James White annoys me to no end
As Chad can attest, I didn't want to announce that Dr. Francis Beckwith, President of the Evangelical Theological Society, returned into full communion with the Church last Sunday. The service took place at my parish, here in Waco. Yes, this is a "high profile" conversion, but I did not want to be the first to announce this due to the political scene around here.
Now James White has posted this article in which he slanders Dr. Beckwith. (Maybe, "slander" is too strong of a word, but read it for yourself.)
I want to say a few things about the service in which Dr. Beckwith and his wife were received back into communion with the Church. This is in response to White, who implies that Dr. Beckwith converted for political reasons. This is not to say that I can be a judge of motives, but here is the evidence I have gathered about Dr. Beckwith through discussions with those at my parish.
1. You must know something about St. Joseph's: Our parish is one of smaller ones in the Waco area. It's located in a small town on the outskirts of Waco called Bellmead. I've heard other Catholics in Waco refer to St. Joseph's as a "blue collar" parish. If you look around the church on any given Sunday, it's true. Aside from a few professors and Baylor students, most of the people there are good, simple, hard-working, central Texas people. They are some of the sweetest and most devout people I know. They have not heard of Francis Beckwith. Thus if Dr. Beckwith had wanted this to be a political statement, wouldn't he have reverted through a more "high profile" parish. Austin is only an hour away. He could have had his revert service at the Cathedral with the Bishop present.
2. Dr. Beckwith had apparently been talking to Father Timothy for some time about reentering the Church. I do not know the details, of course, but I'm sure these discussions were based on whether or not this was the right time to do this. Fr. Timothy gives good pastoral counseling and advice. The fact that these discussions were carried out over a long period of time tells me that there were many factors going into Dr. Beckwith's decision. If he had wanted to make a political statement, he could have gone to probably any other priest in town to return home at a much swifter speed than he did. The fact is, Dr. Beckwith wanted to examine his conscience and make sure he was doing the right thing.
3. James White implies that Dr. Beckwith lost a love for truth and thus, decided to "return to Rome." I think it was precisely Dr. Beckwith's love for truth that brought him home. As many of us converts and reverts can attest, it is our love for truth, for Christ, and for His Church that lead us to make this difficult journey. When Fr. Timothy welcomed the Beckwiths back into communion there were tears in his eyes, not because he was proud of such a "high profile" conversion, but because he genuinely loves all those who come under his care. He had tears in his eyes at my confirmation too. The humble nature of this reversion was clear in both the Beckwiths and the priest. The service was beautiful
Anyway, welcome home Dr. Beckwith and family! To my readers, please pray for the Beckwiths. Now that this news has broken the Internet, they will probably have a difficult journey ahead of them. I'm happy Dr. Beckwith has returned home, and I'm happy he's attending St. Joseph's.
On a better note, Jimmy Akin offers his insights here.
Now James White has posted this article in which he slanders Dr. Beckwith. (Maybe, "slander" is too strong of a word, but read it for yourself.)
I want to say a few things about the service in which Dr. Beckwith and his wife were received back into communion with the Church. This is in response to White, who implies that Dr. Beckwith converted for political reasons. This is not to say that I can be a judge of motives, but here is the evidence I have gathered about Dr. Beckwith through discussions with those at my parish.
1. You must know something about St. Joseph's: Our parish is one of smaller ones in the Waco area. It's located in a small town on the outskirts of Waco called Bellmead. I've heard other Catholics in Waco refer to St. Joseph's as a "blue collar" parish. If you look around the church on any given Sunday, it's true. Aside from a few professors and Baylor students, most of the people there are good, simple, hard-working, central Texas people. They are some of the sweetest and most devout people I know. They have not heard of Francis Beckwith. Thus if Dr. Beckwith had wanted this to be a political statement, wouldn't he have reverted through a more "high profile" parish. Austin is only an hour away. He could have had his revert service at the Cathedral with the Bishop present.
2. Dr. Beckwith had apparently been talking to Father Timothy for some time about reentering the Church. I do not know the details, of course, but I'm sure these discussions were based on whether or not this was the right time to do this. Fr. Timothy gives good pastoral counseling and advice. The fact that these discussions were carried out over a long period of time tells me that there were many factors going into Dr. Beckwith's decision. If he had wanted to make a political statement, he could have gone to probably any other priest in town to return home at a much swifter speed than he did. The fact is, Dr. Beckwith wanted to examine his conscience and make sure he was doing the right thing.
3. James White implies that Dr. Beckwith lost a love for truth and thus, decided to "return to Rome." I think it was precisely Dr. Beckwith's love for truth that brought him home. As many of us converts and reverts can attest, it is our love for truth, for Christ, and for His Church that lead us to make this difficult journey. When Fr. Timothy welcomed the Beckwiths back into communion there were tears in his eyes, not because he was proud of such a "high profile" conversion, but because he genuinely loves all those who come under his care. He had tears in his eyes at my confirmation too. The humble nature of this reversion was clear in both the Beckwiths and the priest. The service was beautiful
Anyway, welcome home Dr. Beckwith and family! To my readers, please pray for the Beckwiths. Now that this news has broken the Internet, they will probably have a difficult journey ahead of them. I'm happy Dr. Beckwith has returned home, and I'm happy he's attending St. Joseph's.
On a better note, Jimmy Akin offers his insights here.
Labels: conversions, Welcome home
posted by Kacy at 7:50 AM
45 Comments:
Hi there! I've been following this today as it unfolds and wandered over here from Amy Wellborn. I was so glad to read your account of your (and now Professor Beckwith's) parish. I must say, when I first heard the news, I suspected that a priest who was instrumental in my own reversion might be involved. (I'm from Austin and a wonderful priest who helped my find my way back into the Church has since been reassigned to a parish in Waco.) Anyway, I'm just as happy to hear that it was another priest! The diocese is truly blessed with so many very good priests!
Dr. Beckwith, his family, and your parish are in my prayers.
Dear Kacy:
Thank you for your kind and generous narrative. My wife and I were brought to tears reading it.
Take care,
FJB
Just to say:
WELCOME HOME!!!!!!
(And to offer my poor prayers, too).
Greetings:
May I ask, please, that you take the time to show me where, in my article, I in any way, shape, or form, "slandered" Dr. Beckwith? Could you explain, from my own words, please, where I even *implied* anything about "politics"?
May I likewise ask you to please explain to me how you think someone such as myself, committed whole-heartedly to the gospel of the grace of God, should respond to Dr. Beckwith's actions? If a Cardinal of the Roman Curia became a Baptist tomorrow, tell me, how would you respond? Would you think this is an "equally valid" expression of the faith? Would you "rejoice" with him?
Is there anything I have said in response to this that is in any way, shape, or form, inconsistent with what I have said in writing, in preaching, and in debate, since I first engaged Gerry Matatics in debate in Long Beach in August of 1990? If so, what is it?
I truly do not understand why my words are subject to such uncharitable, imbalanced, and grossly unfair readings. I, at least, attempt to accurately understand the words of those in the Roman communion, why do you not seek to do the same in return?
James White
www.aomin.org
Mr. White,
I'm sorry but it's a bit hard to have sympathy for you. A Catholic college student in Texas is annoyed with you as are most Catholics. With all due respect, boo stinkin' hoo. Most of Kacy's post wasn't even about you.
But regardless of your apparently paper thin skin, I find it ridiculous that you, a professional apologist, feel like you must to come to this poor girl's blog and challenge her to a debate to defend you honor. Now, I have no doubt that Kacy could hold her own in a debate, but that's no reason to be a bully.
Your post on Dr. Beckwith most certainly implies that Dr. Beckwith is acting unethically in this situation and that all Catholics are half-wits who can't see the 'facts' that appear so obvious to you about the Catholic Church. It amazes me how you can push people around the way you do and then cry crocodile tears any time someone voices the slightest displeasure with you.
Mr. White, save your strong-arm tactics and your baseless ad homs for the debate platform where the terms are clear. This guerilla blogging is truly bush league. Although if you really feel the need to badger a 20something amatuer blogger, feel free to stop by my blog!
Sheesh,
Matt Yonke
Mr. White,
I won't speak for Kacy, but only for myself. And I am only writing this because you asked.
I think this statement attests to the idea that some might get that you imply that Dr. Beckwith traded in truth for a lie:
"I would imagine we will, in time, be provided a fairly full apologia of his decision. At that time it would be highly appropriate to once again provide a biblical response."
Of course, as it is your duty to defend the Reformed Baptist faith, you naturally believe that yours is the biblical response and (I would imagine) Dr. Beckwith is mistaken (at best). Right? Fair enough.
But I will say this, even when I agreed with most everything you wrote years ago: the general "air" of your writing comes across as arrogant and demeaning. It is not so much what you write, as the manner in which you write it (the spirit of the author). I think this has to do with the fact that you make your living arguing and are always ready to be defensive immediately after attacking.
I think the charity and humility required in a pastoral role is absent from your writing style, which turns a lot of people off to what you have to say. Compare your writing style to that of Fr. Stephen Freeman. Both of you are active in apologetics, yet there is a clear distinction in the presentation. The one, many people enjoy reading (even though they may greatly disagree), the other causes much strife and anger. There is a reason for that. I think a big difference between yourself and someone life Fr. Freeman is a general lack of humility in your writings.
I realize that what I wrote was very blunt and possibly even abrasive, and for that I apologize. It is just that I cannot think of another way to get you to see what others so obviously see and have a hard time describing; most have a hard time finding that "one" quotation or paragraph that you wrote that "did it." That again, has more to do with the perceived attitude of the author than with anything directly written. For example, try using more kinder adjectives, add in some compliments, be quick to see the good, always assume the best, be open and humble about your own failings, etc. In other words, try using kinder and "softer" speech when addressing a person (or about a person).
I am not saying this because I in any way am innocent of this myself. I think I am writing this to you because this is also something I struggle with and so I understand it.
Please also pray for me, a sinner.
XC,
Andy
This is in response to White, who implies that Dr. Beckwith converted for political reasons.
Even before I read James' response, I was thinking the same thing he wrote Could you explain, from my own words, please, where I even *implied* anything about "politics"?
Still no response from the original author, nor any of those who followed up.
I'm sure James isn't looking for sympathy, not sure why this even came up, just a little honesty in reporting.
With the Common Anglican, I agree that it's not so much what is said, but the manner in which it comes across. I have to agree that Mr. White never made any charge about politics whatsoever, so I think he's justified in questioning that. But even so, the whole spirit of his writing is saturated with haughty rhetoric, even in the name of the "doctrines of grace," which doesn't come across quite graciously.
Over the years I have had the opportunity of debating men like John Shelby Spong and Barry Lynn. In each instance, they have expressed great disdain for the backwardness of Paul, his "arrogance" and "unloving" attitude.
I wrote a post in which I discussed, from a Reformed perspective, the concept of conversion to Roman Catholicism; in this particular case, it was prompted by Frank Beckwith's return to that church. I never once mentioned politics. I never once slandered the man. I gave a response that is 100% consistent with what I have said on these topics and issues for nigh unto twenty years now.
When I read the commentary here (I note no one has said word one about the title) I asked some simple questions. I am accustomed to folks reading my words in the worst possible light. Nothing new about that. But I was simply asking for some rational, reasonable responses. So far, I have seen none. Might we have a double standard going on here? If so, why? It's worth thinking about.
James>>>
Matt,
It is interesting what you have observed, I see no one attacking this girl - asking questions is not attacking.
btw, if that was an attacked, what would you call Francis Beckwith's responds to this young lady??
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=30605682&postID=8732572788307622839
and
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=30605682&postID=3141817657509666708
Welcome Home to the Beckwith's!
Mr. White did not slander Dr. Beckwith. Neither did he say that he converted for "political reasons" in his article.
I have no idea who Dr. Beckwith and Mr. White are. I think I am being objective here. Read his article more carefully.
Humbly in Christ,
Jim
I think that the host of Meandering Home was referring to this phrase: "the influence of direct and regular cooperation in moral/cultural conflicts with members of the Roman communion (i.e., pro-life, pro-family groups)." Since these moral issues are political issues, I can see why the blogger worded it as she did. Furthermore, White seemed to be implying that Beckwith couldn't possibly have been led to return to Catholicism by a love of the truth (however mistaken).
In fairness to White, I think this is a necessary result of conservative Reformed theology. Calvinists simply cannot admit that people might possible come to wrong positions through a sincere love of the truth. Their whole theology would collapse if they admitted this. They have to find some other reason why people made "erroneous" choices. Certainly lots of other Christians play this game as well, but I think conservative Calvinism forces people to do so.
"If you do not passionately love the truth, God is under no obligation to continue to allow you to possess it."
Dr. White doesn't see any problem with that statement ? He implies that Dr. Beckwith does not love the truth and further implies that God will allow him to lose his salvation.
The posts that I have seen today have convinced me that hyper-Calvinists like Dr. White hold to "once saved always saved", UNTIL a person converts to Catholicism. Suddenly, reformed theology goes out the window as they write about how God is not obligated to allow the Catholic to possess the truth because of a "work" that they do.
Also the "outing" of Dr. Beckwith was particularly uncharitable given his position in the ETS. Who is going to hold Dr. White accountable for this?
TiberJumper wrote:
"If you do not passionately love the truth, God is under no obligation to continue to allow you to possess it."
Dr. White doesn't see any problem with that statement ? He implies that Dr. Beckwith does not love the truth and further implies that God will allow him to lose his salvation.
1) Is the statement in quotations a true or false statement? (2 Thess. 2:10-12)
2) Mr. TiberJumper has completely missed the point, and evidently, does not understand, at all, the position he mislabels "hyper-Calvinism."
I have no intention of spending much more time here: I have asked a simple question that could be answered very easily from the text of the article I posted. So far all I have heard is "Lots of people don't like you, so they read into your words attitudes that help them to feel better about their prejudices." Is that pretty much it?
James White
Its always funny to see Luther (James) and Spalatin (Jeff) jump in whenever there's trouble in their paradise. Go write a book or somethin.
James White wrote:
May I ask, please, that you take the time to show me where, in my article, I in any way, shape, or form, "slandered" Dr. Beckwith?
I'm more than happy to do so.
May I likewise ask you to please explain to me how you think someone such as myself, committed whole-heartedly to the gospel of the grace of God, should respond to Dr. Beckwith's actions?
By figuring out that Catholics are also fully committed to sola gratia. The assumption that they are not is both a rank insult and a parading of your ignorance and almost cult-like exclusivist mentality.
You exclude, either directly and blatantly, or in a runaround manner, all non-Calvinists from possession in the gospel of grace; you act as if Calvinists have a lock on that characteristic and belief. But by your own foolish criteria, even St. Augustine (whom you laud repeatedly in your writings) and Martin Luther cannot make it as bona fide Christians (as I proved years ago in a paper).
Is there anything I have said in response to this that is in any way, shape, or form, inconsistent with what I have said in writing, in preaching, and in debate, since I first engaged Gerry Matatics in debate in Long Beach in August of 1990?
Nope. You're perfectly consistent: consistently dead-wrong on issues related to Catholicism.
I never once slandered the man.
You certainly did, as you eventually do virtually all Catholics you come in contact with: except for those who are willing to debate you orally.
When I read the commentary here (I note no one has said word one about the title) I asked some simple questions. I am accustomed to folks reading my words in the worst possible light. Nothing new about that. But I was simply asking for some rational, reasonable responses.
Keep reading.
I have no intention of spending much more time here:
Yeah, I figured you would depart before any real interaction could take place, as you always do.
I have asked a simple question that could be answered very easily from the text of the article I posted.
Here goes (from here on I cite White's original article, with his words in italics)
(SEE PART TWO of my reply below)
I found this quote to be most telling:
"A woman asked a question of the panel. "Why did you write 'the Bible alone' in the statement of faith?" ... Roger Nicole rose, slowly, and made his way to the podium. He looked out at the lady and said, "Because we didn't want any Roman Catholics in the group." He then turned around and went back to his seat. While most sat in stunned silence, I and a friend with me broke into wild applause. The brevity of the response, and Nicole's dead-pan look, was classic. Most looked at us like we were nuts, but we appreciated what he said. Here, one of the founding members made it clear that the ETS was founded as a Protestant organization and that primary to their own self-understanding was a belief in sola scriptura."
...
"Of course, ETS has already shown that it is unable to expel from its ranks those who are Open Theists, and this due to the maddening brevity of the statement of faith."
Very interesting.
My reply as to how I think White has slandered Dr. Beckwith:
I could not help [after reading some of Dr. Beckwith's comments] but think for a moment of how many have splashed their way across the Tiber due to the combination of 1) an out-of-balance view of philosophy's authority in comparison with that of divine revelation, and 2) the influence of direct and regular cooperation in moral/cultural conflicts with members of the Roman communion (i.e., pro-life, pro-family groups).
Already the implication is that Dr. Beckwith converted because of shabby reasoning and associations of things that have no direct bearing on comparative theology. This is demeaning and condescending. It's very subtle, but knowing how you reason in these matters very well, from much firsthand experience, I know exactly what you are driving at here.
First of all, readers must realize that when James wrote this, Dr. Beckwith had not issued any explanation of his return to the Church. So it is highly presumptuous right off the bat. White feels like he must cast aspersions on the intellect, motives, and even philosophical acumen of Dr. Beckwith before even offering him the courtesy of hearing his side of the story.
The potshot about "out-of-balance view of philosophy's authority in comparison with that of divine revelation" clearly flows from White's extreme presuppositionalism. It's a shot at the more Thomistic, evidentialist school of thought and how it views the relationship between faith and reason. But I agree that in and of itself it is not so much a personal shot as a difference in apologetic approach.
The second strain of thought above is more nefarious in its implications. This is the belittling approach taken to many Catholic converts taken by anti-Catholics like White. They assume that because some Protestants have some "touchy-feely" experiences with catholic pro-lifers, that this can fully explain their conversion, as if that was all there is to it. This demeans the convert and what he has gone through in order to get to t place where he or she would make such a momentous decision. It is a poor attempt at the simplistic explanation of a very complex process indeed (for any thoughtful convert I have ever met).
Here again, I am quite familiar with how White reasons, because he tried the same tack with me, in our first exchange in 1995. I was influenced by the pro-life movement to a large extent, to pursue study about Catholicism. But it was by no means the total explanation of my conversion. Yet White was presumptuous enough to write about my conversion in his letter (that has been public as part of our posted debate for many years now, with his permission):
"Your story in Surprised by Truth is almost predictable, Dave, no offense intended. Your rejection of Roman theology was not based upon a knowledge of why, and hence was ripe for refutation. You admit you rejected the tenets of the Reformation when you say, "I had always rejected Luther's notions of absolute predestination and the total depravity of mankind." And your involvement in Operation Rescue simply gave you the opportunity of seeing that Roman Catholics can be real nice folks who really believe in the teachings of the Church in Rome. And the feeling of "brotherhood" created by standing against a common evil, joined with the simple fact that you were not truly a Protestant to begin with, is reason enough to explain your swimming the Tiber.
(6 April 1995)
I love the touch of denying that I was ever a Protestant (because I wasn't a Calvinist). I had a field day with that in my 36-page reply that White has now ignored for 12 years. This is clearly the tack that White is insinuating with regard to Dr. Beckwith. I can spot it in a second because of my own experience with White.
I have chronicled my own journey in struggling with cultural cooperation in reference to the matter of the gospel in the past, and will not repeat it here.
Yeah, I know. White actually participated in abortion rescues (as I did), but one day there was to be a prayer with Catholics. White decided that he couldn't do that, so, rather than pray with a Catholic while he was saving babies, so that they could live, he opted out of Operation Rescue.
Suffice it to say that there have been many who, upon forging friendships based upon common moral stands (against abortion, against homosexuality, etc.), have found their commitment to the centrality of justification by faith, or sola scriptura, sliding down the list of "most important life-defining beliefs."
The insinuation is, again, that this explains Dr. Beckwith's move (else why bring it up at all?). But since White has not yet seen Dr. Beckwith's own reasonings (save for some "hints" here and there), it is, in my mind, tantamount to a personal insult (though that point might be arguable), since it is presumptuous and assumes that Dr. Beckwith has no good theological or philosophical reason for his move other than "feel-good" cooperation with others who believe in traditional Christian morality.
It also presumes that his commitment to theological tenets declines in inverse proportion with his ecumenical efforts, which is an insult, especially towards such a scholar as Dr. Beckwith. But how could White know such a thing?
White makes it a general comment rather than a personal one, so he will have an out if confronted and called on this shabby treatment, as I am doing presently, but it is clear what he is implying.
In fact, in Dr. Beckwith's first public statement, he proves that this aspect of White's pseudo-analysis is dead wrong:
"I became convinced that the Early Church is more Catholic than Protestant and that the Catholic view of justification, correctly understood, is biblically and historically defensible. Even though I also believe that the Reformed view is biblically and historically defensible, I think the Catholic view has more explanatory power to account for both all the biblical texts on justification as well as the church’s historical understanding of salvation prior to the Reformation all the way back to the ancient church of the first few centuries."
As we see, in Dr. Beckwith's view, it was not so much a wholesale rejection of his previous soteriology, as it was an expansion to include the historical perspective (much as with many of us converts: I regarded my own conversion as very much a development of my previous beliefs: far more than an outright "rejection")
TO BE CONTINUED
Mr. White:
You implied politics when you implied that Dr. Beckwith would "overthrow the intentions of the founders of the organization just to make a point or promote his new religious ideologies."
It is obvious that Dr. Beckwith has humility and wanted to step down as quietly as possible without any attention being drawn to himself or the ETS.
The irony is that you took it upon yourself to make this big announcement. This act shows that you lack both charity and humility. I would also say that it shows a lack of intelligence because your consistent attacks against catholics only causes more people to want to jump into the Tiber and swim away from you.
The fact that you would stand alone and applaud the admission that a faith statement was written to keep out Catholics shows how contrary your faith is to the Gospel of Christ. Shouldn't the primary pupose of a faith statement be to glorify Jesus Christ? Is the primary message of the Gospels (the words of Jesus) justification by faith alone? Is that how Jesus will separate the sheep and goats, Mr. White?
You slandered Dr. Beckwith and all Catholics by your imsinuation that he abandoned the Gospel and doesn't love the Truth. Why on earth would anyone go through the persection that today's Catholic converts go through if they didn't love Jesus and His Truth?
James White, I do believe God will have to strike you blind as he did Paul in order for you to recognize Him in the breaking of Bread and to quit persecuting His Church.
In any case, I received information today that Dr. Beckwith has, in fact, returned to the Roman Catholic communion (I saw "returned" only because it appears, from his biographical information, that he was raised in the Roman communion). Now, I have searched the web, including Dr. Beckwith's websites/blogs, and have not found any confirmation of this information.
This is not a personl attack, but it is highly unethical and uncharitable behavior on White's part. He knew full well that making this public before Dr. Beckwith wished to do so, would cause problems and sort of put Dr. Beckwith on the defensive. This was a cheap attempt to manipulate a very delicate situation (Dr. Beckwith's first post made it clear that he was proceeding slowly and not wishing to cause confusion of hurt feelings, as much as possible in such a situation).
White overlooked all that and decided to "out" Dr. Beckwith. I find this to be abominable ethics. It has nothing to do with even what someone converted to. It is a general ethical precept that one shouldn't interfere with a complex, painful personal decision such as this.
However, I have now received multiple, independent attestation to this fact. I would imagine we will, in time, be provided a fairly full apologia of his decision. At that time it would be highly appropriate to once again provide a biblical response.
This assumes that White's own anti-Catholic approach is the only "biblical" approach to such matters, which is an insult.
white then implies that a catholic could not subscribe to a statement of faith containing the language: "The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs."
This is simply ludicrous, and requires no reply. If White claims to know Catholic teaching so well, he would know this, so we must conclude that he is either ignorant of catholic teaching on the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, or else he is aware and is deliberately misrepresenting it. In White's case, it is usually ignorance (as I know full well in my dealings with him through the years).
Now that just such a high-profile conversion has taken place, prepare yourself for the flood of substance-less "Come Home to Rome" articles. Let me make a prediction: as is so often the case, the very act of conversion, not the reasons for so doing, will be the primary focus.
Well, this is utterly fascinating, in light of the fact that White chose to write about Dr. Beckwith's decision even before Beckwith himself wished to publicly announce it and give any reasons for it. Having done that, he boldly predicts that others will also make "theology-free" analyses like his own. Who can fail to see the folly and irony in this approach?
I have already announced that I would be more than happy to engage in theological discussion once there is more on the table. It is hardly fair to expect someone newly-returned to the Church to have exhaustive answers to everything that an experienced anti-Catholic apologist might throw at him. I think this is a place where an experienced Catholic apologist might be of some use.
I'm not implying at all that Dr. Beckwith couldn't take care of himself in such a dispute, but it is probably not foremost on his mind at the moment.
But White has already shown that he will likely ignore any analysis of mine. This has been his constant modus operandi. He described me yesterday in a post as a "moonbat" and a "stalker". The former he defines as "particularly descriptive of wackos in general, unhinged folks who have no self-control and are utterly controlled by their angry emotions."
But of course none of that is a personal attack. We know that because White has made it clear many times, that he does not engage in personal attack.
Rome's modern apologists have learned that it is never to their advantage to give air to the replies offered by the most careful of their critics.
See, White is bringing us apologists into the fracas, whether we want to get involved or not. And so here I am. But it is almost certain that he won't reply to any of this. Mark my words. And he won't see how utterly hypocritical he is being if he wants to claim we don't answer his arguments, while he ignores ours.
In any case, as sad as it always is to read of someone abandoning the gospel for the false pretenses of Rome, it really does not surprise me when it happens.
Again, the assumption that to become a Catholic is the equivalent of abandoning the gospel. This is false, and involves the false assumptions that (in the context of White's screed) sacraments are opposed to grace, and that only Protestants (and specifically Calvinists) possess the gospel (which in turn involves an arbitrary and unbiblical definition of the gospel).
If you do not passionately love the truth, God is under no obligation to continue to allow you to possess it.
Definitely a personal attack, since it is directly implying that Dr. Beckwith does not love the truth, and that this is proven by his move to Catholicism.
But over time, if one is apathetic about the truth of the gospel, God may well bring judgment to bear in causing one to love a lie.
More of the same extremely condescending and insulting charges. I would have rejected this almost as vehemently when I was a Protestant. It is judging someone's hearts and motives. It's bearing false witness and slander, which is, of course, a very serious sin.
anyone who has gazed in awe at the grandeur of the finished work of Christ in the light of the eternal decree of a holy and just God, who can then "trade that in" for the endless treadmill of Rome's sacramental system, the unfinished work of the Mass, and the specter of satispassio in purgatory,
All false and unnecessary dichotomies, but I grant that this is more so sheer stupidity than a personal attack.
to trade in the reality of peace with God for the empty facade of Roman piety.
Now Dr. Beckwith cannot possibly have peace with God. How could any other human being possibly know this with certainty?
This is bone-chilling arrogance and presumption. It flows from White's anti-Catholic intellectually-suicidal views for sure, but that makes it no more excusable or acceptable. All that shows is that his worldview leads to atrocious, abominable judgments and conclusions and personal ethics.
END
This is a bit patronizing: "good, simple, hard-working, central Texas people." You might as well write that those of us raised on the farm also play the banjo well and have rhythm.
roman catholic wrote:
The irony is that you took it upon yourself to make this big announcement. This act shows that you lack both charity and humility. I would also say that it shows a lack of intelligence because your consistent attacks against catholics only causes more people to want to jump into the Tiber and swim away from you.
And, of course, Dave Armstrong's never-ending ranting has now moved over here as well.
Both of those demonstrate, beyond all needed documentation, the vast difference between us. I will simply say in closing that those who think this is about Frank Beckwith or James White only demonstrate in so thinking that they have completely missed the point. The inability of but one person to recognize the factual issues here, let alone the theological and moral ones, is a sad commentary on the state of the non-discussion.
James White
Mr. White:
Dave Armstrong was not ranting but rather ANSWERING the questions that YOU asked. That was what I was trying to do as well. Again, you are showing a lack of intelligence in this whole discussion. You ask a question, people answer it, and then you attack them for doing so?
What was your motive in announcing Dr. Beckwith's reconciliation before he had a chance to announce it himself? (it had only been a few days!) It is difficult for most of us to believe that the love of Christ was your motive. And what was your motive in questioning a college student on her blog?
Guys like you used to annoy me, but after several years of watching how this all plays out, my annoyance has turned to ammusement. Keep doing what you are doing, Mr. White. I think you do more for driving people home to Rome than all of the catholic apologists put together. Christians who want to truly follow the example of Christ's love and humility usually recognize that your Reformed theology is seriously lacking in those fruits of the spirit.
It is true that the "spirit"(attitude) revealed by the many comments posted by critics of Dr. Beckwith will draw people into Catholicism and away from their peculiar, narrow and distorted view of salvation.
Go to Dr. Beckwith's blog where he makes the announcement of his conversion. Then start to read the comments. Then look at the commenter's sect affiliation. Draw your own conclusions of whether their "gospel of grace" brings about a spirit of charity.
St. Paul says that without love we are nothing, and this recent blogospheric hubbub speaks volumes for the effects of grace in our lives.
I guess Jim White won't answer Dave's arguments. Hmmmm.... seems a little convenient to charge people with "non-discussion" but refuse to answer the reasonings offered by thoughtful folks. But hey! When you're on the side of "Truth" you don't have to answer, just bark out accusations.
Lifelong Catholic here: I am blessed to have such fine Protestant brothers/sisters as friends. They're a continuing source of joy and good example, and such godly men and women.
I try never to mock or use barbed words in discussion with them. This does not mean discussion is not welcome or possible. It means I am in awe that God gives me these opportunities to share the love of Christ together. When in community with my Protestant friends, I refrain from speaking my pointed thoughts on doctrine...and regret that I generate those feelings at all.
Yet I am likely not the only Catholic who feels that the deference (exceedingly deferential, perhaps?) I offer is not always returned. I have suffered cuts from people I respect and love. We have shared fellowship and prayer, and then the sting of rebuke comes along. So be it. I forgive all of them, and love them twofold in reply. The problem is that these comments don't foster discussion but impede it. They do not fortify brotherhood but hinder it. The wounds are not of issue here. It is the separation that is worthy of our grief.
I had not heard of Mr. White before reading this post. As The Common Anglican noted above, it is not the topic but the tone. Mr. White may see no slight in his essay whereas I see a fusillade:
________________________
1: the gross abuse of such an idea inherent in Mardi Gras and the insight that provides into the thinking of many in the Roman communion
2: how many have splashed their way across the Tiber due to the combination of...
3: prepare yourself for the flood of substance-less "Come Home to Rome" articles.
4: Rome's modern apologists have learned that it is never to their advantage to give air to the replies offered by the most careful of their critics.
5: insightful representation of the facts related to sola scriptura, Papal primacy, the Mass, the Marian dogmas, purgatory, etc., is utterly lacking.
6: those blissfully naive, breathless commentaries
7: the warm feeling of "coming home" to the Church
8: the circularity of the Roman claims regarding papal infallibility
9: Rome's claims, built as they were historically, upon such a wide variety of fraudulent documents
10: the last place The Coming Home Network wants to go.
11: someone abandoning the gospel for the false pretenses of Rome
12: If you do not passionately love the truth, God is under no obligation to continue to allow you to possess it.
13: And how many do we see in the post-evangelical world who are truly passionate about the truth of the gospel?
14: if one is apathetic about the truth of the gospel, God may well bring judgment to bear in causing one to love a lie.
15: anyone who has gazed in awe at the grandeur of the finished work of Christ in the light of the eternal decree of a holy and just God, who can then "trade that in" for the endless treadmill of Rome's sacramental system, the unfinished work of the Mass, and the specter of satispassio in purgatory, is one far beyond my comprehension and understanding.
16: so that others may not fall into the same temptations to trade in the reality of peace with God for the empty facade of Roman piety.
(May I also suggest that at some point the term "Roman" becomes pejorative.)
________________________
Mr. White notes in his original essay that we may see future "apologia" by Dr. Beckwith on the matter, and notes in these comments that a discussion is not taking place and his questions have not been answered.
But if even a fraction of the 16 comments were meant in an uncharitable manner, why would someone want to continue such a discussion?
God bless.
gilesjosephATyahooDOTcom
Trackback Pontifications
This post has been removed by the author.
34 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as I have loved you, that you also love one another.
35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another."
John 13:34-35.
What I heard at Mass today.
Mr. White, I suggest you paste this on your mirror, near your computer, in your car, etc.
Kaci, welcome home! I hope you have the sacrament of marriage of your dreams!
Kacy and Dr. Beckwith, Welcome Home, from an Aggie Catholic in College Station!
uutjmwI am going to stick my neck into the noose and say that I find little in James White’s original blog post [http://www.aomin.org/index.php?itemid=1961] on the conversion of Dr. Beckwith offensive. (I can point to posts in his blog where he is much more caustic with fellow Evangelicals.)
Anyway, with that said, I do have some issues with the following from the above blog entry:
>>Now that just such a high-profile conversion has taken place, prepare yourself for the flood of substance-less "Come Home to Rome" articles. Let me make a prediction: as is so often the case, the very act of conversion, not the reasons for so doing, will be the primary focus. "He's so brilliant, if he converts, he must have a brilliant reason!" There are very few "new" reasons for conversion that have not been fully addressed in the past, and Rome's modern apologists have learned that it is never to their advantage to give air to the replies offered by the most careful of their critics. As any review of the current body of Roman Catholic "conversion stories" will bear out, fair, balanced, insightful representation of the facts related to sola scriptura, Papal primacy, the Mass, the Marian dogmas, purgatory, etc., is utterly lacking. Emotional appeals to "the ancient church," mythical references to the "unity" of Rome (those actually inside the communion and familiar with its rancorous disputes cannot help but chuckle at those blissfully naive, breathless commentaries), and the warm feeling of "coming home" to the Church (almost never anything about conversion to Christ) are the keys to successful conversioneering.>>
I know from my own personally experience that none of the caveats listed by James above apply to my own conversion to the RCC; fact is, my conversion had nothing to do with “emotional appeals”, but rather, it was strictly intellectual.
Though I cannot speak for Dr. Beckwith, I suspect that his conversion was somewhat similar to my own; not based on “emotional appeals”, but on reasoned, intellectual concerns.
Grace and peace,
David
You GO girl! Nothing like being at the center of a little internet dust-up during finals week. It's kind of like poking a stick in a fire ant mound. It's fun to watch unless you happen to be close enough to worry about them crawling up your leg. I have said a prayer that you will find the breathing room you need to study and that your exams will be a true reflection of your study.
Please tell the Beckwith's Welcome Home from me as well.
And Matt, if you happen to come back and read all of these comments, "boo stinkin' hoo"? I am CRACKING up!
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
What James White lacks in his knowledge of Christianity
James White wrote in his Blog:
"Let's ponder the hypothetical situation of a President of the Evangelical Theological Society converting to Roman Catholicism in the midst of his tenure. In 1998 I attended the national meeting of the ETS in Orlando, Florida. At one of the sessions some of the founding members were being asked questions about why they did certain things, why they wrote the statement of faith as they did, etc. A woman asked a question of the panel. "Why did you write 'the Bible alone' in the statement of faith?" The ETS statement of faith is very, very short. It reads:
"The Bible alone, and the Bible in its entirety, is the Word of God written and is therefore inerrant in the autographs. God is a Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, each an uncreated person, one in essence, equal in power and glory."
Roger Nicole rose, slowly, and made his way to the podium. He looked out at the lady and said, "Because we didn't want any Roman Catholics in the group." He then turned around and went back to his seat. While most sat in stunned silence, I and a friend with me broke into wild applause. The brevity of the response, and Nicole's dead-pan look, was classic. Most looked at us like we were nuts, but we appreciated what he said. Here, one of the founding members made it clear that the ETS was founded as a Protestant organization and that primary to their own self-understanding was a belief in sola scriptura."
James White applauds Nicole's rejection of Christ --"Because we didn't want any true followers of Jesus Christ in the group." Now James White thinks himself a biblical exegete and shows his "expertise" in hermeneutics by sanctioning the ETS statement above as "Gospel truth." But when asked whence he got the Bible, White waffles in philological rigmarole on his theory of the history of the Scriptures where he could have easily have stated without equivocation that the Canon of the holy Scriptures was codified by the Catholic Church in the early 4th Century. The same Old Testament and New Testament books that he holds in his hands when he preaches, it is the codified Canon that the Catholic Church infallibly promulgated as the inspired books that make up what all Christians have come to know as the Holy Bible. Well, with some distinction: White's bible is perhaps the Jerusalem Bible which does not contain the seven books of the Septuagint which the Catholics use.
If we were to asked James White and Roger Nicole to provide the verse which explains the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, would he be able to provide it? No, because it's not in the Bible.
If we were to ask James White and Roger Nicole how do we know that the the revelation of Jesus Christ ended with the death of the last Apostle, where would he look?
If we were to ask James White and Roger Nicole to provide the verse or verses that say "salvation is attainable through faith alone," and nothing else matters, we would like to know also, so we may be also saved by this revelation.
What about the two Natures of Christ -- where in the Scriptures is it explained?
Do the Scriptures explain what "hypostatic union" means? There are many more questions we would like to ask these two gentlemen about doctrines that they absolutely and unqualifiedly accept that are not found in the Scriptures but which were defined and explained and formalized and promulgated by the oecumenical Councils of the Church when doubt and heresy attempted to question and deny them. The whole of the meaning of the doctrine of the Atonement and God's Plan for the Redemption of mankind, and many other truths about Christianity were spelled out in black and white, leaving out no grey areas, long before James While and Roger Nicole ever opened the first page of their KJV Bible and learned about Christianity, true Christianity which they reject because they have insisted in not invoking the Holy Ghost for inspiration, which would have prevented their being confounded in learning the Truth.
There is only One Truth, One Faith, One Lord, One Baptism for the salvation of man. This Oneness can only be found in one institution which Christ founded in the last year of His ministry -- the visible Church where one must enter and become a member to be saved. It is clearly written in the Scriptures that Christ said "I will build my Church on this Rock" (and here He clearly indicated that the Rock was Peter), "and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (clearly He meant the forces of the devil and his minions -- who are they but those who rail against this Church), and His words has held true to this day: no matter how much the heretics storm the citadel of God, they have not been successful. History is replete with every kind of heresy, from Day One -- at Pentecost -- until today, essaying to destroy the Church of Christ, without success.
The avowed enemy of the Church is Satan, who knows he cannot destroy the Church, and who then endeavors his next best plan, which is to bring with him as many as he can into the Pit, and deprive Heaven of souls intended for it. Try as they might, the agents of Satan will not overcome what God has built. And who are these agents of Satan? Do we need to name them? They know who they are. By their fruits, we know who they are.
Welcome to the Catholic Church, Mr and Mrs. Beckwith!
I believe Peter means well in defending James White, but his defense is a bit too lawyerly, fails to understand how words are commonly used and understood, and fails to apply the well-known distinction between "formal" and "material", which is important here.
Suppose I am told and sincerely believe that Abraham Lincoln was the 15th president of the U.S. and I teach that to a class of students, and I mark a student wrong when she puts on an exam paper that Lincoln was the 16th president (as indeed he was).
I am intending to teach and defend the truth about Lincoln. In actual fact, however, I am teaching and defending a falsehood. Traditionally, it would be said that "formally" I intend to defend the truth, but "materially" I am defending falsehood. (In the same way, a person who does what he THINKS his father has commanded, when in fact he is doing the opposite, is "formally" obedient, but "materially" disobedient.)
Would it be right to say that in the situation described above I was intending to teach falsehood about Lincoln? was committed to falehood? was a advocate of telling falsehoods? was an enemy of the truth? In ONE sense, yes: I am intending to teach something that, as it happens (unbeknownst to me) is a falsehood, I am committed to teaching a thing, which, as it turns out (unbeknownst to me), is a falsehood. I am an enemy of certain propositions, which, as it happens, are true. HOWEVER, that is NOT what most people would understand by the statements that "I intended to teach falsehood, am committed to teaching falsehood, and am an enemy of truth." Such statements would normally be understood to mean that I "formally" intended such things.
If a man seeks the truth passionately and earnestly and in all honesty arrives at what he thinks is the truth and loves it as being true, then, even if it turns out that what he thinks is true is false, it is unjust to say of him that "he does not love the truth". That is at best misleading. Yes, it is true that he did not love a proposition that in fact is a truth and did love a proposition that in fact was untrue. But as words are normally used, it would be false and uncharitable to say that that man "did not love the truth."
What James White MEANT, I cannot say. What he SAID, in any ordinary construction of his words, clearly implied that Beckwith did what he did because he had ceased to love the truth FORMALLY. I am a scientist, and I know what it is to use words precisely and carefully, and I also know what it is to engage in lawyerly obfuscation by exploiting the equivocal meanings of words. Let's "keep it real".
Steve
Edwin makes a good point here:
In fairness to White, I think this is a necessary result of conservative Reformed theology. Calvinists simply cannot admit that people might possible come to wrong positions through a sincere love of the truth. Their whole theology would collapse if they admitted this. They have to find some other reason why people made "erroneous" choices. Certainly lots of other Christians play this game as well, but I think conservative Calvinism forces people to do so.
I entirely agree that consistency demands the consequence, but what I can't understand is why this excuses someone from the burden of showing this with objective evidence, which is exactly what Kacy correctly pointed out. Your belief system requiring you to believe this about someone doesn't mean that you can do so without objective evidence (hence, the "slander" charge is apt). White's argument that he is being consistent is similarly irrelevant. So what? All that shows is that he has been consistent in slandering Catholics on inadequate evidence, which is Dave's point. If having a sorry belief system is an excuse for slandering someone, then the term is objectively meaningless.
I am a scientist, and I know what it is to use words precisely and carefully, and I also know what it is to engage in lawyerly obfuscation by exploiting the equivocal meanings of words. Let's "keep it real".
I think your explanation points up exactly what I said above, which is that there must be some objective way to discern formal denial of the truth from material denial of the truth, since this ought to be understood as an objective claim. However, I would appreciate it if you kindly kept your bigotry about my profession to yourself. I have a master's degree in physics along with my law degree, and the fact that you don't think lawyers understand these distinctions reflects more on your ignorance than on any cognitive defect in our discipline. In effect, you provided a nice demonstration of the error you were trying to point out by treating lawyers in the same sloppy and careless way that White treats Catholics! I would dial it back, lest St. Thomas More have some choice words for you in the afterlife regarding his chosen profession.... :-)
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
"Take note of those who hold heterodox opinions on the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how contrary their opinions are to the mind of God. . . . They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, flesh which suffered for our sins and which that Father, in his goodness, raised up again. They who deny the gift of God are perishing in their disputes" (Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans 6:2–7:1 [A.D. 110]).
If James White can call himself a "doctor," then I ought to be able to call myself "Sir Seamus, Knight of The Round Table."
"Doctor" James White claims to have earned both a Master's degree and his Doctorate from "Columbia Evangelical Seminary" (CES). For those that are interested, the following link will take you on a quick -- a very quick -- tour of the "campus" of CES:
Columbia Evangelical Seminary: The Photographic Tour
"Does James White have a genuine doctorate? Here is what we know. The degree is granted by an unaccredited correspondence school. There are no set course syllabi; students write their own syllabi. CES has no library, student services or bookstore. The school has no curriculum committees and no course review procedures. There appears to have been no committee and no thesis or dissertation defense..."
Does James White Have a Genuine Doctorate?
It's definately not slander. White is right here.
It would be "libel."
Dr. White, if you do not want to pick a fight with a professional apologist [i.e.: Armstrong] there are plenty of amateurs who would be willing to take you on areas of personal expertise [in my case, your definition of Sola Fide]. I can assure you that most amateur apologists do not have the time or energy to match your prodigious output, and I am sure your 50+ debates would give you an edge. Consider this a challenge, should you be reading this blog post’s comments still. You will not debate Armstrong, you will not debate at this post [primarily for that reason, it seems]. I recall a previous challenge by an amateur already on this comment board. Surely, no amateur can stand up to a professional, and a doctor, too. Alternatively, take me on, on Sola Fide. I am younger then he is, and not even in RCIA yet. Redeem my formerly Presbyterian soul, Dr. White. Please. Maybe I am wrong - prove it.
[As a further bonus, I promise I won't publish any comments by Dave Armstrong on my blog, which has comment moderation, nor will I go running to any professional apologist should you choose to debate me.]
In the meantime, I suspect that you will not ever read this comment, so I might as well address other people too.
To Kacy: Thank you for shedding more light on this issue. I know this flood of comments is overwhelming - do not be overwhelmed. Thank you for your narrative - it was very enlightening for me.
To Matt&co: Good on you for helping Kacy and defending your views and not giving up. Whether you are wrong or right, it showed [and probably took] courage to do, and definitely took time and effort. Good work, even those of you I disagree with.
Finally, to whoever it was who commented, as to the title of this post: Well, I could slay of James White the Catholicism annoys him to no end, and I highly doubt he would be very vocal in disagreeing with me, were he to. It is not slander for me to say 'the taste of pickles annoys me to no end', so I do not see why the title of this post is malignable.
Sincerely in Christ,
Hidden One
I am hopefully weighing in as someone that wishes the best for Dr. Beckwith and his family. However, I do read with interest that he had to go to confession first before being allowed back into the Church. Is it my impression that his confession involved having left the "Church" in the first place? Since all of those who are not in the "Church" are anathema (reference the Council of Trent's pronouncement on those who hold to sola fide), and that anathema has not been lifted, how does that look to those of the evangelical side of the family? First to be anathametized by the Catholic Church, and then to not have that anathema lifted by any Pope since, leaves all under that condemnation. Is it small wonder that the actual difference between Rome and the rest of the church is as wide as it ever was to those who are still willing to study the differences and realize that the arguments and the principles for which Luther posted his 95 theses have not been corrected? You still have Mariology (not necessarily something that Luther posted for), but you still have the selling of grace by the Church to buy people out of purgatory (which in itself is not a Biblical teaching, but one made up by the "Church"), along with the infallibility of the Pope, which didn't become dogma until the 19th century (which makes you wonder about all of the popes before him). I am just confused over the whole reversion back to the Church that has not reformed itself to the faith taught by Jesus in the Bible.
Jon,
1. When one leaves the Church for a significant period of time it is important to go confess all the sins committed since one's last confession. This is more than just confessing having left the Church. Similarly, if someone converts to the Church, that person must confess all mortal sins committed since baptism. There are certain criteria that must be met for a sin to be considered mortal. If the person: 1. Knows that it is a sin of grave matter; 2. Actively wills to commit the sin; and 3. Committs the sin. In the case of leaving the Church, if a person leaves due to a misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church teaches or because they don't realize it is wrong to leave the Church, it is probably not a mortal sin. Intentions are important when weighing in on the gravity of the sin committed.
2. The anathemas of Trent are discussed in the comment box in my response to James White.
3. As for Mariology, the Church has always had a high view of Mary. Read the Council of Ephesus in 431. Also read the first few chapters of Luke. Here you will find the words to the "Hail Mary," a very scriptural prayer. Even Luther had a high view of Mary. As for Catholic dogmas on the Assumption and Immaculate Conception, find documents on the formation of these dogmas. Any doctrine on Mary is established based on the Church's understanding of who Christ is. Mary is always pointing us back to her Son, and Marion doctrines do the same thing.
4. Selling indulgences has always been considered a sin by the Church. This is called simony. It was a sin in Luther's day, and it’s a sin today. It was legitimate for Luther to be concerned with this, as Catholic teaching said it was wrong. I don't see this happening today.
5. Purgatory is a place where one goes to be cleansed of all impurity before entering into the presence of Christ. Christ is holy, and we are not. Purgatory cleanses the Christian to come into Christ's presence. All those who go to Purgatory will eventually go to Heaven. Even some Evangelicals believe in a type of Purgatory. C.S. Lewis, also believed in it. The concept is Biblical and is found in Revelation. I would give you the exact passage, but I'm moving and my Bible has already been packed.
6. Indulgences do not buy a person out of purgatory. Indulgences give the person performing the indulgence special graces. The Church lists the Indulgences in a book called "The Handbook of Indulgences."
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0899425852/ref=wl_it_dp/104-5040743-5100728?ie=UTF8&coliid=I281CI3POYVZJK&colid=3O16AD54VT50Y
The reception of the indulgence is not necessarily about the act itself. If I were to perform an indulgence to "buy favor with God" or "earn my way into heaven," I would not receive the same graces. One should always perform an indulgence to grow closer to God. God knows the person's heart and cannot be deceived. An aside: Did you know that you get an indulgence for reading the Bible?
7. Papal infallibility does not mean that the Pope is sinless or that everything he says is true. There certainly have been some very bad popes. Papal infallibility only applies under certain circumstances, when the Pope is pronouncing a doctrine from the seat of Peter. This is always done after meeting with the College of Cardinals and looking at Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Papal infallibility is really an extension to the idea that our teaching comes from Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. This doctrine is not about the person who is pope, but about the office itself. God protects the Church from heresy and will therefore guide the Pope when speaking ex cathedra.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home