- Q
-
Do Catholics believe that the bread and wine also become the body and blood of Christ during masses and services from other Christian denominations?
https://www.quora.com/Do-Catholics-believe-that-the-bread-and-wine-also-become-the-body-and-blood-of-Christ-during-masses-and-services-from-other-Christian-denominations/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl
- ARq
- Answer requested by João Paulo Cavalcante
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Studied religions as curious parallels and contrasts to Xtian faith since 9, 10?
- Answered just now
- With Orthodox, Coptic and Nestorian priests, as well as some later schismatics from Catholics : yes.
With Protestants : no.
Protestantism made a point of changing the rite so as to exclude sacrifice of the Mass. This makes Protestant “masses” (Lutherans and Anglicans use the word) and “Lord’s suppers” invalid, sacrilegious and excluding the Real Presence.
This is also the case with the Protestant denominations where all (Lutherans) or a group (Anglo-Catholics among Anglicans) believe the Real Presence, as long as they use liturgies excluding Sacrifice of the Mass and clergy where ordination has not passed by a bishop in continuity with those who do believe Sacrifice of the Mass, at least, if not necessarily Catholic.
This is what Ratzinger (Antipope Benedict XVI, but correct on this one) meant when he distinguished between Churches and Ecclesial Communities outside the One True Church.
Visar inlägg med etikett Holy Eucharist. Visa alla inlägg
Visar inlägg med etikett Holy Eucharist. Visa alla inlägg
måndag 27 november 2017
Validity (if Not Licitness) of Some, Not All, Non-Catholic Sacraments (quora)
torsdag 19 juni 2014
Now, that was true: "If the Papacy is not the Antichrist, then there is no point to the Reformation separation from Papacy."
On a list over Reformers who considered Papacy to be Antichrist, the compiler* ended with these remarks:
I agree heartily that there is no - godly** - point to the Reformation separation from Papacy.
It has indirectly served good, but not directly.
Kent Hovind and C. S. Lewis have done part of the work of the Lord, both separated from Rome, but neither of them has done it because he was separated from Rome. Gilbert Keith Chesterton started out that way too, but became a Roman or "swam the Tiber" as the modern phrase goes. When Kent Hovind does something good about defending Biblical inerrancy, he often does so (I have found from a limited experience of either) in agreement with one Calmet, who was a Catholic priest and a Frenchman. But nevertheless he also thinks it is his duty to take a distance from Rome. Not just or even primarily the present day Rome of Modernism, but the historical Rome.
That flaw I do put down to his having been influenced by the Reformation.
It is a baleful thing. It was a bloody atrocity.
One of the last Spanish Inquisitors estimated that from 1480 to 1808 the Inquisition had executed 31.912 people. He may have been right. Or he may have been wrong because misreading some of the evidence. Or, he may also have been misquoted. But those are 328 years and that adds up to 97 per year. Reformations all over Europe - or what is Protestant of it - would have been at work over a much shorter time before they cut off populations from Catholicism. But typical of those times, the very times when Protestant culture was being formed (except insofar as it consisted of heritage from Catholic periods of the same countries) were bloodbaths perpetrated on Catholics.
Sure, Catholics did some killing too.
But their doctrines were not made while killing. They had inherited a Truth and defended it - any honest historian who even may not be Catholic and even may not agree that they held THE Truth would agree to that. He would agree that they had inherited what they conceived as a truth and that the time of their defending it did not involve adding new things to it not there before the Reformers came along, or not as much as among Reformers, and not in the sense of adding completely new things, rather in the sense of uniformating things previously debated.
That is why it is difficult to be other than dedicated fanatic of this Protestant fad of identifying historic papacy with Antichrist - and still cling on to it. Reformers are more clearly anti-Christian than Catholics. Bellarmine is a better Christian than James I.
The anonymous compiler - no, actually not, he is John Class*** and not anonymous - cites James I (or VI and I) as one godly and learned man who considered the Papacy as Antichrist. But James I was culpable of violently settling Protestant invaders in Ireland, like later Cromwell. He was culpable of wanting it both ways as to Holy Eucharist (or what he could get of it, i e a sham resemblance), agreeing with Reformers to deny Transsubstantiation or at least not to allow any direct defense of it, agreeing with Catholics who bow and kneel down to the species and give divine honours to Our Saviour who is present under them. This shilly-shallying involved him in demanding that one should bow and kneel down for what one considered bread and just as symbol of Our Lord or His Crucifixion - and rightly so, since a priest, even if validly ordained, who heartily agreed with the Reformation on this point would certainly NOT consecrate validly. He was also culpable of continuing the Inquisition of the English type of 1401 up to 1612 - same year before which he had issued a new Bible translation. How culpable? Because, not having the truth itself, Anglicanism was in no position to impose its "truth" on anyone. Because, attacking Catholicism for the Inquisition since many decades back (Foxe had Book of Martyrs published in 1563, same year the Council of Trent ended) it was rank hypocrisy to continue executing people for heresy oneself. Which James I as well as John Calvin did. Perhaps it was in the end lucky, perhaps it slowed down the advent of the later confusions, but nevertheless they could not do so with as clean a conscience as the Spanish Inquisition could.
That was Bartholomew Legate. "Oh, sure, we are all sinners, the Reformation was done by sinful men" ... was not someone just recently accusing Papacy and specifically because of Inquisition precisely to be, not so much sinful men as man of sin?
No, it is true, Reformation was a bad fix, the separation of Reformers from Papal Rome was a crime, and this is because Papacy as historically known up to now or pretty recently is NOT the Antichrist.
I have a hunch that perhaps Bergoglio is. And I have an apprehension, because he is promoting, very actively, a Papal-Protestant union. You see, though I like Kent Hovind and Jonathan Sarfati and a few more, I would very certainly not change Catholicism as it has traditionally been one whit just to suit them. I would like their conversion to Catholicism. But Catholicism does not need to convert to Creationism, since it has never left it. One other bad thing with Bergoglio is he is not exactlty stopping Catholics and even parts of his hierarchy from treating Creationism as if Catholicism had apostasised from it and it needed to go to suit their apostasy, mislabelled as that of the Church. I could very certainly use some intellectual in part support and in part simply pleasant company for this. Bergoglio, on the other hand, is being "sensitive" to the criticisms of the Reformers.
As to my love for certain Protestants, it is not because of their loyalty to the Reformation I love them. The Bible - and what they ar defending about the Bible - did very well without the Protestant Reformation, thank you.
So did the Futurist (with Bergoglio perhaps no longer all that futurist) view of Apocalypse (or of the chapters referring to end times tribulations and persecutions). It was there in St Thomas Aquinas or St Augustine well before it was championed by St Robert.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Feast of Corpus Christi
19/VI/2014
* No offense meant on that account, compiling is a thing that sometimes needs to be done and which I have done myself. Some use the word as an insult, I do not. I am sometimes myself a compiler as much as or in some few blogposts much more than an author.
** Some ungodly points, on the contrary, as in overemphasising work and company, and as in disparaging begging and solitude (Chesterton considered that even a normal man - married and working - needed to be half a hermit and I am sure he was right), and as vulgarising not so much the Bible as certain verses with certain misconceived interpretations (including a gratuitous insult to the Papacy).
*** In certain chapter studies he identifies the "I" of the apocalypse (St John the Gospeller) with "John Class". This might then be a pseudonym.
° http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartholomew_Legate
Quoted item on which I commented:
Reformers' Interpretations
of Anti-Christ
http://www.revelation-today.com/a6reform.htm
It can be added that the list includes Isaac Newton, who was an Anti-Trinitarian (like Bartholomew Legate) and a Sorcerer or Soothsayer. It also includes Savonarola, but that may be an error. It is pretty certain that its including Dante is an error. At least to me, as long as that is not documented. From his writings rather than from assessments like the list here.
It can also be added, my mother did not share this prejudice, at least not as to saying Catholics would need to leave Catholicism, while I was a child. I was allergic to it when other Protestants more decdidedly such forwarded it. One reason why I came to detest the Reformation was knowing Luther and the rest had come to this conclusion which is as unhuman as it is unbiblical. It is unbiblical because 3 1/2 years are NOT 1200 plus years. It is unhuman because it involves Satan making all nations HIS disciples (not during a few years or during paganism past, but during the time of grace), and it is ungodly because in doing so it implies a failure of God's orders to the 11 Apostles./HGL
The Papal reaction — the "Counter Reformation." In an attempt to divert the undermining influence of the Protestant Reformation, a two-pronged counter attack was made.
Praeterist school of interpretation Futurist school of interpretation founded by Alcazar, a Spanish Jesuit in 1614. founded by Francisco Ribera and Robert Bellarmine The fulfillment of Revelation is in the past with the Fall of Jerusalem or the Fall of Pagan Rome, before the Popes ever ruled Rome. The fulfillment of Revelation is in the future with an individual man as the Antichrist, Man of Sin, and a literal rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem.
Around 1590, Francisco Ribera published a 500-page book on Revelation. The first chapters of Revelation he applied to the time of the early church. From Revelation chapter 4 onward he applied literally, to a literal 3-1/2 year reign of an individual man, Antichrist. He taught that Antichrist would rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, deny Christ, pretend to be God, and conquer the world.
Robert Bellarmine, one of the most renowned Jesuit cardinals, taught that the Antichrist would be an individual Jew, who would reign a literal 3-1/2 years in Jerusalem, in whom would dwell all the power of the devil.
Paving the way for Papal-Protestant Union. The Evangelical Fundamentalist interpretation of Antichrist and Man of Sin as follows Ribera's and Bellarmine's Futuristic viewpoints. Not only has the Futuristic interpretation negated the powerful Reformation interpretation against Papacy, but it also allows room for ecumenism between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. If the Papacy is not the Antichrist, then there is no point to the Reformation separation from Papacy.
I agree heartily that there is no - godly** - point to the Reformation separation from Papacy.
It has indirectly served good, but not directly.
Kent Hovind and C. S. Lewis have done part of the work of the Lord, both separated from Rome, but neither of them has done it because he was separated from Rome. Gilbert Keith Chesterton started out that way too, but became a Roman or "swam the Tiber" as the modern phrase goes. When Kent Hovind does something good about defending Biblical inerrancy, he often does so (I have found from a limited experience of either) in agreement with one Calmet, who was a Catholic priest and a Frenchman. But nevertheless he also thinks it is his duty to take a distance from Rome. Not just or even primarily the present day Rome of Modernism, but the historical Rome.
That flaw I do put down to his having been influenced by the Reformation.
It is a baleful thing. It was a bloody atrocity.
One of the last Spanish Inquisitors estimated that from 1480 to 1808 the Inquisition had executed 31.912 people. He may have been right. Or he may have been wrong because misreading some of the evidence. Or, he may also have been misquoted. But those are 328 years and that adds up to 97 per year. Reformations all over Europe - or what is Protestant of it - would have been at work over a much shorter time before they cut off populations from Catholicism. But typical of those times, the very times when Protestant culture was being formed (except insofar as it consisted of heritage from Catholic periods of the same countries) were bloodbaths perpetrated on Catholics.
Sure, Catholics did some killing too.
But their doctrines were not made while killing. They had inherited a Truth and defended it - any honest historian who even may not be Catholic and even may not agree that they held THE Truth would agree to that. He would agree that they had inherited what they conceived as a truth and that the time of their defending it did not involve adding new things to it not there before the Reformers came along, or not as much as among Reformers, and not in the sense of adding completely new things, rather in the sense of uniformating things previously debated.
That is why it is difficult to be other than dedicated fanatic of this Protestant fad of identifying historic papacy with Antichrist - and still cling on to it. Reformers are more clearly anti-Christian than Catholics. Bellarmine is a better Christian than James I.
The anonymous compiler - no, actually not, he is John Class*** and not anonymous - cites James I (or VI and I) as one godly and learned man who considered the Papacy as Antichrist. But James I was culpable of violently settling Protestant invaders in Ireland, like later Cromwell. He was culpable of wanting it both ways as to Holy Eucharist (or what he could get of it, i e a sham resemblance), agreeing with Reformers to deny Transsubstantiation or at least not to allow any direct defense of it, agreeing with Catholics who bow and kneel down to the species and give divine honours to Our Saviour who is present under them. This shilly-shallying involved him in demanding that one should bow and kneel down for what one considered bread and just as symbol of Our Lord or His Crucifixion - and rightly so, since a priest, even if validly ordained, who heartily agreed with the Reformation on this point would certainly NOT consecrate validly. He was also culpable of continuing the Inquisition of the English type of 1401 up to 1612 - same year before which he had issued a new Bible translation. How culpable? Because, not having the truth itself, Anglicanism was in no position to impose its "truth" on anyone. Because, attacking Catholicism for the Inquisition since many decades back (Foxe had Book of Martyrs published in 1563, same year the Council of Trent ended) it was rank hypocrisy to continue executing people for heresy oneself. Which James I as well as John Calvin did. Perhaps it was in the end lucky, perhaps it slowed down the advent of the later confusions, but nevertheless they could not do so with as clean a conscience as the Spanish Inquisition could.
Together with his brother Thomas, he° was put in prison for heresy in 1611. Thomas died in Newgate Prison, London, but Bartholomew's imprisonment was not a rigorous one. James I argued with him, and on several occasions he was brought before the Consistory court of London, but without any definite result. Eventually, after having threatened to bring an action for wrongful imprisonment, Legate was tried before a full Consistory Court in February 1612, was found guilty of blasphemous heresy, and was delivered to the secular authorities for punishment. Refusing to retract his opinions, he was burnt at the stake at Smithfield on 18 March 1612. Legate was the last person burned in London for his religious opinions, and died just three weeks before Edward Wightman, who was burned at Lichfield in April 1612, the last to suffer in this way in England.
That was Bartholomew Legate. "Oh, sure, we are all sinners, the Reformation was done by sinful men" ... was not someone just recently accusing Papacy and specifically because of Inquisition precisely to be, not so much sinful men as man of sin?
No, it is true, Reformation was a bad fix, the separation of Reformers from Papal Rome was a crime, and this is because Papacy as historically known up to now or pretty recently is NOT the Antichrist.
I have a hunch that perhaps Bergoglio is. And I have an apprehension, because he is promoting, very actively, a Papal-Protestant union. You see, though I like Kent Hovind and Jonathan Sarfati and a few more, I would very certainly not change Catholicism as it has traditionally been one whit just to suit them. I would like their conversion to Catholicism. But Catholicism does not need to convert to Creationism, since it has never left it. One other bad thing with Bergoglio is he is not exactlty stopping Catholics and even parts of his hierarchy from treating Creationism as if Catholicism had apostasised from it and it needed to go to suit their apostasy, mislabelled as that of the Church. I could very certainly use some intellectual in part support and in part simply pleasant company for this. Bergoglio, on the other hand, is being "sensitive" to the criticisms of the Reformers.
As to my love for certain Protestants, it is not because of their loyalty to the Reformation I love them. The Bible - and what they ar defending about the Bible - did very well without the Protestant Reformation, thank you.
So did the Futurist (with Bergoglio perhaps no longer all that futurist) view of Apocalypse (or of the chapters referring to end times tribulations and persecutions). It was there in St Thomas Aquinas or St Augustine well before it was championed by St Robert.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Feast of Corpus Christi
19/VI/2014
* No offense meant on that account, compiling is a thing that sometimes needs to be done and which I have done myself. Some use the word as an insult, I do not. I am sometimes myself a compiler as much as or in some few blogposts much more than an author.
** Some ungodly points, on the contrary, as in overemphasising work and company, and as in disparaging begging and solitude (Chesterton considered that even a normal man - married and working - needed to be half a hermit and I am sure he was right), and as vulgarising not so much the Bible as certain verses with certain misconceived interpretations (including a gratuitous insult to the Papacy).
*** In certain chapter studies he identifies the "I" of the apocalypse (St John the Gospeller) with "John Class". This might then be a pseudonym.
° http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartholomew_Legate
Quoted item on which I commented:
Reformers' Interpretations
of Anti-Christ
http://www.revelation-today.com/a6reform.htm
It can be added that the list includes Isaac Newton, who was an Anti-Trinitarian (like Bartholomew Legate) and a Sorcerer or Soothsayer. It also includes Savonarola, but that may be an error. It is pretty certain that its including Dante is an error. At least to me, as long as that is not documented. From his writings rather than from assessments like the list here.
It can also be added, my mother did not share this prejudice, at least not as to saying Catholics would need to leave Catholicism, while I was a child. I was allergic to it when other Protestants more decdidedly such forwarded it. One reason why I came to detest the Reformation was knowing Luther and the rest had come to this conclusion which is as unhuman as it is unbiblical. It is unbiblical because 3 1/2 years are NOT 1200 plus years. It is unhuman because it involves Satan making all nations HIS disciples (not during a few years or during paganism past, but during the time of grace), and it is ungodly because in doing so it implies a failure of God's orders to the 11 Apostles./HGL
måndag 6 maj 2013
A Suspicious Testimony
Clear Gospel, Directory, Rev. Ronald R Shea, Esq.
Testimony called: No Infused Grace
http://cleargospel.org/directory/profile.php?id=112
Quotes with my answers and follow up questions:
OK, two questions:
1) were you ever taught that Christ's work for your salvation was handed to your personally profiting from it in Holy Mass?
2) were you ever taught to adress Christ on the Cross with the words "tantus labor non sit cassus" = may such a great work not be invalid/unprofitable (for myself) - or were you not?
Confessing a venial sin that you do not regret is dangerous, and if you only confess that one without real regret, your confession is worse than worthless, it is a sacrilege. Therefore, when confessing a venial sin you may also search for a sin in the past that you CERTAINLY regret, and your confession will not be a sacrilege. A venial sin can be erased by confession, by communion, by prayer, by anything done out of love for God, since its essence is laxness about the love of God.
A mortal sin is what the Bible calls "crucifying Jesus all over again".
The thing with venial sins is that though they must be erased before one enters heaven, they need not be erased before death. A mortal sin kept in the hour of death on your conscience is persisting in betraying your Lord. Is that too complex for you?
(And yes, previous paragraph means that everyone in Purgatory is headed for Heaven. Nobody in Hell is headed for Heaven, unless God raises him from the dead so once again alive he can repent before dying again. Which has happened a few times.)
Infused grace mean the life of God himself, the Holy Spirit, infused into your soul. It is not just a question of being a good boy, though dead souls will not even be able to do that in the long run.
The "complex system" is precisely those two. The actual graces are what enable you to be a good boy (whether you consciously receive them as graces from God or not), and the sanctifying or infused grace is the life of God becoming life of your soul. Obviously if you die without it, you go where the dead souls go, to the place of eternal death.
Oh, as for Indulgence Prayers, are you sure that Gloria Patri was Fifteen Years and Memorare was Forty-five? I am not quite sure about that. But even if it were true - I suspect it is not, either you lie or your memory fools you but I could be wrong - it could be explained by the fact that Gloria Patri should be prayed daily. There is actually no theological reason why you should not still pray it daily, unless your dissatisfaction with the "Sacramental System" has worn off to be a mistrust in Holy Trinity too.
She might either not have heard your question included the words "when they die" or she might even more probably have been replaced for teaching you wrong. Some people are said to have had all of their purgatory on earth. The Holy Martyrs, or St Thérèse of Lisieux who made in part Tuberculosis her martyrdom (contracted, I think while she was tending to the sick) and in part every little annoyance she could offer up to God by bearing it with a smile to the annoying person.
Your mental calculus about how many years you were spending in purgatory was pretty much misapplied mathematics, due to your superfluous question of where you were standing about avoiding Purgatory. Now, Luther in a dark moment, and he was condemned by Pope Leo X for saying it, stated that the souls in Purgatory love God so much they would hate to leave Purgatory without effecting all the penances, and therefore dislike having indulgences applied to them. That is wrong, they are of course satisfied if God lets them off earlier than supposed. But if you had instead of asking how much Purgatory you were escaping by ten minutes of Gloria Patri tried to use the ten minutes to Glorify actually the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, you might have made it to Heaven, after some stumbles, with pretty good ease (not meaning you would have died already, but meaning you would have already been secure of going to Heaven and not too afraid of going to Purgatory first).
It is not the passions, it is consenting to them, outside the hallowed ground of marriage, which would do that.
Have you not read "who looketh on his neighbours wife with carnal desire has already committed adultery with her in his heart" or "adulterers ... will not enter the Kingdom of God"?
What you needed (and what I for one need too) was marriage. Ask your wife if she wouldn't like to get along back to the Catholic Church with you, that is saving your soul.
Ouch, pretty much the kind of mistake I used to do pretty often when confessing in certain years after my conversion. Pretty certain attitude to ruin confession for you.
What exactly were you trying to do?
Going to Holy Mass is not doing a dead work, it is visiting Christ on Calvary, where he died for you. If you cannot go back in a time machine to the first Good Friday and see Him bleed for you, and if you cannot go to Narnia and be present at the stone table, you can go to Holy Mass. What is "dead works of the law" about that?
Did he die for Hitler and Stalin and were Stalin and Hitler saved? Or did Hitler and Stalin miss out on something they had to do, like not committing mortal sins that crucified Christ again and like visiting Christ in Holy Mass to renew their love for him? Are you saying that Hell is empty?
Oh, sorry: I saw you are single. But I also saw you with children on photos from a Christmas. Are you actually divorced?
Sorry again, I saw you are married to Ch. R., you will have to correct info on the directory:
If you had been told how to pray the Rosary - which can give you plenary indulgence (no time at all in Purgatory for sins committed and forgiven before it was gained), how come you did not try to use knots on a string or even rosary beads for the tally, so you could get your mind off keeping the tally?
Did they never teach you the Rosary?
I mean, testimonies like this look a bit like wilful forgetfulness about your Catholic past. Or, just possibly, with Chick Tract like "honesty" close to Avro Manhattan and Phelps, a lie.
If it were true, I would very much like to know who your bishop was back then, so his sinful negligence in catechism can be duly punished by the Roman Catholic Church.
[He posted his testimony on a FB Group that is Catholic and Sedisvacantist. I was added to it and posted quotes with my answers there first./HGL]
Oh, double sorry, I just saw that Mr R. is not at all the Ronald Shea that the testimony is about.
[So A posted testimony of B, and I confused them, apologioes made on group./HGL]
Testimony called: No Infused Grace
http://cleargospel.org/directory/profile.php?id=112
Quotes with my answers and follow up questions:
"As with so many other sects within Christendom, I was taught that my salvation was not contingent upon the work of the Savior, but dependent upon my obedience to the ten Commandments. Actually, the work of the Savior was unknown to me. Every 'good Friday' we would make the 'stations of the cross' reflecting on the torture and death of Jesus. But what was the significance of it? Basically, my theology was, 'look what those mean people are doing to Jesus. This is just TERRRIBLE!.' "
OK, two questions:
1) were you ever taught that Christ's work for your salvation was handed to your personally profiting from it in Holy Mass?
2) were you ever taught to adress Christ on the Cross with the words "tantus labor non sit cassus" = may such a great work not be invalid/unprofitable (for myself) - or were you not?
"But the removal of venial sins was much more complex. Confession absolved you of your sins, but you still faced Purgatory. So I never quite understood what advantageous confession held for venial sins. The only real advantage I could see was that, if some sin were “right on the line” between mortal and venial, it was probably best to confess it and get it erased."
Confessing a venial sin that you do not regret is dangerous, and if you only confess that one without real regret, your confession is worse than worthless, it is a sacrilege. Therefore, when confessing a venial sin you may also search for a sin in the past that you CERTAINLY regret, and your confession will not be a sacrilege. A venial sin can be erased by confession, by communion, by prayer, by anything done out of love for God, since its essence is laxness about the love of God.
A mortal sin is what the Bible calls "crucifying Jesus all over again".
The thing with venial sins is that though they must be erased before one enters heaven, they need not be erased before death. A mortal sin kept in the hour of death on your conscience is persisting in betraying your Lord. Is that too complex for you?
(And yes, previous paragraph means that everyone in Purgatory is headed for Heaven. Nobody in Hell is headed for Heaven, unless God raises him from the dead so once again alive he can repent before dying again. Which has happened a few times.)
"Receiving communion was supposed to 'infuse grace' into me. This mystical substance called 'grace' was supposed to empower me to live a good life, so I would sin less, and consequently, spend less time in purgatory (or—God forbid—hell!)."
Infused grace mean the life of God himself, the Holy Spirit, infused into your soul. It is not just a question of being a good boy, though dead souls will not even be able to do that in the long run.
"There was also a complex system of different kinds of graces. I can only remember two of them now, 'actual grace' and 'sanctifying grace.'"
The "complex system" is precisely those two. The actual graces are what enable you to be a good boy (whether you consciously receive them as graces from God or not), and the sanctifying or infused grace is the life of God becoming life of your soul. Obviously if you die without it, you go where the dead souls go, to the place of eternal death.
Oh, as for Indulgence Prayers, are you sure that Gloria Patri was Fifteen Years and Memorare was Forty-five? I am not quite sure about that. But even if it were true - I suspect it is not, either you lie or your memory fools you but I could be wrong - it could be explained by the fact that Gloria Patri should be prayed daily. There is actually no theological reason why you should not still pray it daily, unless your dissatisfaction with the "Sacramental System" has worn off to be a mistrust in Holy Trinity too.
"I raised my hand in class, and said, 'Sister Ruth Marie, some people won’t have to go to Purgatory when they die, right?' Without hesitation, she responded, 'No, everyone has to go to Purgatory.' "
She might either not have heard your question included the words "when they die" or she might even more probably have been replaced for teaching you wrong. Some people are said to have had all of their purgatory on earth. The Holy Martyrs, or St Thérèse of Lisieux who made in part Tuberculosis her martyrdom (contracted, I think while she was tending to the sick) and in part every little annoyance she could offer up to God by bearing it with a smile to the annoying person.
Your mental calculus about how many years you were spending in purgatory was pretty much misapplied mathematics, due to your superfluous question of where you were standing about avoiding Purgatory. Now, Luther in a dark moment, and he was condemned by Pope Leo X for saying it, stated that the souls in Purgatory love God so much they would hate to leave Purgatory without effecting all the penances, and therefore dislike having indulgences applied to them. That is wrong, they are of course satisfied if God lets them off earlier than supposed. But if you had instead of asking how much Purgatory you were escaping by ten minutes of Gloria Patri tried to use the ten minutes to Glorify actually the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, you might have made it to Heaven, after some stumbles, with pretty good ease (not meaning you would have died already, but meaning you would have already been secure of going to Heaven and not too afraid of going to Purgatory first).
"Still, I recognized that, within me lay the passions that could damn my eternal soul to hell!"
It is not the passions, it is consenting to them, outside the hallowed ground of marriage, which would do that.
Have you not read "who looketh on his neighbours wife with carnal desire has already committed adultery with her in his heart" or "adulterers ... will not enter the Kingdom of God"?
What you needed (and what I for one need too) was marriage. Ask your wife if she wouldn't like to get along back to the Catholic Church with you, that is saving your soul.
"I needed to cloak my question in some measure of piety."
Ouch, pretty much the kind of mistake I used to do pretty often when confessing in certain years after my conversion. Pretty certain attitude to ruin confession for you.
"And in choosing Christ, I needed to 'prove' to myself that I had trusted Christ alone, and not 'Christ plus works.' And this is consistent with Matthew 3:5-9. I not only needed to repent of my dead works, I needed to 'bring forth fruit of my repentance.' I needed to live my life in a way that confirmed I was trusting Christ alone."
What exactly were you trying to do?
Going to Holy Mass is not doing a dead work, it is visiting Christ on Calvary, where he died for you. If you cannot go back in a time machine to the first Good Friday and see Him bleed for you, and if you cannot go to Narnia and be present at the stone table, you can go to Holy Mass. What is "dead works of the law" about that?
"I need no other argument. I need no other plea. It is ENOUGH that Jesus died, and that he died for me."
Did he die for Hitler and Stalin and were Stalin and Hitler saved? Or did Hitler and Stalin miss out on something they had to do, like not committing mortal sins that crucified Christ again and like visiting Christ in Holy Mass to renew their love for him? Are you saying that Hell is empty?
Oh, sorry: I saw you are single. But I also saw you with children on photos from a Christmas. Are you actually divorced?
Sorry again, I saw you are married to Ch. R., you will have to correct info on the directory:
|
|
"I recited the "Glory Be" for ten minutes straight. . . keeping a tally, of course, for the number of prayers I recited. I realized God could keep track of such things, and I had full confidence in his omniscience. But I also needed to know where I stood."
If you had been told how to pray the Rosary - which can give you plenary indulgence (no time at all in Purgatory for sins committed and forgiven before it was gained), how come you did not try to use knots on a string or even rosary beads for the tally, so you could get your mind off keeping the tally?
Did they never teach you the Rosary?
I mean, testimonies like this look a bit like wilful forgetfulness about your Catholic past. Or, just possibly, with Chick Tract like "honesty" close to Avro Manhattan and Phelps, a lie.
If it were true, I would very much like to know who your bishop was back then, so his sinful negligence in catechism can be duly punished by the Roman Catholic Church.
[He posted his testimony on a FB Group that is Catholic and Sedisvacantist. I was added to it and posted quotes with my answers there first./HGL]
Oh, double sorry, I just saw that Mr R. is not at all the Ronald Shea that the testimony is about.
[So A posted testimony of B, and I confused them, apologioes made on group./HGL]
fredag 8 februari 2013
Resurrection, Holy Eucharist, Holy Poverty (or, Why Was Wycliff Wrong)
The defense for the Resurrection is rather well put by the son of Craig Lampe, Ph.D.* Here, Joel Lampe on The Bible on Trial:
They did stay together a few years as collective episcopacy of the Church in Jerusalem. With St Peter as their head. So, based on merely that, there is a theoretical chance they could have concocted a story, at least they had the time if you go only by that.
One more quote from Joel Lampe:
Big trouble number one with that story: the question what happened to the Church between the Apostles (or possibly Saint Jerome) and John Wycliffe.
Bible says the Church cannot fail between Ascension and Return of Our Lord. Our Lord's words, end of Gospel of St Matthew.
Big trouble number two with it: his Father Dr Craig's* solution the Bible teaching was kept pure and alive by a "secret society called the Culdees".
Bible says the Church cannot be a secret society. "A city built on a mountain cannot be hidden". "No man lighteth a candle/lamp so as to place it under a bushel" - and would God who lit the beacon of Light for our souls, whose word is a lantern for our feet put his candle** under a bushel? Or allow it to be put under a bushel by evil men for any longer time?
Even in Russia, 1917-1990, lots of people knew the Gospels because they were known before, from the time of the Czars. And that obscuration was not even reducing the Church to a secret society, since Orthodox and in some parts Catholic priests were openly celebrating Mass and preaching the Resurrection on Easter.
Now, let us therefore look on Craig's story about Wycliff, from The Forbidden Book.
John Wycliff was a product of the chosing of that secret society...
As already stated, the Culdees were not a secret society, they were Monks of the Celtic discipline. Iona was founded by some spiritual grandson or greatgrandson of St Patrick (whose biography I am now reading). By the way, it is not Culdee that means a certain starnger, but Chaldaeus, Chaldean. And St Joseph was not a Chaldean, he was a Hebrew, a Hebraeus. Culdee is not Latin but Irish: "Caol Dé" = "Companion of God". Just as "Socius Jesu" (the Latin for Jesuit) = "Companion of Jesus." But as little as the Jesuits in Spain, as little were the Culdees in the British Isles a Secret Society.
It is possible that certain Culdees after the Norman Conquest ousted the Celtic Church Discipline (and yes, Celtic and Roman Church differred only on discipline) degenerated into a secret society, just as it is possible that Templars after the burning of Jacques Molay in 1313 degenerated into a secret society more than they had become already by then (I mean Jacques Molay was no true and faithful successor of Hugues de Payns, unless he fooled - as I think he did not - the Council of Troyes of 1129, because quite certainly Hugues de Payns was not forcing - and would not have been allowed to start the order if he had been thought to force - new recruits to the order to tread on a Crucifix, as Jacques Molay was condemned for: some say Templars surviving in Scotland became the deplorable Freemasons, by infiltrating what had previously been Lodges of simple builders, and it is just barely possible but not at all likely that such degeneration happened to some Culdees as well).
But it is normally so that the Culdees who were not allowed to continue in their older discipline after Norman Conquests of the Celtic fringes (as well as Monks of Ely after Norman Conquest in England) took the Benedictine or later possibly Cistercian discipline. And on what basis could you say there were exceptions living on as a secret society or that new Benedictines even were secretly disloyal to the new Church discipline but at same time highly organised? Contemporary documents? - Not that I know of.
Wyclef stated he belonged to a secret society? - Would have been dangerous. Not likely.
Secret societies later claimed they continued the Culdees whose man Wyclef was? - That is in my opinion the very likeliest basis, unless it is just hysteria about Catholicism making secret society like behaviour a necessity for true Christians and trying to identify the "secret society Christians", picking Culdees for a reason or another.
Some have stated that the whole Reformation (like Freemasonry, like Bolshevism) is after all the product of people acting sometimes after the fashion of secret societies. These would be Jews, the sect that much earlier had crucified Our Lord. I find it barely likelier Jews by hatred of Christianity (which was offering them a status of second class citizens, after all) would have misunderstood or otherwise attacked the Holy Eucharist, picked out a man who did not shun them too much, talked to him and so on ...
But at least as likely if not likelier that some persecuted Waldensians - for there were times when they were persecuted - approached him.
If we can discount that, we can say he was his own deluder.
Here prepared a little tract called the Wicket, and it was a denial of Transsubstantiation.
That much is nearly sure that he denied Transsubstantiation. Or at least attacked it. Has the tract been preserved or not? Has if there is one its genuine descent from the pen of Wycliff been duly established?
Because the Bible did not support the idea that there is some kind of illusion or som kind of hocus pocus
The "refutation" of Transsubstantiation based thereon was refuted itself by St Thomas Aquinas:***
Summa Theologiae, III P, Q 75
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4075.htm
and
Summa Theologiae, III P, Q 77
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4077.htm
From the latter, A 1:
In other words, it is the real lightness or whiteness of bread you experience by touch or sight even when there is no real bread there any longer. And because the real whiteness and lightness is still there, same lightness and whiteness as when they were those of bread not yet consecrated, there is no deceit. There is no illusion.
And they would serve the elements in a Cannibalistic way.
Not at all. Cannibalism means eating the body of a man dead, or possibly dying from the cannibalism, unless it is very limited as in modern perversions of ritual Vampyrism. It means taking away pieces or drops to eat by one man what would otherwise have been the life of another one.
But Christ is risen, and His Body and Blood are not there under their own dimensions. Each communicant takes into his mouth and swallows, under the dimensions of bread and wine, not a piece of Christ's body but all of it, not a drop of Christ's blood but all of it. It is not blood as being spilled, it is blood as running in the veins of the Risen Body. Communion is not Cannibalism, it is offering up one's body to be a place where Christ is in His Body and Blood. Cannibalism is eating someone else's death. Communion is eating God's life. Cannibalism is eating someone weaker than oneself, since already dead. Communion is eating someone stronger than oneself, since already risen and since the very Person of God the Son, of God Almighty.
However, if Wycliff himself made the charge - I am right now searching Wikipedia for "The Wicket Wycliffe Lollards" and I get: "Did you mean: The Cricket Wycliffe Lollards" because Wicket is also a term in the Cricket game - then he was basically agreeing with Jewish anti-Christian and earlier Roman Pagan anti-Christian polemics. The "Cannibal" charge against Christians was made due to the Holy Eucharist. The Cannibal charge made by Celsus.
While on search for The Wicket, I get to an Old Paths Publications where Wycliff is said to have "defended property rights against Rome." He did not, he attacked voluntary poverty, the state in which the Church of Jerusalem lived. He called people having sold all their property and given it to the poor and living as beggars "thieves" precisely as the Pharisees and Sadducees might have called the Church in Jerusalem.
Between St Jerome and the time of Wycliff, the Faith delivered to and through the Apostles was not kept alive by a secret society of Culdees emanating into Wycliff, but by the established Church - including the time when it condemned Wycliff.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Château d'Eau Library
Paris
St John of Matha, O. SS. Trin.
8-II-2013
* As per mail I received Craig Lampe is Ph. D. I am neither claiming nor denying it, he is claiming it. As to what University or what subject, I do not know. It is not Lund University's Faculty for History, nor for Classical Studies. I know a Historian there, I studied Latin there, such ignorance as his about the Latin Middle Ages is inconceivable there. At least if you are promoted to Ph.D. - as I was not but do not claim to have been.
** Probable reference not to the kind of candles or tapers of wax you seen in Church, but to oil lamps. These had wicks like candles, and I am quoting from memory.
*** His Summa Theologiae is available online, both Latin and English translation. It has five parts, of which he did the first four in context. Prima Pars (I P) is about God as Creator and about Creation in General. Secunda Pars is really two parts, it is about Human Actions and their principles and that means it is there you find definitions of Sin and Grace. Prima Secundae (I-II) deals with basic principles of human actions, there you find freewill and passions, law and grace and the charismata. Secunda Secundae (II-II) deals with diverse virtues and sins. There you can find definition of Faith, Hope and Charity - as well as of diverse sins against these. Tertia Pars (III P) deals with Incarnation, Redemption, Church and Sacraments. But III P is only the part he completed himself. It includes Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist, but the general outline of the work is followed up by his disciples in Tertiae Partis Supplementum (III Suppl.), which takes the rest of the Sacraments, and in context with Penance deals also with Indulgences. After the Sacraments it goes on to Eschatology. Its words are his, but taken together from earlier works done on other plans, basically. Each of these five parts - I, I-II, II-II, III, (III) Suppl - is divided into sections not marked in citation but these are subdivided into Quaestiones that are numbered all through such a part. After one quaestio dealing with Theology and Holy Writ you continue counting the Quaestiones about God, as such, as Trinity, as Creator, and after that the numbering continues unbroken for the Quaestiones about Creation (Q 70 is about "The Work of Fourth Day of Creation" for instance), and each Quaestio is subdivided into closely related aspects, known as Articles. Each Article begins with the "Objections" against truth, continues one authority for truth known as "Sed Contra", then comes St Thomas' explanation of the main point in the "In corpore" and then his answers to objections in the final parts known as "Ad 1, ad 2 ..." enumerating the responses to each of the objections in same order.
He also said he learned from his academic study of Jesus' disciples that, many of them experienced horrific deaths "and none even flinched."
"These were 11 guys who went 11 different directions (after the Ascension) and never saw each other again. They all told the same story and refused to deny what they saw. There had to be something to what they believed," he said.
They did stay together a few years as collective episcopacy of the Church in Jerusalem. With St Peter as their head. So, based on merely that, there is a theoretical chance they could have concocted a story, at least they had the time if you go only by that.
- However, the Church started out with a Story told on Pentecost day. If they had been reshaping the story after, they would have lost adherents. So, in fact they did not have more time than 52 days between Crucifixion and Pentecost.
- If they had agreed on it in spite of facts known by them (supposing there had been such as would have invalidated their story) they would not have died unflinching deaths under torture, or, as for St John, faced a naturally inevitable death under boiling oil and then survive miraculously.
Nor been in the mood for the show they did on Pentecost day. And the miracle of Languages would not have happened. God does not make miracles for liars.
- If they had been mad, they would not have been able to agree on a story and would not have been able to guide, in the open, a Church like that.
Even sane people have trouble making homeless shelters agreeable for all concerned, perhaps they do not want to but want people to look for work so as to get away from them - but the Church in Jerusalem was people sacrificing their carreers so as to be able to live together.
The Hippie Camps have tried to rival that recently - and mostly failed. And it started out 5000 men plus women and children. Not just Hippie camp, but Woodstock - and Altamont. As far as scale is concerned. But the Church had no Altamont. And even Altamont was not ran by madmen, it just went wrong anyway.
One more quote from Joel Lampe:
A couple of years later, he said, he began studying the lives of William Tyndale, John Rogers, Thomas Cranmer and John Wycliffe - biblical publishing pioneers who were persecuted or killed for challenging the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.
Big trouble number one with that story: the question what happened to the Church between the Apostles (or possibly Saint Jerome) and John Wycliffe.
Bible says the Church cannot fail between Ascension and Return of Our Lord. Our Lord's words, end of Gospel of St Matthew.
Big trouble number two with it: his Father Dr Craig's* solution the Bible teaching was kept pure and alive by a "secret society called the Culdees".
Bible says the Church cannot be a secret society. "A city built on a mountain cannot be hidden". "No man lighteth a candle/lamp so as to place it under a bushel" - and would God who lit the beacon of Light for our souls, whose word is a lantern for our feet put his candle** under a bushel? Or allow it to be put under a bushel by evil men for any longer time?
Even in Russia, 1917-1990, lots of people knew the Gospels because they were known before, from the time of the Czars. And that obscuration was not even reducing the Church to a secret society, since Orthodox and in some parts Catholic priests were openly celebrating Mass and preaching the Resurrection on Easter.
Now, let us therefore look on Craig's story about Wycliff, from The Forbidden Book.
John Wycliff was a product of the chosing of that secret society...
As already stated, the Culdees were not a secret society, they were Monks of the Celtic discipline. Iona was founded by some spiritual grandson or greatgrandson of St Patrick (whose biography I am now reading). By the way, it is not Culdee that means a certain starnger, but Chaldaeus, Chaldean. And St Joseph was not a Chaldean, he was a Hebrew, a Hebraeus. Culdee is not Latin but Irish: "Caol Dé" = "Companion of God". Just as "Socius Jesu" (the Latin for Jesuit) = "Companion of Jesus." But as little as the Jesuits in Spain, as little were the Culdees in the British Isles a Secret Society.
It is possible that certain Culdees after the Norman Conquest ousted the Celtic Church Discipline (and yes, Celtic and Roman Church differred only on discipline) degenerated into a secret society, just as it is possible that Templars after the burning of Jacques Molay in 1313 degenerated into a secret society more than they had become already by then (I mean Jacques Molay was no true and faithful successor of Hugues de Payns, unless he fooled - as I think he did not - the Council of Troyes of 1129, because quite certainly Hugues de Payns was not forcing - and would not have been allowed to start the order if he had been thought to force - new recruits to the order to tread on a Crucifix, as Jacques Molay was condemned for: some say Templars surviving in Scotland became the deplorable Freemasons, by infiltrating what had previously been Lodges of simple builders, and it is just barely possible but not at all likely that such degeneration happened to some Culdees as well).
But it is normally so that the Culdees who were not allowed to continue in their older discipline after Norman Conquests of the Celtic fringes (as well as Monks of Ely after Norman Conquest in England) took the Benedictine or later possibly Cistercian discipline. And on what basis could you say there were exceptions living on as a secret society or that new Benedictines even were secretly disloyal to the new Church discipline but at same time highly organised? Contemporary documents? - Not that I know of.
Wyclef stated he belonged to a secret society? - Would have been dangerous. Not likely.
Secret societies later claimed they continued the Culdees whose man Wyclef was? - That is in my opinion the very likeliest basis, unless it is just hysteria about Catholicism making secret society like behaviour a necessity for true Christians and trying to identify the "secret society Christians", picking Culdees for a reason or another.
Some have stated that the whole Reformation (like Freemasonry, like Bolshevism) is after all the product of people acting sometimes after the fashion of secret societies. These would be Jews, the sect that much earlier had crucified Our Lord. I find it barely likelier Jews by hatred of Christianity (which was offering them a status of second class citizens, after all) would have misunderstood or otherwise attacked the Holy Eucharist, picked out a man who did not shun them too much, talked to him and so on ...
But at least as likely if not likelier that some persecuted Waldensians - for there were times when they were persecuted - approached him.
If we can discount that, we can say he was his own deluder.
Here prepared a little tract called the Wicket, and it was a denial of Transsubstantiation.
That much is nearly sure that he denied Transsubstantiation. Or at least attacked it. Has the tract been preserved or not? Has if there is one its genuine descent from the pen of Wycliff been duly established?
Because the Bible did not support the idea that there is some kind of illusion or som kind of hocus pocus
The "refutation" of Transsubstantiation based thereon was refuted itself by St Thomas Aquinas:***
Summa Theologiae, III P, Q 75
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4075.htm
and
Summa Theologiae, III P, Q 77
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4077.htm
From the latter, A 1:
Objection 1. It seems that the accidents do not remain in this sacrament without a subject, because there ought not to be anything disorderly or deceitful in this sacrament of truth. But for accidents to be without a subject is contrary to the order which God established in nature; and furthermore it seems to savor of deceit, since accidents are naturally the signs of the nature of the subject. Therefore the accidents are not without a subject in this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 1. There is nothing to hinder the common law of nature from ordaining a thing, the contrary of which is nevertheless ordained by a special privilege of grace, as is evident in the raising of the dead, and in the restoring of sight to the blind: even thus in human affairs, to some individuals some things are granted by special privilege which are outside the common law. And so, even though it be according to the common law of nature for an accident to be in a subject, still for a special reason, according to the order of grace, the accidents exist in this sacrament without a subject, on account of the reasons given above (75, 5).
In other words, it is the real lightness or whiteness of bread you experience by touch or sight even when there is no real bread there any longer. And because the real whiteness and lightness is still there, same lightness and whiteness as when they were those of bread not yet consecrated, there is no deceit. There is no illusion.
And they would serve the elements in a Cannibalistic way.
Not at all. Cannibalism means eating the body of a man dead, or possibly dying from the cannibalism, unless it is very limited as in modern perversions of ritual Vampyrism. It means taking away pieces or drops to eat by one man what would otherwise have been the life of another one.
But Christ is risen, and His Body and Blood are not there under their own dimensions. Each communicant takes into his mouth and swallows, under the dimensions of bread and wine, not a piece of Christ's body but all of it, not a drop of Christ's blood but all of it. It is not blood as being spilled, it is blood as running in the veins of the Risen Body. Communion is not Cannibalism, it is offering up one's body to be a place where Christ is in His Body and Blood. Cannibalism is eating someone else's death. Communion is eating God's life. Cannibalism is eating someone weaker than oneself, since already dead. Communion is eating someone stronger than oneself, since already risen and since the very Person of God the Son, of God Almighty.
However, if Wycliff himself made the charge - I am right now searching Wikipedia for "The Wicket Wycliffe Lollards" and I get: "Did you mean: The Cricket Wycliffe Lollards" because Wicket is also a term in the Cricket game - then he was basically agreeing with Jewish anti-Christian and earlier Roman Pagan anti-Christian polemics. The "Cannibal" charge against Christians was made due to the Holy Eucharist. The Cannibal charge made by Celsus.
While on search for The Wicket, I get to an Old Paths Publications where Wycliff is said to have "defended property rights against Rome." He did not, he attacked voluntary poverty, the state in which the Church of Jerusalem lived. He called people having sold all their property and given it to the poor and living as beggars "thieves" precisely as the Pharisees and Sadducees might have called the Church in Jerusalem.
Between St Jerome and the time of Wycliff, the Faith delivered to and through the Apostles was not kept alive by a secret society of Culdees emanating into Wycliff, but by the established Church - including the time when it condemned Wycliff.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Château d'Eau Library
Paris
St John of Matha, O. SS. Trin.
8-II-2013
* As per mail I received Craig Lampe is Ph. D. I am neither claiming nor denying it, he is claiming it. As to what University or what subject, I do not know. It is not Lund University's Faculty for History, nor for Classical Studies. I know a Historian there, I studied Latin there, such ignorance as his about the Latin Middle Ages is inconceivable there. At least if you are promoted to Ph.D. - as I was not but do not claim to have been.
** Probable reference not to the kind of candles or tapers of wax you seen in Church, but to oil lamps. These had wicks like candles, and I am quoting from memory.
*** His Summa Theologiae is available online, both Latin and English translation. It has five parts, of which he did the first four in context. Prima Pars (I P) is about God as Creator and about Creation in General. Secunda Pars is really two parts, it is about Human Actions and their principles and that means it is there you find definitions of Sin and Grace. Prima Secundae (I-II) deals with basic principles of human actions, there you find freewill and passions, law and grace and the charismata. Secunda Secundae (II-II) deals with diverse virtues and sins. There you can find definition of Faith, Hope and Charity - as well as of diverse sins against these. Tertia Pars (III P) deals with Incarnation, Redemption, Church and Sacraments. But III P is only the part he completed himself. It includes Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist, but the general outline of the work is followed up by his disciples in Tertiae Partis Supplementum (III Suppl.), which takes the rest of the Sacraments, and in context with Penance deals also with Indulgences. After the Sacraments it goes on to Eschatology. Its words are his, but taken together from earlier works done on other plans, basically. Each of these five parts - I, I-II, II-II, III, (III) Suppl - is divided into sections not marked in citation but these are subdivided into Quaestiones that are numbered all through such a part. After one quaestio dealing with Theology and Holy Writ you continue counting the Quaestiones about God, as such, as Trinity, as Creator, and after that the numbering continues unbroken for the Quaestiones about Creation (Q 70 is about "The Work of Fourth Day of Creation" for instance), and each Quaestio is subdivided into closely related aspects, known as Articles. Each Article begins with the "Objections" against truth, continues one authority for truth known as "Sed Contra", then comes St Thomas' explanation of the main point in the "In corpore" and then his answers to objections in the final parts known as "Ad 1, ad 2 ..." enumerating the responses to each of the objections in same order.
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)