tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-298371332024-03-08T01:09:42.897-05:00Spes mea Christus!A blog containing the arbitrary and capricious musings and writings of a neophyte apologist learning to be more prepared to defend of his faith to anyone who calls him to account for the hope that is in him and doing so with gentleness and reverence. [1 Peter 3:15] Paul Hofferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.comBlogger64125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-44821710353475057542021-04-17T10:03:00.009-05:002021-04-23T20:37:17.714-05:00The Uneven Evidence Debate: A Reply to Jonathan MS Pearce.<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></p></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-align: left; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">I.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>Setting the Table.</u></b></span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Before I respond to Mr. Pearce’s post about me, I wanted to thank him
for allowing me to share and defend my Catholic faith. Anytime one is called to
share and defend what they believe is a real blessing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I hope my remarks provide a worthy defense of
the Catholic faith.</span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Preliminarily, Mr. Pearce credits me with having some philosophical training.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I will let the reader decide.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I received an undergraduate degree in
political science when political science was finishing its transition from a
philosophical inquiry to a social science endeavor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Juris
Doctor, and m</i>y coursework emphasized litigation and rhetoric.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I was a litigation attorney for 36 years
until I retired for health reasons.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Finally, I am one thesis paper away from obtaining my Masters Degree in
Theology from St. Meinrad Seminary and School of Theology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I do not regard myself as a philosopher, but
I do have a philosophy like everyone else.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; text-align: left;"></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-align: left; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">II.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><u>Statement of the Argument.</u></b></span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">This debate started when Mr. Pearce wrote an article entitled </span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2021/03/16/the-double-standards-involved-with-doubting-thomas/"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: blue; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The Double Standards and Involving Doubting Thomas</span></i></a></span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He
argues that God is unfair and guilty of double standards because God provided
St. Thomas the Apostle more evidence that the Resurrection happened than the
rest of humanity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Only after he got this
additional evidence did he believe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mr.
Pearce contends that although the rest of humanity gets less evidence than
Thomas did, God will punish them with damnation if they fail to believe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As a result, Mr. Pearce states:</span></span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"> This is completely unfair and terrible double standards.</span></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"> God is not fair.</span></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"> Therefore, God is not perfect or omnibenevolent. </span></p></blockquote></blockquote>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Note the premises in the argument.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Mr. Pearce presumes that a belief in the Resurrection is proof of God’s
existence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mr. Pearce presumes that
fairness is an aspect of omnibenevolence (a term foreign to Catholic thought),
and that omnibenevolence itself is an attribute of God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mr. Pearce also presumes that perfection is
an attribute of God.</span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Now to be clear, I agree that perfection is an attribute of God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I might even agree that omnibenevolence could
be an attribute of God, depending on the definition of omnibenevolence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>More importantly, I agree that God is not
fair as Mr. Pearce seems to define the term.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That being said, I would add that God’s attributes do not require Him to
be fair according to any human standards.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I would submit that Pearce’s definition of fairness excludes attributes
like mercy that Christians ascribe to God.</span> </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Moreover, Pearce’s definition of fairness ignores God’s gift of free
will to humanity or the necessity of complimentariness resulting from our
unique differences and individuality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It
is this complimentariness that makes it possible for individuals to relate to
each other and God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is for these
reasons that I commented as follows to an article that Dave Armstrong wrote,
entitled </span><span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2021/03/pearces-potshots-17-doubting-thomas-an-unfair-god.html"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: blue; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Pearce’s Potshots #17: Doubting Thomas & an
“Unfair” God</span></i></a></span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">:</span> </span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Mr. Pearce claims that God is unfair and has double standards. But this begs the question, what is Mr. Pearce’s definition of fairness, and more importantly, why should we accept his definition of what is fair as the proper metric to judge God’s actions? Why does Jonathan Pearce get to be the final arbiter of what is fair and what is not fair?</span></b></blockquote></blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Mr. Pearce’s remarks demonstrate a failing that many lawyers who are not trial lawyers make. He dos not understand the difference between the sufficiency of evidence and the credibility of evidence. Unlike St. Thomas, Mr. Pearce got to read the witness statement of the events that transpired in the locked room in John 20 with the other disciples before he got to see Jesus for himself. He got to read the testimony of the witnesses as contained in the four Gospels about Jesus’ death and resurrection. That testimony would be admissible in any court of law. Mr. Pearce’s problem is that he simply chooses not to believe it. Using his metric for belief, if he was on a jury, he would refuse to believe that a suspect murdered someone unless he witnessed the murder himself first. Now how often does that happen?</span></b></blockquote></blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">What Mr. Pearce seems to be saying is that if only God gave him more evidence, he would believe too. If he was in Thomas’ shoes and put his fingers into Jesus’ side, would he have us seriously believe that he would accept Christ? Or would he find some other excuse not to believe?</span></b></blockquote></blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /> </span></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">If God was so unfair, how is it then that the billions of people who came afterwards have accepted the truth that Christ died on the cross, rose from the dead and is the Son of God based on the same evidence that Mr. Pearce has had access to? It was sufficient for me, why is not enough for him?</span></b></div></div></blockquote></blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;"> <br /></span></div></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>No, his argument is not a sufficiency argument, his is a credibility argument. And if that is the case, he is not really an atheist now is he? He has accepted Pascal’s wager and is just too cowardly to admit it</b>.</span></div></div></blockquote></blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">I stand by my remarks and take ownership of them.</span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-size: large;">III. <b><u>The Context and
Milieu of the Debate</u></b> </span></p><p></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">In the article above, Dave argues that God showed Thomas a special act
of mercy (God's attribute that Christians recognize). He then rejects the premises of Pearce’s
argument. While he acknowledges that
there are more flawed premises in the argument, Dave chose to focus on the first three that came to his mind: </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 1in; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;">1) The notion that empiricism is the only way to verify or prove anything as if there are no other ways of knowing.<br /><br />2) Pearce’s denial that God is already known by observing the universe, as Romans 1 states. (The teleological and cosmological arguments) <br /><br /> 3) The idea that every atheist would immediately believe (and respond as Thomas did) if only they had the “100% sure!” experience of Thomas: with the risen Jesus standing there, bodily so that he could touch Him. (Free will provide argument)</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Dave then points out a fourth flawed premise in
Pearce’s argument, that certainty in the knowledge of God is a prerequisite to
getting to heaven. Dave shows that in
the Catholic system, God does not put people in hell for doubting. He concludes: </span></p></div></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Therefore, an atheist can possibly be saved, and there is a big biblical distinction between the not-convinced seeker after truth and the outright rejecter of God. But they can’t be saved if they know God exists (are conscious of that belief) and reject Him and His free offer of grace and salvation. How much one “knows” is obviously the key. And only God knows that for any given person. It’s not for other persons to judge that or to condemn people to hell. They don’t have nearly even knowledge to make that determination. </span></div></div></blockquote></blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Mr. Pearce replied to Dave’s response with a second article, <span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2021/03/17/doubting-thomas-a-response-to-catholic-dave-armstrong/"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: blue; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Doubting Thomas: A Response to Catholic Dave Armstrong</span></i></a></span>. In
this second article, Mr. Pearce refines his argument a bit. The point is that: </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">[A]ll sorts of people react differently to the same level of evidence, and all sorts of people get different levels of evidence. It’s all a bit of an unfair mess.</span></div></blockquote></blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">He goes on to state:<br /></span></p></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">The only fair option for an OmniGod designing and creating all humanity from nothing is to give everyone the same chance; and when we control for causal circumstances, this translates to the same score. </span></p></div></blockquote></blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">In other words, Mr. Pearce thinks that God owes us something, and unless
He gives us what we are owed, He is a mean Infinite Being. Mr. Pearce wants God to give every person the
same evidence of His existence, and he wants God to guarantee that everyone
will believe it. There are so many
problems with this notion, I doubt that I can rebut them all. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Dave rebutted this article with <span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2021/03/pearces-potshots-18-doubting-thomas-evidence.html"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: blue; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Pearce’s Potshots #18: Doubting Thomas & Evidence</span></i></a></span>. In
Dave’s article, he attacks Mr. Pearce’s emphasis on giving everyone the same
direct empirical evidence that St. Thomas got as the only way for God to be
fair. Dave states: </span></p></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">It’s claimed that God must provide ironclad “evidence” (of course as atheists define the term) of everything related to God and Christianity, lest He be brutally “unfair.” We say that He does, but in ways in addition to those atheists concentrate on. My point here is one of “epistemological hypocrisy.” That is: atheists certainly don’t apply such a “strong” criterion to everything they believe. </span></div></blockquote></blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Mr. Pearce offered the third reply, <span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2021/03/18/doubting-the-lessons-from-doubting-thomas-responding-to-dave-armstrong-again/"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: blue; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Doubting the Lessons from Doubting Thomas: Responding
to Dave Armstrong Again</span></i></a></span>. Here, Mr. Pearce offers the
following definition of sufficient:
“Sufficient” does not entail a range. Sufficient means “enough for a
particular purpose.” After a bit of
interaction with some of Dave’s other articles, Mr. Pearce concludes that
because God offers some people sufficient evidence of His existence and others
not, God is unfair. He then offers this
paragraph: </span></p></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;">But this is just another version of the divine hiddenness problem. God is far from explicit about anything, and it requires one to be intelligent enough to wade through a parochial ancient holy text with vast effort and intellectual acumen to even remotely start getting there. Whilst not doing this for all the other holy texts. And even then, the best minds in the world can’t even agree on how or whether the atonement even works – why Jesus died or even existed! </span></div></blockquote></div><div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div></blockquote></div><div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;"> It’s all such nonsense. </span></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">To this additional sur-reply, Dave offers another response, <span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2021/03/pearces-potshots-19-doubting-thomas-a-mean-god.html"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: blue; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Pearce’s Potshots #19: Doubting Thomas & a “Mean
God.”</span></i></a></span> In this article, Dave defends this
contention: </span></p></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">I think God does provide sufficient evidence (of all sorts) for every human being”: meaning that He considers each person in their uniqueness and communicates to them enough for them to know (taking into account their particular background and outlook) that He exists and that He gives grace for salvation, and indeed is the key to human joy and fulfilment, and happiness. </span></div></blockquote></blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Dave criticizes Pearce’s insistence on a one-size-fits-all solution
where everyone receives the same amount of evidence for His existence: </span></p></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">People have many different outlooks and presuppositions; therefore, lesser or greater needs for particular forms of evidence and proofs and indications of any given thing (not all of which are empirical). God meets each of them where they are at (this is what we Christians believe). </span></div></blockquote></blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">The problem is that some people choose to reject the evidence and
proofs: </span></p></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">[B[ecause of human free will, we have the freedom to pursue erroneous ideas and go down wrong paths of thinking and behaving. And these work against the knowing of God: both His existence and Him, personally.<span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span></span></blockquote></blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">The point of Dave’s argument is that people are given “sufficient”
evidence to choose to accept that there is a God as well as a free choice to
try to know Him better. However, because
God chose to give us free will, we also get to choose whether to accept the
evidence or not. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">It is here that Pearce finally gets around to the point that he was
trying to make in all the back-and-forth.
What is God’s goal in designing the system this way? Why allow people to choose wrong? Why does He seem unfair? </span></p></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">As I say, morality is goal-oriented. Purpose is goal-oriented. For God, why he would do anything that seems unfair is a version of the problem of evil, and defenses or theodicies of and for the problem of evil are consequentialist in nature: God allows (or designs in) this evil/suffering for a greater good. And that greater good serves a purpose for an even larger overarching purpose or intention. </span></div></blockquote></blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Not only does Mr. Pearce call God unfair for not providing each person
equal access to the same evidence for His existence and for not guaranteeing
that the evidence is so overwhelming that no one could choose not to believe,
but Pearce claims God is unfair because He did not tell us the details of His
plan for creation. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Mr. Pearce then expands his argument again in another sur-reply to
Dave’s last paper, <span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2021/03/19/putting-the-doubting-thomas-episode-to-bed-and-opening-a-can-of-worms/"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: blue; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Putting the Doubting Thomas Episode to Bed, and Opening a Can of Worms</span></i></a></span>. It is in this article, Mr.Pearce claims, “I have provided a philosophical argument, based on one biblical
example and abstracting it, to show how God is unfair; if God is unfair, the
god of classical theism is invalidated.” </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">In support of this claim, he offers the following syllogism: </span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">1) God is omnibenevolent and being such will have fairness as a benevolent attribute. (Me He needs to show that fairness is an attribute of omnibenevolence and that omnibenevolence itself is an attribute of God.)</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">2) God wants humans to enter into a loving relationship with him. (Me-True, but the key to any relationship is consent, meaning free will.)</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">3) God has designed people (or the system that designs people) to not have equal fairness and opportunity to access a loving relationship with him. (Me-He needs to prove this.)</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">4) God also has the power to level the playing field ex post facto but appears not to do so. (Me-The answer to this argument depends on how the playing field is defined.)</span></p></blockquote><p></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">C) God is not fair, and thus not omnibenevolent. (Me-Again, assuming that fairness is a genuine attribute of omnibenevolence.)</span></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 1in; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">The central feature of Mr. Pearce’s argument is his assertion that
fairness is an aspect of God’s omnibenevolence.
However, he does not offer any proof for this assertion. Once he makes this claim without any
empirical evidence to show that fairness is an attribute of God, he then sets
out to show that God is unfair because God fails to offer empirical evidence of
His existence necessary for true belief.
He then argues that God is fair only if he apportions the empirical
evidence of His existence equally to everyone.
He then sets the conditions of fairness: </span></p></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;">Remember, for God to be truly fair, every
single human would have to have exactly the same balance of the combination of: </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"> ~rejection disposition </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"> ~access to evidence (or
EOAG) </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"> ~biological environment
to be able to deal with evidence etc </span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"> ~non-biological environment </span></p></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">He then concludes with this argument: </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">1. God is far from explicit aboutanything,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"> 2. It requires one to be intelligent enough to wade through a parochial ancient holy text with vast effort and intellectual acumen to even remotely start getting there. (Unfair apportion of evidence again! Elitism.)</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"> 3. All the time you spend doing that, you are not devoting the same to other holy texts – this requires a presupposed favouritism.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"> 4. Even after millennia of some of the best minds on the job, Christians can’t agree on how atonement works, or that it definitely works.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"> 5. Atonement is the basis of Jesus’ death and arguably his entire earthly existence.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"> 6. Divine hiddenness. Incoherent revelation. Etc.</span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">After reading this paper, I commented on Dave’s Facebook page on these
last six points. Dave decided it was
worthy enough to share it on Mr. Pearce’s blog, and I attempted to defend my
comment by responding to some criticisms of it by commentators who frequent Mr.
Pearce’s site. Mr. Pearce then collected
my comments and wrote a new article responding directly to my commentary,<span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2021/03/23/the-uneven-evidence-debate-responding-to-paul-hoffer/"><span style="color: blue; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"> </span><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: blue; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The Uneven
Evidence Debate: Responding to Paul Hoffer</span></i></a></span><i>.</i> Since
he has termed our interaction a debate, I felt obliged to pick up the gage and
turn my commentary into an honest debate. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-size: large;">IV: <b><u>The Debate</u></b>. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">To organize the material, I felt it necessary to refer to Mr. Pearce’s
posts and reformat them to make the arguments and assertions more
diabolic. MP refers to Mr. Pearce’s
comments. PH refers to myself and my
interlineations to that post. The
original text of my comments is in bold.<br /></span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;"> A. Rearming the Issues.</span></b></p></blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">MP: Here is the thing – we often hear that God would not put a cross on the moon as overwhelming evidence for his existence because it is just too overwhelming and doesn’t give people the “choice” to believe. But this is thoroughly problematic, as I discussed in this video:<br /></span><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 1in; text-align: left;"><a href="https://youtu.be/mf7jhMFYbz0"><span style="font-size: large;"> https://youtu.be/mf7jhMFYbz0</span></a></p><span style="font-size: large;">PH: In the video, you explicitly reference your book, which I own, and I used it to form the hypothetical fictional factual genuine I used in the comment that caused you and your readers so much consternation. The hypothetical is based on Questions 50-53 he referenced in the video and Questions 135-136 from your book. I would have thought you would be happy I read your book rather than throw a hissy-fit because I used you instead of Mark or Jill as God’s interrogator.<br /><br />MP: Let me lay some of this out in writing. God saw fit to convince Doubting Thomas, who – after all – knew – Jesus and saw him do his miracles. He was a disciple – one of Jesus’ inner circle. And yet even he didn’t believe in the Resurrection, attested to by his friends and eyewitnesses, until he had Jesus standing in front of him until Jesus made him touch the wounds.</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">As John 20
relays: </span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">24 But Thomas, one of the twelve, who was called Didymus, was not with them when Jesus came. 25 So the other disciples were saying to him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, “Unless I see in His hands the imprint of the nails, and put my finger into the place of the nails, and put my hand into His side, I will not believe.” 26 Eight days later His disciples were again inside, and Thomas was with them. Jesus *came, the doors having been shut, and stood in their midst and said, “Peace be to you.” 27 Then He *said to Thomas, “Place your finger here, and see My hands; and take your hand and put it into My side; and do not continue in disbelief, but be a believer.” 28 Thomas answered and said to Him, “My Lord and my God!” 29 Jesus *said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you now believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”</span></blockquote></blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"><br />And yet almost the entirety of the rest of humanity is not remotely afforded this level of evidence and is expected to believe, arguably on pain of hell. <br /><br />Thomas got to poke Jesus, bodily resurrected in front of him, in the hands. He got to feel the skin of the real and resurrected God, and only then did he believe. <br /><br /> He’s now a Saint. <br /><br /> This is completely unfair and terrible double standards. <br /><br /> God is not fair. <br /><br /> Therefore, God is not perfect or omnibenevolent. <br /><br />The only way God could deal with the potential unfairness is by having some kind of metric for judgement that allows for everyone’s causal circumstance to be taken into account. Person X believed in God 69% but only with a 32% evidential basis. But what of person Y who believed 90% on evidential basis 12%? And how about person Z who believed on 15% but only had 2% evidential basis? And all combinations thereof. <br /><br />So on and so forth. I’m not sure that this is either evidenced in there Bible or elsewhere, or even works as a coherent test basis for the classical version of God (who would know this in advance anyway and would not need to create so to test his infallibly predicted hypothesis). <br /><br />Doubting Thomas is another example as to how easy some had it getting through those pearly gates. <br /><br />PH: I offered your first article's text to show your argument's outlines and why Dave Armstrong responded the way he did to it. I urge the reader to read all of the assertions and responses by both gentlemen. While I agree with Dave’s arguments, I thought it essential to defend my comments and put flesh on them. <br /><br />MP: As I am sure you are aware by now, I have been embroiled in a debate with myself Dave Armstrong about the uneven apportioning of evidence to humanity over time and place. It moved more into the philosophical domain, so Armstrong invoked a comment from, one presumes, a more philosophical cementer at one of his social media sites. I’m somewhat surprised Dave was so impressed to provide it – I’m sure he could’ve done a better job himself. [EDIT: Thanks for the cementer, Paul Hoffer, for getting involved and defending his comments here – all of which I have only seen after completing this piece.] Nonetheless, I will respond interlinearly to Paul Hoffer: <br /><br />PH: I must ask, at this juncture, since you have seen my responses to the commentary by other folks on your site since you wrote your response, would it in any way change your response? I do not wish to be unfair to you. </span><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: large;">My friend Paul Hoffer on my Face
book page, responding to Jonathan:<o:p></o:p></span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>There are two separate issues
here that Mr. Pearce appears to merge together. The question, does God exist?
Is a separate question from is God fair or not? Moreover, he assumes that God’s
notion of fairness is the same as ours. It is actually a dodge</b>.<br /><br />MP: Well no, I actually clearly delineated both on the various syllogisms I have created on this series. In reality, however, I can combine both: Does a fair god exist? (I.e., Does classical theism hold?) <br /><br />PH: Elaborating on the above comment, I maintain that classical theism does not hold that God is fair, and accordingly, any such argument is a dodge because fairness, as you define it, is not an attribute of God. Your argument rests on a category error. By combining the two syllogisms, you compound this error. <br /><br />Furthermore, God’s existence can not be combined with the question of what attributes God has because one does not need to show what God’s attributes are to prove He exists. Since you raised the Resurrection and Saint Thomas's matter, let us use that as the test case.<br /></span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Claim: God exists.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"> Premise 1) The resurrection would be evidence of God’s existence.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"> Premise 2) The resurrection occurred.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"> C: Therefore, the resurrection is evidence for God’s existence. </span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">We shall assume that Premise 1 is valid as Mr. Pearce appears to concur with it by his use of Doubting Thomas's example. <br /><br />Premise 2 can be reasonably demonstrated through research into the historical evidence (the New Testament accounts and the Early Church's history) about the resurrection. The summary of that evidence is as follows:<br /></span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"> 1) Jesus was crucified and died.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"> 2). Jesus was placed into a tomb.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"> 3) The tomb was found to be empty three days later.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"> 4) The disciples ALL claimed to have seen the risen Christ after the tomb was found empty and give witness and testify to support that claim.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"> 5) If Christ did not rise from the dead, the disciples and their followers were willing to be killed or tortured for something they knew was a lie. (St. Thomas the Apostle himself was martyred in India by stoning and being stabbed with a lance. Of course, Catholics would also argue Apostolic Succession, the fact that bishops who preached the Gospel were followers of the apostles who knew Jesus Christ or knew people who lived in that age and carried on their message. The New Testament itself is the product of their preaching and preserving what they taught.)</span></p></blockquote><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">The conclusion follows from the premises, and the conclusion is sound. If the evidence is factual, then the logic is pretty unassailable. Note that there is no mention whatsoever about God’s attributes. This is not a philosophical musing at all, but a question of evidence, or more precisely, a question of fact. The consequences of accepting the evidence as factual may have philosophical ramifications, but the Resurrection story, as you call it, either happened or did not. <br /><br />As I stated previously, what you are arguing against is the evidence's credibility in Premise 2. It is not a sufficiency argument at all, because sufficiency assumes that the evidence adduced by the party bearing the burden of proof (in this case, theists like myself) is true. In other words, if the Resurrection of Jesus Christ did happen, would It be sufficient to prove the existence of God? Only after that assessment is made would the question of credibility arises. Then one would set out to examine and evaluate the evidence's veracity and determine what weight to assign it. Only after these questions are answered would you get to question whether the Church has carried out of the Great Commission at Matt. 28:16-20 is a fair way for God to present the evidence of His existence to the world through the preaching and proclamation of Christ’s Incarnation, birth, life, ministry, and the Resurrection story. Furthermore, you are not attacking the Resurrection story itself, but how it has been disseminated to a worldwide audience. <br /><br />As a skeptic, you know how powerful the Resurrection argument is. Given the way you are attacking the argument, you know you cannot refute it philosophically. There is simply no natural or materialistic way to explain how a dead person was restored to life days later. You can only attack it if you call the eyewitnesses liars. Rather than doing that, you attempt to poison the well by blathering about historical criticism, form criticism, the Documentary hypothesis, blah, blah, blah. What you are complaining about is if the Resurrection story is true, why did God choose a bunch of middle-class 1st century Jews to start a Church and proclaim the story rather than give each person direct empirical evidence for His existence? <br /><br />To top it off, you interject the issue about God’s attributes into the argument to obfuscate. You know, as someone with your reputed philosophical pedigree that one can accept the Easter Story as true, admit that God exists, but deny Christians got it right on understanding Who God is. Unfortunately, even if we Catholic Christians got His nature wrong, such a misunderstanding does not lead one to atheism, but rather pantheism or Deism in a worst-case scenario. <br /><br />In other words, accepting atheism would be illogical. You positing the argument that God does not exist because He supposedly is not fair is faulty logically as the question of His nature does nothing to advance or negate the argument about whether God exists. This faulty logic is why I said it is a dodge to merge the two arguments. <br /><br />Even assuming, arguendo, that you could argue that knowledge of the existence is predicated on the attributes of God (rather than vice-a-versa), I do not accept the premise that your view of fairness is an attribute or operation of God. What you should have argued is: <br /><br />1. Classical theism’s conception of God only exists if He is omnibenevolent. <br /><br /> 2. Fairness is an aspect of omnibenevolence.<br /><br /> 3. If God is not fair, then Classical theism’s conception of God does not exist.<br /><br />It would then be incumbent on you to offer evidence that God is omnibenevolent and that fairness is a necessary aspect of omnibenevolence. Of course, you could never prove that God does not exist, only that our human understanding of God is flawed.<br /><br />MP: As for that last comment, I could switch that: “He assumes God’s notion of fairness is different to ours. It is actually a dodge.” What’s good for the goose…<br /><br />PH: My contention is not a dodge. I do assume that fairness according to any human standard is not an attribute of God. Moreover, I am prepared to defend that assumption. Let us debate then.<br /><br />I would note, though, that since you are the prosecutor here, you would have the burden of proof to show that God’s notion of fairness is the same as yours and that He should be held to your standard. However, you, sir, have not proven either assertion. You ask your readers to assume them, but I reject both claims. If you are claiming that your notion of fairness is an attribute of God, there is the small matter of evidence to support your assertion.</span></p></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: left;"><b><span style="font-size: large;">B. Does God Have to be Fair?</span></b></div></blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"><br /><br />MP: [After citing John 20: 24-29] And yet almost the entirety of the rest of humanity is not<br />remotely afforded this level of evidence and is expected to believe, arguably on pain of hell.<br /><br />Thomas got to poke Jesus, bodily resurrected in front of him, in the hands. He got to feel the skin of the real and resurrected God, and only then did he believe.<br /><br /> He’s now a Saint.<br /><br /> This is completely unfair and terrible double standards.<br /><br /> God is not fair.<br /><br /> Therefore, God is not perfect or omnibenevolent.<br /><br />The only way God could deal with the potential unfairness is by having some kind of metric for judgement that allows for everyone’s causal circumstance to be taken into account. Person X believed in God 69% but only with a 32% evidential basis. But what of person Y who believed 90% on evidential basis 12%? And how about person Z who believed on 15% but only had 2% evidential basis? And all combinations thereof.<br /><br />So on and so forth. I’m not sure that this is either evidenced in there Bible or elsewhere, or even works as a coherent test basis for the classical version of God (who would know this in advance anyway and would not need to create so to test his infallibly predicted hypothesis).<br /><br />PH: As I have stated already, your argument's underlying enthymeme is that the “classical version of God” is supposedly fair. I reject your unspoken premise and state that fairness, at least as you describe it, is not an attribute of God at all.<br /><br />Before we discuss whether God is fair, we need to grasp what your definition of fairness is. In your debate with Dave Armstrong, you argue that since our destination in the afterlife depends on accepting the existence of God, then God owes us EOAG (equality of access to God), meaning that somehow God should apportion the evidence of His existence to each person in the same way, in the same measure, and ensure that each person equally believes in Him. Equality in outcomes seems to be your definition of fairness.<br /><br />However, there is a false assumption that needs to be disabused at the outset. Whether we go to heaven or hell is not based solely on a belief that God exists. We are judged not on our intellect but on loving God and our neighbor according to our circumstances.<br /><br />For that matter, God does not put us in heaven or hell. We get to pick where we go based on how we live our lives. Caiaphas, the high priest, and the other Sanhedrin members all “knew” that God existed, but they chose to condemn Jesus to die on the cross anyway unjustly. So tell me, do you think that God judged them on whether they knew He existed or on their actions despite knowing He existed? Thus, knowledge is not a prerequisite, but faith is. Jesus tells us that one needs only a “mustard seed faith” to accomplish what we need to do to attain heaven (Matt. 17:20).</span><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />No, what you are demanding is no fairness at all. What you want is to know God’s providence beforehand rather than experiencing it. You want to know the end of the story. You are like a high schooler writing a book report on War and Peace who is too lazy to read the book. You want someone else to tell you how it ends. You are mad that God did not reveal to you the great all-knowing philosopher-king, the deals of His plan for the creation, or how you fit into it. However, even if He did, would you understand it fully? Can a finite being fully comprehend the knowledge of an infinite being? Your complaint is nothing more than a dress-up version of the stupid question, can God make a stone so big that He could not lift it?</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br />Your complaint is just selfishness masquerading as fairness. So let us see how God deals with similar examples of such fairness in the Scriptures.<br /><br /> In the parable of the Prodigal Son:</span></div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Then [Jesus] said, “A man had two sons, and the younger son said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of your estate that should come to me.’ So the father divided the property between them.</span></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"> After a few days, the younger son collected all his belongings and set off to a distant country where he squandered his inheritance on a life of dissipation. When he had freely spent everything, a severe famine struck that country, and he found himself in dire need.</span></p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">So he hired himself out to one of the local citizens who sent him to his farm to tend the swine. And he longed to eat his fill of the pods on which the swine fed, but nobody gave him any.</span></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"> Coming to his senses he thought, ‘How many of my father’s hired workers have more than enough food to eat, but here am I, dying from hunger. I shall get up and go to my father and I shall say to him, “Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you. I no longer deserve to be called your son; treat me as you would treat one of your hired workers.”’</span></p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;">So he got up and went back to his father. While he was still a long way off, his father caught sight of him, and was filled with compassion. He ran to his son, embraced him and kissed him.</span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;">His son said to him, ‘Father, I have sinned against heaven and against you; I no longer deserve to be called your son.’ </span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;">But his father ordered his servants, ‘Quickly bring the finest robe and put it on him; put a ring on his finger and sandals on his feet. Take the fattened calf and slaughter it. Then let us celebrate with a feast, because this son of mine was dead, and has come to life again; he was lost, and has been found.’ Then the celebration began. </span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;">Now the older son had been out in the field and, on his way back, as he neared the house, he heard the sound of music and dancing. He called one of the servants and asked what this might mean. The servant said to him, ‘Your brother has returned and your father has slaughtered the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’ </span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;">He became angry, and when he refused to enter the house, his father came out and pleader with him. He said to his father in reply, ‘Look, all these years I served you and not once did I disobey your orders; yet you never gave me even a young goat to feast on with my friends. But when your son returns who swallowed up your property with prostitutes, for him you slaughter the fattened calf.’ </span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;"> He said to him, ‘My son, you are here with me always; everything I have is yours. But now we must celebrate and rejoice, because your brother was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.’” (Luke 15:11-32 NAB)</span></div></blockquote></blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"><br /> Now, was the Father fair to the eldest son here? In contrast to the younger son, who was undeserving, who made numerous bad choices, and was a total embarrassment to his family, the older son remained home, appears to have been a good son in every way, worked hard, and did all of the right things. He did not ever try to take advantage of his father. However, the prodigal son got the feast and his father’s love; the older son got a lecture and a dressing-down.<br /><br />Most people seem happy for the prodigal son in this parable, and the father’s love for the prodigal son indeed reminds us about God’s love and mercy for those who sin and turn back to Him. Nevertheless, in reality, does not the father’s seemingly preferential treatment of the prodigal challenge our notions of fairness? Doesn’t this make us “elder sons” somewhat jealous of how God seems to love and show mercy to some and not to others? It is not fair, right, deserved, or earned! The fact is the parable is not just about the prodigal sons and daughters of the world. It is about the rest of us who look down on such people. We are the older son in the parable. Rather than being happy for the prodigals of the world, we are mad that they got preferential treatment, just like you are mad that God gave Thomas preferential treatment. That is where your definition of fairness fails. Your notion of fairness does not account for God’s generosity, mercy, or grace. In truth, these things are wholly foreign to our human notions of equality-fairness. Simply put, your vaunted utilitarianism can not account for either mercy or grace.<br /><br />While God freely offers grace to all in some form, not everyone chooses to accept it. God accepts that because He respects the exercise of our free will (Because of His foreknowledge, HE has already accepted it.) However, if we seek goodness or happiness, we are in reality seeking Him as opposed to material things. If we seek Truth, we seek Him Who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. If we seek to treat others the same way we hope to be treated ourselves, we are, in reality, worshipping God. Classical theism holds to the notion of the Imago Dei. Even if we fail to see God in creation, we still see Him every day in our neighbor, for all of us are made in His image. If we truly love others, we are, in reality, loving God. And all things being equal, these are things every person, regardless of their identity, attributes, and circumstances, can seek. According to your standards, it might not be fair that God chooses to give some people more grace than others, but there it is. God’s notion of fairness is not the same as yours.<br /><br />However, in case you think that this is not a “fair” example of what I am talking about, let us look at another example from that parochial holy book that by happenstance has been translated into every written language on the planet: <br /><br /></span><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: large;">[Jesus said,] “The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard.</span></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Going out about nine o’clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and he said to them, ‘You too go into my vineyard, and I will give you what is just.’</span></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"> So they went off. [And] he went out again around noon, and around three o’clock, and did likewise.</span></p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: large;">Going out about five o’clock, he found others standing around, and said to them, ‘Why do you stand here idle all day?’</span></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">They answered, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ </span></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"> He said to them, ‘You too go into my vineyard.’</span></p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"> <span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: large;">When it was evening, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.’</span></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: large;"> </span></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">When those who had started about five o’clock came, each received the usual daily wage. So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage. And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, saying, ‘These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day’s burden and the heat.’</span></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"> He said to one of them in reply, ‘My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? [Or] am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?’</span></p></blockquote></blockquote><div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: large;"> Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last. [Matt. 20:1-16 NAB]</span></blockquote></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"> Doesn’t this parable make you want to scream,
“God, that is not fair! The workers who
worked all day under grueling conditions got paid the same amount of money as
the workers who labored for an hour! How
is ‘the last will be first, and the first will be last’ fair?” If the landowner/God was fair, wouldn’t he have
given the workers who worked the most extended more money than those who did
not? Instead, the landowner/God chose to
give everyone the same wage. This may
offend our sense of fairness, but the landowner/God did not cheat anyone in
reality. He may not have been fair, but
He was just. He gave each worker what
was promised. God gives each of us
enough evidence of His existence. You can
see God at the minimum in each person you meet.
He gave you a conscience, an innate sense of right and wrong. Is it His fault if you do not exercise your
conscience to do right? God instills in
each of us a desire to seek the truth.
Is it His fault if you choose not to seek the truth? God gives each of us the capacity to love one
another. Is it His fault if you choose
not to do so? He gives us all that He
promises </span></p><span style="font-size: large;">Are any of us entitled to receive more? If God chooses to be generous or merciful to whom He wills, are we really in a position to begrudge Him? You complain about the amount of evidence God has given you to consider whether He exists, but why should you get more than the rest of us? I got the same amount of evidence as you, yet I believe. He gave you far more intellect than the average Joe who also chooses to believe in Him. How selfish are you to argue that you deserve more evidence than what I got? The way I see it, God respects your freedom to acknowledge His existence far more than you respect His magnanimity in giving you what you already have. <br /><br />As I said before, grace must be taken into account. It is not something God owes us or that we can earn it, nor can we demand it. We are not entitled to it. God’s grace is freely given to those who ask for it. Luckily for an intellectual atheist like you, a cradle Christian does not receive a greater reward or higher status than someone who turns towards Him later in their life or even on their deathbed. We all have the opportunity to receive the same wage whether one is a cradle Catholic or a lifelong atheist who may labor but an hour. That is God’s notion of fairness. <br /><br />Here is one more example to show that God’s standard of fairness is not the same as humanity (there are many examples I could give, but I limit myself here to three examples). Let us consider the parable of the talents.<br /><br /></span></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;">“[The kingdom of heaven] will be as when a man who was going on a journey called in his servants and entrusted his possessions to them. To one he gave five talents; to another, two; to a third, one—to each according to his ability. Then he went away. </span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;"> Immediately the one who received five talents went and traded with them, and made another five. Likewise, the one who received two made another two.</span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;">But the man who received one went off and dug a hole in the ground and buried his master’s money. </span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;"> After a long time the master of those servants came back and settled accounts with them. The one who had received five talents came forward bringing the additional five. He said, ‘Master, you gave me five talents. See, I have made five more.’</span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;"> His master said to him, ‘Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master’s joy.’</span></div></blockquote></blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">[Then] the one who had received two talents also came forward and said, ‘Master, you gave me two talents. See, I have made two more.’</span></div></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">His master said to him, ‘Well done, my good and faithful servant. Since you were faithful in small matters, I will give you great responsibilities. Come, share your master’s joy.’</span></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"> Then the one who had received the one talent came forward and said, ‘Master, I knew you were a demanding person, harvesting where you did not plant and gathering where you did not scatter; so out of fear I went off and buried your talent in the ground. Here it is back.’</span></div></blockquote></blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"> His master said to him in reply, ‘You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I did not plant and gather where I did not scatter? Should you not then have put my money in the bank so that I could have got it back with interest on my return? Now then! Take the talent from him and give it to the one with ten.</span></div></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div></blockquote></div><div style="text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">For to everyone who has, more will be given and he will grow rich; but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. And throw this useless servant into the darkness outside, where there will be wailing and grinding of teeth.’ [Matt. 25:14-30 NAB]</span></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;">This parable appears just before when Jesus
tells us how God is going to judge us.
He will not judge how much we know about His existence contrary to your
arbitrary made-up notion that God is fair.
He will judge us according to the effort we make to know, love Him and
our neighbor according to our talents. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;">In the parable, we see the master (God) giving
each of his servants (us) an unequal distribution of talents based on our
unequal abilities. In other words, God
creates us unequally and treats us unevenly. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;">For people like you, all inequality is wrong. You demand that God give us all the same
amount of talents (evidence), and you demand that God make us the equal ability
to consider and accept the evidence of His existence. However, we already know that knowledge about
God’s existence, or lack thereof, is not the key to the “pearly gates” of
heaven or the gates of hell. Does our
lack of knowledge regarding God’s existence prevent us from seeking truth? Does it prevent us from following our
conscience? Does it prevent us from
loving each other? It follows the way,
the truth, and life as best we can that makes us all equal, not the stuff you
focus on. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;">Not only is your view contrary to our reality
as singletons, your view unfairly assumes that God is incapable of taking into
account the differences that come from our individuality when He does judge
us. As Fr. Paul Scalia, the son of
Justice Antonin Scalia, writes:</span></p></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;">We are both equal and unequal: equal in dignity and unequal in talent. It is true that God shows no partiality and that all men are created equal because every human person is created in God's image and called to union with Him. </span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;">All members of the Church have equal rights because all have an equal call to heaven. A pope is not “more called” to heaven than a janitor. From the lowliest altar boy to the pope, every person is called to holiness. The Catholic Church is the most egalitarian institution globally: everyone is called to be a saint … no one is off the hook. </span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;">At the same time, there is a clear diversity — and, yes, an inequality — of talents and tasks. God has not given every person the same talents. Some excel in one area, some in another. Nor do the states of life share an equal dignity. It is better to marry than to remain single, and better to enter religious life than to marry. The work of a pope is more important than that of an altar boy. </span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;">So we find in God’s design both equality and inequality. To emphasize one aspect more than the other disturbs the harmony of God’s design. Harmony requires both equality and inequality. </span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><a href="https://catholicexchange.com/equal-and-unequal"><i><span style="font-size: large;">Fr. Paul Scalia, Equal and Unequal.</span></i></a></div></blockquote></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"> If God does have a plan of salvation, God has
already worked out to account for both equalities inherent to us and inequality
from our individuality. Moreover, since
we are all made in God’s image, it does not matter whether we are Christian,
Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Animist, agnostic, or atheist. As we are all made in His image, He offers
all the salvation gifts if we choose to accept them. That is equality. God shows no partiality. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span>Now the only way that God would be able to
satisfy your kind of equality in the knowledge of His existence would be to
give us the same direct empirical knowledge that He gave the angels because of
sufficiency vs. credibility issues discussed earlier. However, if God had given us that sort of
evidence, there would be no latitude in His judgment of us. For God to be fair, he would have to cast us
all in hell for even a single sin like he did Satan and the other angels who
rebelled against God. There would be no
room for mercy. Because we do not have
such direct empirical evidence, God can be both just and merciful. So if you want God to be fair, you should
expect to be treated like God treated Satan.
I choose the classical version of God, Who is merciful as well as just
instead.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span>As for myself and other folks who prefer mercy
over fairness, God will judge us according to our talents and how we use what
we have been given. As Christians, since
we have accepted the evidence so-to-speak, we will be judged based on a higher
standard of responsibility than others who have not, whether they be atheists,
Muslims, Buddhists, or whatever. God
expects more from us than He would from others, as shown above. On the other hand, you folks will be judged based
on the information you have been given and how you responded to it. All are judged on how we treated our neighbors
according to our given talents, abilities, and knowledge. See, Matt. 25:31-42. In short, God judges us according to a
standard of mercy that far exceeds any human standard of fairness, taking into
account our individuality and abilities, respecting our free will, and
impartially judging our actions. Your
EOAG does none of that.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> As Go</o:p></span>d said through His
prophet Ezekiel:</span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;">You say, “The LORD’s way is not fair!” Hear now, house of Israel: Is it my way that is unfair? Are not your ways unfair?</span></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;">When the just turn away from justice to do evil and die, on account of the evil they did they must die. But if the wicked turn from the wickedness they did and do what is right and just, they save their lives; since they turned away from all the sins they committed, they shall live; they shall not die. [Ezek. 18:25-28 NAB]</span></p></blockquote></blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">Alternatively, as He stated through Isaiah:</span><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Seek the LORD while he may be found, call upon him while he is near. </span></p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Let the wicked forsake their way, and sinners their thoughts;</span></p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Let them turn to the LORD to find mercy; to our God, who is generous in forgiving.</span></p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">For my thoughts are not your thoughts nor are your ways my ways—oracle of the LORD.</span></p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, my thoughts higher than your thoughts. [Isaiah 55:6-9 NAB]</span></p></div></blockquote></blockquote><span style="font-size: large;">MP: But this conversation is pointless if he’s questioning the meaning of fairness in the way that he is doing it (i.e., just as a dodge). Sure, we can discuss the calculation method: How long is the time period over which it is calculated? How many people can be removed from a decision to still be accounted for fairness? And so on. These are common ideas when discussing consequentialism. Because this is a question about moral consequentialism.<br /><br />PH: I disagree since we first needed to discuss why your argument is a dodge, which I laid out above. Then I showed you why your fairness argument fails. Fairness is not an attribute of God. Refuting a false assertion is a classic strawman argument.<br /><br />Addressing your other remarks here, you claim to adhere to a philosophy of moral consequentialism, but you do not state if it is the indulgent sort, a preferential sort, or a pluralistic sort. However, to save you some time here, I will tell you that I do not accept the ramifications of moral consequentialism as I believe in an objective good. I do not accept the premise that ends justify the means. Human beings are not a means to our ends but are ends in themselves. I am also not a Pelagian nor a Semi-Pelagian. I do not accept the premise that I can earn my way to heaven by being good enough. <br /><br />Moreover, being moral to produce the right kind of consequence is not feasible because a person can not foresee all the consequences of their actions. I am not good merely because I desire to go to heaven and avoid hell. I try to be good because I love God and want to be good regardless of the consequences. In other words, I am called to be faithful, not successful. I am called to love God and neighbor, regardless of the consequences to myself. <br /><br />Just as I do not accept your argument's premise based on a utilitarian notion of fairness, I do not accept the notion of good predicated solely on outcomes. Natural law, the Good, and rights are universals and are not constrained by subjective outcomes. Consequentialism can lead to a kind of fortune-telling. If I just do just enough right things, I can earn my way to heaven. Moral consequentialism is just a reiteration of an old heresy. <br /><br />That being said, I will concede that I do need to develop my thinking more about this, but like all things, my worldview is a work in progress. Like Alisdair MacIntyre, I too see a place for considering consequences in virtue ethics. Motives do matter, and people will engage in specific actions to achieve certain telos. I will also concede that my ego and sinful nature sometimes get in the way of why I want to be moral. Christians often get caught up in consequentialist sorts of thinking, much like the Pharisees did in Jesus’ day. Catholics admit as much when they go to Confession and recite the Act of Contrition that acknowledges such. <br /><br />MP: But for him to question fairness as a concept in the way that he does renders any such conversation pointless.<br /><br /></span><div><span style="font-size: large;">PH: No, my original remarks were commentary and not an actual argument. All someone had to do was invite me to debate as you have in this instance and explain my remarks, and put a foundation under them. I do not question fairness as a concept but whether that concept applies to God. Moreover, while you claim that conversation is pointless here, we are still having one, so there is indeed a point to it.<br /></span><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>When he dies, Mr. Pearce wants to
go up the Pearly Gates and say to God,</b><o:p></o:p></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large; text-indent: -0.5in;">MP: Let
me stop him there. I don’t want to do that. I think the whole notion of heaven
and hell is morally reprehensible. It’s also childish, and theists should grow
out of it (as it seems they are starting to do regarding hell). </span></p><span style="font-size: large;">PH: I am not an Origenist, although one of my oldest friends is. However, it is not a question of wanting to stand before God; but whether one will have to do that. In my faith tradition and most of the other ones out there, we will answer yes. <br /><br />Now to disabuse you of some things. There are many ideas about heaven and hell that are indeed childish. I do not believe in a hell where devils are running around poking people with pitchforks, nor do I believe that hell is a pit of fire where souls are roasted on a rotisserie. Such a view is indeed morally reprehensible as it minimizes the horror that is hell. <br /><br />Hellfire is a metaphor that people can understand to convey a complex idea of the pain caused by eternal separation from God and one’s fellow creatures. Such a voluntary separation is a horrible fate for one to choose. However, to be fair to God, He does not put people in hell; we put ourselves there willingly. Hell is something some folks want to have happened to them. It is a cell they put themselves in and throw away the key. For reasons that God has determined to be good, they get what they wanted. BTW, time as a concept has no meaning in hell either. Hell is the completion of time where one exists in a state of being that separates themselves from God. <br /><br />Regarding heaven, I believe in some form of religious pluralism where the Trinitarian God who desires to be in a relationship with His creation provides a way for all to enter into that relationship. Whether one calls it invincible ignorance, prepatio evangelica, the anonymous Christian, or something along the lines of what Jacques DuPuis and Strafford Caldecott write about, there is a path for people who never become Christians. I do not know what that path entails, but in Catholic thought, it is there:<br /><br /></span></div></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><div><span style="font-size: large;">All men are called to this catholic unity of the People of God … And to it, in different ways, belong or are ordered: the Catholic faithful, others who believe in Christ, and finally all mankind, are called by God's grace to salvation. (CCC 836) </span></div></div><div><div><span style="font-size: large;">...</span></div></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"> So we are all God’s creation, and are part of his Church, some in full communion,</span></p></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><div><span style="font-size: large;">and some imperfectly. The Church teaches that, “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. </span></div></div><div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div></div><div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men. (CCC 847-848)</span></div></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"> Sorry, Mr. Pearce, you are simply wrong about
who may get to go to heaven according to the Catholic tradition. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p> </o:p><b>“It’s not my fault that I didn’t
look for you, lead a moral life, or accept the Gospel (even though I know it
enough to criticize it). If only You had done a better job revealing Yourself
to me, maybe I would have been a decent good person, seeking You out in all things
and accepting the truth of Your words. But You suck, God because You weren’t
explicit enough for my tastes, even though it was good enough or all those
other billions of schlubs out there who did find Your evidence to be explicit
enough. For that, I deserve to get into heaven, no matter what. It’s a question
of fairness after all.”</b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p> </o:p><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">MP:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Thanks
for speaking for me. Since I was at the pearly gates 1) I assume I would have
to have been a decent person and 2) Are you implying I am not a decent person?
Wow, you’re nice. You don’t know me, but, apparently, I can only be a decent
human if I am your sort of Christian.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">PH:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">As
I stated before in my defending my comment from your other commentators' attacks
on your blog, it was not an actual judgment of your character or an assertion
regarding you personally.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">After all, you
are not dead, are you?</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">It was a
hypothetical fictional factual genuine to demonstrate the silliness of your insistence
of using a contrived notion of fairness.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">
</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Lawyers, debaters, and rhetoricians use this device to illustrate a flaw
in an opponent’s argument.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Considering
the points you were drawing from your book, </span><i style="text-indent: -0.5in;">The
Little Book of Unholy Questions, </i><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">in the video, I decided to create a
hypothetical based on Questions 50-53 and 135-136 from the book. No more, no
less.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">I am not implying that you are a
vicious person.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Quite frankly, I often
use myself in such examples, but I could not resist poking fun at you for using
“pearly gates” to denigrate heaven.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Please
do not blame me; blame causal determinism.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><span style="font-size: large;">
As for whether you are a decent human being, I imagine you are. A bit myopic and pompous for my tastes, but I dare say, there is a good possibility that you are a more decent bloke than me ceteris paribus. Although, to be fair to me, if you deep-down-to-the-depth-of-your-toes believe in causal determination to the degree that folks have no moral responsibility, you and your fans should not have gotten indignant over the comment because you know I have no moral responsibility concerning the content of my comments. :) <br /><br />Nevertheless, whether you are a decent bloke is not relevant because decency alone is not the criterion to get into heaven. One needs faith too, which is why I assumed in my second hypothetical fictional factual genuine below that you were still trying to seek Him, which is an act of faith that with God’s grace may be sufficient to allow you into heaven.</span><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">MP: I can probably do a better job myself of offering what I would say. If I met God at the pearly gates and was able to speak my mind, I would say:</span><div><div><p></p></div></div></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">“I appreciate you judging me worthy of being here, despite my atheism, so that answers the question of faith vs works. I knew it made more sense this way! That aside, I’ll be frank with you. I’m not really sure what your game is here and down there, what your purpose is. You have made a pretty disastrous world if the intent is even to get more than half the people in it, over time and place, to enter into a loving relationship with you. The pain and suffering down there is at shocking levels. And that’s by your design. Also, given causality, I don’t get how you can be judgmental, especially since you designed us this way and knew in advance what we’d do. And a digital judgement for a continuum of behaviour? What’s that about? But, really, how come you made better arguments and better evidence to conclude that you don’t exist than you do? What’s with that? Because, you realise (of course you do!) this makes most of your followers on Earth pretty stupid. And quite a substantial number of them have been not very nice. Is that why most of them are in hell, and heaven seems to filled with decent atheists? Nice plot twist there. Dark! I really am interested in what moral consequentialism you are using to justify this all – what the greater good is. That is the holy grail. I mean, I get that you are using people instrumentally (even though most theists abhor moral consequentialism – that’s deliciously dark irony again!), but what is that greater good at whose altar everyone is being sacrificed? Other than that, what ales have you got here? Also, I’m vegan – is that a problem? I mean, I don’t want to be too good for heaven.”</span></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"> <span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">PH:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Your
hypothetical fictional factual genuine is a tad darker than mine.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">It does have a certain Job-ishness to it (he
is another guy God was not very fair to in the Bible).</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Now, mind you, I am not comparing you to Job,
but his judgmental friends.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">I am confident
that God would answer all your questions, give you a satisfactory account of
Himself, and then hand you a cookie.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">
</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Then, He will say to you,</span></span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> “For Me there is only try.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Because of the mustard seed faith that kept
you seeking despite calling yourself an atheist, I love how you kept trying to
know and love your neighbor and Me, which is all I can ask of any of you..”</span></span></p><span style="font-size: large;">However, to answer your question about who is stupid or not, I would remind you what I told humanity through St. Paul:</span></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><span style="font-size: large;">The message of the cross is folly for those who are on the way to ruin, but for those of us who are on the road to salvation it is the power of God. As scripture says: I am going to destroy the wisdom of the wise and bring to nothing the understanding of any who understand.</span></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"> Where are the philosophers? Where are the experts? And where are the debaters of this age? Do you not see how God has shown up human wisdom as folly?</span></p></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Since in the wisdom of God the world was unable to recognise God through wisdom, it was God's own pleasure to save believers through the folly of the gospel. While the Jews demand miracles and the Greeks look for wisdom, we are preaching a crucified Christ: to the Jews an obstacle they cannot get over, to the gentiles foolishness, but to those who have been called, whether they are Jews or Greeks, a Christ who is both the power of God and the wisdom of God.</span></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">God's folly is wiser than human wisdom, and God's weakness is stronger than human strength. </span></blockquote></blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">Consider, brothers, how you were called; not many of you are wise by human standards, not many influential, not many from noble families. No, God chose those who by human standards are fools to shame the wise; he chose those who by human standards are weak to shame the strong, those who by human standards are common and contemptible -- indeed those who count for nothing -- to reduce to nothing all those that do count for something, so that no human being might feel boastful before God. (1 Cor. 1:18-29 NAB)</span></blockquote></blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"><br /><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">Then
God will say to you,” </span></span><div><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: large; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><br /></span></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: large; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">However, Jonathan, I am a merciful God, not a fair
one.” </span></div></blockquote><div><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: large; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"> </span></div><div><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: large; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;">Then He will let you in. Afterward, I will meet you at the Golden Harp
pub there, and we will marvel at how wrong we all were being finite beings
trying to fit an Infinite Being into little finite boxes of our design. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br />To be clear, that is the real problem with your whole argument. As the Anglican divine, JB Phillips, states, your version of God is too small for me. Your fairness argument anthropomorphizes God. You turn God from an infinite being into an idol. Your God is not the Father and Creator of all things, but a petty and arbitrary Zeus. As for whether he will let vegans into heaven since God lets eunuchs into heaven, I imagine that vegans will have only a bit more difficulty getting in too. <br /></span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>Pearce’s argument is a con man’s
approach to things. He denies that he has any responsibility to practice the
skepticism that he claims he measures all things. Man is not a moral agent with
free will. He claims that he has no duty to look for the truth of things, see
the beauty of things, or open his eyes to the universe’s order and pattern that
screams that there is a Designer and a Maker. It is like a person going to the
Louvre and pretending that the Mona Lisa painted itself by an accidental
mixture of paints that coincidentally fell on a canvas. He is skeptical about
everything except his own atheism, apparently. He no longer is interested in
the truth of things. He’s got it all figured out, you see.</b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large; text-indent: -0.5in;">MP: Okay,
though there are some interesting ideas here to do with moral responsibility
(MR) and fatalism, this is also a hot mess. Parsing things down, we have:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large; text-indent: -0.5in;">PH: I
agree that a comment is not an argument.
It is editorializing. A comment
is like a guy sitting on a couch drinking beers watching football (American-
style) in a T-shirt and his underwear.
It is not dressed up with someplace to go. Since you were kind enough to see some merit
in interacting with it, I am obliged to put clothes on the comment as if on a
date and turn it into an actual argument. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><span style="font-size: large;">
By the way, how far does your determinism go? Is it the guard-rail type of determinism where past choices limit the number of choices we can make concerning the here-and-now, which I could cotton to, or is it more akin to living in a Skinner box type of determinism which I could not? Did a butterfly in China a hundred years ago munching on a leaf lead to a series of events that caused me to comment on your blog article? Or, to put it in a more contemporary way, how many nights did your determinism cause you to sleep on the couch when you told your wife that it was not your idea to date her, marry her, or have children with her since falling in love with her was not something you freely chose to do? <br /><br />MP: How can I pat myself on the back for my supposed superior skepticism given causal determinism (CD)?<br /><br />PH: So you are not a skeptic? You are not a rational being capable of making choices? Are you not able to pick the words and phrases you use in forming your questioning? Furthermore, you believe that you and everything about you is nothing more than the sum of an infinite causal chain going back to the dawn of time? Being someone who has to deal with the paradox of having free will and yet being predestined in some respect according to God’s salvific plan, I recognize the appeal of a multiple-choice or guard rail type determinism that in my mind solves part of the paradox, but full-blown causal determinism does not account for why we human beings have rationality. By the way, is Calvinism anything more than a version of causal determinism gussied up in religious garb? Are you a Calvinist sans God? <br /><br /> MP: With CD comes no MR.<br /><br /> PH: Well, that is an exciting notion! I am sure that every convicted rapist and murderer will be using that argument in their appeal. “Your Honor, I cannot be held to account for raping and killing that woman because a dinosaur farted 200 million years ago and started a causal chain that led to me to do it.” Is not causal determination nothing more than a philosophical reiteration of Flip Wilson’s “The Devil made me do it!”? I chuckle when Dawkins makes that sort of argument. Your version is no less humorous.<br /><br />MP: People have a duty to look for truth, adhere to design arguments for God, and see beauty in things. (??) As a skeptic, I don’t have this duty.<br /><br />PH: As a skeptic, you have to follow the evidence. I just stated things slightly differently. I referenced what kind of evidence you should be following. So yes, you do have that duty if you call yourself a skeptic. BTW, I never used the word “adhere.”<br /><br />MP: Paley’s Watchmaker argument.<br /><br />PH: Well, what about Paley’s Watchmaker argument? Please do not leave me in suspense! It is an elaboration on Aquinas’ fifth way. Most philosophers who attack it, particularly the atheist flavors, attack the analogy he uses rather than the abductive argument he makes. If you want to talk about Paley’s Watchmaker argument, that is fine, but I am not a mind reader and can not guess from the laundry list of fallacies which one you are going to use to attack it.<br /><br />BTW, Paley did not invent the argument. Folks like St. John Damascene, St. Maximus the Confessor, and St. Thomas Aquinas crafted similar ones. Paley’s Watchmaker Argument still causes atheists fits, considering how much you folks still try to refute it but to be clear, my argument was not a Paley’s Watchmaker Argument. I happen to believe that evolution/natural selection is not incompatible with the idea of a Creator God. They are like peanut butter and jelly (I am using an analogy to support my argument, but it is not the argument itself). They taste great on their own but taste better together.<br /></span></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">C.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The Paley Watchmaker’s
Interlude.</span></b> </span></p></div></blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">PH:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">We
take this break from the debate to discuss William Paley and his famous
argument in a bit more detail.</span></span></div><div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span>Mr. Pearce labels my Mona Lisa example as
Paley’s Watchmaker Argument. While folks
who do philosophy are familiar with William Paley, folks here might not
be. William Paley was an Anglican
clergyman who was also a philosopher.
Around the beginning of the 19<sup>th</sup> century, he wrote a book
titled <i>Natural Theology or, Evidences of
the Existence of and Attributes of the Deity, Collected from the Appearances of
Nature. </i>I own a Kindle copy of the 1854 American edition. A link to the original version can be found <span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://archive.org/details/naturaltheology00pale"><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: blue; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">here.</span></a></span> It is a
compelling read. Charles Darwin claimed
to have memorized it. Richard Dawkins
wrote a book not too long ago critical of the theory. The war between Creationists and atheists in
the Intelligent Design/Evolution debate still rages over the argument's merits. For each of them, the positions between
evolution and an Intelligent Designer are mutually exclusive. Based on remarks I have seen, Mr. Pearce is
a weary warrior from those battles.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span>The argument for God’s existence from design is
an old one. It is an argument about
teleology. As noted earlier, St. Paul makes the argument in Romans 1. Even earlier,
Plato argues the same in <i>Timaeus</i>. Cicero, too, makes the argument in <i>De Natura Deorum</i>. Of course, I have already mentioned St.
Thomas Aquinas, who made the same argument as his fifth way of showing God’s
existence in the<i> Summa Theologiae</i>. Interestingly, Paley’s Watchmaker Argument
attempted to take the day's actual science and use it to prove a philosophical
and theological idea. Of course, St.
Augustine did the same thing when he questioned the literalness of the Genesis
account, considering the known science of his day. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span>One thing that stands out for me, who is
familiar with evidence and rhetoric, is Rev. Paley’s argument is not an
argument from analogy, as Pearce and other atheists have stated. Paley certainly does use analogies to support
his argument, but the watchmaker analogy or the grist mill analogy that Paley
also uses in his book is not the same thing as his argument itself. Paley does not use the example of the found
watch to argue similarities from effects. Instead, he uses it to show that
artificial things share some identical characteristics as natural things. One hears the echoes of the Platonic idea of
forms in the argument. It is an exercise
in abductive reasoning; that is, one concludes that they believe the best
possible explanation is inferred from a particular set of facts. Thus, attempting to refute the argument by
claiming it is a false analogy misses the point with all due respect to Messrs.
Hume, Pearce, and all those shade tree atheist philosophers making YouTube
videos out there. Of course, Mr. Pearce
could argue that abductive reasoning is a logical fallacy itself, and he could
be right. However, the Darwinian theory
of evolution upon which he relies as a defeater to Paley’s Watchmaker Argument
is itself an exercise in abductive reasoning. </span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span>Mr. Pearce has addressed William Paley’s
argument, apparently several times. He
does not seem to be a fan of it and is rather dismissive of it:</span></p></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;">There are so many criticisms of the arguments, and the argument itself stretches into areas of fine tuning and physics and cosmology. I don’t have the time or particularly the patience to deconstruct the watchmaker argument to that degree here. I’ve already done so in other posts over the years. Take a good read of the SEP piece if you have time. However, I think the design argument in the form of Paley’s watchmaker is not a good one. It is pretty easily refuted and any passing knowledge of evolution is enough on its own to put it to bed. So, really, I would implore theists who adhere to such arguments to do a heck of a lot more reading on evolution. It is always frustrating that creationists immunise themselves against the facts of evolution. Indeed, one of them last night invoked the devil. I then produced my typical argument against the devil in that he must be the management executive of God, and I didn’t hear any comeback on the issue. Heads get buried in the sand until the theist argues on a different thread on a different day and the devil will come out again. Water off a duck’s back. That is truly frustrating thing about these arguments. </span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><i><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></i></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><a href="https://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2018/08/09/paleys-watchmaker-and-arguing-with-creationists/"><i><span style="font-size: large;">Paley’s Watchmaker and Arguing with Creationists</span></i></a></div></blockquote></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">There are a couple of problems here, however. There are numerous articles at the <i>Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy</i>
(SEP) regarding the 19<sup>th</sup>-century Anglican divine. One article I read that seems to fit the
arguments here is <span lang="EN-US"><a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/natural-theology/"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: blue; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Teleological Arguments for God’s Existence</span></i></a></span>. A
“fair” reading of the article suggests that Paley’s Watchmaker Argument has not
been blued, screwed, and tattooed as thoroughly as Mr. Pearce would have the
reader believe. However, perhaps he is
talking about something he wrote that made it into the SEP. If so, he might want to share the link.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><span style="font-size: large;">
Furthermore, more sad news for Mr. Pearce, I am not a creationist. I happen to believe that based on the best available evidence, there seems to be an evolutionary process operating in creation. Furthermore, such a belief is permissible in my Church’s teaching. As long as I believe that God is the first cause, it is permissible for me to believe in evolution. And yes, I understand the objections to the first cause argument that atheists make, and I find them as unpersuasive as Bishop Robert Barron does. <br />
</span><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Evolution does not explain many things very
well. It provides a decent description
of how an aspect of the universe works, but it does not explain how the
universe came into being in the first place.
It can not answer the question of how life evolved from non-living
things. I have not yet seen evolution adequately
explain why or how rational beings evolved from non-rational beings. Heck, it cannot even explain the evolutionary
reason why something like philosophers exists.
How could evolution possibly explain those characters? </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p><span style="font-size: large;">
There is a story that Ronald Knox liked to tell about a little girl who, upon seeing a cow for the first time, asked her mommy what that was. Her mom told her it was a cow. To which the little girl asked, Why? Substitute philosophers for cows, and you might understand the point I am making. <br /><br />Since evolution supposedly just happens incrementally and has no goals, why are human beings so caught up in them? What is evolutionary about that? Science and evolution do not explain why we try to give meaning to origins; science and evolution can only explain the whens and hows. CCC 284. <br /><br />Moreover, my Mona Lisa analogy is not a Paley’s Watchmaker’s Argument. My example introduces randomness that neo-Darwinists seem to rely upon to refute Paley’s argument. I am passingly familiar with the arguments of Bernard J.F. Lonergan, which seem to fit the evidence better than the notions of Hume, Darwin, Dawkins, and Pearce. See, Patrick Byrne’s <i><a href="http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/67/67.3/67.3.8.pdf">Quaestio Disputata: Evolution, Randomness, and Divine Purpose: A Reply to Cardinal Schönborn</a>; </i>“Lonergan, Evolutionary Science, and Intelligent Design,”<i> Revista Portuguesa de Filosofia,</i> Oct. - Dec., 2007, T. 63, Fasc. 4. See also, Cynthia Crysdale and Neil Ormerod, <i>Creator God, Evolving World</i>, Philadelphia: Fortress Press (2013), pp.57-82. See also, Lonergan, Bernard J. F, and Lonergan Research Institute. 1<i>992. Insight: A Study of Human Understanding.</i> Edited by Frederick E Crowe and Robert M Doran Fifth edition, revised and augmented ed. Collected Works of Bernard Lonergan, Volume 3. Toronto: Published for Lonergan Research Institute of Regis College, Toronto, by University of Toronto Press. <br /><br />That said, William Paley’s Watchmaker Argument in my mind is a great starting point for those who wish to make the teleological argument for God as the creator, but it is an argument that one needs to fine-tune as there is more evidence out there than when the argument was first made. Quite frankly, the fact that atheists of all stripes interact with it some 300 years later shows that the argument is still a powerful one. I appreciate and accept the basic argument that Paley makes but have added my gloss within my Church’s teaching framework in my philosophical worldview.</span><div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><b><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></b></div><div><b><span style="font-size: large;">E. Resumption of the Debate.</span></b></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"> <span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">MP: </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Apparently,
I do not question my own beliefs.</span></span></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p> </o:p><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">PH:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">I
wrote that you no longer question your own beliefs.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">There is a difference.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">From what I have seen, all you do is question
everyone else’s beliefs.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">I have not seen
you question your own at all.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">When you
believe in something or Someone, there is always room to grow in belief.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">However, when you are an atheist, your
fideism keeps you from doing that.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">You
cannot afford to do otherwise without upsetting the philosophical house of
cards you have devised for yourself.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"> <span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">MP:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Really,
I don’t need to afford much time to this nonsense. I’ve changed my mind on
literally every major aspect of philosophy due to doing philosophy – Good,
morality, abstract objects, politics, immigration. truth, knowledge etc etc.
Has he? Put your money where your mouth is.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p> </o:p><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">PH:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">As
I stated at the beginning of this post, not all people are philosophers, but
all people have a philosophy.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Yes, by
questioning, by experiencing, by learning, I have fine-tuned my philosophical
outlook, but I have never jettisoned my core beliefs.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">I do adhere to a notion of justified belief
that I am still working out.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">God is
about as core as it gets.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Since God is
Love, and I believe in love, I believe in God.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">
</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">There has nothing in the global disaster scenarios that you morbidly
paint about malaria, COVED-19, plate tectonics, or damnation of people who
choose to be damned that shakes that core belief in a loving God which I
believe is justified based on the evidence I have observed, experienced, or
learned in my life.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p> </o:p>You claim that you changed your mind about
every significant aspect of your philosophy over your life due to doing philosophy. It does not sound like you were doing
philosophy. It sounds more like you
suffered from something like an auto-immune disease or cancer that attacked
everything you believed in until you believed in nothing at all. Furthermore, once you stopped believing in
anything, you stopped questioning yourself and started hectoring others to stop
believing what they believe. To be an
atheist is to stop questioning oneself.
And look what you do? God is not
fair based on a contrived definition that predetermines the conclusion that you
want to reach. That is not philosophy;
that is poor semantics. There is a
difference between healthy skepticism and the morbid kind. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p> </o:p>As a Catholic, I do not believe in a laundry
list of beliefs and truths. Instead, I believe in a system that embodies a set
of beliefs built upon the human person being made in the Image of God. Accordingly, I do not need to know every
aspect of my faith to live my life, but I try to learn more to give a good
account of myself. 1 Peter 3:16. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p> </o:p>And here is the summary of my knowledge in my
faith system. Not only are we made in
the Image of God, but because we are capable of relationship with others, we
are made in the image of a Trinitarian God.
Because I have that understanding, I try to see Christ in every person I
meet, even atheists, and I try to live my life in a way that allows others to
see Christ in me. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p> A</o:p>s a part of the Catholic system, I have an
awareness of mystery or <i>sacramentum</i>
that allows me to accept as true things that I can not fully know or prove,
like the central mystery of the Incarnation or the Real Presence. Accordingly, such an understanding allows me
to state that I do not fully understand how atonement works to know that it
does. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p> </o:p>Finally, based on what I can deduce from seeing
the vitality, order, and beauty of the universe and how the empirical evidence
seems to support my belief, I think I am justified in believing in a Designer
or Artist we call God. I have observed
nothing so far that undermines that justified belief which is another word for
knowledge. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p> </o:p>And lest you want to scoff, mock, or deride why
I call my belief knowledge, it is because I believe in the <i>Imago Dei</i>, and see Christ in each person, I can put my finger in
the wounds of Christ by tending to the wounds of the sick I help; the naked I
cloth; the poor I house, feed, and give drink to; the comfort and care I give
to those imprisoned, homebound, and shackled by the chains of mental illness
and addiction. I have seen joy come out
of suffering, peace out of anxiety and fear, and the healing that comes from
acknowledging others' dignity. It is
that whole ‘whatsoever you do yo the least of your neighbors; you do unto Me’
thing. See, Matt. 25: 31-46. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p> </o:p>It is one thing to sit on one’s philosophical
throne, doing philosophy and coming up with thought experiments to cause
oneself to doubt everything, but it is quite another to living one’s philosophy
and getting one’s hands dirty. It is
what we lawyers and rhetoricians call real empirical evidence. I know God exists because I encounter Him in
the people I meet every day. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-size: large;">MP: Essentially,
this is all sidetracking irrelevancy with no discursive value.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">PH:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">As
a trial lawyer, it has been my experience that it is in irrelevancies that
allow you to get to know someone honestly.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">
</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">In your case, as I have responded to your points, I have come to learn
that you have no room for mystery in your life, and accordingly, you have no
room for God in it either.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Since you
have no understanding of </span><i style="text-indent: -0.5in;">kenosis</i><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">, you have filled yourself up with
yourself and left no room for God.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: large;">I would submit that Mr. Pearce is
unfair to God.</span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">MP:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Aww,
poor God, with his malaria, COVED-19, and plate tectonics.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">PH:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Yes,
nature is almost as evil bad as Donald Trump, and it is all God’s fault that
you cannot possibly see anything good that that could be found in those things,
or as a result of those things, or despite those things.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Earthly existence for you is nothing more
than one giant iceberg waiting to sink your Titanic life.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">However, despite all of the shit things we
happen to experience, we still struggle to overcome, to strive, to achieve, to
accomplish, to laugh, love, and care, to be something more and better.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Like all good stories, there has to be
conflict, climax, and resolution.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">See,
ST I q.49.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Nevertheless, to address your laundry list of
natural woes, conflating the notion of moral good or evil as a privation of
moral good with a natural good which about things that exist and fulfill the
ends toward which their natures are directed is genuinely a category
error. As a secular materialist, what is
your explanation about why such things exist?
Do not these things all play a role in keeping a natural world and its
eco-systems healthy? Are not these
benefits good in some respect? But
really, if you want to argue theodicy, do not be so coy and just say so.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><b>He wants us to assume that he actually
has not been given access to evidence that shows Him that God exists, that
Jesus Christ died and rose from the dead, and that He too is God. He wants us
to presume that God has not given him a fair chance without knowing anything
about him whatsoever. Even if that is the case, so what? Maybe God is biding
His time waiting for the proper moment to give Mr. Pearce what he wants. Maybe
Mr. Pearce is not smart enough, or ethically fit enough, or morally straight
enough to accept the truth now. (This is
from another comment I made.)</b><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">MP:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Maybe,
perhaps, could, probably. It’s all they have got, with their appeals to
skeptical theism and punting to “God moves in mysterious ways”.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">PH:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Skeptical
theism is far superior to skeptical atheism—Pascal’s Wager and all.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">At least, our existence seems to have a
point.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Your last comment merely proves
another of my points-you have no room for mystery in your life.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">MP:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">I’m
not really sure why Dave posted this guy’s comments as if they were somehow well-thought-out
and compelling; they aren’t. Also, he bemoans atheists being mean to him and
not using fideistic arguments, and yet resorts to mere insult himself…</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">PH:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">And
one of your commentators accused me of Gish galloping!</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">With all of your talk of causal determinism,
you know why Dave posted this guy’s comments.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">
</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">A fish crawled out of the ocean 500 million years ago that set off a
chain of events that inexorably caused him to do it—as for the quality of my
comments-sticks and stones—resorting to insults?</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><i style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Tu
quoque </i><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">much?</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">And, of course, I am going to use fideistic
arguments. One, we are talking about God,
and you are questioning the Christian faith.
Two, atheism is the most fideistic of ideologies there are. Three,
calling my point an insult to answer the charge of why God gave Thomas direct
evidence and not you does not make it insulting. It appears that you are very close-minded at
this point in your life, so I am just following the evidence and concluding
that you cannot handle the truth of God’s existence right now. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">MP:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">However,
we do have his first good point:</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Mr. Pearce probably should have
added to his EAOG that it should happen by the age of reason or something just
to make things ceteris paribus, to borrow a phrase.</span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">MP:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Yes,
for proper parity across all individuals, there should be an equal moment in
life that God gives sufficient evidence by; this constrains God even more, and
actually shows how even more unfair God is. So thanks for that.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">PH:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">You
are welcome.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Like St. Thomas Aquinas, I
try to put an interlocutor’s argument in its best light to deal with it
(although there was some sarcasm involved).</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">
</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Since I agree that God is not fair, strengthening your argument does not
negate any aspect of my argument that God can not be fair if He is just and
merciful.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">And that is the question you need to
answer. Is God required to be fair
according to your metric in order to be God?
Your metric of fairness excludes the possibility of mercy. Mercy and fairness are incompatible. Unlike fairness, mercy is an attribute of God
according to my faith tradition. The
Father sending the Son to be incarnated and die on the Cross to redeem our sins
and heal up our wounded nature seems unfair to God. Also, a gift by its nature is “unfair” to the
giver. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Moreover, you spend much time laying out
various arguments about fairness and formulate a standard you think should be
applied. Why should anyone accept your standard of fairness as the correct
one? My standard of fairness is that we
should all suffer the pains of death and be punished eternally for our sins,
but God disagreed and offered us grace instead.
And yes, I know, I just offered another fideistic argument, but so
what? Why should I argue solely using
your rules of engagement? That is a bit
rude on your part after just arguing for fairness,</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">MP:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Let’s
go through his argument and sees if it holds water.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b style="text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-size: large;">1. God is far from explicit
about anything,</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: large;">Oh really, I guess he cannot see,
smell, hear, taste, and feel Creation. He is the proverbial bubble-boy cut off
from the sensory world. I would submit that Mr. Pearce’s existence is pretty
explicit proof that God exists. Now where to put the exhibit sticker…</span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">MP:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">No.
And at best this gets you to deism. Having written a book about the Kalam
Cosmological Argument (Did God Create the Universe from Nothing? Countering
William Lane Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument [UK]), I am pretty well-versed
in creation arguments. I suggest he (Paul Hoffer) goes and reads my book.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">PH:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Citing
yourself as an authority rather than argue the point?</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Now that it is what I call elitist.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">As for your Deist assertion, I have never
argued otherwise.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">As a Catholic, I
acknowledge that observation of the created universe only gets me to the
knowledge that a Creator exists from His effects in it.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">See St. Paul, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine,
St. Maximus, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventure, and William Paley, to name a
few.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Knowledge of a Designer's existence
and a plan or purpose for that design tells me very little about God’s
attributes or what His plan is.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">
</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Revelation tells me Who God is and tells me far more about His nature
and His plan. Only after I am aware of God’s Self-Revelation through His Son
and the Scriptures, I then can go back and see how the universe supports the
claims about Who He is and His nature</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">
</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">(St. Bonaventure, </span><i style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Journey of the
Soul into God</i><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> ).</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Such revelation
also allows me to look at other religious traditions and see how they, too,
contain many of the truth claims that Christianity makes.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">See the writings of Jacques DuPuis, Stratford
Caldecott, Hans Ur Von Balthasar, etc.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">As for Kalam’s Cosmological Argument, why
should I be impressed that you wrote a book refuting it? St. Thomas Aquinas refuted it 700 years ago
needed only one paragraph to do so. Now
you may be as bright as Aquinas, but there is no question that you are not as
succinct. As someone more of a Thomist
than anything else, I am not exactly thrilled with it either. Thus, claiming that you have refuted some
Protestant philosopher’s modern-day rendition of a Medieval Muslim scholar’s
argument does not affect me one way or another. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Now just to be clear here, I do not think that
Kalam’s Cosmological Argument holds up philosophically, but it may work
abdudctively based on the best scientific evidence available. As a trial lawyer, I know that evidence is
what wins cases, not arguments.
Moreover, it is how I can recognize St. Thomas’arguments with St.
Bonaventure’s.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: large;">2. It requires one to be
intelligent enough to wade through a parochial ancient holy text with vast
effort and intellectual acumen to even remotely start getting there. (Unfair
apportion of evidence again! Elitism.)</span></b></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size: large;">I am not quite sure I understand
this argument.</span></b></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">MP3:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Hint, no you don’t. Read this: Christianity Is Elitist.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">PH3:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Thank you for clarifying.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">
</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">I read the article.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">I disagree
with the premise of it.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">I have been
exposed to historical biblical criticism, form criticism, the Documentary
Hypothesis, etc.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">I even own every single
book Raymond Brown wrote, and I have read them all. All that stuff seems to rely
primarily on a false premise that Christianity is hard to understand.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">It is a premise that was dreamed up by people
who have multiple degree-level qualifications to justify why they wasted all
that money and time to earn those degrees.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Understanding the Scriptures in the manner you
write about is good, but living the Gospel message is far superior. The former gets you cited in a paper; the
latter helps get you to heaven. I would
suggest that if all you got out of that studying is that Christianity is
elitist, you really do not understand Christianity, and you should demand your
money back from the schools you went to. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">Based on your remarks, I would also suggest
that there is far more elitism in academia than in Christianity itself. For example, shilling your books in a debate
and citing them as an authority to suggest that people should accept your
opinions because of your purported credentials seems somewhat elitist to
me. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">As a Benedictine Oblate and a Vincentian,
Christianity is relatively simple. As
Jesus said:</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> </div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength. The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Mk 12:30-31).</span></div></blockquote></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"> All of that other stuff you talked about in
your <i>Christianity is Elitism </i>article
is pretty much unnecessary. Most of the
folks we call saints never did the studying you claim is necessary. St. Germaine and St. Maria Goretti were
illiterate peasant girls. St. Therese of
Lisieux is both a saint and a doctor of the Church, and she never got any of
the degrees you have. </span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;">That being said, I do acknowledge that loving
God and neighbor is much more complex than reading a couple of books, even if
those books are one of yours or Raymond Brown’s, but having a spirit of <i>Diakonia</i> and acknowledging objective
virtues does help. You can learn far
more about Christianity loving one’s neighbor~feeding a beggar, helping the
poor, spending time with terminally ill kids, visiting an inmate~than doing
philosophy, or reading 100,000 books on the Bible.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><b style="text-indent: -3in;">Is Mr. Pearce admitting that he himself is a dummy and is too stupid to
figure out how to ead the Bible or that he is assuming that one needs to </b><b style="text-indent: -3in;">read the Bible to understand whether He exists (which no Catholic would
ever argue and which the Bible itself explicitly denies-I guess God </b><b style="text-indent: -3in;">proves Pearce a liar because God was pretty explicit about that) or that
Pearce’s atheism is merely influenced by Protestant thinking that he </b><b style="text-indent: -3in;">does not even recognize in this statement? This is a how-many-licks-does-it-take-to-get-to-the-
center-of-a-Tootsie Pop argument. Mr. Owl’s </b><b style="text-indent: -3in;">example shows us that Mr. Pearce’s argumentation is just as fallacious. </b></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 3in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -3in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p> </o:p><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">MP:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">So,
not only is this a straw man, but it is juvenile and insulting.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">PH:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">And
referring to the Bible as a “parochial holy text” that takes “vast effort and
intellectual acumen to even remotely start getting there” is not a strawman
argument? </span>A strawman argument distorts an opponent’s
argument to make it easier to refute.
Instead of refuting the argument the opponent makes, one refutes the
weakened argument.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p> </o:p>So how is my argument a strawman? You assert that it takes great effort and
intellectual acumen to even remotely understand the Scriptures leading one to
infer that you either lack the energy or acumen to read it. First, I contend that Christianity is not at
all hard to understand. I summarized my
whole faith in two passages from the Bible in my previous response. In my comment here, I disputed your
proposition by suggesting that your assertion is not true by using an
interrogative. Based on your academic
credentials and the fact that you write books interacting with the Biblical
texts, you contradict yourself. Heck,
peasants, slaves, and illiterate people understood the Bible throughout the
ages and could not even read it! I would
suggest that reading it may perhaps become more challenging than it needs to be
when one is an intellectual and a philosopher who tries hard to read things
into the text that are not there. I also
suggest that not reading the text prayerfully makes it a much harder endeavor
as well.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;">The second assertion I touch upon is your claim
that God is not explicit about anything.
However, the Word of God, aka the Bible, is very explicit that you do not
need a parochial holy text to know that God exists as Dave Armstrong pointed
out in every single one of his posts by citing this passage:</span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"> The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness.<b> For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks</b>. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. (Emphasis added. Romans 1:18-23)</span></blockquote></blockquote><span style="font-size: large;"><br /><br />I know of no Catholic theologian or philosopher who has ever argued that God’s existence can be known only by reading the Bible. The notion of “The Bible alone” is a Protestant thing which is what I asserted. The fact that your assertion is based on that premise is what makes it a false premise. <br /><br />Finally, my statement about the learned Mr. Owl. The young lad asks him how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop. Mr. Owl suggests that they can find out by licking it. Mr. Owl takes three licks and then chomps down on the lollipop to get to the chocolate center and declares to the boy that it only takes three licks to get to the center. It is a false result. Anyone who has licked a Tootsie Pop knows it takes more than three licks to get to the center. Your whole argument is no different. You define the test of fairness, and after taking a few licks at the problem, you chomp down and declare God is unfair. Skimping on the data is in itself unfair and only leads to a false result. It is called suppressing the evidence, which is a fallacy too. <br /><br />MP: Again, go read the argument above, which was linked in the article to which he was retaliating. Essentially, if Dave Armstrong has to devote his life (whilst already being in an economic and educational context to being able to do so) to researching and gaining this knowledge to be able to properly access the True Christianity and its full range of meaning, including from source and form criticism, and from the theology of biblical exegesis, then the religion looks pretty elitist to me. <br /><br />PH: Dave is an apologist. It is both his job and his vocation. Learning the apologetics tools and how to exegete and to use those tools is not required to “properly access the True Christianity and its full range of meaning.” Learning those tools is required to be an apologist, particularly a good one like Dave. One learns to be an apologist to defend the faith, but one does not need to be an apologist to be a good Christian. Your argument is just intellectual Three-card Monte. I acknowledge that apologetics like Dave Armstrong and many others do meaningful work, and doing it can make a person a better Christian, but it is not required to access “the True Christianity properly.” As I have known Dave Armstrong for over 25 years, I can tell you that he does not merely know the Catholic faith and defends it as an apologist; he also lives it. He would tell you himself that the latter is more important than the former to access “True Christianity.”. <br /><br /><b>3. All the time you spend doing that, you are not devoting the same to other holy texts – this requires a presupposed favoritism. <br /><br />Again, a co-opted Protestant argument that does not work so well in the Catholic theological system as we do not argue that one can’t come to an understanding that God exists through one of the other theological systems</b>.<br /><br />MP: Same applies to Protestantism, I guess. And animism. Shamanism. Islam. Those ISIS guys with their fundamentalist theology sure are accessing that same Catholic god. There may be some other person, here and there, whom Catholics could mentally gerrymander to argue has accessed the Catholic god without being Catholic and having a completely different understanding of the theology and god, but this would have to be really rare. <br /><br />PH: Now you are shifting the goalposts, which is another serious logical fallacy. Catholics believe that you can know the existence of God without recourse to ANY holy text regardless of tradition. You and some Protestant sects claim otherwise. Bringing up other religious traditions does not refute my contention. Prove to your readers that Catholics require that a person know the Bible to know that God exists. You cannot, and you should know it considering your laurelled credentials and attendance at Catholic institutions. <br /><br /><b>4. Even after millennia of some of the best minds on the job, Christians can’t agree on how atonement works or that it definitely works. <br /><br />This premise assumes that it is necessary for Christians to have to agree for Jesus Christ’s atonement to be salvific. Do we have to understand how Christ’s atonement reconciles the world to God, or is it merely enough that it did? Scientists claim that bees should not be able to fly, but they do anyway. The question of how atonement saved us is merely ancillary to the notion of the Incarnation anyway. </b><br /><br />MP: In my Resurrection book (forthcoming), I talk about mysterianism as a leading contender; they don’t know how it works, but it does. Faith! <br /><br />Except, for the keystone to the whole edifice that is Christianity to be mysterian makes a whole mockery of the religion. This is meaning after all, not some unknown in a quantum equation. And atonement merely being ancillary to incarnation, to Jesus, is not to understand the whole Easter story’s significance. Hoffer might want to go and read some theologians. Indeed, when William Lane Craig had a pop at me for the claim about the circularity of belief in faith in the New Testament, at least we agreed on the importance of the Resurrection and associated meaning. But, to remain Catholic, ho about some Raymond Brown?<br /><br />PH: I did not know you were a fan of Japanese sci-fi! Seriously, the Incarnation is far more than the Easter story. Yes, the Easter story is essential. Pope Benedict XVI called Catholics an Easter people, but the whole Christ event is far more than the Easter story. The Incarnation of Our Lord makes the Easter story possible. No Incarnation, no Easter. That is why folks like St. Athanasius wrote books called, On the Incarnation, rather than books entitled the Easter Story. That is also why the Gospels offer far more than the Resurrection story in their accounts of Jesus’ life. The Incarnation's importance is also what the first seven ecumenical councils of the Church were all about. Moreover, the Catechism of the Catholic Church states:</span><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;">Belief in the true Incarnation of the Son of God is the distinctive sign of Christian faith: "By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit which confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God." </span></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><i><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></i></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;"><i> CCC 463 quoting 1 Jn. 4:2</i>.</span></div></blockquote></blockquote><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size: large;"><i> </i>However, since you brought up Raymond Brown:</span></p>
</div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;">The Incarnation, then, means that the Church, which is the Body of Christ, is just as inextricably bound to this world as was it's Master. Once the Word became flesh, a purely spiritual religion, or one with its vision too farsightedly fixed on next world, became impossible. No one can find Christ outside the world; nor can one find the real world outside Christ, because the Incarnation has changed the nature of the world. The reality of the world, as Bonhoeffer insists, involves the God who has become manifest in Jesus Christ. And today perhaps more than any time since the Incarnation, the Church must fight to prove the place of Christ in this world. The Church must open the eyes of the world to see that it is the world of Christ. If the church is where Jesus reigns over the world, the Church cannot turn its back on this world. And indeed the only way the Church can defend its place in the world is not by settling for an existence on the fringes of life, but by assuring Christ's place in all of life and in the whole world.</span></div></blockquote></div><div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div></blockquote></div><div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;">"The Theology of the Incarnation in John" in <i>New Testament Essays</i>, First Edition, p. 100.</span></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"> You might want to either rethink your book or
add a chapter or two to it.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span><b>5. Atonement is the basis of
Jesus’ death and arguably his entire earthly existence.</b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b><b>No God’s love is the basis for
Jesus’ life and death and resurrection. Atonement is merely a measure of that
love.</b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">MP:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">So,
if Jesus didn’t die (and thus fulfilling the function of atonement), this would
still hold?</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">PH:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">As
I just stated, the atonement of Christ is the measure of God’s love for
us.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">The Incarnation and the Easter story
are inextricably linked; however, without the Incarnation, Christ’s death on
the cross would not have meant a whole lot.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">
</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Jesus would have been just another guy the Romans executed.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span></span></p><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life. (John 3:16)</span></blockquote></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;"> <b>6. Divine hiddenness. Incoherent
revelation. Etc.</b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span></b><b>I would add man’s moral
blindness, his sinfulness, and hardness of heart. It is always easier to blame
the other guy for their own personal faults and failings. I am just following
Mr. Pearce’s example.</b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">MP:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">False
analogy. I’m not just blaming the other guy – not either in my laying out of
the unfairness for the other guy in belief variance, nor in blaming God. After
all, with divine foreknowledge, designed and created everything in this
universe – all that was, is, and ever will be – and he has full divine
sovereignty over it. What’s not to blame?</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span>See God’s Divine Foreknowledge, His Culpability
and the Problem of Evil. Hoffer very much needs to contend with that argument.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">PH: Sorry,
as the proponent, the burden of proof is on you. But to answer your volley, your stress on
“full divine sovereignty” suggesting God is some puppet master is the hallmark
of a Calvinist and Muslim error (Islam is little more than a Christian heresy,
by the way). Yes, God’s sovereignty
means that He has a plan, but your pseudo-Calvinist assertion denies that
humanity participates in God’s plan of salvation. Unlike Calvinists and you, the Catholic system
notes humanity’s voluntary participation in God’s plan. In order to give humanity free will, He
self-limited His sovereignty. It is the
basis of Catholic teaching going back to St. Irenaeus (You might want to read
him). See, also, Stratford Caldecott’s <i>The Radiance of Being,</i> starting pp.
218-234; Clement Yung Wen, “Maximus the Confessor and the Problem of
Participation,” <i>The Heythorp Journal</i>,
Vol. 58:1, pp. 3-16 (January 2017); Alfred J. Freddoso<i>, </i></span><span lang="EN-US" style="text-indent: -0.5in;"><a href="https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/papers/freedom%20and%20God.pdf"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: blue; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Introduction to the Problem of Free Will and Divine
Causality Aquinas Philosophy Workshop, Mt. St. Mary’s College</span></i></a></span><i style="text-indent: -0.5in;">, 2013</i><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">; Dave Armstrong<i>, </i></span><span lang="EN-US" style="text-indent: -0.5in;"><a href="https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2018/09/dialogue-on-gods-middle-knowledge-foreknowledge.html"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: blue; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Dialogue on God’s Middle Knowledge & Foreknowledge</span></i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: blue; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">;</span></a></span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> Byron Stefan Hagan<i>, </i></span><span lang="EN-US" style="text-indent: -0.5in;"><a href="https://ir.stthomas.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1012&context=sod_mat"><i><span lang="EN-GB" style="color: blue; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Creation and Participation: The Metaphysical Structure
of the World-God Relation in Aquinas</span></i></a></span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span><b>For all of his smugness, Mr.
Pearce certainly appears not to have examined the Catholic system, for he seems
profoundly ignorant of it. He does not seem to know how Catholics know God
exists or whether we see that God is fair or does it even matter in our system.
That is not a good thing when one holds oneself out as a philosopher of
religion and decides to interact with Catholics.</b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">MP:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Good
old Catholics. Now, what was I saying about elitism…? It’s worth pointing out
that I got my teaching qualification from a Catholic university, with Masters’
electives in actual explicit Catholic education, and I’ve had a decade of
teaching in Catholic education (the education system is not secular in the UK).
I have books of catechism on my shelves…</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">PH:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Having
books on your shelves does not mean you read them.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">And going to Catholic schools does not mean
you paid attention in class either.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">For
all of your bluster, you do not seem very familiar with Catholicism, as I
assert.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">In your debate with Dave, you
set up Protestant strawmen to blow over instead of dealing with what
Catholicism teaches—arguing based on Protestant errors that Catholics reject is
not a very sound strategy.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">You argue
against a </span><i style="text-indent: -0.5in;">sola scriptura</i><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> position
that Catholics object to as much as you do.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">
</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">You assert a Protestant form of elitism to discount religious pluralism,
contrary to the Catholic view.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">You
ascribe attributes to God that Catholics do not claim He has and ignore ones we
state He does have.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Finally, you fashion
an argument against God’s fairness based on a Calvinist notion of God’s
sovereignty that Catholicism itself eschews.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">
</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Might you see why I stated what I did?</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><b>So my question to Mr. Pearce is,
is God unfair, or are you? The world may never know…or at least it won’t until
the Last Day. And where is Mr. Owl when you need him?</b></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">MP:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">I
didn’t, with full divine foreknowledge, design and create the entire universe.</span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">PH:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Now
a red herring.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">You are just full of fallacious
reasoning.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">You claim that Christianity
teaches that God is fair.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">It does not,
or at least; Catholicism does not hold that position,</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">So your question starts from a false
position.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">The question is undoubtedly
broken~on your part.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">And yes, it is a
false equivalence~on your part.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">The real
questions that need to be asked preliminarily are:</span></span></p>
<blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">1) Does Christianity teach that God is fair? Or, to be blunt, is fairness even an attribute of God?</span></blockquote><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">2) If not, what does Christianity assert about divine fairness? </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">3) Are there differences of viewpoints in the Christian system of belief on the issue of fairness of God? </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">4) If there are different viewpoints on whether God is fair in the Christian system, which of them are more tenable and better explain the data one observes? </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">5) Where do the notions of grace, free will, and mercy fit into your notion of fairness?</span></div></blockquote><div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">MP: But,
it’s nice for him to think I am on a par with his god.</span><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">PH:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">It
is a gift to humanity. God the Father allowed the Logos to heal our wounded
natures through the Incarnation so that creation may be reconciled to God, and
through</span><i style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> theosis</i><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> or deification, we
may become like God.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Or as St. Augustine
says,</span></span></p>
</div></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span>“We carry mortality about with us, we endure
infirmity, we look forward to divinity. For God wishes not only to vivify us,
but to deify us.” (<i>Sermon </i>23B) </span></p></div></div></blockquote></blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;">
God does not have to be fair in this life, only in the next.</span></div><div><o:p><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></o:p></div><div><span style="font-size: large;">Do not like St.
Augustine, here is St, Athanasius:</span></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><o:p> <i>D</i></o:p><i>e Decretis:</i></span></p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><o:p> </o:p></span>And as, when we hear of Him as Lord and God and
true Light, we understand Him as being from the Father, so on hearing, ‘The
Lord created,’ and ‘Servant,’ and ‘He suffered,’ we shall justly ascribe this,
not to the Godhead, for it is irrelevant, but we must interpret it by that
flesh which He bore for our sakes: for to it these things are proper, and this
flesh was none other’s than the Word’s. And if we wish to know the object
attained by this, we shall find it to be as follows: that the Word was made
flesh in order to offer up this body for all, and that we partaking of His
Spirit, might be deified, a gift which we could not otherwise have gained than
by His clothing Himself in our created body, for hence we derive our name of
men of God and men in Christ. But as we, by receiving the Spirit, do not lose
our own proper substance, so the Lord, when made man for us, and bearing a
body, was no less God; for He was not lessened by the envelopment of the body,
but rather deified it and rendered it immortal. </span></p></div></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><i><span style="font-size: large;">On the Incarnation of the Word:</span></i></p></div></blockquote><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;">For He was made man that we might be made god; and He manifested Himself by a body that we might receive the idea of the unseen Father; and He endured the insolence of men that we might inherit immortality.”</span></p></div></blockquote></blockquote><p><span style="font-size: large;">With all due respect, if God were fair, none of this would be possible.</span></p><div>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">MP:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">With
all due respect (hmmm), this is pretty lame stuff. I always think that when you
get hit early doors with Paley’s Watchmaker, you’re dealing with someone who
probably needs to do a little more reading, to think a little more critically,
and to up his game.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;">It would be nice to have someone deal
rationally and robustly with the actual claims and arguments that I make, not
use this as an excuse to laud Catholicism whilst trotting out tired old
apologist arguments that are not really connected to the point in hand.</span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">PH:</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">That
is a pretty neat trick; pretend that someone’s comments constitute a full-blown
debate and then judge that you won the non-argument by calling it an
argument.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">Well, I have put the flesh of
an argument on the bones of the comments I made.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;">I have addressed your argument with one of my
own.</span><span style="text-indent: -0.5in;"> </span></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;"><b style="text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-size: large;">V. Conclusion.</span></b></p><span style="font-size: large;">
I conclude as follow: <br /><br /></span></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"> 1) Your argument about the Doubting Thomas and fairness is based on several false premises. </span></div></blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">A) Merging the two questions about God’s existence and whether He is fair is a dodge as one can argue God’s existence without the necessity of knowing anything about the attributes of God. The question of His fairness is irrelevant to the question of whether He exists.</span></div></blockquote></blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">B) Your argument about God being unfair is based on a false assertion that fairness is an attribute of God. It is not. Because God is just and merciful, He can not be fair as well.</span></div></blockquote></blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">C) Sufficiency is not the same thing as credibility. Sufficiency goes to what the average person would think of the evidence. Credibility is an individual exercise. Moreover, we are all given sufficient evidence to accept the existence of God. Some choose not to accept the evidence. </span></div></blockquote></blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">2) Assuming you clear the above hurdles, you have not proved why God should be judged according to your particular metric of fairness instead of some other metric of fairness. </span></div></blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px;"><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;">3) Further, your argument assumes that God judges us according to a certain standard that does not consider our individuality or our differences. Again, this is another false premise in your argument. </span></div></blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><blockquote style="border: none; margin: 0px 0px 0px 40px; padding: 0px; text-align: left;"><div><span style="font-size: large;"> 4) Finally, I have fully addressed and rebutted the 6 points you raised in your last article in the argument between you and Dave arguing that God does not exist. I agree with Dave’s points as stated in his articles, and stand behind my original comments and the arguments I made, fleshing them out here.</span></div></blockquote><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br />As for your characterization of my comments as nonsense and lame stuff, thank you. My faith tradition teaches me to turn the other cheek. Any time I get insulted for defending my faith, it is a good day. I appreciate debating you, and I will pray that God grant you the wisdom you are seeking and that He plants that mustard seed of faith into your heart</span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><i><span style="font-size: large;">Completed on Divine Mercy Sunday 2021; Posted on the Feast of St. Bernadette Soubirous.<br /><br /></span></i></div><div><i><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></i></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><b>UPDATE 4/23/2021: Mr. Pearce has responded to my article here:</b><br /><br /><div><b><br /></b></div><div><b>https://www.patheos.com/blogs/tippling/2021/04/23/debating-the-unequal-evidence-problem-again-doubting-thomas-revisited/</b></div></span></div>Paul Hofferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-56447383808041254532020-05-11T19:42:00.002-05:002020-05-11T20:09:29.419-05:00A Deeper Dive Response to James Swan’s “ Luther Believed in Mary's Perpetual Virginity?”<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Man's value before God is estimated by the dispositions of his heart, its uprightness, its goodwill, its charity, and not by the keenness of intellect or extent of knowledge.</span></i><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"></span></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>~Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich</span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.0in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Part One:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Introduction. </span></b><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"></span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Catholic apologists are often called upon by Protestants to defend the Church’s teachings on Mary.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When they point out as a part of their defense of Marian doctrines that Martin Luther and other Reformers affirmed many of them, Protestant polemicists like James Swan do everything they can to rationalize away the views of the Reformers on Mary that they shared with<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Catholics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>An article recently written by Swan, entitled<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue;"> "<a href="https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2020/04/luther-believed-in-marys-perpetual.html">Luther Believed in Mary's Perpetual Virginity</a>?</span></i>" is an example of this kind of casuistry.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Swan argues Catholic apologists are wrong to quote Martin Luther in support of the doctrine of the Blessed Virgin Mary's perpetual virginity (also called Mary ever-virgin or Mary <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Aeiparthenos</i>) claiming that Luther's views differ from the Catholic view.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To make sure the reader knows how Luther feels about Catholics, he intersperses his assertion with a generous helping of Luther's anti-papist rhetoric.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Swan then takes the fallback position that even if Luther did agree with Catholics on the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity, he was wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Swan asserts that modern Protestants are correct to deny the doctrine based on the development of Protestant doctrine since Luther’s day.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Some preliminary observations:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In his usual style, Swan pretends that Protestants are all of one mind on the subject ignoring the fact many Protestants do believe in the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Also, he references several historians on how the Catholic faith caused the doctrine to grow instead of explaining the importance of the doctrine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Added to that, Swan cites to a quote by Martin Luther from <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="https://www.uni-due.de/collcart/es/sem/s6/txt09_1.htm"><span style="color: blue;">That Jesus Was Born a Jew</span></a></i> that is suggestive that Catholics do not know themselves why they believe in the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>While David Armstrong, a noted Catholic apologist, has <a href="https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2020/04/luther-marys-virginity-james-swans-silly-tactics.html?fbclid=IwAR2uAvaaYb-P"><span style="color: blue;">responded</span></a> to<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Swan's article highlighting Swan's rhetorical flim-flam, I decided to offer a response for two reasons.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I was intrigued by Swan's assertion that the principle of the development of doctrine is not the sole property of Catholics and his articulation of the<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Protestant version of that principle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I thought worthwhile to compare and contrast the Protestant notion of the development of doctrine against the Catholic form.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"> </span></div>
<br />
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>I also thought it would be fruitful to discuss why the doctrine of Mary’s perpetual virginity is theologically important to Catholics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Catholic and Protestant apologists and scholars often debate the question of whether Mary was a virgin before, during, and after the birth of Jesus Christ without discussing why the subject should even matter to Christians.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As we shall see, such discussions devolve into indeterminable battles over the meaning of specific Bible passages and of certain Greek words such as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">heos hou</i> (until) and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">adelphos </i>(brethren) ignoring the elephant in the room about whether Greek was the original language of the Gospels.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While such debates do serve a critical purpose, I sometimes feel that we lose sight of the forest for the trees.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hence, I thought to offer my perspective on the matter.</span><br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"> </span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Part Two: Development of Doctrine or Development of a Dodge? </b></span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In his article, Swan says this about the Catholic understanding of the development of doctrine:</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Yes, it's true Luther adhered to Mary's perpetual virginity,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>but, it's important to realize this convert has assumed the overarching context of a Roman Catholic historical interpretive paradigm. Many of Rome's defenders use a basic historical narrative: the early church testifies to their beliefs only, those who don't are exceptions or heretics, if particulars of the early church don't quite fit their narrative, "development of doctrine" is brought in to smooth the rough edges over.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In contrast, Swan describes his version of the development of doctrine principle:</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.0in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>This may be shocking to some Protestants: development of doctrine is not the sole property of Rome. For Protestants, doctrine also develops, but the guiding force that drives it is the Bible itself. It's not the outside influence of "Tradition" or an infallible outside source that solidifies it. The very Word of God has a rich depth that confronts each generation. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Each generation produces keen minds that delve into the original languages of the Bible, analyzing the textual tradition, comparing scripture with scripture, challenge previous interpretations. If tradition plays a role, it's the role of being uncovered and rooted out if it's working as an interpretive blinder or force keeping the meaning of a biblical text shrouded.</b> When Luther relies on an interpretive tradition to interpret the word "until" in his argumentation for perpetual virginity, or that "brothers" means "cousins," <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">that interpretive tradition is to be called out, thrown on the table, and scrutinized closely, as the biblical discussions about the heos hou / ἕως ο<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>construction demonstrate. [Emphasis Added.]</b></span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></b><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Swan concludes:</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">This discussion only begins to scratch the surface. Wrangling with Rome's defenders over whose version of church history is correct and who determines the development of doctrine is opening a Pandora's box discussion in which one will eventually grow weary or at some point run, as fast as one can, for any door of escape. If you find yourself confronted by quotes from Luther sounding blatantly Roman Catholic and confusingly un-Protestant, there is a simple solution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Say, yes the quotes from Luther are different from the way Protestants think today, however, Luther himself didn't want his readers to follow him. He directed people back to the Scriptures.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Contrary to what Mr. Swan says above, Catholics do not advance the development of doctrine just to “smooth the rough edges over” when it comes to what we believe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Catholics view the development of doctrine as an organic principle that living things grow to demonstrate that what we believe today embodies, has grown out of, is in continuity with, and flows out of the deposit of faith that Church has passed down to us from the Apostles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Catholics rely on the principle of the development of doctrine to show what is being taught in the Church today is a fuller understanding of God's revelation revealed in His written Word and Tradition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We seek to demonstrate that our teachings conform to what has been passed down from the Apostles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It provides us a way of knowing what we believe comes from God, not something we just made up ourselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Swan does not see the development of doctrine as an organic principle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Swan sees the notion of the development of doctrine as a liberating process that allows each successive generation of keen-minded people to re-evaluate the Church's interpretation and teaching of God's word and discard whatever teachings or interpretations they find disagreeable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Swan's world view, Tradition is something to be avoided or dodged because he sees it as something that obscures the word of God instead of illuminating it to provide a fuller meaning of truth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In opposition to a historical interpretative paradigm, Swan offers us is a “keen mind” paradigm.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Swan's notion of the development of doctrine is a weapon to strip away the fuller meaning of doctrines that have grown and matured.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead of accepting what has been handed down, the believer is free to take any teachings they do not like and toss them on the dung heap. So what if Martin Luther believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If someone is one of those keen minds Swan talks about, they can choose to ascribe a different meaning to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">heos hou </i>or <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">adelphos</i> than what millions of Christians understood the words to mean over the previous 1500 years before the Re-formation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The believer is free to create new narratives and deflower Mary at any point in her life they want as along the narrative fits what they think the Bible says.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does this notion sound like the way God chooses to reveal Himself to His people?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>I would suggest that Swan’s definition of “development” is novel and pretty much runs counter to the plain meaning of the word.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is not merely one of those supposed amphiboles a former contributor to <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Beggars All</i> would often harp on; it is plain wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Frankly, I learned that words are supposed to mean something, not whatever I would like them to mean.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, then again, I am a Catholic, not Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Through the Looking Glass</i>:</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.’”</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">That said, I do acknowledge that Swan would not likely consider me to be one of those keen minds.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, based on his notion of the development of doctrine, Swan probably does not think that Luther is one of those keen minds either.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After all, Luther agrees with me that Mary is ever-virgin too.</span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Swan states that the notion of the development of doctrine is not the sole property of Rome.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That may be true, but I like our piece of real estate much better than his.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ours is one I can live on.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.0in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Part Three:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Finding a Rhyme for Paradigm.</span></b><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 8;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 8;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></div>
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Rhetorical jousting aside, it might be helpful for our Protestant friends who read James Swan's blog, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Beggars All</i>,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>to share what I understand the Catholic Church's<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>"historical interpretative paradigm," to be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Swan does not bother to explain it, just like he never really explains anything the Catholic Church teaches.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, it might be helpful to articulate what I understand the Catholic Church's teaching to be and why its understanding of the development of doctrine is biblically-based.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><br />
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Simply put, the historical interpretive paradigm of the Catholic Church consists of three parts: Scriptures, Tradition, and Magisterium.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Catholic Church is not a "Bible alone" Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our faith is in the Word of God, Who is a person, not just a book; even the Holy-Spirit inspired Scriptures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Church preached the Gospel message before it wrote it down.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Catholics believe that the Scriptures cannot be fully understood except when reading it within the Tradition of the Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We believe there is an inseparable relationship between Scripture and Tradition, which is the word of God revealed to the living community of the Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These two inseparable sources mirror each other and form one sacred deposit of faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is entrusted to the Church to transmit this sacred deposit to each successive generation of Christians. (<a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue;">Dei Verbum</span></i></a> 7-8).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Magisterium, or the teaching office of the Church, is the servant of the word of God, teaching “only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For a great discussion on what Tradition is, I would suggest that folks read Dave Armstrong’s<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="https://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2019/07/vs-pasqualucci-re-vatican-ii-7-dei-verbum-tradition.html"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue;">Vs. Pasqualucci Re Vatican II #7: Dei Verbum & Tradition</span></i>.</a></span></div>
<u><span style="color: #000120;"></span></u><br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In the Catholic historical interpretative paradigm, it is this teaching office of the Church that transmits the faith to believers. Here is what the Bible says about the transmission of<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>teaching:</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you [the disciples] rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Lk. 10:16 RSVCE)</span><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">“But we are bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren beloved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel, so that you may obtain the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter. </b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(2 Thess 2:15 RSVCE) (Emphasis Added).</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">“<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you</b>, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(1 Cor. 11:23-25 RSVCE) (Emphasis Added).</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">“Follow the pattern of the sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus;<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(2 Tim. 1:13-14 RSVCE)</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">“You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus, and what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also.” (2 Tim 2:1-2 RSVCE) </span><br />
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><br /></span> <span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, </span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” (2 Tim. 3:14-17 RSVCE).</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">But how are men to call upon him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And how can men preach unless they are sent? As it is written, “How beautiful are the feet of those who preach good news!” But they have not all heeded the gospel; for Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So faith comes from what is heard, and what is heard comes by the preaching of Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Rom. 10:14-17 RSVCE)</span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Now compare the above Scripture passages with what the Catholic Church teaches:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.0in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>8. <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>And so the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved by an unending succession of preachers until the end of time. Therefore the Apostles, handing on what they themselves had received, warn the faithful to hold fast to the traditions which they have learned either by word of mouth or by letter (see 2 Thess. 2:15), and to fight in defense of the faith handed on once and for all (see Jude 1:3).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now what was handed on by the Apostles includes everything which contributes toward the holiness of life and increase in faith of the peoples of God; and so the Church, in her teaching, life and worship, perpetuates and hands on to all generations all that she herself is, all that she believes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dei Verbum</i> 8)</span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Does Swan’s keen mind paradigm that he outlined above seem closer to what the Scriptures say, or does the Catholic historical interpretative paradigm which he denigrates?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I would submit that the Catholic paradigm mirrors the way Tradition is to be handed down.</span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>We must now consider how the principle of the development of doctrine fits into the Catholic interpretative paradigm:</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">This tradition, which comes from the Apostles, develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down. </span></b><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">This happens through the contemplation and study made by believers, who treasure these things in their hearts (see Luke, 2:19, 51) through a penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities which they experience, and through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth. For as the centuries succeed one another, the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(<a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue;">Dei Verbum</span></i></a> 8)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>[Emphasis added; footnotes omitted.]</span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">As stated before, the "development of doctrine" is an organic principle.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As faith grows from a mustard seed into a tree (Mt. 13:31-32), so does our understanding of our faith grow.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Development of doctrine is nothing less than the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Life itself,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>working in the Church to achieve a"penetrating understanding of the spiritual realities”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>which the Church experiences “through the preaching of those who have received through Episcopal succession the sure gift of truth.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It the growing “realization of<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her."<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dei Verbum</i>, Ibid.).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 6;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Lest anyone thinks that this understanding of the development of doctrine is a new development in the Church’s teaching, here is what St. Vincent of Lerins writes in Chapter 23 of his <a href="https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3506.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue;">Commonitory</span></i></a><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i>(5<sup>th</sup> Century AD): </span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>On Development in Religious Knowledge.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>[54.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>But some one will say, perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ's Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged n itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>[55.] <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same.</b> There is a wide difference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, insomuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same. An infant's limbs are small, a young man's large, yet the infant and the young man are the same. Men when full grown have the same number of joints that they had when children; and if there be any to which maturer age has given birth these were already present in embryo, so that nothing new is produced in them when old which was not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress, this the established and most beautiful order of growth, that mature age ever develops in the man those parts and forms which the wisdom of the Creator had already framed beforehand in the infant. Whereas, if the human form were changed into some shape belonging to another kind, or at any rate, if the number of its limbs were increased or diminished, the result would be that the whole body would become either a wreck or a monster, or, at the least, would be impaired and enfeebled.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>[56.] <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In like manner, it behooves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>[57.] <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>For example: Our forefathers in the old time sowed wheat in the Church's field. It would be most unmeet and iniquitous if we, their descendants, instead of the genuine truth of grain, should reap the counterfeit error of tares. This rather should be the result — there should be no discrepancy between the first and the last. From doctrine which was sown as wheat, we should reap, in the increase, doctrine of the same kind — wheat also; so that when in process of time any of the original seed is developed, and now flourishes under cultivation, no change may ensue in the character of the plant. There may supervene shape, form, variation in outward appearance, but the nature of each kind must remain the same. God forbid that those rose-beds of Catholic interpretation should be converted into thorns and thistles. God forbid that in that spiritual paradise from plants of cinnamon and balsam, darnel and wolfsbane should of a sudden shoot forth.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Therefore, whatever has been sown by the fidelity of the Fathers in this husbandry of God's Church, the same ought to be cultivated and taken care of by the industry of their children, the same ought to flourish and ripen, the same ought to advance and go forward to perfection. For it is right that those ancient doctrines of heavenly philosophy should, as time goes on, be cared for, smoothed, polished; but not that they should be changed, not that they should be maimed, not that they should be mutilated. They may receive proof, illustration, definiteness; but they must retain withal their completeness, their integrity, their characteristic properties. [Emphasis Added.]</span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>And here is what St. Vincent says about the kind of teaching that James Swan propounds by his keen mind paradigm:</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>[58.] <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>For if once this license of impious fraud be admitted, I dread to say in how great danger religion will be of being utterly destroyed and annihilated. For if any one part of Catholic truth be given up, another, and another, and another will thenceforward be given up as a matter of course, and the several individual portions having been rejected, what will follow in the end but the rejection of the whole? On the other hand, if what is new begins to be mingled with what is old, foreign with domestic, profane with sacred, the custom will of necessity creep on universally, till at last the Church will have nothing left untampered with, nothing unadulterated, nothing sound, nothing pure; but where formerly there was a sanctuary of chaste and undefiled truth, thenceforward there will be a brothel of impious and base errors. May God's mercy avert this wickedness from the minds of his servants; be it rather the frenzy of the ungodly.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Finally, St. Vincent discusses why the Church needs to develop its doctrines:</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>[59.] <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>But the Church of Christ, the careful and watchful guardian of the doctrines deposited in her charge, never changes anything in them, never diminishes, never adds, does not cut off what is necessary, does not add what is superfluous, does not lose her own, does not appropriate what is another's, but while dealing faithfully and judiciously with ancient doctrine, keeps this one object carefully in view — <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">if there be anything which antiquity has left shapeless and rudimentary, to fashion and polish it, if anything already reduced to shape and developed, to consolidate and strengthen it, if any already ratified and defined, to keep and guard it. </b>Finally, what other object have Councils ever aimed at in their decrees, than to provide that what was before believed in simplicity should in future be believed intelligently, that what was before preached coldly should in future be preached earnestly, that what was before practised negligently should thenceforward be practised with double solicitude? This, I say, is what the Catholic Church, roused by the novelties of heretics, has accomplished by the decrees of her Councils — this, and nothing else — she has thenceforward consigned to posterity in writing what she had received from those of olden times only by tradition, comprising a great amount of matter in a few words, and often, for the better understanding, designating an old article of the faith by the characteristic of a new name.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Emphasis Added).</span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In his<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> <a href="http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html"><span style="color: blue;">Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine</span></a>, </i>St. John Henry Newman notes seven characteristics that can aid Christians in identifying what doctrine is a real development as opposed to the innovation of new doctrine or corruption of an older one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Summarizing them, these characteristics are:<br />
</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -.5in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">1.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Unity of Type</b>:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does the new teaching change underlying prior teaching?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or to put the question another way, does an idea grow out of prior teaching?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -.5in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">2.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Continuity of Principles</b>:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does a development continue or maintain the prior </span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">principle to which it is related?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does it continue or maintain one of the principles of the Christian religion: dogma, faith, theology, sacraments, Scripture and its mystical interpretation, grace, asceticism, the harm of sin, and the potential of matter to be sanctified?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -.5in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">3.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Power of Assimilation</b>:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does the new understanding of the doctrine increase</span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">understanding of the underlying doctrine?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is it a consistent growth or more clearly define prior teaching?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is it capable of incorporating the language and philosophy of the times?</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.0in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>4.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Logical Sequence</b>:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is a doctrine the logical outcome of the original teaching?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -.5in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">5.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">The anticipation of Its Future</b>:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Can the doctrine be seen as a corollary of the</span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">previous one?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is the doctrine somehow anticipated or implied by the original teaching?</span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 4;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -.5in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">6.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Conservative Action</b>:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does the doctrine builds upon the doctrinal developments that precede it, clarifying and strengthening them so that it does not contradict or reverses another doctrinal development?</span><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.0in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>7.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Chronic Vigor</b>:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does a doctrine maintain its life and vigor?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does it increase faith?</span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The Catholic historical interpretative paradigm works to ensure that there is a coherence in the doctrines of the Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As doctrines grow, the development of doctrine anchors the doctrine to its underlying principle that does not change.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It provides the means to make sure that there is a real correspondence between them so that the new doctrine clarifies and protects the principle upon which is its foundation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, there are no new doctrines. Instead, there is only a fuller understanding of doctrines already held.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mr. Swan's keen mind paradigm does not necessarily do any of these things.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Why does doctrine need to develop?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As the Church grows, new situations arise that need clarity as St. Vincent teaches.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As James Swan admits, there is a rich depth to the word of God that confronts each generation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Bible is not explicit in everything it teaches.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The word Trinity, for example, is to be found nowhere in Scripture, yet we believe that God is a Trinity based on how the Scriptures are understood within the Tradition of the Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This fuller understanding is what has been handed down to us through the ages.</span><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Further, history reveals that doctrines often develop in response to various heresies or erroneous teaching that arise in the life of the Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For example, the doctrine developed in regards to the Incarnation as a response to the erroneous teachings of the Docetists, the Gnostics, Arius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches, the Monophysites, and the Monothelites.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jesus asks all of us, "Who do you say I am? (Lk. 9:20)."<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While the Scriptures state that the answer is Jesus is the Word made flesh and that Jesus is the Son of God (See, e.g., Prologue of the Gospel of John), what do those statements mean precisely?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some, like the Docetists and the Gnostics, claimed Jesus was wholly divine and only had the appearance of a man or a superman.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Others, like the Arians, believed Jesus was a creature adopted as the Son of God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Apollinarians, on the other hand, believed the man Jesus was a creature that the<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> Logos </i>put on like a suit and was the creature's rational soul.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nestorians held Jesus was a composite of two persons, each with their natures and that Mary was merely the mother of the person with a human nature. Then there were the Monophysites who believed that Jesus was a person who had a single nature that was a mixture of divine and human natures that had merged or were confused in some way.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Monothelites were Monophysites who held that Jesus only had a divine will or if His human nature had a will, it was not free to cooperate with Christ’s divine will.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As a result of these many heresies, the dogma of the Incarnation developed over time in the history of the Church to explain more clearly, more fully, precisely who Christ is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was the result of the historical interpretative paradigm Swan disdains that we have this definition of the Person and natures of Jesus Christ from the <a href="https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum06.htm">Third Council of Constantinople</a> (680-1 AD): </span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.0in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>Following the five holy and universal synods and the holy and accepted fathers, and defining in unison, it professes our lord Jesus Christ our true God, one of the holy Trinity, which is of one same being and is the source of life, to be perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, of a rational soul and a body; consubstantial with the Father as regards his divinity, and the same consubstantial with us as regards his humanity, like us in all respects except for sin; begotten before the ages from the Father as regards his divinity, and in the last days the same for us and for our salvation from the holy Spirit and the virgin Mary, who is properly and truly called mother of God, as regards his humanity; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged in two natures which undergo no confusion, no change, no separation, no division; at no point was the difference between the natures taken away through the union, but rather the property of both natures is preserved and comes together into a single subsistent being [in unam personam et in unam subsistentiam concurrente]; he is not parted or divided into two persons, but is one and the same only-begotten Son, Word of God, lord Jesus Christ, just as the prophets taught from the beginning about him, and as Jesus the Christ himself instructed us, and as the creed of the holy fathers handed it down to us.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">And we proclaim equally two natural volitions or wills in him and two natural principles of action which undergo no division, no change, no partition, no confusion, in accordance with the teaching of the holy fathers. And the two natural wills not in opposition, as the impious heretics said, far from it, but his human will following, and not resisting or struggling, rather in fact subject to his divine and all powerful will. For the will of the flesh had to be moved, and yet to be subjected to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius. For just as his flesh is said to be and is flesh of the Word of God, so too the natural will of his flesh is said to and does belong to the Word of God, just as he says himself: I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of the Father who sent me, calling his own will that of his flesh, since his flesh too became his own. For in the same way that his all holy and blameless animate flesh was not destroyed in being made divine but remained in its own limit and category, so his human will as well was not destroyed by being made divine, but rather was preserved, according to the theologian Gregory, who says: “For his willing, when he is considered as saviour, is not in opposition to God, being made divine in its entirety.” And we hold there to be two natural principles of action in the same Jesus Christ our lord and true God, which undergo no division, no change, no partition, no confusion, that is, a divine principle of action and a human principle of action, according to the godly-speaking Leo, who says most clearly: “For each form does in a communion with the other that activity which it possesses as its own, the Word working that which is the Word’s and the body accomplishing the things that are the body’s”. For of course we will not grant the existence of only a single natural principle of action of both God and creature, lest we raise what is made to the level of divine being, or indeed reduce what is most specifically proper to the divine nature to a level befitting creatures for we acknowledge that the miracles and the sufferings are of one and the same according to one or the other of the two natures out of which he is and in which he has his being, as the admirable Cyril said. Therefore, protecting on all sides the “no confusion” and "no division", we announce the whole in these brief words: Believing our Lord Jesus Christ, even after his incarnation, to be one of the Holy Trinity and our true God, we say that he has two natures [naturas] shining forth in his one subsistence [subsistentia] in which he demonstrated the miracles and the sufferings throughout his entire providential dwelling here, not in appearance but in truth, the difference of the natures being made known in the same one subsistence in that each nature wills and performs the things that are proper to it in a communion with the other; then in accord with this reasoning we hold that two natural wills and principles of action meet in correspondence for the salvation of the human race.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Contrast the above Christological definition with the variety of Christologies the<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Protestant keen mind paradigm has brought us as the definitions at Chalcedon, and Constantinople III are gradually rejected by scholars who re-interpret the Scriptures to separate the historical Jesus from the Christ of faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Swan stated in his article that the way Luther thought is different from the way Protestants think today.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I agree and add that there is a wider theological gap between the theology of the Reformers and modern-day Protestants than there is between the Reformers and Catholics today, particularly when it comes to who Jesus Christ is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The rejection of the doctrine of Mary ever-virgin is one piece of evidence of that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Since the Catholic system of development of doctrine, is based on an organic principle, it does not reject or abandon doctrines<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>AFTER the Church receives them as truth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A grown man cannot revert to becoming an infant again, no matter how keen he is or even if he wears a diaper and uses a pacifier.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mr. Swan's admits that the Church acknowledged the truth of Mary as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Aeiparthenos</i> up to the time of Luther.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mr. Swan's turning away from Mary's perpetual virginity is not a positive development of doctrine in any sense of the word, but a rejection of the doctrine that was handed down by the Church until modern times.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">It is here where Mr. Swan has a problem when it comes to denying that Jesus' mother was not a perpetual virgin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What is the source of his particular tradition?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What is the foundational doctrinal principle it protects or preserves?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Can he point to any keen minds in the Church before the Reformation who held that Mary WAS NOT a Virgin after Jesus was born?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Swan quotes Luther to claim that Catholics are ignorant about why they believe in Mary's perpetual virginity, but he does not state why he believes what he does.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is he ignorant of the theological principle behind his denial?</span><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<b><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Part III:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“...[B]ut You Have Kept the Good Wine Until Now.” (John 2:10 RSVCE)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></b></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Martin Luther did believe in the dogma of Mary's perpetual virginity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No matter how Swan argues the point, he cannot spin that fact.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What is truly remarkable is that Swan does not seem to have any idea as to why Luther believed in the doctrine in the first place.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Perhaps he should have read <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew </i>a bit closer rather than pulling a couple of anti-papistical quotes from it:</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">A new lie about me is being circulated. I am supposed to have preached and written that Mary, the mother of God, was not a virgin either before or after the birth of Christ, but that she conceived Christ through Joseph, and had more children after that. Above and beyond all this, I am supposed to have preached a new heresy, namely, that Christ was [through Joseph] the seed of Abraham. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Martin Luther here is certainly not denying in any way the doctrine of Mary’s virginity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He is denouncing some folks who were apparently lying about Luther not believing in the doctrine which gives the real context to this Luther quote by James Swan:</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -.5in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">How these lies tickle my good friends, the papists! Indeed, because they condemn the gospel it serves them right that they should have to satisfy and feed their heart's delight and joy with lies. I would venture to wager my neck that none of those very liars who allege such great things in honor of the mother of God believes in his heart a single one of these articles. Yet with their lies they pretend that they are greatly concerned about the Christian faith.</b></span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Luther affirms his belief in the doctrine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What he denies is that Catholics believe it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After a couple of paragraphs of invective against Catholics for how they treat the Jewish people, Luther goes on to state the purpose of his letter-to tell us how real Christians should try to convert Jews and address arguments they make against the Incarnation when attempting to convert them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One of those arguments is to deny Mary's virginity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As in the early days of the Church, people attack the divinity of Christ by attacking His mother and her virginity:</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Since for the sake of others, however, I am compelled to answer these lies, I thought I would also write something useful in addition, so that I do not vainly steal the reader's time with [200] such dirty rotten business. Therefore, I will cite from Scripture the reasons that move me to believe that Christ was a Jew born of a virgin, that I might perhaps also win some Jews to the Christian faith. Our fools, the popes, bishops, sophists, and monks - the crude asses' heads - have hitherto so treated the Jews that anyone who wished to be a good Christian would almost have had to become a Jew. If I had been a Jew and had seen such dolts and blockheads govern and teach the Christian faith, I would sooner have become a hog than a Christian.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">They have dealt with the Jews as if they were dogs rather than human beings; they have done little else than deride them and seize their property. When they baptize them they show them nothing of Christian doctrine or life, but only subject them to popishness and monkery. When the Jews then see that Judaism has such strong support in Scripture, and that Christianity has become a mere babble without reliance on Scripture, how can they possibly compose themselves and become right good Christians? I have myself heard from pious baptized Jews that if they had not in our day heard the gospel they would have remained Jews under the cloak of Christianity for the rest of their days. For they acknowledge that they have never yet heard anything about Christ from those who baptized and taught them.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">I hope that if one deals in a kindly way with the Jews and instructs them carefully from Holy Scripture, many of them will become genuine Christians and turn again to the faith of their fathers, the prophets and patriarchs. They will only be frightened further away from it if their Judaism is so utterly rejected that nothing is allowed to remain, and they are treated only with arrogance and scorn. If the apostles, who also were Jews, had dealt with us Gentiles as we Gentiles deal with the Jews, there would never have been a Christian among the Gentiles. Since they dealt with us Gentiles in such brotherly fashion, we in our turn ought to treat the Jews in a brotherly manner in order that [201] we might convert some of them. For even we ourselves are not yet all very far along, not to speak of having arrived.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">When we are inclined to boast of our position we should remember that we are but Gentiles, while the Jews are of the lineage of Christ. We are aliens and in-laws; they are blood relatives, cousins, and brothers of our Lord. Therefore, if one is to boast of flesh and blood, the Jews are actually nearer to Christ than we are, as St. Paul says in Romans 9 [:5]. God has also demonstrated this by his acts, for to no nation among the Gentiles has he granted so high an honor as he has to the Jews. For from among the Gentiles there have been raised up no patriarchs, no apostles, no prophets, indeed, very few genuine Christians either. And although the gospel has been proclaimed to all the world, yet He committed the Holy Scriptures, that is, the law and the prophets, to no nation except the Jews, as Paul says in Romans 3[:2] and Psalm 147 [:19-20], "He declares his word to Jacob, his statutes and ordinances to Israel. He has not dealt thus with any other nation; nor revealed his ordinances to them."</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Accordingly, I beg my dear papists, should they be growing weary of denouncing me as a heretic, to seize the opportunity of denouncing me as a Jew. Perhaps I may yet turn out to be also a Turk, or whatever else my fine gentlemen may wish.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Then Luther begins his defense of Mary’s perpetual virginity by relating it to salvation history:</span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Christ is promised for the first time soon after Adam's fall, when God said to the serpent, "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall crush your head, and you shall bruise his heel" [Gen. 3:15]. Here I defer demonstrating that the serpent spoke possessed of the devil, for no dumb beast is so clever that it can utter or comprehend human speech, much less speak or inquire about such exalted matters as the commandment of God, as the serpent does here. Therefore, it must certainly have been a rational, highly intelligent, and mighty spirit which was able to utter human speech, deal so masterfully with God's commandments, and seize and employ human reason.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Since it is certain that a spirit is something higher than a [202] man, it is also certain that this is an evil spirit and an enemy of God, for it breaks God's commandment and acts contrary to his will. Therefore, it is undoubtedly the devil. And so the word of God which speaks of crushing the head must refer also to the devil's head; though not to the exclusion of the natural head of the serpent, for with a single word he speaks of both devil and serpent as of one thing. Therefore, he means both heads. But the devil's head is that power by which the devil rules, that is, sin and death, by means of which he has brought Adam and all Adam's descendants under his control.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">This seed of the woman therefore, because he is to crush the devil's power, that is, sin and death, must not be an ordinary man, since all men have been brought under the devil through sin and death. So he must certainly be without sin. Now human nature does not produce such seed or fruit, as has been said, for with their sin they are all under the devil. How, then, can this be? The seed must be the natural child of a woman; otherwise, it could not be or be called the seed of the woman. On the other hand, as has been pointed out, human nature and birth does not produce such seed. Therefore, the solution must ultimately be that this seed is a true natural son of the woman; derived from the woman, however, not in the normal way but through a special act of God, in order that the Scripture might stand, that he is the seed only of a woman and not of a man. For the text [Gen. 3:15] clearly states that he will be the seed of woman.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">This is thus the first passage in which the mother of this child is described as a virgin. She is his true natural mother; yet she is to conceive and bear supernaturally, by God, without a man, in order that her child may be a distinctive man, without sin, yet having ordinary flesh and blood like other men. This could not have been the case had he been begotten by a man like other men because the flesh is consumed and corrupted by evil lust, so that its natural act of procreation cannot occur without sin. Whatever conceives and bears through an act of the flesh produces also a carnal and sinful fruit. This is why St. Paul says in Ephesians 1 [2:3] that we are all by nature children of wrath. [203]</span><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Now this passage [Gen. 3:15] was the very first gospel message on earth. For when Adam and Eve, seduced by the devil, had fallen and were summoned for judgment before God, Genesis 3 [:9], they were in peril of death and the anguish of hell, for they saw that God was against them and condemned them; they would gladly have fled from him, but could not. Had God let them remain in their anguish, they would soon have despaired and perished. But when, after their terrible punishment, he let them hear his comforting promise to raise up from the woman's seed one who would tread upon the serpent's head, their spirits were quickened again. From that promise they drew comfort, believing firmly in that blessed seed of the woman which would come and crush the serpent's head, that is, sin and death, by which they had been crushed and corrupted.</span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><br /></span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><br /></span> <span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The second promise of Christ was to Abraham, Genesis 22 [:18], where God said, "In your seed shall all the Gentiles be blessed." If all the Gentiles are to be blessed, then it is certain that otherwise, apart from this seed of Abraham, they were all unblessed and under a curse. From this it follows that human nature has nothing but cursed seed and bears nothing but unblessed fruit; otherwise, there would be no need for all of them to be blessed through this seed of Abraham. Whoever says "all" excludes no one; therefore, apart from Christ, all who are born of man must be under the devil, cursed in sin and death.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Here again the mother of God is proven to be a pure virgin. For since God cannot lie, it was inevitable that Christ should be the seed of Abraham, that is, his natural flesh and blood, like all of Abraham's descendants. On the other hand, because he was to be the blessed seed which should bless all others, he could not be begotten by man, since such children, as has been said, [204] cannot be conceived without sin because of the corrupt and tainted flesh, which cannot perform its function without taint and sin.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Thus the word, by which God promises that Christ will be the seed of Abraham, requires that Christ be born of a woman and be her natural child. He does not come from the earth like Adam [Gen. 2:7]; neither is he from Adam's rib like Eve [Gen. 2:21-22]. He comes rather like any woman's child, from her seed. The earth was not the natural seed for Adam's body; neither was Adam's rib the natural seed for Eve's body. But the virgin's flesh and blood, from which children come in the case of all other women, was the natural seed of Christ's body. And she too was of the seed of Abraham.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">On the other hand, this word by which God promises his blessing upon all Gentiles in Christ requires that Christ may not come from a man, or by the act of a man; for work of the flesh (which is cursed) is incompatible with that which is blessed and is pure blessing. Therefore, this blessed fruit had to be the fruit of a woman's body only, not of a man, even though that very woman's body came from man, indeed, even from Abraham and Adam. So this mother is a virgin, and yet a true natural mother; not, however, by natural capacity or power, but solely through the Holy Spirit and divine power.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Now this passage [Gen. 22:18] was the gospel from the time of Abraham down to the time of David, event to the time of Christ. It is a short saying, to be sure, but a rich gospel, subsequently inculcated and used in marvelous fashion by the fathers both in writing and in preaching. Many thousands of sermons have been preached from this passage, and countless souls saved. For it is the living word of God, in which Abraham and his descendants believed, and by which they were redeemed and preserved from sin and death and the power of the devil. However, it too was not yet proclaimed publicly to all the world, as happened after the coming of Christ, but remained solely in the possession of the fathers and their descendants.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>After setting out recapitulatory history starting with Genesis 3:15 and explaining the importance of Mary’s virginity for the Incarnation of Christ, this is the quote in the context hat James Swan left out so he could spin his narrative about what Luther believed:</span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>[205] <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Now just take a look at the perverse lauders of the mother of God. If</b></span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">you ask them why they hold so strongly to the virginity of Mary, they truly could not say. These stupid idolators do nothing more than to glorify only the mother of God; they extol her for her virginity and practically make a false deity of her. But Scripture does not praise this virginity at all for the sake of the mother; neither was she saved on account of her virginity. Indeed, cursed be this and every other virginity of it exists for its own sake, and accomplishes nothing better than its own profit and praise.</span></b></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In his usual fashion, James Swan leaves this important part out:</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The Spirit extols this virginity, however, because it was needful for the conceiving and bearing of this blessed fruit. Because of the corruption of our flesh, such blessed fruit could not come, except through a virgin. Thus this tender virginity existed in the service of others to the glory of God, not to its own glory. If it had been possible for him to have come from a [married] woman, he would not have selected a virgin for this, since virginity is contrary to the physical nature within us, was condemned of old in the law, and is extolled here solely because the flesh is tainted and its built-in physical nature cannot bestow her fruit except by means of an accursed act.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Hence we see that St. Paul nowhere calls the mother of God a virgin, but only a woman, as he says in Galatians 3 [4:4], "The Son of God was born of a woman." He did not mean to say she was not a virgin, but to extol her virginity to the highest with the praise that is proper to it, as much as to say: In this birth none but a woman was involved, no man participated; that is, everything connected with it was reserved to the woman, the conceiving, bearing, suckling, and nourishing of the child were functions no man can perform. It is therefore the child of a woman only; hence, she must certainly be a virgin. But a virgin may also be a man; a mother can be none other than a woman.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">For this reason, too, Scripture does not quibble or speak about the virginity of Mary after the birth of Christ, a matter about which the hypocrites are greatly concerned, as if it were something of the utmost importance on which our whole salvation [206] depended. Actually, we should be satisfied simply to hold that she remained a virgin after the birth of Christ because Scripture does not state or indicate that she later lost her virginity. We certainly need not be so terribly afraid that someone will demonstrate, out of his own head apart from Scripture, that she did not remain a virgin. But the Scripture stops with this, that she was a virgin before and at the birth of Christ; for up to this point God had need of her virginity in order to give us the promised blessed seed without sin. [Bold face is Swan’s quotes put back into context with the text.]</span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></b></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Contrary to James Swan’s mendacious assertions, Martin Luther then goes on a lengthy defense of Mary’s virginity from the Scriptures:</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The third passage is addressed to David, II Samuel 7 [:12-14], "When your days are fulfilled, and you sleep with your fathers, I will raise up your seed after you, who shall come forth from your body, and I will establish his kingdom for ever. He shall build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son." These words cannot have been spoken of Solomon, for Solomon was not a posthumous son of David raised up after his death. Neither did God after Solomon (who during David's lifetime was born and became king) ever designate anyone as His son, give him an everlasting kingdom, or have him build such a house. Consequently, the whole passage must refer to Christ. We will let this passage go for the present because it is too broad and requires so much in the way of exegesis; for one would have to show here that Christ accordingly had to be the son of a woman only in order to be called here God's child, who neither should nor could come out of an accursed act.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The fourth passage is Isaiah 7 [:14], "God himself will give you a sign. Behold, a virgin is with child, and shall bear a son." This could not have been said of a virgin who was about to be married. For what sort of a marvelous sign would that be if someone who is presently a virgin should bear a child within a year? Such is the ordinary course of nature, occurring daily before our eyes. If it is to be a sign from God, therefore, it must be something remarkable and marvelous not given by the [207] ordinary course of nature, as is commonly the case with all God's signs.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">It is of no help for the Jews either to try to evade the issue here and come up with this way of getting around it, namely: the sign consists in the fact that Isaiah says flatly that the child shall be a son and not a daughter. By such an interpretation the sign would have nothing to do with the virgin but only with the prophet Isaiah, as the one who had divined so precisely that it would not be a daughter. The text would then have to speak of Isaiah thus, "Behold, God himself will give you a sign, namely, that I, Isaiah, will divine that a young woman is carrying a son, and not a daughter." Such an interpretation is disgraceful and childish.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Now the text forcefully refers the sign to the woman, and states clearly that it shall be a sign when a woman bears a son. Now it certainly is no sign when a woman who is no longer virgin bears a child, be it the mother of Hezekiah or whatever woman the Jews may point to. The sign must be something new and different, a marvelous and unique work of God, that this woman is with child; her pregnancy is to be the sign. Now I do not deem any Jew so dense that he would not grant God sufficient power to create a child from a virgin, since they are compelled to acknowledge that he created Adam from the earth [Gen. 2:7] and Eve from Adam [Gen. 2:21-22], acts which require no less power.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">But then they contend that the Hebrew text does not read, "A virgin is with child," but, "Behold, an almah is with child. [208] Almah, they say, does not denote a virgin; the word for virgin is bethulah, while almah is the term for young damsel. Presumably, a young damsel might very well have had intercourse and be the mother of a child.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Christians can readily answer this from St. Matthew and St. Luke, both of whom apply the passage from Isaiah [7:14] to Mary, and translate the word almah as "virgin." They are more to be believed than the whole world, let alone the Jews. Even though an angel from heaven [Gal. 1:8] were to say that almah, does not mean virgin, we should not believe it. For God the Holy Spirit speaks through St. Matthew and St. Luke; we can be sure that He understands Hebrew speech and expressions perfectly well.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">But because the Jews do not accept the evangelists, we must confront them with other evidence. In the first place, we can say, as above, that there is no marvel or sign in the fact that a young woman conceives, otherwise, we would have a perfect right to sneer at the prophet Isaiah, and say, "What women would you expect to conceive if not the young ones? Are you drunk? Or is it in your experience a rare event for a young woman to bear a son?" For this reason that strained and farfetched answer of the Jews is just a vain and feeble excuse for not keeping silent altogether.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">In the second place, grant that bethulah means virgin and not almah, and the Isaiah here uses almah, not bethulah. All this too is still nothing but a poor excuse. For they act as if they did not know that in all of Scripture almah nowhere designates a woman who has had intercourse (a fact of which they are perfectly well aware). On the contrary, in every instance almah signifies a young damsel who has never known a man carnally or had intercourse. Such a person is always called a virgin, just as St. Matthew and St. Luke here translate Isaiah.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[209] Now since they are such literalists and like to argue about semantics, we will concede that bethulah is not the same word as almah. But the only point they have established thereby is that this young woman is not designated by the term "virgin." However, she is designated by another term which also means a young woman who has never had intercourse; call her by whatever term you please, in her person she is still a virgin. It is childish and disgraceful to take recourse to words when the meaning is one and the same.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Very well; to please the Jews we will not translate Isaiah thus: "Behold, a virgin is with child," lest they be confused by the word "virgin," but rather, "Behold, a maiden is with child." Now in German the word "maiden" denotes a woman who is still young, carries her crown with honor, and wears her hair loose, so that it is said of her: She is still a maiden, not a wife (although "maiden" is not the same word as "virgin"). In like manner also, the Hebrew elem is a stripling who does not yet have a woman; and almah is a maiden who does not yet have a man, not a servant girl but one who still carries a crown. Thus the sister of Moses is called an almah in Exodus 3 [2:8] as is Rebekah in Genesis 24 [:16, 43], when they were still virgins.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Suppose I say in German, "Hans is engaged to a maiden," and someone should comment, "Well, then he is not engaged to a virgin." Why, everyone would laugh at him for vainly disputing about words if he thinks that virgin and maiden are not the same thing because they are different words. This is true also in the Hebrew, when the Jews argue with respect to this passage in Isaiah [7:14] and say, "Isaiah does not say bethulah, but almah. I submit that among themselves their own conscience tells them this is so. Therefore, let them say what they please, bethulah [210] or almah; Isaiah means a damsel who is nubile but still wears her crown, whom in the truest German we call a maiden. Hence, the mother of God is properly called the pure maiden, that is, the pure almah.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">And if I should have had to tell Isaiah what to speak, I would have had him say exactly what he did say, not bethulah, but almah, for almah is even more appropriate here than bethulah. It is also more precise to say, "Behold, a maiden is with child," than to say, "A virgin is with child." For "virgin" is an all-embracing term which might also be applied to a woman of fifty or sixty who is no longer capable of childbearing. But "maiden" denotes specifically a young woman, nubile, capable of childbearing, but still a virgin; it includes not only the virginity, but also the youthfulness and the potential for childbearing. Hence, in German too we commonly refer to young people as maidens or maidenfolk, not virginfok.</span>.</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Therefore, the text of Isaiah [7:14] is certainly most accurately translated, "Behold, a maiden is with child." No Jew who understands both German and Hebrew can deny that this is what is said in the Hebrew, for we Germans do not say "concepit, the woman has conceived"; the preachers have so rendered the Latin into German. Rather, the German would say in his mother tongue, "The woman is with child," or, "is heavy with child," or, "is pregnant."</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">But here in the Hebrew it does not say, "Behold, a maiden shall be with child," as though she were not as yet. It says rather, "Behold, a maiden is with child," as though she has the fruit already in her womb and nevertheless is still a maiden, in order that you will have to notice how the prophet himself is amazed that there stands before him a maiden who is with child even before she knows a man carnally. She was of course going to have a husband, she was physically fit and mature enough for it; but even before she gets to that she is already a mother. This is indeed a rare and marvelous thing.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">This is the way St. Matthew [1:18] construes this passage when he says, "When Mary the mother of Jesus had been [211] betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit," etc. What does this mean other than that she was a young maiden who had not yet known a man although she was capable of it, but before she knew the man she was with child, and that this was an amazing thing since no maiden becomes pregnant prior to intercourse with a man? Thus, the evangelist regarded her in the same light as did the prophet, and set her forth as the sign and wonder.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Now this refutes also the false interpretation which some have drawn from the words of Matthew, where he says, "Before they came together she was found to be with child." They interpret this as though the evangelist meant to say, "Later she came together with Joseph like any other wife and lay with him, but before this occurred she was with child apart from Joseph," etc. Again, when he says, "And Joseph knew her not until she brought forth her first-born son" [Matt. 1:25], they interpret it as though the evangelist meant to say that he knew her, but not before she had brought forth her first-born son. This was the view of Helvidius which was refuted by Jerome.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Such carnal interpretations miss the meaning and purpose of the evangelist. As we have said, the evangelist, like the prophet Isaiah, wishes to set before our eyes this mighty wonder, and point out what an unheard-of thing it is for a maiden to be with child before her husband brings her home and lies with her; and further, that he does not know her carnally until she first has a son, which she should have had after first having been known [212] by him. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Thus, the words of the evangelist do not refer to anything that occurred after the birth, but only to what took place before it. For the prophet and the evangelist, and St. Paul as well, do not treat of this virgin beyond the point where they have from her that fruit for whose sake she is a virgin and everything else. After the child is born they dismiss the mother and speak not about her, what became of her, but only about her offspring. Therefore, one cannot from these words [Matt. 1:18, 25] conclude that Mary, after the birth of Christ, became a wife in the usual sense; it is therefore neither to be asserted nor believed. All the words are merely indicative of the marvelous fact that she was with child and gave birth before she had lain with a man.</b></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The form of expression used by Matthew is the common idiom, as if I were to say, "Pharaoh believed not Moses, until he was drowned in the Red Sea." Here it does not follow that Pharaoh believed later, after he had drowned; on the contrary, it means that he never did believe. Similarly when Matthew [1:25] says that Joseph did not know Mary carnally until she had brought forth her son, it does not follow that he knew her subsequently; on the contrary, it means that he never did know her. Again, the Red Sea overwhelmed Pharaoh before he got across. Here too it does not follow that Pharaoh got across later, after the Red Sea had overwhelmed him, but rather that he did not get across at all. In like manner, when Matthew [1:18] says, "She was found to be with child before they came together," it does not follow that Mary subsequently lay with Joseph, but rather that she did not lie with him.</span></b></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Elsewhere in Scripture the same manner of speech is employed. Psalm 110 [:1] reads, "God says to my Lord: 'Sit at my right hand, till I make your enemies your footstool.'" Here it does not follow that Christ does not continue to sit there after his enemies are placed beneath his feet. Again, in Genesis 28 [:15], "I will not leave you until I have done all that of which I have spoken to you." Here God did not leave him after the fulfilment had taken place. Again, in Isaiah 42 [:4], "He shall not be sad, nor troublesome, till he has established justice in the earth." [213] There are many more similar expression, so that this babble of Helvidius is without justification; in addition, he has neither noticed nor paid any attention to either Scripture or the common idiom.</span></b></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">This is enough for the present to have sufficiently proved that Mary was a pure maiden, and that Christ was a genuine Jew of Abraham's seed. Although more Scripture passages might be cited, these are the clearest. Moreover, if anyone does not believe a clear saying of His Divine Majesty, it is reasonable to assume that he would not believe either any other more obscure passages. So certainly no one can doubt that it is possible for God to cause a maiden to be with child apart from a man, since he has also created all things from nothing. Therefore, the Jews have no ground for denying this, for they acknowledge God's omnipotence, and they have here the clear testimony of the prophet Isaiah. [Bold face text shows where James Swan took the quote out of context].</span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>I apologize for the obnoxiously long quote from Luther's work which is much longer, but I did so to point out that Swan can cut and paste as astutely as any Catholic apologist. I have included a link to the text of the letter so the reader can judge if I have fairly treated Swan's work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I would dare say that James Swan's cut-and-paste job is far more insidious than the anonymous Catholic apologist he castigates in his article since he points to the splinter in his interlocutor’s eyes while ignoring the beam in his own.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Martin Luther’s exegesis above shows that biblical texts used to argue that Mary was not ever-virgin show nothing of the sort because those texts prove something different-the verity of the Incarnation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Swan was probably hoping that us dumb, addled Catholics would not be keen enough or too lazy to read the actual text, but take his word for it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Most importantly, Luther's argument acknowledges the whole point of the biblical texts–to protect the dogma of the Incarnation and the divinity of Our Lord.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">This assertion is not an assumption on my part.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Martin Luther's final testament of his beliefs, the <a href="https://reformed.org/documents/smalcald.html"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue;">Smalcald Articles</span></i></a>, references the doctrine of Mary Ever-Virgin as part of his statement on Who Christ is:</span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>IV. <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>That the Son became man in this manner, that He was conceived, without the cooperation of man, by the Holy Ghost, and was born of the pure, holy [and always] Virgin Mary. Afterwards He suffered, died, was buried, descended to hell, rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, sits at the right hand of God, will come to judge the quick and the dead, etc. as the Creed of the Apostles, as well as that of St. Athanasius, and the Catechism in common use for children, teach.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none; text-indent: .5in;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Interestingly, Swan did not include this quote from the Smalcald Articles in his list of Luther quotes he used to try to argue that Luther's view on Mary's perpetual virginity offered from the Catholic viewpoint.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Did Swan decide to wait to serve the best quote showing what Luther believed about Mary’s virginity “until” we have all drunk the bitter wine of his cut-and-paste quotes highlighting Luther’s inflammatory rhetoric?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Did the self-proclaimed expert in all things Luther intentionally leave it out to distort Luther’s views on Mary and give a false impression?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Did Swan attempt to distract his readers about the theological importance of the doctrine of Mary ever-virgin?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Has he ever thought about why the doctrine is essential at all?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It will probably be like on those great mysteries of life, like how many licks does it take to get to the </span><span lang="EN-US">center of a Tootsie Pop–the world will never know.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Now I admit I was thrown off by the use of brackets in the English translation of the above text.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not being one of those keen minds that Swan refers to, I could only guess that the reason [and always] is in brackets.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Luther's Latin text of Article IV, calls Mary <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">sempervirgine </i>while Luther’s German text uses the word <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Jungfrau.</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They both mean virgin, but the Latin is always-virgin, while the German is merely virgin or maiden. However, after reading his ardent defense of German maidenhood in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">That Jesus Christ Was Born a Jew</i>, one can only conclude that Luther equated maidenhood with virginity, and the German word did not need an adverb like its Latin counterpart.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Giving the lengthiness of this section of the paper, I will only mention that the Lutheran Church affirmed the doctrine of Mary ever-virgin after Luther's death.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Formula of Concord, one of its founding documents which state Lutheran beliefs and teachings states:</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>[24] <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>On account of this personal union and communion of the natures, Mary, the most blessed Virgin, bore not a mere man, but, as the angel [Gabriel] testifies, such a man as is truly the Son of the most high God, who showed His divine majesty even in His mother's womb, inasmuch as He was born of a virgin, with her virginity inviolate. Therefore she is truly the mother of God, and nevertheless remained a virgin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(<a href="file:///E:/ever"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue;">Formula of Concord [Solid Declaration], Article VIII</span></i></a>)</span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>I am on solid ground to say that both Martin Luther and the Lutheran Church after his death held the doctrine of Mary Ever-Virgin as a verity as did the Catholic Church before them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Likewise, most of the Reformers believed in the doctrine too.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Can Swan point to the keen mind who refuted Luther’s scriptural defense of Mary’s perpetual virginity?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Please tell us the name of the exceptional Protestant genius who called Luther out, threw his interpretive tradition of the word "until" and “brethren” on the table, and scrutinized them closely according to “biblical discussions about the meaning of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">heos hou / ἕως ο</i>” or<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> adelphos</i>?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I imagine people would pay good money to see an actual argument made by the rogues’ gallery of anti-Catholic Protestant polemicists addressing the specific arguments made by Martin Luther in favor of Mary’s virginity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-US">Such arguments may be over our heads, however.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we Catholic ignoramuses are not keen enough to figure out that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">heos hou</i> makes<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mary only a part-time or temporary virgin, how can we figure out if the Protestant mind is keen enough to toss out Luther's scriptural interpretation?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Moreover, if Luther got this doctrine wrong, what other doctrines did he get wrong?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For that matter, how do we know that he did not get leaving the Catholic Church wrong too?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And Swan wants to talk about Pandora boxes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-US">In my world, a mind tempered by humility is keener than one honed by pride.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Any Protestant mind who thinks that they are keener than the Reformers or the Early Church Fathers doesn't sound very humble to me.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US">Part IV: The Heos Hou Boogaloo.</span></b><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: .5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span lang="EN-US">As we have discussed previously, Luther gives a rather eloquent and forceful scriptural </span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>argument in defense of Mary's perpetual virginity by showing that deniers of the doctrine misuse those texts.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Moreover, he correctly relates the doctrine of Mary’s virginity to the incarnational principle upon which it is based.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Up to modern times, the only people who denied Mary’s perpetual virginity were people who denied Christ’s divinity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Going back to the earliest Christian writings, Mary was always known as the Virgin Mary, not Mary, the woman who was formerly a virgin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The only reason the doctrine had to be further defined to state what was already known was to rebut the arguments of people who obstinately denied Christ's Sonship.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The question in my mind is, why is it so important to people like James Swan to deny Mary's perpetual virginity?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Like folks dancing in step to an old-time Latin tune, they repeat the same arguments over and over again on the meaning of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">heos hou </i>and<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> adelphos</i> that heretics have made over the centuries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Frankly, I do not think that Swan and his lamentation of like-minded polemicists even know what they deny when they claim Mary was not a perpetual virgin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because of their myopic blinkered tradition, the only thing they see is proving Catholics wrong. They could care less about the theology they are trying to prove wrong as well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-US">While Swan claims that there is an interpretative tradition behind his denial of the doctrine pf Mary <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Aeiparthenos</i>, he does not articulate what that tradition to be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does his tradition affirm that Jesus is a divine person Who assumed a human nature at the Incarnation?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does his tradition affirm that Mary freely assented to being overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and bearing the Son of God?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How does he believe that his denial of Mary's perpetual virginity upholds the salvific principle that what is not assumed is not saved?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Did Jesus being incarnated in Mary sanctify her or set her apart or not?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does Swan believe in the recapitulation principle by which Christ healed our wounded natures as stated here by St. Irenaeus:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span lang="EN-US">In accordance with this design, Mary the Virgin is found obedient, saying, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to your word. (Luke 1:38</span></b><span lang="EN-US">) But Eve was disobedient; for she did not obey when as yet she was a virgin. And even as she, having indeed a husband, Adam, but being nevertheless as yet a virgin (for in Paradise they were both naked, and were not ashamed, (Genesis 2:25) inasmuch as they, having been created a short time previously, had no understanding of the procreation of children: for it was necessary that they should first come to adult age, and then multiply from that time onward), having become disobedient, was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race; so also did Mary, having a man betrothed [to her], and being nevertheless a virgin, by yielding obedience, become the cause of salvation, both to herself and the whole human race. And on this account does the law term a woman betrothed to a man, the wife of him who had betrothed her, although she was as yet a virgin; thus indicating the back-reference from Mary to Eve, because what is joined together could not otherwise be put asunder than by inversion of the process by which these bonds of union had arisen; so that the former ties be cancelled by the latter, that the latter may set the former again at liberty. And it has, in fact, happened that the first compact looses from the second tie, but that the second tie takes the position of the first which has been cancelled. For this reason did the Lord declare that the first should in truth be last, and the last first. (Matthew 19:30, Matthew 20:16) And the prophet, too, indicates the same, saying, instead of fathers, children have been born unto you. For the Lord, having been born the First-begotten of the dead, (Revelation 1:5) and receiving into His bosom the ancient fathers, has regenerated them into the life of God, He having been made Himself the beginning of those that live, as Adam became the beginning of those who die. (1 Corinthians 15:20-22) Wherefore also Luke, commencing the genealogy with the Lord, carried it back to Adam, indicating that it was He who regenerated them into the Gospel of life, and not they Him. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">And thus also it was that the knot of Eve's disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. For what the virgin Eve had bound fast through unbelief, this did the virgin Mary set free through faith. </b></span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span lang="EN-US">(St. Irenaeus, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103322.htm"><span style="color: blue;">Against Heresies</span></a></i>, Book III:22.4</span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Catholics believe that Mary’s perpetual virginity is a sign of her freely chosen obedience to conform herself to God’s will.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is proof of her “yes” to<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God’s plan to be the cause of our salvation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When Blessed Virgin Mary gave her voluntary fiat at Luke 1:38, she tells God that she is giving her complete and total self to God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Her perpetual virginity is proof of that commitment to be a total gift of herself to God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Without her free cooperation, there is no Incarnation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Without her free choice, Christ could not assume flesh through her and heal what damaged through our first parent’s sin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Her virginity makes her “as a temple unto Himself, and makes it His very own as an instrument, in it manifested, and in it dwelling. Thusly, taking from our bodies one of like nature, because all were under penalty of the corruption of death He gave it over to death in the stead of all, and offered it to the Father.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>St. Athanasius, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">On the Incarnation </i>8:3-4.</span><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-tab-count: 5;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Mary’s perpetual virginity makes the statement at Ezekiel 44:2 true:</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.0in;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>"Then said the LORD unto me; This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall enter in by it; because the LORD, the God of Israel, hath entered in by it, therefore it shall be shut." </span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-US">The Fathers of the Church interpreted this passage to be a typological reference to the perpetual virginity of Mary. It protects the doctrine of the Incarnation from being impugned by those who deny it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They argue that if Mary had sexual relations with Joseph after Jesus' birth and had other children, how do we know that Jesus was incarnated?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why shouldn't we believe that Mary lied about how she got pregnant with Him?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Catholics answer that since God took flesh from the Virgin's womb, He sanctified that womb.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When the Holy Spirit “overshadowed” Mary (Lk. 1:35) with His power, He consecrated Mary to Himself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In effect, He was Mary’s spouse.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Once Mary was consecrated to God through the Incarnation, her perpetual virginity is proof that she should remain for Him alone.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Her fiat was a total commitment to her Son, her Redeemer-to give birth to Him, to provide and care for Him, to serve Him, and to be the model for all disciples after that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Her perpetual virginity is an acknowledgment of Her Spiritual Motherhood, to be genuinely the "handmaid" of the Lord.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-US">Lest Swan wants to quibble over whether this is modern Vatican II thinking, here is what St. Thomas Aquinas writes in the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Summa Theologiae, Tertia Pars,</i> q. 28, a. 3 beginning at the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">sed contra</i>:</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span lang="EN-US">On the contrary, It is written (Ezekiel 44:2): "This gate shall be shut, it shall not be opened, and no man shall pass through it; because the Lord the God of Israel hath entered in by it." Expounding these words, Augustine says in a sermon (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">De Annunt. Dom</i>. iii): "What means this closed gate in the House of the Lord, except that Mary is to be ever inviolate? What does it mean that 'no man shall pass through it,' save that Joseph shall not know her? And what is this—'The Lord alone enters in and goeth out by it'—except that the Holy Ghost shall impregnate her, and that the Lord of angels shall be born of her? And what means this—'it shall be shut for evermore'—but that Mary is a virgin before His Birth, a virgin in His Birth, and a virgin after His Birth?"</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span lang="EN-US">I answer that, Without any hesitation we must abhor the error of Helvidius, who dared to assert that Christ's Mother, after His Birth, was carnally known by Joseph, and bore other children. For, in the first place, this is derogatory to Christ's perfection: for as He is in His Godhead the Only-Begotten of the Father, being thus His Son in every respect perfect, so it was becoming that He should be the Only-begotten son of His Mother, as being her perfect offspring. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span lang="EN-US">Secondly, this error is an insult to the Holy Ghost, whose "shrine" was the virginal womb ["<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sacrarium Spiritus Sancti</i>" (Office of B. M. V., Ant. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ad Benedictus</i>, T. P.), wherein He had formed the flesh of Christ: wherefore it was unbecoming that it should be desecrated by intercourse with a man. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span lang="EN-US">Thirdly, this is derogatory to the dignity and holiness of God's Mother: for thus she would seem to be most ungrateful, were she not content with such a Son; and were she, of her own accord, by carnal intercourse to forfeit that virginity which had been miraculously preserved in her. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>Fourthly, it would be tantamount to an imputation of extreme presumption in</span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span lang="EN-US">Joseph, to assume that he attempted to violate her whom by the angel's revelation he knew to have conceived by the Holy Ghost.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span lang="EN-US">We must therefore simply assert that the Mother of God, as she was a virgin in conceiving Him and a virgin in giving Him birth, did she remain a virgin ever afterwards.</span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none; text-indent: .5in;">
<span lang="EN-US">After that, we see St. Thomas answer the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">heos hou</i> and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">adelphos </i>arguments, as well as some others, that folks like Swan make against the perpetual virginity of the Blessed Virgin Mary:</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span lang="EN-US">Reply to Objection 1. As Jerome says (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Contra Helvid</i>. I): "Although this particle 'before' often indicates a subsequent event, yet we must observe that it not infrequently points merely to some thing previously in the mind: nor is there need that what was in the mind take place eventually, since something may occur to prevent its happening. Thus if a man say: 'Before I dined in the port, I set sail,' we do not understand him to have dined in port after he set sail: but that his mind was set on dining in port." In like manner the evangelist says: "Before they came together" Mary "was found with child, of the Holy Ghost," not that they came together afterwards: but that, when it seemed that they would come together, this was forestalled through her conceiving by the Holy Ghost, the result being that afterwards they did not come together. </span><br />
<span lang="EN-US"><br /></span> <span lang="EN-US">Reply to Objection 2. As Augustine says (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">De Nup. et Concup</i>. I): "The Mother of God is called (Joseph's) wife from the first promise of her espousals, whom he had not known nor ever was to know by carnal intercourse." For, as Ambrose says on Luke 1:27: "The fact of her marriage is declared, not to insinuate the loss of virginity, but to witness to the reality of the union." </span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span lang="EN-US">Reply to Objection 3. Some have said that this is not to be understood of carnal knowledge, but of acquaintance. Thus Chrysostom says [<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Opus Imperf. in Matth</i>., Hom. 1: among the spurious works ascribed to Chrysostom] that "Joseph did not know her, until she gave birth, being unaware of her dignity: but after she had given birth, then did he know her. Because by reason of her child she surpassed the whole world in beauty and dignity: since she alone in the narrow abode of her womb received Him Whom the world cannot contain." </span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span lang="EN-US">Others again refer this to knowledge by sight. For as, while Moses was speaking with God, his face was so bright "that the children of Israel could not steadfastly behold it"; so Mary, while being "overshadowed" by the brightness of the "power of the Most High," could not be gazed on by Joseph, until she gave birth. But afterwards she is acknowledged by Joseph, by looking on her face, not by lustful contact. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.0in;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>Jerome, however, grants that this is to be understood of knowledge by intercourse; but he observes that "before" or "until" has a twofold sense in Scripture. For sometimes it indicates a fixed time, as Galatians 3:19: The law "was set because of transgressions, until the seed should come, to whom He made the promise." On the other hand, it sometimes indicates an indefinite time, as in Psalm 122:2: "Our eyes are unto the Lord our God, until He have mercy on us"; from which it is not to be gathered that our eyes are turned from God as soon as His mercy has been obtained. In this sense those things are indicated "of which we might doubt if they had not been written down: while others are left out to be supplied by our understanding. Thus the evangelist says that the Mother of God was not known by her husband until she gave birth, that we may be given to understand that still less did he know her afterwards" (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Adversus Helvid</i>. v). </span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span lang="EN-US">Reply to Objection 4. The Scriptures are wont to designate as the first-born, not only a child who is followed by others, but also the one that is born first. "Otherwise, if a child were not first-born unless followed by others, the first-fruits would not be due as long as there was no further produce" [Jerome, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Adversus Helvid.</i> x]: which is clearly false, since according to the law the first-fruits had to be redeemed within a month (Numbers 18:16).</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span lang="EN-US">Reply to Objection 5. Some, as Jerome says on Matthew 12:49-50, "suppose that the brethren of the Lord were Joseph's sons by another wife. But we understand the brethren of the Lord to be not sons of Joseph, but cousins of the Saviour, the sons of Mary, His Mother's sister." For "Scripture speaks of brethren in four senses; namely, those who are united by being of the same parents, of the same nation, of the same family, by common affection." Wherefore the brethren of the Lord are so called, not by birth, as being born of the same mother; but by relationship, as being blood-relations of His. But Joseph, as Jerome says (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Contra Helvid.</i> ix), is rather to be believed to have remained a virgin, "since he is not said to have had another wife," and "a holy man does not live otherwise than chastely." </span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span lang="EN-US">Reply to Objection 6. Mary who is called "the mother of James and Joseph" is not to be taken for the Mother of our Lord, who is not wont to be named in the Gospels save under this designation of her dignity—"the Mother of Jesus." This Mary is to be taken for the wife of Alphaeus, whose son was James the less, known as the "brother of the Lord" (Galatians 1:19).</span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><a href="https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4028.htm#article1"><span style="color: blue;">ST III, q. 28, a. 3</span></a>.</span><span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Having said all of this, I do want to respond to a specific argument James Swan made in his article.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Swan cites Jaroslav Pelikan (who converted from the Lutheran Church to the Orthodox before his death), Giovanni Miegge, an Italian Protestant professor in mid-20th century, and Hilda Graef, a Catholic convert and Greek Patristics scholar, as evidence that the doctrine of Mary's perpetual virginity developed because of the growth in the Catholic ascetic ideal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I would argue to the contrary-that the Church's ascetic ideal grew as a result of the belief in Mary's perpetual virginity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As another noted scholar, Eamon Carroll, writes in "<a href="https://ecommons.udayton.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=2541&context=marian_studies"><span style="color: blue;">Theological Significance of Mary's Virginity</span></a>" in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Marian Studies </i>Vol. 13 (1962), 151:</span></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.0in;">
<span lang="EN-US"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>Finally, virginity <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">post partum</i> was considered. In this respect Mary is the model of Christian virginity, of life-long dedication to God. Christian virginity in general is eschatological, for it witnesses to the world to come when the number of the elect will be complete, and there will be neither marriage nor giving in marriage. Virginity involves detachment through ascesis truly, but as a means to the positive value of consecration now and forever. Our Lady's consecration to God was total and sacrificial, its positive value the greater because concupiscence did not hamper her progress. Here even some Protestant authorities are finding a meeting ground with us concerning the state of virginity and the Virgin Mary that holds out ecumenical hope. For a closing word, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sacra virginitas</i></span><span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"> offers a practical corollary on Christian virginity in the words of St. Jerome: "For me, virginity means dedication through Mary and through Christ."</span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>I conclude this paper with this following thought. Mary's perpetual virginity is a sacred symbol of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Totus Christus</i>, the Catholic principle that we too can be wholly in relationship with Jesus Christ as Mary was, is, and will be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To be devoted to her through our belief in Marian doctrine is to be as intimately devoted to her Son as she was.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Virginity is not just a physical attribute that modern people ridicule; it is a way of life that can wholly unite us to Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since the time St. Ignatius of Antioch first called Mary the Virgin in his letters, the Church has undersood that all Mariology is Christology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is too bad that Swan does not understand that.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I pray someday he will come into the fullness of truth by believing as I do. </span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
Blessings!</div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike>Paul Hofferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-56843642626743572162019-06-21T21:20:00.000-05:002019-06-25T16:51:40.601-05:00A Chapter-by-Chapter Refutation of Dr. Taylor Marshall's Book, Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within: Part Three <div style="mso-pagination: none;">
III.<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"> Chapter 2.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The Carbonari Quick-step.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">“The spell lies in two words,” replied Wamba — “‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Pax vobiscum</i>’ will answer all queries. If you go or come, eat or drink, bless or ban, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Pax vobiscum</i> carries you through it all. It is as useful to a friar as a broomstick to a witch, or a wand to a conjurer. Speak it but thus, in a deep grave tone, — <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Pax vobiscum</i>! — it is irresistible — Watch and ward, knight and squire, foot and horse, it acts as a charm upon them all. I think, if they bring me out to be hanged to-morrow, as is much to be doubted they may, I will try its weight upon the finisher of the sentence.”</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>From Chapter 26 of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ivanhoe </i>by Sir Walter Scott.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Recently, people have been talking about Dr. Taylor Marshall’s Book, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within</i> (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press 2019).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After reading some favorable reviews of the book as well as some unfavorable critiques of the book, particularly those by my friend, David Armstrong, I bought the book (Kindle edition) for myself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Upon reading the book, I decided that my first real apologetics endeavor since my heart attacks and open-heart surgery in 2016 would be a defense of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and her popes from the salacious conspiracy claims of Dr. Marshall.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">In the two posts that follow, we will examine the second chapter in Dr. Marshall’s book entitled, “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Alta Vendita:</i> Satan’s Revolution in Tiara and Cope.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this post, we examine how he invokes “The Permanent Instruction of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Alta Vendita</i>” like Wamba the Fool advised his master, Cedric the Saxon, to say <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Pax vobiscum</i> to mislead his captors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Dr. Marshall starts out the second chapter of his book with a quote from a document he calls the Permanent Instruction of the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Alta Vendita</i>:</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The Pope, whoever he may be, will never come to the secret societies. It is for the secret societies to come first to the Church, with the aim of winning them both. The work which we have undertaken is not the work of a day, nor of a month, nor of a year. It may last many years, a century perhaps, but in our ranks the soldier dies, and the fight continues.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Marshall, Taylor. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within</i>. Sophia Institute Press. Kindle Edition, Location 171.. </span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">In this manner, Dr. Marshall introduces us to the document that forms the cornerstone of his conspiracy claim that Freemasonry and its ideology have infiltrated the Vatican.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr. Marshall informs us that the quote originates in a book by Jacques Crétineau-Joly, a 19<sup>th-</sup>century French writer and journalist, entitled, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">L’Église romaine en face de la Révolution</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He then begins his discussion of this purported Masonic master plan to destroy the Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Having actually tried conspiracy cases in my legal career, I grew concerned over the paucity of evidence how the Carbonari or Freemasons actually implemented the Permanent Instruction against the Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The argument seemed rather disconnected.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The evidence referenced seemed cherry-picked.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He did not seem to examine the evidence in the historical context from which they were created.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I located M. Crétineau-Joly’s book and read it for myself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The first volume may be found <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=MlNEAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a> and the second volume, which is relevant to our discussion, may be found <a href="https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=o6QAAAAAcAAJ&hl=en&pg=GBS.PP5"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I also reviewed portions of Msgr. George F. Dillon’s book, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The War of Antichrist with the Church and Christian Civilization: Lectures</i>. (Dublin: M.H. Gill, 1885) which Dr. Marshall mentions, which may be found <a href="https://archive.org/details/warantichristwi00dillgoog/page/n5"><span style="color: blue;">here.</span></a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I also learned of a third book by Msgr. Herni Delassus entitled <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Le Problème de L'heure Présente. Antagonisme de Deux Civilisations. </i>[Studies Reprinted from the "Semaine Religieuse de Cambrai." 1904], found <a href="https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=cFERAQAAMAAJ&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA109"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a> that also references the Permanent Instruction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Like Msgr. Dillon’s book, Msgr. Delassus details the evils of Freemasonry and its attack on the Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Pope St. Pius X himself encouraged Msgr. Delassus to write it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Dr. Marshall writes:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Jacques Crétineau-Joly had a fiery faith and entered the seminary only to discern that he did not have a vocation to the priesthood. He had been a philosophy professor and attempted poetry but found his talent in research and writing. </span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Me: Dr. Marshall does not provide the source for this information.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Similar information can be found in the Wikipedia and the Catholic Encyclopaedia <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04488a.htm"><span style="color: blue;">here.</span></a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Dr. Marshall writes:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;">In 1846, Crétineau-Joly published an exhaustive six-volume history of the Jesuits titled The Religious, Political, and Literary History of the Society of Jesus (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Histoire religieuse, politique et littéraire de la Compagnie de Jésus)</i>.</span><span style="color: black;"> </span></b><span style="color: black;"></span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: .5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -.5in;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Me:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Dr. Marshall fails to mention that Pope Gregory XVI read this book and was </span><span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">so impressed </span><br />
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">with it that he granted M. Crétineau-Joly access to the Vatican’s secret archives so he could write a</span><br />
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">book on the secret societies plaguing Europe and the Church called<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">L’Histoire des Sociétés secrète</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><br />
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">M. Crétineau-Joly was also given access to records of the Austrian government to help him write the </span><br />
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">book.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After Pope Gregory XVI died, M. Crétineau-Joly decided to rework the book into <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">L’Église </i></span><br />
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">romaine en face de la Révolution. <a href="file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/final%20version.doc#_edn1" name="_ednref1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">[1]</span></b></span></a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Dr. Marshall writes: </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">In 1859, with approval and encouragement from Pope Pius IX, he published his most important book <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Roman Church in the Face of Revolution </i>(L’Église romaine en face de la Révolution).</span></b><span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/final%20version.doc#_edn2" name="_ednref2" style="mso-endnote-id: edn2;" title=""><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">[2]</span></span></a></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: .5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -.5in;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Me:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In the Apostolic blessing that Pope Bl. Pius IX gave to M. Crétineau-Joly on February</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">25, 1861 references that in 1859, Pope Bl. Pius IX granted Crétineau-Joly renewed use of the documents he acquired during Pope Gregory XVI’s pontificate so he could write the book.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/final%20version.doc#_edn3" name="_ednref3" style="mso-endnote-id: edn3;" title=""><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">[3]</span></span></a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Dr. Marshall writes: </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Roman Church in the Face of Revolution was an explosive work that claimed that anti-Catholic secret societies would no longer attack the Church from without but would infiltrate her from within.</span></b></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Marshall, Taylor.<i> Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within.</i> Sophia Institute Press. Kindle Edition. Location 180.</span></b><span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: .5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -.5in;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Me: <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Contrary to what Dr. Marshall claims, the book was not “an explosive work”</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">whatsoever nor was it about how the Church would infiltrate her from within.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was a reworking of a book that he had previously written while Gregory XVI was pope.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Anyone reading it would find that the book is a history of how the Church prevailed over the forces of Revolution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The book shows how the Church stood in front of the notion of Revolution from the French Revolution to the European Revolution of 1848 and triumphed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">It is true that the book shows how secret societies attempted to spread the doctrine of Voltaic and Rousseau that emphasized the overthrow of the monarchies of Europe and to rid the world of the Christian ideal through the rest of Europe. The Permanent Instruction is not mentioned whatsoever in the first volume of the book and was given scant attention in the second.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When the Permanent Instruction was referenced, it was merely one of many documents that he used to provide context and build a narrative around to describe the historical events he provides the reader.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While the Alta Vendita plays a significant part in the book, the Permanent Instruction does not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">To illustrate the purpose of the book, here is what M. Crètineau-Joly says on pg. 528:</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Cette victoire de l'Église romaine, à laquelle nous as sistons, n'est pas sans doute plus définitive qu'aucune de celles qui la précédèrent.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Après l'empereur Constantin vint Arius; après le Concile de Trente et la victoire de la vraie réforme sur le libre examen et sur Luther, le Jansénisme et les sophistes du dix-huitième siècle, nourris sant la Révolution au biberon d'une sauvage incrédulité.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>Le germe d'une nouvelle guerre existe peut-être déjà; mais ce germe encore</span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">inconnu ne sert qu'à confirmer l'éclatant succès dont nous sommes les témoins.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">My rusty non-literal English translation:</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The victory of the Roman Catholic Church, to which we have set out, is probably not more definitive than any of those that preceded it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After Emperor Constantine came Arius; after the Council of Trent and the victory of the true reformation over private judgment [literally~free examination in French] and on Luther, Jansenism and the sophists of the eighteenth century, all feeding the Revolution with the bottle of a savage disbelief. </span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The seed of a new war may already exists; but this as yet unknown germ only serves to confirm the dazzling success of which we are witnesses</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The book concludes on pg. 531 with:</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">C'est ainsi qu'en révélant cette omnipotente énergie, cachée sous une apparente faiblesse , Dieu explique, par un seul triomphe, les déroutes de la Révolution et la vic toire de l'Église.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">My rusty English translation:</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Thus by revealing this omnipotent energy, hidden under apparent weakness, God explains, by a single triumph, the routing of the Revolution and the victory of the Church.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">At this point, I will not be so uncharitable as to suggest that Dr. Marshall intended to mislead or deceive his reader, but it is certain that he did not read M. Crètineau-Joly’s book before citing it in his book.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I urge him to do so now.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Having said that, I will merely correct his factual errors in his second chapter about the Permanent Instruction of the Alta Vendita and leave the theological issues for the next post.. </span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Dr. Marshall writes:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The plot was detailed in a secret document acquired from the highest lodge in Italy, the Alta Vendita of the Carbonari.</span></b><span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Marshall, Taylor<i>. Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within.</i> Sophia Institute Press. Kindle Edition. Location 180.</span></b><span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: .5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -.5in;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Me:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The document to which he refers is certainly real.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Carbonari were certainly real.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The Alta Vendita was certainly real.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, I argue that the Alta Vendita was not the highest lodge of the Carbonari in Italy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Before I offer my argument on this point, I will acknowledge that Msgr. Dillon on page 64 of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The War of Antichrist with the Church and Christian Civilization: Lectures</i> does state that the Alta Vendita was the highest lodge of the Carbonari in Italy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, the Permanent Instruction itself notes that the Alta Vendita controlled all of the secret societies, not just the Carbonari.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Second, both M. Crétineau-Joly and Msgr. Delassus indicate that the Alta Vendita was a separate organization from the Carbonari.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, according to Delassus on p. 191 of his book, the Alta Vendita was the successor of the Illuminati which in turn was succeeded by another organization that continued its activities when the Alta Vendita disbanded in 1848.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Here is what M. Cretinéau-Joly states on page 117 of his book:</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">La Vente suprême, qui se sert du Carbonarisme et de la Franc-Maçonnerie sans en relever, reste un secret même pour les autres sociétés occultes.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">My translation:</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The highest shop (Alta Vendita) which makes use of Carbonarisme and Freemasonty without identifying with them remains a secret even from the other secret Sociétés.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Msgr. Delassus writes in his book at p 184:</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>La Haute-Vente fut dans le Carbonarisme même une société plus secrète encore, recevant des instructions plus mystérieuses et plus précises pour diriger les efforts et du Carbonarisme et de la Maçonnerie et les faire converger vers le but que nous venons de marquer.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">My translation:</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">In Carbonarisme, the Alta Vendita was an even more secret society receiving more mysterious and precise instructions to direct the Carbonari and the Freemasons and coordinates their efforts towards the goal upon which we have remarked.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">It must be kept in mind that there numerous secret societies operating in Europe after the French Revolution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The French Revolution created a<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>movement to overthrow all of the monarchies of Europe, to create nation-states, and to cause the downfall of the Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Secret societies of all sorts across the political spectrum, from merely advocating justice for the poor and downtrodden to socialist and radical anarchists, sprung up to foment the Revolution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>R. John Rath, the famous historian wrote in his paper entitled, "The Carbonari: Their Origins, Initiation Rites, and Aims." <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The American Historical Review </i>69, no. 2 (1964):</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">It must not be forgotten that the Carbonari were only one of numerous sects that honeycombed the Apennine Peninsula: Reformed European Patriots, Decisi, Republican Brother Protectors, Society of the Black Pin, Calderari, Sanfedisti, Concistoriali, Federati, Guelphs, and Adelfi, to name but a few. In northern Italy some of these groups, especially the Guelphs, the Federati, and the Adelfi, were much more of a menace to Habsburg interests than the Carbonari. Over and above these conspiratorial groups stood the Perfect Sublime Masters, which were organized by the intriguer, Filippo Michele Buonarroti, whom Elizabeth Eisenstein has referred to as "the first professional revolutionist," for the express purpose of becoming a superior directing society to control all the secret sects, not only in Italy but in all Europe, and use them to establish a democratic republic and to realize the principles of Rousseau's Social Contract and perhaps those of the Babeuf conspiracy. (Footnotes deleted).</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The Alta Vendita is the superior directing organization to which Prof. Rate refers..</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Dr. Marshall writes:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The Italian Carbonari, or “charcoal makers,” were a secret society</span></b></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">aligned with secret societies in France, Spain, Portugal, and Russia. These Free masonic lodges shared common goals, such as a hatred for Catholicism and monarchy. The Italian Carbonari held a unique posture of hatred because, for them, the chief Italian monarch also happened to be the Catholic pope. </span></b></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Marshall, Taylor. <i>Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within.</i> Sophia Institute Press. Kindle Edition. Location 180.</span></b><span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: .5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -.5in;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Me:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>There is little doubt that the Carbonari had some sort of affiliation with Freemasonry,</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">although real scholars disagree on what those affiliations were.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The eminent Church historian Owen Chadwick describes the Carbonari in his book, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Popes and European Revolution</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2011) on pages 557-564.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He argues that the Carbonari used Masonic rituals in the rites, but adopted a Jacobean world view.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unlike the Freemasonry, the Carbonari did not believe in indifferentism-they clearly had a Christian outlook-but wanted all priests and clergy to be elected by their congregations and to be married.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the Carbonari succeeded in establishing the Ausonian Republic in Italy, they proposed that the current pope at the time remain in office so long as the bishops the people elected would select a new patriarch from their ranks.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ibid. at 564.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In other words, the Carbonari wanted a Church that mimicked that of the Orthodox Churches.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Chadwick also notes that there were a number of Catholic priests and even a bishop who openly professed to be Carbonari.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ibid. at 561-2.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">R. John Rath further debunks the notion that the Carbonari completely hated Catholicism At p. 364, he writes:</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The initial initiation ritual and catechism for the second grade were replete with such terms as the Holy Trinity, the Holy Gospel, the Holy Virgin, Heaven, the Garden of Olives, the Crucifixion and suffering of Christ, the Twelve Apostles, the original sin, and the capital sins. It should be noted, however, that Christ was always alluded to, not in Christian terms, but in the Masonic language of "Grand Master of the Universe."</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Dr. Marshall is also mistaken that the Pope was the chief Italian monarch during 19<sup>th</sup> century.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Italy at that time was divided up into about 8 separate states, including some which were controlled by Austria and by France.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Pope was merely the head of state of the Papal States in central Italy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>. </span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">In sum, the Carbonari and the Freemasons did share many of the same goals but did not share the same ideology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They did not agree on their religious beliefs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is no doubt that the Carbonari were opposed to the Papacy, but they were not opposed to the idea of Christianity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">So what can we say about the Alta Vendita?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">M. Crétineau-Joly asserts that the Alta Vendita was composed of only forty members, their identities hidden, in the correspondences they exchanged between them, under pseudonyms. "Out of respect for high standards," remarks Crétineau-Joly, "we do not want to violate these pseudonyms, which today are protected by repentance or the grave. History may one day be less forgiving than the Church.”</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Delassus relates that the head of the Alta Vendita called himself Nubius, a man of darkness and mystery. He apparently was an aristocrat and held a high position in the Roman government as a diplomat, which gave him access to the Cardinals, the Roman aristocracy, and the courts of Europe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Piccolo-Tigre, a Jewish banker; Caetano, an intimate of Prince Metternich’s secretary in the Austrian court; Volpe; Beppo; and Vendix were all men mentioned as members of the forty in the correspondence that Crétineau-Joly obtained from the Vatican archives and Austrian authorities that he places in his book.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Both authors state that the Alta Vendita was created specifically to advance the cause of Revolution and to destroy the Church and the Christian ideal by attacking its pope.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To accomplish these goals, the Alta Vendita, worked to direct and coordinate the efforts of the other secret societies, especially the Carbonari.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These men pledged themselves to the others under the penalty of death to conceal their activities, assume roles in the secret societies (which might be why Dr. Marshall thinks that the Alta Vendita was the highest hop of the Carbonari) and in the world at large, and operate completely in secret.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Reviewing the Permanent instruction, anyone who gives the document at fair reading would see that it was more akin to a mission statement as opposed to an actual plan of attack.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The goals outlined in the document called for the annihilation of the Christian idea and it outlined the means to do it- the destruction of the temporal power of the Popes and the corruption of the Christian people, their mores, and ideals.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are many generalities, very few specifics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I urge the reader to read the Permanent Instruction itself either in the Appendix of Dr, Marshall’s book or <a href="http://files.meetup.com/574112/Permanent_Instruction_of_the_Alta_Vendita.pdf"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a> so the reader can see that after stripping out the precatory language, the obiter dicta, and the hyperbolic rhetoric how sparse the Instruction really is.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Here is the sum and substance of the Permanent Instruction as I see it:</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">After setting out its goals, the author of the document first encourages the development on one’s good reputation:</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Now then, in order to secure to us a Pope according to our own heart, it is necessary to fashion for that Pope a generation worthy of the kingdom of which we dream. Leave on one side old age and middle life, go to the youth, and, if possible, even to children. Never speak in their presence a word of impiety or impurity.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>...</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">In order to reap profit at the home of each family, in order to give yourself the right of asylum at the domestic hearth, you ought to present yourself with all the appearance of a man grave and moral.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Marshall, Taylor.<i> Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within.</i> Sophia Institute Press. Kindle Edition. Location 3459-66</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Second, the member is to get personable with his targets and get them to talk about topics that stir patriotic feelings:</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Once your reputation is established in the colleges, in the gymnasiums, in the universities, and in the seminaries — once you shall have captivated the confidence of professors and students, so act that those who are principally engaged in the ecclesiastical state should love to seek your conversation. Nourish their souls with the splendors of ancient Papal Rome. There is always at the bottom of the Italian heart a regret for Republican Rome. Excite, enkindle those natures so full of warmth and of patriotic fire. Offer them at first, but always in secret, inoffensive books, poetry resplendent with national emphasis; then little by little you will bring your disciples to the degree of cooking desired. When upon all the points of the ecclesiastical state at once, this daily work shall have spread our ideas as the light, then you will be able to appreciate the wisdom of the counsel in which we take the initiative.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Marshall, Taylor.<i> Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within. </i>Sophia Institute Press. Kindle Edition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Location 3456-73. </span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Third, get the target to hate others and to create divisions:</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">[Create] hatred of the stranger. Cause the German to become ridiculous and odious even before his foreseen entry. With the idea of the Pontifical supremacy, mix always the old memories of the wars of the priesthood and the Empire. Awaken the shouldering passions of the Guelphs and the Ghibellines, and thus you will obtain for yourselves the reputation of good Catholics and pure patriots.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Marshall, Taylor. <i>Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within.</i> Sophia Institute Press. Kindle Edition. Location 3480.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Fourth, sit back and see the result:</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The reputation of a good Catholic and good patriot will open the way for our doctrines to pass into the hearts of the young clergy and go even to the depths of convents. In a few years the young clergy will have, by the force of events, invaded all offices. They will govern, administer, and judge. They will form the Council of the Sovereign. They will be called upon to choose the Pontiff who will reign; and that Pontiff, like the greater part of his contemporaries, will be necessarily imbued with the Italian and humanitarian principles which we are about to put in circulation.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>.</span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Marshall, Taylor. <i>Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within.</i> Sophia Institute Press. Kindle Edition. Location 3480. </span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Like all good conspiracy theorists, Dr. Marshall got sold on the marketing rather than focussing on the product.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">A couple more points.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Permanent Instruction was not composed by Piccolo-Tigre as represented Dr. Marshal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>M. Crétineau-Joly does not state that Piccolo-Tigre is the author of ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">l’instruction permanente.</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, no author is stated in the history. <a href="file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/final%20version.doc#_edn4" name="_ednref4" style="mso-endnote-id: edn4;" title=""><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">[4]</span></span></a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Piccolo-Tigre is mentioned as the author of a letter dated January 23, 1822 that appears on pp. 119-122 reporting to his superiors in Piedmont on the progress of the implementation of the plan.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If Dr. Marshall has<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> ad fontes</i> evidence to contradict me. Let him put it forward.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Second, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">l’instruction permanente </i>was not written sometime in 1831-1846 as suggested by Dr. Marshall.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>M. Crétineau-Joly specifically states that the document was written in 1819 in a footnote found on p. 88 of his book: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“Cet écrit est daté de l'année 1819</i> [English: This writing is dated in the year 1819]".</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Here is how Cretineau-Joly introduces us to the actual text of the document</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">A peine la concentration des Sociétés secrètes eut-elle permis à leurs chefs d'organiser le travail souterrain, qu'une pensée démoralisatrice s'offre tout naturellement à leur esprit. Ces Moïses de ténèbres, en échappant tou jours à l'œil ou à la main des gouvernements, evvrewl sans cesse l'art de compromettre des séides de bas étage, comme pour entretenir le feu sacré. Us régnent dans l'ombre; par des serments qui attestent et portent Ja mort, ils se sont assurés d'avance que leurs ordres seront exécutés dans le mystère.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Mais à cette œuvre de dissolution partielle, ébauchée tantôt sur un point, tantôt sur un autre, un grand appui était nécessaire. Pour développer et mûrir des projets antimonarchiques, il fallait s'étayer sur une base anti chrétienne. Cette idée fondamentale une fois adoptée, il ne restait plus qu'à la mettre en œuvre.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>La régénération de l'Italie et du monde entier ne pou vait être conquise que</span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">par des moyens extraordinaires. Vivifier et propager l'idée démocratique était le rêve de tous les cerveaux malades, dans la Franc-Maçonnerie comme dans l'Illuminisme. Les Rois n'avaient ni assez d'énergie pour l'accepter, ni assez de force pour la com battre. Ils passaient sans laisser de trace. L'Église seule restait debout au milieu des ruines; seule eJJe survivait aux révolutions et aux cataclysmes; ce fut donc à l'Église romaine qu'une phalange de volontaires se proposa d'a dresser tous les coups. L'Église ne pouvait jamais pactiser avec eux; ils s'en constituèrent les plus irréconciliables ennemis. Mais leur hostilité ne s'évapora ni en turbu lences impies ni en provocations insensées; ils eurent le calme du sauvage et l'impassibilité du diplomate anglais. </span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Quand leurs batteries furent dressées et qu'ils se virent prendre pied dans toutes les principales cités où s'élabo rait le complot antichrétien, ils rédigèrent une instruction permanente, code et guide des initiés les plus avancés. Cette instruction, la voici traduite de l'italien dans son effrayante crudité :</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>My rusty non literal translation into English:</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Hardly had the assmeblage of the secret societies allowed their chiefs to organize their undercover work, a demoralizing thought naturally arose in their minds. These Moses of darkness, always escaping the eye or hand of governments, had always had resort to their art of seducing low-class minions, so as to maintain the sacred fire. They reign from the shadows; by use of solemn oaths made under the pain of death, they have ensured in advance that their orders will be mysteriously executed. </span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">But it was necessary to provide support to unify the sketched-out points here-and-there of the work of partial dissolution. To develop and mature their anti-monarchical projects, one had to do so on an anti-Christian basis. Once this fundamental idea was adopted, it only remained to implement it. The unification/regeneration of Italy and the conquering of the whole world could only be done through extraordinary means. To vivify and propagate the democratic idea was the dream of all the sick brains in Freemasonry as in Illuminism. The monarchies did not have enough power to endure it nor enough strength to fight it and they passed away without a trace. The Church alone remained in the midst of the ruins standing against them; the only one which survived revolutions and cataclysms; it was therefore against the Roman Church that they proposed to direct a phalanx of volunteers to attack.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Church could never make a pact with them; they were the most irreconcilable of enemies. But their hostility did not dissipate either in unholy turbulence or in senseless provocation; they exercised the calm of the savage and the impassibility of the English diplomatist. </span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">When their batteries were erected and they found a foothold in all the principal cities where the anti-Christian conspiracy was to take place, they drew up a permanent instruction, a code and a guide for their most advanced initiates. Here is this instruction, translated from the Italian in all of its frightening crudity:</span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Then on pp. 82-90, he sets out the guide which he calls “une instruction permanente” which Dr. Marshall sets out in the appendix of his own book.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Now it should be noted that this document is the second of approximately 15 or so documents of the Alta Vendita introduced by M. Crétineau-Joly in his book, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">L’Histoire des Sociétés secrète</i>. <a href="file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/final%20version.doc#_edn5" name="_ednref5" style="mso-endnote-id: edn5;" title=""><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">[5]</span></span></a><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He introduces a number of correspondences, including some that were actually written by Piccolo-Tigre to show the progress of the implementation of the Permanent Instruction by the Alta Vendita.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These documents are listed seriatim in Msgr. Delassus’ book starting at p 569.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I will not bore the reader any more than necessary by listing them all.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">I will try to summarize what Crétineau-Joly relates in his book and from the correspondence he builds his story around for the reader. I apologize in advance for not providing detailed translations of the text.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It would take too much time and I do not believe it would be edifying for the reader.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If anyone thinks I am stating something inaccurate, please feel free to read the books found at the links above.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">I would note that if there is such a thing as the fabric of history, Crétineau-Joly is a master weaver.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He seamlessly offers a detailed account of the history of the French Revolution from its origins through the elevation of Pope Pius IX.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He relates the role of the Freemasonry and that of the secret societies in spreading the ideals of Voltaire and Rousseau, He specifically tells the story of the Alta Vendita and its role in the history of Revolution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At first, the projects of the Alta Vendita progressed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, in 1835, Giuseppe Mazzini, a Carbonari leader, and the founder of the Young Italy movement which openly agitated for the unification of Italy, and of which Garibaldi was a member,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>somehow learned of the Alta Vendita’s existence and sought admittance to the ranks of its members.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His request was rejected because the Alta Vendita felt he was too bourgeois, too melodramatic, and too much of a ruffian,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>and they felt he would reveal their secret purpose.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The fact that he solicited membership in an organization that supposedly did not exist did not bode well for him or for them. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>From this point, the Alta Vendita has competition for the control of the secret societies and the direction that they were to take. </span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">In 1844, Nubius was poisoned with <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Aqua Tofana </i>and in 1848 he died on the Isle of Malta.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because the organization was so secretive, many of its own members did not know of this disaster.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, the Alta Vendita felt that because of certain events that were occurring, they believed that things had advanced far enough to unify Italy and because of the anti-papal antipathy stirred up among the people, it was time for an open revolution to occur<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was now or never.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Contrary to the notion that Dr. Marshall attempts to put into the reader’s mind, the Alta Vendita at this time did not think it had a hundred years to accomplish its goal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>During this time M. Crétineau-Joly relates a whirling series of events leading up to the European Revolution that broke out in 1848 overthrowing the last remnants of monarchical Europe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Assassinations, uprisings, arrests, diplomatic efforts all deterred prospects of their plan succeeding.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They wanted to win through the spread of ideas, not with gunpowder.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, now it appeared that the Alta Vendita had lost control of the secret societies and its hope to gain power waned. </span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Here is a letter from one of the conspirators found on pp. 378-382 of :<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">L’Église romain </i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>From a miscreant named Volpe to Nubius dated January 23, 1844:</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Avant de répondre à vos deux dernières lettres, mon Nubius, je dois vous faire part de quelques observations don’t je voudrais bien vous faire profiter. Dans l'espace de quelques années nous avons considérablement avancé les choses. La désorganisation sociale règne partout; elle<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>est au nord comme au midi, dans le cœur des gentils hommes comme dans l'âme des prêtres. Tout a subi le niveau sous lequel nous voulions abaisser l'espèce hu maine. Nous aspirions à corrompre pour arriver à gou verner, et je ne sais si, comme moi, vous vous effrayez de notre œuvre. Je crains d'être allé trop loin; nous au rons trop corrompu; et, en étudiant à fond le personnel de nos agents en Europe , je commence à croire que nous n'encaisserons pas à volonté le torrent que nous aurons fait déborder. Il y a des passions insatiables que je ne devinais pas, des appétits inconnus, des haines sauvages qui fermentent autour et au-dessous de nous. Passions, appétits et haines, tout cela peut nous dévorer un beau jour, et s'il était temps de porter remède à cette gangrène morale, ce serait pour nous un véritable bienfait.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Il a été très-facile de pervertir, sera-t-il aussi aisé de toujours museler les pervertis? Là pour moi est la question grave. J'ai souvent cherché à la traiter avec vous, vous avez évité l'explication. Aujourd'hui il n'est plus possible de la reculer, car le temps presse, et en Suisse comme, en Autriche, en Prusse comme en Italie, nos séides, qui se ront demain nos maîtres et quels maîtres, ô Nubius!), n'attendent qu'un signal pour briser le vieux moule. La Suisse se propose de donner ce signal; mais ces radicaux helvétiques, embâtés de leur Mazzini, de leurs Commu nistes, de leur Alliance des Saints et du Prolétariat-voleur, ne sont pas de taille à conduire les Sociétés secrètes à l'as saut de l'Europe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Il faut que la France imprime son ca chet à cette universelle orgie; soyez bien convaincu que Paris ne manquera pas à sa mission. L'élan donné et reçu, où ira cette pauvre Europe ? Je m'en inquiète, Car je me fais vieux, j'ai perdu mes illusions, et je ne voudrais pas, pauvre et donué de tout, assister comme un figurant de théâtre au triomphe d'un principe que j'aurais couvé et qui me répudierait, en confisquant ma fortune ou en pre nant ma tête.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Nous avons trop poussé à l'extrême en beaucoup de choses. Nous avons enlevé au peuple tous les dieux du ciel et de la terre qui avaient son hommage. Nous lui avons arraché sa foi religieuse, sa foi monarchique, sa probité, ses vertus de famille, et maintenant que nous entendons dans le lointain ses sourds rugissements, nous tremblons, car le monstre peut nous dévorer. Nous l'a vons petit à petit dépouillé de tout sentiment honnête : il sera sans pitié. Plus j'y pense, plus je reste convaincu qu'il faudrait chercher des atermoiements. Or, que faites- vous à cette minute peut-être décisive? Vous n'êtes que sur un point; de ce point vous rayonnez, et j'apprends avec douleur que tous vos vœux tendent à un embrase ment général. N'y aurait-il pas un moyen de reculer, de retarder, d'ajourner ce moment? Croyez-vous vos me sures assez bien prises pour dominer le mouvement que nous avons imprimé? A Vienne, quand le tocsin révolu tionnaire sonnera, nous serons engloutis par la tourbe , et le chef précaire qui en sortira est peut-être aujourd'hui au bagne ou en quelque mauvais lieu. Dans notre Italie, où se joue une double partie , vous devez être travaillé des mêmes craintes. N'avons-nous pas remué la même fange? Cette boue monte à la surface, et j'ai peur de mourir étouffé par elle.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Quel que soit l'avenir réservé aux idées que les Sociétés secrètes propagèrent , nous serons vaincus et nous trouverons des maîtres. Ce n'était pas là notre rêve de 1825 ni nos espérances de 1831 ! Notre force n'est plus qu'éphémère , elle passe à d'autres. Dieu sait où s'arrêtera ce progrès vers l'abrutissement. Je ne reculerais point devant mes œuvres, si nous pouvions toujours les diriger, les expliquer, ou les appliquer. Mais la crainte que j'é prouve à Vienne, ne la ressentez-vous pas vous-même? Ne vous avouez-vous pas comme moi qu'il faut, s'il en - est temps encore, faire halte dans le temple avant de la faire sur des ruines? Cette halte est encore possible, et vous seul , ô Nubius, pouvez la décider. Est-ce qu'en s'y prenant avec adresse on ne pourrait pas jouer le rôle de Pénélope et rompre pendant le jour la trame qu'on aurait préparée durant la nuit?</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Le monde est lancé sur la pente de la Démocratie', et, depuis quelque temps, pour moi, démocratie veut toujours dire démagogie. Nos vingt années de complots courent le risque de s'effacer devant quelques bavards qui viendront flatter le peuple et tirer aux jambes de la noblesse après avoir mitraillé le Clergé. Je suis gentilhomme, et je con fesse très-sincèrement qu'il m'en coûterait de frayer avec la plèbe et d'attendre de son bon plaisir mon pain quoti dien et le jour qui brille. Avec une révolution telle que celle qui s'apprête, nous pouvons tout -perdre, et je tiens à conserver. Vous devez en être là, vous aussi, cher ami, car vous possédez et vous n'aimeriez pas plus que moi à entendre résonner à vos oreilles la parole de confiscation et de proscription des Églogues, le fatal cri du spoliateur</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Hœc mea sunt, veteres, migrate, coloni.</i></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Je tiens, je veux tenir, et la Révolution peut tout nous enlever fraternellement. D'autres idées me préoccu pent encore, et je suis certain qu'elles préoccupent à la même heure plusieurs de nos amis. Je n'ai pas encore de remords ; mais je suis agité de craintes , et à votre place , dans la situation où j'aperçois les esprits en Europe, je ne voudrais pas assumer sur ma tête une responsabilité qui peut conduire Joseph Mazzini au Capitole. Mazzini au Ca- pitole ! Nubius à la Roche ïarpéienne ou dans l'oubli ! Voilà le rêve qui me poursuit, si le hasard remplissait vos vœux. Ce rêve vous sourit-il, ô Nubius?</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: .5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">My loose English translation (with the help of a translator and a French-English</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">dictionary):</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Before I answer your last two letters, my Nubius, I must share with you some observations for your benefit. In the space of a few years we have made considerable progress. Social unrest reigns everywhere; it is in the north as well as in the south, in the hearts of good men as in the souls of priests. Everything has suffered beneath the level below which we wanted to lower the human species. We aspired to corrupt in order to govern, and I don't know if, like me, you are afraid of our work. I fear that I have gone too far; we will be too corrupt; and,by thoroughly studying the makeup of our agents in Europe, I am beginning to believe that we will not be able to withstand the torrent that we have caused to flow at will. There are insatiable passions that I did not guess, unknown appetites, wild hatreds that close around and below us. Passions, appetites and hatreds, all these can devour us one day, and if it were time to remedy this moral gangrene, it would be a true blessing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It has been very easy to pervert, will it be so easy to always muzzle the perverted? That for me is the serious question. I've often sought to deal with you, you've avoided explanation. Today it is no longer possible to reverse it, because time is running out, and in Switzerland like in Austria, Prussia and Italy, our minions, who will tomorrow be our masters (and what masters, O Nubius!), are only waiting for a signal to break the old mold.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Switzerland intends to give this signal; but these Swiss radicals, embittered by their Mazzini, their Communists, their Alliance of Saints and the lumpenproletariat (underclass), are not of such a size as to lead the Secret Societies to Europe's leap forward.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>France must give its stamp to this universal orgy; be convinced that Paris will not fail in its mission: the impetus given and received, where will this poor Europe go? I worry about it, because I am getting old, I have lost my illusions, and I would not want, to be poor and unneeded, to witness like a theatre extra the triumph of a principle that I have brooded and that would repudiate me by confiscating my fortune or by taking my head.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">We pushed too far in many things. We took away from men all the gods of heaven and earth who had their homage. We have taken away their<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>religious faith, their monarchical faith, their probity, their family virtues, and now that we hear in the distance his deaf roars, we tremble, for the monster can devour us. We have seen him gradually stripped of any honest feeling: he will be ruthless. The more I think about it, the more convinced I am that we should be looking for delays. But what do you do at this perhaps decisive minute?We have gone too far in many things. We have taken from the people all the gods of heaven and earth who had his homage. We have torn away his religious faith, his monarchical faith, his probity, his family virtues, and now that we hear his deaf roars in the distance, we tremble, because the monster can devour us. We have gradually stripped him of all honest feelings: he will be merciless. The more I think about it, the more I remain convinced that we should seek delays. But what are you doing at this perhaps decisive moment?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You have only one object; from this point you radiate, and I learn with sorrow that all your wishes tend to set everything ablaze. Is there not a way to back off, to delay, to postpone this moment? Do you think your measures are good enough to dominate the movement that bears ours imprint?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Vienna, when the revolutionary tocsin (a kind of bell) rings, we will be swallowed up by the peat and the precarious leader who will emerge from it may be in prison today or in some other bad place. In our Italy, where a double game is played, you must be working from the same fears. Have we not stirred up the same filth? This mud is rising to the surface, and I'm afraid of suffocating in it.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Whatever the future holds for the ideas that the secret societies propagated, we will be defeated and we will find masters. This was not our dream of 1825 or our hopes of 1831! Our strength is now only ephemeral, it passes to others. God knows where this progression towards stupidity will stop. I would not back down from my works if we could always direct, explain, or apply them. But don't you feel the fear I have in Vienna yourself? Don't you admit, as I do, that it is necessary, if there is still time, to stopover in the temple before going<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>on into the ruins? This stopover is still possible, and only you, O Nubius, can decide it. Couldn't we play the role of Penelope and break during the day the plot we had prepared during the night?</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The world is going down the slope of Democracy, and, for some time,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>democracy now always is the same as demagogy. Our twenty years of conspiracies run the risk of fading in front of some chatterboxes who will come to flatter the people and to shoot at the legs of the nobility having gunned down the Clergy. I am gentleman, and I know very sincerely that it<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>would cost me to spawn with the plebs and to wait on his good pleasure for my bread and for day to shine. With a revolution such as the one that is about to happen, we can lose everything and I want to keep what is mine. You must be there, too, dear friend, because of what you have and you would not any more than me to hear the word of confiscation and of the proscription of the Écologues the fatal shouting of the despoiler:</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span><i>Hœc mea sunt, veteres, migrate, coloni.</i></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -.5in;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>I hold, I want to hold, and the Revolution can take everything away from us fraternally. Other ideas still concern me, and I am sure they concern many of our friends at the same time. I have no remorse yet; but I am agitated with fears, and in your place, in the situation where I see the spirits in Europe, I would not want to assume on my head a responsibility that can lead Joseph Mazzini to the Capitol. Mazzini at the Capitol!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nubius to the iapean rock or in oblivion! This is the dream that follows me if chance fulfilled your wishes. Does this dream smile at you, O Nubius?</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Later that year, Beppo writes to Nubius on the progress to recruit clergy to their side</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Nous marchons à grandes guides, écrit-il de Livourne le 2 novembre 1844, et chaque jour nous incorporons de nouveaux , de fervents néophytes dans le complot. Fer- vet opus; mais le plus difficile reste encore non-seule ment à faire, mais même à ébaucher. Nous avons acquis, et sans de trop grandes peines, des moines de tous les ordres, des prêtres d'à peu près toutes les conditions, et certains monsignori intrigants ou ambitieux. Ce n'est peut-être pas ce qu'il y a de meilleur ou de plus présen table; mais n'importe. Pour le but cherché, un Frate, aux yeux du peuple, est toujours un religieux; un prélat sera toujours un prélat. Nous avons complétement échoué sur les Jésuites. Depuis que nous conspirons, il a été impos sible de mettre la main sur un ignacien , et il faudrait savoir pourquoi cette obstination si unanime. Je ne crois pas à la sincérité de leur foi et de leur dévouement à l'Église; pourquoi n'avons-nous donc jamais, près d'un seul, pu saisir le défaut de la cuirasse? Nous n'avons pas de Jésuites avec nous; mais nous pouvons toujours dire et faire dire qu'il y en a, et cela reviendrait absolument au même. Il n'en sera pas ainsi pour les Cardinaux; ils ont tous échappé à nos filets. Les flatteries les mieux com binées n'ont servi à rien , de telle sorte qu'à l'heure pré sente nous nous trouvons aussi peu avancés qu'à la pre mière: Pas un membre du Sacré Collége n'a donné dans le piége. Ceux qu'on a sondés, auscultés, ont tous, au premier mot sur les Sociétés secrètes et sur leur puis sance , fait des signes d'exorcisme comme si le diable al lait les emporter sur la montagne; et, Grégoire XVI mou rant (ce qui va arriver prochainement), nous nous trou vons, comme en 1 823 , à la mort de Pie VII.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 3;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Que faire dans cette occurrence ? Renoncer à notre projet n'est plus possible , sous peine d'un ridicule inef façable. Attendre un quine à la loterie, sans avoir pris de numéros, me paraîtrait trop merveilleux; continuer l'application du système , sans pouvoir espérer une chance même incertaine , me produit l'effet de jouer à l'impossible. Nous voici qui touchons au terme de nos efforts. La Révolution s'avance au galop, portant en croupe des émeutes sans fin, des ambitieux sans talent et des bouleversements sans valeur; et nous qui avions pré paré toutes ces choses , nous qui avions cherché à donner à cette révolution un suprême dérivatif, nous nous sen tons frappés d'impuissance au moment d'agir souverai nement. Tout nous échappe, la corruption seule nous reste pour être exploitée par d'autres. Le Pape futur , quel qu'il soit , ne viendra jamais à nous ; pourrons-nous aller à lui ? ne sera-t-il pas comme ses prédécesseurs et ses successeurs, et ne fera-t-il pas comme eux? Dans ce cas-là, demeurerons-nous sur la brèche et attendrons- nous un miracle ? le temps en est passé , et nous n'avons plus d'espoir que dans l'impossible. Grégoire mort, nous nous verrons ajournés indéfiniment. La Révolution, don’t l'heure approche un peu partout , donnera peut-être un nouveau cours aux idées. Elle changera, elle modifiera; mais, à vrai dire, ce ne sera pas nous qu'elle élèvera. Nous nous sommes trop renfermés dans le demi-jour et dans l'ombre; n'ayant pas réussi, nous nous sentirons effacés et oubliés par ceux qui mettront à profit nos tra vaux et leurs résultats. Nous n'aboutissons pas, nous ne pouvons pas aboutir ; il faut donc succomber et se rési gner au plus cruel des spectacles, à celui de voir le triomphe du mal que l'on a fait , et de ne pas partager ce triomphe. </span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>My VERY rusty non-literal English translation<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">We proceed with great strides (he writes to Livourno, Tuscany on November 2nd, 1844), and every day we recruit fervent neophytes into our<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>conspiracy. Devoted work, but the most difficult tasks remains not only to be done, but to even be designed. We have acquired, without too great pains, monks of all orders, priests of almost all condition, and some intriguing or ambitious monsignors. It may not be the best or the best at the table; it doesn’t matter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For our purpose, a brother, in the eyes of the people, is always a monk; a prelate will always be a prelate. We have completely failed on the Jesuits. Since we began to conspire, it has been impossible to lay our hands on an Ignatian, and we should know why this obstinacy is so unanimous.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I can not believe in the sincerity of their faith and their devotion to the Church; why have we never,gotten near a single one, or find the chink in their breastplate?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We do not have any Jesuits with us; but we can always say and get others to say that we do, and it would be absolutely the same as we started our conspiracy,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This will not be so for the Cardinals; they have all escaped our nets. The best matched flattery has been of no use, so that at this time we are as little advanced as at the first: Not a member of the Sacred College have fallen into the trap. Those we have sounded out and studied, We do not have Jesuits with us; but we can always say and say that there is, and it would be absolutely the same. It will not be so for the Cardinals; they all escaped our nets. The best matched flattery has proven useless, so that at the present time we find ourselves as little advanced as in the first: Not a member of the Sacred College has given in the trap. Those who have been sounded out and questioned have all, at the first word about the secret societies and their power, make signs of exorcism, as if the devil were to carry them to the mountain; and, with Gregory XVI dying (which will happen soon), we find ourselves in the same place we were as in 1823, at the death of Pius VII.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">What to do in this case?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Giving up our project is no longer possible, other wise it will be an indelible<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>humiliation. To wait for a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">quine</i> (getting all five numbers) at the lottery, without playing any numbers, would seem too miraculous to me; to continue with the systematic plan, without being able to hope for even an uncertain chance, produces the effect of playing to the impossible. We are now coming to the end of our efforts. The Revolution is advancing at a galloping pace, carrying in riots without end, ambitious men without talent and worthless upheavals; and we who had prepared all these things, who had sought to give this revolution a supreme diversion, feel powerless when it comes to using kingly power. Everything escapes us, only corruption remains to be exploited by others. The future Pope, whoever he may be, will never come to us; will we not be able to go to him? Will he not be like his predecessors and successors, and will he not do like them? In that case, will we remain on the breach and wait for a miracle?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Time has passed, and we have no hope except in the impossible. With Gregory dying, our cause will be postponed indefinitely. The Revolution, whose time is approaching wherever, will lead to a new course to ideas. She (the Revolution) will change, she will modify; but, to tell the truth, she will not raise us to power. We have closed ourselves too much into the twilight and into the shadows; having failed, we will feel erased and forgotten by those who will take advantage of our work and its results. We do not succeed, we cannot succeed; we must therefore succumb and resign ourselves to the most cruel of spectacles, to see the triumph of evil that we have done, and not to share in this triumph.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The Alta Vendita attempted to affect the outcome of the conclave to elect the Pope after Gregory XVI died.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unfortunately for it, all of its attempts to turn the people against the Church and the Papacy, to influence cardinals and bishops, to corrupt the clergy with notions of liberalism, came to naught with Pope Pius IX to the papal throne.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Revolution erupts in 1848 and most of the monarchies crumble.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Church did not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Only the Church remained in front of the Revolution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The secret designs of the Alta Vendita succeeded in one respect-the overthrow of monarchies-but failed in the other-the overthrow of the Pope.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Further, the efforts of the Alta Vendita and the Secret Societies to corrupt the Christian ideal failed, at least as far as M. Crérineau-Joly was concerned.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He writes of the Pope exercising the power to spur devotion by declaring the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He talks about the religious orders re-establishing themselves after being dissolved and new orders came into being.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Lay Catholic charitable organizations like the Vincentians and Catholic hospitals opened everywhere.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Catholic missionaries spread the Gospel in the Americas, Asia, and Africa.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>New Catholic schools and universities opened all over the world.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Lay apostolates, sodalities and Marian devotion sprung up like a field of flowers.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Now I do not discount the evils of notions of Freemasonry nor do I ignore the heresies of liberalism, modernism, indifferentism or socialism but all of those ideologies existed in nascent form before the Alta Vendita ever put its Instruction into writing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nor do I doubt that someone else came in to take up the projects of the Alta Vendita.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Msgr. Dillon writes that Lord Palmerson picks up the pieces and takes over the Alta Vendita to continue to spread the poison of Freemasonry.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Msgr. Delassus writes in the typical French phlegmatic style at pp 236-237 of his book:</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.0in;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>La Haute-Vente est dissoute depuis 1848, mais son esprit demeure. La fin pour laquelle elle avait été créée est toujours voulue; et sans doute qu'un autre organisme, qui aura mieux su maintenir autour de lui les ténèbres qui le protègent et favorisent ses sinistres complots, aura été substitué à la HauteVente pour prendre la suite de ses affaires au point où elle les a laissées</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">My translation:</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1.0in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The Alta Vendita has been dissolved since 1848, but its spirit remains. The end for which it was created is always desired; and no doubt that another organization better able to maintain around it the darkness that protects it and favors its sinister plots, has been substituted for the Alta Vendita to take over its business at the point where it has left off.</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">The purpose of the paper was straightforward.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Like Chapter 1 of Dr. Marshall’s book, Chapter 2 is replete with factual errors.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Permanent Instruction is not some sort of Satanic blueprint for taking over the Papacy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, the author of that document mistakenly believed that if people were inculcated with the fervor of the Revolutionary spirit and ideals, that men would abandon the Church and their faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The author was wrong as M. Crétineau-Joly relates in his book.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is a historical document that belongs on the ash heap of history.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Focussing on that document distracts from the real evils that are the heresies of liberalism, modernism and Indifferentism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">In fact, if I were a conspiracy theorist, I would wonder if Dr. Marshall is secretly a member of the Alta Vendita and is putting the Permanent Instruction into effect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He presents a good reputation, gets people discussing what he perceives to be the ideals of the traditional Roman Catholic Church, is getting people to hate the post-Vatican II Church and those who disagree with them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now he just needs to sit back and see if the Revolution he seeks to cause within the Church happens.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Fortunately, I am not a conspiracy theorist ... .<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">In my next post, I will examine the actual heresies Dr. Marshall touches upon in Chapter 2 of his book and explain why they are heresies in the eyes of the Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Until then, God bless!</span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB;">Endnotes:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></div>
<div style="mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div style="mso-element: endnote-list;">
<br clear="all" />
<hr align="left" size="1" width="33%" />
<div id="edn1" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/final%20version.doc#_ednref1" name="_edn1" style="mso-endnote-id: edn1;" title=""><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">[1]</span></span></a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Delassus, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Le Problème</i>,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>p. 569.</div>
<div id="edn2" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<br />
<span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">[2]</span></span>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr. Marshall translates the work as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Roman Church in the Face of Revolution</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Based on what I read in the book, I would translate the title as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Roman Church in Front of the Revolution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Roman Church in the Face of Revolution</i> would be <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">L’Église romaine facé a la Révolution</i> in French. <br />
<br /></div>
<div id="edn3" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<a href="file:///C:/Users/user/Documents/final%20version.doc#_ednref3" name="_edn3" style="mso-endnote-id: edn3;" title=""><span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">[3]</span></span></a>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Delassus, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Le Problème</i>, p. 611.</div>
<div id="edn4" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<br />
<span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">[4]</span></span>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Crétineau-Joly,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">L’Église romaine,</i> p. 82-90.</div>
<div id="edn5" style="mso-element: endnote;">
<br />
<span style="mso-special-character: footnote;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif; font-size: 12.0pt;">[5]</span></span>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have not been able to locate this book yet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The documents that relate to Le Haute-Vente that are found in it were re-produced in their entirety in Delassus’ book pp.569-611.</div>
</div>
Paul Hofferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-80529119095451422342019-06-21T20:46:00.001-05:002019-06-21T20:49:00.148-05:00Shout out!<div>
In regards to my last post on pope ST. Paul VI's homily about the Smoke of Satan, a friend, Roscoe Coltrane, told me that there was a book by Timothy Wallace about it entitled <i>The Smoke of Satan in the Temple of God</i> by Timothy Wallace/ I bought the book for my Kindle and thoroughlt enjoyed it. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
I recommend it for my readers!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
Paul Hofferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-67961829785620306762019-06-09T15:46:00.002-05:002019-06-09T15:46:18.001-05:00A Chapter-by-Chapter Refutation of Dr. Taylor Marshall’s Book, Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within. Part Two<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<div style="margin-bottom: 15.3pt; margin-left: -.25pt; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-bottom: 15.3pt; margin-left: -.25pt; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in;">
II.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Chapter 1: The Smoke of Satan or A Whiff of Bushwa.</div>
This post is the second in a series of articles I hope to present as a refutation of the conspiracy claims of Dr. Taylor Marshall which he advances in his book, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within </span></i>(Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press 2019), in which he contends that in accordance with a plot hatched in the 19<sup><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 105%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">th</span></sup> century Satan has replaced the popes of the Catholic Church with one of his own.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This reviews Chapter 1 of the book, “The Smoke of God and the Smoke of Satan.”<br />
<br />
The first piece of evidence we will consider is the central fact around which Chapter 1 is written.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr. Marshall offers the reader a quote from Pope St. Paul VI’s<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><sup><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 105%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">1</span></sup> homily given during a Mass said on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul and in commemoration of the ninth anniversary of being crowned as Bishop of Rome.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Paul VI is supposed to have said:<br />
<div style="margin-left: -.75pt; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 72.5pt;">
“We would say that, through some mysterious crack — no, it’s not mysterious; through some crack, the smoke of Satan has entered the Church of God. There is doubt, uncertainty, problems, unrest, dissatisfaction, confrontation.” </div>
<div style="margin-left: 72.5pt;">
<br /></div>
Dr. Marshall goes on:<br />
<div style="margin-left: 36.5pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 72.5pt;">
This testimony of Paul VI acknowledged not merely that the Catholic Church had experienced secularization but that the smoke of Satan himself had entered the Church through a crack. </div>
<div style="margin-left: 72.5pt;">
<br /></div>
Marshall goes on to ask, :”What is this satanic smoke?” <sup><span style="font-size: 10.5pt; line-height: 105%; mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;">2</span></sup><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After asking the rhetorical question, he journeys through the Scriptures to prove that the smoke of Satan that Pope St. Paul VI is the same smoke referenced in Revelation:<br />
<div style="margin-left: -.75pt; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 72.5pt;">
I saw a star fallen from heaven to earth, and he was given the key of the shaft of the bottomless pit; he opened the shaft of the bottomless pit, and from the shaft rose smoke like the smoke of a great furnace, and the sun and the air were darkened with the smoke from the shaft. Then from the smoke came locusts on the earth, and they were given power like the power of scorpions of the earth. (Rev. 9:1–3)</div>
<div style="margin-left: 72.5pt;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: -.25pt;">
The power that Marshall says that passage refers to is a satanic pope set upon the throne of St. Peter in the place of Christ’s vicar.</div>
<div style="margin-left: -.25pt;">
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
We know what Dr. Marshall wants us to believe is the “smoke of Satan”, but is it the same thing that Pope St. Paul VI meant by the phrase?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As we shall see, they are not.<br />
<div style="margin-left: -.75pt; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: -.75pt; text-indent: .5in;">
As noted previously, Marshall does not provide the source of his Pauline quote. Apparently, he does not wish his readers to read the quote in context for themselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I would suggest at this juncture, if he had, Marshall’s readers would soon see that Pope St. Paul VI’s “smoke of Satan” is something far different than what Dr. Marshall makes it out to be in his book.</div>
<div style="margin-left: -.75pt; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
Here is the link to the <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/paul-vi/it/homilies/1972/documents/hf_p-vi_hom_19720629.html"><span style="color: blue;">original text of the homily</span></a> found on the Vatican website.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here is the <a href="https://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/11/the_smoke_of_sa.html"><span style="color: blue;">translation </span></a>of the text provided to us on the website of Jimmy Akin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The relevant sections are as follows:<br />
<div style="margin-left: -.75pt; text-indent: .5in;">
<br /></div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 72.5pt;">
Referring to the situation of the Church today, the Holy Father affirms that he has a sense that “from some fissure the smoke of Satan has entered the temple of God.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is doubt, incertitude, problematic, disquiet, dissatisfaction, confrontation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is no longer trust of the Church; they trust the first profane prophet who speaks in some journal or some social movement, and they run after him and ask him if he has the formula of true life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And we are not alert to the fact that we are already the owners and masters of the formula of true life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Doubt has entered our consciences, and it entered by windows that should have been open to the light.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Science exists to give us truths that do not separate from God, but make us seek him all the more and celebrate him with greater intensity; instead, science gives us criticism and doubt.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Scientists are those who more thoughtfully and more painfully exert their minds.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But they end up teaching us:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“I don’t know, we don’t know, we cannot know.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The school becomes the gymnasium of confusion and sometimes of absurd contradictions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Progress is celebrated, only so that it can then be demolished with revolutions that are more radical and more strange, so as to negate everything that has been achieved, and to come away as primitives after having so exalted the advances of the modern world. </div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 72.5pt;">
This state of uncertainty even holds sway in the Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There was the belief that after the Council there would be a day of sunshine for the history of the Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, it is the arrival of a day of clouds, of tempest, of darkness, of research, of uncertainty.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We preach ecumenism but we constantly separate ourselves from others.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We seek to dig abysses instead of filling them in. </div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 72.5pt;">
FOR A LIFE-GIVING AND REDEEMING “CREDO”</div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 72.5pt;">
How has this come about?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Pope entrusts one of his thoughts to those who are present:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>that there has been an intervention of an adverse power.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Its name is the devil, this mysterious being that the Letter of St. Peter also alludes to. So many times, furthermore, in the Gospel, on the lips of Christ himself, the mention of this enemy of men returns.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Holy Father observes, “We believe in something that is preternatural that has come into the world precisely to disturb, to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council, and to impede the Church from breaking into the hymn of joy at having renewed in fullness its awareness of itself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Precisely for this reason, we should wish to be able, in this moment more than ever, to exercise the function God assigned to Peter, to strengthen the Faith of the brothers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We should wish to communicate to you this charism of certitude that the Lord gives to him who represents him though unworthily on this earth.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Faith gives us certitude, security, when it is based upon the Word of God accepted and consented to with our very own reason and with our very own human spirit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Whoever believes with simplicity, with humility, sense that he is on the good road, that he has an interior testimony that strengthens him in the difficult conquest of the truth. </div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 72.5pt;">
The Pope concludes:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Lord shows himself to be light and truth for him who accepts him in his Word, and his Word becomes no longer an obstacle to the truth and the path to well-being, but rather a stair-step upon which we can climb and truly be conquerors in the Lord who reveals himself through the path of faith— this faith that is the anticipation and guarantee of the definitive vision.</div>
<div style="margin-left: 72.5pt;">
<br /></div>
Note how much Dr. Marshall left out of his smoky analysis. From the context of the homily, it is very clear that<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Pope St. Paul VI’s “smoke of Satan” is not the plot to put a pope of Satan on the throne of St. Peter as suggested by Dr. Marshall.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Pope Sy. Paul VI is not referring to a plot of the Carbonari, the Freemasons, communists, Soviet spies, or anyone else infiltrating the Church to attack it from within.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> He</span> is not talking about anyone infiltrating anything anywhere.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No, the “smoke of Satan” refers to poisonous words of scientists, politicians, social engineers, and critics of the Church like Dr. Marshall himself, who seek to sow uncertainty, doubt, and confusion about the teachings of Vatican II.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The pope warns us about the cacophony of voices in the external world seeking to drown out or distract the faithful from the teachings of the Second Vatican Council.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><br />
<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><br /></span>
To emphasize what Pope St. Paul VI stated above:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
"We believe in something that is preternatural that has come into the world precisely to disturb, to suffocate the fruits of the Ecumenical Council, and to impede the Church from breaking into the hymn of joy at having renewed in fullness its awareness of itself.”<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><br /></span></i></blockquote>
</blockquote>
When one examines the quote in its context without Dr. Marshall’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">faux </span></i>commentary, it becomes obvious why he did not give proper attribution or provide context for the quote to be correctly understood.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Dr, Marshall could not let the facts get in the way of his narrative. Truth takes second place to world view. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That’s not apologetics, but polemics or even propaganda. Contrarty to the spin that Dr Marshall gives Pope St. Paul VI's words, it is obvious from the text of the homily,that it is books like <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><i style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; font-style: italic; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif;">Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within</span></i><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: white; color: black; display: inline !important; float: none; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"> that is "smoke of Satan" to which he was referring. That book was written precisely to disturb and suffocate the fruits of Second Vatican Ecumenical Council.</span><span style="-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; color: black; font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: 16px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: 400; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: left; text-decoration: none; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px;"> </span> </span><br />
<br />
“Smoke of Satan” or a whiff of bushwa spread by Dr. Marshall?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You decide. In any event, the first link in the pattern of facts upon which Dr. Marshall builds his conspiracy theory is shattered.<br />
<br />
Next Chapter:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Carbonari Quick-Step.<br />
<br />
Endnotes:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="margin-bottom: 11.65pt; margin-left: .5pt; margin-right: 0in; margin-top: 0in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 105%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">1.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span>Throughout his book, Dr. Marshall refuses to acknowledge that Paul VI is a canonized saint of the Church who was recognized as such on October 14, 2018.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span> </div>
<br />
<div style="margin-left: .5pt; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1; text-indent: 0in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; line-height: 105%; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";"><span style="mso-list: Ignore;">2.<span style="font: 7.0pt "Times New Roman";"> </span></span></span>Marshall, Taylor. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman";">Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within </span></i>. Sophia Institute Press. Kindle Edition. Location 131-139.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<b></b><i></i><u></u><sub></sub><sup></sup><strike></strike>Paul Hofferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-13305057064777896292019-06-09T14:40:00.000-05:002019-06-09T14:40:41.170-05:00A Chapter-by-Chapter Refutation of Dr. Taylor Marshall’s Book, Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within. Part One.<i></i><br />
I. Introduction: Setting the Table.<br />
<br />
Recently, people have been talking about Dr. Taylor Marshall's Book, <i>Infiltration: The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within</i> (Manchester, NH: Sophia Institute Press 2019). After reading some favorable reviews of the book as well as some unfavorable critiques of the book, particularly those by my friend, David Armstrong, I bought the book (Kindle edition) for myself. Upon reading the book, I decided that my first real apologetics endeavor since my heart attacks and open-heart surgery in 2016 would be a defense of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church and her popes from the salacious conspiracy claims of Dr. Marshall.<br />
<br />
The premise of Dr. Marshall's book is straightforward. He claims that the present-day Catholic Church is in an unprecedented crisis. He lays the blame for the said crisis on the minions of Satan who have infiltrated the Church seeking to destroy it from within. He names the culprits:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Satan uniquely entered the Catholic Church at some point over the last century, or even before that. For over a century, the organizers of Freemasonry, Liberalism, and Modernism infiltrated the Catholic Church to change her doctrine, her liturgy, and her mission from something supernatural to something secular. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman",serif; font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-GB; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast;">Marshall, Taylor. <i>Infiltration:
The Plot to Destroy the Church from Within</i>. Sophia Institute Press. Kindle
Edition. Location 110. </span> </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br />
Dr. Marshall argues that at some point in the 19th century, a secret plot was hatched by a cabal of politically disaffected ne=er-do-wells to destroy the Church through the implementation of a plan that would cause the Church to adopt philosophical and theological principles designed to undermine the Faith. This conspiracy's goal was to replace the Supernatural faith, which is Catholicism with Naturalism, which he suggests is the faith of Satan. The aim of all this is as follows:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
The Catholic Church is in crisis because the enemies of Christ plotted organized efforts to place a pope for Satan on the Roman Chair of Saint Peter. </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Ibid.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Location 123</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
So basically, Taylor Marshall wants the reader to believe that the universal Church has been enthralled by the forces of darkness and the pope is now the pope of Satan instead of the vicar of Christ. He wants the reader to believe him over Jesus Christ, who at the founding of His Church told St. Peter and the other apostles:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock, I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Matthew 16:18). </blockquote>
</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
But yet, there is more, Jesus didn't really mean it when He said:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. (Matthew 16:19)</blockquote>
</blockquote>
For Marshall, "whatsoever" doesn't mean "whatsoever" when he and his fellow reactionary brethren disagree with what the pope teaches and says. <br />
<br />
In short, Marshall's book advances a conspiracy theory about the Church. The book advances a conspiracy theory that has been peddled before. For example, These Last Day Ministries argues that <a href="https://www.tldm.org/news2/infiltrators.htm">Communist agents have infiltrated the Catholic hierarchy to destroy from within. </a>Another website that I occasionally read published an article that claims the <a href="https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/catholic-abuse-crisis-is-likely-no-accident-but-a-strategy-to-destroy-churc">Catholic abuse crisis is likely no accident, but a strategy to destroy Church from </a><a href="https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/catholic-abuse-crisis-is-likely-no-accident-but-a-strategy-to-destroy-churc">within</a>. The Church Militant group claims that in the 1920s-30s thousands of young communist men enrolled in Catholic seminaries to become priests subvert its doctrines in an article unsurprisingly entitled <a href="https://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/infiltration">Infiltration</a>! What is different about Marshall's book is that it postulates that Satan's conspiracy to take over the Church from within began in the early 19th century as opposed to the early 20th century. Instead of Communists, Marshall's bugaboos are Freemasons and the Carbonari.<br />
<br />
What is one to make of this purported conspiracy? After all, it could be true, couldn't it? There are numerous instances where conspiracy theories are conspiracies-in-fact. For that matter, most popular conspiracy theories gain traction and gain a following because they often do contain a grain of truth. The one advanced by Dr. Marshall is no different. Scripture and dogmatic teaching inform us that Satan is implacably at war with the Church. There were indeed secret organizations in the 19th century opposed to the Catholic Church. (That said, there have been secret organizations, as well as not-so-secret ones, which have fought the Church in every age since Jesus founded it two millennia ago.) The Church has approved the Marian apparitions at La Salette and Fatima as worthy of belief. The Carbonari did exist. Freemasonry is still a great evil in this world. There is no doubt that the Soviet Union sought to destroy Catholicism and even attempted to have a pope assassinated. Vatican II did happen. The Church has been rocked with bank scandals and clerical sexual abuse scandals (What else is new?) The<i> Novus Ordo</i> Mass of Pope St. Paul VI is now the ordinary rite of the Latin Church. (Of course, the Tridentine Mass of Pius V replaced rites that existed before it, too.) There is no shortage of spiritual and worldly mercenaries in the hire of the Evil One who prowl about the world seeking the ruination and damnation of souls.<br />
<br />
Moreover, the Church has seemingly undergone a great many changes since Vatican II. The teaching of the post-Vatican II popes has engendered hesitancy and uncertainty among many Catholics. There is a natural resistance to change because change is unsettling, and many are yearning to return to the way things used to be when the world and the Faith made sense. And on occasion, one does feel overwhelmed and lost because of those changes.<br />
<br />
Dr. Marshall's book demonstrates that he is one of those lost ones who want the Church to turn back the clock and go back to the way things used to be: the Tridentine Mass, popes who exercise temporal as well as spiritual power, a Church patterned after the Council of Trent as opposed to the Church of the Second Vatican Council. He wants to hop in Mr. Peabody's Wayback machine and pretend that the Age of Enlightenment did not happen; that the French Revolution did not occur; that Italian unification did not take place; or, that the rise of nationalism, socialism, communism, scientism, existentialism, modernism, and emotivism/relativism, did not take hold in Western civilization. Upon reading Dr. Marshall's book, it comes across not so much of a diagnosis and cure for what ails the Church, but a salve to soothe hurt feelings of a group of Catholics who feel left behind by a Church seeks to proclaim the Gospel in a post-modern world. He longs for a world where the words<br />"<i>Ressourcement</i>" or "<i>Aggiornamento</i>" had never been uttered. <br />
<br />
Joseph Uscinski, an associate professor of political science at the University of Miami and co-author of the 2014 book<i> American Conspiracy Theories</i> (Oxford Scholarship Online: August 2014) quips "Conspiracy theories are for losers," The reason that conspiracy theories are popular is that they give unhappy people someone or something else to blame for their unhappiness or their worries. Someone or something has to be blamed for our loss of certainty or happiness. Witness the unhappy Democrats blaming Hillary Clinton's loss of the 2016 presidential election to a complete reprobate like Donald Trump. They can only overcome their bitterness by concocting a conspiracy theory that Trump colluded with Russians to meddle and undermine the electoral process. Of course, the fact that Mrs. Clinton was a horrible candidate and ran an even worse campaign had nothing to do with her loss. Personally, I think a lack of humility is at the heart of such denialism.<br />
<br />
I touch upon all this to point out that conspiracy theories are psychological phenomena. They are founded on feelings as opposed to reason informed by facts or evidence. Facts are made to conform to a narrative rather than used to form conclusions. They provide certainty in an uncertain world. Someone or something is screwing with us and it is not our fault. In Hillary Clinton's case, even though there have been two years of investigations, hundreds of witnesses interviewed, millions of documents reviewed, all of which determined that President Trump did not collude with Russia, many people still advance the narrative that Donald Trump still conspired with foreign agents to get elected. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, conspiracy theories like the one postulated by Dr. Marshall are readily accepted due to our wish to explain why things seem to be the way they are. We need to create a framework or a world view to understand events or actions. Our brains are hard-wired to find patterns upon which to build our world view. St. Thomas Aquinas explains this is the way we intellect in his <i>Summa Theologiae</i> (ST I, Q.87). We tend to take our experiences and link them together to intellect. In other words, we use such cause and effect to reason. Indeed, efficient causation is one of the key ways we can prove the existence of God from nature.<br />
<br />
In this case, Dr. Marshall attempts to link a series of events in the history of the Church and Europe such as Marian apparitions, the loss of the Papal States, the election of various popes, Freemason and KGB machinations, Vatican II, the <i>Novus Ordo</i> Mass, and the actions of Pope Francis, etc., with the <i>Alta Vendita</i>, a document allegedly concocted by Italian Carbonari in the early 19th century that outlines a plan to infiltrate and destroy the Church from within. He forges these links to show how that insidious plot of the Carbonari is now coming to fruition a hundred or so years later and is successfully undermining the Church. He wants the reader to see a pattern. He wants the reader to join his world view that the popes of the Church are now popes of Satan. And from the campaign he undertook on Amazon to get readers to buy his book, he well understands that if he can convince people through favorable reviews that other folks see the same patterns he does, the more people he can persuade to accept his world view that the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church has been subverted and taken over by Satan himself.<br />
<br />
Thus, to refute Dr. Marshall's conspiracy theory, I will not challenge the facts he uses as much as to attack the way he links those facts together. I intend to present the context surrounding the events and facts he uses in his book to demonstrate that the patterns he fabricates with those facts do not exist. I will leave it to the reader to decides whether Marshall's assertion of what those facts mean and whether his conspiracy theory is worthy of belief or should be consigned back to the hell from which it was spawned. <br />
<br />
<i>For I am the Lord thy God, who take thee by the hand, and say to thee: Fear not, I have helped thee. </i>(Isaiah 41:13) <br />
<br />
<br />Paul Hofferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-31971214021314381542016-06-29T17:11:00.000-05:002016-06-29T21:07:13.791-05:00Tota pulchra es: A Defense of Pope Venerable Pius XII’s “Prayer to the Blessed Virgin, Conceived without Sin” from the Deprecatory Comments of a Modern-day Antidicomarianite<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">(<i>Ad Jesum, per Mariam)</i></div><br />
<br />
You are all beautiful, Mary,<br />
And the original stain [of sin] is not in you.<br />
Your clothing is white as snow, and your face is like the sun.<br />
You are all beautiful, Mary,<br />
And the original stain [of sin] is not in you.<br />
You are the glory of Jerusalem, you are the joy of Israel, you give honor to our people.<br />
You are all beautiful, Mary!<br />
<br />
~English Translation of a Fourth Century Hymn to the Blessed Virgin Mary<br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"> I. INTRODUCTION.</span></div><br />
In an article entitled <a href="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2014/08/a-truly-blasphemous-prayer-to-mary-by.html"><span style="color: blue;"><i>A Truly Blasphemous Prayer to Mary by Roman Catholic Pope Pius XII</i></span></a><i></i>, a modern-day antidicomarianite (a person who denies Mary’s perpetual virginity), Pastor Kenneth Temple, goes for the trifecta of anti-Catholic apologetics. He attacks Catholic Marian beliefs, the papacy, and the Catholic teaching on the Communion of Saints in a single posting by accusing Pope Venerable Pius XII of blasphemy for composing an intercessory prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary used during the Marian year of 1954. Pastor Temple asserts the prayer shows that Catholics engage in idolatrous high worship and adoration of Mary which derogates from the worship due to God alone. <br />
<br />
Pastor Temple is not the first Protestant writer to use this particular prayer to assault Catholic teaching. In the February 1954 edition of the <a href="http://www.ctsfw.net/media/pdfs/CTMTheologicalObserver25-2.pdf"><span style="color: blue;">Concordia Theological Monthly</span></a>, the prayer was used to accuse Bishop Venerable Fulton Sheen of mariolatry (pp. 150-153). John MacArthur, a Calvinist minister from California, gave a <a href="http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/90-314/exposing-the-idolatry-of-mary-worship-an-overview"><span style="color: blue;">talk</span></a> in 2006 using the prayer to declaim Marian devotion. A search of the internet will find a number of Protestant writers using the prayer to accuse Catholics of idolatry, blasphemy, and other crimes against the Almighty. <br />
<br />
There is a common theme in these critiques of Pius XII’s Marian prayer. All of them claim Catholics give adoration to Mary. Most of them claim that the Catholics engage in deception when they say they do not give adoration to Mary. They all apply a curiously Protestant notion that prayer, worship, and adoration, are always synonymous. None of them discuss what the Catholic Church actually teaches about Marian dogma. None of them discuss why Catholics believe it is acceptable to engage in intercessory prayer to Mary and the saints. None of them discuss how Catholics distinguish between adoration and veneration. For that matter, none of them even discuss how a Catholic would understand the words of the prayer. They indict, but they judge without evidence. <br />
<br />
This paper is my attempt to answer to the charges Pastor Temple against Pope Venerable Pius XII in regards to this prayer. <br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">II. THE CHARGE.</span></div><br />
Here are Pastor Temple’s words of deprecation in their entirety: <br />
<br />
This prayer of Pope Pius XII is truly blasphemous.<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">The worship of Mary and worshiping statues of Mary (and other saints and angels) is obvious in popular Roman Catholicism, even though the RCC officially denies that they give Latria/adoration to Mary, they practically do. Prayers of Popes to Mary in history are full of high worship and adoration and asking her to do things that only God - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit can do. The distinction between latria and dulia and hyper-dulia is a theological word game and sophistry. They are deceived.</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">PRAYER OF POPE PIUS XII This prayer, dedicated to Mary Immaculate, was composed by the Pope for the Marian Year (December 8, 1953-December 8, 1954), which was proclaimed to mark the centenary of the definition of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">Enraptured by the splendor of your heavenly beauty, and impelled by the anxieties of the world, we cast ourselves into your arms, 0 Immaculate Mother of Jesus and our Mother, Mary, confident of finding in your most loving heart appeasement of our ardent desires, and a safe harbor from the tempests which beset us on every side.</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">Though degraded by our faults and overwhelmed by infinite misery, we admire and praise the peerless richness of sublime gifts with which God has filled you, above every other mere creature, from the first moment of your conception until the day on which, after your assumption into heaven, He crowned you Queen of the Universe.</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">O crystal fountain of faith, bathe our minds with the eternal truths! O fragrant Lily of all holiness, captivate our hearts with your heavenly perfume! 0 Conqueress of evil and death, inspire in us a deep horror of sin, which makes the soul detestable to God and a slave of hell!</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">O well-beloved of God, hear the ardent cry which rises up from every heart. Bend tenderly over our aching wounds. Convert the wicked, dry the tears of the afflicted and oppressed, comfort the poor and humble, quench hatreds, sweeten harshness, safeguard the flower of purity in youth, protect the holy Church, make all men feel the attraction of Christian goodness. In your name, resounding harmoniously in heaven, may they recognize that they are brothers, and that the nations are members of one family, upon which may there shine forth the sun of a universal and sincere peace.</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">Receive, O most sweet Mother, our humble supplications, and above all obtain for us that, one day, happy with you, we may repeat before your throne that hymn which today is sung on earth around your altars: You are all-beautiful, O Mary! You are the glory, you are the joy, you are the honor of our people! Amen.</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">Prayer Source: Prayer Book, by Reverend John P. O'Connell, M.A., S.T.D. and Jex Martin, M.A., The Catholic Press, Inc., Chicago, Illinois, 1954.</div><br />
Pastor Temple then links to a YouTube video entitled <a answer="" bible="" href="file:///E:/Virgin%20Mary's%207%20Steps%20to%20Godhood%20Via%20Catholic%20Dogma%20Exposed%20by" man="" martin="" walter=""><span style="color: blue;"><i>Virgin Mary's 7 Steps to Godhood Via Catholic Dogma Exposed by "Bible Answer Man" Walter Martin</i></span></a>. The hour long video was filmed by Larry Wessels, the director of Christian Answers of Austin, Texas, who interviewed Robert Zins, the founder of A Christian Witness to Roman Catholicism. In this interview, these gentlemen spoke about the prayer attributed to Pope Pius XII which appeared in the third chapter of Dr. Martin’s book, <i>The Roman Catholic Church in History</i> (Livingston, NJ: Christian Research Institute, Inc., 1960) titled simply, <i>“Mary, the Mother of Jesus.”</i><br />
<br />
<i> </i>Pastor Temples adds the following addendum:<i> </i><br />
<div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">Rob Zins, at the 14:43 mark on this video, going through Walter Martin's book on Roman Catholicism (no longer in print), walks through the prayer of Pius XII and shows just how unbiblical and blasphemous it is, and asks, "Can you pray a better prayer to Jesus or to God the Father?" (I don't know much about Rob Zins, but I think he really nailed it on this issue.)</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">At the 34:40 mark, he mentions a pamphlet produced by Roman Catholics with the Imprimatur of Cardinal Spellman (I assume this is Cardinal Francis Spellman, Archbishop of New York - google him. He was not without controversy.) It says that Mary is the ONE mediator between Christ and mankind. Wow. And it takes terms for Jesus and applies them to Mary - "There is one mediator between Christ and men, the Holy Mother Mary. Mary is the way and the truth and the life. No man comes to Jesus except by Mary." Wow. Blasphemous. </div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">III. DISCUSSION OF THE REFERENCES USED BY PASTOR TEMPLE TO ATTACK POPE PIUS XII</span>.</div><div style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -1in;"> A. <i>The Prayer Book: Beautiful and Helpful Prayers from Ancient and Modern Sources</i>.</div><br />
Pastor Temple attacks one of the many prayers that is found in a book entitled <i>The Prayer Book: Beautiful and Helpful Prayers from Ancient and Modern Sources</i>, [Rev. John P. McConnell and Jex Martin, ed., Chicago: The Catholic Press, Inc. (1954)]. It was a popular devotional work during the 1950's and can still be found at used booksellers. The book contains prayers, sundry devotional material, and depictions of religious art work painted by some of the great masters as well as popular contemporary religious art of the day. The book also offers explanatory material about some of the basic beliefs of Catholics. Pastor Temple’s post first interested me because I happen to own the book and its companion, <i>The Life of Christ: Our Lord's Life with Lessons in His Own Words for Our Life Today, </i>[Rev. John P. McConnell and Jex Martin, ed., Chicago: The Catholic Press, Inc. (1954)].<br />
<br />
Even though Pastor Temple correctly references <i>The Prayer Book: Beautiful and Helpful Prayers from Ancient and Modern Sources</i> as the source for the prayer he quotes in his posting, it is a certainty that he is not aware that Pope Pius XII did not compose the prayer found in the book. It is an edited version of the prayer Pope Pius XII actually gave. Considering that the book contains numerous other prayers to Mary and the saints, including several other prayers attributed to Pope Pius XII, it is surprising that Pastor Temple would not have used them as well in attacking Catholic devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary. <br />
<br />
Anyone who reads the book would find that it was written for teenagers and young adults. It starts out with a brief primer to inform the reader on what prayer is (“a loving conversation between two persons, God and man”), and why we should pray (“the desire that God’s Will be done”). In a later chapter, the book discusses the practice of intercessory prayer to saints:<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">The Church has never adored anyone but God. But the Church does pay real religious homage to the many thousands of saintly men and women who served and loved God with a full heart and have thereby won their eternal reward. Through the prayers that we direct to them we ask them, not for grace or mercy, which they could not grant of themselves, but for the prayerful assistance of advocates, who stand before God. And we try to imitate the virtue of their saintly lives. </div><br />
[Id. at pg. 240]<br />
<br />
If Pastor Temple had read the book, he would have seen some of Pope Venerable Pius XII’s thought on the purpose of devotional prayer:<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">But when pious practices not closely linked with sacred liturgy seek only to raise up a man’s activity to our heavenly Father, to move to repentance, and a salutary and holy fear of God, to withdraw him from the attractions of the world and sin and bring him back to the arduous path that leads to perfection-then they are not only most admirable but quite necessary. They reveal the snares that beset us in the spiritual life, they incite us to virtue, and they increase the fervor with which we must dedicate ourselves whole and entire to the service of Jesus Christ.</div><br />
[<i>The Prayer Book</i>, supra. at pg. iii. Taken from Mediator Dei ¶ 32.]<br />
<br />
Pope Venerable Pius XII also offers an explanation why Marian devotion is an important aspect of a Christian’s prayer life:<br />
<br />
Because of the mission she received from God, her life is most closely linked <br />
<div style="margin-left: 1in;">with the mysteries of Jesus Christ, and there is no one who has followed in the footsteps of the Incarnate Word more closely and with more merit than she: and no one has more grace and power over the Most Sacred Heart of the Son of God and through Him with the Heavenly Father.</div><br />
[<i>The Prayer Book</i>, supra. at pg. 42]<br />
<br />
And, <br />
<div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">Among the saints in heaven, the virgin Mary, mother of God, is venerated in a special way . . . She became our mother also when the divine redeemer [Jesus Christ] offered the sacrifice of Himself , and hence by this title also, we are her children. She teaches us all the virtues; she gives us her Son and with Him all the help needed, for God “wished us to have everything [Me: meaning Jesus Christ and the salvation he purchased for us on the Cross and through His resurrection] through Mary. </div><br />
[Id. at pg. 189] <br />
<br />
[Both passages are taken from <i></i><a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei.html"><i><span style="color: blue;">Mediator Dei</span></i></a><i></i> ¶ 169]<br />
<br />
When we link our prayer through Mary to our adoration of Jesus, we are given another way to pray to Our Lord through the Blessed Virgin Mary. True devotion to Mary and saints leads us closer to Jesus. True devotion does not in any way impede our focus on Jesus. In fact, it allows us to see the Mystery of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ more fully because we experience it as the saints and His mother experienced it. We do not experience Jesus Christ in isolation. Rather we encounter Him in community, in the “Cloud of Witnesses” who are the saints (Heb. 12:1). See also, <i></i><a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s1c2a1.htm"><i><span style="color: blue;">Catechism of the Catholic Church</span></i><span style="color: blue;">, ¶ 1161</span></a>. What a wonderful way to encounter Him by meditating on the intimacy of the love between the Incarnated Child and His mother? How better to understand His love for us as we pray to Him in the company of Our mother in grace (Jn. 19:26-27) and his friends, the saints?<br />
<br />
One last note before we move onto the next book that Pastor Temple references. In the YouTube video, Messrs. Wessels and Zins pit the unbiblical tradition of man, <i>sola scriptura</i>, against the teaching of the Church which they derisively call “<i>sola ecclesia</i>.” They conflate Rom. 3:23, a passage about personal sinfulness, to attack dogma of the Immaculate Conception which addresses original sin, to claim that Catholics believe that Mary did not need a savior. On the page before where the prayer of Pope Pius XII which is the subject of Pastor Temple’s complaint appears, one will find:<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">The Blessed Virgin, in the first moment of her conception, by a singular privilege of Almighty God, and in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, our Savior and hers, was preserved from all stain of original sin. This age-old belief of the Church was defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854 as an article of revealed truth.</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">Mary was in need of redemption and she was indeed redeemed by the Precious Blood of Jesus Christ. The manner of Mary’s redemption, however, was unique. Instead of being freed from original sin after having contracted it, she was preserved from contracting it. This was a most fitting favor for the Mother of the Redeemer.</div><br />
[<i>The Prayer Book</i>, supra., pg. 88]<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -1in;"> B. <i>The Roman Catholic Church in History</i>.</div><br />
The second book to which Pastor Temple refers is also no longer in print. Dr. Martin’s own website does not reference it nor does his ministry offers it for purchase. It has pretty much disappeared from most public libraries. Occasionally, anti-Catholic writers still make reference to it though. Fortunately, I did find a copy of <i>The Roman Catholic Church in History</i> (Livingston, NJ: Christian Research Institute, Inc., 1960) in a private college library some 300 miles from home. <br />
<br />
I finally got the opportunity to travel to Cincinnati to peruse Dr. Martin’s book. In Chapter 3 entitled, “Mary, the Mother of Jesus,” the prayer can indeed be found on pp. 45-46. There, Dr. Martin claims that the Mary of the Bible is not the same Mary that Catholics venerate. While he occasionally quotes Scripture to refute the Catholic position, he fails to note how Catholics interpret those same passages (Id. at <i>passim</i>). <br />
<br />
For example, he repeats the tired old argument that Catholic Marian devotion is in fact a deification of her (pp. 44, 53-62). Because Catholics call Mary “Queen of Heaven” and “Mother of God,” titles that pagans used for some of their goddesses, Dr. Martin argues Catholics treat Mary as a goddess.<br />
<br />
This argument is specious. First, similar-sounding titles do not prove identity. Pagans called some of their gods “Father,” too. Yet, no one would mistake Zeus or Odin for the First Person of the Holy Trinity, God the Father. Second, unlike Ashtoreth and Ishtar, the Blessed Virgin Mary is truly the mother of Jesus Christ, who is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. Third, scripture tells us that Jesus Christ is “King of kings and Lord of lords” (Rev. 19:16) At His name, every knee must bow in heaven, on earth, and in hell and every tongue confess that He is Lord ( Phil. 2:10–11). If Jesus Christ is truly King of heaven as Scripture states, then what does that make Mary, His mother? Because of her relationship to Christ, she is both Queen of heaven and Mother of Our Lord, unlike Ashtoreth or Ishtar, who never did exist. <br />
<br />
Catholics call Mary Queen of Heaven and Mother of God because those titles say something about the nature of God who truly took on flesh and became like us in all ways except sin. We honor Mary with those titles because God chose to fill her with His grace. We call her blessed because God blessed the handmaiden of the Lord (Lk. 1: 27-41).<br />
<br />
Catholics who pray to Mary know she is not a goddess, but a created being like the rest of us. We honor her because God honored her. We offer her veneration, not worship, which God knows because He looks into our hearts and sees our intentions (I Sam. 16:7). Anti-Catholic writers mock the distinction between worship and veneration looking at outward appearances and judge according to their own opinions and prejudices ignoring the words of Jesus, “Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly (Jn. 7:24).”<br />
<br />
Dr. Martin also disputes the settled theological dogma of Mary as <i>Theotokos</i> revealing himself to be a foursquare follower of the heretic Nestorius who was condemned at the <a href="https://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/EPHESUS.HTM"><span style="color: blue;">Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus</span></a> in 431 AD. (See, Id. at pg. 53) In challenging this defined belief of the Church, he fails to cite any magisterial authority as to what Catholics believe about Mary as the Mother of God. Dr. Martin evinces little understanding of the meaning of the Incarnation or the significance of Mary’s totally grace-filled, unselfish cooperation on behalf of the whole world by giving her fiat to God taking on flesh through her. He fails to understand that Mary’s action is a call for all of us to bear Christ as members of the Body of Christ to the world. <br />
<br />
Not only does Dr. Martin fail to interact with the Catholic interpretations of Scripture it uses to form its Marian dogmas, he barely cites any magisterial authority either. When he does, he fails to provide the sources for the quotes he uses to make his arguments. He even uses a fictitious speech attributed to Bishop Strossmayer at the First Vatican Council in 1870 as evidence. (p. 58) While <a href="http://www.lazyboysreststop.org/strossmayer_2.htm"><span style="color: blue;">some Protestant writers condescendingly claim</span></a> that he did give the speech, <a href="https://klaravonassisi.wordpress.com/2009/01/04/the-bishop-strossmayer-forgery/"><span style="color: blue;">the actual transcript of the First Vatican Council does not show that he gave it and Bishop Strossmeyer himself denied it on numerous occasions.</span></a> <br />
<br />
Worse, while Dr. Martin boasts of his knowledge of Catholic Marian doctrine (pg. 43), he shows his ignorance of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception misquoting Church fathers and other authorities out of context (a subject for another day). See, pp. 56-58. He even erroneously asserts that the Catholic Church teaches that Mary ascended into heaven the same way Jesus did (pg 47). Of course, there is a huge difference between Jesus' Ascension and Mary's Assumption. Jesus raised Himself. The Assumption of Mary was carried out by Jesus. Jesus lifted Mary up, just like we believe He will raise up each of us on the last day. The dogma of the Ascension shows Jesus was our Savior. The dogma of the Assumption demonstrates that Mary needed a personal Savior, too. <br />
<div style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -1in;"> C. The Elusive Imprimatur of Cardinal Spellman.</div><br />
Pastor Temple references a third writing which he uses to defame Francis Joseph Cardinal Spellman (1880-1967). In the third chapter of <i>The Roman Catholic Church in History</i>, Dr. Martin offers as further evidence of Mary’s deification by Catholics the following quote allegedly appearing in a pamphlet to which Cardinal Spellman affixed his imprimatur:<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">There is one mediator between Christ and men, the Holy Mother Mary. Mary is the way and the truth and the life. No man comes to Jesus except by Mary (See, Id., at pg. 49. </div><br />
Unfortunately, neither Dr. Martin nor Pastor Temple informs us of the name of the pamphlet that the quote is taken from. I searched a number of Catholic seminary and university libraries and databases looking for the source of the alleged quote, to no avail. Every single reference to the quote I found lists Dr. Martin’s book as the source of the quote as opposed to anything approved by Cardinal Spellman. In desperation, I even corresponded with Dr. Martin’s daughter who could not provide me the source of the quote. The quote is truly apocryphal. While Pastor Temple calls Cardinal Spellman a controversial individual, I personally find it controversial that a Christian minister, even a Protestant one, would use a potential fictive quote to accuse someone of grievous sin. To borrow Pastor Temple’s words, “Wow! Blasphemous!” <br />
<br />
I do acknowledge that if one conducts enough online searches, passages can be found in genuine Catholic works which are similar-sounding to the first part and third part of Dr. Martin’s spurious quotation. For example, in Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_22091891_octobri-mense.html"><span style="color: blue;"><i>Octobri Mense</i></span></a>, ¶ 4, one finds the following:<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">“With equal truth may it be also affirmed that, by the will of God, Mary is the intermediary through whom is distributed unto us this immense treasure of mercies gathered by God, for mercy and truth were created by Jesus Christ.<span style="font-weight: bold;"> Thus as no man goeth to the Father but by the Son, so no man goeth to Christ but by His Mother. How great are the goodness and mercy revealed in this design of God!</span>” [Emphasis Added].</div><br />
In Catholic teaching, Mary’s role as a mediatrix is clearly secondary to Christ’s salvific mediation. While Protestants try to isolate Mary from Christ, Catholics focus on how Mary leads us to Him. The Servant of God Fr. John Hardon explains it thusly:<br />
<br />
When we say through Mary, to Jesus, we mean that:<br />
<br />
Through Mary’s voluntary consent we have received Jesus.<br />
<br />
Through Mary’s example we are better able to imitate Jesus<br />
<br />
Through Mary’s intercession we obtain graces from Jesus.<br />
<br />
See, Father John Hardon’s <a href="http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Mariology/Mariology_046.htm"><span style="color: blue;"><i>Through Mary to Jesus</i></span></a> (last accessed June 19, 2016).<br />
<br />
Likewise, if one reads Latin, one might find St. Bonaventure stating in his <i>Commentaries on the Four Books of Sentences of Master Peter Lombard,</i> (III/ Sent., d. 3,p.1, a.1, q. 2):<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">“[<i>E]t ista est Beata Virgo, quae mediatrix est inter nos et Christum, sicum Christus inter nos et Deum</i>.” (“The Blessed Virgin is the mediatrix between us and Christ, just as Christ is between us and God”). </div><br />
Pope Saint John Paul II explains the meaning of Mary’s mediation as follows in his masterful encyclical <i>Redemptoris Mater ¶ 21</i>:<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">“At Cana in Galilee there is shown only one concrete aspect of human need, apparently a small one of little importance ("They have no wine"). But it has a symbolic value: this coming to the aid of human needs means, at the same time, bringing those needs within the radius of Christ's messianic mission and salvific power. Thus, there is a mediation: Mary places herself between her Son and mankind in the reality of their wants, needs and sufferings. She puts herself "in the middle," that is to say she acts as a mediatrix not as an outsider, but in her position as mother. She knows that as such she can point out to her Son the needs of mankind, and in fact, she "has the right" to do so. Her mediation is thus in the nature of intercession: Mary "intercedes" for mankind. And that is not all. As a mother she also wishes the messianic power of her Son to be manifested, that salvific power of his which is meant to help man in his misfortunes, to free him from the evil which in various forms and degrees weighs heavily upon his life.</div><br />
While one can find similar sounding references to the first part and third parts of Dr. Martin’s quote, I was not able to find anything similar to the second part. I was not able to find a single Catholic writer who has ever said, “Mary is the way and the truth and the life.” I have only found anti-Catholic Protestant writers saying that. <br />
<br />
The two closest Catholic writers that I could find saying anything remotely similar is in St. Alphonsus de Liguori’s treatise <i></i><a href="http://www.themostholyrosary.com/the-glories-of-mary.pdf"><i><span style="color: blue;">The Glories of Mary</span></i></a><i></i>, another person whom Protestant apologists find controversial, and St. Louis de Montfort in his <i></i><a href="https://www.ewtn.com/library/Montfort/TRUEDEVO.HTM"><i><span style="color: blue;">Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin.</span></i></a><i></i> St. Louis de Montfort was canonized by Pope Pius XII. <br />
<br />
There is a verse at Sirach 24:25-26 (Douay-Rheims) which states, “In me is all grace of the way and of the truth, in me is all hope of life and of virtue.” This verse has been applied to the Blessed Virgin Mary by various saints in history to describe the intercessory nature of her mediation that is applied to us the graces granted her by her Son. As noted by St. Alphonsus at pp. 379-380 of <i>The Glories of Mary</i>:<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">The second argument which proves that Mary, in the first moment of her life, was more holy than all the saints united, is founded upon the great office which she had from the beginning, of mediatrix of men; for which it was requisite that she should possess a greater treasure of grace than the whole human race together. It is very well known how universally this title of mediatrix is applied by theologians and by the very holy Fathers to Mary, since by her powerful intercession and merits <i>de congruo </i>she has obtained salvation for all, procuring for the ruined world the great blessing of redemption. It is said by merit <i>de congruo</i>, because Jesus Christ alone is our mediator by way of justice, and by merit <i>de condigno</i>, as it is expressed by the schools, he having offered to the eternal Father his merits, which he has accepted for our salvation. Mary, on the contrary, is the mediatrix of grace by way of simple intercession, and of merit de congruo, she having offered to God, as the theologians say with St. Bonaventure, her merits for the salvation of all men; and God, through grace, has accepted them in union with the merits of Jesus Christ. Hence Arnold Carnotensis says: She effected our salvation in common with Christ. And Richard of St. Victor, also: She desired, sought, and obtained the salvation of all; nay, more, the salvation of all was effected through her. So that every blessing and every gift of eternal life which each of the saints has received from God, has been obtained for them by Mary.</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">And it is this which the holy Church wishes us to understand, when she honors the divine mother by applying to her these passages of Ecclesiasticus (Sirach): In me is all grace of the way and of the truth: "In me gratia omnis vise et veritatis" It is said: Of the way, because through Mary all graces are dispensed to those who are still on the road to heaven; Of the truth, because through Mary is given the light of truth. In me is all hope of life and of virtue: "In me omnes spes vitse et virtutis." Of life, because through Mary we hope to attain the life of grace upon earth, and of glory in heaven; and of virtue, because through Mary virtue is obtained, and especially the theological virtues, which are the principal virtues of the saints.</div><br />
For Saint Alphonsus, who is the Life, Virtue, Way and Truth from which the hope and the grace that we receive from Mary’s intercession come from? Our Lord Jesus Christ. Note too how St. Alphonsus, whom Protestants love to malign, clearly states that Mary’s mediation is different in both nature and in power to that of Jesus Christ. It is secondary and intercessory only.<br />
<br />
St. Louis de Montfort says this in the first chapter of his <i>Treatise on True Devotion to the Blessed Virgin</i>:<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"> 50. God wishes therefore to reveal Mary, his masterpiece, and make her more known in these latter times:</div><div style="margin-left: 2in; text-indent: -2in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 2in; text-indent: -2in;"> (1) Because she kept herself hidden in this world and in her great humility considered herself lower than dust, having obtained from God, his apostles and evangelists the favour of being made known.</div><div style="margin-left: 2in; text-indent: -2in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 2in; text-indent: -2in;"> (2) Because, as Mary is not only God's masterpiece of glory in heaven, but also his masterpiece of grace on earth, he wishes to be glorified and praised because of her by those living upon earth.</div><div style="margin-left: 2in; text-indent: -2in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 2in; text-indent: -2in;"> (3) Since she is the dawn which precedes and discloses the Sun of Justice Jesus Christ, she must be known and acknowledged so that Jesus may be known and acknowledged.</div><div style="margin-left: 2in; text-indent: -2in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 2in; text-indent: -2in;"> (4) As she was the way by which Jesus first came to us, she will again be the way by which he will come to us the second time though not in the same manner.</div><div style="margin-left: 2in; text-indent: -2in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 2in; text-indent: -2in;"> (5) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Since she is the sure means, the direct and immaculate way to Jesus and the perfect guide to him, it is through her that souls who are to shine forth in sanctity must find him. He who finds Mary finds life, that is, Jesus Christ who is the way, the truth and the life. But no one can find Mary who does not look for her. No one can look for her who does not know her, for no one seeks or desires something unknown. Mary then must be better known than ever for the deeper understanding and the greater glory of the Blessed Trinity.</span></div><div style="margin-left: 2in; text-indent: -2in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 2in; text-indent: -2in;"> (6) In these latter times Mary must shine forth more than ever in mercy, power and grace; in mercy, to bring back and welcome lovingly the poor sinners and wanderers who are to be converted and return to the Catholic Church; in power, to combat the enemies of God who will rise up menacingly to seduce and crush by promises and threats all those who oppose them; finally, she must shine forth in grace to inspire and support the valiant soldiers and loyal servants of Jesus Christ who are fighting for his cause.</div><br />
[Emphasis Added.]<br />
<br />
Pastor Temple may claim that the passages prove Catholics have Mary usurp Jesus’ singular salvific mediation (1 Tim. 2:5). However, he must first account for how Catholics understand her mediation. The Church teaches at <i>Lumen Gentium</i> ¶ 62:<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source.</div><br />
Whenever we pray, or fast or give alms for a family member or friend we are acting as secondary mediators between God and humanity in the order of spiritual intercession which does not detract from the one mediation of Jesus, but manifests and redounds the power of Jesus Christ, our one Divine Mediator to the Father. Similarly, as to Mary, the term "mediatrix" refers to a secondary and subordinate female mediator who acts on and mirrors the intention of the primary and independent mediator; that is, the reconciliation of individuals to God. By virtue of the graces given her, by virtue of her motherhood, Mary by her intercession participates in the one mediation of Jesus Christ like no other creature, and hence, she more than any other creature deservedly and rightly may be called "Mediatrix" who is cooperating with Jesus in reconciling humanity with God.<br />
<br />
Scripture provides us examples of Mary’s role as Mediatrix in the order of intercession. It was Mary's intercession at the wedding of Cana (Jn 2:1-11) that led to the first miracle of Our Lord and the beginning of his public ministry. At the Visitation of Mary to Elizabeth, Mary's physical intercession in bringing the unborn Christ to his unborn cousin, John the Baptist, led to John's sanctification in the womb of Elizabeth (cf. Lk 1:41). These themes were noticed and highlighted by Saints Irenaeus, Augustine, Ephraem, Anselm, Bonaventure, Bernard and Thomas Aquinas to name a few. Now in modern times, Pope St. John Paul II, perhaps, has offered the best explanation of Mary's secondary mediation:<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">Mary entered, in a way all her own, into the one mediation "between God and men" which is the mediation of the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim 2:5). (W)e must say that through this fullness of grace and supernatural life she was especially predisposed to cooperation with Christ, the one Mediator of human salvation. And such cooperation is precisely this mediation subordinated to the mediation of Christ. In Mary's case we have a special and exceptional mediation… (<i>Redemptoris Mater</i>, ¶ 39). </div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">IV. SETTING DOWN THE LAW OF THE CASE </span></div><div style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -1in;"> A. The Problem of Translation. </div><br />
Another problem with Pastor Temple’s use of a secondary source for the prayer he criticizes is that he never considered the possibility that the prayer was not actually given by Pope Pius XII. After all, if one is going to accuse a pope of blasphemy, it might be a good idea to actually quote what the pope said or wrote. Going to the Vatican’s website, I found the actual <a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/it/prayers/documents/hf_p-xii_19531121_prayer-immacolata.html"><span style="color: blue;">Prayer of Pope Pius XII in the original Italian</span></a> as it was given by him in a radio address on November 21, 1953 which is the Feast of the Presentation of Mary. The origin of this feast day can be found in the Protoevangelium of James written in the middle of the 2<sup>nd</sup> century AD, a document which shows the belief of the Early Church in both the Immaculate Conception and Mary’s perpetual virginity. <br />
<br />
<i><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Alla Beata Vergine Maria, concepita senza il peccato originale</span></span></i><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">.</span></span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Rapiti dal fulgore della vostra celeste bellezza e sospinti dalle angosce del secolo, ci gettiamo tra le vostre braccia, o Immacolata Madre di Ges<span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">ù </span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">e Madre nostra, Maria, fiduciosi di trovare nel vostro Cuore amantissimo l</span><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;">’</span>appagamento delle nostre fervide aspirazioni e il porto sicuro fra le tempeste che da ogni parte ci stringono.</span></span></div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: red;">Benché avviliti dalle colpe e sopraffatti da infinite miserie, ammiriamo e cantiamo l’impareggiabile ricchezza di eccelsi doni, di cui Iddio vi ha ricolmata al di sopra di ogni altra pura creatura, dal primo istante del vostro concepimento fino al giorno, in cui, Assunta in cielo, vi ha incoronata Regina dell’universo.</span></span></div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: red;">O Fonte limpida di fede, irrorate con le eterne verità le nostre menti! O Giglio fragrante di ogni santità, avvincete I nostri cuori col vostro celestiale profumo! O Trionfatrice del male e della morte, ispirateci profondo orrore al peccato, che rende l’anima detestabile a Dio e schiava dell’inferno!</span></span></div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: red;">Ascoltate, o prediletta di Dio, l’ardente grido che da ogni cuore fedele s’innalza in quest’Anno a voi dedicato. Chinatevi sulle doloranti nostre piaghe. Mutate le menti ai malvagi, asciugate le lagrime degli afflitti e degli oppressi, confortate I poveri e gli umili, spegnete gli odi, addolcite gli aspri costumi, custodite il fiore della purezza nei giovani, proteggete la Chiesa santa, fate che gli uomini tutti sentano il fascino della cristiana bontà. Nel vostro nome, che risuona nei cieli armonia, essi si ravvisino fratelli, e le nazioni membri di una sola famiglia, su cui risplenda il sole di una universale e sincera pace.</span></span></div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: red;">Accogliete, o Madre dolcissima, le umili nostre suppliche e otteneteci soprattutto che possiamo un giorno ripetere dinanzi al vostro trono, beati con voi, l’inno che si leva oggi sulla terra intorno ai vostri altari: Tutta bella sei, o Maria! Tu gloria, Tu letizia, Tu onore del nostro popolo! Così sia.</span></span></div><br />
[See also, <i>Acta Apostolicae Sedis</i> (1953), pg. 757]<br />
<br />
My Translation:<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><i>The Blessed Virgin Mary, conceived without sin.</i></div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">Enraptured by the brilliance of your heavenly beauty and driven by the anxieties of the century, we throw ourselves into your arms, O Immaculate Mother of Jesus and our Mother, Mary, confident of finding in your most loving heart contentment of our fervent hopes and safe harbor from the storms that shake us on every side.</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="color: red;"></span></span>Though we are degraded by our faults and overwhelmed by endless misery, we admire and sing of the incomparable wealth of sublime gifts with which God filled you over above other pure creatures, from the first moment of your conception until the day of your Assumption to heaven, when you were crowned Queen of the universe.</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">O clear Font of faith, bedew us with the eternal truths! O fragrant Lily of all holiness, enthrall our hearts with your heavenly perfume! O Victrix over evil and death, inspire in us a deep horror of sin, which makes the soul detestable to God and hell's slave!</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">Hear, O beloved of God, the ardent cry that rises from every heart in this Year dedicated to you. Bend over our aching wounds. Change the minds of the wicked, dry the tears of the afflicted and oppressed, comfort the poor and humble, quench hatreds, soften harsh customs, preserve the flower of purity in the young, protect the holy Church, let all men feel the attraction of Christian goodness. In your name, which resounds in heavenly harmony, they are recognized as brothers, and nations members of one family, on which shines the sun of an universal and sincere peace.</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><span style="color: red;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></span>Accept, O most sweet Mother, our humble supplications and above all obtain for us, that blessed with you, we one day may repeat before your throne, the hymn that rises today on earth around your altars: “You are all beautiful, O Mary! You are the glory, You are the joy, You are the honor of our people!” Amen.</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">While it certainly true that the prayer attributed to Pope Venerable Pius XII quoted by</div>Pastor Temple is similar to the prayer he actually uttered over the radio in 1953, it is not the same prayer which the good pope uttered. Since I am defending Pope Pius XII from the charge of blasphemy, I hope the Pastor Temple does not take offense that I will use his actual words as opposed to a prayer found in a devotional prayer book.<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -1in;"> B. Pastor Temple Invents His Own Word Game. </div><br />
Pastor Temple believes that Catholics play word games with the term worship. We don’t. The real problem is Catholics and Protestants understand the concept of worship differently. When Protestants, such as Pastor Temple, use the term “worship,” it is synonymous with adoration which is reserved for God alone. Even if they do not use precise theological language, Catholics differentiate between “worship of adoration” or “worship of veneration.” <br />
<br />
Allow me to share some examples to help clarify my meaning.<br />
<br />
<a href="https://bible.org/seriespage/4-worship-part-1-john-41-26"><span style="color: blue;">Here</span></a> is how one Evangelical Protestant minister defines it:<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">Worship is the humble response of regenerate men to the self-disclosure of the Most High God. It is based upon the work of God. It is achieved through the activity of God. It is directed to God. It is expressed by the lips in praise and by the life in service.</div><br />
<a href="http://www.gty.org/resources/study-guides/40-0583/true-worship"><span style="color: blue;">Here</span></a> is how another Protestant minister defines it:<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">What is worship? Let me give you a definition: Worship is "honor paid to a superior being." It means "to give homage, honor, reverence, respect, adoration, praise, or glory to a superior being." In Scripture, the word is used indiscriminately to refer to the homage given to idols, material things, or to the true God. So the word in itself is not a holy word, it only describes honor given to a superior being.</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">The common New Testament word for worship is <i>proskuneo</i>, which means "to kiss toward, to kiss the hand, to bow down, to prostrate oneself." The idea of worship is that one prostrates himself before a superior being with a sense of respect, awe, reverence, honor, and homage. In a Christian context, we simply apply this to God and prostrate ourselves before Him in respect and honor, paying Him the glory due His superior character.</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">Essentially, then, worship is giving - giving honor and respect to God. That is why we, as Christians, gather together on Sunday. We don't gather to give respect to the preacher or those in the choir, we gather to give honor to God. The sermon and the music are just to be the stimuli that create the desire in our hearts to honor Him.</div><br />
There is much to laud in these gentlemen’s definitions, but their definitions do not fully express what worship means. Catholic theology is a bit more expansive. <br />
<br />
So then what is worship? The textbook definition of worship is the acknowledgment of another's worth, dignity, or superior position. Worshiping starts out as an act of intellectual assent which acknowledges the level of respect that is to be given by virtue of the dignity, status or office of the person, idea or thing which is the object of one’s worship. The decision to offer worship is an act of the will to express that assent. That decision then leads to an external action or response that expresses one’s assent to the worthiness of the person, idea, or thing to which the worship is directed. <br />
<br />
When an external act of worship/honor is directed to God, it is more properly called the worship of adoration, or <i>latria</i>, or in contemporary language simply adoration. We see this understanding reflected in the <i>Catechism of the Catholic Church</i>:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm"><span style="color: blue;">Adoration</span></a><br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"> 2096 Adoration is the first act of the virtue of religion. To adore God is to acknowledge him as God, as the Creator and Savior, the Lord and Master of everything that exists, as infinite and merciful Love. "You shall worship the Lord your God, and him only shall you serve," says Jesus, citing Deuteronomy (Lk. 4:8; Cf. Deut. 6:13).</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"> 2097 To adore God is to acknowledge, in respect and absolute submission, the "nothingness of the creature" who would not exist but for God. To adore God is to praise and exalt him and to humble oneself, as Mary did in the Magnificat, confessing with gratitude that he has done great things and holy is his name (Lk. 1:46-49). The worship of the one God sets man free from turning in on himself, from the slavery of sin and the idolatry of the world.</div><br />
and again:<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"> <a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p4s1c1a3.htm#2628"><span style="color: blue;">2628</span></a> Adoration is the first attitude of man acknowledging that he is a creature before his Creator. It exalts the greatness of the Lord who made us and the almighty power of the Savior who sets us free from evil. Adoration is homage of the spirit to the "King of Glory," respectful silence in the presence of the "ever greater" God. Adoration of the thrice-holy and sovereign God of love blends with humility and gives assurance to our supplications.</div><br />
The Catechism goes on to state that there are three primary ways that created beings offer adoration to Our God. First is through prayer or lifting up of one’s mind toward God. Second is through sacrifice. Third, is through the making of promises and vows, such as those made in connection with the sacraments, doing good works, or dedicating oneself to consecrated religious life or to a vocation. See<i>, </i><a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c1a1.htm#2096"><i><span style="color: blue;">Catechism of the Catholic Church </span></i>¶¶<span style="color: blue;"> 2098-2103</span></a>. <br />
<br />
In contrast, veneration represented by <i>dulia </i>and <i>hyper-dulia</i> is starkly different from <i>latria</i>. The honor shown to Mary and the saints are not lower degrees of adoration. Rather, <i>dulia</i> and <i>hyper-dulia </i>refer to the honor we pay to creatures <span style="font-weight: bold;">BY VIRTUE OF THEIR ASSOCIATION AND RELATIONSHIP WITH THEIR CREATOR</span>. Father Hardon again:<br />
<div style="margin-left: 2in; text-indent: -2in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 2in; text-indent: -2in;"> <a href="http://www.therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl"><span style="color: blue;">DULIA.</span></a> </div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in;">Reverence of a disciple for his master or of a servant for his lord. It is the honor given to the angels and saints as friends of God. (Etym. Greek douleia, servitude, subjection.)</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><a href="http://www.therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl"><span style="color: blue;">HYPERDULIA.</span></a></div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in;">The special veneration due to the Blessed Virgin Mary. It is substantially less than the cultus latria (adoration), which is due to God alone. But it is higher than the cultus dulia (veneration), due to angels and other saints. As the Church understands the veneration of Mary, it is to be closely associated but subordinated to that of her Son. "The various forms of piety towards the Mother of God, which the Church has approved within the limits of sound and orthodox doctrine according to the dispositions and understanding of the faithful, ensure that while the mother is honored, the Son through whom all things have their being and in whom it has pleased the Father that all fullness should dwell, is rightly loved and glorified and His commandments are observed" (Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, VII, 66). (Etym. Latin hyperdulia, virtue of deep submission.)</div><br />
<a href="http://www.therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl"><span style="color: blue;">VENERATION OF SAINTS.</span></a> <br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in;">Honor paid to the saints who, by their intercession and example and in their possession of God, minister to human sanctification, helping the faithful grow in Christian virtue. Venerating the saints does not detract from the glory given to God, since whatever good they possess is a gift from his bounty. They reflect the divine perfections, and their supernatural qualities result from the graces Christ merited for them by the Cross. In the language of the Church’s liturgy, the saints are venerated as sanctuaries of the Trinity, as adopted children of the Father, brethren of Christ, faithful members of his Mystical Body, and temples of the Holy Spirit.</div><br />
These definitions are reflected in the <i>Catechism of the Catholic Church</i> as well:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p5.htm"><span style="color: blue;">The Communion of the Church of Heaven and Earth</span></a><br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"> 956 The intercession of the saints. "Being more closely united to Christ, those who dwell in heaven fix the whole Church more firmly in holiness. . . . They do not cease to intercede with the Father for us, as they proffer the merits which they acquired on earth through the one mediator between God and men, Christ Jesus . . . . So by their fraternal concern is our weakness greatly helped." (<i>Lumen Gentium ¶ </i>49; cf. 1 Tim 2:5)</div><div style="margin-left: 2in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 2in;">Do not weep, for I shall be more useful to you after my death and I shall help you then more effectively than during my life. (St. Dominic, dying, to his brothers)</div><div style="margin-left: 2in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 2in;">I want to spend my heaven in doing good on earth. ( St. Thérèse of Lisieux, <i>The Final Conversations,</i> tr. John Clarke (Washington: ICS, 1977), 102)</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"> 957 Communion with the saints. "It is not merely by the title of example that we cherish the memory of those in heaven; we seek, rather, that by this devotion to the exercise of fraternal charity the union of the whole Church in the Spirit may be strengthened. Exactly as Christian communion among our fellow pilgrims brings us closer to Christ, so our communion with the saints joins us to Christ, from whom as from its fountain and head issues all grace, and the life of the People of God itself" (<i>Lumen Gentium</i> ¶ 50; cf., Eph 4:1-6).</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in;">We worship Christ as God's Son; we love the martyrs as the Lord's disciples and imitators, and rightly so because of their matchless devotion towards their king and master. May we also be their companions and fellow disciples! ( <i>Martyrium Polycarpi,</i> 17:Apostolic Fathers II/3, 396)</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p123a9p6.htm"><span style="color: blue;">Devotion to the Blessed Virgin</span></a></div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"> 971 "All generations will call me blessed": "The Church's devotion to the Blessed Virgin is intrinsic to Christian worship." ( Lk. 1:48; Paul VI, <i>Marialis Cultus ¶ </i>56.) The Church rightly honors "the Blessed Virgin with special devotion. From the most ancient times the Blessed Virgin has been honored with the title of 'Mother of God,' to whose protection the faithful fly in all their dangers and needs. . . . This very special devotion . . . differs essentially from the adoration which is given to the incarnate Word and equally to the Father and the Holy Spirit, and greatly fosters this adoration." (<i>Lumen Gentium</i> ¶ 66) The liturgical feasts dedicated to the Mother of God and Marian prayer, such as the rosary, an "epitome of the whole Gospel," express this devotion to the Virgin Mary. ( Paul VI, <i>Marialis Cultus </i>¶ 42; <i>Sacrosanctum Concilium ¶ </i>103)</div><br />
Like <i>latria</i>, there are three ways <i>dulia</i> and <i>hyper-dulia</i> are shown to the angels and saints. They are honored for their sanctity, we ask them to intercede before the divine Majesty, and we imitate their love and service of God. See, Hardon, John. <i>Modern Catholic Dictionary</i> accessed <a href="http://www.therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></a> on February 25, 2015. <br />
<br />
Even after being informed as to this understanding of Catholic teaching, Protestants still say that as a practical matter Catholics do give adoration to Mary and the saints. Given such a blinkered vision of what worship is, it is quite understandable that they find Catholic expressions of veneration excessive. Catholics have the Mass, which is the highest form of worship/ adoration there is. We have the Liturgy of the Hours, the unceasing prayer of praise for God which is recited and sung by faithful Catholics for almost two thousand years. We have the sacraments which are visible signs of God’s grace operating in our lives. We have devotions, sacramentals, beautiful churches, shrines, basilicas, sacred music, paintings, prayers, relics, rosaries, statues, candles, ritual and rubrics which all orient us towards God. And for the purposes of this discussion, we have Mary and the saints who are poignant reminders of how God is still present in our lives, how He works in our lives, and how we encounter God even in miraculous ways. We know how veneration offered to Mary and the saints serve as an overwhelmingly efficacious conduit of God's grace to us.<br />
<br />
As members of the Communion of Saints, as members of the Body of Christ, the honor we show Mary and the saints by virtue of their status as God's instruments in His salvific plan redounds on us. Worship is not merely a response to the Persons of God, but to the <i>Opus Dei </i>as seen in history, in the world today and in our own relationship with Him as well. It is fitting that we honor the very instruments He uses to effect His work-His angels, the saints, and most especially the <i>Theotokos</i> through whom Jesus Christ entered this world as Our Savior. Veneration of Mary and the saints is part of our loving and grateful response to our experiencing God working in His creation and in our lives. To better honor and love God, we should also honor and love the things of God. <br />
<br />
Contrary to the bald assertions of Pastor Temple, veneration of Mary does not derogate my adoration of God. It magnifies our adoration of God. <br />
<br />
When I stand in awe at the beauty of the Archabbey Church of Our Lady of Einsiedeln in Saint Meinrad, Indiana, am I not honoring Our Lord who inspired the monks to build it? When I marvel at Bach’s <i>Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring,</i> am I not praising Our Lord who inspired him to compose it? When I am inspired by the beauty of the painting of the Immaculate Conception at the Cleveland Art Museum to cross myself and pray, am I not praising Our Heavenly Father who inspired Murillo to paint it and for that matter for God’s operation of grace in Mary’s life? <br />
<br />
How exactly does veneration of Mary, the Mother of God, or His saints derogate from the One who made them all? Pastor Temple and those who join him in his imprecation of <i>dulia</i> and <i>hyper-dulia</i> never tell us how the honor Catholics show to the beauty of God’s grace working in His creation detracts or diminishes in any way the adoration we show God directly. Frankly, the problem is not that Catholics think too highly of Mary and the saints. The problem is that Pastor Temple and those like him think too little of God. <br />
<div style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -1in;"> C. Fishing for Red Herrings.</div><br />
In the YouTube presentation Pastor Temple links to in his post, anti-Catholic writers, Rob Zins and Larry Wessels, outlined various claims against Pius XII’s prayer to the Blessed Virgin. These claims include:<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"> 1. “could anyone pray more convincingly to God as than they are praying </div> here to Mary?” (at about 20:06). <br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"> 2. that the prayer makes “no room for God, no room for Jesus” (at about the 21:06).</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"> 3. that prayer leaves “nothing left for Jesus Christ or God to do” (21:36).</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"> 4. “No one could do a better prayer to God” (22:29). </div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"> 5. the prayer has her “eclipsing God”(22:31).</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">At the 25:00 minute mark, Rob Zins challenges Catholic apologists to write a better to</div>God than the one Pope Pius XII composed to Mary. <br />
<br />
In these expressions of ridicule and incredulity, Ron Zins and Larry Wessels throw around the word “blasphemy” like they were getting a nickel for every time they say it. Not once do these “good theologians” address how Catholics understand the words of the prayer, For example, while these fine worthies claim that the doctrine of the Assumption is nowhere to be found in the Scriptures, they fail to inform their listeners of the fact that Pope Pius XII’s Apostolic Constitution <i></i><a href="http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-xii_apc_19501101_munificentissimus-deus.html"><i><span style="color: blue;">Munificentissimus Deus</span></i></a><i></i> in which the Church officially defined the dogma of the Assumption, presents in ¶¶ 24-41 of that document the various scripture passages Catholic theologians over the centuries have used in support of the dogma. Now one would think that if these gentlemen were “good” theologians as they present themselves to be, they would have at least made reference to the Apostolic Constitution if for no other reason than to refute the Catholic interpretation of the biblical passages cited therein. <br />
<br />
In their discussion of the prayer, these gentlemen made no other reference to any scripture, or magisterial documents, or even any teaching of Pope Pius XII himself to ascertain the meaning of the words he used in the prayer. They discuss the dogma of <i>Theotokos</i> pronounced at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431 AD without accurately stating what the dogma is. She did not give birth to God or the Trinity as these gentlemen state. Rather, the dogma states that Jesus was one man, divine and human, and not two separate persons. He is completely God and completely man with a rational soul and body. Mary is "<i>Theotokos</i>" because she gave birth not to man but to God who took on flesh as a man. The dogma teaches that the union of theses two natures of Christ took place in such a fashion that one did not disturb the other. The dogma was pronounced to condemn those who attacked His divinity and His humanity. It was pronounced to help Christians understand the ful meaning of the Incarnation and why it was necessary for our salvation. It is not an elevation of Mary to the status of goddess. She does become the fourth member of the Holy Trinity. It does not replace her as a divinity and make God into a created being. These men are not “good” theologians or even “good” liars. <br />
<br />
Indeed, while these men accuse the Catholic Church of sophistry and deception, they engaged in their own brand of deception in the YouTube presentation. For example, it is suggested at the 22:20 minute mark that if you were to substitute God’s name for Mary’s, you could do no better prayer to Him. Of course, if a person were to actually do that, the prayer f Pope Pius XII would make no sense whatsoever because substituting God for Mary would make God a created being rather than the Uncreated One. They do the very thing they accuse Catholics of doing in the dogma of the <i>Theotokos</i>. Messrs. Zins and Wessels’ deceptive practices prey on the anti-Catholic prejudices of their listeners. They do not instruct, they are meant to incite. <br />
<br />
Nor does the prayer “leave nothing for God” as is suggested by these gentlemen. Read the pertinent part of the prayer again:<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">Though we are degraded by our faults and overwhelmed by endless misery, we admire and sing of the incomparable wealth of sublime gifts with which God filled you over above other pure creatures, from the first moment of your conception until the day of your Assumption to heaven, when you were crowned Queen of the universe.</div><br />
Here, Mary is not the creator; she is God’s favored creation. She did not exist before God; she participated in the Son’s Incarnation. She did not formulate the plan of salvation; through her fiat, she was the voluntary instrumentality God used to carry it out. Mary is not the author of grace; she is the recipient of it. We honor her because God honored her with His grace. (Lk. 1:28-31) We honor the Donor of the gifts by honoring the donee. ( Cf., Mt. 10:41; Rom. 13:7; 1 Cor. 12:26; Eph. 6:5; 1 Tim. 5:17, 6:1; 1 Pet. 2:17.) <br />
<br />
These “good” theologians notwithstanding, popular piety and theological teaching demonstrate the honor we give the Mother of God is not adoration, but is clearly subordinate to the honor given to her Son as shown by this ancient <a href="http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/cultural-diversity/asian-pacific-islander/resources/upload/14-082-Rosary-Brochure-Asian-and-Pacific-Holy-Men-and-Women.pdf"><span style="color: blue;">Marian hymn</span></a> still sung today:<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">Mary the dawn, Christ the Perfect Day; Mary the gate, Christ the Heavenly Way!</div><br />
Mary the root, Christ the Mystic Vine; Mary the grape, Christ the Sacred Wine!<br />
<br />
Mary the wheat, Christ the Living Bread; Mary the stem, Christ the Rose<br />
blood-red!<br />
<br />
Mary the font, Christ the Cleansing Flood; Mary the cup, Christ the Saving Blood!<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">Mary the temple, Christ the temple’s Lord; Mary the shrine, Christ the God adored!</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">Mary the beacon, Christ the Haven’s Rest; Mary the mirror, Christ the Vision Blest!</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in;">Mary the mother, Christ the mother’s Son, By all things blest while endless ages run. Amen.</div><br />
The ubiquitous prayer addressed to the Blessed Virgin Mary, the “Hail Mary” reflects how Marian devotion should be situated in our lives. From the <a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p4s1c2a2.htm"><span style="color: blue;"><i>Catechism of the Catholic Church</i></span></a><i>:</i><br />
<br />
In communion with the holy Mother of God<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"> 2673 In prayer the Holy Spirit unites us to the person of the only Son, in his glorified humanity, through which and in which our filial prayer unites us in the Church with the Mother of Jesus.</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"> 2674 Mary gave her consent in faith at the Annunciation and maintained it without hesitation at the foot of the Cross. Ever since, her motherhood has extended to the brothers and sisters of her Son "who still journey on earth surrounded by dangers and difficulties." Jesus, the only mediator, is the way of our prayer; Mary, his mother and ours, is wholly transparent to him: she "shows the way" (hodigitria), and is herself "the Sign" of the way, according to the traditional iconography of East and West.</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"> 2675 Beginning with Mary's unique cooperation with the working of the Holy Spirit, the Churches developed their prayer to the holy Mother of God, centering it on the person of Christ manifested in his mysteries. In countless hymns and antiphons expressing this prayer, two movements usually alternate with one another: the first "magnifies" the Lord for the "great things" he did for his lowly servant and through her for all human beings the second entrusts the supplications and praises of the children of God to the Mother of Jesus, because she now knows the humanity which, in her, the Son of God espoused.</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"> 2676 This twofold movement of prayer to Mary has found a privileged expression in the Ave Maria:</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in;"><i>Hail Mary</i> [<i>or Rejoice, Mary</i>]: the greeting of the angel Gabriel opens this prayer. It is God himself who, through his angel as intermediary, greets Mary. Our prayer dares to take up this greeting to Mary with the regard God had for the lowliness of his humble servant and to exult in the joy he finds in her.</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in;"><i>Full of grace, the Lord is with thee</i>: These two phrases of the angel's greeting shed light on one another. Mary is full of grace because the Lord is with her. The grace with which she is filled is the presence of him who is the source of all grace. "Rejoice . . . O Daughter of Jerusalem . . . the Lord your God is in your midst." Mary, in whom the Lord himself has just made his dwelling, is the daughter of Zion in person, the ark of the covenant, the place where the glory of the Lord dwells. She is "the dwelling of God . . . with men." Full of grace, Mary is wholly given over to him who has come to dwell in her and whom she is about to give to the world.</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in;"><i>Blessed art thou among women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus</i>. After the angel's greeting, we make Elizabeth's greeting our own. "Filled with the Holy Spirit," Elizabeth is the first in the long succession of generations who have called Mary "blessed." "Blessed is she who believed. . . . " Mary is "blessed among women" because she believed in the fulfillment of the Lord's word. Abraham. because of his faith, became a blessing for all the nations of the earth. Mary, because of her faith, became the mother of believers, through whom all nations of the earth receive him who is God's own blessing: Jesus, the "fruit of thy womb."</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"> 2677 <i>Holy Mary, Mother of God</i>: With Elizabeth we marvel, "And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" Because she gives us Jesus, her son, Mary is Mother of God and our mother; we can entrust all our cares and petitions to her: she prays for us as she prayed for herself: "Let it be to me according to your word." By entrusting ourselves to her prayer, we abandon ourselves to the will of God together with her: "Thy will be done."</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in;"><i>Pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death</i>: By asking Mary to pray for us, we acknowledge ourselves to be poor sinners and we address ourselves to the "Mother of Mercy," the All-Holy One. We give ourselves over to her now, in the Today of our lives. And our trust broadens further, already at the present moment, to surrender "the hour of our death" wholly to her care. May she be there as she was at her son's death on the cross. May she welcome us as our mother at the hour of our passing to lead us to her son, Jesus, in paradise.</div><br />
...<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1.5in; text-indent: -1.5in;"> 2679 Mary is the perfect <i>Orans</i> (pray-er), a figure of the Church. When we pray to her, we are adhering with her to the plan of the Father, who sends his Son to save all men. Like the beloved disciple we welcome Jesus' mother into our homes, for she has become the mother of all the living. We can pray with and to her. The prayer of the Church is sustained by the prayer of Mary and united with it in hope.</div><br />
[Footnotes omitted]<br />
<br />
As clearly shown above, when we pray to Mary, we ask her to pray with us. She points us to Her Son. She provides the model of how we are to pray to God. If one does not seek Christ, one should not pray to Mary. Moreover, one cannot claim that Catholics supplant God with Mary or the saints as our prayers do not end with her or the saints, but are joined with their prayers to God. <br />
<br />
I could go on much longer refuting these gentlemen’s specific comments, but I can add little to what others have said already. Unlike Pastor Temple and Messrs. Zins, and Wessels, real Catholic theologians, such as St. Alphonsus de Liguori in his<a href="http://www.jesus-passion.com/BEGINNING_INDEX_GLORIES_OF_MARY.pdf"><span style="color: blue;"> <i>The Glories of Mary</i></span></a><i> </i>and Bl. John Henry Newman in his <i><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"></span></span></i><a href="http://www.newmanreader.org/works/anglicans/volume2/pusey/index.html"><i><span style="font-size: 14pt;"><span style="font-family: "times new roman" , serif;"><span style="color: blue;">Letter to Pusey on the occasion of his Eirenicon</span></span></span></i><span style="color: blue;">,</span></a> as well as many highly-regarded Catholic apologists of the present day such as Father Dwight Longenecker [<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/standingonmyhead/distorted-devotions-do-catholics-honor-mary-too-much"><span style="color: blue;"><i>Distorted Devotions – Do Catholics Honor Mary Too Much?</i></span></a>], Father Mateo [<i>Refuting the Attack on Mary: A Defense of Marian Doctrines. </i>El Cajon, California: Catholic Answers, Inc. 1999]; and by my friend, David Armstrong [<i>"The Catholic Mary": Quite Contrary to the Bible? </i><a href="http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/10/books-by-dave-armstrong-catholic-mary.html"><span style="color: blue;">available here</span></a>, <a href="http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004/02/does-st-alphonsus-de-liguori-in-glories.html"><span style="color: blue;"><i>Does St. Alphonsus de Liguori, in "The Glories of Mary", Teach That Mary is "Above God" and Can "Manipulate God"? (vs. Len Lisenbee)</i></span></a>, and <a href="http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2015/04/can-we-honor-jesus-christ-through-his.html"><span style="color: blue;"><i>Can We Honor Jesus Christ Through His Mother Mary? (vs. John Cranman)</i></span></a>] address their vapid argumentation far better than I. To these worthy refutations of Protestant objections to Marian devotion of the sort peddled by Messrs. Zins and Wessels, I hesitantly offer these few additional comments.<br />
<br />
Given how little any actual theology Messrs. Zins and Wessels actually discuss in their parsing of Pope Pius XII’s prayer, I was not surprised to see them fall back on the use of the fallacious argumentation style called <i>argumentum ad passiones </i>or an argument to emotion to supplement their lack of proof. A species of the red herring fallacy, an argument to emotion is tailored to convince an already sympathetic audience by using their predilections, their prejudices, their fears, or their passions to manipulate them into accepting one’s argument as true even if very little actual proof in support of the argument is offered.<br />
<br />
Your typical beer commercial is the example I use with mock trial students to illustrate <i>argumentum ad passiones. </i>We often see beer commercials use attractive, buxom bikini-clad women to get men to buy a particular brand of beer, as if drinking the brew would cause almost-naked women to flock around the imbiber like starlings at a bird feeder full of corn. After all, if a guy can attract buxom, barely-dressed beauties simply by holding a BLARGH beer in his hand, who cares what it tastes like? <br />
<br />
Messrs. Zins and Wessels use a similar, scantily-clad argument to appeal to their YouTube audience. Rather than talk theology, they talk bullfighter and Latin American exuberance. Rather than discuss what the Church actually teaches, they talk how large statues are and how people kiss rings. They play on stereotypes rather than on actual devotion. And for the purpose of our discussion, they focus on the effusiveness of the words used by Pope Venerable Pius XII in the prayer to discuss from their failure to discuss the Catholic theology upon which those words are grounded. These gentlemen use their audience’s predilection against Catholicism to convince their audience that Catholics give <i>latria</i>/adoration to Mary in the place of God without informing their audience how Catholics understand <i>latria</i>. If they had actually argued like “good” theologians do, the effusive nature of the language used in the prayer in question becomes irrelevant because the prayer by Pope Ven. Pius XII specifically acknowledges that Mary is a created being like the rest of us and is not able to do anything of the things mentioned in the prayer with the direction and help of God. <br />
<br />
The statements of Pope Pius XII’s detractors here are designed to get the listener to focus on the grandiloquence and sentimentality of the words that Pope Pius XII uses as opposed to the theological foundation employed in the composition of the prayer. Rather than directly address the theology of the prayer, these gentlemen use charged language to attack the prayer as if their personal sentiments against the prayer somehow trump the sentimentality expressed by Pope Pius XII in the prayer. They put prose over substance, emotion over intellect, personal taste over theology, misdirecting over meaning. <br />
<br />
Let me be frank. The argumentation employed by Mr. Zins, Mr. Wessels, and Pastor Temple in his post, are all designed to distract the reader from the actual cavil these gentlemen share against Marian prayer. For Calvinists, it doesn’t matter what language Pius XII chose to use in the prayer. It is the fact he engaged in intercessory prayer to Mary at all which they find objectionable. Even if Pope Pius XII had employed the tersest, unimaginative prose possible in his prayer to Mary, the opinion of Pastor Temple and the two gentlemen in the video would have been the same. The prayer to Mary is not acceptable to them because in their minds it is a prayer to a dead person whom they believe can’t even hear intercessory prayers. Their real objection is not the “high” language used by Pius XII in composing his prayer, it is making any sort of intercessory prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary herself to which they object. <br />
<br />
Additionally, these men render all prayer as worship. Unlike “good” theologians, they apply the Protestant understanding of prayer to what Catholics do without informing their listeners that Catholics do not see prayers of petition necessarily as adoration unless such prayers are directed to God. <br />
<br />
As an attorney, I know that the word “pray” has several different meanings. In the law, a petition for relief is called a “prayer.” In the classical literature I enjoy reading, characters address other characters with “I pray thee.” Some versions of the Bible use the word “pray” in conversations between two people. For example, the Protestant King James Bible states:<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -1in;"> 1) And Elijah said unto Elisha, Tarry here, I pray thee; for the LORD hath sent me to Bethel. And Elisha said unto him, As the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, I will not leave thee. So they went down to Bethel. (2 Kings 2:2)</div><br />
Was Elijah giving adoration to Elisha when he prayed to him?<br />
<br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -1in;"> 2) Wherefore, Job, I pray thee, hear my speeches, and</blockquote> hearken to all my words. (Jb.33:1)</div><br />
When Elihu prayed to Job, was he worshiping him?<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -1in;"> 3) And now, I pray you, beseech God that he will be gracious unto us: this hath been by your means: will he regard your persons? saith the LORD of hosts. (Mal. 1:9)</div><br />
Was God here giving adoration to the people of Israel?<br />
<div style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -1in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 1in; text-indent: -1in;"> 4. Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. (2 Cor. 5:20)</div><br />
Not only does St. Paul pray to the Corinthians here, he even acts as a mediator between Jesus and men. I wonder why Pastor Temple does not rebuke St. Paul, “Wow. Blasphemous.”<br />
<br />
Obviously, in none of the above situations did the “pray-er” worship the “pray-ee.” So scripturally, praying is not always synonymous with “worship” or “adoration.” If it is directed to God, prayer is worship of adoration. If the object of the prayer is a created being, then the prayer is nothing more than a petition or supplication we make to our fellow Christians for intercessory prayer. No matter highly one may exalt the Mother of Our Lord by one’s choice of language used in fashioning their petitions to her, if the pray-er knows and acknowledges Mary as a created being, words can never turn her into a goddess. <br />
<br />
Lastly, I wanted to answer Mr. Zins’ question about whether one could do a better prayer to God than the one Pope Pius XII wrote to Mary. Personally, I think the example Our Lord Himself gives is such a prayer:<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"> [Jesus] then addressed this parable to those who were convinced of their own righteousness and despised everyone else.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">"Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector. The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.'</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted."</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">[Lk. 18:9-14 NAB]</blockquote><br />
To sum this section up, fallacious argumentation and hyperbole are poor substitutes for actual theology. Since it is the Blessed Virgin Mary and Pope Pius XII that they wrong, I think it appropriate that we pray this particular prayer for Pastor Temple, Rob Zins and Larry Wessels:<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Pope Pius XII’s Prayer against Blasphemy</span></div><blockquote class="tr_bq"><br />
O most August Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, Who, though infinitely happy for all eternity in Yourself and by Yourself, deign to accept graciously the homage that rises from universal creation unto Your sublime throne, turn away, we beg You, Your eyes and ears of the unfortunate, or those blinded by passion, or pressured by evil influences, who horribly blaspheme Your name, of the most pure Virgin Mary and of the saints.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">Retract, O Lord, the arm of Your justice which could destroy those who dare to be guilty of so much impiety.</blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">Accept the glorious hymn that continually rises from all of nature: from the springs of water that flow clear and quiet to the stars that shine above from heaven and whose orbits are driven by immense love. Accept reparation from the many choruses of praise, as incense before altars, of so many holy souls who walk without deviating from the paths of Your law and try to soothe Your offended justice, through the assiduous efforts of charity and penance; listen to the song of so many noble souls who devote their lives to celebrate Your glory, with the endless praise that the Church addresses to You at all times and under the heavens. And we pray that one day that blasphemous hearts will be converted and all tongues and lips will together sing on earth the hymn echoed endlessly by the choirs of angels: "Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord God of hosts, heaven and earth are full of Your glory." Amen.<br />
<br />
[English translation of the Italian text found in the Acta Apostolicae Sedis (1954), p. 501]</blockquote><div><div><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">END OF PART ONE.</span></div></div>Paul Hofferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-75106954944280435892015-06-03T20:02:00.000-05:002015-06-03T20:02:20.995-05:00Why Do I remain Catholic?There is a challenge going around on the Catholic internet issued by Elizabeth Scalia:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2015/06/03/dear-catholic-world-why-do-you-remain-a-catholic/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork">http://www.patheos.com/blogs/theanchoress/2015/06/03/dear-catholic-world-why-do-you-remain-a-catholic/?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork</a><br />
<br />
Here is my response:<br />
<br />
Master, to whom shall I go? cf. (John 6:68)<br />
<br />
Based on everything I know (or think I know), either Christ established a Church or He didn't. And if it is not the Catholic Church. then Jesus is not the Christ.<br />
<br />
I can not state the proposition any simpler.<br />
<br />
God bless!<br />
<br />
<br />Paul Hofferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-27755059008539049182014-09-08T08:52:00.000-05:002014-09-08T08:52:29.741-05:00What Saint Augustine, Bishop, Saint and Doctor of the Catholic Church Actually Held Pertaining to Transubstantiation: A Continuing Response to TurretinFan’s Commentary on Three Augustinian Texts. <span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 8;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">"You
know very well what price was paid for you, you know very well what you are
approaching, what you about to eat, what you are about to drink, or rather Whom
you are about to eat, Whom you are about to drink." <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[St.
Augustine, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i> 9:14, Augustine,
Edmund Hill, and John E. Rotelle. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermons
(1-19) on the Old Testament.</i> Brooklyn, N.Y.: New City Press, 1990.]<span style="mso-tab-count: 4;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">III.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon
227: Preached on the Holy Day of Easter to the Infantes, on the Sacraments</i></span></b><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">A.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Preface.</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The
gentleman who goes by the title of TurretinFan asserts on his blog, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Thoughts of Francis Turretin,</i> that Saint
Augustine of Hippo did not believe in the dogma the Church calls
“Transubstantiation.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To support his
assertion, he offers his commentary on three Augustinian texts,<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></span><a href="http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/06/augustines-sermon-227-and.html"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Sermon</span></i><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"> 227</span></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">,<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></span><a href="http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/06/augustines-sermon-272-and.html"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Sermon</span></i><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"> 272</span></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">, and<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></span><a href="http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/06/augustines-letter-36-and.html"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Letter</span></i><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"> 36</span></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>At the outset, TurretinFan makes no effort to reference to Catholic
teaching on Transubstantiation for his readers to use to test his
assertion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He cites to no dogmatic
pronouncements, encyclicals, or other magisterial documents to provide a means
to compare how Saint Augustine’s teaching purportedly varies from present-day
Catholic teaching.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For that matter, he
makes no effort to cite to any of his own denominational writings to show how
Saint Augustine’s beliefs are more in line with Presbyterian Eucharistic teaching
or to support his additional claim that Eucharistic “bare symbolists” employ
the same<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>language as Saint Augustine to
describe the sacrament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sadly, this
failure of scholarship renders TurretinFan’s commentary a mere polemical
endeavor.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I shall strive to give a
better account of myself.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">TurretinFan’s
polemics notwithstanding, I contend there is nothing in any of these three
texts he chose that suggest Saint Augustine, a Catholic saint, a doctor of the
Church, and s member of its teaching Magisterium itself, did not believe that
when the priest consecrates bread and wine during the sacrifice of the Mass
their entire substance becomes the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus
Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Recapping my discussion of </span><a href="http://capriciousness.blogspot.com/2011/07/what-saint-augustine-bishop-saint-and.html"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Letter</span></i><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"> 36</span></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">, I presented the evidence that
Saint Augustine’s held that the sacrifices prescribed in the Old Testament
prefigured the once-and-for-all sacrifice of Our Lord on the cross and that the
Eucharistic sacrifice of the Mass is a “re-presentation” of that self-same
sacrifice on that cross thereby making it real and present in our lives two
thousand years later.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In my critique of
TurretinFan’s commentary on<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i></span><a href="http://capriciousness.blogspot.com/2011/08/what-saint-augustine-bishop-saint-and_20.html"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Sermon </span></i><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">272</span></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">, I showed that Saint Augustine’s
mystagogic preaching is entirely consistent with the teaching of the
present-day Catholic Church on the dogma of the Real Presence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In fact, as I demonstrated from official
doctrinal texts of the Church, Saint Augustine’s teaching contained in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i> 272 forms an important part of
the Eucharistic theology of today’s Catholic Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>See e.g., Section 1396 of the </span><a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Catechism of the Catholic Church</span></i></a><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">.</span></i><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">While <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i> 272 and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Letter </i>36 provide important insights into Saint Augustine’s
Eucharistic theology, they do not provide direct evidence on the question of
whether he believed in the dogma of Transubstantiation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, I would submit that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i> 227 does offer direct evidence
bearing on the question of whether Saint Augustine believed in the dogma of
Transubstantiation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On this occasion, I
intend to show Saint Augustine’s Eucharistic theology as contained in<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> Sermon</i> 227 and his other writings do
demonstrate he believed that when bread and wine are consecrated at Mass they
become the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ which is essence of
Transubstantiation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>B.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The Dogma of Transubstantiation. </span></b><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">To help the
reader decide the question of whether Saint Augustine held a belief in
Transubstantiation, I offer the following magisterial teaching setting forth
what the Catholic Church officially holds in regards to the dogma of Transubstantiation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After all, how can one hope to make a
comparison unless they have something to compare with?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I also beg the reader’s forgiveness in
offering such lengthy selections from the texts set out below, but I thought it
important for any non-Catholic readers to better understand what the Church
teaches and holds as opposed to opinions, distortions and speculations of those
who malign this dogma. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">While it is
difficult for some to believe in the dogma of Transubstantiation, its
definition is not difficult to understand.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Here is how the dogma was first defined in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Canon</i> 1 of the </span><a href="http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/lateran4.asp"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Fourth Lateran Council</span></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> in 1215:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">There is one Universal Church of the
faithful, outside of which there is absolutely no salvation. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">In which there is the same priest and
sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the
sacrament of the altar under the forms of bread and wine; the bread being
changed <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">(transsubstantiatio) </i>by
divine power into the body, and the wine into the blood, so that to realize the
mystery of unity we may receive of Him what He has received of us. And this
sacrament no one can effect except the priest who has been duly ordained in
accordance with the keys of the Church, which Jesus Christ Himself gave to the
Apostles and their successors.</b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>(Emphasis Added.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">At </span><a href="http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/TRENT13.HTM"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Session XIII
of the Council of Trent,</span></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> the dogma
of Transubstantiation was further defined:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>CHAPTER IV. <span style="mso-tab-count: 4;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>Transubstantiation. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">But since Christ our Redeemer declared that
to be truly His own body which He offered under the form of bread, it has,
therefore, always been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy
council now declares it anew, that by the consecration of the bread and wine a
change is brought about of the whole substance of the bread into the substance
of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the
substance of His blood. This change the holy Catholic Church properly and
appropriately calls transubstantiation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Pope Ven. Paul VI in his
Encyclical, </span><a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_03091965_mysterium_en.html"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Mysterium Fidei</span></i></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">, provides a modern understanding of what<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Trent teaches:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">SYMBOLISM INADEQUATE TO EXPRESS
REAL PRESENCE<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>44.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>While Eucharistic symbolism is well
suited to helping us understand the effect that is proper to this Sacrament—the
unity of the Mystical Body—still it does not indicate or explain what it is
that makes this Sacrament different from all the others. For the constant
teaching that the Catholic Church has passed on to her catechumens, the
understanding of the Christian people, the doctrine defined by the Council of
Trent, the very words that Christ used when He instituted the Most Holy
Eucharist, all require us to profess that "the Eucharist is the flesh of
Our Savior Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His
loving kindness raised again."<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To
these words of St. Ignatius, we may well add those which Theodore of
Mopsuestia, who is a faithful witness to the faith of the Church on this point,
addressed to the people: "The Lord did not say: This is symbol of my body,
and this is a symbol of my blood, but rather: This is my body and my blood. He
teaches us not to look to the nature of what lies before us and is perceived by
the senses, because the giving of thanks and the words spoken over it have
changed it into flesh and blood." <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>45.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The Council of Trent, basing itself on
this faith of the Church, "openly and sincerely professes that after the
consecration of the bread and wine, Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is
really, truly and substantially contained in the Blessed Sacrament of the Holy
Eucharist under the outward appearances of sensible things." And so Our
Savior is present in His humanity not only in His natural manner of existence
at the right hand of the Father, but also at the same time in the sacrament of
the Eucharist "in a manner of existing that we can hardly express in words
but that our minds, illumined by faith, can come to see as possible to God and
that we must most firmly believe." <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">CHRIST PRESENT IN THE EUCHARIST THROUGH
TRANSUBSTANTIATION <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> 46.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>To avoid any misunderstanding of this type of presence, which
goes<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">beyond the laws of nature and constitutes the
greatest miracle of its kind, we have to listen with docility to the voice of
the teaching and praying Church. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Her
voice, which constantly echoes the voice of Christ, assures us that the way in
which Christ becomes present in this Sacrament is through the conversion of the
whole substance of the bread into His body and of the whole substance of the
wine into His blood, a unique and truly wonderful conversion that the Catholic
Church fittingly and properly calls Transubstantiation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As a result of Transubstantiation, the
species of bread and wine undoubtedly take on a new signification and a new
finality, for they are no longer ordinary bread and wine but instead a sign of
something sacred and a sign of spiritual food; but they take on this new
signification, this new finality, precisely because they contain a new
"reality" which we can rightly call ontological. For what now lies
beneath the aforementioned species is not what was there before, but something
completely different; and not just in the estimation of Church belief but in
reality, since once the substance or nature of the bread and wine has been
changed into the body and blood of Christ, nothing remains of the bread and the
wine except for the species—beneath which Christ is present whole and entire in
His physical "reality," corporeally present, although not in the
manner in which bodies are in a place. </b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Emphasis added.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">And again in
his Apostolic Letter, </span><a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/motu_proprio/documents/hf_p-vi_motu-proprio_19680630_credo_en.html"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Holemni Hac Liturgia</span></i></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> (1968):<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: 1in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Sacrifice of Calvary<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>24.
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>We believe that the Mass, celebrated
by the priest representing the person of Christ by virtue of the power received
through the Sacrament of Orders, and offered by him in the name of Christ and
the members of His Mystical Body, is the sacrifice of Calvary rendered
sacramentally present on our altars. We believe that as the bread and wine
consecrated by the Lord at the Last Supper were changed into His body and His
blood which were to be offered for us on the cross, likewise the bread and wine
consecrated by the priest are changed into the body and blood of Christ
enthroned gloriously in heaven, and we believe that the mysterious presence of
the Lord, under what continues to appear to our senses as before, is a true,
real and substantial presence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>Transubstantiation<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>25.
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Christ
cannot be thus present in this sacrament except by the change into His body of
the reality itself of the bread and the change into His blood of the reality
itself of the wine, leaving unchanged only the properties of the bread and wine
which our senses perceive. This mysterious change is very appropriately called
by the Church transubstantiation.</b> Every theological explanation which seeks
some understanding of this mystery must, in order to be in accord with Catholic
faith, maintain that in the reality itself, independently of our mind, the
bread and wine have ceased to exist after the Consecration, so that it is the
adorable body and blood of the Lord Jesus that from then on are really before
us under the sacramental species of bread and wine, as the Lord willed it, in
order to give Himself to us as food and to associate us with the unity of His
Mystical Body.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>26.
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The unique and indivisible existence
of the Lord glorious in heaven is not multiplied, but is rendered present by
the sacrament in the many places on earth where Mass is celebrated. And this
existence remains present, after the sacrifice, in the Blessed Sacrament which
is, in the tabernacle, the living heart of each of our churches. And it is our
very sweet duty to honor and adore in the blessed Host which our eyes see, the
Incarnate Word whom they cannot see, and who, without leaving heaven, is made
present before us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Emphasis Added)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Pope Saint
John Paul II writes in his encyclical letter </span><a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Ecclesia de Eucharista</span></i></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> (2003):<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">15. <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The sacramental re-presentation of Christ’s sacrifice, crowned
by the resurrection, in the Mass involves a most special presence which – in
the words of Paul VI – “is called ‘real’ not as a way of excluding all other
types of presence as if they were ‘not real’, but because it is a presence in
the fullest sense: a substantial presence whereby Christ, the God-Man, is
wholly and entirely present”. This sets forth once more the perennially valid teaching
of the Council of Trent: “the consecration of the bread and wine effects the
change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of
Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of
his blood. And the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called this
change transubstantiation”. Truly the Eucharist is a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">mysterium fidei</i>, a mystery which surpasses our understanding and
can only be received in faith, as is often brought out in the catechesis of the
Church Fathers regarding this divine sacrament: “Do not see – Saint Cyril of
Jerusalem exhorts – in the bread and wine merely natural elements, because the
Lord has expressly said that they are his body and his blood: faith assures you
of this, though your senses suggest otherwise”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Adoro te
devote, latens Deitas</span></i><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">, we shall
continue to sing with the Angelic Doctor. Before this mystery of love, human
reason fully experiences its limitations. One understands how, down the
centuries, this truth has stimulated theology to strive to understand it ever
more deeply.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">These are praiseworthy efforts, which are all
the more helpful and insightful to the extent that they are able to join
critical thinking to the “living faith” of the Church, as grasped especially by
the Magisterium's “sure charism of truth” and the “intimate sense of spiritual
realities” which is attained above all by the saints. There remains the
boundary indicated by Paul VI: <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">“Every
theological explanation which seeks some understanding of this mystery, in
order to be in accord with Catholic faith, must firmly maintain that in
objective reality, independently of our mind, the bread and wine have ceased to
exist after the consecration, so that the adorable body and blood of the Lord
Jesus from that moment on are really before us under the sacramental species of
bread and wine”</b>. (Emphasis Added).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Pope
Emeritus Benedict XVI also wrote on the dogma of Transubstantiation in his
Apostolic Exhortation, </span><a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.ht"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Sacramentum Caritatis</span></i></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> (2007):<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The Holy Spirit and the Eucharist<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: 0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Jesus and the Holy Spirit<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>12.
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>With his word and with the elements
of bread and wine, the Lord himself has given us the essentials of this new
worship. The Church, his Bride, is called to celebrate the Eucharistic banquet
daily in his memory. She thus makes the redeeming sacrifice of her Bridegroom a
part of human history and makes it sacramentally present in every culture. This
great mystery is celebrated in the liturgical forms which the Church, guided by
the Holy Spirit, develops in time and space.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>We need a renewed awareness of the decisive role played by the Holy
Spirit in the evolution of the liturgical form and the deepening understanding
of the sacred mysteries. The Paraclete, Christ's first gift to those who
believe,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>already at work in Creation
(cf. Gen 1:2), is fully present throughout the life of the incarnate Word:
Jesus Christ is conceived by the Virgin Mary by the power of the Holy Spirit
(cf. Mt 1:18; Lk 1:35); at the beginning of his public mission, on the banks of
the Jordan, he sees the Spirit descend upon him in the form of a dove (cf. Mt
3:16 and parallels); he acts, speaks and rejoices in the Spirit (cf. Lk 10:21),
and he can offer himself in the Spirit (cf. Heb 9:14). In the so-called
"farewell discourse" reported by John, Jesus clearly relates the gift
of his life in the paschal mystery to the gift of the Spirit to his own (cf. Jn
16:7). Once risen, bearing in his flesh the signs of the passion, he can pour
out the Spirit upon them (cf. Jn 20:22), making them sharers in his own mission
(cf. Jn 20:21). The Spirit would then teach the disciples all things and bring
to their remembrance all that Christ had said (cf. Jn 14:26), since it falls to
him, as the Spirit of truth (cf. Jn 15:26), to guide the disciples into all
truth (cf. Jn 16:13). In the account in Acts, the Spirit descends on the
Apostles gathered in prayer with Mary on the day of Pentecost (cf. 2:1-4) and
stirs them to undertake the mission of proclaiming the Good News to all
peoples. Thus it is through the working of the Spirit that Christ himself
continues to be present and active in his Church, starting with her vital center
which is the Eucharist.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>The
Holy Spirit and the Eucharistic celebration<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>13.
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Against this backdrop we can
understand the decisive role played by the Holy Spirit in the Eucharistic
celebration, particularly with regard to transubstantiation. An awareness of
this is clearly evident in the Fathers of the Church. Saint Cyril of Jerusalem,
in his Catecheses, states that we "call upon God in his mercy to send his
Holy Spirit upon the offerings before us, to transform the bread into the body
of Christ and the wine into the blood of Christ. Whatever the Holy Spirit
touches is sanctified and completely transformed".<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Saint John Chrysostom too notes that the
priest invokes the Holy Spirit when he celebrates the sacrifice: like Elijah,
the minister calls down the Holy Spirit so that "as grace comes down upon
the victim, the souls of all are thereby inflamed”. The spiritual life of the
faithful can benefit greatly from a better appreciation of the richness of the
anaphora: along with the words spoken by Christ at the Last Supper, it contains
the epiclesis, the petition to the Father to send down the gift of the Spirit
so that the bread and the wine will become the body and blood of Jesus Christ
and that "the community as a whole will become ever more the body of
Christ”. The Spirit invoked by the celebrant upon the gifts of bread and wine
placed on the altar is the same Spirit who gathers the faithful "into one
body" and makes of them a spiritual offering pleasing to the Father.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The </span><a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Catechism of the Catholic Church</span></i></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> sums up what Catholics must believe about
the dogma of Transubstantiation succinctly: <span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>1375
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>It is by the conversion of the bread
and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this
sacrament. The Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the
efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring
about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 2in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">It is not
man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but
he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. The priest, in the role of Christ,
pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body,
he says. This word transforms the things offered. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 3;"> </span>And
St. Ambrose says about this conversion:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 2in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Be convinced
that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated.
The power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing
nature itself is changed. . . . Could not Christ's word, which can make from
nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not
before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to
change their nature. <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">1376.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring:
"Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was
offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the
Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a
change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of
Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of
his blood</b>. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly
called Transubstantiation."<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 3;"> </span>(Emphasis
added. Footnotes omitted)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Avery Cardinal Dulles addresses some of the
difficulties in faith that people voice about the Church’s teaching on the Real
Presence and Transubstantiation:<span style="mso-tab-count: 3;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">In saying
first of all that Christ is truly contained under the Eucharistic species, the
Council [of Trent] repudiated the view that the sacrament is a mere sign or
figure pointing away from itself to a body that is absent, perhaps somewhere in
the heavens. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Secondly,
the presence is real. That is to say, it is ontological and objective.
Ontological, because it takes place in the order of being; objective, because
it does not depend on the thoughts or feelings of the minister or the
communicants. The body and blood of Christ are present in the sacrament by
reason of the promise of Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit, which are
attached to the proper performance of the rite by a duly ordained minister. In
so teaching the Church rejects the view that faith is the instrument that
brings about Christ's presence in the sacrament. According to Catholic
teaching, faith does not make Christ present, but gratefully acknowledges that
presence and allows Holy Communion to bear fruit in holiness. To receive the
sacrament without faith is unprofitable, even sinful, but the lack of faith
does not render the presence unreal.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Thirdly,
Trent tells us that Christ's presence in the sacrament is substantial. The word
"substance" as here used is not a technical philosophical term, such
as might be found in the philosophy of Aristotle. It was used in the early
Middle Ages long before the works of Aristotle were current.
"Substance" in common-sense usage denotes the basic reality of the
thing, i.e., what it is in itself. Derived from the Latin root
"sub-stare", it means what stands under the appearances, which can
shift from one moment to the next while leaving the subject intact.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 3;"> </span>...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Substance,
meaning what a thing is in itself, may be contrasted with function, which has
reference to action. Christ is present by His dynamic power and action in all
the sacraments, but in the Eucharist His presence is, in addition, substantial.
For this reason, the Eucharist may be adored. It is the greatest of all
sacraments. After the consecration the bread and wine have become, in a
mysterious way, Christ Himself.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 3;"> </span>...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The Council
of Trent spoke also of the process by which this presence of Christ comes
about. It stated that the bread and wine are changed; they cease to be what
they were and become what they were not. The whole substance of the bread and
wine becomes the substance of the body and blood of Christ and, because Christ
cannot be divided, they become also His soul and His divinity. (DS 1640, 1642)
The whole Christ is made present under each of the two forms.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The change
that occurs in the consecration at Mass is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">sui
generis</i>. It does not fit into the categories of Aristotle, who believed
that every substantial change involved a change in the appearances or what he
called accidents. When I eat an apple, it loses its perceptible qualities as
well as its substance as an apple. It becomes part of me. But in the
consecration of bread and wine at Mass, the outward appearances remain
unchanged. The Church has coined the term "transubstantiation" to
designate the process by which the whole substance, and only the substance, is
changed into the substance of Christ's body and blood. A special word is needed
to designate a process that is unique and unparalleled.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">In teaching
that the species are unchanged, the Church indicates that the physical and
chemical properties remain those of bread and wine. Not only do they look and
weigh the same; they retain the same nutritive value that they had before the
consecration. It would be futile to try to prove or disprove the real presence
by physical experiments, because the presence of Christ is spiritual or
sacramental, not physical in the sense of measurable.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 3;"> </span>...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Saint Thomas
Aquinas [...] avoids speaking of the Eucharist as a special body (sacramental
or mystical), but on the other hand he asserts that the risen and glorified
body of Christ has a different existence in heaven and in the sacrament. He
contrasts Christ's existence in Himself and His existence under the sacrament
as two different states or modes of being. According to His natural mode of
existence Christ is in heaven, and according to His Eucharistic mode of
existence, He is in the sacrament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
body of Christ is truly present in the Eucharist, but not in the way bodies are
in place. Its parts and dimensions cannot be measured against other bodies. His
circumference is not that of the host.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">In
opposition to the naïve realists, therefore, Saint Thomas holds that when we
look at the host we do not see the shape and colors that properly belong to the
body of Christ, but those of the host itself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">See, Dulles,
Avery.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><a href="http://www.adoremus.org/0405RealPresence.html"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Christ’s Presence in the Eucharist: Real, True and Substantial.</span></i></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Adoremus Bulletin, on-line edition (April 2005).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">In the above article, Cardinal Dulles answers
many of the common objections made against Transubstantiation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He makes it clear that the Catholic Church’s
understanding of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist as a result of
Transubstantiation rejects the Capharnaite error that the Jesus becomes
quantitatively present in the Eucharistic elements in a carnal or in a
cannibalistic manner (as does Saint Augustine in his </span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Tractates on the Gospel of John 26:18</span></i></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He
also makes it clear that the Church’s position is that the whole Jesus is
present in the Eucharist–a view that runs counter to the faux-Monophysitic
arguments sometimes raised against Transubstantiation by certain anti-Catholic
polemicists.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">C.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Background
and Context.</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Armed with the above representative
statements of what "modern Rome" holds in regards to the dogma of
Transubstantiation, we shall move on to examine the context and milieu in which
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i> 227 itself was given.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">First, it is important to remember that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i> 227 was preached at an Easter-day
Mass.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Specifically, the sermon was given
at a day-time Mass on Easter Sunday rather than at the Vigil Mass the night
before.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The former
catechumens/competentes, now infantes, are full Christians who have received
all three of the sacraments of initiation: Baptism, Confirmation/Chrismation
and the Eucharist during the Easter Vigil Mass.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This is only the second time that the infantes had been allowed to be
present at a full Mass rather than being ushered out of church before the
Universal Prayer also called the Prayers of the People. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">In a practice left over the time of the early
Church when the faithful were persecuted, the deeper and more important
mysteries of the Faith were kept in reserve until the converts were fully
initiated into the Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The practice
was retained because it was determined to be desirable to bring learners slowly
and by degrees to a full knowledge of the Faith as converts could not
profitably assimilate the whole Catholic religion at once.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because of the differences between the
Catholic faith and the theology of the many pagan religions which were still
prolific at this time, it was important for the catechumens to learn the great
truth of the unity of God, and then proceed from there.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The doctrines to which the reserve was more
especially applied concerned those of the Holy Trinity and the Sacrament of the
Holy Eucharist. The words of the Creed and the Lord's Prayer were also withheld
from those who were not fully instructed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>While catechumens were taught the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer before
they were baptized (there are wonderful Augustinian sermons on them), the
catechumens were not allowed to even speak those prayers aloud until after they
received the sacraments of initiation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The liturgy was divided into parts. The Mass
of Catechumens, the portion of the liturgy to which the catechumens, learners
and neophytes were admitted, consisted of prayers,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>readings from Holy Scripture, and at times
stories from the lives of martyrs of the early Church, as well as<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>one or more sermons.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thereafter, the uninitiated were bidden to
depart escorted by minor clergy called porters.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>When they had left, the more solemn Mass of the Faithful would
begin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A large part of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i> 227 is an explanation of the
meaning of the liturgical rites contained in the Mass of the Faithful about
which the newly initiated infantes would have had very little familiarity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Now it should be acknowledged that scholars
dispute over to what extent that the reserve was practiced in the time of Saint
Augustine, but there is no doubt that it was practiced to some degree as shown
by this passage from Saint Augustine:<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 4;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Give good
heed, my beloved, and understand. If we say to a catechumen, Do you believe in
Christ, he answers, I believe, and signs himself; already he bears the cross of
Christ on his forehead, and is not ashamed of the cross of his Lord. Behold, he
has believed in His name. Let us ask him, Do you eat the flesh of the Son of
man, and drink the blood of the Son of man? He knows not what we say, because
Jesus has not trusted Himself to him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(</span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701011.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Tractates on John </span></i><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">11:3</span></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Second, it must be remembered that Saint
Augustine himself presided over the liturgy as an ordained bishop of the
Catholic Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i> 227 is example of Saint Augustine exercising his Episcopal
office to instruct his flock on the importance of the sacrament of the
Eucharist, its nature, its purpose and its effect.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The liturgical rites and language described
in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i> 227 sixteen hundred years
ago are virtually identical to the rites and language used in the Mass of
Catholic Church today.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Third, Saint Augustine is providing such
instruction within the milieu of the celebration of the sacrifice of the
Mass.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Saint Augustine is not only a
preacher, but is the celebrant of the Mass.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The importance of this fact cannot be overstated because in Saint
Augustine’s world as well in today’s “modern Rome” (as seen from the above
explanatory statements on the Church’s teaching on Transubstantiation) if there
is no priest or bishop acting <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">in persona
Christi</i> (in the person of Christ) consecrating the elements of bread and
wine at Mass, there is no Eucharist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And
if there is no consecration, there is no Transubstantiation as shown from the
magisterial statements I referenced above.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Now some might wish to argue this point as
Saint Augustine was the first of the early fathers to discuss the view of a
universal priesthood of believers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But
while Saint Augustine, as well as the Catholic Church since Vatican II, place a
great deal of emphasis on the participation of the laity in Christ’s three-fold
office of priest, prophet and king, there is also no doubt that Saint Augustine
also believed in a sacramental, sacerdotal priesthood as well:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>1.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102021.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Letter to Valerius </span></i><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">21: 3</span></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 6;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">But if I
have by experience learned what is necessary for <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">a man who ministers to a people in the divine sacraments and word,</b>
only to find myself prevented from now obtaining what I have learned that I do
not possess, do you bid me perish, father Valerius? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[Emphasis
Added.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>N. B.~ This letter was from Saint
Augustine to his bishop, Valerius, requesting to take a leave of absence (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">otium</i>) so he could study the Scriptures
to become a better priest.]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>2.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120122.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">City of God </span></i><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">22:10</span></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">But our
martyrs are not our gods; for we know that the martyrs and we have both but one
God, and that the same. Nor yet are the miracles which they maintain to have
been done by means of their temples at all comparable to those which are done
by the tombs of our martyrs. If they seem similar, their gods have been
defeated by our martyrs as Pharaoh's magi were by Moses. In reality, the demons
wrought these marvels with the same impure pride with which they aspired to be
the gods of the nations; but the martyrs do these wonders, or rather God does
them while they pray and assist, in order that an impulse may be given to the
faith by which we believe that they are not our gods, but have, together with
ourselves, one God. In fine, they built temples to these gods of theirs, and
set up altars, and ordained priests, and appointed sacrifices; but to our
martyrs we build, not temples as if they were gods, but monuments as to dead
men whose spirits live with God. Neither do we erect altars at these monuments
that we may sacrifice to the martyrs, but to the one God of the martyrs and of
ourselves; and in this sacrifice they are named in their own place and rank as
men of God who conquered the world by confessing Him, but they are not invoked
by the sacrificing priest. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">For it is to
God, not to them, he sacrifices, though he sacrifices at their monument; for he
is God's priest, not theirs. The sacrifice itself, too, is the body of Christ,
which is not offered to them, because they themselves are this body.</b> Which
then can more readily be believed to work miracles? They who wish themselves to
be reckoned gods by those on whom they work miracles, or those whose sole
object in working any miracle is to induce faith in God, and in Christ also as
God? They who wished to turn even their crimes into sacred rites, or those who
are unwilling that even their own praises be consecrated, and seek that
everything for which they are justly praised be ascribed to the glory of Him in
whom they are praised? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>(Emphasis
Added.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">I would also note that Saint Augustine’s
mentor, Saint Ambrose, said this identifying who consecrates the Eucharist:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">You may
perhaps say: 'My bread is ordinary.' But that bread is bread before the words
of the Sacraments; when the consecration has entered in, the bread<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>becomes the flesh of Christ. And let us add
this: How can what is bread be the Body of Christ. By the consecration.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The consecration takes place by certain
words, but whose words?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those of the
Lord Jesus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Like all the rest of the
things said beforehand , they are said by the pries; praises are referred to
God, prayer of petition is offered for the people, for kings, for other
persons, but when the time<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>comes for the
confection of the venerable Sacrament, then the priest uses not his own words,
but the words of Christ. Therefore, it is the word of Christ that confects this
Sacrament. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The Sacraments. </span></i><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Book
4, 4:14. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>[found in Jurgens,
William.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Faith of the Early Fathers,
Vol. 2, The Liturgical Press: Collegeville, MN. (1979), at pg. 176.]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Likewise, Saint John Chrysostom, a
contemporary of Saint Augustine:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">I am about
to say what may appear strange, but be not astonished nor startled at it. The
Offering is the same, whether a common man, or Paul or Peter offer it. It is
the same which Christ gave to His disciples, and which the Priests now
minister. This is nowise inferior to that, because it is not men that sanctify
even this, but the Same who sanctified the one sanctifies the other also. For
as the words which God spoke are the same which the Priest now utters, so is
the Offering the same, and the Baptism, that which He gave. Thus the whole is
of faith. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span></span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/230702.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Homily 2 on the Second Epistle to Timothy</span></i></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">These points are important to bear in mind
while reading <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i> 227.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>After all, what would have been the point of
requiring the catechumens to leave the Mass before the rites of the Mass of the
Faithful were recited if the Eucharist was merely a figurative or symbolic
commemoration of the Lord’s Supper?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For
that matter, why was it necessary for an ordained priest to preside over the
Mass or consecrate the Eucharistic elements if Saint Augustine was a mere
symbolist or held that the Eucharist was similar to a Calvinist notion about
the Real Presence?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Simply put,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>these inferences are further proof that Saint
Augustine believed that the change that occurred when bread and wine were
consecrated was far more substantial than TurretinFan would have his readers
believe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Finally, before we begin our examination of
the text of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i> 227, we should
touch upon Saint Augustine’s usage of the term “sacrament”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the work </span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1303.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">On Catechizing the Uninstructed</span></i><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">,</span></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> 26:50, Saint Augustine advises
the Deacon Deogratias to teach catechumens as follows about the sacraments:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">At the
conclusion of this address the person is to be asked whether he believes these
things and earnestly desires to observe them. And on his replying to that
effect then certainly he is to be solemnly signed and dealt with in accordance
with the custom of the Church. On the subject of the sacrament, indeed, which
he receives, it is first to be well impressed upon his notice that<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> the signs of divine things are, it is
true, things visible, but that the invisible things themselves are also honored
in them, and that species, which is then sanctified by the blessing, is
therefore not to be regarded merely in the way in which it is regarded in any
common use.</b> And thereafter he ought to be told what is also signified by
the form of words to which he has listened, and what in him is seasoned by that
(spiritual grace) of which this material substance presents the emblem.
(Emphasis added).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">As noted in my previous article writing about
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i> 272,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>before the catechumens were baptized or had
received the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, they were taught that the signs
of divine things are visible, but what is honored in them are the realities
underneath them which remain invisible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Catholics, including Saint Augustine, believe that the sacraments are
not<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>metaphorical or empty symbols, but
confer grace and point to the reality that Our Lord Jesus Christ is present in
the sacraments of His Church and is revealed through them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The material elements of the
sacraments–water, bread, wine, oil, and ritual– are mysterious signs of His
presence underneath the forms to cause us to want to enter further into the
mystery to seek Him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nevertheless, once
we enter into the sacramental life, we will find Christ there.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Moreover, Catholics do not prefer the
Scriptures over the sacraments as the sacraments are the visible expressions or
signs of the Word of God to His people, who themselves are part of the Body of
Christ. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">In case one objects that I am reading too
much of modern Rome into Saint Augustine’s writings, I will let the reader
judge:<span style="mso-tab-count: 5;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>1.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701080.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Tractates on the Gospel of John 80:3</span></i></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The
cleansing [of Baptism], therefore, would on no account be attributed to the
fleeting and perishable element, were it not for that which is added, “by the
word.” This word of faith possesses such virtue in the Church of God, that
through the medium of him who in faith presents, and blesses, and sprinkles it,
He cleanses even the tiny infant, although itself unable as yet with the heart
to believe unto righteousness, and to make confession with the mouth unto
salvation. All this is done by means of the word, whereof the Lord says, “Now
you are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.”<span style="mso-tab-count: 3;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>2.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Teaching
Christianity </i>III, 9:13:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The Lord
Himself and the discipline of the Apostles have handed down to us just a few
signs instead of many, and these are easy to perform, and so awesome to
understand, and so pure and chaste to celebrate, such as the sacrament of
baptism, and the celebration of the Lord’s body and blood.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When people receive these, they have been so
instructed that they can recognize to what sublime realities they are to be
referred, and they venerate them in a spirit not of carnal slavery, but rather
of spiritual freedom.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>[Augustine,
Edmund Hill, and John E. Rotelle. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Teaching
Christianity</i>. Hyde Park,<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>N.Y.: New City Press, 1996.] <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>3.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Expositions
on the Psalms</i> 17:12:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">He shrouded
his sacraments in mystery, willing them to be a hidden hope in the hearts of
believers, to make a place where He might hide Himself without in any way
abandoning them for in this darkness, where we will walk by faith, not by
sight, we wait patiently in hope for what we do not see.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[Augustine,
Maria Boulding, and John E. Rotelle. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Expositions
of the Psalms</i>. Hyde Park, N.Y.: New City Press, 2000.]<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Specifically, we see this same understanding
of “sacrament” as the visible sign of an invisible reality in Saint Augustine’s
treatment of the Eucharist:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>1)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102098.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Letter to Boniface</span></i><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"> 98:9:</span></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">You know
that in ordinary parlance we often say, when Easter is approaching, “Tomorrow
or the day after is the Lord's Passion,” although He suffered so many years
ago, and His passion was endured once for all time. In like manner, on Easter
Sunday, we say, “This day the Lord rose from the dead,” although so many years
have passed since His resurrection. But no one is so foolish as to accuse us of
falsehood when we use these phrases, for this reason, that we give such names
to these days on the ground of a likeness between them and the days on which
the events referred to actually transpired, the day being called the day of
that event, although it is not the very day on which the event took place, but
one corresponding to it by the revolution of the same time of the year, and the
event itself being said to take place on that day, because, although it really
took place long before, it is on that day sacramentally celebrated. Was not
Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? And yet, is He
not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the
special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that
the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in
that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? For if sacraments had not some
points of real resemblance to the things of which they are the sacraments, they
would not be sacraments at all. In most cases, moreover, they do in virtue of
this likeness bear the names of the realities which they resemble. As,
therefore, in a certain manner the sacrament of Christ's body is Christ's body,
and the sacrament of Christ's blood is Christ's blood, in the same manner the
sacrament of faith is faith. Now believing is nothing else than having faith;
and accordingly, when, on behalf of an infant as yet incapable of exercising
faith, the answer is given that he believes, this answer means that he has
faith because of the sacrament of faith, and in like manner the answer is made
that he turns himself to God because of the sacrament of conversion, since the
answer itself belongs to the celebration of the sacrament. Thus the apostle
says, in regard to this sacrament of Baptism: “We are buried with Christ by
baptism into death.” (Romans 6:4) He does not say, “We have signified our being
buried with Him,” but “We have been buried with Him.” He has therefore given to
the sacrament pertaining to so great a transaction no other name than the word
describing the transaction itself..<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>2)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon
</i>57:7:<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">So the Eucharist
is our daily bread; but we should receive it in such a way that our minds and
not just our bellies find refreshment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>You see, the special property to be understood in it is unity, so that
by being digested into his body and turned into his members we may be what we
receive.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Then it will really be our
daily bread.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[Augustine,
and John E. Rotelle. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermons (51-94) on
the New Testament</i>. Brooklyn, N.Y.: New City Press, 1991.] <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>3)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i>
112:5:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">But how, we
may ask, did the occasion arise for the Lord to talk about this dinner?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One of the guests–he was at a banquet, you
see, to which he had been invited–had said, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Blessed
is the one who eats the bread in the kingdom of God.</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He was sighing for it as though it were a
long way off, and there was the bread itself seated in his presence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What, I mean to say, is the bread of the
kingdom of God, but the one who says, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">I
am the living bread, who have come down from heaven</i> (Jn. 6:41)?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Don’t get your gullet ready to eat, but your
mind.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That precisely is the beauty of
this supper.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We have believed in Christ,
I mean, and so we receive with faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We
know what to think about as we receive; we receive a tiny portion, and in our
minds we take our fill.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So it is not
what is seen, but what is believed that feeds us.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[Augustine,
and John E. Rotelle. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermons (94A-147A)
on the New Testament.</i> Brooklyn, N.Y.: New City Press, 1992.]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>4)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i>
229A:1:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">What you can
see on the Lord’s table, as far as the appearance of the things goes, you are
also used to seeing on your own tables; they have the same aspect, but not the
same value.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I mean, you yourselves are
the same people as you used to be, you haven’t brought us along new faces,
after all.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And yet you’re new; the same
old people in bodily appearance, completely new ones by the grace of
holiness—just as this too is new.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">It’s still,
indeed, as you can see, bread and wine; come the consecration, and the bread
will be the body of Christ, and that wine will be the blood of Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is brought about by the name of Christ,
brought about by the grace of Christ, that it should continue to look exactly
what is used to look like, and yet should not have the same value as it used
to.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You see, if was eaten before, it
would fill the belly; but now when it’s eaten it nourishes the spirit.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[Augustine,
Edmund Hill, and John E. Rotelle. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermons.
III/6 (184-229Z) </i>Brooklyn, N.Y.: New City Press, 1993.] <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>5)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i>
272 (</span><a href="http://capriciousness.blogspot.com/2011/08/what-saint-augustine-bishop-saint-and_20.html"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">revisited</span></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">):<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>"
... How can bread be his body? And the cup, or what the cup contains, how can it
be his blood?"<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The reason these
things, brothers and sisters, are called sacraments is that in them one thing
is seen, another is to be understood.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>What can be seen has a bodily appearance, what is to be understood
provides spiritual fruit. So if you want to understand the body of Christ,
listen to the apostle telling the faithful, You, though, are the body of Christ
and its members (1 Cor 12:27).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So if
it's you that are the body of Christ and its members, it's the mystery meaning
you that has been placed on the Lord's table; what you receive is the mystery
that means you. It is to what you are that you reply Amen, and by so replying
you express your assent. What you hear, you see, is The body of Christ, and you
answer, Amen. So be a member of the body of Christ, in order to make that Amen
true. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>6)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><a href="http://newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Tractates on the Gospel of John </span></i><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">26:11</span></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">But so far
as relates to that death, concerning which the Lord warns us by fear, and in
which their fathers died: Moses ate manna, Aaron ate manna, Phineas ate manna,
and many ate manna, who were pleasing to the Lord, and they are not dead. Why?
Because they understood the visible food spiritually, hungered spiritually,
tasted spiritually, that they might be filled spiritually. For even we at this
day receive visible food: but the sacrament is one thing, the virtue of the
sacrament another.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>7)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120110.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">The City of God</span></i></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">, 10:5; 10:20.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>And
the fact that the ancient church offered animal sacrifices, which the people of
God now-a-days read of without imitating, proves nothing else than this, that
those sacrifices signified the things which we do for the purpose of drawing
near to God, and inducing our neighbor to do the same. A sacrifice, therefore, is
the visible sacrament or sacred sign of an invisible sacrifice.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>...<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">And hence
that true Mediator, in so far as, by assuming the form of a servant, He became
the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, though in the form of
God He received sacrifice together with the Father, with whom He is one God,
yet in the form of a servant He chose rather to be than to receive a sacrifice,
that not even by this instance any one might have occasion to suppose that
sacrifice should be rendered to any creature. Thus He is both the Priest who
offers and the Sacrifice offered. And He designed that there should be a daily
sign of this in the sacrifice of the Church, which, being His body, learns to
offer herself through Him.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">As shown above, according to the way Saint
Augustine uses the word “sacrament,” the visible elements of the Eucharist, the
species of bread and wine, after consecration are not the Body and Blood of
Christ, but signify, denote, and contain them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The whole reality of Christ's Body and Blood is present beneath their
appearances, but are concealed from our senses.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Transubstantiation makes the Eucharist a sacrament of faith and is not
intended to be a scientific explanation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The Catholic understanding of the sacraments
may have developed since Saint Augustine’s time, but his understanding of what
is a sacrament is still reflected in the theology of the Church today:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Catechism of the Catholic Church</span></i></a><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">:</span></i><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>1333.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration
are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the
Holy Spirit, become Christ's Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord's command the
Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he
did on the eve of his Passion: "He took bread. . . ." "He took
the cup filled with wine. . . ." <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">The
signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and
Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation.</b>
Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine, fruit
of the "work of human hands," but above all as "fruit of the
earth" and "of the vine" - gifts of the Creator. The Church sees
in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who "brought out bread and
wine," a prefiguring of her own offering.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>(Emphasis
Added, footnotes deleted).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The Council of Trent’s teaching on the
Eucharist shows that this understanding is not an innovation of the 2<sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">nd</span></sup>
Vatican Council:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><a href="http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/CT13.html"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">DECREE
CONCERNING THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST</span></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>(Chapter
III) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>On
the Excellency of the most holy Eucharist over the rest of the Sacraments. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The most holy Eucharist has indeed this in
common with the rest of the sacraments, that it is a symbol of a sacred thing,
and is a visible form of an invisible grace</span></b><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">; but there is found in the Eucharist this excellent and peculiar
thing, that the other sacraments have then first the power of sanctifying when
one uses them, whereas in the Eucharist, before being used, there is the Author
Himself of sanctity.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>(Emphasis
Added).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The Augustinian understanding of sign and
reality is not just set out in the magisterial documents of the Church, but it
seen in the Mass itself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let’s look at
how the sign of bread is used in the Mass of “modern” Rome.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even after bread and wine are consecrated and
become the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, Catholics still refer to
the outward species as “bread” and the “cup” just as Saint Paul did at 1 Cor.
11:16:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">1)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>At
the Mystery of Faith, the congregation prays “When we eat this Bread and drink
this Cup, we proclaim your death, O Lord, until you come again.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>2)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>During the Eucharistic Prayer the
priest recites, “Therefore, O Lord, as we celebrate the memorial of the blessed
Passion, the Resurrection from the dead, and the glorious Ascension into heaven
of Christ, your Son, our Lord, we, your servants and your holy people, offer to
your glorious majesty, from the gifts that you have given us, this pure victim,
this holy victim, this spotless victim, the holy Bread of eternal life and the
Chalice of everlasting salvation.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">3)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Of
course, during the Lord’s Prayer the Eucharist is referred to as our “daily bread.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The Catholic principle of “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Lex orandi est lex credendi</i>” or “the law
of prayer is the law of belief” compels me as a Catholic to accept the truth
the Church teaches that the Eucharist is both sign and reality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The question is whether Saint Augustine held
any differently?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Based on the above
passages, I would emphatically say NO.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The dogma of Transubstantiation makes Saint Augustine’s words a reality
through faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Faith penetrates the
sacramental signs, seeing under them the mystery-filled Body of Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because of<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Transubstantiation, the bread and wine are true signs of the reality of
Christ's body and blood.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">For further reading on this subject, I urge
the reader to consider the following articles and books:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Portalie,
Eugenie. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">A Guide to the Thought of St.
Augustine</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Chicago: H. Regnery Co,
1960, pages 214-215<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><a href="http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/12/church-fathers-on-transubstantiation/"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">The Church Fathers on
Transubstantiation</span></i></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> by Tim
Troutman <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><a href="http://vultus.stblogs.org/2010/06/sacrifice-transubstantiation-a.html"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Sacrifice, Transubstantiation, and
Real Presence</span></i></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> by Fr. Mark
Kirby<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><a href="http://www.catholic-convert.com/documents/EucharistAugustine.doc"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Saint Augustine on the Real Presence
in the Eucharist</span></i></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> by Fr. J.
B. Jagger (found on Steve<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Ray’s
website, </span><a href="http://www.catholic-convert.com/resources/writings/others/"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Defenders of the Catholic Faith</span></i></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">)<span style="mso-tab-count: 5;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><a href="http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/02/st-augustines-belief-in-real-presence.html"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">St. Augustine’s Belief in the Real
Presence</span></i></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> by Dave
Armstrong.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><a href="http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/02/books-by-dave-armstrong-biblical.html"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Biblical Catholic Eucharistic
Theology</span></i></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> by Dave
Armstrong<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">O'Connor,
James T.<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> The Hidden Manna: A Theology of
the Eucharist</i>. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">For a contrarian view:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span><a href="http://www.justforcatholics.org/a181.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Church Fathers on Transubstantiation</span></i></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> by Joseph Mizzi<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">D.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Text
and Commentary.</b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Armed with an understanding of what the
Catholic Church teaches on the dogma of Transubstantiation, some information
explaining the context in which<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> Sermon </i>227
was given, and a thumb-nail sketch of Saint Augustine’s sacramental theology,
we are now ready to examine the text itself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">As a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">nota
bene</i>, the version of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i> 227
that TurretinFan uses is from <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Works
of Saint Augustine III</i>/6.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>New
Rochelle, NY:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>New City, 1993, pp.
254-255.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is not my favorite English
translation of that text.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>My favorite
translation of the text, and the one that I will be using is from Philip
Weller’s book, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Selected Easter Sermons of
Saint Augustine. </i>Saint Louis, Mo.: B. Herder Book Co, (1959).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Text of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i>
227 from that work will be highlighted in red.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Mr. Fan's self-expressions, where I have decided to interact with them,
will be in green.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>My commentary will be
in standard black.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Text:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red;">On the Eucharist ~ Easter Sunday (Migne 227)</span></b><span style="color: red;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Me:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The title of the sermon was not provided by Saint
Augustine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This information was added
by a latter scribe or translator.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Migne
227 refers to the numbering given the sermon by the 19<sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">th</span></sup> century
French priest Fr. Jacques-Paul Migne in his collection of patristic works
called </span><a href="http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/1815-1875,_Migne,_Patrologia_Latina_01._Rerum_Conspectus_Pro_Tomis_Ordinatus,_MLT.html"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">The Patrologia Latina</span></i></a><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">.</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Interestingly, unlike his
apologetical or theological works, Saint Augustine never took stylus or quill
in hand to write out the sermons he preached in church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It was not something that professionally
trained rhetors did then.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That so many
of his sermons are extant today is because<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>a bank of scribes sitting in the front of the congregation called <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">notarii</i> would write down what was said
(including at times congregational responses) at Mass which was then compared
and assembled into a single writing, which in turn, was copied and disseminated
to be read in the outlying parishes under the good Bishop of Hippo's
charge.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Like most bishops in his day,
Saint Augustine did not allow priests to give sermons at Mass without his
permission. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Text:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">I remember my promise made to you
who have just been baptized, that I would explain in a sermon the sacrament of
the Lord's table, which you are even now witnessing and of which you were made
partakers last night</span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">. </span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 3;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Me:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The infantes attended not only the Easter Vigil Mass, but the
Mass of Easter day as well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As mentioned
previously, before receiving the sacraments of initiation at the previous
Easter Vigil Mass, the catechumens would have not ever seen the rites of the
Mass of the Faithful prior to the Easter Vigil Mass.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">We also see here Augustine’s
touching upon the Catholic teaching that Christ is not re-sacrificed again and
again at each Mass.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, the
Eucharistic celebration of the Mass makes Our Lord’s sacrifice on the cross
present to us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As partakers in that
once-and-for-all sacrifice, we receive the effects and grace from His passion,
death and resurrection. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">As the </span><a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Catechism of the Catholic Church</span></i></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> teaches:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">1330.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The Holy Sacrifice makes present the one sacrifice of Christ the
Savior and includes the Church's offering. The terms holy sacrifice of the
Mass, "sacrifice of praise," spiritual sacrifice, pure and holy
sacrifice are also used, since it completes and surpasses all the sacrifices of
the Old Covenant.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Text:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Surely you ought to know well what
you have received, what you will be receiving,<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>and
what you should receive every day.</span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">TF wrote:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: green; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">It seems that Augustine may be
advocating daily communion. Perhaps he means "every day" either as
hyperbole, or in some spiritual sense, but he may literally mean daily
communion. Regardless, this shows that they had received communion the previous
day and were about to receive it again.</span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Me:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>TurretinFan's perplexity as to whether Saint Augustine here is
advocating daily Mass may be a result of his Presbyterian background where
liturgical worship is generally reserved as a Sunday-only event.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, in Catholic dioceses which practiced
the African form of the Roman rite in the 5<sup><span style="font-size: x-small;">th</span></sup> century AD, Mass was
celebrated daily, usually in the morning since one was expected to fast prior
to Mass.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That daily Mass occurred in
Hippo in Augustine's day is well attested to by Saint Augustine himself in the
texts that follow: <span style="mso-tab-count: 5;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>1)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><a href="http://newadvent.org/fathers/1102054.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Letter 54 to Januarius,</span></i><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"> 4:</span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Someone
may say, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">"The Eucharist ought not
to be taken every day." You ask, "On what grounds?" He answers,
"Because, in order that a man may approach worthily to so great a
sacrament, he ought to choose those days upon which he lives in more special
purity and self-restraint; for 'whosoever eats and drinks unworthily, eats and
drinks judgment to himself.'"</b> (1 Corinthians 11:29) reminding them
that the principal thing is to remain united in the peace of Christ, and that
each should be free to do what, according to his belief, he conscientiously
regards as his duty. For neither of them lightly esteems the body and blood of
the Lord; on the contrary, both are contending who shall most highly honor the
sacrament fraught with blessing. There was no controversy between those two
mentioned in the Gospel, Zacchæus and the Centurion; nor did either of them
think himself better than the other, though, whereas the former received the
Lord joyfully into his house, (Luke 19:6) the latter said, "I am not
worthy that You should come under my roof,"(Matthew 8:8) — both honoring
the Savior, though in ways diverse and, as it were, mutually opposed; both
miserable through sin, and both obtaining the mercy they required. We may
further borrow an illustration here, from the fact that the manna given to the
ancient people of God tasted in each man's mouth as he desired that it might.
It is the same with this world-subduing sacrament in the heart of each
Christian. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">For he that dares not take it
every day, and he who dares not omit it any day, are both alike moved by a
desire to do it honor.</b> That sacred food will not submit to be despised, as
the manna could not be loathed with impunity. Hence the apostle says that it
was unworthily partaken of by those who did not distinguish between this and
all other meats, by yielding to it the special veneration which was due; for to
the words quoted already, "eats and drinks judgment to himself," he
has added these, "not discerning the Lord's body;" and this is
apparent from the whole of that passage in the first Epistle to the
Corinthians, if it be carefully studied.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>(Emphasis Added).<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>2)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><a href="http://newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Tractates on the Gospel of John</span></i></a><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">
</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">26:15:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>But
that which they ask, while striving among themselves, namely, how the Lord can
give His flesh to be eaten, they do not immediately hear: but further it is said
to them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, except you eat the flesh of the
Son of man, and drink His blood, you will have no life in you." How,
indeed, it may be eaten, and what may be the mode of eating this bread, you are
ignorant of; nevertheless, "except you eat the flesh of the Son of man,
and drink His blood, you will not have life in you." He spoke these words,
not certainly to corpses, but to living men. Whereupon, lest they,
understanding it to mean this life, should strive about this thing also, He
going on added, "Whoso eats my flesh, and drinks my blood, has eternal
life." Wherefore, he that eats not this bread, nor drinks this blood, has
not this life; for men can have temporal life without that, but they can no
ways have eternal life. He then that eats not His flesh, nor drinks His blood,
has no life in him; and he that eats His flesh, and drinks His blood, has life.
This epithet, eternal, which He used, answers to both. It is not so in the case
of that food which we take for the purpose of sustaining this temporal life.
For he who will not take it shall not live, nor yet shall he who will take it
live. For very many, even who have taken it, die; it may be by old age, or by
disease, or by some other casualty. But in this food and drink, that is, in the
body and blood of the Lord, it is not so. For both he that does not take it has
no life, and he that does take it has life, and that indeed eternal life. And
thus He would have this meat and drink to be understood as meaning the
fellowship of His own body and members, which is the holy Church in his
predestinated, and called, and justified, and glorified saints and believers.
Of these, the first is already effected, namely, predestination; the second and
third, that is, the vocation and justification, have taken place, are taking
place, and will take place; but the fourth, namely, the glorifying, is at
present in hope; but a thing future in realization. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">The sacrament of this thing, namely, of the unity of the body and blood
of Christ, is prepared on the Lord's table in some places daily, in some places
at certain intervals of days, and from the Lord's table it is taken, by some to
life, by some to destruction: but the thing itself, of which it is the
sacrament, is for every man to life, for no man to destruction, whosoever shall
have been a partaker thereof.</b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>(Emphasis Added)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">3)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i> 57.7<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The Eucharistic bread should be
for us daily bread that we eat to make us live. When we have reached Christ
himself it will no longer be necessary to receive the Eucharist... So the
Eucharist is for us bread for everyday. </span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">We must, however, receive it in such a way that we not
only get new bodily strength, but also spiritual power. For the power that the
Eucharist gives is unity. This means that after we have received Christ's body
and become his members, we are what we have received. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Only then does the Eucharist really become our daily bread.</b><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">However,
what I preach to you is also your daily bread. The same holds true for the
hymns that you hear and pray. All these things are necessary for our present
pilgrim journey through life. When, however, we have reached our destination we
will no longer need to hear the book being read. We will see the Word himself,
eat, hear and drink him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Emphasis
Added).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[Augustine,
and John E. Rotelle. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermons (51-94) on
the New Testament</i>. Brooklyn, N.Y.: New City Press, 1991.] <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">4)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><a href="http://newadvent.org/fathers/120110.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">City of God</span></i></a><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">,</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> 10:20: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">And
hence that true Mediator, in so far as, by assuming the form of a servant, He
became the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, though in the
form of God He received sacrifice together with the Father, with whom He is one
God, yet in the form of a servant He chose rather to be than to receive a
sacrifice, that not even by this instance any one might have occasion to
suppose that sacrifice should be rendered to any creature. Thus He is both the
Priest who offers and the Sacrifice offered. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">And He designed that there should be a daily sign of this in the
sacrifice of the Church, which, being His body, learns to offer herself through
Him.</b> Of this true Sacrifice the ancient sacrifices of the saints were the
various and numerous signs; and it was thus variously figured, just as one
thing is signified by a variety of words, that there may be less weariness when
we speak of it much. To this supreme and true sacrifice all false sacrifices
have given place.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Emphasis Added)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">5)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/110109.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Confessions</span></i><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">, Book 9, 13:36.</span></a><u><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></u></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">For
she, when the day of her (Saint Monica) dissolution was near at hand, took no thought
to have her body sumptuously covered, or embalmed with spices; nor did she
covet a choice monument, or desire her paternal burial-place.<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> These things she entrusted not to us, but
only desired to have her name remembered at Your altar, which she had served
without the omission of a single day; whence she knew that the holy sacrifice
was dispensed, by which the handwriting that was against us is blotted out</b>;
(Colossians 2:14) by which the enemy was triumphed over, who, summing up our
offenses, and searching for something to bring against us, found nothing in Him
(John 14:30) in whom we conquer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>(Emphasis Added).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>6)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><a href="http://newadvent.org/fathers/1102098.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Letter to Boniface</span></i><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> </span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">98:9.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Was
not Christ once for all offered up in His own person as a sacrifice? And yet,
is He not likewise offered up in the sacrament as a sacrifice, not only in the
special solemnities of Easter, but also daily among our congregations; so that
the man who, being questioned, answers that He is offered as a sacrifice in
that ordinance, declares what is strictly true? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Daily celebration of the Mass was
an occurrence in Hippo long before Saint Augustine was the bishop.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Saint Cyprian of Carthage, the favorite saint
of the people of Hippo, had this to say in Chapter 18 of his </span><a href="http://newadvent.org/fathers/050704.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Treatise on the Lord's Prayer</span></i></a><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">
</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">written around 252
AD:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">As
the prayer goes forward, we ask and say, “Give us this day our daily bread.”
And this may be understood both spiritually and literally, because either way
of understanding it is rich in divine usefulness to our salvation. For Christ
is the bread of life; and this bread does not belong to all men, but it is
ours. And according as we say, “Our Father,” because He is the Father of those
who understand and believe; so also we call it “our bread,” because Christ is
the bread of those who are in union with His body. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">And we ask that this bread should be given to us daily, that we who are
in Christ, and daily receive the Eucharist for the food of salvation, may not,
by the interposition of some heinous sin, by being prevented, as withheld and
not communicating, from partaking of the heavenly bread, be separated from
Christ's body, as He Himself predicts, and warns, “I am the bread of life which
came down from heaven.</b> If any man eat of my bread, he shall live forever:
and the bread which I will give is my flesh, for the life of the world.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When, therefore, He says, that whoever shall
eat of His bread shall live forever; as it is manifest that those who partake
of His body and receive the Eucharist by the right of communion are living, so,
on the other hand, we must fear and pray lest anyone who, being withheld from
communion, is separate from Christ's body should remain at a distance from
salvation; as He Himself threatens, and says, “Unless you eat the flesh of the
Son of man, and drink His blood, you shall have no life in you.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And therefore we ask that our bread— that is,
Christ— may be given to us daily, that we who abide and live in Christ may not
depart from His sanctification and body.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>(Emphasis Added.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">All of these texts demonstrate
that the Catholic Church in Hippo offered the Mass daily.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This may seem to be a minor point tom some,
but it is a critical piece of evidence that Saint Augustine<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>believed in Transubstantiation and the Real
Presence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If Saint Augustine believed
that the Eucharist was merely a figurative, metaphorical, or symbolic
commemoration of Our Lord’s passion as TurretinFan posits rather than a
transubstantial conversion of the elements of bread and wine into the Body and
Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, there would be little point in offering Mass or
receiving communion on a daily basis.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Daily Mass only makes sense if there was really something or rather
Someone, as the introductory quote from <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i>
9 indicates, is offered as a sacrifice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Some of the more radical Protestant reformers, such as Zwingli and his
followers, actively sought to eradicate daily liturgical worship and frequent
communion during liturgical worship precisely because daily Eucharist was
suggestive of a true sacrifice and as such promoted belief in the dogmas of
Transubstantiation and the Real Presence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Text:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The bread that you see on the
altar, sanctified by God's word, is the body of Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The chalice, or rather, its contents.
sanctified by God's word, is the blood of Christ</span></b><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">.</span></b><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">TF wrote:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: green; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">It may be that Augustine has
already consecrated the elements and has now, in essence, interrupted the
distribution of the elements to provide this homily. Alternatively, Augustine
may not be referring to the consecration at all. He may just be referring to
the fact that the word of God is what puts the elements to their sacramental
use.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>[T]he same explanation applied to
the cup. Some people seem to be willing to quote this sentence and the prior
one in an effort to allege that Augustine held to Transubstantiation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, of course, such a statement is a
statement that could be used by those who are bare symbolists in their view, as
well as everyone in between.</span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Me:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>It is gratifying to see TurretinFan concede in a round-about
manner that Saint Augustine’s language could be read to support a belief in
Transubstantiation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, he claims
that certain unnamed Protestant “bare symbolists” also use the same sort of
language to describe their understanding of the Eucharist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unfortunately, he fails to offer any evidence
to support his assertion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Rather than taking TurretinFan’s
word for it, let us see what Saint Augustine himself says on the matter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Besides <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i>
227, there are many Augustinian texts<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>that state what happens to bread and wine when they are consecrated by a
priest during Mass.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>1)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i>
228B<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">And
therefore receive and eat the body of Christ, yes, you that have become members
of Christ in the body of Christ; receive and drink the blood of Christ. In
order not to be scattered and separated, eat what binds you together; in order
not to seem cheap in your own estimation, drink the price that was paid for
you. Just as this turns into you when you eat and drink it, so you for your
part turn into the body of Christ when you live devout and obedient lives. He
himself, you see, as his passion drew near, while he was keeping the Passover
with his disciples, took bread and blessed it, and said, This is my body which
will be handed over for you (1 Cor 11:24). Likewise he gave them the cup he had
blessed and said, This is my blood of the new covenant, which will be shed for
many for the forgiveness of sins (Mt 26:28).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">You
were able to read or to hear this in the gospel before, but you were unaware
that <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">this Eucharist is the Son</b>. But
now, your hearts sprinkled with a pure conscience, and your bodies washed with
pure water, approach him and be enlightened, and your faces will not blush for
shame (Ps 34:5). Because if you receive this worthily, which means belonging to
the new covenant by which you hope for an eternal inheritance, and if you keep
the new commandment to love one another, then you have life in yourselves. You
are then, after all, receiving that flesh about which Life itself says, The
bread which I shall give is my flesh for the life of the world; and unless
people eat my flesh and drink my blood, they will not have life in themselves
(Jn 6:51. 53).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Emphasis Added)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[From
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Works of Saint Augustine III</i>/6.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>New Rochelle, NY:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>New City, 1993.] <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">We see Saint Augustine use the
Words of Institution by Our Lord to describe how the bread and wine becomes Our
Lord Himself and the effects of receiving the sacrament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Moreover, we see a reference to the Reserve
which explains that the deeper mysteries of the Eucharist were kept from the
catechumens until they were baptized. <span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 4;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>2)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i>
229=Denis 6<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">What you can see here, dearly
beloved, on the table of the Lord, is bread and wine; but this bread and wine,
when the word is applied to it, becomes the body and blood of the Word.</span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> That Lord, you see, who in the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (Jn
1:1), was so compassionate that he did not despise what he had created in his
own image; and therefore the Word became flesh and dwelt among us (Jn 1:14), as
you know. Because, yes, the very Word took to himself a man, that is the soul
and flesh of a man, and became man, while remaining God. For that reason,
because he also suffered for us, he also presented us in this sacrament with
his body and blood, and this is what he even made us ourselves into as well.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>[<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Works of Saint Augustine III</i>/6.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>New Rochelle, NY:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>New City, 1993]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">As a footnote, a few scholars
contest the authenticity of parts of this sermon, the primary reason being that
a portion of the text appears to contain an interpolation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, the section quoted above is not the
part of the text that was disputed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Presuming that this sermon is truly Augustinian, that is, either given
by Saint Augustine himself or by one of his disciples, one can readily see how
the explanation of the change that occurs when the bread and wine are sanctified
pretty much mirrors the formal definition of doctrine of Transubstantiation as
held by “modern” Rome.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Please note too
how ‘substantial’ Saint Augustine’s language here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The substance of bread and wine no longer
exist after consecration.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rather they
BECOME Body and Blood of a incarnate Christ, both human and divine – the divine
Word and the Word made flesh – synonymous with the Body, Blood, Soul and
Divinity terminology modern Rome uses today.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Later in the same Sermon, we see
Augustine explaining the rites of the Mass and in the quote below we
specifically see him discussing the change effected by the consecration of the
elements:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">And
from there we come now to what is done in the holy prayers which you are going
to hear, that with the application of the word we may have the body and blood
of Christ. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Take away the word, I mean,
it's just bread and wine; add the word, and it's now something else. And what
is that something else? The body of Christ, and the blood of Christ. So take
away the word, it's bread and wine; add the word and it will become the
sacrament. To this you say, Amen. To say Amen is to add your signature. Amen
means “True”</b> [ ... ]. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>[Ibid.]<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Emphasis Added)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Again, while some have advanced
objections against the authenticity of this section, I do not see how such
objections can be sustained as Saint Augustine employs almost the identical
theological language to explain the reality of the sacrament of Baptism in his
treatise <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Tractates on the Gospel of John:</i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">But
it may be one says, Christ does indeed baptize, but in spirit, not in body. As
if, indeed, it were by the gift of another than He that any is imbued even with
the sacrament of corporal and visible baptism. Would you know that it is He
that baptizes, not only with the Spirit, but also with water? Hear the apostle:
"Even as Christ," says he, "loved the Church, and gave Himself
for it, purifying it with the washing of water by the Word, that He might
present to Himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such
thing." (Ephesians 5:25-27) Purifying it. How? "With the washing of
water by the Word." What is the baptism of Christ? The washing of water by
the Word. Take away the water, it is no baptism; take away the Word, it is no
baptism. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">(</span><a href="http://newadvent.org/fathers/1701015.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Tractates on the Gospel of John</span></i></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> 15:4.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>See also, </span><a href="http://newadvent.org/fathers/1701080.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Tractates on the Gospel of John</span></i><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"> </span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">80:3)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">One can readily see the
similarity in sacramental understanding which certainly supports the notion
that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i> 229 is indeed authentic
particularly when it follows closely Saint Augustine’s criteria for a
sacrament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Following the thought of
Saint Augustine himself, rather than the thought of TurretinFan, one would be
hard pressed to seriously argue that Augustine did not hold a view of the Real
Presence that is very "transubstantial."<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not only does Saint Augustine state that
bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ when the priest prays
over them, he states that the bread and wine become altogether “something
else.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Only Transubstantiation can
explain what that “something else” is.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Now if TurretinFan truly wants us
to believe that Saint Augustine did not believe in the doctrine we now call
Transubstantiation, it would behoove him to offer even a single example of from
at least one legitimate Calvinist bare symbolist scholar or theologian to
describe the Eucharist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Until
TurretinFan offers such a rebuttal, one would be hard put to claim that<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Saint Augustine's language here is anything
but "transubstantial". <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Now lest one of TurretinFan’s
fans argue that I am placing too much weight on a disputed text, let's look at
one that scholars agree is authentic:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>3)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i>
229A = Guelferbytanus 7<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Listen
to me, especially you who are now reborn to a new life and for that reason are
called infants, while I explain, as I promised, what-it is that you see before
you here on the altar. Pay attention also you, the faithful, who are long
accustomed to view this sacred rite, because it is for your benefit, too, that
we recall these things, otherwise you might forget them. The food you see here
on the Lord's table, you are accustomed to see on your own tables at home, as
far as outward appearances go. It has the same appearance, but not the same
worth -You, the newly baptized, remain the same individuals you were before; at
any rate you do not present different faces before this assembly. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">Nevertheless, you are indeed new men. Your
outward form is the same as before, but you are made new beings through
sanctifying grace. </b><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">And so this food is likewise
something new. Until now, as you see, it is simply bread and wine. But once the
Consecration takes place, this bread will be the body of Christ and this wine
will be the blood of Christ. It happens in the name of Christ and by the grace
of Christ, and even though it looks like it was before, yet its worth is not
what it was before. Had you eaten thereof before [the Consecration], it would
have supplied food to the stomach, but now when you partake, it gives
nourishment to the soul.</span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Emphasis Added)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Weller,
Peter.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Selected Easter Sermons of St. Augustine</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>St. Louis: B. Herder Book Co. (1959), p.
100.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Emphasis Added).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Compare this text with what I
have already placed before you as to "modern”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rome’s definition of Transubstantiation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Can one truly discern any difference between
the two?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The physical form or elements
of the sacrament are unchanged, but a new reality exists beneath them.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Now compare the realism of
Augustine's teaching with what TurretinFan’s Orthodox Presbyterians hold and
profess in Chapter 29:5 and 29:6 of their </span><a href="http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Westminster Confession of Faith</span></i></a><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">:</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The
outward elements in this sacrament, duly set apart to the uses ordained by
Christ, have such relation to him crucified, as that, truly, yet sacramentally
only, they are sometimes called by the name of the things they represent, to
wit, the body and blood of Christ; albeit, in substance and nature, they still
remain truly and only bread and wine, as they were before.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>That
doctrine which maintains a change of the substance of bread and wine, into the
substance of Christ's body and blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by
consecration of a priest, or by any other way, is repugnant, not to Scripture
alone, but even to common sense, and reason; overthrows the nature of the
sacrament, and has been, and is, the cause of manifold superstitions; yes, of
gross idolatries.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Here, in order to attack the Holy
sacrament of the Eucharist, the Orthodox Presbyterians attack a straw-man
argument using pagan Aristotelian notions of substance as opposed to a proper
definition of substance that the Catholic Church uses as explained by Cardinal
Dulles above.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(To be fair, some Catholic
scholars and theologians, too, attempt to use the same Aristotelian definitions
to explain the sacrament–explanations which in my mind also fall far short of
the mark and are not theologically defensible.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Moreover, we see that TurretinFan’s Orthodox Presbyterians do not use
Saint Augustine’s definition of sign, using instead a more modern<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>definition that ignores how it was used
scripturally or in the early Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Using such a false definition, it is very understandable why such folks see
the dogma of Transubstantiation as too carnal or idolatrous.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>4)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i>
234:2<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">"The
Lord Jesus wanted those whose eyes were held lest they should recognize him, to
recognize Him in the breaking of the bread [Luke 24:16,30-35]. The faithful
know what I am saying. They know Christ in the breaking of the bread.<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> For not all bread, but only that which
receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ's Body.</b>"<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The
Works of Saint Augustine III</i>/7.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>New
Rochelle, NY:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>New City, 1993, pp.36-39
(Emphasis Added). <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Again, we see Saint Augustine
using the traditional definition of Transubstantiation to<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>explain the difference between bread and the
bread that receives the blessing from a priest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Anticipating one of TurretinFan’s later claims, the disciples referenced
in the above passage from Luke had no less of a teacher of Scripture than
Christ Himself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet, they did not
understand what Jesus telling them until He gave a blessing over bread and
broke it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At the moment of Jesus
breaking the consecrated bread, the Emmaus disciples recognized Him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Scriptures can lead one to seek Jesus,
but it is in the Eucharist we find Him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>5)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801034.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Ennarations on the Psalms 34(33)</span></i></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">“And
was carried in His Own Hands:” how “carried in His Own Hands”? Because when He
commended His Own Body and Blood, He took into His Hands that which the
faithful know; and in a manner carried Himself, when He said, “This is My
Body.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Note that Augustine teaches here
that the bread became Our Lord’s body when He “said” the words, “This is My
Body,” the same words that every priest recites in the Eucharistic prayer which
transubstantiate the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
Can TurretinFan identify any Calvinist bare symbolist using the same kind of
language here as Saint Augustine?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>6)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Answer
to Faustus, A Manichean.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></i>Book XX:13.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">But
I do not know what Faustus thinks that we practice the same religion with
respect to the bread and the cup, since for Manicheans to taste wine is not
religious but sacrilegious.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For they
recognize their God in the grape; they refuse to recognize Him in the cup, as
if He had caused them some offense by being crushed and bottled.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But our bread and cup, not just any bread and
cup, is made sacramental for us by a particular consecration; it is not
naturally such, as Manicheans say in their folly on account of Christ, who is
supposedly bound in the ears of grain and branches.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Hence, what is not consecrated, though it is
bread and cup, is food for refreshment, not the sacrament of religion, apart
from the fact that we bless and give thanks to the Lord for every gift of his,
not only spiritually but also bodily.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Works of Saint Augustine</i> I/20 [New
Rochelle, NY: New City, 1993], pg. 273<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">We see Saint Augustine here
explain how the sacrament of the Eucharist is the visible expression of
Christ’s presence in the Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>All
sacraments in his mind are visible expressions of the Word of God, the Eucharist
especially so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>7)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">On
the Trinity</i>, Book III: 4:10:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>If,
then the Apostle Paul, though still carrying the burden of the body which is perishing
and weighing down the soul (Wis. 9:15), though still only seeing in part and in
an riddle (1 Cor. 13:12), still wishing to cast off and be with Christ (Phil
1:23), still groaning in himself, awaiting for the adoption, the redemption of
his body (Rom 8:23), if for all that he could use meaningful signs to proclaim
the Lord Jesus Christ, in one way by using his tongue, in another by writing
letters, in another by celebrating the Lord’s body and blood;*<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">*Note
that we do not call Paul’s tongue or his paper and ink the body and blood of
Christ, nor the significant sounds made by his tongue, nor the meaningful signs
written on the pages of his letters, but only that which is taken from the
fruits of the earth and consecrated by mystic prayers, and taken by us for our
spiritual salvation in memory of what the Lord suffered for us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The hands of men give this its visible
appearance, but it can only be consecrated into being such a great sacrament by
the invisible working of the spirit of God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>For all the physical movements involved in the whole action are worked
by God acting in the first place on what is invisible in the ministers, namely
on the souls of men or on the service of the occult spirits who are subject to
him. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">(N.B.
~ This interlineation was made by Augustine himself to further explain the
text.) <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">need
we be surprised if God produces visible and sensible effects as he pleases in sky,
earth, sea and air, to signify and show himself as he knows best, without the
very substance of his being ever appearing immediately manifest, since it is
altogether changeless, and more inwardly and mysteriously sublime than all
created spirits?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Here is perhaps the clearest
example of Saint Augustine’s belief in the dogma the Church calls
Transubstantiation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Saint Augustine
presents the mysterious consecration of the Eucharist as the invisible working
of God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Man can make bread, and wine,
but to change them into so great a Sacrament, the God must operate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If this consecration merely refers to a
symbolic or figurative presence, in what way can one say that God is working in
the sacrament?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Saint Augustine goes so
far as to state that what sets the Eucharist apart from God’s use of other
material things to<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>give effect to His
Will is that God’s very substance is to be found there.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The name for the process that makes His substance
present in the Eucharist is what the Catholic Church calls “Transubstantiation”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">I have presented eight different
texts from the works of Saint Augustine that show how the substance of bread
and wine, when consecrated, become the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our
Lord.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There are other texts that reveal
this thread of thought in Saint Augustine’s Eucharistic theology, but these I
think are fairly representative of that thought.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One may cherry pick passages from other texts
to show that Saint Augustine also believed in a figurative or symbolic presence
in the sacrament, but that is not a problem in Catholic Eucharistic theology
because the Church teaches that the Eucharist is both sign and symbol.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In reality such texts do not pose any problem
for the Catholic position when one reads those texts in the context of Saint Augustine’s
understanding of the terms “signs” and “sacraments” or for that matter, the
modern-day teaching of the Church as seen from Pope Ven. Paul VI’s words in the
encyclical <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mysterium Fidei</i> previously
quoted above: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">“[that
Christ’s presence in the Eucharist] is called ‘real’ not as a way of excluding
all other types of presence as if they were ‘not real’, but because it is a
presence in the fullest sense: a substantial presence whereby Christ, the
God-Man, is wholly and entirely present.” <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Now TurretinFan, an Orthodox
Presbyterian, who apparently finds the doctrine of the Eucharist as taught by
the Catholic Church (as well as by Saint Augustine) to be repugnant to
Scripture and contrary to common sense and reason, might ask how is it possible
that Jesus be present bodily under the forms of bread and wine?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I would respond with another question, how is
the transformation of bread and wine into Christ’s Body and Blood through the
invocation of the Word and the power of the Holy Spirit any more difficult to
accept than God Himself taking on flesh which is what happened at the
Annunciation when Mary, though a virgin, conceived Our Lord?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Did not Our Lord become incarnate by the
power of the Word and the power of the Spirit?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>That God, of Divine nature and spirit, taking on flesh may seem
impossible, yet Christians, whether Catholic, Orthodox and even most
Protestants, adhere to it as a bedrock article of faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God’s plan of salvation called for us to be
saved by His Son taking on flesh.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He
continues to save through that same flesh.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">For that matter, how did the
Creation come about?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God spoke and the
world was made <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ex nihilo</i> through the
power of the Word and the Spirit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Once
one accepts the truth that through the Word pronounced by God, creation came into
being, is it any more difficult to believe that through the power of the Word
and the Holy Spirit, the whole Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity, comes
into being under the appearances of bread and wine, a change the Church
appropriately calls “Transubstantiation”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">In case someone believes that I
am innovating here, I offer the following from the writings of Saint Ambrose,
Saint Augustine’s father in faith:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>52.
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>We observe, then, that grace has
more power than nature, and yet so far we have only spoken of the grace of a
prophet's blessing. But if the blessing of man had such power as to change
nature, what are we to say of that divine consecration where the very words of
the Lord and Savior operate? For that sacrament which you receive is made what
it is by the word of Christ. But if the word of Elijah had such power as to
bring down fire from heaven, shall not the word of Christ have power to change
the nature of the elements? You read concerning the making of the whole world:
“He spoke and they were made, He commanded and they were created.” Shall not
the word of Christ, which was able to make out of nothing that which was not,
be able to change things which already are into what they were not? For it is
not less to give a new nature to things than to change them.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>53.
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>But why make use of arguments? Let
us use the examples He gives, and by the example of the Incarnation prove the
truth of the mystery. Did the course of nature proceed as usual when the Lord
Jesus was born of Mary? If we look to the usual course, a woman ordinarily
conceives after connection with a man. And this body which we make is that
which was born of the Virgin. Why do you seek the order of nature in the Body
of Christ, seeing that the Lord Jesus Himself was born of a Virgin, not
according to nature? It is the true Flesh of Christ which crucified and buried,
this is then truly the Sacrament of His Body.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>54.
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims:
“This is My Body.” (Matthew 26:26) Before the blessing of the heavenly words
another nature is spoken of, after the consecration the Body is signified. He
Himself speaks of His Blood. Before the consecration it has another name, after
it is called Blood. And you say, Amen, that is, It is true. Let the heart
within confess what the mouth utters, let the soul feel what the voice speaks.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 3;"> </span></span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">On the Mysteries</span></i><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">,</span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> 9:52-54.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">(N.B
~ If there is any doubt that Saint Augustine shared Saint Ambrose’s view on the
Real Presence compare paragraph 54 of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">On
the Mysteries</i> with Saint Augustine’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon
</i>2229 and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon </i>272 previously
cited.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">To sum up before we move to the
next passage, I would humbly submit to you the reader that the Augustinian
texts cited above conclusively establish that Saint Augustine did believe and
teach the dogma of Transubstantiation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Text:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Under
these forms Christ our Lord willed to bequeath His own body and the very blood
that He shed on our behalf for the forgiveness of sins.</span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Now the translation of the text
that TurretinFan uses in his discussion puts it slightly different:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">It
was by means of these things that the Lord Christ wished to present us with his
body and blood, which he shed for our sake for the forgiveness of sins.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">TF wrote:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><span style="color: green; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Here's
an interesting problem for those who think that Augustine is speaking after the
consecration: Augustine is saying that "by means of these things"
Christ wanted to present us with his body and blood. "These things"
refers to something other than the body and blood. As you can see, Augustine is
affirming that the elements are really bread and wine, and yet they present us
with Christ's body and his blood that he shed for our sake. If this is after
the consecration, then Augustine definitely does not believe in
Transubstantiation. But perhaps it is before the consecration, so let us
continue.</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Me:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>TurretinFan’s objection that the language used by Saint
Augustine here somehow prevents an transubstantial understanding of the
Eucharist, but he fails to explain why he thinks that such is the case given
Saint Augustine’s view of signs and sacraments or how that this phrase is
inconsistent with the modern Catholic understanding of that dogma.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let us test his claim and see if it has any
resemblance to a fact.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">First, we need to examine text
itself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here is the sentence in Latin:<span style="mso-tab-count: 3;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Per ista voluit Dominus Christus
commendare corpus et sanguinem suum, quem pro nobis fudit in remissionem
peccatorum.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The Latin phrase which gives Mr.
Fan pause is ‘<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">per ista</i>’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Per</i>
is a preposition that could mean ‘in’, ‘through’, ‘by’, ‘by means of’, ‘under’,
or ‘during’.<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Ista </i>is a pronoun that could be
understood as ‘that’, ‘that of yours’, ‘that which you refer to’ or
‘such’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">per ista</i> could mean “by means of these things,” it could also be
understood a bit differently.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let’s see
how some Catholic scholars and theologians translate it in context with the
rest of the sentence: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>1)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Pope Benedict XVI:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>Christus
totus in capite et in corpore<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The
subject of the liturgy's intrinsic beauty is Christ himself, risen and
glorified in the Holy Spirit, who includes the Church in his work.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here we can recall an evocative phrase of
Saint Augustine which strikingly describes this dynamic of faith proper to the
Eucharist. The great Bishop of Hippo, speaking specifically of the Eucharistic
mystery, stresses the fact that Christ assimilates us to himself: “The bread
you see on the altar, sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. The
chalice, or rather, what the chalice contains, sanctified by the word of God,
is the blood of Christ. <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">In these signs,
Christ the Lord willed to entrust to us his body and the blood which he shed
for the forgiveness of our sins.</b> If you have received them properly, you
yourselves are what you have received.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Consequently,
not only have we become Christians, we have become Christ himself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We can thus contemplate God's mysterious
work, which brings about a profound unity between ourselves and the Lord Jesus:
one should not believe that Christ is in the head but not in the body; rather
he is complete in the head and in the body. (Emphasis Added)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sacramentum Caritatis</i> 36. (2007)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">If anyone would have had a
problem with Saint Augustine’s language contradicting the dogma of
Transubstantiation, it would have been a pope, and a noted Augustinian scholar
to boot.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, since Pope Benedict
has interpreted the phrase “per ista” “these things” to mean<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“In these signs,” there must be a deeper
meaning to the phrase than the superficial purely carnal one TurretinFan gives
to it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>2)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Daniel Sheerin.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Through these</span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> Christ Our Lord wished to
bequeath His Body and His blood which He shed for us for the forgiveness of
sins.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>[<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Eucharist. Vol.7 of the Fathers of the
Church series,</i> pg. 97.]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>3)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>William Jurgens.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Through that bread and wine</span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> the Lord Christ willed to
commend His Body and Blood, which He poured out for us unto the forgiveness of
sins.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>[<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Vol. III of the Faith of the Early Fathers,</i>
pg. 30.]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>4)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Philip Weller (the text above).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Under these forms </span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Christ our Lord willed to
bequeath His own body and the very blood that He shed on our behalf for the
forgiveness of sins.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>[<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Selected Easter Sermons of Saint Augustine</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>1959, pg. 104.]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>5)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Mary Muldowney.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Through those accidents</span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> the Lord wished to entrust to us
His Body and the Blood which He poured out for the remission of sins.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Fathers of the Church: A New
Translation.</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Vol 38.,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>at pg. 196. (Writings of Saint Augustine)] <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>6)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Tarcisius Jan Van Bavel (another
Augustinian scholar).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">These things, bread and wine</span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">, are what the Lord Christ wanted
to entrust to us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are His body and
blood that He shed for us for the forgiveness of sins.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">[Quoted
in Rolheiser, Ronald, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Our One Great Act
of Fidelity: Waiting<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>for Christ in the
Eucharist,</i> New York: Image (2011), pg. 125.]<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">While some of the above
translators do translate “<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">per ista</i>”
to mean “things”, it becomes obvious reviewing all of the above translations
that “things” do not refer to mere bread and wine. All view physical bread and
wine as “signs”, “forms”, and “accidents” signifying something more–the Body
and Blood of Our Lord.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Again, in order
to under Saint Augustine’s thought, we need to use his definitions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Remember Saint Augustine’s definition of
sacrament: a visible physical sign concealing an invisible reality underneath
it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While TurretinFan believes that this
language is somehow inconsistent with the Catholic teaching of
Transubstantiation, it is a mystery to me why he believes so, particularly when
the above texts show that modern Catholics<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>scholars uniformly see the bread and wine as “signs” of something more
significant in the same sense that Saint Augustine does.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As we have already seen above, Saint Augustine’s
understanding of sacrament in his Eucharistic theology poses no difficulty
whatsoever for Catholics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In contrast,
the realism of Augustine’s Eucharistic theology does pose a great deal of
difficulty for Protestants.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">In Augustine’s Eucharistic
theology: <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>(1)
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The Eucharist is adored and not
only do we not sin in adoring the Eucharist, we sin by not adoring (</span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801099.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Ennarations </span></i></a><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">on Psalm</span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> 98:8).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>(2)
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The sacrament operates <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ex opere operato</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(See my discussion of the subject in my last
paper on </span><a href="http://capriciousness.blogspot.com/2011/08/what-saint-augustine-bishop-saint-and_20.html"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Sermon</span></i></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> 272).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>(3)
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Further, the Last Supper is
considered as miraculous.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Absent a
miracle, how else could Jesus carry Himself in His hands?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(</span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801034.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Ennarations </span></i></a><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">on Psalm </span></i><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">33, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i> 1:10; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i>
2:2).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>(4)
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The bread and wine become the Body
and Blood of Jesus Christ but only through consecrating prayer of the bishop
and priest. (As discussed here <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">in passim</i>).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>(5)
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Unworthy communicants receive the
Body and Blood of Christ, but not the grace.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If there was no Real Presence in the Eucharist or if one adopts the
Calvinist notion of a subjective Real Presence, how could unworthy communicants
receive anything more than bread and wine contrary to what Augustine
attests?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i> 71:11, 17).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>(6)
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Most importantly, it is offered
daily as a sacrifice with Christ Himself as both the Offeror and the
Offeree.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(</span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/110109.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Confessions</span></i></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">,
Book 9, 12:32; 13:36; </span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/140620.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Contra Faustum</span></i></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> 20:18; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Questiones
Evangeliorum ex Matthew et Lucas</i>, Book 2:33; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i> 227; </span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120110.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">City of God</span></i></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">,
Book 10:20; 17, 22:2; </span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801034.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Ennarations on Psalm</span></i></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> 33, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i>
1:6).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>(7)
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Not only that, as seen here and
elsewhere, it is offered as a sacrifice that brings about the remission of sins
including for the dead (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i> 159:1;
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i> 172.2; </span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1201.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">City of God</span></i></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">,
Book 20:9:2; </span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1302.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Enchiridion of Faith, Hope and Love</span></i><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">,</span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> Chapter 110; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Questions on the Heptateuch</i> 3:57; <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></i></span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1302.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">On Merit and the Forgiveness of Sins, and the Baptism of
Infants</span></i></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">,
Book 1, Chapter 34). <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">One more point that must not be
overlooked is that he never once in any of his extant works criticize or
correct the more openly “realistic” understanding of the Eucharist taught by
his spiritual teacher and mentor, Saint Ambrose of Milan, or of his
contemporaries or predecessors, such as Saint John Chrysostom.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If their understanding on the power of
consecration was not shared by Saint Augustine as well, is there any doubt that
he would have corrected it given how Saint Augustine disputed with the Arians,
Manicheans, Donatists or the Pelagians?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>For that matter, if Saint Augustine’s language that TurretinFan finds to
be so inimical to the Catholic dogma of Transubstantiation actually undermined
it, is it possible that Pope Benedict XVI or any of the other Catholic scholars
or clergy listed above would not have tried to offer a rebuttal or a caveat?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In short, TurretinFan’s claim is not a
substitute for evidence.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Text:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Provided
you received this sacrament worthily, you are now the very thing you received</span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Me:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>At this point of his catechetical instruction, Saint Augustine
tells us that Baptism initiates our unity to Christ and His Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The sacrament of Chrismation/Confirmation
strengthens and deepens that unity so that it will be strong enough not only
for our own needs but for the needs of others with whom we shall try to share it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Eucharist completes our union with
Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is the effect or virtue of
the sacrament of the Eucharist which Saint Augustine makes clear here.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">When Saint Augustine would give
Communion to someone for the first time, instead of saying to that person, “The
Body of Christ,” he would say to that person, “Receive what you are.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For Catholics, Jesus Christ Himself is the
center of our lives, the source and summit of all that we do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By receiving Our Lord in the sacrament of
Eucharist,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Christ enters into us, and we
receive Him into ourselves. He brings His grace of new life into our souls, and
makes us more and more like Him. <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">So many Christians talk about the
necessity of having a "personal relationship" with Jesus, and yet,
they fail to realize the real intimacy that comes from being united with our
Lord in the Eucharist and the transformative power that comes from that
intimate union with Christ. Those like TurretinFan, a true son of the
Reformation, recognizes the sign in the Eucharist, but not the actual grace
that comes from it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By our sharing in
that Communion, we do not unite with just Our Lord, we really become united
with each other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We become one body, one
community, one heart, one spirit with each other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Saint Paul uses marital language
in describing Christ’s union to the Church. In Ephesians he presents marriage
between a man and a woman as a type, that is, it is meant to mirror the
marriage between Christ and his Church. ”For this reason a man shall leave his
father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh.
This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the Church.”
(Ephesians 5:31, 32).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By virtue of the
Real Presence in the Eucharist made a verity through Transubstantiation, we unite
ourselves with Our Lord and become one flesh with Him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Sacramentally the Eucharist understood in
transubstantial terms gives verity to the conjugal union between Christ and
ourselves. That is what Saint Augustine is referencing here and what “modern Rome”
teaches today in the </span><a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Catechism of the Catholic Church</span></i></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>1329.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The Lord's Supper, because of its connection
with the supper which the Lord took with his disciples on the eve of his
Passion and because it anticipates the wedding feast of the Lamb in the
heavenly Jerusalem. The Breaking of Bread, because Jesus used this rite, part
of a Jewish meal, when as master of the table he blessed and distributed the
bread, above all at the Last Supper. It is by this action that his disciples
will recognize him after his Resurrection, and it is this expression that the
first Christians will use to designate their Eucharistic assemblies; by doing
so they signified that all who eat the one broken bread, Christ, enter into communion
with him and form but one body in him.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>1331
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>[We call it] Holy Communion, because by
this sacrament we unite ourselves to Christ, who makes us sharers in his Body
and Blood to form a single body.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>1382
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The Mass is at the same time, and
inseparably, the sacrificial memorial in which the sacrifice of the cross is
perpetuated and the sacred banquet of communion with the Lord's body and blood.
But the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice is wholly directed toward the
intimate union of the faithful with Christ through communion. To receive
communion is to receive Christ himself who has offered himself for us.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>796
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The unity of Christ and the Church,
head and members of one Body, also implies the distinction of the two within a
personal relationship. This aspect is often expressed by the image of
bridegroom and bride. The theme of Christ as Bridegroom of the Church was
prepared for by the prophets and announced by John the Baptist. The Lord
referred to himself as the "bridegroom." The Apostle speaks of the
whole Church and of each of the faithful, members of his Body, as a bride
"betrothed" to Christ the Lord so as to become but one spirit with
him. The Church is the spotless bride of the spotless Lamb. "Christ loved
the Church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her." He
has joined her with himself in an everlasting covenant and never stops caring
for her as for his own body:<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">This
is the whole Christ, head and body, one formed from many...whether the head or
members speak, it is Christ who speaks. He speaks in his role as the head (ex
persona capitis) and in his role as body (ex persona corporis). What does this
mean? "The two will become one flesh. This is a great mystery, and I am
applying it to Christ and the Church." And the Lord himself says in the
Gospel: "So they are no longer two, but one flesh." They are, in
fact, two different persons, yet they are one in the conjugal union, . . . as
head, he calls himself the bridegroom, as body, he calls himself "bride."<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>(Footnotes
deleted)<span style="mso-tab-count: 3;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">This is why Catholics call “the
Eucharist the source and summit of the Christian life”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>See </span><a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Catechism of the Catholic Church</span></i></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> #1324.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">There are many wonderful books
that explore more fully this aspect of the sacrament of the Eucharist in the
Catholic life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here are two I especially
like:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rolheiser, Ronald, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Our One Great Act of Fidelity: Waiting<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>for Christ in the Eucharist,</i> New York:
Image (2011); Vonier, Anscar. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">A Key to
the Doctrine of the Eucharist</i>. Bethesda, Md: Zaccheus Press (2003).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Text:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">For
as the Apostle says, "We being many are one bread, one body."<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is how he interpreted the sacrament of
the Lord's table, "We being many are one bread, one body." By means
of this bread he impresses on you the high regard you must have for unity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For was this bread made of one grain of
wheat? Were not many grains required in its making? Yet before they became one
loaf each grain existed separately. Only after they were crushed and mixed with
water did they form one loaf.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unless
wheat is ground into flour and moistened with water, it never reaches the stage
of bread.</span></b><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">TF wrote:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><span style="color: green; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Here
Augustine is providing the wind-up for his extension of the Pauline metaphor. His
listeners, who understand how bread is made, are doubtless nodding along.</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Me:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>If Saint Augustine is boring them with figures of speech
instead of verities, Saint<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>
Augustine’s listeners would have been nodding off given their participation in
the Easter Vigil Mass a few hours earlier.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">I have already discussed similar
words uttered by Saint Augustine in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i>
272 in the </span><a href="http://capriciousness.blogspot.com/2011/08/what-saint-augustine-bishop-saint-and_20.html"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">last article I wrote in this series</span></a><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I shall not
go in detail here again.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What
TurretinFan describes as a Pauline metaphor, I call an explanation of the power
of the grace contained in the sacraments of initiation-the power that makes us
Christians, the power to open our hearts to the Word of God, and the power to
forgive sins and transform us into an unified community which is truly the Body
of Christ Himself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>These sacraments are
the visible expressions of the Way, Truth and Life that is Jesus Christ
Himself.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Text:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">So
you, too, in a certain sense were. first ground by the lowly practice of
fasting and by the sacred rite of exorcism</span></b><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">. </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">TF wrote:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><span style="color: green; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The
exorcism mentioned here is the denunciation of the devil and all his works.</span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Me:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>TurretinFan attempts to avoid the “Catholic-ness” of all
this.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While the catechumens certainly
did denounce Satan and all of His works, the exorcisms mentioned here were
actually sacramental external rites that the catechumens underwent as a part of
their lengthy preparation for reception of the sacrament of baptism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>See, for example, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i> 216.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There were
several forms of exorcism the catechumens underwent during the course of their
preparation for reception of the sacraments of initiation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One of the rites consisted of the signing the
cross on the catechumen's forehead,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>laying on of hands and placing holy salt on the tongue.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Another included the rite of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">ephphetha,</i> a rite in which the bishop
sealed the catechumens from demonic possession by<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>blowing air into the catechumen’s face, ears,
mouth and nose followed by signing them with the sign of the cross on the
forehead, ears and nose.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The exorcism
rites and rituals performed by the bishop of Hippo and his clergy on the
catechumens to prepare them for reception of the sacraments of initiation were
performed often during the forty days of Lent leading up to the Easter Vigil
Mass.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Would TurretinFan have us believe
that Saint Augustine would have put the catechumens through all this fuss over
a “Pauline metaphor?”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or is it more
reasonable to infer that the Church then believed that sacraments offered
something more true, real and substantial?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Even today, modern “Rome” still performs many of these same rites today
as part of catechumenate preparation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>These rites are now called “scrutinies”.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">TF wrote:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span><span style="color: green; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">One
wonders whether the fasting required of those who were about to be baptized was
austere or whether the denunciations requested prior to baptism were
particularly onerous. </span><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Me:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Rather than offering speculation, there are several books out
there that describe in detail the rites and practices that leading up to the
reception of the sacraments of initiation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Brown, Chris and Drury, Keith.
"</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/augustine.cathechism.htm"><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="color: blue;">Augustine’s Process for Receiving New Members</span></span></span></a></i><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">" (Last Accessed: July 18, 2011).<br />
Harmless, William. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Augustine and the
Catechumenate</i> (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1995).<br />
Weller, Philip. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Selected Easter Sermons
of Saint Augustine. </i>Saint Louis, Mo.:B. Herder Book Co, (1959).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">To summarize, in Saint Augustine’s Church, the competentes
(catechumens actively preparing to receive the sacraments of initiation) fasted
daily.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They did not eat any meals until
late in the afternoon, and when they did eat, they ate only one meatless
meal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The funds saved from not
purchasing food were then used for almsgiving.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Not only did they fast by not eating more than once a day, the
catechumens also abstained from all sexual relations with their spouses during
their<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>time of preparing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They deprived themselves of wearing fancy
clothes; choosing instead to wear hair shirts next to their bodies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They received daily instruction in the
teachings of the Church, and prayed throughout the day as well as were prayed
over by clergy and baptized members.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>All of this shows that the catechumens rigorously prepared themselves
mentally, spiritually and physically to be received into the Catholic
Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Text:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Next the water of baptism was added, by which; as it were, you were
moistened in order to be formed into bread</span></b></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Me:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Baptism was
the first sacrament of initiation done at the Easter Vigil Mass.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Saint Augustine describes the sacraments of
initiation in this manner a number of times in his sermons and other writings,
some of which we have already referenced above.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>For that matter, other Catholic saints before Saint Augustine used the
same sort of argumentation in their preaching as well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A notable example is from one of Hippo’s
favorite saints, Saint Cyprian:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Thus the cup of the Lord is not indeed water alone, nor wine alone,
unless each be mingled with the other; just as, on the other hand, the body of
the Lord cannot be flour alone or water alone, unless both should be united and
joined together and compacted in the mass of one bread; in which very sacrament
our people are shown to be made one, so that in like manner as many grains,
collected, and ground, and mixed together into one mass, make one bread; so in
Christ, who is the heavenly bread, we may know that there is one body, with
which our number is joined and united.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span></span></span><a href="http://newadvent.org/fathers/050662.htm"><span class="WPHyperlink"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="color: blue;">Epistle</span></span></i></span></a><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"> 62:13.</span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Text:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">But there is yet no bread without fire. What, then, does fire signify?
Holy Chrism, the oil that supplies the tire, the sacrament of the Holy Spirit.</span></b></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">TF wrote:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: green; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">This is parallel to the third part of Augustine's analogy
in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>272.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Notice here two interesting things. First, he confirms that he's
referring to the rite of chrismation when he speaks about the fire of the Holy
Spirit. He's talking about oil, which is fuel for fire. But notice that he
calls the oil "the sacrament of the Holy Spirit." Why? If you think
that "sacrament of the body and blood" means Transubstantiation, then
consistently you might believe that Augustine thought that the oil was
transubstantiated into the Holy Spirit.</span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Me:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>TurretinFan’s
tortured argumentation here ignores Saint Augustine’s understanding of signs
which we have already touched upon.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Moreover, TurretinFan fails to inform that Catholic</span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> </span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Church views the sacrament of Eucharist as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">sui generis</i> among the sacraments and
that the dogma of Transubstantiation is likewise unique to the Eucharist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unlike the Scriptural references to Our Lord
taking bread and wine into His hands and blessing it and then announcing that
is His Body and Blood of Our Lord, there is no scriptural reference to Our Lord
taking oil, blessing it and announcing that it is now the Holy Spirit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">However, since this article is not about what TurretinFan
believes or I believe, but what Saint Augustine believes, let us see what Saint
Augustine says on the subject:</span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">And by this ointment you wish the sacrament of chrism to be understood,
which is indeed holy as among the class of visible signs, like baptism[.]</span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span></span></span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/14092.htm"><span class="WPHyperlink"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="color: blue;">Answer to Petilian the Donatist</span></span></i></span></a><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">, Book II: 105:239.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">“And you have an unction from the Holy One, that you may be manifest to
your own selves.” The spiritual unction is the Holy Spirit Himself, of which
the Sacrament is in the visible unction. Of this unction of Christ he says,
that all who have it know the bad and the good; and they need not to be taught,
because the unction itself teaches them.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span></span></span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/170203.htm"><span class="WPHyperlink"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="color: blue;">Homily 3 on the First Epistle of John</span></span></i></span></a><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">: 5.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Again, we see Saint Augustine’s use of the word
“sacrament” to be synonymous with the visible elements of the sacrament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Moreover, it is Jesus “the Holy One” who
confers the gift of the Holy Spirit on the confirmandi through ensealment with
the sacramental unction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Note that the
text does not say that the visible unction becomes the Holy Spirit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rather, the Holy Spirit, the invisible
unction, can enter into the heart and soul of the confirmandi because they are<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>anointed with the visible unction.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">The grace of the two sacraments, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">res tantum</i>, are not the same grace.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The grace of confirmation/chrismation consists of a strengthening of the
inner character of the Christian, or Christian fortitude, if-you-will, to help
the person to know Christ and to be more like Him while the grace of the
Eucharist brings about the remission of sins and the incorporation of the
individual into the Body of Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">TF wrote:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: green; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Everyone else, I think, realizes that Augustine means that
the oil (called chrism)symbolizes and pictures to us the Holy Spirit. It
pictures the Holy Spirit, because it is the fuel for fire, and the Holy Spirit
is symbolized by fire in Scripture.</span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Me:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Given Saint
Augustine’s statement above that the invisible reality underneath the visible
unction, the “spiritual unction is the Holy Spirit Himself”, “everyone else” I
think realizes that Saint Augustine means that confirmation/chrismation is a
true sacrament from which the sealing of the confirmandi with holy oil allows
the Holy Spirit to indwell in them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As a
result of the reception of the second sacrament of initiation, the recipient
can now answer Saint Paul’s query at 1 Cor. 3:16, “Do you not know that you are
God’s temple and that God’s Spirit dwells in you?” with a resounding ‘YES’.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or perhaps TurretinFan would suggest that St.
Paul is<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>only speaking symbolically or
metaphorically there in First Corinthians. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Text:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Pay attention to the Acts of the Apostles when it is read to you; in
fact, it is now that we begin reading this very book-today we begin the book
called the Acts of the Apostles, and whoever wants to make progress finds
herein the proper inspiration.</span></b></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">TF wrote:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: green; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Evidently, the Acts of the Apostles were going to be read
later in the service. Whether Augustine also preached a Sermon on Acts this
same day or whether the reading was not for a homily, we're not told. If there
was another Sermon coming, that would explain the brevity of this Sermon.</span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Me:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Then as is
now, there is one New Testament book which is read during Mass starting on
Easter Day and the following fifty days of Easter season until Pentecost and
that book is the Acts of the Apostles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Why?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because the Acts of the
Apostles is also called the Gospel of the Holy Spirit. The Acts of the Apostles
relates the birth, growth, and victory of the Church through the Holy Spirit's
power manifested through the apostles. What Saint Augustine is alluding to is
the power of the Holy Spirit that is still being manifested in the lives of the
followers of Christ through their reception of the sacraments of
initiation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The infantes will be
reminded of this every time they hear the Acts being read in future Masses over
the next fifty days.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">TF wrote:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: green; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Progress in what? It's not entirely clear what Augustine
is referring to. The means for making progress, though, is clear: it is
Scripture.</span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Me:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Apparently
it is not clear as TurretinFan claims, or he would not have gotten it
wrong.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Saint Augustine is telling the
faithful that if they wish to understand the power of the Holy Spirit, then
they will find their inspiration in the Acts of the Apostles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The “means” Saint Augustine is talking about
is the power of the Holy Spirit and how that power is transforms our hearts and
enable us to seek to be a part of the Body of Christ which is what the Acts of
the Apostles all about.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Text:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">When you are assembled in church, stop your idle gossip and apply
yourselves to a consideration of the Scriptures.</span></b></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">TF wrote:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: green; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">That's the Augustine we Reformed folks know and love. He
wants people to concentrate on the Scriptures. For him, the service is a place
where people concentrate on the Scriptures. How far removed had the church of
Rome and its Latin mass come by the time of the Reformation, when the
Scriptures were (in the services) mostly tucked away in a language that people
did not know.</span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Me:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Whether
Reformed Christians actually “know” Saint Augustine is open for debate based on
TurretinFan’s ignorance of his theology.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Mass in Saint Augustine’s day as now is true worship. Then as now,
the reading the Scriptures<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>leads one to
enter into the Christian life starting with participation in the public liturgy
of the Church and receiving the sacraments.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Just as the disciples in the Emmaus story, Christians are led to Christ
by considering the Scriptures, but truly recognize Him in the sacraments.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>See, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i>
234:2 cited above.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Remember, for Saint
Augustine, the sacraments, especially the Eucharist, are visible expressions of
the Word of God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Contrary to
TurretinFan’s assertion, Saint Augustine here is exhorting his flock to take
their learning about the sacraments from the meaning of the Scriptures as
taught by bishops like Saint Augustine, rather than from silly stories or
gossip on the nature of the sacraments as told by people like TurretinFan. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Touching upon TurretinFan’s remarks against the Latin Mass
and reading the scriptures in Latin, his comment exposes why apologists who
hold themselves out as Christians perhaps should not write using a
pseudonym.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Please take note that while
TurretinFan has a problem with the Latin Mass but hypocritically has no problem
trumpeting<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>the five<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> solas</i> of the Reformation at the top of his </span></span><a href="http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/"><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="color: blue;">homepage</span></span></span></a><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"> in Latin, or from providing his readers links to works of
the Church fathers in Latin or for that matter neglecting to mention that most of
the Reformers wrote in Latin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>More
importantly, he neglects to mention to his readers that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i> 227 was preached by Saint Augustine to his congregation in
Latin, that the Scriptures that Saint Augustine preached on were written and
read in Latin, and the liturgy of the Mass that the congregation participated
in was heard in Latin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">I would also suggest that the average man in the street
prior to the Reformation knew the Scriptures much better by attending Latin
Mass than the average man in the street of today despite the plethora of bibles
all in the vernacular.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>TurretinFan
merely recites a canard commonly spread by the Reformers and repeated by their
successors today.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Further responding to
this perennial lie, I remember the story of one my favorite saints, </span></span><a href="http://www.olrl.org/lives/germaine.shtml"><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="color: blue;">Saint
Germaine Cousin</span></span></span></a><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">, a poor, abused, and unschooled French girl who grew up during the
Reformation whose only education came from the Mass which she attended daily
(which was in Latin) and yet she was still able to teach catechism to small
children. Her whole life exposes the falsity of this lie of the Reformers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But that is a discussion for another day.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Text:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">It is we who unlock their sacred contents for you.</span></b></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">The text that TurretinFan uses puts it slightly
differently, “We here are your books.”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">TF wrote:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: green; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Do I need to point out that Augustine doesn't mean that we
are transubstantiated into books? Probably Augustine means that those who are
reading the Scriptures serve a similar role to books for those who either can't
afford their own Bible or who do not know how to read.</span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Me:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>TurretinFan’s
comments ignore the Catholic-ness of Saint Augustine’s statement.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since Transubstantiation is unique to the
sacrament of the Eucharist, Saint Augustine certainly would not have been
talking about it here since Saint Augustine is referring to his teaching office
as a Catholic Bishop.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Saint
Augustine’s day as is true today, bishops of the Church, including Saint
Augustine, the bishop of Hippo, by virtue of their apostolic succession, are
the authoritative teachers and interpreters of the Scriptures. Note that Saint
Augustine does not tell his followers that they are to privately interpret
Scriptures themselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because Saint
Augustine and his fellow bishops are the magisterial teachers on the meaning of
Scripture, they are the “books” of the faithful and the authoritative means
given to us by Jesus Christ for Christians to make progress in growing their
faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Text:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Listen, then, and take note that the Holy Spirit is to come down on
Pentecost. And thus He will come, manifesting Himself in the form of fiery
tongues. For He breathes charity into us, filling our hearts with the love of
God and contempt for the world, consuming in us all that is dross, and
purifying our hearts like gold tried in fire. That is how the Holy Spirit
comes, the sacrament of fire after the sacrament of water, and you made a
bread, namely, the body of Christ.</span></b></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"> </span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Me:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>What is
important to remember is that contrary to what Orthodox Presbyterians like
TurretinFan believe, Saint Augustine believes that the sacrament of
confirmation/chrismation is just that-a sacrament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And since it is a sacrament, it is a vehicle
of God’s grace.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And here Saint
Augustine’s alludes to the grace that is given to the believer and the virtue
or the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">res tantum</i> that comes from the
reception of that grace-that by indwelling in us, the Holy Spirit brings love
of God and love for neighbor to one’s heart.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Unity is achieved with God and neighbor through one’s exercise of that
love in their life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here is Saint
Augustine in another passage on the effect of the Holy Spirit’s very real
indwelling in the Christian’s soul:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">"Nothing is more excellent than this gift of God. This alone is what
distinguishes between the sons of the eternal kingdom and the sons of eternal
perdition. Other endowments too are given through the Holy Spirit, but without
charity they are of no use. Unless therefore the Holy Spirit is imparted to
someone to make him a lover of God and neighbor, he cannot transfer from the
left hand to the right. Why is the Spirit distinctively called gift? Only
because of the love without which the man who has not got it, though he speak
with the tongues of men and of angels, is booming bronze and a clashing cymbal;
and if he has prophecy and knows all mysteries and all knowledge and has all
faith so as to move mountains, it is nothing; and if he distributes all his
substance, and if he gives over his body to burn, it does him no good. What a great
good must it be then, without which such great goods cannot bring anyone to
eternal life! But if a man has this love or charity (they are two names for one
thing), and does not speak with tongues or have prophecy or know all mysteries
and all knowledge or distribute all his property to the poor, either because he
has not got any to distribute or because he is prevented by some family
obligation, it brings him home to the kingdom; yes, even faith is only rendered
of any use for this purpose by charity. Faith there can indeed be without
charity, but it cannot be of any use. That is why even the apostle Paul says,
"In Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor [uncircumcision] is of any
value, but faith which works through love" (Gal 5:6); in this way he
distinguishes it from the faith with which even the demons believe and tremble.
So the love which is from God and is God is distinctively the Holy Spirit;
through him the charity of God is poured out in our hearts, and through it the
whole triad dwell in us. This is the reason why it is most apposite that the
Holy Spirit, while being God, should also be called the gift of God. And this
gift, surely, is distinctively to be understood as being the charity which
brings us through to God, without which no other gift of God at all can bring
us through to God."<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Augustine, Edmund Hill, and John E. Rotelle. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">The Trinity.</i> Brooklyn, N.Y.: New City Press, 1991, at Book 15,
Chapter 18:32. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">For a deeper discussion of Saint Augustine’s theology on
the Holy Spirit, kindly read the former Cardinal Ratzinger’s article
entitled,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span><a href="http://www.communio-icr.com/articles/PDF/ratzinger25-2.pdf"><span class="WPHyperlink"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="color: blue;">The Holy Spirit as
Communio: Concerning the Relationship of Pneumatology and Spirituality in
Augustine.</span></span></i></span></a></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Text:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">And that is how unity is signified.</span></b></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">TF wrote:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: green; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Notice how he says that unity is signified. He does not, of course, say
that unity is transubstantiated, nor does he mean any such thing. What means
here is that unity is pictured through the bread</span></b></span><span style="color: blue;"><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">.</span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Me:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Again, the
dogma of Transubstantiation refers to how Our Lord becomes present under the
species of bread and wine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Nothing
more.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It does not explain the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">res tantum </i>or the effect of the grace
that is imbued in the recipients of the Eucharist or in any other sacraments of
initiation for that matter, which is what Saint Augustine is referring to
here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Saint Augustine has moved on from
the Real Presence in the Eucharist that comes about because of
Transubstantiation to the ultimate effect of on the soul of a Christian by
receiving all three sacraments of initiation, which is union with God and with
each other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As Saint Augustine shows us
in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i> 227 the power brought about
from our participation in these sacraments brings unity and charity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Baptism unites believers into the Body of
Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Confirmation strengthens that
union.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Reception of the Eucharist
completes God’s work in us by uniting us with each other in Himself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Text:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Notice how the sacred ceremonies .follow in their proper sequence. The.
first thing after the prayer you are exhorted to lift up your heart on high.
This is most fitting for the members of Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But if you have become the members of Christ, then where is your
head?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For the members must have a head,
and unless the head takes the lead, the members will not follow. Where has your
Head betaken Himself? What are the words you recited in the Apostles' Creed?
"The third day He arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven, and
sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty." Our Head, therefore,
is in heaven.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So at the words,
"Lift up your heart;" You respond, "We have lifted it up to the
Lord."</span></b></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">TF writes: </span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"><span style="color: blue;"> </span></span></span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: green; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Augustine is saying that it is proper to lift up our hearts, because as
members of Christ and Christ is our head (no mention of the bishop of Rome as
our head, but that's no surprise, since Augustine didn't believe such a thing).
Our head is in heaven, and so we properly lift up our hearts to the Lord, as
members of Him. Remember, Augustine has in the background the metaphor of the
one bread. That one bread is the body of Christ, and we - like grains - are
members of that one bread, in Augustine's explanation. Notice Augustine's
reference to the creed, as in the other sermon. He clearly assumes that these
new converts are at least familiar with the creed and that they can recite it
(give it back).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Me:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>We now see
Saint Augustine relate Catholic theology to the parts of the Mass.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The part of the Mass he is explaining to the
Infantes is the prayers contained in the Eucharistic Prayer, starting with the
Sursum Corda, which we will touch on in a bit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This instruction on the prayers of the Eucharist is necessary because
the infantes up to this point would be in a fog as to the meaning and
significance of these prayers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Addressing TurretinFan’s remarks directly, I have no doubt
that Saint Augustine would not have<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>believed that the<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Bishop of Rome
is the head of the mystical Body of Christ since the Catholic Church has never
taught such a thing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We Catholics
recognize only Jesus Christ as the head of the Body of Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">That said, I also have no doubt that Saint Augustine would
recognize the Bishop of Rome as having primacy and authority on earth over him
and the other bishops of the Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Here are a few of Saint Augustine’s writings on point to refute
TurretinFan’s assertion as to what Saint Augustine thought about the authority
of the Bishop of Rome:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>1)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Letter
175 </i>[From the Council of Milevis of Sixty-one Bishops (Including Augustine)
to Pope St. Innocent I]<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Whereas, by a particular gift of His grace the Lord has placed you in the
Apostolic See <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">and has given to our times
a man like you to reign over us</b>, it would be more possible for us to be
charged with the guilt of negligence if we failed to report to your Reverence
(a.k.a. the Pope) matters which need to be made known for the benefit of the
Church than for you to receive such suggestions coldly or negligently, we
therefore beg you to deign to apply your pastoral care to the great perils of
the weak members of Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>...<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Trusting in the merciful help of the Lord our God, which deigns to guide
you in your plans and hear you in your prayers,<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> we think that those who hold these distorted and dangerous views will
readily submit to the authority of your Holiness, which is derived from the authority
of the holy Scriptures</b>, so that we may congratulate you on their conversion
rather than grieve over their loss, most holy lord.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But, no matter what choice they make, your
Reverence surely sees that immediate and speedy provision must be made for the
others whom they are able to trap in their snares in great numbers if this is
not made known to them.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">We are addressing this written report to your Holiness from the Council
of Numidia, imitating the Church at Carthage and our brother bishops of the Carthaginian
province, having heard that they have written on this matter to the Apostolic
See which you so blessedly adorn.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>May
you increase in the grace of the Lord and be mindful of us, most holy lord,
honored and saintly Pope, worthy of our veneration in Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>(Emphasis
added.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Augustine, and Wilfrid Parsons. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Letters
Volume IV</i>, Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 1981. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Now if Saint Augustine did not think that the Bishop of
Rome did not have authority over him, why was he a signatory to this letter to
the Pope?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But just in case he somehow
got tricked into signing this letter, let’s see if there are any other texts
that are suggestive of his view of the papacy.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 4.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -4in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">2)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/14082.htm"><span class="WPHyperlink"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="color: blue;">On Baptism Against the Donatists</span></span></i></span></a><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">, Book 2, 1:2. <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">I suppose that there is no slight to Cyprian in comparing him with Peter
in respect to his crown of martyrdom; rather I ought to be afraid lest I am
showing disrespect towards Peter.<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> For
who can be ignorant that the primacy of his apostleship is to be preferred to
any episcopate whatever? But, granting the difference in the dignity of their
sees, yet they have the same glory in their martyrdom.</b><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>(Emphasis
added.)<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>3)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Psalmus
contra partem Donati</i>, 18 (A.D. 393),GCC 51:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Carthage was also near to the countries beyond the sea, and distinguished
by<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span> illustrious renown, so that it
had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard
even a number of enemies conspiring against him, because he saw himself united
by letters of communion both to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an
apostolic chair has always flourished, and to all other lands from which Africa
itself received the gospel, and was prepared to defend himself before these
Churches if his adversaries attempted to cause an alienation of them from him.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of
Fathers see who succeeded whom, That is the rock against which the gates of
hell do not prevail.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>4)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Christian
Combat</i>, 31:33 (A.D. 397), in JUR,3:51 <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Let us not listen to those who deny that the Church of God is able to
forgive all sins. They are wretched indeed, because they do not recognize in
Peter the rock and they refuse to believe that the keys of heaven, lost from
their own hands, have been given to the Church.” <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>5)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Epistle</i>
53:2 [To Generosus] (A.D. 400), in NPNF1,I:29<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with
how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we
reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord
said: ‘Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not
prevail against it !’ The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in
unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander,
Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor,
Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius,
Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus,
Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus,
and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order
of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of
things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting
himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some
notoriety to the name of ‘mountain men,’ or Cutzupits, by which they were
known.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Neither Saint Augustine nor I would recognize the pope as
the head of the Church, but both Saint Augustine and I do recognize his
authority over us by virtue of his office that Our Lord instituted. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Text:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">And lest you begin to attribute this to your own powers to your own
merits, to your own efforts, although it is only by the grace of God that you
can elevate your hearts, the bishop or the priest who is offering the
Sacrifice, immediately after the people have responded, "We have lifted
our heart to the Lord," adds the words, "Let us give thanks to the
Lord our God." In other words, we thank almighty God for the fact that our
heart are lifted up to Him, for unless He grants His assistance our heart would
be fettered to the earth. That is why you attest your approval by saying,
"It is right and praiseworthy" that we render thanks to Him, who has
made it possible for us to raise our heart to our divine Head</span></b></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">TF wrote:</span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: green; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Augustine
is continuing to explain the liturgy of his particular church. It is clear, you
see, that they had a particular liturgical form in which after the person who
is offering says "lift up your hearts" the congregation replies
"we have lifted them up to the Lord," and then the person offering says
"Let us give thanks to the Lord our God, because we have lifted up our
hearts." It's a set form, and interactive, capturing the attention and
participation of the congregation.</span></b></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Me:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Saint
Augustine is explaining to his congregation the meaning of the Sursum Corda,
the prayer that begins the Eucharistic Prayer or the Canon of the Mass which is
the central feature of the Mass both in the days of Saint Augustine and in
today’s Catholic Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Saint Augustine
is not explaining a prayer used in the “liturgy of his particular church.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He is explaining the meaning of a prayer that
is recited in every Mass in every Catholic Church in the world since the time
of the Apostles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We’ll discuss the
importance of the Sursum Cor as a Eucharistic prayer in a moment.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Before we do, I must say that I find it interesting to see
TurretinFan’s reticence in referencing that it is the priest offering the
sacrifice of the Mass here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Such is
understandable as TurretinFan knows that if there is no priest, there is no
sacrifice of the Mass.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For that matter,
there is no Transubstantiation if there is no priest to consecrate the physical
elements of bread and wine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is not
just a “person” offering the sacrifice of the Mass, it is the priest or
bishop.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">TF wrote:</span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"><span style="color: blue;"> </span></span></span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: green; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">And here is an explanation of what
Augustine is saying, namely that God enabled us to lift up our hearts, else we
would not have been able to lift them up. <o:p></o:p></span></b></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: green; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>...<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: green; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">And here is the concluding line of
the congregation's response. The congregation actually acknowledges that God
caused them to lift up their hearts to their head (meaning to Christ).</span></b></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Me:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Here
Augustine explains how grace sacramentally coming to us operates so as to make
our works grace itself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Eucharistic
Prayer is the heart of the Liturgy of the Eucharist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this prayer we see the priest-bishop
celebrant acting in the person of Christ as head of his body, the Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The back and forth language of the dialog
shows that the celebrant offers not only the bread and wine, but the substance
of our lives and joins them to Christ’s perfect sacrifice, offering them to God
the Father.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Sursum Corda that Saint
Augustine is breaking down here establishes that the Eucharistic Prayer is not
a private prayer of the priest, but is in fact the prayer of the whole faithful
offered in the presence of God and demonstrates that the sacrifice of the
Eucharist is a sacrifice of thanksgiving (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">eucharista</i>=thanksgiving).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While we adore Christ who becomes present in
our midst, the liturgical action here also celebrates the action of Christ the
priest as well as His Body, the Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Not only does Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity become present
through the consecration of the bread and wine, but Christ’s saving action does
as well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The liturgical action here is a
remembrance in the biblical sense, an anamnesis, a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">zikkaron.</i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As the Sursum
Corda shows, it is not just the priest lifting up the once-and-for-all
sacrifice of Our Lord to the Father, but all of the baptized who offer this
sacrifice of thanksgiving in union with Christ. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Moreover, we do not offer Christ alone, but ourselves in
the sacrifice as well.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Imperfect as that
offering of ourselves may be, it becomes perfect when it is joined with the
offering of Our Lord to the Father.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>(See, </span></span><a href="http://www.usccb.org/prayer-and-worship/the-mass/readings-on-the-roman-missal.cfm"><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><span style="color: blue;"> </span></span><span style="color: blue;">Roman Missal formation materials
provided by the Secretariat for the Liturgy of the United States Conference of
Bishops,</span></span></span></a><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"> 2010)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Text:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">God has willed that we ourselves should be a sacrifice to Him, as was
shown in the words onetime used, ''We are God's sacrifice"-we are the
thing which is offered</span></b></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">.</span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">TF wrote:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: green; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Evidently, the text of this Sermon is "corrupt" here, and the
translator has done his best to convey the sense. So, we should probably be
careful about how much weight we place on the exact wording. Nevertheless, the
point is that this sacrifice is a sacrifice of us! The bread is the sign of the
thing that we are. As in the previous sermon, Augustine's point is not one that
is very helpful for Transubstantiation. If Augustine's terminology about the
bread being the "sign" is to be taken in transubstantial terms, we
ourselves would be transubstantiated. But if, instead, Augustine means for us
to understand simply an ordinary sign, then the sermon makes more sense.<o:p></o:p></span></b></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: green; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Incidentally, it should be noted that
Augustine elsewhere speaks about us being the sacrifice, for example in City of
God, Book X, Chapter 6 ("This is the sacrifice of Christians: we, being
many, are one body in Christ. And this also is the sacrifice which the Church
continually celebrates in the sacrament of the altar, known to the faithful, in
which she teaches that she herself is offered in the offering she makes to
God.").</span></b></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Me:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>TurretinFan
sets up a straw-man argument for his readers that Catholic teaching pertaining
to the dogma of Transubstantiation states we are likewise transubstantiated by
receiving Our Lord.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He misrepresents
that the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">sacramentum </i>is the same as
the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">res</i> rather than accurately
present the Church’s teaching that the sacrament of the Eucharist contains both
sign and reality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As stated earlier in
the magisterial documents that I presented to the reader, the dogma of
Transubstantiation states that only the substance of bread and wine become the
Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ when consecrated by a
priest.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The accidents, the physical
characteristics of the bread and wine, remain unchanged.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Furthermore, Saint Augustine has moved on from how Christ
becomes present in the Eucharist to the effect of our participation in it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is through the Eucharist that the
sacrifice of the Church (which is the members of the Church who are the Body of
Christ) are united with the sacrifice of Our Lord.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Only through the dogma of Transubstantiation
is it possible for our imperfect sacrifice of ourselves to the Father to be
meaningful or worthy because such is united with the true and real sacrifice of
Our Lord.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Interestingly, we see the
Saint Augustine's <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i> 272 being
quoted in the </span></span><a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm"><span class="WPHyperlink"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="color: blue;">Catechism of the Catholic
Church</span></span></i></span></a><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"> on this
point: <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>1396.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The unity of the Mystical Body: the Eucharist
makes the Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Those who receive the
Eucharist are united more closely to Christ. Through it Christ unites them to
all the faithful in one body—the Church. Communion renews, strengthens, and
deepens this incorporation into the Church, already achieved by Baptism. In
Baptism we have been called to form but one body. The Eucharist fulfills this
call: “The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the
blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the
body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for
we all partake of the one bread:”<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 2in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">If you are the body and members of Christ, then it is your sacrament that
is placed on the table of the Lord; it is your sacrament that you receive. To
that which you are you respond “Amen” (“yes, it is true!”) and by responding to
it you assent to it. For you hear the words, “the Body of Christ” and respond
“Amen.” Be then a member of the Body of Christ that your Amen may be true.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>(Footnotes
omitted).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Now TurretinFan claims that the dogma of
Transubstantiation is incompatible with the symbolism seen in the sacrament of
the Eucharist and the grace received from partaking in communion especially in
light of what Saint Augustine states in Chapter 10:6 of the City of God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the dogma of Transubstantiation is so
opposed to what Saint Augustine is saying here as suggested by TurretinFan, one
must wonder why the quote from Chapter 10:6 from the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">City of God </i>also is featured so prominently in the </span></span><a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm"><span class="WPHyperlink"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="color: blue;">Catechism of the Catholic
Church</span></span></i></span></a><span class="WPHyperlink"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">:</span></i></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>1368.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The Eucharist is also the sacrifice of the
Church. The Church which is the Body of Christ participates in the offering of
her Head. With him, she herself is offered whole and entire. She unites herself
to his intercession with the Father for all men. In the Eucharist the sacrifice
of Christ becomes also the sacrifice of the members of his Body. The lives of
the faithful, their praise, sufferings, prayer, and work, are united with those
of Christ and with his total offering, and so acquire a new value. Christ's
sacrifice present on the altar makes it possible for all generations of
Christians to be united with his offering.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">In the catacombs the Church is often represented as a woman in prayer,
arms outstretched in the praying position. Like Christ who stretched out his
arms on the cross, through him, with him, and in him, she offers herself and
intercedes for all men.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">1372. <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>St. Augustine
admirably summed up this doctrine that moves us to an ever more complete
participation in our Redeemer's sacrifice which we celebrate in the Eucharist:<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 2in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">This wholly redeemed city, the assembly and society of the saints, is
offered to God as a universal sacrifice by the high priest who in the form of a
slave went so far as to offer himself for us in his Passion, to make us the
Body of so great a head.... Such is the sacrifice of Christians: "we who
are many are one Body in Christ" The Church continues to reproduce this
sacrifice in the sacrament of the altar so well-known to believers wherein it
is evident to them that in what she offers she herself is offered.[194] <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Note 194:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>St. Augustine, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">De civ Dei</i> (City of God), 10, 6: PL 41,
283; cf.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rom 12:5.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">TurretinFan’s thought also reveals that he perceives that
Catholics think of the Real Presence in carnal terms only.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is the heresy of Capharnaitism (See,
John 6) which the Church totally rejects.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>We do not believe that we are eating pieces of Jesus’ body or eating
Jesus burgers or drinking Jesus juice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Rather, in both Saint Augustine’s time and in today’s “modern Rome,” the
Church teaches that it is only the substance of the host and the contents of
the chalice that has been changed into the risen and glorified Body of Christ
which although fully corporeal and real, is a sacramental presence, not a carnal
presence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The benefit of the Eucharist
is spiritual, not carnal.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We receive
grace, not nutrition, by communicating with Christ.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Again, here is what Saint Augustine’s teacher, Saint
Ambrose taught:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Wherefore, too, the Church, beholding so great grace, exhorts her sons
and her friends to come together to the sacraments, saying: “Eat, my friends,
and drink and be inebriated, my brother.” (Song of Songs 5:1) What we eat and
what we drink the Holy Spirit has elsewhere made plain by the prophet, saying,
“Taste and see that the Lord is good, blessed is the man that hopes in Him.” In
that sacrament is Christ, because it is the Body of Christ, it is therefore not
bodily food but spiritual. Whence the Apostle says of its type: “Our fathers
ate spiritual food and drank spiritual drink,” (1 Corinthians 10:3) for the
Body of God is a spiritual body; the Body of Christ is the Body of the Divine
Spirit, for the Spirit is Christ, as we read: “The Spirit before our face is
Christ the Lord.” (Lamentations 4:20) And in the Epistle of Peter we read:
“Christ died for us.” (1 Peter 2:21) Lastly, that food strengthens our heart,
and that drink “makes glad the heart of man,” as the prophet has recorded.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span></span></span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3405.htm"><span class="WPHyperlink"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="color: blue;">On the Mysteries</span></span></i></span></a><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"> 9:58<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">For a more detailed, and far more eloquent and elegant
explanation of what I am saying, I found an article written by Canon George D.
Smith entitled </span></span><a href="http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=386"><span class="WPHyperlink"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="color: blue;">The Sacrament of the
Eucharist</span></span></i></span></a><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">,
particularly Chapter VIII entitled “The Effects of the Sacrament” which I would
encourage the reader to peruse. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Text:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">After the consecration of the divine Sacrifice has been effected we say
the Lord’s Prayer, the prayer which you were taught and have recited. This is
followed by the words, "Peace be to you," and the Christians give one
another the holy kiss of peace.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A kiss
is the symbol of peace, a sign that what the lips express. outwardly is true of
the interior conscience; in other words, just as your lips are joined to those
of your brother, so your hearts should always be united.</span></b></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"> <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></b></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 5;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Me:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>I have
decided not to interact with TurretinFan’s comments in regards to The Lord’s
Prayers and the Sign of Peace as they are irrelevant to the point of this
article-whether Saint Augustine believed anything different than today’s
Catholic Church in regards to Transubstantiation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That said, both the Lord’s Prayer and the
Sign of Peace do touch upon that dogma.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">For Saint Augustine, the Lord’s Prayer is the most
important prayer in the life of a Christian, “Whatever else we say when we
pray, if we pray as we should, we are only saying what is already contained in
the Lord’s Prayer” (<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Letter</i> 121:12).
In the context of the Liturgy of the Mass, it is the first prayer in the
Communion Rite. In Saint Augustine’s Mass as well as the Mass of “Modern Rome,”
the Communion Rite begins with the Lord’s Prayer, moves into the Sign of Peace
and concludes with the actual receiving by priest and people of the Body and
Blood of the Lord. The Lord’s Prayer is a prayer of petition, of forgiveness,
and a prayer of expectation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Lord’s
Prayer also refers to our participation in the Eucharist as a type of the
messianic feast when Our Lord comes again and establishes His kingdom for all
time.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Here are some passages reflecting how Saint Augustine
related the Lord’s Prayer and the Eucharist:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>1)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm"><span class="WPHyperlink"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="color: blue;">Tractates on the Gospel of John</span></span></i></span></a><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">, 26:11:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>For
even we at this day receive visible food: but the sacrament is one thing, the virtue
of the sacrament another. How many do receive at the altar and die, and die
indeed by receiving? Whence the apostle says, “Eats and drinks judgment to
himself.” (1 Corinthians 11:29)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For it
was not the mouthful given by the Lord that was the poison to Judas. And yet he
took it; and when he took it, the enemy entered into him: not because he
received an evil thing, but because he being evil received a good thing in an
evil way. See ye then, brethren, that you eat the heavenly bread in a spiritual
sense; bring innocence to the altar. Though your sins are daily, at least let
them not be deadly. Before ye approach the altar, consider well what you are to
say: “Forgive us our debts, even as we forgive our debtors.” (Matthew 6:12) You
forgive, it shall be forgiven you: approach in peace, it is bread, not
poison.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But see whether you forgive, for
if you do not forgive, you lie, and lie to Him whom you cannot deceive. You can
lie to God, but you cannot deceive God.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>2)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/160307.htm"><span class="WPHyperlink"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="color: blue;">Sermon</span></span></i></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="color: blue;">
57:7</span></span></span></a><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>There
is a spiritual<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>food also which the
faithful know, which you too will know, when you shall receive it at the altar
of God. This also is “daily Bread,” necessary only for this life. For shall we
receive the Eucharist when we shall have come to Christ Himself, and begun to
reign with Him forever? So then the Eucharist is our daily bread; but let us in
such wise receive it, that we be not refreshed in our bodies only, but in our
souls. For the virtue which is apprehended there, is unity, that gathered
together into His body, and made His members, we may be what we receive. Then
will it be indeed our daily bread.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>3)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/160309.htm"><span class="WPHyperlink"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="color: blue;">Sermon</span></span></i></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="color: blue;">
59:6</span></span></span></a><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">“Give us this day our daily bread,”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>comes next in the Prayer. Whether we ask here of the Father support<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>necessary for the body, by “bread” signifying
whatever is needful for us; or whether we understand that daily Bread, which
you are soon to receive from the Altar; well it is that we pray that He would
give it us. For what is it we pray for, but that we may commit no evil, for
which we should be separated from that holy Bread. And the word of God which is
preached daily is daily bread. For because it is not bread for the body, it is
not on that account not bread for the soul. But when this life shall have
passed away, we shall neither seek that bread which hunger seeks; nor shall we
have to receive the Sacrament of the Altar, because we shall be there with
Christ, whose Body we do now receive; nor will those words which we are now
speaking, need to be said to you, nor the sacred volume to be read, when we
shall see Him who is Himself the Word of God, by whom all things were made, by
whom the Angels are fed, by whom the Angels are enlightened, by whom the Angels
become wise; not requiring words of circuitous discourse; but drinking in the
Only Word, filled with whom they burst forth<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>and never fail in praise. For, “Blessed,” says the Psalm, “are they who
dwell in Your house; they will be always praising You.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>4)<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102130.htm"><span class="WPHyperlink"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="color: blue;">Letter</span></span></i></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="color: blue;"> 130</span></span></span></a><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">, 11:21<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>When
we say: "Give us this day our daily bread," the word "this
day" signifies for the present time, in which we ask either for that
competency of temporal blessings which I have spoken of before ("
bread" being used to designate the whole of those blessings, because of
its constituting so important a part of them), or the sacrament of believers,
which is in this present time necessary, but necessary in order to obtain the
felicity not of the present time, but of eternity. When we say: "Forgive
us our debts as we forgive our debtors," we remind ourselves both what we
should ask, and what we should do in order that we may be worthy to receive
what we ask.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">As Saint Augustine shows, we cannot receive forgiveness of
sins unless we are prepared to forgive our neighbor and provide an outward sign
of that forgiveness.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Saint
Augustine’s sacramental thought, the reverent recitation of the Lord’s Prayer
and reception of the Eucharist with the proper disposition even has the power
to forgive venial sin.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This thought is
still present in the Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>See, </span></span><a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm"><span class="WPHyperlink"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="color: blue;">Catechism of the Catholic
Church</span></span></i></span></a><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"> 1394, 1436,
1437.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“For both individuals and nations,
forgiveness is the only way to peace” as Pope St. John Paul II said in his </span></span><a href="http://www.fjp2.com/it/giovanni-paolo-ii/libreria-online/messages/6163-lent-2001-"><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="color: blue;">annual message for Lent 2001.</span></span></span></a><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">This aspect of the Lord’s Prayer naturally leads directly
into the Sign of Peace as a sign of that forgiveness as expressed here as well
as in many of Saint Augustine’s writings:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Then the Lord’s Prayer is said, the prayer that was handed over to you
and that you in turn gave back.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Why is
this prayer said before one receives the body and blood of Christ?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because it may have happened, through human
frailty, that our mind conceived an improper thought, or that our tongue let
slip an unseemly word, or that our eyes gazed on an indecent object, or that
our ears listened avidly to evil speech.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Now if anything of the like was committed through worldly temptation and
human frailty, then all is blotted out by the Lord’s Prayer, namely, when one
says, “Forgive us our trespasses.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And
thus we can approach the sacrament in the assurance that we do not eat and
drink in our condemnation.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">This is followed by the words, “Peace be to you.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What a lofty sign is the kiss of peace!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let this kiss be given so as to foster mutual
love.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Be not a Judas.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Judas, the traitor, kissed Christ with his
mouth, although there was treachery in his heart.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If it happens that a person is unfriendly to
you, and you cannot win him over, then you must bear with him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Your heart must not repay his evil with
evil.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If he hates you, you must love him
nevertheless, for then you can feel free to give him the kiss of peace.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i> 229=Denis VI (Cited above)<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">The Sign of Peace is meant to be much more than just a
polite demonstration to those near to us at Mass. As with everything else in
the liturgy, it has great purpose and meaning.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The sign of peace is just that–a sign of unity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In </span></span><a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.ht"><span class="WPHyperlink"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="color: blue;">Sacramentum Caritatis</span></span></i></span></a><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">, Pope Benedict XVI instructs:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">"By its nature the Eucharist is the sacrament of peace. At Mass this
dimension of the Eucharistic mystery finds specific expression in the sign of
peace. Certainly this sign has great value (cf. Jn 14:27). In our times,
fraught with fear and conflict, this gesture has become particularly eloquent,
as the Church has become increasingly conscious of her responsibility to pray
insistently for the gift of peace and unity for herself and for the whole human
family. Certainly there is an irrepressible desire for peace present in every
heart." <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Text:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></span></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">What wonderful, what sublime mysteries meet us here! <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Would you like to know how greatly they must
be revered? "Whosoever," says the Apostle, "shall eat the body
of Christ, or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the
body and of the blood of the Lord."<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>How does one receive this sacrament unworthily? By receiving it in
mockery or in a spirit of contempt. Do not presume to regard it with scorn
because of what you see with your bodily eyes. What your eyes behold is
transitory, but the invisible, reality signified is not transitory but permanent.
You see, it is received, eaten, and consumed. but, is the body. of .Christ
consumed, is the Church of Christ consumed, are the members of Christ
consumed?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By no means!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, here on earth His members are
purified, so that in the next world they may wear the crown of everlasting
life. So what is signified will endure forever, even though it seems to pass
away. <o:p></o:p></span></b></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: red; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Approach this sacrament, therefore,
with the realization that its purpose is to strengthen you in unity and to keep
your hearts forever fixed on the things that are above. Your hope is in heaven,
not on earth.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If your faith is centered
in God, it will be pleasing to God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For
what you now accept on faith, even though you do not see it, will be made
manifest to you in heaven, where your joy will know no end. <o:p></o:p></span></b></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Me:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Saint
Augustine draws the attention of the newly-baptized infantes to the reality of
the Eucharistic species, the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, the
invisible reality beneath the visible signs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>He cautions them that this is a sacrament of faith,<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>not to judge the sacrament from its
appearances, which passes away, lest they fail to recognize that the reality,
the substance of the sacrament, Our Lord Himself, is eternal and will never
pass away.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In order to receive the
sacrament of the Eucharist worthily, we must receive it as the sacrament of
unity. And in order for the Eucharist to be a sacrament of unity, it must be
received in a spirit of peace.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We see
this discussed in more detail in Saint Augustine’s </span></span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701026.htm"><span class="WPHyperlink"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="color: blue;">Tractate on the Gospel of John</span></span></i></span></a><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"> 26:17-18:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>17.
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>“For my flesh,” says He, “is meat
indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.” For while by meat and drink men seek to
attain to this, neither to hunger nor thirst, there is nothing that truly
affords this, except this meat and drink, which does render them by whom it is
taken immortal and incorruptible; that is, the very fellowship of the saints,
where will be peace and unity, full and perfect. Therefore, indeed, it is, even
as men of God understood this before us, that our Lord Jesus Christ has pointed
our minds to His body and blood in those things, which from being many are
reduced to some one thing. For a unity is formed by many grains forming
together; and another unity is effected by the clustering together of many
berries.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>18.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>In
a word, He now explains how that which He speaks of comes to pass, and what it
is to eat His body and to drink His blood. “He that eats my flesh, and drinks
my blood, dwells in me, and I in him.” This it is, therefore, for a man to eat
that meat and to drink that drink, to dwell in Christ, and to have Christ
dwelling in him. Consequently, he that dwells not in Christ, and in whom Christ
dwells not, doubtless neither eats His flesh [spiritually] nor drinks His blood
[although he may press the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ carnally
and visibly with his teeth], but rather does he eat and drink the sacrament of
so great a thing to his own judgment, because he, being unclean, has presumed
to come to the sacraments of Christ, which no man takes worthily except he that
is pure: of such it is said, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see
God.” Matthew 5:8<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">Saint Augustine builds on Saint Paul’s thought.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In 1 Corinthians, Saint Paul speaks of how we
must receive the Eucharist as a community.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There, he warns against the divisions that separate people before they
receive communion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Saint Augustine
explains why.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Revisiting <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i> 272:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">So why in bread? Let's not bring anything of our own to bear here, let's
go on listening to the apostle himself, who said, when speaking of this
sacrament, One bread, one body, we being many are (1 Cor 10:17). Understand and
rejoice. Unity, truth, piety, love. One bread; what is this one bread? The one
body which we, being many, are. Remember that bread is not made from one grain,
but from many. When you were being exorcized, it's as though you were being
ground. When you were baptized it's as though you were mixed into dough. When
you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, it's as though you were baked. Be
what you can see, and receive what you are. That's what the apostle said about
the bread. He has already shown clearly enough what we should understand about
the cup, even if it wasn't said. After all, just as many grains are mixed into
one loaf in order to produce the visible appearance of bread, as though what
holy scripture says about the faithful were happening: They had one soul and
one heart in God (Acts 4:32); so too with the wine. Brothers and sisters, just
remind yourselves what wine is made from; many grapes hang in the bunch, but
the juice of the grapes is poured together in one vessel. That too is how the
Lord Christ signified us, how he wished us to belong to him, how he consecrated
the sacrament of our peace and unity on his table. Any who receive the
sacrament of unity, and do not hold the bond of peace, do not receive the
sacrament for their benefit, but a testimony against themselves. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none; text-align: center;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">CONCLUSION</span></b></span><span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;"><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">I apologize for the extraordinary length of this article
offered as a response<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>to TurretinFan’s
commentary on <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Sermon</i> 227, but I hope
the reader has found it helpful in understanding Saint Augustine’s Eucharistic
theology and how closely it corresponds with the present-day Catholic Church’s
dogma of Transubstantiation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I submit
that Saint Augustine did believe, when the priest consecrates bread and wine by
speaking the Words of Institution, their substance is converted into the Body
and Blood of Our Lord.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If understood
correctly, Transubstantiation is not a doctrine that should separate us
Christians.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rather, it provides the
means that makes the Eucharist truly a sacrament of peace and unity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is- only if we accept on faith Jesus
Christ who is truly and really present in the Eucharist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: black; font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin; text-decoration: none; text-underline: none;">God bless!<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
Paul Hofferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-69136790406959085492013-03-05T22:52:00.002-05:002013-03-06T09:04:07.007-05:00Confronting a Suspiciously Doubtful and Hopelessly Ambiguous Assertion by Turretinfan in Regards to the Eagerness of Catholic Apologists to Besmirch the Scriptures<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 1pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><w:sdtpr></w:sdtpr><w:sdt docpart="5297C5C59D294B9F8BFBC25C4178B022" id="89512082" storeitemid="X_C8E2F593-B101-456A-A019-8C77400C2715" text="t" title="Post Title" xpath="/ns0:BlogPostInfo/ns0:PostTitle"></w:sdt></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<div class="Publishwithline" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Because </span>of <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Turretinfan’s continued policy of arbitrarily censoring comments of those who attempt to interact with his articles, I reluctantly decided to post my comments that I would have liked to have posted </span>in<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"> response to an article he wrote captioned<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2013/03/trinity-review-of-year-of-faith.html"><span style="color: blue;">Trinity Review of Year of Faith</span></a>”</i></span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"> </i><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">here on my own blog rather than taking the chance again that he would delete them and then misrepresent what I did say.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I apologize to the reader in advance as posting an article in this manner </span>as such <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">tends to reduce interaction and meaningful discussion of the topic at hand.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Because of its brevity, here is Mr. Fan’s posting in its entirety so one may not accuse me of distorting </span>his<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"> remarks: <o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Despite the passing of John Robbins, the Trinity Review continues occasionally to publish reviews. The latest one is a review of Rome's "Year of Faith." The review takes a position of continuity with respect to Rome - it continues to reject the gospel now, just as it has at least since Trent. The language may be more polished now, but that makes the snare more subtle. One of the best lines in the review was "Once Evangelicals go down the ecumenical path into Rome and its rituals, it is difficult to resist her deceptions, except by the Word of God." To that I would add that consequently one of the first things that many of Rome's apologists seem eager to do is to cast suspicion and doubt on the Scriptures and their clarity, as though the Scriptures were hopelessly ambiguous and in need an of external, authoritative interpreter.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>-TurretinFan<o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">P.S. I should add that Benedict XVI's long-awaited encyclical on faith was not published, allegedly because it was not complete. If it is ever completed and published, the Vatican has already indicated that it will not be an encyclical and will not in itself carry the weight of papal authority.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">For the non-Catholic reader, the Year of Faith mentioned in the article is a celebration by the Catholic Church of the 50<span style="font-size: ><sup>th</sup> anniversary of the opening of the great pastoral council, Vatican II.<span style=;" yes="">th anniversary of the opening of the Second Vatican Council. </span>As a part of that celebration, Catholics are being encouraged to read the documents of Vatican II, and to put them into practice in their lives and in their parishes.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt;">Now I have no desire to interact with the underlying article written by the Trinity Foundation, a Protestant “think tank” that hides its </span>“<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">there’s-a-Jesuit-hiding-behind-every-tree</span>”<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"> anti-Catholicism beneath a</span><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"> veneer of mainstream Calvinism. </span>It would take me weeks to write something to refute their style of textual cherry-picking and it would be far easier for me to suggest that if the reader wishes to know what Vatican II actually held, read the actual documents themselves rather than take the word of a group of individuals who think that the Catholic Church is secretly out to destroy the economy of the United States of America as part of its nefarious plan to takeover and rule the world. </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Rather, t<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">he portion of the article which I seek to interact with is Turretinfan’s addition that many Catholic apologists are eager to cast suspicion and doubt on the Scriptures and their perspicuity “as though the Scriptures [are] hopelessly ambiguous and in need of [an] external authoritative interpreter.” <o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> Preliminarily, <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">I </span>would <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">ask Turretinfan to identify the </span>“many” <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Catholic apologists he perceives are “eager” to “cast suspicion and doubt on the Scriptures” and their “clarity as though the Scriptures [are] hopelessly ambiguous and in need of an external authoritative interpreter”</span> so we all can test the validity of this unsubstantiated assertion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Given his tendency to ignore criticism he can’t respond to, I will not hold my breath waiting for him to name names or offer any proof of to back up his assertions. <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Now it is true that there are occasions when the magisterial authority of the Church is invoked to aid the faithful by clarifying its teachings, interpreting its doctrines, and providing an understanding of the Scriptures when material disputes or disagreements arise.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is not true to say that the Church </span>(<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">or </span>of <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">any Catholic apologist I </span>can recall)<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"> claims that the Scriptures are hopelessly</span> (I take this to mean always or usually)<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"> ambiguous or unclear or that a member of the faithful must seek recourse to an external authoritative interpreter every time they do not understand a particular passage.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">That said, </span>folks do often seek recourse to authoritative sources to help in understanding the Scriptures<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">.</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There is no paucity of concordances, commentaries, sermons, articles, or official church pronouncements, regardless of one’s denominational flavor, that one has recourse to as aids to understand the Holy Writ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Obviously, Turretinfan </span>did not spring from the womb <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">with a complete understanding of the Scriptures and </span>like the rest of us mere humans <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">had to gain a certain level of understanding of Word of God </span>through <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">what his teachers, pastors, and others have </span>taught, <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">written or preached about them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Surely one would agree that such individuals in our lives could be said to be external authoritative interpreters of a sort on the Scriptures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And one can not deny the shameful fact that Christianity is fractured: there are Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, and others who call themselves Christian.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How can one say that the Scriptures are always perspicuous and </span>one is <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">never in need of an authoritative interpreter </span>to assist in understanding the Scriptures <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">given our many divisions?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And as a matter of history, there are at least several ecumenical councils that both Catholics and most Protestants agree were authoritative: Nicea</span> I<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">, Constantinople I, Ephesus, Chalcedon?</span> Given the Trinitarian and Christological disputes that they resolved, would not Turretinfan agree that they were necessary external authoritative interpreters of the Scriptures?<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the Scriptures were so clear and understandable, why were those councils </span>even <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">needed?</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> After all, </span> one merely had to go to the index found after Revelation, right?<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">For that matter, as a part of his Orthodox Presbyterian tradition, Mr. Fan accepts the Westminster Confession of Faith and Larger and Shorter Catechisms as authoritative (although it would be interesting to find out if he dissents from the 1903 modification of Chapter 25.6 which removed the reference to the pope as the Antichrist).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the Scriptures are so clear and unambiguous, wouldn’t these documents be superfluous drivel</span> and unnecessary as well<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">?</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Does Turretinfan think that one can believe in the Bible alone without accepting the Westminster Confession of Faith and still be an Orthodox Presbyterian?</span></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">And even if the Scriptures </span>are<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"> always clear and </span>un<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">ambiguous, our sinful limited human nature gets in the way and prevents us from always understanding them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yes, when the need to do so arises, the Catholic Church does exercise its magisterial authority to resolve disputes over the interpretation of Scripture but I would argue that this is in accordance with the Scriptural model I outlined in an article I wrote called <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="http://capriciousness.blogspot.com/2008/08/magisteria.html"><span style="color: blue;">Magisteria!</span></a></i>.</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Israelites had the Law and the Prophets but still had to have to judges to help them interpret the Word of God.<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Regardless, the simple fact is that the Catholic Church does not teach that the Scriptures are “hopelessly ambiguous” or </span>that one <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">always need</span>s<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"> a</span>n<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"> external authoritative interpreter</span> to help understand them<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Turretinfan, as his usual practice, </span>asserts a straw-man argument against <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">the Catholic Church in order to magnify the </span>surprisingly few <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">differences between Catholics and other Christians. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Given the level of spinmeistering found on his blog about the Catholic Church, one might begin to wonder if behind his secret identity, </span>Turretinfan<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"> is actually a </span>Washington, D.C. <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">politician... <o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">It is ironic that Turretinfan claims that many Catholic apologists regularly demean the verity of the Bible by casting doubt and suspicion on its clarity and at the same time link to an article condemning the Catholic “Year of Faith” which encourages Catholics to read the documents of Vatican II including </span><a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651118_dei-verbum_en.html"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><em>The Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation (Dei Verbum</em>)</span></span></a><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> which exhorts all Catholics to read the Bible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"><em> </em></span>As a dogmatic constitution, this document on the Holy Scriptures is promulgated at the highest level of magisterial teaching and is thoroughly binding on all members of the Catholic Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now if Turretinfan has accurately portrayed the teachings of the Church and its apologists, one </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">should suspect<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"> that we </span>w<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">ould find </span>somewhere <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">in the text an admonition by the Church </span>claiming that <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">the Scriptures are to be regarded with suspicion and doubt and to be treated as hopelessly ambiguous and unclear.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As one can see, it does not:</span></span></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">21. The Church has always venerated the divine Scriptures just as she venerates the body of the Lord, since, especially in the sacred liturgy, she unceasingly receives and offers to the faithful the bread of life from the table both of God's word and of Christ's body. She has always maintained them, and continues to do so, together with sacred tradition, as the supreme rule of faith, since, as inspired by God and committed once and for all to writing, they impart the word of God Himself without change, and make the voice of the Holy Spirit resound in the words of the prophets and Apostles. Therefore, like the Christian religion itself, all the preaching of the Church must be nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture. For in the sacred books, the Father who is in heaven meets His children with great love and speaks with them; and the force and power in the word of God is so great that it stands as the support and energy of the Church, the strength of faith for her sons, the food of the soul, the pure and everlasting source of spiritual life. Consequently these words are perfectly applicable to Sacred Scripture: "For the word of God is living and active" (Heb. 4:12) and "it has power to build you up and give you your heritage among all those who are sanctified" (Acts 20:32; see 1 Thess. 2:13).</span></blockquote><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <br />
</span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">22. Easy access to Sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful. That is why the Church from the very beginning accepted as her own that very ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament which is called the septuagint; and she has always given a place of honor to other Eastern translations and Latin ones especially the Latin translation known as the vulgate. But since the word of God should be accessible at all times, the Church by her authority and with maternal concern sees to it that suitable and correct translations are made into different languages, especially from the original texts of the sacred books. And should the opportunity arise and the Church authorities approve, if these translations are produced in cooperation with the separated brethren as well, all Christians will be able to use them.</span></blockquote><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">23. The bride of the incarnate Word, the Church taught by the Holy Spirit, is concerned to move ahead toward a deeper understanding of the Sacred Scriptures so that she may increasingly feed her sons with the divine words. Therefore, she also encourages the study of the holy Fathers of both East and West and of sacred liturgies. Catholic exegetes then and other students of sacred theology, working diligently together and using appropriate means, should devote their energies, under the watchful care of the sacred teaching office of the Church, to an exploration and exposition of the divine writings. This should be so done that as many ministers of the divine word as possible will be able effectively to provide the nourishment of the Scriptures for the people of God, to enlighten their minds, strengthen their wills, and set men's hearts on fire with the love of God. The sacred synod encourages the sons of the Church and Biblical scholars to continue energetically, following the mind of the Church, with the work they have so well begun, with a constant renewal of vigor. </span></blockquote><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">24. Sacred theology rests on the written word of God, together with sacred tradition, as its primary and perpetual foundation. By scrutinizing in the light of faith all truth stored up in the mystery of Christ, theology is most powerfully strengthened and constantly rejuvenated by that word. For the Sacred Scriptures contain the word of God and since they are inspired, really are the word of God; and so the study of the sacred page is, as it were, the soul of sacred theology. By the same word of Scripture the ministry of the word also, that is, pastoral preaching, catechetics and all Christian instruction, in which the liturgical homily must hold the foremost place, is nourished in a healthy way and flourishes in a holy way.</span></blockquote><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">25. Therefore, all the clergy must hold fast to the Sacred Scriptures through diligent sacred reading and careful study, especially the priests of Christ and others, such as deacons and catechists who are legitimately active in the ministry of the word. This is to be done so that none of them will become "an empty preacher of the word of God outwardly, who is not a listener to it inwardly" since they must share the abundant wealth of the divine word with the faithful committed to them, especially in the sacred liturgy. The sacred synod also earnestly and especially urges all the Christian faithful (especially the religious) to learn by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures the "excellent knowledge of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 3:8). "For ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ." Therefore, they should gladly put themselves in touch with the sacred text itself, whether it be through the liturgy, rich in the divine word, or through devotional reading, or through instructions suitable for the purpose and other aids which, in our time, with approval and active support of the shepherds of the Church, are commendably spread everywhere. And let them remember that prayer should accompany the reading of Sacred Scripture, so that God and man may talk together; for "we speak to Him when we pray; we hear Him when we read the divine saying."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
</blockquote><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">. . .</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
</blockquote><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">26. In this way, therefore, through the reading and study of the sacred books "the word of God may spread rapidly and be glorified" (2 Thess. 3:1) and the treasure of revelation, entrusted to the Church, may more and more fill the hearts of men. Just as the life of the Church is strengthened through more frequent celebration of the Eucharistic mystery, similar we may hope for a new stimulus for the life of the Spirit from a growing reverence for the word of God, which "lasts forever" (Is. 40:8; see 1 Peter 1:23-25).</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">(Footnotes omitted)</span></blockquote><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">The above passages from <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dei Verbum</i> illustrate what the Church teaches about the place of the Sacred Scriptures in the Church and its call for all Catholics to read, study and pray them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the apologists of Rome </span>are supposed to <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">claim that the Scriptures are to be doubted and regarded </span>with<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"> suspicio</span>n<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">, </span>then <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">why would the Church say this:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq"><blockquote class="tr_bq"><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">For the Sacred Scriptures contain the word of God and since they are inspired, really are the word of God; and so the study of the sacred page is, as it were, the soul of sacred theology. (DV #24). </span></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <br />
<o:p></o:p> <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">If the Scriptures are </span>to be shown as <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">so hopelessly ambiguous </span>that they <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">can never be read without recourse to an external authority to interpret them, </span>then <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">why does the Church urge the faithful to study, read, and pray them:</span></span><br />
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
</div><blockquote class="tr_bq" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;"><blockquote class="tr_bq"><blockquote class="tr_bq"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The sacred synod also earnestly and especially urges all the Christian faithful (especially the religious) to learn by frequent reading of the divine Scriptures the "excellent knowledge of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 3:8). "For ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ." Therefore, they should gladly put themselves in touch with the sacred text itself, whether it be through the liturgy, rich in the divine word, or through devotional reading, or through instructions suitable for the purpose and other aids which, in our time, with approval and active support of the shepherds of the Church, are commendably spread everywhere. And let them remember that prayer should accompany the reading of Sacred Scripture, so that God and man may talk together; for "we speak to Him when we pray; we hear Him when we read the divine saying." (DV #25)<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">For that matter why would the Church even promulgate <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">a 26 chapter dogmatic constitution like <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Dei Verbum</i> telling Catholics to read their Bibles</span> if its apologists are on orders to discourage them from doing so<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Talk about mixed messages!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><o:p> </o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">And does not anyone else see the disconnect between</span> <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Turretinfan asserting (without any evidence whatsoever) that “many” Catholic apologists teach that the Holy Word of God is too ambiguous to be understood without a magisterium looking over one’s shoulder and his linking to a document condemning the Catholic Church for celebrating the Second Vatican Council which promulgated as one of its cornerstone documents a dogmatic constitution exhorting all Catholics to read, study and pray their bibles?<o:p></o:p></span></span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"> </span></div><div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 5pt; mso-pagination: none;"><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">What's next? P</span>igs start flying or <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">Turretinfan un</span>qualifiedly<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"> endorsing the writings of liberal lay Catholic dissenters who call for the abolition of Orders in the Catholic Church because the Letter to the Hebrews is not divinely inspired Scripture, that Jesus did not die on the cross for our sins, that His Passion was neither sacrificial nor redemptive, </span>or<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"> that Jesus was not called to priestly ministry?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2013/02/garry-wills-why-priests-introduction.html#disqus_thread"><span style="color: blue;">Oh wait-he did do that already</span></a>.</span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Never mind…</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">God Bless!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-bidi; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US; mso-fareast-theme-font: minor-fareast; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"></span> </div>Paul Hofferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-16393380333886133782013-02-26T08:33:00.000-05:002013-02-26T16:54:31.317-05:00<br />
<div class="Publishwithline" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt;">
<strong><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="color: #17365d;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">A Humble Request to Turretinfan Pursuant to 1 Peter
3:15 Concerning His Endorsement of Garry Wills’ Book, “Why Priests?: A Failed
Tradition”<w:sdtpr></w:sdtpr></span></span></span></strong></div>
<br />
<div style="border-color: currentColor currentColor rgb(79, 129, 189); border-style: none none solid; border-width: medium medium 1pt; mso-border-bottom-themecolor: accent1; mso-element: para-border-div; padding: 0in 0in 2pt;">
<div class="underline" style="margin: 2pt 0in 0pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri; font-size: xx-small;"> </span></o:p></div>
</div>
<br />
<div class="PadderBetweenControlandBody" style="margin: 0in 0in 6pt;">
</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Mr. Fan, a Presbyterian
gentleman whose writings I have interacted with before posted this article on
his blog on February 25, 2013:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></span><a href="http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2013/02/garry-wills-why-priests-introduction.html"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Garry Wills - Why Priests? - Introduction</span></span></a><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Dr. Garry Wills is a lay
Roman Catholic. His PhD in classics is from Yale (1961) and he taught history
for 18 years at Johns Hopkins University. The Los Angeles Times describes him
as "American Catholicism's most formidable law scholar," and the New
York Times describes him as "One of the country's most distinguished
intellectuals." Wills' "Lincoln at Gettysburg: The Words That Remade
America," won the Pulitzer Prize for General Non-Fiction in 1993. In 2008,
John L. Allen, Jr. described Wills as "perhaps the most distinguished
Catholic intellectual in America over the last 50 years" in the National
Catholic Register. His writings generally focus on historical topics, many of
them on the intersection of history and religion. I wonder if calling him a
"Roman Catholic Darryl Hart" would be taken as the mutual compliment
it would be intended to be?<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Some think that the
dwindling number of priests can be remedied by the addition of women priests,
or married priests, or openly gay priests. In fact, the real solution is: no
priests. It should not be difficult to imagine a Christianity without priests.
Read carefully through the entire New Testament and you will not find an
individual human priest mentioned in the Christian communities (only Jewish
priests in service to the Temple). Only one book of the New Testament, the
Letter to Hebrews, mentions an individual priest, and he is unique -- Jesus. He
has no followers in that office, according to the Letter.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 1in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">It is not surprising, then,
that some Protestant communities are able to be good Christians without having
any priests. Some priests of my youth mocked them for that reason. They said a
Protestant ceremony was just a town meeting, without the sacramental
consecration and consumption of the body and blood of Jesus. When I was told
one of my pastors that I had admired the sermon of a visiting priest, he said I
should not be looking to have my ears ticked, like some Protestant, but should
concentrate on the mystery of the Eucharist. Without the Eucharist, he was
implying, we would have no religion at all.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>(Why
Priests, Introduction, p. 2) <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Gary Wills' proposal is
going to be shocking to traditionalist Roman Catholics, partly because it would
require a radical change in Roman Catholicism, and partly because that radical
change would like the Reformation, at least as to a substantial part of its
ecclesiology (his position was compared to that of Luther in the New York
Times).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">We hold to the priesthood of
believers, and maintain that Christians have direct access to God through the
sole mediation of Christ. Thus, we reject the idea of merely human priests,
affirming instead the apostolic model of a church without priests.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Wills' proposal is one that
is surprisingly ecumenical. While there would still be certain issues regarding
worship that would need to be addressed, removal of the priesthood would be a
major stepping stone toward Roman Catholicism being in ecumenical union with
"Protestants."<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Will Will's proposal be
adopted? It seems unlikely. Those in power in Rome have every vested interest
in maintaining the structures of power that require a priesthood.<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>-TurretinFan<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">I would note that I commented on Mr. Fan’s
article.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You will not see the comment on
his blog as he without the courtesy of an explanation deleted it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Unfortunately, I did not save it either.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I forgot that Turretinfan often deletes
comments where the facts do not fit his narrative.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His actions demonstrate the difference
between a mere polemicist and a true apologist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If one is going to defend one’s faith, one first needs to defend what
one says while doing so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I would humbly
suggest that the arbitrary use of a “delete” key does not fulfill Saint Peter’s
admonition, “Always be ready to give an explanation to anyone who asks.” (1
Peter 3:15).<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">Since I do not remember my original comment
verbatim, I am going to make my request for explanation a bit more formal
here.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I took the liberty of re-posting
Mr. Fan’s article in its entirety so one can not say that I was being unfair or
uncharitable towards him in asking him to give an explanation. <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Dear
Mr. Fan:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Pursuant to 1 Peter 3:15, I am asking you give an
explanation for the assertions you made in your article of February 25, 2013
entitled, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">“Garry Wills - Why Priests? -
Introduction”.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></i>Accordingly, I have
posited some questions hopefully you will take the time to answer:<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">1.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Had you read Mr. Wills’ book before
writing your article?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">2.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>While you made sure to go through Mr.
Wills’ credentials at the beginning of the article, I note that you left out
the fact that he did not either obtain an imprimatur or nihil obstat which
indicates that the book contains nothing that is contrary to the faith.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Did you intentionally leave off that fact?<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">3.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>By endorsing Mr. Wills’ conclusion that
the Church should abandon the institution of the priesthood, do you now also
endorse his exegesis of the Letters to the Hebrews claiming that it is
non-inspired writing that was added to Scripture by a faction of Christians who
wanted to justify having a priesthood?<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">4.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>By endorsing Mr. Wills’ book do you now
also agree with Mr. Wills’ conclusion that Jesus’ death on the cross was
neither sacrificial nor redemptive? <o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">5.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>While we can see that
you <span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;">agree with Mr.
Wills’ opinion that the early church did not have the office of priesthood, do
you also agree with his opinion denying the priesthood of Jesus Himself?<o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>I
hope that after considering my questions, Turretinfan chooses to take down his
article since it endorses a book that contrary to important matters of faith
shared by both Protestants and Catholics.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><o:p></o:p></span></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">God bless!</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><o:p>Update: Mr. Fan has posted a comment and a PS to his post.</o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><o:p>First, the comment:</o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><o:p> It's hard to
understand how someone could conclude that agreeing with Wills' conclusions</o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><o:p>
means I agree with every argument he's made, but apparently someone did. To
answer that</o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><o:p> question, no - not every argument. Some of Wills points are valid,
some are not. Why anyone</o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><o:p> would expect me to agree with everything a Roman
Catholic author rights (sic) is mystifying. <br /><br /> -TurretinFan</o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><o:p>Now if Mr Fan had not deleted my comment, his readers would have known that Mr. Fan's comment is a misrepresentation of what I had said. I never said there that Mr. Fan agreed with every point that Wills had written. I only asked Mr Fan if he agreed with certain statements that Wills had made in arriving at his conclusion. I formed no conclusions myself. Why anyone who claims that he is writing for the glory of God and portrays himself to his readership as a sincere defender contending for the faith would want to misrepresent what another wrote is equally mystifying. How exactly does a lie about what someone else says advance the glory of God in any way whatsoever? </o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><o:p>Mr Fan also posted this PS:</o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><o:p></o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><o:p> -TurretinFan </o:p></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><blockquote class="tr_bq">
P.S. I seriously doubt that any of Garry Wills' books (from
his prize winning books, to his least well recognized books, and including this
book) has been submitted for <i>nihil obstat</i> or <i>imprimatur</i>.
Naturally, a book (like Why Priests?) that argues as one of its main points that
there shouldn't be priests, is not a good candidate for either certification.<br />
</blockquote>
</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: 12pt; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;"><o:p>At least we know that Turretinfan reads this blog and has read this article specifically even if he will not admit it. That said, based on his comments, one must naturally come to the conclusion that Turretinfan does not have a clue how one would go about obtaining an imprimatur or a nihil obstat or why it is even important. One can obtain either without the Church agreeing with the positions advanced or contentions made. An imprimatur and a nihil obstat do not mean that the Church agrees with the contents of the book; only that there is nothing in the book that is contrary to the teachings of the Church. </o:p></span></span></div>
Paul Hofferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-74736463744239200692013-02-17T14:36:00.000-05:002013-02-17T14:36:02.269-05:00A Reflection on the Holy Spirit: A Guest Post by Jamie Donald
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;"><strong>Disclaimer:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This
article was written by Jamie Donald, a friend who asked me to allow him to post
his article on my blog.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By doing so, I am
not indicating that I necessarily agree with the contents of the post or that I
believe it accurately reflects Catholic teaching.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>~PRH</strong></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<o:p><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> </span></o:p></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">I am a regular reader of David Waltz’ blog, </span><a href="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Calibri;">http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/</span></a><span style="font-family: Calibri;">
, and have noted that he has a frequent interest in the nature of the Trinity
along with what he refers to as “the Monarchy of God the Father” (or “the
Monarchy of the Father” for short).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>According to his site index, he has 17 articles on </span><a href="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/search/label/Monarchy%20of%20God%20the%20Father"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Calibri;">The
Monarchy of the Father</span></a><span style="font-family: Calibri;"> and 49 articles on </span><a href="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/search/label/Trinity"><span style="color: blue; font-family: Calibri;">the Trinity</span></a><span style="font-family: Calibri;">.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>While there is some overlap in these
categories (making the total less than 66), this is an awful lot of writing on
the topic(s)!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By my estimate, the
comments sections to these articles accumulate to well over 1000 comments, with
many of these comments being very lengthy and detailed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Much of the recent (within the past year or
so) activity over at David’s blog has motivated me to record my own reflection
on the Holy Trinity.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">I had considered responding in a comment on one of David’s
articles, but chose to write here instead (thank you, Paul!).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I did this for the following reasons; 1)
while I am motivated by David’s blog and will interact with some of his
thoughts, this article stands on its own; 2) the length of this piece will be
much longer than the 4096 character limit in a blog comment, and breaking it
into small enough chunks is not feasible; and 3) while David writes rather
charitably, not all of his readers are – there has been a significant level of
ad hominem attacks in the comments to these articles.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am hopeful that a “change of scenery”
(along with this gentle reminder) will keep the discourse at a respectable
level.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">A Way to Look at
Things</span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Before I get too deep into any discussion on the Trinity,
I’d like to present a couple of examples which show how I look at how people
express themselves and at analogies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For
the first example, consider someone who exclaims, “Jesus Christ is Lord!”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is this person a Trinitarian?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>a Modalist?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>a Gnostic?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>an Arian?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Based on this statement alone, you can’t
say.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>There’s not enough information
given.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As a result, I try to acknowledge
what is affirmed while avoiding becoming too critical of what is not said.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That doesn’t mean that you can’t ever be
critical of what is left unstated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But
first you need to realize why the concept is left unexpressed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is it a true omission (meant to avoid dealing
with the concept)?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Is it out of context
for what is affirmed?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or is it simply
unvoiced?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the first case a critical
approach is required, but not in the second case.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the third case, probing questions should
be asked in order to fully comprehend the person’s ideas.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(“Yes, Jesus is Lord.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But what of the Father and the Holy Spirit?”
in our example above.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I try to use this
method so that I can truly understand and interact with the ideas expressed by
others – their true ideas, not ones I’ve generated for them.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">My next example is somewhat more complex.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I ask you, dear reader, to indulge me for a
moment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If you stay with me all the way
through the example and its implications, things will fall in place and make
sense.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Consider the proposition of multiple dimensions – more than
the standard 3-D that we experience and understand.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I can work (and have worked) math problems in
four, five, and more dimensions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But
while I can work the equations, I can’t draw you a picture of what they look
like.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The best I could do is show what’s
called a “projection” of these higher dimensions into our 3-D capability to
perceive.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">In order to better understand projections, I’d like to move
from 4-, 5-, more-D to something a little more familiar.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As I write the first draft of this paper, I’m
watching Notre Dame play Alabama in the BCS Championship Game.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The players, coaches, fans, stadium,
football, goal posts, Jumbotron, and cheerleaders are all 3-D entities.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But I’m watching the game on my flat-screen
TV which is a 2-D surface.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What I see on
the TV is a projection of the 3-D world onto 2-D.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">Now, what if I were a creature who could only comprehend and
experience the world in 2-D?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In that
case, I’d see the players going through a sea of green – the concept of them
running over the field would be incomprehensible to me as it would require that
third dimension that I can’t experience.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Since the receivers try to stay in bounds when catching a pass, I might
wonder if the thick white lines at the edge of the sea of green exert some
force on the players.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On any given play,
a running back may carry the ball such that I can’t see it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I might conclude that he absorbed it into his
body to transport it down the field, or I might think the football disappeared
and magically reappeared later.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Most likely,
I’d get a general concept of the game, but become somewhat confused on a lot of
the details.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When the camera switched
from overhead in order to view a field goal kick, I would have a hard time
placing the new view into perspective from the old view, and become very
confused.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At best, I would miss out on a
lot of detail, and my understanding would definitely depend on the camera angle
– the particular projection – that I’m able to see.</span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="font-family: Calibri;">If you disagree with me, I have just one question for
you.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Have you ever changed your mind on
the result of a play after seeing the instant replay from a different
angle?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If so, then your understanding of
the reality of the play changed based on which projection you were able to
see.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And you have the advantage of understanding
the world in 3-D!</span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">How does
this relate to the topic at hand?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Just
as 3-D is above 2-D, God’s ways are above us.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I could say, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">For my thoughts are
not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways—oracle of the LORD.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways, my thoughts higher than your thoughts</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Is 55:8-9)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Or<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">, <a href="http://www.blogger.com/null" name="54013012">At present we
see indistinctly, as in a mirror, but then face to face. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>At present I know partially; then I shall know
fully, as I am fully known</a></i><span style="mso-bookmark: 54013012;">.</span> <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(1 Cor 13:12)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">While God’s
“higher ways” are reality, our own ability to perceive them is limited by how
we experience reality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, in addition
to raw facts, the deposit of faith includes allegory and analogy, such as Jesus
being the rock upon whom our faith is built or the Old Testament Church being
referred to as God’s bride in some places and His daughter in other
places.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The analogies take the higher
reality of the divine experience and projects it into something we can
understand (at least to some extent) in our own experiences.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">It is
important to remember that analogies have limitations.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are bound by context and they are
one-directional.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is they flow from
a higher level to a lower level.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
higher or more accurate reality explains itself in terms of the lower and less
accurate experience.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But the lower
experience does not explain the higher.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Extrapolations from lower to higher are in accurate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For example, building faith on the foundation
of Jesus is likened to building a house on a firm, rocky foundation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The house and the rock help us to understand
our faith and Jesus – the true thing we want to understand, or the higher
reality.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But to then take the experience
we understand: house building – the lower experience – and say that laying out
roofs, studs, windows, etc, describe our faith would be in accurate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It would be going backwards.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">When
defending the Council of Nicea in <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">De
Decretis</i>, St Athanasius put it this way, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">As then men create not as God creates, as their being is not such as
God's being, so men's generation is in one way, and the Son is from the Father
in another. For the offspring of men are portions of their fathers, since the
very nature of bodies is not uncompounded, but in a state of flux, and composed
of parts; and men lose their substance in begetting, and again they gain
substance from the accession of food. And on this account men in their time
become fathers of many children; but God, being without parts, is Father of the
Son without partition or passion; for there is neither effluence of the
Immaterial, nor influx from without, as among men; and being uncompounded in
nature, He is Father of One Only Son.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></i><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Nicene Monarchism<u><o:p></o:p></u></span></b></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Now that
I’ve explained how I look at things, I can begin interacting with some of the
items from David’s blog.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It should be
noted that concepts fleshed out over 50+ articles, accompanied by 1000+
comments, cannot be easily summarized in a few short paragraphs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I shall do my best to adequately and fairly
represent the thoughts written over there.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>If a nuance is missed, it is not intentional.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The position
advocated at <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Articuli Fidei</i> strives
to be true to Scripture and the early Church Fathers.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It argues against the same heresies that
Nicea argued against, maintains monotheism, and holds that the Father alone is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">autotheos</i> – the uncreated God who is, by
Himself, the source of divinity; making the Father the monarch of the
Trinity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With these qualities in place,
the adherents are referring to this concept as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nicene Monarchism</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Nicene Monarchism</span></i><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"> can be summarized as follows.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Godhead consists of the Father, who is also called the “one God;”
the Son, who is also the Word; and the Holy Spirit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Father, Son, and Spirit are each of the
divine essence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This makes them
consubstantial in Nicene Creed terms.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Father is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">autotheos</i>,
uncreated, God because He is God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
Son and the Spirit derive their essence or substance from the Father; the Son
is begotten of the Father and the Spirit by procession from the Father.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Neither the Son nor the Spirit are created
(as you and I are created).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This makes
them divine along with the Father.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Their
begetting/procession is before time began, hence while they are not <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">autotheos</i>, there has never been a time
when they did not exist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In other words,
even though the Father begets the Son and the verb “beget” implies a
chronological order, we cannot say there was ever a time in which the Father
was without His Son.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The same goes for
the Spirit.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">This avoids
Arianism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Clearly, the Son has existed
since before eternity began and is not a creature.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He is divine by the nature of being begotten,
not “promoted” or adopted into divinity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>He is also definitely of the same substance or essence of the Father,
not a similar one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To avoid Sabellianism
(or Modalism), the Nicene Monarchist notes Scripture such as Luke 22:42 or Matt
24:36 to show that the entities of the Trinity have different minds and
wills.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are not simply various modes
of display or understanding of a single entity.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">I think it
is the assertions which flow out of the defense against Modalism which seem to
generate the most feedback from those who support either classical western
Trintarianism and the eastern view of the Trinity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Nicene Monarchists maintain that since
the Father, Son, and Spirit each have their own separate views, the Godhead is
not composed of just three persons, but also of three distinct beings.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the Godhead were composed of three
persons, but only one being, then the believer would be forced into Modalism
and would not even be able to support a belief in three persons.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, three persons, three beings, one common
substance or nature.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The analogy used
goes as follows.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You and I (and each
separate reader of my thoughts here) are of the nature/essence/substance of
humanity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We each have separate minds
and wills, and we are each separate beings but of the same substance:
humanity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No one would ever think to
call us the same single being.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">This
formulation has those who adhere to the more classical view of the Trinity
giving the Nicene Monarchists the label, “polytheists;” specifically
tritheists.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Three persons, three divine
beings, three gods.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In answer to this
charge, they reply that only the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Autotheos</i>,
God the Father, is God; the Son and the Spirit are divine, but not God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or in the words of one adherent<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">, How many times do we have to say this to
him? When I am using the word “God” and say that the Father is the One God I am
not using it like the Nicene Creed when it says that Christ is God from God. I
am using it to refer to the one who is autotheos. If when the word “God” means
divine with respect to nature then yes, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are
God. But that is very confusing to people and so for the benefit of the
consciences of the saints I use the word "God' to refer to the Father and
"divine" to refer to the nature of Father, Son and Spirit</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Fair enough,
in spite of the irony behind the same person who coined the term <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nicene Monarchism</i> being the same who
says he’s not using terms the same way the Nicene Creed uses them, a concise
definition has been tendered.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But this
re-defining must also be applied in various places throughout the
Scripture.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For example, in order to
maintain continuity of thought between the Nicene Monarchist’s view of the
Trinity and the Holy Writ, one should think of John 1:1 along the lines of “In
the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God (the Father), and the
Word was a divine being.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Of course,
with description defining terms differently than the same terms are used in the
source material (in this case the Bible and Nicene Creed), one should also
expect confusion.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">At this
point, those who don’t adhere to the concept of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nicene Monarchism</i> will state that those who do have set it up so
that there is God and two lesser beings.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This results in the accusation of Unitarianism as Jesus is no longer
defined as “true God.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The answer is
that all members of the Trinity are divine, thus Unitarianism does not apply.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">While this
explanation of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nicene Monarchism</i> may
miss on some nuances, I think I’ve given a fair treatment of it.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And I’ve described some of the answers to
objections that are given to support the concept.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’ll let the reader wade through the volumes
at David Waltz’ blog to determine whether I’m being as fair as I claim to
be.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>With this summary completed, I can
now interact with <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nicene Monarchism</i>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">An Interaction</span></b><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Reviewing
the Scripture, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), and writings of the
early church fathers, I see a distinct primacy of the First Person of the Trinity:
the Father.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Scripture the Father
Creates.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even though creation is through
the Word or the Son, it is the Father who creates.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(John 1:1-4)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>There are things known only to the Father, not to the Son (Matt
24:36/Mark 13/32) and the Son submits His will to the Father’s will (Matt
26:39/Luke 22:42).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And the Father sends
the Holy Spirit (John 14:16-17).<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">CCC:248
specifically claims the Father as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Principle
without principle</i>, the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">First Origin
of the Spirit</i>, and <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the Father of the
Son</i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(Note: for full disclosure,
this paragraph speaks to the filioque and attempts to reconcile it with Eastern
thought.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>My intent here is not to
discuss the filioque, but simply to point out that the CCC shows the Father as
having a primacy over both the Son and the Spirit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The subject of the paragraph does not change
the fact that this paragraph does, indeed, show that primacy.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In CCC:239 we see that the Father is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">First Origin of everything</i>, and
paragraph 240 includes the relationship of the Father to the Son.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">These examples
are not exhaustive, but are sufficient to show some form of primacy of the
Father.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(For early Church father quotes,
please review David’s blog.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He has well
documented many, many quotes.)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since God
has His kingdom, I would find it very difficult to object to the term,
“Monarchy of the Father.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">However, I
find it much easier to object to concept of three separate beings in the
Godhead.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Even with the substitution of
“God” only for the Father, and “divinity” (or “divine being”) for the Son and
Spirit there are many difficulties which are not resolved and ambiguities
created.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One of my first questions would
be; what is a being that is neither God nor created creature?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It should be noted that at least one of the
Nicene Monarchists has stated that these lesser divine being should neither be
worshipped nor prayed to.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I have not
noted any of the other adherents to this form of the Trinity showing an
alternate belief; either by correction of by a differing nuance in
interpretation.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">One of the
more common objections to the one God, two other divine beings, comprising the
Godhead is that this description does not do justice to the unity of God that
is found in the Scripture.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I repeat this
objection because it is one with which I agree.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The response given by the Nicene Monarchists is two-fold and it deserves
attention.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They assert that the
classical western view of the Godhead subsisting of three persons, but one
being, results in mono-ousious.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Their
view of three beings, each with its own – but the same – essence,
homo-ousious.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The other response is to
point out the distinction between generic unity and numeric unity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They maintain a form of unity in both cases.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God the Father, as the One God, is numeric
unity (with Himself) and preserves monotheism.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Generic unity comes from each person of the Trinity being of the same
substance or essence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Again, the analogy
of mankind is used.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Each of us, while
being distinct individuals, has a certain level of unity in the generic
sense.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We are all of the substance, or
essence, of humanity.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">However,
both of these responses contain errors which I cannot ignore.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The
distinction between mono- and homo-ousious – at least the way it is being
presented – is a false dilemma.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>By
definition, something that is mono-ousious cannot by poly-ousious.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Therefore, it is still homo-ousious.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is the same essence or substance as
itself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The distinction which was important
in early Christianity (and still important today), is that Christ’s divinity is
the same as the Father’s.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is not a
similar divinity which would then require multiple divine substances, or
poly-ousious.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The bottom line is that
even if the classical view can be defined as being “mono-ousious,” that
definition still does not deny homo-ousious.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">As far as
asking about generic vs numeric unity goes, that question applies the analogy
in a backwards fashion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I am certain
that the Nicene Monarchists neither intend to nor think they are applying it in
the wrong direction, but I ask the reader to bear with me for a moment.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In using the analogy of many humans (numeric
disunity) but one humanity (generic unity), the unspoken assumption is that God
experiences unity in the same fashion as we do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This ends up forgetting that His ways are well above our own ways.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We are the limited creature trying to explain
the infinite God as an extrapolation of our own experiences.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We cannot expect any more success than the
2-D creatures would have when trying to explain the 3-D game of football.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">In fact,
Scripture shows that God experiences unity differently than we do.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In Matthew 25, when Jesus prophesies the
division of the sheep from the goats on Judgment Day, He claims a particular
unity with each individual human being.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The good which we do to others is personally experienced by Him, and the
bad which we do to others are also personally hurtful to Him.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Christ experiences a level of unity with
humanity which we do not experience with ourselves.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let me use a very personal example.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Over the past six years, my wife and I have
taken in eight people who found themselves temporarily homeless.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For these people we housed them, fed them,
and clothed them.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As a Christian, I can
do no less; so I do not ask any accolades or reward.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But I do ask how many reading this
experienced the good which we did to these people?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Yet Christ did.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A year ago, when one of these individuals
(after moving on) chose to break into our house and rob us, how many of you
felt the pain and hurt that we experienced?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Again, Jesus did.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How could any
of you experience the good or bad in these cases?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>You never knew of them until now.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But the Son of God – united to us – knew and
experienced it with us.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">If Jesus
experiences a unity with us that we do not experience ourselves, then why
assume that the unity he experiences with His Father and the Spirit in the
divine realm would be any <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">less</b>
intimate?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The unity of the Son with the
Father, detailed in John 14, is of this very intimate form.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Seeing the Son means seeing the Father.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is an actual seeing; not a case of “see
one divine being and you’ve seen them all.”<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">For another
example, look to John 14.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Here, as Jesus
prays during the Last Supper, he asks that His disciples obtain unity; and he
specifies that it be the form of unity He experiences with His Father.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is noteworthy for two reasons.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First, anyone would admit that Christ’s
disciples (including those who have come to believe through the testimony of
His original disciples) is but a subset of the total of humanity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This means that even if Christians obtain a
unity akin to that which occurs for the Father and the Son, humanity in general
does not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Second, Jesus’ prayer is a
request for a future state of His disciples.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I do not know anyone who claims we have been blessed with that
particular gift as of yet.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Either way,
both points demonstrate that the “generic unity” of humanity is not the unity
of the Godhead.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To use our
understanding, coming from our experience, is backwards and inadequate.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">To explore
the unity of the Godhead a little further, I’d like to take a quick look into
the Old Testament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Exodus narrative
includes a column of fire and smoke leading the Israelites, a strong wind
parting the sea, manna, and water flowing from a rock.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Throughout the Old Testament, God reminds
Israel and Judah (especially when they had gone astray) of the fact that their
escape from Egypt and survival in the desert was His doing.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And His reminders frequently include these
particular elements.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(For a few
examples, see Num 9, Dt 5, Dt 8, Judge 2, Judge 6, 1 King 8, 1 King 9, 1 Chron
17, Neh 9, Ps 78, Ezek 20, Dan 9, Hos 11, Hag 2.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">But if we
recall that the term for Spirit used in Gen 1:2 is the same as wind, and add to
that John the Baptizer’s prophecy that the Son would baptize with fire and the
Holy Spirit – followed by the Spirit descending as tongues of fire on
Pentecost; then we come to realize that the Spirit was responsible for the
parting of the sea and the directional leadership of the column of fire.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Psalm 78 identifies the rock which provided
water as the Redeemer.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>1 Cor 10:4 tells
us that the Redeemer in Ps 78 is Christ Himself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In John 6 we learn that the manna is also
Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The feeding and sustenance of
the Israelites was from the Son.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But it
is a <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">unified God</b> who reminds the
Israelites that He has done this for them in the various passages I referenced
above.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">In
developing his thoughts on <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the monarchy
of the Father</i>, David Waltz (in one of his more recent articles) referenced <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">De Decretis</i> by St Athanasius.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>St Athanasius is an excellent source for
understanding the thoughts and theology behind the Council at Nicea.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Not only was he present at the Council, but
he also had a “speaking role,” defending the faith and proposing ideas which
would be used by the bishops present in formulating their creed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Additionally, he is revered as a “Doctor of
the Church” by both Catholics and Orthodox.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">De Decretis</i> is a letter he
wrote after the Council which is a very strong defense of the Creed coming out
of Nicea.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, this letter, in
particular, is one of the best sources, contemporary to the Council, to
understand the issues which were addressed and answered at Nicea.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">David is
correct in his assessment that <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">De
Decretis</i> speaks to a primacy of the Father as Creator of the universe, as
Father of the Son.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is a primacy
denied to both the Son and the Spirit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>As I noted above, the CCC does not dispute, but in fact endorses, this
primacy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So there is no argument in this
arena.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But a careful read of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">De Decretis</i>, specifically written to
explain and defend Nicea, will show a unity in the Godhead which is not a
generic unity as some of the Nicene Monarchists advocate.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">The
translation of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">De Decretis</i> which I
use can be found </span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2809.htm"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><span style="color: blue;">here</span></span></a><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This edition is divided into 7 chapters and 32 paragraphs.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The paragraphs are numbered
sequentially.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That is, the last numbered
paragraph in Chapter 1 is paragraph 2.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The first numbered paragraph in Chapter 2 is paragraph 3.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For the most part, I will simply refer to
paragraph numbers and omit the chapter numbers unless doing so results in
ambiguity or confusion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(For example,
there is an un-numbered paragraph in Chapter 2.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>This paragraph is sandwiched after the chapter heading, but before
paragraph 3.)<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">When reading
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">De Decretis</i>, I count at least five
times where Athanasius tells us that the Son is begotten “of the Essence” (of
the Father) and exists “in the Essence” or They are “one in Essence.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The terms are either used in the same sentence
or in adjacent sentences.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He shows that
the terms can be compared and contrasted with each other and complement each
other.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Of the Essence” is not merely
synonymous with “in the Essence.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Paragraph 20 is a good example as it contains three instances of these
terms together.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">This starts creating
an image that suggests the Son cannot be held separately from the Father;
neither in time of existence, nor in substance.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>I have already quoted from paragraph 11, where Athanasius suggests that
trying to understand the divine Father/Son relationship by use of the human
experience (alone) is insufficient.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I
will quote it again, with emphasis added, to show that Athanasius is consistent
in painting a picture where the Son cannot be held separate from the Father.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">As then men create not as God creates, as their being is not such
as God's being, so men's generation is in one way, and the Son is from the
Father in another. For the offspring of men are portions of their fathers,
since the very nature of bodies is not uncompounded, but in a state of flux,
and composed of parts; and <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">men lose
their substance in begetting, and again they gain substance from the accession
of food</b>. And on this account men in their time become fathers of many
children; <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">but God, being without parts,
is Father of the Son without partition </b>or passion; for there is neither
effluence of the Immaterial, nor influx from without, as among men; and being
uncompounded in nature, He is Father of One Only Son.<o:p></o:p></span></i></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">In
Athanasius’ mind, if Christ were to be a unique instance of the divine substance,
then something would have to flow out of the Father and out of His essence and
existence to form the unique, separate instance essence of the Son.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But this would mean that the Father could be
divisible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Father would not be One,
but would consist of divisions which could create another copy of the divine
substance.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Lest anyone
think that this thought process is unique to this particular quote, I will go
to paragraph 15 where Athanasius confronts the natural conclusion of the Arian
concept by saying<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">, But if they agree with
us that the sayings of Scripture are divinely inspired, let them dare to say
openly what they think in secret that God was once wordless and wisdomless</i>….<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Let’s take a closer look at this response and
it’s implications.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If the Arians were
correct and the Son was created and they agree that the Son is the Word and
Wisdom of the Father, then there would have been some time when the Father was
without Word and Wisdom.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He would have
been an incomplete god.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But this applies
too if one will assert three numerically unique divine substances.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Son being Word and Wisdom, and uniquely
separated from the Father, would make the Father incomplete as He would not
have either of these.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Again, the picture
painted is one where, while the Persons of the Trinity are unique, their
existence cannot be separated from each other.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Finally, in
chapter 17, Athanasius identifies the Son as the Hand of God the Father.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is the same Hand that in chapters 7, 8
& 9 creates and manipulates the universe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The imagery of a hand is that of an integral part of the body.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It cannot be separated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When we combine all of these very robust
analogies, the thought that the Godhead’s unity subsists in a generic unity of
substance/essence, but not of existence or being, becomes unsustainable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Son is of the Father and in the
Father.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And the Father and the Son are
one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He who has seen the Son has seen
the Father.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Interestingly
enough, Athanasius also quotes three (relatively contemporary) bishops who
wrote prior to the Council of Nicea; Theognostus, Dionysius of Alexandria, and
Dionysius of Rome.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(paragraphs 25 &
26).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Paragraph 26 of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">De Decretis</i> contains a lengthy quote of
the Bishop of Rome’s tract which was contra the Sabellians.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I find almost no difference between this
paragraph and the view of the Trinity which I have been taught throughout my
life.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Since Athanasius quotes him
approvingly and without qualification, we can only assume that he is in
agreement with what Dionysius has outlined.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Athanasius quotes these three to show that this was the view of orthodox
Christians prior to Nicea.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Finally, he
quotes Origen (paragraph 27) to demonstrate this view – as outlined by the
Nicene Creed and his tract, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">De Decretis</i>
– is the understanding the Church has had from its formation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In short, the age-old belief is not that of
three instances of the divine essences as outlined by the concept of <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Nicene Monarchy</i>, but is a belief in the
divine persons of the Godhead, the Son and the Spirit, being of the Essence and
in the Essence of the Father.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The Father
is One because His Essence cannot be divided nor distributed.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, while not unoriginate like the Father,
by being both of and in His Essence, the Son and Spirit are also one in the
Godhead.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Further Reflections</span></b><span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;"><o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">While
researching and meditating over the topic of this article, I was struck by the
amount of the Trinity which can be seen in the Old Testament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I’ve already alluded to the totality of the
Godhead; Father, Son, and Spirit united; leading the nation of Israel out of
Egypt.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>If we look to the first two
verses in Genesis – many translations having this be the first sentence – we
also see the totality of the Trinity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>The Father who creates through the Son (per John 1) and the Spirit (some
translations state that it is a wind which sweeps across the formless void in
Gen 1:2, but the Hebrew word for wind, ruah, also means spirit).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>So from the very beginning (yes, I’m aware of
the pun on the word for “genesis”) we have the Trinity involved in the story of
mankind.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">When man is
created, again it is by the Father and through the Son.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And God breathes life into Adam.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But the wind, the breath of God, is the
Spirit.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We are literally alive because
the Spirit of God in some way animates our souls.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This is not the Grace of the Spirit received
in baptism, but it does make our lives a true gift from God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As we know, later the Son will go beyond mere
creation of men and become flesh Himself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>Is it any wonder that with the Spirit breathing life into our souls,
that the Son would experience such a profound unity with mankind as he
describes in Matthew 25?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Throughout
the Old Testament, Israel and Judah frequently turn away from the Lord.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When they do, God the Father disciplines them
with exile and through being subjugated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But He still encourages them to turn back to Him, and He – through the
prophets – tells them just how to accomplish that return.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We know that all revelation is from the
Spirit (2 Tim 3, 2 Pet 1).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And we will
find that it is the Son who provides for them in their deepest needs; with
examples being the rock providing water, manna from Heaven, and the fourth
person in the furnace with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Again, a unified God is active in all aspects
of the life of His people; discipline, encouragement, guidance, and sustenance.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="po" style="margin: 1em 0px;">
<span style="font-family: "Calibri","sans-serif"; font-size: 11pt; mso-ascii-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-hansi-theme-font: minor-latin;">Finally, we
will recall that the Spirit is associated with fire and smoke; and Revelation 8
tells us that in religious ceremony, smoke carries the prayers of the faithful
to God.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When the Israelites would offer
burnt sacrifices to God, it was the Holy Spirit (through the smoke of the fire)
carrying their offering to the Father’s Heavenly altar.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It makes no sense that non-burnt sacrifices
(such as a wave offering) would be carried to God any differently.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, it is the Spirit who carries all
sacrifices to the Father.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;">
<span style="mso-bidi-font-size: 11.0pt;"><span style="font-family: Calibri;">It is important to
remember that the priest offers the sacrifice to God, but that sacrifice is
from the person or family who worships.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>In the ultimate sacrifice on the Cross, it is the Father who gives his Son
as a sacrifice (see John 3:16).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Christ
voluntarily gave Himself (see Matt 16:21-23).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">
</span>But the Son is also both the sacrifice and the priest officiating over
the offering.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Finally, the Spirit
carries the sacrifice to the Father.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The
unified Godhead – on our behalf – provides the sacrifice, offers the sacrifice,
is the sacrifice, carries the sacrifice, and accepts the sacrifice that gives
us life everlasting.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Because this action
saves our souls, it is an infinitely more profound and intimate act of the
Godhead disciplining, encouraging, guiding, and sustaining our existence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Can we be anything other than completely
awestruck?</span></span></div>
Paul Hofferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.com80tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-38397063166155445702011-10-05T14:02:00.002-05:002011-10-05T14:08:14.409-05:00Will Obama Destroy Franciscan University of Steubenville?<br />
I normally do not discuss politics on my blog but the systemic attack on religious freedom by the Obama Administration is something that no Christian should countenance. Former Secretary of State of Ohio Kenneth Blackwell writes about how the Obama adminstration is seeking to force a Catholic University to fund abortions. Apparently, the Bamster doesn't think much of the First Amendment. See, <a href="http://www.cnsnews.com/node/122233">p://www.cnsnews.com/node/122233</a>.<br />
<br />
Mr. Hays (a gentleman I often disagree with on issues of faith) on his Triablogue links to another article detailing the government's hatred of Christianity in an article captioned aimply as <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/10/state-churches.html">state churches</a>. <br />
<br />
These two incidences are just the tip of very big iceberg. Make no mistake--man-made religious climate change is real and it is happening now! If we Christians do not soon join our voices in prayer and protest, the courts of the United States of America will soon don a new role as the coliseums of tomorrow. And the secularists on the left are not going to distinguish between Catholic and Protestant when they are throwing us to the lions.<br />
<br />
God bless!<br />
<br />Paul Hofferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-57358968877109332022011-08-20T08:47:00.010-05:002011-08-21T03:44:06.078-05:00What Saint Augustine, Bishop, Saint and Doctor of the Catholic Church Actually Held Pertaining to Transubstantiation: A Response to Turretinfan [Part Two Continued].<br />
"What, after all, is our bread, if not the One who said, <i>I myself am the living bread who have come down from heaven. (Jn. 6:51)" ~</i>Saint Augustine from <i>Sermo 360C:3.</i><br />
<br />
III. Critique of Turretinfan’s Three Commentaries (Cont.)<br />
<blockquote>
B. <i>Sermon</i> 272: On the Day of Pentecost to the Infantes, on the Sacrament (Circa. 408 AD)</blockquote>
Before we turn to Turretinfan’s <a href="http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/06/augustines-sermon-272-and.html">comments</a> on Saint Augustine’s <i>Sermon</i> 272, I wanted to offer some prefatory remarks pertaining to this sermon. This sermon falls during St. Augustine’s Donatist Period ( 400 AD and 412 AD). The Donatists were a schismatic sect of rigorists, who held that the true Church must consist of saints only, not sinners, and that the sacraments, such as baptism and the Eucharist, administered by priests outside of a pure church of saints were invalid. This schism originally began because some Carthaginians refused to recognize a bishop who had been consecrated by a bishop who allegedly had been a <i>traditor</i> (a Christian who surrendered the sacred vessels or books of the Scriptures over for public destruction) during the last great persecution of the Church and in his place had another bishop consecrated who had been steadfast in that adversity. The Donatists argued that the efficacy of the sacraments depended on the sanctity of the minister conferring it. If the minister was unworthy, then the sacrament was not valid. In the Donatist thought, if one did not have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, how could that person give it to others? <br />
<br />
To counter this schism, Saint Augustine stressed that the sinfulness of the minister is not relevant to the sacrament. The minister does not lose his authority of orders because of his sins. The reason for this is that in Augustinian thought, the true minister of the sacraments is not the individual, even if that person is consecrated, but the Church, the spouse of Christ, who sends the priest, deacon or bishop, and ultimately since the Church in a very real way is Christ Himself, it is Jesus Christ who is the priest who works always through the Holy Spirit in the Church and through the Church. For Augustine then, the merit of the sacrament does not come from the person conferring the sacrament, but what the sacrament itself contains. See, <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/14084.htm"><i>On Baptism contra the Donatists</i></a>, Book IV, 6:10; 10:17. In other words Saint Augustine taught the efficacy of the sacraments in the same manner of the "modern Rome," which is by <i>ex opere operato</i>-that is the efficacy and grace conferred by the sacrament does not depend on the merits of the minister, but on account of the power of the sacrament itself and on account of Jesus Christ who instituted it. See, for instance: <a href="http://www.documentacatholicaomnia.eu/02m/0354-0430,_Augustinus,_Contra_Cresconium_Grammaticum_Partis_Donati,_MLT.pdf"><i>Contra Cresconium</i></a> Book IV, Chapter 16:19. An English translation of the operative sentence in question may be found in the <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm"><i>1913 Catholic Encyclopedia</i></a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
"Baptism consists not in the merits of those by whom it is administered, nor of those to whom it is administered, but in its own sanctity and truth, on account of Him who instituted it."
</blockquote>
<br />
St. Augustine recognized that the point in contention between the Donatists and the Catholic Church was ecclesiology. To counter the Donatist view of church, the Catholic Bishop of Hippo focused on the presence of Christ in the eucharistic sacrifice. Not only was the Eucharist the sacrifice of Christ, it was also the sacrifice of the Church. Because the Church consists of the whole Christ, head and members (<i>Christus totus</i>), the individuals who make up the Church should also see themselves presented on the altar as well. Thus for Augustine, the "Body of Christ" is both sacrament and an ecclesial body. By taking the Eucharist into ourselves, we commune with Our Lord and enter into union with our fellow Catholics. This Pauline/Augustinian theme is continued in <i>Sermon</i> 272 and is still bedrock Catholic doctrine today. As noted in the <i>Catechism of the Catholic Church</i> #1396, "The Eucharist makes the Church." <br />
With these thoughts in mind, let us look at how Turretinfan sees things.<br />
<br />
TF wrote: <span style="color: blue;">"<i>Augustine’s Sermon 272 and Transubstantiation</i>."</span> <br />
<br />
Me: As I have said before, 272 contains little in way of discussion of the doctrine of Transubstantiation, the changing of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord. Rather, it assumes that and moves past it to discuss the "why" of Transubstantiation. That said, this wonderful sermon does go to the heart of the mystery of faith of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. <br />
<br />
TF wrote: <span style="color: blue;">Some folks who allege that Augustine shared modern Rome's view of the Eucharist like to point to Sermon 272. Since this sermon is quite short, it will be possible for me to go through the sermon from beginning to end, with my comments interspersed.</span><br />
<br />
Me: Some folks, such as Turretinfan, who allege that Augustine does not share modern Rome's view of the Eucharist like to point to <i>Sermon</i> 272. Since Mr. Fan’s commentary is chock full of errors, my comments will be lengthy and numerous. Before we begin addressing errors and omissions specific to Turretinfan’s commentary on <i>Sermon</i> 272, I would refer the reader to Part I where I have already addressed Mr. Fan’s apparent confusion between the term of "Real Presence" and the term "transubstantiation" in my commentary on his thoughts about Letter 36. I will not revisit that discussion here, but ask the reader to read my previous article.<br />
<br />
TEXT: <span style="color: red;"><b><i>SERMON 272 (ON THE DAY OF PENTECOST TO THE INFANTES, ON </i></b><b><i>THE SACRAMENT</i></b>)</span><br />
<br />
Me: Mr. Fan fails to provide the reader with the source of his particular translation he uses but I will. The text that he used is from the series, <i>The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21<sup>st</sup> Century,</i> John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., <i>WSA, Sermons</i>, Part 3, Vol. 7, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1993), pp. 300-301. O.S.A., by the way, is the abbreviation for the Order of Saint Augustine, a Catholic monastic society. <br />
<br />
TF wrote: <span style="color: blue;">The infantes here are those who are newly baptized. Baptism of new converts typically took place at Easter, and Pentecost is only a few weeks later. These are relatively young believers, spiritual infants, though not physical infants. Some scholars seem to suggest that the sermon may actually have been on Easter rather than on Pentecost.</span><br />
<br />
Me: While Mr. Fan is correct that converts were "typically" baptized at Easter, they were typically baptized at other times during the liturgical year as well. The sacrament of Baptism in the African Church in Saint Augustine’s time was offered year round to babies and small children. This is reflected in Saint Augustine’s writings on the importance of not delaying the baptism of babies and children. See, St. Augustine, <i>De Genesi ad litteram</i>, X, 23, 39: PL 34, 426; <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15011.htm"><i>De peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo parvulorum ad Marcellinum</i></a>, Book I, 17-19: 22-24; ibid. Book I, 26:; ibid. Book III, 4:7; <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701.htm"><i>In Ioannem Tractatus XIII</i></a>, 7: PL 35, 1496; CCL 36, p. 134; <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1506.htm"><i>De gratia Christi et de peccato originali,</i></a> I, XXXII, 35; ibid., 377; <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15121.htm"><i>De praedestinatione sanctorum,</i></a> XIII, 25: ibid., 978; <a href="http://www.archive.org/details/fathersofthechur013910mbp"><i>Opus imperfectum contra Iulianum</i></a>, V, 9: PL 45, 1439. Similarly, when an adult was very ill, the sacrament of Baptism would likewise be administered without delay. Moreover, in the very work from which Turretinfan draws the translation of text he is exegeting, the author states in footnote 1 that solemn adult baptisms (baptisms that occur during Mass) were performed at the Mass on Pentecost as well as at the Easter Vigil Mass. <br />
<br />
With respect to Mr. Fan’s statements on "<i>infantes</i>," it is true that infantes were neophyte baptized Christians, but in Augustine’s time, the word denoted more than that. An<i> infante</i> was the title given a person who had successfully completed all of the pre-baptism stages of Christian initiation, received the sacraments of initiation (Baptism. Confirmation and the Holy Eucharist) and now was entitled to be instructed in the deeper mysteries, the mystagogy as it were, of the symbols, rites and events in connection with the sacraments of the Church, said instruction being given during the Masses between Easter and Pentecost. <br />
<br />
TF wrote: <span style="color: blue;">Either way, this is a sermon aimed at those with a relatively small understanding of what is involved in Christianity.</span><br />
<br />
Me: This speculation on the part of Mr. Fan is not backed up by either Saint Augustine’s writings or other patristic writings. In truth, those who sought admittance into the Church in Saint Augustine’s time underwent extensive instruction on "what is involved in Christianity" prior to Baptism. <br />
<br />
In a nutshell, there were (as there is today) four stages of adult formation for those who wished to become Catholics as shown in St. Augustine’s writings,<i> </i>particular<i> </i><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1303.htm"><i><u><span style="color: blue;">On the Catechizing of the Uninstructed</span></u></i><u><span style="color: blue;"></span></u><span style="color: blue;"></span></a><i> </i>(<i>De Catechizandis Rudibus</i>) and many of his sermons preached between the beginning of Lent and Pentecost. I have already touched upon the final stage-mystagogic instruction which is what <i>Sermon</i> 272 is foremostly. The first stage was the period of Inquiry or Pre-Catechumenate where the individual would be questioned by a trained catechist. The individual was asked why he or she wanted to be a Christian and be baptized. The inquirer was then introduced to the Catholic faith by hearing a lecture on salvation history with points made from both the Old and New Testaments ending with the a discussion of eschatology and a warning about the "chaff" in the Church. The warning about the "chaff" in the church was to encourage the prospective member look for the wheat in the congregation, but not be discouraged by those in the church who were not living full Christian lives. After hearing this lecture, the inquirer was asked directly if they accepted this basic Christian message. If the person accepted everything that they had heard, some explanation was given about the sacraments they would eventually receive and they then underwent a rite of initiation where they were signed with the cross on their forehead, given a blessing by the laying on of hands, and provided a taste of salt on the tongue. By this preliminary rite, they were now considered as "catechumen members" of the Church. For Saint Augustine, if the sacrament of Baptism gave new birth, this initial rite is analogous to a person’s conception in the Church’s womb.<br />
<br />
Once the person was accepted into the Church as a catechumen, they underwent a multi-year instruction and discernment before they could apply for baptism. During this time, the catechumen would hear what the faith and pattern of Christian life should be. This was not a simple altar-call at a store front chapel. The catechumen would attend Mass, or the Divine Liturgy as it was called then, four times a week or more where they listened to the Word of God read from the pulpit and a sermon expounding on what they had heard. After the sermon, they were then blessed and left the service before the liturgy of the Eucharist which was reserved for baptized Catholics only.<br />
<br />
This second stage could last for years. In Augustine’s case, he was considered a catechumen into his thirties (much of that time spent as a Manichee or as an unbeliever). In many instances for a variety of reasons, an individual catechumen never proceeded beyond this step. <br />
<br />
After two or three years of instruction, discernment, faithful adherence to the teachings of the Church and right living, a catechumen was judged ready to become a full member of the Church and was urged to apply for Baptism. To be baptized at the Easter Vigil Mass, the final instruction occurred before Lent. Saint Augustine would bring all such catechumens together and encouraged them to petition for full admission to the Church and commence final preparation for the sacraments of initiation (Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist). A candidate who chose to petition to go forward then would begin final preparation during the Lenten season to baptized. <br />
<br />
The catechumens who chose to participate in the third stage of catechetical formation were called "<i>competentes</i>." For competente who going to be baptized at the Easter vigil Mass, they underwent a thorough religious training that included rigorous penitential discipline (fasting, alms-giving, abstaining from sex, several vigils, personal mortifications such as wearing a goat skin under their garments and not bathing) undergoing a scrutiny and a series of exorcisms, and receiving public and private lessons and examinations on the teachings of the Church during the 40 days of Lent.<br />
<br />
A couple of weeks before the Easter Vigil liturgy, the competentes participated in a special ritual during the Mass called the handing-over of the Creed (<i>In traditione symboli</i>). Saint Augustine recited it to them, then explained the Creed phrase-by-phrase. See <i>Sermons </i>212 and 216 for example. On Palm Sunday, the competentes came to the Mass and were required to recite the Creed (<i>In redditione symboli</i>) publicly followed by another creedal sermon from the Bishop of Hippo. See, <i>Sermon</i> 215 for example If the competentes recited the Creed correctly, they were then taught the Lord’s Prayer phrase by phrase in a second sermon given that day by Saint Augustine. See, <i>Sermon</i> 56. Sometime during Holy Saturday prior to Vigil liturgy, the competentes met again and were called upon to recite the Lord’s Prayer back to the Bishop as they had the Creed. Only if an adult competente successfully completed all of the above and demonstrated their competence in the Catholic faith were they ready to be baptized.<br />
<br />
One would wish that Turretinfan had received as much instruction in the Catholic faith as did the competentes before setting out to comment erroneously on what he thinks are the teachings of the Church! <br />
<br />
For an in-depth discussion of pre and post-baptismal process that catechumens underwent at the time of Saint Augustine, see:<br />
<br />
Brown, Chris and Drury, Keith. "<a href="http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/augustine.cathechism.htm"><i><u><span style="color: blue;">Augustine</span></u></i><u><span style="color: blue;"></span></u><span style="color: blue;"></span>’s Process for Receiving New Members</a>" (Last Accessed: July 18, 2011).<br />
<br />
Harmless, William. <i>Augustine and the Catechumenate</i> (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1995).<br />
<br />
Merdinger, Jane. "<a href="http://people.vanderbilt.edu/~james.p.burns/chroma/baptism/merdbapt.html"><i><u><span style="color: blue;">Do you renounce Satan and all his works? :Success and Failure Amongst the Catechumenate in Late Roman Africa</span></u></i><u><span style="color: blue;"></span></u><span style="color: blue;"></span></a>" (Last Accessed: July 18, 2011).<br />
<br />
Weller, Philip. <i>Selected Easter Sermons of Saint Augustine. </i> Saint Louis, Mo.:B. Herder Book Co, (1959).<br />
<br />
TEXT: <b><i><span style="color: red;">Date: 408</span></i></b><br />
<br />
TF wrote: <span style="color: blue;">Of course, the date is not in the original. Nevertheless, this is the approximate date (within a range of about 405 - 411) assigned to this sermon using the best available scholarship.</span><br />
<br />
Me: The date assigned to the sermon by Edmund Hill and John Rotelle falls within Saint Augustine’s Donatist period as noted above.<br />
<br />
TEXT: <span style="color: red;"><b><i>One thing is seen, another is to be understood</i></b><i></i>.</span><br />
<br />
TF wrote: <span style="color: blue;">This line serves as key theme of the sermon. It is easy to see how this line, standing alone, might seem to fit well with transubstantiation. Of course, it also fits well with a bare symbolism view, and also with everything in between those two. So, let's read on and see what Augustine says.</span><br />
<br />
Me: This line may fit well with the doctrine of transubstantiation, but this line actually is a paraphrase of the classic Augustinian definition of a sacrament. As noted before, transubstantiation is merely the change to the Eucharistic elements through a blessing into the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ; it is not the sacrament itself.<br />
<br />
TEXT: <b><i><span style="color: red;">What you can see on the altar, you also saw last night; but what it was, what it meant, of what great reality it contained the sacrament, you had not yet heard.</span></i></b><br />
<br />
TF wrote: <span style="color: blue;">What you can see on the altar is, of course, a reference to the communion elements. Apparently new converts were not given an explanation of the meaning of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper prior to baptism. However, now they are baptized and they are going to be instructed.</span><br />
Me: If this sermon is being preached at Pentecost, then almost assuredly the infantes had already heard Saint Augustine preach about the Eucharist being the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ (See, <i>Sermons</i> 227, 228B, 229 which were preached to the newly baptized at the Easter day Mass). Moreover, during their time as catechumens, they had even been instructed about the Eucharist before baptism. As noted in <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1303.htm"><i><u><span style="color: blue;">On Catechizing the Uninstructed</span></u></i><u><span style="color: blue;"></span></u><span style="color: blue;"></span>, 26:50,</a><em> </em>Saint Augustine advises the Deacon Deogratias that he is to teach the catechumens as follows about the sacraments:<br />
<blockquote>
At the conclusion of this address the person is to be asked whether he believes these things and earnestly desires to observe them. And on his replying to that effect then certainly he is to be solemnly signed and dealt with in accordance with the custom of the Church. On the subject of the sacrament, indeed, which he receives, it is first to be well impressed upon his notice that the signs of divine things are, it is true, things visible, but that the invisible things themselves are also honored in them, and that species, which is then sanctified by the blessing, is therefore not to be regarded merely in the way in which it is regarded in any common use. And thereafter he ought to be told what is also signified by the form of words to which he has listened, and what in him is seasoned by that (spiritual grace) of which this material substance presents the emblem.</blockquote>
In other words, before they ever were baptized or had received the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, the catechumens were taught that the signs of divine things are visible, but what we honor in them ARE REALITIES THAT ARE INVISIBLE.. The exact words in Latin are "<i>res ipsas invisibiles</i>." This is not figurative language. Indeed, if one makes a serious inquiry of St. Augustine’s thoughts on the Eucharist, one would see that he focuses primarily on its realism and symbolism, its connection to the Church a.k.a. the Body of Christ (<i>Christus Totus</i>), and the sacrificial nature of the Sacrament-three aspects of the Eucharistic mystery of faith that one would find modern Rome to be in accord with the learned Doctor of Grace.<br />
<br />
Contrary to Turretinfan’s notion that "Apparently, new converts were not given an explanation ...," <i>Sermon</i> 272 is not addressed to the ignorant, it is addressed to those who understood through faith the doctrine of the Real Presence but were now ready to receive deeper teaching. This sermon is not about the verity of the Real Presence, as it assumes that truth. Rather Saint Augustine focuses his preaching on the mystagogy of the sacrament–the effects of the grace that comes from receiving it. It is about the grace signified and made present through the matter and form of the sacrament. <br />
<br />
TF wrote: <span style="color: blue;">Notice Augustine's word: the things on the altar contain the sacrament of a great reality. For Augustine, a sacrament is a picture. It is something that visibly illustrates something spiritual. The sacrament known as the Lord's supper illustrates a great reality that Augustine is about to explain.<br />
<br />
For Augustine if something pictures faith, it is the sacrament of faith. If something pictures love, it is the sacrament of love. Likewise, this is the sacrament of something, and that something is what is pictured by the . sacrament.</span><br />
<br />
Me: It is ironic that Turretinfan here paraphrases Saint Thomas Aquinas who wrote that, "The Eucharist is the Sacrament of Love; It signifies Love, it produces Love." It is sad though that Turretinfan does not understand what that means. For Mr. Fan, the sacrament may be only a pretty picture, but for Augustine and other Catholics, both in Augustine’s day and in "modern Rome," a sacrament is much more than that for a sacrament actually presents Christ to the recipient. As Saint Thomas indicates, it produces Christ. <br />
<br />
For Catholics then, the sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions" (<a href="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect1chpt1art2.shtml"><i><u><span style="color: blue;">Catechism of the Catholic Church</span></u></i><u><span style="color: blue;"></span></u><span style="color: blue;"></span> # 1131</a><i>). </i><br />
<em>
</em><br />
"Sacraments are efficacious signs of grace." A sacrament is "efficacious," meaning that work is being done in it. It affects. It produces something. The visible aspects of a sacrament is not a picture at all but a real conduit through which the love of God (grace) is communicated to us to transform us, to sanctify us. As we shall see, there is a good reason why Catholics also call the the sacrament of the Eucharist "Holy Communion." <br />
<em>
</em><br />
Thus, God is at work in a sacrament, He works through sacraments (though He works in many other ways as well). For work to occur in a sacrament, the Catholic Church teaches that Christ must be present in it. And where Christ is, there is grace.<em> </em><br />
<em>
</em><br />
For Saint Augustine of Hippo, the Catholic Church’s Doctor of Grace, too, a sign is much more than a picture. In a mysterious and wondrous way, a sign is the thing that it signifies:<br />
<blockquote>
And the fact that the ancient church offered animal sacrifices, which the people of God now-a-days read of without imitating, proves nothing else than this, that those sacrifices signified the things which we do for the purpose of drawing near to God, and inducing our neighbor to do the same. A sacrifice, therefore, is the visible sacrament or sacred sign of an invisible sacrifice.<br />
<br />
And hence that true Mediator, in so far as, by assuming the form of a servant, He became the Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, though in the form of God He received sacrifice together with the Father, with whom He is one God, yet in the form of a servant He chose rather to be than to receive a sacrifice, that not even by this instance any one might have occasion to suppose that sacrifice should be rendered to any creature. Thus He is both the Priest who offers and the Sacrifice offered. And He designed that there should be a daily sign of this in the sacrifice of the Church, which, being His body, learns to offer herself through Him.<br />
<br />
<em>Saint. Augustine,</em> <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120110.htm"><i><u><span style="color: blue;">The City of God</span></u></i><u><span style="color: blue;"></span></u><span style="color: blue;"></span></a>, 10:5; 10:20.</blockquote>
Rather than trying to play the symbolic aspects of a sacrament against the reality presented by it, Catholics, such as Saint Augustine and myself, embrace both because the symbol makes the real present to us.<br />
<br />
TEXT: <b><i><span style="color: red;">So what you can see, then, is bread and a cup; that's what even your eyes tell you; but as for what your faith asks to be instructed about, the bread is the body of Christ, the cup the blood of Christ.</span></i></b><br />
<br />
TF writes: <span style="color: blue;">You can probably easily see how this lends itself to the view of transubstantiation. After all, if Augustine were to hold to transubstantiation, he could say this. At the same time, though Augustine could say this and hold to a bare symbolic view or to anything in between. So, we must read on.</span><br />
<br />
Me: Yes, Catholics do see how <i>Sermon</i> 272 lends itself to the view that after the words of consecration are spoken at the Mass, that Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity is Really and Substantially Present on the altar. What Turretinfan misses out of the above passage is the role that faith plays in understanding the Eucharist. Even though we do not see any change in the bread and wine after consecration, faith tells us that a change does occur, that what we see now is Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Or mirroring Saint Augustine’s teaching above "modern Rome" puts it thusly in the <a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm"><i>Catechism of the Catholic Church</i></a>:<br />
<blockquote>
1381. "That in this sacrament are the true Body of Christ and his true Blood is something that 'cannot be apprehended by the senses,' says St. Thomas, 'but <i>only by faith</i>, which relies on divine authority.' For this reason, in a commentary on <i>Luke </i>22:19 ('This is my body which is given for you.'), St. Cyril says: 'Do not doubt whether this is true, but rather receive the words of the Savior in faith, for since he is the truth, he cannot lie.'" (fn 212)<br />
<br />
Fn. 212 St. Thomas Aquinas, <i>S.Th</i>. III,75,1; cf. Paul VI, <i>MF</i> 18; St. Cyril of<br />
Alexandria, <i>In Luc.</i> 22,19:PG 72,912; cf. Paul VI, <i>MF</i> 18. </blockquote>
TF wrote: <span style="color: blue;">After all, Augustine is merely telling us that there is more to the situation than simply bread and a cup. It's not just a snack.</span><br />
<br />
Me: Of course, if St. Augustine were only speaking figuratively as contended by Turretinfan, then it is merely a snack. However, as Augustine tells us in his writings, the Eucharist is something to be worshipped, to be adored, which he could not truthfully claim if he is talking metaphorically or figuratively:<br />
<blockquote>
But consider, brethren, what he commands us to fall down before. In another passage of the Scriptures it is said, "The heaven is My throne, and the earth is My footstool." Isaiah 66:1 Does he then bid us worship the earth, since in another passage it is said, that it is God's footstool? How then shall we worship the earth, when the Scripture says openly, "You shall worship the Lord your God"? (Deuteronomy 6:13) Yet here it says, "fall down before His footstool:" and, explaining to us what His footstool is, it says, "The earth is My footstool." I am in doubt; I fear to worship the earth, lest He who made the heaven and the earth condemn me; again, I fear not to worship the footstool of my Lord, because the Psalm bids me, "fall down before His footstool." I ask, what is His footstool? And the Scripture tells me, "the earth is My footstool." In hesitation I turn unto Christ, since I am herein seeking Himself: and I discover how the earth may be worshipped without impiety, how His footstool may be worshipped without impiety. For He took upon Him earth from earth; because flesh is from earth, and He received flesh from the flesh of Mary. <b>And because He walked here in very flesh, and gave that very flesh to us to eat for our salvation; and no one eats that flesh, unless he has first worshipped: we have found out in what sense such a footstool of our Lord's may be worshipped, and not only that we sin not in worshipping it, but that we sin in not worshipping. </b>" (My Emphasis)<br />
<br />
Saint Augustine. <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801099.htm"><i>Ennarations on the Psalms</i></a> (Psalms 99:8)</blockquote>
In other words, Saint Augustine believed that it was fit and proper to worship the Eucharist because the Incarnational Reality of Jesus is present under the appearances of bread and wine. This would not be the case if the Eucharist was only a picture as Turretinfan claims.<br />
<br />
TEXT: <span style="color: red;">It took no time to say that indeed, and that, perhaps, may be enough for faith; but faith desires instruction.</span><br />
<br />
TF writes:<span style="color: blue;"> Notice that Augustine does not view the instruction and explanation of "this is my body" to be itself an essential. It's enough that we by faith refer to the bread as the body of Christ and to the cup as his blood. Nevertheless, as Augustine observes, faith desires instruction. That instruction may not be strictly necessary, but it is wanted by those who have faith.</span> <br />
<br />
Me: Augustine’s definition of theology is faith seeking understanding. If one truly has faith, they will seek understanding. The sentence above shows that Augustine is presuming that his infantes have that sort of faith. While Mr. Fan attempts to downplay what the Bishop of Hippo is teaching here, what Saint Augustine is really saying to the infantes, "You believe that what was bread is now Jesus Christ, what was wine is now Jesus Christ, and because you do believe that to be true, I am going to tell you why this is true."<br />
<br />
TEXT: <b><i><span style="color: red;">The prophet says, you see, Unless you believe, you shall not understand (Is 7:9).</span> </i></b><br />
<br />
TF writes: <span style="color: blue;">You can see here that Augustine is, to some extent, prooftexting this principle from an Old Testament passage that may not really have been intended to convey such a general truth.</span><br />
<blockquote>
<span style="color: blue;">Isaiah 7:3-9 </span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br /></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">Then said the LORD unto Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou, and Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the highway of the fuller's field; and say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet; fear not, neither be fainthearted for the two tails of these smoking firebrands, for the fierce anger of Rezin with Syria, and of the son of Remaliah. Because Syria, Ephraim, and the son of Remaliah, have taken evil counsel against thee, saying, "Let us go up against Judah, and vex it, and let us make a breach therein for us, and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal:" thus saith the Lord GOD, "It shall not stand, neither shall it come to pass. For the head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin; and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people. And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliah's son. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established."</span></blockquote>
<span style="color: blue;">You may also note that it appears that Augustine is working with a Latin translation of the Septuagint, rather than a direct translation of the Hebrew original. Nevertheless, Augustine's point (whether or not it is the point of the Hebrew text) is that first you believe, and then afterward you understand.</span><br />
<br />
Me: It appears that Turretinfan took his Isaiah quote from the KJV. Turretinfan’s <br />
dislike for the Septuagint is irrelevant since the issue here is how Saint Augustine understood and used the Scripture, not whether the version he favored or the one that Turretinfan uses is the better translation of the Old Testament. That said, I would note that this quote from the Septuagint version of Isaiah 7:9 is one of Saint Augustine’s favorite scripture passages. One finds him using it throughout his writings. <br />
In the context of <i>Sermon</i> 272 and one’s sacramental understanding of the Eucharist, what are the implications of "Unless you believe, you will not understand." Saint Augustine is saying here is that it is not possible to truly understand the Eucharist using our reason alone. Our understanding is shaped by and is informed by faith. Faith is the key to the understanding of the sacrament. Of course, if Saint Augustine is talking only figuratively here, if he is only drawing pretty word pictures as Turretinfan claims, why does one need faith at all to understand the Eucharist? What’s the mystery? <br />
<br />
TEXT: <b><i><span style="color: red;">I mean, you can now say to me, "You've bidden us believe; now explain, so that we may understand."</span></i></b><br />
<br />
TF writes:<span style="color: blue;"> So you see, his point is that people can accept Jesus' words that the bread and cup are his body and blood, but they still may desire (on the foundation of that faith) to have some explanation of those words. Augustine is planning to provide some explanation.</span><br />
<br />
Me: If Saint Augustine is merely speaking metaphorically or figuratively here, he could end the sermon here by saying to his listeners now, "Psych! It is only a metaphor. You can go home now." <br />
<br />
TEXT: <b><i><span style="color: red;">Some such thought as this, after all, may cross somebody's mind: "We know where our Lord Jesus Christ took flesh from; from the Virgin Mary. ...</span></i></b><br />
<br />
TF writes: <span style="color: blue;">I interrupt Augustine's multi-sentence hypothetical comment (the "..." thus is my own as it is below, and not in the text). Notice that these new believers are familiar with the virgin birth.</span><br />
<br />
Me: Notice too that his listeners would have been familiar with the Blessed Mother’s<br />
perpetual virginity as well:<br />
<blockquote>
Let us rejoice, brothers and sisters, let the nations be glad and exult. It is not this visible sun, but its invisible Creator, Who has consecrated this day, when the virgin mother gave birth from her fertile and unimpaired womb to the One Who became visible for us, by Whom in His invisibility she herself was created, a virgin in conceiving, a virgin giving birth, a virgin when with child, a virgin on being delivered , a virgin for ever. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Saint Augustine. <i>Sermon</i> 186:1 given on Christmas day circa 400 AD. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
<i>The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21<sup>st</sup> Century,</i><i></i>John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., <i>WSA, Sermons</i>, Part 3, Vol. 7, trans. Edmund Hill, O.P., (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1993), pp. 24-30.</blockquote>
However,<i> Sermon</i> 272 is not about the Blessed Virgin Mary; it is about Jesus. The significance of Saint Augustine’s argument here is to present to the infantes the ultimate, fundamental truth of the Incarnational Reality of Jesus Christ who took on flesh and became human and likewise how that Reality is now to be found in the Eucharist, a truth that Turretinfan might have recognized had he undergone the same training that the infantes had.<br />
<br />
TEXT: <b><i><span style="color: red;">"... He was suckled as a baby, was reared, grew up, came to man's estate, suffered persecution from the Jews, was hung on the tree, was slain on the tree, was taken down from the tree, was buried; rose again on the third day, on the day he wished ascended into heaven. ...</span></i></b><br />
<br />
TF writes: <span style="color: blue;">Again, I interrupt the hypothetical comment. Notice how Augustine summarizes the life of Christ. This summary is similar to what we might find in an ancient version of the so-called Apostles' creed. There is no mention of descent into hell (as distinct from burial), but then again there is no reason to think that Augustine is trying to exactly copy the creed in his hypothetical objection.</span><br />
<br />
Me: Of course the Creed that the competentes <i>cum</i> infantes had memorized summarizes the doctrine of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ. If Jesus had not taken on flesh, He could not have truly offered Himself up as a sacrifice for our sins, a sacrifice that Saint Augustine taught is still being made present in our lives by the sacrament of the Eucharist. This gift of Christ Jesus is happening eternally always. Praise be to God!<br />
<br />
TEXT: <b><i><span style="color: red;">" ... That's where he lifted his body up to; that's where he's going to come from to judge the living and the dead; that's where he is now, seated on the Father's right. ...</span></i></b><br />
<br />
TF writes: <span style="color: blue;">We're almost finished with the objection. This objection fills out the rest of a basic life of Christ. He lived, he died, he was raised, he sits on the Father's right, and he's coming to judge the world.</span><br />
<br />
Me: More of the same by TF. Remember that Saint Augustine is teaching theology here-faith seeking understanding.<br />
<br />
TEXT: <b><i><span style="color: red;">" ... How can bread be his body? And the cup, or what the cup contains, how can it be his blood?"</span></i></b><br />
<br />
TF writes: <span style="color: blue;">Here is the question that allows Augustine to affirm transubstantiation, if that is his belief. Alternatively, it allows Augustine to explain that the bread and cup is a symbol or picture, or whatever else Augustine may think. In some sense, it is the perfect question to get at the matter of what the expression "this is my body" means to Augustine.</span><br />
<br />
Me: Mr. Fan overanalyzes the matter at hand. Saint Augustine is preparing his infantes for his explanation how faith should shape their understanding the Eucharist. <br />
<br />
TEXT: <b><i><span style="color: red;">The reason these things, brothers and sisters, are called sacraments is that in them one thing is seen, another is to be understood.</span> </i></b><br />
<br />
TF writes: <span style="color: blue;">This gets us back to the theme of Augustine's sermon. Augustine is explaining that in every sacrament (in his understanding of sacraments, one thing is seen (the picture) and another thing is understood (the message conveyed by the picture).</span> <br />
<br />
Me: Again, TF misunderstands the meaning of sacrament in the thought of Augustine . The thing seen does not only represent the thing invisible, the thing seen re-presents the thing invisible. In the Eucharist, the symbols of bread and wine are visible signs of the invisible reality of Christ’s presence. A sacrament is a symbol through which we can both perceive and receive an invisible Grace. A sacrament signifies a sacred reality and actually puts us in touch with it. It is definitely not just a picture merely conveying a message.<br />
<br />
This teaching of "modern Rome" and of Saint Augustine is beautifully summarized by the great Aquinian theologian and scholar, the Abbot Vonier: <br />
<blockquote>
Every sacrament, then, has something to declare: it recalls the past, it is the voice of the present, it reveals the future. If the sacrament did not fulfill its function of sign proclaiming something which is not seen, it would not be a sacrament at all. It can embrace heaven and earth, time and eternity, because it is a sign; were it only a grace it would be no more than the gift of the present hour; but being a sign the whole history of the spiritual world is reflected in it: "For as often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord, until He comes." What Saint Paul says of the Eucharist about its showing forth a past event is true in other ways of every other sacrament. … If my heart be touched by God’s grace, such a divine action, excellent and wonderful though it be, is not a sign of anything else; it is essentially a spiritual fact of the present moment, and ends, as it were, in itself. It has no relationship of signification to anything else, whether past, present or future. Such is not the case with the sacraments; through them it becomes possible to focus the distant past and future in the actual present; through them historic events of centuries ago are renewed, and we anticipate the future in a very real way. All this is possible only in virtue of the sacramental sign, which not only records the distant event, but, somewhat like the modern film, projects it upon the screen of the present. <br />
<br />
Vonier, Anscar. <i>A Key to the Doctrine of the Eucharist. </i> Bethesda, Md: Zaccheus Press, 2003, p. 14.</blockquote>
TF writes: <span style="color: blue;">This, incidentally, rules out confession and penance from being a "sacrament" for Augustine. There is nothing in confession and penance that pictures something else, for him. So, even if Augustine had observed a modern Roman rite of confession and penance, he would not have termed it a "sacrament."</span><br />
<br />
Me: The present rite of the sacrament of reconciliation did not come into practice until the 6<sup>th</sup> century AD. However, we are not talking about the ritual language of the sacrament, but the sacrament itself. Given that Saint Augustine stated above that a visible sacrifice can be a sign for an invisible sacrifice, clearly calls Holy Orders and Marriage <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1309.htm"><u><span style="color: blue;">sacraments</span></u><span style="color: blue;"></span></a>, and the Lord’s Prayer a sacrament because its recital leads to the forgiveness of venial sin (<i>Sermon</i> 213:10), Saint Augustine’s view of what is a sacrament is at least a tad more expansive than what Turretinfan thinks a sacrament is and is in line with the post-Vatican II Church view of what is a sacrament considering that <i>Lumen Gentium</i> or the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church expressly claims that the Church itself is a sacrament:<br />
<br />
<dir>
<dir>
"The Church is in Christ like a sacrament or as a sign and instrument both of a very closely knit union with God and of the unity of the whole human race" (LG 1).</dir></dir>A common definition of a sacrament that could be accepted by both Reformed denominations and the Catholic Church is that of an outward and visible sign, ordained by Christ, setting forth and pledging an inward and spiritual blessing. The definition owes much to the teaching and language of Saint Augustine, who wrote of the visible sign or action which bore some likeness to the thing invisible. When to this ‘element’, the word of Christ’s institution was added, a sacrament was made, so that the sacrament could be spoken of as ‘the visible word’. This formula is found in several of Saint Augustine’s works, most notably <i>Tractates on the Gospel of John</i> 80:3: "<i>Quid est aqua nisi aqua? Accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum.</i>"<br />
For Augustine, the matter of a sacrament is the essential symbol or gesture that, along with the form, expresses the core sacramental action. The form of a sacrament is the formula -- the essential words of prayer -- during the sacramental celebration that define or give form to the symbols or gesture that are used. As it pertains to the sacrament of Penance (now more commonly called the Sacrament of Reconciliation) the matter (symbol / sign) of the sacrament is the contrition, confession, and penance on the part of the individual seeking absolution. Those visible symbols determine the nature of the grace being imparted-here the forgiveness of sins, which Augustine teaches as well as "modern Rome":<br />
<br />
<br />
<dir><dir>"All mortal sins are to be submitted to the keys of the Church and all can be forgiven; but recourse to these keys is the only, the necessary, and the certain way to forgiveness. Unless those who are guilty of grievous sin have recourse to the power of the keys, they cannot hope for eternal salvation. Open your lips, them, and confess your sins to the priest. Confession alone is the true gate to Heaven." <br />
<br />
<i>Augustine, Christian Combat</i> (A.D. 397). </dir></dir>
Here we see that the sacrament comprises two essential elements: the acts of the man who undergoes conversion through the action of the Holy Spirit: namely, contrition, confession, and satisfaction; and, God’s action through the intervention of the priest empowered by the Church to hear confession. The Church then forgives sins in the name of Jesus Christ and determines the manner of penance, prays for the sinner and participates in doing penance with him. Thus the sinner is healed and re-established in fellowship and communion with the Body of Christ.<br />
<blockquote>
Chapter 65. God Pardons Sins, But on Condition of Penitence, Certain Times for Which Have Been Fixed by the Law of the Church.</blockquote>
<blockquote>
But even crimes themselves, however great, may be remitted in the Holy Church; and the mercy of God is never to be despaired of by men who truly repent, each according to the measure of his sin. And in the act of repentance, where a crime has been committed of such a nature as to cut off the sinner from the body of Christ, we are not to take account so much of the measure of time as of the measure of sorrow; for a broken and a contrite heart God does not despise. But as the grief of one heart is frequently hid from another, and is not made known to others by words or other signs, when it is manifest to Him of whom it is said, "My groaning is not hid from You," those who govern the Church have rightly appointed times of penitence, that the Church in which the sins are remitted may be satisfied; and outside the Church sins are not remitted. For the Church alone has received the pledge of the Holy Spirit, without which there is no remission of sins— such, at least, as brings the pardoned to eternal life. <br />
<br />
Saint Augustine. <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1302.htm"><i>The Enchiridion on Faith, Hope and Love.</i></a> Chapter 65.</blockquote>
Here, we see Saint Augustine teaching that the Church alone has the power to remit the effects of sin based on the exterior element of one making an act of penance. <br />
<blockquote>
The remission of sins, is the loosing. For what would it have profited Lazarus, that he came forth from the tomb, unless it were said to him, "loose him, and let him go"? (John 11:44) Himself indeed with His voice aroused him from the tomb, Himself restored his life by crying unto him, Himself overcame the mass of earth that was heaped upon the tomb, and he came forth bound hand and foot: not therefore with his own feet, but by the power of Him who drew him forth. This takes place in the heart of the penitent: when you hear a man is sorry for his sins, he has already come again to life; when you hear him by confessing lay bare his conscience, he is already drawn forth from the tomb, but he is not as yet loosed. When is he loosed, and by whom is he loosed? "Whatsoever you shall loose on earth," He says, "shall be loosed in Heaven." (Matthew 16:19) Forgiveness of sins may justly be granted by the Church: but the dead man himself cannot be aroused except by the Lord crying within him; for God does this within him.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801102.htm"><i>Enarrations on the Psalms</i></a> 102:20. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
"I realize what the incontinent can say: ... that if a man, accusing his wife of adultery, kills her, this sin, since it is finished and does not perdure in him [i.e., since he does not keep committing it], if it is committed by a catechumen, is absolved in baptism, and if it is done by one who is baptized, it is healed by penance and reconciliation."
<br />
<br />
<i>Adulterous Marriages</i> 2:16:16 (A.D. 419). (From Jurgens. <i>The Faith of the Early Fathers. </i>Vol. 3., pg. 133.</blockquote>
Now Fan may interpose an objection and say this is all fine and good but where does Saint Augustine call penance/confession/reconciliation a sacrament? Well, here are some examples: <br />
<blockquote>
If, therefore, what is said in the gospel, that "God hears not sinners," John 9:31 extends so far that the sacraments cannot be celebrated by a sinner, how then does He hear a murderer praying, either over the water of baptism (sacrament of baptism), or over the oil (sacrament of Confirmation), or over the Eucharist (sacrament of Holy Eucharist), or over the heads of those on whom his hand is laid (sacrament of Penance)? All which things are nevertheless done, and are valid, even at the hands of murderers, that is, at the hands of those who hate their brethren, even within, in the Church itself. Since "no one can give what he does not possess himself," how does a murderer give the Holy Spirit? And yet such an one even baptizes within the Church. It is God, therefore, that gives the Holy Spirit even when a man of this kind is baptizing.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
St. Augustine, <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/14085.htm"><i><u><span style="color: blue;">On Baptism, Against the Donatists</span></u></i><u><span style="color: blue;"></span></u><span style="color: blue;"></span></a>, Book 5, chap. 21:29 (400 AD).</blockquote>
Here, Saint Augustine specifically gives the reader a list of sacraments of which the sacrament of Penance is included. Now, Mr. Fan may posit a further objection that rather than the sacrament of Penance, the sacrament Saint Augustine is referring to in his comment about the laying on of hand is the sacrament of Orders, I would ask the reader to take note of Saint Augustine’s comments in Book 3, chap. 16:21 of the same work:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
But the laying on of hands in reconciliation to the Church is not, like baptism, incapable of repetition; for what is it more than a prayer offered over a man?</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
Now lest there is an objection that the above is ambiguous, peruse the following:
<br />
<blockquote>
For the sake of all sins was Baptism provided; for the sake of light sins, without which we cannot be, was prayer provided. What has the Prayer? "Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors." Once for all we have washing in Baptism, every day we have washing in prayer. Only, do not commit those things for which you must needs be separated from Christ's body: which be far from you! For those whom you have seen doing penance, have committed heinous things, either adulteries or some enormous crimes: for these they do penance. Because if theirs had been light sins, to blot out these daily prayer would suffice.<br />
<br />
In three ways then are sins remitted in the Church; by Baptism, by prayer, by the greater humility of penance; yet God does not remit sins but to the baptized. The very sins which He remits first, He remits not but to the baptized. When? When they are baptized. The sins which are after remitted upon prayer, upon penance, to whom He remits, it is to the baptized that He remits.<br />
<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1307.htm"><i><u><span style="color: blue;">A Sermon to Catechumens, on the Creed</span></u></i><u><span style="color: blue;"></span></u><span style="color: blue;"></span></a><i> 7:15, 8:16 (A.D. 395).</i></blockquote>
Under Saint Augustine’s definition of sacrament "one thing is seen, another is to be understood" given in Sermon 272, one thing is seen-confession, repentance of sin; another is to be understood-remittance of sin, healing of soul, reconciliation with the Body of Christ. Thus, reconciliation is indeed a sacrament for Saint Augustine.<br />
TEXT: <span style="color: red;">What can be seen has a bodily appearance, what is to be understood provides spiritual fruit.</span>
<br />
<br />
TF wrote: <span style="color: blue;">This provides a slightly more nuanced explanation. There's a spiritual lesson to be drawn from what is understood by the things that are seen. This spiritual lesson provides spiritual fruit to the person.</span>
<br />
<br />
Me: To escape the Catholic understanding of the matter, Mr. Fan pretends to be a Pelagian
here. Contrary to Turretinfan’s commentary, Saint Augustine is not talking about spiritual lessons at all. What Saint Augustine says here is that if one believes that in the invisible reality of the sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, one receives “spiritual fruit.” another name for grace.
<br />
<br />
TEXT: So<span style="color: red;"> if you want to understand the body of Christ, listen to the apostle telling the faithful, You, though, are the body of Christ and its members (1 Cor 12:27).
</span><br />
<br />
TF wrote: <span style="color: blue;">This is really not good news for the transubstantiationists. Augustine's explanation is to provide a spiritual lesson about our (believers') relationship to Christ from this visible illustration of the bread and the cup.</span>
<br />
<br />
Me: Turretinfan’s bald assertion notwithstanding, he does not attempt to explain why Saint
Augustine’s statement here is bad news for “transubstantiationists”. Perhaps someday he will enlighten us with actual argument rather than an appeal to his personal authority as to why he feels Saint Augustine’s statement here is inimical to the Catholic teaching pertaining to transubstantiation.
<br />
<br />
That said, Saint Augustine’s comments here is actually bad news for those who hold to a figurative or Calvinistic view of the Eucharist. Here Saint Augustine is beginning to explain the greatest mystery of faith contained in this great sacrament-the Eucharist makes the Church. The Church is real because the Body of Christ is real because the Eucharist contains the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior. As we shall see, a Real Presence is necessary if the Body of Christ is at the same time Priest, Victim and Communion.
<br />
<br />
TEXT: <span style="color: red;">So if it's you that are the body of Christ and its members, it's the mystery meaning you that has been placed on the Lord's table; what you receive is the mystery that means you.</span>
<br />
<br />
Me: At this juncture, there is no point in addressing Mr. Fan’s individual comments on this
passage and the passages that follow for it is impossible to do so in a charitable manner without accusing him of either negligence or dishonesty. I will address only one comment since it basically summarizes Turretinfan’s thought here:
<br />
<br />
TF wrote: <span style="color: blue;">So, now Augustine clearly says that "you" have been placed on the Lord's table. And that we receive is "you." He means the believers themselves are on the table and that the believers receive themselves when they commune.
If Augustine means this in a transubstantiary way, his view is most curious. Are we transubstantiated into bread and wine? What an odd result!</span>
<br />
<br />
Me: I interpose this objection to his commentary at this point: I thought that the focus of Mr.
Fan’s musings was to illustrate the differences between what Saint Augustine teaches and what the present-day Catholic Church teaches with respect to the Sacrament of the Eucharist for his audience. Rather than offer mocking polemic, would it not be appropriate for Mr. Fan to actually demonstrate how Augustine and “modern Rome” differ in their teachings?
<br />
<br />
Please allow me to flesh out my objection.<br />
<br />
Here is the full pericope from <em>Sermon </em>272 that Mr. Fan claims provides so much difficulty for Catholics that we will be reviewing:
<br />
<br />
TEXT: <span style="color: red;">So if it's you that are the body of Christ and its members, it's the mystery meaning you that has been placed on the Lord's table; what you receive is the mystery that means you. It is to what you are that you reply Amen, and by so replying you express your assent. What you hear, you see, is The body of Christ, and you answer, Amen. So be a member of the body of Christ, in order to make that Amen true.</span>
<br />
<br />
Me: I noted earlier that Saint Augustine’s writings focus on three aspects of the sacrament: its
realism and symbolism, its connection to the Church a.k.a. the Body of Christ (Christus Totus), and the sacrificial nature of the Sacrament. <em>Sermon</em> 272 focuses on the second aspect-how communicating with Our Lord unites us all in His Body, a truth of Catholic teaching that is often lost in apologetic discussions refuting the bundle of heresies called Protestantism because Protestants tend to attack the static aspects of the Eucharist as opposed to the dynamic aspects of that sacrament.
<br />
<br />
Here Turretinfan wants the reader to believe that Saint Augustine is only speaking metaphorically, that Saint Augustine is telling his flock that when we say “Amen,” it is okay to do so tongue-in-cheek with our fingers crossed behind our backs. However, contrary to the thoughts of Turretinfan, Augustine’s language encourages his readers to look for a deeper meaning, not a lesser one. The presence of Christ that Saint Augustine speaks of in the Eucharist is a Real Presence, not a figurative one or a metaphor. It is as real as you and I are real. If it weren’t real, our “Amen!,” our wholehearted “Yes, it is true!,” would ring hollow, a lie.
<br />
<br />
In the Eucharist, Jesus Christ makes us, a community of the faithful, His Body-the Church through our participation in the sacrament. Our participation in the sacrament is a sign of a greater reality. Each one of us are called to be a living member of His Body. The very purpose of the Mass is to invite us to receive the Eucharistic Body of Jesus Christ and become His ecclesial Body. By communing with Our Lord, we unite with Him and with each other. By the word of consecration through the Holy Spirit, everything upon the altar is touched, is transformed, and made new. The bread and wine becomes the Body and Blood of Christ, and we , the members, as the Body of Christ, see ourselves presented there as well. We say our "Amen" to what we are!
<br />
<br />
“Modern Rome” puts it thusly:
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
The unity of the Mystical Body: the Eucharist makes the Church.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Those who receive the Eucharist are united more closely to Christ. Through it Christ unites them to all the faithful in one body—the Church. Communion renews, strengthens, and deepens this incorporation into the Church, already achieved by Baptism. In Baptism we have been called to form but one body. Fn. 233 The Eucharist fulfills this call: "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not a participation in the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one bread, we who are many are one body, for we all partake of the one bread:" Fn. 234
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<strong></strong><br />
<strong></strong><br />
<strong></strong><br />
<strong></strong><br />
<strong></strong><br />
<strong><blockquote>
If you are the body and members of Christ, then it is your sacrament that is placed on the table of the Lord; it is your sacrament that you receive. To that which you are you respond "Amen" ("yes, it is true!") and by responding to it you assent to it. For you hear the words, "the Body of Christ" and respond "Amen." Be then a member of the Body of Christ that your Amen may be true. Fn. 235 (Emphasis Added).</blockquote>
</strong></blockquote>
<blockquote>
Fn. 233. Cf. 1 Cor 12:13.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Fn. 234. 1 Cor 10:16-17.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Fn. 235. St. Augustine, Sermo 272: PL 38, 1247.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p2s2c1a3.htm#1396">Catechism of the Catholic Church #1396</a>
</blockquote>
<br />
My, my. Talk about oddities. If this particular passage from Saint Augustine’s sermon so fatally undermines the Catholic teaching of transubstantiation as Turretinfan insists, why does the Catholic Church specifically chooses to quote it word for word in its Catechism? One would have thought that the Church would have ignored this particular passage or claim that it is a spurious text (like Protestants often do with patristic writings that disagree with their particular notions) rather than wholeheartedly embrace it and quote it in its Catechism. One might wonder why Mr. Fan neglects to mention this little fact to his readers. But in truth, those like Turretinfan who mock the sacramental mystery of what takes place on the altar consequently are wholly blind to the sacramental mystery that takes place in the assembly of Christians who partake of the Eucharistic sacrifice.
<br />
<br />
The sacrament of the Eucharist is also known as Holy Communion for a good reason. Christ gave us this sacrament not merely so we can adore Him by virtue of the Real Presence. Christ’s Real Presence is not a static presence that is in itself its own meaning and completion. Rather, the purpose of the Real Presence of Christ in the sacrament is bring Christ to us in the act of sacrifice and to give Him to us as food to nourish our Christian life. Christ offered to God His Body and poured out His Blood on the Cross as the perfect sacrifice. As with all sacrifices, the Victim is then given to us what was given first to the Father. By partaking of the Victim, His sacrifice becomes our sacrifice as well. That sacrifice is only real if there really is a victim. The communal celebration and partaking of that sacrifice is only real if there really is a victim. To make that sacrifice and communion real, Christ makes Himself really present to us in the sacrament. <br />
<br />
Transubstantiation explains how Christ does so: by the power of His own words through the power of the Holy Spirit in the act of consecration.
But it does not end there. By virtue of our baptism, we are ourselves are now part of the mystical Body of Christ. Since Christ offers Himself sacramentally in the Mass, it can rightly be said that we too are offered as part of that sacrifice since we are incorporated into His Body. This is the truth that Saint Augustine expresses elsewhere in his writings as well:
<br />
<blockquote>
For the whole Church observes this practice which was handed down by the Fathers: that it prayers for those who have died in the communion of the Body and Blood of Christ, when they are commemorated in their own place in the sacrifice itself; and the sacrifice is offered also in memory of them on their behalf.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Saint Augustine. Sermon 172.2
<br />
<br />
O Sacrament of piety! O sign of unity! O Bread of love! He who desires life finds here a place to live in and the means to live by. Let him approach, let him believe, let him be incorporated so that he may receive life. Let him not refuse union with the members, let him not be a corrupt member, deserving to be cut off, nor a disfigured member to be ashamed of. Let him be a grateful, fitting and healthy member. Let him cleave to the body, let him live by God and for God. Let him now labor here on earth, that he may afterwards reign in heaven.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
St. Augustine, "Homilies on the Gospel of John", 26, 13.
<br />
<br />
The fact that our fathers of old offered sacrifices with beasts for victims, which the present-day people of God read about but do not do, is to be understood in no way but this: that those things signified the things that we do in order to draw near to God and to recommend to our neighbor the same purpose. A visible sacrifice, therefore, is the sacrament, that is to say, the sacred sign, of an invisible sacrifice. . . . Christ is both the Priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church, who, since the Church is His body and He the Head, learns to offer herself through Him. </blockquote>
<blockquote>
St. Augustine, The City of God, 10:5; 10:20.
</blockquote>
Here is “modern Rome’s” take on the matter:
<br />
Pope Pius XII:
<br />
<blockquote>
103. Let this, then, be the intention and aspiration of the faithful, when they offer up
the divine Victim in the Mass. For if, as St. Augustine writes, our mystery is enacted on
the Lord's table, that is Christ our Lord Himself, [fn. 96] who is the Head and symbol of that union through which we are the body of Christ [fn. 97] and members of His Body;[fn. 98] if St. Robert Bellarmine teaches, according to the mind of the Doctor of Hippo, that in the sacrifice of the altar there is signified the general sacrifice by which the whole Mystical Body of Christ, that is, all the city of redeemed, is offered up to God through Christ, the High Priest:[fn. 99] nothing can be conceived more just or fitting than that all of us in union with our Head, who suffered for our sake, should also sacrifice ourselves to the eternal Father. For in the sacrament of the altar, as the same St. Augustine has it, the Church is made to see that in what she offers she herself is offered.[fn. 100] </blockquote>
<blockquote>
96. Cf. Sermo. 272.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
97. Cf. 1 Cor. 12:27.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
98. Cf. Eph. 5:30.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
99. Cf. Saint Robert Bellarmine, De Missa, 2, c. 8.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
100. Cf. De Civitate Dei, Book 10, c. 6.
<br />
<br />
Ven. Pope Pius XII, <a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_20111947_mediator-dei_en.html">Mediator Dei</a> (1947)</blockquote>
Bl. Pope John Paul II:
<br />
<blockquote>
40. The Eucharist creates communion and fosters communion. Saint Paul wrote to the
faithful of Corinth explaining how their divisions, reflected in their Eucharistic gatherings, contradicted what they were celebrating, the Lord's Supper. The Apostle then urged them to reflect on the true reality of the Eucharist in order to return to the spirit of fraternal communion (cf. 1 Cor 11:17- 34). Saint Augustine effectively echoed this call when, in recalling the Apostle's words: “You are the body of Christ and individually members of it” (1 Cor 12: 27), he went on to say: “If you are his body and members of him, then you will find set on the Lord's table your own mystery. Yes, you receive your own mystery”. (fn 84) And from this observation he concludes: “Christ the Lord... hallowed at his table the mystery of our peace and unity. Whoever receives the mystery of unity without preserving the bonds of peace receives not a mystery for his benefit but evidence against himself”. (fn. 85) </blockquote>
<blockquote>
84 Sermo 272: PL 38, 1247.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
85 Ibid., 1248.
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
Pope John Paul II. <a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/special_features/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_20030417_ecclesia_eucharistia_en.html">Ecclesia De Eucharistia </a>(2003)
</blockquote>
One more magisterial teaching:
<br />
<blockquote>
Let us not forget that the Risen One has no other mediation to reveal Himself to the world and to pursue his work of salvation than the body he gives today to the community of His disciples, the Church. In the Eucharist, Christ makes the community of His disciples He has gathered His ecclesial Body. And each one is called to being a living member of this body. At the heart of the liturgy of the Mass, Eucharistic prayer invites us to receive the Eucharistic body of the Lord and to become His ecclesial body in the world. Saint Augustine said to the newly baptized: “You hear ‘the Body of Christ’ and you answer ‘Amen’. Be a member of the body of Christ so that your ‘amen’ may be true” (Sermon 272). </blockquote>
<blockquote>
Most. Rev. Jean-Pierre Ricard, Archbishop of Bordeaux,
<a href="http://www.vatican.va/news_services/press/sinodo/documents/bollettino_21_xi-ordinaria-2005/02_inglese/b09_02.html">The Eucharist: Source and Summit of the Life and Mission of the Church</a> (2005)</blockquote>
In short, Saint Augustine’s teaching is “modern Rome’s” teaching. ‘Nuff said. Let us continue on...
<br />
<br />
TEXT: <span style="color: red;"><strong>So why in bread? Let's not bring anything of our own to bear here, let's go on listening to the apostle himself, who said, when speaking of this sacrament, One bread, one body, we being many are (1 Cor 10:17).</strong></span>
<br />
<br />
Me: Saint Augustine verifies from the Scriptures how his teaching above is true. As shown in
the Catechism #1396, “modern Rome” verifies that this teaching above is true today.<br />
<br />
TEXT: <strong><span style="color: red;">Understand and rejoice. Unity, truth, piety, love.</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
Me: Saint Augustine now lists the graces that one receives when worthily receiving the
sacrament of the Eucharist. The teaching of Saint Augustine here and that of “modern Rome” for that matter is that the <em>res sacramenti</em> of the Eucharist is unity.<br />
<br />
TEXT: <strong><span style="color: red;">One bread; what is this one bread? The one body which we, being many, are.
Remember that bread is not made from one grain, but from many. When you were being exorcized, it's as though you were being ground. When you were baptized it's as though you were mixed into dough. When you received the fire of the Holy Spirit, it's as though you were baked. Be what you can see, and receive what you are.</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
Me: Saint Augustine here shows his listeners how they were incorporated into the mystical
Body of Christ-through the sacramental action of the Church. The foolish nowadays call this sacramental action a treadmill; Augustine and I call it “a place to live in and the means to live by.” . This theme used by Saint Augustine in <em>Sermon</em> 227 as well is one that is still used today by “modern Rome”:<br />
<blockquote>
Today, we celebrate the Solemnity of the Lord’s Body and Blood. Corpus Christi, the name given to this feast in the West, is used in the Church’s tradition to designate three distinct realities: the physical body of Jesus, born of the Virgin Mary, his eucharistic body, the bread of heaven which nourishes us in this great sacrament, and his ecclesial body, the Church. By reflecting on these different aspects of the Corpus Christi, we come to a deeper understanding of the mystery of communion which binds together those who belong to the Church. All who feed on the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist are “brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit” (Eucharistic Prayer II) to form God’s one holy people. Just as the Holy Spirit came down upon the Apostles in the Upper Room in Jerusalem, so too the same Holy Spirit is at work in every celebration of Mass for a twofold purpose: to sanctify the gifts of bread and wine, that they may become the body and blood of Christ, and to fill all who are nourished by these holy gifts, that they may become one body, one spirit in Christ.
<br />
<br />
St. Augustine expresses this process beautifully (cf. Sermon 272). He reminds us that the bread is not made from a single grain, but many. Before all these grains become bread, they must be ground. He is referring here to the exorcism which catechumens must undergo before their baptism. Each of us who belong to the Church needs to leave the closed world of his individuality and accept the 'companionship' of others who "break bread" with us. We must think not in terms of 'me' but 'we'. That's why every day we pray 'our' Father, 'our' daily bread. Breaking down the barriers between us and our neighbors is the first prerequisite for entering the divine life to which we are called. We need to be liberated from all that imprisons us and isolates us: fear and mistrust towards others, greed and selfishness, unwillingness to run the risk of vulnerability to which we expose ourselves when we are open to love”.
<br />
<br />
The grains of wheat, once crushed, are mixed into the dough and baked. Here, Augustine refers to immersion in the baptismal waters followed by the sacramental gift of the Holy Spirit, which inflames the heart of the faithful with the fire of God's love. This process unites and transforms a single isolated grain into bread, it gives us an evocative image of the unifying action of the Holy Spirit upon the church members, made so prominent in the celebration of the Eucharist. Those who take part in this great sacrament become the Body of Christ’s Church, so they feed his Eucharistic Body. "Be what you can see," says St. Augustine encouraging, "and receive what you are."
<br />
<br />
These strong words invite us to respond generously to the call to "be Christ" to those around us. We are his body now on earth. To paraphrase a famous remark attributed to Saint Teresa of Avila, we are the eyes with which he looks with compassion on those in need, we are the hands with which he seeks to bless and to heal, we are the feet that on which he walks to do well, and we are the lips by which his Gospel is proclaimed. However, it is important to understand that when we participate in his healing work, we are not honoring the memory of a dead hero in extending what he did: on the contrary, Christ is alive in us, his body, the Church, his priestly people. By feeding on Him in the Eucharist and receiving the Holy Spirit in our hearts we truly become the Body of Christ that we receive, we are truly in communion with him and with each other, and we truly become instruments, in witness to him before the world.
<br />
Pope Benedict XVI - <a href="http://storico.radiovaticana.org/en1/storico/2010-06/398749_pope_benedict_in_cyprus_homily_at_nicosia_sports_centre.html">Homily at Nicosia Sports Centre</a> given June 6, 2010.
</blockquote>
Given that Pope Benedict XVI cites Saint Augustine’s Sermon 272, perhaps Turretinfan will now write a commentary claiming that he, like Augustine, denies the doctrine of transubstantiation too.<br />
<br />
TEXT: <span style="color: red;"><strong>That's what the apostle said about the bread. He has already shown clearly enough what we should understand about the cup, even if it wasn't said. After all, just as many grains are mixed into one loaf in order to produce the visible appearance of bread, as though what holy scripture says about the faithful were happening: They had one soul and one heart in God (Acts 4:32); so too with the wine. Brothers and sisters, just remind yourselves what wine is made from; many grapes hang in the bunch, but the juice of the grapes is poured together in one vessel. That too is how the Lord Christ signified us, how he wished us to belong to him, how he consecrated the sacrament of our peace and unity on his table.</strong></span>
<br />
<br />
Me: Saint Augustine again emphasizes the mystagogic meaning of the sacrament and
the grace that comes from worthy participation in the Eucharistic celebration that is
the Mass is unity with Christ and unity with each other. When grapes are made into the wine, they become indistinguishable from one another. Once the juice from the grapes become wine, the grapes can never be separated. That is the sort of unity that Jesus calls us to. By Jesus, through Jesus and in Jesus, our unity should be that indivisible and that strong. Notice how active, how dynamic Saint Augustine’s language is here. Saint Augustine is not taking pictures here but teaching theology!
<br />
<br />
TEXT: <span style="color: red;"><strong>Any who receive the sacrament of unity, and do not hold the bond of peace, do not receive the sacrament for their benefit, but a testimony against themselves.</strong></span>
<br />
<br />
Me: Our Lord teaches in His masterful Sermon on the Mount that when we offer our sacrifice
and remember that we have something against our brother or sister, we must leave and reconcile with our neighbor before coming back to the sacrifice (Mt. 5:23-24). Similarly, Saint John tells us that we are liars if we claim to love God, but hate our brothers and sisters (1 Jn. 4:2-21). Saint Paul brings these two truths together stating that we must eat Christ's flesh and blood worthily, recognizing the body. To combat the divisions that plagued the Church of Corinth, Saint Paul emphasized the unity that is found in the Eucharist. (1 Cor. 11:17-34). Saint Augustine alludes to that verity here.
<br />
<br />
The point of Saint Augustine Sermon 272 was to expose his infantes to the deeper mysteries of the sacrament of the Eucharist. The real meaning of communion is unity in and with the Church. As mentioned before, Jesus did not give us this sacrament to turn bread and wine into his body and blood. As Saint Augustine affirms, that occurs, but that is not the purpose of the Eucharist. The purpose of the Eucharist is to transform us into the Body of Christ. When we were baptized, we became members of Christ's Body. The Eucharist renews and strengthens the
unity of the body of Christ. When we come to the table and share the Body and Blood of the Lord, we are committing ourselves to live as the Body of Christ. As St. Augustine put it above, we reply “Amen” to that which we are, and in doing so we are consenting to and committing ourselves to the unity that comes from being a part of the Body of Christ. <br />
<br />
In his apostolic letter titled <em><a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_05071998_dies-domini_en.html">Dies Domini</a></em>, Bl. Pope John Paul II tells us “to be ever mindful that communion with Christ is deeply tied to communion with our brothers and sisters.” Dies Domini, # 44. When we receive the sacrament of the Eucharist not only are we brought into an intimate union with Our Lord, but also with every member of the Body of Christ. That's the point of the Eucharist, and that is why the sacrament is also called Communion. This truth is as vibrant and real for “modern Rome” as it was for Saint Augustine.
<br />
<br />
TEXT: <strong><span style="color: red;">Turning to the Lord, God the Father almighty, with pure hearts let us give him sincere and abundant thanks, as much as we can in our littleness; beseeching him in his singular kindness with our whole soul, graciously to hearken to our prayers in his good pleasure; also by his power to drive out the enemy from our actions and thoughts, to increase our faith, to guide our minds, to grant us spiritual thoughts, and to lead us finally to his bliss; through Jesus Christ his Son. Amen.</span></strong>
<br />
<br />
TF writes: <span style="color: blue;">These are not so much concluding thoughts as they are a general exhortation to godliness and piety. I’m tempted to try to tie these comments back into the main discussion of the sermon, but I think it would be a mistake not to treat them as more or less a general doxology.</span>
<br />
<br />
Me: Actually, this conclusion is a liturgical prayer and not part of the sermon at all. The
phrase<em> Conversi ad Dominum </em>is Latin for “turn to the Lord.” We find appended to many of St. Augustine’s sermons this prayer which was a signal to the congregation to stand up, face east and while he recites the prayer. In the Eucharistic liturgy celebrated at the time both the priest and the congregation faced east during the Eucharistic Prayer and Consecration of the bread and wine.<br />
<br />
Saint Augustine explains the purpose of the prayer:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
“When I say <em>Conversi ad Dominum</em>, let us bless His name, that He may grant us perseverance in His commandments, help us to walk in the right way as He has instructed us, and to please Him in every good work, and other requests of a like nature. Moreover, we acknowledge that all of this lies within our powers. Let us both you and I, be on our guard lest we ask the blessing in vain, or you subscribe your Amen in vain. My brethren, your Amen signifies that you subscribe to the prayer, it is your consent, your stipulation.”</blockquote>
<br />
<br />
See, Saint Augustine. <em>Sermonum quorumdam qui adhuc disiderantur fragmenta.</em>
<br />
<br />
In conclusion, it is my fervent contention that there is nothing in Saint Augustine’s Sermon 272 that would lead the reader to believe that his views on the Eucharist are opposed to those of “modern Rome”. How could one seriously claim otherwise when Saint Augustine’s views contained in that sermon have been expressly adopted as part of the Church’s official teaching on the Eucharist as I have demonstrated above?
<br />
<br />
With that, I close my review of Mr. Fan’s commentary of Saint Augustine’s <em>Sermon</em> 272. I apologize for its length, however I felt that such an effort was necessary in order for the reader to have something more real to consider than the unsupported opinion of a Calvinist e-pologist that Saint Augustine did not share “modern Rome’s view of the Eucharist” particularly when Mr. Fan offers to the reader nothing as to what “modern Rome’s view” actually is in order to make that comparison. <br />
<br />
Now I suppose it is fair to debate what Saint Augustine held in regards to the Eucharist. After all folks have been doing that since the days of St. Paschasius Radbertus (785-860) and Ratramnus of Corbie (unk-868?). But if someone is going to compare what they think Augustine believed with what the Church holds now, should not one at least examine and consider what the Church teaches today before making up one’s mind as to whether Saint Augustine’s views coincide with it? In that respect whether one agrees with me or not, it is my sincere hope that my over-exuberance in putting forth “modern Rome’s views” in this regard makes up for the dearth of material provided by Turretinfan.
<br />
<br />
We shall next examine Mr. Fan’s treatment of Saint Augustine’s <em>Sermon</em> 227 which actually does contain something that gives the reader some insight as to whether Saint Augustine held to the doctrine of transubstantiation. Until we meet again, God bless you and yours!
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
"Recognize in this bread what hung on the cross, and in this chalice what flowed from His side... whatever was in many and varied ways announced beforehand in the sacrifices of the Old Testament pertains to this one sacrifice which is revealed in the New Testament." ~Saint Augustine, S<em>ermon</em> 3:2.
</div>
Paul Hofferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-15922169483653124992011-07-08T23:18:00.001-05:002011-07-09T00:31:35.125-05:00What Saint Augustine, Bishop, Saint and Doctor of the Catholic Church Actually Held Pertaining to Transubstantiation: A Response to Turretinfan [Parts One and Two].<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
PART ONE.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
I.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Introduction.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
Recently, I came across a troika of postings by the Reformed Presbyterian apologist who goes by the sobriquet of Turretinfan over at his blog “Thoughts of Francis Turretin” in which he denigrates the Catholic belief in the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the sacrament of Holy Eucharist and its associated doctrine of Transubstantiation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Mr. Fan’s first post is entitled: <a href="http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/06/augustines-sermon-272-and.html"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue;">Augustine’s Sermon 272 and Transubstantiation</span></i></a>;<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>the second: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/06/augustines-sermon-227-and.html"><span style="color: blue;">Augustine’s Sermon 227 and Transubstantiation</span></a></i>; and the third: <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/06/augustines-letter-36-and.html"><span style="color: blue;">Augustine’s Letter 36 and Transubstantiation</span></a></i>.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I found it rather troubling that Turretinfan sought to compare the teachings of St. Augustine with what “modern Rome” teaches yet did not take the time to explain to the reader what he thought “modern Rome” actually teaches in order for the reader to determine whether Turretinfan’s comparison is a fair one.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Instead, Mr. Fan apparently relies on his reader’s own understanding (or lack thereof) upon which to form the conclusion that St. Augustine did not hold to the doctrine of Transubstantiation without any actual evidence to support that<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>conclusion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Without such evidence, the argument presented in Mr. Fan’s “commentary” is not a real commentary at all, but in actuality is nothing more than a dressed-up “letter to the editor” type opinion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When I attempted to point out this rather serious flaw to Mr. Fan in a comment I made on his blog in the hope that he would take the time to correct it, Mr. Fan chose to delete it instead. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
Because Turretinfan decided to delete my comment, I decided to make the effort to post a more detailed response here because I could not allow Mr. Fan’s misstatements in regards to either the teachings of the Catholic Church or its Doctor of Grace go unchallenged.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I hope and pray that the reader find this offering to be a worthy defense of the verity of the real and substantial Presence of Our Lord’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Holy Eucharist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Adoro te devote, latens Deitas</i></b>!</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
II.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The Dogmas of the Real Presence and Transubstantiation.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
Since I have criticized Mr. Fan for his failure to offer the reader what “modern Rome” teaches in regards to the doctrine of Transubstantiation, I will attempt to supply what is missing from his argument and set before the reader what “modern Rome” teaches before I make the effort to engage Mr. Fan’s treatment of the three Augustinian texts he selected to attack Catholic teaching. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
Many people misunderstand what the doctrine of Transubstantiation is and believe that terms Transubstantiation and the Real Presence are interchangeable.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>They are not.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To be clear, the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence of Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, in the Eucharistic sacrifice is NOT synonymous with the teaching of the Church in regards to Transubstantiation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is possible for a Christian to hold to the belief in the Real Presence and not hold to the doctrine of Transubstantiation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>For instance, the Catholic Church, the churches that follow the Orthodox tradition and many “high-church” Anglicans believe in both doctrines (although the Orthodox do not label their dogmatic understanding as “transubstantiation”).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Lutherans believe in the Real Presence but do not believe in the dogma of transubstantiation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rather they hold to the notion of consubstantiation, that the substance of Our Lord is impanated or united with the substances of<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>bread and wine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Many of the Presbyterian-type denominations hold to a form of the Real Presence, but like the progenitor of their religion, John Calvin, they are rather fuzzy on the details:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
Now, should any one ask me as to the mode, I will not be ashamed to confess that it is too high a mystery either for my mind to comprehend or my words to express; and to speak more plainly I rather feel than understand it. The truth of God, therefore, in which I can safely rest, I here embrace without controversy. He declares that his flesh is the meat, his blood the drink, of my soul; I give my soul to him to be fed with such food. In his sacred Supper he bids, me take, eat, and drink his body and blood under the symbols of bread and wine. I have no doubt that he will truly give and I receive. Only, I reject the absurdities which appear to be unworthy of the heavenly majesty of Christ, and are inconsistent with the reality of his human nature. Since they must also be repugnant to the word of God, which teaches both that Christ was received into the glory of the heavenly kingdom, so as to be exalted above all the circumstances of the world, (Luke 24: 26,) and no less carefully ascribes to him the properties belonging to a true human nature. This ought not to seem incredible or contradictory to reason, (Iren. Lib. 4 cap. 34;) because as the whole kingdom of Christ is spiritual, so whatever he does in his Church is not to be tested by the wisdom of this world; or, to use the words of Augustine "this mystery is performed by man like the others, but in a divine manner, and on earth, but in a heavenly manner." Such, I say, is the corporeal presence which the nature of the sacrament requires, and which we say is here displayed in such power and efficacy, that it not only gives our minds undoubted assurance of eternal life, but also secures the immortality of our flesh, since it is now quickened by his immortal flesh, and in a manner shines in his immortality. Those who are carried beyond this with their hyperboles, do nothing more by their extravagancies than obscure the plain and simple truth. If any one is not yet satisfied, I would have him here to consider with himself that we are speaking of the sacrament, every part of which ought to have reference to faith. Now by participation of the body, as we have explained, we nourish faith not less richly and abundantly then do those who drag Christ himself from heaven. Still I am free to confess that mixture or transfusion of the flesh of Christ with our souls which they teach I repudiate, because it is enough for us, that Christ, out of the substance of his flesh, breathes life into our souls, nay, diffuses his own life into us, though the real flesh of Christ does not enter us. I may add, that there can be no doubt that the analogy of faith by which Paul enjoins us to test every interpretation of Scripture, is clearly with us in this matter. Let those who oppose a truth so clear, consider to what standard of faith they conform themselves: "Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God," (1 John 4: 23; 2 John ver. 7.) These men, though they disguise the fact, or perceive it not, rob him of his flesh.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Calvin, John.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/ipb-e/epl-09/cvin4-19.txt"><span style="color: blue;">Institutes, </span><span style="color: blue; font-style: normal;">Book IV, chapter 17:32.</span></a></i></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
While one may believe in the Real Presence without believing in Transubstantiation, the converse is not true.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>No one can believe in Transubstantiation without believing in the doctrine of Real Presence.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
For Catholics anyway, the dogma of the Real Presence in a nutshell is the belief that the Christ really being present in the consecrated bread and wine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We do not call Jesus a liar, but accept Him at His word when He said:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none;">
"I am the living bread which has come down from heaven.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Anyone who eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is my flesh, for the life of the world....</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; text-indent: -0.5in;">
<br />
"For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink" (John 6:51, 55).</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 5pt 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
Simply stated, the Catholic Church holds that the Holy Eucharist is nothing less than Jesus Christ Himself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
Here is how the dogma of the Real Presence is defined at the Council of Trent:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
If any one denieth, that, <b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ</b>; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(<a href="http://history.hanover.edu/early/trent/ct13ce.htm"><span style="color: blue;">Canon I, Thirteenth Session, Council of Trent</span></a>) (Emphasis Added).</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
In its <a href="http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct13.html"><span style="color: blue;">Decree Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist</span></a>, the Council Fathers stated the following:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
CHAPTER I. On the real presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
In the first place, the holy Synod teaches, and openly and simply professes, that, in the August sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually repugnant,-that our Savior Himself always sitteth at the right hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that, nevertheless, He be, in many other places, sacramentally present to us in his own substance, by a manner of existing, which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet can we, by the understanding illuminated by faith, conceive, and we ought most firmly to believe, to be possible unto God: for thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ, who have treated of this most holy Sacrament, have most openly professed, that our Redeemer instituted this so admirable a sacrament at the last supper, when, after the blessing of the bread and wine, He testified, in express and clear words, that He gave them His own very Body, and His own Blood; words which,-recorded by the holy Evangelists, and afterwards repeated by Saint Paul, whereas they carry with them that proper and most manifest meaning in which they were understood by the Fathers,-it is indeed a crime the most unworthy that they should be wrested, by certain contentions and wicked men, to fictitious and imaginary tropes, whereby the verity of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied, contrary to the universal sense of the Church, which, as the pillar and ground of truth, has detested, as satanical, these inventions devised by impious men; she recognizing, with a mind ever grateful and unforgetting, this most excellent benefit of Christ. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>CHAPTER II.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On the reason of the Institution of this most holy Sacrament. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
Wherefore, our Savior, when about to depart out of this world to the Father, instituted this Sacrament, in which He poured forth as it were the riches of His divine love towards man, making a remembrance of his wonderful works; and He commanded us, in the participation thereof, to venerate His memory, and to show forth his death until He come to judge the world. And He would also that this sacrament should be received as the spiritual food of souls, whereby may be fed and strengthened those who live with His life who said, He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me; and as an antidote, whereby we may be freed from daily faults, and be preserved from mortal sins. He would, furthermore, have it be a pledge of our glory to come, and everlasting happiness, and thus be a symbol of that one body whereof He is the head, and to which He would fain have us as members be united by the closest bond of faith, hope, and charity, that we might all speak the same things, and there might be no schisms amongst us. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
CHAPTER III.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>On the excellency of the most holy Eucharist over the rest of the Sacraments. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
The most holy Eucharist has indeed this in common with the rest of the sacraments, that it is a symbol of a sacred thing, and is a visible form of an invisible grace; but there is found in the Eucharist this excellent and peculiar thing, that the other sacraments have then first the power of sanctifying when one uses them, whereas in the Eucharist, before being used, there is the Author Himself of sanctity. For the apostles had not as yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord, when nevertheless Himself affirmed with truth that to be His own body which He presented (to them). And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that, immediately after the consecration, the veritable Body of our Lord, and His veritable Blood, together with His soul and divinity, are under the species of bread and wine; but the Body indeed under the species of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words; but the body itself under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under both, by the force of that natural connexion and concomitancy whereby the parts of Christ our Lord, who hath now risen from the dead, to die no more, are united together; and the divinity, furthermore, on account of the admirable hypostatical union thereof with His body and soul. Wherefore it is most true, that as much is contained under either species as under both; for Christ whole and entire is under the species of bread, and under any part whatsoever of that species; likewise the whole (Christ) is under the species of wine, and under the parts thereof. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
And since Turretinfan in his trio of articles states the problem in terms of making a comparison of what St. Augustine, the Catholic Bishop of Hippo and its Doctor of Grace believes with what<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“modern Rome” holds and teaches, it behooves us to look at what “modern Rome” teaches.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt2sect2chpt1art3.shtml"><span style="color: blue;">Catechism of the Catholic Church</span></a></i>, promulgated and approved by the Blessed Pope John Paul II in his Apostolic Letter, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/laetamurmagnopere.shtml"><span style="color: blue;">Laetamur Magnopere</span></a></i> (Aug. 15, 1997) the Church teaches:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The presence of Christ by the power of his word and the Holy Spirit</i><br />
<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">1373<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></b>"Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised from the dead, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us," is present in many ways to his Church: (FN 197) in his word, in his Church's prayer, "where two or three are gathered in my name," (FN 198) in the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned, (FN 199) in the sacraments of which he is the author, in the sacrifice of the Mass, and in the person of the minister.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But "he is present . . . most <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">especially in the Eucharistic species.</i>" (FN 200)<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"></b></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">1374</b><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The mode of Christ's presence under the Eucharistic species is unique. It raises the Eucharist above all the sacraments as "the perfection of the spiritual life and the end to which all the sacraments tend." (FN 201)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the most blessed sacrament of the Eucharist "the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ and, therefore, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially contained.</i>" (FN 202)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>"This presence is called ‘real'—by which is not intended to exclude the other types of presence as if they could not be ‘real' too, but because it is presence in the fullest sense: that is to say, it is a <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">substantial</i> presence by which Christ, God and man, makes himself wholly and entirely present." (FN 203)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>197.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Rom 8:34; cf. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Lumen Gentium </i>48.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>198.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Mt 18:20.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>199.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Cf. Mt 25:31-46.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>200.<i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Sacrosanctum concilium</i> 7 (NB-which incidently references St. Augustine’s <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Tractatus in Ioannem</i>, VI, n. 7)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>201.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>St. Thomas Aquinas, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Summa Theologica</i>, Book III, 73:3c. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>202.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Council of Trent, Session Thirteen (October 1551): Denzinger-Schömetzer, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Enchiridion Symbolorum, defintionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum</i> 1651 (1965). </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>203.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Pope Paul VI, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Mysterium fidei </i>39.<br />
<br style="mso-special-character: line-break;" /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
Now that we have summarized the teaching of the Church in regards to the doctrine of the Real Presence, let us move on to the doctrine of Transubstantiation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Simply put, the doctrine of<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Transubstantiation is the change or conversion, (by the action of the Holy Spirit at the moment that the words of institution are pronounced) of the substance of bread and wine into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ, with only the appearances or accidents of bread and wine remaining.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This doctrine emphasizes the aspect of the doctrine of the Real Presence of Our Lord being “Substantially Present.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When the Church speaks of “Substantially Present” it is stating that the bread and wine offered in the sacrifice of the Mass are substantially changed by the words of consecration.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We don’t believe that after the bread and wine are consecrated, we are eating Jesus in a carnal way, because, to all outward appearances, what one sees, smells, touches, and tastes is still bread and wine.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>However, on a deeper metaphysical level (“substance"), that which makes bread, bread, and wine, wine, has been done away with, and the very Substance of Jesus Christ, His Body, His Blood, His Soul, and His Divinity, takes its place.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The doctrine of Transubstantiation does not seek to explain “how” the bread and wine are changed, only the fact that they are substantially changed.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
Here again is the teaching of the Council of Trent on this point:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
If any one saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth<b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;"> that wonderful and singular CONVERSION of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood-the species Only of the bread and wine remaining-which CONVERSION indeed the Catholic Church most aptly calls Transubstantiation</b>; let him be anathema.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue; let him be anathema.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(<a href="http://history.hanover.edu/early/trent/ct13ce.htm"><span style="color: blue;">Canon II, Thirteenth Session, Council of Trent</span></a>) (Emphasis Added).</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
In its <a href="http://history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct13.html"><span style="color: blue;">Decree Concerning the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist</span></a>, the Council Fathers stated the following on the dogma of Transubstantiation:<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 2in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in; text-indent: -2in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>CHAPTER IV.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>On Transubstantiation. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
And because that Christ, our Redeemer, declared that which He offered under the species of bread to be truly His own body, therefore has it ever been a firm belief in the Church of God, and this holy Synod doth now declare it anew, that, by the consecration of the bread and of the wine, a conversion is made of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His blood; which conversion is, by the holy Catholic Church, suitably and properly called Transubstantiation.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
And since the issue of what “modern Rome” teaches in regards to this doctrine is a paramount issue for Mr. Fan, here is what the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Catechism of the Catholic Church</i> states on the matter:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">1375</b> <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>It is by the conversion of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood that Christ becomes present in this sacrament. the Church Fathers strongly affirmed the faith of the Church in the efficacy of the Word of Christ and of the action of the Holy Spirit to bring about this conversion. Thus St. John Chrysostom declares:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
It is not man that causes the things offered to become the Body and Blood of Christ, but he who was crucified for us, Christ himself. the priest, in the role of Christ, pronounces these words, but their power and grace are God's. This is my body, he says. This word transforms the things</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 3;"> </span>offered. (FN 202)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>and St. Ambrose says about this conversion:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
Be convinced that this is not what nature has formed, but what the blessing has consecrated. the power of the blessing prevails over that of nature, because by the blessing nature itself is changed.... Could not Christ's word, which can make from nothing what did not exist, change existing things into what they were not before? It is no less a feat to give things their original nature than to change their nature. (FN 203)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal;">1376</b> <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>The Council of Trent summarizes the Catholic faith by declaring: "Because Christ our Redeemer said that it was truly his body that he was offering under the species of bread, it has always been the conviction of the Church of God, and this holy Council now declares again, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there takes place a change of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood. This change the holy Catholic Church has fittingly and properly called transubstantiation."<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(FN 204)</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>202 <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>St. John Chrysostom, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Homilies on the Treachery of Judas</i> (407 AD) 1:6: PG 49, 380.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>203 <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>St. Ambrose, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">De Mysteriis</i> 9:50; 52: PL 16, 405-407.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in; text-indent: -1.5in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 2;"> </span>204 <span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Council of Trent, Session Thirteen (October 1551): Denzinger-Schömetzer, <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Enchiridion Symbolorum, defintionum et declarationum de rebus fidei et morum</i> 1642 (1965); cf. Mt. 26:26 ff.; Mk. 14:22 ff.; Lk. 22:19 ff.; 1 Cor. 11:24 ff.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
There is much more that I could say on these two related, but separate doctrines.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Books upon books have been written about these two aspects of this great sacrament of unity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Whole lives have been devoted to the contemplation and study of these great mysteries.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What I have written here barely touches the surface of a fathomless ocean.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That said, I hope that I have offered the reader sufficient information to see how these two separate doctrines are used together to explain how in the liturgy of the Mass in the act of consecration during the Eucharist the "substance" of the bread and wine is changed by the power of the Holy Spirit into the "substance" of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. It is the change at the level of substance from bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ that is called "transubstantiation," not the Substantial Presence of Our Lord Himself in the sacrament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>According to Catholic faith, we can speak of the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist because this transubstantiation has occurred (CCC No. 1376). </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
PART TWO.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in; text-indent: -0.5in;">
III.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Critique of Turretinfan’s Three Commentaries.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
Now that we have discussed what “modern Rome” actually teaches in regards to both the doctrines of the Real Presence and of Transubstantiation, let’s move on to discuss the three Augustinian texts that Mr. Fan picked to “prove” that St. Augustine did not hold to the notion of Transubstantiation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Or to clarify the issue in contention here:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Does St. Augustine believe that when the bread and wine are consecrated in the celebration of the Divine Liturgy (i.e. the Mass), undergoes a change into the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></i>I shall undertake to show that he did so believe.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
The path that I have chosen to take to prove that St. Augustine did in fact believe in Transubstantiation, that the during the act of consecration, the bread and wine become the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, will be as follows.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First, we shall review the texts that Mr. Fan chose to show that St. Augustine did not so believe and then after critiquing Mr. Fan’s commentaries, I shall present the reader with a number of texts from his writings to demonstrate that he did so believe.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 1in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in; text-indent: -1in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>A.<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Letter 36 From Augustine to Casulanus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
We shall start with Mr. Fan’s choice of St. Augustine’s Letter 36 to a fellow priest, Casulanus who was seeking some advice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>First, it must be said that the text does not provide the reader with any insight whatsoever as to St. Augustine’s thought as to whether he believed that a conversion of the Eucharistic elements from bread and wine into the Body and Blood of the Our Lord occurs at the part of the Mass when the priest pronounces the words of institution.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Moreover, I must point out that in my researches I could not find a single instance where Letter 36 is cited to by any real scholar or theologian, Catholic or Protestant, as proof or disproof of any of the three principle Eucharistic mysteries embodied in Catholic teaching: 1) the Eucharist as the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, his Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity; 2) the Eucharist as a true sacrifice of Christ and his Church; or 3) the Eucharist as the Sacrament of Unity.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Given the total dearth of discussion by Turretinfan of what he seems to think that “modern Rome” teaches in regards to the Eucharist that is at odds with one of its bishops, saints, and doctors or how he perceives that “modern Rome’s doctrinal statements on the Eucharist are negated by the selected text he references, I am unable to discern the thought process behind his selection of this particular letter to declaim against the teaching of the Catholic Church in regards to the dogma of Transubstantiation.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 8;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
That said, folks do cite to Letter 36 for a variety of reasons.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Letter 36's claim to fame is that it is the source of the famous saying, ‘When in Rome, do as the Romans do.’<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>(See, Letter 36, 13:32)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>It is also cited to as proof of St. Augustine’s view that the deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament are indeed Scripture, particularly since he cites in this Letter to passages from three different deuterocanonical books as Scripture: Daniel 3:23-93 (Letter 36, 7:16); Tobit 12:8 (Letter 36, 8:18); Sirach 3:1 (Letter 36, 11:26).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
From a theological standpoint, some Protestant sects cite to Letter 36 as proof that the Sunday observance of the Lord’s Day was a Roman invention, a perversion of the scriptural observance of the Sabbath on Saturday.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some Orthodox apologists point to this letter touching on the Roman Church’s practice of fasting on Saturdays as proof of the errors of Rome since the practice of Saturday fasting (other than on Holy Saturday) was condemned at the Council of Trullo at the end of the 7<sup>th</sup> century AD.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Some Catholic writers cite to Letter 36 because in it we see the early development of the liturgical year focusing on “the celebration throughout the year of the mysteries of the Lord's birth, life, death, and Resurrection in such a way that the entire year becomes a 'year of the Lord's grace' ... with its focal point at Easter" (CCC §1168).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Throughout this letter, St. Augustine mentions the observance of the feasts of Easter and Pentecost by name, the fifty days of Easter, and the Church’s celebration or saints’ feast days and solemnities. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
Moving on to the letter’s content, this letter was written sometime after April 397 AD during the time St Augustine was confronting those who adhered to the heresy of<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Manichaeism (which he had formerly espoused himself).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>One of the central features of the Manichaean heresy was the rejection and ridiculing of the Old Testament Scriptures.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To confront these heretics, St. Augustine insisted on the unity of the Old Testament and the New Testament.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>His writings of that time period, even those which were not directed to Manichaeans, often emphasized that the Old Testament was nothing less than prophecy fulfilled in Jesus Christ and that the sacrifices of Old Law are to be understood as types (figures) of the unique sacrifice of Our Lord and of the Eucharist which is a sacramental celebration of that singular sacrifice.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As we shall see, this is a theme that is repeated in Turretinfan’s selection from Letter 36. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
From a moral standpoint, St. Augustine’s letter to Casulanus stresses the importance of following one’s bishop in the observance of differing liturgical and disciplinary practices, traditions, and observances followed by the different sees of the Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In this letter, the disciplinary custom or tradition that was being discussed was fasting.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Should Casulanus follow the Roman custom of fasting on Saturdays or the custom followed by his own bishop?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Augustine offers the same answer he was given by St. Ambrose of Milan, Augustine’s spiritual father and teacher when he asked the same question:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
“When I (Ambrose) am here (in Milan), I do not fast on the Sabbath; when I am in Rome, I fast on the Sabbath.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>And to whatever church you come, observe its custom, if you do not want to be scandalized or to give scandal.”</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
See, Augustine, John E. Rotelle, and Roland Teske. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Letters 1-99</i>. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2001, pg. 142.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
To which St. Augustine added:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
“Hence, if you willingly accept my advice, especially since I have probably said more than enough on this topic, at your request and under pressure from you, do not oppose your bishop on this matter, and follow what he himself does without any worry or quarrel.” </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>Ibid.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-tab-count: 3;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
St. Augustine’s view on the importance of following one’s bishop is one that has been embodied in the teachings of the Catholic Church even today.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Each individual bishop's authority to ordain, and confirm, and judge as <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">iudex ordinarius </i>is well-defined and established under canon law and in the magisterial authority of the Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Further, each bishop possesses the right to exercise his authority in matters that do not touch the common heritage of the faith and discipline of the Church.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A bishop can order the details of worship in the churches under his authority in his diocese in matters which do not conflict with the common law of Church.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
Now that we have gleaned how this letter has been used by the Church and those who oppose her, addressing the portion of the text of Letter 36 that Turretinfan seeks to use in refuting the doctrine of Transubstantiation, I offer the following commentary using an alternate translation from a book I own:<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<span style="mso-tab-count: 1;"> </span>But, this fellow who says that the old things have passed away in the sense that “ in Christ</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
the sacrificial table has yielded to the altar sword to fasting, fire to prayers, animal to bread and<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>blood to the cup,” does not know that the term “altar” is used more frequently in the writings of the law and the prophets, and that an altar to God was first set up in the tabernacle that Moses erected.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>“Sacrificial table” is also found in the apostolic writings where the martyrs cry out beneath the sacrificial table of God (Rev. 6:9-10) .<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He says that the sword has yielded to fasting, not recalling that sword of the gospel with which the soldiers of both testaments are armed, a sword with a double edge (Eph. 6:17; Heb. 4:12).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He says the fire has given place to prayers, as if prayers were also not offered in the temple and as if fire has not now been sent into the world by Christ (Lk. 12:49).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He says that animals have yielded to bread, as if he did not know that even then the loaves of proposition used to be put on the Lord’s table (Ex. 25:30), and that now he partakes of the body of the immaculate Lamb (1 Pt. 1:19; Mt. 26:26-28; Mk. 14:22-24; Lk. 22:17-20; 1 Cor. 11:23-25) .<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He says that blood has yielded to the cup, not thinking that even now he receives the blood in the cup. How much better and more appropriately would he say that the old things have passed away and new ones have come to be in Christ in such a way that altar yields to altar, the sword to the sword, fire to fire, bread to bread, animal to animal, and blood to blood.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We, of course, see that the carnal old condition yields in all of these to the spiritual new condition.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In that way, then, we should understand that on this passing seventh day whether people eat or some also fast, the carnal Sabbath has yielded to the spiritual Sabbath.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>When in this latter we desire everlasting and true rest, we scorn in the former the temporal abstinence from work, which is now superstitious.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
See, Augustine, John E. Rotelle, and Roland Teske. <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Letters 1-99</i>. Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2001, pg. 137.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
As I noted earlier, St. Augustine wrote Letter 36 in response to a request for advice from a young priest named Casulanus.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Apparently, Casulanus had read a treatise written by a priest residing in Rome claiming that it was incumbent on all Christians to follow the Roman custom of fasting on the Sabbath. Yet, Casulanus’ bishop followed a different custom of fasting on days different from what the treatise’s author had advocated.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Who’s right-Casulanus’ bishop or the priest from Rome?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
Saint Augustine starts out his letter stating that it was lawful for a person to fast on the Sabbath as the Scriptures tell us that Moses, Elijah and Our Lord did so.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That said, St. Augustine then moves on to the question of whether one should fast on the Lord’s Day.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>St. Augustine replies that this cannot be done without causing scandal to the Church because even though the Scriptures give no certain definitive answer on this point, the custom or tradition (small “t”) of the people of God, or the decisions of our forefathers, must be regarded as the law.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
Like Turretinfan, I will not go into detail on the manner of St. Augustine’s refutation of the writer’s treatise.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>But unlike Turretinfan, I will offer the reader a little bit of the argument that Urbicus, the pseudonym that Casulanus charitably gives the author of the treatise, makes so one can understand the point that St. Augustine refutes in Chapter 24 of Letter 36 so to provide some context.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
In furtherance of his argument, Urbicus borrows a page from Origen and argues that all things Hebrew must be tossed out of the Christian religion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>He claims that all Christians must fast on the Sabbath like the Romans do because it is the duty of Christians to be as unlike Jews as much as possible.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To fast on the Sabbath is a rejection of everything Jewish and the Law of the Old Testament which Our Lord Himself had done away with.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>To buttress this line of argumentation, Urbicus emphasizes the differences between the sacrifices of Israel and that of the Church .<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Urbicus argues that the Jewish <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ara</i> (sacrificial table) had been replaced by the Christian <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Altare</i> (altar); that the Jewish sacrifice of the flesh of animals had been supplanted by the Christian sacrifice of the bread; and that the Jewish offering of the blood of the animal victim had been replaced with the wine of the chalice.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
In the passage I quote above, St. Augustine criticizes these distinctions as inaccurate.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>St. Augustine points out that the term <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Altare </i>occurs constantly in the Old Testament (Law and the Prophets) and the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Altare </i>of God stood in the Tabernacle erected by Moses himself.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>St. Augustine notes<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>that the term <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ara </i>(sacrificial table) occurs in the apostolic writings and gives the example of the<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Holy Martyrs pleading under the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Ara Dei </i>(Rev. 6:9-10).<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In the Old Testament, show bread was offered on the Table of the Lord.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Now we partake of the Body of the Immaculate Lamb. Thusly, St. Augustine argues that Urbicus would have been better served if he had argued that the things of the Old Testament were all made new in Christ; that the <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Altare </i>of the Jews had succeeded to another <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">Altare</i> of the Church, one Bread to another, one Lamb to another, etc....<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Rather than trying to differentiate between the various aspects of the Hebrew sacrifice and the Church’s sacrifice, St. Augustine argues that Urbicus fails to realize that what is important is how we understand them through the transition from the carnal (temporal) reality of the Old Testament to the spiritual (eternal) realities of the New.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Thus, regardless of whether one fasted on the Sabbath or not, the carnal meaning of the day had already yielded to the new meaning provided by Jesus Christ and was no longer relevant for Christians. </div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
Now Turretinfan claims that the way that Augustine's argument here makes the most sense:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
“is if Augustine understands "Lamb" and "blood" non-literally, but figuratively.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>A carnal sword with a spiritual sword, carnal fire with literal fire, carnal bread with spiritual bread, carnal victim with spiritual victim, carnal blood with spiritual blood, and (drumroll please!) therefore a carnal sabbath with a spiritual sabbath. In that spiritual sabbath we look forward to a true and eternal rest, not placing our hope in mere physical rest.”<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
Unfortunately, by foisting a Protestant hermeneutic on St. Augustine’s argument, Mr. Fan makes the same mistake as Urbicus by making such artificial distinctions.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In truth, Augustine points out that while our understanding of these rites have changed, the rites themselves are the same.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>In other words, St. Augustine is employing typology to interpret Scripture.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
Typology is the discernment of persons, events, or things in the Old Testament which prefigured, and thus served as a "type" (or archetype or prototype) of, the fulfillment of God's plan in the person of Christ.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>That which is prefigured is referred to as an "antitype."<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>The typology of the Old Testament which is made clear in the New Testament demonstrates the dynamic unity of the divine plan or what we Catholics call the Divine Economy.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
Typology is the method the Catholic Church has historically employed to understand the historical and theological relationships between people and events recorded in Sacred Scripture.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Typology guides the exegete to look at each event and person in salvation history as that person or event may be linked to what preceded in the biblical record and linked to what came after, uniting the reader to the divine mystery of the progression of God's plan for the salvation of mankind.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>As the Catechism of the Catholic Church notes, the Church, as early as apostolic times, and then constantly in her Tradition, has illuminated the unity of the divine plan in the two Testaments through typology, which discerns in God's works of the Old Covenant prefiguration of what he accomplished in the fullness of time in the person of his Incarnate Son (CCC#128).</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
Quoting St. Augustine, CCC # 129 notes the New Testament lies hidden in the Old and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New:</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
"It is not the Old Testament that is abolished in Christ but the concealing veil, so that it may be understood through Christ. That which without Christ is obscure and hidden is, as it were, opened up.. It is <i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;">not </i>the case, therefore, that by the grace of the Lord that which was covered has been abolished as useless; rather, the covering which concealed useful truth has been removed. This is what happens to those who earnestly and piously - not proudly and wickedly - seek the sense of the Scripture. To them is carefully demonstrated the order of events, the reasons for deeds and words, and the agreement of the Old Testament with the New, so that not a single point remains where there is not complete harmony. The secret truths are conveyed in figures that are brought to light by interpretation."<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1306.htm"><span style="color: blue;">De Utilitate Credendi</span></a></i><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>9.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
Augustine replied: No one doubts that promises of temporal things are contained in the Old Testament, for which reason it is called the Old Testament; or that the kingdom of heaven and the promise of eternal life belong to the New Testament. But that in these temporal things were figures of future things which should be fulfilled in us upon whom the ends of the ages have come, is not my fancy, but the judgment of the apostle, when he says of such things, "These things were our examples;" and again, "These things happened to them for an example, and they are written for us on whom the ends of the ages have come." (1 Cor. 10:6, 11)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>We receive the Old Testament, therefore, not in order to obtain the fulfillment of these promises, but to see in them predictions of the New Testament; for the Old bears witness to the New. Whence the Lord, after He rose from the dead, and allowed His disciples not only to see but to handle Him, still, lest they should doubt their mortal and fleshly senses, gave them further confirmation from the testimony of the ancient books, saying, "It was necessary that all things should be fulfilled which were written in the law of Moses, and in the Prophets and Psalms, concerning me." (Lk. 24:44)<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Our hope, therefore, rests not on the promise of temporal things. Nor do we believe that the holy and spiritual men of these times— the patriarchs and prophets— were taken up with earthly things. For they understood, by the revelation of the Spirit of God, what was suitable for that time, and how God appointed all these sayings and actions as types and predictions of the future. Their great desire was for the New Testament; but they had a personal duty to perform in those predictions, by which the new things of the future were foretold. So the life as well as the tongue of these men was prophetic. The carnal people, indeed, thought only of present blessings, though even in connection with the people there were prophecies of the future.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/140604.htm"><span style="color: blue;">Contra Faustus</span></a> </i>4:2</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt 0.5in; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
If, therefore, it was mainly for this purpose that Christ came, to wit, that man might learn how much God loves him; and that he might learn this, to the intent that he might be kindled to the love of Him by whom he was first loved, and might also love his neighbor at the command and showing of Him who became our neighbor, in that He loved man when, instead of being a neighbor to Him, he was sojourning far apart: if, again, all divine Scripture, which was written aforetime, was written with the view of presignifying the Lord's advent; and if whatever has been committed to writing in times subsequent to these, and established by divine authority, is a record of Christ, and admonishes us of love, it is manifest that on those two commandments of love to God and love to our neighbor hang not only all the law and the prophets, which at the time when the Lord spoke to that effect were as yet the only Holy Scripture, but also all those books of the divine literature which have been written at a later period for our health, and consigned to remembrance. Wherefore, in the Old Testament there is a veiling of the New, and in the New Testament there is a revealing of the Old. According to that veiling, carnal men, understanding things in a carnal fashion, have been under the dominion, both then and now, of a penal fear. According to this revealing, on the other hand, spiritual men,— among whom we reckon at once those then who knocked in piety and found even hidden things opened to them, and others now who seek in no spirit of pride, lest even things uncovered should be closed to them—understanding in a spiritual fashion, have been made free through the love wherewith they have been gifted. Consequently, inasmuch as there is nothing more adverse to love than envy, and as pride is the mother of envy, the same Lord Jesus Christ, God-man, is both a manifestation of divine love towards us, and an example of human humility with us, to the end that our great swelling might be cured by a greater counteracting remedy. For here is great misery, proud man! But there is greater mercy, a humble God! Take this love, therefore, as the end that is set before you, to which you are to refer all that you say, and, whatever you narrate, narrate it in such a manner that he to whom you are discoursing on hearing may believe, on believing may hope, on hoping may love.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1303.htm"><i style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal;"><span style="color: blue;">On the Catechising of the Uninstructed</span></i></a> 4:8</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
Thus when St. Augustine speaks of “how much better and more appropriately would he say that the old things have passed away and new ones have come to be in Christ in such a way that altar yields to altar, the sword to the sword, fire to fire, bread to bread, animal to animal, and blood to blood,” he is not talking about these things non-literally or figuratively as Turretinfan mistakenly claims, he is stating that these aspects of the Old Testament sacrifices were made new through Jesus Christ and are now reflected in the liturgy of the Church.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
The above passage in Letter 36 shows us that the sacrifices of the Old Covenant are expressed typologically in the Eucharist.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Moreover, the tenor of the entire letter shows us that the events of the Old Covenant feasts, as celebrated in the liturgy of the chosen people of the Old Covenant, annually relive the past events of the Exodus experience in the present of each new generation of covenant believers, just as our liturgical year allow Catholics to relive the past events of the birth of Jesus, His Resurrection, the coming of God the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, etc. and place those significant past events in the context of the present so that each of those events are as real and as present for us as they were when they originally happened.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This “re-presentation” includes the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior on the Cross, which is made real and present in each and every Eucharistic celebration around the world at every hour of the day.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
This is what is important about Letter 36-to fully appreciate the revelation of God to man through the unfolding of salvation history it must be understood as a real unity between the Old and New Testaments, not a mere figurative one as suggested by Turretinfan.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>What Letter 36 teaches, “modern Rome” still teaches today.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>God bless!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in; text-align: center;">
O my God, I firmly believe that You are really and corporally present in the Blessed Sacrament of the altar. I adore You here present from the very depths of my heart, and I worship Your Sacred Presence with all possible humility. O my soul, what joy to have Jesus Christ always with us, and to be able to speak to Him, heart to Heart, with all confidence. Grant, O Lord, that I, having adored Your Divine Majesty here on earth in this wonderful Sacrament, may be able to adore It eternally in heaven.</div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in; text-align: center;">
O Sacrament Most Holy, O Sacrament Divine,</div>
<div align="center" class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in; text-align: center;">
all praise and all thanksgiving be every moment Thine!<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Amen.</div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0in 0in 0pt; mso-pagination: none; tab-stops: 0in .5in 1.0in 1.5in 135.0pt 2.0in 2.5in 3.0in 3.5in 4.0in 4.5in 5.0in 5.5in 6.0in;">
<br /></div>
<span class="WPHyperlink"><span style="color: blue; font-family: "Times New Roman", "serif"; font-size: 12pt; mso-ansi-language: EN-US; mso-bidi-font-size: 10.0pt; mso-bidi-language: AR-SA; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-US;"><span style="mso-tab-count: 3;"><u> </u></span></span></span>Paul Hofferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-76749028491533604952011-04-25T17:44:00.003-05:002011-04-26T16:28:49.708-05:00Pope Benedict XVI and Eucharistic Adoration: A Response to the Libel of the Holy Father by the Lapsed Catholic Controversialist, John Bugay, and Others.<style>
p
{
margin-top: 0px;
margin-bottom: 1px
}
body
{
font-family: "Times New Roman", serif;
font-size: 12pt;
font-weight: normal;
font-style: normal
}
</style><br />
<div style="margin-left: 1in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1in;">
"I am Myles Falworth, a Knight of the Bath by grace of his Majesty King Henry IV and by his creation, and do come hither to defend my challenge upon the body of William Bushy Brookhurst, Earl of Alban, proclaiming him an unknightly knight and a false and perjured liar, in that he hath accused Gilbert Reginald, Lord Falworth, of treason against our beloved Lord, his Majesty the King, and may God defend the right!" From <i>Men of Iron</i> by Howard Pyle.</div>
<br />
<strong>[April 26, 2011. Please note: I have revised this article to remove some language that was uncharitable to James Swan, James White, Steven Hays, Turretinfan and David King. It was unfair of me to paint them with a broad brush-particularly when such is an exercise in fallacious argumentation-which the reader knows I abhor and have commented on several times here. Over at his blog, Mr. Swan was correct for calling me to account for saying what I said about him and about "Calvinist" apologists in general when my focus should have been kept on the remarks of Mr. Bugay. As I said there, and as I will here-I apologize to all of the aforementioned gentlemen for the over-generalization.]</strong><br />
<br />
<strong>[April 26, 2011: Second update: Mr. Bugay has proffered the following apology to his readers in reference to the quote in question:</strong><br />
<br />
<b>To all: I am going to close down this thread. This discussion has gone on long enough here, and I am not interested to discuss it any further.<br /><br />To our readers: I am genuinely sorry for having used a quotation out of context. There is a lot of fact-checking that needs to be done to maintain the integrity of a blog like this one, the purpose of which is to basically hold accountable to the truth, the various historical accounts that are disseminated in the name of religion.<br /><br />I found a quote that had particular meaning for me, given the state of my devotional life as a Roman Catholic. That it had personal resonance with me should not have prevented me from doing my actual homework and, as James Swan has reminded me, <i>exegeting that quotation in context.</i> I failed to do that in this case, and to our readers, I am sorry, first of all for lowering the high standards that this blog maintains, and for allowing an opening through which this kind of ruckus was able to ensue.<br /><br />If you ever see that quotation from me, or any other controversial quotation, Lord willing, it will be in the context of a highly thorough understanding of the text that I am relating.<br /><br />As I had done with a previous thread where particular text appeared (it appeared once in my posting, and at another place in another comment thread), I'll leave this thread up another 24 hours or so for <i>civil comments</i>, and then I'll take it down.</b><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: red;">Unlike Mr. Bugay, I do not intend on taking this post down as the alleged Ratzinger quote has been used by others to attack Pope Benedict XVI's authority and I want this to be available as a resource for those who wish to challenge such attacks. However, given Mr. Bugay's general reply above to my objections here, I would ask that the reader NOT to comment or make any criticism against Mr. Bugay or the folks over at Beggars All. As I related in my earlier post about Mr. Fan's pseudonymity, as Christians we should try to deal with the content of what our opponents write rather than attack the individuals themselves. </span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: red;">After Mr. Bugay took down his thread, I followed the example of my friend Dave Armstrong in a similar incident and re-worked this post to remove two paragraphs I highlighted in blue that were more rhetorical argumentation than factual presentation as well as some adjectives to tone down the overall tenor of the article.</span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: red;">I appreciate your consideration in this matter.</span></strong><br />
<br />
<strong><span style="color: red;">God bless all!]</span></strong><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Unlike Myles Falworth, I am not a knight or even a worthy thane. In truth, I am a humble laborer who has pledged his poor talents in service of Christ and the One, Holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church He founded. Nevertheless, regardless of my lack of title and paucity of ability, I could not allow Mr. Bugay, a fallen-away Catholic who now haunts cyberspace at a Reformed Protestant website known as Beggars All, to get away with defaming Christ's vicar, Pope Benedict XVI, in a manner that is demonstrably erroneous and based on extraordinarily nonexistent research. This article is my response to Mr. Bugay's false restatement of an old disproven claim against Pope Benedict XVI. I will note at this point that the article has been edited to add material that Mr. Bugay, himself, has provided in a subsequent comment as he revealed the “source” for the mis-quote that he proffered on his website. I will also note that Mr. Bugay decided to delete the comment where he first published the false statement against Pope Benedict XVI. I chose not to do likewise as I wanted this post to serve as a future rejoinder to Protestants who may chose in the future to publish the same quote as well as disobedient Catholics called sedevacantists who have used the same quote to malign Pope Benedict XVI. <br />
<br />
The comment which Mr. Bugay made was made in the comment section to an article posted by James Swans entitled <a href="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/04/sungenis-alone.html"><span style="color: #00aa00;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Sungenis Alone</span></span></span></a><span style="color: black;">. Mr. Bugay writes in pertinent part: </span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black;">James, in this post, Sungenis seems to illustrate the same sense of betrayal that I felt while leaving Rome. </span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black;">I grew up thinking that "the Church" was the place to meet Christ. To have a direct, personal encounter with Him. It was not uncommon, in those days when I was seeking Him, for me to go to a dark, empty church and pray.</span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black;">To me, a Ratzinger quote like the one that I posted here the other day, was an absolute betrayal:</span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 1in;">
<span style="color: black;">"Eucharistic devotion such as is noted in the silent visit by the devout in church must not be thought of as a conversation with God. This would assume that God was present there locally and in a confined way. To justify such an assertion shows a lack of understanding of the Christological mysteries of the very concept of God. This is repugnant to the serious thinking of the man who knows about the omnipresence of God. To go to Church on the grounds that one can visit God who is present there is a senseless act which modern man rightfully rejects."</span></div>
<br />
<span style="color: black;">This quote that apparently is the cause of Mr. Bugay's disillusionment with the Catholic Church is supposedly from a book that Pope Benedict XVI wrote in 1966 called <i>Sakramentale Begr</i></span><span style="color: black;"><i>ü</i></span><span style="color: black;"><i>ndung christlicher Existenz</i></span><span style="color: black;"> (The sacramental basis for Christian living) 1966, Kyrios Publishing, Freising-Meitingen (Germany). The work, written decades before Pope Benedict XVI ever became pope, has never been fully translated into English. Since Mr. Bugay does not identify the book in his comment nor indicate how and when he would have read it, one must be skeptical as to how an orphan quote from an obscure book could create a sense of betrayal that Mr. Bugay expressed in his comment. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">As for the book from which the quote was supposedly lifted, the text consists of a speech the then Father Ratzinger gave at the Salzburg Hochschulwoche in 1965 to seminarians in which he presented for consideration a new approach to the reality of the sacraments and the central significance to a world that has lost touch with the sacramental dimension of Christian living. The notes of the speech were then put into order and published. The book itself was reviewed by a censor who granted it an imprimatur which indicates that the reviewer did not find in it anything contrary to the rule of faith of the Catholic Church. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">Preliminarily, Mr. Bugay’s quote is one that has circulated for years, mostly on certain sedevacantist’s (self-styled heretics who label themselves as “sedevacantist Catholics” who do not believe that Vatican II is a valid ecumenical council or that the Church has not had a valid pope since Pope Pius XII) websites. However, Mr. Bugay claims that he first saw it on the </span><a href="http://www.catholicintl.com/epologetics/articles/pastoral/pope-benedict.htm"><span style="color: #00aa00;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">website</span></span></span></a><span style="color: black;"> of Mr. Sungenis, the subject of Mr. Swan’s article. Even if that is true, one must wonder why he did not bother to link to it in the first place, or provide the level of detail that Mr. Sungenis provides such as the date of the original book and its English translation or the fact that Mr. Sungenis indicated in his article that the alleged quote was an opinion that was never reiterated in any other of the former Fr. Ratzinger’s works. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">Further, several other issues must be considered in examining the text quoted above. Since Mr. Bugay's referenced quote is in English and since the work in question has never been published in English, the quote must be someone's translation. Mr. Bugay does not suggest how he attempted to verify the accuracy of quote. If Mr. Bugay “googled” the quote, he would have seen it quoted exactly as it appears in Mr. Sungenis’ article by a large number of sedevacantists. For example, </span><a href="http://www.cathinfo.com/index.php?a=topic&t=10086"><span style="color: #00aa00;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">here</span></span></span></a><span style="color: black;"> and </span><a href="http://www.cmri.org/02-letter-frpeek.html"><span style="color: #00aa00;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">here</span></span></span></a><span style="color: black;">. It is obvious that Mr. Bugay has never actually read the work in question since there is no English translation of it. Moreover, he fails to corroborate the content of the quote against any other of Pope Benedict XVI’s writings. I would have thought he would have been more wary of advancing this notion particularly without verifying the facts. After all, haven’t other frequenters of the Beggars All coterie made sport of popular Catholic apologists, such as Steve Ray and Dave Armstrong, for using alleged quotes of Fr. Luther and St. Athanasius with far more reliable pedigree than the one used by Mr. Bugay without first obtaining ad fontes verification? Will we soon see articles written by Mr. Swan, James White, Steve Hays, David King, and Turretinfan chiding Mr. Bugay for his lack of scholarship?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">Enough rhetoric. Now time for some facts. Here is an alternate dynamic translation of what Pope Benedict XVI wrote all those years ago: </span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black;">"Eucharistic devotion such as is noted in the silent visit by the devout in church<i> is indeed </i></span><span style="color: black;">a conversation with God. <i>However one must not </i></span><span style="color: black;">assume that God was present there <i>only</i></span> <span style="color: black;">locally and in a confined way. To justify such an assertion shows a lack of understanding of the Christological mysteries of the very concept of God. This is repugnant to the serious thinking of the man who knows about the omnipresence of God. To go to Church on the ground that one can visit God who <i>is considered to be only </i></span><span style="color: black;">present there is a senseless act which modern man rightfully rejects."</span></div>
<br />
<span style="color: black;">Here is a more literal </span><a href="http://www.novusordowatch.org/benedict/sbce-trans.htm"><span style="color: #00aa00;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">German-English translation</span></span></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><span style="color: blue;"></span></span></span></a><span style="color: black;"> of the last chapter (Chapter IV) of Fr. Joseph Ratzinger's <i>Sakramentale Begr</i></span><span style="color: black;"><i>ü</i></span><span style="color: black;"><i>ndung christlicher Existenz</i></span><span style="color: black;"> found on yet another sedevacantist website which actually seems to be a bit more accurate as best I am able to tell. I will indicate that unlike Mr. Bugay, I did show the translation and the original pages to someone who is fluent in German (in fact is from the same town as Pope Benedict XVI) and I was advised that it seemed accurate enough. The pages of Fr. Ratzinger's text from which the translation is made can be found here: </span><a href="http://www.novusordowatch.org/sbce1.jpg"><span style="color: #00aa00;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">cover image</span></span></span></a><span style="color: black;">, and </span><a href="http://www.novusordowatch.org/sbce2.jpg"><span style="color: #00aa00;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">pp. 24-25</span></span></span></a><span style="color: black;">, and </span><a href="http://www.novusordowatch.org/sbce3.jpg"><span style="color: #00aa00;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">pp. 26-27</span></span></span></a><span style="color: black;">, in case anyone wishes to take a stab at it themselves:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;"> IV. The Meaning of the Sacraments Today</span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black;">Perhaps the reflections up to this point have been a bit arduous. This couldn't be any different, since the objective was to clear away the rubbish of prejudices [biases] that divides us men of today from those insights whose incarnate expression are the Christian sacraments. It would not be difficult anymore now to pursue the meaning of the individual sacraments and thereby to flesh out [substantiate] the general [generic] insights to which the previous reflections have led us. Let us dispense with it [i.e. with this pursuit] in order once again to clarify in summary fashion what narrowing of perspective divides the man of today - that is, us - from the sacraments and what the Christian seeks, in truth, when he celebrates his divine service in the form of the reception of the sacraments, that is, in the manner of the Church of Jesus Christ.</span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black;">I believe that the attitude of today's average mentality that is alien to the sacraments rests on a twofold anthropological error that has sunk deep into the general consciousness due to the preconditions of our time (that is, due to the shape of history that has received us previously). There still operates, for the time being, the idealist misjudgment of human nature, which came to its highest excess with Fichte, as though every man were an autonomous spirit which builds itself up completely by its own decision and is entirely the product of its own resolutions [decisions] - nothing but [the] will and freedom which does not tolerate anything that is not spiritual but forms [fashions] itself completely in itself. Put mildly, Fichte's creative Ego rests on a confusion of man and God, and the equation [identification] of both, which he carries out in actuality, is a quite consistent expression of his start-point and certainly, at the same time, its categorical condemnation, for man is not God: in order to know that, one basically only has to be human oneself. As absurd as this idealism is in the end, it is still deeply rooted in the European consciousness (at least in the German consciousness). When Bultmann says that spirit cannot be nourished by matter and thereby thinks the sacramental principle to be finished, in the end the same naïve idea of man's spiritual autonomy is still at work. It is actually somewhat strange that especially in this period, which thinks it has rediscovered the bodilyness [in-the-flesh-ness] of man, which thinks it knows again that man can only be spirit in the manner of bodilyness, a spiritual metaphysic continues to have an effect, or even just gains its strength altogether, which is based on [which rests on] a negation of these relations. To be fair, we will certainly have to admit that Christian metaphysics had absorbed too strong a dose of Greek idealism long before Fichte and thereby prepared this misunderstanding considerably. It [i.e., Christian metaphysics], too, already considered human souls to be abundantly atomized, forming in history-less freedom; thus it could barely explain the very historically-determined testimonies [statements/messages] of the Christian faith regarding original sin and redemption; the sacraments, which are the expression of the historical interweaving of men, became the soul-nourishment for the individual spirit which stands for itself [probably: subsisting individual spirit], and then of course one can indeed wonder why God does not choose an easier way in order to, as spirit, encounter the spirit of man and give him his grace. If it were only a matter of the individual soul, as individual, being addressed by her God and receiving graces, then it could indeed not be understood what should be the meaning of the involvement of the Church and the material media [means] of the sacraments in this most intimate, completely internal, and spiritual process. If, however, there is no autonomy of the human spirit, if he is not an unconnected spiritual atom, but, as man, only lives bodily, with-others, and historically, then the question must be asked entirely differently. Then his relationship with God, if it is to be a human relationship with God, must be just as man happens to be: bodily, with-others, historical. Or it is not. The error of anti-sacramental idealism consists in wanting to make man into a pure spirit before God. Instead of a man, there has only remained a specter which does not exist, and a religiosity which wanted to build upon such foundations has built on deceptive sand.</span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black;">In a strange manner, the Idealistic heresy (if this is what we wish to call it) is today connected with the Marxist one, about which Heidegger brilliantly said that materialism does not at all consist in interpreting all being as matter, but that it assesses all matter as the mere material [matter] of human labor. The actual core of the heresy is indeed foremostly here, in the anthropological extension of the ontological basis: in the reduction of man to [the status of] <i>homo faber</i></span><span style="color: black;">, who does not interact with things in themselves but only regards them as functions of his labor, whose functionary he himself has become. With this the perspective of symbolism and man's ability to have a view for the eternal is destroyed, he is incarcerated in his world of labor, and his only hope is that future generations will be able to have more convenient conditions of labor than him, if he has sufficiently struggled to have such conditions created. A truly paltry consolation for an existence that has become miserably tight!</span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black;">With these perspectives we have automatically returned to the starting point of our reflections. What in fact -- in this manner we can now ask again -- does the man do who celebrates the divine service of the Church, the sacraments of Jesus Christ? He does not abandon himself to the naive idea that God, the Omnipresent One, lives only at this place in space which is designated by the tabernacle in the church. This would already contradict the most superficial understanding of the dogmatic statement content [i.e. the content of the dogmatic statement], because the species of the Eucharist is not the presence of God in general [i.e. God as such] but the presence of the man Jesus Christ, which refers to [i.e. points to] the horizontal historically-bound character of the divine encounter of man. He who goes to church and celebrates her sacraments does not do so, either, if he understands everything correctly, because he thinks the spiritual God is in need of material [i.e. physical] media in order to touch the spirit of man. He does so, rather, because he knows that as man he can only encounter God in a human way; but in a human way means: in the form of fellow-man-ship [i.e. human consideration; being a neighbor to others], of incarnation, of historicity. And he does so because he knows that as man he cannot himself direct when God has to show Himself to him, that he is, rather, the recipient, who is dependent upon the given and not-to-be-produced-at-one's-own-authority power, which represents the sign of God's sovereign freedom, who determines the manner of his presence for himself.</span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black;">No doubt: Our piety is here often a little superficial [has often proceeded a little superficially] and has given occasion for some misunderstanding. In this respect the critical question of modern consciousness will be able to challenge a salutary purification in the self-understanding of the Faith. It may suffice to cite an example, in the end, by which the crisis becomes especially obvious and by which the point [i.e. reason] for the purification, which is necessary, can once more, by summary, come to light.<span style="font-weight: bold;"> Eucharistic adoration or quiet visiting in church can, reasonably, not simply be thought of as conversation with the God who is thought present in a locally-circumscriptive manner. Statements such as "God dwells here" and conversation with the locally-thought God based on such [thinking] express a mistake [misjudgment] of the christological event as well as the idea of God, which necessarily repels the thinking man who knows about the omnipresence of God. If one were to justify going to church on the grounds that one must visit the God who is present only there, this would indeed be a justification which would make no sense and would rightfully be rejected by modern man</span></span><span style="color: black;">. Eucharistic adoration is in truth related to the Lord, who, through his historical life and suffering, has become "bread" for us, that is, who through his Incarnation and abandonment unto death has become the one who is open for us [the for-us-open-one]. Such praying, then, refers to the historical mystery of Jesus Christ, to the history of God with man, which [i.e. the history] approaches us in the sacrament. And it refers to the mystery of the Church: By referring to the history of God with men, it refers to the entire "Body of Christ," to the communion of the believing, in which and through which God comes to us. Thus praying in church and in closeness to the eucharistic sacrament is [i.e. means] a subsumption of our relation [relationship] to God into the mystery of the church as the concrete place where God meets us. And this is, after all, the point of our going to church anyway: the subsumption of myself into the history of God with man, in which exclusively I as man have my true human existence and which exclusively, for this reason, also opens up to me the true extent [i.e. range] of my meeting with God's eternal love. For this love does not merely look for an isolated Spirit which (as we have already said) would only be a specter in relation to the reality of man, but man entirely, in the body of his historicity, and it [i.e. the love] gives him, in the holy signs of the sacraments, [the] security of divine response, in which the open question of being human reaches its goal and finds its fulfillment. (Emphasis Added).</span></div>
<br />
<span style="color: black;">Me: I would humbly submit that there is nothing heretical or even contumacious to the Catholic understanding of the Real Presence in the Eucharist in either of these latter two translations. Mr. Bugay is free to try to disabuse me of this contention.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">Now lest the reader thinks that I am perhaps misrepresenting Pope Benedict XVI's thought pertaining to the Real Presence or Eucharistic Adoration, I offer the following additional quotes culled from his extensive corpus of theological expression on the subject:</span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black;">"In a world where there is so much noise, so much bewilderment, there is a need for silent adoration of Jesus concealed in the Host. Be assiduous in the prayer of adoration and teach it to the faithful. It is a source of comfort and light, particularly to those who are suffering." Pope Benedict XVI --from an address to priests in Poland, May 25, 2006</span></div>
<br />
<span style="color: black;">And:</span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black;">Thanks be to God that after the Council, after a period in which the sense of Eucharistic Adoration was somewhat lacking, the joy of this adoration was reborn everywhere in the Church, as we saw and heard at the Synod on the Eucharist. Of course, the conciliar Constitution on the Liturgy enabled us to discover to the full the riches of the Eucharist in which the Lord's testament is accomplished: he gives himself to us and we respond by giving ourselves to him.</span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black;">"We have now rediscovered, however, that without adoration as an act consequent to Communion received, this centre which the Lord gave to us, that is, the possibility of celebrating his sacrifice and thus of entering into a sacramental, almost corporeal, communion with him, loses its depth as well as its human richness.</span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black;">"Adoration means entering the depths of our hearts in communion with the Lord, who makes himself bodily present in the Eucharist. In the monstrance, he always entrusts himself to us and asks us to be united with his Presence, with his risen Body." Pope Benedict XVI on Eucharistic Adoration - from his meeting with members of the Roman clergy, March 2, 2006</span></div>
<br />
<span style="color: black;">Here is a lengthy quote from Pope Benedict XVI's 2007 Post -Synodal Apostolic Exhortation <i></i></span><a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_ben-xvi_exh_20070222_sacramentum-caritatis_en.html"><i><span style="color: #00aa00;"><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Sacramentum Caritatis</span></span></span></i></a><i><span style="color: black;"></span></i><span style="color: black;">:</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;"> The intrinsic relationship between celebration and adoration</span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black;">66. One of the most moving moments of the Synod came when we gathered in Saint Peter's Basilica, together with a great number of the faithful, for eucharistic adoration. In this act of prayer, and not just in words, the assembly of Bishops wanted to point out the intrinsic relationship between eucharistic celebration and eucharistic adoration. A growing appreciation of this significant aspect of the Church's faith has been an important part of our experience in the years following the liturgical renewal desired by the Second Vatican Council. During the early phases of the reform, the inherent relationship between Mass and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament was not always perceived with sufficient clarity. For example, an objection that was widespread at the time argued that the eucharistic bread was given to us not to be looked at, but to be eaten. In the light of the Church's experience of prayer, however, this was seen to be a false dichotomy. As Saint Augustine put it: "<i>nemo autem illam carnem manducat, nisi prius adoraverit; peccemus non adorando</i></span><span style="color: black;"> -- no one eats that flesh without first adoring it; we should sin were we not to adore it." In the Eucharist, the Son of God comes to meet us and desires to become one with us; eucharistic adoration is simply the natural consequence of the eucharistic celebration, which is itself the Church's supreme act of adoration. Receiving the Eucharist means adoring Him whom we receive. Only in this way do we become one with Him, and are given, as it were, a foretaste of the beauty of the heavenly liturgy. The act of adoration outside Mass prolongs and intensifies all that takes place during the liturgical celebration itself. Indeed, "only in adoration can a profound and genuine reception mature. And it is precisely this personal encounter with the Lord that then strengthens the social mission contained in the Eucharist, which seeks to break down not only the walls that separate the Lord and ourselves, but also and especially the walls that separate us from one another." </span></div>
<br />
<span style="color: black;"> The practice of eucharistic adoration</span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black;">67. With the Synod Assembly, therefore, I heartily recommend to the Church's pastors and to the People of God the practice of eucharistic adoration, both individually and in community. Great benefit would ensue from a suitable catechesis explaining the importance of this act of worship, which enables the faithful to experience the liturgical celebration more fully and more fruitfully. Wherever possible, it would be appropriate, especially in densely populated areas, to set aside specific churches or oratories for perpetual adoration. I also recommend that, in their catechetical training, and especially in their preparation for First Holy Communion, children be taught the meaning and the beauty of spending time with Jesus, and helped to cultivate a sense of awe before his presence in the Eucharist.</span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black;">Here I would like to express appreciation and support for all those Institutes of Consecrated Life whose members dedicate a significant amount of time to eucharistic adoration. In this way they give us an example of lives shaped by the Lord's real presence. I would also like to encourage those associations of the faithful and confraternities specifically devoted to eucharistic adoration; they serve as a leaven of contemplation for the whole Church and a summons to individuals and communities to place Christ at the center of their lives.</span></div>
<br />
<span style="color: black;"> Forms of eucharistic devotion</span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black;">68. The personal relationship which the individual believer establishes with Jesus present in the Eucharist constantly points beyond itself to the whole communion of the Church and nourishes a fuller sense of membership in the Body of Christ. For this reason, besides encouraging individual believers to make time for personal prayer before the Sacrament of the Altar, I feel obliged to urge parishes and other church groups to set aside times for collective adoration. Naturally, already existing forms of eucharistic piety retain their full value. I am thinking, for example, of processions with the Blessed Sacrament, especially the traditional procession on the Solemnity of Corpus Christi, the Forty Hours devotion, local, national and international Eucharistic Congresses, and other similar initiatives. If suitably updated and adapted to local circumstances, these forms of devotion are still worthy of being practiced today. (endnotes redacted)</span></div>
<br />
<span style="color: black;">Most recently, His Holiness offered the following to be considered on the matter of the Eucharist and Eucharistic Adoration:</span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black;">Address of His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI to participants in the Plenary Assembly of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, March 13, 2009</span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black;">In the Plenary Session you have reflected on the Mystery of the Eucharist and, in particular, on the theme of Eucharistic adoration. I know well that, following the publication of the Instruction "<i>Eucharisticum mysterium</i></span><span style="color: black;">" of 25 May 1967 and the promulgation, on 21 June 1973, of the Document "<i>De sacra communione et cultu mysterii eucharistici extra Missam"</i></span><span style="color: black;">, the insistence on the theme of the Eucharist as the inexhaustible source of holiness has been a concern of the first priority for the dicastery. </span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black;">I have therefore willingly accepted the proposal that the Plenary Session occupy itself with the subject of Eucharistic adoration, in the confidence that a renewed collegial reflection on this practice could contribute to make clear, within the limits of competence of the Congregation, the liturgical and pastoral means with which the Church of our times can promote the faith in the Real Presence of the Lord in the Holy Eucharist and ensure to the celebration of Mass throughout the dimension of adoration. I stressed this aspect in the Apostolic Exhortation <i>Sacramentum Caritatis</i></span><span style="color: black;">, in which I gathered the fruits of the XI Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod, held in October 2005. In it, highlighting the importance of the intrinsic relationship between celebration and adoration of the Eucharist (cf. no. 66), I quoted the teaching of Saint Augustine: "<i>Nemo autem illam carnem manducat, nisi prius adoraverit; peccemus non adorando</i></span><span style="color: black;">" [NLM translation: "No one eat this flesh, if he has not adored it before; for we sin if we do not adore."] (<i>Enarrationes in Psalmos</i></span><span style="color: black;">, 98, 9: CCL 39, 1385). The Synod Fathers have not failed to express concern about a certain confusion generated, after the II Vatican Council, about the relationship between Mass and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament (cf. <i>Sacramentum Caritatis,</i></span><span style="color: black;"> n. 66). In this was echoed what my Predecessor, Pope John Paul II, had already expressed about the deviations that have sometimes contaminated the post-conciliar liturgical renewal, revealing "a very reductive understanding of the Eucharistic Mystery" (<i>Ecclesia de Eucharistia,</i></span><span style="color: black;"> no. 10 ).</span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black;">The Second Vatican Council emphasized the unique role that the Eucharistic Mystery has in the life of the faithful (<i>Sacrosanctum Concilium</i></span><span style="color: black;">, nos. 48-54, 56). As Pope Paul VI has repeatedly affirmed: "the Eucharist is a very great mystery, even properly, as the Sacred Liturgy says, the mystery of faith" (<i>Mysterium fidei</i></span><span style="color: black;">, no. 15). The Eucharist is indeed at the very origins of the Church (cf. John Paul II, <i>Ecclesia de Eucharistia</i></span><span style="color: black;">, no. 21) and is the source of grace, constituting an incomparable opportunity for both the sanctification of humanity in Christ and for the glorification of God. In this sense, on the one hand , all the Church's activities are ordered towards the mystery of the Eucharist (cf. <i>Sacrosanctum Concilium</i></span><span style="color: black;">, no. 10; <i>Lumen gentium</i></span><span style="color: black;">, no. 11; <i>Presbyterorum ordinis</i></span><span style="color: black;">, no. 5; <i>Sacramentum caritatis,</i></span><span style="color: black;"> no. 17), and, on the other hand, it is in virtue of the Eucharist that "the Church continually lives and grows" (<i>Lumen gentium</i></span><span style="color: black;">, no. 26). Our task is to appreciate the invaluable treasure of this ineffable mystery of faith "both in the celebration of the Mass itself and in the worship of the sacred species, which are preserved after Mass to extend the grace of the Sacrifice" (Instruction <i>Eucharisticum mysterium</i></span><span style="color: black;">, no. 3, lit. g). The doctrine of the transubstantiation of bread and wine and of the Real Presence are truths of the Faith already evident in Scripture itself, and then confirmed by the Fathers of the Church. Pope Paul VI, in this regard, recalled that "not only has the Catholic Church always taught, but also lived the faith in the presence of the body and blood of Christ in the Eucharist, always adoring with latreutic worship, which is only due to God, so great a Sacrament" (<i>Mysterium Fidei</i></span><span style="color: black;">, no. 56; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1378). </span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black;">It is worth recalling in this regard, the various meanings which the word "adoration" has in Greek and in Latin. The Greek word <i>prosk</i></span><span style="color: black;"><i>ý</i></span><span style="color: black;"><i>nesis</i></span><span style="color: black;"> indicates the gesture of submission, the acknowledgment of God as our true measure, the norm of which we accept to follow. The Latin word <i>ad-oratio,</i></span><span style="color: black;"> however, denotes the physical contact, the kiss, the embrace, which is implicit in the idea of love [NLM note: the root here is "os", mouth; the ancient oriental gesture of greeting a ruler, translated into Latin as "<i>adoratio</i></span><span style="color: black;">", involved touching the right hand to the mouth]. The aspect of submission foresees a relationship of union, because he to whom we submit is Love. Indeed, in the Eucharist adoration must become union: union with the living Lord and then with his Mystical Body. As I told the young people on the plain of Marienfeld, in Cologne, during the Holy Mass on the occasion of the XX World Youth Day, on August 2005: " God no longer simply stands before us as the One who is totally Other. He is within us, and we are in him. His dynamic enters into us and then seeks to spread outwards to others until it fills the world, so that his love can truly become the dominant measure of the world." (<i>Insegnamenti</i></span><span style="color: black;">, vol. I, 2005, pp. 457 f.). In this perspective, I reminded the young people that in the Eucharist one lives the "first fundamental transformation of violence into love, of death into life; this brings other transformations in its wake. Bread and wine become his Body and Blood. But the transformation must not stop there; on the contrary, the process of transformation must hee fully begin. The Body and Blood of Christ are given to us so that we ourselves will be transformed in our turn."(ibid., p. 457). </span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black;">My predecessor, Pope John Paul II, in his Apostolic Letter "<i>Spiritus et Sponsa</i></span><span style="color: black;">", on the occasion of the 40th anniversary of the Constitution <i>Sacrosanctum Concilium</i></span><span style="color: black;"> on the Sacred Liturgy, urged to take the necessary steps to deepen the experience of renewal. This is important also with respect to the subject of Eucharistic adoration. Such a deepening will be possible only through an increased knowledge of the mystery in full fidelity to sacred Tradition and increasing the liturgical life within our communities (cf. <i>Spiritus et Sponsa</i></span><span style="color: black;">, nos. 6-7). In this regard, I appreciate in particular that the Plenary Session has occupied itself with the subject of educating the entire People of God in the Faith, with special attention to the seminarians, to promote the growth in a spirit of true Eucharistic adoration. St. Thomas, in fact, explains: "That in this sacrament is present the true Body and the true Blood of Christ cannot be learned with the senses, but by faith alone, which is based on the authority of God" (<i>Summa theologi</i></span><span style="color: black;"><i>æ</i></span><span style="color: black;"><i>,</i></span><span style="color: black;"> III, 75, 1; cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 1381). </span></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black;">We are living the days of Holy Lent, which is not only a journey of more intense spiritual apprenticeship, but also an effective preparation to better celebrate Holy Easter. Recalling three penitential practices very dear to biblical and Christian tradition - prayer, almsgiving, fasting -, let us encourage each other to rediscover and live with renewed fervor fasting not only as an ascetic practice, but also as preparation for the Eucharist and as a spiritual weapon to fight against any eventual inordinate attachment to ourselves. May this intense period of liturgical life help us to remove everything which distracts the mind and to intensify what nourishes the soul, opening it to the love of God and neighbor. With these sentiments, I express already now to all of you my best wishes for the coming Feast of Easter, and while I thank you for the work you have done in this Plenary Session, as well as for all the work of the Congregation, I impart to each of you with affection my Blessing.</span></div>
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">And finally, in the book, <i>God is Near Us: The Eucharist is the Heart of Life</i></span><span style="color: black;"> (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2003), the then Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger actually comments on the passage used by Mr. Bugay on page 91 in a footnote. Here is the entire passage in context:</span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black;">"But against that could then rightly be voiced the objection that is always to be heard: I can just as well pray in the forest, in the freedom of nature. Certainly, anyone can. But if it were only a matter of that, then the initiative in prayer would lie entirely with us; then God would be a mental hypothesis—whether he answers, whether he can answer or wants to, would remain open. The Eucharist means, God has answered: The Eucharist is God as an answer, as an answering presence. Now the initiative no longer lies with us, in the God-man relationship, but with him, and it now becomes really serious. That is why, in the sphere of eucharistic adoration, prayer attains a new level; now it is two-way, and so now it really is a serious business. Indeed, it is now not just two-way, but all-inclusive: whenever we pray in the eucharistic presence, we are never alone. Then the whole of the Church, which celebrates the Eucharist, is praying with us. Then we are praying within the sphere of God's gracious hearing, because we are praying within the sphere of death and resurrection, that is, where the real petition in all our petitions has been heard: the petition for the victory over death; the petition for the love that is stronger than death. (Fn. 11)"</span></div>
<br />
<span style="color: black;">Footnote 11 states: </span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<br /></div>
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;">
<span style="color: black;">I had already tried to expound the same basic idea in the little booklet<i>Sakramentale Begr</i></span><span style="color: black;"><i>ü</i></span><span style="color: black;"><i>ndung christlicher Existenz </i></span><span style="color: black;">[The sacramental basis of Christian living] (Friesing, 1966), pp.26f. The text, giving a mere outline, was written before the development of the dispute about the Eucharist in the years since the Council and had in the meantime given rise to the misapprehension that I intended thereby to deny the Real Presence and to oppose adoration. I hope that the exposition given here will leave no room for this misunderstanding.</span></div>
<br />
<span style="color: black;">I hope that the evidence I have offered here leaves no room for misunderstanding as to Pope Benedict XVI's affirmation of the Catholic doctrine of the Real Presence and the adoration that one may rightly give to it. I believe that I have worthily discharged my obligations in challenging Bugay's error and accordingly I rest my case. May God always defend the right against those such as Mr. Bugay, and incidently Mr. Sungenis if he is going to use such quotes against the Pope or the Church to advance his personal agenda. (Given the context in which the quote occurred and how Mr. Sungenis has used in subsequent postings, I am not suggesting that Mr. Sungenis contends that Pope Benedict XVI is not the pope, rather, I am only faulting him for using a quote that was not verified for accuracy.)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">I hope and pray that all have a blessed Easter holiday. All praise, honor and glory to Our Risen Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ! </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">Update April 25, 2011: </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">Mr. Bugay removed the comment containing the quote rather than apologize for repeating it. I have preserved the relevant portion of the comment here for posterity’s sake. As one will see below, Mr. Bugay offers as a defense of posting the quote without first checking its accuracy that because Mr. Sungenis holds himself out as a Catholic, he is "on my side" and that excuses his personal lack of scholarship. Perhaps that might work if he had proffered such attribution in the first place or Mr. Sungenis’ additional comments as well which provides some perspective to the matter. But Mr. Bugay did not. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">Here is my response to some comments he made when I pointed his mis-quoting Pope Benedict XVI: </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">Mr. Bugay: </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">You wrote: "Then your "Just in case" blog article is also premature." </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">I respond: I am not the one who posted something without giving it attribution. The fact that Mr. Sungenis posted something without attribution is reprehensible as well. I will state that Mr. Sungenis also stated that this sort of statement was never "reiterated", something you left out of your positing. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">You wrote: "Ratzinger has taught many things over the years, and it should not be in question that in his early years, he was a liberal. This is not in question." </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">I respond: Well the problem is that you cited to the work as if it were a present authoritative expression claiming that it was a "betrayal" of Church doctrine. Your sophistry is no less an attempt to obfuscate that. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">You wrote: "What should alarm you is the ease with which he slipped into a more "conservative" posture." </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">I respond: Again, more obfuscation. Whether he is a liberal or conservative is of no import to me. The issue is whether he taught anything that is contrary to the teachings of the Church itself-a question you have not yet answered. You claim that Pope Benedict XVI "betrayed" the teachings of the Church. I have challenged your assertion. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">You write: "Why are you concerned with alleged inconsistencies in what I write? I am a mere blogger. Ratzinger is your pope now. Do you accept everything unreservedly that he has said?" </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">I answer: I am not alleging "inconsistency"; I am contending that you posted a comment that was defamatory. Further, you are not posting as a mere blogger. You are posting as a Christian blogger and as an apologist. That suggests that you should be adhering to some sort of standard of truthfulness. Furthermore, you are posting on this website which holds itself out as persuasive resource on behalf of Reformed theology and as an opponent to the "Roman" Catholic Church. So you are anything but "mere". </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">As for whether I accept what Pope Benedict XVI teaches unreservedly, my assent to Catholic teaching is not a blind or implicit faith but a question of willing obedience. There are mechanisms for examining and questioning one's teachings of an authoritative figure, whether he be a priest or a pontiff. My allegiance to the Church requires me to do so within the parameters of the Rule of Faith. If I was so unreservedly accepting of what the Pope teaches as a part of the ordinary magisterium, I would not have taken the time to investigation and write the article questioning your mis-quoting something he wrote as a young man decades ago. The question is why are you so willing to accept without investigation a quote that he supposedly made in 1966? What does that say about the notion of "private judgment"? And given the fact that you were wrong here about what Pope Benedict XVI has held and taught since before he was elected as pope, why should anyone accept as truthful anything you write unreservedly? </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">You wrote: "I did not "create" a misapprehension. I may have sought to perpetuate an "apprehension" that many have, including Sungenis, who is on your side." </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">I respond: Perpetrating a misapprehension here is creating one here since you posted here. Repeating a lie doesn't make the statement any less of a lie, does it? </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">You wrote: "And I prefaced my comment by saying that such a thing would have offended me back in the days when I was Roman Catholic." </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">I respond: So what? Reconcile your statement above with Romans 1:32. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">You wrote: "That it has not been translated into English [in any official way -- there are more extensive translations] -- does not remove the potentially caustic nature of what he said." </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">I respond: Do please link us to one a more extensive translation. I would like to see how such differs from what he has taught since 2001. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">You wrote: "One might well ask, why do they not translate this work into English, as readily as they have translated some other works? Are they trying to hide something?" </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">I respond: Why have not Protestants translated everything Fr. Luther or John Calvin wrote into English? What do you folks have to hide? </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">You wrote: "I'll ask further, why is it so hard to find an index in a Ratzinger book? Is someone trying to cover his paper trail?" </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">I respond: My goodness! Why not look to your own house first and work on providing attribution for your quotes rather than speculate about why some works of a particular author provides an index for your personal ease? The fact that Fr. Ratzinger took the time to publish the text of a speech he had given is suggestive that he has nothing to hide at all. Why didn't Marin Luther or John Calvin publish everything they wrote with an index in English? For that matter, how come you don't publish an index with everything you post here? </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">You wrote: "At any rate, I'm preparing a much more thorough treatment of all of this." </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">I respond: I look forward to seeing the lengths you will go avoid apologizing to your readers for posting something that was not true. God bless! </span>Paul Hofferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.com7tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-35662471540558866302011-04-03T18:09:00.003-05:002011-04-03T18:23:36.415-05:00"A Fallible Collection of Infallible Books" by Jamie Donald<span xmlns=""></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">(This article was written by my friend, Jamie Donald, who graciously gave me permission to post it here. Please enjoy!)</span><br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">A Fallible Collection of Infallible Books</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial;">This description of the Canon of Scripture, used by our Protestant brothers and sisters, has always left me somewhat perplexed. Rather than expound on my own understanding of the phrase, I'd like to turn to a blog article by James Swan on this topic. What James wrote a couple of months ago at <a href="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/02/sproul-bible-is-fallible-collec">Sproul: "The Bible is a fallible collection of infallible books"</a><span style="color: black;"> vastly improved my understanding of this description.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">James notes that this phrase comes from RC Sproul (who possibly got it from John Gerstner). Swan does not believe that the "fallible" clause means the Church did actually err when consolidating various writings into the Canon, only that the Church was not provided the special protection from error (which we call "infallibility"). He summarizes Gerstner's thoughts as, <em>It is one thing to say that the church <strong>could have</strong> erred; it is another thing to say that the church <strong>did</strong> err</em>. (emphasis added) Thus, Swan believes that the early church was <em>used by God</em> and "got it right" (to use a popular phrase I've seen with some Protestant e-pologists). </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Perhaps an analogy is in order. Since we're in March Madness, I'll use a basketball analogy. Imagine that it's the closing seconds of the game and your team is down by one point. The coach calls a time out and outlines a play for his team. They only have time for this single play. They must score to win and advance in the tournament. The coach knows his star player will be double teamed, so he directs the ball be passed to whomever is free. When the opposing team shifts to cover the ball, that will free up the star and the ball is to be passed to him. The star will go in for the easy lay-up, scoring 2 points at the buzzer, winning the game.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">The ball gets in-bounded to a guard. But instead of passing to the star, the guard sees that he's still free – it takes the other team some time to adjust their coverage. So he takes the shot from 3-point range. Everyone is on edge as they watch the ball – on a low percentage shot – not the sure thing of a lay-up – sails through the air. The ball goes through; "nothing but net' and your team wins the game.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">The next day, the coach calls the guard into his office. He says, "I don't know if I should congratulate you as a hero, or bench you for the next game in the tourney. You didn't follow my orders!" The guard replies, "But Coach, I won the game for us!" The coach presses his point, "You could have missed!" And the guard answers, "But I didn't."</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Just as the guard could have missed the shot in the game, the early Church could have "missed" on the Canon of Scripture. But they didn't miss. That is Swan's point. The Church wasn't protected from missing, but in history managed to get the right answer.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Swan notes that the Church plays a role in the Canon, but not as the author. He writes, <em>I recognize the Christian Church <strong>received</strong> the Canon. It does not though, create the Canon, or stand above the Canon</em>. (emphasis added) In this respect, the Church is to receive the Scriptures as a gift from God. When receiving a gift, it is the giver, not the recipient, who guarantees the quality of the gift. For example, if I give my wife a present for her birthday or our anniversary; if the gift is cheesy, that is my fault – not my wife's. Likewise, if she unwraps it and excitedly declares, "It's perfect!" the high quality of the gift was my doing, not hers. Hers is to appreciate the quality of the gift. The Scriptures are God's gift to us, His Church; and there is nothing we do (nor can do) which influences or causes the perfection, the inerrancy, of the Word.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Finally, Swan bolsters his point on a fallible Church by noting that the first century Christians and late pre-Christ Jews had received the Old Testament without an infallible source to declare that the writings were in fact the correct ones. If these ancients could know the Word of God without the charism of infallibility, then so can modern Christians.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">At this point, I will let the reader review my summary and balance it against Swan's article to determine if I am correctly discerning his viewpoint.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">In offering a critique of Swan's article, I would first note that there is much in it with which I think Catholics can agree. Read paragraphs 104, 105, 106, 136 of <em>The Catechism of the Catholic Church</em>, and you will see that the Church receives the Scriptures, <em>written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they <strong>have God as their author</strong>, and <strong>have been handed on as such to the church</strong> herself</em>. (emphasis added) Indeed, they are a gift to the Church and their unique nature of inerrancy is based on the giver, God Himself.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">However, the role of the Church in the process of discovering the Canon of Scripture is something more than simply an occurrence in history that ended up "right." Where the basketball game had an objective standard to determine whether the player was a hero or not – the ball either did or did not go through the hoop, there is no objective standard by which to measure a writing as "scripture" or "not scripture." Without a standard against which he can measure, how does Swan proclaim the Protestant canon as the early Church got it right, while proclaiming that the Catholic canon (with the deuterocanonicals), the Coptic canon, or even Marcion's canon are "wrong"?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Let's look at this prospect another way. Tradition plays an important (although non binding) role in Protestant understanding of what should be considered, or not considered, an apostolic teaching. Tradition (with a small "t") informs and provides background to their understanding and interpretation of the Bible, where the New Testament contains all the writings which are "apostolic teaching." For example, Lutherans look at various Scriptural passages <em>along with</em> their traditional interpretive lens and conclude that baptismal regeneration is an apostolic teaching. However, since the Lutheran tradition – their interpretive lens – is not binding, they consider Swan to be a brother in Christ even though the tradition of his confession disagrees with baptismal regeneration and supports that disagreement with Scriptural references.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Please note that the purpose is not to get into a discussion about baptismal regeneration, nor to show that there are differences in interpretation amongst various traditions. The purpose is to try to highlight that tradition informs the interpretation of the Scriptures as to what is and is not an apostolic teaching, yet that same tradition is not binding in the Protestant paradigm.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">But one of the qualities used by the Church to determine what is and is not Scripture is apostolicity. So when the very question about the canon is "is this writing apostolic teaching or not?" one can't determine the answer by looking at the writing itself. There must be some external measure. What it boils down to is that each group, Protestant, Catholic, Coptic, Marcion, etc, proclaim what they believe to have received as Scripture. To say that in the process worked out in history, the early Church got it "right" is to say that you believe your tradition.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Now it would be unfair and inaccurate to say that Swan thinks along the lines, "The Canon is what it is because I (or my denomination) says it is." He provides a reason for why he thinks the early Church correctly identified the Canon. He writes, <em>The Church was used by God to provide a widespread knowledge of the Canon. The Holy Spirit had worked among the early Christian Church in providing them with the books of the New Testament</em>. Not only does the Church receive the Scriptures as a gift from God, but God also ensures that the Church provides to the world the knowledge of the [correct] Scriptures. Swan is certain to tell us that it is God's work, not the Church's, which gets the Canon correct. As a Catholic, I can agree with much, if not all of this thought process.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">But in this particular thought, Swan ends up proving the Catholic case! Let us return to the analogy of me giving a gift to my wife. If I have hidden the gift in a room, then tell her "warmer" as she gets closer to the hiding spot and "colder" as she moves away from it, she will find the gift. Under my guidance, she would be assured of finding the gift. It becomes impossible for her to not find it, or to "get it wrong." Again, Swan wrote, <strong><em>The Holy Spirit had worked among the early Christian Church in providing them with the books of the New Testament</em></strong>. (bolded to emphasize the entire sentence) The early Church was prevented from "getting it wrong" by the power of the Holy Spirit and the Spirit's work in her.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">That is the definition of infallibility in the lexicon of the Catholic Church. Infallibility, the assurance of not "getting it wrong" is often confused with inerrancy, the charism of definitely getting it correct. For example, with the topic of crime, a person's silence does not teach that crime is proper. Thus, it is not necessarily "wrong." But speaking out against crime would be the "correct" action. Infallibility does not ensure the latter action. Inerrancy does. It follows then that anything that has the quality of inerrancy would also be infallible, but being infallible does not guarantee inerrancy. The Scriptures themselves, handed on from God, with God as their author, are inerrant. The Church's discovery of the Canon is infallible, but not inerrant.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">That the Church infallibly discovered the Canon, the gift from God to her, does not mean that she <em>create[s] the Canon, or stand[s] above the Canon</em> as Swan says. But as the Catechism (86) quotes Dei Verbum, the Church <em><strong>is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. </strong>It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully</em>. (emphasis added) Just as Swan believes that God gives the Scriptures to the Church and guides her in discovering them, Catholics believe the same. The difference is that Catholics acknowledge that God does not fail in what He sets out to accomplish. Therefore, if God uses the Church to <em>provide a widespread knowledge of the Canon</em>, then a failure of the Church would mean that God failed. And that cannot happen.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Swan's final point, written as, <em>The Old Testament believer 50 years before Christ was born had a canon of Scripture, this despite the ruling from an infallible authority</em>, is a position stating that the Old Testament was set <strong>and known</strong> without an infallible organization. It is also an assertion of his conclusion (begging the question fallacy). The fallacy is not immediately apparent until after one understands what Swan means by the "Old Testament." What Swan considers as Old Testament Scriptures does not match what Catholics nor Orthodox consider to be the Old Testament.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">The Protestant Old Testament is basically the Masoretic Text (as translated into various languages of the world) with its "table of contents" set in the Jewish school set up after the destruction of the Temple. This school was set up in Jamnia and established a Jewish canon of the Old Testament which did not include the deuterocanonicals. This ruling came circa 90 AD – well into the Christian era. This is the canon to which Swan refers when he says "Old Testament."</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">However, history shows that there were more than one version of the Old Testament at the time. Most people are aware of the Septuagint, the Greek-language version of the Old Testament that was used by faithful Jews in the Diaspora. The archaeological findings at Qumran (the <em>Dead Sea Scrolls</em>) show that many of the books of the Old Testament found there do indeed match the Masoretic Text. Many also match the Septuagint. What is not widely known is that many of the scrolls found match neither the Masoretic Text nor the Septuagint, but are of a <strong>third</strong>, previously unknown, version of the Old Testament.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">However, assuming that the Masoretic Text is somehow the <strong>official</strong> Old Testament of the period (a best case scenario for Swan), there still exist difficulties which Swan must assume are absent. First, one must understand what the Masoretic Text actually is. It is more than just the Hebrew language, or original language, version of the Old Testament. When the Old Testament was written, it was written with consonants only. The vowels were left out. The Masoretic Text contains notes which essentially fill in the vowels by giving the words a pronunciation.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">What this means is that whoever provides the pronunciation – or fills in the vowels – does much more than provide an interpretation of the Scripture. They actually establish its definition! Let's use a modern day example. Suppose you were to read in a cookbook recipe the line, "pr th frt." You could reasonably say that this line means either, "pare the fruit," or "puree the fruit." Yet, these are two dramatically different meanings! </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Additionally, there is the historical fact that the Masoretic Text was not finalized until after 900 AD. During this time there were revisions; some minor, others major. For example, it has been asserted that the Masorite school changed Is 7:14 to use the word meaning "young girl" rather than "virgin" bearing a child as the prophecy. The assertion states that many of these changes were made to distance Judaism from Christianity.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Finally, different camps placed different levels of emphasis on the various books of the Old Testament. For example, the Sadducees believed that only the five books of Moses could be used as the infallible, inerrant word of God to be used as a means to settle disputes. When they question Jesus concerning the resurrection (a wife becomes widowed by seven brothers, so whose spouse will she be in the resurrection?), He first answers them by telling the Sadducees that they do not know Scripture (in Matthew and Mark). Upon telling them that they don't know Scripture, Jesus points back to the Pentateuch for his answer (in all three synoptic Gospels). He does not correct their lack of knowledge of Scripture by showing them that prophesies in Is 26:19 and Dan 12:2 are Scripture. Instead, he leaves the question unanswered and appeals to what they accept as Scripture.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">Thus, a good analysis of what the devout <em>believer 50 years before Christ</em> knew to be Scripture leaves you with no real answer. Which of the competing texts were used in this devout believer's community and by his rabbis? How were the vowels filled into the words to give them meaning by those rabbis when read to the community? What actual books did his teachers hold to be truly inerrant? Except for the highly educated, the devout Jew would only know what he was told by his teachers. And we see that <strong>through no fault of his own</strong>, that could result in many different understandings of what constituted Scripture. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">And as for the highly educated, well, Jesus told them that they didn't know the Scriptures. How could the average devout Jew of the time have the assurance of knowledge that Swan assumes?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">In conclusion, Swan makes some very good and valid points. The Church is not the master of the Scriptures, but instead receives them as a gift from God. The Scriptures do not derive their authority from the Church, the recipient of them, but instead from God Himself as both the author and the gift giver. And the Church knows the Scriptures because God, in the person of the Holy Spirit, has guided her to this knowledge. However, because Swan over-states the concept of infallibility, he leaves himself open to criticism that God was possibly ineffective in His Revelation to the Church. He supports this idea by comparing the reception of the New Testament to the reception of the Old Testament. But in making this comparison and using it as an example, he assumes that the ancient Jew would have known the Old Testament exactly as Swan does. But he cannot truly show this to be the case.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black; font-family: Arial;">May Christ, who reigns in Heaven with His Father, through the power of the Holy Spirit, lead us all to a better understanding of God's word in each and every day.</span>Paul Hofferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-11481358235237475922011-03-28T00:36:00.003-05:002011-03-28T00:47:56.929-05:00The Problem With Placing One’s Faith On a Pseudonymous Blogger Rather Than In a Visible Church (Interlude:Paralypsis vs. Poisoning the Well)Mr. Steve Hays, one of the denizens who lurk about on Triablogue, “The Black Hole of Christian<br />
Blogs” as my friend David Waltz calls it, attacked my recent posting pertaining to Turretinfan’s<br />
pseudonymity in an article captioned simply as <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2011/03/paralypsis.html"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;"><i>Paralypsis</i></span></span></a><i><span style="color: black;"></span></i><span style="color: black;">. I found it to be an interesting read as<br />
I am sure my readers will find, too. Mr. Hays’ words will be in green, my original statements<br />
from my article will be in blue and my additional personal commentary in red.</span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="color: lime;">Dave Armstrong hosted a guest post by hatchet man Paul Hoffer. The Problem With<br />
Placing One’s Faith On a Pseudonymous Blogger Rather Than In a Visible Church (Part<br />
I) (by Paul Hoffer)</span></div><br />
<span style="color: red;">I am honored to be lumped in with Dave Armstrong, who has been my friend since 1997, and I am not ashamed to admit it either. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">As for the characterization of me as a hatchet man, there are a number of possibilities here. He could be comparing me to a particular kind of soldier who served in the Revolutionary War-doubtful. I suppose it’s possible that he could be comparing me with Edward G. Robinson who was the title character in a great movie called <i>The Hatchet Man</i> (That movie also starred Lorretta Young, one of my favorite actresses)-again doubtful. Or perhaps he is thinking that I fire people for a living-sorry I have never fired a person in my life.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">More possibilities-maybe he thinks I am a member of a clandestine Tong clan using my Kung Fu skills to assassinate rival gang members-nope, I am not Chinese nor Dr. No’s alter ego. I have never killed anyone neither. Or maybe he has me confused with Charles Colson or H.R. Haldeman who carried out orders at the behest of President Nixon against political opponents-sorry, too young then. Or maybe in some sort of paranoid delusion he bought into the rhetoric of James White and believes me to operating on orders of Mother Rome sent to my handler, Dave Armstrong, and on this occasion, I have been tasked with destroying Turretinfan’s reputation. Frankly, out of the above possibilities, it is more likely that I am working for the Tong. </span><br />
<span style="color: red;"> </span><span style="color: green;"></span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="color: lime;">i) TFan doesn’t ask readers to put their faith in him. Rather, he argues for his positions,<br />
using reason, evidence, and Scripture.</span></div><br />
<span style="color: red;">This is of course an assertion made by Mr. Hays. Mr. Fan does ask his reader to place their faith in him that he will articulate accurately what Catholics believe when he is attacking Church teachings. Yet, as I have pointed out on my blog and elsewhere, Mr. Fan often gets the evidence wrong when it comes to the doctrines of Catholicism usually by misstating or omitting important aspects of Catholic doctrine when he is addressing a particular apologetic point. Thus, I would submit that placing one’s trust in Mr. Fan is a misplaced trust.</span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="color: lime;">ii) By the same token, it would be a mistake to put your faith in bloggers who are not<br />
anonymous or pseudonymous, like Paul Hoffer and Dave Armstrong. </span></div><br />
<span style="color: red;">This is a bald assertion, backed up by Mr. Hays’ emotional outburst as opposed to any evidence.</span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="color: lime;">iii) The Mormon church is a visible church. Should we put our faith in the Mormon<br />
church because it’s visible? </span></div><span style="color: red;">Unfortunately Mr. Hays, the Mormon “Church” is not a church, properly speaking using the Catholic vernacular. The Catholic Church does not even recognize the Church of Latter Day Saints as even truly Christian since it denies the Holy Trinity and the remission of original sin through baptism.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: lime;"> <span style="color: blue;">…and on an article posted by my friend, David Waltz...</span></span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="color: lime;">It’s ironic that a Catholic epologist like Hoffer would elicit the support of an<br />
anti-Trinitarian lapsed Catholic like Waltz.</span></div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><span style="color: red;">I was not aware that the Catholic Church in the present day bars devout Catholics from being friends with lapsed Catholics. Moreover, what David happens to believe right now is not relevant to our discussions since I was referring there to what some had written in the comm box to his article, not to David himself. Throwing red herrings does not make for a great refutation.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;"> <span style="color: blue;">…to the identity of Turretinfan, a pseudonymous blogger in the service of James White…</span><span style="color: lime;"></span></span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="color: lime;">TFan works with White, not for White. TFan had already established himself in the<br />
blogosphere before White invited him to join Alpha & Omega Ministries. Indeed, it’s<br />
because TFan had distinguished himself apart from that ministry that he was invited to<br />
join. </span></div><br />
<span style="color: red;">Of course, Mr. Fan is in the service of James White. He is pictured (in caricature) as a member of Mr. White’s team and even after only a cursory glance of the Alpha & Omega Ministries website reveals that White is the top dog, the big cheese, the grand poohbah of that outfit. Since Mr. Fan’s maintenance of pseudonymity prevents any sort of transparency there, there is only one conclusion, that Mr. Fan is offering διακονία there even if he is not an employee or underling of that ministry. </span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="color: lime;"><span style="color: blue;">Since some of those who commented on the above sites suggested that Mr. Fan is an<br />
Ohio attorney, and since some the accusations leveled against Mr. Fan implied that he<br />
may have violated some of the canons of the Ohio’s Code of Professional<br />
Responsibility…</span></span></div><br />
<span style="color: lime;"> Have they publicly recanted their scurrilous accusations?</span><br />
<span style="color: lime;"></span><br />
<span style="color: red;">I am not 100% sure which accusations he is referring to, the one that he is an attorney, that he is an attorney working for the Cleveland, Ohio law firm of Squire, Sanders & Dempsey LLP, or that his conduct with respect to others was unethical. However, one of the reasons that I wrote the article was to make it clear that he is not an Ohio attorney and that his conduct did not violate any provision of our Code of Professional Responsibility. The reader can take from that what they want to take from it. As to whether the individuals on the websites of Peter Lumpkins or David Waltz recanted their statements, I would suggest that Mr. Hays take it up with them. It is my understanding that those individuals are either Protestant or Muslim, not Catholic.</span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="color: blue;">…to see if I could learn the name of the individual who has caused scandal and<br />
consternation for so many, especially fellow Christians who do not share his<br />
blinkered-version of Calvinism.</span><span style="color: lime;"></span></div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="color: lime;">i) A classic example of straining gnats while swallowing dromedaries in one gulp. Hoffer<br />
belongs to a denomination with a spiraling scandal of clerical pederasty, yet he fixates on<br />
the trumped up “scandal” of anonymous blogging.</span></div><br />
<span style="color: red;">Here is where Mr. Hays’ irrational hatred of all things Catholicism blinds him to what I had written. If he had actually read my article, he would have seen that I made it clear that Mr. Fan has the legal right to write and to blog anonymously (actually in his case-pseudonymously). Further, I made it clear that there are morally licit grounds for him to do so from a Christian standpoint. I specifically noted that the proper thing to do was to interact with his writings rather than make a judgment about his character due to his blogging pseudonymously.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">Moreover as a tactic that he is noted for, Mr. Hays often raises the issue of clerical pederasty when treating with Catholic antagonists. He ignores or apparently doesn’t care that this is an issue that plagues Protestant denominations as well the Catholic Church and that statistics show that the percentages of those engaged in Protestant ministry who sexually offend against youth are around the same as those offend who are Catholic. The news media happens to focus on the scandal in the Catholic Church as opposed to that in various Protestant denominations because it is more salacious to report on Catholics sinning than on Protestants. </span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="color: blue;">(I offer this explanation before I go any further lest someone wishes to suggest that I was<br />
motivated from ill-will, malice or a desire for “pay-back” which typifies the modus<br />
operandi of so many of the modern-day disciples of the dead lawyer from Geneva.)</span></div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="color: lime;">i) Needless to say, if Hoffer were motivated by ill-will, malice or a desire for “pay-back,”<br />
we’d expect him to issue this preemptive disclaimer. Since when does someone<br />
motivated ill-will, malice or a desire for “pay-back” openly admit that he’s motivated by<br />
ill-will, malice or a desire for “pay-back”? So this calculated, self-serving disclaimer is<br />
worthless. </span></div><br />
<span style="color: red;">Of course, knowing how many Calvinists, like Mr. Hays, nurse a hatred of all Catholics would prevent them from accepting my motivations as honorable- hence the disclaimer. The fact he attributes dishonor and worthlessness to even that action demonstrates that my statements were downright prophetic.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="color: lime;">ii) Notice, moreover, the blanket smear regarding the modus operandi of so many<br />
Calvinists.</span></div><br />
<span style="color: red;">Since Mr. Hays, a Calvinist in outlook, engages here in that modus operandi by doubting my motivations demonstrates that my concerns had merit and not a smear at all. Please note, too, the qualifier of “many”.</span><br />
<span style="color: red;"> </span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="color: lime;"><span style="color: blue;">Further, I will state unequivocally no confidences have been betrayed nor have I used any<br />
secret legal resource in any manner to ferret out Mr. Fan’s mild-mannered alter ego</span>.</span></div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="color: lime;">Once again, if he had betrayed a confidence or resorted to secret legal resources, wouldn’t<br />
we expect him to issue a preemptive disclaimer to the contrary? He calls himself to the<br />
stand as a character witness for himself. The exercise is transparently and viciously<br />
circular.</span></div><br />
<span style="color: red;">I guess that if Mr. Hays can show that I have violated a confidence or resorted to accessing a secret legal resource, then his accusation would have legs. However, he does not. Instead, he makes an emotional appeal based on his bigoted outlook. In his eyes, because I am Catholic, I am presumed guilty unless I prove otherwise.</span><br />
<br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="color: lime;"><span style="color: blue;">Now before I discuss Mr. Fan’s real identity, I wanted to touch upon the whole premise of<br />
his choice of blogging pseudonymously. Personally, unless one is writing<br />
pseudonymously out of humility or out of obedience to the directives of a superior, I<br />
believe that one must be prepared to own one’s words. If I am not willing to sign my<br />
name to an opinion, then it is not worth publicizing. In order to own your words, you have<br />
to have the courage to stand behind them, to be accountable for what you say. As poor as<br />
my writing may be, I have never been afraid of putting my name to it or being held<br />
accountable for what I write.</span></span></div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="color: lime;">Is he accountable? I notice the conspicuous absence of contact information, either at the<br />
end of his post, or over at his own blog, which would enable readers to report him to his<br />
parish priest or diocesan bishop in case of misconduct. </span></div><br />
<span style="color: red;">Well Mr. Hays, your assertion is a false one as I do give my name, I make no secret of my occupation, and I list where I live at on my blog. Under my “Important Links” section, I list both my parish and the diocese where I live. (After it was pointed out in a comment he made in the comm box following his article that I did not specifically tell the world that the only church and the only diocese listed on my blog did not specifically state that they were my home parish and diocese, I did edit them to make it clear enough for even Mr. Hays.) BTW, I have green eyes, am 5'7", and sport no tatoos. My favorite dish is Cincinnati style Chili and I sing baritone. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">One wonders, too, of the hypocrisy in all of this. Mr. Hays does not hold the pseudonymous Mr. Fan to the standard he sets for me. Nowhere on Mr. Fan’s blog will anyone find his real name, his occupation, where he lives at, his actual denominational preference, the church he attends, or a link to his pastor in case of misconduct. For that matter, Mr. Hays does not hold himself to that standard either as he does not list his actual denominational preference, where he goes to church, a link to his pastor or even occupation or his address, unless the Klingon version of the afterlife is an actual address in the United States.</span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: lime;">By the same token, I notice that Armstrong hasn’t made that information publicly available either. Yet Armstrong is hosting a post about personal accountability. Hoffer and Armstrong pay lip-service to the accountability-system of the Roman church while they shield themselves from direct accountability to their religious superiors. If they have the courage to stand behind their words, why don’t they provide the contact information for their religious superiors in case a reader has a grievance to lodge with superiors over their conduct?</span></blockquote><br />
<span style="color: red;">Well Mr. Hays is 0 for 2 as Dave Armstrong does list his parish information as well on his blog. Look under the link captioned “</span><a href="http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/06/catalogue-index-about-me.html"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">About Me</span></span></a><span style="color: red;">”. BTW, this ridiculous argument is brilliantly answered by Dave Armstrong himself over at his </span><a href="http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2011/03/anti-catholic-polemicist-steve-hays.html"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="text-decoration: underline;">blog</span></span></a><span style="color: red;">. Read it if you want to double your pleasure, double your fun.</span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="color: blue;">Mr. Fan so long as I am not doing so out of malicious intent, have not breached<br />
confidences, and used legal means to ascertain his identity.</span><span style="color: lime;"></span></div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="color: lime;">Isn’t there something self-incriminating about the steady repetition of the same<br />
tendentious disclaimer? Why does he feel the need to keep assuring us of his stainless<br />
motives? It’s like a man who shows up at the police station, waving a newspaper in the<br />
face of the desk officer as he angrily proclaims his innocence, even though he was never<br />
named in the article as a suspect. Constant protestations of innocence before anyone even<br />
accused them of wrongdoing are not the way truly innocent men ordinarily conduct<br />
themselves.</span></div><br />
<span style="color: red;">What Mr. Hays here is complaining about is the fact that I write like an attorney, which by happenstance I am. He also forgets that I know how many Calvinist apologists treat Catholics these days. The fact that I feel I have to post prophylactic statements when dealing with people who hold themselves out as Christian is a sad commentary about folks like Mr. Hays who treat Catholics and others when engaging in apologetic endeavors so poorly. It is to his shame, not mine. </span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="color: blue;">…he has no expectation of privacy especially when he engages in speech that some<br />
consider to be abusive and un-Christian.</span><span style="color: lime;"></span></div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="color: lime;">Actually, Hoffer’s post, which is laced with mock solicitude, the better to sugarcoat<br />
malicious intent, is arguably abusive and unchristian.</span></div><br />
<span style="color: red;">Mr. Hays’ statement here is long on accusation but suffers from an acute paucity of evidence. </span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="color: blue;">Now if anyone has a reason to “out” him, I would have a good reason to do so. In 2007, I<br />
wrote an article stating my reasons for critiquing Professor White’s misuse of<br />
cross-examination after he made the scurrilous (and frankly actionable) claim that I had<br />
engaged in a form of taqiyya in service of the Catholic Church. Rather than seriously<br />
engaging the points I made, Mr. Fan chose to attack the article and myself by directing the<br />
reader to my suspension from the practice of law for several months in 1999 for failing to<br />
appropriately deal with a health condition that was seriously impacting my practice.</span><span style="color: lime;"></span></div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="color: lime;"> Hoffer has just given us a good reason to suspect that he’s motivated by a personal vendetta. Indeed, Hoffer’s whole post is an extended exercise in the rhetorical ad<br />
hominem device known as paralypsis. The speaker loftily denies that he will mention<br />
something, as if that would be beneath him, yet he incorporates what he’s not going to<br />
mention in the denial itself. “Far be it from me to point out that my esteemed colleague<br />
reportedly had sexual congress with a syphilic cow. I refuse to stoop to such<br />
ungentlemanly expedients.”</span></div><br />
<span style="color: red;">In rhetoric, another word for paralypsis is irony. An example of irony is Mr.Hays' own statement above. It’s ironic that Mr. Hays accuses me of paralypsis but ignores the fact that I do not mention the subject of my alleged paralyptic statements-Mr. Fan’s real name. Of course, in the eyes of Mr. Hays, the fact that I do not “out” Mr. Fan is besides the point. Further, Mr. Hays, himself, fails to mention to his reader that he exercising his own rhetorical strategem , the<em> ad hominem</em> device known as “poisoning the well.” He tells the reader how bad I am, then asks the reader to judge my conduct. In short, Mr. Hays dropped his “irony” on his own foot. </span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="color: blue;">Despite what he and his fellow contra-Catholic bloggers may think of us, we Catholic<br />
apologists are a far more honorable, a far more charitable, and dare I say it, a far more<br />
Christian breed than he and they would credit us. If anyone is going to reveal Mr. Fan’s<br />
name, let it be either himself or one of his Protestant brethren to do so.</span><span style="color: lime;"></span></div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="color: lime;">If, on the other hand, Hoffer’s motives were less than honorable, then we’d expect him to<br />
sugarcoat his dishonorable motives in a show of faux gallant oratory</span>.</div><br />
<span style="color: red;">Mr. Hays has yet to demonstrate that I have acted dishonorably towards Mr. Fan. It almost seems that Mr. Hays is disappointed I didn’t reveal Mr. Fan’s real name to the world. Since he can’t accuse me of doing that, he makes up something else to accuse me of-acting dishonorably by not revealing Turretinfan’s name. Mr. Hays does not engage in argument, but paranoia. </span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="color: blue;">No, I do not intend to “out” Mr. Fan. Returning unkindness with unkindness is not my<br />
way. Our Lord taught us a different way to return such conduct.</span><span style="color: lime;"></span></div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="color: lime;">Except that if he did intend to return unkindness for unkindness, we’d expect him to<br />
preface his vindictive agenda with preemptive disclaimers about his kindly motives.</span> </div><br />
<span style="color: red;">More of the same paranoia. Yawn...</span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><br />
</div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="color: blue;">No one should infer nefarious intent by not revealing his name. I am not withholding his<br />
name to coerce him or extract from him a promise not to attack the teachings of the<br />
Catholic Church.</span></div><br />
<span style="color: lime;"> Except that if he were issuing a veiled threat, we’d expect him to deny his true intentions. </span><br />
<div style="margin-left: 0.5in;"><span style="color: lime;">Because of the stumbling block of pseudonymity that Mr. Fan has placed in the path of<br />
fellow Christians, witness the many unkind words that some have uttered against his<br />
pseudonymity, more so than over the subject matter conveyed by his words themselves.</span></div><div style="margin-left: 0.5in; text-indent: -0.5in;"><span style="color: lime;"> As if Hoffer isn’t using the unkind words that “some” have uttered against TFan has a pretext to do the very same thing without acknowledgment. </span></div><br />
<span style="color: red;">I would ask the reader to re-read my article again to see if Mr. Hays has any validity. Search the article for veiled threats. You will find none. All you will find, if you had bother to actually read it with an unjaundiced eye, is an appeal for Christians to act charitably with each other when we engage in our apologetic exercises. Deal with the content of what one writes, not personally attack the writer, whether they be pseudonymous, anonymous or otherwise. It is a lesson, Mr. Hays, you need to start to adopt if you want to be taken seriously. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">In fact, Mr. Hays, ask Mr. Fan yourself if I have made any threats against him or sought to coerce him in any way. Moreover, read any of the comments I have made in the 14 years I have participated in apologetical discussions across the internet. The record is there in black and white. The record will show that I have been respectful in my dealings with others and have strived to “play fair” in my dealings with others when blogging. When I have erred or lost my temper, I have always apologized to the offended party-always. When Mr. White accused me of engaging in taqqiya when I questioned the manner in which he used cross-examination in debates, did I not offer an apology for judging his motives and them offered my reasons to counter his accusation of engaging in taqqiya? Yet, I have not seen nor heard any apology from Mr. White for judging my heart. Ask Mr. Swan how I conducted myself when discussing a the Catholic usage of a specific quote from Luther’s works, and if I did not share my findings both good and bad with him. I was more interested in uncovering the truth than defending a particular position. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">Prejudge me if you wish Mr. Hays, but know this-you will be reversed on appeal. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;"> <span style="color: lime;">Hoffer’s entire post is a study in the psychological dynamics of self-deception. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">Mr. Hays’ entire post is a study in paranoid anti-Catholic bigotry and illustrates how such bigotry is a pernicious stumbling block that hinders discussion of genuine issues that still separate us as Christian brethren.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">In light of the comments Mr Hays made above, I would ask the reader to consider saying a prayer<br />
or two for him. Here is one that I often say before commenting on other bloggers’ posts: </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">Keep us, O God, from all pettiness;<br />
let us be large in thought, in word, in deed.<br />
Let us be done with fault-finding<br />
and leave off all self-seeking.</span><br />
<span style="color: black;">May we put away all pretense and meet each other<br />
face-to-face without self-pity and without prejudice.<br />
May we never be hasty in judgment<br />
and always generous.<br />
<br />
Let us take time for all things,<br />
and make us to grow calm, serene, and gentle.<br />
Teach us to put into action our better impulses,<br />
straightforward and unafraid.<br />
<br />
Grant that we may realize that it is<br />
the little things of life that create differences,<br />
that in the big things of life, we are as one.<br />
<br />
And, O Lord, God, let us not forget to be kind!<br />
<br />
By Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotland, 1542-1587</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">God bless! </span>Paul Hofferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.com39tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-13292180722814387282011-03-20T16:53:00.000-05:002011-03-20T16:53:11.086-05:00The Problem With Placing One’s Faith On a Pseudonymous Blogger Rather Than In a Visible Church (Part I).<blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>✝ O My God, I firmly believe that You art one God in three Divine Persons, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; I believe that Your Divine Son became man, and died for our sins, and that He will come to judge the living and the dead. I believe these and all the truths which the Holy, Roman, Catholic and Apostolic Church believes and teaches, because You, the Infallible Truth, has revealed them, who can neither deceive nor be deceived.<br />
<br />
And in this holy faith I wish and pray to live and to die. Amen (A Version of the Traditional Catholic Act of Faith which I pray daily.)</blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>This past February, a number of folks commenting on an article captioned <a href="http://peterlumpkins.typepad.com/peter_lumpkins/2011/02/does-james-white-and-alpha-omega-ministries-embrace-misogyny-by-peter-lumpkins.html?cid=6a00d83451a37369e20147e2c20b1c970b#comment-6a00d83451a37369e20147e2c20b1c970b">Does James White and Alpha & Omega Ministries Embrace Misogyny?</a> posted on a blog called <em>SBC Tomorrow</em> maintained by the Reverend Peter Lumpkins, a Baptist Minister, and on an article posted by my friend, David Waltz, entitled <a href="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2011/02/secretive-turretinfan-continues-his.html">The secretive “Turretinfan” continues his censorship tactics</a> on his blog, <em>Articuli Fidei,</em> left clues as to the identity of Turretinfan, a pseudonymous blogger in the service of James White, an anti-Catholic controversialist who is the principal behind the Reformed apologetics ministry called Alpha & Omega Ministries. Since some of those who commented on the above sites suggested that Mr. Fan is an Ohio attorney, and since some the accusations leveled against Mr. Fan implied that he may have violated some of the canons of the Ohio’s Code of Professional Responsibility to which I likewise am bound to follow, and since I am bound by an oath to report violations of that Code of Professional Conduct, I decided that I was obligated to make further inquiry and sought to use the clues left on these websites as well as other information garnered over the years of interacting with Mr. Fan to see if I could learn the name of the individual who has caused scandal and consternation for so many, especially fellow Christians who do not share his blinkered-version of Calvinism. (I offer this explanation before I go any further lest someone wishes to suggest that I was motivated from ill-will, malice or a desire for “pay-back” which typifies the modus operandi of so many of the modern-day disciples of the dead lawyer from Geneva.) <br />
<br />
Sure enough, using the aforementioned information as well as other documentation publically available on the internet, I was soon able to determine to a quantum of proof what practitioners of the legal arts would call “clear and convincing” the true identity of the man known as Turretinfan. <br />
<br />
In doing so, I will state unequivocally that the information I used can be found on publically accessible databases on the internet if one knows where to look and how to research. Further, I will state unequivocally no confidences have been betrayed nor have I used any secret legal resource in any manner to ferret out Mr. Fan’s mild-mannered alter ego. That said, I would note that some of the most invaluable corroboration in regards to Turretinfan’s real world name comes from comments strewn about the internet written by John Bugay, a lapsed Catholic <em>cum</em> Presbyterian polemicist, and Reverend David T. King, an Orthodox Presbyterian minister and pastor located in Elkton, Md., which “sealed the deal” so-to-speak (a triple-crowned tiara ht to you both).<br />
<br />
As of this date, I could tell the reader the real name of the person hiding behind the <em>nom de guerre</em> “Turretinfan”, his employer, the schools he went to and the degrees he earned, the church he attends and where he lives at. Based on the available evidence and the inferences that can drawn therefrom, I can safely tell the reader that Mr. Fan is not an Ohio attorney nor does he work in Cleveland, Ohio. Thus, as far as I am concerned, I believe I have satisfied my ethical responsibilities in regards to my chosen profession.<br />
<br />
Now before I discuss Mr. Fan’s real identity, I wanted to touch upon the whole premise of his choice of blogging pseudonymously. Personally, unless one is writing pseudonymously out of humility or out of obedience to the directives of a superior, I believe that one must be prepared to own one’s words. If I am not willing to sign my name to an opinion, then it is not worth publicizing. In order to own your words, you have to have the courage to stand behind them, to be accountable for what you say. As poor as my writing may be, I have never been afraid of putting my name to it or being held accountable for what I write. However, that is my personal preference. <br />
<br />
The fact is that although many look upon anonymity as the last refuge of scoundrels, throughout our shared American history we have respected and protected the right to speak anonymously, a right firmly rooted in the guarantee of freedom of speech provided in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, to wit: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of their grievances.</blockquote>The famous jurist, Benjamin Cardozo, once said, freedom of speech and thought is “the matrix, the indispensable condition, of nearly every other form of freedom.” An inherent aspect of that freedom is the right to anonymity which is also a function of freedom of association. While anonymity may help one to avoid responsibility or accountability for the content of one’s speech, it also reduces the possibility of identification and fear of reprisal for those engaging in legitimate, but unpopular speech. Anonymity also provides a way for a writer who may be personally unpopular to ensure that readers will not prejudge his message simply because they do not like its proponent. <br />
<br />
For example, Charles Carroll, a Catholic and one of our country’s founding fathers and a signer of the Declaration of Independence, wrote under the pseudonym “First Citizen” to lend a powerful voice for the cause of independence from Great Britain and to challenge oppression of Catholics in Maryland because prior to the American Revolution, both Maryland and British law prohibited Catholics from entering the legal profession or engaging in politics. Thomas Paine and Samuel Adams also wrote using pseudonyms to advance the cause of independence. After the war, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, under the collective pseudonym, "Publius," wrote a series of essays, known as "The Federalist Papers", in their successful campaign to obtain the ratification of the American Constitution. During the Civil War, several individuals known as “Copperheads” used pseudonyms in the North to advocate against Abraham Lincoln’s policies and his suspension of <em>habeas corpus</em>. Later, in the past century, American courts have recognized the right to engage in anonymous speech has been extended to members of unions, radical political groups, as well as civil rights activists. As noted by the Supreme Court in the case of <em>Talley vs. California</em>, 362 U.S. 60 (1960): <br />
<blockquote>Anonymous pamphlets, leaflets, brochures, and even books have played an important role in the progress of mankind. Persecuted groups and sects from time to time throughout history have been able to criticize oppressive practices and laws either anonymously or not at all.</blockquote>Despite occasional dissent, anonymous communication in our society has been traditionally regarded as sacrosanct. So much so that even when the anonymous writer publishes or otherwise disseminates perceived untruths, such is not a ground for violating this aspect of the right of free speech unless such constitutes either criminal or tortious conduct. Thus, no matter how distasteful one may find their speech, the members of the Klu Klux Klan have the right to wear hoods to protect their anonymity. Similarly, as long as he operates within the boundaries of the law, no matter how distasteful one may find the content of Mr. Fan’s writing, he has the right to use a pseudonym to do so. (N.B. I am not comparing the two for the record.) <br />
<br />
Now one may interpose an objection at this juncture and point out that Mr. Fan’s apologetical endeavors do not constitute political or social activism. I would respond that religious speech is still speech entitled to constitutional protection. Witness the recent Supreme Court <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-751.pdf">decision</a> of <em>Snyder vs Phelps</em>, 562 U.S. ____ (2011).<br />
<br />
Despite America’ history of respecting anonymous speech, nothing that I have referenced suggests that Mr. Fan’s secret identity must remain secret. Legally speaking, I too have free speech rights and that right includes the right to “out” Mr. Fan so long as I am not doing so out of malicious intent, have not breached confidences, and used legal means to ascertain his identity. Since Mr. Fan operates in the marketplace of ideas and since he chooses to engage in public discourse, he has no expectation of privacy especially when he engages in speech that some consider to be abusive and un-Christian. <br />
<br />
Now if anyone has a reason to “out” him, I would have a good reason to do so. In 2007, I wrote an <a href="http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/11/defense-of-my-opinion-on-james-whites.html">article </a>stating my reasons for critiquing Professor White’s misuse of cross-examination after he made the scurrilous (and frankly actionable) claim that I had engaged in a form of taqiyya in service of the Catholic Church. Rather than seriously engaging the points I made, Mr. Fan chose to <a href="http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2007/11/style-over-substance-really.html">attack</a> the article and myself by directing the reader to my suspension from the practice of law for several months in 1999 for failing to appropriately deal with a health condition that was seriously impacting my practice. Hardly cricket in anyone’s book.<br />
<br />
Yet, for reasons that I shall make clear shortly, I do not intend to “out” Mr. Fan. His real name, known to myself and to a few select friends whom I choose not to disclose, will remain a secret for another day. Despite what he and his fellow contra-Catholic bloggers may think of us, we Catholic apologists are a far more honorable, a far more charitable, and dare I say it, a far more Christian breed than he and they would credit us. If anyone is going to reveal Mr. Fan’s name, let it be either himself or one of his Protestant brethren to do so. <br />
<br />
No, I do not intend to “out” Mr. Fan. Returning unkindness with unkindness is not my way. Our Lord taught us a different way to return such conduct. The faith I place in the teachings of my Church requires that I offer a Catholic response, not the Calvinist one. As Jesus Christ, Our Lord and Savior taught us:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>“But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless<br />
those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.” (Luke 6:27-28)</blockquote>St. Paul furthers teaches us in 1 Cor. 3:12-13:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>“Put on then, as God's chosen ones, holy and beloved, heartfelt compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, bearing with one another and forgiving one another, if one has a grievance against another; as the Lord has forgiven you, so must you also do.”</blockquote>And here:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>“See that no one returns evil for evil; rather, always seek what is good (both) for each other and for all.” (1 Thess. 5:15)</blockquote>And here:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>“Do not repay anyone evil for evil; be concerned for what is noble in the sight of all. If possible, on your part, live at peace with all. Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." Rather, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head." Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good.” (Rom. 12:17-21)</blockquote>And as St. Peter writes:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>“Do not return evil for evil, or insult for insult; but, on the contrary, a blessing, because to this you were called, that you might inherit a blessing.” (1 Peter 3:9)</blockquote>I would ask the reader to take note that the above Scripture passages do not make exception of pseudonymous bloggers who may have wronged me in the past.<br />
<br />
Let me be clear: I do not intend to provide the reader with Mr. Fan’s real name. I choose not to do so out of Christian charity and out of faith and obedience to the teachings of the Church I live and have faith in which Mr. Fan is so wont to daily denigrate. No one should infer nefarious intent by not revealing his name. I am not withholding his name to coerce him or extract from him a promise not to attack the teachings of the Catholic Church. He is not beholden to me in any way whatsoever. Whether he or any of his cohort choose to attack me for writing this article or reveal any of my “secrets” out of retaliation or to embarrass me, this is to their shame, not mine. My faults, my failings, my weaknesses (which are many to be sure) are well-known to me, My Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, my friends and my loved ones. Airing them in public would only cheapen and coarsen rather than enhance discourse and give proof to the assertions that some make against Mr. Fan and his companions in arms.<br />
<br />
Now the reader may interpose here one more objection: just because Mr. Fan can blog anonymously doesn’t mean he should or as Gilbert Keith Chesterton, the great Catholic lay apologist wrote, “To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it.” Just because one has the right to be anonymous or pseudonymous when exercising one’s free speech rights does not make it righteous to do so. Perhaps the best reason why it is not righteous for someone to opine on matters involving apologetics anonymously is the tendency to treat others unkindly or cruelly. Since the advent of the internet, the psychological phenomena of disinhibition has been increasingly been observed among anonymous or pseudonymous bloggers. When a person exercises the freedom of writing anonymously without accountability or the fear of public pressure or negative feedback, it tends to dispose one to acting irresponsibly and uncharitably towards one’s neighbors and saying things that one would not otherwise say to someone’s face. <br />
<br />
In light of that potential to give offense to one’s neighbors, one must constantly reflect on why they are choosing to write under pseudonymously. Aside from laws against defamation, there are virtually no laws, regulations or covenants that regulate and restrain the content of a blogger’s website. The only restraint practically speaking is one’s own personal ethical standards. If one’s ethical standard is not the “golden rule” or if one does not constantly refer to that standard in dealing with others, let alone adhere to it, then one invariably begins to put stumblingblocks or hindrances in the path of others that cause them to sin. (cf. Luke 17:1-2; Romans 14:13) Because of the stumblingblock of pseudonymity that Mr. Fan has placed in the path of fellow Christians, witness the many unkind words that some have uttered against his pseudonymity, more so than over the subject matter conveyed by his words themselves. <br />
<br />
Furthermore, while one could construct a large number of rationales why one is choosing to be pseudonymous in their dealings with others, the validity of such rationales rests with the individual. Only the anonymous one (TAO for short) knows in their heart for what purpose he or she is hiding beneath the cloak of anonymity. Is TAO acting out humility or out of selfishness? Is TAO using anonymity as a shield to avoid the limelight forcing the reader to focus on the message as opposed to the messenger or as a sword to attack others personally and avoid accountability? Is TAO protecting his family or loved ones from possible retribution or merely protecting his own personal economic interests? Only Turretinfan knows whether his decision to blog using a pseudonym is righteous or not. <br />
<br />
In this particular case, we do not have the ability to read what is in Mr. Fan’s heart. We can only speculate as to whether he is acting licitly or illicitly. And to echo the Blessed Teresa of Calcutta, I would rather err out of kindness than work miracles in unkindness and give Mr. Fan the benefit of the doubt as to the legitimacy of his choosing to write pseudonymously in his apologetic dealings with those who do not agree with his flavor of Calvinism. <br />
<br />
That said, “outing” a pseudonymous blogger who often gets it wrong on what the Catholic Church teaches is not the answer. The remedy for correcting such errors or to respond to such objectionable speech is not to damage such an opponent personally. Rather, the Christian remedy is to oppose such speech by offering the reason for our hope, to provide correction, and to offer as cogent and coherent refutation of the offending notions as well as one is able to do.<br />
<br />
In the second part of this article which will be posted in the next day or two, I shall endeavor to bring my poor talents to bear and attempt to refute some erroneous things that Mr. Fan wrote an article entitled, <a href="http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2011/02/i-cant-do-it-perfectly-so-i-wont-even.html">I Can't Do it Perfectly, So I Won't Even Try!</a> against the Catholic Church, particularly his misuse of the term “implicit faith” in describing the sort of faith that Catholics place in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.<br />
In the meantime, I would ask the reader to pray for Turretinfan, for myself and all Christian apologists, whether they be Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox, that we all continue to receive the graces of wisdom and eloquence to defend our shared faith in the Holy Trinity-Father, Son and Holy Spirit.<br />
<br />
God bless!<br />
<br />
<blockquote><blockquote>O ineffable Creator, Who, out of the treasure of Thy wisdom, hast ordained three hierarchies of Angels, and placed them in wonderful order above the heavens, and hast most wisely distributed the parts of the world; Thou, Who are called the true fountain of light and wisdom, and the highest beginning, vouchsafe to pour upon the darkness of my understanding, in which I was born, the double beam of Thy brightness, removing from me all darkness of sin and ignorance. Thou, Who makest eloquent the tongue of the dumb, instruct my tongue, and pour on my lips the grace of Thy blessing. Give me quickness of understanding, capacity of retaining, subtlety of interpreting, facility in learning, and copious grace of speaking. Guide my going in, direct my going forward, accomplish my going forth; through Christ our Lord. Amen. <em>A Prayer composed by St. Thomas Aquinas.</em></blockquote></blockquote>Paul Hofferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-30480559107239055002011-01-01T17:15:00.000-05:002011-01-01T17:15:29.260-05:00A Public Service Announcement Against Pepsico's Intended BlasphemyHello All,<br />
<br />
I was recently apprized of an advertisement by Pepsico intends to run during the Super Bowl that mocks the Holy Eucharist. Here is the link to the <a href="http://amcatholic.wordpress.com/2010/12/31/feed-your-flock-superbowl-ad/">story</a>. Please write Pepsico to voice your disgust at such blasphemy.<br />
<br />
God bless!Paul Hofferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-32949598231146961762010-10-04T00:56:00.001-05:002010-10-04T07:42:30.426-05:00Ubi episcopus, ibi ecclesia: An Interaction with Chapter 41 of the Reverend Peter Lampe’s Book, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians in Rome in the First Two Centuries.<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><em>But how can they call on him in whom they have not believed? </em></div><div style="text-align: center;"><em>And how can they believe in him of whom they have not heard? </em></div><div style="text-align: center;"><em>And how can they hear without someone to preach? </em></div><div style="text-align: center;"><em>And how can people preach unless they are sent? </em></div><div style="text-align: center;"><em>As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who bring</em></div><div style="text-align: center;"><em> (the) good news!</em> (Rom. 10:14-15).</div><br />
<strong>I. Introduction.</strong><br />
<br />
✝ <em>Dear Lord, Grant to me keenness of mind, capacity to remember, skill in learning, subtlety to interpret, and eloquence to express my thoughts. Amen.</em> (Prayer taken from the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas with slight modification).<br />
<br />
Over the last couple of years, John Bugay, a fallen away Catholic, has been using the name of Peter Lampe, a Lutheran theologian and scholar, against Catholic apologists as often as Romanian witches use talismans to curse their victims. Recently, Mr. Bugay used this Lampesian talisman against myself (<a href="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/09/on-trusting-your-own-eyes-and-your-own.html">here</a>, <a href="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/09/objection-your-dishonor.html">here</a>, and <a href="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/08/clear-picture-of-christian-house-church.html">here</a>), my friend, <a href="http://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2010/08/john-bugays-latest-response.html">David Waltz</a> and fellow Catholic, Sean Patrick, one of the stalwarts at <a href="http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/09/modern-scholarship-rome-and-a-challenge/#comment-11174">Called to Communion</a> not to mention over on David Armstrong’s popular website, <a href="http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2010/06/myth-of-multiple-millions-supposedly.html">Biblical Evidence for Catholicism</a>. In my case, Mr. Bugay saw fit to challenge me in a <a href="http://capriciousness.blogspot.com/2010/08/doing-callixtus-calypso-with-john-bugay.html?showComment=1283368380083#c7354494957242577376">comm-box</a> to interact with Chapter 41 from Lampe’s book, <em>From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries</em>. Minneapolis: Fortress Press (2003), after I deconstructed Mr. Bugay’s misuse of quotes from Lampe’s book to attack the Catholic teaching on annulment which advances the following hypothesis: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>The fractionation in Rome favored a collegial presbyterial system of governance and prevented for a long time, until the second half of the second century, the development of a monarchical episcopacy in the city. Victor ( c.. 189-99) was the first who, after faint-hearted attempts by Eleutherus ( c. 175-89), Soter ( c. 166-75), and Anicetus ( c. 155-66), energetically stepped forward as monarchical bishop and (at times, only because he was incited from the outside) attempted to place the different groups in the city under his supervision or, where that was not possible, to draw a line by means of excommunication. Before the second half of the second century there was in Rome no monarchical episcopacy for the circles mutually bound in fellowship (Pg. 397).</blockquote>Mr. Bugay does not suggest how I should interact with Chapter 41 of Lampe’s book. However, from skimming the various occasions that Mr. Bugay has cited Lampe across the internet and on the <a href="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/search/label/Peter%20Lampe">Beggars All website</a> that he posts on, it would appear that Mr. Bugay feels that Lampe’s book, an expansion of a sociology paper he wrote in graduate school, somehow refutes Catholic doctrine that the Bishops of Rome are the successors of St. Peter because, according to Lampe, there was no monarchical bishop for the Church at Rome until the latter half of the second century. On this basis, I will interact with Lampe’s book. Before doing so, I must offer the following necessary caveats:<br />
<blockquote>1. I do not claim the mantle of a scholar nor do I play one on television. Thus, the reader should expect my analysis (if my rambles may be so considered) of Lampe’s work to be “all over the map” as one Protestant polemicist recently wrote about my style. I do not hope to refute Lampe’s work head-on because to put it bluntly, I do not have time or resources to do so and, perhaps more importantly in my view, there is little to disagree with up to part where he offers his conclusions based on the inferences he draws from the evidence he considers in the fifth part of his book. Rather, I intend to offer more modest fare-that is I intend to interpose a series of objections along with the grounds upon which I interpose such which will be more in line with my personal training as a meat-and-potatoes-type trial lawyer as opposed to anything that smacks of a systemic philosophical or scientific approach. That said, I do have an undergraduate degree in political science which essentially boils down to a study of how people wield and apportion authority in the context of governing themselves. Thus, while I do not have the alphabet soup before and after my name that Lampe sports, my particular educational background does offer me a slight measure of grounding on what to look for in analyzing the systems that Roman church put into place to govern itself.</blockquote><blockquote>2. I would note in passing that I seriously question the utility or the propriety of using an inductive scientific or sociological methodology to determine a question that is fundamentally a matter of faith. It is not the Catholic way of evaluating theological matters and I do not intend to stray to far from the path that Catholics should use in considering doctrinal matters. One’s faith in the doctrines and teaching of the Catholic Church shapes the inquiry rather than is shaped by the outcomes of such inquiry. I will explain this further later. </blockquote><blockquote>3. I am a lay Catholic writing here as a part of my lay apostolate. Nothing I write here should be considered as a part of the magisterial authority of what the Church holds and teaches, although I will zealously try to set before the reader in a persuasive manner my understanding of what the Church does permit its adherents to hold and profess and still call themselves Catholic. Please accept my apologies beforehand if I am not able to express the position of the Catholic Church accurately and definitively to the reader’s satisfaction. I would ask that you ascribe such failure to my personal limitations and not lay my deficiencies and failures at the feet of the Bride of Christ, the Catholic Church. On the other hand, if the reader is edified and finds anything that I write here to be laudatory, please ascribe such to the Author rather than this most humble and useless of His styluses.</blockquote><blockquote>4. Nothing I write here should be considered as a criticism of Mr. Bugay’s character or of his integrity. I am addressing his opinions, conclusions, and arguments. I am assuredly not passing judgment on him as a person. Accordingly, interact with the material, not with the personalities. As it is, issues involving the papacy tend to annoy Protestants as much as deer flies annoy a moose. Unnecessary adjectives attached to people’s names or character will annoy unduly and detract rather than offer anything of benefit to the aims of discourse<strong>. I warn the reader in advance that this will be the first post that I will exercise my right to moderate comments if anyone takes the time to do so</strong>. If someone elsewhere chooses to attack me personally over this, I would have it be an occasion of shame to them rather than to me. <br />
<br />
5. At the end of this paper, I will provide the reader with a bibliography of the sources I drew upon in formulating my responses herein. I urge the reader to read these sources for themselves and draw their own conclusions on the soundness of what I write. However, nothing I write here should be construed or taken as an indication or suggestion that I disagree in any way, shape, or form with the<em> de fide</em> teachings of the Catholic Church and upon being shown that I have written anything that could be construed as such, I will correct same immediately. I would note though that I do not intend to withhold criticism of some of the positions certain Catholic scholars advance that are antithetical to the teachings of the Catholic Church.</blockquote><br />
<strong>PART ONE: A Book Review</strong> <br />
<br />
Now before I get started on addressing the stated hypothesis of Mr. Bugay that the Bishops of Rome are not the successors of St. Peter for which he relies upon <em>From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries</em> as evidence, I will offer this short review of the book itself in case that was what Mr. Bugay was actually looking for when he asked me to interact with it. <br />
<br />
From a Catholic layman’s perspective, Lampe’s book is an exemplar, good or ill, of how liberal Protestant and Catholic theologians apply modern-day social constructionist theories to endeavors touching upon theological subjects. Using a methodology that presupposes that archeology and secular history take precedence over Biblical historicity, Lampe’s notions mirror those of many of the Christian ecumenicists that litter the landscape these days minimizing the biblical basis for the authority of bishops and the importance of apostolic succession and for me are just as about as persuasive. Frankly, one could learn as much about the social conditions from whence the Church in Rome grew out of reading the historical novels, <em>The Robe</em> or <em>Quo Vadis</em>, or watching the large screen adaptations of same on DVD as from reading Lampe’s book and reading or watching same would be a tad less tedious. I do not expect Lampe’s book to be turned into a movie. <br />
<br />
That said, as a scholarly endeavor, it is admirable how Lampe sorts through various groups of evidence to paint a more fuller picture of how early Christians lived, but like similar scientific endeavors, it overemphasizes how social interactions shape religious belief, but minimizes or even trivializes how religious belief shapes social interactions. One example of this is found on page 383 of the book. For Lampe, orthodoxy of religious views of Romans Christians in the first and second century are the result of social background and education of the majority of the Roman adherents at that time, thus making what was to be believed more of a majority decision than whether the beliefs that had been transmitted and taught (<em>paradosis</em>) and were truly apostolic in nature or not. <br />
<br />
Additionally, the Reverend Lampe’s book is definitely not for laymen as he does not attempt to define important terminology. Terms, such as “monarchical episcopacy” and “fractionation,” are not defined. Lampe presupposes that his audience knows of these things, and perhaps they do, but since the book was made available to the general public, he should have foreseen that amateur Protestant apologists would misuse his work to attack Catholic doctrine and defining terms would have prevented such apologists from erroneously attempting to make square-blocked conclusions fit into round-hole arguments.<br />
<br />
Another problem as I see it, is that Lampe ignores the catholicity of the Catholic Church in the first and second centuries AD. Because he used inductive reasoning as opposed to deductive analysis, that is arguing from the specific to the general instead of from the general to the specific, he ignores or understates the import of the wider pool of Christian and non-Christian sources. His sparse interaction with the Scriptures, the <em>Didache </em>and St. Ignatius of Antioch’s letters to the other churches besides Rome on the issue of the authority of the leaders of the Church seems to me designed to limit the definition of bishop to that of an anachronism that equates the term bishop to mean a single person having jurisdiction over the church in one geographical area (I will expand on this argument further). To be fair, this may be more of a quibble with how Mr. Bugay uses Lampe’s claim as opposed to the work itself. However, I would note that when Mr. Bugay is making his argument against the papacy, he often makes sure to let the reader know that the Reverend Lampe dissented from a joint Catholic/Lutheran understanding on justification so as to lead the reader to the conclusion that the Reverend Lampe’s argument is contra-Catholic just like his.<br />
<br />
Finally, the biggest flaw I see in the Reverend Lampe’s book is his dismissal of the historicity of the succession lists of Hegesippus, Irenaeus and Eusebius as “fictive constructions” (Pg. 406) which smacks more of wishful thinking than any actual argument. While the reader of today find such lists as contained in the Bible to be boring verbiage to be skipped over during most systemic devotional reading, such lists to ancient peoples were powerful pieces of evidence and served as important testimony to the validity and credibility to the witness being given by the inspired writers that Jesus was both the Messiah and the Son of God (Mt. 1:1-17; Luke 3:23-38). The succession lists of Hegesippus, Irenaeus and Eusebius held similar evidentiary value for the early Church in combating the Gnostic heresies. If these lists were fictive accounts as Lampe opines (based on embarrassingly little evidence), the Gnostic leaders would have easily been able to exploit the falsity of such and would have used their falsity of such lists to counter the credibility such lists gave to the arguments of Irenaeus and Hegesippus on how apostolic succession ensured the orthodoxy and truth of the doctrines held by the Catholic Church. Further, given that less than a hundred years transpired between the age of the apostles and the rise of the gnostic heresiarchs, Marcion (140 AD) and Valentinus (160AD), there should have probably been at least some individuals alive during those times who would have known and/or remembered whether Linus, Anencletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander, Xystus, Telesphorus, Hyginus, Pius, Anicetus, and Soter, all of whom were listed by Irenaeus as the successors of Peter in his treatise <em>Adversus Haereticos</em> 3:3 before Eleutherus became the Bishop of Rome in 175 AD, were truly the Bishops of Rome or not. Apparently, either Marcion, Valentinus and their followers never thought to ask any of those folks or perhaps the heretical groups did not dispute the succession lists because most likely they happened to be true and accurate historically. As an attorney who understands the notion of <em>onus probandi,</em> it much more probable that the latter is true. Unfortunately, the Reverend Lampe does not share with us why we should consider his conclusions more trustworthy than the paucity of objections to these “fictive” bishops by their Gnostic opponents. Reliance on an argument from silence in the manner that Lampe does is not as persuasive as he would like the reader to believe and in my view does not meet the burden of proof to show that Irenaeus, Hegesippus and Eusebius were liars. <br />
<br />
I will acknowledge that Rev. Lampe makes an argument that is similar to some Catholic writers. Moreover, I am certain that Reverend Lampe never intended his work to be misused as a polemic weapon by American Protestant e-pologists against their Catholic foemen as the work was more in nature of a historical survey designed to encourage other scholars to conduct more intense studies on the issues he raised therein. And for what it is worth, I found many of the conclusions he made on social stratification and status of the early Christians to be both highly informative and corroborative of other works that I had read on the subject. That being said, I found Bernard Green’s <em>Christianity in Ancient Rome: The First Three Centuries</em> [London: T & T Clark International (2010)] and Fr. William Moran’s doctoral thesis, <em>The Government of the Church in the First Century [</em>NY: Benziger Brothers (1913)] provided more insightful and in-depth treatment of the issues for which Mr. Bugay is artlessly using <em>From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries</em>. <br />
<br />
In closing, <em>From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries </em>is a book that I would check out of the library or even purchase it if I came across it at a thrift store, but it is not one that I spend my money to purchase new.<br />
<br />
I will try to have the rest of my argument up later this week. God bless!<br />
<br />
Posted on the Memorial of St. Francis of Assisi, 2010.Paul Hofferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.com14tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-36715769805885955262010-09-26T08:21:00.002-05:002010-09-27T10:09:36.421-05:00Revealing the Mystery Behind the MagisteriumThis post started out as a quick response to something that Mr. Fan wrote about my friend, fellow Catholic, and apologist, Matthew Bellisario, in an article <em><a href="http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/09/bellisario-swings-and-misses.html">Bellisario Swings and Misses</a></em> after Mr. Bellisario criticized Mr. Fan’s article entitled, <em><a href="http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/09/test-case-of-infallible-magisterium.html">Test Case of the Infallible Magisterium: Ordination of Women</a></em> in an article posted on his Catholic Champion blog captioned <em><a href="file:///p://catholicchampion.blogspot.com/2010/09/another-experton-catholicism.html">Another “Expert” on Catholicism Misrepresents Church Teaching.</a></em> After trying to keep track of the all the articles, the various positions taken by Messrs. Fan, Bellisario, and the individuals who left comments, and writing this out, it turned into something a bit more expansive than a comment. <br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">Leaving aside the digressions on the use of certain forms of rhetoric to persuade, I thought I would focus on the issues presented by Mr. Fan on his speculations over the possibility of whether some future pope could determine that a teaching of the ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church that was considered infallibly held is not actually an infallible teaching because it was not formally defined and to address the particular matter that led to his speculations~the Catholic Church’s teaching with respect to the ordination of women to the priesthood.</span> <br />
<br />
TF stated:<br />
<blockquote>The document itself is not an exercise of papal infallibility. The document merely alleges that the teaching is something "set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium." But this document itself is not the ordinary and universal Magisterium. This document is fallible.<br />
<br />
So it is possible (whether or not it is likely), that some future pope's prefect may decide that Ratzinger erred. The practice of non-ordination of women is just something culturally conditioned and a long-standing discipline ... and hey-presto, this document ceases to have any authoritative weight against the new document.</blockquote>This post will attempt to answer Mr. Fan's objection and clear up any misunderstanding on how doctrine taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium can be infallibly held. To provide some context, here is the letter that he was referring to in its entirety:<br />
<blockquote><br />
COVER LETTER TO BISHOPS' CONFERENCE PRESIDENTS <br />
<br />
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger <br />
<br />
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
November 8, 1995<br />
<br />
The publication in May 1994 of the apostolic letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis was followed by a number of problematic and negative statements by certain theologians, organizations of priests and religious, as well as some associations of lay people. These reactions attempted to cast doubt on the definitive character of the letter's teaching on the inadmissibility of women to the ministerial priesthood and also questioned whether this teaching belonged to the deposit of the faith.<br />
<br />
This congregation therefore has judged it necessary to dispel the doubts and reservations that have arisen by issuing a responsum ad dubium, which the Holy Father has approved and ordered to be published (cf. enclosure).<br />
<br />
In asking you to bring this responsum to the attention of the bishops of your episcopal conference before its official publication, this dicastery is confident that the conference itself, as well as the individual bishops, will do everything possible to ensure its distribution and favorable reception, taking particular care that, above all on the part of theologians, pastors of souls and religious, ambiguous and contrary positions will not again be proposed.</blockquote><blockquote>The text of the responsum is to remain confidential until the date of its publication in L'Osservatore Romano, which is expected to be the 18th of November.<br />
<br />
With gratitude for your assistance and with prayerful best wishes I remain,<br />
<br />
Sincerely Yours in Christ,<br />
<br />
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger</blockquote>Mr. Fan's comments suggest that the above cover letter is not a document constituting an example of a doctrine infallibly defined by the pope. True, but that does not decide the question. Here is the <em>responsum ad dubium</em> which in conjunction with Pope John Paul II’s <em><a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_letters/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_22051994_ordinatio-sacerdotalis_en.html">Ordinatio Sacerdotalis</a></em> does CONFIRM an infallible doctrine that already has been established by the ordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>Responsum ad Dubium<br />
<br />
10/28/1995<br />
<br />
Concerning the Teaching Contained in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis <br />
<br />
--------------------------------------------------------<br />
<br />
Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith<br />
<br />
Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.<br />
<br />
Responsum: In the affirmative.<br />
<br />
This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith. The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the ordinary session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published. Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.<br />
<br />
+ Joseph Card. Ratzinger<br />
Prefect<br />
<br />
+ Tarcisio Bertone<br />
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli<br />
<br />
Secretary<br />
1/21/95<br />
<br />
(<a href="http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFRESPO.HTM">Source</a>)</blockquote>Turretinfan’s article states that he has difficulty with how a non-fallible document can state that a doctrine is infallibly established. Such is understandable as Calvinist apologists most often wrestle over Catholic dogmas infallibly defined in a papal encyclical or by an ecumenical council. However, these are but two ways that the Catholic Church uses to infallibly determine dogmas-two examples of the way dogma is defined through the exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium of the Catholic Church. There is a third way as evidenced by the then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s correspondence-doctrine can be infallibly taught by the universal and ordinary Magisterium on occasion as well. While it is true that neither Pope John Paul II’s <em>Ordinatio Sacerdotalis</em> nor his permitting Cardinal Ratzinger to issue the above letter are the kinds of document utilizing the formulaic statements to which Catholics and Protestants apologists are most familiar when interacting with teachings of the Catholic Church, nevertheless, the matter that the Church does not have the authority to ordain women is just as infallibly held as any of the dogmatic expressions from the Council of Trent or papal determinations that the Blessed Virgin Mary was immaculately conceived and was assumed to heaven.<br />
<br />
As I outlined above, there are three ways that the Church defines doctrines infallibly. They are: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>1. Papal infallibility. That dogma, defined by the First Vatican Council and Pope Pius IX in 1870, affirms that God preserves the pope from error when he definitively teaches a doctrine of faith or morals. The dogma of papal infallibility was decisively reaffirmed by the Second Vatican Council (1962- 1965) in <em>Lumen Gentium</em> (the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church). By way of clarification, the Second Vatican Council makes this important point. Infallibility is essentially a gift of God to the Church. When the pope teaches infallibly, he is not acting by his own prerogatives. He is exercising this divine gift as a steward on the Church's behalf. <br />
<br />
2. Ecumenical Councils. When the Pope and bishops convene in an ecumenical council, they join in a solemn teaching act which is considered infallible. When the Pope ratifies the actions of the bishops when they convene in council. The actions so ratified also become infallible teachings as well. The Second Vatican Council is an example of the former. The First Council of Nicea is an example of the latter.<br />
<br />
3. Ordinary Magisterial Teachings. Certain teachings of the bishops of the Catholic Church may be treated as infallible teachings as well. As pointed out in Section 25 of <em>Lumen Gentium</em>: </blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>Although the individual bishops do not enjoy the prerogative of infallibility, they nevertheless proclaim Christ's doctrine infallibly whenever, even though dispersed through the world, but still maintaining the bond of communion among themselves and with the successor of Peter, and authentically teaching matters of faith and morals, they are in agreement on one position as definitively to be held.</blockquote></blockquote>As this passage demonstrates, four criteria must be met for an infallible exercise of the ordinary Magisterium of bishops around the world: <br />
<blockquote>1. That the bishops must be in communion with one another and with the Pope. <br />
<br />
2. That they are teaching authoritatively on a matter of faith or morals. <br />
<br />
3. That they are virtually in agreement in one judgment. <br />
<br />
4. That they propose this as something to be held definitively by the faithful</blockquote>.Now lest Mr. Fan may object to this latter method of determining doctrine infallibly, many, if not most, of the doctrines of the Church are infallibly taught this way. Among the doctrines recognized as infallible teachings of the Church in this manner include that Jesus is the sole savior of the human race, that man has a soul and is of a spiritual nature, the verity of individual particular judgment after death, the truth that guardian angels are entrusted to protect human souls, that the Blessed Virgin Mary is the spiritual mother of all Christians, that abortion can never be condoned, that the use of evil means (commission of sin) can never be justified by the good that might come from it, and as shown in this particular case, that women can not be ordained as priests. Recourse to the use of the extraordinary Magisterium is used only when doctrines are no longer peaceably held by the Church and such doctrines need to become explicitly defined. A more detailed and systemic explanation of this can be found here in this <a href="http://www.stjohn17v20-21.com/magist03.htm">article</a> and <a href="http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007_12_01_archive.html">here</a>. <br />
<br />
As shown above, doctrines to be believed as divinely revealed or to be held definitively through actions which are either defining or non-defining. Defining actions are truths solemnly defined through the exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium by an "<em>ex cathedra</em>" pronouncement by the Pope or by the promulgation of defining documents by an ecumenical council. However, the ordinary and universal Magisterium determines doctrine infallibly through non-defining acts. Such doctrines may be confirmed or reaffirmed by the Pope without resorting to an exercise of the extraordinary Magisterium by declaring explicitly that it belongs to the teaching of the ordinary and universal Magisterium as a truth that is divinely revealed or as a truth of Catholic doctrine. Such declarations of confirmation or reaffirmation through means of a dubium ad responsum, as utilized in the case of women’s ordination, or through an Apostolic letter, such as the case in <em><a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html">Evangelium Vitae</a></em> § 57ff , are not to be viewed as new dogmatic definitions, but serve as formal attestations of the truths already possessed and infallibly transmitted by the Church. In other words, the Pope’s affirmation or confirmation is sort of like a notary seal on a document already attested to be true by a signatory. I would note that Dr. Michael Liccone, in an article entitled <em><a href="http://www.st-joseph-foundation.org/newsletter/2006/24-2.pdf">Infallibility of the Ordinary Magisterium</a></em>, offers a much more thorough presentation than I have set forth here and more importantly I heartily urge the reader to review it as well as <em><a href="http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html">Lumen Gentium</a></em>, particularly Chapter 25. <br />
<br />
One can only deduce that Mr. Fan finds this to be confusing because he later brings up the doctrine of Immaculate Conception as an example of how dissent becomes dogma. However, linking the subject of the Immaculate Conception to this one is not appropriate as the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was a dogma that developed over the centuries and was pronounced by the Pope Pius IX in <a href="http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm"><em>Ineffabilis Deus</em>,</a> not as a result of the teachings of the ordinary magisterium (which he notes were varied), but from the <em>sensus fidelium (</em>sense of the faithful) which is a concept that it is the Holy Spirit who matures <em>sensus fidei</em> of the Christian people enabling it as a community to a spontaneous understanding of the revealed fact and inward maturing of the fact thanks to reflection, experience and preaching. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception was promulgated by Pope Pius IX in response to the unanimous acclaim of the members of the Church at that time. That said, <em>sensus fidelium</em> is not a notion of majority vote where if enough Catholics support the notion, the Pope can be made to change or add doctrine. Rather it is something that is considered in rendering decisions.<br />
<br />
Thus the issue of whether women can be ordained is a closed issue and dissent on this issue is illegitimate. The doctrine has been infallibly held by the ordinary universal magisterium and confirmed by the Pope. The <em>responsum ad dubium</em> which he authorized is a papal pronouncement of confirmation showing that the doctrine being confirmed enjoys the same charism of infallibility shared by other doctrines infallibly defined by the Magisterium.<br />
<br />
So Mr. Fan’s test case scenario turns out to be nothing more than an open book quiz, I will leave it to the reader to grade my response.<br />
<br />
God bless! <br />
<br />
Posted on the Feast of Saints Cosmos and Damian.<br />
<br />
Update: Mr. Fan objected to my characterization of his argument over on his blog. In the interests of fairness, I have altered the statement that I have highlighted in red to reflect his assertion, "But in my article, I wrote: "I didn't say that it is possible for a pope to come along and change an infallible doctrine" and reconcile that with what he did write, "So it is possible (whether or not it is likely), that some future pope's prefect may decide that Ratzinger erred. The practice of non-ordination of women is just something culturally conditioned and a long-standing discipline ... and hey-presto, this document ceases to have any authoritative weight against the new document."Paul Hofferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-51335721015851205732010-08-27T08:14:00.004-05:002010-08-28T14:34:57.643-05:00Doing the Callixtus Calypso with John Bugay: The Real Reason Why the Catholic Church calls It Annulment and Not Divorce.<div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
</div><div style="text-align: center;"><em>O God, who seest how we fail by reason of our weakness,</em></div><div style="text-align: center;"><em>have mercy, and through the examples of thy saints,</em></div><div style="text-align: center;"><em>renew our love of thee</em>.</div><br />
~The Collect from the Feast of Pope St. Callixtus (October 14)<br />
<br />
Mr. Bugay, a stalwart on the Beggars All team, has been taking time out of his busy day to read history books about the origins of the Catholic Church lately and has decided to share with all what he has learned from those books. <a href="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/08/reason-rooted-in-history-why-roman.html">The reason [rooted in history] why the Roman Catholic Church calls it annulment and not</a> divorce is but one example of what Mr. Bugay thinks that he has learned from his reading. This time he chosen to focus his efforts on all things, what he believes to be the alleged historical antecedents of the Decree of Nullity aka an annulment. Frankly, it was refreshing to see that he has sought to engage this subject from a historical perspective particularly when on the rare occasions that the sons and daughters of Geneva do touch upon this particular subject they usually engage in the fallacious practice of pointing to the seemingly lax oversight of the juridical process used to obtain an annulment as “proof” of its falsity. While Mr. Bugay does that too, at least he he waited until the end of his smear piece to obligatorily raise the matter. I commend him for at least offering something in addition to his derision.<br />
<br />
In order to address the contentions raised by Mr. Bugay, a survey of the entire article he wrote is necessary:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>At some level, even the Roman Catholic Church feels it is beholden to its history. In this case, it is beholden to an early bishop of Rome, Callistus, who made a decision that would enable the Roman church to retain its appeal to women from wealthy families.<br />
<br />
On the topic of marriage as a sacrament from the earliest times, Peter Lampe notes the origin of the practice by which the Roman church <strong>operated outside of civil rules for marriage</strong>: "...it is crystal clear in Hippolytus that from aristocratic circles more women than men found their way to Christianity. The disproportion was a social problem that Callistus during his term as Roman bishop (c. 217-22) attempted to solve. The problem undoubtedly had existed since the end of the second century, if not longer.</blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>When women from the noble class were unmarried and in the heat of their youthful passion desired to marry and yet were unwilling to give up their class through a legal marriage, he [Callistus] allowed them to choose a partner, whether slave or free, and to consider him to be their husband without a legal marriage. From that time on the alleged believing women began to resort to contraceptive methods and to corset themselves in order to cause abortions, because, on account of their lineage and their enormous wealth, they did not wish to have a child from a slave or a commoner.</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>From Peter Lampe, "<em>From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries</em>," pg 119.</blockquote></blockquote>Mr. Bugay then offers this second quote from Peter Lampe:<br />
<blockquote><blockquote>A Christian woman [from a wealthy family] who wished to retain the title "clarissima" had two options. She could marry a pagan of the same social status and forego marriage wtih a socially inferior Christian. Or she could live in concubinage with a socially inferior Christian without being legally married. This second option received the blessings of Callistus in Rome. In this way he prevented two things: mixed marriages with pagans and the social decline of Christian women. Both were in the interests of the community. (121)</blockquote></blockquote>Utilizing the above quotations ripped out of context from the Rev. Lampe’s book, Mr. Bugay forms the following conclusions:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>This is why Rome can say that it has mastery over marriage -- why, even though a couple may take vows, have any number of children, ask for and pay for an annulment, and voila, "the marriage never existed." <br />
<br />
And that's why they can say they don't permit divorce. Because if they were to use the usual sense of the language, then they would have to admit that Callistus's end-run around the usual definition of what was a legal marriage was really an instance of permitting unmarried couples to live in sin. And of course, the pope is infallible. So they're stuck defending this set-up. </blockquote>While I commend Mr. Bugay for his effort, I can not commend the product of his efforts. There is so much that is wrong with Mr. Bugay’s argument, that is practically impossible to respond in piecemeal fashion. For starters, Mr. Bugay’s conclusory statement above is so sparse of actual argument it is difficult to determine from his paralogism whether it smacks of causality fallacy, <em>non sequitur</em> or <em>ignoratio elenchi.</em> However, it is not my intent to turn this article into a disquisition. Instead, I have chosen to address only two points. First, I would like to touch upon the propriety of citing an authority for a proposition that the authority was not actually writing about. Second, I wanted to address the underlying conclusion that but for the Church’s arbitrarily re-defining of marriage, there is no difference between divorce and an annulment. <br />
<br />
Let us first address Mr. Bugay’s use of the <em>From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two</em> Centuries, Minneapolis: Fortress Press (2003), trans. Michael Steinhauser, written by the Reverend Peter Lampe, a German Lutheran theologian and professor. The chapter where Mr. Bugay pulled his quotes is found in Chapter 13 entitled “Social Stratification at the Time of Commodus.” A survey of the chapter reveals that the author was not addressing the issue how the Church defined marriage or how at the end of the second century and beginning of the third century the Church at Rome regulated the practice of obtaining a Decree of Nullity finding that a sacramental marriage had not occur. In truth and in fact, one would find after a review of the chapter that the Reverend Lampe does not address the “topic of marriage as a sacrament from the earliest times” in any way, shape or form contrary to Mr. Bugay’s intimation. In other words, the gratuitous statement Mr. Bugay makes in introducing Reverend Lampe’s work to us is entirely fraudulent.<br />
<br />
One of the issues that Chapter 13 of Reverend Lampe’s book does address is the problem the growing Church in Rome faced with individuals of the senatorial class of Roman society converting to Christianity at the end of 2nd and the beginning of the 3rd centuries. Lampe notes in his book how the Church mainly drew believers from the lower strata of Roman society at its start but by the end of the second century that situation was changing. The appeal of the saving Gospel of Jesus Christ as preached by the Church was beginning to resonate with the cream of Rome. So by the end of the second century, out of the 10,000-30,000 Christians living in Rome at the time (pg. 143), 40 or so members of that class had converted to the Christian faith by this time, two-thirds of such individuals were women. This disproportionate ratio of women to men in the noble classes apparently gave rise to a social problem which Pope Callixtus (or as referred to in Lampe’s book as “Callistus ... the Roman bishop”) sought to address as these women sought to find marital partners among their fellow Christians. Lampe then presents his readers a watered-down version of a quote from St. Hippolytus’ <em>Philosophoumena</em> to document the matter. Here is another, albeit more sanguinary, <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050109.htm">version</a> of this same quote:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>And the hearers of Callistus being delighted with his tenets, continue with him, thus mocking both themselves as well as many others, and crowds of these dupes stream together into his school. Wherefore also his pupils are multiplied, and they plume themselves upon the crowds (attending the school) for the sake of pleasures which Christ did not permit. But in contempt of Him, they place restraint on the commission of no sin, alleging that they pardon those who acquiesce (in Callistus' opinions). For even also he permitted females, if they were unwedded, and burned with passion at an age at all events unbecoming, or if they were not disposed to overturn their own dignity through a legal marriage, that they might have whomsoever they would choose as a bedfellow, whether a slave or free, and that a woman, though not legally married, might consider such a companion as a husband. Whence women, reputed believers, began to resort to drugs for producing sterility, and to gird themselves round, so to expel what was being conceived on account of their not wishing to have a child either by a slave or by any paltry fellow, for the sake of their family and excessive wealth. Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by inculcating adultery and murder at the same time! And withal, after such audacious acts, they, lost to all shame, attempt to call themselves a Catholic Church.</blockquote>Of course, what both the Reverend Lampe and Mr. Bugay left out in both of their presentations is context. While scholars do know that St. Callixtus had written on a number of subjects, none of his writings have survived or at least to date have not been found. What we do know of him and his pontificate is mainly found in the writings of his detractors and from early martyrologies and biographies such as the <em>Liber Pontificalis</em>. At the time he wrote the above polemic, St. Hippolytus had vigorously opposed Callixtus’ election as pope and the majority of the Christian adherents in Rome who had elected him as “pope.” Hippolytus, the erudite and well-educated student of the great Irenaeus himself, and his followers did not accept the decision of the majority and had himself set up as bishop in opposition thereby becoming the first anti-pope in the history of the Church. Further it should be noted at this point of time, Hippolytus’ theology was very rigorist (and perhaps had even fell in with the Montanists like Tertullian) in outlook in contrast to the more compassionate policies of Callixtus who preached a gospel of forgiveness and repentness. Hippolytus took every opportunity to vigorously attack the character of Callixtus, an ex-slave himself, for embracing what Hippolytus perceived to be moral laxity. On one such matter for example, Hippolytus had labeled Callixtus as a follower of the heresies of Sabellius while Callixtus countered that Hippolytus was a ditheist which may have some basis in fact if Hippolytus was actually an adherent on Montanus’ doctrines at that time. Tertullian, an actual Montanist, had also challenged Callixtus for teaching that sinners could receive forgiveness of their sins through the sacrament of confession more than once after baptism. Neither Lampe nor Bugay share with us their opinion as to whether Callixtus’ teachings or those of Hippolytus were more correct. And it is suggestive that Hippolytus attacked Callixtus more out of wounded pride than on doctrine as history does not indicate to us whether Hippolytus ever actually anathemized Callixtus for holding the view he did.<br />
<br />
It is also interesting to note that Reverend Lampe elsewhere in his book suggests to the reader that one must take into account Hippolytus’ polemic glosses against his opponents in examining his writings (pp. 27-28). Mr. Bugay apparently has chosen to ignore this warning because he is not interested in history; he is only interested in selectively mining the historical record so he may calumniate against Catholicism. But what is so detestable however about Mr. Bugay’s article is that he forms conclusions that the Church somehow has redefined marriage to be something that it isn’t and implies to the reader that Reverend Lampe has formed that conclusion as well when there is nothing in the Reverend Lampe’s book that indicates that this is the case at all. Reverend Lampe does not cite to Hippolytus’ polemic as the “origin of the practice by which the Roman church <strong>operated outside of civil rules for marriage</strong>.” as is represented by Mr. Bugay’s article. Rather, Lampe, rightly or wrongly, concludes on page 121 of his book:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>That with Callistus’s decision Christianity declared itself for the first time unequivocally in favor of “equal rights for slaves outside the liturgy and and the arena,” is the unquestionable consequence of the decision. It can not be proved, however, that this was the primary motivation for Callistus’s action. Callistus wished to avoid mixed marriages [between pagans and Christians] and to prevent the social decline of aristocratic women from his community. </blockquote>Stripping away the vituperative rhetoric from Hippolytus’s statement quoted above, what Hippolytus was railing against Callixtus for was his insistence that two Christians regardless of their legal status in Roman society could sacramentally marry even if the civil authorities did not recognize it as such. Callixtus re-asserted that it is the Church and the Scriptures, not the state, that decides what impediments prevent two consenting Christians from marrying and recognized that within the Church two parties could marry even if the civil authorities did not so recognize the union as a marriage. Here, Callixtus determined that slavery was not an impediment preventing two Christians from marrying each other. In other words, Callixtus opposed a form of anti-miscegenation that was practiced in ancient Roman society, something one should think Mr. Bugay would find to be laudatory instead of an occasion for derision. <br />
<br />
The second passage from Reverend Lampe’s book does not need to be similarly explained. In no possible stretch of the imagination could one infer from the quoted passage that Callixtus was re-defining sacramental marriage by then permitting Roman women (who had already married in the Church) to hold themselves out as legally as living in concubinage. Regardless of what the state held to be a marriage, the Church has the right to hold parties to the biblical standard that a valid marriage is indissoluble. Again, reading this particular passage from Lampe’s book does not suggest anything about the Church’s authority to grant a decree of nullity of a marriage. All Callixtus did was to uphold the biblical injunction imposed by Christ Himself that the marriage relationship between two Christians is indissoluble. Perhaps because neither Bugay nor Lampe as Protestants recognize marriage as a sacrament, it is beyond their comprehension. <br />
<br />
Mr. Bugay writes:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>“This is why Rome can say that it has mastery over marriage -- why, even though a couple may take vows, have any number of children, ask for and pay for an annulment, and voila, "the marriage never existed."<br />
<br />
And that's why they can say they don't permit divorce. Because if they were to use the usual sense of the language, then they would have to admit that Callistus's end-run around the usual definition of what was a legal marriage was really an instance of permitting unmarried couples to live in sin. And of course, the pope is infallible. So they're stuck defending this set-up.</blockquote>Ignoring Mr. Bugay’s blustery hyperbole here, the commentary left over constitutes a gross misrepresentation of the Church’s process of annulment, if not outright false witness. However, I do not intend to treat with that. Rather, I would urge the reader to review the Catechism of the Catholic Church, Article VII §§ 1601-1666 and the Catholic Code of Canon Law §§ 1055-1165 which explain the process far better than I could. <br />
<br />
What I will address here is Mr. Bugay’s assertion that an annulment is somehow an end-around the legal definition of marriage for such an assertion demonstrates a profound ignorance of what annulment is, what a divorce is and most importantly, what marriage is. I will endeavor to provide this corrective.<br />
<br />
First, let us deal with some definitions. What is a contract? A contract is an agreement entered into between two or more competent parties in which something of value is offered and is accepted in exchange for the performance of a promise from which each party benefits. Legally (at least in Ohio), for a contract to exist, there must be mutual assent, an offer and acceptance of the offer, and consideration. See, <em>Nilavar v. Osborne</em> (1998), 127 Ohio App.3d. Under law, a contract is only valid if the necessary elements of an offer, acceptance, contractual capacity, consideration, a manifestation of mutual asset, legality of object and of consideration are present. Further, there must be a meeting of the minds as to the meaning of all of a contract's essential terms before a contract is formed. <em>McCarthy, Lebit, Crystal & Haiman Co. L.P.A. v. First Union</em> Management (1993), 87 Ohio App.3d 613. Thus, unless all of the terms of the contract are present and unless there is an agreement as to the meaning of those terms, there is no contract and the parties may annul the contract as being void <em>ab initio</em>.<br />
<br />
What is marriage? Marriage, simply put, is a relationship borne out of contract. Within the Church, a man and a woman are free to enter into an agreement to get married, but once they do, God attaches certain consequences. As F.J. Sheed, the famous Catholic apologist of the 20th century, and an attorney, states:<br />
<blockquote>[Marriage] is a relationship resulting from a contract. For when the relationship comes into being, the contract has done its work; it has produced a relationship of marriage, and the parties are now governed in their common life, not by the contract (which they made), but by the relationship (which God made in ratification of their contract). </blockquote><blockquote>Sheed, F.J., <em>Nullity of Marriage</em>. New York: Sheed and Ward (1959), pg. 4.</blockquote>The consequence that God attaches to the marital relationship is that it is indissoluble. When Catholics get married sacramentally, the Holy Spirit embues the couple with a grace that permanently seals the marriage until death and gives the parties the grace to live out their vows. When the parties receive the sacrament of marriage, the "indelible" seal that is created can NEVER be broken, regardless of any decree from any human authority, including the Church or even the Pope himself. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church #1640 states:<br />
<blockquote>Thus the marriage bond has been established by God himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved. This bond, which results from the free human act of the spouses and their consummation of the marriage, is a reality, henceforth irrevocable, and gives rise to a covenant guaranteed by God's fidelity. The Church does not have the power to contravene this disposition of divine wisdom.</blockquote>Now before Mr .Bugay voices his protest here, let us look at what annulment of marriage actually is. In fine, an annulment is the process by which the Church after one or both of the parties to the marriage ask it to do so reviews the man-made contract to marry. Now it must be emphasized that God alone seals the marriage relationship and God alone can set down the conditions as to when that bond ceases. Once the relationship comes into being, the parties can not alter the conditions, the Church can not alter those conditions, and the state can not alter those conditions. However, the Church when it considers annulling a marriage, does not examine the God-made relationship. Rather it limits itself to the examination only of the contract to marry itself (man-made). The Church does not pretend that it has the right to terminate the marital relationship as does the state for when the state grants the parties a divorce, the state claims that it has the right to interfere and terminate the marital relationship which it acknowledges was validly entered into. The law of divorce merely provides a remedy for a breach of the marital relationship. In contrast, the law of nullity merely provides that the Church can determine whether the parties actually entered into a contract to marry and if the parties did not do so, the Church merely recognizes that fact by issuing a Decree of Nullity. <br />
<br />
Again F. J. Sheed:<br />
<blockquote>The difference between divorce and nullity is therefore about as wide as it is possible to conceive. Divorce claims to break up a marriage actually in being. Nullity means that the marriage never came into being; it is the discovery that the contract to marry did not exist. Marriage is not only a contract; but it results from a contract, and if there is no contract no relationship can result.<br />
<br />
Id. at pg. 8.</blockquote>At this point, I should like to make it known that while the law of divorce does not exist in every civilized society in the world, in every society known, the law of nullity does. The Church claims nothing more than this: that it has the right in the context of the sacrament of marriage to determine whether the elements of a contract to marry were validly fulfilled. Where the Church differs from the state is that it denies on the basis of the Scriptures that it, the parties, or even the state, have the right to put asunder the sacramental relationship created from two parties validly enter into a contract of marriage that has been ratified by God. <br />
<br />
Now, Mr. Bugay might raise the issue of pauline privilege at 1 Cor. 7:10-15 because the Church is dissolving a real marriage and not opining that a marriage never existed. What St. Paul recognized is that a “natural” marriage, not a sacramental marriage, can be dissolved by the Church if the pagan partner leaves the marriage because the other partner converts. In contrast, Callixtus did not attempt to interfere with the marriage relationship; rather he merely confirmed that the Church could not interfere with the relationship when two Christians chose to marry even if the state frowned upon the relationship. <br />
<br />
Simply put, Mr. Bugay’s claim that the Church claims a “mastery over marriage” is simply false. In truth, Protestants who claim that marriage is not a sacrament at all (which amounts to a denial that God created and ratifies the relationship through grace) and who permit two parties to marry after divorce (which denies the biblical injunction that marriage is indissoluble) claim a non-biblical mastery over marriage far more overreaching than anything that the Catholic Church does. Every time the various flavors of Protestantism allow homosexuals to marry each other in ceremonies mimicking a marriage ceremony, every time they allow two divorced persons to marry, it is they, and not the Church, who ignore the usual definition of what constitute a legal marriage.<br />
<br />
That said, one must wonder what Mr. Bugay thinks about the present day “civil rules of marriage” which are trending to allowing two men or two women to marry each other. Does not the Church have the right to stand against such definitions of marriage which are in opposition to the Scriptures as Callixtus did long ago or must we kowtow as some Protestant denominations already have to a re-definition of marriage that is in fact a perversion of the special covenant between two persons and God. If the United States Supreme Court were to consider the issue of “gay marriage” in the near future (a very real possibility) and were to recognize the right of homosexuals to marry thereby altering the “civil rules for marriage,” how could he argue against such without being labeled a hypocrite? Or in his zeal to attack all things Catholic as is his wont, did he even think through his argument? And what will Mr. Bugay say when the civil rules of marriage contradict Article 25 of the Westminster Confession of 1689? Will he cede the authority of his denomination over to the state and propose that homosexuals should now be allowed to marry withing the confines of the walls of the sanctuary of his particular church of the state where ever he lives were it to declare that homosexual marriages are now encompassed within the civil rules of marriage? <br />
<br />
What Mr. Bugay’s argument really proves is that he does not recognize the difference between a sacramental marriage that occurs in the Church and a marriage that is sanctioned by civil authorities. He further demonstrates his ignorance of what marriage even is. The Church does not pretend to put asunder the God-made marital relationship, rather it professes the competence and the right to examine the underlying man-made contract to marry and determine whether there were any scriptural or other impediments to that marriage.<br />
<br />
In dancing with Callixtus here, Mr. Bugay tripped over his own feet. Better luck next time.<br />
God bless!Paul Hofferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.com15tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-29331873479199619962010-08-17T01:46:00.001-05:002010-08-17T02:22:05.454-05:00Responding to a Super-Super-Super Bad Argument about the Teaching Authority of the Catholic Church<div style="text-align: center;">“<em>If the Lord does not build the house, in vain do its builders labor; if the Lord does not watch over the city, in vain does the watchman keep vigil</em>.” From the Nisi Dominus (Ps. 127:1)</div><div style="text-align: center;"><br />
...</div>It has been awhile since I posted here, the reasons of which I hope to disclose in the near future. However, upon coming across a number of articles that written by one of the luminaries in the constellation of apologists known as Beggars All, an anonymous gentlemen who goes by the handle of “Rhology,” I felt compelled to reply to them since they all involve comments that I made in response to the treatment of the Catholic doctrine appertaining to the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the bishops in communion with the Catholic Church. I hope the reader will find this article helpful in seeing how the polemics employed by those who contend for faith can affect one’s consideration of the issues being discussed.<br />
<br />
While I was trying to finish my next installment of <em>Managing Marian Misogyny</em>, I happened across an article on the Beggars All blog posted by John Bugay entitled <a href="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/05/yahweh-says-no-need-for-magisterium.html">Yahweh says no need for a Magisterium</a> in which he argued that the OT did not contain any notion of a Magisterial authority. Of course, such a notion is patently inaccurate as is plainly shown in 2 Chronicles 19:5-11 and Ezra 8:7-8, for example, where a clearly established magisterial teaching authority in OT Israel was used to teach the people how to interpret/understand Scripture and other religious matters. I decided to<a href="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19795707&postID=591559737624890670"> comment</a> on the premise of that article challenging Mr. Bugay’s assertions with a number of scriptural citations. At that point, Rhology decided to opine on some of my comments in a separate article captioned<em><a href="https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=19795707&postID=591559737624890670"> The super-super-super-Magisterial magisterial authority</a></em>. Since Rhology’s article was spawned specifically by my comments to the previous article by Mr. Bugay, I offered a response by commenting on it. Apparently, some of my <a href="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/05/super-super-super-magisterial.html?showComment=1273945635454#c4445693740338695960">comments</a> struck a nerve with him and he decided to write a sequel, aptly entitled <a href="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/05/super-super-super-magisterial_17.html">The super-super-super-Magisterial magisterial authority, part two</a> (hereinafter referred to simply as the Sequel or ROUND TWO). While I am hesitant to make a sur-reply fearful that such will generate another sequel from Rhology, I felt it necessary in the end to do so because his arguments are premised on fallacy and misapprehension of what the Magisterium actually is and how it functions. <br />
<br />
While this twin-pronged approach to attacking Catholic teachings is a common tactic utilized by some Reformed apologists to highlight the various distinctives which distinguish their particular flavor-of-the-month Protestant denomination from the multitude of Catholic doctrines they do choose to accept, “it is a very bad and stupid one,” to borrow a phrase. Ultimately, the aim of all arguments should be to get at the truth of the matter rather than clouding issues through the use of fallacious reasoning. As I hope to show, the tactics employed by Rhology in ROUND TWO smack of a sort of skeptical rationalism as opposed to a reasoned defense of the basis for our hope. On a more practical level, it is rather hypocritical to claim one hand that logical argumentation should be the measure of truth, and then use fallacious reasoning in its place. I offer this article in the hopes of highlighting Rhology’s errors and sophistry and offer in their place this corrective. <br />
<br />
For the ease of reading, I will group the various threads of argument together (Some of the hyper-links are excluded and some of the poor grammar and typos (particularly mine) are cleaned up). <br />
<br />
<strong>ROUND ONE:</strong><br />
<br />
louis said (in a comment made on the Article captioned <em><a href="http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/05/yahweh-says-no-need-for-magisterium.html">Yahweh says no need for a Magisterium</a></em>): <br />
<blockquote>It's almost as if he thinks those scripture passages are perspicuous or something. He also evidently thinks he understands Marbury v. Madison, but unless an infallible interpreter explained it to him, I'm not sure how he can.</blockquote>Paul Hoffer said (in response made as a comment on the same article):<br />
<blockquote>Louis, your comment about perspicuity is ill-placed. There are many doctrines (or at least broad outlines) upon which most Christians can agree. Where the perspicuity of Scriptures falls by the wayside is when there are disputes between Christians as the Scriptures can not arbitrate the dispute. Two people can have sincere differences over the regenerative properties of baptism, paedo-baptism, etc. How does reliance on Scripture help when both parties rely upon them? Fortunately, the Scriptures does point to the fact that through the intervention of God Himself, a magisterial authority was established that people could take such disputes to.</blockquote>Rhology joins the fray now with his own article now. For his opening salvo, he begins with:<br />
<blockquote>Paul Hoffer, your comment about perspicuity is ill-placed. </blockquote>Paul Hoffer queries: <br />
<blockquote>How so? There is nothing in your article that refutes anything that I wrote unless you are claiming some sort of magisterial authority for yourself.</blockquote>Here, Rhology begins to parrot my words:<br />
<blockquote>There are many doctrines (or at least broad outlines) upon which most Christians can agree.</blockquote>PH writes:<br />
<blockquote>Since you do not mock this, I infer that you do agree with my contention that there is much about the Scriptures that is perspicuous, just not everything.</blockquote>Rhology continues:<br />
<blockquote>Where the perspicuity of Magisterial declarations and "clarifications" falls by the wayside is when there are disputes between Romanists of different opinions as the Magisterial declarations and "clarifications" can not arbitrate the dispute.</blockquote>PH responds:<br />
<blockquote>Thank you kindly for making my point for me. A written document, whether it is the Word of God as contained in the Scriptures or a Magisterial document interpreting the Word of God, do not “arbitrate” disputes. Rather, it the Church itself that safeguards and interprets the Scriptures that does the arbitrating.</blockquote>Rhology writes:<br />
<blockquote>Two people can have sincere differences over the (in)errancy of the Scripture, at what point in the development of the unborn baby it's OK to decapitate and dismember the baby, to what extent the Church should have material wealth, etc. How does reliance on Magisterial declarations and "clarifications" help when both parties rely upon them?</blockquote>PH responds:<br />
<blockquote>Let’s test your hypothesis with the Missouri method. SHOW ME as Space Bishop (another commentator remarking on the article) asked where a Magisterial document(s) of the Catholic Church on these two points you raise here that says anything that would allow two people relying upon it have a “sincere” difference of opinion about abortion or what extent the Church should have material wealth. </blockquote>Rhology continues: <br />
<blockquote>One wonders whether Paul will be so quick to tell us that the Magisterial declarations and "clarifications" do point to the fact that through the intervention of God Himself, a super-Magisterial magisterial authority was established to which people could take such disputes.</blockquote>PH writes:<br />
<blockquote>Using the definition of Magisterium as “The Church's active competence, juridically embodied, to prolong by its witness God's self-communicative self-revelation in Christ, which necessarily inheres in the Church (as the eschatologically definitive community of believers in Christ, founded by him as an hierarchical society, empowered by a mission to bear testimony to Christ), and which demands obedience." (<em>Concise Theological Dictionary</em>. p. 268 Burns and Oates, Herder and Herder, New York, London, 1965) one can find the notion of the Magisterium expressed in the NT from a number of passages (citations only and not recitation of the passages so as to not offend either Mr. Bugay or Louis) to support it, to begin with: Mt l6:15, 18; Mt. 28: 18-20; Lk. 10: 16; Acts 15:6-8, 28; Gal. 4:19; 1 Cor 4:15; 1 Timothy 3:15; 2 Timothy 1:13. So rather than relying on my authority, I would rest my case on the Scriptures and how the Church interprets them. <br />
<br />
It must be noted that Catholics do not put the Magisterium over the Word of God, rather the Magisterium is the servant of the Word of God. Its role is to faithfully safeguard the truth about God and his plan for our lives which came to full expression in the teaching and saving work of Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh. It is not to add to God’s revelation or to subtract from it, only to faithfully interpret and apply it to real life situations (CCC 85-86). The Magisterium fulfills this role under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority. (Thus, bringing up stuff about how some Catholics are disobedient by advocating pro-choice agendas is a red herring.) "<strong>Faithful and respectful obedience</strong>" to the Magisterium is something presupposed (Cf. Romans 1:5; 16:25-26) as the consent given to belief, is a consent not to what is just the word of men, but rather is held to be the Word of God. See, <em>Lumen Gentium</em> 12 and 25.</blockquote>Rhology writes: <br />
<blockquote>And then when there are disputes about what the super-Magisterial magisterial authority says, whether Paul will posit a super-super-Magisterial magisterial authority. And then whether he'll later posit a super-super-super-Magisterial magisterial authority...</blockquote>PH replies:<br />
<blockquote>Unlike Protestantism which holds that each person is his own magisterial authority, we recognize that Jesus is the final arbiter as head of the Church, who is exercising through those that are placed in authority by Him to lead/serve the Church. Thus, the scenario you raise does not occur. If you disagree, prove it that Catholics do not believe in the concept that "the buck stops here."</blockquote>Rhology writes: <br />
<blockquote>What is really ironic is that in this kind of argumentation that Paul uses here and that RC’s (Roman Catholics) ignorantly use all over the place, they echo atheists as well. Here's a recent example: </blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>Whateverman said: It matters that other Christians wouldn't agree with your attribution (of God's influence) because that demonstrates the subjectivity of the assertion.</blockquote></blockquote>PH replies: <br />
<blockquote>Reliance on an existential appeal to one's own self as one’s own ultimate authority does not impress me as a sound notion as you yourself point out and is as subjective as claiming that God’s influence is a subjective assertion. Besides, such argumentation is not really atheistic, but is more pantheistic as Whateverman is merely saying that as far as he is concerned he is his own god.</blockquote>[Rhology’s] response there [to Whateverman]: <br />
<blockquote><blockquote>You know, there are people who think they can float by Yogic meditation. Their mistaken thoughts of gravity's application does not mean that gravity is subjective. You're making man the measure of truth. I'd recommend making logical argumentation the measure of truth, myself.</blockquote></blockquote>PH responds: <br />
<blockquote>Frankly as a person who adheres to the notion of “<em>Contra factum non valet argumentum</em>,” I reject your assertion that logical argumentation is the measure of truth. Christ is the way, the truth and the life. PERIOD. Since the Word of God (Christ Himself) shows as a fact that it is to be interpreted by those placed in authority of His Body, no amount of argumentation will prevail against it. </blockquote>Rhology concludes:<br />
<blockquote>And that's what I'd recommend for our Romanist friends like Paul Hoffer. For one thing, when you argue like an atheist, but you're a theist, and when you denigrate the clarity of what God spoke, just like atheists do, shouldn't that raise a bit of a red flag?</blockquote>PH concludes:<br />
<blockquote>No it doesn’t raise any flags at all. I would suggest to you that parsing the Word of God to come up with your own notions is a far worse denigration than my acknowledgment that while there are many things I do understand in the Scriptures applying the graces God has given me, I do recognize that as a humble sinner, there are things that I do not understand like my namesake points at 1 Cor. 13:9 and that I am thankful to My Lord and Savior Christ Jesus that He gave us the Church in which the magisterial authority rests as an infallible means to gain more understanding of His Word and to grow deeper in my faith.</blockquote><br />
<strong>ROUND TWO:</strong><br />
<br />
In this Sequel, Rhology decides to expand upon the remarks set out above and offer additional commentary to some of my comments. Unfortunately, in doing so, he engages in one of Protestantism’ favorite past times, cherry-picking an opponent’s argument and responding to only a distorted version of my argument. I apologize for repeating the statements already made above, but I could not think of a different way to demonstrate Rhology’s egregious misuse of fallacious argumentation to counter the statements I made above. Please note that the statements of mine that Rhology responds to will be <strong>bold-faced</strong>, the parts he leaves out will highlighted in<span style="background-color: #eeeeee; color: red;"> red</span> and my replies and rebuttals to this new round of remarks will be set off in<span style="color: cyan;"> </span><span style="color: blue;">blue.</span> <br />
<br />
Rhology writes:<br />
<blockquote>Paul Hoffer was kind enough to comment at length on my last post, but unfortunately between his original comment that spawned the aforementioned post and his comments on the post, he forgot his own argument, and ironically in many places ends up affirming my own point. For that, I thank him for tacitly disavowing his argument. I commend the practice, of course, for while it is a common argument, it is also a very bad and stupid one.</blockquote>PH responds:<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"></span></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;">Sophistry to buttress an otherwise untenable argument will not win the day. Rhology’s verbiage is hardly evidential in nature and neglects to address the point that I made originally: OT Israel had recourse to an official magisterium to interpret Scriptures. Rhology’s apparently loses sight of that fact and to this day has failed to adduce any evidence whatsoever that rebuts my original argument. Instead he engages in the old lawyer trick of “if the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts; if both are against you, abuse opposing counsel.” Rather than addressing the arguments I made, he instead practices a little <i>ad hominem</i> and to abuse me and my argument.</span> </span></blockquote><span style="color: black;">Rhology wrote:</span><br />
<blockquote>Paul Hoffer, your comment about perspicuity is ill-placed. </blockquote>PH replied:<br />
<blockquote><span style="color: red;">How so? There is nothing in your article that refutes anything that I wrote unless you are claiming some sort of magisterial authority for yourself.</span></blockquote>Rhology parroting my words originally wrote:<br />
<blockquote>There are many doctrines (or at least broad outlines) upon which most Christians can agree. </blockquote>Rhology now adds:<br />
<blockquote>Paul Hoffer, I'm sorry you didn't understand that I parroted you for a specific reason, that is, to show how the same "problem" of individual fallible interpretation is true for your position as well. Positing a Mag[isterium] only moves the question back a step, which is why I'm saying you'd need a super-super-Mag[isterium] to fix the problem. But then you'd need ANOTHER level back to which to move the question, and on and on unto infinity.</blockquote>PH now adds:<span style="color: blue;"></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;">I am glad that Rhology did not parrot my words as an attempt to mock me. For that I am much thankful and take this moment to heartily commend him for treating me as a brother in Christ (although unlike Mr. Bugay, a fellow stalwart of his on Beggars All, I doubt he would ever consider a Catholic “a brother in Christ”). His explanation as to why he makes like a psittacine, however, does not ring quite true as I will show below. </span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="color: blue;">I disagree with Rhology’s question begging statement that the Catholic Magisterium as an interpreter is useless because magisterial statements in turn need an interpreter in order for one to understand them. I do not accept Rhology’s premise because unlike the Scriptures, one can consult the Magisterial interpreter and seek clarification of the decision or interpretation. The Church as the living witness and guardian of the Word of God is limited to examining the text of the Holy Scriptures or previous magisterial documents. The Magisterium continues to speak authoritative and interpret the Word of God and prior Magisterial texts to determine what was meant and will continue to do so until the meaning is clear. Regardless of what some might say, the Scriptures are not self-attesting, not self-authenticating, and especially not self-interpreting. This fact is verified by history. Their veracity are attested through the Church’s constant use of them in the Mass, in the Sacraments and in its prayers. The Church authenticates through its testimony over the centuries that the Scriptures are in truth and in fact the Word of God. Most importantly, they have been interpreted by the Church and those interpretations have been preached to the faithful since Christ founded His Church. There is only One Body of Christ, that is the Catholic Church, and it speaks from one head with one voice which is the voice of Jesus Christ. </span><span style="color: blue;"><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">This fact is verified by history. The docestists first questioned Christ’s humanity which was responded to by the Ordinary Magisterium. The Arians questioned His Divinity and were answered by the First Council of Nicea. Later, additional misunderstandings about what Nicea held were corrected at the Council of Ephesus and then at the Council of Chalcedon; so on and so forth. While more questions may have arose about the Church’s understanding of Christ’s nature, the Church was able to respond to them and offer additional insight and clarification to assist the faithful.</span><span style="color: blue;"><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Moreover, as doctrine was infallibly defined by the Church by a Council or by papal pronouncements, the adherent benefited by such because each time a new benchmark had been established, the adherent could start their inquiry into questions of faith at that benchmark rather than start over with a study of the Scriptures. Certainly one needs to read the Scriptures, but one does not have to decide all over again each time they are read what the Scriptures mean as the Church has already done that for them. Disagreements between adherents who hold different views becomes the means by which doctrines are tested and determined leading to a shared understanding of the what the Church holds thereby leading to greater unity in faith. This is an advantage that those who claim to practice <em>sola scriptura</em> could never have. </span><span style="color: blue;"><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">One sees this in the law all the time. Over time, the courts defined how promises were kept whether by covenant, promise, debt, or vow. Then because of the notions about the exchange of hostages, notions of consideration began to creep into the legal system. Later, issues over mutual assent, offer and acceptance, and adequacy of consideration, damages or remedies, etc. had to be decided. Nowadays, we attorneys do not have to start over with the days of Justinian’s Code or Charlemagne to understand where the idea of consideration was invented. All we have to do is apply the facts to see whether they meet the elements of contract that have already been argued, weighed, measured and decided over hundreds of years of jurisprudence. If attorneys were bound by some notion of <em>sola scriptura,</em> we would have to start over and decide what constituted the elements of contract, even whether one could enter into something called a contract each and every time before filing a suit. </span><span style="color: blue;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">Yes, new questions arise which require additional clarification, but as a result of adhering to a Magisterial system, we Catholics do not have to re-decide all of the old questions again. While it is true that as a law student I did have to learn all of that old stuff about the history of contract so I could better understand how the law of contract is where it is at today and where and how the law may develop in the future, but the difference is I do not have to re-litigate all of the old questions that have been already decided.</span></span></span></span></blockquote>PH wrote:<br />
<blockquote><span style="color: red;">Since you do not mock this, I infer that you do agree with my contention </span><span style="color: black;"><strong>that there is much about the Scriptures that is perspicuous, just not everything.</strong></span></blockquote>Rhology responds:<br />
<blockquote>Yes, not everything in the Scr is perspicuous. What's really funny about this is that the RC doctrines related to salvation and election and all that are pretty much impenetrable in their internal inconsistency, biblical illiteracy, and tradition-bound-ness. As James White likes to say: Give me Romans 8 anytime over the code of Canon Law.</blockquote>PH replies:<br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;">Thank you Rhology for the admission that not everything in the Scriptures are perspicuous. It’s too bad that you have to go off the tracks with your next statement~ more question begging nonsense without any evidence. I must say though that the James White allusion you use is a bit vague. When I googled it, I found where James White made this statement ten years ago in a debate, but I don’t see any more recent reference where he says it or that it is one of his favorites or that he “likes” to makes this particular statement. Perhaps this is something he has shared with you personally or have learned of this through a private revelation of sorts. </span><span style="color: blue;"><br />
</span><span style="color: blue;"><br />
For what it is worth, as a Catholic I too would say give me Romans 8 over the Code of Canon Law since Romans 8 is part of the Word of God and the Code of Canon Law, is just that, a legal code for governance of the Church. That said being said however, I must ask you what particularly about the Catholic Church’s Code of Canon Law you feel contradicts of the law of the Spirit that is reflected in Romans 8? Or is this just some bilious rhetoric thrown in? Or are you perhaps working off James White’s reputation to lend your argument an air of Protestant magisterial authority</span>? </blockquote>Rhology, after eating a cracker, rawps:<br />
<blockquote>Where the perspicuity of Magisterial declarations and "clarifications" falls by the wayside is when there are disputes between Romanists of different opinions as the Magisterial declarations and "clarifications" can not arbitrate the dispute. </blockquote>PH responded:<br />
<blockquote><span style="color: red;">Thank you kindly for making my point for me.</span> <strong>A written document, whether it is the Word of God as contained in the Scriptures or a Magisterial document interpreting the Word of God, do not “arbitrate” disputes. Rather, it the Church itself that safeguards and interprets the Scriptures that does the arbitrating.</strong></blockquote>Rhology now adds:<br />
<blockquote>Through written documents. Thus you bolster my point. Thanks! Also, in oral proclamations, a lot of the time they get written down. Then, see above. Oral proclamations, BTW, are not immune to this. So you need a super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-super-...</blockquote>PH replies:<br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;">Why does one need recourse to a super to the nth power authority in order to make a decision IN RESPONSE TO A DISPUTE? And if the parties to the dispute both come into the dispute with an “obedience in faith,” that is an attitude of assent to the teachings of the Church, the parties to the dispute will submit to the decision by the Magisterium rather than breaking off to form their own Church or advocate disobedience to the teachings of the Church.. In short, we need only one Magisterial authority. As St. John Chrysostom puts it, "The Church is thy hope, the Church is thy salvation, the Church is thy refuge." ("<em>Hom. de capto Euthropio</em>," n. 6.)</span></blockquote>Squawking some more, you wrote:<br />
<blockquote>Two people can have sincere differences over the (in)errancy of the Scripture, at what point in the development of the unborn baby it's OK to decapitate and dismember the baby, to what extent the Church should have material wealth, etc. How does reliance on Magisterial declarations and "clarifications" help when both parties rely upon them?</blockquote>PH responded:<br />
<blockquote><span style="color: red;">Let’s test your hypothesis with the Missouri method.</span> <strong>SHOW ME as Space Bishop asked where a Magisterial document(s) of the Catholic Church</strong> <span style="color: red;">on these two points you raise here that says anything that would allow two people relying upon it have a “sincere” difference of opinion about abortion or what extent the Church should have material wealth.</span></blockquote>Rhology responds to only the statement in bold:<br />
<blockquote>Now you're moving the goalposts. You had originally made PEOPLE AT LARGE the measure of truth, and now you want me to show two Mag docs that disagree. I probably could, and I know Carrie could easily, but that's not what we're discussing.</blockquote>PH replies:<br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;">Rhology presents the classic strawman statement here. Take a statement of one’s opponent out of context and then comment on it. Not a good endorsement of the claim that logical argumentation is the measure of truth I think. </span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="color: blue;">Rhology originally gave two examples of how different Catholics could sincerely come to different opinions on what the Magisterium teaches on abortion and to what extent the Church should have material wealth. I merely asked him to show me the magisterial documents upon which he bases his contention. Asking for proof of an assertion is not moving goal posts. It is asking for a little evidence to go with that dash of opinion he tossed into the bouillabaisse he offers us as fare for thought.</span><span style="color: blue;"></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br />
Moreover, I would ask the reader to go over all of my comments and see if I ever made people at large the measure of truth. It is true that Rhology accused me of adhering to such a notion, but never did I ever say that. I did say that Christ is the way, the truth and the life and He is the measure of truth. Misrepresenting what another person’s argument is also fallacious just so we are all clear. Like a modern-day Rumpelstiltskin, Rhology is trying to spin some more gold out of straw here</span>.</blockquote>Molting your feathers to make a real point, you wrote:<br />
<blockquote>One wonders whether Paul will be so quick to tell us that the Magisterial declarations and "clarifications" do point to the fact that through the intervention of God Himself, a super-Magisterial magisterial authority was established to which people could take such disputes.</blockquote>PH wrote in response:<span style="color: red;"></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: red;">Using the definition of Magisterium as “The Church's active competence, juridically embodied, to prolong by its witness God's self-communicative self-revelation in Christ, which necessarily inheres in the Church (as the eschatologically definitive community of believers in Christ, founded by him as an hierarchical society, empowered by a mission to bear testimony to Christ), and which demands obedience." (<em>Concise Theological Dictionary</em> p. 268 Burns and Oates, Herder and Herder, New York, London, 1965) one can find the notion of the Magisterium expressed in the NT from a number of passages (citations only and not recitation of the passages so as to not offend either Mr. Bugay or Louis) to support it, to begin with: Mt l6:15, 18; Mt. 28: 18-20; Lk. 10: 16; Acts 15:6-8, 28; Gal. 4:19; 1 Cor 4:15; 1 Timothy 3:15; 2 Timothy 1:13.</span> <span style="color: black;"><strong>So rather than relying on my authority, I would rest my case on the Scriptures and how the Church interprets them.</strong></span><span style="color: black;"> </span></blockquote>Rhology addresses only the portion in bold:<br />
<blockquote>Unless the Mag[isterium] infallibly interp[ret]ed those Scr[iptures] [passages], you're relying on private fallible interp[retation] in order to prove your position that the Mag[isterium] is necessary to correct for people's private fallible interp[retation]s. Something is ironic about that...</blockquote>I reply:<span style="color: blue;"></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;">Of course, Rhology’s smug argument suffers from more question begging as to whether the above referenced scripture passages actually need to be “infallibly” interpreted in order to be understood. Perhaps Rhology can point to a dispute that has arisen among sincere Catholics because they have differing interpretations of the above referenced passages so we can all see the irony that he sees in quoting such. Now, I can point Rhology to the magisterial source (Ordinary) where I got some of my ideas used in responding to Rhology’s comments. It was an oral address entitled <em><a href="http://www.ewtn.com/library/BISHOPS/MAGSTRM.HTM">The Magisterium, the Bishops, and the Theologians</a></em> given at a Catholic symposium on the Magisterium by the Most Rev. David M. Maloney, Bishop of Wichita, a holy and learned gentleman who actually assisted in writing some of the conciliar documents at Vatican II.<br />
<br />
And while I am it, here are a couple of infallible magisterial sources that do reference these citations listed above which I found without any difficulty in case anyone was wondering (I am sure that I could find many more with a little work): </span><br />
<blockquote><blockquote><span style="color: blue;">Mt l6:15, 18 First Vatican Council, Session IV, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ, Chapter 4., <em>The Infallible “Magisterium” of the Roman Pontiff</em></span><span style="color: blue;"><br />
<br />
Lk. 10: 16 Canon 21 of the Council of Constantinople IV</span></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><span style="color: blue;">Acts 15:6-8 This is the scriptural account of the Council of Jerusalem that actually set the pattern as to how the Church is to conduct a council to settle disputes over doctrine.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"></span><span style="color: blue;"><br />
Acts 15:28 Ditto.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"></span><span style="color: blue;"><br />
Gal. 4:19 Second Vatican Council, <em>Lumen Gentium</em>, Chapter 1:7.</span><span style="color: blue;"></span><span style="color: blue;"><br />
<br />
1 Cor. 4:15 Second Vatican Council, <em>Lumen Gentium</em>, Chapter 3:21, 28</span><span style="color: blue;"><br />
</span><span style="color: blue;"><br />
1 Tim. 3:15 Council of Trent, <em>Decree on the Most Holy Eucharist</em>, Chapter 1</span></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><span style="color: blue;"><br />
2 Tim. 1:13. Pius IX, <em>Exiam tuam</em> on the False Doctrines of Anton Guenther (1857)</span></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>Redacting a major portion of my argument, Rhology takes the following statement of mine out of context:<br />
<blockquote><strong>It must be noted that Catholics do not put the Magisterium over the Word of God, rather the Magisterium is the servant of the Word of God.</strong><span style="color: red;"> </span></blockquote>Rhology responding only to the boldfaced part:<br />
<blockquote>So why does it get the Gospel wrong? And posit Purgatory? And the Immaculate Conception of Mary? And the Assumption of Mary? And worshiping pictures of dead people? And the treasury of merit and indulgences? And other examples of exceeding what is written all the time?</blockquote>PH replies:<span style="color: blue;"></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;">Talk about question begging and strawman argumentation (we do not worship pictures of dead people anymore than Rhology does)! Of course Rumple-rhology’s whole argument is based on the premise that he can actually demonstrate these doctrines as taught by the Church are erroneous. As a Calvinist, Rhology may take issue with the above doctrines, but the question here is whether he can show that Catholics disagree with them after these doctrines or dogmas were defined by the Magisterium. He may link us to a bunch of articles where he and his cohorts address various misrepresentations and misapprehensions about what the Church teaches on these subjects claiming to have refuted them, but he certainly did not do so here.</span></blockquote>Rhology offers the following quibble to a portion of the statement I wrote, “The Magisterium fulfills this role under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority.” (Thus, bringing up stuff about how some Catholics are disobedient by advocating pro-choice agendas is a red herring):<br />
<blockquote>Since YOU were the one who introduced the idea that a teaching authority is apparently to be measured by the laity's obedience to it, that would be YOUR red herring. And again, thank you for acknowledging that this argument is stupid.</blockquote>PH writes in reply:<br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;">No, it is Rhology that introduced the idea that a teaching authority is to be measured by the laity’s response and obedience to it as demonstrated above. Looking at the entire statement I made and not just the cherry-picked squib that Rhology responds to one sees he left out the major thrust of the statement:</span><span style="color: blue;"></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;">"It must be noted that Catholics do not put the Magisterium over the Word of God, rather the Magisterium is the servant of the Word of God. Its role is to faithfully safeguard the truth about God and his plan for our lives which came to full expression in the teaching and saving work of Jesus Christ, the Word made flesh. It is not to add to God’s revelation or to subtract from it, only to faithfully interpret and apply it to real life situations (CCC 85-86). The Magisterium fulfills this role under the guidance of the sacred teaching authority. (Thus, bringing up stuff about how some Catholics are disobedient by advocating pro-choice agendas is a red herring.) "Faithful and respectful obedience" to the Magisterium is something presupposed (Cf. Romans 1:5; 16:25-26) as the consent given to belief, is a consent not to what is just the word of men, but rather is held to be the Word of God. See, <em>Lumen Gentium</em> 12 and 25." </span></blockquote><span style="color: blue;">NOTE that the argument states that “<strong>Faithful and respectful obedience to the Magisterium is something presupposed</strong>” so Rhology’s <em>ad hominem</em> claim of stupidity is a response to a straw man argument of his own construction that he labors to huff and puff to blow down.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">As demonstrated from the entire statement I wrote as opposed to the squibs Rhology presented, I never wrote or even inferred that the teaching authority of the Church is “apparently to be measured by the laity's obedience to it teaching.” Not at all. What I was trying to indicate was that folks who did not give “faithful and respectful obedience” to the teachings of the Church can not be said to be sincere nor really Catholic for that matter. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">And since the Church has steadfastly taught since apostolic times that abortion is inherently immoral, evil, and sinful, there is no such thing as “sincere” differences of opinion on this issue. As for the other issue about the Church owning wealth, perhaps Rhology could point us to an actual schism or heresy on that point to see where he going with it as I am not aware of any such thing (I do acknowledge that I am not a know-it-all as to the causes of heresy or schism). If Rhology misunderstood my argument as opposed to misrepresenting it, I hope this little piece of non-magisterial clarification aids his understanding as to the advantage of a Magisterium that can do likewise when misunderstandings occur.</span> </blockquote>Setting up the claim that the Catholic Magisterial system is circular, Rhology wrote:<br />
<blockquote>And then when there are disputes about what the super-Magisterial magisterial authority says, whether Paul will posit a super-super-Magisterial magisterial authority. And then whether he'll later posit a super-super-super-Magisterial magisterial authority...</blockquote>PH responded: <strong></strong><br />
<blockquote><strong>Unlike Protestantism which holds that each person is his own magisterial</strong> <strong>authority</strong>, <span style="color: red;">we recognize that Jesus is the final arbiter as head of the Church, who is exercising through those that are placed in authority by Him to lead/serve the Church.</span> <strong>Thus, the scenario you raise does not occur</strong>. <span style="color: red;">If you disagree, prove it that Catholics do not believe in the concept that "the buck stops here."</span> </blockquote>Rhology now writes:<br />
<blockquote>How do strawmen help the Roman cause? Is it Mag[isterial] teaching that strawmen are the best strategy? Is that in <em>Lumen Gentium</em> too?</blockquote>PH replies:<br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;">How does cherry-picking statements and taking them out of context, help your cause? More to the point, how does making a “fallacy fallacy” argument actually advance the aims of argumentation at all? </span><span style="color: blue;"></span><span style="color: blue;">Since I have been accused of fallacy, let us see if that is the case. I have made the claim that each Protestant through the exercise of his own private judgment holds himself up as his own magisterial authority. I will go one step further and state that the practice of private judgment as exercised and abused by Protestants is an exercise in idolatry as the individual places himself above the Word of God instead of being subject to it.</span><span style="color: blue;"></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br />
How can I make this claim? I will elucidate:</span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="color: blue;">Let us first define what I mean by “private judgment.” In his book, <em>What Faith Really Means</em>, Bishop Henry Graham, a former Calvinist minister who converted to Catholicism, wrote:</span><span style="color: blue;"></span></blockquote><span style="color: blue;"></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;"><blockquote><blockquote><span style="color: blue;">So far, then, from being debasing or dishonoring to our intellect, we consider the Catholic attitude to be the most beautiful and sublime act of homage to Our Divine Lord; we are honoring and adoring Him Who is the first and essential Truth.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="color: blue;"></span><span style="color: blue;">Renouncing our own judgment! Giving up our freedom! Of course we renounce our own judgment when God has spoken; of course we give up our freedom to believe the opposite of what God teaches. Protestants do the same. A Protestant who believes in the Blessed Trinity because God has revealed it -- does he not renounce his own judgment upon it? A Protestant who believes in Hell or in the Incarnation -- where is his freedom to reject it, without sin? So, if God declares that the Blessed Virgin was conceived Immaculate, or that there is a Purgatory, or that the Holy Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, shall we say, 'I am not sure about that. I must examine it for myself; I must see whether it is true, whether it is Scriptural?' Let who will take upon themselves such a responsibility.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><br />
<span style="color: blue;">On matters, indeed that Almighty God has been pleased to leave open questions, we are free to hold our own opinions, and there is a wide field here where discussion is not only permissible, but right and proper, and, it may be, even laudable. Thousands of volumes have been written on such subjects by theologians and priests. In such a sphere they have perfect liberty; the Church allows it. Moreover, not only does the Church allow, but she gladly encourages, the wisest, the most devout and learned of her sons to undertake researches into the mysteries already defined to be doctrines of faith; not, of course, for the purpose of finding whether they are true, but for the purpose of explanation, instruction, edification; of discovering and unfolding to the faithful more and more the inexhaustible treasures of Heavenly truth that lie embedded in any one of the articles of the Faith.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></blockquote><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;">The world has been enriched by whole libraries of Catholic theology -- dogmatic, moral, ascetical, mystical, and the rest. To speak, then, of the intellect being paralyzed and of the spiritual faculties being deadened by the 'Romish system' is simply ludicrous. Neither the religious literature of Protestantism, nor the finished product of their spiritual system as seen in the lives of its devotees, is to be mentioned in the same breath with that of the Catholic Church.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">When we speak of private judgment, then, let us be quite clear as to what we mean; it has its uses and it has its abuses. Private judgment, in the sense of compiling a creed for yourself out of the Bible, of accepting this doctrine and rejecting that, of judging what should be and what should not be an integral part of the truth revealed by God -- this, of course, is entirely forbidden, for it is directly contrary to the method of arriving at the truth instituted by Our Lord Jesus Christ. Do people imagine that the Son of God, having revealed a body of truth definite and explicit, eternal and unchangeable, left it to us to cut and carve, and to pick and choose here and there such bits of it as suited our taste? What the better should we be today, what advantage would the Incarnation have brought to us, if, after all, we were still floundering about in doubt and uncertainty?</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;">"Far other is the Catholic conception of Christ's mission. So soon as Our Divine Lord, speaking through the voice of His Church, solemnly declares, 'This is My teaching: this is included in the Revelation I made to the Apostles.' -- what Christian, I ask, or rather, what man that fears God, Christian or not, will dare to hesitate to bow in acquiescence, and say, 'O my God, I believe because Thou hast said it' ? ....</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></blockquote><span style="color: blue;"><blockquote><span style="color: blue;">The use of private judgment, on the other hand, <em>in the sense of an inquiry into the 'motives of credibility,' and a study of the evidences for the Faith</em>, to enable you to find out which is the one Church founded by Jesus Christ -- this is permissible, and not only permissible, but strictly necessary for all outside the Fold who wish to save their souls. But mark well: having once found the true Church, private judgment of this kind ceases; having discovered the authority established by God, you must submit to it at once. There is no need of further search for the doctrines contained in the Christian Gospel, for the Church brings them all with her and will teach you them all. You have sought for the Teacher sent by God, and you have secured him; what need of further speculation?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;">Your private judgment has led you into the Palace of Truth, and it leaves you there, for its task is done; the mind is at rest, the soul is satisfied, the whole being reposes in the enjoyment of Truth itself, who can neither deceive nor be deceived...</span></span><span style="color: blue;">Renouncing our own judgment! Giving up our freedom! Of course we renounce our own judgment when God has spoken; of course we give up our freedom to believe the opposite of what God teaches. Protestants do the same. A Protestant who believes in the Blessed Trinity because God has revealed it -- does he not renounce his own judgment upon it? A Protestant who believes in Hell or in the Incarnation -- where is his freedom to reject it, without sin? So, if God declares that the Blessed Virgin was conceived Immaculate, or that there is a Purgatory, or that the Holy Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, shall we say, 'I am not sure about that. I must examine it for myself; I must see whether it is true, whether it is Scriptural?' Let who will take upon themselves such a responsibility.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></blockquote></span></blockquote></span><span style="color: blue;"></span><blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"></span></span></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><blockquote><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;">'Be convinced,' says Cardinal Newman in his great sermon, <em>'Faith and Doubt'</em> -- 'be convinced in your reason that the Catholic Church is a teacher sent to you from God, and it is enough....You must come to the Church to learn; you must come, not to bring your own notions to her, but with the intention of ever being a learner; you must come with the intention of taking her for your portion, and of never leaving her. Do not come as an experiment, do not come as you would take sittings in a chapel or tickets for a lecture-room; come to her as to your home, to the school of your souls, to the Mother of Saints, and to the vestibule of Heaven.'"</span></span></span></blockquote></span></span></span></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote>[N.B.: Please note that the above extract was copied from an excellent article written by Philip Porvaznik entitled On Private Judgment and Catholicism found on his “<a href="http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/p101.htm">Evangelical Catholic Apologetics</a>” website. While I own Bishop Graham’s book, I was too lazy to retype the section.]<span style="color: blue;"></span><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;">The eminent 19th century Catholic American apologist, Orestes Brownson, adds:</span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"></span></span></span></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;">[P]rivate judgment (in the Protestant sense) is only when the matters judged lie out of the range of reason, and when its principle is not the common reason of mankind, nor a Catholic or public authority, but the fancy, the caprice, the prejudice or the idiosyncrasy of the individual forming it. (<em>Brownson’s Quarterly Review</em>, October 1855).</span></span></span></span></blockquote></blockquote><span style="color: blue;"></span><span style="color: blue;"></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;">Basing my argument on the above-referenced understanding of what private judgment is, the problem I have with private judgment is the believer always starts out by accepting some of the teachings of the established faith and rejecting others and then ends up accepting as legitimate the most dissenting or divergent views of others rather than defined teaching. One sees an example of this when Protestant apologists attack Catholic doctrines by quoting from the likes of a Küng, Wills, Greeley, or McBrien rather than from the host of orthodox Catholic theologians, like Ratzinger, Bouyer, Brown, Newman, Knox, Sheen, Congar, Hahn. As St. Thomas Aquinas put it, “the way of a heretic is to restrict belief in certain aspects of Christ’s doctrine selected and fashioned at pleasure” (<em>Summa</em> II-II, 1.a.1). </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Seriously, this “selection” and “fashioning” is nothing less than private judgment at work. When truth and falsehood in religion becomes a matter of private opinion, one doctrine becomes as good as another. What right does Rhology have to claim that his view of Calvinism is any better than my view of Catholicism if ultimately it all boils down to our respective opinions. If I have sincerely exercised my private judgment and have decided on those grounds to believe and hold what the Catholic Church teaches, upon what basis could Rhology deny the validity of my decision? How is quoting a couple Scripture passages going to help when I myself are relying upon my own personal interpretations of the same?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">Dr. Brownson once more:</span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;">The so-called Reformers supposed at first that they could maintain dogmatic religion by means of the Bible, without any divinely authorized interpreter or teacher, for they were not aware at first how much their interpretation of Scripture depended on the tradition of the Church in which they had all been educated. When shown this by Catholics, and shown still further that the Bible, interpreted by tradition, supported the claims of the papacy and the Catholic Church, from which they had separated, they were forced, in order to be consistent with themselves, either to return to the Catholic Church or to reject the traditional interpretation of the written word, and to rely henceforth solely, in their interpretation of the sacred text, on grammar and lexicon. But interpreted solely by grammar and lexicon, it was soon discovered that no uniform and consistent dogmatic system could with any tolerable degree of certainty be educed from the Holy Scriptures. There is no denying the fact. The variations of Protestantism, even during the lives of the reformers, the multiplication of Protestant sects, all appealing alike to the sacred text, and the experience of three hundred and more years, render it indubitable. Hard pressed by their Catholic opponents, Protestants were driven to the sad alternative of either condemning their separation from the Church and returning to her communion, or of giving up dogmatic religion as unessential and falling back on interior feeling or sentiment.</span></blockquote>And again:</blockquote><span style="color: blue;"></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;"></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;">The reformers imagined that they had opposed a truth to the authority of the Church when they asserted the authority of the Bible; but in doing this they only changed the form of their denial. Their assertion of the authority of the Bible was purely negative, simply the denial of the authority of the Church to interpret it or declare and apply its sense. It meant neither more nor less; for the Church asserted and always had asserted the authority of the Bible, interpreted and applied by the divinely instituted court in the case. The Bible, Protestant experience has proved, without the Church as that court, is as un-authoritative as are the statutes of a kingdom or republic, left to the private judgment of the citizen or subject, without the civil court to interpret and apply them to the case in hand. They, then, did not oppose to the Church as the principle of their denial any truth or authority. Nothing but pure denial, historically as well as logically, Protestantism, in spite of every refuge or subterfuge, has reached its inevitable termination - the negation of all authority, external or internal, spiritual or secular, and therefore of all faith, of all objective truth, and of all religion; for the very nature of religion is to bind the conscience, or the obligation of man to obey God. </span><span style="color: blue;"></span></blockquote></blockquote><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"></span></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;"></span></span><br />
<blockquote><blockquote><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;">Brownson, Orestes Augustus, and Henry F. Brownson. <em>The Works of Orestes A. Brownson</em>. Detroit: T. Nourse, 1882, pp. 441-442, 451. </span></span></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><span style="color: blue;"></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;"></span></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote><span style="color: blue;"></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;">St. Alphonsus Liguori stated things a bit more succinctly:</span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="color: blue;"></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;">To reject the divine teaching of the Catholic Church is to reject the very basis of reason and revelation, for neither the principles of the one nor those of the other have any longer any solid support to rest on; they can be interpreted by everyone as he pleases; every one can deny all truths whatsoever he chooses to deny. I therefore repeat: If the divine teaching authority of the Church, and the obedience to it are rejected, every error will be endorsed and must be tolerated.</span></blockquote></blockquote><span style="color: blue;"><em></em></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;"><em></em></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;"><em>Council of Trent</em>, Appendix.</span></blockquote></blockquote><span style="color: blue;"></span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;">When opinion, or private judgment, or to borrow Rhology’s term “logical argumentation,” becomes the measure of truth it is only a matter of time before all doctrinal issues become irrelevant due to the utter subjectivity of one’s own opinion. We hear all of the time the claim that Protestants agree on the “essentials,” yet in all of my years on this earth, I have never seen Protestants actually ever agree on what the “essentials” are. They are protesting something, but they don’t know quite what they are all protesting. Aside from a shared animosity (to one extent or another), Protestants don’t seem to think that doctrinal matters are really all that important unless it happens to be the ones they are opposing. But, that is a post for a different day.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="color: blue;">Now once doctrine is tossed out (in accordance with the old Protestant “agreement on the essentials” notion) what follows is that morality itself loses its objective character. This truth is so aptly demonstrated by the Protestant tendency to redefine sin as not sin as evidenced by their embracing and celebrating adulterous re-marriage after divorce, contraception, abortion, validation of homosexual relationships as marriages, and clergy who actively engage in homosexual behaviors. Not too long ago, I even read an article where a bi-sexual woman who was promoted to the status of “bishop” in the Protestant Episcopal Church proclaim that abortion is sacramental! Where is Protestant unity on these matters or is redefining what constitutes sin a non-essential matter? I find it personally fascinating what their own Reformers found to damnable sin is now a mere “tradition of man” that can disregarded at will and indulged in. And should our Protestant friends want to raise the issue of the well-publicized clergy abuse scandal, regardless of whatever else they want to say, at least the Catholic Church still declares the actions of those offending clergy to be sinful.</span></blockquote><span style="color: blue;"></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;">Such attitudes fomented by the Protestant notion of private judgment demonstrate that man, not God, becomes the center of the universe and the criteria for truth. What need does one have for truth, for doctrines, for God when authority is discarded. Anticipating the notion of private judgment as the measure or right or wrong, Satan was only being prophetic when he told our first parents that “<em>Ye shall be as gods</em>” at Gen. 3:5. As I have stated before, private judgment is nothing more than a disguised idolatry where man decides what God teaches as opposed to the other way around. Man lives according to his own lights and only accepts what is true based on what he himself has established through his own “careful” study of Scripture as a way to make Christianity conform to their personal needs and whims.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="color: blue;"><span style="color: blue;">I am sure that Rhology, if he even reads this, will continue to protest that the above argument is a straw man. However, did not Rhology himself say in the FIRST ROUND that logical argumentation should be the measure of truth? That’s idolatry my friends, pure and simple. Using Rhology’s standard for the truth, how then does not private judgment make oneself rather than God the source of truth when it is left to the individual to decide what the Word of God means. The Beggars All folks claim on the pages of their blog to see idolatry behind every Catholic tree, yet are they so blind that they can not see the real thing when strolling through their own Protestant forest? As I stated in the FIRST ROUND above, Jesus Christ is the measure of truth since He is the one Way, the Truth and Life, not logical argumentation.</span> </span></blockquote>Having waxed on too long, let us get back to the discussion. After writing, “Quoting PH, “Thus, the scenario you raise does not occur.” Rhology then adds this little gem of Christian charity:<br />
<blockquote>“One wonders how you make it work every day with your head stuck that far in the clouds.”</blockquote>PH replies:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;">I know Rhology did not mean it to be so, but I will take his criticism as a compliment, even a badge of honor. It is sort of interesting, even fascinating, that Rhology accuses me of having my head in the clouds because I actually believe what the Word of God and my Church teaches me. Rhology’s attitude certainly reveals the disguised skepticism at the core of Calvinist thought. BTW, in case Colossians 3:1-5 has been redacted from Rhology’s Bible, here is St. Paul’s view on the subject: </span><br />
<blockquote><blockquote><span style="color: blue;">Therefore, if you be risen with Christ, seek the things that are above; where Christ is sitting at the right hand of God. Mind the things that are above, not the things that are upon the earth. For you are dead; and your life is hid with Christ in God. When Christ shall appear, who is your life, then you also shall appear with him in glory. Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, lust, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is the service of idols. </span></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote><span style="color: blue;"></span><span style="color: blue;"><blockquote><span style="color: blue;">If having my head in the clouds allows me to seek and mind the things that are above, who is Rhology to gainsay me?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;"></span><span style="color: blue;">But, back to that private-judgment-is-idolatry thing...Note how St. Paul links certain sinful behavior to idolatry: fornication (divorce and remarriage); uncleanness (openly homosexual clergy); lust (homosexual marriage) –all things which many Protestant denominations have accepted and even embraced into their flavor of Christianity as idolatrous. I wonder how long it will be before they start disregarding the rest of what St. Paul wrote. </span></blockquote>Rhology quotes me some more, “<strong>Besides, such argumentation is not really atheistic, but is more pantheistic as Whateverman is merely saying that as far as he is concerned he is his own god</strong>.”<br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">Rhology then adds this:</span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: black;">For those who've not spent much time arguing with atheists (as Paul apparently hasn't),</span><a href="http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2008/01/atheism-is-usurpation-of-gods-rule.html"><span style="color: black;"> atheism IS pantheism</span></a><span style="color: black;"> and vice versa, esp when it comes to questions of authority. Which makes it worse for him - now the RC position isn't just echoing atheism, but pantheism as well. Wow, have fun with that.</span></blockquote><span style="color: black;">PH replies:</span> <br />
<blockquote><span style="color: blue;">The Catholic Church’s position does not echo Atheism or Pantheism at all. If one reads Rhology’s article that he links to, one would see that the anonymous atheist as merely exercising his version of Protestant private judgment when he declares that he is his own god. The atheist is merely exercising his own fallible judgment in deciding what is true.</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">Now as to the notion that atheism is pantheism, especially when it comes to authority is bunk. It seems to me that Rhology threw it out there as a fluff bunny to make his thoughts sound intellectual. Sure, there is a similarity between the two, systems of thought, but one can find similarity between Protestantism and Atheism as well as both are based philosophically on the premise that man is the final decider of what is true and what is not. But, it has been my experience in discoursing with the few dozen or so atheists and pantheists that have crossed my path that the difference between Pantheism (which boils down to the notion that all men are god) and Atheism (which holds that no man is god) is that atheists, like Calvinists, in the end ultimately do not recognize any higher authority than themselves (regardless of how they try to dress up their claims) as the measure of truth whereas pantheists consult every authority other than themselves looking for truth. Pantheists litter their lives with “authoritative” figures-seers, gurus, teachers, masters, etc.- to obtain insight into the truth. Such people instinctively know in their hearts that they should be looking for God and Christ Jesus, but they simply do not know where to look. </span><br />
<span style="color: blue;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: blue;">In the end, Catholicism is not like Atheism, Protestantism or Pantheism at all when it comes to authority because Catholics recognize a higher interpretative authority other than ourselves. As I pointed out in the original discussion with Rhology, Jesus Christ is the Catholic’s Way, Truth and Life, not logical argumentation.</span> </blockquote><span style="color: black;">Rhology in preparation of making another straw man argument through <em>reductio ad absurdum </em>redacts a portion of this statement I made:</span><strong> </strong><br />
<blockquote><strong><span style="color: black;">Frankly as a person who adheres to the notion of “<em>Contra factum non valet argumentum</em>,” I reject your assertion that logical argumentation is the measure of truth.</span></strong> <span style="color: red;">Christ is the way, the truth and the life. PERIOD. Since the Word of God (Christ Himself) shows as a fact that it is to be interpreted by those placed in authority of His Body, no amount of argumentation will prevail against it.</span></blockquote><span style="color: black;">Rhology then offers the following insight: </span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: black;">Ah, then Jell-O has farley bones and the further they 9 the much. That reminds me; maybe we should add this to the long list of confusion and internal dissent within Rome - whether logic is the measure of truth or not.</span></blockquote><span style="color: black;">PH replies:</span><br />
<blockquote><span style="background-color: white; color: blue;">If Calvinists such as Rhology truly believe that logical argumentation rather than the Logos the measure of truth, one must wonder why their apologists have to resort to fallacious tactics of distortion, omission, and fabrication in order to respond to the arguments presented by “Rome.”</span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br />
<span style="color: blue;"></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: blue;">Further, it is telling that during the above interaction between Rhology and myself over whether using one’s private judgment is superior to the Catholic doctrine appertaining to the Magisterium, Rhology never once quotes Scripture thereby demonstrating that the Protestant version of “Only a fool is his own lawyer” works no better in apologetics than it does in legal fora. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br />
<span style="color: blue;"></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: blue;">Rhology’s gibberish statement above epitomizes the arrogance shown by men who fetter God’s Word with their own personal subjective views rather than trust in God speaking through the Church as the criterion of truth. When men make themselves the center of all things, when all truth becomes both subjective and relative, soon thereafter God’s Word is either forgotten all together or becomes as meaningless as the gibberish Rhology spouts. Rhology may call me stupid, but words from a man such as him will never cause me to abandon Christ, my hope and my salvation nor will gibberish comments from such a man ever persuade me that logical argumentation, not Jesus Christ, is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Amen. </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br />
<span style="color: blue;"></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: blue;">Now if Rhology ever gets around to actually defending the notion of private judgment rather than to just denigrating the Magisterium, he will need to address what John Henry Cardinal Newman, yet another Catholic convert with Calvinist leanings and card-carrying member of the Magisterium, wrote in his great work, <em>Anglican Difficulties</em>:</span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="background-color: white; color: blue;"></span><br />
<blockquote><span style="background-color: white; color: blue;">T]he very idea of the Catholic Church, as an instrument of supernatural grace, is that of an institution which innovates upon, or rather superadds to nature. She does something for nature above or beyond nature. When, then, it is said that she makes her members one, this implies that by nature they are not one, and would not become one. Viewed in themselves, the children of the Church are not of a different nature from the Protestants around them; they are of the very same nature. What Protestants are, such would they be, but for the Church, which brings them together forcibly, though persuasively, "<em>fortiter et suaviter</em>," and binds them into one by her authority. Left to himself, each Catholic likes and would maintain his own opinion and his private judgment just as much as a Protestant; and he has it, and he maintains it, just so far as the Church does not, by the authority of Revelation, supersede it. The very moment the Church ceases to speak, at the very point at which she, that is, God who speaks by her, circumscribes her range of teaching, there private judgment of necessity starts up; there is nothing to hinder it. The intellect of man is active and independent: he forms opinions about everything; he feels no deference for another's opinion, except in proportion as he thinks that that other is more likely than he to be right; and he never absolutely sacrifices his own opinion, except when he <em>is</em> sure that that other knows for certain. He is sure that God knows; therefore, if he is a Catholic, he sacrifices his opinion to the Word of God, speaking through His Church. But, from the nature of the case, there is nothing to hinder his having his own opinion, and expressing it, whenever, and so far as, the Church, the oracle of Revelation, does not speak.</span></blockquote></blockquote><span style="background-color: white; color: blue;">In closing, logical argumentation, private judgment, Christian liberty or any other such notions of flawed Protestant thinking can not be the measure of truth because religious truths rely on faith as proof. Truth is a reality that we seek through faith to understand or as some members of the Magisterium put it, “Faith seeking understanding," says St, Anselm or "I believe in order to understand" says St. Augustine. Or as the Scriptures state, “Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not.” (Heb. 11:1) Logical argumentation may aid one’s faith, it can never be a substitute for it. </span><span style="background-color: white;"><br />
<span style="color: blue;"></span></span><br />
<span style="background-color: white; color: blue;">The fatal flaw with private judgment is this: while the ability to reason is common to all men, private judgment is the special act of the individual. Private judgment is not called such because it is a judgment of an individual, but because it is a judgment rendered by virtue of a private rule of principle of judgment. What constitutes the truth can never be determined thusly because there is no objectivity. As one critic of private judgment puts it: </span><span style="background-color: white; color: blue;"></span><span style="background-color: white; color: blue;">Father Smarius, S.J., puts it thus: </span><br />
<span style="background-color: white;"><br />
</span><br />
<blockquote><span style="background-color: white; color: blue;">“Protestants<em> opine</em> that Holy Scripture is Divinely revealed (this cannot be proved without the Church); they <em>opine</em> that it is to be interpreted by each individual for himself; they opine that their opinion as to its meaning will be sufficient for their salvation; and each and every interpretation they make of its meaning (except where no conceivable doubt exists from the text) is no more than an <em>opinion</em>." John Daly.<em> Michael Davies - An Evaluation</em>, Britons Catholic Library, 1989. </span></blockquote><br />
<blockquote><span style="background-color: white; color: blue;">"The chief cause of this moral degeneracy may be traced to the principle of private judgment introduced by Luther and Calvin, as the highest and only authority in religion and morality. Since the time of these Reformers, religion ceased to be the mistress, and became the slave of man. He was no longer bound to obey her, but she was bound to obey him. His reason was no longer subject to her divine authority, but she became the subject of his prejudices and passions. The Scriptures although cried up as the supreme authority, lost their objective value, and men no longer listened to the words 'Thus saith the Lord', but gave ear to the freaks and fancies of every upstart prophet and doctor, whose best reason for the faith was, 'I believe so', 'it is my impression', 'it is my opinion'. Reason itself was dethroned, and feeling became the exponent of truth. Men judged of religion as they did of their breakfasts and dinner... new fashions of belief became as numerous as new fashions of dress..." <em>Points of Controversy</em>, O'Shea: N.Y., 1873.</span></blockquote>When the church in Corinth was in danger of being ripped apart by the exercise of private judgment, St. Paul wrote to them saying:<br />
<blockquote><span style="background-color: white; color: blue;">Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms among you; but that you be perfect in the same mind, and in the same judgment. (1 Cor. 1:10)</span></blockquote><span style="background-color: white; color: blue;">Unless Rhology or any of his co-religionistsMagisterium of the Catholic Church. After all, I can point to some 252 dogmas that have been infallibly defined by my Magisterium. How many dogmas have ever been infallibly defined using private judgment or to use Rhology’s words, logical argumentation?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: blue;">God bless!</span><br />
<blockquote></blockquote><br />
</span></blockquote><blockquote></blockquote></blockquote>Paul Hofferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29837133.post-44991584786264589592010-05-09T21:20:00.000-05:002010-05-09T21:20:37.291-05:00"Que soy era Immaculada Councepciou" ~Is the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, a Pelagian Doctrine?In an article entitled, <a href="http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/04/lourdes-and-other-worthy-of-belief.html"><em>Lourdes and ther "Worthy of Belief" Fictions</em></a><em>,</em> Turretinfan made the following remark:<br />
<blockquote>On the other hand, sometimes (much more rarely) the RCC adds some new requirement to the list of things that must be believed. For example, about four years before the Lourdes event, the RCC defined the dogma of the Immaculate Conception - requiring people to believe the unbiblical (and frankly Pelagian) doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.</blockquote>While I objected to the "Pelagian" assertion in the previous article I wrote here on my blog, Mr. John Martin vociferously responded to it in the comment section to Mr. Fan's article. As a result of the well-founded objections made by Mr. Martin, Mr. Fan felt compelled to respond with another article defending his assertion that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is Pelagian in nature. In his new article entitled, <a href="http://turretinfan.blogspot.com/2010/04/immaculate-conception-and-pelagianism.html"><em>Immaculate Conception and Pelagianism - Response to John Martin</em></a><em>, </em>Mr. Fan gives two reasons why the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is Pelagian in nature:<br />
<blockquote>There are at least two reasons to view the Immaculate Conception as Pelagian:<br />
<br />
1) It denies the universality of Original Sin.<br />
<br />
2) [T]he Pelagians are the first group we can document in church history who claim that Mary was born without original sin. Obviously, that doesn't make the doctrine in itself "Pelagian" in the normal sense, but it may make it "Pelagian" in a very loose sense. </blockquote><blockquote>[Mr. Fan's commentary redacted.]</blockquote>While I commented extensively on Mr. Fan's blog to these assertions, I thought I would post them here (edited) so folks would know that I have not been goofing off somewhere and neglecting my blog. By the way, I strongly urge anyone reading my blog to go the comments section and read Mr. Martin's strong defense of the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>Hello Mr. Fan, your analysis falls short of the mark, to be sure. First and foremost, the Pelagian notion of grace is vastly different than the Catholic and Protestant understanding. Pelagius denied totally the existence of supernatural grace. The only graces he allowed in his system were the natural gift of revelation (understanding good from evil), observation of natural law (freedom of choice) and the example of Christ (willingness to follow His example). In contrast, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception has at its roots, its heart, and its substance the truth of supernatural grace flowing from God alone.<br />
<br />
Second, Pelagius denied that death was a consequence of original sin. He believed that death, old age and sickness were always a part of man's original state. Otherwise, Adam would have more power to destroy us than Christ had to save us (Pelagius' notion of the elect). <br />
<br />
While the dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin, she was not preserved from the effects of it~feeling sorrow, growing old or dying. Thus, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not deny the universality of Original Sin, but makes clear its universality. If it didn't apply to Mary, then she would not needed to have been preserved by a special application of God's supernatural graces from the stain of Original Sin. <br />
<br />
Thus. Mr. Martin (and myself for that matter in my Saint Bernadette article where I discussed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception) are correct in our contention that the Immaculate Conception is not Pelagian in any way, shape, or form. </blockquote>Mr. Fan chose to respond to my comments and asked some very thoughtful questions (his response will be highlighted in red). Accepting his invitation to respond I offer the following replies to his queries (my reply will be in blue). Please allow that some of these replies will be edited from the responses I gave in Mr. Fan's comment box due to the differences in format.<br />
<br />
In response to my contention, "<span style="color: #0b5394;">Pelagius denied totally the existence of supernatural grace</span>." Mr. Fan asked:<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">a) Do you have a citation for this allegation?</span><br />
<br />
<blockquote><span style="color: #6fa8dc;">Yes, in the plural no less. Btw: interesting use of the word “allegation.” </span><br />
<span style="color: #6fa8dc;"><br />
</span><br />
<strong><span style="color: #6fa8dc;">Primary Sources (Translated):</span></strong><br />
<span style="color: #6fa8dc;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #6fa8dc;">Augustine of Hippo. <em>On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin</em> (Book I), passim.</span><br />
<span style="color: #6fa8dc;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #6fa8dc;">Augustine of Hippo Chapters 3, 5 & 20-22 of the <em>Proceedings Against Pelagius</em> wherein St. Augustine explains that Pelagius’ use of the word grace to obtain his aquittal at the Council of Diospolis was not the same as was used by the Catholic Church. </span><br />
<span style="color: #6fa8dc;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #6fa8dc;">Pelagius. <em><a href="http://www.seanmultimedia.com/Pie_Pelagius_Defense_Of_The_Freedom_Of_The_Will.html">Defense of the Freedom of the Will</a></em> </span><br />
<span style="color: #6fa8dc;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #6fa8dc;">Pelagius. <em><a href="http://www.seanmultimedia.com/Pie_Pelagius_On_Nature.html">De Natura</a></em> </span><br />
<span style="color: #6fa8dc;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #6fa8dc;">Pelagius. <em>Letter to Demetrias</em>, passim.</span><br />
<span style="color: #6fa8dc;"><br />
</span><br />
<strong><span style="color: #6fa8dc;">Secondary Sources:</span></strong><br />
<span style="color: #6fa8dc;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #6fa8dc;">Ferguson, John. <em>Pelagius: A Historical and Theological Study</em>. Cambridge: W. Heffer & Sons, Ltd. (1956), pgs. 132-134 wherein the author discusses Pelagius’ view of grace as set forth in his commentaries and specifically addresses the error of trying to use Pelagius’ commentary on Rom. 1:3 as proof that he believed in the traditional Christian concept of supernatural or actual grace. </span><br />
<span style="color: #6fa8dc;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #6fa8dc;">Garrigou-Lagrange, Reginald. <em><a href="http://www.ewtn.com/library/Theology/grace1.htm">Grace: Commentary on the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas</a></em>,: where one would find:</span><br />
<span style="color: #6fa8dc;"><br />
</span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: #6fa8dc;">1. [Pelagianism] denied original sin, the necessity of baptism and interior grace for obtaining ordinary eternal life. It declared, however, that baptism and grace are necessary for entering the kingdom of God, which is something excelling ordinary eternal life. Hence, to attain to eternal life as commonly accepted, no grace was necessary, not even the grace of faith or the knowledge of external revelation. But, said Pelagius, God gave us a power or faculty, i.e., free will; moreover, willing and doing are eminently proper to us. Grace would be only an unnecessary adornment, just as some souls have visions and ecstasies, without which, however, a man can be saved.</span><br />
<span style="color: #6fa8dc;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #6fa8dc;">2. Later, to refute the objections drawn from Holy Scripture, Pelagius admitted the term “grace” and the necessity of grace, but by this name he designated free will, and subsequently the external grace of revelation or the preaching of the gospel.</span><br />
<span style="color: #6fa8dc;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #6fa8dc;">3. Finally, Pelagius, not knowing how to reply to the objections of Catholics, admitted internal grace, but first in the intellect alone, that is, as enlightenment; secondly, he recognized some habitual grace, but not as plainly gratuitous (he maintained that it was given according to the merits of nature) nor strictly supernatural; thirdly, the Pelagians ultimately admitted as more probable actual grace in the will, not however plainly gratuitous (but granted according to natural merits) nor necessary for doing good, but only for working more easily and perfectly.</span></blockquote><span style="color: #6fa8dc;">Portalié, Eugene. <em>A Guide to the Thought of St. Augustine</em>, trans. R.J. Bastian (Chicago: Regnery, 1960), pg . 185-186.</span><br />
<span style="color: #6fa8dc;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #6fa8dc;">Pohle, J. (1909). <u>Actual Grace</u>. <em>The Catholic Encyclopedia</em>. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Retrieved April 28, 2010 from New Advent: </span><a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689x.htm"><span style="color: #6fa8dc;">http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06689x.htm</span></a><span style="color: #6fa8dc;">.</span><br />
<span style="color: #6fa8dc;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #6fa8dc;">Pohle, J. <em>Grace: Actual and Habitual</em>. Release Date: July 29, 2009 [Ebook #29540]: </span><a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/files/29540/29540-h/29540-h.html"><span style="color: #6fa8dc;">http://www.gutenberg.org/files/29540/29540-h/29540-h.html</span></a><span style="color: #6fa8dc;">.</span><br />
<span style="color: #6fa8dc;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #6fa8dc;">Rees, B.R. <em>Pelagius: A Reluctant Heretic</em>. Wolfeboro, NH: The Boydell Press (1988), pgs. 33-37.</span><br />
<span style="color: #6fa8dc;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #6fa8dc;">I am aware that Schaff seems to feel otherwise </span><a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.xii.xxxv.html?scrBook=Rom&scrCh=3&scrV=24#highlight"><span style="color: #6fa8dc;">here</span></a><span style="color: #6fa8dc;">, but it seems he is the minority opinion.</span></blockquote>Mr. Fan asserted: <span style="color: red;">"b) Within the context of semi-pelagianism, assertion that a person is born in an innocent state by "grace" is a confusion of nature and grace. While you certainly will say that her pure nature was the result of supernatural grace, your allegation falls prey to the criticism that the Augustinians made of the semi-pelagians."</span><br />
<br />
I responded as follows: <br />
<br />
<blockquote><span style="color: #3d85c6;">Golly gee whilikers Mr. Fan, one heresy at a time please! Seriously though, you qualified the Immaculate Conception as a Pelagian error, not a Semi-Pelagian one. Are you ceding the field already and moving to attack on another front? </span><br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;">Before I offer this rebuttal, there is, of course, a problem when discussing Semi-Pelagianism for the term is rather vague, the theology murky. Are we talking about the 5th century folks, like Faustus and Vitalis, are we fast-forwarding a thousand years or so and talking about the those who held to Molinism who were wrongfully labeled by their opponents as Semi-Pelagian, or are we referring to those who hold to the modern heresies of Modernism and Pantheism to which the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was defined in response? While I think that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is a direct refutation of all three forms of Semi-Pelagianism and all forms and derivations of Pelagianism for that matter, it is possible that the way I could respond to your assertion may differ depending on the form that you are advancing with your statement.</span><br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;">For now, I will simply define Semi-Pelagianism in the context of the 5th century. Those who sought a middle ground between Saint Augustine’s doctrine of grace and Pelagius’ heretical primacy of human free will, Semi-Pelagianism maintained that a human being, though weakened by original sin, may make the initial act of will toward achieving salvation prior to receiving the necessary assistance of God’s grace. Thus your assertion in the context of Semi-Pelagianism, that a person is born in an innocent state by "grace" is a confusion of nature and grace does not make a whole of sense to me as it is my understanding that God’s grace will never move a thing contrary to its nature. Rather when God moves a thing, He moves it according to its nature or condition. See, St. Augustine, <em>On Grace and Free Will</em> 33(XVII). Since God moves us according to our nature or condition, it upholds free will. Also, God’s grace perfects our nature; it does not deform it or cause it to act in a way that negates or destroys its free will. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;">But so there is no doubt, it is now and always has been the teaching of the Catholic Church that it is God’s grace that causes the will to move.</span><br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;">For example at the Council of Orange, in 529-530 AD, it was held that Adam’s original sin is inherited by his progeny and can only be removed by the sacrament of Baptism. By the means of the sacrament, God’s unmerited grace is infused into the person for the remission of sins. Afterwards, that person’s sanctification continues throughout his lifetime, entirely the work of the infusion of grace with which the Christian cooperates, for the Christian “does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.” Canon 19 states: "That no one is saved except by God's mercy. Even if human nature remained in that integrity in which it was formed, it would in no way save itself without the help of its Creator; therefore, since without the grace of God it cannot guard the health which it received, how without the grace of God will it be able to recover what it has lost?" </span><br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;">There is nothing in the above understanding of the operation of grace that Augustine formulated and Aquinas adopted that in any way negates or contradicts the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. It was God’s grace that perfected Mary’s nature, only that it did so at her conception rather than after her birth. It was God’s grace that moved her to give her fiat at the Annunciation. It was God's grace that made her the model of the Church.</span><br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;">Since you give no examples of the sorts of criticisms or invective that Augustinians would be hurling at their Semi-Pelagian opponents, the above answer is the best that I can give you for the moment.</span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="color: #3d85c6;">Now lest anyone should think that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is somehow contrary to Augustinian teaching, here is what one Augustinian opined on the matter. Fr. Martin Luther, an obscure German Augustinian monk, taught the dogma of the Immaculate Conception circa. 1521 saying:</span></blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><span style="color: #3d85c6;">“ [Mary] is full of grace, proclaimed to be entirely without sin. God's grace fills her with everything good and makes her devoid of all evil. God is with her, meaning that all she did or left undone is divine and the action of God in her. Moreover, God guarded and protected her from all that might be hurtful to her." <em>Luther's Works</em>, American edition, vol. 43, p. 40, ed. H. Lehmann, Fortress, 1968.</span></blockquote><span style="color: #3d85c6;">Notice how Fr. Luther emphasizes t he role of God’s grace in perfecting the nature of the Blessed Virgin Mary.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;">Now I realize that given this radical position on the role grace plays in Mary's life, you will probably reject lock, stock and barrel all of this man's teaching. I am sure that everything that this man has written should be anathematized as I am aure that Luther's other works are just as infected with Semi-Pelagianism as this one and should be burnt</span> (poor attempt at humor by someone who was required to surrender it when he became an attorney). </blockquote>In response to my earlier comment:<br />
<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"The only graces he allowed in his system were the natural gift of revelation (understanding good from evil), observation of natural law (freedom of choice) and the example of Christ (willingness to follow His example)."</blockquote><br />
Mr. Fan followed with: <span style="color: red;"> a) Calling those gifts "natural" as opposed to "supernatural" appears to be somewhat arbitrary. What could be more supernatural than revelation?</span><br />
<br />
I respond:<br />
<br />
<blockquote><span style="color: #3d85c6;">Your claim of arbitrariness is noted. I should have been a little more precise. Pelagius understood grace to be of divine or supernatural character (which allowed him to avoid being anathematized for awhile), but he taught that the work of grace on us to be purely natural and external. He rejects all notion of internal infused grace which is another name for supernatural grace. </span><br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;">Saint Augustine quotes Pelagius, in Chapter V of his treatise "<em>On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin</em>" (Book I): </span><br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;"><br />
</span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: #3d85c6;">"We distinguish", says [Pelagius], "three things, arranging them in a certain graduated order. We put in the first place 'ability;' in the second, 'volition;' and in the third, 'actuality.' The 'ability' we place in our nature, the 'volition' in our will, and the 'actuality' in the effect. The first, that is, the 'ability,' properly belongs to God, who has bestowed it on His creature; the other two, that is, the 'volition' and the 'actuality,' must be referred to man, because they flow forth from the fountain of the will. For his willing, therefore, and doing a good work, the praise belongs to man; or rather both to man, and to God who has bestowed on him the 'capacity' for his will and work, and who evermore by the help of His grace assists even this capacity. That a man is able to will and effect any good work, comes from God alone. So that this one faculty can exist, even when the other two have no being; but these latter cannot exist without that former one. I am therefore free not to have either a good volition or action; but I am by no means able not to have the capacity of good. This capacity is inherent in me, whether I will or no; nor does nature at any time receive in this point freedom for itself. Now the meaning of all this will be rendered clearer by an example or two. That we are able to see with our eyes is not of us; but it is our own that we make a good or a bad use of our eyes. So again (that I may, by applying a general case in illustration, embrace all), that we are able to do, say, think, any good thing, comes from Him who has endowed us with this 'ability,' and who also assists this 'ability;' but that we really do a good thing, or speak a good word, or think a good thought, proceeds from our own selves, because we are also able to turn all these into evil. Accordingly—and this is a point which needs frequent repetition, because of your calumniation of us—whenever we say that a man can live without sin, we also give praise to God by our acknowledgment of the capacity which we have received from Him, who has bestowed such 'ability' upon us; and there is here no occasion for praising the human agent, since it is God's matter alone that is for the moment treated of; for the question is not about 'willing,' or 'effecting,' but simply and solely about that which may possibly be." </span><br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;"><br />
</span></blockquote><span style="color: #3d85c6;">Naturally, since there is no inherently defiled human nature for Pelagius, he understood the work of grace to be purely of a natural or external kind. Therefore, by grace, Pelagius first spoke of the gift of "capacity" itself or the ability to choose. Secondly, he spoke of that which "is also conferred on us as if from an outside source." (<em>To Demetrias</em>) The "outside sources" included the revelation gained through reason(Ibid.), through the law of God,(<em>Ibid</em>.) and the example and teachings of Christ.(<em>Ibid</em>.) Pelagius further amplifies this in his treatise, "<em>On the Grace of Christ</em>," wherein it is explained that "God helps us by his teaching and revelation, whilst He opens the eyes of the heart; whilst He points out to us the future, that we may not be absorbed in the present... ." </span><br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;">In other words, "God does not give grace and assistance to do an act, but that such grace consists of free will, or in law and teaching."</span><br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;">Of course this flies in the face of Rom. 7:15-25.</span> </blockquote>Mr. Fan further commented: <span style="color: red;">b) As noted above, in the semi-pelagians, we also see them sometimes calling an innocent nature the result of grace, the same as is being claimed with Mary.</span><br />
<br />
I respond: <br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;"><blockquote><span style="color: #3d85c6;">This is a rather vague statement. Since no one called himself a “Semi-Pelagian” in the 5th century, could you please point me any particular writing that gives the context that you are raising?</span><br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;">But in general, I would disagree. Mary was in an “innocent state” from the moment of her conception because of God’s application of Christ’s redemptive grace to her which continued to be applied to her all her life. This would exclude any sort of Semi-Pelagian notions that indicate that while man’s nature was damaged by Adam’s sin, it was not so damaged that man could not make the first step towards choosing to be saved. Despite rumors to the contrary, the Catholic Church acknowledges the canons of the Second Council of Orange and adheres to them. Here are a few that apply to the situation you are referring:</span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: #3d85c6;">Can. 18."That grace is preceded by no merits. A reward is due to good works, if they are performed; but grace, which is not due, precedes, that they may be done". </span><br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;">Can. 19. "That no one is saved except by God's mercy. Even if human nature remained in that integrity in which it was formed, it would in no way save itself without the help of its Creator; therefore, since without the grace of God it cannot guard the health which it received, how without the grace of God will it be able to recover what it has lost?" </span><br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;">Can. 20."That without God man can do no good. God does many good things in man, which man does not do; indeed man can do no good that God does not expect that man do" . </span><br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;">Can. 21."Nature and grace.Just as the Apostle most truly says to those, who, wishing to be justified in the law, have fallen even from grace: if justice is from the law, then Christ died in vain [ Gal. 2:21 ]; so it is most truly said to those who think that grace, which the faith of Christ commends and obtains, is nature: If justice is through nature, then Christ died in vain. For the law was already here, and it did not justify; nature, too, was already present, and it did not justify. Therefore, Christ did not die in vain, that the law also might be fulfilled through Him, who said:I came not to destroy the law, but to fulfill (it) [Matt. 5:17], and in order that nature ruined by Adam, might be repaired by Him, who said: He cameto seek and to save that which had been lost[ Luke 19:10]".</span></blockquote><span style="color: #3d85c6;">There is nothing in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception that holds contrary to the above. PERIOD.</span></blockquote>Mr. Fan continues: <span style="color: red;"> c) It does appear that your set is too limited. Pelagius acknowledges that there are sons of God according to grace (see his commentary on Romans 1:3), which at least sounds like the grace of adoption. What is the basis for your claims?</span><br />
<br />
I respond:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;"><blockquote><span style="color: #3d85c6;">A wolf may wear a sheepy overall, but it is still a wolf under it all. If you wish to adopt Pelagius’ notion of grace to refute my contention, that is your perogative, but Pelagius’ notion of grace is that it is earned through merit, making it not grace at all. See, Ferguson, John, <em>Pelagius,</em> pp. 133-134 that specifically shows the problem in relying on Pelagius’ commentary on Rom. 1:3 to show that he believed in what you and I would hold to be grace by adoption. (N.B. I hope to supplement this article with quotes from Pelagius' <em>Commentaries on the Pauline Epistles</em>)</span> </blockquote></span>I wrote earlier: "In contrast, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception has at its roots, its heart, and its substance the truth of supernatural grace flowing from God alone."<br />
<br />
Mr. Fan retorted: <span style="color: red;">a) Not in the historic sense of grace, as noted above.</span><br />
<br />
My reply: <br />
<blockquote><span style="color: #3d85c6;">I am sorry, I must of missed that-which comment are you referring to? If you are referring to the notion of grace as Pelagius defined it, then you can keep your “historic” sense of grace. I would just as soon go with the Scriptural sense of grace which is the sense that is being glorified in the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. I have already touched upon what Ferguson wrote in his book about Pelagius' notions on grace. In the Catholic sense of the word, habitual or sanctifying grace makes us participate in the very nature, in the inner life of God, according to the words of St. Peter (2 Peter 1: 4): <em>'By whom he hath given us most great and precious promises: that by these you may be made partakers of the divine nature</em>.' By grace we have become adopted children of God, heirs and co-heirs with Christ (Rom. 8: 17); by grace we are 'born of God' (John 1:13). Reconcile that with what Pelagius preached. </span></blockquote>Mr. Fan further stated: <span style="color: red;">b) The heart, roots, and substance of the doctrine is the elevation of Mary.</span><br />
<br />
I responded:<br />
<br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;"><blockquote><span style="color: #3d85c6;">Now who is making allegations? One must wonder if you have actually read what the Church holds on the honoring of Mary which does no more than reflect what Saint Ambrose wrote so long ago, “May the heart of Mary be in each Christian to proclaim the greatness of the Lord; may her spirit be in everyone to exult in God.” (<em>Commentary on the Gospel according to Luke 11:26</em>) The meaning of Saint Ambrose’s words can be found in many of the magisterial documents since the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was pronounced. </span></blockquote><blockquote><span style="color: #3d85c6;">To summarize: Mary is the Christian model of the supremely Christ-centered person, and devotion to her is the surest way for every person to become a true Christ-centered person. God’s salvific plan predestined and created her to bring Christ to men and men to Christ. It is for this reason that the Church determined that she was graced from her conception to be free from the stain of Original Sin. The most direct path to go to Jesus is through Mary.</span><br />
<span style="color: #3d85c6;"><br />
</span><br />
<blockquote><span style="color: #3d85c6;">And that through the Virgin, and through her more than through any other means, we have offered us a way of reaching the knowledge of Jesus Christ, cannot be doubted when it is remembered that with her alone of all others Jesus was for thirty years united, as a son is usually united with a mother, in the closest ties of intimacy and domestic life. Who could better than His Mother have an open knowledge of the admirable mysteries of the birth and childhood of Christ, and above all of the mystery of the Incarnation, which is the beginning and the foundation of faith? Mary not only preserved and meditated on the events of Bethlehem and the facts which took place in Jerusalem in the Temple of the Lord, but sharing as she did the thoughts and the secret wishes of Christ she may be said to have lived the very life of her Son. Hence nobody ever knew Christ so profoundly as she did, and nobody can ever be more competent as a guide and teacher of the knowledge of Christ. Pope Saint Pius X in “<em><a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_x/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-x_enc_02021904_ad-diem-illum-laetissimum_en.html"><span style="color: #3d85c6;">Ad Diem Illum Laetissimum</span></a></em> 7.”</span></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><blockquote><span style="color: #3d85c6;">"Nor can it be asserted that the Redemption by Christ was on this account lessened, as if it did not extend to the whole race of Adam: and therefore something taken away from the office and dignity of the Divine Redeemer. For if we carefully and thoroughly consider the matter, we easily perceive that Christ the Lord in a certain most perfect manner really redeemed His mother, since it was by virtue of His merits that she was preserved by God immune from all stain of original sin. Wherefore, the infinite dignity of Jesus Christ and His office of universal redemption is not diminished nor lowered by this tenet of doctrine, rather it is greatly increased." Pope Pius XII in “<em><a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_08091953_fulgens-corona_en.html"><span style="color: #3d85c6;">Fulgens Corona</span></a></em> 14”</span><br />
<br />
<br />
"In the first place it is supremely fitting that exercises of piety directed towards the Virgin Mary should clearly express the Trinitarian and Christological note that is intrinsic and essential to them. Christian worship in fact is of itself worship offered to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, or, as the liturgy puts it, to the Father through Christ in the Spirit. From this point of view worship is rightly extended, though in a substantially different way, first and foremost and in a special manner, to the Mother of the Lord and then to the saints, in whom the Church proclaims the Paschal Mystery, for they have suffered with Christ and have been glorified with Him. In the Virgin Mary everything is relative to Christ and dependent upon Him. It was with a view to Christ that God the Father from all eternity chose her to be the all-holy Mother and adorned her with gifts of the Spirit granted to no one else. Certainly genuine Christian piety has never failed to highlight the indissoluble link and essential relationship of the Virgin to the divine Savior. Yet it seems to us particularly in conformity with the spiritual orientation of our time. which is dominated and absorbed by the "question of Christ," that in the expressions of devotion to the Virgin the Christological aspect should have particular prominence. It likewise seems to us fitting that these expressions of devotion should reflect God's plan, which laid down "with one single decree the origin of Mary and the Incarnation of the divine Wisdom." This will without doubt contribute to making piety towards the Mother of Jesus more solid, and to making it an effective instrument for attaining to full "knowledge of the Son of God, until we become the perfect man, fully mature with the fullness of Christ himself" (Eph. 4:13). It will also contribute to increasing the worship due to Christ Himself, since, according to the perennial mind of the Church authoritatively repeated in our own day, "what is given to the handmaid is referred to the Lord; thus what is given to the Mother redounds to the Son; ...and thus what is given as humble tribute to the Queen becomes honor rendered to the King." (Footnotes omitted) Paul VI in <em><a href="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_p-vi_exh_19740202_marialis-cultus_en.html"><span style="color: #3d85c6;">Marialis Cultus</span></a></em> 25. [<em>For the Right Ordering and Development of Devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary</em>]</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>"This "fullness" indicates the moment fixed from all eternity when the Father sent his Son "that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life" (Jn. 3:16). It denotes the blessed moment when the Word that "was with God...became flesh and dwelt among us" (Jn. 1:1, 14), and made himself our brother. It marks the moment when the Holy Spirit, who had already infused the fullness of grace into Mary of Nazareth, formed in her virginal womb the human nature of Christ. This "fullness" marks the moment when, with the entrance of the eternal into time, time itself is redeemed, and being filled with the mystery of Christ becomes definitively "salvation time." Finally, this "fullness" designates the hidden beginning of the Church's journey. In the liturgy the Church salutes Mary of Nazareth as the Church's own beginning, for in the event of the Immaculate Conception the Church sees projected, and anticipated in her most noble member, the saving grace of Easter. And above all, in the Incarnation she encounters Christ and Mary indissolubly joined: he who is the Church's Lord and Head and she who, uttering the first fiat of the New Covenant, prefigures the Church's condition as spouse and mother." Pope John Paul II in “<em><a href="http://www.vatican.va/edocs/ENG0224/_INDEX.HTM"><span style="color: #3d85c6;">Redemptoris Mater</span></a></em>”.</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote>Nowhere in any of these writings does one see the Catholic Church “elevating” Mary. Rather, the Church uses the dogma of the Immaculate Conception to show that honoring Mary is perfectly Christocentric. Through the teaching of the Immaculate Conception, the Church makes it clear that her pre-redemption is focused on Jesus Christ, the divine Redeemer. The only folks who "elevate" Mary are Protestant apologists who misapprehend and misrepresent that Catholics make her out to be an addition to the Holy Trinity.</blockquote><span style="color: black;">I wrote previously: "Second, Pelagius denied that death was a consequence of original sin."</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">Mr. Fan queried: Do you mean of Adam's sin? Where does Pelagius deny this?</span><br />
<span style="color: black;">I answered with the following:</span><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Yes, Adam’s sin is the original sin. (Rom. 5:12). Saint Augustine says that Pelagius’ denies it in his Commentary on Romans (I wish I was going to Columbus any time soon so I can get the book) in <em>A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins</em>. See also, <em>On Original Sin</em>, Chapter 14. In addition, I have already referred you to a number of secondary sources that indicate this. Schaff also claims this in his book, “<a href="http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf105.v.ii.i.html"><span style="color: #3d85c6;"><em>Saint Augustine: Anti-Pelagian writings</em></span></a><span style="color: #3d85c6;"><em>.</em></span> </blockquote><span style="color: black;">I wrote earlier: "He believed that death, old age and sickness were always a part of man's original state."</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;">Mr. Fan asked: "Where does Pelagius state this? What writing of his?"</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">My brief response:</span><br />
<br />
<blockquote>See, Schaff above.</blockquote><span style="color: black;">I had written before: "</span><span style="color: black;">Otherwise, Adam would have more power to destroy us than Christ had to save us (Pelagius' notion of the elect)."</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">Mr. Fan then asked:</span><span style="color: red;"> “That seems like Julian's argument against Augustine. Again, are you sure this is Pelagius?”</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">I replied:</span><br />
<br />
<blockquote>Julian said it more explicitly than Pelagius, but at least the way I read it Pelagius’ commentary on Romans 5:12-15 certainly seems to affirm that. (N.B. I will try to lay my hands on the work so I can quote it rather than give my assertions.)</blockquote><span style="color: black;">I wrote: "While the dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary was preserved from the stain of original sin, she was not preserved from the effects of it~feeling sorrow, growing old or dying."</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black;">Mr. Fan then asked me to</span> : a) Contrast your position with Bellisario's.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">Earlier Mr. Bellisario had written the following comment:</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: black;"><blockquote><span style="color: black;">“Do you know the difference between Original Sin and personal sin? She was conceived in the state that Adam and Eve were created in, with a lack of Original Sin, or in the state of Original Grace, yet differing because there was a special grace given to her after the fall. So she was pardoned the loss of Original Grace at her conception by the grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Yes, she is unique among the human race in this regard in being created like Adam and Eve were from the beginning. This is actually very fitting since her "yes" was the reversal of Adam and Eve's "no." Even though this is the case, there was still a possibility that she could have sinned after this as Adam and Eve did, but of course she remained in the grace of God by the grace of her only son, Jesus Christ. So God's grace through the Blessed Mother starts the process of redemption of mankind, which is only completed through the incarnation of Christ, and His sacrifice on the cross. Like it or not, she is shares in God's plan of redemption in the role in which God chose for her.”</span></blockquote><br />
<br />
<blockquote>What is there to contrast? Since Saint Paul tells us that death entered the world through Adam’s sin and since Mary suffered the effects of that, illness, injury, old age, and death; then she suffered from the effects of original sin although she did not suffer the from the privation of sanctifying grace that would have occurred had her soul been stained with it. The fact that Mr. Bellisario contends that Mary could have still personally sinned had God’s grace not continued to be active (concupiscence) throughout her life shows that he agrees with my position.<br />
<br />
What the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception holds is that the stain of original sin- that formal active essence of original sin was not removed from her soul, as it is removed from others by baptism; it was rather excluded through God’s preemptive application of the merits of Christ’s death and resurrection. As such, she was merely conceived in the state of original sanctity, innocence, and justice that our first parents, Adam and Eve, had and all the stain and fault, depraved emotions, passions, and debilities, that come from original sin, were excluded. But, based on my researches into Catholic doctrine, there is an absence of any authority that contradict the Scriptures which says she was not made exempt from the temporal penalties of Adam -- from sorrow, bodily infirmities, and death. Furthermore, the fact that Jesus could thirst, be killed and did die shows that His human body too suffered from the temporal effects of original sin even though He certainly was wholly, totally and completely without sin, original or otherwise.</blockquote><br />
<div><span></span></div><div></div><span style="color: black;">Mr. Fan continued: </span><span style="color: red;">b) Interesting that you acknowledge Mary's death.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">I responded with:</span> <br />
<blockquote>Show me where I am not allowed to in the teachings of the Catholic Church. When Pope Pius XII defined the dogma of the Assumption in “<em>Munificentissimus Deus</em>,” he specifically did not decide whether Mary died before being assumed. I happen to believe that she did based on the totality of the patristic witness. What is important that God did not allow Mary to suffer from the sting of death-that is bodily corruption due to the graces she received from Him.</blockquote><span style="color: black;">Mr, Fan then asked this question: </span><span style="color: red;">“c) For whose sin did Mary die?”</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">I wrote this response:</span> <br />
<br />
<blockquote>Don’t be blasphemous. Unlike Jesus Christ’s death, her death had no redemptive feature. The dogma of the Assumption allows that Mary could have died, the fullness of grace that she had received from God as a part of His plan of salvation did not allow her was not suffer any corruption from dying. </blockquote><span style="color: black;">Mr. Fan continued: </span><span style="color: red;">d) I.D. stated: "And hence they affirmed that the Blessed Virgin was, through grace, entirely free from every stain of sin, and from all corruption of body, soul and mind; that she was always united with God and joined to him by an eternal covenant; that she was never in darkness but always in light; and that, therefore, she was entirely a fit habitation for Christ, not because of the state of her body, but because of her original grace." Are you sure that the dogma is limited only to the stain? If so, what's your authoritative basis for saying so?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">Here is my reply</span>: <br />
<br />
<blockquote>Read the encyclicals that I indicated before. None of them state that God’s sanctifying grace given to her as a result of Christ’s eternal sacrifice on the cross cured her of the temporal effects of Adam’s original sin, only from the effects that are associated with the stain of original sin. See also, CCC 396-412, specifically CCC 411.</blockquote><span style="color: black;">Previously, I had written: "Thus, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception does not deny the universality of Original Sin, but makes clear its universality."</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">Mr. Fan asked: </span><span style="color: red;">“Please identify which official formulation of the Immaculate Conception makes it clear that Mary was subject, in any way, to Original Sin.”</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">I responded in turn:</span> <br />
<blockquote>The Scriptures. For example: Lk. 2:34-35. I would ask you in turn to show me any official magisterial writing that says that Mary was not subject in any way to temporal effects of Original Sin, that is she could not suffer old age, illness, physical suffering or death.</blockquote><span style="color: red;"><span style="color: black;">Mr. Fan continued:</span> The explicit definition simply states: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."</span><br />
<span style="color: red;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: red;">However, the defining document also affirms the broader claim: "So at the instance and request of the bishops mentioned above, with the chapters of the churches, and of King Philip and his kingdoms, we renew the Constitutions and Decrees issued by the Roman Pontiffs, our predecessors, especially Sixtus IV, Paul V, and Gregory XV, in favor of the doctrine asserting that the soul of the Blessed Virgin, in its creation and infusion into the body, was endowed with the grace of the Holy Spirit and preserved from original sin; and also in favor of the feast and veneration of the conception of the Virgin Mother of God, which, as is manifest, was instituted in keeping with that pious belief."</span><br />
<span style="color: red;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: red;">[...]</span><br />
<span style="color: red;"><br />
</span><br />
<span style="color: red;">Unless the supposed application supposedly failed, original sin didn't apply to Mary.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">I responded as follows:</span> <br />
<blockquote>Original sin is basically understood as the privation of sanctifying grace in consequence of the sin of Adam or it. However, the other effects of original sin, concupiscence and physical infirmity and death, are sometimes included under the definition of original sin. When the Pope Pius IX defined the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, it is clear from the context of the document, he was referring to the former; when I wrote in your comment box, I was referring to the latter.</blockquote><span style="color: black;">The above back-and-forth only dealt with the first item which Mr. Fan claimed made that the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception a "Pelagian" doctrine. Before I close this and try to get back to my Saint Bonaventure articles, I did want to touch upon Mr. Fan's second assertion, "[T]he Pelagians are the first group we can document in church history who claim that Mary was born without original sin." </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">This item of special pleading is interesting. In a very loose sense, Mr. Fan could argue that the Pelagians did assert that Mary was immaculately conceived. Using the same logic, however, it could be argued that the Pelagians claim that Turretinfan was immaculately conceived, too, since the Pelagians did not believe in the doctrine of original sin as Catholics and mainstream Protestants (even Reformed Presbyterians) understand it. Is this an assertion that Mr. Fan wants us to assume? Or is this an example of throw-away sophistry?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">More to the point, Catholics contend that the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception is supportable from scripture. Additionally, since the patristic witnesses uniformly referred to Mary as the "Second Eve" going all the way back to at least St. Justin Martyr, it can be inferred as well. It is beyond cavil that Eve was created immaculately. If Mary is truly the "Second Eve," it can be inferred that she shared that characteristic with the first Eve. But that is a post for another day...</span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">In sum, I would humbly submit to the court of public opinion of which the reader is a member of the jury, that Mr. Fan has not carried his burden of proof in showing that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was a Pelagian doctrine, either explictly, implicitly or even loosely. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="color: black;">God bless!</span></span><span style="color: black;">My reply:</span></span></span>Paul Hofferhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09182683665344747977noreply@blogger.com0