Which Fulgentius Do You Mean?
As a former Fundamentalist of sorts I am happy to have discovered your organization and magazine. Since my own pilgrimage to Rome took me straight through the early Church Fathers, I especially appreciate your column “The Fathers Know Best” (and they do).
In the July issue the topic for this column was the sacrificial nature of the Mass. I’m sure you’ve noticed that the date for the quotation from Fulgentius of Ruspe was incorrect. It should have been circa A.D. 520.
Also, there is a passage from the Didache which ought to have been included: “On the Lord’s own day gather together and break bread and give thanks, having first confessed your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure. But let no one who has a quarrel with a companion join you until he has been reconciled, so that your sacrifice may not be defiled. This is the sacrifice concerning which the Lord said, `In every place and time offer me a pure sacrifice, for I am a great king, says the Lord, and my name is marvelous among the nations.'<|>” Bishop Irenaeus and the Didache both assert that the Eucharist is the fulfillment of Malachi’s prophecy.
Tracy Jamison
Cincinnati, Ohio
Editor’s reply: In our July issue we printed the date for Fulgentius as 52, not 520. This appeared to you and to us, at first, to have been a typographical error. On further investigation, we have learned the date was correct. It turns out that the Fulgentius we quoted, whose full name was Ralph Fulgentius, was the ancestor of the better-known Fulgentius of Ruspe, who flourished around 520. So far as we can tell, Ralph Fulgentius isn’t known for having said anything other than what we printed.
You Blockheads!
This Rock is an appropriate name for your publication as you constantly “hurl out and crush” anyone whose position is pro-born-again. An example is your reply to a woman’s letter in the May/June issue, page 2. You took another opportunity to minimize and frankly instill doubt and guilt to a woman who has genuinely experienced the Spirit of God. I can’t imagine Jesus being at all supportive of this type of dialogue to your readers. You truly are sensitive as a rock!
As I have tried to be open to Catholic thinking, your publication does more harm than good. My greatest encouragement toward Catholics comes from my Catholic friends who take time and care for the complete body of Christ, not merely the bunch of angry anti-born-again-Christian folks like yourselves.
Please immediately take my name off your mailing list.
Mike Ballantyne
Tustin, California
Editor’s reply: In July I replied to a former Catholic who claimed we can’t know which faith is the right one. If so, I said, then there’s no reason to prefer one faith over another. It isn’t any good just to adhere to the faith that makes you feel best. You need to find the one that is completely true. I ended by noting that she should consider the disturbing possibility that she had abandoned the true faith for a pale substitute. Might this suggestion instill doubt or guilt in her? I sure hope so. Sometimes doubt and guilt can be very healing things.
Watch Out, Scuds!
This Rock just keeps getting better! I really appreciate Antonio Fuentes’ articles explaining the books of the Bible. One question, though: If you’re experimenting, does that make me the equivalent of the white mouse?
I think the counterattack idea to enlighten Fundamentalists during the Pope’s visit to Denver is a keen idea! We are about ten hours from Denver and hope to get there next August. I am planning to arm myself with your literature and my trusty rosary. I do not really care to stand in one spot and pass out literature, though. I am more of a heat-seeking missile type. But anything I can do to assist I will be glad to do.
Denise Flowers
Deaver, Wyoming
How’s That Again?
Yes! More articles about the Bible, with “introductory sophistication,” please.
Barbara Duncan
Macodoches, Texas
Where to Start?
I hope I may make a few comments about your series [by Antonio Fuentes] on the Bible.
A long time ago at Maryknoll, other than reading the Bible for spiritual reading, we were, at the beginning of our Scripture studies, not allowed to open the Bible for six months. We had to cover the basics. You are assuming that your readers accept the Bible as the word of God. How about the pagans who have their own books, such as the Koran?
First of all, you must establish that the Bible is the word of God by establishing the divinity of the Church and thus admitting the authority of the Church to determine which writings–not merely “which books of the Bible”–are inspired. You are, unwittingly, falling into petitio principii. And, in a way, into non sequitur.
Our opponents say we use Matthew 16 to prove the Church and then use the Church to prove Matthew 16–a vicious circle. So what should we do? Use no book. Using the teaching of Benedict XV, we point out, to men of good will, the four marks of the Church, and we do not neglect holiness.
Those who try to follow the Church wind up truly holy, not Hollywood holy. Then we use two more proofs: the Church’s surviving every persecution from without and every treason from within and becoming ever stronger. This way other religions can’t use their books either. The field is level.
And then you explain what faith is: believing on the authority of God revealing. Then you explain exegesis, hermeneutics, the different texts (Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, etc.), their antiquity. Then you get into showing that the literal sense is basic. Then you explain that when there is a problem you are obliged to solve the hardest part.
Finally you are in a position to show that it was the Church which decided with authority which writings are or are not inspired. But you certainly can’t just start out with 1 and 2 Samuel and assume that the readers understand [what you mean by] the Septuagint and “later prophets.”
Shoemaker, stick to your last: A magazine dedicated to the apol- ogetics we need so badly must not assume that its readers understand anything, especially in these days when our attention span can hardly last for a sound bite.
Rev. Denis O’Brien, M.M.
Dallas, Texas
Editor’s reply: If we assume anything about our readers it’s that they find themselves at different levels of sophistication when it comes to apologetics and Scripture. The excerpts we are running from Antonio Fuentes’ Guide to the Bible are elementary. They are meant for beginners, not scholars. Our readers seem to understand that, and we’ve had lots of praise of the series, some of it printed in “Letters.”
Some of our readers are quite sophisticated in apologetics, having long since absorbed the points you mention. We try to print material for them too. This means we try to put variety into each issue: elementary features plus more advanced features, something for everyone.
We already have discussed, more than once, most of the points you mention. We also have discussed, several times, how the argument you bring up but don’t address–that the traditional Catholic position amounts to a vicious circle–can be handled. (I explained this argument at considerable length in Catholicism and Fundamentalism.)
Can we make certain assumptions about our readers, or at least about a large portion of them, and “just start out with 1 and 2 Samuel”? Sure, and we did. We know that most of our readers already know, in rough form, what the Septuagint is and who the “later prophets” were; at least they know enough about those to find profit in the Fuentes series.
We have no illusions about the ignorance of the average Catholic. We see it all the time in our parish seminars. But we don’t think we need to assume in each issue of the magazine that we need to start from scratch and that all our readers are in that sad condition.
Reeling Him In…
I first learned of your organization when Patrick Madrid came to our parish and gave a talk on Mormonism. I was impressed with his knowledge of our faith as well as his knowledge of Mormon beliefs.
I purchased several books that night and have read them all. (I have to admit I haven’t read Radio Replies cover-to-cover, but the three-volume set is an excellent resource.) I also subscribed to This Rock and am usually up late at night reading each new issue the day it arrives.
I have recently changed jobs and as a result have a much longer commute. I’ve begun listening to tapes in my car to pass the time. I am developing an insatiable hunger to learn as much as I can about my faith, the Church our Lord established as his living presence on earth.
I have never written to a magazine before, but none has ever had the effect on my life yours has. I just wanted to let you know your work is having an impact on my life.
Alan J. Lane
Temecula, California
You Missed a Chance!
Appreciating your brand of humor, I was mildly surprised at your handling of the quotation by Dave Hunt from the documents of Vatican II. Hunt substitutes the word “[Rome]” for the phrase “Christ the Head in the unity of his Spirit.” I was half expecting to see the observation that Hunt makes it look like he thinks that Christ is Rome.
Joe Bauer
Santa Barbara, California
Editor’s reply: Of course, deep down Dave Hunt knows the equivalence. This is what scares him. Our advice: For the sake of his soul, let’s keep him scared.
Word from East Africa
I received a parcel of books from you. I am very grateful for these books and for your readiness to send me more. This is a very good investment for my future ministry, and it is indeed very kind of you.
We lack many theological books. Our library is stocked with Portuguese books, yet there are few Portuguese editions. Always I have fewer sources for my studies. This semester we are treating the Synoptic Gospels, sexual morality, ecumenism, canon law, and liturgy.
Aloys Nyandwi
Maputo, Mozambique
Thanks, Y’all!
Keep it up! I love your magazine. It gives me strength and backbone here in the Fundamentalist South. Your loving adherence to Rome and the magisterium is wonderful.
Paul A. Young
Dalton, Georgia
Windy City Needs Help
I am always happily encouraged by the much-needed work you are doing. The more I delve into our Catholic faith, the more I find to admire and delight me. How about some of you setting up shop in Chicago? This area really needs evangelization and adult Catholic education. You have a solid supporter in me, and my prayers are always containing petitions for the extension and productiveness of your holy work.
Elizabeth Larsen
Skokie, Illinois
Editor’s reply: We’re not ready yet for branch offices. We agree with you: Chicago needs apologetics–and so do Phoenix, Minneapolis, Hartford, Savannah, Austin, Denver, Miami, San Francisco, Albany, Boston, Sioux Falls, Memphis, Oklahoma City, Boise, Honolulu, Anchorage, Seattle, Baltimore, Portland (both), Augusta (both), Atlanta, New Orleans, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Richmond, Reno, not to mention Anaheim, Azusa, and Cucamonga, plus any other dot you can find on a Rand McNally map.
C & L Apologetics
Like all apologists, I often have to provide an apologetic for apologetics. Many people emphasize the will so much that they will not admit that the mind plays a role in conversion. This attitude is contrary to Catholic teaching, which recognizes the mind’s role even if it is less important than the will.
A great example of a successful Catholic apologetic is a religious movement from Italy, Communion and Liberation. It is a huge movement of orthodox Catholic young people. Since Italians, especially young Italians, are not known to be very religious, Communion and Liberation has been a miraculous flowering in a desert.
In the organization they study carefully the works of the founder, Msgr. Luigi Giussani. These works are basically apologetic in nature. I have read parts of only the first one, The Religious Sense, but it is little other than apologetics.
Communion and Liberation’s enormous success in Italy can teach us something about the power of apologetics, mixed with a friendly community to spread the Catholic faith. Msgr. Giussani’s writing has a lot of good arguments that are particularly relevant to dealing with atheists and agnostics.
Richard Bruce
Davis, California
A Habitual Smile
Just a note to tell you how delightful I find Jeff Harris’s humor. It is rare that a cartoon can evoke audible laughter from me when I am quietly reading alone. His cartoons can keep me chuckling for several days. His July cartoon was especially appreciated because I am one of those “weird” habited nuns.
A Nun in Habit (All the Time)
St. Louis, Missouri
Adventists = Albigenses?
Recently a friend, concerned about my allegiance to the Catholic Church, loaned me a book to read. It is The Cosmic Conflict, previously titled The Great Controversy, by Ellen Gould White, and it is intended to set me straight on the Catholic Church.
I am not one to shrink back or take offense at such actions. Rather, I am quite amused. As best as I can figure, the reason that groups such as the Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and other anti-Catholics take such a strong and hateful position against the Catholic Church is: How else do they justify their own existence?
They deny the pope’s authority and infallibility because they claim those for themselves. If any of them would admit that there was any amount of truth in what the Catholic Church teaches, how could they excuse themselves?
Chapter 6 in this book, “Two Heroes Face Death,” says, “Thus Rome decreed that the light of God’s word should be shut up in darkness. But heaven had provided other agencies for the preservation of the Church. Many of the Waldenses and Albigenses, driven by persecution from their homes in France and Italy, came to Bohemia. Though they dared not teach openly, they labored zealously in secret. Thus the true faith was preserved from century to century.”
Mrs. White claims that the Waldenses and Albigenses preserved the true faith. What does this say for the Seventh-Day Adventist Church? I wonder how many of its members really know what these two heretical group really taught? I asked my friend about this, and he says that Mrs. White was referring to the sabbath, not all that other stuff that these heretics believed. Now do we conclude that if you keep the sabbath, nothing else matters?
I will stick with the authority that God established.
Henry Ratcliff
Augusta, Kansas
Let’s Be Offensive (Nicely)
The first prerequisite to effective apologetics is for Catholics to know their faith. It should be obvious that most Catholics do not know their faith well enough to be successful in apologetics. Not only does ignorance make Catholics incompetent in defending their religion, but it makes them vulnerable to falling for non-Catholic ideas.
The second prerequisite is to learn what Protestants and others believe. We see that most of the leaders in apologetics today are converts from Protestantism. They are familiar with how Protestants think, and they understand the questions and objections Protestants have.
The third prerequisite is to learn the basic arguments to defend the Catholic religion against stock questions.
But apologetics is not enough. It is defensive. It will make Catholics stronger in their own faith, but it does more to evangelize Catholics than to convert Protestants. Apologetics as it exists today in North America is defensive. We Catholics need to go on the offensive. Protestants, as their name suggests, protest. They protest against the Catholic Church and against rival Protestant factions. We “apologize” for our religion while they “protest” it.
The time has come for us to experiment with protesting their beliefs.
Protestants like to teach that Catholics do not believe in salvation by grace. We defensively counter that Catholics have always believed in salvation by grace. That simply justifies your being Catholic. It doesn’t put any pressure on the Protestant to convert or change. Here is a possible counterattack:
“I have answered your objection that Catholics think they are saved by works and not by grace by explaining that the Catholic Church always has taught that we are saved by grace. Protestantism teaches that you are saved by grace, but in reality you base your salvation on works–your accepting Jesus as your Savior, your faith, your doing the two-minute sinner’s prayer. You earn your salvation by your act of faith, your inviting Jesus into your life.”
In other words, we need two sets of stock answers: defensive answers that will clarify what we believe and why, offensive answers that strike at the very issues Protestants raise.
If the Protestant raises the issue of the papacy, we should be able to defend the papacy, but, having done that, we should be able to point out the absurdity of a position which makes every Protestant a pope.
We have approached apologetics like people who are boxers. We are learning to duck and block, but we need to learn a judo-style apologetics that uses the momentum of the attacker against himself.
Tom Anderson
Brookings, Oregon
Solving JW Problems
A friend has been bothered by an outspoken Jehovah’s Witness here and could not make a reply to his arguments. I gave my friend your tracts on the Witnesses, and he read them. The next time I saw him he had a big smile on his face and said, “Robert, there is no basis at all for JW thinking!” He was much relieved as this Witness was causing him to have doubts about the Catholic faith. The Witness is an ex-Catholic. Almost every day he stands out on the [prison] yard pushing their books. Each book is a different color, so as to attract more attention. Even then, he doesn’t attract a large following.
Robert DesJardins
San Luis Obispo, California
“Name It and Claim It”
I found the article by Frank Sheed, “What Spirits Are and Aren’t” [May/June 1992], very interesting. It struck me as I was reading that a statement made by Sheed might sum up what the “name it and claim it” crowd believes: “But the materialist had said that thought is material . . . .”
I had preached for many years this dangerous doctrine, and it seems to me that this is exactly what I was saying–that since I was thinking (praying) for a certain thing, the Lord would come through because I was materializing what I was praying for in my thoughts. Then it struck me that if this is the way a person is thinking, he can’t claim to be a person of faith because we have faith in things “not seen.”
Like I said, I had preached this doctrine for many years. Thank God I have found the truth. This horrible doctrine has ruined many lives, including mine, and it has taken me years to get over it. In my own life, when it didn’t work I became angry with God and turned my back on him and for many years walked a sinful path that hurt many lives. These things I will gladly spend a long time in purgatory for.
I am a secular Franciscan and am working on setting up a small community of Franciscans in the Kansas City area. Right now there are three of us. Our goal is personal growth in the Lord in union with the chair of Peter, hence our name, Franciscan Pilgrims of St. Peter.
One of the things we are interested in is apologetics. I want to spread the gospel to fallen-away Catholics and our separated brethren. The opportunity in Denver would be a wonderful way to start a learning process that we can carry on here. We are also going to San Antonio soon to walk the Mission Trail for the reparation of our sins and the sins of San Antonio.
Roger Harsh
McLouth, Kansas
Communion Diplomacy
I’ve belatedly caught up with Karl Keating’s account of his journey to Rome to see the Pope [May/June 1992]. One morning he found himself with two Protestant families in an anteroom to the Pope’s private chapel. Keating assumed lay “protocol duty” to set at ease these American guests soon to be ushered into Christ’s holy banquet.
He explained ahead of time that non-Catholic participation in Communion would, in effect, signify submission to beliefs not held by Protestants.
I once reacted with less Christian diplomacy in similar circumstances. An elderly Anglo-Catholic lady was placed in my care beside me in a front pew of an interdenominational chapel used by locals of a mountain-girt community. As I heard the dowager’s spritely Mass responses matching my own, I anticipated that she would rise to follow me forward to receive Communion. I whispered directly to the point: “Only we Catholics are welcome to receive Holy Communion consecrated by a Roman Catholic priest.”
Maggie Blazevic-Monteverde
Auburn, California
A Method That Works
One very effective method I have used on “Bible Christians” is to ask them if they have heard of “apostolic Tradition.” To this question I get a number of answers, none of them satisfactory.
Then I set them up as follows. I say, “I know you are familiar with Paul’s epistles and how he admonishes his recipients to straighten up, to keep up the good fight, to stay the course. Are you aware that we have nothing in Scripture of the original text that Paul used when he first evangelized them?
Where are the writings that Paul used in Iconium, Lystra, Bithynia, Troas, Philippi, Thyatira, Crete, and other places he evangelized on his three trips? We have epistles that tell us he did evangelize there, but nothing of the materials he used. The answer is: apostolic Tradition.
Ernest L. Trevino
Rancho Cordova, California
I Want to Understand
I was a Fundamentalist for about ten years, but I have since found a lot of differences between what the Bible teaches and what my former churches taught. I don’t know what I am now, particularly after reading Catholicism and Fundamentalism and Thomas Howard’s Evangelical is Not Enough. Both sent me into a tailspin. I guess the Catholic doctrine that gives me the hardest time is the veneration of Mary. I don’t reject it anymore, but I would very much like to understand it.
Lisa McKenzie
Vancouver, Washington
Shazamm!
Our holy confessor, Fr. Michael Sreboth, gave us a real surprise last Saturday when he arrived for his bimonthly Mass carrying a large box from Catholic Answers. It contained back issues of This Rock, tracts, catechisms, other books, and audio tapes. We were like kids at Christmas!
When I became a Catholic here in prison in 1989, not a one of our current friends was known to me. I still wonder where they have come from. We have so many friends that we have begun a newsletter, Prisoners of the Perfect Prisoner, which we send you monthly.
I hope you don’t mind, but I intend to put a rather good plug for you in the October and November issues. There are many worthy apostolates in the Church throughout this country. As the pendulum swings back toward the center of orthodoxy we will see more come into being. I am of the firm opinion that the single greatest apostolate in America is Catholic Answers. Please know with moral certitude that we remember you in our daily rosary intentions and in the Divine Office. Please remember to say a prayer for us when you next visit our Lord in his earthbound prison.
Russell L. Ford
Union Springs, Alabama
Thanks For Being Late!
I just have to tell you what a fabulous publication this is all the way around! Not only is it a great resource to educate and inspire me in defending my faith, but it entertains me and the timing is always perfect.
Being busy trying to keep up with school, work, and a social life, I am always running behind. I just received the October issue of another magazine, and I’m barely used to it being September. This really throws me off. It’s truly a pleasure to be receiving my August issue now, while I’m catching up with my August activities.
Susannah Brown
Seal Beach, California
Editor’s reply: One of our key sub-apostolates is to Catholic procrastinators, who believe the “forgotten virtue” is “Never do today what you can put off until tomorrow”–or, in the words of that well-known theologian Wimpy (Popeye’s friend), “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.”
We try to accommodate these good Catholics by bringing This Rock out as late as possible. We’re pleased to know this has helped you maintain your equilibrium. Let us know if you think we should fall back another month. We’ll do our best to oblige.