130 Anathemas, Session VI, Justification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plus the Ninevites, in the book of Jonah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, Martin Luther.

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

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

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

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

This one has two different directions. Here they are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Next canon:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No Protestant would object.*

"I walked to Santiago to ask for a favour"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trent, Session VI, Canon XII tells me so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some would say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and in it he argues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On this one, I think Protestants would normally agree.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

St. Peter agrees:

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

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

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

Good works are meritorious.

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

We do not sin with every breath we take.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some Protestants unfortunately believe this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This again has two directions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Penances and purgatory.

And taking sufferings as an occasion for penance.

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

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

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

This one would make God a tempter.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, this follows from the rest.

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

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

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

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

** According to their own site:

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

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

*** Ephesians and Philippians.

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

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

125 - 33 = 92 to go.

130 Anathemas of Trent; the 5 First of Them

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

Session V CONCERNING ORIGINAL SIN FIRST DECREE
Celebrated on the seventeenth day of the month of June, in the year 1546
http://www.thecounciloftrent.com/ch5.htm

Let's cite them in order as they stand:

1. If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.
2. If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:—whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.
3. If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,—which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, —is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.
4. If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,—whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, —let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
5. If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin.

Few Fundie Protestants would deny this one:

1) If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema.

However, there are some Modernist Catholics who do try to bend this into Adam didn't really exist as a person, mentioning his name is symbolism, not straightforward history and so on.

2) If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:—whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned.

I think people like Teilhard de Chardin, he personally may have had a clever way out of that, but pretty many who assert an evolutionary origin of man would say our sinful tendencies may be leftover luggage from our pretended evolutionary past.

Obviously, in the case the smartasses would like to say "well, we don't really say he only transfused death and pain to us, we say he didn't even transfuse that, since he had it from his ancestors" this won't wash, since Trentine Fathers appeal directly to Romans 5.

I'm not sure if "Jimmy Akin's position" [see below] (or one he has expressed previously at least) is immune from anathema. He mentions the possibility Adam was a representative of the rest of mankind. Were all of them immortal prior to Adam sinning? Where would pre-Adamite skeleta come from then? If they weren't, did they belong to the human race? If they weren't and they did belong to the human race, how was Adam's action transfusing death and pain to them, rather than simply confirming its already existance?

So, one first man, his sin transfuses both death and sin, and this is because he is the origin of everyone else. Eve from his side. All men other than himself and Eve some generation of children, grandchildren and so on (obviously, one can be different numbers of generation from a common ancestor at the same time: Lewis XVII of France and his sister Madame Royale descended from Henry IV of France through both of his martyred parents, but they were a different number of generations from him, Lewis XVI having ancestor 128 as Henry IV, while Marie-Antoinette had ancestor 40 as the same, making him both 256 and 80 to the never ruling siblings I mentioned, another common ancestor was Elisabeth Stuart, 45 to Marie Antoinette and 125 to Lewis XVI: so, one can be in different generations simultaneously froma common ancestor, including Adam). This means, everyone in the human race, except Adam who was the originator, and Mary and Jesus who were immune, got sin as well as death from his physical origin Adam.

3) If any one asserts, that this sin of Adam,—which in its origin is one, and being transfused into all by propogation, not by imitation, is in each one as his own, —is taken away either by the powers of human nature, or by any other remedy than the merit of the one mediator, our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath reconciled us to God in his own blood, made unto us justice, santification, and redemption; or if he denies that the said merit of Jesus Christ is applied, both to adults and to infants, by the sacrament of baptism rightly administered in the form of the church; let him be anathema: For there is no other name under heaven given to men, whereby we must be saved. Whence that voice; Behold the lamb of God behold him who taketh away the sins of the world; and that other; As many as have been baptized, have put on Christ.

Note, on the immunity of Mary from this sin, She was also saved from it, in a preventive manner, through the merits of Her Son.

Some Baptists may pretend infants don't get Adam's sin. They only get it later, when they imitate it. This is then wrong. It is shown wrong by the constant practise of the Church of baptising infants, when both parents are believers, even if there was a time when post-poning baptism, even to the deathbed, was pretty common in North Africa. The traditional Biblical reference for this is Psalm 50:7 (in KJ, it would be 51:5). Someone arguing against its meaning involving original sin says King David used hyperbole. How much Biblical doctrine can be ignored that way? I think it's safer to say, what the Church traditionally takes as hyperbole is that. He enumerated another attempt, namely reference to a personal sin involved in King David's conception. He was not born out of wedlock, and King David calls his mother "God's handmaid":

Psalm 85:16 O look upon me, and have mercy on me: give thy command to thy servant, and save the son of thy handmaid.

If we can therefore rule out personal sin, and also hypberole, it leaves, babies are born with sin since their mother's womb. Our Lord couldn't inherit any, since Mary didn't have any.

4) If any one denies, that infants, newly born from their mothers' wombs, even though they be sprung from baptized parents, are to be baptized; or says that they are baptized indeed for the remission of sins, but that they derive nothing of original sin from Adam, which has need of being expiated by the laver of regeneration for the obtaining life everlasting,—whence it follows as a consequence, that in them the form of baptism, for the remission of sins, is understood to be not true, but false, —let him be anathema. For that which the apostle has said, By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men in whom all have sinned, is not to be understood otherwise than as the Catholic Church spread everywhere hath always understood it. For, by reason of this rule of faith, from a tradition of the apostles, even infants, who could not as yet commit any sin of themselves, are for this cause truly baptized for the remission of sins, that in them that may be cleansed away by regeneration, which they have contracted by generation. For, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Follows from previous discussion, which foresaw the objection here condemned.

5) If any one denies, that, by the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is conferred in baptism, the guilt of original sin is remitted; or even asserts that the whole of that which has the true and proper nature of sin is not taken away; but says that it is only rased, or not imputed; let him be anathema. For, in those who are born again, there is nothing that God hates; because, There is no condemnation to those who are truly buried together with Christ by baptism into death; who walk not according to the flesh, but, putting off the old man, and putting on the new who is created according to God, are made innocent, immaculate, pure, harmless, and beloved of God, heirs indeed of God, but joint heirs with Christ; so that there is nothing whatever to retard their entrance into heaven. But this holy synod confesses and is sensible, that in the baptized there remains concupiscence, or an incentive (to sin); which, whereas it is left for our exercise, cannot injure those who consent not, but resist manfully by the grace of Jesus Christ; yea, he who shall have striven lawfully shall be crowned. This concupiscence, which the apostle sometimes calls sin, the holy Synod declares that the Catholic Church has never understood it to be called sin, as being truly and properly sin in those born again, but because it is of sin, and inclines to sin.

If we are baptised for the remission of sins, and if God gives us a new heart, this follows from previous.
/Hans Georg Lundahl

I am sorry, I did not "read his paper" but heard him on a video, so I took the last view he presented, and he spent a bit more time on it than on others, as I recall the subjective feel, as that opinion being his own. It is possible I misjudged him on that one, he could simply not be intending to spell out his own view, here is a discussion of it, linking back to his video: Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: A Discussion on one of the subjects of Glossa Ordinaria "Mary is the New Eve" https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/04/a-discussion-on-one-of-subjects-of.html Can Catholics Believe Theistic Evolution? - Jimmy Akin's Mysterious World Jimmy Akin | 29 March 2023 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBssnELtE94

130 - 5 = 125 to go.

Does the Chair of Peter Exist?

I came across the Protestant who claims, since Popes are only infallible when speaking from the chair of Peter, and since no chair carpented before the late 9th C. exists, this means that Popes are not infallible.

No joke, here is the article:

Sitting in the Chair of Peter
Beggars All : Reformation and Apologetics | FRIDAY, JULY 09, 2010
https://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/07/sitting-in-chair-of-peter.html

Here is a quote from Keating involving Boettner:

Then comes the blooper. Boettner says, "Infallibility is not claimed for every statement made by the pope [true enough], but only for those made when he is speaking ex cathedra, that is, seated in his papal chair, the chair of St. Peter, and speaking in his official capacity as head of the church." At the end of the sentence is an asterisk, which takes the reader to this footnote: "A scientific commission appointed by pope Paul VI in July, 1968, to investigate the antiquity of the 'Chair of St. Peter' . . . reported in early 1969 that the chair dates from the late ninth century . . . ." The point is that Peter's real chair does not exist, so a Pope cannot sit in it. Since, by official decree of Vatican I, he is infallible only when sitting in Peter's chair, he cannot issue infallible definitions at all. The Catholic Church is refuted by its own archaeology!

Boettner entirely misconstrues the meaning of ex cathedra. ...

So Boettner considered and Keating dismissed the idea that the material chair in which St. Peter himself sat is a requirement.

Now, John Bugay (on that blog) pretended to defend Boettner by quoting* Optatus of Mileve ...

We must note who first established a see and where. If you do not know, admit it. If you do know, feel your shame. I cannot charge you with ignorance, for you plainly know. It is a sin to err knowingly, although an ignorant person may be blind to his error. But you cannot deny that you know that the episcopal seat ["cathedra"] was established first in the city of Rome by Peter and that in it sat Peter, the head of all the apostles, wherefore he is called Cephas. So in this one seat unity is maintained by everyone, that the other apostles might not claim separate seats, each for himself. Accordingly, he who erects another seat in opposition to that one is a schismatic and a sinner. Therefore, Peter was the first to sit in that one seat, which is the first gift of the Church. To him succeeded Linus. Clement followed Linus. Then Anacletus Clement ... [he gives the list of popes down to his own time]. After Damasus, Siricius, who is our contemporary, with whom our whole world is in accord by interchange of letters in one bond of communion. Do you, if you would claim for yourselves a holy church, explain the origin of your seat. (Cited in Shotwell and Loomis, "The See of Peter," pgs 111-112, writing to the Donatists.)

So, my dear John Bugay, are you saying Caiaphas had no infallibility when officiating in the Temple, because it was not the one which materially was built in the time of King Solomon? St. John seems to have disagreed with you then:

John 11:51
And this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest of that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation.

It would seem that infallibility worked even if the temple was restored materially in other stones later on, than those used by Solomon or even by Ezra.

A chair or cathedra has a double meaning. Part of it is the material object, part of it is the authority it symbolises, tied to a specific succession of authority bearers. If the material object is replaced by another material object, the chair in this more important sense remains the same.

If St. Edward's chair was not woodworked on the orders of St. Edward of Wessex, but on the orders of Edward I of England, does this mean that any monarch crowned in it is ipso facto not the monarch of England? Hardly.

Or if I stand on a soap box in Hyde Park one day, and continue to stand there week after week, am I no longer speaking from my soap box if one day that soap box breaks and I use another one? Hardly.

But for some reason, when it comes to the Vicar of Christ, when it comes to an office that's supposed to be tied to Christ's promise about perpetual assistance to His Church, all of a sudden a phrase involving a reference to a material object is supposed to become meaningless, if the material object is replaced!

Such people seriously think the New Covenant weaker than the Old one was. Despite Matthew 28 being a permanent covenant, up to Doomsday, and Deuteronomy 28 being a conditional one, involving the promise of a permanent one. Yes, Caiaphas was able to validly sacrifice for the sins of the people up to when Jesus had made His eternal sacrifice, in the Last Supper and on Calvary. Even if "the temple" had twice needed rebuilding or similar building projects, under Ezra and under Herod.

The solution is, if I stand on "my soap box" in Hyde Park, it seriously doesn't matter if it's the same soap box I began standing on, and if I share it with a younger apprentice who takes it over after me, it also doesn't matter if he replaces it, he would still be standing on my soap box, if I had had the talent and will to form a school of speakers in Hyde Park. The episcopal chair functions as such, even if the material chair is replaced by a newer artifact. I hope you believe the Gospel of St. Matthew functions as Gospel of St. Matthew, even if you are not holding His autograph! (I hope, I'm not quite reassured ...)

Hans Georg Lundahl
Pompidolian Library, Paris
St. Thomas Aquinas
7.III.2024

* Omitting the bolds and italics.

Glories of Mary

Papa Stronsay Redemptorist Fathers have Digitalised this English Edition:

The Glories of Mary
St. Alphonsus Liguori
https://www.papastronsay.com/publications/library/Saint%20Alphonsus/the-glories-of-Mary.pdf

Thoroughly recommended./HGL

Atheists Tend to Take Over a Protestant Attitude to Catholic Legend

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Contra Hume · Great Bishop of Geneva! Atheists Tend to Take Over a Protestant Attitude to Catholic Legend

As already mentioned — Protestants of the 17th and 18th C. had very certainly all, as probably most already in the 16th C. abandoned hope of working miracles. I do not speak of Pentecostals, I speak of Lutheran, Zwinglian, Buceran, Anglican, Calvinist sects. The "usual suspects" of Anti-Catholic violence in times of upheaval. Many of them tyrants on nation state level, all of them at least some places on a local level.

As a consequence, they had a great motivation, rather than theoretical good reasons to deny miracles continuing in the Catholic Church after the Apostolic age.

That is a huge deal when it comes to the longer versions of legends of saints, the popular one, the Legenda Aurea. The martyrologies often speak of "many miracles" but usually do not enumerate them. The Legenda Aurea, or Butler's Lives of the Saints, that is what the people would read, and that is what a non-Catholic foreigner, like Hume, would encounter first. The miracles are often enough described as clear as in the Gospels (canonic) or III Maccabees (variously held as canonic by Orthodox and typically apocryphal by Catholics).

Some of the miraculous survivals of attempts to martyr someone finally martyred are also recorded in the martyrology.

Again, Protestants, before they later on typically became Atheists, would regard this as nonsense.

Some other things could occasionally contribute. St. Christopher was described as having a dog's head. I think this description in antiquity often enough meant someone with slit eyes, because the dog breeds known today as pit bulls and similar in antiquity have slit eyes. But it could also mean someone, I suppose at least, very hirsute, someone "suffering" from (or enjoying, as the case may be) hypertrichosis. I mean, dogs have hairs in the regions corresponding to facial, so such a description makes sense.

Now, if instead of thinking "hypertrichosis" or slit eyes, you think full canine anatomy of the head, like an Anubis statue, you probably may be in two minds. Or outright reject St. Christopher for that alone.

Yesterday had a similar topic, not in the martyrs, but in the ones martyring them.

14 Januarii, main feast Sancti Hilarii, Episcopi Pictaviensis, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris; qui pridie hujus diei evolavit in caelum. But that's just the main feast.

Now, when I saw the fifth feast, it made me jump a bit:

In Rhaithi regione, in Aegypto, sanctorum quadraginta trium Monachorum, qui, pro Christiana religione, a Blemmiis occisi sunt.

In the Rhaitus region (wherever that is) of Egypt, holy forty three Monks who, for the Christian religion, were killed by Blemmii.

By what?

Yes, I thought I saw Blemmyes too. And that's probably what I did see.

Various species of mythical headless men were rumoured, in antiquity and later, to inhabit remote parts of the world. They are variously known as akephaloi (Greek ἀκέφαλοι 'headless ones') or Blemmyes (Latin: Blemmyae; Greek: βλέμμυες) and described as lacking a head, with their facial features on their chest. These were at first described as inhabitants of ancient Libya or the Nile system (Aethiopia). Later traditions confined their habitat to a particular island in the Brisone River,[a] or shifted it to India.

Well, how did they get their name? Two theories:

Samuel Bochart of the 17th century derived the word Blemmyes from the Hebrew bly (בלי) "without" and moach (מוח) "brain", implying that the Blemmyes were people without brains (although not necessarily without heads).

... Leo Reinisch [de] in 1895 proposed that it derived from bálami "desert people" in the Bedauye tongue (Beja language). Although this theory had long been neglected,[8] this etymology has come into acceptance, alongside the identification of the Beja people as true descendants of the Blemmyes of yore.[9][10][11]

I agree with Leo Reinisch, obviously, the ones killing the 43 monks were "bálami" or "desert people" ... Herodotus had heard of them, and probably via an intermediate which would have been prone to distort the name in the Semitic etymology meaning "without brains" (by enmity) and then in a twisted type of humour transmitting the info on what it meant, namely even as "headless people" ... perhaps because they didn't know the Greek word for brain.

But this would have been unknown and not considered for the rare Protestants who came across the 43 monks martyred by Blemmyes, in Butler or in Golden Legend.

However, I will not deny the possibility of the marvellous and the preternatural, as today's saint, also in Egypt, St. Paul the First Hermit, once was visited by St. Anthony, who, on the way to him, met a faun and a centaur.

A third source of Protestant disbelief in Catholic legend is however disagreement about the moral content. When Calvin (with ludicrously inaccurate estimates) objected to the relics of the Holy Cross, obviously he has a moral incentive or gives Calvinists a moral incentive to disbelieve the Finding of the Holy Cross, celebrated on 3.V.

When Luther bemoaned his having disobeyed the father who didn't want him to become a celibate priest, he invented a new moral theology not just about monastic vows (in and of itself a source of disgust with lots of Catholic legend in Protestants back then), but also about what kind of obedience one owes to one's father.

Believing St. Barbara was with God, who had vindicated her disobedience (or as Catholics with some scholastic background would argue rather being non-obedience, not the same thing) against her Pagan father, that did not sit well with Lutherans. Dito for Sts. Francis and Clare of Assisi.

And, getting back to St. Christopher ... according to the full legend in Legenda Aurea, he had proposed he would serve "the greatest king" ... here are his three successive loyalties :

• an earthly king who trembled when he saw
• Satan, who in his turn was afraid of
• an image of Jesus Christ, to whom Christopher turned at last, and to Whom he remained true.

It doesn't sit all that well with this kind of Protestants (who, remember, were not at all Pentecostals back then) that a man having made a compact with the Devil should save his soul, or that the way in doing so would involve works of penance (part of what Protestantism turned away from and what St. Christopher examplified).

So, Protestants turned away from the legend that Child Jesus had appeared to St. Christopher, first asking to be carried over, and then asking the saint to plant his staff (dead wood), which thereon came to life, sprouted leaves and grew roots, before his very eyes. Plus, obviously, the Protestant prejudice against appearances of Jesus or of Mary or of some saints to someone alive and later sainted.

One huge dealbreaker with me over rejecting the Novus Ordo was actually that at least temporarily Sts Barbara and Christopher were taken out of the martyrology and of feast days. That is obviously not the last indication that the Novus Ordo establishment is unduly influenced by Protestants — the other day, Cacey Cole, a Novus Ordo Franciscan, repeated Protestant talking points about Boniface VIII.

But as mentioned, the main heirs of this Protestantism, this rejection of Catholic legend, and this disagreement with Catholic morals too, is not the Novus Ordo. It's outright Atheism. I have said before, and will probably have to say it again, that Atheists are Protestants who lost the remainders of Christianity that the Reformation had left them with.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Paul the First Hermit
15.I.2024

Could Anabaptists Be Right That Reformation was a Meiji Régime for the True Christians?

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: First Half of Heschmeyers Video Against Mike Gendron · Heschmeyer Refutes "Trail of Blood" · Great Bishop of Geneva! Could Anabaptists Be Right That Reformation was a Meiji Régime for the True Christians? · back to Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: I May Feel Like Exonerating Mike Gendron, But I Won't Admire Him

Here is a story about the secret Christians in Japan, and what has happened since the Meiji régime, starting in 1868 (by the way, Hirohito was not part of it, the Meiji era* ended in 1912). Obviously, in this case, the secret Christians were Catholics.

Japan's Holy War on Christianity
MARYLINE ORCEL WORLD, 5 Jan. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEXzoSANtzE

Now, if you hear of things like Trail of Blood or Ruckman, you will get the impression, Constantine started a much longer Shogun era, which applied much wider, and which persecuted true Christians to the point of making them socially invisible, as the Japanese Christians were under the Shogunate.

You will get the impression that the Reformation Churches, like the Meiji régime, were not embracing Christianity. But they were still, also like the Meiji régime, lifting a very heavy yoke from the Christians.

There is a reason why this could not work on a whole world scale.

Matthew 5:15.

The reason why secret Christians could be part of the Church of Christ was that there were open Christians. I don't mean primarily the ones who got martyred in Japan. While they got martyred, they were, unlike the Church in Antiquity, not giving instructions to the Heathen. Justin Martyr wrote an Apology he sent to Caesar. Here are his works before Pagans:

1. The First Apology addressed to Antoninus Pius, his sons, and the Roman Senate;[31]
2. A Second Apology of Justin Martyr addressed to the Roman Senate;
3. The Discourse to the Greeks,[a] a discussion with Greek philosophers on the character of their gods;

I do not know, have so far not heard, of the secret Christians in Japan doing anything like this.

Hence, they were not fulfilling the Great Commission, and as such, they could not be by themselves, the true Church. By contrast, they were in Communion with people fulfilling it, and were as such, part of the true Church.

Similarily, a hypothetic Anabaptist Church in 1300 AD could not have been the true Church, because it was clearly not fulfilling the Great Commission, either the Catholics and Orthodox were fulfilling or misfulfilling it, but no Anabaptist Church was fulfilling it. Waldensians existed, and they were not writing to Wenceslaus II of Bohemia, also king of Poles and Hungarians, nor to Albert I of Germany, nor Frederick III, Duke of Lorraine, nor Robert II, Duke of Burgundy, nor Philip IV of France, nor Edward I of England, nor to anyone else, not even to Amadeus V, Count of Savoy, who was ruling, I presume the Marca di Torina, the Marquisate of Turin, where they lived.

And, this time unlike the Japanese secret Christians, neither could they be even part of the true Church, because they were not in communion with others who elsewhere were fulfilling it.

No, there was not a Shogunate for 1260 literal years, spanning all countries or all Christian countries. There will be be only one thing close to the Shogunate, but on a world wide scale. According to prophecy, it will have 1260 literal days. Three and a half literal years. That's time enough to make the Christians hated, before making himself so, even by non-Christians, but not time enough to make them forgotten or totally invisible, or their teachings unknown.

Back when I was a reader of manga more than now, I was a fan of 1. Rurouni Kenshin. I have heard, he was based on a man who was a Christian after the Meiji Restoration. When I look up Kenshin Himura, I find he was based off someone more probably not a Christian, Kawakami Gensai. But what's definitely true is, his first relation, like that of Catholics, with the Meiji régime was release from captivity.

The video also speaks of how Catholicism is still often seen as shameful in Japan. This is for different reasons, also the case with Catholicism in Sweden or England, though Australia is where Cardinal Pell got his fake trial and years in prison.

And that's a reason to relish France.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Ember Friday after Epiphany**
12.I.2024

PS, as the video underlines, the Shogunate was an exaggerated nationalism. Here is what Las cinco quiebras de la Cristiandad medieval, by Roberto Moreno says about Antichristian Nationalism:

Más allá de los avatares heréticos, con la noción de libre examen Lutero introduce ya el mecanicismo formal subjetivista que caracterizará la modernidad; aunque él lo recorta a escala individual, otros lo ensancharán a la escala estatal. ...

Actually, it was already Luther who introduced "free enquiry into Scriptures" on the state level, rather than the individual one. He did not want a peasant to challenge him, he thought he could stand approved by princes, which he made the new popes of his true religion. What Catholics have suffered a few centuries from the Reformation in Northern Europe is a better parallel than Waldensians in 1300 living in separate valleys to what the Japanese Christians went through./HGL

Notes:

* The Meiji era was exactly the personal reign of Emperor Meiji, previously known as Mutsuhito.

** I was wrong. Ember Days are in Latin called Dies Quatuor Temporum, and that means they are four times a year, not five. I treated the Octave of Epiphany as the Octave of Pentecost (which actually has Ember days). This kind of mix-ups you can arrive at when you live the Catholic life without the support of a parish. A bit like the Japanese Catholics, except I was not obliged to hide. So far no Mass in Paris is celebrated "una cum papa nostro Michael" (II). Meanwhile, I've made up for the unnecessary fasting.

Do Catholics Claim, Sins After Baptism are Only Forgiven in Confession?

I was starting to listen to a video, which this time was not from the other mystic, I think Anne Katherine Emmerick*, but from St. Bridget of Sweden (or as we say in Sweden, Denmark, Norway : of Vadstena).

Second, think about the mercy of God, because there is no man who is so sinful that his sin is not immediately forgiven, if he only prays for Gods forgiveness with an intention to better himself and with true repentance for his former sins.

Note, in order for St. Bridget to be canonised, every jot and tittle of her revelations was scrutinised to contain no doctrinal and no known factual error. This is about doctrine. If someone is truly repenting, God forgives even before confession, and even if one should have no opportunity to go to confession before dying. However, before you go to receive Holy Communion next time, except in case of huge hurry before dying, you do need to confess, you need to be forgiven sacramentally, before holding communion with Christ sacramentally./HGL

Here is the video:

What if Adam and Eve had not sinned? The Prophecies and Revelations of Saint Bridget of Sweden
Penance! | 19 Dec. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bquytGA6Rk

* I am used to the spelling Emmerich, the High German form. However, she was born in Coesfeld, a village in the diocese of Münster, and this is not far from the Netherlands, so, the Low German or Dutch form makes some sense in this context.