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.
