samedi 24 octobre 2009

Further faults of fact in the Mystagogy post

This was checked by my friend Stephan Borgehammar, author of How the Holy Cross Was Found, I am, with his permission, reprinting what he found out:
The "horrible findings" seem to be partly errors of fact, partly misunderstandings.
The article of the Inquisition from 1647 is not quoted, so it can't be assessed.
The papal statements from 1331 and 1920 cannot be identified on basis of the information given (Clemens VI was not yet pope in 1331 so in that particular case either the year or the name of the pope is wrong).
The papal statements of 1327 and 1907 would seem to be the following:
Medieval Sourcebook (internet resource): The following sentences taken from Marsilius of Padua and John of Jandun were condemned by John XXII, 1327[...]
(2) That St. Peter had no more authority than the other apostles, and was not the head over the other apostles; and that Christ left behind no head of the church, and did not appoint anyone as his vicar. (Latin original, quoted from Denzinger Enchiridion no. 942: "Quod beatus Petrus Apostolus non plus auctoritatis habuit quam alii Apostoli habuerunt [non fuit plus caput Ecclesiae quam quilibet aliorum Apostolorum], nec aliorum apostolorum fuit caput. Item quod Christus nullum caput dimisit Ecclesiae, nec aliquem suum vicarium fecit." [] = variant reading from the concluding section of the bull.)
Pius X, 1907, Decr. "Lamentabili" - list of teachings of the modernists that the pope condemned:
55. Simon Peter never even supposed that Christ required him to exercize primacy in the church. (My* translation from Denzinger no. 3455: "Simon Petrus ne suspicatus quidem umquam est, sibi a Christo demandatum esse primatum in ecclesia.")
There is a good, simple exposition by Jeff Ziegler of Catholic doctrine on the subordination of Paul here:
No honest Christian can object to what is said by Ziegler here.
Here ends the quote from Borgehammar.
*My=Stephan Borgehammars, not mine.

12 commentaires:

Hans Georg Lundahl a dit…

The post I am referring to is on this here link (click if you want to)

Hans Georg Lundahl a dit…

Mon retour des Orthodoxes à la Société St Pie X, III:

25 L'abbé Pierre était pire que je ne croyait ... (ci... 26 Consécration de Russie - peut un orthodoxe être d'accord?... 27 Miracle du 10 juillet 1628, Carpentras 28 Lien à vieux message sur Ste Ursule (cliquer ici) 29 St Pie X, son œuvre en six actes (sermon à St Nicolas du Chardonnet)... 30 Dostoïno iest - il est digne (lien, cliquez ce tit... 31 St François d'Assise (lien en titre) 32, le décisif, en anglais: a Mystagogy posts certainly false allegation on St Robert Bellarmine... - b Pseudoquote identified. What De Romano Pontifice, ... really says - c Further faults of fact in the Mystagogy post 33 Dans le jardin de l'épouse du Christ fleurissent trois miracles... 34 Je confesse ... 35/36 Trois grandes ... et combien de petites? - Solidaire avec les bouddhistes? Non.

Hans Georg Lundahl a dit…

Links, mostly, including to Fr. Huneycutt, Bishop Williamson, John Sandinopoulos, and some of my comments, these being English counterpart to "Mon retour des Orthodoxes à la FSSPX":

1 Hungarians do play guitar (link) 2 China 3 Orthodixie: "Of course Sponge Bob is gay" (link) 4 Dale Ahlquist: "G.K. Chesterton and The Perils of ... 5 "Generous Orthodoxy" defends fallibilism? 6 Brain death diagnosis kills? (link) 7a "Kill your parents" +40ys=Educate your children! (link) b I don't believe in Weathermen c How e v e r 8 "When does His Grace Hilarion sleep?" /Orthodixie ... 9 Airport Tyranny/Dinoscopus (link) 10 Mark Pivarunas, bishop, speaks (link) 11 Between Sunday of Genealogy and Christmas Day (links) 12 Two courageous men, two heavily conformist communities... 13 Reading time for Mgr Williamson! 14 Update 1: Mgr Williamson apologises for hurting people... 15 Update 3: some do not apologise or avoid schism (update 2 is in French series) 16 Count-down to St Patrick's - a link to his "breast plate"... 17 Happy St Patrick's day, all of you ... 18 Annunciation 19 Happy Annunciation, Old Calendarists! - 20 Great and Holy Tuesday (link to Fr. James) - 21 Orthodox Holy Week (link to Fr Huneycutt) - 22 Christ is risen! - 23 Il est vraiment ressuscité 24 Piracy and slavehunt are not Christian things 25 A book and a site they might not want you to read ... 26 Today's celebrations: 27 Blessed feast of the Dormition! 28 My dear Bishop Williamson, if I had earned money a... 29 Brother Dimond refutes claim that Shroud of Turin is a fake (link, youtube)... 30 Am I too libertarian for FSSPX? Hope not. 31 a Mystagogy posts certainly false allegation on St Robert Bellarmine... - b Pseudoquote identified. What De Romano Pontifice, ... really says - c Further faults of fact in the Mystagogy post

Hans Georg Lundahl a dit…

On FB someone wrote:

"Roman Catholics believe we Protestants departed from that church in the sixteenth century. Protestant Catholics believe they departed earlier."

From what? From same "Protestant Catholics"? Or from earlier Catholics in agreement with "Protestant Catholics" across a gap of some centuries?

You know the first is not true, and that the second gives you the choice between Orthodox (or Copts or Syrians) or a gap theory. And if a gap theory is uncomfortable in Genesis, it is _impossible_ in the exegesis of end of Matthew.... Afficher davantage

Now the cant goes: the Church was always there, but invisible. Sorry, will not wash. Unscriptural too. Here is why:

a) because the end of St Matthew is adressed to public messengers of the Gospel, so the promises were made to magisterium, not just to particular Christians;

b) because a city built on a mountain (and who or whatever is the Rock the Church is built on it) cannot be hidden.

If I recently left the Orthodox to go back to Rome/Écône, it is because Orthodox tend to copy Anglican smudges on Rome. Anglican, not Protestant. High Church, not Puritan. But calumnies about Spain or St Robert Bellarmine will not get me out of damnation, even if some believing them may be innocent, and also have valid Sacraments and themselves be on the way to heaven. And apart from agreeing with "Protestant Catholics" on their pet historical complaints, and disguising some beliefs (like those close to Purgatory and Indulgences) by other terminology, there is little more for "Protestant Catholics" there than in Rome. I did not go out of my way to look for it, either.

Hans Georg Lundahl a dit…

... oh, I forgot about differences in detail. Not just terminology.

Many questions that for Rome are dogmatic are so for the Orthodox too, like licitness of holy images (VII-th Ecumenical Council).

Others are doctrinal. Like what happens after death to someone who has not effaced all sins by penance but is still going to get to Heaven?

a) tollhouse theory in Russia: soul after leaving body has to give up earthly things in a "tollhouse" in order to get to Heaven

b) nightmare theory - basically unless there are exceptions for saints some say all sleep until day of judgement - saying basically that Purgatory is no physical place, only a bad dream, anguishing enough, of those fallen asleep.

They agree with Rome that this could have been avoided by becoming real saints on earth, and that these souls need prayers, and that good deeds can take place of prayers and be offered up as prayers. Purgatory and Indulgences in a nutshell.

Or when was Mary the Virgin and Mother of God free from Original sin/full of Grace?

Depending on whichever you focus on, Orthodox agree with Catholics that she never had any sin personnally. And that she did grow in grace and eventually had enough of it for not to have fallen even if tempted as Adam and Eve. Different writers differ on when.

Catholics would just say "correct that to from the beginning."

Hans Georg Lundahl a dit…

FB again:

"Moses declared to all Israel: “Take to heart all the words I have solemnly declared to you this day, so that you may command your children to obey carefully all the words of this law. They are not just idle words for you, they are your life,” Deuteronomy 32:46, 47.

"Notice the clear elements in these passages:

"1. The Word of which Moses spoke was written.
"2. The people can and must listen to it and learn it.
"3. In this Word they can find life.

"The people do not need any additional institution to interpret the Word."

Really? Does that follow from the three points? Why then is the Mosaic legislation so full of references to obeying priests? Why do kohanim still speak like binding and losing over Jews?

But this is forgetting that it was about the law. It has been replaced by a New Law written in the hearts of men. One that can really be learned by heart, like the double command of charity or the ten commandments. But in both laws, there were and are unclear cases, where interpretation was and is needed.

Hans Georg Lundahl a dit…

"But almost all Roman apologists, for over three hundred years after the Council of Trent, argued that tradition does add to the Scriptures. Some Roman apologists believe that all binding tradition was taught by the apostles, while others believe that tradition evolves and develops through the centuries of the church so that there are traditions necessary for salvation that were never known to the apostles. It is impossible to know what the real Roman position is on this matter."

a) Tradition does add to explicit content of Writ:

- the sign of the Cross
- fasting on wednesdays and fridays (now lightened in the West to friday abstinence - on the other hand lenten fast has been added to compensate)
- fasting the night before communion
- the Dormition of the Blessed Virgin Mary
- the number of Bible books!
- the interpretation of OT prophecy as fulfilled in NT (many things about St Mary are written as OT types, rather than directly in NT)

"How did Paul react? Did he say that the Scriptures were not clear, and that only he as an apostle or the rabbis or the Sanhedrin could tell them what the Scriptures really meant? Or did he say that they should not expect to find the truth in the Scriptures because they were incomplete and needed to be supplemented by tradition? Or did he say that they were insulting his apostolic authority, and that they should simply submit to him as the infallible interpreter of the Bible? Or did Paul say that they should defer to Peter as the only one who could interpret the Bible? No! He did not say any of these things. The practice of the Bereans is praised in the Bible. They are called noble because they evaluated everything on the basis of the written Word of God"

- how Sermon on the Mount is and is not obliging, how it obliges some more than others ("if thou wilt be perfect")

b) all doctrinally and morally binding Tradition is from the Apostles: signing with the cross, fasting on wednesdays and fridays, fasting before communion all started, the Dormition of our Lady happened, and all Bible books were written before the last Apostle, St John, left the earthly life. Which does not mean that later traditions (about miracles of St Martin) do not belontg to the tradition. They do, just as under OT purim and hanukkah as well as Septuagint day (abolished by anti-christian Jews at Jamnia) were added to the Mosaic feast days.

Anonyme a dit…

"All Scripture is inspired by God ..."

As opposed to "Torah alone" or "Heptateuch alone" (Torah+Joshua+Judges = Samaritan canon).

This supports the reverence we have for writings by and about the saints after the Bible books were written.

Anonyme a dit…

Unworthy as I am - I have had good teachers ...

Answers to pretended divergence between Scripture and Tradition:

"(1) The Bible teaches that the office of bishop and presbyter are the same office (Titus 1:5-7), but tradition says they are different offices."

Really? Or maybe the office referred to as "bishop" (distinct from "presbyter") was sometimes known by other names when NT was written. Anyway it is clear from Titus 1:5-7 that presbyters are ordained by Titus, also from Tradition that presbyters are ordained by what we traditionnally call bishops. The Bible shows Titus to have been one bishop himself ordained by St Paul, who also was ordained (Acts 13, if I recall correctly).

"(2) The Bible teaches that all have sinned except Jesus (Romans 3:10-12, Hebrews 4:15), but tradition says that Mary was sinless."

The Bible teaches that there is war between the snake and the woman, between its seed and her seed (Genesis ch. 3), and Mary is the woman referred to by God. But the war means there is no friendship between them. Thus Mary never made herself a friend of the serpent.

The fleece of Gideon (somewhere in Judges) was wet when all was dry, thus Mary had grace when OT was still without the fulness of grace, and paganism had nearly none of it. It was dry when all around was wet, thus she was free from sin when everyone else sinned.

"(3) The Bible teaches that Christ offered His sacrifice once for all (Hebrews 7:27, 9:28, 10:10), but tradition says that the priest sacrifices Christ on the altar at mass."

Is there any contradiction? Not if the sacrifice they offer is the same as the one he offered. Which is precisely the traditional doctrine.


"Who needeth not daily (as the other priests) to offer sacrifices first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, in offering himself."

We do acknowledge that the One High Priest needs no offering for his own sins. Not just, as already known, because he has none, but because, as is fitting for someone symbolised by Aaronitic priests and continued by bishops and presbyters, he has once and for all fulfilled the rite. The same chapter ALSO calls him a priest after the order of Melchisedec. He "offered up bread and wine" (Genesis).

"9:28 So also Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many; the second time he shall appear without sin to them that expect him unto salvation."

We do acknowledge that his sacrifice given once exhausts the sins. We do absolutely NOT pretend that it was offered for some sins, and mass is offered for others having occurred after it. Verse 25 has a comment in, which I will here quote:


25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holies, every year with the blood of others:


25 "Offer himself often"... Christ shall never more offer himself in sacrifice, in that violent, painful, and bloody manner, nor can there be any occasion for it: since by that one sacrifice upon the cross, he has furnished the full ransom, redemption, and remedy for all the sins of the world. But this hinders not that he may offer himself daily in the sacred mysteries in an unbloody manner, for the daily application of that one sacrifice of redemption to our souls.

"10:10 In the which will, we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Jesus Christ once."

Humanity was saved once by the cross, and yet human persons need baptism for salvation? Even so Christ offered his body and blood once, but we need it to be applied to our souls. Which happens when the priest offers this same oblation for us, and we communicate either by partaking of the sacrament or by desire of doing so when possible.

Anonyme a dit…

"(4) The Bible says that we are not to bow down to statues (Exodus 20:4, 5), but tradition says that we should bow down to statues."

That is applying OT legislation. OT also says we shall not bow down to men (man is after all a statue of God, made by God, see also Mordochai answering Haman, book of Esther), and yet we see Apostles falling down on their faces before Christ. Why?

"He who hath seen me hath seen the Father."

THAT has changed between Old and New.

"(5) The Bible says that all Christians are saints and priests (Ephesians 1:1; 1 Peter 2:9), but tradition says that saints and priests are special castes within the Christian community."

Tradition says there are two kinds of priesthood: one which you have by baptism and confirmation, enabling you to take communion, one which you have by cheirotonia / ordination enabling you to make communion.

Saints are NOT a special cast among Christians, just a special case among departed Christians (such as you can demand intercession from rather than apply your intercession to). Every Christian life is in a way an exegesis of the love of God and neighbour, but when it comes to going beyond family and still closer than Bible times (like Jews, differring from Samaritans, accepted writings after Torah, Joshua, Judges), there is a difference between sth like ordinary wikipedia articles and protected quality wikipedia articles in the lives of the deceased. God provides the start by miracles in connection with them (remember Elisha who raised a dead when being buried?), Church goes on to recognise these miracles happened, were from God, and proves saintity in noteworthy degree of this or that one. Otherwise the Church would not even have inherited the powers of the Jewish Church, which canonised the prophets and their writings, which canonised miracles like the Hanukkah or the Translation of the Seventy.

Anonyme a dit…

"(6) The Bible says that Jesus is the only Mediator between God and man (1 Timothy 2:5), but tradition says Mary is co-mediator with Christ."

Not really. You are confounding the two titles "mediatrix omnium gratiarum" with "co-redemptrix".

The first means she intercedes at least since taken up into heaven (Apostolic Tradition about Dormition), and that her intercession with the King of Heaven is powerful as was the intercession of Esther before the King of Persia. So, no grace she asks for is not given. No grace given was not asked by her.

"Christ is the omnipotence of divinity, Mary is the omnipotence of prayer".

The second means she kept Christ company in a supreme way by her co-suffering when he redeemed us, also maybe that her education helped him do the right thing when fasting or praying for us.

"(7) The Bible says that all Christians should know that they have eternal life (1 John 5:13), but tradition says that all Christians cannot and should not know that they have eternal life."

From 1 John 5:

"11 And this is the testimony, that God hath given to us eternal life. And this life is in his Son. 12 He that hath the Son, hath life. He that hath not the Son, hath not life. 13 These things I write to you, that you may know that you have eternal life, you who believe in the name of the Son of God. 14 And this is the confidence which we have towards him: That, whatsoever we shall ask according to his will, he heareth us. 15 And we know that he heareth us whatsoever we ask: we know that we have the petitions which we request of him.

"16 He that knoweth his brother to sin a sin which is not to death, let him ask, and life shall be given to him, who sinneth not to death. There is a sin unto death: for that I say not that any man ask."

One may individually know, reasonably speaking, that one is in the state of grace, that one has life, and yet not know that absolutely ("nobody knows if he is worthy of love or hatred") or that one will never commit a sin that is to death. Also, "you" refers to the Church. Not to every individual, how could otherwise St John say that some have brothers who "sin to death"?

Anonyme a dit…

latter posts are commenting on

What Do We Mean By Sola Scriptura?
By Dr. W. Robert Godfrey