John Calvin was a secret Roman Catholic? Here's an odd John Calvin quote utilized on a discussion forum:
Calvin on the RCC:
"the Roman Catholic church was the Mother church; that no one had the right to withdraw from the Mother church even if it were sinful; and that there was no salvation outside the walls of the Mother church."(Book 4, Institutes, Calvin)
If this quote seems awkwardly worded and suspicious... you're right! While there are some aspects of this quote that hint at some of Calvin's comments from Book Four of the Institutes, it's common knowledge that he was clearly opposed to Roman Catholicism. Rome's defenders overtly recognized him as an enemy of the Roman church. Let's take a closer look at this quote and see if it can be determined exactly how Calvin ended up supporting Roman Catholicism!
Documentation
The person who posted this quote provided the vague reference, "Book 4, Institutes, Calvin." Granted, Calvin released different editions of the Institutes throughout his lifetime, but I did not come across any meaningful direct hits to this quote in the Institutes. The only direct search hit that did occur was to a webpage entitled, Calvinism is a counterfeit Christian cult. It is actually carefully disguised Roman Catholicism. That webpage states,
Not only is calvinism a counterfeit Christian cult, it is also largely based upon the Catholic heresies which were greatly influenced by Augustine. And, no great surprise, for Calvin’s Institutes were also greatly influenced by that same Augustine. Thus, calvinism is merely a counterfeit Catholic belief; Calvin was, all along, a closet Catholic. He declared that the Roman Catholic church was the Mother church; that no-one had the right to withdraw from the Mother church even if it were sinful; and that there was no salvation outside the walls of the Mother church. (Book 4, Institutes, Calvin)
As far as I could determine, the author of this link is anonymous. The website hosting the page states,
"Hoppers Crossing Christian Church is a small home based church in the Western Suburbs of Melbourne. Over the past two to three years since inception, we have become concerned about the state of the Christian Church in western society and have therefore embarked on a mission to spread the truth about what we are seeing."
The website hosts an entire collection of articles under their category, "Calvinist heretics & heresies," with John Calvin taking many beatings. Someone (perhaps the author?) on the website claims to have been a "Calvinist" for 19 years... therefore now, of course, an expert! From reading the biographical information provided, this person admits to being born into a Presbyterian family and then had some sort of theological epiphany at age 19, I think it's disingenuous to claim a full 19 years of a well-researched and understood Calvinistic background. Rather, why not simply admit to being born into a family with particular theological leanings, and then later on questioning that upbringing in later teen years?
Since an exact reference to the Institutes Book 4 was not provided, this following is a quick overview of Calvin's Institutes comments on Romanism and a speculative excursion into which texts from Calvin were misconstrued into the Reformer supporting Roman Catholicism.
Context
In Book 4 Calvin shows his deep criticism of the Roman Church (they are "Christ's chief adversaries"). For instance:
Instead of the ministry of the Word, a perverse government compounded of lies rules there, which partly extinguishes the pure light, partly chokes it. The foulest sacrilege has been introduced in place of the Lord’s Supper. The worship of God has been deformed by a diverse and unbearable mass of superstitions. Doctrine (apart from which Christianity cannot stand) has been entirely buried and driven out. Public assemblies have become schools of idolatry and ungodliness. In withdrawing from deadly participation in so many misdeeds, there is accordingly no danger that we be snatched away from the church of Christ. The communion of the church was not established on the condition that it should serve to snare us in idolatry, ungodliness, ignorance of God, and other sorts of evils, but rather to hold us in the fear of God and obedience to truth.
They indeed gloriously extol their church to us to make it seem that there is no other in the world. Thereupon, as if the matter were settled, they conclude that all who dare withdraw from the obedience with which they adorn the church are schismatics; that all who dare mutter against its doctrine are heretics.
Surprisingly, Calvin did refer to Rome as the "mother church" In Book 4 he wrote, "Of old, Rome was indeed the mother of all churches; but after it began to become the see of Antichrist, it ceased to be what it once was" (4,7,24). He compares Rome to the "ancient church of Israel," meaning that in a similar way that Israel was corrupt /idolatrous, so also was Rome: "The Romanists, therefore, today make no other pretension than what the
Jews once apparently claimed when they were reproved for blindness,
ungodliness, and idolatry by the Lord’s prophets." In 4,2,20. Calvin discusses why one must separate from the corrupted church.
This does not mean though there is no such thing as "mother church" since Rome's corruption. Rather, there is a visible church that is the mother of believers and there is no salvation apart from her. Calvin writes,
But because it is now our intention to discuss the visible church, let us learn even from the simple title “mother” how useful, indeed how necessary, it is that we should know her. For there is no other way to enter into life unless this mother conceive us in her womb, give us birth, nourish us at her breast, and lastly, unless she keep us under her care and guidance until, putting off mortal flesh, we become like the angels [Matthew 22:30]. Our weakness does not allow us to be dismissed from her school until we have been pupils all our lives. Furthermore, away from her bosom one cannot hope for any forgiveness of sins or any salvation, as Isaiah [Isaiah 37:32] and Joel [Joel 2:32] testify. Ezekiel agrees with them when he declares that those whom God rejects from heavenly life will not be enrolled among God’s people [Ezekiel 13:9]. On the other hand, those who turn to the cultivation of true godliness are said to inscribe their names among the citizens of Jerusalem [cf. Isaiah 56:5; Psalm 87:6]. For this reason, it is said in another psalm: “Remember me, O Jehovah, with favor toward thy people; visit me with salvation: that I may see the well-doing of thy chosen ones, that I may rejoice in the joy of thy nation, that I may be glad with thine inheritance” [Psalm 106:4-5 p.; cf. Psalm 105:4, Vg., etc.]. By these words God’s fatherly favor and the especial witness of spiritual life are limited to his flock, so that it is always disastrous to leave the church. (4,1,4).
Some years back I took a look at Calvin's adherence to the phrase that there is no salvation outside the church. In summary, I concluded that the extra ecclesiam nulla salus of Calvin and Rome are in essence quite different.
Conclusion
In fairness to whoever put the quote together, it is true that in Book 4 of the Institutes John Calvin applied the phrase "mother church" to Rome. It's also true that Calvin believed one had to be joined to the mother church, and it's also true he believed there is no salvation outside the church. However, these concepts are to be interpreted according to their immediate context, and when done, the exact opposite is discovered: for Calvin, Rome may have originally held an important maternal pedigree in a qualified sense, but it no longer did. Yes, there is a "mother church," but it was the visible church, not the visible Roman church. One needed to be joined to that visible church as the normal means of salvation.
This quote is a perfect example that one cannot simply assume a quote found on the Internet is accurate. In this case, what John Calvin actually wrote in Book 4 of the Institutes is directly opposed to the quote he's purported to have written! It appears to me that this the words "He declared that the..." were cut off of the original anti-Calvin webpage, thus creating a quote alleged to be directly from Calvin. Therefore, the key to this quote... is that it's not a direct quote from Calvin's Institutes. The author of the anti-Calvinist webpage appears to be erroneously summarizing some points from Calvin's Institutes, Book 4.
Posts
59 comments:
And the only one true church is the mystical body of Christ which the Spirit baptizes one into (1 Co. 12:13) upon regeneration by heart-purifying faith, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) and to which Christ is married, (Ephesians 5:30-32) for it alone only and always consists only of true believers, while the organic fellowships which believers are normally part of end up being admixtures of wheat and chaff.
You might want to look at St. Francis of Sales' words with Beza.
Taken by memory from a biography of the Catholic saint that I read long ago.
Beza admitted that the Roman Church was the Mother Church, and that one could be saved in it.
St. Francis of Sales asked why then the Reformation?
Beza said to be saved in an easier way, without works salvation.
St. Francis of Sales replied that the Bible commented on works as necessary, sheep and goats parable.
Beza cursed.
Beza admitted that the Roman Church was the Mother Church, and that one could be saved in it.
I'd have to see the context, not from a biography, but from Beza.
Likewise, I admit God saves whomever he wants. I think it's even possible for a Roman Catholic to be saved, but not because of Rome, papal decretals, allegedly "infallible" councils, or whatever Rome is putting forth.
"but from Beza."
It's from St. Francis' of Sales visit to Beza within days or weeks of his death.
Written evidence from Beza for that oral dialogue are not upcoming, I spontaneously think.
"I think it's even possible for a Roman Catholic to be saved,"
Again, then why the Reformation?
"but not because of Rome, papal decretals, allegedly "infallible" councils, or whatever Rome is putting forth."
But because of the Reformation? If not, why the Reformation? If yes, why is one man, standing up against not contemporaries, but centuries after Gregory I, superior to those centuries of a cohesive Church with some semblance of being the Church Christ founded?
It's from St. Francis' of Sales visit to Beza within days or weeks of his death.
... still requires a context. I suspect Beza didn't wait till shortly before his death to comment on the nature of "catholic" "church" and "Rome."
, then why the Reformation?
I take responsibility for providing you with a previously ambiguous statement that provoked your question. The Reformation was another event in the history of the church (church history is not the sole property of Rome). People were saved before the Reformation and also afterward. The Reformation was multifaceted. The clarity of the Gospel was an aspect of it which provoked an outpouring of faith- in the same way people previous to the advent of Christ were saved- but at Pentecost (and during the history of Acts), a great number of people came to faith.
Again, then why the Reformation?
Well, there is the problem that distinctive Catholic teachings (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels). https://peacebyjesus.net/deformation_of_new_testament_church.html
And besides doctrine, there was the issue of widespread blatant immorality and division (and rather than the magisterium being the solution, its actions are the reason being Rome today being more fractured then it ever has since the era of the Avignon Papacy).
As a man by the name of Ratzinger attested regarding division:
"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side. The Church no longer offered certainty of salvation; she had become questionable in her whole objective form--the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution.“
"It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness that we are to understand that Luther, in the conflict between his search for salvation and the tradition of the Church, ultimately came to experience the Church, not as the guarantor, but as the adversary of salvation. (Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, head of the Sacred Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith for the Church of Rome, “Principles of Catholic Theology,” trans. by Sister Mary Frances McCarthy, S.N.D. (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1989) p.196). http://www.whitehorseinn.org/blog/2012/06/13/whos-in-charge-here-the-illusions-of-church-infallibility/)
Regarding morals, one of many voices is that of Cardinal Bellarmine:
"Some years before the rise of the Lutheran and Calvinistic heresy, according to the testimony of those who were then alive, there was almost an entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments; in morals, no discipline; in sacred literature, no erudition; in divine things, no reverence; religion was almost extinct. (Concio XXVIII. Opp. Vi. 296- Colon 1617, in “A History of the Articles of Religion,” by Charles Hardwick, Cp. 1, p. 10,)
Catholic historian Paul Johnson additionally described the existing social situation among the clergy during this period leading up to the Reformation:
“Probably as many as half the men in orders had ‘wives’ and families. Behind all the New Learning and the theological debates, clerical celibacy was, in its own way, the biggest single issue at the Reformation. It was a great social problem and, other factors being equal, it tended to tip the balance in favour of reform. As a rule, the only hope for a child of a priest was to go into the Church himself, thus unwillingly or with no great enthusiasm, taking vows which he might subsequently regret: the evil tended to perpetuate itself.” (History of Christianity, pgs 269-270)
Certainly "Protestantism" (a tent so wide Catholics place everything from Swedenborgism to the Metropolitan church of "sanctified sodomy' in it to holiness Onesness Pentecostalism in it, and whom your Bergoglio might high five), but unless one is contending for the whole of it or a one true church then that is irrelevant.
Unlike a basically sound church which preaches the evangelical gospel of effectual penitent justificatory regenerating faith, one cannot leave the church of Rome when it goes South without being schismatic, while to remain makes one a member with even proabortion, prohomosexual public figures since your leadership manifestly considers them to be member in life and in death.
To which also applies, "I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." ()
" I suspect Beza didn't wait till shortly before his death to comment on the nature of 'catholic' 'church' and 'Rome.'"
Certainly not. The dialogue is one where St. Francis of Sales was giving him the opportunity to retract previously expressed opinions before dying. The which I do not claim to be expert on.
You are free to imagine he made it up to brag before Catholics.
I am free to imagine St. Francis of Geneva was barred from follow up by Protestants who wanted to keep their hero.
"The Reformation was another event in the history of the church"
No. It was a claim that doctrine as upheld by bishops and popes for centuries had gone wrong. So wrong that cutting off communion was warranted - and for so long that the older correct doctrine was out of reach of direct memory and had to be reconstructed.
The clarity of the Gospel was an aspect of it which provoked an outpouring of faith- in the same way people previous to the advent of Christ were saved- but at Pentecost (and during the history of Acts), a great number of people came to faith.
So, the Reformation is compared to Pentecost, and Catholic Centuries to the Old Covenant - that's a far cry from "another event in the history of the church" ... it's very little short of claiming a third of fourth covenant had just begun (depending on whether you insert a RC covenant between the NT and the Protestant Covenant, or prefer to see the RC as a waning of the NT covenant).
"(church history is not the sole property of Rome)."
It is however the sole property of the one Church the NT had - whereever you claim it is to be found. Claims I consider as realistic on a first approximation are RC, EO, Copts, Armenians, Assyrians. I have understood recently there is a third ethnic category like Copts and Armenians, not sure whether Syrians are closer to the former or latter or neither. They are ethnically close to the Assyrians who follow Nestorius. My point is, unity is to be broken with people whom you cannot make your salvation with, sought with those whom you can and that poses the question - if the Reformers found RC wanting, why didn't they convert to one of the other four or five?
If they had just discovered what faith really was (according to some the confidence saying "I am personally saved by Jesus from my sins and ensuing damnation and cannot get lost" - a definition we reject, as conflating faith with hope and being adequate to neither), how is that not tantamount to salvation being either impossible or very hard (like an exception) in the RC Church?
To PeaceByJesus:
"there was the issue of widespread blatant immorality and division"
There was immorality that Luther had seen in Rome. Very clearly admitted by Catholics who consider Rome had three Apostles: St. Peter, St. Paul and St. Philip Neri. That's not widespread. Nor was there division.
"rather than the magisterium being the solution, its actions are the reason being Rome today being more fractured then it ever has"
You are presuming Vatican II is Magisterium, and that "John XXIII" through "Francis" are popes.
I disagree. Magisterial teaching prior to 1950 was not a cause of division. (I count Humani Generis and its "until further notice" dispensation to be moderately Evolutionist as one milestone allowing lots of Catholics to fall into heresy up to and including apostasy, and consequently immortality).
"For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side." (Ratz.)
As long as they were Catholic, they had a good chance.
"-the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution." (Ratz.)
You can regard the Catholic Church as "the institution" if you will. In so far as it is "what Christ instituted" it involves bishops with apostolic succession (available on both sides, a bishop neither ceased to be bishop by adhering to the wrong Pope, nor was incapacitated to make valid sacraments including episcopal consecrations), and who at least to the best of your and their knowledge adher to the right pope. St. Vincent Ferrer put it this way : if you sincerely believe the Pope in whose camp you are, is the real one, you are a Catholic, if you don't care, you are a schismatic.
"It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness" (Ratz.)
Disagreed. It can be invoked for Wycliff, who founded Lollardism during the Western Schism, but hardly for Luther.
Continued ...
Continued for PeaceByJesus:
"Concio XXVIII. Opp. Vi. 296- Colon 1617"
What work is that?
Ah, Conciones habitae Lovanii ...
"according to the testimony of those who were then alive, there was almost an entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments; in morals, no discipline; in sacred literature, no erudition; in divine things, no reverence; religion was almost extinct."
Almost entire would refer to the regions St. Robert was familiar with. But let's analyse it further to see if it means immorality or sth else. First, "almost an entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments" would refer to judgements rather than to all acts overall. Second "in morals, no discipline" would refer to lack of certain methods to be moral (like devotio moderna or Jesuitic devotions).
"No erudition" would refer to Medieval Latin and "no reverence" would refer to popular music in masses - the exact thing Calvin did with "Geneva gigs." - Both are judgements about cultural taste, not in itself about the morality of the Catholic people. Even if St. Robert in the wake of Renaissance Humanism saw these as intimately intertwined.
Who's cited next?
"Paul Bede Johnson CBE (2 November 1928 – 12 January 2023) was an English journalist, popular historian, speechwriter and author."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Johnson_(writer)
"Probably as many as half the men in orders had ‘wives’ and families. Behind all the New Learning and the theological debates, clerical celibacy was, in its own way, the biggest single issue at the Reformation."
He's not stating in what country or countries. England? Europe?
In Iceland there was no Gregorian Reform and basically no celibacy to break.
He's also suspect of having his opinion as popular historian swayed by less than foolproof evidence, especially as he qualified it with "probably" - even so, it can be noted that Pope Michael reintroduced access to priesthood for married men on a regular basis in the Latin rite.
"Certainly "Protestantism" (...), but unless one is contending for the whole of it or a one true church then that is irrelevant."
Well, the problem is, Protestantism has in all the wideness of its tent a common deficit, not present in for instance EO. Or the other non-Reformation and also non-RC Churches I mentioned.
No Apostolic Succession, either at all, or at least no Apostolic Succession with continued will to offer up the Sacrifice of the Mass.
"Unlike a basically sound church which preaches the evangelical gospel of effectual penitent justificatory regenerating faith, one cannot leave the church of Rome when it goes South without being schismatic, while to remain makes one a member with even proabortion, prohomosexual public figures since your leadership manifestly considers them to be member in life and in death."
Leaving an institution that ceases to be Catholic, like the Episcopal See of Lund during the Reformation, is not ceasing to be Catholic.
Your assessment of the Bergoglian communion is yours, I will stay cautious on that one, but it is not what you find in the Vatican in Exile. If the Bergoglian communion is what you say, I already left it for Pope Michael. If it isn't what you say, I still left it for Pope Michael and consider it heretic and in some respects at the very least flirting with Apostasy.
Certainly not. The dialogue is one where St. Francis of Sales was giving him the opportunity to retract previously expressed opinions before dying. The which I do not claim to be expert on. You are free to imagine he made it up to brag before Catholics.
Out of curiosity I did a short cursory Google search and came upon a source that corroborates your comment- The History of Heresies by Alphonsus Liguori. It would be interesting to track down the original sources of this meeting between the two men rather than just a description of the events.
And with a little further digging, this source presents some further information about the meeting(s)
https://ia800203.us.archive.org/16/items/theodorebezacoun00bair/theodorebezacoun00bair.pdf
See pages 337-340, with emphasis on page 339.
>> "there was the issue of widespread blatant immorality and division" <<
There was immorality that Luther had seen in Rome. Very clearly admitted by Catholics who consider Rome had three Apostles: St. Peter, St. Paul and St. Philip Neri. That's not widespread. Nor was there division.
• 3 popes but no division. “the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side." But no division. Translation, as long you hold to one of the 3 true popes, there is no division for you.
>>"rather than the magisterium being the solution, its actions are the reason being Rome today being more fractured then it ever has" <<
You are presuming Vatican II is Magisterium, and that "John XXIII" through "Francis" are popes. I disagree. Magisterial teaching prior to 1950 was not a cause of division. (I count Humani Generis and its "until further notice" dispensation to be moderately Evolutionist as one milestone allowing lots of Catholics to fall into heresy up to and including apostasy, and consequently immortality).
• Meaning you are a member of the one true schism, without a living pope. Which schism itself has sects. You thus would be a type of evangelical “Bible Christian” in essence, meaning that you judge the veracity and validity of church teaching based upon your judgment of what ancient/historical church teaching is. Not to say that is wrong but the basic difference is that for a the Bible Christian ancient/historical church teaching is to be Scripture above all, as the judge of all, based upon the degree of evidential warrant, while for a TradCatholic it is based upon selective teaching by premodern popes and council that matters most.
Even though many such statements oppose the very practice of the laity determining which actual public teachings on F+M by popes and councils are valid, though trying to figure out what magisterial level they are on - and thus what level of dissent is required, can be perplexing.
* Epistola Tua: To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment , and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation.
Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor.... Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another. Those who, faced with two differing directives, reject the present one to hold to the past, are not giving proof of obedience to the authority which has the right and duty to guide them; and in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed.
• On this point what must be remembered is that in the government of the Church, except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office, each of them can adopt the attitude which he judges best according to times and circumstances. Of this he alone is the judge. It is true that for this he has not only special lights, but still more the knowledge of the needs and conditions of the whole of Christendom, for which, it is fitting, his apostolic care must provide. - Epistola Tua (1885), Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII; http://www.ewtn.com/vexperts/showmessage_print.asp?number=403215&language=en
Post 2 of 2-12-23
• "It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors ." - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
>> "For nearly half a century, the Church was split into two or three obediences that excommunicated one another, so that every Catholic lived under excommunication by one pope or another, and, in the last analysis, no one could say with certainty which of the contenders had right on his side." (Ratz.) <<
As long as they were Catholic, they had a good chance.
• A chance, though the RC claim is there is one true RCC, and one cannot be a Catholic in communion with that church if in schism from it. which rejecting the pope constitutes. (Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam: Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos; Canon 751). Of course, since you seem to believe that you can judge popes as not being legitimate successors then that is your out.
>>"-the true Church, the true pledge of salvation, had to be sought outside the institution." (Ratz.) <<
You can regard the Catholic Church as "the institution" if you will.
• Meaning no less a learned authority as Ratzinger can regard the Catholic Church as "the institution" if they will. Nice of you to allow that.
St. Vincent Ferrer put it this way : if you sincerely believe the Pope in whose camp you are, is the real one, you are a Catholic, if you don't care, you are a schismatic. But they are not in full communion with ecclesiastical authorities, and do not have permission to minister to the people of the diocese where they are located. As such, their ministry is illicit (i.e., illegal).
• Yes, https://canonlawmadeeasy.com/2007/10/18/are-they-really-catholic-part-ii/ But why are even discussing this? All the schisms and sects of Catholicism are critically in error, though there is still enough truth in it for penitent seekers to be actually born again as I was at age 24, after being raised devout, weekly mass and HD going RC, and having served as a altar boy, and after being actually born again, as a lector and CCD teacher during the approx. 6 years I remained therein, until God manifestly led me into evangelical faith as I sought Him as a servant, thank God.
>>"according to the testimony of those who were then alive, there was almost an entire abandonment of equity in ecclesiastical judgments; in morals, no discipline; in sacred literature, no erudition; in divine things, no reverence; religion was almost extinct." <<
Almost entire would refer to the regions St. Robert was familiar with...
• You go on to interpret Bellarmine to fit your desired image, but the regions St. Robert was familiar means the head was sick and covers the area the Reformation first began, and there is plenty of testimony to the moral failings and division, and partly answers the question, Why the Reformation? Since you evidently do not follow links:
Post 3 of 2-12-23
• Maurice W. Sheehan: In this lecture I want to talk about the causes of the Reformation.
This is a rather standard approach to the Reformation because it is admitted by all that the Reformation did not just happen or come like a bolt from the blue...Part of the tragedy of the Reformation is that the Church before 1517 was unable to reform itself or to set in motion events or changes that would have led to a reform in the Church that would have satisfied its members and really affected change....The first thing to note is that in the fourteenth century there was a period of approximately seventy years, from 1309 to 1377, when the pope was not living or residing in Rome...
To...Boniface IX, goes the unenviable distinction of probably having begun the papal sale of offices......Sixtus IV was completely a worldling. He is best known perhaps for the chapel that he built which was later decorated by Michelangelo, the Sistine Chapel. His successor Innocent VIII had an illegitimate family. Alexander VI, who was Spanish, was perhaps the worst of them all. He had many illegitimate children, but he was a good political candidate. But his reign as pope did more to weaken the moral prestige of the papacy than almost anything imaginable...
And if we go to the clergy, to what we can call the lower clergy or the ordinary priests, we can say that one vice that many of them had was immorality. Many of them had women that they kept in their rectories by whom they had children, so they had families to support. — Maurice W. Sheehan, O.F.M. Cap., Lecture 2: Prelude-Causes, Attempts at Reform to 1537; International Catholic University http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c01802.htm
• Erasmus, in his new edition of the “Enchiridion: “What man of real piety does not perceive with sighs that this is far the most corrupt of all ages? When did iniquity abound with more licentiousness? When was charity so cold?” (“The Evolution of the English Bible: A Historical Sketch of the Successive,” p. 132 by Henry William Hamilton-Hoare)
• Dickens: In the summer of 1536, Pope Paul III appointed Cardinals Contarini and Cafara and a commission to study church Reform. The report of this commission, the Consilium de emendanda ecclesiae, was completed in March 1537. The final paragraphs deal with the corruptions of Renaissance Rome itself: “the swarm of sordid and ignorant priests in the city, the harlots who are followed around by clerics and by the noble members of the cardinals’ households …”
• “The immediate effects of the Consilium fell far below the hopes of its authors and its very frankness hampered its public use. … the more noticeably pious prelates [note: this the “noticeably pious” clergy] had no longer to tolerate the open cynicism of the Medicean period, and when moral lapses by clerics came to light, pains were now taken to hush them up as matters of grievous scandal.” (G. Dickens, “The Counter Reformation,” pp. 100,102)
• In the same frank spirit is the following statement of de Mézeray, the historiographer of France: [Abrege’ Chronol. VIII. 691, seqq. a Paris, 1681]
“As the heads of the Church paid no regard to the maintenance of discipline, the vices and excesses of the ecclesiastics grew up to the highest pitch, and were so public and universally exposed as to excite against them the hatred and contempt of the people. We cannot repeat without a blush the usury, the avarice, the gluttony, the universal dissoluteness of the priests of this period, the licence and debauchery of the monks, the pride and extravagance of the prelates, and the shameful indolence, ignorance and superstition pervading the whole body... [Philosophy of History, 400, 401, 410, Engl. Transl. 1847.] and Möhler. [Symbolik, II. 31, 32, Engl. Transl.]
Post 4of 2-12-23
• The Consilium de Emendanda Ecclesia (a report commissioned by Pope Paul III on the abuses in the Catholic Church in 1536) testified,
The first abuse in this respect is the ordination of clerics and especially of priests, in which no care is taken, no diligence employed, so that indiscriminately the most unskilled, men of the vilest stock and of evil morals, adolescents, are admitted to Holy Orders and to the priesthood to the [indelible] mark, we stress, which above all denotes Christ. From this has come numerous scandals and a contempt for the ecclesiastical order, and reverence for the divine worship has not only been diminished but has almost by now been destroyed...
Another abuse of the greatest consequence is the bestowing of ecclesiastical benefices, especially parishes and above all bishoprics, in the matter of which the practice has become entrenched that provision is made for the person on whom the benefices are bestowed, but not for the flock and Church of Christ.
• Joseph Lortz, German Roman Catholic theologian:
For several decades, both popes had excommunicated each other and his followers; thus all Christendom found itself under sentence of excommunication by at least one of the contenders. Both popes referred to their rival claimant as the Antichrist, and to the Masses celebrated by them as idolatry. It seemed impossible to do anything about this scandalous situation, despite sharp protests from all sides, and despite the radical impossibility of having two valid popes at the same time. ("The Reformation: A Problem for Today” (Maryland: The Newman Press, 1964), “The Causes of the Reformation," pp. 35-37; . http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/10/roman-catholic-scholar-look-at-causes.html )
• Catholic Encyclopedia>Council of Constance: .. after nearly forty years of disastrous life; one pope (Gregory XII) had voluntarily abdicated; another (John XXIII) had been suspended and then deposed, but had submitted in canonical form; the third claimant (Benedict XIII) was cut off from the body of the Church, "a pope without a Church, a shepherd without a flock" (Hergenröther-Kirsch). It had come about that, whichever of the three claimants of the papacy was the legitimate successor of Peter, there reigned throughout the Church a universal uncertainty and an intolerable confusion, so that saints and scholars and upright souls were to be found in all three obediences. On the principle that a doubtful pope is no pope, the Apostolic See appeared really vacant, and under the circumstances could not possibly be otherwise filled than by the action of a general council.” (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04288a.htm)
>>"Probably as many as half the men in orders had ‘wives’ and families. Behind all the New Learning and the theological debates, clerical celibacy was, in its own way, the biggest single issue at the Reformation." <<
He's not stating in what country or countries. England? Europe? In Iceland there was no Gregorian Reform and basically no celibacy to break.
• Context. The Reformation did not begin in Iceland. Rome had spoken in deeds and division.
Post 5of 2-12-23
• Pope Michael?! An American conclavist claimant to the papacy.reigning in Kansas who in 2009 he stated that he had approximately 30 "solid followers." In 1990 Bawden was elected pope by a group of six laypeople, including himself and his parents... Bawden believed that all the popes since the death of Pope Pius XII on October 9, 1958, were modernists, heretics, and apostates, and that their elections were invalid. After the election, Bawden continued living at home with his parents.[10] In 1993 they relocated to Delia, Kansas. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bawden
• But wait,. . In October 1998, the U.S.-based True Catholic Church elected Friar Lucian Pulvermacher as Pope Pius XIII.[1] ..No successor... South African Victor von Pentz,..Pope Linus II in 1994. ... Argentine Oscar Michaelli as Pope Leo XIV... succeeded by Juan Bautista Bonetti, who took the name of Pope Innocent XIV,... succeeded by Alejandro Tomas Cardinal Greico, who took the name of Pope Alexander IX.[1][6]
• And . Which adds to the .
• But it remains that the debate about what form of Roman Catholicism is true is superfluous, since distinctive Catholic teachings (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).
>>"Certainly "Protestantism" (...), but unless one is contending for the whole of it or a one true church then that is irrelevant." <<
• Well, the problem is that you can only wish your apostles had the credentials of those of the Bible () and the NT church only elected one successor - by the non-political means of lots, not voting - and none is mentioned after the martyrdom of James (if being the apostle), nor is there any manifest preparation for a successor for Peter in the light of his impended martyrdom. The successors to the apostles are presbyteros - unlike Rome, referring to those in the same office as or episkopos -
• And whose primary and unique active function was not that of conducting and confecting the Lord's supper, but ministering to the flock as leaders, which flock they feed - as commanded () - with the preached or penned word of God, by faith in which souls are regenerated and fed, as that is what is referred to as spiritual food " (; ; ; ; ;; cf. ) which the Lord's supper is not within Acts thru Revelation (being interpretive of the gospels). And in the Catholic Eucharist with its true crucified body of Christ under the appearance of non-existent of bread and wine (until it manifests decay)
Post 6 of 2-12-23
>>"Unlike a basically sound church which preaches the evangelical gospel of effectual penitent justificatory regenerating faith, one cannot leave the church of Rome when it goes South without being schismatic, while to remain makes one a member with even proabortion, prohomosexual public figures since your leadership manifestly considers them to be member in life and in death." <<
• Want to be a TradCath?
• Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (cf. Fifth Lateran CouncilSession 11):
“We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” "If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself.
• Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence: "The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” — Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (Seventeenth Ecumenical Council), Cantate Domino, Bull
• Meaning once again that you are a member of the one true schism. Now since the NT church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, to whom conditional obedience was enjoined, (; cf. ) which judgments included which men and writings were of God and which were not, () as the historical magisterial head over Israel which was the historical instrument and steward of Scripture;
• And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher and disciples whom the magisterium rejected, then we both could claim precedent for the true body being that of dissenters. However, the Messiah reproved historical magisterial based upon Scripture being supreme, () and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis, (; , ; , ; ; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; , etc.)
>> "It is against this background of a profoundly shaken ecclesial consciousness" (Ratz.) <<
• Irrelevant. It remains that the debate about what form of Roman Catholicism is true is superfluous, since distinctive Catholic teachings (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels)
A diligent detective as usual, thanks. Below are excepts of p 335-340 (but blogger.com limit of 4,096 characters means splitting it up, and its count seems to be inflated.
Beza vs, Sales post 1
All accounts agree that Francis of Sales made several visits to Beza at his home in the city of Geneva, and that he was met with kindness. Beza was, says Auguste de Sales, the future saint's nephew and biographer, "a handsome old man of about seventy years, who affected an appearance of gravity'"; and his visitor, " on entering his abode, did not forget the dictates of civility in saluting him, as also Beza received him very courteously." ...
From trivialities the talk turned to things more serious, and Francis of Sales plied Beza with the question so commonly raised in contemporaneous controversy with Protestants, whether a man could not be saved in the Roman Catholic Church. To this Beza promptly answered that a man might thus be saved, not, however, by means of that multitude of ordinances and ceremonies with which Christ's teachings had been overlaid. A discussion ensued on the subject of good works which would be immaterial to our purpose, even could we know with certainty what was really said...
Francis did not fail to report this interview to Pope Clement VIII...the pontiff replied in his letter of May 29, 1597:..Thus encouraged, Francis repeated his visit and entered upon new discussions, involving the question of good works and the authority of the Holy See. In the course of the conversation, as he reported, Theodore Beza made the remark: " As for myself, if I am not in the right way I pray to God every day that He will lead me into it." The words, for some reason or other, gave his visitor fresh hope, possibly because they were accompanied by a sigh.
In a third interview he returned to the charge...as his nephew tells us, De Sales made an extraordinary speech"
Sir, you are doubtless agitated by many thoughts, and since you recognise the truth of the Catholic religion, I do not doubt that you have the wish to return to her. She calls you to enter her pale. But it may be that you fear lest, should you return to her, the comforts of life may fail you. Ah ! sir, if that be all, according to the assurance I have received from His Holiness, I bring you the promise of a pension of four thousand crowns of gold every year. In addition, all your effects will be paid for at double the price at which you value them."
Up to this point we may believe Francis of Sales's nephew. Another biographer, Marsollier, writing in the present century, in a notice prefixed to the complete works of Saint Francis of Sales, asserts that, convinced of Beza's friendly dispositions to- ward him and resolved to take advantage of them, Francis informed the Reformer that he had brought with him a pontifical brief, recently received, in which Beza was offered an honourable refuge wherever he might choose to go, a pension of four thousand gold crowns, the payment for his furniture and books at his own valuation, in fine all the security he might judge proper to exact.
Beza vs. Sales post 2
Up to this point, I repeat, we can believe narratives possibly the one a reproduction of the other but both from Roman Catholic sources. It is otherwise, however, when Auguste de Sales makes ** poor Beza remain speechless with his eyes fixed upon the ground, and then confess that the Roman Church was the mother Church, but add that he did not despair of being saved in the religion wherein he was." Whereupon the future saint gave up the case as lost and returned to Thonon.
Fortunately there are other accounts that have more verisimilitude and do less violence to our knowledge of Beza's manly dignity, to which his nearly four- score years had lent a still greater title to respect. " When," adds a Genevese manuscript, "
Beza heard these odious words, a severe majesty replaced on his countenance the kindly cordiality with which he had been speaking to the young priest. He pointed to his library shelves empty of books ; for these had been sold to defray the expenses of the support of a number of French refugees. Then conducting his visitor to the
door, he took leave of him with the words :
' Vade retro^
Satanas ! ' —' Get thee behind me, Satan !'"
And an oral tradition makes Beza conclude his leave- taking with the trenchant observation: ** Go, sir, I am too old and deaf to be able to give ear to such words! " '
But whatever may have been the par- ticular form of De Sales's dismissal, this much is certain, that he returned whence he came without having effected his purpose.
Unfortunately he or his friends had boasted of his victory before it was won. Therefore the news was spread throughout Europe that De Sales was about to lead his aged convert in triumph to be reconciled to Mother Holy- Church at the See of Saint Peter. Crowds waited at Siena and elsewhere on the road to Rome for the edifying spectacle, but waited in vain. Beza never came.
Others reported the story differently. The arch-heretic, Calvin's successor, had died, forsooth, but, before his death, he had recanted in the pre- sence of the Council of Geneva, had begged them to be reconciled to the Romish Church and to send for the Jesuits, and had himself received absolution by special order from the Pope, at the hands of the (titular) Bishop of Geneva, Francis of Sales. Where- fore, after Beza's death, the city sent to Rome an embassage of submission.
It is Sir Edwin Sandys that gives us, in his Etiropce Speculum, this amusing account of the death-bed conversion of the Re- former, who did not die for a good period of eight years yet, and of the " ambassadors of Geneva, yet invisible." * The Jesuits took part in the matter by printing a document which Lestoile, in his Journal, says began with the words: " Geneva, mother and refuse of heresies, now at length that Beza is dead, embraces the Catholic faith."
As for Beza himself, thus quickly blotted out of existence by popular rumour and inimical pamphleteers, it seemed good to him to vindicate both his own existence and his honour, by publishing a letter that very year and
over his own name, full of the old sprightliness and
setting forth with relentless sarcasm the shameless
inventions of the members of the " company of monks that lyingly assume the name of Jesus."
This and a pungent epigram called out by the same circumstances are among the very last of the products of Beza's pen that have come down to us.'
Heroes of the Reformation, 1898: pp 335-340; https://ia800203.us.archive.org/16/items/theodorebezacoun00bair/theodorebezacoun00bair.pdf
"But no division. Translation, as long you hold to one of the 3 true popes, there is no division for you."
I did not say there was no division in 1400. I said there was no division in 1500.
For 1400, I said, despite the division on obedience, there was a good chance for salvation of those on the wrong side of the fence. Namely, as long as they were in good conscience convinced of being with the right pope, rather than being indifferent as to who was Pope.
"Meaning you are a member of the one true schism, without a living pope."
There have been longer interregna than from Aug. 2nd last year to now.
"for a the Bible Christian ancient/historical church teaching is to be Scripture above all,"
But is it that? Do we not have for instance a moment where a hierarchic Church (way beyond Peter as simply street level leader as you put it) defined what 27 books are part of the NT? Same council also stating the OT is 45 or 46 books?
You have Church Fathers make pronouncements which verbally on the face value sound like sola scriptura "the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for our salvation" in St. Augustine. But do you agree with the rest of what they said, or do you cherry-pick that one and then allow your own tradition of scripture interpretation to colour what that should mean, even if it wildly disagrees with the Church Fathers?
"for a TradCatholic it is based upon selective teaching by premodern popes and council that matters most."
I'm actually more into Sts Augustine and Thomas, of Hippo Regia and from Aquinum, than into Denzinger, even if I value Denzinger.
Any individual will make a selective reading, since reading all of Migne is a to most a few consecutive lifetimes.
Is "selective" in this sense in fact "cherry-picking"? I don't think so.
As to your link, Vehementer Nos is an encyclical, not a defined dogma. The statement of laity having the sole duty of submission is not of the same value as the statement that direct orders of actual Popes have to be followed, even in politics.
The former is an application of Session IV from Pope Pius' rural background (not very different from Russian rural conditions) - places where laymen either obeyed without much thought, or used much learning to disobey, like Tolstoy or like Freemasons trying to push the village away from the priest. The actual dogma or at least disciplinary rule is in Session IV of the Council of Trent. And it means, not that the layman can have no own thoughts about theology, but that these have to agree with or bow down to the teaching the Church hath held and holdeth, and also the Church Fathers when they agree. However, it is correct that Popes (being also named "fathers of kings and princes") can make decisions about politics, that Catholic laymen have no right to disagree on. In other words, if "John Paul II" had been Pope, fighting for religious freedom and allying with Muslims and Dalai Lama would be a political priority. I'm not very far from that in politics, but if I were further than I am, I could at least answer someone pointing to Vehementer Nos that I am not accepting the arranger of Assisi 1986 as Catholics (at least as to his public profession), or as Pope.
"To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment , and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation."
The "all power" must be distinguished - as long as the question is on teaching, there is a reserve as to what they can judge. Namely, nothing going against the past constant teaching of the Church.
When it comes to directing, the directing cannot contradict Church teaching.
"Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another."
If I held "Pope Francis" to be Pontiff, you would have a point. On questions of teaching, there is undeniable opposition between him and past actual pontiffs. For which reason, I hold him to be no Catholic, but therefore also no Pontiff.
"in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed."
If they claimed to be in communion with "Pope Francis" - yes.
"except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office,"
One essential duty involves teaching actual Catholicism.
"To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor. In this subordination and dependence lie the order and life of the Church; in it is to be found the indispensable condition of well-being and good government. On the contrary, if it should happen that those who have no right to do so should attribute authority to themselves, if they presume to become judges and teachers, if inferiors in the government of the universal Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path."
In other words, the idea of Recognise and Resist needs to be shortlived. And it is doubtful it can lie in the hands of laymen. Pope Michael was elected because he convoked an emergency conclave. He convoked an emergency conclave because he considered the see vacant. He considered the see vacant because he detected an opposition to previous Pontiffs, which was so consistent, that either he would have to obey, or to discard the pontificate of "John Paul II" ... if there ever had been a time for Recognise and Resist, it was past.
"the RC claim is there is one true RCC, and one cannot be a Catholic in communion with that church if in schism from it. which rejecting the pope constitutes."
When there are more than one Pope, one obviously has to reject one of the Popes.
Unam Sanctam does not adress all situations that can arise. Real Popes have canonised Sts Francis of Sales and Robert Bellarmine - who have said, if a Pope became heretic, he would lose office.
Also, the idea that a bishop can be judged as heretical and having lost office is verified by the words of Pope St. Celestine I about Nestorius. In the case of Nestorius, his heresy was not yet defined as such by a council, when the layman cried out, and when Pope St. Celestine I issued a decree, it involved Nestorius not losing office on that decree, but already having done so, immediately on teaching heresy.
Material heresy, in disagreement with known tradition, is actually enough. It need not be already stamped as heresy.
" Meaning no less a learned authority as Ratzinger can regard the Catholic Church as "the institution" if they will. Nice of you to allow that."
He was certainly learned. He also came from a Protestantised Germany. As to authority, his views collided with that of the Church over centuries, for instance on Creationism.
Next, you conflate a quote of mine with an addition of your own:
// St. Vincent Ferrer put it this way : if you sincerely believe the Pope in whose camp you are, is the real one, you are a Catholic, if you don't care, you are a schismatic. //
Yes, I said that. In context with the Western Schism.
// But they are not in full communion with ecclesiastical authorities, and do not have permission to minister to the people of the diocese where they are located. As such, their ministry is illicit (i.e., illegal). //
I did not say such a thing about the Western Schism.
"the regions St. Robert was familiar means the head was sick"
At times. Alexander VI is admitted as lecher and as nepotist. Julius II as a military politician of the Papal States and Italy over actually Catholic bishop ...
You fail to see how the words you do not cite mean, I assess your words about what St. Robert said ("immorality") as not covered by what he said himself. Immorality is when many people especially in prominent position live in mortal sin. Lacking discipline in morals is when many people do not use certain means that St. Robert would recommend to retain their morality - which may nevertheless be there.
Here I end, since I saw a twisting that I find dishonest.
Post 7 of 2-12-23 to Hans Georg Lundahl
• Context was "Why the reformation" and in regards to which the past division and past and present iniquity was related, despite denials by some.
<< "Meaning you are a member of the one true schism, without a living pope." >>
• You mean David Allen Bawden (September 22, 1959 – August 2, 2022) headquartered in Kansas, over about 100 members of the one true schism. None of his competition.
<< "for a the Bible Christian ancient/historical church teaching is to be Scripture above all," >>
• Irrelevant as to the foundational issue that God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (; 34:1,27; ; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; ; , , ; ; 119; ; ; ; 22:29; , ; , ; ; , ; 18:28; ; 20:12, 15) and as , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God.
• And that an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") "even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (.44,45; ; 18:28, etc.)
For the Hebrew Scriptures testify to Jesus being the promised scapegoat and perfect atonement, (https://peacebyjesuscom.blogspot.com/2022/05/why-should-of-jewish-faith-believe-in.html) and the basis for the teachings of Christ and that of His church. Which established its Truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, in dissent from the magisterial stewards of Scripture, with even the veracity of apostolic preaching being subject to examination by Scripture.
• And thus Scripture provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the NT church. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture, () and not vice versa.
• Moreover, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither of popes and councils claim to do. Thus the written word is the assured infallible word of God.
• Thus the establishment of an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings by the time of Christ also shows that both men and writings of God could be recognized without an infallible magisterium - contrary to the premise of Catholicism. And therefore, in principle Scripture and history affirm that both men and writings of God can be discerned and established as being of God, even when the historical magisterium rejects them (but not the principle of authority).
Post 8 of 2-12-23 to Hans Georg Lundahl
• This actually could help your position, except that overall you look to the uninspired words of men as supremely determinitive of what the NT church believed, and thus hold to distinctive Catholic teachings that are not manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).
• Meanwhile, despite the general consensus on the canon before Trent, there was no indisputable canon until after the death of Luther in 1546, thus ending scholarly debate about the status of certain books which went on right into Trent?
You have Church Fathers make pronouncements which verbally on the face value sound like sola scriptura "the Scriptures contain all that is necessary for our salvation" in St. Augustine. But do you agree with the rest of what they said, or do you cherry-pick that one and then allow your own tradition of scripture interpretation to colour what that should mean, even if it wildly disagrees with the Church Fathers?
• I do not even call such men as Augustine "Church Fathers" since they came after the NT church of Scripture, and their uninspired words, and that of her councils are not determinitive of what the NT church believed, and manifest a gradual accretion of traditions of men, though we agree on many basic and honor piety. But I can select statements from such as testimonies and to history, while it is Rome who looks to them for support yet cherry-picks which ones they use, as "judges them more than she is judged by them" - Catholic Encyclopedia: “Tradition and Living Magisterium”
As to your link, Vehementer Nos is an encyclical, not a defined dogma. The statement of laity having the sole duty of submission is not of the same value as the statement that direct orders of actual Popes have to be followed, even in politics.
• Ah, cherry picking what requires assent. Thus rejecting papal teaching which contradicts thee (just excerpts here):
• Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent... if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. - PIUS XII, HUMANI GENERI, August 1950; http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
• The authority (of papal encyclicals) is undoubtedly great". It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church." - Msgr. Joseph Clifford Fenton, http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm
• For it is quite foreign to everyone bearing the name of a Christian to trust his own mental powers with such pride as to agree only with those things which he can examine from their inner nature, and to imagine that the Church, sent by God to teach and guide all nations, is not conversant with present affairs and circumstances; or even that they must obey only in those matters which she has decreed by solemn definiti
Post 9 of 2-12-23 to Hans Georg Lundahl
• Quite to the contrary, a characteristic of all true followers of Christ, lettered or unlettered, is to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff, who is himself guided by Jesus Christ Our Lord. - CASTI CONNUBII, ENCYCLICAL OF POPE PIUS XI; https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19301231_casti-connubii.html
...when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents.. (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at http://www.christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x
The former is an application of Session IV from Pope Pius' rural background (not very different from Russian rural conditions) - places where laymen either obeyed without much thought, or used much learning to disobey, like Tolstoy or like Freemasons trying to push the village away from the priest. The actual dogma or at least disciplinary rule is in Session IV of the Council of Trent. And it means, not that the layman can have no own thoughts about theology, but that these have to agree with or bow down to the teaching the Church hath held and holdeth, and also the Church Fathers when they agree.
• Based upon your interpretation, if in your interpretation is consistent with what your consider valid Catholic doctrine and if in your interpretation such teaching is on the level that requires assent (and which degree) and in your interpretation such comes from a valid magisterium. Which is what the aforementioned types of calls for just do it submission seeks to prevent, while rendering such as open to interpretation as you make them impugns the very authority of the, or should we say, your chosen magisterium.
• Certainly I do not oppose the principle of the magisterium not going against valid church teaching, but that the standard for the latter is the only wholly God-inspired substantive body of Truth, with the veracity of interpretations resting upon the degree of Scriptural substantiation. Which disallows not only Francis from being a valid pope but all who profess distinctive Catholic doctrine, despite my affirmative of such core truths as the apostle's creed professes.
However, it is correct that Popes (being also named "fathers of kings and princes") can make decisions about politics, that Catholic laymen have no right to disagree on.
• If, in your interpretation such comes from a valid pope... Not Francis, nor....?
<< "To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment , and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation." >>
The "all power" must be distinguished - as long as the question is on teaching, there is a reserve as to what they can judge. Namely, nothing going against the past constant teaching of the Church.
When it comes to directing, the directing cannot contradict Church teaching.
• Again, based upon your interpretation, if in your interpretation such comes from a valid magisterium and in your interpretation is consistent with what your consider valid Catholic doctrine. Cherry picking V2.
Post 10 of 2-12-23 to Hans Georg Lundahl
<< "Similarly, it is to give proof of a submission which is far from sincere to set up some kind of opposition between one Pontiff and another." >>
If I held "Pope Francis" to be Pontiff, you would have a point. On questions of teaching, there is undeniable opposition between him and past actual pontiffs. For which reason, I hold him to be no Catholic, but therefore also no Pontiff.
• Which simply illustrates my point.
<< "in some ways they resemble those who, on receiving a condemnation, would wish to appeal to a future council, or to a Pope who is better informed." >>
If they claimed to be in communion with "Pope Francis" - yes.
• Ditto.
<< "except for the essential duties imposed on all Pontiffs by their apostolic office," >>
One essential duty involves teaching actual Catholicism.
• In your interpretation.
<< "To the shepherds alone was given all power to teach, to judge, to direct; on the faithful was imposed the duty of following their teaching, of submitting with docility to their judgment, and of allowing themselves to be governed, corrected, and guided by them in the way of salvation. >>
Thus, it is an absolute necessity for the simple faithful to submit in mind and heart to their own pastors, and for the latter to submit with them to the Head and Supreme Pastor. In this subordination and dependence lie the order and life of the Church; in it is to be found the indispensable condition of well-being and good government.
On the contrary, if it should happen that those who have no right to do so should attribute authority to themselves, if they presume to become judges and teachers, if inferiors in the government of the universal Church attempt or try to exert an influence different from that of the supreme authority, there follows a reversal of the true order, many minds are thrown into confusion, and souls leave the right path."
• Which inferiors in the government of the universal Church applies to the Pope Michaels of the world.
In other words, the idea of Recognise and Resist needs to be shortlived. And it is doubtful it can lie in the hands of laymen. Pope Michael was elected because he convoked an emergency conclave. He convoked an emergency conclave because he considered the see vacant. He considered the see vacant because he detected an opposition to previous Pontiffs, which was so consistent, that either he would have to obey, or to discard the pontificate of "John Paul II" ... if there ever had been a time for Recognise and Resist, it was past.
<< "the RC claim is there is one true RCC, and one cannot be a Catholic in communion with that church if in schism from it. which rejecting the pope constitutes." >>
When there are more than one Pope, one obviously has to reject one of the Popes.Unam Sanctam does not adress all situations that can arise. Real Popes have canonised Sts Francis of Sales and Robert Bellarmine - who have said, if a Pope became heretic, he would lose office...
Material heresy, in disagreement with known tradition, is actually enough. It need not be already stamped as heresy.
• "Real Popes" insofar as certified by other Real Popes by the schisms and sects of Real Catholics.
• And yes, Bellarmine, arguing against Cajetan, opines that "according to which the Pope who is manifestly a heretic ceases by himself to be Pope and head, in the same way as he ceases to be a Christian and a member of the body of the Church; and for this reason he can be judged and punished by the Church," (De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chapter 30) yet that is not the end to the debate as is well-evidenced (search can a Pope be deposed without his consent), while what Bellarmine meant by judged and punished by the Church was not be some church headed by a man in Kansas with about 100 members!
Post 11 of 2-12-23 to Hans Georg Lundahl
<< " Meaning no less a learned authority as Ratzinger can regard the Catholic Church as "the institution" if they will. Nice of you to allow that." >>
He was certainly learned. He also came from a Protestantised Germany. As to authority, his views collided with that of the Church over centuries, for instance on Creationism.
• Throw him under the bus, as itinerant one true self-proclaimed Catholics of the Internet are the authorities that trump his historical analysis.
Next, you conflate a quote of mine with an addition of your own:
• If that is the only mistake I made in replies which took/take hours to type with my stiff arthritic fingers then I am doing much better than usual.
// St. Vincent Ferrer put it this way : if you sincerely believe the Pope in whose camp you are, is the real one, you are a Catholic, if you don't care, you are a schismatic. // Yes, I said that. In context with the Western Schism.
<< // But they are not in full communion with ecclesiastical authorities, and do not have permission to minister to the people of the diocese where they are located. As such, their ministry is illicit (i.e., illegal). // >>
I did not say such a thing about the Western Schism.
• That was from the canon lawyer whom you would also dismiss.
<< "the regions St. Robert was familiar means the head was sick" >>
At times. Alexander VI is admitted as lecher and as nepotist. Julius II as a military politician of the Papal States and Italy over actually Catholic bishop ...
You fail to see how the words you do not cite mean, I assess your words about what St. Robert said ("immorality") as not covered by what he said himself. Immorality is when many people especially in prominent position live in mortal sin.
Lacking discipline in morals is when many people do not use certain means that St. Robert would recommend to retain their morality - which may nevertheless be there.
Here I end, since I saw a twisting that I find dishonest.
• What you fail to see how - in the light of some many other testimonies and the extent of the meaning of immorality - that the words you cite cannot be restricted the way you prefer as applies to the scope of immorality and degree in the area at issue.
I think enough time has bee spent on the "one true Catholic schism" issue, as it remains that all such profess distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels). List at link, by the grace of God.
To PeaceByJesus:
I think I will for the moment be somewhat restrictive in my response, and take two issues here:
I "What you fail to see how - in the light of some many other testimonies and the extent of the meaning of immorality - that the words you cite cannot be restricted the way you prefer as applies to the scope of immorality and degree in the area at issue."
You did not give "so many other testimonies" - we both knew Luthers, about Rome, I agreed with it. You gave St. Robert's and as I read the words, they do not mean "widespread immorality" they only imply widespread chaos about morals - which is not the same thing.
II "That was from the canon lawyer whom you would also dismiss."
First, no need to glue it onto my own words, as if they were one citation.
Second, yes, a few canon lawyers I definitely would dismiss on certain issues. And on this issue, it's precisely the Western schism I go by. It is better to have at least the semblance of legal authority on your side, in your conscience, than not to have even that. That was the point of St. Vincent Ferrer. That is also why Pope Michael expressed a preference of people who try to obey the fake pope over FSSPX and Sedes who neither treat him as a Pope, nor elect one.
"that is not the end to the debate as is well-evidenced (search can a Pope be deposed without his consent), while what Bellarmine meant by judged and punished by the Church was not be some church headed by a man in Kansas with about 100 members!"
How many members did the Church have in Acts 1?
The salient part is, St. Robert says the Pope can be judged by the Church once by heresy it is apparent he no longer is Pope. But he did not say that his cessation from papacy stems from the judgement judging he fell into heresy. It's from him publically falling into heresy (and obviously is applicable even if he isn't subjectively culpable of heresy, as Nestorius might not have been - he felt exonerated by Chalcedon, as to his convictions). He did not say, but precisely deny, the Church had to judge him before one could safely consider him a non-pope.
"Cherry picking V2."
If Roncalli was freemason or communist, he was never validly elected - and the council never legally convoked.
III Summing up the two.
Comparing a Sedevacantist, SSPX-er or Conclavist to the Reformation, so the former and later cannot stand without validating the latter and earlier falls because in the case of us, there is a model for how we received the faith by transmission, for the Reformation, there isn't that. If theirs was the faith, they received it by reconstruction.
"If that is the only mistake I made in replies which took/take hours to type with my stiff arthritic fingers then I am doing much better than usual."
It was so much the only thing, that I could not have spotted your arthritis.
A page is upcoming for later on your misrepresentation of the NT Church.
"Your HTML cannot be accepted: Must be at most 4,096 characters, yet it was 4,038" characters
Post 12 of 2-12-23 to Hans Georg Lundahl
>>To PeaceByJesus: "What you fail to see how - in the light of some many other testimonies and the extent of the meaning of immorality - that the words you cite cannot be restricted the way you prefer as applies to the scope of immorality and degree in the area at issue."<<
You did not give "so many other testimonies" - we both knew Luthers, about Rome, I agreed with it. You gave St. Robert's and as I read the words, they do not mean "widespread immorality" they only imply widespread chaos about morals - which is not the same thing.
• Seeing as you must defend your image of your church and thus argue against the meaning and scope of immorality and division (and thus want to includes places as far as Iceland) in the context of "Why the Reformation" as if such was not part of the reason, and yet which is simply a tangential issue as regards the unscriptural nature of all schisms and sects of Catholicism, then I should not use much more time seeking to detail the meaning of ,immorality. Except as regards that not giving so many other testimonies, it must be assumed that based upon statements authors by referenced, then "widespread immorality" in the central area of Roman Catholicism (as Rome itself) did not mean such as,
• "In this lecture I want to talk about the causes of the Reformation. This is a rather standard approach to the Reformation because it is admitted by all that the Reformation did not just happen or come like a bolt from the blue...Part of the tragedy of the Reformation is that the Church before 1517 was unable to reform itself or to set in motion events or changes that would have led to a reform in the Church that would have satisfied its members and really affected change.... I would like to start simply with the fourteenth century.... .."And if we go to the clergy, to what we can call the lower clergy or the ordinary priests, we can say that one vice that many of them had was immorality. Many of them had women that they kept in their rectories by whom they had children, so they had families to support." — Maurice W. Sheehan, O.F.M. Cap., Lecture 2: Prelude-Causes, Attempts at Reform to 1537; International Catholic University http://home.comcast.net/~icuweb/c01802.htm
• The Consilium de Emendanda Ecclesia (a report commissioned by Pope Paul III on the abuses in the Catholic Church in 1536) testified,
The first abuse in this respect is the ordination of clerics and especially of priests, in which no care is taken, no diligence employed, so that indiscriminately the most unskilled, men of the vilest stock and of evil morals, adolescents, are admitted to Holy Orders and to the priesthood, to the [indelible] mark, we stress, which above all denotes Christ. From this has come numerous scandals and a contempt for the ecclesiastical order, and reverence for the divine worship has not only been diminished but has almost by now been destroyed... - https://web.archive.org/web/20220929194623/http://tgenloe.com/sc/?p=119
Post 13 of 2-12-23 to Hans Georg Lundahl
• “the swarm of sordid and ignorant priests in the city, the harlots who are followed around by clerics and by the noble members of the cardinals’ households …”The immediate effects of the Consilium fell far below the hopes of its authors and its very frankness hampered its public use. …" “The immediate effects of the Consilium fell far below the hopes of its authors and its very frankness hampered its public use. … the more noticeably pious prelates [note: this the “noticeably pious” clergy] had no longer to tolerate the open cynicism of the Medicean period, and when moral lapses by clerics came to light, pains were now taken to hush them up as matters of grievous scandal.”l.” (A.G. Dickens, “The Counter Reformation,” pg. 100, 102.)
• To such more can be added which is marginalized by devotees as part of the impetus for the (imperfect) Reformation, which was the context of my reply on this.
<
Post 14 of 2-12-23 to Hans Georg Lundahl
>>"Cherry picking V2."<<
• There you have it. Pope Michael of Kansas against the college of cardinals. Enough said.
• Wrong, while neither you or Sedevacantists or the SSPX-ers are consistent with the RC system of determining authority, yet that system itself is not Scriptural, while in principal the Reformation is. For as said, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, to whom conditional obedience was enjoined, (; cf. ) which judgments included which men and writings were of God and which were not, () as the historical magisterial head over Israel which was the historical instrument and steward of Scripture, "because that unto them were committed the oracles of God," (Rm. 3:2) to whom pertaineth" the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises" (Rm. 9:4) of Divine guidance, presence and perpetuation as they believed, (, ; 17:4,7,8; ; Lv. 10:11; ; 17:8-13; Ps, 11:4,9; , , ; )
• And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected, and which the Messiah reproved, based upon Scripture as being supreme, () and established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (; , ; , ; ; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; , etc.)
• For an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings had been manifestly established by the time of Christ as being "Scripture, ("in all the Scriptures") "even the tripartite canon of the Law, the Prophets and The Writings, by which the Lord Jesus established His messiahship and ministry and opened the minds of the disciples to, who did the same . (.44,45; ; 18:28, etc.)
For the, (https://peacebyjesuscom.blogspot.com/2022/05/why-should-of-jewish-faith-believe-in.html) And thus Scripture provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the NT church.
• For God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (; 34:1,27; ; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; ; , , ; ; 119; ; ; ; 22:29; , ; , ; ; , ; 18:28; ; 20:12, 15
• And thus as , as written, Scripture became the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the wholly Divinely inspired and assured, Word of God. Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture. () .
Post 15 of 2-12-23 to Hans Georg Lundahl
• Moreover, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither of popes and councils claim to do. Thus the written word is the assured infallible word of God.
• And the establishment of an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings by the time of Christ also shows that both men and writings of God could be recognized without an infallible magisterium - contrary to the premise of Catholicism.
• We do not have biblical-standard apostles, much less Rome, nor the degree of supernatural attestation relative to our numbers, yet at the least the basic evangelic gospel is, of penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating effectual faith, (Acts 10:43-47; 15:7-9) which is imputed for righteousness, (Romans 4:5) and is shown in baptism and following the Lord, (Acts 2:38-47; Jn. 10:27,28) who was sent by the Father to be the savior of the world. (1 John 4:14) With signs following.
• And by which faith the redeemed soul is "accepted in the Beloved" and positionally seated with Him in Heaven, on His account, glory to God. (Ephesians 1:6; 2:6; cf. Phil. 3:21) And those who die in that obedient faith will directly go to be forever with Him at death or His return (Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb, 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) In contrast to those who were never born of the Spirit or who terminally fall away. (Gal. 5:1-4; Heb. 3:12; 10:25-39) To God be the glory.
Enough time spent on this one true schism of a false church. May God grant you "repentance unto the acknowledging of the truth." (2 Timothy 2:25)
Consilium de Emendanda Ecclesia:
“the swarm of sordid and ignorant priests in the city, the harlots who are followed around by clerics and by the noble members of the cardinals’ households …”
Both the reference to "the city" and to "cardinals" show a concentration on the city of Rome, of which I admitted it was by then in need of a "third apostle" - that one being St. Filippo Neri.
"There you have it. Pope Michael of Kansas against the college of cardinals. Enough said."
The college of the cardinals as such did not exist in the time of "John Paul II" after Assisi 1986. Those who did not speak up, made themselves accomplice and forfeited their position in the Catholic Church.
"For as said, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, to whom conditional obedience was enjoined,"
No. Jesus never opposed any doctrinal definition made by Pharisees back then.
He several times was accused, but without them being able to pinpoint any fault - even according to their own principles.
"And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected,"
I don't think any rejection was made on a magisterial level, up to when Caiaphas decided for the Deicide.
"And thus Scripture provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the NT church."
Sorry, but the OT foresaw another hierarchy than the NT Church had.
Jesus made a new hierarchy, Himself supreme over both Testaments, and having power to replace the older one.
"Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture."
I don't think you can document that. In Beroea, St. Paul was speaking before a Synagogue which was already used to testing different things by Scripture (i e the OT).
St. Paul makes any preaching testable by adherence to the Gospel he had transmitted - mostly orally, at that point. I checked Galatians for date, the intro says 23 years after Our Lord's ascension, which would be 3 years after St. Luke's Gospel.
St. Paul would have given the Galatians:
OT with pertinent NT commentary
St. Luke's Gospel
own commentary on that and on other matters.
"Moreover, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither of popes and councils claim to do. Thus the written word is the assured infallible word of God."
While the ones who had been disciples to Jesus were the last to receive new public revelation, they were not the last to recognise such, and especially were not directly there when the final NT canon was given in the 4th C.
"And the establishment of an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings by the time of Christ"
Do you mean the Old or Both Testaments?
"also shows that both men and writings of God could be recognized without an infallible magisterium - contrary to the premise of Catholicism."
For the Old Testament, I say the Jewish priests were infallible in their exercise of the priesthood.
For the New Testament, I say that by the time of the Apostles' all having left the mortal life, there were wholly God-inspired writings, but not yet collected into a canon. So, no "authoritative body" - sth which demands the body to be recognisible by delimitations.
Post 16 of 2-12-23 to Hans Georg Lundahl
>> “the swarm of sordid and ignorant priests in the city, the harlots who are followed around by clerics and by the noble members of the cardinals’ households …” <<
• Once again you are the one focusing on one city and ignoring the wider scope of immorality and corruption testified to already, and consistent with your desperate attempt at minimizing such which actual historians and scholars have attested to as having preceded the Reformation and helped it to find warrant - as well as aspects of the RC self reformation - then rather than take even more time on this I will leave you to your desired conclusion. Rome's gospel and are enough to warrant reformation..
>> "There you have it. Pope Michael of Kansas against the college of cardinals. Enough said." <<
• Which is simply evasion in attempting to escape the reality that the issue is that cardinals elect the pope, and while popes have a long history of varying the size as well as the character of the college, it was what elected modern popes. Not withstanding a tiny schisms. Yet this is also relatively irrelevant though certainly not to one true schism orgs.
>> "For as said, the church actually began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, to whom conditional obedience was enjoined," <<
• "Doctrinal definition made by Pharisees back then? Have a list of them all, maybe even on each magisterial level? And as if that was all there was to opposition, especially as to who the messiah was not, as well as issues such as "teaching for doctrines the commandments of men." ()
• No matter how you try to escape, it remains that the church actual began in dissent from those who sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, which is why they opposed Christ and persecuted His followers (its in the New Testament).
• As for some "doctrinal definition," the fact is that the binding nature of the judgment of the seat of Moses was not restricted to only some solemn doctrinal declarations, but as per with its supreme Sanhedrin sitting in the seat of Moses, it was open to any matter that was an issue of contention, dealing with matters which were not resolved by lesser courts (as in Acts 15) . Dissent to its judgment was a capital crime.
• Do not read 'doctrinal definition into such. Christ did not command, "The: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do," but "All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do," ()
Post 17 of 2-12-23 to Hans Georg Lundahl
• Moreover, "judicially, , and their sanction was required for any preacher.
• Which was the reason why the the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders demanded of Christ, "By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these things?" () In response to which He demanded they tell Him where another itinerant preacher obtained his authority. In response they evaded answering it by lying, since the common people, who also heard Jesus gladly, () rightly discerned what the magisterial powers would not, that "John was a prophet indeed." ()
• Which means that is not a command to unconditionally obey whatsoever they commanded any more than "Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake" () does, but requires condition submission, provided such is not in conflict with the established sure word of God. Of course, Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares, and presumes protection from at least salvific error in non-infallible magisterial teaching.
• And which is just one more case in which those who sat in the seat of Moses were wrong. However, as with SCOTUS, it matters not if they are wrong as regards having authority.
>> "And instead they followed an itinerant Preacher whom the magisterium rejected," <<
• What part of anything other than rejection overall is ever not evident? Aside from sparse wavering, the verdict was settled before Christ was formally tried by those who sat in the seat of Moses and judged and convicted of blasphemy, a capital crime though they themselves had no power to carry out .
Post 18 of 2-12-23 to Hans Georg Lundahl
>> "And thus Scripture provided the doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation for the NT church." <<
• Really? Rather, As the NT attests, the OT provided the prophetic foundation for the very NT Church being the spiritual fulfillment of the promised kingdom, while not negating the physical 1,000 reign of Christ (which or course, Rome denies), to the glory of God. In contrast, you should be sorry, since you just invalidated the NT church, rendering it one which began without a Scriptural prophetic foundation, yet which the NT appeals to!
• The fact that the future Davidic kingdom is what is most apparent does not contradict the fact that the spiritual kingdom of Christ comes before it in spiritual fulfillment, which (contrary to you) James affirms as part of the scripturally substantiated judgment he providing in Acts 15:
► And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me: Simeon hath declared how God at the first did visit the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for his name. And to this agree the words of the prophets; ,' After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the Gentiles, upon whom my name is called, saith the Lord, who doeth all these things.' [, ]
► In which Christ is the temple: "Destroy this temple, and in three days I shall raise it up" () the Chief Cornerstone which the builders despised, (; ) in which believers are "stones:"
► To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed indeed of men, but chosen of God, and precious, 5Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.
• The idea the the NT church did not appeal to the Hebrew Scriptures as providing doctrinal and prophetic epistemological foundation is manifestly untenable and absurd.
• Meaning that not only did the Lord, "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself," () "And he said unto them, These are the words which I spake unto you, while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms, concerning me. Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures, ()
• but having enabled (progressive) understanding of the scriptures, but His Spirit He wrote of how He fulfilled the Hebrew prophecies of the new covenant instituted by His sinless shed blood, but how He is the high priest, and other fulfillment of OT typology. All of which are part of the .
Post 19 to Hans Georg Lundahl
" >> "Thus the veracity of even apostolic oral preaching could be subject to testing by Scripture. <<
I don't think you can document that. In Beroea, St. Paul was speaking before a Synagogue which was already used to testing different things by Scripture (i e the OT). St. Paul makes any preaching testable by adherence to the Gospel he had transmitted - mostly orally, at that point. I checked Galatians for date, the intro says 23 years after Our Lord's ascension, which would be 3 years after St. Luke's Gospel.
• How can you say I cannot document that? Acts 17:11 does. I said "Scripture," which certainly applies to the bulk of it which had been established as being so before that time. And upon which the gospel Paul (etc.) preached came from in promise and prophecy: Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; (Romans 1:1-3) But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith: (Romans 16:26)
And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ. (Acts 17:2-3)
>> "Moreover, men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither of popes and councils claim to do. Thus the written word is the assured infallible word of God." <<
While the ones who had been disciples to Jesus were the last to receive new public revelation, they were not the last to recognise such, and especially were not directly there when the final NT canon was given in the 4th C.
• First, the main point is that, contrary to the argument invoking God-inspired apostolic oral preaching (equal to Scripture) in attempting to justify the pronouncements of Rome as also being the sure word of God, the fact remains that even so-called "infallible" Catholic definitions are not spoken as wholly God-inspired. As for decisions, neither are these, regardless of the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome.
Post 20 to Hans Georg Lundahl
• And as for the NT canon, that actually was still seeing some Catholic scholarly debate down the centuries and into Trent, which put an end to it. Yet that ratification of consensus no more required an infallible conciliar decree than the authoritative body Christ referred to as "in all the Scriptures" and the appeal to which saw no debate with those who sat in the seat of Moses, regardless what scholars who rely in the fragmented and contradictory extra-scriptural writings say. Obviously, referring to Scripture which the NT does means there had to be an established body, and regarding which there is no evidence of there being any contention on such, which there would have been by the Jews in the light of the abundant invoking of the Hebrew Scriptures to them by the Lord and His church. Like as:
►Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. (Matthew 22:29)
►And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2)
►For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. (Acts 18:28)
►And when they had appointed him a day, there came many to him into his lodging; to whom he expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening. And some believed the things which were spoken, and some believed not. (Acts 28:23-24)
>> "And the establishment of an authoritative body of wholly God-inspired writings by the time of Christ" <<
Do you mean the Old or Both Testaments?
• Really? "By the time of Christ?"
"also shows that both men and writings of God could be recognized without an infallible magisterium - contrary to the premise of Catholicism."
For the Old Testament, I say the Jewish priests were infallible in their exercise of the priesthood.
• You can say what you want, and you had better come up with a formulaic criteria for such kicking it, but nowhere is ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome promised or evidenced (please refrain from trying to wrangle that out of "lead you into all Truth" and or Caiaphas. Its futile).
• For the New Testament, I say that by the time of the Apostles' all having left the mortal life, there were wholly God-inspired writings, but not yet collected into a canon. So, no "authoritative body" - sth which demands the body to be recognisible by delimitations.
• No, the NT came to be progressively established by consensus as being of God, like as men of God were, which was essentially due to their proven heavenly qualities and attestation. Which was how the devil himself could invoke Scripture, and likewise Islam and cults and Rome seek to validate their errors by appeal to its authority, while effectively making themselves the sure and supreme standard.
• Enough said that warrants it. I have Mormons to deal with.
By the time of Christ still on Earth, we obviously deal with the OT. You were using the terms strictly, OK.
"but nowhere is ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome promised or evidenced"
The Jewish Church did not have perpetual infallibility, because they did not have a perpetual covenant. Deut. 28 speaks of a conditional covenant.
The Christian Church has a perpetual infallibility, because She has a perpetual covenant. Matthew 28:16-20 clearly speaks of unconditional perseverance of the Church up to the end of all time.
This infallibility resided in the apostles, chief of whom Peter, while they were alive, but as the wording in Matthew 28:16-20 gives a promise for all days related to a mission implying fidelity to all obliging truth, Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: the immediately ensuing promise and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world involves infallibility of the Church as a whole.
The Jewish Church lost its infallibility by the crime of the deicide, like the Old Covenant was voided by the same, and also by being replaced by Our Lord's supreme sacrifice. That is, a few hours prior to Christ saying "it if finished" Caiaphas still wielded infallibility, note that it applies to words, not deeds.
Post 21 to Hans Georg Lundahl
>> "but nowhere is ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome promised or evidenced" <<
• Wrong again (thus obtaining a perfect record).
• First, logically you are arguing that the leadership of Israel had conditional infallibility, which is manifestly false as regards never erring in judgment. As while as with Rome, although they could act as if they could not be wrong, yet as the prophets testify (whose ministry is actually what God used to preserve faith: "And by a prophet the Lord brought Israel out of Egypt, and by a prophet was he preserved: (Hos. 12:13) they could be wrong even before Christ. As with Catholicism.
• The Jewish high priest as Caiaphas was not promised what Rome presumes, but only that as high priest he unwittingly prophesied that Christ should die for the nation. This is simply not a promise of ensured magisterial infallibility whenever defining a matter for the whole church in faith and morals (including that it possesses ensured magisterial infallibility), and only infers that such unintentionally could or would speak a prophecy from God. Perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility (PEMI) cannot be extrapolated from this any more than the promise to lead His church - the body of Christ- progressively into all Truth ( - which God has been doing since the Fall) warrants it.
• Furthermore, the promise of Christ in is NOT that of being with Romish or EO successors to the end of all time, but to "them" who are taught to observe all things whatsoever the Lord commanded - Which instead actually must read into Scripture what it can only wish was there, including that refers to Catholic successors who teach distinctive Catholic teachings (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels).
• Which includes the Roman recourse to infallibly declaring that she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her own infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, and which renders her own declaration that she is infallible to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. Which is not only unscriptural but logically preposterous. Yet Rome's circularity does not end there, while also setting her at odds with another claimant to being the one true church, .
• In short, neither Jewish or the magisterial "tribe" of Rome were promised infallibility, much less manifested it, nor they they are qualified to be successor of the apostles, which had none aside from elders. They are simply disqualified from being the object of promises of God's presence which the Jews were.
Why is Blogger removing Scripture references and erroneously saying html detected/unclosed tag?!
Post 22 to Hans Georg Lundahln
• In short, neither Jewish or the magisterial "tribe" of Rome were promised infallibility, much less manifested it, nor they they are qualified to be successor of the apostles, which had none aside from elders. They are simply disqualified from being the object of promises of God's presence which the Jews were.
It is the faithful people, not the magisterial office, that the promised of God's perpetual presence , guidance and preservation applies, even to all those of penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating effectual faith, () which is imputed for righteousness, () and is shown in baptism and following the Lord, (; , ) as partakers of the Abrahamic covenant and part of that of the Davidic prophecy, thanks be to God.
• is not referring to preservation of a line of apostolic successors of one organic church like as the one true nation of Israel with its Levitical priesthood, much less promised ensured infallibility of any, for while expressed in organic fellowships, with some basic adaption of government flowing from the OT, yet the kingdom of Christ is spiritual, () and is not restricted to one organic church, but is the body of Christ () to which He is married, () it being the "household of faith." () Which is the the one true church, for it uniquely only and always consists 100% of true believers, and which spiritual body of Christ is what the Spirit baptizes every believer into, () as "living stones" in a "spiritual house," () while organic fellowships in which they express their faith inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares, with Catholicism and liberal Protestantism being mostly the latter.
• The church which the Lord promises to overcome the gates of Hell is this body of Christ which the NT emphasizes so much as being the one new man, etc, which obtains members and thus exists and is preserved by faith in the evangelical gospel, and which it overcomes, while Catholicism has tragically become as the gates of Hell for untold millions.
• Promises of preservation and perpetuation to the people of faith are correspondent to those in the OT regarding David, which are spiritually fulfilled thru the body of Christ: "And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever." ()
• Which James in Acts 15 teaches is correspondent to the inclusion of believing Gentiles, (, ) and which faith and thus the people of God was and will preserved via prophets, forth tellers of the word of God who usually are rejected by the formal magisterium, and together with the written word being the sure supreme standard all is judged by, () Israel saw revival through. (ff) Glory to God!
• Yet which Davidic fulfillment will , which Rome denies. And will be denied as an org.
Post 23 to Hans Georg Lundahl
• Also, the promises of salvation is to those who are part of the kingdom of God under the "everlasting covenant” () with Abraham with its promised perpetuation, whom regenerated believers are blessed spiritual children of as part of its fulfillment. " (; , ; 4:24) Which are conditional upon persevering faith and are unconditional as to God providing him posterity of faith, but not unconditional to members of it as souls who can take no credit for salvation but can depart from the living God, making their faith of no effect, to no profit. For which choices are the only things one can and must take credit for. (; , , ; 10:25-31, 38-39; ; cf. )
• Moreover, the qualifications for the Biblical apostles, which, along with prophets, were the foundation for the church built upon the chief cornerstone, was not that of organic lineage, but faith (which also is the basis for being a true Jew of faith: Rm. 2:28,29) , as well as having personally been taught and seen the risen Christ, (Acts , ; 9:15; 22:14,15; ; cf. ; ; 2:2) and with manifest credentials you can only wish Rome's leadership was even close to. (; 12:12) And God can raise up people of faith like Peter from stones. ()
• Nowhere does Scripture mention any apostolic successor for any apostle (even though the apostle James who was martyred: , ) except for Matthias being chosen for the apostate Judas (which was in order to maintain the foundational number of apostles (; :cf. ), which was by the non-political Scriptural means of casting lots, (cf. ) which Rome has never used to select popes.
• What Scripture does teach is that of presbyterous being ordained to oversee the flock of God () and refers to those also called episkopos, as as said, All believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; ; 4:18; , ; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (, ; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).
• The principal of ordination continues in the NT church, that of presbyterous, being mature and normatively married, with disciplined children, not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre, lovers of hospitality, and of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate, apt teachers able to both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers of sound doctrine, of good report of them which are without; (; ) nowhere instructed in or seen conducting the Lord's supper in Acts or epistles.
• The being a preacher of salvation thru penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating effectual faith, (; 15:7-9) as the Christ who bore our sins in His own body, suffering once for sins the just for the unjust, risen and reigning in Heaven, praise god. (; 2:18,22)
Final post 24 to Hans Georg Lundahl
• And which Peter was the pastor of the first church, and initial primary evangelist (but not church planter) and who later indicates a general pastoral role, () and whom Paul names as one he spent some time with, and as of one of the apparent pillars who affirmed the ministry he already had, but whom he rebuked, () and named only him as one of the 11 apostles who were married. () But who is not even mentioned after Acts 15, nor (besides his own) in any epistles except 2 of Paul's, not even among the 35 persons names in Romans 16 (thus exposing them to persecution, while Peter was more known). And with no command of submission to Him being given to the churches spread about, nor any indication of him ruling over all nor being seen as the first of a line of infallible popes, much less in Rome. Nor calling together any church ecumenical council or conclusively settling a matter (James did that in Acts 15). It is actually
• Neither (since RCs usually try this) does the Holy Spirit ever invoke Isaiah 22 as pertaining to Peter in the NT, and which prophecy of Eliakim's ascendancy was apparently fulfilled in the OT [as 2Ki. 19:1 2Ki. 18:18, 2Ki. 18:37 and , all refer to Eliakim being over the house, (bayith, same in , ) which Shebna the treasurer was, () and evidently had much prestige and power, though the details of his actual fall are not mentioned [and who may not be the same as "Shebna the scribe" (sâkan) mentioned later] - but the text actually states:
• "In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure ['âman=such as trusted] place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the LORD hath spoken it." ()
• Whether this refers to Shebna or Eliakim is irrelevant, for in any case it means that being a nail that is fastened in the sure place does not necessarily denote permanency of position. Thus neither Eliakim nor Peter are shown having this manner of fulfillment, nor successors, yet if we are to insist on a future fulfillment, both the language concept of a key and being a father to the house of David corresponds more fully to Christ, and who alone is promised a continued reign (though when He has put all His enemies under His feet, He will deliver the kingdom to His Father: ).
• The NT church did have a central magisterium (which is the ideal, but which concept Rome poisoned), to which recourse was made to settle prevailing disputes, and which provided a scripturally substantiated judgment by James, confirmatory of the testimony and preaching of Peter, Paul and Barnabas, teaching that the inclusion of Gentiles was a fulfillment of prophecy to David. (; , ) However, nowhere is the veracity of judgment even inferred to be based upon some promise of perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility, but that "it seemed good [dokeō="thought/think/seemed"] to the Holy Ghost, and to us..."
• In closing, what you have attempted argue are the same old refuted prevaricating polemics of papists (even though there are competing ones) and once again usually evidences that Catholics refuse to follow such as overall provide the same material typed out in hours here (yet not proof read), thus hardly warranting more time. Bye
20.II, 1 "First, logically you are arguing that the leadership of Israel had conditional infallibility, which is manifestly false as regards never erring in judgment"
Even Papacy has no infallibility in matters of judgement. Therefore the leadership of Israel (Juda after the division) did not need to have that either.
The treaty of Treaty of Tordesillas was not doctrinally at fault, but may have been bad judgement. In fact, France ignored it, and England did not feel bound by any Papal decisions after 1534, except an interlude between 1553 and 1558. But the Pope did not misstate his powers. He did not misstate that converting pagans was a priority. But he was caught up in a rut of crusades, in and of themselves not bad, but as Ireland shows, not the only model.
Your words about the matter features Hosea, who was speaking to Samaritans. They stepped outside the Jewish Church and were told by Christ "salvation is from the Jews."
"The Jewish high priest as Caiaphas was not promised what Rome presumes, but only that as high priest he unwittingly prophesied that Christ should die for the nation."
St. John says that the Holy Spirit was speaking through him. But note this he spoke not of himself: but being the high priest of that year, Being what? The High Priest ... he did what? he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation.
"and only infers that such unintentionally could or would speak a prophecy from God."
So, while Caiaphas was the high priest of a still ongoing covenant, he could unintentionally speak truth, when he intended to speak moral falsehood?
But a leader of the New Covenant could intend to speak the truth of God and not have his help? How lopsided is that?
20.II, 2 "Perpetual ensured magisterial infallibility (PEMI) cannot be extrapolated from this any more than the promise to lead His church - the body of Christ- progressively into all Truth ( - which God has been doing since the Fall) warrants it."
I was not deducing PEMI but AMI from that promise - taking "you" to be the Apostles He spoke to (Apostolic Magisterial Infallibility). This process was ended when St. John ceased to live on earth. From then on, the magisterium must absolutely not add, and can only preserve. In preserving, it can add dogmas, if they have already been immemorially doctrines, but it cannot add doctrines from nothing.
I deduce PEMI from Matthew 28:16-20. I just point to the real meaning of the OT as a parallel, which applies by proportionality.
"Furthermore, the promise of Christ in is NOT that of being with Romish or EO successors to the end of all time, but to "them" who are taught to observe all things whatsoever the Lord commanded"
No, to them who are teaching to observe all things whatsoever He commanded. That is why the Church always has a teaching authority. It may lack people who are taught. It could be reduced to one bishop, at least if that bishop is the Pope (see Pope Michael). But it cannot be reduced to one layman without teaching authority. Because the task is to teach all nations.
20.II, 3 "Which instead actually must read into Scripture what it can only wish was there,"
Heavy allegation. Do you know that Jews make it to Christians? How many places in the OT can you refer to Christ? Only those specifically mentioned in the NT Scriptures? Or, as the Gospels say that the first apostles could from Christ's teaching?
And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded to them in all the scriptures, the things that were concerning him.
And when they had appointed him a day, there came very many to him unto his lodgings; to whom he expounded, testifying the kingdom of God, and persuading them concerning Jesus, out of the law of Moses and the prophets, from morning until evening.
The prophecies specifically mentioned in the NT, can you make an exposé for an hour or so or for hours, as Our Lord did from Jerusalem to Emmaus? Can you make an exposé starting in the morning and going on to the evening, like St. Paul did?
It is clear that such an OT exposé in the light of the NT requires more than just the prophecies mentioned in the NT. This is part of what the Apostles had. This is part of what the Holy Spirit led them into. AND this is part of what Jesus commanded, therefore needs to be preserved in the Church. As it so needs, it needs to have been preserved outside the text of the NT, where so? In the community. How then? By tradition.
Many of the texts you claim we use eisegesis on belong to this class, precisely as the unbelieving Jews pretend we use eisegesis on them.
20.II, 4 "including that refers to Catholic successors who teach distinctive Catholic teachings"
You pretend that you discard successors who teach "distinctive Catholic" teachings. You discard EO teachers equally. OK, where exactly are the successors who taught what YOU believe they should have taught? And I mean century by century.
I get the point Calvin was making. Jesus did not promise his assistance to just any guys affirming to be successors if they were not faithful to what he had taught the apostles. But He DID promise to be faithfully assisting successors. I don't even mind (right this place of the argument) if you pretend that the succession is nonhierarchical. I think that's wrong, but it's irrelevant to the point I am making. If the Catholics are a strayed line of successors, like Samaria, if the Orthodox are a strayed line of successors like Samaria, where is, century by century, the true line?
Perhaps you are just a simple fellow, you trust that's a difficult question you can trust your pastor on, but bring on your pastor if so. Or if you have no idea of your own, and also no pastor, perhaps someone in the Acts imitating Church you belong to can answer.______________________________________
"Which is not only unscriptural but logically preposterous."
I don't believe the infallibility of the Church so much because She claims infallibility, as because that claim is, for some Church, a necessity. For the reason stated. Give a Church or at least Church type, which existed 500 AD, 1000 AD, 1500 AD and also exists now. Or admit, your pretence of a promise fulfilled outside the type of Church I speak of, is a pipe dream.
The circle is broken, so not vicious, by the input of proof from Matthew 28:16-20. And of history.
20.II, 5 "nor they they are qualified to be successor of the apostles, which had none aside from elders."
I think you might profit from a close reading on NT Church structure once you give up finding a Church outside the type of Church I speak of.
"It is the faithful people, not the magisterial office, that the promised of God's perpetual presence , guidance and preservation applies, even to all those of penitent, heart-purifying, regenerating effectual faith,"
Even if that could be true, where in the centuries do you find this? If you mean "only in individual souls, not in a visible people" you are already contradicting the terms of the promise. It involves "teach all nations" - and individual penitent souls may certainly obtain God's redemption without the public limelight, but cannot teach the nations in that same way.
20.II, 6" yet the kingdom of Christ is spiritual,"
Spiritual, therefore not organic? Spiritual, therefore not bodily? Spiritual, therefore not visible?
Or spiritual so that the organic is sanctified, spiritual so that the bodily is sanctified, spiritual so that the visible is sanctified?
Which is it? I see only one of them as even possibly a candidate for the promise I mentioned.
20.II, 7"Promises of preservation and perpetuation to the people of faith are correspondent to those in the OT regarding David, which are spiritually fulfilled thru the body of Christ:"
"And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son. If he commit iniquity, I will chasten him with the rod of men, and with the stripes of the children of men: But my mercy shall not depart away from him, as I took it from Saul, whom I put away before thee. And thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee: thy throne shall be established for ever."
This means that the kingdom was established forever precisely on Pentecost day. No more such a gap as from Babylonian Captivity to Christ. And even then, the priesthood was preserved.
"Which are conditional upon persevering faith and are unconditional as to God providing him posterity of faith, but not unconditional to members of it as souls who can take no credit for salvation but can depart from the living God, making their faith of no effect, to no profit."
I totally agree. But the Church has two dimensions. Individual souls, which have no OSAS, usually (God can exceptionally grant someone that) and the visible community, which has OSAS.
For it is not he is a Jew, who is so outwardly; nor is that circumcision which is outwardly in the flesh: But he is a Jew, that is one inwardly; and the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.
We have the same view about Catholics. This does not mean there was no outward Jewish people, now continued as the Catholic Church - there was and there is. You are again conflating the level of the individual souls with that of the visible community.
Post 25 to Hans Georg Lundahl
• Actually it is when judging what as aspect of Truth is. but unlike Rome, the predecessors of those who sat in the seat of Moses did not define their office as infallible based on a certain criteria, yet as said, any dissent from any formal judgments on any matters was a capital offense.
• In short, the predecessors of those who sat in the seat of Moses were never promised any ensured conditional infallibility, such as meaning it would be assuredly protected from error when defining a matter of faith and morals. You can only reading criteria-based ensured infallibility, by which one may know something is an infallible statement, into those who sat in the seat of Moses. Typical overreach.
• That the high priest would spontaneously speak something prophetic (albeit ignorantly as to its meaning) , as inspired prophets also did, simply does not translate into a magisterium defining itself as possessing ensured infallibility when defining a matter of faith and morals. In fact, Caiaphas speaking as a God-inspired prophet (albeit ignorantly) supports the fact that God used prophets to preserve faith, vs. the magisterial office itself, as prophets were usually opposed by the governmental teaching magisterium overall.
• The NT church also did not define itself as infallible based a formulaic criteria, and its veracity was not based upon that premise when it did decide a matter of controversy in Acts 15, with a scripturally substantiated judgment which was also defining a matter of faith.
• Trying to negate the statement “by a prophet the Lord brought Israel out of Egypt, and by a prophet was he preserved,” () by stating that Hosea was speaking to renegade Samaritans simply does not negate the fact that this is how God stated that is the faith was preserved, vs. the magisterium. Which goes alone with the fact that the NT church was built upon the foundation the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone () - all being dissenters from those who sat in the seat of Moses.
• Under the presumption of Rome in which submission of faith or of mind and will is required for formal magisterial teachings, thus "the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors," "to suffer themselves to be guided and led in all things that touch upon faith or morals by the Holy Church of God through its Supreme Pastor the Roman Pontiff," "of submitting with docility to their judgment," with "no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go, and in what things he is to be obeyed... not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ;" and 'not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority," etc.;
then no one who followed an itinerant prophet whose ministry never ever had the sanction of those who sit in the seat of Moses, and who accused it of collectively rejecting the commandment of God that they may keep their own tradition, of teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, , ) and placed them in the same category as those who (as they would do) were murderers of other prophets - even though they later honored them - as well as harshly reproving them for their moral hypocrisy - is going to be considered a faithful believer.
Post 26 to Hans Georg Lundahl
• And? Your formula is High Priest unintentionally utters prophetic statement = PEMI. Rather, it remains that the high priest once spontaneously speaking something prophetic, even though he did not intend to prophesy and was ignorant of its actual meaning, simply does not translate into ensured infallibility whenever a pope intends to teach on a matter of faith and morals for the entire Church. Or an ecumenical council does the latter union with the pope.
• For one, the prophecy was not intended: Caiaphas was certainly not knowing preaching on the death, resurrection and glorification of Christ which would be to his own damnation, but was providing his rational judgment, a political expedient, that the death of Christ was to the physical salvation of the Jewish nation - just the opposite of its effect. Neither was he defining doctrine, though it attested to his wrong belief. Third, one would not know at the time that this was a prophecy from God due to its subject or scope.
• So there is the principal that leadership could speak the inspired word of God, but without engaging in the RC art of extrapolating a conclusion which is actually wish fulfillment, all you can use Caiaphas for here (even presuming that popes have an equivalent office and anointing, which they do not) is to argue that a pope can unintentionally speak something from God, most likely prophecy, even though at the time no one may know it is. Which is simply not corespondent to papal infallibility. In which "the conditions required for ex cathedra teaching mentioned in the Vatican decree" include:
► "he teaches some doctrine of faith or morals....it must be sufficiently evident that he intends to teach with all the fullness and finality of his supreme Apostolic authority, in other words that he wishes to determine some point of doctrine in an absolutely final and irrevocable way, or to define it in the technical sense ...These are well-recognized formulas by means of which the defining intention may be manifested." - https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
• And yet, unlike Caiaphas, your popes do not speak as God-inspired:
Inspiration signifies a special positive Divine influence and assistance by reason of which the human agent is not merely preserved from liability to error but is so guided and controlled that what he says or writes is truly the word of God, that God Himself is the principal author of the inspired utterance; but Catholic Encyclopedia > Infallibility; http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm
• Not lopsided at all. Intention does not equate to inspiration, nor prevent God from inspiring what He will, while even pagans can speak some Divine Truth, () and the elect can speak error. Balaam did not intend to bless Israel, and wanted riches, but he was basically compelled to speak what God told him, though he did know that he was prophesying. Which resulted in the lament, "Balak said unto Balaam, What hast thou done unto me? I took thee to curse mine enemies, and, behold, thou hast blessed them altogether." () Yet this is not the first time that God has made the choices of evil men, who used what God provided, to work according to His plan for good.
Post 27 to Hans Georg Lundahl
• Caiaphas himself did not intend to prophecy, and his motive was evil, while many good believers intend to speak the truth of God but teach some error. Sometimes RC scholars had conflicts the
• And you are supporting PEMI from that promise of , which as said, is to those who were taught and believe what Christ said, which are not the unregenerate of the Catholic gospel and its distinctives.
• Moreover, "Apostolic Magisterial Infallibility" indeed ended when the last apostle died, but which meant they could speak and write as wholly God-inspired instruments which the Catholic magisterium does not, nor your one true schism.
• Your premise that the magisterium must absolutely not add to revelation (however hidden), and can only preserve=add dogmas - but not from nothing, is an absurd claim of justification. For "not from nothing" means contriving something as being the word of God, being based upon belief that what Divine revelation is and teaches only consists of and means what she says (and even teaches that man cannot discover the contents of Scripture apart from faith in her, who provides assurance of Truth), and which claimed charism itself is based upon the same premise.
• Whereby Rome has presumed to "infallibly" declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) criteria, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares, and presumes protection from salvific error in non-infallible magisterial teaching. And retroactively so.
• Meaning that as Manning boldly stated,
► "It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But....I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves...T (Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228).
• Thus - and note the "living magisterium" affirmation by Manning which you interpreted as not applying to the institutional modern era - you have being asserted as not being a new doctrine, but that of Tradition based upon the tradition that Rome can "remember" what even history failed to record in the era in which it would be found.
Post 28 to Hans Georg Lundahl
• As Ratzinger writes (words in brackets and . mine as usual), ...Altaner, the patrologist from Wurzburg…had proven in a scientifically persuasive manner that the doctrine of Mary’s bodily Assumption into heaven was unknown before the 5C; this doctrine, therefore, he argued, could not belong to the “apostolic tradition. And this was his conclusion, which my teachers at Munich shared.
This argument is compelling if you understand “tradition” strictly as the handing down of fixed formulas and texts [or actual ancient reliable records] …But if you conceive of “tradition” as the living process whereby the Holy Spirit introduces us to the fullness of truth and teaches us how to understand what previously [which can only presume the Assumption was taught previously] we could still not grasp (cf. [which if not limited to Scripture, the promise of more revelation can be open-ended, which cults also appropriate]), then subsequent “remembering” (cf. , for instance [which actually refers to what Christ had taught on earth]) can come to recognize what it has not caught sight of previously [meaning ] and was already handed down in the original Word.' [via amorphous oral tradition] - J. Ratzinger, Milestones (Ignatius, n.d.), 58-59.
• And the novel and unScriptural premise of ensured perpetual magisterial infallibility as per Rome (and basically in primary cults) is the actual basis for assurance for a faithful Catholic. As Newman put it,
• I would simply confess that no doctrine of the Church can be rigorously proved by historical evidence: but at the same time that no doctrine can be simply disproved by it....in all cases there is a margin left for the exercise of faith in the word of the Church. He who believes the dogmas of the Church only because he has reasoned them out of History, is scarcely a Catholic. .. “...there are doctrines which transcend the discoveries of reason; and, after all, whether they are more or less recommended to us by the one informant or the other, in all cases the immediate motive in the mind of a Catholic for his reception of them is, not that they are proved to him by Reason or by History, but because Revelation has declared them by means of that high ecclesiastical Magisterium which is their legitimate exponent.” (John Henry Newman, “A Letter Addressed to the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation.” 8).
• Thus while purporting to justify such distinctives as by way of egregious extrapolation, yet which is nowhere seen despite over 200 prayers recorded by the Spirit in Scripture, and despite plenty of heavenly beings to pray to, and occasions to enlist their need, instead only God is addressed in prayer, and to whom believers are instructed to address by Christ, who Himself is the only heavenly intercessor btwn God and man, () and who ever lives to do so, () and to whom Scripture directs believers to as uniquely qualified () and the Spirit within believers cries out “Abba, Father,” () and not “Mama, Mother;”
in reality the basis for the veracity of such is based upon PEMI.
• And the list goes on, thru a church which cannot claim to be speaking as wholly inspired of God, but presumed to define itself as possessing ensured veracity, whereby it can claim something to be the word of God that is not actually taught in Scripture, and by which PEMI premise she justifies what in reality is her abuse of it as her servant in enlisting its support.
Post 29 to Hans Georg Lundahl
• Yet which church you are actually in rebellion against, as if your interpretation of her past teachings can trump her own as being valid, while opposing me who own dissent is manifestly based upon the only wholly God-inspired record of what the NT church believed, with veracity being based upon the degree of its substantiation.
• Wrong again. While there certainly is a teaching office, all believers are also to teach, () and likewise all the church that were taught preached the gospel after being scattered about, () and the promise of the Lord to be with them to the end applies to all believers, as His Spirit is in them. He is with them in a special way in the midst of two or three believers gathered together in agreement as touching any thing that they shall ask in prayer, (, ) yet which is never promised to any office whenever when they will teach on F+M to all.
• The promise of God's presence was never to an organic lineage no matter in everything they considered to be from Him, while the presbyters are the successors of the apostles, whose veracity is subject to Scripture. That is simply not elitist Rome, which effectively presume supremacy over Scripture.
• A guy decides the Roman institution is no longer the OTC, and gets himself elected, and will have his own successors. And you are arguing with me about the lack of a line of successors.
>> Which instead actually must read into Scripture what it can only wish was there," <<
• How many places in the OT can you refer to Christ?! Are you serious? They , both in prophecy as well as type and doctrinal , which is why and how "beginning at Moses and all the prophets, He [the Lord] expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself." () And thus Paul did likewise, (; 28:23) and Apollos: "For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." ()
• And while Christ said and did more than what is recorded, it is writing that Christ expounded on, and God manifestly made writing His most-reliable means of authoritative preservation. (; 34:1,27; ; 17:18; 27:3,8; 31:24; ; , , ; ; 119; ; ; ; 22:29; , ; , ; ; , ; 18:28; ; 20:12, 15, etc.)
• Contrary to your PEMI and what depends on it which indeed you actually "must read into Scripture what it can only wish was there."
• Sophistry: reducing shewing by the scriptures to being just prophecies specifically mentioned in the NT is simply untenable.
• Indeed! For weeks in fact in expanding on them, which Christ could have done further in.
• So much for your minimization of Scripture in the interest of promoting amorphous oral tradition.
Post 30 to Hans Georg Lundahl
• Actually, contrary to you, it was in fact from Scripture that Paul "expounded and testified the kingdom of God, persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening." ()
• This is part of what the Apostles had. This is part of what the Holy Spirit led them into. AND this is part of what Jesus commanded,
• The only valid truth here is that of express Divine revelation, including new revelation, was provided to and thru men speaking and writing as wholly inspired by God, and NOT to some pseudo=apostolic successors presuming to infallibly define their office as possessing PEMI which itself flowed from their tradition.
• Dream on. An assertion of delusion which will never be truth no matter how many times you or the magicsteeringthem repeats it. As said and stands, your magisterium (which in your case now seems to be in Kansas) does not speak or write as God-inspired writers and apostles, and who themselves appealed to Scripture to substantiate Christ to the people of the Book, and even their preaching was subject to testing by Scripture () regardless of your attempt to minimize that as well. Both in testing soothsayers and so-called church fathers, it remains that
• It is indeed eisegesis since Scripture is reduced to being a servant to support Rome, as interpreted by them to do so, and even so-called church fathers are selectively invoked if supporting them. And O. Jews largely appeal to their own oral tradition in justifying rejection of Christ.
• Wrong question. Since "distinctive Catholic" teachings (DCTs) are what are missing in the only God-inspired substantive record of what the NT church believed, then it is you who has the real absence problem. Where were DCTs in the first century church? The absence of them in the God-inspired substantive record is what necessitates Catholic oral Tradition. Since faith was preserved via the wholly God-inspired word, where was it in the 400 year intertestamental period when there were not prophets to speak as wholly God-inspired? The answer is Scripture was the transcendent sure and supreme substantive standard, the source of that faith itself.
• And while the papacy and PEMI was never promised nor practiced, and apostles ceased, and the OT reality of a deformed and fragmented flock did not negate the practice and principal of God providing shepherds to feed the flock, so also during the progressive deformation of the organic NT church then there were always some who preached the basic gospel by which humble pious souls could find salvation in Christ, these being part of the true body of Christ which overcomes the gates of Hell they escaped from, but which Catholicism overall became. For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. ()
Post 31 to Hans Georg Lundahl
• And there is a manifest principal in Scripture of God revealing Himself and will to a quite limited degree before providing written revelation, but when He determined do so to an entire nation and more extensively so, then He did so thru a very manifest man of God, beginning with Himself personally writing on tablets of stone, an enduring material unless broken. And repeating it when they were. And which was followed by extensive revelation of His will and Himself the recording of the same.
• And which was God's chosen means of preservation, and to which the successors of Moses were to be devoted to. "And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for a memorial in a book,..." () This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success. ()
• After holy Moses, the quality of leadership is greatly variegated, and but as attested to in Psalm 19 and 119, it is the the Law of God that is extolled, not the virtue of rulers, though that is important. Likewise the ministers of the New Covenant saw supernaturally manifest men of God, (; Rm. 15:19) under which the early church saw its most basic unity when led as a small community, and thru whom and the inspired teaching and recording God provided more express Divine revelation.
• Yet while not fully ceasing, there is less testimony to supernaturally attestation as time goes on, but writing continues, with inspired writing being unchangeable. And we see more disparity btwn churches as time goes on in the apostolic era, and by the time we get to Revelation 2+3, we see only two getting a full passing grade.
• Now the body of Christ organically exists as a divided kingdom, yet Christ has been and always will be with those who come together in His name, and had always provided pastors to feed the flock with His word, which is what remains unchanged, though the unity of the prima (non-Catholic) holy church is to be sought,.
• And since the source of what I believe remained, and the issue is actually more that of additions to that, thus the rhetorical question is who is the source and the successors of what should not have been taught? Not successors that presumed it was essential to know what is from God, except that it is expected that one should see that she is, and henceforth just trust her to tell one what is of God, not as being wholly God-inspired, yet effectively claiming to the sure supreme standard over Divine revelation.
• As for persons, while it added novelties, yet as Judaism also did, Catholicism preserved core doctrines that we both affirm, while it only progressively added its doctrines of men. And we only have a small portion of all that the ancients of the church are estimated to have taught and it is a historical constant that a relative remnant are saved. For to him that is joined to all the living there is hope: for a living dog is better than a dead lion. ()
• Meanwhile you have you own absence problem to a degree, with no concilar ordained pope for decades but one who decided to rebel against the established institution., and can only imagine that those you hold to be your predecessors would join your little band, yet that does not make them part of the body of Christ.
Post 32 to Hans Georg Lundahl
your pretence of a promise fulfilled outside the type of Church I speak of, is a pipe dream.
• As said, the promise of God's presence was never to an organic lineage no matter in everything they considered to be from Him, while the presbyters are the successors of the apostles, whose veracity is subject to Scripture. That is simply not elitist Rome, which effectively presume supremacy over Scripture. Why God promises to be with those who are corporately gathered together in His name, consistent with His word, and which excludes Rome which need not be subject to Scripture as is its own authority on its meaning as part of a 3 legged stool. .
• The circle is broken, so not vicious, by the input of proof from Matthew 28:16-20. And of history.
• As your delusional premise is false (reading in Scripture your unscriptural papacy, and unscriptural PEMI, and God's presence being with false unscriptural shepherds, versus those of Scriptural apostolic gospel faith), as explained, so also is your conclusion, and historically false.
I think you might profit from a close reading on NT Church structure once you give up finding a Church outside the type of Church I speak of.
• You really should. No Roman papacy; no prelates professing a perpetuated papacy, no council professing PEMI; no apostolic successors as popes; no apostolic successors after Matthias, nor via voting for one's chosen candidate; no preaching of the Lord's supper as life-giving spiritual food or priesthood with that being being their main unique active function; no preaching of salvation via paeodobaptism or purgatory; no prelates preaching DCRs, no mandated normative clerical celibacy (regardless what your pseudo-pope did, it is part of the history of your false church); no differentiation btwn presbuteros and episkopos; no seeking to rule over those without, much less using the sword of men to chastise, or to obtain office, and the list goes on.
• As for me, I could go virtually any populous area in my country and find a church with a teaching administrative office, married pastor, preaching the evangelical gospel and basic sound doctrine, with veracity based upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, baptizing believers, ordaining qualified men to teach, sending missionaries out, etc.
It involves "teach all nations" - and individual penitent souls may certainly obtain God's redemption without the public limelight, but cannot teach the nations in that same way.
• Where have you been? The needed but imperfect Reformation resulted in vast numbers entering in the mystical OTC, and many Romans shepherd lust to obtain converts from them to enliven their dead pews. It was Paul who began preaching after a certain devout man laid hands on in in conveyance of the power of the gospel, whom Barnabas soon took in to the other apostles, (Acts 9:1-28) - not RCs - and was later sent forth by certain prophets and teachers to preach, (Acts 13:1-3) preaching the gospel he received by direct revelation of Christ. (Galatians 1:12)
Spiritual, therefore not organic? Spiritual, therefore not bodily? Spiritual, therefore not visible?Or spiritual so that the organic is sanctified, spiritual so that the bodily is sanctified, spiritual so that the visible is sanctified? Which is it? I see only one of them as even possibly a candidate for the promise I mentioned.
• Yes, as Christ said whom I referenced, the kingdom of Christ is spiritual, being "not of this world." (Jn. 18:36) And which does not exclude the organic, as I also affirmed, but which as also said, does not mean that the whole of the organic is sanctified as meaning all are holy, much less your church, which includes murderous popes. Thus that is simply not "even possibly a candidate.
Post 33 to Hans Georg Lundahl
But as a whole a family is set apart by one believer, so also even lost souls in a church preaching the gospel of regenerating purifying faith (; 15:7-9) by which members are added to the body, () are benefited by the status of that church which has set itself apart for Christ.
• Unto Christ it is promised to "give unto him the throne of his father David: and he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end” () which, aside from the spiritual kingdom of Christ, the promise of David's kingdom will be fully realized in the 1,000 year reign of Christ, as promised: "David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them. And they shall dwell in the land that I have given unto Jacob my servant, wherein your fathers have dwelt; and they shall dwell therein, even they, and their children, and their children’s children for ever: and my servant David shall be their prince for ever." ()
• The reason there is no gap is because as "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence." () "Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son." "And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence." (, ) Which as said, is the body that the spirit baptizes every regenerated believer into ()
The one body of Christ () only and always consists of the regenerate, even with a relative few yet being Catholic, and to which Christ is married. Which is not any one organic fellowships inevitably become admixtures of wheat and tares. Yet which believers should seek to be part of.
• Again, that is absurd as meaning Rome. As said, the priesthood of Catholicism is while all believers are called to sacrifice (Rm. 12:1; 15:16; ; 4:18; , ; cf. 9:9) and all constitute the only priesthood (hieráteuma) in the NT church, that of all believers, (, ; Re 1:6; 5:10; 20:6).
Post 34 to Hans Georg Lundahl
>>But he is a Jew, that is one inwardly; and the circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God.<<
• Rather, the fact is that the same criteria which renders unbelieving Jews not being Israel () likewise renders any church which does not preach the gospel of effectual penitent regenerating faith which is imputed for righteousness, (; 15:7-9; Rm. 4:5) as being a false church.
Post 35 to Hans Georg Lundahl
• Now why am I even spending hours (most of a whole day in fact) replying to a defender of Catholicism who is a member of one of the "one true schisms," based upon his interpretation of church teaching that contradicts the modern living magisterium, but unlike me does not do so based upon the only wholly inspired substantive authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels)?
• So I am done (not even proof reading all this) since you are manifestly not seeking to go wherever the Truth of Scripture leads, but trying to justify your unscriptural church while trying to justify not being submission to it.
May God grant you "repentance unto the acknowledging of the truth." (2 Timothy 2:25)
Post a Comment