Apologetics Archives - Page 6 of 10

Newman, St. Catherine, and Pius X: Three papalolators.

BY: Henry Matthew Alt • June 30, 2016 • Apologetics; papacy

“What need I say more to measure our own duty to it and to him who sits in it, than to say that in his administration of Christ’s kingdom, in his religious acts, we must never oppose his will, or dispute his word, or criticise his policy, or shrink from his side? There are kings of the earth who have despotic authority, which their subjects obey indeed but disown in their hearts; but we must never murmur at that absolute rule which the Sovereign Pontiff has over us, because it is given to him by Christ.” That’s Cardinal Newman.

Mercy and not judgment on suicide.

BY: Henry Matthew Alt • May 26, 2016 • Apologetics; Moral Theology

On my Facebook wall this past weekend, we were discussing this topic: Let’s have compassion on people who commit suicide and not judge them. As is typical, someone somewhere said something stupid and merciless (in this case about a person suffering from suicidal ideation); I got wind of it; and made a post. I did no more than quote the Catechism of the Catholic Church: “Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.”

Three verses that don’t prove sola scriptura.

BY: Henry Matthew Alt • May 20, 2016 • Apologetics; Exegesis; sola scriptura

In conversations with Protestants, the topic of sola scriptura will almost always come up. According to those who are persuaded by this idea, the Bible — sixty-six, not seventy-three, books — is the sole infallible rule of faith and practice for the Church. Whatever is not specifically in the Bible, or may be logically inferred from it, is not binding upon Christians. The idea is actually self-refuting when asked this simple question: “So where is sola scriptura in the Bible? If it is not to be found there, then the teaching is self-refuting: Whatever is not in the Bible is not binding on Christians.

The definition of “common teaching” and what that tells us about Limbo.

BY: Henry Matthew Alt • April 29, 2016 • Apologetics

The fact that Limbo is “accepted generally” does not, ipso facto, take it out of the category of free opinions and place it in the category of infallible and binding teaching. It would take an ex cathedra definition to do that; and as Mr. Kukla concedes, there is no such definition. Common teaching does not bind the conscience. That is why Benedict XVI, while he was Cardinal Ratzinger and the prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, rightly said that “Limbo was never a defined truth of the faith”; and added: “I would abandon it.”

Pope agrees to discuss infallibility with Hans Kung. This is what it means.

BY: Henry Matthew Alt • April 27, 2016 • Apologetics; Papal Infallibility; Pope Francis

Did Pius V condemn Cajetan on the baptism of desire?

BY: Henry Matthew Alt • April 27, 2016 • Apologetics; Church History; Sacraments

At stake in all this is that Limbo apologists like Kevin Kukla claim that baptism of desire is only for adults on their own behalf; and that parents cannot suppply it vicariously to their children. This is the trick by which they concede baptism of desire while retaining their belief in Limbo. So it would bolster their argument if they could find a pope who condemned a statement about vicarious desire. But what’s odd is that Mr. Kukla cites no source for his claim. He does not give the name of the document in which Pius V supposedly condemned this error.

Some further responses to Limbo apologists.

BY: Henry Matthew Alt • April 21, 2016 • Apologetics

If Auctorem Fidei is a definitive, Magisterial teaching that the “limbo of the children” does exist, one naturally wonders how Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger missed it. The pope condemns the denial of Limbo as a doctrine. But I don’t pass off my denial of Limbo as a doctrine that must be held by all Catholics. If I did that, then I would be under the condemnation of Pius VI. But since I happily concede that I am writing nothing other than my own opinion, and Dr. Staudt is free to believe as he wishes, Auctorum Fidei has no application to me. (There’s an update on this in the post.)

Is doubting the Resurrection “good for Christians”?

BY: Henry Matthew Alt • April 1, 2016 • Apologetics; Exegesis

In a recent article in the Washington Post, Jacob Lupfer argues that “doubting the Bible is good for Christians.” Since the article was published on Good Friday, I suspected that the obligatory yearly scoffing at the Resurrection was afoot. Lupfer did not disappoint. The secular media is always busy at its charism of instructing Christians on how the Bible should really be read. It is not as though we inquire with the Church or anything like that; instead, we look to our prophets in the media. Several things fascinate me about Lupfer’s attempt to play prophet.

Dear James White: Thanks for the applause. You left a few things out.

BY: Henry Matthew Alt • February 22, 2016 • Apologetics

I tried to get the word to Dr.* White before he took to his Dividing Line webcast to applaud me with a literal clapping of hands. I did: I sent a tweet to him and his producer Rich Pierce on February 15. I included Mr. Pierce because the good Reformed apologist blocked me all the way back in October of 2013 after I confronted him on his utter refusal and inability to exegete the text of Ephesians 4 in any meaningful way. Though Dr.* White has concluded that I am one of the rare breed of Catholic apologists who deserves to be thanked for my honesty, I remain blocked.

Your Bible probably has a mistranslation in it at James 2:14.

BY: Henry Matthew Alt • January 20, 2016 • Apologetics; Exegesis; Good Works

In James 2:14. (Unless you read the Douay-Rheims, or the King James.) Here is James 2:14 in the NAB translation that is read at Mass: “What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? I emphasize the word “that” because it is wrong. It should not be there. Here is the same verse in the 1899 Douay-Rheims: “What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him? Notice that “that” does not appear here. But most modern Bible translations include it, or some variation.

Calvinist blogger reads James; discovers that we must do good works.

BY: Henry Matthew Alt • December 1, 2015 • Apologetics; Good Works

I was making my periodic round of the blogs in order to find out what the anti-Catholics were up to, when I stumbled across this curious post by the dauntless Mr. X. (He calls himself TurretinFan, for weird reasons of his own. I can’t speak for the poor man’s crotchets.) It seems, at first glance, to be a real snoozer of a post, even by Mr. X’s strict standard for somnolence: It is a very cursory summary of the content of James. That’s it. But in the middle of all this, Mr. X trips smack over the fact that James sure talks about works a lot. And still Mr. X thinks that James’s true subject is faith alone.

What infallibility does not mean.

BY: Henry Matthew Alt • November 24, 2015 • Apologetics; Papal Infallibility

In my years of engaging apologetics topics with Protestants, and even sometimes fellow Catholics, I have found that the Church teaching on infallibility is one of the most difficult for people to grasp. It is more often necessary to explain what infallibility does not mean than what it does, and so root out the errors in people’s understanding. For example, infallibility does not mean that the pope is without sin, nor does it mean that every utterance of a pope is infallible. A Wednesday audience and a papal interview are not infallible. The pope’s opinion of the Red Sox is not infallible.

Why doesn’t the Church infallibly interpret every verse of Scripture?

BY: Henry Matthew Alt • October 24, 2015 • Apologetics

Protestant apologists will often pose this question to Catholics: If your Church is really infallible, why does it not just interpret every last verse of Scripture for us? It has had two thousand years to do so. If it cannot do so, what good is infallibility to me? Most often they will raise this question in the context of a discussion of authority. The Catholic will say, “Without the infallible Magisterium as a guide, all you have is your private interpretation of Scripture. That is why there are so many countless denominations out there.” The Protestant will counter …

But how does the Holy Spirit protect the Church?

BY: Henry Matthew Alt • October 16, 2015 • Apologetics

As Catholics, we believe in the indefectibility of the Church — that the Holy Spirit will protect the pope, and the bishops under him, from teaching error. The biblical basis for this is Matt. 16:18, where Christ tells His disciples that “the gates of Hell will not prevail” against the Church; and John 16:13, where he says that He will send the Holy Spirit to “guide you into all truth.” But how does that happen? you ask. We can begin an answer by striking off some of the ways the Holy Spirit could do it but probably does not. The Holy Spirit probably does not strike heretics down.

Answers for same-sex marriage apologist Matthew Vines.

BY: Henry Matthew Alt • July 7, 2015 • Apologetics; Exegesis; LGBT Issues; Moral Theology

Matthew Vines, author of God and the Gay Christian—in which Mr. Vines claims to give the “biblical case in support of same-sex relationships” — recently posted “40 Questions for Christians Who Oppose Marriage Equality.” “Too often,” Mr. Vines laments, “LGBT-affirming Christians are the only ones asked to explain and defend their views. But there are many pressing questions that non-affirming Christians frequently do not address.” Oh, well, then! These questions have never been answered before! Let me correct this oversight.