Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 56

Thoughts on Communion in the Hand

 [ source ]
The following was compiled from my comments in a recent Facebook thread. I started it off with this quotation:

That, in the early Church, the faithful stood when receiving into their hands the consecrated particle can hardly be questioned. . . . St. Dionysius of Alexandria, writing to one of the popes of his time, speaks emphatically of "one who has stood by the table and has extended his hand to receive the Holy Food" (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VII, ix).

(Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911, "Genuflexion")

I think reverence is the overwhelming factor. At my parish almost all receive kneeling at an altar rail, on the tongue, and always from a priest or on occasion a deacon. But I am not legalistic about method because I know Church history and I know of Eastern Catholicism. There are many reasons why reverence is sometimes lacking; not just posture.

In the final analysis, only God knows how reverent or pious a person truly is, because God looks at the heart and motive, and we usually cannot determine that. If a person is laughing or joking around or clearly negligent with the Lord's Body, that is one thing, but usually people judge based on mere external things or impressions. 
* * *
Most of the world does stand during consecration. Kneeling is not now and has not historically been anywhere near universal. I agree that it is a reverent position, because of bowing and kneeling before, etc., in the Bible and in many cultures, but standing is not irreverent in and of itself.

We kneel in the West (or at least the US) during consecration because that is the tradition here (and I think the rubrics, if I am not mistaken).

Certainly we can't say that Eastern Catholics are irreverent simply because they are standing during consecration and receiving our Lord in Holy Communion. Many have sought liturgical reverence and integrity in Eastern Catholicism because they had a hard time finding it in the Latin Rite, where they lived. 
* * *
 My own opinion is that, in our culture at this time, kneeling for communion does foster reverence (including in children). I love doing it at my church. It is a wonderful time, waiting at the rail, taking in the beauty of the altar at my church. But I can't make any kind of universal statement as to receiving standing. The whole thing is too specific to person and culture and particular liturgical traditions, I think. 
* * *  
If there are 22 rites in the Catholic Church, then there are 21 besides the Latin, and many if not most of those stand; also the Orthodox. That's what I meant. Kneeling is mostly a Latin (and also American) tradition. In any event, we can't be dogmatic about posture in this way, given the current allowed diversity. So why discuss it? If someone wants to kneel (as I do), they can choose a church / rite where that is the norm.

* * *
I think reverence does differ to some extent according to culture and past history. That's why I agreed that kneeling is probably best in the west, while trying to avoid legalistic and judgmental statements about other practices.

* * *

Some contact is eventually made with our bodies: either hand plus mouth or mouth only. What's the difference? Reverence is a heart matter, not a parts of the body concern.

* * *

‎there is a smaller percentage of Catholics who believe in the real presence today than before this practice was allowed.

You assume that there is a one-to-one causal relationship between the two things, which is, of course, a highly dubious notion and impossible to prove.

* * *
Personally, I think many of the dogmatic-type, "either/or" arguments on liturgical matters come primarily from emotionalism and association (as a result of personal practice and experience), rather than from logic, canon law, and Church history. People instinctively don't "like" a certain practice: they have a gut reaction to it, or they associate it with pure, unmixed liberalism and laxity and nominalism. That in turn drives the opposition (if my speculation is correct).

* * *

We should probably be more concerned w/how we're treating Christ in our daily lives, than our reverance, piety and posturing in front of the other sheep.

Posture and "posturing" are two different things. :-) Nice play on words, though . . . 

* * *
Pope Benedict XVI has expressed a position on this virtually identical to mine above (it's nice to agree with him!):

I am not opposed in principle to Communion in the hand; I have both administered and received Communion in this way myself.

The idea behind my current practice of having people kneel to receive Communion on the tongue was to send a signal and to underscore the Real Presence with an exclamation point. One important reason is that there is a great danger of superficiality precisely in the kinds of Mass events we hold at St. Peter's, both in the Basilica and in the Square. I have heard of people who, after receiving Communion, stick the Host in their wallet to take home as a kind of souvenir.

In this context, where people think that everyone is just automatically supposed to receive Communion—everyone else is going up, so I will, too—I wanted to send a clear signal. I wanted it to be clear: something quite special is going on here! He is here, the One before Whom we fall on our knees! Pay attention!

This is not just some social ritual in which we can take part if we want to.

(Light of the World, 2010)

See related papers of mine:


How to Receive Communion: Tradition, Abuses, Symbolism, and Piety Counter-"Traditionalist" Argument From Liturgical Development: Method of Receiving Holy Communion  Excessive Abuses in the Use of Lay Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion in America
Dialogue With Priests on Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion

***

On Credibility, Conspiracies, and Caution (Guest Post by David Palm Re: Robert Sungenis)

[image error] As I had begun to write this piece, word went out from the Society of Our Lady of the Most Holy Trinity about evidence they have found regarding significant wrong-doing by their member, Fr. John Corapi.  I had been told about this breaking scandal a few weeks ago by a friend, who was absolutely convinced that Fr. Corapi had done nothing wrong and that the whole thing is a set-up.  Indeed, there are hundreds, if not thousands of Catholics who, at least right now, believe that "They" are out to get Fr. Corapi.

It's a theme that plays out again and again on the Internet.  "They" are all lying to you.  "They" are all trying to lead you astray.  "They" are all corrupt.  Now, let me tell you the "Real Truth" that "They" don't want you to know.  (And oh, by the way, won't you buy my book and send me a generous donation so that I can continue my important work of exposing "Them"?)

Watch out.

Fr. Corapi had a reputation for "telling it like it is", for being blunt and bold in his teaching.  People like that, they gravitate toward it.  And now, with allegations breaking out about his personal conduct, some refuse to look at any evidence that might call Father's credibility into question.  It is all about him.  "They" are out to get him.

And yet, the evidence is coming in and with it serious questions about his credibility.  Phil Lawler has an excellent piece on this—"Corapi: Why were warning signs ignored?"—which can serve as a paradigm for other such situations.

An Emerging Pattern
What other such situations?  Well let's say someone claims to be a "prophet" and insists that "They" is an entire ethnic group.  Maybe "They" are the Jews, who are alleged to be the "slave masters" and somehow responsible for more or less anything bad that happens.  Let's say that someone claims that "They" represents pretty much every scientist for the past three hundred years, including eminent Catholic and other Christian scientists, who, with respect to the true nature of the universe "Know It, But They're Hiding It" from ordinary people.  Or let's say that someone claims that "They" are all the popes of the last three hundred years and all the bishops in communion with them, who should have been teaching against what is claimed to be a "formal heresy" but who have been inept or cowardly, duped by conspiracy and subterfuge or purposely subversive.

With claims like those, wouldn't you say that this "prophet's" personal character and credibility might just be an important factor in evaluating how seriously to take such claims?

I've been bemused in the ongoing debate over neo-geocentrism that whenever the general credibility of its main proponent, Bob Sungenis, is called into question the hue and cry goes up from his supporters that it's a fallacious ad hominem attack.  Here's just the latest example:

It never fails to amaze me how when the subject of geocentrism is discussed on the Internet on forums such as this you will almost invariably find people engaging in immediate ad hominem attacks against those individuals who have expressed a belief in geocentrism.  This is especially true in the case of Robert Sungenis (posted by James B. Philips).

What makes this complaint particularly amusing is that it's deployed in defense of a person who has an entire appendix in his book Galileo Was Wrong entitled, "The Personal Lives of: Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Einstein".  And not just there, but throughout the pages of both volumes of GWW, Bob accuses those men and others of a whole panoply of moral failings including lying, subterfuge, homosexuality/pederasty, adultery, occult practices, plagiarism (oh, what irony!—see below), theft, and murder.  He seems to have no problem with weaving these observations into his public talks.  Bob clearly believes that these alleged moral failings are germane to the discussion of whether their scientific views are correct. But his own behavior is somehow off-limits when it comes to these discussions.  This is just one more example of "one standard for me and another for thee" when it comes to Bob Sungenis.

Wikipedia notes on the argumentum ad hominem that:

The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy, but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue. (my emphasis)

Now, a genuinely fallacious ad hominem attack would be something like, "Fr. Corapi must be guilty because you know how those Italians are," or "You can't believe a word Bob says because he's Italian." (Which is in practice what Bob does with Jews, by the way—if you're a Jew or he even suspects that you might be a Jew, you're suspect.)

But there is no logical fallacy in saying that the views of someone who regularly proves himself to be sloppy, inaccurate, and at times downright malicious ought to be taken cum grano salis, with a hefty grain of salt.


What About Bob?
So what about Bob?  It seems clear that Bob loves to stir up dissension, animosity and controversy because he's been doing it for the better part of 35 years. In Surprised by Truth, he fittingly entitled his autobiographical account, "From Controversy to Consolation." According to Sungenis himself, he left the Catholic faith in early adulthood and spent the next 18 years embroiling himself in one controversy after another. In his conversion story, Bob reveals something significant about his temperament and his manner of searching for truth. For example, here's his account of a conversation with a friend named Gerry Hoffman who disagreed with him in regard to religion:

"My conversation with Gerry [Hoffman] was different. Even though I gave him a few of the standard objections to Catholic doctrines, for some reason, his answers did not make me feel combative. In fact, his explanations made me feel like listening instead of attacking. As those who knew me at that time would have attested, this was not my normal response to a conversation about politics or religion -- especially religion."

There are numerous other examples in his autobiographical conversion story that illustrate his penchant for creating dissension, animosity and controversy (see e.g. here).

The time of "consolation" to which he refers occurred immediately after his reversion to the Catholic faith. At that time, he had a season of grace and relative peace that allowed him to produce his fine "Not by" series. Sadly, that season passed and he's returned to his old ways.

For the past decade, he's returned to extreme controversialism – attacking and slandering Jews, his own bishop, and many others.  We have recently taken the opportunity to yet again defend Bishop Kevin Rhoades against Bob's unjust attacks.  In this vein I wrote:

Given the seriousness of the charge and the office of the one against whom it is leveled, I think it's very fair to ask, is this the sort of man to bring a charge against a successor of the Apostles?  Has he been fair and just in his dealings with others?  Has he comported himself well with those who are outside our Faith?  Has he been responsible and accurate in his handling of his sources?  Does he have the marks of a "prophet", as he self-styles himself?

Does Bob have the credibility to support such serious accusations?  The record indicates not.  Although this incident with Bishop Rhoades is the most egregious example, unfortunately there is a long-standing pattern of this sort of behavior from Bob.

Long-standing indeed.  A partial list of additional individuals to whom Bob has attributed inaccurate or fraudulent quotes include: Pope John Paul II, Gen. Tommy Franks, Attorney General John Ashcroft, Congressman John Rarick, mathematician Clifford Truesdell, Benjamin Ginsberg, Gen. Ariel Sharon, Carl Sagan, David Brooks, Jerry Falwell, Bill Cork, Leon Suprenant and Mike Sullivan of CUF, Roy Schoeman, Michael Forrest, Mark Shea, Christopher Blosser, Michael Lopez, and David Palm.

These are fully documented here:  Sungenis and the Jews--Fraudulent Quotes

But the most egregious example by far is Bob's continued accusations against Bishop Rhoades, which the bishop himself has called "slanderous and erroneous".  Bob has accused His Excellency of promoting a pro-Jewish heresy to "unsuspecting Catholics" because he has greater "allegiances" to Jewish causes than to the Catholic faith.  The charges themselves are absolutely false, but to make matters worse Bob has attempted to prop up those accusations with a narrative that is shot through with demonstrable falsehoods and self-contradictions.  This has been documented here:

Bishop Rhoades and the Dual Covenant Theory

An Open Invitation to Bob Sungenis

A Defense of Bishop Rhoades from More False Accusations by Robert Sungenis

Sungenis' Own Standards of Heresy: Why Don't They Apply to Bishop Rhoades?

He's back to attacking popes (see here). When he's confronted about his behavior, he typically lashes out and blames everyone else. He even accuses his critics of secretly being Jews (for but the latest case of this click here - go down to the last comment posted by Jared Olar).

I alluded above to the rich irony of Bob Sungenis, of all people, accusing Albert Einstein of plagiarism.  It cannot be put more delicately than to say that Bob is a habitual plagiarist.  According to the definition given by Bob's own alma mater, plagiarism is, "intentionally representing the words, ideas, or sequence of ideas of another as one's own in any academic exercise; failure to attribute any of the following: quotations, paraphrases, or borrowed information."  A large body of evidence for his literary theft been marshaled here, but I would urge the reader at the very least to read two pieces that document the most egregious examples: Dr. Bill Cork's "Antisemitism and the Catholic Right" (section 3) and my own "Sungenis Comes Full Circle".  There Bob's words are placed side-by-side with the sources from which he plagiarized them.  He has recently reproduced the essay critiqued in "Sungenis Comes Full Circle" in his most recent "book" The Catholic/Jewish Dialogue and put it on sale—particularly ironic considering the fact that Bob previously sought to redefine "plagiarism" by restricting it solely to those materials which one steals and then sells for personal gain.  Even by Bob's own self-servingly restricted (and false) definition he's certainly committed plagiarism now.

Bob now owns a phony "Ph.D." from a New Age diploma mill.  He self-styles himself as a "prophet" in the tradition of Ezekiel, Isaiah, and Jeremiah.  He claims that, for centuries, the popes have submerged and obscured what is really the official teaching of the Catholic Church on geocentrism.  And on the scientific front he sets his personal views of cosmology against the studied consensus of the entire scientific community for the past three hundred years.

Bob regularly peddles a whole panoply of conspiracy theories including, but not nearly limited to: NASA faked the lunar landings, the attacks of 9/11 were an "inside job" and the Jewish owner of WTC Building 7 purposely leveled that building with pre-set explosives, NASA creates crop circles to "get our minds off the Bible and Christ", the Jews sent Monica Lewinski in to take Bill Clinton down because they didn't like his foreign policy toward Israel, and so on....

And this kind of thinking even muddles his biblical commentary, which he and most people consider his greatest strength. For example, he has insisted in multiple places that the "context" for Romans 11 and St. Paul's teaching on the Jews is the destruction of Jerusalem in A. D. 70, which took place at least twelve years after Romans was written and 3 years after St. Paul was dead! On this and other related issues see "The Theology of Prejudice", "The Pope's 'Blunder' or Sungenis' Prejudice?", and "Sungenis on Romans 11: Theological Bias in Biblical Exegesis". Notice too that Bob hasn't been able to get an imprimatur on any of his works for many years now, having been turned down multiple times (see here.)

Returning to the topic of neo-geocentrism, it seems to me that Galileo Was Wrong is just more controversialism and sensationalism brought forth by someone trying to make a name for himself. He's repeatedly misused the name "Catholic" to give him an appearance of authority that he doesn't rightly possess – harming the Church in the process – and that's exactly why he was told by his bishop to stop calling his organization "Catholic."

Why Don't They See It?
One thing that has long puzzled me is how certain individuals continue to cling to Bob as credible long after they should have known better.  In part this can be explained by a phenomenon that we noted long ago, namely, that the more Bob's apostolate comes to be defined by fringe conspiracy theories the more he will draw his supporters from like-minded crackpots and cranks.  Crackpots and cranks are, by definition, seriously lacking in common sense.

But this is not to suggest that Sungenis' small group of followers is comprised exclusively of dimwits and social misfits.  For example, the Media Director at Robert Sungenis' website, Laurence Gonzaga, has a master's degree in child psychology and will soon be working to earn his doctorate in psychology.  He has a nice conversion story, is a catechist at several parishes in the Diocese of San Bernardino, and seems like a bright young man.  But, especially in light of his training in psychology, it's particularly odd that Gonzaga doesn't seem to see the problems with Bob, his behavior and the content of his teachings.

I know this is a lot of information. But in light of the sad, unfolding Fr. Corapi debacle, I thought it important to bring forth. Everybody likes a straight shooter. But when there are warning signs that something is seriously amiss, prudence says you'd better watch out. The warning signs are all over this. Don't let your loyalties be blind.

The upshot of all of this is that matters of character and credibility are highly important, especially if someone is claiming to be a "prophet" while peddling sweeping conspiracy theories.  As we continue to explore the various aspects of neo-geocentrism and its supporters' claims to be in possession of the "true" teaching of the Catholic Church and the "real" scientific truth, it makes a lot of sense to consider the source.

Set List for U2 in East Lansing, Michigan (Spartan Stadium): 26 June 2011

 [source 1: setlist.fm][source 2, with fan reviews, and one from Detroit Free Press ][review #2: Detroit Free Press][review #3: Detroit Free Press][article on the amazing stage structure: Detroit Free Press][review: Detroit News][review #2: Detroit News]
Yep; I was there, with two sons: three of 65,000 plus! It's the highest-grossing tour in rock music history (expected $700 million gross), with the biggest set ever (179 foot high "claw"). I'll be posting a whole album of photos on my Facebook page soon. All album titles below are linked to Wikipedia descriptive pages.
* * * * *
1. Even Better Than The Real Thing [from Achtung Baby , 1991]

2. The Fly [from Achtung Baby , 1991]

3. Mysterious Ways [from Achtung Baby , 1991]

4. Until The End Of The World [from Achtung Baby , 1991]

5. I Will Follow [from Boy , 1980]

6. Get On Your Boots [from No Line on the Horizon , 2009]

7. I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For (with "The Promised Land" snippet) [from The Joshua Tree , 1987]

8. Stay (Faraway, So Close!) [from Zooropa , 1993]

9. Beautiful Day (with "Space Oddity" snippet) [from All That You Can't Leave Behind , 2000]

10. Elevation [from All That You Can't Leave Behind , 2000]

11. Pride (In The Name Of Love) [from The Unforgettable Fire , 1984]

12.Miss Sarajevo [from Original Soundtracks 1 , 1995]

13. Zooropa [from Zooropa , 1993]

14. City Of Blinding Lights [from How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb , 2004]

15. Vertigo (with "TV Eye" snippet) [from How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb , 2004]

16. I'll Go Crazy If I Don't Go Crazy Tonight (Remix Version, with "Discotheque", "Life During Wartime" and "Psycho Killer" snippets) [from No Line on the Horizon , 2009, and Pop , 1997; last two are Talking Heads songs]

17. Sunday Bloody Sunday [from War , 1983]

18. Scarlet [from October , 1981]

19. Walk On (with "You'll Never Walk Alone" snippet) [from All That You Can't Leave Behind , 2000]

Encore:

20. One [from Achtung Baby , 1991]

21. Where The Streets Have No Name (with "Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow" snippet) [from The Joshua Tree , 1987]

Encore 2:

22. Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me [from Batman Forever soundtrack, 1995]

23. With Or Without You [from The Joshua Tree , 1987]

24. Moment of Surrender (with "Jungleland" snippet) [from No Line on the Horizon , 2009]

Luther's Lie About the Supposed Utter Obscurity of the Bible Before His Translation and Luther "Expert" John Q. Doe's Usual Erroneous, Revisionist Opinions

 An Early Edition of the Luther Bible
[Martin Luther's own words below will be in blue; Hartmann Grisar's footnotes (only) in red; John Q. Doe's words in green]
The big myth under consideration is the commonly heard legend among Protestants (especially of an anti-Catholic bent) of Catholic hostility to the Bible and desire to keep it out of the hands of the people, for fear that its doctrines will be exposed as contrary to the Bible. I have written about the falsity of this charge, and related issues, several times:

Was the Catholic Church an Avowed Enemy of Scripture in the Middle Ages (or at any other time)?

The Catholic Church Has Always Been the Enemy of the Bible (???)


Does the Catholic Church Think it is Superior to the Bible, and its Creator?
The Canon of Scripture: Did the Catholic Church Create It Or Merely Authoritatively Acknowledge It? (with Kevin Johnson)

Reply to "CPA" (Lutheran) Concerning Bogus Notions of the Catholic View of the Bible

See also in this regard, the wonderfully informative article by Andrew C. Gow, "The Contested History of  a Book: The German bible in the Later Middle Ages and Reformation in Legend, Ideology, and Scholarship" ( The Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, Vol. 9, Article 13 [2009] )

Specifically, the present question under consideration is: whether Luther himself perpetuated this ridiculous myth. The inimitable anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant polemicist John Quintillian "Deadhead" Doe, would-be Luther "expert" and (so he likes to make out) the Last Word on Anything Luther, claimed recently that this was not the case. I shall argue the contrary, that it is indeed the case. Doe (unlike many if not most Luther biographers I have seen) has habitually scorned and frowned upon Luther's Table-Talk because it was transcribed by others (sort of like the Four Gospels recording Jesus' words). So he doesn't consider it to be a source of "dependable" Luther utterances. Here is Doe's contention:

[summarizing a view he disagrees with] I think the gist of it is clear: Luther himself invented the myth that few previous to his work had a Bible. What does research leader Sabrina Corbellini base her conclusions on? Luther's Table Talk. . . .

Can Luther himself be blamed for the myth? Perhaps indirectly, based on his alleged Table Talk statements. This though requires one to base historical fact on hear-say. One has to assume non-writings of Luther's were intended to be (perhaps) deceptively inaccurate. Rather, I think the culprit wasn't Luther, but rather his zealous followers.

Doe also gets his facts wrong in another statement:

I do recall mentioning from time to time that indeed German translations of the Bible were available previous to Luther, but that most of these were written in high-German. Luther's translation gained immediate popularity due to its readability . . . [related combox comment] I recall it being said the German Luther wrote his Bible in was different than that previous.

In other words, Doe seems to think that High German was largely inexplicable (like saying "Shakespearian English" or something), so that Luther came along (again, according to his factually false view) and wrote in Low German, making the Bible readable for most of the common men of Germany. He seems to think High German means "more difficult German" whereas "Low German" is more of the common tongue. This is completely erroneous (such errors occur very often in Doe analyses: believe me, I know, from nine years of observing his fallacious arguments). The wiseGEEK web page, "What is High German?" clarifies:

High German is the variety of German spoken in central and south Germany, Austria and Switzerland. It is also spoken in areas of other European countries, including Poland, Italy, France and Belgium. "High" refers not to any perceived superiority, although many people assume it does, but rather to the ground elevation of the areas in Germany where it is spoken. High German contrasts with the Low German or Low Saxon variety of Standard German spoken in the northern part of the country and the Netherlands.

High German is not a dialect, but rather a variety with many different dialects of its own. The standardized form of German used in literature and formal situations throughout Germany and Austria, called Hochdeutsch - literally "High German" - is one dialect of High German.

[see also: Wikipedia, "Low German"]

The fact of the matter is that Luther's Bible was written in High German, and had a profound effect on the subsequent development of High German (this can be documented in a hundred places, so I need not bother). Most of the 15th and early 16th century Catholic Bibles were also in High German, as I noted as far back as 20 years ago in my research. For example:

The number of translations . . . of the complete Bible, was indeed very great . . . Between this period [1466] and the separation of the Churches at least fourteen complete editions of the Bible were published in High German, and five in the low German dialect. The first High German edition was brought out in 1466 by Johann Mendel, of Strasburg . . .

[Other editions in High German: Strasburg: 1470, 1485 / Basel, Switzerland: 1474 / Augsburg: 1473 (2),1477 (2), 1480, 1487, 1490, 1507, 1518 / Nuremburg: 1483]. Bible Translations in Low German: Cologne: 1480 (2) / Lubeck: 1494 / Halberstadt: 1522 / Delf: before 1522]

(Johannes Janssen, History of the German People From the Close of the Middle Ages, 16 volumes, translated by A. M. Christie, St. Louis: B. Herder, 1910 [orig. 1891],  Vol. 1, 56-57; vol. 14, 388)

I knew this in 1991, but Doe is just now getting up to speed on this elementary fact, in a recent footnote, citing Philip Schaff. He had made the same dumb mistake in a combox comment on his site, dated 15 March 2010:

Luther's translation though [sic] far surpassed earlier German Bibles for two main reasons (the later [sic] being the more important): The printing press made Luther's Bible readily available to a society that was already purchasing his writings (that is, he was popular), secondly, his translation was not written in high German, but in [sic] written in a way that could be easily understood by the common man.

It may seem petty for me to point out an error of this sort, but it is within the background context of constant insinuations from Doe through the years that my Luther research is utterly untrustworthy and all-around pathetic, whereas his {{{{{ chok e !!!}}}}} is uniformly excellent and always facts- and primary sources-based. It's not the case. The present two errors are among dozens and dozens in Doe's "research" that I have personally documented. Many papers refuting Doe have since been removed from the Internet, because his mistakes were so basic or embarrassing that I didn't want to be uncharitable to my esteemed Protestant friends by making out that Doe's low standard is the norm in Protestant apologetics.

But enough of writing generally about Doe's silliness. It's another question, whether Luther's German translation was superior to the previous ones. Most argue (including most Catholics) that it was indeed far superior. But the controversy at hand was whether the Bible was available to the populace in (mostly High) German to any significant extent before Luther. It certainly was. But Luther lied and polemicized in his usual juvenile fashion, and claimed that it wasn't.

Doe now comes along and says that Luther didn't perpetrate any such lie (only zealous followers of his did). He is wrong. Oddly, he refutes himself in an earlier article about the same general subject matter, by citing Luther in a June 2008 post:

My friends the theologians have spared themselves pains and labor; they leave the Bible in peace and read the Sentences. I should think that the Sentences ought to be the first study of young students in theology and the Bible ought to be the study for the doctors. But now it is turned around; the Bible come first, and is put aside when the bachelor's degree is reached, and the Sentences come last. They are attached forever to the doctorate, and that with such a solemn obligation that a man who is not a priest may indeed read may indeed the Bible, but the Sentences a priest must read. A married man, I observe, could be a Doctor of the Bible, but under no circumstances a Doctor of the Sentences. What good fortune can we expect if we act so perversely and in this way put the Bible, the holy Word of God, so far to the rear? Moreover the pope commands, with many severe words, that his laws are to be read and used in the schools and the courts, but little is said of the Gospel. Thus it is the custom that in the schools and the courts the Gospel lies idle in the dust under the bench, to the end that the pope's harmful laws may rule alone.
[An Open Letter to The Christian Nobility of the German Nation Concerning the Reform of the Christian Estate, 1520]

Doe again refutes his present insinuation in a post dated 22 October 2005. He cites Luther's Preface to the First Part of his German Works (edition of 1539) -- I provide relevant highlights of his longer complete quote:

. . . Not only has good time been wasted, and the study of the Scriptures neglected; but the pure understanding of the divine Word is lost, until at last the Bible has come to lie forgotten in the dust under the bench.

[. . .]

For when the Bible can be left lying under the bench, and when it is true of the Fathers and Councils that the better they were, the more completely they have been forgotten; there is good hope that, when the curiosity of this age has been satisfied, my books too will not long remain; . . .

I do not treat the Fathers and the Councils very differently. In this I follow the example of St. Augustine, who is one of the first, and almost the only one of them to subject himself to the Holy Scriptures alone, uninfluenced by the books of all the Fathers and the Saints. This brought him into a hard fray with St. Jerome, who cast up to him the writings of his predecessors; but he did not care for that. If this example of St. Augustine had been followed, the pope would not have become Antichrist, the countless vermin, the swarming, parasitic mass of books would not have come into the Church, and the Bible would have kept its place in the pulpit. 

Further support for the notion that Luther perpetuated this ludicrous myth of almost total ignorance of and inaccessibility of the Bible before he brought it to light (much like his similarly absurd views of having "rediscovered the gospel" (as if Catholics didn't have a clue about it before he arrived on the scene), comes from Hartmann Grisar's six-volume biography, Luther (the following from Vol. 5 from 1916):

. . . it is instructive from the psychological standpoint to trace the development in Luther's mind of the fable to be dealt with more fully below that, under Popery, the Bible had been discarded and that he, Luther, had brought it once more to light. . . .

When afterwards he had been dazed by his great success with his translation of the Bible he was led to fancy that he was the first to open up the domain of Holy Scripture. This impression is closely bound up with the arbitrary pronouncements, even on the weightiest questions of the Canon, which we find scattered throughout his prefaces to the books of the Bible. He frequently repeats that he had forced all his opponents to take up the study of the Bible and that it was he alone who had made them see the need of their devoting themselves to this branch of learning so as to be able to refute him. Here of course he is exaggerating the facts of the case. Accustomed as he was to hyperbole, we soon find him declaring, first as a paradox and then as actual fact, that the Bible had been buried in oblivion among the Catholics. The Papal Antichrist had destroyed all reverence for the Bible and all understanding of it; only that all men without exception might not run headlong to spiritual destruction had Christ, as it were by "force," preserved the "simple text of the Gospel on the lecterns" "even under the rule of Antichrist."

[Footnote: "Werke," Weim. ed., 30, 2, p. 645 ; Erl. ed., 65, p. 122, "Sendbrieff von Dolmetzschefi."]
(pp. 534-535)

The Bible in the Ages before Luther

It would be to perpetuate a prejudice all too long current among Protestants, founded on Luther's often false or at least exaggerated statements, were one to fail to recognise how widely the Bible was known even before Luther's day and to what an extent it was studied among educated people. Modern research, not seldom carried out by open-minded Protestants, has furnished some surprising results in this respect, so that one of the most recent and diligent of the Protestant workers in this field could write: "If everything be taken into account it will no longer be possible to say as the old polemics did, that the Bible was a sealed book to both theologians and laity. The more we study the Middle Ages, the more does this fable tend to dissolve into thin air." "The Middle Ages concerned themselves with Bible translation much more than was formerly supposed."

[Footnote: Kropatscheck, "Das Schriftprinzip der lutherischen Kirche," 1, 1904, p. 163. On the German translations see below, p. 542 ff.]
According to a careful summary recently published by Franz Falk no less than 156 different Latin editions of the Bible were printed in the period between the discovery of the art of printing and the year of Luther's excommunication, i.e. from 1450 to 1520. To this must also be added at that time many translations of the whole Bible, many of them emanating from what was to be the home of the innovations, viz. 17 German, 11 Italian, 10 French, 2 Bohemian, 1 Belgian, 1 Limousine and 1 Russian edition, making in all, with the 6 Hebrew editions also known, 199 editions of the complete Bible. Of the German editions 14 are in the dialect of Upper Germany.

[Footnote: F. Falk, "Die Bibel am Ausgange des MA. ihre Kenntnis und ihre Verbreitung," Cologne, 1905, pp. 24, 91 ff.]
Besides this the common people also possessed extracts of the Sacred Book, the purchase of the entire Bible being beyond their slender means. The Psalter and the Postils were widely known and both played a great part in the religious life of the Middle Ages. The Psalter, or German translation of the 150 Psalms, was used as a manual of instruction and a prayer-book for both clergy and laity. Twenty-two translations dating from the Middle Ages are extant, and the latter editions extend from the 'seventies of the 15th to the 'twenties of the 16th century. The Postils was the collection of lessons from both Old and New Testaments, prescribed to be read on the Sundays. This collection sufficed for the people and provided them with useful reading matter, with which, moreover, they were rendered even more familiar owing to the homilies on these very excerpts usually given on the Sundays. The early printers soon helped to spread this form of literature. We still have no fewer than 103 printed German editions of the Postils (often known as Plenaries) dating from the above period.

[Footnote: Falk, ib., p. 27 ff.]
. . . Even a superficial glance at the Middle Ages," says Risch, "cannot fail to show us the gradual upgrowth of a fixed German Biblical vocabulary. Luther here could dip into a rich treasure-house and select the best. ... In laying such stress on Luther's indebtedness to the past we have no wish to call into question the real originality of his translation."

[Footnote: "N. kirchl. Zeitschr.," 1911, p. 141.]
"That, during the Middle Ages," says another Protestant scholar, "more particularly in the years which immediately preceded Luther's appearance, the Bible was a well-spring completely choked up, and the entrance to which was jealously guarded, used to be, and probably still is, the prevailing opinion. The question is, however, whether this opinion is correct." "We have before us to-day so complete a history of the Bible in the various modern languages that it can no longer be said that the Vulgate alone was in use and that the laity consequently were ignorant of Scripture. It greatly redounds to the credit of Protestant theologians, that they, more than any others, took so large a part in collecting this enormous store of material." "We must admit that the Middle Ages possessed a quite surprising and extremely praiseworthy knowledge of the Bible, such as might in many respects put our own age to shame." "We have to acknowledge that the Bible at the present day no longer forms the foundation of our knowledge and civilisation to the same extent as it did in the Middle Ages."

[Footnote: E. v. Dobschiitz, " Deutsche Rundschau," 101, 1900, p. 61 ff. Falk, ib., p. 86.]
Who, however, was responsible for the prevalent belief that the Middle Ages knew nothing of the Bible? Who was it who so repeatedly asserted this, that he misled the people into believing that nobody before him had studied Holy Scripture, and that it was only through him that the "Word of God had been drawn forth from under the bench"? A Protestant quite rightly reproves the "bad habit" of accepting the estimate of ecclesiastical conditions, particularly of divine worship, current "with Luther and in his circle" -, 1 it is, however, to fall short of the mark, to describe merely as a "bad habit" Luther's flagrant and insulting falsehoods against the ecclesiastical conditions at the close of the Middle Ages, falsehoods for which his own polemical interests were solely responsible.

. . . As some Protestants have sought to clear him of the authorship of so glaring a fable and to insinuate that the expression belongs rather to his pupil Mathesius, we must here look a little more closely into the words.

Luther himself uses the saying, for instance, when claiming credit in his Commentary on the Prophet Zacharias (chap, viii.) with having rendered the greatest possible service to Scripture. He says: "They [the Papists] are still angry and refuse to listen when people say, that, with them, Scripture lay under the bench, and that their mad delusions alone prevailed." In this connection the Weimar editor of the Commentary refers to a work of the former Dominican, Petrus Sylvius, aimed at Luther and entitled "Von den vier Evangelein, so eine lange Zeit unter der Bank sein gelegen."

[Footnote: "Werke," Weim. ed., 23, p. 606 ; Erl. ed., 42, p. 280. Cp. N. Paulus, "Die deutschen Dominikaner im Kampf gegen Luther," p. 61.]
Popery, Luther says in another passage, "kicked Scripture under the bench."

[Footnote: "Werke," Erl. ed., 25, p. 444.]
. . . Elsewhere he describes in detail the trouble he had in pulling the Bible from "under the bench," particularly owing to his theological rivals and the sectarians within the camp; on this occasion his black outlook as to the future of the Bible he had thus set free scarcely redounds to the credit of his achievement. He says in his tract against Zwingli ("That the words of Christ, 'This is My Body,' still stand fast," 1527): "When in our own day we saw how Scripture lay under the bench, and how the devil was deluding us and taking us captive with the hay and straw
of men-made prayers, we tried, by the Grace of God, to mend matters, and have indeed with great and bitter pains brought Scripture back to light once more, and, sending human ordinances to the winds, set ourselves free and escaped from the devil."
[Footnote: " Werke," Weim. ed., 23, p. 69 ; Erl. ed., 30, p. 19. For similar predictions see above, p. 169 ff. On the famous "bench" cp. also Weim. ed., 6, p. 460 ; Erl. ed., 21, p. 348 ; also below, p. 541 and vol. iv., p. 159.]
(pp. 536-539)

It is plain that they "abuse and revile Scripture, thrust it under the bench, pretend that it is shrouded in thick fog, that the interpretation of the Fathers is needed and that light must be sought in the darkness." Thus did he write against Emser in 1521.

[Footnote: " Auff das ubirchristlich Buch," etc., 1521, " Werke," Weim. ed., 7, p. 641 ; Erl. ed., 27, p. 247.]
(p. 541)

Modern Protestant writers in this field are also somewhat sceptical about the theory of Luther's complete ignorance of the older translation of the Bible, and the assertion that he made no use whatever of it. O. Reichert, for instance, in his new work "Luthers deutsche Bibel" makes the following remarks on Luther's work in the Wartburg, with which we may fittingly conclude this section: "Although he probably was able to make use of Lang's translation of 1521 in his rendering of Matthew, and as a matter of fact did have recourse to it, and though he most likely also had the old German translation at his elbow, as is apparent from many coincidences, nevertheless, what Luther accomplished is an achievement worthy of all admiration."

[Footnote: "Luthers deutsche Bibel," p. 23.]
(p. 546)

***

John Q. Doe's Tired Intellectually Dishonest Sophistry (His Anti-Catholic Luther Research and its Nefarious Methodological Tactics)

If you have not followed "Deadhead" Doe's shenanigans and obsessions with the work of yours truly, it is too bizarre and weird to summarize presently. Briefly, where I am concerned, his aim is always to belittle, mock, and misrepresent my research (per the classic mindless and bigoted anti-Catholic style), with an avalanche of personal insults.

Doe's game in recent years (after I repeatedly called him on his obsessions [to the tune of 98 posts], while claiming that he doesn't take me seriously),  is to quote me or make reference to my work without naming me. He has even (most ridiculously) done several reviews of my books without mentioning my name. :-) In the past he has publicly classified me as mentally ill ("psychosis"). He removed it but without any indication of actually having changed his opinions. Nice guy. The usual barely repressed personal hostility towards Catholics that characterizes the more rabid anti-Catholics . . .

Recently he has again done his usual childishly "hidden" references to papers of mine. In his post, Melanchthon Misinterpreted Trent?, Doe wrote:

So why mention Melanchthon? Without documentation, this is called "hearsay", or perhaps "myth".  It reminds me of the Melanchthon letter to Calvin myth that a Romanist source used to bring up. 

If the reader follows the two links, he or she will discover that my name never appears, nor do any links to the papers referenced, which are indeed my own. Stellar research, isn't it? The anti-Catholic polemicist with an axe to grind cites who-knows-who [Catholic], and no one can read who-knows-who's paper for themselves, in order to hear the other side of the story, since Doe is not kind or honest enough to provide a link (just as I did above, to his paper). This is standard Internet research protocol and courtesy, but apparently it is too much for Doe to abide by rudimentary ethical precepts and practices.

I saw this post yesterday, as I visit Doe's site periodically, out of curiosity. As a "mild" semi-response to his usual mocking (but mainly because I was simply interested in finding more material about a certain quote), I made a new post with some fresh research on Luther's successor Philip Melanchthon's statements of agony over the divisions within the new revolutionary Protestant movement: Divisions Actually Scandalized Melanchthon and Other Early Protestants Like Calvin and Luther. Now it's true that Doe wasn't mentioned in my paper, either, but there was no particular need to do so. The paper stood on its own and was not directly addressing his claims.

But now that Doe has tried to mock my work twice in two days (including -- classic Doe tactics -- drawing attention to an honest mistake made some 14 years ago or so, that I have long since retracted and corrected, as he knows full well), I am calling him on it and exposing his dishonest, nefarious methods of so-called "research."

The latest Doe post from today is Luther's Last Years, Revisited. Knowing Doe and how he operates, this is probably a "revenge" piece for my post last night. I didn't mention him at all in my piece. No one would have the slightest idea that he was involved at all. But Doe decided to regurgitate his nauseatingly endless charge that I habitually cite things out of context where Luther is concerned (this from a guy who for months hosted John "Blowhard" Bugay's straight-faced contentions that Pope Benedict XVI is a pantheist: most of which are still up on his site). Doe states:

I recently came across the following citation from Richard Marius, The Christian Between God and Death on another blog: [followed by a lengthy quote from Marius that I cited]

The reader has no idea who made the citation, and so can't visit my paper that included it (at least not by any link that Doe provides). Doe (as usual) rails against supposed quotes out of context, while at the same time refusing to allow readers to check the source that he is critiquing, to see if he took and interpreted it out of context. One can only laugh at such methodological juvenile idiocy and rank hypocrisy.  I took the entire quote and Googled it, to see what would come up. Sure enough, it showed Marius' book in Google Books, two listings of Doe's paper from today, and then my paper that he had in mind. Nothing else is remotely similar. So there is no question that he is citing me.

My post referred to is entitled, Was Luther in His Last Years in Agony and Bitter About the Course of Protestantism in Many Quarters (Including His Home Town)? Many Biographers Think So (3 March 2010). The notion that he "recently came across" my paper is also baloney and a crock. Doe was quite well aware of the paper at the time (and -- by the merest coincidence! -- I just so happened to list it as a link in my Melanchthon paper of last night). Doe's previous knowledge is proven by a very lively discussion thread on Lutheran Edward Reiss' blog, Upstate Lutheran, that occurred at the time my paper was posted. I made a link to it at the top of my post, citing "Turrretinfan's" (TAO's) words. He is a close associate of Doe's.

In fact, this is the same thread where Doe tried to publicly (and quite seriously) call me a psychotic. One can see that being discussed in the thread. Doe (aka James Swan) made at least a couple dozen comments in the thread, but as anyone can see now, he removed all of them. This is itself extremely comical, seeing that for years now Doe has mocked me for removing many of my comments from his blog. I have explained why I did so, more than once, but to no avail (as always with him). In fact, removal of posts was a big reason Doe has cited for calling my behavior "erratic" and otherwise mentally and psychologically suspect. Yet here he is doing the same thing. If he thinks he had a good reason to do so, then by the same token, I might have quite sufficient reason as well.

I announce the very paper in question in a comment from 26 February 2010. Doe then responded to it, with no less than 21 comments (now all deleted) on 2-26-10 (1), 2-27 (12), 2-28 (1), 3-1 (6), and 3-2 (1). In some of my comments, I cite his words. All this, yet today he claims that he "recently came across" a quote from this paper, as if he wasn't aware of it before. This is all standard Doe modus operandi. I could give 200 examples of similar things, but I know no one cares. Once in a while it is good to document how dishonest anti-Catholic Protestant pseudo-"apologists" work, so folks interested in solid, above-board, transparent and open research can avoid them.

So, anyway, back to Doe's latest paper. He argues, again (YAWN) his droning mantra that I have profoundly taken this quote out of context. First he accuses the author, Richard Marius of reading Luther wildly out of context, then (in effect) he claims I have also butchered the quote, since I cited Marius, who already did:

The context of Luther's remarks present quite a different picture than that portrayed by Richard Marius. What a shame that bloggers who sift through secondary sources to make a point don't take the time to actually look up the primary material being cited from that secondary source. Scholars and historians can (and do) make mistakes. Sometimes they even mis-read a context. 

Since I don't debate anti-Catholics (this has been my policy for four years) -- sometimes, however, I still expose their unsavory tactics, as presently -- , and  since Doe's charge is groundless anyway (even if I still did), and knowing that it would be a futile effort, were I to waste my time (because to Doe, I am always wrong, no matter what I do. I could say "2+2=4" and he would find some fault with that), I will simply point out one very relevant thing:



My paper was a compilation of quotes from biographers of Luther (all non-Catholics, to my knowledge) having to do with his bitterness and disappointment with the Protestant movement later in life. Doe picked one to try to "refute." What he neglects to mention, of course (nor can the reader discover the fact since he makes no link), is that I also cited ten other biographers or Christian scholars / historians, including the very highly regarded Luther scholar Mark U. Edwards (a person Doe has often cited himself, as a search on his site reveals), author of a three-volume biography, Martin Brecht (another Doe favorite), and eminent 19th century historian Philip Schaff. They all say basically the same thing. I suppose Doe would say they all cited Luther out of context as well, and so did I when I merely noted what they said.

Yes, he can do that, but no one with half a brain will take it seriously at all. For Doe, reality in these Catholic-Protestant or historical discussions is what he makes of it. He is capable of molding his little fantasy world at will, if someone makes an argument he disagrees with. In this instance, it is a matter of historical fact (how Luther felt about Protestantism later in his life). That is not merely subjective mush: it is an objective matter of ascertaining fact. Whenever ten historians agree about anything, that is highly significant. I even made a summary of what these three men (and also Marius) concluded, using their words, backing up my original statement:

Dave: Agony Over the State of Early Protestantism

Mark U. Edwards, Jr.: Personal disappointment and fears / shocked and disappointed him / indignant / complaint / inevitable disappointment / challenged / extreme frustration and disappointment / disappointment / This change / he had apparently hoped for more than the actual course of events had provided / Luther was doomed to disappointment / his hope for the progress of the gospel in this world, however faint, withered in the light of experience / gripped by apocalyptic hopes and fears / disappointed his hopes / he became ever more pessimistic

events from the mid-1520s onward / widespread indifference and ingratitude toward the renewed Gospel / "ingratitude of the Germans" / brutal realities of the Peasants' War / rending of the Protestant ranks / about the progress of the Reformation movement / ingratitude with which the Germans had responded to the restored gospel / "Epicurean" indifference / open blasphemy / condemnation of his contemporaries's response to the gospel / remain fast in its sin despite the renewed preaching of the gospel / a movement that had taken, for him, a painful and frustrating direction.

Martin Brecht: Luther's effort on behalf of the Reformation was anything but a triumph / In 1542 had had to admit resignedly that he had been unable to change the . . .

unwillingness to repent -- especially for the sins of usury and greed -- which he confronted in those around him / contempt for God's Word in Germany / all classes lacked a consciousness of injustice and sin

Richard Marius: His last years in Wittenberg were bitter / disappointed / he raged at his audiences from the pulpit / lambasting the Wittenbergers

undisciplined lives of his congregation / Luther saw no evidence that his people in Wittenberg were so moved / adultery, greed, and the desires of the flesh

Philip Schaff: Luther and Melanchthon themselves often bitterly complained in their later years / Luther, and especially Melanchthon, bitterly complained, in their later years

The fact is undeniable, that the Reformation in Germany was accompanied and followed by antinomian tendencies and a degeneracy of public morals / the abuse of the liberty of the gospel and the sad state of morals in Wittenberg and throughout Saxony / abuse of the episcopal power assumed by the magistrate, and the avarice of princes in the misappropriation of ecclesiastical property

But none of that matters to the profound and uniquely gifted brain inside of Doe's head. If he doesn't want something about Luther or the so-called "Reformation" to be true, he wishes and rationalizes it away and <<>> it's gone! He is perfectly willing to ignore even some of the most prominent and respected of Luther's Protestant biographers. It matters not a whit to him. He willfully blinds his eyes to them, doesn't link to my paper that cites them, and sticks to Marius alone, even though his contentions are quite sufficiently corroborated by the others. This is what sophists and mere polemicists and dishonest researchers with a nefarious agenda (anti-Catholicism) do. Don't bother with them, folks. Don't be taken in by their nonsense.

See related papers:

Martin Luther: After Lutheranism Was Preached, Germans Became More "Avaricious, Unmerciful, Impure and Wicked Than Previously Under the Papacy"

Martin Luther: Lutheran Followers of His Version of the Gospel "Do Not Care" Whether They "Live According To It"; Are "Ingrates" Deserving God's Wrath

Martin Luther: Protestants' "Manner of Life" No Better Than That of the "Papists"

Martin Luther's Regrets as to the Relative Failure of the "Reformation" (Piety, Morals and Inconsistencies Regarding Replacing Bishops With Princes)

Philip Melanchthon's Agony Over the Sectarianism of Early Protestantism / Little-Known Derivation of the Term "Protestant"

Taking Luther Out of Context? Reply to Lutheran Edward Reiss

Divisions Actually Scandalized Melanchthon and Other Early Protestants Like Calvin and Luther

Today divisions and endless theological quarrels and divisions (institutionally or in spirit) are winked at and rationalized with drivel such as "primary vs. secondary doctrines" or supposed "agreement on essentials." The first Protestants understood that schism and division was a huge scandal and cause for regret and misery. For example, Luther's right-hand man and successor, Philip Melanchthon wrote:

If my eyes were a fountain of tears, as rich as the waters of the river Elbe, I could not sufficiently express my sorrow over the divisions and distractions of Christendom.


(from: The New American Cyclopaedia, edited by George Ripley and Charles Anderson Dana, New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1861, Vol. 11, "Melanchthon," p. 361; primary source: Epistles, Book 4, epistle 100; see the same exact quote in The Unitarian Review of 1874, pp. 450-451 and American Presbyterian Review, Vol. 1, 1869, pp. 248-249; and a similar translation in The Presbyterian Review, Vol. 5, 1884, pp. 467-468)

Prominent 19th century Protestant historian Philip Schaff references this quote:

The controversies among the Protestants in the sixteenth century roused all the religious and political passions and cast a gloom over the bright picture of the Reformation. Melanchthon declared that with tears as abundant as the waters of the river Elbe he could not express his grief over the distractions of Christendom and the "fury of theologians."

 (History of the Christian Church, vol. 6, p. 46)

Some secondary citations (many Catholic) show perhaps an anti-Protestant bias (only an examination of the original German -- or Latin? -- would show the most accurate version), by rendering the ending "evils of the Reformation" (Maurel), "miseries caused by the Reformation" (Barrie, Fullerton, Stoddard, Rivington), or somewhat less ostensibly polemical versions: "disasters of the reform" (Olf, Wyndham-Lewis), "miseries of the reformation" (Audin, Canfield / Hawes, Butler) "miseries of the distracted Reformation" (Spalding, Ganss, Hill / Brors, Maclaughlin, Noll, O'Hare), "divided reform" (Lovat), and "divided reformation" (Bossuet).
John Schofield, in his book, Philip Melanchthon and the English Reformation (London: Ashgate Publishing, 2006), provides the background context of a similar letter written to the English "reformer" Thomas Cranmer, c. April Fool's Day 1548:

. . . having heard of difficult negotiations over doctrine in England, he wrote to Cranmer, lamenting the plight of the church, 'buffeted as she is with divisions and strife', and lamenting that she would be buffeted still further if her leaders failed to agree. These calamities, he wrote, brought such sorrow and a 'greater flood of tears than the waters of our Elbe or your Thames', all these different theories and all this wrangling, and all the while the true teaching of the ancient church is disregarded. Philip urged Cranmer to deliberate with good and true men, and repeated what he had said in an earlier (probably lost) letter, that the church needed an inclusive, unambiguous declaration of faith and doctrine for the benefit of future generations. 


(p. 156)

I also ran across an entire English translation of this letter:

MELANCTHON TO ARCHBISHOP CRANMER
Wittenberg? About April 1, 1548.


[Printed in Melancthoni Epist., Lib. iii., Ep. 42 bis, col. 523, edit. Londini, folio, 1642. Latin.]


Translation now first published.


. . . the letter of his son Jonas arrived, in which he relates to me a certain conversation of yours, on a Question, by no means obscure, but which has severely shaken the Churches, and will shake them still more severely, because those who bear rule do not seek for true remedies in so momentous a matter.


I do not, however, desire in this letter to do any thing more than express my grief, which is so great, that it could not be exhausted, though I were to shed a flood of tears as large as our Elbe or your Thames.


You see what a multitude of explanations have been elaborated in former times, and are elaborated at this day; because a simple and sincere [appeal to] antiquity is neglected. But I omit a longer discussion at this time, not merely because the messengers are in haste, but because I do not love labyrinths; for you must be aware that it has always been my desire, on many subjects, that every thing should be completely disentangled.


I implore you to deliberate with good and truly learned men, both as to what should be determined, and as to what moderation may be expedient, in the first instance, in teaching. I could have wished, (as I wrote in a former letter,) both with regard to this question and to some other matters, that a Summary of necessary doctrine might be publicly set forth, without any private feeling; after the deliberations and decisions of pious and learned men, brought together for the discussion of those matters: so that no ambiguities should be left to posterity, as an apple of discord.


The Council of Trent makes its crafty Decrees, in order to protect its errors by ambiguous expressions. Such sophistry ought to be far away from the Church. There is not the least absurdity in true things being proposed in right words: both the goodness of the matters themselves, and their perspicuous enunciation, would invite the attention of upright minds in every part of the world.


From the very first, the Stoical disputations in our country concerning Fate, were exceedingly disgusting, and prejudicial to discipline. Wherefore, I beseech you, bend your mind to some such formula of doctrine. . . .


(George Cornelius Gorham [Anglican], Gleanings of a Few Scattered Ears During the Period of the Reformation in England [London: Bell and Daldy, 1857), pp. 42-44)

Such concerns were very common among the most important early Protestants. See:
Dialogue: John Calvin's Letter to Philip Melanchthon Concerning Protestant Divisions: Its Nature, Intent, and Larger Implications

Excerpt: 

For you see how the eyes of many are turned upon us, so that the wicked take occasion from our dissensions to speak evil, and the weak are only perplexed by our unintelligible disputations. Nor in truth, is it of little importance to prevent the suspicion of any difference having arisen between us from being handed down in any way to posterity; for it is worse than absurd that parties should be found disagreeing on the very principles, after we have been compelled to make our departure from the world.. . .And surely it is indicative of a marvellous and monstrous insensibility, that we so readily set at nought that sacred unanimity, by which we ought to be bringing back into the world the angels of heaven.

Luther's Disgust Over Rampant Protestant Sectarianism and Radical Heresies; Can't See the Connection With Sola Scriptura and Private Judgment
Was Luther in His Last Years in Agony and Bitter About the Course of Protestantism in Many Quarters (Including His Home Town)? Many Biographers Think So
Lutheran Edward Reiss Says I Can't Claim Luther Was in "Agony" Over Protestant Sectarianism, Even Though Luther Himself Said Exactly That!Excerpts:

1) The devil seeing that this sort of disturbance could not last, has devised a new one; and begins to rage in his members, I mean in the ungodly, through whom he makes his way in all sorts of chimerical follies and extravagant doctrines. This won't have baptism, that denies the efficacy of the Lord's supper; a third, puts a world between this and the last judgment; others teach that Jesus Christ is not God; some say this, others that; and there are almost as many sects and beliefs as there are heads.

I must cite one instance, by way of exemplification, for I have plenty to do with these sort of spirits. There is not one of them that does think himself more learned than Luther; they all try to win their spurs against me;. . . 
2) Such is the blindness and presumption of these frantic heads, which even by their own judgment do condemn themselves. . . . let the minister of Christ know that so long as he teacheth Christ purely, there shall not be wanting perverse spirits, yea, even of our own, and among ourselves, which shall seek, by all means possible, to trouble the church of Christ. . . . Yea, let him rejoice in the troubles which he suffereth by these sects and seditious spirits, continually springing up one after another.

3) "In 1545, he published, in his Annotations on Genesis, and in other forms, the most bitter expressions against the Reformed, denominating Zuinglius, Oecolampadius and their adherents 'Enemies of the Sacrament,' 'Heretics,' and 'Reprobates.' Long ago, he declares, he had ceased to pray for men who were murderers of souls . . ."

(Charles Hodge, The Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, 1839, Vol. XI, p. 358)

4) Why should I fret and fume against the papists? All they have done against me has been in fair, open war: we are declared enemies, and act as such. They who hurt me most are my own dear children. My brothers, fraterculi mei, aurei amiculi mei -- they who, if Luther had not written, would know nothing of Christ, or of the gospel, and would not have shaken off the papal yoke; for even if they had had the power to do so, the courage would have been wanting. I thought I had gone through, had exhausted all the adversities the evil one could inflict; but it was not so. My Absalom, the child of my heart, had not deserted his father, had not poured out ignominy upon David; my Judas, the terror of the disciples of Christ, the traitor who delivered up his master, had not sold me: he has done so now.

***

Biblical Evidence for Worship of God Via an Image (Pillar of Cloud, Burning Bush)

Sometimes we miss things in the Bible, though they are right in front of us. Some of our Protestant brethren (mainly Calvinists but some other denominations as well) have an almost obsessive fear of any image associated with worship at all, thinking that all such manifestations are examples of idolatry and undue exaltation of a "graven image". This has led some fanatical elements to oppose even crucifixes and statues of Christ as idols. In other words, all images whatsoever are collapsed in this wrongheaded mentality into the category of the "graven image" in the Ten Commandments.  But the Bible doesn't take this view at all. Here is one striking example:

Exodus 33:8-10 (RSV) Whenever Moses went out to the tent, all the people rose up, and every man stood at his tent door, and looked after Moses, until he had gone into the tent. [9] When Moses entered the tent, the pillar of cloud would descend and stand at the door of the tent, and the LORD would speak with Moses. [10] And when all the people saw the pillar of cloud standing at the door of the tent, all the people would rise up and worship, every man at his tent door. 

Note that the pillar of cloud is:

1) a creation (water, if a literal cloud);

2) visual, hence an image;

and

3) thought to directly represent God Himself. 

It's also a supernatural manifestation, which is a major difference compared to any true idol made by the hands of men; but that would make no difference for those who mistakenly hold that any image whatsoever associated with God is impermissible. The problem comes when God Himself expressly sanctions such images, and worship in conjunction with them, as here.

The same iconoclasts (opposers of images) have to explain away things like the burning bush (Ex 3:2-6), which is not only fire, but also called an "angel of the Lord" (Ex 3:2), yet also "God" (3:4, 6, 11, 13-16, 18; 4:5, 7-8) and "the LORD" (3:7, 16, 18; 4:2, 4-6, 10-11, 14) interchangeably. An angel is a creation (as is fire and cloud); yet God chose to use a created being and inanimate objects to visibly represent Him. Several similar instances occur in the Old Testament.

***

More Biblical Evidence for One Species In Holy Communion

 See my earlier paper, Biblical Evidence for the Distribution of One Species in Holy Communion. Credit for these further examples, goes to Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman: see his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, (1845; revised 1878), Part I, ch. 4, sec. 1, sub-section 4.
* * * * *
Eucharistic or Proto-Eucharistic Examples of "Bread" Only 
Matthew 14:19-21 (RSV) Then he ordered the crowds to sit down on the grass; and taking the five loaves and the two fish he looked up to heaven, and blessed, and broke and gave the loaves to the disciples, and the disciples gave them to the crowds. [20] And they all ate and were satisfied. And they took up twelve baskets full of the broken pieces left over. [21] And those who ate were about five thousand men, besides women and children. (cf. Mk 6:41-44; Lk 9:13-17)

Luke 24:30-31, 35 When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them. [31] And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight.. . . [35] Then they told what had happened on the road, and how he was known to them in the breaking of the bread. (cf. Acts 2:42; 20:7; 27:35)

John 6:11-12 Jesus then took the loaves, and when he had given thanks, he distributed them to those who were seated; so also the fish, as much as they wanted. [12] And when they had eaten their fill, he told his disciples, "Gather up the fragments left over, that nothing may be lost."

John 6:27 Do not labor for the food which perishes, but for the food which endures to eternal life, which the Son of man will give to you; for on him has God the Father set his seal.

John 6:31-35 Our fathers ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written, `He gave them bread from heaven to eat.'" [32] Jesus then said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, it was not Moses who gave you the bread from heaven; my Father gives you the true bread from heaven. [33] For the bread of God is that which comes down from heaven, and gives life to the world." [34] They said to him, "Lord, give us this bread always." [35] Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to me shall not hunger, and he who believes in me shall never thirst.

John 6:48-51 I am the bread of life. [49] Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died. [50] This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that a man may eat of it and not die. [51] I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any one eats of this bread, he will live for ever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh."


John 6:57-58 As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me. [58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever."

[John 6 is very interesting in this regard, insofar as it gives examples of both flesh and blood being partaken of (6:53-56), yet only body / flesh is spoken of singularly and repeatedly as giving spiritual life, and Jesus never describes Himself as the "living wine" from heaven. Hence, the analogy directly holds to Catholic communion without both species, where consecrated hosts only are distributed. The full eucharistic doctrine comes together in 1 Corinthians 11:27, where Paul's careful use of "or" and "and" prove that the entire Jesus: Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity, as Catholics say, is contained in each species (see previous related paper above). In any event, both the biblical and Catholic models allow for distribution of both species, or one only (usually consecrated hosts)]


Eucharistic Types or Shadows: Examples of "Bread" or Flesh (Minus Blood) Only  

Exodus 25:30 And you shall set the bread of the Presence [KJV: "shewbread"] on the table before me always. (cf. 35:13; 39:36)

Leviticus 14:25 And he shall kill the lamb of the guilt offering; and the priest shall take some of the blood of the guilt offering, and put it on the tip of the right ear of him who is to be cleansed, and on the thumb of his right hand, and on the great toe of his right foot.

[the Jews separated the blood from meat to be eaten, and were forbidden to partake of blood: Gen 9:4; Lev 3:17; 7:26-27; 17:10-14; 19:26; . Therefore, the paschal lamb and bulls sacrificed : prototypes of Jesus' sacrifice on the cross, and of the Eucharist (since they were eaten and since the Last Supper, where the Holy Eucharist was instituted, was a Passover meal), were "meat only" with no blood]

Deuteronomy 8:3 And he humbled you and let you hunger and fed you with manna, which you did not know, nor did your fathers know; that he might make you know that man does not live by bread alone, but that man lives by everything that proceeds out of the mouth of the LORD. (cf. Num 11:7-9; Ps 78:24-29)

1 Samuel 21:6 So the priest gave him the holy bread; for there was no bread there but the bread of the Presence, which is removed from before the LORD, to be replaced by hot bread on the day it is taken away.

1 Kings 7:48 So Solomon made all the vessels that were in the house of the LORD: the golden altar, the golden table for the bread of the Presence,

1 Chronicles 9:32 Also some of their kinsmen of the Ko'hathites had charge of the showbread, to prepare it every sabbath. (cf. 23:29; 28:16)

2 Chronicles 2:4 Behold, I am about to build a house for the name of the LORD my God and dedicate it to him for the burning of incense of sweet spices before him, and for the continual offering of the showbread, and for burnt offerings morning and evening, on the sabbaths and the new moons and the appointed feasts of the LORD our God, as ordained for ever for Israel. (cf. 4:19; 13:11; 29:18; Neh 10:33)

2 Chronicles 29:22 So they killed the bulls, and the priests received the blood and threw it against the altar; and they killed the rams and their blood was thrown against the altar; and they killed the lambs and their blood was thrown against the altar.

2 Chronicles 35:11 And they killed the passover lamb, and the priests sprinkled the blood which they received. . .

Matthew 12:3-4 He said to them, "Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him: [4] how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests? (cf. Mk 2:26; Lk 6:4)

John 1:29, 36 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! . . . and he looked at Jesus as he walked, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God!"


1 Corinthians 5:7 Cleanse out the old leaven that you may be a new lump, as you really are unleavened. For Christ, our paschal lamb, has been sacrificed.

Hebrews 9:2-4 For a tent was prepared, the outer one, in which were the lampstand and the table and the bread of the Presence; it is called the Holy Place. [3] Behind the second curtain stood a tent called the Holy of Holies, [4] having the golden altar of incense and the ark of the covenant covered on all sides with gold, which contained a golden urn holding the manna, and Aaron's rod that budded, and the tables of the covenant;

Revelation 2:17 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who conquers I will give some of the hidden manna,. . .

Revelation 5:6 And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain,. . . (cf. 5:8, 12-13; 6:1, 16; 7:9-10, 14, 17; 8:1; 12:11; 13:8, etc.)

***

Biblical Evidence for True Apostolic Tradition vs. "Traditions of Men"

 I discovered (as a set) several of the following passages in Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman's sermon, "The Principle of Continuity Between the Jewish and Christian Churches," from 20 November 1842 (when he was still Anglican). It is Sermon 15 in his collection, Sermons Bearing on Subjects of the Day (1843). I then looked up (by word searches) several other similar passages to expand upon his point. All verses are RSV. Good, apostolic, biblical traditions will be highlighted in green; false traditions of men in red.

* * * * *
Matthew 15:3 He answered them, "And why do you transgress the commandment of God for the sake of your tradition?"

Matthew 15:6 So, for the sake of your tradition, you have made void the word of God.

Matthew 15:9 "in vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men."

Matthew 15:13 He answered, "Every plant which my heavenly Father has not planted will be rooted up."

Matthew 16:23 But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me; for you are not on the side of God, but of men."(cf. Mk 8:33)

Mark 7:8-9, 13 You leave the commandment of God, and hold fast the tradition of men." [9] And he said to them, "You have a fine way of rejecting the commandment of God, in order to keep your tradition! . . . [13] thus making void the word of God through your tradition which you hand on. And many such things you do."

John 12:43  for they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

1 Corinthians 2:5 that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.

1 Corinthians 2:13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit.


Galatians 1:9-12 As we have said before, so now I say again, If any one is preaching to you a gospel contrary to that which you received, let him be accursed. [10] Am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I trying to please men? If I were still pleasing men, I should not be a servant of Christ. [11] For I would have you know, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not man's gospel.[12] For I did not receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through a revelation of Jesus Christ.

Ephesians 4:14 so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles.


Colossians 2:8 See to it that no one makes a prey of you by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe, and not according to Christ.

Colossians 2:20-22 If with Christ you died to the elemental spirits of the universe, why do you live as if you still belonged to the world? Why do you submit to regulations, [21] "Do not handle, Do not taste, Do not touch" [22] (referring to things which all perish as they are used), according to human precepts and doctrines?

1 Thessalonians 2:13  And we also thank God constantly for this, that when you received the word of God which you heard from us, you accepted it not as the word of men but as what it really is, the word of God, which is at work in you believers.

Titus 1:14 instead of giving heed to Jewish myths or to commands of men who reject the truth.

Books by Dave Armstrong: The Quotable Newman: Theology and Church History

.

.



[currently in progress; 335 pages completed as of 16 June 2011]



EXCERPTS



Cardinal Newman on Rationalistic Theological Liberalism vs. a Reasonable Catholic Faith (Tracts of the Times No. 73 of 1836)



The Anglican Newman (1833-1838) on the Falsity of Perspicuity (More or Less Self-Evident Clearness) of Holy Scripture



The Anglican Newman on the Falsity of Extreme Versions of the Protestant "Faith Alone" Viewpoint



Denominationalism and Sectarianism: Cardinal Newman Nails its Fundamental Error and Notes the Inevitable Bitter Fruits That  Unfold from It



Cardinal Newman on Anti-Catholic Prejudice



The Catholic Cardinal Newman's Opinion of Anglicanism



Cardinal Newman on Galileo and the Alleged Dogmatic Status of Geocentrism



ANNOUNCEMENT OF BOOK

Upcoming  Book (The Quotable Newman)



INTRODUCTION

The aim of this book is a simple, albeit very ambitious one: to compile notable quotations from Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman (1801-1890) in the areas of theology and Church history, so that his thinking and wisdom might be more accessible to the reading public, and particularly to students (in school or out) of Christian theology and its history.



As with most works of this sort, the goal is to help make the quoted author more widely known: to spark interest and pique curiosity in more than a few readers. I envy those who will be embarking for the first time on a journey of serious reading of Cardinal Newman. It's pure joy for any thinker (and any Christian) to do so.



I also seek to create a handy reference source that can be consulted when particular topics come up. Newman's thought is so full of insight that it seems to have no end. With the help of the Holy Spirit and whatever gifts granted to me by God's grace, I shall do my best to compile the most substantive, pithy, and memorable quotations of Cardinal Newman that I can find.



The task of selection is necessarily subjective, and daunting, but this is a task I had to do, due to the huge debt I owe to John Henry Newman, in relation to my own spiritual journey: one that brought me happily to the Catholic Church in 1990, exactly a hundred years after Newman's death (largely as a result of reading his Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine).



This work is, therefore, the fruit of a proverbial "labor of love." Whether it was labor at all, however, is questionable, since the experience of perusing all of these wonderful books and letters (even the selection process itself), and the enjoyment obtained in so doing, made any "work" involved almost beside the point.



I do have some experience in putting together a book of quotations: I was the editor for The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton (Charlotte: Saint Benedict Press, 2009, 378 pages). A major difference between that volume and this one, however, is the length of citations. I restricted myself in that instance to single sentences. But this would be impossible to do in Cardinal Newman's case, because of his flowing, elaborate, complex, Victorian prose. Nevertheless, I shall attempt to keep the excerpts as brief as I can, without giving up any essential meaning.



Similar to the Chesterton collection, I will note sources with one-to-three letter abbreviations and use chapter numbers rather than page numbers (since the latter will vary with different editions). If the year of writing is known and different from the date of the publication, that will be noted as well. I will attempt to keep quotations chronological within categories.



As indicated in the subtitles, I have narrowed the subject matter somewhat, to theology and Church history only. Newman also wrote widely on philosophy, education, spirituality, sociology or current affairs (Catholics in England, etc.), and produced poetry and fiction, among other things.



I chose to concentrate on theology and the history of theological doctrine and the Church, since those topics particularly lend themselves to a coherent collection that can be referenced and used for the purpose of catechesis or apologetics (my own area).



Given the vast amount of Newman's writing involved, I thought it best to not attempt to cover everything. But for the areas I have covered, I have sought to be quite comprehensive, in order to provide a reference work of lasting value and utility: something a little different from the hundreds of works on Newman, and various anthologies and collections of his writing thus far available.



I need to note two factors that were important in my selection process, as an editor, so readers can be duly informed. As most who are reading this already are aware, Cardinal Newman was an Anglican for roughly the first half of his life, and a Catholic thereafter. Not infrequently in his earlier life, he not only explained, but vigorously advocated positions that he later renounced.



The question then arises, as to the criteria for selection of quotations in the earlier period. Or, more specifically: are they to be conceptualized as presenting (all things considered), at least in part, the "polemical Anglican (at times, outright anti-Catholic), Via Media proponent Newman" or rather, "the proto-Catholic Newman who anticipates and looks forward to his later Catholic beliefs, and holds them in kernel form"?



I have decided (probably predictably) to follow the latter course. Generally, I have not included opinions that the later Newman would have disavowed, or literally did renounce (as we see in his later corrective notes of his earlier writing). I am a Catholic, and I'm afraid that my natural bias in that direction considerably affected how the Anglican period quotations were selected and edited.



Yet I don't think this is a complete "loss" for Anglican or otherwise non-Catholic readers, since the result is an "Anglican Newman" who is expressing ideas concerning which Catholics and more traditional or "high" Anglicans can readily agree. It is not unimportant to highlight agreement where it is present. Non-Catholic readers can also see how very much a Catholic can agree with the Anglican Newman's thinking, since I have deliberately set out to highlight the larger areas of agreement (in light of his later change of mind).



The Anglican devotee of Cardinal Newman could, in this sense, particularly benefit from the earlier quotations insofar as they present a "Catholic Newman" (i.e., Catholic in the more all-encompassing definition Anglicans use) who is not, in these compiled instances, expressing pointed disagreement with another "branch" (so to speak) of the universal Catholic Christian Church.



The second factor that ought to be highlighted (something Introductions are good for!) is my determination to include, by and large (though not always) passages in Newman's writing that give actual arguments for positions, rather than being only beautifully expressed descriptions or sentiments and not necessarily defenses. Newman is such a good writer that virtually everything he writes is eloquent, in any event; but my goal is to emphasize the apologist Newman: the one who can provide a rationale for why we should agree with his positions.



Thus, it is apparent, that my status as a Catholic, and as a Catholic apologist, by occupation, has influenced how I edit. But I suppose this is to be expected, and I don't believe it detracts from the utility of the overall effort in the slightest, especially since I have stated my goals and "biases" upfront, so as to avoid any misconception.



May the reader enjoy and be edified and educated by what I have compiled from Cardinal Newman's delightful writing.



Last updated on 16 June 2011.