Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 28

Response to Personal Attacks from the "Anti-Apologist" Shawn McElhinney

I have preserved Shawn's gossipy, calumnious comments (in blue below), made on a public Facebook thread (later removed, without any public retractions), and have replied to them.
 *** 
Were these persons regular joes or were they claiming more "advanced credentials", . . .? . . . to agitate and create controversy is one way that not a few of the apologetics mentality get attention for themselves and also are better prepared to hawk their wares -either in book sales, donations to their "apostolate", or whatever. There are also those who troll threads for material to gin up controversy for the purposes of attention and cash. A wrestling promoter named Eric Bischoff wrote a book years back called Controversy Creates Cash and he could have had the apologetics movement in mind every bit as much as he did professional wrestling with that title but that is neither here nor there.

Shawn -- with whom I had been friends -- decided to savagely attack my person and motives in 2005 when we disagreed on the morality and justifiability of Hiroshima and Nagasaki being nuked: he for, me against.  Since that time, he repeatedly wrote blistering and repeated attacks against my character on his website. I replied at length at the time to the numerous outrageous slanders, but on the urging of a mutual friend (Catholic apologist Dr. Art Sippo), unilaterally removed all my replies, while Shawn decided to keep all of his up. But I did later preserve just a few of the choicer tidbits from his bizarre attacks (see #1 in this "Top Ten" paper), and consider them the worst things ever said about me by anyone online, including even the avalanche of insults from the anti-Catholic Baptist luminary James White. 

He has also viciously attacked Karl Keating and other apologists. His garbage remains up to this day on his old site, Rerum Novarum . Just search for my name there and you'll find posts like, "On David Armstrong's Tragic Mental Meltdown": discussing my "pathetic delusions," etc. You get the idea. Here's my absolute favorite of his reams and reams of insults and lies at my expense (I am blessed with no end of belly-splitting laughter over this one, whenever I read it):

. . . your claim to want to dialogue was a sham exactly as I said it was. You should have had the decency to have admitted to it publicly rather than try to pretend that you wanted to dialogue. Furthermore, if you never intended to interact with my arguments, then you have NO BASIS WHATSOEVER for crying about how soundly I bitchslapped your crap down publicly . . .

Alas, I'm not the only apologist in Shawn's huge three-car garage doghouse. For example, here he is writing about me in boorish and inane fashion, on 10 December 2006:

For one thing, he tries to bring into the picture Dr. Scott Hahn, Steve Ray, and Pat Madrid as if they are necessarily being viewed by me in the same light as I do Karl Keating, Jimmy Akin, Mark Shea, and himself. Secondly, Dave obviously is interested in playing this up in his predictable Jerry Springeresque way . . . Dave, Jimmy, Mark, and/or their uncritical and fawning sycophants . . .

All friends of mine: all men I greatly admire . . . but for some reason Keating, Akin, and Shea are in Shawn's doghouse with yours truly (honored to be in there with 'em!), while the other three manage to escape it. What's the huge difference? Well, none, really (all three of the "good guys" have given very glowing reviews of my work, by the way), except whether ol' Shawn grants them his Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval or not! As if anyone cares in the first place. . .! 

Not many cared at all about Shawn's endless, War and Peace pontifications, as he consistently used to get about ten readers per day, average, on his site. But no doubt he would say that this was because his sublime profundities were well beyond the grasp of the unwashed masses of ignorant peasantry. At least he had the eventual sense to shut the thing down. In past years (before all he could do was rant against me and other apologists), he actually did quite a bit of valuable work, especially about radical Catholic reactionary errors: some of which I still cite, despite all.

 . . .  in the words of those great western philosophers The Who: "Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss."

And Shawn is the same old Shawn: acting as usual, like (well, you fill in the blanks) . . .  

One exception to that rule [name]: if he has a slew of yesman amigos to help him with his dirty work. He does not like one on one contact with someone who can throw real punches and expose his glass jaw, that's for sure.

Everyone knows how utterly fearful I am of one-on-one debate.  That's why I have about 700 debates posted online, because I am scared to death of them. I guess that's why I once did a talk (in person) with sixteen atheists and agnostics: me being the only theist (let alone Catholic) in the room. It's obviously the reason why I have been on national radio shows (Catholic Answers twice), answering questions live, with no idea what they might be. This sort of abject fear led me to debate James White spontaneously one night in his chat room, or take on Matt Slick of CARM fame, or engage anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer in hostile territory at CARM, debating whether the Church Fathers believed in sola Scriptura. He did so poorly that he split even before it was halfway done.

And we see (above and below) how Shawn "argues". He's the very last person to be lecturing anyone about how to engage in calm, rational, constructive (minimally ethical and charitable) argumentation. I would send my three sons to a rabid hedgehog in heat to learn how to dialogue before I would send them to Shawn. In any event, good will, attribution of good faith, and mutual respect are required for any good dialogue to take place -- to be possible at all -- , per Plato and Socrates (as I have often noted).

. . . this was just another example of Dave wading onto a thread and subject he did not know as much about as he tried to pretend and could not admit that lest he lose face. Saimo-saimo with The Venerrrrablleeee Daaaaaviiiiid basically but I digress

So now I don't know anything about "traditionalism" and it's opposing faction, the radical Catholic ractionaries. That's odd, since Pete Vere (canon lawer and co-author with Pat Madrid of a book on the topic) is also participating in these discussions and (to his eternal credit) being very classy: refusing to indulge in the attacks. It's tough to be neutral like Switzerland but Pete is managing to pull it off. Kudos! He is friends with all of them over there, and they obviously respect him. 

Pete asked me around 2000-2001 or so to come work and live at the FSSP place where he was (Scranton diocese in Pennsylvania). It was being very seriously considered. Isn't that strange? He must have thought I knew something about the topic: had some sort of qualification. Why, he even credited me with playing some part in his own departure from his former ways, and his very vocation, writing:

Dave Armstrong['s] . . . apologetics ministry was one of God's tools through which I both reconciled with the Catholic Church and discerned my vocation as a canonist.

Now, that is quite a feat, to have managed to persuade someone out of schism or semi-schism (wherever he was; SSPX at one point), while not having much of a knowledge at all about the subject (which Shawn pontificates is the case, even today). If anyone can figure how that can be, please let me know pronto. My brain can't wrap itself around it, much as I try.

Shawn himself used to be quite effusive in his praise of my apologetics till he and I disagreed on nuclear war and whether incinerating 100,000 civilians is right in line with Catholic just war ethics or not. I'm almost positive that would have included my work in critique of the radical Catholic reactionaries ("RadCathRs"). In fact, this is indeed documented:

In his third edition of A Prescription Against 'Traditionalism' -- dated 17 March 2003, Shawn writes the following in the Acknowledgements (I'm one of four people he thanks):

David Armstrong whose critique of a few section attempts at a revision in early 2002 (which were subsequently lost in my harddrive crash of May 2002) was nonetheless influential in my approach to this third edition. (And of course being linked to Dave's ubersite the past few years: a tremendous circumstance that undoubtedly widened the viewing audience of this work.)

I was also thanked in the first edition, with many others. Is this not hilarious? I go from being thanked as "influential" in Shawn's magnus opus against RadCathRs in 1998 / 2003, to being lied about as a more or less ignoramus on the topic, in March 2013.

Someone else in the thread claimed that I have little firsthand knowledge of mainstream "traditionalists." The fact of the matter is that I have many "traditionalist" friends: folks like David Palm and Ben Douglass and others. Many (quite a number, actually) follow my blog and Facebook page. I have many, many Eastern Catholic friends, too.

Isn't it interesting, too, that I have the most cordial, trouble-free relations (including phone conversations) with someone like Tracy Tucciarone, who is one of the owners of the influential Fish Eater's "traditionalist" forum. Others run me down there, too, but she and I have normal, mutually respectful discussions.

 . . . did I not tell you . . . that Dave would find a way of bringing me into the mix if he could? 

Shawn started gossiping about me as soon as he had opportunity to do so, in one of the attack threads. But if I dare respond to his lies, that's me trying to drag him into the conflict, and somehow being paranoid / mentally ill / contentious [or insert chosen alternate epithet] . . . this is classic Shawn polemics. This is how cynical revisionism and creation of fairy tales proceed: urinating all over the actual facts of the matter, which are plain as day.

I doubt I have said one word to him in about six years but he is STILL smarting over getting his ass handed to him back in 2005 and 2006 when he bit off more than he could chew with me. 

Humility or truth-telling about his own deficiencies was never one of Shawn's strong points . . .

I am no psychologist but Dave sure shows symptoms of NPD in the way he reacts to things and the way he cannot let anything drop. 

Oh, of course. No attacks on me would be complete without personality / mental analysis. "NPD" is "Narcissistic Personality Disorder."  This is the strictly comedic and entertaining aspect of otherwise tedious and ultra-booring ad hominem attacks. The anti-Catholics love to do the same thing (this is one of their favorite slanders; lacking any rational arguments), and Shawn will readily use any lie from their playbook, on the old principle of "my enemy's enemy is my friend." Pray for the man. One can only pity one who feels the need to stoop so low.

It's real simple, folks; makes perfect sense; nothing mentally ill about it at all. I document because people (ones who want to clash with me) have a tendency to revise the past. I know this because it has happened over and over: much first-hand experience. If I didn't keep people's words (the ones who feel led to personally attack me), they would simply spin them as if they were no big deal. After all, a person that is willing to shamelessly lie about another has no compunction about lying about the lies later on, to cover their own tails and present themselves in a saintly (or at least situationally faultless) light that never was the case. I don't give it a moment's thought otherwise. If the thing rears its ugly head again, I have the documentation. And oh, how people hate that!!! Shawn agrees completely with this methodology because he does it himself. On the public Facebook group, Banished by Mark Shea: A Support Group, Shawn wrote on 23 March 2013:

. . . if I can offer one piece of advice for anyone who tangles with MS [Mark Shea], it is this: document what happened. Keep copies of all written correspondence either in his comboxes, on your own pages, or whatever and if you can take screenshots for preservation purposes, do that as well. I am glad I kept stuff from years past on this stuff not to relive it but instead to make sure the historical record remains preserved lest folks like him try and play the role of the historical revisionist viz. what actually happened and what he would like to pretend happened.

When I deign to cite Shawn's own words, however, all that flies out the window and he comes back with the old mental illness canard and gripes about things being years old. He has to. This is his modus operandi. It's like a hog scratching his itch. He's gotta do it!

The actual narcissists and glory-seekers out there wouldn't last a month in my field, since what they're about is looking for praise and rapt admiration all the time. That doesn't exactly coincide with apologetics (to vastly understate it)!

Nothing like the facts . . . They sit in my "Idiotic Comments and Attacks" file. Big Deal! All Shawn can do these days is sit on the sidelines and lob imbecilic attacks and flatulent avalanches of words. If he's not going after (with his rah-rah buddies patting him on the back and indulging his sin), he can always flail away at his numerous other targets: Karl Keating, Mark Shea, Jimmy Akin, the class of apologists as a whole, men, women, human beings, dogs, cats, mice, the ocean; anything on God's green earth will do, as long as it is a target . . .

I mean, its been more than SEVEN YEARS now and he is still going around digging up tidbits from my mothballed weblog from those conflicts that he spins out of context. He has to do that because context on these things is not his friend and deep down, he knows it.

Yes; down deep (at least in my better, most honest moments) I know that Shawn is my overlord and superior in every way: ethically, mentally, intellectually, as a writer, debater, amateur philosopher, political junkie, as a webmaster (with his ten hits a day average that he never managed to break out of), as a father (if he is one), as a sports fan, athlete, cookie-maker, weed-puller, repairer of can openers, you name it: anything and everything! He'd probably even beat me in chess and arm-wrestling. But he can't outlaugh me. When I read his drivel, I laugh and laugh till the cows come home: till my gut hurts; till I cry a bucket . . . I think he missed his calling as a comedian.

All this does is illustrate why I proactively blocked him on FB as soon as I found out he was on here: I have no interest in retreading old ground and being trolled by this person.

Oh, that is great news! Delighted to hear it. This is delicious irony. Shawn sits there attacking and gossiping away in the slander-thread, while if I try to defend myself at all there, my comments are deleted. But I am the troll, you see, and he's pure as the driven snow.

[someone else] Boy am I clueless. I don't even know who Dave is. 

Count your blessings, [name]!

Obviously a lot of people have way too much time on their hands, if all they can manage to do is attack and lie about me. As always (I've been subjected to 17 years of this sort of thing, online), it doesn't do the slightest thing to stop the work I am called to. My argument that brought on all the galaxies of manure and imbecilic sewer scum attacks is still here, intact. And that's all that matters. Who cares about all the other nonsense and verbal diarrhea? Let the nattering nabobs play, pat each other on the back (to rationalize their sin), and pummel away . . . 

It was mid-August 2005-Spring of 2006 with flare-ups that summer and fall. I sought to end it in September of 2006 and Dave then sought a "reconciliation" in January 2007 which in retrospect it seems he just used as a ruse to lure me back in and try and get me to affirm his whitewashed version of previous events by default. Even my attempts at reconciliation are a "ruse" . . . you see the cynical spirit at work here.  That is the spirit of the father of lies, the accuser (and I'm not trying to be melodramatic at all; just matter of fact); not of the God of the royal commandment and 1 Corinthians 13. This is not the Spirit of Christ. And this is why reconciliation was impossible, with his unyielding demand that I must admit I am an inveterate and deliberate liar, as his first condition. Once I admit that and bow and kiss his feet, everything's great! Well, hell's gonna freeze over before I will kowtow and admit (just so he can feel smugly superior) I was a liar and scumbag, when it was not the case at all. My big outrage was to merely disagree with the man.I finally took the emails I wrote to him, edited mentions of him out of them, edited any of his actual words out of them, and structured the sequences into three threads that encapsulated the core problems I had with him and blogged them in the winter and spring of 2007. Those three threads are now required interaction by him if he truly wants a reconciliation or not and by all appearances he does not.I always did want reconciliation (as I do with anyone with whom I have had a falling-out). I tried everything under the sun: reason, pleading, endless explanations of prior comments and arguments I made that Shawn would relentlessly and cavalierly (not to mention quite pompously and arrogantly) blow off as "grandstanding" or "insincere".  Finally, I removed all replies about him and anything about him at all from my blog (except a few places where I cite work of his that had some actual value: that he used to do, once upon a time). At length, I worked with Dr. Art Sippo, a mutual friend, to try to achieve a breakthrough. He quickly persuaded me to remove the papers, but of course (shock!) Shawn was absolutely inflexible (but I'm the one with the grudge, you see, while his innumerable flatulent attack-papers remain online to this day). Now you can all see how he requires these asinine conditions. Essentially I have to admit that he kicked my butt in the nuclear debate -- which is untrue -- and that he was absolutely right, and I was dead-wrong, or else I am necessarily (by the singular Shawn "logic") dishonest and a liar beyond all doubt. He mocks any and all of my attempts at reconciliation as insincere.

Nothing can be done with him. I mightily tried (far more than most people would have had the patience to do). My conscience is perfectly clear on this. God understands contentious people: that we can't always get along with them, no matter how hard we try. His present resumption of personal attacks at the drop of a hat, without the slightest attempt to hear or interact with my side, is hardly grounds for hope of a reconciliation. I wish the man well. I have no resentment at all (I don't waste time with that in my life). I'm simply passionately responding to nonsense and calumny. May God bless him abundantly in all things. In light of that and other similar issues with other folks (including sad to say the late Fr. Richard Neuhaus), to say that I have a view of apologetics now as a rule that is lower than my view of prostitution is no small exaggeration. But that is another subject altogether for another time.

I like that! My profession is lower than being a whore. Isn't that a wonderfully edifying thought? Even Fr. Neuhaus wasn't safe from Shawn's self-righteous ire. Now the world's oldest and most disgusting, loathsome professions are not one and the same. It's a split ticket. We apologists are the lowest of the low: cain't get no lower than us'n's!.

But of course ol' Shawn brings no personal or intellectual bias to the present conversation; not at all (and no one could possibly think that!). No! It's all sweetness and light and rock-solid objectivity from our friend. I'm over here degrading myself (on a level lower than the ethics of prostitution) by trying to help folks escape from the prison of RadCathR nonsense, but it's all worthless, because I supposedly (like Akin and Shea and others) used one word like a dummy and an ignoramus; and I must be attacked at every turn with lies and calumnies for doing so.

Hell, Dave even edited it to put my name in the title! See what I mean about folks who cannot let things go?

. . . Dave continues to add stuff from this thread in a desperate effort to try and goad responses from us and again courtesy of his selective prooftexting ala the way folks prooftext magisterial texts or even Scripture for their own ends. (Albeit nothing said on this thread here has that sort of status of course!)
But since he is seeing this thread, before you change the settings, I will address this to him personally and say nothing else on this thread in the foreseeable future. Here goes...

Hey Dave, the issue I had with Fr. Neuhaus (God rest his soul!) had NOTHING to do with you whatsoever. It was in the grand scheme of things a minor matter (as virtually all things which involve someone who passes on are) and I let it drop a long time ago -mentioning it only in an aside to Pete on this thread which now I wish I had not. But hey, if you had any sense of honour or decency, you would not kick dirt on the grave of a deceased for the sake of your ego.

That's the problem with someone like you who is not interested in the truth but instead just spinning anything they can into whatever revisionist light best suits their inflated ego. I am thinking of going back to where I reviewed one of his books on Amazon and deleting the review -the thought of saying anything nice about someone who acts this way is frankly something I am starting to regret.

. . . I am through on this thread feeding Dave's massive revisionist ego. I will pray for him that he seeks the help he so badly needs and accept this as a reminder of why Christian unity in general is such a seemingly insurmountable mountain and only by God's grace will it ever occur on this side of the eschaton.

[reply to someone who was mockingly saying they "disagreed" with me; as if no one can ever do so] So you were "Denying The Faith" then,. . .?

Trying to use controversy to create fictitious monsters to then ask for money to "fight the monsters" is part and parcel of the whole schtick. I would actually have loved to be proven wrong on this (and conceivably still could be) but so far, every prediction I made on this whole episode privately has come to pass.

. . . the problem with those who act the way certain parties have been is they lose sympathy where the area of possible misunderstandings are concerned. There is also the issue of objective manifestation vs. subjective intention, something I tried to explain until I was blue in the face to no avail. But as it is apropo here, I will briefly touch on it anew. Essentially, one can say something meaning one intention that if you look at what is said objectively at face value conveys a different meaning altogether. So many problems would not exist if more folks realized that sometimes the way they think they are coming across is not how they actually are. (And of course they would have to look as objectively as they could as to how contextually they come across.) But if you cannot get someone to even consider that they may have run afoul in this area, then you have no hope of ever getting through to them period and that is what [name] has seen in the circumstance she encountered with someone whose name shant be mentioned here. 

Flail away, Shawn! God sees everything you are doing . . . . Reply is perfectly futile at this point. The above is more than enough its' own refutation and self-condemnation, for anyone with the slightest acquaintance with New Testament Christian ethics. Shawn would do very well to heed "traditionalist" Kevin Tierney's words (3-20-13), that apply to him in almost every little detail:

The Internet can be a very edifying realm where individuals exchange ideas and make things better.  It can also be a place of nothing but urine and vinegar, where egotists obsess about things said almost ten years ago as if they are fresh battles, and portray even the smallest of disagreements as lies and willful distortions of the highest order.  Everyone loves the former, and most (except those who thrive on urine and vinegar as a way to generate traffic or sometimes revenue) avoid the latter.

I heartily concur with Shawn's statement on his Twitter page (3-17-13):

There are many things good about getting older (and a few not-so-good) but #1 on the good list: you care a lot less about what others think!

Thank heavens, I learned this years ago. If I hadn't, the likes of Slash-and-Burn Shawn and an army of additional irrational, facts- and logic-challenged critics would have easily drummed me out of apologetics a long time ago (never to look or go back again). Fortunately, I didn't take up this vocation to win a popularity contest in the first place (or to become rich: another apparent misconception of many: at least in my case).


****

Pope Francis and Pope Benedict XVI Use the Terminology of "Extreme Traditionalism" (Some Quibbles with Kevin Tierney's Arguments)

I have recently decided to cease using the term radtrad in deference to the expressed wishes of mainstream "traditionalists" who are (in large numbers, we are told) offended by it, since they contend that it implicates all "traditionalists" and that radtrad implies a spectrum upon which both the radtrad and "traditionalist" sit.

After thought and reflection (and having my sincerity and intentions and seriousness attacked by "traditionalists" and what I now will be calling "radical Catholic reactionaries"), I decided (cutting through the flak and the silliness) to make the change, as an effort in charity, and of bridge-building. St. Paul taught us in the Bible, after all:

Romans 14:21 it is right not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that makes your brother stumble.

It's good to apply this injunction widely and freely. At the same time, I maintained that I had not done anything intrinsically "wrong" by using the term radtrad. The "traditionalist" objection was perhaps crystallized in an article by Kevin M. Tierney, entitled, "Why We Should Stop Saying 'Radical Traditionalist' and 'Rad Trad'" (Catholic Lane, 7-30-13). Some excerpts:

At best the phrase is a relic of a time that is no longer relevant.  At worst, the term is creating animosity and perpetuating a growing sense of tribalism within Catholicism, especially in America. - See more at: http://catholiclane.com/why-we-should... best the phrase is a relic of a time that is no longer relevant.  At worst, the term is creating animosity and perpetuating a growing sense of tribalism within Catholicism, especially in America. . . .
If we take this distinction seriously, then how can one not say that implicit in all traditionalists is a rebellious spirit that will embrace erroneous views or enter into schism?  Let us set the record straight:  Stating an ecumenical council actually teaches heretical doctrine is wrong no matter who makes that claim.  Deliberately separating yourself from communion with the Roman Pontiff is wrong no matter what language we like our liturgy in.  If you believe there are good traditionalists, then it must follow that these so called radical traditionalists aren’t actually traditionalists at all. - See more at: http://catholiclane.com/why-we-should...

If we take this distinction seriously, then how can one not say that implicit in all traditionalists is a rebellious spirit that will embrace erroneous views or enter into schism?  . . . If you believe there are good traditionalists, then it must follow that these so called radical traditionalists aren’t actually traditionalists at all. 

In a comment on his own website on 2 August 2013, Kevin made his criticism even more pointed:

In this climate we're going to plant our flag upon a term invented as an insult for a polemical age? Or if we choose something else, still use it as an insult which you know will stigmatize people? It seems entirely alien to the times. How often do you think people are going to come back to full communion when they have some insulting name attached to them?

And again, the day before (replying directly to me):

We would love to have you in the interest of charity stop using those terms. Not because anyone deserves it, or this or that compromise has been made, but because it's the right thing to do.

Kevin also made the claim (7-31-13 on his site) that the Church doesn't use such terminology (it was -- I guess he thinks -- merely invented by us wascally wascal apologists and our ilk):

There's a reason Holy Mother Church doesn't call the SSPX or sedevacantists "radtrads" even though she seriously disagrees with their positions.  . . . 

You lose nothing from dropping that term.  In fact, you gain something:  you'd be stunned how much goodwill you can come to the table with when you aren't starting out your discussion by mocking someone. . . .

This is the way of the Church, following her should be sufficient.

In the end, I'll grant you the right strictly speaking to use such labels.  Yet why don't we ask ourselves:  Is this actually doing any good? 

Again, replying directly to me on his site (7-29-13), Kevin opines:

We really don't need a name. . . .

So let's not say it is required. It is required for YOU. YOU feel the need to label everything for your own conscience sake. . . .

So the errors of those you call "radtrads" are just wrong, and just classify them as wrong. That you feel the need to continue a classification to make things easy on yourself.... just proves that the apologetics approach to things isn't always the best approach.

Now, lo and behold, I learned last night that Pope Francis has recently used the same sort of terminology as radtrad: "extreme traditionalists." Thus, he violated the "code of conduct" that Kevin has been writing so vehemently about (with the extra irony of Kevin appealing in part to the pope in his argument that radtrad or suchlike is a remnant of a bygone era). Here is what the Holy Father stated in an interview in late May, as translated by Fr. Tim Finigan on his "traditionalist" site, The Hermeneutic of Continuity (granted the "traditionalist" seal of approval from Fr. John Zuhlsdorf):

Then it was the turn of the bishop of Conversano and Monopoli, Domenico Padovano, who recounted to the clergy of his diocese how the priority of the bishops of the region of Tavoliere had been that of explaining to the Pope that the mass in the old rite was creating great divisions within the Church. The underlying message: Summorum Pontificum should be cancelled, or at least strongly limited. But Francis said no.

Mgr Padovano explained that Francis replied to them saying that they should be vigilant over the extremism of certain traditionalist groups but also suggesting that they should treasure tradition and create the necessary conditions so that tradition might be able to live alongside innovation. [my bolding]

The Italian, from the article Fr. Finigan was translating, reads: "estremismi di certi gruppi tradizionalisti".


Is that so? In one fell swoop, then, the Holy Father "refutes" this entire line of reasoning that Kevin has adopted for his proposal, which is sound on other less absolute (or excessively "dogmatic") grounds. The argument from charity and bridge-building; avoiding offense, is a good one, and I agree and am acting accordingly. But insofar as Kevin and others wish to make the case that we who have used the term radtrad were -- all along -- insufferably arrogant and insulting (complete with his pseudo-psychological jargon about our supposedly nefarious need to create unnecessary and divisive "labels"), it falls completely flat, since the pope is on our side.

I don't see any way of overcoming this. It's not a matter of an infallible statement. That's irrelevant. The point here is that the pope casually used a term in description of certain "traditionalists." It was in his head; it wasn't utterly foreign to his thinking. It wasn't foreign at all. Kevin claimed that it shouldn't be done, but the pope did it (back to the "more Catholic the the pope" theme!).

Pope Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger, before he became pope, used the same terms:

Whoever accepts Vatican II, as it has clearly expressed and understood itself, at the same time accepts the whole binding tradition of the Catholic Church, particularly also the two previous councils . . . It is likewise impossible to decide in favor of Trent and Vatican I but against Vatican II. Whoever denies Vatican II denies the authority that upholds the other two councils and thereby detaches them from their foundation. And this applies to the so-called 'traditionalism,' also in its extreme forms. . . . It is our fault if we have at times provided a pretext (to the 'right' and 'left' alike) to view Vatican II as a 'break' and an abandonment of the tradition.

 (The Ratzinger Report, San Francisco: Ignatius, 1985, 28-29, 31)

Therefore, in summary, certain things follow:

1) Kevin argued that radtrad is not the language of the magisterial Church. Why, then, did (and do) folks like Mark Shea, Jimmy Akin, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Dr. Taylor Marshall, Pete Vere, myself, and others use it? Kevin argued that it was the apologetics mentality and polemical overkill and an extreme lack of charity. Unfortunately, for his case, it turns out that the Church as represented by the current pope and the previous one, actually does see things in these terms. "Extremist traditionalist" or "so-called 'traditionalism' . . . in its extreme forms" represent precisely the same sort of language that has been used for years by critics of radical Catholic reactionaries in the apologetics world (a use that Kevin has characterized as "dumb"). See, for example, the "Ultra-Traditionalism" page at The Catholic Legate or the longstanding web page from apologist "Matt1618": "Ultra-Traditionalists".

"Extremist traditionalist" and "so-called 'traditionalism' . . . in its extreme forms" are clearly synonyms of both "ultra-" or "radical traditionalism" (i.e., radtrad). In fact, the two popes use precisely the same terminology that I utilized in my recent book, originally entitled, Mass Movements: The Extreme Wing of “Traditionalism,” the New Mass, and Ecumenism. That book came out in December, so I was using that phraseology five months before the Holy Father's documented use of it in May.

Moreover, I have used similar language in the name of my web page devoted to radical Catholic reactionaries (RCRs or "RadCathRs" in my recently adopted terminology): Catholic “Traditionalism” and its Extremist "Radtrad" Fringe . I am planning (as of this writing) on changing the name of both, in order to avoid "traditionalists" feeling that they are being tarred with the same brush (they never were in my analyses, but they thought they were). I probably still will, but (precisely as I stated), it is not because I was "wrong" -- Period! -- It's because I am trying to avoid needless offense.

2) A second argument from Kevin and his allies also falls flat. This was the objection to the so-called "spectrum." Most apologists who have been dealing with the phenomenon of radical Catholic reactionaries have noted that there is a spectrum, whereby if one keeps moving further to the "right" one can end up in the SSPX, or further than that, sedevacantism (the view holding that there is no sitting pope). Mainstream "traditionalists" object to this (which is precisely the main thing lying behind Kevin's loud complaint and article referenced above). They deny that they are on any sort of spectrum with what we have been calling radtrads. They see themselves as the only "traditionalists" worthy of that name, and the radtrads or extremists or ultras as merely wackos and wingnuts.

The problem here, again, is that the pope didn't follow that line of thinking at all.  He used the description, "the extremism of certain traditionalist groups." Thus, for him, they are on the same spectrum as "traditionalists." There are "traditionalists" who are "extreme," just as there are those who are "radical" or "ultra." He didn't completely oppose the extremists from the "traditionalists"; rather, they were on the far right of the same spectrum. The "traditionalist" label is still there as part of it (what Kevin and "traditionalists" en masse -- so we are told -- object to so stridently). Pope Benedict XVI did the same by referring to "the 'right' and 'left'".

This has been our thinking as apologists and defenders of the pope and Vatican II and Holy Mother Church, and it is confirmed as correct. I pointedly denied the argument about the lack of a spectrum, at the same time I was willing to change my terminology, and changing the terms is no evidence whatsoever that I am denying a spectrum.

3) An argument has been set forth by Kevin and some of his friends (notably, Jeffrey Stuart), that radtrad was the "immoral equivalent" of neo-Catholic. The latter is the pet term used by radical Catholic reactionaries such as Chris Ferrara and John Vennari, and The Remnant website and organization. We plain old "Catholics" to whom it is directed have objected for years, on the grounds that it has no pedigree or history of usage in the Church. But this was laughed off, and it was said that the two are instances of the exact same thing (i.e., we are hypocrites for objecting to neo-Catholic while using radtrad). Thus, in his Catholic Lane article, Kevin explains how he used it himself up till 2005, and then saw the light and stopped. Now he argues that radtrad is the polemical equivalent, thrown back at the radicals who use neo-Catholic: as if we have been making the same mistake that he used to commit.

But again, it is exactly as I have argued: radtrad has a parallel in papal usage, in "extreme traditionalism," whereas neo-Catholic is non-existent in magisterial Church usage. If Kevin or his friends think otherwise, they are welcome to produce proof that it has ever been used by popes or the Church (the magisterium).

If we want a pure "insult," there it is. But if radtrad is a pure insult, then the Holy Father is entering into the same thinking and usage, by his equivalent term, "extremist traditionalist."

4) Pope Benedict XVI also bolsters my argument that I've made for at least 15 years now, that "traditionalist" itself should be an unnecessary term to use. He does this by referring to "the so-called 'traditionalism.' " I do it by almost always putting the word in quotation marks. I'm willing to use it, because this is how people refer to themselves and how others refer to them, but with this little "protest": precisely as Pope Benedict XVI did (as Cardinal Ratzinger).

Kevin Tierney tries to make an analogy of "traditionalist" with "Dominicans" or "Franciscans" etc. But can we imagine a pope referring to "the so-called 'Dominicans'"? Isn't it great to "think with the Church"?

Methinks Kevin's "big" article and many others on his own website are in need of some serous revision. I'll be spending scores of hours of my time removing terms out of charity that were never intrinsically "wrong." Now it's Kevin's turn to revise several of his arguments that engage in massive rhetorical overkill and melodramatic exaggeration, in light of two popes' remarks. If I can do it out of charity to "traditionalists," he ought to do it, too, in deference to (and in light of) popes. As he himself stated just six days ago: "This is the way of the Church, following her should be sufficient."

Amen!


*****



At best the phrase is a relic of a time that is no longer relevant.  At worst, the term is creating animosity and perpetuating a growing sense of tribalism within Catholicism, especially in America. - See more at: http://catholiclane.com/why-we-should... best the phrase is a relic of a time that is no longer relevant.  At worst, the term is creating animosity and perpetuating a growing sense of tribalism within Catholicism, especially in America. - See more at: http://catholiclane.com/why-we-should...

On the Use of Qualifying Terms (Like "Traditionalist") Preceding the Simple Description of "Catholic"

 This took place on my Facebook page. Phillip Campbell's words will be in blue.
*****
I have stopped referring to myself as a traditionalist after being directed to a statement by Benedict XV saying that Catholics ought not to use those such labels.

Excellent. Where did he say that? I'd like to see it.

It is, moreover, Our will that Catholics should abstain from certain appellations which have recently been brought into use to distinguish one group of Catholics from another. They are to be avoided not only as "profane novelties of words," out of harmony with both truth and justice, but also because they give rise to great trouble and confusion among Catholics. Such is the nature of Catholicism that it does not admit of more or less, but must be held as a whole or as a whole rejected: "This is the Catholic faith, which unless a man believe faithfully and firmly; he cannot be saved" (Athanas. Creed). There is no need of adding any qualifying terms to the profession of Catholicism: it is quite enough for each one to proclaim "Christian is my name and Catholic my surname," only let him endeavour to be in reality what he calls himself.

(Pope Benedict XV, Ad Beatissimi Apostolorum 24)

This was brought to my attention by another traditionalist. But I think the last phrase, "only let him endeavor to be in reality what he calls himself" is very important as a qualifier, so that we know that "Catholic" in reality is not the same thing as everything in this world that has the adjective "Catholic" in front of it. I actually issued a retraction on my blog, [ link ] because until that time, I called myself a traditionalist and even defended use of the label and labeling as such.

But I wonder, if the label can't be used, are we left with nothing but naked preference? I "prefer" traditional Catholicism and another "prefers" liberal Catholicism with neo-pagan meditation added in, and so long as we are both in formal communion, no label can be used to distinguish the two? What happens when whole parishes, even whole dioceses are not endeavoring to be in what reality what they call themselves? It seems ludicrous to say that Catholicism as BXV understands it and Catholicism as it is practiced in some places should be grouped together.

I always say that I call myself "Catholic"; if asked what kind, I say, "orthodox." If asked what that means, I say, "I accept all that the Church dogmatically and infallibly teaches and submit myself to her authority."

I would love for no labels to be used. Unfortunately, lots of people call themselves "traditionalists" and a tiny group within that category is quasi-schismatic and extreme, and so I refer to them as radtrads (i.e., radical traditionalists), so as not to besmirch or broad-brush the entire group of "traditionalists." The apologist has to precisely identify the group he is critiquing, and so labels cannot completely be avoided.

I would love, however, -- ideally --, for there to be no need for labels beyond "Catholic." I'm delighted to see that a pope said many years ago what I've been saying for over 20 years now.

Exactly. I can accept that we ought not to use labels, but it would be better to have a situation where the label was not necessary at all - where "Catholic" covered everything. I do not believe we are at that point yet. 

I agree. We should all insist on saying we are "Catholics" -- then if we are asked what it means, we can get into all the other business, as the occasion arises. But it's important to keep the tradition of the name "Catholic": which does historically mean quite a bit, and has a definite meaning.

Historically, labels tend to come in only once someone is outside the Church (Arians, Pelagians, etc). But interestingly enough, the Church has occasionally appropriated labels to refer to orthodox Catholics during times of great confusion - regular old run of the mill Catholics were once called "Chalcedonian Catholics" and in France those loyal to the Pope called themselves "Ultramontanes." The Church in both of these ages approved of these labels - but then again, they were being used in opposition to heretical movements that had been formally defined as such. The liberal scourge within the Church today is not so easy to put a finger on.

Very good. I highly commend you for taking a stand on this. I think it's great.


*****

Critique of Three Highly Questionable Statements from Michael Voris About the State of the Church

Note: all italicized emphases in the original (verbal emphasis). Voris' words, transcribed from the videos, will be in blue. My comments and critiques will be in black.
The Whole Rotten Mess (21 June 2013)



4:20 The Catholic Church in the West: the establishment Catholic Church, no longer operates with the same set of first principles that we once did [sic]. The entire self-understanding, our own self-conception has been jettisoned, and been replaced by an entirely new and rotten sense: rotten to the proverbial core. Leaders have traded away the notions of truth and goodness and beauty in exchange for accommodation and indifferentism and political correctness.

Truth, beauty, and goodness inspire zeal and apostolic fervor. There's almost none of that left, because those core constituents; those first principles are gone. What is left is a type of Church within a Church; a small remnant of those who still cling tenaciously to those first principles, and all that they necessarily admit of: all of it. This small remnant of a Church within a Church finds itself surrounded by an obese, overinflated bureaucracy of engineers, who keep the wheels spinning, and run from one fire to another, . . . those who sit atop this decaying structure and their allies are either fools, naive, or ill-intentioned. . . . When the Church is in such a calamitous state -- which it is -- it means the culture has succeeded in converting the Church: at least large portions of it. . . .

This exhibits an alarming lack of faith and hope, which is highly characteristic of the modernists within the Church and also Protestants who attack the Church.

For Voris, only a tiny bit of the Catholic Church ("small remnant") is even left. Extreme language abounds. Truth and goodness in the Church? "Almost none" is left, so he informs us, because "those first principles are gone."

See a paper of mine on indefectibility.  I deal most directly with this topic in chapters 7 and 8 of my book, Biblical Proofs for an Infallible Church and Papacy (about 18 pages). Also, see my posting of most of the chapter on indefectibility from my book, Pensées on Catholic Traditionalism (2002). Voris is not asserting defectibility, but at some point, the more pessmistic we are about the Church and her state, it can become, in some respects, a sort of "quasi-defectibility" outlook.

Voris must be held accountable for his words. He says a lot of true stuff, mixed in with extreme statements such as these. He goes far beyond simply attacking nominalism and liberalism in the Church, among however many members fall into those. If he restricted himself to that, I'd be with him at least 80% of the time, if not more. But he goes after the Church herself at times, it seems to me.  That's what distinguishes the radtrad (or some mainstream "traditionalists") from the plain old orthodox Catholic like myself, who detests modernism every bit as much as Voris does (I can assure all).

So Voris and his many thousands of followers don't see anything positive around them to highlight? All they can do is moan and groan and complain about the Church, and if anyone points that out, they have their head in the sand and are pretending that everything is perfect (as if that's ever been the case at any time in the history of the Church)?

Voris is not just pointing out failings. He seems to think there is barely any Church left. It's the same as always: if we don't learn from history, we're doomed to repeat it: the same old dangerous errors recycled again for our time. People love the gloom-and-doom message. For the life of me, I don't know why, but something in human nature resonates with that.

I haven't claimed that Voris is leading people into schism (someone on my Facebook page thought that I did). He's the one who talks about a "Church within a Church," etc. I think he'll lead many people to despair, however, if he keeps this up, especially if he attacks the New Mass, as he did in at least one video (which directly contradicted Pope Benedict). This is not without ill effect.

Welcome, Angel of Death (25 June 2013) 




1:38 Here seems to be the root of the issue. There are many leaders in the Church today who seem to have simply traded out the authentic gospel for a fake gospel and in so doing have erected a kind of false church: one that has many trappings of the Church of Rome, but only a shadow of her teachings. There has been a substitution of the one true faith for a more comfortable, all-embracing faith: the focus of which is more tied to the things of earth than the things of heaven. This pseudo-catholic church has some hallmarks which distinguish it greatly from the authentic faith.


I understand that Voris has liberal dissidents in mind when he states this. I have stated many times (on my blog or in my books) that I agreed with Fr. John A. Hardon's statement that modernism was the greatest crisis in the history of the Church. Thus, I'm not denying the reality of the liberal / modernist / dissident corruption or rebellion that exists on the ground. I can't possibly be subject to the standard radtrad "you have your head in the sand and think everything is perfect" canard. But I don't believe that things are nearly as bleak and hopeless as Voris thinks they are.

This reflects my following of the thought of the ultra-orthodox and saintly Fr. Hardon, who was my mentor (he received me into the Church and endorsed my first book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism in the Foreword), and an advisor to Venerable Pope Paul VI and Blessed Mother Teresa. When asked if things were as bad as Malachi Martin (another radtrad given to great exaggeration) made them out to be, he quickly replied, "no." I agree with him on both scores, and I submit that he had far more "inside information" about the Church than layman Voris thinks he does.

I had a discussion with two supporters of Voris, in which I pressed the point of lack of specificity in Voris' claims, and wondered what good it does to make such grandiose, pessimistic, "oh woe is us" claims without providing detailed, particular information, so that the layperson can avoid the "false church" and the "pseudo catholic church."

Gay Clergy and The Catholic Media (18 June 2013)



1:16 The establishment Catholic media is not composed of journalists, strictly speaking, but of lapdog careerists . . . these people are not concerned with bringing you one shred of news about the troubles inside the Church, but, protecting their own financial interests by painting a dubious picture of things being kind of okay in the Church. See, it's actually very simple. When you tune into big-name Catholic TV outlets or radio shows with big-name professional Catholics . . . you hear all kinds of great things and solid talks about the teachings of the Church, and let me underscore, they are very solid talks. But you won't hear a word . . . about the real problems in the Church. That's because if they open their mouths about these other problems, they will be disinvited, their books won't be published, their articles will be pulled from official Catholic papers and websites, or they will be off the air . . . In short, they won't tell you the truth, because they're too cowardly to pay the personal financial cost.

U-huh: like Voris is not now a "big name": with (by his own reckoning in the last few weeks) 16 million views of his videos? Like, uh, he's not making any money doing what he does, or is not "professional" himself in almost the same sense that he trashes when others do it?

I could just as easily say (if I wanted to be as cynical as Voris often is), that there is no reason for Voris to mess with his own formula of relentless gloom-and-doom / "oh woe is us" fare. It's not likely he'll change anytime soon, either. I don't mind someone thriving at what they do; I do mind a great deal that he's thriving on exaggerating the extent of the problems we face (both it's real and imagined problems), in public.

Folks who "tell the real truth" like Voris says he does are off the air at EWTN [Voris named it in the video, along with Ave Maria Radio, Immaculate Heart Radio, Catholic Answers, and National Catholic Register]? Well, let's take an example of that. That happened to Robert Sungenis. Was it because he told God's honest truth and all the sissy Frisbee-tossing "neo-Catholics" couldn't take it?

Well, not quite. It's because Robert has chosen to pursue wacko, extremist views of geocentrism (the sun goes around the earth and the 10,000-year-old earth doesn't rotate), anti-Semitism, the silly notion that God can change His mind (which is rank heresy, in violation of the de fide doctrines of divine immutability and simplicity), faked moon landings, trashing of the canonization of Blessed Pope John Paul II the Great; even going after Pope Benedict XVI (usually the darling of radtrads and "traditionalists" alike) because he beatified him. Recently Bob claimed on his site that Ven. Pope Paul VI was a practicing sodomite. All par for the course . . .

Nothing here in the least objectionable, is there? Was it only that the big boys at EWTN couldn't handle Bob's relentless truthtelling and the profundities of his scientific wisdom and heresies concerning the very doctrine of God? Bob specializes in talking about the "real problems" in the Church: you know, stuff like Pope Paul VI being a sodomite and Pope John Paul the Great being one of the worst popes in history . . .

Granted, he is a rather extreme example, but he is an example, nevertheless, of someone who was "run off of" EWTN: one that doesn't fit into the sweeping picture that Voris creates about who is and isn't allowed in these major Catholic venues.


* * * * *

Debate on Michael Voris; Particularly Focusing on His Exaggerated Statements and Pessimistic Views Regarding the Church

This occurred on my Facebook page, on 2 July 2013. Adrian Combe's words will be in blue; Felix Lopez' words in green.
* * * * *
Do you think the Church is 'all but destroyed'?

No. I'm fighting against this position. This is what Michael Voris thinks, according to his video that I critiqued a few days ago.

So, in your opinion, when God said to St. Francis, "Go and rebuild my church, which, as you see, is falling into ruin?", was He espousing the position of quasi-defectibility?

That's not near-destruction. It was a rough period (one of many through history): arguably much worse than what we are going through today. But St. Francis, like other saints, took the long view and had faith enough to look ahead to the coming revival. This is not what Voris is expressing. Here is an example of his rhetoric, from June 21:

The Catholic Church in the West: the establishment Catholic Church, no longer operates with the same set of first principles that we once did [sic]. The entire self-understanding, our own self-conception has been jettisoned, and been replaced by an entirely new and rotten sense: rotten to the proverbial core. Leaders have traded away the notions of truth and goodness and beauty in exchange for accommodation and indifferentism and political correctness.

It would be difficult to find two people more vastly different in outlook than St. Francis (one of my very favorite saints) and Michael Voris. Good grief. Do you really want to go down that road?

I agree that Voris has fallen into this trap. In my opinion, it is probably more emotional/psychological though in which a fact check and some meditation, critical thinking can help relieve. It is not easy to see the good when there is so much rampant moral and spiritual decay that surrounds us daily and then to make matters worst we find it in our local parish on Sunday.

Actually, you can only rebuild something that has fallen apart, so not only does your distinction fail, the position from which St. Francis was operating was more dire than anything that Voris has expressed. 

Sheer nonsense . . . It's a matter of degree. The Church has had many rough periods. I cited Chesterton twice in the chapter I posted above, writing about all the decadent periods, but I didn't include those, to cut down on length. He, like St. Francis, was an optimist, and he noted that the Church always bounced back. He wasn't making a point that the Church's tradition has "been replaced by an entirely new and rotten sense".


'Sheer nonsense' is not an argument. There is nothing that Michael has said, or that anyone could say, that is more dire than a church that is falling into ruin and needs to be rebuilt.

I didn't say it was an argument (nice try): it was a comment on your very weak and misinformed argument.

What he is obviously stating is that most church leaders seem to have embraced this 'new and rotten sense' - that is not something I have heard disputed.

Obviously, your unfounded assertion that my argument is flawed...is not an argument either.  

Again, I didn't say it was! I gave a little bit of an argument, about the folly of comparing St. Francis and his outlook to Voris and his.  So who is part of this "Church within a Church"? Is my bishop (Vigneron)? How about me? Mark Shea? How about all those "head-in-the-sand" "neo-Catholics" at Catholic Answers and EWTN and the Coming Home Network (where I worked for three years)? Are they part of the "remnant" or already on the dark side?

Voris knows all this stuff, apparently. So let him start giving us some specifics, so we can be on the true and narrow path.

This is just a difference in speaking style and personal psychological perspective. In Michael Voris' view the ESTABLISHMENT Church refers to the purely career drivin professional Catholics that Pope Benedict and Pope Francis frequently lamented, it is not much different than from St. Francis' time and no one is saying that Voris is a Saint nor perfect, I agree that his tone and lamentations occassionally go overboard, but not always, he does give kudos to good clerics and other figures every now and then. Keep in mind that in News commentary (both secular and religious) we tend to only focus on bad news.

Okay; cool, Felix. So maybe you will answer my questions from my last comment, if Adrian doesn't.

I don't think Voris ever claimed to have that crystal ball the way you are claiming. But, I think you or I or Felix or Michael can talk to someone for five minutes and figure out where they are at, for the most part. If someone can explain three different ways why the Church's teaching on artificial contraception is true, it is unlikely they are a dissenting Catholic.

So you'll take a pass on interpreting Voris' rhetoric and actually applying it to real life. Duly noted. Much easier to just throw out the near-blanket condemnations, that collapse as soon as someone asks, "well, who do you have in mind there: how about some examples to illustrate your point? How about Mr. So-and-So?" In other words, what good does it do to say "the Church is 99% bad guys" and then when asked to identify who are the good guys, Voris and his followers go mute . . .

Isn't it supremely important to know who the good guys are, in such a dire end-times scenario? Or is it just expected that we lop up everything Voris says: that he is in effect the ultimate "good [trustworthy / orthodox] guy" in the Church and the go-to guy?

Voris has named names and I don't see this as a problem. Neither does the National Catholic Register. I am pretty sure you have named a name or two on your blog.

Okay, so are the ones I named on the light or dark side? The rhetoric is useless if it can't be applied. It's just . . . empty rhetoric (precisely as I have been critiquing it).

I am quite certain Voris has not put himself in this position of infallibility you are insinuating. I am not really sure what you are getting at. You have named folks, good and bad, as has Voris...  

Okay, Adrian. Everyone can see you're unwilling to tell us who are the good and bad guys. You won't even say that the ones I cited are the good guys; part of this infinitesimally small so-called "remnant." That's fine; I knew it was almost certain that you wouldn't, or couldn't, so my point is illustrated. Thanks!

Sorry, not biting...you are doing the same thing Voris does, but you think he should be criticized for it.  

Right. Nice try.


Actually, what I stated, was that you have named good folks as good, and bad folks as bad, just as Voris does (which you did not deny, I noticed).

I certainly have named names, as an apologist. I don't say they are out of the Church, though. I don't classify radtrads that way: only sedevacantists, and SSPX is a borderline scenario. Voris' claims are far more dramatic than mine. I talk in apologetic terms; he does in apocalyptic and prophetic and  melodramatic terms.

You have every right to disagree with Voris style and opinions. But, keep in mind, just as there are different equally valid and legitimate theologies in the Church (e.g. Thomist, Augustinian, Eastern, Latin, etc.) there are different equally legitimate and valid apologetics and evangelizing approaches. The remnant Church inside a Church that Voris refers to is the Pope, Bishops, Priests, religious, and laity who uphold Church teaching without illegitimate compromise (this includes the other apologists you cite). Voris does often criticize those who deny that there is a crisis, you cannot fix something you dont believe to need repair.

Felix,

It's standard radtrad boilerplate to accuse anyone who disagrees that the (very real) crisis in the Church must be defined in radtrad terms (with Vatican II, ecumenism, and the New Mass as the usual boogeymen) has their head in the sand. I have been accused of that in recent threads, myself. It's very common.

So I am asking about the people and groups I mentioned, who are often classified in such a way.

As far as I know, Voris hasn't stated anyone is outside the Church. Like you, he notes when someone teaches something that is at variance with the faith. 'Apocalyptic, prophetic and pathetically melodramatic' are descriptors of style, not substance; moreover, they are subjective, rather than objective - and thus, unworthy as subject of debate for an apologist, especially one of your calibre.
 
1) Voris is 100% orthodox and in good standing with the Church just as you and your associations which you named. I know this from personally watching both his vortexes daily and his various other programs. The vortex show is just 1% of all the programing and is intended solely to address internal Church problems and a few political issues in which I do not always agree with him on. It is more opinion and punditry than anything else, much like the Curt Jester blog but in video format.

2) There is honestly not much difference from what you and others do with Voris, the difference is he does so in VIDEO format with his own personal style born from his own human experience and passion. Are errors said or bad choices of words sometimes, certainly just as errors and bad choices of words have been exposed in the various apologists and associations you cited as well, whom I like by the way. Most of the errors at the end of the day are usually personal hypotheses, innocent flawed interpretation, or whatever.

3) I am afraid that you are accusing Voris of intentional malice for things that even Saints have done and you yourself have done in good clear conscience. The Saints also often spoke melodramatic and in apocalyptic style terms. Dont you read any of the medieval mystics?

You're still sidestepping the substance of what I am driving at. He's making extreme statements. They are untrue in the first place. Things are not nearly this bad as he makes out. It harms people's faith.

If he wants to make out that the remaining remnant is so tiny, then why doesn't he tell us who is in it? His followers cannot ultimately defend what he says, or interpret who in the world he is talking about.

Voris is neither a saint nor a mystic. Making these comparisons do not help your case. St. Francis built an entire order and revolutionized Christian monasticism. Many mystics did the same. There's no comparison at all. 

It's not "orthodox" to trash the Novus Ordo Mass when Pope Benedict XVI specifically decreed in 2007 that both forms of the Latin rite were equally acceptable. That is not the Mind of the Church; sorry. People have to choose between his outlook and the pope's in this regard. Everyone knows what side I come down on when it is a question of John Doe vs. the Holy Father. If I wanted to dissent against the popes I'd still be a Protestant; I would have never entered the Church.

I saw that whole documentary on the mass. I do agree he went overboard in it and kind of offended my own sensibilities a bit. I see what you're saying and give you that, but I figure it is just bad insensitive choice of words driven by passion. I give him a pass on it and overlook it only because I can relate to coming across as rude and overly exaggerated when I don't mean it. For one thing, it is easier to be more careful and calculating in writing than in oral statements. I dont think he even waits that long to carefully edit, or ask for independent feedback, and then publish his videos. He probably posts them almost instantly. The mass destruction video was taped in live audience with no feedback from the audience nor did the priest he interviewed even say anything about his presentation.

Why wouldn't he retract it, then, if it went overboard? It gives his opinions! This is what he believes. I don't think it is simply a matter of sloppy language and going overboard; getting carried away or whatever.

His high testosterone ego would be offended to call very late attention to his mistake, lol. But, people have to bring it to his attention first of course.

You said it, not me. LOL Imagine if I had said that? ROFL

He does see the Extraordinary Form as superior and the Ordinary Form as inferior. I don't necessarily disagree with him. I think however the best of both should be syncretized into one as Pope Benedict wanted but couldn't.

The problem is that when he told a bishop that he often receives complaints of being too forceful the bishop beat his breast and said that the bishops have not been forceful enough. From then on he figured it was license to boil peoples' blood all he wants, lol. That bishop is the one shown on the website giving a complete blanket endorsement of everything he does.

* * * * *
Further thoughts of mine on Voris and his views, drawn from statements of mine on Facebook threads:
Voris trashed the Novus Ordo; Pope Benedict did not; he made a perfectly acceptable analysis of the Mass and some of the problems of translation, implementation, liturgical mediocrity, etc. But what he stated as pope in 2007 is perfectly clear, and Voris seeming apathy about it, or outright rejection of it should be alarming to any orthodox Catholic. Here is what Voris stated about the Novus Ordo Mass in his video, Weapons of MASS Destruction:

We're talking about: is this authentic Catholic worship? Is this how Catholics worship God? Is this a break from the past, that's so violent, that you can't really say this is authentic Catholic worship, as we have understood it? Has the theology behind the Mass been so manipulated and twisted and deformed, that Catholics going to this Mass miss something of the theology, compared to talking about the traditional Latin Mass: the Tridentine Mass? . . . Has your faith been damaged, on the other hand? Yes. . . . We're talking about, is this authentic Catholic worship; is what's going on behind the scenes a possible detriment to your faith? . . . In short, the prayer, the public worship of the New Mass; the question is: is it more Protestant or more Catholic? That is a very, very key question. . . . The language used in the New Mass confuses nearly every aspect of the Mass: the idea of sacrifice; who's actually offering the sacrifice . . . with all of these confusions, the very nature of the faith itself is undermined. . . . the former theology is largely dismissed. . . . The question is, what is it substituted with? When that old theology, the Catholic theology is gone, something else is brought in. 

What is the something else? In my paper critiquing this, I specifically contrast Voris with Summorum Pontificum from 2007.

If someone can persuade Michael Voris about the extremity of his bashing of the Mass, and excessively gloomy views, then potential problems ahead could be nipped in the bud and avoided. He could do a lot of good -- a lot more good -- if he straightened out these problems that I and other critics observe in his presentations.

I think he has a good heart and good intentions. I've seen other "traditionalists" moderate their views and become more sensible. It's not too late at all for Voris to do the same.

***
I've always said that if my choice was your usual Novus Ordo Mass (with all the abuses of the rubrics and silly things many of us despise) and a Tridentine Mass, I'd be at the latter in a second. I've been blessed to not have such a dilemma. Our parish offers a very reverent Novus Ordo Mass in English and Latin: an extremely rare occurrence. So I can worship as I most desire: reverent, traditional Novus Ordo, such as what Pope Benedict XVI was calling for. I think the Tridentine is very beautiful as well and it is almost always reverent.

If I didn't have my parish, I'd be at the Tridentine, most likely. Our parish (a merger of three parishes) offers that, too.

***

Voris makes many accurate and correct observations (credit where it is due). Even the Catholic Culture site (that rates Catholic web pages and endeavors), when cautioning readers about his site, acknowledged that, and so do I. I'm critiquing his extremist rhetoric, here it occurs, which is not always, and indeed, occurs only in a fairly small portion of his video talks.

Jay McNally, a friend and Catholic journalist, asked me: 

I just did a search on your web site for "Dignity/Detroit" and can't find anything. Tell me, have you ever published so much as a sentence about Dignity in Detroit? If not, why not?

I don't follow "internal" Church issues of this sort; I basically stick to apologetics (no one can do everything). That's my calling, and I write about more than enough along those lines (very wide-ranging), so that I don't want to "spread myself too thin." What I do do, however, is write about underlying principles and premises of liberalism and modernism and how they are wrong and evil. I have a web page about liberalism, as I do about radtradism.

I think Voris has a valid point to some degree that these things aren't covered enough in the Catholic press. I fully agree that journalists in the Catholic world ought to expose scandals and so forth: as long as there is solid evidence for any given thing (so as not to fall into detraction and calumny). It should be done. These are valid and important issues and questions.
But I think Voris is dreadfully wrong to make the sweeping charge that it is all because of money and cowardice that all these groups and people don't cover stuff like he does. There is a happy medium here between saying nothing and sometimes becoming extreme in language and pessimism, as Voris does.

The sex scandal illustrates my own personal approach. I have collected many articles by people who have followed and investigated it. If I personally have little or no knowledge about a particular thing, then I'll cite and link to people who do. I didn't try to hide anything. It was all upfront from the beginning (as could be proven with Internet Archive). I agree with all the outrage that has been expressed about bishops not doing something sooner. It was pathetic and heartbreaking. This is the fruit of allowing liberals and practicing sodomites to run rampant in the Church. Many in the Church bought into pop psychology.

Jay McNally again:

Dave, have you written about about Jane Schaberg at UDM [University of Detroit-Mercy], or about the recent disgraceful march into dissidence of Madonna University? All of these topics are perfectly within the scope of what you write about. I'd be eager to see any report you have that gives names of the specific professors -- especially the bishops and priests incardinated in Detroit -- attached to lies they teach. My bet is no you haven't published anything about any of this even though all of these are scandals are in your own backyard and you surely know quite a bit about them.

No; again, as explained above, I'm not a journalist, nor do I specialize in the Church's internal affairs. I don't deny that a lot of rotten things go on. Modernism is the greatest crisis in the history of the Church. I differ with Voris (and "traditionalists:" and radtrads, generally) about how bad things are, the causes, and what to do about it.

I'm an "ideas" person, so I go after the underlying false principles. So, e.g., on my liberal page I attack the false premises of Joseph Fitzmyer and liberal Catholic historians who deny infallibility. Or I go after liturgical mediocrity and violations of the rubrics. I scathingly criticize Catholics who contracept or who vote for Obama.

What you call for is simply not my area and I don't pretend to know things I don't know, or spread myself too thin (just as you probably haven't written books about Luther and Calvin or edited quotations books of Aquinas, Augustine, Wesley, and Newman, or published 38 books, as I have). I know what my calling is and I stick to it. I agree that journalists and those who do write about internal affairs of the Church ought to cover these things: with the right attitude in terms of being faithful, obedient Catholics.

I don't know specifics about them because I don't follow this sort of stuff (I wasn't even familiar with the name of the professor you mentioned at UDM). I'm busy writing my books. No one person can do everything. Now, Jay, you do cover this stuff, so according to the common sense notion of "division of labor" you should write about it, because you know about it; send it to me, with lots of specifics and proven facts, and then I'll publish it (at least some; it can't take over my pages).

Deal? I'm happy to spread truth from you or any person who speaks it. But I won't countenance radtrad garbage. Facts about modernist dissidents are fine; bashing the Church and Vatican II and the New Mass are not fine, and are wrong. I know where the line lies there. If you critique a specific person and their wrong ideas with facts, that is fair game. Saying, on the other hand, that it is because JPII was a liberal incompetent, or because of VII, or the New Mass, is radtrad nonsense.

If something is pointed out (like this), I readily agree that it is wrong and scandalous. Voris goes too far: this is my point. Mixed in with much true analysis he takes the next step and starts making sweeping, prejudicial, uncharitable charges. He's directly attacking people's motives, and that's wrong. I wouldn't even treat a liberal dissident the way he has treated fellow orthodox Catholics. He can't read their hearts. He doesn't have that information of what motivates a Scott Hahn or Pat Madrid, or the folks at Catholic Answers or EWTN (or myself, by logical extension).
How does one "refute" a claim that entire classes of well-known Catholics have a rotten motivation of cowardice and putting money above truth? How does one disprove that this is the case? Basically, they have to do what Voris demands (which is unreasonable): talk about what he wants them to talk about. Otherwise, they are unscrupulous cowards with ill motivations. It's agree with Voris or you are a scoundrel . . . (so I must be one too, I guess).

That's absurd. He assumes from the outset what he is trying to "prove": that the only reason they don't do what he wants them to do, is nefarious motivation and lack of ethical principle. That's a cheap shot and atrocious debating (terrible logic), without question. It's also calumnious and slanderous.

If we were to believe Voris and his implication in one of his videos (that I critiqued elsewhere),  Catholic Answers, Hahn, Madrid, Grodi, Ave Maria Radio, EWTN, and all the rest of what radtrads call "Neo-Catholicism" (Voris uses the term "establishment") are a bunch of cowards, and place filthy lucre and their own income above truth-telling and what is right for the Church. 




***
Voris could have done this video by making the point that I agree with: Catholic journalists should cover these sorts of scandals much more than they do. I would have agreed with that; even "rah-rahed." But he had to take it to the next level (as he so often does) and start attacking many people's and groups' motivations.

If he'd omit the extreme, conspiratorial-type statements and rhetoric, I'd have little problem with him at all. It's those statements that I have critiqued in my (now) four blog papers about him.

***

It's a very plain ethical difference. If Voris had said the following, I would have agreed with him 100%:

"Many people in Catholic journalism ought to speak out more about problems in the Church, such as modernism and the gay agenda: do true, critical, investigative reporting."

But he didn't do that. Rather, he was sweeping, named names, and went after motives:

The establishment Catholic media is . . . composed of . . . lapdog careerists . . . protecting their own financial interests by painting a dubious picture of things being kind of okay in the Church. . . . In short, they won't tell you the truth, because they're too cowardly to pay the personal financial cost.

The first statement is true and doesn't attack individuals, groups, and motives. It's constructive criticism, and I agree 1000%. The second makes out that all these people and groups (that I'm quite associated with, myself) are ill-motivated, lack integrity, lie to themselves every day, live merely for money rather than truth and goodness. Vastly different . . . Why can't people see what I take to be utterly, absolutely obvious and undeniably wrong? I don't disagree with all that Voris says. Much of what he says is true: even most of it. I disagree with this stuff, that I cite.

Yet critiquing the more extreme statements (what I'm doing) somehow immediately gets interpreted as "disagreeing with everything Voris says" [which would be a ludicrous denial that modernism is a crisis], and then further morphs into "smearing" him and being motivated solely by wanting to personally "attack" him. One guy said I was "jealous" of him. It's ridiculous.

***

I'm passionate about this issue at hand, not because I desire to run Voris down, but because, to me, it is a crucial and elementary ethical principle at stake. The larger issue of "how bad is it in the Church?" is also in play, but mainly I was concerned with the personal attacks.

***  I think there is a happy medium. We as laypeople have every right to at least receive answers to sensible questions to bishops, as to why certain heterodox groups are allowed to function within the Church and are even funded. Bishops aren't gods: above all possible discussion or queries. When it comes to this sort of thing, I agree with what Jay was saying, and much of what Michael Voris said.

On the other hand, we need to also respect the office and grant the benefit of the doubt, in charity, to bishops. It should be somewhere in the middle. We don't just sit here like dummies, blindly accepting everything, no matter how seemingly dubious (the extreme of "obedience" and faithfulness). And we don't go crazy bashing everything on a daily basis, as radtrads do.

So as usual, I am sort of in the middle, looking for that "golden mean" . . . I am often sympathetic to many "trad" (even radtrad) concerns, but I criticize them when they go too far, and stress obedience to those in the hierarchy that God established in the Church.

***

Let's get some things straight:

1) I'm not against everything Michael Voris says; I agree with him on quite a bit, as I do with trads and even radtrads.

2) I concentrated on one portion of a nine-minute video (maybe 30 seconds) where he attacked the motivations of large portions of the Catholic apologetics and "outreach" community: basically accusing them of being spineless, unscrupulous cowards who are in it just for the money. This is ethically indefensible. Perhaps some of them are that. But he doesn't know this. He can't read minds and hearts, and making sweeping judgments like this is not only outrageous but absurd as well.

3) I think bishops should be accountable, and should be asked "hard questions," and I have offered to Jay that he cross-post some of his hard-hitting critiques on my page.

***

I have been going through many Voris videos today, looking to critique further extreme rhetoric as I ran across it, but I found myself in agreement with a lot of what he was saying (and saying it very well, I might add; he's very professional in the polish and style of his presentation; I never denied that). So I've reconsidered my critique of him. I think I've been too harsh, in accusing him of "quasi-defectibility" and even in being a radtrad. I now think he straddles on the line between mainstream "traditionalism" (which I am close to in many ways, myself) and the far more extreme radtradism.

When he trashes and bashes the Novus Ordo (as he has: make no mistake) that is crossing the line. He seems to imply at times a disdain for Vatican II and legitimate ecumenism (two hallmarks of radtradism). But you have to look pretty hard and it's not certain. Other statements of his are extreme and indefensible, but could possibly (in all charity and extending every possible benefit of the doubt) be explained as just getting carried away, or as deliberate use of exaggeration as a sort of shock tactic.

In any event, I have softened somewhat, and went through my latest two blog papers, revising the language where necessary, and adding a bit of new material. I also took down two lengthy threads off of my Facebook page, and added portions of my comments above.  There is still plenty of hard-hitting critique (probably far more than Michael Voris would appreciate or take kindly to!), where I think he has crossed lines into objectionable polemics, but it's a milder critique than it was, by a considerable margin. Before it was a blistering critique; now it is just a critique. :-) But my two earlier papers (on Amazing Grace and the New Mass issue) have not been changed at all.

Once again, it is shown that I can change my mind (to some extent here), and I freely (in this case, happily) admit that I was wrong on some of these matters of classification. Whoever doesn't know that about me clearly doesn't know me very well, because I have had many many changes of mind on lots of things during my life.

As it stands, I have four blog papers up about Michael Voris, including this one. The others are:

Michael Voris' Denigration of the Ordinary Form of the Mass vs. Pope Benedict XVI's 2007 Decrees  

Is Amazing Grace an "Anti-Catholic" Hymn? [Michael Voris says yes]

Critique of Three Highly Questionable Statements from Michael Voris About the State of the Church


*****   

Debate on Michael Voris; Particularly Focusing on His Lack of Specificity and Quasi-Defectibility Views

This occurred on my Facebook page, on 2 July 2013. Adrian Combe's words will be in blue; Felix Lopez' words in green.
* * * * *
Do you think the Church is 'all but destroyed'?

No. I'm fighting against this position. This is what Michael Voris thinks, according to his video that I critiqued a few days ago.

So, in your opinion, when God said to St. Francis, "Go and rebuild my church, which, as you see, is falling into ruin?", was He espousing the position of quasi-defectibility?

That's not near-destruction. It was a rough period (one of many through history): arguably much worse than what we are going through today. But St. Francis, like other saints, took the long view and had faith enough to look ahead to the coming revival. This is not what Voris is expressing. Here is an example of his rotgut, from June 21:

The Catholic Church in the West: the establishment Catholic Church, no longer operates with the same set of first principles that we once did [sic]. The entire self-understanding, our own self-conception has been jettisoned, and been replaced by an entirely new and rotten sense: rotten to the proverbial core. Leaders have traded away the notions of truth and goodness and beauty in exchange for accommodation and indifferentism and political correctness.

It would be difficult to find two people more vastly different in outlook than St. Francis (one of my very favorite saints) and Michael Voris. Good grief. Do you really want to go down that road?

I agree that Voris has fallen into this trap. In my opinion, it is probably more emotional/psychological though in which a fact check and some meditation, critical thinking can help relieve. It is not easy to see the good when there is so much rampant moral and spiritual decay that surrounds us daily and then to make matters worst we find it in our local parish on Sunday.

Actually, you can only rebuild something that has fallen apart, so not only does your distinction fail, the position from which St. Francis was operating was more dire than anything that Voris has expressed. 

Sheer nonsense . . . It's a matter of degree. The Church has had many rough periods. I cited Chesterton twice in the chapter I posted above, writing about all the decadent periods, but I didn't include those, to cut down on length. He, like St. Francis, was an optimist, and he noted that the Church always bounced back. He wasn't making a point that the Church's tradition has "been replaced by an entirely new and rotten sense" and all the other hogwash that Voris spews out with regularity.


'Sheer nonsense' is not an argument. There is nothing that Michael has said, or that anyone could say, that is more dire than a church that is falling into ruin and needs to be rebuilt.

I didn't say it was an argument (nice try): it was a comment on your very weak and misinformed argument.

What he is obviously stating is that most church leaders seem to have embraced this 'new and rotten sense' - that is not something I have heard disputed.

Obviously, your unfounded assertion that my argument is flawed...is not an argument either.  

Again, I didn't say it was! I gave a little bit of an argument, about the folly of comparing St. Francis and his outlook to Voris and his. 
So who is part of this "Church within a Church"? Is the pope in there? Is my bishop (Vigneron)? How about me? Are Mark Shea and other critics of radtrads part of it? How about all those "head-in-the-sand" "neo-Catholics" at Catholic Answers and EWTN and the Coming Home Network (where I worked for three years)? Are they part of the "remnant" or already on the dark side?

Voris knows all this stuff, apparently. So let him start giving us some specifics, so we can be on the true and narrow path, with him as the Pied Piper.

This is just a difference in speaking style and personal psychological perspective. In Michael Voris' view the ESTABLISHMENT Church refers to the purely career drivin professional Catholics that Pope Benedict and Pope Francis frequently lamented, it is not much different than from St. Francis' time and no one is saying that Voris is a Saint nor perfect, I agree that his tone and lamentations occassionally go overboard, but not always, he does give kudos to good clerics and other figures every now and then. Keep in mind that in News commentary (both secular and religious) we tend to only focus on bad news.

Okay; cool, Felix. So maybe you will answer my questions from my last comment, if Adrian doesn't.

I don't think Voris ever claimed to have that crystal ball the way you are claiming. But, I think you or I or Felix or Michael can talk to someone for five minutes and figure out where they are at, for the most part. If someone can explain three different ways why the Church's teaching on artificial contraception is true, it is unlikely they are a dissenting Catholic.

So you'll take a pass on interpreting Voris' flatulent rhetoric and actually applying it to real life. Duly noted. Much easier to just throw out the near-blanket condemnations, that collapse as soon as someone asks, "well, who do you have in mind there: how about some examples to illustrate your point? How about Mr. So-and-So?" In other words, what good does it do to say "the Church is 99% bad guys" and then when asked to identify who are the good guys, Voris and his followers go mute . . .

Isn't it supremely important to know who the good guys are, in such a dire end-times scenario? Or is it just expected that we lop up everything Voris says: that he is in effect the pope we are to follow [half tongue-in-cheek] . . . the ultimate "good [trustworthy / orthodox] guy" in the Church and the go-to guy?

Voris has named names and I don't see this as a problem. Neither does the National Catholic Register. I am pretty sure you have named a name or two on your blog.

Okay, so are the ones I names on the light or dark side? The rhetoric is useless if it can't be applied. It's just . . . empty rhetoric (precisely as I have been critiquing it).

I am quite certain Voris has not put himself in this position of infallibility you are insinuating. I am not really sure what you are getting at. You have named folks, good and bad, as has Voris...  

Okay, Adrian. Everyone can see you're unwilling to tell us who are the good and bad guys. You won't even say that the ones I cited are the good guys; part of this infinitesimally small so-called "remnant." That's fine; I knew it was almost certain that you wouldn't, or couldn't, so my point is illustrated. Thanks!

Sorry, not biting...you are doing the same thing Voris does, but you think he should be criticized for it.
Right. Nice try.


Actually, what I stated, was that you have named good folks as good, and bad folks as bad, just as Voris does (which you did not deny, I noticed).

I certainly have named names, as an apologist. I don't say they are out of the Church, though. I don't classify radtrads that way: only sedevacantists, and SSPX is a borderline scenario. Voris' claims are far more dramatic than mine. I talk in apologetic terms; he does in apocalyptic and prophetic and pathetically melodramatic terms.

You have every right to disagree with Voris style and opinions. But, keep in mind, just as there are different equally valid and legitimate theologies in the Church (e.g. Thomist, Augustinian, Eastern, Latin, etc.) there are different equally legitimate and valid apologetics and evangelizing approaches. The remnant Church inside a Church that Voris refers to is the Pope, Bishops, Priests, religious, and laity who uphold Church teaching without illegitimate compromise (this includes the other apologists you cite). Voris does often criticize those who deny that there is a crisis, you cannot fix something you dont believe to need repair.

Felix,

It's standard radtrad boilerplate to accuse anyone who disagrees that the (very real) crisis in the Church must be defined in radtrad terms (with Vatican II, ecumenism, and the New Mass as the usual boogeymen) has their head in the sand. I have been accused of that in recent threads, myself. It's very common.

So I am asking about the people and groups I mentioned, who are often classified in such a way.

As far as I know, Voris hasn't stated anyone is outside the Church. Like you, he notes when someone teaches something that is at variance with the faith. 'Apocalyptic, prophetic and pathetically melodramatic' are descriptors of style, not substance; moreover, they are subjective, rather than objective - and thus, unworthy as subject of debate for an apologist, especially one of your calibre.
 
1) Voris is 100% orthodox and in good standing with the Church just as you and your associations which you named. I know this from personally watching both his vortexes daily and his various other programs. The vortex show is just 1% of all the programing and is intended solely to address internal Church problems and a few political issues in which I do not always agree with him on. It is more opinion and punditry than anything else, much like the Curt Jester blog but in video format.

2) There is honestly not much difference from what you and others do with Voris, the difference is he does so in VIDEO format with his own personal style born from his own human experience and passion. Are errors said or bad choices of words sometimes, certainly just as errors and bad choices of words have been exposed in the various apologists and associations you cited as well, whom I like by the way. Most of the errors at the end of the day are usually personal hypotheses, innocent flawed interpretation, or whatever.

3) I am afraid that you are accusing Voris of intentional malice for things that even Saints have done and you yourself have done in good clear conscience. The Saints also often spoke melodramatic and in apocalyptic style terms. Dont you read any of the medieval mystics?

You're still sidestepping the substance of what I am driving at. He's making extreme statements. They are untrue in the first place. Things are not nearly this bad as he makes out. It harms people's faith.

If he wants to make out that the remaining remnant is so tiny, then why doesn't he tell us who is in it? In other words, he has hung himself with his own ridiculous rhetoric. This is what happens if anyone takes the time to actually critique it. His followers cannot ultimately defend what he says, or interpret who in the world he is talking about.

But he doesn't expect to get critiques at all, let alone to deign to interact with them. He expects that everyone will blithely, happily accept every pearl of wisdom that drops from his mouth. I'm over here interacting with you guys who like Voris, and defending my own positions. Where does Voris do that? He almost certainly won't come here (though I have said he is most welcome and would be treated courteously and fairly).

Voris is neither a saint nor a mystic. Making these comparisons do not help your case. St. Francis built an entire order and revolutionized Christian monasticism. Many mystics did the same. Voris bitches about the Church constantly and makes ridiculous statements. There's no comparison at all. What is he doing about all these things he moans (and sometimes lies) about?

I'm out here actually educating people about the Catholic faith, so they can live it and love it, proclaim and defend it: again: a vast contrast to what Voris does. How does tearing down the Church at every turn and throwing out gross exaggerations of the problems we have in the Church help anyone in any way?

It's not "orthodox" to trash the Novus Ordo Mass when Pope Benedict XVI specifically decreed in 2007 that both forms of the Latin rite were equally acceptable. That is not the Mind of the Church; sorry. People have to choose between his outlook and the pope's in this regard. Everyone knows what side I come down on when it is a question of John Doe vs. the Holy Father. If I wanted to dissent against the popes I'd still be a Protestant; I would have never entered the Church.

I saw that whole documentary on the mass. I do agree he went overboard in it and kind of offended my own sensibilities a bit. I see what you're saying and give you that, but I figure it is just bad insensitive choice of words driven by passion. I give him a pass on it and overlook it only because I can relate to coming across as rude and overly exaggerated when I don't mean it. For one thing, it is easier to be more careful and calculating in writing than in oral statements. I dont think he even waits that long to carefully edit, or ask for independent feedback, and then publish his videos. He probably posts them almost instantly. The mass destruction video was taped in live audience with no feedback from the audience nor did the priest he interviewed even say anything about his presentation.

Why wouldn't he retract it, then, if it went overboard? It gives his opinions! This is what he believes. I don't think it is simply a matter of sloppy language and going overboard; getting carried away or whatever.

His high testosterone ego would be offended to call very late attention to his mistake, lol. But, people have to bring it to his attention first of course.

You said it, not me. LOL Imagine if I had said that? ROFL

He does see the Extraordinary Form as superior and the Ordinary Form as inferior. I don't necessarily disagree with him. I think however the best of both should be syncretized into one as Pope Benedict wanted but couldn't.

The problem is that when he told a bishop that he often receives complaints of being too forceful the bishop beat his breast and said that the bishops have not been forceful enough. From then on he figured it was license to boil peoples' blood all he wants, lol. That bishop is the one shown on the website giving a complete blanket endorsement of everything he does.

*****   

New Testament Epistles on Bringing About Further Sanctification and Even Salvation By Our Own Actions

Of course, we always have to mention, for the sake of our Protestant brethren (who quite often misunderstand this), that we agree that God is the source of all good things, by His grace, including the grace for us to do any good thing whatsoever. That's all Catholic teaching, and is presupposed.

My present point, however, is to note that the New Testament also highlights our part of the bargain. We do things in our free will, and these put us in good or better stead with God, and we can achieve merit through these actions. This is the works part of faith and works.
[all passages RSV]
* * * * *  
Romans 2:7 to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life;

Romans 6:19 . . . For just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification.

Romans 12:2 Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

1 Corinthians 5:7 Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, . . .

2 Corinthians 7:1  Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, and make holiness perfect in the fear of God.

1 Thessalonians 2:10  You are witnesses, and God also, how holy and righteous and blameless was our behavior to you believers;

Ephesians 4:24 and put on the new nature, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness.

Ephesians 6:14 Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 

Colossians 3:12 Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassion, kindness, lowliness, meekness, and patience, 

1 Timothy 2:15 Yet woman will be saved through bearing children, if she continues in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.  

1 Timothy 6:11  But as for you, man of God, shun all this; aim at righteousness, godliness, faith, love, steadfastness, gentleness.

2 Timothy 2:21-22 If any one purifies himself from what is ignoble, then he will be a vessel for noble use, consecrated and useful to the master of the house, ready for any good work. So shun youthful passions and aim at righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call upon the Lord from a pure heart.

Hebrews 10:22 let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, with our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience . . .

Hebrews 11:4 By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he received approval as righteous, God bearing witness by accepting his gifts;

Hebrews 12:11, 14  For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it. . . . Strive for peace with all men, and for the holiness without which no one will see the Lord.

James 1:4 And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing.

James 3:18 And the harvest of righteousness is sown in peace by those who make peace.

James 4:8  Draw near to God and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you men of double mind.

1 Peter 1:22  Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere love of the brethren, love one another earnestly from the heart.

1 John 3:3, 7  And every one who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure. . . . Little children, let no one deceive you. He who does right is righteous, as he is righteous.


 *****

Did the Older Luther's Illness and Frustration Significantly Impact His Negative Rhetoric? Four Major Luther Historians, Calvin, Bullinger, and I Say Yes; Anti-Catholic Polemicist James Swan Says No

I made the following statement in my paper earlier today, entitled: Martin Luther's Positive Statements on the Christian Status of the Catholic Church as a Theological Worldview: Documentation:

Another relevant factor to take into consideration is Luther's ravings when he was an old, embittered, sick man (disgusted even with most Protestants, including his own party, let alone Catholics): often regarded as from 1543 till his death in 1546. Many -- if not most -- Luther scholars think they should be taken with a large grain of salt: certainly not literally all down the line. Some of these rantings are blatantly anti-Catholic in nature; other famous pontifications from this period are his jeremiads against the "Sacramentarians" (Protestants who denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist) and the Jews.

The context had to do with Luther's view of the Catholic Church: whether it still retained Christianity or could be regarded as Christian in some sense. I documented his affirmative views in that paper, but I also noted that he said many negative things, and that as an old man his rhetoric was so ratcheted-up that it must be interpreted a bit differently, taking his illness and frustrations, etc. into consideration.

Now, that rankled and distressed James Swan a (how shall we put it, as charitably as possible?) particularly factually challenged anti-Catholic Reformed polemicist, to such an extent that he felt compelled to rail about it on his site, Boors All : as usual, neither naming me nor linking to the paper where I stated this, so that folks could examine context (even though he quotes me directly).

All of this is quite ironic and ridiculous, of course, since Swan rants constantly about how Catholic apologists care nothing about context. Moreover, if I dare to show up on his site to give the link to the latest paper of mine that he is obsessed with as of late, let alone dare to comment and present another side, he deletes everything I put up. Can't be too careful these days, in preserving cynical propaganda against criticism from those wascally wicked "Romanists"!! He's a world-class intellectual coward. Here is what he wrote today:

Oh no with Luther, if he's saying something Romanists don't like which disagrees with their preconceived historical revisionism, Luther isn't "developing." Rather, he was such an erratic thinker that he contradicted himself month to month, and... to make it worse, he was "an old, embittered, sick man" so anything he said later in his life can't be trusted. . . .

Luther did not consider the defenders of the papacy to be Christians, and even in 1520, in a restrained way he's saying the same thing he did 20 years later when he was "an old, embittered, sick man." 

First of all, I didn't say that we should entirely discount "anything" Luther wrote when he was old, sick, and embittered. I simply stated that it was "another relevant factor" and that (Protestant) Luther scholars "think they should be taken with a large grain of salt: certainly not literally all down the line." Big wow! This is classic Swan tactics: distort what the opponent says; don't cite it in context; don't provide a link for the same ends; don't allow the person to respond on your site; then proceed to tear down the straw man that isn't even the person's actual opinion, in an effort to defame and belittle. I never claimed that later Luther statements were to be completely disregarded or dismissed. But in Swan's fertile brain, readily given to myths and fairy-tales (above all, whenever the detested, despised "Romanists" are involved), somehow I did do that.

I shall now proceed to back up everything I stated from Protestant biographers, and even from John Calvin and Heinrich Bullinger: contemporaries, fellow "reformers" and acquaintances of Luther (if only by letter). No one will see such things on Swan's site, because it goes against his purpose: pillory and lie about Catholic apologists and critics of Luther at all costs (including truth and intellectual fairness and integrity).



Roland H. Bainton


[author of Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther (New York: Mentor Books, 1950): without question the most well-known and probably most renowned -- certainly most influential -- Luther biography in English; citations from the Internet Archive version, that can easily be searched by word; excerpts from chapter 22: "The Measure of the Man"]

The last sixteen years of Luther's life, from the Augsburg Confession in 1530 to his death in 1546, are commonly treated more cursorily by biographers than the earlier period, if indeed they are not omitted altogether. There is a measure of justification for this comparative neglect because the last quarter of Luther's life was neither determinative for his ideas nor crucial for his achievements. . . .

. . . the conflicts and the labors of the dramatic years had impaired his health and made him prematurely an irascible old man, petulant, peevish, unrestrained, and at times positively coarse. This is no doubt another reason why biographers prefer to be brief in dealing with this period. There are several incidents over which one would rather draw the veil, but precisely because they are so often exploited to his discredit they are not to be left unrecorded. The most notorious was his attitude toward the bigamy of the landgrave, Philip of Hesse. . . . Luther's solution of the problem can be called only a pitiable subterfuge.

. . . The second development of those later years was a hardening toward sectaries, notably the Anabaptists.

[Bainton goes on to detail how Luther and Melanchthon adopted the view of capital punishment against them]

. . . Another dissenting group to attract Luther's concern was the Jews.

[Bainton analyzes -- with obvious disapproval, as in all these cases -- the horrible and famous statements that Luther made against them, stating, "One could wish that Luther had died before ever this tract was written."]

. . . The third group toward whom Luther became more bitter was the papists. His railing against the pope became perhaps the more vituperative because there was so little else that could be done. Another public appearance such as that at Worms, where an ampler confession could be made, was denied Luther, and the martyrdom which came to others also passed him by. He compensated by hurling vitriol Toward the very end of his life he issued an illustrated tract with outrageously vulgar cartoons. In all of this he was utterly unrestrained.

. . . However much the superb defiance of the earlier days might degenerate into the peevishness of one racked by disease, labor, and discouragement, yet a case of genuine need would always restore his sense of proportion and bring him into the breach. . . . Luther's later years are, however, by no means to be written off as the sputterings of a dying flame. If in his polemical tracts he was at times savage and coarse, in the works which constitute the real marrow of his life's endeavor he grew constantly in maturity and artistic creativity.

There you have it, folks. I outrageously (?) describe Luther as "an old, embittered, sick man . . . disgusted . . .." Two of those words are undeniable ("old" and "sick"); so the only "controversial" things I said was that he was "embittered" and "disgusted" (with various shortcomings among Protestants and all of his other concerns).

Bainton, his leading biographer (and great admirer) describes him, on the other hand, as "prematurely an irascible old man, petulant, peevish, unrestrained, and at times positively coarse. . . . more bitter . . . [producer of]  outrageously vulgar cartoons . . . utterly unrestrained. . . . the peevishness of one racked by disease, labor, and discouragement . . ."

I stated that his "last years" were roughly from 1543-1546. Bainton dates them from 1530 on: 13 years earlier than my given dates. He even notes how historians generally greatly underemphasize the last 16 years of Luther's life. Thus, for Bainton (and Church historians generally), this is a far bigger factor in Luther analysis than in my view. Yet I am supposedly so "anti-Luther" and they are not.

Which is worse? I get trashed as a mere partisan of "Romanism" who cares nothing about historical fact, because I supposedly despise Luther (I don't: I admire him in many ways but am also a strong critic of his theological errors and whoppers about the Catholic Church and catholics: none of it entailing hatred or calumny), while Bainton gets a pass for stating far worse than I did? That is James Swan's Alice-in-Wonderland world, where facts are irrelevant and logic is a joke, and Catholics always wrong, wherever they disagree with Protestants: about anything whatever!


Martin Brecht


[author of Martin Luther: The Preservation of the Church: 1532-1546 (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993, from the 1987 German original; translated by James L. Schaaf) ]

 . . . recent presentations have treated the last two decades of his life more or less cursorily . . .

It is well known that the personality of the old Luther displayed great tensions, both in deed and thought, His shortness and rudeness with his friends, although perhaps explainable, continually caused offense. In the many tasks that he had to perform, it was unavoidable that he also repeatedly made serious errors both ion practice and in theory. (Foreword, pp. xi-xii)

In February [1545] he was engaged in writing Against the Roman Papacy, an Institution of the Devil . . . It was written in an extremely vehement manner, full of crude statements and vulgar expressions. He was probably unable, because of his declining abilities, to organize it in as well-balanced a manner as he planned. To this extent, it is not one of Luther's best works, but its offensiveness and formalistic weaknesses need not divert us from seeing that once again he was dealing with essential matters in his conflict with the papacy. (p. 359)


Although the manifestation of Christianity in the papacy was a pollution to Luther -- theologically, juridically, ecclesiastically, and politically -- his reaction was still inappropriate, for, conditioned in his anger and eschatological bias, he could scarcely see any positive alternative in the controversy that concerned him until his end. (p. 367)

Mark U. Edwards, Jr.


[author of Luther's Last Battles: Politics and Polemics, 1531-1546 (Ithaca, New York, and London: Cornell University Press, 1983) ]

It becomes difficult to escape the impression that Against Hanswurst[1541] represented an escalation in the coarseness and abusiveness of the controversy . . .Heinrich Bullinger of Zurich [fellow Protestant "reformer"] . . . did characterize it in a later letter to Bucer [another "reformer"] as 'unbecoming, completely immodest, entirely scurrilous, and frivolous,' but his evaluation remained private. (p. 154)

Here is an excerpt from Luther's work, that Edwards cites on pp. 150-151:

You are both the real Hanswursts, bumpkins, louts, and boors . . . Both of you, father and son, are incorrigible, honorless, perjured rogues . . . But suppose what you will, so do it in your pants and hang it around your neck and make a sausage of it for yourself and gobble it down, you gross asses and sows!

Edwards:

The last major polemic of Luther's life [Against the Papacy at Rome, Founded by the Devil (March 1545) ] . . . was intended to inform Protestants of the true horror of the papal antichrist and to discredit the council convened at Trent . . . Without question it is the most intentionally violent and vulgar writing to come from Luther's pen. (p. 163)

The Introduction for this hideous tract, in Luther's Works, the 55-volume American edition, describes it as "the most bitter of Luther's polemic writings" (LW, 41, 259-290)


Preserved Smith

During his later years Luther's polemic never flagged. His last book, Against the Papacy of Rome, founded by the Devil, surpassed Cicero and the humanists and all that had ever been known in the virulence of its invective . . . Of course such lack of restraint largely defeated its own ends. The Swiss Reformer Bullinger called it "amazingly violent," and a book than which he "had never read anything more savage or imprudent." Our judgment of it must be tempered by the consideration that Luther suffered in his last years from a nervous malady and from other painful diseases, due partly to overwork and lack of exercise, partly to the quantities of alcohol he imbibed, though he never became intoxicated.

(Reformation in Europe, Book I of a two-volume edition of The Age of Reformation, New York: Collier Books, 1962; originally 1920, 102)

John Calvin



Writing to Luther's right hand man Philip Melanchthon, Calvin stated:

Your Pericles [Luther] allows himself to be carried beyond all due bounds with his love of thunder . . .

But, you will say, his disposition is vehement, and his impetuosity is ungovernable; -- as if that very vehemence did not break forth with all the greater violence when all shew themselves alike indulgent to him, and allow him to have his way, unquestioned. If this specimen of overbearing tyranny has sprung forth already as the early blossom in the springtide of a reviving Church, what must we expect in a short time, when affairs have fallen into a far worse condition?

(28 June 1545; Letter CXXXVI in Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters, edited by Henry Beveridge and Jules Bonnet, Volume 4: Letters, Part 1: 1528-1545, translated by David Constable, Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1858; reprinted by Baker Book House [Grand Rapids, Michigan], 1983, 466-467)

He was even more critical in a letter to Bullinger (the "reformers" had a knack of griping about each other in such letters):

I hear that Luther has at length broken forth in fierce invective, not so much against you as against the whole of us [referring to Luther's Short Confession Concerning the Supper] . . .

But while he is endued with rare and excellent virtues, he labours at the same time under serious faults. Would that he had rather studied to curb this restless, uneasy temperament which is so apt to boil over in every direction. I wish, moreover, that he had always bestowed the fruits of that vehemence of natural temperament upon the enemies of the truth, and that he had not flashed his lightning sometimes also upon the servants of the Lord. Would that he had been more observant and careful in the acknowledgment of his own vices. Flatterers have done him much mischief, since he is naturally too prone to be over-indulgent to himself. It is our part, however, so to reprove whatsoever evil qualities may beset him, as that we may make some allowance for him at the same time on the score of these remarkable endowments with which he has been gifted.

(25 November 1544; Letter CXXII, ibid., 432-433)

See also my related 2004 paper, Biographer Roland Bainton and Other Protestant Historians On "Controversial" Issues Concerning Martin Luther, and lots more Luther analyses on my Martin Luther web page. 


*****

Martin Luther's Positive Statements on the Christian Status of the Catholic Church as a Theological Worldview: Documentation

These are excerpts from a larger dialogue that also discussed Calvin's view (with this new introduction and summary). All words are Luther's except for a few comments from scholars on his views and positions, or my introductory comments, which will be in blue, and the bibliographical source information: in green. It should be noted that Luther also makes tons of negative statements about the Catholic Church, but these are mostly directed towards the hierarchy or the papacy, which he does not equate with the Catholic Church as a whole. He regards the latter as "antichrist," etc. For documentation of these motifs, see my lengthy paper on that topic.
 Luther's thought develops (from both true and false premises that he holds), and he is also quite capable of -- and not infrequently guilty of -- either self-contradiction or vacillation (on any topic). Moreover, it is always of the utmost importance in interpreting Luther, to take into consideration context and his particular "mood" or the literary technique he uses at any given time. He often utilizes sarcasm and hyperbole and other non-literal devices to get his point across. Because of this, he is often cited out of context, and unjustly so: making people think he taught something that he did not, in fact, teach.
Another relevant factor to take into consideration is Luther's ravings when he was an old, embittered, sick man (disgusted even with most Protestants, including his own party, let alone Catholics): often regarded as from 1543 till his death in 1546. Many -- if not most -- Luther scholars think they should be taken with a large grain of salt: certainly not literally all down the line. Some of these rantings are blatantly anti-Catholic in nature; other famous pontifications from this period are his jeremiads against the "Sacramentarians" (Protestants who denied the Real Presence in the Eucharist) and the Jews.

[note: the above paragraph has become a bone of contention and was scathingly critiqued by the persistently idiotic and slanderous anti-Catholic Reformed polemicist, James Swan.  I replied at length, thoroughly backing myself up, in my paper, Did the Older Luther's Illness and Frustration Significantly Impact His Negative Rhetoric? Four Major Luther Historians, Calvin, Bullinger, and I Say Yes; Anti-Catholic Polemicist James Swan Says No]

In any event, the positive statements documented below (mostly intended literally, as far as I can tell) mean what they mean, and have to be interpreted in their own right; not simply rationalized away or dismissed en masse because he said "bad stuff" somewhere else (as my opponent in the larger dialogue foolishly attempted to do, in classic anti-Catholic polemical form). Nor is it insignificant that leading Luther scholars back up my present point of view.

Amateurs and polemicists and wannabe apologists or historians on the Internet (with an agenda and ax to grind) can and do claim all sorts of things (often with a ludicrous and self-important dogmatism); what Luther scholars or Church historians believe, on the other hand, is quite a different story indeed. Thus, I always try to massively back up my contentions with scholars (and primary documentation), for this very reason: because I know full well that my opinion as an amateur historian and student of Church history carries little or no weight without them. Nor would I ever want to give the slightest impression that they had any weight, minus this documentation and whatever scholarly support I can find to aid my arguments.

* * * * *
Baptism is especially important with regard to Luther's statements.  He thought that the Catholic Church possessed true baptism. Now, when we analyze what Luther thought about baptism, it's clear that he thought that Catholics could very well be saved by means of it. Here is what Luther expressed along these lines:


Little children . . . are free in every way, secure and saved solely through the glory of their baptism . . . Through the prayer of the believing church which presents it, . . . the infant is changed, cleansed, and renewed by inpoured faith. Nor should I doubt that even a godless adult could be changed, in any of the sacraments, if the same church prayed for and presented him, as we read of the paralytic in the Gospel, who was healed through the faith of others (Mark 2:3-12). I should be ready to admit that in this sense the sacraments of the New Law are efficacious in conferring grace, not only to those who do not, but even to those who do most obstinately present an obstacle.   (The Babylonian Captivity of the Church, 1520, from the translation of A.T.W. Steinhauser, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, revised edition, 1970, 197)  
Likewise, in his Large Catechism (1529), Luther writes:

 Expressed in the simplest form, the power, the effect, the benefit, the fruit and the purpose of baptism is to save. No one is baptized that he may become a prince, but, as the words declare [of Mark 16:16], that he may be saved. But to be saved, we know very well, is to be delivered from sin, death, and Satan, and to enter Christ's kingdom and live forever with him . . . Through the Word, baptism receives the power to become the washing of regeneration, as St. Paul calls it in Titus 3:5 . . . Faith clings to the water and believes it to be baptism which effects pure salvation and life . . .
When sin and conscience oppress us . . . you may say: It is a fact that I am baptized, but, being baptized, I have the promise that I shall be saved and obtain eternal life for both soul and body . . . Hence, no greater jewel can adorn our body or soul than baptism; for through it perfect holiness and salvation become accessible to us . . .

(From edition by Augsburg Publishing House [Minneapolis], 1935, sections 223-224, 230, pp. 162, 165)
1522  
 

Ewald M. Plass's magisterial 1667-page volume, What Luther Says (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1959) -- I have it in my own library -- provides more evidence. He writes, himself, on p. 128:

. . . while scoring papal innovations, Luther never ceased to confess indebtedness to the Church of Rome and to regard it as a Christian organization. He expresses this clearly in a Church Postil sermon on John 15:26 - 16:4, in connection with John 16:3. Between the Church of Rome and the Lutheran Church a relation exists similar to that which once existed between the Jewish Church and the apostolic Christian Church . . .

I found this sermon online. It dates from 1522. Here is an excerpt, with his "ecumenical" sentiments, in-between a mountain of hostility and his usual lies about the Catholic Church:

28. Accordingly, we concede to the papacy that they sit in the true Church, possessing the office instituted by Christ and inherited from the apostles, to teach, baptize, administer the sacrament, absolve, ordain, etc., just as the Jews sat in their synagogues or assemblies and were the regularly established priesthood and authority of the Church. We admit all this and do not attack the office, although they are not willing to admit as much for us; yea, we confess that we have received these things from them, even as Christ by birth descended from the Jews and the apostles obtained the Scriptures from them. . . .

32. Thus we say to the papists: We grant you, indeed, the name and office, and regard these as holy and precious, for the office is not yours, but has been established by Christ and given to the Church without regard for and distinction of the persons who occupy it. Therefore, whatever is exercised through this office as the institution of Christ, and in his name and that of the Church, is at all times right and proper, even though ungodly and unbelieving men may participate. We must distinguish between the office and the person exercising it, between rightful use and abuse. The name of God and of Christ is always holy in itself; but it may be abused and blasphemed. So also, the office of the Church is holy and precious, but the person occupying it may be accursed and belong to the devil.  . . .

43. We admit that the papists also exercise the appointed offices of the Church, baptize, administer the sacrament etc., when they observe these things as the institution of Christ, in the name of Christ and by virtue of his command (just as in the Church we must regard as right and efficacious the offices of the Church and baptism administered by heretics), . . .

1528

 
In the first place I hear and see that such rebaptism is undertaken by some in order to spite the pope and to be free of any taint of the Antichrist. In the same way the foes of the sacrament want to believe only in bread and wine, in opposition to the pope, thinking thereby really to overthrow the papacy. It is indeed a shaky foundation on which they can build nothing good. On that basis we would have to disown the whole of Scripture and the office of the ministry, which of course we have received from the papacy. We would also have to make a new Bible. . . . 

We on our part confess that there is much that is Christian and good under the papacy; indeed everything that is Christian and good is to be found there and has come to us from this source. For instance we confess that in the papal church there are the true holy Scriptures, true baptism, the true sacrament of the altar, the true keys to the forgiveness of sins, the true office of the ministry, the true catechism in the form of the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the articles of the creed . . . I speak of what the pope and we have in common . . . I contend that in the papacy there is true Christianity, even the right kind of Christianity and many great and devoted saints.  

. . . The Christendom that now is under the papacy is truly the body of Christ and a member of it. If it is his body, then it has the true spirit, gospel, faith, baptism, sacrament, keys, the office of the ministry, prayer, holy Scripture, and everything that pertains to Christendom. So we are all still under the papacy and therefrom have received our Christian treasures. 

. . . We do not rave as do the rebellious spirits, so as to reject everything that is found in the papal church. For then we would cast out even Christendom from the temple of God, and all that it contained of Christ.

[251] . . . We recall that St. John was not averse to hearing the Word of God from Caiaphas and pays attention to his prophecy [John 11:49 f.] . . . Christ bids us hear the godless Pharisees in the seat of Moses, though they are godless teachers . . . Let God judge their evil lies. We can still listen to their godly words . . .

Still we must admit that the enthusiasts have the Scriptures and the Word of God in other doctrines. Whoever hears it from them and believes will be saved, even though they are unholy heretics and blasphemers of Christ.

. . . [256] if the first, or child, baptism were not right, it would follow that for more than a thousand years there was no baptism or any Christendom, which is impossible. For in that case the article of the creed, I believe in one holy Christian church, would be false . . . [257] If this baptism is wrong then for that long period Christendom would have been without baptism, and if it were without baptism it would not be Christendom. 

(Concerning Rebaptism: A Letter to Two Pastors, 1528, Luther's Works ["LW"], Vol. 40, 225-262; translated by Conrad Bergendoff, pp. 231-232, 251, 256-257) 


1531   

. . . even though it is in the midst of wolves and robbers, that is, spiritual tyrants, it nevertheless is the church. Although the city of Rome is worse than Sodom and Gomorrah, yet Baptism, the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, the reading (vox) and text of the Gospel, Holy Scriptures, the ministry, the name of Christ, and the name of God remain in her.

(Luther's exposition of Galatians 1:2 in his 1531 commentary; quoted by Plass, ibid., p. 130, #375A)

1532


This testimony of the universal holy Christian Church, even if we had nothing else, would be a sufficient warrant for holding this article [on the sacrament] and refusing to suffer or listen to a sectary, for it is dangerous and fearful to hear or believe anything against the unanimous testimony, belief, and teaching of the universal holy Christian churches, unanimously held in all the world from the beginning until now over fifteen hundred years.

(Letter to Albrecht, Margrave of Brandenburg and Duke of Prussia, 1532; from Roland H. Bainton, Studies on the Reformation, Boston: Beacon Press, 1963, p. 26; WA, Vol. XXX, 552) 

This letter, apparently passed over by Luther’s Works, Vol. 50 (Letters III), was, thankfully, cited at some length by the celebrated Protestant historian Philip Schaff, and refers to, as Schaff notes, “the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper”:

Moreover, this article has been unanimously believed and held from the beginning of the Christian Church to the present hour, as may be shown from the books and writings of the dear fathers, both in the Greek and Latin languages, -- which testimony of the entire holy Christian Church ought to be sufficient for us, even if we had nothing more. For it is dangerous and dreadful to hear or believe anything against the unanimous testimony, faith, and doctrine of the entire holy Christian Church, as it has been held unanimously in all the world up to this year 1500. Whoever now doubts of this, he does just as much as if he believed in no Christian Church, and condemns not only the entire holy Christian Church as a damnable heresy, but Christ Himself, and all the Apostles and Prophets, who founded this article, when we say, “I believe in a holy Christian Church,” to which Christ bears powerful testimony in Matt. 28.20: “Lo, I am with you alway, to the end of the world,” and Paul, in 1 Tim. 3.15: “The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.”

(The Life and Labours of St. Augustine, Oxford University: 1854, 95. Italics are Schaff’s own; cf. abridged [?] version in Preserved Smith, The Life and Letters of Martin Luther, Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1911, pp. 290-292; cf. Johann Adam Mohler, Symbolism, 1844, 400)

Schaff, writing in The Reformed Quarterly Review (July, 1888, p. 295), cites the passage yet again, and translates one portion a little differently (my italics):
The testimony of the entire holy Christian Church (even without any other proof) should be sufficient for us to abide by this article and to listen to no sectaries against it.  

1533

By His miraculous power God nonetheless preserved under the pope, first, Holy Baptism, then, in the pulpit, the text of the holy Gospel in the language of each country, thirdly, the forgiveness of sins and absolution in both private confession and the public services; fourthly, the holy Sacrament of the altar . . . fifthly, the calling and ordaining to the pastorate, the ministry, or the care of souls . . . finally, also prayer, the Psalter, the Lord's Prayer, the Creed, and the Ten Commandments; likewise, many good hymns and songs . . . Therefore Christ with His Holy Spirit surely was with his own and sustained Christian faith in them . . .

(in Plass, ibid., p. 129, #375)  1538  The papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and we have received the Holy Scriptures, baptism, the sacrament, and the office of preaching from them . . . we ourselves find it difficult to refute it . . . Then there come rushing into my heart thoughts like these: Now I see that I am in error. Oh, if only I had never started this and had never preached a word! For who dares oppose the church, of which we confess in the creed: I believe in a holy Christian church . . .
(Sermons on John 14-16, 1538 [on Jn 16:1-2], Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, translated by Robert C. Schultz, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966, 336; WA, Vol. 46, 5 ff. [edited by Cruciger]; cf. LW, Vol. XXIV, 304)
Thus we are also compelled to say: “I believe and am sure that the Christian Church has remained even in the papacy” . . . some of the papists are true Christians, even though they, too, have been led astray, as Christ foretold in Matt. 24:24. But by the grace of God and with His help they have been preserved in a wonderful manner.
(Sermons on John 14-16, 1538 [on Jn 16:1-2], LW, Vol. XXIV, 305)
[I]t is necessary to consider their beliefs and teachings. If I see that they preach and confess Christ as the One sent by God the Father to reconcile us to the Father through His death and to obtain grace for us, then we are in agreement, and I regard them as my dear brethren in Christ and as members of the Christian Church.
Yet the proclamation of this text – together with Baptism, the Sacrament of Christ, and the articles of the Creed – has remained even in the papacy, although many errors and devious paths have been introduced alongside it. . . . All errors notwithstanding, the true church has never perished.
(Ibid., 309)


1539


We know that Luther regarded Catholic baptism as valid; therefore, by ineluctable logic, Catholics are Christians, on that basis, if he regarded baptized people as such.

Luther (like Calvin) was not rebaptized as an adult (and excommunicated Protestant), and regarded his Catholic baptism as valid (since, after all, he himself argued against rebaptism). Luther clarified his opinion on baptism in his 1539 treatise, On the Councils and the Church:

I excuse St. Cyprian . . . for he held that the heretics had no sacrament at all and that therefore they had to be baptized like other heathen. . . . But our Anabaptists admit that our baptism and that of the papacy is a true baptism, but since it is administered and received by unworthy people, it is no baptism at all. St. Cyprian would never have concurred in this, much less practiced it.

(Selected Writings of Martin Luther: 1529-1546, Fortress Press, 1967, p. 238)

* * * 


That Luther regarded properly baptized persons as Christians is backed-up by the most well-known Luther biographer, Roland H. Bainton. Referring to his opinion in 1526, he stated:

. . . he had relinquished the hope of gathering the ardent and had turned to the education of the masses. There should be neither a sect nor a cell, but the Church should coincide with the community and all those baptized in infancy should be accounted Christian.

(Studies on the Reformation, Boston: Beacon Press, 1963, p. 38)

*****

Exchange with Anti-Catholic Calvinist Austin Reed on the Definition of "Christian" and His Denial that "Good" Magisterial, Tridentine (Etc.) Catholics Are Christians

 Anti-Catholic efforts to "prove" that Catholicism isn't Christan . . .

Austin's words [see his Facebook page] will be in blue. This exchange began on one Facebook thread, spread to another, and then to this website paper.

See the Facebook Introduction to this paper and further discussion.

* * * * *
I am not anti-Catholic and I am personally offended by the term, in the same way I am offended by the term "homophobe". I love Catholic people and have several near and dear Catholic friends.

We've been through this before, Austin. "Anti-Catholicism" as I use it, in accordance with scholarly usage, means "one who denies that Catholicism is a Christian system of theology." It has nothing to do with behavior per se (in its basic definition). [see past papers on the topic: one / two / three / four]
 

There is also some usage, granted, of behavior, as in this instance [in an article I cross-posted], which was clearly anti-Catholic not only doctrinally, but physically, in terms of persecution. Thus, events of this sort will be described as "anti-Catholic" in the sense that, e.g., a violent Catholic attack on Protestants in Belfast might be described as "anti-Protestant." Words can have different and multiple meanings as well.

But in my own frequent usage it refers (almost always) to doctrine only. Thus, an anti-Catholic could love Catholics around him to death and have nothing but benevolent and warm fuzzy feelings, wanting to see them saved, etc. He remains anti-Catholic if he believes that in order to be a good Christian and be saved, one has to be a "bad" Catholic (i.e., denounce various Catholic tenets that are abominated by the anti-Catholic and regarded as subversive of true Christianity).

I've reiterated all this 97,603 times through the years, and no doubt I will continue to be misunderstood (to my endless frustration), but it's all perfectly consistent and linguistically / logically sound.

My point is, the use of the term "anti-Protestant" suggests an appeal to pity. Every consistent Protestant will fall under the designation "anti-Catholic" using your criteria . . . 

That's sheer nonsense. The vast majority of Protestants regard Catholics as fellow Christians, and do so with perfect consistency, just as we do the other way around. For a Protestant to say that we are not Christians makes mincemeat of any reasonable, sensible, solid definition of "Christian". 

We are Protestants because we're protesting the doctrine of Justification as set forth in the Council of Trent. Anyone who adheres to that understanding of Justification is unequivocally NOT a Christian.

Hogwash. Define "Christian" and explain where your definition comes from and why all Christians are bound to it. 

Dave, your assumptions are massive and totally unwarranted. You know as well as I do that the alleged historicity of Roman Catholicism has been critiqued over and over again, and I am yet to see any serious responses (and yes I've read your Sola Scriptura book). I would love to see a Roman Catholic make a historical case that Protestantism has historically allowed for consistent Roman Catholics to be Christians.

That's easy. Luther acknowledged that the Catholic Church was Christian in the basic sense of the word, and the debt of Lutheranism to it. I have several of his comments to that effect. His main beef was with the papacy. He regarded Catholics on a much higher plane than he did Zwinglians, whom he regarded as definitely damned. Even Calvin accepts Catholic baptism. That makes us Christians. [see documentation below]

You're a good and sharp guy. With more education, I believe you'll come around and see the foolishness and utter untenability of the anti-Catholic position. Sometimes these things take time.
*** 

That's all I've said: regard us as fellow Christians and I'll never classify you as an anti-Catholic. It ain't rocket science. Disagree on all the usual stuff, but don't take the intellectually suicidal route of denying that the entity that you came from (and must have come from, historically speaking) is Christian. 

. . . which would really make the term completely useless. Its clearly a term loaded with emotional baggage that is totally superfluous and unhelpful. I would be happy to dialogue with any Catholic who wants to interact with Protestant truth claims regarding any doctrine, but I have a very difficult time someone serious who regards those who disagree with him as "anti-Catholic". 

Refute the scholars in my papers about the term if you disagree . . . I've told you how I use it.

I'm happy to dialogue with any Protestant who regards me as a fellow Christian (as I am). Otherwise, I'd much rather dialogue with an atheist, because that is a more consistent position than that of the small anti-Catholic wing of Protestantism, that takes the ridiculous and indefensible position of Protestantism being Christian while the Catholicism from which it derived somehow is not. It's impossible to defend such a position historically, biblically, or logically.

This is why seven anti-Catholics turned down a debate on that: at which time I gave up on debating theology with anti-Catholics altogether (in 2007). [and I have to make an exception to my usual rule to engage in this present one] [see papers about these anti-Catholic "live chat" debate refusals: one / two / three / four / five ]
Are you referring to the challenge you issued in the Alpha and Omega chat channel?
No. Jimbo White was only one of seven who declined. 

I'm pretty sure they've responded to your claims any number of times.

I'm sure "they" think they have. There needs to be a serious debate about the definition of "Christian" before anything else can be intelligently talked about. But it won't happen anytime soon. I brushed the dust off of my feet in 2007, and if anti-Catholics ever get up the guts and gumption to have that discussion, it won't be with me. They had their chance to do that and blew it.  
Martin Luther
1528

In the first place I hear and see that such rebaptism is undertaken by some in order to spite the pope and to be free of any taint of the Antichrist. In the same way the foes of the sacrament want to believe only in bread and wine, in opposition to the pope, thinking thereby really to overthrow the papacy. It is indeed a shaky foundation on which they can build nothing good. On that basis we would have to disown the whole of Scripture and the office of the ministry, which of course we have received from the papacy. We would also have to make a new Bible. . . .

We on our part confess that there is much that is Christian and good under the papacy; indeed everything that is Christian and good is to be found there and has come to us from this source. For instance we confess that in the papal church there are the true holy Scriptures, true baptism, the true sacrament of the altar, the true keys to the forgiveness of sins, the true office of the ministry, the true catechism in the form of the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the articles of the creed . . . I speak of what the pope and we have in common . . . I contend that in the papacy there is true Christianity, even the right kind of Christianity and many great and devoted saints. 

 . . . The Christendom that now is under the papacy is truly the body of Christ and a member of it. If it is his body, then it has the true spirit, gospel, faith, baptism, sacrament, keys, the office of the ministry, prayer, holy Scripture, and everything that pertains to Christendom. So we are all still under the papacy and therefrom have received our Christian treasures. . . . We do not rave as do the rebellious spirits, so as to reject everything that is found in the papal church. For then we would cast out even Christendom from the temple of God, and all that it contained of Christ.

[251] . . . We recall that St. John was not averse to hearing the Word of God from Caiaphas and pays attention to his prophecy [John 11:49 f.] . . . Christ bids us hear the godless Pharisees in the seat of Moses, though they are godless teachers . . . Let God judge their evil lies. We can still listen to their godly words . . .

Still we must admit that the enthusiasts have the Scriptures and the Word of God in other doctrines. Whoever hears it from them and believes will be saved, even though they are unholy heretics and blasphemers of Christ.

. . . [256] if the first, or child, baptism were not right, it would follow that for more than a thousand years there was no baptism or any Christendom, which is impossible. For in that case the article of the creed, I believe in one holy Christian church, would be false . . . [257] If this baptism is wrong then for that long period Christendom would have been without baptism, and if it were without baptism it would not be Christendom.

(Concerning Rebaptism: A Letter to Two Pastors, 1528, Luther's Works, Vol. 40, 225-262; translated by Conrad Bergendoff, pp. 231-232, 251, 256-257)

1532 

This testimony of the universal holy Christian Church, even if we had nothing else, would be a sufficient warrant for holding this article [on the sacrament] and refusing to suffer or listen to a sectary, for it is dangerous and fearful to hear or believe anything against the unanimous testimony, belief, and teaching of the universal holy Christian churches, unanimously held in all the world from the beginning until now over fifteen hundred years. (Letter to Albrecht, Margrave of Brandenburg and Duke of Prussia, 1532; from Roland H. Bainton, Studies on the Reformation, Boston: Beacon Press, 1963, p. 26; WA, Vol. XXX, 552)

  
This letter, apparently passed over by Luther’s Works, Vol. 50 (Letters III), was, thankfully, cited at some length by the celebrated Protestant historian Philip Schaff, and refers to, as Schaff notes, “the real presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper”:
Moreover, this article has been unanimously believed and held from the beginning of the Christian Church to the present hour, as may be shown from the books and writings of the dear fathers, both in the Greek and Latin languages, -- which testimony of the entire holy Christian Church ought to be sufficient for us, even if we had nothing more. For it is dangerous and dreadful to hear or believe anything against the unanimous testimony, faith, and doctrine of the entire holy Christian Church, as it has been held unanimously in all the world up to this year 1500. Whoever now doubts of this, he does just as much as if he believed in no Christian Church, and condemns not only the entire holy Christian Church as a damnable heresy, but Christ Himself, and all the Apostles and Prophets, who founded this article, when we say, “I believe in a holy Christian Church,” to which Christ bears powerful testimony in Matt. 28.20: “Lo, I am with you alway, to the end of the world,” and Paul, in 1 Tim. 3.15: “The Church is the pillar and ground of the truth.”
(The Life and Labours of St. Augustine, Oxford University: 1854, 95. Italics are Schaff’s own; cf. abridged [?] version in Preserved Smith, The Life and Letters of Martin Luther, Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1911, pp. 290-292; cf. Johann Adam Mohler, Symbolism, 1844, 400)

Schaff, writing in The Reformed Quarterly Review (July, 1888, p. 295), cites the passage yet again, and translates one portion a little differently (my italics):

The testimony of the entire holy Christian Church (even without any other proof) should be sufficient for us to abide by this article and to listen to no sectaries against it. 
1538 

The papacy has God’s word and the office of the apostles, and we have received the Holy Scriptures, baptism, the sacrament, and the office of preaching from them . . . we ourselves find it difficult to refute it . . . Then there come rushing into my heart thoughts like these: Now I see that I am in error. Oh, if only I had never started this and had never preached a word! For who dares oppose the church, of which we confess in the creed: I believe in a holy Christian church . . .
(Sermons on John 14-16, 1538 [on Jn 16:1-2] Paul Althaus, The Theology of Martin Luther, translated by Robert C. Schultz, Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966, 336; WA, Vol. 46, 5 ff. [edited by Cruciger]; cf. LW, Vol. XXIV, 304)
Thus we are also compelled to say: “I believe and am sure that the Christian Church has remained even in the papacy” . . . some of the papists are true Christians, even though they, too, have been led astray, as Christ foretold in Matt. 24:24. But by the grace of God and with His help they have been preserved in a wonderful manner.
(Sermons on John 14-16, 1538 [on Jn 16:1-2], LW, Vol. XXIV, 305)
[I]t is necessary to consider their beliefs and teachings. If I see that they preach and confess Christ as the One sent by God the Father to reconcile us to the Father through His death and to obtain grace for us, then we are in agreement, and I regard them as my dear brethren in Christ and as members of the Christian Church.
Yet the proclamation of this text – together with Baptism, the Sacrament of Christ, and the articles of the Creed – has remained even in the papacy, although many errors and devious paths have been introduced alongside it. . . . All errors notwithstanding, the true church has never perished.
(Ibid., 309) 
John Calvin
Institutes of the Christian Religion


Roman Primacy in Some Sense in the Early Church

I deny not that the early Christians uniformly give high honour to the Roman Church, and speak of it with reverence. . . . pious and holy bishops, when driven from their sees, often betook themselves to Rome as an asylum or haven. . . . It therefore added very great authority to the Roman Church, that in those dubious times it was not so much unsettled as others, and adhered more firmly to the doctrine once delivered, as shall immediately be better explained. . . . she was held in no ordinary estimation, and received many distinguished testimonies from ancient writers. (IV, 6:16)

Semblance of Remaining Christianity in Catholicism

Therefore, while we are unwilling simply to concede the name of Church to the Papists, we do not deny that there are churches among them. . . . In one word, I call them churches, inasmuch as the Lord there wondrously preserves some remains of his people, though miserably torn and scattered, and inasmuch as some symbols of the Church still remain—symbols especially whose efficacy neither the craft of the devil nor human depravity can destroy. (IV, 2:12)

Baptism Initiates Us Into the Body of Christ

Baptism is the initiatory sign by which we are admitted to the fellowship of the Church, that being ingrafted into Christ we may be accounted children of God. (IV, 15:1)

The last advantage which our faith receives from baptism is its assuring us not only that we are ingrafted into the death and life of Christ, but so united to Christ himself as to be partakers of all his blessings. (IV, 15:6)

[C]hildren derive some benefit from their baptism, when, being ingrafted into the body of the Church, . . . (IV, 16:9)

God, regenerating us in baptism, ingrafts us into the fellowship of his Church, and makes us his by adoption, . . . (IV, 17:1)

Baptism being a kind of entrance into the Church, an initiation into the faith, . . . (IV, 18:19)

Catholic Baptism is Valid

Such in the present day are our Catabaptists, who deny that we are duly baptised, because we were baptised in the Papacy by wicked men and idolaters; hence they furiously insist on anabaptism. Against these absurdities we shall be sufficiently fortified if we reflect that by baptism we were initiated not into the name of any man, but into the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and, therefore, that baptism is not of man, but of God, by whomsoever it may have been administered. (IV, 15:16)

[see also, Calvinist Francis Nigel Lee's paper, "Calvin on the Validity of 'Romish' Baptism"; see a list of his voluminous writings and his obituary. He was quite a scholar. May he rest in peace; he was afflicted with the horrible Lou Gehrig's disease. He treated me very kindly on one occasion (c. 1999) where I was scorned, mocked, and pharisaically consigned to hell on one ridiculous Reformed discussion forum n the Internet. He was literally the only one there who acted like a Christian should, and also, I might add, with intellectual consistency on this issue]

***
So what is your response to my reply to your very confident (and false) assertions, Austin? I fell asleep waiting 13 hours . . .
[I posted on Facebook (6-4-13) about one of anti-Catholic James White's innumerable insults at my expense. I entitled it, "One of My Favorite 'Dr.' [?] James White Potshots"]

Dave, can you provide an exegetical "paper" that interacts with the relevant passages in their original language?

No (I only know English). Can you provide an answer to my last comments in our exchange yesterday? You said you'd love to see a Catholic produce classical Protestants saying that Catholics were Christians (after saying that anyone who accepted Trent on justification couldn't possibly be a Christian). I quickly produced documentation from Luther and Calvin, and you haven't been heard from since, except to produce this non sequitur.

Sure I can. Generally I stop posting because you are either incapable of interacting with the substance of my critique or you just refer me to one of your books (one of which I purchased by the way). I'll look at it and get back to you. 

Right. So you take the same approach as White: I'm a dumbbell and imbecile, incapable of even comprehending opposing arguments, whereas I said twice recently that you were a "sharp" guy and a "good" guy. Case study in Catholic vs. anti-Catholic methodologies . . . You stopped because I am an ignoramus, but now you'll get "back to" me. That's a fascinating juxtaposition there. LOL

Dave, my point is, you felt the need to bring into question Dr. White's credentials (see the title "dr." followed by [?]) yet you are unable to provide exegesis on the same level as Dr. White and others. You're calling out Dr. White for his alleged "pot shot" while you're guilty of the very same behavior. Dave, I didn't get back to you because I severely doubt that you'll even interact with my post in any meaningful way. I try to budget my time wisely when it comes to this sort of thing. Since you've called into question my ability to answer you, I will gladly respond.

I've written several papers documenting White's bogus "doctorate." [one / two / three / four / five / six / seven / eight] That's a completely different issue from one's exegetical abilities (or alleged lack thereof). I don't go around misleading people as to my educational attainments. White simply calls me names and talks about how stupid I allegedly am, whereas my papers on his degree are filled with facts, documentation, and his own statements. No direct comparison whatever.

[I also praised White in the same Facebook thread: "I think White does good work in a number of areas: e.g., fighting various heresies, KJV-only, liberal theology, and Islam. It's when he goes on his anti-Catholic tirades that he lowers himself into the slime pit."]

You can go jump in the lake. I gave you exactly what you wanted when you asked about classical Protestants acknowledging Catholicism as Christian; you have ignored it for about 20 hours now, and then you come back with insults and act like a condescending, pompous ass, precisely as your hero White does when he has no answer to something. I ain't interested in slinging mud with you and White, but in serious argumentation, minus ad hominem.

Yeah, sounds like I struck a nerve and now you're trying to save face. This is typical RC apologetic "rah rah" talk.

Answer my replies. Put up or shut up, if you think you are so superior in intellect and argumentative prowess.

Do you want a response or not? I was lead [sic] to believe by your comment ("go jump in a lake") that you weren't interested in hearing my response.

What part of "Answer my replies" don't you grasp? Personally, you can go jump in the lake, but as a supposed great intellect, you need to have the courage of your convictions, since you have read me and all my Catholic friends here out of Christianity.

Great, I will respond to your articles.

All will end up on my website, including your obligatory anti-Catholic insults. All par for the course with you guys.

Now let's watch Austin try to "prove" that no obedient Catholic could possibly be a Christian: a position far beyond what even Luther and Calvin held. It should be very entertaining and fascinating indeed. He's done a great job digging his own pit; now he can gradually bury himself in it or else flee in abject horror of fact and logic to the hills, with insults and potshots flying, all the way up (James White style).

Wow, Dave do you want a substantive response or not? Give me a few days and I'll answer every thing you brought up in your post. I have a family and, believe it or not, obligations outside of this discussion. Believe me, you will have your response. 

[to be continued] 

*****