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 634-c. 733)

No one is saved except through you, O Theotokos; no one secured a gift of mercy, save through you . . . in you all peoples of the earth have obtained a blessing. (Hom. in S. Mariæ Zonan, MG 98, 377; in Miravalle, p. 283)

St. Andrew of Crete (c. 660-740) referred to Mary as the “Mediatrix of the law and grace” and also stated that “she is the mediation between the sublimity of God and the abjection of the flesh.” (Nativ. Mariæ, Serm. 1 and Serm. 4, PG 97, 808, 865; in Miravalle, p. 283)

St. John of Damascus (c. 675-c. 749) spoke of Mary fulfilling the “office of Mediatrix.” (Hom. S. Mariæ in Zonam, PG 98, 377; in Miravalle, p. 283)

Hail Thou, through whom we are redeemed from the curse. (PG 86, 658; in Friethoff, p. 221)

O Mary, whose mediation is never refused, whose prayer is never denied . . . through you we obtain, as long as we linger in this crumbling world, the means to do good works . . . (PG 96:647; in Friethoff, p. 268)

III. Eastern Liturgies
***
Concerning the Byzantine Liturgy, Fr. Bertrand de Margerie writes:

It does not hesitate to implore the Virgin herself for salvation. The following expression is often repeated in the liturgy: ‘Most Holy Mother of God, save us.’ Surely – numerous texts express it – if Mary can save us, it is because of her intervention with her Son, the only Savior . . .

In fact, . . . no mention of salvation in the liturgical prayers is ever made without invoking the intercession of the Virgin. Such frequency and insistence are not found to the same degree in the course of the Mass in Western liturgies . . .

[T]he recourse to the mediating intercession of Mary reveals the faith of the Church in her unique participation, through divine Motherhood, in the mystery of Redemption.

While exalting the powerful intercession of the Mother of Christ, the Byzantine liturgy does not ignore the created finitude of the Virgin. As proof, the astonishing prayer of the Byzantine Church for Mary; linked, besides, to the recourse to her intercession . . .

[S]ince the Church prays for Mary, it is obvious that she is not adored. Mary is not a goddess, but a pure creature . . . Mass is not a sacrifice offered to the Virgin, but to God alone. (Miravalle, pp. 26-28)

Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom

In the Liturgy of the Catechumens, the people cry out: “By the intercession of the Theotokos, Saviour, save us.” Before distributing Holy Communion, the priest prays: “May Christ, our true God (who rose from the dead), as a good, loving and merciful God, have mercy upon us and save us, through the intercession of his most pure and holy Mother.” (Miravalle, pp. 133-134)

IV. Medieval Catholic Theologians and Doctors
***
St. Peter Damien (1007-1072)

As the Son of God has designed to descend to us through you [Mary], so we also must come to him through you. (Serm. 46, PL 144, 761B; in Miravalle, p. 283)

St. Anselm (c. 1033-1109)

I seek you help as being the best and most powerful, after your Son’s, that this world can offer . . . What all others can do with you, you are able to do alone without the others . . . If you pray, everyone will pray, everyone will help. (PL 158:943-4; in Friethoff, p. 268)

God is the Father of all created things, and Mary is the Mother of all re-created things. God is the Father of the constitution of all things, and Mary is the Mother of the restitution of all things . . . For God generated him through whom all things were made, and Mary gave birth to him through whom all things were saved. (Or. VII; in Graef, p. 213)

Eadmer (c. 1060-c.1128)

[Mary] merited to become most worthily the Reparatrix of the lost world. (De Excellentia Virg. Marie, c.9; cited by Pope St. Pius X, Ad diem illum, 1904; from Most, p. 284)

Rupert, Abbot of the Benedictines at Deutz (d. c. 1135)

Because there were truly ‘pains as of a woman in labour’ [Ps 47:7] and in the Passion of the only begotten Son the blessed Virgin brought forth the salvation of us all, she is obviously the Mother of us all. (Comm. in Jo., 13; PL 169: 789C; in Graef, p. 228)

St. Bernard of Clairvaux (c. 1090-1153)

God wished us to have nothing that would not pass through the hands of Mary. (Sermon on the Vigil of Christmas; PL 183,100; in Most, p. 48)

As every mandate of grace that is sent by a king passes through the palace-gates, so does every grace that comes from heaven to the world pass through the hands of Mary. (Apud. S. Bernarin. Pro Fest. V. M. s. 5, c. 8; cited in St. Alphonsus, ch. 5, p. 160)

Through her man was redeemed. (Serm. 3 super Salve.; in Friethoff, p. 221)

St. Albert the Great (c. 1200-1280)

To her [Mary] alone was given this privilege, namely, a communication in the Passion; to her the Son willed to communicate the merit of the Passion, in order that He could give her the reward; and in order to make her a sharer in the benefit of Redemption. He willed that she be a sharer in the penalty of the Passion, in so far as she might become the Mother of all through re-creation even as she was the adjutrix of the Redemption by her co-passion. And just as the whole world is bound to God by His supreme Passion, so also it is bound to the Lady of all by her co-passion. (Mariale, Opera Omnia, v. 37, Q. 150, p. 219; in Miravalle, p. 259)

She sacrificed her own Son and the Son of God for us all, freely consenting to his Passion. (Mariale 51; in Friethoff, p. 238)

The Blessed Virgin is very properly called ‘gate of heaven,’ for every created or uncreated grace that ever came or will ever come into this world came through her. (Mariale 147; in Friethoff, p. 250)

St. Bonaventure (c. 1217-1274)

Her only Son was being offered for the salvation of the human race; and so she did suffer, with Him, that, if it had been possible, she would have much more gladly suffered herself all the torments that her Son underwent. (I Sent., d.48, ad Litt. dub.4; cited by Pope St. Pius X, Ad diem illum, 1904; from Most, p. 285)

Just as they [Adam and Eve] were the destroyers of the human race, so these [Jesus and Mary] were its repairers. (Sermon 3 on the Assumption; Opera Omnia, v. 9, p. 695; in Miravalle, p. 259)

She paid the price [of Redemption] as a woman brave and loving – namely, when Christ suffered on the cross to pay that price in order to purge and wash and redeem us, the Blessed Virgin was present, accepting and agreeing with the divine will. (Collatio 6 de donis Spiritus Sancti, n.16; in Miravalle, p. 259)

As the moon, which stands between the sun and the earth, transmits to this latter whatever it receives from the former, so does Mary pour out upon us who are in the world the heavenly graces that she receives from the divine sun of justice. (Spann. Polyanth. litt. M. t.6; cited in St. Alphonsus, ch. 5, pp. 159-160)

That woman (namely Eve) drove us out of Paradise and sold us; but this one brought us back again and bought us. (de don. Sp. S. 6; 14; in Friethoff, p. 221)

Abraham! You were willing to sacrifice your son, but you offered a ram! But this glorious Virgin sacrificed her Son. (de don. Sp. S., 6:17; in Friethoff, p. 238)

John Tauler, Dominican mystic (c. 1300-1360)

He foretold to you [Mary] all your passion whereby He would make you a sharer of all of His merits and afflictions, and you would co-operate with Him in the restoration of men to salvation. (Sermo pro festo Purificationis Beatæ Mariæ Virginis, in Miravalle, p. 259)

First Recorded Use of Co-Redemptrix

Although the concept was present earlier (as clearly demonstrated above), the first known use of the word itself appears in a liturgical book dating from the 14th century, found in St. Peter’s in Salzburg, Austria:

Loving, sweet, and kind / Wholly undeserving of any sorrow / If henceforth you chose weeping / As one suffering with the Redeemer / For the captive sinner / Coredemptrix would you be. (Miravalle, p. 260)

St. Bernardine of Siena (1380-1444)

Every grace which is communicated to this world has a three-fold course. For, in accord with excellent order, it is dispensed from God to Christ, from Christ to the Virgin, from the Virgin to us . . . I do not hesitate to say that she has received a certain jurisdiction over all graces . . . They are administered through her hands. (Sermon V de nativiate B.M.V., cap. 8; op. omn., v.4 [Lugduni, 1650], p. 96; cited by Pope Leo XIII, Iucunda semper, 1894; first portion from Most, p. 49; second portion from Miravalle, p. 284)

For she is the neck of our Head, by which all spiritual gifts are communicated to His Mystical Body. (de Evangelio aeterno, Serm. X, a. 3, c. 3; cited by Pope St. Pius X, Ad diem illum, 1904; in Most, p. 49)

V. Orthodox Theologians of the 14th Century
***
St. Gregory Palamas (d. 1359)

Mary is the cause of what had gone before her, the pioneer of what has come after her; she distributes eternal goods . . . She is the glory of earth, the joy of heaven, the ornament of all creation. She is the principle, the source, the root of ineffable good things. She is the summit and the fulfillment of all that is holy. (Miravalle, p. 135; from In Annunt., PG 151, 177B)

No divine gift can reach either angels or men, save through her mediation. As one cannot enjoy the light of a lamp . . . save through the medium of this lamp, so every movement towards God, every impulse towards good coming from him is unrealizable save through the mediation of the Virgin. She does not cease to spread benefits on all creatures . . . (Miravalle, p. 136; Edition of Sophocles Oikonomos, Athens, 1861, 159; PG 151, 472A)

Nicephorus Callistus (d. 1335), a Byzantine church historian, in his poems used titles such as Sovereign Lady, Queen, Helper, Mediatress of the faithful, Mediatress of the world, Consoler, and his favorite, Protectress.

Nicholas Cabasilas (d.c. 1390)

Being assumed as a helper not simply to contribute something as one moved by another, but that she should give herself and become the fellow-worker (sunergos) of God in providing for the human race, so that with him she should be an associate and sharer in the glory which would come from it. (Miravalle, p. 137; In Annunt. 4 PO 19, 499)

[Mary’s partnership was] in all the sufferings and affliction, He, bound on the Cross, received the lance in his side; the sword as divinely inspired Symeon foretold, pierced her heart. (Miravalle, p. 137; In Dormit. 12, PO 19 508)

Isidore Glabas (d. 1397)

And truly the Virgin, without doubt, was for all a cause of restoration to a better state. (Miravalle, p. 138; PG 139, 13C)

Theophanes of Nicaea (d. 1381)

Just as she gave our nature directly to God the Word, so God the Word to her directly repaid the deification of all; just as the Son of God through the mediation of his own Mother receives from us our nature, so through her mediation we receive his deification. It is therefore impossible that anyone in any way may become a sharer in the gifts of God other than in the way that we have set forth. (Miravalle, p. 139; Sermo in Sanctissimam Deiparam, Lateranum, Nova Series, 1, Rome 1935, V, 55 [Fr. Martin Jugie] ) 

This neck [Mary] pleasing to God and illumined by the rays of the divine Spirit, alone truly preeminent over the whole Body, has no equal in order or place, but, as has been said, holds the place second in order, next after the Head, playing the part of intermediary and bond between the Head and the Body. Accordingly since, it has no equal, it becomes capable and receptive of the whole divine, life-giving fullness which from the head is communicated to all the members. (Miravalle, pp. 139-140; from Jugie, ibid., X, 131)

She receives wholly the hidden grace of the Spirit and amply distributes it and shares it with others, thus manifesting it . . . [No one attains the fullness and the goal of life in Christ] without her cooperation or without the Spirit’s help. (Miravalle, p. 141; from Jugie, ibid., XIV, 195)

[Mary] is the dispenser and distributor of all the wondrous uncreated gifts of the divine Spirit, which make us Christ’s brothers and co-heirs, not only because she is granting the gifts of her natural Son to his brothers in grace, but also because she is bestowing them on these as her own true sons, though not by ties of nature but of grace. (Miravalle, p. 141; from Jugie, ibid., XV, 205)

VI. Catholic Theologians and Doctors: 16th to 18th Centuries
***
St. Peter Canisius (1521-1597)

Truly great things were done to Mary by him who is mighty, so that she . . . sacrificed Christ as real and living victim for the sin of the world. (de Maria V. incomp. 4, 26, 5; in Friethoff, p. 238)

Francisco de Suarez, Jesuit theologian (1548-1617)

The intercession and prayers of Mary are, above those of all others, not only useful, but necessary. (D. Inc. p.2, d.23, s.3; cited in St. Alphonsus, ch. 5, p. 162)

Mary cooperated in our salvation in three ways; first, by having merited by a merit of congruity the Incarnation of the Word; secondly, by having continually prayed for us whilst she was living in this world; thirdly, by having willingly sacrificed the life of her Son to God. (D. Inc. p.2, d.23, s.1; in St. Alphonsus, p. 166)

St. Louis de Montfort (1673-1716)

It is by her that He [Jesus] applies His merits to His members, and that He communicates his virtues and distributes His graces. She is His mysterious canal; she is His aqueduct, through which He makes his mercies flow gently and abundantly. (True Devotion to Mary, n. 24; in Miravalle, p. 285)

To Mary, his faithful spouse, God the Holy Ghost has communicated His unspeakable gifts; and He has chosen her to be the dispenser of all He possesses, in such wise that she distributes . . . all His gifts and graces. The Holy Ghost gives no heavenly gift to men which He does not have pass through her virginal hands. Such has been the will of God, who has willed that we should have everything through Mary. (True Devotion to Mary, n.25; in Miravalle, p. 298)

. . . Mary, whom he has appointed to be . . . Treasurer of his riches, Distributor of his graces, Worker of his great miracles, Restorer of the human race, Mediatrix of men, Detsroyer of God’s enemies, and faithful Companion of his great works and triumphs. (W.G. 28; in Friethoff, p. 278)

St. Alphonsus de Liguori (1696-1787)

God, who gave us Jesus Christ, wills that all graces that have been, that are, and will be dispensed to men to the end of the world through the merits of Jesus Christ, should be dispensed by the hands and through the intercession of Mary. (The Glories of Mary, ch. 5; in Miravalle, p. 284)

During her whole life this sublime Virgin collaborated in the salvation of men through her love for them, especially when, on Mount Calvary, she offered up her Son’s life to the eternal Father for our salvation. (Contra hereticos, 25:1; in Friethoff, p. 238)

VII. The Second Vatican Council (1962-1965)
***
For those non-Catholics (and Catholics) who think that the proposed definitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Co-Redemptrix, Mediatrix, and Advocate are radically new in concept and advanced by only a few “ultraconservative” Catholics on the fringe of the Church, the following excerpts from the section on Mary, from Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution on the Church) should be most illuminating. Vatican II dealt with Mary in greater depth and length than all previous Ecumenical Councils combined:

II. THE FUNCTION OF THE BLESSED VIRGIN IN THE PLAN OF SALVATION

§55. The sacred writings of the Old and New Testaments, as well as venerable tradition, show the role of the Mother of the Saviour in the plan of salvation in an ever clearer light and call our attention to it The books of the Old Testament describe the history of salvation, by which the coming of Christ into the world was slowly prepared. The earliest documents, as they are read in the Church and are understood in the light of a further and full revelation, bring the figure of a woman, Mother of the Redeemer, into a gradually clearer light. Considered in this light, she is already prophetically foreshadowed in the promise of victory over the serpent which was given to our first parents after their fall into sin (cf. Gen 3:15) . . . After a long period of waiting the times are fulfilled in her, the exalted Daughter of Sion and the new plan of salvation is established, when the Son of God has taken human nature from her, that he might in the mysteries of his flesh free man from sin.

§56. The Father of mercies willed that the Incarnation should be preceded by assent on the part of the predestined mother, so that just as a woman had a share in bringing about death, so also a woman should contribute to life. This is preeminently true of the Mother of Jesus, who gave to the world the Life that renews all things, and who was enriched by God with gifts appropriate to such a role. It is no wonder then that it was customary for the Fathers to refer to the Mother of God as all holy and free from every stain of sin, as though fashioned by the Holy Spirit and formed as a new creature.[5] Enriched from the first instant of her conception with the splendour of an entirely unique holiness, the virgin of Nazareth is hailed by the heralding angel, by divine command, as “full of grace” (cf. Lk. 1:38), and to the heavenly messenger she replies: “Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done unto me according to thy word” (Lk. 1:38). Thus the daughter of Adam, Mary, consenting to the word of God, became the Mother of Jesus. Committing herself wholeheartedly and impeded by no sin to God’s saving will, she devoted herself totally, as a handmaid of the Lord, to the person and work of her Son, under and with him, serving the mystery of redemption, by the grace of Almighty God. Rightly, therefore, the Fathers see Mary not merely as passively engaged by God, but as freely cooperating in the work of man’s salvation through faith and obedience. For, as St Irenaeus says, she “being obedient, became the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race.”[6] Hence not a few of the early Fathers gladly assert with him in their preaching: “the knot of Eve’s disobedience was united by Mary’s obedience: what the virgin Eve bound through her disbelief, Mary loosened by her faith.”[7] Comparing Mary with Eve, they call her “Mother of the living,”[8] and frequently claim: “death through Eve, life through Mary.”[9]

§57. This union of the mother with the Son in the work of salvation is made manifest from the time of Christ’s virginal conception up to his death . . .

§58. . . . the Blessed Virgin advanced in her pilgrimage of faith, and faithfully persevered in her union with her Son unto the cross, where she stood, in keeping with the divine plan, enduring with her only begotten Son the intensity of his suffering, associated herself with his sacrifice in her mother’s heart, and lovingly consenting to the immolation of this victim which was born of her. Finally, she was given by the same Christ Jesus dying on the cross as a mother to his disciple, with these words: “Woman, behold thy son” (Jn. 19:26-27).[11] . . .

III. THE BLESSED VIRGIN AND THE CHURCH

§60. In the words of the apostle there is but one mediator: “for there is but one God and one mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a redemption for all” (1 Tim. 2:5-6). But Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin’s salutary influence on men originates not in any inner necessity but in the disposition of God. It flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it and draws all its power from it. It does not hinder in any way the immediate union of the faithful with Christ but on the contrary fosters it.

§61. The predestination of the Blessed Virgin as Mother of God was associated with the incarnation of the divine word: in the designs of divine Providence she was the gracious mother of the divine Redeemer here on earth, and above all others and in a singular way the generous associate and humble handmaid of the Lord. She conceived, brought forth, and nourished Christ, she presented him to the Father in the temple, shared her Son’s sufferings as he died on the cross. Thus, in a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope and burning charity in the work of the Saviour in restoring supernatural life to souls. For this reason she is a mother to us in the order of grace.

§62. This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfilment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation.[15] By her maternal charity, she cares for the brethren of her Son, who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties, until they are led into their blessed home. Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.[16] This, however, is so understood that it neither takes away anything from nor adds anything to the dignity and efficacy of Christ the one Mediator.[17]

No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source.

The Church does not hesitate to profess this subordinate role of Mary, which it constantly experiences and recommends to the heartfelt attention of the faithful, so that encouraged by this maternal help they may the more closely adhere to the Mediator and Redeemer.

VIII. Papal Encyclicals: 1758 to the Present / Catechism of the Catholic Church
***
This overall teaching is even more explicitly laid out in the encyclicals of several popes, thus (far from being “novel”) it already qualifies as binding under the ordinary magisterium:

1) Benedict XIV (Gloriosae Dominae, between 1740-1758),
2) Pius IX (Ineffabilis Deus, 1854),
3) Leo XIII (Iucunda semper, 1894 / Adiutricem populi, 1895),
4) St. Pius X (Ad diem illum, 1904),
5) Pius XI (Explorata res, 1923 / Miserentissimus Redemptor, 1928),
6) Ven. Pius XII (Mystici Corporis, 1943 / Munificentissimus Deus, 1950 / Ad Caeli Reginam, 1954),
7) St. Paul VI (Signum magnum, 1967 / Marialis Cultus, 1974),
8) St. John Paul II (Redemptor Hominis, 1979 / Salvifici Doloris, 1984 / Redemptoris Mater, 1987 / Veritatis Splendor, 1993).

It is also reiterated in the 1994 Catechism of the Catholic Church (#410-411, 488, 494, 502, 511, 529, 964, 967-970, 973, 975, 2618), which quotes frequently from Lumen Gentium.

***

Related Reading

Reflections on the Spiritual Motherhood & Mediation of Mary [1994]

Mary Mediatrix: A Biblical Explanation [1999]

Mary Mediatrix: Dialogue w Evangelical Protestant [1-21-02]

Mary Mediatrix vs. Jesus Christ the Sole Mediator? [1-30-03]

Mary Mediatrix & the Bible (vs. Dr. Robert Bowman) [8-1-03]

Mary Mediatrix and the Church Fathers (+ Documentation That James White Accepts the Scholarship of the Protestant Church Historians I Cite [J. N. D. Kelly and Philip Schaff] ) [9-7-05]
*

Mary Mediatrix: St. John Paul II & Benedict XVI Clarify [2-19-08]

Immaculate Heart of Mary & Mary Mediatrix (Excessive Devotions?): Explanations Especially for New Converts to the Catholic Faith [11-25-08]

Biblical Evidence for Mary Mediatrix [11-25-08]

Mary Mediatrix: A Biblical & Theological Primer [9-15-15]

Exchange on Catholic Mariology and Mary Mediatrix [12-3-16]

Mary Mediatrix & Jesus (Mere Vessels vs. Sources) [8-15-17]

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]

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

7 Contemporary Fruits from a New Marian Dogma (Mark Miravalle) [1-15-19]

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and two children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2700 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
*
***
*
(originally posted in 1998)
*
Photo credit: The Virgin in Prayer (bet. 1640-1650), by Giovanni Battista Salvi da Sassoferrato (1609–1685) [public domain / Wikipedia]
*
***
2020-02-20T13:28:49-04:00

Last updated on: February 20, 2020 at 1:28 pm   By

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

*****

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

12-1. Is the Church “one body”?

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

12-2. Is the Church “one faith”?

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

12-3. Is there “one fold”?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Holiness / Teacher of Righteousness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

13-6. Is the Church a “holy temple”?

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

  1. Catholic (Universal)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

14-5. Was the predicted messianic kingdom universal?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Apostolic Succession

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

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

15-2. Did the apostles speak truth?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

***

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

***

2020-02-13T13:10:04-04:00

Last updated on: February 13, 2020 at 1:10 pm   By

This is a somewhat abridged version of chapter 2 of my 2002 book, Reflections on Radical Catholic Reactionaries [purchase at the link for as little as $2.99]

*****

  1. The orthodox, faithful, obedient Catholic outlook on the Church (even in the truly grave crisis it now endures — arguably the greatest ever) is far more sunny than that of radical Catholic reactionaries. Their incessant pessimism and cynicism often runs contrary to a robust faith and trust in God, and a working knowledge of past crises.
  1. The Catholic Church has not caved into modernism and immorality, as so many other Christian groups have done. We have resisted, with God’s supernatural help. The most recent battle for the Church is already over. Have reactionaries missed it? The liberal / modernist / dissident / “progressives” have lost, and they know it full well. If only reactionaries could realize this fact. We are like Europe after World War II. It would still take a while to rebuild, but it was inevitable, and the nightmare was over.
  1. In 1990, I was amazed at the preservation — in the Catholic Church alone — of the traditional morality that I had increasingly come to espouse as an evangelical Protestant missionary and pro-life activist. I viewed it as the very last bastion against modernism and the secular humanist onslaught, and the glorious fullness of apostolic Christianity. I was, therefore, compelled to join such a wonderful Church, the Church, and was delighted to discover that it actually existed (I had had the usual invisible church conception of evangelicalism, but I was far less a-historical than most). And now reactionaries come around and tell me that all this was an illusion. Nonsense! The beliefs have not changed! We call this development. Obviously, we are operating from two completely polarized views of reality, when it comes to the Church. Someone must be wrong.
  1. Clearly, the Church has (institutionally) resisted the tides of secularization. There have been many individual casualties, sadly, as always with these huge, momentous spiritual/cultural battles. Priests, bishops, nuns and monks, heretical lay activists, DRE’s (even popes) may indeed have to give account to God for their actions or inactions. But whatever the case may be, the dogmas and structure of the Church have survived intact.
  1. I believe we shall see a huge revival (perhaps the largest ever) in this century, which I will witness when I am an old man, some 20-30 years from now. We’ve seen every abomination and form of wickedness imaginable in the 20th century. This is the age of martyrs, even more so than the early centuries. That blood is not shed in vain (redemptive suffering). History shows us that — generally — the centuries following terrible ones are times of revival, reform, and rejuvenation in the Church. Revival is cyclical, and recurring. It has always been this way.
  1. One can see the wave of the future if they look closely enough. It will be a slow resuscitation (we’re talking in terms of centuries and ages), but it’s inevitable if the Lord doesn’t return soon, if for no other reason than the fact of God’s amazing mercy, and His Providence, whereby we know that “all things work together for good, for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose” (Romans 8:28). Therefore, we ought to always be optimistic and joyful, in love with God and His Church, the Holy Father, the Virgin Mary and the saints.
  1. Do reactionaries have their heads in the sand? Like the Pharisees of old (the legalists and hyper-reactionaries of that time), they fail to discern the “signs of the times” (Matthew 16:3). They will tell us how many liberals and heterodox Catholics are still around, and point to the scorched earth left in their wake. Well, so what? There were many liberals around during the Catholic Reformation and the Council of Trent, too. It so happened that most of them had left the Church, rather than remain in it (though, of course, many liberals are leaving the Church today). They were called Protestants. There were liberals during the Councils of Nicea (Arians), and Ephesus (Nestorians), and Chalcedon (Monophysites), and Vatican I (Old Catholics).
  1. Times of great revival and reform can occur even while heterodox liberals and heretics remain a problem. God is not bound by our timetables, desperation and alarmism, limited perceptions, and conceptions of things. He simply ignores the liberals and goes about His business. They are merely pawns in His Grand Scheme, just as the Egyptians or Assyrians or Babylonians or Persians or Greeks or Romans or Nazis or Soviet Communists were (all immensely powerful in their heyday). They are not in the middle of the Divine Plan, as we orthodox Catholics are, because they do not seek to do His will. They have rebelled, and are therefore, “out of the picture.” That is why they are already irrelevant, and destined for obsolescence in the dustbin of history, like all other heresies and schismatic sects (where, for example, are the Marcionites or Albigensians these days?).
  1. The only Christians — besides Catholics — with any staying-power historically, and semblance of apostolic orthodoxy, are the Orthodox — precisely because they maintained apostolic succession and have valid sacraments. Apart from that, Christian or quasi-christian sects eventually go liberal (mainline Protestants) or disappear. It takes many decades or centuries, but it happens. They have life in them only insofar as they approximate, or draw from, the Catholic Church. Liberalism, too, will disappear as any sort of major influence, because it has no life in itself. It can’t reproduce itself because it is the counsel of despair and disbelief. The very next generation will largely reject it. These things are absolutely certain, and are seen in decreasing membership rolls of “mainline” denominations. The demise (the real “auto-demolition”) may take a while yet, but it will occur, because God is not mocked.
  1. Complaints, undue criticism, condemnation, disobedience, dissent, bickering, moaning and groaning, silly and self-important pontifications, whining, waxing eloquently cynical: that’s what we so often see in the radical Catholic reactionary movement. It’s extremely unseemly, unedifying, and unappealing.
  1. It is denied that the reactionary position is characterized by an attitude of pessimism and lack of faith. “Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks” (Matthew 12:34). One reads the sort of comments reactionaries habitually make, and one is more than justified in arriving at certain conclusions, if words mean anything at all. If individual proponents of these viewpoints happen to have a joyful heart, then they would do well to include some positive remarks in public also. How about an article once in a while like “What’s Good in the Church?”? A gloomy “quasi-defectibility” outlook is contrary to a truly Catholic faith in God’s guidance of His Church. Many reactionary writings do not convey this sort of hope and sunny optimism at all.
  1. The important thing among these “true believers” is for them to know what they are against. That is sufficient for inclusion into the club. “My enemy’s enemy is my friend.” The same dynamic also applies to anti-Catholics in all their various nefarious manifestations. Some fundamentalists are even willing to absurdly embrace the Albigensian Gnostics, in the attempt to claim a pedigree apart from the Catholic lineage.
  2.  The alarmist reactionary rhetoric gets worse and worse, as with all conspiratorial schemes and theories trumped-up in order to explain things that people find themselves unable to comprehend or understand (therefore, they disobey and lose confidence in their ecclesiastical superiors). Like Job’s comforters, reactionaries fail to see that God is at work: though mysterious and inexplicable His ways may continue to be. A little reading of Church history (the bleak periods) might do wonders. Catholics take the long view of history; they are not bound up by the fads and peculiarities and zeitgeist of any particular time period. This is one of the glories of the Church; one of the things that so attracts converts to it.
  1. A certain harmful and deleterious “spirit of reactionaryism” runs contrary to the spirit of obedience to the pope and Church authority, and to a bright, optimistic, hopeful faith (which martyrs possess in the very worst of circumstances). The doom-and-gloom mentality, exclusivistic orientation, and tendency to resort to conspiratorial explanations for things one is unable to comprehend also typifies certain strains of political conservatism, and “fundamentalist” branches of Orthodoxy and Protestantism.
  1. Were all converts like myself dupes who should have stayed in the “conservative” denominations? I’m here in the Church because it taught against contraception, like all Christians did before 1930. The fact that many Catholics disbelieve the teaching was absolutely irrelevant with regard to my decision to convert. The doctrine was correct. The same applies to divorce and abortion. This is what attracted me to the Church, because moral laxity can be found anywhere (original sin). But true, traditional, unchanging Christian moral teaching is only found in its fullness in one place. That’s what I had been seeking for, for ten years as a serious Christian. I found it, and here I am, and quite glad to be here, and not at all constantly “troubled” like so many reactionaries seem to perpetually be. It must get very tiring. Converts have found the pearl of great price. Reactionaries seem to want to prove that the pearl is really a jagged, stinky lump of coal, or worse.
  1. Converts know that there are problems of [theological] liberalism in the Church. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure that out. Liberals (like the poor) will always be with us. But only one Church has true doctrine in toto, true moral teaching, the most sublime spirituality, saints and miracles and all the rest, and the unbroken history to verify those. That is what brings converts in, because we are well acquainted with the doctrinal chaos and ecclesiological anarchy in Protestantism.
  1. Faith and perseverance must enter in, in such troubled times in the Church. We need to understand that Church history repeatedly shows this pattern; that even the early Church had tremendous scandal and hypocrisy, and — above all — that the Church is indefectible. That’s why the orthodox Catholic remains forever an optimist. We readily acknowledge that modernism is rampant; we deny that it can ever overthrow the Church. One must have faith. Reactionaries ought to read the book of Job. Tough times afflict the Church as well as the individual. It is to be expected. Why does that surprise reactionaries? Liberalism, heterodoxy, and unbelief are never surprising, but a Church that remains orthodox despite all is perpetually a delightful and heartening “surprise.” The glory of the Church (like that of the saints) is not that it has no problems, but that it always sees a way through the problems. It always conquers them. Heresy has no life of its own, so it always fails eventually, while the Church marches on (as in Chesterton’s marvelous reflections on “orthodoxy”). It does so because it is God’s own Church, and God cannot fail.
  1. The Church has always had problems. The Catholic must take a long view of history. Modernism will not be defeated in a day. But it will be defeated, and we see more and more signs of that every day.
  1. The liberal is ignorant of Church history, and re-makes the Church in his own image. Protestants often take precious little interest in Church history at all. Reactionaries forget (or never knew) that the Church has been through very dark periods on many occasions.
  1. Reactionaryism is profoundly pessimistic, which is fitting for Buddhists, Hindus, or nihilists, but not Christians. So God has given up on His Church? Even our Lord Jesus had His Judas, and St. Paul had his Corinthian church. God saw fit to include in the ancestry of Jesus a harlot (Rahab) and a murderer and adulterer (David). There was no “golden era,” if by that one means a period without serious ecclesiastical problems. I think reactionaries continue to believe in original sin, and the world, the flesh, and the devil. The Church is to be reborn in the caves and backwaters of Pharisaical reactionary gatherings? I think not. The verdict of Church history lies with the institutional Church, and most assuredly against the quasi-schismatic tendency that characterizes reactionary thought and opinions.
  1. The liberals are dying out. We ought to just forget about them, just like Merlin did to Queen Mab in the Arthurian legend. They will be irrelevant in due course, just like the buffoons of the so-called “Enlightenment” and French Revolution and the Communists and Nazis are today. If God mocks the fools and despots of the world, how much more so in the Church? Modernism will go the way of all heresies.
  1. It always takes a bit of faith and foresight to recognize the beginnings of a revival when it is occurring. That’s nothing new. So reactionaries can’t see it, because they are concentrating on all the bad things and problems that are in the Church. Problems of one sort or another have always been present; obviously they didn’t prevent past revivals from occurring.
  1. What we have seen is that the Catholic Church has heroically and magnificently upheld traditional doctrine and morals, while virtually every other Christian group has caved in, to one degree or another. This is a major reason why I am a Catholic today. The stand on contraception was the first thing that started me on the road to conversion, because I desired the moral theology of the early Church and the apostles, and looked around to see who had preserved it in its totality.
  1. The Orthodox may not have a “modernist crisis” as we do (in a certain liturgical or “surface” sense), but the reason for that is (arguably) because they didn’t have the cultural and theological foresight (nor even the ability, without councils and central authority) to confront modernism head on and defeat it. Consequently, they are compromising on contraception, whereas we have stayed true to the universal Christian prohibition of contraception prior to 1930. Protestants (even evangelicals) are caving in and compromising doctrinally and morally all over the place (the Anglicans provide a clear, quick example of that). We have, of course, many individuals who are compromising and selectively believing, but Church doctrine has remained inviolate, and that was the promise of Jesus to Peter, not that every believing Catholic would be fully orthodox and observant (which has never happened and never will). When one faces a great evil and a powerful opponent (as in any military conflict), one takes some casualties, and there is much hardship, but in the long run, it is a better thing to do than to hide from reality or pretend that no problems exist, and engage in a pipe-dream that cultural isolationism will suffice to overcome them.
  1. Things take time. The pessimist always concentrates on present miseries, while the optimist, idealist, or person exercising faith look at the good things that will come in the future, as the present decadent cycle comes to a close and the new revival starts to gradually pick up momentum. We need only look back at Church history to see what is coming next (excepting Christ’s return, of course). If the Second Coming isn’t imminent, then it is almost certain that major revival will come in this century.
  1. The indefectibility of the Catholic Church and its divine protection from the Holy Spirit is our grounds (in faith) that things will get better, and are, in fact, not as bad as they seem in the first place (at the deepest, spiritual level). Joy rests on grounds other than circumstances. Joy comes from inner peace of the soul, by the grace of God, and a Christian can possess it even in a concentration camp, or with incurable cancer. The saints even truly embraced suffering with joy, as a privilege and honor and a way to help save souls. I am referring to the optimism of the eye of faith: the assurance that God knows what He is doing, and that history has a purpose: that all things are in His Providence, though He obviously doesn’t will all things in His perfect will. He allows bad things, and then uses them for His own purposes. The modernist crisis is no different than anything else; God uses it for His benevolent ends, and is not mocked. Doom-and-gloom and Chicken Little pessimism are contrary to faith and the true Catholic spirit.
  1. I suspect that a lot of the reactionary analysis of the crisis in the Church comes down to temperament. Some people are of a state of mind and emotional make-up that they are naturally pessimists. They may struggle with depression or find it difficult to be of good cheer, with regard to day-to-day life. They might be going through any number of things that are legitimately troubling. Sensitive souls will be harmed and troubled more by evil and “things gone wrong” than less sensitive types. We mustn’t pretend that temperaments and personality types have no effect on our worldviews. They certainly do. Nevertheless, I think there are real, objectively measured grounds for optimism with regard to the Church situation, other than simply a feel-good delusion based on mere temperamental factors and circumstances.
  1. If we were to talk to someone in the dark cultural days of the collapse of the Roman Empire, we could tell them (with our perfect hindsight), that God would build up a new and better civilization, which indeed happened (Christian Western Civilization), and that our citizenship is ultimately not of this world in the first place (as St. Augustine argued in his classic, City of God). Jesus said the same thing: “My kingdom is not of this world.” It’s not that these things pose no problem or inner conflict at all (I’m very troubled about the descent of America into a moral sewer and sound-asleep intellectual stupor), but that the Christian has a frame of reference that transcends them and offers ultimate hope. We are to work within our cultures to do what we can to transform and “baptize” them. That was the aim of Vatican II, but reactionaries ignore that by looking at historical events after it, rather than the content in it.
  1. My basis for thinking that the 21st century will bring revival, is seeing right now many good, real, and significant signs, and the fact that the 20th century was the absolute worst in history (at least in terms of murder and other sorts of human suffering due to despotism). Among many of those who died were Christian martyrs: more than at any other time, even in the early Church, and that is important to consider because “the blood of martyrs is the seed of the Church.” Their suffering will not have been in vain. When Christians suffer, it is for redeeming purposes. So I believe that all this suffering will bear fruit in a revival that we already see the beginnings of. God’s mercy is such that He will pour out more graces after such a brutal century. Many Marian apparitions (approved ones) proclaim this same message as well.
  1. We’re in a bleak period, having taken the brunt of liberal nonsense and heterodoxy (teetering and dazed, but still afloat and very much alive). There have been many such periods. There were popes who went whoring around; there were horrible massacres in the Crusades, which we are still trying to live down. There was astonishing ignorance. The worst periods were always followed by glorious periods. The 10th century was followed by St. Dominic and St. Francis of Assisi and St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Catherine. The Borgia Renaissance popes and numerous clerical abuses of that time (partially leading to the Protestant Revolt) were followed by St. Robert Bellarmine, St. Ignatius Loyola, St. Francis de Sales, St. Teresa of Avila, and the glorious Catholic Reformation. I submit that reactionaries have a pronounced lack of understanding as to precedents for this sort of thing and how God brought His Church out of them, every time, without exception. Invariably, the best centuries follow the worst. So if that model holds, what is likely to happen in the 21st century? Have reactionaries learned nothing from previous Catholic history (or are they just unaware of it, prior to their own lifetime, as so many are)? It’s human nature to think that our own period is the worst ever (not to deny that, indeed, very terrible and troubling things have happened in our age).
  1. One reactionary with whom I was dialoguing believed that the Catholic Church “may not recover for a thousand years, or ten thousand” (from the crisis of modernism). This person (and anyone else who believes the same) lacks faith in God and His promises, and can’t see any of the good things that are right in front of him. Somehow reactionaries believe that this crisis will take 10,000 years rather than a hundred or two to resolve. Even the liberals aren’t that confident about their supposed “victory.” Quite the contrary! There is no question that this mentality is full of the bleakness of utter despair for the Church, and lacking much of a sense that God is in control. Why be a Catholic at all, with such a low view of the Church? I don’t get it. I would never have converted if I believed this. There would be no reason to. So the reactionary view turns out to be “counter-conversion” (just as the liberals offer no reason to convert to the Church — they don’t urge it at all). If there were no hope for any earthly church then I would have stayed in my little self-chosen denomination, believing that one is just as good as another.
  1. The belief that God can guide even a human institution that is at the same time “His” in a special way takes more faith than believing that He can produce an inerrant, inspired Scripture through sinful men, but we believe it because we believe in the Word made Flesh. In other words, God can transform even the human into something glorious. It all flows from the incarnation.
  1. We mustn’t condemn all “change” per se, without examining the merits and demerits of each change. It strikes me as simply a knee-jerk reactionary impulse: “change is bad.” What about “changes” like the Catechism and the wave of converts and the flourishing of apologetics, or the significant rise in vocations in various quarters, or the strong trend of orthodoxy of young seminarians? Do reactionaries like those changes, or must they always see only the negative (much of which is arguably not even “negative” in the first place)?
  1. Reactionary lamentations about the state of the Church are scandalous and highly imprudent. Even if some few of their analyses are correct, it is not right to air dirty laundry in public, just as it is highly inappropriate for a married couple to loudly argue about their personal problems in a public restaurant.
  1. The fabulous joy, hope, and overwhelming feeling of “coming home” which I — along with many converts — have experienced upon entering the Catholic Church, could not last a day if I were to adopt the pessimistic, “o woe is me” views that reactionaries manage to hold.

***

For many more articles on this topic, see my Radical Catholic Reactionaries vs. Catholic Traditionalism web page.

***

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

***

2020-01-31T13:09:44-04:00

Last updated on: January 31, 2020 at 1:09 pm   By

Bob Robinson is the Executive Director of Reintegrate: a nonprofit organization that equips God’s people to reintegrate the Christian faith with vocation so that they can participate in God’s mission on earth.  He’s an ordained pastor (ordained for Gospel Ministry by The Chapel Consortium Churches). In 1996, he earned a Master of Divinity degree with honors from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and in 2018, the Doctor of Ministry degree from Covenant Theological Seminary in “Faith, Vocation, and Culture,” studying under Dr. Donald Guthrie.

I am responding to his article in the Faith and Work Patheos channel, entitled, “Apologetics Beyond Reason” (1-29-20). His words will be in blue.

*****

Hi Pastor Bob,

First of all, let me preface this by saying that I looked over the ministry you are involved in, and I think it is a terrific thing. I have long pondered vocation, the relationship of work (as well as culture) and faith, living in community, making Jesus the Lord of all of life (I read lots of Francis Schaeffer back in the day), and related issues and matters. So I highly commend you, and in fact, it excites me to see what you are doing.

What I will disagree with below is not “life and death” but I think it is important enough to merit at least some attention. I’ve been passionately and continuously engaged in Christian apologetics since 1981, have been doing this work full-time since 2001 (I became a Catholic in 1990 after being an Arminian evangelical with many different influences), and have written books (see my Resume for details on that). So I have thought quite a bit about apologetics and what it entails and doesn’t entail, through the years (see that on my web page devoted to apologetics). And that is why I was particularly interested in your article that I happily discovered today, while looking for something else.

If you don’t mind, I’d like to offer some thoughts on a few things where I respectfully disagree with you. I love dialogues. I’m hoping you do, too.

In an increasingly postmodern culture, where there is skepticism of our capability to rely solely on “reason” to prove the truth of Christ, it seemed to me that we need to emphasize what I called an “Emmanuel Apologetic,” or a “God with us apologetic.”

Yes, I agree as a matter of more emphasis, while at the same time I don’t think that to do this means we have to somehow reject standard apologetics as it has always been throughout history: involving the relationship of faith and theology with reason and philosophy and science. I think it’s a “both/and” scenario, and not “either/or.” We can’t give up reason and objectivism because our culture has largely rejected both, anymore than we could give up geometry or science, if the society also rejected those. Some things we must stand for and defend, because they are good and true.

In the modern era, evangelical apologetics were of two types. Today we’ll look at the first type, . . . the Reason/Rationality sort—as in “Evidence that Demands a Verdict.” The word “apologetic” is from the Greek word apologia, translated either as “answer” or “defense” in English translations. As the English Standard Version renders 1 Peter 3:15, “Always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you.”

Unfortunately, modernism stripped apologia from its context here in Peter’s letter and made it mean “a rational defense based on logic for all things Christian.” The ESV tells us to give a “defense” since people will ask us for the “reason” for the hope that is within us. This inadvertently feeds into the modernist mindset that we must give reasoned arguments to prove the truth of Christianity. There is a whole genre of Christian books called “apologetics,” or “ready defense” books, written by philosophy of religion specialists who offer “reasonable arguments defending the faith.”

I think what you are critiquing is indeed the meaning of defense here, and the essence of apologetics (rational defense of the Christian faith). As you almost certainly already know (but as many readers may not know), apologia was derived from Plato’s Apology, and originally meant “elaborate defense or explanation” and this was the meaning in Plato’s work, in which the philosopher Socrates defended himself against false accusations (and apologia is applied to Christian defense in 1 Peter 3:15).

I would also add that the Apostle Paul argued and disputed endlessly with Jews and Greeks (as we learn from Acts); he didn’t simply preach or testify. This sort of disputation or dialogue, of course, had a long history in both Jewish and Greek cultures. Jesus argued with Pharisees, and engaged and challenged them. Paul defended his Christian views at great length at his trial. It’s all very biblical. I really don’t see how this is “modernist.” I would say it is thoroughly grounded in the Bible and historic Christianity in all of its major groups, save just a few who believe in fideism.

The Greek word dialegomai is the source of the English word “dialogue”. It is found in the following passages:

Acts 17:2 (RSV) And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures,

Acts 17:17 Therefore disputed he in the synagogue with the Jews, and with the devout persons, and in the market daily with them that met with him. [see also 17:18, 19:8-10]

Acts 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

Acts 18:19 . . . he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews.

Likewise, the New Testament word suzeteo means “argue”. It is found in the following passages:

Acts 9:29 And he spake boldly in the name of the Lord Jesus, and disputed against the Grecians: but they went about to slay him.

Mark 12:28 And one of the scribes came, and having heard them reasoning together, . . .

This statement was in reference to Jesus’ discussion with the Sadducees about resurrection (Mk 12:18-27). Thus, Jesus used the techniques of “argument,” “debate,” and “disputation,” just as St. Paul did, and on very many occasions as well, especially with the Pharisees. Lastly, all Christians are encouraged in Jude 3, to do so:

Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.

Even God Himself, in the context of commanding good works, heartfelt worship, and personal sanctification (Is 1:11-21), stated: “Come now, let us reason together” (1:18). Thus, these two elements are both important.

But there are those Christians that gobble up these books hoping to arm themselves with Christian rational arguments in order to counter the arguments that non-Christians may have against the faith. They want to be ready, in case they have to defend why they believe certain doctrines, like the resurrection, miracles, or even the existence of God.

Well, yes, seeing that 1 Peter 3:15 is a command to do this very thing, as is Jude 3. I have engaged in well over a hundred dialogues with atheists, and they bring up all these objections to Christianity from reason. And so I answer them from reason. Paul urged us to “become all things to all men.” So if someone is making rational objections to Christianity, we have to meet them where they are at. Atheism is the logical outcome of the radical and increasing secularism of our society. I meet them where they are at: and it is usually rationalism.

But look again at the context of 1 Peter 3:15. The “answer” or “defense” that one is told to be prepared to give is to those who ask us Christians why we live in such hope.

What this presupposes is that the Christian community is living in such a radical and conspicuous way in the midst of those who do not yet know Christ that these people are either genuinely wondering why we have such a hopeful lifestyle or they are suspicious that we are just play-acting it. Very often it will be the latter. 

It’s a good point, and I agree. I just don’t think “hope” here wipes out rational apologetics, or renders it secondary to what I would call “testimony.” We need both. The better witness we can bring, the more people will listen to our explanations and defenses. We gotta walk the walk as well as talk the talk. If we don’t, then our apologetics will be much less effective and persuasive. But Jesus already told us that we would be massively hated, too (just as He was), no matter how well we accomplish these tasks, by His grace.

Also, this “defense” is not so much a “reasoned argument” but an “account” (the Greek word here is logos, a “word,” or “a narrative description”) of why we have hope.

We are told here to tell our story.

We’re not told to provide a list of reasoned propositions, but to give an account. We are to tell our story of encounter with Christ, transformation in our faith, and why we are so radically living in such a different manner—spreading hope to those around us.

Fair enough, and another good point. But I see the two things as converging. For example, were I to give an account of my own life, I would tell how Christ saved me from misery and hopelessness, the occult, and the despair of depression (back in 1977), and I would give all the glory to God and state that I believe what He has communicated both in His revelation (explained in greater depth by Christian teachers) and to me personally in my own religious experiences. Most skeptics — in my long experience — will then ask, “but why do you believe in the Bible and Christian doctrines?” I can’t just say “because they are touchy-feely and warm fuzzy and make me feel great!” That is meaningless to them. They want to know why we believe in Christianity.

And that necessarily leads to rational arguments and standard apologetics. They’re not separate from each other. Our “account” won’t be accepted by most unless we back it up.  People today are like Doubting Thomas. And how did Jesus persuade him? He appeared after His resurrection and had him feel His wounds from crucifixion (i.e., empirical evidence that this was indeed Him: gloriously risen). Jesus provided that, even though He also noted, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe” (Jn 20:29). But nevertheless He did appear, to “prove Himself” to Thomas. And I think that is significant. Some folks have a greater need of hard-and-fast evidence than others. Jesus in effect said, “that’s okay.” It’s not ideal or the best, but it’s okay and He acts accordingly. I love that!

Then in the next verse, we are told, “Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;” and in Acts 1:3, Luke writes: “To them he presented himself alive after his passion by many proofs . . .” That’s not only “look at Me” or “here is my testimony” stuff — not just the testimony of the extraordinary personal traits and perfect holiness of Our Lord — ; it’s a species of rational (and even empirical) apologetics. The resurrection itself is of the same nature. Once the disciples saw the risen Jesus, with His wounds and a physical body, doing things like eating fish (as earthy as it gets!), then they could believe He conquered death, and go out and preach and transform the world.

While I believe that some people, if they have cognitive roadblocks to faith, may still need to have things explained to them in rational ways, 

Good. I just think more people need this than you think need it.

the main biblical apologetic has always been an Emmanuel Apologetic—an apologetic that displays God to people by living among people as a community of hope.

Again, with all due respect, I wouldn’t say that is the “main biblical apologetic.” I would say it is absolutely important and necessary, but is testimony that always should accompany apologetics, rather than apologetics itself or per se. When Jesus first sent out the disciples to preach, note what He told them:

Matthew 10:7-8 And preach as you go, saying, `The kingdom of heaven is at hand.’ [8] Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out demons.

He didn’t say that they should give their testimony and talk about how their new budding (or soon-to-be) Christian community is so joyful and enticing and hopeful (though they may have done that too, and it simply wasn’t mentioned). Rather, He stressed four miracles: all of which constituted empirical proofs or evidences that what they said was true. This is a form of apologetics in the sense that it was like Jesus’ resurrection: miracles that verified that the gospel was true, just as Jesus verified that He did indeed rise from the dead and was God incarnate, as He claimed to be.

Now it’s true that in Acts we also have these passages:

Acts 2:44-47 And all who believed were together and had all things in common; [45] and they sold their possessions and goods and distributed them to all, as any had need. [46] And day by day, attending the temple together and breaking bread in their homes, they partook of food with glad and generous hearts, [47] praising God and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to their number day by day those who were being saved.

Acts 4:32-35 Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common. [33] And with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. [34] There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold [35] and laid it at the apostles’ feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need.

I think you and I agree that these are examples of manifestations of “hope” that Christian communities ought to exhibit as the light of the world and salt of the earth: the city on a hill. But note how signs and wonders (empirical proofs) are in play, too, in both contexts. Acts 2 contained the miracle of tongues (2:4) on the Day of Pentecost (i.e., the variety which includes various actual languages) and prophecies and visions (2:17). Peter had just emphasized Jesus’ resurrection, in the first Christian sermon (2:31-32). Then Luke the narrator notes: “many wonders and signs were done through the apostles” (2:43).

The context of the Acts 4 passage is similar. Peter again proclaimed Jesus’ resurrection (4:2, 10) and appealed to the healing of a “cripple” (4:9-10, 14, 16, 21-22; referring back to the described healing in Acts 3:1-10), mentions “signs and wonders” (4:30), and then the sign of people being “filled with the Holy Spirit” again occurs (4:31).

What I am contending for, then, is, I submit, verified even in passages that you might bring to bear in defense of the “testimony” aspect of Christian witness and proclamation (and apologetics, as it were).

These are just some thoughts that came to mind. We don’t disagree all that much; mostly on emphasis and particular definitions. I’m not at all denying the importance or cruciality of your emphasis, nor — far as I can tell — are you doing that to mine. But we hold to different degrees of relative importance.

Thanks for reading and for the stimulation for me to express these thoughts that I never have in quite this fashion before.

***

Photo credit: Saint Peter Healing the Cripple, by Simone Cantarini (1612-1648) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

 

2020-01-29T14:50:36-04:00

Last updated on: January 29, 2020 at 2:50 pm   By

Essay 41 (my original manuscript, with some differences) from my book, Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical: From Priestly Celibacy to the Rosary: 80 Short Essays Explaining the Biblical Basis of Catholicism (July 2015)

*****

In Partu virginity is the belief that Jesus was born miraculously, without the usual physical travail of childbirth. Mary’s virginity was preserved in the biological sense: i.e., the hymen remained intact.

Virginity, as classically understood, is not simply the absence of sexual activity (how we use the term today). It also had a literal physiological component (intact hymen). That’s why, in order for the Blessed Virgin Mary to be a “perpetual virgin” in this sense, Jesus’ birth (like His conception) had to be supernatural rather than natural.

The whole thing is miraculous: conception; incarnation; in partu birth, though being in Mary’s womb for nine months obviously was “natural”. This is what the Catholic Church has taught.

A Catholic on another site described objections to this belief (in either agreement or perplexity over) and stated that it would render the placenta and umbilical cord irrelevant, making Mary’s pregnancy “appear as a fiction or myth or merely a play or a joke” and indeed, “comical.”

He thought the traditional Catholic view (which he thought entailed no implantation of the embryo in Mary’s uterus) was “rationally in-congruent and ridiculous.” He concluded that he wouldn’t be able to defend the Catholic dogma if someone asked him about it. The following was my (off-the-cuff) reply:

Why would you think you have to explain every objection to every miracle that is believed in Christianity? These factors are no more “ridiculous” than the virgin birth itself, if we are to rank levels of supposed “implausibility.”

This is a dogma. We believe in faith first; we don’t have to “solve every problem” before we believe. That’s not Christian faith, given by God’s grace, but man-centered rationalism.

There are always “difficulties” and “problems” in any large system of thought. That doesn’t prevent people from believing in the tenets of same. This includes physical science, where there are a host of things that remain unexplained (e.g., what caused the Big Bang; whether light is a particle or a wave, how life began, the complete lack of evidence for life anywhere else, etc.). People don’t disbelieve in the Big Bang because we can’t explain everything about it.

Likewise with Catholic dogma. If even science requires faith and axiomatic presuppositions, how much more, religious faith, which is not identical to philosophy or reason in the first place? God could, for example, have simply made the placenta and umbilical cord disappear when the time came to be born (it doesn’t mean they were never there or that there were no natural components). No biggie for Him: the One Who parted the Red Sea, created the universe, and performed a host of other miracles.

This is the same sort of inconsistent thinking and false premise that causes folks to reject the physical, substantial presence of our Lord Jesus in the Eucharist, and Doubting Thomas to disbelieve that Jesus had risen, or those who won’t believe unless they have some sign-miracle on demand.

All of this requires faith, and faith comes through grace accepted in free will. One can come up with any number of possible theories dealing with the placenta, etc., but I refuse to accept the premise that holds that we must do that in order to believe the dogma, and solving this “problem” is of little interest to me, even as an apologist. It’s pretty low on the list of priorities.

We’d all be in very rough shape if our personal “epistemology” required us to know every jot and tittle of everything before we could believe it. Most things we do or believe in life we don’t fully understand at all. One would have to argue that every miracle is “ridiculous” in this sense that is unable to be consistently sustained. God’s eternity and self-existence is absurd, creatio ex nihilo is, transubstantiation, Hypostatic Union, Resurrection; on and on it goes.

So why should a different, “super-standard” be applied to Christianity and particularly to Catholic dogma?

***

Related Reading:

*
*
*
*
Mary Was a Virgin During Jesus’ Birth (In Partu) [9-19-14; slight modifications and additions on 4-18-18]
*
*
*
*
Perpetual Virginity: Not “Intuitive” But Still True (see also the vigorous discussion with a deist in the combox underneath) [4-13-18]
*

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2600 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
*

***

2020-01-20T12:45:34-04:00

Last updated on: January 20, 2020 at 12:45 pm   By

[Chapter Six from my book, Biblical Catholic Eucharistic Theology (Feb. 2011) ]

*****

St. Paul wrote that those taking the bread and cup “in an unworthy manner” were “guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord” (1 Cor 11:27-30; cf. 1 Cor 10:14-22). Does he “need” the Aristotelian philosophy of substance and accidents to know this? No. He doesn’t even need Stoic or Epicurean or Platonic philosophy. He doesn’t need any philosophy at all. All he needs is Jewish realism, just as when he was converted, Jesus told him he was persecuting Him (Acts 9:3-6). Paul was persecuting the Church (Acts 8:3).

The Church is the Body of Christ, in this incarnational, sacramental, biblical way of thinking. It is Jewish realism and historicism taken to another spiritual level. John 6 and the Last Supper accounts, as well as Paul’s literalism above, make eucharistic realism quite easily ascertained, which is why no one of note denied the doctrine until the Protestant Zwingli in the 16th century. Even Luther left it untouched and damned to hell all those who denied it. The fathers unanimously took the literal view of the Eucharist.

Nothing in Paul’s discussion of the Eucharist goes against a straightforward literal interpretation. If I referred to “the body and blood of Dave Armstrong,” people would know exactly what that meant. If I complained that “my body aches today,” no one would take that merely symbolically or “spiritually” or “mystically.” If I mentioned that “I gave blood at the Red Cross” I dare say that not a single person would think I was only speaking allegorically. Yet when Jesus says, “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood” at the Last Supper, all of a sudden many people think it is a spiritual, non-physical, symbolic meaning only.

The Last Supper was an observance of the Jewish Passover. The sacrifice of the lamb (Jesus) — following Jewish ritual and ceremonial practices — was quite real. That wasn’t symbolic. Yet Jesus’ Body and Blood are reduced to mere symbols. Why should symbol be more impressive or “spiritual” than physical, concrete reality? I think the tendency to anti-sacramentalism in Protestantism is ultimately (by logical reduction) anti-incarnational and a derivative of the antipathy to matter of ancient heresies such as the Docetics and Gnostics.

In any event, one can believe in the literal, substantial Eucharist without a whit of philosophical knowledge, just as one can believe in the Trinity or the Incarnation without the slightest knowledge of the hypostatic union, homoousios, filioque, kenosis, etc. The puddle of Christianity (as the proverb goes) is shallow enough for a child to play in and deep enough for an elephant to drown in.

The central point isn’t the philosophical categories, but that Jesus is truly present, Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity. The Orthodox and the Lutherans are realists, too; they simply use different words and expressions. All agree that it is ultimately a great mystery. We merely try to explain or comprehend it in a bit more detail.

Orthodox object to our alleged “hyper-rationalism,” yet they get into quite technical detail also when they discuss the filioque, the Divine Energies, and theosis, or divinization. Excessive “rationalism,” then, is often in the eye of the beholder.

Does anyone wish to contend that the Holy Eucharist can’t be understood or believed at all without taking four philosophy courses: philosophy of language, epistemology, logic, and analytic philosophy? I deny it. I think many Protestant apologists are approaching this issue far too “academically” or “philosophically”.

The philosophy has been raised to too high a level once again, usurping the place of faith and common sense. And we Catholics stand by common sense. To wax somewhat “Chestertonian”: Common sense is far better than uncommon lack of sense.

Catholic sacramentalism and incarnational theology maintain that the symbol or sign is also a reality. The separation whereby all symbols are opposed to realism, is what we oppose. Jesus compared His Resurrection to the “sign of Jonah.” But it was literal. Augustine could speak of the Eucharist as both a sign and a physical reality. The two are not mutually exclusive.

We must not yield up such a fundamental doctrine and rite of Christianity to relativism and “diversity.” It’s clear enough what the Church believed through the centuries on this, without a necessity for Aristotelianism to be brought into the discussion.

If we were to observe Jesus as a fetus, would we be able to ascertain that He had come about in a way other than the usual natural meeting of sperm and egg? Could we prove that the burning bush was somehow to be equated with the Creator of the Universe? How would someone falsify the multiplication of the loaves and fishes?

How could someone prove that the atonement and redemption of all mankind is occurring by observing an itinerant preacher being put to death on a cross: just one of many thousands who endured the same horrible end at the hands of the Romans? How is that falsifiable? One can’t prove that the water used in baptism has power by taking it immediately off the head of a baby and analyzing it chemically.

Christianity is an empirical, concrete, practical religion. But it is not always. The foundational doctrines of Christianity cannot be proven empirically. How does one prove that Christ redeemed the world? How can the Holy Trinity itself be either proven or falsified, apart from revelation and faith? Such skepticism about the Eucharist would also exclude the atonement, the incarnation, the virgin birth, etc. (by placing them in the same “absurd” category — qua miracles — as transubstantiation). Yet some seem to deny that the Eucharist is a mystery at all.

***

Related Reading:

*
*
*
John Calvin’s Erroneous Mystical View of the Eucharist [4-9-04, 9-7-05, abridged and re-edited on 11-30-17]
*

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2600 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: [email protected]). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
*
***
Follow Us!
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Family
To Glenda, Selling Alligator Alcatraz Merch on Etsy
Vs. Geisler on Catholicism #2: “Apocrypha” 2: NT...
Then, Now, Always, Camp Mystic
“Be Angry but Do Not Sin”—How to Cope...
On paving paradise with gold, or even with...
Who will succeed the Dalai Lama? - The...
view all Family blogs