Must a Christian Believe in Sufficiency of Scripture, and If So, in What Sense?

I was reading the Awake! of August 2014. If you have also picked it up, you know it features a short article about dreams. Not surprising, since there were dreams in the story of Joseph, also featured. Now to resume the article. It concludes:

• 1) Dreams certainly did come from God in Biblical times.
  
  
• 2) They do not come so to people already having the Bible in our times, since we should be content with the Bible.
  
  
• 3) This is argued from a kind of total sufficiency of Scripture, including the passages on dreams included in it.

Unless I misunderstood something, they mean the only dreams instructing anyone now are the pretty few ones in the Bible.

Let us note a thing, going to interpreters of dreams is forbidden to the Christian. This of course pagans having certain dreams and using prophets as interpreters did not know. But the prophets interpreted according to inspiration from God. Council of Ancyra forbids consulting those that go by dream books, like those in use in New Age movement, of course, but I would clearly suspect equally the Freudian and Jungian ones used by therapists paid by medicaid systems. And in some cases, dreams are clear to oneself, immediately, so no interpreter is needed, this does not fall under ban, as far as I know, of the Council of Ancyra. With this red herring out of the way, least one should interpret my answer as endorsing New Age dream books, let's get to refuting this.

The first thing to note is that there is Biblical prophecy about dreams being part of the life of the Church, as well as of visions (a Catholic will very often be aware of Rue de Bac, La Salette, Lourdes, Fatima). The dreams and visions actually recorded in Holy Writ are a bit fewish to be a complete fulfilment of the prophecy. If one adds the records of Catholic Mysticism and actual Prophecy, that would correspond better.

The second thing is to note they back up the conclusion by two passages of the Bible - or rather the limiting part of the conclusion. I will cite the two passages from Douay Rheims and I will cite the Haydock comment for them as well.

I Cor 4:6 quoted passage essentially the words [go not] "above that which is written."

Verse in full:

But these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollo, for your sakes: that in us you may learn, that one be not puffed up against the other for another, above that which is written.

So, going past or beyond what is written is not wrong in itself, only if it leads to puffing oneself up against each other?

But several prohecies have been followed by no party implication at all. So they do not fall under the verse. Let us see what Haydock comments gives:

Ver. 6. These things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself, and to Apollo. Literally, these things have I transfigured in me and Apollo, that is, I have represented the divisions and disputes among you, as if it were by your contending, whether I, or Apollo, or Cephas were the best preachers, without naming those, as I might do, who are the true causes of these divisions, by striving who should be thought men of the greatest and brightest parts.

That in us, and by our example, who have no such proud disputes, you might learn that one be not puffed up against the other, and above that which is written, against the admonitions given in the holy Scriptures of being humble: or against what I have now written to you, that we must strive for nothing, but to be the faithful ministers of God, and not seek the esteem of men. (Witham)

It is the opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas and likewise of Estius, that St. Paul, Apollo, and Cephas were not the real causes of the divisions that existed amongst the new converts at Corinth, but that in making use of these names, he wished to teach them, that if it was unlawful to keep up these divisions even for the sake of the apostles, how far should they be from doing any thing of this kind for those whose authority was much less in the Church. But Calmet is of opinion, that the divisions amongst the Corinthians were certainly on account of Paul, Apollo, Cephas, and perhaps some others, whose names are not mentioned.

What about the part concerned with going beyond Scripture? Haydock comment cited Bishop Witham as saying: "and above that which is written, against the admonitions given in the holy Scriptures of being humble: or against what I have now written to you, that we must strive for nothing, but to be the faithful ministers of God, and not seek the esteem of men."

The words "that which is written" (in Greek probably one participle) are thus not concerned with all of Scripture, but with admonitions in Scripture against haughtiness and party spirit. Or even about what was just written before in that passage of that very Epistle which was not yet necessarily considered as Canonic Scripture. And in either case the disobedience is not concerned with extra-biblical sources for religiously or practically relevant information, but with haughtiness and party spirit.

So far from being the Reformers' case against Tradition and Magisterium, so far from being in any way a case against heeding dreams or visions - provided they do not contradict Scripture, of course - they are the very case against the Reformers. Unless they were to claim their party spirit was motivated by that which is written - as a Creationist might one day have to claim against Bergoglio's claim to Papacy. But the Scriptures cited by Reformers were actually misapplied in their criticism of Rome.

The other passage is more concerned with sufficiency of Scripture. But in a manner not quite as they meant it.

II Timothy 3:16,17. Here is DR:

16 *All Scripture divinely inspired is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished unto every good work.

They cited it more like in verse 17 "that a man may be perfectly furnished unto every good work". And they unerlined (or italicised) "perfectly" and "every". Implying, if one needed extra information one would also by Scripture itself be only imperfectly furnished or only perfectly furnished to some but not every good work.

DR does not have "perfectly furnished" but "perfect" and "furnished". That is perfect in his person, not just as far as knowledge but also as far as personal justice is concerned. And furnished to every good work, but perhaps not so perfectly as not to need extra information. Let us see what Bishops Witham and Challoner have to say in the Haydock comment. No, even more. Let us take the context. It actually contradicts the interpretation of Bible alone. Let's take 14 - 17 in a stride.

14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned.

15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which can instruct thee unto salvation, through the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 *All Scripture divinely inspired is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished unto every good work.

Here are the comments on two verses, Bishop Witham and Father Haydock on first, Bishops Witham and Challoner - as just mentioned - on second, the verses being 14 and 16:

Ver. 14. But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned, &c. St. Paul here gives particular advice to his disciple, St. Timothy, who had been long since instructed in all the truths and mysteries of the Christian faith, who had received the gifts of the Holy Ghost, of prophecy, of interpreting the Scriptures, who was a priest, a bishop of Ephesus, the metropolis of Asia, whose office it was to instruct, direct, and convert others. He tells this great bishop, that the holy Scriptures are able, and may conduce or can instruct him unto salvation, (ver. 15.) unto his own salvation and that of others. (Witham)

The apostle here entreats his disciple, and in him all future Christians, to adhere to the true deposit of doctrine. He teaches with Catholics, that all Scripture is profitable; but not with Protestants, that Scripture alone is necessary and sufficient.

Ver. 16. All scripture divinely inspired is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, or admonish, to instruct others in justice, and in the ways of virtue, that thus he who is a man of God, a minister of the gospel, may be perfect and instructed unto every good work. But when our adversaries of the pretended reformation, undertake from these four verses to shew, first, that every ignorant man or woman is hereby warranted to read and put what construction his or her private spirit, or private judgment, suggests upon all places of the holy Scriptures; and secondly, that the Scriptures alone contain all truths which a Christian is bound to believe; or at least, that the Scriptures teach him all things necessary to salvation, without regard to the interpretation and authority of the Catholic Church: I may at least say (without examining at present any other pretended grounds of these assertions) that these consequences are very remote from the text and sense of St. Paul in this place. As to the first, does this follow; the Scriptures must be read by Timothy, a priest, a bishop, a man of God, a minister of the gospel, whose office it is to instruct and convert others, therefore they are proper to be read and expounded by every ignorant man or woman? Does not St. Paul say elsewhere, (2 Corinthians ii. 17.) that many adulterate and corrupt the word of God? does not St. Peter tell us also, (2 Peter iii. 16.) that in St. Paul's epistles are some things....which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as also the other scriptures, to their own perdition? See the preface to the Gospel of St. John, where reasons are brought for which it was requisite that the Church should put some restraint to the abuse which the ignorant made of reading the Scriptures in vulgar tongues. As to the second consequence, does it follow: every Scripture divinely inspired is profitable for St. Timothy, for a priest, a bishop, a man of God, a minister and preacher of the gospel, to teach and instruct, and conduce to bring both him and others to salvation; therefore they contain all things that a Christian need to believe? &c. Is not every Christian bound to believe that the books in the canon of the New and Old Testament are of divine authority, as in particular these two epistles of St. Paul to Timothy? Where does the Scripture assure us of this? But of this elsewhere. (Witham)

Every part of divine Scripture is certainly profitable for all these ends. But if we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures which Timothy knew from his infancy, (that is, with the Old Testament alone) nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles and the interpretation of the Church, to which the apostles delivered both the book and the true meaning of it. (Challoner)

All Scripture is profitable, but Scripture is not alone necessary, not alone sufficient. On top of the Scriptures mentioned to St Timothy, the Old testament, he also needed the New Testament (which was not yet in its entirety written) but even more immediately the Christian meaning of the Sacred Writings. It is profitable to a bishop (would certain Evolution believing bishops took note, "all" obviously including Genesis), but may still be hard to digest for the average Christian. As has been said elsewhere by Sts Peter and Paul. Verse 17 specifies "the man of God", not meaning us laymen, but meaning the clergy. And since even clergymen have distorted Scripture meanings, meaning the good and faithful clergy.

Note, since some Evolution believing bishops would use these Catholic principles to dissuade laymen from reading and believing Creation and Flood, that the Catholic Church HAS abundantly encouraged laymen to believe the Biblical History through the Centuries. Historia Scholastica is the historic narrative from Genesis to Acts in the Bible, also contains references to Josephus and other Christian historians, and it was translated into vernaculars, on order of the Church. Hard places would rather be places dealing with things like Sacraments in unusual wording to those accustomed to the scholastic one (some would conclude since wording is different, meaning would be different, not so), or places dealing with freewill or - as here - sufficiency of Scriptures.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Octave of the Assumption
of the Blessed Virgin Mary
22-VIII-2014

Mark Shea at His Best

It’s the July Installment of the Bad Evangelists Club!
July 16, 2014 By Mark Shea
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/07/its-the-july-installment-of-the-bad-evangelists-club.html

Just one quote to whet your appetite:

What’s surprising is how seldom Protestants are aware they do this and who surprised they often are when you call their attention to it. I certainly was when I realized I did it.

He certainly meant "how surprised they are" and not "who surprised they are", but he might have been involved in the kabbalistic Novus Ordo cabals praying for me to suffer such things, however, this does not take away one jota of the value in his observation here.

I tell you, go and read it! Tolle lege!/HGL

Nearly overlooked, goes for this one too:

More White Evangelicals than American Jews…
July 16, 2014 By Mark Shea
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/07/more-white-evangelicals-than-american-jews.html

Protestants - Not - Getting Around Matthew 28 Last Three Verses: John Calvin's Attempt

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)

Quoting from:

Studylight - Calvin's Commentary, Matthew 28
http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/cal/view.cgi?bk=39&ch=28

Quoting Calvin's exposition of Verse 18

18.And Jesus approached and spoke to them. His approach unquestionably removed all hesitation. Before relating that the office of teaching was committed to the disciples, Matthew says that Christ began by speaking of his power; and not without reason. For no ordinary authority would here have been enough, but sovereign and truly divine government ought to be possessed by him who commands them to promise eternal life in his ham to reduce the whole world under his sway, and to publish a doctrine which subdues all pride, and lays prostrate the whole of the human race. And by this preface Christ not only encouraged the Apostles to full confidence in the discharge of their office, but confirmed the faith of his gospel in all ages. Never, certainly, would the Apostles have had sufficient confidence to undertake so arduous an office, if they had not known that their Protector sitteth in heaven, and that the highest authority is given to him; for without such a support it would have been impossible for them to make any progress. But when they learn that he to whom they owe their services is the Governor of heaven and earth, this alone was abundantly sufficient for preparing them to rise superior to all opposition. As regards the hearers, if the contemptible appearance of those who preach the gospel weakens or retards their faith, let them learn to raise their eyes to the Master himself, by whose power the majesty of the Gospel ought to be estimated, and then they will not venture to despise him when speaking by his ministers.

He expressly calls himself the Lord and King of heaven and earth, because, by constraining men to obey him in the preaching of the gospel, he establishes his throne on the earth; and, by regenerating his people to a new life, and inviting them to the hope of salvation, he opens heaven to admit to a blessed immortality with angels those who formerly had not only crawled on the world, but had been plunged in the abyss of death. Yet let us remember that what Christ possessed in his own right was given to him by the Father in our flesh, or—to express it more clearly—in the person of the Mediator; for he does not lay claim to the eternal power with which he was endued before the creation of the world, but to that which he has now received, by being appointed to be Judge of the world. Nay, more, it ought to be remarked, that this authority was not fully known until he rose from the dead; for then only did he come forth adorned with the emblems of supreme King. To this also relate those words of Paul:

he emptied himself, ( ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε,) therefore God hath exalted him, and given to him a name which is above every other name, (Philippians 2:7.)

And though, in other passage the sitting at the right hand of God is placed after the ascension to heaven, as later in the order of time; yet as the resurrection and the ascension to heaven are closely connected with each other, with good reason does Christ now speak of his power in such magnificent terms.

This Catholic

Feels no need to argue with that. At present. Perhaps my eyes will sharpen, to some minor mistake of wording, but not right now.

On the contrary, Calvin is here a faithful inheritor of the Catholic faith which he had received by precisely Catholic successors of the Eleven before he apostasised. He is here even a good example against Modernists, who take the concept of κενωσις too far.

Quoting Calvin's exposition of Verse 19 part α

19.Go out, therefore, and teach all nations. Though Mark, after having related that Christ appeared to the eleven disciples, immediately subjoins the command to preach the gospel, he does not speak of these as an unbroken series of events, for we learn from the enumeration of them which is given by Matthew, that the latter event did not take place before they had gone into Galilee.

This Catholic

Commends this exposition of the Gospel of St Mark, at least insofar as it shows the latter Gospel to contain interruptions of chronological narrative not shown in the text.

Quoting Calvins's exposition of Verse 19 part β

The meaning amounts to this, that by proclaiming the gospel everywhere, they should bring all nations to the obedience of the faith, and next, that they should seal and ratify their doctrine by the sign of the gospel. In Matthew, they are first taught simply to teach; but Mark expresses the kind of doctrine, that they should preach the gospel; and shortly afterwards Matthew himself adds this limitation, to teach them to observe all things whatsoever the Lord hath commanded.

This Catholic

As Haydock comment says, not just "teach" but "make disciples." As to ratification "that they should seal and ratify their doctrine by the sign of the gospel" - the Gospels were not yet written when Christ said this to the Eleven. Christ gave a list of signs about to follow the Apostles (given in Mark 16), which are not "the gospel without the law" or "the gospel of grace alone replacing the law of works" or anything like that, but frankly miracles. Calvin does not say that.

Catholic historians of the Reformation have explained this omission by the fact (not recorded in Protestant biographies) that the Reformers had been cited to make miracles and had tried and not been able to. Therefore the Reformers claimed "the age of miracles is past" which is a non-Biblical doctrine. This, if true, also explains why Calvin here distorts the actual words of Christ to the disciples in Mark 16.

[17] And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name they shall cast out devils: they shall speak with new tongues. [18] They shall take up serpents; and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them: they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they shall recover. [19] And the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God. [20] But they going forth preached everywhere: the Lord working withal, and confirming the word with signs that followed.

Does this mean that every successor of the Apostles can make miracles? No. The miracles are a free gift of God.

But does this mean that miracles shall accompany the Church to the end of ages? Yes. And these signs shall follow them that believe - not just you Eleven, but them that believe because of you also. That is, those whose faith is as large as the grain of mustard. About the same time Calvin wrote his exposé, Saint Francis Xaver was learning new tongues in a moment as he was preaching the Gospel to masses whose languages he had not had the opportunity to learn (he also used normal means of learning some of the languages, those he could foresee and prepare for).

The Church was throwing out devils. Beza makes it appear the spiritual warfare is against manners or doctrines, Barnes admits (as the Catholic Church practised while Calvin denied the practise) that exorcisms must be done.

Camillo de Lellis was healing sick:

Members of the Order also devoted themselves to victims of Bubonic plague. It was due to the efforts of the Brothers and alleged supernatural healings by de Lellis that the people of Rome credited De Lellis with ridding the city of a great plague and the subsequent famine. For a time, he became known as the "Saint of Rome".

De Lellis' concern for the proper treatment of the sick extended to the end of their lives. He had come to be aware of the many cases of people being buried alive, due to haste, and ordered that the Brothers of his Order wait fifteen minutes past the moment when the patient seemed to have drawn his last breath, in order to avoid this.

Thus wikipedia. I will strike out the superfluous word "alleged" here, on wiki, but it will (probably) reappaear, since people having believed Calvin's evil doctrine of no more miracles being done (age of miracles ended with death of Apostles) will put real ones in unnecessary doubt.

Quoting Calvins's exposition of Verse 19 part γ

Let us learn from this passage, that the apostleship is not an empty title, but a laborious office; and that, consequently, nothing is more absurd or intolerable than that this honor should be claimed by hypocrites, who live like kings at their ease, and disdainfully throw away from themselves the office of teaching.

This Catholic

Must observe, that the apostolic labours are not all on the missionary field (which Calvinists disdainfully neglected for centuries, slaying Amerindians as foreknown damned, when Catholics were laying down lives to convert them), nor the rest of them in internal mission efforts, like the supposed ones of Calvin and Bucer in a CHristendom as yet solidly Catholic, but not backed up by miracles, or like the real ones of St Francis, who cured a lame man in Narnia, a city between Rome and Assisi, and a leper in his native Assisi.

The commission is also to make disciples of all peoples, and not to leave them for new mission fields that done, but to stay with them and teach them to keep all that Christ had ordained.

This is of course less laborious than converting masses of either Heathens or Jews, either lapsed or lukewarm Catholics.

It is less laborious insofar as it relies on fervent Catholics among the lukewarm ones. Therefore a successor of Apostles in the mid of Christendom can sometimes give impression of being precisely as lazy in missionary efforts as a Calvinist Presbyter in a New England population.

New sects can always feel superior when not yet having to face the facts that attend an old sect - or a Church already close to two milennia in age. Calvin did not yet know New England Calvinist pastors of the 17th Century. He did not live to see them. Hence his high horses.

Quoting Calvin's exposition of Verse 19 part δ

The Pope of Rome and his band proudly boast of their succession, as if they held this rank in common with Peter and his companions; and yet they pay no more regard to doctrine than was paid by the Luperci, or the priests of Bacchus and Venus.

This Catholic

Is flabberghasted at the description of Papacy here given.

Luperci spent each Lupercalia taking wolves' skins and whipping the women of Rome to make them fertile.

Popes have never pretended wolves' skins have such a property, nor that Mars is the correct deity to adress for fertility problems. They have always believed that God gave Sarah the motherhood of Isaac, miraculously at her 90:th year of age and that Mars is - as divinity concerned with earthly matters rathen than as planet - a figment of Pagan imagination at best, or of diabolic deception at worst. A non-entity as believed, and a devil as honoured by cultual acts, including, unless my memory fools me, the Lupercalian cult.

Priests of Bacchus spent their worship getting drunk and exciting Maenads - or women pretending to be the original Maenads of Bacchus.

Whatever the origin of the story that Bacchus enchanted women and made them Maenads (i e furious, mad, fanatic), even if the origin be in the story of Exodus of Moses (through a gross misrepresentation of Moses and Isrealites on part of Pharaonic Egyptians, if so), the story as such is about a non-entity and worshipping it is worshipping the devil, in this case also with the added vices of drunkenness and of making women hysteric.

This also the Popes of Rome have never denied. They have never said holding Baccanalia was licit, not even I think the pseod-papacy involved in Assisi 1986.

Whoever was the mother of Aeneas, was not a goddess, but only falsely honoured so by Pagans. Other capacities of her do include being the goddess of Vinalia (its god being Jupiter). Here I can see a certain connection to Catholic practise.

You see, Vinalia was a blessing of the wine harvest.

But, if Pagans blessed their wine harvest, does this mean Christians should not? Of course not.

Christ told his disciples to preach to all Creation. Or every Creature.

Colossians 1: [23] If so ye continue in the faith, grounded and settled, and immoveable from the hope of the gospel which you have heard, which is preached in all the creation that is under heaven, whereof I Paul am made a minister.

Now, Gospel cannot be preached to wine so as to make it a believer, but rather so as to make it useful and not harmful to believers, at least insofar as they take some reasonable responsability of not drinking too much.

When St Francis preached to the birds, and they flew away in a Cross, I do not think many Theologians would say the birds had become believers or coinheritors of the Kingdom of Heaven. But they certainly helped to straighten out a few lukewarm believers who had been refusing to heed the sermon of St Francis.

And if wine is a creature of God, so can be done with wine. Even though that be done without usually involving the miraculous. Who recalls which miracle was the first one made by Our Lord Jesus Christ? If Calvin thought that blessing the wine involved participation in the Venus and Jupiter worship called Vinalia, perhaps he might also, unless he had been a Christian, in some sense though not the full sense, have been inclined to see in Our Lord an Incarnation of Bacchus, as Acharya sees in the Gospel of Cana a plagiarism of the Bacchus myth.

Quoting Calvin's exposition of Verse 19 part ε

And with what face, pray, do they claim to be the successors of those who, they are told, were appointed to be preachers of the gospel? But though they are not ashamed to display their impudence, still with every reader of sound judgment this single word is sufficient to lay prostrate their silly hierarchy—that no man can be a successor of the apostles who does not devote his services to Christ in the preaching of the gospel.

This Catholic

Observes, that denying Papacy the title of successor of Apostles does not fix the lack of Apostolic Succession of Calvinism.

He really said "no man can be a successor of the apostles who does not devote his services to Christ in the preaching of the gospel"? If so, he must in the light of the very plain words of this Gospel text:

• admit Papacy devoted its services to Christ in the preaching of the Gospel, or ...
• look for another succession more unbroken than Roman Papacy (Greek and Russian and Antiochene Orthodox, not forgetting Roumanians, or Copts of Egypt or Ethiopia, or Armenians, or Nestorians) and after a few initial efforts on his own submit to it, or ...
• admit the promise of Christ was broken and become a Jew, Moslem, Idolater, Atheist or whatever.

To do Calvinists some kind of justice, many of them have taken one or the other of these measures. One Ronald Knox, for instance, related to the Scottish Calvinist Reformer John Knox, became a Catholic and then a priest. Others have gone eastward, others apostasised. But the remaining Calvinists are illogical.

Quoting Calvin's exposition of Verse 19 part ζ

In short, whoever does not fulfill the duties of a teacher acts wickedly and falsely by assuming the name of an apostle; and what is more—the priesthood of the New Testament consists in slaying men, as a sacrifice to God, by the spiritual sword of the word. Hence it follows, that all are but pretended and spurious priests who are not devoted to the office of teaching.

This Catholic

Observes that an allegation against Rome at the time of Calvin, insofar as it is concerned with possible hypocritical or simply lazy personal conduct on dignitarians, including Popes:

• a) does not mean all the Catholic Church was corrupt, unless all bishops and all priests everywhere followed their bad example (which he might have tried to allege with false accusations against pious customs like blessing the wine), and supposing they did is ridiculous in face of all the Holy both Bishops and Priests, both Monks and Nuns (not to mention other religious or laymen) even in his time - since Papacy is the centre of Discipline, not of personal Holiness, these being not the same, but distinct though one serves the other;
• b) does not extend to Popes of the past (though Calvin would have us believe so by mixing a hateful impression of the present with customs extending to the past), and therefore:
• c) as in: conclusion) does not deprive Catholic Papacy, Episcopacy, Priesthood, Theological and Pastoral tradition of any claim to be precisely the true succession mentioned in these verses. But even if it did, would not give such a claim to Calvinism or any other product of the Reformation.

Quoting Calvin's exposition of Verse 19 part η

Teach all nations. Here Christ, by removing the distinction, makes the Gentiles equal to the Jews, and admits both, indiscriminately to a participation in the covenant. Such is also the import of the term: go out; for the prophets under the law had limits assigned to them, but now,

the wall of partition having been broken down, (Ephesians 2:14,)

the Lord commands the ministers of the gospel to go to a distance, in order to spread the doctrine of salvation in every part of the world. For though, as we have lately suggested, the right of the first-born at the very commencement of the gospel, remained among the Jews, still the inheritance of life was common to the Gentiles. Thus was fulfilled that prediction of Isaiah, (Isaiah 49:6,) and others of a similar nature, that Christ was

given for a light of the Gentiles,
that he might be the salvation of God to the end of the earth.

Mark means the same thing by every creature; for when peace has been proclaimed to those that are within the Church, the same message reaches those who are at a distance, and were strangers, (Ephesians 2:17.)

This Catholic

Can not disagree with that part.

Quoting Calvin's exposition of Verse 19 part θ

How necessary it was that the apostles should be distinctly informed of the calling of the Gentiles, is evident from this consideration, that even after having received the command, they felt the greatest horror at approaching them, as if by doing so they polluted themselves and their doctrine.

This Catholic

Observes there was a difference between them. St Peter was the one who best fits this description, more than one occasion, St Paul the least.

Quoting Calvin's exposition of Verse 19 part ι

Baptizing them. Christ enjoins that those who have submitted to the gospel, and professed to be his disciples, shall be baptized; partly that their baptism may be a pledge of eternal life before God:, and partly that it may be an outward sign of faith before men. For we know that God testifies to us the grace of adoption by this sign, because he engrafts us into the body of his Son, so as to reckon us among his flock; and, therefore, not only our spiritual washing, by which he reconciles us to himself, but likewise our new righteousness, are represented by it. But as God, by this seal confirms to us his grace, so all who present themselves for baptism do, as it were, by their own signature, ratify their faith. Now since this charge is expressly given to the apostles along with the preaching of the word, it follows that none can lawfully administer baptism but those who are also the ministers of doctrine. When private persons, and even women, are permitted to baptize, nothing can be more at variance with the ordinance of Christ, nor is it any thing else than a mere profanation.

This Catholic

Observes a certain unease with Catholic terminology on the Regeneration by Baptism in Calvin's wording.

Does Calvin mean Baptism is only a sign in which God testifies the grace of adotion, or does he mean the sign efficiently (except for those who pose an obstacle) contains this grace?

The latter is the right Catholic Doctrine and indeed Dogma. It was, needlessly, wilfully, attacked by Luther, when it came to the Sacraments of the New Covenant in general. And this already in the 1517 affair.

Quoting Calvin's exposition of Verse 19 part κ

Besides, as doctrine is placed first in order, this points out to us the true distinction between this mystery and the bastard rites of the Gentiles, by which they are initiated into their sacred mysteries; for the earthly element does not become a sacrament until God quickens it by his word.

This Catholic

Is frankly not quite sure what Calvin means. Of course the Gentiles have false rites with false sacraments. The Hebrews had empty rites or sacraments, which only signified the grace but did not contain it. The Catholics have true and lifegiving Sacraments of the New Covenant, which both signify and contain the grace. And neither among Patriarchs and Hebrews and Jews of the Old Covenant, while they were along, nor among Catholics in the New Covenant does anyone claim there can be a Sacrament without the word of God.

Quoting Calvin's exposition of Verse 19 part λ

As superstition improperly counterfeits all the works of God, foolish men forge various sacraments at their pleasure; but as the word, which is the soul, is not in them, they are idle and unmeaning shadows. Let us therefore hold that the power of the doctrine causes the signs to assume a new nature; as the outward working of the flesh begins to be the spiritual pledge of regeneration, when it is preceded by the doctrine of the gospel; and this is the true consecration instead of which, Popery has introduced to us the enchantments of sorcery.

This Catholic

Seriously thinks Calvin had some kind of problem. Posing too much in rhetoric?

The Seven Sacraments are all of the Bible.

The Sacramentals (which the Church can add at pleasure, so for instance the sacramental of blessing wine is general in wine producing countries, and that of blessing fields in agriculture, as well as that of blessing fishing boats. The Church of Ethiopia has a blessing for the coffee, as it is harvested. But in all this, there is no straying away from the word of God, nor are Sacramentals erected into Sacraments, the blessings are not God chosen signs that contain the grace they signify and confer it to those posing no obstacle, they are rather prayers. Their efficacy - when efficacious - is that of God granting the prayers of the Church. And the prayers are formulated in accordance with the word of God.

Neither in the one, nor in the other, neither in Sacraments, nor in Sacramentals (like blessings) is there any sorcery whatsoever. Though doubtlessly that is how an infidel Jew would have characterised them. Perhaps especially if confronted with their efficacy without granting any slack to the Catholic religion.

That Calvin makes this charge, that Luther made it before him, make them suspect of being puppets of Jewry. If not of all Jewry, though I will not exclude that either, at least of those concerned with relations with Christians and taking secret decisions in the yeshivot.

Quoting Calvin's exposition of Verse 19 part μ

Accordingly, it is said in Mark, He that shall believe and be baptized shall be saved. By these words Christ not only excludes from the hope of salvation hypocrites who, though destitute of faith, are puffed up only by the outward sign; but by a sacred bond he connects baptism with doctrine, so that the latter is nothing more than an appendage of the former.

This Catholic

Is also a Latinist. I feel wary about English translations of "latter" and "former" since Calvin in Latin did not use these words. "Hic" means the closer, thus "the latter" if said after, but rarely "the former" if said before what it refers to. "Ille" is the opposite.

This by itself is not the worst trouble. Word order can obscure which is which to unwary translators, though here the chiasmic order seems to indicate that this was not the case. Provided, of course, that the Latin words for baptism and doctrine came in the same order as in the English translation. I am not sure the English translation is correct. I shall here expose both possibilities (there are exactly two) and comment:

... by a sacred bond God connects baptism with doctrine, so that doctrine is nothing more than an appendage of baptism.

Doctrine is rather "an appendage" of the virtue of faith. Or rather, the first object of faith is trust in God revealing Christian doctrine. The second object of faith is the doctrine which God has revealed. And faith is not an appendage of baptism, but rather the gift, the principal grace of God given in baptism.

When a baby is carried to the Church door, the Sponsors are answering some questions, if the baptismal candidate can already answer for himself, he answers them:

Q: What do you ask of the Church?
A: Faith.
Q: What profiteth thee the Faith?
A: To eternal life.

So, the principal grace of Baptism is faith. A doctrine complete in catechism and summa theologica is a good extension of faith, but it is not an appendage. It is the secondary object, but in a true sense object of the faith. It remains itself whether it is little or much articulated.

If I really trust God who revealed all truth, then I also really believe it is true all round. Once I start asking questions, I start accumulating doctrine - and it had better be the true than the false one.

... by a sacred bond God connects baptism with doctrine, so that baptism is nothing more than an appendage of doctrine.

If by doctrine he means faith, well, in a sense he is right. Only in a sense. But I have already said in what sense doctrine as such as acquired by an individual is not identic to, but rather an extension of his virtue of faith - a divine virtue infused into his soul at baptism. So even the meaning is not clear.

But the problem is that he is only right in a sense. Baptism does not only give faith, but seals it. The seal of having a right and duty through God's promise to remain faithful or, if deviating, return to the faith, is more than the doctrinal content of the faith. Also, baptism does not give faith alone, it gives Sanctifying Grace, which comes with faith, hope and charity. The latter virtues are not doctrinal virtues, though they are virtues regulated according to sound Catholic doctrine.

So, whichever is the right translation, Calvin seems to have spoken with some clumsiness, to say the least. Considering he was a heretic, cut off from the Church, and in a certain sense even cut off from true worship of the one true God in three Persons, not by denying that mystery (see below), but by attributing to him a predestination of wicked acts, one should not be surprised he stumbles when defining the relation between faith and baptism. Or, if you prefer, falls.

Quoting Calvin's exposition of Verse 19 part ν

But as Christ enjoins them to teach before baptizing, and desires that none but believers shall be admitted to baptism, it would appear that baptism is not properly administered unless when it is preceded by faith. On this pretense, the Anabaptists have stormed greatly against infant baptism.

This Catholic

If baptism were truly just a sign of a grace which God could without breach of His own covenant withhold from those who nevertheless received the sign in a right manner (right inwardly as well as outwardly), if it were a mere appendage to doctrine, then the Anabaptist conclusion would logically follow.

In the answer he gives to Anabaptism, he will be using Catholic arguments, though not purely so, perhaps, but not showing how these agree with what has just been uttered about the nature of Baptism, the nature of Sacraments.

As I just gave Anabaptism as one logical fruit of Reformers, I will now, before going on, give one root.

Rhetoric.

If there was an age of Renaissance, in the sense of revival of Antiquity, and that revival was concerned with Aristotle as a clear thinker, this Renaissance was NOT the one usually called Renaissance, it was rather taking place late 11th/12th to early 13th Century, and St Thomas Aquinas was its glorious fruit, of good seed, just as Averroism was its bad fruit, of tares. But the Renaissance we are here concerned with was rather concerned with Cicero and Demosthenes as great speakers, politicians, lawyers. When it went Philosophical, it was often Platonic, but not so much the logic of the Socratic dialogues as the even most spurious conclusions of Plotinus. But the main gist was Rhetoric. Now, its good fruit was St Thomas More, but its bad fruit was Calvin and Luther. How did it carry these?

A Christian studying Cicero to talk well, was hardly very interested in learning all about how Cicero had sacrificed a sow, a sheep and an ox. That was not his model. His model was Cicero whipping himself, like a good actor (hypocrites in Greek means actor) into an artificial anger about Verres or Catilina. When he came back to Christian stuff, what seemed closer to his Ciceronian modelling was of course doctrine and moral indignation (and the Old Testament prophets showed much of that, St Elijah could say in one sentence what Cicero took a Pharisaically long time to say:

Quousque tandem, Catilina, adhuc abutere patientia nostra, quem ad finem sese effrenata iactabit audacia?

And there he had only asked how long and far Catilina was intending to take his abuse of patience and his audacity. Not what it consisted in. Even Isaiah is more concise.) So, getting on from there to studying the Ritual of the Catholic Church was perhaps a deception to some such prepared. That is one reason why I have said the basic preparation had better be Trivium and Quadrivium, as studied by St Thomas, than only the Litterae Humaniores as studied by St Thomas More - and by this sad heretic Calvin.

But he seems really to have felt (if I may venture a guess) he was doing the good work of the model Cicero when preaching this way, and he was attacking Catholic priests who, in having at all a ritual, were continuing the sorcery in which Cicero as a Pagan was also involved.

Quoting Calvin's exposition of Verse 19 part ξ

But the reply is not difficult, if we attend to the reason of the command. Christ orders them to convey to all nations the message of eternal salvation, and confirms it by adding the seal of baptism. Now it was proper that faith in the word should be placed before baptism, since the Gentiles were altogether alienated from God, and had nothing in common with the chosen people; for otherwise it would have been a false figure, which offered forgiveness and the gift of the Spirit to unbelievers, who were not yet members of Christ. But we know that by faith those who were formerly despised are united to the people of God.

It is now asked, on what condition does God adopt as children those who formerly were aliens? It cannot, indeed, be denied that, when he has once received them into his favor, he continues to bestow it on their children and their children’s children. By the coming of Christ God manifested himself as a Father equally to the Gentiles and to the Jews; and, therefore, that promise, which was formerly given to the Jews, must now be in force towards the Gentiles,

I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed after thee, (Genesis 17:7.)

Thus we see that they who entered by faith into the Church of God are reckoned, along with their posterity, among the members of Christ, and, at the same time, called to the inheritance of salvation. And yet this does not involve the separation of baptism from faith and doctrine; because, though infants are not yet of such an age as to be capable of receiving the grace of God by faith, still God, when addressing their parents, includes them also. I maintain, therefore, that it is not rash to administer baptism to infants, to which God invites them, when he promises that he will be their God.

This Catholic

Finds the general reason quite correct. Details are faulty. It is suggested, by omitting a somewhat more roundabout but correct alternative, that Christian babies are saved through the faith of the parents.

Not so, it is the faith of the Church.

Even as to human givers of the faith, insofar as it happens regularly through baptism, these are not parents, who are usually only fostering the faith after baptism. The ones who transmit the faith or demand its transmission as faithful, are priest baptising (in cases of necessity even laymen may baptise) and the sponsors. That is why to incest in the ordinary sense there is added a spiritual incest, in that marriage with a sponsor is incestuous, just as marriage with a parent is.

But it is true, the Church is a True People of God now, as Israel was in the times of Moses. The one fact justified why children where, if males, circumcised. The other justifies why children are now baptised. And since there are not two peoples of God, Israel andthe Church are really the same thing. Note, the Synagogue that rejected Christ is not the same as the one or as the other and is not the People of God.

Quoting Calvin's exposition of Verse 19 part ο

In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. This passage shows that the full and clear knowledge of God, which had been but darkly shadowed out under the Law and the Prophets, is at length fully discovered under the reign of Christ. True, indeed, the ancients would never have ventured to call God their Father, if they had not derived this assurance from Christ their Head; and the Eternal Wisdom of God, who is the fountain of light and life, was not wholly unknown to them. It was even one of their acknowledged principles, that God displays his power by the Holy Spirit. But at the commencement of the gospel God was far more clearly revealed in Three Persons; for then the Father manifested himself in the Son, his lively and distinct image, while Christ, irradiating the world by the full splendor of his Spirit, held out to the knowledge of men both himself and the Spirit.

This Catholic

Mainly concurs on this one.

Quoting Calvin's exposition of Verse 19 part π

There are good reasons why the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are expressly mentioned; for there is no other way in which the efficacy of baptism can be experienced than when we begin with the unmerited mercy of the Father, who reconciles us to himself by the only begotten Son; next, Christ comes forward with the sacrifice of his death; and at length, the Holy Spirit is likewise added, by whom he washes and regenerates us, (Titus 3:5,) and, in short, makes us partakers of his benefits. Thus we perceive that God cannot be truly known, unless our faith distinctly conceive of Three Persons in one essence; and that the fruit and efficacy of baptism proceed from God the Father adopting us through his Son, and, after having cleansed us from the pollutions of the flesh through the Spirit: creating us anew to righteousness.

This Catholic

Finds the idea somewhat suspect of Modalism. Perhaps I am over anxious about it.

Of course, God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit make things about Creation together, which nevertheless are attributed to one person rather than the other. Like sanctification to God the Holy Spirit. Thus, usually, we attribute to the Father creating us, to the Son redeeming us (but this is not an atribution in that sense, since it was only the Second Person who took flesh) and the Holy Ghost sanctifying us.

But the wording could give room to a suspicion a single person one-god were simply masked in these different "functions". Especially as these attributions are not the reason or not the main reason why God is here giving the Triune name. But Calcin gives these attributions as "good reasons" for giving it in order to "experience" the efficacy of Baptism.

Also, apart from question of Modalism, the efficacy of Baptism does not depend on its being experienced by the baptised person.

Quoting Calvin's exposition of Verse 20 part α

Matthew 28:20.Teaching them to observe all things. By these words, as I have formerly suggested, Christ shows that, in sending the apostles, he does not entirely resign his office, as if he ceased to be the Teacher of his Church; for he sends away the apostles with this reservation, that they shall not bring forward their own inventions, but shall purely and faithfully deliver from hand to hand (as we say) what he has entrusted to them.

This Catholic

Can testify that on this point the Catholic Church agrees completely. Here - for once among so many errors and inaccuracies - or for once again, rather - Calvin hit the nail.

Quoting Calvin's exposition of Verse 20 part β

Would to God that the Pope would subject to this rule the power which he claims for himself; for we would easily permit him to be the successor of Peter or of Paul, provided that he did not usurp a tyrannical dominion over our souls. But as he has set aside the authority of Christ, and infects the Church with his childish fooleries, this shows plainly enough how widely he has departed from the apostolic office. In short, let us hold that by these words teachers are appointed over the Church, not to put forward whatever they may think proper, but that they, as well as others, may depend on the mouth of the Master alone, so as to gain disciples for him, and not for themselves.

This Catholic

Finds that Calvin was very inaccurate about Papacy back then. But starting to look more and more accurate as a prophet about the Bergoglio pseudo-papacy. In fact, Bergoglio's friend Tony Palmer might feel indebted to Calvin for his choice not to be a Papist. And Bergoglio by the twitter account, given an indulgence for those following it, by the "follow the Pope in the Holy Land" ads, by tolerating a fan club to stand listening with a banderolle "Francesco, sei Unico" and still stand and wave, and by similar means, could be illustrating Calvin's point, hoping to provoke a disgust with the Papacy. In me he has provoked a disgust with his person.

For Pius IV or St Pius V were doing none of these things.

Now, let us cite one Creationist and Protestant - Lubenow - on Church History, and see where infidelity is coming from and who is defening the integrity of Christ's message:

One of the first serious statements of the pre-Adamite concept was by Isaac de la Peyrere, a Jewish convert to Catholicism from Bordeaux, who in 1655 published a book, Systema Theologicum ex Prae-Adamitarum Hypothesi. Peyrere argued that the Biblical Adam was of pre-Adamite stock, and was the father of only the Jews. Cain’s wife and the inhabitants of Cain’s city, as well as the Gentiles, were of other pre-Adamite stock and were not descended from the Biblical Adam. Peyrere questioned miracles and the doctrine of Original Sin. To explain the existence of pre-Adamite Gentiles living after the Flood, he held that the Flood was a local event. Because of his doctrinal defects, the Catholic Church declared Peyrere to be a heretic. He was forced to make a public recantation before Pope Alexander VII. However, Peyrere continued to hold the pre-Adamite view for the rest of his life.

Pre-Adamites, sin, death and the human fossils
by Marvin L. Lubenow
http://creation.com/pre-adamites-and-human-fossils

So Peyrère is defending the pre-Adamite error (indeed heresy if you consider any anatomical humans seen today as pre-Adamites, condemned again by Pius XII in Humani Generis) and Peyrère is of Jewish origin, has lived in Jewish practise before converting to the Catholic faith. Alexander VII is Orthodox on the matter, he makes Peyrère recant, and he is the Pope. The same Papacy that Calvin accused of not staying faithful to the doctrine of Christ. Go figure!

Quoting Calvin's exposition of Verse 20 part γ

And, lo, I am with you always. As Christ gave to the apostles a commission which they were unable to discharge by reliance on merely human power, he encourages them by the assurance of his heavenly protection.

This Catholic

Notes this is correct as far as it goes.

But Calvin conspicuously here leaves out considering the word "always", and a little lower he misses the point.

Yes, we are drawing near the end now.

Quoting Calvin's exposition of Verse 20 part δ

For before promising that he would be with them, he began with declaring that he is the, King of heaven and earth, who governs all things by his power and authority.

This Catholic

Notes that this is correct. As I already noted previous occasion he said it.

Quoting Calvin's exposition of Verse 20 part ε

The pronoun I must be viewed as emphatic; as if he had said that the apostles, if they wished zealously to perform their duty, must not consider what they are able to do, but must rely on the invincible power of those under whose banner they fight.

This Catholic

Notes that this also is correct.

Quoting Calvin's exposition of Verse 20 part ζ

The nature of that presence which the Lord promises to his followers ought to be understood spiritually; for it is not necessary that he should descend from heaven in order to assist us, since he can assist us by the grace of his Spirit, as if he stretched out his hand from heaven. For he who, in respect of his body, is at a great distance from us, not only diffuses the efficacy of his Spirit through the whole world, but even actually dwells in us.

This Catholic

Balks back!

Here Calvin sees a promise of the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist, and he takes an opportunity to deny the same Real Presence.

Yes, under its own dimensions, the Blessed Body of Our Lord is indeed far away, beyond the fixed stars, and you can ask astronomers how many hundreds of thousands or even millions or perhaps billions of miles there are of bodies that circle the Sun and are thus nearer than the fixed stars. But under the dimensions of Bread and Wine, the same Blessed Body with its Precious Blood are at the nearest altar where a Holy Mass is validly celebrated. And in the nearest Tabernacle, where the Body of Christ is preserved between Holy Mass and such Communions as are given outside Holy Mass. A stranger makes a confession three o'clock in the afternoon and does not know if he will be able to stay for Holy Mass next morning - or simply because he has long been away from Christ, the priest will not tell him he must only communicate in Holy Mass, but will give him communion after confession.

Or a man lies dying three o' clock in the morning, the priest comes to visit him, he takes, of course the Blessed Presence, promised sufficiently clearly in this last verse of St Matthew's Gospel and more directly in other places, from the Tabernacle to give the dying man after absolution.

The position of Calvin is perfidious.

Thereby we do not deny that Christ is ALSO present through the Holy Spirit sent to the Church, but it is perfidy to limit the Presence to the spiritual manner alone.

Quoting Calvin's exposition of Verse 20 part η

Even to the end of the world. It ought likewise to be remarked, that this was not spoken to the apostles alone; for the Lord promises his assistance not for a single age only, but even to the end of the world.

This Catholic

Notes a mingling of true and false.

Calvin's "not to the apostles alone" is correct if given as meaning to the apostles with their successors, and through both themselves and their successors to all faithful in communion with them. And this sense he is giving by the truthful clause: "for the Lord promises his assistance not for a single age only, but even to the end of the world."

But Calvin also uses, apparently, see below, "not to the apostles alone" as meaning "to all true faithful without any distinction between clergy and laymen, or between episcopal and presbyteral orders of clergy", and herein he is disingenious, for some verses before this one it is clearly stated that Christ adressed these words to the Eleven, i e those who were left of the Twelve He had previously chosen after the apostasy of Judas the traitor.

The promise is directly to the Eleven with successors, and indirectly to faithful in communion with their bishops.

If Calvin believed the Rome of his time had become like Judas, it was his duty to believe nevertheless there were true and rightbelieving bishops somewhere, "for the Lord promises his assistance not for a single age only, but even to the end of the world." And that, of course, without any interruption, like a supposed such between Calvin's own time and that of his predecessors, and back to a supposed post-Apostolic great apostasy. No, not for a single age only, nor with any interruptoion between ages.

Quoting Calvin's exposition of Verse 20 part θ

It is as if he had said, that though the ministers of the gospel be weak and suffer the want of all things: he will be their guardian, so that they will rise victorious over all the opposition of the world.

This Catholic

Finds this true.

Quoting Calvin's exposition of Verse 20 part ι

In like manner, experience clearly shows in the present day, that the operations of Christ are carried on wonderfully in a secret manner, so that the gospel surmounts innumerable obstacles.

This Catholic

The operations of Christ were carried on wonderfully in an open manner, when Jesuit missionaries (not forgetting earlier Dominicans and Franciscans) overcame innumerable obstacles to bring the Catholic Gospel to Philippines of Japan, to India or China, to Hurons or Paraguay, to Hispaniola or Perú, to México or Brazil, to Moçambique or Bom Bahía.

Christ loves His Church to operate in the open. As to secrecy, that is Satan's favourite tool. And Calvin hoped to keep certain details of how Calvin's work spread secret, and it did not remain so. The spirit of rhetoric as being the spirit of Renaissance, is one such little secret.

Quoting Calvin's exposition of Verse 20 part κ

So much the more intolerable is the wickedness of the Popish clergy, when they take this as a pretext for their sacrilege and tyranny. They affirm that the Church cannot err, because it is governed by Christ; as if Christ, like some private soldier, hired himself for wages to other captains, and as if he had not, on the contrary, reserved the entire authority for himself, and declared that he would defend his doctrine, so that his ministers may confidently expect to be victorious over the whole world.

This Catholic

Notes first that Calvin was aware that Catholicism saw the same implications back then as now in these verses.

Then he gives a correct citation of "Popish" doctrine:

They affirm that the Church cannot err, because it is governed by Christ

Well, exactly. That is what Christ promised here. It is also stated by Saint Paul, when he says "the Church is the pillar and foundation of truth". But Calvin, not wanting to get it, and being as good a rhetor as he is a bad believer in the promises of Christ, gives a false comparison:

as if Christ, like some private soldier, hired himself for wages to other captains

If captains claim to be obeying the correct orders of the general, what use is it for a simple soldier to ask "did the general become your hired soldier to take orders from you?" if he is not content with the orders given?

as if he had not, on the contrary, reserved the entire authority for himself, and declared that he would defend his doctrine, so that his ministers may confidently expect to be victorious over the whole world.

He has indeed reserved the entire authority to Himself in such a manner as his ministers are bound by His authority, accessed in Holy Writ (expounded more faithfully than Calvin did with these verses!) and Tradition (this latter entity comprising practises not directly found in Holy Writ, though none unsupported by it, and mostly a tradition of exposing the Holy Writ in one and same sense). But He has not reserved the entire authority to Himself in such a manner as not to share it with His lawful ministers, those Eleven, their lawful successors in Episcopal Office, those lawfully appointed by them. On the contrary, He shows that He has so shared His authority by the very fact of chosing the Eleven as the direct hearers of this promise.

Hans Georg Lundahl
BpI, Georges Pompidou
Saint Antonio Maria Zaccaria, Confessor
5-VII-2014

Now, that was true: "If the Papacy is not the Antichrist, then there is no point to the Reformation separation from Papacy."

On a list over Reformers who considered Papacy to be Antichrist, the compiler* ended with these remarks:

The Papal reaction — the "Counter Reformation." In an attempt to divert the undermining influence of the Protestant Reformation, a two-pronged counter attack was made.

Praeterist school of interpretation	Futurist school of interpretation
founded by Alcazar, a Spanish Jesuit in 1614.	founded by Francisco Ribera and Robert Bellarmine
The fulfillment of Revelation is in the past with the Fall of Jerusalem or the Fall of Pagan Rome, before the Popes ever ruled Rome.	The fulfillment of Revelation is in the future with an individual man as the Antichrist, Man of Sin, and a literal rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem.

Around 1590, Francisco Ribera published a 500-page book on Revelation. The first chapters of Revelation he applied to the time of the early church. From Revelation chapter 4 onward he applied literally, to a literal 3-1/2 year reign of an individual man, Antichrist. He taught that Antichrist would rebuild the temple in Jerusalem, deny Christ, pretend to be God, and conquer the world.

Robert Bellarmine, one of the most renowned Jesuit cardinals, taught that the Antichrist would be an individual Jew, who would reign a literal 3-1/2 years in Jerusalem, in whom would dwell all the power of the devil.

Paving the way for Papal-Protestant Union. The Evangelical Fundamentalist interpretation of Antichrist and Man of Sin as follows Ribera's and Bellarmine's Futuristic viewpoints. Not only has the Futuristic interpretation negated the powerful Reformation interpretation against Papacy, but it also allows room for ecumenism between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. If the Papacy is not the Antichrist, then there is no point to the Reformation separation from Papacy.

I agree heartily that there is no - godly** - point to the Reformation separation from Papacy.

It has indirectly served good, but not directly.

Kent Hovind and C. S. Lewis have done part of the work of the Lord, both separated from Rome, but neither of them has done it because he was separated from Rome. Gilbert Keith Chesterton started out that way too, but became a Roman or "swam the Tiber" as the modern phrase goes. When Kent Hovind does something good about defending Biblical inerrancy, he often does so (I have found from a limited experience of either) in agreement with one Calmet, who was a Catholic priest and a Frenchman. But nevertheless he also thinks it is his duty to take a distance from Rome. Not just or even primarily the present day Rome of Modernism, but the historical Rome.

That flaw I do put down to his having been influenced by the Reformation.

It is a baleful thing. It was a bloody atrocity.

One of the last Spanish Inquisitors estimated that from 1480 to 1808 the Inquisition had executed 31.912 people. He may have been right. Or he may have been wrong because misreading some of the evidence. Or, he may also have been misquoted. But those are 328 years and that adds up to 97 per year. Reformations all over Europe - or what is Protestant of it - would have been at work over a much shorter time before they cut off populations from Catholicism. But typical of those times, the very times when Protestant culture was being formed (except insofar as it consisted of heritage from Catholic periods of the same countries) were bloodbaths perpetrated on Catholics.

Sure, Catholics did some killing too.

But their doctrines were not made while killing. They had inherited a Truth and defended it - any honest historian who even may not be Catholic and even may not agree that they held THE Truth would agree to that. He would agree that they had inherited what they conceived as a truth and that the time of their defending it did not involve adding new things to it not there before the Reformers came along, or not as much as among Reformers, and not in the sense of adding completely new things, rather in the sense of uniformating things previously debated.

That is why it is difficult to be other than dedicated fanatic of this Protestant fad of identifying historic papacy with Antichrist - and still cling on to it. Reformers are more clearly anti-Christian than Catholics. Bellarmine is a better Christian than James I.

The anonymous compiler - no, actually not, he is John Class*** and not anonymous - cites James I (or VI and I) as one godly and learned man who considered the Papacy as Antichrist. But James I was culpable of violently settling Protestant invaders in Ireland, like later Cromwell. He was culpable of wanting it both ways as to Holy Eucharist (or what he could get of it, i e a sham resemblance), agreeing with Reformers to deny Transsubstantiation or at least not to allow any direct defense of it, agreeing with Catholics who bow and kneel down to the species and give divine honours to Our Saviour who is present under them. This shilly-shallying involved him in demanding that one should bow and kneel down for what one considered bread and just as symbol of Our Lord or His Crucifixion - and rightly so, since a priest, even if validly ordained, who heartily agreed with the Reformation on this point would certainly NOT consecrate validly. He was also culpable of continuing the Inquisition of the English type of 1401 up to 1612 - same year before which he had issued a new Bible translation. How culpable? Because, not having the truth itself, Anglicanism was in no position to impose its "truth" on anyone. Because, attacking Catholicism for the Inquisition since many decades back (Foxe had Book of Martyrs published in 1563, same year the Council of Trent ended) it was rank hypocrisy to continue executing people for heresy oneself. Which James I as well as John Calvin did. Perhaps it was in the end lucky, perhaps it slowed down the advent of the later confusions, but nevertheless they could not do so with as clean a conscience as the Spanish Inquisition could.

Together with his brother Thomas, he° was put in prison for heresy in 1611. Thomas died in Newgate Prison, London, but Bartholomew's imprisonment was not a rigorous one. James I argued with him, and on several occasions he was brought before the Consistory court of London, but without any definite result. Eventually, after having threatened to bring an action for wrongful imprisonment, Legate was tried before a full Consistory Court in February 1612, was found guilty of blasphemous heresy, and was delivered to the secular authorities for punishment. Refusing to retract his opinions, he was burnt at the stake at Smithfield on 18 March 1612. Legate was the last person burned in London for his religious opinions, and died just three weeks before Edward Wightman, who was burned at Lichfield in April 1612, the last to suffer in this way in England.

That was Bartholomew Legate. "Oh, sure, we are all sinners, the Reformation was done by sinful men" ... was not someone just recently accusing Papacy and specifically because of Inquisition precisely to be, not so much sinful men as man of sin?

No, it is true, Reformation was a bad fix, the separation of Reformers from Papal Rome was a crime, and this is because Papacy as historically known up to now or pretty recently is NOT the Antichrist.

I have a hunch that perhaps Bergoglio is. And I have an apprehension, because he is promoting, very actively, a Papal-Protestant union. You see, though I like Kent Hovind and Jonathan Sarfati and a few more, I would very certainly not change Catholicism as it has traditionally been one whit just to suit them. I would like their conversion to Catholicism. But Catholicism does not need to convert to Creationism, since it has never left it. One other bad thing with Bergoglio is he is not exactlty stopping Catholics and even parts of his hierarchy from treating Creationism as if Catholicism had apostasised from it and it needed to go to suit their apostasy, mislabelled as that of the Church. I could very certainly use some intellectual in part support and in part simply pleasant company for this. Bergoglio, on the other hand, is being "sensitive" to the criticisms of the Reformers.

As to my love for certain Protestants, it is not because of their loyalty to the Reformation I love them. The Bible - and what they ar defending about the Bible - did very well without the Protestant Reformation, thank you.

So did the Futurist (with Bergoglio perhaps no longer all that futurist) view of Apocalypse (or of the chapters referring to end times tribulations and persecutions). It was there in St Thomas Aquinas or St Augustine well before it was championed by St Robert.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Feast of Corpus Christi
19/VI/2014

* No offense meant on that account, compiling is a thing that sometimes needs to be done and which I have done myself. Some use the word as an insult, I do not. I am sometimes myself a compiler as much as or in some few blogposts much more than an author.

** Some ungodly points, on the contrary, as in overemphasising work and company, and as in disparaging begging and solitude (Chesterton considered that even a normal man - married and working - needed to be half a hermit and I am sure he was right), and as vulgarising not so much the Bible as certain verses with certain misconceived interpretations (including a gratuitous insult to the Papacy).

*** In certain chapter studies he identifies the "I" of the apocalypse (St John the Gospeller) with "John Class". This might then be a pseudonym.

° http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartholomew_Legate

Quoted item on which I commented:

Reformers' Interpretations
of Anti-Christ
http://www.revelation-today.com/a6reform.htm

It can be added that the list includes Isaac Newton, who was an Anti-Trinitarian (like Bartholomew Legate) and a Sorcerer or Soothsayer. It also includes Savonarola, but that may be an error. It is pretty certain that its including Dante is an error. At least to me, as long as that is not documented. From his writings rather than from assessments like the list here.

It can also be added, my mother did not share this prejudice, at least not as to saying Catholics would need to leave Catholicism, while I was a child. I was allergic to it when other Protestants more decdidedly such forwarded it. One reason why I came to detest the Reformation was knowing Luther and the rest had come to this conclusion which is as unhuman as it is unbiblical. It is unbiblical because 3 1/2 years are NOT 1200 plus years. It is unhuman because it involves Satan making all nations HIS disciples (not during a few years or during paganism past, but during the time of grace), and it is ungodly because in doing so it implies a failure of God's orders to the 11 Apostles./HGL

Mark Shea getting Liturgic History Wrong

Blog post from today:

Vernacular Masses Before the Vatican Council…
June 17, 2014 By Mark Shea
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2014/06/vernacular-masses-before-the-vatican-council.html

... and he meant the First Vatican council (which really has a claim to be called Vatican Council). When he speaks of Ephesus, does he feel obliged to be precise he means First Ephesus (Second Ephesus being the classic example of Robber Council, at least in Latin Church).

Now, what he describes is not a Vernacular Mass, or rather the description he quotes:

Mark, a 1710 letter from the Jesuit superior for New France (modern-day Quebec) describing a specific mission among the Hurons: “All are present in the morning at the sacrifice of the mass, which is celebrated in behalf of the whole village. Nearly all assist at the mass of a second priest, and not a few at another if there be a third celebrant. While the first mass of all, which is called “the Mission Mass,” is being said, they sing sacred Hymns written in the vernacular tongue, and adapted to the feasts which are then being celebrated, — with a harmony truly beautiful, and not at all barbarous.” (page 149)

This, my dear Mark, does not mean Mass was vernacular. If a lady not knowing Latin prayed a Vernacular Rosary during Latin Mass, you would not call that a Vernacular Mass, would you?

"While the first mass of all, which is called “the Mission Mass,” is being said,"

Note "while".

"they sing sacred Hymns written in the vernacular tongue"

The hymns were vernacular. The Mass was obviously said silently in Latin while the choir sung the vernacular hymns.

Here’s another article from traditionalist web-journal New Liturgical Movement which I helped fellow traditionalist (faithful to the Church) Shawn Tribe to found several years ago. In it, the author provides actual pages of pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic liturgies celebrated in the languages of North American First Nations peoples

Even before clicking the link, I have a hunch that it will be not a Huron Te igitur clementissime Pater said by the priest, but a Huron hymns sung while the priest was saying Te igitur in Latin.

Not quite, now that I clicked it. There has been a translation of propers of the Mass (like Dies Irae) into diverse first nations languages.

NLM : American Indian Requiem Masses from the Book of the Seven Nations
by Shawn Tribe Monday, November 21, 2011
www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2011/11/american-indian-requiem-masses-from.html

These Masses come from the Tsiatak Nihonon8entsiake, or Book of Seven Nations, published in Montreal in 1865 for the American Indian mission of Lake of Two Mountains, which contained both Mohawk-speaking and Algonquin-speaking Catholics. This mission, like others in the area, was permitted to use the vernacular for the sung propers and ordinaries of the Roman Mass.

The Requiem Mass was called in Mohawk, Iako8entaon Akohasera. It is the first one featured in the Book of Seven Nations and, judging by its prominent position and the inclusion of the chant notation, seems to have been the main Requiem in use at Lake of Two Mountains.

Now, the priest still said Te igitur silently in Latin - after the Mohawks had sung Sanctus in Mohawk. Or while they were doing so.

I could otherwise have provided a real example of Vernacular Mass previous to the real Vatican Council as much as to the other one. Glagolitic Mass. The text of the Latin Mass in Croatian or Slavonic, written not in Cyrillic but in Glagolitic writing.

Now, some think that Latin is the main point with Latin Mass. It is one point. But not the one which makes certain Trads and most Sedes suspect or even feel certain that Novus Ordo is invalid. After all, there is a Novus Ordo in Latin as well.*

Christmas Carol in Huron, courtesy of Mark Shea
http://www.youtube.com/watch?&v=BN4Vi9SPs8s

And all the while Calvinists were doing nothing to convert Hurons or Iroquois. And there was this Prot who was complaining that Cloistered people do not evangelise ... to top it, he was French, and it were precisely French Jesuits who came to Hurons and Iroquois. Even the spelling of Iroquois is an éloquent témoignage that they were not Spanish.** Nor were they German. Or Swiss. Or Dutch. Actually even less so than Spanish, I would say.**

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Two Hundred Sixty Martyrs
of Via Salaria
17 / VI / 2014

* Some Vernaculars previous to Benedict XVI / Ratzinger had erroneous translations of it.

** The Swedish name of a person of that tribe seems to remind of Spanish version: Iroqués / Irokes.

London 1665

I think every English speaking reader knows there was a Fire in London in 1666.

Did you know that the year before that a book printed in London had predicted ROME would perish in 1666?

Look here:

Abominationes papatus, seu invicta demonstratio papam romanum esse antichristum, excerpta ex libro cui titulus: Romae ruina finalis anno Domini 1666, excuso Londini 1665. 1692 * Romae ruina finalis

Index Librorum Prohibitorum, 1948 edition
http://www.cvm.qc.ca/gconti/905/babel/index%20librorum%20prohibitorum-1948.htm

1692 is the year when the book was put on the Index of Forbidden Books. 1665 is when it was printed in London.

God revenged the honour of the Papacy./HGL

Against Arians on John 14:28

I expressed myself with some apparent irreverence about the Son on the Cross, as being the "Little Boy" (eternally) of the eternal Father.

This does not mean I believe the Son is lesser than the Father, it means I believe the kind of Love they have is such as we see here on earth when a little boy "flies on the wings" of his "bird play" towards his father also opening arms to hug him.

And that this Sonship was in Him on the Cross too. I believe I have here earned acquittal of the charge of real irreverence.

Some may have been concerned I was being Arian, which is not the case, and so I found on CMI a rebuttal against the JW sect. It included a reference to their three prooftexts. Or supposed such. I will first give the Haydock comment on each and then add a personal note on John 14:28.

Colossians* 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of every creature:

16 *For in him were all things created in heaven, and on earth, visible, and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and in him:

17 And he is before all, and by him all things consist.

First of all, if he "is before all" he is as little part of Creation as He would be a person ultimately dependent on Abraham whom instead He preceded in His Divinity.

But since some Arians have not denied every kind of divinity to Christ, only such as is equal to the Father and have therefore said the Father created Him and then created the rest for and through Him, I will give the Church Fathers through the Haydock Comment:

Ver. 15. The first[2] born of every creature. St. Chrysostom takes notice against the Arians, that the apostle calls Christ the first-begotten, or first-born, not the first created, because he was not created at all. And the sense is, that he was before all creatures, proceeding from all eternity from the Father; though some expound the words of Christ as man, and that he was greater in dignity. See Romans viii. 29. (Witham)

Ver. 16. Thrones, &c. are commonly understood to refer to the celestial hierarchy of Angels, though as to their particular rank, &c. nothing certain is known. We may here observe, that the Holy Spirit proportions itself and speaks according to our ideas of a temporal kingdom, in which one authority is subject to another. In the same manner the Angels seem subordinate to one another. (St. Dionysius in Calmet)

All things were created by him, and in him, and[3] consist in him. If all things that are were made by him, he himself was not made. And his divine power is also signified, when it is said all things consist or are preserved by him. (Witham)

One can of course add that the angels carrying sun, moon, planets and stars would probably be in the orders here referred to: ... whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers ...

Isaias* 9:6 For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, and the government is upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called, Wonderful, Counsellor, God the Mighty, the Father of the world to come, the Prince of Peace.

Ver. 6. Child. The Messias, whom the son of Isaias prefigured.

Shoulder. Where the badges of royalty were worn. (Calmet)

Christ bore his cross. (Tertullian, &c.)

Wonderful. In his birth, &c.

Counsellor. From whom all good advice proceeds. Grotius falsely translates, "the consulter of the strong God," meaning Ezechias. Though he deemed the Socinians unworthy of the Christian name, (Ep. ad Valleum.) he too often sides with them. Johets always means one who "gives counsel," chap. xl. 13. Ezechias was at this time ten years old, and he did not always take advice, nor was his reign peaceful, &c.

God. The three Greek versions maliciously render El "the strong," though it be uncertain that it ever has that meaning, as it certainly has not when joined with gibbor, "mighty." Why should two terms of the same import be used? The Septuagint copies vary much. Some read only, "he shall be called the angel of the great council, for I will bring peace upon the princes and his health." St. Jerome thinks they were afraid to style the child God. But this reason falls to the ground, as other copies have, (Calmet) after council, "Wonderful, Counsellor, God, the Mighty, the Potent, exousiaszes, the Prince of Peace, the Father of the world to come, for, &c., (7.) His." Grabe (de Vitiis lxx. p. 29.) asserts that the former is the genuine version, and that the inserted titles are a secondary one; so that there must have been two version before the days of Aquila, as the text is thus quoted at large by Clement and St. Iræneus, the year of the Lord 180; Kennicott adds also by St. Ignatius, the year of the Lord 110. (Haydock)

The omnipotent God became a little child, and without violence subdued the world, which he still governs. (Worthington)

St. John* 14:28 You have heard that I said to you: I go away, and I come again to you. If you loved me, you would indeed be glad, because I go to the Father: for the Father is greater than I.

Ver. 28. The Father is greater than I.[3] According to the common exposition, Christ here speaks of himself, as made man, which interpretation is drawn from the circumstances of the text, Christ being at that time, going to suffer, and die, and shortly after to rise again, and ascend into heaven, all which agree with him, as man, and according to his human nature. But the Arians can take no advantage from these words, (though with divers of the ancient Fathers, we should allow them to be spoken of Christ, as the Son of God:) the Father may be said in some manner to be greater than the Son, if we consider the order of the divine processions, that is, that the Father is the first person, and proceeds from no other; whereas the Son proceeds from the Father. If any one, says St. Chrysostom, will contend, that the Father is greater, inasmuch as he is the cause, from which the Son proceedeth, we will bear with him, and this way of speaking: provided he grant that the Son is not of a different substance, or nature. St. Athanasius allows the same, and takes notice, that though the Father is said to be greater, yet he is not said to be better, nor more excellent, than the Son; because they are one and the same in substance, nature, and other perfections. (Witham)

The enemies of the divinity of Christ here triumph, and think they have the confession of Christ himself, that he is less than the Father. But if they would distinguish the two natures of Christ, their arguments would all fall to the ground. Jesus Christ, as man, and a creature, is inferior to his Father, the Creator; but, as God, he is, in every respect, equal to him. (St. Basil, St. Augustine, &c.)

Others, likewise, answer it thus: Following the confused opinion of the world, and even of the apostles themselves, who as yet only considered Christ as a prophet, and as a man, eminent in virtue and sanctity, he was less than the Father. (St. Chrysostom; Leont.; Theophylactus; Euthymius)

And likewise the title of Father, (as we generally use the word) is greater, and much more honourable, than that of Son; and in this respect, Christ is inferior to his Father. (St. Athanasius; St. Hilary; St. Epiphanius; St. Gregory of Nazianzus; and St. Cyril)

But this appellation, though really true, does not destroy the equality of the persons, because Christ has declared, in numerous other places, that he is equal to the Father; that he is in the Father; and that he and the Father are one. The apostles ought to have rejoiced that Christ was going to the Father, who was superior to him, considering him in his human nature; because, then, would the Son shew forth his honour and glory to be equal to the Father's, in heaven. This would have been a mark of a pure, solid, and disinterested love, which ought to have inspired the apostles, if they truly loved their divine Master. (Calmet)

Protestants assume to themselves the liberty of making the Bible only, the exclusive rule of faith, yet refuse this privilege to others. Thus Luther insisted, that his catechism should be taught, and followed. Calvin burnt Servetus for explaining his faith, by his own interpretation of the Bible, particularly of these words, the Father is greater than I. The Church of England compels every clergyman to swear to the Thirty-nine Articles, and has inflicted the severest penalties on such as interpreted the Bible according to the principles of Socinus; and on Catholics, who understand the words of Jesus Christ, This is my body: this is my blood, in the literal and obvious sense of the words. As long as each individual is at liberty to expound Scripture by the private spirit, it is a great injustice to compel any one, by penal laws, to yield his judgment to any authority, that is not less fallible than his own.

Now for my personal note. I totally agree that Christ is here speaking about His human nature. In His Divine Nature He neither goes away from them nor comes back to them. Nobody and nothing can exist a moment without it. But He is speaking specifically as the Son of David too. Chapter is 14, verse is 28 = 2*14. And David is Daleth - Vav - Daleth = 4+6+4 = 14.

So, Heaven is here also called a Davidic kingdom. And in the Davidic court, the Mother of the King is Queen. Not "malkit", I think, but (certainly) "gebirah". That means that the Blessed Virgin Mary is indeed Queen Mother in the full Davidic sense of Heaven.

I got notice of this from CMI** in an article which also clears Young Earth Creationists from the charge of being disciples of JW:

As I approached she commented on the lovely day and a pretty section of our garden. This was her opening from which to launch about the creator of these things. As JW’s do not believe in a biblical creation, but in a combination of ‘day age’ and Genesis 1:1 as an indeterminate amount of time within which to fit ‘true science’, this seemed a bit impertinent.

Might seem familiar to some who may have a preference for Catholics being into Georges Lemaître ...? And in case Mark Ambler be accused of having invented this, I took an Awake! from their stand and got a Watchtower inside it.*** The March 2014 issue of Awake! does contain their confession of Old-Earthism and therefore does clear Young Earth Creationists of a suspicion of being JW or unduly influenced by them.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Pentecost Tuesday
10 / VI / 2014

* All Bible quotes and commentary quotes from Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition.

COLOSSIANS - Chapter 1
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id212.html

ISAIAS - Chapter 9
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id1229.html

ST. JOHN - Chapter 14
http://haydock1859.tripod.com/id107.html

** CMI : Creation and a cult
Challenging a Jehovah’s Witness with creation
by Marc Ambler
Published: 10 June 2014 (GMT+10)
http://creation.com/creation-and-a-cult

*** I usually do not touch Watchtower at all, if I can avoid it. This sample was however of some interest. But their March number for 2014 for Awake! - to get back to it - on pages 4 to 7 in the French edition repeatedly state the days were not necessarily 24 hours long. Meaning they do not agree with me thereon, and thus I should not be blamed for "agreeing with them" when in fact I do not.