A little fun from James White

[MarcoPolo]

First, let me say that the only reason I listened to the first 9 minutes or so of James White’s latest podcast was because his blog says he mentioned Steve Ray’s appearance of CAL from April 19 and because it’s Friday night almost midnight. Anyway, Patrick and Steve took a caller on the Eucharist. The call was very charitable even though the caller did not believe in the Real Presence. One of the caller’s arguments was that the Real Presence couldn’t be real because we are not worthy to be in God’s presence, so how can a sinful priest touch Him or how can we sinners be in His presence when unholiness in the OT sometimes resulted in death. I don’t find the argument particularly challenging considering Jesus “dwelt among us” and the caller would have had no problem believing that, but it was an interesting enough question. The caller also used a personal experience argument that the Bible changed his life, but Communion never did.

Now James White’s blog for his podcast states: “Started off with some discussion of John 6 and a caller on Catholic Answers Live.” But instead of getting his discussion of John 6, I got White’s patented “no one will debate me”* lament. He went ad hominem against Steve Ray, questioning whether Steve is even a “meaningful Catholic apologist.” White then praised himself as a great scholar, that no one responds to his arguments, etc…etc…pretty much the identical litany he says in every discourse. Frankly, I was about put to sleep waiting to hear the “discussion of John 6” his blog promised, but he had apparently moved on by the 10th minute… The only attempt he made to refute anything Steve said on CAL was to say that the caller’s emotional experience was a good point! One can only imagine White’s reaction to a Catholic arguing from emotion for an experience at a Marian apparition, or after consuming the Eucharist…

*The irony of White’s lament that he can’t get Catholic apologists to debate him is not lost at his own website where he lists 30+ debates he’s done with them…

 

[Non_Serviam]

While agreeing wholeheartedly that it seems that James wasn’t in fine form during this podcast as you describe it (He doesn’t interestme enough to go and listen so I’ll take your word for it) your description of the discusion reminded me of a thought that I’ll share in the hopes that someone has a good answer.

When talking about Purgatory, many Catholics will make the argument that it is necessary because nothing unclean can be in the presence of Jesus in heaven. Yet, as this caller pointed out, Catholics believe that the Eucharist is in the presence of uncleanness (temporal punishment not remitted by confession and venial sin not confessed) but this isn’t a problem and the Eucharist can even cleanse from the venial sin.

It would seem inconsistent to me to claim that unclean humanity can be in the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (and vice versa) and that this presence can be cleansing and yet state that this can’t work the same way in heaven, that there must be the step of Purgatory to cleanse us otherwise we could not be in Jesus’ presence.

Again we are only dealing with temporal punishment and venial sin, so on what basis do Catholics claim to make the distinction between Jesus being able to be with unclean us in the Eucharist and being unable to be with unclean us in heaven?

 

[MarcoPolo]

When talking about Purgatory, many Catholics will make the argument that it is necessary because nothing unclean can be in the presence of Jesus in heaven. Yet, as this caller pointed out, Catholics believe that the Eucharist is in the presence of uncleanness (temporal punishment not remitted by confession and venial sin not confessed) but this isn’t a problem and the Eucharist can even cleanse from the venial sin.

Like I said, it’s an interesting enough question, but divine revelation tells us nothing unclean can enter the heavenly presence of God (Rv 21:27), without spot or wrinkle, etc., but divine revelation admits to accepting Christ’s sacramental presence on earth (John 6, Last Supper, or in a way “dwelt among us” etc…). In other words, divine revelation entirely supports the Catholic position with regard to the Eucharist, Purgatory, and Heaven. And as Steve Ray said in the show, we do have to be free from mortal sin to receive the Eucharist at the risk of casting judgment on oneself. There is a consistency there with respect to the august nature of God. Sacramentally, He permits us to receive Him even if we are not “perfect,” but to be fully united with Him on His turf we must indeed be perfect.

 

[Philthy]

While agreeing wholeheartedly that it seems that James wasn’t in fine form during this podcast as you describe it (He doesn’t interestme enough to go and listen so I’ll take your word for it) your description of the discusion reminded me of a thought that I’ll share in the hopes that someone has a good answer.

When talking about Purgatory, many Catholics will make the argument that it is necessary because nothing unclean can be in the presence of Jesus in heaven. Yet, as this caller pointed out, Catholics believe that the Eucharist is in the presence of uncleanness (temporal punishment not remitted by confession and venial sin not confessed) but this isn’t a problem and the Eucharist can even cleanse from the venial sin.

It would seem inconsistent to me to claim that unclean humanity can be in the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (and vice versa) and that this presence can be cleansing and yet state that this can’t work the same way in heaven, that there must be the step of Purgatory to cleanse us otherwise we could not be in Jesus’ presence.

Again we are only dealing with temporal punishment and venial sin, so on what basis do Catholics claim to make the distinction between Jesus being able to be with unclean us in the Eucharist and being unable to be with unclean us in heaven?

I find the anology of equating being in Heaven and being in the presence of the Eucharist somewhat tenuous. It is an irrefutable fact that Christ placed himself - humanity and divinity - in the presence of sinful humanity. The Eucharist is the presence of Christ among us now - “until the end of the age”. It is not an eternal presence, and it is not the fullness of being in God’s presence - a sort of veil remains in our experience.
Heaven, OTOH, is an eternal state of being FULLY in God’s presence and there is nothing to impede our experience of God.

Blessings

 

[E.E.N.S]

I find the anology of equating being in Heaven and being in the presence of the Eucharist somewhat tenuous. It is an irrefutable fact that Christ placed himself - humanity and divinity - in the presence of sinful humanity. The Eucharist is the presence of Christ among us now - “until the end of the age”. It is not an eternal presence, and it is not the fullness of being in God’s presence - a sort of veil remains in our experience.
Heaven, OTOH, is an eternal state of being FULLY in God’s presence and there is nothing to impede our experience of God.

Blessings

Edit: LOL, you beat me to it, (I guess I didn’t refresh the page before I grabbed breakfast…)

 

[MarcoPolo]

Indeed, the eternal presence is God consuming us making us a part of Him. Here, we consume Him sacramentally as He becomes more and more part of us. God condescends to our level when He comes to us in this world. We go to Him eternally in the next.

 

[bona_fides_1]

While agreeing wholeheartedly that it seems that James wasn’t in fine form during this podcast as you describe it (He doesn’t interestme enough to go and listen so I’ll take your word for it) your description of the discusion reminded me of a thought that I’ll share in the hopes that someone has a good answer.

When talking about Purgatory, many Catholics will make the argument that it is necessary because nothing unclean can be in the presence of Jesus in heaven. Yet, as this caller pointed out, Catholics believe that the Eucharist is in the presence of uncleanness (temporal punishment not remitted by confession and venial sin not confessed) but this isn’t a problem and the Eucharist can even cleanse from the venial sin.

It would seem inconsistent to me to claim that unclean humanity can be in the presence of Jesus in the Eucharist (and vice versa) and that this presence can be cleansing and yet state that this can’t work the same way in heaven, that there must be the step of Purgatory to cleanse us otherwise we could not be in Jesus’ presence.

Again we are only dealing with temporal punishment and venial sin, so on what basis do Catholics claim to make the distinction between Jesus being able to be with unclean us in the Eucharist and being unable to be with unclean us in heaven?

I think the other Catholics here have hit this apparent inconsistency squarely. I’ll just hit it from a slightly different angle to highlight the same principal.

In Eucharist Christ “shields” his full radiant glory from us through the outward appearances of bread and wine just as God shielded Moses from His Glory by appearing as fire in the burning bush. The concept at play here is that no mortal can see the face of God and live - its too awesome for a human to take in. Likewise no human can approach God or Christ in His full transfigured Glory and spiritually bear to stand before Him without being of an elevated, purified and glorified state of being. This is why God only gives us mere glimpses of His glory through His creation and His works. God came in the flesh in the image of Christ as a divine human being for the same reason - for our relational comfort not for God’s/Christ’s own comfort. Eucharist is the means by which God communicates his nurturing relationship to us - as the spiritual food that satisfies our every inner hunger. Jesus in this form of Eucharist permits us to approach Him in confidence without being in an absolute state of pure grace since His intention is always to nurture and cure us so that we may progress in grace and attain our highest and best perfection possible for us in heaven. One we complete our sanctification on earth or in purgatory - then we may approach Him in His full glory in Heaven without Him having to conceal Himself in the image of bread and wine.

BF.

 

[WesleyF]

Honestly, I don’t have much respect for James White as an apologist. I heard his recent debate with Tim Staples on the subject of purgatory. aomin.org/podcasts/20100128.mp3

I don’t think James White responded properly to Tim’s claims on the subject. Even in his opening statement, he made claims which Tim had already dealt with in his opening statement. I give Tim Staples 10/10 for his dealing of the subject of purgatory. I don’t know how any open minded person could listen to what Tim said in this debate and not believe in purgatory.

James White uses too much verbiage and often speaks too fast, but sometimes there isn’t much substance in his statements. The thing that I dislike about him is that he often tries to evade the subject and uses the debate as a platform to attack other doctrines of the Catholic church or misrepresent Catholic teaching. During the above debate, he even made a mention of how Tim Staples had defended a certain (unrelated to purgatory) doctrine of the Catholic church. He has had a history of ad hominem. Who would want to talk to such a guy?

His own sister is a convert to Catholicism (so I guess he won every debate but lost to his own sister)! Humour aside, my views about James white were confirmed on listening to his sister’s testimony. catholic.com/audio/2002/mp3/ca020710.mp3

He is a closed minded guy, whose only purpose seems to be “showing off” rather than dealing with arguments and answering them. Let him keep complaining that nobody debates him .

Most of the Catholic apologists I know are all gentle guys. I think Sungenis is the only one who deals with White in White’s own style. From what I have heard, White has often fared badly against Sungenis.

 

[WesleyF]

The only attempt he made to refute anything Steve said on CAL was to say that the caller’s emotional experience was a good point! One can only imagine White’s reaction to a Catholic arguing from emotion for an experience at a Marian apparition, or after consuming the Eucharist…

 

[WesleyF]

When talking about Purgatory, many Catholics will make the argument that it is necessary because nothing unclean can be in the presence of Jesus in heaven.

It’s not that “nothing unclean can be in the presence of Jesus in heaven”, but “nothing unclean shall enter it” (Rev 21:27), i.e. nothing unclean shall enter the New Jerusalem (heaven on earth). That is precisely the point Catholics make when talking about purgatory. It is a “guarantee” that the Lord is giving about the New Jerusalem.

Satan, an unclean being, was in heaven (and therefore “in the presence of Jesus”) when he fought with Michael and his angels (Rev 12:7). Because of his uncleanness, he was cast out.

It is precisely the Lord’s guarantee that nothing unclean shall enter the New Jerusalem (or heaven) that mandates purgatory (the state in which a person is made clean (“purged of sin”) before entering heaven).** It has nothing to do with whether a sinful person can stand in the presence of Christ **(which he can, because of Christ’s abundunt grace!).

So the argument for purgatory is not because a person can’t stand unclean before Christ, but to fulfill what Christ himself revealed to John about the New Jerusalem (or heaven).

 

[Non_Serviam]

It’s not that “nothing unclean can be in the presence of Jesus in heaven”, but “nothing unclean shall enter it” (Rev 21:27), i.e. nothing unclean shall enter the New Jerusalem (heaven on earth). That is precisely the point Catholics make when talking about purgatory. It is a “guarantee” that the Lord is giving about the New Jerusalem.

Satan, an unclean being, was in heaven (and therefore “in the presence of Jesus”) when he fought with Michael and his angels (Rev 12:7). Because of his uncleanness, he was cast out.

It is precisely the Lord’s guarantee that nothing unclean shall enter the New Jerusalem (or heaven) that mandates purgatory (the state in which a person is made clean (“purged of sin”) before entering heaven).** It has nothing to do with whether a sinful person can stand in the presence of Christ **(which he can, because of Christ’s abundunt grace!).

So the argument for purgatory is not because a person can’t stand unclean before Christ, but to fulfill what Christ himself revealed to John about the New Jerusalem (or heaven).

Interesting approach-it is internally consistent, and it also deals with the Satan question (this always seemed like an inconsistency as well, but the “enter” distinction covers it).

Thanks to you and to everyone who took time to provide an answer.

 

[steve_b]

Interesting approach-it is internally consistent, and it also deals with the Satan question (this always seemed like an inconsistency as well, but the “enter” distinction covers it).

Thanks to you and to everyone who took time to provide an answer.

Also

• Satan tempted Jesus in the desert. Evil himself CAN be in the presence of Jesus here [Mt 4:1, Lk 4:2.] but not in heaven
• Satan asked (presumably to Jesus) to sift all the apostles like wheat. Jesus told His apostles this is what would happen right after Satan got the apostles into an argument over which of THEM was the greatest. This happened at the Last Supper [Lk 22:31…]
• Satan entered Judas while (at the Last Supper) right AFTER Judas received the Eucharist [Jn 13:26-27]. Which means Satan was present the whole time at the Last Supper.

It’s wonderful to know, contending with Satan ends here and won’t be the case for those who will be in heaven