Bugay On Catholicism and the Early Church

I stumbled across this article a few weeks ago which was listed as the current "featured article" on Triablogue.  It's an older article, but seeing as how they wished to "feature" it, (it is no longer the "featured" article) I figured it would be good to answer it.

John Bugay on Catholicism: What was the ancient church in Rome like?

https://triablogue.blogspot.com/2013/06/john-bugay-on-catholicism-what-was.html

Some time ago, I spent some time summarizing what some of the major commentators have been saying about the people and the network of house churches found in early Rome in the first century. This is the Rome to which Peter supposedly traveled, where it is thought that he may have died (though historically, there is practically no mention of him at all being in Rome; when Irenaeus talks about “…the church that is greatest, most ancient, and known to all, founded and set up by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul at Rome …” this is the reality to which he was referring, and it is this reality of which we can say he was not an entirely accurate reporter of history).

There is a reason why I’m going into such detail on this. Recently, I’ve been citing from the James Puglisi work How Can the Petrine Ministry Be a Service to the Unity of the Universal Church? In that work, I’ve quoted Herman Pottmeyer saying that “anyone who wishes to come to an understanding of the papal ministry cannot avoid dealing with the history of this ministry. The historical facts are not disputed...” In an earlier article from that same work, John P. Meier, a leading Catholic Biblical scholar, pointed out, “A papacy that cannot give a credible historical account of its own origins can hardly hope to be a catalyst for unity among divided Christians.” So the implication is that, until this point, the papacy has not given a “credible historical account of its own origins.”

I find it interesting that these Protestant apologists can't see the forest for the trees.  All we need point to is Scripture in this regard.  Jesus gave to St. Peter, alone, the authority to bind and loose whatsoever he chose in Matthew 16:18-19.  In John 21:15-17, just before Jesus ascends - in threefold manner He commands St. Peter to take care of His sheep.  The Good Shepherd was passing the reins to His Vicar.  We must say, Scripture is a "credible historical account of (the papacy) origins."

The recent book The End of Christianity begins (Chapter 1) with this little but bold proclamation:

The end of Christianity is not some far-off dream, nor is it on the verge of occurring. Instead, it happened two thousand years ago—in fact, Christianity never even began; it was stillborn….there is no such thing as the religion of Christianity; at best it is a multitude of related but distinct and often-enough opposed traditions, shifting and swaying with the winds of local culture and passing history … (Dr. David Eller, “Christianity Evolving: On the Origin of Christian Species”, Chapter 1 in Loftus, ed., ©2011“The End of Christianity”: Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, pg. 23.)

There’s no need to fear Eller. With this statement he immediately shows himself to be a hack, given that the life of Christ and the origins of Christianity are extraordinarily well attested in history.

But on the other hand, it is the Roman Catholic church and its constant protestations of its own authority, which are extraordinarily poorly attested in history, which give individuals like Eller the kind of toe-hold they need to bloviate and sell books. Eller’s statement is true about Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism was stillborn. That’s what Eller and the others can attack freely; it’s the falseness of Roman Catholicism that gives people like Eller the opportunities they have to attack Christ and Christianity.

Wow!  In reality, the Catholic Faith does not begin with Jesus Christ and the Apostles, for it was born out of Judaism.  If one takes, even a little time, to study Jewish culture and religion, and objectively looks at the culture of Catholicism - he/she would be astounded at how similar the two faiths are in many ways.  We must remember, ALL the Apostles and Jesus Christ Himself were all Jews.  They did not totally abandon Judaism when they became Christians - that would be foolish!  Our foundations are deeply rooted in Judaism.  

My wife and I took a course in Judaism, taught by a rabbi, at our local college.  At one point, after five straight weeks of Torah readings after Passover about how God desired His place of worship to be (the altar, candlesticks on the altar, angels on either side, incense, even the vestments of the priests) and my wife commented, "Wow, that's SO Catholic!"  Rabbi responded, "Where do you think you got it from?!"  It would appear that Eller and Bugay are attacking that which they really know little about.

But again, the historical work that is being done on the earliest church is going to be immensely helpful in sorting out fact from fiction. This historical work is going to be like Trigonometry and Calculus: these things will always be taught, so long as the subject is taught. But the question going forward will be, will anyone care to understand them?

And that is precisely MY point!  I do not believe folks like Bugay really understands what he's attacking.  The Trig and Calc (historicity) of the Christian (Catholic) faith has brought many great anti-Catholics TO the Catholic Faith - not away from it!  John Cardinal Newman, for one, comes to mind who fought against the Catholic Church and was looking for historic justification to remain Protestant - and one of his famous quotes is:  "To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant."

Introduction and Summary
The nonexistent early papacy

In this article, Bugay links to yet another one where he refers to the papacy as "dishonest."  I find it interesting that one of the "scholars" he cites is none other than "Raymond Brown."  That would be "Fr. Raymond Brown, who was a bit of a dissenter and revisionist - OK, more than just a bit.  Bugay doesn't really demonstrate the "nonexistence" he claims - he pretty much just claims it.  

House Churches in the New Testament

I would not deny that early celebrations of the Mass took place in people's homes.  They also took place in the Catacombs.  Just a brief and objective look at history is all it takes to remind us - for the first 300 years of Christendom, the Church was under near constant persecution (with brief periods of "peace").

Households in Ancient Rome
Part 1: Households in Ancient Rome: An Introduction
Part 2: Christians and Jews in First Century Rome
Part 3: Commerce and Household Communities
Part 4: Household Leadership as Church Leadership
Part 5: Patronage and Leadership

The People of Romans 16
Aquila, Priscilla, Acts 18:2 and the Edict of Claudius
“I commend to you our sister Phoebe, διάκονον and προστάτις” 
Andronikos and Junia, Part 1 
Andronikos and Junia, Part 2

Again, we do not deny that even into the 4th century that the meeting place for Mass was often in people's homes.  As mentioned earlier too - they also met in the catacombs where they buried so many Christian martyrs.  In those catacombs they had places of worship literally carved into the walls.  I've been to one of those sites, the Catacombs of St. Callixtus.  The catacombs became places of worship as early as the 2nd century - long before Rome converted to Christianity in the 4th century.

What the early Catholics had to go through to find places to worship is quite a testimony to their dedication to Christ.  Within those catacombs too there were poisonous gases coming in through the walls, poisonous due to volcanic activity (we're not too far from Pompeii and Mt. Vesuvius) so much so that one could not stay inside the catacombs for much more than an hour.  Even with better ventilation, to this day, they have to monitor and not permit visitors to stay inside for extended periods.  It's actually amazing just how much work they did to create the catacombs and incorporate places of worship within them in light of the fact that they could only stay inside them for short periods of time.  Anyway, this is what the early Church in Rome REALLY looked like - and we can still visit sites like this to this day.

Moving forward, my hope is, Lord willing, to continue to expand on this list and this material, and to make it available in an easy to digest form. In the same way that the printing press aided Martin Luther and helped the Reformation sweep across Europe, the Internet and its ability to make accurate information available immediately around the world, is only going to help to clarify the misunderstandings about Christianity and what it means to have faith in Christ.

While I agree, the printing press helped aid Luther's spread what he was teaching, what he taught was dissent, disrespect and counter to what has preceded him from some 1500 years.  The Internet, while it can be used to make accurate information available - like Luther and the dawning of the printing press, it also makes it easier to spread falsehood and lies.  As folks like Bugay "moves forward" I will continue to present counter-arguments in hopes to shed some light on what they say, and hopefully, one day, bring them home to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Faith.  I do thank Bugay for this opportunity to share how the Early Church did indeed worship.  While undeniable that some of that worship took place in private homes - it also took place semi-publicly in the catacombs.  

Infallibility - A Challenge?

Recently, on Triablogue, John Bugay posted a query using Hans Küng as his primary source for challenging infallibility - as if a dissident "theologian" is a good place to start from.  I guess from a Protestant perspective, a dissident Catholic is "better" than an orthodox one, but even Bugay refers to Küng as a "renegade Roman Catholic theologian."

According to Bugay,

"Küng says he is not writing to destroy, but if ever there was a need for destruction, it is here. Wrong-headed from the start, both “papal infallibility” and “the papacy” both need to be headed toward “the ash-heap of history”. If anyone can muddy the waters right now (further than they have been muddied), it will be “Pope Francis”."

In short, Küng is writing to destroy.  The link there takes you to another Triablogue article on Papal Infallibility, also written by Bugay and while using another source, Küng wrote the introduction to that source - already opening it to the question of its orthodoxy.  That article opens with a discussion of the "Johannine Comma" and goes into a discussion about later popes overturning decisions by earlier popes.

It is apparent that Bugay (and perhaps his sources) is oblivious to the fact that not EVERYTHING decreed by a pope is infallible!  The fact of the matter is, VERY FEW decrees are actually considered to be infallible.  Yes, such a decree is binding upon all faithful Catholics - but again, a non-infallible decree can be (and several have been) overturned.

My response to the first article I cited is quite simple and straightforward:

Something which is bound in heaven, by its very nature, is then infallible - for nothing fallible could be "bound" in heaven.  If Peter, and thus his successors, has this authority, then Bugay's point is moot.  If Peter has not this authority, then Matthew 16:18-19 is a lie.  You can't have it both ways.

That response, if it is approved, was also posted to the original article on Triablogue (slightly paraphrased here because I did not copy it before I submitted it).  The bottom line is, if the Bible is the true and final authority for Bugay, then his objections to infallibility are pure folly and even scandalous in opposing the Word of God.

Onanism - Part 2

Steve Hays responded to my article on Onanism v. Homosexuality, and since a combox reply would not be practical, I am responding to him with a new article.  Steve's comments are in yellow, where he has quoted me is in blue.

I'm going to comment on a few recently claims by Catholic apologist Scott Windsor.  

I found the article interesting, and even almost Catholic in many places, however... you knew that was coming :-) ... when it comes to Onan's sin - the writer makes a very definitive statement that Onan was not slain for spilling his seed, but in reality - it is precisely for what Onan DID (spilling his seed) and not his MOTIVE (not wanting to produce children for his brother).

i) Evangelical converts to Catholicism like Windsor and Dave Armstrong resort to traditional prooftexting. A more sophisticated Catholic apologist would skip the fanciful prooftexting and justify his denomination's teaching by appealing to the theory of development as well as attempting to mount a natural law argument.

a) Hmmm, why bring up Dave Armstrong?  Are you trying to draw him into this discussion?  

b) Then you go straight into ad hominem as if whether or not I am a “sophisticated Catholic apologist” or not has any bearing on the points made!  

c) Catholicism is not a “denomination” - it is Protestantism which has denominated itself to be apart from Catholicism.  Catholic simply means “universal” - whereas “Baptist” or “Lutheran” or “Methodist” are given names to distinguish themselves from the Universal Church which Jesus Christ built…  but I digress (squirrel!).

d) Hays ignores my thesis and jumps to supporting arguments I made. which are tangential.

ii) As is typical of evangelical converts to Rome, Windsor is out of touch with Catholic scholarship on his locus classicus. This, again, betrays the fact that apologists like Windsor and Armstrong remain outsiders to their adopted denomination. But here's some examples of modern Catholic scholarship on the issue at hand:

Onan is commissioned to raise seed to his brother's wife, according to the levirate law; cf. Deut 25:5-10. Oanan's offense is obvious: he selfishly refuses the responsibility of fulfilling his duty to his brother, as the law provided. That is the point of his offense. The New Jerome Biblical Commentary (Prentice Hall 1990), 38.  

Moreover, from the biblical author’s point of view, Onan’s sin was his refusal to fulfill the important responsibility involved in the levirate law (cf. Dt 25:5-10). New Catholic Encyclopedia (CUA, 2nd ed., 2003), 9:315b.

In common usage often taken to mean improperly completed intercourse or even masturbation. The word is taken from the story of Onan in the Book of Genesis...This was in accordance with the custom of Levirate marriage...Popular usage of the term onanism is based on the assumption that the evil for which the Lord took Onan’s life was his unchastity. This, however, is by no means clear from the text, in which his refusal to conform to the prescribed marriage custom can be seen as the wickedness that brought vengeance upon him. Consequently, no certain argument can be based upon this text to prove the sinful character of either improperly completed intercourse or masturbation. Evidence for this must be sought elsewhere. Ibid. 10:600a.

e) Again, ad hominem as "typical evangelical converts to Rome…” is unnecessary, irrelevant and 

invalid argumentation.

f) Again, naming Armstrong in this discussion - who was not a party to the original discussion.

g) Irony:  Hays refers to “locus classicus,” as if I am ignorant of it, and then cites a MODERN source!  How about going to a “classic” source instead of the modernist commentary in the New Jerusalem Bible or the “New” Catholic Encyclopedia?  I reject Mr. Hays attempt to prove “locus classicus” from “modern” commentaries (neither of which he cites has any authority).  Would he like me to admit there have been some revisionists in the Catholic Church?  Fine, I will admit to that, but that, however, does not change my point in the least.

h) Hays then argues that it “is by no means clear from the text” that Onan was punished for what he did and argues (as the two other respondents did) that it had more to do with his motive than what he did.  I refer the reader (again) back to what the actual Scripture says Gen. 38:10 -

10 And therefore the Lord slew him, because he did a detestable thing.

So back to my point, the Lord slew him, because of what he DID, not for WHY he did it.  To say it was due to Onan’s motives that he was slain imputes something to the text which is simply not there.  My opponents here are rationalizing that because the text also mentions the motive, that it was his motive that was the reason for his punishment - but again, the text does not say it was due to WHY he did the “detestable thing” but that he DID the “detestable thing.”  My point remains unassailed.  I ask the objective reader - what did Onan DO which the Lord found detestable?  Don’t rationalize WHY he did it, just tell me what he DID - OK?

iii) Windsor shortsightedly excludes Onan's motivation. Yet that runs contrary to Catholic teaching on contraception, where intent is a key consideration. Conjugal relations should always be open to the possibility of conception:

2366 it is necessary that each and every marriage act remain ordered per se to the procreation of human life.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

i) It is not “shortsighted” at all, but that being said - I do not “exclude” Onan’s motivation, in fact I agree 100% with them that this is WHY he DID what he DID - but I remind Mr. Hays, but moreso the objective reader of this discourse, that verse 10 does not say that God punished Onan because of his motive, but because of his ACT.  And this is a FACT which Mr. Hays cannot get around, no matter how hard he tries.

Continuing with Windsor:

It was here that for the first time a major Protestant communion opted for some limited use of contraception, so long as the motives were not selfish, based in luxury or mere convenience.  Now, honestly ask yourself, for what other reason, outside of a personal health issue, would have been considered acceptable by such limitations?  Not many, if any!  Yet less than 100 years later it is precisely for selfish, luxury or mere convenience reasons that contraception is practiced!  Today's practices by most who participate in contraception would be condemned by the 1930 Lambeth Conference!  It should be noted as well, than more than a third of the voting members of this conference voted against acceptance of the resolution.

The church of Roman supports "limited use of contraception." It simply draws a makeshift distinction between "artificial" contraception and "natural" methods of birth control.

j) Nice attempt at the Red Herring argument, Mr. Hays.  How about dealing with what you quoted instead of going off on a tangent which Begs the Question?  (Two invalid arguments in one statement there, Mr. Hays!).  To make it easier, I’ll summarize the point Mr. Hays SHOULD have responded to…  The 1930 Lambeth Conference of the Anglican Church was THE FIRST TIME even among Protestants that a LIMITED use of ABC (Artificial Birth Control) methods MIGHT be used IF done for the right reasons (which the conference conveniently does not define).  What the Lambeth Conference DOES define are reasons NOT to partake in ABC methods - which are “selfish, luxury or mere convenience” - which are PRECISELY why MOST people participate in ABC methods today!  Thus - by the standard of 1930, most who partake in ABC methods are in the wrong.  How about dealing with the ACTUAL POINT, Mr. Hays?

Well, as an article in Salon puts forth, the anti-contraception movement (primarily Catholic) had not caught hold among Evangelicals, but that all changed in 2011.  The "HHS Mandate" was passed on July 19, 2011 and according to Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, on July 20 said: “HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has recommended mandatory coverage for ‘emergency contraception,’ which is a euphemism for the morning-after pill, which often kills a newly conceived child by not allowing the embryo to implant on the wall of the mother’s womb.”  In September of 2012 the founder of Hobby Lobby sued Kathleen Sebelius and based on the fact that his company was founded upon Christian principles, they should be exempted from the mandate.

Passage of Obamacare was made possible by support from the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, colluding with Catholic politicians like Bart Stupak and Nancy Pelosi. Sebelius is another Catholic official.

k) Again, missing the point, the point is that FINALLY “Evangelicals” are coming around and re-joining Catholics in opposing ABC methods of ALL kinds.  

l) To be honest, those “Catholics” you named may have a LOT to answer for when they stand before the Judgment Seat.  I would not want to be in their shoes!  But again, what these “Catholics” (whom I personally would consider to be CINOs, Catholic In Name Only) have done is irrelevant to the point of how “Evangelicals” are coming around on this issue.  Ignoring the points does not make them go away, Mr. Hays.

While recognizing the abhorrent sins here, the Catholic Church has recognized, perhaps moreso recently than previously, that we must recognize the sinner and the sin are not the same.  While the Church has more openly embraced sinners - she has not changed her position on the sinful acts and/or lifestyles.  While the cliche may be a bit overused, it does ring true - "Love the sinner; hate the sin."  Pope Francis relates the Church to a "field hospital," and you really can't treat those who need you if you don't first bring them into the hospital!

Well, you can read the exchange yourself and see - but essentially, I can only assume here, that those respondents are supporters of ABC and/or participants in it - and thus have a vested interest in arguing for such methods, but do they realize they are so, so much in the minority of the historic Christian viewpoint?  Even among their own fore-fathers (for which they can only go back about 500 years, at best) ABC was by and large condemned.  In their relatively short history, only the last (less than) 20% of their existence as protesting (Protestant) Christians can be seen as supportive of the modern (or Modernist) views on ABC.  One would think this SHOULD cause them at least SOME concern!

To the contrary, Rome used to take a very different position on the nature of conception. Based on Aristotelian embryology, abortion before ensoulment wasn't deemed to be homicide. That's documented in John Noonan's classic monograph on Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists (Belknap Press, enlarged edition, 1986).

By Windsor's nostalgic logic, we should return to the good old days when abortion in the first trimester wasn't classified as homicide by Rome's leading theologians and canon lawyers.

m) Mr. Hays, simply making reference to a secondary source which allegedly argues for “Rome” having a “very different position” is not valid documentation and would not be acceptable in any sort of debate forum.  If you wish to challenge what I have to say, please, at least do so validly.  If you have a primary source for me to consider, please present it.  If the secondary source you cited is worth anything, it quoted and cited its primary sources - go to those and present them and they will be given the consideration they deserve.  You entitled your response "Ensoulment" - yet your only reference to that is in this invalid citation.  I repeat, if you wish to make a valid case for the Catholic position on "Ensoulment" - please begin with valid documentation.

n) While what Mr. Hays "responds" to here was a tangential point, the REAL point is that Protestantism has changed its stance on ABC methods and that even in their own (less than) 500 year history, less than 20% of that has taught ABC methods in a favorable light.

o) The response Mr. Hays quoted from me just above (in blue) also was actually getting back to the original thesis of the original article...  "squirrel!"

p) I will say, the main thesis I began with "Onanism v. Homosexuality" was a bit "lost" in my responses to "rockingwithhawking" and "ANNOYED PINOY" - and I take responsibility for that "squirrel" on my part.  The point there was, and was actually in agreement with "ANNOYED PINOY's" response - that homosexuality is the epitome of "spilled seed" as conception cannot occur.  Both homosexuality and "Onanism" are condemned by the Lord.

q) In conclusion, I am disappointed in your response, Mr. Hays.  Typically you do a lot better work, but in this “response” you have skipped over several points and when you have quoted my words, your arguments have not dealt with the topic at hand.  I really had come to expect better scholarship from you.  

AMDG,

Scott<<<

Onanism v. Homosexuality

After a bit of a discussion on Triablogue, (TB), the comparison of Onanism (Gen. 38:8-10) to homosexuality (Lev. 18:22) came up.  The original presenter of the article (Steve Hays, who remained silent during the comments, at least thus far) presented a link to a PDF, which for the most part the Catholic could agree to - however, when it came to points of artificial birth control (ABC) the author left objectivity behind and took a stance which has only been made somewhat popular (in non-Catholic sects) for less than 100 years - and really didn't pick up much popularity amongst such groups until the last 50 years or so.  There have been a couple more responses on TB since I started writing this article, but they (like I) are just repeating themselves which is why I decided to make a fuller response here with more detail and documentation.

Prior to the Anglicans relaxing SOME restrictions on ABC methods (1930) one would be hard pressed to find ANY Christian resources supporting ABC.  It would not be until the 1960's and 1970's during what is commonly called "The Sexual Revolution" - that ABC methods would become widely accepted in non-Catholic circles (and even some dissident Catholic circles too).

So what happened in 1930? 

Lambeth Conference of 1930 - Resolution 15
The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex
Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.
Voting: For 193; Against 67.

It was here that for the first time a major Protestant communion opted for some limited use of contraception, so long as the motives were not selfish, based in luxury or mere convenience.  Now, honestly ask yourself, for what other reason, outside of a personal health issue, would have been considered acceptable by such limitations?  Not many, if any!  Yet less than 100 years later it is precisely for selfish, luxury or mere convenience reasons that contraception is practiced!  Today's practices by most who participate in contraception would be condemned by the 1930 Lambeth Conference!  It should be noted as well, than more than a third of the voting members of this conference voted against acceptance of the resolution.

So what happened in the 1960's and 1970's?

To be clear, the 1960's and 1970's didn't just pop out of a vacuum!  Ever since the 1930's the use of ABC's amongst Anglicans increased so that by the 1958 Lambeth Conference, most Anglicans were using various forms of ABC.  In less than 30 years the practice went from outright condemnation to commonplace.  And so that you don't think I'm just putting my Catholic bias on this, the following comes from "thechurchofengland.org" - an official Anglican website:

By the time of the 1958 Lambeth Conference, contraception was a way of life among most Anglicans, and a resolution was passed to the effect that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children was laid by God upon the consciences of parents 'in such ways as are acceptable to husband and wife'.  http://www.churchofengland.org/our-views/medical-ethics-health-social-care-policy/contraception.aspx

If this weren't the reality, an objective reader might think I was using a slippery slope argument, but this IS the reality!  By the time of the 1960's and 1970's the rest of Protestantism was catching up to Anglicanism and the age of "free love" was born and songs like "Don't Let Me Be Lonely Tonight" by James Taylor (1972), and "We've Got Tonight" by Bob Seger and the Silver Bullet Band (1978), just to name a couple, were climbing the charts and promoting sexual relationships without the committed relationship of marriage.

Now, while sexual promiscuity was in epidemic proportions and use of contraception was widely accepted, not everyone used contraception and even when they did, it was not always successful, so another phenomena was developing - more and more children were being born out of wedlock.  To prevent this, the crime of contraception turned even more sinister - abortion.  In 1973 the landmark case of Roe V. Wade decided that it was okay to kill the innocent victim of the sexual choices of the "parents" and made it, what we Catholics consider to be murder, just another "choice" in "planned parenthood" decisions.

What are many Evangelical Christians doing now?

Well, as an article in Salon puts forth, the anti-contraception movement (primarily Catholic) had not caught hold among Evangelicals, but that all changed in 2011.  The "HHS Mandate" was passed on July 19, 2011 and according to Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, on July 20 said: “HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has recommended mandatory coverage for ‘emergency contraception,’ which is a euphemism for the morning-after pill, which often kills a newly conceived child by not allowing the embryo to implant on the wall of the mother’s womb.”  In September of 2012 the founder of Hobby Lobby sued Kathleen Sebelius and based on the fact that his company was founded upon Christian principles, they should be exempted from the mandate.

The New York Times echoes the story that where once, 50 years ago, Catholics were essentially alone in the anti-contraception movement, today more and more Evangelicals are joining in.  Adding to that Kathryn Joyce of the Quiverfull movement argues that Christians who forgo contraception  "add children to the Lord’s army."

It seems that many Evangelicals are starting to realize the error of the slippery slope which Anglicanism began (officially) in 1930 (again, not in a vacuum, as the movement was gaining steam in the 1920's among Anglicans).

Which Church has officially not changed its stance on this matter?

While recognizing the abhorrent sins here, the Catholic Church has recognized, perhaps moreso recently than previously, that we must recognize the sinner and the sin are not the same.  While the Church has more openly embraced sinners - she has not changed her position on the sinful acts and/or lifestyles.  While the cliche may be a bit overused, it does ring true - "Love the sinner; hate the sin."  Pope Francis relates the Church to a "field hospital," and you really can't treat those who need you if you don't first bring them into the hospital!

So what happened on Triablogue?

Well, you can read the exchange yourself and see - but essentially, I can only assume here, that those respondents are supporters of ABC and/or participants in it - and thus have a vested interest in arguing for such methods, but do they realize they are so, so much in the minority of the historic Christian viewpoint?  Even among their own fore-fathers (for which they can only go back about 500 years, at best) ABC was by and large condemned.  In their relatively short history, only the last (less than) 20% of their existence as protesting (Protestant) Christians can be seen as supportive of the modern (or Modernist) views on ABC.  One would think this SHOULD cause them at least SOME concern!

Again, while this pro-contraception movement has only been part of Protestantism for the last (less than) 100 years of their (less than) 500 year existence - even there, the pendulum is beginning to swing back in the other direction.  More and more Evangelicals are coming back to the position that contraception is wrong and, like Quiverfull founder says, "children add to the Lord's army."

Validity - Part 2

Well, I posted a couple more responses to Triablogue, but since the original message is more than 5 days old now, new responses go into moderation.  The last messages which went into moderation there were never posted - so, rather than wait, I am posting here.  This is related to the earlier post on "Validity" in response to John Bugay.  Steve Hays added his input and here are my responses to Mr. Hays.  The first message below did show up on Triablogue, but as of this posting - the second two have not...

Scott  10/05/2013 10:03 PM

>> sw: "Steve, Thank you for providing the rationalization
>> which validates my point."
>
> sh: I presented a detailed argument. If you were either
> unable or unwilling to argue in good faith by presenting
> a counterargument, then don't waste our time by posting
> comments here.

sw: And why would I "counter" an argument which supports my own?  Well, I'll respond in more detail...

>> sw: "And we've never heard the Calvinist say, 'he wasn't
>> really saved' when someone leaves Calvinism for any
>> number of alternatives, including Catholicism? So, the
>> 'improperly catechized' is not something only Catholics
>> use."
>
> sh: Scott, you need to learn how to reason.

sw: I used sufficient reason, you supplied a bit more "detail."

> sw: i) To begin with, if someone leaves Calvinism, the
> comparison wouldn't be "he wasn't really saved," but
> "he wasn't really a Calvinist."

sw: OK, I accept the distinction, but it is really one without difference to the point I made.  You have just affirmed that point!  So reword my initial statement to say, "he wasn't really a Calvinist," and my point not only stands - but you have supported it!  I accept the correction and stand by my point.

> sh: Moreover, there are cases in which that's true.

sw: And you affirm it again. 

> sh: On the other hand, you have some individuals who
> were well "catechized" in Calvinism, and knowingly
> reject it. In their case, they really were Calvinists.
> Arminius is a paradigmatic example.

sw: And I have not denied that there may be some who may have known the truth and have left in in Catholicism - for whatever reason.  Some, I know of, leave the faith because they are divorced and remarried without an annulment and rather than get their life straight - they will be like King Henry VIII and leave the faith - in fact, he is a prime example of just that.

> sh: ii) In addition, we wouldn't say someone wasn't really
> saved just because he's an ex-Calvinist. It depends on his
> adopted alternative. We wouldn't say a former Calvinist
> who becomes a confessional Lutheran (to take one example)
> wasn't really saved. We wouldn't say Arminius wasn't really
> saved.
>
> If, on the other hand, someone leaves Calvinism for
> Mormonism (to take one example), then he's behaving as
> though he wasn't never really saved. Even in that case,
> he might be a backslider rather than a full-blown
> apostate. Time will tell.

sw: And I agreed with your distinction without a difference (to my point) so I accept what you're saying here.

>> sw: "However, in the case of Mr. Dreher, he left for
>> personal reasons, HE wasn't being challenged, etc.
>> He didn't leave (at least according to his testimony)
>> because the Truth was not there."
>
> sh: He says that all he heard on a regular basis was
> antinomianism. So he was hearing falsehood rather than
> truth.

sw: The word "antinomianism" is not used in that article even once.  I cannot answer to unsupported evidence.  Your point is invalid insofar as this discussion is concerned.

AMDG,
Scott<<<

Next message:

Steve wrote on 10/06/2013 11:31 AM

>> sw: "And why would I 'counter' an argument which
>> supports my own?"
>
> sh: It doesn't support your position.

sw: Well, it does.  I have shown how it does - your simple denial is not a valid argument. 

>> sw: "I used sufficient reason, you supplied a bit more
>> 'detail' which I accepted."
>
> sh: To accept my details would be using my reason rather
> than yours. Try to keep that straight.

sw: The reasons are laid out perfectly straight.  I fully
understand that you do not wish to be seen as agreeing
with me - but you did, and I thank you.

>> sw: "OK, I accept the distinction, but it is really
>> one without difference to the point I made. You have
>> just affirmed that point! So reword my initial
>> statement to say, "he wasn't really a Calvinist,"
>> and my point not only stands - but you have supported
>> it! I accept the correction and stand by my point."
>
> sh: Since, by your own admission, I corrected your
> initial claim, I'm hardly affirming your point. I'm
> not affirming your claim; rather, you're affirming
> my claim. You have your wires crossed.

sw: Steve, you made a distinction without a difference to my original argument.  I agree with you, "he wasn't really a Calvinist to begin with" is a better comparison in this arena than "he wasn't really a Christian to
begin with."  The point of my argument is in countering John's statement regarding the "improperly catechized."  When I said, "he wasn't really Christian," in the context of Calvinism - I should have said, "he wasn't really Calvinist" and THEN the arguments are in perfect logical agreement.

>> sw: "And you affirm it again."
>
> sh: I see that arithmetic is not your forte.

sw: I see that you cannot resist ad hominem attacks.

> sh: To allege that I "affirm it again" implies that
> this is the second time I affirmed your point,
> when–in fact–this isn't even the first time.

sw: Again, your statement was a distinction without a difference - do you understand that concept, Steve?  Your distinction did not change my point, it only clarified it - and I accepted your distinction - and I still do.  Whether or not you're admitting to it in public or not is irrelevant.  We are in agreement.

> sh: You made a blanket statement. I made a qualified
> statement. My qualified statement doesn't affirm your
> blanket statement.

sw: Again, your qualified statement did not change my point.  Calvinists use the statement "he wasn't really a Calvinist to begin with" when someone leaves the Calvinist camp.  Not all Calvinists use this argument, but you cannot deny that some/many do/have.

> sh: You need to learn how to think. You also need
> to (learn) how to count.

(I didn't "save" the notepad file I used after this point after I copied and pasted my responses to Triablogue, so I am re-creating what I wrote last night.  What I posted last night to Triablogue still has not been posted there, so I am posting this re-creation to the CathApol Blog).

sw: My thinking and math are fine.  Your qualified statement fit precisely with my original point, not the ultra-literalist spin you put upon it.  You put all the focus on the word "Christian" but THE POINT was that Calvinists use the same argument - THAT point remains the same, AND you AGREED with it!  You just qualified that the Calvinist would say, "he was never really a Calvinist."  The argument is THE SAME!

>> sw: "And I have not denied that there may be some
>> who may have known the truth and have left in in 
>> Catholicism - for whatever reason."
>
> sh: So you're backtracking on your original claim.

sw: My original claim had nothing to do with whether or not some Catholics have left the Catholic Faith with full knowledge of the Catholic Faith.  I presented King Henry VIII as a prime example of one whom I believe did just that!  Just a few years prior to his departure from the Faith, he was called "Guardian of the Catholic Faith" by the Pope who was lauding his work in opposition to Martin Luther.  He could not get a "divorce" from his wife, who could not bear him a son, so he took matters into his own hands and declared himself (or had Parlaiment do it) "Head of the Church of England."  I'm quite certain many have left for similar reasons - but AGAIN - that was NOT the point of my argument, so there is no backtracking - not in the least.

>> sw: "Again, I was not saying there are other
>> alternatives only that the Calvinist will make
>> the same sort of argument when someone leaves
>> Calvinism."
>
> sh: Which is a overstatement, as I explained,
> and you conceded. You need to learn how to think.

sw: The "overstatement" was when I said, "not a Christian," to which you said (and I agreed) that the Calvinist would say "he was not really a Calvinist."  If you wish to brand my agreement with you as "concession" - fine, I concede that "he was not really a Calvinist" would more likely be the phrase - now, how about dealing with the REAL POINT instead of your constant attempt to distract from that REAL POINT?

>> sw: "And I agreed with your distinction without
>> a difference (to my point) so I accept what
>> you're saying here."
>
> sh: Since your point was a hasty generalization,
> my distinction is substantially different from your 
> original claim. You need to learn how to think.

sw: You really need to stop being so pompous.  The original claim was the ARGUMENT, not the precise wording.  To say "he was not really a Calvinist" fits with my original point, PRECISELY. 

>> sw: "The word 'antinomianism' is not used in that
>> article even once. I cannot answer to unsupported 
>> evidence. Your point is invalid insofar as this
>> discussion is concerned."
>
> sh: Your response is invalidated by your resort to
> the word-concept fallacy.

sw:  Really?  I would (and I sincerely mean this) like to see a valid argument of how Mr. Dreher's article even implies antinomianism (ironically, a trait applied to some Calvinists!).  I stand by my statement - antinomianism is not mentioned in Dreher's article - and not even alluded to.

>> sw: "I believe that would be a valid comparison."
>> (That "Jews attack Christianity as a theological
>> innovation" is validly compared to Catholics
>> attacking the Protestant innovation).
>
> sh: So, just as you reject Calvinism because it's
> (allegedly) a theological innovation, then by
> parity of argument, you must think we should
> reject Christianity because that's a theological
> innovation in relation to Judaism.

sw: Steve, that's a complete non sequitur!  Let's see, the Jews did not realize that their Messiah had truly come to them.  The Jews expected an earthly king, not God Almighty offering Himself up in our place to atone for our sins.  So, since the Jews did not recognize this, they attack Christianity as a theological innovation.  Well, I've got news for you, Mr. Hays, Christianity IS a theological innovation!  Jesus Christ did NOT come to continue the Jewish religion!  Jesus came to build His Church and promised He would do so (Matthew 16:18).  What Jesus built was VERY different from the Jewish religion.  Now, are there some similarities and carry-overs from Judaism into Catholicism?  Certainly!  It's still the Chosen People of God and our belief in the One, True God did not change from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant.  To posit that Christianity was NOT a theological innovation to Judaism is a bit ludicrous.  Christianity (specifically Catholicism) is the COMPLETION of the Jewish Faith.

sw: Now - does that change the FACT that there is no history of Calvinism more than 500 years (or less) ago?  No, it does not!  Can there even BE a "Calvinist" before John Calvin left the Catholic Church for his heresy?  No, there cannot be.

> sh: I take it that if you were a member of the
> Sanhedrin, you'd condemn Jesus to death.

sw: You would take it wrong.

AMDG,
Scott<<<

NEXT RESPONSE:

Steve Hays wrote on 10/06/2013 5:09 PM

> sh:Scott
>
>> sw: "You have no validity to anything Calvinist,
>> no Eucharist"
>
> sh: i) We have the Eucharist which Christ instituted.

sw: You have SYMBOLS, but Jesus didn't say the Eucharist was symbolic of His body and blood, no, He said it IS His body and blood (Luke 22:19-20).

>> sw: "no history beyond or even a bit less
>> than 500 years"
>
> sh: i) On the one hand, no serious Catholic
> historian imagines that Calvinism popped in out
> of the blue.

sw: Not out of the blue, but certainly not before John Calvin!  I realize that Calvinists try to rationalize their way into a pre-Calvin history - but said rationalizations are just that, rationalizations.

> sh: ii) On the other hand, modern Catholicism
> has plenty of theological innovations, where it's
> broken with the past.

sw: More attempts to distract!  I'm actually currently working on another article on "projection," this may interest Mr. Hays.

>> sw: "no apostolic succession"
>
> sh: i) Calvinism has no need of apostolic
> succession to validate it.

sw: Well, at least you're not artificially trying to claim some sort of apostolic succession.  The fact is, succession has always been one of the "Four Marks" of the Church (One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic) as testified to in the earliest of Christian creeds.

> sh: It only needs revelation.
> Truth is self-validating.

sw: Actually, revelation is not self-validating.  The revelation you speak of operates from a presumption of faith in God AND that Scripture is God's Word (revelation) and since God IS truth then His Word is truth and thus is validated.  Now, be objective for a moment - that's a circular argument.  If you have a better way of demonstrating "Truth is self-validating," then I would be very interested in it.

> sh: But let's play along with Scott's
> criterion. Does his own denomination measure up?
> How does Scott propose to verify every link in
> the chain?

sw:  Yes, I do believe Mr. Hays will find the article on "projection" to be interesting.

> sh: i) Since valid administration of holy orders
> requires right intention on the part of the ordinand 
> and the officiate alike, how does Scott verify the
> presence of right intent? He has no direct access to
> the mental states of the concerned parties.

sw: I understand Mr. Hay's attempt to "turn the tables" here - it's a common debate tactic, but again, we are looking at "projection" here.

> sh: ii) Who was the true successor to Gregory XI?
> Was it Urban VI? Clement VII? Or Alexander V?

sw: It was Urban VI, if you think it really matters.

> sh: iii) Can Scott point me to an infallible list
> of the true popes and antipopes?

sw: Ah, "the request" for that "infallible list!"  Why do so many Protestants THINK that is a valid question?!  We have the list, no pope or council has declared it infallibly - so no, there is no such a list, and we don't need it!  The FACT is God's Church has existed throughout history from the time of the Apostles through to the current episcopate.  Jesus, like it or not, selected the office of bishop to be the leaders of His Church in His absence.  These bishops will continue to be His leaders until He comes back again in glory.  I reiterate my point (which Mr. Hays seems to be attempting to divert us from) that Calvinism did not exist 500 years ago.

> sh: iv) According to the Annuario Pontificio,
>
> "At this point [i.e. Pope Leo VIII], as again in the
> mid-11th century, we come across elections in 
> which problems of harmonising historical criteria
> and those of theologyand canon law make it
> impossible to decide clearly which side possessed
> the legitimacy whose factual existence guarantees 
> the unbroken lawful succession of the successors of
> Saint Peter. The uncertainty that in some cases 
> results has made it advisable to abandon the
> assignation of successive numbers in the list of the 
> popes," p12.
>
> sh: In light of that admission, how does Scott
> verify every link in the chain?

sw:  It seems like more than a few have tried to "make hay" over this quote.  The fact of the matter is popes do not elect their successors and there can be, and has been, a period of "sede vacante" (empty seat) with the death of every pope.  Even with Pope Benedict XVI, he stepped down prior to the election of Pope Francis - all Catholics were sede vacantists for a while.  Does it really matter if there are gaps and even conflicts over who was "the true pope" during parts of Catholic history?  No, not really.  Another put it this way... 

} "The Church does not actually need a Pope. In one
} instance, the Chair was vacant for more than a year
} and a half. Hypothetically, the Chair could be vacant
} for a century or more, and the Church would continue
} along just fine (and could then finally elect a Pope).
} If the Church went a century without ordaining a
} Bishop, She would cease to exist, but a gap in the
} line of Popes ultimately would not matter. 
} http://forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=10868979&postcount=2

sw: Well, that should say "If the Church went a century without consecrating a bishop..." for bishops are already ordained priests who are consecrated to the office of bishop by other bishops.  Apostolic succession is based upon the succession of bishops - of which the Bishop of Rome is just one.  We don't need to verify every single link, we have faith that Jesus kept His promise and that His Church exists from the time He left it and will exist until He comes again - and, back to the point of this response - His Church didn't start less than 500 years ago, He built it nearly 2000 years ago.
AMDG,
Scott<<<