Dr. James White on Evangelizing Roman Catholics (and other things)

Thanks to Monergism.com I recently located a discussion recorded on October 16, 2005, at the Omaha Bible Church featuring Dr. James White discussing evangelizing Roman Catholics (here's a link to the mp3 - about 1 hour). This is one of several presentations that was given that weekend. The rest are provided below:

• Justification by Faith Alone (link to mp3 - about 50 minutes)
• The Biblical Truth of the Trinity (link to mp3 - about 44 minutes)
• Earnestly Contending for the Faith Against Antinomianism (link to mp3 - about 1 hour, 11 minutes)
• Earnestly Contending for the Faith Against Legalism (link to mp3 - about 1 hour, 18 minutes)
• Earnestly Contending for the Faith Against Relativism (link to mp3 - about 38 minutes)

Also, while we are identify recordings Dr. White made at Omaha Bible Church, there were a couple of recordings from January 2003 as well:

• The Heart of the Gospel (Part 1) (link to mp3 - about 1 hour)
• The Heart of the Gospel (Part 2) (link to mp3 - about 19 minutes)

Bonus: From about the time the 2005 conference ended, an interview of Dr. James White (link to to mp3 - about 50 minutes).

Enjoy!

-TurretinFan

John of Damascus Points to Practices (not Doctrines) Handed Down Orally by the Apostles

I had asked: "I would be very interested if someone wanted to try to find any comparable statement by John Damascene on oral tradition" (link)

One kind reader of the Eastern Orthodox persuasion, using the handle "Orthodox," responded with a list of three quotations, which I've taken the liberty of beefing up by providing greater context. All of these come from the same work of John of Damascus, and we'll see a theme to them when we carefully examine them. I have maintained the order of the three quotations.

First:

It is not without reason or by chance that we worship towards the East. But seeing that we are composed of a visible and an invisible nature, that is to say, of a nature partly of spirit and partly of sense, we render also a twofold worship to the Creator; just as we sing both with our spirit and our bodily lips, and are baptized with both water and Spirit, and are united with the Lord in a twofold manner, being sharers in the mysteries and in the grace of the Spirit.

Since, therefore, God is spiritual light [1 St. John i. 5.], and Christ is called in the Scriptures Sun of Righteousness [Mal. iv. 2.] and Dayspring [Zach. iii. 8, vi. 12; St. Luke i. 78.], the East is the direction that must be assigned to His worship. For everything good must be assigned to Him from Whom every good thing arises. Indeed the divine David also says, Sing unto God, ye kingdoms of the earth: O sing praises unto the Lord: to Him that rideth upon the Heavens of heavens towards the East [Ps. lxviii. 32, 33.]. Moreover the Scripture also says, And God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there He put the man whom He had formed [Gen. ii. 8.]: and when he had transgressed His command He expelled him and made him to dwell over against the delights of Paradise, which clearly is the West. So, then, we worship God seeking and striving after our old fatherland. Moreover the tent of Moses [Levit. xvi. 14.] had its veil and mercy seat [Ibid. 2.] towards the East. Also the tribe of Judah as the most precious pitched their camp on the East [Num. ii. 3.]. Also in the celebrated temple of Solomon the Gate of the Lord was placed eastward. Moreover Christ, when He hung on the Cross, had His face turned towards the West, and so we worship, striving after Him. And when He was received again into Heaven He was borne towards the East, and thus His apostles worship Him, and thus He will come again in the way in which they beheld Him going towards Heaven [Acts i. 11.]; as the Lord Himself said, As the lightning cometh out of the East and shineth. The old translation gives occupat.even unto the West, so also shall the coming of the Son of Man be [St. Matt. xxiv. 27.].

So, then, in expectation of His coming we worship towards the East. But this tradition of the apostles is unwritten. For much that has been handed down to us by tradition is unwritten.

- John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 4, Chapter 12

As you may have guessed, the particular part quoted was: "So, then, in expectation of His coming we worship towards the East. But this tradition of the apostles is unwritten. For much that has been handed down to us by tradition is unwritten"

Note, first of all, that this is appeal to tradition for a practice, not a doctrine. The claim that John of Damascus makes is that the apostles worshiped to the East and handed down this tradition of worshiping to the East.

Note, second of all, that John of Damascus explains the practice quite extensively from Scripture. Every doctrinal and symbolic basis for the practice has (at least in John of Damascus' view) Scriptural support.

Let's continue to the next quotation:

But besides this who can make an imitation of the invisible, incorporeal, uncircumscribed, formless God? Therefore to give form to the Deity is the height of folly and impiety. And hence it is that in the Old Testament the use of images was not common. But after God [St. John i. 14; Tit. iii. 4.] in His bowels of pity became in truth man for our salvation, not as He was seen by Abraham in the semblance of a man, nor as He was seen by the prophets, but in being truly man, and after He lived upon the earth and dwelt among men [Bar. iii. 38.], worked miracles, suffered, was crucified, rose again and was taken back to Heaven, since all these things actually took place and were seen by men, they were written for the remembrance and instruction of us who were not alive at that time in order that though we saw not, we may still, hearing and believing, obtain the blessing of the Lord. But seeing that not every one has a knowledge of letters nor time for reading, the Fathers gave their sanction to depicting these events on images as being acts of great heroism, in order that they should form a concise memorial of them. Often, doubtless, when we have not the Lord’s passion in mind and see the image of Christ’s crucifixion, His saving passion is brought back to remembrance, and we fall down and worship not the material but that which is imaged: just as we do not worship the material of which the Gospels are made, nor the material of the Cross, but that which these typify. For wherein does the cross, that typifies the Lord, differ from a cross that does not do so? It is just the same also in the case of the Mother of the Lord. For the honour which we give to her is referred to Him Who was made of her incarnate. And similarly also the brave acts of holy men stir us up to be brave and to emulate and imitate their valour and to glorify God. For as we said, the honour that is given to the best of fellow-servants is a proof of good-will towards our common Lady, and the honour rendered to the image passes over to the prototype. But this is an unwritten tradition, just as is also the worshipping towards the East and the worship of the Cross, and very many other similar things.

- John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 4, Chapter 12

As you may have guessed, the quoted part was "But this is an unwritten tradition, just as is also the worshipping towards the East and the worship of the Cross, and very many other similar things."

Again, John of Damascus is alleging that the practice of giving honor to images is acceptable on the basis of it being an ancient practice of the church. Notice that John of Damascus is again appealing to tradition for the practice, not a doctrine.

The same can be seen from the next quotation which comes (in John of Damascus' book) directly after the quotation I provided above:

A certain tale [Evagr., Hist. iv., ch. 27.], too, is told [Procop., De Bellis, ii. ch. 12.], how that when Augarus [i.e. Abgarus.] was king over the city of the Edessenes, he sent a portrait painter to paint a likeness of the Lord, and when the painter could not paint because of the brightness that shone from His countenance, the Lord Himself put a garment over His own divine and life-giving face and impressed on it an image of Himself and sent this to Augarus, to satisfy thus his desire.

Moreover that the Apostles handed down much that was unwritten, Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, tells us in these words: Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught of us, whether by word or by epistle [2 Thess. ii. 15.]. And to the Corinthians he writes, Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I have delivered them to you [1 Cor. xi. 2.].”

- John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 4, Chapter 12

You will not be surprised that the quoted part this time is: "Moreover that the Apostles handed down much that was unwritten, Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles, tells us in these words: Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which ye have been taught of us, whether by word or by epistle. And to the Corinthians he writes, Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and keep the traditions as I have delivered them to you"

And again, the issue is one of orally transmitted practices, not doctrines. The legend of Jesus' supposed self-imaging is patently absurd, of course. Jesus' human appearance was ordinary. He took on a true human nature as well as a true divine naure. Can anyone seriously imagine that Jesus shone so brightly that a painter couldn't paint him, and yet Pilate would not be afraid to crucify him? Does anyone seriously think that Jesus shone so brightly that a painter couldn't paint him, but the Roman soldiers were not afraid to nail him to the cross? This foolish legend is a most desperate straw used by John of Damascus to try to bolster the fairly novel (though clearly not first-generation) use of images for worship (against the objections of Christians at that time).

Finally, John of Damascus' flawed reasoning has been picked up and expanded to matters not only of practice but also of doctrine by those who seek to deny the material and/or formal sufficiency of Scripture. Nevertheless, we do not - in any of the quotations provided above - see John of Damascus alleging that there are doctrines of the Christian faith that are not taught in Scripture and that are only transmitted orally from the apostles.

- TurretinFan

Anathemas Have Been Done Away!

Today I encountered the following comment: "Anathemas were done away with under the most recent Code of Canon Law." (source) It's not the first time I've seen this claim. The problem is this: I have the most recent Code of Canon Law and it doesn't (that I can find) even mention anathemas. I suppose that some folks in Roman Catholicism think this silence means that anathemas have been done away. That seems like as weak an argument as the argument that prayer veils are no longer required because of the silence regarding them. I wonder whether there is anything more to the argument than that. Any ideas anyone?

I'm aware of Mr. Akin's argument as follows:

Yet the penalty was used so seldom that it was removed from the 1983 Code of Canon Law. This means that today the penalty of anathema does not exist in Church law. The new Code provided that, "When this Code goes into effect, the following are abrogated: 1º the Code of Canon Law promulgated in 1917 . . . 3º any universal or particular penal laws whatsoever issued by the Apostolic See, unless they are contained in this Code" (CIC [1983] 6 §1). The penalty of anathema was not renewed in the new Code, and thus it was abrogated when the Code went into effect on January 1, 1983.

(source)
The problems with that type of argument are:

1) Where was anathema mentioned in the 1917 Code? I've perused that code and couldn't find it. Perhaps I overlooked something?

2) A penalty and a penal law are not the same thing.

If that's all Mr. Akin has, his argument seems exceptionally weak.

-TurretinFan

Those in Glass Churches ...

I noticed that Steve Ray is mocking communion supplies that involve pre-packaged cup/wafer combinations (link - link to website he's mocking). But it wasn't so long ago when those in the Roman communion could generally only communicate under the species of bread - the people of that church being denied the symbol of Christ's blood. Yes, we are aware that Trent insisted: "If any one denies that, in the venerable sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species, and under every part of each species, when separated; let him be anathema." (Trent, Session 13, Canon III on the Eucharist - see also the similar comments of the Council of Constance in 1415) And yet we are also aware that Jesus, on the night he was betrayed "took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it;" (Matthew 26:27) and while we are not sacramentalists, if you are going to take John 6 in a hyper-literal and carnal manner you must pay attention to the details of its commentary: "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." (John 6:53) Even if the bread were also the blood of Christ (or even if it were tinged with the contents of the cup), it's eaten, not drunk.

Oh, it is easy to mock folks with expressions like "crackers and grapejuice" but when your own church's communion, until recently, consisted of crackers that you told the people were the "whole Christ," your stones may be doing more damage to your own place of worship.

-TurretinFan

Recently a Man in High Power Passed Away

Quite recently a notorious American politician passed away. From all we can tell, he was an enemy of God and a disgrace even to his false religion. This post is dedicated to his memory, which I hope will soon pass.

Psalm 37:20 But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.

Psalm 68:2 As smoke is driven away, so drive them away: as wax melteth before the fire, so let the wicked perish at the presence of God.

Psalm 112:10 The wicked shall see it, and be grieved; he shall gnash with his teeth, and melt away: the desire of the wicked shall perish.

Proverbs 10:28 The hope of the righteous shall be gladness: but the expectation of the wicked shall perish.

Proverbs 11:7 When a wicked man dieth, his expectation shall perish: and the hope of unjust men perisheth.

Proverbs 11:10 When it goeth well with the righteous, the city rejoiceth: and when the wicked perish, there is shouting.

Proverbs 28:28 When the wicked rise, men hide themselves: but when they perish, the righteous increase.

I cannot verify whether all the details in the linked page are true - but the most significant ones are beyond dispute. (link)

As was said by the Jews at Purim (and perhaps still is?), "Let the name of the ungodly perish!"

-TurretinFan

The real Francis Turretin on: Meditating on the Cross

The Evangelical Reformed Fellowship Perspectives blog has provided a short but nice quotation from the real Francis Turretin on the importance of meditating on the cross (link).

-TurretinFan

Lane Chaplin Interviews Dr. James White

This interview is on video:

Enjoy!

-TurretinFan

The real Francis Turretin on: The Relation of Christ to God's Love

The Howling Wilderness blog (which has a lovely Slavic subtitle that reminds me that there is an end to the howling wilderness of our pilgrimage in the heavenly rest) has a quotation from the real Francis Turretin on the topic of the relation of God's love to Christ's work as mediator (link). It's important to remember how God's love both provides and flows from Christ's work.

-TurretinFan

Did Hippo, Carthage, or Rome's Bishop Settle the Canon?

Some Roman Catholics are under the false impression that the councils of Hippo (A.D. 393) and/or Carthage (A.D. 397) authoritatively settled the canon of Scripture for the church - either directly or by endorsement by one or more Roman bishops. To be deep in history, however, is to cease to be so naive.

John of Damascus (lived from about A.D. 676 – 749) wrote on the canon of the New Testament:

The New Testament contains four gospels, that according to Matthew, that according to Mark, that according to Luke, that according to John; the Acts of the Holy Apostles by Luke the Evangelist; seven catholic epistles, viz. one of James, two of Peter, three of John, one of Jude; fourteen letters of the Apostle Paul; the Revelation of John the Evangelist; the Canons of the holy apostles, by Clement.

- John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 4, Chapter 17

You will note that differs from our canon by the inclusion of the canons of Clement. He was wrong to include that work, but the fact remains that there was not a "catholic" (universal) canon of the New Testament even as late as the 8th century. There was widespread agreement by that time on the 27 books that we recognize were inspired, but there was no authoritative presence telling all Christians they must accept one set of books or another. Ask any Eastern Orthodox scholar when their church defined the canon - the answer will not be a date, and it may be a lecture on the difference between the eastern churches and those of the West.

On the Old Testament, John of Damascus similarly provides a list:

Observe, further, that there are two and twenty books of the Old Testament, one for each letter of the Hebrew tongue. For there are twenty-two letters of which five are double, and so they come to be twenty-seven. For the letters Caph, Mem, Nun, Pe, Sade are double. And thus the number of the books in this way is twenty-two, but is found to be twenty-seven because of the double character of five. For Ruth is joined on to Judges, and the Hebrews count them one book: the first and second books of Kings are counted one: and so are the third and fourth books of Kings: and also the first and second of Paraleipomena: and the first and second of Esdra. In this way, then, the books are collected together in four Pentateuchs and two others remain over, to form thus the canonical books. Five of them are of the Law, viz. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. This which is the code of the Law, constitutes the first Pentateuch. Then comes another Pentateuch, the so-called Grapheia, or as they are called by some, the Hagiographa, which are the following: Jesus the Son of Nave, Judges along with Ruth, first and second Kings, which are one book, third and fourth Kings, which are one book, and the two books of the Paraleipomena which are one book. This is the second Pentateuch. The third Pentateuch is the books in verse, viz. Job, Psalms, Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes of Solomon and the Song of Songs of Solomon. The fourth Pentateuch is the Prophetical books, viz the twelve prophets constituting one book, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. Then come the two books of Esdra made into one, and Esther. There bare also the Panaretus, that is the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Wisdom of Jesus, which was published in Hebrew by the father of Sirach, and afterwards translated into Greek by his grandson, Jesus, the Son of Sirach. These are virtuous and noble, but are not counted nor were they placed in the ark.

- John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 4, Chapter 17

You will notice that this is just the same (if we understand his "two books of Esdra" to refer to Ezra and Nehemiah, which seems probable and if we further assume that Lamentations is viewed as a part of Jeremiah, which is also probable) as our canon of the Old Testament, including the relegation of Wisdom and Sirach to a lesser status (useful, but not inspired).

What's more, we see that John of Damascus (iconophile though he may have been) shares a very high view of Scripture:

It is one and the same God Whom both the Old and the New Testament proclaim, Who is praised and glorified in the Trinity: I am come, saith the Lord, not to destroy the law but to fulfil it [St. Matt. v. 17.]. For He Himself worked out our salvation for which all Scripture and all mystery exists. And again, Search the Scriptures for they are they that testify of Me [St. John v. 39.]. And the Apostle says, God, Who at sundry times and in diverse manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son [Heb. i. 1, 2.]. Through the Holy Spirit, therefore, both the law and the prophets, the evangelists and apostles and pastors and teachers, spake.

All Scripture, then, is given by inspiration of God and is also assuredly profitable [2 Tim. iii. 16.]. Wherefore to search the Scriptures is a work most fair and most profitable for souls. For just as the tree planted by the channels of waters, so also the soul watered by the divine Scripture is enriched and gives fruit in its season [Ps. i. 3.], viz. orthodox belief, and is adorned with evergreen leafage, I mean, actions pleasing to God. For through the Holy Scriptures we are trained to action that is pleasing to God, and untroubled contemplation. For in these we find both exhortation to every virtue and dissuasion from every vice. If, therefore, we are lovers of learning, we shall also be learned in many things. For by care and toil and the grace of God the Giver, all things are accomplished. For every one that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth, and to him that knocketh it shall be opened [St. Luke xi. 10.]. Wherefore let us knock at that very fair garden of the Scriptures, so fragrant and sweet and blooming, with its varied sounds of spiritual and divinely-inspired birds ringing all round our ears, laying hold of our hearts, comforting the mourner, pacifying the angry and filling him with joy everlasting: which sets our mind on the gold-gleaming, brilliant back of the divine dove [Ps. lxviii. 13.], whose bright pinions bear up to the only-begotten Son and Heir of the Husbandman [St. Matt. xxi. 37.] of that spiritual Vineyard and bring us through Him to the Father of Lights [Jas. i. 17.]. But let us not knock carelessly but rather zealously and constantly: lest knocking we grow weary. For thus it will be opened to us. If we read once or twice and do not understand what we read, let us not grow weary, but let us persist, let us talk much, let us enquire. For ask thy Father, he saith, and He will shew thee: thy elders and they will tell thee [Deut. xxxii. 7.]. For there is not in every man that knowledge [1 Cor. viii. 7.]. Let us draw of the fountain of the garden perennial and purest waters springing into life eternal [St. John iv. 14.]. Here let us luxuriate, let us revel insatiate: for the Scriptures possess inexhaustible grace. But if we are able to pluck anything profitable from outside sources, there is nothing to forbid that. Let us become tried money-dealers, heaping up the true and pure gold and discarding the spurious. Let us keep the fairest sayings but let us throw to the dogs absurd gods and strange myths: for we might prevail most mightily against them through themselves.

- John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 4, Chapter 17

Scriptures tell us what to believe and how to live. I would be very interested if someone wanted to try to find any comparable statement by John Damascene on oral tradition or (with still lower probability) the interpretative tradition of "the church."

-TurretinFan

Aquinas Opera Omnia - Fretté & Maré - Index Page

The collection of all of Thomas Aquinas' works was undertaken by editors Paul Maré and Stanislai Eduardi Fretté in what is (to my knowledge) the largest collection of Aquinas' writings. Google Books has digitized many volumes of this collection (in two collections - first collection and second collection, and I've provided links to the relevant volumes below. There are other collections of Aquinas' writings as well, such as the one provided at Corpus Thomisticum (link). I'd love to expand this at some time to identify the contents of each volume (the first few volumes are the Summa Theologica, which is what most folks are interested in).

Volume 1
Volume 2
Volume 3 (Copy 2)
Volume 4
Volume 5
Volume 6
Volume 7
Volume 8
Volume 9
Volume 10
Volume 11
Volume 12
Volume 13
Volume 14
Volume 15 (Copy 2)
Volume 16
Volume 17
Volume 18
Volume 19
Volume 20
Volume 21
Volume 22
Volume 23 (Copy 2)
Volume 24 (Copy 2)
Volume 25 (Copy 2)
Volume 26 (Copy 2)
Volume 27
Volume 28 (Copy 2)
Volume 29 (Copy 2)
Volume 30
Volume 31
Volume 32
Volume 33
Volume 34

No Dialog with Proselytizers

I was amused to see that Jewish groups are complaining about the fact that Roman Catholics are trying to proselytize them during dialog (link). What did they think the point of the dialog was, exactly? What is even more amusing is the similarity between the Jewish leaders comments and the comments of some of the Roman Catholic apologists I've noted in the past:

Jewish leaders say that they interpret the bishops' new document as a plan to evangelize Jews during interfaith dialogue. Jews say they can't participate in a dialogue under those conditions.

We hear essentially the same thing from those fearful or hypocritical Roman Catholics: 'we cannot dialog with you,' they essentially say, 'if you are trying to convert us.'

-TurretinFan

Dr. James White on Justification and the Uniqueness of Christ

One of Dr. White's speaking engagements while in Australia was to give a talk on Justification and the Uniqueness of Jesus Christ. While I am told that a YouTube video may follow, you can get the audio now at the following link (link). That site has a handy embedded player. If, however, you'd like to just download the mp3s, the links are (part 1)(part 2).

Enjoy to your edification!

-TurretinFan

Yes - Every Sin Deserves the Eternal Wrath of God

Mr. C Michael Patton has a rather disappointing post up in which he denies that every sin deserves an eternity in hell. He calls this idea "stupid" and declares that it "trivializes sin and makes God an overly sensitive cosmic torture monger." "Stupid" is a bit extreme for something that's a part of the doctrinal standards of most Reformed churches in the Scottish tradition. To say that it trivializes sin is absurd, and to accuse God of being an "overly sensitive cosmic torture monger[er]" is blasphemy.

First, the traditional historic Reformed position on the matter:

From the Westminster Shorter Catechism
Q. 84. What doth every sin deserve?
A. Every sin deserveth God’s wrath and curse, both in this life, and that which is to come.[175]

[175] Matthew 25:41. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: Galatians 3:10. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them. Ephesians 5:6. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. James 2:10. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.

From the Westminster Larger Catechism
Q. 152. What doth every sin deserve at the hands of God?

A. Every sin, even the least, being against the sovereignty,[982] goodness,[983] and holiness of God,[984] and against his righteous law,[985] deserveth his wrath and curse,[986] both in this life,[987] and that which is to come;[988] and cannot be expiated but by the blood of Christ.[989]

[982] James 2:10-11. For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.

[983] Exodus 20:1-2. And God spake all these words, saying, I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.

[984] Habakkuk 1:13. Thou art of purer eyes than to behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: wherefore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked devoureth the man that is more righteous than he? Leviticus 10:3. Then Moses said unto Aaron, This is it that the LORD spake, saying, I will be sanctified in them that come nigh me, and before all the people I will be glorified. And Aaron held his peace. Leviticus 11:44-45. For I am the LORD your God: ye shall therefore sanctify yourselves, and ye shall be holy; for I am holy: neither shall ye defile yourselves with any manner of creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. For I am the LORD that bringeth you up out of the land of Egypt, to be your God: ye shall therefore be holy, for I am holy.

[985] 1 John 3:4. Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. Romans 7:12. Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

[986] Ephesians 5:6. Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. Galatians 3:10. For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

[987] Lamentations 3:39. Wherefore doth a living man complain, a man for the punishment of his sins? Deuteronomy 28:15-18. But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee: Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field. Cursed shall be thy basket and thy store, etc.

[988] Matthew 25:41. Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.

[989] Hebrews 9:22. And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. 1 Peter 1:18-19. Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot.

Second, a response to Mr. Patton's arguments.

Mr. Patton's main argument is based on his failure properly to understand the atonement. Mr. Patton makes a comment suggesting that he holds to a view of penal substitution: "Many of us believe that Christ’s atonement was penal substitution." He then, however, goes on to outline a scheme of the atonement that is essentially merely a commercial transaction: Jesus had to suffer thus-and-such an amount to atone for thus-and-such an amount of sin. That's not the position of penal substitution. Penal substitution says that Jesus suffering was the same punishment (death) that was accepted in place of the death of the sinners. It is not the same in the person being punished nor is it the same in the precise nature and duration of the punishment (was humiliated culiminating in Christ dying on the cross, being buried, and continuing under the power of death for a time - whereas sinners deserve to remain under the power of death and in suffering for eternity). Christ's death on the cross was accepted by God in place of the eternal suffering of the elect. There is a commercial aspect to the work of Christ (to be sure) but Christ's death was not a purely commercial transaction.

Mr. Patton's secondary argument seems to be based on two ideas. One idea is the faulty notion that if every sin deserves eternal punishment, then all sins are equally heinous. We may readily dispose of that idea by noting that the punishment in hell may very well have degrees of severity. Thus, while all of the denizens of hell will be punished forever, some may be punished with greater severity than others. Dante provided a colorful illustration of this concept in his work.

The second idea of Mr. Patton's secondary argument seems to be the idea that actually no sin deserves God's eternal wrath and curse, but rather that sinners in hell will commit an infinite series of sins, which will lead to an unending succession of individually finite punishments. There's nothing in Scripture to suggest this (from what I've read) and there are passages of Scripture (such as the parable of the rich man and Lazarus and the comment that "all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed").

Will men in hell still hate God? Perhaps so. God does not promise to regenerate the nature of those who go to hell so that they will turn from hating God to loving God. Will they continue sinning and racking up more condemnation for themselves? Perhaps they will! But every sin is an offense to the dignity of an infinite God and demands eternal condemnation.

-TurretinFan

N.B. Mr. Patton's approach (which I've also heard from William Lane Craig) does find a way to defend hell without claiming that any one sin deserves eternal punishment. My problem with it is that it's not biblical, not that it's not helpful in arguments with atheists.

Interview of Dr. White

Nathan Bingham at the website Cal.vini.st has interviewed Dr. James White. The interview is in two parts (first part) (second part). It's not a very long interview (12 questions and answers), but it covers a range of topics from the atonement to Australian food.

-TurretinFan

Out of Tune with the Roman Magisterium?

Mr. Shea has posted a still further response on the topic of Mary's birth pangs or lack thereof and the woman of Revelation 12 (link to Shea's post). Mr. Shea seems to think our arguments "flat-footed" and compares discussing this with us to discussing music appreciation with a deaf man. This flatfloot, however, is less interested in arresting Mr. Shea for playing such bad music, but for doing so without the proper license.

Mr. Shea characterizes his previous arguments with respect to Mary's birth pangs and Rome's teaching or not on that subject as follows: "the whole point is that Rome acknowledges this opinion, but does not commit us to it." Here, however, the flatfoot in one thinks to investigate. Does Rome merely acknowledge the opinion or actually teach it? Are we tone deaf, or is Mr. Shea out of tune with his magisterium?

The Catechism of Trent, most recently (that I could find) promulgated by the encyclical In Dominico Agro, on June 14, 1761, by pope Clement XIII included the following paragraph:

The Virgin Mother we may also compare to Eve, making the second Eve, that is, Mary, correspond to the first, as we have already shown that the second Adam, that is, Christ, corresponds to the first Adam. By believing the serpent, Eve brought malediction and death on mankind, and Mary, by believing the Angel, became the instrument of The divine goodness in bringing life and benediction to the human race. From Eve we are born children of wrath; from Mary we have received Jesus Christ, and through Him are regenerated children of grace. To Eve it was said: In sorrow shalt thou bring forth children. Mary was exempt from this law, for preserving her virginal integrity inviolate she brought forth Jesus the Son of God without experiencing, as we have already said, any sense of pain.

Notice how Clement XIII's catechism not only makes the connection that Mr. Shea previously attempted to criticize ("By the logic of this argument, it would also be possible to indict Jesus as a sinner since he suffered, toiled, sweated, and died, just like Adam (cf. Gen. 3:17-19)."), namely that because the sufferings were part of the curse, therefore, Mary didn't suffer them. So, the tones of Mr. Shea's song seem to be a bit off, if we're permitted to use the official teachings of his church as our tuning fork for what constitutes Roman Catholicism - after all, they are the licensed magisterium, but I don't think he can claim that same privilege.

In fact, and germane to our discussion, this paragraph it is not just from any old catechism, but from an official catechism. You will recall earlier that Mr. Shea built his argument that Rome doesn't teach the view on the grounds that: "But as the carefully worded language of the Catechism (quoted in the combox) makes clear, the Church doesn't go to the mat on this question." By Mr. Shea's apparent reasoning, Clement XIII's Rome did "go to the mat" on this question, whether or not the ambiguous wording of the more recent 1980's catechism does. Yet Mr. Shea seems insistent on relying on the silence of the current catechism on this particular issue.

Even in his latest post, Mr. Shea writes:

Note what is not demanded here. There is no clause saying "The faithful must, on pain of excommunication, believe and profess that Mary suffered no birth pangs." So it's rather a stretch to say "Rome teaches" this. In fact, Rome acknowledges it as a very common opinion and it is certainly something many great Catholics have held.

This kind of comment simply shows how out of touch Mr. Shea is with the life, discipline, and history of his own church. As Clement XIII explained regarding the Catechism of Trent:

The popes clearly understood this. They devoted all their efforts not only to cut short with the sword of anathema the poisonous buds of growing error, but also to cut away certain developing ideas which either could prevent the Christian people unnecessarily from bearing a greater fruit of faith or could harm the minds of the faithful by their proximity to error. So the Council of Trent condemned those heresies which tried at that time to dim the light of the Church and which led Catholic truth into a clearer light as if the cloud of errors had been dispersed. As our predecessors understood that that holy meeting of the universal Church was so prudent in judgment and so moderate that it abstained from condemning ideas which authorities among Church scholars supported, they wanted another work prepared with the agreement of that holy council which would cover the entire teaching which the faithful should know and which would be far removed from any error.

So, the purpose of the Tridentine catechism was to be "another work prepared with the agreement of that holy council which would cover the entire teaching which the faithful should know and which would be far removed from any error." In fact, according to Clement XIII, the catechism was drawn up in a minimalist way: "they proposed that only what is necessary and very useful for salvation be clearly and plainly explained in the Roman Catechism and communicated to the faithful."

Is the miraculous/painless birth something to which denial has been penalized with an anathema? I'm not aware of any such promulgation. Does that mean Rome has not explicitly taught that view and even grouped it as being a matter that is "necessary and very useful for salvation"? But Mr. Shea thinks that he's free to accept it or not accept it: cafeteria-style Roman Catholicism at its most polemic (How polemic is his cafeteria position? he compares the view of Mary's birth of Jesus being painless to geocentrism and the idea that Jews are accursed).

Mr. Shea claims: "In similar ways, the Catholic Church has had all sorts of schools of opinion on all manner of subjects, while the Magisterium has refrained, sometimes for centuries, from plumping in favor or one or the other." I don't know about you, but to me putting something in a catechism and saying in an official papal encyclical that the catechism only has matters that are "necessary and very useful to salvation" sounds like "the Magisterium" taking sides on the matter. As Clement XIII points out, after all, the Roman Catechism (as it was then called) was actually the product of Pius V (pope from January, 17, 1504 – May 1, 1572).

Moreover, as I pointed out in my previous post, Mr. Shea has yet to show us someone who holds to "in partu" virginity of Mary and yet asserts that Mary had birth pangs. This is not like the Thomist / Molinist controversy in which the popes simply avoided taking sides and eventually permitted both views to be maintained. Despite Mr. Shea's lack of assistance, I've looked diligently for another side to this supposed controversy. The closest one finds is Ludwig Ott:

2. Virginity During the Birth of Jesus: Mary bore her Son without any violation of her virginal integrity. (De fide on the ground of the general promulgation of doctrine.)

The dogma merely asserts the fact of the continuance of Mary's physical virginity without determining more closely how this is to be physiologically explained. In general the Fathers and the Schoolmen conceived it as non-injury to the hymen, and accordingly taught that Mary gave birth in miraculous fashion without opening of the womb and injury to the hymen, and consequently also without pains (cf. S. th. III 28, 2).

However, according to modern natural scientific knowledge, the purely physical side of virginity consists in the non-fulfilment of the sex act ("sex-act virginity") and in the non-contact of the female egg by the male seed ("seed-act virginity") (A. Mitterer). Thus, injury to the hymen in birth does not destroy virginity, while, on the other hand, its rupture seems to belong to complete natural motherhood. It follows from this that from the concept of virginity alone the miraculous character of the process of birth cannot be inferred, if it cannot be, and must not be derived from other facts of Revelation. Holy Writ attests Mary's active rôle in the act of birth (Mt. 1, 25; Luke 2, 7: "She brought forth") which does not seem to indicate a miraculous process.

But the Fathers, with few exceptions, vouch for the miraculous character of the birth. However, the question is whether in so doing they attest a truth of Revelation or whether they wrongly interpret a truth of Revelation, that is, Mary's virginity, from an inadequate natural scientific point of view. It seems hardly possible to demonstrate that the dignity of the Son of God or the dignity of the Mother of God demands a miraculous birth.

Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, p. 205

Ott himself doesn't come out and advocate a lack of physical integrity in Mary, but he does criticize the physical integrity in partu position on the basis of (of all things) Scripture. He ends up expressing uncertainty over whether the Fathers were "attest[ing] a truth of Revelation" or "wrongly interpret[ing] a truth of Revelation" based on "an inadequate natural scientific point of view." That kind of agnosticism over the issue is far to the "other side" as I was able to locate from any kind of authority in Roman Catholic theology. Of course, the body of Roman Catholic literature is enormous, and I may have overlooked something.

Mr. Shea eventually ends up consenting as well, if somewhat grudgingly. He states: "None of that is to say that it is wrong to think Mary suffered no birth pangs. I think the patristic logic is sense," although he goes on to insist that since there is no anathema "that's a matter of liberty, not of 'Rome teaches'."

Finally, Mr. Shea gets to what he views as the argument. He wants to interpret the birth pangs of the Revelation 12 woman as not being literal birth pangs but some kind of psychological pains such as those experienced by Mary when Jesus was crucified.

While that might seem like an escape, it undermines the identification of Mary with the Revelation 12 woman. After all, the main reason to identify Mary with the Revelation 12 woman is the fact that the woman there gives birth to a man child. In other words, one has to interpret that giving birth literally in order to connect Mary to the Revelation 12 woman. Then to turn around and make the travails non-literal seems arbitrary at best. Finally, to make them the psychological pain Mary experienced when Jesus was crucified ignores the temporal sequence found in Revelation 12, and further demonstrates the arbitrary nature of the association between Mary and the woman of Revelation 12.

Mr. Shea might think that having to defend his position is "like arguing about music appreciation with a deaf man" and call our arguments "flat-footed," but that flat platform apparently leads to sure-footed stability of consistent explanation and a knack for detective work in tracking down what Rome actually teaches. Likewise, while we may be deaf to the sirens of Rome (though it seems to be Mr. Shea who is not quite in tune with Rome's orchestra), we lack the inner ear problems that result in the wobbly (and eventually toppling) arguments trying to link Mary and the Revelation 12 woman.

-TurretinFan

The real Francis Turretin on: Invocation of Saints by Prayer

Marc Lloyd has kindly provided a nice collection of quotations from the real Francis Turretin on the invocation of dead saints by prayer. (link). Of particular note, Turretin deals with the argument from requesting prayers from our fellow brethren. This argument's been around a long time and is just as wrong today as it was when Turretin addressed it.

-TurretinFan

The real Francis Turretin on: Centrality of Justification

John Fonville, of the Paramount Church, has kindly selected as his weekly quotation a nice selection from Francis Turretin on the importance of justification (although the quotation includes the questionable attribution of a particular quotation to Luther that may only be a paraphrase of Luther). (source)

Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (CSEL) - Index Page

The following is a list of the volumes of the Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (CSEL) that I was able to locate at Google Books and/or Archive.org. I wish to express my appreciation for the work I found at "Pr. Stefan"'s blog (link). There were a few issues with his list, and I have attempted to improve upon it, to the extent that I am able.

As you will note there is no obvious pattern to the order of the books. If you are looking for a particular father's work, therefore, you may have to a word search on his Latin name to find whether his works are included. I have not attempted to track down every Google copy for each volume (although there is a bibliogroup that may be helpful). If you find that any of the links are not to versions that are still "full view," please let me know.

Vol. 1 SULPICIUS SEVERUS, Opera – ed. C. Halm 1866; PSEUDO-SULPICIUS SEVERUS, Epistulae – ed. C. Halm 1866 (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 2 FIRMICUS MATERNUS, De errore profanarum religionum – ed. C. Halm 1869; MINUCIUS FELIX – ed. C. Halm 1867 (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 3/1, 3/2, 3/3 CYPRIANUS, Opera – ed. W. Hartel 1868/71 (via Archive)(copy 2)(copy 3)(copy 4)
Vol. 4 ARNOBIUS, Adversus nationes – ed. A. Reifferscheid 1875 (via Archive)
Vol. 5 OROSIUS, Historiae adversus paganos, Apologeticus – ed. C. Zangemeister 1882 (via Archive)
Vol. 6 ENNODIUS, Opera – ed. W. Hartel 1882 (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 7 VICTOR VITENSIS, Historia persecutionis Africanae provinciae, PSEUDO-VICTOR VITENSIS, Passio septem monachorum, Notitia provinciarum et civitatum Africae – ed. M. Petschenig 1881 (via Archive)
Vol. 8 SALVIANUS, De gubernatione dei, Epistulae, Ad ecclesiam – ed. F. Pauly 1883 (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 9/1 EUGIPPIUS, Excerpta ex operibus S. Augustini – ed. P. Knöll 1886
Vol. 9/2 EUGIPPIUS, (Epistula ad Probam virginem??), Vita S. Severini – ed. P. Knöll 1885
Vol. 10 SEDULIUS, Carmen paschale, Opus paschale, Epistulae – ed. J. Huemer 1885; (editio altera supplementis aucta – cur. V. Panagl 2007) (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 11 CLAUDIANUS MAMERTUS, De statu animae, Epistula ad Sapaudum – ed. A. Engelbrecht 1885 (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 12 AUGUSTINUS, Speculum, Liber de divinis scripturis – ed. F. Weihrich 1887 (via Archive)
Vol. 13 Iohannes CASSIANUS, Conlationes – ed. M. Petschenig 1886; (editio altera supplementis aucta – cur. G. Kreuz 2004) (via Archive)
Vol. 14 LUCIFER CALARITANUS, De non conveniendo cum haereticis, De regibus apostaticis, De sancto Athanasio, De non parcendo in deum delinquentibus, Moriendum esse pro dei filio, Epistulae – ed. W. Hartel 1886 (via Archive)
Vol. 15 COMMODIANUS, Carmen apologeticum, Instructiones – ed. B. Dombart 1887 (via Archive)
Vol. 16/1-2 Poetae Christiani Minores: PAULINUS PETRICORDIAE, Carmina – ed. M. Petschenig; ORIENTIUS, Carmina – ed. R. Ellis; PAULINUS PELLAEUS, Eucharisticos – ed. W. Brandes; CLAUDIUS MARIUS VICTOR, Alethia – ed. C. Schenkl; PROBA, Cento – ed. C. Schenkl; ANONYMUS, Sancti Paulini epigramma, Versus ad gratiam domini, De verbi incarnatione, De ecclesia – ed. C. Schenkl; 1888 (via Archive)
Vol. 17 Iohannes CASSIANUS, De institutis coenobiorum et de octo principalium vitiorum remediis, De incarnatione Domini contra Nestorium – ed. M. Petschenig 1888; (editio altera supplementis aucta – cur. G. Kreuz 2004) (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 18 PRISCILLIANUS, Tractatus, Canones; OROSIUS, Commonitorium de errore Priscillianistarum et Origenistarum – ed. G. Schepss 1889 (via Archive)
Vol. 19 LACTANTIUS, Divinae institutiones, Epitome divinarum institutionum – ed. S. Brandt 1890
Vol. 20 TERTULLIANUS, De spectaculis, De idololatria, Ad nationes, De testimonio animae, Scorpiace, De oratione, De baptismo, De ieiunio, De anima, De pudicitia – ed. A. Reifferscheid, G. Wissowa 1890 (via Archive)
Vol. 21 FAUSTUS REIENSIS, Opera – ed. A. Engelbrecht 1891 (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 22 HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS, Tractatus super psalmos – ed. A. Zingerle 1891 (via Archive)
Vol. 23 CYPRIANUS GALLUS, Heptateuchos, Fragmenta, De Sodoma, De Iona propheta; PSEUDO-HILARIUS, In Genesin ad Leonem papam, De martyrio Maccabaeorum, De evangelio – ed. R. Peiper 1891 (ANONYMUS, (Cypriani) Carmen ad quendam senatorem – ed. R. Peiper 1881); bound with (same link) Vol. 24 IUVENCUS, Evangeliorum libri – ed. J. Huemer 1891 (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 25/1, 25/2 AUGUSTINUS, De utilitate credendi, De duabus animabus, Contra Fortunatum Manichaeum, Contra Adimantum, Contra epistulam fundamenti, Contra Faustum Manichaeum, Contra Felicem Manichaeum, De natura boni, Epistula Secundini, Contra Secundinum Manichaeum – ed. J. Zycha 1891/92 (via Archive)
Vol. 26 OPTATUS MILEVITANUS, Contra Parmenianum Donatistam, Appendix decem monumentorum veterum – ed. C. Ziwsa 1893 (via Archive)
Vol. 27/1 LACTANTIUS, De opificio dei, De ira dei, Carmina, Fragmenta – ed. S. Brandt 1893; bound with (same link) Vol. 27/2 LACTANTIUS, De mortibus persecutorum – ed. S. Brandt, G. Laubmann 1897 (via Archive)(copy 2)(copy 3)
Vol. 28/1 AUGUSTINUS, De Genesi ad litteram liber imperfectus, De Genesi ad litteram, Locutiones in Heptateuchum – ed. J. Zycha 1894
Vol. 28/2 AUGUSTINUS, Quaestiones in Heptateuchum, Adnotationes in Iob – ed. J. Zycha 1895 (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 29 PAULINUS NOLANUS, Epistulae – ed. W. Hartel 1894; (editio altera supplementis aucta – cur. M. Kamptner 1999)
Vol. 30 PAULINUS NOLANUS, Carmina; PAULINUS PELLAEUS, Oratio – ed. W. Hartel 1894; (editio altera supplementis aucta – cur. M. Kamptner 1999) (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 31 EUCHERIUS, Opera – ed. C. Wotke 1894 (via Archive)(via Archive)
Vol. 32/1 AMBROSIUS, Hexameron, De paradiso, De Cain, De Noe, De Abraham, De Isaac, De bono mortis – ed. C. Schenkl 1896 (other edition)(via Archive)(via Archive)
Vol. 32/2 AMBROSIUS, De Iacob, De Ioseph, De patriarchis, De fuga saeculi, De interpellatione Iob et David, De apologia prophetae David, De Helia, De Nabuthae, De Tobia – ed. C. Schenkl 1897 (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 32/3 ???
Vol. 32/4 AMBROSIUS, Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam – ed. C. Schenkl 1902 (via Archive)
Vol. 33 AUGUSTINUS, Confessiones – ed. P. Knöll 1896 (via Archive)
Vol. 34/1 AUGUSTINUS, Epistulae 1-30 – ed. A. Goldbacher 1895 (via Archive)
Vol. 34/2 AUGUSTINUS, Epistulae 31-123 – ed. A. Goldbacher 1898 (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 35/1 COLLECTIO AVELLANA, Epistulae 1-104 - ed. O. Günther 1895, 1898
Vol. 35/2 COLLECTIO AVELLANA, Epistulae 105-244 - ed. O. Günther 1895, 1898 (via Archive)
Vol. 36 AUGUSTINUS, Retractationes – ed. P. Knöll 1902 (via Archive)
Vol. 37 CASSIODORUS, Contra Apionem – ed. C. Boysen 1898 (via Archive)
Vol. 38 FILASTRIUS, Diversarum hereseon liber – ed. F. Marx 1898
Vol. 39 ITINERARIA HIEROSOLYMITANA – ed. P. Geyer 1898 (via Archive)
Vol. 40/1 AUGUSTINUS, De civitate Dei (libri i-xiii) – ed. E. Hoffmann 1899/1900 (via Archive)
Vol. 40/2 AUGUSTINUS, De civitate Dei (libri xiv-xxii) – ed. E. Hoffmann 1899/1900 (via Archive)
Vol. 41 AUGUSTINUS, De fide et symbolo, De fide et operibus, De agone christiano, De continentia, De bono coniugali, De virginitate, De bono viduitatis, De adulterinis coniugiis, De mendacio, Contra mendacium, De opere monachorum, De divinatione daemonum, De cura pro mortuis gerenda, De patientia – ed. J. Zycha 1900 (via Archive)
Vol. 42 AUGUSTINUS, De perfectione iustitiae hominis, De gestis Pelagii, De gratia Christi, De nuptiis et concupiscentia – ed. C. F. Vrba, J. Zycha 1902
Vol. 43 AUGUSTINUS, De consensu evangelistarum – ed. F. Weihrich 1904 (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 44 AUGUSTINUS, Epistulae 124-184 – ed. A. Goldbacher 1904 (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 45 EVAGRIUS, Altercatio legis inter Simonem Iudaeum et Theophilum Christianum – ed. E. Bratke 1904
Vol. 46 RUFINUS, Interpretatio orationum Gregorii Nazianzeni – ed. A. Engelbrecht 1910 (via Archive)
Vol. 47 TERTULLIANUS, De patientia, De carnis resurrectione, Adversus Hermogenem, Adversus Valentinianos, Adversus omnes haereses, Adversus Praxean, Adversus Marcionem – ed. E. Kroymann 1906 (via Archive)(copy 2)
Vol. 48 BOETHIUS, In Prophyrii isagogen commenta – ed. S. Brandt 1906
Vol. 49 VICTORINUS PETAVIONENSIS, Opera – ed. J. Haussleiter 1916
Vol. 50 [AMBROSIASTER] PSEUDO-AUGUSTINUS, Quaestiones veteris et novi testamenti – ed. A. Souter 1908 (via Archive)
Vol. 51 AUGUSTINUS, Psalmus contra partem Donati, Contra epistulam Parmeniani, De baptismo – ed. M. Petschenig 1908 (Via Archive)
Vol. 52 AUGUSTINUS, Contra litteras Petiliani, Epistula ad catholicos de secta Donatistarum, Contra Cresconium grammaticum et Donatistam – ed. M. Petschenig 1909 (via Archive)
Vol. 53 AUGUSTINUS, De unico baptismo, Breviculus collationis cum Donatistis, Contra partem Donati post gesta, Sermo ad Caesariensis ecclesiae plebem, Gesta cum Emerito Donatistarum episcopo, Contra Gaudentium Donatistarum episcopum – ed. M. Petschenig 1910 (via Archive)
Vol. 54 HIERONYMUS, Epistulae 1-70 – ed. I. Hilberg 1910/1918; (editio altera supplementis aucta 1996)(via Archive)
Vol. 55 HIERONYMUS, Epistulae 71-120 – ed. I. Hilberg 1910/1918; (editio altera supplementis aucta 1996) (via Archive)
Vol. 56/1 HIERONYMUS, Epistulae 121-154 – ed. I. Hilberg 1910/1918; (editio altera supplementis aucta 1996) (via Archive)
Vol. 56/2 HIERONYMUS, Epistularum Indices – comp. M. Kamptner 1996
Vol. 57 AUGUSTINUS, Epistulae 185-270 – ed. A. Goldbacher 1911
Vol. 58 AUGUSTINUS, Epistulae: Praefatio et indices – ed. A. Goldbacher 1923
Vol. 59 HIERONYMUS, In Hieremiam prophetam – ed. S. Reiter 1913
Vol. 60 AUGUSTINUS, De peccatorum meritis et remissione et de baptismo parvulorum, De spiritu et littera, De natura et gratia, De natura et origine animae, Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum – ed. C. F. Vrba, J. Zycha 1913
Vol. 61 PRUDENTIUS, Carmina – ed. J. Bergman 1926
Vol. 62 AMBROSIUS, Expositio de psalmo CXVIII – ed. M. Petschenig 1913, (editio altera supplementis aucta – cur. M. Zelzer 1999)
Vol. 63 AUGUSTINUS, Contra Academicos, De beata vita, De ordine – ed. P. Knöll 1922
Vol. 64 AMBROSIUS, Explanatio super psalmos XII – ed. M. Petschenig 1919; (editio altera supplementis aucta – cur. M. Zelzer 1999)
Vol. 65 HILARIUS PICTAVIENSIS, Tractatus mysteriorum, Fragmenta, Ad Constantium Imperatorem, Hymni; PSEUDO-HILARIUS, Epistula ad Abram filiam, Hymni – ed. A. Feder 1916
Vol. 66/1 HEGESIPPUS, Historiae – ed. V. Ussani 1932
Vol. 66/2 HEGESIPPUS, Historiae: Praefatio et indices – comp. C. Mras 1960
Vol. 67 BOETHIUS, De consolatione philosophiae – ed. W. Weinberger 1934
Vol. 68 GAUDENTIUS BRIXIENSIS, Tractatus – ed. A. Glück 1936
Vol. 69 TERTULLIANUS, Apologeticum – ed. H. Hoppe 1939
Vol. 70 TERTULLIANUS, De praescriptione haereticorum, De cultu feminarum, Ad uxorem, De exhortatione castitatis, De corona, De carne Christi, Adversus Iudaeos – ed. E. Kroymann 1942
Vol. 71 CASSIODORUS, Historia tripartita – ed. W. Jacob, R. Hanslik 1952
Vol. 72 ARATOR SUBDIACONUS, De actibus apostolorum (Historia apostolica) – ed. McKinlay 1951
Vol. 73 AMBROSIUS, Explanatio symboli, De sacramentis, De mysteriis, De paenitentia, De excessu fratris Satyri, De obitu Valentiniani, De obitu Theodosii – ed. O. Faller 1955
Vol. 74 AUGUSTINUS, De libero arbitrio – ed. W. M. Green 1956
Vol. 75 BENEDICTUS NURSINUS, Regula – ed. R. Hanslik 1960 (editio altera et correcta 1977)
Vol. 76 TERTULLIANUS, Ad martyras, Ad Scapulam, De fuga in persecutione, De monogamia, De virginibus velandis, De pallio – ed. V. Bulhart 1957
Vol. 76 TERTULLIANUS, De paenitentia – ed. Ph. Borleffs 1957
Vol. 77 AUGUSTINUS, De magistro – ed. G. Weigel 1961
Vol. 77 AUGUSTINUS, De vera religione – ed. W. M. Green 1961
Vol. 78 AMBROSIUS, De fide ad Gratianum Augustum – ed. O. Faller 1962
Vol. 79 AMBROSIUS, De spiritu sancto, De incarnationis dominicae sacramento – ed. O. Faller 1964
Vol. 80 AUGUSTINUS, De doctrina christiana – ed. W. M. Green 1963
Vol. 81/1-3 AMBROSIASTER, Commentarius in epistulas Paulinas – ed. H. J. Vogels
Vol. 82/1-4 AMBROSIUS, Epistulae et acta – ed. O. Faller, M. Zelzer 1968-1996
Vol. 83/1 MARIUS VICTORINUS, Ad Candidum Arrianum, Adversus Arium, De homoousio recipiendo, Hymni – ed. P. Henry, P. Hadot 1971
Vol. 83/2 MARIUS VICTORINUS, In epistulam Pauli ad Ephesios, In epistulam Pauli ad Galatas, In epistulam Pauli ad Philippenses – ed. F. Gori 1986
Vol. 84 AUGUSTINUS, Expositio quarumdam propositionum ex epistula ad Romanos, Epistulae ad Galatas expositio, Epistulae ad Romanos inchoata expositio – ed. J. Divjak 1971
Vol. 85/1-2 AUGUSTINUS, Contra secundam Iuliani responsionem opus imperfectum, lib. 1-3; 4-6 – ed. M. Zelzer 1974; (editio altera 2004?)
Vol. 86 RUFINUS, Basili regula – ed. K. Zelzer 1986
Vol. 87 EUGIPPIUS, Regula – ed. F. Villegas, A. De Vogüé 1976
Vol. 88 AUGUSTINUS, Epistulae nuper in lucem prolatae (Epistulae Divjak) – ed. J. Divjak 1981
Vol. 89 AUGUSTINUS, Soliloquia, De inmortalitate animae, De quantitate animae – ed. W. Hörmann 1986
Vol. 90 AUGUSTINUS, De moribus ecclesiae catholicae et de moribus Manichaeorum – ed. J. B. Bauer 1992
Vol. 91 AUGUSTINUS, De Genesi contra Manichaeos – ed. D. Weber 1998
Vol. 92 AUGUSTINUS, Contra sermonem Arrianorum (praecedit Sermo Arrianorum) – ed. M. J. Suda, De correptione et gratia – ed. G. Folliet 2000
Vol. 93/1 AUGUSTINUS, Enarrationes in Psalmos 1-32 (expos.) – ed. C. Weidmann 2003
Vol. 94/1 AUGUSTINUS, Enarrationes in Psalmos 51-60 (expos.) – ed. H. Müller 2004
Vol. 95/3 AUGUSTINUS, Enarrationes in Psalmos 119-133 – ed. F. Gori 2001
Vol. 95/4 AUGUSTINUS, Enarrationes in Psalmos 134-140 – ed. F. Gori adiuvante F. Recanatini 2002
Vol. 95/5 AUGUSTINUS, Enarrationes in Psalmos 141-150 – ed. F. Gori adiuvante I. Spaccia 2005
Vol. 96 ANONYMUS, In Iob commentarius – ed. K. B. Steinhauser adiuvantibus H. Müller et D. Weber 2006

(see also this collection)

Starbucks Christianity

This video (link), which I don't endorse, provides a "parable" regarding how Starbucks would look if it were marketed like a church. While there are a number of amusing aspects to the video, the apparent underlying message (that the church, to be successful, should be more like Starbucks) is wrong.

Yes, there are bad things that go on in churches. Nevertheless, the point of church is not simply so random folks off the street can come in, get served, and go. The church is a fellowship of believers.

Yes, there are many pulpit crimes taking place in churches throughout the world. There are many inappropriate ways that churches handle new visitors. Despite that, though, the point of church is not simply to purvey a commodity as a coffee shop does: it is not designed to help one relax and unwind. It is not a place where a person should feel anonymous and simply a part of the crowd. It is a place where discipline is exercised and fellowship is nurtured and fostered.

The services of worship are about serving and worshiping God, not the congregants. We do want people who visit to make their stay permanent. But we do not wish to do so by giving up our zeal for God, the reality of our fellowship with one another, or the push for proselytizing.

Give up any of those and we might as well run a coffee shop instead.

-TurretinFan

Rome Teaches?

Mr. Shea seems to think that because Rome's teaching on the painlessness of Mary's birth is not explicit in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, it's not one of Rome's teachings (link). To put that issue to bed, let's provide him with that teaching from a bishop of Rome. Sorry it's not Benedict XVI or John Paul II, but there were bishops of Rome before them.

Pope Alexander III (1169) wrote: "Mary conceived without shame, gave birth without pain, and has departed from earth without undergoing the corruption of the tomb, thus proving - according to the word of the angel - that she was full of grace and nothing less." (Translation by Joseph Duhr, S.J.)(Latin taken from Denzinger: "(Maria) concepit nempe sine pudore, peperit sine dolore, et hinc migravit sine corruptione, iuxta verbum angeli, immo Dei per angelum, ut plena, non semiplena, gratiae esse probaretur ... ." as reported in Denzinger-Schoenmetzer, 1963, at item 748).

That really ought to be enough to shut Shea up about whether or not the teaching is a Roman teaching, whether or not the teaching made it into the "Catechism of the Catholic Church." That document, after all and massive as it is, is not an exhaustive work. But perhaps we should show what else makes this a teaching of Rome.

We already pointed out that Aquinas taught that Jesus birth did not cause Mary pain. Mr. Shea chooses to misrepresent this evidence as "because everything Aquinas ever said is Roman Catholic doctrine" (despite the fact that we repeatedly point out how Aquinas differs from Rome on things like the Immaculate Conception and Sola Scriptura, even while not being fully Reformed in his view of the bishop or Rome, plenary councils, or the life of Mary).

Worse than the misrepresentation, though, is Mr. Shea's attempt to dodge Aquinas' reasoning: Aquinas reasoned that Mary didn't have birth pains because she didn't give birth through the birth canal, because she remained a virgin even despite the birth of Christ. Mr. Shea seems afraid to address what Aquinas' reasoning is (it's, of course, not for me to say whether Aquinas knows more about what "Catholic" theology is than Mr. Shea, but I think Aquinas is a better known and respected theologian).

Mr. Shea appeals vaguely to the "Catholic Catechism," but fails to make clear to his readers that the "Catholic Catechism" confirms this premise on which Aquinas' argument is made. Specifically:

The deepening of faith in the virginal motherhood led the Church to confess Mary's real and perpetual virginity even in the act of giving birth to the Son of God made man. In fact, Christ's birth "did not diminish his mother's virginal integrity but sanctified it." And so the liturgy of the Church celebrates Mary as Aeiparthenos, the "Ever-virgin".

- CCC 499 (footnotes omitted)

Mr. Shea tries to characterize the Roman teaching that Mary did not suffer during childbirth in this way:

A broad tradition has always existed in Catholic circles which holds that our Lady experienced no labor pains. One can see the tradition reflected in sundry sources and attested by luminaries like St. Thomas. It is certainly generally regarded as a pious opinion and is certain compatible with the Church's dogmatic teaching.

As to the "always," of course Mr. Shea is being anachronistic. The concept of the perpetual virginity, and its extreme form with respect to Jesus not using the birth canal, were developments. The doctrine of Jesus' birth being painless for Mary is a further development based on those. It's not something that has "always" been around, although we can trace it back quite a few centuries.

Nevertheless, despite the ancient lineage and broad acceptance of this view, Mr. Shea tries to dismiss this view as not being something that Rome teaches because, "But as the carefully worded language of the Catechism (quoted in the combox) makes clear, the Church doesn't go to the mat on this question."

Of course, the Catechism (as see above) actually makes it quite explicit that Mary's virginity was not affected by the birth of Jesus. It just doesn't come out and say "and she didn't, therefore, suffer birth pangs." Besides that, of course, the Catechism isn't an exhaustive list of everything Rome has ever taught about everything and on every subject. I'd love to see Mr. Shea prove to us his unspoken premise that "if it's not in the Catechism it's not something that Rome teaches."

One wonders, though, why Mr. Shea doesn't think that the teachings of Pope Alexander III and Thomas Aquinas are teachings of Rome. Does he find fault with Aquinas' explanation? Aquinas argues his position from a premise that is a teaching that made its way into the Catechism.

But let's look at it the other way. Mr. Shea wants to think of this as just a "broad tradition" and not something that Rome actually teaches. Here's a relatively simple request: show us who teaches that Mary's virginity was not destroyed by Christ's birth but rejects Alexander III's and Aquinas' view that she did not suffer in childbirth.

I'd love to hear from Shea who he thinks opposes the opinion of John of Damascus who said:

For He who was of the Father, yet without mother, was born of woman without a father’s co-operation. And so far as He was born of woman, His birth was in accordance with the laws of parturition, while so far as He had no father, His birth was above the nature of generation: and in that it was at the usual time (for He was born on the completion of the ninth month when the tenth was just beginning), His birth was in accordance with the laws of parturition, while in that it was painless it was above the laws of generation. For, as pleasure did not precede it, pain did not follow it, according to the prophet who says, Before she travailed, she brought forth, and again, before her pain came she was delivered of a man-child [Is. lxvi. 7.].

- John of Damascus, An Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book 4, Chapter 14

That's an even different argument (than Aquinas' argument) for the same result. What argument from tradition can Mr. Shea bring forth? How does Mr. Shea conclude that the painless birth of Christ is not one of Rome's teachings?

How does Mr. Shea know what Rome teaches?

That's the question that should be troubling Mr. Shea and his readers. It's nice to act as though the Catechism were an infallible canon of Rome's teachings, but it doesn't make that claim for itself. Mr. Shea likes the way that the current CCC words things, but the Catechism of the Council of Trent put it this way:

But as the Conception itself transcends the order of nature, so also the birth of our Lord presents to our contemplation nothing but what is divine.

Besides, what is admirable beyond the power of thoughts or words to express, He is born of His Mother without any diminution of her maternal virginity, just as He afterwards went forth from the sepulchre while it was closed and sealed, and entered the room in which His disciples were assembled, the doors being shut; or, not to depart from every-day examples, just as the rays of the sun penetrate without breaking or injuring in the least the solid substance of glass, so after a like but more exalted manner did Jesus Christ come forth from His mother's womb without injury to her maternal virginity. This immaculate and perpetual virginity forms, therefore, the just theme of our eulogy. Such was the work of the Holy Ghost, who at the Conception and birth of the Son so favoured the Virgin Mother as to impart to her fecundity while preserving inviolate her perpetual virginity.

- Catechism of the Council of Trent, on the Second Part of the Third Article of the Creed

So, yes. It is a teaching of Rome. Is it a defined dogma? No. Neither is everything that is found in the Catechism. Yet still it is a teaching. In fact, on this particular point, Mr. Shea has been unable to point us to any authority within Roman Catholicism that would suggest otherwise. Where are these Roman Catholic teachers who claim that Mary gave birth the normal way, or that she suffered birth pains in any way. Who are these teachers who disagree with Aquinas and John of Damascus?

Oh? Mr. Shea doesn't know? He can't find them? What a surprise! It's just like the problem that Irenaeus faced. We confront them with Scripture, they turn to tradition, and when we confront them with tradition they reject it as well. And this is even a bit worse, for the tradition I'm citing to Mr. Shea is not the apostolic tradition, not tradition properly derived from Scripture, but the tradition on which his sect is built!

-TurretinFan

P.S. I notice that Mr. Shea seems interested to run to his fall-back position of allegorizing the travail of the Revelation 12 woman. Its very easy to use ad hoc allegorizations (Shea writes sarcastically: "Only a fool could see in the image of birth pangs an image of the anguish Mary endured watching her Son die as he brought the kingdom to birth in his passion.") but it is quite another thing to justify those from the text (totally impossible in the case of Revelation 12, which places the travails before the birth of the child). Sarcasm is something Shea is quite good at, and he's demonstrated that for us. Now, let's see if he can be as skillful at exposition either of Scripture or tradition.