Obscurity and Perspicuity

I am a Roman Catholic. Now, it's a staple saying that Sola Scriptura Fundie Protestants stand for Biblical Perspicuity and Roman Catholics for Biblical Obscurity. I could, as Roman Catholic, presumably be expected to take the position that the Bible is obscure per se and becomes perspicacious through the Magisterium.

Well, there are areas where this is true. And I don't take it from the Magisterium, I take it from the Bible ... which I hold to be generally Perspicacious.

If I now take let us make brick, and bake them with fire as "let us make whites, burned chalk" and slime instead of mortar as "stomped earth for thickness," and also next verse a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven as "a three step rocket" (note, it's involved with "let us make" and no indication they succeeded then and there), I take this as a moderate lowering of my otherwise very high expectations on Biblical perspicuity. In defense of the here lower perspicuity, I actually make the text more perspicuous than the usual interpretation a few verses later: God really did intend to have all enterprises of man succeed, and that's why we sent Gagarin and Armstrong into space, no need to supplement an unstated "lest" ... but the point is, I take Genesis 11 as sufficiently perspicuous to point to Göbekli Tepe as Nimrod's original Babel.

And I rate most historic texts as higher in perspicuity than the early chapters of Genesis. For the exact same reason that a Greek reading Thucydides had a better understanding of the Pelopponesian war than a Greek reading Homer had of the Trojan one. The transition from a Mycenaean Greece in the shadow of a lost Hittite Empire to an Archaic Greece with a somewhat greater distance to but still menace or at least "impressions" or imposingness from Assyria had made lots of the traditional references obsolete and hard to understand. And the first eleven chapters of Genesis involve all of the post-Flood stone age and part of the copper age in parts of the world concerned. I also rate most doctrinal texts as sufficiently perspicuous if you approach them with the right terminological presuppositions. Husband of one wife = no more than one. Possibly also bishop = presbyter, while the actual bishops were instead variously termed, including Apostles, Evangelists, Teachers (a teacher in the Classical world has a cathedra, which sets him apart in the classroom, and a local bishop has a cathedra).

My point for there being obscurity in the sense that the usual Catholic apologist has had a tendency to exaggerate, is in fact not so much Empirical as Biblical. The usual prooftext the usual apologist offers also offers a limit of the obscurity.

And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction
[2 Peter 3:15-16]

So, our first Pope clearly said: 1) in St. Paul's epistles some things are hard to understand, 2) unlearned and unsteady wrest these to their own destruction, 3) they also do so with the other Scriptures.

Other than what? Other than the obscure passages of St. Paul? Other than St. Paul? Obscure passages other than those in St. Paul? Or, Bible passages, other than those that are obscure? I take the latter view, since St. Peter said "the" Scriptures, and he was obviously not saying that all of them were obscure. So, the unlearned and unsteady in fact do wrest perspicacious passages against their perspicacity.

Both partial obscurity is affirmed and that obscurity is not responsible for all misunderstanding.

Another prooftext "against perspicuity" is the Ethiopian Eunuch.

And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him
[Acts Of Apostles 8:30-31]

This is evidence for one area: OT prophecy is obscure apart from the NT fulfilment. There are tons of Church Fathers and Scholastics who say with St. Augustine (who presumably counts for two tons among the CCFF) that the NT is hidden in the OT and the OT is opened in the NT. Let's not exaggerate obscurity here. Once the NT is known, one does not have the excuse of obscurity to reject it, as if the OT didn't become clear enough in face of the NT. Note here, by NT, I don't mean solely the text of the 27 books, I also mean the NT interpretation of OT prophecy and even of OT history as prophecy. The Catholic interpretation of what the NT is, sometimes wins, not so much because of an NT prooftext, but because of which reading of an NT text or which traditional doctrine makes best sense of OT prophecy. I've found the Protestant is either inventing an obscurity about the correspondence between Eliacim and Peter which isn't there, or pretending it's obscure whether all of OT history is prophecy about NT. It is on the contrary perspicuous:

And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him
[Luke 24:27]

Now, what exactly does Catholic dogma require us to believe about the necessity of the Magisterium? We would all miss every text if it weren't for the Magisterium? No, the Magisterium is there so we don't miss out on even one of them. It's perfectly compatible with perspicuity that any reader of good will gets 90 % of the doctrine right, or even 95 % — but what if you need to get 100 % of it right? That's where the magisterium comes in.

And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them And seeing him they adored: but some doubted And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world
[Matthew 28:16-20]

So, for our purpose here, the Magsiterium begins with 12 disciples, by this point reduced to 11, it lasts to the end of the world, it has Jesus as unceasing and omnipotent guide and its task involves teaching ALL truth. Not just 90 % or 95 % but 100 %. Presumably the Ethiopian Eunuch had got 95 or 99 % of the OT right, but he needed the emissary of the 12, St. Philip the Deacon (if it wasn't one of the 12, St. Philip the Apostle) to tell him what this passage was about. (If you check the wording, the Eunuch is giving a quote from Isaias 53, verse 7, but the Eunuch reads in the past tense, Isaias in the future tense: but that's in the Greek translation and others, in Hebrew, the future of a prophet often is equal to a past tense, grammatically).

So, I believe the infallibility of the Magisterium, because of Biblical perspicuity, not because of Biblical obscurity.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
XXIInd LD after Pentecost
9.XI.2025

Did Jesus on the Cross Die for You Personally, if you are Saved? (Spoiler Alert: Yes)

A certain objection against invoking the saints, not the version that soul sleep makes them non-interceders, not the version that they don't intercede, or never intercede for a specific person, is this: while St. Peter could theoretically be interceding all day up in Heaven, there is no way he could be aware, while remaining human, while remaining a creature, of each prayer that millions are adressing to him, and even more prayers are adressed to the Blessed Virgin Mary.

This poses a little question. Let's suppose you are going to Heaven, Jesus actively died for you personally ... or didn't He? Perhaps He only died for "all who are saved" (and also, in another sense, "all who are offered salvation" or "could be offered salvation, if no other circumstance stopped it") and had no thought of you in particular?

I think most Evangelicals would agree, He died for me personally. He actually had me in mind.

Now, how many millions or even billions are saved over time? How many hours did Jesus have while dying on the Cross? About 3 hours.

3 hours = 180 minutes = 10 800 seconds.

With one billion saved (from OT saints starting with penitents Adam and Eve, to the last person to be justified and remain so up to the rapture), this makes 0.000 010 8 seconds to think of each saved person separately. In other words, to a person in this mortal life, as such, impossible.

So, did Jesus do this as God? Won't do either. You see, it is as man that He died for us. It is as man that He is our High Priest.

Or by the conversio idiomatum, the fact that statements about Jesus as Man also apply to Jesus as God, because He is the same Person? Will only take us this far. God died on the Cross is true, but only if you add "as Man." Jesus upholds the Cosmos is true, but only if you add "as God"

I'll let you in on a certain Catholic doctrine, which seems to have been an earworm to Martin Luther. His infamous and heretical "simul justus et peccator" rhymes with it. The Catholic doctrine doesn't say that a Christian is at once in a state of sin and in a state of grace, which is false, but says something about Jesus Christ up to the last breath on Calvary. Simul comprehensor et viator. This means He was at once in the process of earning Heaven (for Himself and others) and in the state of already enjoying Heaven. Comprehensor means someone who "Deum comprehendit", who enjoys or sees or if you want to press it "understands" God. Viator means someone who is "in via" or on the road to the heavenly fatherland.

In other words, knowing every single person He was dying for, He did not do it simply as God, He also did not do it as a Man on the Way, but He did it as Man in Heavenly Glory. Yes, by the way, He did enjoy Heavenly Glory fully, even on the Cross, He bore punishment, but never wrath. He was not temporarily damned, with the damnation my mortal sins would have earned me, that's not how it works. So, the Heavenly Glory which He already enjoyed enabled Him to know each person He died for.

But the saints in Heaven aren't Jesus, so what does this have to do with them?

Until we all meet into the unity of faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the age of the fulness of Christ
[Ephesians 4:13]

But doing the truth in charity, we may in all things grow up in him who is the head, even Christ
[Ephesians 4:15]

Our Heavenly Glory is meant to be like His. I think this answers the question. If Jesus in 3 hours could know everyone who is saved from Adam to the people seeing Henoch and Elijah ascend, over a period of 7000 years or more, St. Peter* can in 24 h know everyone who is invoking St. Peter during the same 24 h.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Our Lady of the Rosary
7 October 2025

Festum sacratissimi Rosarii beatae Mariae Virginis; itemque sanctae Mariae de Victoria commemoratio, quam sanctus Pius Quintus, Pontifex Maximus, ob insignem victoriam a Christianis bello navali, ejusdem sanctissimae Dei Genitricis auxilio, hac ipsa die de Turcis reportatam, quotannis fieri instituit.

* The same is true of the Blessed Virgin, as per today's feast, or St. Bridget, as per tomorrow's.

What if the Early Church Had No Bishops Distinct from Presbyters and No Single Bishop Over All Rome?

I don't think that's the case.

When St. Jerome opined that presbyters and bishops used to be the same thing and the distinction was introduced in post-Apostolic times, therefore not part of the Deposit of Faith, that was an opinion. It didn't mean he used the powers he supposed he inherently had to ordain, even though he was no bishop. It didn't mean he said "we don't have to obey the bishops, if a presbyter disagrees, his authority is enough for you" ... on the contrary, he personally also had an opinion against books he didn't find in Hebrew, like Maccabees. And yet he translated them in faithful obedience to "the bishops".

So, if it were the case, for the presbyters originally being everything a bishop was, including the power to ordain, I don't think this needs to be of practical importance even among Catholics. The late Father Pulvermacher who got himself elected as "Pope Pius XIII" had this opinion, so, when he and another priest had got the ballots saying he was elected, he authorised the other priest to use his supposedly inherent power to ordain, and even consecrate, to get supposedly consecrated bishop by this priest. He then, supposedly as bishop, consecrated this priest a bishop. Unfortunately for the whole procedure, there already was one pope elected who didn't share the Vatican II errors, namely Pope Michael I. When Pulvermacher died in 2009, Gordon Bateman didn't succeed him.

Whether they said "OK, there was a pope after 40 years' vacancy, now there is a vacancy again, and in 2049 we need a pope" or whether they are discerning to join Pope Michael II, I don't know. If Pius XIII or Lucian Pulvermacher OFM Cap. had a successor, the issue would be more important to Catholics.

But, is there any kind of importance in the Catholic / Protestant dialogue or debate or polemic?

If there had been a Church that actually did claim Continuity since the Apostles, which since the times of whenever howsofar you go back to since before Constantine had been allowing presbyters to ordain and left out a separate office of bishops, and which also claimed cities don't need and Rome didn't have a Monarchic Bishop, that would be a pretty impressive argument that one should maybe take a close look at how the very first Christians had it. But there isn't. Churches which not only claim that one needs no communion with a Monarchic Bishop of Rome (not necessarily always residing in Rome), but even that monarchic bishops and the distinction of bishop and priest were a kind of Novum ... novelty ... one should or is at least free to reject, typically go back no further than 1500 AD. The exceptions are Waldensians, Hussites, Tondrakians. Of these, only the Tondrakians go back to before 1000 AD. Wait, sorry, Tondrakians as now extant don't go back to 800 AD. They are a new version of I think Pentecostals who cosplay as a continuation of the historic Tondrakians. These were eliminated some time after a resurgence in 1045:

After suffering a number of defeats at the hands of Byzantium, most Tondrakians were deported to Thrace in the 10th century. Following the Byzantine conquest of the Bagratuni kingdom of Ani in 1045, the movement experienced a resurgence, this time within large cities like Ani, where they began appealing to the lower ranks of the nobility and the clergy. The Tondrakian movement broke into three different directions during its last years, the most radical of which began advocating atheism as well as doubt in the afterlife and the immortality of the human soul. By the middle of the 11th century, the Byzantine governor of Taron and Vaspurakan, Gregory Magistros, managed to eliminate all remnants of Tondrakians. Historian Aristakes Lastivertsi describes the elimination of Tondrakians in great detail.

So, unlike Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Copts and Armenians and then Assyrians, none of the communities that deny a monarchic episcopate or an episcopal monopoly or near monopoly on ordinations go back before 313 AD. Not even Tondrakians who don't exist any more (and hardly even "once again") and who didn't yet exist in 700 AD.

I think this is a perfect shortcut about the argument.

Even if the early Church had in fact coincided with Protestantism, as to Church polity, no such Protestantism ever continued to the post-Reformation Protestantism. It was "restored" in order to have a low grade entry for Protestantism in 16th C. local clergy, where many bishops were far stauncher Catholics than the priests were. And the Protestantism they had doctrinally, apart from Church polity, was one they could not trace in the previous centuries of the Catholic Church, so, it is not a doctrine that has the promise of Matthew 28:20.

That's my bottom line.

As to monarchic bishops of Rome, it's somewhat more important. The personal authority of Peter cannot have dissolved into a purely collective authority for decades before getting reassembled as a personal authority somewhat later. Fortunately, we do have St. Irenaeus testifying to the first 12 Popes. And fortunately, the arguments against a monarchic bishop of Rome are among the flimsier.

• 1) Pope St. Clement I doesn't claim to be Pope, and uses the phrase "we" meaning (we are supposed to assume) that he was just on occasion an ad hoc spokesman for a priest collective;
• 2) so and so (notably St. Ignatius of Antioch) doesn't mention a specific bishop of Rome;
• 3) archaeologically, early 2nd C. Rome doesn't have a single Cathedral, but rather small house churches.

Here are the answers:

• 1) A de facto ruler can consult and express himself as speaking for all those whom he consulted, nothing proves this was not the case with St. Clement;
• 2) St. Ignatius may not have wanted to betray the identity of the Pope if the letter were intercepted, he could also not be sure the Pope he'd known about hadn't been martyred ... he could theoretically even have arrived and written the letter during a papal interregnum, also known as a sede vacante;
• 3) canonically, the position of a monarchic bishop is not defined by how his Cathedral looks: if he had a house Church, if the man serving as his deacon at Mass had another one (and was not just a deacon), if another priest had a house Church, the archaeologist would not discover any difference of rank from the architecture. Pretty obviously, since the houses where Christians worshipped had to be "just normal private big fortune houses" to the Roman authorities and therefore to the street view. It would even make sense, for a Pope as being most searched after, to himself use one of the smaller houses as his own house church.

So, I tend to be pretty chill on these two matters. If you want someone who had the time and ressources to look into that second issue more in detail, I'm just starting a video with Joe Heschmeyer:

Was there a first century bishop of Rome? (with Joe Heschmeyer)
The Counsel of Trent | 16 Febr. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAmrHtdezqA

Now, I'll resume the viewing.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Vincent of León
11.IX.2025

Legione, in Hispania, sancti Vincentii, Abbatis et Martyris.

PS, while the video is with Joe Heschmeyer, it is on the channel of Trent Horn, it's actually a dialogue./HGL

Answering Javier Perdomo on Catholic Apologetics' Inconsistency

• fallible lists of infallible Bible books are no worse than fallible lists of infallible magisterial occasions and utterances in each occasion, or Catholics having these the first millennium;
• Protestants disagreeing about what the Bible means is no worse than Catholics doing so, or having done so in the first millennium;
• obscurity of Scripture cannot be maintained against sola scriptura, and proven by Protestant disagreements, unless atheists are disproof of Romans 1.

Fallible lists of infallible things.

I would first of all agree with Michael Lofton. Trent did not absolutely close the canon, the council said all of these books are inspired, but not that only these books are so. A book that was never regarded as inspired by any Christian Church over any length of time cannot be added, like Summa Theologiae cannot be added, even we do not hold it to be inspired, much less anyone else. But a book that a portion originally of the Church, perhaps even if now separated, has held as inspired could be added to what the Church universal holds to be inspired.

And infallible knowledge that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John and so on are inspired has been available in at least parts of the Church, by an infallible judgement, since the book was written. The infallible lists are harmonisations of infallible statements, and the statements on each book have been infallible in each case since the book was accepted.

This means, while the Catholic Church had no infallible lists prior to Hippo, Carthage and Rome, each item on the list was already infallible before these councils.

As to fallible lists on which utterances are infallible of the magisterium, this is no worse than a Christian in the second C. using the Muratorian fragment as his Bible canon. Denzinger famously does not include the 1633 judgement on Galileo. I think the Galileo judgement belongs, like the judgement on Fr. Leonard Feeney (both were in the same format).

Disagreement on meaning is not such big a scandal among Ecclesialists as among Protestants.

First, if an Orthodox claims that only dunking is acceptable, for Baptism, this ignores those baptised in prison, during persecutions, and also this is a reason among others for them being in schism. If they want to reunite and only practise dunking, except in cases of necessity, that's one thing. I think this is what Byzantine rite Catholics do. Obviously, baptism should not be withheld just because the only way to administer it before someone dies is by pouring.

But second. Protestants do not just disagree on how much compliance with an ideal norm is necessary. Roman Catholics agree that dunking is the ideal, just think it is dispensable.

However, Protestants will have contradictory views on what the actual ideal is. They will not just one of them say "this is necessary" and the other "it can be done in another way", but even "this is necessary" and "this is forbidden". Lutherans will say child baptism is necessary, morally speaking, due to the risk of a baby otherwise dying without baptism. Baptists will say child baptism is forbidden.

Disagreements on the date of Easter are a different story, they are discipline, not sacramental doctrine. Discipline can change. What can change is not per se infallible and is not per se about the correct interpretation of Scripture.

I do not argue for Tradition mainly from obscurity of Scripture.

I argue from definite statements IN Scripture for Tradition. I was recently reminded of the respect for OT traditions, which are not in the Torah itself.

Our Lord celebrated Hanukkah.

The Holy Ghost celebrated Shavuot.

Neither Hanukkah nor Shavuot are part of the feasts scripturally commanded in the Torah, both are feasts added by tradition.

Apart from that, all of the OT (or at least all except the writings, which were not yet canonised among Jews in Our Lord's day) is according to Luke 24 endowed with a Christological meaning. But the NT passages that explicitly in the text identify a Christological meaning of an OT passage are much shorter than the NT as a whole, let alone the OT, so, most of this has to be known to the Church by tradition.

Dito for Magisterium.

I argue for a very partial obscurity of Scripture from Scripture.

Namely this word:

As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction
[2 Peter 3:16]

Note it explicitly says that what is wrested is not limited to obscure passages in Pauline epistles. There is such a thing as bad faith. Some Catholics have taken a bad habit of arguing as if each and every word in Scripture is obscure until magisterium reveals its meaning. No, the necessity of the magisterium is not so much for each essential doctrine of each Bible reader as for getting all essential doctrines in all Bible readers and non-readers.

Atheists do not disprove Romans 1.

The existence of a proof for God doesn't mean no one will have bad faith, or imbibe bad faith about an issue from a culture.

St. Paul was arguably proving God from Geocentrism (hence my observation, among other things, that Galileo judgement and others against Heliocentrism are infallible), and certainly not from the flagellum of the bacterium, even if it disproves evolution and therefore proves God, because unlike the flagellum of the bacterium, the Sun going around us has been seen since Adam and Eve were created.

Not every word in an infallible council is infallible.

A mention of the Incarnation in Nicaea II, the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day, the Vulgate contradict each other about the number of years from Creation to birth of Jesus (5500, 5200, 4000). The four humours are not infallible about medicine because they are mentioned in a reform of the forbidden relations one cannot marry with.

The summary I started with is from a few minutes in What's the Protestant Response to Catholic Apologetics? | Javier Perdomo.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. John's Nativity, First Vespers
23—24.VI.2025

Did Jesus Obey Leviticus 20:10?

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Responding to Nicholas Bowling · somewhere else: Weaker Vessel and Stronger Vessel · Great Bishop of Geneva! Did Jesus Obey Leviticus 20:10?

If any man commit adultery with the wife of another, and defile his neighbour's wife, let them be put to death, both the adulterer and the adulteress.
[Leviticus 20:10]

When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said to them: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her
[John 8:7]

Given He was Himself without sin, why didn't He stone the woman, as apparently He had said He should?

Perhaps He didn't include Himself? The text I cited says "He that is without sin among you" and not for instance "among us" but I recalled a text without the word "humon" = of you. I didn't recall "among you" when reflecting, not sure if it is missing from some manuscripts.

Like the post about the sinlessness of Mary from scratch, this is about the moral possibility of God becoming man. If Jesus was God as Man, why was He not obeying His own laws? This will lead us into Catholic specific territory.

There is a different argument against the incarnation I just heard from Rabbi Joel Landau, as interviewed by Iron Inquisitor, one can call it an "argument from physical impossibility" ... the presence of God is an overwhelming and all consuming fire. If God were present in a human body, "he" would destroy it.

why is that 1:05:25 because from a fundamental perspective in Judaism 1:05:32 uh the essence of God is something that I mean first of all 1:05:39 it's explicit in scripture that God is likened to a consuming fire and God 1:05:46 essentially is pure energy it's like radioactive and in order to have this world I 1:05:52 mentioned that the word for world is hidden uh there is an entire system that 1:05:58 of buffer zones between the essence of God and our universe and therefore the 1:06:06 idea that more than a Gchip that's the soul the G chip right we're in we're in 1:06:13 you know Silicon Valley area so that is something that God has managed to enable 1:06:20 to interface with a human body but a more intense interaction with God did 1:06:27 you ever see Raiders of the Lost Ark

The problem with this is, it makes God physical in a way that makes Him impotent in relation to His own power. Like Calvinism. If God is all powerful, in Calvinism, this means God is incapable of any kind of temperance in His omnipotence to grant us free-will. Here it is more like infinite energy, but still a God incapable of tempering His own might. I'd answer from the OT this way:

Then the Lord answered Job out of a whirlwind, and said Who is this that wrappeth up sentences in unskillful words
[Job 38:1-2]

(By the way the "who is this" guy isn't Job, but either Eliud or Satan or both on different levels ... however, Job takes it like God challenges him and confesses the unskillful words that he had NOT pronounced — while God considers Job's critics, from Satan to Eliud, as unskillful)

And he said to him: Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the Lord: and behold the Lord passeth, and a great and strong wind before the Lord over throwing the mountains, and breaking the rocks in pieces: the Lord is not in the wind, and after the wind an earthquake: the Lord is not in the earthquake 12 And after the earthquake a fire: the Lord is not in the fire, and after the fire a whistling of a gentle air 13 And when Elias heard it, he covered his face with his mantle, and coming forth stood in the entering in of the cave, and behold a voice unto him, saying: What dost thou here, Elias? And he answered
[3 Kings (1 Kings) 19:11-13]

So, God can be a whirlwind when He likes, and a whistling of gentle air when He likes. A fine refutation of the materialism inherent in Judaism and Calvinism. But that was an aside about the physical possibility, now to the moral one.

The answer goes back to who is the first adulterer and the first adulteress. It's Satan. First adulterer, since first idol, but also first adulteress, since the first to worship anyone other than God. If marriage is an image of the right covenant between God and His worshippers, adultery is one of idolatry. Often the adulterer (a demon) is distinct from the adulteress (and Israelite or apostate Catholic worshipping a false* God, so ultimately a demon).

When Moses says:

If any man commit adultery with the wife of another, and defile his neighbour's wife, let them be put to death, both the adulterer and the adulteress.
[Leviticus 20:10]

the main concern is to keep Satan away from the people of Israel, human adultery is a proxy. Now, human justice, men who are just men, wielding stones that are just stones, can't deal with Satan directly. Hence, they would stone the adulterer and the adulteress.

However, Jesus is both God and Man. As Man, He cannot fulfill the law as foreseen, since the adulterer is not there. Perhaps it was one of the witnesses, or perhaps it was a Roman soldier. The law of Moses would nothave been fulfilled in stoning the adulteress alone. But as God, He could fulfill the ultimate meaning of the law, and throw a stone at Satan, the first adulterer, the first adulteress.

As Catholics, I think we can assess what this stone is. It is a stone or rock called Calvary. And it is also an image of Jesus on Calvary, a vicar. That stone has inscriptions like:

And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven
[Matthew 16:19]

Then came Peter unto him and said: Lord, how often shall my brother offend against me, and I forgive him? till seven times 22 Jesus saith to him: I say not to thee, till seven times; but till seventy times seven times
[Matthew 18:21-22]

It's not just about the individual Christian's capacity to forgive, it is about St. Peter's capacity to forgive on God's behalf. Palamas, who was not Catholic and who considered the individual bishop of each see to be successor of Peter for that see, considered the bishop of a see has the fulness of the capacity to forgive on God's behalf. We Catholics believe, it is the Pope who can forgive with no cases reserved to any higher authority.

So, basically, every time a human adulterer or adulteress is told "go and sin no more" Jesus is stoning Satan with the Petrine office. And that was what He did in His own Person too, when He spoke to the woman:

Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more
[John 8:11]

In other words, He did follow the law, and He did follow His own injunction.

Other question, did the woman call Jesus Sir or Lord? The Greek "kurie" can be interpreted both ways. As with the blind men in Matthew 20.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Corpus Christi
19.VI.2025

* That includes the "God is too powerful to have human bodies survive in His presence" and "God is too almighty to have freewill survive in the same universe" ... false gods of Judaism and of Calvinism.

Does the Catechism of the Council of Trent Teach the Contradiction of Contemporary Catholic Embryology?

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Fr. Jenkins on the Galileo Case · Am I a Catholic? Yes. · Great Bishop of Geneva! | Does the Catechism of the Council of Trent Teach the Contradiction of Contemporary Catholic Embryology?

The passage in question is this* one:

In this mystery we perceive that some things were done which transcend the order of nature, some by the power of nature. Thus, in believing that the body of Christ was formed from the most pure blood of His Virgin Mother we acknowledge the operation of human nature, this being a law common to the formation of all human bodies, that they should be formed from the blood of the mother.

But what surpasses the order of nature and human comprehension is, that as soon as the Blessed Virgin assented to the announcement of the Angel in these words, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it done unto me according to thy word, the most sacred body of Christ was immediately formed, and to it was united a rational soul enjoying the use of reason; and thus in the same instant of time He was perfect God and perfect man. That this was the astonishing and admirable work of the Holy Ghost cannot be doubted; for according to the order of nature the rational soul is united to the body only after a certain lapse of time.

Again — and this should overwhelm us with astonishment — as soon as the soul of Christ was united to His body, the Divinity became united to both; and thus at the same time His body was formed and animated, and the Divinity united to body and soul.

It's from ARTICLE III : "WHO WAS CONCEIVED BY THE HOLY GHOST, BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY"
Furthermore from First Part of this Article:

Furthermore, this part has comments: 1) "Who was Conceived," 2) "By the Holy Ghost", 3) In The Incarnation Some Things Were Natural, Others Supernatural (from which above is quoted).

Now, Father Jenkins of the CMRI has said, basically, that the things which were just the incomplete views on embryology in this work are not formal teaching. I concur.

But he has said more specifically, that what the Catechism says about Our Lord is what we now believe about all embryos. Here I do not concur.

Let me break this down.

the most sacred body of Christ was immediately formed,

So far, Father Jenkins is right, there is a unity of subject between the embryo and the body we walk around in, there is not a succession of unformed matter and then only later a formed body.

Unless the council's Catechism meant to state that the body of Our Lord already had limbs. But if that were the case, there would be some weeks of gestation missing or stationary, and they are at least not missing, since the Christmas Day martyrology states:

novemque post conceptionem decursis mensibus

So, if this were the intention, there would need to be some weeks stationary. However, this was not my main point.

and to it was united a rational soul

Here too Father Jenkins is right. The embryo has a soul that is a fully human soul, which is what we have when we have a rational soul.

enjoying the use of reason;

Here only, unless he corrects that later on in the video, after 32 minutes in, he would be wrong. We do not immediately enjoy the use of reason. Our Lord did.

I got some backfiring for stating this and the following statements and clarifications were needed.

Not so as for the recently conceived person to have an immediate use of reason.

Immediate faculty, yes, but a faculty not yet perfected by use. Like the toddler having already the faculty to walk or at least toddle, but not yet having learned to use it.

The use of reason in this life usually requires a brain, which the embryo does not yet have, since the object of reason comes in from the outside, through the senses.

...

I am v e r y certain that a human embryo, first cell that's neither ovum solo nor spermatozoon solo, is an image of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.

I am also very sure it is not yet able to draw out a syllogism or formulate a conscious prayer.

Our Lord was. Our Lady was. That is what the quote from the Catechism of the Council of Trent said. They had the use of reason. You know, that Catholic joke of an older sister on the birthday of her seven year old brother saying "congratulations, you can now go to Hell" (as in capable of committing mortal sin, being fully responsible for one's acts). That's how mature Our Lord and Our Lady were at the moment of conception, not that either had any propensity for using that maturity for mortal sins or going to the Hell of the damned.

Now, someone would perhaps suspect me of making fun of the Council of Trent. No. Let's check a little further on in the Catechism:

As the body of Christ was formed of the pure blood of the immaculate Virgin without the aid of man, as we have already said, and by the sole operation of the Holy Ghost, so also, at the moment of His Conception, His soul was enriched with an overflowing fullness of the Spirit of God, and a superabundance of all graces. For God gave not to Him, as to others adorned with holiness and grace, His Spirit by measure, as St. John testifies but poured into his soul the plenitude of all graces so abundantly that of his fullness we have all received.

And that would include the grace of prophecy. We go to Summa Theologiae, III Part, Question 7. The grace of Christ as an individual man. We go to Article 3. Whether in Christ there was faith?

On the contrary, It is written (Hebrews 11:1): "Faith is the evidence of things that appear not." But there was nothing that did not appear to Christ, according to what Peter said to Him (John 21:17): "Thou knowest all things." Therefore there was no faith in Christ.

I answer that, As was said above (II-II:1:4), the object of faith is a Divine thing not seen. Now the habit of virtue, as every other habit, takes its species from the object. Hence, if we deny that the Divine thing was not seen, we exclude the very essence of faith. Now from the first moment of His conception Christ saw God's Essence fully, as will be made clear (III:34:1. Hence there could be no faith in Him.

And we go to Question 34. The perfection of the child conceived and further to Article 1. Whether Christ was sanctified in the first instant of His conception? and again just a little quote of the essential point:

I answer that, As stated above (7, 9,10,12), the abundance of grace sanctifying Christ's soul flows from the very union of the Word, according to John 1:14: "We saw His glory . . . as it were of the Only-Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth." For it has been shown above (III:33:3) that in the first instant of conception, Christ's body was both animated and assumed by the Word of God. Consequently, in the first instant of His conception, Christ had the fulness of grace sanctifying His body and His soul.

In other words, Jesus could already actually pray. So could the Blessed Virgin.

Father Jenkins made another comment, about the "blood", referring to this part:

Thus, in believing that the body of Christ was formed from the most pure blood of His Virgin Mother we acknowledge the operation of human nature, this being a law common to the formation of all human bodies, that they should be formed from the blood of the mother.

It's not just a question of inserting the fertilised ovum as the actual origin, since the Catechism considered a body NOT formed to be the initial state. It's instead the growth from then on that the blood from the mother is about, and I commented:

Actually, not an overall bad understanding.

Anything that is a nutrient helping the embryo and fetus to grow comes to it through the blood of the mother, via the placenta and umbilical once these are formed.

Actual scientific progress on this matter has improved details, but not destroyed the overall picture of the science back then.

This obviously refers to the body getting more and more shapes, closer and closer to a baby that is viable, not to the idea of the initial state involving no rational soul as yet. All the necessary nutrients do come from the body of the mother, through the blood, through the placenta. That was a minor point, compared to above, but I think it merits clarification as well.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Quinquagesima L. D.
2.III.2025

* Tridentine Catechism of the Holy Catholic Church
The translation and preface are by John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P. (circa 1923)
https://www.angelfire.com/art/cactussong/TridentineCatechism.htm

My Respects to Patrick Madrid

He wrote a book with the title "Not by Scripture Alone", which obviously is correct.

But he seems to think Sola Scriptura is the greatest drain of souls from the Catholic Church. I disagree. Here is what I sent him on getting to know about his book:

I love to cite your (I think) observation on "blessed among women" being a comparison to Jael and Judith.

However, when it comes to your book "not by scripture alone" I think you may be actually barking up the wrong tree.

I do not believe in Scripture alone. But I do also not believe Protestantism flourishes through the principle of Scripture alone, I followed it as the best I had and it led me to Catholicism.

In the time of Occam, two Catholic schools were both accepted, one of them being "the truths we as Christians must believe are in Scripture alone" and the other being "are in Scripture, unwritten tradition from the apostles, credible chronicles, conclusions that logically follow from all of above plus verified revelation" .... the omission of Magisterium doesn't mean he or either school thought we could brave the Magisterium, it specifically means the Magisterium is as such not an extra corpus of truths, it's a way of conveying the corpus of truth.

I would say the souls that become Protestant, on your view because of Scripture alone, well, as a catchword, rather than a principle, you have a point. Most people who hear that word are not willing to apply it, and gullibly thinks that the one telling them faithfully abides by it. I don't think Mike Gendron does that.

Obviously, we have a much deeper difference if you would class Fundie Catholics, often enough Conclavist or Palmarian, as Protestants via Scripture alone.

You know what? Trent Session IV doesn't specifically condemn Scripture alone other than in so far as someone applying it misleads himself into contradicting Church Fathers or the consistent line over centuries of the magisterium.

Trent Session IV certainly doesn't oblige me or anyone else to accept "Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" by Ratzinger under Wojtyla as "what the Church holds" because it very certainly is not "what the Church hath held".

It is 27.I.2025, 5:44. We'll see if he answers. This will be published in a week./HGL