Where did Penn Jillette Learn what Put him Off the Bible?

Penn Jillette: Reading the Bible (Or the Koran, Or the Torah) Will Make You an Atheist
Big Think | 16.VII.2010
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3rGev6OZ3w

He tells you, I would think, at time signatures 0:24 to 0:37.

And they went to the Congregationalist Church, the Church of the Covered Dish Supper in Greenfield, Massachusetts. Massachusetts is an old enough state, you couldn't charter a town without having a Congregationalist Church, and this was the first one in our town. I mean, from back 200 years ago.

I suppose - feel free to disagree - this is where young Penn (name suggests admiration for William Penn on part of parents) learned a lot of values and backing them more than caring about doctrine.

And these values were very neatly applied too, in a Puritan way, so, if slave hunting was wrong, any type of continued slavery in any sense of the word must be wrong as well. Slavemaster (domini) no better than manstealers (plagii in the Latin Bible). Similar with attitudes about universal versus tribal, tribalism not allowed even if the "tribe" (or the twelve of them) was the only one in the neighbourhood not worshipping gross gods demanding gross rites, ranging up to human sacrifice. If you check, while Egyptian and Babylonian paganism was also wrong, Egyptians and Babylonians were not as harshly seen as Canaaneans. But with no tribalism allowed, even this little hint of universalism was too little to get past a radar saying "no universalism". Similar with war and peace.

This is not how one can expect of a man raised on Catechism of St. Pius X and cherishing that doctrine with those values./HGL

Garloff Doesn't Know English, Strawmans Catholicism, Misuses the Bible

Here are a few snapshots from his video, with my text added.

Click each image to enlarge and read my comment to it.

1:26

4:16

4:32

5:05

5:29

Three Claims on Saints : XXI, XXXXVII, XXXXVIII

Here they are:

• XXI It is claimed that petitioning saints in heaven for prayers is un-Biblical.
• XXXXVII It is claimed that the idea of patron saints is connected to Paganism.
• XXXXVIII It is claimed that this connection proves it disconnected to Christianity in a way making it forbidden by true Christianity.

I will deal with these in a somewhat inverted order. I will deal with claim 47 first. I will also deal with them in such a cumulative order that it is superfluous to link to each claim separately.

• XXXXVII It is claimed that the idea of patron saints is connected to Paganism.
• XXI It is claimed that petitioning saints in heaven for prayers is un-Biblical.
• XXXXVIII It is claimed that this connection proves it disconnected to Christianity in a way making it forbidden by true Christianity.

"XXXXVII It is claimed that the idea of patron saints is connected to Paganism."

In a sense, this is perfectly correct.

In Greek and Roman paganism, we do find gods and goddesses, both having authority over specific domains and taking interest in specific persons.

For instance, Poseidon is wielding authority over the sea, loves Theseus and Polypheme and hates Ulysses.

Athena wields authority over wisdom and war stratagems, loves Jason and Ulysses.

Hera wields authority over domestic virtues and - under her husband - justice, she hates Hercules and loves Jason.

Now, patron saints don't wield authority over any fields as large as sea or wisdom or domestic virtues or justice.

All that is ultimately God's own prerogative. When there are patron saints for things, it is more related to specific needs. For instance, St Francis certainly is not wielding authority over the sea, but as certainly "over" free passengers (since he was a stowaway himself, when going to Holy Land), St Christopher wields no authority over rivers as such, but he does as certainly "wield authority over" ferrymen and over passengers overall (as to safe journey). Or would "take an interest" be a better term?

I kind of think it would.

This brings us to the next claim:

"XXI It is claimed that petitioning saints in heaven for prayers is un-Biblical."

Saints in heaven do take an interest in us. I saw one video by Watchtower society (in excerpts) where God the Father and their version of the Son are cheering with angels when a boy does something morally correct, like saying no thanks to cheating on a test.

This is correct.

However, in their version, there were no saints who had lived as men on earth involved.

Why? They are thnetopsychists, they believe, incorrectly, that as each man dies, his soul dies as well and is resurrected or recreated along with the body on the day of Resurrection.

Now, would souls who are in heaven (since it is correct at least some are already so) take a similar interest in us and cheer when we do sth right?

Most certainly yes.

Hebrews 11 (all of the chapter) along with 12 verse 1 says so.

Note, the chapter divisions were inserted much later than the books were written.

So, to St Paul and to his readers and their hearers, verse 1 of chapter 12 was not really separate from what came before.

Chapter 11 gives a very long list of Old Testament saints.

Abel, Henoch, Noah, Abraham start the list, each in a very detailed fashion, and so it goes on for a while. At a certain point, no more details but a list (32b):

For the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, Barac, Samson, Jephthe, David, Samuel, and the prophets

And after that generalities of types. Last type being martyrs, and it refers indirectly to martyrdom of Isaias, as known from tradition, and a contrast between OT saints and "us" (36 - 40):

And others had trial of mockeries and stripes, moreover also of bands and prisons. They were stoned, they were cut asunder, they were tempted, they were put to death by the sword, they wandered about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being in want, distressed, afflicted: Of whom the world was not worthy; wandering in deserts, in mountains, and in dens, and in caves of the earth. And all these being approved by the testimony of faith, received not the promise; God providing some better thing for us, that they should not be perfected without us.

And next verse is 12:1, adding also 2.

And therefore we also having so great a cloud of witnesses over our head, laying aside every weight and sin which surrounds us, let us run by patience to the fight proposed to us: Looking on Jesus, the author and finisher of faith, who having joy set before him, endured the cross, despising the shame, and now sitteth on the right hand of the throne of God.

Certainly, we must think more of Jesus than of the OT saints - but we must think of them. We must look on Jesus at the right hand of the throne of God - but it is also a consideration that we have "so great a cloud of witnesses over our head".

This clearly means, the saints in heaven do take an interest in our Christian walk on earth.

As the pagans falsely believed about Hera and Athena, we rightly believe about Joshua and Rahab.

Hera and Athena are false gods, they are not the real authors of Jason's success. Joshua and Rahab are also not the actual author of any success we may have, but they are close to Him who is, and they do as real persons really in heaven take an interest in us, otherwise St Paul (if it wasn't as some said St Barnabas) would not have called them a cloud of witnesses.

Do the saints who take an interest petition for us?

Well, yes.

Apocalypse 6 says in verses 9 to 11:

And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held. And they cried with a loud voice, saying: How long, O Lord (holy and true) dost thou not judge and revenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given to every one of them one; and it was said to them, that they should rest for a little time, till their fellow servants, and their brethren, who are to be slain, even as they, should be filled up.

Some have concluded I was convinced the last tribulations were at hand when I cited this, years ago on the road to Santiago, but while I might be closer to that conclusion now, this was not at all my intent back then. This is not about the last few years before the Second Coming, it is about all of the Church age, as some call it.

So, they do petition for the Church to get even with its persecutors.

Is their petition heard?

Here is another thing which is according to St Augustine about all of the Church age (=millennium, on his view), Apocalypse 20:4:

And I saw seats; and they sat upon them; and judgment was given unto them; and the souls of them that were beheaded for the testimony of Jesus, and for the word of God, and who had not adored the beast nor his image, nor received his character on their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Reigning with Christ means their petitions very clearly are heard.

And they certainly watch over our affairs, if they get to heaven soon, not just because of Hebrews 12:1, but also because of Apocalypse 14:4

These are they who were not defiled with women: for they are virgins. These follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were purchased from among men, the firstfruits to God and to the Lamb:

Can Christ, the lamb, stand by me? Certainly - and the 144 000 walk along with him. This also means, if Christ even as man in heaven can have time each day to attend to each and every one of millions who adress prayers to Him, so can the saints. It is arguable, God being able to "create dimensions" - including time - that their perception of time is enriched, they live in a kind of "Narnian time" when however much time they spend "on earth" with each person, they are still back in Heaven on the same date.

This sets the scenario for saints:

• taking an interest in our affairs as a Church;
• taking an interest in our individual affairs;
• being heard by Him who can hear prayer.

On this ground, we might imagine, they might hear us on occasion, and even pretty regularly, if we ask them to pray for us?

This is not directly said, but also not directly denied. It is extra-Biblical, perhaps, but certainly not anti-Biblical.

We are forbidden to call on them to appear along with us, as in a seance, but we are not forbidden to adress petitions to them where they are.

The soul of Samuel was involved in disturbing a seance - and in punishing the one who had asked for it. Normally a seance involves no soul of any dead, but instead demons playing that role to fool people.

Now, petitioning saints in heaven while they remain there to pray for us, rather than come down here and talk to us, clearly is something other.

Next question, isn't there a gulf which cannot be bridged, see Luke 16:19 - 26?

There was a certain rich man, who was clothed in purple and fine linen; and feasted sumptuously every day. And there was a certain beggar, named Lazarus, who lay at his gate, full of sores,

Desiring to be filled with the crumbs that fell from the rich man's table, and no one did give him; moreover the dogs came, and licked his sores. And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom. And the rich man also died: and he was buried in hell. And lifting up his eyes when he was in torments, he saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom: And he cried, and said: Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, to cool my tongue: for I am tormented in this flame. And Abraham said to him: Son, remember that thou didst receive good things in thy lifetime, and likewise Lazareth evil things, but now he is comforted; and thou art tormented.

And besides all this, between us and you, there is fixed a great chaos: so that they who would pass from hence to you, cannot, nor from thence come hither.

So, isn't there a great chaos, a great chasm, between us and the dead saints?

No, this was in Old Testament times, when the bosom of Abraham was still in a part of Sheol. And the chaos or chasm of which is here question was between Limbus Patrum and Hell properly speaking. It is the damned in Hell who are on the wrong side of a gulf.

But this chasm did not stop them from talking to each other.

The rich man who was damned was not heard, and partly this is because he was damned, but in the following another part is because those besides himself he was praying for were not going to go to Heaven (verses 27-31):

And he said: Then, father, I beseech thee, that thou wouldst send him to my father's house, for I have five brethren, That he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torments. And Abraham said to him: They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. But he said: No, father Abraham: but if one went to them from the dead, they will do penance.

And he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they believe, if one rise again from the dead.

So the rich man was not heard for himself because he was damned, he was not heard for the brothers who were going to be damned, but if we ask saints (Abraham or other) to pray for us, if we are not damned (since alive) and not going to be damned, this means the saints can in fact hear us.

The rich man was, and that accurately, so aware God would hear the prayers of Abraham, he was willing to attribute the action of God hearing to Abraham praying. His words "that thou wouldst send him".

Now, this completes the scenario, the saints in heaven are:

• taking an interest in our affairs as a Church;
• taking an interest in our individual affairs;
• able to take into account requests adressed to them;
• being heard by Him who can hear prayer.

Therefore, it is a pastoral question whether we should be encouraged to so demand their prayers, the Church has decided, presumably because lots of converted Greco-Roman pagans actually tried it and it worked, God heard the prayers of saints who had been adressed for their prayers.

"XXXXVIII It is claimed that this connection proves it disconnected to Christianity in a way making it forbidden by true Christianity."

On the contrary, next to Jews, and after these had rejected Christ, now even for some time in preference to Jews (but Jews will once again be in focus for conversion, when Henoch and Elijah come back), the word of the Word was adressed to Greco-Roman pagans, whose religion, while false, contained such kernels of truth as had prepared them to try this out.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Martyrs of Caesarea
28.III.2019

Caesareae, in Palaestina, natalis sanctorum Martyrum Prisci, Malchi et Alexandri. Hi tres, in persecutione Valeriani, cum in suburbano agello supradictae urbis habitarent, atque in ea caelestes martyrii proponerentur coronae, ultro Judicem, divino fidei calore succensi, adeunt, et cur tantum in sanguinem piorum desaeviret, objurgant; quos ille continuo, pro Christi nomine, bestiis tradidit devorandos.

Is There a Plain Reading of the Bible?

One standard argument from Evangelicals is, why have a Church Magisterium, all we need is the Bible.

If you read it plainly, you can't go wrong.

Now, there is an opposite tendency among Modernists. They say "you always interpret the Bible some way however you approach it" - which on a certain level is correct, even with the plainest of readings, since you interpret words as having meaning, for one. But they then go on to claim, you can't know for sure what the Bible means.

First of all, this is where being a Catholic is great. Having the Catholic tradition, stated and restated most often by past carriers of the Magisterium, sometimes crystallised in definitions of dogma by carriers of the Magisterium, that solves the problem. Certainly, on some items you might want to have an extra certainty which side of Ephesus*, which side of Chalcedon**, which side of 1054*** the real magisterium is, but those problems are not quite unsolvable and also, many items, like baptism of infants, confession of mortal sins after baptism to a priest and absolution by a priest, four last things being Death and Judgement, then Heaven or Hell, fasting being necessary (as Lent reminds me), and a few more, are the same whichever of the five confessions you go to.

Here is an example of how a Modernist has reasoned:

There Is No Such Thing as a Plain Reading of the Bible
March 25, 2019 by Matthew Distefano | on All Set Free
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/allsetfree/2019/03/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-plain-reading-of-the-bible/

The problem, of course, is that this statement and ones like it are meaningless. Why? Because there is no such thing as a “plain reading of the text.”

First off, no one approaches the Bible tabula rasa, that is, with a blank slate. Everyone, including myself of course, approaches the text with presuppositions. Everyone reads the text through the lens of their own culture, theology, philosophy, and phenomenological experiences. And while we can do our best to transport ourselves into the various cultures the Bible comes from—the Bronze Age, Second Temple Judaism, and so on—we can never fully grasp what it would have been like to actually live in these time periods.

Fine. I cannot exactly know what it was like living in the early Middle Ages either.

But I can therefore not know that Manlius Boethius meant what he said when stating things like 2 added to 2 being four?

I don't think men are so estranged to each other's comprehension across cultures.

If you wonder what he meant by saying (as I suppose he did) that all numbers are rational, that is easy. He meant things like π (which he knew) and things like logarithms (which he did not know) are not numbers but proportions. Simple as that. I don't feel I was better equipped for calculating with 3.14 or 3.1416 as a standin for π back when I was OK with calling it a number than I am now when I say it is not a number and the rational ratio 314:100 is a standin for the real ratio which as such I cannot calculate with.

I am not a Puritan claiming geometry must never disguise as arithmetic (as we do when π is shown in a calculation like 3.14) or arithmetic as geometry (which we do when multiplication of numbers is shown my addition of lengths on slide rules, which is the most basic use of logarithms). Therefore I don't feel I need to englobe all of maths into arithmetic in order to do what is not purely arithmetic on the view of Boethius.

What’s more, everyone I know is reading their Bibles in English. Why is this important? News flash: English isn’t a language spoken by any of the characters or writers of the Bible, nor any of the earliest Christian theologians. Torah was written in Hebrew. Jesus spoke Aramaic. Paul wrote in Koine Greek. Augustine’s Greek sucked so he wrote in Latin.

There are such things as translations. Concepts vary to a certain degree, but not so widely as to make translations impossible. Someone recently claimed that the fourth horse was green, not pale, and referred to Muslims. The problem with this is, while Greek χλωρος can mean green, pale, yellow (and there are other languages that don't do a full "Classic" version of basic colours, these being perhaps essentially those of Arabic° - but Latin Vulgate translates the horse in Apocalypse 6:8 as pallidus - pale. Not as viridus - green. I suppose Syriac and Coptic New Testaments, not sharing the Greek conflation of yellow and green, also uses something similar, but I am not sure. That is why Douay Rheims and King James have "pale". The other horses also do have colours that naturally occur on horses, which is the case for pale yellow, but not for green.

Here on this particulart item, original language does matter to some degree for meaning.

However, if I want to understand Matthew 5:15 correctly, I don't need to know exactly how many litres of grain one could measure in a bushel. The point is, God intended His Church to be visible, and He warned His disciples on letting their light so shine before men, so as to be able to make the Church visible. This doesn't mean all Catholics or all clergy have to be saints for the Church to be visible, but there always are those who are. Those who are not may be at risk of losing the position as faithful, or as clergy.

English wasn’t on the scene until 1066, and even that variety looks nothing like it does today (if you don’t believe me, just try reading Beowulf in its original form).

I think the Gospels are easier in Anglo-Saxon than Beowulf is. I also note, 1066 was not a time when English in this form came on the scene, but rather started receding from the scene. But yes, reading "ealc Þara Þa gehierð Þas min word and Þa gewyrcð bið gelic snotran monnu" does take more than just my reading capacity of modern English, and knowing Swedish and German very much helps.

Let me offer an example of what I mean.

Take the doctrine of hell, for instance. In a handful of places throughout the Gospels, the term “hell” is used. Jesus warns people that they will end up in “hell” if they don’t change their ways. But what did he really mean? Well, that is where we would have to do our best to transport ourselves back into the first century and attempt to discern his words through the eyes of a Second Temple Jew.

With this as our lens, upon hearing the term “hell,” we would automatically know that Jesus is, first and foremost, talking about a literal valley just to the south of Jerusalem. How do we know this? Because Jesus used the Aramaic term that translates to “Gehenna,” which, in Hebrew, best translates to “the valley of Hinnom.” This is the place where, in 586 BCE, the Babylonians burned the bodies of the dead Jews after they sacked the city of Jerusalem. And it is also the place where, only a few decades after the death of Jesus, the Romans would do the same thing.

At the same time, however, some Jews indeed believed that Gehenna represented a place of punishment in the afterlife for those who turned their backs on God and lived wicked lives. So, it theoretically could be the context from which Jesus was speaking to. Will we ever know for sure? I don’t know. I have my ideas and loose conclusions, but that isn’t really the point of this piece.

In Luke 16, while Douay Rheims and Nestle Aland differ on division between verses 22 and 23°°, it is clear that the rich man was in hell, ἐν τῷ ᾅδῃ.

And the context indicates, the rich man was in a place of torture after death.

Now, would Jesus automatically first and foremost be talking of the place valley of Hinnom?

I think this would depend highly on the context. In English "do" first and foremost means "tun" in German, and also "göra" in Swedish when it does not translate to "make" or "machen". It means "agere" and not the most exact meaning of "facere" even if "facere" is sometimes used as a substitute for "agere."

However, I came to a context in which "do" (with object of person) means "frame", "put into a bad light" or "arrange an adverse verdict in court". Yes, such a context exists as I recently learned. In Our Lord's time on Earth, distinguishing between the two usages about Ge Hinnom would have been a case of reading the context.

And, from then on, we have tradition. If anyone were into apokastasis or thnetopsychism for evil persons, Tradition says no. Hell is real and eternal.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Audoux
St. John of Damascus
27.III.2019

* Orthodox Catholics or Nestorians. ** Orthodox Catholics or Monophysites of either Jacobite or Armenian confession. *** Are the Orthodox believers of the Catholic Church found among "Roman Catholics" or "Eastern Orthodox"? ° Abyad, ahmar, asfar, akhdar, azraq and aswad, from light to dark, with a difference of asfar (yellow) vs akhdar (green) where Greek has χλωρος for both, where Latin had more than one word for blue, more than one word for white, more than one word for black, more than one word for yellow. °° In Douay Rheims he was buried in hell, in Nestle Aland he is ἐν τῷ ᾅδῃ when he suffers and lifts up his eyes.

The Gates of Hell have not, HAVE NOT prevailed against the Church

Here* is a Baptist who certainly gets the second part of Matthew 16:18 correctly.

Whether St Peter is or isn't involved as rock in the first part, let's leave that aside. For this occasion, not for ever and always. Second part promises perpetuity of the Church.

Here is an explanation:

“…Upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” the Lord says here. What He was actually promising was first of all that death will never put an end to the church. Sometimes the enemies of Christ may think that the church will pass away as soon as the fanatics who now lead it die, but the Lord promises here that death cannot stop the Lord’s church. The gates of death will never swallow up the church. The church will always live and defy the power of death.

Secondly what the Lord is promising here is that the powers of Satan will not be able to terminate the church. The principalities and powers of hell will never be able to stamp out the churches of Jesus Christ .

The main point of this promise is clear. The ekklesia will not cease. The powers of death shall not close it down and the power of Satan and his workers shall not defeat it. Neither death nor Satan and his hosts will be able to stop churches from holding, preaching and maintaining the doctrines of Christ in His Word. Neither the grave nor Satan shall finally and totally gain victory over the church in this world.

Perfect. No Roman Catholic (or Greek Orthodox) could have said it better.

Next part:

The gates of hell shall not, shall not, SHALL NOT prevail against the church!

Look here, what tense are you using?

Future? Did the conversation at Caesarea Philippi take place this morning?

Sure, a future is implied in the words as given, and there is still certainly future left of it (Doomsday hasn't crowned Church Militant yet). But a bit less than two millennia of the promised future are already past.

For the promise to be true, we don't need to look only at "will Chuck Missler and Kim Clement have successors? are Trey Smith and Sid Roth still Christians?" but also back in time.

I saw someone claim "the great apostasy was universal, God restored His Church from that" and when I challenged him, "you cannot limit God".

I can hold God to His promise. And in context of when this was said, it doesn't mean something only for our future, but very clearly also for our past. God restoring His Church would be an oathbreaker belatedly summoned to keep a promise already previously broken. God is not like that.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Annunciation of Our Lady
25.III.2019

* Bethel Baptist Church : The Perpetuity of the Church
https://bbc-lawton.org/the-perpetuity-of-the-church/

"Sufficiency of Scripture"

I am in a rather unfortunate position, in so far that lots of people pray for me to get confronted with certain themes, without checking first whether I actually already adressed them, i e by writing me.

This could otherwise be arrange in different ways. On Latest on Antimodernism you have a widget to the right, it says "Formulaire de contact" and I believe any English speaker could figure out it means "contact form". On my correspondence blog, right up, you have a tab saying If you wish to correspond with me, which you click to get to a page of same title. Right on top of that page, I give a current email. Btw, if I should ever no longer have the lowest of the email adresses, the one not crossed over, accessible either, it probably means I haven't been able to update the blog after changing email, and might mean I am in captivity. So far, the email noted there (right now it is hgl@dr.com, sometime else it was hgl@voila.fr, but there are no more emails with adress voila.fr, if mail.com goes down - dr.com is an alias of them - it may be sth else in the future), works, I am getting spam, both scams and threats of exposing what needs no exposing because it is not true, but I am not getting mails of the type "I read you believe papacy was instituted by Christ, do you mean Christ wants us to bow down to a man who kissed the Koran" which I would obviously answer "Wojtyla was not a Pope, since he was not a Catholic". Instead, I am getting each day some new challenge which is very usually an old challenge. Something I already answered before. And so I spend time answering theology questions of diverse types 3, 4, 5 or even ten times over and over again, get a reputation for voluntarily concentrating on theology, while I am simply priorising that, if I get challenged, my faith, a gift from God, gets insufficient credit for my theological position being coherent, since man after man thinks it is incoherent and thinks he has the key to making it coherent by challenging me with one little detail and if he would win (which he usually wouldn't, I usually have already answered it), all the rest I wrote would fall down as a house of cards, if you remove one card strategically placed. Rather it is a well rooted tree. Now, one more item where you could challenge me in person instead of praying to God (or scheming with discrete trolls among FB friends or those able to recommend youtubes to me), that would be comment section under any given post.

But it seems some have colluded to try to give me the impression no one is reading me (which will not work when stats for blogs put together in all time say close to two million page views, which will not work when multiples of 21 are very frequent among the statistics, either for a post or for readers from a particular country), and directly adressing me would admit one is admitting I know I have readers. Some guys want that fun to go on.

However, today I actually got a challenge which is a bit new. II Timothy 3:17, last word in the Greek text. The word which translates "fully instructed" or "having finished instructions".

Therefore, I find it reasonable to do a fresh essay on Sufficiency of Scripture.

Now, C. S. Lewis once said, "grace vs works is a red herring, the real issue is the sacrifice of the Mass" or words to that effect. I'll be checking the exact wording with William O'Flaherty. I'd venture to add, "sufficiency" vs "insufficiency" of Scripture is a red herring.

First of all, while Trent condemned Sola Scriptura (Scripture without Tradition, Scripture without Magisterium) the words used are not saying "bc tradition contains salvific topics not covered at all in Scripture". Second, because Scripture being sufficient for one thing does not mean it is sufficient for another thing. Third, because Scripture being sufficient conditionally does not mean it is so absolutely, and fourth because Scripture being sufficient for one type of person doesn't mean it is so for another one.

Session IV. Concerning the Canonical Scriptures. First Decree. Celebrated on the eighth day of the month of April, in the year 1546.

And I am quoting the base line of Scriptures vs other authority, skipping the ensuing list of canonic writings:

The sacred and holy, ecumenical, and general Synod of Trent,--lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost, the Same three legates of the Apostolic See presiding therein,--keeping this always in view, that, errors being removed, the purity itself of the Gospel be preserved in the Church; which (Gospel), before promised through the prophets in the holy Scriptures, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, first promulgated with His own mouth, and then commanded to be preached by His Apostles to every creature, as the fountain of all, both saving truth, and moral discipline; and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles from the mouth of Christ himself, or from the Apostles themselves, the Holy Ghost dictating, have come down even unto us, transmitted as it were from hand to hand; (the Synod) following the examples of the orthodox Fathers, receives and venerates with an equal affection of piety, and reverence, all the books both of the Old and of the New Testament--seeing that one God is the author of both --as also the said traditions, as well those appertaining to faith as to morals, as having been dictated, either by Christ's own word of mouth, or by the Holy Ghost, and preserved in the Catholic Church by a continuous succession.

So, three authorities are enumerated, Scripture, Tradition of the Church, Magisterium of the Church, all coming from Apostles.

Does it say three are needed because one of them covers too little? No. And one of them, magisterium, is explicitly stated to be interpreting one of the others Scripture. That means, it is not covering different topics.

The decree concludes with one anathema:

But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, these same books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately despise the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema.[5] Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, this said synod, after having laid the foundation of the confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and defences it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.

The anathema is against those not receiving "the traditions aforesaid" on top of Scripture, but on those knowingly despising them, as per "and knowingly and deliberately despise the traditions aforesaid;" while it seems "and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition;" is to be taken with some latitude, since Vulgate has a Masoretic chronology, while Roman Martyrology for Christmas day had a mainly LXX based one, which is as the relevant parts of Scripture are contained in another edition, namely LXX.

Now, the second reason was ... Scripture being sufficient for one thing does not mean it is sufficient for another thing. Giving the finished instruction for all good works doesn't mean giving the basics, to get the basic dogmas right. As Newman observed, Scripture was not used to instruct in, but to confirm dogma. The point is, we do not think the Holy Ghost adressed a love letter in very simple words to the least of us in the totality of Scripture, we think He rather gave heretics who would not listen to the Church "sufficient rope to hang themselves" as the saying goes - but He also gave the Church sufficient proof the heretics had hung themselves. This means, the Bible is not suitable for beginners, some parts are, some parts definitely are not.

The third reason being because Scripture being sufficient conditionally does not mean it is so absolutely, the condition here being: if you comply with the Church as it has been around, if you have received instruction from the Church. Which brings us to fourth because Scripture being sufficient for one type of person doesn't mean it is so for another one. A "man of God" has been singled out for "every good work" and not just for the good works of believing, praying, receiving sacraments, doing your business in respect of ten commandments and love of God and neighbour. This ties in with the condition, since before you are singled out for every good work, you need to know the faith. St Ambrose was not yet baptised, as far as we can say, when he was elected bishop of Milan, but he was a very well instructed catechumen, not one who had just taken the first lessons.

But while this may be sufficient on the topic as such, I came across a blog post dealing with it. From the opposite point of view. Let me present what I am going to refute in some detail:

He Lives : Lesson 30: Trent’s Anathema on Sola Scriptura
http://helives.blogspot.com/2005/10/lesson-30-trents-anathema-on-sola.html

I will first quote the Westminster confession point quoted and say where precisely we differ:

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.

• 1) "either expressly" - we agree some things are expressly set down, but differ on which ones,
• 2) "or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced" - we say rather a probable consequence is sufficient, if the point be confirmed by tradition, though for some the necessary consequences are also available,
• 3) "unto which nothing at any time is to be added," - we agree totally as to God's counsel, only pastoral can be actually added, the depositum fidei is finished,
• 4) "whether by new revelations of the Spirit," - this is why Private Revelations are strictly subsidiary, must be checked with theologians to contain no Scriptural or doctrinal errors and can only be used as reminders or as special more specific pointers about current or (not always other thing) end times events;
• 5) "traditions of men" - we totally differ on Apostolic Tradition (singular, a corpus, to which the Bible belongs) being either "additions" or equivalent to "statutes of men" as Christ denounced some bad statutes of Pharisees, for which they set the law aside.

The analysis of II Tim 3, first text, then each verse analysis:

15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:15-17, NIV)

Verse 15 tells us that scripture is what we need to be "wise for salvation".

Scripture and nothing else? Actually not. It rather tells that (Old Testament) Scripture (the one familiar to Timothy from his infancy) is only conditionally able to make him (not necessarily everyone else directly, by the way, St Paul is noting a competence St. Timothy had) wise for salvattion, namely through faith in Christ Jesus. Rabbinic Jewry has basically the same Scriptures as St Timothy had known (leaving aside whether St Timothy knew II Maccabees or other), but it is not capable to make people wise for salvation if they do not have the faith in Christ Jesus.

Verse 16 tells us that Scripture is inspired (which implies inerrant).

Catholics agree. That is why I am Young Earth Creationist and Geocentric, believing in angelic movers. That is also why those not believing some of the more obvious ones, like Young Earth or Heaven being a place, are not Catholics, even if socially accepted as "Catholic clergy" : social acceptance is not everything, and definitely does not trump Biblical inerrancy.

Verse 17 tells us that it renders us thoroughly (not partially) equipped.

Not "us" in general, but our clergy, St Timothy being bishop of Ephesus. And thoroughly is correct, but on condition of having the right base. Human DNA will certainly lead to a man in a fertilised egg, which is within the mother's womb, but human DNA is not sufficient, the body plan, for example, is not in the DNA. One needs a human soul before the human DNA will make one human. Similarily, one needs a Christian (and not heretical) doctrine, before Scriptures will make one a thoroughly well equipped Christian (whether one has to be as "a man of God" or wants to be out of geeky interest, as I have in apologetics).

In Jude it is written:

Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints. (Jude 3, NIV)

The saints do not have to wait for further revelation. All that we need has been entrusted once and for all.

Meaning, it was delivered to his friends before that letter, as an oral tradition, right? Bc, if not, how can they consider the faith as being already before the writing delivered "once and for all"? But sure, we do agree on the once and for all part. We just differ on WHAT it was that was so delivered.

Here our scientific friend on "He Lives" blog continues:

Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. (John 21:25, NIV)

This verse is sometimes used to argue against Sola Scriptura. It is useless in that regard. I would love to know what Jesus did that was not recorded, but I don't need to know it. And if I did need to know it, all would be lost; for no council, synod, or pope will ever be able to tell me what these unrevealed acts were.

It does not state the acts were unrevealed. It states the acts were not written. The acts were part of the continuous revelation Christ was Himself in His Person to the Apostles and they are available, not by reconstruction, not by decision (though these may defend the availability) but by tradition.

Presenting Christ as a proponent of Sola Scriptura:

3 The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread." 4 Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" 5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 "If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: " 'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'" 7 Jesus answered him, "It is also written: 'Do not put the Lord your God to the test.'" 8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 "All this I will give you," he said, "if you will bow down and worship me." 10 Jesus said to him, "Away from me, Satan! For it is written: 'Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.'" (Matt. 4:3-10, NIV)

Here is the reasoning:

When refuting Satan, Jesus didn't appeal to tradition, or to the Pharisees, or even His own deity and infallible reason. Each and every time He quoted scripture. Even when Satan also used scripture (v 6), Christ trumped him with more relevant scripture.

That Satan used Scripture should warn us, in order to refute Him from Scripture, we need either very thorough knowledge of it or faith in Christ or both. Things St. Timothy had, and an umpteenth generation Protestant layman has not. Bc. Protestantism is not "faith in Christ". While we acknowledge private revelations given to individuals who themselves were ill equipped to refute Satan had it been he (yesterday we celebrated St. Bernadette Soubirous, the date on which the Blessed Virgin promised to make her happy in the next life, i e to make sure she came to Heaven), (and she was an illiterate girl of 14), we only accepted these after vetting by far weightier theologians than the ones given the privilege of seeing.

But more, this argument is in fact pretending to summarise an induction by a one instance incomplete induction.

The inductive conclusions ("what but Scripture can decide, for Jesus?") is as absent from NT as another one, by Pharisees ("who but God can forgive sins?") is absent from Old Testament. Yes, in each instance where sins are forgiven in the Old Testament, God is the one who forgives, and also the one who promises future forgiveness. But this forgiveness came through Jesus, and Jesus on the occasion when confronted with the said inductive conclusion specified, "the Son of Man can forgive sins". Using an inductive conclusion from Scripture is a dangerous thing.

But also, Jesus confronted with Satan, Jesus confronted with Pharisees and so on ... yes, He often appealed to Scripture. But he also appealed to tradition about the meaning of Scripture, even if that tradition happened to be already encoded in what belonged to OT canon as Scripture.

Matthew 12:[3] But he said to them: Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and they that were with him: [4] How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the loaves of proposition, which it was not lawful for him to eat, nor for them that were with him, but for the priests only? [5] Or have ye not read in the law, that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple break the sabbath, and are without blame?

So, about the law of "loaves of proposition" He appealed to the traditional example of King David. This as traditional, not original text, example of necessity trumping ceremonial law. Then, if they were to say Sabbath is higher dignity, since in Ten Commandments, He also proposed to them to read in the law ... a concept, which He summarised in words which are not found there. Moses did not verbatim state that priests break the sabbath, and he did also not verbatim state that they are without blame. Both are conclusions, not directly stated in the text. So, the induction actually gives a false conclusion, one not compatible with counterexamples actually found. In appealing to the actions of King David, He is appealing to actions of just men (known as such, in OT case from Scriptures) being a kind of "case law" about the written law of God. Since New Testament has a New Law, the Saints of the past (most of whom lived after NT was written in all books, by now) are also serving as its "case law".

Next, "He Lives" blogger is trying to prove Sola Scriptura from Tradition ... enter Sts Augustine and Cyril of Jerusalem:

In those teachings which are clearly based on scripture are found all that concerns faith and the conduct of life.

As proposed prooftext of sola scriptura, against tradition and magisterium as understood by Trent, fully answered if each teaching of tradition or of magisterium is "clearly based on scripture". Bc, what to a rhetoric mind like St Augustine passes for "clearly" may not imply that they also "by good and necessary consequence may be deduced" in strict logic. It may be sufficient, there is a "clear hint".

The two sentences where St. Cyril seems to endorse Sola Scriptura both show he is not thinking of all alternatives, just the alternative between Scriptural faithfulness and artful dialectic introducing novelty:

For concerning the divine and holy mysteries of the Faith, not even a casual statement must be delivered without the Holy Scriptures; nor must we be drawn aside by mere plausibility and artifices of speech.

By the words "drawn aside" aside, we can deduce he is not against all plausibility or all artifices of speech, but against those that draw aside from an indeed very Scriptures centred, but still even so tradition, to which he belonged.

For this salvation which we believe depends not on ingenious reasoning, but on demonstration of the Holy Scriptures.

Same here. If salvation depended on reasoning, we would obviously be obliged to follow reasoning whereever it currently led us, as most it might be ingenious, but St. Cyril is not banning ingenious reasoning as such. Also, he is saying salvation important topics may be demonstrated (this actually does involve ingenious or less ingenious, as the case may be, reasoning) from Scriptures but since the contrast was with "ingenious reasoning" or "mere plausibility and artifices of speech" he was simply not adressing the question into which you are trying to shoehorn his statement, for the Sola or for Trent.

Also, recall that Reformers made ample use of "mere plausibility and artifices of speech" insofar as they came up with a corpus of doctrine clearly not traditional, and pretended it was, on topic after topic supported by this or that statement in tradition. They, not the Fathers of Trent, were the ones trying to draw us aside.

Also, if we look at ingenious scholasticism (supposing it be faithful to tradition), let's recall, the example of Our Lord trumps a verbally more than substantially coherent conclusion from St. Cyril.

If tradition meant, as the Catholic Church the oral tradition handed down in an unbroken succession from the apostles, then our division would not be as great as it is. We would still argue against such tradition binding the conscience because of the problems associated with proving a claim of a unbroken succession. Nevertheless, I believe our differences would be manageable.

Here "He Lives" blogger touches what was probably also the stumbling block, on one occasion, for C. S. Lewis.

However, before we go into it, there is nothing problematic about proving that there was an unbroken succession of generations in the Church, there is therefore nothing problematic about proving an unbroken apostolic succession, since, whatever problem we may now have in proving who ordained St Irenaeus and how that leads back to Apostles laying hands on someone, this problem was not there to the Church in his time, and the continuity of the Church accepting him as bishop is a standin for the direct documentation he was duly ordained as one.

I have already adressed that one in this post:

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Hunnius Redivivus on Apostolic Succession
https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2019/02/hunnius-redivivus-on-apostolic.html

Speaking of which, that post was sent to "Ask the Pastor" and I have not received any reply mail.

Now, back to "Lesson 30":

In practice, however, sacred tradition is much more. It is whatever the Church says it is. How can one even claim that extra-scriptural Catholic doctrine such as purgatory, The Immaculate Conception, The Assumption, or papal infallibility (just to name a few) arrived as an oral tradition that can be traced back to the apostles?

How do you prove this is extra-Scriptural? How is Purgatory "extra-Scriptural" if there are sins one can be freed from after death, as implied by II Maccabees 12? Or if I Corinthians implies you can build on the right foundation (which would mean you are saved) but still need to feel the heat of a burning flame for having built straw and stubble on it?

How is "Immaculate Conception" extra-Scriptural if strictly implied by Genesis 3:14-15, supposing NT confirms She is the Woman?

How is Papal infallibility extra-scriptural if strictly implied by Papal supremacy (Matthew 16:19 "et dabo tibi claves") along with Church infallibility (1 Timothy 3:15 "the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.")?

If the Assumption is "extra-Scriptural" because it is a historic event after Acts, how are martyrdoms of Sts Peter and Paul not also "extra-Scriptural"? How can we then know they weren't scamming a few Romans and dying from obesity in luxurious retirement? Which would damage credibility of faith quite a lot, right? On the other hand, if we can believe the tradition of the Church they were in fact martyred, we can also believe it on the Assumption. Plus some, if not strict implications, at least very broad hints in Apocalypse 12.

King David eating of the loaves of proposition is similarily extra-Torahic, and while OT Scriptures were added after Torah, since Christ was the fulness of truth, NT Sccriptures are not added after the apostles who had known Christ left earthly existence. This means, we do depend on a Church history which is in one trivial respect in fact technically extra-Scriptural. So, why not for Assumption?

In fact, the only reason why the blogger perceives these as "extra-Scriptural" is, he is living his life and writing his blog from within the Protestant tradition. And, since it clearly traces back to 16th C. and not to Apostles, that one very clearly is traditions of men, or statutes of men.

Another problem is that sacred tradition is not always, well, traditional. For example, In 1559 Pius IV declared that widespread dissemination of the Scriptures is to be avoided in that it causes more harm than good. Vatican II changed this tradition, and now Rome calls for free-access to the Scriptures for all.

First of all, Vatican II is not Catholic.

Second, neither is per se a tradition claiming to be apostolic tradition, both are pastoral. Both are (insofar as Catholic, not the case of the latter) prudential decisions, binding our wills, not our beliefs.

And, unlike some other things from Vatican II, which initiated a Counter-Church, but that is another topic, this one is in the present case defensible.

Pius IV clearly had pastoral care for lots of Catholics who had very little overall education. To whom some basics of Catechism would suffice as Christian doctrine, and adding all of the Bible would have been top heavy, as it turned out with Puritan mentality. This is no longer so. Whoever is the true Pope and whereever the Church is, it contains mostly men who have been exposed to lots and lots of secular education. One can argue that in such a case massive raising of theological competence of Catholic masses, at least via free option, is needed, and this is also how things have been for a long time with English Catholics : since they were anyway obliged to live with people reading most of the Bible (66/72-73 books) and reading it wrong, they were encouraged to have Bibles with Catholic comments helping them to read it right (Challoner, Haydock).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Gabinus of Rome
19.II.2019

PS, due to someone giving me food which smells, I have been writing this getting hungrier and hungrier. God preserve me from being too angry, but somewhat angry I am, if not at the lady, at least those telling her to do so./HGL

PPS, I mentioned "Latest on Antimodernism" - here is an example of how it is useful:



On each widget, to each blog, here the one for this blog is shown, once a new post is published, the latest five links adapt. Here is once again a link to this blog, I also reminded of "contact form":

Latest on Antimodernism
http://l-o-antimodernism.blogspot.com/

PPPS, when I finished a second meal of ratatouille enriched with olives, pickled cucumbers and potatoes, and there is still left, and the fried chicken is left too, I noted there was an extra plastic bag, so things are less smelly now, and I am getting much less angry and hope God blesses my benefactor, still, I am handicapped by getting too much food, too little money, overall. Overeating, which I am basically forced to in order to not waste food, is not quite good for my either spiritual or bodily or even mental health./HGL

Claims on the Blessed Virgin Mary part II, XXXV to XXXX

List of claims

Quoted passage and specific claim list to it:

"Where did those beliefs come from? The Roman Catholic view of Mary has far more in common with the Isis mother-goddess religion of Egypt than it does with anything taught in the New Testament. Interestingly, the first hints of Catholic Mariology occur in the writings of Origen, who lived in Alexandria, Egypt, which happened to be the focal point of Isis worship."

• XXXV It is claimed that the view of the Blessed Virgin has much in common with the Isis worship and that this is more than it has with anything written in New Testament, while the role of Old Testament in Mariology is omitted.
• XXXVI It is left to imagination that the Mariology of Origen coming from Alexandria is supporting evidence for Catholic Mariology being Isis-worship.
• XXXVII It is omitted that Origen's Alexandria is where St Athanasius was defending Divinity of Christ, as also believed by Got Questions.
• XXXVIII It is omitted that Origen took his Mariology from typology of Old Testament.
• XXXIX It is omitted that Origen lived during the centuries of persecution, so, if Origen had mixed Isis-worship with Christianity, this mixture would have happened previous to promotion by Constantine and successors.
• XXXX It is thus omitted that Catholic Mariology begins in Early Church Fathers, since Origen is an ante-Nicene Father, shortly after Apostolic Fathers.

I had use for a beer and a steady meal before dealing with each of these singly:

• XXXV It is claimed that the view of the Blessed Virgin has much in common with the Isis worship and that this is more than it has with anything written in New Testament, while the role of Old Testament in Mariology is omitted.

Actually fairly obvious Biblical tenets of New Testament about Her, like Apocalypse 12 (even without concluding a kind of rapture) and flight to Egypt (Matthew 2:11-15 about going to Egypt and verses 16 to 18 about ill-deeds of Herod, and following verses about return) have at least slightly more in common with Isis and Horus worship than any theological conclusion or heavenly claim Catholics make about the Blessed Virgin.

Isis with Horus were fleeing from Seth, and Seth rampaged and went on ill-deeds.

And "queen of heaven" is a fairly imprecise claim, since it involves in the case of Mary being Mother of the King.

In case you'd like to reply "with Isis too", well Horus is the wrong "king of heaven."

• XXXVI It is left to imagination that the Mariology of Origen coming from Alexandria is supporting evidence for Catholic Mariology being Isis-worship.

One could as easily conclude Hebrews coming from Chanaan descend from Chanaanites - which some do conclude, and as Christians we know them wrong, unless you mean part of the people descend from some parts of Chanaaneans who did not get away or get killed.

• XXXVII It is omitted that Origen's Alexandria is where St Athanasius was defending Divinity of Christ, as also believed by Got Questions.

In other words, one could as well conclude that Watchtower Society of Pennsylvania were right in rejecting the main definition of Nicaea.

• XXXVIII It is omitted that Origen took his Mariology from typology of Old Testament.

In other words, one could as well conclude for Albigensians as not accepting any Old Testament, or for Jews who do not accept Old Testament typology and prophecy about Christ.

• XXXIX It is omitted that Origen lived during the centuries of persecution, so, if Origen had mixed Isis-worship with Christianity, this mixture would have happened previous to promotion by Constantine and successors.

In other words, there is a mixup in chronology in some readers minds, first Constantine legalised Christianity, they might imagine from what's been said, then Origen came along and provided some excuses for what Constantine already wanted.

Origen of Alexandria[a] (c. 184 – c. 253)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origen

He died c. 60 years before Ponte Milvio.

In c. 249, the Plague of Cyprian broke out.[89] In 250, Emperor Decius, believing that the plague was caused by Christians' failure to recognise him as Divine,[89] issued a decree for Christians to be persecuted.[89][11][88] This time Origen did not escape.[11][88] Eusebius recounts how Origen suffered "bodily tortures and torments under the iron collar and in the dungeon; and how for many days with his feet stretched four spaces in the stocks".[90][91][88] The governor of Caesarea gave very specific orders that Origen was not to be killed until he had publicly renounced in faith in Christ.[88] Origen endured two years of imprisonment and torture,[88] but obstinately refused to renounce his faith.[11][92] In 252, the emperor Decius was assassinated and Origen was released from prison.[88] Nonetheless, Origen's health was broken by the physical tortures enacted on him[11][93] and he died less than a year later at the age of sixty-nine.[11][93] A later legend, recounted by Jerome and numerous itineraries, places his death and burial at Tyre, but little value can be attached to this.[94]

In other words, not likely to comply with Constantine's wishes if he didn't already consider them quite Christian.

• XXXX It is thus omitted that Catholic Mariology begins in Early Church Fathers, since Origen is an ante-Nicene Father, shortly after Apostolic Fathers.

In other words, he (c. 184 – c. 253) was one generation after St. Clement of Alexandria (c. 150 – c. 215). And St. Clement was born (c. 150) before St Papias of Hierapolis, a Greek Apostolic Father, died (163 AD).

Very little is known of Papias apart from what can be inferred from his own writings. He is described as "an ancient man who was a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp" by Polycarp's disciple Irenaeus (c. 180).

A little early for things getting wrong in the Church, at least in men admired for exegetic skills afterwards.