Christopher Hunt of Hanceville, Alabama, evidently is a strongly believing Roman Catholic. He wanted to make sure his letter appeared on my blog, so who am I to rob him of such a blessing? Of course, this is my blog, so, I get to respond.
Dear Mr. White, I have heard some of your debates, and know that you are knowledgeable. This also makes you responsible for the truth.
Quite true, Christopher, but that goes both ways. If you’ve listened to those debates, then you will be held accountable for what you heard as well.
You know that the Catholic Church is very Biblical, and follows the Scriptures closely.
Of course, I “know” no such thing. The whole reason we engage in debates, Christopher, is to show just the opposite, that Rome is her own authority, and that she is not subject to the Scriptures. Look at the key dogmatic developments of the past 150 years, Christopher: all focused on Mary, are they not? And you call this biblical? These things follow the Scriptures closely? Surely you jest! So please, Christopher, what is gained by this kind of rhetoric? You know I don’t believe that, you know I don’t “know” that, so why write in such a fashion?
You know that the Catholic Church is in conformity with the Early Church Fathers.
What debates have you been listening to, Christopher? Did you listen to the debate on the Papacy from Denver, 1993? Or the one on the same subject with Fr. Pacwa from Long Island, 1998? I’m sorry, but your statement is false in saying I “know” any such thing, and it is false in its basic assumption as well.
Also, I know that you know that Protestantism is about 500 years old.
About, yes. But that doesn’t mean the Christian Church is 500 years old, nor that Romanism is 2000 years old (normally the corollaries tied to such an assertion). Tell me, Christopher, which of the bishops at Nicea believed everything you believe about the bishop of Rome, justification, the Mass, purgatory, and Mary? If you can’t name anyone, does that mean your church did not exist at that time? If not, why say what you just said?
The teachings on Hierarchy and the Holy Eucharist are clear in Scripture.
Yes, the teaching on the form of the church is in fact clear in Scripture, as I have argued recently in print, in fact. However, what is missing for you would be the following: priests, archbishops, cardinals, popes, sub-deacons (and the zillion other “orders” invented over the centuries). The structure of the church established by the Apostles looks very different than what I am watching on TV these days. As to the “Holy Eucharist,” if by that you mean the singular sacrifice of Jesus Christ, yes, that’s been my point for a long time as well: the singular work of Christ on the cross perfects those for whom it is made, which is why it is not “re-presented” over and over again, rendering it imperfect, as in your theology. I addressed that here. So yes, the Scriptures are very clear, but Rome is just as clear in subjugating those Scriptures to her own authority, resulting, as Jesus put it, in Rome “invalidating” the Word for the sake of her traditions.
I believe that you are a much more brilliant man than I. It is true that I have never read any of your books. I would if I could afford them, but, after all I am a student with a part time job that has no extra money.
Well you know, Christopher, we’ve sent lots of books to folks who were willing to read them, without charge; and I personally have spent a small fortune over the years on the books of your leaders so that I could accurately represent them. But you might note that there is a great deal of information at aomin.org that is completely free (like all the articles here), and thanks to Straitgate.com, lots of free things to listen to there.
My reason for writing you has nothing to do with what I have yet written. I am writing because I think that your posts of Pope John Paul II are uncalled for and cruel to those mourning his passing.
You are not alone in thinking so, Christopher, but all that proves is that post-modernism is having its way with Roman Catholics in a big way. See, it seems that you, and many like you, do not understand the relationship of truth to behavior, nor the idea of priorities. As I explained on the webcast today to a couple of your fellow Roman Catholics, the issue has to do with the gospel. I said nothing “new” about Roman Catholicism over the past few days. Nothing. You haven’t read my works, as you say, but my very first book addressed the very same issues as I have addressed over the past few days: specifically, that the gospel of Rome is a false gospel, a phantom, something that promises what it cannot deliver. Now, you disagree, I’m sure, but since you have not taken the time to study the issue, I have the advantage at this point. But putting aside the disagreement, if you believed as I believe, would you seriously sit back silently while the world denied everything you believe is true and precious and important? How does that show love to either God or the gospel or even to those then deceived by the falsehoods being presented without challenge all across the airwaves? Remember, Christopher, your representatives, apologists, etc., have been all over the media promoting falsehoods about the Papacy in general and about the gospel in particular. Only a very odd view of truth can lead you to think it wrong for me to respond.
He lived the Gospel and Preached the Gospel during his reign as the head of all Christianity.
And that’s where we disagree again, Christopher. If the man did not possess the gospel, how could he live it? It seems you, and many others, think that being a nice person, and saying true things about Communism or in defense of the innocent is the same as living the gospel. But an atheist can be nice, and a Buddhist can speak in defense of the innocent. While those are good things, they are not necessarily connected to the gospel, since those who oppose the gospel can engage in those activities as well. See, Christopher, you can’t “live the gospel” while teaching Mary is co-redemptrix with Jesus; you can’t “live the gospel” when your motto is “totus tuus,” “totally yours,” addressed not to Jesus, but to Mary. You can’t “live the gospel” when by your regular action you claim to bring Jesus, body, soul, blood and divinity, down from heaven and render Him present upon the altar at your command. It’s all a matter of truth and consistency, Christopher.
He united peoples, he was used by God to tear down Communism, he showed the world how to forgive, how to give, and how to accept.
God used Ronald Reagan to help end communism, too, but that doesn’t mean Ronald Reagan is given a free pass into heaven. The issue with anyone is the gospel, period. I have different heros than you do, Christopher, but I do not believe that what the great men I admire have done means they are going to heaven, since every single one of them would admit that there is only one reason anyone enters heaven: because they are clothed solely and alone in the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ.
He preached the Gospel where no others could. He was a man of God. He loved Jesus above all.
Is that why his personal motto, Christopher, was totus tuus, “totally yours,” addressed to Mary?
And I know that you are not too blind to see this. If you have class, please put this letter on your front page of your web. Let people read it. Don’t edit it.
Well, Christopher, the question of who is blind is still up in the air, isn’t it? Do you really believe you have given me reason to question what I have said over the years? Could I invite you to possibly consider that you have only heard one side of the story? I do pray God will lead you to His truth, and to the gospel that truly saves.