Letter on Jesus' own claims to divinity

C----,

Thank you for clarifying your point. It is true that Jesus did not say "I am God" but he did nevertheless claim divinity. His claims were sometimes indirect, but they are there. I can think of at least three places where Jesus claims to be divine. The first is in John's Gospel where Jesus tells the Jews The Father and I are one (10:24-38). Like Matthew 28:18, this passage draws attention to the distinction between the divine persons within the Trinity as well as points to their unity. For Jesus says The Father and I, implying that Jesus himself is not the Father (for the Son is not the Father), but then he adds are one, implying that Jesus is equal to the Father. In order for Jesus to be equal to the Father, he must be divine; in order for Jesus not to be the Father, he must be a different person. Even the Jews to whom he was speaking understood that he was claiming to be God and they were therefore ready to stone him for blasphemy. When asked why they were going to stone him, the Jews replied because you, a mere man, claim to be God (10:33). Earlier in the same Gospel, in fact, the Jews had wanted to kill him for he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God (5:17-18). Apparently, this was something he did a lot. And if the cry of the crowd before the crucifixion is any indication - the cry that he called himself the "son of God" - Jesus must have frequently implied he was divine.

Another passage in which Jesus indirectly claims to be God is Mark 2: 5-11 (also, Luke 5:20-24). In this story of healing, when the paralytic is brought before Jesus, he says your sins are forgiven. Notice again that the Jews realize what he is doing, for they say to themselves Why does this fellow talk like that? He's blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone? The Jews realize that since only God can forgive sins, Jesus is acting as if he were God. Jesus knows the thoughts of their heart and says Which is easier: to say to the paralytic, 'Your sins are forgiven,' or to say, 'Get up, take your mat and walk'? But that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins . . . ." He said to the paralytic, "I tell you, get up, take your mat and go home." His question of which is easier is important because, judging from externals (as the teachers of the law were doing), it is more difficult to say "Get up and walk" since that can be verified by the senses. The claim "Your sins are forgiven," however, is easier to say (though not easier to do) since it can not be verified by the senses. Therefore, according to the pragmatic view, if Jesus can restore the paralytic, he must also be able to forgive sins. And since he acted as God, he must have thought he was God. Since he thought he was God, he was either right or wrong. If he was wrong, he was a lunatic. If he was right, he really was and is God.

Jesus' clearest declaration of his own divinity, however, is in John 8:58. In this passage, after the Jews ask who Jesus is (v. 50), he first implies he is greater than Abraham and then says it directly: before Abraham was, I am. In saying this, he uses the same expression that Yahweh used at Mt. Sinai in answer to Moses' question about who God is: "I am" (Ex. 3:14). The Jews, who were thoroughly familiar with the book of Exodus, knew exactly what Jesus was saying - that he existed before Abraham because he was eternal and, therefore, God - and they tried to stone him because of it (v. 59).

There are other passages that confirm this reading (Jn 13:13; Jn 6:46), but the passages mentioned seem to be the clearest presentation of who, according to the records we have, Jesus himself said he was, for he not only claimed to be eternal and one with the Father but he also acted as if he was God by forgiving sins.

Peace, etc.

commentary upon his post

The subject of the post is introduced by a quotation and a link to the source from which the quotation was drawn.

The Vatican issued a document Tuesday ratified and confirmed by Pope Benedict reasserting that the Roman Catholic Church is the only "true" church and that other denominations do not hold "the means to salvation." [article]

Next is his immediate reaction to Benedict’s statement—or rather, since he gives no sign of having read the document itself, to the article about Benedict’s statement.

Well isn't that precious.

Notice the ironic use of the word “precious.” The word does not mean “of high value” but the opposite. Yet as amusing and effective as irony can be, it is not a substitute for thinking or reasoning. For example, rather than critiquing this post I could have said, “Gee, your profound insights, thoughtful reactions, and well-informed opinions in this post are precious.” But I would rather use reason than irony since the calm, passionate defense of a belief more easily opens the way for response or even refutation. In the next sentence, he clarifies his personal reaction.

And by precious I mean sad—divorced from both the message of Jesus [Matthew 25:31-46] and from world history since then.

Here are two implied arguments. The first is that Matthew 25:31-46 somehow refutes or speaks against Catholicism in general and the papacy in particular. The second is that the history of the papacy somehow refutes or speaks against Catholicism in general and the papacy in particular. Neither argument, however, can be refuted because neither argument is clearly presented.

I can fairly quickly skip past the fury and right on to the bewilderment and pity.

Here the author lets us know which emotional states he passed through in the moments immediately after reading the news article.

It's just quite the mind-blow to see otherwise reasonably intelligent people—people talking into cell phones, for instance; these aren't jungle people—casually mention their assent to the exclusivist and [quite literally] self-righteous nature of the Roman bishop.

This is the second most interesting part of the whole post because he manages to use two logical fallacies in the same sentence. The first is the Appeal to Incredulity (e.g., “I don’t understand how anyone could argue from an appeal to incredulity”) and the second is the Appeal to Vanity (e.g., “You are far too intelligent to accept an argument based on an appeal to vanity”) [SOURCE]. Interestingly, the author manages to blend both of them into a single appeal that we can, for the sake of accuracy, call the Incredulity-Vanity Appeal. However, no honest thinker can accept the argument that because this writer does not understand how intelligent Catholics assent to their faith, that faith must therefore be wrong.

Also, according to this author, the “nature of the Roman bishop” is “[quite literally] self-righteous.” Due to an ambiguity, this charge may be taken in two ways. The first way is if Roman bishop, which properly denotes the pope’s person, is a metonym for Roman bishopric, which denotes his office. Or, if the words are taken as they stand, that the any pope is, presumably in the exercise of his office, self-righteous. What then is meant by “quite literally” self-righteous? The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language defines “self-righteous” as “piously sure of one's own righteousness” [SOURCE]. The word “piously” here is pejorative, meaning not “marked by earnest devoutness” but “marked by false devoutness” [2b]. The question at hand then is whether the papal office as such is sure of its own righteousness in a manner marked by false devoutness, or whether every pope as a pope has been sure of his own righteousness in a manner marked by false devoutness. And the second sense must be universal to every bishop of Rome, for a flaw in the nature of a thing must be universal to all instances of that thing.

The first sense, while supported by a later correspondence in which the author said “the papacy in and of itself is a self-righteous post,” is quite literally impossible since an office, having no consciousness, cannot be sure of anything. And the second sense—that in the exercise of his office the pope acts in a manner marked by false devoutness—begs the question, assuming that the bishop of Rome has not been granted his office by Christ.

Now we come to the most interesting part of post, the imaginary conversation between a Protestant and the pope.

Protestant: "And, why are you infallible again?"
Pope: "Because I said I was!"

In this passage the author has the pope claim that the ground of papal infallibility is the pope’s own assertion rather than, as Catholic’s believe, Christ’s promise to his Church. This is distortion number one.

Protestant: "Well, I happen to disagree. So there."
Pope: "Take it back!"

Here the author implies that every pope is merely a petty, power-hungry person incensed by disagreement. A more intimate acquaintance with the history of the popes, however, easily refutes this notion (vid. J. N. D. Kelly’s Dictionary of Popes). Distortion number two.

Protestant: "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason—for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves—I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me."
Pope: "Sorry, God's going to light you on fire forever."

Finally, in his third distortion, the author suggests that in his condemnation of error every pope secretly wishes that those in error burn forever in hell. There is no evidence, however, to support such a wild claim.

Thus we have three distortions of Catholicism, two fallacious appeals, and two implied arguments. (Apparently, I miscounted the number of appeals earlier.)

reactions

I've been thinking about the reaction that a Protestant acquaintance had to the recent statement on Catholic ecclesiology. He writes,

Well isn't that precious. And by precious I mean sad—divorced from both the message of Jesus [Matthew 25:31-46] and from world history since then. I can fairly quickly skip past the fury and right on to the bewilderment and pity. It's just quite the mind-blow to see otherwise reasonably intelligent people—people talking into cell phones, for instance; these aren't jungle people—casually mention their assent to the exclusivist and [quite literally] self-righteous nature of the Roman bishop.

Protestant: "And, why are you infallible again?"

Pope: "Because I said I was!"

Protestant: "Well, I happen to disagree. So there."

Pope: "Take it back!"

Protestant: "Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Holy Scriptures or by evident reason—for I can believe neither pope nor councils alone, as it is clear that they have erred repeatedly and contradicted themselves—I consider myself convicted by the testimony of Holy Scripture, which is my basis; my conscience is captive to the Word of God. Thus I cannot and will not recant, because acting against one's conscience is neither safe nor sound. God help me."

Pope: "Sorry, God's going to light you on fire forever."

I am not sure whether or not he has read the document itself—rather than its presentation in the media—and perhaps, even if he had, his reaction would be the same. Nevertheless, this seems to me to be a classic case in which someone outside the Catholic Church hears a statement made by the pope or one of the bishops and, without trying to understand the context in which it was made, reacts to the declaration in that sense by which he immediately understands it.

A quick read of the introduction, however, tells the reader that the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has in mind those Catholic theologians whose "new contributions to the field" of Catholic theology "are not immune from erroneous interpretation" when it comes to "the authentic meaning of some ecclesiological expressions." In other words, the magisterium is telling Catholic theologians, especially those writing today, to interpret Vatican II honestly and without equivocation—and telling them this by clarifying the meaning of the Council's words.

Magisterium [to Catholic theologians]: Don't misrepresent Vatican II.

Protestant: What! You think you're infallible! You're just a bunch of pitiable, self-righteous, stupid snobs!

Two things come to mind. The first is Newman's delightful parody of this kind of reaction in The Present Position of Catholics in England, the second these lines from Robert Frost's "Woodpile":

A small bird flew before me. He was careful
To put a tree between us when he lighted,
And say no word to tell me who he was
Who was so foolish as to think what he thought.
He thought that I was after him for a feather—
The white one in his tail; like one who takes
Everything said as personal to himself.
One flight out sideways would have undeceived him.

Letter to a Coworker on the Trinity

C---,

Matthew 28:19, especially the second half of the verse baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, is interesting and, as it happens, relevant to the Trinity for two reasons. First, because the text draws attention to the three: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. And second, because at the same time the text draws attention to their unity. For the passage reads in the name (singular), implying the three are also one, and not in the names (plural), implying the three are only three. Therefore, since the three share a single name, Matthew seems to suggest the three share a single nature, which in this case would be the one, infinite Divine Essence.

John agrees with this when he says at the start of his Gospel In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (1:1). In the same prologue John says that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us and, immediately after this, begins talking about Jesus. Therefore, according to John, Jesus is the Word. Returning to the opening passage, then, we can find three statements made about this Word: (1) this Word existed in the beginning; (2) this Word was with God; and (3) this Word was God. Since Jesus is, as John says, the Word, John the apostle must have believed that Jesus existed in the beginning, was with God, and was God. Consequently, it is not true that Jesus is nowhere called God in Scripture.

In fact, after he sees the risen Christ, the apostle Thomas cries out to him My Lord and my God! (John 20:28). Notice Jesus' reaction in the next verse: Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe." Now everyone who reads the gospels, Christian or not, will admit that Jesus was a good man. His goodness stands out as at least equal, humanly speaking, to the other great religious and spiritual leaders of the world. But good men do not deliberately mislead others - for if they did, they would not be good. Therefore, since Jesus does not rebuke or correct Thomas's claim for Jesus' own divinity, Jesus must have believed it himself. For if Jesus were not God but merely a good man, he would have rebuked Thomas's idolatry, since idolatry is wrong.

There is more Scriptural evidence for Jesus' divinity and if you look online, I'm sure you can find more evidence and arguments. However, turning to your next question, I notice that the passages you ask me to explain divide into two categories: (1) Old Testament references to the Nephilim who are called the "sons of God" (Gen 6:2 and 6:4), and (2) New Testament references to Christians who are called the "sons of God". As for the first, the Nephilim, I cannot help you there. I'm fascinated by the Genesis passage, but I cannot adequately explain or fully understand it. As for the second, I may be able to offer some helpful thoughts. Your last reference was to Galatians 3, which reads

You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

It is clear from the context that by "sons of God" Paul is referring to Christians who believe and are baptized. Paul seems to refer to them in this way because, as the first verse you quoted explains, those who follow the will of the Father belong to the family of Christ. In other words, by following God's will we become God's children and heirs to his kingdom. For since the mission of Jesus was to restore sinful mankind to the sinless God, God the Son became man that men might as sons become filled inwardly with God. Therefore, it was the incarnation of the Son, whom John calls the only-begotten (1:18, 3:16), that allows men and women to become the adopted sons and daughters of the Most High. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul explains,

But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir. (1:4-7)

Does that answer your question?

Peace, etc.

Open Letter to James White: A Response to His Article "Robert Sungenis and evpi. tau,th|"

The article may be found here: http://aomin.org/Epitetaute.html

Dear James White,

Although there are several excellent points you make - some of which I had never considered before - I think your reading is guilty of precisely what you accuse Catholics. You say:

This is the immediate context of verse 18, and to divorce verse 18 from what came before leads to the errant shift of attention from the identity of Christ to the identity of Peter that is found in Roman Catholic exegesis. Certainly we cannot accept the idea, presented in Roman theology, that immediately upon pronouncing the benediction upon Peter's confession of faith, the focus shifts away from that confession and what it reveals to Peter himself and some office with successors based upon him!

Actually, we can accept it. One of Christ's purposes in the Incarnation was to establish and bring all mankind into the true religion; therefore, it is not unusual that at the very moment his disciples make a profession of faith, He confirms them in that profession and promises perpetuity for the church which He will build ("and the gates of hell will not prevail against it"). Furthermore, your argument here is unconvincing for several reasons. First, because Scripture is not a systematic narrative; second, because the argument is based the assumption that Scripture has no sudden or unexpected transitions (when in fact the Bible is full of them); and third, because the same argument you use may be used against you. The immediate context of the following verses (which you do not quote) shows clearly that Christ was speaking directly to Peter and the apostles.

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

As I understand it, your argument is that by switching from the personal pronoun to the demonstrative pronoun in verse 18, Christ signifies something other than Peter as "this rock." You appeal to the context to support this, accuse Catholics of ignoring that context, and yet avoid what implication the use of the second person in verse 19 has on your argument. If you want to argue that at first He was talking to Peter and then He was talking about Peter's confession - and this, because Jesus did not use the second person pronoun for a third time in the same sentence - then does it not make just as much sense to argue that, since at first He was talking to Peter and then again talking to Peter, He was probably talking to him all along? Even if you want to say that Peter was the representative of the apostles, as he is elsewhere in Scripture, He was still talking to him in the beginning of verse 18, and to him throughout verse 19, so why not in the second half of verse 18 as well?

Not only does the preceding context argue against this, but the following context likewise picks up seemlessly with what came before: the identity of Jesus as Messiah. Hence, the logical antecedent for tau,th is Peter's confession.

Actually, verse 19 tells against it. And it is not quite "seemlessly," as you said. Verse 19 is not directly about Jesus as Messiah but rather about how Christ gave His apostles the authority to forgive sins. It is about how Christ provided His church with the means to continue His saving work, that is, the work of reconciling the human race to the Most High. Consequently, reading the previous verse as related to Christ's gift to His church is not fantastic but natural. And while I can readily admit that verse 19 is indirectly about the identity of Jesus as Messiah (for the apostolic community He left on earth proclaims Him and continues His mission), I cannot understand why you say verse 19 supports your reading.

I can grant however that there is a secondary sense in which "this rock" refers to Peter's confession. First, because Christ built his church on the one to whom that divine revelation was given ("flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven"); second, because this sacred doctrine is the first infallible teaching of the church (for the church cannot err when it teaches those truths which God has revealed); and third, because this same revelation is the most important proclamation of the church at all times (that is, relative to sinful humanity, not considered in itself). But the primary sense still refers to Peter himself, for at least two reasons. First, because Christ is making a pun; and Peter's newly invented name is clearly the object of that pun. And second, because Scripture says elsewhere that the church is built on the "foundation of the apostles and prophets" (Eph 2:20). Consequently, it is neither strange nor strained to claim that in this passage Christ is building his church on the rock of Peter. Your reading only "commands the most logical grammatical sense" if you overlook the fact that Christ is making a joke. If I may be permitted the expression, you ignore the theology of the pun! :)

I welcome any criticism or comments you have. Indeed, I would be in your delighted if in your busy life you found time to respond to this letter.

Your brother in Christ, etc.

Open Letter to a Protestant: On "nulla salus extra ecclesiam"

A---,

Thank you for responding. My answer will be shorter than I planned. I believe the Catechism may have an answer for your objection, but if you disagree or find the answer insufficient in any way, please let me know where and why.

"Outside the Church there is no Salvation" [from the Catechism of the Catholic Church]:

846. How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? [cf. St. Cyprian, Ep 73:21; PL 3:1169; De Unit PL 4:509-536] Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:

"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." [Vatican II LG 14]

847. This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience -- those too may achieve eternal salvation." [Vatican II LG 16]

Let me say this in my own words. As Catholics we believe that Christ established one church which would be and is united in spirit and love, in faith and teaching, in its mission and its government. As Catholics we believe our bishops are the true successors of the apostles, the representatives of the twelve on earth, and that the pope is by the will of God set up as the head of the visible church on earth.

In regard to other denominations then the Church's comments (especially the doctrine of "nulla salus extra ecclesiam"), should be seen in this light - since the conclusion follows from the premise. I mean if you think the Catholic Church is set up by Jesus Christ, then to reject the Catholic Church is to reject Christ; and to reject Christ is to reject the One who sent Him. But on this note, Vatican II clarified the doctrine by clarifying its application: "Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ , would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it." And again: "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church [i.e., the Catholic Church], but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart..." etc. As I said before, if you grant that the Catholic Church is the true successor to the Church of the Apostles, the conclusion follows.

Those born into Protestant and Orthodox churches, however, do not grant the premise; therefore, the conclusion does not follow. I doubt that any honest Protestant or Orthodox could say in good conscience, "Yes, I truly believe that the Catholic Church - as it exists today - is that very same church which Christ establish on the rock of Peter and built on the foundation of the apostles and the prophets." Were such a man or woman to say that, he or she would convert; and until such a person says that, the various statements made in the Catholic Church about salvation outside the Church do not apply to that individual.

Does that make sense?

Peace, etc.

p.s. I agree that there is a lot being said in Matt 16, of which I think Christians have only begun to understand.

Open Letter on Pope St. Gregory the Great and the papacy

This letter was written to refute claim (make by John Calvin) that St. Gregory the Great rejected the doctrine of papal supremacy. It divides into two sections: three quotations from the Catholic Encyclopedia and then ten quotations (with links to the text) from St. Gregory himself.

A---,

In its article on Gregory, the Catholic Encyclopedia says this:

A large number of letters relate to the reforms instituted by the pope (Epp., II, xlvii; III, xxxvi; IV, ix,xxiii-xxvii, xxix; V, ii; IX, i, xi, ccii-cciv; XIV, ii). His care over the election of a new bishop whenever a vacancy occurs is shown in many cases, and if, after his examination of the elect, which is always a searching one, he finds him unfitted for the post, he has no hesitation in rejecting him and commanding another to be chosen (Epp., I, lv, lvi; VII, xxxviii; X, vii).

The same article includes a passage from the Protestant historian Dudden:

In his dealings with the Churches of the West, Gregory acted invariably on the assumption that all were subject to the jurisdiction of the Roman See. Of the rights claimed or exercised by his predecessors he would not abate one tittle; on the contrary, he did everything in his power to maintain, strengthen, and extend what he regarded as the just prerogatives of the papacy. It is true that he respected the privileges of the Western metropolitans, and disapproved of unnecessary interference within the sphere of their jurisdiction canonically exercised. . . . But of his general principle there can be no doubt whatever (Dudden, I, 475).

Finally, the article addresses in passing the controversy at hand:

There cannot be the smallest doubt that Gregory claimed for the Apostolic See, and for himself as pope, a primacy not of honor, but of supreme authority over the Church Universal. In Epp., XIII, l, he speaks of "the Apostolic See, which is the head of all Churches", and in Epp., V, cliv, he says: "I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church." As successor of St. Peter, the pope had received from God a primacy over all Churches (Epp., II, xlvi; III, xxx; V, xxxvii; VII, xxxvii). His approval it was which gave force to the decrees of councils or synods (Epp., IX, clvi), and his authority could annul them (Epp., V, xxxix, xli, xliv). To him appeals might be made even against other patriarchs, and by him bishops were judged and corrected if need were (Epp., II, l; III, lii, lxiii; IX, xxvi, xxvii).

This position naturally made it impossible for him to permit the use of the title Ecumenical Bishop assumed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, John the Faster, at a synod held in 588. Gregory protested, and a long controversy followed, the question still at issue when the pope died. A discussion of this controversy is needless here, but it is important as showing how completely Gregory regarded the Eastern patriarchs as being subject to himself; "As regards the Church of Constantinople," he writes in Epp., IX, xxvi, "who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Why, both our most religious lord the emperor, and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople continually acknowledge it."

At the same time the pope was most careful not to interfere with the canonical rights of the other patriarchs and bishops. With the other Oriental patriarchs his relations were most cordial, as appears from his letters to the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria.

I had hoped to provide links to each letter, but unfortunately the citations refer to an edition of his letters which is not the one found online at New Advent.

"Epistolae", ed. P. Ewald and L. M. Hartmann in "Mon. Germ. Hist.: Epist.", I, II (Berlin, 1891-99); this is the authoritative edition of the text of the Epistles (all references given above are to this edition)

Sigh. Why isn't every book in the world online yet?

That did not deter me, however, from finding other supports for the position defended in the Catholic Encyclopedia, i.e., that Gregory as Bishop of Rome claimed authority over the universal Church - some of which have already been mentioned. Encouraged by Dudden, I found the following ten claims make by Pope St. Gregory the Great about the Apostolic See (with links to New Advent, all emphasises are my own):

(1) From Book III, Letter 30:

Inasmuch as it is manifest that the Apostolic See is, by the ordering of God, set over all Churches, there is, among our manifold cares, especial demand for our attention, when our decision is awaited with a view to the consecration of a bishop.

(2) From Book IV, Letter 2:

...since after such a schism had taken place about nothing, it was right that the Apostolic See should take heed, with the view of guarding in all respects the unity of the Universal Church in the minds of priests.

(3) From Book IX, Letter 81 (to Maximus, Bishop of Salona):

Although to what was faulty in thy ordination at the first thou hast added serious evil through the fault of disobedience, yet we, tempering with becoming moderation the authority of the Apostolic See , have never been incensed against thee to the extent that the case demanded. [Why would Gregory rebuke what was faulty in the ordination of another bishop, and reference the "authority of the Apostolic See" in an ominous way, if he thought that the Bishop of Rome had no authority over other bishops?]

(4) From Book IX, Letter 111 (to Virgilius, Bishop of Arelate):

This [i.e., asking that the pope confirm the rights granted to the monastery] he [i.e., Childebert] did as knowing such reverence to be paid by the faithful to the Apostolic See that what had been settled by its decree no molestation of unlawful usurpation would thereafter shake.

(5) From Book V, Letter 52 (to the same):

But, since it is well known to all whence the holy faith proceeded in the regions of Gaul, when your Fraternity asks for a repetition of the old custom of the Apostolic See, what is it but that a good offspring reverts to the bosom of its mother? [A parent and child may equally possesses the same nature, but one retains authority.]

(6) From Book V, Letter 54 (to all the Bishops of Gaul under Childebert):

But if a contention (which may the Divine power avert) should happen to arise on matters of faith, or any business come up about which there may perchance be serious doubt, and he should be in need of the judgment of the Apostolic See in place of his own greatness, we have directed him that, having diligently enquired into the truth, he should take care to bring the question under our cognizance by a report from himself, to the end that it may be terminated by a suitable sentence so as to remove all doubt. [Why would Gregory say that the judgment of the Apostolic See will terminate and remove all doubt on a question about matters of faith, unless he thought that the See of Peter possessed an authority which the all bishops of Gaul lacked?]

(7) From Book II, Letter 48 (to Columbus, in dealing with errant bishops):

But we, who, though unworthy, have undertaken the government of the Apostolic See in the stead of Peter the prince of the apostles, are compelled by the very office of our pontificate to resist the general enemy by all the efforts in our power. [Why does he mention Peter as prince of the apostles here if not to reinforce that his jurisdiction extents even to, I think, Africa, where Columbus was?]

(8) From Book IX, Letter 12 (to John, bishop of Syracuse):

For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. For he is foolish who thinks himself first in such a way as to scorn to learn whatever good things he may see. [This was quoted above; notice that the last line removes the charge of arrogance -- of which you yourself know that the saintly Gregory was not guilty.]

(9) From Book IX, Letter 68 (to Eusebius):

And although our most pious Emperor allows nothing unlawful to be done there, yet, lest perverse men, taking occasion of your assembly, should seek opportunity of cajoling you in favouring this name of superstition, or should think of holding a synod about some other matter, with the view of introducing it therein by cunning contrivances,-- though without the authority and consent of the Apostolic See nothing that might be passed would have any force... [why would the decrees of a synod have no force without the consent of the Apostolic See unless it possessed a unique authority in the Episcopate?]

(10) From Book V, Letter 21:

But, when this my brother [John] with new presumption and pride calls himself universal bishop, having caused himself in the time of our predecessor of holy memory to be designated in synod by this so proud a title, though all the acts of that synod were abrogated, being disallowed by the Apostolic See,-the most serene Lord gives me a somewhat distressing intimation, in that he has not rebuked him who is acting proudly, but endeavours to bend me from my purpose, who in this cause of defending the truth of the Gospels and Canons, of humility and rectitude; whereas my aforesaid brother [John] and fellow-priest is acting against evangelical principles and also against the blessed Apostle Peter, and against all the churches, and against the ordinances of the Canons. [Why would one who falsely calls himself "universal bishop" be acting against (1) evangelical principles, (2) the prince of the apostles, and (3) all the churches, unless it was because he was usurping the place of the one to whom that title properly belonged?]

You can find more if you do a search for "Registrum Epistolarum Apostolic See" on New Advent. I found 45 hits.

I think all these sufficiently establish that Gregory believed, rightly or wrongly, that the Bishop of Rome possessed authority that surpassed that of other bishops - which is all I have tried to show, leaving aside for the moment the question of whether that authority exists under the New Covenant according to the will of Christ.

Have I convinced you?

Update: He said yes.

Open Letter on Scripture and sacred tradition

A---,

I agree with you on Matt 15:1-6. Human traditions that contradict Scripture ought to be reformed by using divine truth as a standard. However, Christ does not rebuke tradition itself nor does He imply that all traditions are of human origin. Rather, when asked why His disciples do not wash their hands according to human custom, He rebukes them by saying they have transgressed the very commandments which Moses received from God and passed on to the Israelites--that is, He appeals to a tradition which has God as its origin and source, just as He did on the question of marriage and divorce ("But from the beginning it was not so"). The problem with the religious hierarchy of His day was not that they received truths on tradition, but that they received human traditions as if they were of divine origin. An ecclesiastical tradition or custom is one thing, a divine tradition is quite another. And our Lord even gives the reason for their transgression: "for the sake of your tradition," that is, for the sake of a human and not a divine tradition. Not even the Pharisees would dare assert that the Ten Commandments were of human origin; their mistake was not ignoring the divine tradition of Israel, but treating human traditions as if they were a part of that original revelation. This passage, then, does not mean that a tradition of divine origin cannot exist as well within the new people of God.

Peace, etc.

Open Letter in Response to a Letter on John Calvin and the Church

A---,

Here is my first response. I've gone point by point on this one, trying not to miss anything, but if you find this format too choppy and difficult to read, let me know and I can go back to paragraph form.

With the reformers though, I say that the Bible is the ultimate and authoritative rule of faith - and that any tradition that we find in accordance with that is useful and beneficial.

From what source of faith do you receive the teaching that Scripture is the ultimate and authoritative rule of faith?

I find these things to be useful and valid, but must be checked by Scripture, the testimony of the apostles and prophets and the Lord Christ himself.

Hmm. The church does not receive every teaching advanced by the Fathers, nor does she hold any Father or even the consensus patrum as superior to Scripture -- since the Bible is the inspired word of God while the early writers obviously are not. As a Catholic I would say that sacred tradition (which includes but is not synonymous with the Fathers) is coordinate with Scripture, since they both derive from the one deposit of faith and revelation which Christ delivered to His church. But without defending that assertion yet (which has its fullest exposition in Dei Verbum), can you tell me whether you think there are divinely revealed truths outside of Scripture? Or, to ask that another way, does the Bible contain the whole revelation of God in Christ? Are there truths or words which Christ delivered that are not recorded in Scripture but which still shall never fail?

Nor is there any room for the cavil, that though the Church derives her first beginning from thence, it still remains doubtful what writings are to be attributed to the apostles and prophets, until her judgment is imposed.

It is one thing for a scholar or theologian, after research, to be certain of this or that point; it is quite another for the average lay person to be certain. I think the argument here is that the certainty found in the mind of the laity is and ought to be derived from the judgment of the church, which in turn is supported but not determined by the decisions of her theologians and scholars. For most of human history - and today is no exception - the average Christian does not have the resources available (education, libraries, time, etc.) to make an informed decision about which books are inspired and which not. We rely instead on the authority of the church. God could hardly expect every Christian to do years of research to answer this question for himself or herself (not to mention all the other theological questions); so instead He provided for His people an authority on which they could rely. (Also, I do not see how this is a trivial objection, as Calvin claims.)

Nothing, therefore, can be more absurd than the fiction, that the power of judging Scripture is in the Church, and that on her nod its certainty depends.

Of course, the church did not create the Scriptures - as if the same texts were at one moment not inspired and then (after the judgment of the church) inspired! Rather, the same Spirit who inspired Scripture lead the church, according to Christ's promise, into the truth of which books were canonical, causing her to recognize and approve only what He had already inspired.

"On her nod its certainty depends." I cannot understand what Calvin means by "its certainty." When Calvin speaks of Scripture's certainty, does he mean the certainty of people about Scripture or does he mean the certainty of the book itself? Certainty can only exist within the human mind, not within a book. Once we know which books constitute Scripture, we may accept those books without any uncertainty as divinely inspired - but isn't the question, "Which ones do we accept?"

When the Church receives it, and gives it the stamp of her authority, she does not make that authentic which was otherwise doubtful or controverted, but acknowledging it as the truth of God, she, as in duty bound, shows her reverence by an unhesitating assent.

I agree! The church did not make Scripture authentic; instead, she removes doubts and uncertainties by testifying to the truth of what God revealed.

As to the question, How shall we be persuaded that it came from God without recurring to a decree of the Church? it is just the same as if it were asked, How shall we learn to distinguish light from darkness, white from black, sweet from bitter? Scripture bears upon the face of it as clear evidence of its truth, as white and black do of their colour, sweet and bitter of their taste"

A thing can be self-evident in two ways: first in itself, and then to us. A proposition is self-evident in itself when the predicate is contained in the subject. For example, the propositions "God exists" and "An angel is an immaterial substance" are self-evident in themselves since each predicate is contained within the subject. But neither proposition is self-evident to every man and woman on this planet, since some deny it. If I were to say "Scripture is the word of God," that would be a self-evident statement, and once someone understood the subject they would grant the predicate. Or again if I said "All Scripture comes from God," that too would be a self-evident statement. And once we understand what is Scripture we can acknowledge that it comes from God.

But Calvin changes the sense of the question "How shall we be persuaded that it came from God without recurring to a decree of the Church?" The question here is not about the predicate but about the subject. The question is not "Does Scripture come from God?" but "how shall we be persuaded that this or that book (considered individually) is Scripture without the judgment of the church?" Obviously all Scripture is from God but the question is "Which books constitute Scripture?"

And which books constitute Scripture is a question that is not self-evident, either in itself or to all Christians. (Although we may be certain at least of the New Testament). Since there is no inspired list of canonical books, what constitutes Scripture is not self-evident in itself. Since there is still disagreement about the canon, what constitutes Scripture is not self-evident to Christians. Origen and Eusebius list the Epistle of James, Second and Third John, Second Peter, and the Epistle of Jude as disputed books. If only the Protestant canon is inspired, then the whole Scriptures were not self-evident to Augustine, who receives that those books and more as canonical. Furthermore, the question "Has it always been self-evident?" is a question of history not of theory. It does not answer the question, then, to assert they have always been self-evident -- especially when the historical fact of disagreements, uncertainties, and controversies directly refutes that assertion. Disputed questions are not self-evident (in the second sense).

Let it therefore be held as fixed, that those who are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in Scripture; that Scripture, carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit.

So because Augustine accepts different books as canonical he did not receive Scripture with the testimony of the Spirit? That seems to be the necessary conclusion of Calvin's bold statement, but I may not be understanding what he means.

To gather everything together, I think we agree on the following points:

1. The inspired books were in fact Scripture before the church determined the canon;
2. The Holy Spirit lead the church to gather into the canon only the inspired books;
3. The apostles and prophets are the foundation of the church.
   

And I think we may disagree on the following points:

1. The certainty in the mind of the lay person rests on the judgment of the church; (me for, you against)
2. The Bible contains the complete revelation of God in Christ and there is no such thing as extra-Biblical truths which are divinely revealed; (me against, you for)
3. Which books constitute Scripture is not self-evident, either in itself or to all Christians; (me for, you and Calvin against)

My reflections on the first, questions about the second, and arguments for the third are found above, and I await your thoughts.

Peace, etc.

an allegory of the Reformation

So Israel has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day. (1 Kings 12:19)

Thus says the Lord, You shall not go up or fight against you kinsmen the people of Israel. Return every man to his home, for this thing is from me. (1 Kings 12:24)

religion and philosophy

The Apostles then proceeded thus:—they did not rest their cause on argument; they did not rely on eloquence, wisdom, or reputation; nay, nor did they make miracles necessary to the enforcement of their claims. They did not resolve faith into sight or reason; they contrasted it with both, and bade their hearers believe, sometimes in spite, sometimes in default, sometimes in aid, of sight and reason. They exhorted them to make trial of the Gospel, since they would find their account in so doing. And of their hearers "some believed the things which were spoken, some believed not." Those believed whose hearts were "opened," who were "ordained to eternal life;" those did not whose hearts were hardened. This was the awful exhibition of which the Apostles and their fellow workers were witnesses; for faith, as a principle of knowledge, cannot be exactly analyzed or made intelligible to man, but is the secret, inexplicable, spontaneous movement of the mind (however arising) towards the external word,—a movement not to the exclusion of sight and reason, for the miracles appeal to both, nor of experience, for all who venture for Christ receive daily returns of good in confirmation of their choice, but independent of sight or reason before, or of experience after. The Apostles appealed to men's hearts, and, according to their hearts, so they answered them. They appealed to their secret belief in a superintending providence, to their hopes and fears thence resulting; and they professed to reveal to them the nature, personality, attributes, will, and works of Him "whom their hearers ignorantly worshipped." They came as commissioned from Him, and declared that mankind was a guilty and outcast race,—that sin was a misery,—that the world was a snare,—that life was a shadow,—that God was everlasting,—that His Law was holy and true, and its sanctions certain and terrible;—that He also was all-merciful,—that He had appointed a Mediator between Him and them, who had removed all obstacles, and was desirous to restore them, and that He had sent themselves to explain how. They said that that Mediator had come and gone; but had left behind Him what was to be His representative till the end of all things, His mystical Body, the Church, in joining which lay the salvation of the world. So they preached, and so they prevailed; using indeed persuasives of every kind as they were given them, but resting at bottom on a principle higher than the senses or the reason. They used many arguments, but as outward forms of something beyond argument. Thus they appealed to the miracles they wrought, as sufficient signs of their power, and assuredly divine, in spite of those which other systems could show or pretended. They expostulated with the better sort on the ground of their instinctive longings and dim visions of something greater than the world. They awed and overcame the passionate by means of what remained of heaven in them, and of the involuntary homage which such men pay to the more realized tokens of heaven in others. They asked the more generous-minded whether it was not worth while to risk something on the chance of augmenting and perfecting those precious elements of good which their hearts still held; and they could not hide what they cared not to "glory in," their own disinterested sufferings, their high deeds, and their sanctity of life. They won over the affectionate and gentle by the beauty of holiness, and the embodied mercies of Christ as seen in the ministrations and ordinances of His Church. Thus they spread their nets for disciples, and caught thousands at a cast; thus they roused and inflamed their hearers into enthusiasm, till "the Kingdom of Heaven suffered violence, and the violent took it by force." And when these had entered it, many of them, doubtless, would wax cold in love, and fall away; for many had entered only on impulse; many, with Simon Magus, on wonder or curiosity; many from a mere argumentative belief, which leads as readily into heresy as into the Truth. But still, those who had the seed of God within them, would become neither offences in the Church, nor apostates, nor heretics; but would find day by day, as love increased, increasing experience that what they had ventured boldly amid conflicting evidence, of sight against sight, and reason against reason, with many things against it, and more things for it, they had ventured well. The examples of meekness, cheerfulness, contentment, silent endurance, private self-denial, fortitude, brotherly love, perseverance in well-doing, which would from time to time meet them in their new kingdom,—the sublimity and harmony of the Church's doctrine,—the touching and subduing beauty of her services and appointments,—their consciousness of her virtue, divinely imparted, upon themselves, in subduing, purifying, changing them,—the bountifulness of her alms-giving,—her power, weak as she was and despised, over the statesmen and philosophers of the world,—her consistent and steady aggression upon it, moving forward in spite of it on all sides at once, like the wheels in the Prophet's vision, and this in contrast with the ephemeral and variable outbreaks of sectarianism,—the unanimity and intimacy existing between her widely-separated branches,—the mutual sympathy and correspondence of men of hostile nations and foreign languages,—the simplicity of her ascetics, the gravity of her Bishops, the awful glory shed around her Martyrs, and the mysterious and recurring traces of miraculous agency here and there, once and again, according as the Spirit willed,—these and the like persuasives acted on them day by day, turning the whisper of their hearts into an habitual conviction, and establishing in the reason what had been begun in the will. And thus has the Church been upheld ever since by an appeal to the People,—to the necessities of human nature, the anxieties of conscience, and the instincts of purity; forcing upon Kings a sufferance or protection which they fain would dispense with, and upon Philosophy a grudging submission and a reserved and limited recognition. (Newman Lectures on Justification "The Nature of Justifying Faith," 6.268-272)

from a debate with a Protestant on the Eucharist

He said in protest:

Regarding Transubstantiation, there is absolutely zero reason to think that the disciples with whom Jesus shared his Last Supper thought that there was some sort of "ah hah!...now you're really drinking my blood!" magic trick going on. I don't think we have any reason to look at what Jesus did and didn't mean in any other way than that which was understood by the disciples.... And, I say that we mustn't think we are to believe it in a way different from what Jesus communicated to his followers there in that room.

1. Transubstantiation is not a magic trick. (Don't misrepresent Catholic teaching.)

2. There is an ambiguity in the second sentence, for "that which was understood by the disciples" can be taken to mean either (a) the things understood by the disciples at that moment in the upper room, or (b) the things understood by them after the Resurrection. If used in the first sense, I strongly disagree; if used in the second, I strongly agree. (1) The apostles only began to really comprehend Christ's passion (at the earliest) a week or so after the Resurrection. Before then, neither the apostles nor the disciples on the road to Emmaus understood what had passed, for not only did the disciples run away but some, like Peter, even returned to their previous occupations. If we are to only understand Christ to mean what the apostles then understood him to mean, we must (in order to be consistent) reject the Atonement and Resurrection, since the disciples understand neither one. (2) The language of John 6 does not seem to be metaphorical. Many found it a hard teaching (and many still do). Yet if Christ did not mean it in some literal and profound way he could have qualified his statement and prevented the misunderstanding. Moreover, Christ's own words on the subject do not appear figurative. They were not in the context of a parable but in the course of a meal. "This is my body" is so strongly and simply put that to explain it as figurative seems dubious. Finally, Paul's rebuke to the Corinthians witnesses to the same faith. After repeating the very words of Christ, he says, "Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord." Only sacred things can be profaned, and "the body and blood of the Lord" is certainly sacred.

3. In a debate on Transubstantiation this third sentence is insufficient and begs the question. To say because we must believe only what Christ communicated to his apostles and therefore we should not believe the Catholic doctrine, assumes that what Christ communicated to his apostles was in fact what the Protestant side claims it is. But that is the very point in question; consequently, you have assumed your conclusion to be true in your "argument" for its truth.

Open Letter to a Protestant: A critique of his claim to argue from "Scripture and plain reason"

B---,

I am open to being shown the Catholic Church is wrong, but only by good arguments.

"Scripture and plain reason" does not best describe how you debate. Your rhetorical tactic consists more in misrepresentations, sarcasm, and personal attacks than in plain reason. Likewise, you have alluded to passages from the holy book without clearly drawing out how they support your contention or put an interpretation on them which directly tells against the Catholic Church; or, when this was done, not given me a chance to defend and explain the Catholic position or to question the interpretation presented. Despite all your talk about being open, I am beginning to suspect that your only chief principle here is simply this: "Catholics must be wrong."

Since you claimed for yourself "plain reason" and, by implication, contorted reasoning for me, I feel it is my duty to set before you a sample of the errors which may be found in your reasonings. I do not do this because of any ill-will toward you, nor even as an indirect justification of my own position; nor do I claim that all the arguments I have or will make are free from fallacies. I do it merely to show you that "plain reason" does not accurately describe many of the arguments you have made. I will only note a few errors in Scriptural arguments, since the bulk of what I have to say will be addressed in another email.

A syllabus of errors.

(A) Errors in reason

(1) Fallacy the first: ad hominem arguments, whether by direct attack or implication, are the most obvious fallacy in reasoning. For example, from your letter of 5 Aug 05:

Though with different specifics, I can share in your, "It simply must/cannot be that _____," presuppositional posture and I understand the feeling of, when it's all boiled down, panic.

And from our chat on 26 April 06:

I don't know what it's like to feel like my particular crowd needs to be uniquely infallible in teaching and morals . . . so maybe I don't want holes poked or doubts placed or new ways explored

And from your letter of 10 May 05:

. . . you appear to have, for whatever reasons, a vested interest in defending Rome to the death, despite the rather sound and compelling arguments to the contrary. . .

(The question of why a person holds a belief is entirely separate from whether that belief is true, which is the question at hand.)

I answer that, logical fallacies are not sound and compelling arguments.

(2) Fallacy the second: the use of antecedent moral judgments against your opponent's position (sometimes called "poisoning the wells") is a serious fallacy in reasoning. For example, from your letter of 5 Aug 05:

...and, just so you know where I'm coming from, my opinion is that if you don't see one, then you simply aren't being intellectually honest with yourself and are living in a world where you are convinced that you simply cannot see one...

And from your letter of 27 April 06:

...it does seem like you're trying to maintain a life that involves breathing amniotic fluid through your nose and eating your meals through your umbilical cord while my modus operandi is air and hamburgers.

(The question of whether holding a certain proposition implies a degraded state in the believer is separate from whether that position is true, which is the question at hand.)

I answer that, this fallacy is like the first in kind (by confusing sentiments and reason) though it is graver in degree. By claiming all who do not hold the speaker's position must be morally deficient or intellectually dishonest, this fallacy (1) seeks to coerce rather than persuade, (2) substantially equates morality with rational thought, and (3) undercuts the grounds from which the opponent may object. Consequently, if the attacked replies calmly, the other can suggest he is an eloquent and smooth talker; or if he argues convincingly against an objection, he is a great logician and a perfect Jesuit; and so on. To this base fallacy I say: controversies should be decided by reason, not by personal misgivings and dislikes.

(3) Fallacy the third: "special pleading" is the fallacy of appealing to a principle in one context and then refusing to admit the same principle in another. For example, your letter of 5 August 05:

The thing is, you can't have your cake and eat it too. You're either a Roman Catholic or you're not. Rome is either "The One True Church/Faith" or it's not. It's either flawed to the core having gone off course sometime 1000+ years ago or it isn't. It's either a reflection of faith, theology, and authority in the way Jesus called us to or it isn't. That which Rome asserts is infallible either is or it isn't.

Compare that with your response on 10 May 06 to my use of the same principle:

I don't think that, on most things anyway, various expressions are truly as at odds with each other as they think; I think it has much more to do with them each describing a different portion of the whole

(It is inconsistent to appeal to the principle of non-contradiction in the case of one group and then refuse to do so in the case of another group.)

I answer that, Admit this basic principle of logic in all conversations or in none, but do not use it inconsistently.

(4) Fallacy the fourth: sarcastic mockery does not constitute a valid argument. The examples here are too many to quote, and their refutation too obvious to mention.

(5) Fallacy the fifth: misrepresentation and ironic distortion of your opponents position is another fallacy which you use commonly. For example, your letter of 10 May 06:

. . . if, to you, this is simply a matter of me needing to hear why Rome is uniquely infallible (on anything) and justifying just how it is that I (*cough*, *choke*, *sputter*) disagree.

And from your later letter of 10 May 06:

Hey, if I get to Heaven and Jesus says, "Gee, Brad...I really wish you would have prayed to my mom more," I will certainly be accountable for my choices.

And from the same:

This is infallible on the basis of it coming from Us.

(First learn what the Catholic Church teaches, then plan out your objection.)

I answer that, the Magisterium does not teach that it is infallible on "anything," nor that prayers to Mary are necessary for salvation, nor that the ground of infallibility is the Church herself. Consequently, you have not made a valid argument against the Catholic position. I assume this is from ignorance and not malice.

(6) Fallacy the sixth: "appeal to incredulity" is another fallacy found in your writing. For example, from your letter of 22 July 06:

The 'certainty' of your various arguments only makes me smack my forehead at the reality that there are people -- incredibly intelligent people, even -- who actually believe this stuff.

(Showing amazement that anyone could profess beliefs contrary to yours does not make your belief true.)

I answer that, in debate when you make an attack (explicit or implicit) fairness dictates you allow your opponent a chance to respond in good faith. Dismissing an argument which was responding to a previous attack is an intellectual failure to consider an argument you begun.

These are some of the errors in reasoning which may be found in your writings.

(B) Errors in Scriptural arguments.

(1) Error the first: referring to Scripture passim does not constitute an argument. For example, your letter of 10 May 06:

Do bear in mind that I stand by my belief that you are, in fact, in love with the romantic notion of Rome more than you are engaging this on a matter of being convinced by Scripture and plain reason

And from our chat on 31 May 06:

Since our common ground is the Bible, I think there is a fairly sound argument to be made for too many of Rome's proclamations being doubiously unbiblical (not simply extra-biblical) to where their project and self-pronounced claims to being The Answer collapse.

(Let each objection be considered fully, one at a time.)

I answer that, do not refer in passing to earlier objections you made, unless you want me to specifically address that objection. Certainly do not speak of them as if they, as a whole, invincibly told against Catholicism; for then you assume that each objection is valid, while I have not yet been given a chance to address them or defend my position.

(2) Error the second: the "argument from silence," while strictly speaking not a fallacy, is nonetheless a weak argument. For example, from our chat on 7 May 06:

Did Paul speak one word about Mary?

(Because there is a lot Scripture does not say, this argument can be used to justify almost any ridiculous position.)

I answer that, arguing from the silence of Scripture is only probable if Scripture contains the whole of God's revelation to man in Christ, that is, if the Protestant principle of sola Scriptura is true. Since Catholics deny this, arguments based on sola Scriptura are impotent to persuade.

These are some of the errors in Scriptural arguments which may be found in your writings. These being said, I make no further criticisms at present.

Peace, etc.

Open Letter to a Protestant: On the brothers of the Lord

B---,

Since you think the title "brethren of the Lord" refers to the offspring of Joseph and Mary, rather than to his cousins, I thought I would pass on the following three quotes so that you can provide clear refutations of the arguments for the Catholic position as well as lay out arguments for the orthodox Protestant position, taking into account the points raised in the following passages. Since you have merely stated your disbelief (of which I was already aware), rather than formed an argument for your own position or against the Catholic position, I am here providing you with material for your counter-argument. (This is, after all, how debate works: you show the flaws in your opponent's argument and construct a positive case for your own position.) It seems to me that the Catholic interpretation is based on a reading more careful and close than the quick and easy Protestant interpretation, which is based on the immediate impression of the word "brother" rather than the cultural and linguistic context. (Which by the way I assume you are already are familiar with so I have not bothered to include them here.)

The first is taken from this site (again):

A speaker on the "Bible Answer Man" radio program denied Mary's perpetual virginity. He claimed that James, called one of the brothers of the Lord in Matthew 13:55, was one of Mary's "other" sons. He insisted that it was a different James who was the son of Mary the wife of Cleophas--this Mary stood at the foot of the cross.

The New Testament speaks of two men called James who were close followers of the Lord. One is James the Greater, the son of Zebedee (see Matt. 4:21, 10:2, 26:37, Mark 1:19-20, 3:17, 10:35, Luke 5:10, John 21:2). This James and his brother, John, were nicknamed by Jesus Boanerges or "sons of thunder."

The second James, known as the Less because of his short stature, was the son of Mary, the wife of Cleophas (a man whose name is also rendered as Clopas and Alphaeus). He is the one mentioned in Matthew 13:55 (see also Matt. 10:3, Mark 3:18, Luke 6:15, Acts 1:13). The problem for those who insist that James the Less was Jesus' literal brother is that both of these Jameses are identified as sons of other men and women, not sons of Mary and Joseph. Some biblical concordances give the impression that there were three different men named James in the New Testament: James, son of Zebedee; James, son of Cleophas; and James, the "brother of the Lord." This distinction is not accurate because the James who is called the "brother of the Lord" in Matthew 13:55 is identified in Matthew 27:56 as the son of Mary, the wife of Cleophas.

The second is from the Catholic Encyclopedia, "Brethren of the Lord," which I recommend reading in full, though I will only quote this part:

It is highly significant that throughout the New Testament Mary appears as the Mother of Jesus and of Jesus alone. This is the more remarkable as she is repeatedly mentioned in connexion with her supposed sons, and, in some cases at least, it would have been quite natural to call them her sons (cf. Matt 12:46; Mk 3:31; Lk 8:19; Acts 1:14). Again, Mary's annual pilgrimage to Jerusalem (Lk 2:41) is quite incredible, except on the supposition that she bore no other children besides Jesus. Is it likely that she could have made the journey regularly, at a time when the burden of child-bearing and the care of an increasing number of small children (she would be the mother of at least four other sons and of several daughters, cf Matthew 13:56) would be pressing heavily upon her? A further proof is the fact that at His death Jesus recommended His mother to St. John. Is not His solicitude for her in His dying hour a sign that she would be left with no one whose duty it would be to care for her? And why recommend her to an outsider if she had other sons?

And the third, from this site:

Evangelical Protestants are quite adamant about Christ being born of a virgin; but they object to the idea that Mary remained a virgin. “He had brothers; it says so in the Bible!” they trumpet triumphantly, whenever the ever-virgin doctrine is proposed.

To begin with, to be completely literal, which every good Evangelical insists on: if they are brothers at all, they are “step-brothers,” because none of them had the same father as Jesus.

Furthermore, there is only one word in Aramaic for male relative. Thus, the same word used for the brothers of the Lord, when rendered in Greek—Adelphos—is used to describe, for example, the familial relationship of Abraham and Lot.[8] Similarly, Jacob is called the “brother” of his uncle Laban (Gen. 29:15). I hadn’t known this, and I had always jumped to the same conclusions that all of the anti-Catholic apologists jump to. Now I wasn’t so sure.

Mary is the woman by whom, or, better, through whom and with whom God “fathered” His only begotten Son. This was an immensely striking thought. In any human culture and especially in the Hebrew culture, to speak of “fathering” a child is to speak of a special relationship between father and mother. It is, of course, a spousal relationship. I began to see that calling Mary the Spouse of the Holy Spirit is a most appropriate way to describe her relationship to God.[9] Without it she becomes a sort of surrogate mother whose womb God borrows for nine months, but who, after giving birth is then not treated by the Father as if she were really the Mother of His only Son. I began to see that the Protestant view of Mary fosters precisely this surrogate mother view, which has the effect of diminishing Christ’s humanity. I could see that you need a real mother and a real father to have a real child. Jesus’ humanity and all that it means becomes less real if Mary’s relationship to God is, to put it bluntly, a “one-night stand.” As I pondered these things, the star of Mary’s uniqueness began to radiate more brilliantly in my theological sky.

I meditated on the whole thing from Joseph’s point of view. If I were Joseph and this woman to whom I was betrothed had a baby by the Living God, would I pursue the normal spousal relationship of husband-and-wife once the baby was born? God the Father, who had been, in a sense, “with” Mary (though not sexually). There had been no severing of that “spousal” relationship by death or divorce. It began to be clear: if I were Joseph I would not pursue relations with Mary. She belongs to someone else; as far as conjugal intimacy goes, she is off limits. She is the Spouse of the Holy Spirit. Taking offense at this idea began to seem the same as taking offense at the Incarnation itself.

In all honesty, the Protestant reading seems irresponsible to me. James and Joseph are the sons of another Mary, whom St. Matthew significantly calls "the other Mary" (Mt 13:55; 28:1; cf. Mt 27:56). They are close relations of Jesus, according to an Old Testament expression (Cf. Gen 13:8; 14:16; 29:15; etc).

Oh, yeah. The objection against Mary's perpetual virginity from the word "until" in Matt 1:25 is based on a misunderstanding of the temporal sense of the word. In Matt 28.20 Jesus says, "I am with you always, until the end of the age." Does that mean he will not be with us after the end of the age? Obviously not. And 2 Sam 6.23 says, "no son was born to Michol, the daughter of Saul until her dying day." Does that mean she had children after her death? Again, obviously not. I just thought I would say this in case you tried to argue that angle.

Peace, etc.

Open Letter to a Protestant: On the role of the Blessed Virgin in salvation

B---,

There is at least one main point on which you repeatedly misrepresent the Catholic Church's teaching on Mary, namely, that any person is under a moral obligation to seek the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. In setting aside this objection, I will only quote the following from Cardinal Newman: "The Catholic Church allows no image of any sort, material or immaterial, no dogmatic symbol, no rite, no sacrament, no Saint, not even the Blessed Virgin herself, to come between the soul and its Creator. It is face to face, solus cum solo, in all matters between man and his God. He alone creates; He alone has redeemed; before His awful eyes we go in death; in the vision of Him is our eternal beatitude" (Apol.) I hope this clarifies for you what the Church does not teach about Mary.

When you asked me what Mary's role in salvation was, I responded by saying:

In God's plan of salvation Mary was the mother of God the Son.

No other person can claim such stature, no prophet or patriarch comes close to holding such a significant role in the history of our salvation, no other woman was prophesied about in the Old Testament, no other human became a literal ark for the New Covenant of God and man, no other woman has been called "blessed" by every generation of Christians since Christ, and no other mortal creature circumscribed the Incomprehensible Deity in her womb. She is the mother of our Creator, the mother of our Savior, the mother of our Redeemer. She is unique in salvation history, she is the new Eve, she is the first of woman in God's plan for the restoration and uplifting of human nature. Do you see how amazing this is? God himself chose her for Himself in a way no other person has been chosen by Him.

In brief, that's Mary's role in salvation history.

You were not convinced I had fairly represented the Catholic doctrine and replied:

Regarding Mary's role in God's plan for salvation, you covered very basic, historical elements that we can all agree was very wonderful and through which she was very blessed. Is there maybe more of the Catholic posture on Mary's ongoing contribution and involvement that you want to address? You seem to have morphed the "is" of my question into a "was" and (not-so-)neatly swept the whole point of my question under the rug.

I begin by saying that I wrote only what came first to my mind; there was no delibrate attempt to ignore or overlook any part of the doctrine. But before I address your question I have to say something about the levels of theological certainty found within the Church. For that purpose I will quote from Fr. Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma:

1. The highest degree of certainty appertains to the immediately revealed truths. The belief due to them is based on the authority of God Revealing (fides divina), and if the Church, through its teaching, vouches for the fact that a truth is contained in Revelation, one’s certainty is then also based on the authority of the Infallible Teaching Authority of the Church (fides catholica). If Truths are defined by a solemn judgment of faith (definition) of the Pope or of a General Council, they are “de fide definita.”

2. Catholic truths or Church doctrines, on which the infallible Teaching Authority of the Church has finally decided, are to be accepted with a faith which is based on the sole authority of the Church (fides ecclesiastica). These truths are as infallibly certain as dogmas proper.

3. A Teaching proximate to Faith (sententia fidei proxima) is a doctrine, which is regarded by theologians generally as a truth of Revelation, but which has not yet been finally promulgated as such by the Church.

4. A Teaching pertaining to the Faith, i.e., theologically certain (sententia ad fidem pertinens, i.e., theologice certa) is a doctrine, on which the Teaching Authority of the Church has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions).

5. Common Teaching (sententia communis) is doctrine, which in itself belongs to the field of the free opinions, but which is accepted by theologians generally.

6. Theological opinions of lesser grades of certainty are called probable, more probable, well-founded (sententia probabilis, probabilior, bene fundata). Those which are regarded as being in agreement with the consciousness of Faith of the Church are called pious opinions (sententia pia). The least degree of certainty is possessed by the tolerated opinion (opinion tolerata), which is only weakly founded, but which is tolerated by the Church.

With regard to the doctrinal teaching of the Church it must be well noted that not all the assertions of the Teaching Authority of the Church on questions of Faith and morals are infallible and consequently irrevocable. Only those are infallible which emanate from General Councils representing the whole episcopate, and the Papal Decisions Ex Cathedra (cf. D 1839). The ordinary and usual form of the Papal teaching activity is not infallible. Further, the decisions of the Roman Congregations (Holy Office, Bible Commission) are not infallible. Nevertheless normally they are to be accepted with an inner assent which is based on the high supernatural authority of the Holy See (assensus internus supernaturalis, assensus religiosus). The so-called “silentium obsequiosum,” that is “reverent silence,” does not generally suffice. By way of exception, the obligation of inner agreement may cease if a competent expert, after a renewed scientific investigation of all grounds, arrives at the positive conviction that the decision rests on an error.

While I already know you think the Church has no infallible authority (if any authority at all), this is how a Catholic understands the various levels of certainty within the Church. For example, that God our Creator exists can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from created things is an example of 1 and 2 (de fide): it is both in Scripture (Wis. 13:1-9, Rom. 1:20, Rom. 2:14ff.) and solemnly defined by the First Vatican Council.

Coming to your question of Mary, then, Ott says:

Mary is designated mediatrix of all graces in a double sense:

1. Mary gave the Redeemer, the Source of all graces, to the world, and in this way she is the channel of all graces. (Sent. certa.)
2. Since Mary's Assumption into Heaven no grace is conferred on man without her actual intercessory cooperation. (Sent. pia et probabilis)

The idea that all grace continues to come through Mary's intercession is not certain teaching of the Church (sent. certa) but only a pious and probable opinion (sent. pia et probabilis). Consequently, I cannot defend it as I would defend an infallible teaching. As Canon Law says, "No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated" (CIC 749 §3). And no pope or council has infallibly defined this, nor is there a consensus of theologians on this matter.

As for myself, I can say without hesitation that I have received some grace through the intercession of the Blessed Virgin. However, if pressed with the question, "Has all grace come to you through the prayers of the Blessed Virgin?" I would say that, while it is possible, I can think of no reason to say that every grace I have received has come through the prayers of the Blessed Mother. Nor am I - as I have shown above - defective in the Catholic faith for believing this.

Peace, etc.

Open Letter to a Protestant: On the Infallibility of the Church

B---,

Here are two propositions the Catholic doctrine of infallibility does not mean:

1. Everything the popes do will be holy and spotless in the eyes of God.
2. The Church can infallibly declare whatever she wants about faith and morals.

I will deal with each objection in its turn.

(1) It is a waste of time for the opponents of infallibility to create a prejudice against the Catholic claim by pointing out the moral or intellectual shortcomings of the popes and councils which have pronounced definitive doctrinal decisions: the doctrine of infallibility says nothing about the moral or intellectual character of its organs, and consequently is not impaired by these objections. God always has and will use sinners to teach the world His truth. Moreover, if God can give the gift of prophecy to Caiphas who condemned Christ, He can certainly bestow the lesser gift of infallibility on unworthy human agents. From the beginning then I willingly grant all the wickedness in the papacy to which history bears witness (especially those three bad popes in the Renaissance); but that does not affect the substance of the Catholic claim.

The Catholic Church has never taught that every sinner who acted as pope is saved, nor even that all Catholics are saved. This is the heresy of the Donatists in the early Church, and later of Luther who maintained that only the predestined are members of the Church. But Catholics have anyways denied this, back to the time of the Apostles and our Divine Master. Christ denies it, St. Paul denies it, the Catholic Church denies it. Our Lord said the Church was to be like a net which gathered all kinds, both bad and good. Such was His Church; it does not prove then that we are not His Church, because we are like His Church; rather our being like the primitive Christian body is a reason for concluding that we are one with it. We cannot make His Church better than He made her; we must be content with her as He made her.

Certainly a real load of moral evil exists in the Church: an enemy has sown weeds there, and those weeds will remain among the wheat until the harvest. And this evil is found in the laity as well as the clergy: there have been bad priests, bad bishops, bad monks, bad nuns, and bad popes. If the charge you make against Catholics, B---, is that we do not all live up to our calling, but among us are found those who are worldly, lustful, proud, cruel or even unbelievers, I grant it all at once. I not only grant it but I maintain it, for the Church on earth is a community of sinners as well as saints.

The Church has been promised many great things, but she has not been promised the souls of all her children. Therefore, if you wish to form arguments against Catholics, you must show not that individuals are immoral or profane -- since sinful members may be found in any communion -- but that the Church teaches or recommends what is immoral or profane, rewards and encourages the sinner, or makes rules and enforces practices which directly lead to sin. And while Protestants love to imply and suggest as much, I have never seen one form a real argument for it. Perhaps you do not find the task as pleasant and easy as the short and quick method of making strong and harsh statements which are not true.

Now on to the doctrine.

(2) When the Catholic Church speaks of ecclesiastical infallibility she means that the Church is infallible in her objective definitive teaching regarding faith and morals, not that believers are infallible in their subjective interpretation of her teaching. Both Mike and I have the potential to misunderstand and misrepresent what that teaching is. Also, infallibility must be carefully distinguished from inspiration and from revelation. By "inspiration" I mean a special positive Divine influence and assistance by which the human agent is not only preserved from liability to error but is guided and controlled in such a way that what he says or writes is truly the word of God, that God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance. Infallibility, then, is a lesser gift than inspiration or prophecy, since infallibility implies only an exemption from liability to error. God is not the author of a merely infallible, as He is of an inspired, utterance; the former remains a merely human document. By "revelation" I mean the supernatural making known by God of some truth previously unknown (or at least not vouched for by Divine authority). Infallibility, on the other hand, is concerned with the interpretation and effective safeguarding of truths already revealed -- not with the introduction of new truths. When Catholics say that some doctrine defined by the pope or by an ecumenical council is infallible, we mean merely that its inerrancy is Divinely guaranteed according to the terms of Christ's promise to His Church, not that either the pope or the fathers of the council are inspired as were the writers of the Bible, nor that any new revelation is embodied in their teaching.

The pope and bishops come by their knowledge of revealed truth the same way everyone else does -- through study. Infallibility doesn't even guarantee the pope and the bishops will always know what a given biblical author means at the literal level (the meaning of some passages may be beyond biblical science's ability to penetrate with any certainty -- what Paul refers to as "baptism for the dead," for example). What infallibility does guarantee is that when the Church puts forth a definitive declaration on faith or morals, she is preserved from the possibility of error. Although scholarship and study are needed for the Church to determine the content of revealed truth, once such a conclusion has been reached, the Holy Spirit protects the Church from teaching wrongly about it. (For example, the Council of Ephesus condemned the proposition that "the Word became flesh" means Christ's eternal divinity substantially morphed into his assumed humanity in the Incarnation.)

To say that in other words, when the Church teaches what Christ revealed, she is infallible; when she teaches something other than what Christ revealed, she is not infallible. When Peter professed, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God," he was speaking infallibly; and our Lord confirms this by telling him that the truth just uttered was revealed to him not by "flesh and blood" but by "my Father in heaven." That Christ is the Son of the living God is a revealed truth, revealed by God the Father, who neither deceives nor is deceived; and when the Apostles (and later the Church) taught that Christ is the Son of the living God, they neither can nor do err. If the Church were to teach that Mahommet was the Son of the living God, she would err. If she were to teach that God is anything other than a Trinity or that Christ is not divine, she would err. But as long as she teaches what has been revealed by Christ, she does not err. And again, all the bishops, even the pope himself, are not given infused knowledge of revelation by becoming a leader in the Church; they too have to learn what was revealed through study and prayer. And like the Apostles before them, the leaders of the Church both infallibly teach "commands from the Lord" as well as give pastoral advice "as one who by the Lord's mercy is trustworthy." Do they sometimes err in the second set of truths? Of course. Does that mean the first set of truths are false? Of course not, for even Peter sinned before and after his declaration of Christ's divine sonship, yet that does not make his declaration false. Do Catholics sometimes confuse the two categories? Sadly, yes.

The doctrine of papal infallibility then does not mean the pope is always right in all his personal teachings. Catholics are quite aware that, despite his great learning, the pope is very much a human being and therefore liable to commit human error. On some subjects, like sports and manufacturing, his judgment is liable to be very faulty. The doctrine simply means that the Pope is divinely protected from error when, acting in his official capacity as chief shepherd of the Catholic fold, he promulgates a decision which is binding on the conscience of all Catholics throughout the world. In other words, his infallibility is limited to his specialty -- the Faith of Jesus Christ.

In order for the pope to be infallible on a particular statement four conditions must apply: 1) he must be speaking ex cathedra ("from the Chair'' of Peter), i.e., officially, as head of the entire Church; 2) the decision must be for the whole Church; 3) it must be on a matter of faith or morals; 4) the pope must have the intention of making a final decision on a teaching of faith or morals, so that it is to be held by all the faithful.

It must be interpretive, not originative; the Pope has no authority to originate new doctrine. He is not the author of revelation -- only its guardian and expounder. He has no power to distort a single word of Scripture, or change one iota of divine tradition. His infallibility is limited strictly to the province of doctrinal interpretation, and it is used quite rarely. It is used in order to clarify or define' some point of the ancient Christian tradition. It is the infallibility of which Christ spoke when He said to Peter, the first Pope: "I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven.'' (Matt. 16:19). And Christ would not have admonished His followers to "hear the church'' (Matt. 18:17) without somehow making certain that what they heard was the truth -- without somehow making the teaching authority of His Church infallible.

For a more complete understanding of the Pope's infallibility, however, one more thing should be known: his ex cathedra decisions are not the result of his own private deliberations. They are the result of many years -- sometimes hundreds of years -- of consultation with the other bishops and theologians of the Church. He is, in effect, voicing the belief of the whole Church. His infallibility is not his own private endowment, but rather an endowment of the entire Mystical Body of Christ. Unlike Protestant denominations who feel free to substantially change their doctrines, the Pope's hands are tied with regard to the changing of Christian doctrine. No Pope has ever used his infallibility to change, add, or subtract any Christian teaching; this is because Our Lord promised to be with His Church until the end of the world (Matt . 28:20).If you want to object to a particular teaching, then, you have to prove it is not revealed by God and Catholics teach it as if it was. But certainly saying "you think it is true because you say it" is a serious misrepresentation of what the Catholic Church teaches: for the Catholic Church has never taught that.

Peace, etc.