Proof in the Yellow Pages
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