Category: Non-Catholic Apologists

While reading James White‘s responses to Karl Keating’s August 23rd e-letter, I came across a strange assertion in White’s follow-up "Even When I’m Wrong, I’m Never Wrong"-response. Setting aside the question of the merits of White’s critique of the e-letter, since that boxing ring is already occupied, let’s look at White’s defense for his error in calling Benedict XVI by the name of Boniface:

"I notice a few folks out there who are extremely excited and happy that when I quickly put together a response to Karl Keating on his ridiculous attack upon John MacArthur that twice I referred to Pope Boniface instead of Pope Benedict. Ignoring the substance of what I wrote and focusing solely upon mixing two artificial names (shall we just call him Joseph Ratzinger and stop the pretension of the Papacy and its naming policy?), some have jumped on this as if it has some kind of meaning."

Setting aside also the question of whether White should have thrown together an off-the-cuff response or should have more carefully considered the issue before offering a careful and measured response (or offered no response at all if he didn’t have such time to spare for the matter), let’s look at the claim that there is something "pretentious" or "fake" about popes taking new names.

The practice of a pope choosing a new name is an ancient one, stretching back to John II, who reigned in the sixth century and felt that his given name of Mercurius (derived from the pagan god, Mercury) was inappropriate for a Christian leader. We could even cite biblical support for the practice if we note that Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter (cf. John 1:42). While this doesn’t directly support a pope choosing his own new name, it does show that taking on a new name is not antithetical to Christian piety or theology.

In modern times popes have often chosen their new names in order to honor loved ones, to demonstrate solidarity with predecessors, or to indicate the direction and goals of their pontificate. Thus, John XXIII chose his father’s name; John Paul I and John Paul II chose to honor predecessors and indicate continuity with them; and Benedict XVI explicitly stated that his name honored both the patron saint of Europe and a peacemaker pope, which indicated his own goals.

This isn’t simply a Catholic phenomenon. When Edward VIII abdicated the throne of England in 1936, his younger brother Albert succeeded him to the throne. The abdication had caused a great scandal in Britain, causing many to wonder about the future of the monarchy. In order to calm such fears and to demonstrate the continuity of the British monarchy, Albert chose to take his father’s name and be crowned King George VI. His choice was still fresh in the minds of royal protocol experts years later when his daughter Elizabeth succeeded him. Asked by her advisers what name she would be known by as queen, the new monarch is said to have responded "My own, of course."

My guess is that James White is not entirely ignorant of the history of papal names. Unlike sensationalistic anti-Catholics like Jack Chick, Dr. White shows some familiarity with the actual teachings of Catholicism. My guess is that he once again threw together a response without thinking through the claims he was making in the course of that response. He was likely more interested in dismissing criticism of his original sloppiness than in critiquing a Catholic custom. In short, he was more interested in proving himself right than in serving truth.

UPDATE:  Karl Keating has published his own response to James White in his August 30 e-letter.

GET THE E-LETTER.

A recent thread, now closed, on the Catholic Answers Forums caught the eye of Protestant apologist James White. One of the Catholic posters said:

"I have a lot of missionaries who come to ‘save me’ from Romanism."

Puzzled, James White responds on his blog:

“Please note: Roman Catholics can refer to ‘Romanism’ all they want. Scott Hahn has done a tape series called ‘Romanism in Romans,’ for example. No one will blink an eye. But, if I use the term ‘Romanism,’ Dave Armstrong will write a 24 page article about it.”

GET THE POST.

Not to mention that the subtitle of Karl Keating’s first book Catholicism and Fundamentalism is The Attack on "Romanism" by "Bible Christians."

So. Does James White have a valid point? Are Catholics guilty of a double standard?

No, not really.

In both the quotation of the person White quotes and in the subtitle to Karl’s book, the word Romanism is used in acknowledgment of the manner in which Catholicism is perceived by anti-Catholics. Indeed, Karl’s subtitle makes this acknowledgment explicit with the scare quotes. The Catholic poster is using the word in the same fashion but without the scare quotes.

In the case of Scott Hahn’s tape set, it can be argued that the word Romanism is used in the exact same fashion: As a play on words that is intended to demonstrate that those anti-Catholic Protestants who think the letter to the Romans is exclusively Protestant in its theology would be surprised by how much "Romanism" the apostle Paul spouts. Given Dr. Hahn’s affection for puns, as demonstrated in his many books, it is unsurprising that he would choose to give his tape set on Romans such a title.

The word Romanism can also be used by Catholics in another way: It can sometimes be used as an inside joke between Catholics who know that it is often used in a derogatory fashion by anti-Catholics. Much as some African Americans have adopted for each other (sometimes even as a term of affection!) a certain word that is highly-offensive when non-African Americans use it to refer to African Americans, so some Catholics occasionally use words such as Romanist and Romanism to affectionately tease each other.

But the fact that some Catholics occasionally use otherwise anti-Catholic words to refer to themselves or to their religion does not give license to non-Catholics to presume that the words are any less offensive or anti-Catholic when non-Catholics use such words to refer to Catholics and/or Catholicism. Just as it is common sense that a white person using the "n-word" for a black person is committing a gravely-insulting racial slur, so it should be a no-brainer that a non-Catholic using the word Romanism as a substitute for the word Catholicism is adopting a religious slur.

Language can be a very tricky thing. A sign of the mature use of language is the recognition that certain words or phrases are sometimes appropriate and sometimes inappropriate and that the duty of a polite person is to learn the distinctions and observe them — however puzzling he may personally find such distinctions to be.

A recent thread, now closed, on the Catholic Answers Forums caught the eye of Protestant apologist James White. One of the Catholic posters said:

"I have a lot of missionaries who come to ‘save me’ from Romanism."

Puzzled, James White responds on his blog:

“Please note: Roman Catholics can refer to ‘Romanism’ all they want. Scott Hahn has done a tape series called ‘Romanism in Romans,’ for example. No one will blink an eye. But, if I use the term ‘Romanism,’ Dave Armstrong will write a 24 page article about it.”

GET THE POST.

Not to mention that the subtitle of Karl Keating’s first book Catholicism and Fundamentalism is The Attack on "Romanism" by "Bible Christians."

So. Does James White have a valid point? Are Catholics guilty of a double standard?

No, not really.

In both the quotation of the person White quotes and in the subtitle to Karl’s book, the word Romanism is used in acknowledgment of the manner in which Catholicism is perceived by anti-Catholics. Indeed, Karl’s subtitle makes this acknowledgment explicit with the scare quotes. The Catholic poster is using the word in the same fashion but without the scare quotes.

In the case of Scott Hahn’s tape set, it can be argued that the word Romanism is used in the exact same fashion: As a play on words that is intended to demonstrate that those anti-Catholic Protestants who think the letter to the Romans is exclusively Protestant in its theology would be surprised by how much "Romanism" the apostle Paul spouts. Given Dr. Hahn’s affection for puns, as demonstrated in his many books, it is unsurprising that he would choose to give his tape set on Romans such a title.

The word Romanism can also be used by Catholics in another way: It can sometimes be used as an inside joke between Catholics who know that it is often used in a derogatory fashion by anti-Catholics. Much as some African Americans have adopted for each other (sometimes even as a term of affection!) a certain word that is highly-offensive when non-African Americans use it to refer to African Americans, so some Catholics occasionally use words such as Romanist and Romanism to affectionately tease each other.

But the fact that some Catholics occasionally use otherwise anti-Catholic words to refer to themselves or to their religion does not give license to non-Catholics to presume that the words are any less offensive or anti-Catholic when non-Catholics use such words to refer to Catholics and/or Catholicism. Just as it is common sense that a white person using the "n-word" for a black person is committing a gravely-insulting racial slur, so it should be a no-brainer that a non-Catholic using the word Romanism as a substitute for the word Catholicism is adopting a religious slur.

Language can be a very tricky thing. A sign of the mature use of language is the recognition that certain words or phrases are sometimes appropriate and sometimes inappropriate and that the duty of a polite person is to learn the distinctions and observe them — however puzzling he may personally find such distinctions to be.

Phillip R. Johnson, executive director of John MacArthur’s Grace To You ministry, comments on his blog about reports that payouts in priestly sex-abuse cases have topped $1 billion dollars. His premise is that these payouts prove that the Catholic Church’s claim of infallibility is false. My thanks to him for offering me the opportunity to step into the world of fisking:

"Start with the pretense of papal infallibility [of which we will not define so that you do not know it has nothing to do with impeccability]; forbid everyone in the core hierarchy of the church to marry [except, oh, say, Eastern-rite priests, Protestant clerical converts who are already married, and permanent deacons]; embrace a notion of <scare quote>‘spirituality’</scare quote> with <overblown rhetoric>the most superstitious form of sacramental externalism at its core</overblown rhetoric>; and demand that all your members blindly and reverently accept the authority of the church’s earthly leaders no matter what [and even though those same leaders deny they have this kind of absolutist, tyrannical form of authority I’ve heavily implied, make non-members blindly and reverently think such a demand is made of Catholics] — and what kind of result would you expect?" [emphasis Johnson’s].

GET THE BLOG POST.

Certainly not truth-in-advertising from non-members who presume to attempt to explain to other non-members what the Catholic Church believes and teaches, that’s for sure.

Phillip R. Johnson, executive director of John MacArthur’s Grace To You ministry, comments on his blog about reports that payouts in priestly sex-abuse cases have topped $1 billion dollars. His premise is that these payouts prove that the Catholic Church’s claim of infallibility is false. My thanks to him for offering me the opportunity to step into the world of fisking:

"Start with the pretense of papal infallibility [of which we will not define so that you do not know it has nothing to do with impeccability]; forbid everyone in the core hierarchy of the church to marry [except, oh, say, Eastern-rite priests, Protestant clerical converts who are already married, and permanent deacons]; embrace a notion of <scare quote>‘spirituality’</scare quote> with <overblown rhetoric>the most superstitious form of sacramental externalism at its core</overblown rhetoric>; and demand that all your members blindly and reverently accept the authority of the church’s earthly leaders no matter what [and even though those same leaders deny they have this kind of absolutist, tyrannical form of authority I’ve heavily implied, make non-members blindly and reverently think such a demand is made of Catholics] — and what kind of result would you expect?" [emphasis Johnson’s].

GET THE BLOG POST.

Certainly not truth-in-advertising from non-members who presume to attempt to explain to other non-members what the Catholic Church believes and teaches, that’s for sure.

CHT to the reader who sent a link to the following Jack Chick parody . . .

(Click to enlarge.)

READ THE COMIC.

James White has replied again. His latest reply is pure misdirection. It contains two paragraphs, the first of which consists of jellied sarcasm and the second of which is a renewed attempt to misdirect the audience by reissuing challenges as to what he’d like me to talk about instead of his recent errors.

These errors, one will recall, were the following:

1) White referred to “the biblical definition of a saint,” implying that there is such a thing.

There’s not.

There are several different biblical uses of the terms corresponding to “saint” (Gk., hagios, Ar. qaddish, Hb., qadhosh), and we must be sensitive to these uses.

2) White said that “in Roman Catholicism a saint is a person who has more merit than temporal punishment upon their soul at death, so that they do not need to pass through purgatory for cleansing, but are fit for the presence of God immediately.”

This is not only false, it is preposterous. In common Catholic speech, the term “saint” means either “someone who is in heaven” or “someone who has been canonized.”

The closest White comes to admitting he was wrong is when in his first reply he says:

Obviously, the term “saint” is then used of those who have been cleansed and “left” purgatory at a later time, but I wasn’t addressing that usage in explaining the basics of the Roman position [emphasis in original]

This is not an admission of error because it implies that there is a usage of the term “saint” that corresponds to the one White proposed. He thus remains in the wrong.

Suppose that I said:

In Evangelical Protestantism, a minister is a person who has more fervor than he has book learning, so that he does not need to pass through seminary for education but is fit for preaching in the pulpit immediately.

White would rightly object to this characterization, and it wouldn’t be much of a defense for me to say:

Obviously, the term “minister” is then used of those who have been eduated and “left” seminary at a later time, but I wasn’t addressing that usage in explaining the basics of the Evangelical position

There is simply is no established Evangelical usage reserving the term “minister” for those who have not gone through seminary (there might be among certain extra-snarky Fundamentalists, but I’m not talking about them), and in the same way there is no Catholic usage reserving the term “saint” for those who have not gone through purgatory. White is simply wrong and trying to hide it behind huffing and puffing and misdirection.

The reason this stings White so much is that he thought he was safe here. If you read his original post, he’s setting up a classic sneer–as he so often does–between his own “biblical faith” and “man-centered religion.” The first horn–or perhaps we should say, nostril–of the sneer is when White introduces “the biblical definition of a saint.” Here he is setting up the “biblical faith” element, with which he wishes to identify himself. The second horn–or nostril–is when he introduces his nonsense about what a saint is in Catholic theology. The content of this nonsense is meant to make Catholicism look bad as being a “man-centered religion” of “works.”

Thing is: A person only tends to sneer at others when he thinks he is on safe ground. It is thus very surprising and upsetting to have it suddenly turn out that he is wrong. The effect is like having a door pop open and bop you in the nose.

Unable to say “Oww! Okay, I was wrong in what I said, and I shouldn’t have been sneering,” White thus turns to misdirection.

I may (or may not) post a few thoughts on White’s rant-response later, but I thought I’d take a moment to answer something a couple of commenters touched on: my answering “challenges” White has issued soliciting responses on particular subjects.

My schedule is extremely busy, and I don’t have time to do a lot of things. One thing I don’t have time to do is read James White’s blog very often. As a result, I am blissfully unaware of many of the “challenges” I suspect he has made to me. Most have probably quietly gone off into the nether regions of his blog archives without me ever seeing them. The same goes for his webcast, which I don’t listen to. If, as he said in his reply, he recently played comments of mine from a debate years ago and asked for clarification of them, I wouldn’t know it, ’cause I don’t listen to his show. Neither, for that matter, do I read his books. He apparently thinks that I ought to respond to something that he wrote about James 2, but as I don’t own a copy of the book in question and haven’t read it, I wouldn’t know what it is he’s referring to.

The world is a big place, and the world of ideas is even bigger. I simply don’t have the time to monitor James White’s activities on a daily basis. Since (despite my open invitation to do so) he seems unwilling to pick up the phone and actually talk to me, it’s a very hit or miss thing whether I will even be aware of challenges he may toss my way. I suspect that, for the vast majority of such challenges, I never hear about them.

So that’s one way time enters the equation.

Another has to do with my ability to respond. At any given moment, I usually have several major writing projects I’m working on for work or for myself (this blog being one of the latter), and thus even if I become aware of one of White’s challenges, there’s a real question I have to face of whether at the moment it would be responsible of me to take time away from something else just to respond to whatever it is he’s demanding a response on.

Consider, for example, his latest challenge. He wants me to respond to something that was said in a debate the two of us had something like eight years ago. In order to justice to this request, I would need to:

1) Go find a copy of the debate in question.

2) Listen to it to see what was actually said (and thus make sure it isn’t being misrepresented).

3) Try to figure out wherever it may be that White has previously explained his concern (since he doesn’t explain it here; he just alludes to having made the demand in the past).

4) Go look up and read that place.

5) Compose a response.

6) Polish and revise it to avoid the foreseeable criticisms White will make.

7) Publish it.

8) Interact with him over it later, since no matter what I say it will provoke another vehement, densely-worded, triumphalistic exposition from him about why he isn’t satisfied with the response and how this one again illustrates the inferiority of Catholic apologists (and me in particular) and the superiority of Calvinism (and himself in particular).

9) Get tired of dealing with him.

10) And, finally, quit responding again–in the knowledge that he is likely to begin demanding further clarifications on the loose ends of this exchange for the next eight years.

His demand regarding James 2 is even worse since the performance of the above steps would be complicated by the fact that, even after I located the book, I would have to read it and try to determine what in it he is referring to. That’s a very dicey proposition, and he would be almost certain to accuse me of not responding to the thing he wanted me to respond to, or not responding in the depth he wanted, or not responding with the attitude he wanted, or not responding with a proper understanding of the context in which he had written, or not responding to all the other things he’d like me to respond to.

A third way time enters the equation involves the question of prudence. Since he won’t ever be satisfied (and, as his latest response continues to illustrate, he is incapable of admitting publicly that he’s simply wrong), there’s a risk that by dropping everything just in order to respond to the latest demand by James White that you will habituate him to this kind of treatment and thus encourage a repetition of the behavior in the future, leading to a further consumption of time as the cycle repeats itself in the future.

There are also considerations besides time. One is the general frustration factor in dealing with White’s attitude. Another is the fact that responding at this juncture would reward him in his efforts at misdirection.

That is, after all, what his huffing and puffing about John 6:44 and James 2 is. He brings those up to try to misdirect the reader from the fact that I have pointed out several howling errors on his part. A responsible person would say something like, “Well, yeah, it looks like I was wrong” or even “Well, yeah, I may be wrong, so I’ll check into this more” or “I phrased myself sloppily, so I’ll try to write more clearly.” But, since White seems unable to ever admit error on his part, he huffs and puffs about context (which wasn’t in or linked in the entry) and who he was writing for, and he throws demands around about why don’t I respond to what he’d like me to respond to and thus take attention away from the errors in what he wrote.

I’m very disinclined to reward such behavior, though time is still the primary factor.

Having said all that, I’m not averse to answering specific questions if White can summon up the wherewithal to pose his questions politely and concisely, in a way that doesn’t require me to go look up lots of sources.

For example: “It seems to me that John 6:44 means THIS, but you one said something that gave me the impression that it means THAT. Did I understand you correctly, are you still of that view, and if so, why do you prefer your interpretation to mine?”

That would be a nice, reasonable way to ask. As opposed to:

So let’s compare things: I have pointed out the glaring incapacity of James Akin as a biblical exegete regarding comments he has made in public debate on John 6:44. His erroneous comments are available on the web. In comparison, Akin chooses to focus upon three sentences in a blog entry, and even then, can only ignore the offered context and insist upon fuller definitions. I’d think one of the chief figures of Catholic Answers could produce a little better effort in light of the three dozen debates we offer on Roman Catholicism and the numerous books in print relevant to the topic. Maybe Mr. Akin would like to comment on the exegesis of James 2 in The God Who Justifies that directly refutes his own claims on that passage? Let’s call Mr. Akin to a little higher standard, shall we?

Perhaps we should call Mr. White to a little higher standard as well.

I may (or may not) post a few thoughts on White’s rant-response later, but I thought I’d take a moment to answer something a couple of commenters touched on: my answering “challenges” White has issued soliciting responses on particular subjects.

My schedule is extremely busy, and I don’t have time to do a lot of things. One thing I don’t have time to do is read James White’s blog very often. As a result, I am blissfully unaware of many of the “challenges” I suspect he has made to me. Most have probably quietly gone off into the nether regions of his blog archives without me ever seeing them. The same goes for his webcast, which I don’t listen to. If, as he said in his reply, he recently played comments of mine from a debate years ago and asked for clarification of them, I wouldn’t know it, ’cause I don’t listen to his show. Neither, for that matter, do I read his books. He apparently thinks that I ought to respond to something that he wrote about James 2, but as I don’t own a copy of the book in question and haven’t read it, I wouldn’t know what it is he’s referring to.

The world is a big place, and the world of ideas is even bigger. I simply don’t have the time to monitor James White’s activities on a daily basis. Since (despite my open invitation to do so) he seems unwilling to pick up the phone and actually talk to me, it’s a very hit or miss thing whether I will even be aware of challenges he may toss my way. I suspect that, for the vast majority of such challenges, I never hear about them.

So that’s one way time enters the equation.

Another has to do with my ability to respond. At any given moment, I usually have several major writing projects I’m working on for work or for myself (this blog being one of the latter), and thus even if I become aware of one of White’s challenges, there’s a real question I have to face of whether at the moment it would be responsible of me to take time away from something else just to respond to whatever it is he’s demanding a response on.

Consider, for example, his latest challenge. He wants me to respond to something that was said in a debate the two of us had something like eight years ago. In order to justice to this request, I would need to:

1) Go find a copy of the debate in question.

2) Listen to it to see what was actually said (and thus make sure it isn’t being misrepresented).

3) Try to figure out wherever it may be that White has previously explained his concern (since he doesn’t explain it here; he just alludes to having made the demand in the past).

4) Go look up and read that place.

5) Compose a response.

6) Polish and revise it to avoid the foreseeable criticisms White will make.

7) Publish it.

8) Interact with him over it later, since no matter what I say it will provoke another vehement, densely-worded, triumphalistic exposition from him about why he isn’t satisfied with the response and how this one again illustrates the inferiority of Catholic apologists (and me in particular) and the superiority of Calvinism (and himself in particular).

9) Get tired of dealing with him.

10) And, finally, quit responding again–in the knowledge that he is likely to begin demanding further clarifications on the loose ends of this exchange for the next eight years.

His demand regarding James 2 is even worse since the performance of the above steps would be complicated by the fact that, even after I located the book, I would have to read it and try to determine what in it he is referring to. That’s a very dicey proposition, and he would be almost certain to accuse me of not responding to the thing he wanted me to respond to, or not responding in the depth he wanted, or not responding with the attitude he wanted, or not responding with a proper understanding of the context in which he had written, or not responding to all the other things he’d like me to respond to.

A third way time enters the equation involves the question of prudence. Since he won’t ever be satisfied (and, as his latest response continues to illustrate, he is incapable of admitting publicly that he’s simply wrong), there’s a risk that by dropping everything just in order to respond to the latest demand by James White that you will habituate him to this kind of treatment and thus encourage a repetition of the behavior in the future, leading to a further consumption of time as the cycle repeats itself in the future.

There are also considerations besides time. One is the general frustration factor in dealing with White’s attitude. Another is the fact that responding at this juncture would reward him in his efforts at misdirection.

That is, after all, what his huffing and puffing about John 6:44 and James 2 is. He brings those up to try to misdirect the reader from the fact that I have pointed out several howling errors on his part. A responsible person would say something like, “Well, yeah, it looks like I was wrong” or even “Well, yeah, I may be wrong, so I’ll check into this more” or “I phrased myself sloppily, so I’ll try to write more clearly.” But, since White seems unable to ever admit error on his part, he huffs and puffs about context (which wasn’t in or linked in the entry) and who he was writing for, and he throws demands around about why don’t I respond to what he’d like me to respond to and thus take attention away from the errors in what he wrote.

I’m very disinclined to reward such behavior, though time is still the primary factor.

Having said all that, I’m not averse to answering specific questions if White can summon up the wherewithal to pose his questions politely and concisely, in a way that doesn’t require me to go look up lots of sources.

For example: “It seems to me that John 6:44 means THIS, but you one said something that gave me the impression that it means THAT. Did I understand you correctly, are you still of that view, and if so, why do you prefer your interpretation to mine?”

That would be a nice, reasonable way to ask. As opposed to:

So let’s compare things: I have pointed out the glaring incapacity of James Akin as a biblical exegete regarding comments he has made in public debate on John 6:44. His erroneous comments are available on the web. In comparison, Akin chooses to focus upon three sentences in a blog entry, and even then, can only ignore the offered context and insist upon fuller definitions. I’d think one of the chief figures of Catholic Answers could produce a little better effort in light of the three dozen debates we offer on Roman Catholicism and the numerous books in print relevant to the topic. Maybe Mr. Akin would like to comment on the exegesis of James 2 in The God Who Justifies that directly refutes his own claims on that passage? Let’s call Mr. Akin to a little higher standard, shall we?

Perhaps we should call Mr. White to a little higher standard as well.

So I’m reading this blog that I seldom look at, and I notice the following entry head, which says:

Emmerich to be Beatified

“Hm,” I think to myself. “Didn’t know that.”

The bloggist continues:

Nothing really startling here. Anne Catherine Emmerich, the 19th century visionary whose book, The Dolorous Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ provided a major portion of Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ, . . .

And I’m thinking, “Well, I wouldn’t say ‘a major portion,’ but there were some elements in there.”

. . . will be beatified at a ceremony October 3rd, . . .

‘Kay. Be nice to have a source on that. ‘Cept that it seems to be this bloggist’s practice to rarely provide links–especially if it’s to someone he doesn’t like.

. . . a move which puts her on the road to “sainthood.”

Urrm. Being beatified doesn’t “put one on the road to sainthood.” There are several steps before one even gets to beatification. In keeping with the road metaphor, beatification is the penultimate stop along the road.

For those who only know the biblical definition of a saint . . .

Oop. Here it comes.

. . . (i.e., a Christian, called and holy not because of what we have done, but because of what Christ has done for us), . . .

Uh, yeah. Right. That’s the biblical definition.

So when Matthew 27:52 says that at the Crucifixion “The tombs were opened, and many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised” (NASB), what it means is that many of the Christians who died and were buried before Christ came back to life.

And when Daniel 4:13 says that a saint (or “holy one”; same word in the original) came down from heaven and appeared in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream, it means that a Christian came down from heaven.

And when, in John 6:69, Peter calls Jesus the Saint of God (or “Holy One”; again, same word in the original), he means that Jesus was “a Christian, called and holy not because of what he has done, but because of what Christ has done for him.”

Further, when Ps. 71:22 calls God the Saint of Israel (or “Holy One” of Israel; again the difference exists only at the fiat of the translators), it means that God is “a Christian, called and holy not because of what he has done, but because of what Christ has done for him.”

Yah. It’s not like there are multiple different uses of the word “saint” to be found in the pages of Scripture and we need to be sensitive to their nuances. We can speak univocally about “the biblical definition of a saint”–to be found in Book of Definitions, located just after the Book of Revelation.

But back to our bloggist, who tells us that:

. . . in Roman Catholicism a saint is a person who has more merit than temporal punishment upon their soul at death, so that they do not need to pass through purgatory for cleansing, but are fit for the presence of God immediately.

WHOA! Hold your horses there, pardner!

First off, people don’t have temporal punishment “on their soul at death.” According to a traditional articulation, a person may have a debt to be discharged after death by temporal punishment, but the punishment itself isn’t “on their soul.”

Second, if we stick with the debt of punishment formulation, a person who has any debt of temporal punishment when he dies will experience that punishment after death as part of his cleansing (except to the extent it is ameliorated by God’s grace, e.g., in response to the prayers of those on earth). The idea that if one’s merits in Christ balance off the debt of punishment then one will not experience purgatory is false. Merit and the debt of punishment are not weighed against each other like two things in the balances of a scale. They belong to different categories.

Third, the idea that the term “saint” is restricted to those who don’t experience purgatory is loopy. In common Catholic parlance, one meaning of the term “saint” is simply “someone who is in heaven.” But nobody (who knows what he’s talking about) holds that if you had to go through purgatory then you aren’t a saint. That would mean that all kinds of people are in heaven who aren’t saints because they had to be purified before experiencing the fully glory of heaven. That’s nuts.

But the official process of canonization, being made an official “saint,” is a church-based means of honoring particularly “holy” people who have passed on.

This is more or less okay, depending on how it’s taken.

The Catechism notes that “The term ‘communion of saints’ therefore has two closely linked meanings: ‘communion in holy things (sancta)’ and ‘among holy persons (sancti)'” (CCC 948). It also notes that “The communion of saints is the Church” (CCC 946).

The “holy persons” or “saints” (Latin, sancti) that belong to the communion of saints, or the Church, include those on earth. Even now there is a sense in which Christians on earth are saints. In colloquial Catholic speech, though, a common meaning of the term is reserved for those who are in heaven (whether they passed through purgatory or not). A third usage of the term is what the bloggist refers to as “an official ‘saint'”–a canonized person–and the Church does reserve this distinction (canonization) for those who lived lives of notable holiness.

Thus the Catechism says: “By canonizing some of the faithful, i.e., by solemnly proclaiming that they practiced heroic virtue and lived in fidelity to God’s grace, the Church recognizes the power of the Spirit of holiness within her and sustains the hope of believers by proposing the saints to them as models and intercessors” (CCC 828).

Nevertheless, what our bloggist has written is fraught with errors.

Due to the defects in his understanding of the Catholic theology of merit, temporal punishment, purgatory, and saints, it would have been well if he had checked a Catholic dictionary before he wrote. For example, John Hardon’s A Modern Catholic Dictionary could have set him straight on a number of points (though Hardon is not writing a technical treatise on the subject and so doesn’t offer an exhaustive account). He writes as follows:

Saints: A name given in the New Testament to Christians generally (Colossians 1:2) but early restricted to persons who were eminent for holiness. In the strict sense saints are those who distinguish themselves by heroic virtue during life and whom the Church honors as saints either by her ordinary universal teaching authority or by a solemn definition called canonization. The Church’s official recognition of sanctity implies that the persons are now in heavenly glory, that they may be publicly invoked everywhere, and that their virtues during life or martyr’s death are a witness and example to the Christian faithful.

Had our bloggist friend checked Hardon’s dictionary (or any number of others), he wouldn’t have erred so badly in the subjects on which he touches.

Unfortunately, he didn’t.

You may want to know the identity of our bloggist friend.

That would be James White.