Doth it please you, --unto the praise and glory of the holy and undivided Trinity, Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost; for the increase and exaltation of the Christian faith and religion; for the extirpation of heresies; for the peace and union of the Church; for the reformation of the Clergy and Christian people; for the depression and extinction of the enemies of the Christian name,-- to decree and declare that the sacred and general council of Trent do begin, and hath begun?
They answered: It pleaseth us.

So, the long and short of it is this: we need to stop going to the Protestants for our understanding of Justification, whether it’s Joseph Fitzmyer’s attempt to say that justification is “forensic” in his New Jerome Biblical Commentary, or Scott Hahn’s attempt to say that “works of the law” refers only to the ceremonial law or that works are only required in “final justification.” These divergences arise because of a basic misunderstanding of how the Old Covenant relates to the New, which is the same problem we are having today when Catholic prelates deny supersessionism and teach that the Old Covenant is still valid for the Jews today. One small error can send us off in a hundred different, but erroneous, directions.

His remarks are disingenuous, for he well knows as a professional Protestant apologist what the Catholic Church teaches about the communion of saints, yet instead of accurately portraying that belief, he deliberately caricatures it.

We ask a saint in Heaven to pray for us, and by God’s Providence and facilitation, they can hear us and respond by praying to our Father. It is not much different than asking a fellow Christian to pray for you.

It is not “magical” when you pray for me and God hears and answers by giving me grace–it is wonderful and amazing and beautiful, but it is not some kind of conjuring; rather, it is how God has created the world and us and made it possible for us to be in communion with one another.

One obvious objection is that the canonized saints in Heaven are all dead people, and surely dead people can’t hear us, so it is at best a waste of time and at worst some kind of sorcery to ask them to pray for us. However, in Luke 20:38, Jesus says in his reply to the Sadducees that “he is not God of the dead, but of the living, for to him all are alive.” Further, in Matthew 17 suddenly Moses and Elijah appear before Jesus during the Transfiguration: “And behold, Moses and Elijah appeared to them, conversing with him.” Connecting the two Biblical dots here can tell us that by God’s grace and power human death does not end communication (or communion) between them and God and living persons. These are only two of the many passages in the Bible which directly or indirectly support the communion of saints.

As for this being some invention of “modern Roman Catholicism”, history is against Mr. White. My friend Tom posted a few months back about one example from the 7th century of praying for those who have died.

So what is one to do? Avoid polemical apologists like Mr. White and find charitable and reasonable persons with whom to engage in dialogue. Oh, and definitely pray for James White and ask the saints to pray for him.

Even to me, who tell thee these things, give not absolute credence, unless thou receive the proof of the things which I announce from the Divine Scriptures. For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

Pay attention, therefore, to what I shall record out of the holy Scriptures, which do not need to be expounded, but only listened to.

It works like this: the enthusiast for the doctrine of the "perspicuity of Scripure" [sic] reasons "God always does what is best. Having a Bible that is perspicuous is best. Therefore, God has done that."

Since, therefore, the entire Scriptures, the prophets, and the Gospels, can be clearly, unambiguously, and harmoniously understood by all, although all do not believe them; and since they proclaim that one only God, to the exclusion of all others, formed all things by His word, whether visible or invisible, heavenly or earthly, in the water or under the earth, as I have shown from the very words of Scripture; and since the very system of creation to which we belong testifies, by what falls under our notice, that one Being made and governs it,—those persons will seem truly foolish who blind their eyes to such a clear demonstration, and will not behold the light of the announcement [made to them]; but they put fetters upon themselves, and every one of them imagines, by means of their obscure interpretations of the parables, that he has found out a God of his own.

You can always find some sort of biblical justification for your pet idea. And with sufficient will power or ego, you can trumpet your pet idea as the Revealed Will of God Almighty, denouncing anybody who questions your pet theory, not as somebody who questions your pet theory, but as an enemy of God who "rails away" at God Almighty, while "The child of God knows better." It's a very cozy way to congratulate yourself.

Then, if even the heretic seek refuge in the depraved thoughts of the vulgar, or the imaginations of the world, I must say to him: Part company with the heathen, O heretic! for although you are all agreed in imagining a God, yet while you do so in the name of Christ, so long as you deem yourself a Christian, you are a different man from a heathen: give him back his own views of things, since he does not himself learn from yours. Why lean upon a blind guide, if you have eyes of your own? Why be clothed by one who is naked, if you have put on Christ? Why use the shield of another, when the apostle gives you armour of your own? It would be better for him to learn from you to acknowledge the resurrection of the flesh, than for you from him to deny it; because if Christians must needs deny it, it would be sufficient if they did so from their own knowledge, without any instruction from the ignorant multitude. He, therefore, will not be a Christian who shall deny this doctrine which is confessed by Christians; denying it, moreover, on grounds which are adopted by a man who is not a Christian. Take away, indeed, from the heretics the wisdom which they share with the heathen, and let them support their inquiries from the Scriptures alone: they will then be unable to keep their ground. For that which commends men’s common sense is its very simplicity, and its participation in the same feelings, and its community of opinions; and it is deemed to be all the more trustworthy, inasmuch as its definitive statements are naked and open, and known to all. Divine reason, on the contrary, lies in the very pith and marrow of things, not on the surface, and very often is at variance with appearances.

The thing is, the perspicuity of Scripture is one of those ideas, like Marxism, that is the result of theory run amuck and removed entirely from the laboratory of real life ... people who assert things like the Perspicuity of Scripture as Revealed Truth have to face the fact that the Laboratory of Experience is simply against them. The one thing Scripture is not is perspicuous.

And this is usual with Scriptures, to express itself in inartificial and simple phrases.

These are fountains of salvation, that they who thirst may be satisfied with the living words they contain. In these alone is proclaimed the doctrine of godliness. Let no man add to these, neither let him take ought from these. For concerning these the Lord put to shame the Sadducees, and said, ‘Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures.’ And He reproved the Jews, saying, ‘Search the Scriptures, for these are they that testify of Me.

The Lord enunciated the faith of the Gospel in the simplest words that could be found, and fitted His discourses to our understanding, so far as the weakness of our nature allowed Him, without saying anything unworthy of the majesty of His own nature.

That's not me talking, that's 2 Peter:
So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, 16 speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

For it is none other than the question of God's grace which has caused persons of no understanding to think that the Apostle Paul prescribes it to us as a rule, "Let us do evil that good may come." It is in reference to these that the Apostle Peter writes in his second Epistle; "Wherefore, beloved, seeing that you look for such things, be diligent, that you may be found of Him in peace, without spot and blameless and account that the long-suffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also, according to the wisdom given unto him, has written unto you; as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things: in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction." Take good heed, then, to these fearful words of the great apostle; and when you feel that you do not understand, put your faith in the meanwhile in the inspired word of God, and believe both that man's will is free, and that there is also God's grace, without whose help man's free will can neither be turned towards God, nor make any progress in God. And what you piously believe, that pray that you may have a wise understanding of.

Standard boilerplate replies generally run toward saying things like "Paul's writing is perspicuous, it's just the ignorant and unstable who screw things up."

What doctrines like the "perspicuity of Scripture" *really* mean is "Scripture means what I take it to mean, no more, no less. The easy to understand parts are the parts that agree with what I think. The hard to understand parts are the parts that a) talk about unimportant stuff or b) must be subordinated to what I understand."

What do I come in for, you say, if I do not hear some one discoursing? This is the ruin and destruction of all. For what need of a person to discourse? This necessity arises from our sloth. Wherefore any necessity for a homily? All things are clear and open that are in the divine Scriptures; the necessary things are all plain. But because ye are hearers for pleasure’s sake, for that reason also you seek these things. For tell me, with what pomp of words did Paul speak? and yet he converted the world. Or with what the unlettered Peter? But I know not, you say, the things that are contained in the Scriptures. Why? For are they spoken in Hebrew? Are they in Latin, or in foreign tongues? Are they not in Greek? But they are expressed obscurely, you say: What is it that is obscure? Tell me. Are there not histories? For (of course) you know the plain parts, in that you enquire about the obscure. There are numberless histories in the Scriptures. Tell me one of these. But you cannot. These things are an excuse, and mere words. Every day, you say, one hears the same things. Tell me, then, do you not hear the same things in the theaters? Do you not see the same things in the race-course? Are not all things the same? Is it not always the same sun that rises? Is it not the same food that we use? I should like to ask you, since you say that you every day hear the same things; tell me, from what Prophet was the passage that was read? from what Apostle, or what Epistle? But you cannot tell me—you seem to hear strange things. When therefore you wish to be slothful, you say that they are the same things. But when you are questioned, you are in the case of one who never heard them. If they are the same, you ought to know them. But you are ignorant of them.

"Ignorant and unstable people may twist Scripture, but I am safe from all that so I understand perfectly what Scripture means. And when the Church disagrees with me, that's because the ignorant and unstable are disagreeing with me, who am not ignorant or unstable."[the argument he puts in the mouth of perspicuity advocates]

"But," says the Arian, "is it not written?" Yes, it is written! And it is necessary that it should be said. But what is well written is ill understood by heretics. If they had understood and grasped the terms in which Christianity is expressed, they would not have called the Lord of glory [1 Corinthians 2:8; cf. James 2:1] a creature nor stumbled over what is well written.

Although you have not yet met me, I think that your excellency is aware of the open calumnies that have been published against me, for you have often heard me preaching in church, when I have proclaimed the Lord Jesus, and have pointed out the properties alike of the Godhead and of the manhood; for we do not divide one Son into two, but, worshipping the Only-begotten, point out the distinction between flesh and Godhead. This, indeed, is I think confessed even by the Arians, who do not call the flesh Godhead, nor address the Godhead as flesh. Holy Scripture clearly teaches us both natures.

In order, therefore, that the human mind might be purged from falsities of this kind, Holy Scripture, which suits itself to babes has not avoided words drawn from any class of things really existing, through which, as by nourishment, our understanding might rise gradually to things divine and transcendent.

Unless, therefore, we hold all this with fitting veneration and lawful argument, we shall reasonably be thought to have furnished a scandal to the heretics, not assuredly by the fault of the heavenly Scriptures, which never deceive; but by the presumption of human error, whereby they have chosen to be heretics.

Some Catholics are fine with this. The reasons for this vary. Some already oppose the death penalty on other grounds and, in fact, go further than the Church by trying to say the Church errs in permitting it at all. I think they are wrong both for theological reasons (i.e. Scripture clearly permits it at times) and for practical reasons (sometimes people just need killing for the common good). Some agree with the Church's teaching as it is laid out in Evangelium Vitae.

Ask yourself: is Islam or the West more likely to produce such a person? Personally, I have a lot of trouble seeing such a figure arising in Islam, with it rock hard insistence on the distinction between creature and Creator. The West, on the other hand, is chockablock with philosophies, religious movements, pop psych, technology, literary movements, art, music, and politics which are all, in their own ways, laboring to summon just such a one from our midst. Scripture says pretty clearly that we will get our wish.

When, however, they are confuted from the Scriptures, they turn round and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but vivâ voce: wherefore also Paul declared, “But we speak wisdom among those that are perfect, but not the wisdom of this world” [1 Cor. ii. 6]. And this wisdom each one of them alleges to be the fiction of his own inventing, forsooth; so that, according to their idea, the truth properly resides at one time in Valentinus, at another in Marcion, at another in Cerinthus, then afterwards in Basilides, or has even been indifferently in any other opponent, who could speak nothing pertaining to salvation. For every one of these men, being altogether of a perverse disposition, depraving the system of truth, is not ashamed to preach himself.

2. But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; and that not the apostles alone, but even the Lord Himself, spoke as at one time from the Demiurge, at another from the intermediate place, and yet again from the Pleroma, but that they themselves, indubitably, unsulliedly, and purely, have knowledge of the hidden mystery: this is, indeed, to blaspheme their Creator after a most impudent manner! It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.

3. Such are the adversaries with whom we have to deal, my very dear friend, endeavouring like slippery serpents to escape at all points. Where-fore they must be opposed at all points, if per-chance, by cutting off their retreat, we may succeed in turning them back to the truth. For, though it is not an easy thing for a soul under the influence of error to repent, yet, on the other hand, it is not altogether impossible to escape from error when the truth is brought alongside it.

You can always find some sort of biblical justification for your pet idea. And with sufficient will power or ego, you can trumpet your pet idea as the Revealed Will of God Almighty, denouncing anybody who questions your pet theory, not as somebody who questions your pet theory, but as an enemy of God who "rails away" at God Almighty, while "The child of God knows better." It's a very cozy way to congratulate yourself.

The thing is, the perspicuity of Scripture is one of those ideas, like Marxism, that is the result of theory run amuck and removed entirely from the laboratory of real life. Now Christianity has room for doctrines that can't be empirically verified. The doctrine of the Trinity is a classic. We believe it because God revealed it to us through Christ and his Holy Church. There's no scientific demonstration of it. Neither is there scientific disproof of it. It's not open to empirical investigation. You either trust God and his Church on this or you don't. All arguments against it can be refuted by reason. But it can't be proven by reason alone.

The basic rule of thumb to understand in Catholic/Protestant conversations is that it is not the case the Catholics rely on Sacred Tradition and Protestants don't. Rather, Catholics rely on Sacred Tradition and know they do, while Protestant rely on (parts) of Sacred Tradition and don't know they do.

So, for instance, nowhere in the text of Scripture is it made clear that Christian marriage *must* be monogamous or that the Holy Spirit is a person, much less the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, consubstantial with the Father and the Son.

The fact is, the Bible says "Marriage is good" but gives us not one word of instruction on how to do it. And yet, of course, Protestant all over the world get married, believe in God the Holy Spirit, and have but one spouse because, as James Dobson say, God's plan is one man and one woman. How do they do this when Scripture is so unclear? They accept Sacred Tradition percolated to them from the Catholic Church through the Protestant tradition.

3 Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?"
4 And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,
5 and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH '?
6 "So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."
7 They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?"
8 He said to them, "Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.
9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery."
(Mat 19:3-9 NASB)

A reader asks:

Why isn't Mary considered the first priest since she actually brought Christ into this world?

Well, in a certain sense she is since she participates in the common priesthood of all the baptized. However, the short answer is: Because Christ did not ordain her to the sacerdotal priesthood.

It point (as it always has) to the central flaw at the core of Calvinism: its deep and fundamental inhumanity....Logical completeness and spiritual contraction fits the madness that is Calvinism perfectly....Normal people do not pit God against his good creatures this way. But Calvinism (which Trent analyzed as a resurgent form of Manichaeaism) routinely does, at least in it anti-Catholic polemics. Of course, five centuries has done something to wear the edge of Calvinism more demented hatred of creatures....Instead, the Calvinist zealot now confines his denunciation of enjoyment, supplication, and love of creatures strictly and solely to those creatures who happen to be dead....I doubt this correspondent can be persuaded to disengage from the project of downloading pre-recorded Calvinist boilerplate to consider such an obvious bit of common sense. But I hope others, not caught in the grip of Calvinist insanity, might.

I am but showing how Romanists reconcile their abstract reverence for Antiquity with their Romanism,—with their creed, and their notion of the Church’s infallibility in declaring it; how small their success is, and how great their unfairness, is another question. Whatever judgment we form either of their conduct or its issue, such is the fact, that they extol the Fathers as a whole, and disparage them individually; they call them one by one Doctors of the Church, yet they explain away one by one their arguments, judgments, and testimony. They refuse to combine their separate and coincident statements; they take each by himself, and settle with the first before they go to the next. And thus their boasted reliance on the Fathers comes, at length, to this,—to identify Catholicity with the decrees of Councils, and to admit those Councils only which the Pope has confirmed. John Henry Newman, Lectures on the Prophetical Office of the Church: Viewed Relatively to Romanism and Popular Protestantism, 2nd ed. (London: Gilbert & Rivington, 1838), pp. 69-71.

And, in his own unique way, James White, having glanced briefly at it, raves that it is a "Desperate Defense of Marian Mythology". That's as handsome a compliment as I could have asked for!

A conspicuous case of this is the declaration of papal infallibility by the First Vatican Council. The early Church recognized that the Pope has the final word in matters of faith, no less than in those of discipline, that she herself is protected by God against heresy. Put that together, and you have, implicitly, what the Council defined.

Rome itself never either exercised or claimed to exercise 'patriarchal' rights over the entire West. Such ‘patriarchal’ jurisdiction of Rome existed de facto over the so-called suburbicarian dioceses, which covered a relatively large territory - ten provinces - which were within the civil jurisdiction of the prefect of Rome. The power of the pope upon this territory was, in every way, comparable to the jurisdiction of the Eastern patriarchs.

Nicaea I, which took place during Sylvester’s episcopate, is of interest...because of canon 6. It invoked ancient customs in assigning Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis to the bishop of Alexandria, affirming the customary jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome, and asserting the traditional authority of the bishop of Antioch and of the provincial metropolitans. The canon does not fix the boundaries of Roman regional power. But the expansion of the canon in Rufinus (345?–410) seems to limit Rome’s authority to the suburbicarian sees. This may reflect the actual jurisdictional situation at the end of the fourth century...Nicaea presupposes a regional leadership of Rome, but indicates nothing more. Thus one concludes that down through the Council of Nicaea, a Roman universal primacy of jurisdiction exists neither as a theoretical construction nor as de facto practice awaiting theoretical interpretation.

It will be said that all this is a theory. Certainly it is: it is a theory to account for facts as they lie in the history, to account for so much being told us about the Papal authority in early times, and not more; a theory to reconcile what is and what is not recorded about it; and, which is the principal point, a theory to connect the words and acts of the Ante-nicene Church with that antecedent probability of a monarchical principle in the Divine Scheme, and that actual exemplification of it in the fourth century, which forms their presumptive interpretation. All depends on the strength of that presumption. Supposing there be otherwise good reason for saying that the Papal Supremacy is part of Christianity, there is nothing in the early history of the Church to contradict it.

To S. Augustine it is replied that he was misled by his ignorance of the Hebrew and Syriac languages, and, therefore, thought that Petrus was something different from Petra, and that Peter was, as it were, called appellatively from it “rock-like,” although it is clear from the Syriac that Petrus and Petra are the same.

• "Whitewashing the History of the Church": This article deals with the issue of the alleged Primacy of Peter and attempted use of Cyril of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, and Augustine in support of the Roman Catholic position. Reading this article may help Mr. Bellisario to be informed about the positions that Dr. White has and has not taken with respect to these fathers on this particular topic.
• "The Church Fathers' Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18": This article is by William Webster, and it discusses what one would expect based on the title. Although this is not by Dr. White, it provides some valuable insight into the kinds of ready answers that we in the Reformed camp have when someone tries to misrepresent the early church fathers as teaching the doctrines of Rome with respect to the papacy.
• "The Peter Syndrome": This article's sub-title, "Roman Catholic Writers See Papal Supremacy Behind Every Bush, or In Every Early Father" sums up the article's discussion well. The article shows that just because Peter is mentioned by a church father doesn't mean that papal supremacy is under discussion or even being tangentially referenced. It exposes one of the unhelpful filters often applied by Roman Catholic writers in this discussion. It is primarily focused on responding to a book by Scott Butler et al. but it has a broader application to those who use similar arguments.
• "Robert Sungenis and ἐπὶ ταύτῃ": This article gets into the exegesis of the actual Greek words used in the text of Matthew and demonstrates problems with some of the Roman Catholic attempts to get around this text.

• Mark Bonocore and Isaiah 22:20-22, Part I, Part II, Part III: Deals with one Roman Catholic attempt to respond to Dr. White's challenge: where do we find the ancient church speaking as modern Rome on the matter of Isaiah 22:20-22 and Matthew 16:18-20?
• Still No Bible Verses Establishing the Papacy: This is my own article responding to Steve Ray's attempts to use Scriptures and the church fathers to establish the papacy. While, of course, this does not necessarily represent Dr. White's position, it illustrates some additional arguments from the Reformed perspective that Mr. Bellisario should be ready for, if Mr. Bellisario uses arguments similar to those of Mr. Ray.

• How Biblical and Ancient is the Papacy? (DVD)(CD)(MP3): Taped on Long Island in April of 1998, James White debates Roman Catholic Priest Mitchell Pacwa S.J. on the Biblical and Historical merits of the Papacy (2hrs 20 minutes)
• The Boston College Papacy Debate (CD)(MP3): James White teams up with Rob Zins to debate Robert Sungenis & Scott Butler (4 Hours 19 Minutes)
• The Papacy (CD)(MP3) This is a set of two debates between Dr. White and Gerry Matatics held in Denver, Colorado during the Papal visit in 1993. Does the New Testament allow for an office of Pope? Was there a Papacy in the Early Church? Was Peter the first Pope? Does Peter have a line of successors? Is the Pope truly the Head of the Church, the Vicar of Christ on Earth, and the leader of all Christians? These are crucial questions that must be answered. (5 hrs, 14 minutes)

• The Matthew 16 Controversy by William Webster
• Upon this Slippery Rock by Eric D. Svendsen
• The Roman Catholic Controversy by James R. White

James 5:16
Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much.

"Wonderful, indeed, is the folly or the insincerity of the Papists, who strive to build their whispering confession on this passage. For it would be easy to infer from the words of James, that the priests alone ought to confess. For since a mutual, or to speak more plainly, a reciprocal confession is demanded here, no others are bidden to confess their own sins, but those who in their turn are fit to hear the confession of others; but this the priests claim for themselves alone. Then confession is required of them alone. But since their puerilities do not deserve a refutation, let the true and genuine explanation already given be deemed sufficient by us" [Source: Calvin's Commentary on James, verse 5:16].

Bede (672/673-735), commenting on 1 John 5:16: "Let anyone who knows that his brother is committing a sin-not-to-death ask, and life will be given to him who is sinning not to death. These and things of this sort which have to do with the duty of love of our brothers are requested according to the Lord's will. For he is speaking about daily and trivial sins, which, as they are difficult to avoid, so also are they easily cured. But James implies more openly in what order this request for one another's sins is to be carried out when he says, Confess your sins to one another and pray for each other, that you may be saved. If perhaps you have transgressed by speech or thought or forgetfulness or ignorance, therefore, go to your brother, confess to him, beg for his intercession. If he by confessing simply makes you aware of your own weakness, you by interceding devoutly also wipe away his wrongdoing. But what has been said applies to trivial sins. But if you have committed something more serious bring in the elders of the Church and be chastened at their investigation" [Source: David Hurst, O.S.B., trans., Bede the Venerable (673-735) on the catholic Epistles (Kalamazoo: Cistercian Publications, 1985), p. 222-223].

Latin text: Qui scit fratrem suum peccare peccatum non ad mortem, etc. Haec et hujusmodi secundum voluntatem Domini petuntur, quae ad fraternae dilectionis officium exspectant. Loquitur autem de quotidianis [Col. 0117C] levibusque peccatis, quae sicut difficile vitantur, sic etiam facile curantur. Sed quo ordine haec alterutrum petitio sit celebranda pro peccatis, Jacobus insinuat apertius, dicens: Confitemini alterutrum peccata vestra, et orate pro invicem ut salvemini (Jac. V). Si ergo dictu, vel cogitatu, vel oblivione, vel ignorantia forte deliquisti, vade ad fratrem, confitere illi, postula interventionem. Si ipse te fragilitatis suae conscium pure confitendo fecerit, et tu ejus errata pie intercedendo dilue. Sed haec de levioribus dicta sint peccatis. Porro si gravius quid admisisti, induc presbyteros Ecclesiae, et ad illorum examen castiga te [Source: Migne PL 93].

"There is considerable difference of opinion about the meaning of 16. 'Therefore' which is found in the oldest MSS seems to join this admonition to the preceding one; yet it is hard to see what connexion a mutual confession of sins has with the anointing of the sick. Perhaps 'therefore' has another reference to the next clause, 'pray for one another' as Camerlynck, 72, suggests. Then the sense would be: If the prayer of faith over the sick, together with the anointing, is able to save the sick man; and 'if he be in sins, they shall be forgiven him', then it is expedient to 'pray one for another that you may be saved', i.e. eternally. For the purpose of convincing one another of the need of mutual prayer, a mutual confession of sin is recommended. Older interpreters, like St Thomas, S. T. Suppl. Q. 6, a. 6, and St Robert Bellarmine, De Poenit. Lib. 3, c. 4; regard this passage as an exhortation to sacramental confession, thereby assigning a very restricted meaning to the phrase, 'confess your sins to one another', namely, a confession of sins to a delegated priest. Interpreters, who defend this restricted meaning cite as examples, Rom 15:7; 1 Thes 5:11; Eph 5:21. In these passages, they claim, the restricted meaning of 'one another' is borne out by the context. But only the last instance allows such a meaning, and it is doubtful whether it may be applied in the present context" [Source: Dom Bernard Orchard, M.A., ed., A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture, p. 1176, second column].

Ver. 16. Confess, therefore, your sins, &c. Divers interpreters expound this of sacramental confession, though, as the authors of the annotations on the Rheims Testament observe, this is not certain. The words one to another, may signify that it is not enough to confess to God, but that we must also confess to men, and not to every man, but to those whom God appointed, and to whom he hath given the power of remitting sins in his name.

I'm happy to report that I have not yet seen a single negative review! Catholic response has been uniformly thumbs up, which makes Papa proud of his baby. (Of course, there will *be* negative reviews from guys like James White, Eric Svendsen, James Swan and the other nattering nabobs of anti-Catholicism, whose *job* is to give a negative review to stuff like this.) But once you get away from the anti-Catholic fever swamps, I will be interested to see how the book fares in place like Christianity Today, where you have honest Evangelicals who are serious about trying to engage Catholics, well, honestly.