tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-47205740867354642522024-03-16T10:47:40.016-07:00Great Bishop of Geneva!<a href="http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html">Apostle of Savoy
<br>Saint François de Sales, pray for us!</a>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.comBlogger177125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4720574086735464252.post-9092487382980919272024-03-07T08:48:00.000-08:002024-03-07T08:48:56.488-08:00Does the Chair of Peter Exist?<br />
I came across the Protestant who claims, since Popes are only infallible when speaking from the chair of Peter, and since no chair carpented before the late 9th C. exists, this means that Popes are not infallible.
<br /><br />
No joke, here is the article:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/07/sitting-in-chair-of-peter.html">Sitting in the Chair of Peter
<br /><i>Beggars All : Reformation and Apologetics | FRIDAY, JULY 09, 2010</i>
<br />https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/07/sitting-in-chair-of-peter.html</a>
<br /><br />
Here is a quote from Keating involving Boettner:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Then comes the blooper. Boettner says, "Infallibility is not claimed for every statement made by the pope [true enough], but only for those made when he is speaking <i>ex cathedra,</i> that is, seated in his papal chair, the chair of St. Peter, and speaking in his official capacity as head of the church." At the end of the sentence is an asterisk, which takes the reader to this footnote: <i>"A scientific commission appointed by pope Paul VI in July, 1968, to investigate the antiquity of the 'Chair of St. Peter' . . . reported in early 1969 that the chair dates from the late ninth century . . . ." The point is that Peter's real chair does not exist, so a Pope cannot sit in it. Since, by official decree of Vatican I, he is infallible only when sitting in Peter's chair, he cannot issue infallible definitions at all. The Catholic Church is refuted by its own archaeology!</i>
<br /><br />
Boettner entirely misconstrues the meaning of <i>ex cathedra. ...</i></blockquote>
<br /><br />
So Boettner considered and Keating dismissed the idea that the material chair in which St. Peter himself sat is a requirement.
<br /><br />
Now, John Bugay (on that blog) pretended to defend Boettner by quoting* Optatus of Mileve ...
<br /><br />
<blockquote>We must note who first established a see and where. If you do not know, admit it. If you do know, feel your shame. I cannot charge you with ignorance, for you plainly know. It is a sin to err knowingly, although an ignorant person may be blind to his error. But you cannot deny that you know that the episcopal seat ["cathedra"] was established first in the city of Rome by Peter and that in it sat Peter, the head of all the apostles, wherefore he is called Cephas. So in this one seat unity is maintained by everyone, that the other apostles might not claim separate seats, each for himself. Accordingly, he who erects another seat in opposition to that one is a schismatic and a sinner. Therefore, Peter was the first to sit in that one seat, which is the first gift of the Church. To him succeeded Linus. Clement followed Linus. Then Anacletus Clement ... [he gives the list of popes down to his own time]. After Damasus, Siricius, who is our contemporary, with whom our whole world is in accord by interchange of letters in one bond of communion. Do you, if you would claim for yourselves a holy church, explain the origin of your seat. (Cited in Shotwell and Loomis, "The See of Peter," pgs 111-112, writing to the Donatists.)</blockquote>
<br /><br />
So, my dear John Bugay, are you saying Caiaphas had no infallibility when officiating in the Temple, because it was not the one which materially was built in the time of King Solomon? St. John seems to have disagreed with you then:
<br /><br />
John 11:51
<br /><b>And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation.</b>
<br /><br />
It would seem that infallibility worked even if the temple was restored materially in other stones later on, than those used by Solomon or even by Ezra.
<br /><br />
A chair or cathedra has a double meaning. Part of it is the material object, part of it is the authority it symbolises, tied to a specific succession of authority bearers. If the material object is replaced by another material object, the chair in this more important sense remains the same.
<br /><br />
If St. Edward's chair was not woodworked on the orders of St. Edward of Wessex, but on the orders of Edward I of England, does this mean that any monarch crowned in it is ipso facto not the monarch of England? Hardly.
<br /><br />
Or if I stand on a soap box in Hyde Park one day, and continue to stand there week after week, am I no longer speaking from my soap box if one day that soap box breaks and I use another one? Hardly.
<br /><br />
But for some reason, when it comes to the Vicar of Christ, when it comes to an office that's supposed to be tied to Christ's promise about perpetual assistance to His Church, all of a sudden a phrase involving a reference to a material object is supposed to become meaningless, if the material object is replaced!
<br /><br />
Such people seriously think the New Covenant weaker than the Old one was. Despite Matthew 28 being a permanent covenant, up to Doomsday, and Deuteronomy 28 being a conditional one, involving the promise of a permanent one. Yes, Caiaphas was able to validly sacrifice for the sins of the people up to when Jesus had made His eternal sacrifice, in the Last Supper and on Calvary. Even if "the temple" had twice needed rebuilding or similar building projects, under Ezra and under Herod.
<br /><br />
The solution is, if I stand on "my soap box" in Hyde Park, it seriously doesn't matter if it's the same soap box I began standing on, and if I share it with a younger apprentice who takes it over after me, it also doesn't matter if he replaces it, he would still be standing on my soap box, if I had had the talent and will to form a school of speakers in Hyde Park. The episcopal chair functions as such, even if the material chair is replaced by a newer artifact. I <i>hope</i> you believe the Gospel of St. Matthew functions as Gospel of St. Matthew, even if you are not holding His autograph! (I hope, I'm not quite reassured ...)
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br />Pompidolian Library, Paris
<br />St. Thomas Aquinas
<br />7.III.2024
<br /><br />
* Omitting the bolds and italics.Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4720574086735464252.post-52263452051504778902024-02-01T12:16:00.000-08:002024-02-01T12:16:19.825-08:00Glories of Mary<br />
Papa Stronsay Redemptorist Fathers have Digitalised this English Edition:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.papastronsay.com/publications/library/Saint%20Alphonsus/the-glories-of-Mary.pdf">The Glories of Mary
<br /><i>St. Alphonsus Liguori</i>
<br />https://www.papastronsay.com/publications/library/Saint%20Alphonsus/the-glories-of-Mary.pdf</a>
<br /><br />
Thoroughly recommended./HGLHans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4720574086735464252.post-50426405714200626072024-01-15T11:47:00.000-08:002024-01-15T11:55:22.951-08:00Atheists Tend to Take Over a Protestant Attitude to Catholic Legend<br />
<b>Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere:</b> <a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/01/contra-hume.html">Contra Hume</a> · <b>Great Bishop of Geneva!</b> <a href="https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2024/01/atheists-tend-to-take-over-protestant.html">Atheists Tend to Take Over a Protestant Attitude to Catholic Legend</a>
<br /><br />
As already mentioned — Protestants of the 17th and 18th C. had very certainly all, as probably most already in the 16th C. abandoned hope of working miracles. I do not speak of Pentecostals, I speak of Lutheran, Zwinglian, Buceran, Anglican, Calvinist sects. The "usual suspects" of Anti-Catholic violence in times of upheaval. Many of them tyrants on nation state level, all of them at least some places on a local level.
<br /><br />
As a consequence, they had a great motivation, rather than theoretical good reasons to deny miracles continuing in the Catholic Church after the Apostolic age.
<br /><br />
That is a huge deal when it comes to the longer versions of legends of saints, the popular one, the Legenda Aurea. The martyrologies often speak of "many miracles" but usually do not enumerate them. The Legenda Aurea, or Butler's Lives of the Saints, that is what the people would read, and that is what a non-Catholic foreigner, like Hume, would encounter first. The miracles are often enough described as clear as in the Gospels (canonic) or III Maccabees (variously held as canonic by Orthodox and typically apocryphal by Catholics).
<br /><br />
Some of the miraculous survivals of attempts to martyr someone finally martyred are also recorded in the martyrology.
<br /><br />
Again, Protestants, before they later on typically became Atheists, would regard this as nonsense.
<br /><br />
Some other things could occasionally contribute. St. Christopher was described as having a dog's head. I think this description in antiquity often enough meant someone with slit eyes, because the dog breeds known today as pit bulls and similar in antiquity have slit eyes. But it could also mean someone, I suppose at least, very hirsute, someone "suffering" from (or enjoying, as the case may be) hypertrichosis. I mean, dogs have hairs in the regions corresponding to facial, so such a description makes sense.
<br /><br />
Now, if instead of thinking "hypertrichosis" or slit eyes, you think full canine anatomy of the head, like an Anubis statue, you probably may be in two minds. Or outright reject St. Christopher for that alone.
<br /><br />
Yesterday had a similar topic, not in the martyrs, but in the ones martyring them.
<br /><br />
<i>14 Januarii,</i> main feast <i>Sancti Hilarii, Episcopi Pictaviensis, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris; qui pridie hujus diei evolavit in caelum.</i> But that's just the main feast.
<br /><br />
Now, when I saw the fifth feast, it made me jump a bit:
<br /><br />
<i>In Rhaithi regione, in Aegypto, sanctorum quadraginta trium Monachorum, qui, pro Christiana religione, a Blemmiis occisi sunt.</i>
<br /><br />
In the Rhaitus region (wherever that is) of Egypt, holy forty three Monks who, for the Christian religion, were killed by Blemmii.
<br /><br />
By <i>what?</i>
<br /><br />
Yes, I thought I saw Blemmyes too. And that's probably what I did see.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Various species of mythical <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Headless_men">headless men</a> were rumoured, in antiquity and later, to inhabit remote parts of the world. They are variously known as akephaloi (Greek ἀκέφαλοι 'headless ones') or Blemmyes (Latin: Blemmyae; Greek: βλέμμυες) and described as lacking a head, with their facial features on their chest. These were at first described as inhabitants of ancient Libya or the Nile system (Aethiopia). Later traditions confined their habitat to a particular island in the Brisone River,[a] or shifted it to India.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Well, how did they get their name? Two theories:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Samuel Bochart of the 17th century derived the word Blemmyes from the Hebrew <i>bly</i> (בלי) "without" and <i>moach</i> (מוח) "brain", implying that the Blemmyes were people without brains (although not necessarily without heads).
<br /><br />
... Leo Reinisch [de] in 1895 proposed that it derived from bálami "desert people" in the Bedauye tongue (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beja_language">Beja language</a>). Although this theory had long been neglected,[8] this etymology has come into acceptance, alongside the identification of the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beja_people">Beja people</a> as true descendants of the Blemmyes of yore.[9][10][11]</blockquote>
<br /><br />
I agree with Leo Reinisch, obviously, the ones killing the 43 monks were "bálami" or "desert people" ... Herodotus had heard of them, and probably via an intermediate which would have been prone to distort the name in the Semitic etymology meaning "without brains" (by enmity) and then in a twisted type of humour transmitting the info on what it meant, namely even as "headless people" ... perhaps because they didn't know the Greek word for brain.
<br /><br />
But this would have been unknown and not considered for the rare Protestants who came across the 43 monks martyred by Blemmyes, in Butler or in Golden Legend.
<br /><br />
However, I will not deny the possibility of the marvellous and the preternatural, as today's saint, also in Egypt, St. Paul the First Hermit, once was visited by St. Anthony, who, on the way to him, met a faun and a centaur.
<br /><br />
A third source of Protestant disbelief in Catholic legend is however disagreement about the moral content. When Calvin (with ludicrously inaccurate estimates) objected to the relics of the Holy Cross, obviously he has a moral incentive or gives Calvinists a moral incentive to disbelieve the Finding of the Holy Cross, celebrated on 3.V.
<br /><br />
When Luther bemoaned his having disobeyed the father who didn't want him to become a celibate priest, he invented a new moral theology not just about monastic vows (in and of itself a source of disgust with lots of Catholic legend in Protestants back then), but also about what kind of obedience one owes to one's father.
<br /><br />
Believing St. Barbara was with God, who had vindicated her disobedience (or as Catholics with some scholastic background would argue rather being non-obedience, not the same thing) against her Pagan father, that did not sit well with Lutherans. Dito for Sts. Francis and Clare of Assisi.
<br /><br />
And, getting back to St. Christopher ... according to the full legend in Legenda Aurea, he had proposed he would serve "the greatest king" ... here are his three successive loyalties :
<br /><br />
<ul><li> an earthly king who trembled when he saw
<li> Satan, who in his turn was afraid of
<li> an image of Jesus Christ, to whom Christopher turned at last, and to Whom he remained true.</ul>
<br /><br />
It doesn't sit all that well with this kind of Protestants (who, remember, were not at all Pentecostals back then) that a man having made a compact with the Devil should save his soul, or that the way in doing so would involve works of penance (part of what Protestantism turned away from and what St. Christopher examplified).
<br /><br />
So, Protestants turned away from the legend that Child Jesus had appeared to St. Christopher, first asking to be carried over, and then asking the saint to plant his staff (dead wood), which thereon came to life, sprouted leaves and grew roots, before his very eyes. Plus, obviously, the Protestant prejudice against appearances of Jesus or of Mary or of some saints to someone alive and later sainted.
<br /><br />
One huge dealbreaker with me over rejecting the Novus Ordo was actually that at least temporarily Sts Barbara and Christopher were taken out of the martyrology and of feast days. That is obviously not the last indication that the Novus Ordo establishment is unduly influenced by Protestants — the other day, Cacey Cole, a Novus Ordo Franciscan, repeated Protestant talking points about Boniface VIII.
<br /><br />
But as mentioned, the main heirs of this Protestantism, this rejection of Catholic legend, and this disagreement with Catholic morals too, is not the Novus Ordo. It's outright Atheism. I have said before, and will probably have to say it again, that Atheists are Protestants who lost the remainders of Christianity that the Reformation had left them with.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br />Paris
<br />St. Paul the First Hermit
<br />15.I.2024Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4720574086735464252.post-38473260500602852612024-01-12T05:54:00.000-08:002024-01-15T17:15:19.149-08:00Could Anabaptists Be Right That Reformation was a Meiji Régime for the True Christians?<br />
<b>Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere:</b> <a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2023/08/first-half-of-heschmeyers-video-against.html">First Half of Heschmeyers Video Against Mike Gendron</a> · <a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2023/09/heschmeyer-refutes-trail-of-blood.html">Heschmeyer Refutes "Trail of Blood"</a> · <b>Great Bishop of Geneva!</b> <a href="https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2024/01/could-anabaptists-be-right-that.html">Could Anabaptists Be Right That Reformation was a Meiji Régime for the True Christians?</a>
<br /><br />
Here is a story about the secret Christians in Japan, and what has happened since the Meiji régime, starting in 1868 (by the way, Hirohito was not part of it, the Meiji era* ended in 1912). Obviously, in this case, the secret Christians were Catholics.
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEXzoSANtzE">Japan's Holy War on Christianity
<br /><i>MARYLINE ORCEL WORLD, 5 Jan. 2024</i>
<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEXzoSANtzE</a>
<br /><br />
Now, if you hear of things like Trail of Blood or Ruckman, you will get the impression, Constantine started a much longer Shogun era, which applied much wider, and which persecuted true Christians to the point of making them socially invisible, as the Japanese Christians were under the Shogunate.
<br /><br />
You will get the impression that the Reformation Churches, like the Meiji régime, were not embracing Christianity. But they were still, also like the Meiji régime, lifting a very heavy yoke from the Christians.
<br /><br />
There is a reason why this could not work on a whole world scale.
<br /><br />
Matthew 5:15.
<br /><br />
The reason why secret Christians could be part of the Church of Christ was that there were open Christians. I don't mean primarily the ones who got martyred in Japan. While they got martyred, they were, unlike the Church in Antiquity, not giving instructions to the Heathen. Justin Martyr wrote an Apology he sent to Caesar. Here are his works before Pagans:
<br /><br />
<ol><li> The First Apology addressed to Antoninus Pius, his sons, and the Roman Senate;[31]
<li> A Second Apology of Justin Martyr addressed to the Roman Senate;
<li> The Discourse to the Greeks,[a] a discussion with Greek philosophers on the character of their gods;</ol>
<br /><br />
I do not know, have so far not heard, of the secret Christians in Japan doing anything like this.
<br /><br />
Hence, they were not fulfilling the Great Commission, and as such, they could not be by themselves, the true Church. By contrast, they were in Communion with people fulfilling it, and were as such, part of the true Church.
<br /><br />
Similarily, a hypothetic Anabaptist Church in 1300 AD could not have been the true Church, because it was clearly not fulfilling the Great Commission, either the Catholics and Orthodox were fulfilling or misfulfilling it, but no Anabaptist Church was fulfilling it. Waldensians existed, and they were not writing to Wenceslaus II of Bohemia, also king of Poles and Hungarians, nor to Albert I of Germany, nor Frederick III, Duke of Lorraine, nor Robert II, Duke of Burgundy, nor Philip IV of France, nor Edward I of England, nor to anyone else, not even to Amadeus V, Count of Savoy, who was ruling, I presume the Marca di Torina, the Marquisate of Turin, where they lived.
<br /><br />
And, this time unlike the Japanese secret Christians, neither could they be even part of the true Church, because they were not in communion with others who elsewhere were fulfilling it.
<br /><br />
No, there was not a Shogunate for 1260 literal years, spanning all countries or all Christian countries. There will be be only one thing close to the Shogunate, but on a world wide scale. According to prophecy, it will have 1260 literal <i>days.</i> Three and a half literal years. That's time enough to make the Christians hated, before making himself so, even by non-Christians, but not time enough to make them forgotten or totally invisible, or their teachings unknown.
<br /><br />
Back when I was a reader of manga more than now, I was a fan of <a href="https://nihonime.com/anime-set-in-meiji-era/">1. Rurouni Kenshin</a>. I have heard, he was based on a man who was a Christian after the Meiji Restoration. When I look up Kenshin Himura, I find he was based off someone more probably not a Christian, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawakami_Gensai">Kawakami Gensai</a>. But what's definitely true is, his first relation, like that of Catholics, with the Meiji régime was release from captivity.
<br /><br />
The video also speaks of how Catholicism is still often seen as shameful in Japan. This is for different reasons, also the case with Catholicism in Sweden or England, though Australia is where Cardinal Pell got his fake trial and years in prison.
<br /><br />
And that's a reason to relish France.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br />Paris
<br />Ember Friday after Epiphany**
<br />12.I.2024
<br /><br />
PS, as the video underlines, the Shogunate was an exaggerated nationalism. Here is what <a href="https://periodicolaesperanza.com/archivos/22100">Las cinco quiebras de la Cristiandad medieval, by Roberto Moreno</a> says about Antichristian Nationalism:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Más allá de los avatares heréticos, con la noción de libre examen Lutero introduce ya el mecanicismo formal subjetivista que caracterizará la modernidad; aunque él lo recorta a escala individual, otros lo ensancharán a la escala estatal. ... </blockquote>
<br /><br />
Actually, it was already Luther who introduced "free enquiry into Scriptures" on the state level, rather than the individual one. He did not want a peasant to challenge him, he thought he could stand approved by princes, which he made the new popes of his true religion. What Catholics have suffered a few centuries from the Reformation in Northern Europe is a better parallel than Waldensians in 1300 living in separate valleys to what the Japanese Christians went through./HGL
<br /><br />
<b>Notes:</b>
<br /><br />
* The Meiji era was exactly the personal reign of Emperor Meiji, previously known as Mutsuhito.
<br /><br />
** I was wrong. Ember Days are in Latin called Dies Quatuor Temporum, and that means they are four times a year, not five. I treated the Octave of Epiphany as the Octave of Pentecost (which actually <i>has</i> Ember days). This kind of mix-ups you can arrive at when you live the Catholic life without the support of a parish. A bit like the Japanese Catholics, except I was not obliged to hide. So far no Mass in Paris is celebrated "una cum papa nostro Michael" (II). Meanwhile, I've made up for the unnecessary fasting.Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4720574086735464252.post-89628091752644051872023-12-25T02:42:00.000-08:002023-12-25T02:42:36.601-08:00Do Catholics Claim, Sins After Baptism are Only Forgiven in Confession?<br />
I was starting to listen to a video, which this time was not from the other mystic, I think Anne Katherine Emmerick*, but from St. Bridget of Sweden (or as we say in Sweden, Denmark, Norway : of Vadstena).
<br /><br />
<b>Second, think about the mercy of God, because there is no man who is so sinful that his sin is not immediately forgiven, if he only prays for Gods forgiveness with an intention to better himself and with true repentance for his former sins.</b>
<br /><br />
Note, in order for St. Bridget to be canonised, every jot and tittle of her revelations was scrutinised to contain no doctrinal and no known factual error. This is about doctrine. If someone is truly repenting, God forgives even before confession, and even if one should have no opportunity to go to confession before dying. However, before you go to receive Holy Communion next time, except in case of huge hurry before dying, you do need to confess, you need to be forgiven sacramentally, before holding communion with Christ sacramentally./HGL
<br /><br />
Here is the video:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bquytGA6Rk">What if Adam and Eve had not sinned? The Prophecies and Revelations of Saint Bridget of Sweden
<br /><i>Penance! | 19 Dec. 2023</i>
<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bquytGA6Rk</a>
<br /><br />
* I am used to the spelling Emmerich, the High German form. However, she was born in Coesfeld, a village in the diocese of Münster, and this is not far from the Netherlands, so, the Low German or Dutch form makes some sense in this context.Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4720574086735464252.post-92188716073955825762023-12-19T07:20:00.000-08:002023-12-20T04:09:58.705-08:00Let's Assume Some Orthos are Blocking<br />
1) I am a convert from Lutheranism and from further back a basically Evangelical outlook before I was baptised, but also a revert from Neohimerite Orthos. I did not abjure Roman Catholicism when converting to them, and I did not abjure Eastern Orthodox when converting back, a k a reverting.
<br />2) I know for a fact that Neohimerite Orthos are neither comfortable with the papacy nor with some traditional readings of the Bible, like the ones involves in Young Earth Creationism.
<br /><br />
So, I providentially or by feeds being pushed by actual people get suggestions for watching things. One video-short is by an Orthodox priest. Another one is by Brewery Ministries, and I follow up.
<br /><br />
My problem with such people isn't that they find some things I have written objectionable and then object to them. My problem is, they don't object to them, but decide I should not "rush ahead" (from their perverted pov), they need to give me "another chance" (after 1000 "other chances" already offered and already declined) to think things through, SO, they don't confront me in a comment "hey, I think you wrote sth incorrect here" they pray for me to get confronted with or use the feed's possibility of video suggestions, to get me to get confronted (obliquely, by someone else) to the pov they would like me to be confronted with but will not confront me with themselves.
<br /><br />
Here are the videos (technically known as shorts) I am talking about with my comments under each:
<br /><br />
<blockquote><a href="https://youtube.com/shorts/NZf-ayrD0Vs?si=5o1nup8xnMNhPay5">Eastern Orthodox or Roman Catholic? ☦️
<br /><i>@RootsofOrthodoxy</i>
<br />https://youtube.com/shorts/NZf-ayrD0Vs?si=5o1nup8xnMNhPay5</a>
<br /><br />
Saint James was monarchic bishop in Jerusalem <i>after</i> the Twelve Apostles spread out, so these were in fact collectively ruling Jerusalem before he did.
<br /><br />
They were also ontologically bishops, i e consecrated, before he was.
<br /><br />
The Roman Catholic claim is not that Apostolic Succession comes only through St. Peter.
<br /><br />
The Apostolic Succession in the order of episcopal consecration can come from any of the Twelve.
<br /><br />
We claim however, the episcopacy can only be canonically exercised in communion with St. Peter or the canonic successors of St. Peter.
<br /><br />
<a href="https://youtube.com/shorts/pnRVzjvxSzg?si=b9Y4rO8mIrfS_yGz">Debunking the myth: Did one language exist before Babel?
<br /><i>@breweryministries</i>
<br />https://youtube.com/shorts/pnRVzjvxSzg?si=b9Y4rO8mIrfS_yGz</a>
<br /><br />
1) Genesis 11:1 does not chronologically follow after Genesis 10.
<br />2) The texts were created at the events or closely after and transmitted to Moses. Each could change in response to more correct info being added, like if the confusion of languages happened after the overview in Genesis 10, this would affect the original text of Genesis 10 and the oral tradition would add that.
<br />3) That Moses stringed these two texts after each other that order doesn't equate to chronological order, but to the Genesis 10 text referring back to getting out of the Ark and then on to the Tower text, while the Shem genealogy refers back to the Tower text and on to Abraham. That's why the Tower text is put between these two. The chapters were only divided in the 13th C. AD by a bishop going on a hunt and doing it as he knew the Bible by heart.
<br /><br />
How stupid can Bible scholars be?
<br /><br />
They think it was a shared trade language, while each culture had its own language, two problems.
<br /><br />
Glaring ones.
<br /><br />
1) Peleg is born 101, 401 or 531 years after the Flood, depending on text. That's not long enough for languages like Sumerian and Old Egyptian to differentiate, at least not without massive conlanging. This problem can be restated "where did 'other languages' come from if this was shortly after the Flood.
<br />2) God confuses a trade language, which differred from already different native languages. Well, that means each participant in the project already had experience of language learning and at least the concept of a lingua franca. That would not have put the project on a halt for 4500 years to Cape Canaveral and Bajkonur, but just a decade or two, while a new lingua franca was being constructed.
<br /><br />
If on the other hand everyone had the same native language, with very minute dialectal differences (lesser than within English, since some versions of English go back to or are influenced by versions going back to dialects pre-existing Caxton's printing press, and since 500 generations were fewer generations back then), and God confronts them for the first time in their lives and their memory with language barriers, it could take some centuries until people learned how to learn someone's language. This would definitely have derailed Nimrod's project far more effectively (Nimrod's doesn't equate to him taking sole initiative, he was trusted to execute the plan).
<br /><br />
<a href="https://youtube.com/shorts/fWmR9nrT4hg?si=XUnNLuDS-qqeLsdY">Bible hints that people existed outside of Eden
<br /><i>@breweryministries</i>
<br />https://youtube.com/shorts/fWmR9nrT4hg?si=XUnNLuDS-qqeLsdY</a>
<br /><br />
By the time Cain was even born, every human creature (at his birth exactly three) was living outside Eden.
<br /><br />
Are you aware that the idea that the creation of Adam is distinct from the creation of man in Genesis 1 comes from Jewish extra-Biblical and highly racist texts, that post-date Christianity?
<br /><br />
There is no traditional reading of the story in which, by the time he commits fratricide, he, his parents, and his dead brother are the only people, back to three.
<br /><br />
The Genesis 5 statement of Adam begetting sons and daughters doesn't start with Adam begetting Seth, it's placed after it just to mention it doesn't end there.
<br /><br />
Cain's wife was his sister or possibly niece.
<br /><br />
Remember Seth was born 230 or in the Masoretic and perhaps Samaritan 130 years after Adam was created. He and Eve were created adult and fully fertile. They didn't live in crowded cities yet in which certain couples might find other people an obstacle to taking care of their children.
<br /><br />
By the time of the fratricide, there were plenty of people already around, Adam, Eve, their children, their grandchildren. Cain married a sister or a niece or was already married to one when doing the killing.
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>Brewery Ministries
<dt>@breweryministries
<dd>I don't think I'd heard that about Adam but I favor the oldest possible sources. I usually try to avoid anything written after the first century. It helps avoid some of those problems where new traditions emerged.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dt>@hglundahl
<dd>OK, @breweryministries ... you are aware that all the CF of the first C. as well as the NT itself in Mt 24:16-20 exclude your view that traditions emerged that did not come from Jesus and still enveloped all of the Church?
<br /><br />
<dt>Brewery Ministries
<dd>@hglundahl I'm not sure I understand what you mean. I really haven't decided whether or not people existed outside of Eden or not. Just sharing what Bible scholars discuss and find it interesting.
<br /><br />
<dt>Hans-Georg Lundahl
<dd>OK, @breweryministries ... if a Bible scholar pretends "whom was he afraid of, when there had been only four people and now were back to three?" that's strawmanning the traditional position heavy.
<br /><br />
I don't believe in strawmanners, neither should you.</dl></blockquote>
<br /><br />
<b>NOW.</b>
<br /><br />
Perhaps some Orthos imagined I needed to hear the anti-YEC stuff from an Evangelical, <i>as if they were my authority.</i> I am leaving out for now an Ortho video debunking at once Original Sin (which St. Gregory Palamas believed in, believing the Virgin was exempt!) and Total Corruption, as if these were the same. The fact I got that in the prompt however confirms my suspicion. My authority for YEC being true <i>in its exegesis of the Bible</i> is Sts. Augustine and Basil, not Kent Hovind and Ken Ham, even if I find them refreshing. When it comes to solving problems posed by so-called science, the modern Creationist movement has contributed, but Orthos rejecting Creation Science will nevertheless accept the "science" of Atheists, as if they likened the accreditation of Academics to the Apostolic Succession and Catholic Communion of the Bishops. Now, the Church back when St. Augustine wrote City of God actually had and still has a promise from God, Academics <i>don't</i> have that promise. They are people with minds created in God's image, and so am I. Their minds are not totally corrupt by Adam's sin, neither is mine. In fact, it's probable the idea we need to rely on Academics and cannot trust our own judgement comes from Calvinists believing the TULIP T, which, as said, I don't. Can some Orthos please get it into their minds that I have thought through why I returned to Catholicism, and I had thought through Young Earth Creationism and Geocentrism at least in relation to basics, before I made my excursion to them?/HGL
<br /><br />
PS, comments under my original ones added in later, where appropriate./HGLHans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4720574086735464252.post-34563980628053110032023-12-15T06:46:00.000-08:002023-12-15T06:50:06.472-08:00What is Jesuit Spirituality?<br />
<a href="https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2023/12/he-bore-his-wrath-for-me-did-he.html">"He bore His wrath for me" — Did He?</a> · <a href="https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2023/12/did-devil-retain-his-power-no.html">Did the Devil Retain His Power? No</a> · <a href="https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2023/12/what-is-jesuit-spirituality.html">What is Jesuit Spirituality?</a>
<br /><br />
It obviously does <i>not</i> involve claiming God poured His wrath on Jesus.
<br /><br />
I was just looking up an email from the Jew-Gone-Christian Dr. Michael Brown or his ministry Charisma House.
<br /><br />
He outlines a problem:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>For many, revival is something they want to experience, but don’t know what to do with it after a first emotional encounter.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
A hope:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>However, as God’s people, we CAN sustain the flames of revival to share the gospel with all of creation!</blockquote>
<br /><br />
If I am right that the Catholic Church is God's REAL people, this should be even more true about Catholics.
<br /><br />
And he gives a detailed solution:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>In Dr. Michael Brown’s <i>Seize The Moment,</i> you’ll learn how to spread and sustain revival throughout your community by partnering with the Holy Spirit. You will be challenged to:
<br /><br />
<ul><li> make Jesus and the cross central
<li> reach the lost
<li> never downplay the importance of holiness
<li> steer clear of doctrinal weirdness
<li> keep the main thing the main thing
<li> and so much more </ul></blockquote>
<br /><br />
OK, some will quibble with me for indirectly promoting a book by a (technical) Protestant. Here is the deal. He is so perfectly resuming Catholicism in this outline (cannot guarantee the same is to be said for the book, though).
<br /><br />
Let's take each part separately, and find out how that matches Jesuit spirituality. Well, except perhaps the first one or two.
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>spread and sustain revival throughout your community
<dd>To St. Ignatius of Loyola, sustaining his personal revival after Manresa involved getting, not indeed the whole parish, but at least a few devout women friends of his profit from it.
<br /><br />
However, once he had a bit more meat on his bones, after studies in Paris and ordination to priesthood, he actually was more into spreading it to <i>all</i> Catholics. At personnalised degrees, though.
<br /><br />
<dt>by partnering with the Holy Spirit
<dd>How about "submitting" rather than "partnering"?
<br /><br />
But, yes, he did.
<br /><br />
He lived from the inspirations of grace (and had a good technique on how to distinguish these from the subtle temptations of the devil).
<br /><br />
He lived from the sacraments, which is how the Holy Spirit is given to members of the Church.
<br /><br />
<dt>make Jesus and the cross central
<dd>Have you seen the Jesuit logo?
<br /><br />
In the middle, you have IHS = IHSOYS = Jesus.
<br /><br />
Above it, you have the Cross.
<br /><br />
Below it, three nails used at the Crucifixion (one for each hand, one for both feet together).
<br /><br />
Around all, to underline how central it is, rays like sunrays emanating from what's inside. On this painting of St. Michael throwing the Devil down to Hell, the sunrays are lacking, but the rest of the Jesuit logo is on the shield of St. Michael:
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Castiglione-H%C3%B6llensturz.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="438" data-original-width="292" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Castiglione-H%C3%B6llensturz.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
<blockquote><a href="https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuiten#/media/Datei:Castiglione-H%C3%B6llensturz.jpg">https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesuiten#/media/Datei:Castiglione-H%C3%B6llensturz.jpg</a>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%B6llensturz">Höllensturz</a> – Gemälde des jesuitischen Chinamissionars <a href="https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giuseppe_Castiglione">Giuseppe Castiglione,</a> 18. Jahrhundert
<br />Giuseppe Castiglione - Der ursprünglich hochladende Benutzer war Dr. Meierhofer in der Wikipedia auf Deutsch, transferred to Commons by User:Ireas using CommonsHelper.
<br />Gemeinfrei</blockquote>
<br /><br />
<dt>reach the lost
<dd>Harlots in Rome? Sinful couples who can be saved by a marriage which the laws make difficult? Protestants? Hurons?
<br /><br />
Sounds like St. Ignatius was perfectly on line with this part.
<br /><br />
<ul><li> St. Ignatius started a home for repenting prostitutes in Rome, under the protection of St. Mary Magdalene;
<li> when a couple not looked kindly on by parents risks a continued love affair without marriage, because the law of the land in France did not recognise the Council of Trent, in Place Royale, by Corneille, it's a Jesuit priest who, illegally according to France, but legally according to the Church, marries them;
<li> The priests in England were not just serving Catholics, but also trying to convert Protestants;
<li> St. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_de_Br%C3%A9beuf">Jean de Brébeuf</a></ul>
<br /><br />
<dt>never downplay the importance of holiness
<dd>If you held up Luther, Calvin, St. Ignatius and St. Francis of Sales in a blind test to Michael Brown, I'm pretty sure he would clearly prefer the two Catholic saints.
<br /><br />
The problem is, Michael Brown cannot be so unsavvy about authors and doctrines as to make a real blind test possible.
<br /><br />
<dt>steer clear of doctrinal weirdness
<dd>While St. Ignatius of Loyola's criteria would differ highly from those of Michael Brown, as to decide what is doctrinal normality and what is doctrinal weirdness, this was to a very high degree a priority for him and for his order.
<br /><br />
<a href="https://mycatholic.life/books/ignatius/part-one-background-of-saint-ignatius-and-lessons-from-the-spiritual-exercises/chapter-ten-rules-for-thinking-with-the-church/"><i>My Catholic Life! : Chapter Ten: Rules for Thinking with the Church</i>
<br />https://mycatholic.life/books/ignatius/part-one-background-of-saint-ignatius-and-lessons-from-the-spiritual-exercises/chapter-ten-rules-for-thinking-with-the-church/</a>
<br /><br />
<dt>keep the main thing the main thing
<dd>Jesuits were so willing to adapt when it came to subordinate things, they even got called out for syncretism in the question of Chinese Rites.
<br /><br />
<dt>and so much more
<dd>For which I will give only one item, but an important one.
<br /><br />
What did St. Ignatius of Loyola inherit from <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devotio_Moderna">Devotio Moderna</a>?
<br /><br />
Well, part of it is to make everyday objects and situations remind one of God and of one's duties to God. The five vowels of Latin have their spiritual meanings (E "is crying - in Latin flet - for your sins" or U may have been feeling the pains of Jesus along with him, decades since I read that book). Those precise techniques are perhaps not the most used by Jesuits or Ignatian Exercises, but the idea is the same, telling Jesus : <i>"All kinds of everything remind me of Thee"</i> ...</dl>
<br /><br />
I just called Michael Brown a "technical" Protestant, but isn't he an <i>actual</i> one? In Ecclesiology and in Sacramentology, alas, yes. But not in the items outlined in the above quote, or I wouldn't have quoted it. Now, when it comes to Ecclesiology and Sacramentology, usually, Holiness Churches, being usually Baptist, are further away from Catholicism than for instance Anglicans. But when it comes to personal holiness, it's actually Catholics who are in the middle, between Anglicans who claim you can be the beloved child of God while living a systematically sinful life, and between Michael Brown who wants every congregant to be on fire for Jesus 24 by 24. In Catholicism, being between both is a matter of recognising different levels, on the line of Matthew 13:8, if someone brings forth hundredfold fruit, he's obviously "good ground" but so is he who brings forth only thirtyfold.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br />Paris
<br />Octave of the Immaculate Conception
<br />15.XII.2023Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4720574086735464252.post-14893891271167385622023-12-13T12:34:00.000-08:002023-12-15T06:50:18.442-08:00Did the Devil Retain His Power? No<br />
<a href="https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2023/12/he-bore-his-wrath-for-me-did-he.html">"He bore His wrath for me" — Did He?</a> · <a href="https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2023/12/did-devil-retain-his-power-no.html">Did the Devil Retain His Power? No</a> · <a href="https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2023/12/what-is-jesuit-spirituality.html">What is Jesuit Spirituality?</a>
<br /><br />
1 John 5:19 <b>We know that we are of God, and the whole world is seated in wickedness.</b>
<br /><br />
<blockquote>[19] "The whole world is seated in wickedness": That is, a great part of the world. It may also signify, is under the wicked one, meaning the devil, who is elsewhere called the prince of this world, that is, of all the wicked. John 12. 31.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
19 οἴδαμεν ὅτι ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐσμεν καὶ ὁ κόσμος ὅλος ἐν τῷ πονηρῷ κεῖται.
<br /><br />
John 12:31 in Haydock comment:
<br /><br />
John 12:31 <b>Now is the judgment of the world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out.</b>
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Ver. 31. <i>Now is the judgment of the world:</i> Their condemnation, says St. Chrysostom, for not believing. --- <i>The prince of this world,</i> that is, the devil, <i>shall be cast out</i> from that great tyranny, which he had over mankind, before Christ's incarnation. (Witham) --- By these words Christ informs the Gentiles that wished to see him, that soon he would punish the incredulous Jews, and cast off their synagogue, for their malice and insatiable hatred against him; and that the prince of this world, that is, the worship of idols, should be destroyed, and all called to the true faith. (Calmet)</blockquote>
<br /><br />
I would say, "the whole world is seated in wickedness" is the correct translation, and that meaning "the world" outside Catholicism.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Published estimates for the 1st century ("AD 1") suggest uncertainty of the order of 50% (estimates range between 150 and 330 million).</blockquote>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_historical_world_population">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimates_of_historical_world_population</a>
<br /><br />
<blockquote>According to his calculation, it was around 180 that global Christian numbers first surpassed the symbolically weighty figure of 100,000.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/evangelical-history/how-many-christians-were-there-in-200-a-d/">https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/evangelical-history/how-many-christians-were-there-in-200-a-d/</a>
<br /><br />
So, with the Christians being less than one percent, as in Sweden today Catholics are a bit more than one percent, the remaining close to 99 % can be considered "the whole."/HGLHans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4720574086735464252.post-30117912227625127582023-12-07T13:16:00.000-08:002023-12-15T06:50:29.074-08:00"He bore His wrath for me" — Did He?<br />
<a href="https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2023/12/he-bore-his-wrath-for-me-did-he.html">"He bore His wrath for me" — Did He?</a> · <a href="https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2023/12/did-devil-retain-his-power-no.html">Did the Devil Retain His Power? No</a> · <a href="https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2023/12/what-is-jesuit-spirituality.html">What is Jesuit Spirituality?</a>
<br /><br />
Catholic Baroque Iconography of the Crucifixion Doesn't Think So.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYQb-PhIV99M0iOTKYwxA0LctJTl7AIAUbtld-FEkPBC_oIYTB9LZNGLm0Ks2XSRWODrUR754HhijQxokTTj8oR1sRVmR0GNALnPRV6B0TLlvu9afqNMR5QDNjz5NKOnPCnZHyWn8-1EGyPQjL9CYmxkOX2QNvbjdQu7DwgW81ua5aPSjlC5qDZxMyPuw/s965/pater.jpg" style="display: block; padding: 1em 0; text-align: center; "><img alt="" border="0" height="320" data-original-height="965" data-original-width="684" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYQb-PhIV99M0iOTKYwxA0LctJTl7AIAUbtld-FEkPBC_oIYTB9LZNGLm0Ks2XSRWODrUR754HhijQxokTTj8oR1sRVmR0GNALnPRV6B0TLlvu9afqNMR5QDNjz5NKOnPCnZHyWn8-1EGyPQjL9CYmxkOX2QNvbjdQu7DwgW81ua5aPSjlC5qDZxMyPuw/s320/pater.jpg"/></a></div>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.meisterdrucke.at/kunstdrucke/Giovanni-Battista-Cavalieri/1168495/Die-Dreifaltigkeit,-mit-der-Kreuzigung-in-der-Mitte-und-den-Heiligen-zu-beiden-Seiten,-1586..html"><i>Giovanni Battista Cavalieri > Die Dreifaltigkeit, mit der Kreuzigung in der Mitte und den Heiligen zu beiden Seiten, 1586.</i>
<br />https://www.meisterdrucke.at/kunstdrucke/Giovanni-Battista-Cavalieri/1168495/Die-Dreifaltigkeit,-mit-der-Kreuzigung-in-der-Mitte-und-den-Heiligen-zu-beiden-Seiten,-1586..html</a>
<br /><br />
It highly parallels Catholic Iconography of the Baptism. In both, we have the Father stretching out and down His arms around the lifted hands of Jesus. In both He has the expression of a father enjoying the company of His Son.
<br /><br />
I'm going through
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.openbible.info/topics/gods_wrath_being_poured_out_on_jesus"><i>100 Bible Verses about | Gods Wrath Being Poured Out On Jesus</i>
<br />https://www.openbible.info/topics/gods_wrath_being_poured_out_on_jesus</a>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>These say Jesus save is from God's wrath, not that He bore it
<dd>Romans 5:9 ESV / 69 helpful votes
<br />Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
<br /><br />
1 Thessalonians 1:10 ESV / 25 helpful votes
<br />And to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.
<br /><br />
1 Thessalonians 1:9-10 ESV / 20 helpful votes
<br />For they themselves report concerning us the kind of reception we had among you, and how you turned to God from idols to serve the living and true God, and to wait for his Son from heaven, whom he raised from the dead, Jesus who delivers us from the wrath to come.
<br /><br />
Romans 1:1-32 ESV / 10 helpful votes
<br />Paul, a servant of Christ Jesus, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, which he promised beforehand through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, ...
<br /><br />
Acts 2:38 ESV / 10 helpful votes
<br />And Peter said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
<br /><br />
Psalm 32:5 ESV / 6 helpful votes
<br />I acknowledged my sin to you, and I did not cover my iniquity; I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord,” and you forgave the iniquity of my sin. Selah
<br /><br />
Revelation 3:10 ESV / 5 helpful votes
<br />Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell on the earth.
<br /><br />
Romans 3:24-25 ESV / 5 helpful votes
<br />And are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
<br /><br />
Isaiah 12:1 ESV / 5 helpful votes
<br />You will say in that day: “I will give thanks to you, O Lord, for though you were angry with me, your anger turned away, that you might comfort me.
<br /><br />
<dt>These speak of those bearing the wrath of God without Jesus
<dd>Romans 1:18 ESV / 64 helpful votes
<br />For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.
<br /><br />
Romans 2:5 ESV / 29 helpful votes
<br />But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.
<br /><br />
Isaiah 51:17 ESV / 22 helpful votes
<br />Wake yourself, wake yourself, stand up, O Jerusalem, you who have drunk from the hand of the Lord the cup of his wrath, who have drunk to the dregs the bowl, the cup of staggering.
<br /><br />
Colossians 3:6 ESV / 20 helpful votes
<br />On account of these the wrath of God is coming.
<br /><br />
Ephesians 5:6 ESV / 20 helpful votes
<br />Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience.
<br /><br />
Romans 12:17-21 ESV / 19 helpful votes
<br />Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
<br /><br />
Romans 12:19 ESV / 11 helpful votes
<br />Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”
<br /><br />
Romans 4:15 ESV / 19 helpful votes
<br />For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression.
<br /><br />
Psalm 75:8 ESV / 19 helpful votes
<br />For in the hand of the Lord there is a cup with foaming wine, well mixed, and he pours out from it, and all the wicked of the earth shall drain it down to the dregs.
<br /><br />
Psalm 7:11 ESV / 19 helpful votes
<br />God is a righteous judge, and a God who feels indignation every day.
<br /><br />
Revelation 14:10 ESV / 18 helpful votes
<br />He also will drink the wine of God's wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.
<br /><br />
Revelation 6:12-17 ESV / 17 helpful votes
<br />When he opened the sixth seal, I looked, and behold, there was a great earthquake, and the sun became black as sackcloth, the full moon became like blood, and the stars of the sky fell to the earth as the fig tree sheds its winter fruit when shaken by a gale. The sky vanished like a scroll that is being rolled up, and every mountain and island was removed from its place. Then the kings of the earth and the great ones and the generals and the rich and the powerful, and everyone, slave and free, hid themselves in the caves and among the rocks of the mountains, calling to the mountains and rocks, “Fall on us and hide us from the face of him who is seated on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb, ...
<br /><br />
Psalm 34:15-16 ESV / 17 helpful votes
<br />The eyes of the Lord are toward the righteous and his ears toward their cry. The face of the Lord is against those who do evil, to cut off the memory of them from the earth.
<br /><br />
Revelation 20:15 ESV / 16 helpful votes
<br />And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
<br /><br />
Revelation 19:15 ESV / 16 helpful votes
<br />From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty.
<br /><br />
Revelation 17:1-18 ESV / 17 helpful votes
<br />Then one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls came and said to me, “Come, I will show you the judgment of the great prostitute who is seated on many waters, with whom the kings of the earth have committed sexual immorality, and with the wine of whose sexual immorality the dwellers on earth have become drunk.” And he carried me away in the Spirit into a wilderness, and I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was full of blasphemous names, and it had seven heads and ten horns. The woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet, and adorned with gold and jewels and pearls, holding in her hand a golden cup full of abominations and the impurities of her sexual immorality. And on her forehead was written a name of mystery: “Babylon the great, mother of prostitutes and of earth's abominations.” ...
<br /><br />
Hosea 7:2 ESV / 15 helpful votes
<br />But they do not consider that I remember all their evil. Now their deeds surround them; they are before my face.
<br /><br />
Jeremiah 25:15 ESV / 15 helpful votes
<br />Thus the Lord, the God of Israel, said to me: “Take from my hand this cup of the wine of wrath, and make all the nations to whom I send you drink it.
<br /><br />
Matthew 21:12-13 ESV / 14 helpful votes
<br />And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all who sold and bought in the temple, and he overturned the tables of the money-changers and the seats of those who sold pigeons. He said to them, “It is written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer,’ but you make it a den of robbers.”
<br /><br />
2 Peter 3:7 ESV / 12 helpful votes
<br />But by the same word the heavens and earth that now exist are stored up for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.
<br /><br />
Galatians 5:19-21 ESV / 12 helpful votes
<br />Now the works of the flesh are evident: sexual immorality, impurity, sensuality, idolatry, sorcery, enmity, strife, jealousy, fits of anger, rivalries, dissensions, divisions, envy, drunkenness, orgies, and things like these. I warn you, as I warned you before, that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.
<br /><br />
Revelation 16:19 ESV / 10 helpful votes
<br />The great city was split into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell, and God remembered Babylon the great, to make her drain the cup of the wine of the fury of his wrath.
<br /><br />
Matthew 24:1-51 ESV / 10 helpful votes
<br />Jesus left the temple and was going away, when his disciples came to point out to him the buildings of the temple. But he answered them, “You see all these, do you not? Truly, I say to you, there will not be left here one stone upon another that will not be thrown down.” As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” And Jesus answered them, “See that no one leads you astray. For many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and they will lead many astray. ...
<br /><br />
Matthew 3:7 ESV / 10 helpful votes
<br />But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
<br /><br />
Nahum 1:2 ESV / 10 helpful votes
<br />The Lord is a jealous and avenging God; the Lord is avenging and wrathful; the Lord takes vengeance on his adversaries and keeps wrath for his enemies.
<br /><br />
Revelation 16:1 ESV / 9 helpful votes
<br />Then I heard a loud voice from the temple telling the seven angels, “Go and pour out on the earth the seven bowls of the wrath of God.”
<br /><br />
Luke 3:7 ESV / 9 helpful votes
<br />He said therefore to the crowds that came out to be baptized by him, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
<br /><br />
Romans 13:4 ESV / 8 helpful votes
<br />For he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer.
<br /><br />
Romans 9:22 ESV / 7 helpful votes
<br />What if God, desiring to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction,
<br /><br />
Revelation 20:10 ESV / 6 helpful votes
<br />And the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.
<br /><br />
Ezekiel 25:17 ESV / 9 helpful votes
<br />I will execute great vengeance on them with wrathful rebukes. Then they will know that I am the Lord, when I lay my vengeance upon them.”
<br /><br />
Romans 2:1-29 ESV / 8 helpful votes
<br />Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. ...
<br /><br />
Ephesians 2:3 ESV / 7 helpful votes
<br />Among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
<br /><br />
Job 21:20 ESV / 7 helpful votes
<br />Let their own eyes see their destruction, and let them drink of the wrath of the Almighty.
<br /><br />
Revelation 19:20 ESV / 5 helpful votes
<br />And the beast was captured, and with it the false prophet who in its presence had done the signs by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped its image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur.
<br /><br />
Revelation 19:11-21 ESV / 5 helpful votes
<br />Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. ...
<br /><br />
Revelation 15:1 ESV / 5 helpful votes
<br />Then I saw another sign in heaven, great and amazing, seven angels with seven plagues, which are the last, for with them the wrath of God is finished.
<br /><br />
Revelation 13:8 ESV / 5 helpful votes
<br />And all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written before the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.
<br /><br />
Numbers 11:33 ESV / 5 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful
<br />While the meat was yet between their teeth, before it was consumed, the anger of the Lord was kindled against the people, and the Lord struck down the people with a very great plague.
<br /><br />
<dt>These say both, contrasting both groups
<dd>John 3:36 ESV / 63 helpful votes
<br />Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.
<br /><br />
Romans 5:8-9 ESV / 48 helpful votes
<br />But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.
<br /><br />
1 Thessalonians 5:9 ESV / 41 helpful votes
<br />For God has not destined us for wrath, but to obtain salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,
<br /><br />
2 Peter 3:9-10 ESV / 15 helpful votes
<br />The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.
<br /><br />
<dt>These say nothing of wrath, directly
<dd>Romans 5:1 ESV / 23 helpful votes
<br />Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
<br /><br />
Hebrews 2:17 ESV / 21 helpful votes
<br />Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.
<br /><br />
Romans 6:23 ESV / 20 helpful votes
<br />For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
<br /><br />
1 Peter 3:18 ESV / 19 helpful votes
<br />For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh but made alive in the spirit,
<br /><br />
Jeremiah 17:10 ESV / 17 helpful votes
<br />“I the Lord search the heart and test the mind, to give every man according to his ways, according to the fruit of his deeds.”
<br /><br />
Proverbs 15:3 ESV / 17 helpful votes
<br />The eyes of the Lord are in every place, keeping watch on the evil and the good.
<br /><br />
Hebrews 12:6 ESV / 16 helpful votes
<br />For the Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.”
<br /><br />
2 Peter 2:9 ESV / 15 helpful votes
<br />Then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment,
<br /><br />
1 Peter 3:12-14 ESV / 15 helpful votes
<br />For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and his ears are open to their prayer. But the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.” Now who is there to harm you if you are zealous for what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness' sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled,
<br /><br />
Psalm 33:13-15 ESV / 14 helpful votes
<br />The Lord looks down from heaven; he sees all the children of man; from where he sits enthroned he looks out on all the inhabitants of the earth, he who fashions the hearts of them all and observes all their deeds.
<br /><br />
Revelation 14:1-20 ESV / 13 helpful votes
<br />Then I looked, and behold, on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with him 144,000 who had his name and his Father's name written on their foreheads. And I heard a voice from heaven like the roar of many waters and like the sound of loud thunder. The voice I heard was like the sound of harpists playing on their harps, and they were singing a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and before the elders. No one could learn that song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. It is these who have not defiled themselves with women, for they are virgins. It is these who follow the Lamb wherever he goes. These have been redeemed from mankind as firstfruits for God and the Lamb, and in their mouth no lie was found, for they are blameless. ...
<br /><br />
Isaiah 40:14 ESV / 12 helpful votes
<br />Whom did he consult, and who made him understand? Who taught him the path of justice, and taught him knowledge, and showed him the way of understanding?
<br /><br />
Revelation 12:1-17 ESV / 11 helpful votes
<br />And a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars. She was pregnant and was crying out in birth pains and the agony of giving birth. And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great red dragon, with seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads seven diadems. His tail swept down a third of the stars of heaven and cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she bore her child he might devour it. She gave birth to a male child, one who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron, but her child was caught up to God and to his throne, ...
<br /><br />
Psalm 147:5 ESV / 11 helpful votes
<br />Great is our Lord, and abundant in power; his understanding is beyond measure.
<br /><br />
Job 23:10 ESV / 11 helpful votes
<br />But he knows the way that I take; when he has tried me, I shall come out as gold.
<br /><br />
Revelation 21:1 ESV / 10 helpful votes
<br />Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.
<br /><br />
James 1:20 ESV / 10 helpful votes
<br />For the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God.
<br /><br />
Hebrews 4:13 ESV / 10 helpful votes
<br />And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
<br /><br />
Romans 3:23 ESV / 10 helpful votes
<br />For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
<br /><br />
Isaiah 46:10 ESV / 10 helpful votes
<br />Declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’
<br /><br />
2 Peter 3:9 ESV / 8 helpful votes
<br />The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should reach repentance.
<br /><br />
Galatians 2:20 ESV / 8 helpful votes
<br />I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me. And the life I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.
<br /><br />
John 8:56 ESV / 8 helpful votes
<br />Your father Abraham rejoiced that he would see my day. He saw it and was glad.”
<br /><br />
Romans 5:5 ESV / 7 helpful votes
<br />And hope does not put us to shame, because God's love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.
<br /><br />
Ezekiel 33:11 ESV / 7 helpful votes
<br />Say to them, As I live, declares the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live; turn back, turn back from your evil ways, for why will you die, O house of Israel?
<br /><br />
Numbers 14:18 ESV / 7 helpful votes
<br />‘The Lord is slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love, forgiving iniquity and transgression, but he will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, to the third and the fourth generation.’
<br /><br />
Exodus 34:6 ESV / 7 helpful votes
<br />The Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness,
<br /><br />
Matthew 10:28 ESV / 5 helpful votes
<br />And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
<br /><br />
<dt>These say sth of how Jesus redeemed us
<dt>but do not mention His bearing the wrath
<dd>1 John 4:10 ESV / 55 helpful votes
<br />In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
<br /><br />
1 John 2:2 ESV / 51 helpful votes
<br />He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world.
<br /><br />
Isaiah 53:4-6 ESV / 39 helpful votes
<br />Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned—every one—to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all.
<br /><br />
Romans 3:25 ESV / 35 helpful votes
<br />Whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins.
<br /><br />
2 Corinthians 5:21 ESV / 31 helpful votes
<br />For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.
<br /><br />
Isaiah 53:10 ESV / 29 helpful votes
<br />Yet it was the will of the Lord to crush him; he has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the Lord shall prosper in his hand.
<br /><br />
Hebrews 9:22 ESV / 15 helpful votes
<br />Indeed, under the law almost everything is purified with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sins.
<br /><br />
Matthew 27:46 ESV / 15 helpful votes
<br />And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
<br /><br />
Psalm 22:1-31 ESV / 14 helpful votes
<br />To the choirmaster: according to The Doe of the Dawn. A Psalm of David. My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, from the words of my groaning? O my God, I cry by day, but you do not answer, and by night, but I find no rest. Yet you are holy, enthroned on the praises of Israel. In you our fathers trusted; they trusted, and you delivered them. To you they cried and were rescued; in you they trusted and were not put to shame. ...
<br /><br />
Galatians 3:13 ESV / 12 helpful votes
<br />Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—
<br /><br />
Hebrews 10:1-39 ESV / 11 helpful votes
<br />For since the law has but a shadow of the good things to come instead of the true form of these realities, it can never, by the same sacrifices that are continually offered every year, make perfect those who draw near. Otherwise, would they not have ceased to be offered, since the worshipers, having once been cleansed, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? But in these sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Consequently, when Christ came into the world, he said, “Sacrifices and offerings you have not desired, but a body have you prepared for me; ...
<br /><br />
Isaiah 53:1-12 ESV / 11 helpful votes
<br />Who has believed what he has heard from us? And to whom has the arm of the Lord been revealed? For he grew up before him like a young plant, and like a root out of dry ground; he had no form or majesty that we should look at him, and no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected by men, a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their faces he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed. ...
<br /><br />
Matthew 26:39 ESV / 9 helpful votes
<br />And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as you will.”
<br /><br />
Romans 5:8 ESV / 8 helpful votes
<br />But God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.
<br /><br />
John 18:11 ESV / 8 helpful votes
<br />So Jesus said to Peter, “Put your sword into its sheath; shall I not drink the cup that the Father has given me?”
<br /><br />
John 10:18 ESV / 8 helpful votes
<br />No one takes it from me, but I lay it down of my own accord. I have authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from my Father.”
<br /><br />
John 3:16 ESV / 8 helpful votes
<br />“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
<br /><br />
John 3:16-17 ESV / 7 helpful votes
<br />“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him.
<br /><br />
Ephesians 5:2 ESV / 7 helpful votes
<br />And walk in love, as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us, a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God.
<br /><br />
Isaiah 53:4-5 ESV / 6 helpful votes
<br />Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was pierced for our transgressions; he was crushed for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that brought us peace, and with his wounds we are healed.</dl>
<br /><br />
100 verses that "say God's wrath was poured out on Jesus" minus all 100, because each says sth other than that and does not say that, means that site showed no verses at all saying that.
<br /><br />
I also tried this link, but the site filtering system of the Georges Pompidou Library refused to let me:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-wrath-of-god-was-satisfied">The Wrath of God Was Satisfied: Wondrous Love in ...
<br />https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-wrath-of-god-was-satisfied</a>
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Bonjour,
<br /><br />
L'accès à l'URL https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-wrath-of- est restreint.
<br /><br />
Catégorie : Sexe, Pornographie
Description de la catégorie : Contenu pornographique et érotique. Les sites incluant un nombre de liens publicitaires pornographiques significatifs sont aussi classés dans cette catégorie</blockquote>
<br /><br />
I highly doubt that the people behind the site either involved pornography or linked to it. Perhaps the nakedness of Jesus on the Cross triggered a "porn" label, or perhaps there was someone abusing the filter to censor a Christian site. Now, one can obviously ask how Christian it is with that theology, but still, it's clearly not a porn site in the usual sense of the word.
<br /><br />
This link actually gave a more direct answer, but a wrong one.
<br /><br />
<a href="https://openthebible.org/article/six-things-you-need-to-know-about-gods-wrath/">Six Things You Need to Know About God’s Wrath
<br />COLIN SMITH | MAY 16, 2017
<br />https://openthebible.org/article/six-things-you-need-to-know-about-gods-wrath/</a>
<br /><br />
<blockquote>The Bible speaks about God’s wrath being poured out at the cross: “I will soon pour out my wrath upon you, and spend my anger against you” (Ezekiel 7:8). This takes us to the heart of what happened there: The divine wrath toward sin was poured out on Jesus. He became the “propitiation” for our sins (Romans 3:25), which means that the payment for our sins was poured out on Jesus at Calvary.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
<b>Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in his blood, to the shewing of his justice, for the remission of former sins</b>
<br />[Romans 3:25]
<br /><br />
Nothing about the wrath of God being poured out, but about His justice.
<br /><br />
What about Ezechiel?
<br /><br />
<b>Now very shortly I will pour out my wrath upon thee, and I will accomplish my anger in thee: and I will judge thee according to thy ways, and I will lay upon thee all thy crimes</b>
<br />[Ezechiel (Ezeckiel) 7:8]
<br /><br />
Pouring out of God's wrath is very clearly mentioned, but Christ isn't. Like Jews denying the Suffering Servant of Isaias 53 is Jesus and who confuse Jesus with Israel, Colin Smith also confused Jesus and Israel, but the other way round, denying Ezechiel 7 was about the punishment of Israelites.
<br /><br />
I am happy that the google search also brought me this essay, which basically agrees with me:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://itsjoshissa.medium.com/on-gods-wrath-ed80e7a868bd">On God’s Wrath Misplaced and Misunderstood
<br /><i>Joshua Issa | 6 min read | Mar 14</i>
<br />https://itsjoshissa.medium.com/on-gods-wrath-ed80e7a868bd</a>
<br /><br />
So does David B. Sloan:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>It’s not that Jesus was being punished by God for our sins. We read Paul too individualistically here. He is speaking of a corporate issue. Humanity (as a whole) had sinned, and so humanity was experiencing its just desserts – mortality. Romans 5 emphasizes not the fact that Jesus had died, but the fact that Jesus had committed an “act of righteousness” or “obedience” that was more powerful than Adam’s act of disobedience. “For the wages of sin is death” (i.e., human mortality is the result of our sinfulness), “but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Nowhere here does Paul express the idea that Jesus had to pay those wages for us. Instead, chapter 6 lays out a different path:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. [Rom 6:1-4]</blockquote>
<br /><br />
It is not that Jesus paid the wages for us, but that we died to sin and can now experience the gift of life.
<br /><br />
<blockquote><a href="http://davidbsloan.com/blog/did-jesus-experience-the-fathers-wrath/">DID JESUS EXPERIENCE THE FATHER’S WRATH?
<br /><i>MAY 17, 2021 DAVID SLOAN</i>
<br />http://davidbsloan.com/blog/did-jesus-experience-the-fathers-wrath/</a></blockquote></blockquote>
<br /><br />
Thank you, David Sloan! Thank you Joshua Issa! Thank you, Catholic Church painters who gave me a better idea of the Crucifixion when I lived in Austria!
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br />Paris
<br />Immaculate Conception
<br />of the Blessed Virgin
<br />8.XII.2023Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4720574086735464252.post-78614131140116544732023-11-30T01:59:00.000-08:002023-11-30T02:02:18.130-08:00Another Reason to Believe Novus Ordos are NOT All Apostates<br />
<b>Creation vs. Evolution:</b> <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2023/11/in-portugal-dogma-of-faith-shall-not-be.html">In Portugal, the Dogma of the Faith Shall Not Be Lost</a> · <b>Great Bishop of Geneva!:</b> <a href="https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2023/11/another-reason-to-believe-novus-ordos.html">Another Reason to Believe Novus Ordos are NOT All Apostates</a>
<br /><br />
Not saying there is no apostasy going on anywhere, but just saying it's not universal.
<br /><br />
I have seen less than five minutes of this film, and I am already confident, after she died, Sr. Clare Crockett was immediately (or the second she was judged) in a better position to pray for us, than we for her:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSKiESB1Pfs">All or Nothing: Sr. Clare Crockett - Full Movie
<br /><i>Home of the Mother, 3 Nov. 2023</i>
<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSKiESB1Pfs</a>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4720574086735464252.post-4698890066814921062023-11-03T14:17:00.012-07:002023-11-15T10:40:53.436-08:00I Loved This Song While I Thought It Was Protestant (Pentecostal or Sth) ...<br />
<b>Great Bishop of Geneva! :</b> <a href="https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2023/11/i-loved-this-song-while-i-thought-it.html">I Loved This Song While I Thought It Was Protestant (Pentecostal or Sth) ...</a> · <b>Φιλολoγικά/Philologica :</b> <a href="https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2023/11/avec-vous-toujours-avec-vous-composer.html">Avec vous toujours avec vous ... the Composer</a>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1xbH_LccN0">Be Thou My Vision | a new duet version by Abby and Annalie #HearHim
<br /><i>Abby & Annalie, 5.IV.2020</i>
<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1xbH_LccN0</a>
<br /><br />
And here is what wiki tells me ...
<br /><br />
<blockquote>The original Old Irish text, "Rop tú mo Baile", is often attributed to Saint Dallán Forgaill in the 6th century.[4] However, scholars believe it was written later than that. Some date it to the 8th century;[5] others put it as late as the 10th or 11th century.[6] A 14th-century manuscript attributed to Adhamh Ó Cianáin contains a handwritten copy of the poem in Middle Irish, and is held at the National Library of Ireland.[7] A second manuscript is at the Royal Irish Academy, dating from about the 10th or 11th century.
<br /><br />
<blockquote><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_Thou_My_Vision">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Be_Thou_My_Vision</a></blockquote></blockquote>
<br /><br />
<b>Sourced on footnotes:</b>
<br /><br />
4) <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20120519182436/http://www.hymntime.com/tch/htm/b/e/t/bethoumv.htm">Be Thou My Vision Archived</a> 2012-05-19 at the Wayback Machine at Cyberhymnal
<br />5) Kenneth W. Osbeck, <a href="https://archive.org/details/101morehymnstori0000osbe/page/42/mode/2up">101 More Hymn Stories</a>, Kregel Publications, 1985, p. 43
<br />6) Gerard Murphy, <i>Early Irish lyrics: eighth to twelfth century</i>, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956, pp. 42–45, 190–191
<br />7) Wright, Sheila Louise. ""Rop tú mo Baile" A Traditional 14 th C. Irish Poem/Song". Retrieved 11 December 2017.
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.academia.edu/28437315"><i>" Rop tú mo Baile " A Traditional 14 th C. Irish Poem/Song - by Sheila Louise Wright</i>
<br />https://www.academia.edu/28437315</a>
<br /><br />
PS, in fact there are four OT names, apart from Miriam, which are kind of near synonyms to Mary. Abby = Abigail is one of them. The full list is: Jael, Ruth, Abigail and Judith. Jael and Judith because they killed men who by tyranny and fighting against God's people were images of Satan, whom Mary defeated. Ruth because she married an old man, and is ancestor of Christ. Abigail because she prevented King David of killing an Israelite./HGL
<br /><br />
PPS, in case someone misunderstood the title, I love it even more now I know it is a Catholic lorica./HGLHans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4720574086735464252.post-61870368861410934152023-09-03T17:55:00.002-07:002023-09-03T17:55:26.453-07:00Father Hartmann Grisar, S. J. <br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeDJAL5vUqA">The History of Rome and the Popes in the Middle Ages, Volume 1 by Hartmann Grisar Part 1/2
<br /><i>LibriVox Audiobooks | 3 Sept. 2023</i>
<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeDJAL5vUqA</a>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45-NKjMZfv4">The History of Rome and the Popes in the Middle Ages, Volume 1 by Hartmann Grisar Part 2/2
<br /><i>LibriVox Audiobooks | 3 Sept. 2023</i>
<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45-NKjMZfv4</a>
<br /><br />
On the author, so far no English wikipedian article, but here is a German one:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartmann_Grisar">https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartmann_Grisar</a>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4720574086735464252.post-36402283788778982162023-09-03T17:07:00.004-07:002023-09-03T17:09:51.786-07:00Can We Agree Pre-Adamites is Not a Christian Idea?<br />
<b>Creation vs. Evolution:</b> <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2023/09/some-observations.html">Some Observations</a> · <b>Great Bishop of Geneva!:</b> <a href="https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2023/09/can-we-agree-pre-adamites-is-not.html">Can We Agree Pre-Adamites is Not a Christian Idea?</a>
<br /><br />
Here is from the French wiki on <a href="https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr%C3%A9adamisme">Préadamisme</a>.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Malgré la prédominance de la croyance adamiste, certains courants religieux occidentaux et moyen orientaux continuèrent de croire que des hommes ont pu exister avant Adam. C'est le cas de la Familia Caritatis, une communauté religieuse frisonne fondée au début du xvie siècle1. Les Maimonïdes argumentèrent aussi sur les faits présentés par Ibn Wahshiyya.
<br /><br />
En 1591, Giordano Bruno mort sur le bûcher pour avoir affirmé par ailleurs que l'homme est parent des singes, faisait valoir qu'il n'était pas crédible que les Juifs et les Éthiopiens puissent avoir le même ancêtre il y a 6000 ans, et que par conséquent soit Dieu a créé plusieurs lignées différentes, soit les Africains sont descendants d'hommes préadamiques2.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Let's try to translate this correctly.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Despite the predominance of the Adamist [monogenic] belief, some of the religious currents of the West and the Middle East coontinued to believe that men could have existed before Adam. It's the case with Familia Caritatus, a religious community from Friesland, founded in the beginning of the XVIth C. The Maimonide Family also argued about the facts presented by Ibn Wahshiyya.
<br /><br />
In 1591, Giordano Bruno [later] dead on the bonfire for having furthermore affirmed that man is akin to apes, asserted that it was not credible that Jews and Ethiopians could have the same ancestor 6000 years ago, and by consequent, either God had created several different human lineages, or the Africans descended from pre-Adamite men.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Now, "continued to" is a fairly tendentious way of putting it, since the previous statements, like those concerning rejection of the Sabean myth that Ibn Wahshiyya just reported don't enforce the idea there had previously been any acceptance of pre-Adamites, but that Familia Caritatis was involved in pre-Adamism, well, it so happens, this seems to be footnoted.
<br /><br />
Almond, 1999, p. 51. And Almond stands for Philip C. Almond, <i>Adam and Eve in Seventeenth-Century Thought</i>, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999. (ISBN 0-521-66076-9).
<br /><br />
The Giordano Bruno assertion from 1591 is <i>also</i> footnoted.
<br /><br />
Graves, 2003, p. 25. And Graves stands for Joseph L. Graves, <i>The Emperor's New Clothes : Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium</i>, Newark, New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 2003. (ISBN 0-8135-3302-3).
<br /><br />
So, if like me, you reject pre-Adamite men, you should reject Familia Caritatis, an Anabaptist sect founded by <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Nicholis">Henry Nicholis.</a>
<br /><br />
You should also reject Giordano Bruno, a man known as being burned for Heliocentrism — but in reality as this example shows, there was much more to it.
<br /><br />
While technically Galileo did not promote Little Green Men, let alone pre-Adamites on earth, Giordano Bruno and Kepler had already set the tone for accepting the certitude to hypothesis of extraterrestrials as <i>popular</i> evidence for Heliocentrism — in the sense that any extra-terrestrial on his own planet would consider his own planet as the centre of the universe with "as much apparent" and ultimately "as little real" ground as we naturally (and reasonably, as long as you don't bring in extraterrestrials) tend to suppose Earth to be so.
<br /><br />
I say this was a popular argument. Euler in his Letters to a German Princess instructed her that Newton, a very great physicist, had proven Earth had to orbit the Sun, not the reverse, but he didn't get into details. However, an argument which he <i>did</i> give on her supposed level of understanding was little green men. As I screenshotted and sourced here:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://aufdeutschaufantimodernism.blogspot.com/2017/12/euler-als-astronom.html"><i>Euler als "Astronom"</i>
<br />https://aufdeutschaufantimodernism.blogspot.com/2017/12/euler-als-astronom.html</a>
<br /><br />
This being from letters 58 and 59 to the princess. As far as I can tell from later history, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friederike_Charlotte_of_Brandenburg-Schwedt">Friederike Charlotte of Brandenburg-Schwedt</a> as well as other members of the Prussian high nobility and princes did believe Euler. And her own impression of his teaching was not the only decisive influence he had:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Friederike Charlotte was partly educated in Prussia, together with her sister Louise. Between 1760 and 1762, the mathematician Leonhard Euler sent her numerous letters in French about mathematical and philosophical subjects. These letters were published between 1769 and 1773 under the title "Letters to a German Princess" and were printed in Leipzig and St. Petersburg. The French edition alone enjoyed 12 printings. It was the Age of Enlightenment and Euler tried to explain physical issues and in particular their philosophical background in a generally understandable manner. Euler may have been employed as her teacher.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
In other words, we don't know if they met, we do know that she was receiving epistolary instruction from him, and that the letters were widely spread outside this original context.
<br /><br />
So, the tendency was, in the centuries that saw the social triumph of Heliocentrism, to downplay (at least to some readers) the mathematical proofs in favour of speculations about Little Green Men.
<br /><br />
It may be worth while to take another look at the English article on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Adamite">pre-Adamism.</a>*
<br /><br />
<blockquote>The first known debate about human antiquity took place in 170 AD between a Christian, Theophilus of Antioch, and an Egyptian pagan, Apollonius the Egyptian (probably Apollonius Dyscolus), who argued that the world was 153,075 years old.[1]: 26
<br /><br />
An early challenge to biblical Adamism came from the Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate, who, upon his rejection of Christianity and his return to paganism, accepted the idea that many pairs of original people had been created, a belief termed co-Adamism or multiple Adamism.[2]: 6 [1]: 27-28,125
<br /><br />
Augustine of Hippo's The City of God contains two chapters indicating a debate between Christians and pagans over human origins: Book XII, chapter 10 is titled Of the falseness of the history that the world hath continued many thousand years and the title of book XVIII, chapter 40 is The Egyptians' abominable lyings, to claim their wisdom the age of 100,000 years. These titles tend to indicate that Augustine saw pagan ideas concerning both the history of the world and the chronology of the human race as incompatible with the Genesis creation narrative. Augustine's explanation aligned with most rabbis and with the church fathers, who generally dismissed views on the antiquity of the world as myths and fables, whereas Jewish and Christian claims were based on revealed truth.[1]: 27
<br /><br />
Augustine did take a critical view of the young earth narrative in some aspects, arguing that everything in the universe had been created simultaneously by God, and not seven literal days. He was primarily concerned with arguing against the idea of humanity having existed eternally rather than a Bible-based chronology of human history.[3]</blockquote>
<br /><br />
So, not only should a Young Earth Creationist not embrace Anabaptists of the XVIth C, but he should embrace Augustine of Hippo, a clear Catholic.
<br /><br />
The last of these paragraphs again has tendentious phrasing, the idea of a simultanous creation doesn't in any way make the universe less young, and a Bible-based chronology of human history, along with rejecting Gap Theory and Day-Age Theory = Young Earth Creationism. Obviously a "one moment creation" is the very opposite of Day-Age or Gap Theories.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br />Paris
<br />St. Moses
<br />4.IX.2023
<br /><br />
<i>In monte Nebo, terrae Moab, sancti Moysis, legislatoris et Prophetae.</i>
<br /><br />
* Instead of discussing the wikipedian footnotes, I'll just give them under this footnote:
<br />1) Popkin, Richard Henry (1987). <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=lkFaju2praAC"><i>Isaac La Peyrère (1596-1676): His Life, Work, and Influence.</i></a> Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Publishers. ISBN 90-04-08157-7. Retrieved 25 February 2021.
<br />2) Livingstone, David N. (2011). <i><a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=yZbdf7kJVpwC">Adam's Ancestors: Race, Religion, and the Politics of Human Origins.</a></i> Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-8813-7. Retrieved 25 February 2021.
<br />3) Young, David A. (1988). <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/43452284">"The Contemporary Relevance of Augustine".</a> Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. American Scientific Affiliation. 40 (1): 42–45. Retrieved 23 April 2021.Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4720574086735464252.post-6461555302687002482023-06-24T08:42:00.010-07:002023-06-24T09:24:25.918-07:00Jeremias 7 and 44 and the Duchess of Dorchester<br />
I came up with the title before I had heard of the wrestler <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Duke_of_Dorchester">The Duke of Dorchester</a> and hope he won't mind.
<br /><br />
Now, in Jeremias, the phrase "the queen of heaven" occurs once in chapter 7 and several times in chapter 44. The most prominent place would be chapter 7:18, since it involves God's anger.
<br /><br />
<b>The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire and the women knead the dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to offer libations to strange gods, and to provoke me to anger</b>
<br />[Jeremias (Jeremiah) 7:18]
<br /><br />
So, some suppose this means God is angry at anything referred to as the Queen of Heaven, including "Catholic Mariolatry" - we will see in a moment how I respond, but first a detour. I think it will be rewarding.
<br /><br />
Suppose a King of England decided the third daughter of a prince of Wales or of a King, whoever comes first, shall have a new title, Duchess of Dorchester. Her husband shall have the title Duke of Dorchester (Pete Doherty, hope you don't mind!). Their offspring shall be Dukes of Dorchester until next time there is a third daughter of the king or of the Prince of Wales, whoever comes first. However, such a person is not yet there on earth, only the plan is.
<br /><br />
Then suppose a drag queen even less feminine and less decent than Conchita Wurst turns up and decided to take the stage name "Duchess of Dorchester" ... I think a King of England would be annoyed, perhaps not HM Charles III, he's known for preaching tolerance to people of the habits of Conchita Wurst, but earlier kings of England (including those who privately were as indecent or even less decent than Conchita) most certainly would. Even James VI and I would have such a man drawn, quartered and beheaded. Right ....?
<br /><br />
Now, for the relevance. Even to people in Dorchester, Heaven is more important than Dorchester. To God, most certainly. No one, including demons, is outside His jurisdiction (and female goddesses in at least many respects, perhaps not Athena as appearing to Ulysses on occasion, <i>are</i> drag queens). So, He has decided He will be born. He has decided who His mother will be. He has decided She will be Queen of Heaven. The anger of God expressed in Jeremias 7:18 is not about people giving Her the title that is Hers, Queen Mother in Heaven, but about people giving a demon a similar title (the Hebrew, I heard Patrick Madrid or someone say, has a word meaning ruling queen or queen consort in Jer 7:18). I think the case for God hating "Mariolatry" has been answered.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br />Paris
<br />St. John the Baptist
<br />24.VI.2023
<br /><br />
Sorry, HM<i>K</i> Charles III, I mean, of course!Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4720574086735464252.post-56683329752059803242023-05-24T03:51:00.002-07:002023-05-24T03:53:29.107-07:00Why is Romans 8 Not Prooftext for Calvinistic "Perseverance of the Saints"?<br />
<b>Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere:</b> <a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2023/05/defeating-calvinism-with-little-help.html">Defeating Calvinism, with a Little Help from a (so far back then) Calvinist</a> · <b>Great Bishop of Geneva!:</b> <a href="https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2023/05/why-is-romans-8-not-prooftext-for.html">Why is Romans 8 Not Prooftext for Calvinistic "Perseverance of the Saints"?</a>
<br /><br />
Here are the two immediately relevant verses:
<br /><br />
<b>29 For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren 30 And whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified. And whom he justified, them he also glorified.</b>
<br /><br />
Repetition from the Stuckey prompted* video comment:
<br /><br />
1) the first two concepts are <i>if</i> chronologically ordered indication that God foreknew some <i>before</i> He predestined them.
<br />2) because all the following pairs of concepts are chronologically ordered so that the first stated term comes before the next stated one.
<br /><br />
All the examples:
<ul><li> the predestination is from eternity, but the call comes in time, i e God's call to Abraham when he was 75, or God's call to Saulus on the road to Damascus.
<li> The calling comes before the justification, which involves a yes to the call;
<li> the justification, being in this life, is prior to the glory in the life to come.</ul>
<br /><br />
One could reply, the foreknowledge and the predestination are both from eternity, and there is therefore no temporal sequence between them. This doesn't deny a metatemporal or motivational sequence, within God's eternal decision. So, the text is in fact a proof text for scientia media. Luís de Molina's concept of it would be close.
<br /><br />
But the Calvinists would use the passage also in another way, namely to deny that any truly justified person could ever get lost. This would be deduced from the last pair:
<br /><br />
<b>And whom he justified, them he also glorified.</b>
<br /><br />
If taken with complete generality and unconditionally, this <i>would</i> spell out the doctrine of "Perseverance of the Saints" ... Two replies.
<br /><br />
However, <i>(first),</i> there is a possibility that one or more pairs of concepts may hold the key to this being conditional, on the persons free will.
<br /><br />
Whom He called, them He also justified, is this universal?
<br /><br />
Jesus called a rich man to poverty, and the rich man walked away sadly. The call was conditional on the rich man's free will.
<br /><br />
However, it is possible that the rich man was already justified, and didn't miss out on Heaven, but only on safer and happier ways of getting there with more merits for eternity. It is also possible he later followed the call, like the younger son who at first said no to his father, but then went on to do his bidding.
<br /><br />
The other pair is, foreknowledge and predestination. Those who are not predestined to glory are technically in the Catholic Theology not at all known as "predestined to damnation" - that would be heretical, and go against the Council of Frankfurt "Deus neminem predestinat ad malum" - but as "foreknown" (i e foreknown as not making it to heaven). This means, both the predestined and the not predestined are both foreknown by God, so the first pair
<br /><br />
<b>whom he foreknew, he also predestinated</b>
<br /><br />
is proof that the sequence is in fact conditional, and not automatic and unconditional. Except of course that predestination itself cannot be foiled.
<br /><br />
Further, <i>second,</i> one can say, the last pair
<br /><br />
<b>whom he justified, them he also glorified</b>
<br /><br />
is only validly universally true in the given context of precisely predestination, since this is mentioned before.
<br /><br />
The one problem which can be posed is, if predestination cannot be foiled, how is this not irresistable grace? First, because God's offer of grace is extended further than to only the predestined ones. Second, because predestination is never foiled, this is only by grace being unresisted or efficient, not by its being also irresistable. The practical consequence is, one <i>can</i> say "Deus, facienti quod in se est, non denegat gratiam" - God is not refusing grace to anyone doing what he is then and there, with nature and with graces already given, able to do. The very thing the Reformers Luther and Calvin so vehemently denied.
<br /><br />
A further confirmation in the previous verses:
<br /><br />
<b>25 But if we hope for that which we see not, we wait for it with patience. 26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity. For we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit himself asketh for us with unspeakable groanings. 27 And he that searcheth the hearts, knoweth what the Spirit desireth; because he asketh for the saints according to God. 28 And we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints.</b>
<br /><br />
To them that love God ... reminds a little of St. Augustine saying, what Crowley gave a truncated quote of: "have God's love, and do what thou wilt"** - but either way, it makes nonsense of the idea that "the natural man is unable to love God" namely not just "out of his own powers" as we Catholics say, but "totally" as the Reformers say, up to a presumed and always dramatic moment when total hatred of God yields to total love of God motivated only by this remarcable mercy and never by anything else.
<br />/Hans Georg Lundahl
<br /><br />
* i e Defeating Calvinism, with a Little Help from a (so far back then) Calvinist ** Habe caritatem, et fac quod vis.Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4720574086735464252.post-57933648366447615262023-04-07T09:33:00.016-07:002023-05-01T16:25:27.210-07:00Does the Bible Say How Many Books It Has?<br />
<b>Great Bishop of Geneva!:</b> <a href="http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2023/04/does-bible-say-how-many-books-it-has.html">Does the Bible Say How Many Books It Has?</a> · <b>somewhere else:</b> <a href="http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2023/04/not-hallucinations-argument-ii.html">Not Hallucinations - Argument II</a> · <b>Creation vs. Evolution</b> <a href="https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2023/04/do-flood-stories-around-world-prove.html">Do Flood Stories Around the World Prove Oral Transmission Inaccurate?</a>
<br /><br />
Note, not <i>which</i> books, but <i>how many?</i>
<br /><br />
<b>Paul, and Sylvanus, and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace unto you, and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. We are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren, as it is fitting, because your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you towards each other, aboundeth: So that we ourselves also glory in you in the churches of God, for your patience and faith, and in all your persecutions and tribulations, which you endure, For an example of the just judgment of God, that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which also you suffer.</b>
<br /><br />
That's the beginning of <a href="https://drbo.org/chapter/60001.htm">II Thessalonians.</a>
<br /><br />
<b>But the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea. Who, when they were come thither, went into the synagogue of the Jews Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so.</b>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://drbo.org/chapter/51017.htm">Acts 17</a>
<br /><br />
So, if there is one thing which unites Thessaloniki and Veria, it might give us a road.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Veria (Greek: Βέροια or Βέρροια), officially transliterated Veroia, historically also spelled Berea or Berœa,[2] is a city in Central Macedonia, in the geographic region of Macedonia, northern Greece, capital of the regional unit of Imathia. It is located 511 kilometres (318 miles) north-northwest of the capital Athens and 73 km (45 mi) west-southwest of Thessaloniki.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Sorry, a clue. And yes, I think the road is the clue.
<br /><br />
73 kilometers - the full Bible has 73 books.
<br />45 miles - miles is an older measure than kilometers, right? - the OT has 45 books.
<br /><br />
Wait a minute, 45 + 27 = 72 ...
<br /><br />
Well, the official Catholic way of counting it is, "72 books, or 73 if Baruch be counted separately from Jeremias" ... So, the whole Bible is somewhat fluid between 72 and 73, and the Old Testament, by consequence, between 45 and 46.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br />Paris
<br />Good and Holy Friday
<br />7.IV.2023
<br /><br />
PS - the Hackers and other onliners would arguably agree with 73 books for another reason.
<br /><br />
50 + 40 + 27 + 36 + 34 + 24 + 21 + 4 + 31 + 27 + 22 + 25 + 29 + 36 + 10 + 13 + 14 + 16 + 16 + 42 + 150 + 31 + 12 + 8 + 19 + 51 + 66 + 52 + 5 + 6 + 48 + 14 + 14 + 3 + 9 + 1 + 4 + 7 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 2 + 14 + 4 + 16 + 15 = 1077
<br />28 + 16 + 24 + 21 + 28 + 16 + 16 + 13 + 6 + 6 + 4 + 4 + 5 + 3 + 6 + 4 + 3 + 1 + 13 + 5 + 5 + 3 + 5 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 22 = 260
<br />260 + 1077 = 1337
<br /><br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet</a>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4720574086735464252.post-18999411617853664552023-03-22T09:38:00.003-07:002023-03-22T09:38:44.717-07:00From Burger King to Asking Saints in Heaven for Intercession (a Ramble)<br />
I saw a Burger King restaurant while getting here. It had a very awkward picture of a finger (or two pictures of two fingers) with grill marks on it.
<br /><br />
I got reminded of a humouristic verse in Readers' Digest a few decades ago. It's not my own production, but I still am fairly sure of the verses:
<br /><br />
<dl><dt><b>To fry the steaks upon the grill</b>
<dd><b>is fraught with risk and tedium:</b>
<dt><b>the beefs are usually quite rare,</b>
<dd><b>the fingers well or medium.</b></dl>
<br /><br />
If someone had that kind of experience with grilling, what should he do, as a Catholic?
<br /><br />
Well, today he could obviously let the grill be or fry fish on it instead, since it is Lent, but usually, when he <i>has</i> business to feel that "to be a vegetarian is a big missed steak"?
<br /><br />
He should pray to St. Lawrence. Now, lots of Prots would at this point start <i>protesting</i> something like <i>"that's idolatry, that's polytheism, that's praying to different god with different functions instead of to one God for all concerns!"</i>
<br /><br />
Not so fast, please.
<br /><br />
He was a deacon, of Rome, and he was martyred by being put on a grill. He told the executioners when to "turn the steak" ... some pretend that the martyrdoms in Roman law are fantasy, since some versions of the death penalty referred to don't occur in Roman law. And Roman justice obviously went by Roman law. Yes, in some cases it did, like when it said a non-Roman criminal (like the Christian non-Roman Peter, guilty of holding a Bacchanal over 5 participants or of burning down Rome) could be crucified. Or when it said that a Roman criminal (like the Christian Roman ciztizen Paul, also guilty of holding a Bacchanal over 5 participants or of burning down Rome) could be executed by a sword cutting off his head. But this was still before the Codex Iuris Civilis, before Ulpian, and therefore criminal justice in Rome was something of a Wild West affair - except the sheriff was the chief involved in lynchparties. So, yes, very creative executions did occur. That ceased later on, except such as should be codified by law, when Rome became Christian.
<br /><br />
So, what's the connexion with his martyrdom and invoking his intercession if you have troubles keeping your fingers totally raw or your steaks turned in time? Well, suppose for a really wild, wild moment of imagination that invoking him <i>isn't</i> spiritism, unlike what some learned in Bible school and he could hear you because God told him ... he would probably see a brother in Christ in a trouble he could relate to (go figure why!) and as he had given his life for Christ, he was arguably in a stronger position to pray about it than the guy who just uttered a cuss word over his fingers getting "well or medium" ...
<br /><br />
Isn't that why you go to your pastor and ask him for prayers, and a different pastor depending on the issue? A brother in Christ, who is probably having a closer walk with God than yourself, and who can relate to your issue?
<br /><br />
If pagans prayed to any special god about grilling, it would probably be the "god of fire." <i>That</i> one we neither pray to principally, nor ask for any intercession.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br />Paris
<br />St. Paul of Narbonne
<br />22.III.2023
<br /><br />
<i>Narbone, in Gallia, natalis sancti Pauli Episcopi, Apostolorum discipuli, quem tradunt fuisse Sergium Paulum Proconsulem. Hic, a beato Apostolo Paulo baptizatus, et ab eo, cum in Hispaniam pergeret, apud Narbonem relictus, ibidem Episcopali dignitate donatus est; ibique, praedicationis officio non segniter expleto, clarus miraculis migravit in caelum.</i>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4720574086735464252.post-13590218353114033102022-11-21T09:13:00.006-08:002022-11-21T09:13:21.446-08:00Was Peter called Shepherd Already in John 20?<br />
Here is the beginning of this chapter:
<br /><br />
<b>[1] And on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalen cometh early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre; and she saw the stone taken away from the sepulchre. [2] She ran, therefore, and cometh to Simon Peter, and to the other disciple whom Jesus loved, and saith to them: They have taken away the Lord out of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have laid him. [3] Peter therefore went out, and that other disciple, and they came to the sepulchre. [4] And they both ran together, and that other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the sepulchre. [5] And when he stooped down, he saw the linen cloths lying; but yet he went not in.</b>
<br /><br />
<b>[6] Then cometh Simon Peter, following him, and went into the sepulchre, and saw the linen cloths lying, [7] And the napkin that had been about his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but apart, wrapped up into one place. [8] Then that other disciple also went in, who came first to the sepulchre: and he saw, and believed. [9] For as yet they knew not the scripture, that he must rise again from the dead. [10] The disciples therefore departed again to their home.</b>
<br /><br />
By allowing Peter to take precedence, despite arriving first as to speed, the Beloved says Peter is the more principal of them.
<br /><br />
What were they both?
<br /><br />
<b>[8] And there were in the same country shepherds watching, and keeping the night watches over their flock. [9] And behold an angel of the Lord stood by them, and the brightness of God shone round about them; and they feared with a great fear. [10] And the angel said to them: Fear not; for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, that shall be to all the people:</b>
<br /><br />
<b>[11] For, this day, is born to you a Saviour, who is Christ the Lord, in the city of David. [12] And this shall be a sign unto you. You shall find the infant wrapped in swaddling clothes, and laid in a manger. [13] And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly army, praising God, and saying: [14] Glory to God in the highest; and on earth peace to men of good will. [15] And it came to pass, after the angels departed from them into heaven, the shepherds said one to another: Let us go over to Bethlehem, and let us see this word that is come to pass, which the Lord hath shewed to us.</b>
<br /><br />
<b>[16] And they came with haste; and they found Mary and Joseph, and the infant lying in the manger. [17] And seeing, they understood of the word that had been spoken to them concerning this child.</b>
<br /><br />
As they heard a message of good tidings, they ran or came with haste.
<br /><br />
That's what the shepherds did.
<br /><br />
So, in the first announcing of the Resurrection, St. Peter stands out as a principal shepherd. And John the Beloved a subsidiary one./HGLHans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4720574086735464252.post-22687170428865904312022-11-10T05:30:00.010-08:002022-11-10T05:37:27.847-08:00Questions by Matt Slick<br />
In an oral debate with Rick Akins, he seems to have wanted to get yes and no answers without nuances or qualifications, to each of them.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>So are you saying that if you break the commandments you lose your salvation? And when you repent you get it back? Are you obligated to keep all of the moral commandments in order to stay a Christian; that is, to stay saved, to stay in a state of sins being forgiven?</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Let's break this down. And this is a type of questioning that could come off as a Gish gallop, if one had any fear that Matt Slick were to interrupt. How I am glad to be answering in writing instead of, as Rick Akin, orally!
<br /><br />
<blockquote>So are you saying that if you break the commandments you lose your salvation?</blockquote>
<br /><br />
If one breaks the commandments:
<ul><li> in an important matter (which cheating on the bus isn't for VIII)
<li> with full knowledge of what one was doing (like not just gliding on a slippery slope into following situation, but knowing exactly what one was in for)
<li> and full consent (let's not go into details on the one I was thinking of, but for instance, if you are inattentive at Holy Mass because someone else destroyed your sleep, that's certainly not full consent to being inattentive at Holy Mass)</ul>
then, yes. If one died before repenting, one would be going to Hell.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>And when you repent you get it back?</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Again, yes. The not yet baptised may not have had it in the first place, so would get salvation first time over when baptised, but the ones accessing Penance after Baptism with real remorse for sins for a supernatural motive (like one's sin displeasing God or earning and risking Hell), or even before the sacrament of penance, if the motive is God-centered rather than self-centered (one is really more concerned with the offense done to God than with where one goes oneself), one gets it back and a greater state of grace than one had before.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Are you obligated to keep all of the moral commandments in order to stay a Christian;</blockquote>
<br /><br />
To stay a <i>practising</i> Christian, to stay <i>in a state of grace.</i>
<br /><br />
<blockquote>that is, to stay saved, to stay in a state of sins being forgiven?</blockquote>
<br /><br />
We deny this is the only state in which one can be a Christian. A Christian in a state of sin (that is of mortal sin, venial sins do not constitute a state, they just strengthen an already existing state of sin or weaken the state of grace), is still a Christian, and has one huge advantage over the non-Christian (or Protestant semi-Christian) in a state of sin - he knows exactly what to do to get out of the state of sin.
<br /><br />
In an oral debate, I would certainly avoid answering the above questions as put, especially if repeated while I am doing an effort to clarify, that is, before I had a chance to make my clarifying point.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>He repeatedly ignored the questions and would ask me questions instead. He kept asking me what happens to the soul when we sin</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Our Lord gave the example. He did not allow Pharisees to do all of the questioning. He sometimes instead of directly answering a question asked them a question in return. Rick Akin did right to do the same.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Well, I did not know what he meant by that.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
This ignorance seems feigned.
<br /><br />
<blockquote>So I asked for clarification. I asked what he meant by “what happens to the soul?” Was he saying there was a physical effect, a spiritual effect, an emotional effect, or a relational effect regarding God – or what?</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Physical and emotional effects would be very varying from sin to sin. The question is, very obviously, and to me they are the same question:
<br /><br />
Do you believe there is a spiritual effect when you sin?
<br />Do you believe there is a relational effect regarding God when you sin?
<br /><br />
And as Slick had given these alternatives, it was obvious he had understood the question and his demand for clarification was filibustering. An excuse to interrupt Rick Akin.
<br /><br />
It would seem that the consistent version of OSAS would require, either that sinning in a saved person has no spiritual effect, no relational effect regarding God, or that this effect is always below the level of damning one to separation from God. And this would contradict the very words of ...
<br /><br />
<ul><li> John 14 ... vines being cut off (because cut off from God means damnation)
<li> the three soils (especially what is said about the soils where the seed started to grow, the stony ground and the thistled ground, but didn't make it to harvest)</ul>
<br /><br />
and it would contradict the implication of St. Paul in Galatians 5:1. If he did not fear a Galatian could relapse under slavery of sin, he would not have had to say the verse like he did.
<br /><br />
It is very simple, OSAS security is unbiblical. As applied to <i>individual</i> believers and apart from special cases to whom God reveals they are not going to fall into a state of sin.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br />Paris
<br />St. Andrew Avellini
<br />10.X.2022
<br /><br />
<i>Neapoli, in Campania, natalis sancti Andreae Avellini, Clerici Regularis et Confessoris, sanctitate et salutis proximorum procurandae studio praecelebris, quem, miraculis clarum, Clemens Undecimus, Pontifex Maximus, Sanctorum catalogo adscripsit.</i>
<br /><br />
The page where Matt Slick referenced his debate with Rick Akin
<br /><br />
<a href="https://carm.org/roman-catholicism/matt-slick-and-richard-akins-debate-on-roman-catholicism/">CARM : Matt Slick and Richard Akins debate on Roman Catholicism
<br /><i>by Matt Slick | Jan 12, 2019 | Roman Catholicism, World Religions</i>
<br />https://carm.org/roman-catholicism/matt-slick-and-richard-akins-debate-on-roman-catholicism/</a>
<br /><br />
PS - Matt asked - <i>"Can you become a Christian without obeying the commands"</i>
<br /><br />
You can become a believer who is still in a state of sin without obeying them at all.
<br /><br />
But you cannot become justified, unless you agree to keep them henceforth, with whatever light about what that means that is available to you. Abraham was justified without previous works, but not without upcoming ones. Jacobus Latomus was right, Tyndale was wrong, on Romans 3. Once you are a Christian, and justified, you stay justified by keeping them./HGLHans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4720574086735464252.post-75641977825513276602022-11-03T12:15:00.002-07:002022-11-15T09:32:43.782-08:00From Live Stream of Chat on a Video by Sungenis<br />
Here is the video, it does not cover this question:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3hzPxKfWLs">The Catholic view of Scripture | Robert Sungenis & Sam Shamoun
<br /><i>Robert Sungenis, 22 July 2020</i>
<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B3hzPxKfWLs</a>
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>Daivon
<dd>An interpretation I heard of 2 Thes. 2:14 (2 Thes. 2:15 in other translations) was that what they received that was spoken, was the preaching of the Epistle in defense of Sola Scriptura. Thoughts?
<br /><br />
<dt>Daivon
<dd>In summary: 2 Thes. 2:14/15 is telling people to adhere to the oral teachings of the Epistle itself, not just oral teachings in general regarding the faith.</dl>
<br /><br />
First, even if 2 Thess. 2, quoted verse, is referring to oral teaching contained in written form in the Epistle, this is just a material, but not a formal coincidence with Scripture alone. That's not sufficient.
<br /><br />
Second, one cannot pretend that the whole epistle is in defense of Sola Scriptura. One would have to imagine something other than this epistle's content adding to it orally to say "sola scriptura" and that's not in scripture.
<br /><br />
Third, the hypothesis is in fact just a hypothesis. If I hypothesised on 1 Cor 4:6 that "what is written" does not refer to Scripture books at all, but to a written list of clergy, saying that <b>that one be not puffed up against the other for another,</b> refers to the general rule, one should not accept leaders, especially into controversy, and then <b>above that which is written</b> refers to a written list of clergy in Corinth, as exception, yes, we should accept clergy as leaders, even in controversy, this would be a hypothesis.
<br /><br />
I could still not claim that my hypothesis were Scripture.
<br /><br />
Note, against this one could claim that Paul and Apollo both certainly were clergy, and this would invalidate the hypothesis - except that first part actually says
<br /><br />
<b>But these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollo, for your sakes; that in us you may learn,</b>
<br /><br />
meaning according to some that St. Paul was hiding the real names. This doesn't make previous verses, with Paul and Apollo as pseudonyms rather than real names, not inerrant, since the subject of inerrancy is not each verse in isolation, but the passage, where this deviation from literal truthfulness is explained, and the verses in context of the passage.
<br /><br />
But these persons are not alone on the field. Calmet actually says the factions <i>are</i> referring to Paul and Apollo.
<br /><br />
Now, the point is, this conjecture is conjecture. Like the other one. But the ones that defend "sola scriptura" against passages that aren't saying that or that are sometimes saying the opposite, like this verse ...
<br /><br />
<b>Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.</b>
<br /><br />
... these ones are in fact incompatible with Scripture. Or with Scripture alone. Or both.
<br /><br />
If incompatible with Scripture, they are ipso facto false. If with Scripture alone, they are self contradictory, and false because of that.
<br /><br />
So, I was reading a hypothesis which is rather more common among Protestants, namely this one: yes, in St. Paul's day, there was a Church which had direct access to oral tradition from him. Then, one needed to attend to oral traditions as well. But this Church being lost, what we have left of oral tradition is just Scripture.
<br /><br />
This is:
<ul><li> first incompatible with Matthew 28:16-20, where the preservation of the Church is promised, as also in Matthew 16:18 - but in verses 16 to 20 more specifically the Church would be here all days, representing the apostles all days, and teaching all that Christ had taught them all days, with Him assisting Her all days;
<li> second, incompatible with Sola Scriptura, as it is an explanation added from outside of Scripture. Therefore itself destructive of what it is meant to defend.</ul>
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br />Paris
<br />St. Hubert of Tongres
<br />3.XI.2022
<br /><br />
<i>Eodem die sancti Huberti, Tungrensis Episcopi.</i>Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4720574086735464252.post-51416373025414343312022-10-24T08:03:00.005-07:002022-10-24T08:03:42.034-07:00Question on Epistemology<br />
From the chat feed on a video by Matt Fradd:
<br /><br />
<dl><dt>david cranford
<dd>If Roman Catholicism defines what is scripture and tradition how do you know it’s infallible interpretation is true?</dl>
<br /><br />
Roman Catholicism both does and doesn't define it.
<br /><br />
The Pope can say (and a whole council said) "II Maccabees is inspired Scripture" but the Pope doesn't define what words were in II Maccabees, they already were there.
<br /><br />
The Pope can say St. Augustine is a Church Father and the consensus of Church Fathers is binding (same council said the latter in same session). But the Pope cannot define what St. Augustine says, it is already there.
<br /><br />
It's a bit like Protestants defining 66 books as binding, tradition as just advisible, at Augsburg. The difference is that it's very unclear where Augsburg got any authority to define the Bible as 66 books or to pretend all Church Fathers could agree and still be in error. They still have some kind of test insofar as they don't write the 66 books at Augusburg, and when they go by Church Fathers which they also don't write. Except when they forge them as Wylie did, when pretending St. Ambrose had denied the Real Presence. Or when they forge translations, like when using "repetitions" in the translation of Matthew 6:7. It isn't there in the Greek, it isn't there in old translations to Latin, Syriac or Coptic, it comes from some Protestants' personal dislike for the Rosary.
<br /><br />
Protestantism also doesn't get away without collective definitions.
<br /><br />
Like if you don't define at least 66 books (out of the real 73) as inspired, you have no test to go by and can invent whatever you want.
<br /><br />
You can also do that by inventing hermeneutic principles like "a prophetic day <i>means</i> a year" in order to make Apocalypse 13:5 compatible with seeing the historic papacy as Antichrist.
<br /><br />
The two supports for that "principle" don't refer to hermeneutics, but to exchanges - a year of continued exile for each day in punishment for a sin committed those days, a day of fasting for each year of punishment, in a prophet's participation in the sufferings of his people. Either passage, it is about exchange, not about meaning. The 42 months <i>mean</i> 42 months. Not 1260 years.
<br /><br />
But the wider problem is, how do we know <i>any</i> Scripture is true?
<br /><br />
The Protestants themselves would refer to the earliest Church, we just claim to be continuing that Church and to be continuing its witness and to have the 73 books as the main consensus of the early Church. As soon as it <i>has</i> a consensus about the New Testament.
<br /><br />
And whether a book is just stamped as "true story" or stamped as "divinely true" (story or wisdom or whatever), it is so stamped by a community. The Jews don't agree Matthew is divinely true and the Moslems don't agree its story of the Crucifixion is true, any more than that of the Resurrection. Accepting Matthew as divinely true and true story means to belong to a community other than Jews or Muslims. Even in secular history or science, if you don't belong to the communities involved in a war, you depend on them for your story of the war, and if you don't belong to the scientific community and don't travel to high mountains, you depend on the scientific community for "water boils at 100° C at the air pressure normal for sea level, and at lower temperatures in air pressures that are lower and are found higher up in mountains." Even if you don't belong to the community, you depend on it (until you maybe get an occasion to see it for yourself, but I never boiled potatoes in Cuzco, and am not likely to do so).
<br /><br />
It is not a question of dictatorship for a community, it is a question of the community being a safer depository for truths than an individual mind.
<br /><br />
However, the Catholic test very much does allow the definitions purporting to come from the community to be tested.
<br /><br />
For instance, in 1994 a document was released in the Vatican, and tested by actual both Scripture and Tradition (as defined by Trentine Council) that document is not Roman Catholic.
<br /><br />
<a href="https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2022/10/john-shelby-spong-and-joseph-ratzinger.html"><i>New blog on the kid : John Shelby Spong and Joseph Ratzinger</i>
<br />https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2022/10/john-shelby-spong-and-joseph-ratzinger.html</a>
<br /><br />
At least this is the case for the section condemning Fundamentalism, the one I looked into. It sounds Catholic to say "we must respect the incarnation of Truth, the real humanity of people who had limited resources" - so, does this mean that we having less limited resources (by implication) have ceased to be human? Well, if not, why not accept the hagiographers had <i>adequate</i> resources, humanly speaking, not limited to direct prophetic visions or auditions, though including those, for knowing for instance true history? And if you accept they had adequate resources, or could have, why not accept the history of a book you purport to accept as part of the word of God?
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br />Paris
<br />St. Raphael
<br />24.X.2022Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4720574086735464252.post-7731099512988166972022-10-03T09:06:00.002-07:002022-10-03T09:06:14.558-07:00Who Has the Duty to Proselytise?<br />
According to Ray Comfort of Living Waters: <i>every</i> Christian.
<br /><br />
Here is where he said so:
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcS-Zk71x8Y">THIS Is Why I Hate Prosperity Preaching.
<br /><i>1st of Oct. 2022 | Living Waters</i>
<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcS-Zk71x8Y</a>
<br /><br />
And he used, to begin with, two arguments. 1) An analogy. 2) A Bible quote or more than one.
<br /><br />
1) <i>"If you have a rope at your feet, and there is a man drowning and you could save him, and you just stand there and do nothing ..."</i>
<br /><br />
How far out is the drowning man, how far out can I through the rope with a lifebuoy on it?
<br /><br />
If I am too weak, I hope someone comes around who's stronger and likelier to reach out?
<br /><br />
And if I didn't wait, the buoy would not actually reach him, he would still be drowning, and I would have wasted the opportunity for someone stronger than myself to save him.
<br /><br />
If he's already sunk, and I am no diver?
<br /><br />
There are indeed situations where not saving a drowning man would be held excusable.
<br /><br />
So, if the man is three yards off the bridge and I can through the buoy that far, perhaps I do throw the buoy. But if he's five yards off the bridge, I may be better off waiting for someone else to throw it. Meaning, obviously, hours when it is likely someone else may turn up reasonably soon.
<br /><br />
If there isn't, I am obliged to throw as far as I can and yell to the drowning man to do an effort of swimming to the buoy. But I am not obliged, unless well trained and not weakened, to actually swim out with the buoy.
<br /><br />
By the way, don't hire Ray Comfort as legal council, the <i>crime</i> is not called "depraved indifference" it's the name of a disposition <i>constitutive</i> (but not on its own) of a few crimes:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>In United States law, depraved-heart murder, also known as depraved-indifference murder, is a type of murder where an individual acts with a "depraved indifference" to human life and where such act results in a death, despite that individual not explicitly intending to kill. [...]
<br /><br />
If no death results, such an act would generally constitute reckless endangerment (sometimes known as "culpable negligence") and possibly other crimes, such as assault.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
<i>"If you see someone getting into a car, and it has no breaks and you know that ..."</i>
<br /><br />
What if the person entering the car entered and started the car too quickly for you to warn him? What if you thought he was getting a key from it and didn't know he intended to go for a ride in it?
<br /><br />
Are you obliged to stand by the car and warn everyone?
<br /><br />
2) <b>Whom we preach, admonishing every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus.</b>
<br />[Colossians 1:28]
<br /><br />
"We" refers to St. Paul and those who were his fellows in the ministry. And their successors, clergy. Not each and every Christian.
<br /><br />
<b>If, when I say to the wicked, Thou shalt surely die: thou declare it not to him, nor speak to him, that he may be converted from his wicked way, and live: the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at thy hand.</b>
<br />[Ezechiel 3:18]
<br /><br />
Ezechiel was a prophet and this was the rule for prophets. Not each and every Christian is a prophet and those being prophets about the Biblical content of warning are the clergy.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br />Paris
<br />St. Therese of Child Jesus
<br />3.X.2022Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4720574086735464252.post-54253205168678623112022-09-02T03:38:00.003-07:002022-09-02T03:40:56.613-07:00What About the Scroll of the Law that was Mislaid?<br />
<b>somewhere else:</b> <a href="https://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com/2022/09/did-helcias-and-saphan-invent-torah.html">Did Helcias and Saphan Invent the Torah?</a> · <b>Great Bishop of Geneva!:</b> <a href="https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2022/09/what-about-scroll-of-law-that-was.html">What About the Scroll of the Law that was Mislaid?</a>
<br /><br />
I have more than once mentioned that Matthew 28:16-20 does not allow for the Church universal to lose an essential truth and therefore need a reformation.
<br /><br />
But what about the "Reformation of Josias" - wasn't there an Old Testament precedent?
<br /><br />
<b>[4] And the king commanded Helcias the high priest, and the priests of the second order, and the doorkeepers, to cast out of the temple of the Lord all the vessels that had been made for Baal, and for the grove, and for all the host of heaven: and he burnt them without Jerusalem in the valley of Cedron, and he carried the ashes of them to Bethel. [5] And he destroyed the soothsayers, whom the kings of Juda had appointed to sacrifice in the high places in the cities of Juda, and round about Jerusalem: them also that burnt incense to Baal, and to the sun, and to the moon, and to the twelve signs, and to all the host of heaven. [6] And he caused the grove to be carried out from the house of the Lord without Jerusalem to the valley of Cedron, and he burnt it there, and reduced it to dust, and cast the dust upon the graves of the common people. [7] He destroyed also the pavilions of the effeminate, which were in the house of the Lord, for which the women wove as it were little dwellings for the grove. [8] And he gathered together all the priests out of the cities of Juda: and he defiled the high places, where the priests offered sacrifice, from Gabaa to Bersabee: and he broke down the altars of the gates that were in the entering in of the gate of Josue governor of the city, which was on the left hand of the gate of the city. [9] However the priests of the high places came not up to the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem: but only ate of the unleavened bread among their brethren. [10] And he defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Ennom: that no man should consecrate there his son or his daughter through fire to Moloch.</b>
<br /><br />
This is from IV Kings 23:rd chapter.
<br /><br />
But we do know that these ills had not been universal.
<br /><br />
There had always been a remnant, and while it had to hide, it is documented. The worst time was when Athalia was usurping, and this involved Joas and the then High Priest hiding.
<br /><br />
<b>[1] And Athalia the mother of Ochozias seeing that her son was dead, arose, and slew all the royal seed. [2] But Josaba the daughter of king Joram, sister of Ochozias, took Joas the son of Ochozias, and stole him from among the king's sons that were slain, out of the bedchamber with his nurse: and hid him from the face of Athalia, so that he was not slain. [3] And he was with her six years hid in the house of the Lord. And Athalia reigned over the land. [4] And in the seventh year Joiada sent, and taking the centurions and the soldiers, brought them in to him into the temple of the Lord, and made a covenant with them: and taking an oath of them in the house of the Lord, shewed them the king's son: [5] And he commanded them, saying: This is the thing that you must do:</b>
<br /><br />
IV Kings chapter 11.
<br /><br />
And it seems, she only reigned for six years.
<br /><br />
Reign, c. 841 – 835 BCE
<br />Predecessor, Ahaziah, her son
<br />Successor, Joash, her grandson
<br /><br />
<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athaliah">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athaliah</a>
<br /><br />
It is not conceivable that the Deuteronomy scroll had been neglected all the time since King Solomon, even if it was disobeyed.
<br /><br />
And it was mainly disobeyed by misdirected tolerance against the false cults, which involved consecrating sons or daughters to Moloch through fire.
<br /><br />
Hence, no, one cannot parallel the forgotten Deuteronomy scroll with a supposed "forgetting of the Gospel" during the Middle Ages and that one ending with Luther or Zwingli or someone taking the role of Helcias and Saphan.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br />Paris
<br />St. Stephen of Hungary
<br />2.IX.2022Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4720574086735464252.post-72960216291186145392022-05-09T15:01:00.005-07:002022-05-09T15:04:24.900-07:00Do Catholics Believe Penal Substitution?<br />
<b>Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere:</b> <a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-crusader-pub-correcting-ray-comfort.html">The Crusader Pub Correcting Ray Comfort</a> · <b>Great Bishop of Geneva!:</b> <a href="https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2022/05/do-catholics-believe-penal-substitution.html">Do Catholics Believe Penal Substitution?</a>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4047.htm#article3"><i>Tertia Pars, Q 47, A 3, Whether God the Father delivered up Christ to the Passion?</i>
<br />https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4047.htm#article3</a>
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Objection 1. It would seem that God the Father did not deliver up Christ to the Passion. For it is a wicked and cruel act to hand over an innocent man to torment and death. But, as it is written (Deuteronomy 32:4): "God is faithful, and without any iniquity." Therefore He did not hand over the innocent Christ to His Passion and death.
<br /><br />
...
<br /><br />
Reply to Objection 1. It is indeed a wicked and cruel act to hand over an innocent man to torment and to death against his will. Yet God the Father did not so deliver up Christ, but inspired Him with the will to suffer for us. God's "severity" (cf. Romans 11:22) is thereby shown, for He would not remit sin without penalty: and the Apostle indicates this when (Romans 8:32) he says: "God spared not even His own Son." Likewise His "goodness" (Romans 11:22) shines forth, since by no penalty endured could man pay Him enough satisfaction: and the Apostle denotes this when he says: "He delivered Him up for us all": and, again (Romans 3:25): "Whom"—that is to say, Christ—God "hath proposed to be a propitiation through faith in His blood."</blockquote>
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4049.htm#article3"><i>Tertia Pars, Q 49, A 3, Whether men were freed from the punishment of sin through Christ's Passion?</i>
<br />https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4049.htm#article3</a>
<br /><br />
<blockquote>I answer that, Through Christ's Passion we have been delivered from the debt of punishment in two ways. First of all, directly—namely, inasmuch as Christ's Passion was sufficient and superabundant satisfaction for the sins of the whole human race: but when sufficient satisfaction has been paid, then the debt of punishment is abolished. In another way—indirectly, that is to say—in so far as Christ's Passion is the cause of the forgiveness of sin, upon which the debt of punishment rests.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
The Crusader Pub said, a murderer who has received death penalty, no one can die for him, he can be graced to life sentence, and even get parole after 25 years ... unlike the fine, no one else can pay ... I am not sure he is as Catholic as St. Thomas Aquinas. Above, second link, features this:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Objection 3. Further, death is a punishment of sin, according to Romans 6:23: "The wages of sin is death." But men still die after Christ's Passion. Therefore it seems that we have not been delivered from the debt of punishment.
<br /><br />
...
<br /><br />
Reply to Objection 3. Christ's satisfaction works its effect in us inasmuch as we are incorporated with Him, as the members with their head, as stated above (Article 1). Now the members must be conformed to their head. Consequently, as Christ first had grace in His soul with bodily passibility, and through the Passion attained to the glory of immortality, so we likewise, who are His members, are freed by His Passion from all debt of punishment, yet so that we first receive in our souls "the spirit of adoption of sons," whereby our names are written down for the inheritance of immortal glory, while we yet have a passible and mortal body: but afterwards, "being made conformable" to the sufferings and death of Christ, we are brought into immortal glory, according to the saying of the Apostle (Romans 8:17): "And if sons, heirs also: heirs indeed of God, and joint heirs with Christ; yet so if we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified with Him."</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Note, the idea that a murderer sentenced to death cannot get freed by another taking his place is not on the radar even of St. Thomas' objections. The one objection is, we still die. And the answer is, He didn't buy non-death, but resurrection to glory, for us./HGLHans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4720574086735464252.post-21347735084367025842022-05-02T09:45:00.004-07:002022-05-02T09:48:35.009-07:00Answering the Allegations of Erica Orchard on Twenty Catholic Heresies<br />
<b>Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere:</b> <a href="https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2022/04/erica-orchard-considered-catholicism-as.html">Erica Orchard Considered Catholicism as Having Heresies</a> · <b>Great Bishop of Geneva!:</b> <a href="https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2022/05/answering-allegations-of-erica-orchard.html">Answering the Allegations of Erica Orchard on Twenty Catholic Heresies</a>
<br /><br />
<b>First, the list is here:</b>
<br /><br />
1. Justification by faith PLUS WORKS
<br />2. The selling of indulgences to get time off purgatory
<br />3. Purgatory
<br />4. The veneration of Mary
<br />5. The immaculate conception of Mary
<br />6. The assumption of Mary
<br />7. Praying to Mary
<br />8. The veneration of the saints
<br />9. Praying to the saints
<br />10. The Pope is the head of the church
<br />11. The Pope is infallible
<br />12. The Pontifical Magisterium has as much authority as the Word of God
<br />13. Only the RC church has the authority to interpret the Bible
<br />14. Tradition has as much authority as the Word of God
<br />15. That there is no imputed righteousness of Christ to us at the moment of salvation
<br />16. That the Catholic Church is the only true church worldwide
<br />17 The bread embodies Jesus and can therefore be prayed to
<br />18. Doing penance to gain forgiveness
<br />19. Celibacy of the priesthood
<br />20. Holy water
<br /><br />
<b>Second, lets get into the matter,</b>
<br />and as 16 belongs to the series 10 to 13, I'm putting it before 10:
<br /><br />
1. <i>"Justification by faith PLUS WORKS"</i> is an imprecise statement. We do believe the initial justification is a work of God's grace, with no own works of one's own meriting it. We do not believe God is indifferent to our previous works, as when He appeared crucified between the antlers of a deer to one not yet baptised Eusthathius, who had been giving money to the poor, and to whom He said "your alms have pleased me" or "your works have pleased me".
<br /><br />
One can take this two ways, either he was justified (in some strange fashion) before he was a Christian, but not without becoming one : had he refused, he would not have remained justified. The actions of alms pleasing God meant that they were works proceeding from sanctifying grace. Or else, his works did not yet proceed from sanctifying grace, but were a motive (though not an obligation) for God's chosing to offer him grace. Only works that proceed from grace are, by God's promise, an obligation on Him for eternal reward. But the alms of Eustace (the way we usually pronounce Eusthatius in English) were not yet from grace before that day, and were not an obligation on God - they were however to God's taste.
<br /><br />
Is there an example in the Bible?
<br /><br />
<b>And behold they brought to him one sick of the palsy lying in a bed. And Jesus, seeing their faith, said to the man sick of the palsy: Be of good heart, son, thy sins are forgiven thee.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=9&l=2#x">Matthew 9:2</a>]
<br /><br />
Jesus did not forgive him for <i>his</i> faith, but for the faith of those carrying him. From his part, the disposition of trusting his friends (already believing and acting from faith) was such an appeal without obligation but with good taste for God's mercy.
<br /><br />
When it comes to another person, at least C. S. Lewis would have denied this, but perhaps with no good reason.
<br /><br />
<b>Wherefore I say to thee: Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much. But to whom less is forgiven, he loveth less.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=7&l=47#x">Luke 7:47</a>]
<br /><br />
I first of all agree with C. S. Lewis : sexual sins were not forgiven because she was very much in love when doing them. It is about the love she is now showing Our Lord.
<br /><br />
Now, here is the point, C. S. Lewis tells us not to suppose that her love for Him is a cause why He forgave her, it is a symptom of how much she was already forgiven. The "because" is (he says) a "because" of proof, not of causation, like in motivating God to proceed to the forgiveness. But this would mean she was already forgiven before anointing. Now, certainly, at the very least, God inspired her to anoint His feet because He intended to forgive her by the time He said these words, but to her, it would have seemed, she did not know she was forgiven, now she's told she is, this means she at least earned security of her forgiveness from this anointing. Here is what bishop Witham (an English bishop residing in Douay or Rheims and sending priests to potential martyrdom in England, under the penal laws) has to say:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>Ver. 47. <i>Many sins are forgiven her, because she hath loved much.</i> In the Scripture, an effect sometimes seems attributed to one only cause, when there are divers other concurring dispositions; the sins of this woman, in this verse, are said to be forgiven, <i>because she loved much;</i> but (v. 50,) Christ tells her, <i>thy faith hath saved thee.</i> In a true conversion are joined faith, hope, love, sorrow, and other pious dispositions. Wi.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
From the Haydock comment on Luke 7. The Church authority of Bishop Witham primes the personal talent of C. S. Lewis.
<br /><br />
One of Luther's heresies was saying all sinners are equally constituted in total filth and not only cannot gain God's forgiveness (as per obligation of promise) but cannot even dispose themselves to receive grace. The example of St. Mary Magdalene is a clear rebuttal. Here is also the answer of the Council of Trent:
<br /><br />
<blockquote><b>Chap. 5. On the Necessity of Preparation for Justification of Adults, and Whence it Proceeds</b>
<br /><br />
797 It [the Synod] furthermore declares that in adults the beginning of that justification must be derived from the predisposing grace [can. 3] of God through Jesus Christ, that is, from his vocation, whereby without any existing merits on their part they are called, so that they who by sin were turned away from God, through His stimulating and assisting grace are disposed to convert themselves to their own justification, by freely assenting to and cooperating with the same grace [can. 4 and 5], in such wise that, while God touches the heart of man through the illumination of the Holy Spirit, man himself receiving that inspiration does not do nothing at all inasmuch as he can indeed reject it, nor on the other hand can he [can. 3] of his own free will without the grace of God move himself to justice before Him. Hence, when it is said in the Sacred Writings: “Turn ye to me, and I will turn to you” [Zach. 1:3], we are reminded of our liberty; when we reply: “Convert us, O Lord, to thee, and we shall be converted” [Lam. 5:21], we confess that we are anticipated by the grace of God.
<br /><br />
<b>Chap. 6. The Manner of Preparation</b>
<br /><br />
798 Now they are disposed to that justice [can. 7 and 9] when, aroused and assisted by divine grace, receiving faith “by hearing” [Rom. 10:17], they are freely moved toward God, believing that to be true which has been divinely revealed and promised [can. 12 and 14], and this especially, that the sinner is justified by God through his grace, “through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” [Rom. 3:24], and when knowing that they are sinners, turning themselves away from the fear of divine justice, by which they are profitably aroused [can. 8], to a consideration of the mercy of God, they are raised to hope, trusting that God will be merciful to them for the sake of Christ, and they begin to love him as the source of all justice and are therefore moved against sins by a certain hatred and detestation [can. 9], that is, by that repentance, which must be performed before baptism [Acts 2:38]; and finally when they resolve to receive baptism, to begin a new life and to keep the commandments of God. Concerning this disposition it is written: “He that cometh to God must believe, that he is and is a rewarder to them that seek him” [Heb. 11:6], and, “Be of good faith, son, thy sins are forgiven thee” [Matt. 9:2; Mark 2:5], and, “The fear of the Lord driveth out sin” [Sirach. 1:27], and, “Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the Holy Spirit” [Acts 2:38], and, “Going therefore teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” [Matt. 28:19], and finally, “Prepare your hearts unto the Lord” [1 Samuel 7:3].</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Read more on justification at: <a href="https://sensusfidelium.com/the-sources-of-catholic-dogma-the-denzinger/council-of-trent-1545-1563-decree-on-justification/"><i>Denzinger: Trent session VI</i>
<br />https://sensusfidelium.com/the-sources-of-catholic-dogma-the-denzinger/council-of-trent-1545-1563-decree-on-justification/</a>
<br /><br />
It says adults coming to justification need to prepare for grace - because infants can be taken straight to baptism. Now, you cannot be baptised without believing, but faith is infused (not just imputed but infused) into the infant at baptism, and since baptism takes away sin (in the infant's case original sin) the sins are forgiven because of the others around the infant who already have faith (if none at a baptism made in a very modernist setting, at least the Church), as was the case with the friends of the man with palsy.
<br /><br />
2. <i>"The selling of indulgences to get time off purgatory"</i> is a misstatement, starting as Luther's polemics, like his shouting "look what you really believe" (he did some shouting, Chesterton compared him to Hitler, and his successor in Saxony, the Lutherisch-Evangelisch Landesbischoff of Saxony, was a National Socialist - he has appeared on one picutre with raised hand in Hitler salute and Cornwell or some of his fans have pretended to show Catholic clergy in Hitler salute, because they did not know how Lutheran clergy dress - so, Luther was not taking a Catholic statement (on other than purely jocular level, in a conversation with Tetzel, perhaps) and shouting "this is heresy" he was raising a straw man.
<br /><br />
Indulgences are not bought or sold. They weren't even in Luther's time. There is a price tag on different types of indulgences, plenary or partial, all prior sins or the equivalent of 40 days penance, one can cost a pilgrimage to Saint James or a rosary in Church, with confession and communion, another can cost an Our Father, according to the usual price. But the price is a price paid to God, in good works, not a price paid to the Church.
<br /><br />
3. Purgatory is <i>Biblically proven</i> by, for one thing, examples of indulgenced works.
<br /><br />
Can prayers and especially the sacrifice of the Mass earn time off from purgatory? In the Old Testament, the sacrifice of Christ was prefigured in the sacrifices of the Temple.
<br /><br />
<b>It is therefore a holy and wholesome thought to pray for the dead, that they may be loosed from sins.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=46&ch=12&l=46#x">2 Machabees 12:46</a>]
<br /><br />
Some have stated, among them Luther, Maccabees are not canon books, you can't prove doctrine from them. In this case, even if he had been right, we can. This happened before Christ. The Jewish custom of praying for the dead did not start in the time of Rabbi Akiba as Calvin somewhere claimed. At the very least, the concept was known. This was by the time Christ came certainly part of the traditions of the elders and a very important one - if Christ had been against it, He would have needed to make a point directly at it, not just the words against "statutes of the elders" - therefore we need to presume He was for it and so should we be.
<br /><br />
Again, offering a good meal as alms to someone who shall pray for your dead one:
<br /><br />
<b>Lay out thy bread, and thy wine upon the burial of a just man, and do not eat and drink thereof with the wicked.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=17&ch=4&l=18#x">Tobias (Tobit) 4:18</a>]
<br /><br />
The Orthodox to this day have this sense of the meal called "agape" and I think this is also so for the uniates : the meal is an incitement to pray for the person in whose memory it is made. One avoids inviting people known to be wicked, since their prayer would be worthless. This means that not just prayers, but also alms, are works that can be used (by a person already justified!) to earn repose for someone in purgatory. This is important since the type of indulgence on which Luther started his dispute was an indulgenced act of alms, you could earn an infulgence for fighting in a Crusade, for giving alms to Crusaders, or, as in this case, for giving alms to the building of a Church (in this case the one in Rome that is known as St. Peter's Basilica). The verses about alms in the previous also confirm what I said about St. Eusthatius getting the offer of justification after giving alms that had pleased God.
<br /><br />
<b>For alms deliver from all sin, and from death, and will not suffer the soul to go into darkness.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=17&ch=4&l=11#x">Tobias (Tobit) 4:11</a>]
<br /><br />
And, since walking on a pilgrimage is a kind of fast, we must conclude that not just prayers and alms, but also fasts (including pilgrimages) are a kind of work that can be used for earning indulgence from purgatory. Since the Church does indulgence pilgrimages. As we know from the Bible, fasts can be used for other requests from God, and my own pilgrimage was for another request, back in 2004.
<br /><br />
But Purgatory is <i>also</i> Biblically proven, <i>for another thing,</i> by direct words:
<br /><br />
<b>If any man's work burn, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=53&ch=3&l=15#x">1 Corinthians 3:15</a>]
<br /><br />
Some Orthodox, notably Mark of Ephesus have said, "saved" means "saved up in existence, not annihiliated" while "suffer loss" refers to damnation.
<br /><br />
Against this, consider, the context is the Church, those who are in it, those who build on the foundation that is Christ.
<br /><br />
<b>For we are God's coadjutors: you are God's husbandry; you are God's building.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=53&ch=3&l=9#x">1 Corinthians 3:9</a>]
<br /><br />
The damned do not remain in God's building. The diversity of the eternal rewards is also given in this chapter, right in the previous verse:
<br /><br />
<b>Now he that planteth, and he that watereth, are one. And every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labour.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=53&ch=3&l=8#x">1 Corinthians 3:8</a>]
<br /><br />
Again, there is some question on whether it is purgatory or hell here:
<br /><br />
<b>And his lord being angry, delivered him to the torturers until he paid all the debt.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=18&l=34#x">Matthew 18:34</a>]
<br /><br />
The interpretation on it being hell and not purgatory exists:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>REMIGIUS. For God is said then to be wroth, when he takes vengeance on sinners. Torturers are intended for the dæmons, who are always ready to take up lost souls, and torture them in the pangs of eternal punishment. Will any who is once sunk into everlasting condemnation ever come to find season of repentance, and a way to escape? Never; that until is put for infinity; and the meaning is, He shall be ever paying, and shall never quit the debt, but shall be ever under punishment,
<br /><br />
CHRYSOSTOM. By this is shewn that his punishment shall be increasing and eternal, and that he shall never pay. And however irrevocable are the graces and callings of God, yet wickedness has that force, that it seems to break even this law.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
But "until" seems to imply the debt can be paid. And on this exact spot, while my Greek is rusty, since mostly unpractised since 1993, here is what I can do, from Nestle 1904:
<br /><br />
<b>ἕως οὗ ἀποδῷ πᾶν τὸ ὀφειλόμενον αὐτῷ.</b>
<br /><br />
One interpretation
<br /><br />
ἕως until, followed by subjunctive
<br />(οὗ relative pronoun in genitive, don't know why)
<br />ἀποδῷ pay, the subjunctive after ἕως, apodô(i) = apodoê(i) in the grammatical theory
<br />ἕως until, followed by indicative
<br />...
<br />ἀποδῷ pay, the indicative after ἕως, apodô(i) = apodôei in the grammatical theory
<br />πᾶν τὸ ὀφειλόμενον αὐτῷ all that he owed him - unproblematic
<br /><br />
Here is from <a href="https://www.biblehub.com/greek/2193.htm">Strong, 2193. heós:
<br />https://www.biblehub.com/greek/2193.htm</a>
<br /><br />
b. with the genitive of the neuter relative pronoun οὗ or ὅτου it gets the force of a conjunction, until, till (the time when);
<br />α. ἕως οὗ (first in Herodotus 2, 143; but after that only in later authors, as Plutarch, et al. (Winers Grammar, 296 (278) note; Buttmann, 230f (199))): followed by the indicative, Matthew 1:25 (WH brackets οὗ); ; Luke 13:21; Acts 21:26 (see Buttmann); followed by the subjunctive aorist, equivalent to Latin future perfect, Matthew 14:22; Matthew 26:36 (where WH brackets οὗ and Lachmann has ἕως οὗ ἄν); Luke 12:50 (Rec.; Luke 15:8 Tr WH); Luke 24:49; Acts 25:21; 2 Peter 1:19; after a negative sentence, Matthew 17:9; Luke 12:59 (R G L; Luke 22:18 Tr WH); John 13:38; Acts 23:12, 14, 21.
<br /><br />
Ah, we do find ἕως οὗ with indivative and also with the subjunctive aorist - ἀποδῷ is an aorist, since the present would be not apodôi but apodidôi or even apodídoi. In this case, it is equivalent to Latin future perfect. This should be "quoadusque reddiderit" but in St. Jerome's day this phrase was too learned, in a popular Latin he wrote this translation:
<br /><br />
<b>Et iratus dominus ejus tradidit eum tortoribus, quoadusque redderet universum debitum.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=lvb&bk=47&ch=18&l=34#x">Matthew 18:34</a>]
<br /><br />
<a href="https://www.dicolatin.com/Latin/Lemme/0/QUOADUSQUE/index.html">QUOADUSQUE (conjonction de temps + subjonctif)
<br />4 siècle après J.C. LACTANTIUS (Lactance)
<br />jusqu'au moment où prép. : jusqu'à ce que (nuance d'intention) voir jusque
<br />https://www.dicolatin.com/Latin/Lemme/0/QUOADUSQUE/index.html</a>
<br /><br />
By "nuance d'intention" one can actually come to it being an intention never realised. However, if God intended the debt to be paid, paid it would be. However, there is another passage where purgatory is distinct from Hell.
<br /><br />
Wait ... we have ἕως οὗ in Matthew 1:25 as well. Since the overall is a negated clause, "not x until y" it doesn't matter what the exact nuance of "until" is, since the overall context is not an affirmative one. On the other hand, there is not any negation in <b>tradidit eum tortoribus,</b> hence, yes, we can take this as ἕως οὗ = until actually.
<br /><br />
Debtors' prisons <i>are</i> made to come out from. I would say. But yes, it could be Hell, not purgatory.
<br /><br />
Here is by contrast a passage speaking directly of Hell, but indirectly actually of purgatory:
<br /><br />
<b>And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but he that shall speak against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=12&l=32#x">Matthew 12:32</a>]
<br /><br />
This implies, as bishop Challoner wrote in his revision of the Douay Bible, some other sins are forgiven "in the world to come" that is in the afterlife:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>[32] "Nor in the world to come": From these words St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, lib. 21, c. 13) and St. Gregory (Dialog., 4, c. 39) gather, that some sins may be remitted in the world to come; and, consequently, that there is a purgatory or a middle place.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
4. The veneration of Mary ...
<br /><br />
St. Elisabeth venerated her, as King David venerated the Ark of the Covenant.
<br /><br />
<b>And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=1&l=43#x">Luke 1:43</a>]
<br /><br />
<b>And David was afraid of the Lord that day, saying: How shall the ark of the Lord come to me?</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=10&ch=6&l=9#x">2 Kings (2 Samuel) 6:9</a>]
<br /><br />
5. The immaculate conception of Mary requires a bit of a detour, but we will get there.
<br /><br />
<b><i>Blessed among women</i> be Jahel the wife of Haber the Cinite, and blessed be she in her tent.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=7&ch=5&l=24#x">Judges 5:24</a>]
<br /><br />
She had slain, utterly defeated, an enemy of Israel. Namely Sisera.
<br /><br />
<b>And Ozias the prince of the people of Israel, said to her: <i>Blessed art thou,</i> O daughter, by the Lord the most high God, <i>above all women upon the earth.</i></b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=18&ch=13&l=23#x">Judith 13:23</a>]
<br /><br />
She had slain, utterly defeated, an enemy of Israel. Namely Holophernes.
<br /><br />
Now look at this:
<br /><br />
<b>And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: <i>blessed art thou among women.</i></b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=1&l=28#x">Luke 1:28</a>]
<br /><br />
She had slain, utterly defeated, an enemy of Israel. Namely ... <i>whom?</i> She had cut off no human head nor put any hammered wedge into any ...
<br /><br />
Whom had Mary slain? She was not very sure Herself:
<br /><br />
<b>Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=1&l=29#x">Luke 1:29</a>]
<br /><br />
Does this give any clue? Here:
<br /><br />
<b>And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, <i>and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.</i></b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=1&l=42#x">Luke 1:42</a>]
<br /><br />
It seems it did so to the Blessed Virgin:
<br /><br />
<b>And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=1&l=46#x">Luke 1:46</a>]
<br /><br />
Why wasn't She troubled this time? What had changed? Did She get any clue about what enemy of Israel? Yes! This would be what She recalled:
<br /><br />
<b>I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=1&ch=3&l=15#x">Genesis 3:15</a>]
<br /><br />
It was a serpent she had killed! Now, it was not a physical serpent (except on rare occasions), but one who took the form or abused the witlessness of one. It was Satan. How does one slay Satan? Or, since angelic beings are immortal, utterly defeat him?
<br /><br />
<b>He that committeth sin is of the devil: for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose, the Son of God appeared, that he might destroy the works of the devil.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=69&ch=3&l=8#x">1 John 3:8</a>]
<br /><br />
But recall the greeting of the angel? His Blessed Mother had begun to do so <i>before</i> He was inside Her womb. This is a very strong indication of Her sinlessness. Take another look at Genesis 3:15
<br /><br />
<b>I will put enmities between thee and the woman,</b>
<br /><br />
Enmities in the plural means complete enmity. How is one completely the enemy of Satan?
<br /><br />
<b>He that committeth sin is of the devil:</b>
<br /><br />
By <i>complete</i> sinlessness. And how could one be more completely sinless than by not even inheriting the sin of Adam, unlike Her ancestor King David?
<br /><br />
6. The assumption of Mary is either true or false. If it is true, it is not a heresy, and if it is false, it is an apocryphal story but still no heresy. There is no Biblical dogma only Christ went up to Heaven. Ever. Sooner or later, it applies to others in diverse manners:
<br /><br />
<b>And it came to pass, when the Lord would take up Elias into heaven by a whirlwind, that Elias and Eliseus were going from Galgal.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=12&ch=2&l=1#x">4 Kings (2 Kings) 2:1</a>]
<br /><br />
<b>Then we who are alive, who are left, shall be taken up together with them in the clouds to meet Christ, into the air, and so shall we be always with the Lord.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=59&ch=4&l=16#x">1 Thessalonians 4:16</a>]
<br /><br />
7. Praying to Mary means asking the Queen mother to ask Her Son the King for something.
<br /><br />
[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=11&ch=2&l=17#x">3 Kings (1 Kings) 2:17</a>] <b>And he said: I pray thee speak to king Solomon (for he cannot deny thee any thing) to give me Abisag the Sunamitess to wife. [18] And Bethsabee said: Well, I will speak for thee to the king. [19] Then Bethsabee came to king Solomon, to speak to him for Adonias: and the king arose to meet her, and bowed to her, and sat down upon his throne: and a throne was set for the king's mother, and she sat on his right hand. [20] And she said to him: I desire one small petition of thee, do not put me to confusion. And the king said to her: My mother, ask: for I must not turn away thy face.</b>
<br /><br />
Unlike King Solomon, Our Lord would not turn His Mother down. Those who say otherwise in reference to
<br /><br />
<b>But he answering him that told him, said: Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=12&l=48#x">Matthew 12:48</a>]
<br /><br />
should look at the previous verse - it was not She who had spoken. She did speak at Cana:
<br /><br />
<b>And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=2&l=3#x">John 2:3</a>]
<br /><br />
While the next words of Our Lord might look like turning down, in the end He did not do so. And incidentally He called Her "woman" a title referring to Genesis 3:15.
<br /><br />
8. The veneration of the saints ...
<br /><br />
Is there any argument against it? Both human and angelic saints have said no thanks on occasion:
<br /><br />
<a href="http://drbo.org/chapter/51014.htm">Acts 14:</a><b>[10] And when the multitudes had seen what Paul had done, they lifted up their voice in the Lycaonian tongue, saying: The gods are come down to us in the likeness of men; [11] And they called Barnabas, Jupiter: but Paul, Mercury; because he was chief speaker. [12] The priest also of Jupiter that was before the city, bringing oxen and garlands before the gate, would have offered sacrifice with the people. [13] Which, when the apostles Barnabas and Paul had heard, rending their clothes, they leaped out among the people, crying, [14] And saying: Ye men, why do ye these things? We also are mortals, men like unto you, preaching to you to be converted from these vain things, to the living God, who made the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them:</b>
<br /><br />
Twice over for angels:
<br /><br />
<b>And I fell down before his feet, to adore him. And he saith to me: See thou do it not: I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren, who have the testimony of Jesus. Adore God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=73&ch=19&l=10#x">Apocalypse (Revelation) 19:10</a>]
<br /><br />
<b>And he said to me: See thou do it not: for I am thy fellow servant, and of thy brethren the prophets, and of them that keep the words of the prophecy of this book. Adore God.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=73&ch=22&l=9#x">Apocalypse (Revelation) 22:9</a>]
<br /><br />
As to the former, see here:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>[10] "I fell down before": St. Augustine (lib. 20, contra Faust, c. 21) is of opinion, that this angel appeared in so glorious a manner, that St. John took him to be God; and therefore would have given him divine honour had not the angel stopped him, by telling him he was but his fellow servant. St. Gregory (Hom. 8, in Evang.) rather thinks that the veneration offered by St. John, was not divine honour, or indeed any other than what might lawfully be given; but was nevertheless refused by the angel, in consideration of the dignity to which our human nature had been raised, by the incarnation of the Son of God, and the dignity of St. John, an apostle, prophet, and martyr.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
He had survived his martyrdom, before being exiled to Patmos. However, the latter seems to indicate St. Augustine was more spot on.
<br /><br />
Now, there are counterexamples:
<br /><br />
<b>[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=11&ch=18&l=7#x">3 Kings (1 Kings) 18:7</a>] And as Abdias was in the way, Elias met him: and he knew him, and fell on his face, and said: Art thou my lord Elias? [8] And he answered: I am. Go, and tell thy master: Elias is here.</b>
<br /><br />
No rebuke from Elias.
<br /><br />
<b>Then king Nabuchodonosor fell on his face, and worshipped Daniel, and commanded that they should offer in sacrifice to him victims and incense.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=32&ch=2&l=46#x">Daniel 2:46</a>]
<br /><br />
No rebuke from Daniel.
<br /><br />
9. Praying to the saints ...
<br /><br />
Technically praying to a saint is asking the saint to pray for one. Can this be done when the saint is alive on earth? Yes, no one disputes that. At least not normal Protestants.
<br /><br />
Can a saint pray for someone when he has already died? Otherwise it would be pointless:
<br /><br />
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=73&ch=6&l=9#x">Apocalypse (Revelation) 6:9</a>] <b>And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held." [10] And they cried with a loud voice, saying: How long, O Lord (holy and true) dost thou not judge and revenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?</b>
<br /><br />
Note, all of the Apocalypse is not exclusively about the end times. I gave this example as an argument on this question, and was asked <i>"do you think the Apocalypse is already happening"</i> and the questioner was arguably asking whether the "last times" had already come. Back then I would have surmised no, by now I would cautiously guess, yes, after all. But these two verses are not about the end times persecutions and judgements - except insofar as all from AD 33 is in a sense end times. Here is Challoner on these two verses:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>[9] "Under the altar": Christ, as man, is this altar, under which the souls of the martyrs live in heaven, as their bodies are here deposited under our altars.
<br /><br />
[10] "Revenge our blood": They ask not this out of hatred to their enemies, but out of zeal for the glory of God, and a desire that the Lord would accelerate the general judgment, and the complete beatitude of all his elect.</blockquote>
<br /><br />
It can't be denied they already died, and it can also hardly be to the point for them to pray this if God is anyway not going to hear them. Therefore, yes, they are able to pray.
<br /><br />
But can one ask for their prayers? A rich man did:
<br /><br />
[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=16&l=22#x">Luke 16:22</a>] <b>And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell." ... [24] And he cried, and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame.</b>
<br /><br />
Now, obviously, Abraham had already died two thousand years earlier, nearly. But, answer the Protestants, Abraham refused the request, and a gulf is invoked as reason:
<br /><br />
[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=16&l=25#x">Luke 16:25</a>] <b>And Abraham said to him: Son, remember that thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime, and likewise Lazarus evil things, but now he is comforted; and thou art tormented. And besides all this, between us and you, there is fixed a great chaos: so that they who would pass from hence to you, cannot, nor from thence come hither.</b>
<br /><br />
Please note, the chaos, chasm or gulf is between two dead on the good side, Abraham and Lazarus, on the one hand, and one dead on the bad side, the Rich man. Abraham does not answer there is a gulf between him and the living ones, so they cannot speak to him. Let's see how this continues, when help for the living is asked for:
<br /><br />
[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=16&l=27#x">Luke 16:27</a>] <b>And he said: Then, father, I beseech thee, that thou wouldst send him to my father's house, for I have five brethren, [28] That he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments. [29] And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. [30] But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance. [31] And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead.</b>
<br /><br />
No more mention of a gulf or chasm.
<br /><br />
But wasn't there a ban in the Old Testament?
<br /><br />
[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=5&ch=18&l=10#x">Deuteronomy 18:10</a>] <b>Neither let there be found among you any one that shall expiate his son or daughter, making them to pass through the fire: or that consulteth soothsayers, or observeth dreams and omens, neither let there be any wizard, [11] Nor charmer, nor any one that consulteth pythonic spirits, or fortune tellers, or that seeketh the truth from the dead. [12] For the Lord abhorreth all these things, and for these abominations he will destroy them at thy coming.</b>
<br /><br />
Well, asking a dead person to pray for one doesn't seem enumerated here. So no, there is also no direct ban on this practise, related to Apocalypse 6, to the 5th seal martyrs which we take to be all martyrs from Stephen, yeah even from the children of Bethlehem, and already up in heaven under God's altar. But is there encouragement for it? Indirectly yes.
<br /><br />
<b>And some that were burying a man, saw the rovers, and cast the body into the sepulchre of Eliseus. And when it had touched the bones of Eliseus, the man came to life, and stood upon his feet.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=12&ch=13&l=21#x">4 Kings (2 Kings) 13:21</a>]
<br /><br />
Venerating relics, which is one way of asking for miracles and blessings, came into favour when God had done similar miracles, but with three dead bodies, in relation to the relics of St. Martin of Tours.
<br /><br />
16. That the Catholic Church is the only true Church worldwide <i>is pretty obvious.</i> We can have - going back in time to before recent apostasies and reduction of actual Catholics - a true Church of Christ in Rome, a true Church of Christ in Paris, a true Church of Christ in Westminster, so the true Church of Christ in for instance Rome is not the only true Church of Christ world wide. B u t, the Churches of Christ world wide are in Communion with each other and this Communion is called the Catholic Church.
<br /><br />
In this we must understand that not only communion but also obedience to the Church is obliging. This is what can get irksome to some. In such and such a Protestant setting, they may have had a rough time obeying one congregation's pastors or elders, and have taken the solution to get to another one, to change what they have to obey. To some degree, this is possible within the Catholic Church too. And today, when fairly many different obediences (Pope Michael, his rivals like "Pope Francis" and "Pope Peter III", Sedevacantists and Sedeprivationists (CMRI, FSSPV, others), FSSPX, slightly different arrangements within obedience to "Pope Francis" like FSSP and Ordinariate of Our Lady of Walsingham, this is somewhat rampant, but even before, and while I considered the Vatican II sect as the true Catholic Church, there is the option of moving to another geographical parish, of changing Church (you usually have more than the one parish Church within each parish, something Anglicans and Lutherans did away with), of changing the priest within the particular Church.
<br /><br />
But on a somewhat higher level, it would get abusive, and is not a thing among Catholics. Suppose you want to marry a divorcee, and your congregation says "no you can't, he's another woman's husband" or "she's another man's wife" and you'd like to hear some other stuff like "now it's forgiven it's no longer a sin" (false!) or "now you are saved, you are no longer sinning in this respect" (false!) that's when it comes in that the true Church has a visible authority:
<br /><br />
<b>[17] And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=18&l=17#x">Matthew 18:17</a>]
<br /><br />
In order for you to tell the Church, She has to be visible, embodied in certain people. In order for him to obey the Church, again She has to be visible, embodied in certain people. And in order for Church hopping to be no worse than a hobby, no threat to finally find the Church that tells you what you like to hear rather than what you ought to be told, the local Churches need to be in Communion, along with non-parish and non-diocesan priesthoods, like monasteries, Franciscans, Jesuits. The communion needs to be able to take, together, real and binding decisions, like the Apostolic communion did in Acts 15, speaking on behalf of the Holy Ghost:
<br /><br />
<b>[28] For it hath seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things:</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=51&ch=15&l=28#x">Acts Of Apostles 15:28</a>]
<br /><br />
The ultimate reason why you should obey the Church is not that your pastor is a holy man, or that he is a man very congenially helping you to be holy, but that he represents a Church that is able to and does speak on behalf of the Holy Ghost. And this obviously implies you need to know what particular people within the Church have authority to speak on behalf of all of the Church world wide and for centuries to come. This brings us back to purported heresies (I was nearly saying "questions" except they weren't so presented) numbers 10 to 13.
<br /><br />
10. The Pope is the head of the church follows from Jesus, the heavenly and on earth invisible head, instituting Peter, the first Pope, as sharing some of His characteristics.
<br /><br />
<ul><li> Christ is rock and Peter means rock, <i>both</i> are the rock in Matthew 16:18
<li> Christ is the good shepherd and Peter is told to feed his sheep
<br /><br />
<b>[11] I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=10&l=11#x">John 10:11</a>]
<br /><br />
<b>[15] I will feed my sheep: and I will cause them to lie down, saith the Lord God.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=31&ch=34&l=15#x">Ezechiel (Ezeckiel) 34:15</a>]
<br /><br />
<b>[17] He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=21&l=17#x">John 21:17</a>]
<br /><br />
<li> Christ has keys and gives them to Peter (Matthew 16:19)</ul>
<br /><br />
11. The Pope is infallible - when he intends to and expresses his intention to:
<br /><br />
<ul><li> a. in his quality of supreme bishop
<li> b. in a matter pertaining to faith or morals
<li> c. defines in a definite and binding manner any truth as belonging to Bible and Tradition.</ul>
<br /><br />
And <i>not</i> at all <i>other</i> times. Unless he then has the support of all bishops or nearly all (throughout the world) or of a majority of voting bishops (at an Ecumenical council).
<br /><br />
12. <i>"The Pontifical Magisterium has as much authority as the Word of God"</i> is a misstatement. While we do indeed consider the Pope has at times infallibility, the Bible and the Tradition which embody the word of God, what God has revealed, have inerrancy for Bible autographs and infallibility for all doctrine in them, not just at times, but always.
<br /><br />
13. Only the RC church has the authority to interpret the Bible in a definite manner imposed as a judgement on the faithful. A simple faithful can of course make a conjectural interpretation, like I did when saying the "tower, the top of which may reach into heaven" in Genesis 11, was meant to be a three step rocket and God then used the confusion of tongues to put that on hold for 4500 years. But as I am not speaking on behalf of the Church, I cannot have authority to make this interpretation <i>for</i> anyone else, on his behalf, that is obliging him to it. I can only make it <i>before</i> someone else, like hoping he might agree.
<br /><br />
14. <i>"Tradition has as much authority as the Word of God"</i> is neither a heresy nor a truth of the Catholic Church, it is a misstatement of Her doctrine. The correct statement is, the Word of God comes to us both as Bible and as Tradition. If Christ - the Word of God the Father, Incarnate - commanded a thing and the eight hagiographers of the New Testament did not record it, does it cease to be a word of God for that? No. Well, if it is then still accessible, a word of God is accessible through tradition rather than through the Bible.
<br /><br />
15. That there is no imputed righteousness of Christ to us at the moment of "salvation" - is true, because instead of just imputing His righteousness, Christ infuses it. Btw, the moment referred to is called "justification" while salvation is a process completed only at death.
<br /><br />
17. <i>"The bread embodies Jesus and can therefore be prayed to"</i> is a misstatement of doctrine. In fact, we say the outer accidents of bread and of wine remain while the inner substance of them is changed into Body and Blood of Christ - joined here and now to each other (so the Blood is present in the Host, the usually unleavened bread, and the Body in the Chalice) and also to His soul and His divinity. Of course we can pray to Christ, when He is present like this!
<br /><br />
<b>[20] Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=28&l=20#x">Matthew 28:20</a>]
<br /><br />
Please note, to "do this in remembrance of me" <i>is</i> one of His commandments, and it does not mean, since that would contradict His previous words, that He were not present, but only remembered.
<br /><br />
18. <i>"Doing penance to gain forgiveness"</i> is neither a heresy nor a truth of the Catholic Church, it is a misstatement of its doctrine. If I get absolution and then don't fulfill the penance imposed, I get forgiveness at absolution, and not fulfilling the penance if it had been fully possible would be a mortal sin, which needs to be confessed next confession, but it is not an impediment to the forgiveness already given. Receiving absolution while not intending to do the penance or try one's best would indeed be an impediment for the absolution to be a valid one, and that is like it would also be such an impediment if one intended to commit one of the mortal sins one confesses again, rather than doing one's best of avoiding them and asking God to improve one's best - through the penance, among other things.
<br /><br />
19. Celibacy of the priesthood is a recommendation. And it is in the Bible:
<br /><br />
<b>[1] Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=53&ch=7&l=1#x">1 Corinthians 7:1</a>]
<br /><b>[7] For I would that all men were even as myself: but every one hath his proper gift from God; one after this manner, and another after that.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=53&ch=7&l=7#x">1 Corinthians 7:7</a>]
<br /><br />
In context : St. Paul is celibate, and he has just said "for fear of fornication, let every man have his wife" is spoken "by indulgence, not by commandment. Hence, there is at least no heresy about <b>recommending</b> people to chose celibacy before entering clergy.
<br /><br />
Pope Michael does no more than that, he has reestablished ordination to priesthood for married men in the Latin rite, where it was forbidden since the Gregorian Reform, the first priest he ordained after becoming consecrated bishop in 2011, 21 years and some more after his election, was a married man. Even before him, married men were ordained in Oriental Rites, like among Ukrainian Uniates. The bishop who consecrated him, the main one, being also of that rite.
<br /><br />
20. Holy water - means that a servant of Christ can bless water for it to have a property to heal the soul from evils. Are angels servants of Christ? Sure, He said He could summon twelve legions of them. And can it then happen that such a servant of Him can touch a pond so it can heal the body from evils? Sure, see here:
<br /><br />
<b>And an angel of the Lord descended at certain times into the pond; and the water was moved. And he that went down first into the pond after the motion of the water, was made whole, of whatsoever infirmity he lay under.</b>
<br />[<a href="http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=50&ch=5&l=4#x">John 5:4</a>]
<br /><br />
So, can water give healing to the body, but not to the soul? Not so, Christ told to get born again of water and Holy Spirit, in which water baptism is understood, and it heals the spirit from sin and damnation, rather than the body. Therefore, holy water can, if duly blessed, heal the soul and body from lesser ills coming from the devil.
<br /><br />
Hans Georg Lundahl
<br />Paris
<br />St. Athanasius
<br />2.IV.2022Hans Georg Lundahlhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01055583255516264955noreply@blogger.com0