Father John Hollowell
Hear the video before reading my comments, these are very "in context".
Generally he gets theology right, a few points on pastoral and Church history and wording:
- 1) What the guy said, Prots have been saying for centuries.
- 2) There is a Catholic answer to it, and it does NOT go "sure, have a good day"
- 3) St Paul provides the correct Catholic answer ("ye have not many fathers in Christ")
- 4) Your attitude is at best a polite version of "buzz off", which a layman can afford
- 5) But at worst, as when given by a priest, since he normally is responsible for saving souls (and presuming you were in no hurry to bring a dying man the Sacraments), it might stand for "thy words are folly, thou fool". Now
- a) there is a threat of Gehenna on that [i e on "thou fool"]
- b) St Augustine says thereon (as per Catena Aurea) "that is, to one's brother and without reason"
- c) but a Prot uttering centuries longstanding Protestantism, a priest has no reason to call him a fool, but rather to explain why that Protestant tradition objectively (not necessarily subjectively in that subject!) amounts to folly.
As a layman, I am perfectly in my rights to say "have a good day" simply as "look here : I have a life" and being a lay apologist does not deprive me of that right.
I may do apologetics on the topic, but have no duty to do them to each passer by.
OK, you have done some reparation by making the handout.
Hope it gets around in town to that man too.
- II 6:27
- Your résumé of Calvinist / Baptist etc. heretical attitudes on "call no man father" and "this is my body" is basically correct. But not of their take on Matth 16:16-19 (where last verse is often omitted). Church to them is not metaphorical, just invisible (despite "a city built on a mountain") and "this rock" to them means Jesus or Confession of Peter, rather than Peter as a person. Still wrong. Won't fit 19. But not metaphorical.
Correction - when you said the following words, I do recall hearing things like Church not meaning a literal building like the Vatican Basilica of St Peter.
When confronted with that I reply we don't believe He meant a Church building of stone either, but the community of the faithful.
BUT you might have found out a bit better than I what they actually mean by the phrase in that connexion, so your résumé might be correct.
THEN, a very minor point, Calvinists / Baptists / etc. might be most non-Catholics or non-Catholic "Christians" where you are, but not in world wide stats. Half Christians = non-Catholics. Third of those = Orthodox. Third of remaining two thirds = Anglicans, who might also use "father". Or "reverend".
OK, you might be right there too, since 1/3 + 1/3*2/3 = 0.407407407 ... leaving more radical Prots (Lutherans are less radical but just 1%) in majority among non-Catholics.
- a) 7:53
- "who decides for you which statements of Jesus were literal and which were non-literal?"
Bible and Tradition, accessible by Magisterium of the Centuries.
Not Magisterium at present and Magisterium at present, accessible by Magisterium
over the Centuries[at present].
This does not mean no Magisterium of the present exists. But it means whatever claims to be such has to hold water as tested by the centuries.
Putting the question as a "who" rather than a "what" question is potentially misleading about nature of controversy.
Catholicism is not about "Pope Michael" or "Pope Francis" or "Pope Alexander" (one US, two Argentinians) per se, it is only about them insofar as one better or as one worse than others represent Bible and Tradition as accessible by Magisterium of the centuries. And of course a Prot would also have a principled answer, even if it hid an actual person he was trusting: "let Scripture interpret Scripture".
- b) 10:31
- Very good point about Tradition!
You are aware, that though collectively neutral/undecided on literal meaning of six days, as either 6*24 h. approx. or one moment, they are UNANIMOUSLY against Old Earth ideologies already extant then (Egyptians and Babylonians considered the world 40.000 years old or more), and though collectively neutral/undecided on form of earth, they are unanimously for its non-movement, daily as yearly?
However, I was misled by your calling this a "who" question. To me it is a "what" question.
- c) 11:09
- Excellent point on Reformers!
The Prots have a real "who" when they think they have a "what". They say "Scripture interprets Scripture" but add that "Martin Luther" and "John Calvin taught to let Scripture interpret Scripture."
However, the Reformers had a "what problem" in the days of Valla discovering how Medieval understanding of Pagan Rome had been faulty. Both because of parallels to Catholic practise (in of themselves unmeaning externals) and because of example he set as correcting a thitherto unanimous understanding of what went on in e g 1:st Century A.D.
- d) 11:23
- - Martin Luther did NOT deny literal real presence.
He did deny transsubstantiation was an effect of the priest's words during Mass, and he did deny extent of real presence from those words on, and he preferred consubstantiation, bread still being there. It was Zwingli who denied real presence of Body and Blood.
There was a dispute between Luther and Zwingli on this.
Bucer - reformer of Strassburg and of England - preached an Anti-Catholic Union. From him one thread leads to Cranmer and Anglicans and probably Foxe (that foxe!) too and one to Calvin, Beza, Knox.
On the Lutheran side, Melanchthon disagreed with these. That is why ma considered that in Austria Catholics were closer than Calvinists to Swedish Church. That is why I had Catholic rather than "Evangelisch" Catechism in school (Austria providing catechism according to parents' confession) and came to later in life Lutheran practise (part of teens) with a Catholic understanding on some points.
- e) 11:44
- Luther objectively deserves it insofar as this is the objective logical conclusion of his having been right on theology.
But he was as wrong on Church history as on theology and did not believe he was original, only truth had been ill expressed for centuries.
- Generally, since mentioning I do apologetics:
Great Bishop of Geneva!
Specifically, the comments here make a good post for this blog for today:
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere
- That Christ may have meant "call no man father" metaphorically, of course doesn't mean He meant nothing by it. I may have been sinning against it by taking as a kind of father figures my favourite authors (though I had the excuse of having no father at hand) during my teen age.