All very well and interesting, but don't let this reevaluation forget Luther’s volcanic and violent temperament, fully on display in his letters in response to Erasmus’s efforts to pour oil on the troubled waters. Needless to say, that kind of self-righteousness is hardly saintly, and we need to examine Luther's writings in light of his actual behavior, which is probably more significant. Luther was a troubled soul and we need to understand why before we make a judgment on his theology.

Best anti-intellectual since Saul of Tarsus in his own words

"Reason is the Devil's greatest whore; . . .

[continuing] by nature and manner of being she is a noxious whore; she is a prostitute, the Devil's appointed whore; whore eaten by scab and leprosy who ought to be trodden under foot and destroyed, she and her wisdom ... Throw dung in her face to make her ugly. She is and she ought to be drowned in baptism... She would deserve, the wretch, to be banished to the filthiest place in the house, to the closets."

Martin Luther, Erlangen Edition v. 16, pp. 142-148

No reform of astronomy, though

"People give ear to an upstart astrologer [Copernicus]who strove to show that the earth revolves, not the heavens or the firmament, the sun and the moon. Whoever wishes to appear clever must devise some new system, which of all systems is of course the very best. This fool wishes to reverse the entire science of astronomy."

[Martin Luther, Works, Volume 22, c. 1543]

As a Catholic, I say, "thank you!", Professor George, for your refreshing comments. This is the kind of ecumenism which will, with the grace of God and the assistance of the Holy Spirit, be fruitful!

Questions regarding justification and sanctification including those regarding our status while still "in transit", so to speak, to God seem an intra-Church matter, to be explored by the members of the Body of Christ after Holy Mass and reception of the sacrament. If we (Catholics and Protestants) truly mean to "form a building which rises on the foundastion of the apostles and prophets with Christ Jesus himself as the capstone." If we truly hold that "Through him the whole structure is fitted together and takes shape as a holy temple in the Lord..." Eph. 2:20-21, how can we in any way justify building two separate structures. The fact that horrible sins and offenses against God and against man were committed by those within the household of God call certainly for reformation. As one who loves the Body of Christ as a chosen conduit of God's grace by the power of the Holy Spirit through the sacraments, I can respectfully celebrate "Reformation Day" and offer thanks to God who gave the Church this great and well-deserved chastisement. What I cannot accept is justification of the great scandal - Christians who (admittedly in all good faith on the part of some) took upon themselves authority to render the one body. Luther (whose writings I will now take time to understand) seems to have seized upon one passage in the writings of Paul to the diminishment of another: The great instruction in Ephesians 4: "Make every effort to preserve the unity which has the Spirit as it sorigin and peace as its binding force. There is but one body and one Spirit, just as there is but one hope given all of you by your call. There is one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is over all, and works through all, and is in all." Certainly a temporary separation is understandable and can be justified. To continue it now seems un-Christian.

If we look closely enough, and with a good enough eye, we are all troubled souls.

Luther was an imperfect servant, like the rest of us. A calm disposition with poor theology may make one feel good but it does not make one right or even on the path of biblical sanity. What God wrought through Luther and Calvin (and in their forerunners, Wycliffe and Huss) was a flood of grace to a practice of faith burdened by excesses.

Years ago I read the argument that Luther could not keep his celebacy vows as a Monk and he began an unchaste sexual relationship wih a nun. Then he went through somewhat of a "dark night of the soul" and then posted the Ninety five theses. This reading cast a different light on him, but I cannot remember the author of the book who made these unflattering comments against him. I guess the Vatican's Devil's Advocate would know the truth. I see that a commenter quoted "Reason is the Devil's greatest whore. . ." I thought Benedict XVI and John Paul II taught that reason is compatible with Faith, in Fides et Ratio, and elsewhere. I believe their teaching, so maybe there is more to discern from that Scripture.

Wow: This from the dean of a Baptist Divinity school: “Luther was not without his warts, and we can hardly imagine him canonized as a saint.”
Luther IS a saint, like Mr. George is a saint, and that guy Paul from Tarsus is a saint, and that Albanian lady who worked so hard and long for the poor in India is a saint, and the Canadian who launched FT is a saint, and I’m a saint. The Reformation ain’t over, it’s forgotten. Time to get out the hammer. . .

Oh, and for anti_supernaturalist: Yep, Luther was right about reason the whore business, she can be bought and sold. Ask Heidegger (who traded it frequently). Kierkegaard has some interesting things to say about that too. And of course Luther was right about Copernicus wanting to “reverse the entire science of astronomy.” He did and he did.
And for Bob G: so Luther was a troubled soul, and you soul isn’t troubled? My soul is a mess, if it wasn’t I wouldn’t need Jesus and I wouldn’t be doing things like reading the FT blog.

Though justification is said to have been the pivot of the reformation, I really wish more attention would be given to the question of authority. I’d even go so far as to say that all dialogue should focus on this one issue, because in settling this issue all other disputes would thereby become moot points. Perhaps it may be the hardest one to reconcile (because herein—in obedience to God-given authority—lies the neuralgic point of human obduracy), but that is because it is the root of the problem. If the grave inadequacies of sola Scriptura were to be acknowledged, then the supplemental weight of Tradition and the clarifying statements of the Magisterium would resolve the other disputes quite effectively. To paraphrase Augustine, 'seek not to understand in order that you may believe (what the Magisterium officially pronounces); seek rather to believe in order that you may understand.'

In any case, if we are to remember him and in a way honor his life, we should recall that it was in his words, despite historical contrary events, not his intention to sunder the Church.

That it became sundered is manifestly contrary to the intent of Jesus, who Luther and so many other Christian leaders constantly remind us is the center of our faith.

Therefore, let us "celebrate" Reformation Day by pledging renewed efforts in that ecumenical project of the unity of Christianity spoken of so eloquently by John Paul II in "Ut Unum Sint."

Imagine celebrating the day when an apostate broke the unity of the Church and established what is called protestantism and its thousands of contradicting 'churches!' Let's see... get rid of the Epistle of St. James so my scheme of 'faih alone' sounds reasonable.

The protestant revolt lives on and its adherents remain clueless.

Mark's ad hominem comments caricature the Protestant position with wild hyperbole. In fact, though Luther struggled with the inclusion of James in the cannon (as did Eusebius, a fact well known to all who have read him carefully), Luther came to accept the inclusion of James. But all the other major reformational thinkers accepted James without flinching. It was Rome's interpretation of the book that they contested. Moreover, sola gratia (appropriately construed) is supported by Romans. And sola scriptura (appropriately construed) arguably (I say arguably) follows from the doctrine of divine authority (divine sovereignty, if we must use a word coined by French legists in the middle ages). Moreover, Protestant scholars and theologians are usually quite well read in Catholic doctrine and teaching. And the average Catholic view of Protestant theology is no less caricatured than the average Protestants view of Catholic theology. So let us set us set such ad hominem attacks, such as those made by Mark, to the side and deal only with the doctrines themselves. Let us not be complicit in the shameful practice of name-calling. To call Protestants clueless is to demonstrate a lack of the charity Catholics believe essential to faith in matters of salvation. One can hardly believe one such as Mark represents the attitude of Rome. If he does, Rome's position on soteriology would be self-defeating.

Excuse me< but there was a Catholic reformation movement already over a hundred years old when Luther came on the scene. Moreover, he was in a Catholic religious Order that ALREADY emphasized the Word of God in Scripture. L.'s SELF ASSERTION that became a Revolt against the Church was to OPPOSE the Word of God in Scripture to the Word of God in the Church, because of an "either/or" mentality he was blind to. AND he had little humility, as his nature was given to emotional and mental extremes that lacked self restraint. Pope St. Pius X called for DAILY READING OF THE GOSPEL BY THE FATHER OF THE FAMILY IN EVERY CATHOLIC HOME. That was part of his renewal along with Gregorian Chant and stamping out Modernism. IF L. was saved, he'll be in Purgatory until all the Prots. come into the Church. The Reformation was a punishment for sin in the Church, which God permitted for higher reasons. It RETAINED GOD, AND CHRIST, but REJECTED CHRIST'S CHURCH AS CHRIST INTENDED IT. Luther was so self-centered that he thought the Church was wrong and he was right; blinded by intemperance.

With gratitude to Paul for his comments, I’d like to explore the issue of authority a bit more. It would seem to me that God’s authority/sovereignty entitles Him to establish a living Tradition alongside its written counterpart, as well as a living body endowed with His own authority for the elucidation of the proper meaning of each. Though familiarity with tradition certainly helps one to exegete the Scriptures soundly, in the absence of deference to the God-given authority of the Magisterium it is simply inadequate. (The endless fracturing of reformed splinter groups makes this quite clear.) The reason for this is that the only alternative to acknowledging the Magisterium of the One, Holy, Catholic & Apostolic Church is to set up a rival magisterium, even if only implicitly. This may come in the form of an ecclesial synod of one sort or another, but when such a synod rests solely on human authority it cannot command the docility necessary to exercise its function effectively. Consequently, break-away groups multiply. In the end, the only alternative to acknowledging God’s authority to interpret Scripture & Tradition through His Church is to usurp such authority for one’s self. Hence, even if unwittingly on the part of some, every Protestant ends up acting as his/her own Pope. “The Scriptures mean what I say they mean.” Very respectfully, I’m so thoroughly convinced that sola Scriptura is unworkable that I don’t see us getting very far at all until we come to agreement about theological epistemology.

"How welcome on the mountain, Are the footsteps of the herald announcing happiness, heralding good fortune, announcing victory, telling Zion, "Your God is King." These words came to mind after reading the respectful discussion between "Paul" and "Br. Timothy and several other thoughtful posts as well. That said, one realizes that we are all in need of instruction and correction, especially when we most think we are not, and that Godly correction comes as a very great gift (even though a blog post!). The post referring to "saints" and the Protestant belief that "we are all saints" seems to me a stumbling block to Christian unity. We are certainly all potential saints but to assume that the sacrifice of Jesus Christ catapulted all of us into sainthood (no need for the refiner's fire or the fuller's lye, for the purification that allows us to "offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness." and, perhaps most important, for the personal scourging of one's soul that is necessary in order to accept as an "acting person" the gift of "ears open to obedience"). Certainly both Catholics and Protestants have erred in one way or another, gone to one extreme or another. Still, it seems self-evident that human persons actively participate in their purification by arduously seeking and submitting to painful divestiture of pride and all that follows from it - this accomplished, needless to say, through, with, and in the grace of God. The danger lies in a false confidence that our salvation through Jesus Christ negates our living out "The Cost of Discipleship" - perhaps our greatest danger.

As Blessed Fr Solanious wrote to his brother, "One of the miracles of God is that the Catholic Church has survived the grevious sins of those in the Church."
Searching the backgrounds of my own ancestors in Scotland, I was struck by the blatant abuse of power by Catholic prelates just before the Protestant revolution. One land owner refused to turn over a piece of his property to the Church. "Excommunicate him," was his bishop's response.

Paul, you stated "Moreover, Protestant scholars and theologians are usually quite well read in Catholic doctrine and teaching" Really? If this is true, why do I so often hear from Protestants of every stripe the classic falsehoods like "Catholics worship Mary", "Rome is the whore of Babylon", "the inquisition killed millions, thousands,etc", "Catholics are idolaters who worship statues", etc, etc, etc. Perhaps these same "Scholars and theologians simply need to do a better job with the study of the Catholic faith? Also, I'm hoping one of my protestant brothers here can show me where in the Bible it mentions sola scriptura

Br. Timothy: Please accept my gratitude for both of your posts. Exposition of this quality gives me what I believe can accurately be called a profound 'intellectual high." In part, at least, because of your eloquence and elegance, I can respond concisely: I disagree with everything you say.

To Mike Linton"

Good point: my soul isn’t troubled? Maybe it is, but not in the same way as Luther’s, who projected his inner troubles into his theology. I’m not saying some sort of Reformation wasn’t desireable (because of, for example, what the Catholic Church had become over the previous two hundreds years—as most Catholic historians now recognize) but there may have been a better way to go about it than Luther’s. My point was that his volcanic, violent style was a tip-off that he wasn’t any better “balanced” than the Church. So I’m sympathetic to Professor George’s point of view, but don’t think Luther’s theology is as admirable as Prof. George thinks it is.

How sad that someone feels the need to sow bitterness and hatred. Dr. George is right that the Protestant Reformation and Luther belong to all Christians. Luther wasn't perfect. Protestantism isn't perfect. But the Reformers rightly preached the freedom of the Christian who loves Christ and lives according to grace rather than trying to merit heaven through good works and indulgences. As an Eastern Orthodox Christian, I welcome truth wherever it is found. God bless everyone.

The degree to which the JDDJ reflects actual and substantial agreement rather than just the common approval of a formula is debatable. After all, "justification," "grace" and "faith" all have different definitions in Catholic and Lutheran theology.When Rome repeals Trent's anathema against the Pauline doctrine of justification, that will be news. Until that happens, it will not be possible to take the JDDJ seriously.

Sort of like Erasmus attempted, Bob G. When matters of vital substance are at issue, attempts to pour oil on troubled waters do no real service to anybody. I will not speculate on whether Pope Alexander VI was a sex addict, the Borgia popes corrupt because they were sociopaths, or the papacy as an institution more the creation of the will to power than of a debatable exegesis of Matthew 16. And . I'm not sure "self righteous" comes close to describing Luther's response to Erasmus's insipidity. But ad hominems remain ad hominems, and Luther's theology- like that of his opponents- stands or falls on its merits, not on the basis of attempts by those without better arguments to change the subject and talk about personalities.

Oh. And Kathleen, I'll tell you what: I won't repeat apocryphal slanders about Catholic religious figures if you won't repeat the various slanders Catholics who prefer the ad hominem to other arguments have invented over the years about Luther. Informed Catholics of good will do not take them seriously.

One last point: "reason" in the sense that Luther used the term referred to attempts to raise logic to the level of revelation. If we accept the premise that God is both smarter and better informed than we, that's a mistake we won't make.

Sad that after all these years, and despite all the efforts of Catholic scholars of good will, Luther continues to be misrepresented among Catholics. Equally sad that so many Lutherans still believe that Catholics are Pelagians, but that's another creel of red herrings.

To Charles Cassil:

Hah, hah, hah, funny and clever. And you are correct: Br. Timothy has a masterful grasp of the question raised by Luther. You will have a hard time in making your demurral more coherent than his exposition.

I'd like to respond to the mistaken notion that some flaw in Protestant doctrine leads to endless splintering.

Of course, in every falsehood is a grain of truth. Certainly, if one believes that the leadership of one's church (the Pope, etc.) is endowed by God with unique authority outside of which one cannot receive Christ's grace, then yes it is less likely that such a person will split away when there is a doctrinal dispute.

However, we cannot gloss over the many splinters that have occurred in Catholicism in spite of this, the most famous of which is the cataclysmic division of the East and West churches (and I suppose we can also include the Protestant Reformation as a Catholic splinter as well...which really encompasses a number of different splinters taking place for different reasons). But before there were Protestants, there were the Waldensians, who some Protestants consider a sort of precursor to themselves. There were also many heretical offshoots such as the Arians who, though heretical, did consider themselves Christians, but were sundered from the orthodox churches (lowercase "o"). And let's not forget the bitter divide over Vatican II.

It's my opinion that one of the reasons so many religious orders exist in the Catholic church is that it has been a way for Rome to retain people within her flock who are discontent with what Rome is doing. "You think we are too materialistic in Rome? Well then, I permit you to form your own group with a special vow of poverty!" I admit I am oversimplifying, but it is worth pondering.

Today, I come in contact with Catholics of VASTLY different opinions on everything. They are technically unified under the Pope, but they disagree with each other on the very fundamentals of the faith. The unity is purely formal, masking a chasm between those who preach Christ crucified and those who preach nothing at all. I used to joke that Pope John Paul II was the most popular man with the most unpopular gospel, because so many Catholics who felt this powerful emotional connection with him were nevertheless unwilling to take his words seriously. Of course, there were other Catholics who did follow him at a deeper level, but my point is that if you are going to chide Protestants for their splinters, you might first consider the plank in your own Holy See.

I wish that all believers could be united under a universally accepted church structure. I really do. Then again, some would say that they are, because only their particular church contains true believers. Even so, there are so many questions one must ask: what is the proper structure, who has the right to rule over that structure, what happens if the structure breaks down? Maybe if we more fully grasped and lived by the truth of our connection to Christ, then the details would work themselves out and we would function just as well without church leadership as with it. As it is, centuries of wickedness, greed, and power-lust have brought more tragedy to "Christendom" from within than the outside secular world will ever have the power to do.

Bob G.: Thank you for responding to my post.

No humor intended; I am grateful for Br. Timothy's elegance and eloquence, especially in his second post. He describes and deals with fundamental issues decisively, without extraneous bits and pieces to distract from what he is saying. I read his posts as very brief stand-alone essays on the fundamental issues he raises in the posts, rather as responses to any specifics in Timothy George's article or in any one else's posts.

In the first issue of this journal, Fr. Neuhaus stated that his purpose was to provide a forum for intelligent, thoughtful, civil discourse concerning FIRST THINGS, from all perspectives. Br. Timothy's posts seem to me to be outstanding examples of what Fr. Neuhaus hoped for. My purpose was, and is, to be part of what Fr. Neuhaus hoped for.

Anthony Mator: Thank you for your post.

In your last paragraph, you write, "Maybe if we more fully grasped and lived by the truth of our connection to Christ, then the details would work themselves out and we would function just as well without church leadership as with it." Growing up in mid-20th-century rural midwestern Southern Baptist churches, I consistently heard two claims: (1) I have an individual, personal relationship with Christ, and that relationship governs my life. (2) I support our determinedly congregational form of church government; the only mortal leadership I need is that provided by the elected leaders of our congregation and the pastor they hire.

OOPS! In the second paragraph of my response to Bob G. I meant to say "........ rather THAN as responses to any specifics ..."

This discussion serves to reveal the question most fundamental: Did God call the gentiles to be a new Israel, one like Israel itself (who seem to remain outside of time) peopled by sinners of every stripe but still "chosen"? And is the new Israel God's possession, His family, required to stay together and not divorce in spite of every seemingly justifiable reason to separate? And is this entity of God's creation His and His alone, with Christ as the Head? Are we like the "elder son" unwilling to forgive what the Father himself forgives; to understand that God works through "earthen vessels" and acts through us as his instruments often in spite of ourselves, dividing the Body of Christ on the basis of the behavior of His "unworthy servants"? The scandal of division testifies against the truth of Christ. Acceptance by the Church of Ordinariates acknowledges that faith is a great mystery, that the one Faith can accommodate Talmudic development of doctrine and growth in understanding. This can be compared to marriage within which one must remain if there is to be any chance of attaining union not only of the body but of minds and hearts.

As a product of a Lutheran childhood, but now an Eastern Orthodox Christian these past 20 years I feel very much at home in this kind of discussion (which has not avoided the usual he said/she said polemics; Protestant and Catholic folks remain endearingly the same!), but in important respects find I have become very much the outsider.

I note that the discussion very quickly becomes one centered on the concept of authority, and I note further that the disputants take the same track and select different horses. Luther's "reason vs. faith" is an example, and it is of a piece with "scripture vs. tradition," or "freedom vs. authority." For the Orthodox Christian this can very easily lead to false distinctions which then only serve circular arguments. If, as I assume we all would say, the scriptures and the Church are a gift to us from God, it seems that there is something amiss if we can discuss them only by setting them against one another. In a similar way, "freedom vs. authority" discussions begin with what seems to be a rather unreflective assumption that these are mutually exclusive ideas which can only be in tension, never in harmony. Short spaces invite over-simplification, but to the Orthodox there is no freedom without authority, and there is no authority without those who freely submit to it. This is not to suggest that the questions are unimportant, but that those who discuss them try to notice the way the questions are asked as well as the way arguments are deployed.

What I here suggest, and there is not enough space on a blog-post to fully explore this, is that the participants see themselves not so much as disputants of different camps, but as all being representative of Western Christianity. Br. Timothy, predictably, suggests the authority of the magisterium "over" (not in and with) tradition and scripture, just as Paul asserts, predictably again, that sola scriptura is taught by a magisterial concept that Paul presumably doesn't, as a protestant, believe. In both cases, one detects a number of prior assumptions in both terminology as well as the likely termination of their use in discussion; the same argument with the same unresolved conclusion.

Eastern Christianity has studiously avoided this because of a prior humility (I'm speaking of theology, not behavior here!) regarding the encounter of the Divine with humanity. Yes, yes, the Orthodox have plenty of egg on their collective face due to indiscreet and often uncharitable behavior. Nonetheless, it seems reasonable to ask Western Christians, instead of endlessly updating old arguments leading to the same impasses, to take a good look at the rules of engagement. It just may be that truth might be true and still not intellectually satisfying.

Gilbert writes:

"As Blessed Fr Solanious wrote to his brother, "One of the miracles of God is that the Catholic Church has survived the grevious sins of those in the Church."
Searching the backgrounds of my own ancestors in Scotland, I was struck by the blatant abuse of power by Catholic prelates just before the Protestant revolution. One land owner refused to turn over a piece of his property to the Church. "Excommunicate him," was his bishop's response. "

Not a very good excuse for the Lairds of the Congregation to seize the lands of the Catholic Church in Scotland and to divide them up among themselves by becomingthe patrons of those churches on a congregational basis for the next 315 years. Why were the protestants of Scotland in favor of a "congregational" form of worship while the English Protestants were in favor of an episcopal form of governance? Was it some deep theological disagreement?

Actually not. The answer lies in the very old question: "cui bono?" To whom the benefit? In England, the "reformation" was led by a king who wanted the lands of the Church and for him overseers (episcopoi) served very well. In Scotland, by contrast, the aristocracy saw the chance to grab the lands of the Church while their Queen was off in France and their "good neighbor Bess" was urging them on, to undercut her Catholic rival. Yet if the lairds were going to divide the spoils, they needed a form of governance that permitted the outright soliation of the Church on a parish by parish basis. Thus, they adopted the congregational model that had worked so well in Switzerland when the Swiss protestants divided up the church spoils there.

The fact is that Christ founded only one Church. It should be the same church North of the England Scotland border as it is South of it. There would be no reason for different polities in different countries but for the will to power. Thus, for christians, there are really only two choices: a universal church that goes through out the World teaching all nations to observe what Christ taught and baptizing "in nomine Patris...." or surrendering the church to the whim of the local power brokers.

A correction: I intended to say that we, as sinners, divide the Body of Christ and use human sinfulness as our justification - not that God does.

Anthony has an excellent point about the splintering within Catholicism—to be distinguished from the splintering outside of Catholicism. While there have always been dissenters who remain in the Church for myriad reasons, since Vatican II their ranks have proliferated to an obscene degree. One could argue that this is more scandalous than the visible division of the break-away denominations. There is a certain honesty in leaving when one knows one’s self to be at odds with the Catholic Faith that is grossly lacking in those whose duplicitous claim to remain Catholic only foments discord from within. Some of these nominal Catholics are well-meaning victims of the current culture of dissent, while others defy with a more explicit awareness of the mutiny in which they are engaged. In this regard, we do well to note that those ‘Catholics’ who obstinately refuse to believe what the Church believes automatically excommunicate themselves, spiritually speaking. Their continued presence in the Church is illusory.
As in Jn 6:66, Christ allowed those to leave who knowingly chose not to abide by his teaching. In that sense, by making clear the demands of discipleship Papal authority is doing just what it is meant to do when certain members choose to break away rather than heed these requirements, tragic though this is. My point was that, once groups break away from full, visible communion under the one Vicar of the One Shepherd, it never stops there – their splintering becomes continuous and chronic. As long as the original fracture remains unrepaired, the divisive spirit of rebellion becomes cancerous. Hence, as of 2001 (most recent I could find), there were 33,820 denominations. What I’m suggesting is that this quantity is a clear symptom of the original breakaway from Peter, even if that original breakaway was itself precipitated by the sins of Catholics. It is in this way that I agree with Anthony that Christendom does more harm to itself than the outside world ever could.

Next, I'll try to respond to pdn Michael's thoughtful remarks.

I welcome Br. Timothy's winsome and charitable invitation to dialogue. I think he's right to suggest that authority is a central issue when it comes to moving forward in ecumenical discussions--discussions I take to be of utmost importance. I should like to underscore the suggestion that sola scriptura arguably follows from divine authority. I did not mean to suggest that I find Catholic arguments critical of the doctrine to be a priori or even in principle implausible. I only meant that I thought an argument beginning with the premise of God's final authority and moving forward from there to the conclusion of sola scriptura can be constructed. I think such an argument plausible and not a priori or in principle impossible. Moreover, I think such an argument is likely valid. The real question is about soundness, I think, and not validity (though I readily admit I could be wrong). What I have sometimes found frustrating in Catholic arguments (and I say this as a Protestant who has a great affinity for Rome) is that they seem to take sola scriptura as a priori or in principle impossible and seem to imply the doctrine is self-referentially incoherent. But so to say is to maintain that there is no possible world such that God could actualize it wherein sola scriptura, rightly understood, obtains. And that, I would argue, is to claim too much. So long as there is a possible world such that Sola Scriptura obtains, arguments against it must be de facto rather than de jure. Let me just add that from the Protestant perspective the Scriptures are self-authenticating. Moreover, it is not the Protestant claim that one deduces by oneself the testimony of Scripture. For many Evangelicals the truth of the Gospel and of the fundamentals of Scripture is, from an epistemic standpoint, properly basic (which is not to say self-evident). It is properly basic to the believer (as a believer) due to the work of the Holy Spirit. Finally, from an Evangelical standpoint, arguments deriving from the need of a magisterium seem problematic in light of significant disagreements among Catholics on matters of theological (and not all insignificant ones at that). The Catholic argument for the magisterium should entail considerably more unity in theological matters than one finds in Protestantism. But no one has established that this is in fact the case. And, indeed, there is considerably less disagreement among Evangelicals or orthodox Protestants than Catholic polemics usually suggest. Moreover, there is (or so it seems to many of us within Protestantism who study Catholicism as carefully as we can) more disagreement among Catholics than Catholic apologetics usually suggests as well. Now, let me anticipate a Catholic reply to the Protestant critique that the magisterium doesn't guarantee the sort of unity it needs to if the doctrine is to be leveraged as a critique against sola scriptura. Surely someone will say that Catholic disagreement results from the fact that some follow the magisterium whereas others do not and that some results from the fact that some attend to its teaching more closely than do others. But the same can be said for disagreement among Protestants who subscribe to sola scriptura. I say all this only to further discussion. For though I am Protestant my loyalty is to truth and to Christ and His Kingdom. And so I am not interested in defending Protestantism per se but only in the truth of the matter. With the foregoing, in fact, I am less concerned with defending Protestantism as such than I am with raising what seem to me to be real problems implicit in standard Catholic criticisms of the Protestant position on the authority of Scripture as the ground and rule for the authority of the church (for we do not deny the existence of ecclesiastical authority). So I hope this reply meets with sincere and charitable engagement rather than denunciation. I am certain that in the case of Br. Timothy it shall. For now . . . Under the Mercy.

pdn Michael offers a refreshing perspective from the Orient. Trying to keep this response concise, let me simply suggest that the problem may not be as much with the inadequacy of the same old arguments as it is the recalcitrance of the same stubborn hearts. St. Thomas reminds us that the effects of original sin were more damaging in the will than in the mind, so that truth can be attained conceptually but rejected volitionally, (as Patricksarsfield alludes to in his observations of the ignoble motives operative on both sides of these debates, …and as I know all too painfully from the obduracy of my own heart). (cf. also Rom 7)

The Catholic approach does not create dichotomies between Scripture & Tradition, and forgive me if I gave any impression other than that the Magisterium is at the service of these twin fonts of Revelation. What seems most operative in the persistent disunity of Christendom (though Protestant and Orthodox are radically different cases) is a willful refusal to receive with deference the gift God has given to the Church in the necessary service that the Magisterium provides. St. Paul spoke of “the obedience of faith” in order to indicate its volitional component, because submission is required. When that submission owed to divine authority is concretely mediated by sinful human beings, some will not comply but prefer to obey God in the abstract – which obedience is always compromised by the selfish rationalizations of which we are all too capable.

In illustration of this, then Cardinal Ratzinger (in ‘Pilgrim Fellowship of Faith: The Church as Communion,’ p.36) cites a telling statement of Adolf von Harnack’s: Harnack had stated that the Scriptures themselves, for all practical purposes, expressed the Catholic position on Scripture, Tradition and the teaching office. When E. Peterson asked for an explanation, Harnack replied: “That the so-called ‘formal principle’ of early Protestantism is impossible from a critical point of view and that the Catholic principle is in contrast formally better is a truism; but materially the Catholic principle of Tradition wreaks far more havoc in history.” …to which Ratzinger curtly replies, “What is obvious, and even indisputable, in principle arouses fear in reality.”

Thank you very much, Paul, for the very astute, sincere and polemic-free analysis! I promise to reply in a bit once my duties allow me the time to consider more carefully your thought-provoking points.

To Deo Gratias . . . I have never heard (or read) such comments from a serious Protestant/Evangelical scholar or theologian. I imagine you've heard such things from some Protestant lay persons, perhaps mainly those of a fundamentalist bent influenced by the likes of Bob Jones University. But that hardly counts when it comes to the remarks of serious Protestant scholars and theologians. I distinguished the sorts of engagement that occurs between scholars and theologians, Protestant and Catholic, from the disparaging slurs that drop all too often from the lips of the laity and of polemicists, both Protestant and Catholic. I have witnessed a distinct unwillingness of Protestants and of Catholics to adhere to the teaching of James with respect to the guarding of ones tongue. There's nothing distinctly Protestant about a lack of kindness in speech in these debates. As interested as I've been in a sincere exploration of Catholicism, the vitriol of some Catholic polemics, demonstrating a lack of the charity Catholics say is essential to saving faith, has proven to be for me, at times, a real stumbling block. Conversely, I have been very much disenchanted many a Protestant polemicist. Charity in disagreement is difficult. However, as much lack as there is among the polemicists and all too frequently among the laity, I have observed something different (in general, if not universally) among serious scholars and theologians, Catholic and Protestant. I must also say that I think it uncharitable when Catholics insinuate that Protestants are Protestants rather than Catholic because they haven't read or misunderstand Catholic teaching or because they aren't sufficiently knowledgeable of history or aren't sufficiently smart or are somehow willfully disobedient. I dislike it equally when Protestants think Catholics don't read Scripture enough or are just careless in their interpretation or are inconsistent in their reasoning. Might it not be the case that sometimes we are each well informed regarding the others position and simply disagree? I'm well read in history, in philosophy, in theology (Catholic and Protestant). I am not Catholic, at present, because there are certain Catholic doctrines with which I remain in disagreement--and do so after an exploration of the doctrine and of the Catholic critique of Protestant doctrine. It is a matter of sincere disagreement--not a failure to understand Catholic doctrine or the arguments on its behalf. I think the same can be said for Al Plantinga, Nick Wolterstorff, Norm Geisler, Timothy George, William Lane Craig, and a host of others. Likewise, I'm sure there are Catholics who understand Protestant doctrine but nevertheless reject it. We can never move forward in dialogue unless we concede that there may be real and sincere disagreements that are not simply a function of stupidity (willful or otherwise), lack of knowledge of what others really believe, misunderstanding, etc. Charity requires that we presume better of those with whom we disagree--especially when those with whom we disagree are those who swear allegiance to Christ and to His Kindom.

Having come from a Catholic background and now serving as a United Methodist pastor, I continue to struggle with the issue of earthly authority. Methodists do not have a pope; we have a General Conference that is the ulimate authority of the United Methodist Church. And though some fundamentals are locked, the day-to-day disputes are settled by popular vote. Prior to this vote will be all those mortals who would insist that they are absolutely "right" about this issue or that one because the Bible is "plain". Having only read about Conference goings-on, I see little more than politicking at its worst but all with earnest and sincere intentions. Nor more or less so at SBC gatherings, Episcopal, Lutheran, and all the rest who gather for "holy conferencing".

I think that if we find ourselves humbled rather than theologically correct, the Church may once again find its footing. Once the Church Universal can put aside doctrinal disputes borne of sinfully prideful man, maybe those poor "common folk" will seek to return to the fold once the high-minded scholars and theologians realize that Ultimate Truth: there is a God, and we ain't Him!

Michael writes:

"now serving as a United Methodist pastor, I continue to struggle with the issue of earthly authority. Methodists do not have a pope; we have a General Conference that is the ulimate authority of the United Methodist Church. "

Biblical C&V for the authority of the General Conference?? There is none, of course. At least we Catholics can point to C&V for the authority of the pope and of the successors of the bishops entrusted with authority in apostolic succession (Matt. 16:18; Matt. 28:18-20; John 20:21-24; John 21:15-19: Acts 1:15-26; Acts 10:9-44; Acts 15:1-16:5, particularly Acts 15:7; 2 Tim 1:6, 11, 13-14; 2 Tim. 2:1-2), even if protestants dispute it.

In all events, the Church of Christ clearly had a visible organization for almost 1700 years before the Wesleys were even gleams in their daddy's eye. So where did the authority of this General Conference come from? The Wesleys? Where are they mentioned in Scripture?

Anyone can start a fight about the meaning of Scripture, and believe it or not, many have. In fact, this whole set of comments arises from different attitudes toward the Ecclesiology of the Bible. It is interesting that most protestants don't like to try to trace their churches through history back to the First Century or otherwiseto think through issues of the biblical authority of their church. The Bible is, in most protestants' minds, something useful in judging the Catholic Church, but it is rarely used to judge their own churches.

Paul writes:
" In fact, though Luther struggled with the inclusion of James in the cannon (as did Eusebius, a fact well known to all who have read him carefully), Luther came to accept the inclusion of James. "

The difference between Luther and Eusebius is almost 1200 years. Eusebius wrote on the New Testament book list issue around 337 AD, at a point when there was no sense of the Universal Church on the contents of the Canon of the New Testament. By the time Luther had to face James 2:24 in debates and was looking for a way to dodge its implications for his false dogma of "Sola Fide", the canonicity of James had been accepted for about 1125 years. Yet, the Witness of the Universal Church did not stop Luther from being prepared to toss out even the Table of Contents of the Bible in order to keep alive his pet theory. That is why he dispargingly called James's book "an epistle of straw."

So why did Luther stop struggling and finally accept the canonicity of James? Probably because it exposed the silliness of his "solas." He was supposedly a strong believer in "Sola Scriptura," yet he had so little respect for Scripture in reality that he would chuck some of it out to maintain his other sola--fide.

Br. Timothy, I hope you're not disappointed that "the Orient" I write from is Northeast Indiana! :)

The Orthodox Church does not conceptualize a "magisterium" in the sense Br. Timothy explains. Submission is required, but it is submission in, with and through the community that is the Church. Again, we haven't a great deal of space here, but the magisterium idea presupposes a dividing of the Church into the sum of its constituent parts, where this part submits to that part but not another part. I have no doubt that Br. Timothy has given us a remarkably accurate description of the magisterium and its working in just a few words, but the Orthodox Church does not teach that there is such an animal.

Among Orthodox laity there is also a good deal of misunderstanding, due in no small part to the uncritical acceptance of cultural and political norms, about what exactly the Church teaches. But the "internal dissenter" such as a Michael Moore, a Francis Kissling or an Orthodox version of "Call to Action" doesn't exist. There is occasional lay agitation, and often on good grounds, but the radical Charles Curran type of theologian, for example, will not be found in an Orthodox institution, nor do we find Orthodox priests clamoring for normalization of homosexuality or female ordinations. Orthodoxy has issues, but nothing like the quantity or intensity of internal Catholic dissent (see, for example: http://www.tldm.org/news6/dissenters.htm).

Thus, I might point out that, even without a magisterium as such, there has been significantly less "institutional theological meandering" on the order Br. Timothy mentioned in his response to Anthony.

What to say to the Catholic, mystified at the notion of 20 centuries of unified teaching and horrified nonetheless at the lack of a magisterium?? " “What is obvious, and even indisputable, in principle arouses fear in reality.” (My thanks to his Holiness for yet another great quote)!

Ah Patrick, you rather ignored the main point in my post. None of the other major Reformers struggled with the inclusion of James (Calvin did not, Zwingli did not, Melancthon did not, Bullinger did not . . .). But they all subscribed to Sola Scriptura. And that is just the point. Nothing in Sola Scriptura implies or requires being cavalier about the canon or about the place of James in Scripture. Otherwise your presentation of Luther's example would have been followed. But it wasn't. That's a real problem for your argument; one which I think it behooves you and other Catholic apologists to acknowledge. Moreover, I notice the present Pope has a considerably more charitable attitude towards Luther--as do some rather prominent Catholic theologians--than do many of the posts here. It strikes me as a strange sort of fundamentalism to say Luther has nothing to say. Finally, your argument concerning Luther's acceptance of James later in life is entirely speculative with no consideration of historical context and no grounding in anything Luther actually said. Is it responsible so to speculate about the man's motives, which you insinuate without evidence to have been insincere, with no consideration of what he actually said and with no consideration of historical context? I wouldn't let my students get away with that. I'd have "Evidence?" in the margin right beside the speculative claim.

Paul writes:

"Ah Patrick, you rather ignored the main point in my post. None of the other major Reformers struggled with the inclusion of James (Calvin did not, Zwingli did not, Melancthon did not, Bullinger did not . . .). But they all subscribed to Sola Scriptura. And that is just the point. "

Hmmm...this is what I often get with Protestant interlocutors. When we nail down the errors of one Protestant, they come back with the always true assertion that there is always some other protestant who says something different. That may provide an out in a debate, but it is also the great weakness of Protestantism. It stands for everything and nothing.

Let's examine Luther's "Sola Scriptura." When one book (James) undoes his Sola Fide position, he just declares it out ofthe canon and gets to stick to his "Sola Scriptura" claim too! Yet Protestants ignore "Sola Scriptura" entirely when it comes to Ecclesiology, as I have previously pointed out. If the Good Book says that Christ founded His Church in the First Century AD, how can Protestants claim to follow Scripture when they belong to churches that were founded 1500 years too late or more? Where's their C&V for such a departure from the ecclesial provision Christ already made for us?

Patrick, my position wasn't an out. I wasn't defending Luther or Protestantism but criticizing certain critiques. And my point was strictly a logical one. It's about whether Sola Scriptura entails (and therefore establishes as a necessary condition) rewriting the canon. The fact that other Reformers subscribed to Sola Scriptura and were not only fine with but were defenders of the established canon suggests that it does not. And so my criticism of your argument was not searching for an "out" for Luther but simply an application of modus tollens. In fact, tossing something from the canon is quite obviously inconsistent with sola scriptura. What is required of you Patrick, to meet my argument, is to show that, necessarily (in terms of logical entailment), the other reformers were self-contradictory by not tossing parts of the canon. But again, as they understand sola scriptura, the doctrine itself requires of them that they not do so. Finally, you are simply wrong on the evidence to say Luther declared James non-canonical. He never did any such thing.

Paul writes:

"And my point was strictly a logical one. It's about whether Sola Scriptura entails (and therefore establishes as a necessary condition) rewriting the canon. The fact that other Reformers subscribed to Sola Scriptura and were not only fine with but were defenders of the established canon suggests that it does not. And so my criticism of your argument was not searching for an "out" for Luther but simply an application of modus tollens. In fact, tossing something from the canon is quite obviously inconsistent with sola scriptura. "

Wrong. Because the canon is not a list contained within Scripture or determinabble by Scripture but something decided by the Church and recorded in its Tradition, arguing about the canon's elements is necessarily inconsistent with the Sola Scriptura Dogma. Moreover, it shows the frailty of SS. The list was not a "god-breathed" writing of the First Century recognized by all churches of the Apostolic Age as a necessary element of Scripture (the usual protestant canard for how the list got devised), but the creation of St. Athanasius in 367 AD or so, and later adopted by Catholic Church Councils at Hippo and Carthage. (Thanks to Holy Mother Church for that, btw, Paul).

In truth, SS was a ploy adopted by Luther as a way to parry the Tradition of the Church, but then he was confronted with James 2:24 which destroys his other false sola (Sola Fide). So, he fell to disparaging the Word of God as containing an epistle of straw. Did that make him look like a hypocrite? Of course.

Still on board here; looking forward to responding finally to your fine post of a few days ago, Paul, once my coursework for the week is finished late Thursday!

Paul writes:

"To show I am wrong you must move from Luther to show that there is a necessary contradiction in the acceptance by Melancthon, Calvin, Zwingli, Bullinger and others of Sola Scriptura and the canonicity of James. By focusing on Luther your argument remains ad hominem and caricatures and fails to do what it must to establish your point. Why have you avoided considering the other Reformers on this question. Focusing on Luther as you do makes the argument appear a bit ad hominem to me."

Paul, there are times when ad hominems are not inappropriate. Ad hominems are inappropriate when they are used to undercut an opponent's substantive points. They are appropriate, though, to address the worthiness of a particular person. For example, if someone were to say that Joe Stalin was a person of honor and decency, it would be appropriate to show that he was a bloodthirsty genocidal maniac.

Here, my focus on Luther is entirely on the mark. The main article concerns Luther's career. Indeed, it makes the dubious claims that "Martin Luther belongs to the entire Church" and that he is "a teacher of the Christian church whom one can hardly celebrate in any other way but to listen to him...." Well, "hardly." In truth, Luther arguably has more in common with his famous analogy (the dunghill thing) than with a doctor of the Church.

I had a prior post deleted so I could edit a few egregious grammatical errors. Here it is again:

"Patrick, I never said the canon was a list contained in Scripture. Nor does anything in my argument turn on assuming such a proposition. Those of us within Evangelicalism who went to Evangelical liberal arts colleges or who are scholars by trade are well aware of the history and development of the canon. So were most of the Reformers (Calvin--and I'm no Calvinist--and Melancthon knew the history of the development of the canon quite well, to name a few). You really seem to have accepted caricatured views of Protestant and Evangelical theology at many points. In particular, your account of the Protestant view of sola scriptura really is ahistorical (as exhibited by your insistence that Luther did something he did not do--declare James non-canonical). But setting that aside, I believe you mean that the church recognized the word of God in Scripture rather than that the church determined Scripture was the Word of God--if you think otherwise, I think you invite more philosophical problems than you realize; most of your criticisms against sola scriptura would then apply against tradition, which at a minimum would seem arbitrary. The notion that Scripture is God breathed, it seems to me, is uncontroversial--since that's right there in the text. And sola scriptura IS compatible with a process of recognition over time of that which is God breathed. Indeed, Protestants following the Reformers have maintained that the canon is the recognition by the church universal of that sacred and authoritative Word that the Apostle calls "God-Breathed". Moreover, your response still doesn't meet my argument. To show I am wrong you must move from Luther to show that there is a necessary contradiction in the acceptance by Melancthon, Calvin, Zwingli, Bullinger and others of Sola Scriptura and the canonicity of James. By focusing on Luther your argument remains ad hominem and fails to do what it must if it is to establish your point. Why have you avoided considering the other Reformers on this question. Your avoidance makes your argument not only appear ad hominem but also guilty of the genetic fallacy."

Patrick then seems to concede my point that his argument is ad hominem vis-a-vis the discussion of sola scriptura, which is a substantive point. And so, whatever one is to make of the doctrine, he has't presented an argument, by his own admission, against that doctrine, but only against Luther as a person. But from the standpoint of Evangelical Protestantism, the worthiness is beside the point. It is the adequacy of the doctrine that matters. I haven't run across an Evangelical (or even a Lutheran) in a long time who claims to be a follower of Martin Luther. They claim, rather, to follow Scripture. Unless you turn from the ad hominem argument, you cannot claim that your arguments are designed to persuade. For, as you concede, ad hominem arguments never reach points of substance. Also, I disagree that they are anything but fallacious. I know a good number of Catholic philosophers who would agree with me about that.

My apologies for having to disappear for a few days to attend to coursework! Now that I can step back from that, Paul this is a response to your post of 11/2 @ 12:21pm, for which I am grateful. This is an opportunity to engage questions I’ve not considered this explicitly. When you speak of the plausibility of constructing an argument for S.S. in another possible world, I can’t help but wonder what that argument would look like. My particular curiosity focuses on how much of the actual world would carry over to the alternate, possible world. I recognize the utility of arguments about possible worlds, but in this case my concern is that such an approach prescinds too much from the historical particulars of God’s revelation in Christ. That is to say, in the possible world wherein S.S. obtains, would it still be the case that the Scriptures weren’t written until a number of decades after the Resurrection & Ascension? Or would it be necessary to have the Scriptures written before the Ascension in order to construct the argument? Possible world arguments can work well for some theological questions (St. Thomas himself does it with fascinating results); but the difficulty is that much of Christian faith concerns contingent, historical events, and I would submit that the transmission of Divine Revelation is one such doctrine that is inextricably bound up in a number of historical particulars. In other words, the best Catholic argument is going to rest on a combination of de jure and de facto claims. Given then that the Scriptures came on the scene when many Christians had already lived their lives in obedience to Christ and many of them had died for his Name, S.S. seems to be unfeasible de jure in light of the de facto history of the transmission of Revelation in the early Church.

Concerning the genesis of Christian faith in a given believer, I wonder how the self-authentication of the Scriptures works in light of St. Paul’s axiom of Rom. 10:17 – fides ex auditu. I cite this not so much for the Scriptural authority as for the practical account of how faith is so often handed on and received. It is more the proclamation of Christ that leads to faith in the Scriptures than it is the reading of the Scriptures themselves prior to having had a personal encounter with a believer. What I’m suggesting is that in one way or another (even via tv, radio, etc…) the prior testimony of a believer (confessing with the lips, if you will) is essential. There is something about the nature of Christian faith that is inherently communal, and as soon as we get communal we’re talking about the Church, even if in a mitigated form. In order to defend the self-authenticating nature of the Scriptures, proponents of the position must prove that in every case the encounter with the written word inspires faith in and of itself and without any reference at all to prior encounters with believers who testify to its divine authorship. Given the deeply communal character of Christian faith and the history of the Scriptures having been produced by the community of the Church, to sever their authentication from the influence of the community seems entirely untenable.

This is due largely to the Sacramental character of the Church as a continuation of the Incarnation – which is the heart of Divine Revelation. God could have continued to speak to his people “in various ways through our ancestors the prophets,” but he preferred to take an infinite qualitative leap in Revelation by sending his Son/Word ‘in the flesh.’ The written word was not adequate by itself to convey the intimacy with which God wants to be known by His people, in much the same way that we prefer a personal visit from our loved ones to a letter. The Incarnation itself is a very loud statement that God wants His self-revelation to be concrete and personal in every sense of the term. The Catholic principle (which is eminently reasonable) is that this did not change when Christ ascended; rather, the Church continues the Incarnation in history, because in a mystical and mysterious sense, it truly is the Mystical Body of Christ. The Word became flesh, because God willed for all time for his people to have personal contact with Him through faith. As Luigi Giusanni describes beautifully in “Why the Church?,” when Christ sent out the 72, he was essentially saying that an encounter with a disciple is actually tantamount to an encounter with Him. “Whoever receives you, receives me,” is not merely a juridic metaphor but a literal indicative imbued with realism, due to the mystical indwelling of the Trinity in the souls of believers. Christ could have sent parchments with written messages to the villages and towns of Galilee and Judea, but instead he either went there himself or sent the apostles and disciples as his emissaries. (This is in no way to suggest that Christ belittled the importance of written communication; far from it!) The gathering and preparing of the 12 and the 72 for the sake of mission, (“As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”), culminating with the Great Commission at the end of Matthew’s Gospel, are among the many clear indications that Christ willed personal witness to be an essential component of the transmission of the Good News. Thus, rather than the Scriptures being self-authenticating, it is the Church that is self-authenticating as a moral miracle, which Vatican I spelled out at more length. Though it is quite arguable that such a mode of revelation follows from the very nature of human existence, given the metaphysical principle that “what is received is received according to the mode of the receiver,” (i.e., in this case, human persons receive communication most intimately and potently through personal interaction), the case for the Church as instrument of Revelation does not rest on such an argument, compelling though it is. Fundamentally, it rests on the dispensation that we actually have in Christ. In other possible worlds, God could have done any number of things differently; but the limitation of that mode of argumentation is that the only world we have access to is the one God has really actualized, and in that world Christ founded a fledgling Church/Community before the New Testament ever came to be.

This is an extremely limited example of the combination of de facto and de jure arguments that constitute the Catholic position as I understand it. As it only attends to the first half of Paul’s post from 11/2, I’ll have to try to treat some of his other worthy considerations later in the weekend. Meanwhile, may the Word be on our lips and in our hearts!

Paul tries to put words in my mouth with this:

"Patrick then seems to concede my point that his argument is ad hominem vis-a-vis the discussion of sola scriptura, which is a substantive point. "

Not at all. In connection with Timothy George's column praising Luther, I had started out addressing Luther's risible attempt to ignore James 2:24 by reading it out of the canon of Scripture as an "epistle of straw." Paul didn't want to deal with that, so he tried to change the subject by noting that other Protestants didn't follow Luther on that. I responded that there are always a multiplicity of opinions about anything in Protestantism so let's get back to Luther. After more back and forth with Paul trying to stay as far from Luther's arrogance on the issue of canon and me remarking on the irony of that position when juxtaposed against Luther's purported belief in the S.S. dogma, Paul insisted once again on my addressing those other protestants' positions on SS. At that point, Paul accused me of an ad hominem re Luther, and I simply noted that ad hominems are not appropriate when used to rebut a substantive point but are most appropriate when addressing the merits of a particular man. And so we come full circle. For all the reasons heretofore noted, I disagree entirely with George's view that Luther belongs to the entire Church (meaning Catholics as well as Protestants). Sorry, but "you can have him, we don't want him; he's too rageful for us."

I confess that I'm unsure as to what to do with Patrick's post. I never responded to Patrick in such a way as to defend the good Dr. George's account of Luther. Indeed, Patrick initiated the discussion by criticizing a post I made in response to others, a post that predates his earliest post. All my posts to Patrick have therefore been defenses of my own argument against his criticisms not of Dr. George (who can defend himself, I'm sure) but of me. This renders Patrick's present attack and revision of the history of the dialogue enigmatic indeed. And I once again maintain that his account of Luther lacks fidelity to the historical record. But I am not interested in defending myself. Nor am I interested in defending Luther. Nor have I been criticizing Rome. I have been interested in encouraging a charitable discussion on the substance in the interest of truth and in the interest of counteracting the stereo-typing of Protestants and the caricaturing of their history and position that is advanced by Patrick and others. My only interest has been arguments that are valid and sound. Arguments that are not must be rejected, whether Protestant or Catholic. Moreover, insisting Luther declared James non-canonical or that he tossed a particular verse does not move from being false to true by mere repetition of the claim. And calling him "rageful" is name calling rather than argumentation. I confess that I find Catholics as guilty as Protestants about that sort of thing. But it's of little use to any of us.

Brother Timothy. It is so good to see your lengthy and considered reply. If you will, I'm in the midst of grading graduate student essays and about to prepare a 3 hour class discussion on Pufendorf, Filmer, and Locke. But I am very much interested in proffering a reply and in reading your response. I very much appreciate your thoughtful engagement.

Paul writes:
" I have been interested in encouraging a charitable discussion on the substance in the interest of truth and in the interest of counteracting the stereo-typing of Protestants and the caricaturing of their history and position that is advanced by Patrick and others. "

Sorry, but I do not accept the premise that it is "charitable" to ask Catholics to accept Luther as "a teacher of the Christian church whom one can hardly celebrate in any other way but to listen to him?" Although I am being a lot easier on him than he was on the Roman Catholic Church, I should note that Luther was a vow-breaking, hate-filled subverter of the Christian Church and a lickspittle for the North German princes who planted the seeds for a number of religious wars beginning with the Peasants Revolt of 1524 and continuing up through the Thirty Years War. It is important to note this view of Luther in clarion terms. If other Catholics want to be more irenic, they of course can be. As for me, whenever that awful man is thrown up as a paragon of churchmen, I am going to dissent.