Whelton book review: Audi alteram partem - Part 1
A series response to Michael Whelton’s book "Two Paths: Orthodoxy & Catholicism: Rome’s Claims of Papal Supremacy in the Light of Orthodox Christian Teaching"
Pertness and ignorance may ask a question in three lines, which will cost learning and ingenuity thirty pages to answer; and as people in general like short objections better than long answers, we must be content to only reach those who possess enough honesty, erudition, and patience to study both sides of the question. — George Horne (1730-1792), Letters on Infidelity
Michael Whelton’s Two Paths is a short book full of objections to Catholicism. As such, reading it might lead unwary Catholics to think that they have stumbled upon insurmountable difficulties. But this is not so. In spite of the manner and tone of his critiques, most of them are not new and have been adequately addressed through our ecclesiastical history. Some of them are accurate but less significant than the author suggests; others are fallacious, rely on false assumptions, attack straw men, or involve historical falsehoods.
Regrettably, the assertions are so numerous that I must leave some of them for the reader himself to address. Orestes Brownson, writing on Guettee’s anti-Catholic polemics, noted that “an objection can be made in far fewer words than it takes to refute it.” And, like Guettee before him, Whelton
lays down no principles which he labors to establish and develop, but dwells on details, detached statements, assertions, and criticisms, which cannot be replied to separately without extending the reply some two or three times the length of the work itself.1
Thus, I submit to the reader a multi-part series in response to the objections in Two Paths, addressing as many as space permits, with the aim of preventing any undue influence on Catholics to renounce their faith. I beg the reader to bear in mind that I will not be adducing proofs in favor of the Catholic Church, but simply examining the proofs that Whelton adduces against it.
In the next post, our exploration begins with two important aspects of Whelton’s conversion story.
Part 2 - Two notes on Whelton's Biography
Part 3 - Contra Whelton on Matthew 16, Peter, and the Rock
Part 4 - Assessing Whelton's Introduction: "An Insistent Call"
Part 5 - Contra Whelton on the Acts 15 Jerusalem Council
Part 6 - Whelton on Saints Cyprian and Augustine
Part 7 - More Whelton errors on the Papacy in the early centuries AD
Part 8 - Whelton on the first ecumenical council (Nicaea I in 325 AD)
Forthcoming: Part 9 - Whelton on the second ecumenical council (Constantinople I in 381 AD)
Nota bene
Although we would like to publish this series consecutively, there may be unrelated topics that sneak in from time to time. And although we would like to publish one article per week, with family and work obligations it isn’t always feasible to do so. Thank you for understanding!
“Guettee's Papacy Schismatic, part I” (Catholic World, 1867), page 465.
The separation of East and West has been a painful scandal felt even by our blessed Mother (who reposed, remember, in Ephesus) and I continue to pray it may be healed by God's miraculous intervention. The situation is not helped by the Wheltons of this world leaving the Catholic church for spurious - and essentially emotional reasons fuelled by other scandals within. It is more troubling still to read of his contrived and mostly old and essentially protestant repudiations of the primacy of Peter or authority of the apostolic see. Thanks for your heroic efforts to tackle his long diatribe: you're doing a better job than I ever mustered when I read Pusey's desideratum contra Newman's treatise on Mary. The aded irony there was that Newman himself thought the declaration of the Immaculate Conception to be inopportune, but never demurred from the authority of the pope and council to make that declaration. Indeed he was fully obedient to it, even if he could never embrace the sort of consecration to Mary that de Montfort composed, given very understandable trouble with the implied theology of spiritual slavery in conflict with lifelong freedom of will. For my part, I am in Newman's camp on the latter score (though I would not have thought the pope, after having declared on papal infallibility, should have delayed any longer to declare this universal belief of the Church in Mary's immaculate conception.) My own approach is to relate myself to Mary as "bondservant" in the same way she regards herself as "willing handmaid" , for clearly she had no concept of a mere will-less slave since God was awaiting her decision and fiat. I still tend to oppose public endorsements of de Montfort's specific wording (though in translation); but even so, if papal authority ever required it (as pope John Paul nearly did with 'Totus Tuus' ) I would not leave the Church because of that.
Thanks for sharing. Was Part 9 published?