| This paper is written in
expanded outline format.
Summary Outline of this Paper
I. Overriding Concerns
(Listed in order of awareness, rather than in order of importance.)
A. Misleading Advertising
B. Translation of
Scripture
C. Use of Catechism
D. Focus on Baptism
E. Theology of Atonement
F. Connections with
Secret Organizations
G. Doctrinal concerns
noted in written materials
II. Specific Lectures
A. Tim Gray – 31 May
2000
B. Edward Sri – 7
June 2000
C. Curtis Martin –
14 June 2000
III. Transition
IV. Written Materials
– Theological and otherwise contradictory materials from
A. Mission of the
Messiah (by Tim Gray)
B. Mystery of the
Kingdom (by Edward Sri)
C. Catholic for a
Reason (edited by Scott Hahn & Leon J. Supernant, Jr.)
I. Overriding Concerns (Listed
in order of awareness, rather than in order of importance.)
A. Misleading Advertising
Two major points of
concern –
FIRST – the FOCUS
literature is misleading at best. The front of the introductory FOCUS
pamphlet states “College Students Deserve the Truth” and “Know the Truth.”
The problem is not with these statements. The problem is that FOCUS
does NOT teach what is accepted as Catholic Truth.
The inside of the
same introductory FOCUS pamphlet says: “FOCUS will give them the
one thing they need most; the abundant life of Jesus Christ.” This
is incorrect because FOCUS does not give anyone the abundant life of Jesus
Christ. That is a gift from God – not from FOCUS. FOCUS may
“teach about” or “help direct” but FOCUS cannot give what is God’s alone
to give.
Additional FOCUS documents
are dealt with later in this paper.
SECOND – the credentials
listed on the books and pamphlets (including the promotions for the lecture
series) are misleading because these credentials do not match the information
to be found on the internet. Also, the credentials listed purport
to make non-academic credentials sound academic. For the most part,
the true academic credentials of the speakers and writers are neither listed
nor discussed in the introductions.
An example of misrepresentation
is to claim that a person is a co-author of a book when that person is
actually only a contributor (writer of one of the essays included in the
book).
B. Translation of
Scripture
FOCUS does not use
a presently accepted translation of Scripture. FOCUS uses what is
known as the “RSV – Catholic Edition” – a translation that is not accepted
by the church for either liturgy or for catechesis. This edition,
copyright 1965, was accepted at that time because no sound Catholic translations
existed. This “RSV – Catholic Edition” is the old Revised Standard
Edition to which has been added the seven books that Catholics accept that
Protestants do not accept. The RSV was taken directly from the KJV
(King James Version) and, for the most part, is not considered to be a
particularly accurate translation. In Protestant circles, the RSV
was replaced by the NRSV, which is considered to be far more accurate and
exact than its predecessor.
The point is that
FOCUS uses a basically Protestant translation of Scripture – and not a
very good one at that.
The NCCB (National
Council of Catholic Bishops) has decreed and determined that for catechesis
and exegesis the NAB (New American Bible – St. Joseph Edition) should be
used. The St. Joseph Edition includes the expanded footnotes and
commentaries. The NAB first came out in 1970.
IF FOCUS is going
to be involved in Catholic catechesis and exegesis, THEN FOCUS should be
using an approved catechetical and exegetical translation of the Bible.
C. Use of Catechism
FOCUS uses the Catechism
of the Catholic Church (CCC) as the deposit of Tradition. However,
the Apostolic Letter of Pope John Paul II (found at the beginning of the
CCC) specifically calls the CCC a reference book and a catechetical work.
In the CCC, the Pope encourages the study of the original documents.
FOCUS does NOT use original documents. In the materials reviewed
in this paper, not one mention of original documents can be found.
This includes both past and present documents and encyclical.
FOCUS uses the CCC
in a selective manner and tends to take items out of context. For
instance, FOCUS takes prayer material from the CCC and applies it to doctrinal
material.
It should also be
noted that FOCUS material includes no quotations from the PROFESSION OF
FAITH from the CCC.
D. Focus on Baptism
The focus of FOCUS
seems to be Baptism. This is strange because the outreach is to baptized
Catholics (as well as to mainline Protestants) – all of whom have already
been validly baptized.
If the outreach is
to Catholics (the already baptized), the outreach should logically be toward
reconciliation – toward bringing these university Catholics BACK into the
fold. These students do not need baptism; they have already been
baptized. They need the fullness of the sacramental life.
Additional points
on this topic are discussed later in this paper – under the examination
of the Curtis Martin talk.
E. Theology of Atonement
The problems with
the Theology of Atonement as presented by Focus are discussed in the examinations
of Gray’s and Sri’s lectures.
Even so, it is interesting
to note that not one of the speakers talked about the Resurrection.
According to Catholic/Christian doctrine, the Resurrection is the focal
point of our belief.
F. Connections with
Secret Organizations
The problems with
the connections with Secret Organizations are discussed in the examination
of the books in Part IV.
At this point, however,
it should be noted that organizations that specifically work against the
Body of the Church are in violation of Canon Law. Canon 1374 states:
“A person who joins an association which plots against the Church is to
be punished with a just penalty – one who promotes or takes office in such
an association is to be punished with an interdict."
G. Doctrinal concerns
noted in written materials
This concern is addressed
in Part IV below.
II. Specific Lectures
This section is an
examination of three lectures. The Gray lecture was given at St.
Peter’s Church in Greeley, Colorado. The other two lectures were
presented at St. Mary’s Church in Greeley Colorado.
A. Tim Gray – 31
May 2000
The title of Tim Gray’s
talk was “Why did Jesus Live?” The major problem with this title
is that Gray maintained that the mission of the messiah was to call sinners.
If calling sinners was all there was to the mission, there would have been
no need for Jesus because John the Baptist was doing just that – calling
sinners.
The problems with
Gray’s talk are enumerated below.
1. “More and more
dark and pagan society”
Gray began his talk
by stressing that we live in a “more and more dark and pagan society.”
This is incorrect for several reasons. First, we are not a pagan
society. Statistics show that we live in a Christian or Judeo-Christian
society.
Gray equated paganism
with atheism. This is blatantly false. Paganism may be non-Christian;
but it is not atheistic. Paganism is essentially an indigenous or
“folk” religion, a local religion or religion of the land.
Also, the implication
was that pagans were murderers and rapists. Statistics today show
that as a society we do NOT murder and rape to the extent our ancestors
did.
Gray read a quotation
from a letter allegedly written by a Roman soldier to his wife advocating
infanticide if their expected baby was a girl. This was NOT a Roman
practice and Gray’s use of this example demonstrates his misuse of history.
Infanticide was a practice in Sparta – 400 years before Rome. This
was actually one of the problems Rome had with Sparta as the Roman Empire
spread. Rome was against infanticide, despite Gray’s premise.
Check the history books.
While it is entirely
possible that a given Roman soldier did write such a letter to his wife,
Gray’s equating of infanticide with modern abortion is a distortion of
history. Gray’s purpose in doing so – as his talk progressed – seems
to have been to build a mindset on the evils of the Roman Empire and to
equate those evils with modern abortion.
2. Misquote Stanley
Hauerwas
Stanley Hauerwas is
a noted Protestant ethicist. Gray uses a quote from Hauerwas totally
out of context. By reading or listening to Hauerwas one would know
that he was saying exactly the opposite of what Gray was using the quote
for. This type of selective scholarship is always suspect.
3. Jesus at Capernaum
and Nazareth
Gray stresses that
Jesus began preaching his first homily at Nazareth. However, the
other gospels tell us that Jesus was already preaching at Capernaum.
It is not acceptable Biblical scholarship to focus on one gospel to the
exclusion of others. It is not a correct use of Scripture to insist
– as Gray does – that Jesus’ preaching began at Nazareth.
4. Jesus avoids
death
Gray talks repeatedly
about Jesus avoiding death, that he had to avoid death until he accomplished
his mission. There is absolutely no Biblical documentation for this.
There is no documentation that Jesus was deliberately avoiding death.
Gray’s premise is
that Jesus could not be put to death until after he had passed on the keys.
While the chronology is true, there is absolutely no Biblical documentation
for this allegation.
5. Misuse of Matthew’s
genealogy
Gray’s treatment of
Matthew’s genealogy presents a major problem. The Gospel according
to Matthew traces the lineage of Jesus back to Abraham. This is to
establish lineal credibility. Gray ignores the genealogy in Luke.
In order to establish the Ecclesial validity of one lineage, the other
must also be considered and points of differentiation must be reconciled.
Gray assumes Matthew was written first. Most scholars – including
those approving the NAB – do not agree with this assessment. Gray
offers no proof that his assumptions are correct.
6. Historical inaccuracies
in Davidic lineage
Gray is in line with
most Biblical scholars as he divides the genealogy into three parts:
Abraham to David, David to the Exile, Exile to Jesus.
The problem is what
Gray does with the third section. Check Nehemiah. After Zerubbabel,
the names cannot be documented.
Gray claims the Davidic
lineage went underground after the Exile and that it did not emerge again
until Jesus. This is blatantly false. Gray offers no proof.
Furthermore, the Bible offers explicit proof to the contrary. Check
the books of Nehemiah and Ezra.
Also, check Isaiah
45:1ff. Cyrus of Persia was anointed to bring the people home.
Isaiah is very specific about this. Gray ignores it.
7. Historical inaccuracies
about the Exile
Gray states that the
Exile continued until the time of Jesus. This is blatantly false.
As stated above, Cyrus of Persia was anointed to bring the people home.
It is true that only about 10% of the people chose to return home.
This, however, was their choice; they were free to do so. The Restoration
was begun in 538 BC, a fact Gray completely ignores.
Gray spoke continuously
about the monarchy. However, there was no unified Davidic monarchy
after Solomon. (God did not want a king in the first place – 1 Sam
6:1ff.) Why does Gray emphasize an earthy kingdom?
Gray ignores the split
of the Kingdom and the wiping out of the Northern Kingdom in 721 BC.
It was at this point that the North ceased to exist! David was originally
only King of the South.
The last Davidic king
was Zedekiah who was carried off to exile in 587 BC. The captivity
(exile) lasted from 587 to 538 BC. The restoration began in 538 BC.
Zerubbabel (as mentioned
in Matthew’s genealogy) is recognized as being of the Davidic line.
He was appointed GOVERNOR of Judah by Cyrus. No northern kingdom
existed – as it had not existed for almost 200 years.
Two NON-Davidic Jewish
dynasties controlled the Holy Land – the Maccabees from 167-134 BC and
the Hamsoneans from 135-36 BC. Antigonus was the last of these rulers.
Gray ignores this
information completely. Of course, this history is found in 1 &
2 Maccabees, two of the books found in the Catholic Bible but NOT in the
Protestant Bible. (Consider that FOCUS uses a Protestant Bible for
study purposes.)
8. Historical inaccuracies
about the continuation of the Davidic line
The Davidic line did
not continue underground. Gray offers no internal documentation for
this. No internal documentation exists to show that an underground
Davidic line ever existed.
9. Statement that
Joseph should be king
Gray states that JOSEPH
should have been king because he was of the Davidic line. Gray fails
to realize that everybody in Judah was of the Davidic line. Gray
offers no proof whatsoever that Joseph was in line to be king.
It is impossible to
prove the kingship of Jesus based on the genealogy given in Matthew.
10. Statement that
Jesus was anointed to be king
Gray states that Jesus
was anointed to be king. This is simply not true.
FOCUS – as explained
by Gray – stresses the political kingdom of Jesus. This is simply
not true.
Jesus NEVER claimed
to be a political king. His statement was that his kingdom was not
of this world. Even at his trial, Jesus did not claim an earthly
kingdom. Check Mat 4:17 and Mat 27:11ff.
FOCUS/Gray stresses
that Jesus’ mission was to hand over the keys of the kingdom. But,
Jesus’ kingdom was NOT a political kingdom so he could not hand over keys
in a political sense.
11. Errors about
the first words of Jesus
Gray repeatedly misrepresents
Jesus’ first words.
First of all, if we
are going to be technical, the first words of Jesus are found in Lk 2:49
– when he was found in the temple. (In Luke’s gospel, Jesus does
not speak at all at his baptism.)
Suppose, however,
that Gray is referring only to Jesus’ adult ministry. Gray is still
in error.
Gray said several
times that the first words of Jesus can be found in Mat 4:17. In
Matthew’s gospel, Jesus’ first words are found in 3:15. Jesus spoke
again at 4:4, 4:7, 4:10. Why did Gray ignore all of those words of
Jesus? These are important words about the temptation of Jesus.
Interestingly, the
words that Gray attributes to Jesus, “Repent for the Kingdom of God is
at hand” are first attributed to John (not Jesus) in Mat 3:2. Jesus’
statement in 4:17 (according to Catholic scholars) is a repetition of John’s
statement.
Furthermore, Gray
uses this phrase of Jesus as if it were a part of Jesus’ baptism.
It is NOT a part of the baptism; it is a part of his Galillean ministry.
Gray should read more carefully.
12. Errors about
Jesus calling people to repentance
Gray repeatedly says
that Jesus was calling the people to repentance from sin. Gray obviously
has no understanding of the original Greek. The original (Greek)
word used by Jesus in its verb form is METANOEO (????????). This
word quite literally means to change one’s mind or to change one’s heart.
This may or may not include sin.
Gray stresses that
Jesus is calling people to repentance from sin. This is certainly
one side, or one view, of atonement.
Jesus’ teaching is
about far more than the sinfulness of people. John the Baptist stressed
sin. Jesus Christ stressed unconditional love. The true mission
of Jesus was to inaugurate the NEW COVENANT. See Jeremiah 31:31.
13. Factual errors
about Pagans and Paganism
Gray stressed that
Paganism equals atheism. This is NOT TRUE. Pagans are not necessarily
atheists at all. Pagans are non-Christians (or non-Judeo-Christians,
depending on the inclusiveness of a person’s definition).
Gray states that Pagans
deny sinfulness. This is NOT TRUE. Furthermore, the code of Paganism
is to “Harm None.” This is a statement of avoiding what we as Christians
would call sinfulness.
Gray equates Paganism
with secular humanism or atheism. This is shoddy scholarship at best
since the terms cannot even be equated in the dictionary.
14. Factual errors
about tax collectors and sinners
Gray implies that
it was a sin for the Jews to collect taxes for Rome. This is contrary
to what Jesus said – Mt 22:15ff. There was nothing wrong with Jews
collecting taxes for Rome. The gospel also does NOT say that Levi
was a sinner – merely that he was a tax collector. And he may have
been collecting the Temple Tax rather than the Roman tax.
Gray equates tax collectors
and sinners and uses this as a way of showing Jesus’ call of sinners.
BUT this is not what the text says. The Pharisees also called tax
collectors and sinners. Tax collectors were not necessarily sinners
in the eyes of anyone (although in Mt 22 it is explained that the Pharisees
did not approve of paying taxes to Caesar). The Pharisees did not
approve of tax paying or tax collecting of any kind. However, to
equate tax collecting with sinning is not what Jesus would accept.
Jesus called for the payment of both temple tax (Mt 17:24-27) and Roman
tax. However, the point is that MORE than just sinners were
being called. Therefore, the call was for more than just sinners
to repent.
The word in the original
Greek for sinner is AMARTOLOS (?????????) which means an irreligious or
unobservant people. The word is used for those who did not observe
the law (therefore sinners). The sin being defined by AMARTOLOS was
non-observance of the law. AMARTOLOS was a favorite term for heathens.
Furthermore, Jesus
says in Lk 15 that he has come to call the lost children of Israel; Jesus
does not say he has come ONLY to call sinners. Jesus did want to
call sinners, he also wanted others to have a change of heart. Check
Mt 23.
15. Scriptural
error about “God’s Honor”
In jumping back to
Luke 15, Gray makes an overarching statement that Jesus Christ seeks the
lost because of the need to restore God’s damaged honor.
This is simply not
true. Reference Ez 34:11, which says nothing about God’s honor.
This is actually ONE
of the four classical atonement theories. This is Anselm’s 11th Century
Theory [per Locman, 1980].
If Gray is going to
examine Luke 15, he should look at all three parables because the three
parables (Lost Sheep, Lost Coin, Prodigal Son) present an ascending trilogy.
Gray does not bother with the first two parables and therefore takes the
third parable (Prodigal Son) out of context.
In the Prodigal Son
story, the son though he had sinned; the father did not. It must
be remembered that the in original Greek the specific word used here for
sinner (verb form, ????????) means change of heart.
Gray states that the
son SOLD his property and goes on to state that this property is land.
Not so. Property does not mean land in the original. Furthermore,
the younger son would not have inherited land; land inheritance was reserved
for the elder son. His property must have been goods other than land.
Gray states that this
story is about restoring God’s honor. Not so. This story states
nothing about God’s honor.
Gray states that this
story indicates a broken Jewish identity. Not so. A person
was considered Jewish no matter where that person was. Jesus went
all over and was not tied to the land. In addition, there are numerous
references in Scripture to Jews living in other lands.
Gray states that a
person who left with a broken Jewish identity was excommunicated from Judaism.
Not so. This was not true in the time of Jesus; it is not true today.
Ask any practicing Jew.
Gray states that bringing
back the Prodigal Son represented Jesus bringing the Jews back and that
Jesus had been necessary to end the Babylonian exile. Not so.
As stated previously in this paper, the Jews had been back for 600 years.
Gray totally ignores evidence in 1 & 2 Maccabees, Ezra, and Nehemiah.
Gray ignores the fact
that the temple was built under Cyrus the Great. The Prodigal Son
story can be used only as a symbol of independent Jews coming back to the
practice of the faith.
16. Blatant attack
on present day Protestants
Gray’s vicious attack
on modern day Protestants is uncalled for. Gray (as do ALL other
speakers and writers mentioned in this paper) specifically denies Protestants
salvation, claiming that there is no salvation outside the Church.
Even the old Baltimore
Catechism allowed salvation for Protestants even in their own faith.
The Vatican II Documents, as well as the Catechism of the Catholic Church,
all state that salvation is not limited to those within the Church.
Check CCC 846-848 regarding non-Protestants and CCC 838 regarding Protestants.
The CCC references Lumen Gentium 15.
Gray stresses that
Protestants focus mostly on death. This may be true of some Evangelical
Protestant churches. It is certainly not true of all main line Protestant
churches. This shows Grays basic misunderstanding of Protestantism.
17. Doctrinal error
about Jesus preaching an earthly kingdom
Gray maintains that
Jesus came to establish an earthly kingdom – based on 1 Chron 28:5.
But, reading this references clearly shows that the citation is an if/then
proposition. If Solomon keeps the commandments…. Solomon didn’t
and therefore the Kingdom was destroyed.
Furthermore, despite
Gray’s claims to the contrary, the Northern Kingdom was never found.
There is no evidence for the Northern Kingdom having been found and this
is further documented by most reputable Biblical scholarship.
18. More doctrinal
errors about the Roman Catholic Church being the earthly kingdom
Gray uses Mt 16 to
demonstrate that the Kingdom is on earth and identified as the Roman Catholic
Church.
BUT, Jesus, by his
own admission, is NOT an earthly king and did not have the power to pass
on earthly keys.
Furthermore, Jesus
was not enthroned until AFTER the ascension and certainly NOT in Mt 16.
The Footnotes in the
Catholic Teaching Bible – the Bible FOCUS disregards – clearly state repeatedly
that they keys represent the teaching authority of the church and NOT an
earthly kingdom.
Gray uses Isaiah 22:15-22
to demonstrate the earthly kingdom of the church, or, as Gray mentions,
the “Prime Ministership” of the kingdom. However, the key mentioned
in this passage is the Key of the House of David.
Gray tries to compare
the Political Keys mentioned in 2 Kings 15:1-7 with the modern church kingdom.
This argument falls because in the Scripture passage the King is afflicted
and the son ruled. Jesus always stressed that God was King.
God is not afflicted. It should once again be noted that the list
of kings does not compare and shows a corruption of text that is not reconcilable
with genealogy.
Gray repeats and repeats
that Jesus was on earth to re-establish the Davidic Kingdom. This
parallel does not work because the Church is not and never was meant to
be (by Jesus’ own words) a Political Authority.
19. Doctrinal error
about the Papacy being the Heart of Jesus’ mission
Gray states that the
Heart of Jesus’ Mission is the Papacy. He equated this with the Papacy
being the Prime Minister. This is blatantly not so.
The Heart of Jesus
Mission is the Kingdom of God – and, by extension, God’s unconditional
love. This is repeated throughout the New Testament. Gray ignores
this.
B. Edward
Sri – 7 June 2000
The title of Sri’s
talk was, “Why did Jesus Die?” The major problem with the title is
that Sri did not talk about death at all, he talked about why Jesus lived
and did not make the correlation between his title and his topic.
Doctrinally, Sri was less offensive than Gray. Nevertheless, his
talk was misleading and at times doctrinally incorrect. Specific
theological and historical problems with Sri’s lecture are discussed below.
1. Historical error
about the Northern Kingdom
Sri apparently forgets
that the Northern Kingdom was destroyed. All of Palestine was part
of the Province of Syria.
Sri states that In
Mt 16 Jesus is in Northern Israel. BUT, there was no Israel.
(There hadn’t been an Israel since 722 B.C. Israel did not again
exist until the partition of Palestine after World War II.) Jesus
was in Galilee and Galilee was NOT Israel. Galilee was a separate
entity under Herod Antipas.
Sri further tries
to establish the political importance of Caesarea Philippi. But,
Philip was far to the north and does not enter into this political framework.
Sri definitely needs to understand political geography.
Mt 16:19-20 states
ONLY the Kingdom of Heaven. The OFFICIAL CATHOLIC STUDY NOTES clearly
state that the church has teaching authority but NOT political authority
– despite Sri’s statements to the contrary.
Mk 8:27-30 states
clearly that Jesus was not a political Messiah. This is the interpretation
approved for catechesis. Sri states that this passage indicates a
few of the Romans. No such indication exists. At most this
passage indicates an ambiguous contemporary idea of the nature of the office.
Also, the approved
catechetical notes state that the community of Jesus was not a political
entity. Furthermore, the Roman Catholic Church as such did not exist
until the 11th century.
2. The cross is
NOT the climax.
Sri mentions repeatedly
that the cross is the climax and that the cross is the throne of Christ.
There is no Scriptural or traditional reference for this. Christ
was not enthroned until after the ascension – Hb 2, 5:7-9.
The cross is not the
climax. This is an evangelical point of view; it is not the Catholic
point of view. To teach that the cross is the climax is heretical.
According to Catholic teaching, the RESURRECTION IS THE CLIMAX. Check
1 Cor 15:17. Also CCC 2606.
3. Death is NOT
the climax.
Sri further states
that death is the climax because of the death of the new passover lamb.
Sri forgets that Jesus was an observant Jew.
Sri stresses that
there was no lamb at the Passover meal because Jesus is the new Paschal
lamb. BUT, Jesus Christ was an observant Jew. Therefore he
would not have celebrated the Passover without a lamb. Mt 26:19 indicates
that the meal was a regular Passover meal.
Sri also exhibits
a major misunderstanding about redemption from sin. The Passover
is about salvation from the power of death. Ex 12 clearly states
that the Passover was to save the people from the death of the First Born.
Salvation is from DEATH and not from sin.
4. Cup of Elijah
Sri has a basic misunderstanding
of the Cup of Elijah. According to tradition, when the Cup of Elijah
is consumed, the Messiah has come. Tradition states that Jesus Christ
picked up this cup.
5. Passover Lamb
Sri confuses the Passover
Lamb with the Scapegoat of Yom Kippur. Jesus became the Passover
Lamb – but not at the Last Supper. CCC 606 Jesus became the
Passover Lamb ON THE CROSS.
6. Misinterpretation
of Jonathan Edwards’ sermon
Sri misrepresents
Jonathan Edwards’ sermon “Sinner in the Hand of an Angry God” to imply
that all there is is Jesus Christ taking our punishment. BUT Edwards’
sermon was about response – to bring about conversion or change of heart
– metanoia.
Sri has taken Edwards’
sermon totally out of context. Edwards is talking about spiritual
awakening. Sri talks about the depravity of the human condition.
Sri maintains that Edwards portrays a false view of God. According
to Catholic tradition, Edwards does not portray a false view of God.
7. Misleading view
of God and wrath
Sri says a view of
God as God pouring out wrath is a false view of God. However, this
is one Atonement Theory. It is also accepted by the Church as an
Atonement Theory. It is a theory that is incomplete in view of our
understanding today. Nevertheless, it is accepted. Sri’s statement
of this being a false view of God contradicts what Gray says on the same
subject. This is misleading if nothing else.
(Also, how can Sri’s
view be reconciled with the Passover Lamb concept?)
8. Old Testament/Trinity
references made without linguistic accuracy
Sri reads Trinity
back into the Old Testament without proper linguistic references.
Apparently Sri is unaware that Elohim is a plural word form. He further
denies that Gen 1:26 includes a plural form of the word.
9. Misleading Atonement
Cross References
Sri makes misleading
statements about the Atonement Theory. His statements are misleading
because they are incomplete. Check CCC 616,
10. Catechism out
of context
Sri cites Catechism
statements 2605 and 2606. However, he does this as a part of his
atonement theory. These catechism cites are about prayer and not
about atonement. If Sri is going to use Atonement Theory, he should
stick to the profession of faith and not use Catechism statements out of
context.
11. Stress on earthly,
political kingdom
Sri (like Gray) ended
his discussion by emphasizing the earthly, political kingdom of Jesus.
This is blatantly false. Jesus did not preach an earthly, political
kingdom. To back up his claims, Sri compares 1 Sam 8 with Ex 19.
This comparison cannot be extrapolated to Jesus.
C. Curtis Martin – 14 June 2000
Curtis Martin’s talk
was entitled, “What Difference does Jesus Make Today?” The major
problems were: (1) he was a half hour late without an explanation; (2)
he used extremely poor pedagogy by jumping from one topic to the other,
making it extremely difficult for the audience to follow his train of thought;
and (3) he didn’t speak on the subject advertised as his topic.
The entire talk was
very poorly organized and very poorly presented. The talk was also
very short (probably because Martin was late). Therefore, it is difficult
to delve too deeply into what he did and did not say. Nevertheless,
some major problems did exist. Specific theological and catechetical
points are listed below.
1. Campus crusade
– Vatican Style – Introduction
The introduction to
Martin’s talk was given by a FOCUS missionary. This missionary explained
the fund raising tactics of the FOCUS people. Why do individual missionaries
have to do their own fund raising? If they are church supported,
the church should support them. Furthermore, missionaries doing their
own individual fund raising is contrary to the mandate of Jesus.
It should be noted
that the fund raising methods employed by FOCUS are identical to those
of CAMPUS CRUSADE. CAMPUS CRUSADE is an independent entity, not supported
by any Protestant church. If FOCUS is preaching a sect-like separatism
within the Church, then FOCUS is acting contrary to the mission of the
church.
2. Hit and miss
approach to Trinity
Martin talks about
the Trinity as a community of love. This is not a problem.
However, as documentation for this, Martin cites CCC 2566. CCC 2566
does not fit. Therefore, Martin offers no documentation for his statement.
Martin’s hit and miss approach to quoting the CCC demonstrates that he
himself does not understand the basic precepts of the CCC and that he is
further trying to “snowball” those who may be listening to him.
3. Incorrect theology
on the human nature of Christ
Martin stresses that
we are all enslaved to sin. The way out of sin is God’s coming in.
He states that we have the image of God but have lost the likeness.
And then he says that in Christ, his Christ’s human nature (and our) is
restored.
NOT SO! Christ’s
human nature is NOT lost. Scripture clearly states that Jesus is
like us in all things except sin. So, how could he LOSE his human
nature???
4. Switch themes
Martin switches themes
to something about generosity, but offers no documentation for this.
Since Martin makes so many other incorrect statements, why should the listener
believe what is said without documentation?
5. Incorrect approach
to Baptism
This is a MAJOR problem
from several different angles. First of all, Martin was supposed
to be talking about how Jesus matters. So, it is out of place for
him to be spending time discussing Baptism.
Martin has a major
stress on Baptism and de-emphasizes the other six sacraments, particularly
Reconciliation. If FOCUS is supposed to be for those already Catholic,
then the emphasis should not be on Baptism, but should rather be on Reconciliation.
Martin says nothing about Reconciliation. Why not? Reconciliation
is the door for lapsed Catholics – not Baptism. Why does FOCUS focus
on Baptism for the already baptized?
It is also interesting
to note that in a talk apparently on why Jesus matters today, the EUCHARIST
is not mentioned. Martin talks about Baptism being the key to faith
and life. But, for Catholics, the EUCHARIST is the Key. This
is the Grace of transformed life.
It should be noted
that RCIA is an in-place vehicle for bringing the non-baptized into the
church. RCIA works in the local churches. FOCUS is not an outreach
of the local churches.
6. Misuse of the
word AMEN
Martin is insistent
that in Jn 14:12 the word used should be “Truly, Truly.” He was adamant
that “Amen, Amen” is incorrect. Although this may seem like a minor
point (because the words are very close in meaning), it does point to a
non-Catholic approach to translation. The words “Truly, Truly” come
from the old RSV (Revised Standard Version). This was taken from
the “Truly, Truly” in the KJV (King James Version). The KJV is a
misquote. The NAB (which is the approved Catholic version) also says
“Amen, Amen.”
It should be further
noted that the original Greek uses the word AMEN, AMEN. Why does
Martin insist on using a translation other than the original Greek and
other than the version approved for Catholic catechesis?
III. Transition
A. This section is
a transitory section whose purposes are to comment on some of the points
made in the previous two sections and to connect those ideas with some
of the fact brought out in the next section.
B. It must be remembered
that the brochure advertising FOCUS is a concern. That brochure,
“Catholic Students Deserve to know the Truth,” is misleading because
what FOCUS is teaching is not the truth. The whole FOCUS whole approach
is Protestant – sin first! FOCUS focuses on Scripture at the expense
of Tradition. FOCUS makes no distinction as to which parties
in First Century Judaism that Jesus was responding to. Scriptural
applications, whether today or 2000 years ago, are all the same.
C. FOCUS preaches evangelization,
but not in the Catholic sense. If FOCUS is preaching catechesis,
why is FOCUS not focusing on the Catechism and using the available catechical
materials to work through the Catechism? (Because they can’t be selective
if they do!)
FOCUS says, “Let’s
use the catechism.” But FOCUS uses the catechism very selectively.
This is called proof texting. FOCUS proof texts the Catechism, proof
texts the Bible, and proof texts Catholic tradition.
FOCUS further preaches
major historical inaccuracies about the Protestant Reformation. It
should be remembered that during the Reformation mainline Protestants
never considered themselves other than devout Catholics trying to reform
their church.
D. FOCUS never make
the point about “Why be a Catholic?” In the three lectures and the
three books, there is no reference to what difference it makes whether
one is a Catholic or a Protestant. There is no reference to why Catholic
is the one true church or what makes Catholic different than Protestant
in a meaningful way. Why does it matter?
FOCUS comes across
as one more main line Protestants church. Why is it important to
be Catholic and how does FOCUS relate to being CATHOLIC? What makes
Catholic different – and what makes Catholic better?
E. Interestingly, in
all three books examined below only there is only ONE chapter on the EUCHARIST.
And the EUCHARIST is the center of our belief.
IV. Publications from Emmaus Road Publishing
This section is written
in annotated critique style.
A. Mission of the
Messiah – Tim Gray – Study of the Gospel of Luke
Forward – Jeff Cavins
– Cavins hosts a television program on EWTN, which is an arm of Opus Dei.
Cavins’ style assumes reader is stupid.
p. 19 – “The context
is the key for Isaiah has two very distinct parts, so much so that some
scholars believe there must have been two different authors of Isaiah.”
Contemporary biblical
scholarship has demonstrated at least 3 authors.
p. 20 – “The first
half of Isaiah had already come true...still lived in virtual exile….All
the Jews of John’s day knew that the first half of Isaiah had tragically
taken place so they were all patiently waiting for the good news of the
second half to unfold. This, according to Luke, is exactly what is
happening with John’s mission in the wilderness….”
Footnote: “While
many Jews had returned from Babylon by Jesus’ day, the exile had by no
means ended….” MIScontext OF NEHEMIAH 9:36-7.
What he is quoting
as evidence of the exile is something that Nehemiah is quoting and is part
of an exhortation
The Book of Consolation
was opened under Cyrus of Persia. Gray ignored 600 years of history
and all the times the Jews were independent. How does Gray deal with
Isaiah 41-45 – the Lord’s anointed. This is a statement of the vocation
and victory of Cyrus.
Gray ignores 1 &
2 Maccabees
p. 23 Gray says John
the Baptist is prophetic protégé of Elijah. But, he
is actually the prophesied return of Elijah (Malachi 3:23). This
is a basic misquote. John is not said to be the protégé
but rather the real Elijah.
p. 25 The Lord’s anointed
–
Where does it say God’s
anointed would necessarily be a king?
p. 35 Historical inaccuracy
– no acknowledgement of the restoration.
Jubilee year – This
is not what Jesus was inaugurating. The Jews HAD control of the land.
The Jews sold out to Rome – in Maccabees. Jews made deal with Rome
for protection.
p. 59 Claim that
Jesus defeated devil in desert in Luke 4.
Not true. Satan
departed from him for a time. Luke 4:13. Devil appears numerous
times. Not completely defeated until resurrection. (Peter –
“Get thee behind me Satan.” Mt 16:23.) And Satan entered Judas
at Last Supper.
p. 64 The seeds of
revolution – Luke 6. Gray – Jesus is new David. See below.
p. 70 Inaccuracies
in descriptions of Pharisees. These seem to be Essenes described
here.
p. 73 Samaritans
NOT remnant!!! They were brought in by the Assyrians. This
is a major misrepresentation.
pp. 84-5 Misleading
statements about eating grain on Sabbath.
David is political.
Gray is saying Messianic leader has to be an earthly king to vanquish the
Sauls of his time. BUT, Jesus says he is not an earthly king.
What proof is there
that apostles were continent? Several were married. We don’t
know that the wives weren’t traveling with them. Major put down on
women.
Gray says disciples
were picking heads of grain. Since the term is “disciple” how do
we know these were just the 12 or even that they were all men?
Point of the story
– the rules could be broken if the people were hungry.
Gray says free from
Sabbath regulations by virtue of priestly privilege. Compare to OT.
Cannot compare David’s army that traveled alone with Jesus’ band who we
know included women.
p. 97 Jesus is the
new Moses. Confusion between the embodiment of the law and the lawgiver.
p. 99 Parallel between
Jesus and Ezekiel. Prophetic mission. Confusing. No one
ever said Ezekiel was coming back. It is interesting they both foretold
the fall of a Temple.
p. 128 No Passover
lamb. You can’t read post resurrection back into the gospels.
He was the Paschal lamb after the resurrection – after he conquered death.
Gray’s argument – it’s
not mentioned. But, text says, “Go and make preparations for us to
eat the Passover.” (Luke 22:7-13). They prepared the Passover.
Observant Jews would have had a lamb. “I have eagerly desired to
eat this Passover with you before I suffer.” 22:15.
In NAB study notes
(St. Joseph edition) – “This is clearly identified as a Passover meal.”
Jesus’ blood will be spilled. He becomes Paschal lamb at crucifixion.
“…in the blood that will be shed.” Note future tense.
This would be the last
time the band would celebrate Passover. We don’t celebrate Passover
today.
p. 131 “Not from slavery
to Egypt but from slavery to sin.” Not Passover imagery. Passover
not about sin.
“…which is a sacrifice
which atones for sin and brings about redemption.” Not so.
Goat on Day of Atonement.
Liberation from Egypt.
Liberation from power of death.
B. Mystery of the
Kingdom – Edward Sri
Foreword by Scott Hahn
– identifying Kingdom and Roman Catholic Church.
p. 23 Time line ignores
restoration under Cyrus and independence under Maccabees.
All the way through
– Still living in Exile
p. 118 2nd Temple built
under Cyrus (Ezra 3:7 ff)
p. 143 No Paschal lamb.
Just when the lamb should be served, Jesus does something strange – Takes
bread and blesses….
Mt 26:19 – Disciples
prepared Passover
Mt 26:26-28 – While
they were eating
Jesus doesn’t say he
is like the Passover lamb. They are interpreting.
“Just as the Passover
lamb was offered up in sacrifice in order to free the Israelite firstborn
sons in Egypt, Jesus will be offered in order to free God’s first born
son, the nation of Israel.”
Free Israelite firstborn
sons from what? Answer: Death.
Ex 4:22
Jesus becoming the
Paschal lamb was not just for Israel – but for everyone.
p. 143-4 Cross being
climax. See Notes.
C. Catholic for
a Reason – Misrepresentation on back of other two as co-authors.
Subtitle: Scripture
and the Mystery of the Family of God. Problem: The only mystery
dealt with in this book is the “Mystery of the Sacraments – Baptism and
Eucharist – with almost a total disregard for the other 5.” For this
reason the emphasis on selected CCC points.
This book includes
a foreword by Archbishop Chaput. Perhaps Chaput did not read this
book carefully or surely he would have noticed the errors in both doctrine
and scripture.
This is supposed to
be an apologetics of the Catholic Faith but – very Protestant in approach
and content.
No mention of history
of church that has gone before.
Apologetics – weak
essays.
Even chapter on the
sacraments of healing focuses entirely on baptism and penance – NOTHING
on sacrament of physical healing. One comment on sacrament of anointing
– but only tied to forgiving sin and not to power of healing. Misleading
at best.
Problems with some
but not all.
[Preface – New Evangelization
– New fire, etc. – different than the concept of evangelization as presented
by stressing baptism.]
1. Scott Hahn –
2 problems (introduction)
p. 9 Discussion of
Trinity misleading and confusing. Never proves why it is wrong to
use/substitute Creator/Redeemer/Sanctifier. Could have picked up
CCC and referred people to 232 through 267.
Using the terms Creator/Redeemer/Sanctifier
does not impune the essence of God because God does co-exist as such.
We encounter God as
Creator of all life in the beauty of the creation which surrounds us.
God the redeemer we come to know in the life death and resurrection of
Jesus, who is our savior, and in the love we experience with others in
the Christian community. God the Sanctifier we encounter in prayer
and where ever the power of God is manifest in human transformation, encouraged
to withstand suffering and temptation and in healing and reconciliation.
Hahn has trouble seeing
God in anything other than traditional patriarchal terms.
Hahn – CRS is critique
of what God does rather than what God is. The problem he has is that
he doesn’t see that those words express the ongoing nature of God.
By critiquing them, he puts CRS all in past tense – rather than ongoing
present tense. This is a basic Catholic/Protestant difference.
Hahn’s view appears to be very protestant. Protestants (in general)
do not have a concept of natural law theology/ethics that says God is continually
active in creation. They believe world is intrinsically fallen.
This is exactly what FOCUS teaches! Not good Catholic teaching.
Catholicism does NOT teach that the world is vale of sin and that we need
to escape it!
Economic trinity/Essential
trinity. Who God is and What God does cannot be split.
Why doesn’t Hahn refer
people to the catechism?
p. 11 No salvation
outside the Catholic Church. Major – even Baltimore Catechism teaches
otherwise. Says family of God is only the Roman Catholics.
Not true.
2. Jeffrey Cavins
(identified above)
p. 35 View of catechism.
The catechism is a reference book – not the full deposit of Sacred Tradition.
Even so, the selective use is unacceptable.
3. Curtis Mitch
p. 50 Plenary verbal
inspiration – HS authored every book.
p. 51 Duty of the church’s
Magisterium to interpret properly and definitively the meaning of God’s
written word.
This means no one but
the Magisterium can know and interpret. (Logical extension:
even priests shouldn’t be preaching homilies!)
Direct contradiction
to CCC 109.
p. 52 Plenary verbal
inspiration of scripture – misunderstanding of the canonization process
of scripture.
Direct contradiction
to CCC 106, 107, and 108.
p. 56 Interesting interpretation
of infallibility
Inerrant scripture
Bible inspired in
1st C
Cf. Above.
4. Fr. Pablo Gadenz
p. 62 Open admission
to Opus Dei. (Only members were invited to this.)
p. 80 Proof texting
and pulling out context.
p. 81 Contradicts Scott
Hahn. Talks about separated brethren.
5. Kim Hahn
p. 129 Discussion incomplete.
Needs to look at catechism.
6. Sean Innerst
–
p. 137 “The family
that learns together, yearns together” Subtitle: The liturgy
as family pedagogy. Neo-Catechumenate – provost of Archdiocesan Seminary
in Denver
p. 141 “In these two
things really consist the whole of the catechism. The creed, the
sacraments themselves, the moral life, and prayer—the traditional four
pillars of the catechism—all express in different modes these two things:
the God of the Covenant and Covenant keeping.”
p. 141 “With all the
talk we hear about justice today, we have forgotten that the virtue of
religion is a species of justice. We owe God worship; it is His due.
As an act of worship, the liturgy is for God. Not that He needs it
in any necessary sense, but our intent should be to conduct it for him
as a gift, however insufficient it appears to be.”
Micah 6:6-8
7. Ted Sri
p. 167 Scripture says
future tense on shedding blood for forgiveness of sins; Sri puts it in
present tense at last supper.
p. 170 Passover lamb
– shift on 6th hour. Sri is trying to say that crucifixion occurred
at the same hour the lambs were being sacrificed in the Temple. According
to the Synaptics, Jesus was not crucified before dinner! The Lambs
had already been sacrificed, prepared, and eaten – the day before.
8. Tim Gray
p. 195 Mary as Queen.
In view of Davidic Kingdom. Trying to prove she is queen because
she is mother of Davidic king.
Jesus is not Davidic
king in political sense. His mother does not earn Queenship in that
way.
All chapter on Mary
is misleading because it is based on Jesus as political king – which he
is not.
9. Fr. Pablo Gadenz
– Priest as Spiritual Father
p. 214 Misleading –
this is NOT the prophet Micah, but rather a Micah from the days of Judges.
17:10. Also, misleading, read Judges 17:11-13.
Priest and Father are NOT the same – Two separate roles!
p. 215 Interpretation
of Genesis 27 – there was no priesthood!!!!
p. 218-9 Understanding
of Melchesidek does not match present Biblical Scholarship – including
approved Catholic study notes in NAB. (10,000 year problem.)
p. 222 Twisting Fitzmyer,
Ray Brown. Plays games with the people he is citing – leading to
confusion.
Being a priest by virtue
of being first born son. Stretching it! Established ALL ISRAEL
is FIRST BORN SON – therefore, all Israel is priest.
p. 224 Hebrews 7:3
– stretching it.
p. 227 Disregard
for history of celibacy.
Disregard for sociobiology
of male/female.
10. Curtis Martin
– begin p. 287
Fallen away Catholic
and Evangelical Protestant. Campus Crusader. Quotes Josh McDowell
– protestant evangelical.
Does NOT refer to Catechism.
If he couldn’t prove it in Scripture, why not turn to Catechism?
He wasn’t RC. OK, why doesn’t he refer to it after the fact?
Doesn’t use catechism correctly anyway.
Problem with him proving
anything using an evangelical scholar when ALL of them have been bashing
Protestants.
IN CONCLUSION
Evangelization on college
campuses is important. However, such evangelization must be done
with integrity. The FOCUS program does not use approved catechetical
materials. Furthermore, FOCUS teaches concepts and ideas contrary
to the teachings of Biblical Scholarship, the CCC, and basic Roman Catholic
understanding. FOCUS is not a group that should be evangelizing on
the college campuses today. |
