Patrick Madrid likes to avoid directing his readers to the "other side." Perhaps he is afraid his readers lack sufficient discernment to read that "other side"? Or maybe he fears that they are too discerning, for they might see that Madrid is an expert at dodging the real issues? It is hard to say. His history is long with his "anonymous hit pieces," going back to his cover-story in the Envoy magazine going after a footnote (yes, a footnote) in a CRI article I wrote, all the while never directing the readers to the actual source so they could read it for themselves. And though Madrid did not write that article, ironically, he published that piece which was written by...the same fellow he is promoting on his blog now, Fr. Hugh Barbour.

I am glad to know Madrid at least shows a small amount of awareness of the positions being stated "out here." Roman Catholic apologists show an appalling lack of concern for keeping up with what is being said in response to their claims. They really do seem to feel it is beneath them to sully themselves with the likes of those "Protestants" out there. In any case, Madrid blogged today, once again avoiding names (note how we don't avoid names?), taking a potshot at TurettinFan's comments in response to William Albrecht. As TurrettinFan notes in this YouTube response, it does not look like Madrid read the article fully. Be that as it may, it is another example of how the leading Roman Catholic apologists mislead their readers. They simply refuse to deal with one documentable historical fact: Augustine taught that the body of Jesus Christ is present in heaven, and that it is not present on earth! Do what you will about anything else, interpret any other statement as you will, the fact is Augustine did not blush to speak of the church as lacking the physical body of Jesus. A fair reading of Augustine will take this into account, but, remember, Rome cannot fairly deal with the early writers by self-imposed definition. I provide just one of the many citations of Augustine that could be offered in support of this assertion below the video.

Just one note to add. Madrid made much of his allegation that TurettinFan did not identify the "lay Catholic apologist." Of course, we have identified William Albrecht, by name, far more times than William would probably like. But the fact is, Madrid was just sloppy. Note the last paragraph of the very blog entry Madrid was responding to:

In fact, with the omitted material reinserted, the text of Augustine and his rejection of the literal bodily presence of Jesus on earth after the ascension becomes even more clear than it was before. Accordingly, I would like to thank the apologist in question (William Albrecht) for bringing this to our attention, but I would also like to encourage this apologist to focus on the fact that Augustine clearly did not view the Eucharist as providing a continued, literal bodily presence of Jesus on Earth, consistent with the Scriptures which teach...

There's the name, clear as can be. But that would have gotten in the way of Madrid making this statement:

I note with some amusement that this Protestant was at pains to avoid mentioning the name of the Catholic being responded to, referring to him only as “a lay apologist for Catholism” (this, was not a reference to me, by the way). It's amusing because this is the same group of Protestants who complained (and still do complain) that one of them was not identified by name in an article written by a bona-fide Catholic patristics scholar, critiquing one of that Protestant's more lame attempts at interpreting the Early Church. (The article appeared some years ago in Envoy Magazine, the Catholic journal I publish).

I can only chuckle at the double standards so visible among those particular Protestants. But I've come to expect this kind of thing from that crowd. And since that blogger deemed it better not to mention any names, I shall follow suit here.

Chuckle away, Patrick! The fact remains that 1) you didn't even read the entire article you were responding to, and hence are in error, and 2) that Envoy hit piece remains one of the most pathetic examples of the desperation of Rome's apologists ever put in print, and your name will always be associated with it. Any honest person who read the original article, then read Barbour's horrific response, and my refutations of it thereafter, can only shake their heads in wonder at how low the defenders of "Mother Church" will go.

Augustine (354-430): The head of the Church is enthroned in heaven, from where he rules and guides his body; and though the body is still debarred from the vision of him, it is linked to him by charity. John E. Rotelle, O.S.A., ed., The Works of Saint Augustine, Part 3, Vol. 17, trans. Maria Boulding, O.S.B., Expositions of the Psalms, Psalms 51-72, Psalm 56.1 (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2001), p. 104.

35 Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 Just as it is written, "For your sake we are being put to death all day long; we were considered as sheep to be slaughtered." 37 But in all these things we overwhelmingly conquer through Him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other created thing, will be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Dr. White is human. To those of us who know and love him, this is no surprise. We realize that he is a man, just like us, and that consequently he makes mistakes. As Alexander Pope said, "To err is human, to forgive divine." Dr. White is human and he, from time to time, errs.

In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples, 'Me you will not have always.' In this respect the Church enjoyed His presence only for a few days: now it possesses Him by faith, without seeing Him with the eyes....He left the world by a bodily withdrawal, He proceeded to the Father by His ascension man, but He forsook not the world in the ruling activity of His presence.

The Lord Jesus, in the discourse which He addressed to His disciples after the supper, when Himself in immediate proximity to His passion, and, as it were, on the eve of departure, and of depriving them of His bodily presence while continuing His spiritual presence to all His disciples till the very end of the world...." (Augustine, John: Tractates 50, 92, 102, and 118).

Instead, the quotation omitted "of departure, and" and also changed "eve" to "even."

This was a transcription error that Dr. White either made himself or failed to correct (if he took the quotation from another source). Either way, this error is an example of one of the most common kinds of scribal errors: homoeoteleuton owing to (or occasioned by) parablepsis. Those who have listened to the debate on "Misquoting Jesus" between Dr. White and Dr. Bart Ehrman (link) will know what I am referencing. This is an error where a portion of the text (in this case "of departure, and" is omitted due to the transcriber's eye confusing two similar-looking series of letters. In this case "of departure" and "of depriving" begin with the same first five letters. Thus, Dr. White looked away from the text perhaps while typing "even [sic] of dep..." and landed back on "of depriving" rather than on "of departure," resulting in the error we see. The spelling variant of "even" for "eve" could be attributed to any number of issues too, but it likewise appears to be occasioned simply by an error in typing. Perhaps Dr. White (or whoever transcribed the text) had recently been reading the KJV, which tends to prefer the spelling "even" (e.g. Exodus 12:18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even, ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the month at even.)

This error was brought to our attention by an apologist for Catholicism who identified it as Dr. White's "MISUSE" (caps in original) and "mishandling" of Augustine. He's right in saying that the quotation was inaccurate, in that it included this transcription error. On the other hand, this sort of error was really trivial. The inadvertent omission of "of departure, and" was simply a formal error, not a substantive one.

In fact, the apologist for Catholicism actually noted only the minor transcription error in the second paragraph of the quotation, but overlooked a similar instance of homoeoteleuton occasioned by parablepsis in the first paragraph it was written "In other words, in respect of His divine presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples," but the full quotation should be "In other words, in respect of His divine presence we always have Christ; in respect of His presence in the flesh it was rightly said to the disciples," (omitted part shown with underscore). Here the matching series of letters is "in respect of His [divine] presence." Dr. White, or whoever was transcribing the quotation, appears to have accidentally jumped from one "presence" to the next, and picked up at the second "presence."

We have fixed all three of these errors at the original web page where they occurred (link).

Unfortunately, however, the apologist for Catholicism by focusing on the transcription error missed the point for which Augustine was cited. Augustine believed that Christ's bodily presence was removed to heaven. Thus, although Augustine agreed that Christ's divine presence continued to be with his disciples, Augustine believed that the ascension of Jesus into heaven "deprived" the disciples of Jesus' presence "in the flesh."

What does this demonstrate?

This demonstrates that Augustine did not hold to the later medieval innovation of transubstantiation. This fact is not surprising to those who permit the church fathers to be the church fathers. This may, however, be surprising to those who imagine that the church fathers believed everything that the Vatican teaches today.

In conclusion, yes - Dr. White is human and sometimes falls into homoeoteleuton owing to parablepsis, just like any other scribe. Such changes to the text of Augustine are not intentional and do not (at least not in these cases) change the meaning of what Augustine was saying. In fact, with the omitted material reinserted, the text of Augustine and his rejection of the literal bodily presence of Jesus on earth after the ascension becomes even more clear than it was before. Accordingly, I would like to thank the apologist in question (William Albrecht) for bringing this to our attention, but I would also like to encourage this apologist to focus on the fact that Augustine clearly did not view the Eucharist as providing a continued, literal bodily presence of Jesus on Earth, consistent with the Scriptures which teach:

Matthew 26:11 For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

-TurretinFan

A visitor to our chat channel (timb) pointed out to me that John Martignoni, Roman Catholic apologist, is posting a "book" on his website. In the third chapter, found here, Martignoni demonstrates that no matter how many times to demonstrate a lie is a lie, as long as it promotes mother Rome, well, it's worth repeating! Note his claims:

Another part of the historical perspective is this: When Martin Luther broke from the Catholic Church, and started teaching the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, it was around the year 1520. By the year 1600, it is said there were more than two hundred Protestant denominations. By the year 1900, it is estimated the number of denominations was almost a thousand. And, now, in the year 2009, there are estimated to be more than thirty thousand or more Protestant denominations! Each denomination claims to be based on the Bible alone, and most claim to be guided by the Holy Spirit; yet, none of them have the exact same body of doctrine, and many, many of them have doctrines that absolutely contradict one another.

How can that be? Can the Holy Spirit - which is supposed to lead us unto all truth – can this same Holy Spirit lead different people into different doctrines – doctrines that contradict each other? No. In other words, the historical perspective shows that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura tends towards division within the Body of Christ. The lesson of history teaches us that the doctrine of Sola Scriptura has done nothing but divide the Body of Christ.

Yeah, there it is again. The 30,000+ Protestant denominations myth. We have debunked this myth in the past, fully. The claim is indefensible. So when someone repeats it, they are demonstrating that 1) they are probably simply quoting someone else, never having looked at the data themselves, or 2) they do not care enough about the truth to honestly represent the facts. I commented on this recently again here. It is truly amazing to see how errors get repeated over and over and over again. Then again, these folks follow a religious leader whose exalted position developed over time through the use of politics and fraudulent documents, and even though that is well known today, the Papacy remains, hanging in mid-air, its historical foundation washed away. Therefore, we shouldn't be overly surprised that once apologists get hold of a particular argument, they will keep using it, no matter how bogus it is factually and historically.

It is pure invention that pope, bishops, priests and monks are called the spiritual estate, while princes, lords, artisans, and farmers are called the temporal estate. This is indeed a piece of deceit and hypocrisy. Yet no one need be intimidated by it, and for this reason: all Christians are truly of the spiritual estate, and there is no difference among them except that of office [LW 44:127].
   
It follows from this argument that there is no true, basic difference between laymen and priests, princes and bishops, between religious and secular, except for the sake of office and work, but not for the sake of status. They are all of the spiritual estate, and are truly priests, bishops, and popes. We are all one body of Christ the Head, and all members one of another. Christ does not have two different bodies, one temporal, and the other spiritual. There is but one Head and one body. [LW 44: 129-130].

Now observe that when that clever harlot, our natural reason (which the pagans followed in trying to be most clever), takes a look at married life, she turns up her nose and says, "Alas, must I rock the baby, wash its diapers, make its bed, smell its stench, stay up nights with it, take care of it when it cries, heal its rashes and sores, and on top of that care for my wife, provide for her, labor at my trade, take care of this and take care of that, do this and do that, endure this and endure that, and whatever else of bitterness and drudgery married life involves? What, should I make such a prisoner of myself? O you poor, wretched fellow, have you taken a wife? Fie, fie upon such wretchedness and bitterness! It is better to remain free and lead a peaceful, carefree life; I will become a priest or a nun and compel my children to do likewise."
   
What then does Christian faith say to this? It opens its eyes, looks upon all these insignificant, distasteful, and despised duties in the Spirit, and is aware that they are all adorned with divine approval as with the costliest gold and jewels. It says, "O God, because I am certain that thou hast created me as a man and hast from my body begotten this child, I also know for a certainty that it meets with thy perfect pleasure. I confess to thee that I am not worthy to rock the little babe or wash its diapers, or to be entrusted with the care of the child and its mother. How is it that I, without any merit, have come to this distinction of being certain that I am serving thy creature and thy most precious will? O how gladly will I do so, though the duties should be even more insignificant and despised. Neither frost nor heat, neither drudgery nor labor, will distress or dissuade me, for I am certain that it is thus pleasing in thy sight" [LW 45:39].

"Keep in mind, that you need not do any work for God nor for the departed saints, but you ask and receive good from him in faith. Christ has done and accomplished everything for you, atoned for your sins, secured grace and life and salvation. Be content with this, only think how he can become more and more your own and strengthen your faith. Hence direct all the good you can do and your whole life to the end that it be good; but it is good only when it is useful to other people and not to yourself. You need it not, since Christ has done and given for you all that you might seek and desire for yourself, here and hereafter, be it forgiveness of sins, merit of salvation or whatever it may be called. If you find a work in you by which you benefit God or his saints or yourself and not your neighbor, know that such a work is not good." [Sermons of Martin Luther 1:36].

Canon 1: God, the Supreme Judge, not only took care to have his word, which is the "power of God unto salvation to every one that believes" (Rom 1:16), committed to writing by Moses, the Prophets and the Apostles, but has also watched and cherished it with paternal care from the time it was written up to the present, so that it could not be corrupted by craft of Satan or fraud of man. Therefore the Church justly ascribes to it his singular grace and goodness that she has, and will have to the end of the world (2 Pet 1:19), a "sure word of prophecy" and "Holy Scriptures" (2 Tim 3:15), from which though heaven and earth pass away, "the smallest letter or the least stroke of a pen will not disappear by any means" (Matt 5:18).

Canon II: But, in particular, The Hebrew original of the OT which we have received and to this day do retain as handed down by the Hebrew Church, "who had been given the oracles of God" (Rom 3:2), is, not only in its consonants, but in its vowels either the vowel points themselves, or at least the power of the points not only in its matter, but in its words, inspired by God. It thus forms, together with the Original of the NT the sole and complete rule of our faith and practice; and to its standard, as to a Lydian stone, all extant versions, eastern or western, ought to be applied, and wherever they differ, be conformed.

1 The elder unto the wellbeloved Gaius, whom I love in the truth. 2 Beloved, I wish above all things that thou mayest prosper and be in health, even as thy soul prospereth. 3 For I rejoiced greatly, when the brethren came and testified of the truth that is in thee, even as thou walkest in the truth. 4 I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth. 5 Beloved, thou doest faithfully whatsoever thou doest to the brethren, and to strangers; 6 Which have borne witness of thy charity before the church: whom if thou bring forward on their journey after a godly sort, thou shalt do well: 7 Because that for his name's sake they went forth, taking nothing of the Gentiles. 8 We therefore ought to receive such, that we might be fellowhelpers to the truth. 9 I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among them, receiveth us not. 10 Wherefore, if I come, I will remember his deeds which he doeth, prating against us with malicious words: and not content therewith, neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeth them that would, and casteth them out of the church. 11 Beloved, follow not that which is evil, but that which is good. He that doeth good is of God: but he that doeth evil hath not seen God. 12 Demetrius hath good report of all men, and of the truth itself: yea, and we also bear record; and ye know that our record is true. 13 I had many things to write, but I will not with ink and pen write unto thee: 14 But I trust I shall shortly see thee, and we shall speak face to face. Peace be to thee. Our friends salute thee. Greet the friends by name.

“They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one—
the Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies!
But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever,
for in thee we live and move and have our being.”

His greatest joy was to visit Marian shrines, to pray to Mary and with Mary, to imitate her virtues, to sing her praises, to acknowledge her importance in the mystery of God and of the Church. Through profound theological studies, he came to understand even better the mission of Mary in cooperation with the Trinity for the salvation of the human race and the sanctification of the Church. He lived his religious vows in the imitation of Mary. He held that, for everyone to be completely of God, as Mary had been, it was necessary to become her slaves, or better, slaves of God in Mary; for this reason he established the Congregation of the Slaves of Mary for the greater glory of the Trinity, in praise of the Virgin, in the service of the poor. For him, to be a slave of Mary meant belonging totally to her: "Totus tuus" in order to unite oneself more intimately to Christ and in Him through the Spirit, to the Father.