lördag 10 mars 2018

King David on the Blessed Virgin

Acts 2 [25] For David saith concerning him: I foresaw the Lord before my face: because he is at my right hand, that I may not be moved. [26] For this my heart hath been glad, and my tongue hath rejoiced: moreover my flesh also shall rest in hope. [27] Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. [28] Thou hast made known to me the ways of life: thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. [29] Ye men, brethren, let me freely speak to you of the patriarch David; that he died, and was buried; and his sepulchre is with us to this present day. [30] Whereas therefore he was a prophet, and knew that God hath sworn to him with an oath, that of the fruit of his loins one should sit upon his throne. [31] Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ. For neither was he left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption. [32] This Jesus hath God raised again, whereof all we are witnesses.

What does the Prophecy of King David say of the Blessed Virgin?

When St Peter, the first Pope, spoke these words, he could not speak of her Dormition and burial and of St Thomas the Twin finding Her tomb empty on the third day but Her veil and belt left behind. It had not happened yet.

The Blessed Virgin was still alive, and since 52 days living with one John, St John the Theologian, whether it was the son of Zebedee as most think, or another man, not of the Twelve, but either way, with the author of the Gospel of St John. She was his stepmother and he Her stepson, according to the words of Christ.

You can of course pretend, if you like, the prophecy of King David referred to Christ only.

Er ... no ... blessed and holy are synonyms.

The holy one of whom King David principally speaks is Our Lord, of whom Elisabeth, and through her the Holy Ghost said "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb".

But before that, she had said - and the Holy Ghost had said : "blessed art thou among women".

This means, the Mother and Her Son are a team. If God was not leaving the one in the grave, neither the other. If God did not allow the one to be touched by corruption, neither the other.

A Lutheran, Anglican, Calvinist tradition is "Scripture interprets Scripture". Or "let Scripture interpret Scripture". It is often misapplied by them, it is inadequate when separated from the continuing CHurch of God, the Catholic Church, but it is not per se false, and has been used more than once by the Church Fathers. It applies to the words of the Holy Ghost.

It cannot be applied to the factual information of [Mark 3:17] because the only place in which either Boanerges or the entire phrase "The sons of thunder" is found in all 73 books is Mark 3:17. There we need other information, if we want an interpretation. But this is not the case with the designation twice given the Blessed Virgin and a third time over accepted by Herself from us, from all of our generations.

So, for "blessed among women" can and should be interpreted in the light of other Scripture.

She was not "blessed among the women of Israel", because She was of Judah, while Judith was of Israel. She was not "blessed among women who dwell in tents", because She lived in houses. But Jael and Judith are the two cases in which an even similar phrase is mentioned about a woman.

In the case of the Blessed Virgin there is no restriction similar to "of Israel" or "who dwelleth in tents". This means, She is blessed among women overall, among all of them.

What did it mean in the case of Jael and Judith? They were war heroines. They had killed and therefore utterly defeated a major enemy of the People of God, Sisera and Holophernes.

You can bet that this background, certainly known to Her whose cousin was the wife of one High Priest, at least Priest, of the Old Covenant, would have made Her wonder what the angel Gabriel had meant. She had killed no Sisera or Holophernes ... only utterly defeated - with the fruit of Her womb - the old serpent. Which She didn't get until the second time over, when She could see the similarity to Genesis 3:15.

I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

In Hebrew, the word for woman and the word for seed are both feminine, so the pronoun or rather verb form used is the one for "she". LXX translates "autos" or "he" because taking it of the seed, of Our Lord (this translation was prophetic, since before Christ actually came). Vulgate of Saint Jerome translates it as "ipsa" or "she" - taking it of the woman. I recommend the study of Heinz-Lothar Barth on this point - Ipsa conteret. Maria die Schlangenzertreterin: Philologische und theologische Überlegungen zum Protoevangelium (gen 3,15) (Buch auf Deutsch)

The word She used about Herself, of what we were to call Her or even praise Her is also restricted. The word is used for two women connected to King David : Ruth and Abigail.

Ruth was called "blessed" because, while a young widow, she took an old man, Ruth 3:10, which, if Proto-Gospel of St James is genuine was the one connection the Blessed Virgin could have even started to make at the words of the angel, humanly speaking, from Her situation.

And Abigail was called "blessed" because she held back the hand of King David from killing an Israelite in wrath. Yes, we call the Blessed Virgin blessed, all of our generations, so often Christ could kill us according to "I will spit you out" and who is holding back His hand? I am letting the words of King David to Abigail interpret the words of the Blessed Virgin in the Magnificat.

So, this in mind, She as much as Her Son is definitely eligible for the worth prophecied by King David as cited by St Peter :

Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thy Holy One to see corruption.

Now, watch the next words of King David, spoken inspired by the Holy Ghost:

Thou hast made known to me the ways of life: thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.

And now watch the first words of Our Lady in the Magnificat:

Luke 1:[46] And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. [47] And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Life and soul are near synonyms and joy and rejoice are two forms of same root.

Yes, the Psalm cited by St Peter is referring to Magnificat. I am letting Scripture interpret Scripture. I am letting the words of Her, inspired by the Holy Ghost, comment on the words of him, Her ancestor, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

If you say "you only say this because of tradition, you do not dare interpret Bible yourself" no, definitely no. If you deny it, you deny it only because of your Protestant tradition. If you say it is unconvincing, you are blinding yourself to correctly applying your own principle, "let Scripture interpret Scripture".

If you say "you only say this because you think Pius XII was successor of Peter and because he said so in Munificentissimus Deus" no, fifteen years or more over times no.

I had read something like (what I remember, giving first the wrong text):

Quae quidem immaculata conceptione sua peccatum devicit, atque adeo, singulari prorsus privilegio, legi illi permanendi in sepulcri corruptione obnoxia non fuit, neque corporis sui redemptionem usque in finem temporum exspectare debuit. [This is not what it says on the Vatican site]

I had criticised this as wrong, as saying either She did not even in any sense die (denying the Dormition, which the Latin Church had up to 1950 commemorated on the day before Feast Day of Assumption, while Eastern Christians* commemorate it on August 15 itself) or all other saints at least somewhat rot (denying the info on Two Witnesses from Apocalypse 11:8-11, or how I remembered it, but I don't think they will rot at all).

Here is what it says:

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. (This is what it says)

Ah, it is the immaculate conception and by it defeating sin (even all the years before She conceived Christ) which is "by a totally singular privilege" - no problem!

So, if between 2001 and 2018 I have been critical of the Bull, only recently seeing what I misread, obviously while I was believing this all the time, it was not because Munificentissimus Deus. It was not because I allowed Pius XII to think for me.** It was because of Apostolic Tradition or at least very probable such, as summarised above. And I never found it contradicted the Written Word of God, nor do I do so now, obviously.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Holy Forty Martyrs

* Definitely all Schismatics of Eastern type, probably also or to recently also, Uniates. ** I have vacillated between considering him an Antipope and thinking local bishops (and sui iuris abbots) are successors of St Peter, this last between 2006 and 2009, when I returned to Roman Catholic, and some doubt lingering on to 2010.

onsdag 14 februari 2018

Sign of the Cross Babylonian, Says Who? Hislop? Or ...?

Catholic priest says, "We don't worship statues and idols" oh really? Landmark 2018 Stockton ca
GabeTheStreetPreacher | 26.XI.2017

Here is a guy who pretends after he had told Catholics not to make the sign of the Cross, it was rebellion against "the preacher" to make the sign of the Cross anyway.

Now, there is a problem already here, since the "fides ex auditu" passage says preachers have to be sent.

That is why I content myself with Apologetics, which even a layman can do, and do not pretend to preach or assume authority over people on God's behalf.

But we see more:

He was the second before - as subtitles seemed sufficiently consistent - speaking of the Sign or the Cross.

Now, he claims, Apostles never did that, contrary to the Catholic claim, we have the Sign of the Cross by tradition from Apostles.

One little query is, how does he know a negative about Apostles, directly that is, not as a conclusion from the following?

If he claims to have received tradition from the Apostles, he can start stating where the intermediates between them and himself were in the 5th or 8th C. Or other centuries previous to Reformation and its post-year-thousand prequels.

If he doesn't claim that, he is claiming it is in the Bible - but it isn't directly.

While we Catholics claim it is consistent with the Bible and a fuller realisation of certain words of Christ on taking the cross, and a tradition from Him through His Apostles, or simply from His Apostles guided by the Holy Ghost, we do not claim to see the words "sign of the cross" mentioned directly in the Bible.

I "google" the words sign of the cross in drbo dot org and get the result "No verse contains all the words in the query."

So, he can't have found a verse which contains the phrase "sign of the cross" and considers it as idolatry or invented by non-Apostles outside the Apostolic Church or by Pagans before them.

Therefore his sole case rests only on concluding this from a piece of information from outside the Bible.

Namely, as he states, "that ritual goes back to ancient Babylon".

Now, he does not have this from the Bible, as "sign of the cross" is in no verse (and a Douay Rheims Bible has more books and more verses than a King James Bible, not fewer, so it can't be the verse missing).

He does not get it from a "real Apostolic Church" having all the time existed outside the Catholic Church and been there before it, since there isn't any.

He does also not get it from any real research about what the Babylonian rites actually involved, as far as I can tell.

If he does, he might want to share the source, but for my part, I believe he gets that statement from someone like Hislop, probably either he read himself the fraudulent work The Two Babylons, or he got his info from someone who had.

His next statement actually involves making Hindoos Babylonian.

"making hand gestures, a mudra" (visible subtitle at 1:26 in video)

I have in fact read (but not much practised) a book on yoga for children, and seen how the mudras look. First of all, they are not hand gestures, since hand is usually resting on knees of a lotus position while one does them. They are finger positions. But the Sign of the Cross also has a few finger positions, do the mudras coincide with them? None of them has thumb against next two fingers and last two fingers folded into the palm (Austrian sign of the cross "mudra"). None of them has thumb against last two fingers and the two longest ones crosses in an X (Orthodox Sign of the Cross "mudra", perhaps also used by Uniates). I don't recall any Hindoo or Yoga mudra either having the fingers aligned like a flat surface (Roman Sign of the Cross "mudra").

I very definitely don't see any exercise of yoga, with or without mudras, involving hand going from forehead to breast and then from shoulder to shoulder (left to right for Catholics and right to left for Orthodox) and then back to breast.

I also do not recall any taking the own thumb and drawing two crossed lines or a T on the forehead, the mouth and the breast.

I will actually have to ask a person who actually did get into yoga.

That said, I don't think Yoga and Hindooism are very Babylonian things.

Babylonian mythology seems to be materialistic, all gods coming from pre-existent matter, a bit on the lines of abiogenesis. Not Pantheistic, like Hindooism has become. Even in idol worship, apart from philosophy, Hinduism seems not to have worshipped any "super strong" over gods (while Mithra and Varuna are indeed monster killers, they are closer to Castor and Pollux than to Bel, and Indra seems to lose importance in proportion as Hindoos start meditation).

In the Vedas, Indra is the king of Svarga (Heaven) and the Devas. He is the god of lightning, thunder, storms, rains and river flows.[6] Indra is the most referred to deity in the Rigveda.[7] He is celebrated for his powers, and the one who kills the great symbolic evil (Asura) named Vritra who obstructs human prosperity and happiness. Indra destroys Vritra and his "deceiving forces", and thereby brings rains and the sunshine as the friend of mankind.[1][8] His importance diminishes in the post-Vedic Indian literature where he is depicted as a powerful hero but one who is getting in trouble with his drunken, hedonistic and adulterous ways, and the god who disturbs Hindu monks as they meditate because he fears self-realized human beings may become more powerful than him.

So, the Hindoo god who is most Babylonian is also least relevant for yoga.

This does not seem like a good clue about mudras coming from Babylon, actually, since they are associated with yoga, not with Indra worship. Apart from already mentioned fact that Hindoo mudras are finger positions other than those used for Sign of the Cross, apart fril the already mentioned fact that no yoga exercise includes any look alike of Sign of the Cross - that I know of, at least.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Ash Wednesday

* Ash Wednesday comes before St Valentine's Day, when they coincide, as this year.

tisdag 23 januari 2018

Why Confessional?

I have heard or rather read over internet that Hislop or his continuer Jack Chick credits Baal worship in Babylon with inventing the confessional.

It is also said - technically correct - in the cited Chick tract that the confessional is not in the Bible.

At Vatican II, Catholics (whether still in some sense in the Church despite being now also involved with the Vatican II Anti-Church or not) of certain stripes (not the good Poles, though!) becoming sensitive to Protestant pleas or rather accusations, and also to Greek Orthodox who do confession without confessional, you kneel before a man who is seated visible in front of you, they defend this by this being more caring and personal, and becoming so more and more, decided to abolish confessionals, in many dioceses and parishes.

You can guess what happened next? Yes, sex scandals involving priests.

So, the confessional is a safeguard - protecting both priest and penitent from unduly sexualising the procedure. As you may guess, Poles having uniformly kept the confessional are also very low on clerical sex scandals:

During 2013 the public in this deeply Catholic country became concerned about reports of child sex abuse scandals within the church, some of which reached the courts, and the poor response by the church. The church resisted demands to pay compensation to victims.[104][105] In October 2013 the Catholic Church in Poland explicitly refused to publish data on sexual abuse, but said that, if the data were to be published, the scale would be seen to be very low.[106] Bishop Antoni Dydycz said that priests should not be pressed to report sexual abuse to state authorities, invoking the ecclesiastical "seal of confession," which bans them from revealing what is said in the rite of confession.[107] In November 2013 the Minister of Justice said that there were 1,454 persons in prison for acts of pedophilia, of whom one was a Catholic priest.[108]

Catholic Church sexual abuse cases: Poland

Next country:

In the United States, which has been the focus of many of the scandals and subsequent reforms,[109] BishopAccountability.org, an "online archive established by lay Catholics," reports that over 3,000 civil lawsuits have been filed against the church,[110] some of these cases have resulted in multimillion-dollar settlements with many claimants.

Care to guess one country with heavy abolition of confessionals? You have nailed it : US.

No, the Confessional does not come directly from the Bible, except from this verse: But prove all things; hold fast that which is good. [1 Thessalonians 5:21]

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Emerentiana*

* 23 Januarii : ... Romae sanctae Emerentianae, Virginis et Martyris; quae adhuc catechumena, dum oraret ad sepulcrum sanctae Agnetis, cujus fuerat collactanea, a Gentilibus lapidata est.

tisdag 9 januari 2018

Restorationism is Consistent Protestantism

Or in other words, mainstream Protestantism is Restorationism with inconsistencies. It is also sth else with inconsistencies.

Here is my source for what the word Restorationism means:

What is Restorationism?
on got?questions

Here is the definition:

“Restorationism” refers to a group of unaffiliated 19th-century movements from within Christianity based upon the premise that the true faith and practice of the church had been lost due to apostasy and that the church needed to be restored to its New Testament model.

Well, how exactly does this differ from Protestantism?

Reformers were accusing the Catholic Church of being an Apostate Sect.

That is what "Babylonian Captivity of the Church" and identifying Papacy over several centuries as the Antichrist was about. No wonder these early Protestant positions are very popular with Restorationist "Churches." Most sites now presenting Newton's famous or infamous reading of the 1260 days as chronologically 1260 years that I know of are 7th Day Adventist ones.

Here is a further discussion of what it means:

While all these groups teach widely divergent theologies, and while some restorationist groups are considered cults (Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses) with other groups being considered valid Christian movements (the Restoration Movement), they have in common the notion that true Christianity had died out many years ago and it needed to be restored to its original New Testament form. Some of these groups believe they alone are the embodiment of true Christianity, some going so far as to teach that all other groups, including mainline Protestant denominations, are not really Christians at all, having lost their way over the centuries to complete apostasy. They are convinced that the drift from Christian principles is so extreme as to render the church irredeemable, and, therefore, it must be completely rebuilt. Denying that past historical patterns have any validity at all, they are free to embrace what they understand to be pure biblical truth as revealed to the apostles.

Well, the thing is, if the Church found by Protestant Reformers was not "irredeemable", why was it so important to them to leave it? Which, after some time of Luther shilly-shallying, they did. With violence about pre-existing Church buildings, which Catholics wanted to keep as they were and Protestants wanted to demolish the interior of, as a consequence.

How much is this "mainstream Protestant" site ready to concede to Restorationism?

Certainly, there have been abuses and misuses of the Word of God down through the years by churches claiming to speak for Christ. One has only to look at the Roman Catholic doctrines of purgatory, prayer to Mary, and the veneration of saints—all of which are completely unscriptural—to agree that, in some cases at least, church tradition has superseded the Bible as authority.

Now, the man writing claims these are "completely unscriptural", a charge which doctrine for doctrine I have answered elsewhere.

If a Church claiming to be that of God has doctrines which are "completely unscriptural", I take this means not just not directly in the Bible but against the Bible, how can it be the Church of God?

Perhaps if such a doctrine is optional. From Pius XII to recently, "Adam's body evolved from primates, but his soul was created immediately by God and so was Eve, from his rib" has been considered optional, a valid option for Catholics wanting to accomodate Evolution.

A diocese which in 1947 or 1950 agreed on this would not automatically become a diocese outside the Church of Christ, since, while this doctrine was strictly unscriptural (a point which Pius XII refused to decide, leaving it for future discussion, like Pilate "washing his hands", nearly), the diocese in Paris in 1947 or some diocese in US or UK on 1950 were not pretending to outlaw the traditional doctrine, both Biblical and Patristic.

I would say, this is true even if the situation has gone on longer. Since at least 1820, Heliocentrism is considered optional. But Geocentrism was not outlawed. The Geocentric Father Anfossi was told he could not condemn the physics book by Settele, but he was not told he had to become a Heliocentric himself.

Also in 1893, Pope Leo XIII was vaguely (without direct mention of the point) commending as optional the Heliocentric view, with an exegesis of "phenomenal language" for Geocentric passages. Note, optional. Or actually, it is saying some phenomenal language does occur, but not specifying if Geocentric expressions are part of that case. Therefore, Heliocentrism is optional. Any theoretical diocese (I have no historic knowledge of a factual one, with certainty) which treated this solution as obliging the faithful to abandon the Biblical and Geocentric world view was at least wrong, and by itself would have been automatically excommunicated : for schism, because arrogating to itself the right to declare illicit what had been lawful before and at times even obliging, when the Pope himself had not declared it illicit, and for heresy, because the doctrinne is in fact unbiblical, and by making it obligatory, they are not excusing individual adherents from the sin of heresy, but falling themselves into that, bishop and clergy along with laymen. It could only have survived as a Catholic Diocese by the Pope excusing the bishop as an overenthusiastic reader of Providentissimus Deus 18 on some few sentences:

To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.

Some other sentences make inerrantism exceedingly clear as non-optional, like it has always been.

And that Pope so excusing the bishop remaining Catholic (true of at least Leo XIII, St Pius X, most probably Benedict XV and again certainly Pius XI) as deciding to leave corrections or real decisions for later, when things clear up. And that Pope remaining Catholic also holding the diocese to be Catholic. Just as a King*, representing God's justice on earth, can decide that a murder is not executed, (especially while deciding a bit more if it was murder of self defense) a Pope, representing the Faith and Grace on Earth, can decide that someone not materially orthodox is nevertheless not cut off from grace for heresy.

Is it necessary for the Pope to explicitly have at least in pectore have considered Geocentrism as true and in fact obliging? I think a Pope could also be excused, as long as Heliocentrism remained optional to him.

So, the Catholic Church can remain Catholic, if that is the right Church, as long as unbiblical doctrines like Heliocentrism and Evolution remain optional. If however a diocese starts treating these errors as dogma and the truths as heresy, even the Pope has no power to declare such spiritual tyranny to be acts of a bishop ruling in the Catholic Church over a diocese. A Pope not excommunicating such a diocese would fail in his duties, as lamentably as Honorius I when it came to Monotelethism.

Now, what does this principle mean for the claim of "got questions"?

Supposing "the Roman Catholic doctrines of purgatory, prayer to Mary, and the veneration of saints" had been un-Biblical, the Roman Catholic Church could only have remained the or a Church of Christ by leaving these doctrines as optional.

But in fact it did not.

It was liturgically confessing these doctrines, and therefore obliging anyone participating in the liturgy to "confess with his mouth" these points. Not just since this or that more or less recent Council claimed as Ecumenical, but by the constant liturgic practise. August 15 was a Holiday of Obligation** and each diocese was obliging all faithful not having a particular excuse to be in Church, as on a Sunday, even if it was not a Sunday, because Assumption of Our Lady was kind of equivalent to a Sunday. Attending in Church on that day automatically implied you were accepting the Mariological content of the feast. Or, the Protestants would have it, the "Mariolatrous content".

The feast is older even than the Schism between East and West, in the East it is called Dormition of Our Lady and it is held she did not remain in the grave. She was taken to Heaven and is its Queen, just as Her Son is Heaven's King.

If you don't believe that, you have no business being in Church on August 15, and ALL Catholic dioceses, as well as ALL Orthodox, as well as ALL Coptic and Armenian and as well as ALL Nestorian ones required you to be in Church that day.

Fact checking for Nestorians, first attempt:

Confessional Gadfly : Are You a Nestorian?
Rev. Eric J Brown | Monday, August 16, 2010

"Over at his blog, Rev. Mason Beecroft posts his sermon from yesterday in which he laments that the LCMS calls August 15th "Mary, Mother of our Lord" instead of "Mary, Mother of God." (Okay, he rails)."

(Mason Beecroft's blog is private, that is why I cite the post citing it)

In fact, not a good fact check, since LCMS is Lutheran Church in Malaysia and Singapore or Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod. While considered by some fellow Lutheran as Nestorianising, it is not the communion going back to Nestorius.

Here is a better fact check:

Tuesday August 15th, 6:00pm

Tuesdays are not Sundays.

And here is a liturgic text***:


In the plan of your wisdom
she who bore the Christ in her womb
was raised body and soul in glory to be with him in heaven.

Note, of the Pre-Protestant Churches, Nestorians are furthest away from Roman Catholics. They too believe she remained virgin, and, what Lutherans and Anglicans and Calvinists usually don't do, that she was lifted to Heaven.

If you don't believe that, for centuries you had no diocese to go to and worship with.

A Nestorian Church will consider you as a sinner and as an apostate if you consistently don't go to Church on August 15. Precisely as a Catholic and an Orthodox Church will. On the other hand, if you believe this doctrine is unbiblical, you are committing hypocrisy or even apostasy in your own eyes if you go to Church on August 15 (unless it's a Sunday).

So, a Calvinist not believing this would have to ultimately choose between Restorationism or Catholicism (of some sort, ranging from Roman to Nestorian).

How does "got questions" deal with this?

Of course, parts of the church have apostatized, but there has always been a remnant of the faithful preserved by God for His purposes.

Either believing Our Lady is with Christ in Heaven, body and soul - and this imples she is Queen there, since in Judah the queens were mothers of the King - is not apostasy or it is. If it is not apostasy, "Mariolatry" is no reason to leave the Catholic Church. If it is, the "remnant of the faithful" was an invisible one. Or has since become so to us.

And, as said elsewhere, an invisible remnant is un-Biblical. Whether the rock in Matthew 16 is Christ or St Peter or both, it is clear the Church is built on a rock. One way of looking at it is, the Church is a city built on a Hill.

One cannot have centuries through which a City built on a Hill is hidden behind a city built around a swamp (on seven hills or not). Not even hidden in retrospect.

All attempts to identify this faithful remnant for centuries like the Vth Century AD or VII C. AD have failed - obviously for those thinking the great mass of Catholics back then were apostates. A Catholic need not identify "a remnant" for those centuries, since identifying those centuries as not being the ones after the Great Apostasy, not being the ones in which the true Church is reduced to a remnant.

Note how very different Pope Michael's claim is from the restorationist one. He is Young Earth Creationist and Geocentric and can point to recent decades in which the positions were at least licit.

A Restorationist like Calvin could not point to recent decades in which Catholic dioceses had not been obliging the faithful to August 15.

Now, the mainstream Protestant position of "got questions" is inconsistent.

In 1400, apparently, one could in most places (those not obliged by presence of Hussites or Culdees) celebrate August 15, believing or confessing belief like a Catholic. But in 1600 you were somehow obliged (at least unless stranded among Spaniards) not to do so, on pain of being an apostate.

On the other hand, if in 1600 you were stranded among Spaniards, you would still, on this view, be obliged to confess your horror of "mariolatry" since maintaining silence and pretending too much to acquiesce (like going to Church on August 15°) you would be

In fact, criteria for apostasy can change through Church discipline. Each new council of the Church adds to the criteria. This is why we don't quite consider the Nestorians as Christians, when refusing Her the honour of Mother of God. Ephesus I, 431 AD. I have heard, Nestorius himself accepted the verdict, resigned as Patriarch and went into a monastery, from which he only emerged again after Chalcedon, 20 years later, after 20 years of penitential silence. He considered, after what I heard, Chalcedonian formula is what he meant.

But an act like the Reformation - not involving higher clergy, usually, not pointing back to recent decades of admitted orthodoxy or at worst optionality of heterodox position - is not a licit means for changing the criteria of what is Christian faith, either true or at least possible, and what is apostasy and known to be so.

The Protestants were doing it anyway, because, at heart, they were Restorationists, in the above meaning of the word.

And that meaning is clearly at variance with Matthew 28, as said elsewhere.

Now, the reason Protestants backed down from Restorationism very quickly is, the Catholics pointed out the absurdity and they needed to admit it. Any Lutheran, Calvinist or Anglican today is heir of the admission made in the debates from back then that pure Restorationism is wrong.

So, mainstream Protestantism became inconsistently Restorationist. Catholicism remained consistently, I will not say "anti-restorationist", because that is not the substance, only the comparison, but I will say it remained consistently "Continuationist". The Church of God which was present in Jerusalem when St Stephen was martyred is exactly the same which was present in many places in 1400 and some fewer ones in Europe due to Reformation, but more ones overseas, thanks to Columbus and Cortez and a few more, in 1600 and which required you to participate in the liturgy of August 15.

What is the other thing which mainstream Protestantism was also inconsistently?

The other thing is "Ecclesio-Imperfectionist". Admitting a position of the Church presented as obligatory can in fact be all the time and later also recognised as being damnable. However, for this to be consistent, you need to admit you must be in a Church even if it has a damnable doctrine. But for this to be consistent, you need to say the Reformation was as such a mistake - obviously not one making it wrong to be Lutheran, since the damnable doctrine of the Reformation being necessary did not disoblige people in Lutheran countries from being in a Church.

Since this, the doctrine of "Ecclesio-Imperfectionism"°° has been more purely distilled in the originally Protestant movement of Ecumenism. It is also apparent in the changes due to Vatican II (which is one reason for a Catholic to stand apart from that establishment, and probably also the council texts as such). In other words, the largest "Ecclesio-Imperfectionist" confession in our days is Novus Ordo Catholicism. It is not consistently Continuationist, though many even Novus Ordo worshipping Catholics are very Continuationist. Why? Because, if you agree with "Pope Francis" on matrimonial validity, you disagree with centuries of Church discipline. And you consider that as an imperfection of those centuries without any as yet psychology from Freud and his ilk. And if you agree with the earlier centuries, you consider "Pope Francis" and his Encyclical Amoris Laetitia are after all a clear imperfection, but also not so much of an imperfection as to make discommunion with them necessary.

The doctrine common to Restorationism and Continuationism is, heresy is worse than schism. The opposite doctrine is that of Ecclesio-Imperfectionism, schism is worse than heresy. Isolation from other Christians is worse than error. No, it is not. But Ecclesio-Imperfectionists say it is.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts Vital, Revocate and Fortunate
Martyrs of Smyrna

PS, quoting once more the article I respond to:

The second, and far more destructive, result of restorationist philosophy is that it denies God’s ability, or willingness, to preserve the faith “once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), rejects His sovereignty over His people, and disavows His plan to bring to pass His will without fail, despite attempts by Satan and his minions to derail it. God did not send His Son to die on the cross for the sins of His people only to allow those same people to lapse into apostasy and languish there for 1800 years.

Exactly why I am no longer a Protestant./HGL

* The notion of King would normally include Presidents of the US, even if they are Kings only for 4 years at a time. That they are elected has no bearing, since "king" is not tied to the dynastic principle. Swedish Kings were elected in Westrogothia and could even be deposed by Westrogothia. Even if that was a long time ago - when all Christians were still Geocentric and Young Earth Creationists. ** And as Our Lady was patron saint of Sweden like so many other kingdoms, national feast day of Sweden. (När Nordens Drott blef Jesus Christ, du Nordens Drottning blef förvisst ...) *** Putting it in italics, since not one of the Roman Catholic Church. I think a Catholic liturgic text would be referring to Her as Mother of God. The enumeration of memories for August 15 begins with Assumptio sanctissimae Dei Genitricis Virginis Mariae. ° If last August 15 I did not go to Church it is because in Paris no Church is in Communion with Pope Michael. Many are in Communion with Antipope "Francis". °° My coinage ad hoc, not sure if there already is a word for it.

lördag 23 december 2017

Protestants Don't Get Christ's Sacrifice

I Cor 5:7

[7] Purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new paste, as you are unleavened. For Christ our pasch is sacrificed.

So, here Christ is compared to both the Pesach Lamb and - his Church - the Pesach Azymes (the Matzoth).

And TektonTV (alias J. P. Holding) is on 4:04 in this video on record as saying Christ is not eaten:

Jesus the Human Sacrifice, Part 2: Foiling the Fundy Atheists
tektontv, 12.II.2012

Well, He is so. If you took Communion without first judging yourself (as just out of Baptismal Waters, as just after Confession, as having kept grace since last Confession, or as going to Confession first), you are eating and drinking a judgement over yourself. Because you are eating and drinking your Judge. Not some other person and not even some other thing, but Himself, under the veil of bread and wine's exterior accidents.

That means, Christ is a true sacrifice. It also means, Mass is a true sacrifice, because the hieratic act by which He made the sacrifice is the one He at His last Supper confided to the Twelve (or to the Eleven, if Judas Ischariot had already left) and is continued to this day.

Bread and wine are not individually the same as He took back then, but same kind of thing. Altar (with bones of a saint in them) represent Calvary (on which Christ made the bones of Adam and Eve bones of saints). Words are the same Christ used. Priests are either the Eleven to whom He confided this, or people who attained priesthood later, through laying on of hands by them, and by their successors in episcopate. In other words, the act is the same, and the result is the same : Christ is present as the victim He was on Calvary.

Hans Georg Lundahl
St Victoria of Rome*

* Romae sanctae Victoriae, Virginis et Martyris, quae, in persecutione Decii Imperatoris, cum esset desponsata Eugenio pagano et nec nubere vellet neque sacrificare, ideo, post multa facta miracula, quibus plurimas Deo Virgines aggregaverat, a carnifice percussa est gladio in corde, rogatu sui sponsi.

PS : 5:13, same video "In Hebrews He is referred to as both Sacrifice and High Priest, which obviously does not reflect a real world possibility" - in the hall of the Last Supper, He was both priest (holding the bread and breaking it) and sacrifice (present in the broken bread). In each Mass, Christ is present as priest in the duly ordained priest having the intention to do what the Church does, and in the Eucharist, in the sacrament. So, yes, it does reflect a real world not just possibility, but fact./HGL

PPS : 7:20 "obviously, not all these images can be literally true" - they can if Our Lord's sacrifice is the one fact which is basic, and the OT sacrifices are the images, the figures of speech./HGL

fredag 8 december 2017

At Least 48 Reasons why Luther was Excommunicated, as per Armstrong

Armstrong actually gives 50 reasons, I happen to disagree with two of them.

Here are the two I disagree with:

10. Only justified men can do good works.
33. The Church cannot institute sacraments.

The Catholic Church actually agrees that the Church cannot make any act an Eighth Sacrament. While the Polish priests I converted for said "in Sweden, Church coffee is the eighth sacrament", they said that as a joke.

As a quip on Swedes who, even when Catholic, seem to think Church coffee (the coffee time after Holy Mass, in the parish hall near the Church) merits more preparation and work than receiving the sacraments. Obviously, the sacraments merit much more, since they are what God has instituted for our justification and also after justification ongoing sanctification.

Note, the seven sacraments are instituted by God. Sacramentals may, of course, be instituted by the Church, like the Christian coronation of a monarch. Indulgences are also sacramentals, and some sacramentals have indulgences attached.

But all seven sacraments were instituted by God. Either we must say that Confirmation (Acts 8) and Extreme Unction (Epistle of St James) were already instituted by Christ before the Ascension, only publicised afterwards, or we must say the Holy Ghost - also a divine person, remember! - inspired them in the Apostles who were able to receive new doctrine as long as one of them was alive on earth. Probably the former, since the announced function of the Holy Ghost was to remind the Apostles of all that Christ had told them.

As to the other reason, "only justified men can do good works", I distinguish.

If you are in a state of mortal or original sin, you can do a work which is good in its kind, naturally, like giving alms. It does not become a sin because performed by someone not justified. It may or may not be accompanied by a sinful intention, but that is nothing to whether the man not yet justified is doing a work which is good rather than sinful.

However, if by good we mean a work which can be rewarded with eternal life, no, the man in a state of sin is not capable to such works before justification. Not works which in themselves merit eternal life, like even the least act of devotion or love of neighbour by one at present justified. Some natural habits - like that of almsgiving in the as yet pagan Eustace - may be such that God thinks "what a waste if he is not justified" and so God gives them a chance of justification, as God did to St Eustace (who also took the chance). But if St Eustace had not been baptised, had not renounced the Pagan gods, and so on, his almsgiving would still have merited some rewards on earth, but would not have given him eternal life.

Now, these two sentences are the exceptions to the rule, there were about fifty very good reasons in Catholic theology why Luther was excommunicated:

NCR : 50 Reasons Why Martin Luther Was Excommunicated
Nov. 23, 2016 : Dave Armstrong

From the list of fifty, deduct one and a half, as per above. I have read through all of the list, and agree with all of the other reasons without reservations like these. There were one or two on which I am doubtful whether Luther said that or continued saying that (he considered Confession a sacrament too, making his list of "Gospel sacraments" one of three, not just two, but that could be a later modification after 1521).

And as for reason 10, Luther actually did say that the good works as in naturally good works of a man in a state of sin were themselves sins. Which is clearly wrong. As for reason 33, I wonder if this is not a mistake for his saying Church not being able to change conditions of validity for a sacrament. Church can, like when certain modes of marriage were valid before but not after Trent, certain degrees of proximity were sometimes nullifying and sometimes not nullifying marriages, as well as an age below 14 / 12 if not dispensed, and other example, when leavened bread is invalid matter in Latin rite and unleavened bread is invalid bread in many an Eastern rite.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Feast of Immaculate Conception
of the Blessed Virgin Mary

måndag 27 november 2017

Validity (if Not Licitness) of Some, Not All, Non-Catholic Sacraments (quora)

Do Catholics believe that the bread and wine also become the body and blood of Christ during masses and services from other Christian denominations?

Answer requested by João Paulo Cavalcante

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
Answered just now
With Orthodox, Coptic and Nestorian priests, as well as some later schismatics from Catholics : yes.

With Protestants : no.

Protestantism made a point of changing the rite so as to exclude sacrifice of the Mass. This makes Protestant “masses” (Lutherans and Anglicans use the word) and “Lord’s suppers” invalid, sacrilegious and excluding the Real Presence.

This is also the case with the Protestant denominations where all (Lutherans) or a group (Anglo-Catholics among Anglicans) believe the Real Presence, as long as they use liturgies excluding Sacrifice of the Mass and clergy where ordination has not passed by a bishop in continuity with those who do believe Sacrifice of the Mass, at least, if not necessarily Catholic.

This is what Ratzinger (Antipope Benedict XVI, but correct on this one) meant when he distinguished between Churches and Ecclesial Communities outside the One True Church.