Unlocking the Book of Revelation- Barber: A Book Review

[lumengentleman]

So, though he says the Davidic Millennium view compliments the Church Age Millenium view (that of Augustine and all the Fathers since him), in reality he has replaced it.

Like Master, like Student, eh, Mark? This one is right out of Bob’s playbook - author N. says one thing, but we know better, don’t we? We know what Barber’s really doing here, right? Never mind what Barber actually says.

That the reviewer admits to not even reading the entire book says a lot.

Close enough to write a review, or so it seems. Once again, you borrow heavily from Bob’s script.

So Barber advances something not found in the Fathers? Is that supposed to be a problem?

No, Barber is not the Pope - but Pius XII was, and here’s what he said about scholars like Barber:
Pope Pius XII:

Let all the other sons of the Church bear in mind that the efforts of these resolute laborers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with equity and justice, but also with the greatest charity; all moreover should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected. Let them bear in mind above all that in the rules and laws promulgated by the Church there is question of doctrine regarding faith and morals; and that in the immense matter contained in the Sacred Books - legislative, historical, sapiential and prophetical - there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous. There remain therefore many things, and of the greatest importance, in the discussion and exposition of which the skill and genius of Catholic commentators may and ought to be freely exercised, so that each may contribute his part to the advantage of all, to the continued progress of the sacred doctrine and to the defense and honor of the Church. (DAF, 47)

Now, apologize to Mr. Barber for your “intemperate zeal”, Mark.

 

[lumengentleman]

Once Christ died on the cross, Satan was bound in the pit, and Christ was able to ascend into Hades to bring the OT saints to heaven.

You mean descend into Hades, Mark. Hades is down, not up.

 

[trth_skr]

Like Master, like Student, eh, Mark? This one is right out of Bob’s playbook - author N. says one thing, but we know better, don’t we? We know what Barber’s really doing here, right? Never mind what Barber actually says.

I have read most of the book, Jacob. Have you? He explicitly states that he is taking the Millennium to be the Davidic 1000 years. He then follows through and interprets the Apocalypse that way.

No, Barber is not the Pope - but Pius XII was, and here’s what he said about scholars like Barber:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pope Pius XII
Let all the other sons of the Church bear in mind that the efforts of these resolute laborers in the vineyard of the Lord should be judged not only with equity and justice, but also with the greatest charity; all moreover should abhor that intemperate zeal which imagines that whatever is new should for that very reason be opposed or suspected. Let them bear in mind above all that in the rules and laws promulgated by the Church there is question of doctrine regarding faith and morals; and that in the immense matter contained in the Sacred Books - legislative, historical, sapiential and prophetical - there are but few texts whose sense has been defined by the authority of the Church, nor are those more numerous about which the teaching of the Holy Fathers is unanimous. There remain therefore many things, and of the greatest importance, in the discussion and exposition of which the skill and genius of Catholic commentators may and ought to be freely exercised, so that each may contribute his part to the advantage of all, to the continued progress of the sacred doctrine and to the defense and honor of the Church. (DAF, 47)

Now, apologize to Mr. Barber for your “intemperate zeal”, Mark.

I never said it should be “suspect” or “opposed”. I just stated the facts- it is a novel view, and I stated my opinion that it should not be used as the basis of a beginner’s book on the Apocalypse. My opinion is that a beginner should be introduced to the Church’s traditional view. I said for that reason I could not recommend the book. I did not state the book was heretical or evil or even worng. I just stated that I could not recommend the book because it teaches beginnners a novel view, and does not concentrate on, or even cover the traditional view. I also felt that because of the nature of the novel view, it somewhat misses the boat on teaching the “lesson’s for today”.

I said in my review:

" It is clear that there is a lot of room for interpretation of the Apocalypse, but a book aimed at uninformed Catholics on the Apocalypse, at least in my opinion, should start with the Church’s well established view, not some modern and novel (though perhaps interesting) interpretation."

I then concluded:

“Though the book was nicely written, entertaining, and probably did a reasonable job capturing Scott Hahn’s views, I cannot recommend it for the reasons stated.”

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

You mean descend into Hades, Mark. Hades is down, not up.

On this we agree. Thanks for clarifying that.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[WestonGrant]

I don’t want to get into the middle of this but some of this still bothers me.

I never said it should be “suspect” or “opposed”. I just stated the facts- it is a novel view, and I stated my opinion that it should not be used as the basis of a beginner’s book on the Apocalypse.

Come on, though. These are the things you wrote aren’t they?

We are not Protestants, we cannot invent new views because they make sense. I realize the Church has not rejected this view, but nor has it supoorted it…I just do not think it should be packaged for popular consumption (i.e., Hahn, Barber, etc.). It should be studied by theologians of the Church if anything.

You picked the strong, black and white word cannot. You didn’t say you don’t think he should or whatever. And you said what he did was Protestant. Hahn, too. And then you said it should be studied by theologians of the the Church if anything. If anything? That’s a lot more that just saying you personally think he shouldn’t do something or other. Don’t you see that? Come on.

And you keep talking about Dr. Sungenis as the better choice over him. I’m sorry but this is looking more and more like a commercial for him and that your trying to make him look better by taking down Barber and Hahn. You shouldn’t have to do that. Just treat everyone the same.

And you linked to Dr. Sungenis’ book something like 3 times and even did again after telling me that this thread wasn’t about him and that I should write about him on a different thread if I want to.

I mean, come on you know?

I hope this doesn’t turn into a pile on Dr. Sungenis party for everything he’s ever done wrong. But the way your treating Barber and Hahn and selling Dr. Sungenis as the better choice I’m telling you it doesn’t fly with me and I can see why it wouldn’t fly with other people too.

 

[trth_skr]

…You didn’t say you don’t think he should or whatever. And you said what he did was Protestant. Hahn, too.

I have already stated for the record that I do not see Barber or Hahn as protestant.

And then you said it should be studied by theologians of the the Church if anything …

Yes, I think novel views should be studied by theologians before being sold to the public in the form of a beginning book on the Apocalypse. I did not use the words “or anything” in my book review. I do write a little more informally on discussion forums. I recognize the right, if not the duty of theologians to study alternative schemes.

I read Barber’s book with an open mind. I was hoping (but not certain) that it was going to be the standard amillennial view put forth. If he had not written it as a beginner’s book on the Apocalypse, but actually stated it was a novel view, and the book was aimed at more advanced sudents [of the Apocalypse], the review likely would have turned out differently.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

…And you keep talking about Dr. Sungenis as the better choice over him. I’m sorry but this is looking more and more like a commercial for him and that your trying to make him look better by taking down Barber and Hahn. You shouldn’t have to do that. Just treat everyone the same.

I did recommend Sungenis’ book, and did not recommend Barber’s, and I have specific reason’s for it.

And you linked to Dr. Sungenis’ book something like 3 times and even did again after telling me that this thread wasn’t about him and that I should write about him on a different thread if I want to.

I mean, come on you know?

I do not see where I linked (i.e., internet link?) to Sungenis book. At least I cannot find the links. I may have mentioned Sungenis, but I am not discussing Sungenis’ book on this thread.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[WestonGrant]

I do not see where I linked (i.e., internet link?) to Sungenis book. At least I cannot find the links. I may have mentioned Sungenis, but I am not discussing Sungenis’ book on this thread.

You linked twice to your recommendation of Sungenis’ book. One of the three ones I saw was someone else quoting you giving the link before. So my mistake on saying three instead of two. Sorry. But can you see why this looks like a Sungenis commercial? The second time especially had nothing to do with Sungenis and you just brought him up out of the blue and linked to your recommendation of his book on the same thing as Barber’s book.

First one:

Have you read Sungenis’ The Apocalypse of St. John?

Second one:

Maybe you should, but there is a book available that does get into all that, and it is Robert Sungenis’ The Apocalypse of St. John Study Bible. It really opened my eyes as to what the Apocalypse is all about and how it relates to the Church today.

I have already stated for the record that I do not see Barber or Hahn as protestant.

If I said that, I’d understand why you used bold letters to me. But I didn’t say that you said you saw them as Protestant. I said that you said what they did with their interpretation of the Apocolypse was Protestant and Catholics cannot do that. And I quoted where you said it.

I did not use the words “or anything” in my book review.

Come on, though. When someone says that a book shouldn’t be sold the way it is sold now and that something a lot smaller should be done with it if anything, that *if anything * means that maybe its just as well if nothing is done with it at all.

You’re treating Sungenis very different than you’re treating Barber and Hahn.

 

[KarlAdam]

It is nice to see that I am not the only one who feels that this review is a bit unfair. Barber’s arguments are quite strong that the age of the Davidic Kingdom prefigured the age of the Church. I encourage people to read the book. As he explains, the “pit”, the “chain” and the “key” used to lock up the devil clearly have roots in traditions familiar to Jews in the first century. It seems perfectly logical to me that the first Christians would have seen the imagery as Davidic and as a sign of the Church.

In reference my earlier statement that the early Christians were Jews and would likely have read the book this way you wrote:

The early Christians were Chilliasts. They were waiting for Christ to come to rule on earth for a milennium (i.e., they were millennialists).

Actually, I think that’s a bit unfair as well! So all the early Christians were Chilliasts until Augustine set the Church straight with his Church Age view? Just off the top of my head, I know that Victornius (270 A.D.) took the Church age view. In fact, I got this quote from a handout by Barber: “Those years wherein Satan is bound are in the frist advent of Christ, even to the end of the age; and they are called a thousand, according to that mode of speaking wherein a part is signified by the whole, just as is that passage, ‘the word which He commanded for a thousand generations,’ although they are not a thousand… [At this time] the Devil [is] excluded from the hearts of believers… That is, [God] forbade and restrained his seducing those who belong to Christ” (Commentary on the Apocalypse, 10.10).

What Barber is trying to do–and I’ve heard him say this in person–is bridge a Jewish context with the Church Age view showing that the Church Age view could very easily proceed Augustine. Why is this important? Because Fundamentalists love to imply that the Church Age view is wrong since they are Chilliasts! They argue your very point–until Augustine in the fourth century the Church Age view cannot be found in the fathers. Barber is working with you–but you are so hypercritical you can’t see that! You are so ready to find fault with him that you miss the important ways he is helping to advance the Christian faith.

Of course, Barber doesn’t come right out and say that in the book. But if you read the chapter–as you point out–it’s clear that he affirms the Church Age view. He makes introductory readers aware of that view. Yet, clearly the chapter would be too long if he gave a parallel commentary on each passage–explaining both views in depth. You couldn’t be more wrong when you write:

“So, though he says the Davidic Millennium view compliments the Church Age Millenium view (that of Augustine and all the Fathers since him), in reality he has replaced it.”

I don’t think you really understood the depth of this book–you were too quick to dismiss it because you did not find exactly what you wanted. And your eagerness to push Sungenis is a little odd–it certainly does seem like you were trying to advertise a bit for him. Again, the fact that you posted a “review” of the book–not merely a chapter, but of the book–prior to even finishing it demonstrates a huge amount of bias. In fact, this thread is not even the proper name of the book, which is not “Unlocking the Book of Revelation”–that’s the subtitle. The main title is “Coming Soon”.

Lumengentleman, you really found an appropriate quote there from Pius XII. I understand where Mark is coming from–clearly we are living in an age where heretical novel views abound and we need to be careful about what we need. But we can’t become so allergic to new approaches that we dismiss the good with the bad. We need to always strive to find ways to advance in our understanding of the Scriptures.

Why can’t books be complimentary? Why don’t we rather strive to show how different works by Catholic commentators who strive to be faithful can work together?

 

[NotWorthy]

Am I understanding this right? Is the claim being made that since Barber is linking this do David’s kingdom he can’t be right?

I though numerous prophecies had double meanings. Isaiah 7:14 was partially fulfilled in ancient Israel (was it King Hezekiah’s child?) and then completely fulfilled by Jesus. One of the promises to King David was partially fulfilled in Solomon, and then completely fulfilled in Jesus.

Couldn’t Barber be seeing the same multiple fulfillments in his writings?

 

[KarlAdam]

Yes, that is exactly Barber’s point! Revelation 20 is about the Kingdom–that is found fully realized in the Church, but it is also found realized in part in the Old Testament. One does not need to choose one interpretation over the other. Barber thinks that seeing the Davidic connections in Revelation 20 is important for fully going on to see the way it describes the “Church Age”. Jewish Christians, he thinks, would have seen the Church as the fulfillment of God’s promise to restore the Kingdom of David. That’s why the Gospels frequently link Davidic prophecies to Jesus’ proclamation of the Kingdom–he is the “Son of David”, he is the one who fulfills the Psalms about the Davidic king, such as Psalms 2 (You are My Son, this day I have begotten thee), 110 (Sit at my right hand), etc. When we read about the Kingodm we need to see all of the connections between the two.

For example, in Revelation 20, the angel comes with a “key”. In Revelation, the “key” is linked with David (Rev 3:7; cf. also Isa 22:22). He also comes with a “chain”, Barber explains how Rabbinic tradition linked a “chain” with Solomon’s court. In fact, the 1000 years would be an appropriate symbol for the Church, the restored Kingdom promised to David, since the Kingdom of David was established exactly 1000 years prior to Christ’s coming. Much more could be said (and needs to be said in order to be convincing), but you’ve got to read the book (and all of the endnotes). Barber makes the case much better than I do, so please do not let my inadequate presentation of his thought bias you against him. Ultimately, though, Christ is the true Son of David, through whom the power (the key) and the chain (the power of the sacraments) restrain Satan.

Barber simply focuses on the Davidic aspect because he feels as though this is dimension most people are missing–THOUGH HE STILL AFFIRMS THE CHURCH AGE VIEW. Contrary to what the reviewer is here claiming, Barber is certainly not trying to “replace” that interpretation.

 

[trth_skr]

… Barber’s arguments are quite strong that the age of the Davidic Kingdom prefigured the age of the Church.

I am not denying there could be some prefiguring, but Barber has reinterpreted the Milennium as literally occuring in he 1000 years from David to Christ. This is novel. But My purpose is not to crticise the theory itself. It is clear from th preface and the introduction (plus the study questions) that the book is intended for beginners studying the Apocalypse. Shouldn’t such a book teach the predominate Church view?

Actually, I think that’s a bit unfair as well! So all the early Christians were Chilliasts until Augustine set the Church straight with his Church Age view?

I think largely it was so. Note that I stated that the amillennial (Church Age) view was the standard Church view since at least Augustine.

Just off the top of my head, I know that Victornius (270 A.D.) took the Church age view.

According to Sungnis, he also considered the Chiliast view. Sungenis says that after the 2nd half of the 2nd century Chiliasm began to phase out.

In fact, I got this quote from a handout by Barber: … That is, [God] forbade and restrained his seducing those who belong to Christ" (Commentary on the Apocalypse, 10.10).

I noted that Barber states he accepts the standard view. He just did not teach it in this book.

What Barber is trying to do–and I’ve heard him say this in person–is bridge a Jewish context with the Church Age view …

I am not trying to find fault with Barber. I just stated I could not recommend the book for the reasons I outlined.

Of course, Barber doesn’t come right out and say that in the book.

This is the point I made. No one who buys and reads the book as their first book on the Apocalypse will learn the standard Church view from it. In fact it may cause a lot of confusion.

But if you read the chapter–as you point out–it’s clear that he affirms the Church Age view. He makes introductory readers aware of that view.

Yes, in a few sentences in chapter 13.

Yet, clearly the chapter would be too long if he gave a parallel commentary on each passage–explaining both views in depth. You couldn’t be more wrong when you write:

Quote:
“So, though he says the Davidic Millennium view compliments the Church Age Millenium view (that of Augustine and all the Fathers since him), in reality he has replaced it.”

I don’t think you really understood the depth of this book–you were too quick to dismiss it because you did not find exactly

It is a beginner’s book. I did not say the underlying theory may not have depth and complexity. Barber says he is “Keeping it Simple”.

And your eagerness to push Sungenis is a little odd–…The main title is “Coming Soon”.

If you read my review, I have the whole title in it. I used the subtitle in the forum title block because it is more descriptive on first glance. I have read through the book, and see that Barber interprets it exactly as he has stated. And it is that interpretation that is the basis of my review.

Lumengentleman, you really found an appropriate quote there from Pius XII. I understand where Mark is coming from–clearly we are living in an age where heretical novel views abound and we need to be careful about what we need.

Again, I never claimed it heretical. It is hard to deny that it is novel. I appreciate that you have some understanding of where I am coming from.

CONTINUED

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

CONTINUED

But we can’t become so allergic to new approaches that we dismiss the good with the bad. We need to always strive to find ways to advance in our understanding of the Scriptures.

Why can’t books be complimentary? Why don’t we rather strive to show how different works by Catholic commentators who strive to be faithful can work together?

If the book weren’t oriented towards beginners, and it stated up front that this is a novel or at least “new” view for comparison and contrast to the standard Church view, then I may have reviewed it differently.

Advancing in understanding the Scriptures is for advanced students.

Again:

I said in my review:

" It is clear that there is a lot of room for interpretation of the Apocalypse, but a book aimed at uninformed Catholics on the Apocalypse, at least in my opinion, should start with the Church’s well established view, not some modern and novel (though perhaps interesting) interpretation."

I then concluded:

“Though the book was nicely written, entertaining, and probably did a reasonable job capturing Scott Hahn’s views, I cannot recommend it for the reasons stated.”

The reasons are mainly because it is a novel view in a book for beginners (and not really enough to let them know that), and that I think it kind of misses the most important lessons- those stemming from the reality potrayed in the almillennial view, which are different than those potrayed in the more novel view.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

Yes, that is exactly Barber’s point! Revelation 20 is about the Kingdom–that is found fully realized in the Church, but it is also found realized in part in the Old Testament. One does not need to choose one interpretation over the other.

On a discussion of the theory note (no longer talking about the review and recommendation, at least directly), actually, I think you do.

When was the Millenium?
Barber: David —> Christ, literal
Augustine (i.e., Church view): Cross —> 2nd Coming, symbolic (now)

When was Satan bound?
Barber: Beginning of David’s reign.
Augustine: At the cross (now)

Question: If Christ was bound at David’s reign, why did we have to wait for the cross for Christ to bring the OT saints out of Hades. In the standard view, Satan was bound at the cross, freeing Christ to do so.

When was Satan thrown in the pit of fire?
Barber & Augustine: 2nd coming

?Barber- what happens to Satan in between? On pg. 161-162 (Rev. 12:12) the short time. The devil is cast down to earth for 40 years before destroying the temple. In another sense Christ casts the devil into the lake of fire when the Son comes in glory. Until then the devil roams the earth (now). In the standard view, he roamed the earth in the OT, and that is hw he was able to keep man captive to sin. Symbolically binding Satan in the pit represents removing this control (of course Satan still has indiret control through the beasts).

Barber p249 Rev 20:7-8: At the end of the 1000 yrs. (40 yrs. before AD 70) Satan is loosed to “deceive the nations”, which means destroys the temple.

Barber p250 Rev 20:9-10. Satan is thrown into the lake of fire.

What happened in between? The Mass is implied. But otherwise the entire Church age is left out.

Barber pg. 251 (Rev 20:11): “At first glance, it might seem strange that John moves from narrating the events of 70 AD to speaking about the final judgement”

In my mind it does. In the Augustinian Church view the entire book of Apocalypse starts at the Cross and ends at the second coming. It is a continuous sequence of events revealing God’s plan in the Church Age to complete reclaiming mankind from Adam and Eve’s mistake. Of course the OT was the staging grounds for the plan.

Barber thinks that seeing the Davidic connections in Revelation 20 is important for fully going on to see the way it describes the “Church Age”. Jewish Christians, he thinks, would have seen the Church as the fulfillment of God’s promise to restore the Kingdom of David. That’s why the Gospels frequently link Davidic prophecies to Jesus’ proclamation of the Kingdom–he is the “Son of David”, he is the one who fulfills the Psalms about the Davidic king, such as Psalms 2 (You are My Son, this day I have begotten thee), 110 (Sit at my right hand), etc. When we read about the Kingodm we need to see all of the connections between the two.

This is basically Scott Hahn’s Covenant theology. I do not know a lot about it, but I have had some interest in it. I wonder if it ends up requiring the eschatology of the Apocalypse to be rearranged to work?

…Barber simply focuses on the Davidic aspect because he feels as though this is dimension most people are missing–THOUGH HE STILL AFFIRMS THE CHURCH AGE VIEW. Contrary to what the reviewer is here claiming, Barber is certainly not trying to “replace” that interpretation.

In the book I reviewed he largely did replace it. I cannot comment on what he has done outside the book. Just so you know I have largely read the book I have notes from pages 4, 6, 18, 19, 23, 27, 28, 89, 90, 94, 97, 106-107, 115, 124, 139, 143, 147, 155, 158, 159, 161-162, 164, 169, 170, 173, 175, 197, 203, 204-205, 249, 251, 258, 259, 269, 285. Book ends on page 287. I have some underlines in the references, and other pages, too. These notes relate to what I saw as significant comparisons to the standard view.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[KarlAdam]

Mark,

You attack Barber for his view that Satan was in some way bound in the Davidic covenant, and then loosed for “a short while”, i.e., the wicked generation Jesus condemns. Again, Barber would not deny that it is in the Cross that Satan is ultimately bound. He affirms all of this… he’s just affirming more.

I don’t get the huge need to try to drive a wedge between the Church Age view and a view that sees multiple fulfillment. Why can’t we simply affirm the age-old Catholic “both / and”?

Okay, so you’re point is: This is a book for beginners and the theory laid out for Revelation chapter 20 should only be given for people more advanced.

I find that a bit elitist. I consider myself a beginner–I certainly was when I first read the book–but this book and this view in particular has certainly helped me a great deal see how Christ brings fulfillment to the Old Testament. Actually, this is one of the most exciting books I’ve ever read. Again, Barber mentions the Church Age view. I don’t think you ought to be slamming him so hard for what appears to be a minor complaint.

It seems like a huge waste of time and energy to spend on a book that is so faithful to the Church’s teaching. Why not go after something that is actually dangerous and heretical?! Why try to tear down and discourage people from reading great material? Shocking…

I think you need to read that quote from Pius XII again.

 

[trth_skr]

Mark,

You attack Barber for his view that Satan was in some way bound in the Davidic covenant, and then loosed for “a short while”, i.e., the wicked generation Jesus condemns. Again, Barber would not deny that it is in the Cross that Satan is ultimately bound. He affirms all of this… he’s just affirming more.

Karl:

Please don’t say I am attacking Barber. You started discussing specifics of the view, and I joined in. I just showed some of the differences that struck me. Barber does not teach in this book that Satan is bound at the Cross. I know he says in a few sentences he affirms this view, but he teaches a different one.

I don’t get the huge need to try to drive a wedge between the Church Age view and a view that sees multiple fulfillment. Why can’t we simply affirm the age-old Catholic “both / and”?

You are free to affirm as you wish.

Okay, so you’re point is: This is a book for beginners and the theory laid out for Revelation chapter 20 should only be given for people more advanced.

That is part of it.

I find that a bit elitist. I consider myself a beginner–I certainly was when I first read the book–but this book and this view in particular has certainly helped me a great deal see how Christ brings fulfillment to the Old Testament. Actually, this is one of the most exciting books I’ve ever read.

It is interesting and perhaps exciting. Is the standard view unexciting?

Actually my reaction to learning about the Church Age view was more one of responsibility to tell people about it. I feel that the fact that we are currently under the attack of the two beasts is an important thing for people to know. The overall prosecution of God’s plan to reclaim mankind from the snares of the devil is laid out, and is occuring right now- not 2000 years ago.

Again, Barber mentions the Church Age view. I don’t think you ought to be slamming him so hard for what appears to be a minor complaint.

But he did not teach it.

It seems like a huge waste of time and energy to spend on a book that is so faithful to the Church’s teaching. Why not go after something that is actually dangerous and heretical?! Why try to tear down and discourage people from reading great material? Shocking…

I think you need to read that quote from Pius XII again.

I did not “go after” the book. I just did not recommend it. I think you are being overly sensitive.

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

 

[trth_skr]

Karl:

I do not know if you have contact with Mr. Barber, but if he wants to write a respectful rebuttal to my review, I would be glad to post it on my blog. I would also link it into the main article (so people that came in on the original links would see it).

You can send me your e-mail address via Catholic Answers message if you want.

God Bless,

Mark Wyatt
www.veritas-catholic.blogspot.com

P.S. My ability to access the internet in the next 24-36 hours is iffy at best. I will try and check back.