1) Own notes only under first post :
[Note that the o-x.fr short links I made have been disabled.]
- Hans-Georg Lundahl a dit…
It has a short url in original format: http://o-x.fr/yaa.
First reference given by John is now compressed as http://o-x.fr/fb-.
Second reference is now compressed as http://o-x.fr/0-3.
Clicking them will get you to the misquotes from Bellarmine. Scrolling up will get you to covers, it is a question of antiquated Proetstant books. Even without scrolling, you will find authors on these works, and these authors are NOT St Robert Bellarmine.
http://o-x.fr/t1m = Bellarmino, Il catechismo.
When trying to find De Romano Pontifice, I stumbled on http://o-x.fr/kf0 (kay, eff, zero) = Lumen Gentium, which cites that work somewhere.
Here we find, in French, a reference to De Romano Pontifice, book five chapter six, where St Robert Bellarmine says that, as the soul commandeth the body, the Roman Pontiff has a right to intervene if the “prince” (i e secular power) should legislate against the good of souls. THAT allegation from first reference offered by John is therefore correct.
Oh, forgot the link, short url http://o-x.fr/fu8
Résultats de la recherche
Votre recherche: Mots recherchés=”De Romano Pontifice” et Titre=”De Romano Pontifice”
Il n’y a pas de document correspondant à votre recherche.
Il n’y a pas de document correspondant à votre recherche.
In case you did not realise that you should click title to get to the blog post on MYSTAGOGY, I have a short url to it: http://o-x.fr/hc0
- 21 octobre 2009 06:50
- [Since this short link is disabled, I linked to it on top portion of my first response.]
And HERE I link to real quote: Pseudoquote identified. What De Romano Pontifice, book IV, chapter V really says (quote)
Here is a google search http://o-x.fr/b8v on the surname of that exfranciscan bishop and Barcelona, a city where he claims to have been and have been obliged to leave. Funnily enough ALL links are to reprints of this article. Even the one named “Bishop Barcelona” only links to it in English and in Greek.
Did the man exist before writing this piece? Did the piece exist before recent “republishing” on internet?
http://o-x.fr/4ug – Roman Catholic martyrs in Mexico (where that bishop Paul is said to have been killed, by people trying to make it appear it were by a Catholic fanatic)
Thank you for your work. May God continue to bless you with the Spirit of Lepanto.
Do you read French?
- 30 octobre 2009 06:14
- 3) Continuing link list :
- 31 octobre 2009 09:00
- [Omitting list to the two series]
New link to John Sandinopoulos’ blogpost: http://o-x.fr/2f87
tiny.cc/f2rmz tiny.cc/ipmu0 tiny.cc/c2gxq
And as a Catholic and as a devout venerator of St Robert, I do of course care what is said about him.
Even if you expose one single quote as inaccurate, you would still have many, many more issues and historical facts to contend with regarding the fallibility of the Popes (Papal infallibility is a more recent dogma, as you surely must know), and the insanity of several ex-Cathedra, Magisterium-authored Bulls. I’m an ex-Roman Catholic…after visiting the Vatican in 1991, I was disgusted and heart-broken by the paganism I saw on the grounds; in the library and in the Vatican Gardens. I began looking more carefully at the Roman Catholic church’s claims, and sadly, discovered just how WRONG She could be, and not just Her Popes.
I wish no ill to Roman Catholics, I know many are wonderfully pious people, and that Jesus is in the SAVING business, not the condemnation business (you get the opposite impression from all but the last two Popes; the Roman Catholic god is just angry and vengeful, not like Jesus at all). The RC church was seriously comprimised after being essentially taken over by the Franks. The German Barbarians hijacked the crumbling OLD Roman empire (if St. Peter’s “throne” could move from Antioch to Old Rome, it could certainly move from Old Rome to New Rome – Constantinople – as Canon 28 seems to imply; a Canon signed by the Roman legates, by the way), and destroyed the Mediterranean family structure upon which the Church was built, a loving, embracing structure still common to Greeks, Eastern Mediterranean Semites, and Southern Italians.
Seriously, coming back to post one-sentence posts every couple of minutes looks neurotic, and is hardly conducive to making a persuasive argument, Herr Lundahl!
Peace in Christ to you,
It was the one chosen by Paul Ballaster. Or one of his two, to prove St Robert Bellarmine was “papolatrous”.
It is very different to state “if a Pope WERE to solemnly define truth as falsehood or falsehood as truth, the Church WOULD be obliged to believe so” like St Robert really wrote, and to state “if the Pope DOES … the Church IS OBLIGED …” as Paul Ballaster misquoted him.
See next post for real quote.
And note that Paul Ballaster claimed to have read St Robert in original, in the library of the Franciscans. He can’t have, unless he had a lousy memory, so he was probably lying.
That is why he should NOT be canonised by the Greeks.
Which was the whole point I was trying to make.
You state you have seen lots of otehr examples where solemn definitions of Popes were erroneous. But you give no examples. If you mean Gaudium et Spes by Vatican II signed by Paul VI, I consider Vatican II was no valid Council, Paul VI was no valid Pope and even if they had been Gaudium et Spes is not formulated as a valid Church document.
The RC church was seriously comprimised after being essentially taken over by the Franks. The German Barbarians hijacked the crumbling OLD Roman empire (if St. Peter’s “throne” could move from Antioch to Old Rome, it could certainly move from Old Rome to New Rome – Constantinople – as Canon 28 seems to imply; a Canon signed by the Roman legates, by the way), and destroyed the Mediterranean family structure upon which the Church was built, a loving, embracing structure still common to Greeks, Eastern Mediterranean Semites, and Southern Italians.
I think this is totally erroneous. If you get it from Romanides, consider that Romanides was a fraud, intellectually, since he misspent his time at Harvard (a bad choice of university anyway, ecclesiastically speaking, very Puritan and Anticatholic) in digging up accusations very probably originating in some 19th C. Anglican who was flirting with Orthodoxy and grasping at straws to find accusations against Rome so as to motivate the Reformation, which some of them were anyway not very proud of due to Protestant influence disgusting them.
(if St. Peter’s “throne” could move from Antioch to Old Rome, it could certainly move from Old Rome to New Rome – Constantinople – as Canon 28 seems to imply; a Canon signed by the Roman legates, by the way)
St Peter had two thrones, as personal bishop.
In one of them he was during his lifetime succeeded by Bishop St Eleutherius, who on his death was succeded by St Ignatius. If Peter remained Pope, this means he took Papacy with himself to Rome.
As to his throne there, dying he established St Linus as his successor.
So, St Linus and not St Eleutherius is successor to his Papacy.
Now, the throne of Peter has temporarily moved from Rome and back to Rome. I have been in Avignon, which was “Rome in exile” so to speak.
But when Popes moved to Avignon, they did not claim that from now on Papacy would be bishops of Avignon, rather that they were even IN Avignon bishops OF Rome, while bishops of Avignon remained distinct from them.
Therefore, Papacy cannot shift from one line of bishops, that in Rome, to another line in Constantinople, if it is constitutive of the Church.
Seriously, coming back to post one-sentence posts every couple of minutes looks neurotic, …
I was very probably making them in an internet café where connexion could suffer once every while and therefore posting what I had written as soon as possible, so as not to write a long answer and get it lost. That is a neuroticising experience.
… and is hardly conducive to making a persuasive argument, Herr Lundahl!
Now, an argument in oral communication when one has little time to rethink things, stands very much on rhetoric means of the one argumenting.
But when one is writing, one has time to read and to reread, and therefore to examine the thought.
It is therefore unworthy to make a point about unpersuasiveness of any behaviour (especially one which can have an explanation you don’t know) rather than looking at the actual arguments.
It is also true that “Herr Lundahl” is correct in both languages.
However, to persons not knowing Swedish, it sounds as if stampingt me as primarily German or Austrian. To anyone knowing Swedish, it sounds unfamiliar.
In Sweden I was adressed mostly as “Hans-Georg” or as “HG” or as “du”, since titulation (even “ni”) was abolished by Social Democrats, and that abolishment has entered into the general mores of Sweden, unlike the spelling reforms earlier (which alas also have done so), it is not sth I actively try to reverse, even for my own part.
You see, I don’t think Swedish as spoken now sounds ugly. I only think it looks ugly to write it as written by the revolutionary minds who initiated spelling reforms.
Which is why, whenever I am adressed as “Herr Lundahl!” I feel a sense of suspicion as if someone was trying to exploit anti-German sentiments by stamping me as German. Even in Austria, I hope I could still get away with saying “oh, i’ bin nit so alt doß du ‘Herr’ sogen muß”.
October 20, 2009 3:17 PM I adressed his « first reference », October 20, 2009 3:25 PM (eight minutes later), I adressed his second reference and promised to look for sth, October 20, 2009 3:33 PM (another eight minutes later) I admitted not having found it.
How is that “neurotic”? I was simply looking up things between posting answers.
- 23 avril 2015 04:23
- 5) Notes under second post of Pseudoquote identified :
- Anonyme a dit…
(yup, still me, but I cannot bother to log in right now)
Here is what I said on comment field of a post where I posted above:
I see no difference from what Orthodox say after schism, except that he says of Roman Bishop what u of each bishop or all collectively, but not of the Roman.
O sempre giudicato, ottimi uditori, essere sommamente necessario perseverare nella Chiesa, nella quale si trova la fede vera ed ortodossa, il vero culto di Dio, la vera remissione dei peccati …
“If the Pope some day imposed sins and forbade virtues, the Church isobliged to believe that these sins are good and these virtues are bad”
but if the Pope erred giving precepts for vices or forbidding virtues, the Church would be obliged to believe vices good & virtues bad, unless she wanted to sin against her conscience.
si autem Papa erraret praecipiendo vitia, vel prohibendo virtutes,teneretur Ecclesia credere vitia esse bona, & virtutes malas, nisi vellet contra conscientiam peccare.
teneretur=would be obliged
even the context
erraret praecipiendo=erred by giving a precept, were to err by giving a precept
cannot possibly be identified as
“gives a precept”
Bellarmine clearly says that imposing a sin and forbidding a virtue is error, he is not at all declaring that the Church can be bound by such error, he thought God would never allow a Pope to commit such an error.
Well, there was some time since I owned a Roman Missal.
- 24 octobre 2009 06:34
- [Omitting links to the series, French and English]
- 6) Dialogue with a presumable Anglican :
- F.G.S.A a dit…
The examples of the England language found on this site are full of grammatical mistakes and unidiomatic phrases. “Highest Pontiff” simply does not exist in English to denote the Bishop of Rome: Supreme Pontiff is the appropriate expression. I would humbly beg the author of this blog to consult Fowler’s English Usage and King’s English, and to read the diverse works of Dr Johnson to get an idea of what correct English not only “looks” like but also “sounds”. I wish you had less latinity and more clearness in your expressions. Thanking you.
“Highest Pontiff” corrected to “Supreme Pontiff” (supreme happens to be Latin for highest). The translation ON THIS MESSAGE closely follows the Latin, and does not sound like English but like Latin too closely translated into English. It is mine, made for sole purpose of defending St Robert Bellarmine against a calumny related to this locus of his work De Romano Pontifice. It does not nor should not either claim any literary quality of mine, only a mere serveice to any reader unable to read St Robert’s Latin for himself.
I personally have no problem with the latin language. Though i’m confined to a classical and not to a scholastic and mediaeval vocabulary. The only work of Bellarmine which i know and as a consequence of which i like, is the De Arte Bene Moriendi- which in my humble opinion many people should read. There are also the works of Jeremy Taylor, an Anglican divine on the same subject: Holy Living and Holy Dying which influenced much the poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge.
I do not think the translation should be strikingly Johnsonese, however.
1 approached Catholicism in Liturgy and view of Sacraments (Oxford Movement of 1830’s, more recently in Sweden);
2 even before that tried to salvage Catholic piety, like the books you refer to and which I have not read, like Giertz and Schartau in Sweden, not to mention their successor the recently deceased Bertil Gärtner (R.I.P.).
Unfortunately they do not constitute the mainstream of Protestantism or even of their own particular communities.
Yes, indeed, there was at a time a wave of “High-Churchianism” in the Scandinavian Lutheran Churches- but with the admission of women to their “orders” and like aberrations, it has been mostly likely sidelined, persecuted or even destroyed.
What do you think of Bossuet and his Gallicanism? Extraordinary and in my opinion, praiseworthy that a Bishop should at the same time live at the court, advise the King, without ceasing to administer his diocese, instructing the faithful under him and strengthening them in the Catholic faith and confuting the Protestants.
Both “pietism” and “high-churchianism” are sidelined or diluted. Problem is they never were the mainstream of Protestantism.
The Calvinism that St François fought (free-will as illusory or at least not changing eternal predestination either to glory or to shame) was in many countries THE Protestant confession.
- 25 janvier 2010 01:31
- 7) Own comment :
Perhaps our Protestant apologist is a bit disappointed that I have not yet engaged him in any quibbling about Greek. Well, he’s offered me a beauty of an instance; in fact, it’s his very favorite quotation from Athanasius, the one in which he pretends that Athanasius professes the doctrine of sola scriptura over and against Church councils. Speaking of the Arians, St. Athanasius says:
“Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded councils for the faith’s sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a council is needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrine so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in the divine Scriptures” (On the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia, 6).
Does St. Athanasius’ original Greek really say that Scripture is“sufficient above all things”? No. In a very simple sentence which a first-year Greek student should be able to translate correctly, St. Athanasius declares “For divine Scripture is more sufficient than all [other writings, councils, etc.].” The sentence in transliterated Greek reads Esti men gar hikanotera panton he theia graphe. Here we do not have an absolute statement, but a comparative one. To say that Scripture is the primary source of doctrine is not to say that it is the sole source of doctrine. I do not know of any Catholic theologian, doctor, or council of prelates of any period in the Church’s history who would not view arguments from Sacred Scripture as the more authoritative among various sources of doctrine. This quotation gives absolutely no support to the Protestant error of sola scriptura. The issue here in the Greek is subtle, yes, but seemingly too subtle for the Protestant apologist to have caught.
There is some question as to whether the emperor acted on his own, or in concert with Pope Sylvester. While the accounts contemporary to the event mention only Constantine, a statement made in the Third Council of Constantinople (A.D. 680) indicates Nicea was called by both the emperor and the Pope. It is interesting to note this statement was made during the general session, and was received as true without question or objection. Surely they would have known better, were it not true.
- 16 juin 2010 02:29
- [Omitting new links of short link type which were also deleted. It is bothersome not to have short links to posts that interest you, to have to go back to the post where you linked to them … but some people want to make internet use bothersome for me.]
- 8) Short dialogue :
- Nicholas a dit…
What is St Robert saying here? If the Pope is in ‘error’ then why are Catholic bound by conscience?
And as that is absurd he cannot be in error on such an occasion.
Note that when it comes to SSPX vs Sedisvacantism, the latter are closer to St Robert Bellarmine and the former to Cajetan.
Fr. Paul Natterer of Zaitzkofen (SSPX Seminary in Germany) stated in the sermon series Wie müssen wir zum Pabst stehen, he considered the position of Cajetan more balanced than that of St Robert Bellarmine.
Noting examples: look up Canon law of 1917, juridic work directed by Pacelli, look up its interpretation in 1943 (AAS=Acta Apostolicae Sedis), by same Pacelli become Pope Pius XII – if Pope he was. He ordered a monastery to pay interest to another monastery that year.
ELEISON COMMENTS CCXIII (Aug.13, 2011) : INNOCENT IGNORANCE ?
A reader asks a vital question : « If a good Protestant has lived a good life but still firmly believes that the Catholic Faith is wrong, so that he does not even consider entering the Catholic Church, can he still be saved ?” The question is vital (from “vita” in latin, meaning “life”), because it is a question of eternal life or death for countless souls.
By way of answer, the first thing to be said is that every soul appearing at death instantaneously before God’s judgment seat will be judged by him with a perfect justice and with a perfect mercy. God alone knows the depths of a man’s heart which a man can hide from himself, let alone from other men. Men may misjudge, but God never. Therefore the “good Protestant” will be damned by himself or saved by God, exactly as God knows that he has deserved.
Nevertheless it stands to reason that if God wants all of us to be saved (I Tim.II,4), and requires of us to believe on pain of damnation (Mk.XVI,16), he will have let us men know what we must believe and what we must do to save our souls. What then must the “good Protestant” believe ?
At the very least any soul to be saved must believe that God exists and that he rewards the good and punishes the wicked (Heb.XI,6). If a “good Protestant” who has led “a good life” does not believe that, he cannot be saved. But many Catholic theologians go further and say that to be saved one must also believe in the Holy Trinity and in Christ as Redeemer. If these theologians are right, then there may be many more “good Protestants” who cannot save their souls.
And God may require of them to believe in more than just these absolute basics, depending upon how much opportunity they have had in life to learn of the Truth that comes from him. If they are ignorant of all the rest of the Catholic Faith, have they never come across it ? Possibly not. But possibly they have. I can remember my mother telling with admiration how a Catholic priest once answered all the serious questions of her “good Protestant” father, but there was no follow-up that I know of. If then “good Protestants” have even only once come across Catholic truth, why exactly did they not follow up ? Unless it was badly presented, they were in effect rejecting truth. Can they have rejected it without some fault? Then did they reject it innocently or wilfully ? “Good Protestants” easily consider themselves to be innocent, as do we all, but God is deceived by none of us.
However, there is also what a “good Protestant” must do to be saved. He may not know all that the Catholic Church infallibly requires of us in morals, but he does have at least the natural light of his in-born conscience. Now it may be truly difficult with original sin and with no help from the Catholic sacraments to follow that natural light of one’s conscience, but if one does seriously violate it or twist it out of true, it is easy to live and to die in mortal sin, a state in which no soul can be saved. Again, the “good Protestant” may plead ignorance of the fullness of God’s law as Catholics can know it, but is his ignorance truly “invincible”, i.e. innocent ? For instance, did he really not know, or did he actually want not to know, that artificial means of birth control are seriously displeasing to God ?
God knows. God judges. May he have mercy upon all “good Protestants”, and upon all of us.
- 31 juillet 2013 04:32
- [still works]
- 9) Comments under my third post, omitting first reference to his post, since using a disabled shortlink there, and also the series about my return to Catholicism.
“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.
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.“
“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.
“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.
- 9 décembre 2009 04:47
- 10) Final comments anonymously made :
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.
- 9 décembre 2009 08:51
- 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 drbo.org, 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.
- 9 décembre 2009 08:54
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 makecommunion.
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.
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”?
What Do We Mean By Sola Scriptura?
By Dr. W. Robert Godfrey
Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6YoUWflxY to access the cached copy of this page
Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6YoUfVQxr to access the cached copy of this page
Please use the URL http://www.webcitation.org/6YoUhB6Ks to access the cached copy of this page