Can a Catholic Say the Bible is Infallible?

Great Bishop of Geneva! Can a Catholic Say the Bible is Infallible? · Creation vs. Evolution: Would Tuas Libenter Condemn Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism Because of the Theologians who were Fine with Heliocentrism and Deep Time? · somewhere else: "God is Being Itself, Creationism Portrays Him as a Cause Among Others"

I had an essay to notify Karl Keating of, namely Agreement and Disagreement with Robert Sungenis. On his FB page, I found this statement:

Ortlund*, like most other Protestants, finds himself defaulting to the claim that the Bible itself is "infallible" because, for him and for them, there is nowhere else to look for the infallible interpretive authority that every Christian desires to rest under. Unfortunately, Ortlund's quest is futile because the Bible cannot be infallible because it is not an active agent. It is a static book, and books don't and can't make decisions.

Obviously, neither can much more recent books, like AAS. What about AAS 1950?

Or if AAS had existed back then, 1854?

Have Marian dogmas been defined, and can they be consulted on paper?

The paper is not an "active agent" but a static book, but it incorporates an infallible decision by Pope Pius IX and probably one by Pius XII.

The point is, God was inspiring every moment of the hagiographer's final writing. Not necessarily by dictation, but God was inspiring the decision to include or exclude certain topics, and God was inspiring whatever the hagiographer decided to say on the topic.

Does this become fallible after a certain time lapse? Has the Apostles' Creed become fallible because it is now 2000 years old? Or the Nicene Creed?

You see where I am going. The argument is useless, because it proves too much.

From same post:

You and I are fallible in all of our decision making. However correct a decision of ours might appear, there is a chance it is incorrect. Someone who is infallible in decision making (in Catholic theology that includes bishops meeting together in ecumenical councils and, rarely, popes teaching on their own)—such a group or individual is held to be incapable of making an incorrect decision in certain circumstances.

In Catholic doctrine that includes hagiographers when writing tas hagias graphas, the holy Scriptures.

Normally, given "under certain circumstances" the word "infallible" applies to statements.

One can discuss whether Pius XII infallibly defined a Marian dogma only by asking whether he was still Pope.** But one can ask whether, supposing the overall and bold style statement was infallible, he was also infallibly stating:

Quae quidem, singulari prorsus privilegio, immaculata conceptione sua peccatum devicit, atque adeo legi illi permanendi in sepulcri corruptione obnoxia non fuit, neque corporis sui redemptionem usque in finem temporum exspectare debuit.

And if so, whether the words "singulari prorsus privilegio" apply only to the first clause that follows (Immaculate conception is already known), or to all three?

Was it a totally singular privilege for Her to "not be obliged to that law of remaining in the corruption of the tomb"?

Does it (if so) refer to:

• being alone (except Christ) raised and lifted up to Heaven?
• being alone (except Christ) not corrupted while in the tomb?
• being alone (except Christ) recovered from corruption in the tomb?

Let's give him the benefit of the doubt he did not want to suggest the blasphemy She ever was corrupt. That's why I struck this out. But the two other ones would also be erroneous:

• Henoch and Elias will be raised from the dead and lifted up to Heaven prior to doomsday, since that event will cause the conversion of 7000 unbelievers, presumably Jews ... sorry, I may have recalled the verse badly, it reads as I consult it:
  
  And at that hour there was made a great earthquake, and the tenth part of the city fell: and there were slain in the earthquake names of men seven thousand: and the rest were cast into a fear, and gave glory to the God of heaven
  [Apocalypse (Revelation) 11:13]
  
  
• Or it could be taken as denoting that the Blessed Virgin was not in any way, shape or form close to dead, but was alive the moment before She was lifted up, there was no Dormition, probably erroneous, but see qualification about a private revelation.
• Even apart from Henoch and Elias not corrupting while dead, probably (I can't find that sentence as I consult the DR), there are incorrupt saints.

The only way for "singulari prorsus privilegio" to be true is, if it applies only to the first of the subsequent phrases, namely about the Immaculate Conception. And that one really is true. Not just was she immaculately conceived, but by that fact she vanquished sin, and its author even, as we can glean from "blessed among women" being basically a military award.

Now, the point is, no Catholic theologian will ever doubt that Pius IX infallibly defined the Immaculate Conception, it would be few who questioned whether Munificentissimus Deus is an infallible papal statement (I know none but myself), but there are definitely two views on whether Syllabus Errorum by Pius IX or Lamentabili sane exitu by Pope St. Pius X are infallible. Hence, very clearly, "infallible" does apply to statements, not just to people. St. Pius X had the charism of infallibility, he exercised it on occasion of canonising St. Clement Maria Hofbauer, did he also exercise it in Lamentabile sane exitu? Did he delegate it to Fulcran Vigouroux when the latter stated Day Age theory was OK (but he didn't state it obliged)? There is one group of statements of which all Catholics will preeminently agree that they are all infallible, that being the statements in the Bible. With their strict implications. A smaller collection are obviously the statements and implications of the Canon Missae. But even as quickly as the Martyrology, we have divergence. Could "Paul VI" reform it? Was it even moderately OK to exclude Sts Barbara and Christopher, if only temporarily? What about St. Philomena? Her story is from an anonymous saint in the catacombs and a private revelation.

Speaking of which, if Pius XII did intend to define away Her Dormition, this could be a way to consider a private revelation as confirmed by his (if any) papal authority. That way also "singulari prorsus" could be true, since a private revelation could trump historic traditions about an event.

You can also quibble about whether, supposing Fulcran Vigouroux did wield the infallibility of St. Pius X in 1909, the response to Q VIII was an infallible or disciplinary response. If it was a doctrinal infallible response, there would not have been much use to confirm the part of the question*** whether exegetes were free to freely discuss it. If we knew that Day Age was dogma, we would, and even exegetes would not not be free to discuss in favour of literal days. But even so, FSSPX in the US district have started to treat the statement "only literal six days without a gap (or one moment creation) can now do justice both to theology and scientific evidence" as equivalent to rebellion against the infallible authority of St. Pius X.

In other words, it is more important to know what statements are infallible than to know who wields infallibility as a charism. And in that sense, infallibility can definitely apply to a book.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Michael's Feast
29.IX.2024

In monte Gargano venerabilis memoria beati Michaelis Archangeli, quando ipsius nomine ibi consecrata fuit Ecclesia, vili quidem facta schemate, sed caelesti praestans virtute.

* It's from a public post. A comment left under a video by Gavin Ortlund, that one being "the Protestant Canon Problem" ...
** Munificentissimus Deus was November 1, after Humani Generis, August 12.
*** sive sensu proprio pro die naturali, sive sensu improprio pro quodam temporis spatio, deque huiusmodi quaestione libere inter exegetas disceptare liceat?

A Point About Certain Protestant Fundamentalists

Great Bishop of Geneva! A Point About Certain Protestant Fundamentalists · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Some People Really Can't Relate to a Catholic Convert

now [4:42] here's something interesting every group [4:45] I left said my stretching was [4:47] backsliding every group I came to said [4:50] my stretching was growth

Stan Mitchell on the David Moses Perez show, on the video:

Those Who Think They Haven't Deconstructed Their Faith Actually Have Also | Stan Mitchell
David Moses Perez | Iconoclast Podcast | 16 May 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWaZVoF-UEo

I can state with perfect confidence, that kind of narrowness was never the point of my Fundamentalism, even back when I was a child unbaptised of Evangelical convictions. I was YEC, am still. I believed the Devil seduced Adam through Eve, in the shape or with the manipulation of a snake, do still. I believed people get possessed and that Jesus drove demons out, do still.

I was allergic to suggestions that Mormons, 7DA, Catholics would not make it to Heaven. Part of my dissatisfaction with Luther came, later on, finding that he actually believed Catholics (he had been one) were going to Hell for Catholic positions.

The Catholic doctrine I have had the hardest time with is probably Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus.

While converting, I could say to still Lutheran friends and acquaintances, they'd be better off, better assured of salvation if converting. I didn't tell them "if you don't convert, you are going to Hell" ... the closest I came to saying such a thing back in Sweden was telling an ex-employer who tried his best (or worst) at being a mentor for me, "if a non-Catholic is neither excused by ignorance, nor by stupidity, and remains non-Catholic, he's going for Hell, I can't guarantee you belong to the exceptions" ...

Anyone who imagines he can do any kind of combat against Fundamentalism in me by showing "that non-Catholic is a decent fellow"(1) or "that non-Fundie seems to be decently Catholic" (2) is wasting his time, if he expects me to change my mind. He's also wasting my time if he puts all my projects into a shoe box as long as I don't change my mind. Certain kinds of administration against certain kinds of clientele could have that power, and if that's the case, I resent it.

Those who would totally endorse my Fundamentalism, if it were instead on the Evangelical / Unitarian / Jewish / Muslim side, and not the Catholic one, equally. If they want to be a sparring partner, fine. If they want to be a mentor, it makes me puke.

In fact, anyone who finds it problematic, either that I am Catholic or that I am Fundie, that should remain his problem. I resent if he tries to make it mine.

But there is a real point, faith is faith if it is itself, there are limits outside which it is no longer so. I'm (usually) far more generous about what the limits could be for a particular person (except when he has endorsed an obvious impiety)(3), than about what they are in dogma and in doctrines that could be usefully erected into dogma.

The people who are combatting my Fundamentalism (yes, they exist), like those combatting my Catholicism (yes, they also exist), may imagine they are doing me some kind of favour. For instance if I were convinced everyone except myself or other adherents of Pope Michael II were going to Hell, and it caused me anguish over people I genuinely liked. They are not doing me that favour. That kind of narrowness never was my point. But once they start trying to impose that favour, they also cease to be people I genuinely like.

Equally, some might pretend that:

• I'm homosexual
• my Christianity causes me to reject my homosexuality
• I entertain myself with forlorn hopes about homosexual men being able to decide to marry a woman anyway, but somehow never seem to make it
• so, the best thing possible for me would be to make me ditch the Fundamentalist reading of Bible or Church Tradition saying sodomy is mortal sin, and accept myself as homosexual.

The reality is very different:

• I am heterosexual
• I am bullied by people who find some excuse to consider me homosexual
• I don't change what they would consider as criteria between homosexuality and heterosexuality (4)
• and I don't get a wife because girls don't like to put themselves in the way of bullies and partly because some of them have believed the liars.

Everyone who participates in an intrigue to remake my faith so I can accept myself as homosexual is in reality participating in this bullying. And the one person who's unlikely to get saved from sin and Hell as long as they continue is myself. Plus whoever of them is not a complete idiot having the excuse of folly before God's eyes. Given their tactics, that's at least some.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Pius X
3.IX.2024

(1) Erik Manning would be an example. So would Ken Ham.
(2) Trent Horn and Jimmy Akin are both examples, except when speaking on (i e against) YEC.
(3) I called John Bergsma and Scott Hahn out for their view on Genesis 9, after writing a refutation of an identical view here:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Bad Theology Pushed, Good Theology Rejected (Noah's Drunkenness)
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/08/bad-theology-pushed-good-theology.html

(4) To some anti-Catholics, confessing to priests, or believing one should do so, praying the rosary, or believing one should do so, fasting or abstaining on Fridays or believing one should do so, saving oneself for marriage could come off as "effeminate" ... to some Conservatives basically Neo-Stalinist, believing young teens can marry and young marriages shouldn't be stamped as pedophilia "proves" I am really a pedophile and according to their version of Freudian analysis, that means I am homosexual. To some machists, chosing writing as a trade or composing music of the Mozart type rather than of the rock type exposes me as a faggot. This can probably be more potent with Russians (who recall Chaikovsky) than with Germans (who recall Johann Sebastian Bach. To some machists and anti-Catholics, any clothing outside the most generically masculine contemporary is, on a male, cross dressing, whether it's a Dominican's habit or my capuche, my mente or my breeches.

What Does "Being in Babylon" Mean? Being Invisible Only Church? No.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Joe on Judas · A Protestant End Times Theologian (Good on End Times, at least moderately, Bad on Church History and Ecclesiology) · Great Bishop of Geneva! What Does "Being in Babylon" Mean? Being Invisible Only Church? No.

But that is unfortunately what this fan site for the Reformation (yes, they spell it with an R, I think a D is more appropriate), is telling their readers:

The Reformation Messenger January 2014
Does God have a Visible Church on This Earth?
https://www.imsmessenger.org/january-2014/does-god-have-a-visible-church-on-this-earth/

As far back as Martin Luther, Christians have recognized that God has an invisible church which consists of members from all Christian churches, because there are faithful members in all communions, including that of Rome. They have accepted Christ as their personal Saviour, and they are counted as His people. Therefore, in Revelation 18:4, in the time of the end, and this is that time, the call is made, “Come out of her (Babylon) My people.” Many of God’s people are still in Babylon; they belong to God’s invisible church. At the time of the “Loud Cry” of Revelation 18:4, they will come out and join God’s visible remnant church.

I suggest, this is wrong. In the end times, the visible Church is divided, one part is faithful to Apostolic Tradition, another part compromises with the Scarlet Beast and with a Babylonian counterfeit of the Church. But both parts are visible.

It's not the Remnant Church that is new. It is the part compromised in Babylon that is new.

And all this time, there is a visible Church, going back to the Apostles.

Luther is not unique or even very original in making a distinction between the visible Church, where some members are going to Hell, and an invisible ... to St. Augustine, it would be Platonic Archetype ... consisting of every soul that will be saved or already is finally saved.

What makes Luther special, however, and it may go back to Wycleff or Hus, is the idea that the invisible Church is sufficient to take care of the promise of indefectibility.

Here are two Biblical references to indefectibility, one from the OT, one from the NT:

The stream of the river maketh the city of God joyful: the most High hath sanctified his own tabernacle God is in the midst thereof, it shall not be moved: God will help it in the morning early
[Psalms 45:5-6]

Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world
[Matthew 28:19-20]

The first one promises indefectibility either of Israel or of a legitimate successor of Israel. We Catholics believe that to be the Church and that this is also promised in Matthew 28.

Both repeats of this promise are also tied to God claiming all power. (Matthew 28:18 as God in the flesh, and before that Psalm 45:11, before His incarnation).

Now, Luther admitted indefectibility, which Catholics were using to criticise his ecclesiology, and he responded by claiming it is the invisible Church that is indefectible.

There is some logic to this. The invisible Church is made up of only souls that go to Heaven, and therefore each soul is (ultimately) indefectible, and therefore their communion is indefectible. But there is a deep problem with this.

1. The promise itself involves a command of teaching all nations, and teaching authorities have to be visible;
2. This is even underlined elsewhere in the NT, namely for instance:
   
   

   You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house
   [Matthew 5:14-15]

The Church is visible, because the Church gives light to the world, and God is not putting that light under a bushel. We can imagine the Devil might want to put it under a bushel, but he is weaker than God.

And "a city seated on a mountain" also involves another cross-reference, namely to a Church built on a rock:

And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven
[Matthew 16:18-19]

The visibility of the Church is therefore promised as "upon this rock I will build my church" in parallel with "a city seated on a mountain" and when it comes to a towing match between God and the Devil about putting the light under a bushel:

1. God does not intend to put it under a bushel (Matthew 5:15)
2. The Devil and all his counsels (the gates of a city being where the counsel thereof is taken) will not prevail to put it under a bushel (Matthew 16:18).

Meanwhile, next verse in Matthew 16 shows another reason why the Church has to be visible: it has offices and officers. You cannot obey the keeper of the keys if you cannot identify him by visibility. That's one reason Pope Michael II says against "Boniface IX" who is not openly acting as a papal claimant. That's one reason Pope Michael I back in his time had against the "Pope in Red" or "Siri was Pope" thesis, since Giuseppe Siri did not openly claim to be Pope (at least after the purported at first acceptance of papal office in the conclave).

Is this reason for a visible Church also parallelled by other loci? Yes.

And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
[Matthew 18:17]

As the context is about conflicts, this is not just the Church teaching, but also deciding, like an officer of some kind of justice or jurisdiction decides a case. So, it is a perfect parallel to Peter getting the keys. Indeed, in Catholic theology, this is a good case for when the "power of the keys" is used in the life of the Church.

The people who are told to get out of Babylon in Apocalypse 18 are already visibly Catholics. It is just that they have compromised their Catholicity in a sinful relation with the spiritual darkness of Babylon (Modernist Anglicanism comes to mind as a candidate) and a manipulative as well as sinful relation with The Scarlet Beast (Communism comes to mind as a candidate). Meanwhile, full Catholicity without such compromise is found the other side of a very recent split within Catholicism.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Decapitation of St. John
the Baptist
29.VIII.2024

Decollatio sancti Joannis Baptistae, quem Herodes circa festum Paschae decollari praecepit. Ipsius tamen memoria solemniter hac die colitur, qua venerandum ejus caput secundo inventum fuit; quod, postea Romam translatum, in Ecclesia sancti Silvestri, ad Campum Martium, summa populi devotione asservatur.

Who Was Berthier?

In the Haydock commet, on Psalm 13 (which some consider as 14), I encounter the words of one Berthier.

Who was he? I'll trust good old wiki on it:

Guillaume-François Berthier (7 April 1704 – 15 December 1782) was a Jesuit professor and writer, tutor of the French Dauphin's sons, and librarian of the court library.

Anything more in particular?

Berthier was one of the authors of the multi-volume Histoire de l'église Gallicane, which was started by Jacques Longueval. In 1745 he was appointed editor of the influential Jesuit periodical the Journal de Trévoux, holding the post until 1762 and doing much to expand the circulation. Because of his powerful opposition to the infidel "encyclopédistes" he was bitterly attacked, especially by Voltaire.

Hmm, no friend of Voltaire! Sounds good!

After his death several of his works were published by Father de Querbuef: (1) A translation of the Psalms with notes (8 vols.); this was often reprinted. (2) Five volumes on Isaiah. (3) Five volumes of "Réflexions Spiritualles."

Pretty obviously, this translation and especially notes are notes that were cited in the Haydock comment. So, let's get to it.

First, verse 1 of Psalm 13, not in Berthier's French, but in Douay / Rheims / Challoner's English:

1 Unto the end, a psalm for David.

The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God.

They are corrupt, and are become abominable in their ways: there is none that doth good, no not one.

Now, anyone who knows anything of Evangelical Protestantism is well aware what they will make of it, especially the last words. The T of the black Doordrecht TULIP. The first point of "five point Calvinism", Total corruption.

What does Berthier have to say?

St. Paul (Romans iii.) proves from this text, and Isaias lix. 7, that all stand in need of grace and faith, and cannot be saved either by the law of nature or of Moses. But it does not follow that faith alone will save, or that the most just are still wicked, as Calvin and Beza falsely expound the Scriptures. For the prophets speak of those who were not yet justified, teaching that all mankind were once in sin, and could not be justified but by Christ. At the same time, they assert that, when they are justified, they must serve justice to bear fruit, and obtain happiness, Romans vi. These points are well explained by St. Augustine: (de Sp. et lit. i. 9.) "The just are justified freely by his grace," not by the law or will; though this is not effected without the will, &c. The same holy doctor (c. 27) observes, that the just do not live free from all venial sins, and yet remain in the state of salvation; while the wicked continue in the state of damnation, though they do some good works. (Worthington)

So, the observation is about the state of the unredeemed, as the prior words give to understand, these ones: "The fool hath said in his heart: There is no God."

And on top of that, "does good" as denied does not mean "does some good," which they do, it means "does consistently, habitually, good" ...

Wait, the above quote was from Worthington. Now, the actual just adjacent quote from Berthier is this one:

Some explain this of mankind in general, as all are born in sin. David refers also to actual and habitual sinners. (Berthier)

So, Berthier agrees that it is not about man as justified. But prior to justification.

Who was Worthington? Probably one of two Thomas Worthington, namely either

Thomas Worthington, D.D. (1549 at Blainscough Hall, near Wigan, Lancashire - possibly 1627, at Biddulph Hall, Staffordshire) was an English Catholic priest and third President of Douai College.

or else

Thomas Worthington (1671−1754), was a Dominican friar and writer. He received his education in the college of the English Jesuits at St. Omer. In 1691, he entered the Dominican Order at the convent of Bornhem in Flanders, and in the following year he made his solemn confession as a member of the order. He was ordained priest at Rome in 1695, and went afterwards to the college of St. Thomas Aquinas at Louvain, where he became successively professor of philosophy, theology, and sacred scripture. ...

Either way, let's agree with Berthier and the Thomas Worthingtons, not with heretics like Calvin and Beza!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Sts Paul and Juliana,
brother and sister, martyrs
17.VIII.2024

Ptolemaide, in Palaestina, passio sanctorum Martyrum Pauli, ejusque sororis Julianae Virginis; qui ambo, sub Aureliano Imperatore, cum in Christi confessione permanerent immobiles, jussi sunt variis et dirissimis tormentis affligi ac tandem capite obtruncari.

Ptolemaide = in Acre. sub Aureliano Imperatore = under this guy

Blunder, Gendron!

New blog on the kid: Refutation of Dr. Steven Nemes · I Heard the Cardinal Zen had Taken on Michael Lofton · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Michael Lofton on Marcel Lefebvre, Me on Both and on Pope Michael · Sola Scriptura is NOT My Position · Michael Lofton Responded to Cardinal Zen · Great Bishop of Geneva! Blunder, Gendron!

When I on a previous occasion tried to notify Mike Gendron on a reply to him, I somehow got myself subscribed to his newsletter. Today a paragraph just jumped out at me, there being so much wrong with it.

There is No Higher Authority than God and His Word

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16). In other words, Scripture is our supreme authority for knowing truth and correcting all that opposes it. Every word was breathed out by God, who cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18). Because of this, His inerrant Word must be the standard by which we discern truth from error (1 John 4:6). We also know that Scripture is sufficient to function as the sole infallible rule of faith, because it does not refer us to any other source for truth. Everything we must know, understand, and believe to be saved is found in Scripture (2 Tim. 3:14-16; 1 Cor. 15:1-4). Therefore, after considering any other source for truth, we must ask, "But what does the Scripture say?" (Gal. 4:30).

Let's pick it apart.

There is No Higher Authority than God and His Word

Correct so far. At least in what he says, if not in what he leaves a typical Protestant to imagine.

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness" (2 Tim. 3:16).

No quarrel with St. Paul.

In other words, Scripture is our supreme authority for knowing truth and correcting all that opposes it.

Or at least a very important part of the supreme authority.

Every word was breathed out by God, who cannot lie (Hebrews 6:18). Because of this, His inerrant Word must be the standard by which we discern truth from error (1 John 4:6).

Or at least a very important part of this standard.

We also know that Scripture is sufficient to function as the sole infallible rule of faith, because it does not refer us to any other source for truth.

No, this is a huge blunder.

It refers to both Magisterium and Tradition. Multiple times.

Everything we must know, understand, and believe to be saved is found in Scripture (2 Tim. 3:14-16; 1 Cor. 15:1-4). Therefore, after considering any other source for truth, we must ask, "But what does the Scripture say?" (Gal. 4:30).

II Tim. 3, I think 14—16 means what we consider 15—17, but I'll quote 14—17 for good measure.

14 But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.

16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17 That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.

The Old Testament Scriptures indeed instruct to salvation, but by the faith which is in Christ Jesus, i e by the Tradition of the New Testament. Notice in the verse we call 14, St. Paul does not remind St. Timothy about "in what book" but "from whom" he had learned.

I Cor 15, "according to scripture" is not a direct describer of the Gospel, but of the events in it, namely describes that they were prophecied in OT Scripture.

1 Now I make known unto you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you have received, and wherein you stand; 2 By which also you are saved, if you hold fast after what manner I preached unto you, unless you have believed in vain. 3 For I delivered unto you first of all, which I also received: how that Christ died for our sins, according to the scriptures: 4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, according to the scriptures:

If we want to include NT Scripture, it's not the Calvary and Resurrection accounts, it's Christ foretelling these events. The point being that the event matched the foretelling.

For Galatians 4, it can seem as if this quotemine were a straight appeal to Scripture on the exact same topic, taken in the literal sense. In fact, if we look at verse 30 in context, it is an appeal to typology, and "But what does the Scripture say?" simply means "you recall the story, right?" — a story for which St. Paul provides, in oral tradition to Galatians and in Epistle to them, the typological key:

21 Tell me, you that desire to be under the law, have you not read the law? 22 For it is written that Abraham had two sons: the one by a bondwoman, and the other by a free woman. 23 But he who was of the bondwoman, was born according to the flesh: but he of the free woman, was by promise. 24 Which things are said by an allegory. For these are the two testaments. The one from mount Sina, engendering unto bondage; which is Agar: 25 For Sina is a mountain in Arabia, which hath affinity to that Jerusalem which now is, and is in bondage with her children.

26 But that Jerusalem, which is above, is free: which is our mother. 27 For it is written: Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not: break forth and cry, thou that travailest not: for many are the children of the desolate, more than of her that hath a husband. 28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 29 But as then he, that was born according to the flesh, persecuted him that was after the spirit; so also it is now. 30 But what saith the scripture? Cast out the bondwoman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman.

31 So then, brethren, we are not the children of the bondwoman, but of the free: by the freedom wherewith Christ has made us free.

Jews have exactly the same story about Isaac and Ishmael in Genesis, but they would deny the interpretative tradition of OT which comes with Christianity.

And while we are at it, it's not just the parts explicitly given such allegoric or typological interpretations in NT texts, it's all of the OT. Jesus gave the disciples of Emmaus a lesson in OT exegesis, Luke 24:

25 Then he said to them: O foolish, and slow of heart to believe in all things which the prophets have spoken.

26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and so to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him. 28 And they drew nigh to the town, whither they were going: and he made as though he would go farther. 29 But they constrained him; saying: Stay with us, because it is towards evening, and the day is now far spent. And he went in with them.

So, Jesus spends hours walking with them and goes through all of the OT books in all parts. It says "in all the scriptures" and "Moses and all the prophets" ... here is one big source of truth mentioned in Scripture and more than just once, namely Jesus' oral teaching to His disciples — including a complete Christological typology, or in St. Paul's word "allegory" ... while in the NT texts we only see parts of it.

So, Jesus and Paul gave oral teaching. This, as to the content side is Tradition. But as to the authority side, it's Magisterium. Jesus is in the Vulgate several times over called Magister, and St. Paul in the quote given indirectly designates himself as the Magister of St. Timothy.

A charge he held from Jesus, through the twelve, through the disciples in Antioch (Acts 13). A charge Timothy held from him. A charge faithful bishops in communion with the true pope hold from such people.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St. Elisabeth of Portugal
8.VII.2024

Were All Churches Started on Pentecost AD 33?

In a very long video, which I will not link to as long as I'm only answering this point, perhaps later if I go through all of it, a Catholic meme was attacked. Here is first the Catholic meme:

"If you are Methodist, your Church was founded in 1784 by John Wesley
If you are Anglican, your Church was founded in 1534 by Henry VIII / Cranmer
If you are Lutheran, your Church was founded in 1522* by Martin Luther
If you are Orthodox, your Church was founded in 1053** by Michael Caerularius.
If you are Catholic, your Church was founded in 33 by Jesus Christ"

Here is their response.

"The correct answer to when your Church was founded is: in 33 by Jesus Christ"

Explanation:

"Every Church that proclaims the Gospel was founded on Pentecost in 33"

It's a statement that makes lot of sense from a non-denominational denomination's view. If you are two men and you are a Methodist and a Presbyterian, you may not be able to go to each other's communion. There is a real excommunication in the sense that they are not the same denomination, each claims his denomination is at least the best approximation to the correct one, the one of 33. This is not totally true even for Presbyterians and Methodists any more, but the point is, it is definitely sth which the non-denominational ones try to avoid. There may be more ad hoc excommunications, over recent matters, but there is usually none over matters a few centuries old ... except against Catholics and Orthodox.

They may be very Catholic positive at least when it comes to cradle Catholics, but they would often enough try to dissuade someone to convert to Catholicism.***

So, this means, in some way, they actually do excommunicate Catholics and Orthodox.

And this exception is of course a very marginal thing to them. Not the kind of people they usally think of. A little like odd-balls. So, in the main, they aren't much about excommunication.

Nevertheless, this excommunication against Catholicism, if not cradle Catholics, is still a fact. And given there is in fact an excommunication, there also is a ground for asking if the answer actually makes sense.

You see, in AD 500 or 700, you are not likely to find non-denominationals. You are likely to find people who, apart from your romanticisation of St. Patrick or the Culdees, pretty much would have fallen into the Catholic camp. Their position makes sense only if the Reformation never took place. But it took place.

That's why they put in a conditional clause "it if proclaims the Gospel" ... meaning, they usually consider Catholicism doesn't do that.

And that puts to a question another matter. WHAT do they believe is the Gospel? If it is "justification is not from previous works" ... Catholicism says that too. If Catholicism proclaims the Gospel, and they don't care about excommunications, why not be Catholics?

If it is about "nor from any willingness to subsequent works, nor does it involve such willingness" (you could already be justified while not at all desiring to walk in Christ), that's more a stance of Luther and of Calvin, than usually theirs. In fact, their typical stance on this tends to agree with Catholicism against the Reformers.

But often, they will take some cue to find a way to blame Catholics for "works salvation" or for making one's salvation on some level depend on one's own work, as if that were necessarily in contradiction with "not from works" ... they will often very much laud someone for speaking about "walking in Christ" and also very much blame someone for saying "in the state of sanctifying grace, you can and you need to do meritorious works" ... even though on a basic level these phrases mean the same thing.

Perhaps it's about the theological fine print, and in that case, they aren't as non-denominational as they pretend.

Or perhaps it's because they think ill of the kind of works Catholics do. Giving money to beggars. Praying the rosary. Receiving the sacraments. And why not Friday abstinence and fasting?

Or, isn't baptismal regeneration making salvation depend on a human act? Well, from the side of the one receiving, no, he isn't working, he is receiving. And from the side of the one baptising, he's normally supposed to already be justified. Because of that, and because of his ministry and because baptism is part of everyone's ministry in a case of urgene, he can work as a tool of Christ working in and through his acts.

Perhaps their most queezyness about Roman Catholicism is, we teach, even a minister in mortal sin, can give a sacrament. God has so tied himself to certain acts by prpomise that if the conditions He stipulated are fulfilled, the sacrament and God's grace is there for the one receiving, even if the minister has shut off God from his own soul.

Or perhaps it is the insistance that even socially accepted sins can shut you off from God, so that a minister you would respect is in fact in mortal sin.

Or perhaps it is the insistance that this situation happens more frequently with sex than with alcohol. Getting tipsy is not mortal, flirting with a divorcee, let alone "marrying" her, is.

Anyway, when the non-denominational gets across this thing in Catholicism, he suddenly remembers, he does excommunicate some things. And if he excommunicates Catholicism, and Catholicism was, and he wasn't, around in 500 and 700 AD, well, then he has proven himself on the wrong side of the excommunication. Matthew 28:13—20 are very clear that this system cannot be the Church Christ founded or even a Church that Christ founded, if it was not there in 500 AD or in 700 AD, or even worse wasn't there in either year. And how he reacts to Catholicism shows, he's not considering it a small matter, like what shape we attribute to the Tower of Babel° and he's also not considering it a matter of free choice, as between Latin and Byzantine rite.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Médard of Noyon
8.VI.2024

Apud Suessiones, in Galliis, natalis sancti Medardi, Episcopi Noviomensis; cujus vita et mors pretiosa gloriosis miraculis commendatur.

* Let's be accurate, in 1517, Luther was as yet only very strongly Jansenist, he founded Lutheranism only while "reforming" the parish in Wittenberg.
** I am well aware that Orthodox invert the last two.
*** Both was pretty true of my mother, when at 16 I told her I was converting. I really had to find answers if only for that reason.
° My take, Nimrod never got around to actually building the rocket, he was always preparing take off ramps, or if he really wanted to make a sky-scraper rather than a rocket, he never got it any height, but was always trying to broaden the base with more pods. Based on how Göbekli Tepe looks.

There Was a Time ... Social Networks were Stabler, and Internet Did Not Exist

I am not trying to assess here whether there is a connexion and which way it goes or if it goes both ways. I am just saying the two have changed the deal when Catholics interact with Protestants.

1924. Catholic on a workplace meets Protestant on a workplace. BOTH probably intend to stay working there. NEITHER probably envisages to quit his job or push the other one out of his job over a religious dispute. BOTH have families to feed, and both priorise this over any kind of missionary duty.

They come to chat over religion. Protestant will say a thing. Catholic will give a simple response.

If the Protestant is at least moderately satisfied, the Catholic thinks he has done his duty, the friendship continues, the question is probably out of the way, for next year, and in the best case scenario the Protestant ends up so satisfied that he converts.

If the Protestant thinks it's baloney, they will probably like each other less, tend to avoid each other a bit more, outside tasks where they are forced together.

Either way, it's not a complete waste of time if the Catholic gives a very superficial answer, though one that satisfies himself. The Protestant won't be a supernerd of amateur theology either. So, while it makes some shortcuts and is not completely true, the Catholic can say "the canon of the Bible was decided at Trent" ... since then, this has backfired longterm into Protestants believing this is all there is to the Catholic teaching. If the Catholic isn't claiming that Tobit or II Maccabees was canon in 1500, the Protestant can get away with saying "II Maccabees was added to the canon in the Council of Trent" as Frank Turek did.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Turek Ill-Informed on More than One Controversy Around S. C. "Apocrypha"
Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 8:29 AM Tuesday, April 23, 2024
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/04/turek-ill-informed-on-more-than-one.html

My point from that debate is, it pays if the Catholic knows the Fourth Century councils in Rome, Hippo and Carthage. Not just Trent. It pays if the Catholic can say "you got the actual back and forth between Sts Augustine and Jerome wrong, the latter complied by obedience" rather than be totally fallen from the skies by learning Jerome actually opposed their canonicity. It pays if the Catholic can mention St. Jerome didn't just obey St. Augustine as a superior, potentially quasi boss, but obeyed him bc he represented "the bishops" ... (St. Augustine had arguably known all about the synod of Hippo, where he was as yet a monk, not yet ordained, not yet consecrated bishop).

Similar things are true on other controversies we can have over Old Church issues.

Protestant

The Catholic Church didn't exist in AD 33. It was founded in the Fourth Century by Constantine.

Catholic

That's not true. St. Sylvester was the 33rd Pope, starting with St. Peter.

Is it correct as far as it goes? Yes, far more than saying "we had no Bible canon prior to Trent" ...

But does it miss something? Yes, it does that too. Not too bad between two regular blokes on their work in 1924. But it can spell disaster between two blokes on the internet if the Protestant is geekier than that.

So, what exactly does it miss? What would a Protestant answer to such a thing?

Protestant, A

Gavin Ortlund

There was no monarchic episcopacy in Rome, for much of the time. Or anywhere. Jerome admits monarchic episcopacy is a later expedient.

Protestant, B

Ruckman (while he lived)

Sylvester was a heretic and a schismatic. Cornelius was selling out Christian purity and the real Christian Church at this time was often called Novatianism because of his righteous opponent, the rightful pastor in Rome. Sylvester was part of the bastard line started by Cornelius.

Protestants A, B and C

C = Frank Turek

You are aware that Popes had no universal jurisdiction pretensions prior to 500—600 AD or so?

I think it is pretty useful to be able to answer that kind of thing as well. So, I'll try to provide a Catholic answer to each.

Catholic on A

The evidence supposed to be against monarchic episcopacy (as I recall Gavin) can have to do with a tendency of actual wielders of monarchic authority in Rome to step behind assemblies of council.

For instance, if Caesar Nero wanted a law, it is pretty shrewd to guess, the law would not state "Caesar Nero decreed" but "the Senate and the People of Rome decreed" ...

If Gavin would like to invoke details about I and II Clement, perhaps this pope was simply following this Roman custom?

In many sees outside Rome, it could at least in the West be less important who at the moment was its bishop. It could have ten priests and all of them consecrated bishops, and then occasionally if one of them got martyred he was then stated as "our bishop" at this time. It could have only priests and no bishop between getting a bishop martyred and waiting for ordinations and consecrations from elsewhere to be available. It could have no clergy at all and be waiting for the next bishop sent from Rome.

This sort of stuff could contribute to this kind of evidence.

Catholic on B

Ruckman was wrong.

He contradicts Matthew 28:20. There is no line, least of all the one proposed in Trail of Blood, of any actual direct continuity between Novatians back then and Amish now.

Paulicians and Albigensians do not bridge that gap. They were not Christians.

Claudius of Turin was not a bridge between Old Church opponents of a major Catholic dogma and Waldensians, he was a sycofant to Iconoclasts over in the Imperial East.

Catholic on C

First, this is not true. If this had been a central part of my own learning, I would probably not have been part of the Romanian Orthodox from 2006 to 2009, so, let's hear some other guys:

Michael Lofton refers to how St. Athanasius considered the judgement of Pope St. Dionysius as equivalent to a condemnation ... Michael Lofton underlines "by all" = since Dionysius was Pope, his word was the word of all members of the Church.

St. Athanasius on the Papacy | Michael Lofton
Reason & Theology | 22 April 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eDfqvA6XEM

Second, if it had been true, the default for non-papal early Church, as per continuity question, is not some version of Protestantism, it's more sth like Eastern Orthodoxy or Monseigneur Lefebvre. The Protestant making this point would still be obliged to hold to what Catholics have in common with Orthodox, like II Maccabees being canon.

I'm not saying you shouldn't say "St. Sylvester was the 33:rd Pope", but I am suggesting you should be prepared to back that up a bit. Pre-Consiliar resources can be much murer from error than Michael Lofton (whom I recommend only partially), but they can also be deficient in information that has now become relevant in a clime of a more complete debate.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Pope St. Cletus
26.IV.2024

It's also Our Lady of Good Counsel.

Romae natalis beati Cleti, Papae et Martyris; qui, secundus post Apostolum Petrum, rexit Ecclesiam, et martyrio in persecutione Domitiani coronatus est.