Tuesday, November 29, 2011

Dave ... let's try to put things into perspective

I am amazed at the feigned outrage in the response to these images, for what is absolutely a minimal amount of photo enhancement, certainly in response to some not-so-good-natured ribbing, richly enhanced with exaggerations and enhancements of its own. But Roman Apologists will make every excuse to maintain Roman infallibility, while excusing "the Church" for any and every one of its officially egregious behaviors over the centuries.

[Note: I have consulted with a number of people, including my Pastor, and the general sense was to remove the item in question; I have removed it, while leaving everything else the same. Both Scripture and Francis Schaeffer were quoted: Romans 12:17-20 "Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord." To the contrary, "if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head."


"We must not minimize this love we are commanded to have to all men as our neighbors, simply because there is a clear distinction in the Bible between our love to all men, as neighbors, and our love to our brothers in Christ...This love for men is not to be just a banner, not just a slogan, but it should show itself in practical ways in our lives.  Our acts and our utterances in our contacts with men should show this love.  We should show it by kindness in the small and large things of our daily living.  The rule is that we should do to others as we desire that they should do to us.  This should show itself in our dealings with those in our own organizations, in our dealings with those of other organizations with which we do not agree, and with unbelievers as well.  We should deal fairly with men, including those who are our enemies for the Gospel's sake.  True love results in fair dealing, in care that we deal with scrupulous honesty toward all men, both in the ordinary walks of life and in the field of Christian battle.  Our walk should be such that even a blasphemer must know inwardly that we have dealt fairly with him.  Rightness and love must go hand in hand or there is no real power." - Francis Schaeffer


There were some questions on Dave's blog as to why I would put a mustache on a woman. The photo above is reproduced exactly as it appears on Dave's site. Maybe God has his own sense of humor. As far as the "Good Pope John" quote is concerned, see the actual source below.]

Roman Catholic evasiveness is truly staggering. Some time ago, I ran a series, discussing David Kertzer's "The Popes Against the Jews", which itself was a response to "The Holy See's" document "We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah"; in order to wash its hands of any guilt with respect to the Jewish people, (which it can’t do), it must hang its hat on the nonsensical distinction between “religious anti-Judaism,” which is the term Rome uses to define its own posture toward the Jews over the centuries, and a “racially-motivated anti-Semitism,” which is says are “based on theories contrary to the constant teaching of the Church”.

Links to this Post

The Popes against the Jews, Part 1, links to and provides long selections from William Rubinstein’s review of David Kertzer’s work by this title, in “First Things”. Rubinstein does not contest the factual nature of what Kertzer presents. “Kertzer skillfully and not unsubtly traces the differences in attitude towards the Jews among the Popes between about 1740 and 1940,” he says. Rather, Rubinstein faults Kertzer’s piece for being ”The Case for the Prosecution”. In other words, “he wasn’t nice to us.”

Quick: What's the difference between "anti-Semitism" and "anti-Judaism? See how one well-respected Roman Catholic writer absolves Rome completely of the former, while shifting any official blame for anti-Jewish attitudes to "the sons and daughters of the Church", in The Popes against the Jews, Part 2. Even though the Catholic Church had for centuries rounded up the Jews, forced them to live in ghettos and to identify themselves by wearing yellow badges on their clothing, and even though this activity conditioned 20th century Europeans not to be alarmed when Jews did get rounded up and herded off in this way, at least official Roman Catholic teaching never specifically identified ‘a final solution’.

The Popes Against the Jews, Part 3: Positing the “Big Lie,” and getting people to believe it. The Vatican reports: "in the 19th century, a false and exacerbated nationalism took hold. In a climate of eventful social change, Jews were often accused of exercising an influence disproportionate to their numbers. Thus there began to spread in varying degrees throughout most of Europe an anti-Judaism that was essentially more sociological and political than religious." But what the Vatican fails to report is that it was a pope, and a work sanctioned by a pope, (approved of and distributed by the Vatican’s own theological journal – and reprinted with the explicit approval of the pope at the time) and a report by the “Holy Office of the Inquisition”, that made these charges, that led to this “sociological and political” anti-Semitism.

The Popes Against the Jews, Part 4: Church Councils Against the Jews. Read actual Roman Catholic Conciliar Documents, written at the height of papal religious and political power, in which "we decree that such Jews and Saracens of both sexes in every Christian province and at all times shall be marked off in the eyes of the public from other peoples through the character of their dress."

The Popes Against the Jews, Part 5: “You will recognize them by their fruits.” "Unfortunately for the Jews, one of Carnival’s [that is, the public celebrations prior to Lent] most popular features was the ritual degradation of the people of the ghetto. Among the first historical references we have to such rites is a description from 1466, when for the amusement of the Romans, in festivities sponsored by Pope Paul II, Jews were made to race naked through the streets of the city. A particularly evocative later account describes them: “Races were run on each of the eight days of the Carnival by horses, asses and buffaloes, old men, lads, children, and Jews. Before they were to run, the Jews were richly fed, so as to make the race more difficult for them, and at the same time, more amusing for the spectators. They ran from the Arch of Domitian to the Church of St. Mark at the end of the Corso at full tilt, amid Rome’s taunting shrieks of encouragement and peals of laughter, while the Holy Father stood upon a richly ornamented balcony and laughed heartily. Two centuries later, these practices, now deemed indecorous and unbefitting the dignity of the Holy City, were stopped by [Pope] Clement IX. In their place the Pope assessed a heavy tax on the Jews to help pay the costs of the city’s Carnival celebrations."



53 comments:

  1. The screen capture of the Dave comment was deleted from here. This new article of his is 4000 words.

    HT to Steve on the Good Pope John book.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't know the background of the dispute, but your caricature of my patroness, St. Therese of Lisieux, "The Little Flower," is offensive on so many levels I can't count them.

    By captioning your caricature with a reference to "knuckle-rapping" teaching nuns shows your complete ignorance, since Discalced Carmelites are a contemplative order, not a teaching order.

    To compare "the Little Flower," who said, "In the heart of Jesus, I shall be love," to Hitler is obscene.

    You've obviously never read _Story of a Soul_, one of the greatest spiritual works of all time. Therese was raised in a devout family, entered Carmel at 15 and died of TB at 24 after intense suffering. She was so advanced spiritually that, even though she was never a fully professed nun, she was made assistant novice mistress as soon as she was eligible, and was informally tasked with teaching all the novices.

    She based her spirituality entirely on the Gospels, the Imitation of Christ, and John of the Cross. With few exceptions, she didn't read any other theological or spiritual works.

    One of the Popes called her the "Greatest Saint of Modern Times," even before she was canonized, and, when Bl. John Paul II declared her a Doctor of the Church, he said that she is perhaps the greatest doctor, even though she only left us one short book, because she essentially gave the Church a new doctrine in her "Little Way" of holiness by "doing small things with great love."

    I pity you.

    John of the Little Way, OCDS

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mr. Bugay, to compare someone who could link someone who could pray like this:

    To live of love, 'tis without stint to give,
    An never count the cost, nor ask reward;
    So, counting not the cost, I long to live
    And show my dauntless love for Thee, dear Lord!
    O Heart Divine, o'erflowing with tenderness,
    How swift I run, who all to Thee has given!
    Naught but Thy love I need, my life to bless.
    That love is heaven!

    to Hitler is truly blasphemous and abominable. If you are even half the Christian you hold yourself out as, I would ask you to remove that picture. If you feel the need to draw Hilter moustaches on someone's face, use my picture to draw your moustaches on, not Saint Therese.

    ReplyDelete
  4. John Hathaway, please note that it is C.S. Lewis, a famous teacher, who is threatening to crack Dave's knuckles with a ruler". Lewis is the one with the open mouth. St. Therese's mouth is obviously closed. You certainly don't know how to interpret satire.

    And Paul Hoffer, how dare you accuse me of such a truly blasphemous and abominable behavior as to "draw a Hitler moustache". That's a ridiculous assertion. All that I did was to darken the shadow under her nose -- which naturally exists in the existing photo!

    ReplyDelete
  5. John C. Hathaway said...

    "I don't know the background of the dispute, but your caricature of my patroness, St. Therese of Lisieux..."

    How did she become your patroness? Did she agree to that? Did you hold a séance where you asked her to sponsor you?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mr. Bugay, Seriously, you call blasphemy satire? Perhaps your minister at your church can explain the difference to you.

    Again, I ask that you take the picture down.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This is also how Muslims react when non-Muslims break Muslim taboos, like Valentine Day.

    ReplyDelete
  8. PAUL HOFFER SAID:

    "Mr. Bugay, Seriously, you call blasphemy satire?"

    His satire would only be blasphemous if it were directed at God (specifically, the one true God). It isn't possible to blaspheme mere men and women.

    Your complaint reflects Catholic idolatry.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Mr. Hays, Saint Paul says otherwise. 1 Cor. 4:13. By virtue of their close relationship with God, defaming a saint consitutes blasphemy as well.

    God day to you sir.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Everybody with me now:

    Great is Therese of Lisieux!
    Great is Therese of Lisieux!

    (continue until the authorities step in)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Paul, if you can call what I've done "blasphemy", your sense of proportion is way out of whack.

    ReplyDelete
  12. PAUL HOFFER SAID:

    "Mr. Hays, Saint Paul says otherwise. 1 Cor. 4:13. By virtue of their close relationship with God, defaming a saint consitutes blasphemy as well."

    i) And Muslims think it's blasphemous for American servicemen to sleep with their feet pointing to Mecca.

    ii) The fact that your denomination declares someone a saint doesn't make them a saint.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Not only that, but Paul Hoffer has gotten 1 Cor 4:13 all fowled up anyway. Paul is talking about the sacrifices that Apostles make in order to spread the Gospel.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Mr. Fan, If you had taken even but a moment to read anything St. Therese had written, you would understand how empty your mock truly is.

    "I have never wished for human glory, contempt it was that had attraction for my heart; but having recognized that this again was too glorious for me, I ardently desire to be forgotten."

    ~Saint Therese of Lisieux

    ReplyDelete
  15. Acts 19:23-28

    23 About that time there arose a great disturbance about the Way. 24 A silversmith named Demetrius, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought in a lot of business for the craftsmen there. 25 He called them together, along with the workers in related trades, and said: “You know, my friends, that we receive a good income from this business. 26 And you see and hear how this fellow Paul has convinced and led astray large numbers of people here in Ephesus and in practically the whole province of Asia. He says that gods made by human hands are no gods at all. 27 There is danger not only that our trade will lose its good name, but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis will be discredited; and the goddess herself, who is worshiped throughout the province of Asia and the world, will be robbed of her divine majesty.”
    28 When they heard this, they were furious and began shouting: “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!”

    ReplyDelete
  16. For what it's worth, Paul Hoffer has also contacted my pastor and asked the folks over there to do the same.

    I've spoken with Matt personally about this, and he doesn't see himself getting involved with it.

    ReplyDelete
  17. If Therese of Lisieux never wished for human glory, then why does Rome violate her express wishes?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Paul Hoffer, be sure you understand the symbolic meaning of the artwork in question.

    Keep in mind that Roman Catholics are officially required to "go to confession" and actually confess, in some detail, their sins.

    On the other hand, not only does Roman Catholicism officially excuse itself from this requirement, and from any requirement to confess its own sins, but its very public efforts to evade responsibility for any evil it has committed are very well known to the readers here.

    And as this blogpost makes clear, essentially, official Rome distances itself from Roman Catholic policy toward the Jews over the centuries.

    And my point simply is, so long as Roman Catholics make excuses and dismiss official Roman Catholic behavior over the centuries, every single Roman Catholic -- from the least to the greatest -- is tainted by this "excused" and unconfessed official Roman sin.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Mr. Hays, if you had ever bothered to read anything about St. Therese, you would understand that her faith in Jesus Christ, her writings and her life made her a saint. The Catholic Church merely recognized the fact.

    Mr. Bugay, equating the work and faith of Saint Therese of Lisieux with Hitler is blasphemous given how she devoted her life to Christ.

    Further, if you were to look at the passage more closely, you would see that Saint Paul is being blasphemed because of his work to spread the Gospel. You blasphemed Saint Therese for the same reason.

    Further rom CLarke's commentary:

    Being defamed - Βλασφημουμενοι, Being blasphemed. I have already remarked that βλασφημειν signifies to speak injuriously, and may have reference either to God or to man. God is blasphemed when his attributes, doctrines, providence, or grace, are treated contemptuously, or any thing said of him that is contrary to his holiness, justice, goodness, or truth. Man is blasphemed when any thing injurious is spoken of his person, character, conduct, etc. Blaspheming against men is any thing by which they are injured in their persons, characters, or property.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Paul Hoffer said...

    "Mr. Hays, if you had ever bothered to read anything about St. Therese, you would understand that her faith in Jesus Christ, her writings and her life made her a saint. The Catholic Church merely recognized the fact."

    She's a saint by Roman Catholic standards. Likewise, Islam has sufi saints. Hinduism has Hindu saints.

    "Mr. Bugay, equating the work and faith of Saint Therese of Lisieux with Hitler is blasphemous given how she devoted her life to Christ."

    That's your spin. Bugay corrected you on that misinterpretation.

    "Further, if you were to look at the passage more closely, you would see that Saint Paul is being blasphemed because of his work to spread the Gospel. You blasphemed Saint Therese for the same reason."

    i) She was spreading the gospel of Rome, not the gospel of Paul.

    ii) 1 Cor 4:13 doesn't use the Greek word for blasphemy. You need to bone up on modern textual criticism.

    "Further rom CLarke's commentary."

    Quoting from an antiquated commentary by an old Methodist is hardly serious lexicography–not to mention the fact that Paul uses a different Greek word. Clarke was dependent on inferior MS evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  21. So what about the substance of the post?

    That always seems to get lost in the ire.

    Is it a coincidence that essentially any post here where self-identified Catholics comment becomes an exercise in majoring-in-minors?

    Also, it's shocking to see some people venerate mere creatures. That seems a dangerous place to be.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Mr. Fosi, to be fair, the original post did not contain any words, only the images. But Dave doesn't mind changing and editing his posts on-the-fly, and so, I added some commentary in the meantime, to just sort of reinforce the point of what was being said with the images.

    Dave, of course, wants to bleat on about "new lows", but really there are some "old lows" which, as you point out, seem to get lost in the ire.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Thanks for the clarification, John. That helps me make more sense of the insubstantial complaints that just pop up in the first few comments.

    It still doesn't change the applicability that TF's post (which made me LOL). The anger over a "blasphemed" saint really does mirror that of the silversmith.

    It also doesn't change how much my neck hurts from the whiplash induced by the question-begged mishandling of 1 Cor 4:13.

    My wife had a short argument with a long-time friend and Mormon on Facebook some weeks back about whether Mormons should be allowed to apply the label "Christian" to themselves. The argument of the Mormon girl was very similar to that of our Catholic friends.

    She was unwilling to actually discuss the substantive differences between the Mormon confession of faith and the most ancient creeds and which (if either) was correct according to the Biblical text.

    Instead, she would only discuss how the discussion was making her feel and how my wife was being disrespectful of her religion by calling it wrong and saying that the leading Mormon prophet is a false one.

    And like with our Mormon friend, in this and other threads (with the noted exception of Pete Holter) the argument isn't about what is true, but about one's feelings and impressions.

    I think it's time for the kiddies to exchange their diapers for big-boy pants.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "Instead, she would only discuss how the discussion was making her feel and how my wife was being disrespectful of her religion by calling it wrong and saying that the leading Mormon prophet is a false one.

    And like with our Mormon friend, in this and other threads (with the noted exception of Pete Holter) the argument isn't about what is true, but about one's feelings and impressions.

    I think it's time for the kiddies to exchange their diapers for big-boy pants."


    One side wants to talk about substance, and the other side wants to talk about how substance hurts their feelings.

    Reasoning people versus Emoting People. (Generally Speaking).

    ReplyDelete
  25. "When my sufferings grew less, my great delight was to weave garlands of daisies and forget-me-nots for Our Lady's statue. We were in the beautiful month of May, when all nature is clothed with the flowers of spring; the Little Flower alone drooped, and seemed as though it had withered for ever. Yet she too had a shining sun, the miraculous statue of the Queen of Heaven. How often did not the Little Flower turn towards this glorious Sun!"

    - Theresa of Lisieux, Story of a Soul, Chapter 3

    The old maxim that you become what you worship seems especially apt here, as Theresa's devotion is rewarded by having followers similarly devoted to her.

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_O6K_h61str8/TCc5vbPOdDI/AAAAAAAADuk/UgI9m5UYb4k/s640/Image+of+St+Therese+above+relics+%282%29.JPG

    -TurretinFan

    ReplyDelete
  26. Gentlemen:

    The word used at 1 Cor. 4:13 is "blasphEmoumenoi". Sure seems like Saint Paul is using the word "blaspheme" to me.

    As far as the Gospel that St. Therese was spreading, why not cite to examples from her writings to back your assertions that the two were different? For that matter, what works of St. Therese did any of you read whatsoever before Mr. Bugay drew a Hitler moustache on her face?

    God bless!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Mr. Fosi, since you are looking for substance, why not ask how drawing a Hitler moustache on a virtuous woman, whether one regards her a saint or not, is a commentary of substance. What is there that is truthful in the action of drawing a Hitler moustache on Therese of Lisiuex?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Paul: First, John has denied that charge, so I don't grant that he did draw a Hitler mustache on the pic.

    Second, I confess that the drawing of a Hitler 'stache on a Catholic saint offends me no more than the drawing of the same on any number of posters I can find on my university campus. How much offense do I take? Not much.

    To try and place myself as near to your position as I can: I form an image in my mind of a man like D. A. Carson or John MacArthur and imagine that someone has scrawled a Hitler 'stache on their pictures. So here we have two virtuous men whose images have been defamed and how much offense do I take? Very little, as I imagine that they would.

    What really offends me is the spread of misinformation and idolatry that steals God's glory, assigning it to mere creatures rather than to Himself who in Christ Jesus has redeemed me. False doctrine which are Satanic lies are what offend me, sir.

    Beatification has no meaning for me and I recognize no Queen of Heaven. I do not recognize any special authority said to belong to the Roman bishop and a I repudiate the teaching man's cooperation is his own justification. I hold these to be contrary to the teaching of scripture and at odds with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His apostles. So if I were so inclined, I could get rather offended by what your church teaches.

    I am additionally offended at the tendency of the Roman church, as an organization, to cover and obscure it's own historical and doctrinal offences against Christian and pagan alike. And this, of course, if the subject of this post.

    ReplyDelete
  29. 13 δυσφημούμενοι παρακαλοῦμεν· ὡς περικαθάρματα τοῦ κόσμου ἐγενήθημεν, πάντων περίψημα ἕως ἄρτι.

    http://www.academic-bible.com/en/online-bibles/greek-new-testament-na27/read-the-bible-text/bibelstelle/1.kor%204/cache/fef5591c84e3168eb501594894982894/#v13

    ReplyDelete
  30. Paul Hoffer said...

    "As far as the Gospel that St. Therese was spreading, why not cite to examples from her writings to back your assertions that the two were different?"

    She's a canonized Catholic nun, so her institutional identity and institutional recognition are sufficient to tell me all I need to know about her theology.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Of course, my offense isn't any more substantial than yours, since they are both emotions.

    It does seems that I have better justification for mine, though I choose not to flaunt it and blackmail my Catholic friends with it.

    ReplyDelete
  32. δυσφημούμενοι vs βλασφημέω looks like more than po-tay-to vs po-tah-to.

    Why are we even discussing the Greek anyway? We aren't qualified to interpret what it says.

    ReplyDelete
  33. True. Hoffer has yet to quote the infallible magisterial interpretation of his prooftext.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Mr. Fosi,

    You wrote:

    First, John has denied that charge, so I don't grant that he did draw a Hitler mustache on the pic.

    Me: It didn't get there by itself.

    You wrote: I confess that the drawing of a Hitler 'stache on a Catholic saint offends me no more than the drawing of the same on any number of posters I can find on my university campus. How much offense do I take? Not much.

    Me: 1 Cor. 10:32 and Rom. 14:13 lead me to a different conclusion.

    You wrote: To try and place myself as near to your position as I can: I form an image in my mind of a man like D. A. Carson or John MacArthur and imagine that someone has scrawled a Hitler 'stache on their pictures. So here we have two virtuous men whose images have been defamed and how much offense do I take? Very little, as I imagine that they would.

    Me: If I become aware that a Catholic had done such a thing, I would chide them for their unbecoming behavior.

    You wrote: What really offends me is the spread of misinformation and idolatry that steals God's glory, assigning it to mere creatures rather than to Himself who in Christ Jesus has redeemed me.

    Me: Finally! someone making a real point. I understand your assertion, but I disagree with your it. If one praises the Mona Lisa, is not one also praising her creator? I do not see how honoring God's holy ones detracts or steals God's glory. In fact, it is giving Him greater glory because it is an acknowledgement of His greatness in using borken shards to do great things.

    You wrote: False doctrine which are Satanic lies are what offend me, sir.

    Me: You need to first show me that the Catholic understanding of the communion of saints is a false doctrine or that it is from Satan in order for your assertion to have any validity.

    You wrote: Beatification has no meaning for me and I recognize no Queen of Heaven.

    Me: Your loss not mine.

    You wrote: I do not recognize any special authority said to belong to the Roman bishop.

    Me: Either the promises of Jesus Christ are true or He lied. Because I believe them to be true, I believe in the teachings of the Church He said He protect

    You wrote: I repudiate the teaching man's cooperation is his own justification. I hold these to be contrary to the teaching of scripture and at odds with the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His apostles. So if I were so inclined, I could get rather offended by what your church teaches.

    Me: We both value the Way, the Truth and the Life that is Jesus Christ. We only disgree what the Church actually teaches. As I understand the term "justification", the Church teaches that man has the capacity, but not the will to move toward acceptance of God unless God first freely graces him, which thereby enabling man's will to move, to cooperate. For me, I get offended when I see Calvinists refuse to address that works do have a role in our salvation. It is not what people believe that is as important as is putting their beliefs in practice in how we treat one's neighbor correctly. Mt. 25.

    You wrote: I am additionally offended at the tendency of the Roman church, as an organization, to cover and obscure it's own historical and doctrinal offences against Christian and pagan alike.

    Me: Which historical and doctrinal offenses do you see the Church covering and/or obscuring so I may be able to address your specific concerns. Before we do so though, I would ask you not review Bl. JPII's Tertio millennio adveniente first.

    God bless!

    ReplyDelete
  35. Paul, regarding Tertio millennio adveniente

    These "official apologies" always stop short of taking "official responsibility," instead making such statements as "the Church should become more fully conscious of the sinfulness of her children ..."

    This is precisely the kind of "historical and doctrinal offenses [we] see the Church covering and/or obscuring"

    Of course JPII could not ever "be mindful of the sinfulness of the Church" because of its doctrinal construction. That very doctrinal construction what is at issue.


    Second, there seems to be come confusion over my statement: And Paul Hoffer, how dare you accuse me of such a truly blasphemous and abominable behavior as to "draw a Hitler moustache". That's a ridiculous assertion. All that I did was to darken the shadow under her nose -- which naturally exists in the existing photo!

    It was an attempt at humor in the midst of this discussion, an attempt to trade on the amphiboly between "drawing a moustache" and "darkening a shadow" which naturally exists using a photoshop tool.


    Third, Jesus promised to build a church; he did not promise successors to Peter, much less the specific type of "successor" that Rome thinks it has.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Paul:

    1) You are still saying there is one. It looks pretty similar to the way it looks on Dave's blog header. It may be sketchy but I'm going with John's denial on this one.

    2) 1 Cor 10:32 and Rom. 14:13 don't speak to my lack of offense. They are two of Paul's admonishments that Christians should avoid offending others, not saying that Christians are obligated to take offence. Clearly Paul didn't mean that we must tailor all our interactions so as to avoid all offence or we would be prohibited from preaching the Gospel or confronting false religionists. Though it could be argued that these support your position, they don't speak to mine and I don't think they help you either. They support your position only if you first make a case that John intentionally offended you and others. To do so, you'll have to call him a liar first.

    3) Sure, if one did such a thing admonishment is in order. Am I obligated to take offense at the act? No. I recognize it for the fatuous action that it is.

    4) Prasing a man's creation in itself is not a praise of the man who made it, especially if you start praying to it for spiritual favors. Shall I say prayers to the Mona Lisa to obtain favors from DeVinci? Praying to and venerating people in the way the RCC does takes your eyes off Christ and fixes them on the creation. It is the willingness to be distracted that leads to teachings such as Mary as a co-redemmer and an intercessor, though she is as dead as I will be in 100 years. The same goes for patron saints. I don't venerate great men of Protestent theology and I won't pray to them if I outlive those that are currently still breathing. They are creatures who set a good example in some things and a bad example in others. They deserve double honor as Paul says but never a place between me and Christ.

    5) Theology that isn't from God is from Satan directly or indirectly, I trust you don't need me to proof-text that. No, I don't actually need to take the time to show how specific doctrines of the CC are Satanic but I can refer you to arguments to support my assertion.

    6) I don't view beatification as a gain, so non-recognition of it is no loss. "You mean you couldn't have any less!"

    7) I don't recognize the catholic church of the NT and the ante-Nicene fathers (the only ones I've read so far) to be the Roman Catholic Church so I am not stuck on either horn of the dilemma you propose.

    8) Man has no capacity to justify himself. He is born dead in trespasses and sins and is regenerated and justified from outside himself by the alien righteousness of Jesus Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit. There is no cooperation since dead men cannot cooperate. Works are evidence of regeneration and justification and have no active role in obtaining nor retaining them. So far as I'm aware, I am no Calvinist, but I flatly deny that man in any way cooperates in his justification. Grace is unmerited favor and any works done to merit it turn it into a wage, I therefore do not have to perform works to recieve grace nor keep it. Sanctification, though? Sure, we may have a role in it, though we have been promised that if we have been and will be justified, we have been and will be sanctified.

    9) I'll refer you to the posts that John has already put up here regarding the RCC sex abuse scandals and his articles on the lack of Petrine succession. These aren't the only examples, but they are a place for you to start.

    Now perhaps you can deal with the other problems presented to you, such as the problems with your claims about the Greek text and why you think you are qualified to interpret it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. How interesting that John Hathaway would take umbrage to “his patroness” being portrayed as an anti-Semite (i.e. Hitler) when she was part of the organization that so aggressively promoted anti-Semitism during her lifetime!

    Seven years before her death (1890) the French newspaper, La Croix, run entirely by the Assumptionists order, under the guidance of the Vatican, proudly proclaimed that they were “the most anti-Jewish newspaper in France.” (Therese was French.) Did Therese object to that? Was she devoted to the pope who never discouraged La Croix's anti-Semitism? Did she ever object to Pius IX's kidnapping of a 6 year old Jewish boy a few years earlier?

    It seems we hear an awful lot from Catholics about sins of omission. Unless there's evidence to the contrary, Therese seemly sinned gravely by omission.

    We pray that John will fix his gaze on the risen Christ, the only one worthy of his veneration.

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Thanks Constantine. You have been a tremendous friend these last few years.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Mr. Hoffer falls into a trap of his own making.

    While badly misconstruing 1 Corinthians 4:13, we are left only to ask, is his the universal interpretation of the Fathers required by Pope Pius IV and the Tridentine Creed? Or is it simply his private interpretation?

    Perhaps we should hurry to notify his pastor that he is in violation of one of the four “authoritative” creeds of his sect. Tsk, tsk, Paul.

    Anybody have that number handy?

    Peace.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Steve Hays: His satire would only be blasphemous if it were directed at God (specifically, the one true God). It isn't possible to blaspheme mere men and women. Your complaint reflects Catholic idolatry.

    In stating this, he exhibits his massive ignorance of how the Greek words blaspheemeo [βλασφημέω](Strong's word #987), blaspheemia [βλασφημία](#988), and blaspheemos [βλάσφημος](#989) are used in Holy Scripture. They are often applied to men or angels. Hence Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (one-volume) states (p. 107):

    It may be directly against God . . . or angelic beings (Jude 8-10; 2 Pet. 2:10-12). . . .

    Persecuting Christians is also blasphemy (1 Tim. 1:13). The community has to suffer blasphemy (Rev. 2:9; 1 Cor. 4:13; 1 Pet. 4:4). Opposition to Paul's message is necessarily blasphemy (Acts 13:45 [+ 18:6]) because it attacks its basic content.

    . . . A bad action is blasphemy either because it resists God's will or beings Christianity into disrepute (1 Tim. 6:1; Jms. 2:7; Rom. 2:24; Tit. 2:5).

    Kittel's Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (ten-volume set ) elaborates:

    3. But the Christian, too, is in danger of giving cause for blasphemy. Denial of Christ in persecution would be such. Hence Paul can say of his activity as a persecutor: αὐτοὺς ἠνάγκαζον βλασφημεῖν. Even in partaking of idol meats Christians in bondage could see blasphemy (1 C. 10:30), as distinct from Paul. Violation of the obligation of love even in such matters ὑμε͂ν τὸ ἀγαθόν (R. 14:16) could expose to scandal. False teaching is blasphemy when it perverts from the way of truth (2 Pt. 2:2; R. 3:8). The blasphemy does not have to find verbal expression. Any bad or unloving action can contain it, either because it resists the holy will of God or because it causes the enemies of Christianity to calumniate it (1 Tm. 6:1; Jm. 2:7; R. 2:24; Tt. 2:5). The basis is clearly set out in 2 Cl., 13, 2–4.

    (Vol. 1: 1964- (G. Kittel, G. W. Bromiley and G. Friedrich, Ed.) (electronic ed.) (624). Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans)

    Likewise, The New Bible Dictionary (1962, "Blasphemy", p. 159):

    God is blasphemed also in His representatives. So the word is used of Moses (Acts 6:11); Paul (Rom. 3:8; 1 Cor. 4:12; 10:30) . . . because these representatives embody the truth of God Himself (and our Lord in a unique way) an insulting word spoken against them and their teaching is really directed against the God in whose name they speak (so Mt. 10:10; Lk. 10:16). . . .

    The term is also used, in a weaker sense, of slanderous language addressed to men (e.g. Mk. 3:28; 7:22; Eph. 4:31; Col. 3:8; Tit. 3:2). Here the best translation is 'slander, abuse'.

    ReplyDelete
  41. [continued]

    ***

    Even immaterial things can be blasphemed, such as the "word of God" (Titus 2:5: "discredited" in RSV), "good" [acts] (Rom 14:16), "teaching" or "doctrine" (1 Tim 6:1), "the way of truth" (2 Pet 2:2), "matters of which they are ignorant" (2 Pet 2:12). Follow the Strong's word links for comprehensive documentation of usage.

    Zondervan Dictionary of Bible Themes (#5800: "Blasphemy") also shows a wide application of blasphemy in the Bible:

    God blasphemed indirectly

    Rejecting his word and his servants blasphemes God Ne 9:26 See also 2Ch 36:16; Ps 107:11; Isa 5:24

    Defiling sacred things blasphemes God Lev 22:1-2 See also Eze 20:27-28; 22:26; Mal 1:6-13

    Despising the poor blasphemes God Pr 14:31 See also Am 2:7; Jas 2:5-7

    Speaking against his people blasphemes God Zep 2:8-11; Ac 9:4-5 To persecute the church is to persecute Jesus Christ; Ac 26:9; 1Ti 1:13; Rev 2:9

    Slandering celestial beings blasphemes God 2Pe 2:10-12; Jude 8-10

    (M. H. Manser, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1999)

    All of this, but Hays, Bugay and our esteemed anti-Catholic Calvinist brethren are supposedly the masters of the Bible, and we Catholics, biblical illiterates. Hays doesn't even know the plain definition of a common biblical word. And so he says stupid, ignorant things about it. All we have to do is go to the Bible and Protestant Bible reference sources to refute him beyond all reply.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Needless to say, Kittel is notorious for its semantic fallacies, so Armstrong illustrates his massive ignorance of basic lexical semantics (e.g. James Barr).

    ReplyDelete
  43. Put another way, Armstrong commits the word=concept fallacy.

    ReplyDelete
  44. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  45. If you want to defend Kittel, that's your funeral. I'll send flowers.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I'm happy to be in the company of hosts of Bible scholars who continue, amazingly enough, to cite Kittel, despite your singular, searing wisdom, thus showing themselves to be miserable sufferers of (what was it?): "massive ignorance of basic lexical semantics." Right.

    https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=bks&q=%22Theological+Dictionary+of+the+New+Testament%22&tbs=,bkv:p&num=10#q=%22Theological+Dictionary+of+the+New+Testament%22&hl=en&safe=off&tbs=bkv:p&tbm=bks&ei=x57WTs_NOIjv0gG0yJ2fAg&start=0&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=3fa79b40380ca6a5&biw=1016&bih=594

    "Sola Hays".

    ReplyDelete
  47. BTW, this highlights one of Armstrong's chronic methodological fallacies. He will prooftext Catholic dogma by copy/pasting the occurrence of the same English word in a concordance.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Helmut Koester wrote:

    ". . . the violent attacks of James Barr . . . are not really justifiable; decisive though they may be, his remarks are aimed at a few articles of the [TDNT] that are hardly convincing anyway . . ."

    (Paul & his world: interpreting the New Testament in its context, Fortress Press, 2007, p. 242, footnote 11)

    http://books.google.com/books?id=4__-nufm8oUC&pg=PA242&dq=james+barr,+%22Theological+Dictionary+of+the+New+Testament%22&hl=en&ei=c6DWTpAmp8DaBdOxsIkB&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CGwQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=james%20barr%2C%20%22Theological%20Dictionary%20of%20the%20New%20Testament%22&f=false

    ReplyDelete
  49. Nice sophistical (and altogether typical) attempt by Steve to deflect the discussion away from the biblical range of "blasphemy" onto methodological deficiencies (real or imagined) of Kittel. He can't escape his whopper, so he tries to obfuscate.

    If he says that Kittel defined words too rigidly (he certainly didn't here, as my citations show), then Steve simply comes in and says that the three Greek words can never possibly apply to human beings (or angels or things) in any sense of "blasphemy". So he is just as dogmatic, except it is from prior convictions that he brings to the Bible in order to eisegete it and bolster his errors of category and woodenly seeing idolatry under every rock.

    ReplyDelete
  50. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Rhetoric, Dave. Unlike at your hovel, we have standards here.

    ReplyDelete
  52. The very distinguished evangelical Bible scholar Marvin R. Wilson shows himself also to be guilty of "massive ignorance of basic lexical semantics" -- since he (oddly enough, given Hays' infallible pronouncements) offers a third critique of Barr's criticism of Kittel (after praising several aspects of it):

    ". . . Barr's position fails to be fully convincing. By downplaying any distinction between Greek and Hebrew manners of thinking, Barr does not take into adequate consideration such nonverbal aspects as the historical, cultural, and social-psychological setting from which the respective thought derives. Furthermore, he gives the impression that one may translate from one language to another without any major loss. This is not necessarily the case, however, for words may have a particular cultural and historical development within their own language."

    (Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989, p. 7)

    ReplyDelete
  53. I'm going to turn off comments here at this point. We heard from the transplant coordinator; the donor has signed all the right papers, we have a schedule in place, and I'll have more on that soon, Lord willing.

    ReplyDelete