Combox for:
Why Many Apologetics Books (Including My Own) Do Not Carry the Imprimatur / Profoundly Desperate Anti-Catholic "Arguments"
[30 May 2008]
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...cluding-
my.html
Dear Dave,
This was certainly one of the dumber articles to appear at aomin.org. That said, I think it would suffice to say that [John Q. "Deadhead" Doe] misrepresented the contents of your Luther book (perhaps indeliberately), rather than accuse him of lying.
It was lie in the sense of falsehood, but one hears this a lot, so I'll change the word to eliminate the possible criticism.
So an honest question. Why don't the rest of your books, or Steve Ray's, etc. have the imprimatur? I have no idea what the process is.
Thanks,
BJ
Stupid Scholar
Daily Bible Reflections
Keep up the great apologetics work, Dave. More often than not, when I hear of something new stirring in matters Catholic, I keep an eye on CorAdCor to see what your take on it will be. I have had my differences with you, to be sure, but your work is usually meticulously sourced and your arguments carefully crafted. Imprimatur or no imprimatur, you always make a strong case--my older brother, a staunch Nazarene for many years, came into the Church this past Easter (lock, stock, and barrel, too, with wife and three sons) due in *huge* part to "A Biblical Defense of Catholicism". I'm quite sure he wasn't looking for an 'imprimatur' on the inside cover, either.
I'm very touched by your kind words, Jon. All glory to God. Please warmly greet your brother and his family for me and tell them that I am very happy and gratified that God used my book in some fashion in their journey. And thanks so much for reading my materials. God bless you!
Hi BJ,
The Jimmy Akin article I cited at the top of the post gives a good explanation of why it is used less often these days. In a nutshell, it's not required if a book isn't used in official catechetical instruction. My books are popular apologetics; no more, no less.
The Imprimatur was not always used even in the "old" days. Looking through some of my many books, I notice that G.K. Chesterton's works did not utilize it (not even his studies of St. Francis and St. Thomas and his masterpiece, Everlasting Man). Hilaire Belloc's works don't have them, either. They were both lay apologists. I'm sure I could find further examples, but it's late, and I trust the point is made.
[John Q. "Deadhead" Doe] has a point in citing Can 827 §3 . Even if we are not required to submit our works for an imprimatur, Canon law still recommends that we do so, and we should take that recommendation seriously. We ought to be supererogatory in our reverence and obedience to the Church's law.
ot even his studies of St. Francis and St. Thomas and his masterpiece
Actually, Chesterton wrote both of those prior to becoming Catholic, so he was either unaware/not required to apply for one. That is one thing that always amazed me about Chesterton, a lot of his best thought came when he was close to Catholicism but not quite there yet, like with Orthodoxy. That was written 10 years before he came to the Church.
Actually, Chesterton wrote both of those prior to becoming Catholic, so he was either unaware/not required to apply for one.
This is incorrect. Chesterton came into the Church in 1922. The book on St. Francis is from 1924 and the one on St. Thomas is from 1933, with Everlasting Man dating from 1925. Other "Catholic" books also lack the Imprimatur: The Well and The Shallows (1935), Eugenics and Other Evils (1922), The Thing: Why I am a Catholic (1929), but I did discover one book that has the Imprimatur: The Catholic Church & Conversion (1926).
[John Q. "Deadhead" Doe] has a point in citing Can 827 §3 . Even if we are not required to submit our works for an imprimatur, Canon law still recommends that we do so, and we should take that recommendation seriously. We ought to be supererogatory in our reverence and obedience to the Church's law.
I accept Jimmy Akin's explanation, which makes perfect sense to me. If indeed the canon law was modified to be less strict, as he stated, then there was a reason, and it seems plausible that it had to do with the factors he outlined (not knowing otherwise, myself).
A recommendation is just that: it is not an absolute command. Sure, you can say it is more towards urging the action than against it, but it is still not a requirement.
The article in question tried to make out that apologists such as myself were in outright disobedience to Church canon law, and contradicting the principles of Catholic authority:
"One has to wonder how seriously the recent batch of Catholic apologists take the above statement (§3). I just looked through my shelf of Catholic apologetic books, and many of the recent volumes do not have the Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, while the older ones typically do. If Canon Law recommends something, what seems to be the problem for these folks? I'm tempted to say for some of them, their continual claims of submission to Rome fall short when it comes to having a career as a Catholic apologist. Sure, they say they submit to Rome, but they don't submit all their books for ecclesiastical approval.
" . . . it seems to me many Catholic apologists don't even try to follow Canon Law on this. . . . these apologists ignoring Canon Law . . ."
Then a big fuss is made about the critique of Sungenis for not having obtained the Imprimatur for his books. The detractor makes out that this is an inconsistency. The only problem is that these books of Sungenis are actual translations of Scripture (by himself!), with commentary. Therefore, they are absolutely required to be approved by the proper ecclesiastical authority, according to canon law:
Can. 825 §1. Books of the sacred scriptures cannot be published unless the Apostolic See or the conference of bishops has approved them. For the publication of their translations into the vernacular, it is also required that they be approved by the same authority and provided with necessary and sufficient annotations.
§2. With the permission of the conference of bishops, Catholic members of the Christian faithful in collaboration with separated brothers and sisters can prepare and publish translations of the sacred scriptures provided with appropriate annotations.
The article cited that described Sungenis' difficulties with bishops, explained:
"Before any of them were written, Sungenis presumptuously assured his patrons that all of his CASB volumes would have imprimaturs. In doing so, he attempted to prematurely appropriate official Catholic clout in an effort to prime the well for the sale of his books. And as a result, he made a public issue of this matter. One cannot reasonably trumpet the expectation of an imprimatur in public in order to facilitate sales and then object when a denial of the same is also brought out in public.. . .
"To date, it appears that all three of Sungenis' "Catholic Apologetics Study Bible" (CASB) volumes have been rejected for an imprimatur. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) rejected his translation of Matthew in CASB1 . . .
"It should be noted that Sungenis continues to sell this unauthorized translation, apparently in direct violation of Canon Law: see Canon 825.
Although Sungenis had presumptuously assured his patrons that CASB 2 (The Apocalypse) would contain the Church's imprimatur before he had even submitted it for review (see here), CASB2 was rejected by Bishop Rhoades in early December, 2006."
http://sungenisandthejews.blogsp...ue-to-
lack.html
Thus, there is a plain distinction in his case, because he is trying to publish Catholic Bibles without the Church's consent, which is required by Canon 825. My books are under no such absolute requirement, except for The New Catholic Answer Bible, which indeed has an Imprimatur.
So it is a trumped-up difficulty, as always with "Deadhead" Doe. Yet he describes the article about Sungenis' outright disobedience as "a sort of obsession" while his article is not?
My publisher, Sophia Institute Press, is highly respected. It publishes mostly classic works of Catholic theology and spirituality. I'm sure they have a good reason for not seeking an Imprimatur in my three books. If someone has a problem with that, or thinks it violates canon law, then I urge them to write to them (please forward any replies to me too).
I'll have to e-mail Dail Ahlquist, because on his program which airs on EWTN he claimed Chesterton wrote both his work on St. Francis and St. Thomas prior to becoming Catholic.
Dear Dave,
You'll have no arguments here that "Deadhead" grossly overstated his case, and failed to draw the proper distinctions. I was simply pointing out a kernel of truth in his comments. If Canon Law recommends that we apply for imprimaturs, we should apply for imprimaturs, just as we should go to Mass every day, even though that is not a moral obligation either.
Then he is mistaken (or else you recall incorrectly). I have hardcover copies of both, from near the original publishing date, and they postdate his reception into the Church (1922). Joseph Pearce's recent (1996) biography notes:"in the spring of 1933 he commenced the writing of St Thomas Aquinas." (pp. 422-423).
"[H]e began, in 1923, to write his biography of St. Francis of Assisi." (p. 294)
Pages 262-267 of the same book inform the reader that Chesterton's reception into the Church occurred on July 30, 1922 (my birthday, coincidentally).
I rest my case.
I've already mentioned Chesterton's books. He is widely considered the most important lay Catholic apologist in the first half of the 20th century. Yet his Catholic books (save one that I found) do not have an Imprimatur.
Other influential and well-known Catholic books from before the revision of canon law in 1983 that lacked the Imprimatur:
The Faith of Our Fathers, James Cardinal Gibbons, 1876 (I have a 1917 edition).
Nine books by Catholic cultural historian Christopher Dawson.
Eight books by Catholic historian Hilaire Belloc.
One of his books has it: The Catholic Church and History (1926) but other similar books, such as The Great Heresies and Europe and the Faith do not.
Many other books by theologians, priests, etc. from that period usually do have it, but the lay authors such as Chesterton, are far more analogous to my own lay apologetics books.
As the canon law was apparently stricter on this matter before 1983, and books similar to mine still did not have an Imprimatur, then it is all the less objectionable for mine to lack then in the current post-1983 period of less restrictive canon law in this respect.
In other words: "what's good enough for Chesterton is good enough for me."
I think we all agree that Chesterton was a highly revered figure in the Church. He received an honorary doctorate at Notre Dame. A noted Thomistic scholars like Etienne Gilson stated that GKC's book on St. Thomas was the best he knew of: even better than his own.
Yet Chesterton never even attained a college degree in any field (he had studied art for a time) and was primarily a journalist by profession.
Dave,
They aren’t going anywhere in regards to this issue. The primary arguments in your post are far too clear.
But if Doe and others want to further embarrass themselves with regard to Imprimaturs, I'd be glad to consult further with my editor at Sophia, Todd Aglialoro, and my friend, canon lawyer Dr. Edward Peters, who teaches at the seminary about ten miles from my home:
http://www.canonlaw.info/
No skin off my back.
The latest clown to jump on the circus wagon is quasi-anti-Catholic Josh Strodtbeck:
Self-Styled Apologist on the Imprimatur
"Sadly, the Imprimatur is not always a safeguard anymore. My books don't have them (except for The New Catholic Answer Bible), and my books are perfectly orthodox. And some that have them are not orthodox."
-Dave Armstrong
If even the Magisterium can't be trusted to recommend orthodox literature, who can?
[31 May 2008]
http://
metalutheran.blogspot.com...imprimatur.html
This is the same windbag who also wrote:
I used to think if you were a "professional apologist," meant you were acting on official behalf of the Vatican as a salaried representative or something. For those who assumed the same thing, I have a little insight: "Professional apologetics" is actually a subculture of post-Protestants within Catholicism. They by and large are not scholars who do critical analysis of primary texts; rather, their main audience is other Catholics and they often self-publish. One could psychoanalyze them all day, but I'll skip that and say that mostly their arguments are 1-liners for the easily amused or the simple. That's because they aren't part of Catholic academia or the Magisterium; they're part of American Catholic pop culture and as such should be taken about as seriously as glow-in-the-dark statues of Mary.
[27 August 2007]
http://metalutheran.blogspot.com...-
apologist.html
I replied in the combox (filled with juvenile mockery and insults):
"This is a rank insult to the many lifelong Catholics who are doing apologetics, too; in fact, many of the more well-known and good apologists out there; folks like Karl Keating, Pat Madrid, Gary Michuta, Phil Porvaznik, Fr. Peter Stravinskas, Fr. Mitch Pacwa, and many others. To say the whole enterprise is simply 'post-Protestant' is sheer stupidity."
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g...74&
isPopup=true
I've added a great deal of material to the original post (after the five asterisks) from the combox, and more (mostly about Chesterton), as of 2:45 PM EST, 31 May 2008.
But you also replaced the hilarious picture! How could you?
Well, I wanted to give the post a little more dignity. The silly pic of Steve Hays was "stolen" from an old post anyway:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2...iocy-
steve.html
Scroll down in that post and you'll get a good picture of these guys' "arguments".
Dear Dave,
You'll have no arguments here that "Deadhead" grossly overstated his case, and failed to draw the proper distinctions. I was simply pointing out a kernel of truth in his comments. If Canon Law recommends that we apply for imprimaturs, we should apply for imprimaturs, just as we should go to Mass every day, even though that is not a moral obligation either.
Ben Douglass | Homepage | 05.31.08 - 1:14 pm | #
Did you apply for an imprimatur for that publicly published statement?
I think the USSCB would be completely overwhelmed if all apologists offered their works for review....hmmm, maybe not such a bad thing after all.
Yeah, maybe if we keep 'em busy reading all our books, they'll keep out of trouble and mischief. 
Speaking of Chesterton --
You all may enjoy John Piper's little piece on G. K. Chesterton's book, Orthodoxy; and how it helped him hold on to both mystery and faith in being a "happy-Calvinist". (not letting logic and paradoxes drive emotion and joy away from his heart.)
Here is his article on Chesterton:
http://www.desiringgod.org/Resou...PoetCalvinists/
"the chief end of man is to Glorify God by enjoying Him forever."
(Piper's way of understanding the Westminister Confession, because "and" did not make sense, because it said, "chief end", not "chief ends". So, he changed that word to "by". It is by finding our joy and happiness and enjoyment in God Himself and His glory; not in His gifts, that glorify God the most.)
Another famous Piper saying, "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him." (all through his books)
You may also want to read, Desiring God, by John Piper.
Piper's pretty cool. Would he think I am a brother in Christ or no?
Isn't this really a variation on the I'm-a-scholar-and-you-are-not trope?
What's so funny about this discussion is the fact that none of those guys (Stodtbeck, Cygnus, the anonymous Turretinfan, and White) would ever get an Imprimatur for what they inaccurately represent to their readers to be the teaching of the Catholic Church on most subjects. Certainly, if they are going to insist that such strictures be placed on Catholic apologists, they should abide by the same rules and apply for one, too, each time they write on what they portray to their audience the Catholic Church teaches. That way, their readers would know that the doctrines these gentlemen are attempting to refute in their writings and works are actually what the Church teaches on a particular issue and not their particular, personally biased distortions of same.
Example: Professor White's article on the Catholic practice of venerating relics where he claims that the practice is a medieval invention and superstition when the "Martyrdom of Saint Polycarp" written in 155-157 AD clearly shows that the Church practiced the veneration of relics very early in Church history:
"Accordingly, we afterwards took up his [St. Polycarp's] bones, as being more precious than the most exquisite jewels, and more purified than gold, and deposited them in a fitting place, whither, being gathered together, as opportunity is allowed us, with joy and rejoicing, the Lord shall grant us to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom, both in memory of those who have already finished their course, and for the exercising and preparation of those yet to walk in their steps." (from Chapter 18 )
I would humbly submit that 155-157 AD is not part of the medieval period or Middle Ages which he regularly puts down.
Also, isn't it interesting that in criticizing Dave's work for the lack of Imprimatur, none of these gentlemen are able to cite a single instance when Dave's work inaccurately or incorrectly stated the Catholic teaching on a particular subject?
I used to be a big fan of conservatives Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. I still think they are pretty entertaining, but rarely do they deal with substance, answering their liberal counterparts with rational argumentation. No, they spend most of their time pointing out what they see as the hypocrisy and shadiness of the other side.
White, and especially ["Deadhead" Doe], seem to use this method often in their apologetics.
Besides responding to whatever is just plain overstated or wrong in their writings, we can also make sure to include in our reading and our recommendations to others books by cradle Catholics, pre-VatII Catholics, and scholars. But most of us already do this, and Dave would never even hint at the possibility that someone should only read his books, or his friend's books, or non-scholarly books, or post-VII books, etc.
That's my attempt to answer Paul Hoffer's question. They are bringing into question the very legitimacy of their opponents.
No, they spend most of their time pointing out what they see as the hypocrisy and shadiness of the other side.
Yep. White has been engaged for months in a series showing that Steve Ray is not even honest in his apologetics.
Doe has apparently realized that he is unable to answer my arguments, so he has tried to undermine my credibility and competence for years now. He's miserably failed every time and only embarrasses himself, but that's all he has in his "arsenal," so he keeps doing it.
Isn't this really a variation on the I'm-a-scholar-and-you-are-not trope?
Yep, with the humorous twist that none of the main figures are scholars themselves. So the "reasoning" is: "I know what Catholicism is better than a full-time Catholic apologist does. Armstrong's not a scholar, so he is an illegitimate special pleader and can't be trusted for anything. He doesn't even have the cotton-pickin' Imprimatur on his books!"
Reasonable, factual responses count for less than nothing with these lamebrains, as always. The main reason I wrote about it was to clarify what the Church requires in this regard, because the question comes up fairly often (and not only from logic-challenged nitwits like Doe and Strodtbeck). So I thought it would be good to clarify. Jimmy Akin's article was very helpful.
Here's the latest discussions on Strodtbeck's site, including one guy who has a lick of sense:
Owen the Wise said...
. . . I'm more impressed with Dave Armstrong's actual quote. "My books are perfectly orthodox." That is pretty bold. How does he know? By what standard should Dave Armstrong trust his own personal opinion of orthodoxy? His writings represent, after all, one private interpretation of the truth among many.
6/01/2008 10:18 AM
Jason said...
What's the problem here, exactly (if in fact there is supposed to be one)? I'm failing to see it. The giving of an "Imprimatur" (or a "Nihil Obstat," for that matter) is not something that is supposed by anyone (Roman Catholics included) to be infallible, so there can of course be mistakes made, and anyone can reasonably admit as much. Your ending question ("If even the Magisterium can't be trusted to recommend orthodox literature, who can?") seems to suggest that you think there's some sort of tension or scandal here, but I just don't see it. The Magisterium of the RCC as a whole does not give the "Imprimatur" or the "Nihil Obstat," so far as I know; such things are given by members of the Magisterium, i.e., single bishops -- or, in the case of the "Nihil Obstat," sometimes by a delegated priest or even, in special cases, an educated layman -- but not by the entire Magisterium. And what exactly is the problem in admitting that such bishops (or, in the case of the "Nihil Obstat," priests or laymen) can make mistakes in such matters? In other words, rephrase your question like so: "If even a bishop (or delegated priest or layman) can't be trusted to recommend orthodox literature, who can?" What exactly is the problem that the question is apparently supposed to raise? Individual bishops sometimes even endorse heresy and so can't be trusted to recommend orthodox doctrine, let alone literature. This is something openly acknowledged by all sides (RCC included), as far as I know. There is no obvious problem in admitting as much. Can you say more?
6/01/2008 3:43 PM
Josh S said...
Because when you make a big honkin' deal about humbly submitting yourself to the will of the Magisterium and respecting episcopal authority and all that, but consider yourself to be a better judge of orthodoxy than the bishop and those whom he appoints, you've become a self-contradiction.
6/02/2008 7:56 AM
http://
metalutheran.blogspot.com...imprimatur.html
. . . I'm more impressed with Dave Armstrong's actual quote. "My books are perfectly orthodox." That is pretty bold. How does he know?
I was going to say in my unschooled bumpkin way that we know because Catholic teaching is a matter of public record. But what the heck do I know?
It gets us into the concept of a living Church as opposed to a dead set of encylopedic proposals, so in a sense the complaints can be boiled down to the tired, "Where is your infallible list of infallible teachings?"
Also, isn't it interesting that in criticizing Dave's work for the lack of Imprimatur, none of these gentlemen are able to cite a single instance when Dave's work inaccurately or incorrectly stated the Catholic teaching on a particular subject?
But that would mean talking about the issues and not Dave himself. To paraphrase a fairly notable person: if I have spoken wrongly, tesitfy to the wrong. Otherwise, why are you nannering on about imprimaturs and nihil obstats?
Paul,
Yes, the quote from the Martyrdom of Polycarp shows the ancient of practice of honoring his bones; and they rejoiced and celebrated.
But, nowhere does it say that they kissed them or bowed down to them or put money on his grave, etc. or prayed to his "spirit" or his "person" or his "soul" (in heaven) that is the metaphysical reality behind the physical bones left here on this earth.
Even if it did say that they kissed them or bowed to them or prayed to Polycarp, they would be wrong, based on Scripture. But because it does not have those practices with the ancient text of 155-156 AD; then the wrong aspects of the way RCC handles relics is not "deeper in history".
So, just remembering a great saint and martyr -- nothing wrong with that. That aspect is good; and archeology and history and recording the lives and martyrdoms of great Christians is a great thing.
Graves stones are fine, to visit and remember the dead. But there should be none of the other later practices of praying to the dead and kissing relics and touching them and believing one will get a blessing or power or healing etc from the physical substance; as if power would come out from them, etc. These things are all clearly wrong.
But there should be none of the other later practices of praying to the dead and kissing relics and touching them and believing one will get a blessing or power or healing etc from the physical substance; as if power would come out from them, etc. These things are all clearly wrong.
Really? How interesting, then, that Elijah's mantle parted the Jordan river (2 Kings 2:11-14). Elisha's bones raised a man from the dead (2 Kings 13:20-21). How odd that Paul's "handkerchiefs or aprons" were used to heal the sick and cast out demons (Acts 19:11-12).
Once again you have profound problems with God's inspired revelation. not with Catholicism. We follow the Scripture on this. You do not, and instead substitute the dead traditions of men (no pun intended).
Seems to me you would get tired after a while of continually being at odds with the Bible. Isn't that too much work and effort?
Dave,
Yes, those things happened in Scripture and in Scriptural history; we all agree that they are true and they are in the historical narrative.
We know the historical narrative in Kings and Acts is true, because it is inspired, God-breathed Scripture.
But there are no teaching sections in Acts, etc. nor in the Epistles that tell us to copy these practices.
The RCC as also Pentecostals and Charismatics and the word of faith movement, need to know the difference between historical narrative Scripture and the teaching/didactive portions of Scripture. Both camps make the same mistakes and interpret and apply the Scriptures wrongly.
But there is no command or principle to try and copy those things; God does miracles when He wants to; not when we think we can manipulate Him into doing them. That is why Benny Hinn is just as goofy and wrong as the RCs who visit graves and touch and kiss and leave money on the grave sites, thinking and hoping they will be a blessing, etc. (popular Muslim folk Islam does the same things, and has a lot in common with Marian practices, relics, visiting graves, Fatima, etc. with RCC popular religion.)
This is all wrong, and I have no problem with the Biblical record on this. So, you are soundly refuted.
You simply assume that all Catholic use of relics is manipulation of God. That is hogwash. Obviously, we believe that any power therein comes from God. That's why we show the reverence that we do, because God uses matter to spread grace. He does so in the sacraments and did in the Incarnation itself.
I get awful tired of your lousy logic and persistent misrepresentations in trying to refute Catholicism. You've been talking to us for years, and have been corrected times without number. Wouldn't you think you could by now at least properly grasp what we believe and avoid distorting it?
In this case you directly contradict the Bible, no matter how much you desperately special plead and claim otherwise.
You wrote: "there should be none of the other later practices of. . . kissing relics and touching them and believing one will get a blessing or power or healing etc from the physical substance; as if power would come out from them, etc. These things are all clearly wrong."
Clearly, huh? The Bible says, over against you:
Acts 19:11-12 And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.
You are perfectly willing to directly contradict Scripture, if only you can disagree with Catholicism. Nothing here says that these practices were bad or wrong or that folks thought these hankies had magic powers apart from God. There is not the slightest hint of that.
In fact, the next passage gives an example of those who indeed twisted God's power for their own purposes:
[13] Then some of the itinerant Jewish exorcists undertook to pronounce the name of the Lord Jesus over those who had evil spirits, saying, "I adjure you by the Jesus whom Paul preaches."
[14] Seven sons of a Jewish high priest named Sceva were doing this.
[15] But the evil spirit answered them, "Jesus I know, and Paul I know; but who are you?"
[16] And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped on them, mastered all of them, and overpowered them, so that they fled out of that house naked and wounded.
Therefore, if the Bible condemns this, then it certainly would have the other practice too, if indeed it had been improper. But it did not at all. In fact, it virtually equates the hankies and aprons with "the hand of Paul" as well as "extraordinary miracles" by God. So the logic is:
1) God brings about miracles.
2) He does so by the hands of Paul.
3) Even objects associated with Paul's person are so used as direct instruments of these miracles from God through Paul (so Scripture says) -- these are secondary relics.
We believe the same. You are absolutely incorrect in your attempt to pretend that this historic practice ought not be imitated.
To the contrary, Jesus told His disciples that they should be able to heal and cast out demons just as He did. Paul often says to imitate him. We don't need literal written instruction for everything. We have the written instruction from Paul, to "imitate" him as he imitates Christ. Therefore, since we have this example, and it is presented positively, it is perfectly acceptable to believe the same about relics and objects associated with other holy men.
If you found (theoretically, for the sake of argument) a piece of the cross, would you burn it in a fireplace as if it were no different from any other piece of wood? What if you had a vial of Jesus' blood? Would you toss it in a dumpster? Or His robe, or the cup He used at the Last Supper? How about bulldozing Calvary and turning it into a parking lot or a drug store?
Say the validity of RC practice with relics is granted. How does one handle the case when fraudulent items are allowed by churches and the RC leaders to be venerated by the faithful? A few excerpts from Calvin's treatise at http://www.godrules.net/library/.../
176calvin4.htm :
" In this town (Geneva) there was formerly, it is said, an arm of St Anthony; it was kissed and worshipped as long as it remained in its shrine; but when it was turned out and examined, it was found to be the bone of a stag. There was on the high altar the brain of St Peter; so long as it rested in its shrine, nobody ever doubted its genuineness, for it would have been blasphemy to do so; but when it was subjected to a close inspection, it proved to be a piece of pumice-stone. I could quote many instances of this kind; but these will be sufficient to give an idea of the quantity of precious rubbish there would have been found if a thorough and universal investigation of all the relics of Europe had ever taken place." He then goes on to elaborate on various relics throughout Europe, where his more famous statement that "if we were to collect all these pieces of the true cross exhibited in various parts, they would form a whole ship’s cargo" comes out. Note the intent of the faithful does not necessarily preclude culpability - i.e. Uzza and the Ark.
Hi Ken, I appreciate your comments, but I have a problem with your choice of words. You said,
"But there should be none of the other later practices of praying to the dead and kissing relics and touching them and believing one will get a blessing or power or healing etc from the physical substance; as if power would come out from them, etc."
This view is classic Manichaeism- all matter is evil. In addition to the passages Dave cites, I would remind you what St. Paul said to St. Timothy, "For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving; for then it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer." 1 Tim. 4:4-5. And God Himself breathed on the waters and created the earth from that He blessed. Gen. 1:2. Further, Gen. 3:15 makes it clear that He confers upon us (through His Son) the power to confront and defeat evil. Jesus also tells his disciples how even a cup of cold water can be a source of salvation at Mt. 10:42. And regardless which of the 200+ views that Protestants take on the Lord's Supper you may espouse (unless you are a true Docetist at heart), would you not agree that Jesus confers power on the bread and wine by making them symbols of His new covenant? In fact, we are saved only through the incarnation of Jesus Christ-God becoming a physical being. Thus, through the power of God, physical things not only have powerto heal and repel evil, but in themselves serve as God's channels of grace from Him to us.
What the problem is with your analysis is that you take words, and because of your individual perceptions, distort their meaning to fit your perspective. Some of the things that you bring up are classic examples. Mindful of something Erasmus once said, "Every definition is dangerous," I will try to be as explanatory as a commbox will allow.
Comment cont.
We both believe in the power of intercessory prayer do we not? However, Catholics I know do not "pray" to the dead at least in the sense of the word as you use here. The word "pray" has more than one meaning. I do not "utter" or "address a prayer" to a saint, Mary or any other being beside God who is the sole object of my worship. However, I do "pray" to Mary or a saint in heaven as in making a "fervent request" or "entreaty" in asking them to pray for and with me to God.
"Dead" is another one of those words that is distorted. You would agree with me that the "living" can pray for us and that Scripture is replete with examples that it is proper to ask the living to do so. Does not Jesus make it plain at Mt. 22:23-33 that the saints in heaven are still alive before the Father? How can anyone argue that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are not "alive" given that Jesus says that the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob is the God of the living. What other conclusion can one draw from His words? I humbly submit that if Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (OT saints) are alive according to Jesus, and if we can ask those alive to intercede for us, then it is fitting that we can ask the saints who Jesus says are actually alive to intecede for us.
Also, Ken, you imply that I am worshipping relics by bowing down to them or kissing them. While I may "worship" them in the sense of honoring them or reverencing them, I do not "worship" them in the sense of giving adulation to my creator. Frankly, one of the best definitions of worship I have seen comes from William Temple’s Readings in St. John’s Gospel:
"Worship is the submission of all our nature to God. It is the quickening of conscience by His holiness; the nourishment of mind with His truth; the purifying of imagination by His Beauty; the opening of the heart to His love; the surrender of will to His purpose - and all of this gathered up in adoration, the most selfless emotion of which our nature is capable and therefore the chief remedy for that self-centeredness which is our original sin and the source of all actual sin".
In that sense of the word, "worship", I truly believe in my heart that the only way that one can "worship" God in this fashion is by being a part of Christ's one, holy, Catholic and apostolic Church. In contrast, when one reserves for himself the final say through the exercise of private judgment over what God's word means, one is not submitting themselves entirely to God's will, but trying to force God to submit to man's will.
Thus, Catholics do not "worship" relics, Mary, the Bible, or anything but the One Living and True God in Three Persons in the sense that Bishop Temple, or you, the Rev. Temple, give the word.
Besides do you not find anything interesting about the word commemoration being used in context of St. Polycarp's relics? No matter how much you may wish to claim otherwise, the honor we give r
Comment cont.
...we give relics is nothing more than commemoration.
Finally, I do want to note that while you addressed my example, you ignored the thrust of my comments. What is the point of insisting that Dave obtain an imprimatur if noone can show that he has misstated Catholic doctrine unless these Protestant apologists are willing to abide the same standard of warranting their work? Should not Protestant apologists undergo the same process so they do not misstate Catholic doctrine before trying to refute same especially if the purpose of the imprimatur is to provide a warranty of the accuracy of Catholic doctrine being espoused in the article?
Frankly, I do not know what the beef of Messrs. Swan or Hays, et al. is all about. At least Dave on his website clearly states that should anyone ever demonstrate that he is presenting Catholic doctrine in error he will submit to the authority to the Church and correct same. How many Protestants are willing to say that they are willing to submit to the authority of their denomination? How many Protestant apologists are willing to submit to any authority whatsoever other than their own? Dave warrants his work. With Mr. Swan, Professor White, Mr. Hays, et al., it's caveat emptor at best.
Owen the Wise said...
. . . I'm more impressed with Dave Armstrong's actual quote. "My books are perfectly orthodox." That is pretty bold. How does he know? By what standard should Dave Armstrong trust his own personal opinion of orthodoxy? His writings represent, after all, one private interpretation of the truth among many.
Owen the Wise has a point here. It's always possible that, in spite of our best efforts, we have misrepresented the orthodox Catholic position to some extent. As such, rather than say "my books are perfectly orthodox" it is better to say "I submit all my works to the judgment of the most holy Roman Church; if I have written anything contrary to the teachings of that Church, the Church is right, and I am wrong." This is a paraphrase of St. Thomas Aquinas' last words. Scott Hahn makes them his own very frequently, and Catholic discourse would be all the healthier if more Catholics followed suit.
Precisely why, Ben, I have had the following statement on my sidebar and on my previous website for the past eleven years:
"To the best of my knowledge, all of my theological writing is "orthodox" and not contrary to the official dogmatic and magisterial teaching of the Catholic Church. In the event of any (unintentional) doctrinal or moral error on my part having been undeniably demonstrated to be contrary to the Sacred Tradition of the Catholic Church, I will gladly and wholeheartedly submit to the authority and wisdom of the Church (Matthew 28:18-20; 1 Timothy 3:15)."
Does that suit your fancy better?
This other statement was an off-the cuff remark from, I think, the Bob Sungenis post combox. These clowns, of course, didn't take the time to consult my official statement. That would put them out.
Dear Dave,
Yes, that's a good statement. I guess just be more careful with off the cuff remarks in the future. "But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment" (Matt 12:36). This goes in spades for words we speak in public precisely as representatives of Catholicism.
"In this town (Geneva) there was formerly, it is said, an arm of St Anthony; it was kissed and worshipped as long as it remained in its shrine; but when it was turned out and examined, it was found to be the bone of a stag. There was on the high altar the brain of St Peter; so long as it rested in its shrine, nobody ever doubted its genuineness, for it would have been blasphemy to do so; but when it was subjected to a close inspection, it proved to be a piece of pumice-stone.
Of course this is nothing more than gossip and hearsay on Calvin's part. We have no way to tell if these purported relics (that the Calvinists probably destroyed) were fake as he claims. They may have been -- it is well known that there was a successful "industry" of fake relics durin the Middle Ages -- but we can't take Calvin's word in a matter such as this.
He then goes on to elaborate on various relics throughout Europe, where his more famous statement that "if we were to collect all these pieces of the true cross exhibited in various parts, they would form a whole ship’s cargo" comes out.
Famous, and absolutely false -- an extreme example of hyperbole.
How does one handle the case when fraudulent items are allowed by churches and the RC leaders to be venerated by the faithful?
If relics turn out not to be what they were believed, then they are no longer venerated. When there is doubt about the authenticity of a relic, it is presented not as authentic, but as an aid to piety and an occasion to call to mind the godly example of the saints. Just look at the example of the Shroud of Turin, one of the most famous of relics. If it turns out that the Shroud is inauthentic, it doesn't make it any less precious a religious artifact.
Hi Interlocutor, I would add to Jordanes comments that Attorney Calvin's argument is nothing more than a fine example of the "fake precision" fallacy. Did he ever actually tried to gather up all every splinter of the True Cross to see if his claim was accurate or was this merely a typical Calvinist (him personally, not Calvinists in general) disdain for the sacred?
As far as the fake relic issue goes, I also understand that a person who engages in such a practice incurs automatic excommunication, not to mention possible criminal prosecution if they are trafficking in such things.
Here were my original combox remarks, that "Deadhead" Doe picked up, in his usual failed attempt to discredit me:
Sadly, the Imprimatur is not always a safeguard anymore. My books don't have them (except for The New Catholic Answer Bible, and my books are perfectly orthodox. And some that have them are not orthodox.
[5-16-08]
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...2322512/
#163935
Sophia Institute Press, the publisher of my three main books, chose not to do it. It wasn't really in my hands. OSV did for the Bible: probably because that seems more "serious": being a Bible and all.
[5-16-08]
http://www.haloscan.com/comments...2322512/
#163937
Paul and Jordanes,
Yes I anticipated some might reply as you have, which is why I linked to the whole treatise in which he makes a lot more points (not just based on pure hearsay or his own hyperbole). Now I suppose one could say that every example he cites (including ones where there are conflicts between different sites claiming the same relics and ones that aren't referenced in any historical source for hundreds of years) is merely based on hearsay and conjecture. Seems more likely that at least some of the examples he cites (or ones he doesn't mention at all) were in fact fraudulent and being venerated (a case for every argument he makes being invalid could be made if there was a thorough rebuttal made to his treatise, but I'm not aware of any).
"If relics turn out not to be what they were believed, then they are no longer venerated."
Sure, but they were encouraged to be venerated for a time though right? Is veneration of false relics sinful, even if done in ignorance or with right intention? Because shouldn't the faithful be able to trust their leaders and the Church not to teach/sanction anything that is hurtful to the soul?
Acts 19:11-12 And God did extraordinary miracles by the hands of Paul, so that handkerchiefs or aprons were carried away from his body to the sick, and diseases left them and the evil spirits came out of them.
Of course I believe that is true and happened.
Of course I deny that I believe or suggest that matter is evil. Matter is good in itself, created by God. Good verse that you quoted, I Tim. 4:4-5; excellent; I agree with you there.
So, I am not a Manichean, and I reject that you impute that to me; or suggest that my idea is pure "Manichean".
This is an area that Roman Catholics have a lot in common with Pentecostals and Charismatics - wanting to touch and feel and experience in order to confirm belief.
I don't trust most of the "relic" claims in history. Sorry; they just don't pass the smell test. The miracles and those things in Scripture; we know are true and happened in history; but I cannot trust much of the subsequent claims in history. Of course, I don't know all that much and don't know about all of them. God choses to sometimes do a miracle; but many times there is no miracle. Miracles come from God doing and power and breaking into natural laws; not from the matter itself; but again; matter is good in itself.
It is actually the ECF like Jerome and Augustine and especially Clement of Alexandria and Origen and Simon Stylites that came very close to condemning matter and came pretty close to saying that sex, even in marriage is evil; or always tainted by sin and evil lusts.
you ignored the thrust of my comments. What is the point of insisting that Dave obtain an imprimatur if noone can show that he has misstated Catholic doctrine unless these Protestant apologists are willing to abide the same standard of warranting their work?
I ignored that aspect of your post; which is true that that was your main point; because you are correct there on that issue and make an excellent point; and they should not have made that a big deal. I admit I was too eager to get into something that we disagree on; that I feel is more clear and I am more confident on that the Protestant position is closer to the truth. (on relics, etc. -- leave it up to God to do miracles; yes He can use things; but don't make it into a business or magic formula or relic. When the Israelites did that with the bronze serpent, God rebuked them and had a king destroy it. Somewhere in Kings or Chronicles. Sorry for any mis-representation or overboard in emphasis.
I love my wife's face. Sometimes I will even look at it. But mostly I prefer to think on it fondly.
But touching it? No way! Eww! I don't *need* to touch it to confirm my belief that it is beautiful like those weak and obviously wrong romantics.
Chad,
That is a different issue (real marriage in time and space- and I agree with your ironic use of the sentiment as I am married also. Obviously, married people should touch and express physical affection - Proverbs 5, Genesis 1-2; Song of Solomon, I Cor. 7)
vs. non-living, statues, relics, icons.
Obviously you know this and you are trying to make the point that that one can bring that parallel over to relics, statues, and icons.
Seems clear the differences and distinctions and lack of complete similarity.
But you said going to a gravestone was OK. That is honoring a non-living thing (the burial spot/that person's remains) with a physical gesture (going there/being there). I don't see how you can then say something like, "oh but then to *touch* the gravestone with affection, that is obviously wrong" [not a direct quote 
]
I would place visiting a gravesite more in the realm of simply "remembering" a loved one rather than relics. Catholics (we must clarify!) would not say that there was grace present to be obtained through physical means, failing a great sanctity in the person.
But the way Ken's been arguing (atrocious logic; sorry Ken!) I could see where he might say touching the stone is some terrible unspiritual thing.
I posted the following on Josh Strodtbeck''s blog. Whether he'll allow it remains to be seen (I'll letcha know):
This is my "official" statement on the sidebar: that has been on my blog and the earlier website since early 1997:
[statement]
An off-the-cuff statement of mine was cited, where I said my books were "perfectly orthodox." As far as I know, they are, but this doesn't imply that I would not accept correction. It has simply never come up.
Needless to say, unwarranted conclusions have been made about my approach and willingness to submit to Catholic authorities, that bear no relation to the truth.
But then this comment may not even be allowed to be posted here. We'll see.
Dave's point that if everyone applied for the Imprimatur, etc. would keep the bishops and authorities busy and even overwhelm them; maybe they would not dabble in liberal ideas and other bad practices, theories, or writings; may be good for them.
That was very well said, funny; and rings true.
Strodtbeck allowed my comment to be posted. Good for him. He didn't allow his personal detestation of me to affect his sense of fair play in this instance.
Josh Strodtbeck's latest bilge:
"Jason, it's because Catholic apologists and their ilk make truth questions a matter of rank. When arguing with a Protestant, their first line of attack is "You have no right to criticize such-and-so, interpret this-and-that, or make decisions about so-on-and-so-forth because you are not *angelic voice* THE HOLY MAGISTERIUM!!!"
"If addressing questions is truly a matter of rank, then someone like Dave Armstrong has no right to say his books are "perfectly orthodox" or that something with an Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat is "not orthodox," regardless of whether or not it is true.. . .
"The problem is that apologists like Dave Armstrong, who without exception were once Protestants, still think like Protestants in that they consider themselves competent to judge theological questions on their own. They have simply expanded their source material used in deciding the questions."
[4 June 2008]
http://
metalutheran.blogspot.com...232675122782956
Hogwash, of course, containing several outright whoppers . . . this guy's a certifiable ass, for sure.
I commented on Josh's blog after this:
"Malcolm Muggeridge would have described such a clueless comment as "fathomless imbecility." "
Let's see if this one passes the censor! LOL
So far he hasn't allowed it.
Commenting by HaloScan
