måndag 31 mars 2014

Answering Paul S. Pavao, Part I

1) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Answering Steve Rudd, 2) Great Bishop of Geneva! : Answering Paul S. Pavao, Part I

I came across Paul S. Pavao as an Old Earth Compromiser. One who considers Evolution not only OK, but even preferrable as consistent with "the laws of spiritual growth" whatever that might be. That phrase is as little from Bible or Church Fathers as Evolution. Of course the concept may repose on some misreading of the Church Fathers, as with some other Old Earth Compromisers who claim St Augustine's One Moment Creation against the Six Days and then the freedom from Six Days to depart from them in the opposite direction in an extreme way. Not quite what I consider reliable as theologians. But here I am not out to out him for his lack of Creationism, but rather for his attacks on Apostolic Succession.

The point, however, is that when a Catholic writes to me, he or she is always—I can't think of a single exception—telling me either that church history and the Bible require me to acknowledge that the RCC is the one true church ...

Church History and Matthew 28:18-20 require you to consider as the true Church the one that was in place at the day of Constantine with its legitimate successor today IN UNBROKEN SUCCESSION, and excludes:

a) the false answer that Primitive Christianity was preserved by Celtic Church and therefore independently of hierarchical Churches;

and b) the false answer that Primitive Christianity was preserved by Culdees forming a secret society.

It is true Church history which requires you to renounce as false answers what is false history. It is Holy Bible which requires you to concede an unbroken succession.

Now, there is another passage. Noone lighteth a lamp to put it under a bushel. A city on a mountain cannot be hidden.

These two items, if you concede they refer to the Church, exclude solution a) since a narrow Geographic visibility is a kind of minimum that would still leave the Church invisible to most of the world.

But they exclude solution b even clearer, since it would imply a Church that is precisely hidden and made invisible by hand of man despite the expressed will of God.

This does not leave you searching for a needle in a haystack. There is Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Monophysite in its Coptic and Armenian branch, Nestorian, none other. Monotelethites were united to Roman Catholics in Lebanon, they are called Maronites and are one of the Uniate Churches. So, they are not a fifth option. I am glad you are not considering Arians, but if you were, where were they between conversion of Visigoths in Spain and reemergence of Arianism through the two Sozzini in 1517? Eight hundred years without Church is not possible. Therefore Arianism is not possible.

There is a third false solution, which is also impossible:

c) the false answer that Primitive Christianity was preserved after its open glory UNDER Popes and Bishops who had nothing to do with so preserving it.

This is false because the hierarchy did claim obedience and because someone obeying to the eyes but disobeying only interiorly to obey God's word more would not be obeying God's word who did ask very clearly to obey, openly, Himself more than men defying Him.

And this gives us a clue to another one:

d) the false answer that Primitive Christianity was preserved by people believing as Catholics through no fault of their own while Catholicism was not Primitive Christianity.

It is false because the Church is not JUST an unbroken series of faithful but ALSO an unbroken series of open testimony to the truth.

The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

In a sense, only God is that. But in another sense of visible social causes, God has said that the Church is so.

You cannot have ignorant Catholic laymen preserving the Church under wicked Catholic bishops destroying it, and the laymen not suspecting that, because that is not a visible Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Even if ill-instructed flocks could possibly be saved each soul individually despite total collective damnation for heresy of their shepherds, this could only be a local exception, not the case all over the world or even in a larger part of it than that having openly Orthodox shepherds, for a prolonged time.

If it were true that Roman Catholic Church in all its bishops, Eastern Orthodox Church in all its bishops, Copts and Armenians in all their bishops, Nestorians in all their bishops were with one voice denying the Literal Six Days of Creation, and God resting from New Creatures definitely the Seventh (at least new types of such), if they were in one voice denying Geocentrism and other options of Geostasis all together, one could only conclude one of two things, either that Evolution and Heliocentrism were right or that the Church had succeeded in breaking a promise given by God himself. Up to now it has not happened.

One could however see the Church reduced to one bishop. Or two. Or three. For a short time, like under St Athanasius in Egypt (but Latins remained Orthodox!) until the truth was restored to its correct place (even in Egypt in our example).

So, if denial of the Catholic dogmas attacked by the Reformation were part of truth and those dogmas part of Apostasy, the Reformers would have had to point to a fairly recent point in time when nearly all bishops, but not quite without exception, had ceased to proclaim the up to recently Protestant dogma of the church.

But instead that kind of dogma is known as Protestant precisely because it was protesting against all the bishops, hardly even getting a hearing from Kyrillos Laskaris in Constantinople, and that one not received in his place either as traditional, but rather as a revolutionary, one to be deposed and repudiated. Iasi and Jerusalem repeated, not all, but most of the Trentine Council's anathematisms over Protestant errors.

In other words, without exception, every time a Roman Catholic has written me, it has been as part of an attempt to claim every Christian needs to be under the authority of the bishop of Rome.

We think indeed that Matthew 16:16-19 refer to an individual authority given St Peter and transmitted to his successors precisely in Rome where he died.

One school of Eastern Orthodox (Gregorius Palamas - Paul S. Pavao cites St Cyprian for the same attitude) agree that authority was given St Peter individually, but that he started to transmit it as soon as there were other dioceses than the one where he was residing, in other words when the Church of Samaria was added to the Church of Jerusalem.

Another school of them (often pursuing the passage only to verse 18) would claim St Peter was given authority earlier than the others, but only same as the others of the twelve. And that the authority of these is transmitted to the bishops.

I think this latter position wrong, but even that one would clearly exclude Protestantism from being the true Church or even a legitimate and regular part of it.

Because we're ignorant of early Christian history—something that was not true of Martin Luther and John Calvin—we have been deceived into believing that Catholic claims about "the church fathers" are true.

The RCC does study and promote early Christian history. Non-Catholics, not knowing history themselves, believe Roman Catholic claims, such as that the "early" fathers worshipped liturgically, elevated the sacraments the way Roman Catholicism does, and had a hierarchy of priests, bishops, archbishops, and a pope.

Early Fathers worshipped Liturgically
St James the Brother of God was first bishop after St Peter left, in Jerusalem. The oldest and richest Liturgy preserved as such is his. The liturgy of St Basil is a shorter version of that. The Liturgy of St John Chrysostom is a shorter version of that. St Peter had a shorter Liturgy in Rome, but it has become longer in the Canon up to Pope St Gregory the Great, and before and after Canon, additions have been made even later.
Early Church Fathers elevated the sacraments the way Roman Catholicism [and Eastern Orthodoxy] does.
Hermas' Shepherd gives a Prophecy going through two positions about forgiveness of sins:

  • Once in a lifetime only, by baptism. Those that sin after Baptism are lost.
  • Once by baptism, but those that sin after baptism have a second chance by Penance.

Whether or not Penance was in that particular book once only, such claims about Baptism and Penance make these practises - and they count as belonging to the list of Seven Sacraments - decisive for Forgiveness of Sins, and therefore for Salvation. How is that not elevating the sacraments? Add thereto how St Ignatius of Antioch speaks of the Eucharist.
Early Church Fathers had a Hierarchy of Priests, Bishops [Deacons] ...
St Ignatius of Antioch clearly refers to it when telling "do nothing without the bishop"
Early Church Fathers had Archbishops in their hierarchy.
I do not know, but I do not find it anyway near certain either way, though Ephesus could have been Metropolis to Smyrna, since St John the Disciple was in Ephesus and St Poilycarp of Smyrna, being in Smyrna as bishop, was disciple of him who was in Ephesus and thus came from there to Smyrna. And one can argue that Jerusalem's See was from the first Archsee to that of Samaria.
Early Church Fathers had a Pope
St Ignatius of Antioch who succeeded St Peter via St Eleutherius in Antioch refers to the contemporary Bishop of Rome (who had more intermediaries between himself and his predecessor St Peter, I think, but I could be wrong), as Presiding the Community of Christian Love (tes koinonias tes agapes). Pope St Clement was recognised in Corinth, at least as having a judicial supremacy of appeal (his first Epistle to Corinthians), and in all probability also of having so directly (if Second Epistle to Corinthians is genuine, I think it has been called into question as spurious by antipapist fury rather than for good philological reasons).

Next item from Paul S. Pavao:

The Roman Catholics argue that it is the passing down of authority. Peter, and not any other apostles, passed authority down to the first bishop of Rome, and not any other bishops, and then down to the succeeding bishops of the Roman church.

This is not what the early church believed.

To the early churches, apostolic succession was a proof of the preservation of truth within the churches.

A proof of a thing and that thing itself are usually two different things or two different facts about a single thing.

The preservation of truth is called Apostolic Tradition. It is as much a fact about the Church as Apostolic Succession. However the fact of Apostolic Succession, every diocese but foremost in Rome, is a fact which in and of itself is a fact about a succession in authority.

Peter, for example, taught the truth—the faith once for all delivered to the saints—to Linus and other elders in Rome around A.D. 60. Linus taught it to Anacletus, Anacletus taught it to Clement, and so forth.

No. All three had it from both Peter and Paul. This order is the order in which they succeeded him in position of authority.

Clement did not need to hear the truth as if the first time from Cletus. He had already heard it from Sts Peter and Paul. He had been considered a good listener and transmitter also by St Linus whom St Peter had directly choosen as successor. He had also been that under St Cletus. If in any sense the words were used implying this latter was teacher of Pope St Clement, it meant that before the latter became Pope, Cletus had been recognised as teacher of the Church where he was, unless it was indeed as Roman Catholics claim, as teacher of the truth everywhere. But that Cletus and Clement should not have known St Peter or St Paul is preposterous. It makes the tradition of truth so slender, and it is therefore a clear misunderstanding of what St Irenaeus was saying in Contra Haereses.

Catholic Encyclopedia gives one hint about his being a disciple of Saint Paul:

Origen identifies Pope Clement with St. Paul's fellow-labourer (Philippians 4:3), and so do Eusebius, Epiphanius, and Jerome — but this Clement was probably a Philippian.

How would his being a Philippian have impeded his being later on in Rome? How would his origin as a Philippian impede his being elected in Rome after he had been there some time and known as a disciple of St Paul who died along with St Peter? I also consider that "this Clement was probably a Philippian", but I see no point in placing a "but" before that and against his being Pope St Clement. Haydock Bible Commentary of 1859 comments on the verse in question, among other things:

[Verse 3 ...]With Clement. St. Jerome, Estius, and some others, believe that this Clement was the fourth pope that governed the Church, after Sts. Linus and Cletus: this at least is the common opinion.

What is this thing about "he was Philippian, so he cannot have later been Roman"? Is it Twentieth Century reliance on modern transports coupled with the knowledge that they did not exist back then?

So, no, Succession and Tradition are two distinct facts about the Church, both being part of its Apostolicity (and both being lacking in Protestantism). St Irenaeus even says so where he is quoted as somehow implying the opposite:

In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us.

Tradition or preaching of truth is thus one thing and the succession is a means for making it be there. Not identic with it.

The words that the tradition followed the same order as that of succession means that Cletus and Clement continued to listen while Linus was the great testimony to truth in the Church of Rome. And Clement waited with teaching while Cletus was doing it after Linus. Not at all that Clement was somehow ignorant of Christianity until he met Cletus, or Cletus until he met Linus as Linus had been until meeting either St Peter or St Paul or both or someone else (St Barnabas was in Italy too). Therefore Paul S. Pavao is just misreading the authority he is giving.

Saying that a Church that is Apostolic, i e has Apostolic Succession as its authority of action, is a witness to Tradition is not in any way a detraction of the fact that they are also enjoying to be Ruled by Successors of Apostles.

To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time

Succession does not mean they only heard of the truth from Polycarp. In some cases it may be so, in other cases perhaps not. It means each of them - up to the time of St Irenaeus who himself was not directly a disciple of Apostles, but only via Polycarp of St John - was in his turn bishop in Smyrna where Polycarp had been so up to his martyrdom.

Then again, the church in Ephesus, founded by Paul and having John remaining with them permanently until the times of Trajan [began his reign in A.D. 98], is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.

Founding suggests very much a community with a real authority.

Will Tertullian (not a Saint, not a Church Father, but an early author) help our author better? He cites him:

We have fellowship with the apostolic churches because our doctrine is not in any way different from theirs. This is our witness of truth.

He is not saying this is only functioning as witness of truth and as nothing else. He is saying this is his witness of truth even before the texts and proof texts of the Bible, at least insofar as it is through this that he understands them.

Run over to the apostolic churches, in which the very chairs of the apostles are still preeminent in their places

To me a preeminent chair suggests a throne.

There is a cultural loan from the Roman administration very likely here. Certain magistrates of the Republic were sitting in Sella Curulis. It was a chair, it was even a chair that was possible to fold and carry, so physically a simple chair. But it had some distinct decorations meaning no one could sit in it unless he had a command in Rome.

If Sts Peter and Paul, Sts Barnabas and John were using chairs only as objects of daily use, why should it matter if their chairs were there when they were not? Why should their chairs have any kind of eminence? You can suggest they were valuable as relics of the second degree (precisely as the Scapular of St Theresa of Avila is a relic of the second degree of her - first degree being body or parts of it), and that the cult of relics had started already when a handkerchief that had touched St Paul could heal a sick man and was continuing. You can suggest that the chairs were reserved, so that the next man who sat in that chair was the next man who exercised that command. Or you can say that both things were true of these Chairs that had belonged to Apostles and were still preeminent in their Churches.

in which their own authentic writings are read. These utter the voice and represent the face of each of them individually.

Their own authentic writings. This very probably means the manuscripts of each New Testament book were still extant where the Apostles had placed them. These were venerated as relics - once again - up to the Iconoclastic Controversy in Byzantium, in which they were lost or destroyed along with so much else due to the fury of persecuting Emperors.

It could suggest that certain books were not known as part of the collection called the New Testament yet, but known mainly as genuine because they remained in place. Precisely as in United States the Declaration of Independence still remains in place. Or the Bill of Rights. But even if the New Testament was already a collection identic or near so with minor fluctuations, we see in Tertullian what the criterium was. The hierarchic structure of the Church, Apostolic Churches having preeminence over others, was the ultimate practical guarantee for the texts being genuine. Precisely as the hierarchic priesthood of the Old Testament had been for preserving the Torah and for recognising to the Book of Joshua, to the Book of Job, to the Book of Judges, and this for each part of it while it was being successively chronicled, and same for Ruth and the Four Books of Kings, the character of genuine Sacred Scripture.

In the late 2nd and early 3rd century, apostolic succession was a great argument.

After all, who really understands the Scriptures and the message of the apostles? Is it not those who are directly descended—spiritually speaking—from those to whom the apostles committed their message and the churches themselves?

However, to argue that apostolic succession has faithfully and accurately preserved apostolic tradition for two thousand years, including throughout the massively corrupt Middle Ages is quite a different issue.

Calling the Middle Ages "massively corrupt" is begging the question how he is supposed to know that. Especially as the same centuries are not only "massively corrupt" among Latins, apparently, but also among Greeks, Copts, Armenians, Nestorians - or otherwise Paul would simply have said teh Church was preserved, not in Rome but in Ethiopia, not in Rome but in Babylon on Euphrates, not in Rome but around the lake Van. But that is not Protestantism. That would not imply a connexion primarily with the Reformation. Which Paul S. Pavao does show. But more of that later. I have however previously on this blog dealt with massively corrupt or supposedly so Middle Ages.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Memory of St Amos the Prophet

Thecuae, in Palaestina, sancti Amos Prophetae, qui ab Amasia Sacerdote frequenter plagis afflictus est, atque ab hujus filio Ozia vecte per tempora transfixus; et postea, semivivus in patriam devectus, ibidem exspiravit, sepultusque est cum patribus suis.

Citing From:

Christian History - Roman Catholicism
By Paul S. Pavao

Christian History - Apostolic Succession
By Paul S. Pavao

New Advent : Catholic Encyclopedia > C > Pope St. Clement I

St. Irenæus (III, iii) tells us that Clement "saw the blessed Apostles and conversed with them, and had yet ringing in his ears the preaching of the Apostles and had their tradition before his eyes, and not he only for many were then surviving who had been taught y the Apostles".

New Advent : Catholic Encyclopedia > Making of the Catholic Encyclopedia (1917)

Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.

Note on Cletus/Anacletus:

Anenkletos is the Greek name. Cletus is a Latin shorter form, and "it is more Christian". So is the Greek Anacletus. Kletos means "called", as Latin vocatus, and "ana kletos" means "called upwards". Two articles might clarify.

fredag 21 mars 2014

Rejecting Pelagius and Calvin

1) Great Bishop of Geneva! : Rejecting Pelagius and Calvin, 2) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : In Agreement with CMI on Authorship of Genesis

I was just reading how on CMI* they were referring to Church Councils:

Bible scholars at the time of Pelagius recognized the contradiction between his teachings and Scripture. As a result, Pelagianism was condemned as heretical at many church councils including the Councils of Carthage (in 412, 416 and 418), the Council of Ephesus (431) and the Council of Orange (529).

While we are at those, let us not forget:

  • Council of Francfurt (794) dogmatising God predestines no one to evil, followed up by Trent (1545 - 63) when condemning Lutheranism and Calvinism.

  • II Council of Nice (or Nicea, 787) dogmatising that images of the God-Man Jesus Christ, of His Blessed Mother, images and relics of the Cross and so on may variously be honoured with direct or relative cult of:

    • Adoration (since Jesus is true God, we adore Him, as is also the case with the Cross which was united to Him for Our Salvation, which is also the case with what was previously bread and wine but after the Epiclesis is His Body and His Blood),
    • Hyperdulia (for His Mother, the Blessed Virgin Mary),
    • Dulia (for other saints).

    It was, at Francfurt, accepted only with reservations. The Pope condemned neither council.

There were, by the way, two councils of Orange. If the other one had been later than the one condemning Pelagianism and Semi-pelagianism in 529, I could understand how a Protestant could possibly think there was some kind of "apostasy to papism" in between. You know the kind of thing that Mormons posit just after the death of the Apostles, other Protestants variously at Constantine (2 centuries before the relevant council of Orange), at Pope St Leo I called the Great (precisely at Ephesus!) or at Pope St Gregory I called the Great, a little later than the relevant council of Orange. Also the kind of thing that according to Matthew 28:18-20 can never have happened at a universal scale.

But in fact the "other" Council of Orange is earlier, not later. The First Council of Orange was in 441.

The First Council of Orange (or First Synod of Orange) was held at Orange, then part of the Western Roman Empire, in 441.

The first council of Orange took place on 8 November 441 under the presidency of Bishop Hilary of Arles, with Bishop Eucherius of Lyons among those present. Seventeen bishops attended the meeting. Thirty canons (or judgements) were passed, dealing with unction, the Permission of penance, the right of asylum; recommending caution to bishops in the ordination of foreign clergy, the consecration of churches outside of their own jurisdictions, and other matters; imposing limitations on the administration of ecclesiastical rites to those who were in any way defective, either in body or mind; and emphasizing the duty of celibacy for those belonging to the clerical state, especially deacons and widows, with express reference to canon viii. of the Synod of Turin (AD 401). The exact interpretation of some of them (ii., iii., xvii.) is doubtful. Canon iv. is alleged to be in conflict with a decretal of Pope Siricius; and ii. and xviii. betray an inclination to resist the introduction of Roman customs. These canons were confirmed at the Synods of Arles about 443.

The canons of the first council are often cited in the contemporary debates over the ordination of women to the ministry.

So, the guys who assembled at Carthage, Ephesus, Orange, condemning Pelagianism, were they Bible Scholars in general or were they bishops as in Roman Catholic (or possibly Greek Orthodox) clergy?

But of course I do agree that BioLogos foundation is by denying the very existence of the Adam who was seventy two generations before Jesus Christ (genealogy of St Luke) is also denying the exact and correct consequences of Adam's sin.

Since however I consider both Pelagius and Calvin faulty in analysing those, I must conclude that BioLogos foundation risks reviving both Pelagian and Calvinist errors.

I saw, on another article of CMI**, Dr Jonathan Sarfati make a very good and Thomistic pronounce- ment about the Eutyphro dilemma. He said that the expressed will of God is good, since God is by His very nature goodness, and uncapable of ordering evil. I am not sure, and it is at least reputed among Traditional Catholics agreeing with him, that John Calvin was not in agreement with us. And obviously this is one way in which a kind of Calvinism (or perhaps rather a certain school of Islam, if John Calvin would be innocent of the charge, I have not checked) could creep in through evolutionism. If "god" expresses himself with Evolution, and if ... well first of all we might not yet be sufficiently evolved to be attuned to the Natural Law (even while breaking it as sinners) if there is one, but ... if "good" also means "whatever the divine decrees", then we would have to take good as meaning "whatever Evolution decrees". And since biologic evolution is not the only sense of the word, since Human Morals are supposed to be a product of Evolution, at least indirectly so through a reasoning process which higher evolved men have better capacities for than less evolved apes, well, I suppose you can guess what BioLogos might be doing (or arguing) at the next turn. Or perhaps is already doing so.

Meanwhile, as a colleague of CMI, except I am not clergy and do not pretend at "ministries" outside or independent of clergy, I am a writer, but as a fellow creationist, though often less informed [individually] than they are [taken] together on scientific subjects of great note, I say as they did when citing a reader:*

As one supporter said, “You keep making the bullets and we’ll keep firing them.” It will take effort from truth-loving Christians everywhere to stand up and accurately and patiently, with humility, refute error.

However, they were wrong to cite Thomas Bradwardine:

However, Pelagianism continued to influence the Church after Augustine and even saw a ‘revival’ through the influential lectures of William of Ockham at Oxford University in the early 14th century. As before, God raised up scholars and teachers to stand against error and teach truth. Thomas Bradwardine was a voice for truth responding to Ockham’s Pelagian views at Oxford.

He was, like they, a great genius in Natural Philosophy or what is today known as Natural Science. He has however not been canonised.

Chaucer in The Nun's Priest's Tale (line 476) ranks Bradwardine with Augustine and Boethius. His great theological work, to modern eyes, is a treatise against the Pelagians, entitled De causa Dei contra Pelagium et de virtute causarum. Bradwardine's major treatise argued that space was an infinite void in which God could have created other worlds, which he would rule as he ruled this one. The "causes of virtue" include the influences of the planets, not as predestining a human career, but influencing a subject's essential nature. This astrophysical treatise was not published until it was edited by Sir Henry Savile and printed in London, 1618; its circulation in manuscript was very limited. The implications of the infinite void were revolutionary; to have pursued them would have threatened the singular relationship of man and this natural world to God (Cantor 2001); in it he treated theology mathematically. He wrote also De Geometria speculativa (printed at Paris, 1530); De Arithmetica practica (printed at Paris, 1502); De proportionibus velocitatum in motibus (1328) (printed at Paris, 1495; Venice, 1505); De Quadratura Circuli (Paris, 1495); and an Ars Memorative, Sloane manuscripts. No. 3974 in the British Museum—earning from the Pope the title of the Profound Doctor. Another text, De Continuo is more tenuously credited to him and thought to be written sometime between 1328 and 1325.

Of course I agree that "God could have created other worlds, which he would rule as he ruled this one." I do not agree that space is an infinite void in which God could have done so. But he promoted a kind of Calvinism, and this also in Astrological terms, which I am happy did not sully an episcopal see, but that rather he died of the plague. The fact that he was confirmed as bishop by a Pope seems to indicate either that he was as yet incomprehensible in some of his implications or that there was a trough of Papal Orthodoxy. Since looking up Clement VI, I think rather the former.

Clement VI issued the Bull Unigenitus Dei filius on 27 January 1343 to justify the power of the pope and the use of indulgences. This document would later be used in the defence of indulgences after Martin Luther pinned his 95 Theses to a church in Wittenberg on 31 October 1517.

Clement VI reigned during the period of the Black Death. This pandemic swept through Europe (as well as Asia and the Middle East) between 1347 and 1350 and is believed to have killed between a third and two-thirds of Europe's population. During the plague, Clement sought the insight of astronomers for explanation. Johannes de Muris was among the team "of three who drew up a treatise explaining the plague of 1348 by the conjunction of Saturn, Jupiter, and Mars in 1341" Clement VI's physicians advised him that surrounding himself with torches would block the plague. However, he soon became skeptical of this recommendation and stayed in Avignon supervising sick care, burials, and the pastoral care of the dying. He never contracted the disease, even though there was so much death around him that the cities ran out of ground for cemeteries, and he had to consecrate the entire Rhone River so bodies could be thrown into it and considered to be buried in holy ground. One of his physicians, Gui de Chauliac, later wrote the Chirurgia magna.

Popular opinion blamed the Jews for the plague, and pogroms erupted throughout Europe. Clement issued two papal bulls in 1348 (6 July and 26 September) which condemned the violence and said those who blamed the plague on the Jews had been "seduced by that liar, the Devil." He urged clergy to take action to protect Jews as he had done.

Clement continued the struggle of his predecessors with Holy Roman Emperor Louis IV. He excommunicated him after protracted negotiations on 13 April 1346 and directed the election of Charles IV, who received general recognition after the death of Louis in October 1347, ending the schism which had long divided Germany. Clement proclaimed a crusade in 1343, but nothing was accomplished beyond a naval attack on Smyrna on 29 October 1344. He also had a role in the Hungarian invasion of the Kingdom of Naples, namely a papal fief; the contest between Louis I of Hungary and Joan I of Naples, accused to have ordered the assassination of the former's brother, was ended in 1352 by a trial held in Avignon, by which she was acquitted from any charge. Among the other benefits, Clement took advantage of the situation to obtain by her the rights over the city of Avignon.

The man who ordained Bradwardine as bishop issued an Indulgence and excommunicated an Emperor. Hmmm ... would Fangrad* perhaps consider it a fluke that Bradwardine "defended truth"?

I have elsewhere talked about the traditional early Christian indulgenced actions for the dead. And excommunicating an Emperor had been done by St Ambrose - one generation of Christians before Sts Augustine and Jerome.

I cannot see how someone can accept evidence from Tradition against Pelagianism from Bradwardine without accepting evidence from Tradition against Calvinism in certain other contexts from Clement VI. I cannot see how one can accept evidence from Second Council of Orange against Calvinism without accepting evidence from First Council of Orange against Presbyteranism. I cannot see how one can accept evidence from St Augustine against Pelagianism without accepting evidence from St Ambrose that even an Emperor can be excommunicated, can be judged by the Church if he is at all a Christian. And so an as also previously noted that if one accepts evidence from II Orange 529 against Pelagianism, one accepts evidence from Francfurt 794 against Calvinism, and from II Nice and Francfurt against Iconoclasm. And from Trent summing this up.

I am as much a Creationist as Fangrad.* I think he would be a more logical one if he were as much a Catholic as I.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Bennet of Monte Cassino


* CMI : BioLogos, theistic evolution and the Pelagian heresy Debating an historical Adam and the destruction of the Gospel
by Richard Fangrad
Published: 22 March 2014

** What is ‘good’? (Answering the Euthyphro Dilemma) Published: 5 May 2007

Wiki references given in text by links. For the part about Pope Clement VI, four references, of which first two same pages, same work, are:

  • Diana Wood, Clement VI: The Pontificate and Ideas of an Avignon Pope (Cambridge University Press, 1989), 32-33.
  • Andrew Tomasello, Music and Ritual at the Papal Court of Avignon 1309–1403, 15.
  • Eamon Duffy, Saints & Sinners, a History of the Popes, 2nd edition, 167.

lördag 15 mars 2014

Congratulating Lita Cosner on agreeing basically with StThomas Aquinas

1) Creation vs. Evolution : If some pseudo-orthodox thinks Patristic and Literal interpretation of Genesis are incompatible ..., 2) CMI on Allegorical Method - Answered, 3) Literal Sense vs Literalistic Approach, Allegoric Sense vs Figurative Approach, 4) Great Bishop of Geneva! : Congratulating Lita Cosner on agreeing basically with StThomas Aquinas, 5) Mark Shea's Understanding of Scripture, 6) HGL's F.B. writings : Neither Sungenis nor Palm is totally right on Psalm 18 (Sungenis is less off)

CMI : Are there side issues in Scripture?
And if so, should we be focusing on something more important?
Published: 15 March 2014 by Lita Cosner

St Thomas distinguishes between the kind of issue that tells us directly the Christian donctrine, like the 12/14 (I have heard of both enumerations) points of the Apostle's Creed, and the kind of things that happened while this doctrine was being revealed.

The latter does not need to be studied and known by everybody. But everybody who does in fact know such a thing from Scripture is also obliged to believe it.

If one knows that at age 101 Abraham had two sons, one getting adolescent or something, and one born last year, according to Scripture, and if one yet refuses to believe it, then one becomes guilty against the faith. If it is not of sufficient importance "ex parte revelati" (from the point of view of the thing revealed), it is so "ex parte revelantis" (considering who it is who is revealing it, namely God who cannot be in error and who cannot be fooling us).

I can imagine St Thomas arguing with a man who says, time after time, "no, you are wrong, Abraham did not have two sons" and suspecting him of heresy, only to find out he meant something as obvious as the fact that Abraham after being a widower remarried and had even more sons than the two. Then St Thomas would blithely have answered that the man was so far correct that Abraham did have a few sons with Keturah as well, but this does not preclude that at a given age, before that, he had exactly two sons, and those were the most relevant for a point St Paul was making about Agar and Sara, about the two convenants, about Synagogue and Church. Now, the kind of heresy we speak of here is what he called "secondary heresy".

Primary heresy would be:

  • [sense 0] against belief in a God who is and who rewards those who seek him;
  • 1) against the points of the Apostles' Creed (which includes the first of above in the first article and the second in "inde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos");
  • or 2) against the points of a Council of the Church dogmatising about a matter where - as with Arius - something that might possibly have been just a secondary heresy was found to imply a primary one, consistently. I am pretty proud to honour St Nicholas who went across the hall of the Council and who slapped Arius.

Now, St Thomas said that the circumstances through which the articles of the creed were revealed made them historically sure and sure as historically sufficiently accurate for basing a faith on. That is true. But one may go even further, not sure St Thomas did not do so himself, and say that as "all Scripture is useful", even if a certain thing is not in itself vital for the salvation of each Christian, that he know and believe it, it is certainly, if in the 73 books of the Bible (Synagogue having arbitrarily shortened the Old Testament, meaning that a 66 book list is shilly-shallying between Church - by accepting New Testament at all - and Synagogue - by not accepting of the Old Testament anything beyon what the Synagogue accepts as canonic), vital for the salvation or correction in a salvation or merit related issue of at least someone.

Can you imagine anything less interesting for a man's salvation than the fact that Jacob and Esau had the same horoscope? And yet it was vital to make St Augustine understand what Stephen Tempier was later obliged to defend against Averroists : our souls and their characteristics and movements, whether involuntary or voluntary, are not the product of the stars.

Obviously, in an era when belief in Horoscopes were on the rising, it would be idiotic to say "well, Jacob holding the heel of Esau while they were being born, that is not in the creed, we could agree it is a pretty story, telling us something of how they differred as characters, but it must be a factually erroneous one, or a fiction that mistakenly became regarded as part of the factual history". It would be idiotic, because we know at least one man who was saved from heresy and damnation by reading it and eventually rejecting Horoscopes as so much error based pseudo-prediction. St Augustine.

The story of Jacob and Esau was in fact not just a matter of detailing how we have come to know God's will for his people, for the Church. In case some believe Horoscopes, they may very well need to ditch that error in order to believe that "God is a rewarder of those seeking him". And the story of Jacob and Esau comes handy.

Up to 1958, the Catholic Church had not specifically condemned Evolution, except insofar as it was thought to apply to man's mind as well as to his body, or insofar as it was inconsistent with a historical Adam. It had even issued some warrants - warrants that were taken as implying a warrant to actually believe those things, but actually stated rather as a warrant to defend both parties in a controversy. I think it had already condemned evolution as well as Heliocentrism indirectly, insofar as either of them implies an exegesis of Bible passages universally absent from Church Fathers dealing with them. Namely at Trent.

In that same council it was however also made a primary heresy (sense two of those noted above) to deny that all 72 books, or 73 if Baruch is counted as distinct from Jeremiah, are inspired by God and therefore in the original manuscript at least of each book totally inerrant and in the Vulgate version at least infallible as to doctrines to be drawn from them.

So, it would be sorry if Lita stayed with only 66 books. Especially since she is so right on other grounds.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Mouffetard Library
(after an ignored renaming)
St Longinus Martyred in
Cappadocian Caesarea

PS: One issue where Evolution acceptance would be damaging to the Faith and to Salvation of people is the question, also for Astrology acceptance, where that scenario leaves human freedom. Ken Miller claims we must accept uniformitarianism because God cherishes the freedom of "secondary causes". But the human will is in itself a secondary cause. Let us not attribute so much freedom to electrons or genes that man in which they function looses his freedom!/HGL

tisdag 11 mars 2014

Where is Papist in Bible Code?

1) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : How the name of Our Lord was transliterated into Greek., 2) Great Bishop of Geneva! : Where is Papist in Bible Code?, 3) Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : The Most Precious Name of Jesus - Two More Aspects, or Three

I looked up the site Bible Code Wisdom. Simple search for Papist:*


Verses in Matrix
The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel 40:48
"Then he brought me to the porch of the house, and measured each post of the porch, five cubits on this side, and five cubits on that side and the breadth of the gate was three cubits on this side, and three cubits on that side."

In related searches I chose to look also for God:**


Verses in Matrix
The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel 40:44
"And without the inner gate were chambers for the singers in the inner court, which was at the side of the north gate and their prospect was toward the south one at the side of the east gate having the prospect toward the north."

The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel 40:45
"And he said unto me, This chamber, whose prospect is toward the south, is for the priests, the keepers of the charge of the house"

The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel 40:46
"and the chamber whose prospect is toward the north is for the priests, the keepers of the charge of the altar these are the sons of Zadok, who from among the sons of Levi come near to Jehovah to minister unto him."

The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel 40:47
"And he measured the court, a hundred cubits long, and a hundred cubits broad, foursquare and the altar was before the house."

The Book of the Prophet Ezekiel 40:48
"Then he brought me to the porch of the house, and measured each post of the porch, five cubits on this side, and five cubits on that side and the breadth of the gate was three cubits on this side, and three cubits on that side."

There is no other place in the King James Bible (used by Bible Code Wisdom) for the word Papist. In Hezekiel 40 verse 48, its P is the P of Porch. And in Hezekiel 40 verse 44, the G of God is the G of Gate. Does this tell you something?

Now, where God and the Church is, Jesus ought to be also. Look what Zadok means:***

Zadok meaning and name origin

Zadok \z(a)-dok\ as a boy's name is pronounced ZAY-dok. It is of Hebrew origin, and the meaning of Zadok is "just, righteous". Biblical: a priest who showed great courage during the reigns of the first three kings of Israel.

Zadok has 2 variant forms: Zadoc and Zaydok.

Baby names that sound like Zadok are Sadiki and Sadeeki.

In the Advent Liturgy there is a Psalm that goes "Rorate Caeli desuper, et nubes pluant justum." This longing has been fulfilled, once and for all, in Jesus. In all Romance languages, including for these two words also the English language,° which through the Norman Conquest became romanized, Jesus and Just start with the same consonant. A Iod in Latin, an Arabic Djeem in Italian, Old French, English. A kind of "zh" in Old Spanish and Modern French. A Shin in Renaissance Spanish. And for Spanish as pronounced now, a "kh". Always spelling it with a letter identic to Iod.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BU Nanterre
St Euthymius of Sardis
Martyr for Veneration
of Images

* Matches for: papist
Match: 1 of 1

** Matches for: papist god
Match: 1 of 1

*** Read more at Think Baby Names: Zadok [boy], meaning

° But excluding perhaps the Roumanian one, I think its form for Jesus is influenced by Church Slavonic.

tisdag 4 mars 2014

Has Richard Bennet overdone his interpretation of Canon Law?

At 39:04 of a video Presenting Papacy as Antichrist (which is very stupid even if Bergoglio should be it) Richard Bennet referred to certain canons of the 1983 code.

Codex Iuris Canonici 1983 Canon Law as given by Vatican site
The groups of canons referred to by Richard Bennet
Canon 1370. § 1. Qui vim physicam in Romanum Pontificem adhibet, in excommunicationem latae sententiae Sedi Apostolicae reservatam incurrit, cui, si clericus sit, alia poena, non exclusa dimissione e statu clericali, pro delicti gravitate addi potest. Can. 1370 §1. A person who uses physical force against the Roman Pontiff incurs a latae sententiae excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See; if he is a cleric, another penalty, not excluding dismissal from the clerical state, can be added according to the gravity of the delict.
2. Qui id agit in eum qui episcopali charactere pollet, in interdictum latae sententiae et, si sit clericus, etiam in suspensionem latae sententiae incurrit. §2. A person who does this against a bishop incurs a latae sententiae interdict and, if he is a cleric, also a latae sententiae suspension.
§ 3. Qui vim physicam in clericum vel religiosum adhibet in fidei vel Ecclesiae vel ecclesiasticae potestatis vel ministerii contemptum, iusta poena puniatur. §3. A person who uses physical force against a cleric or religious out of contempt for the faith, the Church, ecclesiastical power, or the ministry is to be punished with a just penalty.
Canon 1371. Iusta poena puniatur: Can. 1371 The following are to be punished with a just penalty:
1° qui, praeter casum de quo in can. 1364 § 1, doctrinam a Romano Pontifice vel a Concilio Oecumenico damnatam docet vel doctrinam, de qua in can. 750 § 2 vel in can. 752, pertinaciter respuit, et ab Apostolica Sede vel ab Ordinario admonitus non retractat; 1/ in addition to the case mentioned in ⇒ can. 1364, §1, a person who teaches a doctrine condemned by the Roman Pontiff or an ecumenical council or who obstinately rejects the doctrine mentioned in ⇒ can. 750, §2 or in ⇒ can. 752 and who does not retract after having been admonished by the Apostolic See or an ordinary;
2° qui aliter Sedi Apostolicae, Ordinario, vel Superiori legitime praecipienti vel prohibenti non obtemperat, et post monitum in inoboedientia persistit. 2/ a person who otherwise does not obey a legitimate precept or prohibition of the Apostolic See, an ordinary, or a superior and who persists in disobedience after a warning.
Canon 1372. Qui contra Romani Pontificis actum ad Concilium Oecumenicum vel ad Episcoporum collegium recurrit censura puniatur. Can. 1372 A person who makes recourse against an act of the Roman Pontiff to an ecumenical council or the college of bishops is to be punished with a censure.
One of them points back to a somewhat previous canon
Canon 1364. § 1. Apostata a fide, haereticus vel schismaticus in excommunicationem latae sententiae incurrit, firmo praescripto can. 194 § 1, n. 2; clericus praeterea potest poenis, de quibus in can. 1336 § 1, nn. 1, 2 et 3, puniri. Can. 1364 §1. Without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 194, §1, n. 2, an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication; in addition, a cleric can be punished with the penalties mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 1, 2, and 3.
§ 2. Si diuturna contumacia vel scandali gravitas postulet, aliae poenae addi possunt, non excepta dimissione e statu clericali. §2. If contumacy of long duration or the gravity of scandal demands it, other penalties can be added, including dismissal from the clerical state.
Definitions about our submission to Church in matters of belief, as of Canon Law (?)
Canon 750. § 1. Fide divina et catholica ea omnia credenda sunt quae verbo Dei scripto vel tradito, uno scilicet fidei deposito Ecclesiae commisso, continentur, et insimul ut divinitus revelata proponuntur, sive ab Ecclesiae magisterio sollemni, sive ab eius magisterio ordinario et universali; quod quidem communi adhaesione christifidelium sub ductu sacri magisterii manifestatur; tenentur igitur omnesquascumque devitare doctrinas iisdem contrarias. Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.
§ 2. Firmiter etiam amplectenda ac retinenda sunt omnia et singula quae circa doctrinam de fide vel moribus ab Ecclesiae magisterio definitive proponuntur, scilicet quae ad idem fidei depositum sancte custodiendum et fideliter exponendum requiruntur; ideoque doctrinae Ecclesiae catholicae adversatur qui easdem propositiones definitive tenendas recusat. §2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firmly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Canon 751. Dicitur haeresis, pertinax, post receptum baptismum, alicuius veritatis fide divina et catholica credendae denegatio, aut de eadem pertinax dubitatio; apostasia, fidei christianae ex toto repudiatio; schisma, subiectionis Summo Pontifici aut communionis cum Ecclesiae membris eidem subditis detrectatio. Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.
Canon 752. Non quidem fidei assensus, religiosum tamen intellectus et voluntatis obsequium praestandum est doctrinae, quam sive Summus Pontifex sive Collegium Episcoporum de fide vel de moribus enuntiant, cum magisterium authenticum exercent, etsi definitivo actu eandem proclamare non intendant; christifideles ergo devitare curent quae cum eadem non congruant. Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.
About removal from office
Canon 192. Ab officio quis amovetur sive decreto ab auctoritate competenti legitime edito, servatis quidem iuribus forte ex contractu quaesitis, sive ipso iure ad normam can. 194. Can. 192 A person is removed from office either by a decree issued legitimately by competent authority, without prejudice to rights possibly acquired by contract, or by the law itself according to the norm of ⇒ can. 194.
Canon 193. § 1. Ab officio quod alicui confertur ad tempus indefinitum, non potest quis amoveri nisi ob graves causas atque servato procedendi modo iure definito. Can. 193 §1. A person cannot be removed from an office conferred for an indefinite period of time except for grave causes and according to the manner of proceeding defined by law.
§ 2. Idem valet, ut quis ab officio, quod alicui ad tempus determinatum confertur, ante hoc tempus elapsum amoveri possit, firmo praescripto can. 624 § 3. §2. The same is valid for the removal of a person from an office conferred for a definite period of time before this time has elapsed, without prejudice to the prescript of ⇒ can. 624, §3.
§ 3. Ab officio quod, secundum iuris praescripta, alicui confertur ad prudentem discretionem auctoritatis competentis, potest quis iusta ex causa, de iudicio eiusdem auctoritatis, amoveri. §3. A person upon whom an office is conferred at the prudent discretion of a competent authority according to the prescripts of the law can, upon the judgment of the same authority, be removed from that office for a just cause.
§ 4. Decretum amotionis, ut effectum sortiatur, scripto intimandum est. §4. To take effect, the decree of removal must be communicated in writing.
Canon 194. § 1. Ipso iure ab officio ecclesiastico amovetur: Can. 194 §1. The following are removed from an ecclesiastical office by the law itself:
1° qui statum clericalem amiserit; 1/ a person who has lost the clerical state;
2° qui a fide catholica aut a communione Ecclesiae publice defecerit; 2/ a person who has publicly defected from the Catholic faith or from the communion of the Church;
3° clericus qui matrimonium etiam civile tantum attentaverit. 3/ a cleric who has attempted marriage even if only civilly.
§ 2. Amotio, de qua in nn. 2 et 3, urgeri tantum potest, si de eadem auctoritatis competentis declaratione constet. §2. The removal mentioned in nn. 2 and 3 can be enforced only if it is established by the declaration of a competent authority.
Canon 195. Si quis, non quidem ipso iure, sed per decretum auctoritatis competentis ab officio amoveatur quo eiusdem subsistentiae providetur, eadem auctoritas curet ut ipsius subsistentiae per congruum tempus prospiciatur, nisi aliter provisum sit. Can. 195 If a person is removed not by the law itself but by a decree of competent authority from an office which provides the person’s support, the same authority is to take care that the support is provided for a suitable period, unless other provision is made.
About punishments of expiatory character
Canon 1336. § 1. Poenae expiatoriae, quae delinquentem afficere possunt aut in perpetuum aut in tempus praefinitum aut in tempus indeterminatum, praeter alias, quas forte lex constituerit, hae sunt: Can. 1336 §1. In addition to other penalties which the law may have established, the following are expiatory penalties which can affect an offender either perpetually, for a prescribed time, or for an indeterminate time:
1° prohibitio vel praescriptio commorandi in certo loco vel territorio; 1/ a prohibition or an order concerning residence in a certain place or territory;
2° privatio potestatis, officii, muneris, iuris, privilegii, facultatis, gratiae, tituli, insignis, etiam mere honorifici; 2/ privation of a power, office, function, right, privilege, faculty, favor, title, or insignia, even merely honorary;
3° prohibitio ea exercendi, quae sub n. 2 recensentur, vel prohibitio ea in certo loco vel extra certum locum exercendi; quae prohibitiones numquam sunt sub poena nullitatis; 3/ a prohibition against exercising those things listed under n. 2, or a prohibition against exercising them in a certain place or outside a certain place; these prohibitions are never under pain of nullity;
4° translatio poenalis ad aliud officium; 4/ a penal transfer to another office;
5° dimissio e statu clericali. 5/ dismissal from the clerical state.
§ 2. Latae sententiae eae tantum poenae expiatoriae esse possunt, quae in § 1, n. 3 recensentur. §2. Only those expiatory penalties listed in §1, n. 3 can be latae sententiae.
Canon 1337. § 1. Prohibitio commorandi in certo loco vel territorio sive clericos sive religiosos afficere potest; praescriptio autem commorandi, clericos saeculares et, intra limites constitutionum, religiosos. Can. 1337 §1. A prohibition against residing in a certain place or territory can affect both clerics and religious; however, the order to reside in a certain place or territory can affect secular clerics and, within the limits of the constitutions, religious.
§ 2. Ut praescriptio commorandi in certo loco vel territorio irrogetur, accedat oportet consensus Ordinarii illius loci, nisi agatur de domo extradioecesanis quoque clericis paenitentibus vel emendandis destinata. §2. To impose an order to reside in a certain place or territory requires the consent of the ordinary of that place unless it is a question of a house designated for clerics doing penance or being rehabilitated even from outside the diocese.
Canon 1338. § 1. Privationes et prohibitiones, quae in can. 1336 § 1, nn. 2 et 3 recensentur, numquam afficiunt potestates, officia, munera, iura, privilegia, facultates, gratias, titulos, insignia, quae non sint sub potestate Superioris poenam constituentis. Can. 1338 §1. The privations and prohibitions listed in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, nn. 2 and 3, never affect powers, offices, functions, rights, privileges, faculties, favors, titles, or insignia which are not subject to the power of the superior who establishes the penalty.
§ 2. Potestatis ordinis privatio dari nequit, sed tantum prohibitio eam vel aliquos eius actus exercendi; item dari nequit privatio graduum academicorum. §2. Privation of the power of orders is not possible but only a prohibition against exercising it or some of its acts; likewise, privation of academic degrees is not possible.
§ 3. De prohibitionibus, quae in can. 1336 § 1, n. 3 indicantur, norma servanda est, quae de censuris datur in can. 1335. §3. The norm given in ⇒ can. 1335 for censures must be observed for the prohibitions listed in ⇒ can. 1336, §1, n. 3.

Two observations.

One is that unlike me Richard Bennet has been ordained a Catholic priest and he has therefore incurred the penalties of removal from office, and unlike me Richard Bennet has defected from the Catholic Faith and Communion, not just into Eastern Schism with which the same Vatican is being so ecumenical, but into positive heresies. One of his videos is very probably a real repudiation of the Holy Mass and certainly his repudiation of what he understood the doctrine to be.

He is so old, he was around as a Catholic priest in Vatican II event in Rome, I do not think he can be expected to have been badly taught or to repudiate what is not in fact the Catholic doctrine.

The point - which is my other observation here - is that none of these Canons includes anything like death penalty for heresy or apostasy, except insofar as excommunication is a kind of spiritual death. Now, death penalty for heresy was not at all unheard of, but it was in the normal theological theory a civil penalty. When English Catholic bishops burned Lollards, they did so according to a law of the English parliament from 1401, as far as I know it was not Papacy that insisted on it, but Lollards had in the decade before made themselves so unpopular by the twelve conclusions (or were they thirteen) that the decision was pretty speontaneous from the House of Commoners and House of Lords. Precisely as when Catholics were executed at Tyburn or killed in Ireland the decision there too did not come from Rome.

None of the canons even mentions holding someone prisoner against his will, though it is mentioned that ecclesiastical prison is one expiatory penalty.

The canon about it does not specify whether the Church as such can or cannot hold an ecclesiastical offender, a cleric or monk who has offended, in prison through physical force. In traditional doctrine the Church does have that right. Or even with laymen guilty of heresy or magic or blasphemy. Or needing exorcism.

St Ignatius of Loyola was a prisoner of the Inquisition three times, and he was acquitted three times, the third time with injunction to give no spiritual guidance (specifically about the difference between venial and mortal sins) without having first studied to priesthood. St John of the Cross was a prisoner somewhere too and ran away. This did not make him a man hunted by the Spanish justice, however.

The canon 752 is a bit tricky. When it comes to things not openly contradicting Faith and Morals, neither in verbal coflict with any passage of the Bible nor with passage after passage from Church Father after Church Father, it may seem reasonable. Except for the clause "even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act" if taken as I suppose it is often taken by Modern Canonists. They accept as licit the taking of interest, and not only in the context of paying the whole or even better only half the very modest wages of a clerk and a cleaningwoman per municipal pawn broker with it, and this is against the decision of the Councils of Vienne in what is now France and of Lateran Council V. So they will argue in favour of their right to disagree now, with the codes of 1917 and even more 1983 behind their backs, that the Church did not intend to proclaim this by definitive act. But the wording was so solemn that they cannot say Catholics had a right back in 1313 or 1515 to disregard this and charge interest enough to make moneylending a lucrative business, if they did so they could not back up Vatican II either, so they say that their submission was wanted even without the Church having intended to make a definitive act. And similarily with regards to acts of 1633 stating that it is heresy in faith to say the Sun stands immobile in the centre of the Universe and at least erroneous in faith to say the Earth does not stand immobile [in the centre of the Universe] and both statements are furthermore absurd in philosophy, that is in science, and of 1909 stating Genesis 1 - 3 must - with or without days longer than 24 h - be taken as a historical account. The Moderns would not accept the Church is now bound by those definitions, but their concern for the authority of people, either making opposite decisions or pretending to back up an opposite decision which they pretend to have made or that someone else made earlier, is so great that they need to say Catholics were bound by those decisions back then - even if they are not binding in themselves. Well, guess who is disagreeing with them ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Casimir