Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain! Catholic History and the Emerald City Protocol

reformation21 ^ | April 2012 | Carl Trueman

[Gamecock]

Full Title: Pay No Attention to That Man Behind the Curtain! Roman Catholic History and the Emerald City Protocol

In the field of Reformation studies, Professor Brad Gregory is somebody for whom I have immense respect.  Those outside the discipline of history are possibly unaware of the ravages which postmodernism brought in its wake, making all narratives negotiable and fuelling a rise in interest in all manner of trivia and marginal weirdness.  Dr. Gregory is trained in both philosophy and history and has done much to place the self-understanding of human agents back at the centre of historical analysis.  Thus, for those of us interested in the Reformation, he has also played an important role in placing religion back into the discussion.  For that, I and many others owe him a great debt of gratitude.

I therefore find myself in the odd and uncomfortable position of writing a very critical review of his latest book, The Unintended Reformation (Belknap Harvard, 2011). The book itself is undoubtedly well-written and deeply learned, with nearly a third of the text devoted to endnotes.  It is brilliant in its scope and execution, addressing issues of philosophy, politics and economics.  Anyone wanting a panoramic view of the individuals, the institutions and the forces which shaped early modern Europe should read this work. Yet for all of its brilliance, the book does not demonstrate its central thesis, that Protestantism must shoulder most of the responsibility for the various things which Dr. Gregory dislikes about modern Western society, from its exaltation of the scientific paradigm to its consumerism to its secular view of knowledge and even to global warming. I am sympathetic with many of Dr. Gregory's gripes about the world of today; but in naming Protestantism as the primary culprit he engages in a rather arbitrary blame game.

Dr. Gregory's book contains arguments about both metaphysics and what we might call empirical social realities. On the grounds that debates about metaphysics, like games of chess, can be great fun for the participants but less than thrilling for the spectators, I will post my thoughts on that aspect of the book in a separate blog entry. In this article, I will focus on the Papacy, persecution and the role of the printing press.  This piece is more of a medieval jousting tournament than a chess game and will, I trust, provide the audience with better spectator sport.

One final preliminary comment: I am confident that my previous writings on Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholics indicate that I am no reincarnation of a nineteenth century 'No popery!' rabble-rouser. I have always tried to write with respect and forbearance on such matters, to the extent that I have even been berated at times by other, hotter sorts of Protestants for being too pacific. In what follows, however, I am deliberately combative.  This is not because I wish to show disrespect to Dr. Gregory or to his Church or to his beliefs; but he has set the tone by writing a very combative book. I like that. I like writers who believe and care about the big questions of life. But here is the rub: those who write in such a way must allow those who respond to them to believe with equal passion in their chosen cause and to care about it deeply and thus to be equally combative in their rejoinders.

A key part of the book's argument is the apparent anarchy created by the Protestant emphasis on the perspicuity of scripture. In this, Dr. Gregory stands with his Notre Dame colleague, Christian Smith, as seeing this as perhaps the single weakest point of Protestantism. He also rejects any attempt to restrict Protestantism to the major confessional traditions (Reformed, Anglican and Lutheran) as he argues that such a restriction would create an artificial delimitation of Protestant diversity. Instead, he insists on also including those groups which scholars typically call radical reformers (essentially all other non-Roman Christian sects which have their origins in the turn to scripture of the Reformation). This creates a very diverse and indeed chaotic picture of Protestantism such that no unifying doctrinal synthesis is possible as a means of categorizing the whole.  

I wonder if I am alone in finding the more stridently confident comments of some Roman Catholics over the issue of perspicuity to be somewhat tiresome and rather overblown. Perspicuity was, after all, a response to a position that had proved to be a failure: the Papacy.  Thus, to criticize it while proposing nothing better than a return to that which had proved so inadequate is scarcely a compelling argument.

Yes, it is true that Protestant interpretive diversity is an empirical fact; but when it comes to selectivity in historical reading as a means of creating a false impression of stability, Roman Catholic approaches to the Papacy provide some excellent examples of such fallacious method.  The ability to ignore or simply dismiss as irrelevant the empirical facts of papal history is quite an impressive feat of historical and theological selectivity. Thus, as all sides need to face empirical facts and the challenges they raise, here are a few we might want to consider, along with what seem to me (as a Protestant outsider) to be the usual Roman Catholic responses:

Empirical fact: The Papacy as an authoritative institution was not there in the early centuries. 

Never mind.  Put together a doctrine of development whereby Christians - or at least some of them, those of whom we choose to approve in retrospect on the grounds we agree with what they say  - eventually come to see the Pope as uniquely authoritative.  

Empirical fact: The Papacy was corrupt in the later Middle Ages, building its power and status on political antics, forged documents and other similar scams. 

Ignore it, excuse it as a momentary aberration and perhaps, if pressed, even offer a quick apology. Then move swiftly on to assure everyone it is all sorted out now and start talking about John Paul II or Benedict XVI.  Whatever you do, there is no need to allow this fact to have any significance for how one understands the theory of papal power in the abstract or in the present.  

Empirical fact: The Papacy was in such a mess at the beginning of the fifteenth century that it needed a council to decide who of the multiple claimants to Peter's seat was the legitimate pope.  

Again, this was merely a momentary aberration but it has no significance for the understanding of papal authority.  After all, it was so long ago and so far away.

Empirical fact: The church failed (once again) to put its administrative, pastoral, moral and doctrinal house in order at the Fifth Lateran Council at the start of the sixteenth century.  

Forget it.  Emphasise instead the vibrant piety of the late medieval church and then blame the ungodly Protestants for their inexplicable protests and thus for the collapse of the medieval social, political and theological structure of Europe.  

Perhaps it is somewhat aggressive to pose these points in such a blunt form. Again, I intend no disrespect but am simply responding with the same forthrightness with which certain writers speak of Protestantism. The problem here is that the context for the Reformation - the failure of the papal system to reform itself, a failure in itself lethal to notions of papal power and authority - seems to have been forgotten in all of the recent aggressive attacks on scriptural perspicuity.  These are all empirical facts and they are all routinely excused, dismissed or simply ignored by Roman Catholic writers. Perspicuity was not the original problem; it was intended as the answer.   One can believe it to be an incorrect, incoherent, inadequate answer; but then one must come up with something better - not simply act as if shouting the original problem louder will make everything all right. Such an approach to history and theology is what I call the Emerald City protocol: when defending the great and powerful Oz, one must simply pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.  

Given the above empirical facts, the medieval Papacy surely has chronological priority over any of the alleged shortcomings of scriptural perspicuity in the history of abject ecclesiastical and theological disasters. To be fair, Dr. Gregory does acknowledge that 'medieval Christendom' was a failure (p. 365) but in choosing such a term he sidesteps the significance of the events of the late medieval period for papal authority. The failure of medieval Christendom was the failure of the Papacy. To say medieval Christendom failed but then to allow such a statement no real ecclesiastical significance is merely an act of throat-clearing before going after the people, the Protestants, who frankly are in the crosshairs simply because it appears one finds them and their sects distasteful. Again, to be fair, one cannot blame Roman Catholics for disliking Protestants: our very existence bears testimony to Roman Catholicism's failure. But that Roman Catholics who know their history apparently believe the Papacy now works just fine seems as arbitrary and selective a theological and historical move as any confessionally driven restriction of what is and is not legitimate Protestantism.  

As Dr. Gregory brings his narrative up to the present, I will do the same. There are things which can be conveniently ignored by North American Roman Catholic intellectuals because they take place in distant lands. Yet many of these are emblematic of contemporary Roman Catholicism in the wider world. Such, for example, are the bits of the real cross and vials of Jesus' blood which continue to be displayed in certain churches, the cult of Padre Pio and the relics of Anthony of Padua and the like (both of whom edged out Jesus and the Virgin Mary in a poll as to who was the most prayed to figure in Italian Catholicism). We Protestants may appear hopelessly confused to the latest generation of North American Roman Catholic polemicists, but at least my own little group of Presbyterian schismatics does not promote the veneration of mountebank stigmatics or the virtues of snake-oil.

Still, for the sake of argument let us accept the fideistic notion that the events of the later Middle Ages do not shatter the theology underlying the Papacy.  What therefore of Roman Catholic theological unity and papal authority today? That is not too rosy either, I am afraid.  The Roman Catholic Church's teaching on birth control is routinely ignored by vast swathes of the laity with absolute impunity; Roman Catholic politicians have been in the vanguard of liberalizing abortion laws and yet still been welcome at Mass and at high table with church dignitaries; leading theologians cannot agree on exactly what papal infallibility means; and there is not even consensus on the meaning and significance of Vatican II relative to previous church teaching. Such a Church is as chaotic and anarchic as anything Protestantism has thrown up. 

Further, if Dr. Gregory wants to include as part of his general concept of Protestantism any and all sixteenth century lunatics who ever claimed the Bible alone as sole authority and thence to draw conclusions about the plausibility of the perspicuity of scripture, then it seems reasonable to insist in response that discussions of Roman Catholicism include not simply the Newmans, Ratzingers and Wotjylas but also the Kungs, Rahners, Schillebeeckxs and the journalists at the National Catholic Reporter.  And why stop there?  We should also throw in the sedevacantists and Lefebvrists for good measure.  They all claim to be good Roman Catholics and find their unity around the Office of the Pope, after all. Let us not exclude them on the dubious grounds that they do not support our own preconceived conclusions of how papal authority should work.  At least Protestantism has the integrity to wear its chaotic divisions on its sleeve.

Moving on from the issue of authority, we find that Dr. Gregory also argues that religious persecution is a poisonous result of the confessionalisation of Europe into warring religious factions. Certainly, the bloodshed along confessional lines in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries was terrible, but doctrinal disagreements did not begin with the Reformation. The New Testament makes it clear that serious doctrinal conflict existed within the church even during apostolic times (I hope I am allowed, for the sake of argument, to assume that the New Testament is perspicuous enough for me to state that with a degree of confidence); and the link between church and state which provided the context for bloodshed over matters of theological deviancy was established from at least the time of Priscillian in the late fourth century. It was hardly a Protestant or even a Reformation innovation.

When it comes to the empirical facts of Catholic persecution, Dr. Gregory only mentions the Inquisition twice. That is remarkably light coverage given its rather stellar track record in all that embarrassing auto da fe business. Moreover, he mentions it first only in a Reformation/post-Reformation context. Yet Roman Catholic persecution of those considered deviants was not simply or even primarily a response to Reformation Protestantism but a well-established pattern in the Middle Ages. No doubt the Spanish Jews and Muslims, the Cathars, the Albigensians, the Lollards, the Hussites and many other religious deviants living before the establishment of any Protestant state might have wished that their sufferings had received a more substantial role in the narrative and more significance in the general thesis. Sure, Protestantism broke the Roman Catholic monopoly on persecution and thus played a shameful and ignominious part in its escalation; but it did not establish the precedents, legally, culturally or practically.

Finally, the great lacuna in this book is the printing press. Dr. Gregory has, as I noted above, done brilliant work in putting self-understanding back on the historical agenda and thus of grounding the history of ideas in historical realities rather than metaphysical abstractions. The danger with this, however, is that material factors can come to be somewhat neglected. His thesis - that Protestantism shattered the unified nature and coherence of knowledge and paved the way for its secularization - does not take into account the impact of the easy availability of print. The printed book changed everything: it fuelled literacy rates and it expanded the potential for diversity of opinion. I suspect there is a very plausible alternative, or at least supplementary, narrative to the 'Protestantism shattered the unified nature and coherence of knowledge' thesis: the printing press did it because it made impossible the Church's control of the nature, range, flow and availability of knowledge.

Ironically, the printing press is one of the great success stories of pre-Reformation Catholic Europe. One might argue that it was a technological innovation and thus not particularly 'Catholic' in that sense. That is true; but for some years after it was invented it was unclear whether it would be successful enough to replace medieval book production. In fact, its success was significantly helped by the brisk fifteenth century trade in printed breviaries and missals and the indulgences produced to fund war against the Ottomans. In other words, it was the vibrancy of late medieval Catholic piety, of which Dr. Gregory makes much, that ensured the future of the printing press and thereby the shipwrecking of the old, stable forms of knowledge.

The Roman Catholic Church knew the danger presented by the easy transmission of, and access to, knowledge which the printing press provided. That is why it was so assiduous in burning books in the sixteenth century and why the Index of Prohibited Books remained in place until the 1960s. I well remember being amazed when reading the autobiography of the analytic philosopher and one-time priest, Sir Anthony Kenny, that he had had to obtain special permission from the Church to read David Hume for his doctoral research in the 1950s. At the start of the twenty-first century, Rome may present herself as the friend of engaged religious intellectuals in North America but she took an embarrassingly long time even to allow her people free access to the most basic books of modern Western thought. Women in Britain had the vote, Elvis (in my humble opinion) had already done his best work and The Beatles and The Rolling Stones were starting to churn out hits before Roman Catholics were free to read David Hume without specific permission from the Church.   

Of course, Dr. Gregory knows about the Index; but he seems to see it as a response to Protestantism, not as an extension of the Church's typical manner of handling deviation from its central tenets and practices which stretched back well before the Reformation. And therein lies the ironic, tragic, perplexing flaw of this brilliant and learned book: Dr. Gregory sets out to prove that Protestantism is the source of all, or at least many, of the modern world's ills; but what he actually does is demonstrate in painstaking and compelling detail that medieval Catholicism and the Papacy with which it was inextricably bound up were ultimately inadequate to the task which they set - which they claimed! - for themselves.  Reformation Protestantism, if I can use the singular, was one response to this failure, as conciliarism had been a hundred years before.  One can dispute the adequacy of such responses; but only by an act of historical denial can one dispute the fact that it was the Papacy which failed.

Thanks to the death of medieval Christendom and to the havoc caused by the Reformation and beyond, Dr Gregory is today free to believe (or not) that Protestantism is an utter failure.  Thanks to the printing press, he is also free to express this in a public form. Thanks to the modern world which grew as a response to the failure of Roman Catholicism, he is also free to choose his own solution to the problems of modernity without fear of rack or rope. Yet, having said all that, I for one find it strange indeed that someone would choose as the solution that which was actually the problem in the first place.

[daniel1212]

I don't solely rely on a "we gave you the Bible" argument when trying to understand what has come to pass.

But while you claim never having received a rational answer to your polemical question, though i dare say you did, twice now, where is an actual answer to mine. If it is not basically based upon historical descent as the instrument and steward of Scripture, showing Rome as the inheritor of promises of Divine promises and preservation, then what is the basis for assurance that Rome is the one true and infallible church?

The book of Revelation demonstrates that most of the Asian churches fell short of the mark, but they still had the faith which was once delivered to the saints. and I assume they were part of the holy catholic apostolic church.

But the faith which was once delivered to the saints, as manifest in the NT was one that

1. Never had any pastors titled "priests" as they did not engage in any unique sacrificial function, that of turning bread into human flesh and dispensing it to the people.

2. Never differentiated between bishops and elders, and with grand titles ("Most Reverend Eminence," “Very Reverend,” “Most Illustrious and Most Reverend Lord,” “His Eminence Cardinal,” “The Most Reverend the Archbishop,” etc.) or made such distinct by their ostentatious pompous garb. (Matthew 23:5-7)

3. Never had apostles preaching receiving the Eucharist as the means by which one received spiritual life in themselves, so that without which eating one cannot have eternal life (as per RC literalism, of Jn. 6:53,54), versus believing the gospel, and the Lord's supper as focusing on the church being the body of Christ in showing the Lord sacrificial death by that communal meal.

4. Never required clerical celibacy as the norm, (1Tim. 3:17) which presumes all such have that gift.

5. Never promised a perpetual assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium, or taught this is necessary for preservation of truth, including writings to be established as Scripture, and for assurance of faith, and that historical descent and being the steward of Scripture assured they had assured infallibility.

6. Never manifested where Peter is confirmed to be the "rock" of Mt. 16:18 upon which the church is built, rather than upon the rock of the faith confessed by Peter, thus Christ Himself.

7. Never taught or exampled that all the churches were to look to Peter as the bishop of Rome, as the first of a line of supreme heads reigning over all the churches, and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church.

8. Never recorded or taught any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) besides for Judas (who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) and who was elected by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)

9. Never recorded or manifested (not by conjecture) sprinkling or baptism without repentant personal faith, that being the stated requirement for baptism. (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38)

10. Never preached a gospel of salvation which begins with becoming good enough inside (formally justified due to infused interior charity), via sprinkling or baptism in recognition of proxy faith, and which usually ends with becoming good enough to enter glory via suffering in purgatory, commencing at death.

11. Never had a separate class of believers called “saints.”

12. Never prayed to anyone in Heaven but the Lord, or were instructed to (i.e. "our Mother who art in Heaven) who were able to hear and respond to virtually unlimited prayers addressed to them.

13. Never recorded a women who never sinned, and was a perpetual virgin despite being married (contrary to the normal description of marriage, as leave and cleave. ) and who would be bodily assumed to Heaven and exalted as a demigoddess. All of which conspicuous absence is not characteristic of Holy Spirit who reveals notable aspects of its significant subjects, from long life, to escaping death or being bodily assumed to God, to extra toes, to unique diets, to being sinless, etc.

14. Never supported or made laws that restricted personal reading of Scripture by laity (contrary to Chrysostom), if able and available, sometimes even outlawing it when it was.

15. Never used the sword of men to deal with its theological dissenters.

16. Never taught that the deity Muslims worship (who is not as an unknown god) is the same as theirs.

I could go on, but this should suffice for now, and its late.

You could make the Fundamentalist Baptist case here and argue that all churches are local. I think you already rejected the claims that Fundamentalists alone go back in direct apostolic succession to these churches.

None go back in direct formal apostolic succession to these churches. Not Rome with her problematic and often messy "unbroken" (with absences of years and competing anc confusing claimants), as that is not the basis for NT authenticity, and Rome fails of the apostolic credentials.

We know none of the Reformed theology churches do; they were started by men some 1500 years later. Who remains ? Do you propose the Eastern Catholics instead of the Western Catholics ? Would you take the position that the Jewish believers diminished and the Gentile believers misunderstood the Scriptures, drifting into long apostasy ?

The answer to that question is why the questions i asked need to be answered. Let me know.

[LurkingSince'98]

“Then why do you mess around with wafers and wine?”

We do it because we can.....

For the Greater Glory of God

[Syncro]

Mary herself cites God as her "Savior" (in the Magnificat) but that does not infer that she had sinned, simply that she is free from sin, -- saved, -- from conception.

Not true, that is just Catholic dogma.

Mary referring to Jesus as her Savior does not infer that she had sinned (was a sinner) but PROVES she was a sinner and she rejoiced in God her Savior.

We are all born in the same condition, with the sin nature.

Don't worry, it's alright with God that Mary needed salvation (and revieved it earlier in her earthly life as demonstrated by her statement "And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Savior.")

I'm amazed at those that don't realize that God can use sinners to glorify Him.

[LurkingSince'98]

“Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.”

“So to be consistent with the literal meaning, you must contend that unless one believes and receives the “Real Presence” then they have neither spiritual nor eternal life. “

Why would a protestant who believes that the universe was literally created in EXACTLY six days - expect that the words quoted as coming directly from Christ’s mouth be figurative ???

As a Catholic that is exactly what we believe because we take Christ at His word......

For the a Greater Glory of God

[Invincibly Ignorant]

Where ya been dude? We had some good give and take in the past. I hope all is well with you and family.

I've been around. Don't check as often but if there's something you think I'm missing shoot me a private. I kinda miss all the daggers headed my way. lol. Family doing well. I have some skin cancer issues but not a big deal. Hope all is well with you and yours.

[Alex Murphy]

The thread’s back open, folks!

[annalex]

Re-sending my brief comments that I sent privately while the thread was under lock.

You are very correct that the text of Luke 1:28 does not necessitate the Catholic doctrine on Mary; it witnesses to it. This is the case with all Catholic doctrine: the Church discerns the doctrine from its sacred tradition by looking at available historical knowledge of the life of the Church. The Church does not do what the Protestants do, read the scripture and in it find the doctrine. Rather, both the Holy Scripture and the doctrine are interrelated products of the Church.

Indeed one only reading Luke 1:28 may build theories that (1) Mary reached age of reason (one cannot sin before the intellect is mature enough to recognize sin), committed a unknown to us and unrecorded by St. Luke sin, then received the fullness of grace from Archangel Gabriel, and since then remained sinless thanks to that grace; or (2) Mary was sinless like any child, received the fullness of grace at some point, and in her old age the grace aired off and she committed an unrecorded unknown to us sin.

The reading that since the fullness of grace preceded the arrival of the angel it must have been there from her conception; and that grace does not go stale once received, and that God has the power to raise any kind of Mary He wants for His own mother, and probably would not want a sinner in that role -- that reading, the Catholic one, or rather that doctrine, had existed inside the Church even before Luke, under the dictation of the Holy Ghost, wrote his gospel.

[annalex]

Re-sending my brief comments that I sent privately while the thread was under lock.

dan having shown you how the difference is defined

Indeed, and I am grateful to that. Things got clearer with the help of the authority he cited.

[annalex]

Re-sending my brief comments that I sent privately while the thread was under lock.

Now it seems obvious that "If a teaching is wholly infallible obviously it is wholly inspired by God" is no longer obviously the case

My understanding of inspiration vs. infallibility is indeed in some degree of flux, and you notice some progress I mad in the course of the thread; needless to say this is not something itself taught doctrinally. Yes, after some reading, including the quotes from a Catholic authority from you, I am inclined to think that infallibility is simply absence of error, which inspiration is active presence of the Holy Ghost in the writer. They are independent sets: a passage may be inspired and infallible, inspired and fallible, infallible and not inspired. Further, an inspired passage does not guarantee the inspired quality of the entire work. It is a job for the reader to form his conviction regarding each individual case; the Church deliberately avoids creating legalistic lists and tests that would span its entire legacy.

The distinctiveness of the canonized scripture is that it is held wholly inerrant and wholly inspired; whereas other works of the Church remain unclassified as such. The Church proclaims her doctrines infallible and inspired, but often and as a rule leaves the question open as to each particular book. There is no doubt however that much of the product of the Church is both inspired and infallible.

making the entire teaching of the Holy Church, as expressed for example in the Catechism of the Church, to be infallible (and insomuch as is infallible it is inspired) does blur the distinctions made btwn different magisterial level

It is of course an obvious truth that Catholicism does not hold such a sharp distinction between canonized scripture and other legacy, as well as modern work of the Magisterium. Arguing strictly form scripture is the only productive method of talking to Protestants, and I employ it often,— but with it comes the cost: the Protestant gets hardened in the heresy that all there is to learn about Jesus and His Gospel is in the scripture.

If there are further questions, I'd be glad to try answering.

[annalex]

I used the term “invincible ignorance” in its theological sense and Elsie became amused by that.

[annalex]

represents the real consensus of the church

There is no such "consensus", and certainly the Deuterocanon has been canonical scripture since there was a New Testament canon, so by the time the Council of Orange took place ca AD 400.

A muslim, by definition, does not believe in Jesus Christ, and is therefore damned. The only way a Muslim is saved, is if he ceases to be Muslim and becomes a Christian prior to his death.

Isn't that what the Catechism also teaches? If his works while living imitate Christ, then his conversion has begun by them, and may be sufficient for his salvation, provided that the full conversion occurs before death.

[annalex]

Right. Note how the eunuch was unable to understand the Holy Scripture until Philip — the Church — explained it to him, and converted him.

[annalex]

Two chief Protestant heresies are that the entire knowledge necessary for salvation is in the canonized scripture that can be read without reference to the doctrines of the Church that elucidate it; and that salvation does not require good works in imitation of Christ, but solely an intellectual faith in Christ.

Neither of these is in the scripture and in fact each contradicts the scripture.

[annalex]

Christ points out that other disciples may also become saints and be venerated alongside Mary in:

Yea rather, blessed are they who hear the word of God, and keep it (Luke 11:28)

whosoever shall do the will of my Father, that is in heaven, he is my brother, and sister, and mother. (Matthew 12:50)

[daniel1212]

dan having shown you how the difference is defined

Indeed, and I am grateful to that. Things got clearer with the help of the authority he cited.

The contrast of which i saw from the beginning, but wanted to make sure. If the contrary was not contended for as fact, it would have saved a lot of time and typing with my arthritic fingers!

[Greetings_Puny_Humans]

There is no such "consensus",

You are just making an assertion. The apocrypha were only considered "canonical" for the purposes of edification of morals, and, even that, not all even bothered to use them for that purpose. Consistently, the position is that they are not to be used for the purposes of creating doctrine or confirming matters of the faith, due to their dubious status. This is indeed the consensus, beyond any doubt:

Athanasius on the apocrypha:

“But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former [standard new and old testament canon], my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read.” (Thirty-Ninth Festal Epistle, A.D. 367.)

Rufinus on the Apocrypha:

“But it should be known that there are also other books which our fathers call not ‘Canonical’ but ‘Ecclesiastical:’ that is to say, Wisdom, called the Wisdom of Solomon, and another Wisdom, called the Wisdom of the Son of Syrach, which last-mentioned the Latins called by the general title Ecclesiasticus, designating not the author of the book, but the character of the writing. To the same class belong the Book of Tobit, and the Book of Judith, and the Books of the Maccabees. In the New Testament the little book which is called the Book of the Pastor of Hermas (and that) which is called the Two Ways, or the Judgment of Peter; all of which they would have read in the Churches, but not appealed to for the confirmation of doctrine. The other writings they have named ‘Apocrypha.’ These they would not have read in the Churches. These are the traditions which the Fathers have handed down to us, which, as I said, I have thought it opportune to set forth in this place, for the instruction of those who are being taught the first elements of the Church and of the Faith, that they may know from what fountains of the Word of God their draughts must be taken” (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), Rufinus, Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed 36, p. 557-558.).

Jerome on the Apocrypha

“These instances have been just touched upon by me (the limits of a letter forbid a more discursive treatment of them) to convince you that in the holy scriptures you can make no progress unless you have a guide to shew you the way...Genesis ... Exodus ... Leviticus ... Numbers ... Deuteronomy ... Job ... Jesus the son of Nave ... Judges ... Ruth ... Samuel ... The third and fourth books of Kings ... The twelve prophets whose writings are compressed within the narrow limits of a single volume: Hosea ... Joel ... Amos ... Obadiah ... Jonah ... Micah ... Nahum ... Habakkuk ... Zephaniah ... Haggai ... Zechariah ... Malachi ... Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel ... Jeremiah also goes four times through the alphabet in different metres (Lamentations)... David...sings of Christ to his lyre; and on a psaltry with ten strings (Psalms) ... Solomon, a lover of peace and of the Lord, corrects morals, teaches nature (Proverbs and Ecclesiastes), unites Christ and the church, and sings a sweet marriage song to celebrate that holy bridal (Song of Songs) ... Esther ... Ezra and Nehemiah.

You see how, carried away by my love of the scriptures, I have exceeded the limits of a letter...The New Testament I will briefly deal with. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John ... The apostle Paul writes to seven churches (for the eighth epistle - that to the Hebrews - is not generally counted in with the others) ... The Acts of the Apostles ... The apostles James, Peter, John and Jude have published seven epistles ... The apocalypse of John ...I beg of you, my dear brother, to live among these books, to meditate upon them, to know nothing else, to seek nothing else (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953, Volume VI, St. Jerome, Letter LIII.6-10).

As, then, the Church reads Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees, but does not admit them among the canonical Scriptures, so let it also read these two volumes (Wisdom of Solomon and Eccesiasticus) for the edification of the people, not to give authority to doctrines of the Church...I say this to show you how hard it is to master the book of Daniel, which in Hebrew contains neither the history of Susanna, nor the hymn of the three youths, nor the fables of Bel and the Dragon...(Ibid., Volume VI, Jerome, Prefaces to Jerome’s Works, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Songs; Daniel, pp. 492-493).

Let her treasures be not silks or gems but manuscripts of the holy scriptures...Let her begin by learning the psalter, and then let her gather rules of life out of the proverbs of Solomon...Let her follow the example set in Job of virtue and patience. Then let her pass on to the gospels...the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles...let her commit to memory the prophets, the heptateuch, the books of Kings and of Chronicles, the rolls also of Ezra and Esther. When she has done all these she may safely read the Song of Songs...Let her avoid all apocryphal writings, and if she is led to read such not by the truth of the doctrines which they contain but out of respect for the miracles contained in them; let her understand that they are not really written by those to whom they are ascribed, that many faulty elements have been introduced into them, and that it requires infinite discretion to look for gold in the midst of dirt (Ibid., Letter CVII.12).

What the Savior declares was written down was certainly written down. Where is it written down? The Septuagint does not have it, and the Church does not recognize the Apocrypha. Therefore we must go back to the book of the Hebrews, which is the source of the statements quoted by the Lord, as well as the examples cited by the disciples...But he who brings charges against me for relating the objections that the Hebrews are wont to raise against the story of Susanna, the Song of the Three Children, and the story of Bel and the Dragon, which are not found in the Hebrew volume, proves that he is just a foolish sycophant...The apostolic men use the Hebrew Scripture. It is clear that the apostles themselves and the evangelists did likewise. The Lord and Savior, whenever He refers to ancient Scripture, quotes examples from the Hebrew volumes...We do not say this because we wish to rebuke the Septuagint translators, but because the authority of the apostles and of Christ is greater...”(The Fathers of the Church (Washington: Catholic University, 1965), Volume 53, Saint Jerome, Against Rufinus, Book II.27, 33, pp. 151, 158-160).

Cardinal Cajetan calls them not “canonical for the confirmation of the faith,” but “canonical” only in a certain sense for the “edification of the faithful.”

“Here we close our commentaries on the historical books of the Old Testament. For the rest (that is, Judith, Tobit, and the books of Maccabees) are counted by St. Jerome out of the canonical books, and are placed amongst the apocrypha, along with Wisdom and Ecciesiasticus, as is plain from the Protogus Galeatus. Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. Now, according to his judgment, in the epistle to the bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus, these books (and any other like books in the canon of the Bible) are not canonical, that is, not in the nature of a rule for confirming matters of faith. Yet, they may be called canonical, that is, in the nature of a rule for the edification of the faithful, as being received and authorised in the canon of the Bible for that purpose. By the help of this distinction thou mayest see thy way clearly through that which Augustine says, and what is written in the provincial council of Carthage.” (Cardinal Cajetan, “Commentary on all the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament,” cited by William Whitaker in “A Disputation on Holy Scripture,” Cambridge: Parker Society (1849), p. 424)

Official prefaces to Latin translations, endorsed by Popes, of the scripture making the same distinction:

“At the dawn of the Reformation the great Romanist scholars remained faithful to the judgment of the Canon which Jerome had followed in his translation. And Cardinal Ximenes in the preface to his magnificent Polyglott Biblia Complutensia-the lasting monument of the University which he founded at Complutum or Alcala, and the great glory of the Spanish press-separates the Apocrypha from the Canonical books. The books, he writes, which are without the Canon, which the Church receives rather for the edification of the people than for the establishment of doctrine, are given only in Greek, but with a double translation.” ( B.F. Westcott, A General Survey of the History of the Canon of the New Testament (Cambridge: MacMillan, 1889), pp. 470-471.)

Isn't that what the Catechism also teaches? If his works while living imitate Christ, then his conversion has begun by them, and may be sufficient for his salvation, provided that the full conversion occurs before death.

The sentence "full conversion occurs before death" certainly does not appear to be part of that catechism of yours, or in your previous statement. In which case, we could not agree more, as certainly, once the Muslim becomes a Christian, then he is saved. Of course, I do not pretend that works in any way, as you do, merit the grace of salvation.

[daniel1212]

The thread is open for business again i see. Picking up where we left off: “Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.”

So to be consistent with the literal meaning, you must contend that unless one believes and receives the “Real Presence” then they have neither spiritual nor eternal life. “

As a Catholic that is exactly what we believe because we take Christ at His word....

Then while being consistent, explain how you are not denying V2, that properly baptized Prots have the life-giving Holy Spirit as redeemed souls?

Why would a protestant who believes that the universe was literally created in EXACTLY six days - expect that the words quoted as coming directly from Christ’s mouth be figurative ???

You tell me. What would a Catholic who believes the Lord was teaching that spiritual and eternal life is gained by eating human flesh with the blood - otherwise forbidden, (Lv. 19:26) while even physical eating is nowhere shown to give spiritual life, by faith in the gospel does, while to live by Christ is to lives as He did by the Father: Jn., 6:57) - not believe David when he distinctly called water the blood of men, and would not drink it, but poured it out on the ground as an offering to the Lord, as it is forbidden to drink blood?

Be consistent with your all-or-nothing hermeneutic you impose on us.

And David longed, and said, Oh that one would give me drink of the of the well of Beth–lehem, which is by the gate! And the three mighty men brake through the host of the Philistines, and drew out of the well of Beth–lehem, that was by the gate, and took it, and brought it to David: nevertheless but . And he said, Be it far from me, O Lord, that I should do this: is not this the blood of the men that went in jeopardy of their lives ? therefore he would not drink it. These things did these three mighty men. (2 Samuel 23:15-17)

And or why will Catholic refuse* to believe the word of God literally when it clearly states that the Canaanites were “bread: “Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us” (Num. 14:9)

And or that the Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof.” (Num. 13:32)

And or when David said that his enemies came to “eat up my flesh.” (Ps. 27:2)

And or when Jeremiah proclaimed, Your words were found. and I ate them. and your word was to me the joy and rejoicing of my heart” (Jer. 15:16)

And or when Ezekiel was told, “eat this scroll, and go, speak to the house of Israel.” (Ezek. 3:1)

And or when (in a phrase similar to the Lord’s supper) John is commanded, “Take the scroll ... Take it and eat it.” (Rev. 10:8-9 )

And since the Lord said that “As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me,” (John 6:57) and He said man should “live by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God - quoting Scripture, and that His “meat was to do the will of Him that sent Me,” (Mt. 44:; Jn. 4:34) and that “the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life,” and that souls are only shown receiving life by believing the gospel message,” (Eph. 1:13) and the Word in general is what builds one up, (Acts 20:32) then why will not Catholic even allow that the Lord was referring to “eating” and “drinking” figuratively, as believing on and obeying the Word made flesh in order to gain life and live by Christ?

Especially since John abounds with figurative language and contrasting use of the temporal earthly physical to refer to the eternal heavenly spiritual.

Moreover, they are also inconsistent by rejecting other uses of figurative language in John, consistent with Jn. 6, as being literal,

• In John 1:29, Jesus is called “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” — but he does not have hoofs and literal physical wool.

• In John 2:19 Jesus is the temple of God: “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up” — but He is not made of literal stone.

• In John 3:14,15, Jesus is the likened to the serpent in the wilderness (Num. 21) who must “be lifted up: That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal” (vs. 14, 15) — but He is not made of literal bronze.

• In John 4:14, Jesus provides living water, that “whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life” (v. 14) — but which was not literally consumed by mouth.

• In John 7:37 Jesus is the One who promises “He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water” — but this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive. (John 7:38)

• In Jn. 9:5 Jesus is “the Light of the world” — but who is not blocked by an umbrella.

• In John 10, Jesus is “the door of the sheep,”, and the good shepherd [who] giveth his life for the sheep”, “that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly” vs. 7, 10, 11) — but who again, is not literally an animal with cloven hoofs.

• In John 15, Jesus is the true vine — but who does not physically grow from the ground nor whose fruit is literally physically consumed.

*Don’t tell me cannibalism is forbidden, for a form of that is what Catholics engage in. hen the fearful Israelites exclaimed that the Promised Land was “a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof;”

Endocannibalism is most often an expression of veneration of the dead, or the pursuit of consuming some esoteric aspect of the person, like the deceased’s wisdom.

The Fore peoples of Papua New Guinea had a strongly codified type of endocannibalism as part of funerary rites. In this tribe, women and children played the largest role in cannibalism among deceased Fore males. - http://people.howstuffworks.com/cannibalism2.htm

Alpers and Lindenbaum’s research conclusively demonstrated that kuru [neurological disorder] spread easily and rapidly in the Fore people due to their endocannibalistic funeral practices, in which relatives consumed the bodies of the deceased to return the “life force” of the deceased to the hamlet, a Fore societal subunit. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kuru_%28disease%29#Transmission

[There is a story of a Western business man in the last century who saw a Bible in the store of a client in New Guinea and remarked, “Don’t tell me you believe that nonsense!” The store owner calmly replied, “Sir, let assured you that if it were not for the Book which you called nonsense, my friends and I would be having you for dinner right now.”]

[metmom]

Two chief Protestant heresies are that the entire knowledge necessary for salvation is in the canonized scripture that can be read without reference to the doctrines of the Church that elucidate it;

Well, the Bible that the Catholic church claims it wrote testifies to it being otherwise. John tells us that what he wrote was so that one could believe on Jesus. The official opinions of men have nothing to add to the simple gospel message found in Scripture.

and that salvation does not require good works in imitation of Christ, but solely an intellectual faith in Christ.

Nobody here has ever stated that. You need to reread any comments about what salvation based on faith are actually saying.

[Springfield Reformer]

The passage of interest is Luke 11:27-28:

And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

The question presented is whether this woman's statement A) validates veneration of Mary as a pattern for veneration of other saints, or B) suggests a contrast between Mary's blessing and the greater blessing of hearing and obeying God's word.

The key to this analysis is the disjunctive "Yea, rather," from Μενουνγε ("menounge"), which is certainly an interesting word. Greek offers a number of words which have a fairly wide range of possible meanings, some of which would even seem contradictory to newcomers, and so context cannot be ignored in resolving proper usage.

For example, the seemingly simple particle και can be translated as: “and”, “also”, “even”, “both”, “then”, “so”, “likewise,” and so forth. Which one is exactly right for a given situation depends a great deal on the surrounding framework of syntax, ideas, and facts, i.e., context.

Nevertheless, we begin at the beginning. μενουνγε is a composite of three particles, each of which offer challenges of their own:

Μεν, for example, can be either confirmatory OR contrastive, as in “true” versus “but.”

ουν can be used to either confirm or to infer, as in “then” or “therefore”

γε is an emphatic particle; it strengthens an assertion. Which assertion it strengthens depends to a large degree on whether the Μεν is being used to confirm or contrast. If confirmatory, it strengthens the supplemental inference following it without contradicting the preceding statement. If contrastive, it deprecates the preceding statement and shifts the focus to the statement following as the thing the speaker truly wants to highlight.

However, as others have noted, the composite form can become greater or at least different in meaning than the mere sum of its parts. Which is why it requires some careful analysis in any given passage to determine the best rendering of the term as a composite.

For example, the Louw & Nida (L&N) Semantic Domains lexicon acknowledges μενοῦνγε as a marker of contrast:

89.128 μενοῦνa; μενοῦνγε: relatively emphatic markers of contrast—‘but, on the contrary, on the other hand.’ (See: Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament: based on semantic domains. New York: United Bible Societies.)

Nevertheless, to be fair, L&N also recognize the possible effect of confirmation plus inference:

89.50 οὖνa; μενοῦνb: markers of result, often implying the conclusion of a process of reasoning—‘so, therefore, consequently, accordingly, then, so then.’ (Ibid)

Which is why one must get back to context to aid in determining which of the major classes of effect we are seeing.

But before we go on to Luke 11:28, let’s take a look at those other verses that are sometimes used to justify a claim of inconsistency in the AV translation:

1. Romans 9:19-20 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?

Clearly here you have contrastive intent in the passage as a whole. Paul imagines his reader raising an objection to the difficult teaching he has just presented on divine election. Does it make sense to see Paul agreeing with his objector? No, it makes far more sense to see Paul as flagging the objection as bogus, then offering his reason why. In this scenario, it makes perfect sense to read μενουνγε as contrastive. A perfectly legitimate translation would be:

“on the contrary [bucko], who are you …”

OK, the “bucko” is paraphrase on steroids, but you get the idea. No way Paul can be seen here as endorsing the foolish words of the objector. So the explicitly and exclusively contrastive use of μενουνγε is confirmed.

Now let's look at some harder cases:

2. Romans 10:17-18 So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. But I say, Have they not heard? Yes verily, their sound went into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of the world.

Here, the assertion preceding the "yes verily" (μενουνγε) is Paul’s own didactic statement that faith comes by hearing God’s word. There is no way Paul is going to contradict this, so an exclusively contrastive rendering of μενουνγε is not possible. But if you look closely, there is a contrast. Paul is saying here that not only have his Israelite kinsmen heard the word of God, but that same word of God has gone out into the whole world, so that in some sense everyone has heard, not just Israel.

So there is an expansion of scope. The first assertion is true, but the next assertion dramatically expands the scope.

3. Php 3:7-8 But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

“Yea doubtless” is our elusive μενουνγε in this passage. Here, the AV translators use it in an entirely confirmatory sense. But even here I think they may have overlooked a subtle contrast. If Paul had merely wanted to double down on the preceding assertion, he could have used any number of other expressions, such as αμην αμην (“verily verily”), for example.

But μενουνγε is what he used, and it has the potential to be understood as at least partly contrastive, as we have already established. Here again it looks as though he is expanding scope. In verse 7 he recounts his change of perspective concerning his outstanding credentials as an Israelite and a Pharisee, how he came to see all those things as loss rather than gain. Then, using μενουνγε, he opens up the throttle and proclaims EVERYthing loss, as compared with the “excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord.”

So the AV translators here were arguably justified in their use of the term as confirmatory, but they might have gotten a little closer to the Greek if they had try to also capture the scope expansion. I might have rendered it something like this:

But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ. {And not only that,} I count {ALL} things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ,

My suggested rendering, along with the resulting contrastive emphasis, is enclosed in the curly braces.

**********

So with these possibilities in mind, let’s look at Luke 11:28:

Luk 11:27-28 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.

The contested phrase is “yea rather” (μενουνγε). What are the major possibilities? Exclusively contrastive, confirmatory AND contrastive, or exclusively confirmatory with subsequent inference.

1. Exclusively contrastive:

Is it possible this is an exclusively contrastive scenario? Yes, it is possible. The subject is blessing. Was it a blessing to Mary for her to be the human mother of Jesus? How could it not be, because she has in Luke 1:48 confirmed her own state of blessing for giving birth to Jesus.

Yet we also know that in Jesus’ teaching he at times used relative contrast to make a point, sometimes in extreme terms. For example, in Luke 14:26, he teaches us we must hate mother and father etc to follow him. This can best be understood as using a relative scale of love to make a teaching point: Our love for Christ must be so absolute that our love for anyone else looks like hatred in comparison.

So here, it is at least possible that the same sort of relative contrast is in view. Certainly it was a great blessing to give birth to the Messiah, as concerning the flesh. But by contrast, it is no blessing at all compared to both hearing and keeping the word of God, which blessing is available not just to Mary, but to everyone who believes.

2. Confirmatory AND Contrastive:

Again, as noted above, we positively know Mary was in fact blessed to be the mother of Jesus, concerning the flesh. Jesus is approached by a woman who is so full of adoration for Jesus that she sees the great blessing it would be to be Jesus’ mother. If μενουνγε is working here as both confirmation AND contrast, it would be easy to see Jesus saying (and I *paraphrase* here):

Yes, it’s true, it was a blessing to be his mother. HOWEVER, by contrast, the even greater blessing is to hear and obey the word of God.

We will come back to this.

3. Exclusively confirmatory:

I think this is the most difficult position to sustain. For it to be true, there could only be a sense of continuation between the preceding assertion by the woman (“it’s a blessing to be Jesus’ mother”), and the follow-up assertion by Jesus (“blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it”). To turn this into a mere continuity, one has to suppose that Jesus is equating being his earthly mother with hearing and obeying the word of God. At best that is an enormous stretch. Yes, Mary did hear and keep the word of God given to her. But that’s not the point the woman is making. For her, it’s simply the fact of being his earthy mother. Leaping from that to veneration of a selective set of saints is not only NOT a continuity; it is a complete non sequitur.

Conclusion:

It seems much more natural to the text that Jesus is taking advantage of a teachable moment to redirect His followers, as He always did, to the honor of God the Father.

For example, when the rich young ruler calls Him good master, Jesus does not deny he is good, but neither does he settle for that, but *rather* redirects the young man to focus on the goodness of God.

Likewise here, Jesus no doubt understands the excitement his presence in earth is creating, along with all the negative possibilities of humanistic hero worship, etc. So it makes perfect sense that while he wouldn’t deny the blessing to Mary of being his earthly mother, he would *rather* redirect his followers’ focus to the main event, the greater blessing, hearing and obeying the word of God. As is true for all of us, even now.