Goats and Sheep and Sheepdogs...

Turretinfan has written an article on his blog titled, "What About King Saul? " wherein he tries to disprove the assertion that David Waltz, a friend, made he had never come across any author/theologian/bishop who denied the fact that our Lord, Jesus Christ is the “single chief Shepard” of His Church. Mr. Fan's evidence, quotations from several papal encyclicals and a statement apparently made by St. Bernard of Clairvaux, whose saintly mother, my wife and I named our daughter after. While I do realize that it is an application of Rule #12 in the Protestant controversialist handbook, "Exaggeration, distortion and bombast are all ok whenever you want to malign the pope or the office of the Pope, but don't ever give a real reason in support of your argument because those evil papists can refute them" still, I was a bit dismayed how very little substance there actually was to the article.

One statement of Mr. Fan's did intrigue me though:

There is no reasonable defense for the Roman bishop's attempted usurpation either of Christ's unique role as Shepherd, nor of his unique role of King and Priest, which are connected to that Shepherdly role

Well, hmmmm.....I don't know....how about the Bible~John 21:15-18 for starters?

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." He then said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord, you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep. [NAB]

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me more than these?’ He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my lambs.’ 16A second time he said to him, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me?’ He said to him, ‘Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Tend my sheep.’ 17He said to him the third time, ‘Simon son of John, do you love me?’ Peter felt hurt because he said to him the third time, ‘Do you love me?’ And he said to him, ‘Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.’ Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my sheep. [NRSV]

So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You " He said to him, "Tend My lambs." He said to him again a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" He said to Him, "Yes, Lord; You know that I love You." He said to him, "Shepherd My sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love Me?" Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, "Do you love Me?" And he said to Him, "Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You " Jesus said to him, "Tend My sheep." [NASB]

Now Mr. Fan did make the claim in an earlier article that he linked to in the above-mentioned post that this passage from the Bible does not show Christ instituting Peter as the shepherd over the Church in His place, but he gives no evidentiary support for his claim. I would be interested in seeing why anyone reading this passage could not reasonably (since this is the standard of proof that Mr. Fan is applying) understand it to mean that Peter and those who succeeded him (which is what the word "apostolic" means in the Apostles' Creed or Nicene Creed) were to "feed," "tend" and "shepherd" His sheep aka the people of God who make up the Church? Isn't that what shepherds do~feed, tend and shepherd sheep? Anyhow, that is what the Catholic Church teaches, if Mr Fan had cared to fairly treat the subject. Even if Christ was designating Peter as some sort of assistant shepherd or junior shepherd in training or even I guess like a border collie, would not it be appropriate to treat him and his designated successors as shepherds particularly since Jesus, Himself, stated so?

Rather than reading something a bit more substantive than a couple of cherry-picked quotes in a poorly researched article written from a biased Protestant controversialist perspective about what the Catholic Church claims, perhaps one might be better served to read Who we Catholics consider the to be the real "Chief Shepherd" of the Catholic Church and how we are to see the role the Pope, and all bishops of the Church for that matter, by reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraphs 754, 857-896, or at least a copy of the Bible that has Chapter 21 of the Gospel of John in it.

God bless!

P.S. This is what I left on Mr. Fan's comment section to the article since for some reason my comments do not often get posted there:

"Hello Mr. Fan and all, I read this article and it seems to me to be a bit lacking in substance in light of John 21:15-17 stating that Jesus commanded Peter to "tend," "feed," and "shepherd" His sheep aka the Church. See, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Sections 754, 857-896. Now one can fairly disagree with the claims of the Catholic Church, but I would submit that leaving out the reasons behind some popes and folks like St. Bernard of Clairvaux made the statements that they did is not one of them. But then again, fairness is what separates a true apologist from a controversialist. I hope in that you keep that in mind in the future. God bless!"

Announcement

Yesterday on the feast day of Saint Augustine, I agreed to do a written debate with Turretinfan on the following:

Topic: Augustine and the Eucharist

Resolution

Resolved: Augustine of Hippo adhered to the belief that Christ was really objectively present in the Eucharist.

Sides

Affirmative: Paul Hoffer
Negative: TurretinFan

Details will be forthcoming.

Protestant Euchre

Protestantism, like Euchre, is premised on the notion that in all ecclesiatical disputes, certain "cards" will trump all others to decide who wins. These trump cards do not go by the labels of "Ace" or "Left" or "Right Bower," but rather by designations like:

1 Sola scriptura ("by Scripture alone")
2 Sola fide ("by faith alone")
3 Sola gratia ("by grace alone")
4 Solus Christus or Solo Christo ("Christ alone" or "through Christ alone")
5 Soli Deo gloria ("glory to God alone")

Unfortunately, like any card game, a trump is only a trump until the players change the rules. The recent decision of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America to allow sexually active gays and lesbians in committed relationships to serve as clergy ignores the Scriptural injunction against people engaging in homosexual behaviors. This recent decision demonstrates the futility of playing the five solas like trumps. More telling, it shows how Protestantism is truly nothing more than a house of cards that can be blown over with slightest huff or puff. For, you see, in Protestantism, for all of its bluster and bombast about how important the Word of God supposedly is to its followers, there is one trump card that defeats any and all of the solas every time and that trump is called "private judgment."

This time the "private judgment" trump card was played and voila each Protestant believer in the ECLA now gets to redefine what sexual behavior constitutes sin, or for that matter any of God's law, to suit their prurient tastes and fancies. Not even the baddest or most salacious of popes in the Catholic Church's history, like Pope Alexander VI or John XII, dared to exercise such power to negate God's Word in the manner that the pro-sodomite Protestants meeting in Minneapolis have done. And whatever the anti-catholic may wish to say about the so-called recent "priest abuse" scandal in this country, no one could ever say that the Church ever decided that the sinful sexual activity by immoral priests were no longer occasions of grave sin by majority vote.

I would be interested in hearing anyone thoughts on the subject, particularly, do Protestants believe that sinful behavior is still sin even if their leadership states that such behavior is no longer sinful.

P.S. For those folks in the ECLA who are looking for a Church that still calls a sin a sin, you might want to check out the Catholic Church. I personally know alot of Episcopalians who did and are happy with their choice to join us.

God bless!

Sinking Another Protestant Anti-Catholic Myth

"We have met the enemy and they are ours; two ships, two brigs, one schooner and one sloop." ~Commodore Oliver Hazard Perry


As you, dear reader, may recall, I have been cooling my heels waiting for a translation of an article written in Latin so I can finish my Athanasius paper. Whilst I wistfully whiling away the hours I have been participating in a discussion over at Beggars All pertaining to an article captioned, “Tim Staples Says It’s Wrong to Clap and do the “Wave” at Mass” on all kinds of issues but whether it is ok to clap and do the wave at Mass. I even agreed to do a debate with Turretinfan over whether St. Augustine taught that Christ is physically present in the Eucharist (and hopefully St. John Chrysostom as well). One of the neatest things was getting to discourse with Mr. Steve Hays of Trialblogue fame. (He even insulted me! I feel so complete now.)

An item that we discoursed on is whether or not the Catholic Church promoted anti-Semitism. The issue of whether the Catholic Church was traditionally anti-Semitic is an issue that Protestant apologists, particularly of the Reformed variety, sometimes throw at Catholics when all else fails in attempting to refute a Catholic position. I have seen Professor James White use this gambit in a debate he had with Gerry Matatics, when Mr. Matatics was still a Catholic; I have seen Mr. Swan touch upon it as well on his blog. Since I rarely read Mr. Hays’ Trialblogue, I have not ever seen him use it. I am glad he did in the instance because it gave me the opportunity to offer dispel another of Protestantism’s myths about Catholicism and demonstrate that Protestants really need to read their history books. If they did, they will see that stuff actually happened between NT times and the advent of Martin Luther and can not be simply summed up in two sentences: The Popes were evil. The Catholic Church was evil.

Our discussion started out innocuously enough. I commented that the Catholic Mass borrowed elements of Jewish Sabbath service. I asked rhetorically:

“Did they copy all that stuff from us or do you think that Jewish forms of worship may have had an influence on the formulation of Christian liturgies?”

Mr. Hays responded:

Given the amount of anti-Semitism in traditional Roman Catholicism, that’s a good question.

Another Catholic who went by the handle, “Alex” valiantly defended the Church against Mr. Hays’ charge (Thank you Alex!!!). Mr. Hays countered by citing to the canons of the 4th Lateran Council that referenced Jews as proof of the Catholic Church’s anti-Semitism. (For brevity’s sake, I will state them as Mr. Hays’ listed them later) I eventually got involved in the discussion:

Hi Mr. Hays, I wasn't following closely the discussion about the 4th Lateran Council's Canons. I read your comments a bit closer. Without filling up a fair number of comment boxes, I will merely urge the readers to study European history at the time. There were actual reasons for those canons as opposed to being motivated solely or even primarily anti-Semitism. Second, if one were to read ALL of the canons closely, one would find that they were promulgated in part to protect the Jews and Muslims living among the Christians as well as vice-a-versa.

By the way, was the reformers' anti-semitism any less virulent than the Catholic Church? Can you link us to your critique of Martin Luther's "On the Jews and Their Lies"? Or how about John Calvin's "Ad Quaelstiones et Objecta Juaei Cuiusidam Responsio"?

Mr. Hays responded:

i) You’re ignoring the specific reasons which the canons cite for their discriminatory policies against the Jews.

ii) Why would it be necessary to discriminate against Jews to protect them? What beautifully twisted reasoning! If you want to protect the Jews, why not pass laws which forbid discrimination against Jews rather than passing laws that discriminate against Jews?

[Quoting me]: “By the way, was the reformers' anti-semitism any less virulent than the Catholic Church? Can you link us to your critique of Martin Luther's ‘On the Jews and Their Lies’? Or how about John Calvin's ‘Ad Quaelstiones et Objecta Juaei Cuiusidam Responsio’?”

Then Mr. Hays wrote:

Moral equivalence won’t help you here. Luther and Calvin were fallible.

By contrast, I was quoting from an ecumenical council. An expression of the extraordinary Magisterium. Do you, as a Catholic, regard the canons of an ecumenical council as on a par with the statements of Calvin and Luther?

What follows is my response in toto:

Hello Steve, You wrote:
“Moral equivalence won’t help you here. Luther and Calvin were fallible.”

My response: Now who is engaging in basic-level category errors? I never said Luther and Calvin weren’t fallible. Moreover I was not equating their pronouncements with those of ecumenical councils. Rather, I was trying to point out the glaring error you are making from a historical aspect. I advanced the notion that 12th century [N.B.: perhaps it should be 13th century], Catholic Europe had reasons to promulgate regulations on Non-Christians other than mere anti-Semitism as you and I understand the term in the 21st century. Having read both of the Protestant works I mentioned, I tried to ascertain from you whether you think that the animus that Luther and Calvin showed towards Jews was motivated from any rationale other than mere anti-Semitism. Personally, I think it is funny that I, lowly Catholic apologist, could fashion a better defense of Luther and Calvin in this instance than you if I truly thought it would make a difference at chipping away at your own prejudices here. However, since I do not think such, at least for today, I will not do so here. I will merely address your bullet points and show how silly it is to use the Canons of the 4th Lateran Council as fuel for your rants of anti-Semitism.

You write:

i) You’re ignoring the specific reasons which the canons cite for their discriminatory policies against the Jews.

I reply: Let’s examine the canons in question to see if you are right.
Canon 67:

“The more the Christians are restrained from the practice of usury, the more are they oppressed in this matter by the treachery of the Jews, so that in a short time they exhaust the resources of the Christians. Wishing, therefore, in this matter to protect the Christians against cruel oppression by the Jews, we ordain in this decree that if in the future under any pretext Jews extort from Christians oppressive and immoderate interest, the partnership of the Christians shall be denied them till they have made suitable satisfaction for their excesses. The Christians also, every appeal being set aside, shall, if necessary, be compelled by ecclesiastical censure to abstain from all commercial intercourse with them. We command the princes not to be hostile to the Christians on this account, but rather to strive to hinder the Jews from practicing such excesses. Lastly, we decree that the Jews be compelled by the same punishment (avoidance of commercial intercourse) to make satisfaction for the tithes and offerings due to the churches, which the Christians were accustomed to supply from their houses and other possessions before these properties, under whatever title, fell into the hands of the Jews, that thus the churches may be safeguarded against loss.

Hoffer on 12th Century Ecclesiastical Law: Being the lawyer that I am, this appears to be the 12th century equivalent of a consumer protection law with provisions for punitive damages. Notice that this council is not prohibiting Jews from loaning money or charging interest to Christians, only prohibiting the charging of usurious interest and from using the civil authorities to collect the debt (which in those days, usually involved lengthy incarceration, torture and the seizure of property as opposed to Ecclesiastical courts which imposed penance) often without regard to any sort of due process. Is what the Council promulgates here any difference than the treble damages provisions that many of our consumer and unfair trade practices laws we have in the 21st century? It is anti-Semitism to prohibit someone from charging and collected an unjust amount of interest?

Canon 68:

In some provinces a difference in dress distinguishes the Jews or Saracens from the Christians, but in certain others such a confusion has grown up that they cannot be distinguished by any difference. Thus it happens at times that through error Christians have relations with the women of Jews or Saracens, and Jews and Saracens with Christian women. Therefore, that they may not, under pretext of error of this sort, excuse themselves in the future for the excesses of such prohibited intercourse, we decree that such Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress. Particularly, since it may be read in the writings of Moses [Numbers 15:37-41], that this very law has been enjoined upon them.

Hoffer on 12th century Ecclesiastical Law: As we see here, it was considered a crime under the laws of both Christian and Muslim countries as well as under Talmudic law for sexual relations to occur between men and women of different religions and the penalties were severe for all concerned. (Any one read Ivanhoe?) The fact is that requiring Jews and Muslims to wear distinguishing clothing was a way of protecting Christians from suffering such penalties due to anything other than intentional sexual relations. It should be noted that under the dhimmitude of the Muslims imposed on Christians in Muslim countries, similar laws were in place. I realize that Nazis did this, but it is really anachronistic to impose their rationale as the reason the Church required distinctive clothing.

[Canon 68 cont.]

Moreover, during the last three days before Easter and especially on Good Friday, they shall not go forth in public at all, for the reason that some of them on these very days, as we hear, do not blush to go forth better dressed and are not afraid to mock the Christians who maintain the memory of the most holy Passion by wearing signs of mourning. This, however, we forbid most severely, that any one should presume at all to break forth in insult to the Redeemer. And since we ought not to ignore any insult to Him who blotted out our disgraceful deeds, we command that such impudent fellows be checked by the secular princes by imposing them proper punishment so that they shall not at all presume to blaspheme Him who was crucified for us.

Hoffer on 12th Century Ecclesiastical Law: It would appear that some Jews and Muslims gave insult to Christians and mocked the Crucifixion of Our Lord by wearing inappropriate clothing and by blaspheming Our Lord. The Council encouraged the civil authorities to pass laws to prohibit such practices. Anyone hear see this as a type of hate-crime legislation against Jews and Muslims?

Canon 69:

Since it is absurd that a blasphemer of Christ exercise authority over Christians, we on account of the boldness of transgressors renew in this general council what the Synod of Toledo (589) wisely enacted in this matter, prohibiting Jews from being given preference in the matter of public offices, since in such capacity they are most troublesome to the Christians. But if anyone should commit such an office to them, let him, after previous warning, be restrained by such punishment as seems proper by the provincial synod which we command to be celebrated every year. The official, however, shall be denied the commercial and other intercourse of the Christians, till in the judgment of the bishop all that he acquired from the Christians from the time he assumed office be restored for the needs of the Christian poor, and the office that he irreverently assumed let him lose with shame. The same we extend also to pagans.

Hoffer on 12th Century Ecclesiastical Law: This law prohibited non-Christians from holding positions that impose criminal and civil sanctions against Christians. Given the fact that they would be given these positions by civil rulers, such appointments were done as an attack by those rulers to undermine the authority of the Church. Example: a bishop would proscribe any authority from carrying out a certain unjust sentence for a certain crime under penalty of excommunication or other censure. To avoid the censure, a ruler would merely appoint non-Christians to carry out the punishments. After all how could a non-Christian be excommunicated? This part of the canon appears to be closing that loop-hole.

Canon 70:

Some (Jews), we understand, who voluntarily approached the waters of holy baptism, do not entirely cast off the old man that they may more perfectly put on the new one, because, retaining remnants of the former rite, they obscure by such a mixture the beauty of the Christian religion. But since it is written: "Accursed is the man that goeth on the two ways" (Ecclus. 2:14), and "a garment that is woven together of woolen and linen" (Deut. 22: ii) ought not to be put on, we decree that such persons be in every way restrained b the prelates from the observance of the former rite, that, having given themselves of their own free will to the Christian religion, salutary coercive action may preserve them in its observance, since not to know the way of the Lord is a lesser evil than to retrace one's steps after it is known.

Hoffer on 12th Century Ecclesiastical Law: Let’s first look at what it does not say. During this time, particularly in Spain, Jews were often forced to convert to Catholicism. When they relapsed, the Spanish authorities dealt with them very harshly, including killing them and/or confiscating their property and taking their children away from them. The Council states that only Jews who VOLUNTARILY converted to Catholicism were prevented from relapsing. Second, the Council enjoined that civil authorities could only use “salutary coercive action” to compel converted Jews to remain Catholic. While I am not an expert on the canon law in those days, I do know that the use of the phrase “salutary coercive action” meant the Church was forbidding the use of executions and torture (I wonder if they would have thought water boarding was torture) to force Jews from relapsing.

Hmmm.....I am sorry Steve, I don’t see all of the blatant anti-Semitism there that you see. I made an appointment to get my eyes checked though. I will let you know after I get my new prescription glass on Fri. to see if I see things any differently.

By the way, the first thing I was taught in law school was that all laws discriminate. If I used your definition of discrimination, I could argue that the law of God discriminates against sinners. Do you think that God will buy that defense at the Last Judgment?

You, of course, can even reject the reasons I have given for the Canons, if you so choose. I did not pore over any notes taken at the Council to check the “legislative history” of the Canons. As far as I am concerned whether you accept what I said or may say on the subject is actually quite irrelevant. I have answered your charge that the 4th Lateran Council was anti-Semitic. More to the point, however, I will point out to all that it is folly to apply modern day concepts to 12th through the 15th century concepts. If you were to do this with the Bible, I would say you were guilty of eisegesis. Since you seek to only do this with history, I will merely charge you with the lesser offense of anachronism.

In conclusion, dear reader, there are many charges that Protestant polemicists and controversialists lay against the Catholic Church. However, with a little patience and a closer examination of the facts, the Catholic apologist can usually demonstrate that is little substance to the charge. In this case, Canons 67-70 of the 4th Lateran Council are not the virulent examples of anti-Semitism Mr. Hays claimed. True, some of the language used to describe Jews was a bit pointed, but it is no harsher than some of the language employed by some apologists of today to describe Catholics and vice-a-versa. But, anyone reading the language of the canons as set forth above a fair reading can not deny that upon closer examination, these so-called virulent, anti-Semitic canons turned out to be not very virulent nor very anti-Semitic at all. Moreover, hatred of Jews was not given as the reason for promulgating the Canons. When placed back into their day, Canons 67-70 were almost ecumenical particularly when one looks at the times that spawned them. In fact, some of the language of the canons even offered Jews a measure of protection from over-zealous Christians.

I hope that this little paper takes the Protestant claim that the 4th Lateran Council promulgated anti-Semitism from shadow and fantasy into the light and truth.

God bless!

Fruits of Protestantism?

A recent article that appeared in an English newspaper gave me pause. The title: Two thirds of teenagers in England apparently don't believe in God. This conclusion is the result of a poll of some sort was conducted by Penguin Books that found that the majority of English youth do not believe in God. Moreover, one in ten British teenagers that do believe in God also believe that a person is reincarnated as an animal after they die.

While I do have some questions pertaining to the accuracy of the study and I am somewhat skeptical of the article itself as we are talking about the Telegraph which is often anti-religious in general and states Catholic doctrines inaccurately almost as many times as some of the Protestant polemicists I have commented on, it does seem to mirror the general spiritual malaise I have perceived to exist in those European countries that happen to be predominately Protestant or traditionally so. (To be fair I do see this phenomenon to a lesser extent, in Catholic Europe as well).

Could there truly be something about Protestantism's five solas that is endemically inimical to faith in God? Or is Protestantism less immune than Catholicism to the heresy of modernism that seems to pervade all aspects of present-day society because of the devaluing of the role of Church in peoples' lives? Or perhaps Professor White will treat us to a sermon on how it is an established fact that the majority of British kids that denied the existence of God in that poll are practicing Catholics? Anyone have any thoughts on the subject?

Papist Pastiche: A Bushwa Update!!!!!!!!

UPDATE: After Mr. Fan pointed out in the comment section of my last article that there are Catholics who call themselves papists, I decided to investigate further. Mr. Peters of American Papist: Not Your Average Catholic blog graciously responded to my query about his use of the term "papist". Here it is:

Subject: Re: use of the term "papist"

Hi Paul,

Of course "papist" has historically been a derogatory term. My use of it in my blog title is an attempt to reclaim it, saying in effect "sure we follow the pope, and that isn't a bad thing." It's a challenge for folks to re-examine their preconceptions about Catholics.

Now, using "papist" in an ecclesiological sense is interesting. But claiming that "papist" is uniquely-descriptive of Catholics is misleading. What is distinctive about us is that we follow all the teachings of Christ, which includes petrine primacy and infallibility. So, in a sense, being a papist represents living the fullness of the Christian life.

Grace & Peace.

With no small amount of tremulous timority (and some temerity as well), I make the modest proposal that when Catholics read one of Mr. Fan's articles or comments using the term "papist", we Catholics assume that he is praising Catholics who are "living the fullness of the Christian life" as suggested by Mr. Peters' usage of the term. First, it allows us to be more charitable towards Mr. Fan and makes his articles a bit more palatable and truthful when it comes to his discussion about Catholic doctrines.

Second, Mr. Peters' definition is far more attractive than the one Mr. Fan originally advanced before he pointed me to Mr. Peters' blog as an example of Catholics using the term "papist". Since Mr. Fan referenced it, he apparently endorses the way Mr. Peters' is using the term. Surely, Mr. Fan checked it out and knew how the term was being used by Mr. Peters before referencing in his critique of my argument against his usage of the term. Mr. Peters' definition also has the luxury of making sense, at least in the sense of ecclesiology which Mr. Fan believes legitimizes his usage of "papist".

As a bonus, by assuming that Mr. Fan is using Mr. Peters' definition, one has to guess whether Mr. Fan is really not an anti-Catholic after all. Since Mr. Fan believes that God is truly sovereign and can elect to save whom He will, Mr. Fan can not complain if God elects to save Catholics through the Catholic Church, can he? There is some precedent for this notion here. Both John Calvin and the Real Turretin used the term "papist" throughout their writings, but both did think that it was possible that Catholics could be saved within the confines of the institutional Catholic Church. See, Calvin's Commentaries, 1539 Latin, Baker Book House English reprint [1850] 1993, Vol. 9, p. 285; Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1696 Latin, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing English translation, 1997, Vol. 3, p. 121. Maybe TF is following these men's lead and agrees with them.

Of course in assuming that Mr. Fan is endorsing Mr. Peters definition of "papist" by citing to it, rather than its historical pejorative sense, one must wonder then why Turretinfan hasn't swum the Tiber long ago (given how many times he uses "papist" as a term of endearment), like so many of his former fellow Presbyterians, including folks like: Orestes Brownson, Jimmy Akin, Dr. Scott & Kimberly Hahn, Robert Sungenis, Bishop Henry Graham, and Cardinal Avery Dulles. However, being somewhat of a realist, I am still holding out the possibility that Jack Chick pays Turretinfan a nickel every time he uses the word "papist" in a sentence.

Mr. Fan, thank you for helping us find a new definition for "papist". Do you have any suggestions for websites that have the word "romanist" in their title so we can get a better definition for that pejorative too?

God bless!


P.S. Seriously, Mr. Peters' blog is an excellent read and I highly recommend folks stopping by and checking it out!

Bushwa Is Still Bushwa (Even When One Is Talking in the Ecclesiastical Sense)!

While I am waiting for a translation of the last piece I need to finish my article on whether St. Athanasius wrote The Discourse on the Holy Theotokos, I happened to visit Turretinfan’s website and saw that he still trying to defend his usage of the pejorative “papist” in an article entitled, “Papist Propaganda.” After noting that the word was coined in 1534 in France, Turretinfan states:

The term "papist" was not coined as derogatory term, nor need it carry derogatory connotations. It does not (contrary to the most bizarre piece of propaganda I recently received) mean "pope worshiper." Although some people do use it in a derogatory manner, you will not find this blogger using it that way, but rather in a way that is descriptive of ecclesiology.

At the outset, Mr. Fan fails to establish in what context the word “papist” was first used in 1534. I have never seen it used in the English language in any context other than an opprobrious manner. I have never seen it used in any context in the French language other than in an opprobrious manner. Since Mr. Fan has identified that the word was first coined in 1534, he should produce the writing in which the word first appeared so one can determine whether word was first used in a context other than in an opprobrious manner.

Moreover, Mr. Fan’s argument is a facile one. Anyone familiar with etymology could use the same sort of illegitimate argumentation that Turretinfan uses to attempt to make the word “nigger” something other than a racial epithet. However, I will not offend anybody’s sensibilities in doing so. The simple fact is that in this country, assuming for the moment that the pseudonymous Mr. Fan is a citizen of this country, the term papist has been used almost exclusively by Klansmen, Know-Nothings, nativists, Neo-Nazis and anti-Catholics as a term of derision and calumny. Is that the kind of companions that Mr. Fan wishes to associate himself with particularly when he claims all the time that he is not anti-Catholic?

Finally, the definition itself as given by Mr. Fan is faulty. As a Catholic, I am not an adherent of a pope. I am an adherent of Catholicism which is made up of the doctrines of the “One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.” Catholics do not follow the teachings of a man, unless that man be Jesus Christ. For example, there are several people on this planet at the moment who call themselves “pope.” For example: Pope Shenouda III of the Coptic Church. He is a good, Christian and holy man, but I do not follow him or his teachings because he is a “pope.”

Rather, Catholics follow the teachings and doctrines of the Catholic Church. A pope may promulgate doctrines and teachings in the course of his papal office that we may be obliged to follow by virtue of our recognition of the validity of the authority of his office within of the Church. However, to use the ecclesiastical sense, as Turretinfan wishes us to use, the best one could argue then is that I am an adherent of the papal system of church government. In that case, one could legitimately say I am a papalist, which accurately describes the ecclesiology of how the Catholic Church as an institution is governed.

To say that I am “an adherent of the pope” or “papist” is like saying that Turretinfan is the adherent of the dead French lawyer, John Calvin. If I were to do so ignores the fact that he professes to be a Presbyterian which in the sense of ecclesiology (which Mr. Fan claims is the all-important underlying justification for using the pejorative term “papist”) is a different Protestant institution of governance or denomination than a Reformed Baptist, Reformed Dutch Church or some other flavor of Reformed Protestantism. Calling someone a Calvinist in the sense of ecclesiology is no more accurate than calling someone a "papist."

Of course, there is a slight difference here. In a theological sense, Mr. Fan himself uses the label "Calvinist" as descriptive of the set of doctrines and teachings first invented by John Calvin to which Mr. Fan may ascribe. However, the term "papist" was imposed on Catholics by Protestants. We have never applied that label to describe ourselves or our form of governance or our doctrines and teachings.

The word “papist” is a religious epithet, pure and simple. Its continued use in today’s society and religious discourse can not be justified given its historical usage in the English-speaking world. Even if Mr. Fan were to establish conclusively beyond a reasonable doubt that the word once meant something other than an epithet 450 years ago when it was first coined, that word has lost that meaning centuries ago. It is time to stop using the term to describe Catholics or if one intends to keep using the term, stop denying that one is an anti-Catholic.

God bless!