God in the Dock

March 31, 2009

The ancient man approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man, the roles are reversed. He is the judge; God is in the dock. He is quite a kindly judge: If God should have a reasonable defense for being the god who permits war, poverty, and disease, he is ready to listen to it. The trial may even end in God’s acquittal. But the important thing is that Man is on the bench, and God in the Dock (C.S. Lewis, from “God in the Dock”).

Or as someone I know who is less inquisitive than C.S. Lewis’ critics once put it:

Why should I believe in God? What has he ever done for me?


Tolstoyanism vs Christianity

February 1, 2009

For my Topics in the Philosophy of Religion (Philosophy 441) class, we have to write an informal, one page, reaction paper for each of the reading assignments. This week’s reaction paper is written in response to Leo Tolstoy’s What is Religion and of What Does Its Essence Consist?

I wish I could have said more things about Tolstoy’s version of “Christianity”, but I am limited to a one page paper.

Here is my reaction paper for you to read and comment/critique: Read the rest of this entry »


Thoughts on Apologetics from Young Fogey

January 30, 2009

From a Conservative Blog for Peace:

‘Boffins: men and women are different’, or on evangelising Oprah fans: The Kawfee Tawk crowd are not bad people. They’re just sheep without a shepherd, regurgitating all the fluff they’ve been eating from a diet of TV and the spiritual equivalent of Twinkies. Standard Catholic apologetics (which is overwhelmingly masculine and combative) is a non-starter for reaching such people, who are not looking to what they call “spirituality” for intellectual rigor, but for love, acceptance, and community. No small part of what is wrong with a lot of Catholic apologetics is that the response to that observation will be snort of derision and not an attempt to understand why. The sooner many in the Catholic-apologetics subculture figure out that love and truth are not opposites, the sooner we can proceed with the New Evangelization.

I have to agree. Apologetics have only helped me significantly after I have made major religious decisions in my life, to confirm my decision (I am an inquisitive person, so don’t let this imply that I don’t do my homework). For example, I opened my life to following Jesus again my junior year in college, not because of some rational and possibly even obscurantist presentation of Christ, but because I had finally seen (and lived out) the weakness of following my way long enough. I don’t have a problem with apologetics, but I think a lot of apologetics looks at reality too simply. I prefer doing evangelization and catechesis, both which provide a place for apologetics, but both which are more broad and useful, in my opinion. Again, I am not saying there is not a place for apologetics, just that there is more to the picture (especially when trying to reach out to a certain type of person).


False Hopes in Unethical Medical Science

January 26, 2009

For my Topics in the Philosophy of Religion (Philosophy 441) class, we have to write an informal, one page, reaction paper for each of the reading assignments. I would like to share it with you.

Here is my second reaction paper for you to read and critique! Read the rest of this entry »


Some Ruminations on Eastern Orthodoxy

January 19, 2009

DISCLAIMER: Neither in this post, nor in any post which might follow, is any personal slight intended against any particular person or congregation within the umbrella of Eastern Orthodox Christianity. Nor is it an attempt to call into question issues regarding validity of Sacraments, etc. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter. Those “who believe in Christ and are properly baptized are put in a certain, although imperfect communion with the Catholic Church.” With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist. (Paragraph #838 — emphasis in the original text).

I fully embrace this statement. What I am attempting to do, is to address and discuss some of the issues, myths, and polemic which seem to be common among certain circles of Orthodox apologetics. Reasonable and rational dialogue — and disagreement — is gladly welcomed.

The Myth of the Five Patriarchs
In much of modern Orthodox apologetic, there is a great deal of emphasis on the idea that in the Early Church, the Five Patriarchal Sees of Christianity (Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem, and Rome) existed in a certain organic unity, with the Bishop of Rome being recognized as first among equals, but bearing no jurisdictional authority over the other four sees. Then, in AD 1054, Rome veered off on her own — and the four other sees remained (and remain) in unity — all the while waiting for Rome to recognize the error of her ways and return to the fold. A picture very similar to this was described in detail in Peter Gilquist’s book Becoming Orthodox. While there are a number of things about this theory which give pause (and which I may address in future posts) the notion of five unified patriarchates, marching through the centuries together, just doesn’t pass historical muster. Let’s look at the facts:

Jerusalem: Obviously, Jerusalem was the home of the Early Church. When the other Apostles began traveling the world (known and unknown) the church in this city was led by St. James, who was martyred a few years before the beginning of the 1st Jewish/Roman War — a war which led to the capture of the city and the destruction of the Temple in AD 70. From AD 70 until the time of the 2nd Jewish/Roman War in the AD 130’s, a succession of Jewish Christians served as bishops of Jerusalem. At the end of the 2nd Jewish/Roman War, Jerusalem was completely laid waste and rebuilt as a Roman city named AElia. For the next 200 years, a succession of Gentile Christians served as bishops of AElia — which was no longer considered an important church — and became, in fact, a suffragan see of Caesarea. It was not until the time of Constantine that the church in Jerusalem regained its previous importance. The First Council of Nicaea (AD 325) recognized Patriarchal honors for Jerusalem — but Caesarea was still the Metropolitan see! Jerusalem did not gain full Patriarchal status until the Council of Chalcedon (AD 451). From AD 451 until AD 636, a succession of Patriarchs led the church in Jerusalem; one was a Monophysite and many struggled with both Monophysitism and Monothelitism. The city (and Patriarchate) was overrun by Muslims in AD 636. From AD 636 until AD 705, the see was vacant — and administered by a Papal legate! From AD 705 until AD 1099, the Patriarchs were imfluenced primarily by the Eastern Church and participated in the Schism in AD 1054. When the armies of the 1st Crusade delivered Jerusalem from the Muslims in AD 1099, a Latin Patriarchate was set up, influenced by Rome, which lasted until AD 1291. Over the last 700+ years, both the size (never large to begin with) and the importance (never great) of the Orthodox Jerusalem Patriarchate has gradually diminished. In the 13th century, the Latin Patriarch effectively ended and was not restored until the 19th century.

Antioch: According to the Acts of the Apostles, it was in Antioch where the followers of Jesus were first called Christians. One of the first seven deacons hailed from Antioch; St. Paul and St. Barnabas ministered there as did St. Peter prior to his arrival in Rome. After the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, Antioch was functionally the center of Christianity in the East. St. Ignatius of Antioch, third bishop of the city, died a martyr in AD 117; his writings are of utmost importance in understanding the polity and worship of the very Early Church. The first two Ecumenical Councils of the Church (the 1st Council of Nicaea in AD 325 and the 1st Council of Constantinople in AD 381) pointed to the great importance and influence of the Patriarchate of Antioch. However, the Council of Ephesus in AD 431 and the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451 stripped territory from Antioch and the Patriarchate in Constantinople assumed (and in some cases usurped) a much more significant role in Eastern Christianity. In the middle of the 5th century, Antioch suffered great losses to the Nestorians; by the end of the 5th century, the Monophysites attempted to seize the Patriarchate; and by the 6th century were electing their own Patriarch. In the 7th century, Antioch was overrun by the Muslims, and while the line of Monophysite Patriarchs remained intact, the line of Orthodox Patriarchs was irregular at best. What was left of the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch followed Constantinople into schism in AD 1054, but by that time, the church was but a shadow of its former self. During the Crusades, from AD 1098 to AD 1268, there was a brief — and unsuccessful — restoration of a Latin Patriarchate. At the present time, three Eastern Rite Catholic Churches currently have Patriarchs of Antioch, the Orthodox Patriarch still exists, much diminished, in spite of its expansion into North America, and the Monophysite (now called “Oriental” or “Non-Chalcedonian”) Patriarch still exists.

Alexandria: According to tradition in both the Eastern and Western Churches, the Church in Alexandria was founded by St. Mark (John Mark) the cousin of St. Barnabas and sometime companion of St. Barnabas, St. Paul, and St. Peter. The most noteworthy bishop of that city in antiquity was St. Athanasius, the great defender of Trinitarian orthodoxy in the face of Arianism in the 4th century. Until the time of the 1st Council of Constantinople in AD 381, the Patriarch of Alexandria ranked next to the Bishop of Rome. The 28th Canon of Constantinople I, which elevated the Patriarch of Constantinople above Alexandria was not recognized by either Rome or Alexandria for many years. St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria from AD 412 to AD 444 fiercely opposed the heresy of Nestorianism, culminating the the condemnation of that heresy at the 3rd Ecumenical Council — the Council of Ephesus in AD 431. However, in the struggle against Nestorianism, Alexandrian Christianity went to the other extreme, and by the middle of the 5th century was deeply embroiled in Monophysitism. By the end of the 5th century, schism in Alexandria was complete — and permenant. When Alexandria was overrun by the Muslims in the 7th century, the invasion was supported by the Monophysites at the expense of the orthodox, Catholic hierarchy which was greatly diminished. By the 9th century, the Patriarchate was merely a shadow of its former self. A temporary reunion between the Monophysite Copts and Rome was effected in AD 1442 by the Council of Florence, etc., but lasted only a short time. Today, the ancient see of Alexandria is almost entirely desended from the Monophysite (now “Oriental”) Coptic church. While both East and West still maintain their respective Patriarchs, their numbers are extremely small.

Constantinople: The first historically known bishop of the city which became Constantinople was St. Metrophanes (AD 306 to AD 314). The see was at first not an important one and was subject to the authority of the metropolitan of Heraclea. In AD 381 at the 1st Council of Constantinople, the see was raised to the dignity of the Patriarchate — not for any religious or historic reason, but only because Constantinople had become the Imperial city. This decision was bitterly resented and opposed by both Rome and Alexandria. Between AD 381 and the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451, the Patriarchate of Constantinople grew enormously in both size and importance primarily by usurping dioceses from other provinces and metropolitan sees. Over a period of several hundred years, Constantinople was in and out of communion with the West for a variety of reasons. Some were political in nature and some were issues of heresy. During the time between the death of the Emperor Constantine in AD 337 and the final breach with Rome in AD 1054, 19 Patriarchs of Constantinople were open heretics and the see was in formal schism for at least 248 years. Constantinople was at times Arian (55 years), Monothelite (41 years), and Iconclastic (90 years). After the sack of Constantinope by the armies of the 4th Crusade, a Latin Patriarchate was set up which was never large — and never successful. Attempts at reunion between Rome and Constantinope were made at the Council of Lyon in AD 1274 and at the Council of Florence, etc., in the 15th century. Both attempts were repudiated by the East within a few years. Constantinople fell to the Turks in AD 1453 and the great church of Hagia Sophia became a mosque. Constantinople, now called Istanbul, remains in Turkish hands and the Patriarch of Constantinople is required by Turkish law to be a Turkish citizen. Relations between the Turkish state and the Church are, at best, strained and tense. Titles and ancient history notwithstanding, in the world of 21st century Eastern Orthodoxy, the number of Orthodox faithful under the spiritual care of Constantinople is a very small minority.

What does this brief history of the churches in Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople show us? It demonstrates that there never — never — was a time in which the scenario described by many modern Orthodox apologists (including converts) as the authentic Early Church actually existed! Constantinople was not granted full Patriarchal status until AD 381; Jerusalem was not granted full Patriarchal status until AD 451, and by the end of the 5th century, both Antioch and Alexandria had become hopelessly divided into rival parties — each with its own Patriarch — and these divisions exist to the present day.

In short, from an honest reading of history, an Orthodox apologetic requiring five unified Patriarchs, cannot stand.

Papa Z



Paul Versus Jesus

August 18, 2008

Since we are in the Year of Saint Paul (June 2008-June 2009), I thought I would address an issue that tends to crop up every now and then. Anybody who has attended a mainline seminary has probably met somebody who pits Jesus against Paul. They insist that Jesus was a proto-hippie, a 1960s modernist before modernity, preaching inclusion, and then Paul came along, and messed all of that up with his message of exclusion and moralism. So, as Homer Simpson would say, “Jesus=Good, Paul=Bad.” However, does this supposed critical assertion itself stand up to critical analysis? I think C.S. Lewis responds to this objection quite well, since the objection was raised as early as the 19th century:

A most astonishing misconception has long dominated the modern mind on the subject of St. Paul… that Jesus preached a kindly and simple religion (found in the gospels) and that St. Paul afterwards corrupted it into a cruel and complicated religion (found in the Epistles). This is really quite untenable. All the most terrifying texts come from the mouth of our Lord: all the texts on which we can base such warrant as we have for hoping that all men will be saved come from St. Paul. If it could be proved that Saint Paul altered the teaching of the Master in any way, he altered it in the opposite way to that which is popularly supposed. But there is no real evidence for a pre-Pauline doctrine different from Saint Paul’s. The Epistles are, for the most part, the earliest Christian documents we possess. The gospels come later. They are not “the gospel,” the statement of the Christian belief. They were written for those who had already been converted, who had already accepted “the gospel…” [Actually] the epistles are more primitive and more central than the gospels, though not, of course, than the great events which the Gospels recount. God’s act (the Incarnation, the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection) comes first: the earliest theological analysis comes in the Epistles…

…nor is the cause [of those seeking to discredit Paul] far to seek. In the earlier history of every rebellion there is a stage at which you do not yet attack the King in person. You say: “The King is all right. It is his Ministers who are wrong. They misrepresent him and corrupt all his plans – which, I’m sure are good plans if only the Ministers would let them take effect.” And the first victory consists in beheading a few Ministers: only at a later stage do you go on and behead the King himself. In the same way, the nineteenth century attack on St. Paul was really only a stage in the revolt against Christ. Men were not ready in large numbers to attack Christ himself. They made the normal first move – that of attacking one of His principal Ministers. Everything they disliked in Christianity was therefore attributed to St. Paul. It was unfortunate that their case could not impress anyone who had really read the gospels and the epistles with attention: but apparently few people had, and so the victory was won. St. Paul was impeached and banished and the world went on to the next step – the attack on the King Himself.

From God in the Dock, “Modern Translations of the Bible” (229).

C.S. Lewis, as always, brings up some excellent points. To summarize: First, the sayings of Jesus recorded in the gospels are often more harsh than anything Paul wrote. Of course, now it is easy to just say “well, Jesus didn’t really say that, his sexist (heterosexist, racist, ageist, etc) followers put words in his mouth,” which itself is an argument that pits the message of Jesus against that of his earliest followers. Second, Paul wrote his letters quite a few years before the gospels were written, so if anything, perhaps it was the gospel writers who got Jesus’ message wrong. Of course, another option, the orthodox option that C.S. Lewis supports, is that both the Letters of Paul and the Gospels are divinely inspired, and witness to the same gospel.


Prayers to the Saints

April 8, 2008

Catholics are often asked why they pray to saints.  The generic answer, which is adequate enough, is:  “Well, you ask your earthly friends and people you consider ‘strong Christians’ to pray for you.  We Catholics ask saints in heaven to pray for us because they are close to God.  Also, we’re not praying to “the dead,” because the saints in heaven aren’t dead.   They’re more alive than you and I.”

Okay.  That’s true.  But I believe that something Pope Benedict said, in his encyclical Deus Caritas Est, really helps to expand this idea in a way that gives it more weight.  It certainly helped me a lot.  It just makes good plain sense.  He says:

The lives of the saints are not limited to their earthly biographies but also include their being and working in God after death. In the saints one thing becomes clear: those who draw near to God do not withdraw from men, but rather become truly close to them.

This statement comes near the end of a document where the Pope really gives us a practical explanation of what love really means, and how we are to exercise this virtue.  In a nutshell, it goes back to Jesus’ commandment that we are to love God and love our neighbor.  Christianity 101.  Simple, yes…but hardly easy.  So, it would follow, that when we read about holy people, the most striking thing about their lives is precisely the love they showed (or show) other people, right?  That, in short, is how we know they’re holy.  We can literally SEE their love for God.  We admire these people…Saint Francis, Mother Theresa, Corrie Ten Boom, etc….  All Christians who didn’t just talk the talk, but they walked the walk.

So far, so good.  Nothing controversial there.

Well, then a question comes up.  At some point, those Christians die and go to heaven.  Then what happens?   What do those faithful saints exactly “DO” in heaven?

Looking back to my pre-Catholic days, I guess if I was pressed to describe what was going on in heaven, I would present a picture of a sea of people worshipping God.  And by that, I would mean that they were just sort of staring at and bowing before him.  I never really stopped to consider any horizontal relationships.  And that’s not surprising.  This was the way I worshipped God in my non-denominational church.  I would close my eyes and do the “me and Jesus” thing.  You might be sitting next to me, but you were individually doing your own version of “me and Jesus.”  I guess in heaven, I would have said, it was just more intense, while still individualistic, because you could literally see Jesus “face to face.” 

In re-examining this belief, I find that it’s inconsistent.  Does someone who spent their life loving God by serving others just die and forget about everyone else and just stare at Jesus, leaving the rest of us in the dust?

No!  What sense does that make?  Their righteousness is perfect in heaven…the righteousness that they cultivated exactly by serving and loving others on earth.  NOW they serve and love others even MORE.  They’d have to.  They can’t help themselves.  To love God is to love others.  The mission hasn’t changed, because love doesn’t change.  Love reaches out…eternally.  The saints in heaven continue to love God and love others.  They pray.  They intercede.  It is what MADE them saints in the first place. 

Further, if we Christians believe we are the family of God, these people are LITERALLY our loving brothers and sisters.  They are not going to be content to rest until all members of their family make it to heaven.  They are a “cloud of witnesses” cheering us on, as Hebrews 12 tells us.   Jesus’ death and resurrection brought “victory o’er the grave.”  Heaven and earth are joined together ( most poignantly and literally in the sacrifice of the mass).   We are one big family.  Our older, wiser and holier brothers and sisters can help us out a lot.  And they do! 


Trish Reels in a Big One

April 7, 2008

You may be familiar with the television and radio ministry of evangelist Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron (aka “Mike Sever” from Growing Pains) called Way of the Master [warning: here there be loud audio , busy flash and dubious theology.] I usually refer to it as “Way of the Ambush” because it’s built around walking up to unsuspecting folks on the street and letting them know how sinful they are and, if they haven’t followed the “Roman’s Road”/Sinner’s Prayer version of conversion, that they are on their way to Hell.

Because there are a lot of Catholics (practicing and non) on this planet, they are often targets for this treatment…all the better if they are poorly catechized or lapsed.

One feature they have on their radio show is “Fish with Trish” where a lady named Trish Ramos goes around with a cellphone finding non-Christians or people who “think they’re good” who will agree to talk on the air with Ray, Kirk and/or radio host Todd Friel to find out how wrong and lost they are.

This time, I think Trish reeled in a fish that wouldn’t fit in their live-well: Fr. Jim McGhee.

Fr. Jim McGhee

Fr. Jim McGhee is a convert to the Catholic faith AND a Catholic priest at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton parish in Forth Worth, Texas. He was raised as a Methodist and was a Methodist minister for about seven years before becaming Episcopalian and serving as a priest in that communion for about 20 years. He entered full-communion with the Catholic Church in 1992. He’s also married (which amazed Trish and caused her to wonder out loud if it was “some sort of liberal thing.”)

Well, Fr. Jim can quote scripture as well as they can and he knows their language. He presents the Catholic faith in way that I think they could understand, even if it wasn’t in a way that they liked. Here’s an excerpt:

Comfort: But, if I’m a Roman Catholic, I’ve been sprinkled as a baby, I’m adult and I’m Catholic by name but I haven’t repented and my faith is not in Jesus am I going to heaven?

McGhee: No.

Comfort: So I’m going to Hell?

McGhee: Because you have to cooperate with the grace of God in knowing the faith, living in hope according to your will and learning how to love the good by presence of the Holy Spirit. There has to be a sanctification, a growing up in the Faith.

Download an mp3 of the Program here
(Fr. Jim’s segment starts at 37 mins and 56 seconds into the mp3*)

Anyway, I think Fr. Jim did a great job of presenting the Catholic faith and traditional, sacramental Christianity in a winsome way to a hostile audience that espouses a more novel version of the Christian faith. He really contrasts the nuances of the Apostolic Faith with the “fits on business card” presentation that seems to be par for the course at Way of the Master.

Trish also posted photos and her account of the encounter on her blog as well this video:

*Note: There are some other Catholic-related jewels earlier in the episode: a recording from a 60 Minutes interview with a Catholic former-hitman talking about confession and an incredibly shallow and ham-fisted review of the statement by Avery Cardinal Dulles about the universal scope of the plan of salvation that gets brought up in Fr. Jim’s segement. That’s why Todd Friel says “it’s not beat up on Catholics hour.” There’s also a clip from a sermon by Reformed Baptist pastor John Piper about making sure Christ is first in your life that I thought was well stated.


Why Do Evangelicals Celebrate Easter When They Do?

March 25, 2008

Ok, I grant that a number of non-Catholics go out of the way to call the holiday “Resurrection Sunday“  a few seem to have gravitated towards calling it “Pascha” like Eastern Christians do…  Some of them dislike the term “Easter” wrongly thinking it connotes paganism. (Taylor Marshall has the 411 on that with today’s entry Why is the festival of Christ’s Resurrection called Easter? – it is about as “pagan” to use the term “Easter” as it is “Thursday” or “January” or “Sunday“[!] for that matter!)

Read the rest of this entry »


Catholics Come Home

March 18, 2008


Com Box Hero: Cel On Catholicizing Tendancies In Evangelicalism

March 10, 2008

Lifted out of the combox from a post over at The Cafeteria is Closed on the movement in Evangelical circles to have more focus on Lent. A trend that has been touched on here at PC.Cel writes:

…It is frightening to finally realize that what you want is in the Catholic Church but that you will probably loose all your friends, your family, just about everything, to get it. So please, please be kind to those who are just on the outside and looking in the windows but are still unsure of what they see. It is also very hard to admit that you have been wrong for so long.I came from a Church of Christ turned mega-church. We celebrated communion every week but then the CoC has been doing that for a long time. In the last few years they started doing a 40 day prayer vigil coming up to Easter. Kinda like lent but with prayer only rather than fasting. There is a prayer room up at the church building that gets manned 24/7 for this time period. When I started going to the Catholic Church this last year, I was struck by the similarity it had to perpetual adoration. Imagine my surprise when I found out that we had only reinvented a very ancient wheel, and not very well at that.

It will take them a lot of time because these people have a lot of distance to cover intellectually but many of them will see same things that I did. That the Catholic Church is home and just what we have been trying to reinvent. We slowly give ourselves less and less reasons to not be Catholic. But the process of softening up preconceived notions takes time. Most people have to let it simmer for a while before realize it. True, the time is short but being to confrontational too soon will only drive them away. I think it would be best to simple encourage them to keep on doing it and share with them how we do it. Trust me, they will be intrigued and when they are ready they will come around to asking themselves the question: “Why not Catholic?”

In terms of the big picture, I believe that the rise in interest towards Catholic devotions and the increase in Tiber swimmers like myself is a result of American style evangelicalism’s fundamental dependence on existing in a nation that is essentially Christian. Because our nation is fast becoming a post-Christian nation it is causing a shift in the churches based on it and this is causing many believers to question where they are at. The Catholic faith however, is bigger than any one nation and has an almost unique ability to exists in both friendly nations and hostile nations. It has the ability to stay rooted to the truth by being able to depend on the Holy See as its anchor. This will prove to be significant as the industrialized west becomes more secular and more hostile toward religion.

The Catholic Church also has a history of surviving the collapse of nations and empires and in a lot of cases provides an interim structure for people to depend on during crisis. American evangelicalism will not survive without America in any significantly recognizable form. And America will not survive if it continues to support an abortive, contraceptive and unchaste culture.

NOTE: If Blogger does not get it together with the photo-uploading situation SOON, WordPress here I come! My patience is wearing thin on this, and it is making me honkin’ mad!


Annotated Bibliography Of Historical Apologetics Online

March 9, 2008

books.jpgbooks.jpg

From Whats wrong with the world?

Annotated bibliography of historical apologetics online is a fun page to look at. Largely Protestant, but very much worth the time and effort of a Catholic to look at some of these historic arguments that were generally geared towards post-Christian diests. Mrs. McGrew writes:

I’m pleased to announce that an annotated bibliography of apologetics works from the late 17th through the 19th centuries is now available here. It contains links to the works in question, available in the public domain.

It is entirely the work of my husband, Tim McGrew, in one of his areas of specialization. He has been working on it for some time before being satisfied that it’s ready to be made public. But he is very interested in making these works more widely available. The men who answered the Deists in their own time get far too little credit nowadays and deserve to be more widely known and read than they are.

Pastors, youth leaders, and professors who work with Christian young people could do far worse than to familiarize themselves with some of the apologetic work that was done in the past. Those who have an interest in apologetics should acquaint themselves with the pre-20th-century material so as not to reinvent the wheel.

Feel free to pass this link on to others who might find it useful.

Well OK, I will! There ya go.


"Meeting With The Girlfriend’s Pastor"

February 29, 2008

“Soon I will be engaging in religious debates with my girlfriends pastor and I am looking for advice. He is an Evangelical Lutheran pastor. We are doing this so she would see a Catholic priest with me and talk about converting. So I am just looking for advice on what to talk about with the pastor.”

This is the post of a participant at Catholic Answers Forums. This is my advice:

“Ask if he will send you an email with the itinerary of his choosing so that you can prepare.Be polite, do not be rude or triumphal. If you don’t know an answer say “I will have to research that, let me write that down.” Don’t BS – that will only get you in trouble.

Thank him for his time when you arrive. Thank him again when you leave. Keep it cool.

Polite. Polite. Polite. Are the three rules to follow.”

Gentle readers, what do you think? What is your advice? Our Lutheran (yea, you LutherPunk!) and Methodist-Calvinist readership are certainly invited to weigh in.


Apologia Pro New Media

January 30, 2008

From the venerable blog 3d Blog from the Sun the following has been offered:

Imprimatur for New Media
Catholic New Media?

The also very worthy blog Musings of a Pertinacius Papist has reprinted with permission Tom Bethell’s well crafted article “The New Technology is for Amatures” which appeared originally in the New Oxford Review.

The questions asked in all of the above largely have to do with what the role of new media is for Catholics, and how this transition is taking place.

Of course this interests me. To turn an old joke “Once I couldn’t spell ‘blogger’, now I are one!”

I found myself transitioning to a preference for new media on the basis that there is a certain economy and “checks and balances” system to the blogosphere.

An oft repeated warning of the ability of “Joe Blogger” to disseminate knowingly or unknowingly information of questionable veracity or outright untruth seems to ring hollow when it is examined how things “really work”.

To be sure, there is nothing to present the self-styled Patriarch of Akron, Ohio from creating a blog that espouses flat-earth-geo-centrism. In fact that sort of thing is out there. In fact it is also the case that no one pays much attention to it and when it DOES pop up on the radar, it will also appear in the cross-hairs of about 1000 other bloggers who will not suffer the indignity of being lied to or deceived. Articles presented on Per Christum have been picked up and discussed elsewhere by those who agree and disagree. We have done the same.

I have also found that when I do read print media, I don’t like to be far from the web! Given the linear limitations of the print media versus the exponential possibilities of new media, if I want more info on a subject matter, I can click on a hyperlink and explore it, rather than counting on “getting all I need to know” based on the judgment of the author, the editor, and space limitations.

You also run into the issue of certain news considered “too niche market” to receive column inches.

For example, days ago a bishop and 3 dozen clergy originally from the Assyrian Church of the East – which has been out of communion with the Apostolic See for 16 centuries – have made their intention clear – they seek full communion with the Catholic Church and to be united to the Chaldean Catholic counterpart.

It has been through the blogosphere, including the bishop’s own webpage http://www.marbawai.com – that much of this has been disseminated. Much to my chagrin, when googling for official news outlets to find news about this matter, it is only on the second page of returned “hits” at google does a news story appear that does NOT come from www.marbawai.com – lo and behold, it is our entry Assyrians Elect To Enter Into Full Commnunion w/ Catholic Church.

The utter failure of the mainstream media to pick this story up within almost two weeks of the vote has left me utterly befuddled. That being said, I am proud that between Per Christum & Serge’s entries over at A Conservative Blog for Peace (A conservative blog for peace) have a good deal of info thanks to the comboxes and the research we have done and had done for us. (Interestingly, in the comboxes, many representatives of this movement themselves have shown up to make their case.)

Maybe I wear my Eastern Christian bias on my sleeve butI have little faith or trust in most print media sources to get the matter right, anyway! 10 years ago, the respectable Catholic World Report in an article on Eastern Catholic churches mentioned “Spanish Eastern Catholics” apparently misunderstanding the Greek Catholics of “Galicia” to be from “Galiza” in Spain rather than the region “Галичина/Galicja” in central Europe divided between Ukraine and Poland. Would that it were the case Greek Catholics were from “Galiza” they would have avoided Soviet persecution, and have good flan recipes!

Understand those were the reliable, professional, well edited, fact checking print media types! But we don’t expect every print outlet to have experts from every field on the payroll and writing for them. On occasion, head correspondants of major media outlets even treat us to such fanciful and outlandish reports as the much bally-hooed (and very wrong) Churches back plan to unite under Pope.

Sometimes the “amatures” have to step up.

Blog on, Catholic bloggers!