Friday, November 19, 2010

Built on Sinking Sand: The “Scriptural” Foundation for the Papacy

Scott Windsor here says “that (James) White and (William) Webster try to make [the case] that the entire doctrine of the papacy hinges on and/or was created due to this forged document. This could not be further from the truth.”

First, this is not at all what they said. Here is what they said:
In the middle of the ninth century, a radical change began in the Western Church, which dramatically altered the Constitution of the Church, and laid the ground work for the full development of the papacy. The papacy could never have emerged [as a political force in the Middle Ages] without a fundamental restructuring of the Constitution of the Church and of men’s perceptions of the history of that Constitution.
And of course, this “radical change” was that Rome began “foisting” the notion that it not only had spiritual “primacy” (always in question), but that it now also had temporal primacy -- that it could exercise sovereign authority over kings.

The real point that William Webster is making is that Rome has no problem in using lies, forgeries, whatever misinformation it can find to press into service the notion that the pope is in charge of the whole world.

Of course, that use of lies, forgeries, and fictions, has been well-documented.

But the fact that Windsor can get away with mis-stating White and Webster's true intention (and apparently this is an argument he has made in the past) is evidence of the true impoverishment that he and his like-minded fellows unknowingly suffering under.

On to what Scott says is the “scriptural evidence”:
Scriptural Foundation:
Matthew 16:18 – “And I say to thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build My Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it.” Here we have Jesus bestowing upon Peter (whose name means “rock”) the foundation of the Church. In fact, in the Aramaic, which is what Jesus was likely speaking when speaking to His Apostles, and also the likely original language that the book of Matthew was written in, there is no distinction between the name “Peter” (Kepha) and the term for “rock” (kepha). Hence, if we stuck closer to the original language (instead of transliterating it to Greek and then English), that same verse would read something like: “… thou art Kepha, and upon this kepha will I build My Church.” This one verse alone is enough for one who has The Faith....
This is the thing that I was taught was taught for years. Jesus spoke Aramaic, and so supposedly [no one can know this for certain] Jesus would have said, “You are Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build my church.”

This is ecclesiastical vaporware.

Never mind that we don't have any record of what Jesus said, other than the Scriptural record. So to base an argument like this one: the divine institution of the papacy, on the possibility that Jesus said “Kepha/kepha,” and then to require the rest of professing Christendom to accept this claim, is (a) arrogant, and (b) false.

Jesus did not ever mince words. If he were setting up a foundational structure of popes/bishops, we might have expected a clear and articulate word from him about what exactly he was going to “build”. According to Hebrews 1, Jesus Himself is “the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being. He sustains all things by his powerful word.”

Where is the “powerful word” on the papacy? Where is the powerful word on this “leadership for all time,” against which the gates of hell will supposedly not prevail?

Instead, an Aramaic word-play -- I should say, a possible Aramaic word-play, that nobody really understands -- is foundational to Roman and papal authority.

Both David Garland (“Reading Matthew: A Literary and Theological Commentary on the First Gospel”, New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1995) and Everett Ferguson (“The Church of Christ: A Biblical Ecclesiology for Today”, Grand Rapids/Cambridge: Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1996) point to the 1990 study by C.C. Caragounis, “Peter and the Rock” (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter)

Here’s Garland’s account:
C.C. Caragounis’s study of this passage carefully argues, however, that the rock refers to something other than Peter. The demonstrative pronoun “this” [in the phrase “on this rock”] logically should refer to something other than the speaker or the one spoken to and would be appropriate only if Jesus were speaking about Peter in the third person and not speaking to him. If Jesus were referring to Peter, it would have been clearer to have, “You are Rock, and upon you I will build my church” (Caragounis 89). Petros usually meant a free-standing “stone” that could be picked up; and petrausually was used to mean “rock,” “cliff,” or “bedrock.” But the two terms could reverse their meaning and no clear-cut distinction can be made between the two (Caragounis, 12, 15). If the two words were intended to refer to the same thing, petros could have been used in both places since it could be used to mean both stone and rock. The use of two different terms in the saying, petros and petra, implies that the two were to be distinguished from each other.

The appeal to a hypothetical Aramaic saying is not decisive. Caragounis contends that if an Aramaic word lay behind the Greek petra, it was probably tnra (compare the Syriac version). According to Caragounis, each of the two words in the word-play has a separate referent and a separate meaning (Caragounis, 90). The word-play (Petros, petra) has two foci, similarity and dissimilarity. ”Petros has given utterance to a petra, but the petra is not Petros.” The similarity is “in the sound and general sense.” The dissimilarity is in the meaning of specific reference. Petros, a man’s nickname, refers to a stone; petra refers to bedrock, the content of his confession (Caragounis, 109). The assertion “you are Peter” is a solemn affirmation formula to introduce what follows: “As surely as you are [called] Petros, on this rock of what you have just said I will build my church” (Caragounis, 108-113).
Ferguson takes Caragounis’s work even further, analyzing not only the Syriac, but also the language into the Old Testament, and I'll get into that in the next installment.

Meanwhile, if Jesus ever did speak of the papacy, he did it in terms like this:
Luke 14: Now he told a parable to those who were invited, when he noticed how they chose the places of honor, saying to them, “When you are invited by someone to a wedding feast, do not sit down in a place of honor, lest someone more distinguished than you be invited by him, and he who invited you both will come and say to you, ‘Give your place to this person,’ and then you will begin with shame to take the lowest place. But when you are invited, go and sit in the lowest place, so that when your host comes he may say to you, ‘Friend, move up higher.’ Then you will be honored in the presence of all who sit at table with you. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”
The papacy is an office that clearly, having been invited to the table as a leader of the church in the capital city of the empire, made a conscious and sustained effort to take a place of honor, which Jesus himself said “is not mine to give” (Matt 20:23).

37 comments:

The 27th Comrade said...

Why, in all this you-are-rock talk is the verse five places down always forgotten? Am I supposed to believe that no Roman Catholics know of Matthew 16:23?

The 27th Comrade said...

As I urged you when I went into Macedonia, stay there in Ephesus so that you may command certain people not to teach false doctrines any longer or to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. Such things promote controversial speculations rather than advancing God’s work—which is by faith.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"This is ecclesiastical vaporware."

That's a cool sentence!

You know how to turn a phrase, John! Good for you.

John Bugay said...

You know how to turn a phrase, John!

Thanks Truth!

John Bugay said...

Am I supposed to believe that no Roman Catholics know of Matthew 16:23?

This has no effect on them. What's needed is to demolish their strong-points -- and Matt 16:18 is one of the things they will always claim, and that they will always depend on. They will just slough off things like Matt 16:23 by saying something like "he wasn't teaching anything."

Constantine said...

Here, here, John. Bravo.

The case Scott and his friends put forth is so vacuous that it must, of necessity, fall in on itself in the not too distant future.

The 27th Comrade is spot on. What about Matthew 16:23: “Get thou behind me, Satan!”?

But the Biblical case is far stronger than that. Peter had no idea he was a pope. (Acts 10:26) That is surely an odd thing for one directly consecrated by Christ! And the Apostles had no idea, either. (Acts 8:14)

And Mark 9:33-35 amplifies your quote from Luke. Christ could very easily have answered the Apostles' argument about who was the greatest by saying, “Pete's my man! Read Matthew 16:18.” But how instructive that he did not!

But even more damning for Scott, is that this “infallible” reliance on one interpretation of Matthew 16:18 is an entirely modern, post-Vatican I phenomenon in the Catholic church!

As has been noted here, prior to 1870 the use of Matthew 16:18 in support of the papacy was actually a violation of official Catholic teaching.

Keep up the good work, John. The light of God's truth is shining through!

Peace.

Constantine said...

Hey John,

You touched on something very critical here when you wrote, ”What's needed is to demolish their strong-points -- and Matt 16:18 is one of the things they will always claim, and that they will always depend on.

The reason that they must cling tenaciously to this is that it is a requirement of Catholic dogma that dogma have a biblical basis. Therefore, if Matthew 16:18's correct meaning is allowed to surface, the whole of the papal scheme is undone.

“In addition, Catholic theology should examine the extent to which the definitions concerning primacy and infallibility have the character of dogma. For it is also Catholic conviction that dogma must have biblical foundations or, rather, foundations in the Gospel. And, of course, this foundation must now be shown in terms of the textual evidence ascertainable via historical criticism. It was, after all, the same Vatican I – probably without being aware of the significance of its statement – which asserted with respect to papal infallibility: “The Holy Spirit was not promised to Peter and his successors in order that they might promulgate through his revelation a new doctrine, but that under his guidance they might preserve and faithfully interpret the revelation transmitted through the apostles, or the deposit of faith (depositum fidei).” The faith transmitted through the apostles, i.e., in Holy Scripture, may not be expanded by new teachings. Every interpretation must be proved to be the interpretation of apostolic doctrine.”

Ohlig, Karl-Heinz. Why We Need the Pope: The Necessity and Limitations of Papal Primacy. Trans. Dr. Robert C. Ware. St. Meinrad, Indiana, USA. Abbey Press, 1975. Trans. of Braucht die Kirche einen Papst?. Germany, 1973.P. 96

The authority of Matthew 16:18 to establish a non-apostolic office must be challenged and when it is shown to be a “new teaching” it must, on Catholic grounds, be dismissed. “The faith transmitted through the apostles...may not be expanded by new teachings.” Fascinating.

Peace.

John Bugay said...

Constantine, you are a fountain of good information. My copy of Hasler just arrived today ("How the Pope Became Infallible"). He was a Roman Catholic priest who "before his untimely death in July 1980, served for five years in the Vatican Secretariat for Christian unity, concentrating on work with Lutheran, Reform, and Old Catholic churches. It was during this time that he was given access to the Vatican Archives and discovered diaries, letters, and official documents relating to the first Vatican Council that had never been studied before."

zipper778 said...

John, I didn't know if you saw this article yet or not but I thought it was interesting and I didn't know how else to bring it to your attention:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/40289256/ns/world_news-europe/deck/msn

John Bugay said...

Zipper, thanks for the heads-up.

Constantine said...

Hi John,

I'll look forward to your sharing your Hasler findings with us.

Blessings.

Leo said...

Lest we forget, Jesus also said "Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat..." then He said to Peter,"I have prayed for you alone..."

When we translate scripture, it is vital to correctly do so. In the Greek, there are words for 'you plural' and 'you singular'. Jesus prayed for Peter alone once their faith was weakened.

We have no problem with the fact that Jesus referred to Peter as 'Satan' for his comments. Nor do we run away from Peter's threefold denial of our Lord.

Popes are human and can sin and can actually end up in hell. They are simply protected from officially teaching error.

There is no disagreement in that divine revelation ended with the death of the last apostle. The issue is whether or not the basic beliefs were there from the beginning or not.

We get into 'yes they are', 'no they are not'... Well, we can argue until the cows come home, but we Catholics truly believe that these things were believed in the hearts of the faithful from the beginning.

You see, with the Church, the scripture lives on through the saints and the miracles God performs to this very day. You may not hear of them, but they are as powerful as then and have never stopped.

In other words, we have the richness of a Faith which never ends with scripture. For example, the Roman soldier who pierced the side of Jesus was almost completely blind. When he pierced the side of Jesus, the blood and water touched him and he was healed. It is he who said, "truly this was the Son of God." He became a saint and was also martyred...St. Longinus, and his spear is still around.

In the church of St. Paul in Rome, there is a statue of Stephen. Why? Because it was his prayers for Paul as he was being martyred, that resulted in the conversion of Paul. God always uses the prayers of the saints to do His work. It's like when the prophets spoke. It was the word of God, but was only activated when the prophet actually said it on His behalf.

This goes on through today, as you can find out about the many profound miracles that took place with Mother Theresa. Or, Pope John Paul II. There was a crippled boy who was laid on top of his tomb and was miraculously healed, for starters...God continues to work through His Church and His saints in a supernatural way that defies the laws of nature. He does so in order that we might believe...

John Bugay said...

Leo, I don't think anyone would deny that Peter, himself, personally had a unique role among the 12. This is not to say that he was "the leader". Indeed, he seemed to exemplify the weaknesses of all. Which may point to the "singular" mention he gets in Matthew 16:23.

There is no such thing as a "successor to Peter" however.

1 Clement (96 ad) uses the terms "presbuteroi" (plural) and "episkopoi" (plural) not only as plurals when describing the leadership of the church, but also, these functions are interchangeably. In fact, the function of the "presbuteroi" is to exercise "episkopon" (oversight).

Nearly a half century later, Hermas is still speaking of "presbuteroi" (plural) terms of the leadership of the Roman church:

Afterwards I saw a vision in my house. The elderly woman came and asked me if I had already given the little book to the elders (presbuteroi, plural). I said that I had not given it. “You have done well,” she said, “for I have words to add. So when I finish all the words they will be made known to all the elect through you. Therefore you will write two little books, and you will send one to Clement and one to Grapte. Then Clement will send it to the cities abroad, because that is his job. But Grapte will instruct the widows and orphans. But you yourself will read it to this city [Rome], along with the elders (presbuteroi) who preside (proistamenoi – plural leadership) over the church." (Vis 2.4)

Speaking directly to the leadership, he says:

Look therefore to the coming judgment. You, therefore, who have more than enough, seek out those who are hungry, until the tower is finished. For after the tower is finished, you may want to do good, but you will not have the chance. Beware, therefore, you who exult in your wealth, lest those in need groan, and their groaning rise up to the Lord, and you together with your good things be shut outside the door of the tower. Now, therefore, I say to you [tois – plural] who lead the church and occupy the seats of honor: do not be like the sorcerers. For the sorcerers carry their drugs in bottles, but you carry your drug and poison in your heart. You are calloused and do not want to cleanse your hearts and to mix your wisdom together in a clean heart, in order that you may have mercy from the great King. Watch out, therefore, children, lest these divisions of yours [among you elders] deprive you of your life. How is it that you desire to instruct God’s elect, while you yourselves have no instruction? Instruct one another, therefore, and have peace among yourselves, in order that I too may stand joyfully before the Father and give an account on behalf of all of you to your Lord.” (Vis 3.9)

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/blog-post.html

You cannot possibly speak about "basic beliefs from the beginning" with respect to a papacy that was there and visible and in charge. There was no such thing.

Leo said...

"You cannot possibly speak about "basic beliefs from the beginning" with respect to a papacy that was there and visible and in charge. There was no such thing."

John, the concept of the keys really does follow as that of the prime minister which would be handed down to each succeeding prime minister.

It does make perfect sense that Christ would maintain an unbroken succession of authority.

However, it is not like that of a CEO as such. The pope does not hire and fire bishops. This is why Paul warned to be careful whom hands were laid on, since it was the transmission of authority.

Once a priest or bishop has been ordained, they are such for all eternity. Their faculties may be taken away, but they must, under pain of mortal sin, administer the Sacraments as necessary in the case of any life and death emergency.

The priesthood, like the Sacraments, are protected by God. Thus, you will never hear of the breaking of the Confessional seal even when someone abandons the priesthood and attacks the Church...yet, this would be a perfect way to destroy confidence in the Sacrament.

So too, is the papacy. Christ had the Seat of Moses, which had the high priest to whom authority was given. Heck, He commanded His apostles to obey those who sat on the Seat of Moses, even when they were evil.

The papacy is not some arbitrary invention...it was set up by Christ. Think about it this way. Why would Christ even bother to pray ONLY for Peter so that he could pray his brothers back in?

There are many teachings, such as contraception, that have been believed by the faithful and are not CLEARLY in scripture. That does not make them false.

We believe not in 'scripture alone', but in 'the Word of God alone'. We hold that many of the things that were not written down in scripture, were, in fact, handed down orally and written down elsewhere. Although there are many truths in scripture, there are also truths elsewhere.

The pope is not a 'king' who lords it over others. He teaches Catholics and other Christians, expecting more of Catholics since to whom much is given, much will be expected. He is there as the vicar of Christ and is appointed as shepherd to guide the flock.

Leo said...

By the way, each priest has great authority conferred to him. For example, He can make decisions in the field, so to speak and deal with pastoral issues as he deems necessary. There are also offices such as exorcist and here is one such priest who has fought for the pro life cause:

http://www.catholic.org/hf/faith/story.php?id=37447

Constantine said...

Leo wrote…
It does make perfect sense that Christ would maintain an unbroken succession of authority.

Of course it does. But that succession is the succession of the Holy Spirit and not of men. It’s very easy to demonstrate historically that there were many gaps in “papal” succession so the “unbroken-ness” required by Vatican I is merely a fiction. And since when did Christ have to make perfect sense? What is sensical about an ever living God who died on a cross? Or about having to die to live? Or being born again? All of those are non-sensical and central to the Christian message.
What is richly ironic is the only apparent apostolic succession in the Bible is from Paul to Timothy. Timothy was the bishop at Ephesus so were we to follow this “unbroken, apostolic” succession, we’d have to all be Greek Orthodox!

The papacy is not some arbitrary invention...it was set up by Christ.

It is completely arbitrary. There have been married popes, and celibate popes. There have been non-believing popes and believers. There have been popes appointed by kings and rich families and those elected by the faithful. The institution is the very embodiment of “arbitrary”.
If Christ established the “papacy”, He didn’t do a very good job then did He? Because if He set it up, why didn’t Peter realize it? (Acts 10:26) Or the other apostles? (Acts 8:14) Or when the apostles were arguing about who was the leader, why didn’t Christ reaffirm his establishment of the papacy? (Mark 9:33-35; Luke 22:24-30)

In fact, the “papacy” didn’t exist until the 11th century:

“The new status of the apostolic see was reflected in the emergence of a new term, apparently first used by Clement I in 1047: papacy, papatus. Constructed on the analogy of bishopric, episcopatus, it expressed the idea that there existed a rank or order higher than that of bishop.”
Morris, Colin.

The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 to 1250. Oxford University Press, 1989, reprinted 2001. P. 107.

There are many teachings, such as contraception, that have been believed by the faithful and are not CLEARLY in scripture. That does not make them false.

You should study the history of contraception a little more thoroughly because it is another one of those thoroughly modern Catholic claims that has absolutely no historical validity. And you should really be careful about calling one of your popes, “unfaithful”.

You see, Pope Innocent III at the beginning of the 13th century came to the aid of one of his priests who had coerced his mistress into having an abortion. If the priest had indeed done so, he would have been subject to the imposition of “irregularity” – he would have lost his priestly functions. But Pope Innocent maintained that since the fetus had not been “vivified” nothing sinful had happened. The Pope supported the priest’s efforts to abort his girlfriend’s baby. Life at the moment of conception is an entirely modern belief in the Roman Catholic Church. I bet they didn’t teach you that in CCD class, huh?

The pope is not a 'king' who lords it over others. He teaches Catholics and other Christians, expecting more of Catholics since to whom much is given, much will be expected. He is there as the vicar of Christ and is appointed as shepherd to guide the flock.

Christ is in no need of a human vicar because He left us His Spirit (John 16:7-11). What do you think a man can do that God’s Spirit cannot?

I hope you will be able to engage in a more objective study of history, Leo. The truth will “set you free”.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving.

Truth Unites... and Divides said...

"You see, Pope Innocent III at the beginning of the 13th century came to the aid of one of his priests who had coerced his mistress into having an abortion. If the priest had indeed done so, he would have been subject to the imposition of “irregularity” – he would have lost his priestly functions. But Pope Innocent maintained that since the fetus had not been “vivified” nothing sinful had happened. The Pope supported the priest’s efforts to abort his girlfriend’s baby. Life at the moment of conception is an entirely modern belief in the Roman Catholic Church. I bet they didn’t teach you that in CCD class, huh?"

Constantine, you wouldn't happen to have a RC source online available for that, would you?

Constantine said...

Hi TUAD,

I took that information from a work entitled, "Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists" by the Roman Catholic scholar John T. Noonan, Jr.

Here is the entire paragraph...

A contrary view was manifested in canon 20 of the title “Voluntary and Chance Homicide.” Canon 20, Sicut ex, was a letter of Innocent III to a Carthusian priory about a monk who had caused his mistress to abort. The Pope held that the monk was not irregular if the fetus was not “vivified.” The wider significance of the letter arose from the usual rules for imposing irregularity. Irregularity was no mere technical deficiency, but a state in which the right to perform sacerdotal functions was suspended…Irregularity was automatically incurred by a cleric guilty of homicide (Decretals 5.12.6). Hence, if the Carthusian monk was not irregular, the plain implication was that no homicide occurred in a stopping of life prior to the time a fetus received a soul. Sicut ex cast doubt on the literalness of Si aliquis, which held contraception to be homicide.” P. 232 ff.

I can't find anything online as Noonan's books is apparently still under copyright and Google Books only has snippets of it.

I hope that helps.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Constantine said...

This is another great example of the shifting sand of Roman Catholicism.

From George Weigel discussing the pope's recent bull, condomus permitimus:(http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/253679/deflating-nyt-condom-scoop-george-weigel?page=1)

The first false assumption beneath the latest round of media condomania is that the Church’s settled teaching on sexual morality is a policy or a position that can change, as tax rates can be changed or one’s position on whether India should be a permanent member of the U.N. Security Council can change. To be sure, the theological articulation of the Catholic ethic of sexual love has been refined over centuries; it has come to an interesting point of explication in recent years in John Paul II’s “theology of the body.” But it has not changed and it will not change because it cannot be changed. And it cannot change or be changed because the Catholic ethic of sexual love is an expression of fundamental moral truths that can be known by reason and are illuminated by revelation.

Just to recap:

1. It is a false assumption to think that RC's "settled teaching on sexuality" can change.

2. The "theological articulation" of said "settled" beliefs has "been refined" (read, "have changed".)

3. Catholic ethic of sexual love cannot change.

Several questions seems to present themselves:

1. How can one know the true, unchanging teachings of the Catholic church if its theological articulation changes? How would I know your name is "George" if my vocal articulation changed to "John"?

2. From an earlier post, we know of a 13th century pope who did not view abortion as murder. Is that an indication of a "settled teaching" or is it a "refined theological articulation"?

3. If Catholic teaching on sexual morality is settled, then why does Pius XII contradict Augustine with regard to the rhythm method? Can Pius's reversal of Augustine be considered a "refinement" over the centuries is it all just part of the doctrine bovinus fecalus maximus? (Maximum B.S.)

This RC certainty is really hard to pin down....

Happy Thanksgiving!

CathApol said...

Scott Windsor here says “that (James) White and (William) Webster try to make [the case] that the entire doctrine of the papacy hinges on and/or was created due to this forged document. This could not be further from the truth.”

First, this is not at all what they said.

Yes, that IS what they said, White confirmed his intention in an IRC chat, which I thought the logfile was attached to my original article on the web, and I see that it is not. I will try to find that again. He (White) did confirm precisely what I represented him as saying.

BTW- I've been out of town since the holiday last week, it's going to take some time to catch up.

Scott<<<

CathApol said...

I will add, Mr. Bugay took my statement out of context too, what White/Webster assert is that St. Thomas Aquinas built his whole case on the "False Decretals" and/or the DoC. I went on to demonstrate that assertion was false as well.

Scott<<<

John Bugay said...

Scott -- Here is the main idea:

The real point that William Webster is making is that Rome has no problem in using lies, forgeries, whatever misinformation it can find to press into service the notion that the pope is in charge of the whole world.

I don't know what James White said, and frankly, if he was wrong, I'm sure he's man enough to say so.

Meanwhile, it's well known (or it should be well known) that (a) forgeries such as Donation of Constantine, The False Decretals, Pseudo-Dionysius, and other just simply false, false documents were out there and (b) Aquinas relied on these documents to one degree or another. In the case of Pseudo-Dionysius, quite heavily.

I haven't tracked all of this through his writings, but maybe some enterprising young Protestant student will, and they will find that, at a bare minimum, this affected the Catholic doctrine of God. (John Frame has traced this in his "The Doctrine of God".)

So if you want to quibble about words, go ahead. The point we are all trying to make is, "garbage in, garbage out". That is the general principle.

CathApol said...

Mr. Bugay,
Your confidence in White's ability to admit he is wrong far exceeds my own. White has had ample opportunities to do so, and I can only think of ONE where he not quite says he was wrong, but does admit to a contradiction within his own work.

Scott<<<

Responses to this series you've posted will be forthcoming, but I've been a bit preoccupied by other things (not the least of which was a car accident I was involved in - everyone is OK, except the cars).

John Bugay said...

Scott, I'm sorry about the car accident, and I'm glad that everyone is all right. I was in that spot a few years ago; just getting the cars/insurance thing taken care of is rough.

You may be interested to know that this recently appeared on the AOMin site. Dr. White didn't write it, but I'm sure this is something he fully agrees with:

Avoid arrogance. If you make a mistake, don't be afraid to admit that you erred and to correct your mistake. This will, of course, damage the patina of perfection that you had going for you, but it is the better course of action.

I'm not saying you have to grovel, but simply admit your mistakes and move on. Learn from the experience, and remember that you are merely a human being who can and does err. Maybe your honesty will win over your opponent, maybe it will lead him to mock you. You cannot control that, but you can maintain your own integrity by correcting your mistakes.


http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3276

James Swan said...

Hey Scott,

Speaking of information that needs to be corrected, the following reference is in an article on your www.americancatholictruthsociety.com website:

Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works,
English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St.Louis], Volume 4, 694


This reference is totally bogus. It's not even close to that which the article purports it to support.

Anybody checking these references, or do you just let bogus stuff like this get posted?

I mean, who would ever check a reference like this?... Well, I would...

James Swan said...

And one other thing Scott... there is no page 694 in the "English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St.Louis], Volume 4."

Page 694 in Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, vol. 4
doesn't have anything to do with the Luther quote on your website.

If I had to guess...whoever did the article on your website did what is called a "cut and paste"... the favorite tool of Romanist apologetics!

Turretinfan said...

Mr. Windsor:

Listening to the Dividing Line program for the last few years, I've heard Dr. White acknowledge mistakes that he's made at least three times that I can remember.

-TurretinFan

Scott Windsor said...

Hi James, you wrote:
Speaking of information that needs to be corrected, the following reference is in an article on your www.americancatholictruthsociety.com website:

Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works,
English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St.Louis], Volume 4, 694

This reference is totally bogus. It's not even close to that which the article purports it to support.

Anybody checking these references, or do you just let bogus stuff like this get posted?

I mean, who would ever check a reference like this?... Well, I would...


Well, first off - did you read the entire page? I cited MY source at the bottom of it. Secondly, no - I do not knowingly allow for bogus citations. I appreciate you pointing this out and will look into it further and correct as necessary.

Scott<<<

Scott Windsor said...

TF, you wrote:
Listening to the Dividing Line program for the last few years, I've heard Dr. White acknowledge mistakes that he's made at least three times that I can remember.

I only speak from my experiences with White. I do not regularly listen to his DL (quite rarely, in fact). He "broadcasts" at a time for one who works 8-5 to be virtually impossible to call in without taking time off work. Anyway, I am not saying White has never admitted to a mistake, only that he has not done so TO ME, when clearly mistakes have been pointed out - many of them. He did acknowledge ONCE to having contradictory references (to the date of St. Augustine's Sermon 131) but never came out and said one of those dates were wrong - and CONTINUES to have the wrong date on his website. Again, I only speak from MY experiences with him - there I stand, I can do no other. ;-)

Scott<<<

James Swan said...

Well, first off - did you read the entire page? I cited MY source at the bottom of it. Secondly, no - I do not knowingly allow for bogus citations. I appreciate you pointing this out and will look into it further and correct as necessary.

Scott, before you post something on website titled "Catholic Truth Society" it would probably be in your best interest to make sure the material you post is "truth".

I suggest going through all the quotes from this link:
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/reformers_on_mary.htm

...and doing a little background work.

Here's a freebee to help you on your way:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/luther-infusion-of-marys-soul-was.html

I've done a lot of the work for you already on most of the material on that bogus web page you have up as "Catholic truth".

Regards,
James

Scott Windsor said...

Martin Luther, Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works,
English translation edited by J. Pelikan [Concordia: St.Louis], Volume 4, 694

This reference is totally bogus. It's not even close to that which the article purports it to support.

Thanks James, I am working on this now...

Scott<<<

Ben m said...

Scott and James,

Gentlemen, re: this, see this .

Source: Weimar edition of Martin Luther's Works, Volume 4, pp. 693-694 - Latin text

Volume 4 (published in 1883) also at the Internet Archive

CathApol said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
James Swan said...

Ben,

Great find. I stand corrected as to the extent of the falsity of the reference.

Scott- save your money on Grisar, his books on Luther are online.

As to checking other Romanist websites (Madrid, etc), your best bet is to stick with my post here:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/luther-infusion-of-marys-soul-was.html

As to Luther's changing view on the Immaculate Conception, the other Romanist apologist you mention has conceded that I'm correct on this. See:

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/1544-luther-explains-about-mary-and.html

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/response-to-paul-hoffer-on-luther.html

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/luther-god-has-formed-soul-and-body-of.html

http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/09/did-martin-luther-believe-in-immaculate.html

On your website you state:

Correction on this citation, which many other Catholic apologetics sites have as well. This quote actually comes from a sermon preached by Luther ("On the Day of the Conception of the Mother of God," 1527) and was published with his permission, but prior to the end of his life it is not found in published editions of his works. Modern Protestant apologists speculate that he rejected the Immaculate Conception, but this is an argument from silence.

Keep in mind, not only did Luther delete the part about the immaculate conception in the sermon in question, he re-wrote the ending.

I suggest working carefully through the links above, rather than the Internet Romanist sources you mentioned. Madrid is fairly clueless on this stuff, as is Taylor Marshall. The other Romanist source, well, good luck working through that mess.

Ben m said...

James,

Great find. I stand corrected as to the extent of the falsity of the reference.

Cool! Thanks bro! At least now there's one less Luther quote to source. But now where does one go to find a good English translation of this entire sermon?

Scott- save your money on Grisar, his books on Luther are online.

James is right about this (gasp!) ;) By all means Scott, save your bread. All 6 volumes of Grisar's "Luther" are online. Of course, there is a one volume abridgment - but as you can see, it's a bit pricey!

James Swan said...

Cool! Thanks bro! At least now there's one less Luther quote to source. But now where does one go to find a good English translation of this entire sermon?

Joel Baseley recently put out an English translation in his translation of the Festival Sermons of Martin Luther (Michigan: Mark V Publications, 2005) pp. 42-51. He leaves out Luther's deleted ending- because it wasn't in the 1584 volume of the Kirchenpostille published in Wittenberg he translated from.

I also have another translation made for me privately, which may be placed on line by its author at some point.

A longer partial translation URL can be found listed on my blog:
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/10/luther-infusion-of-marys-soul-was.html

James Swan said...

there is a one volume abridgment - but as you can see, it's a bit pricey!

That's odd, my used copy of this only cost around 15 bucks. I bought it probably back in 2002.