CathApol

Free Exercise of Religion

2012-01-26T23:52:00.003-07:00

“Never before has the federal government forced individuals and organizations to go out into the marketplace and buy a product that violates their conscience. This shouldn’t happen in a land where free exercise of religion ranks first in the Bill of Rights,” Archbishop Dolan.

Papal Authority

2012-01-26T22:10:00.000-07:00

In a recent discussion which began at BeggarsAll - Mr. John Lollard responded to some of what I said. His response to me was not really the topic of that discussion so I am responding here under the subject title of what he said.

Mr. Windsor,
You had said:
So, based on this fact it is our position that St. Peter was indeed our first pope AND he was contradicted, as recorded in Scripture, by St. Paul. Thus, I have fulfilled the request to demonstrate from OUR TEACHING and OUR PERSPECTIVE how even a pope can be contradicted.
We read in Scripture"When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong... The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabbas was led astray." Galatians 2:11-13
So we see, your first pope was not only contradicted, but he was clearly wrong and through following him many - even Barnabbas - were led astray.

I have never held a position that a pope could not ever be wrong. It seems like so many Protestants are of the opinion that papal infallibility equates to papal impeccability - and that is simply not a valid equation. The point of the episode in Galations 2 is only partially about St. Peter being wrong on that point - but also that not only was he contradicted by St. Paul, but CORRECTED by St. Paul. St. Peter did not remain in error.

It's a strange situation, you insisting that popes can be wrong and induce their followers to moral error according to Scripture, the Protestants that you "are bound to submit to this power" as per Vatican I.

There seems to be a word or phrase missing in that sentence, but I believe I'm following what you're saying here. You're saying it is strange that I insist the popes can be wrong (and induce their followers to moral error) AND that I also insist that Protestants are "bound to submit to this power" per Vatican I. You can correct me if I'm wrong in restating what you said. Now for my response:

1) Yes, popes can be wrong.

2) Catholics are followers of Jesus Christ. The pope is simply the current successor of the one whom Jesus empowered to "Feed My sheep" in John 21. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, as He was departing this world, gave St. Peter that command in threefold manner - making it clear that St. Peter would be His vicar in His absence.

3) That Protestants are bound to submit to this "power" - is a truism. Yes, Protestants are indeed bound to submit to the will of the Shepherd and therefore be shepherded by the one whom Jesus "empowered" to be his stand-in.

Continuing...

How did we end up in opposite world(s)?

I would not say we're in opposite worlds! We both have a love and fervor for our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. We're separated primarily by a movement which represents only a portion of 25% of the history of Christendom. That movement, primarily started by Martin Luther (though I would say he was more of a political pawn of the German princes) is not "opposite" of Catholicism - just separated from it. An "opposite' world would be one of atheism or perhaps one which follows a different god or gods. So, while we are not opposites - we're also not "one" as is the Will of Jesus - that we may be one, just as He and the Father are One (John 17:21).

All the same, I'm glad that you apparently no longer believe in the authority of the pope;

Now hold on a moment! I have not rejected the authority of the pope! Just because popes MAY be wrong and even HAVE been wrong many times throughout history - starting with our first pope - does not mean popes do not have authority given to them by Jesus Christ! You're making quite the non sequitur here!

he's just some guy saying stuff, and whatever, who cares what he says if he doesn't make any sense with it.

He's more than "just some guy saying stuff!" He DOES have authority and all faithful Christians are bound to obey him so long as he's not asking us to do something immoral - and in the example from Galations 2 we're not talking about a matter of morality, but of discipline. St. Peter was asking Gentiles to ACT like Jews - and St. Paul corrected him and insisted he (and by default "we") not expect everyone, especially converts from non-Jewish faiths, to act like Jews. Again, DiSCIPLINE not MORALITY.

He doesn't have any more authority to teach than you do, or than anyone does, 'cause he's just some German guy living in Italy.

Well, as I've already said, he's much more than "just some guy" and he was empowered by Jesus Christ Himself to a position of authority - and his successors have that same authority.

You should really look at whether what he's teaching is right, not on the office of the person teaching it.

Oh, I AGREE! We should ALWAYS be mindful of what he's saying! However, that does not change the fact of the matter relating to the office he holds. Similarly, though not identically (as no analogy may be exactly equivocated) the President of the United States holds an office - and whereas I may not AGREE with him in everything he SAYS - once he signs a law into effect, as a citizen of the United States, I am obliged to OBEY that law. Failure to do so will have consequences.

Bravo! I'm glad you're willing to make such an admission! :P

Likewise, I'm glad you're willing to admit that St. Peter was our first pope and that this "German guy living in Italy" is the successor of that "Jewish guy who lived in Jerusalem, Antioch and died in Rome!" ;-)

In JMJ,

Scott<<<

Transubstantiation

2012-01-26T18:57:00.000-07:00

What, exactly, is Transubstantiation? If you break down the word it is not too difficult. The first part, "trans" means "change" and the next part "substantiation" comes from the word "substance" and the "tion" part indicates it is an act or action. Putting it all together, it means a "change of substance" or the process of changing a substance from one thing to another. The change may not be in what you "see" - but in the "substance" which truly "is" what something "is."

This is what happened when Jesus took bread, and blessing it He said, "This IS my body;" and with wine He declared, "This IS My blood." Sure, it still looked like and tasted like bread and wine, but upon the declaration of God Almighty Himself, it became His body and blood! Who are we to disagree or argue against the very Word of God? He also didn't stop there! He added, "Do THIS as often as you partake in THIS." That command was given to the Apostles, the first bishops of the Catholic Church and they, in turn, pass on this authority to their successors and give faculties to local priests to "Do THIS" as well. Any "church" which does not profess THIS is NOT the Church which Jesus Christ built.

The Empire Barks Back

2012-01-23T18:23:00.000-07:00

A hopefully not-so feeble attempt at humor for James Swan...

God Changed His Mind?

2012-01-23T00:31:00.001-07:00

In many confrontations with Calvinists they will argue the "Sovereignty of God" and that God does not "make up His mind" based on the actions of men - arguing that this would put the Will of God "hostage" to the will of Man. Let the objective reader then consider Jonah 3:

⁸ But both man and beast must be covered with sackcloth; and let men call on God earnestly that each may turn from his wicked way and from the violence which is in his hands. ⁹ Who knows, God may turn and relent and withdraw His burning anger so that we will not perish.”
¹⁰ When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it. (NASB)

⁸And let men and beasts be covered with sackcloth, and cry to the Lord with all their strength, and let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the iniquity that is in their hands.
⁹Who can tell if God will turn, and forgive: and will turn away from his fierce anger, and we shall not perish?
¹⁰And God saw their works, that they were turned from their evil way: and God had mercy with regard to the evil which he had said that he would do to them, and he did it not. (DRB)

⁸But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands.
⁹Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?
¹⁰And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did it not. (KJV)

⁸ People and animals alike must wear garments of mourning, and everyone must pray earnestly to God. They must turn from their evil ways and stop all their violence.
⁹ Who can tell? Perhaps even yet God will change his mind and hold back his fierce anger from destroying us.”
¹⁰ When God saw what they had done and how they had put a stop to their evil ways, he changed his mind and did not carry out the destruction he had threatened. (NLB)

Was God "held hostage" -OR- is it according to His Sovereignty that He GAVE mankind the ability to choose and to repent and that IF man does repent, He is able to "change His mind?"

In JMJ,

Scott<<<

Faithful Catholics May Disagree

2012-01-21T20:02:00.000-07:00

To which extent may faithful Catholics disagree with each other - or even disagree with a sitting or past pope? This post is in response to one which began over on BeggarsAll.

A blogger who goes by the name of Constantine said...

I'm curious about the “freedom to discount” claimed by EA and John.

In 1879 Leo XIII writes in his encyclical Aeterni Patris, “Let carefully selected teachers endeavor to implant the doctrine of Thomas Aquinas in the minds of students, and set forth clearly his solidity and excellence over others. Let the universities already founded or to be founded by you illustrate and defend this doctrine, and use it for the refutation of prevailing errors.” (Paragraph 31)

Earlier in this letter – paragraph 21 – Leo quotes half a dozen of his predecessors in support of Thomism as the official Catholic philosophy. One indicative example is Urban V, who Leo quotes as having written, “"It is our will, which We hereby enjoin upon you, that ye follow the teaching of Blessed Thomas as the true and Catholic doctrine and that ye labor with all your force to profit by the same." (emphasis added). I take it to mean that when a pope “enjoins” something, it is necessarily official doctrine – not “semi-official”. (And Leo is here reaching back into 500 years of Catholic history for support.) Is it fair to consider these writings as mere opinions?So were one to feel free to discount Thomism as I take EA and John to mean, they would be undermining not just the opinions of one or another pope, but a whole series of them. And that, I think, casts some doubt on the idea of “Tradition”, no?

I wrote:
That one may disagree with the opinions of previous popes does not undermine "tradition" - and especially not "Sacred Tradition." Would it be wise to reject sound Catholic teaching in favor of more modernist views? Probably not! But so long as what is being disagreed with is not dogmatically defined (ex cathedra) statements from popes, then Catholics may disagree with them.

[January 22, 2012 addendum]
Constantine said...

Hi Scott,

So, if the language was right and the audience was right, then you could disregard papal bulls, right? I think that is your point. My question remains – where is that taught?
1) I never said one can "disregard papal bulls," but I will say some of THAT would depend upon the language and to whom the bull was addressed/intended.

Earlier you wrote,

“But so long as what is being disagreed with is not dogmatically defined (ex cathedra) statements from popes, then Catholics may disagree with them.”
Peace. So, the 60+% or Catholics who disregard the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae's teaching on contraception or the nearly 50% of Catholics who do not affirm the doctrine of transubstantiation are perfectly within their rights, according to your standard. Do I understand that correctly?

I respond...
You can see below where I point out even our first pope is disagreed with, so "where is that taught?" is answered in Scripture for you. As for disregarding the Church's CURRENT declarations upon contraception - this is a precept which is binding upon ALL Christians, even non-Catholics (whether they choose to accept this binding is not relevant to the fact that it IS binding upon them!). A faithful Catholic cannot pick and choose which current precepts they will accept or reject - and based on the FACT that most forms of contraception are abortificants, the premise of this precept is "Thou shalt not kill." Those who participate in artificial birth control/contraception cannot be considered "faithful Catholics."

As for the alleged 50% who do not affirm the doctrine of transubstantiation, again, this teaching is quite clear and explicit for Christianity! Those who reject the teaching cannot be considered faithful Christians/Catholics.

Now, to the specifics you mention here, THIS discussion is not about contraception or transubstantiation, so let us not be distracted into tangential topics in THIS discussion.
[End of January 22, 2012 addendum]
A blogger who goes by the initials EA responds:

"But so long as what is being disagreed with is not dogmatically defined (ex cathedra) statements from popes, then Catholics may disagree with them."
Lumen Gentium (III,25):
In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent. This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
So there's a bit of an issue here. Pope Pius X insisted in some very assertive language that Thomism is the bedrock of and essential to Catholic teaching. But Cardinal Ratzinger stated that Thomistic philosophy needed to be discarded in order to save Catholicism.

In order to give some assent to both of these statements, somehow they need to be reconciled. Good Luck.

Constantine states:

I think Scott has to show where it is taught that the Roman Catholic in the pew has the authority to disregard papal bulls - ex cathedra or not.

I respond:
The most obvious evidence to present would be where our FIRST POPE was contradicted and corrected by St. Paul! St. Paul chided St. Peter for although being a Jew, he lived as a Gentile and was expecting the Gentiles to take on Jewish traditions, this is recorded in Galations 2:14-21. If even our first pope can be disagreed with - then why would you question our position of being able to disagree with later popes? Now I understand non-Catholics do not accept that St. Peter was a pope at all - but the objective reader must understand as well that it is the Catholic position that he was indeed pope and thus this confrontation of St. Paul was against our first pope! From the very beginning of what we recognize as the papacy we have faithful Catholics confronting them!

As for then Fr. Ratzinger disagreeing with Pope Pius X (a pope nearly 100 years prior) said about teaching - which is where this discussion stemmed from, allow me to retrace a bit. James Swan found a couple of blog entries from "Catholic Champion" which intrigued him. One was "A Warning to Those Who Oppose St. Thomas and Scholasticism" and the other, in Swan's words "a real gem" was: "Contradictions, You Decide..." My guess would be that Swan is impressed with the perceived contradictions put forward by Matthew Bellisario (aka "Catholic Champion").

First off, I'd like to say that the encyclicals from Pope Leo XIII and Pope St. Pius X are essentially stating that the scholasticism of St. Thomas Aquinas should be used by Catholic schools and universities. While they use some pretty strong language to "exhort" such to use St. Aquinas' works, it is not "demanded." In fact, Pope St. Pius X says in Doctoris Angelici: "We renew and confirm them and order them to be strictly observed by all concerned." This sounds very forceful, and the document is even a "moto proprio" - BUT - it is directly addressed to "Italy and the adjacent islands," therefore is specifically NOT binding upon the whole Church!

The next thing I'd say is that the quote from then Fr. Ratzinger is an obscure quote from an obscure source making it very difficult to check on the context. Therefore, without being able to see the context, I reject this quote from Fr. Ratzinger.

Now, the above being said, it is clear that Catholics CAN disagree with papal statements - and I reiterate that we Catholics see St. Peter as our first pope - and Scripture provides evidence that faithful Catholics can contradict and confront even the sitting pope.

I'm not sure that those over on Beggars All will be satisfied with these answers - but clearly I have presented the case where we CAN contradict a pope - within reason. Below I provide opinions of other Catholics and I will respectfully consider further challenges by those who have initially challenged me.

Faithfully yours,

Scott Windsor<<<
CathApol

Roman Catholic theologian, Ronald L. Conte Jr.
http://ronconte.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/to-what-extent-may-a-faithful-catholic-disagree-with-the-pope/

Marcus Grodi offers his opinion:
http://chnetwork.org/2011/09/defragging-our-minds-by-marcus-grodi/

Prayers for Scott Hahn

2012-01-18T17:38:00.000-07:00

Prayers for Dr. Scott Hahn, underwent emergency surgery for perforated bowel, his recent FB entry was:

Came out of successful two hour surgery with lots of gratitude and pain. Will be in hospital for next 3-5 days; 2-4 weeks in recovery. Your prayers are greatly appreciated. AMDG

http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=328548200499630&id=165171813503937

UPDATE 1/26/2012:
Dr. Hahn is recovering well and has already returned to teaching! Here is what he wrote on his Facebook page last night:

What a joy to launch my new course, The Theology of the New Evangelization, on the Feast of the Conversion of St Paul. Two hours and forty minutes never went by so fast. I got to re-discover what St Paul taught and lived so well: "My grace is sufficient for you." One week ago it didn't seem possible.

Praise the Lord!

A Catholic Rap

2012-01-15T09:28:00.000-07:00

Answering the rap... "I love Jesus, but hate religion..."

Untitled from John Hollowell on Vimeo.

I found this through Patty... had to share! Thanks Patty!

Be Careful How You Ask Questions!

2012-01-13T12:47:00.002-07:00

STUDENT WHO OBTAINED 0% ON AN EXAM.

Q1. In which battle did Napoleon die?
*His last battle.

Q2. Where was the Declaration of Independence signed?
*At the bottom of the page.

Q3. River Ravi flows in which state?
*Liquid.

Q4. What is the main reason for divorce?
*Marriage.

Q5. What is the main reason for failure?
*Exams.

Q6. What can you never eat for breakfast?
*Lunch & dinner.

Q7. What looks like half an apple?
*The other half.

Q8. If you throw a red stone into the blue sea what it will become?
*It will simply become wet.

Q9. How can a man go eight days without sleeping?
*No problem, he sleeps at night.

Q10. How can you lift an elephant with one hand?
*You will never find an elephant that has only one hand.

Q11. If you had three apples and four oranges in one hand and four apples and three oranges in other hand, what would you have?
*Very large hands.

Q12. If it took eight men ten hours to build a wall, how long would it take four men to build it?
*No time at all, the wall is already built.

Q13. How can you drop a raw egg onto a concrete floor without cracking it?
*Any way you want, concrete floors are very hard to crack.

Foreknowledge of God

2012-01-08T21:19:00.001-07:00

Often we find Calvinists among us complaining that Catholics do not understand the scriptural concept of predestination and that when we use the property of "foreknowledge" we're detracting from God's sovereignty. I've been engaged in such a conversation with a Calvinist on the CatholicDebateForum - feel free to read the discourse between us - and several others - there. For the purpose of this article I will focus upon a sermon prepared by Barry Hoffstetter, which can be found here: http://my.opera.com/BarryHofstetter/blog/foreknowledge

Where Barry first gets into trouble is in his statement:

There is absolutely no hint whatsoever that God's foreknowledge is conditional upon the actions of men (and hence, that the crucifixion itself would be conditional upon the actions of men) -- in fact, the vocabulary and structure of the passage strongly indicates the opposite.

Let us consider what he's saying here. The root of Barry's argument is foreknowledge is not related to the actions of men and he goes so far as to say "the crucifixion itself would (then) be conditional upon the actions of men." Well, the crucifixion IS conditional upon the acts of men, or more precisely, the acts of the first man and woman who brought upon all of mankind sin and the need for a Savior and Redeemer to come! It was due to God's love and mercy that He promised the remedy for the fall into sin. That promise is first implied in Genesis 3:15 when God is speaking to the serpent (Satan) stating that since he deceived her that it would be her offspring which would crush his head. This promise is followed up by dozens of other Old Testament references to the Messiah, but the point is - the Messiah would not even be necessary without the fall. The foreknowledge of God did not stop the fall of mankind, nor the first murder, etc., I could go on and on - but again, without man falling into sin - there would be no need for a Messiah, there would have been no crucifixion.

Barry goes on to say:

The other occurence of the word is at 1 Pet 1:2, where it is the object of the Greek preposition κατά,(according to). Now, as has been pointed out, "according to" does not mean "because of" -- it again emphasizes, not causality, but that which characterizes a particular action in a variety of ways, or that which may show a relationship between two ideas or objects.

First off, I'm not familiar with where this "has been pointed out" that "according to does not mean because of," it's not part of this article/sermon. However, fundamentally I agree - 'according to' does not mean 'because of,' but therein may lie the folly of Barry's premise. The Catholic position is not that predestination is not due to foreknowlege "because of" - but predestination IS "according to" foreknowledge. Since it is quite scriptural the so-called "Golden Chain of Redemption" (Rom. 8:29-30), and Barry himself has agreed to the "order" of this chain as you can see by the following exchange:

> > BH: Again, I am not arguing against the order here. The ordo salutis presented in the passage is clear. But don't you see that you are reading your definition of foreknowledge into the text? The issue is not the ordo, but the nature of foreknowledge.

> sw: No, I see that I am reading in order. If foreknowledge comes first, then it "follows" that predestination comes "after" it. To think He does not "see" this "prior" to predestining them would be to limit God's Omniscience.

BH: There is a logical order to these things, and in that order,
foreknowledge precedes election and predestination (Source)

So here we are in fundamental agreement, however Barry argues that I am not coming from a proper perspective of the nature of foreknowledge. So, what IS foreknowledge, exactly? It is knowledge one has BEFORE something else. Thus, as we see in the ordo of the "Golden Chain," foreknowledge precedes predestination and election. All these tenets are related to each other, as they are all part of the same "chain." Now, this "ordo" or "order" is something for our benefit. We live in and according to time. God, on the other hand, is eternal - and thus outside of our concept of time. God is not limited to our view/perspective on time. Being outside of time He sees eternity all at once - what is past, present or future just IS from the perspective of the Eternal God. Therefore, the concept of "foreknowledge" is something from the human perspective which precedes predestination and election. To surmise that such foreknowledge does not weigh in on the predestination of mankind would be rather illogical.

Continuing from Barry's article:

Here, the claim is made that the elect possess a particular relationship to the foreknowledge of God. Essentially, election is "in line with" or "characterized by" God's foreknowledge. Again, the claim cannot be made that God's choice is dependent on the actions of men. While the statement here is not quite as strong as that made at Acts 2:23, it still implies that God's foreknowledge simply means that he knows whom he is going to choose, and so chooses them. The choice is internal to God, and not based on any external criteria.

And where is this implication? The text give no such clue that Barry (or Calvin) would have us to blindly accept. Barry states that "the claim cannot be made that God's choice is dependent on the actions of men," but if that is God's plan - then the claim not only can be made, it must be made and accepted on faith! Now, of course, it is my position that this is God's plan, that it is by His design and through His justice that any man who goes to Hell goes there of his own accord. Likewise, if a man has accepted God's Gift of faith and accepts His Son as his Savior and Redeemer, and lived accordingly - then God in His justice will not refuse him. Before I continue I must remind the reader of what was said earlier about our perspective and time - for this non-refusal of God is in our lateral view of time as it unfolds - not God's view of eternity. In God's view He's already seen what choices each of us will make and whether or not we will persevere in His Truth. He knows already from our perspective and to think He does not act upon what He already knows would be quite illogical, to say the least.

Barry concludes:

And even if we did find the preposition διά here (because of, due to) the passage still would not imply that God's saving work is conditional upon what he knew men would do -- that would have to be determined from context, and nothing in the context even remotely suggests such a possibility.

Well to begin with here, the context of Scripture includes Romans 8:29-30, and with that in mind we cannot say that Scripture (the context) does not even remotely suggest such a possibility when this "Golden Chain" literally screams not only the possibility, but the reality. Whether or not the "because of" or "due to" preposition is present is irrelevant - for Scripture clearly states that predestination and election is preceded by foreknowledge. The passage also puts "firstborn" into the picture - as though there is an "order" to those who will be conformed to the image of His Son. For those who have ears to hear, let them hear.

The Golden Chain of Redemption/Salvation
For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. Romans 8:29-30 (KJV).

Addendum, January 14, 2012 - Scott's response to Barry's response on CDF. Both responses appropriately linked to their sources on CDF. Since my response contains most of Barry's, I am posting mine here - again, Barry's is linked above and here as well.

On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 7:16 PM, Barry H. wrote:

sw: skipping a bit of redundancy and getting to the main point....

>> BH: There is a logical order to these things, and in that order,
foreknowledge precedes election and predestination (Source) [link re-added]

>sw: So here we are in fundamental agreement, however Barry argues that I am not
>coming from a proper perspective of the nature of foreknowledge. So, what
>IS foreknowledge, exactly? It is knowledge one has BEFORE something else.
>Thus, as we see in the ordo of the "Golden Chain," foreknowledge precedes
>predestination and election. All these tenets are related to each other,
>as they are all part of the same "chain." Now, this "ordo" or "order" is
>something for our benefit. We live in and according to time. God, on the
>other hand, is eternal - and thus outside of our concept of time. God is
>not limited to our view/perspective on time. Being outside of time He sees
>eternity all at once - what is past, present or future just IS from the
>perspective of the Eternal God. Therefore, the concept of "foreknowledge"
>is something from the human perspective which precedes predestination and
>election. To surmise that such foreknowledge does not weigh in on the
>predestination of mankind would be rather illogical.
BH: Ok, you still are not getting.

sw: Oh, I "get it" just fine! I get that you are blinded by your indoctrination to Calvinism and cannot logically consider alternatives to Calvinism because you approach anything which contradicts Calvinism as dogmatically wrong - as do most, if not all Calvinist apologists. What you're NOT SEEING is that the very concept of "foreknowledge" is based upon a "BEFORE" and "AFTER" in a "LINEAR VIEW OF TIME." Foreknowledge, therefore, is terminology for MANKIND. Foreknowledge is something WE use to describe God's Nature from OUR linear view of time. God, being and Eternal Being, is outside our conceptual view of "time" and is not LIMITED by OUR VIEW/PERSPECTIVE of time. It is not I who is limiting God's sovereignty here - but Calvinism! Your Calvinist arguments attempt to put the Catholic view into a limited box which you can dismiss - but it's not quite that easy, my friend. My position is, and has been, that we cannot limit God or His sovereignty to OUR VIEW, for to God "time" is just a human invention to look at history, live in the present and consider the future. For the Eternal God, "time" just "is." Step outside your limited human (and Calvinist) perspective and consider that God is beyond such.

BH: I don't know how to get you to see this.

sw: I "see" it just fine! I "see" that you want to forget that the "fore" part of "foreknowledge" not only implies, but SCREAMS in a LINEAR VIEW (which is OURS) that knowledge is beFORE the predestination. Again, God is not limited to OUR VIEW.

sw: Calvinism essentially states that the "decision" of God to predestine is NOT based in foreknowledge - thus foreknowledge becomes an irrelevant link in that "Golden Chain." So, either that FOREknowledge MEANS something, or it does not. Calvinism reduces that word to insignificance - and therefore DETRACTS from the context of Scripture.

BH: You are simply assuming that foreknowledge means that God will look down the
corridors of time,

sw: No, I am saying that if you are looking at TIME then there is a before and after - and FOREknowledge comes beFORE all else.

BH: observe that Scott is going to be a really faithful
fellow (he's got this blog, you see), and therefore, since God has foreseen
that Scott is going to be that kind of fellow, he chose him as one of his
own. Do you agree that is what foreknowledge means to you?

sw: In a sense - but since my life - from OUR VIEW is not over - I may or may not persevere in the state of grace. I could fail at any point in TIME from now till the end of my life. I hope and pray that I am given the strength and wisdom to remain in that state - but God already knows what decision(s) I will make in my life and has predestined me based upon this. Now, this is NOT God being held hostage to my decisions (that's the typical Calvinist response) but rather God being consistent in His Divine Justice. It would not be consistent of Him to have laws and punishments based upon the failure to follow those laws if those laws did not matter in the least and He had already predestined everyone in a reality devoid of Free Will. It is precisely why folks like me see the Calvinist view of God as being merely a puppetmaster who controls His puppets and predetermines who they are and what they will become.

> sw: The Golden Chain of Redemption/Salvation

> For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to
the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called,
them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
Romans 8:29-30 (KJV).
BH: Now, in this "golden chain" passage, and in any other passage where
foreknowledge is either explicitly mentioned or implied, does it say that
God looked ahead and based his actions on what the person was going to do?
IT DOESN'T SAY THAT. You are reading that definition into it.

sw: I'm sorry Barry - but words DO mean things - and "FORE" in the word "FOREknowledge" means that it is knowledge which comes beFORE. Again, to speak of beFORE and after - implies a statement of TIME and as such - FOREknowledge PRECEDES predestination, as you concur, in the logical scheme of things. I'm not reading into the words anything which is not there already - because FORE in FOREknowledge IS a statement of TIME.

sw: The above being said, God is not responding to decisions of men, per se, but is responding in accordance to His Divine Law. As has been said before "Law" itself is meaningless if the enforcement of said "Law" is not based in the actions of men either abiding BY the Law or going AGAINST the Law. If you remove the acts of men from consideration then you're left with God as a puppet master - and that is NOT the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their descendants, whom I might add - were blessed and cursed based upon THEIR actions! The Calvinist view of predestination is not only not scriptural - it is ANTI-scriptural for it TAKES AWAY from the Justice of God and the fact that He is a "Jealous God," etc. These terms make absolutely NO SENSE in a Calvinist form of predestination.

BH: The logical order of foreknowledge/predestination does not imply that in any way.

sw: If it is "logical" at all, then yes - the order not only implies it - it DEMANDS it.

BH: Calvin simply didn't make that up (neither, for that matter did Augustine,
who was very influential in Calvin's conception of the doctrine). Instead,
the doctrine is framed from the nature of God as omniscient and omnipotent,
and in the specific actions that God takes to accomplish redemption.

sw: St. Augustine, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Hippo, did NOT present Calvinism in his teachings on predestination. Did Calvin usurp out-of-context statements from St. Augustine and invent an anti-Catholic/Christian viewpoint? Perhaps, but St. Augustine (after his conversion) became a faithful Catholic and bishop in the Catholic Church.

BH: What does foreknowledge and election look like in particular terms? Consider Jeremiah:
Jer 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were
born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations."

Upon what actions of Jeremiah was this decision made by God dependent?

sw: Consider the ORDER in which Jeremiah states it! What came first? KNOWLEDGE! Before God formed him, He ALREADY KNEW him! That's FOREknowledge! He KNEW Jeremiah and then according to that FOREknowledge, God appointed him to be a prophet to the nations. You have provided a passage which reinforces MY argument and continues to destroy your own.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Cheeseburger Friday!

2012-01-06T15:15:00.000-07:00

Today being a Friday, is usually a day of penance observation for Catholics (though many Catholics are unaware of this requirement). The traditional penance is to abstain from meat, but that has been changed in the post-Vatican II era. It doesn't HAVE to be meat anymore - but must be something equivalent AND per approval from ones episcopal conference - but it CAN still be meat! Since the rule was relaxed a bit many Catholics have assumed there is no more requirement - but they would be wrong here AND it is a mortal sin to fail to properly observe this precept.

What is involved here?

The USCCB says:

Fridays Throughout the Year In memory of Christ's suffering and death, the Church prescribes making each Friday throughout the year a penitential day. All of us are urged to prepare appropriately for that weekly Easter that comes with each Sunday.

While that's a bit vague, even weak in merely "urging" us, the Code of Canon Law is not so weak:

Canon 1251: Abstinence from meat, or from some other food as determined by the Episcopal Conference, is to be observed on all Fridays, unless a solemnity should fall on a Friday.

And, keeping in mind that Canon 1251 has never been abrogated:

Canon 33 §1 General executory decrees, even if published in directories or other such documents, do not derogate from the law, and any of their provisions which are contrary to the law have no force.
§2 These decrees cease to have force by explicit or implicit revocation §2 These decrees cease to have force by explicit or implicit revocation by the competent authority, and by the cessation of the law for whose execution they were issued. They do not cease on the expiry of the authority of the person who issued them, unless the contrary is expressly provided.

So, enjoy that cheeseburger today - but do keep in mind WHY you would normally NOT have that cheeseburger and that a solemnity is a "gift" as every Sunday is.

Epiphany 2012

2012-01-06T07:31:00.001-07:00

With today being Epiphany and the Twelfth Day of Christmas, Christmas is over for many traditions. I say "many" because some still celebrate the Holiday through Candlemas - Feb. 2nd.

The Solemnity of the Epiphany is what we call it in the Latin Church, in the Eastern traditions it is called "Theophany" and is one of the oldest Christian feast days celebrated - and has, from the earliest dates, been celebrated on January 6th.

Originally Epiphany/Theophany actually celebrated four different feasts: The Baptism of our Lord, the First Miracle of our Lord at Cana, The Nativity of our Lord and the arrival of the "Three Kings" or "Three Wisemen." Eventually in the West, the celebration of the Nativity became the celebration of the Christ Mass, or Christmas, on December 25th. In many parts of the world the tradition of giving gifts, like the Wise Men, is practiced on Epiphany.

Did I mention this is a "solemnity?" Being that this solemnity which falls on a Friday - for all you Catholics who observe Canon Law (which should be ALL of you!) you don't have to offer up your Friday Penance (which traditionally is the abstaining from meat)! Yes, it is STILL a mortal sin to NOT observe SOME sort of penance EVERY FRIDAY THROUGHOUT THE YEAR - EXCEPT when a solemnity falls on a Friday (just as every Sunday is a solemnity, no penance is required on solemnities). Please see the articles I wrote on this earlier (click here or here for another one).

Days of Christmas

2012-01-02T07:01:00.000-07:00

First off - MERRY CHRISTMAS! (Reminding the readers that it is STILL the Christmas season - which lasts minimally till Epiphany (Jan. 6th) and in some traditions until Candlemas (Feb. 2nd).

While on the plane back to AZ I was pondering whether or not there was any given day of the week that Christmas could not fall on... counting on my fingers, I seemed to be coming up with a pattern which eliminated Mondays and Saturdays due to leap years - but that made absolutely no sense! Leap year is every 4 years and there are 7 days, so there should be no such pattern which would skip any given day. While my finger counting was off (I blame this on thinking that as we're approaching February 29th that 2011 was the "leap" because I was still IN 2011 at the time) my logic was not!

In the first years of the new millennium Christmas fell on the following days:
2000 - Monday
2001 - Tuesday
2002 - Wednesday
2003 - Thursday
2004 - Saturday
2005 - Sunday
2006 - Monday
2007 - Tuesday
2008 - Thursday
2009 - Friday
2010 - Saturday
2011 - Sunday

And will fall on:
2012 - Tuesday
2013 - Wednesday
2014 - Thursday
2015 - Friday
2016 - Sunday
2017 - Monday
2018 - Tuesday
2019 - Wednesday
2020 - Friday
2021 - Saturday

Christmas can fall on any day...

Merry Christ Mass!

2011-12-25T14:14:00.003-07:00

Wishing You A

Merry and Blessed

Christ Mass!

Today begins in darkness, and the Savior of the world who was incarnate nine months ago, in the darkness of this morning is born. Out of the darkness comes the Light of the World. Today we celebrate the Mass of Christ - Christmas. We are reminded that His entry as a Babe in the manger was so that He would exit in darkness also. Darkness came early that Good Friday afternoon as our Lord and Savior hung upon the Cross. Note the symbolism in the Eastern icon (left) to Golgatha ... yet this is an icon to the Nativity. As darkness fell, He was laid in a cave. However, again the darkness was overcome by the Light. On the Third Day He rose from the dead - victorious over sin and death! He freely gives that victory to anyone who will believe in Him and upon His Name. Believing in Him is more than mere lip-service too. Believing in Him means you DO what He commands and you live according to His Word - but most importantly, that you persevere to the Last Day.

Advent has ended, Christmas has begun!

Now is the time the Christmas celebration SHOULD BEGIN! Christmas does not end on December 25th, it STARTS! The Christmas Season lasts at least through Epiphany, which is January 6th - and in some traditions it lasts through Candlemas, which is the celebration of the Mass of the Presentation at the Temple. Candlemas is celebrated on February 2nd. So don't put away that Christmas music! Leave the decorations up!

Christmas has just begun!

So remember Him and His Sacrifice as you go to Mass this Christmas Season - and continue the Christmas Season for the "Twelve Days of Christmas" (to Epiphany) or even all the way to Candlemas! If someone asks you why you're still listening to Christmas music or have your lights up - you can tell them why! It's STILL Christmas!

Swan on Luther's View of the Immaculate Conception

2011-12-19T23:21:00.000-07:00

This posting is in response to a comment left by James Swan on his blog on 9:50 PM, December 17, 2011. Since my response became too long for a combox reply, I am responding on my own blog with this posting.

I thought I'd add some faces to the names too and I know many have seen our faces before, but it doesn't hurt to put them out there again...

James Swansaid...


James Swan

Hi Scott,

JS: Yes, it appears I was too hasty with your final comment. My apologies.

sw: Thank you, apology accepted.

JS: On the other hand,it does seem as if there's a jab with your words. When you say, "I suppose if you want to read Luther without considering the context of Luther - well, that speaks volumes." Are you attributing this to me? If so, you would be in error.

Scott Windsor

sw: If you're reading Luther without considering the context of Luther's other writings, then it applies to you. If you are including Luther's other teachings (like that of the "two conceptions") then it would not apply to you. Either way, there's no error in what I said.

JS: That was the sentence that provoked me to see your comment as insulting, and really covertly charging me with ignorance.

sw: No, I am not charging you with anything! I said, "I suppose if you want to..." - so, if you don't want to and/or are not doing so - then it does not apply to you. Again, I specifically stated I was NOT accusing you of ignorance either overtly or covertly - we both know ignorance of Luther on this matter does not apply to you.

JS: If though I've mis-read your words, my apologies.

sw: Apology accepted, again.

JS: This is one of the difficulties of printed word exchanges.

sw: Understanding someone's motives can be difficult in printed word exchanges, but my words were quite clear on this matter. It is also better to seek clarification before jumping to conclusions in a printed only exchange.

JS: You then went on to use the word "disingenuous". Are you inferring that you think my opinion on this topic fits that description?

sw: Only if the shoe fits! If you are willing to accept that Luther's teachings on the Immaculate Conception go beyond the 1532 sermon - then that word and that sentence do not apply to you. If, however, you're insisting that this 1532 sermon summarizes Luther's belief in the Immaculate Conception (or lack thereof) - then I would have to say that shoe does fit.

JS: If there's anyone clearly deceiving and disingenuous currently, it's Voris and his use of the Luther quote in question.Since you've taken up the gauntlet to defend him, you would best spend some of your apologetic time contacting Mr. Voris and help him post honest and well-researched materials.

sw: I have made an attempt to contact Mr. Voris. Prior to this exchange I have had absolutely no contact with him. I have seen his "RealCatholicTV" before, but haven't spent much time on it.

JS: You've now said a few times that it is I and not you who has taken Luther out of context. This is nonsense.

sw: If you are not considering the 1527 sermon (and other teachings prior) when reading the 1532 sermon - then you are indeed reading Luther outside the context of Luther.

JS: You haven't even responded to the meat of my comments in this current discussion.

sw: The "meat" of THIS discussion is based in Luther's expressed belief in the Immaculate Conception - a matter which you have conceded he most definitely held in his earlier life. My contention is that he never rejected his earlier belief. He may have stopped talking about it as openly, but - and I repeat - your argument is one from silence. Silence lends itself to consent, not rejection.

JS: While you're certainly entitled to your opinion, at this point, it is simply that: a groundless opinion.

sw: Groundless? I've presented my case (repeatedly now) and you've had a good YEAR to dig up evidence of Martin Luther rejecting the Immaculate Conception, and you - whom I concede has read a lot more Luther than most Lutherans, including myself - a former Lutheran, have not been able to come up with that reference which would silence my argument and elicit my concession.

JS: Quite frankly, I find your opinion and apologetic on this entire issue absurd. I'm sorry if you find that insulting, but I can't think of kinder word, and I'm not saying it with any guile. It's absurd because you've taken a deleted section of a sermon which only in the earliest edition (of a very popular Reformation book, published over multiple years) and attempted to read it into later contexts of a man whose theology of Mary demonstratively changed over time.

sw: As long as we're being frank - I find your apologetic and opinion on this matter to be blinded by an anti-Catholic agenda. All along I have not rejected that the later editions of the 1527 sermon have left out part of it - expressly THE part we're discussing. Again, the ABSENCE of saying something is not a rejection of it! Did Luther's views on Mary change throughout his life? I won't argue against that! All I AM saying is that while he one time explicitly supported and taught the Immaculate Conception, that even while he mellowed in his support and even didn't speak of it so concisely later on - he NEVER came out and REJECTED it either.

JS: Further, as I pointed out here, you've used a flawed methodology to arrive at the bulk of your conclusions.

sw: I've made ONE conclusion in regard to this topic. I've been quite consistent in that conclusion for over a year now - and even with all your resources which you laud over others how much you spend on them - you have not been able to come up with even ONE SENTENCE from Luther stating he flatly rejected the concept of the Immaculate Conception. What you HAVE been able to do is establish a valid argument that Luther believed Mary was made immaculate at the time of Christ's conception - and I gave you that LONG ago. Basically that just makes Luther's position of Mary being immaculate (without sin) a matter of timing, but does not change the reality of his belief that she indeed was/is immaculate.

sw: You can lash out emotionally all you want and attempt to label my methodology as flawed or my opinion and apologetic as absurd - but I've really made ONE POINT which you cannot counter - hence the emotional responses and the attacks on the person (ad hominem) instead of just presenting the evidence to gain my concession - OR - just conceding that I too have a point here.

JS: I'll let you clarify if you wish to as to the above statements in question (whether or not you intended a jab), but there really isn't any need to. What your opinion of me one way or the other really doesn't matter.If you want to keep me interested, present facts, contexts, exegesis of text, and interpretations.

sw: All I said was that it would be disingenuous to look at Luther's 1532 sermon without considering what he said just a few years earlier. Keeping Luther in the context of Luther. There is no "jab" intended - I merely stated that you can look at Luther in the context of Luther, or you can isolate the 1532 sermon from his previous writings/teachings and make arguments from silence IF YOU CHOOSE. I choose NOT to accept a modern view of Luther rejecting something he himself never rejects based upon arguments from silence. If you DO want to consider Luther outside the context of Luther then don't consider it a jab, consider it a well placed right cross and consider changing your apologetic.

JS: By the way, do you have a complete copy of the 1527 sermon you're using to interpret all of Luther's later comments on the Immaculate Conception, and have you read it? Do you have a complete copy of the 1532 sermon Voris cited and have you read it? Well, I have.

sw: Whether or not I have the "complete copy of the 1527 sermon" or the 1532 sermon is really irrelevant to the argument at hand. I not only have considered the 1527 sermon in context, I presented it - without your assistance.

JS: I suggest that if you intend to get in to this subject again you track down the sources (if you have not already), because the first thing I will jump on if you haven't is that your presenting an opinion on documents you've never read.

sw: I have already provided a contextual response (click here) including the context from the 1527 sermon. Earlier this year you and I discussed a sermon from 1538. As for the 1532 sermon, here is the context of that statement:

Martin Luther
Mary said, Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according thy word.
14. That day, that moment when Mary assented to the angel Gabriel’s announcement, Christ was conceived. In that hour when she said, “Be it unto me according to thy word,” she conceived and became the mother of God; and Christ, therewith, became true God and true man in one person. Even though he is a tiny fetus, at that moment he is both God and man in Mary’s womb, an infant, and Mary is the mother of God.
15. The Turks and the Jews make fun of this article of faith and feel that they have excellent reason to deride it. For that matter, we could banter about it as well as they. But as Christians, we must firmly hold onto this article of faith and never waver. From the beginning of time it has been prophesied that God’s Son would become man and that his mother would be a virgin. The first prophecy given Adam and Eve soon after the fall (Gen. 3:15) stated: “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shall bruise his heel.” God does not say the seed of the man, but rather the seed of the woman. Therefore, the mother of this serpent crusher must be a virgin. Later the patriarchs and the prophets also prophesied of this, until finally the beloved apostles proclaimed it to all the world. We have been baptized into this faith and are called Christians because we believe and confess it to be true. Let us, therefore, persevere unwaveringly in this faith. And if, as time goes on, sectarian spirits deny it, let us take a staunch stand in behalf of it.
16. This article is really the bottom line. Christ wanted his beginning to be like ours, but without sin, because he wanted to sanctify us wholly. We begin life in sin, we are conceived in sin, born in sin, no matter whether we be emperor, king, prince, rich, or poor; every human being is conceived in sin according to Psalm 51:5. Only Christ has the distinction and the honor to have been conceived by the Holy Ghost’s power. Since from our conception we are sinful, we are people whose flesh and blood and everything about us are soiled by sin, as indeed we see in ourselves; or when we look at those around us in the world, beset by evil desire, pride, multiple devils, and miserable unbelief. Thus we are conceived and born. For all of mankind is conceived and born in accord with creation’s decree, as recorded (Gen. 1:28): `Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth.” Christ could not be subject to such impure sinful conception and birth. He, indeed, was a genuinely true, natural human being, but not conceived or born in sin as all other descendants of Adam. That is why his mother had to be a virgin whom no man had touched, so that he would not be born under the curse, but rather conceived and born without sin, so that the devil had no right or power over him. Only the Holy Spirit was present to bring about the conception in her virgin body. Mother Mary, like us, was born in sin of sinful parents, but the Holy Spirit covered her, sanctified and purified her so that this child was born of flesh and blood, but not with sinful flesh and blood. The Holy Spirit permitted the Virgin Mary to remain a true, natural human being of flesh and blood, just as we. However, he warded off sin from her flesh and blood so that she became the mother of a pure child, not poisoned by sin as we are.
17. Thus what the angel spake came true: “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest.” For in that moment when she conceived, she was a holy mother filled with the Holy Spirit and her fruit is a holy, pure fruit, at once true God and truly man, in one person. In time, then, this godly mother gave birth to God’s Son, a genuine man, but without any sin. Undoubtedly, his blood was red, his flesh, white; he suckled at his mother’s breasts, ate porridge, cried, and slumbered like any other child; but his flesh and blood were holy and pure. He is a holy person, the son of a pure virgin and God’s Son, true God and man in one person. [Sermons of Martin Luther Vol. 7 (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2000), pp. 291-293]. (Emphasis mine). Source: James Swan

sw: So, there we have the context of the 1532 sermon. I repeat what I said a year ago when talking about the 1538 sermon, this statement from Luther does not preclude the possibility that he's talking about the Holy Ghost covering her and sanctifying her at her own conception - thus leaving MY position to be a valid one. Whether or not you AGREE with what I've said is not the point!

sw: Now, would *I* use this 1532 sermon ALONE to prove Luther still held to the concept of Mary's Immaculate Conception? No, but taken in the context of his 1527 and earlier statements, it CAN be seen as consistent with his belief in the "two conceptions" theory (which, again, is HIS theory and not mine!).

sw: James, I believe that all along you've been making more of my argument than I am! I am not one out there arguing that Luther explicitly and concisely taught the 1854 definition of the Immaculate Conception - all I AM saying is that in his earlier life he not only accepted a belief not contrary with the 1854 definition but taught it as well. Later in life, while he did not continue to be as explicit about he belief in Mary's being made immaculate by the Holy Ghost - he also never flatly rejected the belief or teaching.

In the spirit of the Holy Family (JMJ),

Scott<<<

Cowboy Advice

2011-12-19T08:27:00.003-07:00

A TOUGH OLD COWBOY FROM MONTANA COUNSELED HIS GRANDSON THAT IF HE WANTED TO LIVE A LONG LIFE, THE SECRET WAS TO SPRINKLE A PINCH OF GUN POWDER ON HIS OATMEAL EVERY MORNING.

THE GRANDSON DID THIS RELIGIOUSLY TO THE AGE OF 103. WHEN HE DIED HE LEFT BEHIND 14 CHILDREN, 30 GRANDCHILDREN, 45 GREAT-GRANDCHILDREN, 25 GREAT-GREAT-GRANDCHILDREN, AND A 15-FOOT HOLE WHERE THE CREMATORIUM USED TO BE.

Does ANYONE Know What Christmas Is About?

2011-12-18T23:13:00.001-07:00

Linus does:

He gets the translation wrong about "Goodwill" - for it is not "Peace, goodwill toward men" but "Peace to men of good will." Other than that - it's nice to see this message on secular TV at least once a year...

We could take it a bit further - saying, "Christmas is really about the Christ Mass - which the Catholic Church selected December 25th as the day to celebrate the Feast of Christ's Birth - thus the Mass of that day is the Christ Mass - and while we're celebrating His birth, we're also remembering WHY He was born into this world.... to suffer and die for our sins because He loves us.

In JMJ,

Scott<<<

Fourth Sunday of Advent

2011-12-18T00:00:00.000-07:00

The final Sunday in the Advent Season!

Next Sunday is Christmas!

John the Baptist is born of Zachary and Elizabeth - to perform the duty of "The One Crying in the Wilderness." John was called to prepare the way of the Lord's First Coming - and today we are called to prepare for His Second Coming. Make straight the ways, lay flat the mountains - our Lord comes soon!

The Readings According to the Extraordinary Rite
READING (I Cor. 4:1-5)
Brethren: Let a man so account of us as of the ministers of Christ and the dispensers of the mysteries of God. Here now it is required among the dispensers that a man be found faithful. But to me it is a very small thing to be judged by you or by man's day. But neither do I judge my own self. For I am not conscious to myself of anything. Yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is the Lord. Therefore, judge not before the time: until the Lord come, who both will bring to light the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts. And then shall every man have praise from God.

GRADUAL (Ps. 144:18, 21)
The Lord is near to all who call upon Him, to all who call upon Him in truth. V. My lips shall speak the praise of the Lord; let all men bless His holy name.

Alleluia, alleluia! V.
Come, O Lord; do not delay. Forgive the sins of Israel, Your people.
Alleluia!

GOSPEL (Luke 3:1-6)
Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and Philip his brother tetrarch of Iturea and the country of Trachonitis, and Lysanias tetrarch of Abilina: Under the high priests Anna and Caiphas: the word of the Lord was made unto John, the son of Zachary, in the desert. And he came into all the country about the Jordan, preaching the baptism of penance for the remission of sins. As it was written in the book of the sayings of Isaias the prophet: "A voice of one crying in the wilderness: Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight his paths. Every valley shall be filled and every mountain and hill shall be brought low: and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways plain. And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.

Why Was Luther Wrong (Part 3)

2011-12-17T19:30:00.000-07:00

This is a continuing project reflecting upon Exurge Domini - where Pope Leo X declared the Errors of Martin Luther. This article deals with the Eucharist and indulgences.

15. Great is the error of those who approach the sacrament of the Eucharist relying on this, that they have confessed, that they are not conscious of any mortal sin, that they have sent their prayers on ahead and made preparations; all these eat and drink judgment to themselves. But if they believe and trust that they will attain grace, then this faith alone makes them pure and worthy.

The "this" here is contrition (from #14). If one did not have true contrition for their sins when they confessed them, then the confession would be invalid. If the confession is invalid, then they would still have that/those sin/s upon their souls. If one approaches the Eucharist with unforgiven sins upon them, then they do so in the unworthy manner St. Paul refers to in 1 Cor. 11:27. To approach the Eucharist in such a manner - even if you "believe" in this "faith alone" does the exact opposite of making one "pure and worthy," for it brings upon them "the judgment."

16. It seems to have been decided that the Church in common Council established that the laity should communicate under both species; the Bohemians who communicate under both species are not heretics, but schismatics.

Participation in the Eucharist in one or both species is not a matter of heresy or schism; Eastern Catholics and Orthodox have continued the practice throughout history.

17. The treasures of the Church, from which the pope grants indulgences, are not the merits of Christ and of the saints.

18. Indulgences are pious frauds of the faithful, and remissions of good works; and they are among the number of those things which are allowed, and not of the number of those which are advantageous.

19. Indulgences are of no avail to those who truly gain them, for the remission of the penalty due to actual sin in the sight of divine justice.

20. They are seduced who believe that indulgences are salutary and useful for the fruit of the spirit.

21. Indulgences are necessary only for public crimes, and are properly conceded only to the harsh and impatient.

22. For six kinds of men indulgences are neither necessary nor useful; namely, for the dead and those about to die, the infirm, those legitimately hindered, and those who have not committed crimes, and those who have committed crimes, but not public ones, and those who devote themselves to better things.

Indulgences are granted by the authority of the Church. This authority is given in Matthew 16:18-19 to St. Peter alone and in Matthew 18:18 to the Apostles, including St. Peter, as a group. They were told, as the Father had sent the Son, He was sending them. Thus, they too would "send" others with this same authority. Therefore the pope (successor of St. Peter) and the bishops gathered in ecumenical council (successors of the Apostles) have this authority, to this day! If an indulgence has so been bound or loosed - then amen! It is so! Luther has not the authority to deny this!

The next section I will deal with begins talking of excommunication.

White On The Vortex

2011-12-13T01:21:00.001-07:00

White goes after "The Vortex"

12/08/2011 - James White

40,000 Protestant denominations? Wow, we have proven the 33,000 number a bold-faced lie many times in the past, but hey, I guess it is just a matter of inflation! Hard to take promoters of Romanism who repeat these absurdities seriously...but it is even worse when they will stare into a video camera and claim that no one...NO ONE, ever accused Mary of sin until the Reformation!? I mean, the Immaculate Conception was not even defined as a dogma until the middle of the 19th century, and it is just too simple to provide citations proving such claims to be outright lies.

The 40,000 or 33,000 denominations statement is NOT a "lie" - and White has been shown this evidence in the past too - but rather a funky way of playing with the numbers. The origin of that whole concept comes from a David A. Barrett 1995 report which counts each country that a given denomination exists in as another denomination. By Barrett's numbering, while he has 33,000+ Protestant denominations - he also has the Catholic Church with 239 denominations in 234 countries (a statistical "1"). If we use the division of the countries into the overall count of denominations, the Protestantism is a statistical "140." Protestantism still has a problem here because ANY NUMBER GREATER THAN "1" IS CONTRARY TO GOD'S WILL! So, while 140 sounds a lot better to the Protestant than 33,000 (or 40,000) it is still greater than "1" and thus not within God's Will and Plan for His Church "That they may be One."

White devotes the first part of his December 8th "Dividing Line Webcast" to the matter of Michael Voris, "The Vortex" (Voris' video was posted by me to this blog back on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, the same day as White's entry) and to that portion, I will respond.

Webcast begins ripping on Voris' hair - as if that means anything, perhaps it does to one who has no hair? Why even bring it up? Does he have a toupee? Who really cares? After a bit of chit-chat on his server needs, he gets back to the Voris video - briefly. After the first line from Voris about lies and falsehoods being trapped and exposed he digresses into a bit of whining about not being able to find Catholic apologists to debate him. Then he talks about his upcoming course he'll be teaching and not talking about Voris' video! Then finally, after nearly ten minutes, starts getting back to the audio from the video.

9:58 (video time) - Voris states, "When Catholics celebrate the Feast of the Immaculate Conception, we have the esteemed privilege, yes privilege, of being caught up in the creative mind of God the Father in the desire He had from all eternity."

White interrupts...

10:12 "Except that it's a dogma which did not become dogma until 1854 and was unknown, absolutely unknown in the early church. In fact there are lots of quotations you can provide about that... I loved St. Bernard's against the concept, uh, how many people had argued against it and things like that. I liked the comment of Ludwig Ott in Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma on page 221, "The dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary is not explicitly revealed in Scripture, neither the Greek nor Latin Fathers explictly teach the Immaculate Conception of Mary." So, if this is in the mind of God, it took Him quite some time to finally get around to revealing it to men, which actually that would make it a new revelation because it's neither found in Scripture nor in Tradition, so it's revelation outside of the canon of the New Testament itself."

OK, now I must interject. Dr. Ott stated the dogma/teaching is not explicitly found in Scripture or Tradition - and White jumps to it is not found, period. That is not what Dr. Ott said, but purely an assertion of White's. But is it not taught implicitly? Let is look:

There are two passages in Scripture which point us to this truth. We look first at Genesis 3.15, in which we see the parallel between Mary and Eve of which the early Church Fathers already spoke: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed: he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel." The Jews saw this passage as referring to the struggle between Christ and Satan, and so the Church see in "the woman" a prophetic foreshadowing of the Virgin Mary (Vatican II, Lumen gentium, # 55).

Scotus wrote (cited from J. B. Carol, Mariology I, 368): "Either God was able to do this, and did not will to do it, or He willed to preserve her, and was unable to do so. If able to and yet unwilling to perform this for her, God was miserly towards her. And if He willed to do it but was unable to accomplish it, He was weak, for no one who is able to honor his mother would fail to do so." http://www.ewtn.com/faith/teachings/marya2.htm

Early Church Fathers:

"Every personal sin must be excluded from the Blessed Virgin Mary for the sake of the honor of God." - St. Augustine, 390 AD to Jehoel.

"Mary, a virgin not only undefiled but a virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free from every stain." - St. Ambrose of Milan, 340-370 AD.

"You, and your Mother are alone in this. You are wholly beautiful in every respect. There is in you, Lord, no stain, nor any spot in your Mother." - St. Ephraem, 350 AD.

The concept of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin is implied through these citations. But wait! There's more!

Theodotus, Bishop of Ancrya says:

“In place of Eve, an instrument of death, is chosen a Virgin, most pleasing to God and full of His grace, as an instrument of life. A Virgin included in woman’s sex, but without a share in woman’s fault. A Virgin innocent; immaculate; free from all guilt; spotless; undefiled; holy in spirit and body; a lily among thorns.” (Homily 6 in S. Deiparam, No. II, PG 77, 1427 A.)

He also spoke of Mary as being consecrated to the Creator before the Nativity (Homily 6, II; PO 19, 329). We can see a more developed knowledge of the Eve-Mary parallel from the quote above. Proclus of Constantinople makes a similar praise:

“He came forth from her without any flaw, who made her for Himself without any stain.” (Oratio I de Laudibus S. Mariae, PG, 65, 683 B.) ....“Mary is the heavenly orb of a new creation, in whom the Sun of justice, ever shining, has vanished from her entire soul all the night of sin.” (Ibid, Oratio 6, PG 68, 758 A.)

Proclus also spoke of Mary as the ark of the Lord (Homily 5, 3; PG 65, 720 B). Hesychius of Jerusalem agrees with the consensus of the Fathers when he extolled the incorruptibility, immortality, immunity from concupiscence, impeccability, triumph over Satan, and the co-redemptive mission of the Mother of God (Oratio 39 in Sanctissimae Deiparae Annuntiationem, PG 85, 426).

From the sixth century, we have Anastasius I declare the privilege of the Immaculate Conception (Oratio 3 de Incarnatione, No. 6, PG 89, 1338). We also have Severus of Antioch who states:

“She…formed part of the human race, and was of the same essence as we, although she was pure from all taint and immaculate.” (Hom. Cathedralis 67)

Romanos the Melodist, whom the Byzantine Church proclaims as the cantor of the mysteries of Christ, and Mary says of Mary:

“…the tribes of Israel heard that Anna had conceived the immaculate one.” (On the Birth of Mary 4)

By the seventh century the doctrine of Mary’s freedom from original sin had become well elaborated that there was no controversy on the substance of the teaching (Carol, 1:354). Sophronius, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, describes Mary as:

“holy, immaculate in soul and body, entirely free from every contagion.” (Epistola Synodica ad Sergium, PG 87 (3), 3159; 3162)

He also speaks of the grace that no one has received besides her (Orat in Deiparae Annunt 25, PG 87, 3246-3247).

At the time of the eighth century, we have Andrew of Crete saying that the Redeemer was born from a pure and entirely Immaculate Virgin (Hom. in Dorm. Deipara). He also says:

“It was right, then, that the admirable Joachim and his spouse, Anna, inspired by divine thoughts, did obtain for her as the fruit of their prayer; her, I say, the queen of nature, the firstfruits of our race, whose birthday we celebrate, whose swaddling clothes we honor, and whom we venerate as the source of the restoration of our fallen race.” (Homily 3 on Mary’s Nativity, PG 97, 860 B-C)

Firstfruits of the human race in this text means that she is the first creature who received the gift of salvation (Gambero, 393). He then explains more fully:

“This is Mary the Theotokos, the common refuge of all Christians, the first to be liberated from the original fall of our first parents.” (Homily 4 on Mary’s Nativity, PG 97, 880 C)

We also have John Damascene who called Mary:

“the most holy daughter of Joachim and Anne, hidden from the fiery dart of Satan, dwelling in a bridal chamber of the spirit, preserved without stain as the Spouse and Mother of God.” (Homilia I in Nativitatem Beatae Virginis Mariae, No. 3, PG 96, 675)
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/a95.htm

So much for the Early Church Fathers being silent on this matter!

11:16 - Voris: "Most Protestants have no desire to hear talk of the Immaculate Conception of our Blessed Mother."

11:18 - White: "Well, except those of us who actually debate people, as I have, twice on this particular subject. So, it's not a matter of our not wanting to talk about it. I don't mind talking about it, its a great illustration of where the Catholic Church has defined something, de fide, which absolutely, positively has no foundation in either Scripture or Tradition."

Again, I must interject - we've just demonstrated that it CAN be seen in both Scripture AND Tradition - just not explicitly.

11:43 - White: "Now the only thing which has less, (giggles) if you can have... you can have no, but you can have less than none, (this makes no sense!) is the Bodily Assumption (of the Blessed Virgin). Ah, but both of them, now de fide dogmas, of the Romanist (sic) system that have nothing to do with Scripture or Tradition which demonstrates that Roman Catholicism, um, is not bound by any external authority outside of itself. These are both excellent examples of sola ecclesia, the Church as the sole and final rule of faith for itself. It's not a three-legged stool, or anything like that. It's not Church, Tradition and Magisterium, no it's just the Magisterium, period, end of discussion.

Well, fist off, Catholics would not deny "sola ecclesia!" The Ecclesia (Church) IS Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium! Now of course White would like you to believe that we do not accept a "three-legged stool" approach - but in fact, we do. He wants you to believe we preach it is all Magisterium - but we don't. Secondly, I wish to point out that White is digressing again and not talking about the Immaculate Conception, but of Church authority and governance - and THIS discussion is not about the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary! That's a different subject - which I would be happy to deal with in the future.

White mentions that there are seven popes who taught against the Immaculate Conception and numerous Early Church Fathers who talked about Mary's sin - "directly contrary to what Mr. Voris is going to say here in a moment..."

White then goes into another diatribe about the 33,000 denominations - I'll not bore you with all that again now, you can read my primary source material and see that White is just wrong here and disingenuously charging any Catholic who uses this number of bold-faced lying - when again, it's NOT a "lie" but just one way of looking at Barrett's 1995 numbers. White carries on this 33,000 denominations discussion for a good six minutes... yawn.

For another 2 minutes White rambles on criticizing Roman Catholic apologists with empty assertions. He hints about what Voris will discuss next (two founding Protestant leaders who believed in the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception long before it was defined as dogma) but then drifts back to the 33,000 denomination discussion again... yawn.

Finally, at the 22 minute mark in this webcast we get back to the Voris audio...

22:06 - Voris: "Two founding fathers of their 16th century revolt against the Catholic Church each agree with..."

22:08 - White (in a gruff tone barges in): "Revolt! Revolting!"

22:14 - Voris: "...with the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception."

22:16 - White: "No, they agree with the concept that was not yet a doctrine or a dogma. See how different that is?

Well, it was a doctrine, it was a teaching, it was a celebrated feast day LONG before it was defined as dogma! Perhaps White needs to brush up on the difference between doctrine and dogma? Yes, the words CAN be used interchangeably at times - but fundamentally speaking, not all doctrines are dogmas - but all dogmas are doctrine.

White then makes the accusation of anachronism, he likes that word, and attempts to make a case that because it was not yet defined dogma in the time of Luther and Zwingli that they agreed with the "concept" but not as "doctrine." The Feast of the Immaculate Conception was celebrated as such as early as the 5th century in the East and they refer to the Blessed Virgin as "achrantos" (spotless or immaculate). In the West, the feast was celebrated as early as the 8th century. By either account, it's nearly or over a millennium PRIOR to Luther and Zwingli!

Voris makes a statement that in the first 1500 years of Christendom NO ONE ever accused the Blessed Virgin of sin - that this was wholly something from the Protestant revolt of the 16th century. White then names a few Church Fathers whom allegedly state Mary sinned.. That being said, I will not state that NO Church Father or ANYONE prior to the 16th century EVER stated Mary sinned - nor would it shake my faith if White, or anyone else, could present a quote here or there. Voris may have been caught in a bit of hyperbole there - but the fact remains, the Feast of the Immaculate Conception was celebrated in the East over 1000 years prior to Protestantism's dawning - and some 800 years prior in the Western tradition.

White concludes his on-topic discussion (he does go off on some other distractions after this) with a question for Voris:

33:43 - White: "One simple question Mr. Voris, and if you were ever to step out and debate these things in public, it's a question I'd ask you then, and I don't mind telling what the question is now because to be honest with you there is no meaningful answer to this question. (1) But Mr. Voris, do you really think that is what Mary meant when she said that? (2) Do you really think that Mary, in her Magnificat, that she actually was saying that when she called God her Savior she recognized that she had been kept from the stain of Original Sin by the preemptive application and the merits of the Sacrifice of Jesus Christ when she did not even understand at that point in time what Jesus was going to have to do on the Cross? (3) Are you SERIOUSLY telling me that?

Now, I won't continue in White's preemptive answering, but I will answer him myself, and there's more than one question here, so let's answer them all (I've added numbers above to keep track)
(1) The words of the Magnificat are simply:

My soul doth magnify the Lord.

And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Because he hath regarded the humility of his handmaid;

for behold from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed.

Because he that is mighty,

hath done great things to me;

She is saying that her soul magnifies the Lord... her spirit rejoices in God her Savior - why? Because He has regarded the humility of His handmaid (past tense) and from that time forward, all generations will call her blessed (future tense) because He has done (past tense again) great things to me. God had already done great things to her.

(2) Look at it this way, it's not such a great thing to accomplish to get pregnant, so she wasn't talking about merely being pregnant with her God and Savior - but that God had already done great things to His humble handmaid. Is this explicitly stating she was immaculately conceived? No, but it's recognizing something "great" had already been done TO her.

(3) To be preserved from the stain of Original Sin would be a "great thing." To do this so that she could be the Ark of the New Covenant is a "great thing." If you "SERIOUSLY" want to disbelieve - then sobeit.

I will close with this thought... Frequently throughout this Dividing Line program, White is goading Voris to debate with him. White has always been huge on debating, and I will acknowledge, he's pretty good at it! I too used to be a bit more interested in formal debating, and while I've not abandoned it (I'll still engage in one, even with White if he chooses) in a debate, just because someone can present a better argument does not necessarily equate to the Truth "winning." I've seen several debates where White would appear to "win" the debate, or at least part of the debate, yet it was not Truth which "won" - rather a tactful "gotcha" argument was used and his opponent was not prepared to answer him. This is also why I prefer a WRITTEN debate as opposed to a face-to-face one. When one has the time to research and respond in a scholarly fashion - White is put on an equal footing - and, at least in confrontations I've had with him - he cannot (or will not) answer to his (many) mistakes (well, there is ONE time that I can recall, in over 20 years of debating him where he admitted to a minor mistake). Debating has its place, as it can help refine our own defenses and arguments - but such is RARELY the "end-all" in apologetics.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Be Proud You Are A Catholic!

2011-12-12T15:34:00.000-07:00

Sam Miller - a non-Catholic of Jewish descent spoke out about the way Catholics have been treated in the scandals of a few years ago (some still lingering). I found it a bit interesting and then also found someone attempting (unsuccessfully) to debunk what Miller said... Here's an article posted by "ConnieTalk" in 2008 presenting the positive side of Miller's speech:

Cleveland Man Incensed over Catholicism Targeted in the Media
ConnieTalkMay 2, 2008
http://www.connietalk.com/catholicism_in_media_050208.html
Sam Miller, prominent Cleveland businessman - Jewish, not Catholic - is fighting mad about the seemingly concentrated effort by the media to disparage the Catholic Church in the United States. The following are excerpts of a speech by well-known Cleveland businessman Mr. Miller at the City Club of Cleveland, given on Thursday, March 6. Even though of the Jewish faith, Miller has been a staunch supporter of the Cleveland Diocese and Bishop Anthony Pilla. It was published in the May-June issue of the Buckeye Bulletin.

"Why would newspapers carry on a vendetta on one of the most important institutions that we have today in the United States, namely the Catholic Church? Do you know - the Catholic Church educates 2.6 million students everyday at the cost to your Church of 10 billion dollars, and a savings on the other hand to the American taxpayer of 18 billion dollars. Your graduates go on to graduate studies at the rate of 92%, all at a cost to you. To the rest of the Americans it's free.
The Church has 230 colleges and universities in the U.S. with an enrollment of 700,000 students. The Catholic Church has a non-profit hospital system of 637 hospitals, which account for hospital treatment of 1 out of every 5 people - not just Catholics - in the United States today.
But the press is vindictive and trying to totally denigrate in every way the Catholic Church in this country. They have blamed the disease of pedophilia on the Catholic Church, which is as irresponsible as blaming adultery on the institution of marriage. Let me give you some figures that you as Catholics should know and remember. For example, 12% of the 300 Protestant clergy surveyed admitted to sexual intercourse with a parishioner; 38% acknowledged other inappropriate sexual contact in a study by the United Methodist Church, 41.8 % of clergywomen reported unwanted sexual behavior; 17% of laywomen have been sexually harassed. Meanwhile, 1.7% of the Catholic clergy has been found guilty of pedophilia. 10% of the Protestant ministers have been found guilty of pedophilia. This is not a Catholic Problem.
A study of American priests showed that most are happy in the priesthood and find it even better than they had expected, and that most, if given the choice, would choose to be priests again in face of all this obnoxious PR the church has been receiving.
The Catholic Church is bleeding from self-inflicted wounds. The agony that Catholics have felt and suffered is not necessarily the fault of the Church. You have been hurt by a small number of wayward priests that have probably been totally weeded out by now.
Walk with your shoulders high and you head higher. Be a proud member of the most important non-governmental agency in the United States. Then remember what Jeremiah said: "Stand by the roads, and look and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way is and walk in it, and find rest for your souls". Be proud to speak up for your faith with pride and reverence and learn what your Church does for all other religions. Be proud that you're a Catholic."
Thanks, Pete!
http://www.bishop-accountability.org/news2008/05_06/2008_05_02_ConnieTalk_ClevelandMan.htm

I then found THIS article, allegedly debunking the claims of "Sam Miller:"

"Jewish" Sam Miller lie exposed

by Paul King Monday, Apr. 18, 2011 at 12:45 AM

The "Jewish" Sam Miller who Catholics love to spam (defending the Catholic Church) is a liar and joke. Sam Miller made up totally false figures in his speech (and admitted it later): -
The lies in question: -
Now let me give you some figures that you as Catholics should know and remember. For example, research by Richard Blackman at Fuller Theological Seminary shows that 12% of the 300 Protestant clergy surveyed admitted to sexual intercourse with a parishioner; 38% acknowledged other inappropriate sexual contact. In a 1990 study by the United Methodist Church, 41.8% of clergywomen reported unwanted sexual behavior by a colleague; 17% of laywomen said that their own pastors had sexually harassed them. Phillip Jenkins concludes in his book "Pedophiles and Priests" that while 1.7% of the Catholic clergy has been found guilty of pedophilia, 10% of Protestant ministers have been found guilty of pedophilia."

The REAL figures are 5.4% (http://www.bishop-accountability.org) of Catholic Priests and a fraction of one per cent of Methodists have been accused.
He later apologized when questioned.
It also turns out that Sam Miller is Jewish by blood but is a Christian who has donated to a number of Christian Causes including the Salvation Army. Not one penny has he given to any non Jewish charity or cause.

He is a publicity hound who made up all the facts and figures in his speech.
None are factual.
Typical of Catholic Smoke and Mirror con tricks.
NOTES
The U.S. bishops have reported receiving allegations of abuse by 5,948 priests in 1950-2010, or 5.4% of the 109,694 U.S. priests active since 1950.
Other percentages
After the March 2009 release of audit documents by the NH AG, the names of 74 accused Manchester priests are known, or over 8.9% of the 831 diocesan priests, which extrapolates to 9,768 nationally. Covington diocese states that 9.6% of its priests have been accused, which extrapolates to 10,531 nationally. Over 10% of Providence RI priests have been accused, which extrapolates to over 10,969 nationally Richard Sipe estimates that 9% of U.S. priests have offended, which extrapolates to 9,872 priests nationally
www.bishop-accountability.org

Almost every Catholic publication, blog and comment board has carried a story about a "Jewish" businessman defending the Catholic Church. The whole story is based on total lies and deceptions but still is circulated by the faithful.

It must be noted that the very site which is cited by Paul King is one of THE sites initially carrying Sam Miller's comments! We must also note that Mr. King does not "document" his claims. He merely cites the "Bishop Accountability" website, which, while it is notorious for publishing articles against the Catholic Church as well as King's "response" - it also published the initial article from Mr. Miller!

King states, regarding the facts, "None are accurate," but he doesn't cite Miller's source(s) nor does he present any valid documentation of his own facts! Simply citing the Bishop Accountability website is NOT documentation! He would like us to believe him at his word that "the whole story is based on total lies and deceptions," but King only presents unsupported figures based upon individual diocesan statistics - which, even there, if we could believe his numbers the method he projects them onto a national level is a complete non sequitur. He claims Miller "made up the facts and figures in his speech," but Miller cites his sources! One of the sources of Miller's facts can be seen in an article entitled: "Sexual Harrassment in the United Methodist Church 2005" (click for link). So much for King's (false) allegation that Miller made up all his facts! I'm sure I can dig up more substance to back up Miller's facts, but even this ONE proves King's statement to be a lie!

Now, I realize there were indeed SOME priests and bishops involved in the scandal and cover-up, but as Miller stated - the number is VERY small and those offenders have been and are still being rounded up and turned over to proper authorities. Some individuals were indeed harmed by these criminals, and that is indeed what they are - criminals, but overwhelmingly most Catholic priests and bishops are good, well-meaning individuals. It's not fair to paint with a broad brush here - even in the face of those directly affected by the crimes of those few individuals. Is it fair to punish ALL Catholics for the sins of a few? THAT is ONE of Miller's points, which King seems to miss and/or refuses to admit to. Another is all the GOOD Catholics do for society, which King completely ignores.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Third Sunday in Advent

2011-12-11T15:17:00.001-07:00

REJOICE!

Rejoice in the Lord always! And AGAIN I say REJOICE!

A blessed Third Sunday in Advent - Guadete Sunday.

Epistle: Philipp. 4:4-7
Brethren: Rejoice in the Lord always; again I say, rejoice. Let your moderation be known to all men. The Lord is near. Have no anxiety, but in every prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your petitions be made known to God. And may the peace of God which surpasses all understanding guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus, our Lord.

Gospel: John 1:19-28
At that time, when the Jews sent from Jerusalem priests and Levites to him, to ask him: "Who art thou?" And he confessed and did not deny: and he confessed: "I am not the Christ." And they asked him: "What then? Art thou Elias?" And he said: "I am not." "Art thou the prophet? And he answered: "No." They said therefore unto him: "Who art thou, that we may give an answer to them that sent us? What sayest thou of thyself?" He said: "I am the voice of one crying in the wilderness, make straight the way of the Lord, as said the prophet Isaias." And they that were sent were of the Pharisees. And they asked him and said to him: "Why then dost thou baptize, if thou be not Christ, nor Elias, nor the prophet?" John answered them, saying: "I baptize with water: but there hath stood one in the midst of you, whom you know not. The same is he that shall come after me, who is preferred before me: the latchet of whose shoe I am not worthy to loose." These things were done in Bethania, beyond the Jordan, where John was baptizing.

Comment: Gaudete Sunday! Rejoice! Our time of waiting is nearly over! The coming of the Lord is near! We meditate not only on the coming Christ Mass, but also the Second Coming of our Lord and Savior! We rejoice in His confirmation by St. John the Baptist as prophecied by Isaiah. Rejoice in the Lord always and again I say REJOICE! Today we light the PINK candle of the Advent Wreath along with the first two purple candles we've lit the past two weeks.

Feast of the Immaculate Conception

2011-12-08T21:15:00.001-07:00

St. Anne, Mother of the Immaculate Conception and Grandmother to our Lord and God, Jesus Christ! It was in the womb of St. Anne that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived and preserved from the stain of Original Sin. The definition of the Immaculate Conception does not state that Mary was preserved entirely from Original Sin, but only from the stain of it - she did inherit the penalty of it in that she died, and in death she too was in need of her Redeemer whom is found in her Son.

The Feast of the Immaculate Conception!

Santa's Day!

2011-12-06T21:26:00.002-07:00

I nearly let the Feast of St. Nicholas go by without a comment! Today is the day we celebrate the Saint from whom "Santa Claus" gets his name! The "spirit of giving" at Christmas is truly the spirit of St. Nicholas.

I have already written a few articles on him - please peruse...

http://cathapol.blogspot.com/search/label/St.%20Nick

A Blessed St. Nicholas Day to ALL, and to ALL a good night!

In JMJ,

Scott<<<

Second Sunday in Advent

2011-12-04T00:01:00.000-07:00

The second week of Advent is now upon us. In this week's Epistle, according to the Extraordinary Rite, we see the plea that we be one, that we might not be separated and fighting among ourselves - but rather ONE so that when the non-believers see us, they see God in us.

The Gospel message recalls St. John the Baptist from his prison cell sending two of his disciples to Jesus to ask if He is the One, or if they should be looking for another. Jesus confirms that not only is He the One, but that St. John is the one spoken of in Malachi 3:1 as the angel sent before Him to prepare His way.

EPISTLE Romans 15:4-13
Brethren: For what things soever were written were written for our learning: that, through patience and the comfort of the scriptures, we might have hope. Now the God of patience and of comfort grant you to be of one mind, one towards another, according to Jesus Christ: That with one mind and with one mouth you may glorify God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Wherefore, receive one another, as Christ also hath received you, unto the honor of God. For I say that Christ Jesus was minister of the circumcision for the truth of God, to confirm the promises made unto the fathers: But that the Gentiles are to glorify God for his mercy, as it is written: "Therefore will I confess to thee, O Lord, among the Gentiles and will sing to thy name." And again he saith: "Rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people." And again: "Praise the Lord, all ye Gentiles: and magnify him, all ye people." And again, Isaias saith: "There shall be a root of Jesse; and he that shall rise up to rule the Gentiles, in him the Gentiles shall hope." Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing: that you may abound in hope and in the power of the Holy Ghost.

GOSPEL Matthew 11:2-10
At that time, when John had heard in prison the works of Christ: sending two of his disciples he said to him: "Art thou he that art to come, or look we for another?" And Jesus making answer said to them: "Go and relate to John what you have heard and seen. The blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead rise again, the poor have the gospel preached to them. And blessed is he that shall not be scandalized in me."
And when they went their way, Jesus began to say to the multitudes concerning John: "What went you out into the desert to see? a reed shaken with the wind? But what went you out to see? a man clothed in soft garments? Behold they that are clothed in soft garments, are in the houses of kings. But what went you out to see? A prophet? Yea I tell you, and more than a prophet. For this is he of whom it is written: 'Behold I send my angel before my face, who shall prepare thy way before thee.' "

Why Was Luther Wrong? (Part 2)

2011-12-03T19:05:00.000-07:00

This is part 2 of a continuing series on why Luther was wrong. Pope Leo X declared the "Errors of Luther" in his papal bull, "Exsurge Domini" and this series examines those errors. This section deals with Luther's errors on the Sacrament of Penance.

11. By no means can you have reassurance of being absolved because of your contrition, but because of the word of Christ: "Whatsoever you shall loose, etc." Hence, I say, trust confidently, if you have obtained the absolution of the priest, and firmly believe yourself to have been absolved, and you will truly be absolved, whatever there may be of contrition.

The Act of Contrition is an important part of the Sacrament of Penance (aka, the Sacrament of Reconciliation). Contrition demonstrates one's true sorrow for the sins they committed. If one was not sincere in asking for forgiveness, then God will not forgive him those sins. A false confession is truly no confession.

12. If through an impossibility he who confessed was not contrite, or the priest did not absolve seriously, but in a jocose manner, if nevertheless he believes that he has been absolved, he is most truly absolved.

If this were true, then the person believing becomes the priest/minister of the Sacrament, and that is not the way Jesus Christ established the Sacrament of Penance/Reconciliation for us! He breathed upon them, the Apostles - our first bishops, and said "Those sins you shall forgive, are forgiven; those sins you to not forgive, they are not forgiven." This authority was specifically given to the bishopric - and remains with it to this day! Outside of one whom has been empowered by his bishop to forgive sins - sins are not forgiven. (A wake-up call for Protestants!)

13. In the sacrament of penance and the remission of sin the pope or the bishop does no more than the lowest priest; indeed, where there is no priest, any Christian, even if a woman or child, may equally do as much.

As stated in my response to #12, that authority to forgive sins is NOT granted to "even a woman or child" - but ONLY through the bishops and whom they have granted faculties to minister the Sacrament of Penance. That beings said, Luther's error here starts with a truism - what the pope or the bishop may do in relation to the Sacrament of Penance, is no more than the lowest priest who has been validly authorized. His conclusion is a non sequitur, it does not follow that in the absence of a priest that anyone can forgive sins.

14. No one ought to answer a priest that he is contrite, nor should the priest inquire.

Without the priest's knowledge of the contrition of the penitent, he could not, or at least should not, give absolution. If absolution is not given, the sins are not forgiven (no matter what the penitent "believes").

The next section begins dealing with the Eucharist...

(Part 1 can be found by clicking HERE)

Apostolic Successions Resource

2011-11-30T00:37:00.001-07:00

True and valid apostolic successions have always been part of orthodoxy (small "o") in Christendom, right from "Day One." I've begun a project to list the apostolic successions of as many of the Apostles I can find and have created a "page" on the CathApol Blog as a resource to those lists. These lists, even without comment, are a huge testimony of True Faith - and demonstrate a firm foundation which Protestantism desperately lacks.

It is my hope that you are blessed in seeing these lists and that you will share them with others (use the "share" feature!). If you have resources of other apostolic successions that I could add to this resource, please let me know.

In JMJ,

Scott<<<

See the Apostolic Successions page here:

http://cathapol.blogspot.com/p/apostolic-successions.html

Succession of St Mark the Evangelist

2011-11-28T19:21:00.002-07:00

Coptic Orthodox Popes of Alexandria

Mark the Evangelist (43–68)

Anianus (68–82)

Avilius (83–95)

Kedron (96–106)

Primus (106–118)

Justus (118–129)

Eumenes (131–141)

Markianos (142–152)

Celadion (152–166)

Agrippinus (167–178)

Julian (178–189)

Demetrius I (189–232)

Heraclas (232–248)

Dionysius (248–264)

Maximus (265–282)

Theonas (282–300)

Peter I (300–311)

Achillas (312–313)

Alexander I (313–326) First ecumenical Council occurred

vacant (326–328)

Athanasius I (328–339) Served as a Deacon for the First Council; became Pope of Alexandria

Gregory of Cappadocia (339–346), Arian Patriarch; not accepted by the adherents of the Nicene creed (and thus not counted by Coptic Orthodox, Byzantine Orthodox or Catholic lineages).

Athanasius I (346–373)

Peter II (373–380)

Lucius of Alexandria (373–377), an Arian installed by the Emperor and not recognized by the adherents of the Nicene Creed

Timothy I (380–385) Second Ecumenical Council occurred

Theophilus I (385–412)

Cyril I (412–444) Third Ecumenical Council occurred

Dioscorus I (444–454) Fourth Ecumenical Council occurred/Schism between Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy

vacant (454–457)

Timothy II Aelurus (457–477)

Peter III Mongus (477–490)

Athanasius II (490–496)

John I (496–505)

John II (505–516)

Dioscorus II (516–517)

Timothy III (517–535)

Theodosius I (535–567) Last to serve as Patriarch of the Copts and the Greeks

Peter IV (567–569)

Damian (569–605)

Anastasius (605–616)

Andronicus (616–622)

Benjamin I (622–661) Islam entered Egypt

Agatho (661–677)

John III (677–688)

Isaac (688–689)

Simeon I (689–701)

Alexander II (702–729)

Cosmas I (729–730)

Theodosius II (730–742)

Michael I (743–767)

Mina I (767–775)

John IV (776–799)

Mark II (799–819)

Jacob (819–830)

Simeon II (830)

Joseph I (831–849)

Michael II (849–851)

Cosmas II (851–858)

Shenouda I (859–880)

Michael III (880–907)

vacant (907–910)

Gabriel I (910–921)

Cosmas III (921–933)

Macarius I (933–953)

Theophilus II (953–956)

Mina II (956–974)

Abraham (975–978)

Philotheos (979–1003)

Zacharias (1004–1032)

Shenouda II (1032–1046)

Christodolos (1047–1077)

Cyril II (1078–1092)

Michael IV (1092–1102)

Macarius II (1102–1131)

Gabriel II (1131–1145)

Michael V (1145–1146)

John V (1147–1166)

Mark III (1166–1189)

John VI (1189–1216)

vacant (1216–1235)

Cyril III (1235–1243)

vacant (1243–1250)

Athanasius III (1250–1261)

John VII (1262–1268)

Gabriel III (1268–1270)

John VII (restored) (1270–1293)

Theodosius III (1293–1300)

John VIII (1300–1320)

John IX (1320–1327)

Benjamin II (1327–1339)

Peter V (1340–1348)

Mark IV (1348–1363)

John X (1363–1369)

Gabriel IV (1370–1378)

Matthew I (1378–1408)

Gabriel V (1408–1427)

John XI (1427–1452)

Matthew II (1453–1466)

Gabriel VI (1466–1475)

Michael VI (1475–1477)

John XII (1480–1483)

John XIII (1483–1524)

vacant (1524–1526)

Gabriel VII (1526–1569)

vacant (1569–1573)

John XIV (1573–1589)

Gabriel VIII (1587–1603)

vacant (1603–1610)

Mark V (1610–1621)

John XV (1621–1631)

Matthew III (1631–1645)

Mark VI (1645–1660)

Matthew IV (1660–1676)

John XVI (1676–1718)

Peter VI (1718–1726)

John XVII (1727–1745)

Mark VII (1745–1769)

John XVIII (1769–1796)

Mark VIII (1797–1810)

Peter VII (1810–1852)

vacant (1852–1854)

Cyril IV (1854–1861)

Demetrius II (1862–1870)

vacant (1870–1874)

Cyril V (1874–1927)

John XIX (1928–1942)

vacant (1942–1944)

Macarius III (1944–1945)

vacant (1945–1946)

Joseph II (1946–1956)

vacant (1956–1959)

Cyril VI (1959–1971)

Shenouda III (1971-Present)

Melkite Apostolic Succession of Antioch

2011-11-28T18:05:00.003-07:00

Primates of the Apostolic See of Antioch

(Melkite Succession)

1. 45-53 The Episcopacy of St. Peter, the Apostle, in Antioch.

2. 53 The Episcopacy of Eudoius in Antioch.

3. 68 The Episcopacy of St. Ignatius (d. 107) in Antioch.

4. 100 The Episcopacy of Heros in Antioch.

5. 127 The Episcopacy of Cornelius in Antioch.

6. 151 The Episcopacy of Heros II in Antioch.

7. 169 The Episcopacy of Theophilus (d. 181/182) in Antioch.

8. 188 The Episcopacy of Maximianus (d. 190/191) in Antioch.

9. 191-212 The Episcopacy of Serapion in Antioch.

10. 212-218 The Episcopacy of Aslipiades in Antioch.

11. 218-231 The Episcopacy of Philetus in Antioch.

12. 232 The Episcopacy of Zebinus (a.k.a. Zenobius) in Antioch.

13. 240 The Episcopacy of St. Babylas in Antioch.

14. 253 The Episcopacy of Fabius in Antioch.

15. 256 The Episcopacy of Demetrian in Antioch.

16. 263 The Episcopacy of Amphilochius in Antioch.

17. 267 The Episcopacy of Paul of Samosata in Antioch.

18. 270 The Episcopacy of Dmonus in Antioch.

19. 273 The Episcopacy of Timaeus in Antioch.

20. 277 The Episcopacy of Cyril in Antioch.

21. 299 The Episcopacy of Tyrannion in Antioch.

22. 308 The Episcopacy of Vitalius in Antioch.

23. 314 The Episcopacy of Philogonius in Antioch.

24. 324 The Episcopacy of Paulinus in Antioch.

25. 325 The Episcopacy of Eustathius in Antioch.

26. 332 The Episcopacy of Paulinus in Antioch.

27. 332 The Episcopacy of Eulalius (5 months) in Antioch.

28. 333 The Episcopacy of Euphronius in Antioch.

29. 334 The Episcopacy of Placentius in Antioch.

30. 341 The Episcopacy of Stephanus in Antioch.

31. 345 The Episcopacy of Leontius in Antioch.

32. 350 The Episcopacy of Eudoxius in Antioch.

33. 354 The Episcopacy of Meletius in Antioch.

34. 354 The Episcopacy of Eudoxius in Antioch.

35. 357 The Episcopacy of Annias (a.k.a. Ammianus) in Antioch.

36. 360 The Episcopacy of Eudozius in Antioch.

37. 370 The Episcopacy of Dorotheus in Antioch.

38. 371 The Episcopacy of Paulinus in Antioch.

39. 376 The Episcopacy of Vitalius in Antioch.

40. 384 The Episcopacy of Flavian in Antioch.

41. 404 The Episcopacy of Porphyrius in Antioch.

42. 408 The Episcopacy of Alexander in Antioch.

43. 418 The Episcopacy of Theodotus in Antioch.

44. 427 The Episcopacy of John in Antioch.

45. 443 The Episcopacy of Domnus II in Antioch.

46. 450 The Episcopacy of Maximus in Antioch.

See elevated to dignity of a Patriarchate by the Council of Chalcedon in 451

47. 459 The Patriarchate of Basil in Antioch.

48. 459 The Patriarchate of Acacius in Antioch.

49. 461 The Patriarchate of Martyrius in Antioch.

50. 465 The Patriarchate of Peter the Fuller in Antioch.

51. 466 The Patriarchate of Julian in Antioch.

52. 474 The Patriarchate of Peter the Fuller in Antioch.

53. 475 The Patriarchate of John II in Antioch.

54. 490 The Patriarchate of Stephen II in Antioch.

55. 493 The Patriarchate of Stephen III in Antioch.

56. 495 The Patriarchate of Callandion in Antioch.

57. 495 The Patriarchate of John Codonatus in Antioch.

58. 497 The Patriarchate of Palladius in Antioch.

59. 505 The Patriarchate of Flavian II in Antioch.

60. 513 The Patriarchate of Severus in Antioch.

61. 518 The Patriarchate of Paul II in Antioch.

62. 521 The Patriarchate of Euphrasius in Antioch.

63. 526 The Patriarchate of Ephraim in Antioch.

64. 546 The Patriarchate of Domnus III in Antioch.

65. 561 The Patriarchate of Anastasius the Sinaite in Antioch.

66. 571 The Patriarchate of Gregory in Antioch.

67. 594 The Patriarchate of Anastasius the Sinaite in Antioch.

68. 599 The Patriarchate of Anastasius II in Antioch.

69. 610 The Patriarchate of Gregory II, in Antioch.

70. 620 The Patriarchate of Anastasius III in Antioch.

71. 628 The Patriarchate of Macedonius in Antioch.

72. 640 The Patriarchate of George in Antioch.

73. 656 The Patriarchate of Macarius in Antioch.

74. 681 The Patriarchate of Theophanes in Antioch.

75. 687 The Patriarchate of Sebastian in Antioch.

76. 690 The Patriarchate of George II in Antioch.

77. 695 The Patriarchate of Alexander in Antioch.

78. 742 The Patriarchate of Stephen IV in Antioch.

79. 748 The Patriarchate of Theophylact in Antioch.

80. 767 The Patriarchate of Theodore in Antioch.

81. 797 The Patriarchate of John IV in Antioch.

82. 810 The Patriarchate of Job in Antioch.

83. 826 The Patriarchate of Nicholas in Antioch.

84. 834 The Patriarchate of Simeon in Antioch.

85. 840 The Patriarchate of Elias in Antioch.

86. 852 The Patriarchate of Theodosius in Antioch.

87. 860 The Patriarchate of Nicholas II in Antioch.

88. 879 The Patriarchate of Michael in Antioch.

89. 890 The Patriarchate of Zacharias in Antioch.

90. 902 The Patriarchate of George III in Antioch.

91. 917 The Patriarchate of Job II in Antioch.

92. 939 The Patriarchate of Eustratius in Antioch.

93. 960 The Patriarchate of Christopher in Antioch.

94. 966 The Patriarchate of Theodorus II in Antioch.

95. 977 The Patriarchate of Agapius in Antioch.

96. 995 The Patriarchate of John IV in Antioch.

97. 1000 The Patriarchate of Nicholas III in Antioch.

98. 1003 The Patriarchate of Elias II in Antioch.

99. 1010 The Patriarchate of George Lascaris in Antioch.

100. 1015 The Patriarchate of Macarius the Virtuous in Antioch.

101. 1023 The Patriarchate of Eleutherius in Antioch.

102. 1028 The Patriarchate of Peter III in Antioch.

103. 1051 The Patriarchate of John VI in Antioch.

104. 1062 The Patriarchate of Aemilian in Antioch.

105. 1075 The Patriarchate of Theodosius II in Antioch.

106. 1084 The Patriarchate of Nicephorus in Antioch.

107. 1090 The Patriarchate of John VII in Antioch.

108. 1155 The Patriarchate of John IX in Antioch.

109. 1159 The Patriarchate of Euthymius in Antioch.

110. 1164 The Patriarchate of Macarius in Antioch.

111. 1166 The Patriarchate of Athanasius in Antioch.

112. 1180 The Patriarchate of Theodosius III in Antioch.

113. 1182 The Patriarchate of Elias III in Antioch.

114. 1184 The Patriarchate of Christopher II in Antioch.

115. 1185 The Patriarchate of Theodore IV (Balsamon) in exile in Constantinople.

116. 1199 The Patriarchate of Joachim in exile in Constantinople.

117. 1219 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus in exile in Constantinople.

118. 1245 The Patriarchate of Simeon II in exile in Constantinople.

119. 1268 The Patriarchate of Euthymius II in exile in Constantinople.

120. 1269 The Patriarchate of Theodosius IV in Antioch.

121. 1276 The Patriarchate of Theodosius V in Antioch.

122. 1285 The Patriarchate of Arsenius in Antioch.

123. 1293 The Patriarchate of Dionysius in Antioch.

124. 1308 The Patriarchate of Mark in Antioch.

Patriarchal See transferred to Damascus in 1342

125. 1342 The Patriarchate of Ignatius II in Damascus.

127. 1386 The Patriarchate of Pachomius in Damascus.

128. 1393 The Patriarchate of Nilus in Damascus.

129. 1401 The Patriarchate of Michael III in Damascus.

130. 1410 The Patriarchate of Pachomius II in Damascus.

131. 1411 The Patriarchate of Joachim II in Damascus.

132. 1426 The Patriarchate of Mark III in Damascus.

133. 1436 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus II in Damascus.

134. 1454 The Patriarchate of Michael IV in Damascus.

135. 1476 The Patriarchate of Mark IV in Damascus.

136. 1476 The Patriarchate of Joachim III in Damascus.

137. 1483 The Patriarchate of Gregory III in Damascus.

139. 1497-1523 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus III in Damascus.

140. 1523-1541 The Patriarchate of Michael V in Damascus.

141. 1541-1543 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus IV in Damascus.

142. 1543-1576 The Patriarchate of Joachim IV (Ibn Juma) in Damascus.

143. 1577-1581 The Patriarchate of Michael VI (Sabbagh) in Damascus.

144. 1581-1592 The Patriarchate of Joachim V in Damascus.

145. 1593-1604 The Patriarchate of Joachim VI in Damascus.

146. 1604-1611 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus V in Damascus.

147. 1611-1619 The Patriarchate of Athanasius III (Dabbas) in Damascus.

148. 1619-1631 The Patriarchate of Ignatius III (Attiyah) in Damascus.

149. 1635-1636 The Patriarchate of Euthymius III in Damascus.

150. 1636-1648 The Patriarchate of Euthymius IV in Damascus.

151. 1648-1672 The Patriarchate of Michael III (Zaim) in Damascus.

152. 1674-1684 The Patriarchate of Neophytos I in Damascus.

153. 1686-1694 The Patriarchate of Athanasius IV (Dabbas) in Damascus.

154. 1694-1720 The Patriarchate of Cyril III (Zaim) in Damascus.

155. 1720-1724 The Patriarchate of Athanasius IV (Dabbas) in Damascus.

The Greek Patriarchs

156. 1724–1760 The Patriarchate of Cyril VI Tanas

157. 1760-1761 The Patriarchate of Maximos II Hakim

158. 1761-1788 The Patriarchate of Theodosius V Dahan

159. 1788-1794 The Patriarchate of Athanasius IV Jawhar

160. 1794-1796 The Patriarchate of Cyril VII Siaj

161. 1796-1812 The Patriarchate of Agapius II Matar

162. 1812 The Patriarchate of Ignatius IV Sarrouf

163. 1813 The Patriarchate of Athanasius V Matar

164. 1813-1815 The Patriarchate of Macarius IV Tawil

165. 1816-1833 The Patriarchate of Ignatius V Qattan

166. 1833-1855 The Patriarchate of Maximos III Mazloum

167. 1856-1864 The Patriarchate of Clement Bahouth

168. 1864-1897 The Patriarchate of Gregory II Youssef-Sayur

169. 1898-1902 The Patriarchate of Peter IV Jaraijiry

170. 1902-1916 The Patriarchate of Cyril VIII Geha

vacant (1916–1919)

171. 1919-1925 The Patriarchate of Demetrius I Qadi

172. 1925-1947 The Patriarchate of Cyril IX Moghabghab

173. 1947-1967 The Patriarchate of Maximos IV Sayegh

174. 1967-2000 The Patriarchate of Maximos V Hakim

175. 2000-Present The Patriarchate of Gregory III Laham

Orthodox Succession of Bishops of Antioch

2011-11-28T17:52:00.002-07:00

Primates of the Apostolic See of Antioch
(Orthodox Succession)

1 45-53 The Episcopacy of St. Peter, the Apostle, in Antioch.

2 53 The Episcopacy of Eudoius in Antioch.

3 68 The Episcopacy of St. Ignatius (d. 107) in Antioch.

4 100 The Episcopacy of Heros in Antioch.

5 127 The Episcopacy of Cornelius in Antioch.

6 151 The Episcopacy of Heros II in Antioch.

7 169 The Episcopacy of Theophilus (d. 181/182) in Antioch.

8 188 The Episcopacy of Maximianus (d. 190/191) in Antioch.

9 191-212 The Episcopacy of Serapion in Antioch.

10 212-218 The Episcopacy of Aslipiades in Antioch.

11 218-231 The Episcopacy of Philetus in Antioch.

12 232 The Episcopacy of Zebinus (a.k.a. Zenobius) in Antioch.

13 240 The Episcopacy of St. Babylas in Antioch.

14 253 The Episcopacy of Fabius in Antioch.

15 256 The Episcopacy of Demetrian in Antioch.

16 263 The Episcopacy of Amphilochius in Antioch.

17 267 The Episcopacy of Paul of Samosata in Antioch.

18 270 The Episcopacy of Dmonus in Antioch.

19 273 The Episcopacy of Timaeus in Antioch.

20 277 The Episcopacy of Cyril in Antioch.

21 299 The Episcopacy of Tyrannion in Antioch.

22 308 The Episcopacy of Vitalius in Antioch.

23 314 The Episcopacy of Philogonius in Antioch.

24 324 The Episcopacy of Paulinus in Antioch.

25 325 The Episcopacy of Eustathius in Antioch.

26 332 The Episcopacy of Paulinus in Antioch.

27 332 The Episcopacy of Eulalius (5 months) in Antioch.

28 333 The Episcopacy of Euphronius in Antioch.

29 334 The Episcopacy of Placentius in Antioch.

30 341 The Episcopacy of Stephanus in Antioch.

31 345 The Episcopacy of Leontius in Antioch.

32 350 The Episcopacy of Eudoxius in Antioch.

33 354 The Episcopacy of Meletius in Antioch.

34 354 The Episcopacy of Eudoxius in Antioch.

35 357 The Episcopacy of Annias (a.k.a. Ammianus) in Antioch.

36 360 The Episcopacy of Eudozius in Antioch.

37 370 The Episcopacy of Dorotheus in Antioch.

38 371 The Episcopacy of Paulinus in Antioch.

39 376 The Episcopacy of Vitalius in Antioch.

40 384 The Episcopacy of Flavian in Antioch.

41 404 The Episcopacy of Porphyrius in Antioch.

42 408 The Episcopacy of Alexander in Antioch.

43 418 The Episcopacy of Theodotus in Antioch.

44 427 The Episcopacy of John in Antioch.

45 443 The Episcopacy of Domnus II in Antioch.

46 450 The Episcopacy of Maximus in Antioch.

See elevated to dignity of a Patriarchate by the Council of Chalcedon in 451

47 459 The Patriarchate of Basil in Antioch.

48 459 The Patriarchate of Acacius in Antioch.

49 461 The Patriarchate of Martyrius in Antioch.

50 465 The Patriarchate of Peter the Fuller in Antioch.

51 466 The Patriarchate of Julian in Antioch.

52 474 The Patriarchate of Peter the Fuller in Antioch.

53 475 The Patriarchate of John II in Antioch.

54 490 The Patriarchate of Stephen II in Antioch.

55 493 The Patriarchate of Stephen III in Antioch.

56 495 The Patriarchate of Callandion in Antioch.

57 495 The Patriarchate of John Codonatus in Antioch.

58 497 The Patriarchate of Palladius in Antioch.

59 505 The Patriarchate of Flavian II in Antioch.

60 513 The Patriarchate of Severus in Antioch.

61 518 The Patriarchate of Paul II in Antioch.

62 521 The Patriarchate of Euphrasius in Antioch.

63 526 The Patriarchate of Ephraim in Antioch.

64 546 The Patriarchate of Domnus III in Antioch.

65 561 The Patriarchate of Anastasius the Sinaite in Antioch.

66 571 The Patriarchate of Gregory in Antioch.

67 594 The Patriarchate of Anastasius the Sinaite in Antioch.

68 599 The Patriarchate of Anastasius II in Antioch.

69 610 The Patriarchate of Gregory II, in Antioch.

70 620 The Patriarchate of Anastasius III in Antioch.

71 628 The Patriarchate of Macedonius in Antioch.

72 640 The Patriarchate of George in Antioch.

73 656 The Patriarchate of Macarius in Antioch.

74 681 The Patriarchate of Theophanes in Antioch.

75 687 The Patriarchate of Sebastian in Antioch.

76 690 The Patriarchate of George II in Antioch.

77 695 The Patriarchate of Alexander in Antioch.

78 742 The Patriarchate of Stephen IV in Antioch.

79 748 The Patriarchate of Theophylact in Antioch.

80 767 The Patriarchate of Theodore in Antioch.

81 797 The Patriarchate of John IV in Antioch.

82 810 The Patriarchate of Job in Antioch.

83 826 The Patriarchate of Nicholas in Antioch.

84 834 The Patriarchate of Simeon in Antioch.

85 840 The Patriarchate of Elias in Antioch.

86 852 The Patriarchate of Theodosius in Antioch.

87 860 The Patriarchate of Nicholas II in Antioch.

88 879 The Patriarchate of Michael in Antioch.

89 890 The Patriarchate of Zacharias in Antioch.

90 902 The Patriarchate of George III in Antioch.

91 917 The Patriarchate of Job II in Antioch.

92 939 The Patriarchate of Eustratius in Antioch.

93 960 The Patriarchate of Christopher in Antioch.

94 966 The Patriarchate of Theodorus II in Antioch.

95 977 The Patriarchate of Agapius in Antioch.

96 995 The Patriarchate of John IV in Antioch.

97 1000 The Patriarchate of Nicholas III in Antioch.

98 1003 The Patriarchate of Elias II in Antioch.

99 1010 The Patriarchate of George Lascaris in Antioch.

100 1015 The Patriarchate of Macarius the Virtuous in Antioch.

101 1023 The Patriarchate of Eleutherius in Antioch.

102 1028 The Patriarchate of Peter III in Antioch.

103 1051 The Patriarchate of John VI in Antioch.

104 1062 The Patriarchate of Aemilian in Antioch.

105 1075 The Patriarchate of Theodosius II in Antioch.

106 1084 The Patriarchate of Nicephorus in Antioch.

107 1090 The Patriarchate of John VII in Antioch.

108 1155 The Patriarchate of John IX in Antioch.

109 1159 The Patriarchate of Euthymius in Antioch.

110 1164 The Patriarchate of Macarius in Antioch.

111 1166 The Patriarchate of Athanasius in Antioch.

112 1180 The Patriarchate of Theodosius III in Antioch.

113 1182 The Patriarchate of Elias III in Antioch.

114 1184 The Patriarchate of Christopher II in Antioch.

115 1185 The Patriarchate of Theodore IV (Balsamon) in exile in Constantinople.

116 1199 The Patriarchate of Joachim in exile in Constantinople.

117 1219 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus in exile in Constantinople.

118 1245 The Patriarchate of Simeon II in exile in Constantinople.

119 1268 The Patriarchate of Euthymius II in exile in Constantinople.

120 1269 The Patriarchate of Theodosius IV in Antioch.

121 1276 The Patriarchate of Theodosius V in Antioch.

122 1285 The Patriarchate of Arsenius in Antioch.

123 1293 The Patriarchate of Dionysius in Antioch.

124 1308 The Patriarchate of Mark in Antioch.

Patriarchal See transferred to Damascus in 1342

125 1342 The Patriarchate of Ignatius II in Damascus.

127 1386 The Patriarchate of Pachomius in Damascus.

128 1393 The Patriarchate of Nilus in Damascus.

129 1401 The Patriarchate of Michael III in Damascus.

130 1410 The Patriarchate of Pachomius II in Damascus.

131 1411 The Patriarchate of Joachim II in Damascus.

132 1426 The Patriarchate of Mark III in Damascus.

133 1436 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus II in Damascus.

134 1454 The Patriarchate of Michael IV in Damascus.

135 1476 The Patriarchate of Mark IV in Damascus.

136 1476 The Patriarchate of Joachim III in Damascus.

137 1483 The Patriarchate of Gregory III in Damascus.

139 1497-1523 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus III in Damascus.

140 1523-1541 The Patriarchate of Michael V in Damascus.

141 1541-1543 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus IV in Damascus.

142 1543-1576 The Patriarchate of Joachim IV (Ibn Juma) in Damascus.

143 1577-1581 The Patriarchate of Michael VI (Sabbagh) in Damascus.

144 1581-1592 The Patriarchate of Joachim V in Damascus.

145 1593-1604 The Patriarchate of Joachim VI in Damascus.

146 1604-1611 The Patriarchate of Dorotheus V in Damascus.

147 1611-1619 The Patriarchate of Athanasius III (Dabbas) in Damascus.

148 1619-1631 The Patriarchate of Ignatius III (Attiyah) in Damascus.

149 1635-1636 The Patriarchate of Euthymius III in Damascus.

150 1636-1648 The Patriarchate of Euthymius IV in Damascus.

151 1648-1672 The Patriarchate of Michael III (Zaim) in Damascus.

152 1674-1684 The Patriarchate of Neophytos I in Damascus.

153 1686-1694 The Patriarchate of Athanasius IV (Dabbas) in Damascus.

154 1694-1720 The Patriarchate of Cyril III (Zaim) in Damascus.

155 1720-1724 The Patriarchate of Athanasius IV (Dabbas) in Damascus.

Separation of the group pledging loyalty to the Pope of Rome. Today, this group carries the name "Melkite".

The Greek Patriarchs

156 1724-1766 The Patriarchate of Sylvester I in Damascus.

157 1766-1767 The Patriarchate of Philemon I in Damascus.

158 1767-1791 The Patriarchate of Daniel I in Damascus.

159 1792-1813 The Patriarchate of Euthymius I in Damascus.

160 1813-1823 The Patriarchate of Seraphim I in Damascus.

161 1843-1859 The Patriarchate of Methodius I in Damascus.

162 1850-1885 The Patriarchate of Hierotheos I in Damascus.

163 1885-1891 The Patriarchate of Gerasimos I in Damascus.

164 1892-1898 The Patriarchate of Spyridon I in Damascus.

Restoration of the Arab Patriarchs

165 1899-1906 The Patriarchate of Meletius II (Doumani) in Damascus.

166 1906-1928 The Patriarchate of Gregory IV(Haddad) in Damascus.

167 1928-1958 The Patriarchate of Alexander III (Tahan) in Damascus.

168 1958-1970 The Patriarchate of Theodosius VI (Abourjaily) in Damascus.

169 1970-1979 The Patriarchate of Elias IV (Muawad) in Damascus.

170 1979- The Patriarchate of Ignatius IV (Hazim, 1921- ) in Damascus.

Apostolic Succession of the Bishops of Jerusalem

2011-11-28T17:29:00.001-07:00

Bishops of Jerusalem

1. James the Just +62
2. Symeon +106-107
3. Justus 1st or Judas to 111
4. Zacheos 111-134
5. Tobias ""
6. Benjamin 1st ""
7. John 1st ""
8. Matthias 1st ""
9. Philip ""
10. Seneca ""
11. Justus 2nd ""
12. Levi ""
13. Ephraim ""
14. Joseph 1st ""
15. Judas ""
16. Mark 134-185
17. Kassian ""
18. Publius ""
19. Maximos 1st ""
20. Julian ""
21 Guius 1st ""
22 Guius 2nd ""
23 Symmachos ""
24 Julian or Walis ""
25 Kapion ""
26 Maximos 2nd ""
27 Anthony ""
28 Walis ""
29 Dolihianos ""
30 Narcissos 1st 185-211
31 Dios 213
32 Germanion ""
33 Gordios ""
34 Alexander 213-251
35 Mazavanis 251-260
36 Hymeneos 260-298
37 Zambdas 298-300
38 Hermon 300-314
39 Makarios 1st 314-333
40 Maximos 333-348
41 Kyrill 1st 350-386
42 John 2nd 386-417
43 Praylios 417-422

Patriarchs of Jerusalem

44 Juvenalios 422-458
45 Anastasios 1st 458-478
46 Martyrios 478-486
47 Sallustios 486-493
48 Elijah 1st 494-516
49 John 3rd 516-523
50 Peter 534-552
51 Makarios 2nd 552, 564-575
52 Eustohios 552-564
53 John 4th 575-594
54 Amos 594-601
55 Isaacios 601-608
56 Zacharias 609-632
57 Modestos 632-634
58 Sophronios 1st 634-638
59 Anastasios 2nd ......-706
60 John 5th 706-735
61 Theodoros 745-770
62 Elijah 5th 770-797
63 George 797-807
64 Thomas 1st 807-820
65 Basilios 820-838
66 John 6th 838-842
67 Sergios 1st 842-844
68 Solomon 855-860
69 Theodosios 862-878
70 Elijah 3rd 878-907
71 Sergios 2nd 908-911
72 Leontios 1st 912-929
73 Athanasios 1st 929-937
74 Christdoulos 2nd .....-937
75 Agathon 950-964
76 John 7th 964-966
77 Christodoulos 2nd 966-969
78 Thomas 2nd 969-978
79 Joseph 2nd 980-983
80 Orestis 983-1005
81 Thephilos 1st 1012-1020
82 Nicephoros 1st 1020- .......
83 Joannicios 1020-1084
84 Sophronios 2nd 1040-1059
85 Euthymios 1st ? -1084
86 Symeon 2nd 1084-1106
87 Savvas 1106- ?
88 John 8th 1106-1156
89 Nicolaos ? -1156
90 John 9th 1156-1166
91 Nicephoros 2nd 1166-1170
92 Leontios 2nd 1170-1190
93 Dositheos 1st 1191
94 Mark 2nd 1191-........
95 Euthimios 2nd (before the year shown) 1223
96 Athanasios 2nd 1224-1236
97 Sophronios 3rd 1236- ?
98 Gregorios 1st ? -1298
99 Thaddeos 1298
100 Athanasios 3rd (before the period shown) 1313-1334
101 Gregorios 2nd (after the period shown) 1332
102 Lazaros 1334-1368
103 Arsenios 1344
104 Dorotheos 1st 1376-1417
105 Theophilos 2nd 1417-1424
106 Theophanis 1st 1424-1431
107 Joachim 1431-1450
108 Theophnis 2nd 1450-1452
109 Athanasios 4th 1452-1460
110 James 2nd (around) 1460
111 Abraham 1468
112 Gregorios 3rd 1468-1493
113 Markos 3rd 1503
114 Dorotheos 2nd (after the period shown) 1506-1537
115 Herman 1537-1579
116 Sophronios 4th 1579-1608
117 Thephanos 3rd 1608-1644
118 Paisios 1645-1660
119 Nectarios 1660-1669
120 Dositheos 2nd 1669-1707
121 Chrysanthos 1707-1731
122 Meletios 1731-1737
123 Parthenios 1737-1766
124 Ephraim 2nd 1766-1771
125 Sophronios 5th 1771-1775
126 Abramios 1775-1787
127 Procopios 1st 1787-1788
128 Anthimos 1788-1808
129 Polycarpos 1808-1827
130 Athanasios 5th 1827-1845
131 Kyrillos 2nd 1845-1872
132 Procopios 2nd 1873-1875
133 Hierotheos 1875-1882
134 Nicodemos 1st 1883-1890
135 Gerasimos 1st 1891-1896
136 Damianos 1st 1897-1931
137 Timotheos 1st 1935-1955
138 Benedictos 1st 1957-1980
139 Diodoros 1st 1981-2000
140 Ireneus 1st 2001-2005
141 Theophilos 3rd 2005-.......

First Sunday in Advent

2011-11-27T14:38:00.001-07:00

The First Sunday in Advent
Happy New Year Christians!

This marks the beginning of the Liturgical Year for the Christian Church. I like to take a moment to remind people too - IT'S NOT CHRISTMAS YET! The Christmas Season for Christians starts on Christmas Day and then lasts twelve days - until January 6th, Epiphany, though some celebrate all the way to Candlemas, which is February 2nd.

I thought today's Epistle reading from the Extraordinary Rite would be something good to meditate upon, so I present it for your reading too:

EPISTLE, Rom 13. 11-14

A reading from the Epistle of the blessed apostle Paul to the Romans. Brethren, knowing the time, that it is now the hour for us to rise from sleep; for now our salvation is nearer than when we believed. The night is past, and the day is at hand; let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and put on the armor of light. Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and impurities, not in contention and envy; but put ye on the Lord Jesus Christ.

Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments section.

Back to my first thought... when someone wishes you a "Happy Holidays" or "Merry Christmas," consider responding, "And a blessed Advent to you!"

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Costello Buys A Computer

2011-11-18T09:33:00.001-07:00

You have to be old enough to remember Abbott and Costello, and too old to REALLY understand computers, to fully appreciate this.

For those of us who sometimes get flustered by our computers, please read on...

If Bud Abbott and Lou Costello were alive today, their infamous sketch, 'Who's on First?' might have turned out something like this:

COSTELLO CALLS TO BUY A COMPUTER FROM ABBOTT

ABBOTT: Super Duper computer store. Can I help you?
COSTELLO: Thanks I'm setting up an office in my den and I 'm thinking about buying a computer.
ABBOTT: Mac?
COSTELLO: No, the name's Lou.
ABBOTT: Your computer?
COSTELLO: I don't own a computer. I want to buy one.
ABBOTT: Mac?
COSTELLO: I told you, my name's Lou.
ABBOTT: What about Windows?
COSTELLO: Why? Will it get stuffy in here?
ABBOTT: Do you want a computer with Windows?
COSTELLO: I don't know. What will I see when I look at the windows?
ABBOTT: Wallpaper.
COSTELLO: Never mind the windows. I need a computer and software.
ABBOTT: Software for Windows?
COSTELLO: No. On the computer! I need something I can use to write proposals, track expenses and run my business. What do you have?
ABBOTT: Office.
COSTELLO: Yeah, for my office. Can you recommend anything?
ABBOTT: I just did.
COSTELLO: You just did what?
ABBOTT: Recommend something.
COSTELLO: You recommended something?
ABBOTT: Yes.
COSTELL O: For my office?
ABBOTT: Yes.
COSTELLO: OK, what did you recommend for my office?
ABBOTT: Office.
COSTELLO: Yes, for my office!
ABBOTT: I recommend Office with Windows.
COSTELLO: I already have an office with windows! OK, let's just say I'm sitting at my computer and I want to type a proposal. What do I need?
ABBOTT: Word.
COSTELLO: What word?
ABBOTT: Word in Office.
COSTELLO: The only word in office is office.
ABBOTT: The Word in Office for Windows.
COSTELLO: Which word in office for windows?
ABBOTT: The Word you get when you click the blue 'W'.
COSTELLO: I'm going to click your blue 'W' if you don't start with some straight answers. What about financial bookkeeping? Do you have anything I can track my money with?
ABBOTT: Money.
COSTELLO: That's right. What do you have?
ABBOTT: Money.
COSTELLO: I need money to track my money?
ABBOTT: It comes bundled with your computer.
COSTELLO: What's bundled with my computer?
ABBOTT: Money.
COSTELLO: Money comes with my computer?
ABBOTT: Yes. At no extra charge.
COSTELLO: I get a bundle of money with my computer? How much?
ABBOTT: One copy.
COSTELLO: Isn't it illegal to copy money?
ABBOTT: Microsoft gave us a license to copy Money.
COSTELLO: They can give you a license to copy money?
ABBOTT: Why not? THEY OWN IT!

(A few days later)

ABBOTT: Super Duper computer store. Can I help you?

COSTELLO: How do I turn my computer off?
ABBOTT: Click on 'START'…….

Apostolic Succession of St Andrew

2011-11-11T12:55:00.004-07:00

Apostolic Succession of St. Andrew the Apostle

Andrew the Apostle 33-38
Stachys the Apostle 38-54
Onesimus 54-68
Polycarp I 71-89
Plutarch 89-105
Sedekion 105-114
Diogenes 114-129
Eleutherius 129-136
Felix 136-141
Polycarp II 141-144
Athenodorus (Athenogenes) 144-148
Efzois 148-154
Laurence 154-166
Alympius (Olympius) 166-169
Pertinax 169-187
Olympian 187-198
Mark I 198-211
Philadelphus 211-217
Cyriacus I 214-230
Castinus 230-237
Eugenius I 240-265
Titus 242-272
Dometius --
Rufinus I 284-293
Probus 303-315
Metrophanes I 306-314
Alexander 314-337
Paul I 337-339, 341-342, 346-351
Eusebius of Nicomedia 339-342
Macedonius I 342-346, 351-360
Eudoxius (of Antioch) 360-370
Evagrius 370
Demophilus 370-380
Gregory I of Nazianzen 379-381
Maximus the Cynic 380
Nectarius 381-397
John I Chrysostom 398-404
Arsacius 404-405
Atticus 406-425
Sisinius 426-427
Nestorius 428-431
Maximian 431-434
Proclus 434-446
Flavian 446-449
Anatolius 449-458
Gennadios I 458-471
Acacius 472-489
Fravitas 489
Euphemius 489-495
Macedonius II 495-511
Timothy I 511-518
John II 518-520
Epiphanius 520-535
Anthimos I 535-536
Menas 536-552
Eutychius 552-565, 577-582
John III the Scholastic 565-577
John IV the Fasting 585-595
Cyriacus (Cyril) 595-606
Thomas I 607-610
Sergius I 610-638
Pyrrhos 638-641, 654
Paul II 641-653
Peter 654-666
Thomas II 667-669
John V 669-675
Costantine I 675-677
Theodore I 677-679, 686,687
George I 679-686
Paul III 687-693
Callinicus I 693-705
Cyrus 706-711
John VI 712-714
Germanos I 715-730
Anastasius 730-754
Constantine II 754-766
Nikitas I 766-780
Paul IV 780-784
Tarasios 784-806
Nikiohoros I 806- 815
Theodotos I Kassiteras 815-821
Antonius I Kassimatis 821-836
John VII Grammatikos 836-842
Methodius I 842-846
Ignatius I 846-858, 867-877
Photios I 858-867, 877-886
Stephanos I 886-893
Antonios II Kauleas 893-901
Nicholas I Mysticos 901-907, 912-925
Euthymios I 907-912
Stephanos II 925-928
Tryphon 928-931
Theophylaktos 931-956
Polyeuktos 956-970
Basil I Skamandrinos 970-974
Antonios III the Studite 974-980
Nicholas II Chrysovergis 984-995
Sisinius II 996-999
Sergius II 999-1019
Efstathius 1020-1025
Alexius Stoudite 1025-1043
Michael I Kiroularios 1043-1059
Constantine III Leichoudis 1059-1063
John VIII Xifilinos 1063-1075
Kosmas I of Jerusalem 1075-1081
Efstratius Garidas 1081-1084
Nicholas III the Kyrdiniates 1084-1111
John IX Ieromnemon 1111-1134
Leo Styppis 1134-1143
Michael II the Kourkouas 1143-1146
Kosmas II the Attic 1146-1147
Nicholas IV Mouzalon 1147-1151
Theodotos I 1151-1153
Neophytos I 1153
Constantine IV Chliarinos 1154-1156
Luke Chrysovergis 1156-1169
Michael III 1170-1177
Chariton Eugeniotis 1177-1178
Theodosius II Vorradiotis 1178-1183
Basil II Camateros 1183-1186
Nikitas II Mountanis 1187-1189
Leontius Theotokitis 1189-1190
Theodosius III or Disitheus 1190-1191
George II Xifilinos 1191-1198
John X Camateros 1198-1206
Michael IV Autoreianos 1207-1213
Theodore II the Peaceful 1213-1215
Maximos II 1215
Manuel I Charitopoulos 1215-1222
Germanos II 1222-1240
Methodius II 1240
Manuel II 1240-1255
Arsenios Autoreianos 1255-1260, 1261-1267
Νικηφόρος II 1260-1261
Germanos III 1267
Joseph I 1267-1275, 1282-1283
John XI Vekkos 1275-1282
Gregory II 1283-1289
Athanasius I 1289-1293, 1304-1310
John XII 1294-1304
Nifon I 1311-1315
John XIII Sweet 1316-1320
Gerasimos I 1320-1321
Isaias 1323-1334
John XIV Kaletas 1334-1347
Isidore I 1347-1349
Kallistos I 1350-1354, 1355-1363
Philotheos Kokkinos 1354-1355, 1364-1376
Makarios 1376-1379, 1390-1391
Neilos 1380-1388
Antonius IV 1389-1390, 1391-1397
Kallistos II Xanthopoulos 1397
Matthew I 1397-1410
Euthymios II 1410-1416
Joseph II 1416-1439
Metrophanes II 1440-1443
Gregory III Mammas 1443-1450
Athanasius II 1450-1453
Gennadios II the Scholar (1st time) 1454-1456
Isidore II 1456-1462
Gennadios II (2nd time) 1462
Sophronios I 1463-1464
Gennadios II (3rd time) 1464
Joasaph I 1465-1466
Mark II 1466
Symeon I (1st time) 1466
Dionysios I 1467-1471
Symeon I (2nd time) 1471-1475
Raphael I 1475-1476
Maximos III 1476-1481
Symeon I (3rd time) 1482-1486
Nifon II (1st time) 1486-1488
Dionysios I (2nd time) 1488-1490
Maximos IV 1491-1497
Nifon II (2nd time) 1497-1498
Joachim I (1st time) 1498-1502
Nifon II (3rd time) 1502
Pachomios I (1st time) 1503-1504
Joachim I (2nd time) 1504
Pachomios I (2nd time) 1504-1513
Theoliptos I 1513-1522
Jeremias I 1522-1545
Joannicios I 1526
Dionysios II 1546-1556
Joasaph II 1556-1565
Metrophanes III (1st time) 1565-1572
Jeremias II (1st time) 1572-1579
Metrophanes III (2nd time) 1579-1580
Jeremias II (2nd time) 1580-1584
Pachomius II 1584-1585
Theoliptos II 1585-1586
Jeremias II (3rd time) 1587-1595
Matthew II (1st time) 1596
Gabriel I 1596
Theopanes I 1597
Meletius I Pigas (overseer) 1597-1598
Matthew II (2nd time) 1598-1602
Neophytos II (1st time) 1602-1603
Matthew II (3rd time) 1603
Raphael II 1603-1607
Neophytos II (2nd time) 1607-1612
Cyril I Lucaris (overseer) 1612
Timothy II 1613-1620
Cyril I (2nd time) 1620-1623
Gregorios IV 1623
Anthimos II 1623
Cyril I (3rd time) 1623-1633
Cyril II (1st time) 1633
Cyril I (4th time) 1633-1634
Athanasius III (1st time) 1634
Cyril I (5th time) 1634-1635
Cyril II (2nd time) 1635-1366
Neophytos III 1636-1637
Cyril I (6th time) 1637-1638
Cyril II (3rd time) 1638-1639
Parthenius I 1639-1644
Parthenius II (1st time) 1644-1646
Joannicius II (1st time) 1646-1648
Parthenius II (2nd time) 1648-1651
Joannicius II (2nd time) 1651-1652
Cyril III (1st time) 1652
Athanasius III (2nd time) 1652
Paisios I (1st time) 1652-1653
Joannicius II (3rd time) 1653-1654
Cyril III (2nd time) 1654
Paisios I (2nd time) 1654-1655
Joannicius II (4th time) 1655-1656
Parthenius III 1656-1657
Gabriel II 1657 Parthenius IV (1st time) 1657-1662
Dionysios III 1662-1665
Parthenius IV (2nd time) 1665-1667
Clement 1667
Methodius III 1668-1671
Parthenios IV (3rd time) 1671-1673
Dionysios IV (1st time) 1671-1673
Gerasimos II 1673-1674
Parthenius IV (4th time) 1675-1676
Dionysios IV (2nd time) 1676-1679
Athanasius IV 1679
James (1st time) 1679-1682
Dionysios IV (3rd time) 1682-1684
Parthenius IV (5th time) 1684-1685
James (2nd time) 1685-1686
Dionysios IV (4th time) 1686-1687
James (3rd time) 1687-1688
Callinicus II (1st time) 1688
Neophytos IV 1688-1689
Callinicus II (2nd time) 1689-1693
Dionysios IV (5th time) 1693-1694
Callinicus II (3rd time) 1694-1702
Gabriel III 1702-1707
Neophytos V 1707
Cyprian I (1st time) 1707-1709
Athanasius V 1709-1711
Cyril IV 1711-1713
Cyprian I (2nd time) 1713-1714
Kosmas III 1714-1716
Jeremias III (1st time) 1716-1726
Paisios II (1st time) 1726-1732
Jeremias III (2nd time) 1732-1733
Seraphim I 1733-1734
Neophytos VI (1st time) 1734-1740
Paisios II (2nd time) 1740-1743
Neophytos VI (2nd time) 1743-1744
Paisios II (3rd time) 1744-1748
Cyril V (1st time) 1748-1751
Paisios II (4th time) 1751-1752
Cyril V (2nd time) 1752-1757
Callinicus III 1757
Seraphim II 1757-1761
Joannicios III 1761-1763
Samuel I (1st time) 1763-1768
Meletius II 1768-1769
Theodosios II 1769-1773
Samuel I (2nd time) 1773-1774
Sophronios II 1774-1780
Gabriel IV 1780-1785
Prokopios 1785-1789
Neophytos VII (1st time) 1789-1794
Gerasimos III 1794-1797
Gregory V (1st time) 1797-1798
Neophytos VII (2nd time) 1798-1801
Callinicus IV (1st time) 1801-1806
Gregory V (2nd time) [10 Apr.] 1806-1808
Callinicus IV (2nd time) 1808-1809
Jeremias IV 1809-1813
Cyril VI 1813-1818
Gregory V (3rd time) [10 Apr.] 1818-1821
Eugenius II 1821-1822
Anthimos III 1822-1824
Chrysanthos 1824-1826
Agathangelos 1826-1830
Constantios I 1830-1834
Constantios II 1834-1835
Gregory VI (1st time) 1835-1840
Anthimos IV (1st time) 1840-1841
Anthimos V 1841-1842
Germanos IV (1st time) 1842-1845
Meletius III 1845
Anthimos VI (1st time) 1845-1848
Anthimos IV (2nd time) 1848-1852
Germanos IV (2nd time) 1852-1853
Anthimos VI (2nd time) 1853-1855
Cyril VII 1855-1860
Joachim II (1st time) 1860-1863
Sophronios III 1863-1866
Gregory VI (2nd time) 1867-1871
Anthimos VI (3rd time) 1871-1873
Joachim II (2nd time) 1873-1878
Joachim III (1st time) 1878-1884
Joachim IV 1884-1886
Dionysios V 1887-1891
Neophytos VIII 1891-1894
Anthimos VII 1895-1897
Constantine V 1897-1901
Joachim III (2nd time) 1901-1912
Germanos V 1913-1918
Meletius IV 1921-1923
Gregory VII 1923-1924
Constantine VI 1924-1925
Basil III 1925-1929
Photios II 1929-1935
Benjamin 1936-1946
Maximos V 1946-1948
Athenagoras 1948-1972
Dimitrios 1972-1991
Bartholomew Oct. 22, 1991-Present

(Disclaimer - I claim no expertise in assembling this list - if there are errors, let me know. Original source: http://www.patriarchate.org/patriarchate/patriarchs )

Hallelujah in Alaska

2011-11-10T08:22:00.000-07:00

This is a wonderful video from a small Alaska village. I had to post it! If you like the flash mob videos, you'll love this. It is sweet!

All Souls Day

2011-11-01T08:25:00.003-07:00

Today, All Souls Day, I have taken time to remember some of the souls in my life who are no longer with us... most notably, my daughter, who passed away earlier this year. I miss her greatly, but I know it was in God's Will and His bigger plan that she went to see Him much sooner than the rest of our family. Her trials are over, and I pray that she now prays for me and the rest of us here to give us the strength and courage to persevere in the Faith, that one day we will indeed see her again and rejoice in the Lord together in eternity.

Fatal Flaws of Sola Scriptura

2011-10-30T09:31:00.004-07:00

This post comes from the Catholic Debate Forum... a lively discussion/debate forum hosted on Yahoogroups.... Here is a link to that post there if you are interested in following the thread and/or joining in the discussions there:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/catholicdebateforum/message/67646

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Barry H. wrote:

----- Original Message -----
From: Scott Windsor
To: catholicdebateforum@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2011 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: [CDF] The Fatal Flaws of Sola Scriptura

>sw: All you have done is further confirm this fatal flaw of sola scriptura,
>thank you. I have never, not once, stated that the Word of God was not
>indeed the Word of God - the problem is upon which authority to we accept
>given books of Scripture AS Scripture and the Word of God? God did NOT
>leave His People rudderless! He built a visible Church with structure and
>hierarchy - and outside of THAT Church you are not part of HIS Church but
>one made by men within the last 500 years. It was that One Church which
>determined, through the guidance of the Holy Ghost, the Canon of Sacred
>Scripture - and you even accept the decision regarding the New Testament
>(casting off several books declared "canonical" by earlier bishops and
>including others they left out). You really have no leg to stand on here,
>Barry, well you do - it's the leg which is called the Catholic Church!

Nice rehash of what you believe. Of course, God did not leave his church
rudderless -- he gave us his word as the objective referent by which all
doctrine and practice must be measured.

sw: I apologize for taking so long to get back to this one... but Barry, you missed the point entirely. You RELY upon the Church for God's guidance to what even constitutes Scripture. And actually, while Scripture was there - what God left as an AUTHORITY was the Church. The REAL POINT in this discussion is AUTHORITY. Again, I do not challenge that Scripture IS the Word of God - it IS! That is not and has NEVER been the point of this discussion - although you and Jammy have, several times, attempted to make that the topic - but I am not dissuaded. THE authority which God left in place was and IS the Catholic Church! As I said before (and you're never really dealt with) there were MANY "canons" of Sacred Scripture prior to and into the 4th century - and it was THE Catholic Church, in several councils, which narrowed down THE Canon to what we have today... and YOU ACCEPT THIS AUTHORITY when it comes to the New Testament! They threw out several books which were previously declared canonical and included others which were not part of earlier canons - and WITHOUT QUESTION you ACCEPT the Canon of the New Testament which the Catholic Church put forth in the mid to late 4th century! The irony comes in when you REJECT that SAME AUTHORITY when it comes to the Old Testament Canon - and you side with the Jews who, at the time of the Christ and the Apostles, had a least TWO canons (Alexandrian/Greek and Palestinian/Hebrew). It would be some time AFTER the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus that the Jews (who deny Jesus was the Christ) rejected the Alexandrian Canon (which helps PROVE Jesus is the Christ). So you've taken the side of those who REJECTED THE MESSIAH!

sw: Now, if you TRULY believe that all God did was leave us a book - then why did it take over 300 years to compile this book into one volume/canon? While this canon was in flux - what was THE authority for Christians? Keep in mind as well, the ONLY copies of Scripture at the time were HAND-WRITTEN and VERY SCARCE! Every Christian home did not have a "Bible" - in whole or in part - but every Christian community DID have THE CHURCH! They had their bishop and priests and deacons, etc., but the ONLY place they would have SEEN a "Bible" or HEARD it READ - would have been IN CHURCH. And again, for 300 years that "canon" fluctuated and different churches had different canons - until the mid to late 4th century! THE Church stuck to THAT canon and then, over 1000 years later, as Protestants were editing the Canon - THE Church dogmatically, with all the scriptural authority of God, declared St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate canon of the late 4th century to be THE Christian Canon so that faithful Christians could no longer dispute it.

sw: So, the Protestant position would indeed be that God left the Church rudderless. To continue the sailing analogy, He did not leave them without sails (Scripture being the sails), but without a rudder (the Church) there would be little guidance - and thus casting adrift into differing interpretations of Scripture creates schism and heresy... like the Arians, etc. who indeed based their heresy on a false interpretation of Scripture. While a ship may have many sails (books of the Bible) it will only have one rudder.

sw: It is my hope and prayer that one day you will stop resisting this authority which God indeed put in place as the rudder.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Addendum, November 2, 2011:
Last Sunday Barry responded, I have included his response with my current response:

On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 11:48 AM, Barry H. wrote:

BH: Let me see if I can respond to your claims serially here:

BH: 1) I did not miss the point -- I simply disagreed with your point.

sw: I disagree that you simply disagreed... THE topic is AUTHORITY. You either missed it or just didn't deal with it. You're beginning to deal with it a bit in this posting, so let us continue...

BH: 2) I do not rely on your Catholic church for guidance on what constitutes
Scripture. I rely upon the Holy Spirit, both in terms of giving the
Scripture, and in terms of recognizing the Scriptures.

sw: Well, whether you admit it or not, you do rely upon the authority of the Catholic Church for it was and IS through THAT authority that you have the Canon of Sacred Scripture, at least for the New Testament, which you use today. God used THE authority which HE put in place!

BH: a) In terms of the giving of the Scriptures, 2 Tim 3:16-17, the
Scriptures are θεόπνευστος, "God-breathed," or given by the Spirit (πνεῦμα,
also "breath"), and as such bear the unique stamp of God's authority. It is
the job of the church to recognize and accept.

sw: 1) I have never denied the nature of Scripture! You keep throwing that red herring out there as if it means something in this debate! That is not and has NEVER been the subject of this debate. 2) Yes, it IS "the job of the Church to recognize and accept" AND to proclaim the Scriptures and what constitutes the Scriptures for His People. Yes, when "God breathed" and did so upon His first bishops - He began the building blocks of His Church - which continues to this day in valid succession from those first bishops.

BH: b) In terms of recognizing the Scriptures, the witness of the Spirit so
that the church, and individual members thereof, can recognize that
authority.

sw: And therein lies the folly of Protestantism and sola scriptura. It is NOT left to "individual members" - it was left to the overseers, our bishops, to be that authority which recognizes the Scriptures for what they ARE.

BH: 3) Speaking of authority, you are right, it has been about proper authority
since the Reformation.

sw: Well, thank you... it IS about proper authority, but it predates the so-called "Reformation" by some 1500 years!

BH: Is the locus of authority the Scriptures, the
God-given canon of the church, or is the church itself? The Reformation
answer is the Scriptures.

sw: And back to the point you continue to avoid... you can't even KNOW what IS Scripture - at least not in whole (some parts are rather obvious) without the authority of the Church. Scripture ALONE is a fallacy. No book, or set of books, interprets itself or is validly self-proclaiming. As we have discussed before, NO WHERE does Scripture claim it is or is to be the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church.

BH: 4) The Reformers did not "throw out several books," but properly recognized
that those several books did not accord with the analogia fidei. They also
had historical precedent in figures no less weighty than Jerome and
Athanasius, and also found internal biblical support for the canon they
accepted.

sw: A lot of assertions here, with absolutely no substance. Would you care to try to document your assertions? Luther, among others, did indeed "throw out" books which were previously accepted in the Christian canon - and REMAIN accepted by those faithful to THE Church which Jesus Christ Himself built. Luther, Calvin, etc. came around and built NEW churches which answered to a different, previously unheard of authority and began preaching a "different gospel" - just as Scripture itself warns us that men one day would do!

BH: 5) That the ancient church properly recognized the NT Scriptures as
Scriptures is truly something to be thankful for, but passive recognition is
not the same thing as authoritative determination. The Scriptures have
objective existence and authority even when people fail to recognize them.

sw: It was far more than passive recognition! The Early Church had several differing canons... if this were a mere passive recognition, how does one explain the variations? The fact is the Church was ACTIVELY exercising authority in establishing the Christian Canon of Sacred Scripture throughout the first 400 years of Christendom and then for then next 1000 years there were NO authorized translations of Scripture which did not include the Deuterocanonicals, then when Protestants were actively attempting to limit the Christian canon the Church ACTIVELY and dogmatically stated THE Canon for faithful Christians REMAINED the same canon used in St. Jerome's Old Latin Vulgate. These are FACTS, Barry which, frankly, I do not see how you can possibly deny!

>sw: Now, if you TRULY believe that all God did was leave us a book - then
>why did it take over 300 years to compile this book into one volume/canon?

BH: Why has it taken 2,000+ years for the Lord to return?

sw: Let's not play the subject changing game, please.

BH: Why does it take a
lifetime (and according to Catholics, a lifetime+), for full sanctification
to take place in the life of a believer?

sw: The process of sanctification is not in question here - rather - we're talking about what YOU claim to be the "sole infallible rule of faith for Christians." That concept is not only NOT what was in practice by the Early Church - it's CONTRARY to Scripture wherein we are told of ANOTHER infallible authority! Of course I speak of Matthew 16:18-19 and 18:18 wherein a specific group of MEN were granted authority to bind or loose WHATSOEVER THEY CHOSE! There's NO LIMIT to what they COULD bind or loose in the terminology of "WHATSOEVER!" And if WHATSOEVER they bound or loosed was also bound or loosed in Heaven - then that binding/loosing HAS to be INFALLIBLE, unless you subscribe to a theology wherein error could be bound/loosed in Heaven! This is SCRIPTURE telling you of ANOTHER INFALLIBLE AUTHORITY!
Again, I'm not going to play the subject changing game with you - the economy of sanctification is NOT the subject of THIS debate. I have no problem discussing that process with you, but not in THIS thread.

BH: The Lord has always chosen to work
through historical processes to accomplish his purposes.

sw: Always? He chose 12 men, one of whom turned out to be "a devil" (His word), and built His Church, just as He promised He would. He didn't wait 1500 years to build that Church! Those twelve were selected and they have valid successors in their office (bishops) TO THIS DAY! If you want to talk about "history" - you lose this debate 6 ways from Saturday!

>sw: While this canon was in flux - what was THE authority for Christians? Keep
>in mind as well, the ONLY copies of Scripture at the time were HAND-WRITTEN
>and VERY SCARCE! Every Christian home did not have a "Bible" - in whole or
>in part - but every Christian community DID have THE CHURCH! They had their
>bishop and priests and deacons, etc., but the ONLY place they would have
>SEEN a "Bible" or HEARD it READ - would have been IN CHURCH. And again, for
>300 years that "canon" fluctuated and different churches had different
>canons - until the mid to late 4th century! THE Church stuck to THAT canon
>and then, over 1000 years later, as Protestants were editing the
Canon - THE Church dogmatically, with all the scriptural authority of God,
declared St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate canon of the late 4th century to be THE
Christian Canon so that faithful Christians could no longer dispute it.

BH: Again, the Lord works through historical processes and circumstances. One
does not have to own a Bible or even be able to read in order to come under
the authority of the Scriptures. The Scriptures nevertheless existed, and
those who read the word and heard the word read and proclaimed were expected
to bow to the authority of the Spirit speaking through the Scriptures just
as the reader today who downloads his various translations and has several
hard copies in his house. In fact, the authority of the word preached is an
important part of the Reformed understanding of how Scripture is to be
applied in the church.

sw: You didn't answer my question! What was THE authority for Christians during the time in which the canon was in flux? Are you saying that at one point in the "historical process" that St. Clement's epistles were just as authoritative as St. Paul's? St. Clement's epistles are part of several of the early canons!

>sw: So, the Protestant position would indeed be that God left the Church
>rudderless. To continue the sailing analogy, He did not leave them without
>sails (Scripture being the sails), but without a rudder (the Church) there
>would be little guidance - and thus casting adrift into differing
>interpretations of Scripture creates schism and heresy... like the Arians,
>etc. who indeed based their heresy on a false interpretation of Scripture.
>While a ship may have many sails (books of the Bible) it will only have one
>rudder.

The ancient Arians, if what we have reported of them is valid, based their
heresy more on philosophical and theological grounds than what anyone today
would consider a proper exegesis of Scripture. Modern Arians, such as the
JW's, have to go to extraordinary lengths to promote their heresy, even to
the point of producing a fallacious version of the Bible twisted solely to
support their several errors.

sw: Upon WHAT authority do you claim the Arians, ancient or modern, are the ones who are off-based? Why is YOUR claim any more valid than theirs? They would claim you (and me too) have "gone to extraordinary lengths to promote your/our heresy!" They claim it is OUR translations which are falsely produced and "twisted" to support our errors (namely the Trinity).

>sw: It is my hope and prayer that one day you will stop resisting this
>authority which God indeed put in place as the rudder.

BH: Pray all you want. Sometimes God's answer is to change the one praying, not
the one prayed for... :)

sw: Thank you, I will continue my prayers for you (and others) who have lost the "rudder" which Jesus Christ Himself put in place for His People.

In the spirit of the Holy Family, Jesus, Mary and Joseph, (in JMJ),
Scott<<<

****
This message originated in the CatholicDebateForum on Yahoogroups.
All rights reserved on messages posted to this forum, however
permission is granted to copy messages to other forums, providing
this footer remains attached to the message.
To visit this group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/catholicdebateforum/
****

BOM=Return of the Jedi

2011-10-28T11:54:00.001-07:00

A humorous look at comparing the BOM to the Return of the Jedi...

Doomsday Passes - Again

2011-10-22T21:21:00.000-07:00

Well, Harold Camping had predicted the world would end - again - on October 21, which was yesterday. I guess since you're reading this today you can be assured he was wrong - again. Not that I have taken any of his predictions seriously - I'm just pointing out an extreme example of sola scriptura gone too far.

Why Was Luther Wrong? (Part 1)

2011-10-16T19:39:00.002-07:00

Why Was Luther Wrong?

The primary reason Luther was wrong is due to his rejection of due authority which God Himself put in place. I can hear the Protestants, especially the Lutherans now, stating how Luther was right because he stood up to corrupted authority. To a point, I have to agree! There WERE some problems in the Catholic hierarchy at the time and there was definitely some need for "reform." Now we can banter all around about how "wrong" each side was - but ultimately you do not "reform" a church when you're no longer part of it and WANT no part of it!

The other thing we must consider is that Luther was not really this "Lone Ranger" standing up for a cause. In reality the German princes did not like the amount of power the Catholic Church had in Germany so they used Luther as a pawn in their battle with Rome. The found a very willing accomplice in Luther. The chaos which ensued before, during and after the Peasants War was successful in disrupting the unity of those who may have remained loyal to the Catholic Church - this played right into the hands of the quite willing German princes. The point being, there were some quite political reasons for Germany's revolt against the Catholic Church - and NOT solely Luther's 95 Theses.

The Errors of Luther (condemned by Pope Leo X on June 15, 1520 via papal bull Exsurge Domini).

1. It is a heretical opinion, but a common one, that the sacraments of the New Law give pardoning grace to those who do not set up an obstacle.

The sacraments of the New Law, especially the Sacrament of Penance (Reconciliation) does indeed provide pardoning grace for those who do not set up an obstacle! If ones confession is contrite and not withholding sin - then the confessee indeed receives pardoning grace (Sanctifying Grace) and his soul is made pure again through the absolution given by one validly empowered to grant absolution. (John 20:23)

2. To deny that in a child after baptism sin remains is to treat with contempt both Paul and Christ.

While a child may be released from Original Sin by the Sacrament of Baptism (another sacrament which bestows pardoning grace to those who do not set up an obstacle, which an infant could not do) this does not change the fact that the child has a corrupt/fallen nature.

3. The inflammable sources of sin, even if there be no actual sin, delay a soul departing from the body from entrance into heaven.

It is possible, but maybe improbable, that one may be in such a state of grace at the time of their death that there is no impediment for entering Heaven. We know of at least two such souls, from the Old Testament, who did not even die - and were bodily assumed into Heaven (Enoch and Elijah).

4. To one on the point of death imperfect charity necessarily brings with it great fear, which in itself alone is enough to produce the punishment of purgatory, and impedes entrance into the kingdom.

Luther seemed to have a great struggle with his own fears and sins and it is definitely an error to impute his fears upon others.

5. That there are three parts to penance: contrition, confession, and satisfaction, has no foundation in Sacred Scripture nor in the ancient sacred Christian doctors.

The first two are obvious - there can be no forgiveness if one is not contrite and does not confess his sins to one empowered to forgive sins (John 20:23). As for "satisfaction" - I must assume Luther refers to "doing the penance" - which is really part of contrition for in doing the penance one demonstrates beyond the mere words that they are contrite.

6. Contrition, which is acquired through discussion, collection, and detestation of sins, by which one reflects upon his years in the bitterness of his soul, by pondering over the gravity of sins, their number, their baseness, the loss of eternal beatitude, and the acquisition of eternal damnation, this contrition makes him a hypocrite, indeed more a sinner.

For a "General Confession" one would go back throughout their life to reflect upon all sins, but this would only be done ONCE - not repeatedly. Once absolution is given, sins are forgiven. It is my perception that Luther had a real problem with sin and just how forgiveness was imparted to those who follow Christ.

7. It is a most truthful proverb and the doctrine concerning the contritions given thus far is the more remarkable: "Not to do so in the future is the highest penance; the best penance, a new life."

One could use that as a self-imposed penance - but the "highest penance" is that which comes from your confessor! It is THAT penance which demonstrates true contrition and ultimately forgiveness of sins through the Sacrament of Penance - how could any penance be "higher" than that which is part of a Sacrament instituted by Christ to dispense grace?

8. By no means may you presume to confess venial sins, nor even all mortal sins, because it is impossible that you know all mortal sins. Hence in the primitive Church only manifest mortal sins were confessed.

It is the responsibility of the faithful Christian to not willfully withhold any mortal sin from the confessional! If one willfully does so then this person is not truly contrite for their sins - and thus rather than enjoying the graces bestowed by the Sacrament of Penance - they would actually be heaping coals of judgment upon themselves in not making a worthy or valid confession. Now, if a mortal sin happened to slip ones mind and was not confessed - it is STILL FORGIVEN in the absolution, for Christ through His priest declares ALL your sins are forgiven! If such a sin were later remembered and it concerned the person, then they should meet with their confessor to discuss it - and not necessarily in a formal confession (but it may turn into that, depending upon how the confessor feels).

9. As long as we wish to confess all sins without exception, we are doing nothing else than to wish to leave nothing to God's mercy for pardon.

This is an error because the desire to confess all sins without exception is PRECISELY throwing ourselves at the Mercy Seat of God and begging forgiveness!

10. Sins are not forgiven to anyone, unless when the priest forgives them he believes they are forgiven; on the contrary the sin would remain unless he believed it was forgiven; for indeed the remission of sin and the granting of grace does not suffice, but it is necessary also to believe that there has been forgiveness.

This is not true because the priest need not believe sins are forgiven! If the priest, speaking alter christus (as Christ) declares the sins forgiven - ultimately it is not the priest who forgives the sin - but Christ Himself THROUGH the priest.

(End of Part 1)

Can Romney Win?

2011-10-13T11:55:00.002-07:00

With Romney being a Mormon, do you think he could gain enough votes to actually win? It's fairly common knowledge that one cannot win the presidency without winning the South. With the South being so heavy with Southern Baptists and other Fundamentalists, does a Mormon really stand a chance of winning?

Objectively, and secularly, I think Romney would make a very good president, I just think he has a huge gorilla on his back.

That being said, similar things were said about John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, and many didn't think he'd stand a chance of winning, especially in the South. That is likely why Lyndon B. Johnson, a Southerner, was selected as Kennedy's running mate.

Your thoughts? Feel free to add a comment.

Did Mary Die?

2011-10-11T20:43:00.001-07:00

Often I have seen Protestants try to "make hay" over this discussion. They like to point out various Catholics who disagree on this matter. One such discussion I stumbled across on Beggars All. On BA, Mr. Swan quotes a Catholic blogger named "Shelly" who quotes from MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS (MD):

"Venerable to us, O Lord, is the festivity of this day on which the holy Mother of God suffered temporal death, but still could not be kept down by the bonds of death, who has begotten your Son our Lord incarnate from herself."

But! What Mr. Swan appears to be a bit ignorant of is the fact that the definition is NOT the entire document! That which is protected by the charism of infallibility is NOT the entire document - rather it is ONE SENTENCE within that document! This is THAT sentence:

by the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma:

that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.

The earlier commentary, even though it is from His Holiness, Pope Pius XII, and within the same document as the definition - is just that - Pope Pius' personal commentary on the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. All the definition states is that she completed the course of her earthly life. It does not state whether she died before being bodily assumed into Heaven - only that she was thusly assumed.

Another point worthy of note... the quote "Shelly" uses from MD is actually Pope Pius XII quoting from Sacramentarium Gregorianum - of Adrian I, which he sent to Emperor Charlemagne. Clearly it can be assumed that Pope Pius XII believed, along with Adrian I, that the Blessed Virgin Mary suffered temporal death - as all humans have and will (saving those who may be "raptured" - but that's a whole 'nother discussion!). The pope sharing his beliefs in MD does not equate to those beliefs being declared infallible. Again, the ONLY part of MD which is to be considered infallible is THE DEFINITION - which is ONE SENTENCE from section 44 of that document.

Eastern Icon of the Dormition

Personally, I lean to the side that she indeed died - however - the Eastern Catholic (and Orthodox) tradition for this "feast day" is that the Blessed Virgin Mary "slept" - and in fact, the Eastern title of the feast day is "The Dormition of the Theokotos" (The Falling Asleep of the God Bearer). That could be a bit misleading (it was for me for a while) for that "sleep" is in reality of their tradition the "sleep of death." Part of this tradition is that the Blessed Virgin went into this "sleep of death" in the presence of the Apostles and was buried - but St. Thomas was missing. He, wanting to see her one more time, convinced the others to open her grave and there it was found her grave was empty - she had been taken.

Who Is Drawn?

2011-10-08T09:59:00.000-07:00

John 6: "⁴⁴ No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws them, and I will raise them up at the last day." (NIV)

Calvinists like to use this verse to "prove" predestination, but in the context of St. John's Gospel, who exactly is it who is "drawn?"

John 12: "³² And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.” (NIV)

Jesus Christ was "lifted up" upon the Cross - and thus "all people" are drawn to Him! So much for "drawing" only "the Elect!"

Let's look more at the context of John 6:

Jesus Feeds the Five Thousand - 1-15

Jesus does not discriminate who receives the blessing of the multiplied loaves and fishes - ALL are fed. Jesus demonstrates His authority over matter in multiplying the fish and the loaves for the five thousand gathered.

Jesus Walks On Water - 16-24

Jesus again demonstrates his authority over physical matter.

Jesus declares Himself to be the Bread of Life and Commands Us To Eat His Flesh and Drink His Blood (repeatedly) - 25-59

Jesus' theme throughout this section is food and bread to eat comparing this to the Bread of Life, which is His flesh. It is also within this context which Jesus refers to those who are drawn by the Father and that no one can come to the Him unless they are so drawn. The drawing is through the Bread of Life - being raised up on the Cross, as John clearly tells us in his twelfth chapter. Back to the sixth chapter, repeatedly Jesus demands that we partake in His Flesh and Blood or we have NO LIFE in us. One must DETRACT from what is written to say this is symbolic language! No, it would be too EASY for us to just accept this as symbolic, but rather this is a HARD TEACHING to accept! What of those who say it is a "hard teaching?"

Many of His Disciples Turn and Walk With Him No More - 60-69

Jesus doesn't stop them as they're walking away and yell out, "Hey, wait, I was speaking figuratively!" No, He lets them walk away - for they DID UNDERSTAND HIM RIGHTLY and though they understood what He was telling them - they refused to ACCEPT the teaching and walked away from Him.

Even Though Jesus Himself chose The Twelve Apostles - He Declares One of Them is a Devil - 70-71.

He speaks of Judas Iscariot here. If even one whom God Himself has chosen can fail, so can others. This does not negate the role of all those who were selected for the bishoprick, for the eleven remaining, remained faithful to Him and His Church.

Jesus Gives Himself in the Eucharist when He declares, "This IS My body" and "This IS My blood." There is nothing symbolic in the way He states this and gives us the opportunity to fulfill what He commanded in John 6!

Nat Windsor Photography

2011-09-28T01:05:00.002-07:00

If you happen to live in the Colorado Springs area and are in need of a GREAT photographer, check out my daughter-in-law! She truly has a fantastic eye for photography! You won't be disappointed!

http://natwindsorphotography.com

natwindsorphotography.com

Nathalie Windsor

Hallelujah?

2011-09-28T00:31:00.000-07:00

Last night I was pointed to a video on Facebook of an 8 year old girl, Rhema Marvanne, with a great voice singing "Hallelujah" (the version you can hear in one of the Shrek movies). It sounds like she's singing for the Lord, but the lyrics of that song begin with King David's "secret chord, which pleased the Lord" then says "but you don't really care for music, do ya." Next it goes into King David's great sin. Then she sings, "I know that there's a God above..." but the written lyrics in the video say "Well maybe there's a god above..." and goes on to say "the only thing I learned from love was how to shoot somebody who'd out drew ya..." The final verse I have mixed feelings... is it a loss of faith in the "cold and broken hallelujah," or is it someone who has found faith in their darkest hour? In short, the song throws mixed signals... but it's an 8 year old with a wonderful voice singing something from Shrek, maybe that's all one should take from it?
Here's Rhema's video:

The original scene from Shrek (not great video quality, but the sound is ok). In the movie it depicts Shrek's darkest hour - when he's giving up on Fiona. Ok, it's Disney, so it all works out, but the underlying message behind this song still bugs me. Here's that video:

Here's another from Rhema which is, IMHO, a bit more appropriate:

Cessationism?

2011-09-24T11:11:00.000-07:00

Barry Hofstetter wrote on his blog:

Cessationism in one sentence...Tuesday, July 12, 2011 12:12:11 PM
"The purpose of miracles in general in the Bible is to reveal God's power in terms of the progress of redemptive history. Word revelation and deed revelation are intimately related. With the completion of Christ's work through the ascension there is no more need for continuing revelation, and hence no more need for the kind of revelatory miracles found in the Bible."
Now, since I wrote that, it actually has to be three sentences. Christ's works in establishing the church continues through the giving of the Spirit and the inscripturation of the apostolic deposit into what we know as the NT. Christ continued to work miracles through his apostles, but now that the foundation is established (Eph 2:20-21), these types of miracles have inded (sic) ceased.

Have miracles of God truly ceased? Speaking as one who has witnessed miracles of God in my own family, I say such a statement is nonsense! I'll witness to TWO of the miracles in our family, there have been more:

Miracle #1: Son had spinal meningitis when he was just a few months old. We were out of town when he got sick, about 2 hours from home. We rushed home, called the doctor, but it was a weekend. Before he called back we took him straight to the emergency room - where they told us if we had waited even another hour, our son would not be alive. Well, he was "alive" but that was the good news. The bad news was that the meningitis was so progressed that IF he survived the treatments, the disease would likely leave him blind or deaf or severely mentally retarded. On top of that, since he was SO sick the amount of antibiotics they needed to attack the disease with would likely attack "healthy" cells too, which could leave him blind, deaf or severely mentally retarded! The "cure" was potentially as bad as the disease!

Well, we prayed and prayed. We petitioned all our friends and family to pray. We received word from a friend of one of our family members, "Your son will be just fine." Watching the doctors take a hand drill like a woodworker would have in his toolbox and drilling through my son's skull to relieve the pressure building up on his brain, made such assurances hard to accept - but we did accept it, and continued to pray and claim our son's healing.

Our son recovered from the disease and not only with perfect vision and hearing - but NO mental retardation whatsoever! Praise the Lord! And all praise does go to Him, for medical science gave us only a grim outlook but God gave us our son back! He's healthy as can be, a math wiz and is currently serving our country in the U.S. Navy.

Miracle #2: Our daughter stopped breathing when she was just 17 days old. My wife walked in and found her in the cradle lifeless and turning blue. She immediately went into autopilot and recalled the CPR she had learned years previously as a Girl Scout. Somehow while performing CPR, she dialed 911 and got help on the way. At the hospital they found an abnormality in the white matter of her brain. The doctor diagnosed her with Leuko Dystraphy, a degenerative brain disorder for which there is no cure. We got the prayer chains going again! Two weeks later an MRI scan of her brain showed NO abnormalities AT ALL! She had been "cured" of something for which there is NO cure!

There are SO MANY MORE miracles I could share, and even more details related to the above miracles, but I'll save some for another time. The point is, you'll NEVER get me to say the miracles of God have gone into cessation!

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Self Authentication of Scripture?

2011-09-23T23:26:00.002-07:00

A discussion of this topic began back on August 26th in the Catholic Debate Forum (hereafter "CDF" - link to first post in that thread) wherein it was asked:

How do you KNOW what comprises the New Testament? The New Testament does not self-authenticate its canon, this was done by the Church.

The discussion soon went into one of the "autopistic" nature of Scripture. I am sharing this here because it almost seems like a deliberate tactic being used by the Calvinist challenger I was (still am) facing in CDF, and we (Catholics) should be on the watch for this. Let us start by presenting definitions of the terminology. Before continuing, however, please make note of the first question in this thread, we'll get back to that, I promise.

Autopistic: "Scripture's believability is not based not upon (the authority of) the church but the Spirit's external witness in Scripture and internal witness in Christians. Although Scripture is autopistic, that is, it carries its own credibility and evokes respect for its inherent majesty, it does not seriously affect believers until the testimony of the Spirit seals it upon their hearts (Inst. 1.7.5)." (Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith, McKim and Wright, p. 397).

Calvin:
Scripture bears its own authentication
Let it therefore be held as fixed, that those who are inwardly taught by the Holy Spirit acquiesce implicitly in Scripture; that Scripture carrying its own evidence along with it, deigns not to submit to proofs and arguments, but owes the full conviction with which we ought to receive it to the testimony of the Spirit. Enlightened by him, we no longer believe, either on our own judgement or that of others, that the Scriptures are from God; but, in a way superior to human judgement, feel perfectly assured - as much so as if we beheld the divine image visibly impressed on it -that it came to us, by the instrumentality of men, from the very mouth of God. We ask not for proofs or probabilities on which torest our judgement, but we subject our intellect and judgement to it as too transcendent for us to estimate. This, however, we do, not in the manner in which some are wont to fasten on an unknown object, which, as soon as known, displeases, but because we have a thorough conviction that, in holding it, we hold unassailable truth; not like miserable men, whose minds are enslaved by superstition, but because we feel a divine energy living and breathing in it - an energy by which we are drawn and animated to obey it, willingly indeed, and knowingly, but more vividly and effectually than could be done by human will or knowledge. (Institutes 1.7.5)
The word is similar in nature and in meaning to "autopsy" which means "Examination of a cadaver to determine or confirm the cause of death" (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language qtd. here). In other words, the medical examiner determines from the evidence within the body itself to determine or confirm the cause of death." Similarly, but not exactly the same, Protestants (primarily Calvinists it seems) use the term "autopistic" to mean the body of Scripture itself, since it is the Word of God, is by its nature authoritative and evokes respect.

"Two approaches exist as to the credibility of the scriptural revelation. Fideists insist that the Scripture and the revelation it contains is self-authenticating, that is, autopistic. The infallibility of the Bible must be presupposed and can be because the Scripture says it is inspired and the Spirit accredits it.   (Basic Theology, Ryrie, Charles C., Victor Books, Wheaton, IL, 1987, electronic media. qtd. on: http://bible.org/seriespage/bible-written-word-god ).

Axiopistic: "Empiricists, on the other hand, stress the intrinsic credibility of the revelation of the Bible as being worthy of belief, that is, axiopistic. The Bible’s claim to authority is not in itself proof of its authority; rather there exist factual, historical evidences which constitute the Bible’s credentials and validate the truth of its message" (ibid).   Ryrie goes on to say, "My feeling is that there is truth in both approaches so that both can and should be used."

Self-Authenticating: "The act of proving that something, usually a document, is genuine or true without the use of extrinsic evidence." (Webster's New World Law Dictionary Copyright © 2010 by Wiley Publishing, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.)

Discussion from CDF:
Alright, now that we have the terminology defined, let's examine how the discussion from CDF unfolded. It is important to set forth the premise of the definitions at hand before progressing in the discussion/debate. As you recall, the question first asked was "How do you KNOW what comprises the New Testament? The New Testament does not self-authenticate its canon, this was done by the Church." The question being asked is not "Is the Bible, in general, self-authenticating?" No, it is specific in seeking an answer as to how anyone, Protestant, Catholic or otherwise, can KNOW - with certainty, what IS the Canon of Sacred Scripture - and more specifically at this time, what comprises the canon of the New Testament. The challengers in CDF (there were/are two of them in this discussion) kept going back to this autopistic and rather circular response - but never really answered the question at hand. The autopistic definition they adhere to is actually something a faithful Catholic can adhere to as well! Since Scripture IS the Word of God (a point on which both sides agree) then without any other extrinsic evidence, it is to be accepted and obeyed, even honored or revered as such. The problem Calvinism has with this, as with most of Protestantism, is they take this autopistic view of Scripture to the extreme of sola scriptura, which is also not taught BY Scripture anywhere within its pages! Let us not lose focus though! One can see how easily this topic can get distracted. The subject is NOT sola scriptura nor the authority of Scripture! No, the specific question asked is "How do you KNOW what comprises the New Testament?" And, the rather short initial posting answers, "The New Testament does not self-authenticate its canon, this was done by the Church."

If one objectively reads through the posts on CDF what they will see is precisely what I'm describing here... the Protestant apologists never deal with the actual topic - but get focused upon the authority of Scripture by the autopistic nature of Scripture. At one point one of the challengers DOES admit that the process took nearly 400 years to finalize the canon, but then insists the reason he is in that discussion at all is to "correct" the perception of Catholics (me specifically) of the autopistic view of Scripture held by Calvin and Calvinists. When I confronted him with the fact that this view is actually something Catholics can and do agree with - rather than concede this is true and actually answer the question at hand - this apologist (who moderates one of the largest "Reformed" discussion groups on the Internet) bows out of the discussion. His diversion did not work out for him, so he quits on that discussion.

THE subject of this discussion remains unanswered:
How do you KNOW what comprises the New Testament? The New Testament does not self-authenticate its canon, this was done by the Church.

Amen.

Let us end on this note: "Qui tacet consentit"

Chesterton, Heretics and Skeptics

2011-09-11T19:00:00.001-07:00

At the end of his book Heretics, Chesterton wrote: “When [man] drops one doctrine after another in a refined scepticism, when he declines to tie himself to a system, when he says that he has outgrown definitions, when he says that he no longer believes in finality, when, in his own imagination, he sets himself up as God, holding no form or creed but contemplating all, then he is by that very process sinking slowly backwards into the vagueness of the vagrant animals and the unconsciousness of the grass.” Thus he denounced, with his robust common sense, the era of universal suspicion into which modernity has plunged the human mind.

Bishop Fellay Going to Rome

2011-09-11T18:03:00.000-07:00

General House of the Society of Saint Pius X: Bishop Fellay will be received by Cardinal Levada on September 14, 2011

Cardinal William Joseph Levada, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, invited Bishop Bernard Fellay, Superior General of the Society of Saint Pius X, and his two assistants, Father Niklaus Pfluger and Father Alain-Marc Nély, to meet him in the Palace of the Holy Office on September 14, 2011. In his letter of invitation, Cardinal Levada noted that the purpose of this meeting is first to make an assessment of the theological discussions conducted by the experts of the Congregation for the Faith and of the Society of Saint Pius X over the past two academic years, and then to consider the future prospects.

As Bishop Alfonso de Galarreta recalled on the occasion of the recent priestly ordinations in Ecône [June 29; 2011], “We are Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman. If Rome is the head and the heart of the Catholic Church, we know that (…) the crisis will necessarily be resolved in Rome and by Rome. Consequently, the little good we will do in Rome is much greater than the great deal of good that we will do elsewhere.” With this deep conviction Bishop Fellay will go [to Rome] at the invitation of the Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
(Source : SSPX/MG – DICI : 08/30/11)

Coredemptrix

2011-09-02T16:37:00.004-07:00

We've seen plenty non-Catholics and especially anti-Catholics attacking the title given to Our Lady of "Coredemptrix." Here are just a few examples:

http://blog.beliefnet.com/pontifications/2009/05/the-mary-heresy-papal-support.html

http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/coredeem.htm (James McCarthy's article reprinted)

http://home.comcast.net/~davidriggs01/mary01.htm

(Errant/misguided zeal of {old school} James White)

White writes a whole book on this topic: Mary-Another Redeemer?

So, on to my reply...

Is Mary "Another Redeemer?"

The short answer is NO! That is also NOT what the title states! The prefix "co-" does NOT mean "another" - it means "with." Mary works WITH Jesus Christ who is THE Redeemer of the world (a concept that White would reject as his brand of Calvinism posits that Jesus only redeemed The Elect, and not the world). Mary does not replace Jesus Christ, nor is she considered to be equal to Him (though White posits that is the goal of Catholicism in the above video). McCarthy emphatically states, "There is One Redeemer, Not Two" in his article (linked above) and Catholicism AGREES with him! This whole concept of "Another Redeemer" is nothing more than a Straw Man (invalid) argument put forth by those who are either ignorant of or acrimonious to Catholic teaching on this matter.

You're a Co-Redeemer Too! Well, You Should Be!
I would go so far as to state that we're ALL called to be co-redeemers with Christ! Whatever work we do to help bring others to Christ is a co-redemptive work. What we do, or the Blessed Virgin has done, to assist in building up the Kingdom of Heaven does not make any of us equals to the saving/redemptive work of Jesus Christ - and by the same token does not lessen the reality that we may have contributed to this building up. Are we not to go out and do as He did?

Not much more really needs to be said here - but if you are reading this and have more questions - feel free to leave a comment and you will receive a direct answer.

In JMJ,
Scott<<<

Other Articles Defending the Title of Co-Redemptrix:

http://www.catholicsource.net/articles/coredemptrix.html

http://www.marycoredemptrix.com/coredemptrix.html

http://www.voxpopuli.org/response_to_7_common_objections_part1.php

http://catholicexchange.com/2007/05/25/97557/

[Further Reading - added by Cathmom5:]
Does "Co-Redemptrix" or "Mediatrix" Mean "Co-Savior?" - David MacDonald of CatholicBridge.com

Mary Was United to Jesus on the Cross - Pope Blessed John Paul II
Mary Freely Cooperated in God's Plan - Pope Blessed John Paul II
Mary Has Role in Jesus' Saving Mission - Pope Blessed John Paul II

Our Lady's Cooperation in the Redemption - Fr. William Most
Unscriptural Marian Doctrine? - Fr. William Most

Luther Consorting With the Devil?

2011-08-22T19:45:00.000-07:00

Earlier this year (when I was a bit pre-occupied with the passing of my daughter) James Swan wrote an article allegedly "Helping Catholic Answers with a Luther Quote." Swan dismisses the CA (and Fr. O'Hare) criticism by saying:

"Our friend at Catholic Answers is reading Patrick O'Hare's The Facts About Luther. The citation involves one of Luther's disputations with the Devil. As explained below, this was a story being told by Luther as a literary device, not a personal experience. Of course, Father O'Hare missed this."

One needs to ask ones self, "Is ANY consortia with the Devil a good tactic for Christian apologetics?" Whether this was a literal discussion with the Devil or a "literary device" seems to make little difference - or shouldn't to the objective reader. Fr. O'Hare hasn't missed anything here.

Context: (from above link)

Once I awakened at midnight and the devil began the following disputation with me in my heart (for he is able to make many a night bitter and troublesome for me): “Listen, you very learned fellow, do you know that you said private masses for fifteen years almost daily? Did you not in reality commit sheer idolatry with such a mass and did you not worship there simply bread and wine, rather than Christ’s body and blood, and enjoin others to worship them?” I reply: “But I am a consecrated cleric; I have received chrism and consecration from the bishop, and, in addition, have done all this because of the command to do so and in obedience to it. Why have I not performed the consecration validly, since I have spoken the words in earnest and said mass with all possible devotion? You certainly know this.” “Yes,” he said, “that is true; but the Turks and the heathen also perform everything in their churches because of the command to do so and in earnest obedience to it. The priests of Jeroboam at Dan and Beersheba performed everything perhaps with greater devotion than the true priests at Jerusalem [I Kings 13:33]. What if your consecration, chrism, and consecrating are also unchristian and false like those of the Turks and the Samaritans?”
At this point I truly broke into a sweat and my heart began to tremble and throb. The devil knows how to muster his arguments well and to make an impression with them, and he possesses a convincing, powerful way of speaking. Such disputations do not permit time for lengthy and numerous deliberations, but the answers come in quick succession. At such times I have seen it happen that one finds people dead in bed in the morning. He can kill the body. This is one thing; but he can also scare the soul with disputes so that it almost departs from the body, as he has quite often very nearly done to me. Now he had challenged me in this dispute, and I did not really want to be guilty of such a great number of abominations in the presence of God but wanted to defend my innocence. So I listened to him to hear the grounds on which he opposed my consecration and my consecrating.
First, he said, you know that you did not rightly believe in Christ and as far as your faith was concerned you were no better than a Turk; for the Turk and I myself, along with all devils, also believe everything which is written about Christ (James 3 [2:19]), that is, that he was born, died, and ascended into heaven. However, none of us takes comfort in him or has confidence in him as a Savior; but we fear him as a stern judge. This kind of faith and no other is the one you also had when you were consecrated a priest and said mass; and all the others, both the consecrating bishop and his ordinands, also believed this. For this reason, too, all of you turned away from Christ and depended on Mary and the saints, who had to be your consolation and helpers in need rather than Christ. This you cannot deny, nor can any pope. That is why you were consecrated and have celebrated mass like heathen and not like Christians. How then were you able to effect conversion? For you were not the kind of persons who were to bring about this change.

Considering the "advice" being given by the Devil - "he" is trying to convince Luther how "bad" or "unChristian" the Catholic Mass and any devotion to Mary and the Saints are. Now step back a moment... if the DEVIL thinks it is "bad" - then shouldn't the CHRISTIAN do the exact OPPOSITE? Again, whether a literal consortia or a literary device - what our ENEMY proposes - WE SHOULD OPPOSE! Yet, in Luther's dialog (whether real or imagined) he seems to be TAKING the advice, like "Yeah, that's a good point!"

Swan also writes later this year (just recently) another article answering to "Luther's Demonology" he seems to justify, or at best rationalize Luther's "literary device" with:

Luther is best understood as a religious man with a deep belief in God, and in a daily battle with the Devil. As I've read quite a large amount of Luther, it is true this cosmic battle is never completely set aside in his writings.

The problem I still have here is that in this "literary device" he (Luther) portrays himself as not in battle with the Devil, but in AGREEMENT with him!

Another author, Robert C. Croken regarding this context writes:

The devil now substantiates his position with a number of arguments. Luther's faith has been basically misplaced. Instead of trusting in Christ as his Saviour, he has put hist faith in the power to consecrate and to celebrate the Mass (WA 38, 198; LW 38, 150-51).

Note, Croken (who wrote this piece with the intention of ecumenism) substantiates Luther's consortium with the Devil. It is Satan who is telling Luther that he is not trusting in Christ - and has attacked the Mass! The central point of the Catholic religion is the Mass - so therein lies Satan's attack on Christ's Church and Luther is but a pawn in Satan's chess match. Yes, this is "just a dream" of Martin Luther - but the fact that it is expressed AND appears to be foundational in Luther's First Front, the title of Croken's book.

This power to consecrate is contrary, moreover, to the mind of Christ.

Again, the lie of Satan is propagated... for it is most certainly NOT contrary to the mind of Christ - He instituted it! Jesus took bread and wine and declared it IS His body and blood and further commanded that the Apostles "do this" (that which He just did) in memory of Him. So they too were to take bread and wine and declare "This IS My body" and "This IS My blood," speaking in the Person of Jesus Christ.

He intended that we should celebrate the sacrament in order that it might be shared with Christians and benefit them. The very word "communion" means fellowship.

Agreed! The Mass IS for the "communion" of the people! The fact that the Mass IS intended for the people does not negate the "power to consecrate." The argument has quickly digressed to a non-sequitur.

But in the Winkemesse, Luther has received the sacrament alone and has not shared it with others. Was this the purpose of his consecration (WA 38, 198-99; LW 38, 151)?

I am not sure what Croken means here by "the Winkemesse." The nearest I can tell he may mean "the Deutsche Messe" or "German Mass" - which Luther wrote in 1526, nine years after the posting of the "95 Thesis." Just a sidenote, even Luther was still calling it a "Mass" at this time.

It was also the mind of Christ that, through the celebration of the sacrament, his death would be publicly proclaimed (1 Cor. 11:26).

Agreed!

But Luther has not done this in the private Mass: alone, he has whispered to himself; alone, he has received the sacrament (WA 38, 199; LW 38, 151). Again, the sacrament was intended for the community, to strengthen Christians who share it. But in the private Mass, Luther has reversed this intention: instead of being a sacrament-priest, he has become a sacrifice-priest, offering as an individual sacrifice to God what was meant as food for others. He has made a special work, not to be shared with others unless sold to them for a price (WA 38, 199; LW 38, 152).

If we are to accept Croken's points here then again we must also accept that Luther felt it was okay to consort with the Devil, or at least through some "literary device" it is alright to accept consultation or advice from the Devil. Either way this does not bode well for Luther.

In JMJ,

Scott<<<