"Ecclesialism, Apostolic Tradition, OK, But Aren't Orthodox Purer? Don't They Condemn Statues?"

First, here is an Orthodox priest speaking:

@RootsofOrthodoxy
Is The Orthodox Church AGAINST Statues? ☦️
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7Ihy_HU9n0s

No, Hagia Sophia had statues prior to iconoclasm.

But there is, next, another answer.

I have been in Arles and seen a museum. One of the pieces was a sarcophagus from Roman times, before Constantine. It had in High Relief images of the Twelve Apostles.

Third, the image of the Cross is a statue.

So, no, Orthodoxy in fact doesn't in practise condemn sculture./HGL

Duchess of Dorchester, Revisited

Jeremias 7 and 44 and the Duchess of Dorchester · Duchess of Dorchester, Revisited

Let's take a look at Jeremias 7.

18 hab·bā·nîm mə·laq·qə·ṭîm ‘ê·ṣîm, wə·hā·’ā·ḇō·wṯ mə·ḇa·‘ă·rîm ’eṯ- hā·’êš, wə·han·nā·šîm lā·šō·wṯ bā·ṣêq; la·‘ă·śō·wṯ kaw·wā·nîm lim·le·ḵeṯ haš·šā·ma·yim, wə·has·sêḵ nə·sā·ḵîm lê·lō·hîm ’ă·ḥê·rîm, lə·ma·‘an haḵ·‘i·sê·nî.
18 the sons gather wood and the fathers kindle the fire and the women knead dough to make cakes for queen of the heaven and [they] pour out drink offerings to gods other that they may provoke Me to anger

Now, let's look at Jeremias 13.

18 ’ĕ·mōr lam·me·leḵ wə·lag·gə·ḇî·rāh haš·pî·lū šê·ḇū; kî yā·raḏ mar·’ă·šō·w·ṯê·ḵem, ‘ă·ṭe·reṯ tip̄·’ar·tə·ḵem.
18 Say to the king and to the queen mother Humble yourselves Sit down for shall collapse your rule the crown of your glory

Let's look at the words used for queen.

lim·le·ḵeṯ = 4446. meleketh		wə·lag·gə·ḇî·rāh = 1377. gebirah
meleketh: Work, craftsmanship, occupation		gebirah: Queen, Mistress, Lady
Original Word: מְלֶכֶת Part of Speech: Noun Feminine Transliteration: meleketh Pronunciation: meh-leh-keth Phonetic Spelling: (mel-eh'-keth) Definition: Work, craftsmanship, occupation Meaning: a queen		Original Word: גְּבִירָה Part of Speech: Noun Feminine Transliteration: gebirah Pronunciation: gheh-bee-RAH Phonetic Spelling: (gheb-ee-raw') Definition: Queen, Mistress, Lady Meaning: a mistress
Word Origin: Derived from the root word מְלָאכָה (melakah), which means "work" or "occupation."		Word Origin: Derived from the root גָּבַר (gabar), meaning "to be strong" or "to prevail."

As any Catholic Scholar knowing Hebrew would tell you, Mary is not the "meleketh" of Heaven, but the "gebirah" of Heaven.

Joe Heschmeyer is right now telling us so over here:

What the Davidic Kings Reveal About Mary
Shameless Popery Podcast | 12.XI.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMRx9pasdPQ

So, my analogy is actually imperfect. Imagine instead that the fake "Duchess of Dorchester" (a drag queen) was an insult to the "Princess of Dorchester" (actual title foreseen by the King).

Since Heaven involves rest, its Queen being called anything like "work" is degrading to Heaven. But its Queen-Mother being called sth like "strength" or "prevailing" actually is worthy of the Blessed Virgin, since by sinlessness She was made to prevail against Satan and was completely victorious over him, as I've often said in commenting on "Blessed Among Women" ....

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Pope St. Martin I
12.XI.2024

Sancti Martini Primi, Papae et Martyris, cujus dies natalis sextodecimo Kalendas Octobris recensetur.

Did the Devil Retain His Power? Revisited, Still No

Did the Devil Retain His Power? No · Did the Devil Retain His Power? Revisited, Still No

Taylor Alesia was making a point that fame as an artist comes to those who are favoured by "the prince of this world" ...

Her Bible quote was II Cor 4:4, which reads: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

Now, what does the Haydock comment say?

Ver. 4. In whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers.[1] Thus the words are placed, both in the Latin and Greek text, so that the true God seems to be called the God of this world, as he is elsewhere called the God of heaven, the God of Abraham. God, says St. Chrysostom, blinded, that is, permitted them to be blinded. Others translate, in whom God hat blinded the minds of the infidels of this world; so that this world may be joined with unbelievers, and not with God: and by the God of this world, some understand the devil, called sometimes the prince of this world, that is, of the wicked. (Witham)

So, one can read this as God, the true and good God, blinds the minds of unbelievers. And this means, He permits them to blind themselves.

Not because He loves falsehood, but because the blindness is a punishment. These had already chosen some falsehood or evil (like the circular proof of "Heliocentrism with Newton shows the Solar System works without God, and there being no God shows the Solar System has no other solution than Heliocentrism with Newton" (usually not pronounced in the same moment, the self deception requires some distancing from the very obvious vicious circle)).

But suppose we read instead "God of this world" = "prince of this world" = "the devil"?

Well, it still doesn't mean Satan retains his powers over mankind as prince of the world, he was judged at Calvary, it means he is the one falsely adored by those who refuse to adore the true God.

So, still no proof that seeking literary or artistic fame would depend on striking a deal with the Devil ... but here is more to take from the question:

The footnote [1] reads:
[1] Ver. 4. In quibus Deus hujus sæculi excæcavit mentes infidelium, en ois o Theos tou aionos toutou etuphlose ta noemata ton apiston. St. Chrysostom, om. e. p. 594. lin. 11. says, it should be read thus: anagnosteon, oti ton apiston tou aionos toutou, etuphlosen o theos [] oemata.

The Latin and Greek positions of the words would permit taking it as "unbelievers of this world" ... yes, even if the Genitive is normally placed after the main noun, and next to it, you can both have a Genitive before and also words inserted between. For instance, if the main noun is also a Genitive, as is the case, that one and its Genitive can surround the main main noun.

Wonder how St. Thomas takes it?

Causa ergo huius occultationis est non ex parte Evangelii, sed propter eorum culpam et malitiam. Et hoc est quod subdit in quibus Deus huius saeculi, et cetera. Et hoc potest exponi tribus modis. Primo modo sic: Deus huius saeculi, id est Deus qui est dominus huius saeculi et omnium rerum creatione et natura, iuxta illud Ps. XXIII, 1: domini est terra, et plenitudo eius, orbis terrarum, excaecavit mentes infidelium, non inducendo malitiam, sed merito, imo demerito praecedentium peccatorum subtrahendo gratiam. Is. VI, 10: excaeca cor populi huius, et cetera. Unde et praecedentia peccata insinuat, cum dicit infidelium, quasi infidelitas eorum fuerit causa huius excaecationis. Secundo modo sic: Deus huius saeculi, id est Diabolus, qui dicitur Deus huius saeculi, id est saeculariter viventium, non creatione sed imitatione, qua saeculares eum imitantur. Sap. II, 25: imitantur eum, qui sunt, et cetera. Et hic excaecat suggerendo, trahendo et inclinando ad peccata. Et sic quando iam sunt in peccatis, operiuntur in tenebris peccatorum ne videant. Eph. IV, 18: tenebris obscuratum habentes intellectum, et cetera. Tertio modo sic: Deus habet rationem ultimi finis, et complementum desideriorum totius creaturae. Unde quidquid aliquis sibi pro fine ultimo constituit in quo eius desiderium quiescit, potest dici Deus illius. Unde cum habes pro fine delicias, tunc deliciae dicuntur Deus tuus; similiter etiam si voluptates carnis, vel honores. Et tunc exponitur sic: Deus huius saeculi, id est illud quod homines saeculariter viventes sibi pro fine constituunt, ut puta voluptates, vel divitiae et huiusmodi. Et sic Deus excaecat mentes, inquantum impedit ne homines lumen gratiae hic, et gloriae in futuro, videre possint.

Commentarium in Secundam ad Corinthios
(scroll down to Caput 4, Lectio 2, I'm only quoting part)
https://www.corpusthomisticum.org/c2c.html

So, "the God of this world" means three different things, that blind unbelievers in three different ways:

• God takes away the grace as punishment;
• the Devil by tempting;
• the false gods or ends, by distracting.

They are also called "the God of this world" in three different ways:

• God is the owner and creator of not just Heaven but also Earth and all that is in it;
• the Devil is the God or Role Model of all worldly people;
• whatever you worship is your God, so for instance money or fame is worshipped, not just desired, but worshipped, by some.

We do not have any reason to believe from this that all media and all famous and powerful people are ultimately controlled by the Devil, since the true God can also give fame and power and that to people who seek Him.
/Hans Georg Lundahl

Joshua Infantado Tried to Debunk Purgatory

He admits* these are six Bible passages we Catholics use to prove Purgatory, giving explanations for each:

• 2 Maccabees 12:39-46: Prayers for the dead suggest an intermediate state where souls can benefit from such prayers.
• 2 Timothy 1:18: Paul’s prayer for Onesiphorus indicates a belief that the dead can be helped by the prayers of the living.
• Matthew 12:32: Jesus mentions that some sins will not be forgiven “either in this age or in the age to come,” implying post-death purification.
• Luke 23:43: Jesus tells the thief on the cross that he will be in Paradise, which some interpret as an intermediate state before Heaven.
• 1 Corinthians 3:11-15: Describes a process where believers’ works are tested by fire after death, which aligns with the purifying process of purgatory.
• Hebrews 12:29: Refers to God as a “consuming fire,” symbolizing the purification process.

He could have omitted Luke 23:43, according to us, Purgatory is not paradisal, and Abraham's bosom was above Purgatory in Sheol. The thief was going to be where the poor Lazarus had been prior to Jesus raising him, and as Jesus was going to be there too, that was paradisal. Purgatory remains where it is, but the souls in Abraham's bosom are in the meantime taken up to Heaven, but this only happened after Jesus' resurrection.

We usually tend to explain John 20:17 as referring to the last moment Jesus was seen on Earth before lifting up these souls into Heaven, and that the same day, before further appearances on Earth during forty days.

Now, he pretended that Luke 12:59 does not prove purgatory. Here it is:

And when thou goest with thy adversary to the prince, whilst thou art in the way, endeavour to be delivered from him: lest perhaps he draw thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the exacter, and the exacter cast thee into prison I say to thee, thou shalt not go out thence, until thou pay the very last mite
[Luke 12:58-59]

Here is his comment:

No, Luke 12:59 does not prove purgatory. This verse is often cited in discussions about purgatory, but it does not explicitly refer to the concept. The context of Luke 12:59 is about making peace with your enemy.

While the context indeed involves making peace with one's enemies, Joshua is providing no interpretation compatible with his Thnetopsychist position. Some Orthodox who deny Purgatory refer this to Hell, "the catch 22 is, you can never pay the last mite" ... but as Joshua is a Thnetopsychist, he cannot take this view. So, how does the Catholic view fit making peace with one's enemies? Well, some sins are forgiven us because we have forgiven our enemies.

What did Joshua say about 2 Maccabees 12?

The Book of Maccabees is not included in the canon of the inspired Word of God for a reason. It contains teachings that contradict the Bible’s core messages.

He doesn't specify which ones, nor how the core messages are supposed to be proven in ways that show them contradicting either of the two books of Maccabees.

The non-inclusion is not an originally Christian one, it was first a Jewish one, after they had rejected Christ (meaning Romans 3:2 no longer applies to them), then a Protestant one (in misapplication of Romans 3:2).

What advantage then hath the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision Much every way. First indeed, because the words of God were committed to them
[Romans 3:1-2]

This refers to the division of Jew and Gentile still predominating in St. Paul's day, not to the only beginning division between Jew and Christian. At this time, the Jewish canon was not closed as to the Ketuvim, and was only closed (with exclusion of I and II Maccabees and a few more) after the rejection of Christ, making them depositaries of the words of God no more.

For example, 2 Maccabees 12:39-46 discusses praying for the dead, a practice that has roots in pagan traditions rather than biblical teachings.

That pagans did a thing before Jews and Christians doesn't prove it wrong. If pagans did a thing condemned in the Bible and later some Jews, and after the apostasy of Jews some Christians, but not all, came to do that, that would be a wrong thing. But pagans are not wrong about everything, and therefore pagan pioneering of a practise doesn't prove the practise wrong.

Claiming that purgatory is true because early Jews believed in it is a weak argument, as the Jews were not always faithful to the Hebrew Scriptures. The Old Testament frequently recounts their departure from God and involvement in idolatry.

Now, this is a very interesting thing. Clearly, the idea of praying for the dead was pretty constant between the time of II Maccabees and Rabbi Akiba. This includes the time of Our Lord's public ministry. In certain things where they clearly departed from the law, like the issue of Corban vs the normal way of honouring Father and Mother, Jesus did reprove them.

If the practise existed in Jesus' time, if Jesus condemned practises that contradicted the law, and if it contradicted the law, why did He not condemn it? If Joshua goes like "oh, maybe He did condemn it, but it just didn't make the way into a Gospel" why so if God Who knows all of time could foresee the Church going wrong? Especially, as Jesus clearly didn't foresee the Church as a whole going wrong (Matthew 28:16—20).

Now, unlike the Reformers, Joshua Infantado tries to disprove Purgatory by Thnetopsychism. He tries to support that with the Bible.

First item:
The soul that sinneth, the same shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and the father shall not bear the iniquity of the son: the justice of the just shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him
[Ezechiel (Ezeckiel) 18:20]

This does not refer to extinction of the soul, but to its spiritual death, or one could say that in the context of OT death penalty, all punishments by God were spoken of in analogy with death penalty and "The soul that sinneth, the same shall die" means no one else will be lapidated for a specific persons crime against the law. But to return to spiritual death, Adam's soul spiritually died the day he ate of the forbidden fruit, even if he still had 930 years to live before he died. Spiritual death is something other than extinction of the soul.

Second item:
Wonder not at this; for the hour cometh, wherein all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God And they that have done good things, shall come forth unto the resurrection of life; but they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment
[John 5:28-29]

We agree** that our bodies will resurrect and that there will be a public and visible judgement and that bodies will go where souls already are, Heaven or Hell. This does not disprove the particular judgement of each souls directly after death, nor that some judged for glory are judged to a delay first, which is called Purgatory.

The rest of his article involves lots of generalities that are not quite to the point.

• "No One Can Work Out Your Salvation for You" ... "One person cannot perform good works and credit them to another." — Does not follow. If someone in the early Church did not complete a penance, but died first, someone else was likely to take up the parts that were lacking. Now, each must certainly perform some good work, if only to be baptised. As that is done passively, children also can be baptised.
  
  
• "No one can save you but God" — also, no one could spare Sodom but God. However, we see that God would, conditionally, have spared Sodom, due to two conditions fulfillable by men:
  • the prayer of Abraham
  • the presence of ten just in Sodom.
  
  
  The analogy to the ten just would be dying in peace with God, dying in a state of grace. But the analogy to the prayer of Abraham would be the prayers for someone's release from Purgatory.
  
  
• "Misinterpreted Bible Verses" — Joshua Infantado refuses to provide a correct interpretation that doesn't include Purgatory. And still does include all of the truth in the verses.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Hedwig of Poland***
16.X.2024

(15.X) Cracoviae, in Polonia, natalis sanctae Hedwigis Viduae, Polonorum Ducissse, quae, pauperum obsequio dedita, etiam miraculis claruit; et a Clemente Quarto, Pontifice Maximo, Sanctorum numero adscripta est. Ipsius autem festivitas sequenti die celebratur.
(16.X) Sanctae Hedwigis Viduae, Polonorum Ducissae, quae pridie hujus diei obdormivit in Domino.

* His article is on this link:
Becoming Christians: Is Purgatory in the Bible?
https://becomingchristians.com/2024/08/07/is-purgatory-in-the-bible/

** Back in the day certainly Albigensians and probably Waldensians too didn't believe in the resurrection of the body. It was us Catholics who defended that.

*** Speaking of II Maccabees, chapter 15 endorses that saints, in the afterlife, pray for us. If in Luke 16 Our Lord didn't intend to give the impression Abraham could still pray for things in the afterlife, it's very curious He gave an example which, given such beliefs already existing, would have been prone to misunderstanding in His day.

Has Gavin Ortlund Proven Apostolic Succession (in the technical sense) wrong?

According to* Ortlund, the term Apostolic succession as understood by Catholics and Orthodox says:

1. without a successive laying on of hands, going back to the apostles, a man cannot celebrate the sacraments (except baptism) or hold authoritative office in the Church;
2. only bishops to the exclusion of priests who are not bishops can ordain and this distinction of bishops and priests from each other goes back to the Apostles;
3. only bishops are successors of the Apostles.

Now, Ortlund argues from St. Clement of Rome and from St. Jerome that two and three are false. Therefore, he considers, the whole thing is contrary to tradition and therefore it is false.

Let me first argue where I think he gets the concept wrong, giving the correct definitions.

1. Without a successive laying on of hands, going back to the Twelve Apostles, a man cannot celebrate the sacraments (except baptism and marriage) or hold authoritative office in the Church, the latter however so that a man can take up an office as bishop if elected even if not yet ordained, as long as he intends to get consecrated later on;
2. probably only bishops to the exclusion of priests who are not bishops can ordain and this or at least some distinction of bishops and priests from each other goes back to the Apostles;
3. only bishops are successors of the Twelve Apostles. Simple priests are successors of the Seventy-Two Apostles.

In other words, Jesus ordained (Holy Thursday) and consecrated (evening of Resurrection Sunday, except Thomas Didymus) the Twelve, and the Twelve then ordained (but did not necessarily consecrate) the Seventy-Two.

Now, I'll admit that in the New Testament it is difficult to find Bishops distinguished from Priests in that precise terminology. I would argue that the word Bishop in the NT usually means Priest. There are several different terms for Bishop and Bishop isn't one of them. Someone has argued that St. John the Gospeller being called Presbyter argues this was originally one of the words for Bishop, but if Father Jean Colson is correct he was not the son of Zebedee, then he may have been called Presbyter rather than Episcopus because he was not a bishop.

The NT words for Bishops, not all of which imply everyone so designated is a Bishop, are:

• Apostle (but between Andronicus and his wife Junia, she was not a Bishop, though both are "of note among the apostles"), Twelve, Seventy-Two (most of which would have been elevated to Bishops), others (Sts. Paul and Barnabas)
• Evangelist
• Prophet (but some prophets and especially prophetesses were not Bishops)
• Angel (Apocalypse 2 and 3)
• "thou" (St. Paul in adressing Sts. Titus and Timothy)

What do we make of Sts. Clement and Jerome?

St. Clement supported the two-fold authority of Bishop and Deacon with a Scripture which doesn't seem to exist. That's what Gavin Ortlund claims. This refers to First Clement chapter 42:

The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.

I had a hard time to localise the Scripture in question. The direct quote gave searches to First Clement. It's not in a standard version of the Bible. Here is the first hit that seemed to localise the quote:

The Willard Preacher : The Authority of the Church
http://thewillardpreacher.com/for-orthodox-and-inquirers/the-church-fathers-speak/the-authority-of-the-church/

It says:

For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.” (Is. 60:17, LXX)

Now, what do I find in the LXX version of Ellopos?

ISAIAH / ΗΣΑΪΑΣ 60
https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=43&page=60

And for brass I will bring thee gold, and for iron I will bring thee silver, and instead of wood I will bring thee brass, and instead of stones, iron; and I will make thy princes peaceable, and thine overseers righteous.

καὶ ἀντὶ χαλκοῦ οἴσω σοι χρυσίον, ἀντὶ δὲ σιδήρου οἴσω σοι ἀργύριον, ἀντὶ δὲ ξύλων οἴσω σοι χαλκόν, ἀντὶ δὲ λίθων σίδηρον. καὶ δώσω τοὺς ἄρχοντάς σου ἐν εἰρήνῃ καὶ τοὺς ἐπισκόπους σου ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ.

It would seem the papacy was temporarily in an error about how many degrees the office has, probably because "dikaiosyne" could give rise to a scribal error with "diakonos" ... and this was the text the Pope had. Or he could have misquoted from memory. He certainly didn't possess a Gideon Bible with lots of bookmarks where he could turn the pages until he knew what he was consulting. That's not how they did back then.

I think someone very quickly gave him a better text, discretely so as not to detract from his authority (a kind of respect I do not owe Gavin Ortlund), and no future Pope repeated it. Or, as said, no body cared that he had made a slight misquote. It could be a conflation of two quotes, like we find in the NT.

But so far this makes it look that Gavin Ortlund understands St. Clement correctly as to this passage. Not necessarily. You see, the word "priest" or "presbyter" is mentioned both before and after this. And it would be strange if a Church Father considered an OT prophecy as a direct blueprint for Church structure. Different aspects about Christ, about Mary and notably also about the Church are spread all over the Old Testament. And the context where St. Clement mentions these two offices, not only does he not specify that they are the two only offices, but he even gives a clue why this would not be so:

they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe

It is very likely that the Apostles could very well have known about three offices and even so have ordained only two. You see, a Bishop need not be an Apostle to ordain a priest. Once you have set up Bishops and Deacons, the Bishops can go on to chose the future Priests from among the Deacons. For that matter, a Bishop and a Deacon would be the Liturgic Minima of the Church. In some cases, in some Churches, one could have temporarily dispensed with having priests who weren't also Bishops, just so as to be on the safe side in case the Monarchic bishop should be the one martyred and surrounding ones unable to come, and in some Churches, even Rome, one could have forgot that this was the case, considered a two-fold office as the normal thing and have lived through a restoration locally as if it were a novum, though not a resisted one. This kind of Church could be where the informants of St. Jerome came from.

But, suppose again Gavin Ortlund pretends this is guess work and prefers his own guess work (or that of the seminary he was to) and insists that Priests and Bishops were the same thing for St. Clement of Rome, he swears till his face is blue that this is what the good and adequate art of text analysis (without historic context) exacts for First Clement, even if that is unjust to the rambling and unsystematic approach of ancient styles, very unacademic by modern standards, so what?

It still doesn't dispense with point one:

Without a successive laying on of hands, going back to the Twelve Apostles, a man cannot celebrate the sacraments (except baptism and marriage) or hold authoritative office in the Church, the latter however so that a man can take up an office as bishop if elected even if not yet ordained, as long as he intends to get consecrated later on.

In fact, Albigensians were claiming Apostolic Succession for the Consolamentum of the Perfecti. This was probably entirely fraudulent, and at least cannot be historically traced. I think Waldensians may be making a similar claim. The idea of making Apostolic Succession dispensable came with the Reformation.

Neither making Presbyters successors of the Twelve (probably taken from sources saying they are successors of "the Apostles" in the sense of the Seventy-Two), nor pretending all of the Apostolic era saw Presbyters and Bishops as the same thing (essentially more like Bishops, since able to ordain), would dispense with it. It would either mean people who had been ordained with no power to ordain and consecrate weren't receiving the power to forgive sins or celebrate the Eucharist either, or it would, more probably, mean that normal Catholic priests ignore a power of ordination that actually resides in them. In fact, some Catholics have theorised that a Presbyter can ordain and consecrate, if he has the dispensation of the Pope, but otherwise his powers in this respect are hampered, and "Pius XIII" (who got no successor after he died) actually tried to access this way to the episcopal office, namely by "papally" giving dispensation to the one other priest involved there. I reckon him as not the back then real Pope, because he has no successor and he tried to rival an already extant Michael I. But even so, people on a "desert" island could not access the Eucharist prior to praying for rescue or for a priest to share their isolation.

In fact, decisively for me, we do not just have Apostolic Succession from the Apostles, but also Apostolic Tradition. This doesn't mean digging up the earliest possible post-NT author and pitting him against everyone after him, it means that the collective of successors of the Apostles are not capable of all erring on an important matter. In the absence of a parallel tradition featuring the idea that Luther simply for being a priest could also ordain, the idea of Presbyterian Protestantism (which is also part of the theory, though not the obvious show, of Episcopal Protestantism, Lutherans, Anglicans, Moravians and Methodists) is a novum. And as such an error. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians, perhaps there is also a Syriac anto-Nestorian but non-Chalcedonian communion, all distinguish bishops from priests. So, whichever of these be the true Church, this needs to be the rule of the Church.

His real beef with Catholicism is probably the Inquisition, and especially the death of Tyndale, which I have commented on on another post.** Or the exclusivism of Catholicism. "Why can't I be saved, if I disagree? Why can't we be Church, if we disagree? Is God that stingy?" For the latter it's simply a question of God keeping His Church visible. This post is about an item where Eastern Orthodox and so on are NOT wrong, and where "witness of the (older) heretics" is valuable.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Dionysius the Areopagite
9.X.2024

* I would say "passim" but if I missed him making contrary statements, please tell me. Latest item I looked at may have been this one:

Is Apostolic Succession an Accretion?
Truth Unites | 19 Sept. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TItkYgnWec

** It contains a link to his video, it's this one:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Tyndale
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/10/tyndale.html

Can a Catholic Say the Bible is Infallible?

Great Bishop of Geneva! Can a Catholic Say the Bible is Infallible? · Creation vs. Evolution: Would Tuas Libenter Condemn Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism Because of the Theologians who were Fine with Heliocentrism and Deep Time? · somewhere else: "God is Being Itself, Creationism Portrays Him as a Cause Among Others"

I had an essay to notify Karl Keating of, namely Agreement and Disagreement with Robert Sungenis. On his FB page, I found this statement:

Ortlund*, like most other Protestants, finds himself defaulting to the claim that the Bible itself is "infallible" because, for him and for them, there is nowhere else to look for the infallible interpretive authority that every Christian desires to rest under. Unfortunately, Ortlund's quest is futile because the Bible cannot be infallible because it is not an active agent. It is a static book, and books don't and can't make decisions.

Obviously, neither can much more recent books, like AAS. What about AAS 1950?

Or if AAS had existed back then, 1854?

Have Marian dogmas been defined, and can they be consulted on paper?

The paper is not an "active agent" but a static book, but it incorporates an infallible decision by Pope Pius IX and probably one by Pius XII.

The point is, God was inspiring every moment of the hagiographer's final writing. Not necessarily by dictation, but God was inspiring the decision to include or exclude certain topics, and God was inspiring whatever the hagiographer decided to say on the topic.

Does this become fallible after a certain time lapse? Has the Apostles' Creed become fallible because it is now 2000 years old? Or the Nicene Creed?

You see where I am going. The argument is useless, because it proves too much.

From same post:

You and I are fallible in all of our decision making. However correct a decision of ours might appear, there is a chance it is incorrect. Someone who is infallible in decision making (in Catholic theology that includes bishops meeting together in ecumenical councils and, rarely, popes teaching on their own)—such a group or individual is held to be incapable of making an incorrect decision in certain circumstances.

In Catholic doctrine that includes hagiographers when writing tas hagias graphas, the holy Scriptures.

Normally, given "under certain circumstances" the word "infallible" applies to statements.

One can discuss whether Pius XII infallibly defined a Marian dogma only by asking whether he was still Pope.** But one can ask whether, supposing the overall and bold style statement was infallible, he was also infallibly stating:

Quae quidem, singulari prorsus privilegio, immaculata conceptione sua peccatum devicit, atque adeo legi illi permanendi in sepulcri corruptione obnoxia non fuit, neque corporis sui redemptionem usque in finem temporum exspectare debuit.

And if so, whether the words "singulari prorsus privilegio" apply only to the first clause that follows (Immaculate conception is already known), or to all three?

Was it a totally singular privilege for Her to "not be obliged to that law of remaining in the corruption of the tomb"?

Does it (if so) refer to:

• being alone (except Christ) raised and lifted up to Heaven?
• being alone (except Christ) not corrupted while in the tomb?
• being alone (except Christ) recovered from corruption in the tomb?

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt he did not want to suggest the blasphemy She ever was corrupt. That's why I struck this out. But the two other ones would also be erroneous:

• Henoch and Elias will be raised from the dead and lifted up to Heaven prior to doomsday, since that event will cause the conversion of 7000 unbelievers, presumably Jews ... sorry, I may have recalled the verse badly, it reads as I consult it:
  
  And at that hour there was made a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell: and there were slain in the earthquake names of men seven thousand: and the rest were cast into a fear, and gave glory to the God of heaven
  [Apocalypse (Revelation) 11:13]
  
  
• Or it could be taken as denoting that the Blessed Virgin was not in any way, shape or form close to dead, but was alive the moment before She was lifted up, there was no Dormition, probably erroneous, but see qualification about a private revelation.
• Even apart from Henoch and Elias not corrupting while dead, probably (I can't find that sentence as I consult the DR), there are incorrupt saints.

The only way for "singulari prorsus privilegio" to be true is, if it applies only to the first of the subsequent phrases, namely about the Immaculate Conception. And that one really is true. Not just was she immaculately conceived, but by that fact she vanquished sin, and its author even, as we can glean from "blessed among women" being basically a military award.

Now, the point is, no Catholic theologian will ever doubt that Pius IX infallibly defined the Immaculate Conception, it would be few who questioned whether Munificentissimus Deus is an infallible papal statement (I know none but myself), but there are definitely two views on whether Syllabus Errorum by Pius IX or Lamentabili sane exitu by Pope St. Pius X are infallible. Hence, very clearly, "infallible" does apply to statements, not just to people. St. Pius X had the charism of infallibility, he exercised it on occasion of canonising St. Clement Maria Hofbauer, did he also exercise it in Lamentabile sane exitu? Did he delegate it to Fulcran Vigouroux when the latter stated Day Age theory was OK (but he didn't state it obliged)? There is one group of statements of which all Catholics will preeminently agree that they are all infallible, that being the statements in the Bible. With their strict implications. A smaller collection are obviously the statements and implications of the Canon Missae. But even as quickly as the Martyrology, we have divergence. Could "Paul VI" reform it? Was it even moderately OK to exclude Sts Barbara and Christopher, if only temporarily? What about St. Philomena? Her story is from an anonymous saint in the catacombs and a private revelation.

Speaking of which, if Pius XII did intend to define away Her Dormition, this could be a way to consider a private revelation as confirmed by his (if any) papal authority. That way also "singulari prorsus" could be true, since a private revelation could trump historic traditions about an event.

You can also quibble about whether, supposing Fulcran Vigouroux did wield the infallibility of St. Pius X in 1909, the response to Q VIII was an infallible or disciplinary response. If it was a doctrinal infallible response, there would not have been much use to confirm the part of the question*** whether exegetes were free to freely discuss it. If we knew that Day Age was dogma, we would, and even exegetes would not not be free to discuss in favour of literal days. But even so, FSSPX in the US district have started to treat the statement "only literal six days without a gap (or one moment creation) can now do justice both to theology and scientific evidence" as equivalent to rebellion against the infallible authority of St. Pius X.

In other words, it is more important to know what statements are infallible than to know who wields infallibility as a charism. And in that sense, infallibility can definitely apply to a book.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Michael's Feast
29.IX.2024

In monte Gargano venerabilis memoria beati Michaelis Archangeli, quando ipsius nomine ibi consecrata fuit Ecclesia, vili quidem facta schemate, sed caelesti praestans virtute.

* It's from a public post. A comment left under a video by Gavin Ortlund, that one being "the Protestant Canon Problem" ...
** Munificentissimus Deus was November 1, after Humani Generis, August 12.
*** sive sensu proprio pro die naturali, sive sensu improprio pro quodam temporis spatio, deque huiusmodi quaestione libere inter exegetas disceptare liceat?

A Point About Certain Protestant Fundamentalists

Great Bishop of Geneva! A Point About Certain Protestant Fundamentalists · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Some People Really Can't Relate to a Catholic Convert

now [4:42] here's something interesting every group [4:45] I left said my stretching was [4:47] backsliding every group I came to said [4:50] my stretching was growth

Stan Mitchell on the David Moses Perez show, on the video:

Those Who Think They Haven't Deconstructed Their Faith Actually Have Also | Stan Mitchell
David Moses Perez | Iconoclast Podcast | 16 May 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWaZVoF-UEo

I can state with perfect confidence, that kind of narrowness was never the point of my Fundamentalism, even back when I was a child unbaptised of Evangelical convictions. I was YEC, am still. I believed the Devil seduced Adam through Eve, in the shape or with the manipulation of a snake, do still. I believed people get possessed and that Jesus drove demons out, do still.

I was allergic to suggestions that Mormons, 7DA, Catholics would not make it to Heaven. Part of my dissatisfaction with Luther came, later on, finding that he actually believed Catholics (he had been one) were going to Hell for Catholic positions.

The Catholic doctrine I have had the hardest time with is probably Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

While converting, I could say to still Lutheran friends and acquaintances, they'd be better off, better assured of salvation if converting. I didn't tell them "if you don't convert, you are going to Hell" ... the closest I came to saying such a thing back in Sweden was telling an ex-employer who tried his best (or worst) at being a mentor for me, "if a non-Catholic is neither excused by ignorance, nor by stupidity, and remains non-Catholic, he's going for Hell, I can't guarantee you belong to the exceptions" ...

Anyone who imagines he can do any kind of combat against Fundamentalism in me by showing "that non-Catholic is a decent fellow"(1) or "that non-Fundie seems to be decently Catholic" (2) is wasting his time, if he expects me to change my mind. He's also wasting my time if he puts all my projects into a shoe box as long as I don't change my mind. Certain kinds of administration against certain kinds of clientele could have that power, and if that's the case, I resent it.

Those who would totally endorse my Fundamentalism, if it were instead on the Evangelical / Unitarian / Jewish / Muslim side, and not the Catholic one, equally. If they want to be a sparring partner, fine. If they want to be a mentor, it makes me puke.

In fact, anyone who finds it problematic, either that I am Catholic or that I am Fundie, that should remain his problem. I resent if he tries to make it mine.

But there is a real point, faith is faith if it is itself, there are limits outside which it is no longer so. I'm (usually) far more generous about what the limits could be for a particular person (except when he has endorsed an obvious impiety)(3), than about what they are in dogma and in doctrines that could be usefully erected into dogma.

The people who are combatting my Fundamentalism (yes, they exist), like those combatting my Catholicism (yes, they also exist), may imagine they are doing me some kind of favour. For instance if I were convinced everyone except myself or other adherents of Pope Michael II were going to Hell, and it caused me anguish over people I genuinely liked. They are not doing me that favour. That kind of narrowness never was my point. But once they start trying to impose that favour, they also cease to be people I genuinely like.

Equally, some might pretend that:

• I'm homosexual
• my Christianity causes me to reject my homosexuality
• I entertain myself with forlorn hopes about homosexual men being able to decide to marry a woman anyway, but somehow never seem to make it
• so, the best thing possible for me would be to make me ditch the Fundamentalist reading of Bible or Church Tradition saying sodomy is mortal sin, and accept myself as homosexual.

The reality is very different:

• I am heterosexual
• I am bullied by people who find some excuse to consider me homosexual
• I don't change what they would consider as criteria between homosexuality and heterosexuality (4)
• and I don't get a wife because girls don't like to put themselves in the way of bullies and partly because some of them have believed the liars.

Everyone who participates in an intrigue to remake my faith so I can accept myself as homosexual is in reality participating in this bullying. And the one person who's unlikely to get saved from sin and Hell as long as they continue is myself. Plus whoever of them is not a complete idiot having the excuse of folly before God's eyes. Given their tactics, that's at least some.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Pius X
3.IX.2024

(1) Erik Manning would be an example. So would Ken Ham.
(2) Trent Horn and Jimmy Akin are both examples, except when speaking on (i e against) YEC.
(3) I called John Bergsma and Scott Hahn out for their view on Genesis 9, after writing a refutation of an identical view here:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Bad Theology Pushed, Good Theology Rejected (Noah's Drunkenness)
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/08/bad-theology-pushed-good-theology.html

(4) To some anti-Catholics, confessing to priests, or believing one should do so, praying the rosary, or believing one should do so, fasting or abstaining on Fridays or believing one should do so, saving oneself for marriage could come off as "effeminate" ... to some Conservatives basically Neo-Stalinist, believing young teens can marry and young marriages shouldn't be stamped as pedophilia "proves" I am really a pedophile and according to their version of Freudian analysis, that means I am homosexual. To some machists, chosing writing as a trade or composing music of the Mozart type rather than of the rock type exposes me as a faggot. This can probably be more potent with Russians (who recall Chaikovsky) than with Germans (who recall Johann Sebastian Bach. To some machists and anti-Catholics, any clothing outside the most generically masculine contemporary is, on a male, cross dressing, whether it's a Dominican's habit or my capuche, my mente or my breeches.