Turretinfan and the Primacy of the Roman Bishop

Today Turretinfan posted a very short article entitled Papal Primacy vs. Scripture. Short enough to quote here in full, the article simply [and, I'm sad to say, superficially] says,

Pope Boniface VIII, in Unam Sanctam, stated: “Now, therefore, we declare, say, define, and pronounce that for every human creature it is altogether necessary for salvation to be subject to the authority of the Roman pontiff.”

Scripture, in contrast, gives universal jurisdiction to Christ alone: “the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords” (1 Timothy 6:15) and the Psalmist declares: “Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet” (Psalm 8:6) which the Apostle tells us plainly refers to Christ: “And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church” (Ephesians 1:22).

Clearly Turretinfan has unfortunately divorced a very small portion of the papal text from the rest of the bull, making it into a pretext. I should note that this particular article of Turretinfan's has also been published on Dr. White's Alpha and Omega Blog here. I do wonder whether Mr. Turretinfan took the time to read the entire bull before publishing his article. If he would have, he would have found no need to write what he did. I'd like to ask the reader to take a few moments and read the entirety of Pope Boniface's Unam Sanctum before we continue in our examination of Turretinfan's article.

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,' and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.

We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: 'Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.' [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23-24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: 'Behold, here are two swords' [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered _for_ the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: 'There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God' [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.

For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: 'Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms' and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: 'The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man' [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.

I have emphasized the important points which make up the totality of the bull's meaning. Boniface himself admits that the Head of the Church is indeed Christ, thus re-affirming 1 Tim. 6:15, Psalm 8:6, and Eph. 1:22. These passages are essential to the doctrine of the Papacy. But how is one actually subject to the Roman Pontiff? Answer: the exact same way one is subject to the Church. Being subject to the Christian Church, that same person is by that very fact made subject to the Roman Pontiff. Boniface doesn't say one must know he is subject to the Pope, but rather that he must be subject. How does this happen? Once again, the same way one becomes subject to the Church. By what means is this? By Holy Baptism, through which even infants become subject to the Church, and thus, to the Pope.

“The Church, guardian of the integrity of the Faith – which, in virtue of its authority, deputed from God its Founder, has to call all nations to the knowledge of Christian lore, and which is consequently bound to watch keenly over the teaching and upbringing of the children placed under its authority by baptism” - Pope Leo XIII, Nobilissima

“…Jesus Christ laid upon His Apostles the injunction to ‘preach the Gospel to every creature,’ He imposed, it is evident, upon all men the duty of learning thoroughly and believing what they were taught. This duty is intimately bound up with the gaining of eternal salvation: ‘He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be condemned.’ [Mk. 16:16] But the man who has embraced the Christian faith, as in duty bound, is by that very fact a subject of the Church as one of the children born out of her, and becomes a member of that greatest and holiest body, which it is the special charge of the Roman Pontiff to rule with supreme power, under its visible head, Jesus Christ.” - Pope Leo XIII, Sapientiae christianae

“Moreover, if anyone without repentance dies in mortal sin, without a doubt he is tortured forever by the flames of eternal hell. – But the souls of children after the cleansing of baptism, and of adults also who depart in charity and who are bound neither by sin nor unto any satisfaction for sin, at once pass quickly to their eternal fatherland.” - Pope Innocent IV, Council of Lyons I

“If anyone shall say that infants, because they have not actual faith, after having received baptism are not to be numbered among the faithful… let him be anathema.” - Trent, Canon 13 on Justification

I think these few quotations will suffice for understanding in context the exact meaning of being subject to the Roman Pontiff. If Boniface's infallible statement was to be understood in the distorted way Protestants misunderstand it, one wonders why the Council of Trent didn't jump on this opportunity to reiterate it as dogma concerning salvation. They had no need to do so because no amount of documents one might sign saying they are subject to the Pope, even if they were signed in blood, would actually make that same person subject to the Pope. Only Holy Baptism or the Desire thereof makes such a person a son or daughter of the Church, and thus, subject to the Church's visible Pastor, the Roman Pontiff.

Hopefully this has been somewhat useful to you. I hope Mr. Turretinfan will correct his error in misunderstanding this Roman Catholic doctrine.

Transubstantiation, Metaphor, and Common Sense that leads one to believe the Eucharist is Mystical, not Metaphor

A long awkward title, yes, but true nonetheless. I actually borrowed much of the title from Turretinfan's title to his post here. In passing, I noticed he posted a video in response to a Greek Orthodox Youtube user 'Apologist117', whose video was a response to Dr. James White's 5-part series on St. Ignatius of Antioch and the Eucharist. I made a few videos responding to Turretinfan but decided not to post them, simply because I thought it better to redo the videos responding to Dr. White's videos directly, which in turn would immedietly answer Turretinfan's assertions also.

Well, now that you're more confused than you were when you first read the title, please continue.

What I mainly want to adress are the quotes from the holy fathers Turretinfan provides in his defense that the Eucharist is merely figurative. Here I'd like to state plainly, lest there be much confusion, I am a Roman Catholic, but will also be drawing on the witness of the Greek Catholics, who with the Russians and the Coptics, commonly called Orthdox, with all the Apostolic Churches will bear witness concerning this Mystical Flesh and Blood.

Bellisario's and Turretinfan's back-and-forth aside, let's take a look at what Mr. Turretinfan says concerning the Eucharist,

"(1) Jesus never used the word "metaphor" in the pages of Holy Scripture - not just about this metaphor, but about any of them. (2) Normally what distinguishes metaphor from simile is the absence of a signal - if it said "this represents my body" we would have simile, not metaphor. (3) Jesus didn't say that the cup was a figure of speech for the contents of the cup, but folks use their common sense to recognize this. (4) Finally, some of the early church fathers confirm that Jesus used metaphors, including the metaphor identification of his body with bread and of wine with his blood."

This is the problem we run into when this particular subject is approached with a modern Western mindset. Folks tend to forget the Gospel is ancient and Eastern, and very, very Jewish. Applying a modern Western interpretation to an ancient Eastern text will, as unintentional as it may be, distort said text entirely losing the true meaning. This is, as becomes quite obvious to the Roman or Greek, the case with Mr. Turretinfan. Recall I said concerning Turretinfan and Icons that his errors were unintentional, the same applies here. His sincerity is not on the line, but 'sincerity' does not distinguish Truth from Falsehood. With this in mind, let's look at the first holy father he cites:

"What mean, then, the words, "I am the true vine"? Was it to the literal vine, from which that metaphor was drawn, that He intended to point them by the addition of "true"? For it is by similitude, and not by any personal propriety, that He is thus called a vine; just as He is also termed a sheep, a lamb, a lion, a rock, a corner-stone, and other names of a like kind, which are themselves rather the true ones, from which these are drawn as similitudes, not as realities."

- Augustine, Tractate 80 on John's Gospel, Section 1

Naturally St. Augustine is correct. But what exactly does this have to do with the Eucharist? Let's consider a few things. First, Tractate 80 in context deals with John 15:1-3, many chapters after John 6 and the famous Eucharistic Discource. Tractate 26 would have been a more sufficient passage to quote Augustine's view on the Eucharist. You will note Augustine speaks very mystically concerning the precious Flesh and Blood of Christ, specifically,

"For even we at this day receive visible food: but the sacrament is one thing, the virtue of the sacrament another." - Augustine, Tractate 26, Section 11

Sacraments, according to the Roman Church and all Church in communion with her, is as St. Augustine once put it, "An outward sign of inward grace." To distinguish from the heretical Protestant interpretation, which essentially says the Bread and Wine are mere symbols which in a mysterious way connect us to Christ [forgive my poorly worded explaination, but I believe for the most part it's accurate], let us turn to a few trustworthy sources which may help set the record straight. Besides Augustine, Protestants look to Tertullian as a Church Father who also believed the Eucharist were only symbolic. In fact, William Webster writes,

"Tertullian (155/160-240/250 A.D.) spoke of the bread and wine in the eucharist as symbols or figures which represent the body and blood of Christ. He specifically stated that these were not the literal body and blood of the Lord. When Christ said, ‘This is my body,’ Tertullian maintained that Jesus was speaking figuratively and that he consecrated the wine ‘in memory of his blood’ (Against Marcion 3.19). Some theologians have claimed that the ancient usage of the words ‘figure’ and ‘represent’ suggested that the symbols in some mysterious way became what they symbolized. But Tertullian uses the word ‘represent’ in a number of other places where the word carries a figurative meaning. For example, in Against Marcion 4.40 he says, ‘He represents the bleeding condition of his flesh under the metaphor of garments dyed in red.’ His interpretation of John 6 similarly indicates that when he spoke of the bread and wine as figures and symbols of Christ’s body and blood, that is exactly what he meant.6 He says that Christ spoke in spiritual terms when referring to the eating of his flesh and drinking of his blood and did not mean this literally. He holds that the eating of the flesh of Christ and the drinking of his blood means appropriating him by faith: ‘He likewise called His flesh by the same appellation; because, too, the Word had become flesh, we ought therefore to desire Him in order that we may have life, and to devour Him with the ear, and to ruminate on Him with the understanding, and to digest Him by faith.’7 Clearly he did not teach the concept of transubstantiation." - Webster, The Eucharist

In my rather short and unsatisfactory response [in my oppinion] to a person on CARM who used the Webster-quote, I simply responded,

"Contrary to Mr. Webster's position, the Anglican patristic scholar JND Kelly writes concerning Tertullian and his use of 'figura' and 'repraesetat',

"Yet we should be cautious about interpreting such expressions in a modern fashion...All that his language really suggest is that, while accepting the equation of the elements with the body and blood, he remains conscious of the sacramental distinction between them." (Early Christian Doctrines, p. 212)

"And the Rev. Leighton Pullan M.A.,

"The teaching of Tertullian is fundamentally the same as that of Irenaeus, and his belief is misrepresented when he is said to hold that the Eucharist is only a figure of the body of Christ." (Early Christian Doctrine, p. 76-77)"

The same can be said of St. Augustine. Kelly also says,

"Eucharistic teaching, it should be understood at the outset, was in general unquestioningly realist, i.e., the consecrated bread and wine were taken to be, and were treated and designated as, the Savior’s body and blood" (Early Christian Doctrines, 440).

In the early days of the Church, the Sacrament not only signified something, but it was also in some sense that very thing which it signified (Kelly, p. 212). St. Augustine follows in this consistent flow of sacramental theology in the Church. With that we now turn to the second quotation of Augustine which Turretinfan provides us with,

"Now the rule in regard to this variation has two forms. For things that signify now one thing and now another, signify either things that are contrary, or things that are only different. They signify contraries, for example, when they are used metaphorically at one time in a good sense, at another in a bad, as in the case of the leaven mentioned above. Another example of the same is that a lion stands for Christ in the place where it is said, "The lion of the tribe of Judah has prevailed;" (Revelation 5:5) and again, stands for the devil where it is written, "Your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walks about seeking whom he may devour." (1 Peter 5:8) In the same way the serpent is used in a good sense, "Be wise as serpents;" (Matthew 10:16) and again, in a bad sense, "The serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety." (2 Corinthians 11:3) Bread is used in a good sense, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven;" (John 6:51) in a bad, "Bread eaten in secret is pleasant." (Proverbs 9:17) And so in a great many other cases. The examples I have adduced are indeed by no means doubtful in their signification, because only plain instances ought to be used as examples."

- Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, Book III, Chapter 25, Section 36

Obviously no Roman Catholic believes Christ was saying He was a literal loaf of bread when He descended from Heaven, so of course this phrase is an obvious metaphor of His divine Flesh which would be eaten. Apparantly Bellisario raised a stink about the exact usage of the word "metaphor" or something to that like, so Turretinfan here is merely trying to show that the exact word doesn't have to be there for the meaning to be obvious. Interestingly enough, before citing the second Augustine quotation, Turretinfan cites St. John Chrysostom in proving said point to Bellisario, viz. the actual word "metaphor" doesn't have to be present,

"And when He says, "The Lord looked down from Heaven:" [Psalm 14:2] it describes His perfect knowledge by a metaphor taken from men. So also here He says, "Now I know," to declare this to be greater than all which had preceded it."

- Chrysostom, Homily 3 on Second Corinthians, Section 6

But Chrysostom says, in quite a Catholic fashion, concerning the Eucharist,

"When you see the LORD immolated and lying upon the altar, and the Priest bent over that Sacrifice praying, and all the people empurpled by that Precious Blood, can you think that you are still among Men and on Earth? Or are you not lifted up to Heaven?" - St. John Chrysostom, The Priesthood 3:4:177

"What then? Do we not offer daily? Yes, we offer, but making remembrance of his death; and this remembrance is one and not many. How is it one and not many? Because this sacrifice is offered once, like that in the Holy of Holies. This sacrifice is a type of that, ... Read Moreand this remembrance a type of that. We offer always the same, not one sheep now and another tomorrow, but the same thing always. Thus there is one sacrifice. By this reasoning, since the sacrifice is offered everywhere, are there, then, a multiplicity of Christs? By no means! Christ is one everywhere. He is complete here, complete there, one body. And just as he is one body and not many though offered everywhere, so too is there one sacrifice" (Homilies on Hebrews 17:36)

And again Chrysostom from Turretinfan,

"And He Himself drank of it. For lest on hearing this, they should say, What then? Do we drink blood, and eat flesh? And then be perplexed (for when He began to discourse concerning these things, even at the very sayings many were offended),therefore lest they should be troubled then likewise, He first did this Himself, leading them to the calm participation of the mysteries. Therefore He Himself drank His own blood. What then must we observe that other ancient rite also? Some one may say. By no means. For on this account He said, "Do this," that He might withdraw them from the other. For if this works remission of sins, as it surely does work it, the other is now superfluous.

As then in the case of the Jews, so here also He has bound up the memorial of the benefit with the mystery, by this again stopping the mouths of heretics. For when they say, Whence is it manifest that Christ was sacrificed? Together with the other arguments we stop their mouths from the mysteries also. For if Jesus did not die, of what are the rites the symbols?"

- Chrysostom, Homily 82 on Matthew, Section 1

The obvious Catholicity [or Orthodoxy, whichever you prefer] in Chrysostom's are so blatant that one wonders how any Protestant could possibly believe he was merely refering to the Eucharist as symbolic. We have noted that "symbol" in those early days had an entirely different significance and meaning than it does now. Protestants tend to forget the Greeks and Eastern Catholics [those in communion with Rome] use the Divine Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, that most excellent Saint. Would any Reformed Protestant be comfortable using this Liturgy? I wonder. Would any Reformed pastor say of the communion bread,

"Behold, I approach Christ, our immortal King and God. The precious and most holy Body of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ is given to me (Name) the Priest, for the forgiveness of my sins and eternal life. The precious and most holy Blood of our Lord, God, and Savior Jesus Christ is given to me (Name) the priest, for the forgiveness of my sins and eternal life."

Now, must we really suppose St. John Chrysostom looked upon the Eucharist in the same light as a Reformed faithful would? I think that answer has become obvious. So let us put away the myth that Chrysostom didn't view the Eucharistic doctrine the same way the Roman and Greek Churches do today.

Turretinfan continues with another quote,

"And entertaining this view, we may regard the proclamation of the Gospel, which is universally diffused, as milk; and as meat, faith, which from instruction is compacted into a foundation, which, being more substantial than hearing, is likened to meat, and assimilates to the soul itself nourishment of this kind. Elsewhere the Lord, in the Gospel according to John, brought this out by symbols, when He said: "Eat my flesh, and drink my blood;" [John 6:34] describing distinctly by metaphor the drinkable properties of faith and the promise, by means of which the Church, like a human being consisting of many members, is refreshed and grows, is welded together and compacted of both—of faith, which is the body, and of hope, which is the soul; as also the Lord of flesh and blood."

- Clement of Alexandria, The Paedogogus, Chapter 6

"The Scripture, accordingly, has named wine the symbol of the sacred blood; but reproving the base tippling with the dregs of wine, it says: "Intemperate is wine, and insolent is drunkenness." [Proverbs 20:1] It is agreeable, therefore, to right reason, to drink on account of the cold of winter, till the numbness is dispelled from those who are subject to feel it; and on other occasions as a medicine for the intestines."

- Clement of Alexandria, The Paedogogus, Chapter 2

St. Clement seems to be advocating a Reformed view, but I would suggest a more in-depth study to his theology. Let's suppose though that he held a full Reformed theological perspective to the Eucharist, suppose all the fathers Turretinfan quoted did the same, then what? That would be meaningless, because the holy fathers are not infallible. They are the witnesses of our fundamental truths, but they of their own selves do not decide what is dogma and what isn't. For this we turn to the infallible and holy General Councils, specifically Ephesus,

"We will necessarily add this also. Proclaiming the death, according to the flesh, of the only-begotten Son of God, that is Jesus Christ, confessing his resurrection from the dead, and his ascension into heaven, we offer the unbloody sacrifice in the churches, and so go on to the mystical thanksgivings, and are sanctified, having received his holy flesh and the precious blood of Christ the Savior of us all. And not as common flesh do we receive it; God forbid: nor as of a man sanctified and associated with the Word according to the unity of worth, or as having a divine indwelling, but as truly the life-giving and very flesh of the Word himself. For he is the life according to his nature as God, and when he became united to his flesh, he made it also to be life-giving" (Session 1, Letter of Cyril to Nestorius)

Even before Ephesus, as Kelly notes in his book, the Eucharistic teaching was universally held as realistic, and sacramental.

Let's finish up. Turretinfan quotes Theodoret,

"Moreover the Lord Himself promised to give on behalf of the life of the world, not His invisible nature, but His body. "For," He says, "the bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world," and when He took the symbol of divine mysteries, He said, "This is my body which is given for you.""

- Theodoret, Letter 130

I will leave that as is and provide the reader with another quote that I believe shows Theodoret's complete theology on this subject,

"Just as the symbols are one thing before the invocation of the priest, and after the invocation are changed and become another thing so the body of the Lord is changed after the ascension into the divine substance." - Theodoret, Eranistes, Dialogue 2

Lastly Turretinfan amazingly quotes what is alledged to be a lost fragment of St. Irenaeus, quoting it as thought it somehow goes against the Western and Eastern doctrine of the Eucharist,

"Those who have become acquainted with the secondary (i.e., under Christ) constitutions of the apostles, are aware that the Lord instituted a new oblation in the new covenant, according to [the declaration of] Malachi the prophet. For, "from the rising of the sun even to the setting my name has been glorified among the Gentiles, and in every place incense is offered to my name, and a pure sacrifice;" [Malachi 1:11] as John also declares in the Apocalypse: "The incense is the prayers of the saints." Then again, Paul exhorts us "to present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service." [Romans 12:1] And again, "Let us offer the sacrifice of praise, that is, the fruit of the lips." [Hebrews 13:15] Now those oblations are not according to the law, the handwriting of which the Lord took away from the midst by cancelling it; [Colossians 2:14] but they are according to the Spirit, for we must worship God "in spirit and in truth." [John 4:24] And therefore the oblation of the Eucharist is not a carnal one, but a spiritual; and in this respect it is pure. For we make an oblation to God of the bread and the cup of blessing, giving Him thanks in that He has commanded the earth to bring forth these fruits for our nourishment. And then, when we have perfected the oblation, we invoke the Holy Spirit, that He may exhibit this sacrifice, both the bread the body of Christ, and the cup the blood of Christ, in order that the receivers of these antitypes may obtain remission of sins and life eternal. Those persons, then, who perform these oblations in remembrance of the Lord, do not fall in with Jewish views, but, performing the service after a spiritual manner, they shall be called sons of wisdom."

- Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenæus, Section 37 (I should point out that I'm not sure about the legitimacy of the authorship of this quotation.)

I don't think any Roman or Greek would disagree. I know Trent wouldn't,

"And He would also that this sacrament should be received as the spiritual food of souls, whereby may be fed and strengthened those who live with His life who said, He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me; and as an antidote, whereby we may be freed from daily faults, and be preserved from mortal sins." - Trent, Session 13, Chapter 2

But supposing Trent too erred. What then? The Protestants must answer to the Synods of Constantinople and Jerusalem of the Orthodox Churches, specifically in the Jerusalem Synod,

"Article XVII.—The Eucharist is both a sacrament and a sacrifice, in which the very body and blood of Christ are truly and really (ἀληθῶς καὶ πραγματικῶς) present under the figure and type (ἐν εἴδει καὶ τύπῳ) of bread and wine, are offered to God by the hands of the priest as a real though unbloody sacrifice for all the faithful, whether living or dead (ὑπὲρ πάντων τῶν εὐσεβῶν ζώντων καὶ τεθνεώτων), and are received by the hand and the mouth of unworthy as well as worthy communicants, though with opposite effects. The Lutheran doctrine is rejected, and the Romish doctrine of transubstantiation (μεταβολή, μετουσίωσις) is taught as strongly as words can make it; but it is disclaimed to give an explanation of the mode in which this mysterious and miraculous change of the elements takes place."

In the end, it is the Councils which make the final descision. I would advise Protestants not to interpret the General Councils according to their own understanding, but allow the very same Churches which put forth those same Councils to interpret them. Clearly, the Jerusalem and Tridentine Synods interpreted with much clarity what the Ephesus Council previously declared, though not directly naming that said Holy Council.

In closing, I'd like to provide a passage given to me by a Lutheran-Orthodox friend which helps bring to further clarity the Eucharistic view in those early days of the Christian Church:

"This is what Abba Daniel, the Pharanite, said, 'Our Father Abba Arsenius told us of an inhabitant of Scetis, of notable life and of simple faith; through his naivete he was deceived and said, 'The bread which we receive is not really the body of Christ, but a symbol.' Two old men having learnt that he had uttered this saying, knowing that he was outstanding in his way of life, knew that he had not spoken through malice, but through simplicity. So they came to find him and said, 'Father, we have heard a proposition contrary to the faith on the part of someone who says that the bread which we received is not really the body of Christ, but a symbol.' The old man said, 'It is I who have said that.' Then the old men exhorted him saying, 'Do not hold this position, Father, but hold one in conformity with that which the catholic Church has given us. We believe, for our part, that the bread itself is the body of Christ and that the cup itself is his blood and this in all truth and not a symbol. But as in the beginning, God formed man in his image, taking the dust of the earth, without anyone being able to say that it is not the image of God, even though it is not seen to be so; thus it is with the bread of which he said that it is his body; and so we believe that it is really the body of Christ.' The old man said to them, 'As long as I have not been persuaded by the thing itself, I shall not be fully convinced.' So they said, 'Let us pray God about this mystery throughout the whole of this week and we believe that God will reveal it to us.' The old man received this saying with joy and he prayed these words, 'Lord, you know that it is not through malice that I do not believe and so that I may not err through ignorance, reveal this mystery to me, Lord Jesus Christ.' The old men returned to their cells and they also prayed God, saying, 'Lord Jesus Christ, reveal this mystery to the old man, that he may believe and not lose his reward.' God heard both the prayers. At the end of the week they came to church on Sunday and sat all three on the same mat, the old man in the middle. Then their eyes were opened and when the bread was placed on the holy table, there appeared as it were a little child to these three alone. And when the priest put out his hand to break the bread, behold and angel descended from heaven with a sword and poured the child's blood into the chalice. When the priest cut the bread into small pieces, the angle also cut the child into pieces. When they drew near to receive the sacred elements the old man alone received a morsel of the bloody flesh. Seeing this he was afraid and cried out, 'Lord, I believe that this bread is your flesh and this chalice your blood.' Immediately the flesh which he held in his hand became bread, according to the mystery and he took it, giving thanks to God. Then the old men said to him, 'God knows human nature and that man cannot eat raw flesh and that is why he has changed his body into bread and his blood into wine, for those who receive it in faith.' Then they gave thanks to God for the old man, because he had allowed him not to lose the reward of his labor. So all three returned with joy to their own cells." - pp. 53-54, "The Sayings of the Desert Fathers: The Alphabetical Collection" from Cistercian Publications.

David [AnglicanApologist72] Responds

Without getting into a long introduction, please see my original post here.

In response to my article David posted his rebuttle here.

Now, on to the issue at hand!

First, David says,

"There was something he said in a "by the way" demeanor and here’s the exact quote in response to my acceptance of the seven ecumenical councils,

'No Protestant can declare that and still be a Protestant, since these Holy Councils condemn his heretical teachings.'

"Now, I want to know, DeiVerbum777, or Carmenn, where in any of the seven ecumenical councils a belief of mine is repudiated and stated as a heresy. I doubt that you can find that repudiation."

Anglicans are not labeled under the category of "Protestant." In fact no Protestant holds to all the Ecumenical Councils, but Anglicans do; hence my previous statement. In my first post I distinguished clearly between Protestant, Anglican, and Orthodox. So the above comment was not directed to any Anglican anywhere.

After quoting me on the Old Testament concerning a type of earthly structure for the Papacy, specifically,

"God called upon Judges to be the supreme heads of Israel, and when Israel protested desiring a king, God raised up Kings to be the visible Authorities of the Invisible Authority, Yahweh the True King."

David responds with,

"There is something here that Carmenn forgot to mention. God does not do things the same way twice in some situations. God changed many things that were done in the Old Testament era. It is not required anymore to abstain from unclean foods as evident from Acts. It is not required as of today to abstain from all work on the Sabbath. And I can go on and on, wasting time explaining simple truths. Just because God did something one way once does not mean he will do so the same way again."

But we have a number of problems here. First, David doesn't offer any examples of how God does not do thing the same way twice. If he implies that at one point in time God raised up a Prophet to lead Israel, then next time raised up a Judge, then the next time a King, then the next time a Prophet and Judge, etc., then this still hasn't proven anything. Visibly the situations are different, but essentially what is happening in each and every senerio? God is raising up a visible Head to set Israel straight. Gideon's story differs from Samson's; King David's story is different from Jerobam's, and so on.

Indeed God changed some things that were done in the Old Testament. But what is the important detail David left out here? Correct. In each and every instance where God changed something, He always specifically mentioned it through Divine Revelation. David uses the example of the unclean foods. I ask you, dear readers, to whom did God reveal this divine Truth? St. Peter. Is this significant? I think so. The Jews totally abstained from all unclean foods, and since this new Revelation would be a shocking curve thrown at the Jewish Church [even St. Peter had trouble swallowing it, pardon the pun], who better to reveal this Truth to the Church than the visible Leader?

As for the Sabbath, nothing but the exact day has changed. The Sabbath was a type of Sunday, on which day all Christians abstain from labor. The Scriptures tell us the Church came together to hold Eucharist on Sunday, not Saturday, this being a highly significant text showing the reader that the Sabbath is done away with now, for now the Church meets on a higher Sabbath.

David continues to quote these words of mine,

"At the same time, the Church did not elect Christ as their Head, and so this is a type of the election of the Bishop, specifically the Roman Bishop. In both cases, God chose Christ to be Head of the Church, and Christ choses who will be the Pope, the steward-Head of the Church. Not two Heads like a monster, as Pope Boniface 8th wrote in Unam Sanctum, but One Head: Christ and the Pope being in Union together. Since Christ is the Icon of the Invisible God, the Visible Head of the Invisible Father, it follows from logic and reason that Christ Himself would need a Visible Head in like manner to Him as He is to the Father, since the Earth is deprived of Christ's body."

He then asks the reader,

"Has it ever occurred to you that Christ appointed all of the apostles equally to be the earthly representatives of Christ’s authority? Why must there be only one person who is the head of the church on earth and not a group of authoritative leaders which make up the earthly leaders who decide things by council? Carmenn might try to cite Hosea 1:11 in response to this, which he did cite in his article. Hosea 1:11 says, "And the children of Judah and the children of Israel shall be gathered together, and they shall appoint for themselves one head." Now remember, God doesn’t necessarily have to do things exactly the same every time. Change is an important concept."

What David has missed here is an important fact which I expounded on in my original post, namely,

"Because Christ, the divine Word [or Memra, to the Jewish students of the Targums] is one, visible, Head of a community which He has established according to the typological Israel of the Old Testament [a theme found strongly in St. Matthew's Gospel], it follows that Christ would equip His inner circle to lead the community in the same way He did. For that to be executed to its fullest, a visible Head - not the Founder, but a mere steward, a servant - would be needed to fill Christ's role while He, being the Master and King, was away. When He declared to His Apostles and disciples, "As the Father has sent Me, even so I am sending you," He was saying that He would send them in the same manner which the Father sent Him into the world. The kings, judges, and prophets of the OT, all of which ruled from a sole chair, [i.e. Moses had helpers to shepherd Israel, but he was the Supreme Head of Israel, the Steward of God the Founder of Israel] represented God not seen by human eyes; the Apostles now came representing Christ in a much fuller way, viz. by Christ living within them, this same Christ now no longer seen by human eyes. The cosistency is the same from the Old Testament through to the New. By the simple fact that the Church is described as a spiritual house by St. Peter leads one to conclude there must be a Head. The Church is obviously a Family of the highest form, and every Family has a Supreme Head figure, the Father. When he is absent the eldest Son becomes Head, and when he is absent either the second-born son becomes Head, or a Servant is appointed Head. Since we are all servants of Christ, yet children by adoption, St. Peter being both servant and [adopted] son remains Head of the Family by royal right, since he must fulfill the continuous typology of a visible representation of God, as well as fulfull the Jewish role as a steward guarding the House till the Master return."

After citing the example of Eliakim in Isaiah 22:20-24, I go on to say,

"Clearly Eliakim is a type of Christ the Servant, the Steward of God the Father. Notice Eliakim has one key, singular, and consequently so has Christ in Revelation. But St. Peter has keys, plural. It seems that Christ, being the Father's Chief Steward has the Master Key, and St. Peter being Christ's Chief Steward has a number of keys, because his keys are not the One Supreme Key which Christ alone possesses. His lone key represents Power, Authority, Supremacy, Jurisdiction, Binding and Loosing, all things deserving of Deity. His lone key binds and looses first in Heaven what St. Peter's keys, which belong to the Pope and the Church, will in repeated fashion bind and loose on Earth. Because Eliakim represents Christ, he must also represent St. Peter - the Matthew 16:18-19 passage parralleling Isaiah 22 being unmistakable - because St. Peter also represents Christ. If we choose to remain consistent with in Israeli thought stemming from the types of the Old Testament, we must conclude that St. Peter held some sort of primacy among the Apostles, clearly seen in Matt. 16:18-19."

David must deal with this type of pattern found throughout the OT into the NT. Even though the senerios change, the pattern remains unchanged. Why can't all the Twelve Apostles be Christ's representatives equally? Because this does not flow from the consistent working of God, despite the change [which we have noted doesn't actually change the pattern at all].

David continues,

"And he is correct, no doubt. But what I don’t understand is why Christ can’t be the chief head of the church and there still be a number of earthly representatives who decide matters by council. So far, Carmenn has shown nothing to prove this."

Christ is the Chief Head, but the fact is He is the Master gone away from the House for a while...yet He still remains. While the Master is away the Head-Butler has charge over all the House, and that includes making descisions which need making when the time arises. If Christ is the ultimate fulfillment of the Old Testament Kings, Prophets, and Judges, then it follows that St. Peter would be the fulfillment of the Old Testament servants who took charge when the King left. Even the Prophets had their stewards: Moses had Joshua, Elijah had Elisha, etc. It is fitting that Christ have His steward. When He returns bodily the Papal Office will fade, and there will be no need for Popes because the Master has returned.

David says,

"Now, Carmenn proceeds to doing something he has not done yet, that is, appeal to something in the Bible which might be able to support his claims concerning the papacy, instead of appealing to irrelevant facts."

I would hardly call the Old Testament types "irrelevant facts", since this was the common way the early Christians showed the Jews the Truth of the Christian Faith. We cannot ignore the types that point to an earthly visible Head when the Supreme Divine Head is unseen. This is significant.

David says concerning the keys,

"Now when you consider what obtaining the keys actually means, then you’ll conclude that all of the apostles had them. They do signify a sort of authority and supremacy, but authority to do and supremacy over what? There’s nothing to suggest the keys indicate an authority over all the other apostles whatsoever. So it’s an appeal to ambiguity when one argues from the keys Peter obtained to show that Peter has supremacy over the other apostles. Absolutely nothing suggests the keys of the kingdom of heaven imply a supremacy over the other apostles. The keys signify that Peter has authority to pastor the church. Don’t all of the apostles have this authority though? Of course. So it’s reasonable to conclude that all of the apostles were given the keys to the kingdom of heaven, even though it is not explicitly stated in scripture."

What David misses is that St. Peter alone was given the keys first, then the other Apostles. Why not give the keys to all the Apostles at the same time? To execute this the way Christ did is to show a superiority within St. Peter. But to show also that the other Apostles are not powerless, gives to them the keys also. As the recent Catechism reiterates,

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head." This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

As the Chief Steward, St. Peter may exercise the keys alone, or in the fellowship of the Apostles, that is, in a General Council. The royal Family, the Church, needs a Head-Butler, in fact logic demands it. The Scriptures certainly imply a primacy of power in Peter above the other Apostles.

Moving on David says,

"While Peter does represent unity in the church by his primacy, he does not represent alone, the supreme head of the church in that the apostles don’t. If one says that Peter is supreme over the other apostles, he is putting forth a proposition that is a disgrace to the fact that the church was built just as equally on the prophets and the other apostles, as Ephesians 2:20 says. To this point in Carmenn’s response, Carmenn has not put forth a valid case for the supremacy of Peter. It’s about time he does."

On the contrary, upon ignoring the OT types of stewardship which follows the OT types of Kings and Prophets and Judges, David does not see the argument as valid. Concerning the Church being built on all the Apostles equally, he ignores what I previously said in my first post,

"Yet at the same time in Revelation, when the Thrones of the Apostles are mentioned, we do not see a special chair for Peter alone, who apparantly was the first Pope. Neither do we see a special pillar for Peter among the Pillars of the Apostles, which is strange if he is supposed to be the visible Head. But this is the problem we run into when we look at leadership in the Bible strictly as a heirarchy. Leadership on God's terms has no rank, but all are on the same level - i.e, we have countless pastors in the world who tend to us the sheep, yet at the very core of it all pastors are sheep as well in God's eyes... Seeing that heirachy is needed, how are we to understand in what sense God's views it? One need only listen to Christ's words, "The greatest among you shall be the least...The servant is not greater than his master..." - but above all, His own example, when He said "I did not come to be served, but I came to serve." For this reason, the Pope is called Servant of the Servants of God. His role is the greatest among all; not in the sense as a king is greater than his subject, but in the sense where Christ said, "My Father is greater than I." - J. 10:29...The Pope is greater than any man in this sense: as the Father is no more and no less than the Son, so the Pope is no more and no less than his flock. Christ looked to the Father; we look the Pope as the Church's Pastor, the Leuitenant-General of Christ."

Essentially the example of Jesus Christ Himself leads us to this conclusion. The consistency flows smoothly. God will not distinguish between Peter and the other Apostles in Eph. 2:20 because that is simply not His way. Even in Matt.16 & 18 we see Peter indistinguishable from the Apostles in their authority, but at the same time when we realize what the Church is, we also realize the need for the Papacy. Being a visible Family, the Church needs a visible Head.

David continues,

"Next, Carmenn puts forth quotations from Haydock in support of his interpretation of what the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" means as a phrase. Haydock simply states his position, without argumentation. He assumes as many do that keys necessarily mean a supreme grant of authority to Peter when he obtained them. This is simply unsupported. It’s interpretation of ambiguity and nothing more."

Besides Haydock, I also quoted the Roman Catechism of Trent,

"Moreover to this Church, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, belong all the faithful who have existed from Adam to the present day, or who shall exist, in the profession of the true faith, to the end of time; all of whom are founded and raised upon the one corner-stone, Christ, who made both one, and announced peace to them that are near and to them that are far."

I would hardly call this citation ambiguous.

Concerning the cited Ecumenical Councils, David says,

"Of Peter the Apostle and the Church of Rome, all this letter affirms is that the Peter, his successors and the church of Rome had never erred from the tradition of the apostles. That of course doesn’t mean that they can’t err does it? Of course it doesn’t. There is a reference to the authority of Peter no doubt. Yes, Peter does have an authority and he is the prince of the apostles, the first to be honored, the first to be mentioned, the most significant of all of them. But where in that letter does it say that Peter had an authority over the other apostles? Where in that letter does it say that the apostles are authoritatively submissive to Peter and his successors? It doesn’t, whatsoever. Therefore, the letter of Pope Agatho at the third council of Constantinople does not prove papal supremacy."

Let's take a look at those Councils' words again.

"There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down to this day and forever lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic Faith.

“Arcadius the legate of the Apostolic See said: “Nestorius hath brought us great sorrow…Celestine, most holy pope of the Apostolic See hath condescended to send us as his executors of this business, and also following the decrees of the holy synod we give this as our conclusion: Let Nestorius know that he is deprived of all Episcopal dignity, and is alien from the whole church and from the communion of all its priests.” Session III, Ephesus (NPNF: The Seven Ecumenical Councils, pg. 223)

What David avoids to do, this Council Session does, viz. distinguishing between Peter and the other Apostles, i.e. "...blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down to this day and forever lives and judges in his successors." Why this distinction? Because St. Peter held the primacy, and not merely one of honor.

Of Agatho's Letter, one can only read it in light of our discoveries and find it difficult to conclude this Bishop held merely a Primacy of Honor. But certainly this issue will not be settled here, but I know that you, dear reader, will take it upon yourself to go beyond this little discussion and search out this matter in-depth.

After all, the worst that could happen to us Roman Catholics is that we convert to Greek Orthodoxy. Note the [intentionally] humerous sarcasm. For now, I think the Roman position stands well enough.

David thanks for the excellent response! I'm positive it got people thinking just as it got me thinking. The Grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ the Love of God and the Fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you always.

Francis Beckwith disposed of in 60 Seconds? [Or] In Beckwith's Defense: A Short Response to Turretinfan's Short Response

Recently I discovered Turretinfan's latest video dealing with Francis Beckwith's exceptionally short post regarding Trent and Forensic Justification. Turretinfan is an anonymous Reformed blogger who frequently writes for Alpha and Omega Ministries, a Reformed apologetics organization run by Dr. James White. Beckwith is an Evangelical convert to Roman Catholicism, and is a Professor of Philosophy and Church-State Studies at Baylor University.

The article in question can be quoted in full here, but the original source may be found here:

'It seems to me that in Catholic thought prior to the Reformation there had always been a forensic aspect to justification, insofar as there is a legal component to one becoming an adopted son of the Father at baptism. Even The Council of Trent claims as much: “If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost,[Rom. 5:5] and remains in them, or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema.” If you read it carefully, Trent does not deny that justification involves imputation of righteousness. What it is claiming is that it is wrong to think of justification as "the imputation of the justice of Christ alone," just as it is wrong to think of Jesus Christ as not fully both God and man.'

In response Turretinfan uploaded a video entitled "Francis Beckwith on Trent and Justification Gone in 60 Seconds", a rather confident title to say the least. But does he actually do it? You be the judge. Now that you have read Beckwith's statement, please take a moment [literally] to view Turretinfan's video, then come back and let's review what's been said.

A few things to note.

Turretinfan says at 0:27-0:32,

"Adoption is a theologically distinct concept from Justification, but Beckwith conflates the two."

All a Roman, Greek, Oriental, Coptic, Russian, or any other Christian from any of the Apostolic Churches can do is be amazed at the blatantly manifest heresy in that statement. For the Christian Church, that is, the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, 'adoption' can be summed up in the recent Roman Catechism,

1709 He who believes in Christ becomes a son of God. This filial adoption transforms him by giving him the ability to follow the example of Christ. It makes him capable of acting rightly and doing good. In union with his Savior, the disciple attains the perfection of charity which is holiness. Having matured in grace, the moral life blossoms into eternal life in the glory of heaven.

Essentially, anyone who believes in Christ enters the filial adoption. When do people believe in Christ? When they have been Justified. For the Catholic, the Justification of God works by His divine sovereignty mysteriously working with man's free will. At the moment of [initial] Justification he becomes a son of God.

Beckwith quotes one of Trent's canons, which I will repeat here for clarification:

“If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost,[Rom. 5:5] and remains in them, or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema.”

With this quote he asserts Trent is not really denying Forensic Justification.

What is Forensic Justification according to Protestantism?

"Justification is defined as the act of God by which he imputes the righteousness of Christ to a believer and declares that person to be forgiven of all sins, thus pronouncing the person righteous in his sight (Acts 13:38-39; Romans 4:5, 24). It is a declarative and judicial act of God (Romans 8:1; Colossians 1:22), based on the righteousness of Christ, rather than an infusion of holiness into a believer or a change in their character. It changed the position of a believer and puts them into a right standing with God, but is distinct from the dispositional change of that person's heart or the actual altering of their spiritual condition."

"Justification means that God, as the universal judge, acquits us of our guilt and declares us as righteous (Romans 5:8). The very righteousness of Jesus Christ is transferred to our account and we are seen as if we had never sinned nor been a sinner, as if we had been as perfectly obedient as Christ was obedient for us (2 Corinthians 5:21; Romans 5:18-19)."

"From our human point of view, faith in the finished work of Christ is the only thing that is required for us to be declared righteous (Romans 3:28). We receive this gracious gift of God by faith alone (Romans 3:22; 4:4; Galatians 3:24-24); we do not merit it in any way by good works, reformed behaviour, or resolutions to never sin again (Galatians 2:16)." - Justification: Emphasizing the Distinction Between Protestant and Roman Catholic Thought by Corey Keiting, Proferssor Al Glenn (ST502 Systematic Theology II; Fuller Theological Seminary, Phoenix Extension; Winter Quarter 2002)

The Council of Trent declares concerning Justification,

"Finally, the one formal cause [of justification] is the justness of God: not that by which he himself is just, but that by which he makes us just and endowed with which we are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and are not merely considered to be just but we are truly named and are just." (Decree on Justification 7)

Trent's real issue here isn't that Forensic Justification is wrong, but that Forensic Justification alone is wrong, just as Faith for salvation isn't wrong, but that Faith Alone for salvation is wrong. I should insert here that the Roman Church, with the Greeks, the Orientals, the Russians, the Coptics, and all the Apostolic Churches proclaim with one Voice that the holy and glorious doctrine of Justification is not simply a Divine Declaration of the sinner, but rather also effects the inward soul of the one Justified.

We know that St. Paul used a strong legal, forensic element in his epistle to the Romans concerning this issue. The Protestants argue that since the Apostle uses this argument, using the analogy of a Judge justifying a guilty person, the declaration does not change the nature of the guilty person, so it follows that God's declaration of the sinner does not change the nature of that sinner. This is completely heretical, for it puts a limit on God's sovereignty.

As Newman once noted,

"God's word, I say, effects what it announces. This is its characteristic all through Scripture. He calleth those things which be not, as though they are, [Rom 4:17] and they are forthwith. Thus in the beginning He said, Let there be light, and there was light...So again in His miracles, he called Lazarus from the grave and the dead arose; he said, Be thou cleansed, and the leprosy departed; He rebuked the wind and the waves, and they were still; He commanded the evil spirits, and they fled away... It would seem, then, in all cases that God's word is the instrument of His deed. When, then, He solemnly utters the command, Let the soul be just, it becomes inwardly just." J. H. Newman, Lectures on the Doctrine of Justification. 3rd ed. (London: Rivingtons, 1874), 81-2

Indeed Almighty God's holy word is always powerful and effective in every declaration: What He declares comes to be.

"For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it." - Isaiah 55:10-11, ESV

In short, Trent focuses on the inner workings of Justification, at the same time noting the Forensic side. Dikaioo cannot be used alone to define the doctrine of Justification; we must consider from Whom that word proceeds. Considering that it comes from God's own mouth, we know for certain it will execute what it declares: the righteousness of the sinner, which consists of changing his nature. We must also note that guilty persons, though justified by their judges, may easily break the Law again and require to be justified again. For Christians, specifically of the Apostolic Churches, our Justification is a process called theosis, viz. the deification of the Christian. But let us leave that for another time.

Getting back to the original point of this post, if Turretinfan attempts to refute Beckwith's assertion he'll have to deal with Trent here:

"Finally, the one formal cause [of justification] is the justness of God: not that by which he himself is just, but that by which he makes us just and endowed with which we are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and are not merely considered to be just but we are truly named and are just."

I think this lone passage speaks for itself. You decide whether Beckwith has been disposed of in 60 seconds. I think the answer is obvious.

AnglicanApologist72 and the Papal Issue

I was recently directed to a video published by AnglicanApologist72 on Youtube, concerning Matthew 16:18 and Papal Supremacy. The text version to this video can be found here.

It should be mentioned that unlike Protestant arguments, Anglicans and Orthodox theologians offer the best of anti-papal arguments, since they can actually deal [more or less] with the ancient thought of the holy fathers and present them in their glorious context. Protestant proponents against the Papacy continually demonstrate a serious deficiency of understanding the fathers and the Councils, and because of this both Anglicans and Orthodox shudder at the mutilated, misconstrued, misplaced pretexts and erroneous interpretations Protestants generally [but not always, and certainly not all] apply to the holy fathers. With an Anglican presentation we can relax at least slightly, since we can be sure that 98% of the time the Anglican opponent has the same reverence and awe for the Councils and the fathers, attempting to treat them in their historical context. An example of this can be found in AnglicanApologist72's (whose true name is David) short article here, in which he says:

"The Apostles had been given the authority to govern the affairs of the church when Jesus told them that whatever they bound or loosed on earth would be bound or loosed in heaven. This authority didn't fade when the apostles died though. The apostles appointed who we call bishops (or you can say they established the episcopate) so that their authority could be exercised while they were not on earth. So whatever the church, as a whole, binds or looses has authority over the whole of Christ's church. The establishments of the church as a whole are infallible. The implications of this are so very important. The general councils which are accepted by the church (both east and west), namely the ecumenical councils, are a reflection of the binding and loosing authority that was bestowed to the bishops in the church...What these councils decide goes, if you want to be consistent with the words of Christ."

No Protestant can declare that and still be a Protestant, since these Holy Councils condemn his heretical teachings. Now that we are certain David displays the same reverence for the Councils as we do, let us proceed happily in this common ground and examine the subject in question, viz. the office of the Papacy and its Supremacy over the Church.

In his own words, David says in the written article,

"The specific passage in Matthew 16 ,

"Matt 16:16-19- And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

"According to Roman Catholics, this passage shows that Peter is the rock of the Church and was given the authority to bind and loose things on earth, which would then be bound and loosed in heaven. Because of these things, Roman Catholics claim, Peter MUST be the supreme head of the Church and all Christians must submit to him.

"First of all, we need to properly understand what being the rock of the church would constitute. Why must it mean that Peter is somehow superior to all the other apostles and must be the head of the church? I see no need to believe such a notion."

For one, St. Peter's superiority comes not from his own person, but as a result of the divine decree of God, viz. that Peter would be the Chief Pastor of the Christian Church. God infallibly declared through St. Peter that Jesus was the Messiah, the Divine Son. Christ declares to Peter that human understanding did not prompt him to say this, but "my Father which is in Heaven." Because of this Revelation, which did not come from Peter himself, Christ declares to Peter himself, "You are Rock, and upon this Rock I will build My Church..." Why would Christ build His Church on Peter (as David concedes) if Peter, in reality, did absolutely nothing to deserve such an honory title, 'Rock'? Because from age to age, in His own unique timing, God raises up Prophets and Shepherds to declare the Word where it has not been heard. Jesus, being the Supreme Divine-Prophet and Supreme Divine-Shepherd was the Word incarnate, proclaiming Himself to the world. But when He would not be with them, as He knew He would soon not be, He desired that He [the Word] be preached evermore into the Earth, and to do this He needed those Prophets and Shepherds. But He would not execute this Plan in any old fashion, but rather in the consistent pattern He, His Father, and the Holy Spirit appointed and sent out Prophets and Shepherds in the Old Testament era.

They called out Moses, a prince in exile, an outcast, to be the Prophet of God, a sole supreme visible Head of the Invisible Head, God Himself. God Himself pastored Israel, at times coming down to meet with them, but on most occasions He relayed everything to Moses, who in turn relayed the same message to the people, being free from any error.

God called upon Judges to be the supreme heads of Israel, and when Israel protested desiring a king, God raised up Kings to be the visible Authorities of the Invisible Authority, Yahweh the True King.

In Hosea 3:10-11 we read:

10Yet the number of the children of Israel shall be like the sand of the sea, which cannot be measured or numbered. And in the place where it was said to them, "You are not my people," it shall be said to them, "Children of the living God." 11And the children of Judah and the children of Israel shall be gathered together, and they shall appoint for themselves one head. And they shall go up from the land, for great shall be the day of Jezreel. (ESV)

It is interesting to note that these people appoint for themselves one head. Why? Wesley in his Notes writes concerning v. 11:

"Then - This verse has both an historical and a spiritual sense; the one referring to the return out of Babylon, the other to a more glorious deliverance from a more miserable captivity. Judah - The two tribes, who adhered to the house of David. Israel - Some of the ten tribes who were incorporated with the kingdom of Judah, and so carried captive with them. But this is spiritually to be understood of the whole Israel of God. One head - Zerubbabel, who was appointed by Cyrus, yet with full approbation of the people. And so Christ is appointed by the Father, head of his church, whom believers heartily accept. Come up - Literally out of Babylon, spiritually out of captivity to sin and to Satan. Great - Good, joyous and comfortable. Of Jezreel - Israel is here called Jezreel, the seed of God. This seed is now sown in the earth, and buried under the clods; but great shall be its day, when the harvest comes. Great was the day of the church, when there were daily added to it such as should be saved."

Likewise the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary says of the same verse:

"...one head-Zerubbabel typically; Christ antitypically, under whom alone Israel and Judah are joined, the "Head" of the Church (Eph 1:22; 5:23), and of the hereafter united kingdom of Judah and Israel (Jer 34:5, 6; Eze 34:23). Though "appointed" by the Father (Ps 2:6), Christ is in another sense "appointed" as their Head by His people, when they accept and embrace Him as such."

The footnote in the ESV above the words "they shall appoint for themselves one head" directs us to Hosea 3:5, which says:

"Afterward the children of Israel shall return and seek the LORD their God, and David their king,and they shall come in fear to the LORD and to his goodness in the latter days."

Directly, Hosea 1:11 is a typeology of Jesus Christ being Head of the Church. Rather than disprove the Papacy, this funamdental truth demands the need for the Papacy. At the same time, the Church did not elect Christ as their Head, and so this is a type of the election of the Bishop, specifically the Roman Bishop. In both cases, God chose Christ to be Head of the Church, and Christ choses who will be the Pope, the steward-Head of the Church. Not two Heads like a monster, as Pope Boniface 8th wrote in Unam Sanctum, but One Head: Christ and the Pope being in Union together. Since Christ is the Icon of the Invisible God, the Visible Head of the Invisible Father, it follows from logic and reason that Christ Himself would need a Visible Head in like manner to Him as He is to the Father, since the Earth is deprived of Christ's body. We understand quite clearly from His own words when He breathes on the Apostles the Holy Spirit and says:

"As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you." (J. 20:21)

What is the consistent teaching of St. John's Gospel? Christ, the Word being made truly flesh, visibly comes to the world to reconcile Mankind with God, being made truly Man while still remaining truly God. Because Christ, the divine Word [or Memra, to the Jewish students of the Targums] is one, visible, Head of a community which He has established according to the typological Israel of the Old Testament [a theme found strongly in St. Matthew's Gospel], it follows that Christ would equip His inner circle to lead the community in the same way He did. For that to be executed to its fullest, a visible Head - not the Founder, but a mere steward, a servant - would be needed to fill Christ's role while He, being the Master and King, was away. When He declared to His Apostles and disciples, "As the Father has sent Me, even so I am sending you," He was saying that He would send them in the same manner which the Father sent Him into the world. The kings, judges, and prophets of the OT, all of which ruled from a sole chair, [i.e. Moses had helpers to shepherd Israel, but he was the Supreme Head of Israel, the Steward of God the Founder of Israel] represented God not seen by human eyes; the Apostles now came representing Christ in a much fuller way, viz. by Christ living within them, this same Christ now no longer seen by human eyes. The cosistency is the same from the Old Testament through to the New. By the simple fact that the Church is described as a spiritual house by St. Peter leads one to conclude there must be a Head. The Church is obviously a Family of the highest form, and every Family has a Supreme Head figure, the Father. When he is absent the eldest Son becomes Head, and when he is absent either the second-born son becomes Head, or a Servant is appointed Head. Since we are all servants of Christ, yet children by adoption, St. Peter being both servant and [adopted] son remains Head of the Family by royal right, since he must fulfill the continuous typology of a visible representation of God, as well as fulfull the Jewish role as a steward guarding the House till the Master return.

Isaiah 22:20-24, like the above passages, in its immediete context refers to Christ, and is even applied to Him by St. John in the book of Revelation.

"In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, 21and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your sash on him, and will commit your authority to his hand. And he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. 22And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. 23And I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house. 24And they will hang on him the whole honor of his father’s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons."

Clearly Eliakim is a type of Christ the Servant, the Steward of God the Father. Notice Eliakim has one key, singular, and consequently so has Christ in Revelation. But St. Peter has keys, plural. It seems that Christ, being the Father's Chief Steward has the Master Key, and St. Peter being Christ's Chief Steward has a number of keys, because his keys are not the One Supreme Key which Christ alone possesses. His lone key represents Power, Authority, Supremacy, Jurisdiction, Binding and Loosing, all things deserving of Deity. His lone key binds and looses first in Heaven what St. Peter's keys, which belong to the Pope and the Church, will in repeated fashion bind and loose on Earth. Because Eliakim represents Christ, he must also represent St. Peter - the Matthew 16:18-19 passage parralleling Isaiah 22 being unmistakable - because St. Peter also represents Christ. If we choose to remain consistent with in Israeli thought stemming from the types of the Old Testament, we must conclude that St. Peter held some sort of primacy among the Apostles, clearly seen in Matt. 16:18-19.

In an older post, I said concerning this passage,

"Majority of Protestants. Anglicans, Eastern Orthodox, and Evangelicals will admit the Rock is Peter, according to the Greek. However all of them unamiously likewise say this is not a sufficiant proof text that Peter had a Pope-role in the Church. Indeed, he was the pre-eminent Apostle, the spokesman for the Apostles. Yet at the same time in Revelation, when the Thrones of the Apostles are mentioned, we do not see a special chair for Peter alone, who apparantly was the first Pope. Neither do we see a special pillar for Peter among the Pillars of the Apostles, which is strange if he is supposed to be the visible Head. But this is the problem we run into when we look at leadership in the Bible strictly as a heirarchy. Leadership on God's terms has no rank, but all are on the same level - i.e, we have countless pastors in the world who tend to us the sheep, yet at the very core of it all pastors are sheep as well in God's eyes. Yet the pastor has authority over the laymen, and can perform the Sacraments (in the Roman Catholic and East Orthodox Churches alone), but in Heaven's eyes, he himself is still a sheep. Of course, there must be some structure of order, for God does not create confusion, but is a God of order." (Why the Christian Church needs a Pope)

Later on I said,

"Seeing that heirachy is needed, how are we to understand in what sense God's views it? One need only listen to Christ's words, "The greatest among you shall be the least...The servant is not greater than his master..." - but above all, His own example, when He said "I did not come to be served, but I came to serve." For this reason, the Pope is called Servant of the Servants of God. His role is the greatest among all; not in the sense as a king is greater than his subject, but in the sense where Christ said, "My Father is greater than I." - J. 10:29. The Arians and Jeovah's Witnesses apostasies declare that this verse means Christ is lesser than God, but this is far from the truth. The word "great" does not denote nature, but rank. Remember, at this point, Christ had already emptied Himself of all His divinity, but still was "very God from very God."

"Let's contrast this with Hebrews 1:4, "(Jesus) being so much better than the angels.."

"Notice the verse says He is "better" than the angels, not "greater". The Greek word here is κρείττων, which denotes nature. But in John 10:29, the Greek word for "greater" is μέγας, which denotes...

"1) great 1a) of the external form or sensible appearance of things (or of persons) 1a1) in particular, of space and its dimensions, as respects 1a1a) mass and weight: great 1a1b) compass and extent: large, spacious 1a1c) measure and height: long 1a1d) stature and age: great, old 1b) of number and quantity: numerous, large, abundant 1c) of age: the elder

"To put it simply, this particular Greek word implies position, not nature. Jesus, when He was a man, was "made a little lower than the angels", and therefore looked to the Father for guidance, since His Father was in a higher position than Christ. But Christ was still 100% God, never less than God, continually Yahweh the Son. The Father did not lord over Christ as a tyrant, but served Him just as Christ served the Father. In Hebrews Christ is called "better" than the angels, which most certainly denotes nature. Why is He better? Because He created them. The Father did not create Jesus Christ because Jesus Christ was continually with the Father, "eternally begotten." Do you see the difference?

"The Pope is greater than any man in this sense: as the Father is no more and no less than the Son, so the Pope is no more and no less than his flock. Christ looked to the Father; we look the Pope as the Church's Pastor, the Leuitenant-General of Christ." (Ibid)

This is an accurate description of how the Church views St. Peter and his Successors. I believe if we look at Scripture in light of the Apostolic Tradition and the Jewish mindset, it becomes rather blatant that the Papacy was a neccessary institution in honor of Christ, the King from the line of David, the ultimate fulfillment of Judah's royal lineage.

In his post, David argues,

"We also see that the foundation of Christ's church is NOT only Peter, but all of the Apostles AS WELL as Christ and the prophets, Ephesians 2:20. To label Peter as the sole rock of the Church is grossly incorrect. The church was built upon Peter, of course, but NOT ONLY Peter. Peter is the first among equals in terms of the foundation of the Church. He is the one to be most HONORED among all that are the foundation of the Church. He was never given a higher authority than the other apostles, while he was given a higher HONOR than the other apostles."

Unfortunately David fights a straw-man when he claims that the Church says St. Peter is the sole Rock of the Church. In the words of Pope St. Leo IX,

"The holy Church built upon a Rock, that is Christ, and upon Peter or Cephas, the son of John who first was called Simon, because by the gates of Hell, that is, by the disputations of heretics which lead the vain to destruction, it would never be overcome." (In Terra Pax Hominibus, Chap. 7)

The Catholic Haydock Bible Commentary, in regards to Eph. 2:20 simply says,

"The Church is in this place said to be built upon the apostles and prophets; why not then upon St. Peter?"

The Catechism of the Council of Trent, in its description of the Church says,

"The Church has but one ruler and one governor, the invisible one, Christ, whom the eternal Father hath made head over all the Church, which is his body; the visible one, the Pope, who, as legitimate successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, fills the Apostolic chair."

"The Church is also to be called holy because she is united to her holy Head, as His body; that is, to Christ the Lord,' the fountain of all holiness, from whom flow the graces of the Holy Spirit and the riches of the divine bounty."

"Moreover to this Church, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, belong all the faithful who have existed from Adam to the present day, or who shall exist, in the profession of the true faith, to the end of time; all of whom are founded and raised upon the one corner-stone, Christ, who made both one, and announced peace to them that are near and to them that are far."

The First Vatican Council declares,

"Therefore, before he was glorified he besought his Father, not for the apostles only, but also for those who were to believe in him through their word, that they all might be one as the Son himself and the Father are one. So then, just as he sent apostles, whom he chose out of the world, even as he had been sent by the Father,in like manner it was his will that in his church there should be shepherds and teachers until the end of time. In order, then, that the episcopal office should be one and undivided and that, by the union of the clergy, the whole multitude of believers should be held together in the unity of faith and communion, he set blessed Peter over the rest of the apostles and instituted in him the permanent principle of both unities and their visible foundation."

In this clear context, one can very easily see how Vatican Council I taught that St. Peter is the prime Bishop, the "principle of both unities and their visible foundation", that visible foundation being "the union of the clergy." St. Peter brings to fulness the visible Unity of the Church, all the Apostles being the Foundation, but Peter himself being Chief, a symbol of that said Unity. Just as Christ has Jurisdiction over the Church, so does His servant, the Head-Butler of the House.

David continues to write,

"Due to the above fact that Peter is not solely the rock of the Church and was not solely give the power to bind and loose, why should we think that the keys to the kingdom of Heaven were given to Peter alone either? The fact is, the authorities given to Peter in Matthew 16 are not limited to Peter. Nothing suggests such a proposition."

Indeed Haydock writes in his Commentary concerning Matt.16:19,

"Ver. 19. And I will give to thee the keys, &c. This is another metaphor, expressing the supreme power and prerogative of the prince of the apostles. The keys of a city, or of its gates, are presented or given to the person that hath the chief power. We also own a power of the keys, given to the other apostles, but with a subordination to St. Peter and to his successor, as head of the Catholic Church. --- And whatsoever thou shalt bind, &c. All the apostles, and their successors, partake also of this power of binding and loosing, but with a due subordination to one head invested with the supreme power."

Concerning Matt.18:18 Haydock says,

"Ver. 18. Whatsoever you shall bind, &c. The power of binding and loosing, which in a more eminent manner was promised to St. Peter, is here promised to the other apostles and their successors, bishops and priests. (Witham) --- The power of binding and loosing, conferred on St. Peter, excelled that granted to the other apostles, inasmuch as to St. Peter, who was head and pastor of the whole Church, was granted jurisdiction over the other apostles, while these received no power over each other, much less over St. Peter. (Tirinus) --- Priests receive a power not only to loose, but also to bind, as St. Ambrose writeth against the Novatians, who allowed the latter, but denied the former power to priests. (Lib. i. de pœnit. chap. ii.) (Bristow)"


A Complete Catechism of the Christian Religion asks under the heading, "The End of the Church and Her Qualities Resulting from this End", asks,

46. Who composes this Infallible Teaching Body?

A. The Pope, and the Bishops united with him.

The recent Catechism of the Catholic Church says,

881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the "rock" of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. "The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head." This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church's very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.

Were we to look at more of the documents from the past, we would see a consistent flow of the teaching that all the Bishops with the Pope exercise the Keys at a General Council, which the recent Catechism affirms.

Near the end of his article, David references St. Cyprian's name and position regarding Peter being the Rock,

"While Cyprian held the view that Peter was the rock, he believed Peter's authority was equal with the other apostles..."

Orthodox scholar Nicholas Afanassieff writes concerning St. Cyprian and the Roman See,

"The ideal “Peter’s throne” occupied by the whole episcopate became confused in Cyprian’s mind with the actual throne occupied by the Bishop of Rome. According to Cyprian, every bishop occupies Peter’s throne (the Bishop of Rome among others), but the See of Peter is Peter’s throne par excellence. The Bishop of Rome is the direct heir of Peter, whereas the others are heirs only indirectly, and sometimes only by the mediation of Rome. Hence Cyprian’s insistence that the Church of Rome is the root and matrix of the Catholic Church." (The Church Which Presides In Love)

Anglican convert to Catholicism, Dom Chapman, also expounds on the Cyprian passage concerning the Roman Chair. Besides Newman, Chapman and Luke Rivington should be consulted by Catholic readers, since these two along with Newman were Anglican divines who converted to the Catholic Faith. I think you will find their works profitable. What St. Cyprian declares bolsters the Roman claim rather than alledgedly refute it.

The same can be applied to Origen, who taught that all Christians were the rock. This can be understood as all Christians being the rock indirectly, but Peter is the rock par excellence. St. Augustine taught that the Rock was Christ, Peter, and Peter's Confession, which is identical to the Roman teaching as we have just seen.

But David makes a point when he says,

"Therefore, we cannot use the Church fathers as authority to give us an answer. They disagree!"

So true! Hence why we must now turn to the Ecumenical Councils recognized by both East and West. Of these Councils there are Seven.

In Session III of the Council of Ephesus we read,

"There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down to this day and forever lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic Faith.

“Arcadius the legate of the Apostolic See said: “Nestorius hath brought us great sorrow…Celestine, most holy pope of the Apostolic See hath condescended to send us as his executors of this business, and also following the decrees of the holy synod we give this as our conclusion: Let Nestorius know that he is deprived of all Episcopal dignity, and is alien from the whole church and from the communion of all its priests.” (NPNF: The Seven Ecumenical Councils, pg. 223)

Perhaps even more blatant is Pope St. Agatho's letter at Constantinople III, which reads,

"This is the pure expression of piety. This is the true and immaculate profession of the Christian religion, not invented by human cunning, but which was taught by the Holy Ghost through the princes of the Apostles. This is the firm and irreprehensible doctrine of the holy Apostles, the integrity of the sincere piety of which, so long as it is preached freely, defends the empire of your Tranquillity in the Christian commonwealth, and exults [will defend it, will render it stable; and exulting], and (as we firmly trust) will demonstrate it full of happiness. Believe your most humble [servant], my most Christian lords and sons, that I am pouring forth these prayers with my tears, or its stability and exultation [in Greek exaltation]. And these things I (although unworthy and insignificant) dare advise through my sincere love, because your God-granted victory is our salvation, the happiness of your Tranquillity is our joy, the harmlessness of your kindness is the security of our littleness. And therefore I beseech you with a contrite heart and rivers of tears, with prostrated mind, deign to stretch forth your most clement right hand to the Apostolic doctrine which the co-worker of your pious labours, the blessed apostle Peter, has delivered, that it be not hidden under a bushel, but that it be preached in the whole earth more shrilly than a bugle: because the true confession thereof for which Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord of all things, was revealed by the Father of heaven, for he received from the Redeemer of all himself, by three commendations, the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church; under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church, and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced, and followed in all things; and all the venerable Fathers have embraced its Apostolic doctrine, through which they as the most approved luminaries of the Church of Christ have shone; and the holy orthodox doctors have venerated and followed it, while the heretics have pursued it with false criminations and with derogatory hatred. This is the living tradition of the Apostles of Christ, which his Church holds everywhere, which is chiefly to be loved and fostered, and is to be preached with confidence, which conciliates with God through its truthful confession, which also renders one commendable to Christ the Lord, which keeps the Christian empire of your Clemency, which gives far-reaching victories to your most pious Fortitude from the Lord of heaven, which accompanies you in battle, and defeats your foes; which protects on every side as an impregnable wall your God-sprung empire, which throws terror into opposing nations, and smites them with the divine wrath, which also in wars celestially gives triumphal palms over the downfall and subjection of the enemy, and ever guards your most faithful sovereignty secure and joyful in peace. For this is the rule of the true faith, which this spiritual mother of your most tranquil empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has both in prosperity and in adversity always held and defended with energy; which, it will be proved, by the grace of Almighty God, has never erred from the path of the apostolic tradition, nor has she been depraved by yielding to heretical innovations, but from the beginning she has received the Christian faith from her founders, the princes of the Apostles of Christ, and remains undefiled unto the end, according to the divine promise of the Lord and Saviour himself, which he uttered in the holy Gospels to the prince of his disciples: saying, “Peter, Peter, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he might sift 332you as wheat; but I have prayed for thee, that (thy) faith fail not. And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” Let your tranquil Clemency therefore consider, since it is the Lord and Saviour of all, whose faith it is, that promised that Peter’s faith should not fail and exhorted him to strengthen his brethren, how it is known to all that the Apostolic pontiffs, the predecessors of my littleness, have always confidently done this very thing: of whom also our littleness, since I have received this ministry by divine designation, wishes to be the follower, although unequal to them and the least of all. For woe is me, if I neglect to preach the truth of my Lord, which they have sincerely preached. Woe is me, if I cover over with silence the truth which I am bidden to give to the exchangers, i.e., to teach to the Christian people and imbue it therewith. What shall I say in the future examination by Christ himself, if I blush (which God forbid!) to preach here the truth of his words? What satisfaction shall I be able to give for myself, what for the souls committed to me, when he demands a strict account of the office I have received?"

Indeed, the Council examined the letter before accepting it as the Catholic Encyclopedia admits. However the First Vatican Council did the exact same thing with Papal Infallibility, examining the issue before formally declaring it to be dogma. This is standard Catholic procedure when it comes to these serious doctrinal matters.

When all this is taken into consideration, one begins to seriouslly wonder whether the Papal claims really are inventions of the Middle Ages, or long-ignored teachings of the Apostolic Church? I think the answer is pretty clear.

William Albrecht and the Modernist Position concerning Salvation Outside the Church: A Correnspondance

It's been no surprise to those who have interacted with William Albrecht the outrageous behaviour that seems to accompany almost everything he says or writes in response to opponents. For those of you unaware, Mr. Albrecht is a lay Catholic apologist fully endorsed by Steve Ray, Art Sippo, and some other popular apologists today. Recently Albrecht engaged in a debate with Peter Dimond of the Most Holy Family Monastery, a sedevacantist sect. I have continually tried to point out to Mr. Albrecht that I am not sedevacantist, but it appears that if you hold to traditional Catholic teaching, dogma, and morals, you're labeled a sedevacantist, despite the fact you hail Benedict XVI as the true Pope, the lawful Bishop of Rome. I would encourage you to listen to Albrecht's debate with Dimond, bearing in mind Dimond's assertion that a Pope loses his jurisdiction once he becomes a heretic is not the unanimous consent of the fathers, but that is an entirly different issue not to be discussed here.

What I did appreciate very much from Dimond was his continual reiteration of the dogmatic teaching: Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - No Salvation Outside the Church, which teaching Mr. Albrecht clearly denies and rejects in favor for the Modernist interpretation of Vatican Council II. When I posted a comment on his video concerning his misinterpretation of Titus 3:10-11, his response and my counter-response prompted me to send him an email continuing the topic in private. I did not provide all my material in the emails as I hoped to in the debate, which he expressly refused to engage in. But I believe this simple e-correnspondance will be very revealing to those interested in the Truth, in context, in the evidence, in consistency, in the hermenutic of continuity, and of course, in the Apostolic reiteration of what Christ said: "No man comes to the Father except through Me."

In the weeks following I will link another article here which will contain the material I intended to provide in debate with Albrecht. But I think this email dialogue will suffice for the time being. In my opinion, it speaks volumes.


THE DIALOGUE

(1) MASSA Sept. 24, 2009

William,

It seems you've misunderstood my short comment. So I'll clarify it further now that there is more space in a letter.

First, you pointed out in your debate that from Titus 3:10-11 a Heretic is one who has been shown his error but then continues in it despite the correction. I'd like to look at that verse for a moment:

"As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned."

Now, does that person stand self-condemned already before being corrected, or merely after? From what we know of Christ, whoever is truly of Him has the spirit of Unity, and will submit himself to the bishops, those Icons of Christ. So we must wonder, truthfully, if such a man who would dare to cause division and sectarianism would truly be of Christ.

When we cross-reference the passage with Romans 16:17, the message becomes clearer,

"Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them."

In this passage, St. Paul does not say "Wait fellas, they're not actually heretics yet, you've got to warn them first, and then if they don't listen to you they are to be considered Heretics." To Bishop Titus the Apostle explains what a Shepherd must do in the event one of his flock should fall into heresy. He is a heretic the moment he speaks his error. Certainly, the situation must not always be an error of free-will, but an error of innocence on the part of the Heretic, in which case he would be technically a Material-Heretic (and therefore having a strong possible chance of salvation, as we see with many of our modern Protestant brethren who are undoubtedly Material-Heretics), but a Heretic nonetheless, *before* his warning.

In Galatians 1:8 the great Saint and Apostle lay out an even harsher decree,

"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!"

Of course, you and I both know the Greek word for "accursed" is "anathema", the same pronouncment the Church lays over false teaching and their teachers. Once again, St. Paul does not say, "If someone preaches a Gospel to you contrary to what we have preached, let them know what they're saying is wrong before you condemn them as a Heretic, and then if he doesn't listen to you on the second or third warning, he is a Heretic and therefore accursed." Luther was a Heretic the moment he spoke against certain Apostolic teachings, this we can agree on; Calvin more so. But despite their being formal Heretics, both were given chances to repent, both were warned - yet both were Heretics from the moment they denied the Apostolic Tradition of the Church; Arius is another case of the same magnitude, if not greater.

Again St. Paul says in his letter to his spiritual son and Bishop, St. Timothy,

"If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain." (1 Tim. 6:3-5)

He warns Timothy of men who: avocate different doctrines, who do not agree with the words of Our Lord, which doctrine does not conform to godliness, is ipso facto "puffed up with conceit", and by this very admission we understand him to not be of the body of Christ, nor does he share in the spirit of Christ, because he does not have Christ.

The Apostle John writes,

"If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting." (2. Jn. 1:10)

Again, there is no word of John that says the Heretic must be warned once or twice, and if he refuses *then* he is to be considered a Heretic. St. Paul's letter to Titus must be taken in its context, viz. the letter of an Apostle to a Bishop, a Successor of the Apostle. It is the Bishop's duty as the representative and Icon of Our Lord and God Jesus Christ to call out Heretics, warn them, urge them to repentance, and if they refuse, then to withdraw him from fellowshipping within the Church. But in the context of St. Paul, the Heretic is a Heretic the moment he speaks false doctrine.

2 Thessalonians 3:6 - "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us."

I believe the sufficiency of Scripture, when interpreted with the thought of the Church, is enough for this issue (I speak in the same sense St. Athansius spoke of Scriptural sufficiency, contrary to the heretical Protestant definition).

The Catholic Encyclopedia says of Heresy,

"Pertinacity, that is, obstinate adhesion to a particular tenet is required to make heresy formal. For as long as one remains willing to submit to the Church's decision he remains a Catholic Christian at heart and his wrong beliefs are only transient errors and fleeting opinions."

It is clear from St. Paul's writings that he is assuming the Heretics are not at all willing to submit to the Church, but have in fact defected to start their own little sects. But the Church takes into cosideration the error of man, even in his willingness to do good, and so makes the distinction between Formal Heretics and Material.

St. Thomas Aquinas puts it best,

"Now, whoever believes, assents to someone's words; so that, in every form of unbelief, the person to whose words assent is given seems to hold the chief place and to be the end as it were; while the things by holding which one assents to that person hold a secondary place. Consequently he that holds the Christian faith aright, assents, by his will, to Christ, in those things which truly belong to His doctrine.

"Accordingly there are two ways in which a man may deviate from the rectitude of the Christian faith. First, because he is unwilling to assent to Christ: and such a man has an evil will, so to say, in respect of the very end. This belongs to the species of unbelief in pagans and Jews. Secondly, because, though he intends to assent to Christ, yet he fails in his choice of those things wherein he assents to Christ, because he chooses not what Christ really taught, but the suggestions of his own mind.

"Therefore heresy is a species of unbelief, belonging to those who profess the Christian faith, but corrupt its dogmas. (http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3011.htm)

I think it would be far too long to quote many of the fathers in their context concerning Heresy. But I think the Scriptural and Summa texts supply a clear enough answer.

***

I'd also like to ask you a few questions....

Do you believe Protestants are Heretics? Formal or Material?

Do you believe Orthodox Jews are damned?

Do you believe Muslims are damned? Do you also believe they worship the same God as us?

Do you believe that anyone from a religion other than historic Christianity will be saved?


I'm not a sedevecantist, I believe Benedict XVI is the true Bishop of Rome, the lawful Pope. I further don't believe the flawed Most 'Holy' Family Monastary accuretly represents the historic view concerning the Pope and heresy (though I don't believe Bendict XVI has spoken explicit heresy). I further believe Eastern Orthodoxy is a true Apostolic Church, having valid Sacraments and lawful Succession as the Council of Florence (I think if I'm not mistaken) admits.

Pax Christus,

Carmenn Massa


(2) ALBRECHT Sept. 24, 2009


DeiVerbum777
...

Definition of 'Heretic' and Other Things
...
Definition of 'Heretic' and Other Things
William,

It seems you've misunderstood my short comment. So I'll clarify it further now that there is more space in a letter.

First, you pointed out in your debate that from Titus 3:10-11 a Heretic is one who has been shown his error but then continues in it despite the correction. I'd like to look at that verse for a moment:

"As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned."

Now, does that person stand self-condemned already before being corrected, or merely after? From what we know of Christ, whoever is truly of Him has the spirit of Unity, and will submit himself to the bishops, those Icons of Christ. So we must wonder, truthfully, if such a man who would dare to cause division and sectarianism would truly be of Christ.

MY RESPONSE

You seem to have missed the WHOLE point of my exegesis of the passage. The person is a HERETIC for the very reason that he has been admonished and he REFUSES to recant and remains in his sinful ways. The term is in the ACCUSATIVE form, therefore he is a heretic for that very reason. We cannot dismiss the Greek construction here and I have pointed out WHY the person is a heretic in my exegesis of the passage. There isn't any READING into it or taking ANYTHING out of context.

HERETICAL MAN

HAERITIKON ANTHROPOS is the very formula put forth.



When we cross-reference the passage with Romans 16:17, the message becomes clearer,

"Now I urge you, brethren, keep your eye on those who cause dissensions and hindrances contrary to the teaching which you learned, and turn away from them."

In this passage, St. Paul does not say "Wait fellas, they're not actually heretics yet, you've got to warn them first, and then if they don't listen to you they are to be considered Heretics." To Bishop Titus the Apostle explains what a Shepherd must do in the event one of his flock should fall into heresy. He is a heretic the moment he speaks his error. Certainly, the situation must not always be an error of free-will, but an error of innocence on the part of the Heretic, in which case he would be technically a Material-Heretic (and therefore having a strong possible chance of salvation, as we see with many of our modern Protestant brethren who are undoubtedly Material-Heretics), but a Heretic nonetheless, *before* his warning.

MY RESPONSE:

Romans 16 is specifically mentioning those that are in heresy ALREADY. As such, Paul never even touches upon them being admonished. We can't expect EVERY single detail to be wrapped up in ONE bible passage. We can find what makes up a heretic in Titus 3. We can then conclude, that Paul would not label one to be a dissenter if they had not been shown the truth first. The very fact that one is a DISSENTER is because they still REFUSE to accept the truth even after being shown it. This verse magnifies the truth of Titus 3 even more.



In Galatians 1:8 the great Saint and Apostle lay out an even harsher decree,

"But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!"

Of course, you and I both know the Greek word for "accursed" is "anathema", the same pronouncment the Church lays over false teaching and their teachers.



MY RESPONSE:

There is no doubt about this, but an individual can only be anathematized if they have known the faith and have FALLEN from the faith after having possessed it. For instance, a Protestant today cannot be anathematized, because, as the CODE OF CANON LAW and the COUNCIL OF TRENT have shown us, only one that has BEEN within the Catholic fold can receive such a statement. This is elementary Catholic teaching, and once again FITS in with Titus 3. Titus 3 speaks of one having been admonished and still remaining obstinate. Well, one that is ANATHEMATIZED, would fall into the SAME category for the very reason that they HAD to at once have KNOWN and POSSESSED the truth.


Luther was a Heretic the moment he spoke against certain Apostolic teachings, this we can agree on; Calvin more so. But despite their being formal Heretics, both were given chances to repent, both were warned - yet both were Heretics from the moment they denied the Apostolic Tradition of the Church; Arius is another case of the same magnitude, if not greater.


MY RESPONSE:

That is your opinion, and it's an opinion that has little weight amongst theological circles. Luther's opinions were condemned, but that didn't make him a heretic until he REMAINED obstinate, as such the Pope DECLARED him a heretic AFTER he remained obstinate and rejected the faith fully later on down the line. He was at first, CONFRONTED due to his contrary views. He was NOT a heretic before that. Only the Church has the right to declare someone a heretic and it was not till later that he was labeled as such.


Again St. Paul says in his letter to his spiritual son and Bishop, St. Timothy,

"If anyone advocates a different doctrine and does not agree with sound words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, and with the doctrine conforming to godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain." (1 Tim. 6:3-5)

MY RESPONSE:

Amen.


He warns Timothy of men who: avocate different doctrines, who do not agree with the words of Our Lord, which doctrine does not conform to godliness, is ipso facto "puffed up with conceit", and by this very admission we understand him to not be of the body of Christ, nor does he share in the spirit of Christ, because he does not have Christ.


MY RESPONSE:


Once again, we see you clearly don't understand a thing you've been writing. Listen to the KEY words. This individual "DOES NOT AGREE WITH SOUND WORDS", meaning that this individual is or was aware of the truth and rejected it. In fact, the Greek uses the term ETERODIDASKOLAI, which is used in only one other place and it's in reference to DIVISIVE doctrines. In that other place this term appears, it's an exhortation to give Christian teaching to individuals so that they can understand the faith and teach in an orthodox manner. Such a person, aware of the doctrine of GODLINESS, as this verse tells us, and continually rejects it SHOULD be avoided. That's a simple fact. You keep repeating the obvious. I am still waiting to see how I misused Titus 3.


The Apostle John writes,

"If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting." (2. Jn. 1:10)



Again, there is no word of John that says the Heretic must be warned once or twice, and if he refuses *then* he is to be considered a Heretic.



MY RESPONSE:

Of course there isn't, such as there are certain places where we are told that we are saved by FAITH and the qualifier WORKS is not in the area but found in another location. As such, we have already seen that the Scripture shows us that those that are OBSTINATE are the ones that knowingly REJECT the truth. It would be ridiculous for John to be teaching that we should avoid a person that thinks contrary without ever trying to present the truth to him. You're not even using logic here anymore.


St. Paul's letter to Titus must be taken in its context, viz. the letter of an Apostle to a Bishop, a Successor of the Apostle. It is the Bishop's duty as the representative and Icon of Our Lord and God Jesus Christ to call out Heretics, warn them, urge them to repentance, and if they refuse, then to withdraw him from fellowshipping within the Church. But in the context of St. Paul, the Heretic is a Heretic the moment he speaks false doctrine.

MY RESPONSE:

That is ridiculous and completely anti Biblical. That would be assuming that a person that is ignorant, once they speak of doctrine in a erroneous matter would then render them heretical. That's simply silly. A person that is in error is NOT automatically a heretic, nor does the Bible ever LEAD us to believe so. This would mean that LIBERIUS, who historians credit as having signed the ARIAN creed, even if he did so under duress, would be labeled a heretic. That's illogical.

Your interpretation of Scripture, with all due respect, since I respect you as a Catholic, is beyond tortured.


I will ask you, if you decide to reply, to keep your questions a bit shorter. This was a ridiculously long essay that I simply don't have enough time to be answering. I would love to continue engaging in conversation with you, but I don't usually reply when people write so much out. If you can keep it to 2-3 Bible verses and 1-2 questions, it'd work best!



Do you believe Protestants are Heretics? Formal or Material?

That depends, there is no way we can generalize ALL Protestants.

Do you believe Orthodox Jews are damned?

It depends. I am no one to condemn anyone, and as such I cannot declare a Jew is damned if I don't know where his heart lies or what he is aware of as far as Christianity goes.

Do you believe Muslims are damned? Do you also believe they worship the same God as us?

Again, same answer. Your questions are beyond silly. Muslims DO worship the same GOD as us(ie:Vatican II)

Do you believe that anyone from a religion other than historic Christianity will be saved?

It is possible without a doubt.

Hope this helps, and GOD BLESS you!


(3) MASSA Sept. 25, 2009

I would disagree, based upon the biblical texts and the historical statements, non-dogmatic, though some of them may be. I don't think I could restrict my answers to short statements, so I'm wondering would it be possible to do a video-format debate on this issue some time in the near future when it would be conveniant for you? Understand I consider you a Catholic brother, but just completely errorneous in some of the aforementioned issues.

The debate would entail these things,

1) The definition of 'Heretic' according to the Bible and the holy fathers

2) Whether Protestants are Heretics, Material or Formal

3) Whether Salvation is restricted to the elect (those who have been moved by God's grace cooperate by their free-will with His grace; so not "elect" in the Calvinist sense) - or whether Salvation can be obtained by folks who follow other non-Christian religions, especially Judaism and Islam

4) Whether Muslims worship the same God Catholics do

Like I say, it doesn't have to be right this minute, but whenever you have free time. This would be much appreciated. It'll be a friendly debate, no ad-hominem (I'm not saying you would resort to that, but it's a basic standard for both of us), respectful, opened and closed in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.

Thanks William, and Pax Christus!

Carmenn Massa


(4) ALBRECHT Sept. 25, 2009

would disagree, based upon the biblical texts and the historical statements, non-dogmatic, though some of them may be.

MY RESPONSE:

You can keep disagreeing all that you want. The very fact that I didn't need to even exegete Titus 3, but merely lay down some ELEMENTARY Greek grammar rules, and you couldn't even engage with them says enough. I can clearly tell you have no grasp of the Scripture, or you wouldn't have misused the passages you tossed out numerous times.

You admit that you disagree with my setting forth Titus 3 due to NON DOGMATIC statements, but again don't realize that the ONLY dogmatic statement on this issue exists in Titus 3. That's enough said there.

I don't have time to debate you, I am sorry. Furthermore, you show yourself to be confused on Catholic teaching. Some of the things you wish to debate would be best to be debated with you advocating Sedevacantism since you aren't advocating Catholicism. I already have 4 Sedevacantist debates from now until December, and 12 others in which I will be traveling to certain locations. I take my theology VERY seriously, and the mere fact that you can't engage in any meaningful examination of the Biblical text shows me that you need much learning.



1) The definition of 'Heretic' according to the Bible and the holy fathers

You can find this straight in the Bible, the closest "dogmatic" statement in what is known as INERRANT scripture.

2) Whether Protestants are Heretics, Material or Formal

The situations on certain Protestants would differ from others. Material and Formal heresy is a deep subject that I don't think you have even a tiny grasp on.

3) Whether Salvation is restricted to the elect (those who have been moved by God's grace cooperate by their free-will with His grace; so not "elect" in the Calvinist sense) - or whether Salvation can be obtained by folks who follow other non-Christian religions, especially Judaism and Islam


Once again, you are also confused on what Salvation means. Salvation IS only restricted to the elect. You clearly aren't even aware of the Council of Orange's teaching. I don't expect you to understand what I am speaking of, due to the fact that you differentiate between the elect and then those that are part of non Christian religions, as if they are unable to part of the elect. Calvinism and Catholicism are compatible when it comes to what ELECT means, but when it comes to the concept of the TULIP--they diverge.

4) Whether Muslims worship the same God Catholics do

If you even disagree with this teaching, you show yourself to be in opposition to Catholic teaching and have to do a bit more in depth study. It seems to be as if you're either borderline Sedevacantist, or on the OLD Catholic ledge. Either which way, you're completely confused on simple concepts in theology. I can recommend LOADS of great books for you to read, and hope that you actually consider looking deeper into this.

Simply quoting Scripture, without any proper exegesis is all you've been doing.

If you disagree with my exegesis of the Biblical passages, then you'll have to overturn them.

An elementary error you made was tossing forth loads of other passages after I used Titus 3(passages which I might add were quite sloppily used at that)

It's an error that is made by people that realize they cannot answer a certain passage, so they toss out loads of others in hopes that it will cause the other one to vanish away, or seemingly answer it in a miraculous fashion.

I can only hope you really don't hold to the loads of Sedevacantist type thoughts you've put forth. I find it very sad if you do. Nevertheless, I will pray for you and hope you get a better grasp of Catholic teaching.

GOD BLESS


(5) MASSA Sept. 25, 2009

<< would disagree, based upon the biblical texts and the historical statements, non-dogmatic, though some of them may be.

MY RESPONSE:

You can keep disagreeing all that you want. The very fact that I didn't need to even exegete Titus 3, but merely lay down some ELEMENTARY Greek grammar rules, and you couldn't even engage with them says enough. I can clearly tell you have no grasp of the Scripture, or you wouldn't have misused the passages you tossed out numerous times. >>

Actually instead of basing my interpretation of *one* verse of Scripture instead of taking St. Paul's theology in context creates quite a clearer picture on the whole subject of 'Heretics'. In your previous response you dismissed much of what I said. Allow me to address those points here since you have declined a debate, despite my saying it may be done on *your* free time in the future.

"The person is a HERETIC for the very reason that he has been admonished and he REFUSES to recant and remains in his sinful ways. The term is in the ACCUSATIVE form, therefore he is a heretic for that very reason."

As I pointed out in question: Is the person a Heretic *before* or merely *after* his warnings? Instead of reading something into the tet that simply isn't there, let's look at it once more. In v. 11 St. Paul says "*knowing* that such a man is warped" - εἰδὼς [hor-ah'-o], which means:

1) to see with the eyes 2) to see with the mind, to perceive, know 3) to see, i.e. become acquainted with by experience, to experience 4) to see, to look to 4a) to take heed, beware 4b) to care for, pay heed to 5) I was seen, showed myself, appeared

St. Paul is clearly telling Bishop Titus that *after* the heretical man is warned once or twice, then and *only* then will Titus *KNOW* that the man is a Heretic. Titus will see with the eyes, after the rejection of the Heretical Man's warnings, that the man is indeed a Heretic. The matter is made known for all to percieve with their eyes. The Scripture could not get much clearer than this. So once again William: Is the man a Heretic *before* or *after* his warnings? given the context.

"Romans 16 is specifically mentioning those that are in heresy ALREADY. As such, Paul never even touches upon them being admonished. We can't expect EVERY single detail to be wrapped up in ONE bible passage. We can find what makes up a heretic in Titus 3. We can then conclude, that Paul would not label one to be a dissenter if they had not been shown the truth first. The very fact that one is a DISSENTER is because they still REFUSE to accept the truth even after being shown it. This verse magnifies the truth of Titus 3 even more."

We've already seen quite clearly that one is in Heresy [be it Formal or Material; the first being of the will, the latter out of innocence and therefore not neccessarily damned] the moment he speaks something contrary to the Gospel. In Romans he does not take into consideration the warnings given to Heretics, but merely tell the Christians to avoid them. He says specifically, "watch out for those who cause divisions and create obstacles" - σκοπέω [skop-eh'-o], literally means:

1) to look at, observe, contemplate 2) to mark 3) to fix one's eyes upon, direct one's attention to, any one 4) to look to, take heed to thyself

He commands the Roman believers to *mark* one who creates division, and to *avoid* them completely; "shun them" would be a more accurate rendition. But with Titus, a letter directed to a Bishop, St. Paul tells the Bishop it is his *duty* to confront Heretics, admonish them, and if they repent then we can know that their errors were not purposefully of their free-will, thus making them Material Heretics. But if they refuse warning, we can know they are Formal Heretics, and have spoken their errors out of their own free will. This we understand by taking the whole Scripture in context.

With Galatians, you read something once again into the text that isn't there. You cannot read the Church's modern usage of the "anathema" and apply it to St. Paul, saying he was only anathematizing those already in the Church or who have heard the Gospel. The context again does not fit. Trent's context, the anathemas were laid on those who obviously already heard the Truth. But we can't read that back into St. Paul's letter when it clearly isn't there.

In response to my words on Luther, you claimed:

"That is your opinion, and it's an opinion that has little weight amongst theological circles. Luther's opinions were condemned, but that didn't make him a heretic until he REMAINED obstinate, as such the Pope DECLARED him a heretic AFTER he remained obstinate and rejected the faith fully later on down the line. He was at first, CONFRONTED due to his contrary views. He was NOT a heretic before that. Only the Church has the right to declare someone a heretic and it was not till later that he was labeled as such."

So when Luther condemned the Apostolic doctrine of Prayers to the Saints, after hearing all his life this doctrine as the Truth, did he stand self-condemned *before* he was warned or merely *after*? You seem to say he wasn't in heresy until he was admonished. Though he was not publicly condemned as a Heretic *yet*, in his heart did he stand condemned? Did this not preach a Gospel contrary to the one St. Paul taught? In fact, your comment concerning Paul's letter to Timothy amazingly brings this point across,

"Once again, we see you clearly don't understand a thing you've been writing. Listen to the KEY words. This individual "DOES NOT AGREE WITH SOUND WORDS", meaning that this individual is or was aware of the truth and rejected it. In fact, the Greek uses the term ETERODIDASKOLAI, which is used in only one other place and it's in reference to DIVISIVE doctrines. In that other place this term appears, it's an exhortation to give Christian teaching to individuals so that they can understand the faith and teach in an orthodox manner. Such a person, aware of the doctrine of GODLINESS, as this verse tells us, and continually rejects it SHOULD be avoided. That's a simple fact. You keep repeating the obvious. I am still waiting to see how I misused Titus 3."

Since he was aware of the words of Christ he stands condemned *before* his warning, because of his false doctrines, and because he was indeed aware of the words of Christ.

Concerning John's letter, you wrote,

"Of course there isn't, such as there are certain places where we are told that we are saved by FAITH and the qualifier WORKS is not in the area but found in another location. As such, we have already seen that the Scripture shows us that those that are OBSTINATE are the ones that knowingly REJECT the truth. It would be ridiculous for John to be teaching that we should avoid a person that thinks contrary without ever trying to present the truth to him. You're not even using logic here anymore."

Once again you've clearly missed the entire point. No one said St. John is teaching us to never convert others to the Faith, or confront them. What he says is that they should and must reject the stranger with the false Gospel altogether - my point is simply would they be Heretics by the very fact they were preaching against Christ, or are they considered in Heresy only after being admonished? By this point it becomes too clear considering the context. The logic flows with the rest of Scripture: refuse anyone who brings another Gospel because they are in doctrinal error, confront them with the Truth be they in the Church or no, and if they refuse to listen you will know they have no passion for the Truth.

You said,

"This would mean that LIBERIUS, who historians credit as having signed the ARIAN creed, even if he did so under duress, would be labeled a heretic."

A Material Heretic, yes, which as I have clearly and specifically said over and over again, as has the Church, that Material Heretics still have salvation because they do not preach Heresy knowing full well it is Heresy; if they did so, that would make them Formal Heretics. Liberius was admonished as "pope ill-informed", and corrected his error. There are different degrees of Heresy, William, but it appears you do not believe that or are even aware of it as fact.

Now to reply to the present email you sent,


<< You admit that you disagree with my setting forth Titus 3 due to NON DOGMATIC statements, but again don't realize that the ONLY dogmatic statement on this issue exists in Titus 3. That's enough said there. >>

Yes, and as we've clearly seen your misinterpretation of the text is not what St. Paul is actually saying.

<< I don't have time to debate you, I am sorry. Furthermore, you show yourself to be confused on Catholic teaching. Some of the things you wish to debate would be best to be debated with you advocating Sedevacantism since you aren't advocating Catholicism. >>

I would hardly call my position Sedevacantism, but this further shows you have no grasp on the simple Catholic position I am advocating, from a Biblical and Ecclesiastical perspective. Since you insist on taking a quasi-Protestant approach to the matter, I have shown from that perspective how you are still incorrect. The holy fathers agree with me. What is Sedevacantist about using Scripture and Tradition to get a very basic point across? Goodness.

<< I already have 4 Sedevacantist debates from now until December, and 12 others in which I will be traveling to certain locations. I take my theology VERY seriously, and the mere fact that you can't engage in any meaningful examination of the Biblical text shows me that you need much learning. >>

I honestly wonder what kind of theology you are taking, it certainly isn't Catholic theology. I'll let the last snide remark go, but if I may sir it speaks monumentous volumes about yourself.

<< 1) The definition of 'Heretic' according to the Bible and the holy fathers

You can find this straight in the Bible, the closest "dogmatic" statement in what is known as INERRANT scripture. >>

Which agrees with what I've said along, thank you.

<< 2) Whether Protestants are Heretics, Material or Formal

The situations on certain Protestants would differ from others. Material and Formal heresy is a deep subject that I don't think you have even a tiny grasp on. >>

I asked a very SIMPLE question, William, and this clear avoidance of the question shows me you have no idea whatever on the difference between a Material or Formal Heretic. I would suggest you research that a bit further. I have repeatedly in both emails pointed out the differences; you obviously have not read my responses.

<< 3) Whether Salvation is restricted to the elect (those who have been moved by God's grace cooperate by their free-will with His grace; so not "elect" in the Calvinist sense) - or whether Salvation can be obtained by folks who follow other non-Christian religions, especially Judaism and Islam

Once again, you are also confused on what Salvation means. Salvation IS only restricted to the elect. You clearly aren't even aware of the Council of Orange's teaching. I don't expect you to understand what I am speaking of, due to the fact that you differentiate between the elect and then those that are part of non Christian religions, as if they are unable to part of the elect. Calvinism and Catholicism are compatible when it comes to what ELECT means, but when it comes to the concept of the TULIP--they diverge. >>

Gracious...So now you want to contradict your previous words when you said salvation is possible for Jews (or for that matter, anyone):

"It depends. I am no one to condemn anyone, and as such I cannot declare a Jew is damned if I don't know where his heart lies or what he is aware of as far as Christianity goes."

So which is it William? I assure you I'm perfectly aware of who the elect are and that salvation is for them alone, but I'm not so sure YOU understand it, simply by what you're advocating. I actually have the text of the Council of Orange and have had numerous discussions with people, including Calvinists, on this very subject. In Calvinism, the elect alone are those to whom God choses to give His grace - in Catholicism God gives His grace to all men, including the elect, who respond with their free will (previously in bondage) by the enablement of God's grace. This is all I meant when I differentiated. I would have thought you would be aware of that. Once again, since you continue being so ambiguous: Is salvation for those who believe in Jesus Christ alone, or is salvation for non-Christian religious as well? Can you actually prove your side by dealing with the place where Christ says,

"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT through ME."

And,

"NO ONE can come to Me unless the Father that sent Me draw him..."

I'd be very interested to hear your take on that in comparison with what St. Thomas Aquinas said on the subject. I have a feeling there would be much disagreement between both of you.


<< 4) Whether Muslims worship the same God Catholics do

If you even disagree with this teaching, you show yourself to be in opposition to Catholic teaching and have to do a bit more in depth study. It seems to be as if you're either borderline Sedevacantist, or on the OLD Catholic ledge. Either which way, you're completely confused on simple concepts in theology. I can recommend LOADS of great books for you to read, and hope that you actually consider looking deeper into this. >>

Thank you, by saying I bordern on "Old" Catholicism you pay me a great compliment. I have no intention advocating this quasi-Catholic modernist position you seem to endorse. You have obviously not taken the Holy Father's "hermeneutic of Continuity" very seriously. Now William you take a look at these Koran passages and you tell me whether we worship the same God:

"They do blaspheme who say: Allah is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One Allah. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them," (Quran 5:73)

"They surely disbelieve who say: Lo! Allah is the third of three; when there is no Allah save the One Allah. If they desist not from so saying a painful doom will fall on those of them who disbelieve," (Quran 5:73)

I await your answer.

Let's look at what the Church actually says:

"The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day." Catechism of the Catholic Church 841

Notice the Catechism says they PROFESS to hold the faith of Abraham, PROFESS. The inclusion of the word "profess" is subtle, but significant. Fundamentally, the Catechism says that Muslims believe they have the Abrahamic faith, and (like us) adore God as "One, Merciful and Creator." This is why the texts must be read carefully in context, and in the same vein as the Councils before it on this issue.

"And behold! Allah will say: O Jesus the son of Mary! Did you say to men: Worship me and my mother as gods in derogation of Allah? He will say: Glory be to you! Never could I say what I had no right to say. Had I said such a thing, you would indeed have known it. You know what is in my heart, though I do not know what is in yours. For you know in full all that is hidden. I never said to them anything except what you commanded me to say: Worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.(Quran 5:116-117)

The Council of Florence expressly said Heretics [in the context, Formal] Pagans, Jews, and all who do not hold to the Christian Faith are damned. Indeed, St. Justyn Martyr and St. Augustine preached the same, and St. Pope Pius X reiterated what they said in his Catechism, also reiterating what they said concerning those in the Soul of the Church, by Baptism or the Desire of Baptism. Modernist interpretation blows this out of proportion, but in context the early fathers considered those who never heard of Christ but lived according to reason. The Church's teaching on reason is that the Holy Spirit guides it in every man. So there are exceptions for the man in deepest darkest Africa who has never heard of Christ, salvation is possible for him. How? As St. Aquinas says, either God will miraculously send an angel, or a human being, to minister to him, or God will come to him in divine revelation. This is the teaching of the holy fathers.



<< Simply quoting Scripture, without any proper exegesis is all you've been doing.

If you disagree with my exegesis of the Biblical passages, then you'll have to overturn them.

An elementary error you made was tossing forth loads of other passages after I used Titus 3(passages which I might add were quite sloppily used at that)

It's an error that is made by people that realize they cannot answer a certain passage, so they toss out loads of others in hopes that it will cause the other one to vanish away, or seemingly answer it in a miraculous fashion.

I can only hope you really don't hold to the loads of Sedevacantist type thoughts you've put forth. I find it very sad if you do. Nevertheless, I will pray for you and hope you get a better grasp of Catholic teaching. >>

I don't think a response is neccassry here, since we've seen everything in context......it truly speaks for itself. I will pray for you as well.

Pax Christus,

Carmenn Massa


(6) ALBRECHT Sept. 26, 2009

As I pointed out in question: Is the person a Heretic *before* or merely *after* his warnings? Instead of reading something into the tet that simply isn't there, let's look at it once more. In v. 11 St. Paul says "*knowing* that such a man is warped" - εἰδὼς [hor-ah'-o], which means:


MY RESPONSE(that was hilarious)
You're so confused that I can only ask where you're getting your information from. You clearly can't read a SINGLE ounce of Biblical Greek or you wouldn't have made the elementary error you just made. The word is NOT horaho, but rather EIDWS-EIDOS to transliterate it.

I already explained to you HOW he is deemed a heretic. You're clearly confused. I am not going to waste my time anymore..you don't have a clue as to what you're even reading.

I read on and on the normal fallacies that individuals make everyday. In case you don't know, words in Greek have meanings depending on the CONTEXT and aren't always generalized. You can't read Greek, and therefore are reading Lexical meanings and then giving it a certain definition. You clearly also don't know how Lexicons work. I don't know if you think that I take theology lightly, but I don't. I have nearly 6 years of Biblical Greek training and 4 certificates in Greek. I am fluent in Biblical Greek. So..I take theology SERIOUSLY.


I honestly wonder what kind of theology you are taking, it certainly isn't Catholic theology. I'll let the last snide remark go, but if I may sir it speaks monumentous volumes about yourself.

MY RESPONSE:

Ahh yes, it isn't Catholic theology. Yet I travel around speaking at conferences with renowned Catholics such as Steve Ray, Gary Michuta, and other Catholics. I debate individuals from AOMIN, one of the largest Protestant organizations in America...but...I just don't know a thing about Catholic theology. Right.

Don't come here attempting to sound smart, when you really don't know a thing of what you're talking about. Copying and pasting from Lexicons doesn't make you sound smart, especially when you made your little elementary error up above.


So which is it William? I assure you I'm perfectly aware of who the elect are and that salvation is for them alone, but I'm not so sure YOU understand it, simply by what you're advocating. I actually have the text of the Council of Orange and have had numerous discussions with people, including Calvinists

MY RESPONSE:

You don't have an inkling on Calvinist teaching or you wouldn't have phrased your question the way you did. A Jew and a Muslim and even a Pagan CAN be part of the elect. An ELECT individual is obviously one that is PREDESTINED to be saved. Catholic theology allows numerous individuals to be saved, particularly due to their ignorance.

Once again, since you claim to be a Catholic, yet you have no idea on Catholic teaching, you reject the office of the Papacy, and you reject Vatican II---you'd be best advocating Sedevacantism.

Old Catholic/Sedevacantist...they're the same thing in the sense that both are not part of the Catholic Church.

Florence is right, but just like all the other stuff you've quoted, it's out of context. I don't expect you to know what Florence actually says in it's text. You'll probably copy and paste the original text with erroneous meanings as you attempted to do with Titus 3. Unfortunately for you, only YOU take yourself seriously.

This now ends our dialogue. If you want to ever be taken seriously, don't pretend to know what you're talking about and then look as silly as you've come out of this looking.

Read Catholic theology.

GOD BLESS


(7) MASSA Sept 27, 2009

<< As I pointed out in question: Is the person a Heretic *before* or merely *after* his warnings? Instead of reading something into the tet that simply isn't there, let's look at it once more. In v. 11 St. Paul says "*knowing* that such a man is warped" - εἰδὼς [hor-ah'-o], which means:


MY RESPONSE(that was hilarious)
You're so confused that I can only ask where you're getting your information from. You clearly can't read a SINGLE ounce of Biblical Greek or you wouldn't have made the elementary error you just made. The word is NOT horaho, but rather EIDWS-EIDOS to transliterate it >>

The only thing I can see here which begs my admittance of error is my 'horaho' instead of 'eidws-eidos'. Apologies :-) It was a very late night and I was in a rush to reply before work - good thing you spotted the error. And as usual your correction comes coated with the classic behavioural issues which you evidently cannot keep out of a would-be dialogue. I find that extremely dissapointing.

<< I already explained to you HOW he is deemed a heretic. You're clearly confused. I am not going to waste my time anymore..you don't have a clue as to what you're even reading. >>


Actually what you said is that the man *is* a Heretic only after he is warned. If you were attempting to say otherwise perhaps a clarification of your position is called for. Other than the fact of your correcting my grammatical mistake (albeit, in pronunciation only) you haven't actually addressed the issue at all. It seems sir you don't quite grasp the concept of reading the text in context, including cross-references, and (but not always neccessary) the early exegesis of the fathers, which you seem to continually avoid, a matter I find quite disturbing.

<< I read on and on the normal fallacies that individuals make everyday. In case you don't know, words in Greek have meanings depending on the CONTEXT and aren't always generalized. You can't read Greek, and therefore are reading Lexical meanings and then giving it a certain definition. You clearly also don't know how Lexicons work. I don't know if you think that I take theology lightly, but I don't. I have nearly 6 years of Biblical Greek training and 4 certificates in Greek. I am fluent in Biblical Greek. So..I take theology SERIOUSLY >>

First may I say your attitude doesn't help the matter any, but in fact paints a very bad impression of you. I just know you aren't as rude as your email conveys. Actually I've a few lessons in Greek also, but I can see by your few emails none of that would actually matter to you. It would be much appreciated if you actually addressed the issues instead of completely avoiding them. I see no inkling of a reply to any of the former passages I brought up, nor my additional responses attached from the previous letter. Once again, your obvious subtle ad hominem aside, I would have hoped the issues would be addressed in a far more gentlemanly manner.

<< I honestly wonder what kind of theology you are taking, it certainly isn't Catholic theology. I'll let the last snide remark go, but if I may sir it speaks monumentous volumes about yourself.

MY RESPONSE:

Ahh yes, it isn't Catholic theology. Yet I travel around speaking at conferences with renowned Catholics such as Steve Ray, Gary Michuta, and other Catholics. I debate individuals from AOMIN, one of the largest Protestant organizations in America...but...I just don't know a thing about Catholic theology. Right. >>

Yes it is quite clear you are in the same vein with Steve Ray, Gary Michuta, and others. I don't happen to follow the 'popular Catholic apologists', as it has become all too evident they have for so long avoided the deeper issues at hand in their dialogues with Protestants and those of other faiths. Unfortunately, sir, by your words alone and from watching your previous actions on Youtube, you are in the same camp. I've heard your debates with Turretinfan and discussions with Dr. White, but they only add more weight to what I have just said, viz. the avoidance of the real issues.

<< Don't come here attempting to sound smart, when you really don't know a thing of what you're talking about. Copying and pasting from Lexicons doesn't make you sound smart, especially when you made your little elementary error up above >>

The definition was copied and pasted because, as I previously said, I was in a rush :-) And so instead of typing out a full definition out of Thayer or Bauer, I decided to take a short-cut. Your reference back to my grammatical error and using to substantiate that I "don't know a thing" is nothing short of childish. I had hoped you would leave the schoolyard tactics behind, sir.

<< So which is it William? I assure you I'm perfectly aware of who the elect are and that salvation is for them alone, but I'm not so sure YOU understand it, simply by what you're advocating. I actually have the text of the Council of Orange and have had numerous discussions with people, including Calvinists

MY RESPONSE:

You don't have an inkling on Calvinist teaching or you wouldn't have phrased your question the way you did. >>

I'm dissapointed my previous email was not read. Let me reiterate what I specifically said:

"In Calvinism, the elect alone are those to whom God choses to give His grace - in Catholicism God gives His grace to all men, including the elect, who respond with their free will (previously in bondage) by the enablement of God's grace. This is all I meant when I differentiated. I would have thought you would be aware of that."

I would love to hear your reasoning behind why I "don't have an inkling on Calvinist teaching", but all I see is verbiage without any hint of substantial argumentation/documentation that addresses the prime issue at hand.

<< A Jew and a Muslim and even a Pagan CAN be part of the elect. An ELECT individual is obviously one that is PREDESTINED to be saved. Catholic theology allows numerous individuals to be saved, particularly due to their ignorance >>

Once again your ambiguity muddles the matter instead of clearing it. The Jew, Muslim, or Pagan can be saved *only* if they forsake their previous errors and believe in Christ. Furthermore, I see absolutely nothing from you in regards to my citing the Quran on the Trinity, in contrast to what the Second Vatical Council *actually* says. This in and of itself is very revealing in many levels. I offered you a challenge to debate the issue, using the Scriptures, the Second Vatican Council, the Dogmas of the Church, and the witness of the Saints and Martyrs, which you explicitly refused. I will not waste time typing in all my material here. So, in a word, all I may say is that you have horribly mutilated the Second Vatican Council's teaching by using a modernist train of thought.


<< Once again, since you claim to be a Catholic, yet you have no idea on Catholic teaching, you reject the office of the Papacy, and you reject Vatican II---you'd be best advocating Sedevacantism.

Old Catholic/Sedevacantist...they're the same thing in the sense that both are not part of the Catholic Church >>

I reject the office of the Papacy? How in the world do you arrive at that from my clear, explicit, simple statement wherein I said:

"I believe Benedict XVI is the true Bishop of Rome, the lawful Pope."

You are even further unaware of a simple post I wrote on my blog on why the Church needs the Papacy, or the words of Fr. Mateo Crawley-Boevey in his "The Prime Minister of the King of Love" in which he calls the Pope a Second Eucharist, which I have posted on my blog also. But obviously none of the actual facts really matter here.

<< Florence is right, but just like all the other stuff you've quoted, it's out of context. I don't expect you to know what Florence actually says in it's text. You'll probably copy and paste the original text with erroneous meanings as you attempted to do with Titus 3. Unfortunately for you, only YOU take yourself seriously >>

Yes Florence is quite right, but you've proven yourself unable and unwilling to deal with the Council's words. With your permission, I think it'll be quite educational for many if these emails were made public. However, if you disagree, not wishing the emails to be made public, I'll respect that wish.

<< This now ends our dialogue. If you want to ever be taken seriously, don't pretend to know what you're talking about and then look as silly as you've come out of this looking >>

I had hoped this "dialogue" would be somewhat intellectual, but you do not seem to desire the same. Good day, sir, and the peace of Christ be with you.

Carmenn Massa


(8) ALBRECHT Sept. 29, 2009

The only thing I can see here which begs my admittance of error is my 'horaho' instead of 'eidws-eidos'. Apologies :-) It was a very late night and I was in a rush to reply before work - good thing you spotted the error. And as usual your correction comes coated with the classic behavioural issues which you evidently cannot keep out of a would-be dialogue. I find that extremely dissapointing.

Good thing I spotted the error? If there is one thing I detest in the field of Apologetics is someone being a fraud. Don't come here pretending you can actually read Greek when you can't. No one can actually WRITE something out and accidentally TRANSLATE It as another word cause it's late at night. You have no grasp of the language. I don't like dishonesty. I will dismiss the rest of what you have written due to this. I cannot stand dishonest individuals.

It's like I write the word "PADRE" out in spanish then translate it as DOOR! It's ludicrous! It would show I have no idea of what I am talking about. To use the argument of "oh it was late at night! I made a mistake!" is silliness that only a fool would subscribe to.


The definition was copied and pasted because, as I previously said, I was in a rush :-) And so instead of typing out a full definition out of Thayer or Bauer, I decided to take a short-cut. Your reference back to my grammatical error and using to substantiate that I "don't know a thing" is nothing short of childish. I had hoped you would leave the schoolyard tactics behind, sir.

That is your main problem. Merely copying and pasting from Lexicons does NOT touch upon the meanings of the surrounding context. I suggest you study how Lexicons are used. You remind me of the individuals that think they can actually use Greek in debate by popping out their shiny little Lexicon. I know how it feels..don't worry. I used to be exactly where you are. But I could admit I had no grasp of the Biblical language many years back. You're clearly out on a limb here. You don't understand BASIC elements of Catholic theology, let alone Protestant theology. You also don't have an idea what Florence or V2 say(which I won't even try to engage you with, you'll most likely pretend you know the Latin as well!)

There are books out there by Greek scholars( Catholic as well ) that tell you how Lexicons are used. I suggest you find a CATHOLIC lexicon to use. Yes..they DO exist.

Stop for one moment with your act, and I can be a nice guy to assist you in your learning process.

There are Catholic lexicons that are NEARLY impossible to find online or through book retailers that I can direct you towards that are better(albeit LIMITED, since Lexicons don't deal with many issues or nuances of the language)

I'll say this nicely.
You can tell when an individual has little if no experience in certain matters. I can offer my help as a brother only. If you want good reading material..I can offer you good resources. But please don't go posting silly things as if you're an expert on something. You've only shown yourself to be more incompetent on this topic than I thought at the get go.


(9) MASSA Sept 29, 2009

<< Good thing I spotted the error? If there is one thing I detest in the field of Apologetics is someone being a fraud. Don't come here pretending you can actually read Greek when you can't. No one can actually WRITE something out and accidentally TRANSLATE It as another word cause it's late at night. You have no grasp of the language. I don't like dishonesty. I will dismiss the rest of what you have written due to this. I cannot stand dishonest individuals. >>

Sir are you aware that εἰδὼς is borrowed from the equivalent ὀπτάνομαι and ὁράω, which the lexicon I cited at the time had all three pronunciations and renderings, which made it even more easier for me to make this kind of error during a late night? Are you further aware that horao and eido essentially mean the same thing, making your example of the 'Padre' and 'Door' completely irrelevant to the subject? But your first error I suppose is saying that I "translate[ed]" the word, when actually what I did was *mistransliterate* the word into an equivalent. The *meaning* is still the same, but obviouslly you are unaware of that little technicality.

I find it ironic you speak of dishonesty when you are the exact same person who has completely ignored my objections to Muslims and Catholics worshiping the same God, the correct context of Titus 3:10-11, which Peter Dimond (wrong as he is in many other areas) cited various fathers to support *my* biblical interpretation, viz. that a man is a Heretic ipso facto; but he is only to be *considered* formally a Heretic *after* his warnings, have called me a sedevacantist when in fact I repeatedly said I support Bendict XVI as the lawful Pope of Rome...and you speak of dishonesty?? Why aren't the real issues being discussed, William? Your few errors which I cited above have not been admitted or even touched upon by you, yet I readily admit to my *mistransliteration*, and even that you confuse with *translation*. Really, sir, the behaviour on your part is just incredible.

<< That is your main problem. Merely copying and pasting from Lexicons does NOT touch upon the meanings of the surrounding context. I suggest you study how Lexicons are used. You remind me of the individuals that think they can actually use Greek in debate by popping out their shiny little Lexicon. I know how it feels..don't worry. I used to be exactly where you are. But I could admit I had no grasp of the Biblical language many years back. You're clearly out on a limb here. You don't understand BASIC elements of Catholic theology, let alone Protestant theology. You also don't have an idea what Florence or V2 say(which I won't even try to engage you with, you'll most likely pretend you know the Latin as well!) >>

Once again I assure you I understand how lexicons work, and in fact use one of the standards recognized by both Protestant and Catholic sources. William there's no substance at all to anything you've said here. All I see is monotonous rhetoric, immature behaviour to the roof, constant ad hominem attacks...What exactly is supposed to be accomplished here? You have *yet* to deal with the prime issue raised in my first email to you. I have cited authoritative sources, including the Greek, St. Thomas Aquinas, the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Second Vatican text, the Quran passages, and I have gotten *nothing* in response except unsubstantial verbiage, ad hominem ad nauseum, totally ignoring any objection I bring forth.

<< There are books out there by Greek scholars( Catholic as well ) that tell you how Lexicons are used. I suggest you find a CATHOLIC lexicon to use. Yes..they DO exist.

Stop for one moment with your act, and I can be a nice guy to assist you in your learning process. >>

There are far better, well equiped, Catholic teachers whom I respect and who have many degrees, sir, who I'm perfectly content to learn from. Your arrogance is unfitting for one who proclaims to be Catholic.

<< I'll say this nicely.
You can tell when an individual has little if no experience in certain matters. I can offer my help as a brother only. If you want good reading material..I can offer you good resources. But please don't go posting silly things as if you're an expert on something. You've only shown yourself to be more incompetent on this topic than I thought at the get go. >>

Once again sir, your attacks need not be commented on, as they speak for themselves. If in your response you do not at least answer whether or not you are willing to allow these emails be posted publicly, I will assume you have no objection and post them. If you do not respond at all, I will assume you have no objection and post them publicly. Attached to the time (in the near future) will be the documentation and argumentation not addressed here, and upon completion I will send you the finished work, again reiterating my previous challenge.

Carmenn Massa