What do we Know of King David's Mother? How does this apply to the Blessed Virgin?

We may have doubt on her being named Nitzevet or Nitsebeth (presumably in the spelling we are used to for names like Elizabeth), but in my case, they are not very serious.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitzevet

However, she is, not "named", but given a mention twice in the Bible:

And David went thence to Mizpeh of Moab: and he said unto the king of Moab, Let my father and my mother, I pray thee, come forth, and be with you, till I know what God will do for me. I Kings (I Samuel) 22

King David was concerned with his mother's safety.

Now, to Christ, the safest thing is to do the Father's will, to stay away from sin.

Guess what He would have wanted to protect His mother from? Original sin.

Here is the other thing:

Turn to me and have mercy on me; show your strength in behalf of your servant; save me, because I serve you just as my mother did. Or : O look upon me, and have mercy on me: give thy command to thy servant, and save the son of thy handmaid. Ps 85:16

So, King David's serving God is compared to King David's mother serving Him.

And in one translation, it is even same words as the Blessed Virgin used.

But Our Lord served God without the least sin ever. Therefore we can conclude, so did the Blessed Virgin.

As an Atheist of Hebrew origin once told my mother, or more than once : if there's something special about Jesus, there's something special about Mary.

Hans Georg Lundahl
St. Maur
Abbot St. Silvester
26.XI.2019

Apud Fabrianum, in Piceno, beati Silvestri Abbatis, Institutoris Congregationis Monachorum Silvestrinorum.

What an Eggcellent Occasion!

Today I read a nice article about egg shells on CMI:

An eggcellent design : Eggshell nanostructure shows purposeful construction
by Phil Robinson | This article is from
Creation 40(4):24–26, October 2018
https://creation.com/eggshell-design

That CMI have lots of Intelligent Design arguments which, as a non-specialist, I cannot equal, is no news. Just enjoy ...

BUT - there was a link back to an older article:

What’s in an Egg? Unscrambling the mysteries
by David Catchpoole | This article is from
Creation 24(3):41–43, June 2002
https://creation.com/whats-in-an-egg

Mostly eggcellent stuff, to keep up the pun (H/T to Phil Robinson!) but also something Catchpool got eggsquisitly wrong:

Eggs have long been hand-coloured and exchanged, apparently as part of the pre-Christian ‘rites of spring’.1 It is easy to see how the egg would be regarded as symbolic of the renewal of life after a long cold winter. In many cultures, the egg represented fertility and was a sacred symbol to the Babylonians.

For footnote 1, they cite a seemingly secular and not sectarianly biassed source, Ohio State University:

Page not found
The requested page "/fcs/openhearthapr23.html" could not be found.
fairfield.osu.edu/fcs/openhearthapr23.html

Oops, sth wrong about the source? Was it taken down? It could be the URL just changed, so, I searched their site:

No Results
Search for Eggs have long been hand-coloured and exchanged, apparently as part of the pre-Christian ‘rites of spring’. on Google
https://www.osu.edu/search.html?query=Eggs%20have%20long%20been%20hand-coloured%20and%20exchanged%2C%20apparently%20as%20part%20of%20the%20pre-Christian%20%E2%80%98rites%20of%20spring%E2%80%99.

Searching on Google, the closest match comes here:

Time : Here's Why Easter Eggs Are a Thing
By Olivia B. Waxman | Updated: March 29, 2018 4:39 PM ET
Originally published: April 14, 2017
https://time.com/4732984/easter-eggs-history-origins/

Now, Olivia Waxman at Time ... gives this:

“Many scholars believe that Easter had its origins as an early Anglo-Saxon festival that celebrated the goddess Eastre, and the coming of spring, in a sense a resurrection of nature after winter,” Carole Levin, Professor of History and Director of the Medieval and Renaissance Studies Program at the University of Nebraska, tells TIME in an email. “Some Christian missionaries hoped that celebrating Christian holy days at the same times as pagan festivals would encourage conversion, especially if some of the symbols carried over. Eggs were part of the celebration of Eastre. Apparently eggs were eaten at the festival and also possibly buried in the ground to encourage fertility.”

• a) Carole Levin could be Jewish - Jews don't have Easter eggs during the Pesakh Seder, and they often like pointing out evidence that Christian Easter is Pagan, whether it is true or not;
• b) Time ran the story two years in a row, 2017 and 2018 : as we don't see the headings of the email, we don't know if it was part of original story, probably, or part of the update, but either way Carole Levin was not sending this out in two emails two years in a row, and if (as is probable) the latter version repeated this part from previous year's story, perhaps it's because Carole Levin and others were not found to repeat this in 2018 and I suspect the following paragraph may have been what was added:
  
  

  An alternate Easter eggs story does stick with Christianity, but in that version the Eastern eggs may have been a matter of practicality. Back then, the rules for fasting during Lent were much stricter than they are today. Christians were not allowed to eat meat or any animal product — including cheese, milk, cream or eggs —so they hard-boiled the eggs their chickens would produce during that time, and stored them so they could distribute them later, according to Henry Kelly, a professor of medieval studies at the University of California, Los Angeles. Because Lent ends in the lead-up to Easter, that “later” at which the eggs would be given out (often to the poor, who were unable to afford meat for their celebrations) would naturally happen right around the holiday.

  
  
  
• c) the Pagan version cites Anglo-Saxons, but not Sumerians or Babylonians or Assyrians;
• d) and the story as it follows has earlistes English evidence for Easter eggs from 1290:
  
  

  One of the earliest pieces of evidence of dyed eggs in British history goes back to 1290, when the household of Edward I bought 450 eggs to be colored or covered in gold leaf to be distributed among “the royal entourage” for Easter, according to Stations of the Sun: A History of the Ritual Year in Britain by Ronald Hutton, a history professor at the University of Bristol. The book also mentions that two centuries later, the Vatican sent Henry VIII an egg enclosed in a silver case as a “seasonal present.” Such objects were also known as “eggsilver.” (Today, the most famous ultra-decorated Easter eggs are the Fabergé eggs that were first presented to the Russian royal court in the late 19th century.)

  
  
  By that year, England had been Christian for 600 years and some. Not very promising if you want to cite Anglo-Saxon Paganism (a subject on which we know about only that it involved worshipping Woden, and one of his priests was so agnostic about the afterlife, that he was very impressed Christian Missionaries showed certainty about the subject : he burned his own temple).

But as to Ohio State, you don't find pre-Christian Easter eggs there ... well, in fact you will, but neither Sumerian nor Anglo-Saxon:

"There's an ancient legend that as long as pysanky are made, evil will not prevail in the world," says Joan Brander, a pysanky artist in Richmond, B.C. She's been making pysanky for more than 60 years, having learned the art of the egg from her Ukrainian relatives.

The pysansky tradition, says Brander, dates back to Ukrainian spring rituals in pre-Christian times. The tradition was incorporated into the Christian church, but the old symbols endure. "A pysanka with a bird on it, [when] given to a young married couple, is a wish for children," she explains. "A pysanka thrown into the field would be a wish for a good harvest."

Easter Egg Art: Hatched From An Ancient Tradition To Celebrate Rebirth
By Nancy Shute • Mar 24, 2016
https://radio.wosu.org/post/eggs-become-art-celebrate-lifes-rebirth

So, the one telling us Easter Eggs are pre-Christian is not a Sumerologist, not a professor in Medieval History, but the artist Joan Brander, who may have heard this from Ukraine during the Communist era, due to Communist misinformation.

Just checking that David Catchpoole himself is not an authority (accredited at least) on the historic background of Easter Eggs:

His Ph.D. investigated nitrogen transfer between tree legumes, associated grass and ruminant animals (goats). This was undertaken in Indonesia as part of a joint Australia-Indonesia project in forage research, aimed at improving the quality and availability of animal feed.

So, can we get an Academic about the Easter Egg subject? Yes, here she is:

Scientific American : Anthropology in Practice
Beyond Ishtar: The Tradition of Eggs at Easter : Don't believe every meme you encounter.
By Krystal D'Costa on March 31, 2013
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/anthropology-in-practice/beyond-ishtar-the-tradition-of-eggs-at-easter/

Krystal D'Costa is an anthropologist working in digital media in New York City.

And what does she say about Babylon?

Our helpful meme places the egg in Ishtar's domain, but Ishtar doesn't seem to be connected to eggs in any explicit way. However, there are plenty of other older traditions that involve the egg as a symbol of rebirth and feature it prominently in creation mythologies:

She mentions creation myths, but not one single ritual.

In fact, she does mention Christians reusing a Pagan meme, first citing:

The ancient legend of the Phoenix is similar. This beautiful mythical bird was said to live for hundreds of years. When its full span of life was completed it died in flames, rising again in a new form from the egg it had laid (4).

From (according to foornote 4) Newall: 14 = Newall, Venetia. (1967) "Easter Eggs," The Journal of American Folklore Vol 80 (315): 3-32.

The she comments:

The Phoenix was adopted as a Christian symbol in the first century AD. It appears on funeral stones in early Christian art, churches, religious paintings, and stonework. The egg from which it rose has become our Easter egg.

But then Phoenix is neither Babylonian, nor Ukrainean, nor Anglo-Saxon : it is simply a non-idolised symbol current in pre-Christian lore in the Empire where it began. A bit like calling (as I think an early Christian hymn or Antenicene Father did) Christ the "new Orpheus" or the "true Orpheus", the one who didn't just try to but actually succeeded to give his bride an Exodus from Sheol.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Dedication of Sts Peter and Paul in Rome
18.XI.2019

Romae Dedicatio Basilicarum sanctorum Petri et Pauli Apostolorum. Earum primam, restitutam in ampliorem formam, Summus Pontifex Urbanus Octavus consecravit hac ipsa recurrente die; alteram vero, miserando incendio penitus consumptam, ac magnificentius reaedificatam, Pius, Nonus die decima Decembris solemni ritu consecravit, ejusque annuam commemorationem hodierna die agendam indixit.

Did Calvin Calumniate? Giving the Word to Scott Eric Alt Who Looked at the Institutes

Does the Mass crucify Jesus another time? Part 4 of a series on Calvin’s Institutes IV.18.
July 10, 2019 on “To Give a Defense” by Scott Eric Alt
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/scottericalt/does-the-mass-crucify-jesus-another-time/

Key point:

So let’s talk about Hebrews 9:22. The Church has no fear of this text because it means exactly what it says. Sacrifice requires the shedding of blood, and that is precisely what took place on Calvary. I need not give a whole list of citations to prove this, because no one denies it.

In fact, the dispute really hangs on another claim, which is that the sacrifice at Calvary and the sacrifice at the Mass are the same sacrifice. The Church hardly denies Hebrews 9:22, because it agrees that Christ shed his blood at Calvary. The Sacrifice of the Mass is the same sacrifice.

For details on Calvin's words and how they miss the point, see the article linked to!/HGL

Where did Penn Jillette Learn what Put him Off the Bible?

Penn Jillette: Reading the Bible (Or the Koran, Or the Torah) Will Make You an Atheist
Big Think | 16.VII.2010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3rGev6OZ3w

He tells you, I would think, at time signatures 0:24 to 0:37.

And they went to the Congregationalist Church, the Church of the Covered Dish Supper in Greenfield, Massachusetts. Massachusetts is an old enough state, you couldn't charter a town without having a Congregationalist Church, and this was the first one in our town. I mean, from back 200 years ago.

I suppose - feel free to disagree - this is where young Penn (name suggests admiration for William Penn on part of parents) learned a lot of values and backing them more than caring about doctrine.

And these values were very neatly applied too, in a Puritan way, so, if slave hunting was wrong, any type of continued slavery in any sense of the word must be wrong as well. Slavemaster (domini) no better than manstealers (plagii in the Latin Bible). Similar with attitudes about universal versus tribal, tribalism not allowed even if the "tribe" (or the twelve of them) was the only one in the neighbourhood not worshipping gross gods demanding gross rites, ranging up to human sacrifice. If you check, while Egyptian and Babylonian paganism was also wrong, Egyptians and Babylonians were not as harshly seen as Canaaneans. But with no tribalism allowed, even this little hint of universalism was too little to get past a radar saying "no universalism". Similar with war and peace.

This is not how one can expect of a man raised on Catechism of St. Pius X and cherishing that doctrine with those values./HGL

Garloff Doesn't Know English, Strawmans Catholicism, Misuses the Bible

Here are a few snapshots from his video, with my text added.

Click each image to enlarge and read my comment to it.

1:26

4:16

4:32

5:05

5:29

Three Claims on Saints : XXI, XXXXVII, XXXXVIII

Here they are:

• XXI It is claimed that petitioning saints in heaven for prayers is un-Biblical.
• XXXXVII It is claimed that the idea of patron saints is connected to Paganism.
• XXXXVIII It is claimed that this connection proves it disconnected to Christianity in a way making it forbidden by true Christianity.

I will deal with these in a somewhat inverted order. I will deal with claim 47 first. I will also deal with them in such a cumulative order that it is superfluous to link to each claim separately.

• XXXXVII It is claimed that the idea of patron saints is connected to Paganism.
• XXI It is claimed that petitioning saints in heaven for prayers is un-Biblical.
• XXXXVIII It is claimed that this connection proves it disconnected to Christianity in a way making it forbidden by true Christianity.

"XXXXVII It is claimed that the idea of patron saints is connected to Paganism."

In a sense, this is perfectly correct.

In Greek and Roman paganism, we do find gods and goddesses, both having authority over specific domains and taking interest in specific persons.

For instance, Poseidon is wielding authority over the sea, loves Theseus and Polypheme and hates Ulysses.

Athena wields authority over wisdom and war stratagems, loves Jason and Ulysses.

Hera wields authority over domestic virtues and - under her husband - justice, she hates Hercules and loves Jason.

Now, patron saints don't wield authority over any fields as large as sea or wisdom or domestic virtues or justice.

All that is ultimately God's own prerogative. When there are patron saints for things, it is more related to specific needs. For instance, St Francis certainly is not wielding authority over the sea, but as certainly "over" free passengers (since he was a stowaway himself, when going to Holy Land), St Christopher wields no authority over rivers as such, but he does as certainly "wield authority over" ferrymen and over passengers overall (as to safe journey). Or would "take an interest" be a better term?

I kind of think it would.

This brings us to the next claim:

"XXI It is claimed that petitioning saints in heaven for prayers is un-Biblical."

Saints in heaven do take an interest in us. I saw one video by Watchtower society (in excerpts) where God the Father and their version of the Son are cheering with angels when a boy does something morally correct, like saying no thanks to cheating on a test.

This is correct.

However, in their version, there were no saints who had lived as men on earth involved.

Why? They are thnetopsychists, they believe, incorrectly, that as each man dies, his soul dies as well and is resurrected or recreated along with the body on the day of Resurrection.

Now, would souls who are in heaven (since it is correct at least some are already so) take a similar interest in us and cheer when we do sth right?

Most certainly yes.

Hebrews 11 (all of the chapter) along with 12 verse 1 says so.

Note, the chapter divisions were inserted much later than the books were written.

So, to St Paul and to his readers and their hearers, verse 1 of chapter 12 was not really separate from what came before.

Chapter 11 gives a very long list of Old Testament saints.

Abel, Henoch, Noah, Abraham start the list, each in a very detailed fashion, and so it goes on for a while. At a certain point, no more details but a list (32b):

For the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, Barac, Samson, Jephthe, David, Samuel, and the prophets

And after that generalities of types. Last type being martyrs, and it refers indirectly to martyrdom of Isaias, as known from tradition, and a contrast between OT saints and "us" (36 - 40):

And others had trial of mockeries and stripes, moreover also of bands and prisons. They were stoned, they were cut asunder, they were tempted, they were put to death by the sword, they wandered about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being in want, distressed, afflicted: Of whom the world was not worthy; wandering in deserts, in mountains, and in dens, and in caves of the earth. And all these being approved by the testimony of faith, received not the promise; God providing some better thing for us, that they should not be perfected without us.

And next verse is 12:1, adding also 2.

And therefore we also having so great a cloud of witnesses over our head, laying aside every weight and sin which surrounds us, let us run by patience to the fight proposed to us: Looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of faith, who having joy set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and now sitteth on the right hand of the throne of God.

Certainly, we must think more of Jesus than of the OT saints - but we must think of them. We must look on Jesus at the right hand of the throne of God - but it is also a consideration that we have "so great a cloud of witnesses over our head".

This clearly means, the saints in heaven do take an interest in our Christian walk on earth.

As the pagans falsely believed about Hera and Athena, we rightly believe about Joshua and Rahab.

Hera and Athena are false gods, they are not the real authors of Jason's success. Joshua and Rahab are also not the actual author of any success we may have, but they are close to Him who is, and they do as real persons really in heaven take an interest in us, otherwise St Paul (if it wasn't as some said St Barnabas) would not have called them a cloud of witnesses.

Do the saints who take an interest petition for us?

Well, yes.

Apocalypse 6 says in verses 9 to 11:

And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held. And they cried with a loud voice, saying: How long, O Lord (holy and true) dost thou not judge and revenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given to every one of them one; and it was said to them, that they should rest for a little time, till their fellow servants, and their brethren, who are to be slain, even as they, should be filled up.

Some have concluded I was convinced the last tribulations were at hand when I cited this, years ago on the road to Santiago, but while I might be closer to that conclusion now, this was not at all my intent back then. This is not about the last few years before the Second Coming, it is about all of the Church age, as some call it.

So, they do petition for the Church to get even with its persecutors.

Is their petition heard?

Here is another thing which is according to St Augustine about all of the Church age (=millennium, on his view), Apocalypse 20:4:

And I saw seats; and they sat upon them; and judgment was given unto them; and the souls of them that were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God, and who had not adored the beast nor his image, nor received his character on their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Reigning with Christ means their petitions very clearly are heard.

And they certainly watch over our affairs, if they get to heaven soon, not just because of Hebrews 12:1, but also because of Apocalypse 14:4

These are they who were not defiled with women: for they are virgins. These follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were purchased from among men, the firstfruits to God and to the Lamb:

Can Christ, the lamb, stand by me? Certainly - and the 144 000 walk along with him. This also means, if Christ even as man in heaven can have time each day to attend to each and every one of millions who adress prayers to Him, so can the saints. It is arguable, God being able to "create dimensions" - including time - that their perception of time is enriched, they live in a kind of "Narnian time" when however much time they spend "on earth" with each person, they are still back in Heaven on the same date.

This sets the scenario for saints:

• taking an interest in our affairs as a Church;
• taking an interest in our individual affairs;
• being heard by Him who can hear prayer.

On this ground, we might imagine, they might hear us on occasion, and even pretty regularly, if we ask them to pray for us?

This is not directly said, but also not directly denied. It is extra-Biblical, perhaps, but certainly not anti-Biblical.

We are forbidden to call on them to appear along with us, as in a seance, but we are not forbidden to adress petitions to them where they are.

The soul of Samuel was involved in disturbing a seance - and in punishing the one who had asked for it. Normally a seance involves no soul of any dead, but instead demons playing that role to fool people.

Now, petitioning saints in heaven while they remain there to pray for us, rather than come down here and talk to us, clearly is something other.

Next question, isn't there a gulf which cannot be bridged, see Luke 16:19 - 26?

There was a certain rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen; and feasted sumptuously every day. And there was a certain beggar, named Lazarus, who lay at his gate, full of sores,

Desiring to be filled with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table, and no one did give him; moreover the dogs came, and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell. And lifting up his eyes when he was in torments, he saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom: And he cried, and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame. And Abraham said to him: Son, remember that thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime, and likewise Lazareth evil things, but now he is comforted; and thou art tormented.

And besides all this, between us and you, there is fixed a great chaos: so that they who would pass from hence to you, cannot, nor from thence come hither.

So, isn't there a great chaos, a great chasm, between us and the dead saints?

No, this was in Old Testament times, when the bosom of Abraham was still in a part of Sheol. And the chaos or chasm of which is here question was between Limbus Patrum and Hell properly speaking. It is the damned in Hell who are on the wrong side of a gulf.

But this chasm did not stop them from talking to each other.

The rich man who was damned was not heard, and partly this is because he was damned, but in the following another part is because those besides himself he was praying for were not going to go to Heaven (verses 27-31):

And he said: Then, father, I beseech thee, that thou wouldst send him to my father's house, for I have five brethren, That he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments. And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance.

And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead.

So the rich man was not heard for himself because he was damned, he was not heard for the brothers who were going to be damned, but if we ask saints (Abraham or other) to pray for us, if we are not damned (since alive) and not going to be damned, this means the saints can in fact hear us.

The rich man was, and that accurately, so aware God would hear the prayers of Abraham, he was willing to attribute the action of God hearing to Abraham praying. His words "that thou wouldst send him".

Now, this completes the scenario, the saints in heaven are:

• taking an interest in our affairs as a Church;
• taking an interest in our individual affairs;
• able to take into account requests adressed to them;
• being heard by Him who can hear prayer.

Therefore, it is a pastoral question whether we should be encouraged to so demand their prayers, the Church has decided, presumably because lots of converted Greco-Roman pagans actually tried it and it worked, God heard the prayers of saints who had been adressed for their prayers.

"XXXXVIII It is claimed that this connection proves it disconnected to Christianity in a way making it forbidden by true Christianity."

On the contrary, next to Jews, and after these had rejected Christ, now even for some time in preference to Jews (but Jews will once again be in focus for conversion, when Henoch and Elijah come back), the word of the Word was adressed to Greco-Roman pagans, whose religion, while false, contained such kernels of truth as had prepared them to try this out.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Martyrs of Caesarea
28.III.2019

Caesareae, in Palaestina, natalis sanctorum Martyrum Prisci, Malchi et Alexandri. Hi tres, in persecutione Valeriani, cum in suburbano agello supradictae urbis habitarent, atque in ea caelestes martyrii proponerentur coronae, ultro Judicem, divino fidei calore succensi, adeunt, et cur tantum in sanguinem piorum desaeviret, objurgant; quos ille continuo, pro Christi nomine, bestiis tradidit devorandos.

Is There a Plain Reading of the Bible?

One standard argument from Evangelicals is, why have a Church Magisterium, all we need is the Bible.

If you read it plainly, you can't go wrong.

Now, there is an opposite tendency among Modernists. They say "you always interpret the Bible some way however you approach it" - which on a certain level is correct, even with the plainest of readings, since you interpret words as having meaning, for one. But they then go on to claim, you can't know for sure what the Bible means.

First of all, this is where being a Catholic is great. Having the Catholic tradition, stated and restated most often by past carriers of the Magisterium, sometimes crystallised in definitions of dogma by carriers of the Magisterium, that solves the problem. Certainly, on some items you might want to have an extra certainty which side of Ephesus*, which side of Chalcedon**, which side of 1054*** the real magisterium is, but those problems are not quite unsolvable and also, many items, like baptism of infants, confession of mortal sins after baptism to a priest and absolution by a priest, four last things being Death and Judgement, then Heaven or Hell, fasting being necessary (as Lent reminds me), and a few more, are the same whichever of the five confessions you go to.

Here is an example of how a Modernist has reasoned:

There Is No Such Thing as a Plain Reading of the Bible
March 25, 2019 by Matthew Distefano | on All Set Free
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/allsetfree/2019/03/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-plain-reading-of-the-bible/

The problem, of course, is that this statement and ones like it are meaningless. Why? Because there is no such thing as a “plain reading of the text.”

First off, no one approaches the Bible tabula rasa, that is, with a blank slate. Everyone, including myself of course, approaches the text with presuppositions. Everyone reads the text through the lens of their own culture, theology, philosophy, and phenomenological experiences. And while we can do our best to transport ourselves into the various cultures the Bible comes from—the Bronze Age, Second Temple Judaism, and so on—we can never fully grasp what it would have been like to actually live in these time periods.

Fine. I cannot exactly know what it was like living in the early Middle Ages either.

But I can therefore not know that Manlius Boethius meant what he said when stating things like 2 added to 2 being four?

I don't think men are so estranged to each other's comprehension across cultures.

If you wonder what he meant by saying (as I suppose he did) that all numbers are rational, that is easy. He meant things like π (which he knew) and things like logarithms (which he did not know) are not numbers but proportions. Simple as that. I don't feel I was better equipped for calculating with 3.14 or 3.1416 as a standin for π back when I was OK with calling it a number than I am now when I say it is not a number and the rational ratio 314:100 is a standin for the real ratio which as such I cannot calculate with.

I am not a Puritan claiming geometry must never disguise as arithmetic (as we do when π is shown in a calculation like 3.14) or arithmetic as geometry (which we do when multiplication of numbers is shown my addition of lengths on slide rules, which is the most basic use of logarithms). Therefore I don't feel I need to englobe all of maths into arithmetic in order to do what is not purely arithmetic on the view of Boethius.

What’s more, everyone I know is reading their Bibles in English. Why is this important? News flash: English isn’t a language spoken by any of the characters or writers of the Bible, nor any of the earliest Christian theologians. Torah was written in Hebrew. Jesus spoke Aramaic. Paul wrote in Koine Greek. Augustine’s Greek sucked so he wrote in Latin.

There are such things as translations. Concepts vary to a certain degree, but not so widely as to make translations impossible. Someone recently claimed that the fourth horse was green, not pale, and referred to Muslims. The problem with this is, while Greek χλωρος can mean green, pale, yellow (and there are other languages that don't do a full "Classic" version of basic colours, these being perhaps essentially those of Arabic° - but Latin Vulgate translates the horse in Apocalypse 6:8 as pallidus - pale. Not as viridus - green. I suppose Syriac and Coptic New Testaments, not sharing the Greek conflation of yellow and green, also uses something similar, but I am not sure. That is why Douay Rheims and King James have "pale". The other horses also do have colours that naturally occur on horses, which is the case for pale yellow, but not for green.

Here on this particulart item, original language does matter to some degree for meaning.

However, if I want to understand Matthew 5:15 correctly, I don't need to know exactly how many litres of grain one could measure in a bushel. The point is, God intended His Church to be visible, and He warned His disciples on letting their light so shine before men, so as to be able to make the Church visible. This doesn't mean all Catholics or all clergy have to be saints for the Church to be visible, but there always are those who are. Those who are not may be at risk of losing the position as faithful, or as clergy.

English wasn’t on the scene until 1066, and even that variety looks nothing like it does today (if you don’t believe me, just try reading Beowulf in its original form).

I think the Gospels are easier in Anglo-Saxon than Beowulf is. I also note, 1066 was not a time when English in this form came on the scene, but rather started receding from the scene. But yes, reading "ealc Þara Þa gehierð Þas min word and Þa gewyrcð bið gelic snotran monnu" does take more than just my reading capacity of modern English, and knowing Swedish and German very much helps.

Let me offer an example of what I mean.

Take the doctrine of hell, for instance. In a handful of places throughout the Gospels, the term “hell” is used. Jesus warns people that they will end up in “hell” if they don’t change their ways. But what did he really mean? Well, that is where we would have to do our best to transport ourselves back into the first century and attempt to discern his words through the eyes of a Second Temple Jew.

With this as our lens, upon hearing the term “hell,” we would automatically know that Jesus is, first and foremost, talking about a literal valley just to the south of Jerusalem. How do we know this? Because Jesus used the Aramaic term that translates to “Gehenna,” which, in Hebrew, best translates to “the valley of Hinnom.” This is the place where, in 586 BCE, the Babylonians burned the bodies of the dead Jews after they sacked the city of Jerusalem. And it is also the place where, only a few decades after the death of Jesus, the Romans would do the same thing.

At the same time, however, some Jews indeed believed that Gehenna represented a place of punishment in the afterlife for those who turned their backs on God and lived wicked lives. So, it theoretically could be the context from which Jesus was speaking to. Will we ever know for sure? I don’t know. I have my ideas and loose conclusions, but that isn’t really the point of this piece.

In Luke 16, while Douay Rheims and Nestle Aland differ on division between verses 22 and 23°°, it is clear that the rich man was in hell, ἐν τῷ ᾅδῃ.

And the context indicates, the rich man was in a place of torture after death.

Now, would Jesus automatically first and foremost be talking of the place valley of Hinnom?

I think this would depend highly on the context. In English "do" first and foremost means "tun" in German, and also "göra" in Swedish when it does not translate to "make" or "machen". It means "agere" and not the most exact meaning of "facere" even if "facere" is sometimes used as a substitute for "agere."

However, I came to a context in which "do" (with object of person) means "frame", "put into a bad light" or "arrange an adverse verdict in court". Yes, such a context exists as I recently learned. In Our Lord's time on Earth, distinguishing between the two usages about Ge Hinnom would have been a case of reading the context.

And, from then on, we have tradition. If anyone were into apokastasis or thnetopsychism for evil persons, Tradition says no. Hell is real and eternal.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Audoux
St. John of Damascus
27.III.2019

* Orthodox Catholics or Nestorians. ** Orthodox Catholics or Monophysites of either Jacobite or Armenian confession. *** Are the Orthodox believers of the Catholic Church found among "Roman Catholics" or "Eastern Orthodox"? ° Abyad, ahmar, asfar, akhdar, azraq and aswad, from light to dark, with a difference of asfar (yellow) vs akhdar (green) where Greek has χλωρος for both, where Latin had more than one word for blue, more than one word for white, more than one word for black, more than one word for yellow. °° In Douay Rheims he was buried in hell, in Nestle Aland he is ἐν τῷ ᾅδῃ when he suffers and lifts up his eyes.

The Gates of Hell have not, HAVE NOT prevailed against the Church

Here* is a Baptist who certainly gets the second part of Matthew 16:18 correctly.

Whether St Peter is or isn't involved as rock in the first part, let's leave that aside. For this occasion, not for ever and always. Second part promises perpetuity of the Church.

Here is an explanation:

“…Upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” the Lord says here. What He was actually promising was first of all that death will never put an end to the church. Sometimes the enemies of Christ may think that the church will pass away as soon as the fanatics who now lead it die, but the Lord promises here that death cannot stop the Lord’s church. The gates of death will never swallow up the church. The church will always live and defy the power of death.

Secondly what the Lord is promising here is that the powers of Satan will not be able to terminate the church. The principalities and powers of hell will never be able to stamp out the churches of Jesus Christ .

The main point of this promise is clear. The ekklesia will not cease. The powers of death shall not close it down and the power of Satan and his workers shall not defeat it. Neither death nor Satan and his hosts will be able to stop churches from holding, preaching and maintaining the doctrines of Christ in His Word. Neither the grave nor Satan shall finally and totally gain victory over the church in this world.

Perfect. No Roman Catholic (or Greek Orthodox) could have said it better.

Next part:

The gates of hell shall not, shall not, SHALL NOT prevail against the church!

Look here, what tense are you using?

Future? Did the conversation at Caesarea Philippi take place this morning?

Sure, a future is implied in the words as given, and there is still certainly future left of it (Doomsday hasn't crowned Church Militant yet). But a bit less than two millennia of the promised future are already past.

For the promise to be true, we don't need to look only at "will Chuck Missler and Kim Clement have successors? are Trey Smith and Sid Roth still Christians?" but also back in time.

I saw someone claim "the great apostasy was universal, God restored His Church from that" and when I challenged him, "you cannot limit God".

I can hold God to His promise. And in context of when this was said, it doesn't mean something only for our future, but very clearly also for our past. God restoring His Church would be an oathbreaker belatedly summoned to keep a promise already previously broken. God is not like that.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Annunciation of Our Lady
25.III.2019

* Bethel Baptist Church : The Perpetuity of the Church
https://bbc-lawton.org/the-perpetuity-of-the-church/

"Sufficiency of Scripture"

I am in a rather unfortunate position, in so far that lots of people pray for me to get confronted with certain themes, without checking first whether I actually already adressed them, i e by writing me.

This could otherwise be arrange in different ways. On Latest on Antimodernism you have a widget to the right, it says "Formulaire de contact" and I believe any English speaker could figure out it means "contact form". On my correspondence blog, right up, you have a tab saying If you wish to correspond with me, which you click to get to a page of same title. Right on top of that page, I give a current email. Btw, if I should ever no longer have the lowest of the email adresses, the one not crossed over, accessible either, it probably means I haven't been able to update the blog after changing email, and might mean I am in captivity. So far, the email noted there (right now it is hgl@dr.com, sometime else it was hgl@voila.fr, but there are no more emails with adress voila.fr, if mail.com goes down - dr.com is an alias of them - it may be sth else in the future), works, I am getting spam, both scams and threats of exposing what needs no exposing because it is not true, but I am not getting mails of the type "I read you believe papacy was instituted by Christ, do you mean Christ wants us to bow down to a man who kissed the Koran" which I would obviously answer "Wojtyla was not a Pope, since he was not a Catholic". Instead, I am getting each day some new challenge which is very usually an old challenge. Something I already answered before. And so I spend time answering theology questions of diverse types 3, 4, 5 or even ten times over and over again, get a reputation for voluntarily concentrating on theology, while I am simply priorising that, if I get challenged, my faith, a gift from God, gets insufficient credit for my theological position being coherent, since man after man thinks it is incoherent and thinks he has the key to making it coherent by challenging me with one little detail and if he would win (which he usually wouldn't, I usually have already answered it), all the rest I wrote would fall down as a house of cards, if you remove one card strategically placed. Rather it is a well rooted tree. Now, one more item where you could challenge me in person instead of praying to God (or scheming with discrete trolls among FB friends or those able to recommend youtubes to me), that would be comment section under any given post.

But it seems some have colluded to try to give me the impression no one is reading me (which will not work when stats for blogs put together in all time say close to two million page views, which will not work when multiples of 21 are very frequent among the statistics, either for a post or for readers from a particular country), and directly adressing me would admit one is admitting I know I have readers. Some guys want that fun to go on.

However, today I actually got a challenge which is a bit new. II Timothy 3:17, last word in the Greek text. The word which translates "fully instructed" or "having finished instructions".

Therefore, I find it reasonable to do a fresh essay on Sufficiency of Scripture.

Now, C. S. Lewis once said, "grace vs works is a red herring, the real issue is the sacrifice of the Mass" or words to that effect. I'll be checking the exact wording with William O'Flaherty. I'd venture to add, "sufficiency" vs "insufficiency" of Scripture is a red herring.

First of all, while Trent condemned Sola Scriptura (Scripture without Tradition, Scripture without Magisterium) the words used are not saying "bc tradition contains salvific topics not covered at all in Scripture". Second, because Scripture being sufficient for one thing does not mean it is sufficient for another thing. Third, because Scripture being sufficient conditionally does not mean it is so absolutely, and fourth because Scripture being sufficient for one type of person doesn't mean it is so for another one.

Session IV. Concerning the Canonical Scriptures. First Decree. Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year 1546.

And I am quoting the base line of Scriptures vs other authority, skipping the ensuing list of canonic writings:

The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,--lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein,--keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.

So, three authorities are enumerated, Scripture, Tradition of the Church, Magisterium of the Church, all coming from Apostles.

Does it say three are needed because one of them covers too little? No. And one of them, magisterium, is explicitly stated to be interpreting one of the others Scripture. That means, it is not covering different topics.

The decree concludes with one anathema:

But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, these same books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately despise the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.[5] Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, this said synod, after having laid the foundation of the confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and defences it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.

The anathema is against those not receiving "the traditions aforesaid" on top of Scripture, but on those knowingly despising them, as per "and knowingly and deliberately despise the traditions aforesaid;" while it seems "and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition;" is to be taken with some latitude, since Vulgate has a Masoretic chronology, while Roman Martyrology for Christmas day had a mainly LXX based one, which is as the relevant parts of Scripture are contained in another edition, namely LXX.

Now, the second reason was ... Scripture being sufficient for one thing does not mean it is sufficient for another thing. Giving the finished instruction for all good works doesn't mean giving the basics, to get the basic dogmas right. As Newman observed, Scripture was not used to instruct in, but to confirm dogma. The point is, we do not think the Holy Ghost adressed a love letter in very simple words to the least of us in the totality of Scripture, we think He rather gave heretics who would not listen to the Church "sufficient rope to hang themselves" as the saying goes - but He also gave the Church sufficient proof the heretics had hung themselves. This means, the Bible is not suitable for beginners, some parts are, some parts definitely are not.

The third reason being because Scripture being sufficient conditionally does not mean it is so absolutely, the condition here being: if you comply with the Church as it has been around, if you have received instruction from the Church. Which brings us to fourth because Scripture being sufficient for one type of person doesn't mean it is so for another one. A "man of God" has been singled out for "every good work" and not just for the good works of believing, praying, receiving sacraments, doing your business in respect of ten commandments and love of God and neighbour. This ties in with the condition, since before you are singled out for every good work, you need to know the faith. St Ambrose was not yet baptised, as far as we can say, when he was elected bishop of Milan, but he was a very well instructed catechumen, not one who had just taken the first lessons.

But while this may be sufficient on the topic as such, I came across a blog post dealing with it. From the opposite point of view. Let me present what I am going to refute in some detail:

He Lives : Lesson 30: Trent’s Anathema on Sola Scriptura
http://helives.blogspot.com/2005/10/lesson-30-trents-anathema-on-sola.html

I will first quote the Westminster confession point quoted and say where precisely we differ:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

• 1) "either expressly" - we agree some things are expressly set down, but differ on which ones,
• 2) "or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced" - we say rather a probable consequence is sufficient, if the point be confirmed by tradition, though for some the necessary consequences are also available,
• 3) "unto which nothing at any time is to be added," - we agree totally as to God's counsel, only pastoral can be actually added, the depositum fidei is finished,
• 4) "whether by new revelations of the Spirit," - this is why Private Revelations are strictly subsidiary, must be checked with theologians to contain no Scriptural or doctrinal errors and can only be used as reminders or as special more specific pointers about current or (not always other thing) end times events;
• 5) "traditions of men" - we totally differ on Apostolic Tradition (singular, a corpus, to which the Bible belongs) being either "additions" or equivalent to "statutes of men" as Christ denounced some bad statutes of Pharisees, for which they set the law aside.

The analysis of II Tim 3, first text, then each verse analysis:

15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:15-17, NIV)

Verse 15 tells us that scripture is what we need to be "wise for salvation".

Scripture and nothing else? Actually not. It rather tells that (Old Testament) Scripture (the one familiar to Timothy from his infancy) is only conditionally able to make him (not necessarily everyone else directly, by the way, St Paul is noting a competence St. Timothy had) wise for salvattion, namely through faith in Christ Jesus. Rabbinic Jewry has basically the same Scriptures as St Timothy had known (leaving aside whether St Timothy knew II Maccabees or other), but it is not capable to make people wise for salvation if they do not have the faith in Christ Jesus.

Verse 16 tells us that Scripture is inspired (which implies inerrant).

Catholics agree. That is why I am Young Earth Creationist and Geocentric, believing in angelic movers. That is also why those not believing some of the more obvious ones, like Young Earth or Heaven being a place, are not Catholics, even if socially accepted as "Catholic clergy" : social acceptance is not everything, and definitely does not trump Biblical inerrancy.

Verse 17 tells us that it renders us thoroughly (not partially) equipped.

Not "us" in general, but our clergy, St Timothy being bishop of Ephesus. And thoroughly is correct, but on condition of having the right base. Human DNA will certainly lead to a man in a fertilised egg, which is within the mother's womb, but human DNA is not sufficient, the body plan, for example, is not in the DNA. One needs a human soul before the human DNA will make one human. Similarily, one needs a Christian (and not heretical) doctrine, before Scriptures will make one a thoroughly well equipped Christian (whether one has to be as "a man of God" or wants to be out of geeky interest, as I have in apologetics).

In Jude it is written:

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. (Jude 3, NIV)

The saints do not have to wait for further revelation. All that we need has been entrusted once and for all.

Meaning, it was delivered to his friends before that letter, as an oral tradition, right? Bc, if not, how can they consider the faith as being already before the writing delivered "once and for all"? But sure, we do agree on the once and for all part. We just differ on WHAT it was that was so delivered.

Here our scientific friend on "He Lives" blog continues:

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. (John 21:25, NIV)

This verse is sometimes used to argue against Sola Scriptura. It is useless in that regard. I would love to know what Jesus did that was not recorded, but I don't need to know it. And if I did need to know it, all would be lost; for no council, synod, or pope will ever be able to tell me what these unrevealed acts were.

It does not state the acts were unrevealed. It states the acts were not written. The acts were part of the continuous revelation Christ was Himself in His Person to the Apostles and they are available, not by reconstruction, not by decision (though these may defend the availability) but by tradition.

Presenting Christ as a proponent of Sola Scriptura:

3 The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread." 4 Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" 5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: " 'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'" 7 Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" 8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me." 10 Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'" (Matt. 4:3-10, NIV)

Here is the reasoning:

When refuting Satan, Jesus didn't appeal to tradition, or to the Pharisees, or even His own deity and infallible reason. Each and every time He quoted scripture. Even when Satan also used scripture (v 6), Christ trumped him with more relevant scripture.

That Satan used Scripture should warn us, in order to refute Him from Scripture, we need either very thorough knowledge of it or faith in Christ or both. Things St. Timothy had, and an umpteenth generation Protestant layman has not. Bc. Protestantism is not "faith in Christ". While we acknowledge private revelations given to individuals who themselves were ill equipped to refute Satan had it been he (yesterday we celebrated St. Bernadette Soubirous, the date on which the Blessed Virgin promised to make her happy in the next life, i e to make sure she came to Heaven), (and she was an illiterate girl of 14), we only accepted these after vetting by far weightier theologians than the ones given the privilege of seeing.

But more, this argument is in fact pretending to summarise an induction by a one instance incomplete induction.

The inductive conclusions ("what but Scripture can decide, for Jesus?") is as absent from NT as another one, by Pharisees ("who but God can forgive sins?") is absent from Old Testament. Yes, in each instance where sins are forgiven in the Old Testament, God is the one who forgives, and also the one who promises future forgiveness. But this forgiveness came through Jesus, and Jesus on the occasion when confronted with the said inductive conclusion specified, "the Son of Man can forgive sins". Using an inductive conclusion from Scripture is a dangerous thing.

But also, Jesus confronted with Satan, Jesus confronted with Pharisees and so on ... yes, He often appealed to Scripture. But he also appealed to tradition about the meaning of Scripture, even if that tradition happened to be already encoded in what belonged to OT canon as Scripture.

Matthew 12:[3] But he said to them: Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and they that were with him: [4] How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the loaves of proposition, which it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for them that were with him, but for the priests only? [5] Or have ye not read in the law, that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple break the sabbath, and are without blame?

So, about the law of "loaves of proposition" He appealed to the traditional example of King David. This as traditional, not original text, example of necessity trumping ceremonial law. Then, if they were to say Sabbath is higher dignity, since in Ten Commandments, He also proposed to them to read in the law ... a concept, which He summarised in words which are not found there. Moses did not verbatim state that priests break the sabbath, and he did also not verbatim state that they are without blame. Both are conclusions, not directly stated in the text. So, the induction actually gives a false conclusion, one not compatible with counterexamples actually found. In appealing to the actions of King David, He is appealing to actions of just men (known as such, in OT case from Scriptures) being a kind of "case law" about the written law of God. Since New Testament has a New Law, the Saints of the past (most of whom lived after NT was written in all books, by now) are also serving as its "case law".

Next, "He Lives" blogger is trying to prove Sola Scriptura from Tradition ... enter Sts Augustine and Cyril of Jerusalem:

In those teachings which are clearly based on scripture are found all that concerns faith and the conduct of life.

As proposed prooftext of sola scriptura, against tradition and magisterium as understood by Trent, fully answered if each teaching of tradition or of magisterium is "clearly based on scripture". Bc, what to a rhetoric mind like St Augustine passes for "clearly" may not imply that they also "by good and necessary consequence may be deduced" in strict logic. It may be sufficient, there is a "clear hint".

The two sentences where St. Cyril seems to endorse Sola Scriptura both show he is not thinking of all alternatives, just the alternative between Scriptural faithfulness and artful dialectic introducing novelty:

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech.

By the words "drawn aside" aside, we can deduce he is not against all plausibility or all artifices of speech, but against those that draw aside from an indeed very Scriptures centred, but still even so tradition, to which he belonged.

For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

Same here. If salvation depended on reasoning, we would obviously be obliged to follow reasoning whereever it currently led us, as most it might be ingenious, but St. Cyril is not banning ingenious reasoning as such. Also, he is saying salvation important topics may be demonstrated (this actually does involve ingenious or less ingenious, as the case may be, reasoning) from Scriptures but since the contrast was with "ingenious reasoning" or "mere plausibility and artifices of speech" he was simply not adressing the question into which you are trying to shoehorn his statement, for the Sola or for Trent.

Also, recall that Reformers made ample use of "mere plausibility and artifices of speech" insofar as they came up with a corpus of doctrine clearly not traditional, and pretended it was, on topic after topic supported by this or that statement in tradition. They, not the Fathers of Trent, were the ones trying to draw us aside.

Also, if we look at ingenious scholasticism (supposing it be faithful to tradition), let's recall, the example of Our Lord trumps a verbally more than substantially coherent conclusion from St. Cyril.

If tradition meant, as the Catholic Church the oral tradition handed down in an unbroken succession from the apostles, then our division would not be as great as it is. We would still argue against such tradition binding the conscience because of the problems associated with proving a claim of a unbroken succession. Nevertheless, I believe our differences would be manageable.

Here "He Lives" blogger touches what was probably also the stumbling block, on one occasion, for C. S. Lewis.

However, before we go into it, there is nothing problematic about proving that there was an unbroken succession of generations in the Church, there is therefore nothing problematic about proving an unbroken apostolic succession, since, whatever problem we may now have in proving who ordained St Irenaeus and how that leads back to Apostles laying hands on someone, this problem was not there to the Church in his time, and the continuity of the Church accepting him as bishop is a standin for the direct documentation he was duly ordained as one.

I have already adressed that one in this post:

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Hunnius Redivivus on Apostolic Succession
https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2019/02/hunnius-redivivus-on-apostolic.html

Speaking of which, that post was sent to "Ask the Pastor" and I have not received any reply mail.

Now, back to "Lesson 30":

In practice, however, sacred tradition is much more. It is whatever the Church says it is. How can one even claim that extra-scriptural Catholic doctrine such as purgatory, The Immaculate Conception, The Assumption, or papal infallibility (just to name a few) arrived as an oral tradition that can be traced back to the apostles?

How do you prove this is extra-Scriptural? How is Purgatory "extra-Scriptural" if there are sins one can be freed from after death, as implied by II Maccabees 12? Or if I Corinthians implies you can build on the right foundation (which would mean you are saved) but still need to feel the heat of a burning flame for having built straw and stubble on it?

How is "Immaculate Conception" extra-Scriptural if strictly implied by Genesis 3:14-15, supposing NT confirms She is the Woman?

How is Papal infallibility extra-scriptural if strictly implied by Papal supremacy (Matthew 16:19 "et dabo tibi claves") along with Church infallibility (1 Timothy 3:15 "the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.")?

If the Assumption is "extra-Scriptural" because it is a historic event after Acts, how are martyrdoms of Sts Peter and Paul not also "extra-Scriptural"? How can we then know they weren't scamming a few Romans and dying from obesity in luxurious retirement? Which would damage credibility of faith quite a lot, right? On the other hand, if we can believe the tradition of the Church they were in fact martyred, we can also believe it on the Assumption. Plus some, if not strict implications, at least very broad hints in Apocalypse 12.

King David eating of the loaves of proposition is similarily extra-Torahic, and while OT Scriptures were added after Torah, since Christ was the fulness of truth, NT Sccriptures are not added after the apostles who had known Christ left earthly existence. This means, we do depend on a Church history which is in one trivial respect in fact technically extra-Scriptural. So, why not for Assumption?

In fact, the only reason why the blogger perceives these as "extra-Scriptural" is, he is living his life and writing his blog from within the Protestant tradition. And, since it clearly traces back to 16th C. and not to Apostles, that one very clearly is traditions of men, or statutes of men.

Another problem is that sacred tradition is not always, well, traditional. For example, In 1559 Pius IV declared that widespread dissemination of the Scriptures is to be avoided in that it causes more harm than good. Vatican II changed this tradition, and now Rome calls for free-access to the Scriptures for all.

First of all, Vatican II is not Catholic.

Second, neither is per se a tradition claiming to be apostolic tradition, both are pastoral. Both are (insofar as Catholic, not the case of the latter) prudential decisions, binding our wills, not our beliefs.

And, unlike some other things from Vatican II, which initiated a Counter-Church, but that is another topic, this one is in the present case defensible.

Pius IV clearly had pastoral care for lots of Catholics who had very little overall education. To whom some basics of Catechism would suffice as Christian doctrine, and adding all of the Bible would have been top heavy, as it turned out with Puritan mentality. This is no longer so. Whoever is the true Pope and whereever the Church is, it contains mostly men who have been exposed to lots and lots of secular education. One can argue that in such a case massive raising of theological competence of Catholic masses, at least via free option, is needed, and this is also how things have been for a long time with English Catholics : since they were anyway obliged to live with people reading most of the Bible (66/72-73 books) and reading it wrong, they were encouraged to have Bibles with Catholic comments helping them to read it right (Challoner, Haydock).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Gabinus of Rome
19.II.2019

PS, due to someone giving me food which smells, I have been writing this getting hungrier and hungrier. God preserve me from being too angry, but somewhat angry I am, if not at the lady, at least those telling her to do so./HGL

PPS, I mentioned "Latest on Antimodernism" - here is an example of how it is useful:



On each widget, to each blog, here the one for this blog is shown, once a new post is published, the latest five links adapt. Here is once again a link to this blog, I also reminded of "contact form":

Latest on Antimodernism
http://l-o-antimodernism.blogspot.com/

PPPS, when I finished a second meal of ratatouille enriched with olives, pickled cucumbers and potatoes, and there is still left, and the fried chicken is left too, I noted there was an extra plastic bag, so things are less smelly now, and I am getting much less angry and hope God blesses my benefactor, still, I am handicapped by getting too much food, too little money, overall. Overeating, which I am basically forced to in order to not waste food, is not quite good for my either spiritual or bodily or even mental health./HGL

Claims on the Blessed Virgin Mary part II, XXXV to XXXX

List of claims

Quoted passage and specific claim list to it:

"Where did those beliefs come from? The Roman Catholic view of Mary has far more in common with the Isis mother-goddess religion of Egypt than it does with anything taught in the New Testament. Interestingly, the first hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship."

• XXXV It is claimed that the view of the Blessed Virgin has much in common with the Isis worship and that this is more than it has with anything written in New Testament, while the role of Old Testament in Mariology is omitted.
• XXXVI It is left to imagination that the Mariology of Origen coming from Alexandria is supporting evidence for Catholic Mariology being Isis-worship.
• XXXVII It is omitted that Origen's Alexandria is where St Athanasius was defending Divinity of Christ, as also believed by Got Questions.
• XXXVIII It is omitted that Origen took his Mariology from typology of Old Testament.
• XXXIX It is omitted that Origen lived during the centuries of persecution, so, if Origen had mixed Isis-worship with Christianity, this mixture would have happened previous to promotion by Constantine and successors.
• XXXX It is thus omitted that Catholic Mariology begins in Early Church Fathers, since Origen is an ante-Nicene Father, shortly after Apostolic Fathers.

I had use for a beer and a steady meal before dealing with each of these singly:

• XXXV It is claimed that the view of the Blessed Virgin has much in common with the Isis worship and that this is more than it has with anything written in New Testament, while the role of Old Testament in Mariology is omitted.

Actually fairly obvious Biblical tenets of New Testament about Her, like Apocalypse 12 (even without concluding a kind of rapture) and flight to Egypt (Matthew 2:11-15 about going to Egypt and verses 16 to 18 about ill-deeds of Herod, and following verses about return) have at least slightly more in common with Isis and Horus worship than any theological conclusion or heavenly claim Catholics make about the Blessed Virgin.

Isis with Horus were fleeing from Seth, and Seth rampaged and went on ill-deeds.

And "queen of heaven" is a fairly imprecise claim, since it involves in the case of Mary being Mother of the King.

In case you'd like to reply "with Isis too", well Horus is the wrong "king of heaven."

• XXXVI It is left to imagination that the Mariology of Origen coming from Alexandria is supporting evidence for Catholic Mariology being Isis-worship.

One could as easily conclude Hebrews coming from Chanaan descend from Chanaanites - which some do conclude, and as Christians we know them wrong, unless you mean part of the people descend from some parts of Chanaaneans who did not get away or get killed.

• XXXVII It is omitted that Origen's Alexandria is where St Athanasius was defending Divinity of Christ, as also believed by Got Questions.

In other words, one could as well conclude that Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania were right in rejecting the main definition of Nicaea.

• XXXVIII It is omitted that Origen took his Mariology from typology of Old Testament.

In other words, one could as well conclude for Albigensians as not accepting any Old Testament, or for Jews who do not accept Old Testament typology and prophecy about Christ.

• XXXIX It is omitted that Origen lived during the centuries of persecution, so, if Origen had mixed Isis-worship with Christianity, this mixture would have happened previous to promotion by Constantine and successors.

In other words, there is a mixup in chronology in some readers minds, first Constantine legalised Christianity, they might imagine from what's been said, then Origen came along and provided some excuses for what Constantine already wanted.

Origen of Alexandria[a] (c. 184 – c. 253)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen

He died c. 60 years before Ponte Milvio.

In c. 249, the Plague of Cyprian broke out.[89] In 250, Emperor Decius, believing that the plague was caused by Christians' failure to recognise him as Divine,[89] issued a decree for Christians to be persecuted.[89][11][88] This time Origen did not escape.[11][88] Eusebius recounts how Origen suffered "bodily tortures and torments under the iron collar and in the dungeon; and how for many days with his feet stretched four spaces in the stocks".[90][91][88] The governor of Caesarea gave very specific orders that Origen was not to be killed until he had publicly renounced in faith in Christ.[88] Origen endured two years of imprisonment and torture,[88] but obstinately refused to renounce his faith.[11][92] In 252, the emperor Decius was assassinated and Origen was released from prison.[88] Nonetheless, Origen's health was broken by the physical tortures enacted on him[11][93] and he died less than a year later at the age of sixty-nine.[11][93] A later legend, recounted by Jerome and numerous itineraries, places his death and burial at Tyre, but little value can be attached to this.[94]

In other words, not likely to comply with Constantine's wishes if he didn't already consider them quite Christian.

• XXXX It is thus omitted that Catholic Mariology begins in Early Church Fathers, since Origen is an ante-Nicene Father, shortly after Apostolic Fathers.

In other words, he (c. 184 – c. 253) was one generation after St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215). And St. Clement was born (c. 150) before St Papias of Hierapolis, a Greek Apostolic Father, died (163 AD).

Very little is known of Papias apart from what can be inferred from his own writings. He is described as "an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp" by Polycarp's disciple Irenaeus (c. 180).

A little early for things getting wrong in the Church, at least in men admired for exegetic skills afterwards.

Claims on the Blessed Virgin part I, XV to XX

List of claims

The claims answered here as a list:

• XV It is suggested that Catholic veneration of Mary is a divine worship and claimed that this is thus un-Biblical.
• XVI It is claimed that Immaculate Conception (i e sinlessness from the first moment of Her conception) is thus un-Biblical.
• XVII It is claimed that the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin is un-Biblical.
• XVIII It is claimed that the Assumption is un-Biblical.
• XIX It is claimed that Coredemptrix is un-Biblical.
• XX It is claimed that Mediatrix omnium gratiarum is un-Biblical.

Each singly:

• XV It is suggested that Catholic veneration of Mary is a divine worship and claimed that this is thus un-Biblical.

The angel Gabriel and Elisabeth in the Bible do honour Her with the words "blessed art thou among women" or "blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb". So do we.

You might reply "but they weren't worshipping her as God" - well, neither are we.

For one thing, I think the Mariavites were worshipping Her as "Incarnation of the Holy Spirit" and they are a condemned sect, outside the Catholic Church.

For another, you may tell me "perhaps you aren't, but how do you know you won't be surprised when reading a Catholic Catechism?" I actually read five of them when converting, including when converting to Trad, the Catechism of Pope St Pius X. You will not find a genuine catechism where She is worshipped as God.

You will find words like "divine motherhood" but that doesn't mean the Mother is a divine person, it means Her motherhood is motherhood in relation to one. In Latin adjectives like "divine" sometimes function as genitives.

• XVI It is claimed that Immaculate Conception (i e sinlessness from the first moment of Her conception) is thus un-Biblical
• XIX It is claimed that Coredemptrix is un-Biblical.

Both are there in Genesis 3:15. Crushing the serpent head is for the woman, as crushing the serpent seed's head is for the woman's seed. Christ three times called His mother woman.

• at Cana
• when she was taken hostage by His brethren
• at Calvary, when She was told about the Beloved Disciple "see thy son"

First two times, the situation is such that one can construe this as words of impatience, even rudeness against His own mother.

Against that explanation, we must consider that "he was like us in all but sin" and any clear and deliberate rudeness to one's mother is sinful. Obviously, with a sinful mother, there would be provoked rudenesses that were not so.

However, if someone were to try to consider first two occasions as proof His mother was sinning, look closely at third one: no hint whatsoever of "correcting" Her. Either He was rude to His mother and therefore a sinner, or His words mean something else. Now, look again at Genesis 3:15 and you will find the correct solution.

Since the Hebrew language has feminine pronoun and feminine verb forms for "she" as subject both with woman and with seed, one could take Hebrew equivalent of "she will crush thy head" both as referring to "the woman's seed will crush thy head" and to "the woman will crush they head". Protestants translating in KJV "it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" take it as referring to "the woman's seed". St Jérôme translating "ipsa conteret caput tuum, et tu insidiaberis calcaneo ejus" or "she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel" (ejus could also mean "his", but Douay Rheims takes "her" as better in context) take it as referring to the woman. See about this the excellent book Ipsa Conteret by Heinz-Lothar Barth.

Now, if "the woman" does play an active part in defeating Satan, then she is coredeemer.

Does she?

Hear again what the angel and Elisabeth said.

blessed art thou among women.

These words had already a history in the Old Testament. They were said to women who had redeemed or saved Israel from mighty enemies. Jael had saved Israel from Sisera and Judith from Holophernes. So, she apparently has overcome a mighty enemy of Israel, but as she has so far led a very peaceful life, she is at least not sure she understands ... I think she had an idea, and once she is miraculously pregnant, it is confirmed.

Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

Very clear what enemy of Israel she has defeated. That fits Genesis 3:15 so nicely, and it means She has defeated Satan by being Mother of God and of the true Messiah. She will crus the serpent's head, but She will do so by Her seed.

But it means more, and even a bit earlier in Genesis 3:15 it says so.

I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed:

What does slavery mean? It does not mean enmity. If you are someone's slave, you are not his enemy.

What does sin mean? It means slavery under Satan, under the serpent.

So, enmity against Satan and especially an enmity successful enough to receive a victory medallion corresponding to "you crushed his head, that vile serpent's" (confer the use about Jael and Judith) can not mean anything other than absolutely not being Satan's slave. And that means absolutely not sinning.

It has been claimed that Her not sinning is contradicted by Herself, when She talks or sings of Her Redeemer. But for one thing, God can redeem from sin in two ways : by fully forgiving a sin already committed, or by preserving someone from committing a sin in the first place. It is this other way which is how the Son wanted to redeem His mother.

• XVII It is claimed that the Perpetual Virginity of the Blessed Virgin is un-Biblical.

Based on:

• no direct mention in NT
• Joseph not knowing her "till she brought forth her firstborn son"
• siblings apparently her non-miraculous children being mentioned.

This is answered:

• NT tradition is sufficient even without NT books, and OT prophecy confirms it, and is even quoted by St. Matthew: [22] Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which the Lord spoke by the prophet, saying: [23] Behold a virgin shall be with child, and bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us
• "not till" or "not until" a specified event does not automatically mean it changes after the event and "firstborn" has a technical meaning not necessarily implying ensuing sons.
• siblings mentioned may be His stepbrothers from previous marriage of St Joseph who had been widowed, also, if one of them was faithful at the time of the Crucifixion and was Her son, and we know St James the Lesser was faithful, no need for Her Son to give Her a substitute son, as He did.

• XVIII It is claimed that the Assumption is un-Biblical.

While the event is after Acts, like many martyrdoms other than that of St James the Greater are also after Acts, it is reflected in Apocalypse 12, since "the woman" actually is identified as Mother of Christ, and since the passage implies she was raptured.

• Apoc. 12:5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with an iron rod: and her son was taken up to God, and to his throne.
• Acts 7:55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looking up steadfastly to heaven, saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God. And he said: Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
• Apocalypse (Revelation) 2:27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron, and as the vessel of a potter they shall be broken,
• Apocalypse (Revelation) 19:15 And out of his mouth proceedeth a sharp two edged sword; that with it he may strike the nations. And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness of the wrath of God the Almighty.
• Apoc. 12:1 And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:

• XX It is claimed that Mediatrix omnium gratiarum is un-Biblical.

Biblical examples of how She mediated graces:

• the leap of joy of John the Baptist
• the miracle of water turned to wine at Cana
• the conversion of the thief on Christ's right hand.

This latter needs some elucidation : we know the Blessed Virgin and the Beloved Disciple were both present at the crucifixion. This is clear from the Bible. It is also clear the robber on His right hand repented and was promised paradise, while that on the left hand we can suppose continued blasphemies.

Now, it is an extra-Biblical tradition, endorsed by the Church, that the Blessed Virgin stood under His right hand and the Beloved Disciple under His left hand. And when both robbers started out blaspheming, they both prayed for the conversion of the robber who was nearest.µ

The Blessed Virgin was caring for St Dismas, that is why he converted in time.

The earlier two examples do not even need extra-Biblical tradition to explain them.

So, She mediated His Grace before He was born, when He started His public ministry, when He redeemed the world, when the Church received the Holy Ghost, even, and at the choice of the Traitor's replacer:

Acts 1:[13] And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James. [14] All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.

Acts 1:[26] And they gave them lots, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

Acts 2:[1] And when the days of the Pentecost were accomplished, they were all together in one place: [2] And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a mighty wind coming, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. [3] And there appeared to them parted tongues as it were of fire, and it sat upon every one of them: [4] And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and they began to speak with divers tongues, according as the Holy Ghost gave them to speak.

So, when did She not mediate grace? With this in mind, just because a grace is mentioned, and Her mediating it is not, we dare not say the grace was not mediated by Her.

Claims XIV and IL to LIV, on Papacy

List of claims

The list:

• XIV It is claimed that papacy is thus un-Biblical.
• IL It is claimed that it is foreign to the Bible with a Vicar of Christ. Including that of bishop of Rome which lays claim to it.
• L It is claimed that the supremacy was created with the support of Roman Emperors.
• LI It is claimed that this supremacy was resisted by most other bishops.
• LII It is claimed that this resistance of most other bishops was overcome by Emperors.
• LIII It is claimed that fall of Western Empire allowed Popes to "step in their shoes".
• LIV It is at least suggested that a real Christian bishop could not be called Pontifex Maximus.

Each singly:

• XIV It is claimed that papacy is thus un-Biblical.

Namely in the sense of taking sth not directly mentioned in the Bible in verbally identic terms and also limiting searches about the New Testament Church to New Testament Books as being something foreign to the God and to the message of the Bible.

• IL It is claimed that it is foreign to the Bible with a Vicar of Christ. Including that of bishop of Rome which lays claim to it.

As previous.

• L It is claimed that the supremacy was created with the support of Roman Emperors.

It is true that one Pagan Emperor during a time when he was not actively persecuting the Church in a quarrel in Antioch or somewhere about ownership to a Church adjudged it to those over there in Communion with Rome.

However, he was considering Christians as a minority meant to stay so.

Emperors who were Christians or at least heretics have by contrast sought to rival the papacy over influence over the now majority religion of the Roman Empire.

This was specifically so with Arian Emperors, of whom one banished Pope Liberius, and saw to it to make claims about his complicity with Arianism to the Romans to discredit either him or Athanasian and Nicene Orthodoxy.

It was true of Iconoclast Emperors who were isolating the Church in Constantinople from Roman influences, as Rome was iconodule.

While we mention this, Exodus 20:4 does not begin another commandment, it continues already begun first one.

• LI It is claimed that this supremacy was resisted by most other bishops.

Not true. This is a historic allegation, which needs to be argued on historic merits, a discussion which is totally lacking.

• LII It is claimed that this resistance of most other bishops was overcome by Emperors.

On the contrary, as shown.

• LIII It is claimed that fall of Western Empire allowed Popes to "step in their shoes".

True about political power in a wordly sense. Popes, and some other bishops and abbots, like temporarily the bishop St Remigius and permanently the bishops of Salzburg, like temporarily the abbot or hermit St Severinus or Noricum, and permanently the abbots of Iona, were stepping in for lacking lay administrators.

As to strictly religious role, this is obviously rot, since no one has been asked to burn incense to the genius of the Pope.

• LIV It is at least suggested that a real Christian bishop could not be called Pontifex Maximus.

The title as such is an adiaphoron. There were more priestly titles in Rome than just one, and the title pontifex was not tied to a specific pagan divinity, unlike "flamen dialis" or "flamen martialis" or "flamen quirinalis" or each of the "flamines minores". Therefore, the word could be used also of a Christian priest with some similarity of position, which we know the Popes had, since deciding on calendar issues, like Julius Caesar when he invented the Julian Calendar, the one we still use, except later a Pope made a modification concerning leap years and centurial years. In Julian Calendar, a centurial year is a leap year, since divisible by four, in Gregorian, only every fourth centurial year.

Hunnius Redivivus on Apostolic Succession

The Lutheran pastor in this one is not named*, but as he cites Nicolas Hunnius with relish, one can call him Hunnius redivivus.

Apostolic Succession
Ask The Pastor | 7.VI.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_oN1PMy34k

How do Lutherans know their ministry if valid if they're not attached to the Roman Church? Can pastors really trace their ordination all the way back to the Twelve Apostles? How do we respond to Rome's claims of Apostolic Succession? All this, plus a little more in this episode of Ask The Pastor.

I'll be using here a format which would usually place this post on ...

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere
assortedretorts.blogspot.com/

But since there is no actual commenting under his video, these being disabled, I take it here, according to the subject of apologetics against Protestantism./HGL

2:36 "outside of that papal fellowship, outside of apostolic succhession."

This is already one blatant misunderstanding, since the "fellowship" (communion) is not the same thing as the succession (of ordinations).

The communion depends on communion with an usually already ordained and consecrated, but sometimes only elect bishop of Rome. Or an already dead one, if no successor is as yet chosen.

Apostolic succession means someone has ordination only (not being able to ordain) or also consecration as bishop (being able to ordain) by a chain from the apostles.

When a layman is raised to papacy (which has happened) or to any other episcopal see, licitly and in communion with Rome, he must be sooner or later ordained priest and then consecrated bishop. St Ambrose was actually elected before his baptism, so he was baptised, confirmed and made bishop on same day, upon the election (which back than was by popular outcry, a k a acclamation). BUT even before he is so, one needs to be in communion with him and obey him (in the things where it is not sinful to obey or sinful and canonically wrongful for him to ask obedience). So, the apostolic succession and the communion with Rome are two different things.

I consider Pope Michael is the true Pope, he was elected while a layman, and waited 21 years before being ordained and consecrated bishop. During those 21 years, obedience and papal fellowship was due to him, but he had no apostolic succession (as to ordination). Meanwhile, some bishops had apostolic succession, but did not accept him as Pope. So, they were schismatics, held illicit masses and sacraments, up to accepting the true Pope, which one Bob Biarnesen did. And this Bob Biarnesen had his apostolic succession from Duarte Costa, who had it by normal Catholic procedure but did not stay in communion with Pius XII. He did not lose apostolic succession when going into schism, though.

So, "ask the pastor" at Holy Cross Church (or Hunnius redivivus) is starting out his video by mixing two very different concepts : valid sacraments as depending on apostolic succession and licit sacraments as depending (within conditions for validity) on Communion with Rome. With the true Pope.

2:57 "Lutherans and Protestants don't buy into Apostolic Succession"

So much the worse for them, then ...

3:01 "number 1, it's not in Scripture"

Hello, mole ... as you have glasses, check the ophthalmologist, you might want to be able to catch things a bit further away than the tip of your fingers with eye-sight!

"nowhere in Scripture does Christ or his apostles tell us that ministers must receive ordination from their hands or from the hands of .... someone who was ordained by them"

No, but that is bc all Christ tells is not told us by Scripture. So, no, but we do see they ordain and confirm. Acts 6:6 we see that deacons are part of those who need to be ordained, at least the first seven were so:

These they set before the apostles; and they praying, imposed hands upon them.

Acts 8 we see one of them (Philip) can baptise, but not confirm:

12 But when they had believed Philip preaching of the kingdom of God, in the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.

Note, there were as yet no one except Philip around, there was no disciple from Jerusalem.

The apostles Peter and John on the other hand could confirm, and the reception of the Holy Spirit was back then manifested by charismatic miracles.

14 - 17 Now when the apostles, who were in Jerusalem, had heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John. Who, when they were come, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. For he was not as yet come upon any of them; but they were only baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. Then they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

How can one analyse this? Like, Philip can baptise but he cannot lay hands on people so the Holy Ghost descends on them visibly (or for adult, fullgrown use of praising and declaring God). One Simon, already mentioned, comes to the same conclusion and wants to be able to confirm:

And when Simon saw, that by the imposition of the hands of the apostles, the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, Saying: Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I shall lay my hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said to him: Keep thy money to thyself, to perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.

In other words, St Peter doesn't invalidate Simon Magus' theoretical conclusion, but only his practical one.

Now, ff 5 chapter divisions to chapter 13.

2, 3 And as they were ministering to the Lord, and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them. Then they, fasting and praying, and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away.

Note, Paul already had a calling from the Lord, but he did not do any outward ministry (especially of the sacramental type, but the two are often connected, only with Justin Martyr a century later or two do we find lay apologists attested) before receiving this laying on of hands.

Now, could just anyone or any congregation or any chief members of a congregation, first fasting and praying have thereupon laid hands on someone and made him a bishop?

If even for confirmation (Acts 8) the apostles were needed (and Philip was not sufficient despite having some ordination, that of deacon) how could unordained men suffice for this act of ordination?

We must assume, either that someone of the apostles was among the ones ordaining or consecrating Paul, or, noting that "Simon who was called Niger" is probably someone quite other than Simon Peter, that someone or all of them had received ordination from Apostles.

But perhaps this is overinterpretation, they were first example of non-ordained ordaining ... since ordaining by Apostles was kind of a solemn and pompous and charismatic exception, just for this first generation?

No, we do not just have at least three generations of Apostolic succession by this time, but at least five, as we'll see, but start with three so far:

1) Apostles, 2) un-named "they" at Antioch, 3) Paul and Barnabas.

I am presuming that Barnabas and Saul could already be considered "prophets and doctors", if not, the word order allows some confusion, or that the names enumerated are not those of the "prophets and doctors" but of people living or staying among them. In that case "prophets and doctors" would be the earliest term for a bishop who was not himself one apostle in Jerusalem.

But are there more? Yes, at least five.

Paul is as named a third generation bishop, then there are:

3) Paul, 4) Timothy and Titus, 5) men ordained and consecrated by Timothy and Titus.

But let's give this pastor the benefit of the doubt and imagine we bend our minds into pretzels to make believe while this apostolic strain existed, independent strains could arise at any time too, if people lacking ordained ministers prayed and fasted and laymen laid hands on some layman**. If so, the "they" at Antioch could have even been an independent strain.

To remove all doubt, let's see how St Paul speaks of the fact of ordaining and consecrating. II Timothy 1:1 how Timothy is a fourth generation bishop (if Paul is a third generation one):

For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands.

Let's recall that Timothy is the only one who can stir up this specific grace of God, since he is the one having received it from Paul, his mother and grandmother Lois and Eunice had great faith, like he, but were not ordained.

But let's also recall that Timothy got this ordination from the laying of hands of one specific person, namely the Paul of whom we know (Acts 13) that he had already himself received ordination. Not from the "call" of a congregation.

And, yes, the fifth generation is also mentioned by Paul in his letters to them:

I Timothy 5:22 Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men's sins. Keep thyself chaste.

In other words, Timothy must consecrate, but must not do so lightly.

He gives similar instructions to Titus 1:5 For this cause I left thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and shouldest ordain priests in every city, as I also appointed thee:

And again, Timothy, I Tim 3:1-10

A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity. But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God? Not a neophyte: lest being puffed up with pride, he fall into the judgment of the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony of them who are without: lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. Deacons in like manner chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre: Holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved: and so let them minister, having no crime.

We have already seen, Simon Magus was rebuffed by the one who could actually ordain him and now Timothy is told whom not to rebuff and by implication whom to rebuff. Presumably, Timothy could not have exercised such discretion if just anyone could have ordained.

So, yes, if we look a bit further than our nosetip, yes, we do find Apostolic Succession as a very probable at least requirement in the New Testament, and we most definitely do find this confirmed by universal tradition. Roman Catholics say so, Greek Orthodox say so, Copts say so, Armenians say so, Assyrians say so.

3:23 "second of all, historically the idea, you can't verify apostolic succession"

Yes, we can, we simply do not find any indication this is a novum. Ever, at any time, unlike how its contestation by Luther and followers definitely is a novum 500 years ago.

"it's not possible"

If you mean conduct an independent inquiry about every bishop of one episcopal lineage, now, after so much material and circumstantial knowledge has been lost, either left undocumented in written form or written documentation has since been lost, no, we can't. But that is also not necessary to verify it. If someone traces his lineage to Scipione Cardinal Rebiba, as 95 % of Latin Rite Catholic bishops do, and we cannot get further, because we have lost the document on when Scipione Cardinal Rebiba was himself consecrated bishop, and therefore we can go no further behind him, this does not mean we can reasonably suspect that he never was consecrated bishop. If he hadn't been he would not have ordained and (more importantly to us now) consecrated.

But suppose he had not been consecrated bishop. It's impossible, since if so, he would not have consecrated bishops, but let's suppose the impossible. There is a canon saying that at episcopal consecrations, the bishop shall be assisted by at least one (if it is not two) other bishops. This means, whenever Scipione Cardinal Rebiba was principal consecrator of a bishop, there was also some other bishop, who would have conferred valid succession, had Scipione Cardinal Rebiba's consecration been invalid or had it been dubious back then.

This is also how we can see that it must have been going on since the apostles, and the same precautions are also made by Orthodox, by Copts, by Armenians and by Assyrians, which is why they also have valid succession, even if outside the papal communion.

Apostolic Succession & Episcopal Lineages in the Roman Catholic Church
http://apostolicsuccession-episcopallineages.blogspot.com/2014/08/apostolic-succession-episcopal-lineages.html

Here is how Charles Bransom reasons on this:

It is widely believed that Rebiba was ordained bishop by Gian Pietro Cardinal Carafa, who became Pope Paul IV. However, no documentary evidence has been found to verify this hypothesis.

The lack of documentation of the episcopal ordination for the last bishop in any episcopal lineage should not be considered as evidence that the lineage ends with that bishop or that the bishop in question never received episcopal ordination. It simply means that the details of that bishop's episcopal ordination have not yet been found and that the bishop in question is the last known bishop in that lineage.

3:35 "if you look at ancient lists of a papacy, you will see some blank spots"

The Lutheran pastor, or Hunnius redivivus, is, as was presumable, confusing succession of ordinations with succession in a given see, notably Rome.

ANY validly consecrated bishop all over the world can continue the line of ordinations anywhere, licitly in communion with the living Pope or with last Pope alive or illicitly even outside that communion. Lines of ordinations are deliberately crisscrossed over dioceses, so no diocese shall risk permanent failure of episcopacy, just in the very unlikely case it should have one bishop who was not validly consecrated. For instance, Benedict XIII was as bishop of Rome (succession of magisterial office, other thing, also needing ultimate apostolicity) succeeded by Benedict XIV. The defender of Jesuits by the remover of Jesuits.

But Benedict XIII is one man who is largely responsible for spreading the Scipione Cardinal Rebiba succession, since he consecrated 159 bishops, according to Charles Bransom. While in fact the future Benedict XIV was consecrated by him, perhaps not unsurprisingly due to the number of consecrations he made, this was not as future Pope, this was as titular Bishop of Theodosia.

On 12 June 1724, only two weeks after his election, Pope Benedict XIII appointed Lambertini titular bishop of Theodosia.[8] Lambertini was consecrated a bishop in Rome, in the Pauline Chapel of the Vatican Palace, on 16 July 1724, by Pope Benedict XIII. The co-consecrators were Giovanni Francesco Nicolai, titular Archbishop of Myra (Vicar of the Vatican Basilica), and Nicola Maria Lercari, titular Archbishop of Nazianzus (Papal Maestro di Camera).[9] In 1725, he served as the Canonist at the Roman Synod of Pope Benedict XIII.[10]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XIV

So, Benedict XIV got apostolic succession from Benedict XIII, but so did over 150 other men, and he also got it from

• Giovanni Francesco Nicolai, titular Archbishop of Myra (Vicar of the Vatican Basilica),
• Nicola Maria Lercari, titular Archbishop of Nazianzus (Papal Maestro di Camera).

Now, if we go to the episcopal lineage of Benedict XIII, it does not include a previous Pope:

• Cardinale Scipione Rebiba (needs no introduction by now!)
• Cardinale Giulio Antonio Santori
• Cardinale Girolamo Bernerio, O.P.
• Arcivescovo Galeazzo Sanvitale
• Cardinale Ludovico Ludovisi
• Cardinale Luigi Caetani
• Cardinale Ulderico Carpegna
• Cardinale Paluzzo Paluzzi Altieri degli Albertoni
• Papa Benedetto XIII

By "his apostolic succesion" one means the men tracing apostolic succesion through him.

I'll not give the whole impressive list, but the fact remains that only one of them was a future Pope, namely Benedict XIV, and many were never Cardinals, only Bishops.

Obviously, with such crisscross between dioceses, further enriched by bishops who had no own diocese, even a Pope who was never validly consecrated bishop would be no major hurdle, his successor would still be validly consecrated by someone else, elsewhere.

3:40 "you'll see asterisks, because we don't know"

No, but we can be sure they knew back then. Oh, by the way, I am not sure your asterisks are not really a case of modern hyperscepticism in history.

3:42 "you'll also see as early as 200 AD, antipopes"

So? The Pope had Apostolic succession, licitly and formally, the Antipope also, illicitly and only materially.

3:52 "you have two guys in Rome claiming to be Pope"

Yes, sure ...

4:00 "so if someone was ordained" (=consecrated bishop) "under one of them, and then turns out they're not the real pope"

His episcopal consecration is still valid, but his nomination to such and such a see would need confirmation by the real pope. Usually that would concretely have been an implicit one as in not destituting those named by an antipope or presumed such (there was an exception with a very vicious antipope or even bad real Pope, Xth C.)

4:01 "then what does that do to the entire line?"

Nothing. Nothing at all. Lutherans and other Protestants are so used to thinking of ordination (to "priest" or to "bishop" while having neither) as a pretty ceremony, strictly dependent on validity of nomination to a post as parish priest or bishop of a see, they fail to see what we even mean by apostolic succession.

Think of consecrator and of new bishop as father and son, and compare with kohanim of Old Testament. So and so was a long time Kohen Gadol (High Priest) because his father had been so before him, if I get what was happening in the time of Eli, or because the sons of the one who was so before were lacking or inept, as with Eli's son. Even then, a new line of Kohen Gadol could begin from any Kohen family after the sons of Eli were eliminated, and the new Kohen Gadol was still in Aaronite succession, but the thing is, towards the end of the Second Temple, this was not so.

You had people being "High Priest that year" (and not for life) meaning that the Kohen Gadol pretty often got taken from another priestly Aaronic lineage than that of previous Kohen Gadol, and just same way also Popes are not one Episcopal lineage, they are a lineage of holders of a specific office which requires you to be bishop (when elected or to become so after election). Both Kaiaphas and Yohanan ben Hanan, and Joshua ben Gamla too, they were all Aaronite priests, they were also all Kohen Gadol, but Joshua Ben Gamla was not Aaronite priest because Kaiaphas had been so, but because Gamla or Gamaliel his father had been so. And same also with episcopal lineage in apostolic succession of orders being different from succession within a specific episcopal office, including Pope.

4:05 "there is no way of really getting that, you know, there were antipopes"



Fittingly, Hunnius Redivivus closes his eyes when saying this, in passion and excitement. There is no way of his getting that or anything else as long as he closes his eyes in passion.

4:08 "there were antipopes all through medieval papacy"

Yes, so? The episcopal lineage going back to apostles is still another series than the series pastorum.

An illicit bishop is still - usually - a valid bishop. Validly consecrated, that is.

4:16 Neither in Rome nor in Avignon the Popes had taken for themselves any monopoly on actually performing episcopal consecrations, nor made any rule that only a validly elected Pope of bishop could validly consecrate. At all.

4:35 I think all three rival Popes were validly consecrated bishops. They were not all validly elected to the see of Rome and of the Church universal, two of them had no real see, but they were all validly consecrated. Here we look at the diverse claimants:

Finally, a council was convened by Pisan antipope John XXIII in 1414 at Constance to resolve the issue. This was endorsed by Pope Gregory XII, thus ensuring the legitimacy of any election. The council, advised by the theologian Jean Gerson, secured the resignations of John XXIII and Pope Gregory XII, who resigned in 1415, while excommunicating the second antipope, Benedict XIII, who refused to step down. The Council elected Pope Martin V in 1417, essentially ending the schism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism#Resolution

And now, on each, quoting either passage or facts' square:

Antipope John XXIII

He studied law at the University of Bologna and obtained doctorates in both civil and canon law.[2] Probably at the prompting of his family, in 1392 he entered the service of Pope Boniface IX, first working in Bologna and then in Rome. (The Western Schism had begun in 1378, and there were two competing popes at the time, one in Avignon supported by France and Spain, and one in Rome, supported by most of Italy, Germany and England.) In 1386 he is listed as canon of the cathedral of Bologna. In 1396, he became archdeacon in Bologna. He became Cardinal deacon of Saint Eustachius in 1402 and Papal legate in Romagna in 1403.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope_John_XXIII

Which is probably when he was consecrated bishop, if at all, but it is possible he was so vicious that he omitted this.

Pope Gregory XII

Angelo Corraro was born in Venice of a noble family, about 1326 or 1327, and was appointed Bishop of Castello in 1380, succeeding Bishop Nicolò Morosini.

Probably when he was consecrated bishop. Ah, it says Consecration 1390 (probably a mixup between 1380 and 90 on one of the items, he was arguably not unconsecrated for 10 years)

Antipope Benedict XIII

He was actually not even priest at election, but became so:

Ordination 3 October 1394 by Jean de Neufchatel
Consecration 11 October 1394 by Jean de Neufchatel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipope_Benedict_XIII

While his election was invalid, his orders weren't.

Pope Martin V

Ordination 13 November 1417
Consecration 14 November 1417
by Jean Franczon Allarmet de Brogny

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Martin_V

4:56 "when you throw in historical things" ...

No, your problem is not looking at history, but misunderstanding what was happening, because you misunderstand the whole concept.

5:05 "it's historically unverifiable apostolic succession"

No, very verifiable, since the episcopal lineage of a Pope is sth other than the series pastorum in Rome and since the episcopal lineage of any other bishop elsewhere is also independent both of the series pastorum in his diocese and of the then Pope.

5:10 Two Books Against the Papacy, meaning Nicolaus Hunnius since 1629 or Balthasar Meisner since 1627 has been misleading Protestants on the understanding of what apostolic succession is.

Thank you, you are NOT the first protestant I heard this or read this ineptitude from. You have a LONG tradition, humanly speaking, longer than kilt and haggis and Robert Burns, of misunderstanding this subject ...

Two Books Against the Papacy Paperback – May 8, 2017
by Nicolaus Hunnius (Author), Balthasar Meisner (Author), Paul A. Rydecki (Translator)
https://www.amazon.com/Books-Against-Papacy-Nicolaus-Hunnius/dp/1891469746



5:48 Citing Hunnius "she is also demanding a condition which she herself does not meet since the Roman Turks cannot demonstrate a definite direct sucession for herself at any level of the teaching office"

I just showed how this is untrue, in fairly good detail, but one could answer rhetorically, also, when Luther demands a thing be proven from the Bible (directly in so many words, whenever that fits him, though at other times he is satisified with more general implications) he is demanding a condition which he himself does not meet, since the Saxon Hun cannot demonstrate a Biblical proof for any of his deviations from Rome.

6:03 "for from that it follows that at this time no ministers of the Church are found or appointed anywhere in the world."

Not so. Wait, he uses the word "appointment"

The requirement for definite succession is probably one of a series pastorum.

Let's go back to start of the quote:

"accordingly when the [...] Roman Church still requires in this matter that ministers of the church who appoint others to this office must come in the orderly line of succession from the apostles"

Actually, I think Hunnius was polemising about series pastorum ... well, the times when this was in fact broken at Rome, the Church survived at other places and it could be restored in Rome, exactly as it could be restored anywhere else if broken there while unbroken in Rome or elsewhere.

When Hunnius Redivivus resumes the original Hunnius (after direct quotes) as "historically unverifiable", he is not really getting the original Hunnius' case. Hunnius was claiming as verified historic fact that Rome had on every level broken succession. Obviously, most things he would back that up with have since then been soundly refuted.

6:18 "it comes from the call"

No.

Having a call even to priesthood does not confer sacerdotal ordination.

6:21 "whenever a group of Christians forms a congregation" [garbled subs] "a divine call to a man to serve as their minister ... then Christ calls men into the ministry through congregations"

Well, you can shoehorn that model even as a possibility into NT only by ignoring lots of contrary evidence, but one thing you most definitely cannot is prove that model from the New Testament - or from anything else.

Ordination is not a formalised proclamation that a call exists, call and ordination are separate issues, and calls are not always to ordinations (Jonah was called as prophet to Nineveh, not to ministerial priesthood, and the only call to ministerial priesthood anyone could have in OT was by being born into a family of kohens ... obviously eventually not everyone did serve as a kohen, even if so born).

But supposing the call is one to ministerial priesthood, the call and the priesthood or ordination are different things.

St Ignatius of Loyola had God's call to priesthood the day the third inquisitorial trial acquitted him on condition he try no pastoral up to studying theology and getting ordained.

The call was on his giving Spiritual Exercises without being a priest, in Alcalá de Henares, 1526 to 27, when the Inquisition gaoled him.

The ordination came after studies in Paris, in Venice, 24 June 1537. Ten years after the call.

There is even NT proof that "a congregation" is definitely not necessary for a priesthood. NT mentions house churches.

6:54 You neither see in NT nor in early Church history anyone whose ministry is valid simply because of election by a congregation. Sure, elections were often by popular vote and that was the case with episcopacy, including to very late the Roman one (first millennium).

But even when a source only mentions election, you cannot just presume that ordination is lacking or not traced (if not all the way back on last item, at least at each step) back to apostles, via Church claiming, credibly, to dispose of apostolic succession.

6:54 "and that makes him a valid minister and so his preaching is going to be the truth as long as it's in line with the Scriptures"

• 1) Unverifiable condition
• 2) Not guaranteed individually either by valid election (other perhaps than to papacy) or valid succession, only guaranteed to the Church as a whole.

7:04 "his sacraments are going to be valid as long as they are done according to the institution"

The institution conditions for most sacraments (baptism and marriage excepted) and especially for the Holy Eucharist precisely is among other things a minister with valid succession.

By flouting this condition, you are making your sacraments invalid (except your baptisms and your marriages).

8:08 [rightly considers Baptist pastors' Eucharists as invalid and motivates] "he's not doing it according to the institution"

Precisely - and neither do you with lines of ordinational succession truly broken off, not just in documentation long after facts, but in factual truth, by truly originating in "congregations" much later than the twelve apostles.

"first of all he's not using the elements in most cases, they're not using the elements that Christ instituted the sacrament with, i e wine, most of them use grape juice"

It's correct that someone trying that would definitely not celebrate a valid Eucharist, not even if he were validly ordained.

"grape juice is denatured wine"

Actually, grape juice is what wine had been before the fermentation making it wine. Commercial grape juice might also be denatured so it cannot ferment in some cases. Now, non-alcoholic wine is by contrast denatured wine.

If a priest ever come across a pastor's non-alcoholic wine, he can't use it for Eucharist. If he comes across his grape juice, if normal, not sure this is the case for all grape juice, he can open packages and start fermenting in a damejeanne. And when he gets wine from that, use it in the Eucharist.

9:19 Yes, it has to do with apostolic succession debate.

The by institution necessary elements for a sacrament are three:

• an apt minister with the intention of doing what the Church does
• right matter
• right form.

For baptism, you only need to be human to be "apt minister". Two Jews about to die soon could baptise each other (successively) after converting in a situation they have no physical access to the Church.

The first to be baptised would still be validly baptised even if baptised by an unbaptised.

For marriage, you need to be human, previously unmarried or since previous marriage widowed, and of opposite sex to the one you are conferring marriage on (the form is not given in the Bible, but it is the marital vows).

For the five sacraments between these, you need to be either bishop or at least priest to confer them validly. That means, you need apostolic succession.

Preaching is not a sacrament, reading the Gospel in Mass is a sacramental for which you need to be at least deacon, but preaching can be done by laymen, like St Francis of Assisi was a frequent preacher, but probably not ordained, or if at all only to deacon, but we have no documentation, I don't think even narrative, for that. However, he did need the blessing of someone in charge of preaching. Similar for catechising those who will be baptised or reconciled with the Church.

By contrast, St Justin Martyr was not preaching, nor catechising, he was defending the faith on items where it was attacked. Since attacks of infidels and heretics are not foreseeable, nor to whom they come, at least improvised apologetics is perfectly fine without a special ecclesiastic vocation to it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. John of Matha
8.II.2019

* In autoreply from him, it seems the real name of Hunnius Redivivus is Pastor Sullivan.

** Note, this was not what happened when Pope Michael was elected by laymen, he remained layman, though Pope elect, nor what happened when he was ordained and consecrated more than two decades later in 2011, there were bishops with apostolic succession, the principal Bob Biarnesen with succession through Duarte Costa who did his ordination and consecration, therefore no lay apostolic succession there either.