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
