How dare you call it Roman Catholic!

From time to time, when we use the phrase "Roman Catholic" rather than just "Catholic," we hear well-meaning but ill-informed folks from other side who think that "Roman Catholic" refers to the Latin rite, or who simply think that "Roman Catholic" is some kind of Protestant pejorative.  It is not.  If you are going to "Actually..." otherwise, then you must:

Disregard the numerous uses of that phrase on the Vatican website (link to results)

Disregard the defense of the formula "Roman Catholic" by Gerard Mannion (link to bio):

(The Ratzinger Reader, Teaching and Authority: Dimensions of Magisterium, p. 200)

Notice how Mannion argues that you cannot have "Catholic" if it not associated with "Roman."

Disregard the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

(Catechism of the Catholic Church, p. 221, 834)

Notice how the Catechism says that a church can only by fully catholic through communion with Rome.

Disregard, indeed, the Profession of Faith of Vatican I (Session 2, part 13): "I acknowledge the holy, catholic, apostolic and Roman church, the mother and mistress of all the churches." (footnote omitted)

But, yes, if you disregard Vatican I, the Catholic Catechism, Catholic theologians, and the Vatican's own website, then perhaps our critics have a point.  

The Canon Argument from Preservation

One of the calls of the Reformation was ad fontes: a call to go back to the authoritative originals of the Old and New Testaments.  At the time, Rome refused, insisting that the Latin Vulgate was the authentic text.  The Council of Trent stated: 

But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. ... Moreover, the same sacred and holy Synod,--considering that no small utility may accrue to the Church of God, if it be made known which out of all the Latin editions, now in circulation, of the sacred books, is to be held as authentic,--ordains and declares, that the said old and vulgate edition, which, by the lengthened usage of so many years, has been approved of in the Church, be, in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions, held as authentic; and that no one is to dare, or presume to reject it under any pretext whatever.

By contrast, the Reformed churches stated (Westminster Confession, Chapter 1, Section 8):

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the church is finally to appeal unto them.

Over time, thankfully, Roman Catholics have quietly abandoned this Tridentine error.  The Vatican website's version of the New American Bible (link) has this explanation (emphasis mine):

On September 30, 1943, His Holiness Pope Pius XII issued his now famous encyclical on scripture studies, Divino afflante Spiritu. He wrote: "We ought to explain the original text which was written by the inspired author himself and has more authority and greater weight than any, even the very best, translation whether ancient or modern. This can be done all the more easily and fruitfully if to the knowledge of languages be joined a real skill in literary criticism of the same text."

This led, naturally (same source, emphasis mine) to:

Early in 1944, in conformity with the spirit of the encyclical, and with the encouragement of Archbishop Cicognani, Apostolic Delegate to the United States, the Bishops' Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine requested members of The Catholic Biblical Association of America to translate the sacred scriptures from the original languages or from the oldest extant form of the text, and to present the sense of the biblical text in as correct a form as possible.

On the one hand, the move from using the Clementine Vulgate as the authoritative text to using the Hebrew and Greek in the canonical books is a positive move.  On the other hand, however, now Roman Catholics are left without an ultimately authoritative text.

Cynically, one might say that they are perfectly happy with this, because they do not want Scripture to be their authority.

One might ask why an ancient translation cannot be just as good as the original.  The Prologue to Sirach (as translated by the KJV translators) puts it this way:

Wherefore let me intreat you to read it with favour and attention, and to pardon us, wherein we may seem to come short of some words, which we have laboured to interpret. For the same things uttered in Hebrew, and translated into another tongue, have not the same force in them: and not only these things, but the law itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books, have no small difference, when they are spoken in their own language. 

The NAB translates it thus (source):

You therefore are now invited to read it in a spirit of attentive good will, with indulgence for any apparent failure on our part, despite earnest efforts, in the interpretation of particular passages. For words spoken originally in Hebrew are not as effective when they are translated into another language. That is true not only of this book but of the law itself, the prophets and the rest of the books, which differ no little when they are read in the original.

This problem of something being "lost in translation" is a well known phenomenon, certainly not unique to the grandson of Sirach's grandson, who apparently wrote that prologue.  Translating from one language to another is not like expressing something in rectangular vs. polar coordinates, where one can go from one way of expressing something to another way of expressing the same thing, without loss of information (or inadvertent gain of information not present in the original).

This problem seems, at present, to be insurmountable for advocates of the Apocrypha.  For example, this argument was raised in a debate with William Albrecht and Dávid Száraz, and then again in more detail in a debate with David "SoCal" Preston.  What response did they offer?  If you, the reader, can find a coherent response from them, please let me know in the comments here.

We don't worship Mary, but ...

 Roman Catholics in the US are quick to say that they don't worship Mary.  That said, the Vatican website provides the "Litany of Loreto."  The prayer states:

Lord have mercy.

Christ have mercy.

Lord have mercy.

Christ hear us.

Christ graciously hear us.

God, the Father of heaven, 

have mercy on us.

God the Son, Redeemer of the world, 

God the Holy Spirit, 

Holy Trinity, one God,

...

Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, 

spare us, O Lord.

Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, 

graciously hear us, O Lord.

Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world, 

have mercy on us.

... 

Let us pray. 

Grant, we beseech thee, 

O Lord God, 

that we, your servants,

may enjoy perpetual health of mind and body; 

and ...  

may be delivered from present sorrow, 

and obtain eternal joy. 

Through Christ our Lord. 

Amen.

Of course, as the ellipses may have given away, I have removed part of the prayer.  The part that I have left behind seems like a Christian prayer.  The trouble is that I've had to remove the majority of lines of the prayer.  The first ellipsis omits about 50 lines of adoration of Mary in which she is called, among other absurd blasphemies, "Virgin most venerable" and "Virgin most powerful."  Worse than that, she is titled "Morning star," a title that Jesus claims for himself:

Revelation 22:16 - I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.

I wish that exhausted the blasphemy, but it does not.  God (not Mary) is the refuge of sinners.  

Psalm 91:2 - I will say of the LORD, He is my refuge and my fortress: my God; in him will I trust.

Rome's promotion of the Litany of Loreto is obvious heresy.  Come out of her, my friends!

Mary, Another Redeemer?

Roman Catholic Pope Francis weighed in on the debate over the question of whether Mary is a co-redemptrix (link to Vatican site):

Christ is the Mediator, Christ is the bridge that we cross to turn to the Father (see Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2674). He is the only Redeemer: there are no co-redeemers with Christ. He is the only one. He is the Mediator par excellence. He is the Mediator. Each prayer we raise to God is through Christ, with Christ and in Christ and it is fulfilled thanks to his intercession. The Holy Spirit extends Christ’s mediation through every time and every place: there is no other name by which we can be saved: Jesus Christ, the only Mediator between God and humanity (see Acts 4:12).

After several other remarks, Francis continued:

Jesus extended Mary’s maternity to the entire Church when He entrusted her to his beloved disciple shortly before dying on the cross. From that moment on, we have all been gathered under her mantle, as depicted in certain medieval frescoes or paintings. Even the first Latin antiphon – sub tuum praesidium confugimus, sancta Dei Genitrix: the Madonna who ‘covers’, like a Mother, to whom Jesus entrusted us, all of us; but as a Mother, not as a goddess, not as co-redeemer: as Mother. It is true that Christian piety has always given her beautiful titles, as a child gives his or her mamma: how many beautiful things children say about their mamma whom they love so much! How many beautiful things. But we need to be careful: the things the Church, the Saints, say about her, beautiful things, about Mary, subtract nothing from Christ’s sole Redemption. He is the only Redeemer. They are expressions of love like a child for his or her mamma – some are exaggerated. But love, as we know, always makes us exaggerate things, but out of love.

That said, Francis is not a Protestant.  He concluded:  

Prayers said to her are not in vain. The Woman who said “yes”, who promptly welcomed the Angel’s invitation, also responds to our supplications, she hears our voices, even those that remain closed in our hearts that haven’t the strength to be uttered but which God knows better that we ourselves do. She listens as Mother. Just like, and more than, every good mother, Mary defends us from danger, she is concerned about us even when we are concentrated on our own things and lose a sense of the way, and when we put not only our health in danger, but also our salvation. Mary is there, praying for us, praying for those who do not pray. To pray with us. Why? Because she is our Mother.

I will save my critical comments for another time.  I think this represents a setback for the movement to give the title "co-redemptrix" to Mary, but those who are in favor of that will presumably say that (1) this is just a general audience not an exercise of papal infallibility and (2) what they mean by co-redemptrix is somehow consistent with Francis' statements.  

"Behold Your Mother" by Tim Staples - a Review by TurretinFan

"Behold Your Mother," by Tim Staples, "respectfully but clearly answers every conceivable Protestant objection to Mary, the Mother of God," according to Mitch Pacwa. Of course, Protestants don't object to Mary, but we understand he means the Marian dogmas of Roman Catholicism. Al Kresta, with unintentional irony, states that Tim "addresses objections I haven't seen addressed elsewhere." Robert Spitzer puts it this way: "Tim Staples presents a remarkable defense of the six major Marian doctrines, including a veritable compendium of source material from the Bible, Fathers, and Church documents." These quotations come from the endorsements on the back cover of Tim's book. Absent from the book are any official nihil obstat or imprimatur. Tim may have "street cred" with Mitch Pacwa, but he lacks the official approval of the magisterium.

Tim's book is dedicated, "For Valerie," presumably referring to his wife.

The book is not written to an academic audience. "Behold Your Mother" has about 473 footnotes and 352 pages. The list of works cited is the last five pages of the book. After Pacwa's claims for thoroughness, you may be surprised to discover that notable Protestant responses to the Marian dogmas are not listed. For example, Svendsen's "Who is My Mother," is not listed (though his much less relevant "Evangelical Answers: a Critique of Roman Catholic Apologists," is listed). Tim does include a few Protestant works, notably James White's "Mary--Another Redeemer" and Lorraine Boettner's "Roman Catholicism." Nevertheless, Tim does not provide much evidence of a deep familiarity with Protestant or other historical scholarship on the issues involved.

The book is structured around the five Marian Dogmas. After a brief introduction, the book is divided into the following parts:

• Part I "Mother of God" (pp. 17-50);
• Part II "Full of Grace" (pp. 55-127);
• Part III "Ever-Virgin" (pp. 131-192);
• Part IV "Assumed into Heaven" (pp. 197-230); and
• Part V "Mediatrix and Co-Redemptrix" (pp. 235-272).

The book then includes a section on "Queen of Queens: Mary's Regal Role in the Kingdom of God" (pp. 273-289) and a section on "Mary's Ongoing Place in our Lives" (pp. 291-92). A set of appendices follow, addressed to a variety of topics including things, namely: "Patristic Evidence for Theotokos," "Patristic Evidence for Mary's Perpetual Virginity," "Mary's Virginity in Partu," "Mary's Freedom from the Pains of Labor," "Answering Four False Charges about Patristic Mariology," and "Queenship has its Privileges."

Introduction

The introduction is subtitled "Why Mary Matters." In some ways, the introduction serves to mis-frame the issues. It is true that among the Protestant objections are objections that Roman Catholic emphasis on Mary detracts from Jesus. That would be an objection that might be raised, even if the Marian dogmas were all true. What is even more significant, however, is the fact that Rome has dogmatized false doctrines. Some of the errors Rome teaches on these topics are allegedly essential to the Christian life.

Tim tries to address the first objection by suggesting that Mary should be an instrument of faith to lead us to Jesus. That doesn't fully answer the objection. You cannot fully answer a pragmatic objection with a merely theoretical response. The answer to "the emphasis on Mary detracts from Jesus" is not really answered by "well, it's not supposed to be that way." Even if we grant that Roman Catholicism teaches that Mary should point people to Jesus, we still often see that in practice the emphasis on Mary does not lead to Jesus, but rather leads to Mary.

Moreover, the emphasis on Mary is not a Biblical emphasis. The last clear reference to Mary is in Acts 1, where she and her other sons (described as Jesus' brothers) finally join the disciples. The Biblical emphasis is on Jesus, not Mary. Scripture is Christocentric.

Tim argues that "In seeing the truth about Mary's Immaculate Conception and Assumption, we will not only see the glory of Mary, but we will see the immeasurable dignity and calling of all Christians in her" (emphasis original). That has a vaguely Scriptural sound to it, but recall that Tim has (perhaps unwittingly) stolen from Abraham to give to Mary: "And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached before the gospel unto Abraham, saying, In thee shall all nations be blessed" (Galatians 3:8) or perhaps from Jesus himself: I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:" (Galatians 1:6) or "But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light;" (1 Peter 2:9).

In point of fact, Christians are not called in Mary. They are called in Jesus. "Behold my servant, whom I uphold; mine elect, in whom my soul delighteth; I have put my spirit upon him: he shall bring forth judgment to the Gentiles." (Isaiah 42:1) "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began," (2 Timothy 1:9).

Similarly, Tim argues that "we will see God's glory and faithfulness to his promises concretized--his grace perfected--in the life of a real human person." Once again, Tim is stealing from Jesus to give to Mary: "But the God of all grace, who hath called us unto his eternal glory by Christ Jesus, after that ye have suffered a while, make you perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle you" (1 Peter 5:10) and "And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me" (2 Corinthians 12:9). Tim's comment about "real human person" leaves one wondering whether Tim is refusing to acknowledge that Jesus is one person who is fully and really human while also fully and really divine.

Tim tells us that "Our Lady will teach us of the holiness of marriage ... ." This is truly a most curious assertion. According to Rome's view of Mary's virginity, she never knew her husband, Joseph. What a curious model for marriage!

Tim argues that "Behold your mother" (John 19:27) were Jesus' words not only to John but "to each of us." No argument is presented (at least, in the introduction) for this assertion. The text states: "When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home." (John 19:26-27) I've maintained the KJV wording here partly to make clear that the text says "thee" singular and not "you" plural. There is nothing in the text or the context that imply that Jesus had in mind something other than John caring for his mother after Jesus' death. There is nothing here to suggest the universal motherhood of Mary any more than there is anything to suggest the universal sonship of John. Is John the son of every woman? Surely not. Likewise, Mary is not the mother of every Christian. The text itself shows how John interpreted this command. He did not start praying the not-yet-invented rosary, he took her to his house.

In the next post in this series, we will take a look at "Part I" of Tim's book.

Not So Much Mystery, as Error

Per Cardinal Koch (link to report), the RCC affirms salvation through an explicit or even implicit faith in Christ and says that Jews can be saved without explicitly confessing Christ:
"While affirming salvation through an explicit or even implicit faith in Christ, the Church does not question the continued love of God for the chosen people of Israel." (17)
"That the Jews are participants in God’s salvation is theologically unquestionable, but how that can be possible without confessing Christ explicitly, is and remains an unfathomable divine mystery." (36)
It would be better to characterize that as a real contradiction and consequently an error, not a divine mystery.

Interestingly enough, the report acknowledged the fact that this view is a departure from tradition:

On the part of many of the Church Fathers the so-called replacement theory or supersessionism steadily gained favour until in the Middle Ages it represented the standard theological foundation of the relationship with Judaism: the promises and commitments of God would no longer apply to Israel because it had not recognised Jesus as the Messiah and the Son of God, but had been transferred to the Church of Jesus Christ which was now the true ‘new Israel’, the new chosen people of God.

(17)

The same section goes on to admit the novelty of the Vatican II position:

Arising from the same soil, Judaism and Christianity in the centuries after their separation became involved in a theological antagonism which was only to be defused at the Second Vatican Council. With its Declaration "Nostra aetate" (No.4) the Church unequivocally professes, within a new theological framework, the Jewish roots of Christianity.

It should be interesting to listen to the various attempts to deal with this from various "conservative" RC groups.

Possible ideas:

1) It's only a report by a commission, it's not a papal encyclical. Therefore, even though it's on the Vatican website, it's not "really official."
2) The old standby, "well, this isn't ex cathedra."

Never Thirst - Taking Jesus "Literally" can be Fatal

Roman Catholics like to try to claim that they are just taking Jesus "literally" when they interpret "this is my body" to mean that what was in Jesus' hands was not bread but his physical body [FN1]. Three passages in John help to illustrate the problem with that approach: John 4, John 6, and John 7.  In the first, Jesus refers metaphorically to living water, in the second Jesus refers to himself as food and drink, and in the third Jesus offers drink to those who thirst.

In John 4, Jesus interacts with the Samaritan woman at Jacob's well.  He asks her for water, she objects because he's Jewish, and he responds that she should be asking him for water, because the water he offers is better than the water from Jacob's well. She misunderstands him as speaking physically, even after some further explanation.  She wants to stop the labor of drawing water and misunderstands Jesus' comments about "never thirst."

John 4:6-15
Now Jacob's well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well: and it was about the sixth hour. There cometh a woman of Samaria to draw water: Jesus saith unto her, Give me to drink. (For his disciples were gone away unto the city to buy meat.) Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou, being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans. Jesus answered and said unto her, If thou knewest the gift of God, and who it is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou wouldest have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water. The woman saith unto him, Sir, thou hast nothing to draw with, and the well is deep: from whence then hast thou that living water? Art thou greater than our father Jacob, which gave us the well, and drank thereof himself, and his children, and his cattle? Jesus answered and said unto her, Whosoever drinketh of this water shall thirst again: But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life. The woman saith unto him, Sir, give me this water, that I thirst not, neither come hither to draw.

In John 6, Jesus interacts with a number of "disciples" who want Jesus to repeat the miracle of the loaves that's reported at the beginning of the chapter.  Jesus explains that the person who believes on him will never thirst and whoever comes to him will never hunger, calling himself the "bread of life" that "came down from heaven." Jesus insists that the bread he offers is better than the manna that the people ate in the wilderness.  Jesus talks about them eating his flesh and drinking his blood, but they take him physically and go away in disgust.  Jesus explains that the words he speaks are spirit and life.  Jesus asks the twelve if they will go away too, but Peter (speaking for the group) says that they will stay with him because they believe and know that his words are the words of eternal life.

John 6:26-71
Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled. Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed. Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent. They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work? Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat. Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven. For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world. Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread. And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
But I said unto you, That ye also have seen me, and believe not. All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out. For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day. And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.
The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven. And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves. No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day. It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.
I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us his flesh to eat? Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me. This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum. Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it? When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father. From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him. Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.
Jesus answered them, Have not I chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil? He spake of Judas Iscariot the son of Simon: for he it was that should betray him, being one of the twelve. 

In John 7, Jesus interacts with those at the temple for the feast.  Jesus offers the thirsty people water.  John explains to us that Jesus is speaking about the Spirit as the "rivers of flowing water."

John 7:37-39 
In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink. He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water. (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

These passages illustrate Jesus' fondness for using food as a metaphor for trust in him.  We approach the Lord's table by faith, coming to Him as represented by the bread and cup.  We gain a benefit from this if we do so by faith, but not if we do so any other way.  It is not the physical elements that provide the benefit we receive, it is the Spirit.

Remember what Jesus said about clean/unclean foods:

Matthew 15:17 Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?

Unfortunately, it seems our Roman Catholic friends and relatives fail to understand this.  Christ is our spiritual food and drink, not our physical nourishment.

Isaiah 44:3 For I will pour water upon him that is thirsty, and floods upon the dry ground: I will pour my spirit upon thy seed, and my blessing upon thine offspring:
Psalm 105:41 He opened the rock, and the waters gushed out; they ran in the dry places like a river.
Isaiah 48:21 And they thirsted not when he led them through the deserts: he caused the waters to flow out of the rock for them: he clave the rock also, and the waters gushed out.
Psalm 78:20 Behold, he smote the rock, that the waters gushed out, and the streams overflowed; can he give bread also? can he provide flesh for his people?
1 Corinthians 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

The blessings we receive in Christ are primarily spiritual blessings.  We drink the spiritual drink from the spiritual Rock, and that Rock is Christ.  He is our Rock, we trust in Him.

To the glory of his grace!

TurretinFan

Footnote 1: I should add that the Roman Catholic position is particularly absurd in that it takes "this is my body" as implying that the bread ceases to be bread and becomes the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus.  Likewise, it is claimed that "this is ... my blood" implies exactly the same thing about the contents of the cup.  That's quite far from taking the words literally, in which the bread would just be the body, and the contents of the cup would just be the blood.

One Bad Argument Against Roman Catholicism (with a good side point)

In the linked article, there are two points (link). One point is the quite silly and worthless ad hominem argument that Benedict XVI was (in his youth) a part of Hitler's Nazi Youth organization. There is no doubt that he was, he admits it himself. However, it was also compulsory. Furthermore, while someone might argue he ought to have sought martyrdom rather than be a part of the Nazi movement, nevertheless that was a long time before he became pope (see this more balanced article).

In short, standing alone, Ratzinger's participation in that particular evil organization (I mean the Nazi Youth organization) is not an argument against Catholicism. It's really only something that can become relevant to a discussion on Catholicism under very special circumstances, such as when someone in Catholicism complains that a particular minister was previously a drug addict or a member of a violent gang, as though that mattered to the truth of the gospel he now proclaims.

Such a claim is absolutely silly, after all. Not only might one respond to such a claim by pointing out Benedict XVI's past life, one might point to true Christians who had serious sin. One cannot forget David and Solomon who both fell into serious and scandalous sin. Furthermore, we could add Moses and Paul: Moses was a murderer and Paul consented to Stephen's death.

But there is another point that the article raises. Sometimes those in Catholicism are so anxious to defend "the Church" that they do not bother to deal truthfully and honestly. An example is Father Federico Lombardi, the Vatican's chief spokesman, who (according to the article) "felt compelled to declare that the pope, growing up as Joseph Ratzinger in Bavaria, 'never, never, never' belonged to the Hitler Youth."  (He later backtracked on that.)

That issue is one that is much more germane to the distinctions between Rome and Geneva. The Bible never lies to us, but "the Church" through her spokesmen certainly sometimes does. Now, you can say that Lombardi was simply unaware of the Pope's biography - or perhaps he is simply an incompetent spokesman. The point is, however, that he passionately conveyed a message that wasn't true in attempt to defend Rome and his master, the pope. The Bible does not suffer from that weakness: it is the inspired and consequently infallible Word of God.

-TurretinFan

N.B. Rome's teaching on infallibility does not state that Vatican spokesmen are infallible.  In fact, it hardly teaches that anything Rome sets forth is infallible.  But you can trust everything the Bible teaches.

When did Roman Catholicism Begin?

Over at Greenbaggins, Scott asked:

TF, when, exactly, do you believe Roman Catholicism began?

I answer:

If Roman Catholicism is defined by her (supposedly) infallibly defined dogmas, her birthday is November 1, 1950, which is when her pope defined the fiction of the bodily assumption. If she is defined by the last (supposedly) ecumenical council she accepts, she's even younger (December 8, 1965), the date of conclusion of the Second Vatican Council. If she is defined by her canon laws, the most recent major edition was January 28, 1983. If she's defined by her current pope, then she's newborn.

But if she's simply vaguely defined as a movement, it's hard to provide a fixed date. Benedict XVI treated Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) as the father of Roman Catholicism - despite the fact that Thomas Aquinas' views would place him outside the RCC today.

Perhaps better dates would be the dates of the councils of Constance (1418), Florence (1445) and Trent (1563), where certain strands of scholastic theology gained ecclesiastical dominance over other strands. Then again, a lot of Tridentine RCism has been undermined in contemporary RCism.

And frankly, that's probably the best way to date the movement - to the "late medieval" period - 15th or 16th century, although there were undoubtedly doctrinal roots that go back earlier, even while recognizing that RCism continues to change even today.

That doesn't mean that no one before 1054 held to any views in common with Roman Catholics, and it doesn't mean that things like the Edict of Milan or the forged "Donation of Constantine" were insignificant factors in producing what eventually came to be RCism. Still, calling anyone in the late patristic or early medieval period "Roman Catholic" is anachronistic.

-TurretinFan

"The Real Catholics" - R. Scott Clark and Perkins

R. Scott Clark has posted a series (so far two, I'm not sure if more are in the works) drawn from the works of William Perkins (1558–1602) discussing what constitutes true Catholicity. (part 1)(part 2)

In general, both Clark's and Perkins' comments are excellent. Clark notes, "Vatican II changed none of the doctrines against which the Reformation reacted." I would caveat that with "almost none" or "none of the major." Of course, on these points, a "conservative" Roman Catholic might argue that the points of change were never doctrinal issues, despite the fact that things like the use of Latin to the exclusion of the common tongue, forced celibacy of deacons, and rigid rules for orders were defended by Rome's advocates on doctrinal grounds.

And Rome has worsened her doctrines in several ways, in addition to what Clark mentions, Rome has subsequently made the Bodily Assumption and Papal infallibility dogma. Moreover, the exclusivity of Rome has certainly be downplayed to the point where inclusivism is rampant throughout the Roman hierarchy.

Clark states: "Perkins was concerned about a false ecumenism then and we have just as much right to be concerned about it now." Just as much, and perhaps even more. Rome is approaching ecumenism more winsomely today than she did back when she was having the Reformers imprisoned and burnt at the stake.

-TurretinFan

UPDATE: Part 3 is up (link).

And the Difference Between This and Simony is ...

The German bishops are demanding that German members of the Roman Catholic Church either pay a tax or forego the sacraments, including absolution - as explained at the linked report.  Naturally, the tax goes to the German churches.

(American) Roman Catholic, Jimmy Akin, has a variety of thoughts on the matter, but his defense to the charge of simony (which he recognizes) is awefully weak.  He states: "Telling the state that you're not a Catholic just so you can get out of paying some taxes is just another form of denying the faith before Caesar."

On the other hand the report itself says: "German taxpayers can opt out of paying the religious tax by formally leaving their church through a declaration on their tax forms, though it does not require a renunciation of their faith."

But even assuming Akin is correct, surely the Roman Catholic Church does not recognize "ticking a box on a tax form" (or even swearing on a stack of Bibles) as a legitimate way of leaving membership.  Doesn't baptism allegedly leave an indelible mark?  Aren't people just "lapsed Catholics" if they deny Rome?  And isn't absolution in confession the ordinary way to restore them?

If so, they ought to be able to receive absolution through confession and penance, not payment.  Whether ticking the box on the tax form is a mortal sin is a red herring. What the German bishops are doing is, in essence, putting a price on the sacraments.  It's this kind of nonsense that led an Augustinian monk named Luther to spark a Reformation in Germany in the 1500's.

Perhaps it will be God's good pleasure to use this situation as a fresh spark to rekindle the Reformation in Germany.

-TurretinFan

P.S. Mr. Akin notes that the tens of thousands of people who have taken advantage of the tax form option are less than 1% of the German Roman Catholics.  He suggested that this means that the RCC is losing less than 1% of her income from the taxes.  That assumes that the people who take advantage of this are randomly selected.  One suspects that those with higher incomes are more likely to be looking for ways to reduce their taxes than those with smaller incomes.  Moreover, in a progressively taxed society like Germany, a large amount of the tax revenue comes from a relatively small amount of people.  So, the numbers may be considerably more dramatic than Mr. Akin suggests.

Solomon vs. Postmodernism and Her Roman Companions

Proverbs 22:17-21

Bow down thine ear, and hear the words of the wise, and apply thine heart unto my knowledge. For it is a pleasant thing if thou keep them within thee; they shall withal be fitted in thy lips. That thy trust may be in the Lord, I have made known to thee this day, even to thee. Have not I written to thee excellent things in counsels and knowledge, that I might make thee know the certainty of the words of truth; that thou mightest answer the words of truth to them that send unto thee?

Does the written word communicate the words of truth with certainty to the individual (thee = you singular) reader?

-TurretinFan

Post-Modern Roman Catholicism - Guest Post by Adam Blauser

Recently, in the comment box on this blog, a member of the Roman communion provided the following comment:

Again and again. Who has the authority in Protestantism to determine the correct interpretation of the Bible?. No one.

Adam Blauser has provided a thorough response, namely:

Again and again, why does Roman Catholicism pull out the arguments of Jacques Derrida and Stanley Fish, when postmodernism destroys Roman Catholicism too? What is the assumption behind this statement: that the only thing that factors into the interpretation of a text is the interpreter. If I allow for the author and his intention to play a role in interpretation, then it is easy to see who has the authority to determine the correct interpretation of the Bible-the authors of the Bible. Correct interpretation, then, is more of an ethical issue. The interpreter has an obligation to "not bear false witness" against the author of the text, and accurately represent what he is saying. If that is the case, then the issue of interpretation is actually an argument against Roman Catholicism, because, once you impose traditions upon the text, you are changing the world of the author, and thus, not accurately representing the world he has constructed accurately.

More than that, destroying the author as a reference point leads to total and complete postmodernism. For example, why do you accept Rome as the infallible interpreter of scripture and history? Eastern Orthodoxy also makes the same claim, as does Syrian Orthodoxy. Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses make the same claim. Before you go running off to history, let us also remember that these groups claim the right to infallibly interpret history too, just like Rome does. So, who has the authority to decide which group has the authority to infallibly interpret history and scripture? It becomes totally dependent upon which group you are a part of as to what the correct interpretation of both history and scripture is. Hence, it is relative to community. That is utter and complete postmodernism.

Not only that, but if you need an "infallible interpreter" to know which interpretations of a text are correct, then how do we know what the correct interpretations of the Egyptian Book of the Dead are? Scholars disagree. How do we know what the correct interpretation of the Baal epic is? Scholars disagree. How do we know what the correct interpretation of the Epic of Gilgamesh is? Scholars disagree. The point is, there is no text upon which there is not disagreement as to the correct interpretation. However, where is the infallible magisterium of the Egyptian Book of the Dead. Apparently, because it doesn't exist, that must mean we cannot correctly interpret what the Book of the Dead says. Where is the infallible magisterium of the Baal epic? Apparently, because it doesn't exist, that must mean we cannot correctly interpret what the Baal epic says. Where is the infallible magisterium of the Gilgamesh Epic? Apparently, because it doesn't exist, that must mean we cannot correctly interpret what the Epic of Gilgamesh says. Such results in utter destruction of all of our knowledge of what written texts say.

The real problem here is that the church is finite. Not only can other groups claim the authority to infallibly interpret both history and tradition, but, because of the finitude of all of these groups including Rome, the issue can never be settled. Not only that, Rome cannot explain why, in the instance of other texts, we can come to the correct interpretation despite differences of opinion. All of these things relate to the limited and finite nature of the church. I really wish Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox would consider these things before they go making this argument again and again. A limited, finite church is a poor base for meaning in language.

Steve Rays' Reasons

Steve Ray, now a Roman Catholic, formerly a Protestant congregant attempted to answer some questions about why he decided to trust the Papal see:

I explained my reasons for converting to the Catholic Church in my book Crossing the Tiber and on my Conversion CD. Here I provide a few of the quotations that had an impact on my decision. It is far from a complete list.

In fairness to Steve, this particular post is not going to deal with the particular sample quotations - and even the quotations may not have been the complete reason. The point of this point is to address some of the generalities.

As an Evangelical Protestant, echoing the words of Baptist Preacher Charles H. Spurgeon, I cared about what the Holy Spirit revealed to me, but had little regard for what he had revealed to others, especially those in the first centuries--some who knew the apostles personally.

With all due respect, now that Steve is Roman Catholic he STILL cannot have much regard for what the Holy Spirit revealed to other men: Steve is bound by dogma to accept the declarations of his church without regard to whether they were taught by the fathers. Steve has turned over his judgment to the truth, he has not gained liberty to evaluate the fathers freely.

Most curious is his "some who knew the apostles personally." There are no extant writings of Christians that are positively attributable to people who knew the apostles personally. There are the "Epistle of Barnabus" (attributed sometimes to Paul's companion) and "The Shepherd of Hermas," (attributed to a very early Christian or heretical writer) but the only accounts outside of Scripture that are remotely reliable as to the words of first century Christians who knew the apostles would come from the second hand words of 2nd century Christians.

I was convinced that the earliest Christians were basically “Protestant“ in their theology and practice and only became corrupted with “Catholic stuff“ in later centuries. I thought Protestants had the claim to authentic continuity back to the apostles.

Well, that depends what you consider "Catholic stuff." Some "Catholic stuff" entered very early, while other "Catholic stuff" like indulgences, prayers to departed believers, use of icons and idols for worship, papal infallibility, and the bodily assumption of Mary arose later - in some cases much later (try finding documentation of papal infallability more than a century before Vatican I).

But I was very mistaken and the more I studied the early Fathers of the Church, starting with Ignatius of Antioch, Clement of Rome, (disciples of Peter and Paul), Papias, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Justin Martyr, and others, I became convinced the early Church was Catholic. Intellectual honestly and spiritual integrity forced me to become a Catholic. As the old maxim says: “The water is always cooler and cleaner as you draw closer to the source.” I had gone back to the early Church and the truth was clear and refreshing.

First, the maxim is untrustworthy: heresies sprang up immediately. The apostles, for example, had to deal with Judaizing within the first century, and possibly Gnosticism as well (John's gospel can be viewed as a direct response to the Gnostic heresies).

Second, the claim that Ignatius of Antioch and Clement of Rome were personally familiar with the apostles is open to reasonable doubt: the historical evidence of such personal familiarity is far from persuasive. There is, however, evidence of knowledge of the writings of the apostles - evidence of knowledge of the New Testament. 

For example, when Ignatius writes to the Ephesians, he quotes from Paul's epistle to the Ephesians (see Ignatius' Letter to the Ephesians, Chapter 1, quoting from Ephesians 5:2) and Paul's epistle to the Corinthians (Id. Ch. 2, quoting from 1 Corinthians 1:10; and Ch. 18, quoting from 1 Corinthians 1:20).  Likewise, Clement writing to the Corinthians heavily relies on Old Testament Scripture, and likewise appears to reference New Testament Scripture (See 1 Clement 23, apparently combining James 1:8 and 2 Peter 3:3-4).

What is even more key is the fact that even though Ignatius of Antioch may have been ordained by one of the apostles or by men who know the apostles, in his letter the authority to which he appeals is uniformly the authority of Scripture.  He at one point quotes a saying of Jesus, but even this saying is found in the Gospels (See 1 Clement 13, providing the words found at Matthew 6:12–15 and 7:2 and Luke 6:36–38). 

More certainly could be said about the page at the link above.  There a number of quotations provided that doubtless are troubling to certain people, some of which I've addressed before, and most of which are addressed by (a) acknowledging that we are not carbon copies of the early church fathers, (b) recognizing that the church fathers were not all carbon copies of one another, (c) reading the fathers in context (perhaps I should have placed this first), and once we have adduced the true meaning of the fathers, if it disagrees with us, placing that matter before the bar of Scripture, which is the only infallible rule of faith and life.

Don't even get me started on the quotations from Luther.  I suspect my friend James Swan has already addressed those, as he has so many other attempted reliances on Luther by Rome's apologists.

-TurretinFan

Vatican and Economics

The Vatican may be a lot of things, but it is not especially capitalist. According to a report by the Vatican Information Service on March 30, 2012, the Bilateral Commission of the Delegations of the Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Holy See’s Commission for Religious Relations with Jews, held in Rome from March 27-29 (presided by Rabbi Shear Yashuv Cohen, and Cardinal Peter Kodwo Turkson)issued a joint statement at the end of the meeting:

At the heart of Jewish and Catholic visions for a just economic order is the affirmation of the sovereignty and providence of the Creator of the world with Whom all wealth originates and which is given to humankind as a gift for the common good ... the purpose of an economic order is to serve the well being of society, affirming the human dignity of all people, each created in the divine image ... [this concept] posits the obligation to guarantee certain basic human needs, such as the protection of life, sustenance, clothing, housing, health, education and employment ...

(emphasis added)

Very interesting, don't you think?

I have heard a traditionally minded Brazilian member of the Roman communion tell me that the Communists are trying (successfully) to infiltrate the Brazilian hierarchy to destroy the Church.  I think he's only partly right.  The Roman church's views on economics are left-leaning already.  They are not capitalist, free-market views.

-TurretinFan

This Goes Beyond Lampoon ...

I'm not sure what else to say about this story about a pair of Columbian priests (Roman communion) who made the headlines when they were discovered murdered. Martyrs, do you think? It turns out it was a murder for hire. They were the ones who hired the hitmen. There's more, but it's not for tender eyes.

-TurretinFan

Vatican Politics - Not Quite the 15th and 16th Centuries But ...

There have been some interesting happenings at the Vatican (link to article). The Vatican was busy last week denying what the leaked communication implied (and who knows where the truth lies), but it will be interesting to see how this pans out in terms of who is the next pope. The article suggests that Tarcisio Bertone may be the one we should expect to succeed Benedict XVI. It would be an interesting change of pace, in terms of different personalities. One imagines he would be more willing than Benedict XVI to define the dogma of the co-redemptrix.

-TurretinFan

Is Rejecting Rome the Only Protestant Unity?

Andre writes:

In my exit interview, federal vision, NPP, and NT Wright were suddenly my pastor’s best friends. He told me that he’d be comfortable if I worshipped with them but that he would worry for my soul if I joined the Catholic Church. When I heard that, I was even more comforted by my decisions. Because suspicion toward Rome seems to be the only thing uniting Protestants at this point.

First, let me tip my hat to Andre for at least going through the "exit interview" process.  While I am sure I have a lot of issues with him and his views, I am glad to see that he took the process with more seriousness than many.

That said, Andre has a warped perspective.  His former pastor would say the same thing if Andre was leaving for Islam or Mormonism, both of which claim (like Romanism) to have an authority that either de facto or de jure supercedes the Bible.  The problem is that Andre has left the visible church to join a church that rejects the gospel and has a history of persecuting those who preach the gospel.

We would and do give him the same sorts of warnings we give to those who leave for Islam or Mormonism.  The Roman magisterium is no more legitimate than Mohammed or Joseph Smith, notwithstanding their lofty claims for themselves.  We fear for the souls of those who take such actions, because they are turning their backs on the gospel, and departing from the catholic and apostolic faith.

Our warnings to those who join the federal visionist or new perspectivist groups tend to be somewhat different, mainly because their serious doctrinal errors there do not necessarily rise to the level of rejecting the gospel.  The warnings we would give in those cases would be similar to the warnings we would give to someone leaving to a Methodist or Lutheran church.

I'm not sure whether Andre understands this important distinction between the gospel and other important doctrines.  I will, however, pray for his repentance and restoration to the visible church.

-TurretinFan

Maximus the Roman Catholic Confessor?

My friend James Swan posted a short article describing Maximus the Confessor's view of Rome's authority.  Matthew Bellisario at the Catholic Champion has now posted a response.

The material provided by my friend, Mr. Swan, was as follows:

7. They said to him, "And what will you do if the Romans unite with the Byzantines? For behold, yesterday there came legates of Rome and tomorrow on Sunday they will take communion with the patriarch; it will become evident to all that it was you who turned the Romans away. Doubtless with you removed, there will then be an easy union." And he said to them, "Those who are coming cannot in any way prejudice the see of Rome, even if they should take communion because they have not brought a letter to the patriarch. And I am not at all convinced that the Romans will unite with them unless they confess that our Lord and God by nature both wills and works our salvation according to each of the natures from which he is, in which he is, as well as which he is." And they said, "And if the Romans should come to terms with them at this time, what will you do?" He replied, "The Holy Spirit, according to the Apostle, condemns even angels who sanction anything against what has been preached"

Maximus the Confessor, Selected Writings (Paulist Press, 1985), p. 23.

Maximus, according to this material, was posed with the question about what he would do if Rome united with the Constantinople on the question of the two wills of Christ. That is to say, they asked him what he would do if Rome embraced monothelitism.

The first way that they posed the question led him to respond that if the legates of the patriarch (meaning the bishop of Rome) did not have a letter from the partriarch, even if they technically took communion with the bishop of Constantinople (as evidently was expected) that would not prove that the Partriarchite had consented to that monothelitism is either correct or acceptable.

Thus, they modified their question. As modified, Maximus could no longer escape the idea that Rome had embraced monothelitism. His response under that proposed hypothetical scenario was to maintain his current position. Even if Rome accepted monothelitism, he would not.

That position is not, in itself, Sola Scriptura. After all, Maximus does not explicitly state that the reason for his refusal to adopt Rome's position is because Scripture is a higher authority. One might infer such a position from his reference to Galatians (Galatians 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.).

Whether or not such an inference is correct, Maximus the Confessor is plainly not a Roman Catholic - willing to accept whatever position Rome adopts.

Mr. Bellisario has attempted to provide some counterpoints. He provides three quotations with the citation, "(Saint Maximus the Confessor- The opuscula fragments)." The first quotation is as follows:

All the ends of the inhabited world, and those who anywhere on earth confess the Lord with a pure and orthodox faith, look directly to the most holy Church of the Romans and her confession and faith as to a sun of eternal light, receiving from her the radiant beam of the patristic and holy doctrines, just as the holy six synods, inspired and sacred, purely and with all devotion set them forth, uttering most clearly the symbol of faith. For, from the time of the descent to us of the incarnate Word of God, all the Churches of the Christians everywhere have held and possess this most great Church as the sole base and foundation, since, according to the very promise of the Saviour, it will never be overpowered by the gates of hell, but rather has the keys of the orthodox faith and confession in him, and to those who approach it with reverence it opens the genuine and unique piety, but shuts and stops every heretical mouth that speaks utter wickedness. For that which the creator of everything himself, our Lord and Master Jesus Christ, established and built up - together with his disciples and apostles, and the Holy Fathers and teachers and martyrs who came after - have been consecrated by their own works and words, by their sufferings and sweat, by their labours and blood, and finally by their remarkable deaths for the sake of the Catholic and Apostolic Church of us who believe in him, they, through two words, uttered without pain or death - O the long-suffering and forbearance of God! - are eager to dissolve and to set at naught the great, all-illumining and all-praised mystery of the orthodox worship of the Christians.

It appears that this is an alternative translation of the following:

For the very ends of the earth and those in every part of the world who purely and rightly confess the Lord look directly to the most holy church of the Romans and its confession and faith as though it were a sun of unfailing light, expecting from it the illuminating splendor of the fathers and the sacred dogmas, just as the divinely-inspired and sacred six synods have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For ever since the incarnate word of God came down to us, all the churches of Christians everywhere have held that greatest Church there to be their sole base and foundation, since on the one hand, it is in no way overcome by the gates of Hades, according to the very promise of the Savior, but holds the keys of the orthodox confession and faith in him and opens the only true and real religion to those who approach with godliness, and on the other hand, it shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks unrighteousness against the Most High. For that which was founded and built by the creator and master of the universe himself, our Lord Jesus Christ, and his disciples and apostles, and following them the holy fathers and teachers and martyrs consecrated by their own words and deeds, and by their agony and sweat, suffering and bloodshed, and finally by their violent death for the catholic and apostolic Church of us who believe in him, they strive to destroy though two words [uttered] without effort and without death – O the patience and forbearance of God! –and [so seek] to annul the great ever-radiant and ever-lauded mystery of the orthodox worship of Christians.

(Opuscula 11, translation from The body in St. Maximus the Confessor: holy flesh, wholly deified by Adam G. Cooper, pp. 181-82)

The authenticity of this text is disputed (Cooper, p. 181) a fact that Mr. Bellisario fails to mention to the reader (presumably because he doesn't know). Moreover, what does the passage say that Bellisario can affirm? It says some nice things about Rome and the six synods - but wait. It refers to "six synods." People assume the means the first five major councils (Nicaea 325, Constantinople 381, Ephesus 431, and Chalcedon 451), plus the 649 synod of the Lateran. But Bellisario would not consider that last one to be an ecumenical council (nor did it have the characteristics of such a council). And if it refers to the ecumenical council that addressed the monothelitism controversy, then it definitely isn't from Maximus - he didn't live to see that synod.

Moreover, nothing in the passage about indicates that Rome is characteristically unable ever to fall into error for a time. It does seem to suggest a thought that Rome will not be "overcome by the gates of Hades" (a misuse of that passage), but would it be "overcome" if for a time it fell into error?

But as Cooper suggests (p. 187), whether or not the passage is authentic we should consider Maximus' mature ecclesiology, as seen in the Disputatio Bizyae discussing with Theodosius:

What kind of believer accepts a dispensation silencing the very words which God of all ordained to be spoken by the apostles and prophets and teachers? Let us investigate, reverend master, what kind of evil this summary blindly arrives at. For if 'God appointed in the Church first apostles, then prophets, and third teachers' (1 Cor. 12:28) 'for the perfecting of the saints' (Eph. 4:12), having said in the Gospel to the apostles and through them to those after them, 'What I say to you, I say to all' (Mark 13:38), and again, 'He who receives you receives me, and he who rejects you rejects me' (Luke 10:16), it is clearly manifest that whoever does not receive the apostles and prophets and teachers, but rejects their words, rejects Christ himself.

Let us also investigate the other passage. God chose to raise up apostles and prophets and teachers for the perfecting of the saints. But in order to oppose godly religion the devil chose to raise up false apostles and false prophets and false teachers, so that the old law was opposed, as was also the evangelical law. And as far as I understand it the false apostles and false prophets and false teachers are the heretics alone, whose words and train of thought are distorted. Consequently, just as the one who receives the true apostles and prophets and teachers receives God, likewise the one who receives false apostles and false prophets and false teachers receives the devil. So the one who throws out the saints along with the cursed and impure heretics -- mark my word! -- manifestly condemns God along with the devil.

If, in that case, in racking our brains to come up with new words in our own times we find those words to have descended to this extreme evil, watch out lest we -- whilst alleging and proclaiming 'peace'-- be found to be struck ill with apostasy which the divine Apostle said beforehand would accompany the coming of the antichrist (2 Thess. 2:3-4).

I have spoken this to you, my lords, without holding back.... With these things inscribed in the tablet of my heart, are you telling me to enter into fellowship with a church in which these [other] things are proclaimed, and to have communion with those who actually expel God and, I imagine, the devil with God? May God -- who for my sake was made like me -- sin excepted -- never let this happen to me!

Notice how in this passage he makes individual conscience effectively supreme even over the apparent "apostles, prophets, and teachers" of his day - even to the point of hinting that he may be faced with the great apostasy.

The next quotation Bellisario provided was this:

"I don't have a teaching of my own, but the common one of the Catholic Church. I mean that I haven't initiated any expression at all that could be called my own teaching."

Before we continue, it's worth pointing out that it appears that Bellisario may have gleaned this and the previous quotation from Andrew Louth's article on Maximus's ecclesiology (which can be found here). In that article, it is cited as "Relatio," and is a portion of the transcript of his trial.

The point that Maximus is making here, though, is simply that he has not expounded a novel doctrine. He believes that he is just teaching what the church has universally held. His reference here to "the catholic church" is not a reference to the Roman Catholic church but to the universal church.

Likewise, Bellisario's third quotation (also found in this article) is as follows:

"No, he (The emperor is not a priest) isn't, because he neither stands beside the altar, and after the consecration of the bread elevates it with the words. Holy things for the holy, nor does he baptize, nor perform the rite of anointing, nor does he ordain and make bishops and presbyters and deacons; nor does he anoint churches, nor does he bear the symbols of the priesthood, the omophorion and the Gospel book, [as he bears the symbols] of imperial office, the crown and the purple."

(Relatio 4, as cited in the article)

This has nothing really to do with Mr. Swan's thesis. It's not clear why Bellisario thinks it's important to this topic (he makes a comment in his post that seems to try to tie this quotation to a point of contrast between Luther's liturgy and Maximus' liturgy - something rather tangential at best). Louth thought it was important because the relationship of Emperor to church was one that was going to be significant in coming centuries.

Shortly after presenting that quotation, the article from which Bellisario appears to have been drawing goes on to point out that in fact Rome did succumb to imperial pressures:

A precious document for Maximos' doctrine of the Church is the last writing we have from his hand, a short letter written on 19 April 658 to Anastasios, his disciple and spiritual child of by then forty years' standing, who was exiled apart from his master. (18) By then, Maximos and his few followers were on their own, Rome - in the person of Pope Vitalian - having succumbed to imperial pressure and entered into communion with the other patriarchal sees. In reply to the question - or taunt - 'What Church do you belong to? Constantinople? Rome? Antioch? Alexandria? Jerusalem? See, all of them are united, together with the provinces subject to them'. Maximos says he had replied, 'The God of all pronounced that the Catholic Church was the correct and saving confession of the faith in him when he called Peter blessed because of the terms in which he had made proper confession of him'. The Petrine foundation of the Church is Peter's faith, which even his successor can abandon, as Maximos had just learnt.

(18) The letter can be found in Allen-Neil, pp. 120-3

(Louth, p. 118)

What an interesting omission from Bellisaro! You see, the hypothetical posed to Maximus turned out not to be a hypothetical. Vitalian did cave to imperial pressure, and this was communicated to Maximus. His response, in his final letter, Maximus recognized that it is the confession of faith that defines the church, not the church that defines the confession of faith. And with that, Maximus cannot be said to be Roman Catholic, no matter how high an esteem he had for Rome at certain times (especially right after the synod of the Lateran of 649, when Rome had repudiated monothelitism).

I'm sure more could be said, but we'll leave it at that. Swan's thesis has been adequately demonstrated, and Bellisario's seemingly plagiarized material has been replaced into its proper context and given proper attribution.

-TurretinFan

P.S. In the comment box at Mr. Swan's blog, I provided a short walk-through of the original quotation, which it may be useful to include here:

Walk through the quotation.

1) "And what will you do if the Romans unite with the Byzantines? For behold, yesterday there came legates of Rome and tomorrow on Sunday they will take communion with the patriarch; it will become evident to all that it was you who turned the Romans away. Doubtless with you removed, there will then be an easy union."

They pose this as an argument that it is going to be just Maximus against all the major churches.

2) "Those who are coming cannot in any way prejudice the see of Rome, even if they should take communion because they have not brought a letter to the patriarch. And I am not at all convinced that the Romans will unite with them unless they confess that our Lord and God by nature both wills and works our salvation according to each of the natures from which he is, in which he is, as well as which he is."

But, you see, Maximus is too clever. He points out that the mere communion of the legates is not enough to show that the Roman church is in agreement with Constantinople, because they don't bear a letter to that effect addressed to the patriarch.

3) "And if the Romans should come to terms with them at this time, what will you do?"

They set this aside, and ask what if the church of Rome does join with the other churches?


4) "The Holy Spirit, according to the Apostle, condemns even angels who sanction anything against what has been preached"

Maximus refuses to assent, even under that circumstance.

Unto What Shall We Liken the Roman Hermeneutic?

Rome insists that she is an authentic interpreter of Scripture.  We can easily provide an example, within a document defining a dogma, of Rome making a clear blunder.  But let's leave that aside for a second, and consider the effect of Rome's claims on a conversation.

Christian: We should reject Marian devotion because the Bible teaches us to trust in God alone.
Roman apologist: You have wrongly interpreted the Bible.  Only Rome can authentically interpret the Bible.
Christian: That's not true, the Bible was written to be understood.  Anyone can authentically interpret the Bible, and many do - some more, and others less, well than others.
Roman Apologist: No, you cannot understand the Bible without the Roman Catholic church.
Christian: That's not so.
Roman Apologist: Look, it says so right here in Matthew 16:18.

Pause

Now, that appeal to Scripture looks an awful lot like the Roman Apologist conceding that people can understand the Bible without the Roman communion.  But behind that appearance lies a question about what this Roman hermeneutic entails.

1) Is it like special decoder glasses?

Is the Bible simply incomprehensible on its own, and one needs the Roman church to provide spectacles to make the incomprehensible, comprehensible?  If that were true, then it would make no sense to appeal to Scripture to anyone not already looking through the spectacles.

2) Is it like the answer key to a Rubik's cube?
Is the Bible simply highly complicated, and one needs the Roman church to show the map of the way through to get the solution?  If this were the case, the appeal to Scripture might make sense.  This is just the first breadcrumb along a trail that eventually leads to Rome.  In fact, though, all of Rome's attempts to prove her distinctive doctrines from Scripture fail.  When you get an answer key to a Rubik's cube, you can see the parts all come together to form the solved puzzle, even if you couldn't have done it on your own.  But with Rome, you don't get satisfactory answers like that.  You get alleged solutions, but even knowing the supposed solutions, one cannot arrive at these solutions from Scripture.

3) Is it like the person who showed you how to look at "Magic Eye" 3D pictures?
Sure, at first it was just a weird bunch of lines and patterns, but once you were taught how to change your focus, suddenly the beautiful stereoscopic patterns emerged.  Some of Rome's converts stories make it sound like they feel Rome's hermeneutic is similar to this.  The two problems are - first, they don't seem to be able to teach us how to see the butterfly amidst the squiggly lines - and second, until we see the butterfly, appeals to Scripture are just appeals to squiggle lines, and consequently futile.

4) Is it like Humpty Dumpty?
In Alice Through the Looking Glass, she encounters the character Humpty Dumpty who insists on making words mean what he wants them to mean, even when that meaning is quite distant from any conventional sense of the word.  Some of the arguments from the Roman side favor this interpretation.  After all, some Roman apologists try to approach the Bible as though it were the creation of the Church, rather than being God's word delivered to the churches (and CCC 111 and 113 seem to encourage them to take this approach).  If the Bible were the product of the Church, then the authorial intent behind the words becomes important, and we need to let Humpty Dumpty use words like "only mediator" in a far from conventional sense.  One problem with that is that it turns the text of Scripture into such a "living document" that the document itself has no particular significance.  Matthew 16:18 might as well teach the papacy as it teaches the bodily assumption of Mary, so long as Rome says that is what it means.  The fact that we don't see it in the actual meaning of the words doesn't matter.

Ultimately, no matter what we liken the Roman hermeneutic to, we should realize that the Roman hermeneutic boils down to sola ecclesia: what Rome says goes.  If the Bible appears to say the same thing, and that convinces someone that Rome is right - great.  If the Bible appears to say the opposite, the Bible's apparent meaning should be subordinated to what Rome teaches.

But if that's Rome's hermeneutic, then the appeals to Scripture as an authority are really disingenuous.  Honest Roman apologists shouldn't argue that we should believe them because (to use their lingo) we interpret the Bible the same way they do.  After all, when we interpret the Bible differently, we're supposed to just set that aside, no matter how clear the Bible is.

Yet, I welcome comments from Roman apologists, clergy, and even laity.  To what do you liken the Roman hermeneutic, and to what shall I compare it?  And when you try to quote the Bible to me, do you think I'm just unaware that your church teaches that "all that has been said about the manner of interpreting Scripture is ultimately subject to the judgement of the Church which exercises the divinely conferred commission and ministry of watching over and interpreting the Word of God"  (CCC 119, quoting Dei Verbum 12, 3rd paragraph)?

-TurretinFan

P.S. Oh, and by the way - the alternative is that the Bible is the very word of God, and that God made it clear enough to serve as a rule of faith and life for his church.  Not all parts are equally clear, however, and sin blinds the minds of some men so that even the most clear parts become dull.  Nevertheless, core doctrines (like the contents of the Apostles' creed, for example) are plainly and unmistakeably set forth in the Scriptures, without the need for any special glasses, tricky eye techniques, or authoritative lexicography.