Sometimes a Lutheran gets it right! Baptism INTO the forgiveness of Sins is a Gift from God

Most people on CMI seem to deny the necessity of baptism as far as we are concerned.

I say that phrase "as far as we are concerned" because God is not bound to the Sacraments so as not to be able to save us without their actual reception.

Now, Jonathan Sarfati with some reluctance took up the charge to answer in a clarifying way that baptism is not necessary to get saved. But it is - as far as we are concerned. Now, fortunately he published a postscript. Unless someone else did, the PS is not signed by Jonathan Sarfati. Anyway, the PS is very good:

Our intention in responding to the initial ‘cannibalism’ complaint, which also criticised us for not teaching baptismal regeneration, was not to enter areas outside of our Statement of Faith, but to affirm our position (C5) in that Statement of Faith that salvation is by grace through faith alone. We did not intend to come across as weighing in on any of the other controversies associated with baptism (e.g. mode and subject), as we are a non-denominational ministry. We therefore publish a comment from Lutheran minister Noel S from Canada, as follows:

Dear friends at CMI,

Let me interject a Lutheran understanding of baptism as a middle ground . Baptism is not a work we do to earn salvation, it is a gift we receive from God. Baptism is visible Gospel by which we receive divine adoption and the inheritance of sons (Gal 3:26-27). Of course, the promises of baptism are apprehended by faith, but that does not mean that God's promises are not truly offered in baptism. Yes a person can be saved solely by believing the promises of the bare Word (w/o baptism), but baptism makes those promises very personal: I baptize YOU in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. I have a great and wonderful comfort in baptism, it is something I can hang on to when I'm tempted to doubt God's grace and favour & the Gospel IS for ME!

We are confident that Rev. Noel would affirm with us Ephesians 2:8–9: For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith; and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God; not by works, so that no one can boast.

God usually makes men by the sexual intercourse of a married man and a married woman. God usually makes wine of water through soil and vine plant and fermentation ... this does not mean He is unable to have achieved the creation of Adam from noone, Eve from Adam's side and Christ from the womb of a Virgin. Any more than He was unable to shortcut the steps between water and wine at Cana.

Now, the way in which God ordinarily makes reborn men is by Baptism. It is just as much a gift from God as being born in the first place. And when applied to infants - believing in the faith of them that carry them to the font - it is not a work by the person getting saved.

Actually, it is the position "Baptism is what saved people do, not what people do to be saved" which makes Baptism a work, since it precludes infant Baptism but also makes Baptism a sign of obedience and no more - thereby contradicting Our Lord in John chapter 3.

Now, the Lutheran parson got it perfectly right:

Baptism is not a work we do to earn salvation, it is a gift we receive from God.

It is a pity Luther did not see it that way about Holy Mass and the Seven Sacraments.

Fasting is a work, and we do not do it to get saved - in the first place, preliminarily, "in hope", that is receiving the state of grace, but in order not to get lost again once we are in the state of grace. That is why the godfather and godmother of Father Bryan Houghton after his reception into the Church (the point at which they technically knew him to be saved) told him "Oh Bryan, it is marvellous, now that you are a Catholic you can fast!"

Sure, it was Lent as the godmother had told him and instead of café au lait with maybe a croissant, he had black coffee.

But that is not a work to earn salvation. It is a work by which the saved - in spe salvi of course, not yet definitely saved as having died in Christ - earn merits for Heaven, but in someone doing the same work without being in the state of grace it is neither a merit for Heaven (though it may earn some rewards on earth) nor saving him. It is first and foremost a work done in order not to get lost through mortal sins. There was one occasion when Father Bryan showed one person (and years after, without disclosing her identity his readers) that he had indeed some protection from such things.

But if taking black coffee instead of café au lait is works, but not in itself for salvation, baptism is salvation by grace and not by works. Sure, it is "works" for the priest performing it correctly (and he is not doing it to earn salvation but to earn merits to enjoy in the Heaven Christ had already opened for him), but it is not works, it is the gift of God for the one receiving it.

Same is true for any Sacrament and also for Holy Mass. The tragedy of Catholic priesthood is the risk of loosing sight of that because to the priest it is also a work that takes their efforts ... precisely as kneeding and standing next to an oven, even in summer, and rising at three o'clock to have bread ready for customers is for a baker.

Luther lost sight of it and declared several Sacraments and Holy Mass itself "works" and therefore blasphemies against God's word in Ephesians 2:8-9. Father Bryan Houghton did not loose sight of it. But Father Bryan Houghton was never a Jansenist. Luther's earliest divagations are more Jansenist than Protestant ... and Jansenism is (if you know Pascal) not the happiest kind of Catholic there is (it was also condemned, not just in Luther's case but also later in the cases of Baius and Jansenius and Quesnel - none of which were ever Protestants, but all of which were rigorists). He could have profited by the letter Exsurge Domine, which was not really telling him not to be a Protestant (he was not so yet), but not to be a Jansenist.

I am an ex-Lutheran. I think the letter of parson "Noel Santaclaus" or whatever his name is (he would be "Father Christmas" if a Catholic priest, exactly like the martyr Noel Pinot, killed by French Revolutionists) clarifies how the Lutheran position I had about baptism prepared the Catholic position I have about Baptism as well as the other Sacraments. If someone else has any doubts about it, I recommend the consultation of Unwanted Priest - which is an autobiography by Father Bryan Houghton. I nearly think he achieved the miracle of saving Monty Python from blaspheming Christ in the person of "Brian", because Father Houghton actually did in a way both say "Romani ite domum" and take a correction "about his Latin". That is, he refused to celebrate the New Liturgy ("Romani ite domum"), but he agreed to step down as a curate in order to obey Church Law (or what he took for such - hence the Brian "taking a correction in Latin by Biggus Diccus").*

Now Lutheran liturgy is - compared to the Latin Mass - a kind of super-Jansenism. It presumes making Holy Mass as stately as possible is somehow some kind of "work" and therefore making it as simple as possible (as well as denying it is a Real Sacrifice, others even denied it is the Real Presence of Christ) is some kind of obedience to Ephesians. Not true. But as far as Baptism is concerned this Lutheran keeps (as Lutherans generally) a Catholic rather than a Jansenist outlook.

Now to the examples given by Jonathan Sarfati to pervert "Baptism is not a work we do to earn salvation, it is a gift we receive from God" into "Baptism is what saved people do, not what people do to be saved."

But Peter said to them: 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 gift of the Holy Ghost. ... Save yourselves from this perverse generation. They therefore that received his word, were baptized; and there were added in that day about three thousand souls.

This is St Peter's first Sermon. The one in the Portico is the next chapter and contains the words:

Be penitent, therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out.

He was not in another city, everyone knew that Baptism was involved. This happened after the three thousand souls just on Pentecost day - and saying souls were added implies knew Creatures, that is that they were being saved as they were being baptised. The first exhortation to Baptism indeed implies that NOT getting Baptised implied remaining in "this perverse generation". That can by itself - we are bound to take it as taken by the Church but I speak without having checked - either imply "unregenerated sons of Adam" or "sinful Pharisees who have just killed God". Or both at the same time.

To you first God, raising up his Son, hath sent him to bless you; that every one may convert himself from his wickedness.

This means they had to get baptised. If anyone was by any chance (and Jews spread rumours quickly) still unfamiliar with the Baptism going on previous days or weeks or months (since Pentecost day) the wording would have reminded such ones of St John the Baptist.

Next sermon evidence cited by Jonathan Sarfati is St Paul's speech in the Areopagus. One Dionysius heard him more or less and later wrote De Divinis Nominibus, as St Thomas Aquinas believed. The day when people like Valla (not sure if he was himself a culprit in exctaly this case) denied that book was by that Saint reformation was alas not far away. But Jonathan Sarfati's point is that St Paul did not mention Baptism. Let us have a little look at the context:

17 He disputed, therefore, in the synagogue with the Jews, and with them that served God, and in the market-place, every day, with those that were present.

Plenty of time to mention Baptism there. There are no exact relations of their and his words given by St Luke.

18 And certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers disputed with him, and some said: What is it that this babbler would say? But others: He seemeth to be a preacher of new gods: because he preached to them Jesus, and the resurrection.

If they called him a babbler, so much must be true about it that he spoke more than just what is recorded in verses 22-31.

19 And taking him, they brought him to the Areopagus, saying: May we know what this new doctrine is, which thou speakest of?

20 For thou bringest certain new things to our ears: We would know, therefore, what these things mean.

21 (Now all the Athenians, and strangers that were there, employed themselves in nothing else, but either in telling or in hearing something new.)

The context is therefore Apologetics. And what was being defended was certainly not an ablution rite or what must have seemed so to the Pagans who knew no better, they had some such themselves and were not attacking it, what was being defended was the central message. But there is more to it than this:

32 And when they had heard of the resurrection of the dead, some indeed mocked: but others said: We will hear thee again concerning this matter.

33 So Paul went out from among them.

34 But certain men adhered to him and did believed: among whom was also Dionysius, the Areopagite, and a woman, named Damaris, and others with them.

Meaning he was interrupted. On Pentecost the Jews had let St Peter speak, but the other Apostles had been either tired or silenced or started listening to St Peter. On Areopagus, the Greeks did not let Saint Paul speak. Probably because some of them had been tipped off by Jews (see verse 17) who wanted to avoid another Pentecost day.

So, since Christ's Resurrection logically comes before His command to Baptise, we may pretty safely say that St Paul broke off when he was interrupted and had no time to get into Baptism in public, but he of course did so to St Dionysius and to Damaris, since they went off with him and continued listening.**

The book of Acts also provides an example of people who were saved before being baptized, the first Gentile family who became Christians. In Acts 10:44-48, Cornelius and those with him were converted through Peter’s message. That they were saved before being baptized is evident from their reception of the Holy Spirit (v. 44) and the gifts of the Spirit (v. 46) before their baptism. And once again, it was this evidence that they were already saved that led Peter to baptize them (cf. v. 47).

Fact. That is why even a Feeneyite*** must agree that though a man needs to get baptised if he wants God's grace, God does not need to wait till he is baptised with giving it. Also Saint Eustachius was told by Our Lord who appeared to him not only that he must get to the bishop of the city and get baptised, but also that he had pleased Our Lord. One possible case against Feeneyism is the girl who was stoned by Pagans while still a Catechumen, St Emerentiana was praying on the tomb of St Agnes, but they would answer she was already probably Baptised and simply prolonging her Catechumenate. That might be a copout.

Similarily, in order to be absolved before God for a mortal sin committed after Baptism, one need not always have already confessed and be given the Absolution, one can be absolved before one confesses - but not if one intends not to confess, since that is against God's law as stated in Epistle of St James. And who intends to disobey God is not repenting. But once one has confessed one goes to the priest to get absolution anyway. Why? In the old law, a man who had been cleansed of leprosy had to show himself to the priests. The rite of the two doves, which has been ridiculed as an impossible and superstitious cure for leprosy at least in the common medical sense of the word, Hansen's infection, was in fact a cohen acknowledging that the miraculous cure of leprosy (miraculous in the case of Hansen's infection anyway) had been done. But unlike the cohen who could not cure but only proclaim, the priest who is successor of Christ's Apostles also has the power to "cure of leprosy" in cases like when one approaches the Sacrament of Penance with imperfect contrition or attrition for the sin. And this is precisely not making the penant get saved by "Christ plus my works", it is making him get saved by Christ, because it is by mandate of Christ that they are able to absolve.

Here is the commentary on the Cornelius passage:°

Ver. 44. The Holy Ghost fell upon all them, and made his coming known in some visible manner and exterior signs, as on the day of Pentecost. The Christians who had come with St. Peter, who before had been Jews, were astonished to see that such extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were given to uncircumcised Gentiles. (Witham)

Ver. 47. Can any man forbid water? &c. Or doubt that these, on whom the Holy Ghost hath descended, may be made members of the Christian Church, by baptism, as Christ ordained? (Witham) --- Such may be the grace of God occasionally towards men, and such their great charity and contrition, that they may have remission, justification, and sanctification, before the external sacraments of baptism, confirmation, and penance be received; as we see in this example: where, at Peter's preaching, they all received the Holy Ghost before any sacrament. But here we also learn one necessary lesson, that such, notwithstanding, must needs receive the sacraments appointed by Christ, which whosoever contemneth, can never be justified. (St. Augustine, sup. Levit. q. 84. T. 4.)

Now Jonathan Sarfati is saying that Acts 2 do not show the reverse order, as normal, i e getting saved through Baptism. I find him engaged in ingenuous eisegesis here:

That baptism is the act of a saved person is shown even in the Acts 2:38 passage. Peter appears to link forgiveness of sins to baptism. But there are at least two plausible interpretations of this verse that do not connect forgiveness of sin with baptism. “For” is the Greek word εἰς (eis), and both the English and Greek have several meanings, depending on the context. Certainly it sometimes means “in order to” or “to achieve”, “to obtain” etc., which is the meaning you ascribe to the “for” in this passage, e.g. a diver came up for air, meaning to obtain air. But this is not the only meaning. E.g. if I take an aspirin “for” my headache, it certainly doesn’t mean that I’m taking it to “obtain” a headache. Rather, the “for” here means “because of”.

Similarly, a poster saying “Jesse James wanted for robbery”, would be unlikely to mean Jesse is wanted so he can commit a robbery; rather, it means he is wanted because he has committed a robbery. So too in this passage, the word “for” signifies an action in the past—that we are baptized because we identify with the salvation Christ has already achieved for us. Otherwise, it would violate the entire tenor of the NT teaching on salvation by grace through faith and not by works (e.g. Romans 4, Galatians 3, Ephesians 2:8–9, and about 200 other times where faith/belief is the only condition listed for salvation).

It is also possible to take the clause “and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from the fact that “repent” and “your” are plural, while “be baptized” is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read “Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins.” Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not baptism, in keeping with the consistent teaching of the New Testament (cf. Luke 24:47; John 3:18; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Ephesians 5:26).

First of all, the distinct meanings of eis and the distinct meanings of for are not the same ones. The basic meaning of eis is into. This totally contradicts the idea (which would have been possible if St Peter had been speaking the English of ESV) that forgiveness of sins was cause rather than effect of Baptism. For can sometimes mean because of what has gone before and sometimes because of what one wants. But eis is certainly incompatible with the meaning "because of what has gone before", since it means "into". It can therefore be used as "so that you get" but never as "because you have got". You can take an aspirin "for" headache and Jesse James can have been wanted "for" robbery, but never ever can a Greek take an aspirin "eis" anything other than mouth or stomach, and if Jesse James was [insert verb] "eis" anything it was "into a court" (which did not happen) or "into a tomb" (which did happen due to the dirty little coward who shot mister Howard - he actually did lay Jesse James "eis" his grave).

Douay Rheims also has "for" the forgiveness, but two or three non-Catholic versions actually avoid the English pun involved in Jonathan Sarfati's reasoning:°°

Repent, replied Peter, "and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, with a view to the remission of your sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
- Weymouth Bible

And Petre seide to hem, Do ye penaunce, and eche of you be baptisid in the name of Jhesu Crist, in to remissioun of youre synnes; and ye schulen take the yifte of the Hooli Goost.
- Wycliffe Bible

and Peter said unto them, `Reform, and be baptized each of you on the name of Jesus Christ, to remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit,
- Youngs Literal Bible

The German has:

„Petrus antwortete ihnen: Kehrt um und jeder von euch lasse sich auf den Namen Jesu Christi taufen zur Vergebung seiner Sünden; dann werdet ihr die Gabe des Heiligen Geistes empfangen.“
– Apostelgeschichte 2,38 EU

Note that Sarfati's reasoning is consistent with "wegen der" but not with "zur". Note also that this passage is giving the original for a part of the Creed of Nice and Constantinople. Lutherans in Sweden recite it as "till syndernas förlåtelse" and Swedish "till" = English "to" = Greek "eis". Since that translation is Catholic, here is the 1984 edition of Luther Bible:

Petrus sprach zu ihnen: Tut Buße und jeder von euch lasse sich taufen auf den Namen Jesu Christi zur Vergebung eurer Sünden, so werdet ihr empfangen die Gabe des Heiligen Geistes.

Now, Jonathan Sarfati may have sensed he needed a backup to this argument. Here it comes:

It is also possible to take the clause “and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ” as parenthetical. Support for that interpretation comes from the fact that “repent” and “your” are plural, while “be baptized” is singular, thus setting it off from the rest of the sentence. If that interpretation is correct, the verse would read “Repent (and let each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ) for the forgiveness of your sins.” Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, not baptism, in keeping with the consistent teaching of the New Testament (cf. Luke 24:47; John 3:18; Acts 5:31; 10:43; 13:38; 26:18; Ephesians 5:26).

The conclusion would have been more correct, linguistically as well as theologically, to make it: Forgiveness is thus connected with repentance, AND baptism. Because, otherwise it was clumsy to put the parenthesis about baptism between repentance and forgiveness.

Remember, here the Bible is not just telling us what a man like anyone else is saying. It is telling us what St Peter said specifically under inspiration of the Holy Ghost.

The second question of Luther's Smaller Catechism (if you prefer that to Catholic Catechisms) asks "why are you called a Christian" and the answer is "because I am baptised in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost and in baptism have clad myself in Christ and believe and confess that he is my Saviour and the one who shall give me eternal Bliss". It then cites Galatians. Check out the Baltimore Catechism, 1941, on Baptism yourself°°° Note that clothing myself in the righteousness of Christ is not in my human power as approaching Baptism. It is an act of God, but it as considered an act of whoever gets baptised insofar as one is chosing it (and children getting baptised are chosing it through their godfather's and godmother's choice). It is both essential for salvation and a gift of God, and not a work of man.

Unfortunately the juggling with words while not understanding the meaning is not done for Jonathan Sarfati on this one:

Similarly with Acts 22:16, the phrase “wash away your sins” is best connected with “calling on His name”. A connection with “be baptized” would leave the Greek participle ἐπικαλεσάμενος (epikalesamenos = calling) “dangling” without an antecedent. Thus Paul’s sins were washed away by calling on the name of the Lord (cf. Romans 10:9–13; see below), rather than by baptism.

"Calling on his name" is obviously connected both to the "rise up" and to the "and be baptized" and to the "and wash away thy sins". This is one thing a participle can do in Latin or Greek. Has Jonathan Sarfati ever heard of a Baptism where one is NOT calling on the name of the Lord? A jocular one (like the blasphemy when Little John is baptised in beer in the Sherwood forest) or one in a film are baptisms where calling on God's name is not really involved, and in which there is also no real washing away of the sins.

This is a Catholic truth, which Pope Leo X defended against Luther, who tried to make, if not Baptism, at least Absolution, independent of the absolving priest's real intentions. At least if the person in question really believed himself to be absolved.

Now we get to James 2:19~

14 What shall it profit, my brethren, if a man say he hath faith, but hath not works? Shall faith be able to save him?

15 *And if a brother or sister be naked, and want daily food,

16 And one of you say to them: Go in peace, be you warmed and filled: yet give them not those things that are necessary for the body, what shall it profit? 17 Even so faith, if it have not works, is dead in itself.

18 But some men will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without works; and I will shew thee my faith by works.

19 Thou believest that there is one God. Thou dost well: the devils also believe and tremble.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

And here is the comment:

Ver. 14, &c. Shall faith be able to save him? He now comes to one of the chief points of this epistle, to shew against the disciple of Simon , the magician, that faith alone will not save any one. We may take notice in the first place, that St. James in this very verse, supposes that a man may have faith, a true faith without good works. This also follows from ver. 19., where he says: Thou believest that there is one God: thou dost well. And the same is evident by the words in John xii. 42., where it is said, that many of the chief men also believed in him, (Christ)....but did not confess it, that they might not be cast out of the synagogue. Now that faith alone is not sufficient to save a man, St. James declares by this example: If any one say to the poor and naked, go in peace, be you warmed and filled, and give them nothing, what shall it profit? Even so faith, if it have not works is dead, &c. i.e. such a faith, though it be not lost and destroyed, yet it remains in a soul that is spiritually dead, when it is not accompanied with charity and grace, which is the life of the soul, and without which faith can never bring us to eternal life. In this sense is to be understood the 20th and 26th verses of this chapter, when faith is again said to be dead without good works. This is also the doctrine of St. Paul, when he tells us that a saving faith is a faith that worketh by charity, Galatians v. 6. When he says, that although faith were strong enough to remove mountains, a man is nothing without charity. (1 Corinthians xiii. 2.) When he teacheth us again, that not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. [Romans ii. 13.] St. John teacheth the same (1 John iii. 14.) He that loveth not, remaineth in death. But of this elsewhere. (Witham) --- Grotius in this place makes a very candid and remarkable profession of his faith, very different from that of his associates in the pretended reformation, called Solifideans [who pretend one is justified by faith alone]: "There are some who say, 'My works indeed are not as they ought to be,' but my faith is firm, my salvation is therefore out of danger. This opinion, which has sprung up in this our unhappy age, and recommends itself under the name of reformed doctrine, ought to be opposed by every lover of piety, and all who wish well to their neighbour's salvation....no faith has ever availed any man, unless it were accompanied by such works as he had time and opportunity to perform." His words are: "Opera quidem mea non recta sunt, sed fides recta est, ac propterea de salute non periclitor....Renata est hoc infelici sæculo ea sententia et quidem sub nomine repurgatæ doctrinæ, cui omnes qui pietatem et salutem proximi amant, se debent opponere....cœterum nulla cuiquam fides profuit, sine tali opere, quale tempus permittebat," &c. In vain do we glory in our faith, unless our lives and works bear testimony of the same. Faith without charity is dead, and charity cannot exist without good works. He who bears the fruits of Christian piety, shews that he has the root, which is faith; but the root is dead, when it affords no produce. Works are to faith what the soul is to the body. See the remainder of this chapter.

Ver. 18. Some men will say: Thou hast faith, and I have works. Shew me thy faith, &c. He confutes the same error, by putting them in mind that one can shew that he has faith, which is an interior virtue, only by good works, and that good works in a man shew also his faith; which is not to be understood, as if good works were merely the marks, signs, and effects of faith, as some would pretend, but that good works must concur with faith to a man's salvation by an increase in grace. (Witham)

Ver. 19. The devils also believe, and tremble. St. James compares indeed faith without other virtues and good works, to the faith of devils: but comparisons must never be stretched farther than they are intended. The meaning is, that such a faith in sinners is unprofitable to salvation, like that of devils, which is no more than a conviction from their knowledge of God; but faith which remains in sinners, is from a supernatural knowledge, together with a pious motion in their free will. (Witham)

So, though the beginning of my salvation is a gift of God and not my work, along with the faith which is a gift of God I also need, even to get saved in the end, and not just as Sarfati would like to pretend that they accompany a salvation already finished, the good works. But the Baptism is not so much a good work on behalf of the one getting baptised as an act of God, which makes this somewhat beside the point.

Sarfati makes one point here:~~

But the James 2:19 passage that J.G. alludes to states that the demons believe in one God—they don’t believe that Jesus died for their sins, so they lack the proper content for saving faith.

If they believed that Christ died for the sins of any non-humans (specifically fallen angels) they would be heretics. But "believing Christ died for MY sins" is not enough and not even the basis.

5 *By faith Henoch was translated, that he should not see death; and he was not found, because God had translated him: for before his translation he had testimony that he pleased God.

6 But without faith it is impossible to please God. For he that cometh to God, must believe that he is, and is a rewarder to them that seek him.

Ver. 5. Henoch[Enoch] was translated, so as not to die nor see death. In Ecclesiasticus (Chap. xliv.) he is said to be translated into paradise. By these words, that he should not see death, it is the general exposition of the ancient interpreters, that he is not dead; but in what place, or in what manner God preserveth him, we know not. See St. Augustine, lib. de pec. orig.[on Original Sin] chap. xxiii.; St. Chrysostom; &c. (Witham)

Ver. 6. He proves the Henoch[Enoch] was translated by faith, or on account of faith, thus: Henoch was translated because he pleased God; now he could not please God but by faith; therefore by faith he was translated. (Menochius)

Obviously, the demons believe the first part, and if they do not deny the second part, they are not affirming it in their eternal deadness either. Insofar precisely as they give no good works. Where in all of the Bible does Jonathan Sarfati even find such a thing as believing Christ died for one is the proper content of saving faith? It is very firmly condemned by the Council of Trent, and seems to be to be as much of illicit eisegesis (a stranger reading his own understandings into a culture not really his own) as the wordplay on "for" in a verse where "unto" or "into" would have been clearer.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Agatha
5-II-2014

Thank you, St Agatha, for your intercession 16 years ago!/HGL

PS, the best argument for Jonathan sarfati and Kent Hovind not being heretics is they are not yet Baptised. And as such not yet Christians. Since valid Baptism involves the intention of the person baptising to make - under God (as St Peter and St Paul and Elijah worked cures under God) - a new child of God and since these are baptised in congregations where the intention is rather to recognise a recent child of God, their baptism might be invalid and thus they would be godfearing gentiles. Or in Sarfati's case, a godfearing non-Christian Hebrew./HGL

* It may be argued Father Bryan was probably a cheesemaker, he kept nannygoats in Provence. It is certain that he tried to be a peacemaker, between those using New and Older Liturgies (the one he rejected and the one he stuck to, see chapter "La Bombe" in the French translation "Prêtre rejeté"). There might be a reference to him in "Brian" hearing the words of Our Lord (not shown!) ... especially if "Cultural Protestants" (I owe the expression to a "Cultural Muslim" who was an Atheist) like Monty Python also believed Father Bryan Houghton had got the words of Our Lord wrong in certain contexts. If you so much as chuckled at any scene in Life of Brian, you owe it both to the honour of Our Lord and to the memory of this possible inspiration for the film's central character, to read Unwanted Priest by Father Bryan Houghton.

** Not sure if she has thereafter lived before the eyes of the Church the kind of life or the kind of death that would have gotten her honoured as a saint. But of course that does not mean that she was no saint in private. I do not know her from the Calendar.

*** Feeneyites are those claiming that in the New Testament era no one is ever saved without getting baptised before he dies. Other Catholics hold that the grace of Baptism can be given even finally to someone not baptised in case he either wanted Baptism but had no chance to get it or he died as a martyr for the Christian faith. But Cornelius means they have to agree grace can be given before the Sacrament is given. It is just that they say that in every such case, if they are faithful to the grace, God will give them Sacramental Baptism.

° Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition : ACTS OF THE APOSTLES - Chapter 10
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id125.html

°° King James Bible Online : Acts 2:38
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Acts-2-38/

Not sure if what we have as Wycliffe Bible is really Wycliffe's work, Belloc had doubts on that matter.

°°° Catholicity, the Catholic Church Simplified : Baptism
Lesson 24 from the Baltimore Cathechism
http://www.catholicity.com/baltimore-catechism/lesson24.html

~ Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition : ST. JAMES - Chapter 2
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id260.html

~~ Here I give the link to Sarfati's article:

CMI : Feedback archive → Feedback 2009
Is baptism necessary for salvation? Is death such a bad thing?
Published: 14 February 2009(GMT+10)
http://creation.com/is-baptism-necessary-for-salvation-further-feedback-plus-a-reader-asks-about-death

Patrick Madrid is right about kecharitomene and blessed among women

1) deretour : Mariologic Bible study, 2) New blog on the kid : Ipsa conteret, by Heinz Lothar Barth, German Book Tip, 3) Great Bishop of Geneva! : Patrick Madrid is right about kecharitomene and blessed among women

I do not know exactly where to find his article, but I do know where to find a pretended refutation of it. One which I set about to refute.

I only have to use the short link ppt.li/i5 to get to:

Aristophrenium : Fisher* : Was Mary Sinless
http://aristophrenium.com/fisher/was-mary-sinless/

Look first at two passages in Luke 1. In verse 28, the angel Gabriel greets Mary as “kecharitomene” (“full of grace” or “highly favored”). This is a recognition of her sinless state. In verse 42 Elizabeth greets Mary as “blessed among women.” The original import of this phrase is lost in English translation. Since neither the Hebrew nor Aramaic languages have superlatives (best, highest, tallest, holiest), a speaker of those languages would have say, “You are tall among men” or “You are wealthy among men” to mean “You are the tallest” or “You are the wealthiest.” Elizabeth’s words mean Mary was the holiest of all women.[5]

If this exegetical (or rather, eisegetical) argument proves anything, however, it proves too much. There is no reason to believe that κεχαριτωμένη is “a recognition of her sinless state,” because if this was the intended of the word, then we end up with all sorts of exegetical absurdities. For example, Saint Stephen is referred to as being “full of grace and power” [πλήρης χάριτος καὶ δυνάμεως] in Acts 6:8. If being full of grace is a description of being immaculately conceived, then we must therefore conclude that the Bible is teaching the immaculate conception of Stephen! Not only that, but the exact same verb that is used of Mary is also used of all believers in the aorist tense in the epistle to the Ephesians:

…he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will— to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given [ἐχαρίτωσεν] us in the One he loves.
(Ephesians 1:5-6)

The text is literally saying that God has graced (ἐχαρίτωσεν) Christians with His glorious grace. If the usage of κεχαριτωμένη in Luke 1:28 is good enough to prove the immaculate conception of Mary, then the usage of ἐχαρίτωσεν in Ephesians 1:6 is good enough to prove that every true believer is just as immaculately conceived as Mary is.

We Catholics agree that St Stephen individually was sinless while the Church is collectively sinless. St Stephen was - at least as to his habitual state - not in any sin either original or mortal. And venial sins do not define a state. They only lessen the intensity of grace. However, since the word pleros charitos is used (and its tranlation into Latin, "gratia plenus" is the model for the Latin translation of Gabriel's greeting "gratia plena") he was not committing any venial sins either at the time that Acts is referring to, but, probably since Pentecost day, enjoying a life without even any venial sins. That and not just the martyrdom is what we mean by calling Stephen a Saint.

Unlike kecharitomene which is a verb form referring to a present constant result of a past action - I will return to that - charitos pleros** is a phrase comprising no references to time. St Stephen was probably in a state of original sin up to his circumcision - meaning he was not yet pleros charitos** or even half full of grace, and he may have done venial sins between his circumcision and later on getting baptised and receiving the Holy Ghost on Pentecost Day. We need not suppose he was pleros charitos for all of his life, it is sufficient he was that between Pentecost and Martyrdom, especially between getting ordianed as a Deacon and Martyrdom for the words in Acts to be true of him.

But for that time we indeed think he was not even committing venial sins which would have meant less intensity of the charis and would therefore not have been in accordance with pleros. That gift we think he received by the intercession of the Blessed Virgin Mary, who, since watching Her Divine Son die on Calvary, is Queen of the Martyrs. And Saint Stephen is the first to join her in martyrdom. It was therefore behooving of God to make him this gift of grace for tha last and crucial part of his life, which He had given his Queen for all of Hers.

Therefore the parallel with Saint Stephen does not prove us guilty of eisegesis, or of absurd such, but rather strengthen and clarifies the true exegesis.

Now, to Ephesians. One reply to Fisher on Aristophrenium would be that gracing us with Christ and filling us with grace are two distinct actions to each of us. Since some of us have grace before knowing Christ and others when knowing Christ do not immediately receive Him fully and therefore do not immediately have the grace that corresponds to him. But that would be the wrong reply. One of us who has not fully been graced because not fully having received Christ would not yet be quite one of the "us" that Saint Paul is talking about.

The true reply is rather this, that yes "we" are collectively, insofar as members of the Church, sinless. He has graced us - collectively and also insofar as each one of us is truly a member of the Church, and He has done so first and foremost in the Sinless Head of the Church, that is in Christ.

Once again, there is no exegetic absurdity in saying that Mary is Sinless as the Church is Sinless. It becomes one to Fisher only because he thinks of St Paul's "we" or of the Church only as a figure of speech, an abstraction which covers the reality of several "Is" [pronounce like "eyes", not like the verb "is"]. He thinks of the Church as the mathematical sum or "Menge" of individual faithful. We think of the Church as an organism, a people, a thing which Christ has established, a collective personality enduring from Her birth out of His side at Calvary beyond time to the Eternal Wedding Feast. And once again taking the parallel to the full does not make our understanding of Luke 1:28 absurd, on the contrary it is said of the Church collectively, that is of Christ's Bride, that She has no wrinkle. The Blessed Virgin Mary is as Sinless as Her daughter in law the Church.

Sure, the individual members of the Church sin, or some do. Even mortally and in that case they must be reconciled to Christ and to His Church in order to save their souls. But the Church itself never ever sins at all. Precisely as the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Now the Blessedness of the Blessed Virgin. Fisher very righly points out that Jael was also called Blessed among women. However, he draws the wrong conclusion:

If we applied Madrid’s eisegesis of the phrase “blessed among women” consistently throughout the whole Bible, then we are forced to conclude that Jael is also immaculately conceived. It should be clear at this point that Roman Catholic apologists cannot consistently apply their eisegetical tricks without proving the immaculate conception of other persons besides Mary.

Now, the words "if we applied [it] consistently throughout the whole Bible" makes it sound as if Jael and quite a few other women were each in their generation called blessed among women before the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Note, even if that were true, this would only have been in their own generation, whereas the Blessed Virgin Mary is called Blessed by us, very many generations after her Assumption into Heaven, as She prophecied:

Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid; for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.
Luke 1, Magnificat

All generations of what? Of all mankind both blessed and damned, both Christian and Heathen together? No, then the prophecy failed. Of Jews? Hardly. Of Protestants? When will they start calling her the Blessed Virgin Mary then? No, all generations of the true people of God. She has identified the people of God for all generations between when She said Magnificat and to Judgement Day by the parameter of calling Her Blessed. Catholics or Orthodox might both do, in this particular aspect of it, but Protestants will not do. They are as much outside the true Church as the Gnostic Sects who believed the pseudo-Gospel of Thomas.

But it is not true that the Old Testament in each generation has a new woman who is blessed among women. There is one in the 66 Books that Fisher accepts, he mentioned her, Jael, there is another one who has a whole book named after her, it is in the 73 Books (or 72 if Baruch counts as one book with Jeremiah) of the true Bible. Both of these women were called "blessed among women" for having killed an enemy of Israel, for having delivered Israel from an agressor. The other one is called Judith:

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

So, the Blessed Virgin after hearing either angel or Elisabeth call her Blessed among women would not have wondered at first (she might have guessed it before she met Elisabeth or have got it the second time) why she was holy, but what enemy of Israel she had killed. There is only one enemy of Israel which she can be said in any sense to have killed, and his name or title is Satan. Not a mere Sisera, not a mere Holophernes, however gruesome these were, but Satan himself. And when St Elisabeth repeated the Blessed art thou among women which she had already heard from the angel, and then added "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" (who had not yet been born and received the name Jesus, but His Mother knew the Redeemer of mankind), she finally at the latest must have grasped what that part of the greeting meant:

He hath shewed might in his arm: he hath scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. He hath put down the mighty from their seat, and hath exalted the humble. He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away.

By mighty and rich She is not excepting Sisera or Holophernes, nor for that matter certain yet to be damned, like Herod or Caiaphas, but Satan was mightier and richer than they. He had conquered mankind. And he had been sent away emptyhanded. She was herself part of God's reconquest. Now that Elisabeth could add "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" she was so because "she said yes" (or fiat). But according to the angel, she had already been God's instrument for defeating the fallen one before saying yes.

The word kecharitomene referred in the angel's greeting to an act of God already past and already and still and forever giving the result that she was (as was said of St Stephen too) "full of grace". But this act of God is not mentioned here the first time. It is prophecied like a back then yet only awaited but certain future act of God:

I will put enmities between thee and the woman.
Genesis 3:15.

If by sin we - it is the we of mankind, which has sinned in Adam, not the we of the Church - are starting out as slaves of Satan, and if slavery is not consistent between enmity between lord and slave, then Mary was never sinning, not even "in Adam" (any more than her Son) since God had already before the angel greeted her put enmity between Satan and her. The same act of God which to the serpent is referred to as putting enmity is to herself referred to as having established her in grace.

So she defeated Satan three times. The third time was when uniting herself under the Cross to Her Son's prayer. The second was when "she said yes". And the first time was when God graced her and put enmity between the devil and herself. Even that must have been a defeat to Satan. One human soul conceived without being his indentured slave. One human soul he never had a grip on. One human soul which was from the first his enemy and not his plaything.

Otherwise, she would not have already been victorious over the serpent when the angel spoke to her, and thus the angel would not yet have had any more of a right to call her blessed (before she said yes) than to add "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" (before Christ had been conceived).

We have a right to read the Evangelical Tradition of the Orthodox Faith of the Catholic religion into every passage of the Bible. And as is shown, against one calling the bluff, we Catholics can do so without absurdity.

I am not claiming this is a neutral exegesis. I am not claiming to approach the Bible like one learning a foreign language. I am not claiming to be neutral or dispassionate as one able to discover by tomorrow that neither Satan for the Serpent nor Good Angel for the Donkey of Balaam were acting in a way related to but not identical to perhaps ventriloquism. I am not claiming I could tomorrow discover "the serpent" was a political cartoon about a nonserpentine tempter or that Balaam listening to his donkey was a satire about him being a false prophet. I am claiming that as being a Catholic I am reading the Bible as a native. And that precludes certain neutralities and certain kinds of scientific objectivity such as would be appropriate in an archaeological investigator unearthing the correspondence of Shupililiuma of the Hittites. But I am claiming that reading the Catholic Tradition into the Bible is not eisegesis of a strange paradigm.

Rather it is Protestantism which is guilty of eisegesis in for instance Ephesians 1:6 by supposing "we" means "each one of us". Precisely as passages stating the Church is redeemed once and for all and cannot fall into apostasy must not be interpreted as if this were true of each individual member of the Church. But it was and remains, on the contrary, very eminently true of the Blessed Virgin Mary. As for the individual believers, when they are "born of water and the Holy Ghost" they are indeed as Sinless as the Blessed Virgin Mary, unless they have posed an obstacle by approaching the Font or Baptisterial Basin with a defect in intention. A believer who becomes so by day eight is certainly in one moment - before being baptised into the death of Christ - a sinner having sinned in Adam and a few seconds later, after baptism, a new creature, conceived as such without sin. But our claim is that for Mary this salvific moment was not differred till any later moment than her very first moment of existence in the womb. God no sooner created Her than He established Her in grace and put enmity between Her and Satan.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Sunday and Feast of
the Purification of the Blessed Virgin Mary
2-II-2014

As to the purification, other women needed purification after childbirth, according to the law of Moses, since the lawgiver God knew procreation usually involves continuation of Adam's sin, even when done righteaously and without own sin. But the Blessed Virgin Mary today needed the ceremony only to show Her perfect obedience - an attitude in which She raised the one Man who was more Blessed than She: Her Divine Son.

Notes:

* Same Fisher does a very much better job here: Why Evangelicals Doubt Historical-Critical Theories About the Gospels (Pt. 1 – On Methodological Assumptions), Why Evangelicals Doubt Historical-Critical Theories About the Gospels (Pt. 2 – On the Synoptics)

St Pius X might be applauding him from Heaven. While being less gentle with some purported but non-inerrantist "Catholics". He had more in common with CSL than with Bultmann or Loisy.

** I meant pleres charitos, of course. My Latin is better than my Greek.

*** Ozias here mentioned is not the son of Joram, King of Judah but:

Judith 6:11 In those days the rulers there were Ozias, the son of Micha, of the tribe of Simeon, and Charmi, called also Gothoniel.

Appendix on "benedicta":

Other women who have been greeted "benedicta" in the Vulgate:

[10] And he said: Blessed art thou of the Lord, my daughter, and thy latter kindness has surpassed the former: because thou hast not followed young men either poor or rich.

[10] Thy latter kindness: to thy husband deceased in seeking to keep up his name and family by marrying his relation according to the law, and not following after young men. For Booz, it seems, was then in years.

Ruth, the ancestor of King David and of Our Lord. Ruth 3:10. Blessed, yes, but "not among women". However, she is an image of the Blessed Virgin insofar as she was at age twelve betrothed to an old widower, as Protevangelium Jacobi states of St Joseph.

And Abigail:

And David said to Abigail: Blessed be the Lord the God of Israel, who sent thee this day to meet me, and blessed be thy speech: And blessed be thou, who hast kept me today, from coming to blood, and revenging me with my own hand. Otherwise as the Lord liveth the God of Israel, who hath withholden me from doing thee any evil: if thou hadst not quickly come to meet me, there had not been left to Nabal by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall. And David received at her hand all that she had brought him, and said to her: Go in peace into thy house, behold I have heard thy voice, and have honoured thy face.

I Kings or I Samuel, chapter 25, verses 32 - 35. Abigail who had appeased the Ancestor of Our Lord, otherwise he would have done a great massacre. As it is also Our Lady who more than once has stopped the ire of Her Divine Son from doing another Flood or another Fire on Sodom act. Note that King David in gracing Nabal is using the words Our Lord used to the adulteress. Though King David did not adress them to Nabal but to the one he had called Blessed. But as for the rest of King David's words, they were not repeated to the adulteress.

The search on "benedicta" gave only thirteen lines in all. Two of them about the Blessed Virgin. Of the three about Judith, the one from chapter 15 also excludes Protestants and Jews from being the true Israel, since they are not honouring the Book of Judith as a canonical writing./HGL

PS: and Abigail, like Ruth was also just "benedicta" but not "benedicta in mulieribus"./HGL

PPS: to further bring out the parallel between Abigail and the Blessed Virgin, she had in her appeasing speech called her self "handmaiden" (v. 25)./HGL

Answering Cephas Ministries on "Christ Alone" on twelve points

I came across this:*

Let me ask you how a person can believe that Christ's sacrifice on the cross for our sins is an accomplished fact of history and that He is now at the Father's right hand in heaven in a resurrected, glorified body and at the same time believe that He "exists bodily as a wafer on Catholic altars where He is perpetually suffering the agonies of the Cross and being literally "immolated in the sacrifice of the Mass" (Vatican ll, Flannery, pp 102-103)? How can a person believe that Christ's redemptive work on the cross is "Finished!" as He himself said (John 19:30) and at the same time believe that the Mass is a Perpetuation of Christ’s sacrifice? How, can one "Perpetuate and make Present" any Past event? It is logically impossible. One may rememt5er or memorialize a past event, but one cannot Perpetuate, it in the present. And why would that be necessary inasmuch as Christ's death and resurrection fully accomplished Christ's purpose?

One thing by one thing. First off, there is no such thing as "Vatican eleven". There is such a thing as "Vatican two", whether that be Catholic or not. It is spelled in Roman numerals as Vatican II. You can use a Roman I for an Arabic 1 when using Arabic numerals, but hardly an Arabic 1 for a Roman I when using Roman numerals. These are typically letters. I say typically because the numerals for thousand and five hundred were originally full or half circle with a vertical line going through. You see that stylised as either M and D or as CI and a backwards C and I and a backwards C. In the latter case you can go on to use basically two full or half circles for ten thousand and five thousand (CCI and two backward C:s or I and two backward C:s) and so on.

One thing that is much more important:**

Christ Died...That's History
Christ Died For Me...That's Salvation!

Now, that happens to be exactly right. Catholicism is about making the difference "for me". To the details:

Q / Arg 1

Let me ask you how a person can believe that Christ's sacrifice on the cross for our sins is an accomplished fact of history and that He is now at the Father's right hand in heaven in a resurrected, glorified body and at the same time believe that He "exists bodily as a wafer on Catholic altars where He is perpetually suffering the agonies of the Cross and being literally "immolated in the sacrifice of the Mass" (Vatican ll, Flannery, pp 102-103)?

A 1

I am not sure it was correct to use Flannery as a source. How about using a Catechism?

I checked, it must be the Dominican Fr Austin Flannery's edition of the documents of Vatican two.*** I start to wonder whether Cephas Ministries actually misread something or made use of εισηγησις (transliterates as eisegesis reading things into a text that are not there in the words themselves - opposite of correct exegesis where the meaning is gotten out of the text).

Still, going to the Catechism of the Council of Trent is not a mistake.° It as accepted even by Catholics who reject Vatican II, and it is not regarded as revoked by those accepting Vatican II, except the Modernist fringe.

Now, I do believe that Christ dies no more in Heaven, and that it is Christ RISEN who is present in the Eucharist. That His sacrifice is renewed does not mean he suffers again but that his suffering or the fruits of it is made present through the Mass.

Orthodox have compared this to a time loop, and one can compare Christ's presence in the Eucharist and in Heaven to bilocation. Which is a miracle possible to God.

I think St Thomas Aquinas would have called the time loop idea and the bilocation idea imprecise, but he would have agreed they were more correct than the ideas of a memory without a sacrifice and a symbol without a body.

Have you read the passage in the Apocalypse where Christ appears as a Lamb and as sacrificed?

Q / Arg 2

How can a person believe that Christ's redemptive work on the cross is "Finished!" as He himself said (John 19:30) and at the same time believe that the Mass is a Perpetuation of Christ’s sacrifice?

A 2

First of all one must believe EITHER that the sacrifice is perpetuated OR that the New Testament has two sacrifices.

The Bible°° says the Eucharist is a sacrifice.

It says so when applying the title "eternal priest according to the Order of Melchisedec" (Psalm 109:4) to Christ (Hebrews 5 and 6 and 7) . It says so when Melchisedec's own sacrifice is described as "offering bread and wine" (Genesis 14:18) . It is also implied when St Paul says "we have an altar" (Hebrews 13:10) and it had been prophecied also by the Hebrew Prophet Malachi (Malachi 1:11)

And since St Paul clearly teaches that no OTHER sacrifice saves us (Hebrews 7:27), we must conclude it is the SAME sacrifice. As no other sacrificial lamb from the Old Testament can save but only the one sacrifice of the New Testament.

Q / Arg 3

How, can one "Perpetuate and make Present" any Past event? It is logically impossible. One may rememt5er or memorialize a past event, but one cannot Perpetuate, it in the present.

A 3

It is physically impossible to men, or even higher created beings, i. e. angels, but not to God. It is not logically impossible, time loop and bilocation are possibilities which spring to mind even if they are imprecise.

St Pio of Pietrelcina was a few times bilocated. He was even in the United States miraculously - both he and those he visited confirmed it - but only among Italian, he never learned English and did not have the Gift of Tongues.

Q / Arg 4

And why would that be necessary inasmuch as Christ's death and resurrection fully accomplished Christ's purpose?

A 4

The Eucharist ALSO fully accomplishes Christ's purpose. And it is a Sacrifice. On the Cross he began a Psalm which includes a clear reference to the Eucharist (Psalm 21:27). This means one of the things He accomplished on the Cross was giving a sacrificial content to the Mass or rather doing the physical immolation that corresponds the the spiritual and mystic immolation He had done the previous eve in the sacrifice of the first Mass and which His priests repeat to the end of all time.

Further quote from page:*

A Catholic can't believe in Christ alone but in Christ plus baptism and the sacraments and other helps given by the Church. Paul cursed the Judaizers who taught that in addition to faith in Christ's finished work one also must keep the Jewish law. That destroys the gospel. How, then, can one believe in the gospel of Christ plus baptism for salvation and the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice and the other "sacraments of the New Law" which Trent and Vatican 11 say are essential for salvation, the necessity of the Church and its priesthood, the intercession of Mary, purgatory, indulgences, etc.?

Further detailed responses:

Q / Arg 5

A Catholic can't believe in Christ alone but in Christ plus baptism

A 5

A Christian cannot believe in "Christ alone" in a sense that excludes the Baptism. It is through Baptism we are first united to the Cross and Death of Christ.

Q / Arg 6

... and the sacraments ...

A 6

A Christian cannot believe in Christ alone in a sense that excludes the sacraments he instituted:

• Baptism (Matthew 28:19);
• Confirmation (Acts 8:14-17);
• Holy Eucharist (John 6:35);
• Confession or Penance (John 20:23 and James 5:16);
• Extreme Unction (James 5:14-15);
• Priesthood or Ordination (Luke 22:19, John 20:23, Acts 13:3, and much of I Timothy, II Timothy and Titus);
• Marriage (Marc 10:6-9, 10-12; Ephesians 5:22-33, esp. verse 32).

Q / Arg 7

... and other helps given by the Church.

A 7

A Christian cannot believe in Christ alone in a sense which excludes the Bible and other doctrinal helps of the Church, nor in an sense which excludes the prayers of the Church.

Q / Arg 8

Paul cursed the Judaizers who taught that in addition to faith in Christ's finished work one also must keep the Jewish law.

A 8

Because the sacreaments of the Old Law only symbolised the grace, but the Sacraments of the New Law contain the grace.

Q / Arg 9

That destroys the gospel. How, then, can one believe in the gospel of Christ plus baptism for salvation and the Mass as a propitiatory sacrifice and the other "sacraments of the New Law" which Trent and Vatican 11 say are essential for salvation,

A 9

Because that rather than your version of "Christ alone" is what Christ brought us. None of these are independent of Christ.

Q / Arg 10

the necessity of the Church and its priesthood,

A 10

Because Christ instituted both.

Q / Arg 11

the intercession of Mary,

A 11

Because she interceded under the Cross for the robber Dismas and in the upper hall for the Apostles, yes even for the host in Cana.

Q / Arg 12

purgatory, indulgences, etc.?

A 12

I do not know how to answer "etc." since I do not know what it stands for. So I am sticking to purgatory and indulgences.

That some of the depated souls can be cleansed from sin and need such cleansing we know from II Maccabees. If a sacrifice of the Old Covenant was precious enough to help such souls, how can the Sacrifice of the Mass not be so? Saint THomas Aquinas states that all who were in the bosom of Abraham were liberated, and many of those in Purgatory also were liberated when Christ's soul descended to Hades. But he leaves some for the Church to do as well.

An act which is humanly speaking good, but has no connection to the merits of Christ on the Cross, such as the natural good acts of someone in the state of mortal sin or even just in the state of original sin (like an unbaptised child giving a penny to a beggar or an apostate like Dawkins doing so) have no power whatsoever to compensate for sin in any way, except insofar as God very kindly takes such acts into account when deciding whether such a person should receive a chance to get saved or not. Or if not the person himself, then a relative, or if not salvation, some earthly reward.

It is only acts of a person in the state of grace that can merit an indulgence. And these are not just his own acts, but acts of Jesus Christ living in him (St Paul in one epistle, Galatians 2:20 - the comment to verse 19 clarifies in what way the "works of the law" do not justify). From the start the Church counted as a duty toward the deceased, unless they were martyrs and clearly saints, to try to get them to Heaven as quick and securely as possible. By acts like prayer, fasting and alms.

I have read very gross and idiotic statements about indulgence tariffs in Protestant lore.

A real list of "tariffs" includes "prayer a" 400 days off from purgatory, "prayer b" 300 days off from purgatory, a Rosary in Church - plenary indulgence, i e if said by one with no affection even to venial sin a soul gets right out of Purgatory and up to Heaven. This means confessing and communicating within a week after or before the prayer (such preparation is valid for more than one Rosary in the Church on consecutive days within a week) and similarily going to a pilgrimage if Confessing anc Communicating on arrival or within a week of arrival. Making a donation to building St Peter's was once on the list, but was taken off the list by decree of the Council of Trent.

Now, get yourself a good read of either the Catechism of Trent° or the Haydock Commentary of the Douai Reims Bible°° or why not both!

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Sunday after St Peter's Chair in Rome
19-I-2014

* CEPHAS APOLOGETIC CATALOG : Can A Catholic Be Saved
The Berean Call, April 1995: A Dave Hunt Newsletter
http://catholic.cephasministry.com/can_a_catholic_be_saved2.html

** Also from Cephas Ministry.

*** Documents of Vatican II: Concilar and Post Concilar Documents
Flannery Austin P. (Auteur)
http://www.amazon.fr/Documents-Vatican-II-Concilar-Post/dp/0802816231/

° Tridentine Catechism of the Holy Catholic Church
The work presented here is variously known as The Catechism of the Council of Trent, the Roman Catechism, or the Catechism of Pius V.
The translation and preface are by John A. McHugh, O.P. and Charles J. Callan, O.P. (circa 1923)
http://www.angelfire.com/art/cactussong/TridentineCatechism.htm

°° Each Bible reference I give links to a chapter in the Haydock comment.

Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.
A Catholic Bible commentary compiled by the late Rev. Fr. George Leo Haydock, following the Douay-Rheims Bible.*
[* See Transcriber's Notes page for a description of the changes made to the form and content of the original commentary text for this transcription.]
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/index.html

How is Chick erroneous about where we got the Bible from?

1) Creation vs Evolution : Heard of Libby Anne? , 2) Did Libby Anne misunderstand at least Something about Young Earth Creationism? Or: Why don't they teach logic in these schools?! 3) Further Faulty Logic in Craig A. James's "refutation of a dialogue" 4) Stupid Word Game, Craig A. James? 5) Whose assumptions are best or least well proven? 6) Somewhere else : Is the Genesis "the Basis of the Whole Bible" or are there others? 7) Great Bishop of Geneva! : How is Chick erroneous about where we got the Bible from? 8) Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... to Hitchens on Revelation, Decalogue and Evidence for Moses. 9) Correspondence de / of / van Hans-Georg Lundahl : Notifying Craig A. James of a refutation of his refutation ...

Some people may know that I consider Kent Hovind pretty bright when it comes to the question between Bible and modern So Called Scholarship. You know the "deep time" thing and the "evolution thing" and "men and dinosaurs never lived together thing" and a few more like that.

But one thing he is not bright on is exact points of moral theology. Like what you need to avoid to get saved ("drinking any alcohol" is not on the correct list) or what you need to do to get saved (baptism and confession and doing the penance set out in confession are clearly on the list of how one gets one's soul washed in the blood of the lamb - and he would include baptism only as a sign to show one's heart is already washed, which is wrong and not confession, not penance).

Now, since that is so, one might take a real wild guess and ask whether we share the same outlook on Church History. We. Do. Not.

Fortunately for him, he is not the chief culprit in his connexion of this issue. Chick is the guy he follows on such things. Here are some of the calumnies and errors.

And since I just admitted that accepting the Gospel depends on credibility for witness of the Church, it so happens I think Chick is a culprit also for those who reject the Gospel - by not giving it a credible pedigree between God some two thousand years ago and us. He can write a thing like this - he gives a history of the Bible, where he is wrong on part 2 "intertestamental period" in saying no Scripture was written and that there was no Church (the "Jewish Church" existed from Moses to Kaiaphas and Jesus showed his unity with Moses by being part of it, and Maccabees were written), but here we get to some anti-catholic stuff, first a straw man:

God the Holy Spirit inspired them, perfectly and accurately, to write the words of God for the church. The church did not "inspire" anything.

It is perfectly true, but the Catholic Church never claimed the Church inspired the Bible. It claims the Catholic Church recognised which version of OT was inspired and which books were inspired under New Testament. Precisely as the Jewish Church soon after it was founded by the Covenant at Sinai had recognised as Holy the books it had watched Moses write.

Not familiar with the word "Jewish Church"? You have not read Haydock, then. It had authority to make new feasts not found in Torah, as we see from Purim and Hanukkah. Exactly so its Perfect Successor before God, the Catholic Church has the right to decide on feasts. And on fasts. But if ever you studied Hebrew, you may have heard the phrase Qahal Israel. Now, Qahal and Ekklesia mean exactly the same thing. They mean the formal assembly of a nation or a city state.

The problem with what Chick says is not that the Church inspired the Gospels or the Epistles or Apocalypse.

The problem is that he seems to think the phrase "we get the Bible from the Catholic Church" somehow mean that.

Pope Leo XIII very clearly stated way before Chick was born that God is author of the entire Bible and of each book and each part of a book. The one thing He is not original author of is of course quotes from what bad characters in the Bible said. "There is no God" - well, that is not God saying it, He is stating that the fool is saying it in his heart. But apart from examples like that God is saying everything that the Canonic Bible of the Catholic Church is saying. God, not just the Church.

However, under God there are human authors, and just as Moses belonged to the Jewish Church before its apostasy by Kaiaphas, so St Paul after his conversion from that apostate Jewish Church belonged to the Christian Church. And just as the Jewish Church had known Moses was part of it, the Christian Church knew St Paul was part of it. Just as the Jewish Church could assess how credible it was that "God spoke to Moses and said" in the light of the Exodus, so the Christian Church could asses the claims of St Paul when he states a thing like "I say this not from Christ but from me" and in another context "I state this not from me but from Christ" - in the light of St Paul working miracles.

When the apostles wrote their letters, the congregations received them. They read them. They spread them. They copied them for other brethren in Christ Jesus. And they recognized their authority in the Christian's life. So the Scriptures were produced by men of God, not by "the church." But they were produced FOR the church.

The men of God were also men of the Church. It was the Church that recognised them as men of God. They were not private people with no connexions previous to writing inspired books, they were not a Camel driver who suddenly got a vision of one claiming to be Gabriel, nor a shepherd who got insulted and then instructed by nine muses, whom he had observed singing hypns to among others "Kronos of the crooked mind" ... they were men already involved in the Church and therefore already accepted as men of God by the Church when they wrote. Moses was already accepted by what became the Jewish Church for the Passover by the time they arrived at Sinai. St Matthew was already accepted as a Disciple of Christ, one of the Twelve before his Gospel.

But though the original manuscript of each book was rather for the Church than by the Church, its preservation and the fact of copying and spreading it were acts precisely of the Church. Just as the copying of Torah scrolls had been under the Jewish Church.

And the Church accepting it is not very well formulated in his words about "the congregations" ... first Church does not mean any and every kind of congregation, but Ekklesia means the same as Qahal. And second it had a central authority. In Rome. Even when a council assembled elsewhere about a thing (such as that of Carthage about - among other things I presume - Scripture Canon) it was confirmed by Rome.

The last book of the Bible was Revelation, written about 96 AD, just before the apostle John died around 100 AD. After the apostles died, the churches continued to collect the letters they did not have, to read them and understand the authority under God by which they wrote.

Actually the lives we have state that St John wrote the Gospel after returning from exile on Patmos. Meaning after the Apocalypse. The rest of the statement is correct as far as it goes, but bypasses the fact of central authority.

But no one else shared that place. There is an "epistle of Barnabas" (which bears no proof it was written by Barnabas), which many think was penned in the first century. But the difference between its message of salvation and of the apostolic writings is too easy to see. If you believe the Scriptures, you cannot believe the so-called "epistle of Barnabas."

I have not read Epistle of Barnabas, and I do not recollect if it was condemned as spurious or just left alone. I do know that the Epistle to the Hebrews has by some been consiodered as written by St Barnabas rather than by St Paul. I also know that two Gospels are not written by any of the Twelve : Sts Mark and Luke were thus not Apostles in that restricted sense.

There are the writings of Polycarp, disciple of John (when John was very aged). There are writings of Clement and others. But those are all writings of Christians. Just Christians. Some were even martyrs, but their writings depended on the Scriptures--they were not Scripture themselves.

That much we agree on. Thanks to decision of the Church. One early list of NT books includes Pastor Hermas. I think it is the same one which also includes Epistle of Barnabas, but I might be wrong. Their writings are not Scripture themselves.

Their writings depend on the Scriptures? Actually on Scripture and Tradition.

Anyone who would base their faith on them would have a horrid foundation, just as if there were "Lutherans" today, learning of God's word only what they find in Martin Luther's writings. Interesting writing, at times "inspirational" writing, fine. Inspired? Not a chance.

Anyone basing his faith on their writings would have a better basis than if basing it on Martin Luther's. He was a heretic condemned by the Catholic Church. They were men of the Church and men of God, recognised as such by the Church.

And one needs the Truth of the Bible much more than the text of the Bible. Some parts are explained in appearance clearer in these writings.

Διδαχη explains we fast on Wednesdays and Fridays. In the Gospel it says "when the Bridegroom is present his friends are happy and do not fast" (no fasting on Sundays - except individual medical reasons) "but when the Bridegroom is taken away, then will they fast" (Christ was taken away on the Wednesday when Judas received thirty pieces of silver and on the Friday when he hung on the Cross). Without the explanation of the Διδαχη (from the very earliest Christians) some cut off from Tradition might have taken that word from the Gospel as meaning one can fast no more as Christians after Pentecost happened. Indeed one can and should. Christ recommends prayer and precisely fasting. But not on the days when Christ comes to us (Thursdays and especially Sundays) but on those days when in Holy Week he was taken from us. Wednesdays and especially Fridays. As stated in the Διδαχη.

The Roman Catholic church has had only one aim from its earliest, pagan and political origins: To destroy the true Christians, and to destroy their Bible.

When exactly was that? I know of no moment in history which would fit such a description!

If you mean Bergoglio, he seems to be Jewish one day and is accepted as Catholic the other day. As I said, the Jewish Church apostasised through Kaiaphas. And before Vatican II you do not get very great success for Jewish infiltrators (excepting possibly just Pius XII).

That is why they substituted the corrupt Alexandrian perversions of scripture, instead of using the preserved, prophetic and apostolic Words of God as found in Antioch of Syria, where "the disciples were first called Christians" (Acts 11:26).

OK, which of the Apostolic Churches has totally renounced the Alexandrian version (which Genealogy of St Luke agrees with, see "second Cainaan")? Was the OT that Chick describes as preserved found in connexion of a NT? But above all, since we have the Bible in the sense I already explained (and not in the strawman sense Chick needlessly refuted) from the Church, which Apostolic Church preserved exactly that text?

That is why they also added the Alexandrian writings we now call "Apocrypha" to their perverted bibles.

I suppose this means the books excluded from the 66 books version. Included in Septuagint.

That Roman Catholics recognise seven (if you count Baruch a k a "Baruch 1" as a separate book rather than appendix to Jeremiah) plus two chapters in Daniel and some other detail.

The Nestorian or Syrian Old Testament includes several of these or all and Baruch 2. And more psalms than 150. Its NT excludes books which Chick agreeing with RCC accepts as canonic.

The Copts in Ethiopia also have more Psalms than 150, and they have Book of Henoch. Let us quote good old wiki: "The Ethiopian "narrow" canon includes 81 books altogether: The 27 book New Testament; those Old Testament books found in the Septuagint and accepted by the Orthodox; as well as Enoch, Jubilees, 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras, Rest of the Words of Baruch and 3 books of Meqabyan (these three Ethiopian books of Maccabees are entirely different in content from the four Books of Maccabees known elsewhere)."

The diverse Eastern Orthodox Churches also have more books than RCC, not 66. Roumanians have Third and Fourth Maccabees (the last of these is held as written by Flavius Josephus). Russians have Three Books of Ezra instead of the two we often call Ezra and Nehemia. They add a first book that is a prequel to them.

No Apostolic Church has accepted just the 66 books. That is a purely Protestant invention, absent from 1500 years of Christian Tradition. And none of the books that Chick would describe as "added" contradict Genesis either.

That is why they used their Jesuits to infiltrate the Protestant Seminaries, Colleges and Bible Schools.

Well, the first goal of Jesuits - when getting to England rather than Ethiopia or Angola or Brazil as missionaries - was rather to celebrate Mass for faithful Catholics. Some were martyred at Tyburn for it. But if they sometimes tried to reach out to people honestly deluded by Protestantism and pious enough to try to become servants of God, and if they did not directly lie on any point, I am not inclined to grieve for any supposed dishonesty therein.

But look what a giant leap from "earliest Pagan political origins" to the RCC as contemporary with Protestants.

He even skips the clear fact that RCC preceded Protestants. That Protestants actually had been in but not of the Catholic Church.

Their Jesuits became the "teachers" and planted seeds of doubt in the Christians' minds. These doubt-ridden Christians then taught at other colleges and schools. All the while they planted that same seed of doubt of God's word in their students.

Cardinal Newman - I was reading his lecture series about the Idea of an University yesterday - actually said it was Protestant "free exmination" of Scripture which led to doubt. From the first.

Socinians were less Christian the Watchtower Society, as far as Bible doctrine is concerned. Luther wanted to do away with Epistle fo St James. Calvin thought of Jonah as a "religious novel". Anabaptists threw moral doubts about Romans Chapter 13. Modernism came from Protestants to Catholics, not from Jesuits to Protestants. Atheism was proposed by Lord Shaftesbury - in a Protestant nation. Accepting miracles and portents in history (and ultimately therefore also Gospels) was attacked by a Protestant called Bayle. He was followed by one Hume - who was inheritor of the most ruthless Protestant Reformation and the most ruthless hunt of Jesuits of them all - he was a Scotsman.

Darwin was an Anglican. His model in Geology, Lyell, was catering to Protestant modernism at a time when Catholics would only have shook their heads at such things. His model in zoology and "natural theology", Pailey, was an Anglican clergyman, not a Catholic one. The inventor of deep time was also a Scottish Protestant. James Hutton.*

If you want continental Englightenment in the Culprit list, ok, but Kant was a Protestant and Spinoza was a Jew. Rousseau, though converting to Catholicism was not totally true to it (and Confession of a Savoyard Country Priest can be taken as an act of apostasy and was on index of forbidden books). His background also was Protestant. Those with Catholic background still engaging in sowing doubts - like Voltaire - lauded Protestantism as much as a man with Austrian background nevertheless lauded Prussia. I like to remember him as a decent painter. Or as model for a Dictator in a funny film by Charlie Chaplin. But those loyal to Catholicism in Austria were not typical Nazis and those loyal to Catholicism in XVIII^th C. were not sowing any seeds of doubt.

Didn't Christianity consist of the Catholic Church for the first 1500 years?

No. While the Catholic Church was seeking to control the world through religion, true Christians were running for their lives from the Catholic holocaust that ran for centuries.

God has always had His people, faithful to Him and His Word. They had no part in the Roman Catholic Church. Through much of history, organized religion has hunted and slaughtered God's people. For an excellent overview of this, read the classic work, "The Trail of Blood."

Let us suck the marrow of each bone ...

While the Catholic Church was seeking to control the world through religion, ...

Again, since when? I find really and truly no date fitting that description!

... true Christians ...

Who were they? Albigensians who believed Satan had created the world? Bogumils?

Or Donatists who on the one hand differred from Protestants by Seven Sacraments and on the other hand said that someone really fallen after baptism cannot be saved or restored?

The only true Christians I can fit into tenth Century are clearly Catholics. Unless you would like to add Ethiopians and Nestorians. Even Eastern Orthodox were not separate from us back then?

... were running for their lives from the Catholic holocaust that ran for centuries.

Problem 1: Inquisition starts targetting Albigensians, who cannot by any stretch of imagination or charity be called Christians. They were, like a sect that St Augustine left for the Catholic Church, Manicheans.

Problem 2: Inquisition starts well after any kind of societal change that Protestants like these would describe as a fake Church taking the place of the real one.

When Priscillianists are condemned and persecuted, the ecclesiastic condemnation is not equal to asking the Emperor for persecution. He does so because of certain disorders other than merely being heretics condemned by the Church. Same as with revolutionary killing machines among the Donatists.

Problem 3: this means that we would have a real gap between early true Christians and later Protestants.

A gap which contradicts the words of the Lord in Matthew 28 as much as it throws a stupid doubt about the divinity of the Christian Bible.

Unless of course he would settle for pretty late just-before-Inquisition and otherwise clearly Roman Catholics as the very latest early true Christians. But if early Christianity is found in pre-Inquisition Catholicism, how come anyone could settle for Protestantism?

Problem 4: earliest burning of a Heretic for Heresy (as totally distinct from witchcraft or sedition, meaning Priscillianists and Donatists) was not done by the Catholic Church or at demand of the Catholic Church.

One Basil the Physician thought was apprehended and condemned as secret leader of a Bogumil sect. So the Basileus, the Roman Emperor, Alexius I Comnenus tried to convert him, failed and the burned him at a stake. Of the two, certainly Alexius did believe in Genesis and Basil did not. It may be noted Alexius was in schism with Rome in a sense - though the schism was favourably overlooked when he asked Urban II for the help known as First Crusade (which in the end he did not accept as such).

Two heretics had been executed in the West the Century just before - but those were popular lynchings, not official executions. In one of the cases it was a reaction to him burning crosses - which was considered as a pretty clearly diabolic act. And they had as pretty clearly not been providing good copies of the Bible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Nanterre - Paris X
University Library
Motherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary
11-X-2013

*I could have added that Buffon was a Freemason, and the first lodge was from London and its earliest members Protestants. Cuvier was from a Lutheran family. "Natif d'une famille luthérienne de Montbéliard, territoire alors rattaché au duché de Wurtemberg où l’école est obligatoire, c’est la lecture de Buffon au cours de ses études brillantes qui orientera la vie de Georges Cuvier[2]." Lutheran and from a region with compulsory schools ... not a Catholic, thus.

Dialogue with a Mormon - Matthew 28

DanielPetersonMod> Azimi

Who is "you people," Azimi? I was DEFENDING your religion against cwhicker12.

ChrisMcC1> DanielPeterson

He wasn't responding to you, Daniel. He was responding to cwhicker12's ridiculous comment, just as you were. Check the quoted phrase and the threading indentation.

DanielPetersonMod> ChrisMcC1

I was puzzled because, above, Azimi correctly identifies me as a Mormon apologist, but then wants to know why I'm being hypocritical and attacking his religion -- which I most certainly wasn't doing. (I'm also, professionally, an Islamicist.)

Hans-Georg Lundahl> DanielPeterson

A professional Islamicist and a Mormon apologist? Well, unlike some Muslims at least you believe the text is correctly transmitted between Jesus' words and our reading of Matthew 28:18-20, so how does a disappearance of the entire visible Church between either the Apostles' deaths (or in St John's case perhaps assumption) and Mohammed or the previous event and Joseph Smith (discounting for the time Church was supposedly prolonged in Americas through Indians) square with the "omnibus diebus" part of that text?

DanielPetersonMod> Hans-Georg Lundahl

Who says that the VISIBLE church disappeared? That was precisely what DIDN'T disappear.

Incidentally, I prefer to go back to the original rather than reading the text in translation. (And why privilege the LATIN translation.) I agree that Jesus was with his disciples, and that he was with his church until the end of the "aion" -- the end of the age. I'm not sure why you imagine that that promise would rule out an apostasy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl> DanielPeterson

It does not rule out all and every kind of apostasy.

It rules out that the visible Church apostasises without a visible remnant visibly continuing the visible Church as before the apostasy.

Criterium of visibility is due to a few considerations:

• directly affirmed in "a city built on a mountain cannot be hidden", and mountain is synonym of rock, polis of ekklesia
• implied by authority of Church:
• • pillar and foundation of truth
  • given authority to loose and bind concerning absolution and excommunication (given to same eleven men who heard the promise in Matth 28:18-20)
• implied by the fact the true Church cannot be a secret Church, since secrecy is a work of the devil.

DanielPetersonMod> Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sorry. I don't really see anything like a persuasive argument here, Hans-Georg Lundahl. You seem, from my perspective, to be concatenating a group of unrelated scriptural passages and concepts, but in a rather arbitrary way.

Hans-Georg Lundahl> DanielPeterson

Since all these passages describe Apostolic Church, their lining up is giving a complete description of its characteristics. Neither arbitrary nor untraditional.

Extracted from comments under article:

Sic et Non / Daniel C. Peterson : “Muslims protecting Christians in Egypt during mass”
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2013/08/muslims-protecting-christians-in-egypt-during-mass.html

Erroneous Sola Scriptura - known as "Formal Principle" to Reformers Luther & Melanchthon

I was invited to a group called "Five solas vs Catholic Church". I am a Catholic and thus against the collection five solas though not all of them equally. Here is the first one.

It is in a certain manner opposite to both Tradition as Infallible and Magisterium as Infallible.

It is therefore erroneous.

It is actually more opposed to Tradition as Infallible than to Magisterium.

The opposite of Magisterium as infallible and as compulsory is not so much Sola Scriptura as such as the Private Judgement on the Sola Scriptura.

The total and erroneous Protestant doctrine is therefore bipartite:

Error 1: Apostolic Christianity is generally accessible through Bible alone as opposed to Bible and Tradition.

Error 2: Individually we are responsible to the Sola Scriptura only through direct Private Judgement on its content. A man who is unlearned and leaves a point out from his individual Bible reading understanding is not excused for chosing as probable a wrong solution because he was feeling he had to submit to a Magisterium that was wrong, but he was instead in such a case wrong to take Magisterium as above himself in the manner God is and Bible are. Infallibility belongs only to God, is the claim, not to either man individually or any group of men together.

That the second is untrue is clear from the Bible. It says "The Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth". Christ is its head and as God and as sinless man infallible, which even Protestants admit, but if Christ alone in the Church were infallible on any point, then there would be a neck problem, the body not communicating properly with its head. So, we must say that the visible Church today - whereever it truly is - is infallible when speaking unitedly.

That the first is untrue is also clear from the Bible as well as from the Church.

One bit of a warning, to things like Modernist Catholics. Or semimodernist who think they must "obey" modern magisterium in accepting modern cosmology or deep space or deep time with evolution.

A Protestant would not agree that private judgement is an excuse for disagreeing with the Bible. A Catholic must therefore not agree that Magisterium (above his private judgement, when genuine and when his private judgement as bishop or Pope is not preceding the magisterial one on hitherto undecided questions), he must as said not agree that Magisterium is any kind of excuse for disagreeing either with Bible (72 books*, not just 66) or with Tradition.

Furthermore, on those particular matters, there seems to be no consensus about what is magisterium and, supposing CCC is such, whether CCC is sufficiently obliging. But insofar as Catechism of the Catholic Church endorses as "knowledge" things that contradict Bible or Tradition (specifically theories contradicting a young and "small" universe), it would be like a Protestant who in private judgement thought "this is my Body" or "whatever you bind on earth" as something the Bible did not clearly indicate what to believe about. Such a Protestant is no longer a Christian, and if any bishop or Pope puts full weight into certain modern theories included in certain paragraphs thereof, such a Magisterium is no longer Christian and therefore no longer magisterial either.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
BpI Georges Pompidou
Sunday after Sts Peter and Paul
30-VI-2013

72 if, as traditionally, the canonical book of Baruch is not counted as a separate book but as an appendix to Jeremiah (whose secretary Baruch was). Otherwise it is 73.