Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 57

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.

My Three "Short Answers" Publications

The complaint often heard about my writing is that it is too long. Well, different strokes for different folks! I'm the very first person to advise anyone that if they don't care for my style, content, or length of material, or how I lay out my arguments, to seek the information somewhere else. There are plenty of good Catholic writers and apologists to choose from. I am what I am. But the more complete truth of the matter is that I write both "long answers" and "short answers" stuff: take your pick of the latter:

Top Ten Questions Catholics Are Asked (OSV, 2002): ten paragraphs. Oddly enough, I've made more royalties for this pamphlet than for any of my books. This was the most "rewarding" few hours of writing I ever did! It all evens out, since I have put in multiple thousands of hours of writing which is offered free of charge. Our Sunday Visitor is the largest Catholic publisher, and these pamphlets are sold in sets of 50; also to many Catholic parishes. If we go by individual pamphlet sales, this has literally sold over a million copies.

The New Catholic Answer Bible (OSV, 2005; apologetic insert notes, with co-author, Dr. Paul Thigpen; originally my notes only, in The Catholic Answer Bible, OSV, 2002): one page for each topic.

The One-Minute Apologist (Sophia Institute Press, 2007): two pages for each topic, in a standard format, vaguely reminiscent (on a more popular level) of the method of St. Thomas Aquinas's Summa Theologica (objection, Catholic reply; counter-objection, further Catholic reply). This is now available also as part of my 21 books for $40 e-book deal: in a snazzy, very useful hyper-linked version (Excel Spreadsheet; courtesy of my friend John O'Connor).

Additionally, I've written five "cartoon tracts" (my text) out of a much larger collection (all art by my good friend Dan Grajek) have been published by The Grotto Press: The Cloud of Witnesses, (c. 1995-1996), The Resurrection: Hoax or History (c. 1985), The Class Struggle (c. 1985), Mary: Do Catholics Have a Biblical View? (c. 1995-1996) [see my text only] , and Joe Hardhat: On Justification (c. 1995-1996) [see my text only]: each probably only 4-5 paragraphs total length.

Many many of my individual posts on my blog (perhaps more than half at this point) are short pieces as well. For several years now I even categorized each index page into "short papers" and "long papers" (though I am eliminating that now because it's a hassle for me). There are lots of very long posts and long dialogues, to be sure, but there are also lots of brief pieces.

My severe anti-Catholic Protestant critics say their nonsense no matter what I do. They have blasted me for years for writing too much (even though several of them -- most notably Steve "Whopper" Hays -- write far more than I do in an average post, as I have proved on several occasions when I had a little extra time for folly).

But when The One-Minute Apologist came out in 2007, some of these clowns mocked it as inherently ridiculous: to devote two pages to major topics of theology. I don't think so at all. As an apologist, my job is to meet people where they are at, according to St. Paul's approach of "I have become all things to all men, so that by any means I may win some." Some people are ready only for theological summaries. They are in "first grade" in the things of God. If that helps them along, praise God! I approach them according to their present ability, and gladly provide their needs. Others (most of my readers, I suspect) want a lot more depth, and I provide that, too.

I'm simply following St. Paul's pragmatic apologetics and evangelistic philosophy. I'm not writing (in the final analysis) for other apologists or academics or pointy-heads, or to impress folks with big words and elaborate arguments. I am writing to the masses and the population out in this world who are hungry (or should be hungry) to learn more about God, the Good News of salvation and of the fullness of the Christian faith to be found most completely in the Catholic Church.

The fact of the matter, in any event, is that I don't write only long, elaborate papers and books that are theologically dense and dry and long-winded and esoteric, since I have published three works devoted to "short answers (one or two paragraphs or one page or two pages per topic): all bestsellers in their field.

[revision of a post originally from January 2010]

Neo-geocentrism: Excessive Interest in Usury Comes to Naught (Guest Post by David Palm)

[URL for David Palm's post on his blog]

The neo-geocentrist fixation on their pet cause is like a monkey who reaches into a precious Ming vase to grasp a pebble. Intent only on holding onto that bit of rock and unable to extract his clenched fist, the monkey will happily smash the vase to get his "prize", heedless of the priceless nature of the treasure he has wrecked.

It looks to me as if at least some of these individuals will do anything to hang onto their private judgment that geocentrism is taught as an article of faith, even if it means (were it possible) smashing the Catholic Faith itself. On Dave Armstrong's blog, one "johnmartin" (a pseudonym) was perfectly content to assert that, "I've presented a list of doctrines that have been de facto denied by the modern church" and "I believe the church silence on the matter of geo[centrism] in the last 300 years is easily accounted for through either inept leadership or fear of the science establishment". Three hundred years of doctrinally inept and cowardly Popes—gee, what faithful Catholic could fail to be content with such a simple explanation?

He offered as "proof" for this supposed ineptitude a whole panoply of issues which the Catholic Church had "stopped teaching": the sinfulness of contraception, the indissolubility of marriage, the nature of and need for the sacrament of matrimony, the sinfulness of homosexual behavior, the inerrancy of Scripture, the Virgin birth, and the establishment of the sacrament of Holy Orders by Christ himself. It was painful to have to point out to this fellow Catholic the obvious, namely, that the Magisterium has explicitly taught each and every one of those things, right up to the present day.

To his credit, neo-geocentrist Rick Delano didn't join "johnmartin" in this brazen Church bashing. But he deployed his own example which he contends is the only other one that matches geocentrism: usury. According to Rick these two constitute the "unique" examples in all of Church history in which the Catholic Church has simply stopped teaching a doctrine of the Faith:

Posted Thursday, July 29, 2010 6:31 PM By Rick DeLano

I have, as I said, personally been the beneficiary of several hours of direct instruction from Father Sweeney. I can assure my fellow bloggers on this thread, that any question of his fidelity to, familiarity with, or ability to expound (to at least seventy five levels of historical development), the teachings of the catechism, is, for me, beyond the slightest question. The man is simply a treasure, and I am going to do my utmost to try and get one of my sons up there to enroll in his course of study and, as a bonus, to make Father Sweeney's life miserable with questions concerning, especially, the surrender of the dogmas against usury and geocentrism (hello Father Sweeney!)

And,

Rick DeLano said...

I hope that all defenders of geocentrism will be sensitive to the ambiguity inherent in this (and only this- plus one other to my knowledge) instance of the magisterium proposing a binding doctrine under the ordinary magisterium, and then abandoning- not reversing!- it.

The unique nature of these two instances- the other being the condemnation of usury- require the utmost care in extending the same latitude the Church Herself extends. . . .

Fri Nov 19, 11:50:00 PM EST

(My emphasis.)

So is Rick right? Has the Catholic Church "surrendered" the dogma of usury? Does geocentrism have at least one lonely companion in doctrines supposedly "abandoned" by the Church?

Nope. Since Galileo's time the doctrine of usury has been reaffirmed by the Magisterium numerous times, right up to our present day. The only way this view gets any traction at all is if people embrace the mistaken view that usury is identical with interest-taking, or with excessive interest. Neither view is correct (the tongue-in-cheek title of this article aside).  My own contribution to this question in This Rock magazine, which I now consider to be somewhat simplistic but still essentially correct, may be found here.

Misunderstandings aside, the magisterial view of usury has been reiterated numerous times. The most solemn instance is, of course, Pope Benedict XIV's 1745 encyclical Vix Pervenit, On Usury and Other Dishonest Profit. And Pope Leo XIII wrote in Rerum Novarum §3 in 1891:

The mischief has been increased by rapacious usury, which, although more than once condemned by the Church, is nevertheless, under a different guise, but with like injustice, still practiced by covetous and grasping men.

From the Catechism of Pope St. Pius X (1908):

9 Q: Is it only by theft and robbery that another can be injured in his property?

A: He can also be injured by fraud, usury, and any other act of injustice directed against his goods.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church, §2269 (1993):

The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.

From Pope John Paul II, Address to the Members of the National Council of Anti-Usury Foundations (1999):

I know well, dear friends, the difficulties that you face. But I know that you are determined and united in fighting this serious social evil. Continue to combat usury, giving hope to individuals and families who are its victims. The Pope encourages you to pursue your generous work to build a more just society, one of solidarity, and more attentive to the demands of the needy.

From Pope John Paul II, General Audience (4 February 2004):

Finally, three final precepts are listed for our examination of conscience: to be faithful to our word and to our oaths, even in those cases where the consequences will be detrimental to us; not to practice usury — a plague that is a disgraceful reality even in our days that can place a stronghold on the lives of many people; and finally to avoid all corruption in public life, another commitment that we could also rigorously practice in our time . . .

From Pope John Paul II, General Audience, (10 Nov 2004):

The first false god [is] the violence which humanity unfortunately continues to resort to even in these bloody days,. . . Accompanying this idol is an immense procession of wars, oppression, perversions, torture and killing, inflicted without any trace of remorse. . . . the second false god is robbery which is expressed in extortion, social injustice, usury, political and economic corruption.

From the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church §323 and 341 (2004):

The prophetic tradition condemns fraud, usury, exploitation and gross injustice, especially when directed against the poor . . .

Although the quest for equitable profit is acceptable in economic and financial activity, recourse to usury is to be morally condemned: "Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them".[714] This condemnation extends also to international economic relations, especially with regard to the situation in less advanced countries, which must never be made to suffer "abusive if not usurious financial systems".[715] More recently, the Magisterium used strong and clear words against this practice, which is still tragically widespread, describing usury as "a scourge that is also a reality in our time and that has a stranglehold on many peoples' lives".[716]

From the Compendium to the Catechism of the Catholic Church §508 (2005):

508. What is forbidden by the seventh commandment?

Above all, the seventh commandment forbids theft, which is the taking or using of another's property against the reasonable will of the owner. This can be done also by paying unjust wages; by speculation on the value of goods in order to gain an advantage to the detriment of others; or by the forgery of checks or invoices. Also forbidden is tax evasion or business fraud; willfully damaging private or public property; usury; corruption; the private abuse of common goods; work deliberately done poorly; and waste.

From Pope Benedict XVI, General Audience (2005):

The heart of this fidelity to the divine word consists in a fundamental choice of charity towards the poor and needy: 'The good man takes pity and lends ... Open-handed, he gives to the poor" (vv. 5, 9). The person of faith, then, is generous; respecting the biblical norms, he offers help to his brother in need, asking nothing in return (Deuteronomy 15: 7-11), and without falling into the shame of usury, which destroys the lives of the poor.'

I would be the first to agree that additional catechesis would help the faithful to better understand the necessary distinction between usury and the taking of interest. But it is patently false to claim that there has been a "surrender" or an "abandonment" of the doctrine of usury. It is explicitly taught by the Magisterium to this day and this alleged parallel with geocentrism fails completely.

Of course the parallel fails in another way too. The Holy Office, with the Pope's approval, gave positive permission in 1820 for non-geocentric views to be disseminated in the Church. The Church has given her imprimatur and nihil obstat to dozens, perhaps hundreds, of works that present a non-geocentric cosmology as fact. Pope Benedict XV stated openly in a papal encyclical that it's not at all problematic to hold that the earth isn't the center of the universe. Popes Leo XIII and Pius XII made official in papal encyclicals the Tradition expressed best by Sts. Augustine and Thomas that the sacred Scriptures do not contain details of the physical universe, but rather speak in ordinary language according to what appears to men. Popes Pius XII, John Paul II, and Benedict XVI have praised Galileo and John Paul II has stated publicly that the handling of the Galileo case rested on "errors". The Magisterium has given the faithful every indication that they need not have any scruple to hold to non-geocentric views of the universe. There is no possible parallel here to usury, which has been consistently and repeatedly condemned.

Which only goes to show you that you can't get away from the fundamental axiom that if you start with a bad premise you will inevitably reach a bad conclusion. Geocentrism was never taught as a doctrine of the faith by either the ordinary or extraordinary Magisterium. That is the simple reason why there is no reiteration of it. No need for exaggerations, conspiracy theories, ineptitude, or cowardice.

I know this is incredibly shocking and controversial, but ordinary, faithful Catholics can feel perfectly comfortable—and orthodox—while holding to a non-geocentric view of the universe. Not that that will stop the neo-geocentrists from making a wreck of their own faith as they cling to this pebble of a scientific theory, of course.

Cardinal Newman on Galileo and the Alleged Dogmatic Status of Geocentrism

So again Galileo, supposing he began (I have no reason for implying or thinking he did, but supposing he began) with doubting the received doctrine about the centrality of the earth, I think he would have been defective in religiousness; but not defective in faith, (unless indeed by chance he erroneously thought that the centrality had been defined). On the other hand, when he saw good reasons for doubting it, it was very fair to ask, and implied no irreligiousness,—"After all, is it defined?" and then, on inquiry, he would have found liberty of thought "in possession," and would both by right and with piety doubt of the earth's centrality.

(Letter to Edward B. Pusey, 23 March 1867; cited in Wilfred Ward, The Life of John Henry Cardinal Newman [two volumes: London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1912], vol. 2, 221)

Neo-Geo Exaggerations: The Catechism of Trent (guest post by David Palm)

[link to his post on his blog]
In my last piece on neo-geocentrism I pointed out how neo-geocentrists consistently exaggerate the nature and authority of the various ecclesiastical documents that touch on the topic.

Another example of this may be found in how they treat some passages in the Catechism of the Council of Trent. Here's what a leading neo-geo has to say about it:

One of the clearest official and authoritative statements from the Catholic Church defending the doctrine of geocentrism comes from the catechism issued under a decree of Pope Pius V, known as The Catechism of the Council of Trent or more simply, The Roman Catechism. (Bob Sungenis, GWW2, 163).

"One of the clearest official and authoritative statements"....keep that phrase in mind as we look into this a little further. Bob deploys several passages from the Roman Catechism to try and make this case. Here's one of them:

He also gave to the sun its brilliancy, and to the moon and stars their beauty; and that they might be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years. He so ordered the celestial bodies in a certain and uniform course, that nothing varies more than their continual revolution, while nothing is more fixed than their variety.

Now a lot of non-geocentrists are going to look at that and say, Okay, but I agree with that. How exactly does that clearly teach geocentrism? Bob deploys another passage from the Catechism of Trent to try and answer that:

Rather, to expel any doubt about what objects are revolving the catechism adds that the sun, moon and stars have a "continual revolution." Although the unspecified reference to "revolution" might cause a heliocentrist to infer that the sun's revolution does not necessarily mean it is revolving around the Earth, a few pages later the catechism disallows that inference by stating the following:

The earth also God commanded to stand in the midst of the world, rooted in its own foundation and made the mountains ascend, and the plains descend into the place which he had founded for them.…

The problem for Bob is the context that he left off after the ellipses makes his application of this passage to the earth's place in the universe untenable. Let's have the whole passage, including what he omitted:

The earth [terram] also God commanded to stand in the midst of the world [mundi], rooted in its own foundation, and made the mountains ascend, and the plains descend into the place which he had founded for them. That the waters should not inundate the earth, He set a bound which they shall not pass over; neither shall they return to cover the earth. He next not only clothed and adorned it with trees and every variety of plant and flower, but filled it, as He had already filled the air and water, with innumerable kinds of living creatures.

While mundus can mean "universe", it can also just mean "world", e.g. Mundus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur, "The world wants to be deceived, so let it be deceived." But from the whole context it appears that the Catechism is using the word "earth" (terra) in terms of the "land", as distinct from the "air" and "water" and the word "world" (mundus) to mean the whole globe. (This echoes the wording of Gen 1:10, "And God called the dry land, Earth [terram]".) Thus in this context "rooted in its own foundation" means that the land is fixed in place with relation to the water, not in relation to the cosmos. If "earth" here means the entire globe then the passage ceases to make sense, since in the last sentence the "earth" is specifically contrasted with the "air" and "water" and God certainly didn't cover the entire globe, including the air and water, "with trees and every variety of plant and flower".

This passage, then, doesn't represent a description of the globe's place in the universe and it has no application to geocentrism. I should note that the English version of this Catechism by J. A. McHugh and C. J. Callanon which appears in many places on the Internet (e.g. here) has the heading "Formation of the Universe" over this section. This is a mistranslation of the Latin, De terrae creatione, which is correctly translated "Creation of the earth" (as in, e.g. the translation by J. Donovan (link). It is perhaps this mistranslation—along with an insufficient attention to context—that has misled certain neo-geocentrists to read this as if it addressed the earth's place in the universe.

There are a couple of other passages Bob cites to try and bolster this notion that the Catechism of Trent teaches geocentrism, but they get weaker and weaker.

But though God is present in all places and in all things, without being bound by any limits, as has been already said, yet in Sacred Scripture it is frequently said that He has His dwelling in heaven. And the reason is because the heavens which we see above our heads are the noblest part of the world, remain ever Incorruptible, surpass all other bodies in power, grandeur and beauty, and are endowed with fixed and regular motion.

...all goods both natural and supernatural, must be recognised as gifts given by Him from whom, as the Church proclaims, proceed all blessings. If the sun by its light, if the stars by their motion and revolutions, are of any advantage to man; if the air with which we are surrounded serves to sustain us...nay, those very causes which philosophers call secondary, we should regard as so many hands of God, wonderfully fashioned and fitted for our use, by means of which He distributes His blessings and diffuses them everywhere in profusion.

Obviously, non-geocentrists can affirm all that this Catechism says. There is no explicit affirmation of geocentrism here whatsoever; these are generic statements that fit modern cosmologies equally well. Yet despite the weakness of this evidence in favor of his pet cosmology, Bob speaks of the "Roman Catechism's dogmatic assertion of geocentrism" (GWW2, pp. 164f.). This is a manifest exaggeration.

We have seen that, far from containing a "dogmatic assertion of geocentrism", the Catechism of the Council of Trent says nothing at all on the subject. The evidence strongly suggests that this is a modern, private interpretation of the Catechism based on a mistranslation and a misunderstanding. The following fact should pretty much clinch that case. Bob claims that this is, "One of the clearest official and authoritative statements from the Catholic Church defending the doctrine of geocentrism. . . " But surely, if that were true, this would have been the very centerpiece in the original Galileo controversy. And yet this source was was never, as far as I have seen, brought up either by the Congregation of the Index or the Congregation of the Holy Office during the Galileo affair. The silence is deafening.

The Catechism of the Council of Trent does not teach geocentrism as an article of faith. And of course, the Church's next universal Catechism, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, also says not a word about geocentrism either. And yet the Holy Father stated in Fidei Depositum IV:

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which I approved 25 June last and the publication of which I today order by virtue of my Apostolic Authority, is a statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine, attested to or illumined by Sacred Scripture, Apostolic Tradition and the Church's Magisterium. I declare it to be a valid and legitimate instrument for ecclesial communion and a sure norm for teaching the faith.

"[A] statement of the Church's faith and of Catholic doctrine..." But not a peep about geocentrism. That silence too is deafening.

The Catholic Cardinal Newman's Opinion of Anglicanism

The following excerpts are from my upcoming book of quotations from Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman: The Quotable Newman: Theology and Church History. Note especially the remarkable letter of 3 July 1848.

* * * * *
If I must specify what I mean by 'Anglican principles,' I should say e.g. taking Antiquity, not the existing Church, as the oracle of truth; and holding that the Apostolical Succession is a sufficient guarantee of sacramental Grace, without union with the Christian Church throughout the world. I think them the firmest, strongest bulwark against Rome – that is if they can be held. They have been held by many, and are far more difficult to refute than those of any other religious body. For myself, I found I could not hold them. I left them. From the time I began to suspect their unsoundness, I ceased to put them forward – when I was fairly sure of their unsoundness, I gave up my Living. When I was fully confident that the Church of Rome was the only true Church, I joined it. I have felt all along that Bishop Bull's theology was the only theology on which the English Church could stand – I have felt that opposition to the Church of Rome was part of that theology; and that he who could not protest against the Church of Rome was no true divine in the English Church. I have never said, nor attempted to say, that any one in office in the English Church, whether Bishop or incumbent, could be otherwise than in hostility to the Church of Rome.

(LD xi, 27-28; Letter to Samuel Wilks, 8 November 1845)
Again in what sense are Rome and England one body in which the Church of England and Methodism may not be proved one body? . . . I hold it impossible that you should remain in this half and half position, believing one thing on the same ground, on which you reject another. . . . when I admit that the English Church is in schism, I see a mass of facts confirmatory of it – its disorganized state of belief – its feebleness to resist heretics – its many changes – its freezing coldness. And on the other hand I have the portentous, the awful vitality of Rome. That is an overpowering confirmatory argument.

(LD xi, 175; Letter to Henry Wilberforce, 8 June 1846)
. . . as a whole, he [Pusey] is not reviving any thing that ever was any where for 1800 years. There is a tradition of High Church and of Low Church – but none of what now is justly called Puseyism.

(LD xii, 157; Letter to Henry Wilberforce, 19 January 1848)
. . . disunion in the Anglican Church is just what prejudices men of the world against it and makes it contemptible. They do not take hold of the possibility that one party in it may be contending for a truth against the other. The disunion is its condemnation . . .

(LD xii, 159-160; Letter to Frederick Lucas, 20 January 1848)
The thought of Anglicanism with nothing fixed or settled, with Bishop contradicting Bishops within, and the whole world against it, without, is something so dreary and wretched, that I cannot speak of it without the chance of offence to those who still hold it.

(LD xii, 168; Letter to A. J. Hanmer, 10 February 1848)
. . . the hollowness of High Churchism (or whatever it is called) is to me so very clear that it surpises me, (not that persons should not see it at once), but that any should not see it at last, and, alas, I must add that I do not think it safe for any one who does see it, not to act on his conviction of it at once. . . . I do not disguise that Catholicism is a different religion from Anglicanism . . . that religion which the Apostles introduced and which was in the world long before the Reformation was dreamed of . . .

(LD xii, 223-225; Letter to Mrs. William Froude, 16 June 1848)
. . . the Anglican and the Catholic are two religions. I have professed both, and must know better than those who have professed one only . . . This being so, it is a mere deceit, I fully think, to suppose that the difference between Catholics and Anglicans is, that one believes a little more, and the other a little less; and therefore that they could unite. The religions never could unite; they never could be reconciled together . . . because they proceed on different ideas; and, if they look in certain external aspects alike, or have doctrines in common, yet the way in which those doctrines are held, and the whole internal structure in the two religions is different; so that, even what a person has before he is a Catholic, being grafted on a new stiock, becomes new, and he is like a Jew become Christian. . . . the Anglo-catholic scarcely exists out of books, or in a hundred parsonages scattered through the land, and has had no continuous life or succession. Next, consider the vast difference between believing in a living authority, unerring because divine, in matters of doctrine, and believing none; -- between believing what an external authority defines, and believing what we ourselves happen to define as contained in Scripture and the Fathers, where no two individuals define quite the same set of doctrines . . . In the one case, the living authority, deciding in controversies of faith, is the Church, in the other (whatever men pretend,) it is we ourselves who are the ultimate authority.

(LD xii, 234-235; Letter to E. J. Phipps, 3 July 1848)
I am much obliged to you for giving me the opportunity of setting right the misconception which is in circulation of the light in which I view the Anglican Church. . . . I respect and love the good men who belong to it; I have no wish to speak of it, but if I am forced to speak, by being misrepresented, I cannot help saying that I do not think the established Church is better off, as regards the Sacraments, than other non-Catholic bodies which have not renounced baptism. God's grace doubtless may be vouchsafed at his will both th Anglicans and to Protestants; and that I certainly may have said; but vouchsafed in order to bring them towards the Catholic Church; in this way it is doubtless given to one and the other; but in each case in order to draw them off from what they are; and if it does not do this to Anglicans as well as Protestants, it does not answer the purpose for which it is given. No wonder I say this, considering I have the greatest misgivings of the validity of Anglican orders . . . If the Anglican Church has not orders, it has no Eucharist . . .

(LD xii, 249; Second Letter to Robert Monteith, 21 July 1848)
. . . Dr Pusey . . . cannot name the individual for 1800 years who has ever held his circle of doctrines; he cannot first put down his own creed, and then refer it to doctor, or school before him. . . . I want to know what single individual that ever belonged to the Anglican Church does he follow. Not Laud, for Laud on the scaffold avowed himself an honest Protestant; not Hooker, for he gives up the Real Presence; not Taylor for he blames both the Athanasian and Nicene Creeds; not Bull for he considers that Transubstantiation 'bids defiance to all the reason and sense of mankind;' not Ussher, for he was a Calvinist; not Jewell, for he gave up the Priesthood; nor the Articles, for Dr P. puts an interpretation on them; nor the Prayer book, for he believes about twice as much as the Prayer Book contains. Who before him ever joined the circle of Roman doctrine to the Anglican ritual and polity? . . . converts smile at confession in the Anglican Church; -- they smile, not at those who religiously take part in the ordinance, but at those who out of their own heads invent rites or ceremonies, or again, who borrow the rites, while they disown the authority of the Catholic Church.

(LD xii, 273-274; Letter to Catherine Ward, 25 September 1848)
Now, if we are advocates of doctrines, however true, with no authority to back us, it is the story of the Oxford Tracts over again – we shall be in a false position . . .

(LD xii, 278; Letter to Frederick W. Faber, 4 October 1848)
. . . nor do I think he nor any other anglo-catholic would submit to put down his entire creed on paper, and lay it before the world.

(LD xii, 290; Letter to Catherine Ward, 12 October 1848)
. . . those of its members who are what is called Evangelical, and those who are Liberals, cause a re-action in favour of Catholicism, and those, who take the high line of Dr Pusey, are but educating souls for a communion holier and truer than their own.

(LD xxxii, 277; Letter to C. C. Catcliffe, 6 January 1867)
Be sure there is as much chance of my turning an Anglican again as of my being . . . the King of Clubs. . . . the Anglican Church is . . . a mere collection of men, a mere national body, a human society. . . . [I would be] the most asinine, as well as the most ungrateful of men, if I left that Gracious Lord who manifests Himself in the Catholic Church, for those wearisome Protestant shadows, out of which of His mercy he has delivered me.

(LD xxv, 200; Letter to an Anglo-Catholic friend in August [?] 1870; cited in Ker, 656-657)
It is undeniable that the Anglican Church has retained large portions of the Catholic doctrine and ritual; so far forth as it has done so, of course it will be called anti-Christian by those who call Rome pure Antichrist.

(Ess. ii, sec. XI, footnote 2 from 1871)
I have said that these Lectures are "more or less" directed against points in Catholic teaching, and that I should consider "how far," because it must be borne in mind that the formal purpose of the Volume was, not an attack upon that teaching, but the establishment of a doctrine of its own, the Anglican Via Media. It only indirectly comes into collision with the theology of Rome. That theology lay in the very threshold of the author's experiment; he came across it, whether he would or no, and, while he attacked it at considerable length in its details, he adopted its main principles and many of its conclusions; and, as obliterating thereby or ignoring the very rudiments of Protestantism, he acted far more as an assailant of the religion of the Reformation than of what he called "Popery." . . . large portions of these Lectures are expositions, nay, recommendations of principles and doctrines, recognized in the Catholic Church . . . the Via Media, . . . a doctrine, wanting in simplicity, hard to master, indeterminate in its provisions, and without a substantive existence in any age or country. . . . I readily grant in particular that there is much truth in Anglican teaching, and that, so far, it does and will, while it lasts, powerfully affect the multitude of men, to whom it comes; but I cannot allow to the Church of England itself what is true of much of its teaching and many of its teachers, for that teaching and those teachers, who are so effective, know nothing of the Via Media.

(VM i, Preface to the Third Edition, 1877)
. . . he found in early history a veritable Via Media in both the Semi-Arian and the Monophysite parties, and they, as being heretical, broke his attachment to middle paths.

(VM i, Introduction; footnote 3 from 1877)
Baptism marks individuals with an indelible character; but what spiritual promises have been made from heaven to the Anglican Church, as such? . . . The Almighty chose the race of Abraham to be His people, in a sense in which He has not chosen the Anglo-Saxons. We cannot argue from Jerusalem to Canterbury and York. . . . where is any promise of divine Providence to the Anglican communion, when visibly separated from the visible Catholic Church?

(VM i, Lecture 14; footnotes 4, 7, and 12 from 1877)
It is a body altogether cut off from the Church. It not only denounces the Holy See, but it has allied itself with Protestantism. Its highest Churchmen have looked favourably on the Nestorians and Monophysites. It allows its Clergy to preach all manner of false doctrines, to deny the grace of baptism, to treat the Holy Eucharist as a mere outward rite, and to make light of the necessity of ordination. It cannot interpret its own formulas and definitions, and it cannot say what it holds and what it does not hold. Therefore I cannot concern myself with the question of the validity of its orders.

(LD xxxii, 385; Letter to an Unknown Correspondent; undated, but thought [by the editors] to be from either December 1878 or January 1879)
A barrister, a dear friend of mine was converted to the Catholic Church, because, he said, the Church of England had taken the step of leaving the great Catholic body, and its first duty was to come back again. So I say now – the move toward union, must first be taken by the party who committed the schism. When some Anglican ecclesiastic of name can be found to come to us and say he wishes, and is empowered, to lay before the Holy Father the repentant feelings existing and growing in the Church of England for the deeds of the 16th century, I shall receive the tidings with great joy and thankfulness.

(LD xxxii, 468; Letter to an Unknown Correspondent, 18 September 1885)
SOURCES
Ess. ii Essays Critical and Historical, vol. 2 (1840-1842, 1846 / 1871; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1907)

Ker [Ian Ker]: John Henry Newman: A Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988)

LD xi The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, Vol. XI: Littlemore to Rome: October 1845 to December 1846 (edited by Charles Stephen Dessain, London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1961)

LD xii The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, Vol. XII: Rome to Birmingham: January 1847 to December 1848 (edited by Charles Stephen Dessain, London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1962)

LD xxv The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, Vol. XXV: The Vatican Council, January 1870 to December 1871 (edited by Charles Stephen Dessain, Oxford University Press, USA, 1974)

LD xxxii The Letters and Diaries of John Henry Newman, Vol. XXXII: Supplement (edited by Francis J. McGrath, Oxford University Press, USA, 2008)

VM i The Via Media of the Anglican Church: Illustrated in Lectures, Letters and Tracts Written Between 1830 and 1841, vol. 1; aka Lectures on the Prophetical Office of the Church (1837 / 1877; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 3rd edition, 1901)

My Book, Orthodoxy and Catholicism: A Comparison, to be Read by Bishops and Priests in the Czech Republic

 

I received a letter from Bishop Ladislav Hučko: Bishop - Apostolic Exarch of the Greek-Catholic Church, in Prague (Byzantine Rite). He asked for permission to reprint up to 200 copies of my book, Orthodoxy and Catholicism: A Comparison (already translated into Czech) for his priests and fellow Czech bishops.



There are eight Bohemian bishops in the Czech Republic and five Moravian bishops. The country has eight dioceses and an Apostolic Exarchate. In the Archdiocese of Prague alone there are 378 parishes with 216 priests, serving 370,000 Catholics. It's not clear exactly who will receive copies of my book, but it appears to be all priests and bishops.



This is extremely exciting news. I don't receive one cent, but that is quite beside the point. I never began this apostolate with the motive to make a lot of money. I just need to pay my bills and support my family of six. God has always provided our needs, since I've been doing this full-time (beginning in December 2001). My goal and purpose is to spread the word of the gospel and of the fullness of faith to be found in the Catholic Church. Various of my books or papers have also been translated into Spanish, Portugese, French, and probably some other languages, too. Therefore, I was more than happy to grant permission, free of any charge or royalties.



All I asked Bishop Ladislav in return, was for his prayers for my apostolate, and the prayers of anyone receiving my book. God's grace and prayer are ultimately the causes of any fruits achieved in this work. I simply need to be obedient to my calling. As Jesus said: "the harvest is ready . . ."

My Book, Orthodoxy and Catholicism: A Comparison, to be Read by Bishops and Priests in the Czech Republic

 
I received a letter from Bishop Ladislav Hučko: Bishop - Apostolic Exarch of the Greek-Catholic Church, in Prague (Byzantine Rite). He asked for permission to reprint up to 200 copies of my book, Orthodoxy and Catholicism: A Comparison (already translated into Czech) for his priests and fellow Czech bishops.

There are eight Bohemian bishops in the Czech Republic and five Moravian bishops. The country has eight dioceses and an Apostolic Exarchate. In the Archdiocese of Prague alone there are 378 parishes with 216 priests, serving 370,000 Catholics. It's not clear exactly who will receive copies of my book, but it appears to be all priests and bishops.

This is extremely exciting news. I don't receive one cent, but that is quite beside the point. I never began this apostolate with the motive to make a lot of money. I just need to pay my bills and support my family of six. God has always provided our needs, since I've been doing this full-time (beginning in December 2001). My goal and purpose is to spread the word of the gospel and of the fullness of faith to be found in the Catholic Church. Various of my books or papers have also been translated into Spanish, Portugese, French, and probably some other languages, too. Therefore, I was more than happy to grant permission, free of any charge or royalties.

All I asked Bishop Ladislav in return, was for his prayers for my apostolate, and the prayers of anyone receiving my book. God's grace and prayer are ultimately the causes of any fruits achieved in this work. I simply need to be obedient to my calling. As Jesus said: "the harvest is ready . . ."

Robert Sungenis Misrepresents the "St. Peter Being Hypocritical with Jews" Incident in Galatians and Makes a Pathetic Comparison to Pope Benedict XVI

 This controversy began with Bob's post, A Review of Pope Benedict XVI's Jesus of Nazareth. I, in turn, documented (with a few of my comments) the slanders toward the Holy Father made in that hit-piece, purported "review": "Catholic Apologist" (???) Robert Sungenis vs. Pope Benedict XVI: Take Your Pick. The following microcosm of Bob's thinking is symptomatic of many examples where he exhibits an inability to correctly consider context and the use of language. In this case we also (very sad irony indeed) observe his conspiratorial-like obsession and hostility when it comes to Anything Jewish whatever.
I contend that the deeper issue is a fundamentalist hermeneutic in his thinking that he has retained from his Protestant days. His outlook is insufficiently Catholic (and far too Protestant and liberal in its overall tenor and tone). Hence he feels a total freedom to be utterly unbridled and uninhibited in his vitriolic attacks on the current Holy Father and even far worse towards Blessed John Paul II (the Great). His words from his paper above will be in blue. His words posted in a combox on my blog on 2 June 2011, via his friend James Phillips, will be in purple.
* * * * *
. . . what cannot be said officially because of ecclesiastical constraints is said unofficially in order to achieve a desired result. . . . Perhaps this same temptation also hampered our first pope. It was Pope Peter in Galatians 2:11-21 who, when he decided to engage in some private and unofficial commentary on the Gospel under the name Cephas, eventually shunned his Gentile converts and instead bent over backwards to placate the hostile and unbelieving Jews, upon which he was severely upbraided by Paul for "perverting the Gospel." . . . it may be no coincidence that the Jews who made the Cephas-side of Pope Peter stumble in proclaiming the Gospel are eerily similar to the Jews today who are making the Joseph Ratzinger side of Pope Benedict XVI stumble as well. It's uncanny to see such a resemblance between the first century and the twenty-first century. [my bolding added]


This is absolutely asinine. Bob makes out that St. Peter was more-or-less duplicitously using the name Cephas as some kind of cover. Cephas or Kepha is simply the Greek, Peter (Petros) in Aramaic. It is what Christ actually would have spoken in Matthew 16 when He renamed Peter (originally Simon or Symeon). Hence, the similar passage, John 1:42 (RSV):

He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, 'So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas' (which means Peter).

There is no attempt of St. Peter to somehow use a different name in order to be two-faced, as Bob clearly implies ("under the name Cephas" / "the Cephas-side of Pope Peter"). Moreover, it is doubly absurd for Bob to "argue" like this, given the fact that in all nine instances of Cephas in the New Testament, Peter never calls himself the name. John uses it once in recording Jesus' words (above), and the other eight are from Paul. So where does Bob get off insinuating that Peter somehow used the name to be two-faced with (ethnic) Jews?

There is no New Testament evidence for this whatever. It's a non-starter (one of many in Bob's relentless anti-papal reasoning). Peter was a hypocrite there, sure, but so was (arguably) Paul elsewhere, when he had Timothy circumcised for fear of  Jewish opinion and reaction (Acts 16:3), while at the same time preaching strongly that it was completely unnecessary to do so. Paul and Peter had no doctrinal disagreement. Peter was simply playing the hypocrite in that instance.

Thank you for sending this to me James, although I hesitate to get into a tit-for-tat with Mr. Armstrong, mainly because I think his arguments are specious. 
Exactly what I feel about Mr. Sungenis. Great to agree on something! 

I will only say the following. On the issue of "Cephas," Mr. Armstrong missed the point. Regardless of whether he was called Cephas or Meephas, the point at issue is, in his private teaching and actions Peter was being hypocritical and perverting the Gospel. 
I missed no point whatsoever. Bob blew his point and (this now having been exposed) is presently engaging in sophistry, obfuscation, and obscurantism to cover up the embarrassing whopper (trying to pretend he didn't argue as he did), rather than admit he was wrong and move on. As so sadly often, he makes a fool of himself special pleading something that is a lost cause. Isn't it easier to simply admit the mistake, as all of us mere mortals do, or should do, when necessary?

But I think this was not a mere innocent mistake. Bob knows too much (since he knows Greek) to not know that what he was using as some sort of polemical "device" was absurd in the first place. But he used it anyway, thinking that less sophisticated readers would not notice what he was doing, playing with Scripture for his own unsavory purposes of running down the current Holy Father. He tried to pull a cute "fast one," and is now being called on it. Everyone can see how pathetic this is.

It was Bob who introduced this motif of St. Peter supposedly using Cephas as a sort of second name or pseudonym, when talking to Jews. It was he who wrote:

Pope Peter in Galatians 2:11-21 . . . decided to engage in some private and unofficial commentary on the Gospel under the name Cephas,. . . 

. . . the Jews who made the Cephas-side of Pope Peter stumble . . .

Yet now Bob seeks to misrepresent his own argument because he was called on it:

I used Cephas only because it allowed me to show that Pope Peter also went by a more common name, namely, Cephas.

Again, this is utterly ludicrous. There is no dichotomy whatever between Peter and Cephas: one is not more "common" than the other, since they are both the same thing in different languages. The former is Greek and the latter Aramaic. Since the New Testament was written in Greek, Peter (like Jesus: a Greek transliteration of Yeshua or Joshua) is more common to us, but at the time, Kepha or Cephas was what the apostles (and Jesus) would have usually used, since they commonly spoke Aramaic as their first language.

Hence, Paul's own use, eight times. In fact, Paul uses "Peter" exactly (and only) twice: in Galatians 2:7-8 (ironically for my present purpose, right before the incident of hypocrisy, where Paul rebuked Peter). This shows that the two names are synonymous and interchangeable. Paul never calls Peter Simon (his actual given name).  He calls him Cephas eight times and Peter twice.

We see this synonymity also in John 1:42, where Scripture clearly records Jesus using the name Cephas (and John adding the parenthetical, "which means Peter").

This argument of Bob's in itself is ridiculous; nonsensical from both a linguistic and NT exegetical perspective. Therefore the following analogy that Bob attempts to make between Peter and Pope Benedict XXVI (my paraphrase; not his words) also fails utterly:

Pope Peter used "Cephas" for the goal of perverting the Gospel in his hypocrisy with Jews.

----- parallel to -----

Pope Benedict XVI used his given name Joseph Ratzinger for the purpose of perverting aspects about Jesus for the sake of placating the Jews.

But here is Bob in my combox reiterating his fallacious, silly "argument":

The same can be said of the pope if he teaches wrongly on Catholic issues in private and invites us to critique him, which I did. . . .  Since Pope Benedict put two names on the cover of his book (ie., Pope Benedict the pope and Joseph Ratzinger the private theologian), the gist of the comparison is made between Peter and Cephas.  

Bob concludes his combox "reply":

Be that as it may, Mr. Armstrong's majoring on the minors is also evident in that he totally avoids the fact that Pope Benedict said we should not be preaching to the Jews. Here we have a glaring inconsistency with Catholic tradition and scripture on the order of John Paul II's Assisi meeting, but Mr. Armstrong skips all that to dwell on whether Cephas can be an alias or not.  
I dwelt on a particularly ludicrous thing in an endless list of ludicrous items. The selectivity was totally by design, and I have made it quite clear. I deliberately ignore most of Bob's rantings against popes as beneath the dignity of any reply. Bob does the same with me (which is perfectly okay, of course): even far more so (as we saw above, he said my arguments were "specious"). The present instance, however, was such a glaring, outrageous, obvious error, and priceless gem of dim-witted reasoning, that it afforded me a golden opportunity to illustrate an altogether typical flaw in Bob's "apologetic" methodology. So I did.

Peter was guilty of being cliquish and of dissimulation. Paul, on the other hand, emphasized (almost in a boastful fashion) how Titus hadn't been circumcised (which would be caving into the Judaizers, or "false brethren"):

Galatians 2:3-5 But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. [4] But because of false brethren secretly brought in, who slipped in to spy out our freedom which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage -- [5] to them we did not yield submission even for a moment, that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you.

Yet in Timothy's case it was different, and Paul seems hypocritical himself:

Acts 16:3 Paul wanted Timothy to accompany him; and he took him and circumcised him because of the Jews that were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek. 

It has been argued (not, I think, without plausibility or distinct possibility) that this was mere accommodationism and "being all things to all men,"  but a case can also be plausibly made that Paul was far more hypocritical (with a grown man having to be circumcised) than Peter was.
 
One can only correct the errors. This was a blatantly obvious one on Bob's part, so I devoted several hours of my time to it (after he decided to dig in and not retract the clear error). But to correct all of Bob's errors and whoppers and slanders of popes and the Church and real Catholic apologists and botched exegesis and woodenly literal pseudo-fundamentalist understanding of words and doctrines would literally take thousands of hours.

I have neither time nor motivation (and especially not anywhere near the patience) to do all that, but I can do some small amount, and believe me, this one example is altogether typical of the huge fallacies and shortcomings of Bob's increasingly radtrad, quasi-schismatic thinking. Perhaps if enough errors of this sort are exposed, it will shock him back to reality, and cause him to cease attacking popes and Holy Mother Church and other Catholics and concentrate on his real enemies: the world, the flesh, and the devil.

"Catholic Apologist" (???) Robert Sungenis vs. Pope Benedict XVI: Take Your Pick

We've already seen Pope Bob-o-Link I go after Blessed Pope John Paul II (the Great), as I have documented now three times (including some previous shots at the present Holy Father):

Robert Sungenis Embraces "RadTradism" and Sadly Edges Closer to Outright Schism in His Blistering Attacks and Slanders on the Church, and Popes John Paul the Great (a Modern-Day Solomon?) and Benedict XVI (4-20-11)

Refutation of Robert Sungenis' Charge That Blessed Pope John Paul II Denied the Reality of Hell and/or Taught Universalism (4-26-11)

"Catholic Apologist" (???) Robert Sungenis Continues His Scathing, Ridiculous Attacks on Blessed Pope John Paul II (6-1-11)

Now he has focused his supposedly hyper-orthodox, relentlessly illogical "analysis" on the present pope. I have predicted that Bob will become a sedevacantist (one who denies that there is a valid sitting pope; and usually denies the validity of all popes after Pope Pius XII) within a year or two if he continues these ludicrous tendencies and going down this radtrad path. I stand by my prediction (and I sure hope I am wrong; no one will be happier than me if I am). If he does that, he will no longer be a Catholic. 
I don't deny that he is a Catholic now, but I deny that he is functioning as a Catholic apologist anymore -- by any reasonable definition of that word (a thing I know a little bit about myself, since I have been doing it for over twenty years: almost ten of those professionally). Once in a blue moon he'll defend Catholic doctrine, but mostly now he pope-bashes and Church-bashes and blasts true Catholic apologists. 
He is presently thinking and expressing himself, in many respects (like all "radtrads"), more like a classical Protestant such as Martin Luther himself (someone else who could find very little good to say about current popes), with strong influences of fundamentalist Protestantism and also liberal Protestantism and dissident "Catholicism" in his pitiable thoughts as of late.
What he is doing now is a disgrace to Catholic apologetics: not to mention previous errors that he has promulgated, such as the notion that supposedly all Catholics are required by Tradition to believe that the earth is the literal center of the universe and doesn't rotate (a notion roundly refuted by my friend David Palm several times now), or that an omniscient God can change His mind (a very serious error that has appeared in two of his books), or his remarkable inability to grasp biblical anthropomorphism and anthropopathism, or his endless bigoted rantings against the Jews: sometimes even using neo-Nazi sources to "bolster" his calumnies.
Bob and I have had generally cordial relations personally, and will continue to, if he likes. But the time to be publicly silent about his polemical monstrosities against the latest two popes has passed. I must speak out now when he rants and raves like this. But mostly I merely document his rantings, because they usually aren't worthy of any reply or valuable time spent. 
The following words are all from his jeremiad, A Review of Pope Benedict XVI's Jesus of Nazareth (May 2011), with the exception of some bracketed comments of mine in blue, when something he wrote was so particularly outlandish that I couldn't resist a response.
* * * * *
. . . what cannot be said officially because of ecclesiastical constraints is said unofficially in order to achieve a
desired result.

Perhaps this same temptation also hampered our first pope. It was Pope Peter in Galatians 2:11-21 who, when he decided to engage in some private and unofficial commentary on the Gospel under the name Cephas, eventually shunned his Gentile converts and instead bent over backwards to placate the hostile and unbelieving Jews, upon which he was severely upbraided by Paul for "perverting the Gospel." . . . it may be no coincidence that the Jews who made the Cephas-side of Pope Peter stumble in proclaiming the Gospel are eerily similar to the Jews today who are making the Joseph Ratzinger side of Pope Benedict XVI stumble as well. It's uncanny to see such a resemblance between the first century and the twenty-first century.

[this is absolutely asinine. Bob makes out that St. Peter was duplicitously using the name Cephas as some kind of cover. Cephas or Kepha is simply the Greek, Peter (Petros) in Aramaic. It is what Christ actually would have spoken in Matthew 16 when He renamed Peter (originally Simon or Symeon). Hence, the similar passage, John 1:42 (RSV): "He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, 'So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas' (which means Peter)." There is no attempt of St. Peter to somehow use a different name in order to be two-faced, as Bob clearly implies ("under the name Cephas" / "the Cephas-side of Pope Peter"). Moreover, it is doubly absurd for Bob to "argue" like this, given the fact that in all nine instances of Cephas in the New Testament, Peter never calls himself the name. John uses it once in recording Jesus' words (above), and the other eight are from Paul. So where does Bob get off insinuating that Peter somehow used the name to be two-faced with the Jews? There is no NT evidence for this whatever. It's a non-starter (one of many in Bob's relentless anti-papal reasoning). Peter was a hypocrite there, sure, but so was (arguably) Paul elsewhere, when he had Timothy circumcised for fear of the Jews (Acts 16:3) while at the same time preaching strongly that it was completely unnecessary to do so. Paul and Peter had no doctrinal disagreement. Peter was simply playing the hypocrite in that instance]
The job of each Catholic is to protect the papacy and Joseph Ratzinger is no exception to that mandate. He cannot put the papacy in precarious positions and exploit it for future book sales.

. . . Jesus of Nazareth, although very uplifting and insightful in several places, contains a disturbing amount of dubious theological propositions; lack of scholarly exegesis; misuse of biblical criticism; and a general ignoring of Catholic tradition.

JON puts nothing less than 20 centuries of Catholic tradition on the chopping block, but that is not unusual for post-Vatican II popes. John Paul II did it constantly. It seems they have a need to silence the haunting voices of the past in order to give credence to their continuing novelties.

In short, JON's compassion is misplaced. Catering to the pressure of the Jewish lobby today by postponing their salvation until tomorrow is not being sympathetic to them at all. The mess of political pottage JON will receive from the Jews in return for handing over our Gospel birthright can only come back to haunt him, if not destroy him.

In his interpretation of Mt 27:25 ("And the whole people said in reply, 'His blood be upon us and upon our children'") JON seems to go out of its way to make this passage say the exact opposite of what it says. The passage is very clear.

. . . receiving visits from Abe Foxman at the Vatican to help create Judaized doctrine for Catholics . . .

We can easily see what JON is trying desperately to do. He is willing to put the veracity of Matthew on the chopping block and force John into a defined mold in order to arrive at a position (which will inevitably placate today's Jews) . . .

. . . the issue here is . . . how JON twists the Scripture to arrive at his [sic] favored position. But this arbitrary treatment of Holy Scripture is only the symptom of an even larger problem in the hermeneutics of JON.

. . . not one time in its 300 pages does JON state that what we have in the Gospels today was inspired by the Holy Spirit. . . . never does JON specify a supreme power that weaves all the strains together into a unified and inerrant whole. . . . Doesn't JON believe in at least some kind of divine inspiration of the biblical writers? He may, . . .

. . . JON is often tempted to pick the account that is in accord with the ecumenical appeasement he wishes to promote – and we've already seen that his ecumenical purpose is to exonerate the Jews to a status where they don't need to hear the Gospel and still retain an independent "mission from God." This is not biblical exegesis; it is biblical tyranny.

This is the sad state of biblical hermeneutics in the Catholic scholarly world today and JON unabashedly perpetuates this sorry condition.

Since many of the sources JON cites are Protestant, it may come as no surprise that the theory of the Atonement presented in JON is much closer to Protestant theology than it is Catholic.

JON translates the Greek word hilasterion with the word "expiation." This is the first indication of a departure from traditional Catholic theology since the common Latin or English translation of hilasterion has always been "propitiationem" or "propitiation," not expiation.

[much ado about nothing. Bob frequently exhibits an inability to comprehend how language works. The two words are synonyms; hence, Thayer and Smith define it: "relating to an appeasing or expiating, having placating or expiating force, expiatory; a means of appeasing or expiating, a propitiation." Pope Pius XII used the word three times in his encyclical, Mediator Dei (20 November 1947): 1) "expiation, propitiation and reconciliation" (sec. 73), 2) " the people unite their hearts in praise, impetration, expiation and thanksgiving" (sec. 93), 3) "to carry the cross willingly with Him, to reproduce in our own hearts His spirit of expiation and atonement, and to die together with Him" (sec. 158). Pope Pius XI used it in 1928: "that the offense offered to God by our sins may be expiated". And Pope Benedict XV in 1921, etc. Yet Pope Bob-o-Link I would have us believe that this is somehow an "unCatholic" word and that the Holy Father is off into the heterodox stratosphere in using it.]
Expiation was never used in Catholic theology until the 20th century . . . 
[this is also untrue. Pope Leo XIII wrote in 1888 in his encyclical Quod Anniversarius : ". . . We think we can give them no more useful and desirable pledge of Our love than by everywhere increasing the offering of the pure oblation of the Most Holy Sacrifice of Our Divine Mediator, for the extinction of their pain. We therefore decree, with all the necessary dispensations and indulgences, the last Sunday of next September as a day of ample expiation . . ." Let Bob oppose and nitpick like this if he must, like a good Protestant or Catholic dissenter, but I would hope he would at least be consistent and enlist Leo XIII, Benedict XV, Pius XI, and Pius XII also in his list of rank liberals, such as supposedly the latest two popes were also. But he won't do that. It's the usual timeworn, boorish radtrad game, shot through with vicious self-contradiction . . .] 
. . . JON either has no concept of the traditional Catholic teaching or that he has been so influenced by German Protestant thought that he now only thinks in terms of vicarious expiation.
[alas, Bob blesses us with one paragraph of "Things I Liked in JON". How magnanimous and gracious . . . isn't it comforting to know that Bob Sungenis was impressed with the Holy Father's book so much that he mustered up one paragraph of praise and dozens and dozens of exoriating criticisms?] 
* * * * *

One might find it fascinating, as I do, that previously, Bob thought Pope Benedict XVI was just fine and dandy. For example, he wrote (in 2005, I think; my bolding):

Protestant Michael Horton, whom I know personally and have debated on two occasions, has done the Catholic Church and Pope Benedict XVI a great service. Dr. Horton has traced the theological history of Pope Benedict XVI as it was formulated by the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. In his attempt to show how distant Pope Benedict XVI is from Horton's Calvinistic-Reformed theology, Horton shows us all the places in Ratzinger's writings in which the Cardinal was adhering to the traditional beliefs of the Catholic Church, and at no time does Horton show any place where Ratzinger has departed from those beliefs. I, myself, did not realize how faithful the Cardinal has been to Catholic doctrine, and I thank Michael Horton for renewing my faith in the pope once again. 

We may be heartened to know that it took a Protestant polemicist to renew Bob's "faith in the pope": a faith that obviously remains strong and vibrant today (with Bob attacking and lying about the last two popes with a ferocity and frequency far exceeding any anti-Catholic Protestant apologist I know of).  Bob also wrote in his paper, The Election of Pope Benedict XVI (4-19-05):

I think it is safe to say that many faithful Catholics breathed a sigh of relief when it was announced that Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was elected as the 265th pope, Benedict XVI. We can tell by the negative reactions of the liberals that they are not too happy with Ratzinger's ascendancy to the papal throne. . . . Like Pius IX who came into the papacy with a few liberal strains but left a champion of orthodox Catholicism, so I believe the same thing will occur with Pope Benedict XVI. . . . With earnest hope, we await our earthly Joshua to bring us to the land of Canaan. Viva il papa!. . . In contrast to John Paul II, I believe that Benedict XVI will produce much less verbiage and engage in much more action. Although Benedict XVI will certainly try to be conciliatory to those in opposition to the Church, he will tolerate neither liberal theology nor modernist social mores . . . In addition, Pope Benedict XVI will not be as accommodating to the various religions of the world. We won't see anything close to the Assisi Interreligious Prayer Gatherings, the events which so marred the pontificate of John Paul II. I also don't think we have to worry about Pope Benedict XVI capitulating to Protestant theology, . . . he will not tolerate dissent from established Catholic dogma . . . In short, I believe that Pope Benedict XVI will address and hopefully rectify much of what went wrong in the pontificate of John Paul II. The world loved John Paul II because, basically, he accepted everyone, no matter what faith or persuasion. Pope Benedict XVI will, I believe, be more apt to draw a line in the sand and bring the Church back, at least somewhat, to her previous distinction from the world. Conversely, some say that Pope Benedict XVI was chosen so quickly because he is seen as someone who will continue the policies of John Paul II.. . . Cardinal Ratzinger was often at odds with John Paul II, . . . In short, I believe Pope Benedict will bring back, at least to a noticeable degree, the doctrinal integrity of the Church. . . . 

This is the cherished (now damaged or dying) myth among many radtrads and more moderate "traditionalists": that Benedict XVI was vastly in contrast (in a favorable way) to his supposedly troublesome predecessor. He was "their guy" (largely, it seems, because he liked the Old Mass and more liturgical rigor). But it is hogwash. They are two different men, but not essentially different. Bob and other radtrads foolishly thought they were, but once the present Holy Father also engaged in ecumenical relations with new Assisi-like conferences and talked about (and *GASP!* with) Bob's dreaded, despised Jews and promoted the beatification of Blessed Pope John Paul II, and did other things that pushed the "trad" hot-buttons, this changed and now he is increasingly in the doghouse also. Oh, the misery of dashed illusory hopes and dreams: that come from seriously mistaken and deluded presuppositional falsehoods!

Bob thought that the two popes were very different in 2005; he now increasingly he places Benedict XVI in the same unsavory, quasi-liberal, heretical  boat where he puts Blessed John Paul the Great (if not in it, then at least sitting on the edge). He thinks they are both quite questionable; I think they are both marvelous and wonderful. I noted in 2005 that there was no essential difference between the two men and that Benedict XVI would continue ecumenical endeavors just as his predecessor had done. And so it has come to pass. But the radtrads were silly enough to think that he would be fundamentally different, in the ironically opposite but parallel fashion of liberals who always think the next pope will be a "progressive" liberal, and always have their foolish fancies and hopes dashed.

Now Bob has come full circle and has adopted the liberal analysis lock, stock, and barrel: not only has one liberal pope supposedly been elected, but two in a row, according to Pope Bob-o-Link I!