- 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
torsdag 3 oktober 2013
Dialogue with a Mormon - Matthew 28
söndag 30 juni 2013
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.
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.
fredag 17 maj 2013
Popular on Apologetics Section
måndag 6 maj 2013
A Suspicious Testimony
Clear Gospel, Directory, Rev. Ronald R Shea, Esq.
Testimony called: No Infused Grace
http://cleargospel.org/directory/profile.php?id=112
Quotes with my answers and follow up questions:
OK, two questions:
1) were you ever taught that Christ's work for your salvation was handed to your personally profiting from it in Holy Mass?
2) were you ever taught to adress Christ on the Cross with the words "tantus labor non sit cassus" = may such a great work not be invalid/unprofitable (for myself) - or were you not?
Confessing a venial sin that you do not regret is dangerous, and if you only confess that one without real regret, your confession is worse than worthless, it is a sacrilege. Therefore, when confessing a venial sin you may also search for a sin in the past that you CERTAINLY regret, and your confession will not be a sacrilege. A venial sin can be erased by confession, by communion, by prayer, by anything done out of love for God, since its essence is laxness about the love of God.
A mortal sin is what the Bible calls "crucifying Jesus all over again".
The thing with venial sins is that though they must be erased before one enters heaven, they need not be erased before death. A mortal sin kept in the hour of death on your conscience is persisting in betraying your Lord. Is that too complex for you?
(And yes, previous paragraph means that everyone in Purgatory is headed for Heaven. Nobody in Hell is headed for Heaven, unless God raises him from the dead so once again alive he can repent before dying again. Which has happened a few times.)
Infused grace mean the life of God himself, the Holy Spirit, infused into your soul. It is not just a question of being a good boy, though dead souls will not even be able to do that in the long run.
The "complex system" is precisely those two. The actual graces are what enable you to be a good boy (whether you consciously receive them as graces from God or not), and the sanctifying or infused grace is the life of God becoming life of your soul. Obviously if you die without it, you go where the dead souls go, to the place of eternal death.
Oh, as for Indulgence Prayers, are you sure that Gloria Patri was Fifteen Years and Memorare was Forty-five? I am not quite sure about that. But even if it were true - I suspect it is not, either you lie or your memory fools you but I could be wrong - it could be explained by the fact that Gloria Patri should be prayed daily. There is actually no theological reason why you should not still pray it daily, unless your dissatisfaction with the "Sacramental System" has worn off to be a mistrust in Holy Trinity too.
She might either not have heard your question included the words "when they die" or she might even more probably have been replaced for teaching you wrong. Some people are said to have had all of their purgatory on earth. The Holy Martyrs, or St Thérèse of Lisieux who made in part Tuberculosis her martyrdom (contracted, I think while she was tending to the sick) and in part every little annoyance she could offer up to God by bearing it with a smile to the annoying person.
Your mental calculus about how many years you were spending in purgatory was pretty much misapplied mathematics, due to your superfluous question of where you were standing about avoiding Purgatory. Now, Luther in a dark moment, and he was condemned by Pope Leo X for saying it, stated that the souls in Purgatory love God so much they would hate to leave Purgatory without effecting all the penances, and therefore dislike having indulgences applied to them. That is wrong, they are of course satisfied if God lets them off earlier than supposed. But if you had instead of asking how much Purgatory you were escaping by ten minutes of Gloria Patri tried to use the ten minutes to Glorify actually the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, you might have made it to Heaven, after some stumbles, with pretty good ease (not meaning you would have died already, but meaning you would have already been secure of going to Heaven and not too afraid of going to Purgatory first).
It is not the passions, it is consenting to them, outside the hallowed ground of marriage, which would do that.
Have you not read "who looketh on his neighbours wife with carnal desire has already committed adultery with her in his heart" or "adulterers ... will not enter the Kingdom of God"?
What you needed (and what I for one need too) was marriage. Ask your wife if she wouldn't like to get along back to the Catholic Church with you, that is saving your soul.
Ouch, pretty much the kind of mistake I used to do pretty often when confessing in certain years after my conversion. Pretty certain attitude to ruin confession for you.
What exactly were you trying to do?
Going to Holy Mass is not doing a dead work, it is visiting Christ on Calvary, where he died for you. If you cannot go back in a time machine to the first Good Friday and see Him bleed for you, and if you cannot go to Narnia and be present at the stone table, you can go to Holy Mass. What is "dead works of the law" about that?
Did he die for Hitler and Stalin and were Stalin and Hitler saved? Or did Hitler and Stalin miss out on something they had to do, like not committing mortal sins that crucified Christ again and like visiting Christ in Holy Mass to renew their love for him? Are you saying that Hell is empty?
Oh, sorry: I saw you are single. But I also saw you with children on photos from a Christmas. Are you actually divorced?
Sorry again, I saw you are married to Ch. R., you will have to correct info on the directory:
If you had been told how to pray the Rosary - which can give you plenary indulgence (no time at all in Purgatory for sins committed and forgiven before it was gained), how come you did not try to use knots on a string or even rosary beads for the tally, so you could get your mind off keeping the tally?
Did they never teach you the Rosary?
I mean, testimonies like this look a bit like wilful forgetfulness about your Catholic past. Or, just possibly, with Chick Tract like "honesty" close to Avro Manhattan and Phelps, a lie.
If it were true, I would very much like to know who your bishop was back then, so his sinful negligence in catechism can be duly punished by the Roman Catholic Church.
[He posted his testimony on a FB Group that is Catholic and Sedisvacantist. I was added to it and posted quotes with my answers there first./HGL]
Oh, double sorry, I just saw that Mr R. is not at all the Ronald Shea that the testimony is about.
[So A posted testimony of B, and I confused them, apologioes made on group./HGL]
Testimony called: No Infused Grace
http://cleargospel.org/directory/profile.php?id=112
Quotes with my answers and follow up questions:
"As with so many other sects within Christendom, I was taught that my salvation was not contingent upon the work of the Savior, but dependent upon my obedience to the ten Commandments. Actually, the work of the Savior was unknown to me. Every 'good Friday' we would make the 'stations of the cross' reflecting on the torture and death of Jesus. But what was the significance of it? Basically, my theology was, 'look what those mean people are doing to Jesus. This is just TERRRIBLE!.' "
OK, two questions:
1) were you ever taught that Christ's work for your salvation was handed to your personally profiting from it in Holy Mass?
2) were you ever taught to adress Christ on the Cross with the words "tantus labor non sit cassus" = may such a great work not be invalid/unprofitable (for myself) - or were you not?
"But the removal of venial sins was much more complex. Confession absolved you of your sins, but you still faced Purgatory. So I never quite understood what advantageous confession held for venial sins. The only real advantage I could see was that, if some sin were “right on the line” between mortal and venial, it was probably best to confess it and get it erased."
Confessing a venial sin that you do not regret is dangerous, and if you only confess that one without real regret, your confession is worse than worthless, it is a sacrilege. Therefore, when confessing a venial sin you may also search for a sin in the past that you CERTAINLY regret, and your confession will not be a sacrilege. A venial sin can be erased by confession, by communion, by prayer, by anything done out of love for God, since its essence is laxness about the love of God.
A mortal sin is what the Bible calls "crucifying Jesus all over again".
The thing with venial sins is that though they must be erased before one enters heaven, they need not be erased before death. A mortal sin kept in the hour of death on your conscience is persisting in betraying your Lord. Is that too complex for you?
(And yes, previous paragraph means that everyone in Purgatory is headed for Heaven. Nobody in Hell is headed for Heaven, unless God raises him from the dead so once again alive he can repent before dying again. Which has happened a few times.)
"Receiving communion was supposed to 'infuse grace' into me. This mystical substance called 'grace' was supposed to empower me to live a good life, so I would sin less, and consequently, spend less time in purgatory (or—God forbid—hell!)."
Infused grace mean the life of God himself, the Holy Spirit, infused into your soul. It is not just a question of being a good boy, though dead souls will not even be able to do that in the long run.
"There was also a complex system of different kinds of graces. I can only remember two of them now, 'actual grace' and 'sanctifying grace.'"
The "complex system" is precisely those two. The actual graces are what enable you to be a good boy (whether you consciously receive them as graces from God or not), and the sanctifying or infused grace is the life of God becoming life of your soul. Obviously if you die without it, you go where the dead souls go, to the place of eternal death.
Oh, as for Indulgence Prayers, are you sure that Gloria Patri was Fifteen Years and Memorare was Forty-five? I am not quite sure about that. But even if it were true - I suspect it is not, either you lie or your memory fools you but I could be wrong - it could be explained by the fact that Gloria Patri should be prayed daily. There is actually no theological reason why you should not still pray it daily, unless your dissatisfaction with the "Sacramental System" has worn off to be a mistrust in Holy Trinity too.
"I raised my hand in class, and said, 'Sister Ruth Marie, some people won’t have to go to Purgatory when they die, right?' Without hesitation, she responded, 'No, everyone has to go to Purgatory.' "
She might either not have heard your question included the words "when they die" or she might even more probably have been replaced for teaching you wrong. Some people are said to have had all of their purgatory on earth. The Holy Martyrs, or St Thérèse of Lisieux who made in part Tuberculosis her martyrdom (contracted, I think while she was tending to the sick) and in part every little annoyance she could offer up to God by bearing it with a smile to the annoying person.
Your mental calculus about how many years you were spending in purgatory was pretty much misapplied mathematics, due to your superfluous question of where you were standing about avoiding Purgatory. Now, Luther in a dark moment, and he was condemned by Pope Leo X for saying it, stated that the souls in Purgatory love God so much they would hate to leave Purgatory without effecting all the penances, and therefore dislike having indulgences applied to them. That is wrong, they are of course satisfied if God lets them off earlier than supposed. But if you had instead of asking how much Purgatory you were escaping by ten minutes of Gloria Patri tried to use the ten minutes to Glorify actually the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, you might have made it to Heaven, after some stumbles, with pretty good ease (not meaning you would have died already, but meaning you would have already been secure of going to Heaven and not too afraid of going to Purgatory first).
"Still, I recognized that, within me lay the passions that could damn my eternal soul to hell!"
It is not the passions, it is consenting to them, outside the hallowed ground of marriage, which would do that.
Have you not read "who looketh on his neighbours wife with carnal desire has already committed adultery with her in his heart" or "adulterers ... will not enter the Kingdom of God"?
What you needed (and what I for one need too) was marriage. Ask your wife if she wouldn't like to get along back to the Catholic Church with you, that is saving your soul.
"I needed to cloak my question in some measure of piety."
Ouch, pretty much the kind of mistake I used to do pretty often when confessing in certain years after my conversion. Pretty certain attitude to ruin confession for you.
"And in choosing Christ, I needed to 'prove' to myself that I had trusted Christ alone, and not 'Christ plus works.' And this is consistent with Matthew 3:5-9. I not only needed to repent of my dead works, I needed to 'bring forth fruit of my repentance.' I needed to live my life in a way that confirmed I was trusting Christ alone."
What exactly were you trying to do?
Going to Holy Mass is not doing a dead work, it is visiting Christ on Calvary, where he died for you. If you cannot go back in a time machine to the first Good Friday and see Him bleed for you, and if you cannot go to Narnia and be present at the stone table, you can go to Holy Mass. What is "dead works of the law" about that?
"I need no other argument. I need no other plea. It is ENOUGH that Jesus died, and that he died for me."
Did he die for Hitler and Stalin and were Stalin and Hitler saved? Or did Hitler and Stalin miss out on something they had to do, like not committing mortal sins that crucified Christ again and like visiting Christ in Holy Mass to renew their love for him? Are you saying that Hell is empty?
Oh, sorry: I saw you are single. But I also saw you with children on photos from a Christmas. Are you actually divorced?
Sorry again, I saw you are married to Ch. R., you will have to correct info on the directory:
|
|
"I recited the "Glory Be" for ten minutes straight. . . keeping a tally, of course, for the number of prayers I recited. I realized God could keep track of such things, and I had full confidence in his omniscience. But I also needed to know where I stood."
If you had been told how to pray the Rosary - which can give you plenary indulgence (no time at all in Purgatory for sins committed and forgiven before it was gained), how come you did not try to use knots on a string or even rosary beads for the tally, so you could get your mind off keeping the tally?
Did they never teach you the Rosary?
I mean, testimonies like this look a bit like wilful forgetfulness about your Catholic past. Or, just possibly, with Chick Tract like "honesty" close to Avro Manhattan and Phelps, a lie.
If it were true, I would very much like to know who your bishop was back then, so his sinful negligence in catechism can be duly punished by the Roman Catholic Church.
[He posted his testimony on a FB Group that is Catholic and Sedisvacantist. I was added to it and posted quotes with my answers there first./HGL]
Oh, double sorry, I just saw that Mr R. is not at all the Ronald Shea that the testimony is about.
[So A posted testimony of B, and I confused them, apologioes made on group./HGL]
torsdag 14 februari 2013
Makarios
Great Bishop of Geneva! : 1) Makarios · 2) Once Saved, Always Saved - True for Church, Not True for All Christians Individually · 3) Protestants - Not - Getting Around Matthew 28 Last Three Verses: John Calvin's Attempt · 4) Barnes NOT getting around Matthew 28:20 ... · 5) Since St Francis of Sales had Real Objections to Calvinism ... 6) Contra Sproul 7) Barnes on Jewish Tradition 8) If Constantine had Founded the Catholic Church ... 9) Salvation and Schrödinger's Cat Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : 10) ... on Apostolic Succession, both as to Reasons and Answering an Objection or Two (quora)
Romans 4:8
Blessed is the man whose sin the Lord will never count against him.
Cross reference Psalms 32:1
Of David. A maskil. Blessed is he whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered.
Catholic interpretation: a newly baptised person is such. Both the original sin and his own previous transgressions (in case he was baptised as an adult) are forgiven by baptism. Nothing which he committed before baptism will ever be counted against him again by the Lord. Such he remains as long as he commits no mortal sin.
If there is a new sin, it is not covered by a baptism that went before it. However, confession is open to him. If it is a small one, he can exercise the life which is in him through baptism, and it is enough to cover the small sin. If it is such a sin as to deprive him of the life that is within him through baptism, then he needs to confess, repent and resolve, get absolution. And then he is blessed again. The transgressions he committed after baptism are covered also, God will never remember them either against him.
As far as I know, the Greek Orthodox, the Monophysite, the Nestorian interpretations are exactly the same or closely similar. All of these Churches do have confession - though most Catholic theologians would argue it is not valid except in special cases. Like innocent ignorance of where the Church is (it may be common or not, but still special: the Church as such is not invisible), or for a Catholic the cases of either dying before confession unless confessing to one of those, or living long without confession unless confessing to one of those.
Blessed does not just refer to a juridic state of non-condemnation, nor to a subjective feeling of relief over not being condemned after doing something condemnable. It refers to the life that is in the newly and rightly baptised man, which is the same life that can continue past death, if it is there in that moment, and freed from mortal cares, either directly or after purgatory will make a man blessed without any reservation or dimming of the glory. It is the heavenly life. It is in Catholic Theology referred to as The State of Grace, and it is by Theologians defined as the Indwelling of the Blessed Trinity in the human soul concerned.
Protestant reply: but if God knows that a man who has just been justified will sin in the future, does not that mean he is not blessed unless God already decides not to count the future sins either?
No, is the Catholic answer to that reply. The blessedness is not the same thing as an unrevocable decision of God not to damn him ever whatever he may do in the future. God knows if the man's blessedness will last or not. The man does not. But St Paul tells him in this verse that his past sins are no more an impediment to his life in God or the life of God in him, as soon as his sins are covered either by baptism or, if committed after baptism, by the sacrament of confession. The blessedness as such is God's indwelling in the man's soul.
There may or probably even was a time, when Judas Ischariot was blessed, was in a state of grace. But probably even before the betrayal, he lost the blessedness, lost the state of grace, by greed and by stealing from God.
Now, check if my explanation is correctly in accordance with Haydock's Bible commentary of verses 6-9 of this chapter:
Ver. 6. As David, &c. That is, David accounted a man happy in being justified by God's grace, and not by his own works, when he said: Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven by the mercies of God, and whose sins are covered; that is, covered so as to be no more, even in the sight of God. (Witham)
Ver. 7. Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. That is, blessed are those who, by doing penance, have obtained pardon and remission of their sins, and also are covered; that is, newly clothed with the habit of grace, and vested with the stole of charity. (Challoner) --- When it is said that the sins of man are covered, we must not imagine that they still remain, but on account of the goodness of God will not be punished, as the Lutherans contend; for the justice of God could not suffer this: but by it we must understand that they are entirely blotted out, and neither exist, nor are considered any longer by God. Still, we must not conclude that man is blessed, as soon as sin is remitted; since the same psalmist, in another place, ascribes happiness to man when he walks in the law of the Lord, and when he keeps judgment and does justice. (Psalms i; cv; and cviii.) And our Saviour says, If you know these things, blessed shall you be if you do them. (St. John xiii.) (Estius) --- Moreover, if sins were never blotted out, but only covered, why did the royal prophet pray to the Almighty, saying: blot out all mine iniquities; and in different parts of the 50th psalm and psalm cviii, speaking of the egregious sinner, he says: let the sin of his mother not be blotted out; which would mean nothing at all, if sins were never blotted out? (Haydock)
Ver. 8. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin. That is, blessed is the man who hath retained his baptismal innocence, that no grievous sin can be imputed to him. And likewise, blessed is the man who, after falling into sin hath done penance, and leads a virtuous life by frequenting the sacraments necessary for obtaining the grace to prevent a relapse, that sin is no more imputed to him. (Challoner)
Ver. 9. This blessedness, by which a man's sins are forgiven, and his soul truly justified, was promised, and is given to the uncircumcised Gentiles, as well as to the circumcised Jews, by the faith and grace of Christ; as Abraham was justified, when he was in the state of uncircumcision. (Witham)
That's all I had to say on this one./HGL
Oh yes, one more: St Peter decided to baptise Cornelius, when through the visible signs of the Holy Ghost the Apostle knew that the uncircumcised Roman had this blessedness in him, already before baptism. For if we are bound to seek the Sacraments, God is not bound to deny grace to those that have not yet gone to them./HGL
fredag 8 februari 2013
Resurrection, Holy Eucharist, Holy Poverty (or, Why Was Wycliff Wrong)
The defense for the Resurrection is rather well put by the son of Craig Lampe, Ph.D.* Here, Joel Lampe on The Bible on Trial:
They did stay together a few years as collective episcopacy of the Church in Jerusalem. With St Peter as their head. So, based on merely that, there is a theoretical chance they could have concocted a story, at least they had the time if you go only by that.
One more quote from Joel Lampe:
Big trouble number one with that story: the question what happened to the Church between the Apostles (or possibly Saint Jerome) and John Wycliffe.
Bible says the Church cannot fail between Ascension and Return of Our Lord. Our Lord's words, end of Gospel of St Matthew.
Big trouble number two with it: his Father Dr Craig's* solution the Bible teaching was kept pure and alive by a "secret society called the Culdees".
Bible says the Church cannot be a secret society. "A city built on a mountain cannot be hidden". "No man lighteth a candle/lamp so as to place it under a bushel" - and would God who lit the beacon of Light for our souls, whose word is a lantern for our feet put his candle** under a bushel? Or allow it to be put under a bushel by evil men for any longer time?
Even in Russia, 1917-1990, lots of people knew the Gospels because they were known before, from the time of the Czars. And that obscuration was not even reducing the Church to a secret society, since Orthodox and in some parts Catholic priests were openly celebrating Mass and preaching the Resurrection on Easter.
Now, let us therefore look on Craig's story about Wycliff, from The Forbidden Book.
John Wycliff was a product of the chosing of that secret society...
As already stated, the Culdees were not a secret society, they were Monks of the Celtic discipline. Iona was founded by some spiritual grandson or greatgrandson of St Patrick (whose biography I am now reading). By the way, it is not Culdee that means a certain starnger, but Chaldaeus, Chaldean. And St Joseph was not a Chaldean, he was a Hebrew, a Hebraeus. Culdee is not Latin but Irish: "Caol Dé" = "Companion of God". Just as "Socius Jesu" (the Latin for Jesuit) = "Companion of Jesus." But as little as the Jesuits in Spain, as little were the Culdees in the British Isles a Secret Society.
It is possible that certain Culdees after the Norman Conquest ousted the Celtic Church Discipline (and yes, Celtic and Roman Church differred only on discipline) degenerated into a secret society, just as it is possible that Templars after the burning of Jacques Molay in 1313 degenerated into a secret society more than they had become already by then (I mean Jacques Molay was no true and faithful successor of Hugues de Payns, unless he fooled - as I think he did not - the Council of Troyes of 1129, because quite certainly Hugues de Payns was not forcing - and would not have been allowed to start the order if he had been thought to force - new recruits to the order to tread on a Crucifix, as Jacques Molay was condemned for: some say Templars surviving in Scotland became the deplorable Freemasons, by infiltrating what had previously been Lodges of simple builders, and it is just barely possible but not at all likely that such degeneration happened to some Culdees as well).
But it is normally so that the Culdees who were not allowed to continue in their older discipline after Norman Conquests of the Celtic fringes (as well as Monks of Ely after Norman Conquest in England) took the Benedictine or later possibly Cistercian discipline. And on what basis could you say there were exceptions living on as a secret society or that new Benedictines even were secretly disloyal to the new Church discipline but at same time highly organised? Contemporary documents? - Not that I know of.
Wyclef stated he belonged to a secret society? - Would have been dangerous. Not likely.
Secret societies later claimed they continued the Culdees whose man Wyclef was? - That is in my opinion the very likeliest basis, unless it is just hysteria about Catholicism making secret society like behaviour a necessity for true Christians and trying to identify the "secret society Christians", picking Culdees for a reason or another.
Some have stated that the whole Reformation (like Freemasonry, like Bolshevism) is after all the product of people acting sometimes after the fashion of secret societies. These would be Jews, the sect that much earlier had crucified Our Lord. I find it barely likelier Jews by hatred of Christianity (which was offering them a status of second class citizens, after all) would have misunderstood or otherwise attacked the Holy Eucharist, picked out a man who did not shun them too much, talked to him and so on ...
But at least as likely if not likelier that some persecuted Waldensians - for there were times when they were persecuted - approached him.
If we can discount that, we can say he was his own deluder.
Here prepared a little tract called the Wicket, and it was a denial of Transsubstantiation.
That much is nearly sure that he denied Transsubstantiation. Or at least attacked it. Has the tract been preserved or not? Has if there is one its genuine descent from the pen of Wycliff been duly established?
Because the Bible did not support the idea that there is some kind of illusion or som kind of hocus pocus
The "refutation" of Transsubstantiation based thereon was refuted itself by St Thomas Aquinas:***
Summa Theologiae, III P, Q 75
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4075.htm
and
Summa Theologiae, III P, Q 77
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4077.htm
From the latter, A 1:
In other words, it is the real lightness or whiteness of bread you experience by touch or sight even when there is no real bread there any longer. And because the real whiteness and lightness is still there, same lightness and whiteness as when they were those of bread not yet consecrated, there is no deceit. There is no illusion.
And they would serve the elements in a Cannibalistic way.
Not at all. Cannibalism means eating the body of a man dead, or possibly dying from the cannibalism, unless it is very limited as in modern perversions of ritual Vampyrism. It means taking away pieces or drops to eat by one man what would otherwise have been the life of another one.
But Christ is risen, and His Body and Blood are not there under their own dimensions. Each communicant takes into his mouth and swallows, under the dimensions of bread and wine, not a piece of Christ's body but all of it, not a drop of Christ's blood but all of it. It is not blood as being spilled, it is blood as running in the veins of the Risen Body. Communion is not Cannibalism, it is offering up one's body to be a place where Christ is in His Body and Blood. Cannibalism is eating someone else's death. Communion is eating God's life. Cannibalism is eating someone weaker than oneself, since already dead. Communion is eating someone stronger than oneself, since already risen and since the very Person of God the Son, of God Almighty.
However, if Wycliff himself made the charge - I am right now searching Wikipedia for "The Wicket Wycliffe Lollards" and I get: "Did you mean: The Cricket Wycliffe Lollards" because Wicket is also a term in the Cricket game - then he was basically agreeing with Jewish anti-Christian and earlier Roman Pagan anti-Christian polemics. The "Cannibal" charge against Christians was made due to the Holy Eucharist. The Cannibal charge made by Celsus.
While on search for The Wicket, I get to an Old Paths Publications where Wycliff is said to have "defended property rights against Rome." He did not, he attacked voluntary poverty, the state in which the Church of Jerusalem lived. He called people having sold all their property and given it to the poor and living as beggars "thieves" precisely as the Pharisees and Sadducees might have called the Church in Jerusalem.
Between St Jerome and the time of Wycliff, the Faith delivered to and through the Apostles was not kept alive by a secret society of Culdees emanating into Wycliff, but by the established Church - including the time when it condemned Wycliff.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Château d'Eau Library
Paris
St John of Matha, O. SS. Trin.
8-II-2013
* As per mail I received Craig Lampe is Ph. D. I am neither claiming nor denying it, he is claiming it. As to what University or what subject, I do not know. It is not Lund University's Faculty for History, nor for Classical Studies. I know a Historian there, I studied Latin there, such ignorance as his about the Latin Middle Ages is inconceivable there. At least if you are promoted to Ph.D. - as I was not but do not claim to have been.
** Probable reference not to the kind of candles or tapers of wax you seen in Church, but to oil lamps. These had wicks like candles, and I am quoting from memory.
*** His Summa Theologiae is available online, both Latin and English translation. It has five parts, of which he did the first four in context. Prima Pars (I P) is about God as Creator and about Creation in General. Secunda Pars is really two parts, it is about Human Actions and their principles and that means it is there you find definitions of Sin and Grace. Prima Secundae (I-II) deals with basic principles of human actions, there you find freewill and passions, law and grace and the charismata. Secunda Secundae (II-II) deals with diverse virtues and sins. There you can find definition of Faith, Hope and Charity - as well as of diverse sins against these. Tertia Pars (III P) deals with Incarnation, Redemption, Church and Sacraments. But III P is only the part he completed himself. It includes Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist, but the general outline of the work is followed up by his disciples in Tertiae Partis Supplementum (III Suppl.), which takes the rest of the Sacraments, and in context with Penance deals also with Indulgences. After the Sacraments it goes on to Eschatology. Its words are his, but taken together from earlier works done on other plans, basically. Each of these five parts - I, I-II, II-II, III, (III) Suppl - is divided into sections not marked in citation but these are subdivided into Quaestiones that are numbered all through such a part. After one quaestio dealing with Theology and Holy Writ you continue counting the Quaestiones about God, as such, as Trinity, as Creator, and after that the numbering continues unbroken for the Quaestiones about Creation (Q 70 is about "The Work of Fourth Day of Creation" for instance), and each Quaestio is subdivided into closely related aspects, known as Articles. Each Article begins with the "Objections" against truth, continues one authority for truth known as "Sed Contra", then comes St Thomas' explanation of the main point in the "In corpore" and then his answers to objections in the final parts known as "Ad 1, ad 2 ..." enumerating the responses to each of the objections in same order.
He also said he learned from his academic study of Jesus' disciples that, many of them experienced horrific deaths "and none even flinched."
"These were 11 guys who went 11 different directions (after the Ascension) and never saw each other again. They all told the same story and refused to deny what they saw. There had to be something to what they believed," he said.
They did stay together a few years as collective episcopacy of the Church in Jerusalem. With St Peter as their head. So, based on merely that, there is a theoretical chance they could have concocted a story, at least they had the time if you go only by that.
- However, the Church started out with a Story told on Pentecost day. If they had been reshaping the story after, they would have lost adherents. So, in fact they did not have more time than 52 days between Crucifixion and Pentecost.
- If they had agreed on it in spite of facts known by them (supposing there had been such as would have invalidated their story) they would not have died unflinching deaths under torture, or, as for St John, faced a naturally inevitable death under boiling oil and then survive miraculously.
Nor been in the mood for the show they did on Pentecost day. And the miracle of Languages would not have happened. God does not make miracles for liars.
- If they had been mad, they would not have been able to agree on a story and would not have been able to guide, in the open, a Church like that.
Even sane people have trouble making homeless shelters agreeable for all concerned, perhaps they do not want to but want people to look for work so as to get away from them - but the Church in Jerusalem was people sacrificing their carreers so as to be able to live together.
The Hippie Camps have tried to rival that recently - and mostly failed. And it started out 5000 men plus women and children. Not just Hippie camp, but Woodstock - and Altamont. As far as scale is concerned. But the Church had no Altamont. And even Altamont was not ran by madmen, it just went wrong anyway.
One more quote from Joel Lampe:
A couple of years later, he said, he began studying the lives of William Tyndale, John Rogers, Thomas Cranmer and John Wycliffe - biblical publishing pioneers who were persecuted or killed for challenging the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.
Big trouble number one with that story: the question what happened to the Church between the Apostles (or possibly Saint Jerome) and John Wycliffe.
Bible says the Church cannot fail between Ascension and Return of Our Lord. Our Lord's words, end of Gospel of St Matthew.
Big trouble number two with it: his Father Dr Craig's* solution the Bible teaching was kept pure and alive by a "secret society called the Culdees".
Bible says the Church cannot be a secret society. "A city built on a mountain cannot be hidden". "No man lighteth a candle/lamp so as to place it under a bushel" - and would God who lit the beacon of Light for our souls, whose word is a lantern for our feet put his candle** under a bushel? Or allow it to be put under a bushel by evil men for any longer time?
Even in Russia, 1917-1990, lots of people knew the Gospels because they were known before, from the time of the Czars. And that obscuration was not even reducing the Church to a secret society, since Orthodox and in some parts Catholic priests were openly celebrating Mass and preaching the Resurrection on Easter.
Now, let us therefore look on Craig's story about Wycliff, from The Forbidden Book.
John Wycliff was a product of the chosing of that secret society...
As already stated, the Culdees were not a secret society, they were Monks of the Celtic discipline. Iona was founded by some spiritual grandson or greatgrandson of St Patrick (whose biography I am now reading). By the way, it is not Culdee that means a certain starnger, but Chaldaeus, Chaldean. And St Joseph was not a Chaldean, he was a Hebrew, a Hebraeus. Culdee is not Latin but Irish: "Caol Dé" = "Companion of God". Just as "Socius Jesu" (the Latin for Jesuit) = "Companion of Jesus." But as little as the Jesuits in Spain, as little were the Culdees in the British Isles a Secret Society.
It is possible that certain Culdees after the Norman Conquest ousted the Celtic Church Discipline (and yes, Celtic and Roman Church differred only on discipline) degenerated into a secret society, just as it is possible that Templars after the burning of Jacques Molay in 1313 degenerated into a secret society more than they had become already by then (I mean Jacques Molay was no true and faithful successor of Hugues de Payns, unless he fooled - as I think he did not - the Council of Troyes of 1129, because quite certainly Hugues de Payns was not forcing - and would not have been allowed to start the order if he had been thought to force - new recruits to the order to tread on a Crucifix, as Jacques Molay was condemned for: some say Templars surviving in Scotland became the deplorable Freemasons, by infiltrating what had previously been Lodges of simple builders, and it is just barely possible but not at all likely that such degeneration happened to some Culdees as well).
But it is normally so that the Culdees who were not allowed to continue in their older discipline after Norman Conquests of the Celtic fringes (as well as Monks of Ely after Norman Conquest in England) took the Benedictine or later possibly Cistercian discipline. And on what basis could you say there were exceptions living on as a secret society or that new Benedictines even were secretly disloyal to the new Church discipline but at same time highly organised? Contemporary documents? - Not that I know of.
Wyclef stated he belonged to a secret society? - Would have been dangerous. Not likely.
Secret societies later claimed they continued the Culdees whose man Wyclef was? - That is in my opinion the very likeliest basis, unless it is just hysteria about Catholicism making secret society like behaviour a necessity for true Christians and trying to identify the "secret society Christians", picking Culdees for a reason or another.
Some have stated that the whole Reformation (like Freemasonry, like Bolshevism) is after all the product of people acting sometimes after the fashion of secret societies. These would be Jews, the sect that much earlier had crucified Our Lord. I find it barely likelier Jews by hatred of Christianity (which was offering them a status of second class citizens, after all) would have misunderstood or otherwise attacked the Holy Eucharist, picked out a man who did not shun them too much, talked to him and so on ...
But at least as likely if not likelier that some persecuted Waldensians - for there were times when they were persecuted - approached him.
If we can discount that, we can say he was his own deluder.
Here prepared a little tract called the Wicket, and it was a denial of Transsubstantiation.
That much is nearly sure that he denied Transsubstantiation. Or at least attacked it. Has the tract been preserved or not? Has if there is one its genuine descent from the pen of Wycliff been duly established?
Because the Bible did not support the idea that there is some kind of illusion or som kind of hocus pocus
The "refutation" of Transsubstantiation based thereon was refuted itself by St Thomas Aquinas:***
Summa Theologiae, III P, Q 75
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4075.htm
and
Summa Theologiae, III P, Q 77
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/4077.htm
From the latter, A 1:
Objection 1. It seems that the accidents do not remain in this sacrament without a subject, because there ought not to be anything disorderly or deceitful in this sacrament of truth. But for accidents to be without a subject is contrary to the order which God established in nature; and furthermore it seems to savor of deceit, since accidents are naturally the signs of the nature of the subject. Therefore the accidents are not without a subject in this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 1. There is nothing to hinder the common law of nature from ordaining a thing, the contrary of which is nevertheless ordained by a special privilege of grace, as is evident in the raising of the dead, and in the restoring of sight to the blind: even thus in human affairs, to some individuals some things are granted by special privilege which are outside the common law. And so, even though it be according to the common law of nature for an accident to be in a subject, still for a special reason, according to the order of grace, the accidents exist in this sacrament without a subject, on account of the reasons given above (75, 5).
In other words, it is the real lightness or whiteness of bread you experience by touch or sight even when there is no real bread there any longer. And because the real whiteness and lightness is still there, same lightness and whiteness as when they were those of bread not yet consecrated, there is no deceit. There is no illusion.
And they would serve the elements in a Cannibalistic way.
Not at all. Cannibalism means eating the body of a man dead, or possibly dying from the cannibalism, unless it is very limited as in modern perversions of ritual Vampyrism. It means taking away pieces or drops to eat by one man what would otherwise have been the life of another one.
But Christ is risen, and His Body and Blood are not there under their own dimensions. Each communicant takes into his mouth and swallows, under the dimensions of bread and wine, not a piece of Christ's body but all of it, not a drop of Christ's blood but all of it. It is not blood as being spilled, it is blood as running in the veins of the Risen Body. Communion is not Cannibalism, it is offering up one's body to be a place where Christ is in His Body and Blood. Cannibalism is eating someone else's death. Communion is eating God's life. Cannibalism is eating someone weaker than oneself, since already dead. Communion is eating someone stronger than oneself, since already risen and since the very Person of God the Son, of God Almighty.
However, if Wycliff himself made the charge - I am right now searching Wikipedia for "The Wicket Wycliffe Lollards" and I get: "Did you mean: The Cricket Wycliffe Lollards" because Wicket is also a term in the Cricket game - then he was basically agreeing with Jewish anti-Christian and earlier Roman Pagan anti-Christian polemics. The "Cannibal" charge against Christians was made due to the Holy Eucharist. The Cannibal charge made by Celsus.
While on search for The Wicket, I get to an Old Paths Publications where Wycliff is said to have "defended property rights against Rome." He did not, he attacked voluntary poverty, the state in which the Church of Jerusalem lived. He called people having sold all their property and given it to the poor and living as beggars "thieves" precisely as the Pharisees and Sadducees might have called the Church in Jerusalem.
Between St Jerome and the time of Wycliff, the Faith delivered to and through the Apostles was not kept alive by a secret society of Culdees emanating into Wycliff, but by the established Church - including the time when it condemned Wycliff.
Hans-Georg Lundahl
Château d'Eau Library
Paris
St John of Matha, O. SS. Trin.
8-II-2013
* As per mail I received Craig Lampe is Ph. D. I am neither claiming nor denying it, he is claiming it. As to what University or what subject, I do not know. It is not Lund University's Faculty for History, nor for Classical Studies. I know a Historian there, I studied Latin there, such ignorance as his about the Latin Middle Ages is inconceivable there. At least if you are promoted to Ph.D. - as I was not but do not claim to have been.
** Probable reference not to the kind of candles or tapers of wax you seen in Church, but to oil lamps. These had wicks like candles, and I am quoting from memory.
*** His Summa Theologiae is available online, both Latin and English translation. It has five parts, of which he did the first four in context. Prima Pars (I P) is about God as Creator and about Creation in General. Secunda Pars is really two parts, it is about Human Actions and their principles and that means it is there you find definitions of Sin and Grace. Prima Secundae (I-II) deals with basic principles of human actions, there you find freewill and passions, law and grace and the charismata. Secunda Secundae (II-II) deals with diverse virtues and sins. There you can find definition of Faith, Hope and Charity - as well as of diverse sins against these. Tertia Pars (III P) deals with Incarnation, Redemption, Church and Sacraments. But III P is only the part he completed himself. It includes Baptism, Confirmation and Eucharist, but the general outline of the work is followed up by his disciples in Tertiae Partis Supplementum (III Suppl.), which takes the rest of the Sacraments, and in context with Penance deals also with Indulgences. After the Sacraments it goes on to Eschatology. Its words are his, but taken together from earlier works done on other plans, basically. Each of these five parts - I, I-II, II-II, III, (III) Suppl - is divided into sections not marked in citation but these are subdivided into Quaestiones that are numbered all through such a part. After one quaestio dealing with Theology and Holy Writ you continue counting the Quaestiones about God, as such, as Trinity, as Creator, and after that the numbering continues unbroken for the Quaestiones about Creation (Q 70 is about "The Work of Fourth Day of Creation" for instance), and each Quaestio is subdivided into closely related aspects, known as Articles. Each Article begins with the "Objections" against truth, continues one authority for truth known as "Sed Contra", then comes St Thomas' explanation of the main point in the "In corpore" and then his answers to objections in the final parts known as "Ad 1, ad 2 ..." enumerating the responses to each of the objections in same order.
tisdag 5 februari 2013
Good News about Protestants
Great Bishop of Geneva! Good News about Protestants · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl : About the Late Craig Lampe, His Son, His Book
I received a mail from the author of The Forbidden Book:
Dear Sir, I received your research on The Forbidden Book. I will review it carefully. Thank you for sending it to us. Craig Lampe, Ph.D
Now, that is a change from the days of "bilious Bale". If mistaken, now they will at least look it up!/HGL
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)