Some time ago, PhatCatholic and I concluded a debate on the alleged efficacy of Holy Water (link to debate). Now, Paul Hoffer has taken up the cause in support of PhatCatholic's position.
His initial post is here (link), though I understand he plans a series of additional posts on the subject.
A few quick thoughts in response.
Mr. Hoffer describes my role in the debate as "defending the negative" and lists a few of the many arguments I presented. Mr. Hoffer appears to have overlooked that I actually took the negative position by presenting rebuttal arguments that took out the attempted arguments presented by PhatCatholic.
Interestingly, Mr. Hoffer fails to provide the arguments that PhatCatholic presented. Of course, in the absence of those arguments, the counter-arguments in rebuttal may not seem to make such sense. Mr. Hoffer, however, seems to be under the impression that I needed to prove "Holy Water," to be ineffecacious. This is consistent with his presentation of only (a few of) my rebuttal arguments, and not of PhatCatholic's attempted defense of the resolution.
Mr. Hoffer mistakenly asserted "it became clear that Turretinfan ... have no real understanding of what Holy Water is or the manner in which the Catholic Church teaches it could possibly be effective against demonic forces." In fact, I do know what it is and what the Roman Catholics teach about it. Regardless, though, whether or not I knew "Holy Water" from dishwater, PhatCatholic had the burden of establishing the actual efficacy (not "could possibly be effective") of whatever-it-is that he calls "Holy Water." In other words, my supposed ignorance was something that could only have helped PhatCatholic. I think that the objective reader can judge for himself whether any of PhatCatholic's positions and/or fallback positions had merit.
Mr. Hoffer goes on to explain that he would like to spend some time explaining Sacramentals. I have no problem with him doing so, of course. I think, though, that if he wishes to revive PhatCatholic's position that Holy Water is actually effective at stopping demonic forces, he is going to have a long creek to paddle - and that he will not get to his destination simply by explaining what they are.
At the end of the day, I think we will find that the notion of using "Holy Water" to try to ward off demons is not Biblical, but rather that such use of "Holy Water" is nothing more than a superstitious medieval invention. In fact, that it is simply a superstition that evolved over time is something that seems rather immediately apparent when an investigation into the alleged basis for the practice is made.
So, I look forward to Mr. Hoffer's series on the so-called Sacramentals. I appreciate his systematic way of thinking and his pleasing way of presenting his position. On the other hand, I do not have high expectations that the arguments in favor of the alleged efficacy will be any less leaky than those of PhatCatholic. Still, Mr. Hoffer's posts with their calm and well-planned presentation may provide benefit both for Roman Catholics and others in analyzing the issues and simplifying the differences between us. Additionally, Mr. Hoffer may provide a new position (for example that "Holy Water" is merely possibly efficacious) that will somewhat moderate the position taken by PhatCatholic in the debate.
-TurretinFan
N.B. Two items:
a) Mr. Hoffer at one point refers to me as "he/she." Just for the record, it is "he," as can be seen, for example, in my Blogger profile.
b) I note that Mr. Hoffer views this discussion of Sacramentals as more important than debating the Corban rule. I don't know whether this should be viewed as his announcement that such a debate is off the table, or only that it is to follow the discussion of the so-called Sacramentals. Since I believe that such a debate would be instructive, I hope that the latter case is what Mr. Hoffer intended.
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
1 comment:
Comment Guidelines:
1. Thanks for posting a comment. Without you, this blog would not be interactive.
2. Please be polite. That doesn't mean you have to use kid gloves, but please try not to flame others, even if they are heretics, infidels, or worse.
3. If you insult me, I'm more likely to delete your comment than if you butter me up. After all, I'm human. I prefer praise to insults. If you prefer insults, there's something wrong with you.
4. Please be concise. The comment box is not your blog. Your blog is your blog. If you have a really long comment, post it on your blog and post a short summary of it here.
5. Please don't just spam. It's one thing to be concise, it's another thing to simply use the comment box to advertise.
6. Please note, by commenting here, you are relinquishing your (C) in your comments to me.
7. Remember that you will give an account on judgment day for your words, including those typed in comment boxes. Try to write so you will not be ashamed if it is read back before the entire world.
8. Stay on topic. If your comment has nothing to do with the post, email it to me (my email can be obtained through my blogger profile), or simply don't post it.
9. Don't post as "Anonymous." If you are going to post anonymously, at least use some kind of recognizable "handle," so we can tell you apart from all the other anonymous folks. (This is moot at the moment, since recent abuse has forced me to turn off "anonymous" commenting.)
10. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; and abstain from doing to others what you would not wish upon yourself.
Well, how interesting!
ReplyDeleteHere is what I cut and paste from what I just read in the post:
TF/WORDS IN POST:[[Mr. Hoffer goes on to explain that he would like to spend some time explaining Sacramentals. I have no problem with him doing so, of course. I think, though, that if he wishes to revive PhatCatholic's position that Holy Water is actually effective at stopping demonic forces, he is going to have a long creek to paddle - and that he will not get to his destination simply by explaining what they are.]]
The Scripture and my comment. I will post the entire sequence of verses for context to my comment:::>
Mat 3:4 Now John wore a garment of camel's hair and a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey.
Mat 3:5 Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to him,
Mat 3:6 and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.
Mat 3:7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, "You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Mat 3:8 Bear fruit in keeping with repentance.
Mat 3:9 And do not presume to say to yourselves, 'We have Abraham as our father,' for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.
Mat 3:10 Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
Mat 3:11 "I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.
Mat 3:12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire."
Mat 3:13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him.
Mat 3:14 John would have prevented him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?"
Mat 3:15 But Jesus answered him, "Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he consented.
Mat 3:16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him;
Mat 3:17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."
Mat 4:1 Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil.
Apparently Mr. Hoffer does not consider the Jordan River adequate "holy water" for Him and so that is the reason the devil was allowed to pick Jesus up like a rag doll and show Him all the kingdoms of the world?
Parenthetically, the devil does not note anywhere in those verses following verse one of chapter four of Matthew's account that without Jesus' involvement there would be no kingdoms of the world?
I did see a commerical on T.V. some time back where a little boy runs and runs and runs and fetches some tap water so that the font back at the Catholic Church would be replenished? Is that where holy water is drawn from?
Ok, I digressed and it might not have been appropriate then?