Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 59
April 25, 2011
St. Peter the Scoundrel vs. St. Paul? No (Catholic) Church in the Book of Acts? A Day in the Life of Apologetic "Discussion" (vs. Anti-Trinitarian Tony Lehr)
Peter and Paul (by El Greco)The following is an exchange I had on Facebook with one Tony Lehr (who turned out -- I discovered afterwards -- to be an anti-trinitarian heretic). His words will be in blue. Craig Fruth's words will be in green.
* * * * *
People have been teaching for generations that Peter is the rock that the church is built on. The Catholic Church goes further out to pasture by making him the founder of the church and the first Pope. (Even though according to scripture Peter was never in Rome. They just made that up.) The context is about who Christ is:
Matthew 16 [13] Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, He was asking His disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?" [14] And they said, "Some say John the Baptist; and others, Elijah; but still others, Jeremiah, or one of the prophets." [15] He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" [16] Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." [17] And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven.
(The truth of Jesus being the Christ and Son of God was not being made public, though some suspected it or had it revealed to them) [18] "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. (The Rock is the revelation of who Christ is. That is the foundation of the Church. Without the revelation of who Christ is, it would be impossible to have any church. This is why Jesus changed Peter's name. It was because of this revelation that Peter had.) [19] "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven." [20] Then He warned the disciples that they should tell no one that He was the Christ. (Again it is the context of who Jesus is that is the subject of these scriptures. He is the Rock and this also fits in with all of the typology contained in the Old Testament. ie: The rock that is struck and water flows out, the corner stone onto which the temple is built, etc.)
Beautifully said Craig. . . .did you know another thing about Peter? He had a wife.
As for Peter being the "rock" upon which Christ built His Church (a thing our Lord expressly stated), this is not just Catholic bias. There is a growing consensus of Protestant Scripture scholars that this is the case. I have documented a ton of stuff in this paper:
The Biblical, Primitive Papacy: St. Peter the "Rock": Scholarly Opinion (Mostly Protestant).
Many more also:
Protestant Scholars on Mt 16:16-19 (Nicholas Hardesty)
Protestant Exegesis Profoundly Affected Historically By Polemical Overreactions to Catholic Positions (Example of Matthew 16:18: Peter as the "Rock")
Presbyterian Bible Commentator Frederick Dale Bruner on the Petrine Implications of Matthew 16:18 ("Rock")
Prominent Baptist Exegete John Albert Broadus (1827-1895) on the Petrine Implications of Matthew 16:18 ("Rock")
Evangelical NT Scholar Peter Stuhlmacher on the Petrine Implications of Matthew 16:18 ("Rock")
Renowned Anglican Commentator Henry Alford (1810-1871) on the Petrine Implications of Matthew 16:18 ("Rock")
Presbyterian Exegete Albert Barnes (1798-1870 ) on the Petrine Implications of Matthew 16:18 ("Rock")
Presbyterian Marvin R. Vincent (1834-1922) on the Petrine Implications of Matthew 16:18 ("Rock")
Peter was slicing off the ear of someone one second, then the next second vehemently, even cursing, and swearing, he never knew the saviour Christ. One minute he was at Jerusalem at the day of pentecost, the next, Paul was in his face in Galatia. Peter was hot and cold. Christ the rock is constant. peter tried to walk on water and sank, Jesus walked on water and calmed the wind and seas. Wonderful Mary, here's what I believe, if earthquakes shook down all the walls of all the man-made denomonations in the world, I would still have the peace and joy in the salvation of my saviour, Christ Jesus.
So what? This proves nothing one way or the other; all it shows is that Peter was a sinner like all of us. It doesn't tell us one whit about his status as a leader of the twelve disciples. Scripture does that all over the place:
50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy
The Biblical, Primitive Papacy: St. Peter and the "Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven": Scholarly Opinion (Mostly Protestant) (+ Part II)
The "sin argument" is plain stupid. Why, then, did God choose David to be not only king of Israel, but the one He made an eternal covenant with? It wasn't broken even after David committed adultery and murdered. It was still in place. David was a forerunner of the Messiah (Jesus).
God chose murderer and persecutor of Christians Paul to be His leading evangelist in the young Church. Was Paul perfect afterwards?: never wavered; never sinned? Hardly. Let's hear him describe himself:
Romans 7:14-25 (RSV): We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. [15] I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. [16] Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. [17] So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. [18] For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. [19] For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. [20] Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. [21] So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. [22] For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, [23] but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. [24] Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? [25] Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
See, even we lowly Catholics can cite a lot of the Bible, too!!! We're just not super-selective; we actually believe all of what the Bible teaches. See also:
Dialogue: Is St. Paul Superior to St. Peter?
Does St. Paul's Rebuke of St. Peter Prove that Peter Was Not a Pope? / Is St. Paul More "Important" Than St. Peter?
Paul was not above hypocrisy, either. He rightly rebuked Peter, but there was no doctrinal disagreement. Peter was simply being a sinful human being again, worried about the opinions of the Jews. But of course Paul did virtually the exact same thing (if not worse) in at least one instance. He had Timothy circumcised after (quite arguably) worrying what men would think, even after preaching that it was no longer necessarily in the slightest degree:
1 Corinthians 7:18 Was any one at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was any one at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision.
Galatians 6:12-13 It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that would compel you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. [13] For even those who receive circumcision do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may glory in your flesh.
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.
So both Paul and Peter were at times overly concerned with the opinion of the Jews or Judaizers. No big dif there . . .
Peter had a wife . . . ho hum, big wow. Catholic celibacy is not an unchanging dogma, but a disciplinary requirement (based on Paul's recommendations in 1 Corinthians 7), not even in force among Eastern Catholics. So it's absolutely irrelevant whether he had a wife or not. See my paper:
Dialogue on Peter's Marriage, and Why it Doesn't Disprove Catholicism
Dave let me clear things up , LOL!!! I have no use for any denomination!!!!! I am no respecter of denomination!!!! Nazarene, Pentecostal, Baptist, Church of Grace, Church of Christ, First Christian Church, 7th Day Adventist, Jehovah Witnesses, Latter Day Saints. Did I leave any out? I did, Lutheran, Methodist, Presbyterian, whew, that's all I can think of now. What is this guys actual belief you might say? Here are my beliefs about denominations..... Cor1:12-13 Now this I say, that everyone of you saith, I am of Paul, and I of Apollos, and I of Cephas, and I of Christ. 13 IS CHRIST DIVIDED??????????1cor 2:2 For I determined not to now anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. I am with Paul on this. Dave I don't like denominations, but I like the heart of the people in the denominations, bless you. . . . Jesus is my Lord and Saviour, as they said in the movie, " I don't need no stinkin badge" aka (denomination)!
Being in a denomination other than the one true Church or pretending not to be, and remaining apart from the historic, apostolic Church, are both roundly condemned in Scripture. You have to be under authority and it has to be legitimate authority, which means apostolic succession through history. The Bible says Christians are to be of one mind, with one set of doctrinal beliefs, period. End of story. It's made clear over and over.You need the Church that was instituted by Jesus Christ as His authority and guarantor of correct, true doctrine. There is no such thing as a Christian in the Bible who is under no authority of a bishop. You can play all the games with Scripture that you want to play but you'll never change that plain fact. There is a Church and it has authority: infallible authority: such as what it exercised in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). Paul even went around proclaiming the decisions of the Council (Acts 16:4). See: Denominationalism and Sectarianism.
Peter had a wife and a mother in-law, how many other "popes" had a wife? . . . Dave if there wasn't a pope, or Roman Catholic Church, just you and the salvation that Christ accomplished for you, would you be saved?
Alright. Obviously you are incapable of rational argument with someone who differs from you. I don't play ring-around-the-rosey. People can read the two sides and see which is the better biblical case.
is there any other message(teaching) other than God sending his only begotten son to die for us? And us having salvation by what Christ accomplished for us? [goofy grammar and lack of capitals corrected, as throughout]
Oh yes, there are all kinds of teachings in the New Testament. You should read it sometime. I think you would learn a ton of stuff.
Isn't Christ the head of the church?
He is the ultimate head, of course. But he also delegates authority. He told His disciples, "he who hears you hears me."
You state there's a real church with binding authority? Really? Which one?
The one holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church. In the Bible it is simply called "the Church." It's visible and institutional and has apostolic succession (as we saw when Matthias replaced Judas).
The church in acts didn't have a name.
The Church!
Paul said in 2nd Tim 4:16 before he was executed that all men forsook him.
Really? Why, then, does he mention 9 people by name, and also "all the brethren" in 4:19-21? You are a very odd exegete. I would strongly recommend taking Logic 0101 somewhere. It would do you a world of good.
So much for the church in Acts 15.
That's sheer nonsense. The Church doesn't disappear simply because you want it to. There was a thing called the Jerusalem Council. In his first letter to Timothy Paul mentioned "the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." (3:15). He talked about bishops in 3:1-7 and deacons in 3:8-13. Who is your bishop?
I don't want to be part of a church that forsook Apostle Paul.
It didn't. Only in your head . . . Scripture says about the end of St. Paul's life:
Acts 28:30-31 And he lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him, [31] preaching the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ quite openly and unhindered.
Where was that church in acts 15 located again?
I'm sorry you have such a difficult time reading. Dust off your Bible and take a look at Acts 15:1-29. In 15:28 it is stated that the Holy Spirit was guiding the Council. Paul liked it quite a bit, since he took part in it, and because it says in Acts 16:4 (RSV): "As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem."
Dave I know you are feverishly trying to connect the church in acts to the Pagan Roman Catholics . Sorry, as hard as you try there's no connection. Christ is the head of the body, the true church. Your collective group of clown, murderous, whoring, money stealing popes who you idolize will never foot the bill , sorry.
Dave, in the dark ages, the RCC tried to "make people an offer they couldn't refuse". Would have made Vito Corleone proud, don't you think? Unfortunately when they did refused, millions were tortured, mutilated. and murdered.
Really now? Try real hard, put on your thinking cap for a minute (taking off your dunce cap) and give me a single reputable historian who says "millions" were killed and tortured. You think we're ridiculous enough to take your word for your outrageous claims?
Dave, read the history books, you do know how to Google don't you? Thats G-O-O-G-L-E, then hit search. See for yourself, then maybe you won't be so eager to kiss the popes ring or his butt. Smoooch, smoooch. Oh your royal phoniness, I eagerly await your command, Oh yes, I believe mary is co- mediator with jesus, anything you say master.! Yes, I believe in praying to dead saints! Who was the dead saint for my dog again? Woof Woof! Where is purgatory? Between venus and chicago? Unbelievable. Gotta go Dave, theres no profit in this disputing. Say hello to all the faithful in Limbo. Wheeew.
. . . The blood of the saints is on the RCC hands. Mother church? Mother church of murderers.Thankfully America is a country where were not persecuted for opposing that pagan idolatry.
All Christian groups have persecuted others. I have an entire web page on Protestant intolerance and persecution. Luther and Calvin both believed in capital punishment for the Anabaptists: folks who believed as today's Baptists do. Henry VIII, of course, and following kings and queens slaughtered Catholics by the many hundreds: often by drawing and quartering: one of the most brutal of punishments. Caught being in a Mass or saying one as a priest: drawing and quartering. Ever seen Braveheart? That kind of showed that punishment, but nothing like the real thing was. They would rip out the guy's heart, then pull out all his intestines, cut off all four limbs and do other things besides.
Heres another historical account Dave before signing off. There was a man namen john tetzel appointed to sell indulgences in germany to help raise funds for construction work for St. peters church in rome. He would carry a picture of satan tormenting souls in purgatory. when someone would buy an indulgence tetezel would say, "sobald der pfenning im kasten klingt die seel aus demfegfeuer springt, which means, as the money in you pop, the souls from purgatory hop. What a true blessing to someone who just lost a loved one huh? Like i said dave, these things are easy to google, God hath not given you the spirit of fear, but of a sound mind. Are you so afraid to see the history of the roman catholic church?
All explained in my paper: Explicit Biblical Evidence for Indulgences + Some Important Historical Considerations. See also:
Sinful Church Leaders
The "Bad Popes": How Many Of 'Em Were There? How "Bad" Were They?
Sins and Sinners in the Catholic Church
What do you think about the Holy Trinity, Tony?
Seeing that one of Tony's listed "Activities and Interests" is First Pentecostal Apostolic Church of Hilliard, Fla.: a cultic group that expressly denies the Trinity . . . Tony also is "interested" in a site called Truth or Tradition.com. It, too, denies the Holy Trinity: "I recently purchased the CD Seminar on 'Errors of the Trinity,' and I can't tell you how awesome it has been to experience this seminar that sheds so much light on the so-called 'mystery of the Trinity.'" --- Tariq Shakoor. Yet another link under his "Interests" is "HOW TO ...... Speak in tongues". It has a featured post: "On the Errors of the Trinity" (by Jann Mills). Tony links to yet another heretical, blasphemous group in his "Activities and Interests" section: Reno Spirit and Truth Biblical Studies. Guess what it denies? You got it!: "Do You Have to Believe in the Trinity to be Saved?"
Looks like Tony is not a Christian at all. He apparently denies the deity or divinity of Jesus Christ and also denies that the Holy Spirit is God. Explains a lot, doesn't it? I should have known, from the way he was talking.
St. Peter the Scoundrel vs. St. Paul? No (Catholic) Church in the Book of Acts? A Day in the Life of Apologetic "Discussion" (vs. Tony Lehr)
Peter and Paul (by El Greco)The following is an exchange I had on Facebook with one Tony Lehr. His words will be in blue.
* * * * *
Catholics are supposed to have 6-12 children to increase the church membership.
Really???!!! Funny, I've never heard of this requirement, and I've been defending the Church for 20 years. Could you please refresh my memory as to where this "command" is found? Thanks.
As for Peter being the "rock" upon which Christ built His Church (a thing our Lord expressly stated), this is not just Catholic bias. There is a growing consensus of Protestant Scripture scholars that this is the case. I have documented a ton of stuff in this paper:
The Biblical, Primitive Papacy: St. Peter the "Rock": Scholarly Opinion (Mostly Protestant).
Many more also:
Protestant Scholars on Mt 16:16-19 (Nicholas Hardesty)
Peter was slicing off the ear of someone one second, then the next second vehemently, even cursing, and swearing, he never knew the saviour Christ. One minute he was at Jerusalem at the day of pentecost, the next, Paul was in his face in Galatia. Peter was hot and cold.
Protestant Exegesis Profoundly Affected Historically By Polemical Overreactions to Catholic Positions (Example of Matthew 16:18: Peter as the "Rock")
Presbyterian Bible Commentator Frederick Dale Bruner on the Petrine Implications of Matthew 16:18 ("Rock")
Prominent Baptist Exegete John Albert Broadus (1827-1895) on the Petrine Implications of Matthew 16:18 ("Rock")
Evangelical NT Scholar Peter Stuhlmacher on the Petrine Implications of Matthew 16:18 ("Rock")
Renowned Anglican Commentator Henry Alford (1810-1871) on the Petrine Implications of Matthew 16:18 ("Rock")
Presbyterian Exegete Albert Barnes (1798-1870 ) on the Petrine Implications of Matthew 16:18 ("Rock")
Presbyterian Marvin R. Vincent (1834-1922) on the Petrine Implications of Matthew 16:18 ("Rock")
So what? This proves nothing one way or the other; all it shows is that Peter was a sinner like all of us. It doesn't tell us one whit about his status as a leader of the twelve disciples. Scripture does that all over the place:
50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy and the Papacy
The Biblical, Primitive Papacy: St. Peter & the "Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven": Scholarly Opinion (Mostly Protestant) (+ Part II)
The "sin argument" is plain stupid. Why, then, did God choose David to be not only king of Israel, but the one He made an eternal covenant with? It wasn't broken even after David committed adultery and murdered. It was still in place. David was a forerunner of the Messiah (Jesus).
God chose murderer and persecutor of Christians Paul to be His leading evangelist in the young Church. Was Paul perfect afterwards?: never wavered; never sinned? Hardly. Let's hear him describe himself:
Romans 7:14-25 (RSV): We know that the law is spiritual; but I am carnal, sold under sin. [15] I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. [16] Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. [17] So then it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. [18] For I know that nothing good dwells within me, that is, in my flesh. I can will what is right, but I cannot do it. [19] For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do. [20] Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me. [21] So I find it to be a law that when I want to do right, evil lies close at hand. [22] For I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, [23] but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. [24] Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? [25] Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, I of myself serve the law of God with my mind, but with my flesh I serve the law of sin.
See, even we lowly Catholics can cite a lot of the Bible, too!!! We're just not super-selective; we actually believe all of what the Bible teaches. See also:
Dialogue: Is St. Paul Superior to St. Peter?
Does St. Paul's Rebuke of St. Peter Prove that Peter Was Not a Pope? / Is St. Paul More "Important" Than St. Peter?
Paul was not above hypocrisy, either. He rightly rebuked Peter, but there was no doctrinal disagreement. Peter was simply being a sinful human being again, worried about the opinions of the Jews. But of course Paul did virtually the exact same thing (if not worse) in at least one instance. He had Timothy circumcised after (quite arguably) worrying what men would think, even after preaching that it was no longer necessarily in the slightest degree:
1 Corinthians 7:18 Was any one at the time of his call already circumcised? Let him not seek to remove the marks of circumcision. Was any one at the time of his call uncircumcised? Let him not seek circumcision. Galatians 6:12-13 It is those who want to make a good showing in the flesh that would compel you to be circumcised, and only in order that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ. [13] For even those who receive circumcision do not themselves keep the law, but they desire to have you circumcised that they may glory in your flesh.
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.
So both Paul and Peter were at times overly concerned with the opinion of the Jews or Judaizers. No big dif there . . .
Peter had a wife . . . ho hum, big wow. Catholic celibacy is not an unchanging dogma, but a disciplinary requirement (based on Paul's recommendations in 1 Corinthians 7), not even in force among Eastern Catholics. So it's absolutely irrelevant whether he had a wife or not. See my paper:
Dialogue on Peter's Marriage, and Why it Doesn't Disprove Catholicism
Peter is Petros, a pebble, small stone. Christ is PETRA, a large unmovable rock. Scripture makes this difference clear.
Answer the actual exegetical arguments from real Protestant scholars. Simply repeating a lame "argument" doesn't make it any better.
Being in a denomination other than the one true Church or pretending not to be, and remaining apart from the historic, apostolic Church, are both roundly condemned in Scripture. You have to be under authority and it has to be legitimate authority, which means apostolic succession through history. The Bible says Christians are to be of one mind, with one set of doctrinal beliefs, period. End of story. It's made clear over and over. You need the Church that was instituted by Jesus Christ as His authority and guarantor of correct, true doctrine. There is no such thing as a Christian in the Bible who is under no authority of a bishop. You can play all the games with Scripture that you want to play but you'll never change that plain fact. There is a Church and it has authority: infallible authority: such as what it exercised in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15). Paul even went around proclaiming the decisions of the Council (Acts 16:4). is there any other message(teaching) other than God sending his only begotten son to die for us? And us having salvation by what Christ accomplished for us? [goofy grammar and lack of capitals corrected, as throughout]
Oh yes, there are all kinds of teachings in the New Testament. You should read it sometime. I think you would learn a ton of stuff.
Isn't Christ the head of the church?
He is the ultimate head, of course. But he also delegates authority. He told His disciples, "he who hears you hears me."
You state there's a real church with binding authority? Really? Which one?
The one holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church. In the Bible it is simply called "the Church." It's visible and institutional and has apostolic succession (as we saw when Matthias replaced Judas).
The church in acts didn't have a name.
The Church!
Paul said in 2nd Tim 4:16 before he was executed that all men forsook him.
Really? Why, then, does he mention 9 people by name, and also "all the brethren" in 4:19-21? You are a very odd exegete. I would strongly recommend taking Logic 0101 somewhere. It would do you a world of good.
So much for the church in Acts 15.
That's sheer nonsense. The Church doesn't disappear simply because you want it to. There was a thing called the Jerusalem Council. In his first letter to Timothy Paul mentioned "the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and bulwark of the truth." (3:15). He talked about bishops in 3:1-7 and deacons in 3:8-13. Who is your bishop?
I don't want to be part of a church that forsook Apostle Paul.
It didn't. Only in your head . . . Scripture says about the end of St. Paul's life:
Acts 28:30-31 And he lived there two whole years at his own expense, and welcomed all who came to him, [31] preaching the kingdom of God and teaching about the Lord Jesus Christ quite openly and unhindered.
Where was that church in acts 15 located again?
I'm sorry you have such a difficult time reading. Dust off your Bible and take a look at Acts 15:1-29. In 15:28 it is stated that the Holy Spirit was guiding the Council. Paul liked it quite a bit, since he took part in it, and because it says in Acts 16:4 (RSV): "As they went on their way through the cities, they delivered to them for observance the decisions which had been reached by the apostles and elders who were at Jerusalem."
April 22, 2011
Resources for the "Easter is Pagan" Misunderstanding (Links)
[ source ]Easter: A Pagan Holiday? (Fr. William Saunders)
Does Easter have a pagan origin? And was Jesus crucified on Wednesday or Friday? (Jimmy Akin)
Are Christmas and Easter pagan holidays? (Defending the Catholic Faith website)
Is Catholicism Half-Pagan? (Dave Armstrong)
C.S. Lewis on Pagan Parallels to Christianity (Dave Armstrong)
"Easter" (Catholic Encyclopedia)
April 20, 2011
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
Canon Law 212 and 229 state quite clearly that I do have the right to be a prophet.
(Robert Sungenis, Papolatry is a Sin: A Response to John Dejak of The Wanderer -- 18 April 2011)
[I don't see anything in canon law 212 or canon law 229 about prophets: nothing that would remotely justify Sungenis directly and repeatedly comparing himself (much like Martin Luther) to Jeremiah. Perhaps I missed something]
A few years back, Robert Sungenis (with whom I have had cordial relations by and large) at my strong urging, agreed to remove several derogatory remarks about Blessed Pope John Paul II from his website. But now he is back to his blistering criticisms: apparently due to the shock of the late great pope's beatification.
Other recent statements of his are to the effect that the Catholic Church today is not the same as the Catholic Church of the ages. It has, so he pontificates, entered into profound heresy or apostasy. That, of course, denies (or comes dangerously close to denying) the doctrine of the indefectibility of the Church, and if carried to its logical conclusion, entails a Protestant- or liberal dissenter-like schism from Holy Mother Church. I'll let Robert speak for himself (all further words below are his own: I've added some italics for titles).
If he keeps this up (and his history shows that he does keep things up and keeps going down a more and more "radtrad" road), there is a strong likelihood, in my opinion, that he will be a sedevacantist (like Gerry Matatics) within a year or two. I've seen people go down these roads. They don't dead-end. They head right off the cliff, away from the Church. The internal (tragically flawed) logic almost requires it.
Attacks on Blessed Pope John Paul II
I'm sorry to have to say this, but from all my knowledge and experience, I would have to say that the last few pontificates have been an almost total disaster for the Catholic Church, especially the pontificate of John Paul II. (If you want a thoroughly detailed and comprehensive critical view of John Paul II's pontificate that is not influenced by all the flowery assessments of his life and doctrine, I suggest you read Andrew McCauley's new book, Crossing the Threshold of Confusion . McCauley was an attorney and former writer for The Wanderer.
You might also want to read the 100-page paper by Fr. Luigi Villa Ph.T., titled "KarolWojtyla Beatified? Never!" (Sept. 2010). You can also read my paper "Santo Non Ancora!" from our website. Of course, you can also hide your head in the sand like everyone else and pretend that there is nothing to be concerned about. Contrary to popular opinion, you may conclude with me that John Paul II was probably the worst pope we have ever had and the closest pope to outright heresy and apostasy). The fact that the crowds want to beatify him and call him "John Paul the Great" is just another indication of an overwhelming problem of
spiritual blindness we have in the Church of today.
Why can't many people see this? Why are millions clamoring for his beatification? Our Scripture and Tradition answer that question quite poignantly. Scripture says that the time will come in which "God is sending them a deceiving power so that they may believe the lie" (2Th 2:11 NAB). God is not neutral when men depart from Him. This was also true in the Old Testament (cf. 1Kgs 22:23). God actually reinforces their apostasy by sending them "a deceiving power." We were already warned about this in our modern day from the Fatima visions of Sr. Lucia in which she said that there would be a "diabolical disorientation" upon the Church and that it would seep into the very hierarchy itself, "at the highest levels." It's the same reason that Paul VI said that the "smoke of Satan has entered into the Church" (only he was also "disoriented" to the point that he didn't see that his own actions were part of the "smoke"). The "disorientation" didn't disappear in the pontificate of John Paul II. It only increased.
(from: Response to Jimmy Akin's blog re preaching to the Jews -- April 2011)
The sadder fact is there exists circumstantial evidence that he is personally culpable, either in allowing his bishops to shuffle incriminated priests from diocese to diocese or in the whisking away of these same bishops to the Vatican for safe haven (e.g., Cardinal Bernard Law who was given sanctuary at the Vatican before he could be prosecuted by the civil authorities in Boston). By and large, John Paul II seems to have turned a blind eye to the heinous sins occurring against little Catholic boys. The recent case of Fr. Marciel Maciel Degollado, patron of the Legionaires, speaks for itself. Maciel was a personal friend of the Holy Father, but had been molesting little boys for decades as well as fathering children from several different women. . . . While the homosexual/pedophile scandal was taking place on John Paul II's moral doorstep, the promotion of what seemed to be raw paganism was occurring at his Assisi interreligious prayer meetings.
[ . . . ]
[conclusion] I could say more but it would only be redundant. There are problems and excesses in almost every area John Paul II touched (his appointing of liberal and doctrinally suspect bishops; his novel Theology of the Body; his ambiguous statements in certain encyclicals that seem to lean toward universal salvation;
his tendency toward collegiality; his campaign against capital punishment by confusing it with the abortion issue; his promotion of the excesses of the charismatic movement; the perennial problems with World Youth Day, etc.). In the end, the only good things I am proud to say John Paul II accomplished was his resistance toward Liberation theology in the early 1980s; his stand against communism; and the writing of his apostolic letter in 1994, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, which barred women from being priests. The world loved John Paul II, but it was not because he was heroically faithful to the Church's tradition. They loved him because of his captivating charisma, but they know nothing about the moral and doctrinal problems that plagued the Church during his pontificate. They are kept in the dark so that the powers-that-be can have their way. The neo-catholic regime will probably make John Paul II a saint, but if they do it will be because they, like him, have turned a blind eye to the state of the Church today. The only solace I can offer is that if you check the Catholic Encyclopedia you will see that there is still a debate on whether canonizations are infallible, and I believe John Paul II's case will make the question even more controversial than it has ever been. For me it will settle the issue permanently.
(from: Santo Non Ancora! Saint John Paul II: published in the notorious radtrad rag, The Remnant on 5 February 2011)
St Paul tells us in several passages (e.g., 1 Cor 10:1-12; 1 Tim 4:1; 2 Thess 2:1-11) that the same apostasy that occurred in Israel could and will happen in our day. How bad might it be? So bad, according to Jesus, that "even the elect would be deceived, if that were possible" (Mt 24:24). This may be especially applicable in our day since John Paul II did precisely what St. Pope Pius X warned about – leading the Church, at its very highest levels, to the "synthesis of all heresies" – Modernism. It is the same thing about which the visions of Fatima warned us – corruption and apostasy occurring at the highest levels of the Vatican, including the pope, due to the "diabolical disorientation" perpetrated by no one less than the Devil himself. . . . The Wanderer is only encouraging modernist popes to continue their departure from Catholic tradition. . . . The Wanderer, and almost every other Catholic institution today, looks the other way. But as long as I'm breathing I cannot look the other way. I'll be Jeremiah, even if I'm outnumbered 2 million to one. . . . read the 400 page book, Crossing the Threshold of Confusion by Andrew McCauley – ironically, a former writer for The Wanderer. There you will find out who Karol Wojtyla really was and how he severally [sic] undermined our Catholic faith. . . . There was no investigation into the potential heresies uttered and fomented by John Paul II that I listed in my essay.
[ . . . ]
If Dr. DeMarco can read my essay and its list of doctrinal aberrations and departures from accepted Tradition coming from the mouth and writings of John Paul II and not be alarmed by them in the slightest, then it only verifies the spiritual malaise of many Catholics and their apologists today. They deserve a pope like John Paul II. These kinds of people are ripe for deception – the same deception that the Fatima visions said would seep right into the highest levels of the Catholic hierarchy and then fall upon its parishioners. . . . I suggest that Dr. DeMarco read the history of Israel in the Old Testament, for the same things that happened then are happening now. He should pay particular attention to the life of Solomon who, although Israel's greatest king and man of God, eventually turned out to be her greatest shame and a man of sin as he began to give credence to the pagan gods of the nations around him (1 Kings 11; cf. 1 Cor 10:1-12; 1 Cor 1:12). But you say "It can't happen here"! I suggest all of us read the history of the papacy and the bad popes that occupied the chair of Peter, especially in the second millennium. . . . 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)
But I've been pointing out John Paul II's problems for more than a decade, and my Catholic faith is stronger now than it was at the beginning. The reason? The pope is not the basis for my Catholic religion. Jesus Christ is. As long as the pope follows Jesus there will be no problem, and the only real guarantee we have that the pope is following Jesus is when he speaks ex cathedra or when he follows the tradition laid down before him. Assisi is neither of Jesus nor of tradition. It is strictly out of the confused mind of the Phenomenological/Tielhardian/Rahnerian theology of Karol Wojtyla. . . . If you grasp all the deviant theological and moral aberrations of John Paul II listed above and end up calling me a "false prophet" for pointing them out, then the delusion is yours, not mine. I find it amusing that Mr. Dejak goes to "St. Paul" as his authority to condemn me, but wasn't it St. Paul who upbraided Pope Peter for hypocrisy and perverting the Gospel (Galatians 2:11‐21)? Wasn't it St. Paul who warned the leaders of the Church not to fall into idol worship and apostasy from the faith (1 Cor 10:1‐12; 3:1‐17; 2Thess 2:1‐11)? St. Paul is my model, not Mr. Dejak's. In fact, every book of the New Testament warns against apostasy; and it tells us that the very leaders of the Church may, and often are, the perpetrators of the apostasy. No one is immune. Just because you wear cleric cloth does not mean you have a dispensation from sin and apostasy. . . . According to Mr. Dejak, we are only "humble" when we give blind obedience to the pope, even if the pope shows himself to be derelict in his duty as protector of the Faith. . . . If Mr. Dejak can show us how to defend Assisi and the other acts of John Paul II so that they do not capitulate to modernism, I'm listening. . . . So good was Karol Wotyla in mesmerizing his audiences with his ambiguous language; papal apologies; pagan retreats and worldly views that Mr. Dejak can't see the forest for the trees. How sad. But I expect this kind of reaction. Since the "diabolical disorientation" of Satan will be so great that even the elect could be deceived (Mt 24:24); and so great because "God himself will give them strong delusion to believe a lie" (2 Thess 2:11), then I feel very sorry for anyone who is not well‐grounded in the Catholic faith of tradition. You are open to anything. . . . That's the part of the equation Mr.Dejak and The Wanderer have ignored. They think that God is somehow going to excuse them from sin if they blindly follow a pope who has been derelict in his duty. Uh uh. God will judge you for your sin, and he will doubly judge the one who led you there. Go read Matthew 18:7‐11.
(Papolatry is a Sin: A Response to John Dejak of The Wanderer -- 18 April 2011)
Attacks on the "Modern" Church as Allegedly Theologically or Institutionally Distinct from the Historic Catholic Church
I, being an independent Catholic theologian, am able to penetrate a little more deeply and be much more critical, as I have always done in this apostolate. Although some still regard me as a "Catholic apologist," unlike Jimmy Akin and Catholic Answers I no longer consider myself an apologist for the modern Catholic Church. When compared to the Catholic Church of tradition, I have resolved that the modern Catholic Church will be required to stand on its own, for I simply cannot defend it any longer. There are simply too many doctrinal aberrations and moral laxities in today's Catholic Church that are indefensible. In light of these problems, I have assumed what I believe is the more appropriate position – that of being a prophet of warning rather than one an apologist seeking to exonerate the Church from false accusations. Today many accusations against the Church are quite legitimate and I certainly will not be a party to sweeping them under the rug. Hence, I presently take my model from that of Jeremiah, Isaiah, Ezekiel and all the other prophets who spoke out against similar doctrinal aberrations and moral laxities that occurred in Israel before God finally judged them. I believe that if the modern Catholic Church stays on the course it has chosen, it also will be judged by God as Israel was, and, in fact, it is already being judged as we have seen the deterioration in the Church for the last few decades.
(from: Response to Jimmy Akin's blog re preaching to the Jews -- April 2011)
This is just another sign that the modern papal regime has thrown out the tradition and is making a new Catholicism in its own image and likeness. . . . This is just another sham perpetrated upon us by the modernists today who run the new church they have made into their own image. . . . Yes, I guess it [Pope John Paul II's beatification] is a great day for the "church" – at least the one that John Paul II made into his own image and likeness.
(Response to Dr. Donald DeMarco re the article in the Remnant titled "Santo Non Ancora: St John Paul II?" -- 4 April 2011)
When Israel's kings and prophets set up idol worship in Dan and Bethel, most of the common folk resolved in their minds that since their leaders were put in place by God, then who were the people to protest? So the whole nation eventually worshiped idols. The people should have protested, and if they did God would have blessed them and judged the leaders. But that is in the past, you say, and doesn't apply to us since Jesus promised the gates of hell will not prevail!
(Papolatry is a Sin: A Response to John Dejak of The Wanderer -- 18 April 2011)
Attacks on Pope Benedict XVI
The fact that Benedict XVI has chosen to endorse the doctrinal aberrations and deterioration of the Church caused by John Paul II by beatifying him in May; and then continuing the apostasy of the Assisi tradition in October, means that he is following the same "diabolical disorientation" of his predecessors. He isn't immune to this devilish influence just because he is a pope. In fact, the devil will bring his fiercest attack on the pope. . . . JON [the pope's book Jesus of Nazareth] 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.
(from: Response to Jimmy Akin's blog re preaching to the Jews -- April 2011)
I am merely telling Pope Benedict that I think his attempt to beatify John Paul II is wrong, period. I have that right according to canon law, and I also have the right to tell my opinion to "the rest of the Christian faithful." . . . We are using the canon law he approved to "sincerely" tell him that he shouldn't be beatifying John Paul II.
(Papolatry is a Sin: A Response to John Dejak of The Wanderer -- 18 April 2011)
* * * * * See also the Facebook thread linking to this and the vigorous discussion in the combox there.
Quibble About Lutheran Dislike of the Term Consubstantiation and the Absence of a More Descriptive Word
[ source ]
A former Lutheran, not-sure-what-he-believes-now-but-attends-Mass friend of mine stated in my comboxes:
Catholics have this bad tendency to try to label other people. E.g., Catholics call the Lutheran view of the presence of Christ in the sacrament "consubstantiation," but Lutherans just call it "real presence."
This is a reasonable point, since it is largely true (though Catholics aren't the only ones who do this: other Protestants do, too).
In this instance, however, it is mostly a matter of semantics. Lutherans believe Christ is "in, with, and under" the bread and wine. This is precisely what non-Lutherans usually mean by "consubstantiation" (bread and wine are present and so is Christ at the same time). It's just substituting one word for a phrase, where they mean the same. Lutherans don't like the term, as far as I can tell, because of its association with both Aristotelian metaphysics and the linguistic connection with the Catholic transubstantiation.
Martin Luther didn't care for the term "Lutherans" either, and I doubt that Wesley would have appreciated "Wesleyans" or Calvin, "Calvinists", but that didn't stop their followers from adopting those terms, anyway, since Protestantism often suffers from overly man-centered tendencies. To me it is more offensive to go against the wishes of your own founder than it is to use the description "consubstantiation."
The larger problem of terminology with regard to the Eucharist is use of the same words in different ways. Thus an Anglican (or Lutheran) may say "real presence" but they don't mean by that what the Church historically believed for 1500 years (in this regard, see the excellent article, What Do We Mean by 'The Real Presence'?, by Fr. Dwight Longenecker).
This raises a conundrum when a Catholic refers to it, because in order to properly educate and to accurately note proper distinctions, we have to point out that meanings are different. "Consubstantiation" seems to be accurate enough for that purpose. If Lutherans don't like it, then I suggest that they give us some term to use other than the vague, wax-nose "real presence." The problem is the absence of another similarly descriptive word. "Real presence" is insufficient, since several denominations use it, and mean different things by it. Perhaps I could describe the Lutheran eucharistic view as "in, with, and underism". But would that be preferable? Of course it would be a silly terminology.
This (humorously) illustrates the problem: the need for accurate description of various theological views. No one has any doubt as to where Catholics stand: transubstantiation means, literally, "change of substance." No ambiguity, no confusion or unclearness. A person may disagree with that, but they know exactly what it is, by the term, and looking up what the term literally means. Lutherans don't like consubstantiation, but they haven't offered us anything else besides "real presence" -- a description tat doesn't convey in the slightest the distinctive Lutheran take on the Eucharist. Descriptive terms and labels are used precisely as "technical terms": in order to avoid the need for a paragraph explanation of concepts, when a word can suffice (and a dictionary as well, if one wants to get the precise definition).
Nor is consubstantiation nearly as offensive, in my opinion, as the usual "Romanists" and "papists" that we are habitually called by the more anti-Catholic wing of Lutheranism. For example, here is Rev. Paul T. McCain, writing on his very prominent Lutheran website, Cyberbrethren :
Seems I have touched a bit of a nerve with my remarks about the "Corpus Christi" festival, which I regard as Romanist bunk and tomfoolery,. . . (6-16-06)
It is not we who call ourselves Lutherans. Rather, our adversaries call us that. We allow this to the extent that this title is an indication of the consensus that our churches have with the orthodox and catholic doctrine that Luther set forth from Holy Writ. Therefore we allow ourselves to be named after Luther, not as the inventor of a new faith but as the asserter of the old faith and the cleanser of the church from the stains of Papist dogmas. (10-31-10)
The second paragraph is quite remarkable, in that it uses papist: a term that any idiot knows is not what Catholics call themselves, while at the same time claiming that Lutherans have adopted their name because of the use of "adversaries." But no one has forced them at gunpoint to use this name. It's a voluntary matter. They chose it and use it. So they have no right now to protest that it derived from their "adversaries".
I am unaware of a book called The Catechism of the Papist Church or a self-described category of "Romanist apologetics." Plenty of our adversaries use those terms but it doesn't follow that we do ourselves. Yet I am supposed to believe that Lutherans had no choice but to use a term they themselves object to? It's beyond ludicrous and it strikes one as after-the-fact spin and rationalizing.
I should also note in passing that this notion that Luther "reformed" the Catholic Church and took it back to some supposed "old faith" (McCain's words above) is factually untrue. It's the fundamental "Protestant Myth." The fact of the matter is that Luther was for the most part a revolutionary (one who overthrows and introduces brand-new elements), not a reformer (one who restores former things that have been lost or corrupted). For the proof of this, see my papers:
50 Ways In Which Luther Had Departed From Catholic Orthodoxy or Established Practice by 1520 (and Why He Was Excommunicated)
Luther Was Not a Revolutionary?! Huh?!
Dialogue: Why Was Martin Luther Excommunicated? / Questions Concerning Luther's Expressed Obedience to the Pope's Decision Regarding His Orthodoxy
Was Corruption in the Medieval Papacy the Primary Cause of the Protestant Revolt?
Lutherans (and other Protestants) know we don't call ourselves by those terms (papist, Romanist) but no matter, they are used, anyway. And that is a question of preferred title (an ethical issue of rudimentary courtesy universally acknowledged), whereas the other involves complicated metaphysical-theological distinctions, and so, by virtue of that, is not nearly as straightforward or simple a matter compared to the alternate names Catholics are called.
April 19, 2011
Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman on the Nature and Pursuit of Truth
. . . it is obvious that to be in earnest in seeking the truth is an indispensable requisite for finding it. Indeed, it would not be necessary to notice so evident a proposition, had it not been for the strange conduct of the ancient philosophers in their theories concerning nature and man. It seems as though only one or two of them were serious and sincere in their inquiries and teaching. Most of them considered speculations on philosophical subjects rather in the light of an amusement than of a grave employment,— as an exercise for ingenuity, or an indulgence of fancy,—to display their powers, to collect followers, or for the sake of gain. . . . truth is too sacred and religious a thing to be sacrificed to the mere gratification of the fancy, or amusement of the mind, or party spirit, or the prejudices of education, or attachment (however amiable) to the opinions of human teachers, . . .
(Oxford University Sermons, Sermon 1: "The Philosophical Temper, First Enjoined by the Gospel," 2 July 1826)
That Truth, which St. Paul preached, addresses itself to our spiritual nature: it will be rightly understood, valued, accepted, by none but lovers of truth, virtue, purity, humility, and peace. Wisdom will be justified of her children. Those, indeed, who are thus endowed may and will go on to use their powers of mind, whatever they are, in the service of religion; none but they can use them aright. Those who reject revealed truth wilfully, are such as do not love moral and religious truth. . . . If men turn unto fables of their own will, they do it on account of their pride, or their love of indolence and self-indulgence. . . . Is it not plain that earnestness is necessary for gaining religious truth? . . . let us consider for an instant how eagerly men in general pursue objects of this world; now with what portion of this eagerness do they exert themselves to know the truth of God's word? Undeniable, then, as is the doctrine that God does not reveal Himself to those who do not seek Him, it is certain that its truth is not really felt by us, or we should seek Him more earnestly than we do. Nothing is more common than to think that we shall gain religious knowledge as a thing of course, without express trouble on our part. Though there is no art or business of this world which is learned without time and exertion, yet it is commonly conceived that the knowledge of God and our duty will come as if by accident or by a natural process. Men go by their feelings and likings; they take up what is popular, or what comes first to hand. They think it much if they now and then have serious thoughts, if they now and then open the Bible; and their minds recur with satisfaction to such seasons, as if they had done some very great thing, never remembering that to seek and gain religious truth is a long and systematic work. And others think that education will do every thing for them, and that if they learn to read, and use religious words, they understand religion itself. And others again go so far as to maintain that exertion is not necessary for discovering the truth.
(Parochial and Plain Sermons, Vol. VIII, Sermon 13: "Truth Hidden When Not Sought After," 17 October 1830)
. . . it has been upheld in the world not as a system, not by books, not by argument, nor by temporal power, but by the personal influence of such men as have already been described, who are at once the teachers and the patterns of it . . .
(Oxford University Sermons, Sermon 5: "Personal Influence, the Means of Propagating the Truth," 22 January 1832)
I fear it must be confessed, that our kindness, instead of being directed and braced by principle, too often becomes languid and unmeaning; that it is exerted on improper objects, and out of season, and thereby is uncharitable in two ways, indulging those who should be chastised, and preferring their comfort to those who are really deserving. We are over-tender in dealing with sin and sinners. We are deficient in jealous custody of the revealed Truths which Christ has left us. We allow men to speak against the Church, its ordinances, or its teaching, without remonstrating with them.
(Parochial and Plain Sermons, Vol. II, Sermon 23: "Tolerance of Religious Error," Dec. 1834)
. . . an attempt to make numbers, and not the Truth, the ground of maintaining, or not maintaining, this or that creed, as if we had any reason whatever in Scripture for thinking that the many will be in the right, and the few in the wrong?
(Tracts for the Times #83, 1838)
What is right and what is happy cannot in the long run and on a large scale be disjoined. To follow after truth can never be a subject of regret; . . . I say, then, that never to have been troubled with a doubt about the truth of what has been taught us, is the happiest state of mind . . .
(Tracts for the Times #85, Sep. 1838)
There are ten thousand ways of looking at this world, but only one right way. The man of pleasure has his way, the man of gain his, and the man of intellect his. Poor men and rich men, governors and governed, prosperous and discontented, learned and unlearned, each has his own way of looking at the things which come before him, and each has a wrong way. There is but one right way; it is the way in which God looks at the world. Aim at looking at it in God's way. Aim at seeing things as God sees them. Aim at forming judgments about persons, events, ranks, fortunes, changes, objects, such as God forms. Aim at looking at this life as God looks at it. Aim at looking at the life to come, and the world unseen, as God does. Aim at "seeing the King in his beauty." All things that we see are but shadows to us and delusions, unless we enter into what they really mean. . . . That a thing is true, is no reason that it should be said, but that it should be done; that it should be acted upon; that it should be made our own inwardly.
(Parochial and Plain Sermons, Vol. V, Sermon 3: "Unreal Words," 2 June 1839)
Only one is the truth and the perfect truth; and which that is, none know but those who are in possession of it, if even they. But God knows which it is; and towards that one and only Truth He is leading us forward. He is leading forward His redeemed, He is training His elect, one and all, to the one perfect knowledge and obedience of Christ; not, however, without their cooperation, but by means of calls which they are to obey, and which if they do not obey, they lose place, and fall behind in their heavenly course.
(Parochial and Plain Sermons, Vol. VIII, Sermon 2: "Divine Calls," 1843)
Truth is the principle on which all intellectual, and therefore all theological inquiries proceed, and is the motive power which gives them effect; but the principle of popular edification, quickened by a keen sensitiveness of the chance of scandals, is as powerful as Truth, when the province is Religion.
(Via Media, Vol. I, Preface to the Third Edition, 1877)
April 15, 2011
The Bronze Serpent as an Illustration of the Proper and Improper (Idolatrous) Use of Images as Part of Religion and Piety
Numbers 21:6-9 (RSV) Then the LORD sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people, so that many people of Israel died. [7] And the people came to Moses, and said, "We have sinned, for we have spoken against the LORD and against you; pray to the LORD, that he take away the serpents from us." So Moses prayed for the people. [8] And the LORD said to Moses, "Make a fiery serpent, and set it on a pole; and every one who is bitten, when he sees it, shall live." [9] So Moses made a bronze serpent, and set it on a pole; and if a serpent bit any man, he would look at the bronze serpent and live.
2 Kings 18:4 He removed the high places, and broke the pillars, and cut down the Ashe'rah. And he broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had burned incense to it; it was called Nehush'tan.
These passages teach us many things. Iconoclastic Calvinists (i.e., those who oppose all use of images whatever in Christian worship or piety) argue that they can never be used, and that their use always constitutes "idolatry" regardless of one's intentions or inner state of mind. But these two Bible passages establish many "Catholic" elements (ones anathema to many Protestants):
1) Moses could "atone" for the people. They were being judged by God, but the mere prayers of Moses were able to stop that. His prayers, therefore, had more power than the prayers of any old person in the Hebrew community. Yet many Protestants deny this, in direct opposition to not only this passage, but also James 5:16b (citing the example of Elijah in context): "The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects."
2) The bronze serpent not only is a foreshadowing of Christ on the cross (John 3:14: "And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of man be lifted up"), but also an instance of a "sacramental" aid: use of a physical thing in order to grant more grace or spiritual power or pardon. The people had to do something: look at the serpent -- not merely abstractly believe that God would pardon them.
3) It shows, moreover, that visual aids in receiving pardon and life (by analogy, salvation) from God are perfectly permissible: indeed, expressly commanded by God in this instance.
4) Thus, there is an image that is not a"graven image" -- forbidden by the Ten Commandments. Not all images in spirituality and worship are bad and wicked by their mere existence, apart from how people use them.
5) 2 Kings 18:4 again reveals to us that it was not the image itself that was inherently wrong, but a corrupt use of it. The proper use was explained by God in the earlier passage. The improper, sinful, wicked use was burning incense to it, because that implies that it is an idol, with the power of God. It then replaces God in a way that it did not in its proper use and becomes an idol: precisely due to how people regard it: not in and of itself, by its own essence. This shows that idolatry is a matter of the intentions of the ones engaging in the sin.
6) The same principle is also illustrated by the Temple itself: it was the house of God only so long as the Hebrews abided by God's commandments. Thus, three Temples were built, and three were destroyed in judgment after the Jews had sunk into idolatry. The Temples had ornate visual ornamentation, including large statues of cherubim and other paintings of symbols. Those were not idols as originally intended, but when the Jews went astray, the inner meaning of the Temple was corrupted and God was all too willing to destroy His own "house." Solomon's Temple (1 Kings 6:23-35) had been approved by God ("I have consecrated this house which you have built" -- 1 Kings 9:3). The prophet Jeremiah expressly states this notion:
Jeremiah 7:3-15, 30 Thus says the LORD of hosts, the God of Israel, Amend your ways and your doings, and I will let you dwell in this place. [4] Do not trust in these deceptive words: `This is the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD, the temple of the LORD.' [5] "For if you truly amend your ways and your doings, if you truly execute justice one with another, [6] if you do not oppress the alien, the fatherless or the widow, or shed innocent blood in this place, and if you do not go after other gods to your own hurt, [7] then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave of old to your fathers for ever. [8] "Behold, you trust in deceptive words to no avail. [9] Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, burn incense to Ba'al, and go after other gods that you have not known, [10] and then come and stand before me in this house, which is called by my name, and say, `We are delivered!' -- only to go on doing all these abominations? [11] Has this house, which is called by my name, become a den of robbers in your eyes? Behold, I myself have seen it, says the LORD. [12] Go now to my place that was in Shiloh, where I made my name dwell at first, and see what I did to it for the wickedness of my people Israel. [13] And now, because you have done all these things, says the LORD, and when I spoke to you persistently you did not listen, and when I called you, you did not answer, [14] therefore I will do to the house which is called by my name, and in which you trust, and to the place which I gave to you and to your fathers, as I did to Shiloh. [15] And I will cast you out of my sight, as I cast out all your kinsmen, all the offspring of E'phraim.. . . [30] "For the sons of Judah have done evil in my sight, says the LORD; they have set their abominations in the house which is called by my name, to defile it."
John Bugay and Pope Benedict XVI's Alleged "Pantheism": Even Fellow Anti-Catholics Know This is a Stupid, Groundless Charge
I've been criticizing for months now, anti-Catholic (and former Catholic) John "Blowhard" Bugay's ridiculous charge that the Holy Father is a "pantheist" (one who believes that everything or "all" is "God"). It's not worthy of a full response, of course, so ludicrous is it; thus I simply noted it in passing: five months ago in a post about John Q. Doe:
Right now, for example, on Doe's site his blowhard "has no idea how profoundly ignorant he is" associate John Bugay is actually arguing with a straight face that Pope Benedict XVI is "pretty much a full-blown pantheist".
I mentioned it again recently (I believe, in a Facebook comment). But this passes for standard fare over at the Boors All blog. Thankfully, however, even over there, with their rock-bottom standards regarding fairness and adequate documentation toward or about the Catholic Church, and almost nonexistent logical acumen, some folks are finally starting to get it now, and to criticize Bugay (in public). Better late than never. It takes an anti-Catholic, apparently, five months to figure out what is patently, immediately obvious to any normal Christian observer of average intelligence and knowledge.
The Johnny-come-lately critics realize that this makes anti-Catholics look even more absurd than they already do (which is pretty tough to do: the "bar" being so extremely low already!), and that it's not helping their case. I'm not allowed to comment over there anymore (what else is new?), but it's gratifying to know that opinions I have expressed for months now are starting to be adopted there. Readers may be assured that the good folks at Boors All have been aware of my criticisms because it is known that they keep track of my latest writings (since they are not infrequently cited -- minus my name, of course).
It's always fascinating to observe anti-Catholic civil wars, too. We haven't had this much fun since Bishop James White and David T. King Tut savaged former comrade Tim "the Polemicist" Enloe (and vice versa), and the entertaining endless battles at the old notorious "Reformed Catholicism" website.
Bugay's words will be in red, Ron DiGiacomo's in blue, John Q. "Deadhead" Doe's in green, Brigitte's in purple, and Matthew D. Schultz's in brown (anti-Catholics all). The following excerpts are taken from the post originally titled (later this was changed under internal pressure): The Devotional Life of the Modern Pantheist, Bishop Joseph Ratzinger, and combox underneath it.
* * * * *
As a follow-up to some comments in this thread, I would like to point out that I have previously (and extensively) both defined my use of the word "pantheism" in respect to Ratzinger. This post was a follow-on to a number of posts I've written about Ratzinger. . . . The definition that I gave came in this post:
Pope Starshine, Part 3
The definition is from Michael Horton's new Systematic Theology. Technically it is "panentheism", but I believe it can be used as a subset of "pantheism". . . .
Ratzinger: Resurrection of the Dead is only "symbolically" proclaimed in the Bible, 1
Ratzinger: Resurrection of the Dead is only "symbolically" proclaimed in the Bible, 2
The Pantheism of Roman Catholicism
Pope Starshine, Part 1
Pope Starshine, Part 2
The first post among those five were prompted by this post by a Reformed author in a Reformed publication, Banner of Truth:
Does the Pope Believe in the Resurrection?
I would also point to this post:
Called to Confusion
And note Ratzinger's use of the term "fusion of existences" in his 1991 work "Called to Communion"
I believe in all of these cases, the biblical doctrine of "Union with Christ" is not in evidence; rather, it is something different and all-encompassing in Ratzinger's citations of this "fusion of existences" and some of the other things I have cited at length. Ratzinger is named but the tendency extends to very much that goes by the name "Roman Catholic" these days.
I can't imagine that Ratzinger ever thought that if God is omnipresent that he cannot be local too. And it's doubtful that he denies the real presence doctrine of Rome. I would imagine that his point, maybe lost in the translation . . . I'm all for winning but not at any cost. Moreover, I'm not sure how pantheistic tendencies would lead to God not being localized. (4-14-11)
I take that merely to mean that our lives are to be living epistles - no more no less, but to try to get pantheism out of that is I think a bit unjust. Our words must be charitable and true, no matter who we're trying to take down. In light of this, let me revisit a recent sentiment of mine - that if we would just stick to substantial arguments against official doctrine, e.g., merit etc., then we need not fish around for cryptic quotes from recent popes, which in any case aren't dogma and binding. (4-14-11)
This time, they have a pope who's a pantheist and who embraces a time-honored Roman Catholic practice as "senseless". . . . But next time, they may get a pope who wants to, for example, extend the Trinity to include Mary, or to throw out some other time-honored Christian doctrine. It's all just rearranging the deck chairs on a sinking ship, to be sure. (4-14-11)
I read the German that someone provided, and all it is saying if you want to give a reason to go to church, don't make it this one, that God lives there (as if he were not anywhere else and you could not pray to him from another place also.) There is nothing pantheistic about the whole section. For interest sake, though, and to show how God's omnipresence is not thought of as pantheism, and how he is believed to be present in special way in the supper, I've dug up this quote from Brecht: Luther, Shaping and Defining the Reformation pp. 311, 312. (4-14-11)
I would be cautious with the word pantheism. That is, in order to properly critique Ratzinger, I think the term should be defined carefully. Then, a search as to Ratzinger's usage of the term. (4-14-11)
. . . what I find interesting is that there is no rational way to impugn this pope on that quote in the manner in which John chose. John tends to jump the gun way too often. We should never read someone contrary to a way that is intelligible and orthodox in order to impugn. (4-15-11)
Let's assume John is wrong here (I don't know either way; I haven't followed this particular issue of pantheism in any detailed manner). There's no need to use this as an opportunity to take public shots at his overall apologetic and all but say that his motives are impure. There are going to be Catholic bloggers who will pick up on your comment and say, "See, even his Reformed brethren think he's a total hack." [Bingo!] Don't give our theological opponents unnecessary fuel for their slanderous apologetics machine. If you really have an issue with John's methodology, write a post critiquing it over at your blog, with supporting documentation and arguments, rather than throwing out something unsubstantiated, bordering on defamatory. (4-15-11)
[responding to the fool "Viisaus's" post] We're to strive to be logicians, not mind readers. Your post is simply an excuse to make anything out of something. (4-15-11)
That was uncalled for. (4-15-11)
Matthew, One can be a total hack, as you put it, and not have "impure" motives. I'm happy to affirm the former because that's something I can observe. I cannot observe the latter. But to your main point, what's worse – for Romanists to see that an epologist formulates terrible arguments without being taken to task by his fellow brothers, or for Protestants to look the other way when a brother makes ridiculous assertions? Recklessness is an embarrassment to Protestants. (4-15-11) [Amen!]
Ron, you have my email address. A public forum is not the place for such exercises.(4-15-11)
I'm not saying that you should look the other way. You see an error, fine, correct it, as I would do the same thing; I certainly thought your response to Trueman was a tediously dull exercise in sticking your head in the sand, and I had no problem engaging it over at your blog. The point here is that you made a broad characterization of John's entire apologetic without supporting documentation and arguments. If you think there's a systematic problem here, go demonstrate a systematic problem (or, if it has already been done, cite someone who has made such a demonstration). Go to your blog and do that, rather than taking unsupported shots at John. Go "put some meat on the bones," to paraphrase your standards. (4-15-11)
OK, I'll probably get everyone mad at me here. So be it. I would agree that this quote, without argued exegesis or expanded context can't necessarily impugn Cardinal Ratzinger as a pantheist. It's up to John to prove his case from the context. That's the same standard I typically hold romanists to when I research Luther quotes. . . . for me to be consistent here, I've got to side with Ron. I'm not convinced this quote says what John says it does. . . . Once again, context, context, context. If one makes a charge, show me don't tell me. So far, I've seen a bunch of assertions, but no one is doing the work of context exegesis as outlined above.. . . I agree with Ron here. Until the work of contextual exegesis is done, the comments from Viisaus on this particular quote don't mean anything. (4-15-11)
I think it's the case that any personal criticism about John (or even myself) should be done in private. . . . We also need to be sensitive and weigh serious criticisms brought against us from respected sources. I have been taught from people behind the scenes, and am still being taught. Ron has a point as well. If I blow an argument, I hope one of you will let me know. . . . With this particular post, I think it's obvious where I stand. The type of argumentation and scrutiny that I subject Romanist sources to in regard to Luther needs to be applied to Ratzinger. (4-15-11)
I've touched base with Turretinfan -- I freely admit I am not Turretinfan -- and he suggested taking down this whole thread and reworking it. Contrary to what Ron has suggested, I have, on many occasions, asked Turretinfan (and others) to let me know when I'm saying something stupid. (4-15-11)
* * *
If TAO ("Turretinfan") is regarded as the Wise Man and standard of truth at Boors All, this whole thing has gotten exponentially wackier and funnier than it already was! TAO is a virtual walking textbook example of dense, dopey, clueless illogic in theology, as I have shown time and again in many papers. But he is relatively smarter than Bugay, for sure. John Bugay is sort of the "Jack Chick" of present active anti-Catholics online. The more ignorant he is about some aspect of Catholicism, inevitably in that direct proportion he writes that much more about it (the present case being the most striking instance thus far). He picks up the "ultra-ridiculous clown" mantle abandoned by Eric Svendsen when he decided to forsake Internet anti-Catholic polemics altogether.
Ron DiGiacomo (like Doe himself) is equally clueless in many ways, too. After all, he is also an anti-Catholic, and everyone with that view commits intellectual suicide by adopting viciously circular and indefensible premises and conclusions flowing from them (as I have shown many times; particularly in my long written debate with Bishop James White in 1995). He also deleted my comments from his blog (to join the long, illustrious list of anti-Catholic censors and thought police). So it is only a matter of degree in the end (how much error any given anti-Catholic adopts). But -- that said -- he is exactly correct about "Blowhard" Bugay. The latter doesn't have the slightest idea what he is talking about, but it never stops him, and Doe lets him blow his flat, spit-filled bugle all day long . . .
This will be really fun to observe as time goes on. DiGiacomo will either have to be banned from Boors All or Bugay will have to shut up or be shut up. Either way, the folly of anti-Catholicism and its low standards will be revealed yet again (for the trillionth time) for what they are. We'll either watch a huge civil war and self-destruction (a la Luther and Zwingli), or, if Bugay ceases his nonsense, then the All-Knowing, All-Wise John Q. "Deadhead" Doe: the Grand Poobah at Boors All, will have admitted, in effect, that he was perfectly content to allow utter nonsense and absurdity to be promulgated on his blog, for many months, before someone (i.e., besides myself) finally spoke out against it. He has already admitted that the Bugay pantheist posts do not reach a minimal level of seriousness that he thinks his posts about Luther do. Yet he was happy to allow several of them to be posted, for over six months now. Can I hear, "double standard"?
This is all very good for the cause of Catholicism and the pursuit of Truth and intelligent discourse in general.
* * *
UPDATE: 4-16-11, 3;30 PM EST: Sure enough (with utter predictability), Doe decided to pull the plug on the entire thread, so all of the above is now offline, in accordance with the moral cowardice of the folks at Boors All. No doubt they found out about this post of mine and decided to hide all the evidence (just like Doe did when he deleted all the comments he made on another site about my supposed profound mental illness). Fortunately I preserved this thread, so we can know about the dissent in the ranks. Doe himself is the king of pulling up from Internet Archive old 1991 papers of mine about Luther, knowing full well that I have revised or refined several of my opinions about him, these past 20 years. So he can't complain if I have taken pains to preserve what he now wants to pretend never existed. Goose and gander . . .
A quick search of "pantheism" on the site reveals that at least some of the old Bugay "pope is a pantheist" garbage is still posted at Boors All, so nothing has really changed. They just want to hide the recent public fracas and cover up the agenda. Thanks for the entertainment, guys!
April 13, 2011
Biblical Evidence for Praying to and Worshiping God While Bowing or Kneeling Before a Statue of a Creature Made by Human Hands
Is this sort of thing permissible? On the surface of it, it seems absurd, according to a Protestant worldview, and especially in a Protestant iconoclastic (usually Calvinist) view. It may even strike some Catholics as an odd thing, put this way (and I purposely wanted to make the title of this post as "striking" as I could, to pique folks' curiosity). Yet (shockingly enough) it is entirely justified by explicit, expressly sanctioned (by God) biblical data, as I shall show further below.
First, let us consider for a moment what three anti-Catholic Protestants (the first a Baptist: Ken Temple, the second and third, Presbyterians: The Anonymous One or TAO, and Ron DiGiacomo) stated about such a scenario, in a recent combox thread at the Boors All blog:
Alright; having been instructed by these three giants of Christian theology and spirituality, we summarize from the above, the following things:
Now I shall proceed to demolish all this from Holy Scripture (which prevails against mere man-made false traditions and notions every time). Remember the title of this post: "Biblical Evidence for Praying to and Worshiping God While Bowing or Kneeling Before a Statue of a Creature Made by Human Hands." This practice was indeed permitted by God in the Old Covenant (and Jesus said that He came to fulfill the law, not abolish it: Matthew 5:17-20).
If we can demonstrate that statues were properly connected (in any way) with prayer and worship in the Old Testament, then icons would be another instance of the same thing (a visual representation of some sort). That covers #1, #3, and #5. I have shown the biblical sanction of relics, with explicit examples, in my book, Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths (the best proofs being 2 Kgs 2:11-14; 13:20-21; and Acts 19:11-12). That disposes of #2 and also #4 (wicked touchy-feely things).
#6 is demolished by showing an instance of such created images being used in worship of the true God, and not being condemned as idolatry in the Bible, when they occur, which I shall do shortly. Moreover, in my recent paper, Dishonest, Illogical Sleight-of-Hand (From Anti-Catholics TAO and Ken Temple) in the Accusation of Alleged Catholic Idolatrous Worship at Mass, I gave many, many biblical examples of true idolaters actually believing that inanimate created objects were gods other than the one God of Israel: creator of heaven and earth, and thus worshiping the created matter as God (or gods). The normal description for idolatry in the Old Testament is that sort of scenario. This puts the lie to the thought of #6 above, that idolatry (as biblically described and condemned) is usually using an image as a means to the end of worshiping God or false gods.
#7 is a little indirect, since there are no man-made statues of Jesus mentioned in the New Testament. But I would contend that if images of created things are permissible, then it would certainly also be permissible to have a statue of Jesus, Who is, by the Incarnation, the eikon (or "image") of the invisible God (Col 1:15), because if the more supposedly "objectionable" thing is allowed (statues of creatures as devotional aids), then the relatively less objectionable thing also would be (a statue of Jesus Who actually was a man Who could be seen and touched).
The same thought takes out #8 (at least viewed from the vantage-point of the Incarnation having already taken place), but since TAO and Ken Temple have argued that all images whatsoever as devotional aids are idolatrous outrages, a statue of Jesus would be included anyway. Showing the permissibility of a non-Jesus visual aid would also by simple deduction justify the statue of Jesus.
The Jews were commanded to fashion the ark of the covenant (Ex 25: 8 ff.). God revealed to them that He was present in a special, profound sense above the mercy seat on top of it (Ex 25:22; 30:6; Lev 16:2; Num 7:89; 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 1 Chron 13:6). It even contained manna inside (Heb 9:2-4), and bread and wine were priestly offerings (Gen 14:18; Lev 23:3; Num 15:5, 7, 10). The Jews bowed towards the temple when they prayed and worshiped (2 Chron 7:3; Ps 5:7; 138:2), which was a physical object thought to be particularly holy precisely because God was "specially present" inside of it.
Now here is the "clincher" and where the point is established beyond any doubt: the Jews would not only bow down, but prostrate themselves before the ark of the covenant and pray and worship God . That's already an inanimate object fashioned by mens' hands, and people are bowing before it. That is gross idolatry, according to the ridiculously unbiblical mentalities of TAO and Ken. Remember, above, how Ken stated that "being able to feel and touch and see . . . 'devotional helps' is really idolatry." And TAO (whom we all know is and must be infallible at all times) informed us that "only the most stupid idolaters think the idol is the thing being worshiped. They all claim to be worshiping something by means of the image." Here are the biblical proofs:
You may wonder at this point what any of this has to do with statues? Well, the statues were the large cherubim that sat atop the ark of the covenant: representations of winged celestial beings, with feet and hands. God said that He was "enthroned" on the mercy seat on top of the ark, between the two cherubim with outstretched wings (see references above for the mercy seat; also the passage immediately above; Ps 80:1; 99:1; Is 37:16; Ezek 10:4; Heb 9:5). These were described in the detailed instructions for constructing the ark (Ex 25:18-22).
Therefore, whenever the Jews or the high priest alone or other important figures prayed and worshiped before the ark of the covenant, they were doing so also before two statues (of creatures) made by men . The objections above, from unbiblical traditions of men, are thus annihilated from explicit Scripture. God can't command and condone in one place what He supposedly condemned and prohibited in another.
Moreover, it wasn't just the ark of the covenant that had statues on it. The temple itself was filled with images and statues of cherubim (Ex 26:31; 2 Chron 3:7), so that every time worship took place in it, statues and other images were involved. The New Bible Dictionary ("Cherubim"; 1962 ed., p. 208) states:
The argument is then made (by those who only dimly understand the Bible and relationship between the Old and New Covenants), that this was done away with in the New Covenant. That's too hasty of a conclusion, since Jesus said that the Law was still very much intact (Matthew 5:17-20). He commanded His followers to obey the teachings of the Pharisees, who strictly followed the law (Matthew 23:1-3). St. Paul called himself a Pharisee three times, after the resurrection (Acts 23:6; 26:5; Philippians 3:5). Paul showed respect to the high priest, even when he was on trial (Acts 23:4-5). Jesus and His followers observed the Jewish feasts and rituals, and worshiped in the Temple. The Bible even gives an account of the high priest Caiaphas (who helped condemn Jesus) actually giving a true prophecy about Jesus (John 11:47-52).
When addressing non-Christian Jews (Jews who practice Judaism and do not accept Jesus as Messiah), Paul calls them "brethren." (Acts 13:26,38; 22:1; 23:1,5-6). He and his companion were called "brethren" too, by the "rulers of the synagogue" in at least one instance (Acts 13:15). Cf. Acts 18:8: "Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with all his household . . ." St. Stephen did the same before a council with Jewish elders, scribes, and the high priest (Acts 6:12; 7:1), addressing them as "brethren and fathers" (7:2). Paul used the exactly same terminology, as recorded in Acts 22:1. Paul was still worshiping and even presiding over the services in synagogues (Acts 13:13-44). Acts 18:4 describes Paul as having "argued in the synagogue every sabbath," thus implying that he was worshiping there, too. He wouldn't just barge in after the service and start arguing. He would have worshiped with them first.
Acts 3:1 tells us that Peter and John were worshiping at the Temple, during the ninth hour. The notes in my RSV explain that the ninth hour was 3 PM "when sacrifice was offered with prayer (Ex 29.39; Lev. 6.20; Josephus, Ant. xiv.4.3)." Acts 2:46 described the early Christians as "day by day, attending the temple together." This would have certainly included St. Paul, too, when he was in Jerusalem, and he himself alludes to his presence in the Temple as well as synagogues (Acts 24:12), and is described as continuing to participate in Temple rituals (Acts 21:26: "Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself with them and went into the temple, to give notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for every one of them" -- cf. 25:8: "Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended at all"). In Acts 22:7 he refers to his practice of "praying in the temple," and in Acts 24:18 as having been "purified in the temple" (see also 24:17: "I came to bring to my nation alms and offerings").
The first Christians (and Jesus Himself) were still worshiping in the Temple, and abiding by Jewish rituals. The sacrifices were still being made there. Herod's Temple (the third one built) no longer had the statues of cherubim, but "the walls were painted with figures of them (see Talm Ydma' 54a)" (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: "Cherubim"). Therefore, they prayed and worshiped, in New Covenant times (including the period after the Ascension of Jesus and Pentecost), with the aid of images , in plain sight, in the Temple.
Excavations in Samaria in Israel uncovered a number of ivory plaques dating from the ninth to tenth centuries (the time of the Solomon's temple). These ivories provide the closest surviving examples of the decorations of Solomon's temple. The example here depicts two cherubim.
No (desperate) objection can be made concerning the absence of literal statues in the third (Herod's) Temple, however, because the ones in Solomon's Temple (1 Kgs 6:23-35) had been approved by God ("I have consecrated this house which you have built" -- 1 Kgs 9:3). God couldn't say one thing at one time, and change His mind later on and say it was now a grave sin (the omniscient God cannot change His mind, and that would overthrow His own morality, anyway, which is equally impossible). Therefore, having mere paintings later rather than statues is no indication that anything had fundamentally changed. Herod (not the most pious man of all time in the first place) simply built according to a plan other than the original one, recorded in the Bible.
Case closed . . .
***
First, let us consider for a moment what three anti-Catholic Protestants (the first a Baptist: Ken Temple, the second and third, Presbyterians: The Anonymous One or TAO, and Ron DiGiacomo) stated about such a scenario, in a recent combox thread at the Boors All blog:
. . . being able to feel and touch and see the relics and statues and icons and other "devotional helps" is really idolatry; but the RC or former Protestant doesn't see it; he or she is deceived. Officially, they say "no"; but in reality, they are involved in idolatry . . .
Of course, they don't use the word "idolatry" to describe their own practices, but they make and bow down to statues (2nd commandment idolatry) . . . I've already pointed out that only the most stupid idolaters think the idol is the thing being worshiped. They all claim to be worshiping something by means of the image, except in the most extreme cases.
Is to knowingly kneel before a statue-likeness of Jesus while praying to God through the true Jesus a violation the Second Commandment? . . . would it have been acceptable for a Jew to kneel before a statue of Messiah prior to the incarnation while praying to God? If that would have been sin, then why may a Romanist do the same thing today?
Alright; having been instructed by these three giants of Christian theology and spirituality, we summarize from the above, the following things:
1) Statues (connected with prayer or worship) are idols.
2) Relics are idols.
3) Icons are idols.
4) #1-3 are idols because we are "able to feel and touch and see" them.
5) Making and bowing down to a statue is "2nd commandment idolatry".
6) Even if one understands that the inanimate object used in devotion (statue, etc.) is not the true God (or gods) being worshiped or prayed to or asked to intercede (as most folks who do these things do indeed grasp -- it is freely granted by the critic), it is nevertheless still idolatry, simply by virtue of the presence of the image itself. Whether the image is the means or the end in the act of worship or prayer, idolatry is occurring.
7) The 2nd commandment (prohibition of idolatry) is violated even if the statue is of Jesus, and even if the person praying is knowingly praying to the "true Jesus" to God the Father, using the statue as a mere devotional or visual aid.
8) A Jew during Old Covenant could not make a statue of the Messiah as an aid to prayer or worship (arguably -- but not necessarily -- implied: any and all statues as devotional aids were forbidden).
Now I shall proceed to demolish all this from Holy Scripture (which prevails against mere man-made false traditions and notions every time). Remember the title of this post: "Biblical Evidence for Praying to and Worshiping God While Bowing or Kneeling Before a Statue of a Creature Made by Human Hands." This practice was indeed permitted by God in the Old Covenant (and Jesus said that He came to fulfill the law, not abolish it: Matthew 5:17-20).
If we can demonstrate that statues were properly connected (in any way) with prayer and worship in the Old Testament, then icons would be another instance of the same thing (a visual representation of some sort). That covers #1, #3, and #5. I have shown the biblical sanction of relics, with explicit examples, in my book, Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths (the best proofs being 2 Kgs 2:11-14; 13:20-21; and Acts 19:11-12). That disposes of #2 and also #4 (wicked touchy-feely things).
#6 is demolished by showing an instance of such created images being used in worship of the true God, and not being condemned as idolatry in the Bible, when they occur, which I shall do shortly. Moreover, in my recent paper, Dishonest, Illogical Sleight-of-Hand (From Anti-Catholics TAO and Ken Temple) in the Accusation of Alleged Catholic Idolatrous Worship at Mass, I gave many, many biblical examples of true idolaters actually believing that inanimate created objects were gods other than the one God of Israel: creator of heaven and earth, and thus worshiping the created matter as God (or gods). The normal description for idolatry in the Old Testament is that sort of scenario. This puts the lie to the thought of #6 above, that idolatry (as biblically described and condemned) is usually using an image as a means to the end of worshiping God or false gods.
#7 is a little indirect, since there are no man-made statues of Jesus mentioned in the New Testament. But I would contend that if images of created things are permissible, then it would certainly also be permissible to have a statue of Jesus, Who is, by the Incarnation, the eikon (or "image") of the invisible God (Col 1:15), because if the more supposedly "objectionable" thing is allowed (statues of creatures as devotional aids), then the relatively less objectionable thing also would be (a statue of Jesus Who actually was a man Who could be seen and touched).
The same thought takes out #8 (at least viewed from the vantage-point of the Incarnation having already taken place), but since TAO and Ken Temple have argued that all images whatsoever as devotional aids are idolatrous outrages, a statue of Jesus would be included anyway. Showing the permissibility of a non-Jesus visual aid would also by simple deduction justify the statue of Jesus.
The Jews were commanded to fashion the ark of the covenant (Ex 25: 8 ff.). God revealed to them that He was present in a special, profound sense above the mercy seat on top of it (Ex 25:22; 30:6; Lev 16:2; Num 7:89; 1 Sam 4:4; 2 Sam 6:2; 1 Chron 13:6). It even contained manna inside (Heb 9:2-4), and bread and wine were priestly offerings (Gen 14:18; Lev 23:3; Num 15:5, 7, 10). The Jews bowed towards the temple when they prayed and worshiped (2 Chron 7:3; Ps 5:7; 138:2), which was a physical object thought to be particularly holy precisely because God was "specially present" inside of it.
Now here is the "clincher" and where the point is established beyond any doubt: the Jews would not only bow down, but prostrate themselves before the ark of the covenant and pray and worship God . That's already an inanimate object fashioned by mens' hands, and people are bowing before it. That is gross idolatry, according to the ridiculously unbiblical mentalities of TAO and Ken. Remember, above, how Ken stated that "being able to feel and touch and see . . . 'devotional helps' is really idolatry." And TAO (whom we all know is and must be infallible at all times) informed us that "only the most stupid idolaters think the idol is the thing being worshiped. They all claim to be worshiping something by means of the image." Here are the biblical proofs:
Joshua 7:6-7 Then Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark of the LORD until the evening, he and the elders of Israel; and they put dust upon their heads. [7] And Joshua said, "Alas, O Lord GOD, why hast thou brought this people over the Jordan at all, to give us into the hands of the Amorites, to destroy us? Would that we had been content to dwell beyond the Jordan!"
1 Chronicles 16:1-2, 4 And they brought the ark of God, and set it inside the tent which David had pitched for it; and they offered burnt offerings and peace offerings before God. [2] And when David had finished offering the burnt offerings and the peace offerings, he blessed the people in the name of the LORD, . . . [4] Moreover he appointed certain of the Levites as ministers before the ark of the LORD, to invoke, to thank, and to praise the LORD, the God of Israel.
2 Kings 19:14-15 Hezeki'ah received the letter from the hand of the messengers, and read it; and Hezeki'ah went up to the house of the LORD, and spread it before the LORD. [15] And Hezeki'ah prayed before the LORD, and said: "O LORD the God of Israel, who art enthroned above the cherubim, thou art the God, thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth. [it's not absolutely certain that this is right before the ark, but it could quite possibly be, by the language used]
You may wonder at this point what any of this has to do with statues? Well, the statues were the large cherubim that sat atop the ark of the covenant: representations of winged celestial beings, with feet and hands. God said that He was "enthroned" on the mercy seat on top of the ark, between the two cherubim with outstretched wings (see references above for the mercy seat; also the passage immediately above; Ps 80:1; 99:1; Is 37:16; Ezek 10:4; Heb 9:5). These were described in the detailed instructions for constructing the ark (Ex 25:18-22).
Therefore, whenever the Jews or the high priest alone or other important figures prayed and worshiped before the ark of the covenant, they were doing so also before two statues (of creatures) made by men . The objections above, from unbiblical traditions of men, are thus annihilated from explicit Scripture. God can't command and condone in one place what He supposedly condemned and prohibited in another.
Moreover, it wasn't just the ark of the covenant that had statues on it. The temple itself was filled with images and statues of cherubim (Ex 26:31; 2 Chron 3:7), so that every time worship took place in it, statues and other images were involved. The New Bible Dictionary ("Cherubim"; 1962 ed., p. 208) states:
Figures of cherubim formed part of the lavish decorations of Solomon's Temple (1 Ki. 6:26 ff.). Two of these, carved in olivewood and overlaid with gold. dominated the inner sanctuary. They stood about 15 feet in height, with a total wing-spread of similar dimensions, and when placed together they covered one entire wall.
The argument is then made (by those who only dimly understand the Bible and relationship between the Old and New Covenants), that this was done away with in the New Covenant. That's too hasty of a conclusion, since Jesus said that the Law was still very much intact (Matthew 5:17-20). He commanded His followers to obey the teachings of the Pharisees, who strictly followed the law (Matthew 23:1-3). St. Paul called himself a Pharisee three times, after the resurrection (Acts 23:6; 26:5; Philippians 3:5). Paul showed respect to the high priest, even when he was on trial (Acts 23:4-5). Jesus and His followers observed the Jewish feasts and rituals, and worshiped in the Temple. The Bible even gives an account of the high priest Caiaphas (who helped condemn Jesus) actually giving a true prophecy about Jesus (John 11:47-52).
When addressing non-Christian Jews (Jews who practice Judaism and do not accept Jesus as Messiah), Paul calls them "brethren." (Acts 13:26,38; 22:1; 23:1,5-6). He and his companion were called "brethren" too, by the "rulers of the synagogue" in at least one instance (Acts 13:15). Cf. Acts 18:8: "Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord, together with all his household . . ." St. Stephen did the same before a council with Jewish elders, scribes, and the high priest (Acts 6:12; 7:1), addressing them as "brethren and fathers" (7:2). Paul used the exactly same terminology, as recorded in Acts 22:1. Paul was still worshiping and even presiding over the services in synagogues (Acts 13:13-44). Acts 18:4 describes Paul as having "argued in the synagogue every sabbath," thus implying that he was worshiping there, too. He wouldn't just barge in after the service and start arguing. He would have worshiped with them first.
Acts 3:1 tells us that Peter and John were worshiping at the Temple, during the ninth hour. The notes in my RSV explain that the ninth hour was 3 PM "when sacrifice was offered with prayer (Ex 29.39; Lev. 6.20; Josephus, Ant. xiv.4.3)." Acts 2:46 described the early Christians as "day by day, attending the temple together." This would have certainly included St. Paul, too, when he was in Jerusalem, and he himself alludes to his presence in the Temple as well as synagogues (Acts 24:12), and is described as continuing to participate in Temple rituals (Acts 21:26: "Then Paul took the men, and the next day he purified himself with them and went into the temple, to give notice when the days of purification would be fulfilled and the offering presented for every one of them" -- cf. 25:8: "Neither against the law of the Jews, nor against the temple, nor against Caesar have I offended at all"). In Acts 22:7 he refers to his practice of "praying in the temple," and in Acts 24:18 as having been "purified in the temple" (see also 24:17: "I came to bring to my nation alms and offerings").
The first Christians (and Jesus Himself) were still worshiping in the Temple, and abiding by Jewish rituals. The sacrifices were still being made there. Herod's Temple (the third one built) no longer had the statues of cherubim, but "the walls were painted with figures of them (see Talm Ydma' 54a)" (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: "Cherubim"). Therefore, they prayed and worshiped, in New Covenant times (including the period after the Ascension of Jesus and Pentecost), with the aid of images , in plain sight, in the Temple.
Excavations in Samaria in Israel uncovered a number of ivory plaques dating from the ninth to tenth centuries (the time of the Solomon's temple). These ivories provide the closest surviving examples of the decorations of Solomon's temple. The example here depicts two cherubim.No (desperate) objection can be made concerning the absence of literal statues in the third (Herod's) Temple, however, because the ones in Solomon's Temple (1 Kgs 6:23-35) had been approved by God ("I have consecrated this house which you have built" -- 1 Kgs 9:3). God couldn't say one thing at one time, and change His mind later on and say it was now a grave sin (the omniscient God cannot change His mind, and that would overthrow His own morality, anyway, which is equally impossible). Therefore, having mere paintings later rather than statues is no indication that anything had fundamentally changed. Herod (not the most pious man of all time in the first place) simply built according to a plan other than the original one, recorded in the Bible.
Case closed . . .
***
Facebook and Twitter Sharing Capability Now Enabled for All Posts and Pages on My Blog
[ source ] Finally! I tried about a month ago to do this but ran into some snags (I think it is because I had my Blogger Editor set on the old editor program or method). So I jumped through a few hoops today, tried it again, played around with settings, to get it right, and alas! now readers may share any and all of my free writings on Facebook or Twitter with a quick click of the mouse. That amounts to 2500+ posts and 50+ topical index web pages. I hope you do share them far and wide, because this helps me sell books and continue doing my apologetics work (in service to you) full-time.
For each post, on the upper left will be both the Facebook and Twitter buttons or logos / icons. Just click on either one to transfer a link to the post or web page over to your Facebook or Twitter page. That's all there is to it! The Twitter sharing button also includes the URL shortener, so it can fit into the quite limited maximum character requirement of Twitter. This is the feature most helpful to me as I share my own stuff onto my Twitter page.
If you are trying to do the same thing, here are the Facebook and Twitter share button instruction pages I used to set up my blog for this capacity. I'm only moderately skilled with regard to computers and setting up of blogs and web pages. If I could figure it out, so can you.
I also have the Odiogo "Listen Now" feature for all current posts (those on my current front page on my blog), near the Facebook and Twitter share buttons. This allows you to hear a computer voice audio recording of the post. For older posts it doesn't work. That "gizmo" has been there for a while. I don't know how many people ever use it, but it's there, anyway.I hope the sharing feature will make my blog more convenient for Facebook and Twitter folks. Please share my writing all you like. That helps me (exposure, leading to more book sales, so I can pay my bills, as a full-time apologist with a home-schooled family of six), and hopefully can be some help to people seeking to learn more about the Catholic faith and other issues that I write about.
As always, thanks for reading (I deeply appreciate it), and may God abundantly bless you.
Dave Armstrong's Blog
- Dave Armstrong's profile
- 20 followers
Dave Armstrong isn't a Goodreads Author
(yet),
but they
do have a blog,
so here are some recent posts imported from
their feed.
