"Ecclesialism, Apostolic Tradition, OK, But Aren't Orthodox Purer? Don't They Condemn Statues?"

First, here is an Orthodox priest speaking:

@RootsofOrthodoxy
Is The Orthodox Church AGAINST Statues? ☦️
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/7Ihy_HU9n0s

No, Hagia Sophia had statues prior to iconoclasm.

But there is, next, another answer.

I have been in Arles and seen a museum. One of the pieces was a sarcophagus from Roman times, before Constantine. It had in High Relief images of the Twelve Apostles.

Third, the image of the Cross is a statue.

So, no, Orthodoxy in fact doesn't in practise condemn sculture./HGL

Duchess of Dorchester, Revisited

Jeremias 7 and 44 and the Duchess of Dorchester · Duchess of Dorchester, Revisited

Let's take a look at Jeremias 7.

18 hab·bā·nîm mə·laq·qə·ṭîm ‘ê·ṣîm, wə·hā·’ā·ḇō·wṯ mə·ḇa·‘ă·rîm ’eṯ- hā·’êš, wə·han·nā·šîm lā·šō·wṯ bā·ṣêq; la·‘ă·śō·wṯ kaw·wā·nîm lim·le·ḵeṯ haš·šā·ma·yim, wə·has·sêḵ nə·sā·ḵîm lê·lō·hîm ’ă·ḥê·rîm, lə·ma·‘an haḵ·‘i·sê·nî.
18 the sons gather wood and the fathers kindle the fire and the women knead dough to make cakes for queen of the heaven and [they] pour out drink offerings to gods other that they may provoke Me to anger

Now, let's look at Jeremias 13.

18 ’ĕ·mōr lam·me·leḵ wə·lag·gə·ḇî·rāh haš·pî·lū šê·ḇū; kî yā·raḏ mar·’ă·šō·w·ṯê·ḵem, ‘ă·ṭe·reṯ tip̄·’ar·tə·ḵem.
18 Say to the king and to the queen mother Humble yourselves Sit down for shall collapse your rule the crown of your glory

Let's look at the words used for queen.

lim·le·ḵeṯ = 4446. meleketh		wə·lag·gə·ḇî·rāh = 1377. gebirah
meleketh: Work, craftsmanship, occupation		gebirah: Queen, Mistress, Lady
Original Word: מְלֶכֶת Part of Speech: Noun Feminine Transliteration: meleketh Pronunciation: meh-leh-keth Phonetic Spelling: (mel-eh'-keth) Definition: Work, craftsmanship, occupation Meaning: a queen		Original Word: גְּבִירָה Part of Speech: Noun Feminine Transliteration: gebirah Pronunciation: gheh-bee-RAH Phonetic Spelling: (gheb-ee-raw') Definition: Queen, Mistress, Lady Meaning: a mistress
Word Origin: Derived from the root word מְלָאכָה (melakah), which means "work" or "occupation."		Word Origin: Derived from the root גָּבַר (gabar), meaning "to be strong" or "to prevail."

As any Catholic Scholar knowing Hebrew would tell you, Mary is not the "meleketh" of Heaven, but the "gebirah" of Heaven.

Joe Heschmeyer is right now telling us so over here:

What the Davidic Kings Reveal About Mary
Shameless Popery Podcast | 12.XI.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMRx9pasdPQ

So, my analogy is actually imperfect. Imagine instead that the fake "Duchess of Dorchester" (a drag queen) was an insult to the "Princess of Dorchester" (actual title foreseen by the King).

Since Heaven involves rest, its Queen being called anything like "work" is degrading to Heaven. But its Queen-Mother being called sth like "strength" or "prevailing" actually is worthy of the Blessed Virgin, since by sinlessness She was made to prevail against Satan and was completely victorious over him, as I've often said in commenting on "Blessed Among Women" ....

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Pope St. Martin I
12.XI.2024

Sancti Martini Primi, Papae et Martyris, cujus dies natalis sextodecimo Kalendas Octobris recensetur.

Did the Devil Retain His Power? Revisited, Still No

Did the Devil Retain His Power? No · Did the Devil Retain His Power? Revisited, Still No

Taylor Alesia was making a point that fame as an artist comes to those who are favoured by "the prince of this world" ...

Her Bible quote was II Cor 4:4, which reads: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers, that the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God, should not shine unto them.

Now, what does the Haydock comment say?

Ver. 4. In whom the God of this world hath blinded the minds of unbelievers.[1] Thus the words are placed, both in the Latin and Greek text, so that the true God seems to be called the God of this world, as he is elsewhere called the God of heaven, the God of Abraham. God, says St. Chrysostom, blinded, that is, permitted them to be blinded. Others translate, in whom God hat blinded the minds of the infidels of this world; so that this world may be joined with unbelievers, and not with God: and by the God of this world, some understand the devil, called sometimes the prince of this world, that is, of the wicked. (Witham)

So, one can read this as God, the true and good God, blinds the minds of unbelievers. And this means, He permits them to blind themselves.

Not because He loves falsehood, but because the blindness is a punishment. These had already chosen some falsehood or evil (like the circular proof of "Heliocentrism with Newton shows the Solar System works without God, and there being no God shows the Solar System has no other solution than Heliocentrism with Newton" (usually not pronounced in the same moment, the self deception requires some distancing from the very obvious vicious circle)).

But suppose we read instead "God of this world" = "prince of this world" = "the devil"?

Well, it still doesn't mean Satan retains his powers over mankind as prince of the world, he was judged at Calvary, it means he is the one falsely adored by those who refuse to adore the true God.

So, still no proof that seeking literary or artistic fame would depend on striking a deal with the Devil ... but here is more to take from the question:

The footnote [1] reads:
[1] Ver. 4. In quibus Deus hujus sæculi excæcavit mentes infidelium, en ois o Theos tou aionos toutou etuphlose ta noemata ton apiston. St. Chrysostom, om. e. p. 594. lin. 11. says, it should be read thus: anagnosteon, oti ton apiston tou aionos toutou, etuphlosen o theos [] oemata.

The Latin and Greek positions of the words would permit taking it as "unbelievers of this world" ... yes, even if the Genitive is normally placed after the main noun, and next to it, you can both have a Genitive before and also words inserted between. For instance, if the main noun is also a Genitive, as is the case, that one and its Genitive can surround the main main noun.

Wonder how St. Thomas takes it?

Causa ergo huius occultationis est non ex parte Evangelii, sed propter eorum culpam et malitiam. Et hoc est quod subdit in quibus Deus huius saeculi, et cetera. Et hoc potest exponi tribus modis. Primo modo sic: Deus huius saeculi, id est Deus qui est dominus huius saeculi et omnium rerum creatione et natura, iuxta illud Ps. XXIII, 1: domini est terra, et plenitudo eius, orbis terrarum, excaecavit mentes infidelium, non inducendo malitiam, sed merito, imo demerito praecedentium peccatorum subtrahendo gratiam. Is. VI, 10: excaeca cor populi huius, et cetera. Unde et praecedentia peccata insinuat, cum dicit infidelium, quasi infidelitas eorum fuerit causa huius excaecationis. Secundo modo sic: Deus huius saeculi, id est Diabolus, qui dicitur Deus huius saeculi, id est saeculariter viventium, non creatione sed imitatione, qua saeculares eum imitantur. Sap. II, 25: imitantur eum, qui sunt, et cetera. Et hic excaecat suggerendo, trahendo et inclinando ad peccata. Et sic quando iam sunt in peccatis, operiuntur in tenebris peccatorum ne videant. Eph. IV, 18: tenebris obscuratum habentes intellectum, et cetera. Tertio modo sic: Deus habet rationem ultimi finis, et complementum desideriorum totius creaturae. Unde quidquid aliquis sibi pro fine ultimo constituit in quo eius desiderium quiescit, potest dici Deus illius. Unde cum habes pro fine delicias, tunc deliciae dicuntur Deus tuus; similiter etiam si voluptates carnis, vel honores. Et tunc exponitur sic: Deus huius saeculi, id est illud quod homines saeculariter viventes sibi pro fine constituunt, ut puta voluptates, vel divitiae et huiusmodi. Et sic Deus excaecat mentes, inquantum impedit ne homines lumen gratiae hic, et gloriae in futuro, videre possint.

Commentarium in Secundam ad Corinthios
(scroll down to Caput 4, Lectio 2, I'm only quoting part)
https://www.corpusthomisticum.org/c2c.html

So, "the God of this world" means three different things, that blind unbelievers in three different ways:

• God takes away the grace as punishment;
• the Devil by tempting;
• the false gods or ends, by distracting.

They are also called "the God of this world" in three different ways:

• God is the owner and creator of not just Heaven but also Earth and all that is in it;
• the Devil is the God or Role Model of all worldly people;
• whatever you worship is your God, so for instance money or fame is worshipped, not just desired, but worshipped, by some.

We do not have any reason to believe from this that all media and all famous and powerful people are ultimately controlled by the Devil, since the true God can also give fame and power and that to people who seek Him.
/Hans Georg Lundahl

Joshua Infantado Tried to Debunk Purgatory

He admits* these are six Bible passages we Catholics use to prove Purgatory, giving explanations for each:

• 2 Maccabees 12:39-46: Prayers for the dead suggest an intermediate state where souls can benefit from such prayers.
• 2 Timothy 1:18: Paul’s prayer for Onesiphorus indicates a belief that the dead can be helped by the prayers of the living.
• Matthew 12:32: Jesus mentions that some sins will not be forgiven “either in this age or in the age to come,” implying post-death purification.
• Luke 23:43: Jesus tells the thief on the cross that he will be in Paradise, which some interpret as an intermediate state before Heaven.
• 1 Corinthians 3:11-15: Describes a process where believers’ works are tested by fire after death, which aligns with the purifying process of purgatory.
• Hebrews 12:29: Refers to God as a “consuming fire,” symbolizing the purification process.

He could have omitted Luke 23:43, according to us, Purgatory is not paradisal, and Abraham's bosom was above Purgatory in Sheol. The thief was going to be where the poor Lazarus had been prior to Jesus raising him, and as Jesus was going to be there too, that was paradisal. Purgatory remains where it is, but the souls in Abraham's bosom are in the meantime taken up to Heaven, but this only happened after Jesus' resurrection.

We usually tend to explain John 20:17 as referring to the last moment Jesus was seen on Earth before lifting up these souls into Heaven, and that the same day, before further appearances on Earth during forty days.

Now, he pretended that Luke 12:59 does not prove purgatory. Here it is:

And when thou goest with thy adversary to the prince, whilst thou art in the way, endeavour to be delivered from him: lest perhaps he draw thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the exacter, and the exacter cast thee into prison I say to thee, thou shalt not go out thence, until thou pay the very last mite
[Luke 12:58-59]

Here is his comment:

No, Luke 12:59 does not prove purgatory. This verse is often cited in discussions about purgatory, but it does not explicitly refer to the concept. The context of Luke 12:59 is about making peace with your enemy.

While the context indeed involves making peace with one's enemies, Joshua is providing no interpretation compatible with his Thnetopsychist position. Some Orthodox who deny Purgatory refer this to Hell, "the catch 22 is, you can never pay the last mite" ... but as Joshua is a Thnetopsychist, he cannot take this view. So, how does the Catholic view fit making peace with one's enemies? Well, some sins are forgiven us because we have forgiven our enemies.

What did Joshua say about 2 Maccabees 12?

The Book of Maccabees is not included in the canon of the inspired Word of God for a reason. It contains teachings that contradict the Bible’s core messages.

He doesn't specify which ones, nor how the core messages are supposed to be proven in ways that show them contradicting either of the two books of Maccabees.

The non-inclusion is not an originally Christian one, it was first a Jewish one, after they had rejected Christ (meaning Romans 3:2 no longer applies to them), then a Protestant one (in misapplication of Romans 3:2).

What advantage then hath the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision Much every way. First indeed, because the words of God were committed to them
[Romans 3:1-2]

This refers to the division of Jew and Gentile still predominating in St. Paul's day, not to the only beginning division between Jew and Christian. At this time, the Jewish canon was not closed as to the Ketuvim, and was only closed (with exclusion of I and II Maccabees and a few more) after the rejection of Christ, making them depositaries of the words of God no more.

For example, 2 Maccabees 12:39-46 discusses praying for the dead, a practice that has roots in pagan traditions rather than biblical teachings.

That pagans did a thing before Jews and Christians doesn't prove it wrong. If pagans did a thing condemned in the Bible and later some Jews, and after the apostasy of Jews some Christians, but not all, came to do that, that would be a wrong thing. But pagans are not wrong about everything, and therefore pagan pioneering of a practise doesn't prove the practise wrong.

Claiming that purgatory is true because early Jews believed in it is a weak argument, as the Jews were not always faithful to the Hebrew Scriptures. The Old Testament frequently recounts their departure from God and involvement in idolatry.

Now, this is a very interesting thing. Clearly, the idea of praying for the dead was pretty constant between the time of II Maccabees and Rabbi Akiba. This includes the time of Our Lord's public ministry. In certain things where they clearly departed from the law, like the issue of Corban vs the normal way of honouring Father and Mother, Jesus did reprove them.

If the practise existed in Jesus' time, if Jesus condemned practises that contradicted the law, and if it contradicted the law, why did He not condemn it? If Joshua goes like "oh, maybe He did condemn it, but it just didn't make the way into a Gospel" why so if God Who knows all of time could foresee the Church going wrong? Especially, as Jesus clearly didn't foresee the Church as a whole going wrong (Matthew 28:16—20).

Now, unlike the Reformers, Joshua Infantado tries to disprove Purgatory by Thnetopsychism. He tries to support that with the Bible.

First item:
The soul that sinneth, the same shall die: the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, and the father shall not bear the iniquity of the son: the justice of the just shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him
[Ezechiel (Ezeckiel) 18:20]

This does not refer to extinction of the soul, but to its spiritual death, or one could say that in the context of OT death penalty, all punishments by God were spoken of in analogy with death penalty and "The soul that sinneth, the same shall die" means no one else will be lapidated for a specific persons crime against the law. But to return to spiritual death, Adam's soul spiritually died the day he ate of the forbidden fruit, even if he still had 930 years to live before he died. Spiritual death is something other than extinction of the soul.

Second item:
Wonder not at this; for the hour cometh, wherein all that are in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of God And they that have done good things, shall come forth unto the resurrection of life; but they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of judgment
[John 5:28-29]

We agree** that our bodies will resurrect and that there will be a public and visible judgement and that bodies will go where souls already are, Heaven or Hell. This does not disprove the particular judgement of each souls directly after death, nor that some judged for glory are judged to a delay first, which is called Purgatory.

The rest of his article involves lots of generalities that are not quite to the point.

• "No One Can Work Out Your Salvation for You" ... "One person cannot perform good works and credit them to another." — Does not follow. If someone in the early Church did not complete a penance, but died first, someone else was likely to take up the parts that were lacking. Now, each must certainly perform some good work, if only to be baptised. As that is done passively, children also can be baptised.
  
  
• "No one can save you but God" — also, no one could spare Sodom but God. However, we see that God would, conditionally, have spared Sodom, due to two conditions fulfillable by men:
  • the prayer of Abraham
  • the presence of ten just in Sodom.
  
  
  The analogy to the ten just would be dying in peace with God, dying in a state of grace. But the analogy to the prayer of Abraham would be the prayers for someone's release from Purgatory.
  
  
• "Misinterpreted Bible Verses" — Joshua Infantado refuses to provide a correct interpretation that doesn't include Purgatory. And still does include all of the truth in the verses.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Hedwig of Poland***
16.X.2024

(15.X) Cracoviae, in Polonia, natalis sanctae Hedwigis Viduae, Polonorum Ducissse, quae, pauperum obsequio dedita, etiam miraculis claruit; et a Clemente Quarto, Pontifice Maximo, Sanctorum numero adscripta est. Ipsius autem festivitas sequenti die celebratur.
(16.X) Sanctae Hedwigis Viduae, Polonorum Ducissae, quae pridie hujus diei obdormivit in Domino.

* His article is on this link:
Becoming Christians: Is Purgatory in the Bible?
https://becomingchristians.com/2024/08/07/is-purgatory-in-the-bible/

** Back in the day certainly Albigensians and probably Waldensians too didn't believe in the resurrection of the body. It was us Catholics who defended that.

*** Speaking of II Maccabees, chapter 15 endorses that saints, in the afterlife, pray for us. If in Luke 16 Our Lord didn't intend to give the impression Abraham could still pray for things in the afterlife, it's very curious He gave an example which, given such beliefs already existing, would have been prone to misunderstanding in His day.

Has Gavin Ortlund Proven Apostolic Succession (in the technical sense) wrong?

According to* Ortlund, the term Apostolic succession as understood by Catholics and Orthodox says:

1. without a successive laying on of hands, going back to the apostles, a man cannot celebrate the sacraments (except baptism) or hold authoritative office in the Church;
2. only bishops to the exclusion of priests who are not bishops can ordain and this distinction of bishops and priests from each other goes back to the Apostles;
3. only bishops are successors of the Apostles.

Now, Ortlund argues from St. Clement of Rome and from St. Jerome that two and three are false. Therefore, he considers, the whole thing is contrary to tradition and therefore it is false.

Let me first argue where I think he gets the concept wrong, giving the correct definitions.

1. Without a successive laying on of hands, going back to the Twelve Apostles, a man cannot celebrate the sacraments (except baptism and marriage) or hold authoritative office in the Church, the latter however so that a man can take up an office as bishop if elected even if not yet ordained, as long as he intends to get consecrated later on;
2. probably only bishops to the exclusion of priests who are not bishops can ordain and this or at least some distinction of bishops and priests from each other goes back to the Apostles;
3. only bishops are successors of the Twelve Apostles. Simple priests are successors of the Seventy-Two Apostles.

In other words, Jesus ordained (Holy Thursday) and consecrated (evening of Resurrection Sunday, except Thomas Didymus) the Twelve, and the Twelve then ordained (but did not necessarily consecrate) the Seventy-Two.

Now, I'll admit that in the New Testament it is difficult to find Bishops distinguished from Priests in that precise terminology. I would argue that the word Bishop in the NT usually means Priest. There are several different terms for Bishop and Bishop isn't one of them. Someone has argued that St. John the Gospeller being called Presbyter argues this was originally one of the words for Bishop, but if Father Jean Colson is correct he was not the son of Zebedee, then he may have been called Presbyter rather than Episcopus because he was not a bishop.

The NT words for Bishops, not all of which imply everyone so designated is a Bishop, are:

• Apostle (but between Andronicus and his wife Junia, she was not a Bishop, though both are "of note among the apostles"), Twelve, Seventy-Two (most of which would have been elevated to Bishops), others (Sts. Paul and Barnabas)
• Evangelist
• Prophet (but some prophets and especially prophetesses were not Bishops)
• Angel (Apocalypse 2 and 3)
• "thou" (St. Paul in adressing Sts. Titus and Timothy)

What do we make of Sts. Clement and Jerome?

St. Clement supported the two-fold authority of Bishop and Deacon with a Scripture which doesn't seem to exist. That's what Gavin Ortlund claims. This refers to First Clement chapter 42:

The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.

I had a hard time to localise the Scripture in question. The direct quote gave searches to First Clement. It's not in a standard version of the Bible. Here is the first hit that seemed to localise the quote:

The Willard Preacher : The Authority of the Church
http://thewillardpreacher.com/for-orthodox-and-inquirers/the-church-fathers-speak/the-authority-of-the-church/

It says:

For thus saith the Scripture in a certain place, “I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.” (Is. 60:17, LXX)

Now, what do I find in the LXX version of Ellopos?

ISAIAH / ΗΣΑΪΑΣ 60
https://www.ellopos.net/elpenor/greek-texts/septuagint/chapter.asp?book=43&page=60

And for brass I will bring thee gold, and for iron I will bring thee silver, and instead of wood I will bring thee brass, and instead of stones, iron; and I will make thy princes peaceable, and thine overseers righteous.

καὶ ἀντὶ χαλκοῦ οἴσω σοι χρυσίον, ἀντὶ δὲ σιδήρου οἴσω σοι ἀργύριον, ἀντὶ δὲ ξύλων οἴσω σοι χαλκόν, ἀντὶ δὲ λίθων σίδηρον. καὶ δώσω τοὺς ἄρχοντάς σου ἐν εἰρήνῃ καὶ τοὺς ἐπισκόπους σου ἐν δικαιοσύνῃ.

It would seem the papacy was temporarily in an error about how many degrees the office has, probably because "dikaiosyne" could give rise to a scribal error with "diakonos" ... and this was the text the Pope had. Or he could have misquoted from memory. He certainly didn't possess a Gideon Bible with lots of bookmarks where he could turn the pages until he knew what he was consulting. That's not how they did back then.

I think someone very quickly gave him a better text, discretely so as not to detract from his authority (a kind of respect I do not owe Gavin Ortlund), and no future Pope repeated it. Or, as said, no body cared that he had made a slight misquote. It could be a conflation of two quotes, like we find in the NT.

But so far this makes it look that Gavin Ortlund understands St. Clement correctly as to this passage. Not necessarily. You see, the word "priest" or "presbyter" is mentioned both before and after this. And it would be strange if a Church Father considered an OT prophecy as a direct blueprint for Church structure. Different aspects about Christ, about Mary and notably also about the Church are spread all over the Old Testament. And the context where St. Clement mentions these two offices, not only does he not specify that they are the two only offices, but he even gives a clue why this would not be so:

they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe

It is very likely that the Apostles could very well have known about three offices and even so have ordained only two. You see, a Bishop need not be an Apostle to ordain a priest. Once you have set up Bishops and Deacons, the Bishops can go on to chose the future Priests from among the Deacons. For that matter, a Bishop and a Deacon would be the Liturgic Minima of the Church. In some cases, in some Churches, one could have temporarily dispensed with having priests who weren't also Bishops, just so as to be on the safe side in case the Monarchic bishop should be the one martyred and surrounding ones unable to come, and in some Churches, even Rome, one could have forgot that this was the case, considered a two-fold office as the normal thing and have lived through a restoration locally as if it were a novum, though not a resisted one. This kind of Church could be where the informants of St. Jerome came from.

But, suppose again Gavin Ortlund pretends this is guess work and prefers his own guess work (or that of the seminary he was to) and insists that Priests and Bishops were the same thing for St. Clement of Rome, he swears till his face is blue that this is what the good and adequate art of text analysis (without historic context) exacts for First Clement, even if that is unjust to the rambling and unsystematic approach of ancient styles, very unacademic by modern standards, so what?

It still doesn't dispense with point one:

Without a successive laying on of hands, going back to the Twelve Apostles, a man cannot celebrate the sacraments (except baptism and marriage) or hold authoritative office in the Church, the latter however so that a man can take up an office as bishop if elected even if not yet ordained, as long as he intends to get consecrated later on.

In fact, Albigensians were claiming Apostolic Succession for the Consolamentum of the Perfecti. This was probably entirely fraudulent, and at least cannot be historically traced. I think Waldensians may be making a similar claim. The idea of making Apostolic Succession dispensable came with the Reformation.

Neither making Presbyters successors of the Twelve (probably taken from sources saying they are successors of "the Apostles" in the sense of the Seventy-Two), nor pretending all of the Apostolic era saw Presbyters and Bishops as the same thing (essentially more like Bishops, since able to ordain), would dispense with it. It would either mean people who had been ordained with no power to ordain and consecrate weren't receiving the power to forgive sins or celebrate the Eucharist either, or it would, more probably, mean that normal Catholic priests ignore a power of ordination that actually resides in them. In fact, some Catholics have theorised that a Presbyter can ordain and consecrate, if he has the dispensation of the Pope, but otherwise his powers in this respect are hampered, and "Pius XIII" (who got no successor after he died) actually tried to access this way to the episcopal office, namely by "papally" giving dispensation to the one other priest involved there. I reckon him as not the back then real Pope, because he has no successor and he tried to rival an already extant Michael I. But even so, people on a "desert" island could not access the Eucharist prior to praying for rescue or for a priest to share their isolation.

In fact, decisively for me, we do not just have Apostolic Succession from the Apostles, but also Apostolic Tradition. This doesn't mean digging up the earliest possible post-NT author and pitting him against everyone after him, it means that the collective of successors of the Apostles are not capable of all erring on an important matter. In the absence of a parallel tradition featuring the idea that Luther simply for being a priest could also ordain, the idea of Presbyterian Protestantism (which is also part of the theory, though not the obvious show, of Episcopal Protestantism, Lutherans, Anglicans, Moravians and Methodists) is a novum. And as such an error. Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians, perhaps there is also a Syriac anto-Nestorian but non-Chalcedonian communion, all distinguish bishops from priests. So, whichever of these be the true Church, this needs to be the rule of the Church.

His real beef with Catholicism is probably the Inquisition, and especially the death of Tyndale, which I have commented on on another post.** Or the exclusivism of Catholicism. "Why can't I be saved, if I disagree? Why can't we be Church, if we disagree? Is God that stingy?" For the latter it's simply a question of God keeping His Church visible. This post is about an item where Eastern Orthodox and so on are NOT wrong, and where "witness of the (older) heretics" is valuable.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Dionysius the Areopagite
9.X.2024

* I would say "passim" but if I missed him making contrary statements, please tell me. Latest item I looked at may have been this one:

Is Apostolic Succession an Accretion?
Truth Unites | 19 Sept. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TItkYgnWec

** It contains a link to his video, it's this one:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Tyndale
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/10/tyndale.html

Can a Catholic Say the Bible is Infallible?

Great Bishop of Geneva! Can a Catholic Say the Bible is Infallible? · Creation vs. Evolution: Would Tuas Libenter Condemn Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism Because of the Theologians who were Fine with Heliocentrism and Deep Time? · somewhere else: "God is Being Itself, Creationism Portrays Him as a Cause Among Others"

I had an essay to notify Karl Keating of, namely Agreement and Disagreement with Robert Sungenis. On his FB page, I found this statement:

Ortlund*, like most other Protestants, finds himself defaulting to the claim that the Bible itself is "infallible" because, for him and for them, there is nowhere else to look for the infallible interpretive authority that every Christian desires to rest under. Unfortunately, Ortlund's quest is futile because the Bible cannot be infallible because it is not an active agent. It is a static book, and books don't and can't make decisions.

Obviously, neither can much more recent books, like AAS. What about AAS 1950?

Or if AAS had existed back then, 1854?

Have Marian dogmas been defined, and can they be consulted on paper?

The paper is not an "active agent" but a static book, but it incorporates an infallible decision by Pope Pius IX and probably one by Pius XII.

The point is, God was inspiring every moment of the hagiographer's final writing. Not necessarily by dictation, but God was inspiring the decision to include or exclude certain topics, and God was inspiring whatever the hagiographer decided to say on the topic.

Does this become fallible after a certain time lapse? Has the Apostles' Creed become fallible because it is now 2000 years old? Or the Nicene Creed?

You see where I am going. The argument is useless, because it proves too much.

From same post:

You and I are fallible in all of our decision making. However correct a decision of ours might appear, there is a chance it is incorrect. Someone who is infallible in decision making (in Catholic theology that includes bishops meeting together in ecumenical councils and, rarely, popes teaching on their own)—such a group or individual is held to be incapable of making an incorrect decision in certain circumstances.

In Catholic doctrine that includes hagiographers when writing tas hagias graphas, the holy Scriptures.

Normally, given "under certain circumstances" the word "infallible" applies to statements.

One can discuss whether Pius XII infallibly defined a Marian dogma only by asking whether he was still Pope.** But one can ask whether, supposing the overall and bold style statement was infallible, he was also infallibly stating:

Quae quidem, singulari prorsus privilegio, immaculata conceptione sua peccatum devicit, atque adeo legi illi permanendi in sepulcri corruptione obnoxia non fuit, neque corporis sui redemptionem usque in finem temporum exspectare debuit.

And if so, whether the words "singulari prorsus privilegio" apply only to the first clause that follows (Immaculate conception is already known), or to all three?

Was it a totally singular privilege for Her to "not be obliged to that law of remaining in the corruption of the tomb"?

Does it (if so) refer to:

• being alone (except Christ) raised and lifted up to Heaven?
• being alone (except Christ) not corrupted while in the tomb?
• being alone (except Christ) recovered from corruption in the tomb?

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt he did not want to suggest the blasphemy She ever was corrupt. That's why I struck this out. But the two other ones would also be erroneous:

• Henoch and Elias will be raised from the dead and lifted up to Heaven prior to doomsday, since that event will cause the conversion of 7000 unbelievers, presumably Jews ... sorry, I may have recalled the verse badly, it reads as I consult it:
  
  And at that hour there was made a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell: and there were slain in the earthquake names of men seven thousand: and the rest were cast into a fear, and gave glory to the God of heaven
  [Apocalypse (Revelation) 11:13]
  
  
• Or it could be taken as denoting that the Blessed Virgin was not in any way, shape or form close to dead, but was alive the moment before She was lifted up, there was no Dormition, probably erroneous, but see qualification about a private revelation.
• Even apart from Henoch and Elias not corrupting while dead, probably (I can't find that sentence as I consult the DR), there are incorrupt saints.

The only way for "singulari prorsus privilegio" to be true is, if it applies only to the first of the subsequent phrases, namely about the Immaculate Conception. And that one really is true. Not just was she immaculately conceived, but by that fact she vanquished sin, and its author even, as we can glean from "blessed among women" being basically a military award.

Now, the point is, no Catholic theologian will ever doubt that Pius IX infallibly defined the Immaculate Conception, it would be few who questioned whether Munificentissimus Deus is an infallible papal statement (I know none but myself), but there are definitely two views on whether Syllabus Errorum by Pius IX or Lamentabili sane exitu by Pope St. Pius X are infallible. Hence, very clearly, "infallible" does apply to statements, not just to people. St. Pius X had the charism of infallibility, he exercised it on occasion of canonising St. Clement Maria Hofbauer, did he also exercise it in Lamentabile sane exitu? Did he delegate it to Fulcran Vigouroux when the latter stated Day Age theory was OK (but he didn't state it obliged)? There is one group of statements of which all Catholics will preeminently agree that they are all infallible, that being the statements in the Bible. With their strict implications. A smaller collection are obviously the statements and implications of the Canon Missae. But even as quickly as the Martyrology, we have divergence. Could "Paul VI" reform it? Was it even moderately OK to exclude Sts Barbara and Christopher, if only temporarily? What about St. Philomena? Her story is from an anonymous saint in the catacombs and a private revelation.

Speaking of which, if Pius XII did intend to define away Her Dormition, this could be a way to consider a private revelation as confirmed by his (if any) papal authority. That way also "singulari prorsus" could be true, since a private revelation could trump historic traditions about an event.

You can also quibble about whether, supposing Fulcran Vigouroux did wield the infallibility of St. Pius X in 1909, the response to Q VIII was an infallible or disciplinary response. If it was a doctrinal infallible response, there would not have been much use to confirm the part of the question*** whether exegetes were free to freely discuss it. If we knew that Day Age was dogma, we would, and even exegetes would not not be free to discuss in favour of literal days. But even so, FSSPX in the US district have started to treat the statement "only literal six days without a gap (or one moment creation) can now do justice both to theology and scientific evidence" as equivalent to rebellion against the infallible authority of St. Pius X.

In other words, it is more important to know what statements are infallible than to know who wields infallibility as a charism. And in that sense, infallibility can definitely apply to a book.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Michael's Feast
29.IX.2024

In monte Gargano venerabilis memoria beati Michaelis Archangeli, quando ipsius nomine ibi consecrata fuit Ecclesia, vili quidem facta schemate, sed caelesti praestans virtute.

* It's from a public post. A comment left under a video by Gavin Ortlund, that one being "the Protestant Canon Problem" ...
** Munificentissimus Deus was November 1, after Humani Generis, August 12.
*** sive sensu proprio pro die naturali, sive sensu improprio pro quodam temporis spatio, deque huiusmodi quaestione libere inter exegetas disceptare liceat?

A Point About Certain Protestant Fundamentalists

Great Bishop of Geneva! A Point About Certain Protestant Fundamentalists · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Some People Really Can't Relate to a Catholic Convert

now [4:42] here's something interesting every group [4:45] I left said my stretching was [4:47] backsliding every group I came to said [4:50] my stretching was growth

Stan Mitchell on the David Moses Perez show, on the video:

Those Who Think They Haven't Deconstructed Their Faith Actually Have Also | Stan Mitchell
David Moses Perez | Iconoclast Podcast | 16 May 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWaZVoF-UEo

I can state with perfect confidence, that kind of narrowness was never the point of my Fundamentalism, even back when I was a child unbaptised of Evangelical convictions. I was YEC, am still. I believed the Devil seduced Adam through Eve, in the shape or with the manipulation of a snake, do still. I believed people get possessed and that Jesus drove demons out, do still.

I was allergic to suggestions that Mormons, 7DA, Catholics would not make it to Heaven. Part of my dissatisfaction with Luther came, later on, finding that he actually believed Catholics (he had been one) were going to Hell for Catholic positions.

The Catholic doctrine I have had the hardest time with is probably Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

While converting, I could say to still Lutheran friends and acquaintances, they'd be better off, better assured of salvation if converting. I didn't tell them "if you don't convert, you are going to Hell" ... the closest I came to saying such a thing back in Sweden was telling an ex-employer who tried his best (or worst) at being a mentor for me, "if a non-Catholic is neither excused by ignorance, nor by stupidity, and remains non-Catholic, he's going for Hell, I can't guarantee you belong to the exceptions" ...

Anyone who imagines he can do any kind of combat against Fundamentalism in me by showing "that non-Catholic is a decent fellow"(1) or "that non-Fundie seems to be decently Catholic" (2) is wasting his time, if he expects me to change my mind. He's also wasting my time if he puts all my projects into a shoe box as long as I don't change my mind. Certain kinds of administration against certain kinds of clientele could have that power, and if that's the case, I resent it.

Those who would totally endorse my Fundamentalism, if it were instead on the Evangelical / Unitarian / Jewish / Muslim side, and not the Catholic one, equally. If they want to be a sparring partner, fine. If they want to be a mentor, it makes me puke.

In fact, anyone who finds it problematic, either that I am Catholic or that I am Fundie, that should remain his problem. I resent if he tries to make it mine.

But there is a real point, faith is faith if it is itself, there are limits outside which it is no longer so. I'm (usually) far more generous about what the limits could be for a particular person (except when he has endorsed an obvious impiety)(3), than about what they are in dogma and in doctrines that could be usefully erected into dogma.

The people who are combatting my Fundamentalism (yes, they exist), like those combatting my Catholicism (yes, they also exist), may imagine they are doing me some kind of favour. For instance if I were convinced everyone except myself or other adherents of Pope Michael II were going to Hell, and it caused me anguish over people I genuinely liked. They are not doing me that favour. That kind of narrowness never was my point. But once they start trying to impose that favour, they also cease to be people I genuinely like.

Equally, some might pretend that:

• I'm homosexual
• my Christianity causes me to reject my homosexuality
• I entertain myself with forlorn hopes about homosexual men being able to decide to marry a woman anyway, but somehow never seem to make it
• so, the best thing possible for me would be to make me ditch the Fundamentalist reading of Bible or Church Tradition saying sodomy is mortal sin, and accept myself as homosexual.

The reality is very different:

• I am heterosexual
• I am bullied by people who find some excuse to consider me homosexual
• I don't change what they would consider as criteria between homosexuality and heterosexuality (4)
• and I don't get a wife because girls don't like to put themselves in the way of bullies and partly because some of them have believed the liars.

Everyone who participates in an intrigue to remake my faith so I can accept myself as homosexual is in reality participating in this bullying. And the one person who's unlikely to get saved from sin and Hell as long as they continue is myself. Plus whoever of them is not a complete idiot having the excuse of folly before God's eyes. Given their tactics, that's at least some.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Pius X
3.IX.2024

(1) Erik Manning would be an example. So would Ken Ham.
(2) Trent Horn and Jimmy Akin are both examples, except when speaking on (i e against) YEC.
(3) I called John Bergsma and Scott Hahn out for their view on Genesis 9, after writing a refutation of an identical view here:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Bad Theology Pushed, Good Theology Rejected (Noah's Drunkenness)
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/08/bad-theology-pushed-good-theology.html

(4) To some anti-Catholics, confessing to priests, or believing one should do so, praying the rosary, or believing one should do so, fasting or abstaining on Fridays or believing one should do so, saving oneself for marriage could come off as "effeminate" ... to some Conservatives basically Neo-Stalinist, believing young teens can marry and young marriages shouldn't be stamped as pedophilia "proves" I am really a pedophile and according to their version of Freudian analysis, that means I am homosexual. To some machists, chosing writing as a trade or composing music of the Mozart type rather than of the rock type exposes me as a faggot. This can probably be more potent with Russians (who recall Chaikovsky) than with Germans (who recall Johann Sebastian Bach. To some machists and anti-Catholics, any clothing outside the most generically masculine contemporary is, on a male, cross dressing, whether it's a Dominican's habit or my capuche, my mente or my breeches.

What Does "Being in Babylon" Mean? Being Invisible Only Church? No.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Joe on Judas · A Protestant End Times Theologian (Good on End Times, at least moderately, Bad on Church History and Ecclesiology) · Great Bishop of Geneva! What Does "Being in Babylon" Mean? Being Invisible Only Church? No.

But that is unfortunately what this fan site for the Reformation (yes, they spell it with an R, I think a D is more appropriate), is telling their readers:

The Reformation Messenger January 2014
Does God have a Visible Church on This Earth?
https://www.imsmessenger.org/january-2014/does-god-have-a-visible-church-on-this-earth/

As far back as Martin Luther, Christians have recognized that God has an invisible church which consists of members from all Christian churches, because there are faithful members in all communions, including that of Rome. They have accepted Christ as their personal Saviour, and they are counted as His people. Therefore, in Revelation 18:4, in the time of the end, and this is that time, the call is made, “Come out of her (Babylon) My people.” Many of God’s people are still in Babylon; they belong to God’s invisible church. At the time of the “Loud Cry” of Revelation 18:4, they will come out and join God’s visible remnant church.

I suggest, this is wrong. In the end times, the visible Church is divided, one part is faithful to Apostolic Tradition, another part compromises with the Scarlet Beast and with a Babylonian counterfeit of the Church. But both parts are visible.

It's not the Remnant Church that is new. It is the part compromised in Babylon that is new.

And all this time, there is a visible Church, going back to the Apostles.

Luther is not unique or even very original in making a distinction between the visible Church, where some members are going to Hell, and an invisible ... to St. Augustine, it would be Platonic Archetype ... consisting of every soul that will be saved or already is finally saved.

What makes Luther special, however, and it may go back to Wycleff or Hus, is the idea that the invisible Church is sufficient to take care of the promise of indefectibility.

Here are two Biblical references to indefectibility, one from the OT, one from the NT:

The stream of the river maketh the city of God joyful: the most High hath sanctified his own tabernacle God is in the midst thereof, it shall not be moved: God will help it in the morning early
[Psalms 45:5-6]

Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost 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 28:19-20]

The first one promises indefectibility either of Israel or of a legitimate successor of Israel. We Catholics believe that to be the Church and that this is also promised in Matthew 28.

Both repeats of this promise are also tied to God claiming all power. (Matthew 28:18 as God in the flesh, and before that Psalm 45:11, before His incarnation).

Now, Luther admitted indefectibility, which Catholics were using to criticise his ecclesiology, and he responded by claiming it is the invisible Church that is indefectible.

There is some logic to this. The invisible Church is made up of only souls that go to Heaven, and therefore each soul is (ultimately) indefectible, and therefore their communion is indefectible. But there is a deep problem with this.

1. The promise itself involves a command of teaching all nations, and teaching authorities have to be visible;
2. This is even underlined elsewhere in the NT, namely for instance:
   
   

   You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house
   [Matthew 5:14-15]

The Church is visible, because the Church gives light to the world, and God is not putting that light under a bushel. We can imagine the Devil might want to put it under a bushel, but he is weaker than God.

And "a city seated on a mountain" also involves another cross-reference, namely to a Church built on a rock:

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven
[Matthew 16:18-19]

The visibility of the Church is therefore promised as "upon this rock I will build my church" in parallel with "a city seated on a mountain" and when it comes to a towing match between God and the Devil about putting the light under a bushel:

1. God does not intend to put it under a bushel (Matthew 5:15)
2. The Devil and all his counsels (the gates of a city being where the counsel thereof is taken) will not prevail to put it under a bushel (Matthew 16:18).

Meanwhile, next verse in Matthew 16 shows another reason why the Church has to be visible: it has offices and officers. You cannot obey the keeper of the keys if you cannot identify him by visibility. That's one reason Pope Michael II says against "Boniface IX" who is not openly acting as a papal claimant. That's one reason Pope Michael I back in his time had against the "Pope in Red" or "Siri was Pope" thesis, since Giuseppe Siri did not openly claim to be Pope (at least after the purported at first acceptance of papal office in the conclave).

Is this reason for a visible Church also parallelled by other loci? Yes.

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]

As the context is about conflicts, this is not just the Church teaching, but also deciding, like an officer of some kind of justice or jurisdiction decides a case. So, it is a perfect parallel to Peter getting the keys. Indeed, in Catholic theology, this is a good case for when the "power of the keys" is used in the life of the Church.

The people who are told to get out of Babylon in Apocalypse 18 are already visibly Catholics. It is just that they have compromised their Catholicity in a sinful relation with the spiritual darkness of Babylon (Modernist Anglicanism comes to mind as a candidate) and a manipulative as well as sinful relation with The Scarlet Beast (Communism comes to mind as a candidate). Meanwhile, full Catholicity without such compromise is found the other side of a very recent split within Catholicism.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Decapitation of St. John
the Baptist
29.VIII.2024

Decollatio sancti Joannis Baptistae, quem Herodes circa festum Paschae decollari praecepit. Ipsius tamen memoria solemniter hac die colitur, qua venerandum ejus caput secundo inventum fuit; quod, postea Romam translatum, in Ecclesia sancti Silvestri, ad Campum Martium, summa populi devotione asservatur.

Who Was Berthier?

In the Haydock commet, on Psalm 13 (which some consider as 14), I encounter the words of one Berthier.

Who was he? I'll trust good old wiki on it:

Guillaume-François Berthier (7 April 1704 – 15 December 1782) was a Jesuit professor and writer, tutor of the French Dauphin's sons, and librarian of the court library.

Anything more in particular?

Berthier was one of the authors of the multi-volume Histoire de l'église Gallicane, which was started by Jacques Longueval. In 1745 he was appointed editor of the influential Jesuit periodical the Journal de Trévoux, holding the post until 1762 and doing much to expand the circulation. Because of his powerful opposition to the infidel "encyclopédistes" he was bitterly attacked, especially by Voltaire.

Hmm, no friend of Voltaire! Sounds good!

After his death several of his works were published by Father de Querbuef: (1) A translation of the Psalms with notes (8 vols.); this was often reprinted. (2) Five volumes on Isaiah. (3) Five volumes of "Réflexions Spiritualles."

Pretty obviously, this translation and especially notes are notes that were cited in the Haydock comment. So, let's get to it.

First, verse 1 of Psalm 13, not in Berthier's French, but in Douay / Rheims / Challoner's English:

1 Unto the end, a psalm for David.

The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God.

They are corrupt, and are become abominable in their ways: there is none that doth good, no not one.

Now, anyone who knows anything of Evangelical Protestantism is well aware what they will make of it, especially the last words. The T of the black Doordrecht TULIP. The first point of "five point Calvinism", Total corruption.

What does Berthier have to say?

St. Paul (Romans iii.) proves from this text, and Isaias lix. 7, that all stand in need of grace and faith, and cannot be saved either by the law of nature or of Moses. But it does not follow that faith alone will save, or that the most just are still wicked, as Calvin and Beza falsely expound the Scriptures. For the prophets speak of those who were not yet justified, teaching that all mankind were once in sin, and could not be justified but by Christ. At the same time, they assert that, when they are justified, they must serve justice to bear fruit, and obtain happiness, Romans vi. These points are well explained by St. Augustine: (de Sp. et lit. i. 9.) "The just are justified freely by his grace," not by the law or will; though this is not effected without the will, &c. The same holy doctor (c. 27) observes, that the just do not live free from all venial sins, and yet remain in the state of salvation; while the wicked continue in the state of damnation, though they do some good works. (Worthington)

So, the observation is about the state of the unredeemed, as the prior words give to understand, these ones: "The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God."

And on top of that, "does good" as denied does not mean "does some good," which they do, it means "does consistently, habitually, good" ...

Wait, the above quote was from Worthington. Now, the actual just adjacent quote from Berthier is this one:

Some explain this of mankind in general, as all are born in sin. David refers also to actual and habitual sinners. (Berthier)

So, Berthier agrees that it is not about man as justified. But prior to justification.

Who was Worthington? Probably one of two Thomas Worthington, namely either

Thomas Worthington, D.D. (1549 at Blainscough Hall, near Wigan, Lancashire - possibly 1627, at Biddulph Hall, Staffordshire) was an English Catholic priest and third President of Douai College.

or else

Thomas Worthington (1671−1754), was a Dominican friar and writer. He received his education in the college of the English Jesuits at St. Omer. In 1691, he entered the Dominican Order at the convent of Bornhem in Flanders, and in the following year he made his solemn confession as a member of the order. He was ordained priest at Rome in 1695, and went afterwards to the college of St. Thomas Aquinas at Louvain, where he became successively professor of philosophy, theology, and sacred scripture. ...

Either way, let's agree with Berthier and the Thomas Worthingtons, not with heretics like Calvin and Beza!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sts Paul and Juliana,
brother and sister, martyrs
17.VIII.2024

Ptolemaide, in Palaestina, passio sanctorum Martyrum Pauli, ejusque sororis Julianae Virginis; qui ambo, sub Aureliano Imperatore, cum in Christi confessione permanerent immobiles, jussi sunt variis et dirissimis tormentis affligi ac tandem capite obtruncari.

Ptolemaide = in Acre. sub Aureliano Imperatore = under this guy

Blunder, Gendron!

New blog on the kid: Refutation of Dr. Steven Nemes · I Heard the Cardinal Zen had Taken on Michael Lofton · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Michael Lofton on Marcel Lefebvre, Me on Both and on Pope Michael · Sola Scriptura is NOT My Position · Michael Lofton Responded to Cardinal Zen · Great Bishop of Geneva! Blunder, Gendron!

When I on a previous occasion tried to notify Mike Gendron on a reply to him, I somehow got myself subscribed to his newsletter. Today a paragraph just jumped out at me, there being so much wrong with it.

There is No Higher Authority than God and His Word

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16). In other words, Scripture is our supreme authority for knowing truth and correcting all that opposes it. Every word was breathed out by God, who cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18). Because of this, His inerrant Word must be the standard by which we discern truth from error (1 John 4:6). We also know that Scripture is sufficient to function as the sole infallible rule of faith, because it does not refer us to any other source for truth. Everything we must know, understand, and believe to be saved is found in Scripture (2 Tim. 3:14-16; 1 Cor. 15:1-4). Therefore, after considering any other source for truth, we must ask, "But what does the Scripture say?" (Gal. 4:30).

Let's pick it apart.

There is No Higher Authority than God and His Word

Correct so far. At least in what he says, if not in what he leaves a typical Protestant to imagine.

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16).

No quarrel with St. Paul.

In other words, Scripture is our supreme authority for knowing truth and correcting all that opposes it.

Or at least a very important part of the supreme authority.

Every word was breathed out by God, who cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18). Because of this, His inerrant Word must be the standard by which we discern truth from error (1 John 4:6).

Or at least a very important part of this standard.

We also know that Scripture is sufficient to function as the sole infallible rule of faith, because it does not refer us to any other source for truth.

No, this is a huge blunder.

It refers to both Magisterium and Tradition. Multiple times.

Everything we must know, understand, and believe to be saved is found in Scripture (2 Tim. 3:14-16; 1 Cor. 15:1-4). Therefore, after considering any other source for truth, we must ask, "But what does the Scripture say?" (Gal. 4:30).

II Tim. 3, I think 14—16 means what we consider 15—17, but I'll quote 14—17 for good measure.

14 But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

The Old Testament Scriptures indeed instruct to salvation, but by the faith which is in Christ Jesus, i e by the Tradition of the New Testament. Notice in the verse we call 14, St. Paul does not remind St. Timothy about "in what book" but "from whom" he had learned.

I Cor 15, "according to scripture" is not a direct describer of the Gospel, but of the events in it, namely describes that they were prophecied in OT Scripture.

1 Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received, and wherein you stand; 2 By which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received: how that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures: 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the scriptures:

If we want to include NT Scripture, it's not the Calvary and Resurrection accounts, it's Christ foretelling these events. The point being that the event matched the foretelling.

For Galatians 4, it can seem as if this quotemine were a straight appeal to Scripture on the exact same topic, taken in the literal sense. In fact, if we look at verse 30 in context, it is an appeal to typology, and "But what does the Scripture say?" simply means "you recall the story, right?" — a story for which St. Paul provides, in oral tradition to Galatians and in Epistle to them, the typological key:

21 Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, have you not read the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, and the other by a free woman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman, was born according to the flesh: but he of the free woman, was by promise. 24 Which things are said by an allegory. For these are the two testaments. The one from mount Sina, engendering unto bondage; which is Agar: 25 For Sina is a mountain in Arabia, which hath affinity to that Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But that Jerusalem, which is above, is free: which is our mother. 27 For it is written: Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not: break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for many are the children of the desolate, more than of her that hath a husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he, that was born according to the flesh, persecuted him that was after the spirit; so also it is now. 30 But what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman.

31 So then, brethren, we are not the children of the bondwoman, but of the free: by the freedom wherewith Christ has made us free.

Jews have exactly the same story about Isaac and Ishmael in Genesis, but they would deny the interpretative tradition of OT which comes with Christianity.

And while we are at it, it's not just the parts explicitly given such allegoric or typological interpretations in NT texts, it's all of the OT. Jesus gave the disciples of Emmaus a lesson in OT exegesis, Luke 24:

25 Then he said to them: O foolish, and slow of heart to believe in all things which the prophets have spoken.

26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him. 28 And they drew nigh to the town, whither they were going: and he made as though he would go farther. 29 But they constrained him; saying: Stay with us, because it is towards evening, and the day is now far spent. And he went in with them.

So, Jesus spends hours walking with them and goes through all of the OT books in all parts. It says "in all the scriptures" and "Moses and all the prophets" ... here is one big source of truth mentioned in Scripture and more than just once, namely Jesus' oral teaching to His disciples — including a complete Christological typology, or in St. Paul's word "allegory" ... while in the NT texts we only see parts of it.

So, Jesus and Paul gave oral teaching. This, as to the content side is Tradition. But as to the authority side, it's Magisterium. Jesus is in the Vulgate several times over called Magister, and St. Paul in the quote given indirectly designates himself as the Magister of St. Timothy.

A charge he held from Jesus, through the twelve, through the disciples in Antioch (Acts 13). A charge Timothy held from him. A charge faithful bishops in communion with the true pope hold from such people.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St. Elisabeth of Portugal
8.VII.2024

Were All Churches Started on Pentecost AD 33?

In a very long video, which I will not link to as long as I'm only answering this point, perhaps later if I go through all of it, a Catholic meme was attacked. Here is first the Catholic meme:

"If you are Methodist, your Church was founded in 1784 by John Wesley
If you are Anglican, your Church was founded in 1534 by Henry VIII / Cranmer
If you are Lutheran, your Church was founded in 1522* by Martin Luther
If you are Orthodox, your Church was founded in 1053** by Michael Caerularius.
If you are Catholic, your Church was founded in 33 by Jesus Christ"

Here is their response.

"The correct answer to when your Church was founded is: in 33 by Jesus Christ"

Explanation:

"Every Church that proclaims the Gospel was founded on Pentecost in 33"

It's a statement that makes lot of sense from a non-denominational denomination's view. If you are two men and you are a Methodist and a Presbyterian, you may not be able to go to each other's communion. There is a real excommunication in the sense that they are not the same denomination, each claims his denomination is at least the best approximation to the correct one, the one of 33. This is not totally true even for Presbyterians and Methodists any more, but the point is, it is definitely sth which the non-denominational ones try to avoid. There may be more ad hoc excommunications, over recent matters, but there is usually none over matters a few centuries old ... except against Catholics and Orthodox.

They may be very Catholic positive at least when it comes to cradle Catholics, but they would often enough try to dissuade someone to convert to Catholicism.***

So, this means, in some way, they actually do excommunicate Catholics and Orthodox.

And this exception is of course a very marginal thing to them. Not the kind of people they usally think of. A little like odd-balls. So, in the main, they aren't much about excommunication.

Nevertheless, this excommunication against Catholicism, if not cradle Catholics, is still a fact. And given there is in fact an excommunication, there also is a ground for asking if the answer actually makes sense.

You see, in AD 500 or 700, you are not likely to find non-denominationals. You are likely to find people who, apart from your romanticisation of St. Patrick or the Culdees, pretty much would have fallen into the Catholic camp. Their position makes sense only if the Reformation never took place. But it took place.

That's why they put in a conditional clause "it if proclaims the Gospel" ... meaning, they usually consider Catholicism doesn't do that.

And that puts to a question another matter. WHAT do they believe is the Gospel? If it is "justification is not from previous works" ... Catholicism says that too. If Catholicism proclaims the Gospel, and they don't care about excommunications, why not be Catholics?

If it is about "nor from any willingness to subsequent works, nor does it involve such willingness" (you could already be justified while not at all desiring to walk in Christ), that's more a stance of Luther and of Calvin, than usually theirs. In fact, their typical stance on this tends to agree with Catholicism against the Reformers.

But often, they will take some cue to find a way to blame Catholics for "works salvation" or for making one's salvation on some level depend on one's own work, as if that were necessarily in contradiction with "not from works" ... they will often very much laud someone for speaking about "walking in Christ" and also very much blame someone for saying "in the state of sanctifying grace, you can and you need to do meritorious works" ... even though on a basic level these phrases mean the same thing.

Perhaps it's about the theological fine print, and in that case, they aren't as non-denominational as they pretend.

Or perhaps it's because they think ill of the kind of works Catholics do. Giving money to beggars. Praying the rosary. Receiving the sacraments. And why not Friday abstinence and fasting?

Or, isn't baptismal regeneration making salvation depend on a human act? Well, from the side of the one receiving, no, he isn't working, he is receiving. And from the side of the one baptising, he's normally supposed to already be justified. Because of that, and because of his ministry and because baptism is part of everyone's ministry in a case of urgene, he can work as a tool of Christ working in and through his acts.

Perhaps their most queezyness about Roman Catholicism is, we teach, even a minister in mortal sin, can give a sacrament. God has so tied himself to certain acts by prpomise that if the conditions He stipulated are fulfilled, the sacrament and God's grace is there for the one receiving, even if the minister has shut off God from his own soul.

Or perhaps it is the insistance that even socially accepted sins can shut you off from God, so that a minister you would respect is in fact in mortal sin.

Or perhaps it is the insistance that this situation happens more frequently with sex than with alcohol. Getting tipsy is not mortal, flirting with a divorcee, let alone "marrying" her, is.

Anyway, when the non-denominational gets across this thing in Catholicism, he suddenly remembers, he does excommunicate some things. And if he excommunicates Catholicism, and Catholicism was, and he wasn't, around in 500 and 700 AD, well, then he has proven himself on the wrong side of the excommunication. Matthew 28:13—20 are very clear that this system cannot be the Church Christ founded or even a Church that Christ founded, if it was not there in 500 AD or in 700 AD, or even worse wasn't there in either year. And how he reacts to Catholicism shows, he's not considering it a small matter, like what shape we attribute to the Tower of Babel° and he's also not considering it a matter of free choice, as between Latin and Byzantine rite.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Médard of Noyon
8.VI.2024

Apud Suessiones, in Galliis, natalis sancti Medardi, Episcopi Noviomensis; cujus vita et mors pretiosa gloriosis miraculis commendatur.

* Let's be accurate, in 1517, Luther was as yet only very strongly Jansenist, he founded Lutheranism only while "reforming" the parish in Wittenberg.
** I am well aware that Orthodox invert the last two.
*** Both was pretty true of my mother, when at 16 I told her I was converting. I really had to find answers if only for that reason.
° My take, Nimrod never got around to actually building the rocket, he was always preparing take off ramps, or if he really wanted to make a sky-scraper rather than a rocket, he never got it any height, but was always trying to broaden the base with more pods. Based on how Göbekli Tepe looks.

There Was a Time ... Social Networks were Stabler, and Internet Did Not Exist

I am not trying to assess here whether there is a connexion and which way it goes or if it goes both ways. I am just saying the two have changed the deal when Catholics interact with Protestants.

1924. Catholic on a workplace meets Protestant on a workplace. BOTH probably intend to stay working there. NEITHER probably envisages to quit his job or push the other one out of his job over a religious dispute. BOTH have families to feed, and both priorise this over any kind of missionary duty.

They come to chat over religion. Protestant will say a thing. Catholic will give a simple response.

If the Protestant is at least moderately satisfied, the Catholic thinks he has done his duty, the friendship continues, the question is probably out of the way, for next year, and in the best case scenario the Protestant ends up so satisfied that he converts.

If the Protestant thinks it's baloney, they will probably like each other less, tend to avoid each other a bit more, outside tasks where they are forced together.

Either way, it's not a complete waste of time if the Catholic gives a very superficial answer, though one that satisfies himself. The Protestant won't be a supernerd of amateur theology either. So, while it makes some shortcuts and is not completely true, the Catholic can say "the canon of the Bible was decided at Trent" ... since then, this has backfired longterm into Protestants believing this is all there is to the Catholic teaching. If the Catholic isn't claiming that Tobit or II Maccabees was canon in 1500, the Protestant can get away with saying "II Maccabees was added to the canon in the Council of Trent" as Frank Turek did.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Turek Ill-Informed on More than One Controversy Around S. C. "Apocrypha"
Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 8:29 AM Tuesday, April 23, 2024
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/04/turek-ill-informed-on-more-than-one.html

My point from that debate is, it pays if the Catholic knows the Fourth Century councils in Rome, Hippo and Carthage. Not just Trent. It pays if the Catholic can say "you got the actual back and forth between Sts Augustine and Jerome wrong, the latter complied by obedience" rather than be totally fallen from the skies by learning Jerome actually opposed their canonicity. It pays if the Catholic can mention St. Jerome didn't just obey St. Augustine as a superior, potentially quasi boss, but obeyed him bc he represented "the bishops" ... (St. Augustine had arguably known all about the synod of Hippo, where he was as yet a monk, not yet ordained, not yet consecrated bishop).

Similar things are true on other controversies we can have over Old Church issues.

Protestant

The Catholic Church didn't exist in AD 33. It was founded in the Fourth Century by Constantine.

Catholic

That's not true. St. Sylvester was the 33rd Pope, starting with St. Peter.

Is it correct as far as it goes? Yes, far more than saying "we had no Bible canon prior to Trent" ...

But does it miss something? Yes, it does that too. Not too bad between two regular blokes on their work in 1924. But it can spell disaster between two blokes on the internet if the Protestant is geekier than that.

So, what exactly does it miss? What would a Protestant answer to such a thing?

Protestant, A

Gavin Ortlund

There was no monarchic episcopacy in Rome, for much of the time. Or anywhere. Jerome admits monarchic episcopacy is a later expedient.

Protestant, B

Ruckman (while he lived)

Sylvester was a heretic and a schismatic. Cornelius was selling out Christian purity and the real Christian Church at this time was often called Novatianism because of his righteous opponent, the rightful pastor in Rome. Sylvester was part of the bastard line started by Cornelius.

Protestants A, B and C

C = Frank Turek

You are aware that Popes had no universal jurisdiction pretensions prior to 500—600 AD or so?

I think it is pretty useful to be able to answer that kind of thing as well. So, I'll try to provide a Catholic answer to each.

Catholic on A

The evidence supposed to be against monarchic episcopacy (as I recall Gavin) can have to do with a tendency of actual wielders of monarchic authority in Rome to step behind assemblies of council.

For instance, if Caesar Nero wanted a law, it is pretty shrewd to guess, the law would not state "Caesar Nero decreed" but "the Senate and the People of Rome decreed" ...

If Gavin would like to invoke details about I and II Clement, perhaps this pope was simply following this Roman custom?

In many sees outside Rome, it could at least in the West be less important who at the moment was its bishop. It could have ten priests and all of them consecrated bishops, and then occasionally if one of them got martyred he was then stated as "our bishop" at this time. It could have only priests and no bishop between getting a bishop martyred and waiting for ordinations and consecrations from elsewhere to be available. It could have no clergy at all and be waiting for the next bishop sent from Rome.

This sort of stuff could contribute to this kind of evidence.

Catholic on B

Ruckman was wrong.

He contradicts Matthew 28:20. There is no line, least of all the one proposed in Trail of Blood, of any actual direct continuity between Novatians back then and Amish now.

Paulicians and Albigensians do not bridge that gap. They were not Christians.

Claudius of Turin was not a bridge between Old Church opponents of a major Catholic dogma and Waldensians, he was a sycofant to Iconoclasts over in the Imperial East.

Catholic on C

First, this is not true. If this had been a central part of my own learning, I would probably not have been part of the Romanian Orthodox from 2006 to 2009, so, let's hear some other guys:

Michael Lofton refers to how St. Athanasius considered the judgement of Pope St. Dionysius as equivalent to a condemnation ... Michael Lofton underlines "by all" = since Dionysius was Pope, his word was the word of all members of the Church.

St. Athanasius on the Papacy | Michael Lofton
Reason & Theology | 22 April 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eDfqvA6XEM

Second, if it had been true, the default for non-papal early Church, as per continuity question, is not some version of Protestantism, it's more sth like Eastern Orthodoxy or Monseigneur Lefebvre. The Protestant making this point would still be obliged to hold to what Catholics have in common with Orthodox, like II Maccabees being canon.

I'm not saying you shouldn't say "St. Sylvester was the 33:rd Pope", but I am suggesting you should be prepared to back that up a bit. Pre-Consiliar resources can be much murer from error than Michael Lofton (whom I recommend only partially), but they can also be deficient in information that has now become relevant in a clime of a more complete debate.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Pope St. Cletus
26.IV.2024

It's also Our Lady of Good Counsel.

Romae natalis beati Cleti, Papae et Martyris; qui, secundus post Apostolum Petrum, rexit Ecclesiam, et martyrio in persecutione Domitiani coronatus est.

130 Anathemas, Session VI, Justification

130 Anathemas of Trent; the 5 First of Them · 130 Anathemas, Session VI, Justification

With 33 Anathemas here, it would be onerous to first enumerate them. I'll comment on them as they come.

Session VI : ON JUSTIFICATION
FIRST DECREE : Celebrated on the thirteenth day of the month of January, 1547.
http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch6.htm

This is where some Protestants will go "contradicts Ephesians 2, 'but not of works, so that no one may boast' "

Let's first cite three relevant verses, Ephesians 2:8 to 10.

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

Let's check if the canons and anathemas of Trent Session VI fall afoul of this. Or. Not.

CANON I.-If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; let him be anathema.

O ... K .... sounds like the main point some Protestants are making is being made first, before anything else. A sinner will not be justified by his works.

CANON II.-If any one saith, that the grace of God, through Jesus Christ, is given only for this, that man may be able more easily to live justly, and to merit eternal life, as if, by free will without grace, he were able to do both, though hardly indeed and with difficulty; let him be anathema.

So, grace doesn't make a just life easier, without grace, rather, it is impossible. Again, the point Protestants would like to make.

They might dispute that it is possible with grace, we may come back to that, but not that it is impossible without grace.

CANON III.-If any one saith, that without the prevenient inspiration of the Holy Ghost, and without his help, man can believe, hope, love, or be penitent as he ought, so as that the grace of Justification may be bestowed upon him; let him be anathema.

And the grace that sanctifies cannot be earned by anything a man does purely on his own initiative, if he is preparing himself to receive the grace that justifies or sanctifies, that preparation also must come from God. But now we will part ways with Calvinism, at least as Catholics tend to understand the concept of irresistible grace:

CANON IV.-If any one saith, that man's free will moved and excited by God, by assenting to God exciting and calling, nowise co-operates towards disposing and preparing itself for obtaining the grace of Justification; that it cannot refuse its consent, if it would, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive; let him be anathema.

Tovia Singer incorrectly thought that Christianity means Calvinism. His point against Calvinism is:

Consider that I have set before thee this day life and good, and on the other hand death and evil:
[Deuteronomy 30:15]

I call heaven and earth to witness this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing. Choose therefore life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
[Deuteronomy 30:19]

Plus the Ninevites, in the book of Jonah.

Peoples and persons can chose. They are given freedom. Note, it doesn't say the freedom comes without God taking the initiative, and neither does this canon IV, see the previous three canons. Both in Deuteronomy 28 and in the book of Jonah, the populations responded to God's initiative.

CANON V.-If any one saith, that, since Adam's sin, the free will of man is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing with only a name, yea a name without a reality, a figment, in fine, introduced into the Church by Satan; let him be anathema.

I think this targets the rhetorical overdrive, perhaps nightmarish belief expressed by Martin Luther in De servo arbitrio. Not sure how many Protestants these days would fall under the anathema. Arminians wouldn't, most Lutherans and Anglicans wouldn't, even Calvinists would often affirm some kind of freewill exists.

CANON VI.-If any one saith, that it is not in man's power to make his ways evil, but that the works that are evil God worketh as well as those that are good, not permissively only, but properly, and of Himself, in such wise that the treason of Judas is no less His own proper work than the vocation of Paul; let him be anathema.

I am not sure if Calvin himself had said this in Institutes of the Christian Religion. I am positive that both Westminister and Heidelberg catechisms, both of which were written after the Council of Trent actually avoid this anathema. Perhaps Trentine fathers were targetting the whole field of the question and not just extant errors, perhaps Calvinists actually learned some lessons from this anathema. I don't know.

CANON VII.-If any one saith, that all works done before Justification, in whatsoever way they be done, are truly sins, or merit the hatred of God; or that the more earnestly one strives to dispose himself for grace, the more grievously he sins: let him be anathema.

This sounds like the personal ravings of Martin Luther being the target. A Pentecostal these days would agree with Trent.

"I wasn't a Christian yet, I just knew I had to oppose Satan!"

From a testimony by someone who on his own view, was not justified yet, but at least did the right thing, in a connexion involving a possessed girlfriend (whether the story is true or not is beside the point, he is not being called out for heresy by fellow Protestants). Allie Beth Stuckey wouldn't fall under this anathema when she cites a line from Frozen, by Kristen Bell, as applicable to conversion stories:

Allie Beth Stuckey: DO THE NEXT RIGHT THING! | TPUSA Faith
TPUSA Faith | 15 Febr. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUYF6238E30

"Always do the next right thing" = what Catholicism affirms by this canon applicable even for those in a state of sin, whether original or personal or both), what Luther denied.

CANON VIII.-If any one saith, that the fear of hell,-whereby, by grieving for our sins, we flee unto the mercy of God, or refrain from sinning,-is a sin, or makes sinners worse; let him be anathema.

Again, Martin Luther.

Again, very few Protestants today would fall under this anathema.

CANON IX.-If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.

So, anyone who believes getting saved involves, not just telling Jesus "I have faith that you died for my sins" but also "be my Lord, my life belongs to you, help me to do thy will" is not falling under this anathema. Or they may be doing so on a purely verbal basis, stating things that are actually not consistent with their beliefs.

CANON X.-If any one saith, that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby He merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.

This one has two different directions. Here they are:

• 1) you must not imagine you are just on your own, as if Jesus' justice had nothing to do with it;
• 2) but you must also not imagine that the only justice you get by being justified is that of Jesus, in His life, nothing (directly) happens in your own life, you are still inherently unjust, it's just that His justice covers your soul before the sight of the Father, the justice you acquire does involve decisions in your life, and a sanctifying grace in your soul.

Part 1, every pious Protestant would agree with. No one would fall under the anathema on this account (but Jews like Tovia Singer would, if they were baptised).

Part 2, some would pretend with Luther that the justice of a justified sinner is like a dunghill covered with snow, the dunghill equal to the content of your own life and soul, the snow equal to the perfectly just life of Jesus. Such people would pretty certainly fall under the anathema, while there is another group. "Yes, that is true for justification, but that begins a process of sanctification" ... whether these are falling under the anathema is less clear. The Dimond brothers certainly do think they fall under the anathema, and they made a full length video to show why the distinction proposed by this latter category is wrong:

Documentary: Protestantism's Big Justification Lie
vaticancatholic.com | 4 March 2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L14UNjaZJm8

I found the video very interesting, I have made both highlights and minor corrections to it, not yet on Assorted retorts blog, upcoming. Here is perhaps the most important of my minor corrections:

1:20:52 I think the correct term is "unnecessary occasions for sin" - if I am courting someone I hope to marry, seeing her may be an occasion, but necessary relative to my hope to marry, like if someone is a policeman and needs to step in with blows and gunshots, that is an occasion for sins of hatred or of unjust manslaughter or maiming, but relative to the duty of the policeman to eliminate threats to others, if correctly assessed, a necessary one.

I am afraid some will have prayed for me to avoid all occasions of unchastity, including such as are necessary to get me into a state where chastity is less irksome, since allowing for more satisfactions. I consider encouraging to such prayers is being guilty of Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth. If themselves accepting marriage as a good, they would be collaborators with such (for instance left wing shrinks) who do no so consider it.

Next canon:

CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema.

So, basically, justification always involves at the outset a sanctification, we are completely pure when we step out of baptism or confession, and our bad habits do not count as sin, but do take care about the next act. Literally for God's sake.

Also, it's not just that God favours us, so we can do the next right thing, it's that God lives in us, so, from justification on, except when losing justification (see below, I think), God is doing the right thing in us.

Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will.
[Philippians 2:12f]

So, if we confers with the Ephesians passage above, the justice as life relates to God living in us, but the justice of good works works like this:

• God prepares a good work
• God starts doing the good work in the justified, by inspiring an aspiration to it
• when the justified cooperates, God continues to work in him as he walks in the good work God has prepared for him.

Perhaps this is the best occasion to note, a major divide between Catholics and Protestants as with permanent consequences up to this day is not whether the justified need good works, but rather what kind of works count as good.

"I confessed I was a sinner and needed Jesus to be Lord of my life"

No Protestant would object.*

"I walked to Santiago to ask for a favour"

And how many Protestants would shout "no, that's works salvation!"

If a Protestant were to say "I have never touched alcohol since" I for my part would consider this unnecessary works, unless he had been a real alcoholic with a definite medical diagnosis or had a relative who was.

The Reformation was very much more about discouraging certain things Catholics consider as good works than about theology. Because the kind of things I think about interfered too much with the dominion some North European Renaissance men wanted to exercise over Employees, Family, or, if a prince, Subjects to one's power.

Fasting weakened soldiers, so eating meat and drinking was a thing Protestant soldiers would do more than Catholic ones. In later centuries, people who were not soldiers and imitated the habit fell afoul of employers, so huge drinking became impopular with Protestants, like it was not back in Cromwell's time. This change occurred in the 19th, perhaps late 18th C. Not in the Reformation.

CANON XII.-If any one saith, that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sins for Christ's sake; or, that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.

So, justifying faith is faith (believing everything God has revealed) with practical consequences hope (hoping to be forgiven) and charity (loving God back, for the Love He gave me on the Cross). Nothing less, and nothing more. This means, when a Protestant goes about some doctrinal issue "this is not a salvation issue, this is not about the Gospel" (i e about Luther's Gospel on faith being all required and this requisite of faith being only a trust in "Jesus died for me"), I know he is wrong.

Trent, Session VI, Canon XII tells me so.

But also, if someone said "I didn't feel sorry for the sin, and I don't know I won't commit it again, but I am confident Jesus died for it" I am on the same canon sure, if he analyses himself correctly (which may be a big if in some cases), he is still in his sin and heading for Hell. This is also a huge point of this canon.

CANON XIII.-If any one saith, that it is necessary for every one, for the obtaining the remission of sins, that he believe for certain, and without any wavering arising from his own infirmity and disposition, that his sins are forgiven him; let him be anathema.

In other words, Luther was wrong to believe that when he wasn't sure the absolution he had received was valid, that in and of itself made his sins not forgiven.

Outside Luther, I am not sure how much this has played a role historically, among Protestants, though I think it has played some role.

CANON XIV.-If any one saith, that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or, that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.

The conditions for absolution (and again we are talking about a Protestant issue that has its roots in Martin Luther's personal life over some years), are actually:

• repenting of all mortal sins one can remember
• not hiding any mortal sin one can remember
• getting an absolution from a man who:
  
  
  • is a priest
  • and has the intention to absolve
  • plus the right to absolve in the area or about your person.

If you say "I want to get soak drunk again" or hide you got soak drunk or the man who absolved you wasn't a priest with apostolic succession, or he had the right to absolve a military but not a civilian or in the nighbouring parish but nopt yours, you are not absolved, even if you are very sure you are. If all the conditions are fulfilled, it doesn't hinder your actual absolution and hence justification (re-justification) that you felt unsure.

CANON XV.-If any one saith, that a man, who is born again and justified, is bound of faith to believe that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; let him be anathema.

This one targets Calvinism, even as understood today, alas.

Some would say:

• if you are not predestined, you are not born again in baptism
• if you are predestined, you are totally sure you are predestined.

Both are wrong. Some foreknown as going to be damned are really first born again in baptism and justified, and so, the reasonable supposal you are justified doesn't guarantee you are predestined. Again, Philippians, where does the "fear and trembling" come in if everyone is supposed to be sure they are predestined?

CANON XVI.-If any one saith, that he will for certain, of an absolute and infallible certainty, have that great gift of perseverance unto the end,-unless he have learned this by special revelation; let him be anathema.

So, St. Bridget had learned she would go to heaven. St. Bernadette had heard the Blessed Virgin say "I do not promise you happiness in this life, but in the next" ... they are not targets.

A Calvinist who reasons "I am predestined, so I am certain God will give me the gift of perseverance" because that is what his heresy tells him he has to believe to be justified, he however is the target.

CANON XVII.-If any one saith, that the grace of Justification is only attained to by those who are predestined unto life; but that all others who are called, are called indeed, but receive not grace, as being, by the divine power, predestined unto evil; let him be anathema.

Whether the Calvinist says "predestined for evil" or "not predestined for glory" he is wrong to say some baptised babies are not truly justified, with God living in them, or were not so, when newly baptised, just because one can fear they later actually got damned. At least the stronger form "predestined for evil" actually directly falls under the anathema, but I think those holding to Heidelberg or Westminister catechisms need to take care too.

CANON XVIII.-If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.

In other words, you cannot say that the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount are like Zen Buddhist Koans. They are not meant to dash either your head or your will against in impotence, they are meant to inform how you live with God's grace, always when it comes to the commandments, and at least for some states in life the Sermon (plus it being an ideal for every state).

When St. Paul says that some can and some can't live celibate and chaste, in I Cor. 7, he means it. A Protestant who (in prejudice against Catholic celibate clergy) pretends this is impossible is calling St. Paul and therefore the Holy Ghost a liar. Now, unless one has embraced this council, it does not oblige one, but the same is true of the things we are obliged to.

CANON XIX.-If any one saith, that nothing besides faith is commanded in the Gospel; that other things are indifferent, neither commanded nor prohibited, but free; or, that the ten commandments nowise appertain to Christians; let him be anathema.

There were some early Lutherans who did pretend things like that.

Most Protestants would now say that we are commanded to good works for our sanctification, if not justification, but early Lutheranism of the 16th and 17th C. would say the civil justice is commanded totally outside the context of the "Gospel" (or science of salvation), and that good works belong to only civil justice. There are some of that school left.

If that were so, requiring civil justice as a requisite for salvation would be inconsistent, but I already mentioned, some people in power favoured Protestant theology because it gave them more power.

This is where this comes in handy, if someone in power intends to break commandments (like divorce and remarry, or even bigamy as in the case of Philip of Hesse), the theologian can pretend that Henry VIII of England or Philip needs only to be sure Jesus died for him to be saved, but if a poor man contrary to the legislation steps onto a bus without paying his ticket, the theologian can use Romans XIII to pretend that by this disobedience he is damning himself. Other people have made similar comments on bus cheating from a refusal to distinguish mortal from venial sin.

CANON XX.-If any one saith, that the man who is justified and how perfect soever, is not bound to observe the commandments of God and of the Church, but only to believe; as if indeed the Gospel were a bare and absolute promise of eternal life, without the condition of observing the commandments ; let him be anathema.

Again, see Ephesians 28—10, don't leave out the last of the three verses!

CANON XXI.-If any one saith, that Christ Jesus was given of God to men, as a redeemer in whom to trust, and not also as a legislator whom to obey; let him be anathema.

Trent may have targetted some who pretended not to divorce and remarry (or not to marry a second wife without relinquishing the first), like some advisors of Henry VIII, or Luther advising Philip of Hesse, was just advice, not actual law. The Catholic Church sometimes speaks of the New Covenant as The New Law.

Speaking of this, see John Alfred Faulkner, Drew Theological Seminary, Madison, New Jersey.** He wrote a piece called

Luther and the Bigamous Marriage of Philip of Hesse
John Alfred Faulkner
The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 17, No. 2 (Apr., 1913), pp. 206-231 (26 pages)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3154607

and in it he argues:

• not only was Philip of Hesse following the bad example of some Catholic princes, he called this "the immemorial privilege of Catholic princes" (which is like calling coverups for criminal family the "immemorial privilege of US Presidents");
• and furthermore, it wasn't clear if Jesus or Moses applied:

At this time the relation of the Old to the New Testament law was not clear, and from the bitter opposition of the High Church Anglicans to the Deceased Wife's Sister bill (but cf. Deut. 25:5—10) which was finally passed in 1907, that relation is not clear yet.

To Catholic theologians, however, it was clear. This means, the Reformation brought in unclarity and division. Plus a renewed sometimes very unhealthy interest in OT legislations.

Some have argued, very ineptly, Jesus on an occasion told Jewish fathers to stone disobedient sons. On the contrary, He told that portion of Pharisees they were disobedient sons, who, by their collusion in disobeying all their fathers, made a certain law inapplicable. The ones who were strong enough to stone someone were precisely the ones disobeying. So, he said they had annihilated the law on this point.

Nevertheless, Swedish criminal justice actually in the 17th C. under Charles IX, usurper from an actually Catholic monarch, took a turn to executing disobedient children.

Or Covenanters who considered Catholic populations in various parts of now UK and Ireland were the equivalent of Canaanites in Joshua's time.

CANON XXII.-If any one saith, that the justified, either is able to persevere, without the special help of God, in the justice received; or that, with that help, he is not able; let him be anathema.

So, perseverance is an actual ability, but not inherent in human nature, it totally depends on God to be there.

On this one, I think Protestants would normally agree.

CANON XXIII.-lf any one saith, that a man once justified can sin no more, nor lose grace, and that therefore he that falls and sins was never truly justified; or, on the other hand, that he is able, during his whole life, to avoid all sins, even those that are venial,-except by a special privilege from God, as the Church holds in regard of the Blessed Virgin; let him be anathema.

Here most Protestants would also agree, except for the exception it makes. I have argued the sinlessness of the Blessed Virgin elsewhere.

Great Bishop of Geneva! | Patrick Madrid is right about kecharitomene and blessed among women
https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2014/02/patrick-madrid-is-right-about.html

Some would also take exception at the distinction between venial and mortal sin.

CANON XXIV.-If any one saith, that the justice received is not preserved and also increased before God through good works; but that the said works are merely the fruits and signs of Justification obtained, but not a cause of the increase thereof; let him be anathema.

Luther said they are signs that necessarily follow from justification, but not part of it in any way, shape or form.

I think more than one have followed him on this one. If Ephesians 2:10 could be tortured into compatibility with this error, what about Philippians? Here are both texts again:

8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; 9 Not of works, that no man may glory. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.
[Ephesian 2:8—10]

Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will.
[Philippians 2:12f]

So, when one is doing good works, one is actually working out one's salvation, and this involves an increase of justice so one has more, and also a preservation of justice, so one does not fall into mortal sin.

St. Peter agrees:

Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time.
[II Peter 1:10]

CANON XXV.-If any one saith, that, in every good work, the just sins venially at least, or-which is more intolerable still-mortally, and consequently deserves eternal punishments; and that for this cause only he is not damned, that God does not impute those works unto damnation; let him be anathema.

This would be one version of "total corruption" and one that Luther held. Here is the truth instead:

Good works are meritorious.

Good works of sinners merit some reward in this life. Conversion is beyond what they merit, but a clear option for God.

We do not sin with every breath we take.

CANON XXVI.-If any one saith, that the just ought not, for their good works done in God, to expect and hope for an eternal recompense from God, through His mercy and the merit of Jesus Christ, if so be that they persevere to the end in well doing and in keeping the divine commandments; let him be anathema.

We already know, perseverance depends on God. See Canon XXII.

It is also noted in this very canon, that rewards only come through God's mercy and through the merits of Jesus Christ.

So, within this caveat, can one hope for rewards for good works? Yes.

Saying the opposite is making Jesus a liar, for instance in relation to the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25.

CANON XXVII.-If any one saith, that there is no mortal sin but that of infidelity; or, that grace once received is not lost by any other sin, however grievous and enormous, save by that of infidelity ; let him be anathema.

Some Protestants unfortunately believe this.

We do not read that Judas lost his faith, but he committed treason. And suicide.

CANON XXVIII.-If any one saith, that, grace being lost through sin, faith also is always lost with it; or, that the faith which remains, though it be not a lively faith, is not a true faith; or, that he, who has faith without charity, is not a Christian; let him be anathema.

So,suppose I commit an obvious mortal sin, do I have the right to remain a believer? Yes. Do I have a duty to remain a believer? Yes. Is there any immediate risk that I am no longer a believer, if the sin was against sth other than faith? No.

There are unfortunately some Protestants who think everything I have written for the faith is hypocrisy or defense of sth other than the Christian faith, simply because they have seen sth they take for a mortal sin.

If I hadn't been an apostate or someone who never had the faith, they reason, I would not be committing that sin (as they judge it and they may be wrong).

Apart from doing for personal recklessness about one's own salvation, it also works a trainwreck in interpersonal relations, since it puts people asking about each other "is he really saved?"

And the recklessness is the same in people who reason "I committed this sin, so I can't have the faith" as in people who reason "I have the faith, therefore this sin I committed is not loss of grace." Both despair and presumption are ways to throw one's salvation away.

CANON XXIX.-If any one saith, that he, who has fallen after baptism, is not able by the grace of God to rise again; or, that he is able indeed to recover the justice which he has lost, but by faith alone without the sacrament of Penance, contrary to what the holy Roman and universal Church-instructed by Christ and his Apostles-has hitherto professed, observed, and taugh; let him be anathema.

This again has two directions.

It targets some Novatians and similar who held one cannot be forgiven if one falls after Baptism, and it targets Protestants.

For the necessity of Confession (under normal circumstances), see John 20.

And when he had said this, he shewed them his hands and his side. The disciples therefore were glad, when they saw the Lord. He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.
[John 20:20—23]

We'll get back to this one on the anathemas on Penance. God willing.

Please note, it disproves Novatians as much as Protestants, like the canon condemns both.

CANON XXX.-If any one saith, that, after the grace of Justification has been received, to every penitent sinner the guilt is remitted, and the debt of eternal punishment is blotted out in such wise, that there remains not any debt of temporal punishment to be discharged either in this world, or in the next in Purgatory, before the entrance to the kingdom of heaven can be opened (to him); let him be anathema.

Penances and purgatory.

And taking sufferings as an occasion for penance.

CANON XXXI.-If any one saith, that the justified sins when he performs good works with a view to an eternal recompense; let him be anathema.

This is pretty much a twist on some things already written about. Here I think the Protestant reason for this error is shown at its clearest.

• Wanting to have an eternal reward is selfish
• but being selfish is a sin
• therefore wanting an eternal reward is a sin.

This one would make God a tempter.

But lay up to yourselves treasures in heaven: where neither the rust nor moth doth consume, and where thieves do not break through, nor steal.
[Matthew 6:20]

The problem with the reasoning, as opposed to the conclusion is, one presumes, selfishness is in an of itself, regardless of circumstances, a sin. Or, in other words, God has forbidden selfishness per se. This idea is reflected in some Protestant Bible translations.

somewhere else: Is Selfishness Condemned in the Bible?
https://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2023/01/is-selfishness-condemned-in-bible.html

CANON XXXII.-If any one saith, that the good works of one that is justified are in such manner the gifts of God, as that they are not also the good merits of him that is justified; or, that the said justified, by the good works which he performs through the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit increase of grace, eternal life, and the attainment of that eternal life,-if so be, however, that he depart in grace,-and also an increase of glory; let him be anathema.

I think this anathema follows pretty certainly from both prooftexts that have accompanied me over this section.***

CANON XXXIII.-If any one saith,that,by the Catholic doctrine touching Justification, by this holy Synod inset forth in this present decree, the glory of God, or the merits of our Lord Jesus Christ are in any way derogated from, and not rather that the truth of our faith, and the glory in fine of God and of Jesus Christ are rendered (more) illustrious; let him be anathema.

Well, this follows from the rest.

It is also a response to the implicit Protestant anathema against Papism "if you say we need good works, you insult the Cross" ... well, no, we don't.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Caius, Pope and Martyr
22.IV.2024

Item Romae sancti Caji, Papae et Maityris; qui martyrio coronatus est sub Diocletiano Principe.

* And regardless of whether a Catholic thought this could be at the time referred to sufficient to justify someone or not, no Catholic would consider this as in and of itself a bad work. Unless done in explicit rejection of the faith herein outlined.

** According to their own site:

Founded in 1867 to provide organized theological education for Methodist Episcopal Church ministers, the Theological School is proudly grounded in and seeking to embody the Wesleyan and Methodist tradition of bold ideas that impact people’s lives for the good.

Not the first and not the last time Methodists are unfair to Catholics! Even if today they are "ecumenical", back in 1913, they were certainly not admitting Catholics. And Catholics wouldn't have been allowed there if they were.

*** Ephesians and Philippians.

8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; 9 Not of works, that no man may glory. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.
[Ephesian 2:8—10]

Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will.
[Philippians 2:12f]

125 - 33 = 92 to go.