Rejoice not when thine enemy falleth, and let not thine heart be glad when he stumbleth

 

 

When pronouncing sentence, seem not glad;

such spectacles, though they are just, are sad.

-- John Denham

Woe unto you, lawyers!

The busy, subtile serpents of the law

Did first my mind from true obedience draw;

While I did limits to the king prescribe,

And took for oracles that canting tribe.

-- Wentworth Dillon, 4th Earl of Roscommon

Catholic apologist for the faith Dave Armstrong tries to wriggle out of renunciation as the essence of discipleship

  Who Must Renounce All Possessions to Follow Jesus?:

To start with, it’s very important to consider to whom Jesus’ words apply in this instance. I deny that it is required of every Christian to leave their families, or to be single and celibate. That is the higher calling of what Catholics call the “evangelical counsels.” Some are called to that; most of us are not. St. Paul makes these distinctions very clear in 1 Corinthians 7.

I contend that what is being referred to in the passages above is the “above and beyond” discipleship of those who are apostles: a select group of individuals that were present and required only during the period of the very early Church. Not all disciples are apostles. In fact, 99.99% are not. The Bible repeatedly refers to the initial group of the disciples of Jesus, as “the twelve.”

Armstrong of course avoids Luke 14:33 altogether, which is part of the discourse addressed to the "great multitudes" beginning in vs. 25 (which includes "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple"):

So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

There is no idea of a "higher calling" here. The Twelve already exist, yet the "great multitudes" are called just as they were. There is only one standard of discipleship, and it applies to all equally, from high to low, from the rich young ruler to the lowly fisherman and every one in between.

Armstrong's other arguments tend to fall in the "is is ought" category of fallacy. Just because the disciples fell asleep in the Garden of Gethsemane despite Jesus' request that they watch and pray with him doesn't make it right! The disciples', not to mention Paul's, many instances of bad behavior making them bad disciples isn't proof that Jesus' retreated from his conceptions. How silly.

The guy argues like a proof-texter with nary a hint of subtlety.

Perhaps he was a former fundamentalist. The idea that certain things "were present and required only during the period of the very early Church" sounds like he had been a Baptist dispensationalist before he became a Catholic.

On a final note, apocalyptic eschatology, which is the sine qua non for understanding this and all of the New Testament, is, well, you guessed it, not in view.

"Pure liberal" who refuses to vote is not a man but rather Aristotle's god or beast, either way an anti-social being not part of the human community

Michael Malice, here, because when it comes down to it in the end, he simply wants to be alone:

"I simply pray to be left alone."

Aristotle, Politics 1, 1253:

A man that is by nature and not merely by fortune citiless is either low in the scale of humanity or above it inasmuch as he is solitary ... the clanless, lawless, hearthless man reviled by Homer, for one by nature unsocial is also a lover of war. ...

The city-state is prior in nature to the household and to each of us individually. ...

When the whole body is destroyed, foot or hand will not exist except in an equivocal sense. ...

If each individual when separate is not self-sufficient, he must be related to the whole state as other parts are to their whole, while a man who is incapable of entering into partnership, or who is so self-sufficing that he has no need to do so, is no part of a state, so that he must be either a lower animal or a god. ...

Radicalism is pulling up something by the roots before the time

The radical cannot abide the co-existence of opposites.

So the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst not thou sow good seed in thy field? from whence then hath it tares?  He said unto them, An enemy hath done this. The servants said unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? But he said, Nay; lest while ye gather up the tares, ye root up also the wheat with them. Let both grow together until the harvest . . ..

-- Matthew 13:27ff.

Swear no oaths to others or to yourself, on New Year's Day or on any other day

When I have most need to employ a friend, 

Deep, hollow, treacherous, and full of guile, 

Be he to me! This do I beg of heav'n, 

When I am cold in zeal to you or yours.

-- Buckingham in William Shakespeare's Richard III (as known to Samuel Johnson)