Was Peter called Shepherd Already in John 20?

Here is the beginning of this chapter:

[1] And on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalen cometh early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre; and she saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre. [2] She ran, therefore, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and saith to them: They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. [3] Peter therefore went out, and that other disciple, and they came to the sepulchre. [4] And they both ran together, and that other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. [5] And when he stooped down, he saw the linen cloths lying; but yet he went not in.

[6] Then cometh Simon Peter, following him, and went into the sepulchre, and saw the linen cloths lying, [7] And the napkin that had been about his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but apart, wrapped up into one place. [8] Then that other disciple also went in, who came first to the sepulchre: and he saw, and believed. [9] For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. [10] The disciples therefore departed again to their home.

By allowing Peter to take precedence, despite arriving first as to speed, the Beloved says Peter is the more principal of them.

What were they both?

[8] And there were in the same country shepherds watching, and keeping the night watches over their flock. [9] And behold an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the brightness of God shone round about them; and they feared with a great fear. [10] And the angel said to them: Fear not; for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, that shall be to all the people:

[11] For, this day, is born to you a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David. [12] And this shall be a sign unto you. You shall find the infant wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger. [13] And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly army, praising God, and saying: [14] Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will. [15] And it came to pass, after the angels departed from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another: Let us go over to Bethlehem, and let us see this word that is come to pass, which the Lord hath shewed to us.

[16] And they came with haste; and they found Mary and Joseph, and the infant lying in the manger. [17] And seeing, they understood of the word that had been spoken to them concerning this child.

As they heard a message of good tidings, they ran or came with haste.

That's what the shepherds did.

So, in the first announcing of the Resurrection, St. Peter stands out as a principal shepherd. And John the Beloved a subsidiary one./HGL

Questions by Matt Slick

In an oral debate with Rick Akins, he seems to have wanted to get yes and no answers without nuances or qualifications, to each of them.

So are you saying that if you break the commandments you lose your salvation? And when you repent you get it back? Are you obligated to keep all of the moral commandments in order to stay a Christian; that is, to stay saved, to stay in a state of sins being forgiven?

Let's break this down. And this is a type of questioning that could come off as a Gish gallop, if one had any fear that Matt Slick were to interrupt. How I am glad to be answering in writing instead of, as Rick Akin, orally!

So are you saying that if you break the commandments you lose your salvation?

If one breaks the commandments:

• in an important matter (which cheating on the bus isn't for VIII)
• with full knowledge of what one was doing (like not just gliding on a slippery slope into following situation, but knowing exactly what one was in for)
• and full consent (let's not go into details on the one I was thinking of, but for instance, if you are inattentive at Holy Mass because someone else destroyed your sleep, that's certainly not full consent to being inattentive at Holy Mass)

then, yes. If one died before repenting, one would be going to Hell.

And when you repent you get it back?

Again, yes. The not yet baptised may not have had it in the first place, so would get salvation first time over when baptised, but the ones accessing Penance after Baptism with real remorse for sins for a supernatural motive (like one's sin displeasing God or earning and risking Hell), or even before the sacrament of penance, if the motive is God-centered rather than self-centered (one is really more concerned with the offense done to God than with where one goes oneself), one gets it back and a greater state of grace than one had before.

Are you obligated to keep all of the moral commandments in order to stay a Christian;

To stay a practising Christian, to stay in a state of grace.

that is, to stay saved, to stay in a state of sins being forgiven?

We deny this is the only state in which one can be a Christian. A Christian in a state of sin (that is of mortal sin, venial sins do not constitute a state, they just strengthen an already existing state of sin or weaken the state of grace), is still a Christian, and has one huge advantage over the non-Christian (or Protestant semi-Christian) in a state of sin - he knows exactly what to do to get out of the state of sin.

In an oral debate, I would certainly avoid answering the above questions as put, especially if repeated while I am doing an effort to clarify, that is, before I had a chance to make my clarifying point.

He repeatedly ignored the questions and would ask me questions instead. He kept asking me what happens to the soul when we sin

Our Lord gave the example. He did not allow Pharisees to do all of the questioning. He sometimes instead of directly answering a question asked them a question in return. Rick Akin did right to do the same.

Well, I did not know what he meant by that.

This ignorance seems feigned.

So I asked for clarification. I asked what he meant by “what happens to the soul?” Was he saying there was a physical effect, a spiritual effect, an emotional effect, or a relational effect regarding God – or what?

Physical and emotional effects would be very varying from sin to sin. The question is, very obviously, and to me they are the same question:

Do you believe there is a spiritual effect when you sin?
Do you believe there is a relational effect regarding God when you sin?

And as Slick had given these alternatives, it was obvious he had understood the question and his demand for clarification was filibustering. An excuse to interrupt Rick Akin.

It would seem that the consistent version of OSAS would require, either that sinning in a saved person has no spiritual effect, no relational effect regarding God, or that this effect is always below the level of damning one to separation from God. And this would contradict the very words of ...

• John 14 ... vines being cut off (because cut off from God means damnation)
• the three soils (especially what is said about the soils where the seed started to grow, the stony ground and the thistled ground, but didn't make it to harvest)

and it would contradict the implication of St. Paul in Galatians 5:1. If he did not fear a Galatian could relapse under slavery of sin, he would not have had to say the verse like he did.

It is very simple, OSAS security is unbiblical. As applied to individual believers and apart from special cases to whom God reveals they are not going to fall into a state of sin.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Andrew Avellini
10.X.2022

Neapoli, in Campania, natalis sancti Andreae Avellini, Clerici Regularis et Confessoris, sanctitate et salutis proximorum procurandae studio praecelebris, quem, miraculis clarum, Clemens Undecimus, Pontifex Maximus, Sanctorum catalogo adscripsit.

The page where Matt Slick referenced his debate with Rick Akin

CARM : Matt Slick and Richard Akins debate on Roman Catholicism
by Matt Slick | Jan 12, 2019 | Roman Catholicism, World Religions
https://carm.org/roman-catholicism/matt-slick-and-richard-akins-debate-on-roman-catholicism/

PS - Matt asked - "Can you become a Christian without obeying the commands"

You can become a believer who is still in a state of sin without obeying them at all.

But you cannot become justified, unless you agree to keep them henceforth, with whatever light about what that means that is available to you. Abraham was justified without previous works, but not without upcoming ones. Jacobus Latomus was right, Tyndale was wrong, on Romans 3. Once you are a Christian, and justified, you stay justified by keeping them./HGL

From Live Stream of Chat on a Video by Sungenis

Here is the video, it does not cover this question:

The Catholic view of Scripture | Robert Sungenis & Sam Shamoun
Robert Sungenis, 22 July 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3hzPxKfWLs

Daivon

An interpretation I heard of 2 Thes. 2:14 (2 Thes. 2:15 in other translations) was that what they received that was spoken, was the preaching of the Epistle in defense of Sola Scriptura. Thoughts?

Daivon

In summary: 2 Thes. 2:14/15 is telling people to adhere to the oral teachings of the Epistle itself, not just oral teachings in general regarding the faith.

First, even if 2 Thess. 2, quoted verse, is referring to oral teaching contained in written form in the Epistle, this is just a material, but not a formal coincidence with Scripture alone. That's not sufficient.

Second, one cannot pretend that the whole epistle is in defense of Sola Scriptura. One would have to imagine something other than this epistle's content adding to it orally to say "sola scriptura" and that's not in scripture.

Third, the hypothesis is in fact just a hypothesis. If I hypothesised on 1 Cor 4:6 that "what is written" does not refer to Scripture books at all, but to a written list of clergy, saying that that one be not puffed up against the other for another, refers to the general rule, one should not accept leaders, especially into controversy, and then above that which is written refers to a written list of clergy in Corinth, as exception, yes, we should accept clergy as leaders, even in controversy, this would be a hypothesis.

I could still not claim that my hypothesis were Scripture.

Note, against this one could claim that Paul and Apollo both certainly were clergy, and this would invalidate the hypothesis - except that first part actually says

But these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollo, for your sakes; that in us you may learn,

meaning according to some that St. Paul was hiding the real names. This doesn't make previous verses, with Paul and Apollo as pseudonyms rather than real names, not inerrant, since the subject of inerrancy is not each verse in isolation, but the passage, where this deviation from literal truthfulness is explained, and the verses in context of the passage.

But these persons are not alone on the field. Calmet actually says the factions are referring to Paul and Apollo.

Now, the point is, this conjecture is conjecture. Like the other one. But the ones that defend "sola scriptura" against passages that aren't saying that or that are sometimes saying the opposite, like this verse ...

Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.

... these ones are in fact incompatible with Scripture. Or with Scripture alone. Or both.

If incompatible with Scripture, they are ipso facto false. If with Scripture alone, they are self contradictory, and false because of that.

So, I was reading a hypothesis which is rather more common among Protestants, namely this one: yes, in St. Paul's day, there was a Church which had direct access to oral tradition from him. Then, one needed to attend to oral traditions as well. But this Church being lost, what we have left of oral tradition is just Scripture.

This is:

• first incompatible with Matthew 28:16-20, where the preservation of the Church is promised, as also in Matthew 16:18 - but in verses 16 to 20 more specifically the Church would be here all days, representing the apostles all days, and teaching all that Christ had taught them all days, with Him assisting Her all days;
• second, incompatible with Sola Scriptura, as it is an explanation added from outside of Scripture. Therefore itself destructive of what it is meant to defend.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Hubert of Tongres
3.XI.2022

Eodem die sancti Huberti, Tungrensis Episcopi.

Question on Epistemology

From the chat feed on a video by Matt Fradd:

david cranford

If Roman Catholicism defines what is scripture and tradition how do you know it’s infallible interpretation is true?

Roman Catholicism both does and doesn't define it.

The Pope can say (and a whole council said) "II Maccabees is inspired Scripture" but the Pope doesn't define what words were in II Maccabees, they already were there.

The Pope can say St. Augustine is a Church Father and the consensus of Church Fathers is binding (same council said the latter in same session). But the Pope cannot define what St. Augustine says, it is already there.

It's a bit like Protestants defining 66 books as binding, tradition as just advisible, at Augsburg. The difference is that it's very unclear where Augsburg got any authority to define the Bible as 66 books or to pretend all Church Fathers could agree and still be in error. They still have some kind of test insofar as they don't write the 66 books at Augusburg, and when they go by Church Fathers which they also don't write. Except when they forge them as Wylie did, when pretending St. Ambrose had denied the Real Presence. Or when they forge translations, like when using "repetitions" in the translation of Matthew 6:7. It isn't there in the Greek, it isn't there in old translations to Latin, Syriac or Coptic, it comes from some Protestants' personal dislike for the Rosary.

Protestantism also doesn't get away without collective definitions.

Like if you don't define at least 66 books (out of the real 73) as inspired, you have no test to go by and can invent whatever you want.

You can also do that by inventing hermeneutic principles like "a prophetic day means a year" in order to make Apocalypse 13:5 compatible with seeing the historic papacy as Antichrist.

The two supports for that "principle" don't refer to hermeneutics, but to exchanges - a year of continued exile for each day in punishment for a sin committed those days, a day of fasting for each year of punishment, in a prophet's participation in the sufferings of his people. Either passage, it is about exchange, not about meaning. The 42 months mean 42 months. Not 1260 years.

But the wider problem is, how do we know any Scripture is true?

The Protestants themselves would refer to the earliest Church, we just claim to be continuing that Church and to be continuing its witness and to have the 73 books as the main consensus of the early Church. As soon as it has a consensus about the New Testament.

And whether a book is just stamped as "true story" or stamped as "divinely true" (story or wisdom or whatever), it is so stamped by a community. The Jews don't agree Matthew is divinely true and the Moslems don't agree its story of the Crucifixion is true, any more than that of the Resurrection. Accepting Matthew as divinely true and true story means to belong to a community other than Jews or Muslims. Even in secular history or science, if you don't belong to the communities involved in a war, you depend on them for your story of the war, and if you don't belong to the scientific community and don't travel to high mountains, you depend on the scientific community for "water boils at 100° C at the air pressure normal for sea level, and at lower temperatures in air pressures that are lower and are found higher up in mountains." Even if you don't belong to the community, you depend on it (until you maybe get an occasion to see it for yourself, but I never boiled potatoes in Cuzco, and am not likely to do so).

It is not a question of dictatorship for a community, it is a question of the community being a safer depository for truths than an individual mind.

However, the Catholic test very much does allow the definitions purporting to come from the community to be tested.

For instance, in 1994 a document was released in the Vatican, and tested by actual both Scripture and Tradition (as defined by Trentine Council) that document is not Roman Catholic.

New blog on the kid : John Shelby Spong and Joseph Ratzinger
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2022/10/john-shelby-spong-and-joseph-ratzinger.html

At least this is the case for the section condemning Fundamentalism, the one I looked into. It sounds Catholic to say "we must respect the incarnation of Truth, the real humanity of people who had limited resources" - so, does this mean that we having less limited resources (by implication) have ceased to be human? Well, if not, why not accept the hagiographers had adequate resources, humanly speaking, not limited to direct prophetic visions or auditions, though including those, for knowing for instance true history? And if you accept they had adequate resources, or could have, why not accept the history of a book you purport to accept as part of the word of God?

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Raphael
24.X.2022

Who Has the Duty to Proselytise?

According to Ray Comfort of Living Waters: every Christian.

Here is where he said so:

THIS Is Why I Hate Prosperity Preaching.
1st of Oct. 2022 | Living Waters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcS-Zk71x8Y

And he used, to begin with, two arguments. 1) An analogy. 2) A Bible quote or more than one.

1) "If you have a rope at your feet, and there is a man drowning and you could save him, and you just stand there and do nothing ..."

How far out is the drowning man, how far out can I through the rope with a lifebuoy on it?

If I am too weak, I hope someone comes around who's stronger and likelier to reach out?

And if I didn't wait, the buoy would not actually reach him, he would still be drowning, and I would have wasted the opportunity for someone stronger than myself to save him.

If he's already sunk, and I am no diver?

There are indeed situations where not saving a drowning man would be held excusable.

So, if the man is three yards off the bridge and I can through the buoy that far, perhaps I do throw the buoy. But if he's five yards off the bridge, I may be better off waiting for someone else to throw it. Meaning, obviously, hours when it is likely someone else may turn up reasonably soon.

If there isn't, I am obliged to throw as far as I can and yell to the drowning man to do an effort of swimming to the buoy. But I am not obliged, unless well trained and not weakened, to actually swim out with the buoy.

By the way, don't hire Ray Comfort as legal council, the crime is not called "depraved indifference" it's the name of a disposition constitutive (but not on its own) of a few crimes:

In United States law, depraved-heart murder, also known as depraved-indifference murder, is a type of murder where an individual acts with a "depraved indifference" to human life and where such act results in a death, despite that individual not explicitly intending to kill. [...]

If no death results, such an act would generally constitute reckless endangerment (sometimes known as "culpable negligence") and possibly other crimes, such as assault.

"If you see someone getting into a car, and it has no breaks and you know that ..."

What if the person entering the car entered and started the car too quickly for you to warn him? What if you thought he was getting a key from it and didn't know he intended to go for a ride in it?

Are you obliged to stand by the car and warn everyone?

2) Whom we preach, admonishing every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.
[Colossians 1:28]

"We" refers to St. Paul and those who were his fellows in the ministry. And their successors, clergy. Not each and every Christian.

If, when I say to the wicked, Thou shalt surely die: thou declare it not to him, nor speak to him, that he may be converted from his wicked way, and live: the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at thy hand.
[Ezechiel 3:18]

Ezechiel was a prophet and this was the rule for prophets. Not each and every Christian is a prophet and those being prophets about the Biblical content of warning are the clergy.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Therese of Child Jesus
3.X.2022

What About the Scroll of the Law that was Mislaid?

somewhere else: Did Helcias and Saphan Invent the Torah? · Great Bishop of Geneva!: What About the Scroll of the Law that was Mislaid?

I have more than once mentioned that Matthew 28:16-20 does not allow for the Church universal to lose an essential truth and therefore need a reformation.

But what about the "Reformation of Josias" - wasn't there an Old Testament precedent?

[4] And the king commanded Helcias the high priest, and the priests of the second order, and the doorkeepers, to cast out of the temple of the Lord all the vessels that had been made for Baal, and for the grove, and for all the host of heaven: and he burnt them without Jerusalem in the valley of Cedron, and he carried the ashes of them to Bethel. [5] And he destroyed the soothsayers, whom the kings of Juda had appointed to sacrifice in the high places in the cities of Juda, and round about Jerusalem: them also that burnt incense to Baal, and to the sun, and to the moon, and to the twelve signs, and to all the host of heaven. [6] And he caused the grove to be carried out from the house of the Lord without Jerusalem to the valley of Cedron, and he burnt it there, and reduced it to dust, and cast the dust upon the graves of the common people. [7] He destroyed also the pavilions of the effeminate, which were in the house of the Lord, for which the women wove as it were little dwellings for the grove. [8] And he gathered together all the priests out of the cities of Juda: and he defiled the high places, where the priests offered sacrifice, from Gabaa to Bersabee: and he broke down the altars of the gates that were in the entering in of the gate of Josue governor of the city, which was on the left hand of the gate of the city. [9] However the priests of the high places came not up to the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem: but only ate of the unleavened bread among their brethren. [10] And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Ennom: that no man should consecrate there his son or his daughter through fire to Moloch.

This is from IV Kings 23:rd chapter.

But we do know that these ills had not been universal.

There had always been a remnant, and while it had to hide, it is documented. The worst time was when Athalia was usurping, and this involved Joas and the then High Priest hiding.

[1] And Athalia the mother of Ochozias seeing that her son was dead, arose, and slew all the royal seed. [2] But Josaba the daughter of king Joram, sister of Ochozias, took Joas the son of Ochozias, and stole him from among the king's sons that were slain, out of the bedchamber with his nurse: and hid him from the face of Athalia, so that he was not slain. [3] And he was with her six years hid in the house of the Lord. And Athalia reigned over the land. [4] And in the seventh year Joiada sent, and taking the centurions and the soldiers, brought them in to him into the temple of the Lord, and made a covenant with them: and taking an oath of them in the house of the Lord, shewed them the king's son: [5] And he commanded them, saying: This is the thing that you must do:

IV Kings chapter 11.

And it seems, she only reigned for six years.

Reign, c. 841 – 835 BCE
Predecessor, Ahaziah, her son
Successor, Joash, her grandson

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

It is not conceivable that the Deuteronomy scroll had been neglected all the time since King Solomon, even if it was disobeyed.

And it was mainly disobeyed by misdirected tolerance against the false cults, which involved consecrating sons or daughters to Moloch through fire.

Hence, no, one cannot parallel the forgotten Deuteronomy scroll with a supposed "forgetting of the Gospel" during the Middle Ages and that one ending with Luther or Zwingli or someone taking the role of Helcias and Saphan.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Stephen of Hungary
2.IX.2022

Do Catholics Believe Penal Substitution?

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: The Crusader Pub Correcting Ray Comfort · Great Bishop of Geneva!: Do Catholics Believe Penal Substitution?

Tertia Pars, Q 47, A 3, Whether God the Father delivered up Christ to the Passion?
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4047.htm#article3

Objection 1. It would seem that God the Father did not deliver up Christ to the Passion. For it is a wicked and cruel act to hand over an innocent man to torment and death. But, as it is written (Deuteronomy 32:4): "God is faithful, and without any iniquity." Therefore He did not hand over the innocent Christ to His Passion and death.

...

Reply to Objection 1. It is indeed a wicked and cruel act to hand over an innocent man to torment and to death against his will. Yet God the Father did not so deliver up Christ, but inspired Him with the will to suffer for us. God's "severity" (cf. Romans 11:22) is thereby shown, for He would not remit sin without penalty: and the Apostle indicates this when (Romans 8:32) he says: "God spared not even His own Son." Likewise His "goodness" (Romans 11:22) shines forth, since by no penalty endured could man pay Him enough satisfaction: and the Apostle denotes this when he says: "He delivered Him up for us all": and, again (Romans 3:25): "Whom"—that is to say, Christ—God "hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith in His blood."

Tertia Pars, Q 49, A 3, Whether men were freed from the punishment of sin through Christ's Passion?
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4049.htm#article3

I answer that, Through Christ's Passion we have been delivered from the debt of punishment in two ways. First of all, directly—namely, inasmuch as Christ's Passion was sufficient and superabundant satisfaction for the sins of the whole human race: but when sufficient satisfaction has been paid, then the debt of punishment is abolished. In another way—indirectly, that is to say—in so far as Christ's Passion is the cause of the forgiveness of sin, upon which the debt of punishment rests.

The Crusader Pub said, a murderer who has received death penalty, no one can die for him, he can be graced to life sentence, and even get parole after 25 years ... unlike the fine, no one else can pay ... I am not sure he is as Catholic as St. Thomas Aquinas. Above, second link, features this:

Objection 3. Further, death is a punishment of sin, according to Romans 6:23: "The wages of sin is death." But men still die after Christ's Passion. Therefore it seems that we have not been delivered from the debt of punishment.

...

Reply to Objection 3. Christ's satisfaction works its effect in us inasmuch as we are incorporated with Him, as the members with their head, as stated above (Article 1). Now the members must be conformed to their head. Consequently, as Christ first had grace in His soul with bodily passibility, and through the Passion attained to the glory of immortality, so we likewise, who are His members, are freed by His Passion from all debt of punishment, yet so that we first receive in our souls "the spirit of adoption of sons," whereby our names are written down for the inheritance of immortal glory, while we yet have a passible and mortal body: but afterwards, "being made conformable" to the sufferings and death of Christ, we are brought into immortal glory, according to the saying of the Apostle (Romans 8:17): "And if sons, heirs also: heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ; yet so if we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified with Him."

Note, the idea that a murderer sentenced to death cannot get freed by another taking his place is not on the radar even of St. Thomas' objections. The one objection is, we still die. And the answer is, He didn't buy non-death, but resurrection to glory, for us./HGL

Answering the Allegations of Erica Orchard on Twenty Catholic Heresies

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Erica Orchard Considered Catholicism as Having Heresies · Great Bishop of Geneva!: Answering the Allegations of Erica Orchard on Twenty Catholic Heresies

First, the list is here:

1. Justification by faith PLUS WORKS
2. The selling of indulgences to get time off purgatory
3. Purgatory
4. The veneration of Mary
5. The immaculate conception of Mary
6. The assumption of Mary
7. Praying to Mary
8. The veneration of the saints
9. Praying to the saints
10. The Pope is the head of the church
11. The Pope is infallible
12. The Pontifical Magisterium has as much authority as the Word of God
13. Only the RC church has the authority to interpret the Bible
14. Tradition has as much authority as the Word of God
15. That there is no imputed righteousness of Christ to us at the moment of salvation
16. That the Catholic Church is the only true church worldwide
17 The bread embodies Jesus and can therefore be prayed to
18. Doing penance to gain forgiveness
19. Celibacy of the priesthood
20. Holy water

Second, lets get into the matter,
and as 16 belongs to the series 10 to 13, I'm putting it before 10:

1. "Justification by faith PLUS WORKS" is an imprecise statement. We do believe the initial justification is a work of God's grace, with no own works of one's own meriting it. We do not believe God is indifferent to our previous works, as when He appeared crucified between the antlers of a deer to one not yet baptised Eusthathius, who had been giving money to the poor, and to whom He said "your alms have pleased me" or "your works have pleased me".

One can take this two ways, either he was justified (in some strange fashion) before he was a Christian, but not without becoming one : had he refused, he would not have remained justified. The actions of alms pleasing God meant that they were works proceeding from sanctifying grace. Or else, his works did not yet proceed from sanctifying grace, but were a motive (though not an obligation) for God's chosing to offer him grace. Only works that proceed from grace are, by God's promise, an obligation on Him for eternal reward. But the alms of Eustace (the way we usually pronounce Eusthatius in English) were not yet from grace before that day, and were not an obligation on God - they were however to God's taste.

Is there an example in the Bible?

And behold they brought to him one sick of the palsy lying in a bed. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the man sick of the palsy: Be of good heart, son, thy sins are forgiven thee.
[Matthew 9:2]

Jesus did not forgive him for his faith, but for the faith of those carrying him. From his part, the disposition of trusting his friends (already believing and acting from faith) was such an appeal without obligation but with good taste for God's mercy.

When it comes to another person, at least C. S. Lewis would have denied this, but perhaps with no good reason.

Wherefore I say to thee: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. But to whom less is forgiven, he loveth less.
[Luke 7:47]

I first of all agree with C. S. Lewis : sexual sins were not forgiven because she was very much in love when doing them. It is about the love she is now showing Our Lord.

Now, here is the point, C. S. Lewis tells us not to suppose that her love for Him is a cause why He forgave her, it is a symptom of how much she was already forgiven. The "because" is (he says) a "because" of proof, not of causation, like in motivating God to proceed to the forgiveness. But this would mean she was already forgiven before anointing. Now, certainly, at the very least, God inspired her to anoint His feet because He intended to forgive her by the time He said these words, but to her, it would have seemed, she did not know she was forgiven, now she's told she is, this means she at least earned security of her forgiveness from this anointing. Here is what bishop Witham (an English bishop residing in Douay or Rheims and sending priests to potential martyrdom in England, under the penal laws) has to say:

Ver. 47. Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. In the Scripture, an effect sometimes seems attributed to one only cause, when there are divers other concurring dispositions; the sins of this woman, in this verse, are said to be forgiven, because she loved much; but (v. 50,) Christ tells her, thy faith hath saved thee. In a true conversion are joined faith, hope, love, sorrow, and other pious dispositions. Wi.

From the Haydock comment on Luke 7. The Church authority of Bishop Witham primes the personal talent of C. S. Lewis.

One of Luther's heresies was saying all sinners are equally constituted in total filth and not only cannot gain God's forgiveness (as per obligation of promise) but cannot even dispose themselves to receive grace. The example of St. Mary Magdalene is a clear rebuttal. Here is also the answer of the Council of Trent:

Chap. 5. On the Necessity of Preparation for Justification of Adults, and Whence it Proceeds

797 It [the Synod] furthermore declares that in adults the beginning of that justification must be derived from the predisposing grace [can. 3] of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from his vocation, whereby without any existing merits on their part they are called, so that they who by sin were turned away from God, through His stimulating and assisting grace are disposed to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and cooperating with the same grace [can. 4 and 5], in such wise that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself receiving that inspiration does not do nothing at all inasmuch as he can indeed reject it, nor on the other hand can he [can. 3] of his own free will without the grace of God move himself to justice before Him. Hence, when it is said in the Sacred Writings: “Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you” [Zach. 1:3], we are reminded of our liberty; when we reply: “Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted” [Lam. 5:21], we confess that we are anticipated by the grace of God.

Chap. 6. The Manner of Preparation

798 Now they are disposed to that justice [can. 7 and 9] when, aroused and assisted by divine grace, receiving faith “by hearing” [Rom. 10:17], they are freely moved toward God, believing that to be true which has been divinely revealed and promised [can. 12 and 14], and this especially, that the sinner is justified by God through his grace, “through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” [Rom. 3:24], and when knowing that they are sinners, turning themselves away from the fear of divine justice, by which they are profitably aroused [can. 8], to a consideration of the mercy of God, they are raised to hope, trusting that God will be merciful to them for the sake of Christ, and they begin to love him as the source of all justice and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation [can. 9], that is, by that repentance, which must be performed before baptism [Acts 2:38]; and finally when they resolve to receive baptism, to begin a new life and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written: “He that cometh to God must believe, that he is and is a rewarder to them that seek him” [Heb. 11:6], and, “Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee” [Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:5], and, “The fear of the Lord driveth out sin” [Sirach. 1:27], and, “Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the Holy Spirit” [Acts 2:38], and, “Going therefore teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” [Matt. 28:19], and finally, “Prepare your hearts unto the Lord” [1 Samuel 7:3].

Read more on justification at: Denzinger: Trent session VI
https://sensusfidelium.com/the-sources-of-catholic-dogma-the-denzinger/council-of-trent-1545-1563-decree-on-justification/

It says adults coming to justification need to prepare for grace - because infants can be taken straight to baptism. Now, you cannot be baptised without believing, but faith is infused (not just imputed but infused) into the infant at baptism, and since baptism takes away sin (in the infant's case original sin) the sins are forgiven because of the others around the infant who already have faith (if none at a baptism made in a very modernist setting, at least the Church), as was the case with the friends of the man with palsy.

2. "The selling of indulgences to get time off purgatory" is a misstatement, starting as Luther's polemics, like his shouting "look what you really believe" (he did some shouting, Chesterton compared him to Hitler, and his successor in Saxony, the Lutherisch-Evangelisch Landesbischoff of Saxony, was a National Socialist - he has appeared on one picutre with raised hand in Hitler salute and Cornwell or some of his fans have pretended to show Catholic clergy in Hitler salute, because they did not know how Lutheran clergy dress - so, Luther was not taking a Catholic statement (on other than purely jocular level, in a conversation with Tetzel, perhaps) and shouting "this is heresy" he was raising a straw man.

Indulgences are not bought or sold. They weren't even in Luther's time. There is a price tag on different types of indulgences, plenary or partial, all prior sins or the equivalent of 40 days penance, one can cost a pilgrimage to Saint James or a rosary in Church, with confession and communion, another can cost an Our Father, according to the usual price. But the price is a price paid to God, in good works, not a price paid to the Church.

3. Purgatory is Biblically proven by, for one thing, examples of indulgenced works.

Can prayers and especially the sacrifice of the Mass earn time off from purgatory? In the Old Testament, the sacrifice of Christ was prefigured in the sacrifices of the Temple.

It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.
[2 Machabees 12:46]

Some have stated, among them Luther, Maccabees are not canon books, you can't prove doctrine from them. In this case, even if he had been right, we can. This happened before Christ. The Jewish custom of praying for the dead did not start in the time of Rabbi Akiba as Calvin somewhere claimed. At the very least, the concept was known. This was by the time Christ came certainly part of the traditions of the elders and a very important one - if Christ had been against it, He would have needed to make a point directly at it, not just the words against "statutes of the elders" - therefore we need to presume He was for it and so should we be.

Again, offering a good meal as alms to someone who shall pray for your dead one:

Lay out thy bread, and thy wine upon the burial of a just man, and do not eat and drink thereof with the wicked.
[Tobias (Tobit) 4:18]

The Orthodox to this day have this sense of the meal called "agape" and I think this is also so for the uniates : the meal is an incitement to pray for the person in whose memory it is made. One avoids inviting people known to be wicked, since their prayer would be worthless. This means that not just prayers, but also alms, are works that can be used (by a person already justified!) to earn repose for someone in purgatory. This is important since the type of indulgence on which Luther started his dispute was an indulgenced act of alms, you could earn an infulgence for fighting in a Crusade, for giving alms to Crusaders, or, as in this case, for giving alms to the building of a Church (in this case the one in Rome that is known as St. Peter's Basilica). The verses about alms in the previous also confirm what I said about St. Eusthatius getting the offer of justification after giving alms that had pleased God.

For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness.
[Tobias (Tobit) 4:11]

And, since walking on a pilgrimage is a kind of fast, we must conclude that not just prayers and alms, but also fasts (including pilgrimages) are a kind of work that can be used for earning indulgence from purgatory. Since the Church does indulgence pilgrimages. As we know from the Bible, fasts can be used for other requests from God, and my own pilgrimage was for another request, back in 2004.

But Purgatory is also Biblically proven, for another thing, by direct words:

If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.
[1 Corinthians 3:15]

Some Orthodox, notably Mark of Ephesus have said, "saved" means "saved up in existence, not annihiliated" while "suffer loss" refers to damnation.

Against this, consider, the context is the Church, those who are in it, those who build on the foundation that is Christ.

For we are God's coadjutors: you are God's husbandry; you are God's building.
[1 Corinthians 3:9]

The damned do not remain in God's building. The diversity of the eternal rewards is also given in this chapter, right in the previous verse:

Now he that planteth, and he that watereth, are one. And every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labour.
[1 Corinthians 3:8]

Again, there is some question on whether it is purgatory or hell here:

And his lord being angry, delivered him to the torturers until he paid all the debt.
[Matthew 18:34]

The interpretation on it being hell and not purgatory exists:

REMIGIUS. For God is said then to be wroth, when he takes vengeance on sinners. Torturers are intended for the dæmons, who are always ready to take up lost souls, and torture them in the pangs of eternal punishment. Will any who is once sunk into everlasting condemnation ever come to find season of repentance, and a way to escape? Never; that until is put for infinity; and the meaning is, He shall be ever paying, and shall never quit the debt, but shall be ever under punishment,

CHRYSOSTOM. By this is shewn that his punishment shall be increasing and eternal, and that he shall never pay. And however irrevocable are the graces and callings of God, yet wickedness has that force, that it seems to break even this law.

But "until" seems to imply the debt can be paid. And on this exact spot, while my Greek is rusty, since mostly unpractised since 1993, here is what I can do, from Nestle 1904:

ἕως οὗ ἀποδῷ πᾶν τὸ ὀφειλόμενον αὐτῷ.

One interpretation

ἕως until, followed by subjunctive
(οὗ relative pronoun in genitive, don't know why)
ἀποδῷ pay, the subjunctive after ἕως, apodô(i) = apodoê(i) in the grammatical theory
ἕως until, followed by indicative
...
ἀποδῷ pay, the indicative after ἕως, apodô(i) = apodôei in the grammatical theory
πᾶν τὸ ὀφειλόμενον αὐτῷ all that he owed him - unproblematic

Here is from Strong, 2193. heós:
https://www.biblehub.com/greek/2193.htm

b. with the genitive of the neuter relative pronoun οὗ or ὅτου it gets the force of a conjunction, until, till (the time when);
α. ἕως οὗ (first in Herodotus 2, 143; but after that only in later authors, as Plutarch, et al. (Winers Grammar, 296 (278) note; Buttmann, 230f (199))): followed by the indicative, Matthew 1:25 (WH brackets οὗ); ; Luke 13:21; Acts 21:26 (see Buttmann); followed by the subjunctive aorist, equivalent to Latin future perfect, Matthew 14:22; Matthew 26:36 (where WH brackets οὗ and Lachmann has ἕως οὗ ἄν); Luke 12:50 (Rec.; Luke 15:8 Tr WH); Luke 24:49; Acts 25:21; 2 Peter 1:19; after a negative sentence, Matthew 17:9; Luke 12:59 (R G L; Luke 22:18 Tr WH); John 13:38; Acts 23:12, 14, 21.

Ah, we do find ἕως οὗ with indivative and also with the subjunctive aorist - ἀποδῷ is an aorist, since the present would be not apodôi but apodidôi or even apodídoi. In this case, it is equivalent to Latin future perfect. This should be "quoadusque reddiderit" but in St. Jerome's day this phrase was too learned, in a popular Latin he wrote this translation:

Et iratus dominus ejus tradidit eum tortoribus, quoadusque redderet universum debitum.
[Matthew 18:34]

QUOADUSQUE (conjonction de temps + subjonctif)
4 siècle après J.C. LACTANTIUS (Lactance)
jusqu'au moment où prép. : jusqu'à ce que (nuance d'intention) voir jusque
https://www.dicolatin.com/Latin/Lemme/0/QUOADUSQUE/index.html

By "nuance d'intention" one can actually come to it being an intention never realised. However, if God intended the debt to be paid, paid it would be. However, there is another passage where purgatory is distinct from Hell.

Wait ... we have ἕως οὗ in Matthew 1:25 as well. Since the overall is a negated clause, "not x until y" it doesn't matter what the exact nuance of "until" is, since the overall context is not an affirmative one. On the other hand, there is not any negation in tradidit eum tortoribus, hence, yes, we can take this as ἕως οὗ = until actually.

Debtors' prisons are made to come out from. I would say. But yes, it could be Hell, not purgatory.

Here is by contrast a passage speaking directly of Hell, but indirectly actually of purgatory:

And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.
[Matthew 12:32]

This implies, as bishop Challoner wrote in his revision of the Douay Bible, some other sins are forgiven "in the world to come" that is in the afterlife:

[32] "Nor in the world to come": From these words St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, lib. 21, c. 13) and St. Gregory (Dialog., 4, c. 39) gather, that some sins may be remitted in the world to come; and, consequently, that there is a purgatory or a middle place.

4. The veneration of Mary ...

St. Elisabeth venerated her, as King David venerated the Ark of the Covenant.

And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?
[Luke 1:43]

And David was afraid of the Lord that day, saying: How shall the ark of the Lord come to me?
[2 Kings (2 Samuel) 6:9]

5. The immaculate conception of Mary requires a bit of a detour, but we will get there.

Blessed among women be Jahel the wife of Haber the Cinite, and blessed be she in her tent.
[Judges 5:24]

She had slain, utterly defeated, an enemy of Israel. Namely Sisera.

And Ozias the prince of the people of Israel, said to her: Blessed art thou, O daughter, by the Lord the most high God, above all women upon the earth.
[Judith 13:23]

She had slain, utterly defeated, an enemy of Israel. Namely Holophernes.

Now look at this:

And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
[Luke 1:28]

She had slain, utterly defeated, an enemy of Israel. Namely ... whom? She had cut off no human head nor put any hammered wedge into any ...

Whom had Mary slain? She was not very sure Herself:

Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be.
[Luke 1:29]

Does this give any clue? Here:

And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
[Luke 1:42]

It seems it did so to the Blessed Virgin:

And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord.
[Luke 1:46]

Why wasn't She troubled this time? What had changed? Did She get any clue about what enemy of Israel? Yes! This would be what She recalled:

I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
[Genesis 3:15]

It was a serpent she had killed! Now, it was not a physical serpent (except on rare occasions), but one who took the form or abused the witlessness of one. It was Satan. How does one slay Satan? Or, since angelic beings are immortal, utterly defeat him?

He that committeth sin is of the devil: for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose, the Son of God appeared, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
[1 John 3:8]

But recall the greeting of the angel? His Blessed Mother had begun to do so before He was inside Her womb. This is a very strong indication of Her sinlessness. Take another look at Genesis 3:15

I will put enmities between thee and the woman,

Enmities in the plural means complete enmity. How is one completely the enemy of Satan?

He that committeth sin is of the devil:

By complete sinlessness. And how could one be more completely sinless than by not even inheriting the sin of Adam, unlike Her ancestor King David?

6. The assumption of Mary is either true or false. If it is true, it is not a heresy, and if it is false, it is an apocryphal story but still no heresy. There is no Biblical dogma only Christ went up to Heaven. Ever. Sooner or later, it applies to others in diverse manners:

And it came to pass, when the Lord would take up Elias into heaven by a whirlwind, that Elias and Eliseus were going from Galgal.
[4 Kings (2 Kings) 2:1]

Then we who are alive, who are left, shall be taken up together with them in the clouds to meet Christ, into the air, and so shall we be always with the Lord.
[1 Thessalonians 4:16]

7. Praying to Mary means asking the Queen mother to ask Her Son the King for something.

[3 Kings (1 Kings) 2:17] And he said: I pray thee speak to king Solomon (for he cannot deny thee any thing) to give me Abisag the Sunamitess to wife. [18] And Bethsabee said: Well, I will speak for thee to the king. [19] Then Bethsabee came to king Solomon, to speak to him for Adonias: and the king arose to meet her, and bowed to her, and sat down upon his throne: and a throne was set for the king's mother, and she sat on his right hand. [20] And she said to him: I desire one small petition of thee, do not put me to confusion. And the king said to her: My mother, ask: for I must not turn away thy face.

Unlike King Solomon, Our Lord would not turn His Mother down. Those who say otherwise in reference to

But he answering him that told him, said: Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?
[Matthew 12:48]

should look at the previous verse - it was not She who had spoken. She did speak at Cana:

And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine.
[John 2:3]

While the next words of Our Lord might look like turning down, in the end He did not do so. And incidentally He called Her "woman" a title referring to Genesis 3:15.

8. The veneration of the saints ...

Is there any argument against it? Both human and angelic saints have said no thanks on occasion:

Acts 14:[10] And when the multitudes had seen what Paul had done, they lifted up their voice in the Lycaonian tongue, saying: The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men; [11] And they called Barnabas, Jupiter: but Paul, Mercury; because he was chief speaker. [12] The priest also of Jupiter that was before the city, bringing oxen and garlands before the gate, would have offered sacrifice with the people. [13] Which, when the apostles Barnabas and Paul had heard, rending their clothes, they leaped out among the people, crying, [14] And saying: Ye men, why do ye these things? We also are mortals, men like unto you, preaching to you to be converted from these vain things, to the living God, who made the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them:

Twice over for angels:

And I fell down before his feet, to adore him. And he saith to me: See thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren, who have the testimony of Jesus. Adore God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 19:10]

And he said to me: See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them that keep the words of the prophecy of this book. Adore God.
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 22:9]

As to the former, see here:

[10] "I fell down before": St. Augustine (lib. 20, contra Faust, c. 21) is of opinion, that this angel appeared in so glorious a manner, that St. John took him to be God; and therefore would have given him divine honour had not the angel stopped him, by telling him he was but his fellow servant. St. Gregory (Hom. 8, in Evang.) rather thinks that the veneration offered by St. John, was not divine honour, or indeed any other than what might lawfully be given; but was nevertheless refused by the angel, in consideration of the dignity to which our human nature had been raised, by the incarnation of the Son of God, and the dignity of St. John, an apostle, prophet, and martyr.

He had survived his martyrdom, before being exiled to Patmos. However, the latter seems to indicate St. Augustine was more spot on.

Now, there are counterexamples:

[3 Kings (1 Kings) 18:7] And as Abdias was in the way, Elias met him: and he knew him, and fell on his face, and said: Art thou my lord Elias? [8] And he answered: I am. Go, and tell thy master: Elias is here.

No rebuke from Elias.

Then king Nabuchodonosor fell on his face, and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer in sacrifice to him victims and incense.
[Daniel 2:46]

No rebuke from Daniel.

9. Praying to the saints ...

Technically praying to a saint is asking the saint to pray for one. Can this be done when the saint is alive on earth? Yes, no one disputes that. At least not normal Protestants.

Can a saint pray for someone when he has already died? Otherwise it would be pointless:


[Apocalypse (Revelation) 6:9] 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." [10] 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?

Note, all of the Apocalypse is not exclusively about the end times. I gave this example as an argument on this question, and was asked "do you think the Apocalypse is already happening" and the questioner was arguably asking whether the "last times" had already come. Back then I would have surmised no, by now I would cautiously guess, yes, after all. But these two verses are not about the end times persecutions and judgements - except insofar as all from AD 33 is in a sense end times. Here is Challoner on these two verses:

[9] "Under the altar": Christ, as man, is this altar, under which the souls of the martyrs live in heaven, as their bodies are here deposited under our altars.

[10] "Revenge our blood": They ask not this out of hatred to their enemies, but out of zeal for the glory of God, and a desire that the Lord would accelerate the general judgment, and the complete beatitude of all his elect.

It can't be denied they already died, and it can also hardly be to the point for them to pray this if God is anyway not going to hear them. Therefore, yes, they are able to pray.

But can one ask for their prayers? A rich man did:

[Luke 16:22] 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." ... [24] 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.

Now, obviously, Abraham had already died two thousand years earlier, nearly. But, answer the Protestants, Abraham refused the request, and a gulf is invoked as reason:

[Luke 16:25] And Abraham said to him: Son, remember that thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime, and likewise Lazarus 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.

Please note, the chaos, chasm or gulf is between two dead on the good side, Abraham and Lazarus, on the one hand, and one dead on the bad side, the Rich man. Abraham does not answer there is a gulf between him and the living ones, so they cannot speak to him. Let's see how this continues, when help for the living is asked for:

[Luke 16:27] And he said: Then, father, I beseech thee, that thou wouldst send him to my father's house, for I have five brethren, [28] That he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments. [29] And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. [30] But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance. [31] And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead.

No more mention of a gulf or chasm.

But wasn't there a ban in the Old Testament?

[Deuteronomy 18:10] Neither let there be found among you any one that shall expiate his son or daughter, making them to pass through the fire: or that consulteth soothsayers, or observeth dreams and omens, neither let there be any wizard, [11] Nor charmer, nor any one that consulteth pythonic spirits, or fortune tellers, or that seeketh the truth from the dead. [12] For the Lord abhorreth all these things, and for these abominations he will destroy them at thy coming.

Well, asking a dead person to pray for one doesn't seem enumerated here. So no, there is also no direct ban on this practise, related to Apocalypse 6, to the 5th seal martyrs which we take to be all martyrs from Stephen, yeah even from the children of Bethlehem, and already up in heaven under God's altar. But is there encouragement for it? Indirectly yes.

And some that were burying a man, saw the rovers, and cast the body into the sepulchre of Eliseus. And when it had touched the bones of Eliseus, the man came to life, and stood upon his feet.
[4 Kings (2 Kings) 13:21]

Venerating relics, which is one way of asking for miracles and blessings, came into favour when God had done similar miracles, but with three dead bodies, in relation to the relics of St. Martin of Tours.

16. That the Catholic Church is the only true Church worldwide is pretty obvious. We can have - going back in time to before recent apostasies and reduction of actual Catholics - a true Church of Christ in Rome, a true Church of Christ in Paris, a true Church of Christ in Westminster, so the true Church of Christ in for instance Rome is not the only true Church of Christ world wide. B u t, the Churches of Christ world wide are in Communion with each other and this Communion is called the Catholic Church.

In this we must understand that not only communion but also obedience to the Church is obliging. This is what can get irksome to some. In such and such a Protestant setting, they may have had a rough time obeying one congregation's pastors or elders, and have taken the solution to get to another one, to change what they have to obey. To some degree, this is possible within the Catholic Church too. And today, when fairly many different obediences (Pope Michael, his rivals like "Pope Francis" and "Pope Peter III", Sedevacantists and Sedeprivationists (CMRI, FSSPV, others), FSSPX, slightly different arrangements within obedience to "Pope Francis" like FSSP and Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, this is somewhat rampant, but even before, and while I considered the Vatican II sect as the true Catholic Church, there is the option of moving to another geographical parish, of changing Church (you usually have more than the one parish Church within each parish, something Anglicans and Lutherans did away with), of changing the priest within the particular Church.

But on a somewhat higher level, it would get abusive, and is not a thing among Catholics. Suppose you want to marry a divorcee, and your congregation says "no you can't, he's another woman's husband" or "she's another man's wife" and you'd like to hear some other stuff like "now it's forgiven it's no longer a sin" (false!) or "now you are saved, you are no longer sinning in this respect" (false!) that's when it comes in that the true Church has a visible authority:

[17] And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
[Matthew 18:17]

In order for you to tell the Church, She has to be visible, embodied in certain people. In order for him to obey the Church, again She has to be visible, embodied in certain people. And in order for Church hopping to be no worse than a hobby, no threat to finally find the Church that tells you what you like to hear rather than what you ought to be told, the local Churches need to be in Communion, along with non-parish and non-diocesan priesthoods, like monasteries, Franciscans, Jesuits. The communion needs to be able to take, together, real and binding decisions, like the Apostolic communion did in Acts 15, speaking on behalf of the Holy Ghost:

[28] For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things:
[Acts Of Apostles 15:28]

The ultimate reason why you should obey the Church is not that your pastor is a holy man, or that he is a man very congenially helping you to be holy, but that he represents a Church that is able to and does speak on behalf of the Holy Ghost. And this obviously implies you need to know what particular people within the Church have authority to speak on behalf of all of the Church world wide and for centuries to come. This brings us back to purported heresies (I was nearly saying "questions" except they weren't so presented) numbers 10 to 13.

10. The Pope is the head of the church follows from Jesus, the heavenly and on earth invisible head, instituting Peter, the first Pope, as sharing some of His characteristics.

• Christ is rock and Peter means rock, both are the rock in Matthew 16:18
• Christ is the good shepherd and Peter is told to feed his sheep
  
  [11] I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.
  [John 10:11]
  
  [15] I will feed my sheep: and I will cause them to lie down, saith the Lord God.
  [Ezechiel (Ezeckiel) 34:15]
  
  [17] He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.
  [John 21:17]
  
  
• Christ has keys and gives them to Peter (Matthew 16:19)

11. The Pope is infallible - when he intends to and expresses his intention to:

• a. in his quality of supreme bishop
• b. in a matter pertaining to faith or morals
• c. defines in a definite and binding manner any truth as belonging to Bible and Tradition.

And not at all other times. Unless he then has the support of all bishops or nearly all (throughout the world) or of a majority of voting bishops (at an Ecumenical council).

12. "The Pontifical Magisterium has as much authority as the Word of God" is a misstatement. While we do indeed consider the Pope has at times infallibility, the Bible and the Tradition which embody the word of God, what God has revealed, have inerrancy for Bible autographs and infallibility for all doctrine in them, not just at times, but always.

13. Only the RC church has the authority to interpret the Bible in a definite manner imposed as a judgement on the faithful. A simple faithful can of course make a conjectural interpretation, like I did when saying the "tower, the top of which may reach into heaven" in Genesis 11, was meant to be a three step rocket and God then used the confusion of tongues to put that on hold for 4500 years. But as I am not speaking on behalf of the Church, I cannot have authority to make this interpretation for anyone else, on his behalf, that is obliging him to it. I can only make it before someone else, like hoping he might agree.

14. "Tradition has as much authority as the Word of God" is neither a heresy nor a truth of the Catholic Church, it is a misstatement of Her doctrine. The correct statement is, the Word of God comes to us both as Bible and as Tradition. If Christ - the Word of God the Father, Incarnate - commanded a thing and the eight hagiographers of the New Testament did not record it, does it cease to be a word of God for that? No. Well, if it is then still accessible, a word of God is accessible through tradition rather than through the Bible.

15. That there is no imputed righteousness of Christ to us at the moment of "salvation" - is true, because instead of just imputing His righteousness, Christ infuses it. Btw, the moment referred to is called "justification" while salvation is a process completed only at death.

17. "The bread embodies Jesus and can therefore be prayed to" is a misstatement of doctrine. In fact, we say the outer accidents of bread and of wine remain while the inner substance of them is changed into Body and Blood of Christ - joined here and now to each other (so the Blood is present in the Host, the usually unleavened bread, and the Body in the Chalice) and also to His soul and His divinity. Of course we can pray to Christ, when He is present like this!

[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.
[Matthew 28:20]

Please note, to "do this in remembrance of me" is one of His commandments, and it does not mean, since that would contradict His previous words, that He were not present, but only remembered.

18. "Doing penance to gain forgiveness" is neither a heresy nor a truth of the Catholic Church, it is a misstatement of its doctrine. If I get absolution and then don't fulfill the penance imposed, I get forgiveness at absolution, and not fulfilling the penance if it had been fully possible would be a mortal sin, which needs to be confessed next confession, but it is not an impediment to the forgiveness already given. Receiving absolution while not intending to do the penance or try one's best would indeed be an impediment for the absolution to be a valid one, and that is like it would also be such an impediment if one intended to commit one of the mortal sins one confesses again, rather than doing one's best of avoiding them and asking God to improve one's best - through the penance, among other things.

19. Celibacy of the priesthood is a recommendation. And it is in the Bible:

[1] Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
[1 Corinthians 7:1]
[7] For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that.
[1 Corinthians 7:7]

In context : St. Paul is celibate, and he has just said "for fear of fornication, let every man have his wife" is spoken "by indulgence, not by commandment. Hence, there is at least no heresy about recommending people to chose celibacy before entering clergy.

Pope Michael does no more than that, he has reestablished ordination to priesthood for married men in the Latin rite, where it was forbidden since the Gregorian Reform, the first priest he ordained after becoming consecrated bishop in 2011, 21 years and some more after his election, was a married man. Even before him, married men were ordained in Oriental Rites, like among Ukrainian Uniates. The bishop who consecrated him, the main one, being also of that rite.

20. Holy water - means that a servant of Christ can bless water for it to have a property to heal the soul from evils. Are angels servants of Christ? Sure, He said He could summon twelve legions of them. And can it then happen that such a servant of Him can touch a pond so it can heal the body from evils? Sure, see here:

And an angel of the Lord descended at certain times into the pond; and the water was moved. And he that went down first into the pond after the motion of the water, was made whole, of whatsoever infirmity he lay under.
[John 5:4]

So, can water give healing to the body, but not to the soul? Not so, Christ told to get born again of water and Holy Spirit, in which water baptism is understood, and it heals the spirit from sin and damnation, rather than the body. Therefore, holy water can, if duly blessed, heal the soul and body from lesser ills coming from the devil.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Athanasius
2.IV.2022

Was Simon Peter Ever Called Niger?

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Reasoned Answer to Ray Comfort · Great Bishop of Geneva!: Was Simon Peter Ever Called Niger?

Clue 1:

Haydock comment on Acts 13:3 contain the passage:

Arator, sub-deacon of the Church of Rome, who dedicated in the year 544 his version of the Acts of the Apostles into heroic verse to Pope Virgilius, attributes this imposition of hands to S. Peter:

———Quem mox sacravit euntem
Imposita Petrus ille manu, cui sermo magistri
Omnia posse dedit.———

— See his printed poems in 4to. Venice, an. 1502. Arator was sent in quality of ambassador from Athalaric to the emperor Justinian.

Clue 2:

Greek Petros is in Latin normally "Petrus" - but the correct way of treating it as a cognate is "Peter" - like Greek agros, Latin ager (both meaning ploughable field).

The colour name "ater" sounds a bit like "Peter" and a bit like "pater". Now, "ater" means black and so does "niger".

Clue 3:

Rock in Greek is really petra, not petros, but yet it was adapted as petros for the new name of Simon. Because, obvuously, petra sounds like a feminine name, is not used of men but of women.

Similarily "ater" could be adapted as "niger" since "ater" meaning soot black is not used of men but of objects (notably soot or garments used for mourning).

If this is the case "Simon who was called Niger" doesn't mean "this is another Simon than Peter, this one was called Niger" it means instead "Simon (Peter) who was (here and now) called Niger" .... and his being mentioned after Barnabas would imply that to avoid detection, he also avoided to be seen as foremost, even if in fact he was that. Or simply that Paul recalled Barnabas, as his previous (Acts 11) and now again companion before even the ordainer.

If Simon here is not Peter, St. Paul could have been ordained back in Acts 11. Otherwise, if he is, if my guess is correct, he and Barnabas in Acts 11 served as lay or simply priest catechists and other deaconal work - or simply as deacons./HGL

Answering Bodie Hodge on the so called Apocrypha

Here is his paper:

Answers in Genesis : A Look at the Canon
How Do We Know that the 66 Books of the Bible Are from God?
by Bodie Hodge on January 23, 2008
https://answersingenesis.org/the-word-of-god/a-look-at-the-canon/

First, how does he enumerate them?

Tobit
Judith
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus (Book of Sirach)
1 Esdras
2 Esdras
Baruch
Letter of Jeremiah
Additions to Esther
Prayer of Azariah
Suzanna (often inserted as Daniel 13)
Bel and the Dragon
Prayer of Manasseh

The Roman Catholic 1 and 2 Esdras are King James Ezra and Nehemiah. In Russian Bibles, these are however 2 and 3 Esdras, and their 1 Esdras is neither in RC nor regular OT section of King James. Letter of Jeremiah is, in RC Bibles Baruch 6. This makes for two groups, books that can be discussed in canon lists of books, and book parts that are not so discussed.

Books:

Tobit
Judith
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
Wisdom of Solomon
Ecclesiasticus (Book of Sirach)
Baruch (considered to have sometimes been reckoned part of Jeremiah and therefore not discussed)

Book parts:

Letter of Jeremiah (Baruch 6)
Additions to Esther (in Esther)
Prayer of Azariah (in Daniel 3 if we mean prayer of the three young men or canticle of the three young men)
Suzanna (often inserted as Daniel 13)
Bel and the Dragon (Daniel 14)
Prayer of Manasseh (in II Chronicles 33)

Now, as to the discussion:

Jerome, the translator of the Latin Vulgate in the 5th century made it abundantly clear that the Apocrypha were not Scripture, even though they were included with the Vulgate. But like many other ancient pieces of literature, Jerome felt it worthy to be translated into Latin, the common tongue of the day. Even many early Church Fathers such as Melito, Origin, Athanasius, Cyril, and others rejected the Apocrypha.

He also made it clear that this was his opinion as a researcher, and that it was not shared by the bishops of the Catholic Church, and that he included these because they considered them canon.

Jews, before and during the time of Christ, often used the Septuagint (whether it contained the Apocrypha or not) but never classed the Apocrypha as Scripture for various reasons.3 One such reason is that it never claimed to be Scripture, unlike other books of the Bible that claim such things. Even one of the apocryphal books affirms there was no one speaking on God’s behalf at that time (1 Maccabees 9:27) when it says: “There had not been such great distress in Israel since the time prophets ceased to appear among the people.”

Not all canon books do affirm in the text to be speaking on God's behalf. Genesis doesn't. St. Luke's Gospel doesn't.

Again, there is speaking on God's behalf as a prophet, which is different from recording with God's protection from error. The latter is not incompatible with author excluding himself from the former.

Today, the Roman Church views 12 of the Apocryphal books as Scripture and has included them in their Bible translations (New American Bible, New Jerusalem Bible). The books that are excluded are 1 and 2 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasseh. This happened in A.D. 1546 at the Council of Trent.

1 and 2 Esdras are on the contrary included, and prayer of Manasseh is a book part, not excluded.

Some have claimed that apocryphal books were recognized as full scriptural canon by the Church as far back as the First Synod of Hippo in A.D. 393 with Augustine. There are no extant records of this Synod, so no one can say exactly what was decided, though the summary offered by the Council of Carthage in A.D. 397 is assumed to be generally accurate. However, the Synod of Hippo was regional, as was the following Council at Carthage where this new canon was approved; hence, it didn’t hold authority over the whole of the Roman Church.

The council of Rome was also regional, meaning one in 382 AD.

Decree of Council of Rome (AD 382) on the Biblical Canon
by Dr Taylor Marshall
https://taylormarshall.com/2008/08/decree-of-council-of-rome-ad-382-on.html

Only one seemingly lacking is Baruch, and that one can be explained by being in Rome 382 considered a book part.

It wasn’t until A.D. 405 that Pope Innocent I endorsed the Apocrypha—after the Council of Carthage—even though Jerome (who translated the Bible and Apocrypha into Latin and was also Catholic) strictly opposed it as Scripture.

I think 382 was earlier than 405.

Catholic Cardinal Cajetan around the time of the Reformation in the 16th century A.D. reveals that there were two different levels of canon in the Roman Church (a strict canon and non-official canon that was still useful for teaching in the church) ...

That was his opinion, out of respect for St. Jerome

This shows that the official fully inspired Old Testament canon accepted by the Roman Church was the same as the canon being used by the Protestants and Jews until the Council of Trent; at this point in time the second canon books were fully promoted to the position of inspired canon by the Roman Church.

No, it shows there were variations within Catholicism up to Trent.

The community who copied the Dead Sea Scrolls never referred to the Apocrypha as “It is Written” or “God Says” as they did with other canon books.

Do they refer to them at all?

Jesus never rejected the Jewish Canon (which was the same as the Protestant O.T.); Jesus never quoted from the Apocrypha as Scripture.

The Jewish canon which clearly was as Protestant OT was that of Jamnia, it was not universal in Jesus' time, and there are lots of other books He never is written to have quoted, which are in the OT.

Philo, Jewish philosopher, refers to all but 5 O.T. books and never quotes from the Apocrypha.

So, he didn't refer to all OT books either.

The New Testament writers do not quote from the Apocrypha as Scripture.

When do they quote Esther as such?

The Council of Jamnia drew up a list of canonical books for Judaism at the time—the Apocrypha are excluded.

The same council that banned Christians.

Josephus, Jewish Historian, never lists the Apocrypha as Scripture.

He felt bound by Jamnia, and half included another change by it : the total between Flood and birth of Abraham is given as 292 years, but the detail he gives for the generations in Genesis 11 (which reflects what he learned as a boy before Jamnia) adds up to nearly as much as Roman martyrology for Christmas day.

The first verifiable canon listing from the Church Fathers was found in the writings of Melito of Sardis and the Apocrypha are missing.

So is Esther.

Another listing by Athanasius lists canon books, but the Apocrypha are missing.

So is Esther.

Jerome, who translated the Bible into Latin, opposed the Apocrypha as Scripture, though he translated it.

He obeyed the bishops in submission and they did not share his opinion.

Rufinius lists the Canon books, and the Apocryphal books are not among them.

Could not verify.

Cyril of Jerusalem rejected the Apocrypha.

Could not verify.

Council of Laodicea rejects most of the Apocrypha except Baruch.

And they reject the Apocalypse as well.

Regional Synod of Hippo, influenced by Augustine, is the first listing of the Apocrypha as Scripture and approved at the regional Council of Carthage (397). See the discussion above on Hippo.

Yeah, see above.

Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome, in his writings denies Maccabees as canonical but still says it is useful according to Roman Catholic patristics scholar, William Jurgens.

A decent reference would be, not William Jurgens, but the places in St. Gregory's work where this is so. This is not given, and unlike St. Gregory's work, William Jurgens' isn't for free on the web.

Pastoral Rule, all four books, no F presence on Maccabees, dito a pdf on Dialogues. Letters would be one page per extant letter. Moralia in Job has 35 books, each a page.*

Council of Florence declares the Apocryphal books are canonical.

Based on Rome 382 and Carthage 397.

Catholic Cardinal Cajetan (who opposed Luther) points out that there are two levels of inspiration, and the Apocrypha, Judith, Tobit, books of Maccabees, Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus were the lesser of inspiration and seen as non-canon books.

Personal opinion.

Polyglot Bible of Cardinal Ximenes (approved by Pope Leo X) published.

The polyglot makes a feature of showing the Hebrew text. "Apocrypha" are excluded for this practical reason.

Protestant Reformation retains the Jewish canon and that of Jerome and many others with no Apocrypha.

And hereby innovates. Especially Calvinists who do not even reserve a place for the "Apocrypha" in a separate section.

The Council of Trent finalized the Roman Church additions of the Apocrypha as full canon.

In line with councils of Rome 382 and Carthage 397, the first councils to list all of the 27 NT books.

It may seem as if I were nitpicking, and as if the majority opinion prior to Trent were "anti-apocrypha", but the examples were so chosen by Bodie Hodge, it was those I was concerned to refute.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Mardi Gras
1.III.2022

* I verified a pdf with all of Moralia in Hiob in Latin. No Maccabees there.

What Do Protestants Say About Catholic Bible Access?

I mentioned earlier about the reading of scripture being driven from the church. From the time of the apostles, the Bible was freely read by anyone who desired. During the Middle Ages, the Council of Toulouse (1229) and Tarragona (1234), under Pope Pius IV, denied lay persons the right to read even Catholic versions of Scripture unless the lay person obtained permission from their parish priests. The Council of Trent (1564) stated that anyone caught reading a Bible without written permission, would not receive absolution from their sins until they had surrendered their Bible.

Here are three things to note:

• 1) the Council of Toulouse in 1229 was a local council (like Tours 813), and Toulouse was in the turmoil of Albigensian heresy, and they pointed to some of the words of Jesus for some of their errors. This doesn't mean laymen in Scotland or Germany were barred from reading the Bible;
• 2) the same thing is true for the Council of Tarragona in 1234;
• 3) for the Council of Trent, I would like to see how this rule was decided by the Council, but if it had been, it certainly included the possibility for laymen actually getting such a written permission.

Now, there could be a certain confusion between reading and interpreting in print the Bible. In order to get a book printed that does involve exegesis, the permission needs to be given in writing, and this is true not just for laymen but also for priests - the Catholic priest Jean Colson in 1968 needed an imprimatur (written permission) to publish l'Énigme du disciple que Jésus aimait, which pushes (I think credibly) the thesis that John the Gospeller was not identic to the Son of Zebedee, not one of the twelve, but a Cohen.

Here is the rule, from session IV:

And wishing, as is just, to impose a restraint, in this matter, also on printers, who now without restraint,--thinking, that is, that whatsoever they please is allowed them,--print, without the license of ecclesiastical superiors, the said books of sacred Scripture, and the notes and comments upon them of all persons indifferently, with the press ofttimes unnamed, often even fictitious, and what is more grievous still, without the author's name; and also keep for indiscriminate sale books of this kind printed elsewhere; (this Synod) ordains and decrees, that, henceforth, the sacred Scripture, and especially the said old and vulgate edition, be printed in the most correct manner possible; and that it shall not be lawful for any one to print, or cause to be printed, any books whatever, on sacred matters, without the name of the author; nor to sell them in future, or even to keep them, unless they shall have been first examined, and approved of, by the Ordinary; under pain of the anathema and fine imposed in a canon of the last Council of Lateran: and, if they be Regulars, besides this examination and approval, they shall be bound to obtain a license also from their own superiors, who shall have examined the books according to the form of their own statutes. As to those who lend, or circulate them in manuscript, without their having been first examined, and approved of, they shall be subjected to the same penalties as printers: and they who shall have them in their possession or shall read them, shall, unless they discover the authors, be themselves regarded as the authors. And the said approbation of books of this kind shall be given in writing; and for this end it shall appear authentically at the beginning of the book, whether the book be written, or printed; and all this, that is, both the approbation and the examination, shall be done gratis, that so what ought to be approved, may be approved, and what ought to be condemned, may be condemned.

I note a little item of relevance to Pope Michael, who pretended to be so busy, he'd need to be paid by me to make examination and imprimatur for something by me ... "and all this, that is, both the approbation and the examination, shall be done gratis, that so what ought to be approved, may be approved, and what ought to be condemned, may be condemned."

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Paul the First Hermit
15.I.2022

The site I cited was this one, I may continue to comment more on it, since it contains more errors:

https://www.addeigloriam.org/reformed/luke-private-interpretation.htm

Council of Trent quoted from here:

http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch4.htm

One true word from the Protestant site:

We may wonder today how the leaders of the RCC could torture and even kill people for the horrific crime of daring to read their Bible (many more actually died in England under the reign of Bloody Mary than in central Europe),

Why? Bc Mary Tudor (whose victims were not more numerous than Catholic victims of the Reformers) was not united to Rome, she was, like her father Henry VIII, personally head of the Church of England, which she proceeded to Catholicise back again by appealing to national laws, like notably the 1401 act of parliament De heretico comburendo (arguably the act under which St. Joan of Arc was tried), which made it so much easier to get burned as a heretic in England than it was on the continent. If Tyndale had been burned in England, it might have been for translating the Bible. In Wilvoorde, he was actually burned after spurning the admonitions of James Latomus on how to properly understand Romans chapter 3./HGL