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.
You might want to try Google for the source as Mr. White suggests. Of course we would all do well to remember White’s advice to Matatics and not trust everything we read on the internet.
I guess saints and Emmerich aren’t worthy of discussion as White tells us in his lengthy response. This is odd given the near obsessive attention he has devoted towards Emmerich in the past. Afterall, it was on his blog. I suppose that isn’t saying much though considering that the bulk of his entries are simply virulent diatribes from Calvin preaching hate towards the “papists”. So much for “substance” and “meaningful discussion”.
Thank you Mr. Akin for your continued example of Christian truth and charity even if the other side is rather reluctant to rise above the empty rheotric.
Wow. “And now you know… the rest of the story.”
Have you ever thought about putting a section on the forums.catholic.com that posts the responses that he claims you have not given? It would be nice for those of us who jump into the middle of the fray to be able to debunk James’ claims that you have not responded to this or that.
It would appear that Mr. (or is it Dr.?…:-) ) White has a response to this post up at his blog. Sorry, no permalinks.
So let me get this straight. Here are some things James White apparently believes:
1. In Catholic usage, a “saint” is someone who goes straight to heaven without passing through purgatory. (Not someone who is in heaven, or someone who is in heaven who led an exemplary life on earth, or someone who is venerated by the Church and/or officially declared to be in heaven. The key, apparently, is escaping purgatory.)
2. In Catholic belief, you go straight to heaven without passing through purgatory by having “more merit than temporal punishment upon their soul at death.” (Not by having NO liability to temporal punishment.)
3. From this it would seem to follow that purgatory is for those with “more punishment than merit.”
4. Temporal punishment (not liability to temporal punishment) is something that is “on one’s soul.”
Don’t forget that Emperor Karl I of Austria-Hungary will also be beatified on that date.
He seems to also believe that your first name is “James” =).
Here are two sources for that claim about Emmerich:
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=29863
http://www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=54439
White’s response to Jimmy’s post is truly sad. Some all too obvious rebuttals:
WHITE: He takes umbrage to my statement that someone might have “more merit than temporal punishment upon their soul at death.”
ANSWER: No, he takes umbrage at the statement that (a) to have “more merit than temporal punishment” sends one past purgatory and straight to heaven, and (b) that this is the meaning of a “saint” in Catholicism. Neither assertion has any basis in fact.
WHITE: OK, how much different is that than this statement: “Third, In order to gain the full effect of a Plenary Indulgence, it is also necessary to have a perfect repentance, and sincere detestation of all our sins, even the least venial sin; because, as the punishment of sin will never be forgiven, while the guilt of it remains in the soul, and as a sincere repentance is absolutely required for the remission of the guilty; therefore, this sincere repentance must precede the remission of the punishment.” “In the soul” or “on the soul,” is there some magic difference?
ANSWER: There are several obvious and highly relevant (and not in the least “magic”) differences between this quote and the comments criticized in White’s post, none of which relates to the irrelevant “in the soul / on the soul” variation White strangely calls out. Here are some:
(a) White speaks of PUNISHMENT being on the soul; this quote speaks of GUILT being in the soul. Does White think that guilt and punishment are somehow interchangeable concepts? Or does he think that must be another “magic” difference?
(b) White says that having “more merit than punishment” on the soul at the time of death makes one a saint and gets one straight to heaven without purgatory. This quote talks about both guilt and punishment being removed, not about them being outweighed by one’s merit.
(c) Also, this quote is not about the requirements for sainthood, but the requirements for receiving a plenary indulgence, which will certainly make a saint out of you if you die while enjoying its benefits, but is not a prerequisite to being a saint, and does not go to the definition of sainthood.
WHITE: Next, he ignores the fact that I am talking about one use of the term “saint” to explain to my audience something about the process of canonization and basically demands of a few sentences the fullness of an encyclopedic entry… 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 so as to make the Emmerich situation understandable to those who have no background in why the Pope is doing what he is doing.
ANSWER: White implies that there are two Catholic uses or usages of the term saint, one meaning “a person who goes straight to heaven without passing through purgatory,” and one meaning “a person who is cleansed in purgatory and then goes to heaven.” Wrong. Those are two ways that someone becomes a saint, but there is no distinction in Catholic usage differentiating the two groups of people.
Defining “saint” in Catholic usage as “a person who goes straight to heaven without passing through purgatory” and then saying “I wasn’t talking about the usage that relates to people who are cleansed in purgatory and then go to heaven” would be like defining a “homeless person” as “someone who has never owned a home” and then saying “Of course the term is then used of people who owned homes but lost them, but I wasn’t talking about that usage.”
There is NO DIFFERENCE OF USAGE in “homeless person” relating to how one came to be homeless, nor is there any difference of usage in “saint” depending on how one came to heaven. There is no Catholic usage of “saint” that means “a person who doesn’t go to purgatory.” That usage does not exist. White screwed up, plain and simple, and true to form he can’t admit it.
BTW, as for Jimmy “demanding of a few sentences the fullness of an encyclopedic entry”: No, just the level of accuracy that can be expected from a single sentence. Had White defined a saint as “a person who is in heaven,” without adding the bit about not going to purgatory, Jimmy wouldn’t have faulted him, and look, I did that in six words. No encyclopedia entry required.
Catholic Exchange ran the story..
http://www.catholicexchange.com/e3news/index.asp?category_id=117&article_id=161117
So what is the point of this post? That James White doesn’t make an effort to accuratly understand Catholic doctrine?
Mission Acomplished.:-)
Somebody should send James White a quarter so he can buy a clue.
Jimmy,
perhaps you should address the issues that he raised concerning the Greek in John 6:44 and the exegesis he offered for James 2. Both of these things have apologetics value – especially for Catholics (like me) looking for answers to the exegetical problems men him pose contra the Catholic position.
Is the exegetical prowess of Protestant apologists really head and shoulders above that of their Catholic counterparts? I am tired of seeing the claim, maybe it’s time to answer it.
I hope you get the time, Jimmy.
Keep up the positive tone and the good work!
IC XC
Chris
Is it not frustrating that JW’s blog doesn’t allow a way to make comments like this one? I think he might be surprised to see how many Catholics read his nonsense (since he made the assertion that we wouldn’t bother reading his blog).
I second the comments regarding your civil, positive, and non-sarcastic tone, Jimmy. It just seems so much more “Christian,” don’t you think?
Jeff
+AMDG+
It is no wonder Mr. White refuses to face Mr. Akin in a debate (again)… Mr. White gets pummeled even on his home web log…it is a good thing Mr. Akin has a broad swath of charity in him or else Mr. White could be taken out like yesterday’s garbage…
Jeff wrote:
: Is it not frustrating that JW’s blog doesn’t
: allow a way to make comments like this one? I
: think he might be surprised to see how many
: Catholics read his nonsense (since he made the
: assertion that we wouldn’t bother reading his
: blog).
With all due respect to Mr White, I think this is disingenuous. White does not want to allow comments on his blog because he doesn’t want to give people who disagree with him a forum for deconstructing his rhetoric on the fly for all his readers to see. The claim that he thinks Catholics don’t read his blog is the opposite of the truth: He knows Catholics would flood his comment page with rebuttals and counter-arguments… and perhaps some of his faithful fan-readers would find some of their comments troubling.
Jimmy isn’t above allowing some disagreement with him in his comments boxes.
I think having comments boxes is a plus overall, even though there’s spam and trolls to deal with.
I’ve learned from Jimmy. Maybe he’s learned from me and other commenters.
Mr. White would, I think, benefit himself and his readers by allowing for some sort of interchange.
The Bottom Line:
The point of this retoric from Mr White is for one purpose and one purpose alone. To perpetuate his self proclaimed position of ‘Dragon Slayer’ of all Catholicism.
His numerous debates and challenges all point back to this image and lets face it, it’s how he brings home the bacon.
He isn’t concerned about Truth. I personally believe he knows what the truth is but that would undermine his personal kingdom which he’s worked so hard to build.
tim r
+<><
$0.02
If you can’t be trusted to get the little things right, why should you be trusted with the big things?
Refutation of White’s proclaimations on sainthood is very instructive. He obviously knows this. To question why Mr. Akin would spend his time on such a “small issue” was not the right tact for a person who is in the business of trying to convince other people that he is right about the isssues of Christianity.
Mr. White, if you are reading this, I highly recommend that you remove that last post. (It makes you look REAL bad.)
To all those James White bashers out there (not you, Jimmy):
People are complicated. Mr. White may have his problems but consider this note he justed posted over at Mark Shea’s blog under the heading James White Does a Good Thing:
“OK, in a burst of ecumenical good will, I shall publicaly announce that I read Mark Shea’s blog daily and truly enjoy it. What is more, I had already confessed this to David Palm and Steve Ray. Some may remember an article Robert Sungenis and I wrote about the fact that we can oppose one another with great fervor without seeking the personal destruction of the other (that detente didn’t last long in that particular case), but I believe that with certain apologists, and especially with Fr. Mitch Pacwa, this attitude has been illustrated to work in the “real world.” I applaud the breadth of Mark’s culling of interesting articles and notes, and benefit thereby.”
http://markshea.blogspot.com/
And read Shea’s remarks about White and his debate with Barry Lynn.
“Remind people of these things and charge them before God to stop disputing about words. This serves no useful purpose since it harms those who listen. Be eager to present yourself as acceptable to God, a workman who causes no disgrace, imparting the word of truth without deviation.” 2 Tm 14-15
I’ve read White’s response and it’s a terrible one. Also, I have the book “The God Who Justifies”. It’s not as great as he pretends it to be.
I’ve read White’s response and it’s a terrible one. Also, I have the book “The God Who Justifies”. It’s not as great as he pretends it to be.
What struck me as odd was White viewing Jimmy as the one who created the situation that put his competence on the issue of Catholicism into question. White was the one holding himself out as competent to explain the Catholic notion of sainthood, and being who he is, he has to expect that if he screws up in any detail at all, he is going to get excoriated by Catholics. Even worse, in complaining about Jimmy’s response, he actual repeats a mistake on which he was already corrected. White says in his reply:
“All I was explaining is that a person who is judged to have ‘extra’ merit beyond what is needed in light of their sins so as to be considered cleansed and ready for entrance into God’s presence, does so without entering purgatory. Is this not the case? Yes, it is, so why play games?”
Not only is it not the case, Jimmy actually said specifically that it was not the case and why it was not the case! Jimmy said:
“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.”
What is incredible is that this is actually the same error that was repeated in White’s last response to Jimmy, when he said:
“But to say that Paul would have agreed with the idea that the initial experience of salvation (which Akin would identify with baptism anyway) is by grace alone while later ‘elements’ can be made synergistic (and determinative of final glorification through synergistic cooperation) is to demonstrate why I have said so often that the Roman Catholic who is faithful to the magisterium finds it very, very hard to honestly deal with the text in a fair, hermeneutically sound fashion. But in direct opposition to Akin’s false assertion that it is ‘not the kind of salvation we are now receiving…or the kind we will one day receive,’ for Paul there is only one kind of salvation: that which is all of grace, from start to finish, and stands opposed to human merit at each and every point.”
Yet again, I would love to know where White dug up this bizarre idea that Catholics believe in some sort of hybrid salvation process in which some parts are by grace alone and some are not. “Synergistic” actions (in the sense that White is using the term, which isn’t the Biblical sensein which Jimmy uses it) have absolutely no bearing on salvation. They may have a bearing on temporal punishment (supererogatory works), but they relate not one whit to salvation per se or to glorification. Even if White doesn’t believe that there is a difference between temporal and eternal punishment, he ought to at least have the basic competence to recognize that Catholics do.
“What is more, I had already confessed this to David Palm and Steve Ray…”
James White confessed?
Too bad a priest wasn’t present to give him absolution. 😉
Very nice job Jimmy. Bravo!
can’t we all just get along – or bash on on other people we all hate
You rip on James White’s definition of saint, “. . . (i.e., a Christian, called and holy not because of what we have done, but because of what Christ has done for us), . . .”. But his point was not that there aren’t saints outside of the Church age, but that all (true) Christians are saints. You tear into him with a heavy attitude, as though you’ve caught him on something, when your examples didn’t disprove that all (true) Christians are saints. The statement: “All Christians are Saints,” does not logcally imply: “A Saint is a Christian.”