Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 58

So-Called "Catholic Apologist" (???) Robert Sungenis Knows (So He Tells Us) Far, Far Better Than Pope Benedict XVI

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, dull-bladed, often dim-witted and 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 any longer functioning as a Catholic apologist -- 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.
I've often stood neutral or silent in the face of Bob's errors, hoping and praying that he would come to reason eventually. We 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 just expose and document his rantings, because they usually aren't worthy of any reply or valuable time spent. What's the use of anyone trying to "debate" Bob, anyway? He's always right! Everybody knows that: above all, Bob himself!
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. This is absurd even by his rock-bottom standards of discourse (both ethical and logical) as of late. 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? It's a non-starter (one of many in Bob's relentless anti-papal reasoning). Peter was a hypocrite there, sure, but so was 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]
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: typical of Bob's frequent 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 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?] 
* * * * *

Isn't it fascinating, though, 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 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.

Bob thought they were very different in 2005; he now increasingly he places Benedict XVI in the same unsavory, quasi-liberal, heretical  boat where he puts John Paul II (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 wrote in 2005, stating that there was no essential difference between the two men and noted 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 the 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!

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

From: Robert Sungenis Responds to a Patron Regarding Criticism of John Paul II (May 2011). Read it and weep . . . All words that follow are Bob's own, from this pathetic article.
* * * * *
The very things that you, as a Catholic, would have vehemently condemned if a Protestant had done them, now excuse them [sic] because a pope does them.

. . . you keep silent about the evils JP2 perpetrated in his pontificate.

Is the pedophile/homosexual scandal true? These are things that JP2 perpetuated and or ignored, as the case may be.

I complain about the blatant transgressions against our Catholic tradition and morals. I listed about two dozen of them that occurred in the pontificate of JP2.

JP2 knew of the scandals. He simply chose to ignore them and blame the media for making false accusations.

I'm not going to thwart God's program by calling a bad guy a good guy.

. . . the poor pontificate of JP2 . . .

He went his own way and ignored much of the tradition before him.

I doubt the veracity of the miracle, and I doubt the veracity of the people doing the investigation. . . . It is blasphemous against heaven to claim that heaven is giving its approval of John Paul's beatification by such a flimsy "miracle."

Don't try to escape the problems with JP2's beatification by creating a domino effect for the whole Church. JP2 is the anomaly, not the Catholic Church at large.

All I'm concerned about is the attempt to make a saint out of someone who had one of the worst pontificates in regards to doctrine and morals in Catholic history. As regards your recounting of all the suffering John Paul II experienced, so be it. One might think that with all that suffering it would have motivated JP2 to be more obedient to Catholic tradition and be more motivated to clean up the Church. But instead of motivating him to be more obedient to God, he went the other way, allowing pagans to pray to their false gods and allowing homosexuals and pedophiles to run rampant through our Church.

I didn't see JP2 correct any of his sins. I saw him exonerate bishops and priests who were known to be homosexuals and pedophiles right up to the very end of his pontificate.

My prediction is that JP2 will not be canonized. His beatification will sit on the shelf for centuries, which is not abnormal. Heaven will simply not give its credence to canonizing such a wayward pope as JP2. . . . we are only suffering the punishment heaven has meted out for John Paul II's idolatry.

The problem was that quite often JP2 didn't even pay attention to his own encyclicals. He said one thing and did another.

. . . there is also danger with a pope who decides to do things his own way and forsake the Catholic tradition. . . . you need to be just as cautious about what the pope is telling you, especially when that pope (as is the case of JP2) decided he isn't going to take the papal oath to protect the Church.

The pope is supposed to be a servant of tradition; the 263 popes that went before him; not a neophilist.

* * * * * More calumnies (some responses of mine bracketed and in blue):
From: Robert Sungenis Responds to Dave Armstrong's Blog Concerning John Paul II (May 2011):
I feel sorry for Catholic apologists today. They have two choices: (a) either they defend the abominations of JP2 (e.g., Assisi) or (b) they grin and bear it and try to ignore them as much as possible. I also feel sorry for them because the same critical thinking that led them to see the errors of Protestantism, is now the very critical thinking they must stuff away when they see JP2 and other popes acting in ways that their previous Protestant denominations did not act . . . 
We've had bad and heretical popes in the past, so it's not like a bad or heretical pope today would be a surprise to us.
At the least, a sound warning should be given about his teachings; and sainthood should be out of the question.
The Catholic Church is the true Church. That is a fact and I will defend it with my life. But whether the popes and prelates are living up to that ideal is another story altogether. In my opinion, JP2 didn't even come close, and Benedict seems to be falling behind as well.
My allegiance is to Christ. He is the head of the Church, not the pope.
[pure, Protestant either/or false dichotomy, eminently worthy of Luther or Calvin]
And since Scripture says that even if an angel from heaven came down and preached another Gospel to me, I am commanded by God not to believe it, otherwise I will be accursed (Gal 1:8-9). If that warning applies to an angel, it certainly applies to a pope, especially one with the doctrinal problems and moral laxities like that of John Paul II.  
From: Response to Dave Armstrong Regarding Universal Salvation and Hell in the Teaching of John Paul II (11 May 2011):
I find it interesting that, of all the doctrinal and moral aberrations I've listed about John Paul II, he chooses only two issues that he thinks he can defend. Catholic apologists routinely sidestep defending John Paul II's telling pagans to pray to their false gods; the sex scandals; the money scandals; the placement of wayward clerics; altar girls, and all the rest.

[as I've said, I don't respond to most of Bob's rantings because they aren't worthy of any reply; period. But this accusation that I ignore all these things in general is blatantly false. I have defended the Assisi ecumenical conferences on my blog by posting two lengthy explanations of them (one / two). I've defended his kissing the Koran (the huge, unutterably evil scandal in the minds of "trads") at great length twice (one / two / three), and later I defended those two posts. I've dealt with his treatment of heterodox dissidents; I treated the issue of altar girls (though not at great length); I have always talked frankly about the sex scandals, with many many links posted.So, nice try Bob, but no cigar. Your tried-and-untrue polemical cliches against actual Catholic apologists like myself don't work with me.]
As we will see below, John Paul II's personal teaching on Hell is different than what is presented in the Catechism.
It came to the point in John Paul's view that one didn't have to profess belief in Jesus Christ, even if he heard and was taught that Jesus Christ is the only savior. 

The first thing we see is Mr. Armstrong admitting that John Paul II does, indeed, use universal salvation
language in his teaching. 

[I did no such thing. What I did (and typically, it went right over Bob's head because he habitually doesn't grasp Newmanian analogical reasoning, that I use all the time), was argue that [hostile opposing position adopted only for the sake of argument] if John Paul II used "universalistic" language, then by the same token, so does Scripture (many examples given). But we know Scripture doesn't teach universal salvation (agreed premise); therefore, by the same token, John Paul II doesn't either, by similarity to scriptural language and many counter-examples. rather, both teach universal atonement, which is a far different notion (all have sufficient grace to be saved if only they will cooperate with it; but not all are saved). From this reasoning chain Bob amazingly arrives at the "conclusion" that I think JPII used  "universal salvation language in his teaching." It's truly amazing and pathetic. But this kind of (literal) nonsense and misrepresentation of other positions is sadly common with Bob.]
Thus we must assume that Mr. Armstrong is of the opinion that the exegete of Scripture, which John Paul II claimed to be, has no responsibility to make Scripture clearer where Scripture seems to be ambiguous or contradictory.

[It's not at all. It makes perfect sense, interpreted as a harmonious whole. But that is Bob's problem, too. He pulls Scripture from here and there, like fundamentalists do, and so he often comes up with an absurd hermeneutic and exegesis. Now he applies the same deficient method to the statements of popes. It's an inability (or unwillingness) to understand language both in its context and in the totality of the author's thought: whether concerning popes, or Vatican II, or Holy Scripture itself.] 
No one ever used the excuse that they could teach with imprecision and ambiguity because Scripture itself was often confusing.

[of course that was not my argument at all (if Bob is applying this to me, in addition to JPII). It is a cynical conclusion of Bob's, in reply to a mythical caricature of a distortion of my true argument]
when John Paul II uses universalist language in his speeches, Mr. Armstrong exempts him from the responsibility of clearly explicating the truth and claims, rather, that he can use the same ambiguous language that Scripture uses.

[this proves what I just stated in my previous comment: this is how Bob completely misrepresents my argument. He doesn't get it. And the sad thing is that one always knows, going into any "debate" with Bob, that he won't get one's arguments, and that there is virtually no way to demonstrate this to him; it's a futile effort. That is why few are willing to waste time disputing with him till Kingdom Come. No one has that amount of patience or energy]  
Which John Paul II we will get depends on which side of the fence Mr. Armstrong is on that particular day.

[because Bob doesn't comprehend my argument in the first place, he is reduced to pitiful accusations that I am waffling, rather than that he is wallowing in stupefied noncomprehension]
. . . am I one of the only ones brave enough to step off the gravy train and point out that the emperor really has no clothes on?

For the record, let's see whether I'm taking John Paul II "out of context" as Mr. Armstrong has accused me. It is one thing to give John Paul II the benefit of the doubt when he uses the phrase "universal salvation," but when we combine it with his statements on whether human beings will even go to hell, and his acts and words at the Assisi events; his praise of Luther; his kissing of the Koran and his general view of other religions, one is hard‐pressed to exonerate him. 

It is precisely for statements like these that John Paul II has been accused of either tending to deny the reality of hell taught in Catholic tradition, or actually denying it. 

It appears that John Paul II is attempting to soften the reality of hell – a common ploy in post‐Vatican II theology . . . 

 

Catholic Answers to Publish Two of My Books: More to Come / New Closer Working Relationship

As a result of five-hour meetings in person with Karl Keating, Jimmy Akin, and Tim Staples at the offices of Catholic Answers ("CA": the largest, and I think, the best, Catholic apologetics organization in the world) in El Cajon, California on May 13th past, and several other factors, it is virtually certain that CA will be publishing two of my existing titles (presently published at Lulu) this fall, and several more in the future as well.

The one that I can announce with certainty at this point is my volume, 501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura (in streamlined form). This was an obvious choice, since the topic of "Scripture Alone" (the Protestant Rule of Faith) and authority in general, including the relative place of Church and Tradition, is far and away the most talked about in apologetics circles (and I have written more on the topic than anything else). Sophia Institute Press (publisher of four of my books) came very close to publishing it some months back but decided not to, due primarily to lack of funds (the company had been struggling and is now on the road to recovery).

Some other titles (two in particular) are also being seriously considered at the present time. I will announce developments as they are confirmed. An idea for a brand new book is also in the discussion stage, and I'll  be working on that also in the coming months. Presently, I am hard at work on (and extremely excited about) a book of Cardinal Newman quotations. This will also likely be "officially" published, since strong interest has been shown in it by at least one publisher (or possibly CA might do it).


Furthermore, Karl Keating and CA desire to have a much closer working relationship with me, even beyond publishing my books. I don't know all the particulars yet, but I welcome that prospect. I am a self-employed (or, if you will, "freelance") full-time Catholic apologist and have been since December 2001. But that doesn't mean I am any sort of "Lone Ranger." I love partnering with other Catholics and Catholic apologists (persons and groups) of like mind.

This is a prime example of that, as was my three-year stint as a part-time moderator of the Internet forum at The Coming Home Network (of The Journey Home TV fame). I also have a mutually beneficial association with John Martignoni: the well-known radio apologist, and his Bible Christian Society, and I have collaborated with Dr. Stan Williams and his apostolate, Nineveh's Crossing. Moreover, I have longtime informal working relationships with fellow apologists who are friends in the Detroit area, such as Gary Michuta and Steve Ray.

How did the new situation with Catholic Answers come about? I have known Karl and Jimmy for some years now: having met Karl twice before briefly, and corresponded. Jimmy Akin came to town back in 2004 and I had dinner with him and others and he stopped off at my house. I've been published in the CA magazine This Rock at least three times and have appeared on the radio show Catholic Answers Live twice (most of these things some years ago now).

Thus, they were aware of my work and I have always highly respected theirs. For example, I've recommended that people with basic apologetics questions give them a call for 15 years now, on my blog sidebar, etc. I consider CA the "world headquarters of Catholic apologetics." I've used their materials millions of times. I consider Karl Keating the "father of the modern lay apologetics movement" (think, roughly since 1990). This is a great honor for me (to put it mildly).

Todd Aglialoro
The key immediate causal factor in this new partnership, however, is my friend Todd Aglialoro: editor of my books, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism , The Catholic Verses , and The One-Minute Apologist (all by Sophia Institute Press). He is a fabulous editor and really nice guy to boot. The Catholic Verses and The One-Minute Apologist were initially his ideas, and they were great ones, that I quickly came to love. Todd was in need of a job a few months ago and at the same time CA (I assume as a result of board policy discussions and so forth) was wishing to revamp its publishing efforts, which had not been a major emphasis in recent years.

Todd suggested that perhaps some of my many books that are published at Lulu (which means, essentially, self-published) might fit the bill for product to be put out quickly, in an effort to help along the new CA thrust of apologetics book publishing (Jimmy Akin's book, The Fathers Know Best is currently selling very well for them). It was also helpful that we had successfully worked together before, at Sophia Institute Press. We talked for probably over two hours today on the phone, discussing many things.

Todd's idea worked; he was hired by CA as aquisitions editor shortly before I had my meetings on May 13th with the CA staff. It was one of those things in the Christian life where the timing of it strongly suggested God's providential Hand. Todd kindly pushed and plugged my books, and I seem to have played some role in the overall plan of hiring him and putting out new materials in short order. We're all helping each other meet our professional and apologetic goals: as a three-way partnership. Todd had worked at CA before as well, so he was also a "known quantity."

It's a "best-case scenario" for me because, as an author, I need more books "officially published" (they are my bread and butter, after all, since royalties make up the bulk of my income), and I need my books in general to be promoted and advertised far more widely than they have been. If you're talking Catholic apologetics, absolutely no one is in a better position to do that than Catholic Answers. They have the resources and savvy and they deal with exactly my target audience: Catholics who love apologetics. It's what publishers call a "niche audience" to begin with: not all that large, so promotion is always crucial for success.

I have already been greatly helped for years by CA insofar as they have carried my books in their catalogue (examples: one / two / three). This is, in effect, "free advertising." Now it can only get better, since they themselves will be publishing several of my books. Catholic Answers will be the fourth major Catholic publisher to do so, after Sophia Institute Press, Our Sunday Visitor ( The New Catholic Answer Bible ), and Saint Benedict Press ( The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton ).

Needless to say, I am thrilled by all these events that have come about, seemingly out of nowhere. Thanks so much to all of my readers: particularly those of you who have bought my books, and especially to all who have prayed for my apostolate and who have supported it financially as well. You have helped make all of this possible, too, by enabling me to have the time to write the books that will now be officially published and hence, much more widely read.  That furthers my goal to get the message out as far and wide as I can and even gives me a few more dollars to help pay the electric bill and raise four home-schooled children.

We're all in this together, so my first thought after thanking God for all this was to thank you, my readers and supporters of this apostolate that continues on in full force, by God's grace and provisions. I'm a "lifer" in apologetics and evangelization; I have been since 1981 (as an evangelical Protestant) and there is no end in sight. "Retirement" isn't in the cards for me (sitting here at almost 53 years old)! I don't even know what the word means . . .

Cardinal Newman on Anti-Catholic Prejudice

 The following is an excerpt from my upcoming book of quotations from Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman: The Quotable Newman: Theology and Church History.
* * * * *


Not believing [that] (1) priests believe what they say; (2) are continent; (3) [that] converts are satisfied—looking out for some change in them. The consequence of this deep prejudice is that from the nature of the case there are no ways of overcoming it. If Catholics are particular, devout, or charitable, etc., they are said to be hypocrites; if all things apparently simple, they think there is something in the background; they call them plausible; if nothing can be found against them, how well they conceal things; if they argue well, what clever sophists; if charitable, they have vast wealth; if they succeed, not of God's blessing, but of craft. I wish we had half the cleverness they impute to us. Hence they circulate lies about us, not inquiring the authority, and when they are disproved, instead of giving over, circulate others which can't be. When any particular lie is put out, they embrace it at once as being so likely, i.e. like their prejudice. They take not this age and place, but a thousand miles away and two hundred years ago. Catholics alone can suffer this, because they are in all times and places; they could not, e.g., treat Quakers so. . . . They say to themselves, if this is not true, yet something else is true quite as bad. . . . Now the remedy for all this is to see us . . . They cannot keep up their theories against us, but they are afraid to be puzzled with something on our side. They have a sort of feeling that if they were to see us we should contradict their prejudices, so they do all they can to keep us out of sight. Hence no person hardly who has been much abroad and lived with the people can keep up their prejudices; no one who has read much history: the strength of prejudice is with those who are not informed.

(Sermon Notes of John Henry Cardinal Newman: 1849-1878 [edited by the Fathers of the Birmingham Oratory; London: Longmans, Green, and Co., 1913, 18-19]; "Prejudice as a Cause Why Men Are Not Catholics," 2 September 1849)

Servant of God Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J.: Great Photograph with Blessed Pope John Paul II / His Cause for Canonization

The late, saintly Fr. Hardon was my initial mentor when I became a Catholic. He received me into the Church, received my wife Judy back into it, and sacramentalized our marriage in February 1991 (see photograph below). He also baptized my first two boys, Paul and Michael, and wrote the Foreword to my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism . I have a web page about him (that I badly need to update!). I studied with him for several months during 1990-1992 or so, as an informal member of his group of "Ignatian Catechists": at the University of Detroit. I shall never forget the great privilege.

May he rest in peace. Fr. Hardon was a close advisor to Servant of God Pope Paul VI, catechist for Blessed Mother Teresa's Missionaries of Charity (see many photographs with Mother Teresa), and one of the leading catechists in the world. See the website for his cause (possible eventual sainthood) -- also the Facebook wing --, a great video about him below, and article on his cause by James Maldonado Berry, as well as other similar articles (one / two / three / four / five / six / seven).




Servant of God - Fr. John Hardon, S.J. from St. Louis Review on Vimeo.

Catholic Resources for Refuting the Grave Error of Sedevacantism

Sedevacantism is the extreme "radtrad" belief that there is no legitimate pope. It means literally in Latin, "the seat is vacant." Perhaps the most famous current exponent is Gerry Matatics.


"HABEMUS PAPAM"? by Karl Keating (This Rock, July/August 1995)

White Smoke, Valid Pope, by Rev. Brian Harrison, O.S. (This Rock, March 2001)

Do-It-Yourself Popes: The Wacky World of Sedevacantists, by Michael Petek (This Rock, March 2000)

Mr. X, by Karl Keating (This Rock, June 1995)

The Errors of Sedevacantism and Ecclesiastical Law, by John Salza

Martin Luther Clearly Taught Double Predestination, Yet Prominent (LCMS) Lutheran Pastor Paul T. McCain Remarkably Denies This

Pastor Paul T. McCain runs the Cyberbrethren website. He has strong (orthodox) Lutheran credentials:

I'm a Lutheran pastor, serving in The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod. I'm the Publisher at Concordia Publishing House, where I'm also the Executive Director of our Editorial Department. . . .

A Biographical Sketch

He graduated from Concordia University, Chicago, with a B.A. in Biblical Languages and History, becoming member of Phi Alpha Theta national history honor society. From university, he entered Concordia Theological Seminary, receiving his Masters of Divinity Degree in 1988. He stayed on two extra years, the first as a graduate assistant in Systematic Theology, and the second, as an Instructor of Systematic Theology. His additional two years of graduate theological coursework included concentrations in Reformation history and theology. . . . He was called to serve as Assistant to the President of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod in 1992. He completed his service in this role in 2001, and served as Interim Director of Concordia Historical Institute. He was called to serve at Concordia Publishing House as its Interim President and CEO, a position he filled until 2006, when he became Publisher at CPH, and also Executive Director of the Editorial Division, the position he presently holds. His numerous publications include articles for WORLD Magazine, FIRST THINGS, The Lutheran Witness, Concordia Theological Quarterly, LOGIA: A Journal of Lutheran Theology, Modern Reformation magazine, and various other newspapers and periodicals. He is the general editor of Concordia: The Lutheran Confessions-A Reader's Edition of the Book of Concord, and a contributor to The Lutheran Study Bible. 

Yet Pastor McCain is -- oddly enough -- unaware that Luther held to the doctrine of double predestination (a doctrine usually associated primarily with Calvinists or those of the Reformed Protestant tradition). He wrote in a post of 16 December 2009 ("Refuting Calvinist Claims that Luther Taught Double-Predestination"):

Whenever the question of why are some saved, and not others, comes up it is common for Calvinists who advocate for the view that God has predestined some to hell, and others to heaven, to try to drag Martin Luther into their argument and claim that they are actually being faithful to what Martin Luther taught. Let this much be clear: Martin Luther did not teach double-predestination.  . . . (1) The doctrine of the Lutheran Church is not determined or normed by every writing of Luther. The proper understanding and interpretation of Martin Luther is reflected in the Book of Concord, [Dave: but this is perfectly irrelevant, because the point at hand is what Luther taught, not what confessional Lutheranism teaches {which on this point does indeed diverge from Luther himself}]. . . . (2) Luther's Bondage of the Will is not, and was not, his last and final word on the subject of the hidden will of God. When Calvinists appeal to this document in support of their doctrine of predestination, they do so most often taking this document in isolation from the rest of his writings and teachings. [Dave: the latter may be the case at times, yet on the other hand, I shall assert a separate argument (with much documentation) that Luther did not ever forsake this belief; he merely underemphasized it in a pastoral, practical sense: told people not to think about it and to concentrate on piety and moral obedience to God's commands. This is not the same at all as a denial of predestination.]

Moreover, Luther did highly regard Bondage of the Will, over virtually all of his other writings, which is a matter of record. Pastor McCain tries to breezily (but unsuccessfully) dismiss this fact by commenting in the combox of his post:

Luther was fond of saying "this is my best" or "these are my best" writings, and he often had several lists. Not much is to be made of it other than he thought Bondage of the Will was one of his favorite books. It doesn't prove anything Calvinists try to accuse Luther of believing and teaching. They ignore what Luther said elsewhere and latch on to what they think supports their errors regarding predestination.

Right. Special pleading at its best . . . In fact, Luther wrote on 9 July 1537 to his friend Wolfgang Capito:

I do not recognize any of my writings as genuine, except those on the Enslaved Will and the Catechism.

(Hartmann Grisar, S. J., Martin Luther: His Life and Work, adapted from the second German edition by Frank J. Eble, edited by Arthur Preuss, B. Herder Co., 1930; reprinted by The Newman Press {Westminster, Maryland}, 1950,  p. 303)

[Latin: Magis cuperem eos (libros meos) omnes devoratos. Nullum enim agnosco meum iustum librum, nisi forte De servo arbitrio et Catechismum.]

(Hartmann Grisar, S. J., Luther, Vol. II, translated by E. M. Lamond, edited by Luigi Cappadelta, London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1913, p. 292, footnote 2; from
Brief wechsel, 11, p. 47)

It is beyond any question that Luther taught double predestination in his magnum opus, The Bondage of the Will . I have documented this myself in one of my many Luther posts (my own blue highlighting and subtitles):

God Decrees the Damnation of the Lost From All Eternity

Now, if you are disturbed by the thought that it is difficult to defend the mercy and justice of God when he damns the undeserving, that is to say, ungodly men who are what they are because they were born in ungodliness and can in no way help being and remaining ungodly and damnable, but are compelled by a necessity of nature to sin and to perish (as Paul says: "We were all children of wrath like the rest," since they are created so by God himself from seed corrupted by the sin of the one man Adam)—rather must God be honored and revered as supremely merciful toward those whom he justifies and saves, supremely unworthy as they are, and there must be at least some acknowledgement of his divine wisdom so that he may be believed to be righteous where he seems to us to be unjust. For if his righteousness were such that it could be judged to be righteous by human standards, it would clearly not be divine and would in no way differ from human righteousness. But since he is the one true God, and is wholly incomprehensible and inaccessible to human reason, it is proper and indeed necessary that his righteousness also should be incomprehensible, as Paul also says where he exclaims: "O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are his judgments and how unsearchable his ways!" But they would not be incomprehensible if we were able in every instance to grasp how they are righteous. What is man, compared with God? How much is there within our power compared with his power? What is our strength in comparison with his resources? What is our knowledge compared with his wisdom? What is our substance over against his substance? In a word, what is our all compared with his?

(translation by Phillip Watson [based on WA 18 600-787]; in Luther's Works [LW], Volume 33, quote from p. 289)

And if you are concerned about this,—that it is difficult to defend the mercy and justice of God, seeing that, he damns the undeserving, that is, those who are for that reason ungodly, because, being born in iniquity, they cannot by any means prevent themselves from being ungodly, and from remaining so, and being damned, but are compelled from the necessity of nature to sin and perish, as Paul saith, " We all were the children of wrath, even as others," when at the same time, they were created such by God himself from a corrupt seed, by means of the sin of Adam,—

(translation by Henry Cole, 1823, p. 370)

But if this disturb us, that, it is difficult to maintain the mercy and equity of God, in that he damns the undeserving, namely, ungodly men who are even of such a sort, that, being born in ungodliness, they cannot by any means help being ungodly, remaining so, and being damned; yea, being compelled by the necessity of their nature to sin and perish (as Paul speaks, "We were all the sons of wrath even as others"), being created such as they are, by God himself, out of a seed which became corrupted through that sin which was Adam's only.

(translation by Edward Thomas Vaughan, 1823, p. 460)

God Hates Many Men From All Eternity

God's love toward men is eternal and immutable, and his hatred is eternal, being prior to the creation of the world, and not only to the merit and work of free choice; and everything takes place by necessity in us, according as he either loves or does not love us from all eternity, . . .

(LW, vol. 33, 198)

[T]he love and hatred of God towards men is immutable and eternal; existing, not only before there was any merit or work of Free-will, but before the worlds were made; and that, all things take place in us by necessity, accordingly as he loved or loved not from all eternity.

(Cole, p. 240)

We know very well, that God does not hate or love, as we do; since we both love and hate mutably; but he loves and hates according to his eternal and immutable nature: so far is he from being the subject of accident and affection. And it is this very thing which compels Freewill to be a mere no thing; namely, that the love of God towards men is eternal and immutable, and his hatred towards them eternal; not only prior to the merit and operation of Freewill, but even to the very making of the world; and that every thing is wrought in us necessarily, according to his having either loved us or not loved us, from eternity: insomuch that not only the love of God, but even his manner of loving, brings necessity upon us.

(Vaughan, p. 305)
. . . the hatred by which we are eternally damned . . .

(Vaughan, p. 306)

This being the case, Luther's Lutheran ostensible "defenders" have to (rather pitifully, from their standpoint) undermine the importance of this work, so as to minimize the significance of such comments. But Luther himself did not do so. Luther being a better interpreter of his own thought than a Lutheran pastor 500 years later, we can safely side with the author himself rather than his reinterpreters who do so for merely polemical purposes. It's a curious phenomenon.

Prominent Luther biographer Julius Köstlin (himself a Lutheran) observed:

In the resoluteness with which Luther accepts the most rigorous consequences of the doctrine of predestination, he is essentially one with Zwingli and Calvin, the other leaders of the Reformation.

(M. Luther, Vol. I, p. 664; cited in Grisar, Martin Luther: His Life and Work, p. 303)

From all that we know with certainty of Luther, it is plain that he stuck to his earlier views as to the hidden God and Divine predestination. Nor does Luther make any attempt to solve the difficulty, which must appear to us a contradiction ; he simply discourages reflection on the subject.

(cited in Grisar, Luther, Vol. II,  293)

Grisar elaborates:

Although Luther did not put forth his rigid doctrine of predestination to hell either in his popular or strictly theological writings, yet, to the end of his life, he never surrendered it; that he "never retracted it" is emphasised even in Kostlin and Kawcrau's Life of Luther. [Vol. I, 664] . . . In his later years he is fond of speaking of the power of sin over man's interior, and though he does not allude so decidedly or so frequently to man's "absolute and entire dependence upon God's Omnipotence," yet he has by no means relinquished the idea. Thus the "difference between his earlier and later years" is one only of degree, i.e. he merely succeeded in keeping his theory more in the background.

 (Grisar, Luther, Vol. II, 292)

Köstlin's collaborator Gustav Kawerau noted the unfortunate tendency among Lutherans to overlook this aspect of Luther's teachings out of distaste for it:

. . . we must not seek to hide or explain them away, as was soon done by Luther's followers and has been attempted even in our own day . . .

(Kostlin-Kawerau, 1, p. 663 f.; cited in Grisar, Luther, Vol. II, 264)

[Bondage of the Will] was a stumbling-block to his followers, and attempts were made to explain it away by all the arts of violent exegesis; cp. Walch (in his edition of Luther s works), 18, Introduction, p. 140 ff.

(Kawerau in W. Moller, "Lehrbuch der Kirchengesch.," 3 3, 1907, p. 63; cited in Grisar, Luther, Vol. II, 264, footnote 4)

Protestant scholar M. Staub (Das Verhaltnis der menschhchen Willensfreiheit zur Gotteslehre bei Luther und Zwingli, Zurich, 1894), although an admirer of Zwingli, excoriated Luther and thought that his view here:

". . . leads to the destruction of all evangelical belief, not only of the personal assurance of salvation but also of Holy Scripture, which itself knows nothing of an arbitrary and faithless God in the matter of man's salvation" (p. 30). "What then is left of Luther's Deity?" "A Divine Person Who dispenses His grace and mercy according to His mood" (p. 37). "God appears and acts as a blind, naked force, fortuna, fatum," because what He does is "beyond good and evil" (p. 38). "Why invent the fable of God s justice and holiness? . . . We do nothing, God works all in all. . . . This religion, which is the logical outcome of Luther's work De servo arbitrio, is surely not Christianity but Materialism"; only the name is wanting for morality and law to become "foolish fancies" (p. 39).

(cited in Grisar, Luther, Vol. II,  293)

Protestant scholar F. Kattenbusch, in the preface of his study on this work noted that:

. . . quite rightly it caused great scandal and wonder . . . the hard, offensive theory [was] no mere result of haste or of annoyance with Erasmus, coupled with the desire clearly to define his own position with regard to the latter [but really] expresses the matured conviction of the Reformer.

("Luthers Lehre vom unfreien Willen und von der Predestination," Gottingen, 1875 [Anastatischer Neudruck, Gottingen, 1905]; cited in Grisar, Luther, Vol. II, 264)

Catholic Luther biographer Grisar comments:

Luther here throws to the winds the will of God Almighty for the salvation of all men, and he does so, with regard to those who are delivered over to eternal death, with a precision which is quite shocking. They were incapable of being saved because God did not so will it. Owing to the reprobate, God has "an Oeternum odium erga homines, not merely a hatred of the demerits and works of free-will, but a hatred which existed even before the world was made." 1 Hence He inflicts eternal punishment upon those who do not deserve it (immeritos damnat). . . . The severity of his doctrine does not here differ in any way from Calvin's cruel views, though, as the fact is less generally known, Luther's name has not been so closely associated with predestination to hell as Calvin's. Luther's doctrine on this matter did not come so much to the front as that of Calvin, because, unlike the latter, he did not make capital out of it by means of popular and practical exhortations, and because the early Lutherans, under the influence of Melanchthon, who became an opponent of the rigid denial of free-will and of Luther's views on predestination, soon came to soften their master's hard sayings. Yet there can be no doubt that the book De servo arbitrio does contain such teaching quite definitely expressed.

(Luther, Vol. II, 268; italics added for Latin citations and titles)

The Protestant Kattenbusch states:

Luther expressly advances it as a theory that God has two contradictory wills, the secret will of which no one knows anything, and another which He causes to be proclaimed . . . [God makes use of His] exemption from the moral law which binds us [by] not being obliged actually to strive after what He proclaims to be His intention [the salvation of all men] in other words, that He is free to lie.

(Ibid., p. 17; cited in Grisar, Luther, Vol. II, 269, footnote 1)

Luther wrote in The Bondage of the Will:

It is indeed an offence to sound common sense and to natural reason to hear that God is pleased to abandon men, to harden and to damn them, as though He He, the All-Merciful, the All- Perfect took delight in sin and torment. Who would not be horrified at this ? . . . and yet we cannot get away from this, notwithstanding the many attempts that have been made to save the holiness of God. . . . Reason must always insist upon the compulsion God imposes on man.

(cited in Grisar, Luther, Vol. II, 270; Latin original available on the same page: footnote 4)

Famous Protestant Luther biographer Roland H. Bainton cited the same passage as follows:

Common sense and natural reason are highly offended that God by his mere will deserts, hardens, and damns, as if he delighted in sins and in such eternal torments, he who is said to be of such mercy and goodness. Such a concept of God appears wicked, cruel, and intolerable, and by it many men have been revolted in all ages. I myself was once off ended to the very depth of the abyss of desperation, so that I wished I had never been created. There is no use trying to get away from this by ingenious distinctions. Natural reason, however much it is offended, must admit the consequences of the omniscience and omnipotence of God.


(Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther, New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1950, 253; p. 196-197 in Mentor / New American Library paperback edition)

Kattenbusch, (p. 11 f.) observes (in effect) that Luther's position was so extreme that it was even essentially supralapsarian : a position many Calvinists regard as extreme, and one that they deny was John Calvin's own view (I have long since asserted that it was Calvin's own position):

Adam's sin, from which springs the depravity of the human race, was [according to Luther] called forth by God Himself . . . Adam could not avoid acting contrary to the command.

Nor did Luther forsake his utter denial of human free will (a notion commensurate and very closely allied with with double predestination) in later years, as is the contention of Lutheran polemicists like Pastor McCain, who complain about over-reliance in this regard, on The Bondage of the Will:

In a Disputation of December 18, 1537, for the sake of debate the objection is advanced, that there is no purpose in making good resolutions owing to the will not being free: "Man," says the opposer, "has no free-will, hence he can make no good resolutions, and sins of necessity whether he wishes to or not." The professor s reply runs : "Nego consequentiam. Man, it is true, cannot of himself alter his inclination to sin; he has this inclination and sins willingly, neither under compulsion nor unwillingly. Man's will, not God, is the author of sin."

[Footnote 1: Disputationen M. Luthers, 1535-1545," edited for the first time by Paul Drews, Gottingen, 1895, p. 279 f. 2 Ibid., p. 75]


(Grisar, Luther, Vol. II, 287)

On another occasion, on January 29, 1536, the objector refers to the opinions of great Churchmen of olden times, that some freedom of the will exists. The reply is : "What such men say is not to be accepted as gospel-truth ; they often gave proof of weakness . . ."

[Footnote 2: Ibid., p. 75]

(Grisar, Luther, Vol. II, 287)

In the same year we read the following in the theses of the School: "It is godless philosophy, and censured by theology, to assert that liberum arbitrium exists in man for the forming of a just judgment and a good intention, or that it is man's business to choose between good and evil, life and death, etc. He who speaks thus does not know what man really is, and does not understand in the least what he is talking about."

[Footnote 3: Ibid., p. 92, n. 29 ft.; my italics]

(Grisar, Luther, Vol. II, 287)  

Paperback Sales Data (My "Officially" Published Works)

My "biblical evidence" methodology is a proven and effective way to help Catholics and also (especially) Protestants better understand and accept Catholic teachings. My books (shameless self-plug; sorry!) have a tried-and-proven track record of good sales. In terms of objective numbers and hard sales figures, the proof's in the pudding. I have four books and a pamphlet that can be considered "bestsellers" in the market (i.e., in the relatively small Catholic apologetics market; we're not talking romance novels or political or movie star biographies here!). Here are actual sales figures:


Top Ten Questions Catholics Are Asked (published by Our Sunday Visitor in July 2002): 22,695 copies: packages of 50 each (as of 12-31-10): individual pamphlet sales: 1,134,750: a million-seller!

A Biblical Defense of Catholicism (self-published in October 2001 [1684 copies sold] and by Sophia Institute Press since May 2003): 20,051 (as of 1-25-11).

The Catholic Verses (published in August 2004 by Sophia Institute Press): 17,133 (as of 1-25-11).

The One-Minute Apologist (published in May 2007 by Sophia Institute Press): 10,047 (as of 1-25-11).

 
The New Catholic Answer Bible (April 2005; co-author Dr. Paul Thigpen) is also consistently selling very well, as evidenced by continually high placements (often top 20, or at least top 50) in amazon lists for sales rank in the category of Catholic books. I don't have exact numbers for that because (unfortunately!) I don't get paid royalties for it (it was a flat-fee contract). The Amazon sales rank figure as of 2:08 PM EST 5-27-11 for this book is 29,702 (5-star rating with 34 customer reviews: 32 of those 5-star ratings).

Additionally, Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths has sold 2,232 copies (as of 1-25-11) since it was published on 15 August 2009 by Sophia Institute Press.

Thus, the four books and one pamphlet package with known sales figures, add up to a total of 72,158 copies sold since October 2001. I highly suspect that The New Catholic Answer Bible and it's earlier version, The Catholic Answer Bible (that was my own work, without a co-author), would bring the total to 100,000, since they have sold very well (judging by amazon sales ranks), and have done so since September 2002, when the first version came out. Certainly, if we include also my 17 self-published paperbacks (Lulu) and e-books, the grand total is well over 100,000 titles sold.

Not only have my more popular books sold well in total numbers (for their market), but also consistently through the years, for many years. In February 2011 I made a calculation of average sales per month since the titles came out:

The One-Minute Apologist  236 / mo. average over 38 months.

The Catholic Verses  225 / mo. (72 months).

Top Ten Questions Catholics Are Asked  225 / mo. (101 months).

A Biblical Defense of Catholicism  201 / mo. (87 months for Sophia Institute Press: since May 2003) or 181 / mo. including the self-published period starting in October 2001 (106 months).

These figures may seem low, but it is a relative thing, based on the size of a given market. Catholic apologist Karl Keating noted in his e-letter of 21 November 2006:

There aren't many Catholic apostolates that manage to get by solely on the sale of materials. Come to think of it, I can't bring to mind any that do.

Catholic Answers earns income from magazine subscription fees, speaking honoraria, book and CD sales, advertising revenue, and so on, but all that covers less than half of our annual budget. The rest comes from donations. Without donations, our level of work would be much different from what it is. . . .

I remember, years ago, meeting with Fr. Joseph Fessio at Ignatius Press in San Francisco. I asked him how many copies of a book he would need to sell to turn a profit. He said he would need to sell as few as 3,000 copies, but not a few of the titles Ignatius published never reached even that level.

You might think, "Well, I could sell 3,000 copies of any decent book. Catholic publishers should be well in the black." I can assure you that it's not so simple. . . . 

The plain truth is that very few Catholic books sell into six figures. For that matter, few sell into five figures. In orthodox Catholic publishing, you have a hit if you sell 10,000 copies of a title. It certainly is a niche market. . . . 

Over the last year or so, most Catholic apostolates have noticed a softening in sales and donations, Catholic Answers included. Maybe it's the economy, but who really knows? We just know the softening is for real.

I am myself in this same boat. Book sales are generally much lower in the Catholic market than they were ten years ago, and donations have lessened due to the sluggish economy (the latter was the sole reason why I lost my staff position last December at the Coming Home Network as a forum moderator). My income consists of book royalties and donations. My work has been fruitful, by God's grace, for the purpose of helping aid many hundreds of folks to become Catholic or to become more strengthened and confident in their Catholic faith.

I have been a full-time apologist since December 2001, so it is coming up to ten years. As I have often noted, sometimes I take on additional unrelated part-time jobs to get by, but it is preferable to be able to devote myself totally to the specific work that God has called me to: Catholic apologetics and evangelism.

Your generous contribution helps make all this possible. I don't "beg and plead" and prefer to let my work speak for itself. Once in a while I will mention my situation, in order to allow readers an opportunity to support it if they wish to do so (especially those who have themselves been helped by my work). You can be part of it and play your part in the harvest of souls. I can't do it without you. See information on how to make a 100% tax-deductible contribution to my apologetics apostolate. Many heartfelt thanks to all my readers and especially to those who have supported my work financially and (equally importantly) in prayer. I deeply appreciate all of you and can never thank you enough. It is my honor and privilege to serve you in this work that I dearly love.

Refutation of Robert Sungenis' Charge That Blessed Pope John Paul II Denied the Reality of Hell and/or Taught Universalism

.

[image error]
Psalm 50:20 (RSV) You sit and speak against your brother; you slander your own mother's son.
Wisdom 1:11 Beware then of useless murmuring, and keep your tongue from slander; because no secret word is without result, and a lying mouth destroys the soul.
Sirach 5:14 Do not be called a slanderer, and do not lie in ambush with your tongue; for shame comes to the thief, and severe condemnation to the double-tongued.
Ephesians 4:31 Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, with all malice, 
Colossians 3:8 But now put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and foul talk from your mouth. 
1 Peter 2:1 So put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander. 
* * *
From recent disgraceful radtrad polemical rantings of barely-Catholic / barely-an-apologist-anymore Robert Sungenis:

. . . ambiguous statements in certain encyclicals that seem to lean toward universal salvation . . .

(from: Santo Non Ancora! Saint John Paul II: published in the notorious radtrad rag, The Remnant on 5 February 2011)

. . . the universal salvation that John Paul II so often promoted in his addresses and encyclicals.

(Response to Dr. Donald DeMarco re the article in the Remnant titled "Santo Non Ancora: St John Paul II?" -- 4 April 2011)

. . . making ambiguous statements that could be interpreted such that all men will be saved or that humans may not be involved with hell . . . In fact, he suggested that hell may not even exist. That was "the faith" of John Paul II.

(Another Failed Attempt to Defend Assisi and Other Scandalous Events in the Pontificate of John Paul II -- 25 April 2011)

Blessed Pope John Paul II
A second characteristic of St Leonard Murialdo was pedagogical concern. He was unquestionably a great educator, like Don Bosco, and dedicated his whole life to the education of children and young people, convinced of the value of the preventive method and of Christocentric guidance.


Let us meditate together on what he wrote to confreres gathered in the Spiritual Exercises of 1898: "May love of God bring forth zeal for the salvation of the young: "ne perdantur", St John Chrysostom says, "so that they may not be lost", not be damned, and therefore ... real zeal to save them, to instruct them well in religion, to instil in them love of God, of Jesus Christ, and of Mary, and zeal to save themselves. But all this will not be obtained unless one has humility of heart". 
It is an exhortation which the Pope wishes to echo this morning. let this be your spur: educate to save! From the "pedagogy of eternal salvation" there springs logically the "pedagogy of love". Commit your lives completely to edifying, to forming children and young people, behaving in such a way that your life will be a continual example of virtue for them: it is necessary to become a child with children and everything to everyone in order to win all to Christ!
(ADDRESS TO THE CONGREGATION OF ST JOSEPH; 1 December 1978; section 2)

And this we must all remember: that it is not lawful for any of us to deserve the name of "hireling", that is to say, the name of one "to whom the sheep do not belong", one who, "since he is not the shepherd and the sheep do not belong to him, abandons the sheep and runs away as soon as he sees the wolf coming, and then the wolf attacks and scatters the sheep; this is because he is only a hired man and has no concern for the sheep" (Jn 10:12-13). The solicitude of every good shepherd is that all people "may have life and have it to the full", (Jn 10:10) so that none of them may be lost, (cf. Jn 17:12) but should have eternal life.
(Letter to All Priests on the Occasion of Holy Thursday, 8 April 1979; section 7)

Nor can the church omit, without serious mutilation of her essential message, a constant catechesis on what the traditional Christian language calls the four last things of man: death, judgment (universal and particular), hell and heaven. In a culture which tends to imprison man in the earthly life at which he is more or less successful, the pastors of the church are asked to provide a catechesis which will reveal and illustrate with the certainties of faith what comes after the present life: beyond the mysterious gates of death, an eternity of joy in communion with God or the punishment of separation from him. Only in this eschatological vision can one realize the exact nature of sin and feel decisively moved to penance and reconciliation.
(POST-SYNODAL APOSTOLIC EXHORTATION RECONCILIATION AND PENANCE  TO THE BISHOPS CLERGY AND FAITHFUL ON RECONCILIATION AND PENANCE IN THE MISSION OF THE CHURCH TODAY; 2 December 1984; section 26)

In her motherly concern, the Blessed Virgin came here to Fátima to ask men and women "to stop offending God, Our Lord, who is already very offended". It is a mother's sorrow that compels her to speak; the destiny of her children is at stake. For this reason she asks the little shepherds:  "Pray, pray much and make sacrifices for sinners; many souls go to hell because they have no one to pray and make sacrifices for them".  . . .


And when the time came for Francisco to leave, the little girl tells him:  "Give my greetings to Our Lord and to Our Lady and tell them that I am enduring everything they want for the conversion of sinners". Jacinta had been so deeply moved by the vision of hell during the apparition of 13 July that no mortification or penance seemed too great to save sinners.

(HOMILY: BEATIFICATION OF FRANCISCO AND JACINTA MARTO SHEPHERDS OF FATIMA; 13 May 2000, Fátima; sections 3 and 4)

May this appeal of mine not go unheard! At the start of the twenty-fifth year of my Pontificate, I entrust this Apostolic Letter to the loving hands of the Virgin Mary, prostrating myself in spirit before her image in the splendid Shrine built for her by Blessed Bartolo Longo, the apostle of the Rosary. I willingly make my own the touching words with which he concluded his well-known Supplication to the Queen of the Holy Rosary: "O Blessed Rosary of Mary, sweet chain which unites us to God, bond of love which unites us to the angels, tower of salvation against the assaults of Hell, safe port in our universal shipwreck, we will never abandon you.   
(APOSTOLIC LETTER ROSARIUM VIRGINIS MARIAE; 16 October 2002; section 43 [concluding paragraph] )

19 of My Books Now Available at Amazon Kindle (Including Audio Capability)

I have now uploaded all 17 of my Lulu books. 15 are $4.99 and two longer ones are $5.99. So it's dirt cheap pricing. That's my favor for my readers (I hate high-priced books as much as you do). Now you guys gotta buy some of these so I can bring in additional income! I get $3.46 royalties except for the $5.99 ones, where it is $4.14.

Additionally, Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths (Sophia Institute Press) is available for $9.95, and The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton (Saint Benedict Press) is now a Kindle book for $9.98. Presumably, in due course Sophia will eventually "Kindleize" my other three titles for them, too ( A Biblical Defense of Catholicism , The Catholic Verses , The One-Minute Apologist ).

All of these are also text-to-voice enabled, so this means that 19 of my 24 books (including the Chesterton volume) can now be listened to in a good state-of-the-art computer voice. I was trying to get that done a while back, unsuccessfully, but this achieves that goal, so it could be a very  fruitful development indeed. No risk, anyway. I didn't pay one cent to get them all uploaded, and I got it all done yesterday: one day's work.

You can view all titles at my amazon "Kindle Store," but here they are for your convenience. The written titles go to the amazon Kindle book page for each volume. The "[Info]" brackets go to each title's book page (contents, introductions, excerpts, links for all sorts of purchases, etc.).


General Catholic Apologetics [2]
Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths (2009, 445 pages) $9.95 [Info.]
More Biblical Evidence for Catholicism (2002 181 pages) $4.99 [Info.]

Protestantism [4]
Martin Luther: Catholic Critical Analysis and Praise (2008, 264 pages) $4.99 [Info.]
Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin (2010, 388 pages) $5.99 [Info.]
Twin Scourges: Thoughts on Anti-Catholicism and Theological Liberalism (2003, 167 pages) $4.99 [Info.]
Protestantism: Critical Reflections of an Ecumenical Catholic (2003, 188 pages) $4.99 [Info.]

Church and Moral Issues [5]
The Church Fathers Were Catholic: Patristic Evidences for Catholicism (2007, 360 pages) $5.99 [Info.]
Orthodoxy and Catholicism: A Comparison (2004, 232 pages) $4.99 [Info.]
Pensées on Catholic Traditionalism (2002, 170 pages) $4.99 [Info.]
Family Matters: Catholic Theology of the Family (2002, 159 pages) $4.99 [Info.]
Bible Conversations: Catholic-Protestant Dialogues on the Bible, Tradition, and Salvation (2002, 218 pages) $4.99 [Info.]

Important Particular Theological Topics [5]
Biblical Catholic Eucharistic Theology (2011, 222 pages) $4.99 [Info.]
"The Catholic Mary": Quite Contrary to the Bible? (2010, 193 pages) $4.99 [Info.]
Development of Catholic Doctrine: Evolution, Revolution, or an Organic Process? (2002, 198 pages) $4.99 [Info.]
Biblical Catholic Salvation: "Faith Working Through Love" (2010, 187 pages) $4.99 [Info.]
501 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura: Is the Bible the Only Infallible Authority? (2009, 240 pages) $4.99 [Info.]

General Christian Apologetics / Atheists and Agnostics [3]
Mere Christian Apologetics (2002, 289 pages) $4.99 [Info.]
Christian Worldview vs. Postmodernism (2002, 218 pages) $4.99 [Info.]
The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton:  The Very Best Quotes, Quips and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton [editor] (2009, 378 pages) $9.98 [Info.]