I was wrong: "singulari prorsus privilegio" revisited

Confer the Latin quote in previous message. I had taken "singulari" in the sense "belonging to a particular person alone" or "relating only to a particular person, none other".

The privilege of assumption into Heaven belongs to the Blessed Virgin in a special way, but she shares the grace with others, at least saint John, her adoptive son, who laid down in his grave, there was a light and in the grave was only mannah, not his body, or with the both witnesses after their three and a half day of death, which will happen before the end of the world.

Singularis also means "individual, separate", or "in a class of its own", "sui generis". Taken that way the orthodoxy of the text is restored. She was not assumed as her son lifted himself, by his own divine power. She was not assumed through the merits of an even greater virgin, as her adoptive son and every one else at least after her assumption who was or shall be assumed has that grace from her merits and prayers.

I am consulting Liddell Scott.

Sorry, Munificentissimus Deus, I slandered through lack of linguistic attention.

...

I was not going to publish this before I had double checked the Vatican Internet version with a printed Latin text from Vatican issued back then, i e AAS 1950. So, not waiting, I take back what I said, unless there come a shock discovery that it was after all "privilegio prorsus unico" or that "singulari prorsus privilegio" was intended to exclude either Dormition of Our Lady or Assumptions and non-corruptions of others, like St John or the two witnesses of Apocalypse 11. Which I find not likely at all.

...

Easter day or Easter monday 2009, I had one short doubt, not about fact or Resurrection, but about complete inerrant truthfulness of Gospellers - the detail when the Holy Myrrhbearers bought the myrrh, obviously not in the morning before sunrise, it would seem (as it happens, energetic persons might have got that through too with a very accomodating merchant), but discovered linguistic reason way before drifting from faith - "having bought" does not mean bought just the minute before they started walking - because I had a trust in the authority of the Gospel. If I had had same trust in Papacy that day nearly ten years ago, I might have spared myself a lot of trouble, including before God.

I am thankful the Orthodox to which I came did NOT demand I abjure Catholicism. Which I did not. Going back in 2009 broke no oath. I am thankful I got no further away from Rome than to Iassi. I am thankful excommunications from 1054 were officially lifted before I did this.

I thank the most Sacred Heart of Jesus for keeping me safe from my childhood before baptism and youth, and the Immaculate Heart of Mary for keeping some purity left in me these last times.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Georges Pompidou
completed Day after Feast of
Sacred Heart, 2-VII-2011

PS: As the example shows, I am a scholar, not a prophet. I made a similar mistake about Byzantine Emperors and Albigensian Crusade, by conflating the Emperor called Bulgaroctonos with the one dealing with Bogumils into one emperor making a proto-Montfort by making a killing war campaign against Bogumilic Bulgarians, which was not the exact case. It is the kind of mistake one makes as a scholar, not as a true prophet (they don't make such mistakes) nor as a false one (their mistakes have ghastlier origins).

I am also a scholar not a bishop. Bishops are not supposed to pay attention to myth or to defend themselves when slapped on the cheek (Epistle to Timothy about myths to be avoided - I think - and Matthew chs 5 - 7 about cheeks to be turned are adressed to leaders of Christianity, not as strictly to everyone else)./HGL

A bit late ... Hope your Feast of Immaculate Conception was blessed

Hence original sin is concupiscence, materially, but privation of original justice, formally.

source

Obviously neither was in the Blessed Virgin.

Ineffabilis Deus

Plinio Correa Oliveira on the feast and the dogma and the votum sanguinis.

Syllabus of Errors & Nostis et Nobiscum

Why do Orthodox eat fish on Wednesdays?

Christ was sold by Judas on a Wednesday and died on a Friday. On Fridays then, Orthodox do not even eat fish.

I am not an example. It is Wednesday, and I had butter on the bread this breakfast. Dairy, egg and meat are also non-fasting foods. Though next week, if I got it right on internet, I can eat dairy but no meat all week days till Sunday. The Monday after begins Great Lent.

Our Lady in Fatima appeared last time on 1917 October 13 Gregorian Calendar - the Vigil of October 14 Gregorian/1 Julian Calendar (13 days of difference in 20th and 21st Cs) which is the Orthodox Feast Protection of the Theotokos. The event celebrated is prelude to the conversion of the Slavs. That appearance was the vigil of the last time the Czar St Nikolai II celebrated that feast. One of her requests in Fatima was to fast on Wednesdays and Fridays. I e like the Orthodox. And, for that matter, like the Uniates.

PS: Shellfish does not count as fish in this context.

Between two 15 August

Between the Gregorian one and the the Julian one. By a sinner unworthy, but trying to make peace in his life, and with those he hurt.



I believe the Dormition of Our Lady the Theotokos. She ceased to breathe, her heart ceased to beat. Her earthly life took an end. She was buried. Thomas opened the grave later, and she was no longer there. Probably she was assumed into heaven.



Pius XII tried to make a dogma of that assumption. My problem with his bull is elsewhere.

...Yet, according to the general rule, God does not will to grant to the just the full effect of the victory over death until the end of time has come. And so it is that the bodies of even the just are corrupted after death, and only on the last day will they be joined, each to its own glorious soul.
5. Now God has willed that the Blessed Virgin Mary should be exempted from this general rule. She, by an entirely unique privilege, completely overcame sin by her Immaculate Conception, and as a result she was not subject to the law of remaining in the corruption of the grave, and she did not have to wait until the end of time for the redemption of her body.

from Munificentissimus Deus

This seems to state that she alone was exempt from "corruption of the grave" (the Latin text I remember is closer to such understanding than this English one) - but if the word means simply death, that seems to contradict the dormition. And if the word fully means corruption, this would seem to contradict all the uncorrupt saints, including St John the Theologian, the adoptive son of the Theotokos.

First I solved this by denying Pius XII was Pope. That would logically have made me a Colinist, but by a misunderstanding I was Palmarian instead. The Palmarian theory that real popes, prisoners in the Vatican had false (or adulterated?) documents published in their name seemed to me to make sense. Now I rather think that the Popes were never meant as direct rulers of the Church Universal. As judges when some of the other bishops fail - yes. As bishops of the other bishops - no. I think their writings (except when confirmed by universal tradition or a council accepted by all the Orthodox Church) could be regarded as the Lefebvrians regard "non-infallible Papal teaching" (Gaudium et Spes, Centesimo Anno).

May God grant me true orthodoxy of faith and help me to make peace with whomever I have hurt who did not really deserve it.

Hans Lundahl
6/19 August 2008
OC Transfiguration Feast
Arles