James White – Mr. Apologetics Misfires – Part 2

Before getting into Dr. White’s charge that John Robbins “took him to task” for not being “nasty,” “angry,” and “mean-spirited” to papist apologist Robert Sungenis, I would like to look at a few points raised in the debate itself.  As I mentioned in Part 1, in addition to the above charge, White accuses Robbins of “going after” him “for not calling Robert Sungenis a papist.” While I could not find anything to support this charge in the material White provided, John did ask, “In light of Galatians 1, would you object to calling Robert Sungenis damned? If so, why?” I admit I could not find Dr. White’s response to this question, but I hardly think this supports his charge.

Admittedly, some of the responses in the exchange tend to bleed together, and, at times, it’s even difficult at times to tells who is saying what, so perhaps I overlooked something?  But, in fairness, asking whether or not Dr. White would consider Sungenis damned is hardly “going after” him and certainly not for failing to identify Sungenis as a papist.

For the record, I have no trouble calling Sungenis a papist for the simple reason that he is a papist. I also have no problem saying Sungenis is damned in light of Galatians 1; “But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed.” Sungenis certainly qualifies.  The man is as Hell bound as the popes he follows.  Sungenis is the president of Catholic Apologetics International which is an organization that bills itself as “an international evangelistic organization dedicated to teaching and defending the Catholic faith.”   Sungenis is one of Rome’s chief apologists and is a man who claims to have once been a Christian; a Protestant.  To seek to evangelize such a man would be akin to Paul attempting to evangelize the Judaizers who were advancing another gospel in the Galatian church.  Frankly, a better example of the type of man exemplified in Hebrews 6 would be hard to find:

For in the case of those who have once been enlightened and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put Him to open shame.

I’m hard pressed to see what Dr. White’s problem might be on this point, assuming the above citation from Dr. Robbins is what White had in mind?  Besides, and as we will see a bit later, given White’s conciliatory attitude toward Sungenis, not to mention his obvious disdain for Dr. Robbins, I think Dr. Robbins raised a valid question.  After all, I would imagine Dr. White makes a good part of his living publicly debating men like Sungenis, so I hardly think it is in his interest to alienate the man.  I imagine that is one of the hazards of being a professional apologist.  No Romanist with any sense would have invited John Robbins down to the local Knights of Columbus hall to debate one of their preistlings or surrogates.  Some people are just too big a threat to their cause.

I am indebted to Dr. White for providing me with this brief Robbins/Sungenis debate (anyone who would like a copy of the exchange may email me privately). While it is clear that portions of the debate have either been left out, edited out, or are simply missing, I found the exchange, at least those parts dealing with Mr. Sungenis, to be helpful, insightful, instructional, and even exhilarating. Dr. Robbins completely undressed Sungenis, exposed him, and then sent him running.

The first thing John does is to assert that the Roman church teaches evolution.  Here he sets the trap:


It is interesting to see firsthand one of the debate tricks that the zealous defender of Romanism, Robert Sungenis, uses.

I asserted that the official teaching of the Roman Church-State is the doctrine of evolution–that at least the body of man evolved from lower life forms. I further asserted that this doctrine is taught in the 1992/1994 Catechism of the Roman Church-State. Mr. Sungenis does not deny either proposition; he simply ignores them, and provides us with a red herring, the irrelevant issue of what some Romanist laymen may believe.

The question is not what Roman Catholic laymen might believe, but what the Magisterium teaches. The Magisterium teaches evolution, as everyone who has read the 1992/1994 Catechism knows. The reason it changed its mind in the 20th century and not before is the emergence of the scientific theory of evolution. The Roman Church-State reads Genesis 1 through evolutionary glasses. Read the Catechism for yourself, folks.

John Robbins

Taking the bait Sungenis replies:

. . . The above is an example of the kind of distortion which will result when one’s animosity against the Catholic Church gets carried away with him. I am accused of “ignoring” Mr. Robbins’ assertions, and instead, giving a “red herring” of “irrelevant issues.” Well, lets see. This is what I wrote in my very first sentence to Mr. Robbins in the post of 8-4-00: “Evolution is not, and never has been, an official position of the Roman Catholic Church.” Now, does that sound like I am “ignoring” Mr. Robbins’ assertion, or that I am creating a “red herring”? How much more plain can I be? Whether you want to accept it as fact or not, Mr. Robbins, the Catholic Church has NEVER made an official teaching embracing the doctrine of evolution, notwithstanding your ‘out of context’ quotes from the Catechism below. You won’t even find the word “evolution” in the Catechism.

So here is your challenge: If you can find me an official teaching of the Catholic Church which states in categorical language that evolution is the model of origins believed by the Catholic Church, that man is a result of a biological/evolutionary process such that he is descended from apes, and which is thus required to be believed by all the members of the Catholic Church, then I’ll send you $1000.

In response to Sungenis’ challenge Robbins demonstrates, from Rome’s own catechism, that the Roman church/state teaches evolution by necessary implication (not something that I thought was a secret even in 2000 when the debate took place). John writes:

Here are some of the things the official Catechism of Rome says on this issue:

“God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity, and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator SYMBOLICALLY as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day….”(337)

“The human person, created in the image of God, is a being at once corporeal and spiritual. The biblical account expresses this reality in SYMBOLIC language when it affirms that ‘then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” (362)

“Man and woman have been created, which is to say, willed by God….” (369)

“The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator….”(283)

“Among all the Scripture texts about creation, the first three chapters of Genesis occupy a unique place. From a literary standpoint, these texts may have had diverse sources. The inspired authors have placed them at the beginning of Scripture to express in their solemn language the truths of creation….” (289)

Note that Genesis is symbolic, but science has “splendidly enriched” our  “knowledge” of origins. Note the definition of “creation” as “willed.”

The Roman Church-State officially teaches heresy on the doctrine of creation–surprise, surprise!

John Robbins

While Sungenis does his best to spin the above official teaching of Rome, Robbins clearly grasped the implications of Rome’s  teaching which is verified by none other than pope John Paul II:

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points….Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies — which was neither planned nor sought — constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory.

Even the current pope, Joseph Ratzinger, aka Benny XVI, is an evolutionist:

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the ‘Big Bang’ and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5 – 4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.

The long and short is that John Robbins set a trap, Robert Sungenis walked into it by denying Rome teaches evolution, Robbins slammed the trap shut by demonstrating the very thing Sungenis denied. Brilliant. Then while trying his best to dig himself out of the hole he found himself in, Sungenis made this admission:

. . . the Catholic Church can, on the one hand, allow its members to side with evolutionary theory, yet at the same time, not endorse the theory as an official teaching of the Catholic Church at all.

Granted, there are many theologians in the Catholic Church who heartily accept evolutionary theory, just as there are many Protestant theologians who accept it. Individuals in our Church are not immune to the influences of the sciences, whether they be right or wrong.

To which another contributor to the list observed:

. . . although the Roman Catholic Church does not teach that Evolution is *definite*, dogmatic truth, it does nonetheless teach that it is *possibly* true, otherwise your Church would not, as you have said . . .  “ALLOW its members to SIDE with evolutionary theory…” I don’t believe I have ever heard a Protestant state that Rome teaches “ALL MUST believe in Evolution because it is a FACT”, so that’s not really the issue.

While the above observation was helpful it veered a little wide of the mark, so Robbins nails the door shut:


If evolution is “possibly true,” as Sungenis now admits the Roman Church-State teaches, then the Bible is certainly false, for the Bible claims that creation is true. Of course, the Roman Catechism denies the sufficiency, inerrancy, and reliability of the Bible in other paragraphs, which I have not yet quoted.

This message–as I am sure you understand–is full of “hatred,” simply because I tell the truth about Romanism without sugarcoating it for sensitive, itching ears.

John Robbins

Yet, not resting on this single point in the debate, which would have been victory enough, Robbins also and completely undressed Sungenis by systematically exposing his debating tricks.


Once again, Robert Sungenis has unintentionally provided us with illustrations of his debating tricks. As you recall, his first trick was to drag a red herring across the argument so that it would distract from the question at hand. Here are five more tricks:

Debating Trick # 1: Abusive ad hominem.

By changing the name of this thread from “Who wants to be a millionaire?” to “Who wants to be a bigot?” Sungenis clumsily suggests that I am a bigot. The principle is: When one is in danger of losing an argument, attack one’s opponent personally. Of course, I am very fortunate. When Mr. Sungenis’ fathers in his faith were in danger of losing arguments to Christians, they murdered them. I am grateful that Mr. Sungenis is unlike them in that regard.

Debating Trick # 2: Blow and Bluster.

Sungenis repeatedly demands to know where the word “evolution” appears in official Roman Church-State documents. He makes so much of this distraction that it reminds one of a Jehovah’s Witness demanding to know where the word “Trinity” appears in the Bible. Neither demand refutes the fact that the Bible teaches the doctrine of the Trinity, and the Roman Church-State teaches the doctrine of evolution.

Debating Trick # 3: Offer money.

Such offers make a macho show of confidence in one’s position, but they do nothing to establish it. Sungenis writes: “Mind you, we don’t want your interpretation of Catholic statements; we want a clear, official teaching from the Catholic Church’s magisterium which uses the word “evolution” and “Genesis 1″ in the same sentence, and thereby holds that man evolved from lower forms.”

Debating Trick # 4: Argumentum ad populum.

Sungenis repeatedly appeals to the popularity of his views, e.g., “as anyone who has studied theology knows,”Most responsible exegetes,” “many conservative Protestant analyses of Genesis,” etc. But counting noses cannot establish truth. All these statements show, if they are true, is that those who have graduated from and teach in theological seminaries are not to be trusted.

Debating Trick # 5: Misrepresent the Roman Catechism.

Sungenis adds an “only” and a “merely” when he reports what the Catechism says: “Notice that the Catechism says only that the “…six days of divine WORK concluded by the REST of the seventh day” are what it deems as symbolic, not that the days of Creation stand for evolutionary time, nor that “symbolically” equates with evolution. The Catechism is merely saying, that God does not “work” and “rest” as man does. In this sense, God’s “work” and “rest” are symbolic of creation and the cessation of creation.”

But the Catechism does not say that at all, as Mr. Sungenis well knows. The Catechism says that the divine act of creating man is itself symbolic: “The biblical account expresses this reality in SYMBOLIC language when it affirms that ‘then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” (362)

Sungenis himself unwittingly admits: “most of Genesis 1-3 does not use mere literal language, rather it uses language that is pregnant with symbolic meaning….”

Conclusion: Pay up.

Sungenis offered a $1,000 to anyone who could find a sentence in which the Roman Church-State officially teaches evolution. Mirabile dictu, Sungenis quoted the sentence himself, but because he was fixated on the word “evolution,” a veil was over his eyes as he read: “The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator….”(283)

The Roman Church-State does indeed choose its words very carefully and very cleverly. Here it chose to use the older word for evolution: “development.” And here it clearly teaches evolution in these words: “many scientific studies…have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the…development of life-forms and the appearance of man.” It praises these “discoveries.”

So what Sungenis says the Church-State has no authority to do, it has done. It has endorsed a theory of evolution that, to quote Sungenis, “has not been proven by any stretch of the imagination.”

The Question

Now the question is, Will Sungenis send me $1,000? Of course not. He never intended to pay anyone. Like the rest of Romanism, the $1,000 reward was all a trick.

John Robbins

After a little more floundering by Sungenis and after Robbins mentioned he must have hit a nerve,  Sungenis ended the debate with this:

The only thing you hit, Mr. Robbins, is the fact that you are a bigoted ignoramus who likes to engage in throwing insults, but doesn’t have the guts to answer the hard challenges posed to him. Your character reeks of hatred and pride, and I want nothing further to do with you. Please don’t clutter up my email box with your insidious remarks any longer.

Robbins shot back:

I hope to use Sungenis’ endorsement on the jacket of my next book on Roman Catholicism.

John Robbins

P.S. Sungenis has now stopped receiving email from me.

Well, James,

You need not worry that Robert Sungenis and I will continue to bombard your pure ears with “unwarranted” invective. If you have received the last email from Sungenis, you know that the debate will not continue. My exposure of Sungenis’ debating tricks ended the debate.

But you would agree that strong, harsh language is sometimes warranted, would you not?

John Robbins

Now, before moving on, let’s recap. Dr. Robbins set a trap by asserting the Roman church/state teaches evolution. Robert Sungenis denied this point. Robbins provides evidence from Rome’s own catechism affirming evolution.  Along the way Robbins exposes Sungenis’ disingenuous and dishonest debate tactics for all to see.  Then, in addition to welshing on his bet, Sungenis responds by attacking Robbins with a torrent of mean-spirited invectives and slander (the proverbial middle finger) and runs away with his tail between his legs. Bravo. This is the way to deal with false teachers from Rome like Sungenis who run around peddling their false gospels.

There are many examples in Scripture where Jesus demonstrates how we are to deal with false teachers and religious leaders who would attempt to undermine the simplicity and truth of the gospel. Take for example the many times Jesus made quick work of the Pharisees and Sadducees by exposing their hypocrisy while turning the tables on his adversaries who sought to trap him only to be trapped themselves. The examples in Matthew 22 alone should suffice.  Beyond that, Paul tells us in Romans to “mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.” Notice, we are not to entertain them or engage them for our own profit or for the entertainment of others. We are to mark and identify such persons as corrupter’s of the faith and avoid them.

In his letter to the Galatians Paul warns us about “false brethren who had sneaked in to spy out our liberty that we have in Christ Jesus, in order to bring us into bondage.” Yet, rather than having his ears tickled by such men Paul states, “But we did not yield in subjection to them for even an hour, so that the truth of the gospel might remain with you.” While men like Sungenis are more transparent and easy to identify than many “false brethren” (like those now infecting P&R churches), his entire reason for being is to bring Christians under the bondage of Rome.

In his letter to the Ephesians Paul tells us to “not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them . . . .” Dr. Robbins did exactly that. He carefully followed the examples and precepts of Scripture on how we are to deal with vultures like Sungenis. Yet, the real story is what comes next and that is the utterly nauseating defense by some (I assume) purportedly “Protestant” men of Robert Sungenis. Rather than taking up the flanks in the heat of battle, these weak-kneed, tone-deaf and effete religious types start to attack Robbins for his harsh “tone” and imagined nastiness in dealing with poor papist and Roman Catholic apologist, Robert Sungenis — James White included.  We will examine the aftermath of this debate in the next installment.

Part 3

Explore posts in the same categories: John Robbins, Theology

18 Comments on “James White – Mr. Apologetics Misfires – Part 2”

  1. justbybelief Says:

    “God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity, and order. Scripture presents the work of the Creator SYMBOLICALLY as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day….”(337)

    This sounds an awful lot like the framework theory.

  2. berhane Says:

    This article was poorly done. Nothing in the Catechism as cited in this article compels a Catholic to profess evolution, just because you and Robbins say so does not make it the case. Symbolic does not equal Evolution in any world.

    Those papal passages do not compel Catholics to profess evolution as dogma. Papal opinions are just opinions, they are allowed to believe things and mention them without requiring them to be dogma.

    I find this article over all dishonest at worst, ignorant of Catholicism at the very least.

  3. denson Says:

    “Nothing in the Catechism as cited in this article compels a Catholic to profess evolution, just because you and Robbins say so does not make it the case. Symbolic does not equal Evolution in any world.”

    Neither Robbins nor Gerety asserted what you deny above. The assertion was that Roman Catholicism teaches evolution, not Roman Catholics are “compelled” to believe evolution.

    Joseph Ratzinger,aka Pope Benny the XVI, says, “In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith…”

    In other words, “the[Roman Catholic] faith” and evolution agree.

    From the Catechism, “The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator….”(283)

    Benny the XVI thinks evolution[scientific studies about origins] is “knowledge” that has enriched him.
    The purpose of official Roman Catholic documents of course is for the consumption of the faithful. For you to claim that Catholics are not really required to be Catholics[they do not have to believe Roman Catholic Dogma] is quite silly, and no one takes you seriously!


  4. Ewan W.Wilson Says:

    A most enlightening and salutary thread! Robbins’ acute mind pentrates to the sick heart of rotten Rome.
    The point is Rome is past master at weasel words, to deceive if were possible, even the elect- so what chance the poor gullible worldling?
    What Rome does is try to hedge its bets here. But as Christ says, you are EITHER with Me OR against Me; and Paul says Let your Yea be Yea and your Nay be Nay.
    The New R.C. Catechism, to my mind, squirms to avoid just that, which is why it cannot even bring itself to use the word ‘evolution’ explicity. Dupes like Sungenis reckon they can therby claim to see the words with a different meaning. Hey presto, Rome is not officially evolutionist!! Sadly, that is just PRECISELY what it IS by playing about with words like this. It REFUSES to defend Creationism, is indifferent to which position one takes, so it is thereby AGAINST the Truth, as Christ solemnly warned. Well done, Robbins for such a masterful expose.

  5. A. Jones Says:

    Sungenis was once an up and coming Catholic Apologist. But that hasn’t been true for almost a decade. So it’s ridiculous to call him one of Rome’s chief apologists. He can’t even get a simple imprimatur on his books any longer and has been reduced to running conferences on conspiracy theories like “geocentrism”.

    The Catholic Church wants nothing to do with his extremism. He was forced to take the name “Catholic” off his website.


    But it does seems that you both deserve one another.

  6. Sean Gerety Says:

    So you’re saying that Sungenis isn’t a Roman Catholic and he has been excommunicated from the Roman state/church? That’s not on the wiki page. But I agree he’s not a very skilled apologist and seems to routinely get his head handed to him, but I think that’s pretty much par for the course for most RC apologist. However, I do agree that there is nothing “catholic” about Sungenis or even the pope for that matter, so what’s your point?

  7. A. Jones Says:

    It’s really not that complicated. In your article, you stated that “Sungenis is one of Rome’s chief apologists.” That’s factually false. If you want to pummel and ridicule Sungenis, you’re free to do so. But don’t mislead your readers into thinking that you are dealing with “one of Rome’s chief apologists.” Again, the two of you seem to deserve one another. Your styles are very much alike.

    As with Sungenis, I find myself wondering if its your intention to actually help lead people TO Christ or to repel them FROM Him.

    Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in praelio. Contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium. Imperet illi Deus, supplices deprecamur. Tuque princeps militiae caelestis, Satanam aliosque spiritus malignos, qui ad perditionem animarum pervagantur in mundo divina virtute in infernum detrude. Amen.

  8. Sean Gerety Says:

    As with Sungenis, I find myself wondering if its your intention to actually help lead people TO Christ or to repel them FROM Him.

    At least we can agree on one thing. As a top apologist for Rome, Robert Sungenis, like all other RCC apologists, lead people away from Christ simply because Rome has no Christ (1 John 2:22).

    And to translate your little prayer (you do know praying to creatures is idolatry, right?):

    Saint Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. On the other hand the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him, we humbly pray. Do thou, O prince of the heavenly host, Satan and all the evil spirits who wander through the ruin of souls in the world the power of God thrust down to hell. Amen.

    Oh brother.

  9. A. Jones Says:

    And now it’s equally evident to all that you’re suffering from that same fatal ailment Lucifer evidenced when he was thrust from heaven by St. Michael the Archangel. Pride. He’s also the father of lies. Hence the prayer to St. Michael for his intercession on your behalf and the people who have the misfortune of reading your blog. And as the meaning of the words seems to have escaped you, you should notice right within the prayer is the answer to your charge about praying to creatures. You have neither wisdom nor understanding.



  10. Sean Gerety Says:

    While you are busy trying to rationalize your idolatry praying to creatures for their intercession, here is the correct response:

    Answer (WLC 179)

    Are we to pray unto God only?

    God only being able to search the hearts, hear the requests, pardon the sins, and fulfill the desires of all; and only to be believed in, and worshiped with religious worship; prayer, which is a special part thereof, is to be made by all to him alone, and to none other.

  11. A. Jones Says:

    [I’m not sure if my posts are being censored now, because it did not appear after I hit “submit.” So, I’ll try to re-write it.]

    I think everyone can see now [as a result of the way you’ve responded to being corrected regarding you false assertions about Sungenis’ standing in the Catholic Church] that you suffer from that same ailment evidenced by Lucifer when he was cast from heaven by St. Michael the Archangel. Pride. Of course, he’s also the father of lies. Hence the prayer to St. Michael on your behalf and for the sake of all those who have the misfortune of reading your blog.

    As you seem to have missed it, the the answer to your newest false statement is within the St. Michael prayer itself. Failing that, these may help you and your readers.

    In Christ Jesus.



  12. A. Jones Says:

    So, you’re appealing to an extra-biblical source to make your case? Interesting.

    Please forgive any offense I may have given.

    May God bless you and the readers of this blog.

  13. Sean Gerety Says:

    [I’m not sure if my posts are being censored now, because it did not appear after I hit “submit.” So, I’ll try to re-write it.]

    A little paranoid Mr. Jones? I don’t censor posts, although I do try and screen them. I leave the censorship for RCC blogs and list serves. FWIW I was on an RCC debate forum once and the moderator not only censored my posts, but went back and in places where I was addressing some Roman priest altered my posts and had me addressing this priestling as “father.” The nerve.

    And, as for “extra-biblical sources,” I agree that the Westminster Larger Catechism would be invalid if its statements could not be validly inferred from Scripture. After all, Jesus did say “Pray, then, in this way: ‘Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be Thy name.'” Notice, not a single mention of Archangel Michael or even Mary your imagined “Queen of Heaven.” Weird, huh?

    Thanks for visiting and no offense taken.

  14. Hugh McCann Says:

    Dear A.J.,

    Sean’s point isn’t that Sungenis is defended by Rome, but that he defends HER.

    It may be that “The Catholic Church wants nothing to do with his extremism,” but he loves HER extremism!

    Michael’s not mentioned on the two pages you cite. Is he a “saint,” anyway? “Praying_to_the_Saints” says the saints are “our departed brothers and sisters in Christ,” not angels.

    Why not bypass saints or angels, and go to the One THEY’RE supplicating: Christ Jesus? St Paul called him the One Mediator between God and man. Can Sts Therese or Joseph or even the BVM top HIM?

    Only “He is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.” (Heb. 7:25.)

    Even the “[Holy] Spirit himself intercedes for us”! (Romans 8:26.)

    Go to the Source of life!


    P.S. If it’s true as some assert (not the RCC), that Michael is Christ, would it thus make it OK to pray to him?

  15. Hugh McCann Says:

    Farther aside, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer commemorates Saints’ days, but only of those found in the Bible. Nor does it address prayers TO them or for other departed.

    For Sept 29, the Feast of St Michael and all Angels:

    The Collect ~ EVERLASTING God, who hast ordained and constituted the services of Angels and men in a wonderful order; Mercifully grant, that as thy holy Angels alway do thee service in heaven, so by thy appointment they may succour and defend us on earth; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

    {That’s far enough, eh?}

    For the Epistle ~ Rev. 12:7-12
    The Gospel ~ St. Matt. 18:1-10.


  16. TimL Says:

    let me be blunt; you’re a bigot.
    The way you characterize Roman Catholics is disgusting.
    There’s faith, hope and charity….. Sean says “fuck charity”.

    But, there is hope – the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church awaits you. The faith of the Church Fathers and the 12 Disciples before them. Well before the fractioning of the fractioning of the fractioning of the fractioning and on and on and on shot out the Presbyterian Church of America.

  17. Hugh McCann Says:

    Love your language, unholy papist. (Not.)

    The way you kiss up to the Holy See is disgusting. There is more hope for a fool than for you: Prov. 26:12; 29:20.

    Grow up or go away. Sean won’t tolerate your bovine scatology, papal minion.

  18. Sean,
    I must say that I did learn much from the late John Robbins when He systematically expose Sungenis debating tricks….


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: