Taking White to Task

In an "All Roman" edition of James White's Dividing Line program, as you can probably guess, White makes a number of faux pas comments.

1) White starts with making note of the controversy between Pope Francis and Donald Trump.  In this case it wasn't really a faux pas, as he actually stood up for the fact that Pope Francis was mistranslated (you can see my response to that incident here).  Look for the context, etc. "but that's not The Donald's way."  Then White criticizes Pope Francis for the statement about borders.  Has not White just done what he accused "The Donald" of doing?  Go back to what Pope Francis actually said AND his clarifications on the matter. However, White does go back to defending the pope's ability to make a statement about an individual person's faith...  reminding the listeners that it's really the responsibility for a religious leader to make such judgments.

2)  "Super Confessors - with super powers - where if you walk through certain doors - your sins will be forgiven."


Over 1100 priests were hand-picked to forgive sins normally reserved to being forgiven by the pope himself.  Let me start by quoting White:

So obviously medieval, so obviously unbiblical, I mean no one is going to honestly look at the New Testament and say, 'yah, that's what the Apostles were doing, the Apostles were, you know, opening doors and saying if you walk through this door you'll get forgiveness of sins.  And yah, that sacramental stuff, it developed over time, and you know, it's like Cardinal Newman said, the acorn to the tree and... and this is why Rome has to deny sola scriptura, of course, because if you limit yourself to what is theopneustos (God breathed) then you're never going to come up with this silly stuff.  You're not going to have super confessors, well first of all you're not going to have priests to begin with, ah, you're going to have one High Priest, Jesus, and everybody in the Body of Christ is a priest in one sense, I mean, there's no such thing as a sacramental priesthood (as) in Roman Catholicism.

Let's pause here as White himself pauses at a "squirrel" moment of someone posting a picture of Pope Francis, looking sternly, with the caption of "I'm watching you, James" (posted on Twitter).
a) What's this comment about gaining forgiveness of sins by walking through certain doors?  First off, we must correct White's misunderstanding (again) of Catholic teaching and tradition.  The "Holy Doors" (which traditionally were just four doors on four of Rome's basilicas) have been extended to include all the cathedrals in the world.  What is sought by those passing through them is not forgiveness of sins, but an indulgence.  Big difference here!  An indulgence is NOT the forgiving of a sin!  Indulgences relieve all or some of the temporal punishments which may remain after a sin is already forgiven.  There is no indulgence for a sin not yet forgiven.  That being said, if Matthew 16:18-19 be true, then St. Peter (and those who were "sent out" as his successors, more on that in a bit) has the authority not only to bind on Earth, which also binds in Heaven, but to loose on Earth which also looses in Heaven.  That which he looses is infallibly loosed - as an erroneous (or fallible) loosing cannot be loosed in Heaven.  Thus, when a pope decrees the temporal punishments are loosed (an indulgence) it MUST be so and has scriptural foundation.  White is simply wrong here (again) and misrepresents Catholicism (again) on this matter.
b) No such thing as a sacramental priesthood?  Let us remind the reader, and especially White, the definition of a a sacrament.  A sacrament is an outward sign, instituted by Christ, to give/gain grace (grace = God's life in us).  So, with that in mind let us look at the sacramental initiation of the priesthood as it relates to the forgiveness of sins (we could also mention the sacramental initiation of the Eucharist, but this topic is on forgiveness, so let's stick with that example.  The "outward sign" is the actual forgiving of the sins.  Forgiving of sins is a means of grace.  In John 20:21-23, Jesus breathes upon them, The 12, and says to them:

²¹ Again Jesus said, “Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you.” ²² And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit. ²³ If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.” (NIV)

So, this 1) sending and 2) receiving the Holy Spirit and 3) authority to forgive sins - was "instituted by Christ."  So, this "priesthood" (we also call Holy Orders) most definitely fits the definition of a sacrament - and quite clearly contains the authority to forgive sins.  Keep in mind, as He (Jesus) was sent out, He was sending them out - therefore they too, necessarily, needed to send others out with that same authority with which they were sent out.  White is simply wrong, again, in saying this is "unbiblical."

Back to the program...

3) "You didn't have venial v. mortal sins."  Really?  Again, White is wrong because this is clearly a scriptural teaching in 1 John 5:16-17 - 

¹⁶ If you see any brother or sister commit a sin that does not lead to death, you should pray and God will give them life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that you should pray about that. ¹⁷ All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.

So there is a sin which leads to death (aka: mortal) and a sin which does not lead to death (aka: venial).  It cannot be more clear that White is again wrong in his statement on this.  

4) "What has this to do with Christianity?  Absolutely, positively, nothing at all.  It's as far removed from the Christian faith as can be.  See, once you abandon the standard which Jesus gave us, to test human traditions by what is written in Scripture, once you're convinced that doesn't work."  Really?  Even though the "Christian Scriptures" precisely teach that which White precisely rejects?  I have already demonstrated the scriptural foundation of these traditions.   The objective reader can surely see who is not presenting Christianity here!

5) Minutes 10-12 - Apostolic succession - too many vague, uncited allegations to answer to at this time, but virtually all, if not all, have been answering in the past.

6) I want to thank a Roman Catholic apologist.  Scott Eric Alt published an article on February 9, 2016, stating we (Catholic apologists) need to stop saying there are 33,000 denominations.  Alt goes on to say, "there are not, not even close to, 33,000 denominations.  Well, OK, but White represents this as if no other Catholic apologist has said this, to him or elsewhere, in the past.  This, again, is simply not true!  In 2011 I responded to White's attack on the Vortex - dispelling the myth of the 33,000.  In 2010 I presented the actual source of the 33,000 number - from Barrett's World Christian Encyclopedia, 2001.  That 2010 article was actually a reposting of an article I had posted in 2007 on the Locutus Webboard (that webboard was taken down due to security issues it posed on our web server, fortunately, I had snagged the article before it was taken down).  I will repost the pertinent facts from the 2007 article:

Mega-bloc.......... | Denominations in 1995.. | Countries

Roman Catholic...| 239 ...............................| 234 (dividing it out, that's a statistical "1")

Orthodox............| 764 ..................................|133  (statistical = 6)

Protestant ..........| 8848 ...............................| 231  (statistical = 38)

Anglicans ...........| 168 .................................| 162 (statistical = 1)

Marginal ............| 1488 ................................| 215 (statistical = 7)

Independent ......| 21,582 ............................| 220 (statistical = 98)

Total .................| 33,089 ..............................| 237  (statistical = 140)

(David A. Barrett, World Christian Encyclopedia, 2001, p 12)
(The "statistical" statements in parentheses were added by me, and I used Barrett's math.)

So, that's where the "33,000" figure came from.  It INCLUDES Catholics in the numbering of Christians, but using the editor's own math, Catholicism is a statistical "1" whereas Protestants are "38" groups, then add in the "98" independents then the Anglicans and Marginal and you can see the dividing of the Body of Christ - which is contrary to His Will.  That's 144 "denominattions" yet it is His Will is that we are to be One, just as He and the Father are One - and we WERE One, for over 1000 years when Orthodoxy split with Catholicism, and it would be another 500 years later that Protestantism would be born and further splits would be made from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Who else has corrected White on this faux pas? 

2004:  Dave Armstrong (in this Dave refers to a response he and Al Kresta wrote back in 2000, but that link is no longer valid:  https://web.archive.org/web/20041128195553/http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2004_08_29_socrates58_archive.html#109434258447719839

2005: We had a similar discussion in CDF (Catholic Debate Forum) with no relation to White and Co.   https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/catholicdebateforum/conversations/messages/6378 (you have to follow the thread, but Barrett's "facts" come in too). (Yahoo Groups no longer exist).

2007:  Phil Vaz http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a106.htm (no longer exists)

White's original article, in 2007, to which my article was a response:  http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php/2007/08/22/the-33000-denominations-myth/ 

2007: Steve Ray responds to White's article:  http://www.catholic-convert.com/blog/2007/08/27/look-for-yourself-how-many-denominations/

2007: Scott Windsor responds to White on Locutus Webboard and while that link is no longer available, that same article was posted here in 2010:   http://quilocutus.blogspot.com/2012/08/white-lies.html  Here (in 2007), I reference that (again, no longer available) article from Locutus:  https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/catholicdebateforum/conversations/messages/19192

2011:  Scott Windsor responds:  http://quilocutus.blogspot.com/2011/12/white-on-vortex.html

2014:  Benjamin Baxter: http://www.catholiclane.com/the-bad-evangelist-club-33000-denominations/

2016:  Scott Eric Alt:  http://www.ncregister.com/blog/scottericalt/we-need-to-stop-saying-that-there-are-33000-protestant-denominations

2016:  Dave Armstrong, recalling his 2004 response to White on the subject:  http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2016/2/33000-denominations-thankful-james-white.html

Well, there are others, but this list should suffice to say that White has been shown, by several other Catholic apologists that a) the 33,000 number is not a lie; and b) many times before Alt's article from earlier this year. The bottom line is Barrett's numbers "denominate" by country, which is not the way most, if any, of us look at denominations.  Barrett says there are 239 Catholic "denominations" - but counts 234 countries - I'm not sure where he gets the other 5, but dividing it out - that's 1 denomination.  Protestants, on the other hand, are up to 144 - and ANY number greater than ONE is outside of God's Will for His Church - for HE desires that we be ONE, just as He and the Father are One (John 17:21).

7) Infallibility?  Well, he (like John Bugay) misrepresents or at best ridicules papal infallibility at a level indicating he really doesn't "get it" and since I just wrote a whole article on that (click here) I'll not repeat myself again just now.

8) Caller "Luke," whom he claims Catholic apologists are aggressively pursuing, calls in and basically takes up the rest of the show.  Well, THIS Catholic apologist is not actively pursuing Luke so I will not belabor those points here and now.  If Luke wishes to have a discussion with me, public or private, he can contact me.  Here's my email:  bigscott@a2z.org

If you would like to listen to or watch the Dividing Line webcast, in its entirety, on Youtube:

Do Denominations Matter?

Question:  Does the denomination really matter?
Person asks:
I have always believed that “a Christian is a Christian.” If we love Jesus and believe that He died for our sins, we will be saved. Promoting a specific “brand” of Christianity only promotes division. I am a Methodist, but I love Catholics, Lutherans, Baptists, and Pentecostals all the same. We need to learn to live together. What we have in common is more important than our differences.

My reply:
The compromise you’re suggesting doesn’t work in matters of salvation.  Let me explain.  As a Christian, you believe in the Ten Commandments, right?  In the First Commandment, God warns us not to worship false gods.  If we do, we commit the mortal sin of idolatry and condemn ourselves to hell.  Sound about right?

Now, if a pagan comes to your door and shared with you his religion and worship of the Great Tree, you would have a moral duty to explain to him that what he is doing is wrong and to reject this religion, repent of his sins and come to Jesus Christ who is the only way of salvation.  Make sense so far?

Now, here’s your problem.  Catholics worship what appears to be mere bread, which the Church calls the Eucharist.  We worship the Eucharist because we believe that, in the sacrifice of the Mass, the bread becomes the body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ and is thus worthy of worship.  Our belief is based on Scripture, history and the entire Christian tradition.

If the Eucharist is not Jesus Christ, but a mere piece of ordinary bread, then Catholics are committing idolatry.  If we are committing idolatry, you have the same moral obligation to us as you had to the pagan.  You are obligated to tell us that we are committing idolatry and must reject our false religion, lest we go to hell.  If Catholics worship bread, then Catholicism must be renounced by all Christians.  In fact, the Catholic religion lives or dies with the Eucharist, for the Eucharist is the source and summit of the Catholic faith.  If the Catholic faith is false, then you must not sit idly by and let us Catholics commit idolatry and die in our sins.

If, however, the Eucharist is truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, then the Catholic Church is the one and only true religion.  Jesus said, “I am the way the truth and the life, no one comes to the Father except by me.”  As Catholics we are obliged to bring the fullness of the truth to all since we wish all to have the fullness of Christ.  And what could be better than to receive the WHOLE Christ as He intended;  Body, blood, soul and divinity, into your very self both spiritually AND physically?

To recap, if we Catholics are wrong then it is the Christians duty to bring it to our attention so that we would reject this great sin of idolatry of a false god.  But if we are right, then of course we are obliged to bring this truth to all who are unawares.

Inspired by John Slaza’s response on his website:
http://www.johnsalza.com/p/q-a.html

God Bless
Nathan

White Lies?

White Lies?  Well, that's what he, James White, accuses many Catholic apologists of doing when they mention 33,000 Protestant denominations.  I have responded to White a number of times on this matter, most recently in December of 2011:
http://cathapol.blogspot.com/2011/12/white-on-vortex.html

White has posted another "response" to the 33,000 figure on July 29, 2012 - and though presented as new information, he attaches a video he actually published back in 2009.

The statement of 33,000 denominations is not a "lie."  Like I have explained to White a few times now, it is a creative use of the numbers.  In actuality, the original statement from the World Christian Encyclopedia, 2001, of 33,089 denominations includes 239 "denominations" of Catholics.  How is that possible?  What David A. Barrett has done is used "countries" as another "denomination."  There are 234 countries in the Catholic list.  So that's a statistical ONE denomination!  So, in fairness, if we use the same math for the Protestant denominations (dividing the total number by the number of countries) Barrett lists 8848 Protestant denominations and then divide that by the number of countries - you're left with a statistical 38 denominations.  Again, White has been shown these figures before - but chooses to ignore the REAL facts and go off on out-of-context statements from Catholic apologists and accuse them of "lying."  So, in light of the FACT that White KNOWS what I am presenting (again) here - one must ask, who is REALLY lying here?

White calls upon the "honest Roman Catholics" to beg to apologists like Steve Ray, Tim Staples, etc. to "stop giving us a black eye, stop demonstrating that you don't do your homework, you don't listen to what anyone else says..."   Well, I call upon the "honest Protestant" to get hold of White and "beg him to stop giving (you) a black eye!"  Tell White to LISTEN to what other people say!  Tell White to consider that his objections HAVE been answered and the numbers used by Catholic apologists are not "lies" - but again, a creative manipulation of the numbers.  Keep in mind as well, it is NOT the Catholics who came up with the number of 33,000, rather is was David Barrett!

Has Steve Ray responded to this before?  Yes!  In 2007 he responded using a newer version of the World Christian Encyclopedia (I used the 2001 edition which uses numbers from 1995 - the version he's using has figures from 2000, but he doesn't cite the actual source - the Amazon.com link he points to is the 2001 edition).  So, while I'd like to know with more precision which edition Ray quotes from - the bottom line is, he did the math in a similar way that I have done.  Unaware of what Ray wrote in August of 2007, I wrote in December of 2007:
Here are the stats I found from the original source:

David A. Barrett said:Table 1-3 Organized Christianity: Global totals in 1995 AD 
Note: Denomination is defined as an organization within a single country. This means that if the Roman Catholic church is in 234 countries, it would have a at least 234 denominations. Conversely, To say the Roman Catholic church has 239 denominations in 234 countries, is a conclusion that seriously misreads the data. On the other hand, the fact that there are 8848 denominations in the Protestant column, does not mean there are 8848 Protestant denominations as Catholics suggest. If you divide 8848 by the 237 countries, you come up with a figure of only actual 37 denominations in 237 countries. 

Mega-bloc |.........| Denominations in 1995 |..| countries 
Roman Catholic...| 239 ..............................| 234 (dividing it out, that's a statistical "1") 
Orthodox.............| 764 .............................|133  (statistical = 6) 
Protestant ...........| 8848 ...........................| 231  (statistical = 38) 
Anglicans ............| 168 .............................| 162 (statistical = 1) 
Marginal .............| 1488 ............................| 215 (statistical = 7) 
Independent .......| 21,582 .........................| 220 (statistical = 98) 
Total ...................| 33,089 .........................| 237  (statistical = 140) 
(David A. Barrett, World Christian Encyclopedia, 2001, p 12)
(The "statistical" statements in parentheses were added by me, and I used his math.) 

So, that's where the "34,000" figure came from.  It INCLUDES Catholics in the numbering of Christians, but using the editor's own math, Catholicism is a statistical "1" whereas Protestants are "38" groups, then add in the "98" independents and you can see the dividing of the Body of Christ - which is contrary to His Will.  His Will is that we are to be One, just as He and the Father are One - and we WERE One, for over 1000 years when Orthodoxy split with Catholicism, and it would be another 500 years later that Protestantism would be born and further splits would be made from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. 
In JMJ, Scott<<< 

PS- I would also note that in "using the author's math," he misrepresents his own figure by 1, since he used the TOTAL number of countries and divided that into the number of Protestant groups - but according to his own figures - there are only Protestants in 231 countries, not 237.  That is why my parenthetical "statistics" are slightly off from his earlier statement. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/catholicdebateforum/message/19209

I had actually written that earlier myself on the Locutus Webboard, but due to security concerns on my webserver, I took down Locutus - so I am not sure of the exact date I first posted my information.

What I find a bit disturbing in White's presentation is that he mixes fact with fiction.  Yes, IF we use the 33,000 figure, that INCLUDES 239 Roman Catholics.  But White goes off on the 200+ number and does not consider the ACTUAL number, that which I have represented as a "statistical" number above when the number of countries is factored in.

White also objects that in that larger number "we" (Catholic apologists) include marginal, independent and other Protestants - like Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, etc.  I realize HE does not consider these as fellow Protestants, but nonetheless, they remain in "protest" against the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which Jesus Christ Himself founded in 33ad.

As I have expressed above, ANY NUMBER GREATER THAN ONE equates to that number, minus one, TOO MANY!

Will White acknowledge that Catholic apologists have responded to his accusation of "lies?"  Will he admit to his own lies - or at least that he himself stretches the truth for his propaganda/agenda?  Don't hold your breath on that one.

As for ME - I do not favor using the 33,000+ number - for even if we're not "lying" in using it, it is a bit more complicated - and you have to be prepared to defend yourself and know the REAL numbers behind the 33,000+ figure.  I repeat, ANY NUMBER GREATER THAN ONE equates to that number, minus one, TOO MANY!  Don't get caught up in insisting upon huge numbers!  If the number is TWO, it's huge in God's eyes when it comes to "denominating" His followers for He desires that we are ONE, just as the Father and the Son are One. (John 17:21)

Scott<<<
ACTS Apologetics

White On The Vortex

White goes after "The Vortex"

12/08/2011 - James White

40,000 Protestant denominations? Wow, we have proven the 33,000 number a bold-faced lie many times in the past, but hey, I guess it is just a matter of inflation! Hard to take promoters of Romanism who repeat these absurdities seriously...but it is even worse when they will stare into a video camera and claim that no one...NO ONE, ever accused Mary of sin until the Reformation!? I mean, the Immaculate Conception was not even defined as a dogma until the middle of the 19th century, and it is just too simple to provide citations proving such claims to be outright lies.

The 40,000 or 33,000 denominations statement is NOT a "lie" - and White has been shown this evidence in the past too - but rather a funky way of playing with the numbers.  The origin of that whole concept comes from a David A. Barrett 1995 report which counts each country that a given denomination exists in as another denomination.  By Barrett's numbering, while he has 33,000+ Protestant denominations - he also has the Catholic Church with 239 denominations in 234 countries (a statistical "1").  If we use the division of the countries into the overall count of denominations, the Protestantism is a statistical "140."  Protestantism still has a problem here because ANY NUMBER GREATER THAN "1" IS CONTRARY TO GOD'S WILL!  So, while 140 sounds a lot better to the Protestant than 33,000 (or 40,000) it is still greater than "1" and thus not within God's Will and Plan for His Church "That they may be One."  

White devotes the first part of his December 8th "Dividing Line Webcast" to the matter of Michael Voris, "The Vortex" (Voris' video was posted by me to this blog back on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, the same day as White's entry) and to that portion, I will respond.


Webcast begins ripping on Voris' hair - as if that means anything, perhaps it does to one who has no hair?  Why even bring it up?  Does he have a toupee?  Who really cares?  After a bit of chit-chat on his server needs, he gets back to the Voris video - briefly.  After the first line from Voris about lies and falsehoods being trapped and exposed he digresses into a bit of whining about not being able to find Catholic apologists to debate him.  Then he talks about his upcoming course he'll be teaching and not talking about Voris' video!  Then finally, after nearly ten minutes, starts getting back to the audio from the video.  

9:58 (video time) - Voris states, "When Catholics celebrate the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, we have the esteemed privilege, yes privilege, of being caught up in the creative mind of God the Father in the desire He had from all eternity."  

White interrupts...

10:12 "Except that it's a dogma which did not become dogma until 1854 and was unknown, absolutely unknown in the early church.  In fact there are lots of quotations you can provide about that... I loved St. Bernard's against the concept, uh, how many people had argued against it and things like that.  I liked the comment of Ludwig Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma on page 221, "The dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is not explicitly revealed in Scripture, neither the Greek nor Latin Fathers explictly teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary."  So, if this is in the mind of God, it took Him quite some time to finally get around to revealing it to men, which actually that would make it a new revelation because it's neither found in Scripture nor in Tradition, so it's revelation outside of the canon of the New Testament itself."

OK, now I must interject.  Dr. Ott stated the dogma/teaching is not explicitly found in Scripture or Tradition - and White jumps to it is not found, period.  That is not what Dr. Ott said, but purely an assertion of White's.  But is it not taught implicitly?  Let is look:

There are two passages in Scripture which point us to this truth. We look first at Genesis 3.15, in which we see the parallel between Mary and Eve of which the early Church Fathers already spoke: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." The Jews saw this passage as referring to the struggle between Christ and Satan, and so the Church see in "the woman" a prophetic foreshadowing of the Virgin Mary (Vatican II, Lumen gentium, # 55).  

Scotus wrote (cited from J. B. Carol, Mariology I, 368): "Either God was able to do this, and did not will to do it, or He willed to preserve her, and was unable to do so. If able to and yet unwilling to perform this for her, God was miserly towards her. And if He willed to do it but was unable to accomplish it, He was weak, for no one who is able to honor his mother would fail to do so."  http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya2.htm 

Early Church Fathers:

"Every personal sin must be excluded from the Blessed Virgin Mary for the sake of the honor of God." - St. Augustine, 390 AD to Jehoel. 

"Mary, a virgin not only undefiled but a virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free from every stain." - St. Ambrose of Milan, 340-370 AD.

"You, and your Mother are alone in this. You are wholly beautiful in every respect. There is in you, Lord, no stain, nor any spot in your Mother." - St. Ephraem, 350 AD.

The concept of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin is implied through these citations.  But wait!  There's more!

Theodotus, Bishop of Ancrya says:

“In place of Eve, an instrument of death, is chosen a Virgin, most pleasing to God and full of His grace, as an instrument of life. A Virgin included in woman’s sex, but without a share in woman’s fault. A Virgin innocent; immaculate; free from all guilt; spotless; undefiled; holy in spirit and body; a lily among thorns.” (Homily 6 in S. Deiparam, No. II, PG 77, 1427 A.)

He also spoke of Mary as being consecrated to the Creator before the Nativity (Homily 6, II; PO 19, 329). We can see a more developed knowledge of the Eve-Mary parallel from the quote above. Proclus of Constantinople makes a similar praise:

“He came forth from her without any flaw, who made her for Himself without any stain.” (Oratio I de Laudibus S. Mariae, PG, 65, 683 B.)   ....“Mary is the heavenly orb of a new creation, in whom the Sun of justice, ever shining, has vanished from her entire soul all the night of sin.” (Ibid, Oratio 6, PG 68, 758 A.)

Proclus also spoke of Mary as the ark of the Lord (Homily 5, 3; PG 65, 720 B). Hesychius of Jerusalem agrees with the consensus of the Fathers when he extolled the incorruptibility, immortality, immunity from concupiscence, impeccability, triumph over Satan, and the co-redemptive mission of the Mother of God (Oratio 39 in Sanctissimae Deiparae Annuntiationem, PG 85, 426).

From the sixth century, we have Anastasius I declare the privilege of the Immaculate Conception (Oratio 3 de Incarnatione, No. 6, PG 89, 1338). We also have Severus of Antioch who states:

“She…formed part of the human race, and was of the same essence as we, although she was pure from all taint and immaculate.” (Hom. Cathedralis 67)

Romanos the Melodist, whom the Byzantine Church proclaims as the cantor of the mysteries of Christ, and Mary says of Mary:

“…the tribes of Israel heard that Anna had conceived the immaculate one.” (On the Birth of Mary 4)

By the seventh century the doctrine of Mary’s freedom from original sin had become well elaborated that there was no controversy on the substance of the teaching (Carol, 1:354). Sophronius, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, describes Mary as:

“holy, immaculate in soul and body, entirely free from every contagion.” (Epistola Synodica ad Sergium, PG 87 (3), 3159; 3162)

He also speaks of the grace that no one has received besides her (Orat in Deiparae Annunt 25, PG 87, 3246-3247).

At the time of the eighth century, we have Andrew of Crete saying that the Redeemer was born from a pure and entirely Immaculate Virgin (Hom. in Dorm. Deipara). He also says:

“It was right, then, that the admirable Joachim and his spouse, Anna, inspired by divine thoughts, did obtain for her as the fruit of their prayer; her, I say, the queen of nature, the firstfruits of our race, whose birthday we celebrate, whose swaddling clothes we honor, and whom we venerate as the source of the restoration of our fallen race.” (Homily 3 on Mary’s Nativity, PG 97, 860 B-C)

Firstfruits of the human race in this text means that she is the first creature who received the gift of salvation (Gambero, 393). He then explains more fully:

“This is Mary the Theotokos, the common refuge of all Christians, the first to be liberated from the original fall of our first parents.” (Homily 4 on Mary’s Nativity, PG 97, 880 C)

We also have John Damascene who called Mary:

“the most holy daughter of Joachim and Anne, hidden from the fiery dart of Satan, dwelling in a bridal chamber of the spirit, preserved without stain as the Spouse and Mother of God.” (Homilia I in Nativitatem Beatae Virginis Mariae, No. 3, PG 96, 675) 
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a95.htm

So much for the Early Church Fathers being silent on this matter!  

11:16 - Voris: "Most Protestants have no desire to hear talk of the Immaculate Conception of our Blessed Mother."

11:18 - White: "Well, except those of us who actually debate people, as I have, twice on this particular subject.  So, it's not a matter of our not wanting to talk about it.  I don't mind talking about it, its a great illustration of where the Catholic Church has defined something, de fide, which absolutely, positively has no foundation in either Scripture or Tradition."

Again, I must interject - we've just demonstrated that it CAN be seen in both Scripture AND Tradition - just not explicitly. 

11:43 - White: "Now the only thing which has less, (giggles) if you can have...  you can have no, but you can have less than none, (this makes no sense!) is the Bodily Assumption (of the Blessed Virgin).  Ah, but both of them, now de fide dogmas, of the Romanist (sic) system that have nothing to do with Scripture or Tradition which demonstrates that Roman Catholicism, um, is not bound by any external authority outside of itself.  These are both excellent examples of sola ecclesia, the Church as the sole and final rule of faith for itself.  It's not a three-legged stool, or anything like that.  It's not Church, Tradition and Magisterium, no it's just the Magisterium, period, end of discussion. 

Well, fist off, Catholics would not deny "sola ecclesia!"  The Ecclesia (Church) IS Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium!  Now of course White would like you to believe that we do not accept a "three-legged stool" approach - but in fact, we do.  He wants you to believe we preach it is all Magisterium - but we don't.  Secondly, I wish to point out that White is digressing again and not talking about the Immaculate Conception, but of Church authority and governance - and THIS discussion is not about the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary!  That's a different subject - which I would be happy to deal with in the future.

White mentions that there are seven popes who taught against the Immaculate Conception and  numerous Early Church Fathers who talked about Mary's sin - "directly contrary to what Mr. Voris is going to say here in a moment..."

White then goes into another diatribe about the 33,000 denominations - I'll not bore you with all that again now, you can read my primary source material and see that White is just wrong here and disingenuously charging any Catholic who uses this number of bold-faced lying - when again, it's NOT a "lie" but just one way of looking at Barrett's 1995 numbers.  White carries on this 33,000 denominations discussion for a good six minutes... yawn.

  

For another 2 minutes White rambles on criticizing Roman Catholic apologists with empty assertions.  He hints about what Voris will discuss next (two founding Protestant leaders who believed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception long before it was defined as dogma) but then drifts back to the 33,000 denomination discussion again... yawn.

Finally, at the 22 minute mark in this webcast we get back to the Voris audio...

22:06 - Voris:  "Two founding fathers of their 16th century revolt against the Catholic Church each agree with..."

22:08 - White (in a gruff tone barges in):  "Revolt!  Revolting!"

22:14 - Voris:  "...with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception."

22:16 - White: "No, they agree with the concept that was not yet a doctrine or a dogma.  See how different that is?

Well, it was a doctrine, it was a teaching, it was a celebrated feast day LONG before it was defined as dogma!  Perhaps White needs to brush up on the difference between doctrine and dogma?  Yes, the words CAN be used interchangeably at times - but fundamentally speaking, not all doctrines are dogmas - but all dogmas are doctrine.


White then makes the accusation of anachronism, he likes that word, and attempts to make a case that because it was not yet defined dogma in the time of Luther and Zwingli that they agreed with the "concept" but not as "doctrine."  The Feast of the Immaculate Conception was celebrated as such as early as the 5th century in the East and they refer to the Blessed Virgin as "achrantos" (spotless or immaculate).  In the West, the feast was celebrated as early as the 8th century.  By either account, it's nearly or over a millennium PRIOR to Luther and Zwingli!

Voris makes a statement that in the first 1500 years of Christendom NO ONE ever accused the Blessed Virgin of sin - that this was wholly something from the Protestant revolt of the 16th century.  White then names a few Church Fathers whom allegedly state Mary sinned..  That being said, I will not state that NO Church Father or ANYONE prior to the 16th century EVER stated Mary sinned - nor would it shake my faith if White, or anyone else, could present a quote here or there.  Voris may have been caught in a bit of hyperbole there - but the fact remains, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception was celebrated in the East over 1000 years prior to Protestantism's dawning - and some 800 years prior in the Western tradition. 

White concludes his on-topic discussion (he does go off on some other distractions after this) with a question for Voris:

33:43 - White: "One simple question Mr. Voris, and if you were ever to step out and debate these things in public, it's a question I'd ask you then, and I don't mind telling what the question is now because to be honest with you there is no meaningful answer to this question. (1) But Mr. Voris, do you really think that is what Mary meant when she said that?  (2) Do you really think that Mary, in her Magnificat, that she actually was saying that when she called God her Savior she recognized that she had been kept from the stain of Original Sin by the preemptive application and the merits of the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ when she did not even understand at that point in time what Jesus was going to have to do on the Cross? (3) Are you SERIOUSLY telling me that?

Now, I won't continue in White's preemptive answering, but I will answer him myself, and there's more than one question here, so let's answer them all (I've added numbers above to keep track)
(1) The words of the Magnificat are simply:

My soul doth magnify the Lord.

And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid;

for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

Because he that is mighty,

hath done great things to me;

She is saying that her soul magnifies the Lord... her spirit rejoices in God her Savior - why?  Because He has regarded the humility of His handmaid (past tense) and from that time forward, all generations will call her blessed (future tense) because He has done (past tense again) great things to me.  God had already done great things to her.


(2) Look at it this way, it's not such a great thing to accomplish to get pregnant, so she wasn't talking about merely being pregnant with her God and Savior - but that God had already done great things to His humble handmaid.  Is this explicitly stating she was immaculately conceived?  No, but it's recognizing something "great" had already been done TO her.  


(3) To be preserved from the stain of Original Sin would be a "great thing."  To do this so that she could be the Ark of the New Covenant is a "great thing."  If you "SERIOUSLY" want to disbelieve - then sobeit.

I will close with this thought...  Frequently throughout this Dividing Line program, White is goading Voris to debate with him.  White has always been huge on debating, and I will acknowledge, he's pretty good at it!  I too used to be a bit more interested in formal debating, and while I've not abandoned it (I'll still engage in one, even with White if he chooses) in a debate, just because someone can present a better argument does not necessarily equate to the Truth "winning."  I've seen several debates where White would appear to "win" the debate, or at least part of the debate, yet it was not Truth which "won" - rather a tactful "gotcha" argument was used and his opponent was not prepared to answer him.  This is also why I prefer a WRITTEN debate as opposed to a face-to-face one.  When one has the time to research and respond in a scholarly fashion - White is put on an equal footing - and, at least in confrontations I've had with him - he cannot (or will not) answer to his (many) mistakes (well, there is ONE time that I can recall, in over 20 years of debating him where he admitted to a minor mistake).  Debating has its place, as it can help refine our own defenses and arguments - but such is RARELY the "end-all" in apologetics.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Cafeteria Christians

Most Catholics have heard the terminology, "Cafeteria Catholics," whereby they claim to be Catholics, but only accept things which are comfortable to them.  Often with things like artificial birth control, abortion, etc. such Cafeteria Catholics pick and choose how far they want to accept the Church's teachings on these maters.  Can these Cafeteria Catholics truly be considered Catholics at all?  When someone decides for themselves that they will not follow a given teaching, have they not broken communion with the Catholic Faith? 


Then we come to perhaps the ultimate Cafeteria Catholic... Martin Luther.  At least Luther was honest about it though, he allowed himself to be split from the Catholic Church officially.  But consider Luther...  he "protested" against certain Catholic teachings, not the least of which was that over Indulgences.  What if he had remained a faithful Catholic throughout all this?  Once the Church tightened up the policy on Indulgences, Luther could have been viewed a hero by all Christians!  Instead, he drew his line in the sand and separated himself from the Church... getting more and more vile and obstinate as the years went by.  So, now the only ones who see him as heroic are those who followed him out of the Church.  Since the Lord desires we be one, just as He and the Father are One - there was absolutely nothing heroic in separating the Church as he did.  Luther essentially began the concept of "Cafeteria Christians," who pick and choose which doctrines they will follow.  Others followed Luther - dissenting even further from the things which Luther dissented against - so much so that we end up with literally hundreds, if not thousands, of "denominations" which ALL have some level of dissent (or "protest") from the One, True Church from which they have all separated themselves from.

Catholics Disagree?

On CDF, on Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 7:46 PM, Brian wrote:

As if Catholics dont disagree? C'mon now. Great Schism? Orthodox Catholics?

Brian

 

sw: Those are schisms where Catholics not only disagreed, some of them split from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.  The bone of contention Protestants have and can't handle the answer to is that FAITHFUL CATHOLICS agree, 100% with each other on matters of dogma.  We HAVE to or we'd be excommunicated.  Protestants disagree with each other on fundamental issues - even on the definition of "sola scriptura," as there are several definitions in use.  Matters of baptism of infants, or even how many sacraments there are in the Church - if any - are disputed between cults of Protestants.  ALL Catholics agree on ALL Sacraments and that there are SEVEN of them, no more and no less.  The point is, Protestants attempt to use the "tu quoque" argument (#3 on my "Top Ten List" of Anti-Catholic Tactics) - the "you're as bad as we are" argument, which is not only untrue, it is an invalid argument in debate.  The One, True God established and built One, True Church - and Protestantism "protests" against and rejects THAT Church.
 
In JMJ,
Scott<<<

33000 Denominations

33,000 Denominations?

Where did this figure come from?  More accurately it is 140, which is still 139 too many.  Many Protestants get a bit upset at Catholics who use the 33,000 figure - and perhaps rightly so since there are not that many denominations in reality according to the data from which that 33,000 figure came from.  The overall apologetic here does not change, however as any number greater than ONE is not in line with God's Will for His Church (John 17:21).

David A. Barrett said:

Table 1-3 Organized Christianity: Global totals in 1995 AD

"Note: Denomination is defined as an organization within a single country. This means that if the Roman Catholic church is in 234 countries, it would have a at least 234 denominations. Conversely, To say the Roman Catholic church has 239 denominations in 234 countries, is a conclusion that seriously misreads the data. On the other hand, the fact that there are 8848 denominations in the Protestant column, does not mean there are 8848 Protestant denominations as Catholics suggest. If you divide 8848 by the 237 countries, you come up with a figure of only actual 37 denominations in 237 countries."

Mega-bloc.......... | Denominations in 1995.. | Countries

Roman Catholic...| 239 ...............................| 234 (dividing it out, that's a statistical "1")

Orthodox............| 764 ...............................|133  (statistical = 6)

Protestant ..........| 8848 .............................| 231  (statistical = 38)

Anglicans ...........| 168 ...............................| 162 (statistical = 1)

Marginal ............| 1488 .............................| 215 (statistical = 7)

Independent ......| 21,582 ..........................| 220 (statistical = 98)

Total .................| 33,089 ..........................| 237  (statistical = 140)

(David A. Barrett, World Christian Encyclopedia, 2001, p 12)

(The "statistical" statements in parentheses were added by me, and I used Barrett's math.)

So, that's where the "33,000" figure came from.  It INCLUDES Catholics in the numbering of Christians, but using the editor's own math, Catholicism is a statistical "1" whereas Protestants are "38" groups, then add in the "98" independents and you can see the dividing of the Body of Christ - which is contrary to His Will.  His Will is that we are to be One, just as He and the Father are One - and we WERE One, for over 1000 years when Orthodoxy split with Catholicism, and it would be another 500 years later that Protestantism would be born and further splits would be made from the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

PS- I would also note that in "using Barrett's math," he misrepresents his own figure by 1, since he used the TOTAL number of countries and divided that into the number of Protestant groups - but according to his own figures - there are only Protestants in 231 countries, not 237.  That is why my parenthetical "statistics" are slightly off from his earlier statement.

(This article also was also posted by me in 2007 on the Locutus Webboard).

EENS Continued Discussion

The EENS Question (continued...)

I must emphasize again that whereas the teaching of EENS is dogma and hence cannot be denied - the "exceptions" are NOT dogma, and MAY be denied. That is why I do not condemned those who take the "rigorist" position, including Fr. Feeney. The REAL point though, with regard to the alleged "exceptions" is that NONE of them say anyone WILL be saved! They only say that some CAN or MAY be saved. God remains the Judge, as it should be.

There may be some whom those taking the "liberal" understanding would judge as "Invincibly Ignorant" and hope and pray for their salvation - BUT GOD, who knows their heart, may judge that they are damned, regardless of how any of us may feel.

What Stand Should Faithful Catholics Take?

Simply put, GOD IS THE JUDGE. That is our stance. Our DUTY is to preach THE WAY of Salvation which Jesus Christ established. Jesus Christ built His Church, ONE CHURCH, not countless denominations which disagree on many fundamental issues. We can in NO WAY be supportive of ANYONE who WILLFULLY remains outside the Catholic Church. For those who don't know of the Church and/or have never been given the opportunity to become a member of the Church, we need to leave those to God's Sovereignty - and stop trying to usurp His Throne/Judgment Seat. We can give NO ASSURANCE to ANYONE who remains outside the Catholic Church. When WE are asked about OUR FAITH we are to share the joy which is in our hearts and THE PATH which WE KNOW, and we need to do this with charity and understanding (1 Peter 3:15-17).

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

The EENS Question

Outside The Church There Is No Salvation

---

The doctrine that "Outside the Church there is no salvation" is one that is constantly misinterpreted by those who won't submit to the Magisterium of the Church. Faith does not depend upon our ability to reason to the truth but on our humility before the Truth presented to us by those to whom Christ entrusted that task. This is why the First Vatican Council taught that it is the task of the Magisterium ALONE to determine and expound the meaning of the Tradition - including "outside the Church no salvation."
Concerning this doctrine the Pope of Vatican I, Pius IX, spoke on two different occasions. In an allocution (address to an audience) on December 9th, 1854 he said:

We must hold as of the faith, that out of the Apostolic Roman Church there is no salvation; that she is the only ark of safety, and whosoever is not in her perishes in the deluge; we must also, on the other hand, recognize with certainty that those who are invincible in ignorance of the true religion are not guilty for this in the eyes of the Lord. And who would presume to mark out the limits of this ignorance according to the character and diversity of peoples, countries, minds and the rest?

[I could not find the text of the above document, but here's a document given March 17, 1856:

Do not cease to diligently defend your people against these pernicious errors. Saturate them with the doctrine of Catholic truth more accurately each day. Teach them that just as there is only one God, one Christ, one Holy Spirit, so there is also only one truth which is divinely revealed. There is only one divine faith which is the beginning of salvation for mankind and the basis of all justification, the faith by which the just person lives and without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the community of His children.  There is only one true, holy, Catholic church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded in Peter by the word of the Lord, outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church.  Thus, there can be no greater crime, no more hideous stain than to stand up against Christ, than to divide the Church engendered and purchased by His blood, than to forget evangelical love and to combat with the furor of hostile discord the harmony of the people of God.  Singulari quidem, March 17, 1856  (emphasis mine).

Again, in his encyclical Quanto conficiamur moerore of 10 August, 1863 addressed to the Italian bishops, he said:

It is known to us and to you that those who are in invincible ignorance of our most holy religion, but who observe carefully the natural law, and the precepts graven by God upon the hearts of all men, and who being disposed to obey God lead an honest and upright life, may, aided by the light of divine grace, attain to eternal life; for God who sees clearly, searches and knows the heart, the disposition, the thoughts and intentions of each, in His supreme mercy and goodness by no means permits that anyone suffer eternal punishment, who has not of his own free will fallen into sin.  [Emphasis mine].

These statements are consistent with the understanding of the Church contained in the documents of Vatican II, and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, as well as explaining why the rigorist position of Fr. Feeney (that all must be actual members of the Catholic Church to be saved) has been condemned by the Magisterium. It is ironic that precisely those who know their obligation to remain united to the Magisterium, and thus on whom this doctrine is morally binding, keep themselves from union with the Roman See on this point.

---

Answered by Colin B. Donovan, STL
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/outside_the_church.htm
Emphasis and added links by Scott Windsor