Rev. John O'Brien Found Wanting in One Thing (If it wasn't Fr. Jaime Pazat De Lys, FSSPX)

1. Is the Bible a book of science?

The Bible is not a book of science, and was never intended to answer the purpose of a book of science.

2. Does the Bible teach anything that has to do with science?

Yes, the Bible mentions many things that have to do with science.

3. Name one biblical account that touches on science.

The account of the Creation in the Book of Genesis touches on many branches of science.

4. Does not the Bible contain many things that science has proved false?

Since God is the author of the Bible and also, the foundation of true science, the Bible cannot err when it touches on science.

5. How, then, are we to account for the apparent contradictions between the Bible and science?

In many ways, for example: some so-called scientific findings are false; others are mere unsubstantiated theories (Evolution); while still others, when properly examined, do not contradict the biblical narrative.

6. Is not the Bible statement that the sun stood still in the heavens (Jos. 10, 13) an example of obvious error?

No, we must remember that the Bible was written in every-day language of the time, not in scientific terms. Even to this day, for example, we speak of sunset even though the sun is not setting anywhere and we know that the Earth is orbiting around the Sun and not vice-versa.

Now, Joshua 10:13 is it stood by itself might be so interpreted.

It comes after Joshua 10:12.

In Joshua 10:12, we have a historical statement of what Joshua said when working the miracle:

Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon.

Why does this not bear the explanation "in every-day language of the time, not in scientific terms"?

Because, if it was Earth that stopped turning, Joshua as miracle worker would have been adressing the words by which he worked the miracle to the wrong agent.

Every other miracle elsewhere in the Bible, whoever works the miracle (whether Christ or someone else) is adressing what needs to be adressed, not some other thing.

It would have sufficed to make the boat stand still in the storm, Christ could have told the boat to stand still instead - but He told the wind and waves to calm down, and they did so. And the boat with them. We do not see Him adressing the boat and then the waves and winds stand still instead, nor the waves and winds and only the boat stands still. What He adressed is what obeyed His command.

One cannot except the leper and "be thou made clean" where it says "the leprosy was made clean" in one Gospel : both the leprosy and he were "made clean" but in different ways. If it had been washing, it is as if the leprosy had been washed off, while the man had been washed pure. Washed off and washed pure are related but diverse concepts related to the verb wash. Now, since there was no water, just the word, the miracle working word of the Word, the verb "make clean" replaces this. Of both one could say they were "made clean" so Christ is not adressing the wrong body in speaking to the leper.

And whoever pretends that there were no demons, only a mental illness in the man before whose face Christ spoke "get out of him", is a heretic. This heresy was already around as far as I can recall in the late 19th C. among modernist Lutherans in Sweden.

Therefore we cannot accept that Joshua in verse 12 spoke to the wrong entity.

Apart from that one thing, I do not find Rev. John O'Brien very wanting.

A Catechism of the Bible, By Rev. John O'Brien, M.A., New York 1924
Revised and enlarged by Fr. Jaime Pazat De Lys, FSSPX, St. Mary's, Kansas 1997
Copyright © 1997, 2003. Jaime Pazat De Lys (posted here with permission)
http://drbo.org/catechism.htm

And cited here as per Fair Use.

Minor error, not of principle in interpretation, but of fact:

Lesson 16: 10. Name other differences between the King James version and the Douay version.

The King James version has a preference for words of Anglo-Saxon origin whereas the Douay version freely uses words of Latin origin. The Douay version latinizes the name of some books while the King James gives what they thought at the time to be the Hebrew name. Many Protestant versions other than King James omit the Epistle of St. James.

I do not know even one single Protestant version that omitted the Epistle of St. James. Luther kind of wanted to but didn't get through with it.

Is there a warning against me, when I expound on Biblical history or Bible and science?

Lesson 14:1. Is the meaning of the Bible so clear that anyone reading it, can readily understand it?

The Bible is by no means so easily understood: St. Peter himself tells us that it contains many things: "... hard to be understood ..." (II Pet. III,16).

2. Whom do we have to interpret the Bible for us?

The Catholic Church interprets the Bible for us.

It so happens, Biblical history is not traditionally considered to be among these things "hard to be understood". Those that are are some technical details about salvation issues and commandments and laws.

Two pre-Protestant and fully Catholic printed French translations involve one complete Bible and one "Bible historiée" - that is, Biblical history. The sequence of events. This means, Biblical history has never been among the matters where priests can tell laymen to "brush off, this is reserved for us". Unless, obviously, the laymen are actually contradicting Biblical history. But in my case, I am contradictng certain priests who are contradicting it, I am defending Biblical history. In lesson 13, Rev. John O'Brien had stated

The Bible is not an historical book per se; it is primarily a religious book; but it does contain a certain amount of historical teaching

This is understated : in a Vulgate or Douay Rheims, I have found the majority of chapters as being historical books' chapters.
/as previous, Hans Georg Lundahl

Do We Need Unwritten Traditions?

Asaph Vapor kept asking "where does it say successors?" · Do We Need Unwritten Traditions?

If we are Christians, yes, we do need traditions from Christ over His Apostles, that are not in the New Testament directly.

Here is why.

Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: (Matthew 28:20)

What do these include among other things?

[25] Then he said to them: O foolish, and slow of heart to believe in all things which the prophets have spoken. [26] Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his glory? [27] And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him. Luke 24.

So, Christological OT exegesis is included. Note "all the prophets".

But we do have some Christological comment in the New Testament, isn't that enough?

No.

It is tenuously possible to imagine that the canonic books of the New Testament refers back explicitly to each book of the Old Testament, though I don't think it is quite likely.

But it is very certain, we do not have references explicitly back to most passages and verses in the Old Testament, within this canon.

So, do we need that?

For if you did believe Moses, you would perhaps believe me also; for he wrote of me. John 5:46

One can also translate the Latin "for (it was) of me (that) he wrote".

We must therefore assume:

• all of the Old Testament refers to Jesus Christ
• all of it was exposed to the Apostles (those on the way to Emmaus and others)
• all of it was meant to be transmitted through the ages by the Apostles with their successors (see previous)
• and all of it is not simply there by referring to standard Jewish (as the word is now used) exegesis, since the Jews do not refer it to Jesus Christ.

Also, the bare text of the Old Testament is not enough, since the Jews have that too (but call it "the Bible" rather than "the Old Testament"). It is also too large a corpus to be written down in the New Testament.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Barbara
4.XII.2020

Asaph Vapor kept asking "where does it say successors?"

Asaph Vapor kept asking "where does it say successors?" · Do We Need Unwritten Traditions?

Instead of reformulating once more to him, I claim not just the liberty but the duty to interpret Bible verses with the logical consequences following their context.

Matthew 28: [16] And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [17] And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. [18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. [19] Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. [20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

I am now straight on going to weaken my case by giving some Catholic comment:

Ver. 16. The eleven disciples went into Galilee, yet not till above eight days after. As to the order of Christ's apparitions, in the gospels: He appeared first to Mary Magdalene, and to other devout women; then to S. Peter; next to two disciples going to Emmaus; after that to the apostles that were all together, except only S. Thomas. These apparitions were all on the very day he rose from the dead. We find also (Jo. xx,) that eight days after he appeared to all the eleven apostles, Thomas being then present, to whom he said, put in thy finger hither, &c. This is generally thought to have happened at Jerusalem. When the apostles and disciples were gone into Galilee, he shewed himself to seven of them, as they were fishing on the lake of Tiberias. Jo. xxi. 4. We read also in this chap. (v. 16,) that he appeared to them on a mountain in Galilee: what mountain is was we know not. It may be of this apparition that S. Paul says, (1 Cor. xv. 6,) Then was he seen by more than five hundred brethren at once. He also tells us he appeared to S. James. See v. 7. But when or where this was, is not mentioned. In fine, Christ till his ascension frequently appeared to them, and conversed with them. He taught them to understand the holy Scriptures, and all that belonged to their ministry: he gave them power to forgive sins: He sent his apostles as his heavenly Father had sent him. He gave in particular to S. Peter the charge over his whole flock: He promised to send down upon them the Holy Ghost; and to remain with them himself to the end of the world, i.e. with his Church. Wi. — It is supposed that then and there took place what S. Paul mentions, that Jesus Christ shewed himself to more than 500 of the brethren together. V.

Ver. 17. They adored: but some doubted. This, says Theophylactus, need not be understood of the apostles, but of others, who had not seen Christ after his resurrection. It may also be expounded of those disciples who had doubted at the first, and particularly of S. Thomas the apostle. Wi. — These doubted not of the resurrection or divinity of Christ, but whether the person that appeared to them was really their Master, Jesus Christ. V.

HAYDOCK CATHOLIC BIBLE COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT : MATTHEW 28
https://www.ecatholic2000.com/haydock/ntcomment30.shtml

Oh bother, I had just decided that the appearance to the 500 being this occasion was a wishful eisegesis invented by Protestants ... I don't know what Catholic commenter V. is (Wi. is bishop Witham, an English RC bishop residing in Douay or Rheims back when England was under the Penal Laws, but I don't know who V. is.

Anyway, my point is this, in weakened form : as the eleven are specifically mentioned, one may presume that the words are adressed to them in front of the 500, not to all of the 500.

Especially, that "some who doubted" were not the ones to whom Christ adressed these words, but before whom He adressed them to the eleven, including St. Thomas Didymus who doubted no more.

In other words, these words are adressed to a restricted, if not total audience, at least adressee (like a Queen telling a new "Sir" sth like "I dub thee", before a big audience, but the newly knighted person is the adressee : the bystanders are not being dubbed knights).

Now.

He tells them (whether 11, if I'm right, or at worst 500, if I'm wrong, but it seems less likely):

• He is giving them a task
• He is supporting them (by context presumably for that precise task).

The exact scope of the task tells us, they had successors:

• it spans all nations, including those where the 11 never went (Lapps and Esquimaux, Amerindian and Aboriginee)
• it spans all days, including after they had all died.

How can someone promise to be with someone else in a task on earth after he dies? Only if that someone else has successors.

This means, the eleven, or at worst the 500, have successors to this very day, unless Our Lord was liar, mistaken or a myth.

However, if it were the 500, one could imagine it were simple faithful, rather than clergy, even if the 500 later were a kind of clergy (I suppose the widest sense of "apostle" in Andronicus and Junia, his wife, I presume, involves those among the 500).

But here is the deal : we do not find any continuous community with lay equality rather than clergy from back then to our time, we find only continuous communities in Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, Armenian, Assyrian churches, which are churches that claim they have bishops succeeding the 12.

This means, we can discount successors being those of 500 indistinctly.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Jean Brébeuf
19.X.2020

PS, who is "Asaph Vapor"? It's a signature on youtube, belonging to a Protestant (unless it's a real good actor) and to someone whose mother language is rather French than English (or any other Germanic known to me, he's not so good an English speaker as to avoid all solecisms over a long discussion, though it was just one and a tiny one in impatience, plus a French rather than Spanish form of Our Lady of Guadalupe, which Spanish form is standard in the English speaking world, due to the site of the apparition being in Mexico. Here is a link to some of my debates with him (or her?):

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Answering Asaph Vapor
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2020/10/answering-asaph-vapor.html

Got Questions? "what are the differences", and a Catholic answer

Creation vs. Evolution : CMI Back to Good Articles Today! · Great Bishop of Geneva! : Got Questions? "what are the differences", and a Catholic answer

What are the differences between Catholics and Protestants?
19.I.2018 | Got Questions Ministries
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qKk-BNUAf4

I - Sola Scriptura / Authority and Sufficiency of Scripture

II Timothy 3:16,17 certainly establishes authority of Scripture, but seen in context, not sufficiency, at least not to every class of readers. Timothy had been raised more or less as a Pharisee, perhaps a bit LXX Greek into the mix, meaning he was a specialist at OT Scripture.

This means, he could from OT pick out the right phrase to prove a point, which some of his hearers, notably non-Jewish background, would have to take on tradition from him.

1:49 "many Roman Catholic traditions, such as purgatory, praying to the saints, worship or veneration of Mary, etc. have little or no basis in Scripture, but are based solely on Roman Catholic traditions"

Seem to have little or no basis in Scripture from one being less familiar with them than St. Timothy, rather. The tactic used is called elephant hurling on more than one place in the material of CMI:

"You have simply used a tactic called elephant hurling, throwing out the statement 'I can present thousands of arguments' to give the impression that you have weighty arguments, but in actual fact you have presented nothing but fact-free assertions."

https://creation.com/attacks-accusations

To be fair, Got Questions? has a big list of these, with more reasoning behind each elsewhere:

https://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html

To be fair to myself too, I am halfway through answering them, and here is a full list, linking to my answers where any:

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Answering 83 Claims from Got Questions : Catholic Bible and Origin of Catholic Church
https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2019/02/answering-83-claims-from-got-questions.html

Scripture alone is not in Scripture, as a search will reveal:

Latin Vulgate Bible : sola Scriptura
http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?q=sola+Scriptura&b=lvb

No verse contains all these words when searching the Whole Bible.

Latin Vulgate Bible : solis Scripturis
http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?q=solis+Scripturis&b=lvb&t=0

No verse contains all these words when searching the Whole Bible.

Worse for the point :

Et incipiens a Moyse, et omnibus prophetis, interpretabatur illis in omnibus scripturis quae de ipso erant.
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him.
[Luke 24:27]

So, He gave His disciples a crash course of OT exegesis, but one which Jews, having access to most of (according to GQ all of) OT do not understand as being of Him. This means, either NT would be longer, or there are things in OT expounded by Him, which are nevertheless not in NT Scriptures, but only accessible by tradition.

Again, during OT, tradition seems to have been binding, since:

• II Timothy 3 itself involves two names which St Paul knew from tradition and not from Exodus (Jannes and Mambres in Vulgate, I think Jannes and Jambres in Greek)
• Mordechai refuses to bow down to Aman and explains this "I am a Jew" - but political and polite bowing down is not forbidden in the words of the law, so Mordechai is obeying tradition.

His conclusion is RC insistance on Scripture in Tradition "undermines the sufficiency, authority and completeness of the Bible". Sufficiency (as to each and any reader of goodwill) is not stated, and authority and completeness, we definitely do not agree to us undermining them.

II Pope

"on the other hand, Protestants believe no human being is infallible"

Not even when speaking for certain occasions for godgiven offices? John 11:

[49] But one of them, named Caiphas, being the high priest that year, said to them: You know nothing. [50] Neither do you consider that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. [51] And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation. [52] And not only for the nation, but to gather together in one the children of God, that were dispersed.

In other words, as he was kind of a prefiguration of papacy, he got an inspiration from God.

Even if, as a man, even in saying those words, he was a very bad man.

And as each Bible book has one, in some cases more than one (Judges, Chronicles) human author, and even so Protestants count the Scripture as infallible, they admit that c. 40 (according to their low count of 66 books) men held an office, which enabled them to be infallible in this office, even if one of them (St. Peter, two epistles) was not so in all of his life (like when denying Jesus - whether he is mentioned in Galatians 2 or it is another Cephas is disputed).

"and Jesus alone is head of the Church"

It would seem in acts, Peter is acting like a kind of head of the Church. Jesus was not present in his own species (not denying He was there in the Eucharist, of course).

It would also seem, Jesus had promised this to Peter before His suffering, at Caesarea Philippi, Matthew 16:19:

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

The guys who claim Jesus meant Himself or Peter's Faith, not Peter's person as the rock usually stop their quote of the passage in previous verse, where these very clear and unmabiguous thous are not there, except for the one being named Peter.

It may be added, of the non-Protestant churches, Catholicism is not unique in accepting a papacy, it is more like Eastern Orthodox (Greeks and Slavs) are unique in denying it. Copts have a Pope in Alexandria, and if someone of the Coptic or Tewahedo Church is confirmed in Axum or Addis Abeba, the chrism has been consecrated not by an Ethiopian bishop, but by the Pope of Alexandria, considered as successor of St. Mark.

Here is for Armenians:

The Catholicos of All Armenians (plural Catholicoi, due to its Greek origin) (Armenian: Ամենայն Հայոց Կաթողիկոս) is the chief bishop and spiritual leader of Armenia's national church, the Armenian Apostolic Church, and the worldwide Armenian diaspora. According to tradition, the apostles Saint Thaddeus and Saint Bartholomew brought Christianity to Armenia in the first century. Saint Gregory the Illuminator became the first Catholicos of All Armenians following the nation's adoption of Christianity as its official religion in 301 AD. The seat of the Catholicos, and the spiritual and administrative headquarters of the Armenian Church, is the Mother See of Holy Etchmiadzin, located in the city of Vagharshapat.

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

The Church which is often called Nestorian, but prefers "Church of the East" has a kind of papacy in Ctesiphon -Ecbatana, now in exile in Baghdad:

On Pentecost Sunday, 7 June 1981, Rev. Sliwa was consecrated as Metropolitan of Baghdad and all Iraq by Mar Dinkha IV, with the assistance of Mar Aprim Khamis, in the Cathedral Church of St. George, Chicago. The new Metropolitan was given the ecclesiastical name Mar Gewargis III.

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

And while Eastern Orthodox claim - usually - equality of all bishops, this means in practise all too often supremacy of the Basileis over the bishops.

The guy on Got Questions? may imagine this is a consequence of the "bad" alliance between Church and State, that there should be such alliances, ideally in all and at least in many nations is in Matthew 28:19, here:

Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.

"Catholic rely on apostolic succession as a way of establishing the Pope's authority"

Apostolic succession is a somewhat different concept from papacy. Papacy is succession within one see, and that of St. Peter. Apostolic succession in general is mainly a succession of ordinations, before being succession in any one see, as well.

For instance, in Paris, Archbishop Emmanuel Célestin Suhard succeeded the previous archbishop, Jean Verdier, but he had been consecrated bishop by mainly bishop Grellier, and two other co-consecrating bishops:

On July 6, 1928, Suhard was appointed Bishop of Bayeux-Lisieux by Pope Pius XI. He received his episcopal consecration on the following October 3 from Bishop Grellier, with Bishops Florent de La Villerabel and Constantin Chauvin serving as co-consecrators.

His being bishop is therefore independent of his being bishop of Paris, and most Popes had Apostolic succession like this before becoming Popes (note, some were consecrated bishops after election, as is the case with Pope Michael, consecrated 21 years after the emergency conclave in 1990).

Apostolic succession like this clearly is in the Bible, and is claimed by each non-Protestant church as residing in them since the apostles. Catholics recognise episcopal orders of Eastern Orthodox, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians, despite this succession being "material only" - that is schismatic and cut off from the true Church.

II Tim. 2:6 For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands.

That the duty to lay hands on future clergy didn't cease with the apostles (St. Paul was one) is clear from St. Timothy being entrusted with this duty:

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

And this is how the imposition of hands arrived to one Suhard from one Grellier, when he had been appointed to bishop of Bayeux-Lisieux. Succession within one see is mainly secondary, except it allows (usually) verification of the succession of consecrations, and in the case of the Roman See, it sets apart the successor of St. Peter.

"Protestants believe that the Church's authority comes not from apostolic succession, but from the Word of God."

Apostolic succession is part of the word of God. Since the first Apostles were chosen by the Word of God, who promised to be with them all days, not as long as they lived, but as long as the world stands.

"Spiritual power and authority do not rest in the hands of a mere man"

Would you say St. Paul was not a mere man, because he was an Apostle? What about Saint Timothy who wasn't one? Or would you say it can only be transmitted to good and truly regenerate men, full of the spirit of God? Why, if so, did St. Paul consider St. Timothy might be partaker of a sinner's sins, if he promoted him to priest or bishop?

Yes, the word of God does say, spiritual power and authority rest in the hands of men, even bad men, if they use the apostolic succession given them to hand on apostolic succession.

"God sent the Holy Spirit to indwell all born-again believers, enabling all believers to understand the message of the Bible."

But in Gospels, Acts, several times over in the Epistles, we do in fact see believers, even with the Holy Spirit indwelling, are supposed to learn the truth of God from clergy : from the 12, from the 70, from St. Paul, from St. Timothy, from St. Titus, from the angels of seven Churches ("angel" here is fairly certainly code for "bishop"), including from that of Laodicaea, if he took due heed of the warning, and so on.

Nowhere does it say each believer can interpret the Bible for himself, that idea is a tradition of men, dating from Martin Luther, who could neither back it up from the Bible, nor from Tradition.

Also, it doesn't say, and the Catholic Church doesn't teach, no believer outside clergy has any idea of the Bible or Tradition outside the latest word spoken to them by a clergyman (a Novus Ordo priest who wants to pretend I can't know the meaning of Genesis 1 - 11 independently of him and of "John Paul II" has to deal with the fact lots of clergy have already over lots of centuries said these chapters are literally true). But for a complete idea of how we should live Christian lives and what truths are revealed, we do depend directly or indirectly on clergy, since the first 11 in Matthew 28:16-20.

Got Questions? brings up John 14, from which chapter 3 verses are especially important:

[16] And I will ask the Father, and he shall give you another Paraclete, that he may abide with you for ever. [17] The spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, nor knoweth him: but you shall know him; because he shall abide with you, and shall be in you. ... [26] But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

To whom did Christ say this? To the 12 apostles, and if St. John the Gospeller was not one of them, arguably to one of the 70 too, but not to any and all simple followers. Hence, clergy is promised to be reminded of all things Christ said to the 12, which is a good point for ecclesiastic tradition.

III How one is saved

Got Questions? mixes the question of faith plus good works with the question of the seven sacraments.

But the seven sacraments are sacraments of precisely the faith, of precisely the grace of God.

He speaks of justification by faith, not works, Ephesians 2, without noting that this is about initial justification and about previous works, while the passage actually requires good works in the following:

[8] For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; [9] Not of works, that no man may glory. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.

If I am justified by baptism or by confession, I am certainly justified not by my works, but by the gift of God, but I am created or restored in Christ, in good works, in which I must thereafter walk.

There is also a difference in terminology, namely, justification is often not termed "salvation" in so far as a justified man is not yet finally saved before he dies, while some Protestants claim certain verses prove the individual real Christian believer "once saved always saved", however, we read these verses as mostly about the Church, not about the individual believer, otherwise we see no point in Philippians 2:12:

Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation.

Got Questions? also claims Christ's righteousness "is imputed". In the Catholic translation, 7 verses have this word, all dealing with sin being or not being imputed: Deuteronomy 23:21, 1 Paralipomenon (1 Chronicles) 21:3, Job 42:8, Psalms 31:2, Ezechiel (Ezekiel) 33:16, Romans 4:8, Romans 5:13.

But a Protestant translation also has "imputed" in Romans 4:22. Here is the Catholic translation in context:

[19] And he was not weak in faith; neither did he consider his own body now dead, whereas he was almost an hundred years old, nor the dead womb of Sara. [20] In the promise also of God he staggered not by distrust; but was strengthened in faith, giving glory to God: [21] Most fully knowing, that whatsoever he has promised, he is able also to perform. [22] And therefore it was reputed to him unto justice. [23] Now it is not written only for him, that it was reputed to him unto justice, [24] But also for us, to whom it shall be reputed, if we believe in him, that raised up Jesus Christ, our Lord, from the dead, [25] Who was delivered up for our sins, and rose again for our justification.

Such a belief reminds of the belief in Christ required in John 3, which comes with acting in truth, not in darkness.

"Catholics, on the other hand, believe Christ's righteousness is imparted to the believer by grace through faith, but in itself is not sufficient to justify the believer"

It certainly is. If I died immediately after absolution, without any good deed of mine after that, I would die justified and not go to Hell, but to Heaven, probably via purgatory. However, if I received absolution without any kind of intention to act in truth, to walk in good works, I would not be receiving justification by grace through faith in the first place.

"The believer must supplement the righteousness of Christ imparted to him with meritorious works"

More like live it out through good works, see Eph 2:10.

Catholics believe justification means being made righteous and holy. Yes, indeed, any very moment of a justification is the first step in a life in Christ's righteousness.

"He believes that faith in Christ is only the beginning of salvation"

If we speak of faith in contrast with hope and charity, faith and hope prepare to receive justification and are therefore beginnings to salvation.

"and that the individual must build on that with good works"

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable exegesis of Matthew 7:24. Or of I Corinthians 3, this passage:

[10] According to the grace of God that is given to me, as a wise architect, I have laid the foundation; and another buildeth thereon. But let every man take heed how he buildeth thereupon.

[11] For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. [12] Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: [13] Every man's work shall be manifest; for the day of the Lord shall declare it, because it shall be revealed in fire; and the fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. [14] If any man's work abide, which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. [15] If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.

"because God's grace of eternal salvation must be merited"

Sounds like a very good exegesis of Matthew 25, the sheep and the goats.

Claims this contradicts Romans 4:1-12, Titus 3:3-7 "and many others" - ignore this elephant hurl of "many others" and see what the indications bring:

Romans 4 deals with Abraham justified by faith, without works of the law.

And perhaps without any works.

But, this is to be taken, if so, of his initial justification, like if I had died after the absolution in my last good confession, I would have been justified, even if I had had no time to do good works after it.

Was he overall justified without any works?

James 2:[21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, offering up Isaac his son upon the altar? [22] Seest thou, that faith did co-operate with his works; and by works faith was made perfect?

So, in the long run, Abraham was not justified without any works.

Titus 3 passage obviously deals with the initila justification of someone a sinner up to the moment of that justification:

[3] For we ourselves also were some time unwise, incredulous, erring, slaves to divers desires and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. [4] But when the goodness and kindness of God our Saviour appeared: [5] Not by the works of justice, which we have done, but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the laver of regeneration, and renovation of the Holy Ghost;

[6] Whom he hath poured forth upon us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Saviour: [7] That, being justified by his grace, we may be heirs, according to hope of life everlasting.

Note, St. Paul here mentions one of the seven sacraments, baptism:

but according to his mercy, he saved us, by the laver of regeneration,

Here he is not dealing with those needing to do penance after baptism, elsewhere he is, in I or II Corinthians.

"Protestants distinguish between the one time act of justification ... and the process of sanctification."

Catholics distinguish, with a bit more triviality, between the one time act of justification, imparting sanctifying grace, and the process of learning to live out this sanctity in ones life. Sanctification is mainly the former. If one commits no mortal sin after justification, no disobedience against reasonable commands of the priest baptising or absolving, no direct contradiction to the commandments of God, above all, the "process of sanctification" will take care of itself, because one was already sanctified in the justification.

But this always involves doing good works. If you decide not to (not for one specific work, but overall), you slip away from grace, and lose your justification.

"Protestants believe works are results of or fruit of salvation, but never the means to it."

We believe truly meritorious works are the result of justification, with sanctification, while a materially identical work in one not yet justified would not be meritorious directly for heaven. We believe doing such are a means of keeping sanctified, and therefore keeping the justification (or if not getting it back in time and then keeping it) up to one's death.

"Catholics blend justification and sanctification together into one ongoing process"

Rather, one one-time act, but which is backed up by a process, but OK, to some degree, this makes "the process" (much less important in Catholic theology) kind of "part of" justification and sanctification. Know what, so does St. Paul:

Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation. [Philippians 2:12]

But obviously, the working out, while necessary, is less important than the grace of justification and sanctification itself.

IV Purgatory

"and their reliance on non-canonical books"

First of all, I Corinthians, already cited, is a canonical book. Some have stated "saved but as if by fire" means "preserved in existence" (not annihilated) but spending eternity "as if by fire" (those saying this would also say Hell has no literal fire).

This is unreasonable, since those "saved but as if through fire" are actually among those having built on the one true foundation. However, those lapsing from grace and getting damned are, when doing so, no longer building on the foundation of Christ, but the foundation of their flesh or disobedience - a foundation of sand.

This means, "saved" actually does mean eternal salvation here.

But "uncanonical books", while a bad slur against II Maccabees, which the Church has over centuries and millennia held as canonic, will actually not cut it.

Arguably, Timothy was a Jew, since he knew the Scriptures from childhood, and he was a Hellenistic one, since Timothy is the Greek name Timotheos. This would mean that the "all Scripture" in II Timothy 3:16 would include all books of the LXX, including II Maccabees.

Here is what a High Priest of the Old Testament did, II Maccabees 12, whether you count the book as canonic or not:

[43] And making a gathering, he sent twelve thousand drachms of silver to Jerusalem for sacrifice to be offered for the sins of the dead, thinking well and religiously concerning the resurrection, [44] (For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should rise again, it would have seemed superfluous and vain to pray for the dead,) [45] And because he considered that they who had fallen asleep with godliness, had great grace laid up for them. [46] It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.

Can one be justified after death? No. So, in what sense if any can one be loosed from sins after death? Well, if there is for some, temporal punishment even after death.

If this is not canonical - which it is - it is at least a historical position within the Old Testament, and one which, if erroneous, Christ would have had to pronounce against, which he never does.

Calvin tried to pretend Jews hadn't prayed for the dead until the time of Rabbi Akiba, but this is at least historic proof they actually did.

"Protestants on the other hand believe ... we go straight to heaven"

Suddenly the process of sanctification is all gone away ... Luther had pretended good works are useful for social justice in earthly society, no process of sanctification as sanctification at all. If, like Calvin, you believe instead there is one of snactification, may I remind that in Heaven only holy things may enter, and nothing impure? This might mean some impurity had to be dealt with after death too. Remember, for those who go to Purgatory, we believe they do die justified, they do die sanctified (we sometimes pray to the Holy Souls in Purgatory), but with a process still needing completion.

II Cor 5:6 - 10 does not prove that everyone who is rewarded is immediately rewarded without any remaining punishment.

Philippians 1:23 St. Paul expects to be with Christ after death:

But I am straitened between two: having a desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ, a thing by far the better.

One could claim this implies he was not going to Purgatory (indeed, that is why we call him Saint Paul), but in fact the "and" does not prove a temporally immediate consequence. On the other hand, while those in Purgatory are not before the glory of Christ in Heaven, as they are going to Heaven, they are not without Christ either.

"Man can and must pay for his own sins"

To some degree. If one isn't damned, one is not paying the full price of a sin. But some are saved even after a bad communion, and they still bear some consequence:

I Cor 11:[29] For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord. [30] Therefore are there many infirm and weak among you, and many sleep.

"This results in a low view of the sufficiency and efficiency of Christ's atonement on the cross"

So does your "process of sanctification" - if so.

"implies that Christ's atonement was insufficient, and that even a believer must pay for his own sins, either by acts of penance, or time in purgatory"

St. Augustine says, Christ paid the full price, but not so we could be lazy and even so be saved. We have a work to do. If one were paying the full price, one would be going to Hell. Even there one would never pay it. But having a part price to pay doesn't diminish Christ paid the full price, it just mentions what He wants from us for it.

"Our acts of righteousness cannot add to what Christ has already accomplished"

No, but can and do co-operate with it.

V "like the Judaizers"

Paul wrote Galatians against Judaizers, Got Questions? got that right.

However, "like the Judaizers, Catholics make human works necessary for one to be to be justified by God"

Not a very good analysis.

First of all, the works of the law were symbolic. They did not actually include the grace or the righteousness they symbolised. It is derogatory to the sacraments of the New law, which get all of their efficacy from the Cross of Christ, to put them on the same level as purely symbolic sacraments.

The Judaizers put such mere symbols as requirements for being part of the Church.

Second, it is also not true of "good works" since Christ emphasised one needed them, needed to obey the ten commandments, needed to give alms, and as even Protestants require such good works as part of the process of sanctification (except Lutherans, back in Luther's time). The real difference is between what works will make us have a "closer walk with God". And whether the process is always finished at death (we agree justification is).

VI difference of Gospel

"and they end up with a completely different Gospel"

Here Got Questions? is paraphrasing a phrase of St. Paul:

Galatians 1:[6] I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. [7] Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. [8] But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. [9] As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.

Actually, this is precisely our charge against Luther and company : they perverted the Gospel which the Catholic Church (clergy licitly succeeding Sts Paul and Timothy among others) had preached to them.

VII continuity of the Church

This point was not brought up directly by Got Questions? but only indirectly in denying the importance of Apostolic Succession. Here is a point about Apostolic Tradition:

Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

Whether it comes to Tradition along with Scripture, whether it comes to how one is saved, whether it comes to purgatory, whether it comes to sacraments and obedience to ten commandments and alms being superior to works of the old law, every point he made, except papacy, he has against him, not just Roman Catholics, not just Eastern Orthodox, but also Copts, Armenians, Assyrians.

Any Church claiming to have Apostolic Succession without totally watering down what it means. Any Church which claims to have been around since Christ, with any degree of historic realism (Ruckmanites or Baptist Continuity theory is based on a historical novel as unlikely as the book of II Nephites in a "revelation" to Joseph Smith).

When did Satan Gain and when did he Lose Dominion of Kingdoms?

Quora has an excellent answer to this question:

In Matthew 4:9, Satan says "All these I shall give to you". When did Satan get power over all the kingdoms of the Earth?
https://www.quora.com/In-Matthew-4-9-Satan-says-All-these-I-shall-give-to-you-When-did-Satan-get-power-over-all-the-kingdoms-of-the-Earth

The very excellent answer is by James Hough:

Answer requested by

Andrew Martin

James Hough

Catholic who teaches Catechism, RCIA, and Prayer classes.

Answered 50m ago

In Matthew 4:9, Satan says "All these I shall give to you". When did Satan get power over all the kingdoms of the Earth?

+JMJ+

Originally, Adam was given rulership (dominion) over all the earth:

Genesis 1:26 Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

26 And he said: Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the air, and the beasts, and the whole earth, and every creeping creature that moveth upon the earth.

In sinning, Adam abrogated his dominion, and handed it over to Satan. Thus Satan received dominion over the entire earth at the beginning shortly after creation, and Our Blessed Lord takes it back from Satan with His Crucifixion.

I would say, most Protestants would obviously say James is right about when Satan became the ruler of this world. The question they would pose is just, isn't he remaining that to Harmageddon or sth like that?

One of the things they would tend to use as prooftexts would be II Cor 4:4.

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

Now, here is a Catholic comment on the verse:

Ver. 4. In whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers.[1] Thus the words are placed, both in the Latin and Greek text, so that the true God seems to be called the God of this world, as he is elsewhere called the God of heaven, the God of Abraham. God, says S. Chrys. blinded, that is, permitted them to be blinded.

Others translate, in whom God hat blinded the minds of the infidels of this world; so that this world may be joined with unbelievers, and not with God: and by the God of this world, some understand the devil, called sometimes the prince of this world, that is, of the wicked. Wi.

Now, "prince of this world" is used 3 times in the New Testament, each time by John (12:31, 14:30, 16:11) citing Our Lord Jesus speaking before He was Crucified. THe last of these time (16:11) He says:

And of judgment: because the prince of this world is already judged.

Hmmm ... is already judged - wouldn't that seem to imply an effective loss of power at Crucifixion?

However, Ephesians 2:2 has a somewhat parallel:

Wherein in time past you walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of this air, of the spirit that now worketh on the children of unbelief:

No longer (St. Paul is writing after the Crucifixion and Resurrection and Ascension) is Satan called directly "prince of this world" but "prince of the power of this air" and "spirit who now worketh on the children of unbelief".

You recall the children's hymn "He's got the whole world / in His hand"? Well, it is not speaking of Satan. Nor should it. Ephesians 2:2 is describing what power remains to him after he already lost dominion - "power in the air" (but he or they can be chased by church bells or gregorian chant and in a room or house, by exorcism and holy water) and "working on the children of unbelief".

Is there any direct proof text against the idea of Satan remaining prince of this world?

Yes, Matthew 28:16-20 includes the phrase:

And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.

What Jesus didn't receive from Satan's generosity, He took from Satan by conquest.

This means, Christian kingdoms and empires and duchies and republics and grand duchies really can have been for the most of the last 2000 years glorifying Christ. Indeed, if Christianity is true, arguably they have, at least on and off and sufficiently to make Satan see he can no longer do like he wants with men.

Now, there is a little problem for these days, even so.

And when the thousand years shall be finished, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go forth, and seduce the nations, which are over the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, and shall gather them together to battle, the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.
Apocalypse 20:7.

If this is happening, and I think it is, basically most of the century 1917 to 2017 has shown it, Satan is getting some of his old powers back.

Christ's conquest is described earlier in Apocalypse 20, verse 2, 3:

And he laid hold on the dragon the old serpent, which is the devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. And he cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should no more seduce the nations, till the thousand years be finished. And after that, he must be loosed a little time.

On this Challoner comments:

[2] "Bound him": The power of Satan has been very much limited by the passion of Christ: for a thousand years; that is, for the whole time of the New Testament; but especially from the time of the destruction of Babylon or pagan Rome, till the new efforts of Gog and Magog against the church, towards the end of the world. During which time the souls of the martyrs and saints live and reign with Christ in heaven, in the first resurrection, which is that of the soul to the life of glory; as the second resurrection will be that of the body, at the day of the general judgment.

Get it?

especially from the time of the destruction of Babylon or pagan Rome, till the new efforts of Gog and Magog against the church, towards the end of the world

So, while the misunderstanding, as I think it is, of II Cor 4:4, is not the truth, it is now coinciding closer with the truth than it used to back when Francis Joseph was ruling in Hofburg prior to the shot in Sarajevo.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Quadragesima Sunday
1.III.2020

Semper Virgo

Judaism is kind of a museum of the Old Testament, and here we are talking about Hasidic Judaism:

A year or two later, while going to class on my college campus in Queens, New York, I met another follower of the Rebbe, a man in his twenties who shared with me that the only sin the Rebbe committed in his whole life was causing his mother pain in childbirth. But, this Hasidic Jew was quick to explain, by now, the Rebbe had “taken care of that” too. Seriously!

From a sample chapter of:

WHAT MADE JESUS THE MESSIAH?
NEW FROM BEST SELLING AUTHOR DR. MICHAEL BROWN
http://booksbydrbrown.com/?utm_source=Marketing%20Master%20List-Book%20Group&utm_medium=email&utm_content=subscriber_id:5330817&utm_campaign=Brown-Resurrection-1%20-%20Preorder%203-days%20left

This thought would imply, if Our Lord, sorry, since Our Lord is without sin, He did not cause His Blessed Mother that pain, so She remained Virgin during childbirth.

But pain in childbirth is due to punish the sin of Eve?

God who is just could not just dispense with Genesis 3:16 as God - He Himself - said to Eve:

To the woman also he said: I will multiply thy sorrows, and thy conceptions: in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thou shalt be under thy husband's power, and he shall have dominion over thee.

So, how solve this? Well, one solution is Mary not even being under the curse of Eve. As He Himself was also not under the curse of Adam. He did not need to die, He gave His life.

So, with a Mary Sinless from Conception, She needed have no pain in childbirth, and He did not need to do even that one sin.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Georges Pompidou
Quadragesima Sunday
1.III.2020

PS, in case you wonder, no, I don't think that was the Rebbe's one sin or that he has taken care of it. I'm even afraid he had no excuse for staying a Christ-denying Jew. Which would mean, if so, he is in Hell. But meanwhile, those arguing about his messianity have made a point about Our Lord's./HGL