Defending James White
A reader identifying himself as Dan writes in hope that I will swim back across the Tiber. He says:
I’m also glad that you’re on fire for the Lord. But I am sorry that you misunderstand the Catholic faith. Unfortunately, you’re not alone — the late Bishop Sheen, as I’m sure you’ve heard, said that ‘there are probably a hundred people in the U.S. who disagree with what the Catholic Church teaches, but thousands upon thousands who disagree with what they wrongly think the Church teaches. . . .’ I prayed and listened and read and thought and found that, yes, the Catholic Church is the true Church established by our Lord. Catholics don’t worship Mary. Catholics don’t resacrifice Christ on the altar. Catholics don’t violate Scripture by calling our priests “Father.” Catholics don’t believe that they can earn their way to heaven. . . . I will suggest that you check out the folks at “Catholic Answers,” including catholic.com, as well as at chnetwork.com; I think you’ll find — after more prayer and thought — more of value and truth at those sites than at the site of Mr. White. The objections I’ve seen on your blog entries are all answerable at these sites.
All right, where to begin? I’m familiar with the quote from Bishop Sheen, but I don’t believe I have misrepresented the Catholic faith. I grew up in the Catholic faith. I’ve seen the evidence of the Mary worship. Like Dr. White, I disagree that hyperdulia, dulia, and latria are fundamentally different things, which is the general explanation behind Mary worship. I addressed that topic in this article.
As to Catholics and the Eucharist, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 1366, says that the Eucharist “is thus a sacrifice because it re-presents (makes present) the sacrifice of the cross, because it is its memorial and because it applies its fruit.“ Continuing in paragraph 1367:
The sacrifice of Christ and the sacrifice of the Eucharist are one single sacrifice: “The victim is one and the same: the same now offers through the ministry of priests, who then offered himself on the cross; only the manner of offering is different.” “And since in this divine sacrifice which is celebrated in the Mass, the same Christ who offered himself once in a bloody manner on the altar of the cross is contained and is offered in an unbloody manner. . . this sacrifice is truly propitiatory.”
I’m sorry, but to say that Catholics are not re-sacrificing Christ on that altar is using the same trick of language that I refused to accept for worship (veneration) of Mary. More on that here.
Catholics believe the necessity of the sacraments for the dispensing of God’s grace, which means that you actually have to do something–participate in the sacraments–for salvation. That, to me, is the same as a works-based salvation.
I have never said that Catholics sin by calling their priests “Father.” That you included that tells me that you haven’t read my position on those matters. No one, in fact, has read either of those essays I linked to for quite a while.
Dan, I am aware of the sites that you link to. As to whether they or Dr. White are more truthful, I suggest that you check out Dr. White’s recent blog entry on this unfortunate example of dishonesty from one of your own apologists, Dave Armstrong. According to this article in the Catholic Encyclopedia, vicars are representatives with the same authority and powers granted to the ordinary in their diocese. This means that the Pope is claiming the authority and power of Jesus Christ, which is blasphemy. Christ promised that the Holy Spirit would fill that office, not a mere man. This article explains it in greater detail.
Armstrong quotes the dictionary definition of a vicar, but he knows full well that this is not the definition of vicar that is implied by the Pope’s Vicar of Christ title. That is blatant dishonesty on his part.
On which bank of the Tiber will I remain? The one that represents truth and doesn’t have to resort to name-calling and dishonesty to try to call someone a non-Trinitarian. James White has undoubtedly done more to defend the Doctrine of the Trinity than any of the Roman Catholic apologists who would be his detractors. This is the side of the river you’re trying to entice me to? No, thank you. I will stay put.
Where did I ever assert that White was a “non-Trinitarian”? This is the exact opposite of the truth. In fact, I wrote in the paper itself:
“I am not asserting that James White consciously, deliberately denies the divinity or deity of the Holy Spirit. Of course he does not. He defends the Holy Trinity . . .”
It’s highly interesting that you lie in the course of railing against someone who supposedly lied but in fact did not. Is it that difficult for you to verify the “facts” you present?
In Him,
Dave Armstrong
Where did you assert that Dr. White is a non-Trinitarian? In the title of the article itself: “James White . . . Asserts a Statement that Logically Reduces to a Denial that the Holy Spirit is God.” If one denies that the Holy Spirit is God, that would, in my mind at least, make a person a non-Trinitarian.
You assert that he doesn’t “consciously” or “deliberately” deny the divinity of the Spirit, but your article asserts that he is doing so on some level. In fact, the paragraph you quote in the above comment ends thus:
I’m hardly misrepresenting your position.
Nope. You’re dead wrong again. One can argue that the logical implications of a statement or argument leads to a position that the person himself would not agree with. In other words, one is contending that the person in question has not thought through the issue properly, so as to see that the conclusion of his argument leads to something that he himself doesn’t even agree with. I stated as much in the third paragraph:
“It’s a problem, not of theological error per se, but rather, of overzealous rhetoric, ‘pat’ answers not properly thought-through, . . .”
Indeed, this is one of the key elements of the reductio ad absurdum argument in logic. I use the argument all the time, and almost invariably it is misunderstood by someone like you who doesn’t comprehend the very form of the argument.
You write:
“If one denies that the Holy Spirit is God, that would, in my mind at least, make a person a non-Trinitarian.”
Yes, of course. But I have not stated that I think White denies the deity of the Holy Spirit, and have asserted the contrary. He is guilty of imprecise language. Now you are lying about me, and insist on doing so, despite all the evidence to the contrary. And this is standard anti-Catholic technique: anything goes where a Catholic is concerned, no matter how antithetical to fact and reason. I have plainly stated. clear as day, that I have not accused White of denying that the Holy Spirit is God.
Yet you want to keep saying that I have done so. So this means you either insist that I am lying through my teeth about my own argument, or that I am such an idiot that I don’t even know what my own argument is, and you know what it is better than i do myself.
Further down in the article, I reiterate a third time:
“I happily note again that I have not accused him of denying the divinity of the Holy Spirit, but — beyond that — he is responsible for not leaving this very heretical and dangerous impression upon less theologically-astute readers.”
Jordan Potter, one of my readers, who made this observation first, plainly stated that he is not denying that White is a trinitarian, either:
“. . . As has been made clear here, we know you believe in the full divinity of the Holy Spirit, that the Spirit is co-equal and co-essential with the Father and the Son, that the Holy Spirit fully possesses the single divine nature and divine will. What we are objecting to is your use of language that is misleading and incompatible with your Trinitarian belief. Please don’t be so proud as to dig in your heels on this matter just because this error of yours was pointed out to you by a few lowly Romanists.”
That’s now four times our viewpoint has been made clear. Perhaps you will deal with our actual argument now, rather than misrepresenting and grotesquely distorting it? White won’t, as usual, but that doesn’t mean that no one else can do so, just because he lacks the confidence to defend his positions against rational critique.