fredag 19 maj 2017

Solution to Conundrum of "Alexandrian Cult"


The Catholic Church says that the Original Autographs of each Bible book were inerrant in all details.

This gave me an interest in a FB group called Original Autographs Onlyism.

And someone was arguing that the Original Autographs Onlyism was basically repeating the "creed of the Alexandrian Cult".

From whom I copied this definition thereof, inserting the FB page.

Click above to enlarge.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/106796406524496/
permalink/153826395154830/


There is a solution : Ecclesiastic Infallibility on matters necessary to Salvation, and being satisfied with less than full inerrancy for some detail for other matters.

This solution is the Catholic solution and the reason why Catholics are NOT Nicolaitans in the above sense.

But note, while a matter disputeable between manuscripts and text versions is not inerrant, unless defined by Church, till we get Original Manuscripts, by contrast, a matter on which all versions agree is inerrant.

Whether Emmaus is 60 or 160 stades from Jerusalem is not inerrant, since most manuscripts have 60 stades and one Syrian one 160 stades. But that Our Lord revealed Himself as risen to the disciples of Emmaus is inerrant, since that manuscript agrees on it.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Pope St. Celestine V*
19.V.2017

Updated with injunction to click image to enlarge it.

* Natalis sancti Petri de Morono Confessoris, qui, ex Anachoreta Summus Pontifex creatus, dictus est Caelestinus Quintus. Sed Pontificatu se postmodum abdicavit, et in solitudine religiosam vitam agens, virtutibus et miraculis clarus, migravit ad Dominum.

måndag 17 april 2017

Lita Cosner attacks Catholic doctrine, defending their "Bible alone" heresy


Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Quorans on Conflict between Pope and Bible, Hypothetical Question · Great Bishop of Geneva! : Lita Cosner attacks Catholic doctrine, defending their "Bible alone" heresy

First, is she really considering books yes and oral tradition no as uniquely God's Revelation? It would seem so from this:*

"But out of all the media through which God might have given us His revelation, why did He choose a written medium? Why didn’t He inspire an oral tradition that was passed down from generation to generation? Or some sort of visual medium other than text?"


Now, this comes out pretty much as sola Scriptura. Sure, it is on their belief statement, but usually defending this against Catholic Scripture + Unritten Traditions (from back in the time of the Apostles) is not their chief agenda. As this came up, if you are serious, where is "Scripture alone" in all of Scripture? If you cannot find it there (and you cannot), either this is not serious, or at least, this is not a basic crredal statement, only an optional opinion about how Revelation works. In fact, Lita Cosner did not try to back this up biblically, she gave extra-biblical reasons for her opinion. While I have reasons both in Scripture and in Tradition and Infallible Magisterium of Trent (convoked 470 years ago) for believing firmly with faith, not just opining, that she is wrong, I should however also be able to deal with her human reasons. Which I proceed to do.

"When a message is strictly oral, its transmission is restricted to the movement of the people who carry the message, and it is limited to people within earshot of the person speaking. By contrast, a written document can be copied 100 times and taken around the world."


When a message is oral, even in absence of writing, it can be given to 100 peoples within earshot of the person dictating. These can be asked to repeat it over and over again, until they have it strictly correctly.

A person having learned an oral message by heart is as able to get across the world as a book. And on the other side of the world or of the oecumene of one's time can do as much good or more as or than a strictly unaccompanied book.

Lita Cosner will in the post also claim that Flood stories around the world prove unreliability of oral tradition. If so, they prove that oral tradition was the most basic access people had to the story after the Flood. It would be curious if the tradition from Flood to Babel had been written down in pages or tablets,accessible to everyone having learned to read, but after the confusion of tongues they found they could no longer read them, and then they made no effort of learning what they had previously spoken and read, nor were in any way suspicious of having another tongue than they had had while being still able to read them. Even so, the Flood story as such has reached all corners of the world. Whether it was the oral tradition (presumably a condition shared on Hebrew line up to Abraham) or sth else which was responsible for distortions of the story, I'll return to.

Presumably she might be thinking of modern conditions, in which a man rarely has available on spot 100 men who then have the leasure to go out into all the world - but Christ could 2000 years ago find 72 of them. Also, a man sending 100 books to diverse corners of the world (easy if you are rich enough to pay printing and stamps) would either do so to people already his associates, and therefore the situation would also involve oral tradition about it, or he would accompany the book with some kind of introductory letter, which involves at least one kind of transmission outside the book itself. So, the very setup of preferring a book only over an oral only tradition, as Lita does is flawed in conception. Not taking all factors into account even in the modern situation and imposing a modern "priority of possibilities" on ancient situations, far removed from modern Capitalism with world wide post office collaborations.

Already one thing to consider is this, that when Christianity began, books were generally scrolls - much more cumbrous and more easily detected than an oral message in times of persecution. It is possible to my imagination, though not totally shared by experts, that Christians invented the codex (books where pages are turned one after each other, not rolled around a pin) in order to get around the problem : at least they contributed to make it popular. This is because Bibles were not totally optional, especially in liturgy. There is a part in which the bishop, priest or deacon reads a portion of the Gospels. But as to getting a missionary to start converting, I don't think even Gospel manuscripts were St Paul's priority to bring along on travels, they could come later, with people less conspicuous than he.

So, the spread factor, which according to Lita Cosner is a reason why God preferred a "book only" transmission of His inerrant and infallible word, is actually a reason against this, for God having sometimes preferred oral only (up to Moses at latest) and sometimes oral with written transmission, which we know to have been the form of transmission from Moses to Christ (Exodus 12:26-27).

I am reminded of a former Evangelical, now Atheist, who similarily seems to have had trouble imagining how much freer people were to travel, to take time off to do a thing, if free and not slaves, 2000 years ago.

somewhere else : What a blooper, Dan Barker from Atheist League!
[short link ppt.li/rrxn]
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.fr/2011/04/what-blooper-dan-barker-from-atheist.html


So, Lita's "logistic blooper" may be making more Dan Barkers.

Now, let us consider the other factor, is oral tradition reliable, humanly speaking (obviously God could by Omnipotence have turned the least good means of transmission into an infallibly inerrant one, but both Lita and I agree this is not what He did, and so we discuss whether oral tradition has a standing as comparably reliable to written or not)?

"Studies show that oral tradition, especially in societies with low literacy, is actually quite accurate, but as we can see with the Flood stories around the world, history passed down strictly orally has a tendency to change much faster than written documents."


Really? Lita has proof positive that Moses relied on Noah's and his sons' material writings?

Or that the changes from Hebrew truth all happened after Moses had culled the oral tradition just in time, before it changed? I think not. This part has two components. For one thing, we must examplify that oralo tradition as such is reliable, and next, we must explain her example of why it seems unreliable.

She actually brought up, nearly naming them, Milman Perry. They studied the oral transmission of epics such as that of Kosovo Polje battle by Serbian story singers. Since they recorded lots of performances, they could show that while a long song actually is performed with some variants, the presence or absence of a certain elaboration corresponds to mood, not to presence or absence of it from tradition, so that the tradition can be considered as fairly fixed. What they sing is probably what their predecessors sung in very early memory after Kosovo Polje and what Peisistratos took down from Rhapsodes is therefore probably what the Rhapsodes some earlier century had heard from the mouth of Homer.

But this is "as strange as news from Bree" to quite a few of her readers, and presumably a bit to herself as well, which is why she doesn't take the right conclusion. There are other examples which even she would acknowledge as implying we normally do trust oral tradition as being trustworthy.

I just brought up Lord of the Rings, last paragraph. How do we know Tolkien did not translate an actual historic document from Adunaic while Gospels and Genesis are products of some good novelist? By tradition external to the books, in the case of Tolkien's work not purely oral, but in the case of the earlier one presumably so. Lita could counter that one partial aspect of chapter 1 of Genesis is confirmed by God as factual in Exodus, but this brings up the question about Exodus. We know, and Jesus humanly knew, while growing in wisdom, that Genesis and Exodus are history not fiction, from oral tradition.

A very clear example is that Lita Cosner speaks English. She learned the pronounced language orally. In fact, if someone were to learn English entirely from a lexicon (+ grammar, + books) and ignore IPA and ignore what IPA symbols stand for, which he could learn easistes by oral tradition, he would probably pronounce English after pronunciation rules of his own language, and get English pronunciation wrong. And the pronunciation rules of his own language, these also he learned by oral tradition.

And after speaking our mother tongues, many of us (but not all, as already mentioned) by now learn to write them. Or at least read them. This would be impossible without the oral tradition about what sound or spectrum of different sounds each letter or combination of letters can stand for.

And there is a reason why oral tradition works : learning by heart. Lita can check reciting the Apostolic Creed or the Nicene Creed, or the Lord's Prayer or the Ten Commandments.

The essence of the Christian message, as far as propositional revelation is concerned can be summed up in these three parts. Which can be transmitted orally if books should lack.

Next question is what I do with all more or less garbled non-Hebrew versions of The Flood.

Well, I would say very little has changed due to the insecurities of oral tradition as such. Most changes are for other reasons.

If Norse version of it was transmitted by Odin and he was a Hebrew (which of course takes down one independent witness as not independent, but it was a late one anyway), the positive element that it involved killing off of giants may be due to Odin overemphasising Nephelim (perhaps to fraudulently stamp his son as a great Nephelim killer), and the negative elements of no men before the Flood, no Earth before the Flood etc would be from his deliberate and fraudulent choice of posing as having been, with two of his brothers a Marduk style world creator as per monster killing.

In the Greek case, the real case of whittling down is if Aegyptos and Danaos are supposed to be a generation immediately after Deucalion and Pyrrha, there are way too few generations up to Trojan War, while in the case they aren't supposed to be that, there is a gap, suggesting a loss of tradition. But as to the story itself, every element can be tied down to some Biblical story, not always that of the Flood. Three Gods come to a pious but childless couple, save them from disaster and afterwards they are in a quandry about how to repeople the world ... sounds like three angels visiting Abraham and Sarah, two of them saving Lot and his dughters from Sodom, his daughters imagining they need to repeople the world, with a bit of artistic telescoping. But why is this tied to the Flood? My view is simply this, that Greeks (at least Hercules, whose relation to Iolaos was of a morally dubious kind and ill repute) were beginning to be tolerant of the sin of Sodom, and therefore unwilling to retell the story of Sodom as it was. Hence, taking its elements and transferring them back to the Flood was a deliberate cover up.

In the case of the War of Troy, Homer never mentions Hittites, though they were or recently had been around when the war happened. Why? Insecurity of tradition? Or perhaps a deliberate cover up of the fact they existed, a cover up ordered by the nobility which descended from Hittite such, and who had a gentleman's agreement not to mention the world Empire which failed due to internal war (this is at least how the documentary Dark Lords of Hattusha paints what happened around the fall of that capital).

Some in the case of how gods are described is of course interpretation due to the new and false theologies. Beginnings of Iliad and Odyssey both feature gods, and I think Apollo is described more realistically, insofar as a demon really is called "lord of the flies". While mentioning Odyssey, the most parts of Ulysses' ten years between Troy and getting home could be a cover up on his part. Saying Calypso was a goddess who forced him magically to stay could have been convenient before Penelope. Saying certain crew drowned might in the worst of cases sound better than saying he sold them to Phoenicians or even abandoned them to Phoenicians (or whoever were the maritime trading power in these days). The son of Laërtes is not known for complete truthfulness on all occasions. This means, the dubiously trustworthy content of parts of Odyssey are more due to initial fraud than to faulty transmission.

The Peruvian flood myth features two departures from the real Flood : Andes are "used as an Ark" and the survivors are siblings who go on to people Perú. The one feature is perhaps due to a complete loss of the technology of ships beyond balsa rafts, which would have floundered in a very bad weather. The other feature is probably meant to explain why Incas married sisters.

Sumerian myth, on the other hand is nearly like the Biblical one, except for polytheism and a tinge of Malthusianism in theology, making the god whe sent flood and the god who saved different, and motive of the former selfish, method of the latter devious, and except for making Ark a giant version of Sumerian river coracles, which would not have worked. The latter would be due to technology loss and to not being as candid about coracles as Peruvians about balsa rafts.

A more complex case is Mahabharata and Ramayana.

I have reconstructed that Mahabharata happened pre-Flood, generation after the sons and daughter of Lamech presented in the Bible being that of Kauravas and Pandavas, but Ramayana post-Flood, Rama being the son of Kush of similar name and either Hanuman or Nama being Nimrod while still young and benevolent against his brothers, as Josephus states. But, in Hindu lore we don't have only Hindu gods (not counting Krishna as a total intruder, just considering his deification unwarranted) and pre-Flood presumable Hebrew names expressed in Sanskrit, not only (in generations earlier than Pandavas and Kauravas) a Bharat who seems to combine the two Henoch (the Cainite as Empire builder, the Sethite as assumed into Heaven), but an inversion of the order in which I reconstruct their relation.

Well, I consider it feasible that one was trying to cover up that a Flood had happened recently and intervened between Mahabharata memories and oneselves. And as sufficient generations had passed after Ramayana material, or with very decisive fraud, their timelines were interchanged, and Flood was preponed to before a very remote Ramayana.

So, we have both a book and an oral tradition as fairly reliable per se methods of preserving a message, but we should not neglect that we have other parts than the propositional content of Revelation. Routines and material objects count too.

I suppose Lita Cosner has a daily routine involving : morning prayer, grace before meals, evening prayer, daily Bible reading. I don't think she can point to any definite Bible passage which tells of exactly all parts of this routine and nothing else.

Routine's of the Christian life are an excellent example of what Catholics traditionally consider to have been transmitted orally only : sign of the cross, fasting on wednesdays and fridays, now limited to abstinence from meat on fridays in Latin tradition (but more rigorous in Byzantine, which the Church also includes). And seven sacraments, and the liturgy of the Mass. Add hereto the iconographic traditions, and the relics considered genuine from very early on. This is part of Revelation, yet is not propositional content.

Or not primarily - one can make propositional content about it, once it is challenged of course.

The things which are propositional content, however, are considered as relying on a double or triple transmission to us : Bible text (not 66 books, but 73 btw, other non-Protestant and older than Reformation churches saying perhaps even more, two more books of Maccabees or one more book of Esra ...) and oral tradition and magisterium. Magisterium being infallible in three cases :

  • Pope speaking ex cathedra;
  • Pope and majority of bishops in vote of a General Council;
  • Pope with totality or near totality (with moral equivalent of totality) of bishops, all agreeing on same point.


Obviously, if magisterium should get near a shipwreck, it would contradict not just Bible but also tradition (when it comes to propositional content that would involve magisterium of the past and all writings of all canonised hurch Fathers), and therefore at least some bishops would disagree, and magisterium would be saved from giving the signs of infallibility to what is false. And similarily for other two means : if Bible risks being misunderstood on a point, if tradition risks being forgotten.

God chose a threefold, not a simple means of securing full transmission fidelity of Revelation.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Maison-Alfort / Alfortville
Easter Monday
17.IV.2017

* http://creation.com/why-book

lördag 15 april 2017

Is this Playing the Devil's Advocate?


The word "devil's advocate" has two meanings. In Catholic parlance, it means a person in whom is confided the task to oppose the canonisation of a Saint. He is supposed to bring up all that can be said so as to conclude "we cannot canonise X as a saint". In some cases, some of these men may have even considered someone who was after that canonised as having probably gone to Hell, i e to the Devil, hence the nickname "devil's advocate". His real name is "promotor fidei", because he is there to see to it faith is not diluted due to a canonisation which is false.

In more recent parlance, it means defending a man who is very impopular - a man who is about as impopular (at least among the relevant set) as the devil is among Christians. A man who says "Stalin was more orderly and more cherishing of Orthodox Christianity than Lenin" would thus be playing "the devil's advocate" among people of Anarchist, Trotskist, Leninist-but-Antistalinist convictions.

Among some, defending even a phrase of Amoris Laetitia is similarily playing the devil's advocate.

The Old Evangelisation : Pope Francis vs. Trent
Mar 11, 2017
https://theoldevangelization.com/pope-francis-vs-trent/


Shot:
A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding “its inherent values”, or be in a concrete situation which does not allow him or her to act differently and decide otherwise without further sin.

Amoris Laetitiae, §301

Chaser:
If anyone says that the commandments of God are impossible to observe even for a man who is justified and established in grace, let him be anathema.

Council of Trent, session 6, canon 18


There is no contradiction. Trent qualifies the condemned proposition with "even for a man who is justified and established in grace". AL does not pretend that the concrete situation involves a man being justified and established in grace.

In fact, the final words of §301 are not totally synonym to "in order to avoid sin", but rather synonym to "without further sin", that is "to avoid graver mortal sins than the ones one is already caught in".

If I were to towse a girl without being married, then get the shrinks who pretend I am homosexual to realise I am heterosexual, then get an allowance from Churchmen listening to them to marry, specifically her, I would not be avoiding mortal sin, but I might be avoiding to get into worse mortal sins than I am already in. I might even, after that, get back to grace.

Of course, it would have been preferrable to have get married first, but perhaps some Church men have not allowed me to get on with marriage, have blocked me, due to them taking, superstitiously, the words of shrinks as Gospel truth about me, as if being "shrink of H G Lundahl" were the equivalent of being a cobbler and deserving of believing each artisan in his own art, like I believe cobblers when they say what has to be done about my shoes.

On the other hand, if I had been so righteous that I would have been able to stay both charitable and chaste without being allowed marriage, this might have been a better thing per se.

I am not sure it would have been a better thing for me in the end. God may have a plan for getting me back to justified and getting me established in grace, firmly.

But Trent does not say that I can stay chaste and charitable even if unmarried even if I am not in a state of grace. Trent in fact says, elsewhere, that as long as I am not in a state of grace, I cannot in the long term avoid all mortal sin. Nor does Trent state I will stay unmarried.

Having defended a paragraph, however, I must say that Bergoglio seems to have been at least tolerant of bishops and monasteries and fraternities waylaying me so as to force me to stay celibate, or even testing me in military traditional ways if I am homo before allowing me to marry. Those traditional tests are not quite out of place when allowing a man a place in a regiment, since even a shade of homosexual feelings may be a shade too much for that regiment, since there is bound to be someone with a shade of homophobic sentiment, such as God has given most men, including me, to preserve us if tempted to homosexuality. But even more so, because a man denied a place in a regiment because unjustly considered homosexual will usually not be tempted to sin for the sole reason of being denied a military carreer.

But such tests are out of place when deciding if a man has a right to marry or not. Since some wives do not take certain shades of homosexual mentality as an affront, and even more so since being denied marriage can for some people actually be damnation. Since one of the goods of marriage is precisely "in remedium concupiscentiae". Since a heterosexual man being denied, not a carreer presupposing for the sake of other men hetereosexuality, as much as a bliss proper to heterosexuality, may be tempted to hatred - and may not rise above it. It is not for nothing that St Paul said I Tim 4:1-3:

1 Now the Spirit manifestly saith, that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error, and doctrines of devils, 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy, and having their conscience seared, 3 Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth.

If these times are last, vegetarianism seems to recur without Gnosticism, and it could well be that he was by "forbidding to marry" not referring to a total and general ban (though some feminists and some redefinitions of marriage seen to go that way), but about forbidding particular men totally to do so.

There is similarily an individually tailored ban on alcohol around, a ban available for those who have been stamped as "alcoholics". I suspect I have been caught in that kind of social trap too, which is not likely to make me more charitable.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Holy Saturday
15.IV.2017

söndag 26 mars 2017

Salvation and Schrödinger's Cat


Great Bishop of Geneva! : 1) Makarios · 2) Once Saved, Always Saved - True for Church, Not True for All Christians Individually · 3) Protestants - Not - Getting Around Matthew 28 Last Three Verses: John Calvin's Attempt · 4) Barnes NOT getting around Matthew 28:20 ... · 5) Since St Francis of Sales had Real Objections to Calvinism ... 6) Contra Sproul 7) Barnes on Jewish Tradition 8) If Constantine had Founded the Catholic Church ... 9) Salvation and Schrödinger's Cat Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : 10) ... on Apostolic Succession, both as to Reasons and Answering an Objection or Two (quora)

When Schrödinger opens the box, he will know if the cat survived or died in a nitroglycerine explosion. Or whatever the lethal danger was. In our case it is called sin.

Schrödinger's cat: a cat, a flask of poison, and a radioactive source are placed in a sealed box. If an internal monitor detects radioactivity (i.e., a single atom decaying), the flask is shattered, releasing the poison, which kills the cat. The Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics implies that after a while, the cat is simultaneously alive and dead. Yet, when one looks in the box, one sees the cat either alive or dead, not both alive and dead. This poses the question of when exactly quantum superposition ends and reality collapses into one possibility or the other.


Saying a Christian is at once sinner and justified as Luther did reminds of the Copenhagen interpretation of Schrödinger's cat.

It is obviously wrong about the cat. And Luther was obviously wrong about your soul.

However, what is true is that as long as the box is not opened, you don't know about the cat's survival.

And as long as you are not dead, you usually don't know whether you are going to Heaven or Hell if you die right now, not with complete certainty.

While one interpretation of 1 Timothy 1:15 is that St Paul is talking of his past life, he could also be treating his soul as the cat of Schrödinger : admitting it might be dead. And measuring the amount of deadness, if so.

I don't really know if St Paul is using historic present or describing a brief moment of mortal sin or else is taking the worst possibility into account.

But we do not need to take the Copenhagen school of what happens to Schrödinger's cat. And we do not need to take the Luther school about what St Paul meant. It is not without cause condemned in Trent or in Exsurge Domine or both.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris XI
Laetare Sunday
26.III.2017

måndag 20 mars 2017

If Constantine had Founded the Catholic Church ...


Great Bishop of Geneva! : 1) Makarios · 2) Once Saved, Always Saved - True for Church, Not True for All Christians Individually · 3) Protestants - Not - Getting Around Matthew 28 Last Three Verses: John Calvin's Attempt · 4) Barnes NOT getting around Matthew 28:20 ... · 5) Since St Francis of Sales had Real Objections to Calvinism ... 6) Contra Sproul 7) Barnes on Jewish Tradition 8) If Constantine had Founded the Catholic Church ... 9) Salvation and Schrödinger's Cat Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : 10) ... on Apostolic Succession, both as to Reasons and Answering an Objection or Two (quora)

Where did the Christian Church go?

Here is a scenario some believe in:

  • Christ founded His Church;

  • it was persecuted for 280 years to 313, when it was legalised;

  • in 325, after a twelve years' pause, the heir of the Persecutors changed the Church by the Council of Nicaea;

  • and the result of that change is the Catholic Church.


What happened to the Christian Church, if that is so, after 325?

There are some distinct possibilities:

  • "It lived on beside the Catholic one, openly, only unlike it continued to be persecuted like those 280 years previous to the twelve years pause, and it lives on to this day."

    Right, where is it?

    • Arians who were immediately condemned at Nicaea are out for two reasons:

      • a) the last Arians ceased to exist when Visigoths became Catholics in Spain, and if any few stragglers lived on after that, they became Muslims and helped open the door to the Muslim invasion of Visigothic and so recently finally also Catholic Spain;

      • b) Arians had lived as persecutors of the Catholic (occasionally disestablished) Church twice:

        • i) between Constantine and Julian the Apostate;

        • ij) as Goth lords (sorry, can't resist the pun!) Visigoths in Southern France and in Spain (provoking the conquest by Clovis of Southern Gaul through persecution of Catholics there), occasionally Burgundians, Ostrogoths if not en masse at least were diffident of a Catholic intellectual, Theoderic the Great killed Manlius Boëthius on the suspicion of betraying his state of "religious tolerance". Vandals, but not sure if they were Arians, Idolaters or without any kind of Religious affiliation.


    • Ethiopian Church, which seems to be popular with some anti-Constantinians, since they keep the book of Henoch, are out for another reason with some historic instances:

      • they participated in Nicaea and condemned Arius;

      • they participated in Constantinople and condemned Macedonius;

      • they participated in Ephesus (or Ephesus I) and condemned Nestorius, insisting very clearly that the Blessed Virgin is indeed the Mother of God;

      • they were only themselves the condemned party as late as Chalcedon, which I just checked was held from October 8 to November 1, AD 451. They have some difference from Armenians, also refusing Chalcedon : Ethiopian and Egyptian Copts, a k a Jacobites, defend Eutyches, who was condemned at Chalcedon, while Armenians condemn him and say there is a position neither Eutychian nor Chalcedonian (and obviously not Nestorian either).


  • "It lived on beside the Catholic one, but as a secret society."

    No. The Church of Christ cannot be a secret society. Not after Christ came.

    John 3: [16] For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting. [17] For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him. [18] He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God. [19] And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. [20] For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved. [21] But he that doth truth, cometh to the light, that his works may be made manifest, because they are done in God.

    Note, the last verse excludes the Protestant reading of 3:16.

    Challoner says: He that doth truth: that is, he that acteth according to truth, which here signifies the Law of God. Thy law is truth. Psa. 118. 142.

    But all verses from 19 to 21 show that Christ cannot have meant His Church to exist in the shape of a secret society (after His arrival). See also prologue of St John, where precisely Incarnation is seen as posing the limit between when secret societies were licit (as "insider parts" of Jewish Church) and when it is no longer so.

  • "It lived on in Waldensian and Irish margins."

    • Irish Christianity, like Ethiopian, very clearly is "Constantinian", if Catholic Church is so. St Patrick trained for his work as missionary bishop in a monastery in Gaul, under a Roman administration, or even two:

      • Marmoutier near Tours, founded in 372, by St Martin, 47 years after Nicaea, and

      • Lérins Abbey, founded in 410 and which had achieved greatness by 427, 102 years after Nicaea.


      So, St Patrick, Irish monks, and these were the famous Culdees, Catholic Monks, though not same rule as that of St Benedict, all go back to the Church which was legalised by Constantine and which assembled in Nicaea.

    • Even if you can somewhat doubtfully trace Waldensians back to Claude of Turin, you cannot trace Claude of Turin back to St Ambrose, as some have proposed, you can rather trace him to contemporary Iconoclasts : who were a sect of heretics having the fullest support of certain Byzantine Emperors, which is why Byzantine overlordship over the West decayed, being replaced by Pope crowning Charlemagne.


  • "It lived in within the Catholic Church, and people who considered themselves as Catholic also truly belonged to it in an invisible way".

    • This is actually the solution of the Reformers, who were not so radical as certain later Protestants.

      Certain Protestants, such as Lutherans and Anglicans say that you must even adher to councils I to IV (Nicaea I, Constantinople I, Ephesus (I), Chalcedon) or even to Christological definitions a bit further on (Constantinople II and Constantinople III).

      I think the "six councils stand" is the more classical one, the "four councils stand" a reduction of it (popular among modernists who like to avoid Constantinople II and its condemnation of Origenism), while it also exists in an extended version among "High Church" : they also include Nicaea II, the Council which condemned Iconoclasm.

      I was basically High Church Lutheran before deciding to convert to the Catholic Church.

    • But this position also is problematic.

      • It makes the Church "invisible" both as to authority and as to what its teachings are, which contradicts Luke 10:16 (along with its parallel Ecclesiasticus 24:30), Luke 11:33 as well as Matthew 5:14 (note as per first words, the Sermon in St Matthew was spoken to the disciples, after they had withdrawn up into the mountain away from the crowd, it was only a bit later that He went down to the crowd and adressed them with the words in St Luke : the twelve apostles are therefore, with successors, the light of the world), 1 Timothy 3:15.

      • It poses the question of how to know when it became compulsory to leave the Catholic Church because it dogmatises "unbiblical positions" : how can we know that one could be Catholic and Christian in 1500 but not in 1600, because in between Catholicism had dogmatised "justification by works" (actually by faith and works, see James).

      • It makes even the personal adhesion to Christ's Church or to Christ doubtful : if St Bernhard belonged to the Church of Christ (as Luther thought) how is that notsmudged by his believing he belonged to the Catholic Church? If St Bernhard belonged to the Church of Christ by seeking salvation from Christ alone, without any obligation to adher to a Church, how is that not smudged by his believing that to adher to Christ involves adhering to His Church and getting salvation from Christ involves getting it by intermediary of the Sacraments of Christ's Church?

        Or, if nothing in St Bernhard's position can be shown to be opposed to the kind of non-Church adhesion to Christ (have you heard "Christianity, not Churchianity"?) which some say is required to be saved, why would today a Catholic NOT be saved by sharing the exact thoughts of St Bernhard on the matter?

      • Some have therefore admitted (quotation marks here for approximate quotes from memory, paraphrases) "the Catholic Church is the Mother Church, you could be saved as a Catholic before the Reformation, and can be saved as a Catholic even today", as Beza is claimed to have admitted to the patron of this blog, St Francis of Sales.


      Not unreasonably, St Francis of Sales replied "if so, why be Protestant, when we say it damns you, why not be Catholic, when you yourselves admit it doesn't damn you?"


Note, not just that that was obvious to me while I decided to convert, but by then I had long since left behind the idea of Constantine founding the Catholic Church as unhistorical. I was a history buff before I was a Catholic convert.

Also, I disliked the idea, as if being persecuted were the main duty of the Church through all centuries. As if being a state Church were some kind of unforgivable sin (the state Churches of Protestantism were sins as in being "one-state Churches" bound to monarch or city council rather than to Rome, not as in being established ones).

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Monday after
III Lord's Day in Lent
which was also St Joseph
20.III.2017

On "Works of Supererogations"


I will not start with a direct proof text, here. I am going to a text which has been claimed to refute these, rather.

Luke 17:5 And the apostles said to the Lord; Increase our faith. [6] And the Lord said: If you had faith like to a grain of mustard seed, you might say to this mulberry tree, Be thou rooted up, and be thou transplanted into the sea: and it would obey you. [7] But which of you having a servant ploughing, or feeding cattle, will say to him, when he is come from the field: Immediately go, sit down to meat: [8] And will not rather say to him: Make ready my supper, and gird thyself, and serve me, whilst I eat and drink, and afterwards thou shalt eat and drink? [9] Doth he thank that servant, for doing the things which he commanded him? [10] I think not. So you also, when you shall have done all these things that are commanded you, say: We are unprofitable servants; we have done that which we ought to do.

Comment by Challoner:
[10] Unprofitable servants: Because our service is of no profit to our master; and he justly claims it as our bounden duty. But though we are unprofitable to him, our serving him is not unprofitable to us; for he is pleased to give by his grace a value to our good works, which, in consequence of his promise, entitles them to an eternal reward.

Collected comments in Haydock: Ver. 5. Increase our faith. The disciples having heard our Saviour inculcating maxims hard to flesh and blood, such as avoiding scandal, and forgiving our enemies, humbly beg their faith may be increased, that they may be able to comply with these maxims; for they had heard Christ say, that every thing was possible to him that believed. (Theophylactus) --- Christ compares faith to a grain of mustard seed; because, though the grain be small, it is nevertheless stronger than most herbs. (St. Chrysostom)

Ver. 6. To this mulberry-tree. In St. Matthew, (xvii. 19.) we read, to this mountain. Christ might say both at different times. (Witham)

Ver. 7. The design and end of this parable is to shew that, rigorously speaking, we are useless servants with regard to God. This sovereign Master has a right to exact of us every kind of service, and to make us apply ourselves to any task he may think proper, without our having any reason to complain either of the difficulty, trouble, or length of our labours; we are entirely his, and he is master of our persons, time, and talents. We hold of him whatever we possess, and woe to us if we abuse his trust, by applying our talents to any use contrary to his designs. But though he be Lord and Master, he leaves our liberty entire. If he produces in us holy desires, if he works in us meritorious actions, gives us virtuous inclinations and supernatural gifts, he sets to our account the good use we make of them; and in crowning our merits, he crowns his own gifts. (St. Augustine, lib. ix. Confes. and Serm. 131.) (Calmet)

Ver. 10. Unprofitable servants. Because our service is of no profit to our Master; and he justly claims it as our bounden duty. But though we are unprofitable to him, our serving him is not unprofitable to us; for he is pleased to give, by his grace, a value to our good works, which, in consequence of his promise, entitles them to an eternal reward. (Challoner) --- The word useless, when joined to servant, generally means a servant from whom his master does not derive the service he has a right to expect; as in St. Matthew xxv. 30. Here the word is taken in a less odious sense. It means a servant who does not testify sufficient zeal and ardour in his master's service, who is not very eager to please him. With regard to God, we are always useless servants, because he wants not our services; and without his assistance, we can neither undertake nor finish any thing to please him. (Calmet)


Why did I come here?

Well, someone claimed that Anglicanism does believe Eucharist is a propitiatory sacrifice, I looked up 39 articles of religion and found, at least 39-articles Anglicanism does not do that (which is of course blatant heresy, condemned by Trent and by Tradition, by Hebrews "we have an altar" and by Malachi 1:11.

Now, while looking up the 39 articles, I also found this, which is clearly questionable exegesis, not to say eisegesis:

XIV. Of Works of Supererogation

Voluntary Works besides, over, and above, God's Commandments, which they call Works of Supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety: for by them men do declare, that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do, but that they do more for his sake, than of bounden duty is required: whereas Christ saith plainly, When ye have done all that are commanded to you, say, We are unprofitable servants.


I would say that those who work miracles and tell mulberry trees to root themselves up and they do so are on the contrary really obedient to Christ who here said one "might" but does not command the apostles to do it.

Mustard Seed Faith is itself a supererogatory work over and above the faith in the articles of the Apostolic or Nicene Creed and their explanations in other dogma defined by the Church.

And Christ was recommending it, just after saying the "attitude formula" which Anglicans in Elisabeth's time claimed excluded supererogatory works.

The actual proof texts are there in any Catholic Catechism. Especially, selling all one has and giving it to the poor is mentioned twice over as such a thing. You can laud a man for doing it, you cannot blame me for not doing it. The rich man is told, not that he must do that to be saved, but that he must do that to be perfect. Ananias and Sapphira who pretended to comply with this supererogatory work were told it was such a thing, that they had been free to keep their possessions. In other words, Acts 2:44 is describing a supererogatory work:

Acts Of Apostles 2:44
And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common.

Did they have to, to be Christians? No, it is just that all who were were doing this supererogatory work.

The Acts Of The Apostles 5:[1] But a certain man named Ananias, with Saphira his wife, sold a piece of land, [2] And by fraud kept back part of the price of the land, his wife being privy thereunto: and bringing a certain part of it, laid it at the feet of the apostles. [3] But Peter said: Ananias, why hath Satan tempted thy heart, that thou shouldst lie to the Holy Ghost, and by fraud keep part of the price of the land? [4] Whilst it remained, did it not remain to thee? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power? Why hast thou conceived this thing in thy heart? Thou hast not lied to men, but to God. [5] And Ananias hearing these words, fell down, and gave up the ghost. And there came great fear upon all that heard it.

I underline:

[4] Whilst it remained, did it not remain to thee? and after it was sold, was it not in thy power?

Having all things in common was a supererogatory work.

One which monks and friars and nuns and sisters were doing in England up to the Reformation.

And which Anglican and Royal Civil and Ecclesiastic Establishments ruthlessly sacked.

It is like sacking the first Church of Jerusalem. If this continued up to when Jerusalem Church fled to Pella, Henry VIII and Elisabeth and Edward VI between them (or rather his adult counsellors acting in his name, he died a boy) can be compared to Titus coming to sack Jerusalem.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Monday after St Joseph's Day
and Third Lord's Day in Lent
20.III.2017

torsdag 16 mars 2017

Barnes on Jewish Tradition


Great Bishop of Geneva! : 1) Makarios · 2) Once Saved, Always Saved - True for Church, Not True for All Christians Individually · 3) Protestants - Not - Getting Around Matthew 28 Last Three Verses: John Calvin's Attempt · 4) Barnes NOT getting around Matthew 28:20 ... · 5) Since St Francis of Sales had Real Objections to Calvinism ... 6) Contra Sproul 7) Barnes on Jewish Tradition 8) If Constantine had Founded the Catholic Church ... 9) Salvation and Schrödinger's Cat Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : 10) ... on Apostolic Succession, both as to Reasons and Answering an Objection or Two (quora)

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible : 2 Timothy 3
http://www.studylight.org/commentaries/bnb/2-timothy-3.html


Verse 8

Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses - The names of these two men are not elsewhere mentioned in the Bible. They are supposed to have been two of the magicians who resisted Moses (Exodus 7:11, et al.), and who opposed their miracles to those of Moses and Aaron. It is not certain where the apostle obtained their names; but they are frequently mentioned by the Hebrew writers, and also by other writers; so that there can be no reasonable doubt that their names were correctly handed down by tradition. Nothing is more probable than that the names of the more distinguished magicians who attempted to imitate the miracles of Moses, would be preserved by tradition; and though they are not mentioned by Moses himself, and the Jews have told many ridiculous stories respecting them, yet this should not lead us to doubt the truth of the tradition respecting their names. A full collection of the Jewish statements in regard to them may be found in Wetstein, in loc.

They are also mentioned by Pliny, Nat. Hist. 30:7; and by Numenius, the philosopher, as quoted by Eusebius, 9:8, and Origen, against Celsus, p. 199. See Wetstein. By the rabbinical writers, they are sometimes mentioned as Egyptian magicians who opposed Moses in Egypt, and sometimes as the sons of Balaam. The more common account is, that they were the princes of the Egyptian magicians. One of the Jewish rabbins represents them as having been convinced by the miracles of Moses, and as having become converts to the Hebrew religion. There is no reason to doubt that these were in fact the leading men who opposed Moses in Egypt, by attempting to work counter-miracles. The point of the remark of the apostle here, is, that they resisted Moses by attempting to imitate his miracles, thus neutralizing the evidence that he was sent from God. In like manner, the persons here referred to, opposed the progress of the gospel by setting up a similar claim to that of the apostles; by pretending to have as much authority as they had; and by thus neutralizing the claims of the true religion, and leading off weak-minded persons from the truth. This is often the most dangerous kind of opposition that is made to religion.

...


Where did Barnes have it from that Jannes and Mambres (Barnes and the Bible of studylight have instead Jannes and Jambres) were precisely magicians of Pharao, and not other men who had resisted Moses on another occasion?

From tradition.

But the problem is he has this high regard for Jewish tradition of even rabbinical type, but not for Apostolic Tradition.

I wonder why?/HGL