Answering queries from a Protestant friend

Amici,

You write about religious questions, so here's my responses.

First query was what is going on in the Catholic Church? Bergoglio seems a heretic, according to you, but also this Taylor Marshall guy. So, what gives. 

My friend, you write about religious questions, so here's my responses.

Thanks for the Taylor Marshall video about The Beast Bergi at that Candlemass address back in February of this year, where the layman stood up and contradicted Bergoglio. (And got himself escorted out for his efforts.) In his presentation, Marshall early on made a common sense observation, to wit, either Bergoglio is right in 2022 and Pius XII was wrong in 1943, or Pius was right in 1943 and Bergoglio is wrong in 2022. They can't both be right.

Indeed.

In general, one has to wonder just what Bergoglio thinks like, or what he knows, or whether he cares a whit about the Trad Catholics he is trashing out? One can ask the same question about Joe Biden, too. Or any of our governing elites in many countries. Ever listen to Neil Oliver? He discusses just this here. (Neil Oliver, When You Accept That Modern Western Government Considers Citizens Their Enemy, Then All the Outcomes Make Sense.) 

AnP: And this is true in the Churches, too.

This bizarre hated of the followers of the Modernists founders has long roots in the ecclesiastical field. "Modernist" Reformers of the 1960s on, I think, are necessarily damned. Plain and simple. They put their theories before actual people. That's evil. They did not care that the living Hell they were about to unleash would drive most Catholics from the Church. (The Church lost well over half its population of 1960.) Did they think the people would just "suffer through" and "grin and bear it"? Did they think people would just stay stuck in the pews when in the Church of their parents and grandparents sacrificed (back 2,000 years, ultimately), being decomposed into a lame imitation of modern mainstream Anglican or Luthernism.

These 1960s-1970s reformers lied and stole, breaking a number of basic commandments. Certainly, if nothing else, God had commanded them to feed His sheep, but they instead tried experiments on His flock. 

1. Yet by far the nastiest thing they did was use Traditional Catholics' deep-seated sense of duty to obey the Church as a tool they could use against such Trad Catholics. 
2. As they trashed all of Traditional Catholicism, incrementally, the one thing they kept was the traditional duty of obedience. "You have to obey us!" Yeah, right.
3. They essentially said, "You have to obey our orders to tear down the churches your grandparents sacrificed to build." In essence, "You have to obey our order to shoot yourselves." A great many did. But many did not.

This heightened the "cognitive dissonance" that has since remained far, far too strong in the Church.

Some cognitive dissonance examples:

• You're at Mass to begin with to worship God, but the priest faces you over (what's technically called) a Cranmer table. You all look at each other, like a customer and a clerk in a store.
  
• God is vertical, above us; He had to incarnate Himself to be among us, and in all its actions and prayers, the sacred liturgy promotes this – something obvious in the Traditional Latin Mass or the Eastern Liturgies. The veil between earth and heaven is pulled back and we're in the the Divine Presence.
• Yet in the "new" Mass (Novus Ordo), that is not clear at all. We do not face "East" toward God but inward, toward ourselves.
  
• Also, used to be the Incarnate God in the form of consecrated bread and wine was kept in the tabernacle on the altar, center, high, for all to see; but now He is shunted off to the side, or out in the hall. Massive cognitive dissonance. Textbook, really.
  
• The new Mass went to a three-year Biblical reading cycle so that Catholics would hear more of the Bible read at Mass, yet ironically, the new cycles leave out all the Hellfire and Damnation passages!
  
• Ironically too, the new form of the Novus Order in itself took out a HUGE portion of the daily Scripture readings that used to serve throughout the liturgy in every Mass! They took out the variable readings and much of the standing Sunday readings. (N.B. I'm always amazed at how much Holy Writ I can read in the various places it is used in every Sunday TLM Mass. So, therefore, how could they remotely claim to be promoting Bible verses when they intentionally vanished or watered down thousands of already in place Scripture verses?
• In general, nothing in the new Mass is vertical; all is horizontal. The simple message is "We're here to reaffirm ourselves and feel good about ourselves and to socialize by sharing a ceremonial meal together." They even modeled the new Offertory prayers (before the Consecration) on the old Jewish meal prayers!
  
• The sermons are certainly all as though written by some crappy psychology major in the "I'm ok, you're ok" school of psychology.
  
• On and on it goes, all pouring rivers of cognitive dissonance upon us as occurred in Noah's flood.
  

You write about Luther, Martin, doctor of theology

As for the Reformation of the 16th century, sometimes called "The Great Reformation", two things to note that most people raised Protestant don't know.

First, the Church continually cycles through "reformations" historically, about every four or five generations, sometimes more, sometimes less. Before Luther and Calvin in the 16th century, there were Sts Dominic and Francis in the 12th century. That was a very successful "reformation" that swept through the entire 13th century and only began to wane after 1300, where, in the century of the 100 Years War, the Black Death, and the Mongol invasions, and peasant revolts, you begin to see dismal, dour thinkers (William of Occam and Marsilius of Padua to name two) who would eventually lead intellectually to Luther.

• They were called Nominalists, and they believed a lot like Muslim philosophers did, such as the amazing 11th-century genius al-Ghazali (Abū Ḥāmid Muḥammad ibn Muḥammad aṭ-Ṭūsiyy al-Ġazzālīy) that God was capricious, alien, utterly "Other". (When you think of the dire times they lived it, this isn't so odd a development!)
• They believed God was unknowable, cruel, and damning. Modern-day "Modernists", on the other hand, believe "God" is just as remote, but not because He is Allah, but rather because he is evolving like everything else, and that ultimately we basically make Him up; it is this that would be Bergoglio's true belief if anyone could pry it out of him.)

But before the 11-12th century Reformation, there was a major reformation in the 10th century. The popes of that era (9th-early 10th centuries), made the Renaissance popes ALL look like saints! For example:

1. Popes John X and John XII (both 10th century) had many women and lived dissolute lifestyles, with John XII being known as a rapist, and even infamous for incest!
   
2. They called him "a Christian Caligula". And like that depraved emperor, John XII was knifed to death by an outraged husband in the midst of carnal relations with the husband's wife.
   
3. Or compare John XII with Pope Stephen VI, who, in 897, dug up his predecessor and put the corpse on trial! (Not surprisingly, the corpse lost his case!) This ended up being called the Cadaver Synod! Pope Stephen VI was later strangled to death.
   
4. As Wikipedia puts it, "Between 872 and 965, two dozen popes were appointed, and between 896 and 904 there was a new pope every year. Often, these brief papal reigns were the result of the political machinations of local Roman factions, about which few sources survive."
5. While all that was going on in Rome, in the provinces a great monastic reform was gathering steam – the Clunaic Reform – and it eventually swept into Rome.
   

So the reformation of the 10th century involved cleaning all this insanity up and establishing the College of Cardinals, who would henceforward elect a pope, rather than having him be a product of Italian Mafia-like machinations.

The Great Reformation

Now for the second point I mentioned earlier. You never hear of this stuff because The Great Reformation started in the 16th century, and the reformers of that one were not saints – Luther claimed a Christian "saint" was someone who ate hearty, pleasured the ladies with gusto, and who despite all that felt "saved"! I.e. Saved by faith alone. He boasted he could sin 100 – or was it 1000? – and doing what, exactly) times a day and it would not affect his salvation.

So those reformers harped on the Renaissance popes to justify their actions and ignored the long history of the Church. But those Renaissance popes were not depraved like the 10th century guys. None of them departed from orthodox Christian (Catholic) teachings. Personally lax, they still maintained the Deposit of Faith. They may have fought wars (like Julius II, "the warrior pope") or had long-standing mistresses and fathered children (Alexander VI had about seven kids by two different long-time mistresses, all of whom he openly acknowledged), but they didn't promote heretical teachings, as does Bergoglio today.

• Alexander VI, the second Borgia pope (family from Spain, originally) is probably the most notorious Renaissance pope. Like the other popes of that time, he was very learned and a patron of art and promoted Latin and learning in general. The historically significant writer Machiavelli dedicated his famous political essay "The Prince" to Alexander's son Cesare Borgia, himself a classic Renaissance ruler. The pope's daughter Lucrezia was famous for her blonde beauty and brilliant politics (being a governor of a city for some time) and for her many husbands, important princes. However, some modern scholars have argued that given Alexander's location at the time these were children born, they almost certainly weren't his actual kids. Before you judge him, also consider this. A visitor to Rome asked him if all the rumors about his affairs and political intrigues didn't upset him. And do you know what he said? He said, "Rome is a free city, and the citizens of Rome are free to speak their minds and say what they want." Pretty amazing, isn't it?
  

But Luther did not go the route St. Francis of Assisi went, or Saint Dominic Guzman, Luther had little (or no) patience and instead of getting local problems fixed, he kept pushing ever more extreme positions till he destroyed the Church and replaced it with his Lutheran Church creation, a state church controlled not by churchman (whether good ones or bad) but by secular princes. Mimicking him, Henry VIII did the same in England. John Calvin took over the Swiss town of Geneva and ran it like a Mideastern mullah! NO separation between Church and State.

Keep in mind, too, that the Reformers kept complaining of the Church selling indulgences (something that indeed, needed reformation) and taxing people, but the Medieval Church was the SOLE provider of welfare for the people, maintaining hospitals, old-folk homes (hospices), schools galore, including universities (something the Church created). The Church also provided work to thousands of craftsmen and masons, continually building or rebuilding ecclesiastical buildings. Millions of serfs lived safely on Church lands (treated better than secular rulers treated their own peasants), while non-serfs rented their farms from the Church.

Shakespeare has King Henry V say in Henry V, Act 4, scene 1,

Not to-day, O Lord,

O, not to-day, think not upon the fault

My father made in compassing the crown!

I Richard's body have interred anew;

And on it have bestow'd more contrite tears

Than from it issued forced drops of blood:

Five hundred poor I have in yearly pay,

Who twice a-day their wither'd hands hold up

Toward heaven, to pardon blood; and I have built

Two chantries, where the sad and solemn priests

Sing still for Richard's soul. More will I do;

Though all that I can do is nothing worth,

Since that my penitence comes after all,

Imploring pardon.

It was thus the Medieval World was built, the great cathedrals, the endless churchs, the beautiful art, schools endowed, hospitals established, the poor maintained, all indulgences pleading for the penitent giver. 

Luther's doctrine of grace destoryed it all. 

After the Reformation, the secular state took over all this and usually sold it off to rich laymen, who either ejected the free-born tenants or cracked down the serfs who couldn't leave. "Clearances" began, as in England, where the poor farmers and tradesmen where thrown off their estates.  Occasionally, the new state bureaucracies tried to provide schooling and so on, but it was nothing like it had been. Charles I of England tried to push hard for government charity and got beheaded for his troubles. And no new churches were built for a 100 years or more, either, though about half or so of Europe's artistic heritage (most of it ecclesiastical) was destroyed by Protestant mobs acting in a true Islamic spirit.

We saw the same occur after Vatican II, BTW, only with Catholic bureaucrats doing the destroying. It is called "iconoclasm": the intentional destruction of Church-related art. As part of all iconoclasm, churches are simply robbed, not just of their art, but their gold and silver, their lands, their incomes (reduced to state-provided handouts), and so on. Beautiful windows were removed. The Trappists ruling the Kentucky monastery Thomas Merton attended took out the church's windows and stored them away. 

The Reformation-era Catholic churches were truly smashed. What makes me especially angry is the destruction of the old monastic libraries. God only knows what was lost. A good example is the Beowulf Old English epic. It was found in only one manuscript written about the year 1000 (the poem itself could be 200 years older). It came to the attention of the literary world about 1650, when it was found in a private library. No one has ANY idea of where it came from. Apparently the family that had it had no clue. It's a complete mystery. But you can imagine that some Medieval Monastic library had it, and that it was looted. How many more Beowulf's were lost? We know the libraries were scattered when the secular owners who bought them from Henry VIII took them over. They didn't want old books; they wanted the land and the buildings. (Or just the lands; roofs were taken off the churches and they were left to deteriorate.) 

Of course, the big issue in the 16th century Reformation was theology; specifically, just how one is "saved"? How did that work? By "grace" or by "faith" and faith in conjunction (or not at all) with "works".

Luther came up with a novel way of understanding how Faith works, or even what it is. He had a new idea of what grace was, and of course he damned all "works" root and branch. In short, Martin Luther simply rewrote the source code of the Christian Faith. When in public debate, Johann Eck got him to say he, Luther, would trust his own judgement of Scripture over a Church Council, every jaw in the room had to drop open. One guy, a youngish academic with no parochial experience, and with a narrow Nominalist university education in a corner of Germany, claimed to know more than a parliament of Churchman, many of whom were far older and more learned, than he? Many of whom would be from wide-spread countries, too.

But that is Martin Luther in a nutshell. ("Tell them Doctor Martin Luther would have it so!" he would write later.) And when at the imperial Diet in Worms in 1521, the emperor, Kaiser Karl, Charles V himself, the most powerful ruler in all Europe, asked Luther in astonishment, "What of all our ancestors who believed in the old Faith, as it was for centuries?" Luther literally answered, "Who cares!" (Well, literally, he said, "What is that to us?" but the drift was plain as a smack in the face.)

Such was Luther.

Since he was one who started the Reformation (Jan Huss and John Wycliffe tried to do so a generation or so earlier, but the secular princes did not think to use them against the Church, as they would do with Luther), historians have painted him the best they could. But he really was neither wise nor faithful. At one point, he approved of a German prince's committing bigamy! (That got out – of course it did – and has tarnished Luther's reputation ever since.)

The Core Christian Teaching

The core Christian idea is that God incarnated Himself into the human race so that those humans who accepted Him could in turn be incarnated into God. God takes over a person via Grace, a transforming spiritual substance, changing his fundamental nature, and creating a New Creation in Christ.

This teaching is stated in many ways throughout the New Testament. Examples:
•    John 1:12 “But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (Obviously, a new creation) And of course the whole "You must be born again" colloquy in John 3.

•    2 Cor 5:17, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” (Again, a new creation) 2 Peter 1:4 might well put it best; see also Romans, 6:4, 7:6, 12:2; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:22-24; Colossians 3:8-12.

In Romans 8, St. Paul talks about receiving the spirit of sonship so that you can call God Himself "Abba", a Hebrew word meaning 'father' but specifically 'my particular father'. Obviously, to be able to do that, one is a new creation indeed.

Or obviously in the Gospel of John, chapter 1:

12 Yet to all who did receive him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God — 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but born of God.

Once you know what to look for, this truly becoming a new creation in Christ, "children of God not of natural descent...but born of God" is everywhere in the New Testament.

For two thousand years, the Church has taught the "infusion" of grace via baptism and the sacraments. Luther and Calvin, etc., taught that God merely "imputed" or "assigned" the grace of His Son to those who professed Faith in Christ. But the Historical Church, East and West, and Further East and Deep South (Egypt and Ethiopia) taught St. Paul's and St. John's New Creation in Christ as the way of salvation. The Greeks have always called it Theosis.

But Martin Luther never felt a "new creation in Christ". He always felt like old sinful Martin Luther. Nothing he did helped, no prayer, no confession, no penance. When he said Mass, he admitted he felt terrified. He hated God for not making him feel a new creation. He hated himself for being so messed up. His confessor, Johann von Staupitz said to him, "Martin, God is not angry with you, you are angry with God." All-in-all, Martin Luther is not really the kind of guy one wants to base Faith in Christ on.

Romans 3:28: "The verse that launched the Reformation"

Finally, one more bit of detail Biblical reading and we're done. Reading Roman 3, specifically verse 28: "For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works of the law," Luther took this "works of the law" set phrase to mean doing any good thing, whatsoever. None of it helps or is necessary for salvation. Therefore, one did not have to do good things to be saved. Indeed, one could "sin a 1000 times a day" and it not affect one's salvation. (Isn't that an example of cognitive dissonance in itself, though?)

The phrase "works of the law" had been debated before, however, by no one less than St. Augustine back in the Fifth Century, who argued it meant all moral law (10 Commandments or whatever). St. Jerome, his contemporary but who had wider experience and who had lived and studied with Jews at one point in his long career, said no, "works of the law" meant Jewish temple ceremony, eating kosher, being circumcised, and so on. As the phrase only appeared in St. Paul, there was no way to get a handle on it until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, one of which, dealing with ceremonial law, uses the exact phrase! This is 4QMMT, (Miqsat Ma'asei ha-Torah: Some of the Works of the Law). It was a letter written by the Essenes (a very strict Jewish sect) to the Pharisees, in order to correct the Pharisees in some of their teaching. In the title and in the letter, "works of the law" definitely means ceremonial law. So, St. Jerome was right and Augustine wrong! And of course, therefore Martin Luther was wrong. Flat out.

We also know he was wrong because of how he read New Testament authors who quoted from Old Testament writings. Luther interpreted the Romans 3:28 in light of his reading of the earlier part of Romans 3, where a succession of verses lament, "(10) There is no one righteous, not even one; (11) there is no one who understands; there is no one who seeks God. (12) All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.” (This is only a partial quote.)

Luther took these to mean no ONE PERSON in the all world was worthy, all fallen and failed. No one had sufficient grace from God! But each of these verses are from the Psalms (with one from Isaiah) and when a New Testament writer quotes an Old Testament verse, one is expected to recall the entire psalm or chapter it is in. A startling example is Our Lord on the Cross, reciting the first line from Psalm 22, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" The idea is He recited the entire psalm, or a goodly portion of it (it is long). St. John expects his readers to know this detail. Sts Matthew and Mark do not have to explain it. That's how they wrote in those days. Everything is important. (And anyway, no chapter numbers or verse numbers existed until much later.)

And thus it is that the first lines above from St. Paul's chapter 3 lament originated from Psalm 14, the one that starts, "The fool says in his heart, there is no God." But if you read the whole psalm (it isn't long), you get to this startling verse:

"(4) Do all these evildoers know nothing? They devour my people as though eating bread; they never call on the Lord. (5) But there they are, overwhelmed with dread, for God is present in the company of the righteous."

Whoa! If everyone is fallen and no good, who are these "company of the righteous"? Who are "my people"? Well, they're the good guys who keep the Faith! Not everyone everywhere is no good, then. That was in no way what old St. Paul meant. God has His righteous! (Actually, note that He always does. Remember First Kings, 19:18? "I have kept 7,000 in Israel who have not bent the knee to Ba'al".) And if you take the time and trouble to look up each psalm verse St. Paul quotes, and read the psalms they come from (and Isaiah), you'll find the SAME thing. Luther read chapter 3 COMPLETELY wrong and Protestantism was founded on a profound misunderstanding.

Now, I could go on, and will, upon request, but this is pretty long. For right now, then, Luther (and Calvin, who had in many ways a VERY different take on the Faith than Luther did, but isn't nearly as colorful or dramatic a character) were quite wrong in their Biblical exegesis.

Their sola scriptura doctrine soon split the Church into major pieces, and after the American Constitution of 1787, thousands of denominations have appeared and metastasized across the world. (The U.S. Constitution was the first to regulate religion to limbo, a personal eccentricity. The Iroquois told Ben Franklin – I read somewhere long ago – that the Founders were crazy to do this, but of course who listened to Indians?)

Hopes this helps set things in perspective.

An Préachán

"Jesus Christ’s Resurrection Is Probably The Best-Documented Historical Event Ever"

Amici,

A worthwhile article (a vignette from a book) at The Federalist is worth review. It is titled, "Jesus Christ’s Resurrection Is Probably The Best-Documented Historical Event Ever". (The 'ever' tacked on the end gives it a sort of adolescent quality, but still...)

Scott S. Powell is a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, an Intelligent Design policy think tank in (what remains of burnt-out) Seattle, Washington. Non-Christian scientists call Intelligent Design "pseudo-science" but look what our "scientists" KNOW for certain, i.e. Covid, et al. Ask a "scientist" to please produce an actual virion of the Covid-19 virus and see what sort of reaction you get.

But whatever about that, Powell, probably a Protestant, details a concise review of the evidence here about the Resurrection being truly historical. So, at this Easter, while one can read a classically orthodox Catholic essay on Our Lord's Passion, as with Fr. Zuhlsdorf here at OnePeterFive, I think it is always interesting to read about certain Christian episodes from a Protestant perspective. It shows how close and how far, how familiar and unfamiliar, the difference Protestant denominations can be from Traditional Catholicism (Vatican II Catholicism is basically the Anglican Church speaking Italian, with lavender ruffles and flourishes).

For instance, this Powell article has some full-throated recognition of the significance of the report in First Corinthians about the witnesses to the Resurrection. I.e.:

The New Testament provides accounts from multiple sources who witnessed Jesus firsthand after the resurrection. In fact, Jesus made ten separate appearances to his disciples between the resurrection and his ascension into Heaven, over a period of 40 days. Some of those appearances were to individual disciples, some were to several disciples at the same time, and once even to 500 at one time.

Powell got this from First Corinthians, an epistle famous among Catholic apologists for defending the divine nature of the Most Holy Eucharist in the second-half of chapter 11.

It is from chapter 15 that Mr. Powell got his references above. I.e.:

³ For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, ⁴ that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, ⁵ and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. ⁶ Then he appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. ⁷ Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. ⁸ Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. ⁹ For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

This reference to Our Risen Lord appearing to St. Peter (Cephas) and then the Twelve leaves out the women. Christ first appeared to Mary Magdalene (Mk.16:9, Jn. 20:15-17). He next appeared to: "Joanna and Mary, the mother of James, and the other women with them" (Mt. 28:9-10). But St. Paul doesn't mention that. Women's testimony had little worth in Semitic cultures. In the second chapter of the Quran, Al-Baqarah, verse 2:282 provides a basis for the rule that two women are the equivalent of one man in providing a witness testimony in financial situations. In some Muslim traditional cultures, even this is too much; they do not accept women's testimony at all, unless a man can testify along with them.

Alright, so aside from that, St. Paul, in this earliest written (spring of 56 A.D.; cool how they can know that) reference to the Resurrection (unless the "Hebrew" version of St. Matthew's gospel existed then) lists the men to whom Our Risen Lord appeared. St. Peter and the Apostles, naturally, but who were the 500? "A public appearance mentioned only here in the NT" is the note of a Catholic Study Bible I have. I've read other interesting commentaries in certain writers about who these 500 were and that they had been gathered for the purpose. The Catholic Study Bible's note (Curtis Mitch) only says: "For Paul, such a large group of eyewitnesses adds to the credibility of the Resurrection especially since some were still living and could verify the facts."

Yeah, but that's pretty basic. Mr Mitch is not a Classics scholar, alas. St. Paul was conversant with Classical Greek pagan literature. St. Paul would have known that in Athens, in the Periclean Age, the jury size for a man accused of a capital crime was 500. None of the writers recording Socrates trial detailed the jury size, probably because they assumed everyone would know. So, what St. Paul is saying is the he had enough witnesses to Christ's resurrection to satisfy the jury requirements of the Mediterranean world's famous city-state, Athens, in its heyday.

St. Paul, I believe, quotes from three pagan philosophers, Epimenides, Menander (who seems to have actually gotten the quote from the tragedy Aiolos by Euripides), and Aratus. St. Luke makes such quotes a couple of times in Acts. Whether these were direct quotes or just Shakespeare-like well-known commonly circulating phrases, they indicate some degree of familiarity with the Classics. St Paul in particular in his letters uses them to explain Christian teachings via the use of concepts from Greek philosophy. One scholar has noted that "1 Corinthians 12 may have been partly inspired by a similar image conjured up in Plato’s Protagoras 349c, in which Socrates uses the example of how the different parts of the face all perform very different functions from each other and from the function of the whole and yet, through the combination of all the different parts working together in harmony, they each contribute to the function of the whole." 

If true, wow. This would tie St. Paul's 500 witnesses even closer to my idea that St. Paul was thinking of a jury trial of Socrates (as well as referring to an otherwise unrecording meeting).

The Protestant historian and New Testament scholar, Gary Habermas, has "dedicated his professional life to the examination of the relevant historical, philosophical, and theological issues surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus." 

I once listened to him explain on video how St. Paul stressed the importance of his testimony here in chapter 15 by using the phrase: "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received...", as Mr Habermas says this was a sort ancient version of "I swear to tell the truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God." This is a great insight and heightens (if any heightening is needed) the importance of St. Paul's testimony here. But what Mr. Habermas didn't say is that in chapter 11, about the Holy Eucharist,  St. Paul says, "23 For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread...". This time St. Paul ups the ante. "For I received FROM THE LORD what I also delivered to you." Just amazing the power of this oath that St. Paul offers. And yet Protestant scholars – or at least Mr. Habermas – miss it.

In any case, Mr. Powell's contention that the historicity of the Resurrection is on very firm footing, to put it mildly. But let's up the ante in a Catholic way, something you probably won't hear from a Vatican II trained cleric.

The Mass, the Sacred Eucharistic Liturgy, is above all a miracle, our participation in the actual Incarnation of Christ, made present to us so that as God Incarnated Himself into man, so man, through partaking of the Eucharist, can be Incarnated into God. This is the basic Christian message. It's why God didn't just declare, Allah-like, that an individual is saved upon uttering the Shahada ("I bear witness that there is no deity but God, and I bear witness that Muhammad is the messenger of God.")

There has never been a formal Christian Shahada. Romans 10:13/Acts 2:21 are often quoted as a type of Shahada. They consist of the verse, "For all those who call on the name of the Lord will be saved", and they constitute the most Protestant verses in Scripture. In context, the Romans verse is embedded in: …12For there is no difference between Jew and Greek: The same Lord is Lord of all, and gives richly to all who call on Him, 13for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.” 14How then can they call on the One in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe in the One of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone to preach." The context of the second is in St. Peter's famous sermon to the crowds on Pentecost.

To be "saved", one has to be "born again of the water and the spirit" (St. John's gospel: 3:5, following on verse 3 about being born again). St. John and St. Paul both stress one has to be a "new creation in Christ" St. Paul's writings are full of these. For example:

·   John 1:12 “But to all who received Him, who believed in His name, He gave power to become children of God; 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.” (Obviously, a new creation.)

•  2 Cor 5:17, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, the new creation has come: The old has gone, the new is here!” (Again, a new creation.)
•  2 Peter 1:4 might well put it best;
• See also Romans, 6:4, 7:6, 12:2; Galatians 3:27; Ephesians 4:22-24; Colossians 3:8-12.
  
  

St. John wrote his gospel last of the four (all scholars, whether believers, agnostics, atheists, agree on that, even if they vary wildly in just when it was composed) and he knew that he had to emphasize the profundity of this Incarnational new creation theology, so he wrote out, very carefully, the sixth chapter of his gospel in which he reports Our Lord clearly saying that one must eat His flesh and drink is blood if one is to have God's life within him. And St. John also emphasized that Christ was not being metaphorical, as He let many – if not most – of His followers walk away.

But the point I wish to particularly stress about the Holy Eucharist is in relation to St. Paul's formal oath-giving testimony to the Resurrection: for the Holy Eucharist is a sacrament, meaning an oath, in itself. It is a blood oath, the most profound kind, wherein Catholic bishops and priests from that scene in 1 Corinthians 15 down to this day swear, and swear on the very Body and Blood of God, that "for I received FROM THE LORD what I also delivered to you" that we saw the Risen Christ, met with Him, spoke with Him, and ate with Him.

The Most Holy Eucharist is not just the means of our salvation, but also a blood-oath we Historical Christians (Catholics, the 14 Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox) have been participating in for 2000 years. It is a witness of the most penetrating kind, with the most unfathomable consequences for our souls.

So, my friends, this might be worth a bit of reflection this Easter season, as we stand on the brink of horrible war, unprecedented global propaganda, and Deep State/Great Reset-generated civilizational collapse.

Christus vincit, 

Christus regnat, 

Christus imperat!

An Préachán

Latin Mass, Jews, & "Pope Francis is tearing the Catholic Church apart..."

 Amici,

Here's some reflection on the Traditional Latin Mass issues that the Catholic Church seems to be wrestling with.

Extraordinaryform.org

First, a long but detailed article at this extremely helpful site: the extraordinaryform.org, to which I repair often for Sunday and Weekday Propers and much else beside. I highly recommend the site. They say, BTW: A NOTE TO THE FRIENDS AND USERS OF THIS SITE:

While we are saddened by the lack of charity evinced in the motu proprio "Guardians of Tradition," and, while our site's name may have been 'abrogated' - we are not going away.

Be assured, our mission to propagate the Mass of the Ages will continue unabated.

An P again:

There's a lot that goes on behind the scenes of any even small event, let along a major one. I'm sure there's a lot of "worms in the wainscot" regarding the current occupant of the See of Peter and his attempt to squish the TLM. Please be cognizant of the fact that any "Modernist" in the Church believes, deep down, that the Church MUST "modernize" or "evolve" or "reform" radically if it is to survive. So strong is this idea in Modernists that I'm sure if you could somehow infallibly (pun intended) peer into Bergoglio's mind, you would find, even more deeply than any religious dogma, this idea that the Church must evolve and change to suit the times or it will die. Ergo, since TLM is "rigorous" and its priests and congregations are "rigorous", they have to be eliminated. 

• This notion exists because Modernism, which began in the mid-19th century in Protestant Germany, was heavily influenced by Darwin and the theory of evolution. Really, Modernists believe that all life evolves, human life has evolved, humans evolve during their own lifetimes, going to idea to idea, and the Church must evolve. Ultimately, of course, they believe God evolves. God is something we created, ourselves, and the Modernist "higher criticism" has revealed the Bible is the evolutionary history of our evolving religious belief.
• This is why the vast majority of sexual deviance in the Church's ranks occurs among those – regardless of just when they were ordained – who embraced the basic tenets of Modernism. After all, if we're evolving all this, then sexual morality evolves, too, right? And all those old, careful, even draconian strictures of the lives of priests and religious, well, we've evolved far, far beyond those! Alas, these "grandiose ascenders", obnoxious "I'm too spiritual for carnal desire or sin" types are easy prey for Satan. Communists have long known this. Their rule was never try to logically argue atheism with a cleric of any sort. Just get 'em drunk and "shacked up" and you've "won" the argument! (There's actually something weirdly Cathar-like, Albigensian, in all Modernists.)

The Jews

The Traditional Latin Mass isn't muti-cultural friend, esp to Jews

It is controversial to many to bring Jews up in any context, but it is a necessity regarding the TLM once you consider it. Why? Because they're not fans of the TLM. For those Jews of influence in the world, the Catholic Church is a concern. (Christianity is a concern!) They want it to refrain from anything that might encourage what they consider antisemitism, at worst, or renewed conversions of Jews (even worse). In the world we live in, even criticism of Israeli government policies can easily get one called "antisemitic". And with Muslim attacks on Jews in Europe, one can see why they're so touchy. But Islam is not Christianity.

Jews and the Church

One thing you won't hear much about, unless you are remotely familiar with E. Michael Jones (many consider him anathema), is the strength of Jewish influence the modern Church. There's always been a back and forth between the two since Our Lord's days in Galilee and Judea. Christians are supposed to be the "new Jews", the "Synagogue of the Risen Messiah King", the "grafted in" inheritors of the ancient Covenants. That is insulting to Jews by itself, but St. Paul clearly teaches Jews are lost unless they convert. Now, that is anathema to Jews, and has been since the beginning. (Most early Christians were Jews, of course.)

Yet they've played a significant role in the Church since Vatican II because the Holocaust occurred in nominally Christian (mostly Catholic) countries, at the hands of people who were, nominally in many cases, "Christian", and important figures in the Church have been deeply shamed ever since. Indeed, one of the reasons behind calling Vatican II was to somehow make the Church morally relevant after World War II, and make up for what a lot of critics considered its failure during the Nazi period.

So, Vatican II produced the document NOSTRA AETATE to patch things up with the Jews in particular. But again, the two religions, though Biblically and in Christ Himself "joined at the hip" in Siamese Twins style, just are pretty much mutually exclusive. So, some Jews, certainly, were they to have a mind to, are in a position and have motive to influence the Church. Jones makes the case – and it is easy to make – that Jews put the kibosh on the TLM because of course, bringing it back restores a lot of supposedly "anti-Semitic" New Testament texts that have been studiously left out entirely from the Novus Ordo Mass.

• Jones also thinks Jozef Ratzinger is sort of "bi-polar" considering he came of age in an occupied Germany that nearly starved in the winter of '46/47 because the infamous Morgenthau Plan, something (Jones doesn't mention) didn't happen that winter in part because of the exertions of one Herbert Hoover, former U.S. president. (No one ever seems to remember that Hoover had an important "after-life" after he left the White House.) George Marshall would later put the kibosh on the Morgenthau Plan, and replace it with his (surprise, surprise) "Marshall Plan". 

So much for ancient history. Why would certain Jewish concerns (George Soros, for example, or influential Jews in academia) be concerned with the TLM? And if they they were, what could they do to the Church? Well, it is not antisemitic to observe that influential Jews do make up an important segment of the world's banking and financial services area, and the Church is a "big business", with land holdings galore, investments in all sorts of enterprises, good and bad, and huge funds stored up over the past 100 years or so. In Germany, the Catholic Church is the largest employer outside the governmental system (Bild asserts this). And we all know, or ought to, that financial scandals are an even bigger millstone around the Church's neck than the sex scandals. Bergoglio himself infamously "rehabilitated" the putrid, diabolical Theodore McCarrick to go to China and "make a deal" with the Chicoms that involved betraying the underground Church there, for money. (McCarrick is far, far, light-years far more evil, carnally insane and putrid than ANY Renaissance Pope, or all of them together – or basically anyone since Judas Iscariot – to serve in the Church.) "Reform" of the financial aspects of the Vatican seem far more impossible than reform of anything else!

Therefore it would easy enough for important financial concerns to jerk Bergoglio's chain. (It has been long alleged that Benedict XV had to become "Father Benedict" because the Vatican bank lost its ability to serve its bank teller machine.) Bergoglio is also a Jesuit, and for a number of reasons, those Jews of influence who bother about the Catholic Church naturally have more access to him than they would, say, to Ratzinger or even Karol Wojtyła, who grew up with Jews as neighbors and friends in pre-war Poland.

So all in all, I think it is a good bet that culturally influential people, whether Jewish or cultural/entertainment big shots (often Jews, of course) do NOT want to see a restoration of a strong Catholic identity via the TLM – and all that goes with it; i.e. strong families, traditional morality, etc. Remember that during the '20s and '30s, the Catholic Church backed "National Legion of Decency" played havoc with Hollywood's incessant demoralization (literally) of the popular culture. A Catholic Church buggering boys and mouthing saccharine platitudes fits better for ANYONE seeking to make money off of "sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll."

"Pope Francis is tearing the Catholic Church apart..."

Michael Brendan Dougherty is not someone I quote from often, but he's always been very strong on the Traditional Latin Mass. He had an op ed at the NYTimes, and I refuse to even register with them, but I found it here at this site. I recommend it. (Not a high recommendation, exactly, but a solid one, nonetheless.)

Fr. Zuhlsdorf has an important, and very short post, here. This one IS a must read.

But Bergoglio is not the only one in these insane times ripping up, tearing apart, out-and-out trying to destroy something they're charged with protecting. We see that in the U.S. to an absolutely insane level. Victor Davis Hanson recently wrote powerfully of that, here. 

The bottom line is common-sense clear: neither Bergoglio nor Biden can be legitimate holders of their offices. We may well be imprisoned tomorrow for any number of reasons, but at least we don't have to warp our minds thinking legitimate rulers are doing this to us. To paraphrase Ann Barnhardt, "The Catholic Church is [not] an abuse cult that operates on gaslighting and Stockholm syndrome!" Even if Bergoglio tries to make it that.

Indeed, it is is not.

An Préachán

A Deductive Argument Against Sola Scriptura...

Sola Scriptura, the Protestant argument that the Bible is the sole basis for the Faith, rather than Church or "the traditions of men", is easily enough refuted. But Protestants of course need it mightily because without it, they have no predicate for being Protestant. I mean, where do they get their authority to interpret the Bible in the first place? Did our Lord breathe on them at some point, and say, "Receive ye the Holy Ghost! Whatsoever ye declare bound on Earth shall be bound in Heaven?" (St. John 20:22-23) 

Well, actually, Calvin seems to have thought he was a prophet or new apostle, or so I understand. (I remember hearing that somewhere, but Calvinists don't broadcast it, much like Luther's many versions of "Logic is the devil's whore" or "the Christian must pluck out reason from his mind as one plucks out an eye.") 

Were I ever in a formal debate with Protestants, that's the first question I would ask. "Where do you get the authority to teach – anything?" They'd have to refer to Sola Scriptura, or go home. 

While various Bible verses have been used in varying degrees to argue for Sola Scriptura, it is usually 2 Timothy 3:15-16 that is invoked. It reads, starting with verse 14: "4 But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them; 15 And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16 All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice," (The relevant section I've bolded and italicized) 

This version is the Douay-Rheims. This following are verses 15 & 16 from the New International Version: "...And how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...".

Pretty close, the two versions. The Catholic version says "profitable" where the Protestant version has "useful", The Catholic version has "can instruct thee to salvation" whereas the Protestant one has the more colorful "make you wise for salvation." The Greek I have, too. 

In any event, nowhere do these verses suggest that Scripture alone is what salvation or the Faith in general, are based on. And in other places, St. Paul writes (2 Thessalonians 2:15):  "So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter."

Such a passage obviously undercuts any Sola "Scriptura" idea. But my deductive argument against Sola Scriptura is based on 1 Timothy 3:15 which reads in the NIV: "If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth." Call me an unreformed type, but I like the Douay-Rheims English better: "But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth."

Anyway, here's the deductive argument. Premise one (major premise): 1 Timothy 3:15 shows that St. Paul the wordsmith capability, the phrasing, words, grammar, etc., to have written "If I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the Scripture of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."

Premise two (minor premise): In all of the vast corpus of Pauline text, the "Apostle to the Gentiles" does not in fact write any such passage, not remotely, as shown so well in 2 Timothy 3:15-16. 

Conclusion: St. Paul did not in fact communicate any such idea because he did not want to. He had the ability, and the space, but he didn't. It was not his teaching.

Simple. 

We hardly need get into the demented inbreeding of First-order logic (a.k.a. predicate logic, quantificational logic, and the so whimsically named "first-order predicate calculus" or its papa (or would it be "mama"?) propositional logic (also called symbolic logic and Our Lord only knows what else), to conclude St. Paul had means and opportunity to "do the deed" regarding Sola Scriptura, but not the motive. 

He wasn't a Protestant.

An Préachán

Sedevacantism and Romans 3:3

I myself have never had much interest in Sedevacantism, unless it would be discussing whether Josef Ratzinger could be said to still be pope. My guess is that some future pontiff will declare Ratzinger's quasi-abdication/retirement/whatever-you-call-it to have been invalid, and thus that Bergoglio -- an obvious heretic, if ever heresy was practiced, preached, or professed -- was (past tense, since this is a future pope talking) an anti-pope.

But of course I don't know that will happen, and though I can clearly know "Bergi" is a heretic, and a rank one, especially odious in that he has no time to answer the Dubia Cardinals, nor the collection of theologians and laity who have asked him pleadingly to clarify his teaching on divorce and remarriage, and God-knows-what-else, but yet he somehow he manages to find the time to give lengthy interviews to old Eugenio Scalfari, that ridiculous Communist "journalist". Whatever. He may validly be pope, or not; but he's definitely a heretic. For what that's worth. 

So, I understand the Sedes' frustration. Declaring the popes since (who? John 23, Paul 6? Or...?) whomever to be invalid popes solves one aspect of the absurd Modernist Church. But it creates even worse ones, such as I wrote to a Sede at OnePeterFive:

Will you just stop about the Sedevacantist garbage? Just. Stop.

The Vatican II Church is a mess, true. But Sedes throw the Infant Lord out with the dirty bathwater. You, and all Sedes, need to re-read the opening of Romans chapter 3, especially the context of that chapter's verse three, which famously says, "For what if some of them have not believed? Shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? God forbid." That is what should be the engraved-in-gold motto of all Trads regarding even the most absurdly celebrated N.O.

You write, "Maybe the [New] Mass created by enemies of Christ isn't even valid." Subtle, as a brick. Oh, yeah, and like you KNOW that, do you? You blaspheme God, actually, for you're writing that the unbelief of the servants of the New Covenant are making God's side of the Covenant, His signature on it, without effect. Outrageous.

It's as simple as that, and what St. Paul wrote about those Jews of his day who rejected the New Covenant through their unbelief, applies to all Sedes.

Most Sedes are just desperate Catholics trying to hang on to their Faith in an Age of Heretics in High Places. Some of them, though, do commit both Blasphemy and Protestantism. I.e., they say God is not faithful, and they say that they themselves somehow have the authority to assert this and that. They don't. 

But St. Paulo had it right, in spades. So what if a bunch of these clowns are unfaithful. Does that invalidate God's side of the Covenant? Not. One. Iota.

An Préachán

Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin as Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe (or Cheatum, Fleecem, and Scramm) Part I

I've been blogging some apologetics lately, and once again it is driven home to me how Luther, Zwingli and Calvin were the infamous law partners "Dewey, Cheatum, and Howe" (Do we cheat 'em, and how!) 

Once again, I've had to discuss why Catholics believe, are supposed to believe, in the Real Presence. The following is some bits of that. 

The idea, the dogma, of Our Lord being truly present in the consecrated bread and wine goes back to the beginning, as in St. Paul's words in 1 Corinthians 11: 23-32. Notice how St. Paul says, "What I have received from the Lord is what I have passed on to you...", an oath of sorts, a "I solemnly swear I'm telling the truth". He says almost the same thing in chapter 15 at verse 3, "For what I received I passed along to you as of first importance," after which he witnesses to Our Lord's Passion, Resurrection, and the the Apostles meeting with the Resurrected Christ. It is a formal testimony to the reality of Christ rising from the dead. 

He even mentions five hundred of the brethren who saw Christ at one time. A Greek speaker with something of a classical education (as well as a Pharisaic one), I think St. Paul is mentioning these 500 (no where else referenced in the NT) because he would have known that in Athens, the greatest intellectual seat of the original Greek-speaking world (surpassed in the larger Mediterranean world by Alexandria, of course), a man on trial for his life faced a jury of 500. I think he's saying he has evidence that would pass an Athenian jury in that city's heyday. So therefore back in chapter 11, when he says he is passing on what he "received from the Lord" is an upping of the witness, a supreme capping of the oath. I think there can be no question that St. Paul means Christ is truly present, and that is what St. John in his chapter 6 is on about, for he would be writing after the Synoptic Gospels and he, John, did not include a Last Supper/Institution scene – instead, we went into a extended narrative about the reality of eating Christ's Body and Drinking His Blood. The Early Church Fathers after St. John clearly taught the Real Presence, but they used Platonic philosophy to explain to the pagans how such a thing could be. "Sign" and "signify" language – but they meant by that that the image contains a real essence of the higher reality (a basic tenant of Platonism).

They did not mean it in the more modern sense of only "symbolizes" the reality. (I've had Catholics, middle-aged, salt-of-the-earth types, tell me the Eucharist is "only symbolic"!)

By Aquinas' day, the up-and-coming theologians (like St. Thomas) used Aristotle, and thus developed the Transubstantiation definition. A wonderful lecture on this, and one very respectful to Protestants, is given here by Msgr. Frank Lane. I highly recommend it.