Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 16

Day 3: 2014 3rd Annual Fundraiser for Dave Armstrong's Full-time Apologetics Apostolate ($5000 goal)

 I wish money grew on trees, but unfortunately it doesn't

$440 or 9% of the total, has been raised so far.

For today's post: "Protestant Feedback About My Work," see the public post I have on my Facebook page.

* * * * *

2014 3rd Annual Fundraiser for Dave Armstrong's Full-time Apologetics Apostolate ($5000 goal)

 With Scott Hahn and Steve Ray in Steubenville, Ohio, July 1999
Day One: Monday 25 August 2014

Two years ago I undertook my first overt fundraising drive in almost eleven years since I became a full-time Catholic apologist in December 2001. It was successful and met and exceeded the goal within a month. So did the one last year. I had hoped in 2012 that it wouldn't be necessary to have to raise funds every year (that it was a temporary shortfall), but that wasn't to be. The economy continues to cause no end of trouble. Unless things change quite a bit, it looks like this fundraiser will be necessary every year at this time. Book sales are very slow (I think the whole bookselling industry is struggling), and my main royalties (twice a year from Sophia Institute Press decreased by about 15% last time.

Yet when my books are properly advertised (in my case, in catalogues such as that of Catholic Answers and EWTN: in a way, "free advertising"), they frequently appear on the Amazon Top 100 list for Catholic books, even 7-10 years after publication ( A Biblical Defense of Catholicism , The Catholic Verses , The One-Minute Apologist ). My New Catholic Answer Bible continues to sell like hotcakes (often in the 20-30,000 sales rank range at Amazon): but I receive no ongoing royalties for it, so it isn't helping me now to pay my bills. But the point is that my books sell well if only they are known and advertised as they should be.

Despite the bleak economy and my often dreary home budget, many good things continue to happen. In the year since my last fundraiser, I have published the following seven books:

Revelation! 1001 Bible Answers to Theological Questions (10-3-13)

Debating James White: Shocking Failures of the "Undefeatable" Anti-Catholic Champion (11-1-13)

Pope Francis Explained: Survey of Myths, Legends, & Catholic Defenses in Harmony with Tradition (1-22-14)

The Quotable Wesley (Beacon Hill Press, editor, 4-1-14) [my first book with a Protestant publisher: and a major one at that]

Quotable Catholic Mystics and Contemplatives (editor; 5-1-14)

Victorian King James Version of the New Testament (editor; 7-15-14)

Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: 80 Short Essays in Defense of the Catholic Faith (completed on 8-2-14; quite possibly could be published by Sophia Institute Press, or else on my own shortly)

Additionally, I'm in the process of revising my book, Orthodoxy and Catholicism: A Comparison: this time with Eastern input from two friends of mine. That should be done in the next few weeks.

In the last year I also launched my brand-new discount booksite, where 41 of my books can be purchased and instantly downloaded in ePub or  mobi format for only $4.99, and in PDF for just $1.99, and 15 radio interviews are available as absolutely free downloads. I'll discuss this more below, in terms of how it helps me the most if you purchase my books this way.

Another big blessing that happened in the previous year was gaining five new monthly supporters. Four of them chose to use a recurring payment through PayPal. I need many more monthly supporters. Would you be kind enough to prayerfully consider supporting my work for $25 or $50 a month (the cost of a cup of coffee per day or a medium order of french fries per day)?

Within the last twelve months was hired to write regular articles for Seton Magazine : the leading Catholic homeschooling magazine (every week since February) and The Michigan Catholic : every two weeks since May). These provide some additional helpful regular income, but I still need much more.

Most Catholic apostolates regularly "beg and plead" (quite vigorously!): and usually more than once a year, including personal e-mails or letters in the regular mail. I remain dead-set against personal solicitation. You'll never get those sorts of letters from me. That's a promise and an absolute principle I have set for myself. I'm not saying those things are wrong per se; just that I will never do it. Occasionally I have done mass e-mailings, but they simply mention new books of mine, with just one little statement at the end that someone may wish to consider supporting the work. I also send out my famous "cyber Christmas cards" every year: usually with one of my original Christmas poems. No solicitation in those, either . . .

Briefly, I have a very meager income; I manage to pay my bills. We live in a lower middle class-type bungalow (built in 1943) in a lower-level Detroit suburb. We have good credit, and (except for temporary shortfall periods) don't use credit cards. The only debt we have to speak of is our mortgage. We live simply, by principle and design. My wife homeschools, so I am the only breadwinner. We have four children. Three are now legal adults, but they live here and I still have to feed them. I'm not rolling in dough; clearly, my motivation for what I do is not riches and material goods. I'm 110% dedicated to my work. I trust and have faith in God that He will provide, because this is what He would have me do. And He has, remarkably so all these years. He provides through people like you.

As I have often noted, I don't have a staff to pay, or buildings to rent (besides my home that I own and pay for). I don't have radio or TV or magazine costs. I don't have any overhead. You see how much work I put out. It's just me, folks! If you support this work, it is a very efficient operation, with a very high ratio of product relative to the money required to allow the product to be possible.

All I've ever asked in the few times I have solicited funds, is support from those of you who have been personally helped by my work. I know you're out there. I receive letters all the time, saying that my work has helped folks become Catholics or more confident Catholics (if they already were). If I have aided you, by God's grace, doesn't it make sense that you would help support my work? The laborer is worthy of his wages, as the Bible says (and St. Paul was talking about Christian workers, in the context there). Here are examples of ten unsolicited letters that I have received, expressing the "good fruit" of my work:

Thanks for all the great work you do for the faith, Dave. It's been of great value to me, and now my family!

PayPal message, 2-2-14

Thank you for your ministry. Your apologetics have played a big role in helping me understand the faith better and have helped keep me in the Catholic Church.  I own several of your books and your blog is great! Keep up the good work! 

Facebook message, 5-8-14

My husband and I are converts and you have been and are very helpful to us in knowing, living, and defending our faith.

Facebook, 5-13-14 

Thanks for all your effort to demonstrate the biblical nature of Catholicism. Your book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, was the first book I read when I had come to the conclusion I needed to enter the Church. Thank you for all you have done to dispel the anti-Catholic myths.

Comment on the Seton Magazine website, 5-31-14

Our conversations online were instrumental in my conversion into the Roman Catholic Church! Thanks for being such an amazing apologist Dave.

e-mail, 6-13-14

I read with delight an article you presented a few weeks back about our Blessed Mother and her Ever-Virgin status. It touched upon the so-called "siblings" of Jesus. It was the most succinct article I had ever read on the matter and I was cheering you as I read it. May God's richest blessings continue to be showered upon you and your family. You are a grace to us who desire to know the Lord more closely in His Holy Church.

Facebook message, 6-24-14

In February, I was received into full communion with the Church (having been a Methodist), and your writings were extremely helpful along the way. You have helped me a great deal.

e-mail, 7-1-14 

God bless you and all your excellent work! The work you have done has changed the world for many, many people.

e-mail, 7-14-14

Dave's books were some of the first that I encountered as an early convert. I have them all right here next to me, where I reference them frequently. They have saved me big time on numerous occasions. I'm just amazed that he has produced so many.

Facebook page, 7-17-14

Dave Armstrong is a great apologist for breaking Catholic doctrine/teaching down in a way that's fairly easy for anyone to understand.  

Facebook page, 7-30-14

My blog, online continuously since February 1997, contains 2388 posts or papers: almost all of them about apologetics or related issues of ethics, culture, history, philosophy, etc. I've also been published in magazines many times, going back to 1993. See my Literary Resume.

All those papers on my blog and now Facebook pages, are there for free, and have some educational value (if I do say so). Moreover, even if someone hasn't personally been helped by my writing, they may recognize that it has apologetic and evangelistic value, and so support it, just as any other mission is supported financially. That's what I'm asking you today: to please consider that.

There is a very unfortunate strain of thinking that apologetics is not "real work" or that it should only be done by priests and bishops (wrong! Lay apologetics and outreach in the Church has a long and honorable history, going back to the Church fathers). I'm not a priest. I'm a guy like most of you who is married with four children, who works very hard and earns every penny of a relatively tiny income (by American standards) that I manage to generate through this work. I have bills to pay and financial worries just as all of you do.

Please strongly consider supporting this apostolate. If you think it is worthwhile in order to help others and to help "harvest" lost souls and nominal, uncommitted, miseducated Catholics out in the world, perhaps you would like to play an important and direct role that effort and outreach mission by contributing. You can help this effort quite a bit in other ways, too, besides your generous donations:

1) Prayer.

2) Writing endorsements and recommendations or "testimonies" about my work or books (on my page and/or on your own) as this drive proceeds.

3) Sharing these fundraising posts on your pages in order to "spread the word."

4) Hitting the "like" button on my Facebook author page (if you really do like it!).

5) Purchasing my books and telling others about them; linking to my various book pages or (above all!) my new booksite, etc.

The new booksite offers a way to help me quite a bit, since no "middle man" is involved. People seem to think that I make a lot of money every time a paperback of mine is sold. This is not true. By contract, the author gets 14% of the net profit. In real terms (what I actually am paid in the end), I receive the following royalty per sale:

A Biblical Defense of Catholicism: $1.65
The Catholic Verses: $1.50
The One-Minute Apologist: $1.34

This is how little an author receives. I think a lot of people think, "hey, I bought three of Dave's paperbacks; I'm really supporting his work!" I appreciate it; I'm delighted that you are reading (all authors love that); it's what I do: write stuff for you to read,  but that alone doesn't help me continue the work very much in terms of finances. If someone bought those three books, they contributed all of $4.49 into my pocket.

But if they bought three of my e-books for $4.99 each on my booksite, there is no middle man, so I receive all of that minus a small transaction fee and a small monthly fee for the use of the site (or $13.89 without figuring monthly cost). I explained this recently to a few friends and they couldn't believe that I made so much more by sales of e-books than paperbacks. Well, that is all about "middle men" and overhead. When I sell my own e-books on my own site, neither of those is present. Consequently, I make about three times as much as I do with a paperback sale.

But I also need donations. It's always been about one-quarter to one-third of my income. If I hadn't received that, I wouldn't have been able to do this full-time for over 13 years. The rest has come from book royalties or additional part-time jobs along the way. And in that respect I'm no different than any other Catholic apostolate. They all need to be supported financially beyond the products they sell. Even those who have the huge benefit of TV and radio and the lecture circuit (e.g., Catholic Answers: the largest and most influential such group of all) have to vigorously solicit funds to survive and thrive.

I probably make a larger percentage of my income from my own products than most Catholic ministries do.  I've written 46 books and I'm getting paid to regularly write articles, too. I try to be as self-sufficient and efficient as I can possibly be. But I still need your help for this to succeed. That's just how it is in the apologetics business. It's reality.

If people bought apologetics and theology books in numbers like they do, romance novels or pornographic material or gossip rags or any number of other genres that sell far more copies, it would be different. I'd never have to ask for a dime or bother you at all (which I would love, believe me). But sadly, that is not the case in our world, which doesn't consider the things of God and spiritual concerns as important as 99 other interests.

Donations are 100% tax-deductible (through my good friend John Martignoni's Bible Christian Society), and you are able to donate via PayPal and with a credit card if you like. It's very simple. Here are the  instructions for how to go about all that.

If you don't need the tax deduction, you can send funds immediately through PayPal right to me (without going through Bible Christian Society).

During this pledge drive, the following "thank you gifts" will be in effect:

1) For a $25 donation, I'll send you one e-Pub book of your choice, which is a $4.99 value (my already low booksite prices). For $50, I'll send you three. If you can't read ePubs, you need to let me know, and I can send a PDF or a mobi instead. NOTE: This includes my five well-known "officially" published books from Sophia. To select a book, see my booksite.

2) For a very generous donation of $100 or more, I'll send you any paperback of your choice. These can be selected from all of my books (see my blog book page to select one). Just send me your home address and I'll get it out to you as soon as I can.

The total goal is $5000: to live on till the next twice-a-year royalty check from Sophia (which is 50-60% less than it used to be five years ago due to the economy). The faster the goal is met, the sooner I can devote full energy to my writing again, and bring you more of the apologetics that I have been producing on a continuous basis since 1993. My motivation is as high as ever, and I have no plans of ever retiring. From me you get total "lifetime" commitment and passion for the work that I do. I'm honored to be at your service.

First things first: I gotta pay my bills. I'm out of money already right now: as soon as I pay my gas and electric bill. I can't even pay my house bill, which is due in a week. It happens every year about this time, because my "big" royalties are so much less than they used to be, and the loss of the part-time job at Coming Home Network (2007-2010) due to the rotten economy continues to harm me. From 2002 through to 2011 I didn't have to do a fundraiser like this. I never solicited at all (virtually unique among Catholic apostolates). But since 2012 it has become an absolute necessity. But even then I solicit just once a  year in a low-key fashion and will never bother you individually in e-mail, Facebook messages or "snail mail."

Please prayerfully consider a donation or one or more of the other things above that are helpful as well. Thank you so much and God bless you! I love all of you and  appreciate my readers from the bottom of my heart.

NOTE: if you have read about my upcoming trip to Israel in October (which will also be the topic of a new book, already begun), it needs to be understood that it is being completely paid for, courtesy of the Roaming Romans apostolate that is generously sponsoring my wife and I and also two others. This fundraiser has nothing to do with that at all.

* * * * *

Links to Facebook for further updates during the 2014 Fundraiser:
Day Three ($440 raised so far, or 9%).







***

2014 Fundraiser for Dave Armstrong's Full-time Apologetics Apostolate ($5000 goal)

 With Scott Hahn and Steve Ray in Steubenville, Ohio, July 1999
Day One: Monday 25 August 2014

Two years ago I undertook my first overt fundraising drive in almost eleven years since I became a full-time Catholic apologist in December 2001. It was successful and met and exceeded the goal within a month. So did the one last year. I had hoped in 2012 that it wouldn't be necessary to have to raise funds every year (that it was a temporary shortfall), but that wasn't to be. The economy continues to cause no end of trouble. Unless things change quite a bit, it looks like this fundraiser will be necessary every year at this time. Book sales are very slow (I think the whole bookselling industry is struggling), and my main royalties (twice a year from Sophia Institute Press decreased by about 15% last time.

Yet when my books are properly advertised (in my case, in catalogues such as that of Catholic Answers and EWTN: in a way, "free advertising"), they frequently appear on the Amazon Top 100 list for Catholic books, even 7-10 years after publication ( A Biblical Defense of Catholicism , The Catholic Verses , The One-Minute Apologist ). My New Catholic Answer Bible continues to sell like hotcakes (often in the 20-30,000 sales rank range at Amazon): but I receive no ongoing royalties for it, so it isn't helping me now to pay my bills. But the point is that my books sell well if only they are known and advertised as they should be.

Despite the bleak economy and my often dreary home budget, many good things continue to happen. In the year since my last fundraiser, I have published the following seven books:

Revelation! 1001 Bible Answers to Theological Questions (10-3-13)

Debating James White: Shocking Failures of the "Undefeatable" Anti-Catholic Champion (11-1-13)

Pope Francis Explained: Survey of Myths, Legends, & Catholic Defenses in Harmony with Tradition (1-22-14)

The Quotable Wesley (Beacon Hill Press, editor, 4-1-14) [my first book with a Protestant publisher: and a major one at that]

Quotable Catholic Mystics and Contemplatives (editor; 5-1-14)

Victorian King James Version of the New Testament (editor; 7-15-14)

Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: 80 Short Essays in Defense of the Catholic Faith (completed on 8-2-14; quite possibly could be published by Sophia Institute Press, or else on my own shortly)

Additionally, I'm in the process of revising my book, Orthodoxy and Catholicism: A Comparison: this time with Eastern input from two friends of mine. That should be done in the next few weeks.

In the last year I also launched my brand-new discount booksite, where 41 of my books can be purchased and instantly downloaded in ePub or  mobi format for only $4.99, and in PDF for just $1.99, and 15 radio interviews are available as absolutely free downloads. I'll discuss this more below, in terms of how it helps me the most if you purchase my books this way.

Another big blessing that happened in the previous year was gaining five new monthly supporters. Four of them chose to use a recurring payment through PayPal. I need many more monthly supporters. Would you be kind enough to prayerfully consider supporting my work for $25 or $50 a month (the cost of a cup of coffee per day or a medium order of french fries per day)?

Within the last twelve months was hired to write regular articles for Seton Magazine : the leading Catholic homeschooling magazine (every week since February) and The Michigan Catholic : every two weeks since May). These provide some additional helpful regular income, but I still need much more.


Most Catholic apostolates regularly "beg and plead" (quite vigorously!): and usually more than once a year, including personal e-mails or letters in the regular mail. I remain dead-set against personal solicitation. You'll never get those sorts of letters from me. That's a promise and an absolute principle I have set for myself. I'm not saying those things are wrong per se; just that I will never do it. Occasionally I have done mass e-mailings, but they simply mention new books of mine, with just one little statement at the end that someone may wish to consider supporting the work. I also send out my famous "cyber Christmas cards" every year: usually with one of my original Christmas poems. No solicitation in those, either . . .

Briefly, I have a very meager income; I manage to pay my bills. We live in a lower middle class-type bungalow (built in 1943) in a lower-level Detroit suburb. We have good credit, and (except for temporary shortfall periods) don't use credit cards. The only debt we have to speak of is our mortgage. We live simply, by principle and design. My wife homeschools, so I am the only breadwinner. We have four children. Three are now legal adults, but they live here and I still have to feed them. I'm not rolling in dough; clearly, my motivation for what I do is not riches and material goods. I'm 110% dedicated to my work. I trust and have faith in God that He will provide, because this is what He would have me do. And He has, remarkably so all these years. He provides through people like you.

As I have often noted, I don't have a staff to pay, or buildings to rent (besides my home that I own and pay for). I don't have radio or TV or magazine costs. I don't have any overhead. You see how much work I put out. It's just me, folks! If you support this work, it is a very efficient operation, with a very high ratio of product relative to the money required to allow the product to be possible.

All I've ever asked in the few times I have solicited funds, is support from those of you who have been personally helped by my work. I know you're out there. I receive letters all the time, saying that my work has helped folks become Catholics or more confident Catholics (if they already were). If I have aided you, by God's grace, doesn't it make sense that you would help support my work? The laborer is worthy of his wages, as the Bible says (and St. Paul was talking about Christian workers, in the context there). Here are examples of ten unsolicited letters that I have received, expressing the "good fruit" of my work:

Thanks for all the great work you do for the faith, Dave. It's been of great value to me, and now my family!

PayPal message, 2-2-14

Thank you for your ministry. Your apologetics have played a big role in helping me understand the faith better and have helped keep me in the Catholic Church.  I own several of your books and your blog is great! Keep up the good work! 

Facebook message, 5-8-14

My husband and I are converts and you have been and are very helpful to us in knowing, living, and defending our faith.

Facebook, 5-13-14 

Thanks for all your effort to demonstrate the biblical nature of Catholicism. Your book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, was the first book I read when I had come to the conclusion I needed to enter the Church. Thank you for all you have done to dispel the anti-Catholic myths.

Comment on the Seton Magazine website, 5-31-14

Our conversations online were instrumental in my conversion into the Roman Catholic Church! Thanks for being such an amazing apologist Dave.

e-mail, 6-13-14

I read with delight an article you presented a few weeks back about our Blessed Mother and her Ever-Virgin status. It touched upon the so-called "siblings" of Jesus. It was the most succinct article I had ever read on the matter and I was cheering you as I read it. May God's richest blessings continue to be showered upon you and your family. You are a grace to us who desire to know the Lord more closely in His Holy Church.

Facebook message, 6-24-14

In February, I was received into full communion with the Church (having been a Methodist), and your writings were extremely helpful along the way. You have helped me a great deal.

e-mail, 7-1-14 

God bless you and all your excellent work! The work you have done has changed the world for many, many people.

e-mail, 7-14-14

Dave's books were some of the first that I encountered as an early convert. I have them all right here next to me, where I reference them frequently. They have saved me big time on numerous occasions. I'm just amazed that he has produced so many.

Facebook page, 7-17-14

Dave Armstrong is a great apologist for breaking Catholic doctrine/teaching down in a way that's fairly easy for anyone to understand.  

Facebook page, 7-30-14

My blog, online continuously since February 1997, contains 2388 posts or papers: almost all of them about apologetics or related issues of ethics, culture, history, philosophy, etc. I've also been published in magazines many times, going back to 1993. See my Literary Resume.

All those papers on my blog and now Facebook pages, are there for free, and have some educational value (if I do say so). Moreover, even if someone hasn't personally been helped by my writing, they may recognize that it has apologetic and evangelistic value, and so support it, just as any other mission is supported financially. That's what I'm asking you today: to please consider that.

There is a very unfortunate strain of thinking that apologetics is not "real work" or that it should only be done by priests and bishops (wrong! Lay apologetics and outreach in the Church has a long and honorable history, going back to the Church fathers). I'm not a priest. I'm a guy like most of you who is married with four children, who works very hard and earns every penny of a relatively tiny income (by American standards) that I manage to generate through this work. I have bills to pay and financial worries just as all of you do.

Please strongly consider supporting this apostolate. If you think it is worthwhile in order to help others and to help "harvest" lost souls and nominal, uncommitted, miseducated Catholics out in the world, perhaps you would like to play an important and direct role that effort and outreach mission by contributing. You can help this effort quite a bit in other ways, too, besides your generous donations:

1) Prayer.

2) Writing endorsements and recommendations or "testimonies" about my work or books (on my page and/or on your own) as this drive proceeds.

3) Sharing these fundraising posts on your pages in order to "spread the word."

4) Hitting the "like" button on my Facebook author page (if you really do like it!).

5) Purchasing my books and telling others about them; linking to my various book pages or (above all!) my new booksite, etc.

The new booksite offers a way to help me quite a bit, since no "middle man" is involved. People seem to think that I make a lot of money every time a paperback of mine is sold. This is not true. By contract, the author gets 14% of the net profit. In real terms (what I actually am paid in the end), I receive the following royalty per sale:

A Biblical Defense of Catholicism: $1.65
The Catholic Verses: $1.50
The One-Minute Apologist: $1.34

This is how little an author receives. I think a lot of people think, "hey, I bought three of Dave's paperbacks; I'm really supporting his work!" I appreciate it; I'm delighted that you are reading (all authors love that); it's what I do: write stuff for you to read,  but that alone doesn't help me continue the work very much in terms of finances. If someone bought those three books, they contributed all of $4.49 into my pocket.

But if they bought three of my e-books for $4.99 each on my booksite, there is no middle man, so I receive all of that minus a small transaction fee and a small monthly fee for the use of the site (or $13.89 without figuring monthly cost). I explained this recently to a few friends and they couldn't believe that I made so much more by sales of e-books than paperbacks. Well, that is all about "middle men" and overhead. When I sell my own e-books on my own site, neither of those is present. Consequently, I make about three times as much as I do with a paperback sale.

But I also need donations. It's always been about one-quarter to one-third of my income. If I hadn't received that, I wouldn't have been able to do this full-time for over 13 years. The rest has come from book royalties or additional part-time jobs along the way. And in that respect I'm no different than any other Catholic apostolate. They all need to be supported financially beyond the products they sell. Even those who have the huge benefit of TV and radio and the lecture circuit (e.g., Catholic Answers: the largest and most influential such group of all) have to vigorously solicit funds to survive and thrive.

I probably make a larger percentage of my income from my own products than most Catholic ministries do.  I've written 46 books and I'm getting paid to regularly write articles, too. I try to be as self-sufficient and efficient as I can possibly be. But I still need your help for this to succeed. That's just how it is in the apologetics business. It's reality. If people bought apologetics and theology books in numbers like they do, romance novels or pornographic material or gossip rags or any number of other genres that sell far more copies, it would be different. I'd never have to ask for a dime or bother you at all (which I would love, believe me). But sadly, that is not the case in our world, which doesn't consider the things of God and spiritual concerns as important as 99 other interests.

Donations are 100% tax-deductible (through my good friend John Martignoni's Bible Christian Society), and you are able to donate through PayPal and with a credit card if you like. If you don't need the tax deduction, you can send funds immediately through PayPal. It's very simple. Here are the  instructions for how to go about all that.

During this pledge drive, the following "thank you gifts" will be in effect:

1) For a $25 donation, I'll send you one e-Pub book of your choice, which is a $4.99 value (my already low booksite prices). For $50, I'll send you three. If you can't read ePubs, you need to let me know, and I can send a PDF or a mobi instead. NOTE: This includes my five well-known "officially" published books from Sophia. To select a book, see my booksite.

2) For a very generous donation of $100 or more, I'll send you any paperback of your choice. These can be selected from all of my books (see my blog book page to select one). Just send me your home address and I'll get it out to you as soon as I can.

The total goal is $5000: to live on till the next twice-a-year royalty check from Sophia (which is 50-60% less than it used to be five years ago due to the economy). The faster the goal is met, the sooner I can devote full energy to my writing again, and bring you more of the apologetics that I have been producing on a continuous basis since 1993. My motivation is as high as ever, and I have no plans of ever retiring. From me you get total "lifetime" commitment and passion for the work that I do. I'm honored to be at your service.

First things first: I gotta pay my bills. I'm out of money already right now: as soon as I pay my gas and electric bill. I can't even pay my house bill, which is due in a week. It happens every year about this time, because my "big" royalties are so much less than they used to be, and the loss of the part-time job at Coming Home Network (2007-2010) due to the rotten economy continues to harm me. From 2002 through to 2011 I didn't have to do a fundraiser like this. I never solicited at all (virtually unique among Catholic apostolates). But since 2012 it has become an absolute necessity. But even then I solicit just once a  year in a low-key fashion and will never bother you individually in e-mail, Facebook messages or "snail mail."

Please prayerfully consider a donation or one or more of the other things above that are helpful as well. Thank you so much and God bless you! I love all of you and  appreciate my readers from the bottom of my heart.

NOTE: if you have read about my upcoming trip to Israel in October (which will also be the topic of a new book, already begun), it needs to be understood that it is being completely paid for, courtesy of the Roaming Romans apostolate that is generously sponsoring my wife and I and also two others. This fundraiser has nothing to do with that at all.

* * * * *

2014 Fundraiser for Dave Armstrong's Full-time Apologetics Apostolate ($7000 goal)

 With Scott Hahn and Steve Ray in Steubenville, Ohio, July 1999
Day One: Monday 25 August 2014

Two years ago I undertook my first overt fundraising drive in almost eleven years since I became a full-time Catholic apologist in December 2001. It was successful and met and exceeded the goal within a month. So did the one last year. I had hoped in 2012 that it wouldn't be necessary to have to raise funds every year (that it was a temporary shortfall), but that wasn't to be. The economy continues to cause no end of trouble. Unless things change quite a bit,it looks like this fundraiser will be necessary every year at this time. Book sales are very slow (I think the whole bookselling industry is struggling), and my main royalties (twice a year from Sophia Institute Press decreased by about 15% last time.

Yet when my books are properly advertised (in my case, in catalogues such as that of Catholic Answers and EWTN: in a way, "free advertising"), they frequently appear on the Amazon Top 100 list for Catholic books, even 7-10 years after publication (A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, The Catholic Verses, The One-Minute Apologist). My New Catholic Answer Bible continues to sell like hotcakes (often in the 20-30,000 sales rank range at Amazon): but I receive no ongoing royalties for it, so it isn't helping me now to pay my bills. But the point is that my books sell well if only they are known and advertised as they should be.

Despite the bleak economy and my often dreary home budget, many good things continue to happen. In the year since my last fundraiser, I have published the following seven books:

Revelation! 1001 Bible Answers to Theological Questions (10-3-13)

Debating James White: Shocking Failures of the "Undefeatable" Anti-Catholic Champion (11-1-13)

Pope Francis Explained: Survey of Myths, Legends, & Catholic Defenses in Harmony with Tradition (1-22-14)

The Quotable Wesley (Beacon Hill Press, editor, 4-1-14) [my first book with a Protestant publisher: and a major one at that]

Quotable Catholic Mystics and Contemplatives (editor; 5-1-14)

Victorian King James Version of the New Testament (editor; 7-15-14)

Biblical Evidence for Catholicism: 80 Short Essays in Defense of the Catholic Faith (completed on 8-2-14; quite possibly could be published by Sophia Institute Press, or else on my own shortly)

Additionally, I'm in the process of revising my book, Orthodoxy and Catholicism: A Comparison: this time with Eastern input from two friends of mine. That should be done in the next few weeks.

In the last year I also launched my brand-new discount booksite, where 41 of my books can be purchased and instantly downloaded in ePub or  mobi format for only $4.99, and in PDF for just $1.99, and 15 radio interviews are available as absolutely free downloads. I'll discuss this more below, in terms of how it helps me the most if you purchase my books this way.

Another big blessing that happened in the previous year was gaining five new monthly supporters. Four of them chose to use a recurring payment through PayPal. I need many more monthly supporters. Would you be kind enough to prayerfully consider supporting my work for $25 or $50 a month (the cost of a cup of coffee per day or a medium order of french fries per day)?

Within the last twelve months was hired to write regular articles for Seton Magazine : the leading Catholic homeschooling magazine (every week since February) and The Michigan Catholic : every two weeks since May). These provide some additional helpful regular income, but I still need much more.

Looking forward, I know now that I must invest more in advertising and making my books known to a much larger audience. This is the unquestionably "name of the game" at this point in my career. It's the same old catch-22: you have to have money to make money. I need money to advertise in order to sell books so that I can have enough income! My books are not being exposed enough merely by my various Internet sites and publishers catalogues and various apologetics book catalogues. I have to advertise on my own. And this is where you can be a tremendous help indeed.

My goal in this year's fundraiser is $7000, because it includes an additional $2000 earmarked solely for advertising of my books on a major supersite (yet to be determined). I know my books can sell if only they are known. They have a proven track record. Most of my self-published books (I have 46 total now) are little known, if at all (because of lack of advertising and promotion, that I have had no money to do).

Most Catholic apostolates regularly "beg and plead" (quite vigorously!): and usually more than once a year, including personal e-mails or letters in the regular mail. I remain dead-set against personal solicitation. You'll never get those sorts of letters from me. That's a promise and an absolute principle I have set for myself. I'm not saying those things are wrong per se; just that I will never do it. Occasionally I have done mass e-mailings, but they simply mention new books of mine, with just one little statement at the end that someone may wish to consider supporting the work. I also send out my famous "cyber Christmas cards" every year: usually with one of my original Christmas poems. No solicitation in those, either . . .

Briefly, I have a very meager income; I manage to pay my bills. We live in a lower middle class-type bungalow (built in 1943) in a lower-level Detroit suburb. We have good credit, and (except for temporary shortfall periods) don't use credit cards. The only debt we have to speak of is our mortgage. We live simply, by principle and design. My wife homeschools, so I am the only breadwinner. We have four children. Three are now legal adults, but they live here and I still have to feed them. I'm not rolling in dough; clearly, my motivation for what I do is not riches and material goods. I'm 110% dedicated to my work. I trust and have faith in God that He will provide, because this is what He would have me do. And He has, remarkably so all these years. He provides through people like you.

As I have often noted, I don't have a staff to pay, or buildings to rent (besides my home that I own and pay for). I don't have radio or TV or magazine costs. I don't have any overhead. All I need is some additional money that I can devote to advertising. This is now the crucial need. You see how much work I put out. It's just me, folks! If you support this work, it is a very efficient operation, with a very high ratio of product relative to the money required to allow the product to be possible.

All I've ever asked in the few times I have solicited funds, is support from those of you who have been personally helped by my work. I know you're out there. I receive letters all the time, saying that my work has helped folks become Catholics or more confident Catholics (if they already were). If I have aided you, by God's grace, doesn't it make sense that you would help support my work? The laborer is worthy of his wages, as the Bible says (and St. Paul was talking about Christian workers, in the context there). Here are examples of ten unsolicited letters that I have received, expressing the "good fruit" of my work:

Thanks for all the great work you do for the faith, Dave. It's been of great value to me, and now my family!

PayPal message, 2-2-14

Thank you for your ministry. Your apologetics have played a big role in helping me understand the faith better and have helped keep me in the Catholic Church.  I own several of your books and your blog is great! Keep up the good work! 

Facebook message, 5-8-14

My husband and I are converts and you have been and are very helpful to us in knowing, living, and defending our faith.

Facebook, 5-13-14 

Thanks for all your effort to demonstrate the biblical nature of Catholicism. Your book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism, was the first book I read when I had come to the conclusion I needed to enter the Church. Thank you for all you have done to dispel the anti-Catholic myths.

Comment on the Seton Magazine website, 5-31-14

Our conversations online were instrumental in my conversion into the Roman Catholic Church! Thanks for being such an amazing apologist Dave.

e-mail, 6-13-14

I read with delight an article you presented a few weeks back about our Blessed Mother and her Ever-Virgin status. It touched upon the so-called "siblings" of Jesus. It was the most succinct article I had ever read on the matter and I was cheering you as I read it. May God's richest blessings continue to be showered upon you and your family. You are a grace to us who desire to know the Lord more closely in His Holy Church.

Facebook message, 6-24-14

In February, I was received into full communion with the Church (having been a Methodist), and your writings were extremely helpful along the way. You have helped me a great deal.

e-mail, 7-1-14 

God bless you and all your excellent work! The work you have done has changed the world for many, many people.

e-mail, 7-14-14

Dave's books were some of the first that I encountered as an early convert. I have them all right here next to me, where I reference them frequently. They have saved me big time on numerous occasions. I'm just amazed that he has produced so many.

Facebook page, 7-17-14

Dave Armstrong is a great apologist for breaking Catholic doctrine/teaching down in a way that's fairly easy for anyone to understand.  

Facebook page, 7-30-14

My blog, online continuously since February 1997, contains 2388 posts or papers: almost all of them about apologetics or related issues of ethics, culture, history, philosophy, etc. I've also been published in magazines many times, going back to 1993.

All those papers on my blog and now Facebook pages, are there for free, and have some educational value (if I do say so). Moreover, even if someone hasn't personally been helped by my writing, they may recognize that it hasapologetic and evangelistic value, and so support it, just as any other mission is supported financially. That's what I'm asking you today: to please consider that.

There is a very unfortunate strain of thinking that apologetics is not "real work" or that it should only be done by priests and bishops (wrong! Lay apologetics and outreach in the Church has a long and honorable history, going back to the Church fathers). I'm not a priest. I'm a guy like most of you who is married with four children, who works very hard and earns every penny of a relatively tiny income (by American standards) that I manage to generate through this work. I have bills to pay and financial worries just as all of you do.

Please strongly consider supporting this apostolate. If you think it is worthwhile in order to help others and to help "harvest" lost souls and nominal, uncommitted, miseducated Catholics out in the world, perhaps you would like to play an important and direct role that effort and outreach mission by contributing. You can help this effort quite a bit in other ways, too, besides your generous donations:

1) Prayer.

2) Writing endorsements and recommendations or "testimonies" about my work or books (on my page and/or on your own) as this drive proceeds.

3) Sharing these fundraising posts on your pages in order to "spread the word."

4) Hitting the "like" button on my Facebook author page (if you really do like it!).

5) Purchasing my books and telling others about them; linking to my various book pages or (above all!) my new booksite, etc.

The new booksite offers a way to help me quite a bit, since no "middle man: is involved. People seem to think that I make a lot of money every time a paperback of mine is sold. This is not true. By contract, the author gets 14% of the net profit. In real terms (what I actually am paid in the end), I receive the following royalty per sale:

A Biblical Defense of Catholicism: $1.65
The Catholic Verses: $1.50
The One-Minute Apologist: $1.34

This is how little an author receives. I think a lot of people think, "hey, I bought three of Dave's paperbacks; I'm really supporting his work!" I appreciate it; I'm delighted that you are reading (all authors love that); it's what I do: write stuff for you to read,  but that alone doesn't help me continue the work very much in terms of finances. If someone bought those three books, they contributed all of $4.49 into my pocket.

But if they bought three of my e-books for $4.99 each on my booksite, there is no middle man, so I receive all of that minus a small transaction fee and a small monthly fee for the use of the site (or $13.89 without figuring monthly cost). I explained this recently to a few friends and they couldn't believe that I made so much more by sales of e-books than paperbacks. Well, that is all about "middle men" and overhead. When I sell my own e-books on my own site, neither of those is present. Consequently, I make about three times as much as I do with a paperback sale.

This is why it is supremely important and my goal this year, to advertising my booksite and achieve some serious sales. But I also need donations. It's always been about one-quarter to one-third of my income. If I hadn't received that, I wouldn't have been able to do this full-time for over 13 years. The rest has come from book royalties or additional part-time jobs along the way. And in that respect I'm no different than any other Catholic apostolate. They all need to be supported financially beyond the products they sell. Even those who have the huge benefit of TV and radio and the lecture circuit (e.g., Catholic Answers: the largest and most influential such group of all) have to vigorously solicit funds to survive and thrive.

I probably make a larger percentage of my income from my own products than most Catholic ministries do.  I've written 46 books and I'm getting paid to regularly write articles, too. I try to be as self-sufficient and efficient as I can possibly be. But I still need your help for this to succeed. That's just how it is in the apologetics business. It's reality. If people bought apologetics and theology books in numbers like they do, romance novels or pornographic material or gossip rags or any number of other genres that sell well, it would be different. I'd never have to ask for a dime or bother you at all (which I would love, believe me). But sadly, that is not the case in our world, which doesn't consider the things of God and spiritual concerns as important as 99 other things.

Donations are 100% tax-deductible (through my good friend John Martignoni's Bible Christian Society), and you are able to donate through PayPal and with a credit card if you like. If you don't need the tax deduction, you can send funds immediately through PayPal. It's very simple. Here are the  instructions for how to go about all that.

During this pledge drive, the following "thank you gifts" will be in effect:

1) For a $25 donation, I'll send you one e-Pub book of your choice, which is a $4.99 value (my already low booksite prices). For $50, I'll send you three. If you can't read ePubs, you need to let me know, and I can send a PDF instead. NOTE: This includes my five well-known "officially" published books from Sophia. To select a book, see my booksite.

2) For a very generous donation of $100 or more, I'll send you any paperback of your choice. These can be selected from all of my books (see my blog book page to select one). Just send me your home address and I'll get it out to you as soon as I can.

The total goal is $7000: $5000 to live on till the next twice-a-year royalty check from Sophia (which is 50-60% less than it used to be five years ago due to the economy), and $2000 more for the crucial need of advertising my booksite, so I can achieve significant sales and bring in much more income. If I don't start investing in serious advertising (with your help), I'll probably struggle over the next year, as I have this past year. The faster the goal is met, the sooner I can devote full energy to my writing again, and bring you more of the apologetics that I have been producing on a continuous basis since 1993. My motivation is as high as ever, and I have no plans of ever retiring. From me you get total "lifetime" commitment and passion for the work that I do. I'm honored to be at your service.

First things first: I gotta pay my bills. I'm out of money already right now: as soon as I pay my gas and electric bill. I can't even pay my house bill, which is due in a week. It happens every year about this time, because my "big" royalties are so much less than they used to be, and the loss of the part-time job at Coming Home Network (2007-2010) due to the rotten economy continues to harm me. From 2002 through to 2011 I didn't have to do a fundraiser like this. I never solicited at all (virtually unique among Catholic apostolates). But since 2012 it has become an absolute necessity. But even then I solicit just once a  year in a low-key fashion and will never bother you individually in e-mail, Facebook messages or "snail mail."

Please prayerfully consider a donation or one or more of the other things above that are helpful as well. Thank you so much and God bless you! I love all of you and  appreciate my readers from the bottom of my heart.

NOTE: if you have read about my upcoming trip to Israel in October, it needs to be understood that it is being completely paid for, courtesy of the Roaming Romans apostolate that is generously sponsoring my wife and I and also two others. This fundraiser has nothing to do with that at all.

* * * * *

Reply to a Critique of My Book, Pope Francis Explained, by Dr. Phil Blosser

  Dr. Blosser's critique is entitled,  A brotherly dissent: an open letter to Dave Armstrong on 'splainin' Pope Francis. It appeared on his site, Musings of  Pertinacious Papist, on 22 August 2014.  It will be reproduced below in its entirety, in blue, with my replies. Further dialogue is also welcome. He is a professor of philosophy at Sacred Heart Seminary in Detroit.
* * * * *
I found myself a bit disappointed, Dave. You've written so many good things before this. I finally got around to reading your book Pope Francis Explained recently, and, I'm sorry, but I guess I was expecting something different. I don't question for a moment your goodwill towards the Holy Father, your fidelity to the Magisterium, or your zeal for Holy Mother Church. But I'm disappointed for at least two reasons. Not bad, really, just two. 

Seems like more than two, as we read on, but whatever!

First of all, as a general overall response I'd like to note that the review is remarkable (but typical of critical reviews) insofar as it scarcely cites the words of my book or its arguments at all. The few words that it does cite have to do with the definition of radical Catholic reactionary, which is, of course, not the main focus of the book.

Accordingly, many of the beefs in the review have to do with standard "traditionalist" and/or radical Catholic reactionary arguments, rather than being directly relevant to my book. I'm happy to defend the book or admit it if I blew it here and there in my effort, but it makes little sense to me to have this broad discussion of the usual garden-variety complaints of the "traditionalist" in the context of a book that has the purpose of defending the Holy Father against what I believe to be misinterpretations and misunderstandings.

Yet that is largely what we have here, and since I am replying point-by-point, I can't avoid getting into those issues. In my opinion, that discussion would have been more relevant and on-topic with regard to my two books [one / two]  that deal with those concerns and the movements and trends from which they largely derive. I'd love to interact with arguments against particular arguments I have made, but that is almost nonexistent in this review.

First, although your book purports to explain how Pope Francis has been misunderstood and show how his words can be properly understood, in many cases you do not really do this. Rather, you quote passages from the Pope's writings and speeches where he clearly defends Church teaching. 

Exactly! To explain arguably less clear utterances, one seeks out more clear utterances elsewhere. That is helping folks to better understand the (truly or purportedly) unclear ones: especially since the fear or accusation in most of these instances that I dealt with is some heterodoxy or otherwise anti-traditional or unsavory opinion in the thinking of the Holy Father. In other words, if the suspicion is that such-and-such a statement reveals an underlying heterodoxy or departure from tradition, then showing where the Holy Father elsewhere makes such things plain, ameliorates the fear by way of undercutting it by sufficient confuting documentation.

It's not like this is some novel methodology. It's standard procedure; we call this "understanding a writer in immediate context and in the context of his thought as a whole" (certainly a thing that you as a philosopher and academic must understand and accept). It's also standard biblical hermeneutics and exegesis: "interpreting less clear or unclear passages of Scripture in light of related relatively clearer ones." You confirm this in a way below, and make my argument for me (thank you!).

It is true that I presume good will from the pope, and assume that he is orthodox, "going in." I think that is the prerogative of popes, minus massive evidence to the contrary, and what obedient Catholics owe him in charity and on a presuppositional level, before entering into critique. If someone thinks he isn't orthodox, in whatever issue I deal with, I think I provide enough information to eliminate any suspicion of wrong belief. That should be sufficient to put an end to the "problem" in those instances. Yet it wasn't for you (and many others).

The problem in many circles now, however, is that we see a mentality of supposed multiple dozens of examples of the pope's alleged muddleheadedness, so that people build up a cynical theory or "grand view" or ongoing "narrative" that he is a terribly weak reed and lousy pope. That in turn colors future interpretations of him. That is to be distinguished from a complaint that he may have been unclear in a particular statement (as all of us can be and too often are). The claims now are that he is systematically unclear. This I reject, and I do so because of what I studied, myself, in writing this book.

To your credit, such quotations might be of help to secular progressives or dissenting Catholics who actually dislike or don't know the Church's positions, if any of them were interested enough to read your book. But that's not the problem that many others see here. The problem, rather, is that many of the Pope's statements (not just their interpretations) are themselves ambiguous, and feed the fire of glee among the dissenters and alarm among the faithful; and simply smoothing over this problem by insisting on what you think the Pope surely must have meant does not address this problem.


This gets back to what I argued above, regarding my methodology. The statements must be interpreted one way or another. All agree on that. I'm saying that if something is unclear, one goes to other available statements on the same topic from the pope, to clarify things. What in the world is wrong with that? What do you suggest as an alternative? We can't read his mind. We mustn't assume heterodoxy without hard evidence. We shouldn't rashly speculate against him or anyone else (as, for example, the first four persons who commented in your combox did about me, extending me little or no charity at all). My method is perfectly objective and sensible. And in applying it, I believe that I succeeding in "explaining" his thinking in these instances.

You applied the same rudimentary benefit of doubt to me, above ("I don't question for a moment . . . your fidelity to the Magisterium"). Okay; now why wouldn't any Catholic extend the same courtesy to the pope? Yet what we find is widespread questioning of him. I think it's a bum rap. That is, the "grand cynical view" is a bum rap. It may be that in some instances he truly was unclear. I don't see that as any big deal. It's like Presidents Bush or Obama making their famous mistakes in speech. But sorry; I didn't see that in the examples I dealt with in the book.

Many of those who have expressed concern, if not alarm, over the ambiguities and confusions found in the Pope's own words are not “reactionaries” on the “extreme right” or only “a hair's breadth from schism,” or even “mainstream traditionalists” who “prefer the Tridentine Mass,” to quote you.

I don't believe I have ever claimed (in the book or anywhere else) that anyone who thinks so must be a reactionary, so that is a moot point. What I have said is that it often comes from extremist camps on the right. It doesn't follow (either logically or in my thought) that it can never come from anywhere else.

Rather, they are men and women numbered among my own colleagues and friends – people like Dr. Janet Smith, Dr. Monica Miller, Dr. Robert Fastiggi, Dr. Eduardo Echeverria, Dr. Mark Latkovic, and others. 

Again, without particular examples given, that I can actually discuss, this doesn't advance the discussion; it is tantamount to "dropping names" for its own sake. I don't know if these people have 30 complaints about 30 things (as some folks out there do), or just one, or three or four. For example, a person could be absolutely convinced that the pope was perfectly orthodox, but simply has a sloppy style of talking and expressing things (which is arguably almost inevitable after the high philosophical and theological precision of his two extraordinary predecessors). I was confused, myself, about one of the pope's statements: the one on Mary that I devoted a long chapter to. I stated this frankly and plainly in the book. So I've done the same thing. But I reserved judgment till I could study it further. I did so, thought it through, produced the chapter, and I am satisfied with the explanation I gave there. It's sufficient for me. I think it can be for many others, too, if they are not so biased that they are beyond any positive explanation of the pope's words anymore.

None of them would think of accusing the Holy Father of heresy or not being the legitimate pope, but many of them have expressed (1) real concerns (especially in the beginning) as to whether he was securely “on board” with the Church's teachings on contraception, abortion, homosexuality, and so on, although these concerns were fairly quickly allayed by emerging publications and statements showing that the Pope has stalwartly defended the Church's perennial position on those issues (as you, too, have stressed); 

Here is what I referred to above as you making my argument for me (and you are arguing against yourself). How did they determine that the pope was "okay"  regarding "contraception, abortion, homosexuality, and so on,"? It was precisely by checking out other "publications and statements showing that the Pope has stalwartly defended the Church's perennial position on those issues." Bingo! That was my methodology in the book! Yet for some reason, when I do that you think it is an indefensible and insufficient methodology: so much so that you basically pan the book (which I love, because then I can respond).

and many of them (2) continue to be concerned about ambiguities and conflicting signals, not merely mis-communicated by irresponsible media, but resident within the Pope's own often “off-the-cuff” remarks. Some of these concerns are summarized, for example, by Dr. Miller here and here.

At last we have an actual specific example that I can look at. Thanks! Dr. Miller provides twelve in your first link. Without seriously examing context and background and all that (you know, as I did in the book), here are my initial off-the-cuff reactions or impressions (unless I am not permitted to talk off-the-cuff as the pope apparently is not allowed to do):

1. Imprudential exaggeration in the passion of the moment. Everyone does this all the time. We make whatever we are taking about or worried about the biggest issue because it is front and center for the moment.

2. No one disagrees that there have been bad popes. So, ho hum . . .

3. Rhetorical statement: which by nature is not of the sort that should be interpreted literally, as Dr. Miller did.

4. It's not required in any sense to immediately highlight a proper counterpart to a bad thing. Proselytizing is a bad thing. To say that does not require one to say, "evangelism is a good thing." The latter is understood.

5. Looks like a case that must be examined in context. Dr. Miller immediately makes the accusation of "moral subjectivism and even a kind of relativism." This is the problem: the quick accusation, rather than trying to understand in context and incorporating different modes of thought and expression into the equation.


6. The point had nothing to do with how many Jesuits are liberal, but with the worldview of the Jesuit. I resonate with this, since my mentor was Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Thus, the criticism is a non sequitur: more interested in the quick polemical retort rather than charitable understanding of what the pope meant.

7. Not worthy of any criticism at all. It's a mere truism and something no one would disagree with. So why include it? Just so it could add up to a dirty dozen? Thus we observe the "piling on" mentality so frequent in these criticisms.

8. The pope is making another indisputable point: that we don't love as we should. Yet Dr. Miller tries to score polemical points.

9. This one I don't understand prima facie and would have to examine more closely. It's the only one so far that appears troublesome on its surface.

10. A mere matter of emphasis in his papacy, not either / or: yet Dr. Miller has to (for whatever inexplicable reason) make the non sequitur point.

11. Dr. Miller herself provides the answer: "in a sense . . ." Okay! Duh! So we interpret in that sense, which is (I think, obviously) what the pope meant.

12. On the surface, seemingly unclear or even problematic. So that is 2 out of 12 or 17% of the laundry list that prima facie bear close examination and explanation. No big deal. 

I'm very unimpressed by her reasoning, so I will pass on the other link you gave from her. I gave you an answer for this one. Thanks for the opportunity of actually being able to deal with a particular argument.

In your treatment of the La Civiltà Cattolica interview, you don't really ever address the problem of these off-the-cuff remarks and the confusion they have caused. You admit that the style of delivery might differ significantly, but that the substance remains unchanged. Yet you don't acknowledge any sort of real problem. You cite Jimmy Akin's hypothesis that the Pope is trying to fight against being “stereotyped” by the liberal secular media. Whether this hypothesis is plausible or not is beside the point, however. The elephant in the room is the confusion provoked by the Holy Father's remarks among both agnostic secularists and Catholics. Even Jimmy Akin acknowledges this difficulty in a passage you quote (p. 117), where he writes: “Time will tell whether [the Pope's] 'fight the stereotypes, go with the central message' approach will lead to the results he desires ….” But you don't address this.

I addressed it throughout the entire chapter. It should have never been an issue at all. The pope makes a perfectly understandable explanation of what he meant, himself:


We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. . . . when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context. The teaching of the church, for that matter, is clear and I am a son of the church, but it is not necessary to talk about these issues all the time.
What is so "rocket science" about that? These issues are indeed what some people want to exclusively talk about: the hot-button sexual issues. That's all he was saying. And I say that as a pro-life activist who was in 25 rescues, was arrested five times, went through three trials, and did some jail time; also as one who was first led to the Church by the issue of contraception. I certaily talk about them, and preach hard truths. But I don't "all the time." This is his (rather simple) point.

This thing was blown all out of proportion by the media and alarmist hysteria of some RadCathRs. I don't see that this is the pope's fault at all. All one had to do was read the above paragraph, calmly, with an open mind and elementary understanding of logic. It's completely uncontroversial. You want to blame him. I don't see anythng unclear or ambiguous about this paragraph (which was the main issue and the one I dealt with) at all. I think it's yet another of the innumerable bum raps, and rather silly and foolish at that.

In your chapter devoted to “Pro-Life” issues, for example, you offer quotation-after-quotation from Pope Francis, calling to witness words with which he has clearly defended the Church's teaching on life issues. Not once, however, do you address the problems that provoked the serious dismay expressed by good Catholics like Dr. Monica Miller or Dr. Janet Smith, such as the Pope ostensibly dismissing pro-life concerns like contraception, abortion, and same-sex marriage as “obsessions” of those immersed in “small-minded rules.” 

I already did, in the discussion of the issue above. The pope is talking about over-emphasis. If he's pro-life, he is. That's not at issue. He's talking about emphases and methodology, which is a legitimate issue. People simply can't hear it properly because they are heavily involved in those issues, as they should be (and as I am).

Whatever the “strategy” that may have animated the Holy Father's words, he has nowhere made this known, and he has left multitudes in confusion, or, worse, confirmed in their errors. And your counsel that “those who are intended to get it [his meaning], will get it,” is hardly a viable hermeneutic.




Things need to be interpreted in context and in the context of his whole thought. If even his critics in this regard agree that he is strongly pro-life, then there is no issue other than arguably some unclear language. The much larger consideration (is he pro-life?) is not in play.

Second, although your book claims to steer a path between the extremes of “progressives” on the left and “reactionaries” on the right, it also tends to group under the heading of “reactionaries” any Catholics who are publicly critical of the Holy Father's often confusing remarks. 

Where did I do that? Why don't you give me an actual example of something I said, for a change, besides the definition you give below, which is not one of my arguments regarding the pope. If you actually give me something I can sink my teeth into, then we can dialogue seriously, about particulars and arguments made, rather than on this silly "meta" level, where you claim I do a certain thing but refuse to give either me or your readers the consideration of documenting it.

As I already noted, in chapter four I wrote in the book that I myself was confused by some of his statements on Mary. Obviously, then, I am not contending that only radical reactionaries could ever have any such confusion. But you didn't note that relevant point in your review. I had to do it.

Your definition of those who are “radically Catholic reactionary” is:

... a rigorist, divisive group completely separate from mainstream “traditionalism” that continually, vociferously, and vitriolically (as marked characteristic or defining trait) bashes and trashes popes, Vatican II, the New Mass, and ecumenism (the “big four”): going as far as they can go without technically crossing over the canonical line of schism. 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... [Phil Blosser: I used to think that, until I realized they were voicing the views of Popes like St. Pius X]. They must assume a condescending “superior-subordinate” orientation.

Strong language, to say the least.

Yes it is, and well-deserved, given what they say about popes and councils and the Pauline Mass and their critics like me, whom they ridiculously classify (when we examine what they mean by it) as "neo-Catholics." They deserve every warranted criticism that I dish out to them, and more. But the discussion about them should be devoted to reviews of my two books on that topic (linked above).

The topic here is Pope Francis and whether he is relentlessly unclear to the point of scandal and mass confusion and concern. I don't think he is, and the book provided my reasons why I have that opinion, over 127 pages.

Yet your distinction between “radical reactionary” and “mainstream traditionalist” Catholics, while well-intentioned, is anything but tidy in application.

As all classifications of people are. Simply developing a working definition in no way applies that it is easy to apply. I know that. My major was sociology, which almost (I speak cynically) reduces to the study and science of labels for groups of people.

How would you classify Michael Voris, who refuses to criticize the Pope but has produced exposés sharply critical of (a) “liturgical reforms” following Vatican II (“Weapons of MASS Destruction”), (b) the way Communion in the hand was introduced in the west (“Reception Deception”), (c) and of many other facets of the contemporary “church of nice,” and 

I classify him (as I've stated several times in writing) as a "traditionalist" who in some respects crosses over to the radical Catholic reactionary category. I know several "traditionalist" friends who don't think he is a "traditionalist" at all. There are folks who have elements of both groups, precisely because people are complex, as you note. He directly attacked the Novus Ordo Mass itself, which is radical reactionary.  The way communion in the hand was "introduced" is a legitimate critique that I would agree with, but is neither dogmatic nor even technically liturgical, because the complaint is about behavior and not the thing itself. But he does go after the thing itself, too, and I responded by proving that communion in the hand, standing, was the norm for the first 6-9 centuries of the Church, depending on location. The "Church of Nice" schtick is a mixed bag. He makes some good points, but also slanderous and caricatured ones bordering on, or entering into outright slander, that help nothing.


(d) bishops like Cardinal Dolan who waffle in their public statements about gays, Muslims, etc.? 

I would say (assuming the accuracy of your report) he may be a weak, waffling bishop, of which there are many. But I haven't studied him closely enough.

How would you classify someone who published statements like the following?

What happened after the Council was something else entirely: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We abandoned the organic, living process of growth and development over centuries, and replaced it -- as in a manufacturing process -- with a fabrication, a banal on-the-spot product.

The passage, of course is from former Cardinal Ratzinger's Introduction to Msgr. Klaus Gamber's Reform of the Roman Liturgy, describing the Mass cobbled together by Fr. Bugnini's Consilium, which Fr. Joseph Gelineau, S.J. famously called the “permanent workshop” of liturgical innovation. Would you classify him as “a rigorist,” “divisive,” someone who “vociferously, and vitriolically … trashes Vatican II and the New Mass?”


No (now we're into tired boilerplate arguments). I interpret the remark in context and in light of his other statements, as Fr. Angelo Geiger, himself a "traditionalist" who performs the Tridentine Mass, does. He has clearly gone through the same process and frustration I have with regard to the "banal" quote and folks ignoring what Pope Benedict XVI stated as pope (even being called an ultramontanist). He wrote in the comments for his article, "The Spirit of Summorum Pontificum" (11 March 2012), about this quote, which is always trotted out like a mantra:

Nice cut and paste out of context quote from Cardinal Ratzinger, . . . You might actually learn something from David Armstrong’s piece [link] . . . . Context doesn’t mean anything? Read Armstrong’s piece and this, [his article above] and then come back and talk to me.

. . .  to show context and the actual nuance of thought of Ratzinger is not prooftexting. It is simply illustrat[ing] that his thought is complex and defies being used as a club, unless of course, one cherry-picks the quotes one likes and disregards those one doesn’t. The trads (not you necessarily) quote Cardinal Ratzinger (not Pope Benedict) out of context from a preface to a book (not a magisterial document) and suggest it proves something, and then when as Pope he speaks magisterially on religious liberty (see, for example 26-27), we are told not to be ultramontanists . . .

In his article on Summorum Pontificum, Fr. Geiger also commented on the famous "banal" quote: 

Beyond this Cardinal Ratzinger has leveled qualified criticisms of the way in which the new liturgical books came into existence, saying that they appeared to be “put together by professors,” and not as a result of “a phase in a continual growth process.” He said: “I do regard it as unfortunate that we have been presented with the idea of a new book rather than with that of continuity within a single liturgical history” (Feast of Faith, 87). In his preface to the French edition of The Reform of the Roman Liturgy by Klaus Gamber (1992), Ratzinger’s criticisms are more stinging and appear to support the position of Gamber, which is that the new liturgical books could be revised to reflect more accurately the principles laid down by Vatican II, and hence, be drawn more fully within Tradition. In that preface, he contrasts the Western understanding of liturgical development with the Eastern notion that the liturgy is a “reflection of eternal light,” and then writes:

What happened after the Council was totally different: in the place of liturgy as the fruit of development came fabricated liturgy. We left the living process of growth and development to enter the realm of fabrication. There was no longer a desire to continue developing and maturing, as the centuries passed and so this was replaced—as if it were a technical production—with a construction, a banal on-the-spot product.

This statement might be taken in one of several ways: as pertaining simply to the abuses of the new Mass and not to the new books themselves; as pertaining to the very novus ordo itself as codified in the Missal of Paul VI; as pertaining to the manner of presentation of the books, as the work of professors and not as organic development. I suggest that the meaning of the Cardinal is nuanced, tending toward the third option, because his earlier statements and those of his pontificate suggest that he is not denigrating the novus ordo as such. Again, to be clear, both before and after his 1992 preface for Gamber’s book, his remarks indicate that he favors the new liturgical books, even if he hopes for some revisions.

Furthermore, your poster boy for your definition of “radical Catholic reactionary” is the blog Rorate Caeli, which, according to your definition, represents a perspective that is “completely separate from mainstream 'traditionalism' that continually, vociferously, and vitriolically … bashes and trashes popes, Vatican II, the New Mass, and ecumenism … etc.” Yet Rorate Caeli, which you acknowledge as “one of the most influential [traditionalist] blogs” online, features numerous guest editorials by priests and other authors from all over the world, with frequent features of spiritual writing from Church history, promotions of prayer for various causes (Purgatorial Society Masses, etc.), along with many exposés of various goings-on that should concern faithful Catholics everywhere. 

Yep. So what? Radical Catholic reactionary sites always do that. If some truth and non-controversial stuff wasn't mixed in with the massive error, no one would be taken in by them.

To suggest, because of its haste in sounding alarms or a “gotcha” moment of guilt-by-association with a source whose unrelated writings may be objectionable, that Rorate Caeli is “completely separate from the mainstream 'traditionalism',” or that it “continually vociferously, and vitriolically bashes and trashes popes, Vatican II, the New Mass, ecumenism” etc., is not simply uncharitable, but untrue.


Those statements weren't based on that alone, but by independent observation. Nice try, but no cigar. You simply assumed that my whole basis of making that judgment was this one incident. It's but one of many.

If there is a theme of criticism of these sorts of things, it is not because of any incipient rejection or rebellion against the institution of the Papacy, or against the authority of an ecumenical council like Vatican II, or against the licitness or validity of the new Mass, or the importance of ecumenical overtures toward reunion of the Eastern Orthodox or Protestants with Rome, 

All that fits precisely with my definition of the radical Catholic reactionary (which you prove by this statement that you do not yet grasp). The RadCathR remains Catholic. He's not canonically schismatic. But he is quasi-schismatic, because schism is a process that starts in the heart (Sermon on the Mount). It doesn't spring from nowhere and all of a sudden a person is SSPX or a sedevacantist or even beyond that (the sad place where Gerry Matatics is now, thinking there are virtually no valid Masses anywhere). He's pharisaically legalistic and can't see the forest for the trees. I've been studying these folks for 16 years now, as part of my task as an apologist.

The game of the RadCathR is to go right up to the edge of denying the validity of Vatican II or the New Mass but not doing it, so they can always defend themselves just as you did above. This is all old news. I've seen it a billion times, which is why I can generalize about it and derive the definition from the constantly observed behavior. I know what I'm talking about.

but because of genuine problems that attach to the understanding and implementation of each of these in our own times. Why does a book that purports to explain Pope Francis not address these problems?

Because a book purporting to explain Pope Francis has as its topic and goal, the explanation of Pope Francis and examination of why folks think he is so difficult to understand. The topic is not Vatican II (I would leave that to professional theologians; would never tackle that myself). I've written a lot about ecumenism on my blog. That also is not the topic of this book. I've written a ton about liturgical abuse, taking positions that "traditionalists" would generally agree with, and a book in large part devoted to questions about liturgy and ecumenism both ( Mass Movements ). You want me to do all that in this book. Well, sorry; already did in the other one; ain't the topic here, and I like to stay focused. I'm weird that way. One thing at a time. I have written 46 books. I hit almost every major topic in theology somewhere in my corpus. Can't do all things in one book out of 46.

Problems like (1) the democratization of the ecclesial hierarchy that seems to have reduced the role of the Vicar of Christ to that of a rock star and public news commentator; or (2) the misunderstandings fostered by passages in Vatican II documents (like Sacrosanctum Concilium, Nostra Aetate, and Gaudium et Spes) that, according to Cardinal Kasper, include deliberate ambiguities inserted as “compromises” into the text capable of diverse interpretations, provoking Bishop Athanasius Schneider, at a conference in Rome, to call for a new “Syllabus of Errors” to clarify the proper interpretation of Vatican II; 

Not the topic of my book; sorry. This is typical boilerplate "traditionalist" criticism, as if we who don't number ourselves among you and who do some apologetics must do all things at all times, and all the things you want us to do, because they are all your gripes and difficulties.

or (3) what Pope Benedict XVI has called the “trivialization” of the Mass, not to mention the mainstreaming of numerous innovations nowhere mandated by Vatican II, such as having the priest turn his back on God in order to face the people, tearing down magnificent altars and replacing them with tables, removing altar rails, introducing lay lectors, lay Eucharistic “ministers,” Communion in the hand while standing rather than kneeling, substituting banal “praise music” for Gregorian chant and polyphany, and the marketplace vernacular for Latin, etc.; 

I've written a lot about most of these things, and I think you would agree (except for standing communion in the hand). See my Eucharist and Liturgy web page. You know what parish I attend and how it approaches things. I've been there 23 1/2 years. I always receive kneeling on the tongue (at least in my own parish), but I don't knock the other as intrinsically inferior or irreverent because it is impossible to do so based on the history of practices in the Church (the entire patristic period, for heaven's sake). I agree that it often can be irreverent in practice in our particular time and age. But that goes back to interior disposition and is a very complex discussion indeed. The fact remains that we usually can't read the hearts of others whom we look down our noses at because they do something differently than we do, that Holy Mother Church permits.

and (4) the effective sabotaging of the New Evangelization by an “ecumenism” that suggests, in effect, that all may be saved, and that there is certainly no pressing urgency to formal membership in the Catholic Church (as when the Holy Father advised Tony Palmer against converting, or when, without definition, he called proselytism “solemn nonsense”)?


I go after false ecumenism and indifferentism in my Mass Movements book and many papers. I don't follow the "few people in hell" fashionable belief. I hold to Dr. Ralph Martin's views. I noticed that he wasn't included in your laundry list of colleagues who are trobled by the pope's words. Is he not among them? Perhaps his view is more like my own. Or else he doesn't join in on pope-bashing or troubled hand-wringing over lunch.

I've devoted my life (at great financial cost and sometimes considerable personal cost) to apologetics and evangelization. My approach is to get off of my butt and to do something about proclaiming the gospel and message of the fullness of Christian, apostolic truth found in Catholicism, not to simply sit around and complain that it isn't done, as virtually all radical Catholic reactionaries and too many "traditionalists" also do. They don't have time to defend Holy Mother Church (they're too busy bashing and trashing it). But I do so. They don't have time to preach the gospel or share and defend their faith to outsiders. They're too busy complaining about how the Church and pope supposedly don't want anyone to do that (which is nonsense). I do it; I don't just talk about it.

I suggest that the radical Catholic reactionary crowd do the same thing and put their money where their mouth is. If the Church has gone to hell as they think, all the more reason to do it. But they don't. They'd much rather bash and bitch and get with others of like mind to engage in endless bitchfests about Holy Mother Church and the Holy Father (sorry for my French, for more sensitive readers, but no other word fit there). God is watching. But (as I have noted) who would want to join a "church" in the first place that is like how radical Catholic reactionaries describe it to be? Perhaps this is why they don't do any outreach to speak of, because they have no motivation to do so, given their doom-and-gloom views about the supposed nearly defected state of the Church. It's a lack of faith and hope, bottom-line.

I would never ever have become a Catholic if I only met folks like that. Thankfully, I met a guy who took Vatican II seriously, knew his faith well, knew some apologetics, and shared the faith with me in language I could relate to. It only took nine months of serious discussion to convince me, and I was a million miles away. But if I had met people who could only complain about and lie about the Church I'd still be an evangelical Protestant today, and there would be 45 less books and 2400 less papers out there defending the Church and Christianity.

I know the “explanations” that are brought forward for all of these troubling developments, explanations intended to show how, when all is said and done, they actually conform hand-in-glove with Church teaching. I also know how the enterprise of offering such explanations has become something of a major growth industry among conservative Catholics in the United States. What I fear, however, is that these ultimately tend to “explain away” rather than “explain,” because they don't address the real damage these problems are causing.



I do my best to hit all the bases I can. Not the topic of the book . . . I know the contrary "explanations" too. I don't buy them, and have explained why time and again.

Hitherto when I heard accusations of “neo-Ultramontanism or “papolatry” hurled toward faithful Catholics such as yourself in the “explanation” industry, I dismissed them as excessive. 

You were right.

However, when efforts to defend the Holy Father, Vatican II, the new Mass, and ecumenism (to take what you call the “big four”) turn into an exercise in seeing no evil, hearing no evil, and saying no evil about these things (where evils in fact exist), these efforts seem a trifle disingenuous. 

Think what you will. You're wrong (at least in my case). I'd be happy to discuss all these things in due course.


Rather than demonizing those who see problems here, 

I haven't demonized anyone. I have accurately described the mentality of the radical Catholic reactionary, based on their own constant, droning themes.

why wouldn't it be the more prudent and virtuous course to supplement your defense of Church teaching with an honest acknowledgment of the genuine problems where they do exist. 

I have written about many of those. I just see them in somewhat different places than you do, is all.

To do so would not mean to impugn the authority of the Pope or the Second Vatican Council, or to question the legitimacy or validity of the new Mass or ecumenical initiatives (properly understood). 

back to the misconception of how I define radical Catholic reactionary.  You need to go read my chapter about that if you want to understand my view. You've bound yourself irrationally to these either / or categories.

In fact, it would mean a more credible and robust defense of Church authority and defense of the Holy Father. Maybe you don't consider tackling such problems part of your apostolate, and I'd understand that. 

Not being a "traditionalist" . . . yet I do hit upon many things where "traditionalists" (but usually not the reactionaries) agree with me. I see myself as a strong ally of the "traditionalists"; I feel a fairly deep kinship. We agree on many things. But technically I am not one of them. Therefore, I will never please you, with all the usual concerns you have as a "traditionalist." That just won't happen. The same exact critique you make is always made. It's nothing new. It's just as wrongheaded now as it ever was. We can reply to it till we're blue in the face but the same line will always keep coming back because it's sort of parrot-talk and is boilerplate and talking points.

But even a nod of the head in recognition that there are some genuine problems here might make your efforts to “explain” Pope Francis a lot more successful and credible.



I think sometimes (a lot less times than the vocal critics think) he uses precise, confusing, or sloppy language and that that is unfortunate. I don't draw the grand, despairing conclusions from that, that you and others draw. I don't think it's a big deal. I did a fair amount of research on it (the book), and have compiled scores and scores of others' articles in defense of him. Based on all that I am not much concerned about it.

People will believe what they will. I've tried to do my part to counteract that, with an honest and sincere effort: calling it as I see it. It'll help some, and others (like you) will think I failed in my task. That's how apologetics always is, too. Win a few, lose a few. Many positive reviews are posted on my web page devoted to the book. I've helped those folks (whereas I guess you think I merely convinced them of a fanciful delusion). I haven't helped you to overcome your difficulties with the Holy Father at all. I never thought otherwise; especially I never thought that I would convince "traditionalists" who already follow the fashionable "narrative" about Pope Francis that they are wrong in this regard. It's very tough to persuade people of anything that they are dead-set against!

Kind regards, PP

Blessing on you, too!

* * * * *

Orthodoxy and Catholicism: A Comparison (Revised Version by Dave Armstrong): Reply to My Introduction, by Fr. Deacon Daniel Dozier (+ My Response)

  [see the main book page]

Fr. Deacon Daniel Dozier is an Eastern Catholic.
* * * * *
Fr. Deacon Daniel
A good friend of mine once remarked that being an Eastern Catholic is at times very much like the experience of a child of a great divorce. One stands, as it were, between two great sources of ecclesial parentage (Catholicism and Orthodoxy) whose estrangement developed over the course of centuries, and the wound of which is still deeply felt today especially by those of good will who long for a reconciliation and a restoration of that once, full, vibrant and dynamic and familial communion that existed for many centuries.   This longing is at its root a deeply Christian one and is felt by all members of these respective families of churches. For the Eastern Churches in communion with Rome, however, this longing is most acute since at least historically we are keenly aware that Orthodoxy, and not Roman (Latin) Catholicism, is our common spiritual heritage.
To continue with the analogy of a divorce; as with the rupture of any family, there are fault lines (in both senses of that word) that serve as either the source of the original rupture in communion or reflect the differing trajectories of thought and common life that developed over the long history of the separation. An honest examination of these points which divide, along with any supporting evidence for the positions of either side, is a necessary step in the process of reconciliation and restored unity. My friend, Dave Armstrong, has done a great service in the cause of Christian unity by identifying several of these critical points as well as outlining some of the supporting evidence for positions taken by the Catholic Church.
There are those who may assert that in this period of heightened ecumenical relations between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, replete with extraordinary examples of gestures and concrete progress towards unity, apologeticshas no place on either side of the dialogue. Here I think it is important to make a distinction between apologia (defense) and polemos (war). Apologetics is itself a fundamentally Christian theological and philosophical enterprise going back to the apostles themselves (cf. 1 Peter 3:15), that attempts to identify and reasonably defend the principles of one’s position over and against another. In the context of this current discussion, one should expect that this enterprise should not be limited to Catholicism; and there are a growing number of worthy Orthodox apologetic efforts that attempt to do the same thing from the other perspective.   Polemicism, on the other hand, goes beyond simply a reasoned defense of positions and into a hostile, and even at times prosecutorial posture unbefitting what should characterize Christian discussions of disagreements in theological matters. It is not the opposite of apologetics, but is rather its caricature. Examples of polemics can be found over the course of many centuries of this division, but have assumed an especially acute form in the modern period, most especially, and here many of my Orthodox friends would agree with me, on the Orthodox side of the familial dispute.   Very often one sees in Catholic literature on the subject, a greater sympathy and openness to Orthodoxy, but this is certainly not always reciprocated, and in fact one sees at times in the face of welcome Orthodox ecumenical efforts at an official level, a heightened antipathy from certain co-religionists towards these efforts, their supporters, and the Catholic Church. What Dave has provided here is a Catholic apologetic in part against many of the assertions of those anti-ecumenical Orthodox Christians who engage in an unhelpful and divisive polemic, far removed from the dialogue of truth in love that should define such discussions. 
His response, however, is not limited to the assertions of the anti-ecumenical, but also to those who may question or assert positions which differ from those of the Catholic Church, and in both regards his work is a helpful one insofar as it addresses these differences in a respectful and forthright manner in what can at times be an atmosphere (frequently on-line) of heightened rhetoric. My earnest hope is that this book, a comparison of differences, is an aid to those on both sides who seek to repair the wound of disunity between our two ecclesial families.   Finally, returning to the analogy of a divorce, it is important to recognize, as many Catholic and Orthodox hierarchs, clergy, theologians and faithful do, that the kinship bond of apostolic and patristic faith, worship and leadership that unites our families of churches in the one Church of Christ is far greater than what divides. This point can be lost in a work on apologetics, but it should not be and is not in the mind and heart of its author, as explained in the introduction.   During the course of our discussions on the revised edition of this work, I initially suggested a chapter dedicated to laying out the similarities, but soon realized how unrealistic and insufficient an undertaking like that would be since it would take many more volumes to outline points of shared faith and communion. For my own part, I take that as a matter of great hope and unyielding spiritual optimism.
Dave Armstrong
This is a superb and eloquent statement, and I disagree with nothing here! Certainly there will be points of disagreement, or at least different (not necessarily contradictory) perspectives and approaches (between Eastern and Western Catholics) in other chapters to discuss. On this broad, overarching level of analysis and goals to strive for, as expressed above, however, we are in complete accord (and I hope Orthodox could also agree thus far). I'm always delighted to discover Christian unity in any area.

* * * * *

Reply to Reformed Luther Apologist James Swan's Request for Documentation of Executions of Anabaptists Sanctioned by Luther, in the 1530s

James Swan ("TertiumQuid"), webmaster ( Boors All + Facebook page), anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant polemicist and longtime defender of Martin Luther (sometimes rightly) against what he sees as a torrent of Catholic misinformation and bigotry, wrote on the Catholic Answers Internet forum on 17 August 2014 (comment #347 in a long thread):

I'd like to have some clarification on this point, if possible. I don't recall Luther being elected to political office or having a political reign in Wittenberg. As far as I know, he was an influential preacher and a theologian in Wittenberg in an age in which the church and state had a close relationship. Nor do I recall Luther specifically having individuals executed in Wittenberg in the 1530's. I am aware of some people being executed for witchcraft in Wittenberg in the early 1540's, and I'm familiar with the severe interrogations of some Anabaptists in Wittenberg in the 1530's.

As someone always willing to learn (or to be reminded of what I've forgotten), I'd like to know (or be reminded) exactly who Luther had executed in Wittenberg in the 1530's. While it certainly is within the realm of possibility that the secular authorities of Wittenberg during the 1530's carried out capital punishment, I don't recall this actually happening in the 1530's, or more specifically, that Luther was involved with the carrying out of executions during the 1530's, especially against Anabaptists.

Thanks. 

I'm always happy to assist Mr. Swan in his yearning to achieve knowledge of historical facts. I've been doing it these past twelve years; no need to stop now. I wrote a paper over ten years ago now, documenting Luther's sanction of the death penalty for Anabaptists (including peaceful ones). He advocated this specifically in 1530 and 1536. In my paper, I cite famous Luther biographer Roland Bainton at length, corroborating this. That's the background. We know (beyond dispute) that he (and his right-hand man Philip Melanchthon and others in Wittenberg) favored this intolerant approach in the 1530s.

Swan is asking, however, for documentation that executions actually occurred there during that decade. This is more difficult to document, but without too much trouble I ran across some documentation via Google Books. It comes from a work entitled, Valentin Weigel (1533-1588): German Religious Dissenter, Speculative Theorist, and Advocate of Tolerance (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2000), written by Andrew Weeks, who is a Professor of Languages, Literatures and Cultures at Illinois State University. He writes:

Of the various studies of Reformation-era intolerance, those of [Paul] Wappler and [Nikolaus] Paulus document conditions in Saxony . . . In Luther's part of Saxony, there were executions for the offense of rebaptism as early as 1527 (before the imperial mandate of 1529), and afterward in the years 1530, 1532, and 1538. [60] Unlike the milder regime in Hessen, where as a rule only the openly rebellious dissenters were sentenced to death, the Wittenberg reformers soon came to support capital punishment even against peaceful heretics. [61] (p. 22)

There is evidence that as early as November 1529 Luther and Melanchthon sanctioned the death penalty for Anabaptists in an opinion to their Elector in response to the imperial mandate. [69] (p. 24)

By 1536, Luther, Bugenhagen, and Cruciger were advising Landgraf Philipp of Hessen to execute by the sword any Anabaptists apprehended in his territories. [74] Melanchthon was frankly encouraging capital punishment for heresy with or without rebellion. [75] (p. 25)

Weeks cites Wappler's conclusions in 1908 about this state of affairs:

A progressively weakening police-churchdom and a repulsive system of denunciation and spying in the Lutheran church were the necessary outcome." (p. 25; apparently the author's translation of the original German)

Weeks notes an execution of a person in Saxony in 1535:

. . . the unfortunate shoemaker Peter Pestel, . . . neither preached his views nor performed baptisms in Saxony, [but] he is tried and executed mainly on the grounds of his denial of the Lutheran doctrine of the Eucharist [Dave: which views Melanchthon himself later denied] and the birth of Jesus from Mary. (pp. 27-28)

Unfortunately, I can't access the footnotes from the Google Books edition of this book, and both Paulus and Wappler wrote in German, so I can't get at further details of these executions from those sources. But if a professional historian cited them for documentation and gave footnotes, we can be fairly assured that this is solid evidence for executions of Anabaptists in Saxony, including Wittenberg, in the 1530s. And I offer further hard evidence below (read on).

We do have one person mentioned by name in Weeks' book: Peter Pestel. The Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online provides an article about him and more detail:

. . . on 23 April 1536, he was arrested and taken to the castle in Zwickau, and on the next day subjected to a cross-examination in the presence of the clergy (Wappler, p. 76). He confessed himself definitely as committed to Anabaptist teaching, and could not be deflected from his faith even by torture; "He would give his life for it." He said he had neither preached nor baptized, but where it was suitable he testified to his faith and reproved "his fellow men of sin"; he vigorously denied that he or his companions had stirred up revolt, conspiracy, or sedition. Then he was given Melanchthon's booklet, Verlegung etlicher unchristlicher Artikel Welche die Widderteuffer fürgeben (Wittenberg, about 1536), which had appeared at the same time as the electoral mandate. After reading it he gave the jailer the reply that there was not a true word in the booklet, . . . This state of affairs was reported to Johann Friedrich I, Elector of Saxony, who turned the records over to the court in Wittenberg with the request that they pass the sentence. . . . The elector, . . . drew up the denth sentence himself and sent it to Zwickau, to the effect that Peter Pestel should be executed with the sword, in accord with the edict of Speyer of 1529.. . . The sentence was carried out on 16 June 1536, in Zwickau. 

[one of two sources provided: Wappler, Paul. Inquisition und Ketzerprozesse in Zwickau zur Reformationszeit. Leipzig, 1908: 70-84]

Zwickau is in the southwestern region of Saxony: 160 km (99 miles) from Wittenberg. The real "goldmine" of documentation in English comes from the same Encyclopedia, in its article on Saxony. It cites Wappler and Paulus as well, as two of its three sources from historians:

Early in February 1527, in the district of Königsberg, a Saxon enclave in Würzburg territory, where the movement gained an early foothold through the efforts of Hans Hut, Volk Kolerlin, and other Anabaptist apostles, the first Anabaptists were seized. On 26 February 1527, the elector issued the public order, "that no one, be he citizen, peasant, or anyone else, except the regular clergyman, preacher, and chaplain, to whom pastoral care is entrusted and who is qualified at each place is permitted to preach, baptize, or exercise other similar offices in his house or other places owned by him." Soon afterward he had the Königsberg citizens, Beutelhans, Wolf Schominger (Schreiner), and ten other men besides a woman put to death as Anabaptists.. . .

The Saxon reformers approved of the elector's violent measures, so that on 23 April 1529, at Speyer he could without qualms of conscience give his consent to the well-known Anabaptist mandate (see Punishment of the Anabaptists) and henceforth strove to act in accord with it.

In 1529 ten Anabaptists were imprisoned at Reinhardsbrunn, and the six who remained steadfast were put to death on 18 January 1530, causing great excitement among the people. The reformers now found it advisable to formulate a vindication of the right to punish heretics. To this end Justus Menius, the superintendent of Eisenach, wrote Der Widdertauffer lere und geheimnis aus heiliger Schrjft widderlegt, with a preface by Luther and a dedication to Philipp of Hesse (who, they were convinced, was too lenient), dated 4 May 1530; and Melanchthon drew up a formal opinion addressed to the elector of Saxony at the end of November 1531.

In a long-drawn-out dispute with Philipp concerning the penalizing of several Anabaptists in the Hausbreitenbach district, which was under the joint jurisdiction of Saxony and Hesse, the elector insisted on their execution. In the end the prisoners were divided between Saxony and Hesse. Of those allotted to the elector at least three were put to death: Berlet Schmidt, Hans Eisfart, and his wife. Later he also insisted upon the execution of the Anabaptist leaders, Melchior Rinck and Fritz Erbe, who were held by Philipp. They died in prison.

In Schweinitz near Wittenberg death in prison terminated the many cross-examinations and long martyrdom of Hans Sturm of Steyer, though he had neither preached nor baptized in Saxony. His countryman Peter Pestel of Linz, also a victim of the intolerance of the Wittenberg theologians and jurists, was beheaded on Friday after Corpus Christi at Zwickau in 1536.

After the fall of Münster in 1535 the elector's severe attitude was, of course, sharpened. On 21 November 1535, Hans Peissker of Kleineutersdorf near Orlamünde was arrested in his own house with his sixteen-year-old daughter Margarethe and fourteen others; he was taken to the Leuchtenburg, and after a minute cross-examination, attended by Melanchthon, put to death with Heinz Kraut and Jobst Möller in Jena at the end of January 1536. Of the four prisoners who were transferred to Neustadt an der Orla because of lack of prison space in the Leuchtenburg, Heinrich Möller sealed his faith with his death.

On 10 April 1536, a new mandate was issued in Saxony against the "Anabaptists, Sacramentists, and fanatics," which was composed by Melanchthon, and also a polemic from the same pen, Verlegung etlicher unchristlicher Artikel, welche die Wiederteuffer furgeben, which every pastor in Saxony had to read and explain to his congregation on each third Sunday.

In January 1538 the elector had two men executed who were caught conversing with Fritz Erbe in the tower of the city wall of Eisenach, and who persisted in their faith in spite of all efforts to convert them. They were Hans Köhler of Eyerode and Hans Scheffer of Hastungsfelde. Other admirers of Erbe recanted on the rack.

In the territory of Mühlhausen, an imperial city, where after the Peasants' War in 1525 the Duke of Saxony had the protective magistracy every third year alternating with the elector of Saxony and the langrave of Hesse, Georg Köhler and Klaus Ernfart were among those who suffered death. A large number of Anabaptists were drowned in the Unstrut between Mühlhausen and Ammern and buried on the bank; among these were Jakob Storger and Klaus Scharf besides eight women on 8 November 1537, and Hans Hentrock of Amra and Ottilia Goldschmidt, a Mühlhausen girl, on 17 January 1538. 

James Swan was unaware of all this. Now (if he can make it through this paper by a despised papist apologist) he is aware. He asked: "I'd like to know (or be reminded) exactly who Luther had executed in Wittenberg in the 1530's." The answer is in the above article, partially corroborated by historian Andrew Weeks in his book and drawn (in both cases) from the German historians Paul Wappler (Lutheran) and Nikolaus Paulus (Catholic). I'll make it even more simple by the following list of Anabaptists executed in Saxony (incorporating information from further articles in this Encyclopedia about the Anabaptists involved):

1) "Beutelhans, Wolf Schominger (Schreiner), and ten other men besides a woman" were beheaded in the district of Königsberg, a Saxon enclave in Würzburg territory: March 1527. [13]

2) Six Anabaptists (Andreas and Katharina Kolb, Christoph Ortlep, Katharina König, Elsa Kuntz, and Barbara Unger) were imprisoned at Reinhardsbrunn and put to death on 18 January 1530. [6]

3) Berlet Schmidt, Hans Eisfart, and his wife, in the Hausbreitenbach district, which was under the joint jurisdiction of Saxony and Hesse; in 1532. [3]

4) Georg Köhler and an Anabaptist woman at Sangerhausen in the territory of Mühlhausen in September 1535. [2]

5) Hans Sturm of Steyer: 1535(?) or 1536(?) in Schweinitz near Wittenberg. [1]


6) Hans Peissker of Kleineutersdorf, after a minute cross-examination, attended by Melanchthon, was beheaded with Heinz Kraut and Jobst Möller in Jena on 26 January 1536. [3]

7) Heinrich Möller at Neustadt an der Orla, c. February 1536. [1]

8) Peter Pestel of Linz was beheaded on 16 June 1536 in Zwickau. [1]

9) Klaus Ernfart in 1536. [1]

10) Jakob Storger and Klaus Scharf besides eight women drowned in the Unstrut between Mühlhausen and Ammern on 8 November 1537. [10]

11)  Hans Hentrock of Amra and Ottilia Goldschmidt, a Mühlhausen girl, drowned in the Unstrut between Mühlhausen and Ammern on 17 January 1538. [2]

12) Hans Köhler of Eyerode and Hans Scheffer of Hastungsfelde, at Eisenach, at the end of January 1538. [2]

By my reckoning, that is 45 people killed in Lutheran Saxony for the "seditious" crime of being an Anabaptist, between 1527 and 1538.

Swan would probably retort by saying that none of these seem to have been in Wittenberg itself. But that is an irrelevancy. They were carried out under Lutheran auspices, in Saxony: Luther's home ground and the initial base of Lutheranism, with the direct assent and approval of Luther and Melanchthon. Where, specifically, the executions took place is entirely secondary to those considerations.

* * * * *

Books by Dave Armstrong: Footsteps that Echo Forever: My Holy Land Adventure of Archaeological and Spiritual Discovery

  [book in progress; will be published in November 2014]

MISC.

Introductory Facebook post about the pilgrimage and my conception of this book. [8-11-14]

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication
Introduction: Anticipating and Reflecting Upon the Pilgrimage Three Months Ahead of Time [read online]
[yet-to-be determined number of chapters]
Chapter?: “Bethany Beyond the Jordan”: History, Archaeology and the Location of Jesus' Baptism on the East Side of the Jordan [read "archaeological / historical / Bible commentary" portion online]
Appendix One: Has Joshua's Altar on Mt. Ebal Been Discovered and Verified by Archaeology? [read online]

* * * * *

“Bethany Beyond the Jordan”: History, Archaeology and the Location of Jesus' Baptism on the East Side of the Jordan

 Pope Francis at the Jordan baptismal site: 24 May 2014. It has also been visited by Pope St. John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI

[this is the "archaeological / historical / Bible commentary" portion of one of the chapters from my book, Footsteps that Echo Forever  My Holy Land Adventure of Archaeological and Spiritual Discovery ]


John 1:19-21, 28-32And this is the testimony of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, “Who are you?” [20] He confessed, he did not deny, but confessed, “I am not the Christ.” [21] And they asked him, “What then? Are you Elijah?” He said, “I am not.” “Are you the prophet?” And he answered, “No.” . . . [28] This took place in Bethany beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing. [29] The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, “Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! [30] This is he of whom I said, 'After me comes a man who ranks before me, for he was before me.' [31] I myself did not know him; but for this I came baptizing with water, that he might be revealed to Israel.” [32] And John bore witness, “I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him.” [KJV has “Bethabara” at 1:28]
John 3:23, 26 John also was baptizing at Ae'non near Salim, because there was much water there; and people came and were baptized. . . . [26]And they came to John, and said to him, “Rabbi, he who was with you beyond the Jordan, to whom you bore witness, here he is, baptizing, and all are going to him.”
John 10:40He went away again across the Jordan[from Jerusalem: 10:23] to the place where John at first baptized, and there he remained.
Matthew 19:1Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan;
Mark 10:1And he left there and went to the region of Judea and beyond the Jordan, . . .
Judges 7:24-25And Gideon sent messengers throughout all the hill country of E'phraim, saying, “Come down against the Mid'ianites and seize the waters against them, as far as Beth-bar'ah, and also the Jordan.” So all the men of E'phraim were called out, and they seized the waters as far as Beth-bar'ah, and also the Jordan. [25]And they took the two princes of Mid'ian, Oreb and Zeeb; they killed Oreb at the rock of Oreb, and Zeeb they killed at the wine press of Zeeb, as they pursued Mid'ian; and they brought the heads of Oreb and Zeeb to Gideon beyond the Jordan.
The phrase “beyond the Jordan” also appears 36 additional times in the Old Testament (Judith 1:9 is the lone deuterocanonical reference), but depending on context, it can refer to land on either side of the river. When the texts refer to land eastof it, it's referred to variously as “the plains of Moab” (Num 22:1; Josh 13:32), “land of Moab” (Dt 1:5), the land of the Amorites (Dt 4:46-47), which was “to the east beyond the Jordan” (Dt 4:47), the region of two Amorite kings defeated by the Jews: Sihon and Og (Josh 2:10), who lived in Ashtaroth (Josh 9:10), which is east of the Jordan River.
It was also the land of “half of the tribe of Manas'seh the Reubenites and the Gadites” which was “beyond the Jordan eastward” (Josh 13:8; cf. 14:3; 18:7; 1 Chr 12:37). This region was, moreover, called Gilead (Jud 7:25 above; 10:8; 2 Ki 10:33; 1 Chr 6:78; Ezek 47:18).
Elijah the prophet drank from “the brook Cherith, that is east of the Jordan” 1 Ki 17:3, 5), close to the area where he is believed to have been taken up to heaven.
As for “Bethany beyond the Jordan itself”: the place where the Bible says John the Baptist baptized (and baptized Jesus), it is also known as Bethabara. Thus, The International Standard Bible Encyclopediastates:
(“house of the ford”): . . . the place where John baptized (Joh 1:28). . . . It is distinguished from the Bethany of Lazarus and his sisters as being “beyond the Jordan.” The reading “Bethabara” became current owing to the advocacy of Origen. . . . Bethabara has also been identified with Bethbarah, which, however, was probably not on the Jordan but among the streams flowing into it (Jg 7:24). The Eerdmans Bible Dictionarybasically agrees with this analysis:
An unknown location “beyond the Jordan” where John the Baptist preached and baptized (John 1:28; 3:26). Unable to find such a place on the other side of the Jordan (viewed from Jerusalem), Origen proposed to read “Bethabara” (cf. KJV at John 1:28), located about 6 km. (4 mi.) north of the Dead Sea . . . Because the apostle distinguishes between this Bethany and the village of Mary and Martha . . . John may have baptized east of the Jordan near Jericho. Archaeologist Jack Finegan, writing in 1946, stated:
Church tradition long has identified the site of Bethabara where Jesus was baptized with the ford called Mahadet Hajleh where the main roads from Judea to southern Perea and from Jerusalem to Beth Haram cross the Jordan. This identification is not certain but some such location is probable. The Catholic Encyclopediagives an indication of the state of the question over a hundred years ago:
This reading [Bethabaraat John 1:28] was approved by Origen, Jerome, Eusebius, and Chrysostom. Origen, in his commentary on this place of St. John's Gospel, declares as follows:
We are not ignorant that in nearly all codices Bethany is the reading. But we were persuaded that not Bethany, but Bethabara should be read, when we came to the places that we might observe the footprints of the Lord, of His disciples, and of the prophets. For, as the Evangelist relates, Bethany the home of Lazarus, Mary, and Martha, is distant from Jerusalem fifteen furlongs, while the Jordan is distant one hundred and eighty furlongs. Neither is there a place along the Jordan which has anything in common with the name Bethany. But some say that among the mounds by the Jordan Bethabara is pointed out, where history relates that John baptized.
Archaeological research has failed to identify either Bethany or Bethabara beyond the Jordan; the conjectures range from the ruins on the bank of the Jordan opposite Mahadet Hadschle less than two miles north of the mouth of the Jordan, even to Mahadet 'Abara, a ford of the Jordan near Bethshean. All things considered, the most probable opinion is that there was a Bethany fifteen furlongs from Jerusalem, and another across the Jordan. . . . Bethany across the Jordan has shared the fate of many other Biblical sites which have disappeared from the earth. Stephen Langfur and Micah Key, in their article, “Where Was Jesus Baptized?,” A pilgrim named Theodosius, visiting between 515 and 530, wrote:
At the place where my Lord was baptized is a marble column, and on top of it has been set an iron cross. There also is the Church of Saint John Baptist, which was constructed by the Emperor Anastasius. It stands on great vaults which are high enough for when the Jordan is in flood.
One Arculf, writing around 680, also refers to a church on vaults:
The holy, venerable spot at which the Lord was baptized by John is permanently covered by the water of the River Jordan. Arculf, who reached the place, and swam across the river both ways, says that a tall wooden cross has been set up on the holy place...The position of this cross where, as we have said, the Lord was baptized, is on the near side of the river bed. A strong man using a sling can throw a stone from there to the far bank on the Arabian side. From this cross a stone causeway supported on arches stretches to the bank, and people approaching the cross go down a ramp and return up by it to reach the bank. Right at the river's edge stands a small rectangular church which was built, so it is said, at the place where the Lord's clothes were placed when he was baptized. The fact that it is supported on four stone vaults, makes it usable, since the water, which comes in from all sides, is underneath it. It has a tiled roof. This remarkable church is supported, as we have said, by arches and vaults, and stands in the lower part of the valley through which the Jordan flows. But in the upper part there is a great monastery for monks, which has been built on the brow of a small hill nearby, overlooking the church. There is also a church built there in honour of Saint John Baptist which, together with the monastery, is enclosed in a single masonry wall.
Both of these accounts suggest a site on the western bank, but because the river shifts so much, this doesn't factor in as much as other circumstantial evidence of churches, marble structures, etc. The authors note:
On today’s east bank, near the river, stand the ruins of a church dating from the late Byzantine period. It was built near the remains of two earlier churches, the earliest of which was set on vaults. This was probably the church that was seen by the pilgrims Theodosius and Arculf.
J. Carl Laney's 1977 doctoral dissertation for Dallas Theological Seminary, entitled, “Selective Geographical Problems in the Life of Christ,” has a section called, “The Identification of Bethany Beyond the Jordan.” It's available online.“Bethany” in John 1:28 is qualified by the phrase “beyond the Jordan” which serves to distinguish it from the Bethany near Jerusalem (Matt. 4:15, 25; Mk. 3: 8; 10:1; Jn. 3:26). A strong evidence for John’s ministry being in Transjordan is the fact that he was imprisoned by Herod Antipas and eventually put to death in the Perean fortress of Machaerus. [author's footnote: Josephus, Antiquitiesxviii. 116-19] Since the documentary evidence suggests very strongly that John the Baptist’s main center of ministry was Perea, it would be quite natural to find the place of his early baptizing ministry in that region.
Laney observed that archaeology hadn't found anything across the Jordan (“very little survey data”) in this area to verify a baptismal site. The archaeological evidence is dramatically different now, as we shall see. He also stated (and I agree):
There is clearly a need for archaeological survey in the southern Jordan Valley with a view to locating ancient Jordan River ford communities. However, since the Jordan is a meandering river and frequently changes its channel during flood times, such an ancient ford community as Bethany may not be found on the present banks of the Jordan. It is possible that Bethany beyond the Jordan has been destroyed and completely silted over by the annual flooding of the Jordan River.
In conclusion, he observed that Church tradition has consistently placed the site at the ford of Hajlah. Church historian Eusebius (265-340) identified it as Bethabara across the Jordan. After briefly surveying this, he concludes:
Reliable tradition does appear to associate Bethany with the Hajlah ford on the Jordan east of Jericho. . . . Archaeological evidence that could confirm the identification of a specific site is lacking. Most of the ceramics found in and around the Wadi el -Kharrar date from Byzantine times. There are no signs of habitation from the time of Christ. While this is a problem, it must be remembered that the Jordan has not only changed its course, but has flooded many times. It would be unlikely for the remains of a small hamlet on the east bank of the Jordan to have survived so many centuries since the time of Christ. It is possible that the ruins of Bethany beyond the Jordan will never be found, but an abundance of evidence indicates that cartographers should place it east of the Jordan River near the Hajlah ford in the vicinity of Wadi el-Kharrar.
For more in-depth information regarding the Jordanian baptismal site, we need to now consult Dr. Mohammad Waheeb (b. 1962). He holds a Ph.D. in archaeology from Ankara University, and has been working in the Department of Antiquities of Jordan since 1992. Dr. Waheeb has published more than 50 articles in various archaeological journals and international magazines.He provides further information of historical pilgrim accounts in a website devoted to the baptismal site:From the anonymous life of Constantine, St. Helena in the holy places 260-340 AD mentioned “then she reached the River Jordan in which our Christ and God was baptized for our salvation, and when she had crossed the Jordan and found the cave in which the fore runner used to live, she caused a church to be made in the name of John the Baptist”. Facing the cave is a raised place at which St. Elias was caught up to heaven, and there she decreed that there should be an impressive sanctuary in the name of prophet Elias.  Jermo around (404 AD) clearly refers to the same place, and connects it with the spot were Elijah went over Jordan on dry ground.
. . . Antoninus Martyr (560-570 AD) mentioned: “On that side of Jordan is the fountain where John used to baptize. . . .”
Piacenza (570 AD) said: “We arrived at place where the Lord was baptized. This is the place where Elijah was taken up. In that place is the little hill of Hermon. In that part of the Jordan is the spring where St. John used to baptize, . . .”

. . . Willibalad (721-727 AD) said: “They next went to the monastery of St. John the Baptist. . . . Here is now a church raised upon stone columns and under the church it is now dry land where our Lord was baptized. . . .”

. . . The Russian pilgrim Abbot Danial (1106-1107) said: “On the other side of Jordan near the bathing place there is sort of forest of little trees like the willow. And not far from the river a couple of bow-shots to the east is place where prophet Elias was carried to heaven in a chariot of fire and (p.29) here too is the cave of St. John the Baptist”.

. . . John Phocas (1135 AD) mentioned: “Beyond the Jordan opposite to the place of our Lord's baptism, is much brushwood, in the midst of which, at the distance of about one stadium, is the grotto of John the Baptist which is very small, and not capable of containing a well-built man standing up right, and opposite this, in the depth of the desert is another grotto, in which the prophet Elias dwelt when he was carried off by the fiery chariot.”
Dr. Waheeb summarizes what excavations have uncovered:
The Bible recounts that Elijah parted the waters of the Jordan River and walked across it with his anointed successor the Prophet Elisha, then ascended to heaven in a whirlwind on a chariot of fire (2 Kings 2:5-14). The small hill from which Elijah ascended to heaven has been known for centuries as Elijah's Hill, and forms the core of the settlement at Bethany in Jordan.

The ongoing survey and excavations at Bethany in Jordan have uncovered a 1st Century AD settlement with plastered pools and water systems that were used almost certainly for baptism, and a 5th – 6th Century AD late Byzantine settlement with churches, a monastery, and other structures probably catering to religious pilgrims.

. . . The current work verifies the location of John's settlement Bethany in this area, including many built structures, monastic complexes, churches, caves, a spring, water systems, and other facilities from the Roman and Byzantine periods. The survey has documented an ancient sacred pilgrimage route that linked Jerusalem, the Jordan River, Bethany in Jordan, and Mt. Nebo. Several ancient Byzantine period churches and other structures have been identified between the river and Bethany, and are being excavated. Some of them commemorate Jesus' baptism, and others represent monasteries or ascetic monks' quarters.

. . . An active spring and some sculpted caves at Bethany are also mentioned by numerous ancient writers and pilgrims, most of whom associated John's baptism activities with Bethany and Eljah's Hill. More scholarly presentations of his findings appeared in Dr. Waheeb's article, “The Discovery of Elijah’s Hill and John’s Site of the Baptism, East of the Jordan River from the Description of Pilgrims and Travellers”:
The six-day war of 1967 resulted in this area of the river Jordan becoming a fortified zone and thus off limits to civilians. With the peace treaty between Jordan and Israel in 1994, the area was once again opened up for explorations. 

Field excavations were started during the summer of 1996 and revealed the presence of several architectural remains, as follow:

. . . The byzantine monastery called Rhetorius monastery (fifth- sixth centuries) that was uncovered is located on Saint Elijah’s hill at the western edge of Wadi al-Kharrar. It connects with the place where Jesus was baptized, a distance of ca. 1.5km to the west. It is on the pilgrimage route from Jerusalem to mount Nebo through Bethany beyond the Jordan.

The name of the monastery comes from an inscription found in the apse of its northern church.The article goes on to detail other findings: a prayer hall, various water systems, a rectangular church or chapel, a group of individual hermit cells (called a Laura), a pilgrim's station, a large pool (capacity of 300!), caves in the surrounding cliffs. Lastly, the John the Baptist church has yielded a wealth of archaeological finds:
Some 300m east and 70m north of the present course of the Jordan river, archaeologists and architects have uncovered the remains of memorial churches in an area they are calling the “John the Baptist church area”. Remnants of structures within this area are: a pillared hall (the first church); the lower basilica (the second church); a basilica (the third church); a room south of the basilica (mosaic pavement); staircase; four piers; a chapel (the fourth church); and later structures (later Islamic structures).
All were built on the spot where believers located John’s baptism of Jesus. Over the centuries, this series of churches was destroyed, at least in part, by floods and/or earthquakes; but they were rebuilt because believers wished to have a memorial at the place where they were convinced the baptism of Jesus took place . . .
The structures date between the fifth and 12th centuries. Had they been constructed in a less precarious location, some would probably have survived.
. . . In conclusion, the biblical texts, early pilgrims’ reports, the Madaba mosaic map, and recent archeological work all agreein locating the place of the activities of John the Baptist and the baptism of Jesus east of the Jordan River at Bethany beyond the Jordan, near Elijah’s Hill.
The evangelical Protestant flagship magazine Christianity Todaytook note of these discoveries in an article dated 1 June 2001:
[I]n 1996, minefields along the Jordan River were cleared, which led to the discovery of the area's most historic find-ruins of early Christian churches, prayer halls, and pools in an area that Jordan claims is the home of John the Baptist and the site of Jesus' baptism.
Israel, of course, has a competing claim on the other side of the river. But Jordanian archaeologist Mohammed Waheeb, 39, a Muslim with a mastery of the Bible and a warm, crinkly-eyed smile, passionately presents his case. “We base our conclusions on three types of evidence,” he says. “The biblical record, the journals of early pilgrims, and the archaeological evidence.”
The site at Wadi Kharrar, just a good stone's throw from the trickle that remains of the Jordan River now that dams have been built upstream, fits all three types of evidence: . . .
Even authorities in Israel acknowledge that Waheeb has a case. “Unfortunately for Israeli tourism, the Book of John specifically says that Jesus was baptized east of the Jordan,” says Yadin Roman, editor in chief of Eretz magazine, Israel's equivalent of National Geographic . He told the Associated Press: “They have a very plausible claim that during the Byzantine era that site was accepted as the site where Jesus was baptized.”A similar articleAnother big clue in locating the site of Jesus' baptism is the extraordinary Madaba Map: a mosaic on the floor of a church in Madaba, Jordan, that originally contained an estimated two million individual pieces, and still contains over a million. It's the oldest cartographic depiction of the Holy Land, and is dated at between 542 and 570. The mosaic was rediscovered in 1884 during the construction of a Greek Orthodox church.The map is so accurate that it was a major source in discovering the location of Askalon, the Nea Church in Jerusalem, and a previously unknown road through the center of ancient Jerusalem. It's a bit confusing, however, with regard to Jesus' baptism, because arguably it offers support for both the Jordanian site and the competing one in Israel on the west side of the Jordan. According to one travel site:
Both baptism locations appear on the map: western bank as Bethabara (House of the Ford, or of the Crossing); Eastern Bank as Aenon or Sapsaphas (Place of the Willows). Also, many scholars say the Jordan River has changed course many times over the centuries, so the precise spot where Jesus was baptized is difficult to locate.Franciscan archaeologist Michele Piccirillo wrote about this question:
According to the Gospel, John the Baptist was preaching and baptising "in Bethany beyond the Jordan" (Jn 1:19-34). The place was located and visited by the Christian pilgrims two miles from the east bank of the river at the beginning of the Wadi Kharrar in the territory of Livias – al-Rameh. The place was known as Sapsas or Sapsaphas ('the place of Willows'), as is written in the Madaba Map, which identifies it with Ainon.He cited the pilgrim John Moschus in the seventh century, who referred to “the place which is called Sapsas near the Jordan.” Dr. Waheeb adds:
The Madaba Map situates “Aenon where now is Sapsaphas” in the Wãdi al-Kharrãr, directly opposite the present baptism place on the east bank of the River Jordan. The name Sapsaphas is derived from the Semitic word for willow (Arabic safsaf). The symbol underneath the name on the map shows an enclosed spring and something shaped like a conch. Further exciting inquiry about the cave of John the Baptist is supported by ongoing excavations near the Jordanian baptismal site. Dr. Waheeb writes about this in one of his professional papers:
John the Baptist’s cave was probably located at the bottom of the mount of Elijah. Most likely he would not have lived at the top, the place from where his model had ascended to heaven, but more modestly at the bottom, in its shadow. Tradition may well imply the truth in saying he lived at the foot of the hill. There is a mixture of gravel and sand there and it could accommodate a natural cave or one made by a hermit. There are springs everywhere, hence the name “Aenon Bethany” for “Beth Ainon” (“house of a spring”) could have got into the Bible manuscripts at an early date. The original form of the name may have been lost forever in the destruction which afflicted the area and the Byzantine monks might arbitrarily have named the place Aenon.

What supports our hypothesis is that the gospels stress that the Baptist wanted to act in the spirit of Elijah. For this reason he even imitated his dress; he probably felt himself obliged to live in this area. Finally, the area of the caves and the side of Wãdi al-Kharrãr have little shelter and they are subject to continuous change. An exception to this is Elijah’s Hill, as observed by many pilgrims and visitors. There the ground is more unchanging, as demonstrated by the ruins having not completely disappeared despite much destruction inflicted by time and man. Byzantine traditions place at Elijah’s Hill a cave and a church to honour St John the Baptist. Up to now only five caves have been discovered that could be taken into consideration, three on the hill and two near the river. It is reasonable to assume that the three caves discovered on Elijah’s Hill were carved during the early Roman period (the first century AD), as indicated by recovered pottery sherds and coins. These caves were known to the monks and believers who dwelt in the area in the second and third centuries AD. When the Byzantines officially adopted this location in the fourth century AD, a campaign was organised to develop the whole site, including the hill and the surrounding area down to the Jordan River, along the valley that was depicted on the Madaba Mosaic Map and called “Aenon where now is Sapsaphas” (in the fifth to sixth centuries AD).

The systematic excavations on the western side of Elijah’s Hill under the direction of the author in 1998 revealed the presence of Byzantine artefacts and architectural remains which indicate the importance of the caves and the great purpose they served. It seems clear that a church was built around the cave on the west side of Elijah’s Hill and with reference to the documentary sources, the most likely account is that of John Moschus, who recounted that he had been told by local monks that a monk, John, from a monastery near Jerusalem visited Sapsaphas (in about 500 AD, according to Wilkinson) and converted the cave into a church. The cave was identified by the hermits living around it at that time as the place where St John the Baptist had lived. Whether the church was built at the cave merely to provide a place for the monks to venerate St John the Baptist, or whether the aim was to set up a place of pilgrimage in competition with the monastery and church built by the emperor Anastasius at the Jordan River, is still debatable. The Bible supports the general location of the traditional “Elijah's hill”. We know that Elijah and Elisha crossed the river near Jericho and went east of the river, before Elijah was taken up to heaven:
2 Kings 2:4, 7-11Eli'jah said to him, “Eli'sha, tarry here, I pray you; for the LORD has sent me to Jericho.” But he said, “As the LORD lives, and as you yourself live, I will not leave you.” So they came to Jericho. . . .[7] Fifty men of the sons of the prophets also went, and stood at some distance from them, as they both were standing by the Jordan. [8] Then Eli'jah took his mantle, and rolled it up, and struck the water, and the water was parted to the one side and to the other, till the two of them could go over on dry ground. [9] When they had crossed, Eli'jah said to Eli'sha, “Ask what I shall do for you, before I am taken from you.” And Eli'sha said, “I pray you, let me inherit a double share of your spirit.” [10] And he said, “You have asked a hard thing; yet, if you see me as I am being taken from you, it shall be so for you; but if you do not see me, it shall not be so.” [11] And as they still went on and talked, behold, a chariot of fire and horses of fire separated the two of them. And Eli'jah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
Dr. Waheeb observed:
There appears to be little doubt that the Wadi al-Kharrar ca n be associated with the Prophet Elijah’s ascension to heaven. It was at the eastern end of the wadi that believers placed his departure from earth by means of “a chariot and horses of fire” as he “ascended in a whirlwind into heaven.” The location fits well with the biblical narratives relating the crossing of the nearby Jordan by Joshua and the parting of the waters by both Elijah and his successor Elisha. This could also be the location of Wadi Cherith, to which Elijah fled form Ahab, and where he was fed by ravens in the morning and the evening.

John the Baptist and his connection to Elijah fit equally we ll in the region of Wadi al-Kharrar. Believers saw the promise of Elijah’s return fulfilled in the coming of John. It was here, at “Bethany beyond the Jordan,” that John lived during the time of his ministry. Disciples, who were associated with his baptizing and preaching activities, would have been his companions. The place was convenient as it was close to Bethabara, “the house of the crossing”, one of the places where travelers would have crossed the Jordan on their way east or west.

It was to “Bethany beyond the Jordan” that Jesus came to be baptized by John. Believers, as archeological investigations have shown, commemorated the place of Jesus’ baptism by a series of churches and a monastery that, according to the “Piacenza pilgrim”, contained two guest houses. Moreover, following John’s death, Jesus retired to this area when the religious authorities in Jerusalem began to put pressure on him.I shall conclude by taking note of the New Testament motif of John the Baptist as a figure representing the spirit and essence of the prophet Elijah (Elijah being his prototype: a common theme in the Bible, just as King David was a type of proto-Messiah, etc.):
Isaiah 40:3 A voice cries: “In the wilderness prepare the way of the LORD, make straight in the desert a highway for our God.”
Malachi 4:5-6 “Behold, I will send you Eli'jah the prophet before the great and terrible day of the LORD comes. [6] And he will turn the hearts of fathers to their children and the hearts of children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse.”
Matthew 3:1-3 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judea, [2] “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” [3] For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” (cf. Lk 3:4)
Mark 1:2-4 As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before thy face, who shall prepare thy way;[3] the voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight --” [4] John the baptizer appeared in the wilderness, preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.
Luke 1:15-17 for he will be great before the Lord, and he shall drink no wine nor strong drink, and he will be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother's womb.[16] And he will turn many of the sons of Israel to the Lord their God, [17] and he will go before him in the spirit and power of Eli'jah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready for the Lord a people prepared.
John 1:22-23 They said to him then, “Who are you? Let us have an answer for those who sent us. What do you say about yourself?” [23] He said, “I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, `Make straight the way of the Lord,' as the prophet Isaiah said.”
Matthew 11:13-14 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John; [14] and if you are willing to accept it, he is Eli'jah who is to come.
Mark 9:11-13 And they asked him, “Why do the scribes say that first Eli'jah must come?” [12] And he said to them, “Eli'jah does come first to restore all things; and how is it written of the Son of man, that he should suffer many things and be treated with contempt? [13] But I tell you that Eli'jah has come, and they did to him whatever they pleased, as it is written of him.”
Archaeology and the historical accounts of pilgrims and documentation of churches built at spots believed to be connected with Elijah and John the Baptist, have all confirmed the connection between the two men. We've seen how the convergence of evidence suggests the site of Jesus' baptism and place where John habitually baptized and lived.
Assuming that the location of Elijah's hill is correct and that one or more of the caves there may possibly be where John lived, and all the baptism evidences, we see that John associated himself with Elijah, right down to the detail of proximity to the place where Elijah went up into heaven. We also know from the evidence of Josephus, that John was beheaded in the same region, not far south of the baptismal location.

It may very well be that this connection and knowledge of both the prophecy of Malachi and the traditional spot of Elijah's departure, led people to think that John was Elijah returned (John 1:21). Descriptions even of the dress that the two men wore are strikingly similar:
2 Kings 1:8 They answered him, “He wore a garment of haircloth, with a girdle of leather about his loins.” And he said, “It is Eli'jah the Tishbite.”
Matthew 3:4 Now John wore a garment of camel's hair, and a leather girdle around his waist; and his food was locusts and wild honey. (cf. Mk 1:6)
The great Bible scholar Alfred Edersheim writes of the parallels between Elijah and John:
At last that solemn silence was broken by an appearance, a proclamation, a rite, and a ministry as startling as that of Elijah had been. In many respects, indeed, the two messengers and their times bore singular likeness. It was to a society secure, prosperous, and luxurious, yet in imminent danger of perishing from hidden, festering disease; and to a religious community which presented the appearance of hopeless perversion, and yet contained the germs of a possible regeneration, that both Elijah and John the Baptist came. Both suddenly appeared to threaten terrible judgment, but also to open unthought-of possibilities of good. And, as if to deepen still more the impression of this contrast, both appeared in a manner unexpected, and even antithetic to the habits of their contemporaries. John came suddenly out of the wilderness of Judea, as Elijah from the wilds of Gilead; John bore the same strange ascetic appearance as his predecessor; the message of John was the counterpart of that of Elijah; his baptism that of Elijah's novel rite on Mount Carmel [1 Ki 18:33: “Fill four jars with water, and pour it on the burnt offering, and on the wood.”]. And, as if to make complete the parallelism, with all of memory and hope which it awakened, even the more minute details surrounding the life of Elijah found their counterpart in that of John. Yet history never repeats itself. It fulfils in its development that of which it gave indication at its commencement. Thus, the history of John the Baptist was the fulfilment of that of Elijah in 'the fulness of time.'John the Baptist came in the “spirit” of Elijah (Luke 1:17), just as Elisha had asked for a double portion of the spirit of his predecessor Elijah (2 Ki 2:9). Thus, John's denial that he was Elijah (Jn 1:21), was meant to deny that he was literally a reincarnationof him, because this was the mistaken interpretation of Elijah's return that many Jews held.
Catholic Bible scholar Michael Barber made a great point in this regard:
Jesus' miracle reminds of 2 Kgs 4:42-44. There Elisha multiplied 20 barely loaves and fed a hundred men, even having some left over. So let me say two things about this.
Elisha was the successor of one of the greatest Old Testament prophets, Elijah. . . . Elisha calls Elijah his “father” (2 Kgs 2:12). We can say two things about this. First, Jesus is compared to Elisha--the spiritual successor of Elijah. Jesus is a prophet like Elijah. In fact, when Jesus asks the disciples, “Who do men say that I am?”, they respond by telling him that many people think he is Elijah redivivus (Matt 16:14).
Second, since Matthew tells us that John the Baptist was a kind of “Elijah” (Matt 17:10-13), we might be able to say something else here. Jesus is to John the Baptist what Elisha was to Elijah. Indeed, the similarity between Jesus and John was not lost on the people. We might point out that in Matthew 16 another opinion being floated around was that Jesus was John the Baptist redivivus (Matt 16:14). Now saying that Jesus was the Elisha to John's Elijah might seem a little off the mark at first--wasn't Elijah the greatest prophet ? In Jewish tradition that may be true, however, if you read the book of 2 Kings carefully you'll discover that Elisha actually performed an even greater number of miracles than Elijah--in fact, they were also oftentimes much more impressive. Perhaps here then we can see Elijah as a type of John the Baptist and Elisha, who came after him and performed even greater miracles, as a type of Christ. Catholic philosopher and apologist Dr. Taylor Marshall made another wonderful observation in the comments:
With respect to the Elijah/Elisha and John/Jesus “succession” of prophethood - it is worth noting that in both cases the former “transferred his power” to the latter at the Jordan River. Elijah handed over the baton to Elisha at the Jordan. John handed over the baton to Christ at the Jordan. In a certain sense, Moses also handed over power to Joshua before cross the latter crossed the Jordan.
These sorts of analogies and parallels and “types and shadows” abound in Holy Scripture: making it such a joy to delve into its boundless treasures, to discover new things. We see now not only the Elijah / John the Baptist analogy, but also Elijah + Elisha / John the Baptist + Jesus Christ analogy. And they all come together in this spot on the Jordan River, which is also close to the place where Joshua crossed over into Israel, and where Elijah and Elisha parted the waters of the Jordan to cross it.
Footnotes  

* * * * *

Introduction: Anticipating and Reflecting Upon the Pilgrimage Three Months Ahead of Time

 
[this is the Introduction to my book, Footsteps that Echo Forever  My Holy Land Adventure of Archaeological and Spiritual Discovery ]
“Pilgrimage.” I must confess that in my formerly evangelical Protestant mind, prior to 1990, the word conjured up images of semi-fanatical, curiously odd – yet nevertheless admirably devout – Catholics with long faces, crawling on their bloodied knees up St. Patrick's mountain in Ireland, or those steps in the church in Rome (whose name I don't recall offhand). Somehow – I thought, but did not yet comprehend – these people felt they had something to gain by punishing and torturing themselves.
The “pilgrim” to me; the first thing that came to my mind, was those old straight-laced folks with the funny hats and Anglo-Saxon names and somber faces, who came to America on the Mayflowerin 1620 and had the first Thanksgiving so they wouldn't starve to death.
I knew that pilgrimages had something to do with “holy places” (the idea of which I used to oppose: at least in the abstract) and, as I thought then, with the ghoulish, bizarre – if not idolatrous – practice of veneration of relics.
I've learned a few things in the last twenty-four years. The “holy place” is a thoroughly biblical notion. Jerusalem was and is a holy city (Neh 11:1, 18; Is 48:2). The temple in Jerusalem (gone since 70 A.D.) was a particularly holy place (1 Chr 29:3; Is 11:9; 56:7; 64:10). The inner sanctum of the temple: called the Holy of Holies (Lev 16) was the ultimate holy place in the world, and in Judaism.
Originally the wooden, treasure chest-like ark of the covenant was in the Holy Of Holies, and God was thought to be present there in a very special way, on what was called the mercy seat, in between two carved cherubim (Ex 25:22). It was so holy it could not be touched, and hence it was transported with poles that ran through rings on its side.
In fact, on one occasion, when it was about to fall over while being moved, one Uzziah merely reached out to steady it and was immediately struck dead (2 Sam 6:2-7). The men of Beth-shemesh also died when they simply looked inside the ark (1 Sam 6:19; cf. Ex 33:20).
Mt. Sinai was holy due to God's tangible presence there, in the burning bush (Ex 3:5). Just before the Hebrews were to receive the Ten Commandments, God charged the people to not even touch the mountain, or its “border,” on pain of death (19:12-13). Even animals were included in the restriction!

God knew that people often have to learn the hard way. In any event, His special presence – considered apart from the fact that He is also omnipresent – imparts holiness (Dt 7:6; 26:19; Jer 2:3). Angels are called “holy ones” in Scripture precisely because of their proximity to God (Job 5:1; Ps 89:6-7).
That is a bare summary of what the Bible teaches about holy places. And lest anyone try to make the tired, foolish argument that all of the above is in the Old Testament, and as such supposedly “doesn't count anymore,” the New Testament continues to refer to Jerusalem as the “holy city” (Mt 4:5; 27:53), and Jesus spoke of the Holy of Holies as “the holy place” (Mt 24:15; cf. Heb 9:3).
St. Peter refers to the Mount of Transfiguration as “the holy mountain” (2 Pet 1:17-18; cf. Mt 17:1-6). Protestants widely use the terms “Holy Bible” and “Holy Land”. In so doing, they tacitly acknowledge the notion of “holy things”: even though, if pressed, they may argue against it, as I once did myself.

According to the Bible and Catholic history and tradition, there is such a thing as a holy place or holy item. And that is the very basis of the pilgrimage (which is why I took a little time explaining it, and its biblical foundation).
As an evangelical Protestant (1977-1990) with a lively reverence and pious sense towards the Bible and the Holy Land, I could have, no doubt, traveled to Israel and experienced God's presence deeply and profoundly, even if I hadn't fully grasped the concept of the holy place. It wouldn't have been vastly different from what it will be like for me now.
Yet the difference for the Catholic or Orthodox Christian and a few “higher” groups of Protestants, is that the holy thing literally conveys grace, as the sacraments do (though in a somewhat different sense, similar to what is called a sacramental (holy water, crucifixes, scapulars, etc.).
Thus, to travel to Jerusalem or other places where the events of the Bible and life of our Lord Jesus took place, is not merely to revel in its sublime historical significance, nor to try to “go back in time” or suchlike (as many of us love to do on vacations). It's much morethan that. Provided that a person has an appropriately open and willing heart, he or she literally receives grace, and becomes closer to God as a result.
That's our little “theological lesson” and a backdrop to the upcoming pilgrimage. But getting back to a more subjective or experiential plane, I'd like to try to convey my thoughts and feelings at this vantage-point: almost exactly three months before I begin the pilgrimage. How do I conceive of it: having never really done such a thing?
I approach it by means of analogies: experiences that come closest to what I can only imagine at this point that it will be like. The one thing that keeps coming back to my mind is what it felt like to visit Gettysburg: the site in Pennsylvania of the greatest battle of the American Civil War (in July 1863). I've been there twice, and the experience was the same both times, for myself, as well as my wife Judy and my children who were with us. They were old enough the second time to understand much better.
The feeling (as best I can describe it) was a tangible sense of the presence of spirits and a sort of awestruck suspension of everything else; the realization that one was present at a profoundly solemn and spiritual place: a “hallowed ground” where unspeakably dramatic events involving bravery and noble and high ideals occurred; where thousands of men courageously died, and many thousands more were wounded: never to be the same again.
When I was there, I literally felt a sort of “spirit” hang over it: so real that you can almost reach out and touch it. I've never experienced anything like it before or since, and I felt it – quite distinctly and unmistakably – two times, more than ten years apart.
Part of it, I suppose, was seeing the movie about it shortly before our first visit. That helped to “bring it to life,” yet if we had never seen the film, I'm firmly convinced that it wouldn't have felt any differently, because the historical knowledge is essentially different from the spiritual experience.
Gettysburg is, I think, a “holy place” of a sort. By analogy, I believe that being in the Holy Land, in the very places where Jesus walked, and where David and Moses and Abraham and Mary and the apostles lived and followed God, must feel very much like that experience, and far more so. To be immersed in that for even a day would be an unspeakable privilege. But we will be there for fifteen days, on the trip and pilgrimage of a lifetime.
As a second analogy I would imagine that eucharistic adoration “feels like” in many respects what it is like to be in the Holy Land: precisely because of the eucharistic presence of Jesus. The closer one is to God, the more one has a sense of holiness and a profound sense of fellowship and unity with Him.
The third related analogy that I have in my mind, is various times of experiencing a “filling of the Holy Spirit” (Eph 5:18): many of them as a Protestant. On several occasions, usually when one or both of us was greatly upset about something, my wife Judy and I would pray for each other, to receive peace from the Holy Spirit.
And, lo and behold, it happened just about every time: a wonderful, unspeakable sense of peace and a sort of “spiritual ecstasy.” We don't seek it; we're not fanatical about trying to have experiences (it's been many years now, I think). I rarely talk about it. But these experiences were as real as the keyboard and the desk in front of me as I write. No one could ever convince me that they were not real.
And that indescribably pleasant, blessed feeling of closeness to, or special proximity to God is how I imagine it will be in the Holy Land, where God became man and walked among us and died for us, and where Peter and Paul (transformed by God's grace and what they had seen) ventured out to share the new gospel.
These are my feelings now. I've never been to such a holy place (unless we count Gettysburg as that: which to me makes sense). I've never been anywhere outside of the United States and Canada (though I'm very well-traveled in those two countries). Thus, this book will be a report of the journey of this 56-year-old (still fairly “youthful”) Catholic apologist, who has loved and studied and defended and shared about the Bible and Christianity; and more specifically, Catholicism, these past 33 years.
The book will be designed to have many different aspects, all woven together into a type of “adventure narrative” or spiritual odyssey. It will be a firsthand report of what I feel like as I travel to all these holy sites in Israel and Jordan. That is the traditional pilgrimage account or, if you will, a diary. I'll be writing at the end of each day in my hotel: recording my thoughts and feelings in a spontaneous manner.
Two other elements are more directly “apologetic” and draw upon my more usual writing styles and goals (what my readers usually expect from me). I will be detailing some of the exciting archaeological discoveries that have been occurring in Israel and Jordan, and almost literally revolutionizing the increasingly secular, non-believing field of biblical archaeology (at least for those willing to see).
For example, some of the very recent spectacular finds (only in the last 20 years) include the baptismal site of Jesus in Jordan, the City of David excavations in Jerusalem, just outside of the current Old City and next to where the temple used to be, another Davidic-period city at the Valley of Elah, where David killed Goliath, and what is believed to be Joshua's altar on Mt. Ebal.
We may not be able to visit every last one of these sites, but I will still write about them a bitm, even if we don't, since they are such exciting confirmations of the Bible and of traditional Christian, Catholic faith (tying into the apologetics which is my specialty).
I'll also be utilizing scriptural references to relate the places we visit to biblical history; along with the occasional exposition of the text.
Finally, we will have many dozens of photographs, for a complete visual account of our pilgrimage. These, then, to summarize, are the five elements that will make up this book:
1) The pilgrimage and spiritual journey, written about in a very personal way: how I feel, what I experience; firsthand descriptions and impressions of these holy sites.
2) Survey of archaeological findings and their significance.
3) Citing of related Scripture, with occasional exposition.
4) A complete photographic account.
5) A running narrative, tying it all together as an exciting journey or odyssey; an adventure (as indeed, it will inevitably be).
My hope is that a lively sense of the pilgrimage can be directly conveyed to you, the reader. Some of you may never be able to take such a trip. I probably never would have, myself, on my barely adequate apologist's salary, but I was blessed by having most of my expenses generously, graciously paid for. And believe me, I know and understand very well the pain and longing and yearning of wanting so badlyto take such a trip, for years, decades, but never being able to (till now in my case).
Whether you are never able to travel to the Holy Land or have been there, or plan to go in the future, the goal is to make our pilgrimage come alive for you: so that you can experience it vicariously (somewhat like watching a movie and becoming engrossed in it), and to educate the reader about the cutting-edge archaeological discoveries that are taking place.
Beyond that, we want to share and express the joy of being a Catholic and disciple of Jesus. In a world (even in the Church) where discussions and thoughts are often so negative, bitter, acrimonious, or cynical (just as they were in Bible times!), we are striving to present a positive vision of being a Catholic and follower of Jesus.
Heaven knows, almost all of us (save whatever saints walk the earth today) fall far short of the high ideals of the Christian life, but, having said that, in this book I hope to achieve some semblance of what St. Paul calls for us to be and to do:
Philippians 4:4, 6-8 Rejoice in the Lord always; again I will say, Rejoice. . . . [6] Have no anxiety about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. [7] And the peace of God, which passes all understanding, will keep your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus. [8] Finally, brethren, whatever is true, whatever is honorable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is gracious, if there is any excellence, if there is anything worthy of praise, think about these things.
I hope you will join us now on our spiritual pilgrimage and additional quest after the best and latest exciting archaeological sites in the Holy Land. Apart from some research components that I'll be working on before we leave, the narrative and “diary” beginning in the first chapter, will (of necessity) be written after we arrive in Israel: on 18 October 2014 (three months away, as of this writing).

These are preliminary thoughts and expectations. That will be the Real Thing.

* * * * *