May 1, 2013

Doug Indeap (if that is his real name) spends a profuse amount of time trolling Catholic and conservative blogs and using the com­boxes to instruct us all in his own firm belief in sta­tism and, in par­tic­u­lar, a squeez­ingly cramped and claus­tro­pho­bic inter­pre­ta­tion of first amend­ment reli­gious free­dom. His view of reli­gious free­dom can be summed up sim­ply: Of course you have reli­gious free­dom; except when the state says you don’t. But he has it backwards: The pur­pose of the law is not to limit the First Amend­ment; rather, the pur­pose of the First Amend­ment is to limit the law. Religion, not the state, is the guar­an­tor of free­dom, because its ulti­mate end is the Good, rather than power for its own sake. [Read more] Read more

April 25, 2013

Every­one, every­where  must support Bishop Camp­bell for the coura­geous stand he has taken in defending the Church’s moral teach­ing against intrin­sic evil. He has acted as a Catholic bishop is sup­posed to act. Every­one, every­where  should pray that he has the gift of for­ti­tude from the Holy Spirit to stand by his action, what­ever the cost to him­self per­son­ally. Because in the end this is not about Bishop Camp­bell per­son­ally, but about the moral good and the dig­nity of the human per­son and the truth of the Lord. For as Pope Fran­cis put it when he was Car­di­nal Bergoglio, the attempt to foist gay mar­riage upon soci­ety is “a machi­na­tion of the father of lies.” And the Church will not com­pro­mise with him. [Read more] Read more

April 24, 2013

Those cultic, pagan Romanists, not content just to add books to the the Bible, now add definitions to the dictionary! So claims Leonardo De Chirico, who is jealous of the word "evangelical." Meanwhile, John Bugay entertains us with his dreadful fear of Catholic expansionism, blames John Paul II, accuses George Weigel of linguistic theft, and breathlessly excoriates "sacraments, Mariology, hierarchy, traditions, papacy, devotions." (He leaves out Rosaries, vain repetitions, indulgences, Mass cards, saints, liturgies, vestments, trinkets, baubles, and beads.) But the fun has only begun, for Mr. De Chirico's sense of entitlement would not be complete without an allusion to the Trojan Horse. [Read more] Read more

April 24, 2013

Jason Stellman is spot-on in his expo­sure of the Protes­tant double-standard on infal­li­bil­ity; i.e., that Peter was infal­li­ble when he wrote two epis­tles, but not when he taught as pope. Protes­tant apol­o­gists fail to explain how the Holy Spirit could guide the authors of Scrip­ture but not the Mag­is­terium of the Church. They fail to explain how God is capa­ble of turn­ing water into wine in 30 A.D., but just couldn’t have appeared before a poor Pol­ish nun in the 1930s to tell her about His great mercy. They fail to explain how the one is the action of God, but the other lit­tle bet­ter than igno­rant superstition. For this reason Protestantism is "practically and ecclesiologically atheist." [Read more] Read more

April 24, 2013

Yes­ter­day I pre­dicted that it would not only be dis­senters within the Church, but also dis­senters out­side the Church, who would be stirred to ver­bal hand-wringing over Pope Fran­cis's homily in which he said that "it is not pos­si­ble to find Jesus out­side the Church.” And lo! but a few hours after I made my pre­dic­tion came this post from the famil­iar and pro­lific Tur­ret­inFan — the amaz­ing, the undaunted Mr. X of Calvinism. In this post, I look at four main points that Mr. X stresses in his response to Pope Fran­cis, and hope­fully give a counter-response that clar­i­fies what I believe the pope to have had in mind; with this caveat lec­tor, that I am not giv­ing an infal­li­ble inter­pre­ta­tion here . [Read more] Read more

April 23, 2013

The Church does not say that non-Catholics will not be saved; but all theological nuance aside, the cru­cial thing for those out­side the Church to under­stand is this: You are liv­ing a life that is less than what Christ intended. Christ intended for grace to be poured out through the sacra­ments; you don’t have them. Christ intended for us to encounter Him   in the Eucharist; you haven’t received it. Christ intended for us to be led into “all truth”  within the Church; you are being shep­herded, by your own admis­sion, by fal­li­ble teach­ers. You may talk about Christ until you are blue in the face, but you do not know Him; you have not encoun­tered Him; and your life is less than what He meant for it to be. [Read more] Read more

April 20, 2013

I am worried about Mr. X. Nor­mally, he is one of the abler crit­ics of the Catholic Church; apart from Dr.* James White, Mr. X is prob­a­bly the most capa­ble mem­ber of Team Apolo­gian, and Dr.* White was cor­rect to praise “the con­sis­tency of his work.” His ear­lier cri­tiques of two of my arti­cles on sola scrip­tura, though wrong­headed, were at least cogent. They at least made argu­ments that were seri­ous and schol­arly and worth address­ing. But I am afraid some incon­sis­tency has crept in to the works, start­ing with an arti­cle of his on Pope John XX , and now just yes­ter­day with a very strange addi­tion to his lat­est exam­i­na­tion of papal suc­ces­sion and infal­li­bil­ity. I frankly know not what to make of it. [Read more] Read more

April 20, 2013

According to a theological inquiry commissioned by Pope John Paul II: "Many fac­tors give seri­ous the­o­log­i­cal and litur­gi­cal grounds for hope that unbap­tized infants who die will be saved and enjoy the beatific vision. We empha­size that these are rea­sons for prayer­ful hope, rather than grounds for sure knowl­edge. There is much that sim­ply has not been revealed to us. What has been revealed is that the ordi­nary way of sal­va­tion is by the sacra­ment of bap­tism. But we have strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to bap­tize them into the faith and life of the Church." [Read more] Read more

April 19, 2013

Time and again, the Protes­tant apol­o­gist lacks a basic under­stand­ing of the point of infal­li­bil­ity. The rea­son God gave the pope this charism was only for the pur­pose of pre­serv­ing the Church from error in faith or morals. When defin­ing ordi­nals, the purity of Church teach­ing, and unity of Chris­tians, is not at stake, so the Holy Spirit does not guide the pope. It is not a ques­tion of, “If the pope is infal­li­ble in large things, he must also be infal­li­ble in small things” — as if, to be of use, infal­li­bil­ity has to mean “pos­sess­ing all knowl­edge.” Rather, infal­li­bil­ity is a charism that the Holy Spirit grants the pope only under very spe­cific cir­cum­stances and for very spe­cific pur­poses. [Read more] Read more

April 18, 2013

I had always heard peo­ple, when the the­ol­ogy of suf­fer­ing came up, talk about unit­ing your suf­fer­ing to the suf­fer­ing of Christ. I had never con­sid­ered the pos­si­bil­ity of unit­ing my suf­fer­ing to the suf­fer­ing of Mary. I real­ized: I had been approach­ing Mary entirely the wrong way. You know, you never get over the loss of your child. Never. A lot of peo­ple ask “Why?” but that’s a non­sense ques­tion. Even if God were to come down to me and explain why, and even if I could under­stand it, I don’t want to know why: I just want to have my daugh­ter back. The right thing, though, is not to hide your suf­fer­ing away in the hopes that it won’t be there because you can’t see it. The right thing is to embrace your suf­fer­ing. [Read more] Read more


Browse Our Archives