The person getting called an "anti-Catholic" would be me. I - again - protest that label, which falsely suggests animus (although I recognize that somewhere on the hundreds of pages on your blog, you define the term some other way).
Why use that label except to poison the well?
Hi Nick, Great start! This is a fascinating topic to debate about.
I had a thought reading through your statement though. Would not the cross itself be an example of a created thing that was used by God Himself to produce a supernatural effect in the lives of human beings? Also, in the OT one could say that where the angel uses an ember to purify Isaiah so he could be in the presence of God might be considered an example where created things are used to purify even in heaven.
Good luck!
Why use that label except to poison the well?
How about, to accurately name something for what it is?
Jordon Potter,
Do you still consider it accurate if it gives people the wrong impression? I mean don't you read the word "anti-Catholic" and get the sense that the person being so labelled doesn't like Catholics (which, of course, is not the meaning Dave attaches to the label)?
In any event the debate so far can be viewed:
By clicking this link. (sorry that it comes up in reverse chronological order).
TF,
Why don't you just link to a definition of it? That way you won't be misrepresented.
I don't get the impression that you like me all that much, TF. 
Dave, I suspect I like you more than I'm liked by you.
Richard: let's reduce this to the absurd. Suppose I called Dave on a "serial killer" and set up a "serial killer" web page full of people I don't particularly like. Suppose I also put a caveat (somewhere amid the hundreds of pages on my hypothetical blog) that I mean by "serial killer," simply someone who fails to do everything in their power to stop abortion. I bet I could even find something from an operation RESCUE-type web page that would accuse everyone who is not out there chaining clinics shut as being guilty of the serial murder of unborn infants. Would that make it ok to go around calling Dave a "serial killer" without explanation? Obviously not. Now, this is not that extreme case - but it has parallels. If we were in that situation, would you be asking Dave to simply post a comment with a link to my definition, thinking that would make such abusive behavior ok? I doubt it. So, why should Dave be given a free pass here? Is it only because the situation is less extreme?
TF,
I think your analogy fails due to the fact that Dave hasn't applied special meaning to the term.
If you had called Dave a serial killer (for the sake of your analogy) I would expect you to provide evidence and if I couldn't find it among your thousands of pages, I'd just ask you about it. I may disagree with the term but I would know what you meant and I would have to accept your definition (which has a reasonable plausibility).
Richard,
With respect, I think Dave has applied a special meaning to the term. However, having lodged my protest against being labelled anti-Catholic (considering that I have goodwill towards Catholics), I will leave it at that for now.
Dave....thanks for posting this on your blog. I consider it a compliment.
Paul....thank you too for your thoughts on this. I think you're right on both counts. The Incarnation is perhaps the greatest example, but as you can see, there are many.
Finally, just for the record, Turretinfan has been very charitable in our debate thus far.
Dave....I returned the favor:
http://phatcatholic.blogspot.com...pular-
blog.html
That's kind of you. Keep up the good work, good buddy!
Turretinfan,
I wonder how you can view yourself as not being “anti-catholic” when you write things like this (about Christmas):
Yes, I meant what I said. The gospel needs to be distinguished from the false gospel of Rome. Joining them in their high holy day tends to suggest we are of one religion with them, and kind of confuses things.
Citation
And:
Those of us who are Puritans will avoid celebrating the day because of its connection with Catholicism, rather than strictly speaking because of its connection with paganism.
Citation.
See also this.
If treating Christmas as something that needs to be quarantined because of its association with Catholicism does not constitute Anti-Catholicism, what would?
Peter,
First of all, thanks for taking the time to read my blog.
Actually hating Catholics (the people), is what a lot of people think of when they think of Anti-Catholicism. I don't hate Catholics, so I feel the label is inappropriate.
"Non-Catholic" is the appropriate label for people who are not part of the religion of Catholicism. Simply being clear about that is not "anti-Catholic" in my book.
We (the Reformation and Rome) offer two different gospels: two different ways to be saved. That needs to be clear: something I would think that even Catholics who don't like Reformation theology would appreciate.
I'm a non-Catholic, not an "anti-Catholic," even if I make the fact that I'm a non-Catholic quite clear.
It's not motivated by any antipathy for Catholics, but by zeal for the gospel of Christ.
-Turretinfan
Thanks for the response, but you really need to step back and seriously think about the subject.
You are certainly a "non-catholic." That in itself doesn't make you "anti-catholic." The world is filled with "non-catholics." My law partner is a "non-catholic", but he would never dream of arguing that he shouldn't celebrate Christmas because Catholics celebrate Christmas.
That is pure and simply bigotry.
A person can be identified as a bigot when they start trading in the tropes and idiom of bigotry. When a person starts to appeal to arguments that appeal to arguments that are historically associated with bigotry, one identifies oneself with that bigotry. Hence, one can be against American support of Israel without being anti-semitic, but when that person starts uttering arguments about Jewish control of Hollywood or bankign, he has established himself as a bigot.
Similarly, when you argued that you wouldn't be celebrating Christmas because Catholics celebrate Christmas - it's a "high holy day" for Catholicism, using language of derision, which we know is meant to make Catholicism akin to Judaism (because you-know-who have "high holy days", a term not used by Catholics) - you show that you are more than a "non-catholic."
You are, sadly, using the idioms of bigotry to appeal to the bigotry of Protestants.
TF,
Why do you have good will toward Catholics? Is it not possible our minds have been darkened by your god that we may glorify him by our disobedience to the call he never gave us the grace to respond to that we may be justly damned?
I mean, if your god may not have heavenly plans for us (but, rather, hellish ones).. .why should you have good will towards us?
When people say "because my god may have a plan to release you from the shackles of the false gospel of your forefathers..." It does sound lit a bit of an indictment against them... a bit anti-Catholic.
By the way... your gospel doesn't sound like good news to me. Darkened mind?
Anon.
So how does regular water become "holy water" in the RCC (and I guess EO, since you include a picture of one from EO) ??
Is is just a prayer said over the water by a RC priest or EO priest?
Is there a certain formula or requirement of words in the prayers of consecrating the water?
Any other requirement for it becoming "holy water"??
ie, making the sign of the cross over it, etc. ?
I don't know details, but I believe it is simply blessed by a priest. There may be some particular formula.
What's the purpose of Holy Water?
When I had my house blessed the priest simply took a glass of tap water and said a prayer over it while making the sign of the cross. He took out a book and read a prayer rather than just ad libbing one so I think there is some structure that they are asked to use. You would have to ask a priest.
Wikipedia has an article on holy water and how it is blessed that may be helpful. I will try to find more on it from a more official source.
I do know that at my parish much of the holy water for the year is blessed at the Easter vigil Mass using the formula that is set out in the Mass. I also know that there are other ways that holy water can be blessed, some of them using salt that has been blessed as well.
I'm not terribly comfortable using the terms "clean" and "unclean" for Christian discussion when it was generally a state used to define people and objects under the law. For example, a woman menstruating was unclean and had to be purified at the end of her period (Lev 2:12), but we don't consider a woman unclean at all due to her period. Someone was considered unclean if they had certain skin diseases (Lev 13:3); we don't hold that true anymore. So to say someone or something (like a house) is "unclean" seems nebulous and unhelpful when discussing Christianity and Christians.
If you're saying a person is unclean, because he's sinned, that may be true; but forgiveness for that and all other sins can come without Holy Water ever being involved. I trust we all agree on that. And if that's true, why have holy water? What's its purpose?
Eph 5:26 says that Jesus cleansed the church "by the washing with water through the word." Water is a symbol, but the Word is what was actually used to purify the church, right? This doesn't really encourage holy water.
Heb 10:22 says, "let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water." I presume this washing of the body is a reference to baptism. Holy water was never required for baptism in the Bible.
John 2:6a says, "Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing." This has no bearing whatsoever on Christian living; it's simply pointing out Jews had jars for water used to purify, not that Christians should use water to purify.
Heb 9:19 also refers to OT cleansing by water. OT uses of water for purifying aren't transferred to the NT.
John 5:4 refers to the "Healing pool". Notice the only time people were healed was when the pool was stirred. Most theologians I've read believe it was the Holy Spirit that stirred it, so it was really their faith combined with the Holy Spirit that healed someone, not the water itself.
John 9:6 has Jesus spitting, making mud, putting it on a man's eyes, and the man washes it off with water (what else would he wash it off with? ). This doesn't encourage holy water either. If anything, the RCC should have holy mud made from a priest's spit.
James 5:14-15 gives us insight into how Christians should view "things" that are used to "purify", "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven." We see it's the prayer and their faith in Jesus that heals the man, not the oil.
(continued below)
.
Nick is right, at times in the NT we do see objects seemingly having an effect on people and their ailments; but is it really the object or one's faith in Christ? Holy water seems, at best, superfluous; at worst it could be an object/idol that people put their faith in rather than God. What do y'all think?
.
Good job Grubb on all the NT passages -- The Levitical law stuff has been fulfilled in Christ and no longer applicable, since the sacrifices and the Levitical priesthood are no longer. Hebrews teaches this.
the other OT passages are mostly from historical narrative- no where does it command people to copy these things -- like 2 Kings 21:13 and the bones of Elisha -- (Benny Hinn used that Scripture to justify his going to visit the grave of Kathryn Kullman, and "get her anointing" and then use his breath and hand motions throwing his coat at the audience for healing, etc.) This is a wrong use of Scripture. It happened, as Scripture records, but we are nowhere commanded to try and repeat the miracles, like the Acts 19 and Acts 5 passages where God healed people through shadows and handkerchiefs of the apostles, etc.
There are a lot of similarities between Charismatics and Roman Catholics in wanting to "touch" and "feel" something physical - pilgrimages, statues, holy water, candles, healing clothes, formulas, certain words, etc.
Thanks Ken.
Hi Ken and Grubb, I think you are missing the point about sacramentals. Noone is required to do them. They are there to assist us if we choose to use them. No sacramentals confer grace to us. They prepare us to be receptive to the Grace God gives us. If you want to look for something that would be analogous to a sacramental, look at the language Zwingli and Calvin used to describe the Lord's Supper as opposed to the practices of the Jews under the Old Covenant. Unfortunately, I am bit busy right now to give a more detailed response.
If you are looking for something analogous to sacramentals in the OT, you would need to look more in lines of the tassels and phylacteries that all pious Jews including Jesus wore. Sacrifices in the OT have been replaced by the Eucharist and Jesus' sacrifice on the Cross.
Ken,
You wrote:
"There are a lot of similarities between Charismatics and Roman Catholics in wanting to "touch" and "feel" something physical - pilgrimages, statues, holy water, candles, healing clothes, formulas, certain words, etc."
Where were all the Real Christians[TM] who thought as you did in the first 1500 years of the Church? They sure could have saved us a lot of "physical" heresy...
You should have told Christ about this before the incarnation too.
You come off as a bigot.
Paul,
Thanks.
No one is required to do them.
But what about baptism? Doesn't holy water HAVE to be used in baptism? And if RCs MUST be baptized, don't they end up having to use holy water at least once? Can someone be baptized without holy water without it being extenuating circumstances?
Randy,
What's the purpose of having a house blessed with holy water? Why did you do it?
Anon,
Ken, a bigot? According to Dictionary.com "bigot: a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion."
I don't think Ken is "utterly intolerant". He (just as Dave, you, and I do) has what he believes, but I've seen Ken reconsider certain issues when a very good counterpoint is made. Just as Dave Armstrong and I (and I presume you too) are solidly convinced of what we believe, so does Ken. I'm certain that doesn't make one a bigot, otherwise anyone fully convinced of what he believes is a bigot. The key to being a bigot is being utterly intolerant (not just intolerant) of others who are different than one's self.
.
Grubb,
I stand corrected... I can now see he comes off as a beacon of charity.
I should become whatever religion he is... I will now go read the Bible for the first time ever and surely become whatever Ken is...
So happy,
Anon
Ken Temple is not a bigot. Dead-wrong on many issues, exasperating, frustrating, too repetitive, maybe (and he could probably say the same about many of us), but not a bigot at all. Anyone who can hang out for years at a place where 95% of the people believe differently than he does, without becoming uncivil has my great respect. The same goes for Grubb.
In response to Grubb's no-speciifc-recipient question - "But what about baptism? Doesn't holy water HAVE to be used in baptism? And if RCs MUST be baptized, don't they end up having to use holy water at least once? Can someone be baptized without holy water without it being extenuating circumstances?"
Any water can be used for baptism, provided that it is known as water, and not, say, Kool-Aid. Holy water is supposed to be used, and it is the norm, but it's the 'water' not the 'holy' that's important.
Thanks Dave and Grubb for your kind remarks
and to "Anon" -- I meant no offense personally; I was only trying to show the similarities of emphasis and also the wrong method of interpreting a historical narrative as a principle to repeat or a command for us today; that is all.
The same principle is in taking a parable or vision from Ezekiel and interpreting it wrongly and out of context and trying to make parallels with Mary, etc.
We must interpret Scripture according to the author's intended meaning. How did the author mean for his audience to take him; and how does God want us to take the passage for today?
I was only trying to point out the similarities in emphasis of taking a narrative passage in the Bible, like Genesis, 1-2 Kings, Acts, and the Gospels -- which I believe certainly happened and is historical when it is intended to be taken as historical. That is, I beleive in all the miracles that happened, included the incarnation and resurrection; as really happened in time and space - Jonah being swallowed by a big fish, and the Red Sea opening up so that the waters stood up like a wall and about 2 million people crossed over and then after the Hebrews made it through, the waters closed back on the Egyptians and drowned them; etc.
I beleive in all the miracles recorded in Scripture.
The narrative passages are recording what happened.
The teaching passages tell us what to do and principle passages teaches us doctrine, etc.
James 5:14 and context is the only one that actually tells us to take something physical, the oil, and anoint the sick. What does it mean? Is it a medicine, a healing balm for cuts? -- like Luke 10:34; or a symbol of the anointing of the Spirit, who has the power to heal? Yes, I think both -- God is saying, use medicine, and pray, and trust God. Call the elders and they should gather and pray and ask God for wisdom.
I could not sleep the other night, it was around 2:30am, so I turned on the TV and saw one of the goofiest TV preachers I have ever seen in my life. I could not believe the guy was doing what he is doing. He was taking Ezekiel 4:9 -- commands to Ezekiel in his day in Babylon -- and then this TV preacher was claiming he had bricks imported from the Middle East and baked this special "holy bread" from Ezekiel 4:9 and if you send your gift in he will send you this bread that will bless and heal you.
This is what I meant, by the similarity. Some are goofy on both sides, and some are not so goofy.
The similarity is the method of interpretation -- taking a passage meant in context as historical narrative and using it as a command for us to imitate and try to repeat miracles. Miracles happen if God chooses to make them happen, sometimes He gives healing and miracle if it is His will to heal, etc. and many times God with holds from answering with a miracle; it is all dependent on His choice and sovereignty.
I think this is a kind of original thought-if Protestants hold the Bible to be sacred isn't that that just anoter form of Sacrmanetalism?
Pure magic and superstition!
'The sacred word of God' is in a physical book.
Maybe thats not right.
James
Thanks Dave.
Has anyone besides Randy had their house blessed with holy water? What about a car? Why did you? Did you think there were demons in it, or was it to help prevent the house from becoming a money pit? I'm not making fun, I'm trying to think of valid reasons to have one's house blessed with holy water.
I could see holy water being perceived in a superstitious manner, My house was blessed by holy water, so nothing bad will happen to it or in it. That kind of thing.
Anon,
I think Ken is Southern Baptist, but you may want to check with him before switching. I hope you don't mind my attempted humor; made myself laugh with that.
.
Grubb,
As Catholics, we bless pretty much everything we own, sometimes with Holy Water, sometimes with blessed salt, sometimes with prayers, sometimes with the sign of the cross.
It does come down to the fundamental belief that God can confer his blessing through physical means. We see that when Issac blesses Jacob. His physical laying on of hands conferred his fatherly blessing that could not be revoked.
We see that with Paul's handkerchief working miracles in his absence. We see it in the woman healed by touching Jesus' cloak. We see it all over the Scriptures.
The early church blessed literally everything with the sign of the cross. The reason is partly that we live in a world also inhabited by evil forces that seek our harm. Those evil forces are repelled by the cross, by prayer, by holy objects. We bless things to preserve them from spiritual harm. We bless things to strengthen them spiritually.
It's not superstition like you alluded to above. We don't believe that nothing bad can happen to blessed objects, but we do believe that evil spirits are repulsed by them, so the more the better!
Holy water is also a reminder of our baptism. When we walk into our churches and homes, there is a font of holy water. We dip our fingers in it and bless ourselves in the Triune name into which we were baptized. It blesses us and reminds us whose we are.
I bless my children with holy water and call the blessing of God to descend upon them every night before bed. It's not superstition, like I said, just a clear (and we think, biblical) belief that spiritual blessings can come to us through physical things. After all, God came to us in a physical body to bring our redemption!
Hope that's helpful!
Matt
Commenting by HaloScan
