|
L e t t e r s
PROOF IN THE YELLOW PAGES
|
This Rock
Volume 5, Number 1
 January 1994 
|
|
|
PATRICK MADRID did a fine job of refuting
James White on Scripture alone ["The White Man's Burden,"
October 1993]. May I add a bit?
If White really had found a text that said divine revelation
is to be found only in Scripture, that would imply that previously
he had been able to prove divine revelation exists in the
books he considers Scripture. But then he would have a marvelous vicious
circle, which would amount to saying, "Inspired Scripture is
inspired Scripture because inspired Scripture says inspired Scripture
is inspired Scripture." White really has no way of knowing which
books are part of the Bible, and even if he did, it is a vicious circle
to try to use the Bible to prove the Bible is inspired.
Further, I hate to tell poor White, but he is guilty of an antibiblical
position when he insists Scripture is clear and obvious in meaning,
for 2 Peter 3:16 says, speaking of St. Paul's epistles, that "in
them there are many things hard to understand, which the unlearned
and the unstable twist, as they do the other Scriptures, to their
own destruction." So Scripture is not self-evident in its meaning.
(As further corroboration, see the Yellow Pages under "Churches.")
Rev. William G. Most
Alexandria , Virginia
I also debated White
I WANT to congratulate Patrick Madrid for
his article "The White Man's Burden." I had the opportunity
to listen to the debate on tape. Having debated James White myself
on justification by faith, I know what a difficult and trying opponent
he can be. He is glib, aggressive, and self-assured. He has a particular
antipathy toward Catholics because we have the only credible and historically
authentic Christian heritage which can threaten the legitimacy of
Protestantism.
During my debate with him, I began with 2 Peter, which clearly refutes
the Protestant doctrine of justification; there must have been proto-Protestant
heretics in the apostolic period against whom the first pope had to
direct his authority. Next I addressed Paul's letter to the Romans
and demonstrated that the cutting edge of modern Protestant biblical
scholarship has rejected the traditional Protestant interpretation
of this epistle and replaced it with a new schemata which is virtually
identical to the Catholic position.
All of this fell on deaf ears. Mr. White never listened to a word
I said and would not accept my exposition of Catholic teaching. He
wasn't there to debate the Catholic position, but only what he thought
was the Catholic position. He refused to engage me in dialogue and
dismissed all the points I raised as either offensive to him or beneath
his notice. It is very sad that Patrick Madrid had virtually the same
experience.
Art Sippo, M.D.
Holland, Ohio
Self-implosion
I read Patrick Madrid's article, "The
White Man's Burden," with some skepticism. I have long admired
James White's skills as a debater and could not believe he was capable
of so many dialectical blunders.
But now I've listened to the tapes of the debate several times. There's
no question he was bested. In fact Madrid's article does not adequately
convey the excitement of the exchange or the effect his own
relentless questioning seemed to have on White--an effect well-conveyed
through listening.
It was a bit spooky to hear White, normally so resourceful in debate,
begin to implode on tape. In every debate of his I've heard, White
begins with a torrent of information, delivered in a rapid-fire, robotic,
rhetorically ineffective way; he catches fire impressively during
the rebuttal and question period; then he ends with a brilliant slash-and-burn.
In this debate it was almost the reverse: He gave the most aggressive
opening I've ever heard him deliver, came back somewhat effectively
in his rebuttal, then collapsed in upon himself during the question
period and summation.
Why? Perhaps he went into the debate hoping to embarrass and discredit
Catholic Answers forever, but when he saw his strategy wasn't working
and that Madrid was able to draw blood early on, he came undone.
I don't know. But I do know what I hear on tape: a man whose resources
have so withered that his closing statement is as lifeless as his
opening usually is. Tradition, the seat of Moses, papal authority--he
seems to be straining to fill up the final twelve minutes with these
topics. The rapid-fire rat-tat-tat is there, but he's definitely firing
blanks. It was an impressive victory for Madrid and for Catholic Answers.
One small complaint. As a former teacher of Greek, I must say Madrid
took White's "exegesis" of 2 Timothy 3:16-17 too seriously,
treating it with far too much respect. Here is White's own paraphrase
of the passage: "Scriptures are sufficient for the man of God
for doing the works of God." It would not have been wrong to
reject this with a mere guffaw.
The passage says something very different, namely, "Every
Scripture is useful for the kind of thing that leads
to the man of God being thoroughly equipped (or `having what it
takes,' or, if you want to stretch it, `having what suffices') for
every good work." Note: Paul is not talking about Scriptures
collectively in the plural; he is talking about each and every
Scripture in the singular, pasa graph.
His words mean literally that whatever is Scripture has a certain
quality. If sufficiency were the quality attributed, he'd be saying
that each and every Scripture is sufficient for the man of
God. Is anybody going to affirm that? More to the point, the passage
does not call Scripture sufficient at all, but useful.
To interpret these verses as teaching the sufficiency of Scripture
is comparable to arguing this way: Jogging is useful for the muscle-tone,
energy level, and positive attitude that lead to the well-rounded
person's having what it takes to face the challenges of the day. Therefore
jogging alone is sufficient for facing the challenges of the
day.
This argument is absurd; so is White's. And it's unworthy of him in
another way: No one who loves the sacred text--as I believe he
does--should ever handle it so crudely.
I plan to give the debate to several friends. And I'll continue to
pray for James White. What a marvelous witness he'd be for Christ's
Church.
Ronald K. Tacelli, S.J.
Boston College
Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts
Via heir male
THE answer to your question, "If the
Holy Roman Empire were still in existence, who would be the Holy Roman
Emperor today?" ["The Quiz Returns," October 1993]
requires a little more explanation.
You are correct that Otto von Habsburg is the oldest son of the last
emperor of the Austro-Hungarian Empire (the Servant of God Karl of
the House of Austria, whose cause for sainthood was opened in 1954),
and further that Archduke Otto is the heir male of the last Holy Roman
Emperor-elect Francis II (later Francis I of Austria).
For almost 400 years, with but one exception, a member of the House
of Habsburg was Holy Roman Emperor or emperor-elect (i.e., an uncrowned
emperor). However, the imperial dignity is an elected, not a hereditary
office. There is a College of Electors of the Holy Roman Empire which
has the right to elect the emperor, who in turn is crowned by the
pope. Some of the electors are such by hereditary right, while three
are German bishops. Archduke Otto is one of the hereditary electors,
as are Duke Albert of Bavaria, Prince Maria Emanuel of Saxony, Prince
Louis Ferdinand of Prussia, Prince Ernst August IV of Hanover, and
Prince Moritz of Hesse.
While many might think that Archduke Otto is the best candidate for
Holy Roman Emperor, it seems unlikely that the College of Electors
will meet in the near future to elect him or anyone else.
Noel S. McFerran
St. Charles Borromeo Seminary
Overbrook, Pennsylvania
Not barred from the faith
THE number of guys attending Mass and Communion
continues to grow here [in prison]. In fact we have just changed the
day and time of our services so more guys can come. We are going to
start meeting on Friday nights, which will also give us an extra 45
minutes or so.
Guys really enjoy learning about Catholicism, and we even have a lot
of non-Catholics who like to come and see if they can trip us up.
I think we surprise them, and more than a couple have decided the
Catholic Church might be the true Church.
Here's a story you might enjoy. A disgruntled ex-Catholic told a friend
of mine who's preparing to enter the Church at Easter that he would
have to cut off his beard and long hair because they're not permitted
in the Church. My friend told me this as we waited for Father to come
in for Mass, and when he saw Father the question was answered--Father
not only has a beard, but rather long hair!
Tom Meagher
Ionia, Michigan
Universal earplugs?
DID American Catholics even hear
the Holy Father? In Denver he said, "America is in need of much
prayer--lest it lose its soul." This is a dire warning to
us. This is a most serious prophecy from the Pope himself. What is
our response? As far as anyone can see, business as usual, more meetings,
more talk, more this and more that, but not more prayer. "Having
ears, they do not hear."
Nothing spoken in this country to Catholics last year was more important
than the words of Pope John Paul. Do we see a new way of prayer, a
new crusade for petitioning Almighty God for his blessings, a new
movement to beg God to forgive us for our materialism? No. We see
nothing, and the Church in our country and our society continues to
go downhill.
We Americans may have great knowledge, all kinds of information and
facts, but we are surely lacking in wisdom. We know everything except
how to live.
Let the Catholic media lead the way to remind our people again and
again of the great warning he gave us. The Vicar of Christ said to
us, Pray or perish.
Fr. Rawley Myers
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Marvel-ous
MAY I suggest that your group use comic books
such as Chick Publications does, only more like Marvel Comics, using
each comic book with a different theme of the Church? They would be
excellent for the kids in Catholic elementary schools and for comic
book collectors, and could go worldwide with only a language change.
They could be an excellent fundraiser on speaking trips because parents
would buy these for their children and grandchildren. Parents would
get to sit down and teach the faith while the kids listened and looked
at the colorful pictures. Just a suggestion!
Anonymous
Shhh! Don't tell 'em!
DIDN'T Christ command, "Love one another"
(John 15:17)? It's too bad that our separated brothers invest so much
time bashing Catholics. The people at CRI, Tony Alamo, James White--it's
too bad they just can't get together and pray for us in the name of
Jesus Christ. If Catholics are so "hell-bound," why can't
they, in a positive way, worry about us getting saved? If they could
do what I mentioned, they could truly be effective. But they do not
even get along with each other.
Robert Ahedo
Orange, California
On his terms, not ours
THIS is in response to "Name Withheld's"
letter ["Not as Gay as He Thinks," November 1993]. What
"Name Witheld" fails to realize is that the Church does
dialogue on issues like sex and women priests. She dialogues on them
according to God's laws, not man's.
What "Name Witheld" wants is for our Lady to grant his petition
so we can have an "anti-pope" who will agree with his sinful
lifestyle and damage the Church further by having the feminists in
charge.
I think "Name Witheld" needs to read Romans 1:27 and Leviticus
18:22 and 20:13, then decide if he can continue with a good conscience
to receive Holy Communion every day at Mass.
T. A. Pleasance
New Orleans, Louisiana
|
C A T H O L I C A N S W E R S :
[TOP]
of
