The Spirit of Vatican II

"Is the Holy Spirit really guiding the church today?" My answer is: Of course! Probably never before in the history of the church has there been greater de facto evidence of the grace-filled presence of the Holy Spirit. Go to almost any Catholic parish that is following the spirit of Vatican II and you will experience what I am talking about." [The Subversion of Vatican II]

Compare to:

The story of Cardinal Ottaviani having his microphone turned off by the liberal bishops during the Second Vatican Council has been told by many who attended the Council. Every time I hear or think about it, it makes my blood boil. Another account posted on Rorate Caeli today gives you an idea of what kind of mean spirited people were trying to, and eventually, for all intents and purposes, did take over the Council. In fact, the bishop who was involved in silencing the good Cardinal that day was one of the overseers who helped present the names of the bishops and theologians who would later draw up the new schemas. As you may or may not know, Ottoviani was one of the those who wanted to keep the earlier drafted documents, which opposed the "new theologians". Can you imagine, a whole group of assembled bishops, laughing and mocking their fellow bishop after shutting off his microphone? Is that the what many consider the "Spirit" of the Second Vatican Council to be? [Famous Vatican II Moments-Ottaviani's Microphone]

Confessions of Faith and the Champions of Catholicism

Update! (3/7/12, 8:51 P.M.) See Addendum below

I don't believe the gift of prophecy still functions today. Yesterday as I quickly posted my previous blog entry No Creed But Christ: Down With the Westminster Confession, I had a gut feeling that some Roman Catholic blogger was going to read this entry and post something. I didn't know which one it was going to be, but lo and behold, the winner is: The Catholic Champion. The Champion blog states,

Mr Swan gives us all a clear example that for him, Scripture just isn't enough. Sure he tries to philosophize his way to having a man-made creed, claiming that it is a subordinate authority to Scripture, yet, his reasoning falls far short of making any rational sense.

I'm going to look beyond the obvious ignorance demonstrated by the Catholic Champion in regard to the fact that Lutheran, Reformed, and Presbyterian churches have had confessions for centuries. He seems shocked to have find out that Protestant churches actually believe in sola scriptura and  use confessions of faith. As an aside,  I would like to remind the Catholic Champion that his Roman Church actually exterminated one of the authors  of one of the confessions of faith I hold to.

Let's see how rational the Catholic Champion rebuttal will be. Will the rebuttal be free of private interpretation of either the Bible and history? Let's give the Catholic Champion three strikes to see if he hits the ball or strikes out.

I fail to remember the passage of Sacred Scripture where it says that man should go forth and make their own creeds.

Strike one. Private interpretation.

In fact, a creed worthy of belief would only be capable of being so had it been assembled by the direct authority of Christ through His Church. In other words, it is worthy of belief because it is part of the Church's ability to say it is worthy of belief.

Strike two. Unproven presupposition held personally by the Catholic Champion.

Christ had given Christians an apostolic Church with His authority stamp on it to form a believable and authentic Creed. Likewise the Church would formulate it further with that same authority at her Ecumenical Councils. No group of men merely claiming to be believers of Christ or followers of the Scriptures have any authority to assemble their own Creed.

Strike three. Private interpretation of church history.

Above you'll notice that each of these points is the result of... the private interpretation of the Bible and history of the Catholic Champion. Isn't it ironic that only Roman Catholics are allowed to use private interpretation? Shouldn't it be enough to have an infallible magisterium interpreting the Bible and history? It looks to me like the paradigm believed by the Catholic Champion is bit more Protestant than he realizes.

Addendum
I see the Catholic Champion has been awakened and is engaging in his pro-wrestling-like method of dispute and dialog. For those of you who are new visitors, a few years back he used to post comments here, typically ornery and volatile. To his credit, he now contains much of his hostility to his own blog, and for that, I'm most grateful.

The Catholic Champion appears to be unaware of the point I was making, so I’ll simply state it for him:

First, Protestant creeds and confessions are nothing more than a group of people agreeing together as to what they think the Bible is saying. That is, the relationship of a confession to Scriptures is, in a sense, two-way communication: God speaks, we hear those words, digest what he said, and respond back saying what we collectively hear. That’s a basic sense of what a confession is. “Basic” is the key. Contrary to the Catholic Champion, there’s nothing in this that contradicts sola scriptua, any more than my writing a blog article citing Scripture is a denial of sola scriptura.

Second, Roman apologists like the Catholic Champion really function with Protestant capital. They set forth their opinions and interpretations of what the Roman Church means, while at the same time chastising Protestants for interpreting the Bible.

Using Catholic Champion logic (that is, similar logic to that above in which a confession of faith disproves the sole sufficiency of Scripture), let's apply this same logic to that ultimate authority that has enveloped the Catholic Champion. Shouldn't it simply “be enough” for him to point me to the Vatican website or somewhere where the infallible interpretations of all things Romanist are found? In other words, the Catholic Champion violates the sufficiency of his own ultimate authority (an authority which is supposed to be his interpreter!) by putting forth his opinion as to what that authority means and says, this while saying confessions imply “scripture isn’t enough” for Protestants. Therefore, if confessions prove that "the scripture just isn't enough" the opinions of the Catholic Champion interpreting Romanist reality for me prove "Rome has spoken, it is settled" isn't enough for him either.

And one last thing: when the champion says: "I fail to remember the passage of Sacred Scripture where it says that man should go forth and make their own creeds" he implicitly is affirming that he understands the Bible, all on his own, just like one of those renegade protestant sects he so despises. To be consistent, he should have said, "I fail to remember the passage of Sacred Scripture interpreted by the Roman Magisterium where it says that man should go forth and make their own creeds."

How does an infallible Magisterium cause such quandaries for itself?

I intend to get back to David Waltz vs. Peter Lampe, Lord willing, I really I do, but I ran across this opportunity to provoke the kind of cognitive dissonance that only “The Catholic Champion” could deny without a thought, with just a wave of his mighty hand.

“Da Champ” has decided to comment on my recent blogpost, Vatican II vs Trent on “Holy Orders”. I had posted this from Kilmartin:

In Trent’s Decree on Holy Orders, Canon 6 states that there is in the Church “a hierarchy instituted by divine ordination, which consists of bishops, presbyters and ministers.” While this teaching conforms to the idea of existence of such offices from the beginning of the Church, it does not harmonize with the historical facts. The Second Vatican Council’s Lumen Gentium [28] offers a more realistic view based on a more secure historical consciousness and exegesis of Scripture. Here we read “Thus the divinely instituted ecclesiastical ministry is exercised in different degrees by those who even from ancient times (ab antiquo) have been called bishops, priests, and deacons.” Hence in no way does Vatican II affirm that the priesthood was instituted at the Last Supper in the sense understood by Trent (pg 378).

Da poor Champ, he doesn’t like Kilmartin. He says:

Unfortunately the Church hierarchy has been rather lax in formally condemning individual theologians who have dissenting opinions, who then publish them all over the internet to be consumed by those seeking information on a particular theological subject. … Further down in the article Kilmartin also attacks the scholastic definition given by the Church at Trent concerning Transubstantiation.

Lord willing, I’ll get to that, too, Champ. Meanwhile, in discussing this work yesterday with Raymond, it came up that Vatican II had caused all kinds of problems for understanding Vatican I. I was recalling a work I had read some time ago: Michael J. Buckley, S.J., “Papal Primacy and the Episcopate: towards a relational understanding,” New York: Crossroad Herder, © 1998, from the “Ut Unum Sint” series. I’m wondering if Buckley is one of Da Champ’s favorites? Ratzinger certainly likes him. From the Acknowledgements:

As this book goes to press, its author should pause over the gratitude he owes to others, a debt he would gladly pay:

To Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, for his gracious invitation to participate in the symposium sponsored by the Congregation on the “primacy of the successor of Peter”;

To Archbishop Tarcissio Bertone, S.D.B., secretary to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, for his unfailing kindness and facilitation of the symposium in innumerable details;

To my colleagues in the department of theology at Boston College for their discussion of an earlier draft of the monograph that is now this small book;

To Joseph Komonochak, Peter Hunnermann, and Clifford Kossel, S.J., for their review of the several drafts of the document and their suggestions for its betterment.

To the members of the doctoral seminar at Boston College on primacy and episcopate for the analysis, interpretation, and arguments that occupied many hours of the Wednesday afternoons of the fall of 1996;

To Francis A. Sullivan, S.J., and Michael Himes for their insightful and collaborative direction of this doctrinal seminar that provided the context in which this book was written;

And above all, to my two generous research assistants, Joseph Curran and Brian Hughes, for their hours of scholarly digging in libraries together with their unflagging, competent help in the completion of this work.

I’m sure you’re asking yourself, “what, pray tell, is the fruit of this love-fest?”

Certainly you recognize some of the names. Ratzinger, Sullivan, Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. Yes, we’re all one big happy family.

Here’s what Buckley has said, what Ratzinger asked for, was improved upon by the colleagues at Boston College, and completed with the generous, unflagging, competent help of the research assistants.

The development from Pastor aeternus to Lumen Gentium, from speaking of the bishops as the episcopate to speaking of the bishops as “a college...or a college of bishops” (collegium ... seu corpus episcoporum), is far more considerable than a simple semantic shift. “Episcopate” is somewhat more abstract than “college of bishops,” and it fails to express the dynamic relationship of the bishops among themselves… (pg 77).

Just wait until you’ve got to take into account a millennium’s-worth of Orthodox (and Oriental) bishops who have been slighted.

By no means is that the only problem which the college of bishops initially poses. Lumen Gentium, no. 22, did not include in its description of the Episcopal college the local churches of which the bishops were shepherds and representatives. If one fails to place this section within the context of Lumen Gentium no. 23, one would have an understanding of the college of bishops without the simultaneous and explicit recognition of the communion of churches, indeed, without mention of local churches at all. The perspective would remain that of a universalist ecclesiology, and the college of bishops would read as if it were primarily a governing board of the whole Church (80).

Then there are the vital relationship between the bishop and the local church within which he is to represent the leadership and the sanctifying presence of Christ (81) … and the Apostolic Tradition which insists that the bishop is to be chosen by all of the people and that this selection is to be approved by the assembled [local] bishops and elders (86). Buckley writes, in summary:

Two questions arise in this context. Whether the present settlement actually detracts from the full vigor of the episcopate and whether papal restoration of ancient legislation on the selection of bishops and their stability within their sees could contribute significantly to the strengthening of the episcopate and the local churches today. Could the apostolic See further effectively its responsibilities simply by restoring what has been taken [or, what the papacy has usurped for itself] over the centuries? This would be to retrieve in a very different way that papal leadership whose bent was the strength and freedom of the local church. Neither problem is an easy one to resolve, but both merit serious study and each touches upon both components of this essay (94).

So, Champ, it appears that not only has the divinely instituted hierarchy “been rather lax in formally condemning individual theologians who have dissenting opinions,” in “stopping those modernists who recreate history to deny the definitive teachings of the Catholic Church,” of squelching those with “modernist opinions who contradict her at every turn.” It appears as if they are inviting them to write these things.

But Champ, I’ll make this easy for you. I’ll give you an exit, one that preserves the integrity of both hierarchy and theologians: blame it on the research assistants.

What they knew and when they knew it: the Roman Catholic position on the papacy

In comments below, Matthew Bellisario made the following accusation of me:

Bugay is nothing more than an ex-Catholic with a chip on his shoulder as well as a historical revisionist who places his faith in the historical "scholars" of his choice. Quite simply, he has no faith in God, but only in his own ability to wade through the historians who he thinks agree with him, nothing more. Quite sad indeed.

This really isn't about me personally, but I'm willing to put this up for discussion. But I am most interested in talking about "historical revisionism," especially in the context of the papacy, and especially in the wake of my post below, to the effect that the papacy should be abolished. Especially with knowledgeable Catholics who really know what they believe.

Another commenter, from that same thread, accused me of being "clueless as to what [Roman Catholic] positions actually are."

Well then, in this post and in future posts, I want to state, as clearly as I can, using sources that are as reliably Roman Catholic as I can find, as to what the Roman Catholic position actually is.

I've already started to do that. In a recent post, I introduced Father Adrian Fortescue and listed the four "theses to be proved" from his book "The Early Papacy: to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451." These are:

1. The pope is the chief bishop, primate, and leader of the whole Church of Christ on earth.

2. He has episcopal jurisdiction over all members of the Church.

3. To be a member of the Catholic Church, a man must be in communion with the Pope.

4. The providential guidance of God will see to it that the Pope shall never commit the Church to error in any matter of religion.

According to Fortescue, Catholics don't really have to prove that there was an early papacy, because they believe what they do, really, on the authority of the "living authority" today. But nevertheless, he said, "we have all the evidence we can require that the Catholic Church in the first four and a half centuries did believe what we believe about the papacy" (pg 30).

I'm working on posts that look at of each of these issues, because it is important to understand what the early church believed -- "What they knew and when they knew it," to paraphrase a famous Watergate-era senator.

Fortescue said that these four things are all things that the earliest church believed. And he said also that "development" was simply a matter such that "when a point of faith is disputed, when some heresy arises, the Church makes her mind clear by defining more explicitly what she has always held." (35)

So his assumption is that, not only were there snippets and glimmers of a belief in a papacy, but that the four beliefs above were fairly widespread, and only when one of these "points of faith" was "disputed," then did "the Church make her mind clear by defining more explicitly what she has always held."

But all of this depends on something else, he said. "All of this depends further on three more theses, into which we cannot enter here." (Pg 51)

These three theses that he did not touch are:

1. "That our Lord gave these rights to the Apostle St. Peter."

2. "That St. Peter must have a successor in them."

3. "That his successor is the Bishop of Rome."

He said, "To establish these here would take too much space. We must be content to prove our four points directly as set out at the beginning." And of course, as I related, Fortescue said, for some reason, that Catholics get to presuppose some things about "the Church":

All we suppose, before we come to the Church, is that our Lord Jesus Christ was a man sent by God and whom we must follow if we wish to serve God in the proper way; that he founded one visible Church, to which his followers should belong; that this Church is, as a matter of historic fact, the communion of Rome (not, however, supposing anything about the papacy, but supposing only visible unity and historic continuity). This much must be presupposed and therefore does not rest on the authority of the Church. All else does. (Pgs 26-27, the parenthetical note is Fortescue's).

I will grant part of this presupposition to Catholics. I will grant that "Jesus Christ was a man sent by God whom we must follow if we wish to serve God in the proper way." I also understand that Christ founded a church, but I will contest the statement that "his followers should belong" to it.

But I would rather say, Christ promised to build a church, an "assembly," against which the gates of hell would not prevail, and his true followers de facto belong to this assembly, which is also called "his body". That is, once individuals "repent and believe the good news" (Mark 1:15 NIV) or they "Repent and [are] baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" [Acts 2:38] or they "Believe in the Lord Jesus" [Acts 16:31] or they "see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn" to be healed by God [Acts 28], that Christ himself makes that person "a member of the church" and that this invisible church is the true church.

See John 4:23 for clarification -- "But the hour is coming, and is now here, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for the Father is seeking such people to worship him. God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." That is the "one true church" And as Paul said, it is "us who believe" are the church, the body of Christ (Eph 1:18-19). If anyone wants to contest what I've said here, I'm open to it. But if you want to claim for the church anything more than this, you have to argue for it.

And I will strenuously contest that the church is, "as a matter of historic fact, the communion of Rome." It is vital for Roman Catholics to prove that point, and not to simply assume it.

Let me pause here to ask if any Catholics believe that I have (aside from how you might argue with my characterization of the church) stated this improperly, or if I have misrepresented anything?


Given that Fortescue has listed his "four theses to be proved" separately from the "three more theses" he provided, and given that he says "That our Lord gave these rights to the Apostle St. Peter," it seems that the Catholic argument could be stated more succinctly if we state the three theses in the context of the first four, to come up with something like this:

1. Our Lord gave these rights to the Apostle St. Peter:

1a. To be the chief bishop, primate, and leader of the whole Church of Christ on earth.
1b. He has episcopal jurisdiction over all members of the Church.
1c. To be a member of the Catholic Church, a man must be in communion with the Pope.
1d. The providential guidance of God will see to it that the Pope shall never commit the Church to error in any matter of religion.

2. That St. Peter must have a successor in these rights.

3. That St. Peter's successor is the Bishop of Rome.

Now, do any of you Catholics out there disagree that this is what Roman Catholics of 1920 believed about the papacy? I grew up as a child of Catholic parents whose understanding of Catholicism was shaped in the 1950's, "the real Catholic Moment," according to Patrick Buchanan. And I very much believed these things to be true.

Am I mischaracterizing any of this? Do you think that Fortescue is somehow not reliable reporter of what Catholics believed in the 1920's? (or the 1950's? Or ever? Given that he was a prolific writer for The Catholic Encyclopedia.) That he didn't know what he was talking about?

Do any of you thoroughly knowledgeable Catholics, you "Catholic Champions" have anything to add to this. Do you wish to contest anything as I've portrayed it here? The last thing I want is to be "clueless." Have I represented your case properly?

Matthew Bellisario Twisting and Denying Scripture in the Service of Mother Church

Matthew Bellisario: In fact, all St. Paul had was the Old Testament which was written in Greek, known as the Septuagint, and his interpretations were accepted by the illumination of the Holy Spirit, given to him by the authority passed down to him through the apostles. If you recall, even after Our Lord called him, he still went to have hands laid upon him to receive the apostolic authority and gifts of the Holy Spirit. (Acts 9:17-19) Only then was he “sent.” How was Saint Paul able to convert people without a Bible? The answer is simple, he did so by the authority of the apostles which were given authority to preach the Gospel from Christ Himself.


God calling and sending Paul prior to any laying on of hands, Acts 9:13-19: But Ananias answered, "Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to your saints at Jerusalem. And here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call on your name." But the Lord said to him, "Go, for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the children of Israel. For I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name." So Ananias departed and entered the house. And laying his hands on him he said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who appeared to you on the road by which you came has sent me so that you may regain your sight and be filled with the Holy Spirit." And immediately something like scales fell from his eyes, and he regained his sight. Then he rose and was baptized; and taking food, he was strengthened.


Paul on his own calling: But when he who had set me apart before I was born, and who called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son to me, in order that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately consult with anyone; nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. … And from those who seemed to be influential (what they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality)—those, I say, who seemed influential added nothing to me.


Darrel Bock, Commentary on Act 9:17-19: It is significant that here a non-apostle is the mediator of the Spirit. The church's ministry is expanding in ways that mean that non-apostles will do important work.


(In Acts 9, Ananias is "a certain disciple." In Acts 22, he is described as "a devout man, according to the law, well spoken of by all the Jews who lived there." In neither case does he have any authority at all.)

The Church was Born Into the Scriptures

The email announcing this book just came in today -- selected writings of D.A. Carson on Scripture. Here's a brief description from the blurb:

"A collection of five essays and nine book reviews from a respected scholar’s reflection on the doctrine of Scripture. God’s Word has always had enemies, but in recent years the inspiration and authority of Scripture have been attacked with renewed vigor. Respected scholar D. A. Carson has written widely on the nature of Scripture over the past thirty years, and here presents a timely collection of his work ..." (From the introduction).

Sort of as a tribute to some of the commenters here who may be tempted to think that the Church came before the New Testament, Carson provides an exceptional summary of how the New Testament Canon came into being, and the church's role in that process.

* * *

5. Some have given the entirely false impression that the early church took an inordinately long time to recognize the authority of the New Testament documents. In fact it is vital to distinguish the recognition of the authority of these documents from a universal recognition as to the content of a closed list of New Testament documents. The New Testament books were circulating a long time before the latter happened, most of them accepted everywhere as divinely authoritative, and all of them accepted in at least large parts of the church. Most of the New Testament documents are cited as authorities very early indeed; this includes the four Gospels, Acts, the thirteen Pauline letters, 1 Peter, and 1 John. Most of the rest of the contours of the New Testament canon were well in place by the time of Eusebius, in the early fourth century.

6. The criteria by which the early church agreed that certain books were authoritative were basically three. First, the church Fathers looked for apostolicity, i.e., a document had to be written by an apostle or by someone in immediate contact with the apostles. Thus Mark was understood to have the witness of Peter behind him; Luke was connected with Paul. As soon as the Fathers discussed the possibility, they rejected any document under the suspicion of pseudonymity (written by someone other than the claimed author). Second, a basic requirement for canonicity was conformity to the “rule of faith,” i.e., to basic, orthodox Christianity recognized as normative in the churches. Third, and scarcely less important, the document had to have enjoyed widespread and continuous usage by the churches. Incidentally, this criterion requires the passage of time to be useful, and helps to explain why so much time elapsed before the “closing” of the canon (i.e., before the church had almost universally agreed on the status of all twenty-seven New Testament documents). One of the reasons Hebrews was not accepted in the West as early as some letters was that it was anonymous (not pseudonymous!), and in fact it was more quickly accepted in the East where many (wrongly) thought it to have been written by Paul.

7. Perhaps the most important thing to recognize is that although there was no ecclesiastical machinery or hierarchy, akin to the medieval papacy, to enforce decisions, eventually almost all of the universal church came to recognize the same twenty-seven books. In other words, this was not so much “official” recognition as the people of God in many different places coming to recognize what other believers elsewhere had also found to be true. The point must be constantly emphasized.

The fact that substantially the whole church came to recognize the same twenty-seven books as canonical is remarkable when it is remembered that the result was not contrived. All that the several churches throughout the Empire could do was to witness to their own experience with the documents and share whatever knowledge they might have about their origin and character. When consideration is given to the diversity in cultural backgrounds and in orientation to the essentials of the Christian faith within the churches, their common agreement about which books belonged to the New Testament serves to suggest that this final decision did not originate solely at the human level. (Glenn W. Barker, William L. Lane, and J. Ramsey Michaels, The New Testament Speaks [New York: Harper & Row, 1969], 29)

The church, then, did not confer a certain status on documents that would otherwise have lacked it, as if the church were an institution with authority independent of the Scriptures or in tandem to the Scriptures. Rather, the New Testament documents were Scripture because of what God had revealed; the church, providentially led, came to wide recognition of what God had done in his climactic self-disclosure in his Son and in the documents that bore witness to and gathered up the strands of the Son-revelation.

The Catholic Champion Speaks...

Protestants however like James Swan, and his buddy, a guy who hides himself under an alias of Turretin Fan, and another noob blogger posting at the same site by the name of John Bugay (over at blog called "Beggars All") are notorious for the rhetoric they post on their blog basically labeling any Catholic who remains Catholic a supporter or [sic] pedophilia. [source]

I rarely comment on this sort of thing. To my recollection, I have written only one significant post: Deliver Us From Evil: The Catholic Church and Pedophile Priests, and that was back in 2007.

Matthew, Can you produce any statement from me to prove I "basically label any Catholic who remains Catholic a supporter of pedophilia"? If not, you should re-word your blog entry to reflect the truth. Think before you write.

The Spirit of the Roman Church

Paul had to caution them in Romans 16: "I appeal to you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions [Greek: "dissensions"] and create obstacles contrary to the doctrine that you have been taught; avoid them. For such persons do not serve our Lord Christ, but their own appetites, and by smooth talk and flattery they deceive the hearts of the naive. For your obedience is known to all, so that I rejoice over you, but I want you to be wise as to what is good and innocent as to what is evil. The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet."

The emperor Claudius had ejected "the Jews" from Rome for "fighting" over "Chrestus". Even in Paul's day, there was tension. Clement alluded to "jealousies" at the time of Peter and Paul, that led to their deaths.

Throughout the first half of the second century, the Roman church was led by a network of presbyters in a network of house churches, and these presbyters fought among themselves as to who was greatest. I've quoted Hermas from "The Shepherd of Hermas as saying, "They had a certain jealousy of one another over questions of preeminence and about some kind of distinction. But they are all fools to be jealous of one another regarding preeminence.”

This fighting continued on and on.

"In 235, two rival bishops of Rome, Pontianus (230-235) and Hippolytus (c.217-235) were exiled from the city by the emperor Maximin 1 because of street fighting between their followers." (Roger Collins, "Keepers of the Keys of the Kingdom," pg. 25)

and …

"Because of the house-church system, such rival bishops could co-exist for as long as they had the backing of some of the city's many Christian groups. But the divisions usually resulted in violent clashes between the partisans of the two claimants, and in all cases the imperial government intervened to end the bloodshed and to send one or both of the rivals into exile, as happened in 235, and would do so again in 306/7 and 308." (Collins 26)

Note that in 150 they were fighting, and in 235 they were fighting, and in 306-308 they were still fighting. See a pattern? These last two incidents mentioned were during the fierce period of persecution known as "the Great Persecution," brought on by the emperor Diocletian and continued under his successors, until Constantine.

The pattern continued; as I mentioned, Damasus, "a man of much practical shrewdness and self-assertive energy" (Shotwell and Loomis, pg 595), became pope as his followers "launched an assault on the Julian basilica, seizing control of it after three days of streetfighting. When the backers of Ursinus (Damasus's opponent) occupied the Liberian basilica, it too was stormed. In the aftermath of the fighting, a neutral contemporary reported that the bodies of 137 men and women were found in the church." Collins 52). This last datum was originally reported by Owen Chadwick, "Catholicism and History: The Opening of the Vatican Archives, Cambridge 1978, pgs 110-116.

This is one reason, Matthew Bellisario, why your 19th century historians are not likely to have the whole story of the early papacy.

I doubt that we have it now, but we know more today than "the faithful" did in the 19th century.

The Catholic Champion Says: Avoid Second Vatican Council Experts

The Catholic Champion says:

"Watch out for these guys (or gals) when reading or buying Catholic books these days. Although some of what some of these theologians or authors had to say may have been OK, they have or have had a predisposition to modernism or even outright heresy, and their overall influence in my opinion, as well as many others, has been a negative one on the Church." [source]

Here's a person on the Catholic Champion list: Yves Congar

Yves M.-J. Congar, OP, (1904-95), who taught fundamental theology and ecclesiology at Le Saulchoir, a Dominican house of studies, and served as an expert for the Second Vatican Council, incorporated both historical and systematic methods in his assessment of Luther. Congar had realized a personal ecumenical vocation long before the publication of his Divided Christendom in 1937, which established fundamental principles of Catholic ecumenical thought, many of which were incorporated into the Second Vatican Council, (Congar 1988,77-82). [Gregory Sobolewski, Martin Luther: Roman Catholic Prophet (Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2001) p. 52]

Skip the "Middle Man" as the Middle Man Requested

The Catholic Champion has presented James Swan: Begging the Question on Sola Scriptura.

A few weeks back he put forth Revolutionizing Catholic Apologetics: Cutting Out The Middle Man and also wrote this.

So, shouldn't I simply skip the middle man? Exactly why should I read Matthew's response according to Matthew's own logic? He should just simply point me to which books would be the best response. But wait... that's the middle man pointing me to the best books.

I guess I'm stuck with the middle man is some regard until the magisterium does something, anything.... but their hands are full with lawsuits and allegations this week, so perhaps next week they can work on a good list of resources in response to my comments on sola scriptura.

Since Matthew recommends skipping the middle man, the argumentation I'd use in response to him would be found here. I suggest Matthew purchase this book and get right to the source of my argumentation.

By the way, I'm still hopeful Matthew will provide a list of which "middle men" to avoid. How do we know according to Matthew who qualifies as a "middle man"? Matthew states:

"The best place to start your research is by using faithful, well educated scholars and clergy to compile your material from, as well as the original sources of the Church, Church Fathers and the Saints."

Matthew suggests cutting out the middle men will revolutionize Romanist apologetics. Every revolution requires sacrifice, so let's get started with a list:


Patrick Madrid
Steve Ray
Tim Staples
Karl Keating
Mark Shea
John Martignoni
Matthew Bellisario

I'm willing to sacrifice the insights of these guys. Whom else could we do without?

Send Some $$... Revisited

I realize that writing about Roman Catholic ministries and donations would probably cause a bit of trouble. For instance, the Catholic Champion has taken issue with my recent blog post . The majority of Mr. Bellisario's criticisms are a blatant misunderstanding of my article. He appears to think I don't believe anyone should ask for donations. This is completely false. My criticism of Catholic Answers has to do with their method of solicitation and their support (or lack thereof) from the master headquarters Rome.

In regards to comparing the support / donation methodology of Catholic Answers and Alpha and Omega Ministries, Mr. Bellisario needs to listen to CA live a bit more, and then buy something from them. There is no comparison, as he will quickly find out. You probably won't find Dr. White making heart making wrenching emotional statements like, "give us a donation because people are starving for Reformed theology," nor will you be bombarded with e-mail support letters. Keating's words are manipulative, and emotionally charged. That's the only way to separate little old ladies from their $$. In fact, since my blog article, I've gotten yet another support request from Catholic Answers.

I've tried to do whatever I can with the brief amount of time I have to help Matthew Bellisario understand things. So, in the spirit of Helping Matthew Bellisario do research, here are the points of my earlier blog post, simplified and extracted:

1. A Church that claims to be the infallible interpreter of God's revelation shouldn't need to have her interpretations interpreted by a mega-organization on another continent. Catholic Answers in effect, become the interpreter of the infallible interpreter.

2. The magisterium appears to care little about her zealous American defenders. I don't think they care or know the differences between Karl Keating, Gerry Matatics, Robert Sungenis, etc. The Vatican cares more about movie lists than what her self proclaimed apologists produce. Why?

3.There isn't anything (to my knowledge) set up by the Roman church to tell you who is a legitimate apologist and who is not, who to send your money to, and who you should not, who interprets Rome correctly, and who does not. It's all left up to you, the individual, to pick your poison.

4. Certain Roman Catholic apologists / websites think their work is actually something that deserves support because of its greatness. Is there actually a way via Romanism to tell if their work actually does deserve support, or is great? Or, is it left to the individual to guess? I can think of one apologist who simply reproduces arguments made by others, and states them with a southern drawl. I see no reason why anyone should support him as he reinvents the wheel.

5. Some Roman Catholic apologists have questionable support methodology. If you try to pass off apologetic work as non-profit ministry, but actually have to channel donations through someone else, that's highly telling it may not be a non-profit ministry.


There were also a few specific points raised by Matthew. He states,

James Swan took issue as to the need for Catholic Apologetic information. He wrote, "America isn't starving for information about anything. We're a culture over-stuffed with enough information that's only a mouse click away." If that is the case, then people do not need Alpha and Omega either. There is plenty of information on "Reformed" theology out there without James White and his apologetics business begging for money to keep his business going. In fact, why not just pick up a copy of the Bible? According to their religion, that is all one really needs no?

Matthew is correct in this sense, the Word of God doesn't need any help in being effective. On the other hand, the same Word of God proclaims that there will be people called to preach, teach, and shepherd the flock against wolves. I am thankful for the ministry of Dr. White, who is a pastor, teacher, elder, and defender of the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Dr. White would probably be the first to tell you to buy a Bible, and become an active devoted member of a solid church. Your support should first go to your local church.

In comparison, the Roman Church claims to infallibly interpret God's revelation- thus the need for things like Catholic Answers seems a bit silly- unless Matthew is willing to admit the infallible interpreter needs to be fallibly interpreted. I find it a bit humorous that Rome's defenders attempt to paint Protestants as people who disrespect authority, leadership, and structure, and these same people declare themselves authoritative apologists, often not submitting their work to any higher Roman authorities for approval. They are functionally Protestant, but call themselves Roman Catholic, all the while saying Protestants don't respect authority.

Matthew also stated:

Finally, I thought this comment by Swan was amusing. Swan said, "Why not just go to the official Vatican website? Here you can get Rome's official answers, and not the interpretations of those answers by the largest apologetics organization in North America." I ask this question to Swan. Why do you and White pollute the Gospel with your writings, videos, ect? Why not promote on your websites for your readers to go to the store and buy a Bible so they can read it for themselves. They can get the Gospel from the pages of Scripture, rather than be subjected to someone like yourself or James White's interpretations of the Scriptures.

My answer above similarly applies. I have never advocated a "me and the Bible in the woods position." I strongly believe in the God ordained means of preaching and teaching. In the case of my writings, a careful read of the majority of blog posts I produce show that I spend more time with historical material than Biblical exegesis. This blog is nothing more than a fancy high school book report on Luther and the Reformation, it is not the work of an exegete or ordained minister. In fact, it is a hobby, not a ministry, as I explained recently. Anyone with a computer, time, and a library could simply look up the truth about the Reformation. The majority of anything I post on Romanism has to do with evaluating truth claims, and pointing people to critically think through the position advocated by Roman Catholic apologists.

In regards to Dr. White's work, of all the resources he reccommends, the one he recommends most is Bible Works so people can have the necessary tools to get the most out of Bible study. Dr. White is also an ordained minister, and a qualified teacher, following those parameters set up by Scripture.

Circle the wagons!

In order...

Me: Why is that reasonable? Isn't it the RC position that you have all this unity and the truth on your organisation's side?

David Waltz: The Church on Earth has wheat and tares.

Me: Christ's parable of wheat and tares refers not to the church but to the world.

Matthew Bellisario: Really? Where did you get your definitive interpretation from? ... Where did God tell you that this passage only refers to the world Rhology (sic)? Sources please.

Matthew the Evangelist: Matthew 13:24 Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 “But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went away. 26 “But when the wheat sprouted and bore grain, then the tares became evident also. 27 “The slaves of the landowner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have tares?’ 28 “And he said to them, ‘An enemy has done this!’ The slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’ 29 “But he said, ‘No; for while you are gathering up the tares, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 ‘Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the tares and bind them in bundles to burn them up; but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”

36 Then He left the crowds and went into the house. And His disciples came to Him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the tares of the field.” 37 And He said, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man, 38 and the field is the world; and as for the good seed, these are the sons of the kingdom; and the tares are the sons of the evil one; 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil, and the harvest is the end of the age; and the reapers are angels. 40 “So just as the tares are gathered up and burned with fire, so shall it be at the end of the age. 41 “The Son of Man will send forth His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all stumbling blocks, and those who commit lawlessness, 42 and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 “Then THE RIGHTEOUS WILL SHINE FORTH AS THE SUN in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

Matthew Bellisario: Rhology, once again we can why you are a Protestant. It is because you are truly ignorant of the Scriptures. It is plain to see that you don't understand the many levels of Sacred Scripture. Do you not understand symbolic interpretation?

Matthew Bellisario: The fact is, this Scripture can be interpreted symbolically as referring to the Church.

Matthew Bellisario: Come on Rhology, yes or no? Can the passage be interpreted symbolically as referring to the Church?

Matthew Bellisario: So Rhology, is your interpretation of this passage infallible? There is the one interpretation that you subscribe to, and all others are wrong, correct? Calvin was wrong, St. Augustine was wrong, St. Jerome was wrong, St. Chrysostom was wrong? Their interpretations were not infallible, but yours is, correct?


The entire thread that begins with this interaction is a carnival of buffoonery. As if "the field is the world" is not itself a symbolic interpretation! Disappointingly, David Waltz has joined in the cacophony, but didn't even bother to include the Matthew 13 text.
I just reproduced some of this to show the circle-the-wagons-at-all-cost mentality of some our RC friends. If they were interested in honestly defending their position from the thrust of my original statement, there are other biblical psgs they could try to use. Their parade of mockery and missing the point shows their motivations are less than above board.

Did Jerome Change His Mind on the Apocrypha?

Matthew said: Did you forget that St. Jerome ended up upholding those books as Scripture. You mislead people by your remarks.

A present for Matthew: Guest Blog: Did Jerome Change His Mind on the Apocrypha? by Ray Aviles (who should be on my blogging team, but refuses to comply with my wishes).

xx

Cyril and the Church Contra Bellisario

Recently I examined an ECF quote posted by Matthew Bellisario: Cyril's Proof for God's Special Revelation Outside of Scripture. Matthew posted quotes after I presented this question to him: If Cyril believed in another infallible "voice of God", I'd be willing to see the proof. That is, demonstrate that Cyril likewise told his readers to look to "x" to see the rest of God's infallible deposit given to humankind. Matthew's first Cyril quote didn't work out very well. I can appreciate his concession to this fact when he responded, "OK James, I can go along with that interpretation on 17. What about the following post on lecture 18? I did not see such a spirited response on that one."

He posted the following from Cyril of Jerusalem:

Lecture 18 also contains some interesting text which puts the Church herself as the head which delivers "all the doctrines which ought to come to men's knowledge." Cyril here does not say the Scriptures alone either. What do you think of this text?

"Now then let me finish what still remains to be said for the Article, "In one Holy Catholic Church," on which, though one might say many things, we will speak but briefly.
23. It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men's knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly ; and because it brings into subjection to godliness the whole race of mankind, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals the whole class of sins, which are committed by soul or body, and possesses in itself every form of virtue which is named, both in deeds and words, and in every kind of spiritual gifts.

The use of the quote above by Matthew is an excellent example of how many outside of the faith misunderstand sola scriptura. Sola scriptura never argues the church isn't important, or that it does not have authority to teach God's truth. Perhaps Mr. Bellisario thinks in terms of dichotomy: a Protestant has either the church or the Bible, but never both at the same time. This is far from true. I admit, there are those who may have in fact overreacted to the errors of Rome and devalue the church. I am not one of those people. I belong to a confessional Reformed church that takes the Scriptural mandate of "church" very seriously.

As to Cyril, I don't see anything in his statement that contradicts sola scriptura. Nothing in Cyril's statement implies an infallible deposit of truth standing beside the Scriptures, which is what I asked Matthew to provide.

Cyril's Proof for God's Special Revelation Outside of Scripture

Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.- Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lecture IV, Section 17

That's straightforward isn't it? Recently, Matthew Bellisario commented on this quote saying, "Saint Cyril however never tells us that Scripture alone is how the Church receives its only Divine Revelation and where it gets its only authority from."

I presented this question to Matthew: If Cyril believed in another infallible "voice of God", I'd be willing to see your proof. That is, demonstrate that Cyril likewise told his readers to look to "x" to see the rest of God's infallible deposit given to humankind. As the quote stands, it really does sound like Cyril was telling his readers to check him out based on Scripture.

Matthew responded:

Hi James, thanks for stopping by. What do you make of this text by St. Cyril from Catechetical Lecture No 17 focusing on the Holy Spirit?

"1. In the preceding Lecture, according to our ability we set before you, our beloved hearers, some small portion of the testimonies concerning the Holy Ghost; and on the present occasion, we will, if it be God's pleasure, proceed to treat, as far as may be, of those which remain out of the New Testament: and as then to keep within due limit of your attention we restrained our eagerness (for there is no satiety in discoursing concerning the Holy Ghost), so now again we must say but a small part of what remains. For now, as well as then, we candidly own that our weakness is overwhelmed by the multitude of things written."

So, I went and looked up the quote. If Cyril's statement "if it be God's pleasure, proceed to treat, as far as may be, of those which remain out of the New Testament" is the key phrase from Cyril that was meant as an answer to my question, one would expect Cyril to then launch into these things "outside."

Take a look though at Lecture 16.32, which is the last statement before Lecture 17:

32. And indeed it were easy to collect very many texts out of the Old Testament, and to discourse more largely concerning the Holy Ghost. But the time is short; and we must be careful of the proper length of the lecture. Wherefore, being for the present content awhile with passages from the Old Testament, we will, if it be God’s pleasure, proceed in the next Lecture to the remaining texts out of the New Testament. And may the God of peace, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and through the love of the Spirit, count all of you worthy of His spiritual and heavenly gifts: - To whom be glory and power for ever and ever. Amen.

He says he's going to "proceed in the next Lecture to the remaining texts out of the New Testament" meaning, now that he's looked at texts out of the Old Testament, then on to the New Testament.

The point is not that's he's looking at extra biblical revelation from God outside the Scriptures, but rather, he's going to look at proof "out of" the New Testament. In fact, skim through Lecture 17, and count the verses he uses from the New Testament, it is literally, a multitude.

I haven't read a lot of Cyril's writings. If indeed Cyril held to another infallible voice of God other than the Scriptures, Lecture 17 isn't proof for it.

Luther: "Zwingli's death proved I'm right and he's wrong"

 A defender of Roman Catholicism stated,

"Scripture Alone was a great system for Luther until someone disagreed with his interpretation, as we can see from above. Luther also fought Zwingli over the words of Christ in the Gospel of John chapter 6 regarding the Eucharist. Zwingli argued to take Christ's words only symbolically or to be taken as "in the mind of the believer" while Luther claimed that the correct interpretation was that of "consubstantiation". They both disagreed on a fundamental interpretation of Scripture. This is a fact. Luther hated Zwingli so much that when Zwingli was killed in battle he said, 'he got what he deserved.... His death proved I'm right and he's wrong;.."

Zwingli died October 11, 1531 in battle. There's no debate Luther vehemently disliked Zwingli. True, that he died in battle could have provoked such a negative comment from Luther. Go ahead though and Google search "he got what he deserved.... His death proved I'm right and he's wrong." At the time of writing this entry,  there were a few different hits, and one of them was to this defender's blog. I contend he did not get this quote from the Luther or the Zwingli entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia, etc. I'm also fairly certain it can ruled out he actually read Luther and mined this quote himself. The quote, if it exists at all, sounds suspiciously like a Table Talk comment bin Luther's Works (LW). 

No. 1451: Zwingli, Too, May Be Saved by God (Between April 7 and May 1, 1532)
“Zwingli drew his sword. Therefore he has received the reward that Christ spoke of, ‘All who take the sword will perish by the sword’ [Matt. 26:52]. If God has saved him, he has done so above and beyond the rule" (LW 54:152).

No. 94: God’s Punishment of the Godless (Early November, 1531)
“When I was in Coburg these comments about adversaries taught me the meaning of the words in the Decalogue, ‘I the Lord your God am a jealous God.’ It is not so much a cruel punishment of adversaries as it is a necessary defense of ourselves. They say that Zwingli recently died thus; if his error had prevailed, we would have perished, and our church with us. It was a judgment of God. That was always a proud people. The others, the papists, will probably also be dealt with by our Lord God. (LW 54:11).

No. 157: Luther Stricken with a Sudden Illness (January 22, 1532)
When he overheard us say that if he died it would give great satisfaction among the papists, he said confidently, “But I am not going to die now. I know this of a certainty. For God will not strengthen the papistic superstition through my death so shortly after the death of Zwingli and Oecolampadius. God will not give them [the papists] such an occasion for rejoicing. To be sure, Satan would gladly kill me if he could. Every moment he is pressing me, is treading on my heels. Yet what he wishes will not be done, but what God wills (LW 54:23).

From the old English translation of the Table Talk comes the following:

DCCLVII. I wish from my heart Zwinglius could be saved, but I fear the contrary; for Christ has said that those who deny him shall be damned. God's judgment is sure and certain, and we may safely pronounce it against all the ungodly, unless God reserve unto himself a peculiar privilege and dispensation. Even so, David from his heart wished that his son Absalom might be saved, when he said: 'Absalom my son, Absalom my son;' yet he certainly believed that he was damned, and bewailed him, not only that he died corporally, but was also lost everlastingly; for he knew that he had died in rebellion, in incest, and that he had hunted his father out of the kingdom.

As of the writing of this entry in 2009, the only thing even similar to the seemingly bogus quote comes from Roman Catholic historian, Hartmann Grisar:

Luther was in high glee when news of Zwingli's death reached him. He said: "God knows the thoughts of the heart. It is well that Zwingli, Carlstadt, and Pellicanus lie dead on the battle-field, for otherwise we could not have retained the Landgrave, Strasburg and other of our neighbours [true to our doctrine]. Oh, what a triumph is this, that they have perished! God indeed knows His business well." "Zwingli died like a brigand," he said later, when scarcely a year had elapsed since his death. " He wished to force others to accept his errors, went to war, and was slain." " He drew the sword, therefore he has received his reward, for Christ says: 'All who take the sword shall perish by the sword.' If God has saved him, then He did so contrary to His ordinary ways." "All seek to cloak their deceitful doctrines with the name of the Evangel," so he exclaims in 1532.

"High glee"? That's Grisar's interpretation! As to the first quote, "God knows the thoughts of the heart. It is well that Zwingli...etc." Grisar says it's from "Schlaginhaufen, Aufzeichnungen, p. 1." The word "Schlaginhaufen" is actually a name, John Schlaginhaufen. He was one of the compilers of The Table Talk. Schlaginhaufen content was published for the first time in 1888 by Wilhelm Preger.  That means this second-hand comment from Luther laid buried for a few hundred years after his death. 

This blog entry was revised January 2026, fixing dead links, and editing. The original can be found here. I suspect much more online information is now available. However, back in 2009, this was what was available. 

New Series: Helping Matthew Bellisario Do Research #1

Matthew Bellisario states, "Luther justified his terrible temper and harsh language against the Church by claiming that it was God inspired. "The "gospel", he now sees, "cannot be introduced without tumult, scandal, and rebellion"; "the word of God is a sword, a war, a destruction, a scandal, a ruin, a poison" (De Wette, op. cit., I, 417). As for pope, cardinals, bishops, "and the whole brood of Roman Sodom", why not attack it "with every sort of weapon and wash our hands in its blood" (Walch, XVIII, 245). This shows us the violent mentality of Luther. Some Luther fans have tried to downplay Luther's harsh temper and hate-filled words by claiming that this was common for the time period. We however know that this is not the case because the Church never stooped to this level in refuting Luther."

As to the quote from Walch, XVIII, 245, I did a three part entry on it:

Luther's Statement Concerning Roman Catholic Authorities: "Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?" (Part One)

Luther's Statement Concerning Roman Catholic Authorities: "Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?" (Part Two)

Luther's Statement Concerning Roman Catholic Authorities: "Why do we not rather assault them with arms and wash our hands in their blood?" (Part Three)

To cite the quote without explaining why Luther would've been provoked to such a violent outburst is to ignore history. It is to ignore the historical polemic context in which Luther found himself- in heated dialogue with high ranking Catholic apologists that could influence his very life or death. He was in a battle against those who simply declared and defended the power of the Pope. How could one engage in a life threatening situation against an absolute power that refused to even admit its wrongdoings and abuses with indulgences? Luther responds harshly that the Emperor, kings, and princes should treat such an abuse of power in the same way thieves and heretics are treated by the state. Keep in mind, the Catholic contoversialists would have no problem likewise having Luther fall into the hands of the state to be punished with the same severity.