Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 21

Books by Dave Armstrong: Pope Francis Explained: Survey of Myths, Legends, and Catholic Defenses in Harmony with Tradition

127 pages. Completed on 22 January 2014 and published at Lulu on the same day
Cover design by Chad Toney, in consultation with Dave Armstrong ----- To purchase, go to the bottom of the page -----

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Dedication (p. 3)
Introduction (p. 5) [read online]
1. Foot-Washing (p. 11)
2. Rorate Caeli Website Hysteria (p. 23)
3. Atheist Salvation / Salvation by Works (p. 33)
4. The Blessed Virgin Mary at the Cross (p. 47) [read online]
5. Homosexuality (p. 77)
6. Franciscan Friars / Tridentine Mass Controversy (p. 83)
7. Pro-Life (p. 95)
8. Evangelii Gaudiumand Alleged Marxism (p. 99)
9. La Civiltà CattolicaInterview and Ensuing Myths (p. 115)
Afterword: “Those who are willing to understand Pope Francis, can and will do so . . .” (p. 125)

BACK COVER

 
Jesus Returning the Keys to St. Peter, Jean Auguste Dominique Ingres, 1820 (Neoclassic style)

Purchase Options


Paperback (List: $19.95 / 30% Permanent Lulu Discount: $13.97)

$6.99 [soon]

$2.99 

$6.99 [soon]

$6.99 [soon]


$6.99 [soon]


Uploaded on 22 January 2014. Revised: 23 January 2014.

Introduction to My Book, Pope Francis Explained: Survey of Myths, Legends, and Catholic Defenses in Harmony with Tradition

[see the book info-page for this title]

It seems that everyone wants to make the pope (like they often do with God Himself) into their own image. Those outside the Church do this in proportion to how “contra-Catholic” or secular they are: up to and including atheists; as well as dissenting modernists and theological liberals within the Church (the “cafeteria” / pick and choose types).
These all want him to be so-called “progressive” and are more than willing to project this attribute onto him, in a huge campaign of wishful thinking, if in fact it is not there. This group includes (very much so) the media.
They long and yearn and (except for the atheists) pray for the day when a truly “enlightened” pope will come around to bring the Church out of the “Dark Ages” into our marvelously happy and fulfilled modern world: one who will fundamentally change things. This latter expectation, in turn, reveals their own fundamental ignorance about the role of the papacy and the scope of his power, as one who preserves tradition and dogma.
On the other end of the scale, the radical Catholic reactionaries, on the extreme right on the Catholic ecclesiological spectrum and a hair's breadth away from schism, exaggerate new popes' differences (if any) from previous popes, and become needlessly alarmed that the Church is revising or transforming itself; going to pot because of the new “liberal” pope.
Or, conversely, if they actually likethe new pope (as they did, Pope Benedict XVI; as did also, mainstream “traditionalists”), they do the same, but in an approving, rather than disapproving sense.
Thus, we have a scenario whereby folks on both the “left” and the “right” of the theological spectrum massively misinterpret what a new pope says and does. I aim to show both factions the errors and illusions of their ways.
Unfortunately, there is a third group as well: obedient, devout, observant, orthodox Catholics who understand the pope's role and the nature and status of Catholic dogmas (which donot and cannotchange), yet who are confused by something a new pope says or does. Mainstream “traditionalists” (i.e., basically those who prefer the Tridentine Mass) are a big part of this group, too, but not allof it, by any means.
They have no desire to make him into something he is not, whether to the “left” or the “right.” Rather, their concern is to harmonize and synthesize the pope with the existing tradition. Many Catholics felt the same dilemma with regard to Vatican II, which was widely presented (and/or wrongly perceived) as a departure from traditional precedent, whereas in reality it was a somewhat startling and dramatic but nevertheless consistentdevelopment of what came before.
As an apologist and observer of the Catholic scene, I have watched all these dynamics occur with two new popes: Pope Benedict XVI in 2005, and Pope Francis in 2013. I calmly observed on both occasions, that there was to be no sea-change; only a change in focus or emphasis or outward style. When it was said that Pope Benedict XVI would not engage in ecumenical conferences as Blessed Pope John Paul II had done (scandalizing a fair-sized number), I said that the two men in fact did not differ in that regard at all. I was right. Those activities were continued.
The same is true today. Nothing essential has changed. What we have is a striking, even “radical” difference of style and emphasis, but not of substance. I wrote in September 2013:

For all of you out there worried about the pope: relax; chill. All is well. We have a pope who says the unexpected: a lot like Jesus. And, like Jesus, those who don't get it and are outside looking in, will misunderstand, and those who are in the fold will grasp what is being said, in the context of historic Catholic teaching, if they look closely enough and don't get hoodwinked by silly media wishful thinking. Those who are outside often hear only what they want to hear (God loves everyone, even sinners!!!) and not what they need to hear (stop sinning; stop thissin . . .).

I also wrote at about the same time, in a letter to a friend:

It's the same old dumb misunderstandings: media misreports what the pope said; never understand what he meansin context, and in context with past teachings. Don't fall into their trap! Pope Francis is a good Catholic; nothing to be alarmed about at all. The world wants Christians to renounce their teachings. We're the guys who have never done so. We keep the same moral teaching that the Church had from the beginning: no abortion, no divorce, no contraception, no same-sex “marriages,” etc. Virtually no one else has done so! So the attack is against us to change traditional morality, and we will never do that.

That is what this book is about. For each “controversy” or supposed “scandal” or thing that Pope Francis said or did that has people in a confused or even (sometimes) angry state, I will attempt to provide a cogent explanation, by first noting (using the “survey” method) what was actually said, then how it was spun by the media and the religious and secular left, and how it was spun (or received) by the religious right.
After I provide that documentation, I'll proceed to show that the pope is in complete harmony with Catholic tradition, give biblical support (where relevant and possible), and make further observations in defense of the Holy Father, in my role as an apologist / defender of the faith.
My hope and prayer is that my efforts will lessen the confusion of those who are sincerely seeking what the pope intends and means. But for those who don't care, at bottom, what he intends, the book might be said to function as an exposé of the nefarious methods used to twist and distort his words and actions.

* * * * *

Is Pope Francis Guilty of Blasphemy and Departure from All Catholic Mariological Tradition in His Comments on the Possible Momentary Temptation of Mary at the Cross?

[Bible passages: RSV]
Pope Francis gave a homily at Mass on the morning of 20 December 2013 at Casa Santa Marta in Vatican City (Latin: Domus Sanctæ Marthæ; English: Saint Martha's House). This is his own residence. It was devoted to the topic of silence before God, and acceptance of mystery, with regard, specifically, to the Blessed Virgin Mary.
News.Va: the “Official Vatican Network,” reported the pope's words on the same day, via Vatican Radio (I'll cite only the pope's words in quotation marks in the article):
The Lord always took care of the mystery and hid the mystery. He did not publicize the mystery. A mystery that publicizes itself is not Christian; it is not the mystery of God: it is a fake mystery! And this is what happened to Our Lady, when she received her Son: the mystery of her virginal motherhood is hidden. It is hidden her whole life! And she knew it. This shadow of God in our lives helps us to discover our own mystery: the mystery of our encounter with the Lord, our mystery of our life’s journey with the Lord.
Each of us knows how mysteriously the Lord works in our hearts, in our souls. . . . This cloud in us, in our lives is called silence: the silence is exactly the cloud that covers the mystery of our relationship with the Lord, of our holiness and of our sins. This mystery that we cannot explain. But when there is no silence in our lives, the mystery is lost, it goes away. Guarding the mystery with silence! That is the cloud, that is the power of God for us, that is the strength of the Holy Spirit. . . . how many times she [Mary] remained quiet and how many times she did not say that which she felt in order to guard the mystery of her relationship with her Son, . . .
The Gospel does not tell us anything: if she spoke a word or not… She was silent, but in her heart, how many things told the Lord! ‘You, that day, this and the other that we read, you had told me that he would be great, you had told me that you would have given him the throne of David, his forefather, that he would have reigned forever and now I see him there!’ Our Lady was human! And perhaps she even had the desire to say: ‘Lies! I was deceived!’ John Paul II would say this, speaking about Our Lady in that moment. But she, with her silence, hid the mystery that she did not understand and with this silence allowed for this mystery to grow and blossom in hope.
. . . Silence is that which guards the mystery . . . May the Lord give all of us the grace to love the silence, to seek him and to have a heart that is guarded by the cloud of silence.
Vatican Insiderpublished basically the same, on the same day, and had a link at the bottom to the Italian original language. The second-to-last last paragraph in Italian is as follows:
Maria è stata la perfetta icona del silenzio. Dall’Annunciazione al Calvario. Papa Francesco pensa a “quante volte ha taciuto e quante volte non ha detto che quello che sentiva per custodire il mistero del rapporto con suo Figlio”, fino al silenzio del dolore muto “ai piedi della Croce. Il Vangelo non ci dice nulla: se ha detto una parola o no… Era silenziosa, ma dentro il suo cuore, quante cose diceva al Signore! ‘Tu, quel giorno - questo è quello che abbiamo letto - mi hai detto che sarà grande; tu mi hai detto che gli avresti dato il Trono di Davide, suo padre, che avrebbe regnato per sempre e adesso lo vedo lì!’. La Madonna era umana! E forse aveva la voglia di dire: ‘Bugie! Sono stata ingannata!’: Giovanni Paolo II diceva questo, parlando della Madonna in quel momento. Ma Lei, col silenzio, ha coperto il mistero che non capiva e con questo silenzio ha lasciato che questo mistero potesse crescere e fiorire nella speranza”.
Here's the key phrase in Italian, with the Google translation:

La Madonna era umana! E forse aveva la voglia di dire: ‘Bugie! Sono stata ingannata!’
Our Lady was human! And perhaps [s]he had the urge to say: 'Lies! I was deceived! '
I don't understand why it has “he” instead of “she”: but that may lead into the almost inevitable translation questions, whenever these controversies arise. The rendering above translated “desire”: as does the Babylon online translator. The Zenitversion has the word “urge” as well.
A person I discussed this with online, who speaks English, Spanish, Italian, and Latin, observed about the Italian word voglia(“desire” or “urge” above): that it's “verynuanced and is best understood as something like 'fleeting thought,' 'pang' or 'twinge.' It implies an unbidden, sudden, spontaneous thought or temptation.”
Interestingly, the same homily, in excerpts on The Holy See/ Vatican website (also on the News.va page, likewise derived from L'Osservatore Romano), does notcontain the portion: “Our Lady was human! And perhaps she even had the desire to say: ‘Lies! I was deceived!’”
Both of these versions, however, contain the sentence, the opening clause of which is apparently, not a direct citation (my italics): “Likely, Mary would have thought back to the angel’s words regarding her Son: 'On that day you told me he would be great! . . .'” This is important, because it makes it more clear that the pope was merely speculating. But he's certainly doing that in any case, if he is pondering what Mary may have been thinking, since we have no recorded words from Scripture on that score. 

  Be that as it may, I will assume that the reports of the most controversial language are accurate, and proceed accordingly in my analysis.
At first glance, I was myself troubled and confused by these remarks, in a way that I was not for any of the other “controversial” ones I have seen. Apologists don't have all the “answers.” We have to learn and sometimes struggle trying to understand certain things, just like anyone else.
But the question is, whether any such struggle to learn and more accurately comprehend is within the outlook of a confident faith in God: that He guides the Catholic Church in a unique way, or under a paradigm of constant judging and criticizing of the pope when we may not understand something; and, frankly, seemingly a lack of faith and the obedient, “accepting” outlook that characterizes the devout, observant Catholic in matters that involve his or her Church.
The difference in the way I approached the “problem” compared to how the pope's frequent detractors do, couldn't be more striking. Here are my actual words, written on Facebook, the night before I studied the issue and arrived at the analysis below:
There's only one papal statement that I'm aware of, that puzzles me, that I find difficult, but I am seeking to understand it by further inquiry, and believe I will be able to do so to my satisfaction. It'll just take a little extra work, is all. Why should we expect that we would instantly understand everything a pope says, anyway? He's supposedto stretch us and make us squirm a bit.
But it's the underlying attitude of faith which is key: do we trust that God knows what He is doing through His vicar or not? Or will we question and doubt and criticize at every turn, which is the hallmark of the radical Catholic reactionary that I've been critiquing for 17 years online?
There are genuine questions within an overall attitude of faith and obedience, and there is willful dissent. I think those who exercise faith and diligence will come to understand most things if they seek and study and learn. So there is a time element, too.
“Seek and ye shall find.” That takes time: sometimes a lotof time. We converts are very familiar with that process.
Confusion can exist for a variety of reasons. People are, for example, highly confused by many things in the Bible. Believe me, I know, as an apologist who deals with such questions all the time. No one has been more misunderstood than Jesus and Paul, yet that was God's will that their words are in the Bible as is.
If I thought the pope couldn't be defended I would say so and wouldn't try to do it, but I think he can. I'm only confused by one remark and I'll be studying further, myself, to better understand it.
The leading theologians of Jesus' and Paul's time were almost universally “concerned” about Jesus, too, and concluded that He was a compulsive liar, deceiver, and demon-possessed. Almost all of Ven. Pope Paul VI's theological advisers told him not to write Humanae Vitae[the famous encyclical reiterating the prohibition of contraception]. He did, anyway. The bishops and theologians massively dissented from it after he wrote it. Sometimes popes can feel very much alone.
It's one thing to say, “I don't understand x that the pope said . . .” (I'm like that myself with regard to one statement that I've seen); quite another to issue highly judgmental, condemnatory blanket statements
It took me 2-3 hours to “figure this out” to my own satisfaction, and I say anyone could have done so with minimal searching skills and a decent familiarity with Catholic theology and the Bible. But if I don't understand something in theology (speaking generally), that's not a crisis for me. I see that as the normal human condition (not everyone knows everything, nor should they expectto).
Why anyone would think they have to understand every jot and tittleof what the pope says is beyond me. Major issues: yes, that is normal to want to understand, but everything? And if we don't it's a personal and possibly an ecclesiological / spiritual crisis? No! That ultimately gets to issues of whether we have a simple faith and trust in God, Who guides His Church, or not.
That was my attitude, “going in.” Now (before I go on to provide my analysis), contrast that with the rabid attacks on the pope that have occurred in relation to this homily.
A radical Catholic reactionary blog called The Eponymous Flower(self-described as “polemical Catholic Royalist”) had a field day with this, writing on 22 December 2013:
. . . the Pope expressed hitherto completely new thoughts on the attitude of Mary on Calvary this past Friday. Is Pope Francis forming Marian theology? Mary not as co-redeemer, but as a rebel? . . . Maria Accused God of Deceit? . . . upon which theological arguments does Pope Francis base his pronouncing a very, let us say with the utmost restraint, “impetuous” judgment of the Blessed All Holy Virgin Mary? We sincerely have no idea. If they were really spoken or thought by the Mother of God, they would be called blasphemous. But the doubts and the questions that Pope Francis puts in Mary's mouth, have no equivalent in Revelation, even less in the tradition of the Church or in the Fathers.
The same person also wrote in comments:
With “friends” like this in the Church, who needs enemies? The devil must be laughing his fool head off.
Catholic blogger Elliot Bougis, who has written some great stuff in the past, has apparently lately been entranced by the same sort of worthless radical Catholic reactionary rhetoric and polemics, and now deigns to lecture the Holy Father and those doltish enough to actually extend to him respect and the benefit of the doubt, as if all alike were errant, snot-nosed children. He pontificated on his site, FideCogitActio: “Omnis per gratiam”:
The central issue is simply that it is a deviation from Catholic tradition to say that, in the act of having such difficulties, Our Lady would accuse, or even “semi-accuse,” God of deceit (or betrayal). . . . I (and numerous other concerned Catholics) would not be prone to such “swipes” (merely to borrow my critic’s term), if Pope Francis did not take so many swipes at the faithful and the Faith itself.
A larger issue is that the pope’s gaffe on this point is not anything new. He has proven himself to be a frequently unreliable expositor of the Faith. Too many nuances fudged, too many half-truths valorized, too little clarification in the face of too much confusion. While I am certainly not saying that everything he says is wrong–quite to the contrary, it is the ragged litany of sporadic malapapalisms which detract from his otherwise conventional orthodoxy–, I am saying that his consistent tendency to confuse and shock the faithful renders him unreliable as a catechist.
. . . As it stands, though, it only reinforces the pattern that we must admit: Pope Francis is not a careful thinker and he is often extremely incautious with his words. Any pastor who requires the help of legions of defenders to show how his malapapalisms “mesh” with the Faith, is simply a poor teacher, and it’s not mockery to call a spade a spade. 1
John Vennari, writing for the radical Catholic reactionary site Catholic Family News, makes similar grand, quasi-conspiratorial claims:
Pope Francis is certainly a newsmaker, as he continually utters confusing statements that leave Catholics reeling the world over. The above statement about Our Lady is certainly one of the most troublesome.
Pope Francis, by claiming Our Lady was probably surprised and confused by the drama of the Crucifixion, actually promotes a Protestant reading of the Blessed Mother that emphasizes her “humanity” over the unique exalted gifts she received as Mother of God. Whether he realized it or not, Pope Francis’ statements are actually a denigration of Our Lady, and the first who would say so is Saint Alphonsus Ligouri.2
Ironically (and, I think, quite humorously), while Vennari (like Bougis) accuses the Holy Father of forsaking genuine Catholic Mariological tradition, he differs with Bougis on whether Blessed Pope John Paul II (in his “New Way of the Cross” from 2001: to be cited below) is likewise guilty, and states: “Saddest of all, Pope Francis hearkens back to Pope John Paul II as the basis of his meditation. In this Francis is accurate.”
Bougis, on the other hand, classes John Paul the Great with “the good [orthodox] guys”:
The subtle but crucial difference between what Pope Francis insinuates and what John Paul II teaches, sheds further light on why countless healthy Catholic souls have reacted so negatively to Pope Francis’s latest bungling of the Tradition. . . . This is subtly but crucially different from what Pope Francis has, wittingly or not, foisted upon us as children of the Mystical Rose. John Paul II’s orthodoxy becomes even clearer when read in connection with his more formal statements in Redemptoris Mater§18:
To top it off, the article from The Eponymous Flower, cited above, stakes out a third position; namely, that Pope John Paul II was correct in his Mariology, but (differing from both Bougis and Vennari) that Pope Francis was inaccurately (or wrongheadedly) drawing from a completely differentdocument (!):
The daring interpretation that Pope Francis gives to Mary's silence,  gives rise spontaneously to two questions. The first question that imposes itself is: In what document or speech is  Pope John Paul II  to have put such words of the Virgin Mother of God in her mouth?Some searching and consultation  of a colleague proved successful. The passage refers to the Encyclical Redemptoris Mater . . .
Thus we observe the comedic spectacle of three writers trashing the Holy Father, yet contradicting each other, as to the relation of the supposed dreadful comments to the teaching of Blessed [soon to be Saint] Pope John Paul II (and from which document of his). It rather reminds one of the witnesses against Christ contradicting each other (Mark 14:56). But it does provide much-needed entertainment in an otherwise dreary, boorish affair (where one has to “laugh to keep from crying”).
Now, let's move on to examine some biblical analogies and relevant passages, look at a few examples of the same sort of notions in previous Catholic Mariology, and finally, to consult in some depth, many other Marian utterances of Pope Francis. I submit that this will allow a very different picture to emerge. 

  The first thing to note is that Mary didn't have comprehensive knowledge of all the particulars of Jesus' ministry and mission. The most well-known example was when Jesus was teaching in the temple at age twelve:
Luke 2:48-50And when they saw him they were astonished; and his mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been looking for you anxiously.” [49] And he said to them, “How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?” [50] And they did not understand the saying which he spoke to them.
This conclusively shows that she didn't have exhaustive knowledge. She didn't even understand afterJesus explained. It doesn't follow that she didn't know that He was God incarnate ad the Messiah; only that she didn't know everything there was to know about Him: all particulars and fine points.  The next thing to determine is whether Mary could be tempted (even fleetingly) with untrue thoughts or despairing emotions. Yes, of course! God Himself can be tempted; that is, the devil and men can attempt to do so. They will be – can onlybe – unsuccessful, but they can try:
Sirach 18:23Before making a vow, prepare yourself; and do not be like a man who tempts the Lord.
Acts 5:9 But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? . . .” [the Holy Spirit is God; cf. 5:3-4]
Hebrews 4:15 For we have not a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin.
Jesus was, of course, tempted by the devil for 40 days in the wilderness:
Luke 4:1-2, 12-13And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan, and was led by the Spirit [2] for forty days in the wilderness, tempted by the devil. . . . [12] And Jesus answered him, “It is said, 'You shall not tempt the Lord your God.'” [13] And when the devil had ended every temptation, he departed from him until an opportune time.
Therefore, since God Himself can be tempted (unsuccessfully), so can Mary, who is His creature, as the lesser of the two (and also unsuccessfully, but the devil can try). A sudden temptation entering Mary's mind, as a human being, watching her Son being tortured to death on the cross, is both quite understandable and contrary to nothing in Catholic theology. She could be tempted, just as Jesus was, but did she give into it?, is the question. The pope reiterated here and elsewhere that she did not do so.
But the thought is altogether possible, especially when we note what the Italian voglia means. If my friend was correct, it is a “fleeting thought” or mere “pang” or “twinge”; “an unbidden, sudden, spontaneous thought or temptation.” This was what the pope was saying. It may have / could possibly have / understandably would have (mere speculation) entered her head. If so, she didn't act upon it, and it didn't annihilate her steadfast faith.
The next related thing is to ponder analogies to her Divine Son. Could He: 1) tremendously suffer; all the while not ever wavering in resolve, and 2) feel forsaken or profoundly separated from His Father, in His human nature even though He never was separated from Him for even an instant in His Divine Nature? Yes, on both counts. Again, then, the analogical reasoning is: “as the greater [God] is, so the lesser [creature] plausibly is all the more so.”
The most obvious example of this is Jesus' words from the cross: “My God, my God, why hast thou forsakenme?” (Matthew 27:46). The Church father, St. Hilary of Poitiers attributed this to “weakness” in Jesus human nature:
Christ, who had depended in all things upon His Father’s support, now deserted and left to death, mourns over this desertion, and pleads with Him departing. . . . The complaint of His being deserted is the weakness of the dying man; the promise of Paradise is the kingdom of the living God. You have Him complaining that He is left to death, and thus He is Man; you have Him as He is dying declaring that He reigns in Paradise; and thus He is God. Wonder not then at the humility of these words, when you know the form of a servant, and see the offence of the cross.3
The great Jesuit commentator and exegete, Cornelius a Lapide (1567-1637), adds:
Christ therefore does not cry out as being forsaken by the Godhead and hypostatic union of the Word, nor even by the grace and love of God, but only because the Father did not rescue Him from instant death, nor soothe in any way His cruel sufferings, but permitted Him to endure unmitigated tortures. And all this was to show how bitter was His death on the Cross, the rending asunder of His soul and body with such intense pain as to lead Him to pray in His agony and bloody sweat, “Father, if it be possible,” &c. So St. Jerome, St. Chrysostom, Theophylact, and other Fathers; nor do & Hilary and St. Ambrose mean anything else in saying, “The man cried aloud when dying at being separated from the Godhead.” For they mean not a severing of essence and of the hypostatical union, but of support and consolation. For the faith teaches us that though the soul of Christ was separated from His body, yet the Godhead remained as before, hypostatically united both to His soul and His body.4
The agony of our Lord Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane is another similar instance of this intense suffering:
Matthew 26:36-44Then Jesus went with them to a place called Gethsem'ane, and he said to his disciples, “Sit here, while I go yonder and pray.” [37] And taking with him Peter and the two sons of Zeb'edee, he began to be sorrowful and troubled. [38] Then he said to them, “My soul is very sorrowful, even to death; remain here, and watch with me.” [39] And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt.” [40] And he came to the disciples and found them sleeping; and he said to Peter, “So, could you not watch with me one hour? [41] Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” [42] Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, “My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, thy will be done.” [43] And again he came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. [44] So, leaving them again, he went away and prayed for the third time, saying the same words.
So Jesus could pray, not once, but three times, that if it were possible, He could avoid the cross, yet we are to believe that Mary, a mere creature, cannot even for a fleeting instant while watching her Son die an excruciatingly painful death on the cross have any thought or temptation whatsoever that this seemed to be contrary to the glorious “messianic kingdom” proclamations by the angel at the Annunciation? She's not supposed to feel anything: any agony: even without accompanying doubt or sin? That makes no sense.   If that is impossible or unthinkable for herto do, certainly these analogous “agonizing” thoughts from Jesus would not have occurred, either. But they did; thus we conclude by analogy that Mary may have had similar thoughts. In Jesus, there was the striking contrast between His being God (Who cannot suffer), and man (who can and does suffer). In Mary (if indeed she thought this), the contrast was between the triumphant messianic kingdom and the “suffering servant” Messiah of Isaiah 53.
Lapide writes in his commentary on Matthew 26:37:
The primary cause of His sorrow was not the flight of His Apostles, which He foresaw, but the vivid apprehension of His approaching Passion and death, as is plain from His prayer, “Let this cup pass from Me.” For Christ foresaw all the torments, one by one, which the Jews would inflict on Him, and fully entered into and weighed the magnitude and bitterness of His several sorrows, so as to seem to be already suffering them, even to the shedding of His blood. For Christ doubtless wished to atone by His sorrow for the pleasure which Adam had in eating the forbidden fruit, and which sinners now experience in their sins. . . . the sorrows of the Son pierced, as a sword, the soul of the mother, and from her were reflected on Christ. For His greatest sorrow was that His mother suffered so grievously on His account.
St. Augustine exegeted Matthew 26:39 as follows:
Christ thus as man shows a certain private human will, in which He who is our head figures both His own will and ours when He says, “Let it pass from me.” For this was His human will choosing something as apart for Himself. But because as man He would be righteous and guide Himself by God’s will, He adds, “Nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt;” as much as to say to us, Man, behold thyself in Me, that thou canst will somewhat apart of thyself, and though God’s will is other, this is permitted to human frailty.5
On the same passage, Lapide comments (note the close analogy to Pope Francis' speculation about Mary):
My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from Me. Absolutely this was possible, but it was impossible according to God’s decree that man was to be redeemed by Christ’s death. Christ knew this, and therefore did not wish for it absolutely, and asks for nothing contrary to His own and the Father’s will. But He merely expresses His natural shrinking from death, His ineffectual and conditionated [sic] will, and yet freely submitted Himself to the contrary will of God, that He should die. 
. . . the natural will of Christ was conditional and of no avail, because it wished to escape death only under the condition that it pleased God. But His rational will was absolute and effectual, because He embraced death for the same reason that God willed it, that is, for man’s redemption. But the natural will of Christ seemed materially contrary to the Divine will. But by the rule of subordination it was conformable to it, as suffering itself to be guided by the rational will, and thus by the Divine will; and, on the other hand, the will of God, as well as the rational will of Christ, wishes on deliberate and just ground that His natural will should express this natural fear of death. In both aspects, therefore, was the will of Christ in all respects conformable to the Divine.
Jesus showed very human emotion at other times, as well, such as weeping over Lazarus' death, even though He was to raise him shortly afterward:
John 11:32-35, 38Then Mary, when she came where Jesus was and saw him, fell at his feet, saying to him, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” [33] When Jesus saw her weeping, and the Jews who came with her also weeping, he was deeply moved in spirit and troubled; [34] and he said, “Where have you laid him?” They said to him, “Lord, come and see.” [35] Jesus wept. . . . [38] Then Jesus, deeply moved again, . . .
The following lamentation from Jesus was obviously quite emotional:
Matthew 23:37 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you! How often would I have gathered your children together as a hen gathers her brood under her wings, and you would not!
Another instance of human discomfort with a simultaneous full resolve to follow God's will wherever it leads, is St. Paul's thorn in the flesh:
2 Corinthians 12:7-10 And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. [8] Three times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; [9] but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. [10] For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for when I am weak, then I am strong.
The anguished cry and feeling of “how long?” has a longstanding history from the Old Testament: at least as far back as King David. Mary could have been thinking of the messianic expectation (which was highlighted at the Annunciation (see Lk 1:31-33), crushed (in a sense) at the prospect of Jesus having to die a horrible death without the kingdom coming in physical terms, with judgment of sinners:
Psalm 6:2-7 Be gracious to me, O LORD, for I am languishing;
O LORD, heal me, for my bones are troubled.
[3] My soul also is sorely troubled.
But thou, O LORD -- how long?
[4] Turn, O LORD, save my life;
deliver me for the sake of thy steadfast love.
[5] For in death there is no remembrance of thee;
in Sheol who can give thee praise?
[6] I am weary with my moaning;
every night I flood my bed with tears;
I drench my couch with my weeping.
[7] My eye wastes away because of grief,
it grows weak because of all my foes. (cf. 13:1-2; 35:17)
Psalm 74:10 How long, O God, is the foe to scoff?
Is the enemy to revile thy name for ever? (cf. 90:13; 94:3; 119:84; Hab 1:2)
Lamentations 5:20-22 Why dost thou forget us for ever, why dost thou so long forsake us? [21] Restore us to thyself, O LORD, that we may be restored! Renew our days as of old! [22] Or hast thou utterly rejected us?
Art thou exceedingly angry with us?
Such prayers are even made by the angel of the Lord (Zech 1:12), and redeemed souls in heaven (Rev 6:10).
As the pope noted, Mary was a human being! Is she not allowed even a micro-second of agony and sadness and sorrow? Does not human emotion have a “logic” of its own, that often runs contrary to what our minds and wills would “say”? Is it not possible for her to be tempted, just as Jesus was? Do we believe that she was so “super-human” that she could never have any “depression” at all about anything: up to and including the cruel death of her Son on the cross?
Is she absolutely different from the prophet Elijah? He had just triumphantly confronted the false prophets of Baal on Mt. Carmel (1 Kings 18). But in the very next chapter, we see him struggling mightily, as a weak human being. He's described as “afraid” (19:3), wanting to “die” (19:4), worrying about being killed (19:14). He agonized with doubt; Mary and Christ did so without the doubt that would suggest lack of faith or sin.
Now, contrary to “assured” and loudmouthed proclamations that the pope expressed something completely new, novel, and heterodox, we see almost the same notion in Blessed Pope John Paul II's New Way of the Cross / Via Crucis 2000; fourth station:
“Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and his kingdom will have no end” (Lk 1:30-33).
Mary remembered these words. She often returned to them in the secret of her heart. When she met her Son on the way of the Cross, perhaps these very words came to her mind. With particular force. “He will reign . . . His kingdom will have no end”, the heavenly messenger had said.
Now, as she watches her Son, condemned to death, carrying the Cross on which he must die, she might ask herself, all too humanly: So how can these words be fulfilled? In what way will he reign over the House of David? And how can it be that his kingdom will have no end?
Humanly speaking, these are reasonable questions.
But Mary remembered that, when she first heard the Angel’s message, she had replied: “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord. May it be done to me according to your word” (Lk 1:38).
Now she sees that her word is being fulfilled as the word of the Cross. Because she is a mother, Mary suffers deeply. But she answers now as she had answered then, at the Annunciation: “May it be done to me according to your word”.
In this way, as a mother would, she embraces the cross together with the divine Condemned One.
On the way of the Cross Mary shows herself to be the Mother of the Redeemer of the world.
“All you who pass by the way, look and see whether there is any suffering like my suffering, which has been dealt me” (Lam 1:12).
It is the Sorrowful Mother who speaks, the Handmaid who is obedient to the last, the Mother of the Redeemer of the world.
PRAYER
O Mary, who walked the way of the Cross with your Son, your mother’s heart torn by grief, but mindful always of your fiat and fully confident that He to whom nothing is impossible would be able to fulfil his promises, implore for us and for the generations yet to come the grace of surrender to God’s love.6
It's all there. There is nothing here that isn't present in Pope Francis' thoughts. Here is the controversial section of his homily again:
She was silent, but in her heart, how many things told the Lord! ‘You, that day, this and the other that we read, you had told me that he would be great, you had told me that you would have given him the throne of David, his forefather, that he would have reigned forever and now I see him there!’ Our Lady was human! And perhaps she even had the desire to say: ‘Lies! I was deceived!’ John Paul II would say this, speaking about Our Lady in that moment.
And now a point-by-point comparison:
Blessed Pope John Paul II referred to Mary pondering the “messianic kingdom” words of the Annunciation, at the cross. So did Pope Francis. Both cited the words or content of the angel's message at the Annunciation. John Paul II uses the words “all too humanly,” and “humanly speaking.” Pope Francis declares, “Our Lady was human!”
Blessed Pope John Paul II “wonders out loud”:

. . . she might ask herself, all too humanly: So how can these words be fulfilled? In what way will he reign over the House of David? And how can it be that his kingdom will have no end?
Pope Francis merely puts John Paul II's words, “how can,” “In what way,” “how can it be” in more graphic, human, hyper-emotional terms, of the sort that the devil might momentarily put into a mind, even the mind of a holy, sinless person like the Blessed Virgin Mary (which she then instantly rejects upon reflection):
And perhaps she even had the desire to say: ‘Lies! I was deceived!’
Both popes portray Mary as overcoming these highly emotional thoughts with a profound, unwavering faith. Francis references the earlier reflections of his papal predecessor and right after that, concludes, similarly: “But she, with her silence, hid the mystery that she did not understand and with this silence allowed for this mystery to grow and blossom in hope.” It ends in hope and trust and faith, not despair and “blasphemy.”
She (possibly) had a fleeting thought and temptation. It didn't succeed in rocking or displacing her solid faith. The pope's detractors think they have proven something by emphasizing the one pungent phrase, minus context, and any comparative analysis of the pope's overall teaching on Mary (which is what I'll do next), or much thought at all of the scriptural backdrop.
An elementary rule in interpreting anything is to do it within the overall body of a person's thought. In biblical exegesis and systematic theology, one finds massive cross-referencing, and also the time-honored notion that more obscure biblical passages are to be interpreted by clearer ones along the same lines. As far as I can tell, the pope's scathing critics in this regard have not done that at all, whereas I have pored over as many of his utterances elsewhere about Mary as I could find. Do these clarify his thinking? They sure do, and quite dramatically and definitively so.
In an hour or so of searching online, I found a goldmine of Marian teaching from Pope Francis. One was from less than a month before the homily in question, on exactly the same subject matter (thus allowing us to have more insight about what he meant):
Our Lady looks at her Son’s mission with exultation but also with apprehension, because Jesus becomes increasingly the sign of contradiction that the elderly Simeon had pre-announced to her. At the foot of the cross, she is the woman of sorrow and at the same time of vigilant waiting of a mystery, greater than the sorrow, which is about to take place. Everything seems truly finished; every hope it could be said was spent. At that moment, recalling the promises of the Annunciation, she also could have said: they have not come true, I was deceived. But she did not say it.Yet she, blessed because she believed, sees blossom from her faith the new future and waits with hope for God’s tomorrow.7
Note that in this form, her momentary temptation or doubt reads more in terms of her possibly having been mistaken. It's an emotion we're all familiar with: we're disappointed, crushed, highly upset about something, and we conclude that we have been wrong about something, where previously we felt quite certain. This goes back to Mary not having all particular knowledge of God's salvation plan.
To say, “I was deceived” is vastly different from saying, “God deceived me.” But that was the same language Pope Francis used in the later homily, so the same reasoning would apply there as well. It's not necessarily blaming God; blaspheming by thinking He is a “liar.” But that is how many have interpreted it, with a complete lack of charity as well as reason.
Instead of the highly charged word, “lies” we have the milder “they have not come true.” Both of these choices of words lead us to interpret the later utterance much less “radically” than the rabid critics and self-important “orthodoxy cops” do.
The earlier statement has “could have said” followed quickly by the denial: “did not say it.” The later homily also ends in hope and affirmation: “she, with her silence, hid the mystery that she did not understand and with this silence allowed for this mystery to grow and blossom in hope.” The ending of the earlier meditation (immediately after the citation above) is all about a bright, sunny hope (Mary's hope in that dark hour is something that she also comforts uswith, as the exemplar of hope and faith):
Sometimes I wonder: are we able to wait for God’s tomorrow? Or do we want it today? For her God’s tomorrow is the dawn of the Easter morning, of that first day of the week. It would do us good to contemplate the Son’s embrace with the Mother. The only lighted lamp at the entrance of Jesus’ sepulcher is his Mother’s hope, which at that moment is the hope of the whole of humanity. I ask myself and you: is this lamp still alight in convents? Is God’s tomorrow still awaited in convents?
We owe much to this Mother! In her, present in every moment of the history of salvation, we see a solid witness of hope. She, Mother of hope, supports us in moments of darkness, of difficulty, of distress, of apparent defeat or of real human defeats. May Mary, our hope, help us to make of our life a pleasing offering to the Heavenly Father, and a joyful gift for our brothers, an attitude that always looks to tomorrow.8
Another hostile assumption employed by the papal detractors is an insinuation that, somehow, Pope Francis has denied the traditional doctrine of Mary as Co-Redemptrix, or (the more common term) Mediatrix. It seems to be thought that he has a low or undeveloped or heretical Mariology, when in fact, he holds to this tenet, which is disputed (wrongly) even among some orthodox Catholics.
If in fact, he agreesthat Mary participated in the redemption by offering her Son, by her consent, this is hardly commensurate with some silly idea that she was doubting the whole time. He doesagree. Here is the proof:
Mary is model of union with Christ. The life of the Holy Virgin was the life of a woman of her people: she prayed, worked, went to the synagogue … However, every action was always carried out in perfect union with Jesus. This union reached its climax on Calvary: here Mary unites herself to her Son in the martyrdom of the heart and in the offering of life to the Father for the salvation of humanity. Our Lady made her own the pain of her Son and with Him accepted the Father’s will, in that obedience that bears fruit, which gives the true victory over evil and death.
This reality that Mary teaches us is very beautiful: to be always united to Jesus. We can ask ourselves: do we remember Jesus only when something is not going well or when we are in need, or is our relationship constant, a profound friendship, also when it is a question of following him on the way of the cross?9
The rest of the same teaching, before and after the above citation, follows:
How did Mary live this faith? In the simplicity of the thousands of daily occupations and preoccupations of every mother, such as providing food, clothes, the care of the home … In fact this normal existence of Our Lady was the terrain where a singular relationship took place and a profound dialogue between her and God, between her and her Son. Mary’s “yes,” already perfect at the beginning, grew up to the hour of the Cross. There her maternity was dilated embracing each one of us, our life, to lead us to her Son. Mary always lived immersed in the mystery of God made man, as his first and perfect disciple, meditating everything in her heart in the light of the Holy Spirit, to understand and put into practice the whole will of God. . . .
Let us ask the Lord to give us the gift of his grace, his strength, so that in our life and in the life of every ecclesial community the model is reflected of Mary, Mother of the Church. So be it!
Pope Francis teaches that Mary said “yes” at the cross as well as at the Annunciation:
Mary said her yes to God: a yes which upset her simple life in Nazareth, and not only once. Any number of times she had to utter a heartfelt yes at moments of joy and sorrow, culminating in the yes she spoke at the foot of the Cross. Here today there are many mothers present; think of the full extent of Mary's faithfulness to God: seeing her only Son on the cross. . . . 10
The Church and Pope Francis also hold that Mary's faith was a “journey”; it wasn't whole and entire from the beginning of her calling:
The third aspect is Mary’s faith as a journey. The Council says that Mary “advanced in her pilgrimage of faith” (Lumen Gentium, 58). In this way she precedes us on this pilgrimage, she accompanies and sustains us.
How was Mary’s faith a journey? In the sense that her entire life was to follow her Son: he – Jesus – is the way, he is the path! To press forward in faith, to advance in the spiritual pilgrimage which is faith, is nothing other than to follow Jesus; . . . The way of Jesus is the way of a love which is faithful to the end, even unto sacrificing one’s life; it is the way of the cross. The journey of faith thus passes through the cross. Mary understood this from the beginning, when Herod sought to kill the newborn Jesus. But then this experience of the cross became deeper when Jesus was rejected. Mary was always with Jesus, she followed Jesus in the midst of the crowds and she heard all the gossip and the nastiness of those who opposed the Lord. And she carried this cross! Mary’s faith encountered misunderstanding and contempt. When Jesus’ “hour” came, the hour of his passion, . . . Mary’s faith was a little flame burning in the night, a little light flickering in the darkness. Through the night of Holy Saturday, Mary kept watch. Her flame, small but bright, remained burning until the dawn of the resurrection. And when she received word that the tomb was empty, her heart was filled with the joy of faith: Christian faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Faith always brings us to joy, and Mary is the Mother of joy! . . . What is our faith like? Like Mary, do we keep it burning even at times of difficulty, in moments of darkness? Do I feel the joy of faith? This evening, Mother, we thank you for our faith, the faith of a strong and humble woman; we renew our entrustment to you, Mother of our faith. Amen.11
Moreover, the Holy Father teaches that Mary never lost hope during Christ's passion:
Hope – he said – is what Mary, Mother of God, sheltered in her heart during the darkest time of her life: from Friday afternoon until Sunday morning. That is hope: she had it. And that hope has renewed everything. 12
Her faith never wavered, even at the time of her darkest, most painful trial:
. . . Standing at the foot of the cross with unyielding faith, you received the joyful comfort of the resurrection, and joined the disciples in awaiting the Spirit so that the evangelizing Church might be born.13
Nor did her strength falter at the cross:

She bore in her heart, throughout the pilgrimage of her life, the words of the elderly Simeon who foretold that a sword would pierce her soul, and with persevering strength she stood at the foot of the cross of Jesus. She knows the way, and for this reason she is the Mother of all of the sick and suffering. To her we can turn with confidence and filial devotion, certain that she will help us, support us and not abandon us. She is the Mother of the crucified and risen Christ: she stands beside our crosses and she accompanies us on the journey towards the resurrection and the fullness of life.14

Footnotes
1. “A follow-up on Our Lady of Doubts…” (24 December 2013).
2. “Pope Francis’ Protestant Meditation on Our Lady” (22 December 2013).
3. De Trin., 10:50 &c.; cited in St. Thomas Aquinas' Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected Out of the Works of the Fathers.
4. Commentary on Matthew (27:46).
5. In Ps. 32, Enar. 2; cited in St. Thomas Aquinas' Catena Aurea: Commentary on the Four Gospels, Collected Out of the Works of the Fathers.
6. The Holy See / Vatican website; “Liturgical Year: Holy Week 2004.”
7. Meditation at the Convent of Saint Anthony Abbot, Vatican City, 22 November 2013; from Zenit.org. Italics for emphasis are my own.
8. Ibid.
9. “On Mary, Model of Faith, Charity and Union with Christ”; catechesis at his general audience, St. Peter's Square, 23 October 2013; from Zenit.org; italics my own.
10. Homily at Mass for Marian Day, Vatican City, 14 October 2013; from Zenit.org.
11. Catechesis at Marian Day Vigil, Vatican City, 14 October 2013; from Zenit.org.
12. “Hope is a Gift from the Holy Spirit”: homily at Casa Santa Marta, 29 October 2013, from News.va.
13. Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, 24 November 2013; 185, 287-288; from The Holy See / Vatican website.
14. “Faith and Charity: We Ought to Lay Down Our Lives for One Another (1 Jn 3:16)”: message for the 22nd World Day of the Sick 2014; 6 December 2013; from The Holy See / Vatican website.

* * * * *

Formal Science Education of Rick DeLano, Producer of the Geocentrist Film, The Principle ("Dialogue")

The first exchange took place at Michael Voris' Church Militant TV website, on 1-8-14, shortly before Robert Sungenis and Rick were to be interviewed on the Mic'd Up show (under the trailer for The Principle). The second (after five asterisks) occurred on a thread on Karl Keating's Facebook page on 1-10-14. Rick's words will be in blue.
* * * * *
I want to make a promise to everyone following this discussion. I am not in the least bit intimidated by our self-appointed ecclesiastical KGB agents. I relish the fight. My film has the goods, and will stand up to all attempts to discredit it....

And can you reiterate for the folks again, Rick, what is your own formal education in science? Thank you.

My credentials follow. I never attended second grade. I never attended high school. I did attend college, but only until I achieved the age of 15 years and 9 months, at which point the statutory requirement of compulsory education ceased in my home state. I returned to college somewhat later, in order to determine why it is that I could not understand what Coltrane was doing in his "Giant Steps" solo. That took a semester. I happily departed academia, never to return, handmade friends with my teachers, most of whom vote along with what Chesterton terms the Democracy of the Dead. See you tonight!

I see: no high school, and college till the age of 15 3/4. That's certainly a curious educational history. I love Coltrane, too. Great to agree on something!

But what science courses have you actually taken (and passed)?

[he never did reply; split altogether from the thread after that]

*****

I love tough questions.

Excellent. What science courses have you taken? You ignored this on CMTV two days ago after saying you love taking on all criticisms. Perhaps you will answer here after reiterating that you love tough questions. Thank you.

Dave: I ignored nothing. I answered your question, and you know this.

I do not know that. I assume for charity's sake that you have a bad memory. You told me about the extent of your education; said not a thing about what science courses you took. The exchange remains up at CMTV. Anyone can verify what I just said. I asked you twice with no response. This is now my second time asking, here.

So Rick has now evaded my question about his science education four times, in two different highly visible venues. Remarkable . . . 

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor, Dave……..

As usual with Rick, it gets downright surreal . . .

Here is my complete exchange with Rick at CMTV, two nights ago (that thread remains online for anyone to read). As anyone can see, he says nothing about any science courses. [quoted the above]

Now he claims that he did answer the question and that I am bearing false witness against him for denying that he did. It's a matter of record. And we all see that he has avoided answering the same question twice here tonight.

I fully and completely addressed your question, Dave. Any fair minded person can see it. You actually post the confirmation of your false witness, and confirmation of your very grave ill will toward my honest attempt to address your question.

I am honestly puzzled why you imagine this is somehow scoring points for your credibility, not to mention your basic honesty.

So Dave- have you ever actually liked a science doc? Ever?

I actually answer your questions. If you mean Facebook "likes" (any other meaning seems ridiculous), I don't know. But I know that I regularly link to science articles on my FB page. For example I linked to an article about the leading skeptic of global warming a few days ago: Lindzen.

I have put together a book about science and Christianity and have had a web page about the same for over 16 years. 

But have you ever actually liked a science doc, Dave? Has any single one made an impression on you?

Why don't you answer my first question before I answer the second one from you? Fair enough? 

Oh my. Never mind, Dave. Forget I asked.

I didn't forget that you asked, but you'd sure like to forget what I asked you. As I said, I love science and have seen probably hundreds of such documentaries, such as on Nova, etc. DUH! Some big revelation, huh?  

David Manthei: Dave and Rick, I think you are talking past each other on this particular point (about the Science classes). If I am reading Rick's response correctly, the answer is "none". Is that a fair assessment Rick? 

He never said none (not to me), and I extend the charity to him that he may have taken more than none. I don't know. Here's his big chance to reveal to the world his formal scientific education! 


Not that Rick sees any relevance to being asked about his formal scientific education . . . but that's rather beside the point. I wasn't asking about informal education, but formal: the kind where you do things like chemistry experiments, dissecting frogs, have exams, get graded, etc.

My credentials are as stated. My credentials will soon be extended by the release of The Principle, along with the website which will make available much, much more of the fascinating, 35 hours of interviews we conducted with scientists of many viewpoints. They will speak for themselves.

Dropped out of all schooling at age 15 years, 9 months. Duly noted. Undisclosed science classes during those ten long years of school . . .
 
I spent five years researching the relevant science, and it pays off in the interviews. I took the general science classes at my primary and middle schools, Dave. I went to college at 14, and left as soon as I could. As soon as it was legal for me to do so.

* * * * * 

I guess I really hit a nerve with ol' Rick, despite the genial grandfatherly schtick when he is in public. Here is what he wrote on his Facebook page (1-13-14, 10:39 AM ET):

Dave Armstrong has exposed my pathetic ignorance.

I am so ashamed.

I hang my head in abject shame, to have been so deftly exposed by a man whose own credentials are, we must certainly assume, impeccable.

Mr. Armstrong: While it is clear that you shall certainly wipe the floor, as one of your commenters has suggested, with such a woefully inadequate opponent as my unworthy self, I nonetheless hereby issue a public challenge to you:

I will debate you, at our expense, in a public format, on a resolution to be agreed upon in advance, which resolution might include any among the following:

1. RESOLVED that science documentaries ought to be only produced by scientists, or those with scientific credentials (which ones)?

2. RESOLVED that "The Principle" is a film which ought not be taken seriously, due to the lack of scientific credentials of its Producer

3. RESOLVED, that Catholic apologists ought not throw stones when they live in glass houses

Other resolutions are possible, and ought to be considered by us mutually.

Please get back to me, Dave.

This would be fun, even though you will doubtless find me easy pickings……

Not interested . . . Sorry, Rick, to take away all your fun. Then the "feeding frenzy" and attempted trolling began (as it always does with geocentrists: I know, from long experience):

Well, that didn't take long. Mr. Armstrong has deleted all comments. Anybody get a SCREEN SHOT, HMMMMM? (11:22 AM ET, 1-13-14)

Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave, Dave. Don't you realize how pathetic this is on your part? What, are you afraid of a lil' ol' tenth grade dropout? (11:23 AM ET, 1-13-14)

The present kerfuffle over "The Principle" is exposing things about Karl Keating that I personally find utterly shocking, to a degree which I never would have imagined possible. STAY TUNED. This one could be interesting indeed. (11:27 AM ET, 1-13-14)

I have posted my challenge to Mr. Armstrong in a forum which is not subject to the Memoryhole Team at Catholic Prancers [link]. (11:30 AM ET, 1-13-14)

It's hilarious that Rick wants to debate me, rather than Karl Keating or Mark Shea or David Palm: all of whom have made far more arguments and criticisms than I have (David Palm has an entire website about geocentrism). All I've done in the last few days is inquire as to Rick's formal education, and formal education in science (a perfectly legitimate question). That's it! So why does he start challenging me to debate? I think it's reasonable and plausible to assume that it's because he's highly embarrassed, so that it's now "payback time." But I don't participate in these sorts of games. I have nothing to prove.

Rick and his minions can call me all the names they want. That never sways me to do anything (quite the contrary). I have serious apologetics work to do, and have already spent far too much time with this nonsense, climbing Mt. Everest, trying to get the simplest answers out of Rick; then when I do, we get this childish hogwash.

Please keep posting it to Dave. Over and over. [i.e., a blatant call for trolling] (11:30 AM ET, 1-13-14)

HA! Coward. (11:30 AM ET, 1-13-14)

Nasty is one thing. [referring to Karl Keating] Explicitly devoted to the destruction of the reputations of Catholics in good standing is another. Explicitly working with the enemies of the Church to destroy those reputations is still another. I have a feeling this is going to be for all the marbles. (11:34 AM ET, 1-13-14)

It took about five minutes for Mr. Armstrong to delete all comments from his post linked above, including my challenge. Is Dave afraid of something? [posted at Magisterial Fundies] (11:36 AM ET, 1-13-14)

Dave is a brave man as long as the comments are closed ;-)  (11:37 AM ET, 1-13-14)

If anyone knows any computer whizzes, ask them if there is a way to retrieve deleted comments on Facebook. I am ALL EARS and I will pay. (11:38 AM ET, 1-13-14)

These boys are not about truth. They are about enforcement. What truly shocked me was to find out who is standing behind Karl Keating in this. (11:44 AM ET, 1-13-14)

Keating posted, and then immediately deleted, a truly shocking threat when I told him we were on the verge of securing a theatrical release for "The Principle". He essentially said that he doubted it would go through once he partnered with B'nai B'rith to stop it. This is serious, serious stuff. (11:45 AM ET, 1-13-14)

We got em on the run. Just wait. This will be epic. (11:46 AM ET, 1-13-14)

He is obviously testosterone-challenged once it becomes clear he actually has to answer those he targets.  (11:57 AM ET, 1-13-14)

David Palm actually was challenged to debate in the past. Here is the story as he tells it, on the long Keating thread (linked below):

On The Principle Facebook page I was challenged to a public debate, which I accepted. Only after my acceptance was the offer modified to only an oral debate. I totally get how an oral debate might generate plenty of "buzz" to help market a product, but if it's a matter of seeking the truth then clearly a written debate is superior.

So here again I accept the invitation to a written, moderated public, debate with each installment posted at each of our sites. Normal debate format: formal resolution, opening statements, cross examination, closing remarks. Word count limit instead of time limit. I'm sure we can hammer out a resolution around whether the Catholic Church proposes an immobile earth to the faithful as a matter of divine revelation.

. . . So first things first. Will any of the new geocentrists agree to a public, moderated, written debate on whether the Catholic Church teaches an immobile earth as a matter of divine revelation?

I guess that's an extremely long winded way of saying "No". Eh Dave? Coward. (1:40 PM ET, 1-13-14)

Gosh. He said no. Who could possibly have predicted that? Coward, I say again. (1:46 PM ET, 1-13-14)

Mr. Dave Armstrong has received my challenge. He has a lot of word salad going on, which boils down to this: "Not interested . . . Sorry, Rick, to take away all your fun." Gosh, how unpredictable was that? Anyway, chalk up another drearily predictable backdown to Mr. Dave Armstrong, a man who is brave when the com boxes are closed. [posted at Magisterial Fundies] (1:48 PM ET, 1-13-14)

He has serious apologetics to do, he says. Which raises the question, what is he doing with this?  Obviously not serious apologetics. Anyway, chalk up another drearily predictable backdown to Mr. Dave Armstrong, a man who is brave when the com boxes are closed. (1:50 PM ET, 1-13-14)

HA! More? The man is completely disgraced. No courage. No honor. Just swipes from behind his closed com boxes. Next. (1:51 PM ET, 1-13-14)

He has in fact selectively posted from our thread here. Unlike Dave, I believe that the truth is best served in open discussion and debate. Our opposition is disgraceful in their opposition to just such open discussion and debate. (2:42 PM ET, 1-13-14)

"Elisa the Thinker" wrote at Magisterial Fundies: 

I also noted that before this challenge was made to Dave, there was a comment on Dave Armstrong's post about your recent interview on "Forward Boldy."

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/forwardboldly/2014/01/12/forward-boldly-interview-with-rick-delano-the-principle

I don't know when that comment was deleted, but it's gone today, with the rest as you mentioned.

It seems that Dave Armstrong would like to keep his post about you devoid of any comments that would help people learn what you, Robert Sungenis, and The Principle have to say from the sources themselves.

It seems that Dave would like to be the lens through which his followers see you.

IMHO, that speaks volumes. (4:16 PM ET, 1-13-14)

As you can see, my goal is clearly to repress and obliterate any links that allow Rick to give his views. 'Tis a pity, ain't it?

Please pray and do penance for Rick DeLano. He seems to have a lot of time on his hands, and surely it could be devoted to things of infinitely more significance than this ridiculous schoolyard goading. But if he wants to be on record with this idiocy (lots of folks may search his name online after his film comes out, and run across this post), that's his choice. I'm more than happy to utilize this post as a platform for his flatulent tedium. As the old proverb says, "when your opponent is imploding, you get out of the way and let him do it."


* * * * *

[see additional vigorous discussion on my Facebook page: including my defense of myself against charges that I have a double standard about credentials, etc. See also the excellent discussion on Karl Keating's Facebook page, that has over 600 comments, as of writing (1-13-14)] 


 

Does St. Augustine Agree with John Calvin and Calvinists Regarding Total Depravity? (Reply to Detractors)

This topic came up as I defended a humorous meme about Calvinism. Dr. Glenn Peoples [words in blue below], a Protestant, brought up the topic on his Facebook page, claiming (based entirely on the meme) that I didn't "understand the view being critiqued" and  "Know your theology or look silly when joking about it." The entire unfortunate exchange with him and a Reformed Baptist named William Tanksley, Jr. [words in green] was recorded in a lengthy blog piece (unedited, as Glenn's page was: deleting several remarks of mine).

The upshot of virtually all of the criticisms aimed at yours truly during that exchange was that I had no idea what I was talking about: particularly, that I didn't understand that St. Augustine's view was not contrary to the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity at all. Here are the remarks along those lines:

. . . he should at least understand what he's talking about, and in the second place he's making fun of Augustine!

Fantastic quotemine of Augustine, based on a pathetic parody of Calvinism, as though "total depravity" meant "maximum evil". As Augustine and Calvin agreed, evil has no maximum -- it is a privation, not a positive. . . . Calvinism doesn't teach that man has an utterly evil nature in the sense that Augustine is teaching against. The Eastern Orthodox attack Augustine with exactly the same misunderstanding that you attempt to play against Calvin. 

Now you're pressing me to tell you everyone who's corrected you ... Well, everyone who's taught Calvinism that I've ever read. Everyone you've debated with against whom you chose to open, as you did here, by claiming that Augustine was contradicting Calvin on the concept of Total Depravity by saying that there's no such thing as utter evil.

. . . you teach people about Calvinism using absurdities that only someone completely uneducated in Calvinism could believe. You wouldn't last one minute in a debate if you'd brought those out; therefore you know enough not to do that.


. . . now that you have brought up total depravity, all of those quotes are entirely compatible with it.

I produced several Augustine quotes which I claim to be related to this topic, from my own book, The Quotable Augustine :

. . . let them cease to say and to teach that there are two kinds of souls, one of which has nothing of evil, the other nothing of good . . . (Soul.c.M, 14)

. . . every nature, as far as it is nature, is good; since in one and the same thing in which I found something to praise, and he found something to blame, if the good things are taken away, no nature will remain; but if the disagreeable things are taken away, the nature will remain unimpaired. (C.Fund.M, 33, 36)

. . . enough has been said to show that corruption does harm only as displacing the natural condition; and so, that corruption is not nature, but against nature. And if corruption is the only evil to be found anywhere, and if corruption is not nature, no nature is evil. (C.Fund.M, 35, 39)

. . . God's image has not been so completely erased in the soul of man by the stain of earthly affections, as to have left remaining there not even the merest lineaments of it . . . what was impressed on their hearts when they were created in the image of God has not been wholly blotted out . . . this writing in the heart is effected by renovation, although it had not been completely blotted out by the old nature. . . . the law of God, which had not been wholly blotted out there by unrighteousness . . . (Sp.L, 48)

. . . no one is evil by nature, but whoever is evil is evil by vice . . . (City xiv, 6)

. . . evil cannot exist without good, because the natures in which evil exists, in so far as they are natures, are good. (City xiv, 11)

. . . there is, owing to the defects that have entered our nature, not to the constitution of our nature, a certain necessary tendency to sin . . . (Nat., 79 [LXVI] )

And in the same way, just as an evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit, so an evil will cannot produce good works. But from the nature of man, which is good, may spring either a good or an evil will. And certainly there was at first no source from which an evil will could spring, except the nature of angel or of man, which was good. (Ench., 15)

Sources: 

392 / 393 Soul.c.M Of Two Souls, Against the Manichees  (De duabus animabus contra Manichaeos) [tr. Albert H. Newman; NPNF 1-4]

397 C.Fund.M Against the Fundamental Epistle of Manichaeus (Contra epistulam quam vocant fundamenti) [tr. Richard Stothert; NPNF 1-4] 

412 Sp.L On the Spirit and the Letter (De spiritu et littera) [tr. Peter Holmes and Robert E. Wallis, rev. Benjamin B. Warfield; NPNF 1-5] 

414 / 415 Nat. On Nature and Grace (De natura et gratia) [tr. Peter Holmes and Robert E. Wallis, rev. Benjamin B. Warfield; NPNF 1-5]

413-427 City City of God (De civitate Dei) [tr. Marcus Dods; NPNF 1-2] 

421-422 Ench. Enchiridion: Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love (Enchiridion ad Laurentium) [tr. J. F. Shaw; NPNF 1-3] 

Now, the key in the quotations above is the notion of "an evil soul," or as Augustine puts it in the first selection, there are not "two kinds of souls, one of which has nothing of evil, the other nothing of good."  He says, "every nature . . . is good"; and: "no nature is evil"; and: "no one is evil by nature"; and: "the nature of man, which is good."

These notions I take to be contrary to Calvinist total depravity. Are they? My friends above say no. Well, we shall see, by consulting Calvin and Calvinists. My claim is not that Calvinists claim that unregenerate, fallen man can do no outwardly good acts whatsoever. They deny that, and it is the caricature of total depravity, made by those who don't study it, and what Calvinists themselves teach about it.

What Calvinism does teach is precisely what Augustine denied above: that there is such a thing as an entirely "evil nature". Calvinists sort of play this both ways. They readily agree that the unsaved man can do good things. Hence, John Piper, prominent reformed Baptist pastor and author, stated in 1998:

Of course totally depraved men can be very religious and very philanthropic. They can pray and give alms and fast, as Jesus said (Matthew 6:1-18).

The Calvinist retorts to unfortunate, inadequately informed critiques: "see! We say that fallen man can do good stuff. He's not absolutely evil, as you guys falsely claim that we teach!" But Piper on the other hand, also says this:

In his total rebellion everything man does is sin.
 
In Romans 14:23 Paul says, "Whatever is not from faith is sin." Therefore, if all men are in total rebellion, everything they do is the product of rebellion and cannot be an honor to God, but only part of their sinful rebellion. If a king teaches his subjects how to fight well and then those subjects rebel against their king and use the very skill he taught them to resist him, then even those skills become evil. Thus man does many things which he can only do because he is created in the image of God and which in the service of God could be praised. But in the service of man's self-justifying rebellion, these very things are sinful.

Got that? This is the doctrine, originally taught by both Luther and Calvin, that even when fallen, unregenerate, unjustified man does things that "could be praised" if a Christian had done them, nevertheless they remain evil in essence. Everything such a man does is of this nature.  Outwardly it appears good, but in reality and in God's eyes, it's really evil and wicked. Piper clarifies this understanding:

. . . we will have to say that it is good that most unbelievers do not kill and that some unbelievers perform acts of benevolence. What we mean when we call such actions good is that they more or less conform to the external pattern of life that God has commanded in Scripture. However, such outward conformity to the revealed will of God is not righteousness in relation to God. . . . Therefore even these "good" acts are part of our rebellion and are not "good" in the sense that really counts in the end -- in relation to God.

Calvinism thus requires a sort of Orwellian "doublethink": things can be good and bad at the same time, and outwardly good but inwardly or at bottom, or essentially evil. Piper thus summarizes: "total depravity means that our rebellion against God is total, everything we do in this rebellion is sin, . . .".

St. Augustine contradicts this, because he denies that man is evil by nature, and can do no good whatsoever (in essence) in fallen state ("what was impressed on their hearts when they were created in the image of God has not been wholly blotted out"). Some good remains, whereas Calvin and Calvinism expressly deny this. It's the difference between original sin and the fall in Arminian / Catholic vs. Calvinist thinking.

Did Calvin himself teach this evil human nature / total depravity? Was human nature for him, deprived of all good whatsoever, and evil in essence, or does it remain good to some extent, as in Augustine? It is the former:

Original sin, then, may be defined a hereditary corruption and depravity of our nature, extending to all the parts of the soul, which first makes us obnoxious to the wrath of God, and then produces in us works which in Scripture are termed works of the flesh. . . . their whole nature is, as it were, a seed-bed of sin, and therefore cannot but be odious and abominable to God. . . . For our nature is not only utterly devoid of goodness, but so prolific in all kinds of evil, that it can never be idle.

(Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, ch. 1, 8) 


. . . such is the depravity of his nature, that he cannot move and act except in the direction of evil. If this is true, the thing not obscurely expressed is, that he is under a necessity of sinning.

(Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, ch. 3, 5)

Thomas Gregory, in "The Presbyterian Doctrine of Total Depravity," posted at R. C. Sproul's website, states about the latter passage that it is "the most loathsome element in our understanding of total depravity " and continues:
 

The simple truth of this “grand point of distinction” is that our whole nature, in part and functions, is set in its own way, and as such loves to sin against God, and therefore must sin against God.

Calvinist confessions agree. The Belgic Confession (article XIV) states that man “willfully subjected himself to sin” and thereby “separated himself from God” and “corrupted his whole nature.” The Westminster Confession (Ch. VI, sec. 6 [6.036]) describes fallen man as “utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good, and wholly inclined to all evil.” The Second Helvetic Confession (chap. VIII [5.037]), claimed that man is “immersed in perverse desires and adverse to all good.”

No one need take my word alone, that St. Augustine's view of original sin and the fall and his view of the notions involved in "total depravity" were different from Calvin's.  In his article, "The Doctrines of Grace in Calvin and Augustine" (Evangelical Quarterly, Vol. 52, 1980, pp. 84-96) Larry D. Sharp makes it clear that he himself prefers Calvin's view. He states that it is different from Augustine's, and goes further than that of the great Church father:

Outside the Bible Augustine was Calvin's greatest source. The Institutes and Calvin's other major writings are virtually flooded with quotations of the widely respected church father. Calvin even claimed to be merely restating Augustine on some points, and some Reformed interpreters of Augustine have practically made him out to be an early Calvinist. 

The affinities between the two men are not merely legendary. Both argued vigorously that salvation is totally a gift of God's grace. Both tried to be faithful Paulinists. Nevertheless, these similarities have led to many unwarranted assumptions concerning the so-called "Augustine- Calvinistic tradition." My thesis is that Calvin goes considerably beyond Augustine in some crucial areas and that these differences are not now generally recognized. . . . 

To the extent that Augustine makes original sin to be a privation of the good or an absence of the qualities of original righteousness, we may say that there is still here a trace of his earlier Neoplatonism. 

The effect of Adam's sin is that man is now in a condition of sickness and weakness or a privation of health and strength. If it were possible for a person to be self-sufficient for fulfilling the law and for perfecting righteousness, then that person would be saved apart from instruction and faith in the death and resurrection of Christ. But, due to original sin, men are left darkened and weakened and in need of light and healing. Adam's sin then is a "wound," a "hurt," an "injury" which must be healed.! And so salvation is God's healing by grace the "sickness" of sin; he takes the element of health remaining and making it better and he takes what is weak and makes it stronger. 

Calvin followed Augustine in affirming the heart of the doctrine of original sin: that Adam's death in sin meant the death in sin of us all and that this state is passed down to all persons, even newborn infants. But for Calvin the essence of this sin is not mere self-love as in Augustine, but pride and rebellion and outright disobedience. Original sin is not merely a privation or an emptiness of original righteousness, but rather a blatant perversity which is always actively producing the works of the flesh. The effect of Adam's sin is not only a wound and a sickness, as in Augustine, but is a total depravity and corruption. To describe sin as a lack of health and light and righteousness is to Calvin not to have "expressed effectively enough its power and energy." The result of Adam's sin is more properly called the ruin of man than the illness of man. . . .


It is clearly a mistake to try to read Calvin's doctrine of total depravity into Augustine as some have done. Calvin was not influenced, as Augustine was, by traces of Greek philosophy, and thus he better captured the biblical teaching on the utter ruin of man after the Fall and of the exceeding sinfulness of sin. Augustine's doctrine of original sin, while acceptable as far as it goes, is faulted for the very reason that it does not go far enough. By removing any semblance of real righteousness from the nature of man, Calvin did go far enough and his doctrine of original sin is, in my judgement, to be preferred. 

It's all summed up in the title of N. Vorster's paper: "Calvin’s Modification of Augustine’s Doctrine of Original Sin". He writes:

Calvin’s emphasis on original sin as a corruption of the mind and the will is not in the same intellectual tradition as the Augustinian one (Pitkin, 1999:360). Augustine understands sin as concupiscence. The fallen will lacks the power to achieve the good that the intellect knows. Calvin, however, intensifies the problem of sin by stating that the mind itself no longer knows the good to be done. This dissimilar understanding of sin is largely due to a different understanding of the essence of human nature. . . .

. . . in contrast to Augustine [who] locates the effects of sin in man’s loss of control of his physical desires, Calvin locates the crippling effects of the corruption of the image in the soul. According to Calvin the taint of sin resides in the flesh and the spirit. The flesh – which must not be equated with the human body – designates in Calvin’s thought the whole human being in the condition of sinfulness.

In The Catholic Encyclopedia (1907): "Teaching of St. Augustine of Hippo," the author (citing Protestant scholar Cunningham) observes the differences between Calvin's and Augustine's conceptions of original sin:

W. Cunningham (Saint Austin, p. 82 sqq.) has very frankly called attention to the complete doctrinal opposition on fundamental points which exists between the Doctor of Hippo and the French Reformers. In the first place, as regards the state of human nature, which is, according to Calvin, totally depraved, for Catholics it is very difficult to grasp the Protestant conception of original sin which, for Calvin and Luther, is not, as for us, the moral degradation and the stain imprinted on the soul of every son of Adam by the fault of the father which is imputable to each member of the family. It is not the deprivation of grace and of all other super-natural gifts; it is not even concupiscence, understood in the ordinary sense of the word, as the struggle of base and selfish instincts against the virtuous tendencies of the soul; it is a profound and complete subversion of human nature' it is the physical alteration of the very substance of our soul. Our faculties, understanding, and will, if not entirely destroyed, are at least mutilated, powerless, and chained to evil.

For the Reformers, original sin is not a sin, it is the sin, and the permanent sin, living in us and causing a continual stream of new sins to spring from our nature, which is radically corrupt and evil. For, as our being is evil, every act of ours is equally evil. Thus, the Protestant theologians do not ordinarily speak of the sins of mankind, but only of the sin, which makes us what we are and defiles everything. Hence arose the paradox of Luther: that even in an act of perfect charity a man sins mortally, because he acts with a vitiated nature. Hence that other paradox: that this sin can never be effaced, but remains entire, even after justification, although it will not be any longer imputed; to efface it, it would be necessary to modify physically this human being which is sin. Calvin, without going so far as Luther, has nevertheless insisted on this total corruption. . . .  "Now," says Cunningham, "this doctrine, whatever there may be to be said for it, is not the doctrine of Saint Austin. He held that sin is the defect of a good nature which retains elements of goodness, even in its most diseased and corrupted state, and he gives no countenance, whatever to this modern opinion of total depravity."

Lastly, in Augustine Through the Ages: An Encyclopedia (general editor Allan D. Fitzgerald, Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co.,  1999), the single best one-volume source on St. Augustine, the article on Calvin backs up my position. The author of the article is David J. Marshall:

There is, however, one teaching of Augustine that is fundamentally philosophical, and concerning which Calvin has grave hesitations, apparently on the grounds that it is philosophical. It is the teaching that evil is not a reality, but only a privation of good (conf. 7.12), a teaching that Augustine defends repeatedly, especially after his second conversion (cf. civ. Dei, passim) . . . The fact that Calvin made such sparing use of Augustine's voluminous anti-Manichean literature is presumably to be traced to Calvin's hesitations concerning the grand principle that dominated it: malum est privatio boni ["evil is the privation of good"].

In De natura boni, one of the rare works of Augustine to which Calvin does not make a single reference, Augustine spells out his argument against the Manichaeans, which is simplicity itself: God is good, and as nothing exists except God and the things that God has made, everything is good. What may properly be called evil is found, not in the physical world, but in the hearts of human beings, and it consists of the fact that their heart is not always there.

The mildness with which Calvin rejects the teaching suggests that he did not think it worthy of serious refutation: "I shall not assert with Augustine that in sin, or evil, there is nothing positive, though I cheerfully embrace the position as having truly been held by him. . . ." (De aeterna Dei praedestinatione, 1552, CR 8:353). Plato did not hold creatio ex nihilo, but viewed matter as uncreated and essentially foreign to the divine. In this context, therefore, Calvin's position is closer to Plato's than to Augustine's.

(p. 119; section: "Where Augustine Goes Beyond Calvin")

Marshall's analysis contradicts the assertions of William Tanksley, Jr. above: "As Augustine and Calvin agreed, evil has no maximum -- it is a privation, not a positive." Calvin states: "I shall not assert with Augustine that in sin, or evil, there is nothing positive." I guess Marshall, too, would "teach people about Calvinism using absurdities that only someone completely uneducated in Calvinism could believe" and "wouldn't last one minute in a debate". I'm proud to be in William's doghouse with the Augustine scholar.


*****

Dialogue on the Term, "Protestant Reformation" and Proposed Alternatives Like "Era of Reformations" and "Protestant Revolt" (vs. Anglican Historian Dr. Edwin W. Tait)

 
Edwin Tait is an Anglican Church historian, with whom I've engaged in many fun and enjoyable dialogues through the years. This came about on one of my Facebook threads. His words will be in blue.
* * * * *
The very term ["Protestant Reformation"] is presuppositionally anti-Catholic or at least "hyper-Protestant." I have always put it in quotes (just as I do, "Dark Ages" and "Enlightenment") or use the more accurate and objective "Revolt" or "Revolution."

One way to remove the anti-Catholic implications of "Reformation" is to speak, as most scholars of the period now do, of the "Reformations," so that "Protestant Reformation" is just one of several rival versions of Reformation (or rather, several versions in itself :)) Using the term "Reformation" doesn't imply that it was a good thing. If you don't say "Reformation," then Protestants are justified in going back to "Romanist" and "Papist." I don't think this linguistic devolution would be healthy.

I like the use of "Reformations": not sure how widespread that is. But that's fair to Catholics. If we use "Reformation" as if only the Protestants conducted one (and it supposedly saved the ultra-corrupt Catholic Church and/or Christianity itself), then that is severely biased.

"Protestant Revolt" is not biased at all; it's strictly factual, and a mere variation of what "Protest"-ants call themselves. They protested; they revolted against the Catholic Church. That is a very different thing from supposedly reforming it. The latter is the myth and polemics. "Revolt" is undeniable, objective historical fact.

"Reformation" has no analogy to "Romanist" and "Papist" in the sense you describe. All three are loaded terms from the Protestant perspective. To use them presupposes Protestantism (and, to varying degrees, anti-Catholicism). Names of epochs in historiography need to be as neutral as possible.

Revolt is biased, because it implies the Catholic understanding that this is primarily a question of whether or not to obey the authority of the Church. I think you know that Protestants don't see it that way. The bottom line is that generally we should call people what they want to be called. For Protestants to call the Catholic Church "Catholic" is an act of extreme courtesy, which some Catholics abuse by quoting Augustine's line about the person looking for the "Catholic Church" in a town (i.e., they argue that because Protestants are courteous enough to call Catholics what Catholics want to be called, therefore Protestants must be tacitly acknowledging that Catholics are right). 

"Reformation" describes the intent of the Protestant movement, whether or not it describes what they accomplished. "Revolt" describes how Catholics see it. Similarly with "Romanists" and "Papists." These are in fact perfectly accurate descriptions of one of the major differences between Catholics and other Christians (indeed, many Catholic apologists claim that all non-Catholics are united by their hatred of Rome, which would make "Romanist" a perfectly good term). But these are pejorative slurs, because they don't capture what Catholics consider most important about themselves.

The same is true, mutatis mutandis, with "pro-choice." I use that term because it accurately describes what people who support the legalization of abortion think they are defending. And by using that term and doing them that courtesy, I can reasonably expect them to call my side of the debate "prolife" instead of their own chosen slur, "anti-choice." Labels are never going to be exhaustive. It's reasonable, most of the time, to let people pick their own labels because those labels will best express what members of a tradition/movement/faction think is important about themselves.

I am not laying down an absolute rule. No one expects Protestants to call the Pope the Vicar of Christ. But most people do expect them to call him the Pope, which, if one wants to quibble, implies that he has a paternal relationship to all Christians. In some contexts it's appropriate to say "the Bishop of Rome" if you are trying to make the point that in your eyes that's all he is.

I'm really just arguing for basic, commonsense courtesy in how we use labels. So I shouldn't have put it in terms of "call people what they want to be called." There are times when people make unreasonable demands, or make "revisionist" claims about themselves that clearly don't match either history or conventional nomenclature (the numerous Protestant groups that object to being called Protestants, for instance, or in my judgement those Catholics who object to the conventional term "Roman Catholic"). I did say "most of the time" not all the time. What I'm objecting to, fundamentally, is the use of terminology to make polemical points.

[You] rightly objected to the language of "the Reformation" because it embodies a Whig Protestant narrative about what happened in the sixteenth century. The standard way to deal with that, which as I said is now pretty much the norm among scholars, is to speak of plural Reformations. That's courteous to everyone. Substituting the plainly polemical and pejorative term "Protestant Revolt" is not. I stand by my claim: if you use that term, you are behaving just like those Protestants who insist on saying "Romanist" or "Papist," and you will be deservedly classed with them as bigots who refuse to use common courtesy.

Revolt is biased, because it implies the Catholic understanding that this is primarily a question of whether or not to obey the authority of the Church.

Not at all. They decided they didn't like the Catholic rule of faith and so they rejected it, going to Scripture Alone as their new rule. This was a revolt against the status quo. I don't see how it is even arguable. Otherwise, why do Protestants exist at all? They came from Catholicism; thus they had to reject that system in terms of authority in order to leave it.

And that's a revolt. Case closed. Simply calling the thing a "revolt" is theologically neutral. One can be either for or against a revolt. It's strictly a sociological or historical term. But "The [Protestant] Reformation" has tons of Protestant baggage presupposed. It's saying that the movement reformed the Catholic Church and Christianity even though it brought in elements that had nothing to do with prior tradition or precedent. Protestants claim they were simply restoring the Church to what it was before, yet they can't trace their doctrines to the fathers en masse in virtually any dispute with Catholics. They get trumped in any such debate every time.

Therefore, it's not a "Reformation" at all. It's a Revolt or Revolution. Now I'm making the polemical / theological case, but again, the term "Revolt" is neutral in and of itself. I like the American Revolution; I detest the French and Russian, etc. The word is neutral and thus describes all three of those events, which a person can agree or disagree with.

we should call people what they want to be called.

I do. I call "Reformed" Protestants that, and also use "Reformed Jew." We're talking about names of historical periods, which is different. They ought to be neutral and not slanted to one side over another.

"those Catholics who object to the conventional term "Roman Catholic")"

That's a different tissue. I object to that (though not greatly) because of history (it began as a hostile polemical Anglican description) and ecclesiology (it implies that Eastern Catholics are on a lesser footing than Latin ones) . . .

If it's intended to mean "the Catholic Church headed at Rome," I have no objection; it is these other issues that make me object to it.

I suppose my position could best be described thus: there are three factors to be borne in mind in deciding what to call a movement or group: what the conventional, convenient term is; what the group in question wants to be called; and what you believe best reflects the truth about that particular movement. A safe rule is to choose a term that satisfies two out of these three requirements. And yes, that applies to the Reformation, which is the name of a movement and not just of a period (as a period one can either say "the era of the Reformations" or "early modern Christianity," which is actually the approach I prefer, following John O'Malley--I'm all in favor of using language to undercut the Whig narrative, just not in favor of picking unnecessary fights over language and getting people's backs up before they've even heard why I view things the way I do). "Protestant Revolt" is not a neutral term. It is a pejorative term and always has been. ("Revolt" and "Revolution," by the way aren't the same term. "Revolution" has, for many modern people, a much more positive ring--hence Peter Blickle's suggestion that we should say "Revolution of 1525" instead of "the Peasants' Revolt").

That's courteous to everyone. Substituting the plainly polemical and pejorative term "Protestant Revolt" is not.

No! That's thoroughly incoherent. It doesn't even make literal linguistic sense, since "Protestant" means "protesters" -- which is essentially the same as saying "revolt." Yet you decry "revolt" and accept "Protestants" [i.e., revolters] as standard nomenclature. What gives there?

Multiple "Reformations" is acceptable because it's fair. But that hasn't dripped down to common use. "Revolt" is fair and not at all equivalent to the highly polemical "Romanism" and "Papist."

"[Protestant] Reformation": used to describe the early 16th century is heavily biased and takes sides.

Dave, this isn't about etymology. It's about common usage. If you like multiple "Reformations," why not adopt that terminology? You could play a role in helping it drip down to common usage, given the high profile of your website. "Protestant Revolt" is even less known--it's only used by very polemical Catholics and it closes doors to respectful dialogue. I still don't see how "Romanist" and "Papist" are more polemical. I think they have just as much to commend them (which isn't much). You are reminding me of nothing so much as C. S. Lewis explaining solemnly that when he used the term "Papist" in OHEL he wasn't being pejorative at all. . . .

If you like multiple "Reformations," why not adopt that terminology?

It's not entirely practical because one still has to refer to one "Reformation" or the other and that lands one back at square one. What do I call Luther's movement or Calvin's, or the Anabaptist phenomenon? I have to call them something when specifically referring to them, and the best I can come up with in fairness is "revolt" because that is a literal description of what happened, without getting into theological issues.

I said using more than one "Reformation" is fair, but it's not easy to use in sentences: "The period of multiple reformations: Lutheran, Catholic, Anabaptist, Calvinist, Zwinglian, English . . ."? No one talks like that! Even scholars aren't that pedantic . . .

If we say "Catholic Reformation" that is accurate: the Catholic Church reformed itself. It didn't fundamentally transform or split up in doing so. "Counter-reformation" was biased: implying that it was merely in reaction to the glorious Protestant "Reformation" rather than valid in its own right.

If we say "Protestant Reformation" what is it reforming? They claimed they were reforming the Catholic Church, which in effect they redefined, so as to water down ecclesiology and the traditional "three-legged stool" rule of faith (Bible-Church-Tradition).

So they were "reforming" something: either Catholicism or what they call "the Christian Church". Yet Protestantism as such hadn't existed before. Therefore, one can't "reform" by going back to what didn't exist. One has to reform what exists, taking it back, and that can only be the Catholic Church. But it's no "reform" to introduce doctrines that were never held before. Again, that is revolt, revolution, or sheer innovation.

Protestantism was an is a mixture. The good things it retained were already in Catholicism. The new things it introduced were novelties that had no predecessors except in various heresies. This is Bouyer's argument in his brilliant book that this post was initially about.

Right. And I agree with Bouyer's book. I have more or less agreed with it since I read it, about 15 years ago.

"Protestant Revolt" is even less known--it's only used by very polemical Catholics and it closes doors to respectful dialogue.

Why are my actual arguments about that invalid or unsound?

Is "Revolution" not a literally descriptive and non-biased term when applied to England, France, America, and Russia? Why not also the similar "Revolt" then, applied to religious history?

Each one clearly overturned what was. In England the monarchy was greatly watered-down. In France the monarchy ended, as also in America, and a colony split from the motherland. In Russia the monarchy (czars) ended and Communism replaced it.

Likewise, with Protestantism, the authority of the pope, councils, bishops, tradition, and apostolic succession was rejected and a new system brought in.

Yet oddly, you argue that in the latter case it is "polemical" to apply Revolt or Revolution to it, whereas (I assume) you wouldn't argue that with regard to the political revolutions.

Because, as I initially said, the term "revolt" does not describe what Protestants thought was important about what they were doing. What they thought they were doing was reforming the Church--the same Church that had always existed. They didn't grant your premise (with which I agree) that they were fundamentally starting something new. Yes, there was a revolt involved, but for them, in their self-understanding, that was secondary. Hence the analogy with "Romanist" and "Papist." The Papacy is important to Catholics, but it is important as a guarantee of Catholicity. 

Reducing Catholicism to "Rome" is pejorative, even if Protestants can't see this. Similarly, reducing the Reformation to its negative, "revolting" element is pejorative, even if you can't see this. (But you ought to, because you're an ex-Protestant and a generally fair person :)) Furthermore, terminology of this kind is defined more by historical usage than by etymology. When Lewis tried to use "Papist" non-pejoratively, he made himself a laughing-stock and fueled suspicions that he really was anti-Catholic, because the term was laden with a history of pejorative, prejudiced usage.

As for Sola Scriptura, it's not a term the "Reformers" (scare quotes in your honor!) actually used and it's a bit misleading, because it isn't really a rule of faith in itself. It is a claim about Scripture as the rule of faith. And of course, as Catholics have been pointing out from the beginning of Protestantism, it's a rule of faith inherited from Catholicism. Protestants "revolted" against elements of Catholic theology and practice, and they aided and abetted an ongoing revolt by civil authorities against the existence of a parallel, autonomous ecclesiastical hierarchy, but they did so as part of what they thought was a Reformation of the one and only Church based on the rule of faith it had always professed, namely Scripture. 

They changed a lot of things precisely because of the things they didn't want to change. The basic argument was: the Church has always defined itself by faithfulness to Scripture, so if we now find that some things we've been doing are contrary to Scripture, then preservation of what we have always been requires us to reject these beliefs and practices. One can fairly easily poke holes in this, but it's both unfair and counterproductive to start out the conversation with language that doesn't even acknowledge that this is what they thought they were doing.

But the bottom line is: this is a conventional term. It doesn't commit you to any particular understanding of what happened. Insisting on "Revolt," though, does.

There is even an analogy in what is overturned: authority: whether it is political or religious. That is what revolutions do. Back when Henry VIII kept his pants on he followed the pope as authority. When he couldn't keep 'em on, he stopped doing so. He himself was a good Catholic Christian, and even one-time defender. Afterwards, good Catholics were drawn and quartered simply for being what Henry once was, and Catholics lost even most legal rights for nearly 300 years.

That is a revolution. If it isn't, I sure don't know what the word means. Yet "English Reformation" is used in this historically dishonest way just like the other usages are . . .

Untrue about Henry VIII. As far as I know he never kept his pants on, and not keeping one's pants on did not stop either him or any other monarch of the era from accepting the authority of the Pope. It was his desire for a legitimate heir, and the fact that Anne Boleyn was capable of greater restraint in this regard, that led him to break with Rome (plus the fact that he had intellectual resources at his court for justifying the act, which is how the Protestants got in the game even though Henry didn't really like Protestantism).

I guess one reason I don't worry too much about using "Reformation" is that I'm not a big fan of reformations in general. The Catholic Reformation is one of the reasons I have had so much trouble becoming Catholic, and why I have often hankered after Orthodoxy, which has never really had a Reformation of any kind. Precisely because the English "Reformation" was so political, there was less Reformation (of either kind) in England than elsewhere, which is the main reason I've been Anglican all these years. 

Again, I'm not defending it. I know I should have become Catholic in 1997 or at least 1998 (probably the last time when I had any reasonable suspicion that Protestantism might be a valid alternative to Catholicism and Orthodoxy--ever since then the only validity I've seen in Protestantism is as a more open form of Christianity than Catholicism, which ought to use that openness precisely to repent of the Reformation and return to Catholicism while preserving what is good in Protestantism, and my only excuse for not doing this individually has been than doing so would repeat the error of the Reformers in reverse).

Anyway, reformations and revolutions have a lot in common. That's why I don't like reformations. But certainly the Catholic Reformation did preserve essential continuity with what had gone before.

Well, one can distinguish between initial goals (which I grant, though they were historically and theologically fallacious in premise) and what actually happened. I am naming the movement after the fact, in terms of what it actually brought about, and that was division, schism, and revolt.

Again, it seems to me that in political revolutions, the same applies. They are named after the fact: after they achieve their aim; otherwise it is called only an "attempt" etc. 1905 in Russia was a failed attempt, whereas 1917 succeeded and thus is called a "Revolution." I suspect that "Renaissance" and "Enlightenment" were primarily applied after the fact as well. 

The former is pretty fair as a description, but the latter is not at all unless anti-Christian mentalities are presupposed. A movement that murdered people like, e.g., the prominent French chemist Lavoisier (as I have noted) is no champion of either intellect or freedom. So why does it have this name? It's a disgrace and a monument to the massive secularist bias in historiography.

Now, if we discuss whether "Reformation" applies to Protestantism, they, of course think it does, but ain't that the point? We're trying to achieve neutrality in historical labels, so if we accept Protestant premises, that isn't doing that. The objective, fair, after-the-fact description is revolt or revolution, just as in the political revolutions. No one argues about those being given that title, do they? Why should religious matters be different?

Likewise, another analogy can be made to the Orthodox split. We call that a Schism: a split in the Church. Polemicists on each side say the other guys forsook the true apostolic faith and split off. Ecumenists (like me) say both are in the Church and it is a tragedy that they split.

But we don't say "Orthodox Reformation" do we? No, we say "schism," because that is a neutral term. There was a split and calling it "schism" doesn't choose sides; hence is fair.

Likewise, with "Protestant Revolt" or "tragic religious schism / division" of the 16th century or suchlike.

"Anglican" originally just meant "Christian in England." After the decisive break with Rome (which didn't really happen fully till 1572, contra the Catholic obsession with Henry VIII), it meant "Protestant Christian in England." It wasn't really till 1662 that it excluded the Puritans, for instance. Sure, there were always radicals who were considered heretics by everyone. . . .  

Protestantism has many forms. And of course confessional Protestantism has if anything more rigid boundaries than Catholicism--certainly narrower ones that exclude more. Neither confessional nor radical Protestantism have been live options for me since the 90s. The only version of Protestantism I've found myself able to accept--and that only with many misgivings and probably a bad conscience--is some form of Anglican/Wesleyan Protestantism which accepts no confessional commitments beyond the "Lambeth Quadrilateral" (basically "mere Christianity" plus bishops). 

The reason "schism" is neutral vis-a-vis the Orthodox is that the use of the term doesn't say anything about which side went into schism (or if, as ecumenical Protestants of the sort I've sort-of, very dubiously been all these years would argue, both sides went into schism from each other).


***
I didn't claim it ["Reformation" broadly applied] was objective. I claimed that "Revolt" clearly isn't. There are no "objective" terms. There are terms that are relatively "objective" in the sense that they allow us to get on with discussing the reality behind them instead of fighting over the term, and allow us to proceed with that discussion without it being too weighted down by unstated biases. I think Dave's right that the language as it exists has a Protestant bias, and I pointed out to him that many scholars have moved toward using the plural--language like "the era of the Reformations" for the whole period. I myself like to use "the sixteenth century" or "early modern Christianity" when I can. But "Reformation" is the conventional term and I don't think it's worth too much fighting over, and I certainly think "Revolt" is far more biased. That's what I actually argued, not the obviously indefensible position that "Reformation" is an objective term.

<<>> for the following comment!

So it is biased to observe that Protestants revolted against the Catholic Church? What is the proper, objective, non-biased way to express their warm, cozy relationship with the existing Christian Church in western Europe at the time? That they respectfully, lovingly proposed 50 changes in existing doctrine and practice (as I have documented in Luther's three revolutionary tracts from 1520), were denied same, and so took their ball and bat and went home, claiming they were kicked out?

We continue to profoundly disagree. I gave several quite relevant analogies, such as to revolutions. We say Russian Revolution (change of regime: objective), not "Communist Reformation" (slanted towards one side).

We talk of the schism of the 11th century (noting the undeniable fact of a split / division and not taking a side), not the "Orthodox Reformation."

Yet when it comes to Protestants, we can only describe their movement in a way that entirely favors them and even entirely presupposes their premises: Protestant Reformation: which is even linguistic nonsense any way you look at it, since it literally means "Revolter's Reformation." How can one simultaneously reform something that it is revolting / protesting against?

The result was that those folks wound up outside of the Catholic Church. We can haggle about why they did, or if they were forced out, or whether this was against their will or intention, but that was the result, and as I argued, we name epochs after the fact, based on what happened, not based on what one saintly party in the goodness of their hearts desired to happen, in order to "reform" their wholly wicked opponents, whom they felt compelled to tar with all sorts of compliments like "Whore of Babylon" and mock them (like the Nazis did the Jews) in widely distributed woodcuts, etc.: showing leaders of the Church being pooped out of the devil's rear end, etc. Very warm fuzzy ecumenism there . . . designed to foster mutual respect.

Revolt implies to most people a rebellion against legitimate authority. But far more important is the historic usage. "Revolt" is a linguistic protest against the Whig narrative that has dominated language about the Reformation. I agree that the Whig narrative needs to be overturned--or rather, the overturning that has already largely happened in scholarly circles needs to be more widely known and accepted. But there are better ways of doing it than using a term that is obviously intended pejoratively and that ignores the substantive content and goals of the Protestant movement.

The bottom line is this: the term "Revolt" is only used by Catholics with a polemical agenda. "Reformation" is used by people across the spectrum as a conventional term, regardless of one's evaluation of the sixteenth-century Protestant movement. That makes "Reformation" far more objective, relatively speaking, than "Revolt," but of course it isn't perfect.

Again, I ask what I did above: how do we describe the relationship of Protestants to Catholics in the 16th century? They wound up outside the Catholic Church. And we call that reform, and mustn't ever call it a revolt or revolution or dissent or schism, lest we be accused of profound bias and not understanding Protestants?

We don't talk like this about anything else. If we refer to the Southern states separating from the union in 1860-61, we say they seceded. They were called "rebels" and even often called themselves that. We don't talk about the Confederacy "reforming" the Union by leaving it. We usually don't say they were "forced" out. A Southern partisan (and I am largely so, myself, even though a Northerner) would say that they left of their own volition because they had a legal right to, and by analogy to what the United States (particularly Virginia) did with regard to England, when they declared independence.

But they don't pretend to be "reforming" the Northern states in legally "dissing" them. The language of description is honest and accurate. If I say the Southerners revolted, that is a plain fact. If I say in so doing they engaged in the "Southern Reformation" or "Confederate Reformation" of the United States, this is nonsense. They chose to leave. Now, they thought they continued the vision of the Founders in a more perfect, consistent way, but it was still conceived as a separate country (just as states were conceived as separate, independent entities), not as a "reform" of the North.

Yet this sort of analogous claptrap is used in describing the origins of Protestantism.

We don't talk this way about third parties in politics: as if they are "reforming" the parties they left. They are repudiating and rejecting them, which is why they split!

As I've said, I like "era of the Reformations". We can agree and have common ground there. The historians are finally getting up to speed and changing the blatant bias in description that has been present almost 500 years (though I haven't noticed them dropping the absolutely outrageous "Enlightenment" yet).

We agree on that and about present bias. I continue to strongly disagree that "Revolt" is inherently slanted or polemical or biased. Per my many different arguments (I offered two more analogies in my last comment), "Revolt" is the objective term in a way that "Reformation" is not. But if the latter must be used, referring to plural ones in some sort of equivalency or neutrality is the only way to go. 

There is agreement here, and I'm glad about that, but I continue to advocate "revolt" or "revolution" as the neutral terms to describe the onset of Protestantism. Catholic historians have historically used "Revolt" (e.g., Daniel-Rops), while Protestants have used "Reformation." You say both are biased terms, but I think one is far more objective than the other, based on both historical argumentation and analogies to other similar phenomena of major changes or splits. 

I agree that it is or at least has been the generally accepted position of historians. It is undeniably the common usage. Thus, you argue (on a "realist" / "likely to actually happen" plane) that we should modify it and make it more objective by pluralizing it. That I agree with and am happy about, but I advocate "Revolt" as the superior option. My suggestion will never happen in fact, so your suggestion (and claim that use is in fact changing among historians) is the best we can expect in real life.

I'm ever the idealist: stressing truth or falsity of ideas and descriptions rather than always bowing to current consensus. But I have "bent" toward your view with regard to "era of Reformations" whereas you haven't flinched at all in your opposition to "Revolt" as the supposed polemical equivalent of "Romanist" and "Papist." I submit that part of a desire to lessen polemics is being willing to compromise a bit with what others are saying.

But in any event, it was a great discussion and I appreciate, as always, having my thoughts stimulated, and the opportunity to lay them out on this issue. 

Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and non-Christians all commonly use the term "Reformation". That's all I'm saying. I'm not saying that people should use it. I think it's a fine term to use as long as we keep it plural and keep reminding people that Catholics were doing "reformation" long before anyone thought of Protestantism, and that by anyone's standard some "reformations" make things worse. (I tend to think that reformations pretty uniformly make things worse, or at least that things have to be very bad indeed before any reformation would not be mostly a change for the worse.)

***
Dave, I disagree with you a lot, but you're honorable and gentlemanly, and you really care about truth. Also, I often learn from you, even with regard to my own field (you're the one from whom I learned about that Melanchthon letter to Brenz, for instance).
 
That's very kind of you to say, Edwin, thank you. I feel the same about you as well. I so appreciate the dialogue without rancor, as it seems to become more and more rare in our day and age.

***** 

Exchange on My Humorous Meme About Calvinism (vs. Dr. Glenn Peoples and William Tanksley, Jr.) / Primer #572 on How Satirical Humor Works

The controversial meme in question: posted on both my Facebook pages. 
I put this meme up on my Facebook Author page; then later on my personal page. Several Calvinists appeared on the author page, of the type who assert (usually with Bible passages) but don't really explicate or defend.

That's one thing. But on a completely separate Facebook page (that of Dr. Glenn Andrew Peoples), came a much more pointed and sophisticated response, in a [public] post about it. Glenn's words will be in blue below. William Tanksley Jr.'s words in green. 
The latter, I discovered, is a Reformed Baptist and follows Bishop "Dr." [???] James White's You Tube channel, among many others. Glenn didn't inform me of his post (I'm regularly talked about online with few -- for some odd reason -- willing to let me know so I can have some say, too; tell my "side" of the story). Someone else had to do that. Once I learned of it, I went over there to see what was claimed, and to reply. I wrote to a friend in a PM:

I predict that the personal attacks and claims that I am an ignoramus will be stepped up. I hope I'm wrong. Calvinists do a great job preaching to the choir. Not nearly so great dealing with critics.

This has abundantly come to pass, as will be readily seen below. Someone made a joke on my page about "Alvinists," a take-off of Alvin and the Chipmunks of Christmas Don't be Late fame. You may remember in the song how the guy has to keep calling Alvin three times. So I made a joke about that:

Yeah, I try to address the Alvinists, and they don't hear me, just like Alvin. I'm going through this right now on another page that responded to this. I'm talking to the guy [Tanksley]; he either ignores or condescendingly preaches at me. There is no civil discussion to be had so far. [and it never began]

The reason for the lack of discussion is because many Calvinists are anti-Catholics. When they are the latter, no constructive discussion or dialogue at all is possible, in my long experience. If they are ecumenical and acknowledge Catholics as fellow brethren in Christ and Christians, discussion is entirely possible, and I've done that several times, too. One's view of Catholicism is the key to whether dialogue is possible or not.
Glenn started out with his initial barb against me, posted on top of the photo:

Please don't share cute memes like this unless you understand the view being critiqued.
In this particular instance, the "he loves me / he loves me not" joke with the daisy is one that - prior to this picture being made - Calvinists have used in regard to Arminianism, since in that view a person can become "unsaved" repeatedly.
Know your theology or look silly when joking about it.

Later in a comment, he said: "it's meant to be silly [memes] - but there's at least meant to be a point to it. In the above version there's no point at all."

Dr. Peoples has quite a curriculum vitae :  a PhD in philosophy, Master's in theology, and  Bachelor's degree in Divinity. He is no slouch. But then he should know better than to claim what he has about my arguments and myself. He has less excuse for silly claims. He runs the blog, Right Reason . He doesn't deny that Catholicism is Christian, as a quick search on his blog reveals (one / two / three). He's apparently not a Calvinist, writing in March 2010: "I consider myself an outsider to Reformed Christianity." In March 2012 he explained his theological views:

I was raised in the Catholic Church, and I guess my initial or “default” view of the Christian view of things was formed in that context. I started to get interested in theology and really taking apart what I believed at quite a young age – certainly too young for my parents’ liking at the time! When I was fourteen I left the Catholic Church over some doctrinal qualms that I just couldn’t see being resolved. I was baptised (which made things worse in the view of some people!) and started going to a local Baptist church where I was blessed to have a really great youth group leader who placed a strong emphasis on discipling young people and helping them to understand the Scripture and a Christian worldview. Not that I have any particular allegiance to Baptist churches, denominationally. I think of myself as a very ecumenical evangelical. Like a number of former Catholics I did the whole “Catholicism is the gateway to hell” thing for a short while (read: teenage years), but I recovered when I grew up a little.

In the same interview he says he is a member of Grace Presbyterian Church in Dunedin, New Zealand. He appears to deny the immortality of the soul, and the existence of the soul, period (believing in conditional immortality; thus denying hell, I believe, and asserting annihilationism of the damned): "Christian physicalism." In June 2011, he asserted: "I am persuaded that the Bible teaches annihilationism." Just so we have a little background of the person involved here . . .

First there was an issue of not even properly understanding the humor of the meme. Sadly, this was predictable. Very often, folks who are the target of humor, don't get it. Others who aren't the target miss the meaning because they hyper-analyze or over-rationalize, entirely missing the spirit and analogies of the humor. There is further humor to be had here, given the stereotype (often all too true) of the "dour, humorless" Calvinist (being of Scottish ancestry, I particularly get this).

Analogy is central here because the basic humorous concept is the comparison of the daisy and "loves me / loves  me not" bit with the Calvinist TULIP. All one has to do, then, is figure out what exactly in Calvinism it is meant to critique. We know it has to be one or more elements of TULIP (I think is reasonable to state). Glenn reiterated that originally, the daisy analogy was used by Calvinists against Arminians: "The earliest version I have found is from William J. Abraham in 1989, when he refers to it as a joke that Calvinists have used against Arminianism."
Some (including Glenn) didn't get how the analogical humor worked, the other way around (as a critique of Calvinism):

Dr. Glenn Peoples:  Yeah, he could mean "God loves YOU1, God loves YOU2 not," but people wouldn't expect him to mean that, because that's not the daisy thing. Maybe he was just desperate for the joke about Calvinism, so mangled everything in getting there.

. . . when the Calvinist uses it, they mean "I'm saved... I'm not saved.... now I'm saved... now I'm not."

Clinton Wilcox: Actually, it seems more like the person who shared this doesn't understand the daisy thing (it refers to the same person: "he loves me, he loves me not" etc., not different people as he would need it to do to work for Calvinism).

Glenn thought it just didn't work:

But the take-home point is that the message of the meme falls flat. For if Calvinism is true, then nobody ever moves from being elect to being non-elect, or vice versa. So it's not accurate in the least, and anything but "dead on."

But some people on the thread did get the humor:

Adam James Gadomski (an Anglican): "The point is that election seems to be arbitrary in the Calvinist scheme."

Piers Bayl-Smith (unknown affiliation): Maybe flogging a dead horse here Glenn, but I don't see the meme as saying that somebody "ever moves from being elect to being non-elect, or vice versa." I always thought pulling petals is a way of /finding out/ whether a girl loved you, not /moving/ a girl to love you or not. The love is either there or not, and pulling petals is to find out what is actually the case. If God is the sole determination of my election, then I am never in a position of being sure whether I am one of the elect - hence, "God loves me, God loves me not." I also think the meme suggests a certain aspect of luck involved in the process.

. . . If you believe that the daisy is a better fit for Arminianism, I am not sure how that is a sympathetic or irenic understanding of Arminianism. "Here is the crucial difference. Calvinism deprives those struggling with their faith of the single most important resource available: the confidence that God loves all of us with every kind of love we need to enable and encourage our eternal flourishing and well-being. Again, Calvinists cannot honestly assure people that God loves them in this way without claiming to know more about God's secret counsels than any human being can know" (Walls & Dongell, 2004, p. 201). Given this understanding (whether you agree or not), the daisy works.

Peter Grice (unknown affiliation): I think the joke is pretty clear on an Arminian critique, and it's about love as the caption says (not perseverance). . . . The Calvinist form [of the meme or joke] barely makes sense to me, because Arminians all affirm that God loves everybody (so, whether God loves any particular person would be almost an absurdity), and also because Arminians are by no means committed to non-perseverance—on the contrary, a widespread assurance of faith (rather than the neurotic lack of assurance that the joke portrays) has led to the problem of "cheap grace" or "easy believism."

In contrast, if the Calvinist is the butt of the joke, then the point of course is to suggest that there is much room for doubt as to whether oneself is really among the elect, which might lead to a certain instability. The joke further supposes that under limited atonement, Jesus died only for the ones God loves...

Even William Tanksley, Jr. (who excoriates me below) agreed with this last comment (virtually identical to my own interpretation of the humor):  

Good summary -- that's actually a good explanation, to my ear. Of course, the Calvinist answer is that one shouldn't take assurance from an inscrutable eternal decree, but rather from God's actions that result in what some call the means of salvation: God's word heard in faith, baptism into the triune name, the New Covenant remembered in the Lord's Supper...
The Arminian counter-part [i.e., Calvinists criticizing Arminians] is what fails as humor if it is saying that God ceases to love a person if he falls away, because Arminians hold that God loves all people and desires for them to be saved. Thus, He wouldn't stop loving them if they weren't in His good graces, and the humor falls flat as a non sequitur.
The quickest way to explain the humor, I think, is to say that if God (strictly speaking) loves only the elect, and hates the non-elect, and we can't know for sure that we are of the elect (as Calvin states many times), much less if others are, then there is room for much doubt as to whether I know that God loves ME or not, and the humor is quite apt and appropriate and accurate: dead-on, in fact.

For the non-Calvinist Christian, there is no such conundrum. God loves all men; there is no question about it. He loves them even as He condemns some to hell for their rebellion and rejection of His universal offer of the free gift of salvation, wholly through His grace. So we don't sit around wondering whether we are of her elect or whether God loves us. Our job is to love and follow Him, and follow His commandments: accept the grace and regeneration and ultimate eschatological salvation that He wills to give us and get on with our lives, doing what He commands, and sharing the Good News with others.
"nobody ever moves from being elect to being non-elect:"

That's not the humor as I see it, and have already commented on above. At least one other person explained properly the point of the satire, and even Tanksley accepted it. Those who aren't closed on the issue will be able to see it clearly enough from what has already been written about it.

In any event, the humor of the meme (I will summarize briefly since this is so misunderstood), at least as I see it (I can't speak for all), has to do with:

1) The lack of ability to know for sure if one is of the elect.

2) The seeming arbitrariness of God in choosing the elect, if Calvinism is true.

3) [tied to both #1 and #2] The unbiblical contradiction of God loving the elect but not the damned, rather than loving all men.

None of that has anything to do with moving between the categories. But nice try. I'll be ecstatic if you guys can at least understand the humor, if you're unable to discuss these topics without insult and rancor.
. . . the "daisy" joke is eminently a better fit with a view where a person's status before God can change on a daily basis, which is why it originated as a crack about Arminianism: Calvinists have the TULIP, Arminians have the daisy. It barely makes any sense as a joke about Calvinism, unless it's an awkwardly expressed attack on the epistemology of a monergist, which in turn, as I said, becomes a swipe at Augustine.
And you think that is the usual, normative, day-to-day outlook on salvation and assurance that your typical Arminian or Wesleyan has? I was in that camp for 13 years and I never for a second would have imagined such a ridiculous thing (and the same applies to my view now as a Catholic, these past 23 years). You think that fits and the meme is funny looked at that way, yet you think I am the one misrepresenting Calvinism?

It's flat-out amazing.
And Dave, it is part of the ordinary, everyday view of an Arminian that a saved person can become unsaved, yes. The daisy joke is used to exaggerate this into absolute uncertainty about whether or not I will be saved tomorrow. It is disingenuous to somehow claim that I have stated that this is what Arminians are really like. Your amazement is less than genuine. 
* * * * *
Glenn's first comment in the thread was directed towards me:

I don't understand why a Catholic Apologist would share this. In the first place, he should at least understand what he's talking about, and in the second place he's making fun of Augustine!
Oh, I understand Calvinism pretty well, I think (I posted the above on my Facebook Author page and also on my Personal page now), having debated Calvinists innumerable times, and having written two books about it, and a third about half-devoted to it. I also understand Arminianism / Wesleyanism, having been in that camp for 13 years (and as an apologist then, too). My Quotable Wesley is gonna be published in April, by the Protestant publisher, Beacon Hill Press.

I understand Catholic theology, as a Catholic apologist and published author.

I stand by this. It accurately conveys some of the problems with Calvinism, by using humor and satire. I would point to an article like, e.g., "Does God love the elect and hate the non-elect?" by Grace to You: John MacArthur's ministry. It states that, "there is a true and real sense in which Scripture teaches that God hates the wicked."
Here's another example of a piece from a Reformed site:

Sin can not be separated from the sinner, because it is the nature of man that is sinful (Psalm 51:5; Jer. 17:9; Matt.l2:34-35; Luke 6: 44-45).

The Bible speaks of God being angry with, and hating the wicked, that is people who do wickedness (Ps. 5:4-6; 11:5-6; Prov. 16:4). . . .

God is not actively loving non-elect men when he gives them good things in this life, like money, health etc, or even when He sends them the gospel to hear. . . .

The Biblical and Reformed faith teaches that God's love flows to His elect, and His elect alone, in and through Jesus Christ.

This guy either reads a different Bible than I do, or reads it with a vastly different notion of hermeneutics and exegesis.
"in the second place he's making fun of Augustine!"

Hardly. Though Augustine has some real similarities with Calvinism (far more than any other Church father), he was not a Calvinist; he was a Catholic. As the editor of The Quotable Augustine I know a little about him, too. He didn't assert total depravity [quoted several passages from my book].

[I also posted many quotes from Augustine showing that he asserted the possibility of apostasy (falling away from the faith or grace or salvation),  denied irresistible grace, and held to synergy (cooperation with God in grace as co-laborers). It looks like Glenn decided that all these were fit for removal. I could also have added more about his free will view of "hardening of hearts" and his assertion of free will in general.]
Fantastic quotemine of Augustine, based on a pathetic parody of Calvinism, as though "total depravity" meant "maximum evil". As Augustine and Calvin agreed, evil has no maximum -- it is a privation, not a positive.

P.S. "Fantastic quotemine" is not a compliment.
Calvinism doesn't teach that man has an utterly evil nature in the sense that Augustine is teaching against. The Eastern Orthodox attack Augustine with exactly the same misunderstanding that you attempt to play against Calvin. 
[Glenn deleted my reply to this, in which I showed that in my quotes just presented from Augustine, he was asserting that the notion of an evil nature (one deprived of all good) is untrue, and this is precisely what I also assert, and against total depravity.  I also showed cited Calvin to verify his view of total depravity with regard to human nature (that St. Augustine was denying in the quotes I provided). All of that was deleted. So I guess on his page I can be severely critiqued but my defense of my views will be selectively deleted at will.] 
You haven't shown how I misrepresented total depravity at all. You made one dinky claim, and I have already refuted that, showing how my Augustine quotes were opposed to Calvin's conception of it (and can and would show much much more if pressed). [these have seemingly been removed by Glenn for some reason] You haven't proven one thing, except that you have a prior animus against me (which I expect as a matter of course for anyone who follows James White's rantings against Catholics, including myself).
You've been informed of those facts repeatedly, and yet you ignore them in order to quotemine more effectively.
Who has informed me of this "repeatedly"?
[after some time]  I'm still waiting to learn about who these people are who have supposedly "repeatedly" corrected me about Calvinism. 
Now you're pressing me to tell you everyone who's corrected you ... 
No, just one or two will suffice: with documentation, please.
Well, everyone who's taught Calvinism that I've ever read. Everyone you've debated with against whom you chose to open, as you did here, by claiming that Augustine was contradicting Calvin on the concept of Total Depravity by saying that there's no such thing as utter evil. [false charge, as explained above]
You're now misquoting me to claim that I said "making fun of Augustine". Nice -- you move FAST.
I didn't misquote you. I didn't attribute that charge to you at all. It comes from Glenn Peoples' first comment in the thread. Yes you move FAST to falsely judge without reason.
Thank you for attributing that quote. I did take that to be used against me due to the location and lack of attribution; I accept that you didn't mean it, and (while we're at it) reject that a series of direct replies to me constitutes a "lack of reason" to think you're addressing me.
Dave, you claim to be educated about Calvinism. You've debated (as you point out) some of the leading figures.
I didn't claim that. I mentioned above, "having debated Calvinists innumerable times." Nor did I claim to be an expert on it. I said I know it "pretty well," which I stand by. When you say, "you claim to be educated about Calvinism," I agree with that. I am. Apologists for one particular worldview need to have a working knowledge, at least, of many other systems.
Dave, I'm not sure what you're trying to disclaim above. We agree that you've debated Calvinists many times. I guess you're trying to deny that the people you debated were "leading figures". Um... OK. That's a finer point than I care to quibble over.
And yet you teach people about Calvinism using absurdities that only someone completely uneducated in Calvinism could believe. You wouldn't last one minute in a debate if you'd brought those out; therefore you know enough not to do that. But in a Facebook comment box? No holds barred, slap anything against the wall and see what sticks, backtrack later.
You speak on this like it's your first debate, but I have enough respect for your accomplishments to believe that you know better.
Augustine was Catholic? You don't say! :-) How quickly the straw man reared its head, as though anybody here has claimed that Augustine held to TULIP. The point was simply that when it came to the monergism that was very clumsily attacked in this poster, Augustine held to it as well. Although now that you have brought up total depravity, all of those quotes are entirely compatible with it.  
Didn't say they did [claim Augustine held to TULIP]. But many think he was more "proto-Protestant" than Catholic, and your initial reply and barb at my meme reveals that you seem to take that position as well, or else you wouldn't have made the remark in such crass and inaccurate terms, implying that I am against Augustine in opposing Calvinism. Why bring his name up at all in the first place, but for thinking he was an ally to Calvinism? You tell me (i.e., assuming there is any dialogue here at all anymore). In some respects he is, as I already said, but in many others he is not.
Dave, you pasted pages and pages of material. Sorry, that's what personal blogs are for. Augustine was indeed a monergist, and Calvin thought that people could turn from the faith. If you'd like to link to lengthy resources that describe Augustine's theology, that's fine. But there's no need (or permission) to reproduce the internet in this thread.
Granted, lots of cut-and-paste quotes. But since you charged that I was an imbecile about theology and didn't know a thing about Augustine, in countering that, some amount of material was necessary, it seems to me.

It is clear now that there will be no mutually respectful discussion here, so (unless it begins very soon) I'll be moving on shortly. I think it's a shame. Certainly a guy with your education is capable of doing so, and I've already seen, looking over your blog, how you condemn foolish polemics on the Internet. Would that you would follow course in that noble desire with me here. Make out that I am an idiot, imbecile, and ignoramus if you must, but at least argue the points rather than sanctimoniously proclaim them without argument and misrepresent even what I have argued.
Dave, if we agree that in some respects he was a friend to the Calvinists, then it's not clear why you immediately launched into a copy and paste war about the ways in which you feel he was not. I brought him up because he was a monergist, and this rather confused poster takes a shot at monergism. I also don't know where I am alleged to have claimed that you "don't know a thing about Augustine." Clearly I never claimed this. Unfortunately these comments are as accurate as the original meme itself. All of this is written in "Catholic apologist warrior" mode, rendering it more or less useless. 
You wrote at the top: "I don't understand why a Catholic Apologist would share this [that's me! See my name at the top?]. In the first place, he should at least understand what he's talking about, and in the second place he's making fun of Augustine!"
That wasn't tied into only monergism. Thus, I interpreted it quite sensibly as the same old rap from the Reformed about Augustine being more so one of them, than belonging to Catholicism, in terms of affinity in theology. As explained, I then pasted a lot of material, where Augustine contradicts portions of TULIP, because the charge was that I was "making fun of" Augustine, in critiquing Calvinism (which in turn suggests a profound ignorance of the issues: since amply confirmed in several pointed comments along those lines from you and William).

Thus, my posting was quite rational and proper, in my opinion. I can understand that you object to the lengthiness (though I find that folks rarely complain about that if it is from a guy on their side of the argument).

Now, if you say that the entire reference to Augustine or to "Catholic Apologist" was not to me, then it makes sense, but it was perfectly rational to conclude thusly, since you shared my meme, with my name on it at the top.
As I read this I just shake my head. "Insult." "Rancor." After sharing this picture? 
The meme is directly relevant to Calvinist theology. It's a legitimate criticism. It can be debated. But it's not merely or solely an "insult." It has a serious theological point: about how Calvinism views election, and how God supposedly doesn't love all men. And Calvinists should be able to laugh at themselves just like everyone else. It's part of being a Christian. No one is above criticism.
You talk about in your interview, I think, how folks got angry at you when you shared your views on hell or annihilationism. Yet when I come here and give a dissenting view I get the same insulting treatment, including from you. It's nothing new on the Internet, but I would have expected much more from an academic and one who has already condemned (as I have, many times) unsavory Internet rhetoric.
And regrettably, the attempt to explain the humour suggests some confirmation of my view that the person who shared the poster doesn't have a fair, sympathetic or irenic understanding of Calvinism. It is as though they deny that there even exists a Reformed doctrine of assurance.
I'm the guy who shared the meme (though I didn't create it). I'm not sympathetic to Calvinism, but I think I am fair to it, ecumenical towards Calvinists, and have often expressed respect for many tenets of Calvinism. This is all documented on my blog and books. I also stress areas of agreement, and part of my books both on Luther and Calvin highlight that to a large degree. Folks who are entirely "hostile" or ignorant to other viewpoints don't do stuff like that.

And so I do posts like:

The "Catholic" John Calvin: 50 Areas Where His Views Are Harmonious With Catholic Teaching 
John Calvin Taught That Good Works Are Part of Every Christian's Life and the Inevitable Manifestation of a True Saving Faith and Justification

I even debunk false anti-Protestant charges against Calvin: Refuting the Ludicrous Anti-Protestant Sodomy Charge Against John Calvin.   Dave, there you go - You are indeed, as you now acknowledge, fighting against the claim that Augustine held TULIP. So why did you deny doing so? And I repeat again for your benefit: I never suggested that you don't know anything about Augustine. Not even by faint innuendo. Sure, I shared your photo with your name on it, but your confusion was in regard to a joke about Calvinism, not Augustine. What I pointed out - correctly - is that if you reject the view that this confused meme speaks to, namely, Calvinism's monergism , then you end up taking a shot at Augustine, too. Again, nobody at all has claimed that you know nothing about Augustine. Please don't play the martyr, especially after sharing images like this one.
[too absurd and confused  to waste time replying to . . . and most already has been, anyway] 
This thread is proof-positive that even folks highly educated in theology and philosophy can:

1) entirely miss the point of a humorous piece and exhibit an intransigent non-comprehension even though three persons besides myself have now more than adequately explained it,

2) massively misrepresent others of a different opinion,

and

3) quickly -- almost immediately -- descend to juvenile ad hominem to the exclusion of rational counter-argument.

It's sad, but the foibles of human nature trump education, I reckon. I don't waste time in mud pie fights. I've already spent far too much time here, but it does abundantly illustrate several points, so for that I am thankful.

You even stooped so low as to remove a quote from John Calvin that I used to illustrate my point about total depravity, in addition to removing my quotes from Augustine on three relevant topics. We have very different conceptions of both free speech and dialogue.

I have compiled most of this public post into a blog post. Unlike you, I actually think it's a routine courtesy to inform someone if they are being critiqued, so that they can defend themselves. You are welcome to do so on my blog and both Facebook pages, but (be forewarned) I have a zero tolerance policy with regard to insults, from anyone, of whatever affiliation, towards anyone, of whatever affiliation. Call that "play[ing] the martyr" if you must. I call it very elementary Christian ethics: reiterated again and again in the NT.
                                                                  Related Material

I have written a "trilogy" of books refuting Calvinism:

Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin
A Biblical Critique of Calvinism
Biblical Catholic Salvation [over 100 pages of biblical argumentation against TULIP]

I also have very extensive web pages about John Calvin, Calvinism and General Protestantism, and Justification and Salvation.

 *****

Dialogue with an Anglican Historian on Heresy, Heretics (Particularly Arius), and the Relationship of Blasphemy to Heresy (vs. Dr. Edwin W. Tait)

This all came about spontaneously on one of my Facebook threads. Edwin and I have engaged in many fun dialogues through the years, especially on the topic of development of doctrine. They always seem to end unresolved and hanging in the air, but they're enjoyable nonetheless. I always like shooting the breeze with academics. His words will be in blue. Paul Hoffer, a Catholic friend, also contributed a few comments. His words will be in green. Arius the heretic's words will be in red.
* * * * *
I don't think predestination debates have any practical importance to the Christian faith or walk, but it's fun to argue about in the same sense that various philosophical disputes are enjoyable diversions for the mind.

Well, it was practically relevant for me for some years, because I taught at an evangelical college where my predecessor had been fired for promulgating open theism, and a well-known open theist philosopher was still professor emeritus with an office across from my own (William Hasker). I've read some of his work and had some conversations with him, partly in order to present the issues fairly to my students and partly because I became interested myself.

Glad to hear he was fired.

Well, I'm not, because he wasn't violating anything in the institution's statement of faith. And in general, I think Erasmus has been right all along--it's better to refute heretics than suppress them. Truth has nothing to fear. But that's yet another debate.

It's not "suppressing" someone who believes and teaches things contrary to an institution's beliefs. You called it "evangelical" and that means something. That is called "orthodoxy." 

I think that an institution has the right to do this, and sometimes it may be necessary. (Again, my problem in this particular case was that the institution fired him because they were worried about his effect on student enrollment, not because of a genuine belief that he was a heretic by the standards of the institution.) But yes, it is suppressing, because that voice won't be heard any more. Academic institutions need a diversity of voices. Church-based institutions face a necessary tension between this and the need to preserve clarity about what the institution stands for. It's a difficult issue and there are no easy answers. (The initial compromise in Sanders' case was that he would not be teaching systematic theology anymore.) But I'm never going to rejoice at someone being fired, unless perhaps in really extreme cases. And empirically, I know that his being fired helped rivet his ideas in the minds of his former students. It discredited any arguments one could make against open theism.

Heresies arise because there is some genuine problem in the existing orthodoxy that needs to be resolved. Trying to cut off the debate ensures that the problem will just fester endlessly, or indeed it gives moral legitimacy to the heretical side and causes it to triumph temporarily beyond its intrinsic merits. This is my big problem with how the Catholic Church is handling the women's ordination issue. The really interesting theological arguments have barely even been raised.

not because of a genuine belief that he was a heretic by the standards of the institution

Then it's not "evangelical": both things can't be true. "Open theism" is not evangelicalism. But of course, evangelicalism is going more and more liberal all the time, too . . . This is the problem with the rule of faith in Protestantism. What is "liberal" today may be fashionably orthodox tomorrow . . .   

Academic institutions need a diversity of voices.

Christian academic institutions don't need that. They need professors who have a strong faith and who are orthodox according to how that is defined by the institution. 

Heresies arise because there is some genuine problem in the existing orthodoxy that needs to be resolved.

I disagree. Developments arise for that reason, but heresies come from rebellion and disobedience, and inability to accept received orthodoxy and (for Catholics) apostolic tradition. 

Trying to cut off the debate ensures that the problem will just fester endlessly

I agree. We must debate and refute error, but hiring heretics in an educational institution does not further that end. They are teaching students things that are contrary to the goals of the school . . . The students are not in a place to debate the professors. They sit there like sitting ducks and take in the heretical errors of the professor. That's what is so despicable about it.

Again, I'm not disputing the right of institutions to enforce orthodoxy when that orthodoxy is clearly defined. For instance, I agree that there's a huge problem when Catholic institutions have theology faculties where there is in effect an alternative "orthodoxy" which is blatantly opposed to Church teaching. And without the right to fire individual dissenters, there's nothing to prevent this happening. I'm arguing first that institutions cannot and should not get rid of faculty members just because their views are controversial and many people in the institution's supportive community (i.e., potential donors, parents and pastors of potential students, etc.) think that the faculty member is a heretic. To do so is a blatant violation of academic freedom, and that's what happened here. In the second place, I'm arguing that standards of belief should be interpreted very generously in this context. And I'm also arguing that there is a legitimate place for faculty who don't agree with the standards of belief at all, as long as there's clarity about their place in the institution. (For instance, it would be inappropriate for a Catholic institution to have a non-Catholic or a blatantly heretical Catholic teaching an introduction to theology to first-year students, or teaching the key systematic theology classes for majors. It would be appropriate to have such folks on the faculty teaching their perspectives as part of a vigorous culture of debate and discussion.)

Our basic disagreement, I think, is about the nature of heresy. And I think it explains why we often clash about the Reformation, apart from the fact that I'm naturally more pedantic and concerned with "trees" than you are, given my training as a specialist in Reformation history. We agree that Protestantism is heretical. But I see Protestantism as a reaction to genuine problems in orthodoxy as it had been defined up to that point. I think that much of the time Protestants gave the wrong answers (indeed, in important ways I think they made the existing problems much worse, as with the monstrous invention of "forensic justification"), and insofar as they gave the right answers those answers were compatible with Catholic orthodoxy. But I'm much more willing to see positive value in what they were doing than you are. And the same would apply to how I'd view modern liberal Catholicism. It's a response to real problems and it raises real concerns. Demonizing liberals will lead to the same disasters that demonizing Protestants did, even if this time around (thank God) no one gets killed.

Our basic disagreement, I think, is about the nature of heresy.

Okay: what is it, and how can it be consistently defined? You don't think Open Theism is heresy according to historic Protestantism, Anglicanism, Catholicism, and Orthodoxy?

No, that's not our disagreement. I meant that you see heresy just in terms of "disobedience and rebellion," whereas I give it a more positive role in the development of doctrine, because it always has a genuine theological concern at its core. I am certainly not arguing that open theism is orthodox, although I'm not sure Protestants are in a good position to make that judgment. Open theism is a reaction to Calvinism--it's an attempt to provide a consistent philosophical basis for Arminianism. Given the Calvinist/Arminian dichotomy and the way in which Calvinist assumptions have warped a lot of "historic" Protestantism, I think that's an understandable response. In other words, I'm not sure that open theism is any more heretical than Calvinism, though I'm not going to make an argument of that. Also, there are different versions of open theism. The Sanders/Hasker version, which I encountered at Huntington, is terribly anthropomorphic, and is basically a philosophical system built on the evangelical conviction that one can have a personal relationship with God, and thus on a fairly literal reading of personal/anthropomorphic language in the Bible. Greg Boyd's version, which I would like to study further, is probably the most orthodox, relatively speaking, but still very anthropomorphic. Tom Oord's version is perhaps the most radical (of the versions known to me, at least) and closest to process theology, but it raises a lot of interesting issues (Oord goes beyond the other open theists by suggesting not just that God has chosen to limit His knowledge but that perhaps God's nature is constituted by self-emptying love, so that God can't engage in any kind of coercion, including that which would be implied in exhaustive foreknowledge of people's choices).

How does, for example, the blasphemy of asserting that Jesus is a mere creature [this is Arianism, folks] have "a genuine theological concern at its core"? To assure that God (the Son) is not worshiped and adored as the Father is? That's just . . . heresy and blasphemy. There is nothing good in that. It rejected what was clearly revealed in Scripture and always held in Christianity.

Dave, that's not historically true. I don't think any scholar of the fourth century would claim that Arius "rejected what was clearly revealed in Scripture and always held in Christianity." Arius' letter to the Patriarch Alexander [ Link ] shows that he was concerned to maintain the historic orthodox teaching that Jesus was the Son of God and was not just a mode in which God had revealed Himself or somehow a part of God, making God composite. He was upholding logos Christology, which was the historic mainstream position. But he was making a claim (before the Son was begotten "he was not") that went way beyond the historic orthodox position in his zeal to uphold it. In fact, he was undercutting orthodoxy radically. But his heresy wasn't obvious and didn't just proceed from some kind of depraved insanity, though that's what the language of orthodox polemic said. Lots of people had trouble seeing what was so heretical about this and what was so different from orthodox "Logos Christology."

It's harder, perhaps, to see something positive in the radical Arianism of Eunomius late in the fourth century. But even he was pushing on some remaining ambiguities in developing orthodoxy, forcing the Cappadocians to clarify the doctrine of the Trinity in ways that we have reason to be grateful for today.

In a way all I'm saying is the longstanding truism that heresies force the orthodox to clarify things. What I'm saying that's different is that since heretics generally have good intentions, the combination of their good intentions and the positive effect of their heresies should affect our attitude to them. It isn't simply a case of wicked people being used by God for good purposes, but (most of the time, as far as I can see) sincere Christians seeking a good end in the wrong way and ultimately serving that good end, just not quite in the way they thought. Hence we can be more patient with them than we used to be.

In a way all I'm saying is the longstanding truism that heresies force the orthodox to clarify things.

That's a different claim from what you made before. I agree with that. I also agree that heresy and blasphemy often comes from a mix of ignorance and good intentions. But I'm talking about the thing itself (heresy), not the person, just as I do in my apologetics today. Luther was well-intentioned, likable, said lots of good stuff, etc. At the same time he taught a lot of rebellious, worthless rotgut. It's a mixed bag. It's a lot less mixed with something as atrocious as Arianism, which is not Christian, as Lutheranism is.

Maybe Arius was a fun guy to have a beer with. I don't care. That's neither here nor there. I deal with the theological opinions . . .

Once again we have a fundamental difference of definition. One who denies the Trinity (I say) is not a Christian at all. They don't even accept the Nicene Creed, for heaven's sake. That's why both Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are not. You act as if any theist at all is a Christian. By that criteria, both Jews and Muslims (as well as all these non-trinitarian heretics) are in the fold. That's an awful big tent. :-)

Well, by your definition there were no Christians before the fourth century, since the Nicene Creed didn't exist :-) I agree that those who deny the Trinity are heretics in a manner fundamentally different from those who deny, say, the Real Presence, and if you want to express that by saying that they aren't Christians at all, I won't object as long as we're clear on what we mean by "Christians" in this context and that this isn't the only historically meaningful definition of the word. But again, read the letter of Arius. Unless the man was simply lying through his teeth, he's clearly working within the framework of previously defined orthodoxy. It's not about being nice or not nice--it's about being part of the "argument extended throughout time" that is the Christian tradition and sincerely desiring to further that conversation in ways that will glorify God and bring people to union with God. There are good reasons to think that both Arius and Luther had those intentions. As I said the first time, they had genuine theological concerns. (Modalism was still a danger in Arius' time, and in fact some of the folks who sided with Athanasius and upheld the homoousios could be legitimately accused of modalism.) They were trying to uphold the faith, and given their contexts it is easy to understand why they made the mistaken choices they did in their attempt to do so. As a result of their work and that of the orthodox who opposed them, we now have a clearer understanding of the faith. Arius and Luther aren't in the same category, of course. Arius is much more radically heretical and there's much less positive one can learn from his work.

Arius actually became a heretic by opposing another heresy-Sabellanism or Patripassionism. He erred by over-emphasizing the incomparability and majestic solitariness of God by under-emphasizing the nature and substance of the Logos and by extension the Holy Spirit. His biggest problem was that he could not understand the meaning of the word "begot".

We need to be careful in not equating heresy with blasphemy or apostasy. They are not synonymous.

I agree, but relegating Jesus to a mere creature is certainly objectively blasphemy, whether intended or not (it usually isn't intended as such). The act of turning God into non-God is blasphemous as well as heretical.

I think much of heresy is going to the extreme: either in irrational or hyper-rational reaction to an orthodox tenet, or in extreme counter-reaction to another heresy. Thus, Monophysitism is arguably the other extreme of Nestorianism. The latter emphasized Jesus' human nature to the detriment of His divine nature, whereas the former made the opposite mistake.

The modern definition of blasphemy as contained in the Catechism 2148 would seem to exclude Arius as his theology did not consist of uttering against God - inwardly or outwardly - words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one's speech; in misusing God's name. Arius was trying to be the opposite of blasphemous. His thought was certainly heretical, but he was not attempting to be contemptuous of God.

Dave, you are certainly right though about monophysitism. All heresies involving the Trinity fall into two categories:

1. Exaggerating the notion of unity and eliminate persons in the Trinity.

2. Exaggerating the notion of Trinity and deny the unity of persons.

Is it not "speaking ill of God" [the Son] to deny that He is God? I can think of few things more insulting to God than to deny that He is Who He is. It's like the flip side of idolatry. That makes something not God into a god; whereas Arius makes God into not-God or a mere lesser "god."

If Arius thought Jesus wasn't God, he wasn't trying to blaspheme Him (quite obviously); yet it is objectively blasphemous, because He is God. Thus He blasphemes by claiming that Jesus was created, which makes Him a creature on our level, not the eternally existent God. That's objectively blasphemous (saying things of God that aren't true), if not subjectively. It's a lot like the distinction between mortal and venial sin.

St. John Chrysostom said it was blasphemy to assert that God could change (which His supposedly being created or having a beginning is an instance of):

. . . He is Omnipotent as long as He continues to be God. But if He admit of change, change for the worse, how could He be God? for change is far from that simple Nature. Wherefore the Prophet saith, “They all shall wax old as doth a garment, and as a vesture shalt Thou roll them up, and they shall be changed; but Thou art the same, and Thy years shall not fail.” ( Ps. cii. 27 , LXX.) For that Essence is superior to all change. There is nothing better than He, to which He might advance and reach.. . . let the blasphemy return upon the heads of those who utter it.

(Homily XI on John, v. 1:14; NPNF1-14)

Likewise, St. Cyril of Alexandria says it is blasphemy to deny "Mother of God" and hence deny Jesus' divinity:

. . . if the opponents say that the holy Virgin ought to be called in no wise mother of God, but mother of Christ, they blaspheme openly and drive away Christ from being God and Son: for if they believe that He is really God, in that the Only-Begotten has been made as we, why do they shudder at calling her mother of God, who bare Him, I mean after the flesh?

(That Christ is One; LFC47)

St. Basil the Great specifically asserts that Arius blasphemed:

One of those who have caused me great sorrow is Eustathius of Sebasteia in Lesser Armenia; formerly a disciple of Arius, and a follower of him at the time when he flourished in Alexandria, and concocted his infamous blasphemies against the Only-begotten, . . .

(Letter #263 to the Western Bishops, 2-3; NPNF2-8)

Dave, to be fair, Arius didn't say that Jesus was a "mere creature"--indeed he very carefully said the opposite: " a creature, but not as one of the creatures." What the heck does that mean? Well, that's the problem with "original" Arianism. It was examined and found hopelessly inadequate, because the concept of "a creature but not as one of the creatures" was incompatible with an orthodox understanding of the relationship between God and creation. Ironically given the frequent charges that the Trinity is pagan, it's Arius' view that coincides better with the general pagan understanding of the divine--an inaccessible God with degrees of heavenly beings mediating our access to Him. The orthodox view as expounded by Athanasius and later the Cappadocians taught that there's an infinite distance between God and the beings God has created out of nothing, and no possible half-way point between the two. Hence, the mediator can't be half-and-half but must be 100% human and 100% divine. That's a theological breakthrough guided by the Holy Spirit--simply from the point of view of intellectual history, it's brilliant and revolutionary.

The Two Natures of Christ was already quite implicit (if not explicit) in the "kenosis" of Philippians 2:5-8 and arguably other passages. Highly developed later, of course, but present in kernel from the beginning: precisely as Newmanian development asserts:

Philippians 2:5-8 (RSV) Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, [6] who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, [7] but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. [8] And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. 

Saying Jesus is a creature at all: in any sense, is already heretical and blasphemous. If Arius was confused even in his own mind, what in the world he meant, what else is new with heretics? Their errors always spring from mental confusion, whatever else we may say about them.

Right. When I said "revolutionary" I'm talking about the intellectual formulation--the combination that emerges by the end of the fourth century of divine infinity, creation ex nihilo, and the existing, hitherto rather undefined faith that Jesus is both human and divine. And Dave, the problem here is that you aren't taking the intellectual context of the ancient world seriously enough. You have to try to imagine a world full of gradations of spiritual beings shading up to an unimaginably distant (but not infinite) supreme Deity. That's the world Jews, pagans, and to a great extent early Christians all believed in. But Christians had this weird faith in Jesus as Lord and the Son of God (combined with the existing weirdness of the Jewish refusal to worship any god but the supreme God) to mess up this culturally accepted picture. Arius, without realizing it, was watering down the faith with culturally accepted notions, just as heretics have done from then till now and are still doing But out of this came greater clarity--not just the reaffirmation of what was already obvious, but something that was genuinely new in terms of its intellectual formulation, as the use of the hitherto suspect "homoousios" showed (as I'm sure you know, the term had up to then been used only by heretics). The great tragedy of the Reformation is that there was no Athanasius. Or rather, he was on the wrong side. . . .

The letter of Arius cited above makes quite clear that this is extreme heresy and blasphemy alike:

Our faith from our forefathers, which also we have learned from thee, Blessed Pope, is this:--We acknowledge One God, alone Ingenerate, alone Everlasting, alone Unbegun, alone True, alone having Immortality, alone Wise, alone Good, alone Sovereign; Judge, Governor, and Providence of all, unalterable and unchangeable, just and good, God of Law and Prophets and New Testament;

He shows that he knows what God's attributes are, but by making Jesus a creature (as though this is what "begotten" means), in that very act he contradistinguishes Him from the Father, so that all the characteristics above do not apply to Jesus.

who begat an Only-begotten Son before eternal times, through whom He has made both the ages and the universe; and begat Him, not in semblance, but in truth; and that He made Him subsist at His own will, unalterable and unchangeable; perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures; offspring, but not as one of things begotten;

Jesus in Arianism stands between God and men (I think that is all he means by "not as one of the creatures"). He was created, but then the Father uses Him to create everything else, etc.

at the will of God, created before times and ages, and gaining life and being from the Father, . . .

The Bible plainly states that the Son has life and being in Himself (much of the point of John 1, among many other passages). He doesn't derive it from the Father.

Arius is also confused about the monarchy of the Father, thinking this somehow makes Jesus less than God.

So far then as from God He has being, and glories, and life, and all things are delivered unto Him, in such sense is God His origin. For He is above Him, as being His God, and before Him.

This garbage is very painful to read . . .

Of course, heresies cause a more precise formulation of faith, as Augustine stressed. I totally agree with that. But you seem to be making Arius out to be "better" than he was. Heresy also stems from a loss of faith and loss of a fully Christian notion of mystery. Basically, they can't figure stuff out according to orthodoxy so they go their own way and come up with the various errors of heresy. Like you said, he didn't "get" what "begotten of God" meant. That is the basic root of the heresy in all likelihood. Arians don't grasp stuff like "the father is greater than I."

I do not disagree [with] your theological definition of blasphemy. I am using the term in its more modern connotation.

However, if you look at the little bit of Arius' writing that actually has survived, he would certainly demand that we adore and reverence Jesus because of what the Father bestowed upon Him by virtue of His adoption as His Son. Because Jesus was "begotten", Arius argued that the Son’s nature was not capable of moral change as a result of a gift from God. (Different from his disciples) God foresaw that the Son was going to be good and granted Him merits or the grace necessary to avoid evil in advance and deprived Him of the ability to earn merit. At His creation, the Son was adopted by God, given the name Son and the divine glory that comes with that name. The Son’s adoption was different from ours in that He can not sin, we still can. Arius did not claim that Jesus was not divine, he claimed that Jesus' was created divine.

That's what he says, Paul, but he's confused. Being created is not a thing that is said about God. It denies His immutability and self-sufficiency and self-existence, which are of the very essence of God. So Arius' thinking there is some "middle position" between God and man is complete nonsense: rationally and biblically. Jesus becomes, in effect, an angel at best.


*****

  

Dialogue: Has Pope Francis Changed the Constant Catholic Prohibition of Contraception?

This short exchange occurred on my personal Facebook page on 2 January 2014. Dave Scott is a Protestant. His words will be in blue.                                                                                 * * * * *

What's the new Pope's take on using contraceptives?

Being Catholic (duh!) he would obviously be against it . . . Do you think popes can reverse Catholic views that certain sins are grave and mortal? That's not possible in the Catholic system.

So what's the fuss about? [link to BBC news piece] [2nd news link]

What's to misunderstand? Can't people read English? The pope said:

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 unclear about "clear"?

So, no "fuss" at all then? He wasn't really saying anything?

Sure, there's fuss among folks who can't read, or I should say, can't comprehend grammar or the meaning of what they read: who don't know what "clear" means, or who see what they want so badly to see rather than what is really there. That ain't our problem, is it?  

So what was the Pope really saying then?

For the second time: 

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.

I don't talk about 'em all the time. I talk about lots of stuff. So does the papa.  

Okay, I got it even before posting the article - are you saying he was saying nothing new at all?

No; the new thing would be somewhat less emphasis on these issues in proclaiming the Catholic message. Less emphasis does not equal "thus, those things are less wrong than they used to be."

"Is the "fuss" just journalistic froth?"

Yes, and wishful thinking, and what I said above. Everyone wants Catholics to give up moral teachings that we will never give up, because they think we act like Anglicans or Protestants, who actually do those things.

Hmm, interesting point.

I like the new Pope, partly because he confesses to being a sinner ... I hope it's a new humility which we can all learn from.

Lots of people like this pope. Just make sure you understand him correctly. I have offered a humble little aid to make it easier to do that ["Pope Francis for Dummies"].

I'm genuinely confused ... Does Francis overturn Benedict? (again, assuming that the reportage is true).

Condom use for anal homosexual sex is not contraception in the first place because conception isn't possible. So this is a red herring. The Church says sodomy is wrong. It can say that use of a condom in such cases is more healthy than not doing so. Ho hum. That's simple common sense. It doesn't sanction either sodomy or homosexual acts in general in so doing. It doesn't say they're not sinful. If folks would think logically and objectively, I dare say that these questions would not arise at all.

In any event, it has nothing to do with the Church's teaching on contraception, which stands intact, in harmony with the Bible and the early Church, and indeed all Christians whatsoever until 1930, when the Anglicans (bless their hearts) first permitted it in "hard cases only".

Diabolical logic is always the same, isn't it? Those familiar with the legal history of childkilling will recognize that rationalization, which soon (always!) becomes a loophole big enough for a Mack truck to drive through.
Maybe I missed it, was Benedict's 'advice' only for instances of condom use for anal homosexual sex, or did it apply to heterosexual sex and the risk of AIDS that way?

See:

"Pope Benedict and Condoms: What He Did and Did Not Say" (Scott P. Richert)

"Vatican statement on Benedict XVI and condoms" (John L. Allen Jr.)

"Benedict XVI, Condoms, and the Light of the World"  (Interview with Janet Smith; Zenit)

"Condom Zombies Hijack Pope Benedict!" (Jimmy Akin; National Catholic Register)


*****

Armstrong Family "Christmas Card" for 2013

[I sent this out to over 1,000 people on my mailing list. If you'd like to be on that list, to receive Christmas cards every year and the occasional update of my work (never any "begging" / solicitation), please send your e-mail address to apologistdave [at] gmail [dot] com] 



 
Star of Bethlehem -- watercolor by Edward Burne-Jones (1890)

We wish you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a wonderful, blessed new year; with much love:


Dave & Judy, Paul, Michael, Matthew, and Angelina Armstrong 



Joseph's Carol
[my 12th Christmas poem written since 1996]

My name is Joseph, descendant of King David and father of the savior of the world;From Nazareth, a town in Galilee, from which, it was said, nothing good ever came!I was betrothed to sweet, lovely Mary, serious and ever holy, even as a young girl;Joyously awaiting marriage, we never imagined what an angel would soon proclaim.
Glorious Gabriel suddenly appeared to my beloved, and at first she was quite afraid;Hailing Mary as "full of grace" and thus confirming her exceptionally favored state.Speaking of a wondrous child, born of God the Holy Spirit, in her womb to be made;"Second Eve" was overshadowed by God and Jesus took flesh: at conception great.
Not knowing this at first, I was greatly distressed to find my betrothed with child,And resolved to divorce her quietly, so as to spare her any public scandal or shame.But then an angel spoke to me in a dream, affirming Mary's innocence all the while;The Holy Spirit had indeed conceived  "God with us": He who would heal the lame.
Later that year, we journeyed to David's Bethlehem: for a census to be signed by all; Even though Mary, riding a donkey, was great with child: a mother very soon to be.Seeking a warm inn as the time drew nigh, we found no lodging but an animal's stall.There newborn baby Jesus lay in a manger; adored by parents and shepherds, was He.
We escaped to Egypt to flee Herod's wrath; the Messiah he had determined to shun; Mary and I found Jesus, at twelve years old, teaching in the temple, warning of hell.He was our pride and joy, and what a privilege: our many years with the God the Son!  As Jesus grew, I taught Him the carpenter's trade; from Him I learned much as well.
Happy and wonderful!: the blessed time we spent with our Lord who was yet our son;Peace filled our hearts as Jesus told us of God's gospel and kingdom message wise.Though I would not live to see Him preaching, healing in Galilee: sinners to be won,I'll never forget my son's birth, with glowing angels and the star lighting up the skies.


Written on December 5-6, 2013[see my Christmas page, with links to my other eleven poems]

Dave Armstrong | Catholic Apologist and Author

FORTY-TWO BOOKS, FEATURING NINE "OFFICIALLY" PUBLISHED VOLUMES:
The Quotable Wesley (+) [upcoming: April 2014]
100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (#) [May 2012]
The Quotable Newman (*) (Foreword by Joseph Pearce) [October 2012]
A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (*) (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., Servant of God) [1996 / 2003]
The Catholic Verses: 95 Bible Passages That Confound Protestants (*) [2004]
The One-Minute Apologist (*) [2007]
The New Catholic Answer Bible (** ) (co-author of inserts: Dr. Paul Thigpen) [2005; rev. 2011 with RNAB]
Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths (*) [2009]
The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton (x) [2009]
VERY SOON: Brand New Booksite (E-Books) [www.biblicalcatholicism.com] 
(all 42 of my titles: standard rock-bottom e-book prices of $2.99 [PDF] and $6.99 [ePub] + deep discounts on bulk orders: 33% off for three books, 40% off for five, 50% off for ten)

BLOG: Biblical Evidence for Catholicism [www.biblicalcatholic.com] (more than 2,500 posts)

Facebook Personal Page
(5,475 friends + followers: my primary day-to-day postings and interaction)

Facebook Author Page
(2,534 "likes": please visit and "like" if you like my work! The more "likes" -- the more books I can sell)

Twitter Page (1,751 followers)

100% Tax-Deductible Donation Information 

(I'm a full-time apologist / author dependent primarily on book royalties and secondarily on your generous donations. Please prayerfully consider a contribution. Thanks!)

Publishers* = Sophia Institute Press
** = Our Sunday Visitor
x = Saint Benedict Press
# = Catholic Answers+ = Beacon Hill Press


Armstrong Family: Christmas 2012: children from left to right: Paul (then 21), Matthew (16), Michael (19), and Angelina (11)