Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 44

Books by Dave Armstrong: Classic Catholic Biblical Apologetics: 1525-1925

 
[book currently in progress]

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Dedication (p. 3)

Introduction (p. 5) [read below]

Bibliography and Abbreviations (p. 9) [see below]

Brief Descriptions of Apologists (p. 17) [read below]

Classic Apologetics Listed by Bible Passages (p. 29)

Index of Scripture Passages

Index of Topics

* * *

INTRODUCTION
The present volume came about as a result of reflection upon two great loves of mine: biblical apologetics in defense of the Catholic faith, and compilations of great historical Catholic quotations and arguments. My overwhelming methodological emphasis, as a full-time apologist these past ten years, is on the former, as is readily seen in the titles of many of my books, such as A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (Sophia Institute Press, 2003), The Catholic Verses (Sophia, 2004), and Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths (Sophia, 2009). My website (now a blog) online since 1997, is entitled "Biblical Evidence for Catholicism."

Also among my books are compilations of the quotations of Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman and G. K. Chesterton: The Quotable Newman (Sophia: planned for 2012) and The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton (Saint Benedict Press, 2009).

As I pondered these two strains of what I like to do, writing-wise, I developed a desire to start compiling some historic Catholic apologetics that centered on biblical argumentation, as a counter to the Protestant emphasis (sola Scriptura), and came up with the idea of "post-Protestant Catholic biblical apologetics" that could be collected from online versions (a lot less typing!), since it is all public domain material.

In this way I could continue working in both areas that I really enjoy, all in one new project; and complement the quotations I have already collected. Cardinal Newman mostly concentrated on Anglicanism, insofar as he wrote (relatively little) about comparative exegesis, whereas Chesterton didn't write biblical apologetics much at all, and was far more interested in opposing the ideas of secularism and agnosticism and dealing with Protestantism from a cultural and historical standpoint.

The person I initially had in mind when pondering this book, was St. Francis de Sales, whose Catholic Controversy is a wonderfully insightful exercise in biblical apologetics, specifically against Calvinists (multiple thousands of whom he won back to the Catholic faith through his tireless efforts). This great saint and apologist will be cited frequently in this book (probably more than any other).

All in all, I shall cite thirteen classic Catholic authors, and categorize the arguments or biblical commentary in order of the biblical books. Usually, any given Bible passage will be used with reference to one topic, but occasionally multiple ones may be associated with one passage, and an index for topics will come in very handy, in order to locate those.

Only excerpts that utilize directly biblical argumentation will be used. A scriptural verse has to be cited somewhere in order for inclusion in this volume. And all or virtually all references to Catholic magisterial sources will be omitted, so that Protestant readers can observe Catholic arguments solely devoted to the text of the Bible: whether positively presenting a Catholic position, or opposing an erroneous Protestant one made from the same Bible.

I hope and pray that readers will enjoy discovering and learning from this wonderful treasure-trove of historic Catholic apologetics, as much as I enjoyed locating these precious gems and compiling them in some kind of accessible order.

I intend for this book to be a very practical aid in apologetic outreach, and a reference source. It is essentially a "Classic Catholic Apologetic Commentary": but devoted to the post-Protestant period up through the early 20th century, rather than the patristic period, or the age of St. Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics, as we often see in other similar works. Perhaps it can fill a certain "time period" void in the apologetic literature.

 * * * 

BIBLIOGRAPHY AND ABBREVIATIONS
[chronologically by death dates of the primary authors; sources will be indicated in the text by the abbreviated name of the author and number of book corresponding to those below, with page number also]
[Linked works (by title) are available to read online in their entirety, or in a few cases, to a great extent]
St. Thomas More (1478-1535) [More]
[1] Sir Thomas More: A Selection from His Works, as Well in Prose as in Verse (edited by W. Jos. Walker; Baltimore: Fielding Lucas, Jr., 1841)

[2] Life and Writings of Sir Thomas More: Lord Chancellor of England and Martyr Under Henry VIII (edited by Thomas Edward Bridgett; London: Burns & Oates, 1891)
[3] The Wisdom and Wit of Blessed Thomas More (edited by Thomas Edward Bridgett; London: Burns & Oates, 1892)
[4] Thomas More (Christopher Hollis; Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1934)
[5] Thomas More (R. W. Chambers; London: Jonathan Cape, 1935)
[6] Erasmus, Tyndale, and More (William Edward Campbell; Milwaukee: Bruce Publishing Company, 1949)
[7] St. Thomas More (E. E. Reynolds; Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image Books, 1958)
[8] The Essential Thomas More (edited by James J. Greene and John P. Dolan; New York: Mentor-Omega Books, 1967)
[9] Thomas More: A Biography (Richard Marius; New York: Vintage Books, 1985)
[10] The Thomas More / William Tyndale Polemic: A Selection (edited by Matthew DeCoursey, 2010; online PDF file)
Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536) [Era.]
[1] Selections from Erasmus: Principally from His Epistles (P. S. Allen; Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1908)
[2] Erasmus-Luther: Discourse on Free Will (edited and translated by Ernst F. Winter; New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., Inc., 1961)
[3] The Essential Erasmus (edited and translated by John P. Dolan; New York: Mentor-Omega Book, 1964)
[4] Christian Humanism and the Reformation: Desiderus Erasmus: Selected Writings (edited and translated by John C. Olin; New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1965)
[5] The Correspondence of Erasmus: Letters 1122-1251 (1520-1521) , Vol. 8 (edited by P. G. Bietenholz and translated by R. A. B. Mynors; University of Toronto Press, 1988)
[6] The Correspondence of Erasmus: Letters 1535-1657 (1525) , Vol. 11 (edited and translated by Alexander Dalzell; University of Toronto Press, 1994)
[7] Collected Works of Erasmus, Vol. 76: Controversies (edited by Charles Trinkaus; translated by Peter Macardle and Clarence H. Miller; University of Toronto Press, 1999)
[8] The Correspondence of Erasmus Letters 1658 to 1801: January 1526-March 1527 , Vol. 12 (edited by Charles G. Nauert and translated by Alexander Dalzell; University of Toronto Press, 2003)
Francisco Suárez (1548-1617) [Suar.]
[1] Defense of the Catholic and Apostolic Faith Against the Errors of Anglicanism (translated by Peter L. P. Simpson, 2011; online)

St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622) [FdS]
[1] The Catholic Controversy (translated by H. B. Canon MacKey; third revised edition, London: Burns & Oates, Ltd. / New York: Benziger Brothers, 1909) 
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) [Pas.]
[1] The Provincial Letters (translated by Thomas M'Crie; Edinburgh: John Johnstone, 1847)
[2] Miscellaneous Writings (translated by M. P. Faugère; London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, 1849)
[3] Thoughts [Pensées] (translated by W. F. Trotter) / Letters (translated by M. L. Booth) / Minor Works (translated by O. W. Wight) (New York: P. F. Collier & Son Company, 1910)
Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet (1627-1704) [Bos.]
[1] An Exposition of the Doctineof the Catholic Church in Matters of Controversy (London: Keating, Brown and Co., 1813)
[2] A Conference on the Authority of the Church (with Calvinist Minister John Claude; Baltimore: John Murphy, 1842)
[3] The History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches, Vol. 1 (New York: John Doyle, 1842)
[4] The History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches, Vol. 2 (Dublin: Richard Coyne, 1829)
St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori (1696-1787) [AdL]
[1] The History of Heresies and Their Refutation; or, The Triumph of the Church (translated by Dr. Mullock; Dublin: James Duffy, 1857)
Nicholas Cardinal Wiseman (1802-1865) [Wise.]
[1] Lectures on the Doctrines and Practices of the Roman Catholic Church (London: J. S. Hodson, 1836)
[2] Lectures on the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Blessed Eucharist, Vol. 1: Scriptural Proofs (London: Joseph Booker, 1836)
[3] Essays on Various Subjects,Vol. 1 (London: Charles Dolman, 1853) 
[4] Essays on Various Subjects,Vol. 3 (New York: P. O. Shea, 1873)
[5] Essays on Various Subjects,Vol. 4 (New York: P. O. Shea, 1873)

[6] Sermons on Our Lord Jesus Christ and on His Blessed Mother (Dublin: James Duffy, 1864)
William Bernard Ullathorne (1806-1889) [Ull.]
[1] The Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God: An Exposition (London: Richardson and Son, 1855)
Robert Hugh Benson (1871-1914) [Ben.]
[1] The Religion of the Plain Man (London: Burns & Oates, 1906)
[2] Non-Catholic Denominations (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1910)
[3] Christ in the Church: A Volume of Religious Essays (St. Louis: B. Herder, 1911)
[4] The Friendship of Christ (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1912)
[5] Paradoxes of Catholicism (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1913)
[6] Spiritual Letters of Monsignor R. Hugh Benson to One of His Converts (London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1915)
[7] Sermon Notes: Second Series: Catholic (edited by C. C. Martindale; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1917)
James Cardinal Gibbons (1834-1921) [Gib.]
[1] The Faith of Our Fathers (Baltimore: John Murphy Company, 93rd revised and enlarged edition, 1917)
Ferdinand Prat, S. J. (1857-1938) [Prat]
[1] The Theology of St Paul, Vol. 1(translated from the 11th French edition by John L. Stoddard; Westminster, Maryland: The Newman Bookshop, 1952; originally 1923)
[2] The Theology of St Paul, Vol. 2 (translated from the 10th French edition by John L. Stoddard; Westminster, Maryland: The Newman Bookshop, 1952; originally 1923) 
Karl Adam (1876-1966) [Adam]
[1] The Spirit of Catholicism (translated by Dom Justin McCann; Garden City, New York: Doubleday Image, 1954 [originally 1924] )* * *
BRIEF DESCRIPTIONS OF APOLOGISTS[mostly from Wikipedia and the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia]
St. Thomas More (1478-1535)
English lawyer, social philosopher, author, statesman and noted Renaissance humanist; counselor to King Henry VIII of England and, for three years, Lord Chancellor. He wrote his famous political commentary Utopia in 1516, and tracts in opposition to the teachings of Martin Luther and William Tyndale. More refused to accept Henry VIII as Supreme Head of the Church of England: a status the king had been given by a compliant parliament through the Act of Supremacy of 1534. He was imprisoned in 1534 for his refusal to take the oath required by the First Succession Act, because the act disparaged the power of the Pope and Henry's marriage to Catherine of Aragon. In 1535, he was tried for treason, convicted on perjured testimony and beheaded. Many historians argue that his conviction for treason was unjust, and even among some Protestants his execution was viewed as heavy-handed. Erasmus saluted him as one "whose soul was more pure than any snow, whose genius was such as England never had." Jonathan Swift said he was "the person of the greatest virtue this kingdom ever produced". G. K. Chesterton wrote that "he may come to be counted as the greatest Englishman, or at least the greatest historical character in English history." And Winston Churchill stated that he "stood forth as the defender of all that was finest in the medieval outlook." The Catholic Church beatified him in 1886 and declared him a saint in 1935.    Desiderius Erasmus (1466-1536)
Dutch Renaissance humanist, Catholic priest, and perhaps the foremost humanist and most eminent Catholic Bible scholar of his time. Using humanist techniques for working on texts, he prepared very important and historically influential new Latin and Greek editions of the New Testament, and wrote influential works such as The Praise of Folly, Colloquies, and Enchiridion militis Christiani, (Handbook of the Christian Soldier). Erasmus always remained committed to reforming the scandals and moral lapses among Catholics from within, rather than splitting from it; accepted and defended the Church's teachings, and was an obedient son of the Church: contrary to what many seem to think. In this respect, one is reminded of similar false rumors that have always swirled around Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman. Erasmus had been somewhat sympathetic to Martin Luther at first (and was even thought by many to be among his party) but quickly grew disenchanted with him and his movement, once he saw the direction it was heading, and the heretical and schismatic tendencies within it. Hence, on 6 September 1524, he wrote to Luther's close friend and eventual successor, Philip Melanchthon:
I know nothing of your church; at the very least it contains people who will, I fear, overturn the whole system and drive the princes into using force to restrain good men and bad alike. The gospel, the word of God, faith, Christ, and Holy Spirit – these words are always on their lips; look at their lives and they speak quite another language.
His famous defense of free will (De libero arbitrio) was produced in 1524 and Luther responded with his Bondage of the Will the next year, along with the inevitable avalanche of personal insults. Erasmus replied in turn, in 1526 with his sharply critical -- but reasoned and controlled -- Hyperaspistes (A Warrior Shielding a Discussion of Free Will against The Enslaved Will). In 1533 he penned the treatise On Mending the Peace of the Church. Erasmus was heartbroken and perhaps crushed irreparably by the martyrdom of St. Thomas More, with whom he was very close. He died almost exactly a year later.
 Francisco Suárez (1548-1617)
Spanish Jesuit priest, philosopher and theologian, one of the leading figures of the School of Salamanca movement, and generally regarded among the greatest scholastics after Thomas Aquinas. He wrote on a wide variety of subjects, producing a vast amount of work (his complete works in Latin amount to twenty-six volumes). Suárez' writings include treatises on law, the relationship between Church and State, metaphysics, and theology. He is considered the godfather of International Law and his Disputationes metaphysicae were widely read in Europe during the seventeenth century. Suárez was regarded during his lifetime as being the greatest living philosopher and theologian, and given the nickname Doctor Eximius et Pius.  After his death his reputation grew still greater, and he had a direct influence on such leading philosophers and great thinkers as Hugo Grotius, René Descartes, and Gottfried Leibniz. Suárez tried to reconcile the doctrine of predestination with the freedom of the human will by saying that the predestination is consequent upon God's foreknowledge of the free determination of man's will, which is therefore in no way affected by the fact of such predestination, maintaining that, though all share in an absolutely sufficient grace, there is granted to the elect a grace which is so adapted to their peculiar dispositions and circumstances that they infallibly, though at the same time quite freely, yield themselves to its influence. This mediating system was known by the name of "congruism."
St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622)
Bishop of Geneva. He worked to convert Protestants back to Catholicism, and was an accomplished preacher. He is known also for his writings on the topic of spiritual direction and spiritual formation, particularly Introduction to the Devout Life, and Treatise on the Love of God. St. Francis was known as a friend of the poor, a man of almost supernatural affability and understanding. He instituted catechetical instructions for the faithful, both young and old, made prudent regulations for the guidance of his clergy, and carefully visited the parishes scattered through the rugged mountains of his diocese. He reformed the religious communities. His goodness, patience and mildness became proverbial. He was a notably clear and gracious stylist in French, Italian and Latin. His Catholic Controversy (heavily featured in the present volume) originally consisted of leaflets he wrote as a young priest (27-29 years old) that the zealous missioner scattered among the inhabitants of Le Chablais in the beginning, when these people did not venture to come and hear him preach. They form a complete proof of the Catholic Faith. In the first part, he defends the authority of the Church, and in the second and third parts, the rules of faith, which were not observed by the heretical ministers. The primacy of St. Peter is amply vindicated. After four years of distributing these pamphlets, almost the entire population of Le Chablais (72,000) returned to the Catholic faith, after 60 years of adhering to Calvinism. His work in Catholic apologetics represents some of the most cogent arguments against Protestantism that has ever been written: perhaps unequaled to this day. He was canonized in 1665 and declared a Doctor of the Church in 1877.
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Mathematician, physicist, inventor, and Catholic philosopher.  Pascal's earliest work was in the natural and applied sciences where he made important contributions to the study of fluids, clarified the concepts of pressure and vacuum, wrote in defense of the scientific method, and laid down the basis of hydraulics. He invented the mechanical calculator, and helped create two major new areas of research: projective geometry and probability theory: strongly influencing the development of modern economics and social science. Following a mystical experience in late 1654, he had his "second conversion", and devoted himself mostly to philosophy and theology. His two most famous works date from this period: the Lettres provinciales and the Pensées. The latter (unfinished at his death) was to have been a sustained and coherent examination and defense of Catholic Christianity, with the original title Apologie de la religion Chrétienne ("Defense of the Christian Religion"). It is hailed as a landmark of French prose. He had elaborated an outline, and at intervals during his illness he jotted down notes, fragments, and meditations for his book. What Pascal's plan was, can never be determined, despite the information furnished by Port Royal and by his sister. It is certain that his method of apologetics must have been at once rigorous and original; no doubt, he had made use of the traditional proofs — notably, the historical argument from prophecies and miracles. But as against adversaries who did not admit historical certainty, it was stroke of genius to produce a wholly psychological argument and, by starting from the study of the human soul, to arrive at God. Malcolm Muggeridge wrote of it: "I consider that it was a beneficient, if not miraculous, circumstance that Pascal was unable to proceed beyond the notes . . . Like a sublime kaleidoscope, Pascal presents us with thought after thought, all shining with truth as they come in mint condition from his brilliant mind" (A Third Testament; New York: Ballantine Books, 1976 , 60-61).
Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet (1627-1704)
Bishop of Meaux and theologian, renowned for his sermons and other addresses. He has been considered by many to be one of the most brilliant orators of all time and a masterly French stylist. He tried to win back the Huguenots to the Catholic Church. In 1668, he converted Turenne; in 1670, he published an Exposition de la foi catholique (An Exposition of the Doctine of the Catholic Church in Matters of Controversy), so moderate in tone that adversaries were driven to accuse him of having fraudulently watered down the Roman dogmas to suit a Protestant taste. Finally, in 1688, his great Histoire des variations des Églises protestantes (The History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches): perhaps the most brilliant of all his works, appeared. Few writers could have made the justification controversy interesting or even intelligible. His argument is simple: without rules, an organized society cannot hold together, and rules require an authorized interpreter. The Protestant churches had thrown over this interpreter; and Bossuet showed that, the longer Protestantism endured, the more the various sects within it varied on increasingly important points. The book is an encyclopedia history of such alterations of dogma. But for Bossuet and Catholics, "the truth which comes from God possesses from the first its complete perfection", and from that it follows that variations means theological errors, since there are so many contradictions or omissions of legitimate apostolic tradition handed down through history. The Catholic Encyclopedia regards him as the greatest orator "who has ever appeared in the Christian pulpit — greater than Chrysostom and greater than Augustine; the only man whose name can be compared in eloquence with those of Cicero and of Demosthenes."
St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori (1696-1787)
Bishop, spiritual writer, scholastic philosopher and theologian, founder of the Redemptorists, musician, painter, and poet. His sermons were very effective at converting those who were alienated from their faith. He fed the poor, instructed the ignorant, reorganized his seminary, reformed his convents, created a new spirit in his clergy, and brought the study of theology and especially of moral theology into honour. To all his administrative work were added his continual literary labours, his many hours of daily prayer, austerities, and a stress of illness which made his life a martyrdom. His devotion to the Blessed Sacrament and to Our Lady was extraordinary. He had a tender charity towards all who were in trouble, and had a great love for animals. His perseverance was indomitable. He both made and kept a vow not to lose a single moment of time. He was helped in this by his turn of mind which was extremely practical. St. Alphonsus wrote 111 works on spirituality and theology. The 21,500 editions and the translations into 72 languages that his works have undergone attest to the fact that he is one of the most widely read Catholic authors, and one of the great masters of the interior life. In the field of Mariology, Alphonsus Liguori wrote The Glories of Mary, Marian Devotion, and other writings. His Mariology, though mainly pastoral in nature, rediscovered, integrated, and defended the Mariology of Saint Augustine, Saint Ambrose, and other Church fathers. His greatest contribution to the Church was in the area of moral theological reflection, with his Moral Theology. This work was born of pastoral experience, the ability to respond to the practical questions posed by the faithful, and from his contact with their everyday problems. As a moral theologian he occupied the golden mean between the schools tending either to laxity or to rigour. St. Alphonsus was canonized in 1839 and proclaimed a Doctor of the Church in 1871.
Nicholas Cardinal Wiseman (1802-1865)
First Archbishop of Westminster. He attained distinction in the natural sciences as well as in dogmatic and scholastic theology; also in Syriac and other Oriental studies. Wiseman's lectures on the relationship between religion and science were praised even by a critic as stern as Andrew Dickson White. In his highly influential A History of the Warfare of Science with Theology in Christendom, White wrote that "it is a duty and a pleasure to state here that one great Christian scholar did honour to religion and to himself by quietly accepting the claims of science and making the best of them. . . . That man was . . . Cardinal Wiseman. The conduct of this pillar of the Roman Church contrasts admirably with that of timid Protestants, who were filling England with shrieks and denunciations." He was also noted as a linguist — "he can speak with readiness and point", wrote Cardinal Newman of him some years later, "in half-a-dozen languages, without being detected for a foreigner in any one of them". In 1835 he began a course of lectures, addressed alike to Catholics and Protestants, which at once attracted large audiences, and from which, wrote a well-qualified critic, dated "the beginning of a serious revival of Catholicism in England." He wrote, in the summer of 1839, a famous article in the Dublin Review, about St. Augustine and the Donatists, that drew a parallel between the Donatists and the Tractarians (Oxford Movement) with a convincing logic that placed many of the latter, in Newman's famous words, "on their death-bed as regarded the Church of England." Newman himself had been profoundly troubled by the article, and it largely initiated his journey to the Catholic Church. He wrote on 5 January 1840 (to J. W. Bowden): "Indeed he has fixed on our weak point . . . It is plainly necessary to stop up the leak in our boat which he has made, if we are to proceed." Wiseman worked unceasingly to promote a cordial understanding between new converts and "old English" Catholics, and to make the Oxford neophytes at home in their new surroundings. Not only by personal intercourse with his fellow-countrymen, but by his frequent appearances on the lecture-platform, he did much to influence public opinion in favour of Catholics. His graceful eloquence, genial personality, and sympathetic voice and manner, enhanced the impression wrought by his intimate knowledge of the various subjects with which he dealt. His delivery was fluent and his style brilliant, and characterized by a command of poetic imagery in which probably few public speakers have surpassed or equaled him. His death evoked expressions of general sympathy from men of every class and every creed; and the practically unanimous voice of the press testified to the high place he had won for himself in the respect and affections of his fellow-countrymen.
William Bernard Ullathorne (1806-1889)
Benedictine monk and Bishop of Birmingham. His father was a direct descendant of St. Thomas More. He worked as a missionary in Australia for seven years. In 1870 he attended the Vatican Council. He lived to see his diocese thoroughly organized, with many new communities of men, the most famous of which was Cardinal Newman's Congregation of Oratorians at Edgbaston. During his thirty-eight years tenure as bishop 67 new churches, 32 convents and nearly 200 mission schools were built. His chief written works are: The Endowments of Man (London, 1880); Groundwork of Christian Virtues (1882); Christian Patience (1886).; The Immaculate Conception (1855); History of Restoration of English Hierarchy (1871); The Döllingerites (1874); Answer to Gladstone's 'Vatican Decrees' (1875); and a large number of sermons, pastorals, pamphlets, etc.
Robert Hugh Benson (1871-1914)
Benson was educated at Eton College and then studied classics and theology at Trinity College, Cambridge. In 1895, he was ordained a priest in the Church of England by his father, Edward White Benson, who was the then Archbishop of Canterbury. His father died suddenly in 1896 and he was sent on a trip to the Middle East to recover his own health. While there, he began to question the status of the Church of England and to consider the claims of the Catholic Church. On 11 September 1903, he was received into the Catholic Church. He was ordained as a Catholic priest in 1904, and declared a monsignor in 1911. Benson was a prolific writer, in various genres, such as historical and science fiction, children's books, devotional works, plays, poetry, and apologetics. His titles in the latter category included The Religion of the Plain Man (1906), Paradoxes of Catholicism (1913), Christ in the Church: A Volume of Religious Essays (1911), and Non-Catholic Denominations (1910). He became the most popular Catholic novelist in England. A lecture he gave at the University of Notre Dame during a visit in 1914 was described in the Notre Dame Scholastic (25 April 1914) as follows: "Father Benson's address was remarkable for the same facility of expression, cogency of reasoning, and forcefulness of phrasing, that have so characterized his novels and essays . . . He is a pleasing and powerful speaker, his reasoning being flawless and his presentation of fact lucid and unmistakable. He held the undivided attention of his audience throughout, sustaining interest rather by the charm of a magnetic personality and a virile argument than by rhetorical artifice or forensic sensationalism."
James Cardinal Gibbons (1834-1921)
Bishop of Richmond from 1872 to 1877, and Archbishop of Baltimore from 1877 until his death in 1921. Gibbons was elevated to the cardinalate in 1886, the second American to receive that distinction. His vicariate in 1868, the entire state of North Carolina, had fewer than seven hundred Catholics. In his first four weeks there, Gibbons traveled almost a thousand miles, visiting towns and mission stations and administering the sacraments. He also befriended many Protestants, and preached at their churches. Gibbons made a number of converts, but finding the apologetical works available inadequate for their needs, he determined to write his own; Faith of Our Fathers (first edition, 1876) would prove the most popular apologetical work written by an American Catholic. He was an acquaintance of every president from Andrew Johnson to Warren G. Harding and an adviser to several of them. From 1869 to 1870, Gibbons attended the First Vatican Council and voted in favor of papal infallibility. He played a key role in the granting of papal permission for Catholics to join labor unions. His other writings included Our Christian Heritage (1889), The Ambassador of Christ (1896), Discourses and Sermons (1908), and A Retrospect of Fifty Years (1916). Gibbons' style was simple but compelling. In 1917, President Theodore Roosevelt hailed Gibbons as the most venerated, respected, and useful citizen in America. In his later years he was seen as the public face of Catholicism in the United States, and on his death was widely mourned. H. L. Mencken, who reserved his harshest criticism for Christian ministers, wrote, in 1921 after Gibbons' death, "He was a man of the highest sagacity, a politician in the best sense, and there is no record that he ever led the Church into a bog or up a blind alley."
Ferdinand Prat, S. J. (1857-1938)
Professor of Scripture, philologist, exegete, consultant to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, and editor of the Etudes Bibliques. Many of the Commission's decisions regarding modernism, leading up to its condemnation in 1907, were prepared in part by Fr. Prat. He served all through World War I as a chaplain, and his heroism and bravery under fire won him the coveted Cross of the Legion of Honor. His work, Jesus Christ, His Life, His Doctrine and His Work (1933; English translation, 1950), is regarded by many biblical scholars as the best life of Christ in existence. What might be called the culmination of his life's work is The Theology of St. Paul, a studious, thorough, and enlightening work, published between 1908 and 1923. It has been translated into many languages. Even today, the formulas given by Fr. Prat can help non-specialists to grasp the originality of the Pauline texts, and he provided in its pages a very helpful definition of biblical theology: "Its duty is to collect the results of exegesis, . . . Exegesis studies particular texts, but does not trouble itself overmuch about their mutual relations. Its method is that of analysis. Biblical theology adds to analysis synthesis, for it must verify the results of the exegesis which has preceded it, before employing them to reconstruct a system, or, rather, a line of thought. . . . We may say, therefore, that biblical theology ends where scholastic theology begins, and begins where exegesis finishes." Other volumes of his include The Bible and History, The Ten Commandments (both 1904), Origen, Theologian and Exegete (1907), and The Theology of St. John (1938). He also wrote over a hundred articles in biblical, scientific, and theological journals.
Karl Adam (1876-1966)
German priest (originally from Bavaria) and professor of theology: including moral and dogmatic theology. His books include: Tertullian's Concept of the Church (1907), Eucharistic Teaching of St. Augustine (1908), Christ Our Brother, The Son of God, Roots of the Reformation, and One And Holy. He is best known for his 1924 work, The Spirit of Catholicism. It has been translated into French, Spanish, English, Italian, Portuguese, Polish, Dutch, Hungarian, Latin, Chinese and Japanese, and is still in print today. It was written to provide a calm, dispassionate, clearly written consideration of the fundamental concepts of the Catholic faith which would explain to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, exactly what the Catholic Church is, and is widely regarded as one of the finest introductions to the Catholic faith written in the 20th century. His writings have all revolved around the necessity for an understanding of our relationship with Christ Himself with particular stress on the doctrine of the Mystical Body. In 1934 he delivered a denunciation of the so-called German religion in an address on "The Eternal Christ". This led to serious threats from the Nazis, but he held firm. Fr. Adam particularly specialized in St. Augustine's theology, and had a great love for tradition and the Church fathers. His style captivated both readers and audiences, and he had great influence on Protestants, since he was concerned with ecumenism as well as apologetics. For years he worked tirelessly for a union of Christian faiths in one faith. This theme runs through all of his books. Fr. Adam loved young people and had an appealing personality, with a keen sense of humor. His house was open to all and his charity was well known.

Uploaded on 20 November 2011.


****

Should We Pray for "All Men" (1 Timothy 2:1) or Not? Bible and Calvin Say Yes; Anti-Catholic Calvinist Ron Van Brenk Sez No / Van Brenk's Website Devoted to Deviant Sexuality

In the course of a dispute with anti-Catholic Presbyterian polemicist John Bugay (three parts: one / two / three), mention was made of an atrociously uncharitable post by Ron Van Brenk, entitled, "Do NOT Pray for Patty!". I described this in the third paper as "one of the most outrageous pieces from a purported Christian that I have ever seen in my life."

Anti-Catholic TAO (The Anonymous One, or "Turretinfan" is aware of it because he critiqued some of this material of mine, and is aware of my response, that prominently mentioned it. But he won't rebuke this notion of deliberately not praying for another human being (because -- I speculate -- she is deemed as wicked and non-elect, and/or unregenerate; hence totally depraved?). John Bugay won't renounce this disgraceful display of supposedly "Christian" piety. Steve Hays, on whose blog this link was posted, has not done so, either. It seems that none of the fringe wing of (active, online) anti-Catholic Calvinists (thus, far, anyway) will denounce or renounce this article or the concept it highlights.

As a bizarre, curious aside, our friend Ron seems quite obsessed with all things sexual, including defense of immoral practices, such as masturbation, which he defends on his second website (that seems to be completely devoted to such things), in a three-part series (one / two / three). Shades of Steve Hays, who has defended the same grave sin (one / two / three) . . . Hays makes sexual jokes about nuns, but Ron takes it a step further, and makes sexual jokes and insults about Mary and Joseph, and writes blasphemy (with explicit sexual detail) about Our Lord Jesus.

Some of his morally ridiculous and scandalous posts, have titles such as:  "Lot's Wet Dreams," "The Cult of the Orgasm," "Was Joseph Permitted to Kiss Mary?," "Rez Erection?" (a particularly outlandish and also blasphemous screed), etc. This is a very disturbed person indeed, who has no business writing publicly and representing Christianity of any sort. Where is the oversight? Where is his pastor on this (if he even has one)? Why doesn't the anti-Catholic online community rebuke this and demand that it be removed from view? Let's definitely lift Ron up in prayer, and pray that his anti-Catholic cronies will speak up against this outrageous material, if they become aware of it (after reading this, if not by some other means).

Fundamentalist anti-Catholic Calvinism and self-generated orgasm and Woodstock Free Love: quite a combination there. What would the old Puritans think? Even TAO would blush at such a juvenile display of sinful carnality and sensuality. Will he rebuke it publicly? We'll see, won't we (because he will surely read this). I guess Ron can find nothing better to do with his time than exalt the glories of auto-sexuality and mock people with serious health  issues, writing posts urging others to not pray for that person. He really has his Christian priorities straight there, doesn't he?

But back to the topic at hand. In order to refute the notion of deliberately refusing to pray for folks one deems too wicked to deserve it, I brought Holy Scripture to the table (expanded for more context presently):

1 Timothy 2:1-4 (RSV) First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men, [2] for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way. [3] This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, [4] who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Since we're dealing with Calvinists, then it is sensible to see what John Calvin would have to say about this. First, let's look at what Ron Van Brenk, digging in his heels, reiterated today, on TAO's blog:

Now, as I mentioned in the first part of that "Do NOT Pray" series- there are several times when we are commanded NOT to pray for people. And Dave's recourse to 1 Tim. 2:1 does not stand up to proper scrutiny. Will be addressing a response [to] him later tonight on that.

Now, let's see what John Calvin had to say about the matter, from his Commentaries (for 1 Timothy 2:1-4):

That, above all, prayers be made. First, he speaks of public prayers, which he enjoins to be offered, not only for believers, but for all mankind. Some might reason thus with themselves: "Why should we be anxious about the salvation of unbelievers, with whom we have no connection? Is it not enough, if we, who are brethren, pray mutually for our brethren, and recommend to God the whole of his Church? for we have nothing to do with strangers." This perverse view Paul meets, and enjoins the Ephesians to include in their prayers all men, and not to limit them to the body of the Church.

. . . Paul, in my own opinion, simply enjoins that, whenever public prayers are offered, petitions and supplications should be made for all men, even for those who at present are not at all related to us. And yet this heaping up of words is not superfluous; but Paul appears to me purposely to join together three terms for the same purpose, in order to recommend more warmly, and urge more strongly, earnest and constant prayer. We know now sluggish we are in this religious duty; and therefore we need not wonder if, for the purpose of arousing us to it, the Holy Spirit, by the mouth of Paul, employs various excitements.

And thanksgivings. As to this term, there is no obscurity; for, as he bids us make supplication to God for the salvation of unbelievers, so also to give thanks on account of their prosperity and success. That wonderful goodness which he shews every day, when "he maketh his sun to rise on the good and the bad," (2 For kings He expressly mentions kings and other magistrates because, more than all others, they might be hated by Christians. All the magistrates who existed at that time were so many sworn enemies of Christ; and therefore this thought might occur to them, that they ought not to pray for those who devoted all their power and all their wealth to fight against the kingdom of Christ, the extension of which is above all things desirable. The apostle meets this difficulty, and expressly enjoins Christians to pray for them also. And, indeed, the depravity of men is not a reason why God's ordinance should not be loved. Accordingly, seeing that God appointed magistrates and princes for the preservation of mankind, however much they fall short of the divine appointment, still we must not on that account cease to love what belongs to God, and to desire that it may remain in force. That is the reason why believers, in whatever country they live, must not only obey the laws and the government of magistrates, but likewise in their prayers supplicate God for their salvation. Jeremiah said to the Israelites, "Pray for the peace of Babylon, for in their peace ye shall have peace." (. . . If any one ask, Ought we to pray for kings, from whom we obtain none of these advantages? I answer, the object of our prayer is, that, guided by the Spirit of God, they may begin to impart to us those benefits of which they formerly deprived us. It is our duty, therefore, not only to pray for those who are already worthy, but we must pray to God that he may make bad men good.

Other Calvinists agree. For example, Barnes' Notes (for this passage):

For all men. Prayers should be made for all men--for all need the grace and mercy of God; thanks should be rendered for all, for all may be saved. Does not this direction imply that Christ died for all mankind? How could we give thanks in their behalf if there were no mercy for them, and no way had been provided by which they could be saved? It may be observed here, that the direction to pray and to give thanks for all men, showed the large and catholic nature of Christianity. It was opposed entirely to the narrow and bigoted feelings of the Jews, who regarded the whole Gentile world as excluded from covenant mercies, and as having no offer of life. Christianity threw down all these barriers, and all men are on a level; and since Christ has died for all, there is ample ground for thanksgiving and praise in behalf of the whole human race.

Likewise, John Gill:

not only for all the saints, for all the churches of Christ, and, ministers of the Gospel; nor only for near relations and friends, according to the flesh; but for all the inhabitants of the country and city in which men dwell, the peace and prosperity of which are to be prayed for; yea, for enemies, and such as reproach, persecute, and despitefully use the saints, even for all sorts of men, Jews and Gentiles, rich and poor, high and low, bond and free, good men and bad men:

And the 1599 Geneva Study Bible:

Having dispatched those things which pertain to doctrine, he speaks now in the second place of the other part of the ministry of the word, that is, of public prayers. And first of all, answering the question for whom we ought to pray, he teaches that we must pray for all men, and especially for every type of magistrate. And this thing was at that time somewhat doubted of, seeing that kings, indeed, and most of the magistrates, were at that time enemies of the Church. 

And Matthew Henry:

A charge given to Christians to pray for all men in general, and particularly for all in authority. . . . Observe, The design of the Christian religion is to promote prayer; and the disciples of Christ must be praying people. Pray always with all prayer, Ephesians 6:18. There must be prayers for ourselves in the first place; this is implied here. We must also pray for all men, for the world of mankind in general, for particular persons who need or desire our prayers. See how far the Christian religion was from being a sect, when it taught men this diffusive charity, to pray, not only for those of their own way, but for all men. Pray for kings (1 Timothy 2:2); though the kings at this time were heathens, enemies to Christianity, and persecutors of Christians, yet they must pray for them, because it is for the public good that there should be civil government, and proper persons entrusted with the administration of it, for whom therefore we ought to pray, yea, though we ourselves suffer under them. . . .

In our prayers we are to have a generous concern for others as well as for ourselves; we are to pray for all men, and to give thanks for all men; and must not confine our prayers nor thanksgiving to our own persons or families. 3. Prayer consists of various parts, of supplications, intercessions, and thanksgivings; for we must pray for the mercies we want, as well as be thankful for mercies already received; and we are to deprecate the judgments which our own sins or the sins of others have deserved. 4. All men, yea, kings themselves, and those who are in authority, are to be prayed for.

***

Clarification of My Positions on Predestination and Calvinism (Especially Total Depravity), in Reply to the Ridiculously Muddle-Headed Insults of TAO and in Light of John Bugay's Manifest Abominable Ethics

The anti-Catholic Presbyterian TAO (The Anonymous One; aka "Turretinfan") has written a hit piece directed towards yours truly for the umpteenth time, playing the game of not naming me (as if that impresses anyone), entitled, Failure to Understand both Calvinism and One's Own Doctrine ... . Nice try, TAO . . .

As is well-known, I don't debate theology anymore with anti-Catholics. This has been my policy for four-and-a-half years, with no end in sight, because there is no debate possible. It's a complete waste of time. At times it is necessary to clarify my position when it has been wildly distorted and misrepresented. This is one such occasion. I'm sure even this distinction will be lost on TAO, and I'll be mocked for doing this: which in turn will perfectly illustrate why I don't take anti-Catholics seriously anymore, in terms of wasting time futilely attempting adult discussion with them. I am simply clarifying what I and my Church believe: matters of fact.

TAO's words will be in blue; John Bugay's in green.
* * * * *
I saw the following comment from a lay apologist of the Roman communion recently, directed at one of my fellow Calvinists:

[ME] If I am going to hell and predestined to do so, then you don't have to pray for me or even have any love at all, according to your warped, hideous, grotesque version of Christianity. You can even hate me.

If THIS is what Christianity means, I would rather be an atheist.

That's me, folks. It is from a comment I made in a recent thread about John Bugay's refusal to accept Catholic charity for his wife's serious illness, that I later removed, because I thought it was too heavily sarcastic, and thus would be misunderstood, as indeed now it has been, from the usual suspects! I was rebuking him because of his atrocious behavior, having actually returned a donation that fellow apologist Devin Rose made, and having insulted myself and my friends by writing:

In the meantime, please take down the link to our PayPal account. One donation has come in from this bunch of mockers, and I've returned it. And I will return other donations if I can identify them from you or yours as well. . . . [I had made links to his PayPal account so people could help him (his wife has leukemia), on my blog, Facebook, and Twitter pages]

Brent, you'll have a hard time convincing me that anything coming from this group is Christian. . . . 

I want to remain as far away from you as possible.

All of this was prime material for a searing rebuke, and I delivered it. I removed it for the above-stated reason and out of charity, not because I disagreed with anything in it: any of the content. I utilized sarcasm (just as Jesus and Paul did in cases of extreme hypocrisy) to rebuke John for not even following Calvinism properly. This was what the above portion was about. I believe I mentioned in the removed comments how I have experienced this, myself: on a Calvinist board, where someone stated that no one should pray for me. This attitude comes from the notion that a person is not in the elect; therefore, if God has predestined them to hell and condemned them, there is no longer any reason for us to pray or even love them. These motifs show up among Calvinists now and then (more on this below), and it shows in how they treat Catholics.

It was also in the context of the original dispute, where John wrote that I should give up my work because of the sexual scandal. The first comment underneath it was from a "Ron" who linked to his article, "Do NOT Pray for Patty!": one of the most outrageous pieces from a purported Christian that I have ever seen in my life. This was the context. He was saying that; John wasn't disagreeing with it and was returning donations, so it stood to reason that he could quite possibly be of this same mindset: nothing we Catholics do can be good; hence he attacked our motives in trying to help him out financially: calling us "mockers" and returning a donation, and questioning that anything we do is "Christian." It couldn't possibly be good. This is a classic instance of the application of the Calvinist doctrine of total depravity (see articles of mine about that: one / two / three / four / five / six). If a person is unregenerate, then he can do no truly good thing.

This is why I honed in on that very important factor on my blog today, since Bugay showed up. Here is our brief exchange in the combox under the post about him (excerpts; read the entire thing by following the link to the left):

For John, I am an unregenerate apostate. Therefore, all my acts, even if they look good on the surface, must be intended with an evil heart, and are intrinsically evil (doctrine of total depravity). Not all Calvinists act like this, of course, but the anti-Catholic ones do, because they immediately make the ultra-uncharitable judgment of someone's soul. This is a classic case. 

I guess he thinks we would mock someone suffering [i.e., like his buddy Ron did with Patty] because, after all, we are unregenerate and can't possibly do any act of good, or feel sincere compassion and charity. What a sad, pathetic, ridiculous (and radically unbiblical) view . . . I have refuted it from the Bible several times.

Dave, I'm sorry about the loss of your brother, and the other tragedies in your family. But rather than allow such tragedies to exhort you to humility, your whole enterprise may be summed up with this verse: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.' I want to remain as far away from you as possible.

It is one thing to understand someone's motivations; it is quite another to describe their behavior. Your behavior is quite easy to describe. 
How could I not lie in the first place: being unregenerate and totally depraved? Or do anything good? 

Dave Armstrong, I have not said a word about you other than that your enterprise very much resembles the pharisee of Luke 18:11. Your rants about what you suppose Calvinism holds you to be have been commented on by Turretinfan at his blog. 
Very interesting. So you deny that I am totally depraved and unregenerate? If so, then I am regenerate; therefore, I would be a Christian, and you would have to explain your recent comment about myself and my friends here:

"Brent, you'll have a hard time convincing me that anything coming from this group is Christian."

Which is it? Please clarify. 

I don't judge you at all.
Am I a regenerate Christian and brother in Christ or not?  You just judged me by refusing my acts of kindness, to try to raise money for your wife's illness, calling it "mockery" and returning Devin Rose's donation, and then using it as a pretext to judge my heart and motivations. Are you truly so blind as to not see this?

It sure got quiet in the room. I wonder what happened?

I went to lunch.

As of writing I have been waiting an hour-and-a-half for an answer to my simple query: "Am I a regenerate Christian and brother in Christ or not?" Perhaps I will be waiting for much longer, or indefinitely. If John ever answers, I will add it to this paper. Alas, he did reply to (not answer) my question three hours and six minutes after I first asked it:

I am not going to answer your question. Aside from that, I have a real job, and you are probably the least important thing on my mind at any given time.

I replied:

Thank you very much for the verification. It will be duly noted in the reply I just made to TAO's usual inanities and puerile insults. God bless you.

This is key to the whole discussion (and I think he knows it full well). If indeed he has classified me as unregenerate, then by Calvinist teaching I am totally depraved, and nothing I do can be with a pure motive: it has to be impure and have at least a high degree of evil and wickedness in it. But if he had guts enough to state this it would run counter to TAO's present reiteration (and my knowledge of) Calvinist teaching: whereby we can't know for sure who is among the elect (and should cease from speculating). So John can't assert that, even though his actions and wicked responses to us recently seem to confirm that this is what he believes.

On the other hand, if he stated that I was a regenerate Christian, he would be in a huge personal mess with his anti-Catholic friends, who would then jump allover him (since they absolutely despise me personally: having been refuted by my apologetics time and again online, for over 16 years now). And it would run contrary to what he has recently stated about yours truly and my friends here. So (like the Pharisees when Jesus asked them a hard question) he was profoundly trapped. Both falsehood and sin have a way of bringing that result about. Thus John took a pass and decided to insult me instead. Truly the behavior of an intellectual coward . . .

In any event, the whole issue under consideration hinges on this factor. If John doesn't know whether I am regenerate or not, then he has no grounds for rejecting my act of charity, and classifying it as wicked and therefore to be rejected, because then it could quite possibly be done with the right motive, and he would have no reasonable grounds to reject it or to deny that anything I do is "Christian," or quickly assume that our motivation is to mock his wife's leukemia (like his buddy Ron abominably mocked Patty Bonds' present maladies and urged his oh-so-charitable Christian gentleman friends to not pray for her at all), or his difficult financial situation resulting therefrom. We're not doing that; his buddy is.

Of course, Thomism (which is supposedly acceptable within Rome's communion) and even Molinism also teach that certain people are going to hell and predestinated to do so.  That's not a unique aspect of Calvinism.
There is a big difference. We don't deny free will altogether in matters of salvation as Calvinists do (remember Luther's Bondage of the Will, which was proto-Calvinist?). We don't deny universal atonement (Calvinists hold to limited atonement). Nor do we deny that reprobation is conditional; hence we (both Thomists and Molinists: I am the latter) deny double predestination and unconditional reprobation in the Calvinist sense, while holding to predestination of the elect (with some allowable differences in detail between the two parties).

I noted this 15 years ago, in my paper, Catholic Predestination (Ludwig Ott). It has been online all that time. Dr. Ott stated (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma (Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books, 1974 [orig. 1952], 242-245):

5) POSITIVE REPROBATION
 
Heretical Predestinationism in its various forms (the Southern Gallic priest Lucidus in the 5th century; the monk Gottschalk in the 9th century, according to reports of his opponents, which, however, find no confirmation in his recently re-discovered writings; Wycliffe, Hus, and esp. Calvin), teaches a positive predetermination to sin, and an unconditional Predestination to the eternal punishment of hell, that is, without consideration of future demerits. This was rejected as false doctrine by the Particular Synods of Orange, Quiercy and Valence and by the Council of Trent. Unconditioned positive Reprobation leads to a denial of the universality of the Divine Desire for salvation, and of the Redemption, and contradicts the Justice and Holiness of God as well as the freedom of man.
 
According to the teaching of the Church, there is a conditioned positive Reprobation, that is, it occurs with consideration of foreseen future demerits (post et propter praevisa demerita). The conditional nature of Positive Reprobation is demanded by the generality of the Divine Resolve of salvation. This excludes God's desiring in advance the damnation of certain men (cf. 1 Tim 2:4, Ezek 33:11, 2 Pet 3:9) . . .
 
6) NEGATIVE REPROBATION

In the question of Reprobation, the Thomist view favours not an absolute, but only a negative Reprobation. This is conceived by most Thomists as non-election to eternal bliss (non-electio), together with the Divine resolve to permit some rational creatures to fall into sin, and thus by their own guilt to lose eternal salvation. In contrast to the absolute Positive Reprobation of the Predestinarians, Thomists insist on the universality of the Divine Resolve of Salvation and Redemption, the allocation of sufficient graces to the reprobate, and the freedom of man's will.

So much for TAO's ignorance about what we teach, and what I believe, as an orthodox Catholic. Thus, we have the amusing spectacle of TAO rebuking me for supposedly understanding neither Calvinism nor Catholicism, when in fact I understand both quite well (having written an entire book critiquing John Calvin), while he does not comprehend our position, as just shown.

Moreover, as in Thomism and Molinism, in Calvinism one is not relieved of one's obligations to pray for someone or love them simply because of God's secret decree of reprobation.
Of course not. I completely agree; always have. I was rebuking John for not only acting outrageously, but also for being inconsistent even with his own Calvinism.  I also noted in the removed remarks that not praying for someone does not at all necessarily follow from the Calvinist position. It comes from human sin and disobedience to God, who told us to pray for all men (1 Timothy 2:1 [RSV]: ". . . I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men," ).

The problem is sin and hypocrisy and contempt for other Christians. Calvinists are supposed to pray and show love like any other Christian, yet when "Ron" makes reference on Triablogue in John's own combox for his post, about not praying for a suffering [Catholic] human being (complete with wicked mockery of her), no one protested. When I made note of it on my blog, no one in your camp protested. It was perfectly fine and dandy. Now you want to protest. This is what I will always describe as a "warped, hideous, grotesque version of Christianity." When even a minimal expression of love is spurned and trampled upon, complete with urging others to not pray for someone who is suffering: that is not the spirit of Christ and Christianity: sorry. It comes from the pit of hell and from the devil's own "philosophy."

I challenge you, then, TAO, to go ahead and renounce Ron's post, and ask that Hays remove the link to it on his site (and preferably renounce it, too). Be my guest. Put your money where your mouth is. Dhow how marvelously loving and full of charity those in the anti-Catholic wing of Calvinism can be. I'm the one who has upheld universal Christian and biblical teaching about praying for all men. I'm the one who rebuked the person in your ranks who didn't hold to this, because none of you would do that. Yet now I'm being rebuked for supposedly not understanding your teaching that I do grasp quite well. I am condemning the rank hypocrisy and lack of Christian charity in your ranks.

The comment quoted above reflects a fundamental failure to understand Calvinism.  It shows that the person does not grasp even the simple concept that, in this life, we do not know who the elect are.  Just because someone is currently a Saul of Tarsus does not mean that they will not one day be a Paul the Apostle (to take an extreme example).
More classic TAO blundering and imbecilic analysis . . .  Because TAO almost universally (in my case) does not understand how language functions in context, thinks illogically, and commits both errors in large part because of his huge hostility brought on by dumb anti-Catholic theological thinking, and, furthermore, won't trouble himself to see what I actually believe (with 2600+ papers posted online, on my site), he misses this. So he claims that I don't know that Calvinists (per Calvin) aren't supposed to know who the elect are.

I stated the opposite, I'm pretty certain, in the removed remarks: noting that Calvin stated more than once that we can't know who is in the elect. TAO assumes the worst, as he always does with me. My true position is seen in my paper of January 2006: John Calvin: Only God Knows Who is Numbered Among the Elect. It must get wearisome to continually be so dead-wrong on the facts, but it is a tension and cognitive dissonance that TAO (an attorney, of all things!) obviously has long since made peace with.

So, the Roman apologist has (a) identified a first set of views that his church deems acceptable, and (b) drawn unfounded conclusions from them.  
I did no such thing, as shown above. It is yet another case (among innumerable ones) of TAO not getting it.

What should we conclude?  
Obviously, that TAO made another silly mistake (several, actually), and embarrassed himself for the umpteenth time, in trying to argue me down: this time concerning my own beliefs, that I can easily document: stuff from fifteen and five years ago that has long since been posted on my site.

Shall we assume he's just being silly?  Probably not.  The tone of this comment was harshly serious . . .

It was serious: a serious sarcastic rebuke of hypocrisy and sin and a Calvinist not even consistently following his own teaching. Jesus and Paul did the same. I've called no one a "viper" (Jesus) or said that John should be castrated, as Paul said, with heavy sarcasm.

(the apologist even cursed at my fellow Calvinist in a portion of the comment that I haven't reproduced).
John stated on my blog,  "I want to remain as far away from you as possible." Then (oddly enough) he posted again. Noting this hypocrisy, I replied with, "why don't you get the hell off of my blog, then?" -- since getting as far away from me "as possible" obviously included not commenting on my blog! That is not cursing him! I didn't call him some terrible name.

Of course, TAO's fundamentalist "ears" can't handle this horrific "curse" word. That was entirely predictable. These are the same folks who once objected to my use of "ass" in the sense of a donkey, which the KJV Bible does many times, and which Shakespeare and Calvin also used in the same sense several times. I pointed this out to them: to no avail, of course.

Anti-Catholic ranks are rife with hypocrisy on this score. For example, I know that both James White and David T. King are big fans of Rush Limbaugh, and (I've listened to him a lot off and on for over 20 years) he often uses quite ribald humor, sexual double entendre, and minor "curse" words of this sort, and far worse (many times to an extent that I would not want my kids to listen to). But they still listen to him, don't they? Their "principles" don't extend to not listening to a man who regularly uses language and jokes of a sort that they purportedly think is so wicked. It's only when someone like me is the target that they want to make a federal case of it. I think lying and distorting and not praying for others is far, far ; infinitely more serious than merely using the word "hell" when it was fully warranted.

Never mind that James White put up a post (10-26-07), citing a hostile professor his daughter had, with three words that he would consider profanity. He had no problem citing the actual words for public consumption, warning, "This blog post contains profanities and vulgarities. I am warning you up front." He could have "bleeped" out the three words, as I have done many times on my site. He chose not to. If anyone searches my site for a certain alternate word for manure, they come up with nothing. But if they search White's blog they will find it. Same for the synonym for a female dog. Just because someone else said it and he merely cited it, is beside the point. It was unnecessary in the first place (especially by White's own -- and general fundamentalist -- stated ethical criteria).

Yet TAO won't even quote me saying the outrageously profane, vulgar word "hell" -- so that people will think what I said is far worse. Because of this vagueness, "Natamllc" in TAO's combox launches into even more asinine jeremiads:

Rather than pray for the lay apologist, though, I would think we should encourage your friend along these lines instead, for both your friend and us as well to do as much as opportunity does for us:

Gal 6:10 So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith.

If the lay apologist has cursed him, he has cursed us as well!

Rather, I would think, though, we ought to be praying for your friend whom the lay apologist has cursed especially if he is one you can attest to being such as the ones the Apostle Paul writes about, here?

2Th 3:1 Finally, brothers, pray for us, that the word of the Lord may speed ahead and be honored, as happened among you,
2Th 3:2 and that we may be delivered from wicked and evil men. For not all have faith.
2Th 3:3 But the Lord is faithful. He will establish you and guard you against the evil one.  

Note the assumptions and premises made: I'm a "wicked and evil" man, without "faith." That obviously means I am not in the elect or at least unregenerate (if it is to be that I will eventually be saved). Thus, right under the post where TAO says that Calvinists don't make these judgments, one of his cohorts does exactly that (but of course TAO won't disagree with that, because it blasts me: the one he detests). And it is in part based on this contention that I "cursed" a person, rather than (what actually occurred) simply using a strong expression to bring across the point that he ought to leave my blog since he himself said he wanted to get as far away as possible.

If a person insists on majoring on the minors (just as sinful Pharisees did), they won't get it. So they didn't and don't. TAO is highly concerned about the word "hell." I am highly concerned about Christians showing love: praying for others, helping others in need. We tried to help his friend John and he spurned that and called us a bunch of names. But I used the word "hell": thus proving beyond any doubt that I am a wicked, evil person. Is it any wonder that the world is in the mess it is in, with Christians acting in such a ridiculous fashion?

It could be that he's just deliberately lying about Calvinism, but what purpose would that serve?
Note how TAO (classically) suggests that I am a deliberate liar. I don't do that with him. I always assume he is ignorant in cases of factual whoppers because invariably, I have always found this to be the case . . .  

We know what we believe, so we're not likely to be fooled by his mischaracterization.  
Rather, his mischaracterization of what he falsely believes was my mischaracterization, because he can't properly read and interpret the English language in context or look up things that would take a minute max with search tools. Ironies abound . . . 

All that's left is that this poor soul doesn't understand. We should pray for him, that God would open his eyes.

Right. Well, folks, I have laid the facts of the matter before you, to decide for yourself what happened here. It's the same-old same-old.


***

Gluten-Free, Sugar-Free, Dairy-Free Recipe Page

[see a vigorous discussion on the relative virtue of sweeteners, etc. on one of my Facebook threads]


BANANA BREAD

DRY
2 C tapioca starch / flour [both are the same]
1 1/2 C chestnut flour (may substitute 1/2 C walnut meal or finely chopped peanuts for 1/2 cup of flour)
1 TBS + 1 tsp xanthan gum
1 TBS baking powder
2 tsp baking soda
2 tsp cinnamon
1 tsp salt
3/4 C raisins [optional]

WET
1 1/3 C honey
2/3 C non-dairy butter substitute spread (1/3 of a 15 oz. tub) [or, butter, if non-dairy is unnecessary]
4 large mashed ripe bananas
2 eggs [for total vegetarian, use egg substitute]
2 tsp vanilla

Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Grease two loaf pans. Mix dry ingredients in a small bowl with a wire whisk. Mix wet ingredients in a large bowl. Slowly add dry mix to wet mix, and stir till smooth. Pour into pans, about halfway up in each (will rise to the top in the oven). Bake 45-50 minutes or till fork comes out clean. Allow to cool for ten minutes in the turned-off oven before removing to cool on wire racks. Refrigerate if they are not consumed within a week.

Great toasted with butter / margarine and/or jelly! Light and fluffy!

Tapioca, chestnut flour, as well as xanthan gum, will probably have to be purchased at a health food store or online. Vitamin places usually carry xanthan gum (which helps texture in non-gluten flours). Without this it may not be fluffy and [wheat] "bread-like."


* * * * * 

CHOCOLATE CHIP COOKIES

WET
1 C honey
1/2 C non-dairy butter substitute spread [or, butter, if non-dairy is unnecessary]
2 tsp vanilla

DRY
2 C chestnut flour
1 C tapioca flour / starch
1 C walnut meal
2 tsp xanthan gum
2 tsp baking soda
1 tsp salt
2 C sugar-free (e.g., grain-sweetened) chocolate (or carob) chips

Preheat oven to 350 degrees. Blend wet ingredients in a large bowl, and dry (except chocolate chips) in a medium bowl. Gradually add dry ingredients to wet, blend well, and stir in chips last. Drop on greased pan 1-2 inches apart and flatten with fork. Bake 7-10 minutes or until edges start to brown (the bottoms of the cookies can get dark or even burnt very quickly, so be careful the first time through). The consistency is soft; freeze cookies if hardness is desired. Delicious!


* * * * *

TOFU INSTANT CAROB PUDDING

1 lb. tofu
1/2 C honey
2 TBS non-dairy butter substitute spread [or, butter, if non-dairy is unnecessary]
1 TBS maple syrup
3 heaping dinner spoons of carob powder (adjust more or less to taste)
1 tsp vanilla
1/2 tsp salt

Mix very well in blender and chill.



* * * * *

Ruminations on Civic Duty, Patriotism, and Military Service in Relation to Our First Allegiance to God

 From a vigorous discussion thread on my Facebook page. I was responding to one person, whose lengthy comments can be read there. I cite a few of his words (in blue).
* * *
Lord save us from the scourge of radical pacifism, that causes thousands, even millions of lives to be lost out of a misunderstanding of what duty and Christian love requires in the face of senseless violence.

We are to seek and promote peace, not a head-in-the-sand, pie-in-the-sky, Frisbee-throwing, Kumbaya, Chamberlain-praising-Hitler, Gandhi saying "Hitler is not a bad man" naive vision of Liberal Secularist Utopia, where all men have only the best intentions and would never hurt a flea.

I just find it ironic that we seem to have blurred the line, at times, between the operations of the kingdoms of the world and the function/purpose of the kingdom of God, somehow fusing both together as if they support the same thing.

Romans 13:1-7 (RSV) [1] Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. [2] Therefore he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. [3] For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of him who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, [4] for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain; he is the servant of God to execute his wrath on the wrongdoer. [5] Therefore one must be subject, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience. [6] For the same reason you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God, attending to this very thing.
[7] Pay all of them their dues, taxes to whom taxes are due, revenue to whom revenue is due, respect to whom respect is due, honor to whom honor is due.

1 Peter 2:13, 17 Be subject for the Lord's sake to every human institution, whether it be to the emperor as supreme, . . . Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the emperor.

Our Lord said, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (Matt 22:21). When Jesus met the Roman centurion, He didn't tell him to immediately quit the army. Rather, He said, "Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith" (Matt 8:10) and healed his servant (8:13). Acts 10:22 refers to "Cornelius, a centurion, an upright and God-fearing man."   So if we dare to take a moment [on Veterans Day: I posted three tributes: one / two / three] to honor our brave soldiers who have fought for freedom and justice, thus indirectly honoring the government for whom they fight and sacrifice, all of a sudden we are accused of mixing earthly and heavenly kingdoms, even though St. Paul and St. Peter clearly joined them together in purposes. A government can become utterly evil, of course, and then it can be resisted (Rev 13). What one person decides to do is not normative for everyone else. Even Jesus and St. Paul acted differently when they were persecuted. Jesus turned the other cheek and didn't resist (He was born to suffer and die for us), but St. Paul resisted mightily, even appealing to his Roman citizenship at his trial. This is why he was beheaded, because he had the rights of a Roman citizen. So I guess the great apostle mixed the two kingdoms, too. What a shame and pity. All our best biblical role models are failing in their task to properly educate us.

I have no problem with individual conscientious objectors. I respect that. But if they try to tell everyone else that they are wicked and evil because they chose to serve their country in the military, then that is wrong, and not biblically justified. I conscientiously objected to abortion, was in about 25 clinic rescues from 1988-1990, was arrested five times, and went through three trials and was in jail for a few days. I paid the consequence of my objection; took the risks. What I didn't do was demand that everyone else rescue as I was doing. That was my choice.  The Bible tells us to honor our rulers and authorities. I respect the good things in this country and speak out against the bad (abortion, racism, bad liberal social policies, sexual sins, greed, etc.).

I am also on record saying that America is the wickedest nation ever, on account of abortion, and the principle of "to whom much is given, much is required." I'm no knee-jerk patriot who can't see anything wrong. But freeing oppressed people -- oftentimes not even Christians -- isn't wrong (WWII, Korea, Vietnam, Gulf War, Iraqi War, Afghan War, Bosnia, etc.). We are usually engaged in very honorable military activities. We're not perfect. The nuclear bombing of Japan in 1945 was immoral. I have argued that in several papers. I just saw last night that a soldier got life in prison for killing three Afghan civilians. This shows how we are very concerned to engage in just warfare. If we weren't, why would such a sentence occur? According to many anti-military or pacifist types, all our solders do is wantonly destroy, rape, and pillage. This is an extreme, outrageous calumny and slander. But there is the life sentence, because the proper moral lines weren't observed. St. Paul believed that he could be a Roman citizen, since he appealed to it. If it were some intrinsically evil thing, he could not have done that. Whatever it was, it is not presented as a sin. Of course we can't make a secular ruler "Lord": that would be idolatry. The early Christians couldn't say "Caesar is Lord" -- and chose to die instead. We're not saying that, now, but only saying to respect authority and honor rulers, as we are told to do.

Our responsibility as citizens is to vote, not to have a "who cares?" attitude as to who gets elected. If we think childkilling is evil, and other policies evil, then we get in line on election day and vote for people who oppose the evil things; otherwise we are complicit in the continuance of same. The Church has not condemned all military warfare. Period. The Church has not said that states do not have a right to make these decisions. Period. End of story.  It's pacifist / anti-military thinking that brought us World War II: nothing was sufficient to convince folks of Hitler's intentions. Hence many millions were slaughtered and it could all have been prevented, had appeasers like Chamberlain been roused from their slumber and fantasies.

Recent wars have been far more closely aligned with Catholic teaching than World War II itself (an initially just cause if there ever was one), where immoral tactics were often used (carpet bombing, nuclear annihilation). Now with smart bombs, etc., there are far far fewer civilian casualties, and almost all unintended.    ***

Brief Reflection on Radical "Feminist" vs. Complementary "Feminine" Theology (+ Collection of Linked Articles)

Like it or not, the word "feminism" as used today has been pretty much co-opted by radical unisex-type feminists. That is the big concern terminologically. "New feminism" might work if it is orthodox, because it contains within it the rejection of, or going further than feminism (i.e., the fashionable radical feminism).

I like the phrase "feminine theology" because it bypasses all the cultural/political baggage of "feminism." The definition of new feminism from Wikipedia is great:

"New feminism is a predominantly Catholic philosophy which emphasizes a belief in an integral complementarity of men and women, rather than the superiority of men over women or women over men.

I've been stressing complementarity of men and women for years in my own ruminations on gender issues. If we call it "new Catholic feminism" it would work even better, though with all the heterodox strains in the Church (on the ground) that can be twisted, too.

I think women can bring special insights and contributions to theology: absolutely, just as men do (and we even have female doctors of the Church now). They can specifically bring things that differentiate them from men. Blessed John Paul II wrote about many of these special gifts. The more such "projects" the better, in my opinion, as long as they are orthodox.

* * * 
See a wonderful Facebook discussion on this matter, that I was part of, and the following related articles: 
Catholic and Feminist: Can One be Both? (Elizabeth Fox-Genovese)
Alice Von Hildebrand on Feminism and Femininity

The Whole Truth About Catholic Feminism (John F. McCarthy)

Commentary: Catholic Feminism vs Equality Feminism (Prof. Janne Haaland Matlary)

What Is a Catholic Feminist? (Simcha Fisher)

Catholic Feminism (Walter H. Schneider)

Current Issues: Feminism (collection of articles at Catholic Education Resource Center)

Catholicism and Feminism (Cathleen Kaveny)

The New Feminism (website with lots of articles)

Feminists Don't Respect Women; the Catholic Church Does (Jennifer Fulwiler)

New Feminists (Leah Darrow)

Feminist Mythology vs. Catholic Reality (Joanna Bogle)

The Feminist Agenda within the Catholic Church (Cornelia R. Ferreira)

The Feminist Pope (Colleen Carroll Campbell)

Feminism and the Language Wars of Religion (Helen Hull Hitchcock)

Feminism and the Language Wars of Religion (Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J.)


***

Comparisons of Orthodox and Catholic Ecclesiology: Some Reasons for Why I Am a Catholic, and an Ecumenical "Proposal"

Some Orthodox Christians have proposed something like the following scenario for a healing of the breach between Orthodoxy and Catholicism:

1. Bishops ought to do nothing of consequence without the consent of the pope.

2. The pope cannot do anything of momentous significance without the consent of the consensus of the bishops and the totality of the Church.

If the pope, however, can only do what is consented to by the council or the whole body of the faithful, in all particulars, then the group truly sets the standard and that is pure conciliarism (because the pope has no more authority than the collective), which has been condemned as heresy by the Catholic Church. He would merely become one bishop among many, with little or nothing distinguishing him in authority. If there is no real distinction in power and jurisdiction (mere "primacy of honor" logically reduces to that, in my opinion), then this is Orthodoxy, and hardly a compromise "solution."

The group doing what the pope consents to sounds more "Catholic" to me, so I have little problem with #1; it is #2 that I think runs into problems. Making #1 and #2 equal in application simply reduces to conciliarism / Gallicanism, in which case our ecclesiology is hardly distinguishable from Orthodox ecclesiology (not to mention, contrary to Vatican I and II).

In practice, of course, both are usually held together, and there need not be mutual hostility or competition at all, but there is still theoretically, or dogmatically, at least, papal headship or supremacy, in which the pope can act alone. I would contend that this occurred, e.g., with Humanae Vitae in 1968 (which is an infallible document, far as I can determine), though that didn't involve a council.

Virtually all of the pope's advisers (if not all) argued against the continuing ban on contraception, but that was false to the history of Catholic teaching (reiterated in 1931), so the pope acted on his own and reinforced it. If he had to agree with that group, let alone a council, then evil may have been promulgated as good, as in Anglicanism after 1930, in virtually all other Protestant groups, and increasingly in practice (to my great distress), even in Orthodoxy.

This is one of the three main reasons I am Catholic rather than Orthodox. I wanted the morality of the Apostles and early Church, and since the Orthodox were compromising on contraception (e.g., three successive editions of Metr. Kallistos Ware's book, The Orthodox Church have increasingly weaker statements on it), I concluded that Orthodoxy was non-apostolic in that regard, and there was no question of joining them, since that issue was the first major issue in which I changed my mind.


I would say that the solution to the different conceptions of the relationship of pope and Church is for the Orthodox to grant the pope dogmatic singularity and supremacy, with the pope, for his part, making every effort to act directly in concert with councils and bishops, with the understanding that he voluntarily does so but is not duty-bound or required to do so, at least in some cases.

We know, e.g., that there were great inquiries sent out to bishops before the definitions of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption, so they were by no means isolated papal decisions.

A Catholic can never say that the pope does not have supremacy in some sense. If all he can do is agree with councils and bishops and be a mere figurehead (sort of like the Queen of England, with all the "Byzantine" pomp and circumstance), that is not Catholicism; it is Orthodoxy; in which case it is no compromise at all. I wouldn't expect ecumenical Orthodox to disregard all of our distinctives anymore than I would want to neglect their biggest concerns.

My proposal basically boils down to the day-to-day function and practice of the pope being essentially in accord with Orthodox conceptions, with the principle of the thing (supremacy, papal infallibility) being more "Catholic." If the pope has no final say in some real, concrete sense (as he did in the first millennium, in many instances), he is not a pope. 

I think my proposal for how a reunited papacy would work is quite ecumenical and respectful of Orthodox concerns (I believe it is a true compromise), and in line with what I have read from Blessed Pope John Paul II. It was just off the top of my head, too. I'm sure I could hone and refine it further upon more reflection.

I agree totally with "the law of love" in how the papacy operates and "gives orders," and I think the present Holy Father and his Blessed predecessor followed that to an extraordinary degree. I oppose all strong-arm tactics of any sort and am in favor of "subsidiarity" economically, politically, and ecclesiastically. In fact, I detest all "Church politics" so much that I have very little to do with it.

Accordingly, I was in favor of freedom of all Catholics to worship at a Tridentine Mass if they so chose, long before this was decreed by Pope Benedict XVI. I've attended a (historically German) parish that has always offered a Latin Mass: never stopped (Novus Ordo and sometimes Tridentine). We were the only cluster in the Detroit archdiocese that did so, when it was rare, and there are still very few even now, after it has been allowed. I think freedom of rite and custom is crucial to preserve, provided it is all orthodox.

Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman, effectively (dare I say devastatingly?) answered Orthodox conciliarism, I think, in a following classic statement from his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine [see, Pope St. Leo the Great, the "Robber" Council of 449, and the Council of Chalcedon in 451].

The fact remains that without the papacy (as we conceive it), the East (by Newman's reasoning) would have likely gone into complete heresy in the first Millennium. As it was, the East was rife with Monophysitism and Monothelitism (and also to a lesser extent, Nestorianism) for many centuries: infiltrating the patriarchates in alarming proportion (and we see a clear example of that in 449). I have written about this in my book on Orthodoxy [and see my paper that summarizes this argument].

Some argue that the proliferation of those heresies and also rampant iconoclasm, led directly to so many large regions falling rapidly to Islam. The road was paved with these heresies.

The East was in schism five times before 1054, as I have noted, and in all five instances (in the judgment of both sides) they were on the wrong side. Rome was right every time, with regard to these five schisms. I think that speaks volumes. Rome determines orthodoxy. History plainly reveals this.  The five schisms are:

The Arian schisms (343-98)
The controversy over St. John Chrysostom (404-415)
The Acacian schism (484-519)
Concerning Monothelitism (640-681)
Concerning Iconoclasm (726-87 and 815-43)

This adds up to 231 out of 500 years in schism: out of communion with Rome (46% of the time). Orthodox agree that all five of these schisms were in error, according to present Orthodox teaching. The Orthodox eventually rejected Arianism and Monothelitism and Iconoclasm. They think St. John Chrysostom is a good guy (Rome defended him then, just as with St. Athanasius). The Acacian schism had to do with Monophysitism.

Orthodoxy is not under the pope now. That changed in the eleventh century. The very fact that the more ecumenical Orthodox see it as preferable to somehow be back in communion with the pope, itself proves that Orthodoxy has lost a key proponent of historic Catholic Christianity. Otherwise, Orthodoxy would be complete in itself, and in need of no component from another Christian communion, as we view ourselves to be. Orthodoxy wouldn't need "our" pope; it would already have one of its own, or deny that it needs one at all (even in the lesser Orthodox sense). But that is not possible in Orthodoxy because of competing jurisdictions.

People who know much more about the situation than I do tell me there are many Eastern Catholics (as opposed to Eastern Orthodox) who are dissidents on the question of papal suprremacy, headship, and infallibility. Whether an Eastern Catholic chooses to abide by this or not is their choice. This is the problem in the Catholic Church as a whole: cafeteria, pick-and-choose Catholics. If a Catholic doesn't like some Catholic dogmas, then to be honest, he should not be a Catholic, because he or she is not in full obedience on that point. That doesn't change the fact of what we teach. They would then simply be "Catholics" who are really Orthodox at heart. What else is new? Lots of folks don't consistently follow their own ostensible affiliation.Yet the 1990 Eastern Code of Canons states:

Canon 44 - §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by means of legitimate election accepted by him together with episcopal consecration; . . .

Canon 45 - §1. The Roman Pontiff, by virtue of his office (munus), not only has power over the entire Church but also possesses a primacy of ordinary power over all the eparchies and groupings of them by which the proper, ordinary and immediate power which bishops possess in the eparchy entrusted to their care is both strengthened and safeguarded.

§2. The Roman Pontiff, in fulfilling the office (munus) of the supreme pastor of the Church is always united in communion with the other bishops and with the entire Church; however, he has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, either personal or collegial, of exercising this function.

§3. There is neither appeal nor recourse against a sentence or decree of the Roman Pontiff.

A lot of the problems in the Catholic Church (even including very much the sex scandal) came about (I dare say) due to spineless bishops who have been lax in their duty (just as in the Arian crisis and other scandals and low points in the history of the Church). Many bishops followed the model of apostate (ot at least wimpish, ineffectual) priests that the prophets were constantly complaining about in the Old Testament. Modernism and liturgical mediocrity or corruption flourishes in many parishes because of this.

But (I would contend) papal encyclicals and acts have been the big force for a reform of both liturgy and orthodoxy. It is Rome that disciplines dissidents, and has provided strong leadership (the Catechism; many superb encyclicals). Thus, it seems to me that the "top-down" model works better for preserving orthodoxy and good morals (e.g., Humanae Vitae again).

In Orthodoxy, in large part because of no such central authority and final say, something like contraception now increasingly takes hold, even though the Orthodox traditionally opposed it as a grave sin, just as we continue to do. The difference? We had a pope who spoke out strongly on the matter in 1968, and it is infallible moral teaching that won't change.

Orthodox argue that Pope St. Leo the Great in the Council of Chalcedon in 451 did not "rule" or have the final say, but rather, that his Tome was deliberated upon and then ratified by the assembly. I heard Metr. Kallistos Ware make this argument in a lecture in Detroit.

Granting your description, this would be, in my view, an instance of the papacy being at an earlier stage of development. It was still developing at this relatively early date. Christianity had only been legal for 138 years. This accounted in large part for a slow earlier development of the papacy, as Cardinal Newman argued.

Even Christology had much more development to go through at that time. The canon of the Bible had only been established for two generations. Mariology was still developing quite a bit, and also the doctrine of the saints. The iconoclasm issue (tying into communion of saints and the incarnation) was not resolved till several centuries after that.

So it is not unusual to hold, as I do, that the doctrine (and operation and function) of the papacy was also developing, which is why infallibility was not declared till 1870. Orthodox will rail against Vatican I but they can't deny that it was the result of a very slow development that took 18 centuries. Hence, if that developed slowly, all the more would we expect a much more primitive papacy in 451, which is very early. At that point things were relatively more "conciliarist" -- though, I suspect, not as much as what Orthodox think, judging from very strong papal statements I have read in Pope St. Leo the Great (some of which seem to go even further than Pope St. Gregory the Great 150 years later).

Now, some Orthodox I have debated will argue that it is development of doctrine that is the bugaboo and where Rome went so wrong. I think that is nonsense (sorry for my overly subtle terminology). In my book on Orthodoxy, I argued that Orthodoxy has developments, too, just as Catholicism does. Here is a portion of what I wrote:

Orthodox often seem to disparage development of doctrine, or argue that Orthodox development (insofar as it occurs at all) is essentially different from Catholic development. As an example, let us consider hesychasm. One can trace it back in kernel form to St. Gregory Nyssa, St. Basil the Great, or Origen, yet it was not fully developed until St. Gregory Palamas (1296-1359). So this seems to me to also be a "development of a category" (a type of prayer and devotion, and -- especially -- the corresponding theology), since it has to do with the nature and essence of God, and a distinction between essence and energy. As such, it is hardly distinguishable (philosophically speaking) from similar refinements of category such as the homoousios, Theotokos, transubstantiation, or procession within the Godhead.  

It was not formally adopted (relating it to the Divine Energies and Uncreated Light), until the Councils of Constantinople in 1341, 1347, and 1351, when it then became, according to the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, "an accepted part of Orthodox tradition." I don't see how this is any different (chronologically or essentially) from, for example, Catholic developments of transubstantiation or the Immaculate Conception (both fully developed one or two hundred years before hesychasm was) [or the papacy]. Can Orthodox claim that hesychasm and related concepts existed in their developed form all the way back to the early centuries of the Church? I think not. 

Papal infallibility cannot be rolled back. It is a de fide dogma. By its very nature it is permanent. How the inherent power is exercised, however, can be discussed, and has been in high-level talks. And this is how Vatican II complemented Vatican I. Once papal infallibility was established once and for all and "out of the way," then the road was set for a fuller development of a still-supreme pope working more directly in concert with councils and bishops.

Vatican II gave the strongest statement of conciliar infallibility in the history of he Church: but it is conciliar infallibility in cooperation (always) with the pope, and with his approval, which is what sets it apart from orthodox conciliarism. That's why the papal decree came first, then more development on conciliar ecclesiology.

I believe in papal ecclesiology because I think it is also modeled in the Bible, on Petrine primacy. Peter had prerogatives that no one else had, or had only in concert: exactly as in our ecclesiology. Peter was the leader, whereas in Orthodoxy, Peter, John, James, and Paul or some such would all be leaders, with no one having final say in cases of disagreement, leading to separate jurisdictions (and sometimes, historically, heresy as a result).

The Jerusalem Council worked the same way. St. Peter's words seem to have been decisive, and he acted as Leo the Great did in 451. St. James also played a key role, being the resident bishop. It had final authority. St. Paul went around declaring its binding decrees (Acts 16:4).

We are operating the same way the early Church did: just more developed. We still have popes; we still have councils. Orthodoxy has no popes and rarely holds councils; certainly not ecumenical ones, as they were in the first millennium and after, in terms of drawing from bishops all over the world.

But there were several mostly Eastern ecumenical councils then, too, so even if some of ours in the last 1000 years were mostly Western (that would be part of the Orthodox critique), that would be no different in essence from the early mostly Eastern ones: just "balancing the score a bit." 


***

John Bugay (Presbyterian Anti-Catholic Apologist) Refuses (and Returns) Charitable Donations from Catholics for His Wife's Serious Illness, Insults Donors as "Mockers" With Nefarious Motives, Etc.

 William Hogarth, The Good Samaritan (1737). Oil on canvas: St. Bartholomew's Hospital, London

I must say this is the lowest of the low, from our anti-Catholic brethren in Christ. I could tell stories from interacting with anti-Catholics for 15 years online that would curl your hair (or straighten it if it is curly), but this is the bottom of the barrel. I've been told in the past that I would definitely go to hell, and shouldn't be prayed for. A person ("Ron") in the first comment in the combox of John's recent pathetic post bashing the Catholic Church (precipitated by the Penn State sex scandal) wrote an entire post (linked there) that a certain Catholic should not be prayed for, even mocking her various health problems. In his post, Bugay stated:

Scott Hahn and Bryan Cross and Devin Rose and Taylor Marshall and Mark Shea and Dave Armstrong and "Catholic Answers" and all of you who are defending the Roman Catholic Church and trying to win converts to it ought to stop now what you're doing . . .  And while you're at it, you ought to examine your own lives and beliefs and motives. 

Of course I responded at length to this sort of nonsense. It so happens that John's wife Bethany is suffering from leukemia. The contrast between John's asking for donations because of their present resulting financial problems, and this associate of his wickedly urging others to not even pray for someone else who is having health problems was so striking and revolting to me that I decided to try to break through the wall of anti-Catholic ill will and exercise some tangible charity, even towards one who had so severely insulted my Church and myself and my fellow apologists. 

Serious disease is something we all fear and can sympathize (or, heaven forbid, empathize) with. My sister-in-law Judy died suddenly of a brain tumor in 1988. My brother Gerry (her husband) died of leukemia in 1998, and my father of lung cancer two years ago. I've lost many other loved ones, including a very dear aunt, at too young of an age. It has nothing to do with theology. It is helping a fellow human being in love, in obedience to Christian injunctions to care for the needy and to be compassionate towards those who are suffering. Thus I wrote at the end of my reply:

Now, I desire to illustrate the love of Christ in a way far different from that. I say we should show love towards John Bugay, despite the lies he is uttering against us and our Church. His wife Bethany is struggling with a very difficult health issue: leukemia, and John has been writing about it a lot on his web page, sharing the tremendously difficult struggles that they are both going through. Just yesterday a bone marrow donor was found.

I happen to know a lot about this procedure because I was a bone marrow donor myself in 1995 for my brother Gerry, who also suffered from leukemia. It enabled him to live another year, but his case was more advanced. There is considerable hope for a good prognosis with a bone marrow transplant. John Bugay has said that his family is suffering financially (30-40% loss, plus any time he has to be off work) because of loss of work for Bethany. He is asking for donations through PayPal. [originally a link was provided here] Please strongly consider donating to this important cause, and demonstrating the love of Christ. I would send something myself but I am flat broke at the moment. Perhaps I will be able to in the near future. This is one way we communicate the fullness of Catholic truth: by demonstrating the love of Christ in a tangible way.

We strongly disagree with John's unfair and irrational criticisms, but at the same time we should show Christian love. I have nothing against him personally. I just don't think he has thought through these issues properly (as is universally the case with anti-Catholics). And I give him a large pass, particularly considering the agony that he and his wife are experiencing at the present time.

Please pray for John and his wife Bethany's illness, and seriously consider sending them a generous amount of money during this difficult time (to his PayPal account) [originally a link was provided].

I cross-posted this statement with a link to PayPal on my Facebook page (3200 friends), even making an entire entry devoted to it, in an effort to raise some money for John's family. I also made a post on my Twitter page (700 followers). Both of these had direct links to his PayPal account, so people could immediately donate money. 

As I stated above, I am broke at the moment (apologetics not being  a lucrative profession), but I received a donation yesterday, as I do periodically, because that is a needed part of my income, as I continue my full-time work in apologetics (my ten-year anniversary of full-time service in this fashion is just three weeks away). Thus, I was going to donate $50 myself today, from a credit card that I had just paid off after several years. I wanted to "put my money where my mouth is." If someone is trying to raise money and asking others to contribute, then it is reasonable to expect them to join in as well. And that is the reason I mention this (along with the pathetic response from John Bugay); otherwise I would have done it without at least revealing the amount.


But, lo and behold, I came onto my blog today and discovered that John Bugay is rejecting with scorn any donations that Catholics give to help his family in their time of need. We are too evil for him to dream of accepting acts of charity from us in the form of financial assistance (that he has publicly requested). John wrote in my combox today:

In the meantime, please take down the link to our PayPal account. One donation has come in from this bunch of mockers, and I've returned it. And I will return other donations if I can identify them from you or yours as well.

It's the same old story from our profoundly Christlike anti-Catholic friends. The most sincere attempts by Catholics to express Christian love to them are mocked and scorned. Now we have someone refusing "evil" Catholic money to help his family as his wife suffers from serious illness. Even an atheist would accept that with thankfulness and gratefulness (just as they will sometimes graciously accept a Christian prayer, thinking, "what do I have to lose?"). But not anti-Catholics: they detest us too much to ever dream of accepting a gift of charity. Or at least John does . . .


Catholic Brent Stubbs made a reply in my combox:

John,

Your lack of understanding of Christian love is saddening. If you think we would give to your wife out of mockery, your hate for Rome has poisoned your judgment. We all have families and lives and can sympathize with the situation you are going through. God's grace empowers us to put down the apologetics sword for a moment to offer genuine support--not to win converts--but to offer genuine support. I hope that last dollar you returned wasn't the last dollar you will need. Lord have mercy.

Bugay fired back within 15 minutes (before proceeding to bash the Church some more):

Brent, you'll have a hard time convincing me that anything coming from this group is Christian. 

Brent replied (twice) with Christian charity:

That's fine if I cannot convince you . . . I will pray for your wife this morning. . . . God bless you and your wife. Take care.

Devin Rose, whom Bugay had also bashed in his piece, was the person who donated to his family; whose money was returned. He also responded in my combox:

John,

Well, I was the one who made the donation, which no one here knew, and I intended it to be anonymous, but I saw that you rejected the donation earlier today. That's your prerogative.

But know that I did not make it in mockery or cunning. We happen to have enough right now to help others with, and that includes Catholics, Protestants, non-Christians, whoever is in need. So I donated a small amount to help y'all. I understand that you think Catholicism is evil and so you didn't accept it. God bless. 

John saw fit to take another shot, judging my entire apostolate, in my combox below:

Dave, I'm sorry about the loss of your brother, and the other tragedies in your family. But rather than allow such tragedies to exhort you to humility, your whole enterprise may be summed up with this verse: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get.' I want to remain as far away from you as possible.

That's me, folks: a self-righteous, spiritually prideful moron. This explains my thirty years of Christian apologetics (the last 21 years, Catholic apologetics, and the last ten, full-time). I'm only in it for my own glory (thus I endure an avalanche of relentless personal attacks from people like John and his cronies, because I am so full of myself). Right.

What can one do? Well, we can still pray and do acts of penance for Bethany (for her healing by natural or supernatural means) and the financial situation in the Bugay household. I urge all to do so, and I will, myself. We can still bless them with prayer and the aid that God gives as a result of it. I have left the link to John's website above (here it is again) and it will stay, even if he asks to remove that, because it is public material, anyway. Anyone can learn of Bethany's medical progress there, in order to better know what to pray for.

Meanwhile I will go now and remove all the links to John's PayPal account and my appeals for help for his family, on my three different sites. Wonders never cease . . . the devil delights in such atrocious bad relations among Christians. Divide and conquer . . .



***

John Bugay (Presbyterian Anti-Catholic Apologist) Refuses (and Returns) Charitable Donations from Catholics for His Wife's Serious Illness, Insults Donors as "Mockers" and Requests Removal of My Links (Intended to Aid His Family) to His PayPal Page

 William Hogarth, The Good Samaritan (1737). Oil on canvas: St. Bartholomew's Hospital, London

I must say this is the lowest of the low, from our anti-Catholic brethren in Christ. I could tell stories from interacting with anti-Catholics for 15 years online that would curl your hair (or straighten it if it is curly), but this is the bottom of the barrel. I've been told in the past that I would definitely go to hell, and shouldn't be prayed for. A person ("Ron") in the first comment in the combox of John's recent pathetic post bashing the Catholic Church (precipitated by the Penn State sex scandal) wrote an entire post (linked there) that a certain Catholic should not be prayed for, even mocking her various health problems. In his post, Bugay stated:

Scott Hahn and Bryan Cross and Devin Rose and Taylor Marshall and Mark Shea and Dave Armstrong and "Catholic Answers" and all of you who are defending the Roman Catholic Church and trying to win converts to it ought to stop now what you're doing . . .  And while you're at it, you ought to examine your own lives and beliefs and motives. 

Of course I responded at length to this sort of nonsense. It so happens that John's wife Bethany is suffering from leukemia. The contrast between John's asking for donations because of their present resulting financial problems, and this associate of his wickedly urging others to not even pray for someone else who is having health problems was so striking and revolting to me that I decided to try to break through the wall of anti-Catholic ill will and exercise some tangible charity, even towards one who had so severely insulted my Church and myself and my fellow apologists. 

Serious disease is something we all fear and can sympathize (or, heaven forbid, empathize) with. My sister-in-law Judy died suddenly of a brain tumor in 1988. My brother Gerry (her husband) died of leukemia in 1998, and my father of lung cancer two years ago. I've lost many other loved ones, including a very dear aunt, at too young of an age. It has nothing to do with theology. It is helping a fellow human being in love, in obedience to Christian injunctions to care for the needy and to be compassionate towards those who are suffering. Thus I wrote at the end of my reply:

Now, I desire to illustrate the love of Christ in a way far different from that. I say we should show love towards John Bugay, despite the lies he is uttering against us and our Church. His wife Bethany is struggling with a very difficult health issue: leukemia, and John has been writing about it a lot on his web page, sharing the tremendously difficult struggles that they are both going through. Just yesterday a bone marrow donor was found.

I happen to know a lot about this procedure because I was a bone marrow donor myself in 1995 for my brother Gerry, who also suffered from leukemia. It enabled him to live another year, but his case was more advanced. There is considerable hope for a good prognosis with a bone marrow transplant. John Bugay has said that his family is suffering financially (30-40% loss, plus any time he has to be off work) because of loss of work for Bethany. He is asking for donations through PayPal. [originally a link was provided here] Please strongly consider donating to this important cause, and demonstrating the love of Christ. I would send something myself but I am flat broke at the moment. Perhaps I will be able to in the near future. This is one way we communicate the fullness of Catholic truth: by demonstrating the love of Christ in a tangible way.

We strongly disagree with John's unfair and irrational criticisms, but at the same time we should show Christian love. I have nothing against him personally. I just don't think he has thought through these issues properly (as is universally the case with anti-Catholics). And I give him a large pass, particularly considering the agony that he and his wife are experiencing at the present time.

Please pray for John and his wife Bethany's illness, and seriously consider sending them a generous amount of money during this difficult time (to his PayPal account) [originally a link was provided].

I cross-posted this statement with a link to PayPal on my Facebook page (3200 friends), even making an entire entry devoted to it, in an effort to raise some money for John's family. I also made a post on my Twitter page (700 followers). Both of these had direct links to his PayPal account, so people could immediately donate money. 

As I stated above, I am broke at the moment (apologetics not being  a lucrative profession), but I received a donation yesterday, as I do periodically, because that is a needed part of my income, as I continue my full-time work in apologetics (my ten-year anniversary of full-time service in this fashion is just three weeks away). Thus, I was going to donate $50 myself today, from a credit card that I had just paid off after several years. I wanted to "put my money where my mouth is." If someone is trying to raise money and asking others to contribute, then it is reasonable to expect them to join in as well. And that is the reason I mention this (along with the pathetic response from John Bugay); otherwise I would have done it without at least revealing the amount.


But, lo and behold, I came onto my blog today and discovered that John Bugay is rejecting with scorn any donations that Catholics give to help his family in their time of need. We are too evil for him to dream of accepting acts of charity from us in the form of financial assistance (that he has publicly requested). John wrote in my combox today:

In the meantime, please take down the link to our PayPal account. One donation has come in from this bunch of mockers, and I've returned it. And I will return other donations if I can identify them from you or yours as well.

It's the same old story from our profoundly Christlike anti-Catholic friends. The most sincere attempts by Catholics to express Christian love to them are mocked and scorned. Now we have someone refusing "evil" Catholic money to help his family as his wife suffers from serious illness. Even an atheist would accept that with thankfulness and gratefulness (just as they will sometimes graciously accept a Christian prayer, thinking, "what do I have to lose?"). But not anti-Catholics: they detest us too much to ever dream of accepting a gift of charity. Or at least John does . . .


Catholic Brent Stubbs made a reply in my combox:

John,

Your lack of understanding of Christian love is saddening. If you think we would give to your wife out of mockery, your hate for Rome has poisoned your judgment. We all have families and lives and can sympathize with the situation you are going through. God's grace empowers us to put down the apologetics sword for a moment to offer genuine support--not to win converts--but to offer genuine support. I hope that last dollar you returned wasn't the last dollar you will need. Lord have mercy.

Bugay fired back within 15 minutes (before proceeding to bash the Church some more):

Brent, you'll have a hard time convincing me that anything coming from this group is Christian. 

Brent replied (twice) with Christian charity:

That's fine if I cannot convince you . . . I will pray for your wife this morning. . . . God bless you and your wife. Take care.

Devin Rose, whom Bugay had also bashed in his piece, was the person who donated to his family; whose money was returned. He also responded in my combox:

John,

Well, I was the one who made the donation, which no one here knew, and I intended it to be anonymous, but I saw that you rejected the donation earlier today. That's your prerogative.

But know that I did not make it in mockery or cunning. We happen to have enough right now to help others with, and that includes Catholics, Protestants, non-Christians, whoever is in need. So I donated a small amount to help y'all. I understand that you think Catholicism is evil and so you didn't accept it. God bless. 

What can one do? Well, we can still pray and do acts of penance for Bethany (for her healing by natural or supernatural means) and the financial situation in the Bugay household. I urge all to do so, and I will, myself. We can still bless them with prayer and the aid that God gives as a result of it. I have left the link to John's website above (here it is again) and it will stay, even if he asks to remove that, because it is public material, anyway. Anyone can learn of Bethany's medical progress there, in order to better know what to pray for.

Meanwhile I will go now and remove all the links to John's PayPal account and my appeals for help for his family, on my three different sites. Wonders never cease . . . the devil delights in such atrocious bad relations among Christians. Divide and conquer . . .



***

Martin Luther Candidly Admits in 1532: "I . . . am More Slack than I Was Under the Papacy . . . Nowadays there Hardly is Such Earnestness Under the Gospel as One Used to See Previously Under the Monks and Priests"

 Wittenberg in 1536
Anti-Catholic John Q. "Deadhead" Doe is up to his old tricks, of pulling quotes from my site (without mentioning me, of course: the game he has been playing for some time now) and analyzing them. This one was from my paper, Martin Luther's Regrets as to the Relative Failure of the "Reformation" (Piety, Morals and Inconsistencies Regarding Replacing Bishops With Princes) -- the very last citation at the end. Here it is:

I confess, that I am much more negligent, than I was under the Pope, and there is now nowhere such an amount of earnestness under the Gospel, as was formerly seen among Monks and Priests. [Walch. IX. 1311]

[from: Henry O'Connor, S. J.: Luther's Own Statements Concerning His Teaching and Its Results (New York: Benzinger Brothers, 1884, second edition]

Fortunately, this time, rather than misrepresenting and twisting what I wrote (as he so often does), Doe actually provides a helpful service, of providing more context. First he gives the background of the quote:

A similar version of the same quote was used by Hartmann Grisar in Luther [Vol.] 3. On page 206, Grisar states:

"I confess of myself," he says in a sermon in 1532, "and doubtless others must admit the same [of themselves], that I lack the diligence and earnestness of which really I ought to have much more than formerly; that I am much more careless than I was under the Papacy; and that now, under the Evangel, there is nowhere the same zeal to be found as before." This he declares to be due to the devil and to people's carelessness, but not to his teaching. (Werke, Erl. ed., 18 2 , p. 353).

[my bolding, added presently]

Primary Source

O'Hare and O'Connor  cite Walch, IX. 1311. "Walch" refers to a set of Luther's works published 1740-1753 by Johann Georg Walch. The set was revised from 1885-1910 (in St. Louis), and may not match up with the earlier set. It appears O'Connor used the 18th Century edition. While some of the Walch set is online, I could not locate volume IX from the old set.  Grisar refers to "Werke, Erl. ed., 18 2 , p. 353." This volume is available. Page 353 can be found here.

The writing in question is a lengthy sermon on 1 john 4 16-21. It can be found in WA 36:416 - 477, with the quote being found on page 469.  To my knowledge, this sermon has not been translated into English.

Paul Althaus' work, The Theology of Martin Luther (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1966), confirms that the sermon is from 1532, on p. 450. Brigitte, a friend of Doe's, who is a Lutheran originally from Germany, has translated the surrounding section:

This is what St. Paul meant when he preached about love, 1. Cor. 13 (verse 1): if I speak in tongues of angels; similarly (verse 2): if I had all faith so that I could move mountains, but have not love, so I would be nothing, etc. Because when a person goes along in security with the illusion that he has faith but never experiences it, it must decay and dry up, and nothing is found when it comes to the point in time when some is supposed to be found.

The dear apostles understood this quite well; and we experience it, too. Because the world always remains this way, that it praises itself falsely because of its faith, or otherwise it wants to be seen as quite holy without faith.

But if a person preaches regarding faith and grace, nobody wants to perform works; and if a person urges works, then nobody seeks faith. Those people are quite rare who can hold to the right middle of the road; yes, it becomes difficult even for the pious Christian.

I confess even of myself, and no doubt so will many others also, that I, too, lack the diligence and earnestness, which I should now have in greater measure than before, but rather am more slack than I was under the papacy, and nowadays there hardly is such earnestness under the gospel as one used to see previously under the monks and priests, when there was a great deal of donating and building, and none was so poor, that he did not desire to give something.

But now, no town which can support a preacher, and nothing except robbing and stealing is going on among the people with no one there to stop them.

From where comes such a plague? There are those who scream that it is due to the teaching that one should not build upon and trust in works. But no, it is the pesky devil who blames this condition falsely on the salutary doctrine; also it is our old Adam who wants to always breakout to the side onto the wrong path, and believes that it does not matter whether or not we do many good works; and thus we become quickly lazy and careless, persisting in this way until we lose the sap and strength of faith altogether.

Many thanks to Doe and Brigitte. I have offered readers the actual quote in its context, minus the spin and special pleading, with standard boilerplate Protestant rhetoric, that Doe provides. I am quite confident that my readers can understand it without the extraneous and self-serving commentary.


***