Richard "Clueless About Converts" McBrien

Frankly, after reading Fr. McBrien's most recent column, "Converts to Catholicism" (June 22, 2007; HT: L.A. Catholic blog), I'm tempted to say that he's clueless about nearly everything having to do with Catholicism (the religion, not his book with that title). Authentic, orthodox Catholicism, that is. Then again, McBrien might say that I would only make such a remark because I am one of those former Protestants who he scoffingly describes as having "conservative opinions about religion, politics and social values," as though this is some sort of freakish, abnormal condition that can only be avoided by enlightened, progressive, post-Vatican II consultants to Dan Brown movies. McBrien manages to present, in a short column, a number of skewed notions and misleading stereotypes about recent converts to Catholicism. For example:

There were always Protestants attracted to the Catholic Church in the pre-Vatican II era for biblical, theological or historical reasons, all of which were carefully laid out in Father John O'Brien's writings. With the Second Vatican Council, however, and with the ecumenical movement which the council and the popes had endorsed, it became practically impossible to present the Catholic Church any longer as "the one, true Church" and all other denominations as awash in error and falsehoods.

And so the traditional apologetical tactics --- "demonstrating" that Catholicism alone is right, while Protestantism is completely wrong --- were generally abandoned. If Protestants became Catholics in the late 1960s or in the '70s and early '80s, it was mainly for family reasons, or because they intended to marry a Catholic, or because they had grown familiar and spiritually comfortable with Catholic worship.

In the past two-and-half decades, however, we have seen something of a reversion to the pre-Vatican II approach. Many seeking entrance into the Catholic Church today do so as an act of rejecting their Protestant past and of embracing "the truth" found only in Catholicism.

Ah, yes, the mythical, pre-Vatican "truth" of Catholicism, eradicated by the "spirit of Vatican II." And what about that old-fashioned silliness about the one true Church, happily done away with by modern exegesis and a palpable lack of faith? We can foolishly accept McBrien's descriptions of such matters, or we can turn to Lumen Gentium, a dogmatic constitution and a key document of the Second Vatican Council, which states:

This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd, and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority, which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth". This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure.

McBrien's notion of a simplistic "Catholic right, Protestant wrong" approach allegedly taken by Protestants who become Catholic is contradicted by the ecumenical endeavors of many former Protestants, including Peter Kreeft, Mark Brumley, Scott Hahn, and, more recently, Francis Beckwith, all of whom speak highly of the many good things found in (specifically) Evangelicalism, even while not refraining from frank talk about real differences that do indeed exist and must continue to be addressed with both clarity and charity.

McBrien's tell-tale mark is his open disdain for nearly everything "pre-Vatican II," unless it happens to be the thought of men such as Kant, Darwin, and Freud, as this 1996 article notes. When, in 1985, the U.S. National Conference of Catholic Bishops' Doctrinal Committee strongly criticized McBrien's book Catholicism, it noted that the book overstates "the significance of recent developments within the Catholic tradition, implying that the past appears to be markedly inferior to the present and obscuring the continuity of the tradition." A good summary, that, of the beliefs of a man whose errorneous teachings about the Catholic faith have been documented many times over (see here and here for good recent examples), even while he continued to write a syndicated column for diocesan papers and appeared on major MSM programs to bash John Paul II and Benedict XVI, as Ronald J. Rychlak pointed out in a 2005 This Rock article:

Evaluating an important homily given by Cardinal Ratzinger (who would be elected Pope Benedict XVI) shortly before the conclave, McBrien noted that the cardinal was not "campaigning for the papacy." But the reason given by McBrien was not that the future pope (like all the cardinals) knew that this was not a political process. Instead, McBrien speculated that the cardinal was simply giving up: "I think this homily shows he realizes he’s not going to be elected. He’s too much of a polarizing figure."

McBrien said several times during the sede vacante that he did not expect Ratzinger to be elected. In fact, he predicted that if the German were elected, "thousands upon thousands of Catholics in Europe and the United States would roll their eyes and retreat to the margins of the church."

Not surprisingly, McBrien did not let up following the election of Pope Benedict. He worried about the new pontiff’s grasp of the issues. "I doubt if he understands [liberal American Catholicism] as well as he should, but then whom does he speak with who might enlighten him, without giving a conservative spin to the explanation?" Presumably, McBrien would like to explain Catholicism to the Pope. Fortunately, though, the new Holy Father well understands McBrien’s theology, and he can see through its shallow dishonesty.

The problem, of course, is that many folks don't see (or cannot see) through McBrien's dishonesty, including how he distorts why and how many Protestants become Catholic. He writes:

More recently, however, high-profile Protestants and even a few Jews with strongly conservative opinions about religion, politics and social values have found their way to a Rome that one would have thought no longer exists. It is an authoritarian, triumphant, polemical, anti-Protestant Rome (non-Christians weren't even considered) that flourished during the first half of the 20th century, but which experienced a thorough updating under Pope John XXIII. He convened the council in 1962 to open the windows and to let some "fresh air" into the Catholic Church.

Bishop Sheen is no longer with us, and there is no Catholic comparable to him who functions in the same capacity. But a priest in Washington, D.C., who runs the Catholic Information Center there and is a member of Opus Dei, has been doing an impressive job of drawing fellow conservatives into the Church.

His main celebrity converts are Robert Novak, the columnist who was at the center of the controversy over the disclosure of Valerie Plame's identity as a covert CIA agent; Larry Kudlow, an on-air financial adviser; and Kansas Senator Sam Brownback, currently a candidate for the Republican nomination for the presidency of the United States.

Senator Brownback had been raised a Methodist but later joined a non-denominational evangelical church. He became a Catholic in 2002.

Conservative Protestants and Jews who convert to Catholicism, especially of the Opus Dei kind, rarely shed the religious, social and political biases they had in their pre-Catholic life. It is true of Mr. Novak and Mr. Kudlow, and it is equally true of Senator Brownback.

Shame on  Novak, Kudlow, and Co. for having biases! Why can't they be free from bias like Fr. McBrien, who displays the objectivity of a Democratic lackey and the doctrinal integrity of Rudy Guiliani. Strangely enough, from what I know, those converts take very seriously the moral and theological teachings of the Catholic Church. Why can't the same be said of Fr. McBrien, who is not only a Catholic priest, but the Crowley-O'Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame? Why does he deny that Jesus founded the Catholic Church? Why does he say the Catholic Faith is not the one true religion? Why does he describe original sin  as a "myth"?

McBrien's condescension toward converts to Catholicism is curious; it's as though he dislikes the fact that people become for substantial reasons (and, yes, for less substantial reasons). Isn't he aware that Catholicism is very much about conversion? Shouldn't he, supposedly knowledeable about the Second Vatican II, be supportive of converts and the evangelistic endeavors of the Church? After all, Ad Gentes, the Vatican II degree on the missionary activity of the Church, opens with this statement:

Divinely sent to the nations of the world to be unto them "a universal sacrament of salvation," the Church, driven by the inner necessity of her own catholicity, and obeying the mandate of her Founder (cf. Mark 16:16), strives ever to proclaim the Gospel to all men. The Apostles themselves, on whom the Church was founded, following in the footsteps of Christ, "preached the word of truth and begot churches." It is the duty of their successors to make this task endure "so that the word of God may run and be glorified (2 Thess. 3:1) and the kingdom of God be proclaimed and established throughout the world.

Fr. C. John McCloskey, III, co-author of Good News, Bad News, is consistently and often described, by those who know him, as a priest who proclaims the Gospel to all men—including Catholics. He believes in Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church, and makes no apologies for that belief. Consider this remark by a well-known convert to Catholicism:

This book [Good News, Bad News] ranks with Karl Stern’s Pillar of Fire and Thomas Merton’s Seven Storey Mountain as an indispensable spiritual road map for the perplexed, the sorely bent and the broken.I know: Father John McCloskey was my Virgil, guiding me gently and lovingly through the terrifying jungle of secular success to a place of infinite surcease – God’s grace.

The man who wrote that was not very conservative in his moral or theological beliefs prior to becoming Catholic. On the contrary, Dr. Bernard Nathanson was an abortion doctor who was responsible for 75,000  abortions.

Here, then, is one simple question: Is there anyone who has become a Catholic—loyal to the Magisterium and the teachings of the Church—because of the witness and work of Fr. Richard McBrien?

• From Protestantism to Catholicism: Six Journeys to Rome
• Answering The Call To Full Communion | An Interview with Dr. Francis Beckwith
• We Are All Called To Be Evangelizers | Introduction to Good News, Bad News,    by Fr. C. John McCloskey, III, and Russell Shaw
• Can Catholics Be Evangelists? An interview with Russell Shaw, co-author of Good News, Bad News
• Evangelization 101: A Short Guide to Sharing the Gospel | Carl E. Olson
• Evangelization & Imperialism | Carl E. Olson
• Evangelizing With Love, Beauty and Reason | Joseph Pearce
• Thomas Howard and the Kindly Light | IgnatiusInsight.com
• Objections, Obstacles, Acceptance: An Interview with J. Budziszewski | IgnatiusInsight.com
• Why Catholicism Makes Protestantism Tick | Mark Brumley
• Surprised by Conversion: The Patterns of Faith | Peter E. Martin
• The Source of Certitude | Epilogue to Faith and Certitude | Thomas Dubay, S.M.

Comments

[Nancy]

"Is there anyone who has become a Catholic—loyal to the Magisterium and the teachings of the Church—because of the witness and work of Fr. Richard McBrien?"

As a convert, I can answer that in one word - no.

[Sean Gallagher]

Jeff Miller over at 'The Curt Jester' ran his commentary on Fr. McBrien's column along the lines that there will be a shortage of straw soon because McBrien set up so many men made of the product.

He has a humorous point. Fr. McBrien's column is so one-dimensional, so out of touch with even a nuanced reading of the reality of the Church in America at the present (which is not, mind you, a sideways criticism of this post) that I truly wonder what is going on in his mind.

Is it a case where he has told his vision of what he would like the Church to be so often that he has convinced himself that it is actually true, whole and entire?

I don't know. But after reading a column like his, I wonder about him and am honestly concerned for him.

[Francis Beckwith]

Missing from McBrien's account is the Holy Spirit.

[telcontar]

My brother (a fledgling apologetics author) ran into a similar attitude from the Communications Director of the Ignatian "MAGiS" program for WYD2008.

Although I have to admit, Fr McBrien does point out the problem with the ecumenical movement that followed Vatican II, a failure to assert that the Church is the way to Christ.

[John Powers]

In Fr. McBrien's world, if a conservative has a deeply held belief, it must be considered a bias. If a "liberal" has a deeply held belief, it must be a fact.

JBP

[Dale Price]

There is no one with comparable visibility in the Church in America who writes with less insight and self-awareness than McBrien. No one.

To call him a "hack" is unfair to high-volume mediocre wordsmiths everywhere.

[Deacon Harold]

Nice power tie! I guess his Roman collar became a relic of the pre-Vatican II era.

[Thomas Aquinas]

Is that Karl Malden?

[Carl Olson]

To call him a "hack" is unfair to high-volume mediocre wordsmiths everywhere.

LOL! I would add: I know it's a cliche, but McBrien's columns are always bursting with cliches. Both literary and theological in nature.

[Deacon Harold]

I attended Notre Dame in the mid-80's and was influenced by McBrien Catholicism. After a few years of floundering in moral relativism, I knew that something was seriously wrong. I turned to the writings of Pope John Paul II and got back on track. I knew who Jesus was before (head knowledge) but through John Paul the Great (there was no CCC yet), I began to understand "why" I was Catholic. Over time, as I accepted the wisdom of Holy Mother Church on a deeper level, I began to fall in love with Jesus Christ and the richness, beauty and objective truth of the Catholic faith (heart knowledge).

Carl asked, "Is there anyone who has become a Catholic—loyal to the Magisterium and the teachings of the Church—because of the witness and work of Fr. Richard McBrien?" The tragedy is that a number of people (and God only knows how many) may have abandoned the teachings of the Church beacause of Fr. McBrien. "Woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed."

[deacon john m. bresnahan]

McBrien may hate the phrase, but I still love and use it at times in sermons. "The One, True Church."

[Terrence Berres]

His photo reminds me of someone. Oh, McBrien, you've done it again!

[Rick]

Richard McBrien is a talented man, he dons reddish hair, a red nose and while juggling theological issues becomes Bozo the Theologian.

[padraighh]

there once was a priest that wore suits
who didnt like cath-lic recruits
so he wrote in the paper
soz to make us ship-shaper
we'd ought to give them new cath-lics the boots

[Todd]

The protesters against McBrien strike me as overly sensitive. McBrien offers some observations--take 'em or leave 'em: he is, after all, a brother in good standing to all converts in question.

The notions that Vatican II has no "spirit," that it did away with "one, true Church," and the like are also contortions of the truth, and do little to bolster the blogger's argument.

More meat, please.

[Adam Janke]

One needs only glance at the picture of this priest to know immediately that something has gone wrong. Little more "meat" is needed for the faithful Catholic.

[padraighh]

If one were charitable one might say that
Professor McBrien is a clever rhetorician.
I think it is difficult to be charitable when the
Chair from ND seems to lack all charity.

The critism is always implied but never stated out right.
For instance,

''great Brownback became a Catholic, wait a minute -
too bad he didn't become a liberal like me.''

Jonh XXIII wanted to let fresh air in,
never mind that the Rhine group (including Ratzinger)
threw out all of his ideas of what the council would be.

This is disingenuous and a favorite liberal tactic (lie?). To claim that
Vatican II was John XXIII's work when it was not. Second favorite
tactic is to claim that there is some spirit of Vatican II
which only theologians such as McBrien can detect in the air.

Another well worn tactic of McBrienis to claim
that he is a genuine Catholic and those who disagree
(Donatism?) do so in bad faith (like Brownback, Novak et alia)
or that they are pawns of the right wing
or left wing (whatever that means?)

The truth is that there is enough meat in the stew to
make us wonder what happened to the fatted calf
that was out on the range yesterday.

[Carl Olson]

The notions that Vatican II has no "spirit," that it did away with "one, true Church," and the like are also contortions of the truth, and do little to bolster the blogger's argument.

Todd: I think you need to read both McBrien's column and my post a bit more carefully.

[Dale Price]

Todd:

Your contrarian instincts are not helping you on this one. Would that Fr. McBrien were benignly "offering observations." Leaving aside the fact that it has factual errors and is absolutely lethal to anyone with hayfever, he's clearly engaged in an act of broadbrush well-poisoning. Not very...brotherly, that.

[Sandra Miesel]

I once had the misfortune to hear McBrien speak and oh yes, he's a skillful rhetor! He had a malign gift for using true statements to draw false conclusions. By the time he ended his speech with " The Last Supper was not a Mass and Christ ordained no one," the entire audience--except me--was howling--not clapping, howling--its approval.

[Ed Peters]

Sandra, I've occasionally seen such episodes myself. They send a chill down the spine. Really, they do.

[Robert Miller]

This is an excellent piece.

The only question it leaves in my mind is: Why aren't bishops, priests and laity aggressively promoting public awareness of the Holy Father's teaching, both as Pope and theologian? This is a golden opportunity for a unifying reform of the reform (in more ways than liturgical). But I see scant evidence in everyday Catholic life that even "conservative" and "traditionalist" Catholics are remotely aware of the opportunity that Benedict's Pontificate presents.

[cranky]

I had a dream after JPII died. Fr. McBrien was elected Pope. I then became a Methodist. It was a very bad dream. Scarey.

[Caine]

That was envigorating to read. But it does serve as a reminder of how many 70's hold-overs still live in a cloud of delusion about the Church. It's not just that their wrong about the liturgy, magisterium, and basic Christology (which they are); it's also evident that they still believe the tide is sweeping their way. How can a rational person look at the theological and ecclesial foundations laid by JPII with the Catechism and 20+ years of evangelizing and believe silly sideshows like ordaining women on pontoon boats actually matter? How can they observe those orthodox labors of one pope receive further solidification through a different style and focus of the next - a man who legitimately appeals to Protestants as a biblical scholar - and think questioning the Resurrection is a fruitful endeavor?

The Catholic left is not just wrong, it's suffering the birthpangs of a bonafide Greek Tragedy! Hide the hemlock.

[Judith M.]

That's Fr. McBrien? I thought it was a picture of Lex Luther!

[Richard]

McBrien strikes me as a man whose driving belief is a profound sense of shame and guilt over the Church he nominally belongs to - perhaps driven with a desperate desire for secular approval. Everything he says makes more sense once seen through that lens; to speak of pathologies like nominalism, Kant, Rahner, transcendental Thomism or Schleiermacher is really just embroidery.

And given that, is it any wonder that identifying McBrien-inspired converts is so difficult a task? How could a man so ashamed of the Church he belongs to and at odds with so many of its basic doctrines make it at all appealing to join?

Meanwhile, it pains me in the extreme to take exception to the inestimable Dale Price:

"There is no one with comparable visibility in the Church in America who writes with less insight and self-awareness than McBrien. No one."

Dale's forgotten Dan Maguire.

But perhaps he means to say Maguire doesn't have the same visibility.

[Joseph Paul Adorable]

The Church founded by Jesus Christ in 33 A.D. is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic, Roman, Church. She does not need the approval of men, for she is the work of God.

Let us all humbly accept each other as brothers and sisters in the Lord Jesus Christ and under the leadership of the Bishop of Rome.

As Saint Ambrose wrote: "where Peter is, there is the Church: and where the Church is, not death, but eternal life reigns." (from St. Ambrose, In XII Ps. Enarratio, 40, 30).

Ave Maria!

Joseph Paul Adorable

[scotch meg]

I have personal knowledge of a man who was considering Catholicism and rejected it specifically on the basis of McBrien's "Catholicism". His wife was extremely disappointed, as she is Catholic and is raising their children in the Church. Instead he became an Episcopalian. Sad but true.

[Ben Delphia]

Many of my older friends were strong supporters of the “traditional” Democratic Party because of its positions on the working man but now they are leaving the party because of extreme liberals like Mr. McBaien. Conservatives may be drawn to the Catholic faith but the McBaiens on the far left are driving people out of their traditional Catholic votes for democrats.

[Tony Jordan]

It is not easy to write this, as I was married in a Catholic church at age 22, to a lovely Catholic lady, my three children, now all adults, were raised devout Catholics; I almost became a Catholic in the early 80's, was much involved in the Catholic Charismatic Renewal in the 80's, but could not reconcile the doctrine and dogma of Catholicism with God's Word, the Bible.

I have studied Catholicism intensly for the past 20 years, vis-a-vis the Historic, Orthodox, true Apostolic Christian faith, and I cannot fathom how such intelligent, well educated men/women, can swallow hook, line and sinker, what the Papacy presents as the 'truth.'

The very roots of Catholicism are to be sought for in the corruption of human nature, the very Apostacy which commenced in Eden and consummated in Rome.

Roman Catholicism, is a clever refined system of the ancient Babylonian 'Mysteries' all presented in the veneer of Christianised Paganism. The IDENTITY between the systems of ancient Babylon and Papal Rome, can be established if we inquire in how far does the system of the Papacy agree with the system established in these Babylonian mysteries?

All of Catholicism's sacerdotal, sacramental Priestcraft, can be one by one, identified with the ancient 'Mysteries' of Babylon; especially the 'Mother and Child' homage.

The names of utter blasphemy bestowed by the Papacy on Mary have not one shadow of any foundation in the Bible, but are all to be found in the Babylonian idolatry. The Doctrine and Discipline of the Papacy were never derived from the Bible, but, in all essential respects, have been derived from Babylon. Baptismal Regeneration; Justification by works; The Sacrifice of the Mass; Extreme Unction; Purgatory, and Prayers for the Dead; all have their origin in the ancient Babylonian 'Mystery' Religion, of crass idolatry.

The Sovereign Pontiff, priests, monks, and nuns, had their Babylonian counterparts in the "Pontifex maximus," the system, first concocted in Babylon, has been modified and diluted in different ages and countries.

Catholicism, leaving the Word of God, has had recourse to the Babylonian system. Popery is revived Paganism. Papal idolatry is, however, a more subtle and perfected system than Pagan idolatry was.

Hither, was transfered the seat of Paganism, and the Emperor became the high priest of its religion.

THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH had to endure a severe baptism of persecution from Paganism, as the catacombs at Rome today testify.

Nevertheless, Christianity spread rapidly during the first three centuries, and finally triumphed over the same empire which reckoned to have crushed it.

Dignities and wealth now flowed in upon its ministers and disciples, and, according to the uniform testimony of the early historians, the faith which had maintained its purity and vigor in the humble sanctuaries and lowly position of the first age, and amid the fires of Pagan persecutors, became corrupt and waxed feeble amid the gorgeous temples and the worldly dignities which imperial favour had lavished upon it.

THE CORRUPTION of the Christian Church henceforth, from the fourth century, continued to make marked and rapid progress.

Its Doctrine, Polity, and Worship became gradually changed, until the primitive Church sank into a christianised Paganism.

People learned to regard the clergy as a priesthood, foreign to the New Testament; the rites which they administered as the only channels of grace, and the punctilious observance of these rites as meritorious in the sight of God.

Thereby, the Gospel was obscured, and men in general did not know the truths of salvation by grace, through Faith 'Alone' as emphatically preached and taught by Paul, Peter, and the others.

The humble, anointed first century ministry of Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors and Teachers; was now replaced with a hierarchy of Popes, Cardinals, as its head.

The whole service, except the sermon, was conducted in a tongue unknown to the people, Thus everything was changed in the Church. From the six century onwards Christianity was a mongrel system, made up of Pagan rites revived and the Christian beliefs and observances still allowed to linger.

The inward power of Christianity was lost; and it was in vain that men strove to supply its place by the outward form. So far had the declension of the Church proceeded.

Conscious that Scripture and genuine antiquity gave no countenance to their assumptions, the advocates of Papal pretentions found a ready means of accomplishing their object. Pious frauds were called to the aid of the Church, i.e., "The Donation of Constantine," and the "False Decretals of Isadore" professing to be written by ancient bishops of the Chruch of Rome. Two of the most monumental forgeries ever, in the history of ancient literature; seeking to Anti-date the rise of the Papacy by five centuries, and today, form the bedrock and foundation of the Canon Law of Catholicism.

These, and a mass of other fradulent documents, all acknowledged by Catholic scholars, that essentially form the basis of the spurious so-called 'Sacred Tradition' and upon which the Papacy was deceitfully established, have been fed down the minds of the adherents of Catholicism.

No words can aptly describe what Roman Catholicism has down in in maliging, corruping, and utterly vitiating the absolute, self-authenticating authority of God's Word, the Bible, from its pure, simple Apostolic roots.

And what is heart breaking, is that we now have men, former Protestants, leaving the 'core' truth of God's Word to embrace the Paganistic Idolatry of Catholicism. But, we were warned, that this great Apostacy would happen, by Paul, "Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will DEPART from the FAITH, (Body of doctrinal Truth) giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons..." ( 1 Tim. 4:1).

No lie or deception is more subtle or dangerous, than when it is presented, couched and veneered in 'Truth' this is in fact, the masterful art of Catholicism. For the 'Jesus' of Catholicism is another (heteron) Jesus; the spirit of Catholicism is another (heteron) spirit; and the gospel of Catholicism is another (heteron) gospel!

[Carl Olson]

Roman Catholicism, is a clever refined system of the ancient Babylonian 'Mysteries' all presented in the veneer of Christianised Paganism. The IDENTITY between the systems of ancient Babylon and Papal Rome, can be established if we inquire in how far does the system of the Papacy agree with the system established in these Babylonian mysteries?

Alexander Hislop lives! However, no one who has actually studied Church history and Catholic theology takes him seriously anymore, as even his former disciples admit.

[william i. smith]

contraception is mutual mast
urbation! (mahatma ghandhi)
the world will never run out
of oil or gas as long as we
flush toilets. How is this
accomplished, avoid hell or you will find out? 3300 american customers are murdered each day by abortion!help stop it.

[william i. smith]

3300 american customers are
murdered each day by abortion! contraception is mutual masturbation! (mahatm
a ghandhi) The world will never run out of oil or gas
as long as we flush toilets.
How is this accomplished, avoid hell or you will find
out.

[Tony Jordan]

It is impossible to understand the 'heart' of Catholicism's plan of salvation, unless one has a proper grasp of her 'Mariolotry' which is in fact, when unvieled, nothing else but pure, Paganistic Idolatry; which the humble handmaiden of the Lord, had absolutely nothing to do with, nor the eternal Godhead, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Let us look at God's Word, on the blessed handmaiden, what were her last words spoken, as divinely recorded in the New Testament?

"And when they ran out of wine, the mother of Jesus said to Him, 'They have no wine." Jesus said to her, "Woman, what DOES YOUR CONCERN HAVE TO DO WITH Me? My hour has not yet come." (John 2: 3,4) emphasis added.

What Mary then says in response to Jesus, are her last recorded words in the NT spoken by her; and Catholics would do well to heed them, for they are truly instructive, potent, though concise in expression, and are entirely consistent with all that followed in His Messianic Glory, as the Second Person of the Eternal Godhead, as SOLE, Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Saviour, Mediator, Advocate, Intercessor, LORD OF LORDS, and KING OF KINGS, with the Father, in Heaven, (the Spirit realm) and mankind here on earth (the physical realm).

And what are Mary's last recorded words in the New Testament? Let us hear from God's Word.

"Whatever He say to you, DO IT." (Jn. 2:5b)

Verse 11 then records: "This beginning of signs Jesus did in Cana of Galilee, and manifested (what?) HIS GLORY; and His disciples BELIEVED IN HIM." (Jn. 2:11) emphasis added.

The use of (gunai) woman, in verse 4 by Jesus, instead of (meter) mother, which by the way is a term He never called her by anywhere in the NT, and does show her she can no longer exercise maternal authority, and most certainly not at all in His Messainic work, either on earth or in Heaven, which God's Word is emphatic on, throughout the canon of New Testament Scripture, from Matthew to Revelation.

Truth by definition is absolute, exclusive, therefore, according to the unalterable, unchangeable 'Law of Non-Contradiction' two competing 'truth claims' cannot be both right at the same time, and same place.

Of course, Catholicism resorts to eastern dislectic logic, both/and, in order to justify her contention re Mary's role in the salvation of men, that is Jesus and Mary. Yes, they admit that He is sole mediator according to Scripture, but then contrary to God's Word, they interpose Mary as Co-Advocate, Auxiliatrix, Adjutrix, and Mediatrix, which has absolutely no Scriptural warrant whatsoever, and is a logical fallacy, as not only from the 'Law of Non-Contradition' is this wrong, but is in diametric oposition to God's Word.

But, as if it were not absurd and un-scriptural enough to disregard God's Word in this particular regard, re Mary's role, they then go way beyond this un-biblical stance of co-redeemer, and actually pronounce and proclaim some of the most blasphemous, idolatrous concepts on the lowely handmaiden of the Lord, who I am sure, if she could speak to them, would weep and cringe over what Catholicism has done to her humble character, where in Luke 1:28, the angel said to her:

"Rejoice, highly favored one, the Lord is with you,
blessed are you AMONG (not above) women."

Let us look at two Greek words that the Holy Spirit used in recording this encounter of Mary with the angel.

First, the words 'highly favored' are from the Gk. (Kecharitomene) perfect passive participle of 'Charitoo' and means endowed with grace (charis), enriched with grace, the same Greek word used in Ephesians 1:6, where Paul writing the saints at Ephesus, states:

"To the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made US (those who are Saved) ACCEPTED IN THE BELOVED." emphasis added.

Which (hes) Genitive case of the relative (hen) cognate accusative with (echaritosen) (He freely bestowed), late verb CHARITOO (from Charis, Grace) in the N.T, attached to the antecedent CHARITOS, ONLY HERE and in Luke 1:28.

In other words, the same root word CHARITOO, from which is rendered 'highly favored' in Lk 1:28, is the same root from which '...made us ACCEPTED in the beloved' is translated. So that we see the same bestowal of grace given to Mary, is the exact same bestowal of Grace given to all the Redeemed saints of The Lord Jesus Christ. And these two text Lk. 1:28 and Eph. 1:6, are the only two places in the NT where this is stated.

Now, the second point from Luke 1:28. "...blessed are you AMONG WOMEN" Here we see the Holy Spirit using the preposition 'en' which means according to position, is, 'in, on, at, AMONG, within' and relationally, means, 'beside' and 'with' this is precisely why He did not use the preposition 'huper' which means 'beyong' 'over' 'above' for Mary is NOT above any of the redeemed children of God, as Catholicism has exalted and literally deified her to be, and can be found nowhere in the New Testament in such a status. All of this exaltation and deification can only be found in the un-scriptural, spurious 'sacred tradition' of Romanism.

Here is where the 'Law of Non-Contradiction' simply cannot be got around, for it will haunt you to the end, and God knew what He was doing when He created these logical principles, which He allowed Aristotle to discover, and it is a 'thorn' and will continue to be in the side of eastern dialectic logic, which Catholicism holds on to, in order to justify her BOTH/AND, JESUS/MARY, theology, instead of the absolute 'Truth' that it is EITHER/OR, that is, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, is EITHER, ALL that the Bible proclaims and declares Him to be, the ONLY SAVIOUR, the ONLY MEDIATOR, the ONLY ADVOCATE, the ONLY HIGH PRIEST, before the Father, because He is, Omnipotently, Omnisciently, and Omnipresently God, as the Second Person of the Eternal Godhead, OR HE IS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL! emphasis added, I'm not shouting at any one. You cannot have it both ways!

[michael clapp]

To Tony Jordan-- it would be good for you to read Scott and Kimberly Hahn's book "Rome Sweet Home," especially paying attention to Scott's search for a defense of sola scriptura.

God bless you.