A Refutation of the Misrepresentations of the Writings of William Webster and of the Church
Stumbling “Upon this Rock”
Steve Ray Responds to Bill Webster’s “Rebuttal” of his Book UPON THIS ROCK and Critiques Bill’s Use and Abuse of the Patristic Witness regarding the Primacy of Peter and the Petrine Primacy of Rome
By Stephen K. Ray
Author of “Crossing the Tiber” and “Upon this Rock”
Stephen Ray does Research at Caesarea Philippi
“You see, then, that the fact that Christ is called the rock, and that on Him the Church is built, is no hindrance to Peter’s also being, in a different sense, called rock, and being said to be the foundation of the Church; so that I consider there is no ground for the fear entertained by some, in ancient and in modern times, that, by applying the words personally to Peter, we should infringe on the honour due to Christ alone.”
(George Salmon, The Infallibility of the Church)
Is William Webster Correct?
1) In his Critique of Upon this Rock by Stephen Ray?
2) In his Understanding of the Papacy and the Early Fathers?
Outline (How I Have Approached William Webster’s “Rebuttal”):
Initial Comments and Disclaimers
Introduction
Preliminary Comments
How do we Read and Write Church History?
Unanimous Consent of the Fathers
Answering the “Misrepresentations”:
- Misrepresentation One:
- Bill’s e-mail
- St. Augustine
- St. John Chrysostom
2. Misrepresentation Two:Tertullian
3. Misrepresentation Three:St. Cyprian
4. Misrepresentation Four:Origen, St. Ambrose, St. Jacob of Nisibis
5. Misrepresentation Five:St. Ambrose
6. Misrepresentation Six:Cyprian, Firmilian and the Council of Carthage Concluding Statements
Bill Webster and the Sovereignty of God
Appendix A: “Papal Supremacy” by John Henry Cardinal Newman
Appendix B: Further Quotations from Eastern Patriarchs
Appendix C: Tertullian and Montanism
Appendix D: Yves Congar and the Unanimous Consent of the Fathers
Appendix E: Vatican I’s Decree
Initial Comments:
1) A criticism that may be leveled against this rebuttal is that it is “fragmentary” or “scattered.” Mr. Webster might claim that my comments are not focused. I would like to preempt this charge in advance, by informing the reader that Bill Webster simply “cut ‘n’ pasted” lengthy sections of his book into this “rebuttal”, but that the fragmentary nature of his “rebuttal” (coming, as it obviously does, without the requisite honest interaction with my whole work) formed the nature of your counter-rebuttal. Put simply, his “rebuttal” was fragmentary and if my counter-rebuttal is to be point-by-point, it will naturally seem fragmentary to the reader as well. However, following the arguments will be immensely instructive to the reader. This response to Bill Webster’s “rebuttal” will almost become a “large Appendix” to my book Upon this Rock.
2) I have provided about 20 pages of introductory material to lay the groundwork for this response and defense of the Papacy and my book. If the reader wants to get right to the “meat and potatoes” of my response to Bill Webster’s “rebuttal” - paragraph-by-paragraph – they can simply skip the introductory material and jump ahead to the actual “rebuttal” and my response.
3) Throughout this work Mr. Webster’s writing against my book will be called “the Rebuttal. My response and counter-challenge will be called the “response”.
4) In my book Upon this Rock, when I quoted Bill Webster, I never intended my comments to be personal. It was not personal, though it appears Bill Webster took it as a personal attack. I do not know Bill Webster, nor have I ever spoken with him. I simply used his book as one of a new genre of books by Protestant apologists which attempts to wade into unfamiliar waters - the teaching of the Fathers. I simply used Bill Webster’s books as an example of such a genre of new apologists. I am sorry if Bill Webster took it personally.
Introduction
I received an e-mail a few weeks ago telling me that I had been accused of intentionally and purposefully misrepresenting William Webster and the Church Fathers. I went to William Webster’s web site and was surprised by what I read. I spent a troubled day or two deciding if I should respond? I asked the Lord and searched my soul. I consulted a few close friends and family on the matter. The answer was overwhelmingly in the affirmative.
Why tackle such a project, responding to such a “rebuttal” from Bill Webster, a man I have never met or spoken to? First, I am sensitive to my brothers and sisters who are in disagreement. I am concerned, and hope in some small way to dispel some misconceptions about the Catholic Church, which I find so prevalent today. At the same time, I am a tenacious kind of man. As a kid I admired the Apache Indians and aspired to be as enduring and intrepid as they proved to be. I even carried a pebble under my tongue according to the practice of the desert Indians, in order to run long distances without my mouth becoming dry. I haven’t changed as I’ve grown older. I like the image of Caleb, the faithful “old dog” of the Exodus story (Num 13:3014:10). The faithful, rugged, tenacious, loyal, feisty, and believing Caleb is a hero of mine.
However, the main reason I write (and I conclude with this reason in a final section of this response entitled “Bill Webster and the Sovereignty of God”), is that I hope and pray that Bill Webster will eventually see the errors and bankruptcy of Fundamentalist Protestantism and come home to the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. With this in mind, I write with charity, though I argue strongly and persistently. If my goal is to win our brother back to the fullness of the faith, it would be foolish to write in an angry or hostile manner. I love Bill and respect his gifts and hope they will be used some day for the good of the universal Catholic Church with a goal to the unity of the faith, and what St. Paul asserts when he says “this is the way it is done in all the churches of God”.
This is great fun for me and my family. It is similar to defending the fort, or in a biblical sense of epic proportions, standing with a sword and shield defending the truth against subtle, and sometimes not so subtle error. I envision myself standing shoulder to shoulder with saints, martyrs, confessors, and the whole of the faithful for two thousand years. In the olden days men challenged each other to a dual with ivory handled pistols. Today, we are much more civilized, and as Christians, hopefully more charitable. Today we click away at keyboards and the “dual” is with words, and even though the tussle seems to be a brutal battle at times, it can actually, when done with words, be a friendly and respectful endeavor, even though in the course of discussion we may employ rhetorical questions, satire, challenges, and even a bit of good natured ribbing, it is still intended to be a charitable discussion on things most important, with a view to the reconciliation of ideas and hearts.
Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against Mr. Webster and I don’t write to perpetuate a “fight”. I beg his indulgence to refer to him as Bill throughout this response. Throughout his “rebuttal” he refers to me as Mr. Ray, but I don’t think of myself as Mr. Ray, that’s my dad’s name. When someone calls me Mr. Ray I always spin around to see if my dad is standing behind me. I hope if Mr. Webster and I ever meet personally he will call me Steve and allow me to call him Bill. I hope he doesn’t think I’m too forward by using his first name through the rest of this response (plus, “Bill” is easier for my clumsy fingers to type).
Bill is probably a good guy. His neighbors and members of his local congregation are, I would suppose, very pleased with him. I expect he is sincere in his belief, and I would have the same expectation regarding his intent with his “rebuttal”. I have no reason to suspect ill will, probably only self-preservation since he mainly addresses the footnotes where his name appears. There’s nothing wrong with that. Sometimes people just see things differently and unfortunately, when this happens, the two in question often talk past each other instead of to each other. I hope to agree with Bill wherever I can, correct some things as needed, and to overall, maybe, help bridge the gap between our very different positions.
Bill, and a lot of other Protestant apologists (though I tend to think they are more properly termed “anti-Catholics”), are not, it seems to me, prepared for the new Catholic apologists being raised up by God to defend and promote the fullness of the Faith in the Catholic Church which is ancient yet forever young. Anglican divines learned a century ago, that if you begin to twist the Fathers out of their rightful context, the Holy Roman Catholic Church, you end up a victim of your own devise. Nothing Bill promotes in his books or in this “rebuttal” is new. It was all argued much more persuasively and learnedly a century ago in England, and a century ago in England the same thing happened as is happening today: the Catholics rose to the occasion and utterly demolished the Anglican arguments. “He who is ignorant of history is bound to repeat it”, as the old saying goes. The difference is that the Anglicans across the sea of a century ago were much more learned than the Protestant controversialists of today.
I hope to avoid the “he said - she said” kind of argument, though I’m afraid it won’t be altogether possible. Maybe we can help bridge the gap or narrow the divide between us - Lord knows that divided Christendom can certainly use some of that. If worse comes to worse we can agree to disagree on some matters. Let’s face it, greater minds than ours have debated these issues for many centuries. There is no hostility or anger in my fingertips, but passion for the truth burns the keys and will sometimes manifest itself. Hopefully I’ll get down to some good straight talk with a fellow believer in our Lord Jesus Christ. So Bill, please bear with me!
Again, why do I want to tackle such a project? There are a few more reasons. First, I have a short hiatus this month with no pressure. Second, since this is the first critique of my new book, I felt it was appropriate to respond. Third, I really enjoy a good challenge and diving deeper into history, the Church, and theology. Fourth, I hope to help people discern the errors in much current “anti-Catholic” efforts based mainly on Protestant bias. Fifth, for my edification and the edification of my fellow-Catholics who have come into port with the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church. And lastly, and maybe most importantly, as I said earlier, because such things have become family projects and everyone gets involved.
How does one approach a forty-page “rebuttal” with only a little spare time? Should I write a general overview and correct the major flaws or take the whole “rebuttal” tit-for-tat and respond sentence-by-sentence? Probably a bit of both, right? Here’s my problem: when you write a book it gets published, a lot of people may read it, and you may make a little bit of money (very little I’ve discovered), but the kind of writing I embark upon this evening takes a lot of time, is read by very few, and makes absolutely no money. It just sits on a web page for a few years while the book marches on. But, like any other kind of chore, it’s a tough job, and someone’s got to do it. So, let’s get going.
Preliminary Comments
Before I jump into Bill’s actual text, there are a few preliminary issues I would like to touch on.
Many of the statements and assumptions Bill makes about the early Church and the Fathers have been dealt with in detail in my book (and I don’t want to reproduce that here; I’d rather have the reader buy a copy!). For example, he habitually incorporates the practice of mixing metaphors (Upon this Rock, pps. 15 - 17 and elsewhere), he insists on the false dilemma of either-or instead of both-and, he provides quotes that allegedly support his position while ignoring others, and ignoring the historical practice of the early Christians. I’m pretty sure Bill never read my book, since as we will see, in many places he ignores my book completely and simply “cuts and pastes” whole sections of his book into the “rebuttal” as a substitute for actual interaction with my material. I also question whether he read the book because things I clearly explain in my book he seems to overlooks or ignores in his “rebuttal”, and he spends a fair amount of time criticizing me for not admitting or revealing certain “evidence” which I have clearly stipulated or freely included in my book. I did not limit myself exclusively to passages that seemed “Catholic-friendly”, as some others have done. We’ll get to all that in due time.
I would also like to ask Bill: “What is your interpretation of Matthew 16? If you read his books and this “rebuttal”, you will see that he hold his own cards very close to his chest. I don’t recall him ever explaining what he actually believes - how he interprets this profound passage. Does he interpret the “rock” to be: Peter (Mt 16:18); 2) Peter’s faith; 3) Peter’s confession; 4) the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20); 5) the Church (1 Tim 3:15), or something else? Which is it Bill? We don’t want a convoluted answer, but a simply response like you try to force upon Catholics and the text. What do you believe? When you force and impose an artificial either-or decision on the Catholics and the Fathers, it may come back to haunt you. I will present you with your dilemma again in more detail later.
Many of us have heard of the Six Blind Men of Industan and their description of the elephant. It is hard not to apply this to the significantly few Protestant Fundamentalists who happen “to fall against” the Fathers and figure they understand the Fathers better than the Catholic Church which is the organic tree that grew from the apostolic and patristic seed. Hunting and pecking through the Fathers, without the guidance of 2,000 years of the Church to whom the Fathers belong, is much like the investigation experienced by these men from Industan:
“It was six men of Industan to learning much inclined, Who went to see the elephant, though all of them were blind, That each by observation might satisfy his mind. The first approached the elephant and happening to fall against his broad and sturdy side at once began to bawl, God bless me, the elephant is very like a wall. The second, feeling of the tusk cried, Ho! What have we here, so very round and smooth and sharp? To me it’s mighty clear This wonder of an elephant is very like a spear. The third approached the animal and happening to take The squirming trunk within his hands, thus boldly up and spake, I see, quoth he, the elephant is very like a snake. The fourth reached out an eager hand, felt about the knee. What most this wondrous beast is like is mighty plain, quoth he. ‘Tis clear enough the elephant is very like a tree. The fifth who chanced to touch the ear said even the blindest man Can tell what this resembles most. Deny the fact, who can, This marvel of an elephant is very like a fan. The sixth no sooner had begun about the beast to grope Than seizing on the swinging tail that fell within his scope I see, quoth he, the elephant is very like a rope. And so these men of Industan disputed loud and long, Each in his own opinion exceeding stiff and strong. Though each was partly in the right and all were in the wrong.”
Ah, bless the Lord Jesus for His infallible Church, which has stood the test of time and continues to be the only one who holds firmly the full teaching and morals of the Apostles and the Fathers. She is thriving today, one billion strong, and goes into the next millennium with a renaissance probably unrivaled in Her history. The Lord has been faithful. It is a great time to be Catholic and bless the Lord He has brought us into port!
Historiography: Am I Guilty of Mangling History? How Should we Read and WriteChurch History?
In our discussion about the Fathers and how they understood Peter and the primacy of Rome, it is very important to understand how to read and write history. This is the study of “historiography”. Bill and I have very different perspectives on this matter and it is my conclusion that it is one of the major reasons we may never be able to see eye-to-eye on these matters. I will begin with Bill’s comments and then move to discuss the proper methods of historical research - specifically about the Church. I will also explain why I think Bill is in bed with Enlightenment thinking and secularists.
Bill’s comment about my violation of the rules of “historiography” is very poorly worded, which is, surely, the result of trying to write so much in so little time, something I can appreciate. But when I read these sentences casually, as did others I asked, it appears initially that Bill completely misunderstands the word “historiography”. Read his comments for yourself: “Stephen Ray, and Roman apologists in general, are guilty of a major error of historiography. This is the error of importing the theological understanding of terms developed in a later age and to then impose these concepts on the same terms of the writings of an earlier age, assuming that because they use the same word you do, that they mean the same thing by it.”