https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvmGvMZ9ZaU
I had heard a month or two ago that Robert Spencer had left the Catholic Church. Some Google searching had suggested that he had joined the Orthodox Church which is apparently the Church he was baptized into as a child. It’s disappointing to see people leave my faith but Robert Spencer had never criticized Islam from a Catholic perspective and the above video certainly shows that.
Contrast this with Dr. E. Michael Jones. Jones doesn’t write on Islam but on the Jews. Unlike Spencer, he always approaches Judaism from a Catholic perspective. Robert Spencer thinks Islam is some evil force because it poses a threat to Western democracy and lifestyle which is simply ridiculous. He has always been more than happy to work with homosexual supporters like Pamela Geller.
So according to the above video, Spencer was discouraged because American Catholic bishops opposed him because they were squishy on Islam. He then began to question their authority. Anyone who has studied the church for the last 50 years should know that American Catholic bishops aren’t doing this because of Catholicism but because of modernist liberal ecumenism. Despite American bishops being affected with this, it’s no different than a majority of fourth century bishops being infected by Arianism while the official church doctrine was Trinitarianism which was dogmatically defined at Nicaea in 325 AD.
In this interview, Spencer appears to be all over the theological map. He was baptized into the Orthodox Church as a child, became born again in college, then became Catholic in graduate school. It appears now he’s come full circle back to the Orthodox Church of his youth. He seems to change religions as often as Michael Coren.
I don’t expect Spencer to criticize Islam from an Orthodox perspective in the future. He’ll almost certainly continue with his secular critique of Islam which is unfortunate.
Dr. E. Michael Jones in his criticisms of Judaism has the same problems with the bishops. They always oppose him because the bishops can’t let their precious interfaith relationship with the Jews go out the window. I don’t see Dr. Jones leaving the faith anytime soon.
Being Catholic means taking a Catholic approach to all avenues of life. It’s not about worshipping the God of the Bible then making secular critiques of a false religion. This is probably the reason that I’ve never liked any of Spencer’s books on Islam. I found his book on the existence of Muhammad to be interesting but everything else has been purely Americanist and secular.
In contrast to this, I get excited every time my monthly edition of Culture Wars shows up in my mail since Jones always uses Catholic standards. This doesn’t make him popular amongst the modernist Catholic bishops but that doesn’t mean that he’s going to give up.
One thing that I’m happy with on this website is that I always use Catholic standards. I see people violating their faiths all the time. Spencer is only one of many examples and he’s going to do this with his new faith as well. I wish him the best going forward but I think that his worldview will eventually catch up with him again.
Being Catholic means taking a Catholic approach to all avenues of life. It’s not about worshipping the God of the Bible then making secular critiques of a false religion. This is probably the reason that I’ve never liked any of Spencer’s books on Islam.
. . . but everything else has been purely Americanist and secular.
Can you flesh out what you mean by this? How are his critiques “purely Americanist and secular” and not [Roman] “Catholic”?
Evangelicals (like Dr. White) point out that his approach is focused on Jihadism and politics and does not have much or any gospel truths in his presentations. Is that what you are referring to ? He even leaves out the basic Biblical gospel truths, even the bare “Mere Christianity” level that Evangelicals and Roman Catholics agree on.
What more beyond that are you referring to?
Are you implying that to be truly Roman Catholic, you have to return to the Crusades Medieval era type activity? (wars, and fighting using motivations of indulgences and getting out of purgatory if one goes and fights the “infidels” ?)
Hi Ken,
I hope that you are well. Thanks for asking the question, it’s actually a really good one.
“Evangelicals (like Dr. White) point out that his approach is focused on Jihadism and politics and does not have much or any gospel truths in his presentations. Is that what you are referring to ? He even leaves out the basic Biblical gospel truths, even the bare “Mere Christianity” level that Evangelicals and Roman Catholics agree on.”
This is bang on and a good response to your earlier question. I don’t know if you watched the video above but he essentially admits this. He even mentions how he works with non-Christians in his opposition to Islam. You are correct also when you say there is absolutely no gospel in his presentations. However, it’s worse than that because he replaces Christianity with Western democracy. At least in videos like Islamicize Me, it’s neutral and doesn’t promote anything but only shows how crazy some Hadith are. Also their later UnIslamicize Me was promoting Jesus Christ and giving arguments for Christian doctrines. Spencer never does anything similar to this.
Now, getting to your last question, no to the crusades. The crusades served a purpose at their time, however we don’t have any more Christian or Islamic armies or states. The situation is very different now. I would recommend reading some books by Dr. E. Michael Jones or maybe going to culturewars.com to read some of his articles. They really take into account Catholic philosophy, theology, and social teaching. I would recommend everything that Dr. Jones has ever written.
I may be wrong but I’m going to assume that you’re unfamiliar with Dr. Jones. Here’s a good video of him.
God Bless,
Allan
Allan,
Thanks for your answers.
I watched the video with David Wood and Robert Spencer and Spencer said some things that were interesting – in his reasons for converting to EO a few years ago. So many R. Catholic bishops and priests opposed him and his work. And, as a Protestant, I fully understand and agree with him that he saw problems with the belief in the Pope and Papal doctrines and dogmas, etc.
I had never heard of E. Michael Jones, but I knew about Michael Voris – I used to debate a RC named Dave Armstrong at his old web-site (before he switched to Patheos and then banned me) and DA had many articles about Michael Voris.
I only looked at a few things years ago. I only got through the first 15 minutes of that video, so I need to come back to it when I have time, Lord willing. They are certainly correct that the sexual revolution of the 1960s was bad and wrong, and exposing hypocrite priests is a good thing.
I am having trouble understanding what you think “Western Democracy” / freedom of speech, etc. – what do you think it should be replaced with, and how would it ever be practically done. We touched on this before, but did not seem to get very far in explaining what and how you think “western Democracy” should be replaced with. Do you want to return to European Catholic kings, who, it seems many times, had to be approved of by a Pope in Medieval times (seemingly – 800s to 1500s ?), before 1776 ? how realistic is any of that?
Hi Ken,
Voris and Jones had a falling out a couple years ago. Jones even wrote an ebook about it. I would recommend that you subscribe to Culture Wars magazine. A lot of Protestants and Orthodox subscribe to it even though it’s a Catholic magazine. Also, I’d read as much of him as you can and watch his YouTube videos. I think the average lengths of one of his books is 800 pages. He has several over 1000 lol.
Western democracy is just liberalism in its basic form that we know it today. America, Canada, Western Europe, etc. It should be replaced by a government that believes Christ is King. I would recommend the writings of the great Counter-Enlightenment philosophers like Louis de Bonald, Rene de Chateaubriand, and Joseph de Maistre.
Liberalism has failed. In 1776 when America began, 90% of the people went to Church and even the 10% that didn’t had decent morals. John Adams said that America had to be religious and moral for it to work. It isn’t anymore and hasn’t been for a long time. The acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism are just the beginning. The same people who promoted those things are now trying to promote pedophilia. It’ll only get worse. The West has failed because it abandoned its roots.
How realistic is it that a Catholic or Christian confessional State will happen? I don’t know. I don’t know how it will happen either. There is encouraging news in Eastern Europe though. Russia, Poland and Hungary show a lot of promise. In Hungary, the Catholics and Calvinists were able to band together to get abortion banned in the vast majority of cases. Russia bans sodomite propaganda and is making laws restricting abortion promotion. Now, those aren’t confessional states, but there is hope and we should look to them for guidance.
God Bless,
Allan
It should be replaced by a government that believes Christ is King.
That does not seem like it would ever happen in this world, until after the second coming of Christ, in Rev. 19-20, etc. – that is only for the new heavens and new earth – Revelation chapters 20, 21, 22 – after the defeat of Satan & judgement day in Rev. 20.
But Christ is ALREADY king and on His throne – ruling and reigning at the right hand of the Father – Revelation chapter 5 and interceding for His people (Romans 8:32-35; Hebrews 7; Hebrews 9; Rev. 5, 1 John 2:1-2, etc.)
God (the Holy Trinity) already rules over the nations (Psalm 47:8) even though He allows sin, evil, bad governments, wars, apostasies, liberalism, modern Jihadist Islam, Islamic takeover of most of the Eastern church areas & N. Africa in 600s-1453, etc. to continue to take place in history.
Hi Ken,
Yes, He is King and a holy government would recognize it. It’s improbable, I’ll admit but it’s happened before and can happen again.
You and I both know that the modern Western democracy can’t continue much longer. Does that mean that it will be replaced by a Christian government? Probably not, but we can hope. That is why I promote the writings of Joseph de Maistre and others. The enlightenment has to go and modern democracy with it. I just hope that when the time comes, the people choose wisely and the church acts wisely.
God Bless,
Allan
Another issue is that all of the problems that E. Michael Jones talks about – the liberal takeover of Notre Dame, St. Mary’s, liberal bishops, priests, abortion (getting fired for holding to anti-abortion/pro-life position), the homosexual priest who was found either murdered or suicide, etc. – those things going on seems like a contradiction to the RC claims that they are the true church, yet they did not do the main thing that Matthew 18:15-20 teaches us a church and church authority does, as the next application of Matthew 16:16-19, on what is the church’s authority.
The thing is – he is saying the entire leadership structure of the R. Catholic was taken over by this liberal stuff in the 1960s and 70s. – seems like such a contradiction to the main application of Matthew 18:15-20 (church discipline for sin and unwillingness to repent of sin) – the Matthew 18:15-20 passage is the next application of Matthew 16:16-19 -original context of local assemblies (church gathered for worship, prayer, teaching, the study of God’s word, Lord’s supper (Acts 2:37-46) – it seems like a contradiction to Roman Catholic claims that they are the true church and infallible and indefectible.
Hi Ken,
He never said the “entire leadership structure” was taken over. He specifically talks about certain bishops like Cardinal Law and others.
Regarding infallibility, I’ve explained this to you before and if you didn’t get it then, you’re not going to get it now.
God Bless,
Allan
Allan,
I really appreciate your interaction and taking time to help me understand Roman Catholicism from your point of view.
I worded my phrase wrong. You are right, E.M. Jones did not say “entire leadership structure”, ok. What I am getting at is the examples he gave of those priests, bishops, structures at the Catholic Universities, seems to describe a pervasive apostasy within large parts of leadership structures within the RC Church, and seems similar to Vatican 2 and post Vatican 2 theology (in other areas – like pluralism, inclusive-ism, the Latin Mass, view of Protestants, “no salvation outside the church” – those issues.)
The massive pervasive apostasy (that RC Traditionalists say, who have problems with Vatican 2 and post Vatican 2 developments) within the umbrella of Roman Catholicism seems like a contradiction IMO, to Matthew 18:15-20, since that passage has a direct connection back to Matthew 16:13-19. As Protestants, it screams of a massive contradiction to the whole RC claim.
I don’t remember what you explanation was, – and there are different kinds of terms and definitons of “infallibility” and “regular Magisterium”, and church indefectibility, and church councils infallibility, jurisdiction, etc. that make all that stuff confusing for a Protestant; but I understand Papal Infallibility as a protection against the Pope teaching false doctrine when he is speaking from the chair of Peter (ex cathedra).
Hi Ken,
“but I understand Papal Infallibility as a protection against the Pope teaching false doctrine when he is speaking from the chair of Peter (ex cathedra).”
I’m glad that you understand this. Then this shows that modernist trends in the Church don’t violate this.
Now, the issue of apostasy of individual clergy doesn’t affect Papal Infallibility. In the 19th Century when the dogma was defined they didn’t know about the future modernist problem. However, they knew that in the fourth century, there was a point where 90% of the bishops believed in Arianism over Trinitarianism. In the 6th century there was a point where 75% of the bishops believed in monophysitism over the hypostatic union. The 19th century Church that defined the dogma knew about these things. Now, you probably think that this is more evidence that the Catholic Church cannot be true but just because a heresy becomes popular among the clergy doesn’t make it official Church dogma and the Church has always understood that. The Church has never been wrong dogmatically and it never will be.
Members of a religion and even its clergy behaving poorly doesn’t mean the religion is false. Islam isn’t false because of terrorism in the name of Allah. Islam is false because it gets Christ wrong.
Remember, in the days of Elijah, only 7,000 hadn’t bowed the knee to Baal. National Israel at the time was probably around 5 million. You do the math Ken, that’s near wholesale apostasy. Does that mean that the Mosaic covenant was not the true religion at the time? Of course it doesn’t.
Anyways, to summarize things, you should read as much E. Michael Jones as possible.
God Bless,
Allan
Then this shows that modernist trends in the Church don’t violate this.
Not technically, but it does seem to contradict the whole claim of RC as relates to Matthew 18:15-20 as an extension of Matthew 16:13-19; related to the other terms and definitions of church (not Papal, but church) infallibility (councils, traditions, etc.)/indefectibility / general jurisdiction/general magisterium, etc.
Hi Ken,
Can you show me where this “claim” is dogmatically defined so we can examine it in detail against the verses and examples that you brought up?
God Bless,
Allan
I don’t know about “dogmatically defined” for those other things I listed (Gereral Magisterium, indefectibility of the church; infallibility of councils; jurisdiction of Rome, etc.)
You tell me! You are implying that all of those things I listed are not dogmatically defined and therefore able to be “manipulated” whenever they are useful, and denied as dogmatic when a Protestant makes a good point or asks a valid question. Isn’t the infallibility of Councils dogmatically defined? Isn’t the tradition as the 2nd part of God’s Word (Trent: Scripture and sacred tradition) (but what about partim partim issue?) – historical development of the “rule of faith” as apostolic tradition in the early centuries, the creeds, and the councils, and any other doctrine that it deems as dogma, up until today dogmatically defined as whatever the RC Church deems as “sacred tradition”? (decisions of Trent, Purgatory, Transubstantiation, denial of justification by faith alone, Marian dogmas (500s-600s – Perpetual Virginity, 1854, 1950); Papal Infallibility (1870) ?
terms and definitions of church (not Papal, but church) infallibility (councils, traditions, etc.)/indefectibility / general jurisdiction/general magisterium, etc.
I never said that they weren’t dogmatically defined. I just asked you to kindly provide them so we can compare since you’re the one making the claim.
You make a good point about Spencer and taking a secular approach to a critique of Islam. I find him to be hypocritical in his rejection of Catholicism. He disapproves of the American hierarchy going “ecumenist/interfaith dialogue” with Islam. Basically, they’re not being Catholic enough for him when it comes to dealing with Islam and its adherents. If they were being proper pastors, they would defend the faith against the encroachment of Islam, and he would be happy. However, he was not living up to a Catholic ideal either by promoting “Western values” instead of Catholic supremacy in his critique of Islam. The American bishops weren’t Catholic enough for him, but then again he wasn’t being too Catholic either. He was more anti-Islam than pro-Catholic.
Also, one quibble about Jones. I like him but I recall him being soft on Islam. Although, I don’t remember where I heard it from him. In his zeal against modern Judaism he seems to give Islam a break. Enemy of my enemy is my friend kind of thing. However, both Islam and Judaism are enemies. We ought not work with either of them against the other.
Hi Chris,
He is a bit soft on Islam which is unfortunate. He doesn’t deal with them too often which is probably the reason why. He does talk a lot about how their philosophy collapsed in Medieval Spain which is interesting.
He also seems to have this fawning over Iran. I do feel sorry for Iran that American Evangelicals, Saudis and Jews bash them to no end even though they’ve never invaded anyone. However, Islam is still an enemy of Christ’s Church and this cannot be ignored.
God Bless,
Allan
A “secular” approach to certain issues certainly has its place and it is arguably a very useful one in examining ideologies or political systems and even religions given that they have arisen as part of various societies.
He is not an official representative of the Church so I would not necessarily expect him to represent a Catholic perspective.
Robert Spencer is a learned man with a fine and clever mind. He carries out useful work that makes him unpopular and places himself in danger because he considers that the danger from Islam must be highlighted. I welcome that and admire his intellect and his courage. I was happy to count him as a Catholic, I hope he has not left the faith.
Hi Christopher,
He has certainly left the Catholic faith and says so clearly in the above video. I think that every Catholic should take a Catholic approach to things. If the Catholic is ignorant or young in the faith, they’re probably off the hook but Spencer is a learned man as you said.
Islam being the world’s largest false religion should be approached from a Catholic perspective. Especially if we plan on getting their former members one day.
God Bless,
Allan
I have not listened to the video, but from what I have learned I wouldn’t blame someone in his position for leaving. The official and declared policy of the Catholic Church towards Islam is unsound. The catechism’s approach is over-charitable – although the conciliatory approach appears quite correctly to be aimed at “Muslims” rather than Islam. Nevertheless the Church does not recognise that Islam is distinctly opposed to Christianity in its teachings and in its practices. Islam cannot realistically be considered to be Abrahamic, yet the Church appeals to Muslims as worshipping the One True God. Last but not least, the present pope is either an ignoramus or deceptive when it comes to Islam given his statements on the issue.
Hi Christopher,
I know that this stupid interfaith dialogue is frustrating. It’s not just Francis though, Benedict and JPII have done their part.
It’s actually worse than you make it out to be. Church prelates gone far beyond what the Catechism states. I’m a firm believer in ending these stupid ecumenical relations where doctrine is watered down or even ignored entirely. This goes for the Jews as well.
Pray for the Pope.
God Bless,
Allan
“Pray for the Pope.”
LOL. I’ll do more than that if I get within earshot of him. Me and the missus are off to Rome in September. Visiting the Vatican and St Peters is a must.
Oh wow, have fun!
Rome is an incredible city! Enjoy!
All Jones talks about is Jews. I’ve never seen him say anything bad about anything besides Jews, never seen him say anything positive really in general and frankly doesn’t seem to care that a lot of altright people use his stuff and has been on pagan shows like Red Ice and was even on this weird Buddhist nazis you tube channel to… you guessed it, talk about the Jews. Also seemed to be very unkind towards Michael Voris because of his past and generally doesn’t seem like a loving person. Just my thoughts on the man and personally Spencer is pretty consistent and principled.
Hi norcal,
No, Jones talks about many things. I’m glad that he’s talking about the Jews though since no other Catholic seems to be. He’s appeared with controversial people but he said that he uses those platforms because he wants to reach their audience. He even spoke at a conference where David Duke spoke then tried to convert him to Catholicism.
God Bless,
Allan
Also, you blame Jones for only criticizing Jews while Spencer is “consistent and principled”?
Does Spender go after anyone other than Muslims?
No he does not, but he’s consistent and principled in his critique of Islam which is what I meant and his more secular critique is the reason for that. I agree if Spencer took a religious critique of Islam from a Christian perspective it would make sense to critique other religions as well. My point was that Jones has a religious critique of Judaism, but seems to not care as much about going on literal pagan programs and like another commentator said seemed soft on Islam.
The fact of the matter is that Spencer has had plenty of death threats and probably fairly decent security risks and people associated with him have been killed and/or also have had major threats so I respect that whereas Jones… seriously doubt he has anything to worry about besides being called out by the SPLC or some dumb organization like that. Just look on the comments on most videos of his its not people who are saying they’re going to look at the Catholic faith… frankly it seems to be dudes with 1488 esque usernames and the occasional Muslim ones with maybe a smattering of Christians who also just seemed obsessed about zionism or Jews. Similar to Brother Nathaniel, but he’s a whole other eccentric personality
As I mentioned before, Jones will take any platform given to him. I would go on those programs as well to try to convert them and their audience.
Jones probably doesn’t have death threats but he has other problems. He has to self publish everything he writes since no one will publish him anymore. Would this have anything to do with the multipage section of him on the ADL website?
Not sure how to respond to your post below, but hope this will suffice.
Again, from what I’ve seen of him on these shows he’s not really trying to convert anyone I mean he gives his religious view on why Jews do certain things, but he certainly doesn’t challenge any hosts views or the audiences he basically just confirms their preconceived notions perhaps in a different way though, but I haven’t read or seen everything from him so maybe I’m wrong who knows.
Yes he has to self publish and ya it probably does have to do with the ADL. I mentioned a similar org earlier and I’m sure its a nuisance and a detriment to his book sales, but he can say what he wants and nobody’s threatening him and until someone does I don’t think its comparable to Spencer and others. That’s just the bar I have.
“there are different kinds of terms and definitions of “church infallibility” (not Papal) and “regular Magisterium”, and church indefectibility, and church councils infallibility, jurisdiction, etc. that make all that stuff confusing for a Protestant;”
Why can’t you find for me where some or all of these things are dogmatically defined?
You should know that easy.
We need to know this, since most all RC apologetics to Protestants is a call to submit to the Pope (and all other de fide doctrines) and believe the RCC is the same church that Jesus started in Matthew 16.
Well, if you’re the one bringing the charge that modernism in the Church violates these dogmas, shouldn’t you have your evidence prepared? Why should I have to fish it out? Whenever I do a post attacking any group, I do the research.
It has more to do with the ambiguity of your own Church’s terms like:
Infallibility of Councils
Extra-Ordinary Magisterium
Ordination Magisterium
Indefectibility of the Church
Infallibility of the Church
The problem is that your Church claims to be the true church and infallible and indefectible, etc. but when valid questions and points are made, the answer is, “oh that was not intended as an infallible statement” or “that such and such was not an infallible council” or “that was not a dogma”, etc.
The claim of ultimate authority is high (like Boniface VIII’s Unam Sanctum of 1302 – “It is necessary for salvation for every human creature to submit to the Pontiff of Rome.”
Seems pretty ultimate to me. and seems “ex catherda”, and yet contradicts the whole New Testatment.
The New Testament: “Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved.”
Gospel of John, Acts, Galatians, Romans, Ephesians, etc.
“this is the promise He has made to us: eternal life” 1 John 2:25
“repent and believe the gospel” Mark 1:15
Hi Ken,
You’re shifting ground. I expect that next time you’ll bring dogmatic statements on those five categories. Anyways, I won’t be responding any further. I’ll let you have the last word if you desire.
God Bless,
Allan
How is the average person suppossed to even understand those categories, when the definitions are so convoluted and ambiguous and they die after they go through dozens of qualifications?
Dave Armstrong:
Note in the following excerpts that even if a clear teaching of the Church is not infallible, it is still binding on the faithful, it requires even interior assent, and may not be disagreed with publicly.
see here:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/davearmstrong/2018/07/infallibility-councils-and-levels-of-church-authority.html
Even Roman Catholics debate with each other over what was intended as infallible and what is not, in Vatican 2. this section is from that Dave Armstrong article:
The pastoral vs. dogmatic distinction is bogus. A friend of mine who is a canon lawyer, wrote to me:
This “pastoral” vs. “dogmatic” council distinction is a bunch of hooey (a technical canonical term meaning whatever). Those two words are descriptive, not definitive. Whatever Vatican II taught authoritatively, Catholics are bound to hold. Period. Of course, finding out just what Vatican II taught authoritatively is not always so clear as it was with, say, Trent, but that’s a different problem from the one your friend wants to pose.
see, “it is not always so clear”
E. Michael Jones was just interviewed by Patrick Coffin, a very mainstream and well known Catholic personality! Coffin has been doing great recently in my opinion. I always liked him, including his Catholic Answers days. But he’s been doing interesting stuff recently since he branched off on his own. You may have heard he’ll be one of the speakers at the One Rock conference in Calgary coming up.
Yes, I did notice that.
I honestly think the reason that he quit CA is that he could be a little more free in what he does. Catholic Answers does some good work but they’re quite narrow in their thinking. Also, he was the host of the CA Live and as the host he didn’t have much of a chance to voice his own opinion often. He can do that now.
Glad you mentioned how Spencer works with Pamela Geller. Together they promoted the most disgusting and hate-filled cartoon contest imaginable. The goal was supposedly in the name of freedom of speech but in reality, it was just to give offense to Muslims. It was all about who could draw the best cartoon of Mohammed. People submitted vile drawings of Mohammed copulating with pigs and other inflammatory stuff. He also allowed members of his blog to insult the Pope for making overtures of friendship to Muslims. I complained to Spencer saying it was unbecoming of a Catholic deacon. He blocked me from being able to even access his site for my efforts. He also was verbally abusive.
Hi Jim,
Thanks for sharing. I was unaware about the Pope thing. Do you know when this was? If so, shame on him.
God bless,
Allan