July 26, 2022

July 26, 2022 By

The full title of this book is God Loves the Autistic Mind: Prayer Guide for Those on the Spectrum and Those Who Love Us (Boston, Pauline Books & Media, 10 June 2022). See the publisher’s book page and Amazon page for more information and purchase.

In a press release for this book, it was noted that “more than 3.5 million people in the United States live with autism.” One of them is my oldest son, Paul (now 31): a very special, talented, and orthodox Catholic young man who has immeasurably blessed our family and his many friends, and 649 current subscribers to his YouTube channel: The Catholic Gaming Nerd. Thus, I have a special interest in this book, which is  an accessible, down-to-earth volume and top-notch resource.

Fr. Schneider writes from personal experience. He was diagnosed with autism after he became a priest, and has utilized the opportunities and resources of his priesthood and the Internet (and now a book) to reach out to and educate and encourage many with regard to autism.

One of the results of those endeavors is this marvelous book, which is an encouraging resource for autistics, who often feel lonely, alienated, and frustrated in living among those of us whom they charmingly term “neurotypicals.” It’s also a font of useful information for everyone, to better understand and appreciate our autistic brothers and sisters, who are not “abnormal”; just different.

As the subtitle indicates, it’s first and foremost a prayer guide for autistics (said to be the first of its kind). But Fr. Schneider also explains throughout the book what it’s like to be autistic in a non-autistic world: more often than not drawing from his own experience. Everyone can learn and benefit from his insights. I certainly have. I give it my very highest recommendation.

I’d like to now cite several excerpts, in order to provide readers with the “flavor” of the book. Appendix A (“What is Autism?”) is very helpful. Fr. Schneider explains that autistic persons experience ongoing difficulties in social interaction, including:

not reading social cues, difficulties in eye contact, awkwardness in reciprocal communication, difficulty maintaining relationships, or difficulty in speaking. (p. 192)

He mentions several times that not all autistics will have every trait. But most have many of them, allowing experts to make generalizations. Another widespread characteristic of autistics is repetitive and focused patterns, interests, and activities. He elaborates:

This criterion includes repetitive motor movements (stimming or flapping), insistence on sameness, very obsessive or limited interests, hypersensitivity or hyposensitivity . . . (p. 192)

Fr. Schneider then describes several other common traits:

Autistics have different sensory processing. . . . An autistic person who is over-stimulated will have a strong reaction such as a shutdown or meltdown. A meltdown may seem like a tantrum to some outside, but it is a non-voluntary response to being overwhelmed, . . . [later, on page 208, he compares these meltdowns to the overheating of a car]

Autistics think differently. . . .

Autistics move differently. . . .

Autistics communicate differently. . . .

Autistics socialize differently. (pp. 193-194)

On page 29, Fr. Schneider made a point about autistics that I was unaware of:

We tend to move from a bunch of specific points to a general principle rather than vice-versa, . . . If I want to imagine the scene or contemplate the Lord’s words, I want to know all the details.

On a related note, he states:

We need to help autistic young people with rational explanations of the faith or seek these out if we are autistics learning the faith. In this, it is important to use a lot of inductive reasoning, not just deductive. (p. 35)

I personally resonate with this, as a professional Catholic apologist, whose task is to rationally explain and defend the Catholic faith and larger Christianity. I’m delighted to hear that it seems that autistic persons would particularly benefit from apologetics. Fr. Schneider added:

If we understand the logical reasons for God’s existence and then logical reasons to worship him on Sunday, we can easily be steadfast. We just need to learn this logically. (p. 39)

In the first paragraph of his Introduction, Fr. Schneider, citing academic studies, explains another important — and troubling — fact about autistics and religion that I hadn’t heard before:

We feel more like an outsider in social groups, including in church. In fact, we are nearly twice as likely as anyone else (1.84 times) to never attend church, and not attending church is more likely for us than for persons with any other condition. Also, autistics are significantly more likely to be atheists and agnostics, or to make their own religious system. (p. 1)

On page 19, he wrote, similarly: “For many of us, Sunday Mass is going to be one of the more difficult things we do every week regarding social interaction and sensory issues.”

The heart of the book is the 52 meditations that take up 121 pages out of 211 total. Fr. Schneider explains on page 68 that each one consists of a story (often from his own life), a Bible passage, a reflection, and a short prayer. I would like to conclude my review by offering brief excerpts of two of these.

13. In God’s Eyes, Being Autistic Is Not Wrong

Story

My drive home from the psychologist after receiving an autism diagnosis was tough. . . . It seemed like a sentence to constantly be a failure as a priest. . . .

It took me a few months to come to terms with being autistic, but I think I did. I realize now that this is a gift God gave me. Sure, at times it is a cross, but every person has his crosses: I now know clearly what my own cross is.

Passage

For you formed my inward parts,
you knitted me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you, for I am wondrously made.
Wonderful are your works!
You know me right well (Ps 139:13-14).

Reflection

. . . Christianity is unique in recognizing how wonderful people are and what dignity they have no matter what their mental or physical condition. . . .

We might think that autism is only negative or only suffering, but we can often enjoy certain things more, and find happiness in things that others might not. . . . God wants our happiness as autistic people, even if that happiness is not the same as others’ happiness.

Prayer

Lord, who made me in your image and likeness, who formed me in my mother’s womb to be autistic, help me to accept this and find happiness in this. (pp. 95-97)

52. Missionaries to the Autistic World

Story

. . . Being autistic, I have a perspective from which, without even much effort, I can think of things that elude neurotypicals due to their different cognitive structures. . . .

I might also explain [i.e., to parents of autistic children] that there is no sin in stepping out of Mass for two minutes if a sensory break is needed, and that stim toys or weighted blankets are perfectly fine to use in prayer or even Mass. These seem so obvious to me, yet parents trying to help their autistic children for years never thought of them. This shows a certain role we autistics have in evangelizing our fellow autistics.

Passage

As many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus (Gal 3:27-28).

Reflection

. . . As autism is a different brain structure, it is always going to be a different culture, and in many ways the difference is deeper and more dramatic than most cultural differences. . . .

The evangelization of any culture starts from outside, but to be full and effective, it must involve the full understanding of those inside the culture. . . .

If we each take our mission seriously, we will help change the narrative of the stereotypical autistic being an atheist. Autistics tend to either be atheists or serious about a religion. We don’t get the social pressure to be semi-religious that happens to those who go to church a few times a year and kind of believe. We either believe or we don’t. Those finishing this book can hopefully help some autistics move from non-belief to belief.

Prayer

Jesus, you want to speak to me and my fellow autistics in a way proper for us to understand. Help me share with my fellow autistics this joy of knowing you. (pp. 187-189)

Surely, these wise reflections from Fr. Schneider will challenge those of us in the Catholic and larger Christian community, to make all efforts to make autistics feel more comfortable in church and in Christian environments and ways of thinking and believing. We owe this to them, in Christian charity, and we need to apply the practical and loving approach of St. Paul in his own life. He had “become all things to all men, that he might by all means save some” (1 Cor 9:22, RSV).

Autistics will greatly benefit from reading this book insofar as they will be encouraged with regard to God’s acceptance and love towards them, and learn autistic-oriented ways to pray and worship that can only give them aid and solace in their lives of Christian discipleship.

***

Photo credit: image from the Pauline Books & Media page for this volume.

***

Summary: Fr. Matthew P. Schneider’s book, God Loves the Autistic Mind, offers a very helpful guide for autistics in prayer, & much-needed assistance to us “neurotypicals.”

August 18, 2020

August 18, 2020 By

Bishop Athanasius Schneider:

Nobody can force us to receive the Body of Christ in a way that constitutes a risk of the loss of the fragments, and a decrease in reverence, as is the way of receiving Communion in the hand. . . .

In these cases, it is better to make a Spiritual Communion, which fills the soul with special graces. (2-28-20: published at Rorate Caeli, which opposed Pope Francis from his first day in office, relying on a Holocaust denier to do so)

Reactionary outfit Toronto Catholic Witness exhibits the same mentality (3-14-20):

There are Masses – albeit with mandated Communion in the hand – WHICH ONE MUST REFUSE EVEN IN THE TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS AND MAKE A SPIRITUAL COMMUNION INSTEAD . . . [bolding and caps in original]

I find this mentality very much along the lines — and in the spirit of — these two incidents with Jesus and the Pharisees:

Matthew 12:1-8 (RSV) At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat.
[2] But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath.”
[3] He said to them, “Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him:
[4] how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?
[5] Or have you not read in the law how on the sabbath the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless?
[6] I tell you, something greater than the temple is here.
[7] And if you had known what this means, `I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.
[8] For the Son of man is lord of the sabbath.”

Mark 7:1-9 Now when the Pharisees gathered together to him, with some of the scribes, who had come from Jerusalem,
[2] they saw that some of his disciples ate with hands defiled, that is, unwashed.
[3] (For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, do not eat unless they wash their hands, observing the tradition of the elders;
[4] and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they purify themselves; and there are many other traditions which they observe, the washing of cups and pots and vessels of bronze.)
[5] And the Pharisees and the scribes asked him, “Why do your disciples not live according to the tradition of the elders, but eat with hands defiled?”
[6] And he said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written, `This people honors me with their lips,
but their heart is far from me;
[7] in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’
[8] You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men.”
[9] And he said to them, “You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition!

This discussion is not about mere preference: which Holy Mother Church allows. I myself prefer to receive on the tongue, kneeling at an altar rail, and did so in our parish for literally 25 years.

And I have partaken of the cup exactly twice in my 30 years as a Catholic: once, when I was received into the Church (from Fr. Hardon), and in the past year once when the hosts ran out. I’m as traditional on this as almost all reactionaries, and certainly, traditionalists. But I don’t have to go around trumpeting how spiritually superior I supposedly am, and look down my nose at tens of millions of fellow Catholics.

Rather, the question is whether it is better to not receive Jesus at all, if receiving on the hand is required (as in the present extraordinary circumstances). That is what I have condemned as Donatist-like and pharisaical.

See the related papers:

Taylor Marshall: Better No Jesus at All Than By Hand [+ vigorous Facebook discussion] [3-14-20]

Can Communion in the Hand be Equally Reverent? [7-13-11]

Bible on Reverent Posture for Worship & Communion [1-23-13]

Further Thoughts on Communion in the Hand [6-20-13]

Clarification of My Nuanced Position on Hand-Communion [7-8-13]

Communion in the Hand: More Reflections & Opinions [7-8-13]

Holy Communion in the Hand (Norm till 500-900 AD) [9-3-15; some additions on 3-13-20]

Thoughts: Communion in the Hand & Reverence [9-4-15]

Communion in the Hand & Biblical Reverence & Piety [9-5-15]

St. Augustine’s Holy Communion (Standing, in the Hand) [10-4-15]

Communion in the Hand: Reactionaries vs. St. Cyril [3-15-20]

Communion Posture: Examples from the Book of Revelation [4-14-20]

***

(originally on Facebook on 3-14-20)

Photo credit: Pope Benedict XVI giving Holy Communion in the hand.

***

July 17, 2020

July 17, 2020 By

There are certain things I have constantly asserted with regard to radical Catholic reactionaries, in the 20+ years I have closely studied them and refuted their errors (including two books written about them, in 2002 and 2012). One of these is that their mentality or spirit of arbitrary “picking-and-choosing” what they will accept or reject of the Church’s teaching and authority is exactly like that of 1) theologically liberal / dissident / modernist Catholics (real or so-called) and 2) Protestants (particularly like Martin Luther).

Both the dissident and the Protestant, of course, reject the authority of ecumenical councils, or at least portions of the councils that they personally dislike (a false notion of private judgment and supposed “supremacy of conscience”). Likewise, radical Catholic reactionaries, whose target of loathing is, and has been for now 55 years, the Second Vatican Council. Here are a few of my past statements:

Obviously, then, according to reactionaries, the Church is in dire straits. As in the view of Martin Luther, the Church has descended into darkness, and brave prophets have now been raised to bring it back to life. Luther seemed to think of himself as some sort of prophet-figure, too. As reactionaries seem to follow his example in many other ways, why not this one, also? (2002)

Who determines what is “novel” anyway? The pope and the bishops, or reactionaries? How is reactionary dissent and selectivity of what they will follow different from what Luther maintained in 1517 and (especially) 1521? He wanted to stand there and say he knew better than the Church, and it was “self-evident,” etc. that the Church was wrong in this and that teaching. Reactionaries vainly think that they can determine what is a legitimate development, apart from the mind of the Church and the official pronouncements of the Magisterium? Curious . . . (2-27-02)

This is exactly what Luther did with Catholic tradition as a whole (admittedly to a much greater degree, but the principle of authority is very similar), when he defected and started up a new movement. I see little difference in principle at all. He claims that he was the “reformer”; bringing things back to the good old days; restoring the gospel that had supposedly been lost or at least deeply hidden, and getting rid of the crusty barnacles of mere traditions of men.

Reactionaries and some “traditionalists” think they are the bearers of the authentic tradition, and if popes and councils disagree with you, so much the worse for them; they’re wrong (just as Luther freely, breezily said that various councils were). That is Luther, through and through, . . . (2012)

In effect, they become their own popes: exercising private judgment in an unsavory fashion, much as (quite ironically) Catholic liberals do, and as Luther and Calvin did when they rebelled against the Church. They can’t live and let live. They must assume a condescending “superior-subordinate” orientation. (2012)

Key to Martin Luther’s initial dissent and eventual schism and heresy was his antipathy to ecumenical councils, and claim that they contradicted each other. Luther, early on, denied both papal and conciliar authority. He hadn’t yet done this in his 95 Theses of 1517. But he certainly by the time of the 18-day Leipzig Disputation of July 1519, with John Eck, where Luther was essentially pressed — a victim of his own faulty logic and ecclesiological understanding — into adopting something akin to sola Scriptura, and rejecting papal and conciliar infallibility.

Well-known Luther biographer Roland Bainton notes how Luther’s accusing the pope of committing serious errors in 1518 was “upping the ante” of the brewing theological controversy considerably:

[I]n the interim Luther had attacked not only the papal power to loose but also the power to bind through the ban. He had further declared the pope and councils to be capable of error. (Here I Stand, New York: Mentor, 1950, 78-79)

Bainton recounts the dramatic climax of the debate:

“Let me talk German,” demanded Luther. “I am being misunderstood by the people. I assert that a council has sometimes erred and may sometimes err. Nor has a council authority to establish new articles of faith. A council cannot make divine right out of that which by nature is not divine right. Councils have contradicted each other, for the recent Lateran Council has reversed the claim of the councils of Constance and Basel that a council is above a pope. A simple layman armed with Scripture is to be believed above a pope or a council without it. As for the pope’s decretal on indulgences I say that neither the Church nor the pope can establish articles of faith. These must come from Scripture. For the sake of Scripture we should reject pope and councils.”

“But this,” said Eck, “is the Bohemian virus, to attach more weight to one’s own interpretation of Scripture than to that of the popes and councils, the doctors and the universities. When Brother Luther says that this is the true meaning of the text, the pope and councils say, ‘No, the brother has not understood it correctly.’ Then I will take the council and let the brother go. Otherwise all the heresies will be renewed. They have all appealed to Scripture and have believed their interpretation to be correct, and have claimed that the popes and the councils were mistaken, as Luther now does. It is rancid to say that those gathered in a council, being men, are able to err. This is horrible, that the Reverend Father against the holy Council of Constance and the consensus of all Christians does not fear to call certain articles of Hus and Wyclif most Christian and evangelical. I tell you, Reverend Father, if you reject the Council of Constance, if you say a council, legitimately called, errs and has erred, be then to me as a Gentile and a publican.” (Ibid., 90)

And more generally, at the Diet of Worms in 1521, Luther famously stated:

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason (for I do not trust either in the pope or in councils alone, since it is well known that they have often erred and contradicted themselves), I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and will not recant anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience.

Luther was spewing historical falsehood here. The Councils of Constance and Basel (rightly understood as being ratified by popes, as councils always were) did not teach that councils were above popes. I wrote three lengthy articles documenting this beyond all doubt, in 2004:

Was Medieval Ecclesiology “Fallibilist Conciliarism”?

Conciliarism: “Orthodox” Option in Medieval Catholicism?

Council of Constance (1414-18): Triumph or Death of Conciliarism?

Now, lo and behold, now comes reactionary Bishop Athanasius Schneider, using the identical flawed arguments of Luther, in his push to discredit Vatican II (by analogy). He argued (in a statement dated 6-24-20) that the Council of Constance was contradicted by both popes and later councils:

With a Bull in 1425, Martin V approved the decrees of the Council of Constance and even the decree ‘Frequens’ — from the 39th session of the Council (in 1417). This decree affirmed the error of conciliarism, i.e., the error that a Council is superior to a Pope. However, in 1446, his successor, Pope Eugene IV, declared that he accepted the decrees of the Ecumenical Council of Constance, except those (of sessions 3 – 5 and 39) which ‘prejudice the rights and primacy of the Apostolic See’ (absque tamen praeiudicio iuris, dignitatis et praeeminentiae Sedis Apostolicae). Vatican I’s dogma on papal primacy then definitively rejected the conciliarist error of the Ecumenical Council of Constance.

It so happens that this historical inaccuracy has been corrected by Cardinal Walter Brandmüller, president from 1998 to 2009 of the Pontifical Committee for Historical Sciences:

The Council of Constance (1415-1418) put an end to the schism that had divided the Church for forty years. In that context, it has often been stated – and recently repeated – that this council, with the decrees ‘Haec sancta’ and ‘Frequens’, defined conciliarism, the superiority of the council over the pope.

But this is not true at all. The assembly that issued those decrees was by no means an ecumenical council authorized to define the doctrine of the faith. It was instead an assembly of none but the followers of John XXIII (Baldassarre Cossa), one of the three ‘popes’ who were contending at that time over the leadership of the Church. That assembly had no authority.

The schism lasted until the assembly of Constance was joined by the other two parties as well, meaning the followers of Gregory XII (Angelo Correr) and the ‘natio hispanica’ of Benedict XIII (Pedro Martinez de Luna), which happened in the autumn of 1417. Only from that moment on did the ‘council’ of Constance become a true ecumenical council, albeit still without the pope who was eventually elected.

So all the proceedings of that first ‘incomplete’ phase of the council and its documents did not have the slightest canonical value, although they were effective at the political level in those circumstances. After the end of the council the new and only legitimate pope, Martin V, confirmed the documents issued by the ‘incomplete’ pre-conciliar assembly, except for ‘Haec sancta’, ‘Frequens’, and ‘Quilibet tyrannus’.

‘Frequens’, valid because it had been issued by the three former factions in concert, did not require confirmation. But it does not teach conciliarism at all, nor is it a doctrinal document, but simply regulates the frequency of the convening of councils.

Cardinal Walter Brandmüller also corrected a second falsehood that Bp. Schneider stated as regards the Council of Florence (1439-1445).

If Bishops Schneider and Vigano (who is calling for completely rejecting Vatican II) are arguing precisely as Luther did in the 16th century, and making this a centerpiece of their wrongheaded, scandalous, outrageous rebellion, does that bode well for its future? Does it suggest that their thinking is thoroughly Catholic, or that it already has at least the spirit of schism and heresy in it, or elements of same? Is this not a stark red flag and warning signal?

***

Photo credit: Leipzig Disputation between Martin Luther and John Eck (1519), painting (c. 1866) by Julius Hübner (1806-1882) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

November 25, 2019

November 25, 2019 By

On 11-22-19, I posted my article, Bishops Viganò & Schneider Reject Authority of Vatican II (And Abp. Viganò Appears to Have Lost His Mind; Denies Indefectibility, Spews Ridiculous Tin Foil Hat Conspiracies).  Renowned Professor of moral theology, Janet E. Smith (whose work — especially regarding Humanae Vitae — I have greatly admired for years), cross-linked it on her public Facebook page, with her original caption: “What some people think.” The usual “feeding frenzy” (personal attacks from others) ensued, and then I attempted dialogue with her and (briefly) with one other person. Her words will be in blue; those of James Russell in green.

*****

First, the purely personal attacks that commenced (just a few examples of some of the worst):

Brian Williams: D. Armstrong fell into the category of irrelevancy years ago. Much like Shea and other professional Patheos “writers”.

Matthew Francis: It is really fools like these: Armstrong, Eden, Shea, Ivereigh along with those clerics supporting a Church of Nice that excludes Christ and his teachings who are creating a de facto schism through their progressive Church.

Matthew Francis [to Mark Wilson]: I think DA is disingenuous and uncharitable in his critique. Vigano and Schneider have criticized the ambiguity in the documents when have led to the issues of today. 

I commented about this on my Facebook page:

She knows better than this. And now she is sitting there allowing bald-faced lies to spread about me that she knows [i.e., that I’m some flaming liberal] are not true.

Technically, she just posted my paper, and allowed the insults and ad hominem against me and others to fly on her page. But to me that is almost as bad. If one sits by and lets known lies be lobbed, then how is that much better than simply lying by yourself?

Then I started to interact with Janet herself:

What is it you think about all this, Janet? You must know that I’m no flaming liberal: I’m as orthodox as I can be (as much as you, I dare say). So why do you allow all this hogwash here, making out that I am, because I defend Vatican II?

Defending VII is one thing; attacking very good men with false charges is another. That article is intemperate, to say the least.

For instance you say Bishop Schneider rejected the authority of VII. He did no such thing – he spoke of confusion and ambiguity.

But the language you use and the insults you hurl! Yours is no measured critique of men who deserve our respect. Their critique of some of what the Pope has said and done is measured. Why are you going in the direction of an unhinged screed rather than a judicious analysis?

Isn’t it amazing how anything and everything is permitted in talking about the pope. None of that is ever “intemperate”: but let someone dare critique all the rotgut and we are “intemperate” and “attacking” persons, etc. I stand by every word of this post of mine. It wasn’t written in a rage; I was calm as a cucumber, as I am 99.9% of the time.

The point of my article was that opposition to Pope Francis goes much deeper than just any issues that are said to be about him: to a reactionary attitude that is against or too critical of Vatican II and the ordinary form Mass, and ecumenism.

I contend that Abp. Vigano has “dissed” Vatican II (I don’t think anyone here has even denied that; only denied that Bp. Schneider did), and that he has gone off the deep end with goofy conspiracy theories now, a la Taylor Marshall and Henry Sire. It’s now fashionable to make Vatican II the boogeyman for every problem in the Church. That’s what is chic and fashionable and oh-so-trendy.

I was defending Pope St. John Paul II 20 years ago (I was online back then, too). Then I defended Pope Benedict XVI against folks like Bob Sungenis and (later) Michael Voris. Now I defend Pope Francis when I think he is subject to bum raps and outright calumny. I haven’t changed one whit. Many of the people who go after the present pope also don’t like Vatican II and the ordinary form Mass, or ecumenism. And (in many cases) they didn’t like those things long before Francis became pope. I’m not just speculating. I’ve documented it several times now. It will only get worse. I’m trying to sound the warning.

There is a world of difference between what and how you write in opposition to the critics of the Holy Father, e.g., Burke, Vigano and Schneider and how you speak of and to them — tinfoil hats, rot gut, clowns, spewing out garbage. If you can’t see that, you are far gone. Calm or not.

You guys write your jeremiads against Pope Francis, that I think are wrong and wrongheaded and expressly against biblical injunctions of how to treat rulers (and I can back it up: having written 144 in-depth defenses of Pope Francis to date), and I write mine against his critics (including bishops), whom I think are wrong and wrongheaded (including now advocating various wacko conspiracy theories). Goose and gander.

The rightness of a jeremiad depends on whether what it is criticizing is actually worthy of criticism. There is nothing wrong with the literary form itself: provided it is necessary and appropriate in a given situation. Jesus and Paul did it; so did prophets in the Old Testament (including mockery and satire). If a bishop trashes a pope unfairly, he is certainly worthy of being the target of a hard-hitting jeremiad. And that’s what I did.

Do we need a refresher course in the history of how Dante placed many bishops and priests in hell, and how Cardinal Newman talked about the bishops during the Arian crisis or Belloc’s treatment of the cowardice of the English bishops during the so-called English “Reformation”?

Karl Keating stated on his Facebook page that all of the bishops should resign. Is that “intemperate”? Was that “far gone”? I say that it’s ridiculous. I criticized (yes, very strongly, because they deserve it) two inveterate critics of Pope Francis. They are entitled to be scrutinized, just as they would say the pope is. You (meaning everyone here) can attack me in this thread all you like. It doesn’t faze me in the slightest. So far it is three main accusations:

1) I’m a modernist (a demonstrable and damnable lie).

2) My rhetoric was over the top (at least arguable, unlike #1; I strongly deny it, for reasons expressed here).

3) Bp. Schneider in fact did not diss Vatican II.

No one says a word about the ridiculous conspiracy theories that Abp. Vigano is now setting forth. Perhaps it’s embarrassment, since he has been so lionized. Perhaps it’s a case of the emperor with no clothes. So I point it out, and all the ire gets directed towards me. But not one person has tackled that issue in this thread. Am I to believe, then, that y’all believe all of the ludicrous nonsense that he wrote about, that I cited in my paper?

And you want to complain about my tone? Do you really want me to go and pull out 200 statements of extreme trashing and bashing that have been made about this pope? I could put together quite a collection from your words alone, Janet. [this portion was later alluded to in a revised introduction to Janet’s OP: “Dave Armstrong makes the charge in the comments below that he could put together “quite a collection of quotations by me that would qualify as “extreme trashing and bashing” of the Holy Father”: but my intended meaning was distorted, as I clarify below]

***

I will only respond to Janet Smith from now on, due to my immense respect for her work (minus her views on the pope for some time now).

I appreciate your expression of respect. I too have respected your work but this article, as I have stated, is beyond the pale. It is a rant, not an interpretation or response to critics. Your limitation of responding only to me, however, is not in the spirit of my FB threads. I enjoy seeing what others say and in the responses: it often saves me a lot of time and I learn from it. So if you won’t engage others here, I am bowing out as well.

It’s a jeremiad, as explained (which Merriam-Webster defines as “a prolonged lamentation or complaint”). So the issue is whether it is deserved or not. There were several indefensible pure personal attacks. Here are two examples p[see above]

You may think that is “dialogue.” I do not; sorry. You allowed those comments to pass without comment. Did you “enjoy” or “learn” from those? I was happy to dialogue with you, but it takes two. I do thank you, in any event, for allowing me to fully express myself without censorship, and wish you all of God’s blessings always.

Oddly, I looked for the part in your piece where Vigano and Schneider explicitly reject the authority of Vatican II–I did not find any such explicit rejection. I expected such a serious charge to be supported by incontrovertible evidence, but it wasn’t….did I miss something?

Yes you did. Read it again. It’ll come to ya. It may take a few times. Just imagine them saying this about any portion of Trent or Vatican I.

[T]he topic here is schism–you are publicly accusing Churchmen of schism, when their right to a good reputation in this regard is just as sacrosanct as the Holy Father’s.

Which is why you should have more than “interpretation”–you should have direct and incontrovertible objective proof–before claiming successors of the Apostles are in schism…

I have accused no one of canonical schism. I specifically call these positions “radical Catholic reactionary”: a term that I myself coined (as you may know). Reactionaries routinely attack four things:

1) Popes (since Ven. Pope Pius XII).

2) Vatican II.

3) The ordinary form / Pauline Mass.

4) Ecumenism.

To my knowledge, I have never said anyone was in “schism” for saying these things (contemptible though they are). At most, I will say “quasi-schismatic attitude” and suchlike, because it could lead to that. I say it about sedevacantists and (kinda sorta) about SSPX, but never about reactionaries. In this paper, I alluded to “schism” twice:

1) “The big danger now is schism, not syncretism.” [i.e., potentially, in the future] The pope is often accused of potentially causing this, but let no one dare to suggest that his accusers might be the ones to do so.

2) “quasi-schismatic buffoonery”.

The double standards in this whole debate are wider than the Grand Canyon (which I just visited again in October).

Okay–glad you are making this distinction. But it raises a fundamental question–so a bishop can reject the authority of an ecumenical council (which is what you claim is happening here in your post), but by that fact not be in schism?

I said I’m done. Not gonna keep going round and round. Janet said she’s done, so I am too. I was willing to have an extended dialogue with her. She said no. I’m supposed to wrangle with everyone here . . .

I always have made this distinction. For you to think I did not shows me that you understand little about my writings concerning reactionaries (and I thought you did). It’s tough when one’s heroes are criticized, but someone’s gotta do it once in a while. Be well.

There’s severe irony in your last sentence, my friend–as it applies not only to Vigano and Schneieder, but to Pope Francis as well…I wish you weren’t quite done, as thoughtful readers might benefit from hearing a response to the question I posed. But it’s FB and it’s late. You’re a good and faithful man and I’m glad we’re brothers in Christ. Thanks again for the conversation.

Thanks for your cordiality and kind words. I appreciate it. He’s not my hero, he’s my pope. My hero is St. John Henry Cardinal Newman: and he has been since 1990.

*****

I have written no Jeremiads against the Pope. The views on this thread are diverse and should not be lumped together. I don’t think you need to interact with everyone — I certainly don’t but I also don’t exclude people from the conversation. Those who object to Jeremiads should not engage in them. They should raise the tone, not lower it.

It’s simply common sense to interact with one person (the one who runs the site, and in this case, a renowned professor, whom I respect), as opposed to trying to argue with literally ten or more people at once.

This is my standard policy, even if there weren’t the usual personal attacks that you decided were perfectly fit to appear and remain in this combox. The ten-against-one scenario is a thing I have objected to as long ago as 2003, when I quit Internet forums, for this and many other reasons.

So to insist that I must interact with other people, or else you’re not interested in dialogue, is, I confess, a stance that is utterly incomprehensible to me. I haven’t lumped everyone together, and in fact, I said I would interact with Fr. Stephen, and also did (albeit briefly) with James Russell.

As usual, possible constructive (and cordial) discussion was over before it even began. And this is part and parcel of what is wrong with Internet discussion. Only the devil wins when all these polarized factions that we have in the Church today refuse to even talk to each other.

There is no way I can comment on all the comments on my thread. You know that. And as you know I haven’t censored you in any way.

You can condemn and/or censure / delete ones that are unworthy of a Christian venue. But very few do, and this is why Internet discourse of such a poor quality overall. The insulters will always bring the quality of the overall discussion down.

[to someone else] The whole article [mine] is unsubstantiated and the substantiation given doesn’t exist.

I don’t think you could find any quotations by me that would qualify as “extreme trashing and bashing” let alone “quite a collection.” That is quite an accusation amounting to defamation. Such remarks may be in articles I post but as those who follow me know I post articles that I agree with and those I don’t — such as yours. No one can be held to agree with all that is said in every article posted.

Technically, I didn’t accuse you of “extreme trashing and bashing.” I was writing generally about all the anti-Francis bashing, and then simply added that I could also collect what you yourself have said, if we are to engage in the issue of comparative “tone”. I wrote:

And you want to complain about my tone? Do you really want me to go and pull out 200 statements of extreme trashing and bashing that have been made about this pope? I could put together quite a collection from your words alone, Janet.

***

It’s also fascinating that you posted tweets from Dr. Dawn Eden Goldstein here and then when she came to defend herself and interact, you blocked her from your page. You haven’t even done that with me. Why block her but allow me to post here? What did she do that caused her to be blocked?

***

Samuel A Schmitt: I’m confused – every heretic is now a schismatic because by their heresy they have rejected the authority of the pope, and every schismatic is a heretic because rejecting the authority of the pope is a heresy. Which one is it?

Hahaha. We are all schismatics now!

As explained to James Russell elsewhere in this thread, I have classified none of the people I have criticized in this instance as schismatics, and call them “Catholics” (as well as bishops and archbishops). I also have accused no one of heresy.

But has the pope been accused of heresy by your heroes (or yourself)? So you and Samuel have a good chuckle and falsely insinuate that I (being the subject of this thread) and/or others who are of my opinion are unjustly or ludicrously slinging around the terms “heretic” and “schismatic” when in fact it is your party which has done so, and with regard to the Holy Father.

The double standard and blindness here is literally breathtaking.

***

For further discussion and documentation of Dr. Janet Smith’s seeming recent “drifting” to a traditionalist or (more likely) reactionary position, see my cross-posted Facebook thread.

***

Unfortunately, Money Trees Do Not Exist: If you have been aided in any way by my work, or think it is valuable and worthwhile, please strongly consider financially supporting it (even $10 / month — a mere 33 cents a day — would be very helpful). I have been a full-time Catholic apologist since Dec. 2001, and have been writing Christian apologetics since 1981 (see my Resume). My work has been proven (by God’s grace alone) to be fruitful, in terms of changing lives (see the tangible evidences from unsolicited “testimonies”). I have to pay my bills like all of you: and have a (homeschooling) wife and three children still at home to provide for, and a mortgage to pay.
*
My book royalties from three bestsellers in the field (published in 2003-2007) have been decreasing, as has my overall income, making it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.  I provide over 2600 free articles here, for the purpose of your edification and education, and have written 50 books. It’ll literally be a struggle to survive financially until Dec. 2020, when both my wife and I will be receiving Social Security. If you cannot contribute, I ask for your prayers (and “likes” and links and shares). Thanks!
*
See my information on how to donate (including 100% tax-deductible donations). It’s very simple to contribute to my apostolate via PayPal, if a tax deduction is not needed (my “business name” there is called “Catholic Used Book Service,” from my old bookselling days 17 or so years ago, but send to my email: apologistdave@gmail.com). Another easy way to send and receive money (with a bank account or a mobile phone) is through Zelle. Again, just send to my e-mail address. May God abundantly bless you.
***
***
November 22, 2019

November 22, 2019 By

Abp. Viganò is supposedly the “point man” over against Pope Francis? No thank you. I was willing to hear him out, but now it is manifest that he is yet another hysterical radical Catholic reactionary and conspiracy theorist, who comes very close to denying the indefectibility of the Church: just as we have come to expect from many of the Holy Father’s critics. The big danger now is schism, not syncretism. We have bishops like Viganò and Schneider disseminating ideas like those found in absurd anti-Catholic Jack Chick tracts.

The papal (and Church) critics from within are getting more and more extreme, and are clearly imploding (slowly but surely). This will cause conscientious Catholics who might have been inclined to dislike or diss the pope, to think twice about the sort of men they prefer (to the extent that they submit to anyone) to the Holy Father and the true Mind of Holy Mother Church. I’ve been consistently warning Catholics about this for about five years now.

Sensible, rational Catholics will start to see, I think, how the factions are lining up, and they will have to be for the Church (not just the pope) or against her (and him). In a large sense that’s good. It clarifies things and exhibits a stark contrast which will make it easier for the observant, devout, committed Catholic to see nonsense, hysteria, and quasi-schismatic folly for what it is.

Joshua 24:15 (RSV) [A]s for me and my house, we will serve the LORD. (

Here are some remarkable excerpts from Abp. Viganò’s “Letter #62”: “Set out into the deep”):

The building of the House of the Abramitic Family seems to be a Babelic enterprise, concocted by the enemies of God, of the Catholic Church and of the only true religion capable of saving man and the whole creation from destruction, both now and in eternity, and definitively. The foundations of this “House,” destined to give way and collapse, arise where, by the hands of the builders themselves, the One Cornerstone is about to be incredibly removed: Jesus Christ, Savior and Lord, on whom is built the House of God. “Therefore,” warns the Apostle Paul, “let everyone be careful how he builds. Indeed, no one can lay a foundation other than the one already found there, which is Jesus Christ” (1 Cor 3:10).

In the garden of Abu Dhabi the temple of the world syncretistic Neo-Religion is about to rise with its anti-Christian dogmas. Not even the most hopeful of the Freemasons would have imagined so much!

Pope Bergoglio thus proceeds to further implement the apostasy of Abu Dhabi, the fruit of pantheistic and agnostic neo-modernism that tyrannizes the Roman Church, germinated by the [Vatican II] conciliar document Nostra Aetate. We are compelled to recognize it: the poisoned fruits of the “Conciliar springtime” are before the eyes of anyone who does not allow himself to be blinded by the dominant Lie.

Pius XI had alerted and warned us. But the teachings that preceded Vatican II have been thrown to the winds, as intolerant and obsolete. The comparison between the pre-conciliar Magisterium and the new teachings of Nostra aetate and Dignitatis humanae — to mention only those — manifest a terrible discontinuity, which must be acknowledged and which must be amended as soon as possible. Adjuvante Deo (“with God’s help”). (my colored bolding and italics)

Meanwhile, just thirteen days ago, it was announced that Bishop Athanasius Schneider: one of the pope’s most prominent critics, has rejected (at least in part: but this is very typical of the conciliar critics) the supreme authority of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council (convened and ratified by two saint-popes, and enthusiastically endorsed by Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI and Pope Francis) as well.

This comes as no surprise to me at all. As I have been arguing for many years now, those with the reactionary mindset habitually bash popes, Vatican II, the ordinary form Mass, and usually also legitimate ecumenism. And so it has come to pass with Bp. Schneider, with regard to at least three of these four things. Sometimes there are nuances and degrees and “saving qualifications,” especially as a person first moves into reactionary thinking, but the movement in the same direction is almost inevitable once the trend begins.

I was recently asked in person by a friend at a group discussion at my house, if I thought Cdl. Burke and Bp. Schneider were reactionaries. I said I would have to see what they thought about Vatican II and the Pauline Mass. I already knew they were habitual pope-bashers. And then, lo and behold, there I was a mere two days later, having discovered this article in the notoriously reactionary and extreme Lifesite News: “Bishop Schneider: Pachamama idolatry during Amazon Synod has its roots in Vatican II Council” (11-8-19). No one could make these things up. This is now fashionable and chic among the reactionary crowd, and many traditionalists as well: to bash an ecumenical council.

The good bishop, states (all quotes from the article now):

Here, Bishop Schneider refers to the Council’s claim that “we adore, together with the Muslims, the one God.”

In the Council’s Dogmatic Constitution Lumen Gentium (16), the Council Fathers state: “But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.”

Bishop Schneider also refers to the attendant idea that “man is the center and the culmination of all that is on earth.”

Furthermore, Bishop Schneider also refers to the Council’s teaching on the “freedom of religion,” the “natural right” implanted in human nature by God to choose one’s own religion. While it is true, he adds, that one should not be “forced,” this new teaching also means that one “has the liberty to choose a religion.”

Here, Schneider points to the contradictions in the conciliar texts. At one place, in its document Dignitatis Humanae, the Council teaches “every person has the obligation to seek the truth, and this is the Catholic Church,” Schneider says, “but then further down it says that you have freedom of religion rooted in your nature.” This teaching is “not clear,” it is “ambiguous,” as the prelate explains, and the consequences after the Council were “that almost all Catholic seminaries and theological faculties, and the episcopate and even the Holy See” promoted “a right of every person to choose his own religion.” . . .

“This is already rooted here [in the Vatican Council],” Bishop Schneider states. “If you have a right by God given to you, by nature, also to be able to choose acts of idolatry – like the Pachamama – when it is rooted in your dignity of man even to choose a Pachamama religion: this is the last consequence of this expression of the Council text,” he explains. The expression of the text was “ambiguous” and needed to be “formulated in a different way” to “avoid these applications in the life of the Church, which we also had in the Assisi meeting of Pope John Paul II in 1986 and the other meetings, where even idolatrous religions were invited to pray in their own manner – that is to say in their idolatrous manner – for peace.” . . .

He says that what we have now in Rome, the “formal performance of idolatrous acts in the Catholic Church, in the heart of the Catholic Church of St. Peter, is the triumph of the evil.” (my colored bolding and italics)

Bishop Schneider showed some signs of this negative direction in an interview dated 7-21-17 at the reactionary site Rorate Caeli:

Some of the new statements of Vatican II (e.g. collegiality, religious liberty, ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue, the attitude towards the world) have not a definitive character, and being apparently or truly non-concordant with the traditional and constant statements of the Magisterium, they must be complemented by more exact explications and by more precise supplements of a doctrinal character. A blind application of the principle of the “hermeneutics of continuity” does not help either, since thereby are created forced interpretations, which are not convincing and which are not helpful to arrive at a clearer understanding of the immutable truths of the Catholic faith and of its concrete application.

***

See also further Facebook discussions on Abp. Viganò and Bp. Schneider.

***

Related Reading:

*
*
*
Dialogue on Vatican II: Its Relative Worth, Interpretation, and Application (with Patti Sheffield vs. Traditionalist David Palm) [9-15-13]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Series: Vs. Paolo Pasqualucci Re Vatican II
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
***
*
Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 3,900+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!*
*
***

(slightly revised on 11-25-19)

Photo credit: Ipankonin (1-25-08). Reverse of the Great Seal of the United States. [Wikimedia Commons / Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported,  2.5 Generic, 2.0 Generic and 1.0 Generic licenses]

***

November 14, 2023

November 14, 2023 By
0 Comments

On November 11, Bishop Joseph Strickland of the Diocese of Tyler, Texas was relieved of his position by Pope Francis. It was a long time coming. Mike Lewis, in his article, “On Strickland’s Removal” (Where Peter Is, 11-11-23) summed up the many reasons why, and I will in turn summarize them as briefly as I can. Bp. Strickland’s own words will be in blue.

On July 8, 2022, Strickland shared a link to a video entitled “Pope Francis, Nancy Pelosi & the Tyrannical Culture of Death.” The video (dated 7-3-22) was produced by the reactionary publication The Remnant, and consists of editor Michael Matt bashing Pope Francis. Bp. Strickland described the video as “A sad commentary on the Church and state in our time.” Brian Killian, in an article about this on the same day, cited some of the material in the video:

  • “Rome and Pope Francis have lost teaching authority.”
  • “I have no temptation to leave my Church for the same reason that Francis is always attacking it, because it’s the true Church and a diabolically disoriented clown like Francis knows that it is it’s his job to destroy this Church because he has to get rid of true religion.”
  • “Francis isn’t even pretending to be a moral authority on anything other than climate change and equity.”
  • “This pope is preaching an entirely new gospel, and under his guidance the Catholic Church, which used to be consider the light on the hill…the Catholic Church cannot now be trusted.”
  • “Francis is in opposition to 2000 years of Church teaching.”
  • Christian teaching “is all being gradually undermined by the Francis experiment, which of course is just a continuation of the experiment of the Second Vatican Council”

Quite possibly in reaction against Killian’s article, Bp. Strickland tweeted the next day: “My intention with this was not to disparage Pope Francis but to acknowledge how devastating this commentary is.” But he neither removed nor apologized for the original Tweet, or expressed any disagreement with it. In fact, on July 12, 2022, Bp. Strickland appeared on Virgin Most Powerful Internet Radio and defended the video:

[he decided to post a link to the video on his Twitter page because] as a bishop, as a shepherd, I promised to guard the deposit of faith. And I have an obligation to do that. And the deposit of faith is under attack  . . . this speaks truth, and it needs to be addressed. . . . The most loving, respectful, and obedient thing I can do for Pope Francis, for all the cardinals of the Roman Curia, for every bishop, every priest is to proclaim the truth of Jesus Christ. . . . I didn’t see anything [in the video] that wasn’t true.

Mike Lewis accurately predicted over a year ago (July 13, 2022): “A fix for this disharmony between bishop and pope in the near future does not appear likely. So the only question is when, and if, Francis will relieve him of his duties.”

Bp. Strickland has, as Killian noted, “publicly and repeatedly praised and supported” [tweet now removed] the controversial suspended priest, Fr. James Altman. . . . He has shared videos featuring Altman that have scandalized members of the faithful with racist content, foul language . . .” I followed the link that Killian provided, on Internet Archive. The latter, in a scan dated March 25, 2022, shows what was removed from Bp. Strickland’s Twitter page (originally dated 5-24-21):

Fr James Altman is in trouble for speaking the truth. I originally supported him when he spoke bold truth during the election. I continue to support him for speaking the truth in Jesus Christ. He inspires many to keep the faith during these dark days. Let us pray for him. 

This was retweeted 921 times and had 4,166 likes and 373 comments, as of the date of the scan I found. Killian observed that Bp. Strickland had “repeatedly and regularly promoted conspiracy theories, . . . misinformation, dissent from the Magisterium, and opposition to Pope Francis and his teachings.”

On May 12, 2023, Bp. Strickland tweeted: “I believe Pope Francis is the Pope but it is time for me to say that I reject his program of undermining the Deposit of Faith. Follow Jesus.” As of this writing, this blasphemous, slandering, scandalous tweet had garnered 324,000 views, 439 comments, 621 retweets, and 2,600 likes. Mike Lewis commented on this the next day:

With this tweet, Bishop Strickland appears to have finally crossed the line into direct and explicit opposition to Pope Francis and his teaching authority. In the past, Strickland has hinted that he holds such opinions about the pope, but typically stopped short of stating them explicitly. . . . He also signed an open letter [dated 9-16-22] last year accusing Pope Francis of teaching heresy in the apostolic letter Desiderio Desideravi.

Mike Lewis wrote in his article dated 11-11-23:

Since June, Bishop Strickland’s rhetoric and actions have only become more extreme. Just a few days ago, LifeSiteNews released the full transcript of a speech Strickland delivered in Rome on October 31. In his speech, Strickland read aloud a letter from a “dear friend” that espoused explicitly sedevacantist ideas and alluded to passages in scripture suggesting that Pope Francis is the Antichrist.

Lewis provided more details about this letter in an article dated 11-8-23:

He then described his friend as “a deep, deep believer, a lover of our Lord Jesus Christ, a true disciple, a lover of the Church, a lover of the Petrine office in every aspect of our Catholic faith.” And he said that he received this letter as “a deeply challenging message to me,” adding, “it’s not just to me, it’s to all of us. It says some strong things. But I want to assure you that this friend has a deep love for Christ and His Church, for Pope Francis.”

Parts of this letter were posted on LifeSite a week ago, including its opening sentences:

Francis is an expert at producing cowards by preaching dialogue and openness in a welcoming spirit and by highlighting always his own authority. He makes it seem that one who opposes him and what he proposes is an enemy of the Church. And yet it is not the blood of the cowards that is the seed of the Church. It is the blood of the martyrs. . . .

As inflammatory and insulting as those comments are, the November 1 article left out the most controversial sections of the letter read by the bishop, including statements that openly reject the legitimacy of Pope Francis’s pontificate, such as (emphasis added), “Would you now allow this one who has pushed aside the true Pope and has attempted to sit on a chair that is not his define what the Church is to be. ‘As for the beast, it was and is not. It is an eighth but it belongs to the seventh, and it goes to destruction.’”

This statement — essentially a declaration of sedevacantism — caused Strickland to pause and interject, “You’re probably smarter than I am. I’m not sure what that last part is talking about, and I didn’t have the chance to ask.” The last sentence was a quote from scripture — Revelation 17:11 — a passage historically interpreted by anti-Catholic Protestants as a reference to the pope as a false ruler on the road to perdition. This argument has more recently been adopted by schism-minded Catholics as a reference to Pope Francis.

Nevertheless, Strickland continued to read the letter, which next suggested that Francis is an “usurper” who supports abortion and does not believe repentance is necessary for salvation (emphasis added):

Christ has proclaimed the sanctity of life. It cannot be otherwise than sanctified, because He has created it, and He has died for it. And yet this usurper of Peter’s chair has counted life as nought, for he has endangered souls by proclaiming that they are justified before God as they are, with no need of repentance. And he has welcomed those who glorify abortion and has offered to correct no correction, thereby counting the lives of all those babies who have perished in this manner as nothing.

The letter concludes with what its author (and the bishop) likely see as a courageous battle cry:

Play nicely? While the devil leads souls to hell? Play nicely? While Francis proclaims the devil’s voice to be the voice of the Holy Spirit? The streets of Rome are now littered with cowards. Where is the one who will say with Ignatius of Antioch, ‘Now I begin to be a disciple. Let fire and Cross, flocks of beasts, broken bones, dismemberment, come upon me. So long as I attain to Jesus Christ.’ . . .

After reading the letter, Bishop Strickland commented, “As I said, those are challenging words.” He also said, “Hopefully you’ll agree that that letter from a friend that I just shared reminds us, this part of our walk—for every one of us here, men and women, clergy, laity, all of us—this is a very challenging portion of our Emmaus walk of faith.” . . . 

Strickland made it very clear later in his speech that he does not intend to stop, saying,

And frankly, one of the most frustrating things that’s coming out of the Vatican and supported, at least, by Pope Francis, is the attack on the sacred. 

I note in passing (for those who may be wondering) that I disagree with Mike Lewis about President Trump, some aspects of the COVID vaccine and how it was implemented and forced on people, and about pro-abortion politicians receiving Holy Communion (and on some of these issues I would actually agree — to varying degrees – with Bp. Strickland’s stated positions). If Mike actually votes Democrat in this day and age, I think that is ludicrous and indefensible (since virtually all high-level Democrats nowadays are pro-aborts, and usually favor abortion up to the day of birth).

But what I do cite from his words, I agree with. He has done the needed reporting on this loose cannon, and has been prophetic in his warnings. If people had heeded his words a year ago, they would have been aware of Bp. Strickland’s serious errors and wouldn’t have been so shocked at his removal (not to mention hopefully prevented from following this dangerous man).

Brian Fraga, writing for National Catholic Reporter (11-11-23) quoted a priest in Bp. Strickland’s diocese:

Fr. Tim Kelly, . . . told NCR that Strickland “used to be a nice, unassuming, likable man” until he reached a sort of “celebrity” status among hardline conservative Catholics. Kelly said the bishop “ruined lives and ruptured decades-old friendships,” as his stature grew in traditionalist circles.

“Families have stopped going to Mass because of his unkind words,” Kelly said. “He needs time for reflection. He needs time to rebuild the bridges he burned when anger and certainty of his own righteousness consumed him.”

I’m interested in how various people and parties have responded to these developments. Do they reject sedevacantism and the extreme radical Catholic reactionary views that Bp. Strickland has expressed, or do they dig in and further the conspiratorial and quasi-schismatic mentality and mindset? From the known reactionaries and their confused fellow travelers and pope-bashers or papal nitpickers (all nattering nabobs of negativism), the response was utterly predictable:

Eric Sammons, editor at the reactionary Crisis Magazine, tweeted:

Seeing the viciousness of attacks on Bishop Strickland following his removal by the pope from people who probably never heard of him until recently reminds me how many Catholics treat Catholicism as a cult of the pope.

Pope-basher Philip Lawler joined in:

If you’re an American bishop inclined to question the Pope’s leadership– which at this point means any bishop interested in preserving the faith intact– you just got an unmistakable message.

So did Fr. Dwight Longenecker:

Insecure, mediocre leaders always quash their critics with force. In today’s world they do so while telling everyone how they are “good listeners”.

John-Henry Westen, the big cheese at the pathetic LifeSite News rag, wrote: “Let’s stand with Bishop Joseph Strickland!”

Bishop Athanasius Schneider described this turn of events as a “dark page in the life of the Church.” And he also wrote (incredibly):

Bishop Strickland will probably go down in history as an ‘Athanasius of the Church in the USA,’ who however, unlike St. Athanasius, is not persecuted by the secular power, but incredibly by the Pope himself. It seems that a kind of “purge” of Bishops, who are faithful to the immutable Catholic Faith and the Apostolic discipline, and which has been going on already for some time, has reached now a decisive phase.

Michael J. Matt, bigwig at The Remnant, tweeted:

This is total war. Francis is a clear and present danger not only to Catholics the world over but also to the whole world itself. It appears now that he is actively trying to bury fidelity to the Church of Jesus Christ. Let him be anathema.

And again: “God bless you, Bishop Strickland, and thank you for showing us how it’s done. God wins in the end.”

The virtually (at this point) insane Abp. Carlo Maria Viganò (I’ve documented his outrageous and blasphemous errors many times) predictably ranted:

The removal of His Excellency Archbishop Joseph Strickland, especially after the failure to ambush him with the Apostolic Visitation, appears as a cowardly form of authoritarianism, . . . This affair will reveal who stands with the true Church of Christ and who chooses to stand with His declared enemies. To remain silent and endure this umpteenth violation of the most basic principles of justice and truth is to make oneself complicit with a subverter.

The extreme reactionary Peter Kwasniewski (the great Vatican ONE basher) pontificated:

What were the “crimes”? The same question was asked about Bishop Daniel Fernandez Torres (indeed, he asked it himself), and the same crickets in response. Tyranny pure and simple.

Timothy Gordon didn’t want to miss out on the surreal, deluded love-feast, either: “Prayers and thanks for you, Bishop Strickland. I’m so sorry that you too—like all of us—are a parish orphan with an abusive stepfather in Rome.”

I’m blocked on Taylor Marshall’s Twitter page, so I can’t see what he wrote. But I don’t feel like vomiting today, anyway.

Much better is the response of my good friend and fellow Michigander and Catholic apologist Steve Ray (a strong papal critic but not a reactionary). At first he tweeted:

The feared news falls as the Pope cuts a good bishop off at the kneecaps. And why? Good question. We will await an answer. It seems the Pope will broach no opposition or “rigidness”. This will paralyze other bishops who fear the heavy-handed tactics of Francis and his Vatican.

But then within three hours on the same day (11-11-23) he wrote:

There have come to my attention some things said by Bishop Strickland just recently about Pope Francis and the chair of Peter. I’m looking into it more extensively, but if true, it is troubling.

Because Steve is not a reactionary he makes the absolutely correct response: rejection of the poisonous error of sedevacantism, or if not that, extreme, irrational, venomous, hysterical papal bashing. The rest just go right on, oblivious, not missing a beat, the blind leading the blind, in their literal hatred of the Holy Father, while the American Catholic Church continues to go to hell in a handbasket, with endless conspiratorialism, “Americanist” rejection of authority, tragic, counterproductive division and contentiousness, and slanderous scandal-mongering.

Meanwhile, souls are being lost every minute, and how many Protestants or Orthodox Christians would want to join a Church with this sort of idiotic in-fighting occurring within it? Speaking for myself, though, as an evangelical (which I was from 1977-1990), I would have immediately seen right through this travesty: the ludicrous, highly ironic spectacle of Catholics who either relentlessly trash and lie about their own (theologically orthodox) pope or deny that he even is the pope? That would have immediately appeared more ridiculous and worthless to me than the sentence, “water isn’t wet.”

Lastly, I hasten to add that many people out there knew of Bp. Strickland (before the latest events) mainly from his statements on morality that they agreed with, and were unaware of the extreme opinions such as those I documented above. That’s fine. We’re not responsible for what we don’t know. I never read anything about him or his own words before this incident, by the way. But anyone who has read this article no longer has any excuse of ignorance.

Whoever supports this dissenter, knowing the above information, partakes of his sins, his quasi-schismatic, quasi-sedevacantist mentality, and his indefensible, utterly unCatholic rebellion. Don’t do it! If you don’t want — no longer believe in — a pope and the papacy that God has provided for you, become an Anglican or other kind of Protestant, or Orthodox, and cease annoying us with your anti-Catholic inanities and vapid polemics.

See also Michael Lofton’s excellent videos about Bp. Strickland:

Bishop Strickland’s Accusation of Pope Francis (June 2023)

BREAKING: Bishop Strickland to be Visited by Vatican Officials (July 2023)

Is Bishop Strickland on His Way Out? (August 2023)

Is Bishop Strickland on His Way Out? (11-4-23)

Bishop Strickland Removed by Pope Francis! (11-9-23)

Is Bishop Strickland on His Way Out? (11-9-23)

Bishop Strickland Removed by Pope Francis! (11-11-23)

Bishop Strickland REMOVED From Ministry: Why and What’s Next (11-11-23)

Satan’s Propaganda About Bishop Strickland and Pope Francis (11-12-23)

*
*****
*

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,500+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!
*
***
*

Photo credit: Peytonlow (11-28-12); Bishop Joseph Strickland of the Diocese of Tyler pictured blessing the faithful during his Mass of Ordination and Installation on 28 November 2012 in Tyler, Texas. [Wikipedia / Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License]

Summary: I document the extreme statements of Bp. Joseph Strickland, that led to his removal, & chronicle the pathetic reactions to same from reactionaries & pope-bashers.

August 24, 2023

August 24, 2023 By
0 Comments

[book excerpts and purchase information]

“masterful . . . powerful tour de force . . .  fantastic piece of work . . . perfect book.” (William Albrëcht, Catholic apologist)

“punchy . . . clear and astute . . . demonstrat[es] that archaeology is actually a bedrock of confirmation [and] that Scripture is accurate” (Steve Ray, Catholic apologist)

“well-written, spirited . . . cutting-edge research . . . highly recommend[ed] to anyone who wonders whether the Bible is grounded in history.” (Gary Michuta, Catholic apologist)

“wonderful gift to the believing community . . . deeply satisfying intellectually . . . deepen[ed] my Christian faith . . . fantastic resource . . . a book not just to read, but to access and reference for the rest of one’s life.” (Dr. Paul Patton, Reformed Baptist pastor, playwright, and professor of communication and media)

“Armstrong draws out the most important [archaeological] evidence. . . . one of those necessary volumes that we Christians need to readily defend the truth of the Bible . . . The book bolstered the reasons supporting my own faith, and I found it fascinating to see the evidence for all these great Biblical events and places. . . . he maintains his own faithful Catholic belief in the divine power of God to accomplish each and every miraculous event in the Bible, while keeping his arguments at the natural level of science and archaeology to debunk the arguments of the skeptics.” (Devin Rose, Catholic apologist)

“fascinating and thought-provoking journey through the biblical record . . . Once I picked up this book, it was hard to put it down!” (Dr. Marcellino D’Ambrosio, Catholic apologist)

“scholarly but not abstruse . . . contains a great many things people ought to know and upholds the principle of the Bible’s truthfulness. Much of it is absolutely brilliant . . . firmly based in Scripture and credible archaeological research . . . worthy company to the books of Lutheran John Warwick Montgomery and Anglican C.S. Lewis.” (Rev. Dr. Ken Howes,  STM, JD, professor of theology and Lutheran pastor [LCMS])

“invaluable service to Christians . . . painstaking research . . . his aim is to show that the biblical stories—when properly understood—are authentic historical accounts and not mere myths . . . fascinating and illuminating.” (Dr. Robert Fastiggi, Professor of Dogmatic Theology and Christology)

“An intriguing and adventurous exposition of the evidence . . . will be of interest to all readers who take the Bible seriously . . . in-between the extremes of rigid fundamentalism and anti-supernatural liberalism . . . top-notch sources. At every turn, readers are treated to quotations from knowledgeable experts and relevant scientific articles . . . great read.” (John DeRosa, webmaster of the Classical Theism website)

“Dave Armstrong listens and tries to be fair to his critics . . . This loving approach is very winsome, in my opinion . . . Dave’s book is in the tradition of [Josh] McDowell . . . extremely well-researched . . . popularly-written so laymen can easily understand . . . up-to-date.” (Dan Grajek, Catholic evangelist and author)

“quite a useful book . . . Overall, I give this 5/5.” (Fr. Matthew P. Schneider, LC, author of God Loves the Autistic Mind: Prayer Guide for Those on the Spectrum and Those Who Love Us]

“Thorough, logical, well-researched . . . another milestone in Dave’s long line of apologetic works that should be in every Christian’s library . . . presents [a] myriad of arguments and documented evidences on why some of the contested Biblical stories and claims can easily be authenticated. . . . Great job.” (Dr. Stanley D. Williams, filmmaker and author)
***
 “wonderful compilation of archeological and historical references . . . fast read, compelling from start to finish, covering a lot of ground . . . informal writing style . . . enjoyed my time with it very much” (“EDS”, Amazon reviewer, 5-2-23)
***
“Well written and researched . . . Thoroughly enjoyed this book. The information is presented in a thoughtful and useful format . . . fascinating read!” (Bill S., Amazon reviewer, 5-8-23)
***
 “So glad I purchased [it] . . . Great book, well worth the read. Armstrong is an excellent writer.” (Dave L., Amazon reviewer, 5-13-23)
***
 “A much-needed response to the claims of secular-materialist atheists . . . captivating and scholarly exploration of biblical archaeology, offering a compelling case for the historical accuracy of the Bible. . . . well-rounded examination of the evidence and counterarguments. . . . blend[s] historical research including evidence from archaeological findings, scientific analysis, and biblical interpretation. He draws upon the works of renowned archaeologists and scholars to build his case for the historical validity of the biblical narratives . . . invit[ing] readers to consider the convergence of faith and reason . . . accessible and engaging, making complex concepts understandable to readers with varying levels of expertise . . . thoroughly researched . . . an essential read for any skeptic of the Bible, or anyone seeking to address one.” (“Andrew’s Bnb”, Amazon reviewer, 7-13-23)
***
 “Great resource for teachers . . . good resource for Christians of various backgrounds. Although, Dave is a Catholic himself, a Protestant will find that 99% of what is in this book is relevant to them as well. It would be great for people teaching Sunday School to adults, it would be great for pastors to refer to for material for sermons, . . . All in all this is a really fine effort. . . . It looks at scientific explanations as well as archeological data.” (Liz, Amazon reviewer, 4-14-23)
***
“Excellent analysis with ample sources, easy read . . . balanced analysis of common atheist and skeptic objections against the historical reliability of the Bible . . . ample sources from scholarly writings and research . . . easy to read manner for the average reader.” (Felix, Amazon reviewer, 4-2-23)
***
“In the end, it was a very enjoyable read, and the book continuously amazed and delighted me. For those who enjoy both studying scripture and delving into historical and scientific questions, Dave Armstrong’s The Word Set in Stone is something you will not want to miss.” (Dr. Pedro Gabriel, oncologist and author of The Orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia [2022]; see full review)
***
Summary: Collection of positive book reviews for my book, The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible (Catholic Answers, March 2023).
August 3, 2023

August 3, 2023 By
0 Comments

+ Legitimate Biblical & Spiritual Reasons for His Not Directly Answering Particularly Accusatory, Ill-Willed, & Wrongminded Critics

If we’ve heard it once, we’ve heard it a thousand times; something along the lines of: “the pope must answer the five dubia [questions concerning doctrine] that have been put to him, and if he doesn’t, he is encouraging severe doctrinal confusion and/or [in the eyes of his severest critics], heresy.” This has been a key mantra and “slogan” among many such unfortunate polemical attacks against this pope.

First, let me happily note that even strong critics of many aspects of this papacy and Pope Francis himself (like Ed Feser and Phil Lawler) have strongly maintained that he is not a heretic, and that continuing to claim that he is, isn’t helping things at all.  Secondly, it may surprise some readers to know that I myself have argued that it would be a good thing for him to answer the dubia, in the pages of National Catholic Register in September 2017.

To that extent I have some common ground with the pope’s relentless critics (which is always good to find). But I was approaching it as a general proposition, along the lines of, “is it better to clarify and further explain theological or liturgical issues when questions are directed towards one?” As an apologist myself, I think the answer — again, broadly speaking — is yes, and this is how I almost always act when asked questions.

Having granted and argued that, nevertheless, it’s a different question to consider whether a pope must answer all such questions, and, specifically, that he must do so when most or all of the ones asking the question are accusatory, ill-willed, or wrongminded in their questioning. And, as with all general propositions or proverbial-type expressions, there can be — and almost always are — exceptions to the rule.

There are two ways to approach this question, in defense of the Holy Father. The first is to contend and document that he has already answered the substance of the dubia in his teachings. The second is to appeal to legitimate biblical and spiritual reasons for not directly answering the particular critics in play in the present instance. I reiterate that the Holy Father is not obligated to reply to any particular person about anything, if he deems it imprudent or unnecessary to do so. Even most (if not almost all) of his critics grant this last point, so I won’t pursue it further.

It’s also interesting to note that Pope Benedict XVI directly answered the dubia after he was pope, hence showing that he would have done so while he was pope. But it doesn’t follow that any and every other pope must also do the same. He deemed it helpful and prudent to do so, but Pope Francis has taken a different course. People can differ as to the relative wisdom of each approach (given the choice I would prefer Pope Benedict’s approach), but they can’t demand that every pope must act as they prefer. In any event, I shall contend that Pope Francis has made the same five answers as Pope Benedict in various places in his magisterial writings. So there is no theological disagreement between the two popes, as is often wrongly imagined.

Moreover, if indeed the traditionalists and reactionaries and other pope-critics, papal nitpickers, or pope-bashers, who keep endlessly carping about the dubia would have been satisfied had they received an answer, then the reply to the dubia provided by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI, their darling (until he retired, at which point many of these folks turned on him), — which was identical to the answers provided by Pope Francis in his own writings, including Amoris itself –, should have put the matter to rest. But of course it didn’t. And it didn’t because of factors having to do with the critics’ larger goals, examined at length by Dr. Pedro Gabriel, which can be seen further below in this article.

And they also should have been satisfied by the clarifications made by Cardinal Müller before the dubia were even published, since the request was sent to him, as well as to the pope. But again, they weren’t, and this was perfectly predictable. They kept on asking and asking that the pope directly reply (and if he doesn’t, they immediately conclude that he is somehow negligent, or has “suspended the magisterium”: which comes from a distortion of St. John Henry Cardinal Newman’s teaching), as they do to this day. For the reasons why this was predictable and well-nigh inevitable, read Dr. Gabriel’s insightful comments below. The “never-satisfied” spirit of the inveterate pope-critics brings to mind the Bible verse, “You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly . . .” (James 4:3; KJV renders it, “ye ask amiss.”).

The argument that Pope Francis has already answered the dubia in his teachings has been made by Catholic theologian (of impeccable orthodoxy), Dr. Robert Fastiggi:

Responding to the Five Dubia from Amoris Laetitia Itself (Dr. Robert Fastiggi, Vatican Insider / La Stampa, 3-9-18)

Pope Francis Did Answer the Dubia (Dr. Robert Fastiggi) (It Was Also Answered [with the Same Answers] by Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI in 2019) [9-27-21]

Moreover, many have argued that Pope Francis’ Apostolic Exhortation, Amoris Laetitia (which is at the center of this controversy) is completely orthodox and in line with the thinking of Pope Benedict XVI and Pope St. John Paul II. In effect this also provides an answer to those who want to get replies to the five dubia:

Pope Francis’s New Document on Marriage: 12 Things to Know and Share (Jimmy Akin, National Catholic Register, 4-8-16)

Interpreting Amoris Laetitia ‘through the lens of Catholic tradition’ (Andrea Gagliarducci, Catholic News Agency, 4-8-16)

First Thoughts on “Amoris Laetitia” (Bishop Robert Barron, Aleteia, 4-8-16)

“True Innovations but Not Ruptures”: Cardinal Christoph Schönborn Presents “Amoris Laetitia” (Diane Montagna, Aleteia, 4-8-16)

Amoris Laetitia and the Progressive Pope Myth (Anthony S. Layne, Catholic Stand, 4-23-16)

Cardinal Müller: Magisterium on Remarried Divorcees Unchanged by Amoris Laetitia [cites precedent in both Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI] (Edward Pentin, National Catholic Register, 5-4-16)

Cardinal Müller: Amoris Laetitia is in line with previous teaching on Communion (Catholic Herald, 5-4-16)

Pope okays Argentine doc on Communion for divorced and remarried (Inés San Martín, Crux, 9-12-16)

What Pope Francis said about Communion for the divorced-and-remarried (Catholic News Agency, 9-13-16)

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

Amoris Laetitia Has Already Been Clarified Many Times, Including by High-Ranking Cardinals (Dave Armstrong, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism) [11-16-16]

Amoris Laetitia – An Apologia for its Orthodoxy (Scott Smith, Reduced Culpability, 1-19-17)

Does Amoris Laetitia 303 Really Undermine Catholic Moral Teaching? (Robert Fastiggi & Dawn Eden Goldstein, La Stampa / Vatican Insider, 9-26-17)

The document against the Pope’s “heresies”: it happened to Wojtyla too (Andrea Tornielli, La Stampa / Vatican Insider, 9-27-17)

Dr. Robert Fastiggi Defends Amoris Laetitia Against Critics (hosted at Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, 10-3-17)

Defending Pope Francis (Amoris Laetitia) [+ Part Two] (Tim Staples, unknown date)

Critics of Amoris laetitia ignore Ratzinger’s rules for faithful theological discourse (Robert Fastiggi & Dawn Eden Goldstein,  La Stampa / Vatican Insider, 10-4-17)

Dr. Fastiggi Replies to Dr. Brugger Regarding Amoris Laetitia (hosted at Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, 10-12-17)

Recent Comments of Pope Francis Should Help to Quiet Papal Critics (Robert Fastiggi, La Stampa / Vatican Insider, 11-28-17)

Pastoral Charity is the Key to Pope Francis’s Endorsement of the Buenos Aires Bishops’ Document (Robert Fastiggi, La Stampa / Vatican Insider, 11-28-17)

Dr. Fastiggi on Amoris Laetitia, Pope Francis, & Aquinas (Dr. Robert Fastiggi & Dave Armstrong; hosted on Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, 2-1-21)

Does Amoris Laetitia untie the knots in Veritatis Splendor? (Pedro Gabriel, Where Peter Is, 7-4-22)
*
Amoris, Veritatis, and things left unsaid (Pedro Gabriel, Where Peter Is, 7-22-22)
*
*
The Orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia (2022 book by Dr. Pedro Gabriel)
*

The five dubia were sent to the pope and also to Cardinal Gerhard Müller, then the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on 19 September 2016. As we see in the links provided above [one / two], Cardinal Müller had already clarified the orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia and addressed the same sorts of questions that the dubia asked, in May 2016, four months before the dubia were presented. Cardinal Christoph Schönborn had also done so, a month before that.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith was Pope Benedict XVI’s office before becoming pope. This congregation was founded in order to defend the church from heresy, and is the body responsible for promulgating and defending Catholic doctrine. When the former Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger clarified things in that office, it was always quite sufficient for the more “traditional” folks in the Church, concerned about questions of orthodoxy and liturgy.

So why wasn’t it sufficient when Cardinal Müller confirmed the orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia? Pope Francis is absolutely justified in thinking that the document’s orthodoxy (and his) have been sufficiently clarified by the Cardinal tasked with doing that very thing. In other words, the dubia were already answered, and he didn’t need to add anything to what had already been stated.  See more specific details about the defenses of Cardinals Müller and Schönborn.

Now we move on to the question of whether Pope Francis is obliged to answer his more virulent critics, who keep submitting documents designed to elicit direct replies from him. The first thing that is striking to notice is the high percentage of radical Catholic reactionaries (see my carefully formulated definition of that term) among these critics. I have thoroughly documented this:
*
*
*

How Catholic professor and “papal nitpicker” (as I have called him) Ed Feser (who regards Pope Francis as one of the worst popes ever) recently referred to the dubia controversy is instructive:

To be sure, there may nevertheless be particular cases where the “suspended Magisterium” characterization is plausible.  Consider the heated controversy that followed upon Amoris Laetitia, and in particular the dubia issued by four cardinals asking the pope to reaffirm several points of irreformable doctrine that Amoris seems to conflict with.   As Fr. John Hunwicke has noted, because Pope Francis has persistently refused to answer these dubia, he can plausibly be said at least to that extent to have suspended the exercise of his Magisterium.  Again, this does not mean that he has lost his teaching authority.  The point is rather that, insofar as he has refused to answer these five specific questions put to him, he has not, at least with respect to those particular questions, actually exercised that authority.  As Fr. Hunwicke notes, he could do so at any time, so that his teaching authority remains.

Again, though, it doesn’t follow that the “suspended Magisterium” thesis is correct as a general description of Pope Francis’s pontificate up to now.

I reply that Pope Francis has in effect replied, in choosing to let the Cardinal who headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith exercise the very purpose of his office and clarify Amoris, four months before he was asked the questions. Why isn’t that sufficient? We’re now to believe that the pope is wrong to ever let Cardinals clarify something that he has taught? It’s ludicrous. To claim that these things haven’t been clarified, and by Cardinals, is a lie. And if we are to believe Dr. Robert Fastiggi, the pope himself already answered the five dubia in Amoris itself. Hence, he is well within his prerogatives to believe that the teachings are already out there.

Dr. Feser in this article cites Fr. John Hunwicke, a known reactionary. This supports my point as to the nature of many of the pope’s most virulent critics. Fr. Hunwicke has written things like the following:

So much, then for Bergoglianist autocracy, . . . if the hyperuebersuperultrapapalism of Bergoglianity will not serve God’s People, what will? Conciliarism? You just have to be joking. After the fiasco of Vatican II (yes; genuine, valid, canonical Ecumenical Councils can be disasters for the Church, . . .), . . .

No auctoritas can subsist in enactments which manifestly subvert Holy Tradition. (16 July 2021)

Fr. Hunwicke wrote on his own blog (9-19-17): “Clearly, we have now definitively (irreversibly?) moved out of the dark shadow of Vatican II. ” He wrote (2-17-07): “Vatican II, like so many of its predecessor councils, is obsolete or, at the very least, obsolescent.” On 9-23-17, Fr. Hunwicke compared Pope Francis to Pope Honorius: the most notorious example of an actually or allegedly [Catholic historians and theologians differ] “heretical” pope in history. Note the outright disrespect of the Holy Father and his office in these comments:

The current pope is neither learned nor intelligent. . . . Given a world so sadly unappreciative of eccentricity, in most other organisations this side of North Korea the Men in White Coats would have been sent in to hustle such a CEO out of public view. (8-29-17)

Having compared Pope Francis to Honorius, he then analogizes today’s situation (on 6-19-17) to the Arian crisis (in which the divinity of Jesus was denied):
The time has surely come for the Four Cardinals who intervened last year with their Dubia to revisit the question. And the time for Bishops, Successors of the Apostles according to the teaching of Leo XIII and of Vatican II and not mere vicars of the Roman Pontiff, to speak with courage, clarity and unanimity. And for clergy, laity, and academics to do the same. Remember that, at the height of the Arian Crisis, it was not among the Bishops or even in Rome that the Faith was most conspicuously preserved and defended.
Fr. Hunwicke wrote an outrageous piece entitled “Amoris laetitia and Auschwitz” (8-23-17), in which he stated:

It is also my view that a mortal sin is a mortal sin is a mortal sin is a mortal sin. And Mortal Sin is the area into which, like several fair-sized and unstable bulls in a very tiny china shop, Bergoglio and his cronies have strayed. And by sanctioning what Fr Aidan Nichols has neatly called “tolerated concubinage”, I do not think they will bring a single murdered Jew back to life or even save a single victim in future genocides. In fact, quite the contrary. Do we save lives … or marriages … by chipping away at the Decalogue, or by shoring it up when it comes under threat? . . .

Bergoglio’s ‘jesuitical’ campaign to circumvent Veritatis splendor paragraph 80, as well as Familiaris consortio, is both a moral and an ecclesial disaster. If Bergoglian ‘moral principles’ prevail, then, as Fr Aidan Nichols has accurately put it, “no area of Christian morality can remain unscathed”.

Ed Feser (as far as I know) thinks Vatican II is perfectly orthodox. For example:

My view is that Vatican II’s teaching on religious liberty can and should be reconciled with the teaching of the pre-Vatican II popes on the subject.  (My favored way of doing so is the one developed by Thomas Pink.) (7-23-21)

So why would Feser want to cite an extremist reactionary like Fr. Hunwicke on his blog and in The Catholic World Report? Is he even aware that the illustrious priest has characterized Vatican II as a “disaster” and a “fiasco” and “obsolete” and “obsolescent” and that it cast a “dark shadow”? In charity, I will assume that he wasn’t aware. But if he reads this article, he will be.

I shall now move on to a second and different defense of the Holy Father; what I described above as an “appeal to legitimate biblical and spiritual reasons for not directly answering the particular critics in play in the present instance.” A strong biblical argument can be made from many examples in the behavior of Our Lord Jesus Himself. Many times He did answer critics. But other times He did not, in at least four different ways:

1) By giving no answer at all.

2) By appealing to His past teachings, heard by the people.

3) By replying with another question, a la Socrates.

4) By replying in a deliberately cryptic or parabolic or “deflecting” way, in conjunction with His knowledge that any answer would not be accepted anyway by the ones asking. They didn’t have “ears to hear”: as Jesus mentioned five times.

I’ll now provide plain and undeniable examples of all four approaches from Jesus.

Matthew 26:62-63 (RSV) And the high priest stood up and said, “Have you no answer to make? What is it that these men testify against you?” [63] But Jesus was silent. . . . (cf. Mk 14:61)

***

John 18:19-21 The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching. [20] Jesus answered him, “I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly. [21] Why do you ask me? Ask those who have heard me, what I said to them; they know what I said.”

***

Matthew 12:1-5 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the sabbath; his disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat. [2] But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the sabbath.” [3] He said to them, “Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him: [4] how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? [5] Or have you not read in the law how on the sabbath the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are guiltless?

Matthew 12:10-11 And behold, there was a man with a withered hand. And they asked him, “Is it lawful to heal on the sabbath?” so that they might accuse him. [11] He said to them, “What man of you, if he has one sheep and it falls into a pit on the sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out?”

Matthew 21:23-27 And when he entered the temple, the chief priests and the elders of the people came up to him as he was teaching, and said, “By what authority are you doing these things, and who gave you this authority?” [24] Jesus answered them, “I also will ask you a question; and if you tell me the answer, then I also will tell you by what authority I do these things. [25] The baptism of John, whence was it? From heaven or from men?” And they argued with one another, “If we say, `From heaven,’ he will say to us, `Why then did you not believe him?’ [26] But if we say, `From men,’ we are afraid of the multitude; for all hold that John was a prophet.” [27] So they answered Jesus, “We do not know.” And he said to them, “Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.

Matthew 22:41-45 [esp. 22:42] Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, [42] saying, “What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is he?” They said to him, “The son of David.” [43] He said to them, “How is it then that David, inspired by the Spirit, calls him Lord, saying, [44] `The Lord said to my Lord, Sit at my right hand, till I put thy enemies under thy feet’? [45] If David thus calls him Lord, how is he his son?”

***

Matthew 13:10-13 Then the disciples came and said to him, “Why do you speak to them in parables?” [11] And he answered them, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. [12] For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. [13] This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.

Luke 8:9-10 And when his disciples asked him what this parable meant, [10] he said, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; but for others they are in parables, so that seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand.

Luke 10:21 In that same hour he rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will.”

Luke 22:67-68 “If you are the Christ, tell us.” But he said to them, “If I tell you, you will not believe; [68] and if I ask you [some versions: “. . . a question”], you will not answer.

John 2:18-21 The Jews then said to him, “What sign have you to show us for doing this?” [19] Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” [20] The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” [21] But he spoke of the temple of his body.

But is it the case that Pope Francis consciously thinks about why he has chosen not to answer his most virulent critics; that he has some spiritual reason for not doing so? It can be plausibly argued that he does. Catholic apologist and defender of this pope and popes in general, Dr. Pedro Gabriel (who is an oncologist in his “day job”), wrote two articles, entitled, “Silence according to Pope Francis” (12-5-18) and “Silence: the shield against Suspicious Man” (12-10-18). He lays out his case. I cite the first article:

Pope Francis, as the Vicar of Christ, can help us better understand the depths of meaning conveyed by the concept of silence. In fact, Francis has produced some impressive theological reflections on this topic. On the other hand, it is interesting, also regarding Pope Francis, that silence can be viewed as a source of scandal for those who do not understand him. After all, his critics attack him for his silence, ranging from not answering the dubia, to not answering Archbishop Viganò’s testimony against him.

However, if Pope Francis keeps silent in those situations, maybe we can better understand why by studying his reflections on silence. Hence the question: what does silence mean to Pope Francis? . . .

[I]f we really try to understand Francis, instead of playing “gotcha” with the Pope in order to trap him in his words (a strategy first undertaken against Christ by the Pharisees,) we should, in charity, assume that Francis is not being inconsistent. Maybe there are alternative explanations as to why Francis has chosen the silent route to address these charges. . . .

The answer lies in a silence that is also a part of Francis’ theology, but which I have yet to talk about: the silence used to resist the accusations of what he terms “the suspicious man.”

Dr. Gabriel goes on to explain the second aspect in his follow-up article:

I believe that Francis’ silence is a dignified silence too. Even if it scandalizes people, it is sadly needed in order for him not to be manipulated as well. For such is the intention of many of those who are sowing scandal by (among other things) accusing the Pope of silence in the face of great evils. They want him to break his silence in order to ensnare him and, in doing so, force him to comply with their ideas for the Church. . . .

The format of the dubia, demanding yes-or-no answers, does not take into account the nuance demanded by this document, and the way the questions are framed tries to force Francis to chose between open heresy or forfeiting his manifest will. In this way, answering the dubia on their own terms would actually cause more harm than good. . . .

As for Archbishop Viganò’s testimony, it is even more egregious. Viganò accuses the pope of mishandling a serious case of sexual abuse, and in a shameful display of inversion of the burden of proof, tries to force Francis to prove his innocence by telling him to release documents allegedly proving his point instead of substantiating his accusations himself. “Release the documents” has become an anti-Francis mantra, just like “answer the dubia.” It is meant to shut Francis up whenever he says something his critics disagree with.

But even here we see an urge to control. Interspersed with Viganò’s charges regarding the sexual abuse crisis, we also see accusations of doctrinal laxity and ambiguity. These are codewords for Pope Francis’ clear and magisterial teachings which are utterly rejected by his critics. . . .

However, just like the dubia, Francis reacted to Viganò’s accusations with silence. On a plane interview in the aftermath of the testimony’s release, the pontiff said: “I read the statement this morning, and I must tell you sincerely that, I must say this, to you and all those who are interested: Read the statement carefully and make your own judgment (…) I will not say a single word on this.“

Nevertheless, how can we understand Francis’ silent reaction in the face of these crises? Is there something in his theology or history that may give us a clue? Yes, in fact, there is. Before his election to the papacy, Jorge Mario Bergoglio had already experienced the effects of being publicly calumniated. As reported by Austen Ivereigh here, back in the 1970s, Father Bergoglio was accused by left-wing Catholics of being a collaborationist with the Argentinian dictatorship. In the 1980s, such accusations resurfaced again “against the background of widespread shock and indignation at revelations of bishops’ failures to protect their flocks from the army’s torture chambers.” In fact, these accusations also resurfaced fleetingly at the time of his election as Pope Francis.

At the time, as in today, Fr. Bergoglio’s answer to these baseless accusations from “a backdrop of anxiety and anger verging at times on hysteria” was… silence. Denying those charges to people who were hell-bent on their truthfulness would not convince anyone. On the contrary, it would only give credibility to those allegations and stoke the flames of gossip. But if Francis was innocent, then time would vindicate him, for truth can’t be hidden for long. And in fact, that’s exactly what happened.

This life experience surely inspired Bergoglio later when, in the 1990s (during a time period Ivereigh dubs as one of his “desert” periods) he wrote a reflection called “Silencio y Palabra” (“Silence and Word“). I have taken the opportunity to read it in full and was taken aback at the striking (prophetic?) parallels between what Fr. Bergoglio wrote then and what we are seeing today. Only by reading that essay can we truly grasp the meaning of Pope Francis’ silence today.

“Silencio y Palabra” talks mostly about internal strife within religious orders (what Bergoglio calls “internas” in Spanish.) Those internas are the result of individual sins, when the brothers of the order fall into common temptations Fr. Bergoglio expounds throughout the essay. For the purpose of this article, I will talk mostly about the temptations of Self-Sufficiency and Suspicion.

In my last article, I wrote about how silence can become rotten when it turns into an excuse for self-centeredness. But Fr. Bergoglio goes to further lengths to teach us what a self-centered religious man looks like, juxtaposing his image to the one of Our Lady, Untier of Knots (all quotes from now on are from “Silencio y Palabra” and have been translated by me from the original Spanish): . . .

The other temptation is also evident in today’s insurgence against St. Peter: the temptation of suspicion (emphasis from now on is always mine):

“Suspicion is an old bug. It creates in the heart a certain uneasiness toward any behavior of my brother that I do not fully understand. This uneasiness grows in intensity and ends by seeing as a menace everything that it doesn’t understand and control (…) The suspicious man sins against the light, he has enamored himself of this attitude of wanting everything clarified, because his life consists in confusing the conspiracy for reality. There is always, in the suspicious man, an area that resists God’s light. If such light would come, he could not have suspicions any longer. He manipulates half-truths, as “truthful” lies. The ambiguous is his field of action and he imposes it on others as if it was clarity. (…) Suspicion is the clinging to an area of penumbra, feeding the man who has opted for the partiality of the internas over the totality of the institution as a body.”

This is so appropriate to what we’re experiencing right now, it’s scary. We see this in the way some “Catholic” media outlets have been propagandizing sensationalistic pieces about major conspiracies in the Vatican, from the St. Galen mafia to the lavender mafia, in a way that mimics any other conspiracy theorist. No wonder so many have embarked on the Viganò bandwagon: he validates their conspiratorial suspicions. And no debunking will be sufficient: for them, the refutations are part of the conspiracy.

More striking even, is the way the above quote is worded. The way papal critics manipulate the concepts of “ambiguity,” “clarity,” and “confusion” correspond exactly with the patterns described by Fr. Bergoglio. They will claim, even to the point of irrationality, that AL (a magisterial document they disagree with) is ambiguous, even when it is not. They will then demand clarity over and over and over, while ignoring every single clarification that doesn’t appeal to them. “Confusion” is a codeword for everything they disagree with (even if it is the Pope’s manifest will) and “clarity” means the predefined answer they want (which has already been proven, it’s not the Pope’s manifest will.) When they decry “confusion” and demand “clarity,” they are actually requiring the Church to do what they want it to do. “Ambiguity” is a way for them to avoid facing the reality of their dissent, and so they will cling to it no matter what. . . .

Bergoglio’s words in this astonishing reflection clarify in an amazing way what Pope Francis is getting at with his silence. It is true that feeding the controversy has not helped to quell it, quite the contrary.

So, for instance, when Pope Francis clarified the meaning of his apostolic exhortation AL, by publishing the Buenos Aires guidelines as the only possible interpretation, both in the Vatican website and in the Acta Apostolicae Sedes, the dissenters just doubled down on their narrative that the Pope was ambiguous and still needed to clarify, playing games to avoid the reality staring them in the face. Only answering the dubia would do, since they were framed in their own terms, as I have explained before.

Also with Viganò’s testimony, which has been completely discredited to any objective onlooker, we see that each successive debunking is followed by another letter, uncritically cheered by papal critics. When Catholics showed that Viganò’s letters were full of inconsistencies — like showing allegedly sanctioned McCarrick in a gala being complimented by Viganò, or appearing in Rome to greet Pope Benedict — the papal critics just doubled down and, surprisingly, declared that those inconsistencies actually proved Viganò’s point. When Viganò asked Cardinal Ouellet to testify, and he issued a vocal refutation of Viganò’s charges, the papal critics just doubled down and, surprisingly, declared that Ouellet actually was proving Viganò’s point. Of course, this happened after a kneejerk reaction where Ouellet was accused of lying, since he contradicted Viganò. . . .

The dubia and Viganò’s letter are not meant to achieve truth, no matter how much lip-service anti-Francis critics pay to the love of truth. No. The dubia and Viganò’s testimony are not instruments of truth, they are pretexts. They are used as excuses to feed the suspicions of the suspicious men. If light was allowed to shine in their suspicions, they would have to come to terms with a painful reality: that they are dissenters, just like all those sinners they have, for years, catalogued as CINOs and Cafeteria Catholics.

In other words, clarifying won’t help. This is why Pope Francis’ strategy is different: “To the sectarian, after one or two admonitions, leave him be. Do not indulge in internas. In there, enmity flourishes. In there, it is enmity that sets the rhythm.“ . . .

Is it not true, however, that people keep going on and on and on with the dubia and with Viganò’s testimony? Indeed, they do. However, these are the people under the temptations of self-sufficiency and suspicion. Those are the ones who were already convinced in the first place, since they disliked Francis from the beginning. And there is no evidence that anything will make them budge, either way. So, they are not going to change, except through a supernatural grace that may make the scales fall off from their spiritual eyes. But, no matter how much racket they gather inside their limited virtual turf, Pope Francis’ silence speaks more eloquently and more forcefully than their constant nagging. And, just as he predicted, their flashy light gradually dims away as the light of the Holy Spirit shines through the passing of time, vindicating St. Peter’s successor.

A year and a half later, Dr. Gabriel wrote similarly in his article, “Why the Vatican is silent on Viganò” (7-7-20):

When a person is attacked in a way that “cannot be clarified,” then that person’s best response is to keep silent. Truth will eventually come to the surface, because the “weakness” shown by this person inevitably emboldens the Devil, who will then manifest himself, revealing the evil motivations he had concealed until that time.

In other words, by letting the accuser talk, the person who suffers in silence will give this accuser enough rope to hang himself. Let him talk. Sooner or later he will reveal the inconsistencies and lies in his accusations.

This is precisely what happened with Viganò. [JD] Flynn correctly notes that “the archbishop has changed his topic, from the McCarrick affair to conspiracy theories about the coronavirus pandemic, the Marian apparition at Fatima, and the Second Vatican Council.“

In other words, Viganò is letting it all out now. His accusations do not serve the legitimate aim of doing justice for the McCarrick victims anymore, as they once appeared to do. Viganò’s accusations now seem to be ends in themselves; they seek to transform the Church according to the agenda of certain Catholics who pit themselves as the guardians of orthodoxy against the Vicar of Christ and an ecumenical council.

Not only that, but Viganò’s missives have become so unhinged, conspiratorial, and detached from reality, that at this moment, there is no excuse for a Catholic to follow him. By now, it is as clear as day: Viganò’s best refutation is Viganò himself. This is a much stronger argument than if Pope Francis had issued a point-by-point refutation of every single one of his claims. If someone is still following Viganò at this point, then I don’t know what the Vatican could say that would convince them. They are simply too far off. I believe that for this subset of our Church, only prayers, not arguments, will help. . . .

The answer to JD Flynn’s question, “Why is the Vatican silent on McCarrick?” is to begin to know Francis. I answered this very same question in October 2018, in fact, when I wrote:

“Viganò’s testimony is accepted at face value, no matter how many inconsistencies and denials contradict it. If someone with authority and knowledge states Viganò is wrong, then it must be because that person is lying. If someone categorically rejects the existence of sanctions, then what that person said is spun in order to prove the sanctions existed. And so there were sanctions, even when they were not sanctions, but they were still sanctions insofar as they validate Viganò’s testimony. Viganò can invert the burden of proof and demand that Francis prove his innocence by releasing documents whose existence is uncertain, apart from Viganò’s own testimony (in other words, circular reasoning and petitio principii). If those documents are not released, then that is proof that Viganò is right (the archbishop states so in his second testimony). If they are released but do not prove what Viganò says they prove, then this is because the documents were tainted. In other words, Viganò’s testimony is non-falsifiable.

To this, I can only once again commend Pope Francis’s wisdom in maintaining silence before this crowd. All those who have asked for years that the Pope would clarify his teachings have now shown what they would have done if Francis had given them a clear answer (as Ouellet did) that they disagreed with. They would just spin the pope’s clarifications in a way better suited for their ideological narrative, just as they have done now. And all those insistent cries for an investigation are paradoxical, since they have proven they are not open to be led to “wherever truth may lead them” (as the Vatican statement puts it), but are rather searching for an “investigation” that will corroborate their pre-made conclusions.

Above all, if Pope Francis’s guilt has already been proven in their minds in a non-falsifiable way, why should Francis waste his time answering them? Silence is the appropriate answer. Whatever Francis might say in response to Viganò’s accusations would just feed the controversy, without satisfying his detractors in the least.”

So there you have it, folks. I have provided several distinct arguments as to why the pope usually chooses not to directly answer his most severe, relentless, never-satisfied critics. Yet he does answer in his own way, just as Jesus’ various techniques of deflecting questions asked in bad faith were indeed also “answers” of a sort. They were simply deeper than the naysayers could comprehend. And so it is also the case today with this pope (the Vicar of Christ, after all) and his disturbingly numerous worst critics: whose miserable, ultra-uncharitable, unCatholic and impious spirit Dr. Gabriel, in my opinion, has correctly diagnosed and analyzed.

***

For more about Archbishop Viganò’s continuing descent into madness and lunacy and arguably even schism, see:

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

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

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

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

Abp. Viganò: Fanaticism, Extremism, and Conspiratorialism (Summary from August 2019 Until July 2020: Alarming, Increasingly Quasi-Schismatic Spirit) [7-13-20]

What’s So Bad About Abp. Viganò? (Traditionalists Ask) [7-14-20]

A Response to Archbishop Viganò’s Letter about Vatican II (Fr. Thomas G. Weinandy, OFM., Cap., The Catholic World Report, 8-13-20)

Archbishop Viganò got so ridiculous and conspiratorial that I simply stopped writing blog papers about him three years ago. I figured that anyone gullible and uninformed and closed-minded enough to accept his reactionary nonsense and endless inanities was beyond all reason to reach.

Pope Francis apparently knew this all along, and Archbishop Viganò is a rather spectacular Exhibit #1 in the effort to understand why the pope chooses silence in the face of ill-willed, never satisfied opposition.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,300+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-three books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò (3 December 2013) [public domain / Wikimedia Commons]

***

Summary: I lay out three distinct arguments with regard to Pope Francis and the five dubia, and explain why he is not obliged to interact with every virulent critic in every case.

May 9, 2023

May 9, 2023 By
0 Comments

And Which Specific Body of Water Did They Cross, According to the Combined Deductions and Determinations of the Bible and Archaeology?

Egyptologist James K. Hoffmeier sets the background for the discussion:

Some passages call the sea in question simply “the sea” (hayyam) (Exod. 14:2, 9, 16, 21, 23; 15:1-4; Num. 33:8; Ps. 78:13). In other texts, yam sup is used in the Hebrew (MT) [Masoretic Text] of Exodus 13:18; 15:4b, 22; Joshua 2:10; 4:23; Psalm 136:13, 15. Sup clearly means reeds or rushes, as can be seen in Exodus 2:3 when the mother of Moses places him in a basket among the reeds (sup) on the Nile’s shore. Isaiah 19:6 also mentions reeds (sup) in the Nile. In the Septuagint, the Greek translations of the Holy Bible, sup is rendered as eruthra, “red,” and this is the tradition followed in the Latin Vulgate, where the sea is called mari Rubro. Most English translations have followed this translation tradition . . . There is no convincing explanation for why the Greek translators did not literally translate sup, although it might have been their aim to locate the sea at the place they thought the text was indicating, that is, the Red Sea, the present day Gulf of Suez w Aqaba. (1)

It is an exceedingly odd thing that English Bibles almost unanimously translate sup (or suph) as “red.” The lexicons are quite clear as to its meaning. Strong’s Concordance‘ literal definition for it is “reeds, rushes.” (2) Brown-Driver-Briggs states:

reeds, rushes (collective) (probably loan-word from Egyptian . . .); —

1 rushes, in Nile Exodus 2:3,5 (E); קָנֶה וָסוּף Isaiah 19:6 (of Egypt).

2 usually in combination יַםסֿוּף probably = sea of rushes or reeds ( > sea of (city) Suph), which Greek included in wider name θάλασσα Ἐρυθρἀ, Red Sea (. . .name originally given to upper end of Gulf of Suez, extending into Bitter Lakes, shallow and marshy, whence reeds (probably also reddish colour) . . . name applied only to arms of Red Sea; most often

a. to Gulf of Suez Exodus 10:19; Joshua 2:10 (both J), Exodus 13:18; Exodus 15:4,22; Exodus 23:31 (all E), Deuteronomy 11:4; Joshua 4:23 (D), Numbers 33:10,11 (P), elsewhere late Nehemiah 9:9; Psalm 106:7; Psalm 106:9; Psalm 106:22; Psalm 136:13; Psalm 136:15.

b. sometimes to Gulf of Akaba 1 Kings 9:26, and דֶּרֶךְ יַםסֿוּף Numbers 21:4 (E), probably also Numbers 14:25 (E), Deuteronomy 1:40; Deuteronomy 2:1; perhaps Judges 11:16; Jeremiah 49:21; possibly read מִיַּםסֿוּף for ׳מוֺל ס Deuteronomy 1:1 . . . (3)

Note: I disagree (for a hundred reasons) with the defunct and decrepit 19th-century Documentary Theory, which is what the letters J, E, P, and D above are referring to. But for the sake of biblical definition, it’s irrelevant.

Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament never mentions the word “red” at all in its descriptions for Hebrew word #5488 (sup / suph):

(1) rush, reed, sea weed. . . . Specially — (a) sea weed, Jon. 2:6; whence the weedy sea, i.e., the Arabian gulf which abounds in sea weed, Ps. 106:7, 9, 22; 136:13. It is also called in Egyptian the sea of weed . . . (4)

Other Bible references concur:

Cuph means a rush or seaweed such as abounds in the lower portions of the Nile and the upper portions of the Red Sea. . . . But the name yam-cuph, though applied to the whole sea, was especially used with reference to the northern part, which is alone mentioned in the Bible, and to the two gulfs (Suez and Aqabah) which border the Sinaitic Peninsula, especially the Gulf of Suez. . . .

Owing to the lower land levels which prevailed in recent geological times, the Gulf of Suez formerly extended across the lowland which separates it from the Bitter Lakes, a distance of 15 or 20 miles now traversed by the Suez Canal, which encountered no elevation more than 30 ft. above tide. In early historic times the Gulf ended at Ismailia at the head of Lake Timsah. . . .

In recent times it was discovered that the Gulf of Suez formerly extended 30 miles northward to the site of the present Ismailia and the ancient Pithom, . . . with an extension of the waters of the Gulf to the Bitter Lakes and Lake Timsah, . . . the narrative at once so perfectly accords with the physical conditions involved as to become not only easily credible, but self-evidencing. . . .

Three times the wind is mentioned as the means employed by God in opening the water [Exod. 14:21; 15:8, 10]. The competency of the wind temporarily to remove the water from the passage connecting the Gulf of Suez with the Bitter Lakes, provided it was only a few feet deep, is amply proved by facts of recent observation. Major General Tullock of the British army (Proc. Victoria Inst., XXVIII, 267-80) reports having witnessed the driving off of the water from Lake Menzaleh by the wind to such an extent as to lower the level 6 ft., thus leaving small vessels over the shallow water stranded for a while in the muddy bottom. According to the report of the Suez Canal Company, the difference between the highest and the lowest water at Suez is 10 ft. 7 inches, all of which must be due to the effect of the wind, since the tides do not affect the Red Sea. The power of the wind to affect water levels is strikingly witnessed upon Lake Erie in the United States, where according to the report of the Deep Waterways Commission for 1896 (165, 168) it appears that strong wind from the Southwest sometimes lowers the water at Toledo, Ohio, on the western end of the lake to the extent of more than 7 ft., at the same time causing it to rise at Buffalo at the eastern end a similar amount; while a change in the wind during the passage of a single storm reverses the effect, thus sometimes producing a change of level at either end of the lake of 14 ft. in the course of a single day. It would require far less than a tornado to lower the water at Cheloof sufficiently to lay bare the shallow channel which we have supposed at that time to separate Egypt from the Sinaitic Peninsula. . . .

On the explanation we have given the transaction it is what Robinson felicitously calls a mediate miracle, that is, a miracle in which the hand of God is seen in the use of natural forces which it would be impossible for man to command. If anyone should say that this was a mere coincidence, that the east wind blew at the precise time that Moses reached the place of crossing, the answer is that such a coincidence could have been brought about only by supernatural agency. . . . The opening of the sea may have been a foreordained event in the course of Nature which God only foreknew, in which case the direct divine agency was limited to those influences upon the human actors that led them to place themselves where they could take advantage of the natural opportunity. (5)

This explanation was followed almost to a tee by Carl Drews, who has a Master of Science degree in atmospheric and oceanic sciences. He wrote about his theory (written about in scientific peer-reviewed journals) of a “wind setdown” that could possibly explain the biblical parting of the sea in terms of natural events. I wrote about his theory The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back Up the Bible (Catholic Answers Press: March 2023 [read this excerpt]) on pages 110-114.

Drews even uses the example of Lake Erie, like the above article from 1939 does, and mentions the 1882 report of British Major General Tullock. It leads me to believe that the article above likely provided the initial impetus for his theory: now more scientifically corroborated. Drews also holds that the crossing occurred in the lakes north of the Gulf of Suez and south of the Mediterranean Sea, “at the north end of the Suez Canal in one of the shallow lagoons . . .” Now I have shown in biblical and linguistic reference works (especially Brown-Driver-Briggs) that the biblical description “Red Sea” can also refer to these lakes. The New Bible Dictionary (6) can be added to the list of these sources:

In the Old Testament, the term yam sup, ‘sea of reeds’ (and/or ‘weed’), is used to cover: (a) the Bitter Lakes region in the Egyptian Delta north of Suez along the line of the present Suez Canal . . .

From the ‘sea of reeds’, yam sup, Israel went into the wilderness of Shur (Exod. 15:22; Num. 33:8) and then on towards Sinai. Various points suggest that this famous crossing, the Exodus in the narrow sense, took place in the bitter lakes region, roughly between Qantara (30 miles south of Port Said) and just north of Suez. First, geographically, the wilderness of Shur, which Israel entered directly from crossing the yam sup (Exod. 15:22), is opposite this very area. Secondly, geophysically, the reedy waters of the Bitter Lakes and Lake Menzaleh can be affected by strong east winds precisely in the way described in Exodus 14:21 and experienced on a small scale by Aly Shafei Bey in 1945-6 . . . (7)

And another standard source concurs:

In the Old Testament Heb. yam sup is used for the Gulf of Aqabah . . ., the Gulf of Suez . . ., and the sea crossed by the Israelites as they left Egypt (e.g., Exod. 15:4, 22; Deut. 11:4; Josh. 4:23; 24:6; Neh. 9:9; Ps. 136:13, 15). The exact location of the last of these is uncertain, and scholars have variously proposed the bitter lakes region, Lake Menzaleh, Lake Sorbonis, and the Gulf of Suez as possible sites. . . .

An Egyptian text refers to the “papyrus marsh” near the city of Rameses, which is thought by many to be the body of water crossed by the Israelites (cf. Num. 33:5-8). (8)

Kitchen adds, regarding this “papyrus marsh” that the location “par excellence,” would be the north-east part of the Delta between Tanis (Zoan), Qantir, and the present line of the Suez Canal north of Ismalia, on the former Pelusiac arm of the Nile.” (9)

With this extensive background introduction, let’s now see how James K. Hoffmeier brings to the topic fresh archaeological research, in his  book, Ancient Israel in Sinai, published by Oxford University Press in 2005. He writes:

Yam sup is situated in the northeastern Delta. Further support for this location is found in the eighth plague of Exodus 10. Locusts infest the land and are only removed when a strong wind from the west drove the hordes of locusts into yam sup ((Exod. 10:19). . . . the starting point of the exodus  and the epicenter of the plagues was in the region of Pi-Ramesses/Avaris . . . So when the Bible describes the wind from the west driving the locusts east toward the Sea of reeds, that is, yamma sup, it is referring to the only major body of water east of the Ramesses region, the el-Ballah Lakes, . . . directly to the east. (10)

I provisionally suggested [in his 1996 book, nine years earlier] that Lake Timsah might have been yam sup. But . . . Exodus 14:2 [“. . . turn back and encamp in front of Pi-ha-hiroth, between Migdol and the sea, in front of Baal-zephon . . .”] demands a turn away from the Tjeku (Succoth) and Lake Timsah areas, and requires a movement north, which should eliminate both Lake Timsah and the Bitter Lakes from being candidates for the sea of crossing. (11)

Hoffmeier provides more argumentation for his contention that the el-Ballah Lakes were the place of the extraordinary crossing escape of the Hebrews:

Bietak . . . suggested that p3 twfy corresponded to yam sup of the Exodus tradition. (12) He reaffirmed  this interpretation in a recently published map, maintaining that p3 twfy is to be identified with the Ballah Lakes. (13) . . .

Today, the Ballah Lakes are gone, and desert sands, especially in the area east of the Suez Canal, cover its ancient depression . . . Beginning in 1995, excavations at this site uncovered the remains of a harbor with quays where boats docked, and a stone corniche that marked the water’s edge. These discoveries demonstrate that two thousand years ago a lake large enough to handle trading vessels flourished. The geological research of the east Frontier Archaeological Project in 2001 produced evidence that the lake probably extended six to eight kilometers [3.7 to 5 miles] to the north and east of Tell Abu Sefeh during the second millennium B.C. (14)

Clearly, the Arabic elements abu, ab, and bu do represent the ancient Egyptian writing of p3 or pi. And just as Hebrew sup corresponds to Egyptian twf, so does the Arabic suf. Thus the name abu sefeh appears, on solid linguistic grounds, to preserve the ancient Egyptian name ps twfy, and thus it points to the name of the ancient lake on whose shores it was situated, el-Ballah Lake. (15)

Hoffmeier notes after the last citation above that the case would be much stronger if there were evidence as to the locations of the place-names Pi-hahiroth, Migdol, and Baal-Zephon, mentioned in Exodus 14:2 as being near the “sea” in question. After a fascinating 20-page examination of recent archaeological findings, Hoffmeier renders his professional “conclusion”:

What this investigation of p3 twfy (yam sup) and the place names associated with it in Exodus 4:2 demonstrates is that the author has a specific location in mind and that the terms correspond best to Egyptian toponyms of the thirteenth century B.C. . . . Here the case of Migdol/Magdalu is germane. It is attested in several thirteenth- and twelfth-century B.C. Egyptian sources, in the Hebrew prophets (sixth century), and in Greco-Roman-period texts. . . .

he toponyms of Exodus 14:2 have a specificity that was certainly not necessary for a writer inventing the story . . . If P were historicizing an original mythic version of the sea-crossing episode, he did a remarkable job of identifying toponyms known in New Kingdom Egypt, and they fit into a geographical zone that accords well into the generally wet paleoenvironmental situation of the late second millennium B.C. I conclude, therefore, in the light of the new archaeological and paleoenvironmental data presented here, that the geographical setting of Exodus 14 is the area between the north side of the el-Ballah Lake system and the southern tip of the eastern lagoon (i.e., the proposed location of Migdol). By P’s day (fifth century B.C.), this area had radically changed. The Pelusiac had migrated fifteen to twenty kilometers [9 to 12.5 miles] to the north . . .

From a phenomenological perspective, the evidence adduced here demonstrates that the theophany of the sea crossing occurred in a specific geographical location and at a particular time in history. (16)

Manfred Bietak also brings up another important consideration: “The only way of avoiding border control was to cross the Ballah Lakes . . .They are the likeliest contender for the Yam Suph . . .” (17)

Moshier and Hoffmeier stated with even more confidence in 2015,

The archaeological and geological investigations we conducted in northern Sinai between 1998 and 2008 . . . supports the identifications Gardiner and Bietak proposed, viz., that P3-twfy of Ramesside Period texts and yam sup of the Exodus narratives should be identified with the Ballah Lake system . . . (18)

Hoffmeier further noted in 2008:

While the region east of the Delta today is largely desert, satellite images show the outlines of two ancient lakes. The southern one, Ballah Lake, actually contained water till the mid-nineteenth century when the Suez Canal was dug, draining it of its water. The dimensions of the ancient lake wee approximately 12 miles (20 km) long and 9 miles (15 km) at its widest point. Along with a team of geologists, I have been engaged in recent investigation of these ancient lakes. Study at the north end of Ballah Lake shows that it could have reached a depth of 15 to 18 feet (5 to 6 m). The second lake is situated north-east of the first lake and was fed by recently-discovered Nile channels. This lagoon actually emptied into the Mediterranean, the coast of which was much further south in ancient times than it is today. . . .

Ballah Lake is located 21 miles (34 km) directly east of the ancient site of Pi-Ramesses. (19)

At this juncture, my “money” is on the research and conclusions of Hoffmeier: the Egyptologist with two books published about Israel and Egypt by Oxford University, and who has been doing field research in the Nile Delta for many years.

And he concludes that the “Red Sea” crossing occurred at the Ballah Lakes. This scenario is perfectly consistent with Drews’ research on wind setdown natural occurrences that could explain the extraordinary event. It has actually been observed to more or less extent, two times in the region. And Drews’ scientific observations explain how it works, with other examples from Lake Erie. Everything increasingly fits together with regard to this topic. And it confirms (for the zillionth time) the amazing historical and geographical accuracy of the Bible.

FOOTNOTES

1) James K. Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition (Oxford University Press, 2005), 81.

2) Bible Hub, “5488. suph.” That is, Strong’s Hebrew word #5488. https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5488.htm.

3) Ibid.

4) William Gesenius, Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament, translated by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1847; reprinted by Baker Book House [Grand Rapids, Michigan] in 1979), 581; coded to Strong’s Hebrew word #5488.

5) George Frederick Wright, “Red Sea,” in James Orr, ed., International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1939). https://www.internationalstandardbible.com/R/red-sea.html.

6) Kenneth A. Kitchen, “Red Sea,” in J. D. Douglas, ed., The New Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1962), 1077-1078.

7) See Aly Shafei Bey, Bulletin de la Societe Royale de Geographie d’ Egypte, XXI, August 1946, 231 ff.

8) “Red Sea,” in Allen C. Myers, ed., The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1987), 876.

9) Kitchen, 1078.

10) Hoffmeier, 82.

11) Hoffmeier, 86.

12) Manfred Bietak, Tell el-Dab’a (Vienna: Osterreichischen Akadamie der Wissenschaffen Wien, 1975), 2: 137. See also Bietak, “Comments on the Exodus,” in Egypt, Israel, Sinai: Archaeological and Historical Relationships in the Biblical Period, ed. A. F. Rainey (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University Press, 1987), 167.

13) Manfred Bietak, Avaris: The Capital of the Hyksos: Recent Excavations at Tell el-Dab’a (London: British Museum, 1996), 2.

14) Hoffmeier, 88.

15) Hoffmeier, 89.

16) Hoffmeier, 108.

17) Manfred Bietak, “On the Historicity of the Exodus: What Egyptology Today Can Contribute to Assessing the Biblical Account of the Sojourn in Egypt,” pp. 17-38 in Thomas E. Levy, Thomas Schneider, & William H. C. Propp, eds., Israel’s Exodus in Transdiciplinary Perspective: Text, Archaeology, Culture, and Geoscience (Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2015), 27.

18) Stephen O. Moshier & James K. Hoffmeier, “Which Way Out of Egypt? Physical Geography Related to the Exodus Itinerary,” pp. 101-108 in Levy, ibid., 107.

19) James K. Hoffmeier, The Archaeology of the Bible (Oxford Lion Book), 55-56.

***

Practical Matters: Perhaps some of my 4,200+ free online articles (the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site) or fifty-one books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.

Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.

PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation Information. Thanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

***

Photo credit: [public domain / Wallpaper Flare]

Summary: Much confusion has arisen from an unfortunate relentless biblical usage of “Red Sea” (should sometimes be “Reed Sea”). I argue for an exact lake of the crossing.

January 24, 2023

January 24, 2023 By
0 Comments

[click on the cover to see a much larger image]

[published by Catholic Answers Press on March 15, 2023; 271 pages]

[See purchase information at the bottom of the page]

[Note: the artifact on the cover is the “Isaiah bulla”: discovered in 2018, and very likely connected with the prophet Isaiah (8th-7th c. BC)]

A Personal Word from the Author: My Excitement Over My Upcoming Book [Facebook, 2-28-23]

15 Archaeological Proofs of Old Testament Accuracy (short summary points from the book) [National Catholic Register, 3-23-23]

15 Archaeological Proofs of New Testament Accuracy (short summary points from the book) [National Catholic Register, 3-30-23]

“Dig Deep and Defend the Bible” [promotional article, Catholic Answers Magazine, 10 July 2023]

Reply to a criticism of the book: God’s Providence, Miracles & Natural Events [4-20-23]

See also my follow-up free “book”: The Word Set in Stone: “Volume Two”: More Evidence of Archaeology, Science, and History Backing Up the Bible (100 sections) [5-25-23]

* * * * * See Catholic Answers’ Promotional Video for the Book * * * * *

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS   

Dedication (p. 5) [read below]

Acknowledgments (p. 9) [read below]
Introduction (p. 11) [read online]

1. Search for the Garden of Eden (p. 19) [read at Amazon’s “Look Inside” feature]
2. Noah’s Flood: How It Could Have Happened (p. 29)
3. Walking the Journey of Abraham (p. 48) [read online]
4. Sodom Obliterated (p. 54) [read online]
5. Joseph in Egypt (p. 60)
6. The Curious Case of Camels (p. 72)
7. Out of Egypt with Moses (p. 81)
8. The Ten Plagues and Their Aftermath (p. 96) [excerpt: 6 Biblical Plagues Explained by Science]
9. The Red Sea, and Miracles in the Desert (p. 109) [excerpts: Parting the Red Sea / Moses & Water from Rocks]
10. Joshua and the Conquest of Canaan (p. 125)
11. King David Versus King Arthur (p. 139) [excerpt: first 4 1/2 pages online]
12. Digging Up Proofs of the Prophets (p. 152) [excerpt: Daniel & the Lion’s Den & History]
13. Astronomers Track the Star of Bethlehem (p. 174) [excerpt: “The Star Went Before Them”: Retrograde Motion and the Phenomenological Language of the Bible] 
14. St. Luke Knows His Stuff (p. 194) [excerpt: Herod Agrippa I “Eaten By Worms”: Myth or Plausible?] [excerpt: archaeology & Nazareth] [Luke’s minute historical accuracy]
15. St. John Wraps It Up (p. 215) [read online]

Postscript (p. 221) [read below]
Appendix A: Yes, There Were Camels (p. 223)
Appendix B: The Wrath of Joshua (p. 225)
About the Author (p. 237) [read below]
Endnotes [392 of ’em!] (p. 239)

DEDICATION

To my three grandchildren: Cecilia Joy, Estelle Marie,
and Joseph Charles. May you always love and serve our
wonderful Lord, who blessed Judy and me with you,
and we pray that you will always attain your desires and
dreams. Tons of love to you from “Papa” and “G’ma.”

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I’d like to express my admiration and appreciation for all the good folks at Catholic Answers—in particular, Jimmy Akin and Tim Staples. God bless all of you at “CA,” and thanks for your dedication and service.

I would like especially to thank the editors of Catholic Answers. I’ve repeatedly worked with Todd Aglialoro since 2003, when he accepted (after a seven-year wait for me!) and edited my first published book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism. I owe him a great debt of gratitude as an author and apologist. Drew Belsky, the content editor at Catholic Answers, with whom I worked directly on this volume, immeasurably improved it with his suggestions and insight. Editors are the unsung heroes who lie behind good books. I could never do all the hard work that they do (a labor of love), which makes me admire it all the more.

Lastly, I sincerely thank the atheists—particularly Jonathan M.S. Pearce—with whom I engaged in dialogue on archaeological matters for well over a year. This book would not exist were it not for them. My hope and prayer is that some of them will be persuaded (with the necessary aid of God’s grace) by the evidence herein that they invariably demand to see.

POSTSCRIPT

Most of the things I have dealt with in this chapter and throughout the entire book will never be heard about in a Sunday sermon or a Sunday school class or a Wednesday-night Bible study. They should be, because they demonstrate that the Bible and science and reason are not at odds at all, and that is a sorely needed emphasis. But they’re not, so people must deliberately seek them out and learn about them in books like this and related apologetics and archaeological articles.

New archaeological discoveries in relation to the Bible continue to be made all the time. It’s an exciting period for biblical archaeology. Ten years from now (mark my words!), an entire book could likely be filled with just the new Bible-related discoveries in Israel from now until then. The Bible’s historical trustworthiness has been verified in the pages of this book. The new finds that will keep arriving will verify it all the more.

How can I say that before the fact? Because archaeology has remarkably substantiated the biblical text, again and again, over the past 150 years, and especially the last thirty years. Therefore, we have little or no reason to believe that future discoveries won’t continue to do the same thing. The pattern has long since been set.

Perhaps Bible believers like me can be forgiven if we indulge in a little bit of gratuitous “I told you so!” or “That doesn’t surprise me in the slightest!” rhetoric now and then, after hearing of the latest corroboration of the Bible from secular archaeology.

Having reached the end of this volume, I’d like to add a personal touch and a wish. My own Christian faith, though it was fairly strong already, has been strengthened all the more in researching and writing this book. It’s my hope that readers who already identify as Christians (or practicing Jews, for that matter, who can also resonate with most of this book, since it concentrates on the Hebrew Bible) will have the same experience.

Perhaps also skeptics and unbelievers will, after reading this volume, consider more seriously the proposal and the possibility that this Bible we’re familiar with, to varying degrees, is something quite special. I submit that they must admit, in honesty (having read this book and its hundreds of demonstrations), that the Bible is historically accurate—a necessary aspect of divine inspiration, though I have not attempted to prove the latter in this book and don’t expect an atheist to easily accept that much deeper and more complex belief.

This project began in discussions with atheists, and so it’s appropriate to end it with an appeal to reason, open-mindedness, and a challenge to all skeptics. Let them be intellectually courageous enough to open themselves to archaeological and other scientific evidence, and solid historical research, when it comes to the Bible—and to not to make the Bible a special exception to the normal rules of demonstration, as if it can’t possibly be verified by such evidences, just as any other document can.

Thanks for reading, and for joining me on this journey!

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dave Armstrong is the author of fifty-one books: ten published by major Catholic publishers, with several bestsellers. He has defended Christianity as an apologist since 1981 and Catholicism in particular since 1990 (full-time since 2001). His blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, went online in 1997 and contains more than 4,000 articles. Dave has been a regular columnist for National Catholic Register since 2016, and has additionally been published in Catholic Answers Magazine, The Catholic World Report, Catholic Herald, and several other well-known Catholic periodicals.

BACK COVER

[click on the cover to see a much larger image]

BLURBS / ENDORSEMENTS

“Dave Armstrong has put together a masterful work that makes the claims of Sacred Scripture & Sacred Tradition shine bright when examined through the lens of archaeology. Dave’s book is not only a powerful tour de force, but it is composed for the scholar and lay reader alike. It is nearly impossible to find such a fantastic piece of work written from a Catholic perspective like The Word Set in Stone. This is a perfect book for any season.” (William Albrëcht: international speaker and debater who has participated in over 65 live and moderated debates. He frequently appears on EWTN and Virgin Most Powerful Radio, and is the author of multiple Catholic apologetics books such as The Definitive Guide to Solving Biblical Questions about Mary. He runs the YouTube channel, Patristic Pillars)

“Archaeology, like other disciplines, can be interpreted differently and used to promote agendas. Often skeptics use certain misinterpretations of findings to debunk or refute the Jewish and Christian Scriptures. But in this punchy book, Armstrong presents evidence in a clear and astute manner that the archaeological evidence does indeed confirm the words and historicity of Scripture. He pushes back on the skeptics and hits on some of the most heated topics, demonstrating that archaeology is actually a bedrock of confirmation. History and archaeology do not contradict the written Word, though many wish they did. Armstrong presents convincing arguments to assure novice and scholar alike that Scripture is accurate, from every discipline by which it is analyzed.” (Steve Ray: apologist, Holy Land tour guide, lecturer, webmaster, author of five books, and host of the multi-part video series highlighting biblical and other Christian sites, Footprints of God)

“Popular works that vindicate the Bible through archaeology and science line bookshelves in evangelical bookstores, but rarely does one find anything comparable in Catholic bookstores; that is, until now. Dave Armstrong has filled this need through a well-written, spirited defense of Holy Scripture, using cutting-edge research and other discoveries. I highly recommend The Word Set in Stone to anyone who wonders whether the Bible is grounded in history.” (Gary Michuta: Apologist, webmaster, lecturer, podcast host, and author of many books, including Why Catholic Bibles Are Bigger, Hostile Witnesses, and Making Sense of Mary. See his website)

“Christian apologist David Armstrong’s new book is a wonderful gift to the believing community. He refutes the disbelieving skeptic’s assertions by providing the reader with positive arguments for the biblical data. I found Armstrong’s offering deeply satisfying intellectually as well as deepening my Christian faith. It’s a fantastic resource. Highly recommended as a book not just to read and put on the shelf, but to access and reference for the rest of one’s life.” (Dr. Paul Patton, former Reformed Baptist pastor, Professor Emeritus of Communication and Media at Spring Arbor University, and writer of over thirty produced stage and radio plays. Learn more about his credentials and activities and read the longer version of this blurb).
***
“Many non-Christians have sought to discredit the events described in the Bible by appealing to archaeology and pointing out the evidence–or lack of evidence–of various places, people, and happenings, and Christians have been on the defensive against such attacks over the past century. But when treated fairly, the archaeological and historical evidence that has been discovered actually offers a compelling argument for the Bible! Armstrong draws out the most important evidence. The book is one of those necessary volumes that we Christians need to readily defend the truth of the Bible on the natural level. Otherwise Catholics are left flat-footed when the village atheist spouts off about how the Bible is so much made up, discredited hogwash. It takes someone like Armstrong carefully going through the studies and literature to piece together a counter-argument so that we faithful people can offer rejoinders and say “not so fast!” The book bolstered the reasons supporting my own faith.” (Devin Rose, apologist, webmaster, and author of seven books, including The Protestant’s Dilemma and Navigating the Tiber)
***
“In The Word Set in Stone, Dave Armstrong has provided us with a fascinating and thought-provoking journey through the biblical record and how it compares with the findings of archaeology.  Once I picked up this book, it was hard to put it down!” (Marcellino D’Ambrosio, Ph.D.; doctorate in historical theology from Catholic University of America, author of Exploring the Catholic Church and Guide to the Passion: 100 Questions about the Passion of the Christ, which was a New York Times best-seller and has sold over 500,000 copies)
***
“The book is scholarly but not abstruse.  He documents every contention carefully. He repeatedly demolishes the contentions of biblical  “minimalists” who attempt to discredit Scripture by claiming that one or another aspect of the Scriptural narrative is not possible. Christian readers who are not Roman Catholics should not simply chalk this up as a “Catholic book” and not read it.  As a Lutheran theologian, I can say that nothing in the book rests on ecclesiastical authority.  It contains a great many things people ought to know and upholds the principle of the Bible’s truthfulness. Much of it is absolutely brilliant. It is all firmly based in Scripture and credible archaeological research.  This book should be on the bookshelf of everyone who is interested in biblical apologetics but has shied away from books on the subject. I would suggest that this book is worthy company to the books of Lutheran John Warwick Montgomery and Anglican C.S. Lewis, and it has my endorsement.” (Rev. Dr. Ken Howes,  STM, JD, Professor of Theology and Lutheran Pastor [LCMS]; former student of the great apologist John Warwick Montgomery)
***
“Dave Armstrong has provided an invaluable service to Christians who feel intimidated by biblical skeptics. After years of dialogue with atheists and painstaking research, he shows that science and archaeology actually support the historicity of the Sacred Scriptures. His approach is neither that of a young-earth biblical fundamentalist nor that of a modernist critic. Instead, his aim is to show that the biblical stories—when properly understood—are authentic historical accounts and not mere myths. Those who wonder whether there is any historical foundation for the Garden of Eden, the Great Flood, the destruction of Sodom, the crossing of the Red Sea, the reign of King David, and the Star of Bethlehem will find this book fascinating and illuminating.” (Robert L. Fastiggi, Ph.D. Bishop Kevin M. Britt Chair of Dogmatic Theology and Christology, Sacred Heart Major Seminary, Detroit, Michigan)
***
“There are dishonest skeptics and honest ones. I’d been both in my past life. I had once attacked Christianity using intellectual-sounding arguments, when my true motive was that I didn’t like the message. But Christ’s love expressed by believers showing me respect won me over (at least part way). Then there was the time when I wanted to believe, but intellectual doubts got in the way. Forty years ago, a book called Evidence that Demands a Verdict by Josh McDowell helped me immensely overcome these difficulties. It didn’t necessarily “prove” Christianity, but gave it an air of credibility, so I could embrace the faith without feeling that I was throwing my brain away. Dave Armstrong’s new book, The Word Set in Stone, addresses both aspects of my former self. He listens and tries to be fair to his critics, even admitting that they may, at times, have a point. This loving approach is very winsome, in my opinion. Regarding myself: the honest skeptic, Dave’s book is in the tradition of McDowell. It is extremely well-researched, presenting in rapid-fire succession, quotes from world-renowned experts in the field of archaeology and other disciplines. This is heady stuff, but The Word Set in Stone is popularly-written so laymen like me can easily understand. Besides all this, I am also impressed by how up-to-date Dave’s information is (as recent as 2022!).” (Dan Grajek, author of Moon People: A Smug Dearborn College Kid Gets Schooled by the Road and the Cult)
***
“In the end, it was a very enjoyable read, and the book continuously amazed and delighted me. For those who enjoy both studying scripture and delving into historical and scientific questions, Dave Armstrong’s The Word Set in Stone is something you will not want to miss.” (Dr. Pedro Gabriel, oncologist and author of The Orthodoxy of Amoris Laetitia [2022]; see full review)
***

REVIEWS AND INTERVIEWS

Soundbites from Glowing Reviews [8-24-23]

Lutheran Professor Ken Howes (A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, 4-17-23)

Interview with John DeRosa of the Classical Theism website [7-14-23]

Fr. Matthew P. Schneider, LC (“the autistic priest”): “Good Apologetic Summary of Biblical Archeology” [read also on my Facebook page] [8-21-23] 

Archaeological, scientific, and historical evidence for the Bible (Dr. Pedro Gabriel, Where Peter Is, 11-6-23)

PURCHASE OPTIONS

[Order from Amazon (Paperback: $21.95 / Kindle: $9.99) ]

[Order the paperback from the publisher: $18.95 / E-Book (ePub + mobi): $12.99]

[Order from Barnes & Noble: paperback: $21.95]

***

Summary: Book page for Catholic apologist Dave Armstrong’s volume: The Word Set in Stone: How Archaeology, Science, and History Back up the Bible (Catholic Answers Press).

***

Updated on 31 December 2023

Follow Us!
OTHER RELATED CONTENT
1
If God Wrote the Bible, Why...
Formation Matters
2
Freemasons, Catholics, and American Religious Politics
Anxious Bench
3
The Intersection of Tradition and Change...
Summa Catholic
4
Reply to a Protestant: Misc. Protestant...
Biblical Evidence for Catholicism
Browse Our Archives
TRENDING AT PATHEOS Family
“There are only two kinds of people in...
God Wants Us To Get To Know Him
UAP and Ancient Alien Theology
Treviño Misrepresents My "Peter the Rock" Argument
God is Not Dead and Standing Firm in...
What Does It Mean To 'Abide In Him'?
view all Family blogs