Many people on the Internet are ably demolishing James Cameron’s opportunistic documentary regarding his ostensible discovery of Jesus’ tomb.
There’s so much material out there that it’s difficult to process it all (at least in the time I have available), but I said that I’d offer some thoughts of my own on the subject, and so I’ll do so. I’ll also provide links to work being done by others.
Let’s start with some principles that should be widely agreed upon, even by those who do not believe in the Resurrection.
1) Jesus was a Galilean.
2) Jesus’ family was poor (as illustrated by the kind of offering they gave at the Temple at Jesus’ birth).
3) Jesus was crucified by the Romans.
4) There were significant tensions between the early Christian community and the Jewish community (as illustrated by the executions of St. Stephen and St. James the Just and by St. Paul’s own admitted persecution of the Church).
5) Early Christians made a big deal out of the claimed Resurrection of Christ.
6) In a first century Jewish context, that would mean that his tomb was empty.
7) Early Christians also made a big deal about the claimed Ascension of Christ.
8) Early Christians made a big deal about the Church as the mystical/metaphorical Bride of Christ.
9) Nothing remotely like the story envisioned by James Cameron and his colleagues is recorded in early Christian or Jewish or pagan literature about the early Church.
If we accept these premises, how likely is it that Jesus had a wife and a son and was buried in a middle class tomb in Jerusalem with multiple other family members spanning several generations?
Not very.
Let’s watch the dominos fall:
The first domino to go over is the fact that Jesus was a Galilean. He was Jesus of Nazareth. His family’s home was in the north, in Galilee. Why would they have a family tomb in Jerusalem? An individual might be buried there if he happened to die there (as with Jesus being [temporarily] interred in Joseph of Arimathea’s tomb or when James the Just was martyred in Jerusalem). That would be expected since they buried people the same day, and there wouldn’t be time to get a body down to Galilee. But the family’s tomb would be in Galilee, since that’s where most members of the family would die.So it’s implausible to begin with that Jesus’ family would have a tomb in Jerusalem.
Now the second domino falls: They were dirt poor. They just didn’t have money. The lower-class status of the family is attested to both inside and outside of Scripture (including later records about kinsmen who demonstrated that they had never been anything other than working men by displaying the callouses on their hands). So how could they afford a middle or upper-middle class tomb even if they had a tomb in Jerusalem?
In particular, why would they build an ornate one? See the picture at the top of this post? Notice the geometric designs above the door of the tomb? That’s ornamentation, and it takes money to have rock carving like that done. Again, this isn’t the kind of tomb poor people would have.
The ornamentation also calls attention to the tomb, causing dominos three through six to keel over. The early Christian community and its claims about a Resurrected Messiah were very annoying to the local non-Christian communities, both Jewish and Roman. To non-Christian Jews, the Christian message was a betrayal of the faith as they understood it. It was heresy. It was something to be stamped out.
To the Romans, and increasingly with time, the Christian community was also troublesome. Partly it was troublesome because it stirred up contention within the Jewish community (which itself was headache enough for the Romans at the time). Partly it was troublesome because it came to be perceived as a treasonous group that did not honor the state religion nor form part of the tolerated religion of Judaism. And if you buy the theories common in liberal critical circles that the authors of the New Testament tried to shift the blame for Jesus’ death from Roman leaders to Jewish leaders then there’s an extra reason for the Romans to be annoyed with the early Christian community. Even if you don’t (as I don’t) buy the idea of blame transferrence, put yourself in the position of a Roman governor and ask: "Do I really want a local cult worshipping as a god a man who we Romans put to death?" For the Romans too, there was motive to undermine Christian claims.
So when Christians are running around saying that Jesus’ tomb is empty and that he’s been raised from the dead and that this only proves that he’s the Son of God, if you’re a non-Christian Roman or Jew then you’re going to have a powerful incentive to say, "Wait a minute! Jesus’ tomb is RIGHT OVER THERE in what will become the Talpiyot neighborhood of Jerusalem! And look, his bones are right here in this ossuary conveniently labeled ‘Jesus son of Joseph’ in this conveniently-ornamented-and-thus-advertised tomb that the rest of his family is using!"
Matthew 28:11-15 is also noteworthy in this regard:
[S]ome of the guard [over Jesus’ tomb] went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place.And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sum of money to the soldiers and said, "Tell people, `His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ And if this comes to the governor’s ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble." So they took the money and did as they were directed; and this story has been spread among the Jews to this day.
To the ears of any sensitive reader, but especially to an apologist, the nature of this passage is immediately apparent: It’s counter-apologetics. Matthew is pre-emptively doing apologetics against a claim that was current among non-Christian Jews in his day. It doesn’t matter if you believe that Matthew was right, or even if you believe that Matthew was Matthew (rather than a "Matthean community"). What’s happening here is that the leading non-Christian explanation for the empty tomb is being debunked.
As an apologist for the Christian position–like Matthew–you don’t want to raise alternatives to the Christian explanation in the reader’s mind if you don’t have to. Thus you don’t raise the idea of Jesus’ disciples stealing his body unless you’ve got a real, live objection out there that you need to offer a counter-explanation for (i.e., the chief priests bribed the soldiers to say this). You don’t even want the reader’s mind moving in that direction if you can avoid it.
So the fact that Matthew (or the "Matthean community") takes the trouble to raise and then debunk the idea of the disciples stealing the body shows that this was the leading explanation in the non-Christian Jewish community of why the tomb was empty. (And why Matthew–rather than Mark or Luke or John–deals with this, since Matthew’s gospel was most clearly written for a Jewish audience: This was the audience in which this explanation was common.)
But there would be no reason to concoct this explanation if Jesus’ bones were, in fact, lying in a clearly labelled ossuary in a publicly marked tomb that was in multigenerational use by members of his family in Jerusalem. If you’ve got the body then you don’t need to make up the story about his disciples stealing it.
Domino seven–the early Christian preaching of the Ascension–also tips over against James Cameron’s case. It provides the Christian explanation for where Jesus’ body is: It ain’t on earth! It’s up in heaven! He’s been exalted to the right hand of God in accord with his status as Messiah and Son of God. So if you’ve got that oh-so-conveniently-identifiable tomb right there in Jerusalem, why don’t you use this to dethrone the Ascension claim by pointing out (in excellent Latin if you’re a Roman) Habeas corpus!–"That you have the body!" Right there! In that ossuary!
And then there’s domino #8: The Church as the Bride of Christ. This image would never have arisen if there was a Mrs. Jesus living right there in Jerusalem. Look at what happened in other religions where the founder was married. Do we know about their wives? Well, let’s see . . . Moses was married to Tsipporah and then later to an Ethiopian woman. Muhammad was married to Khadijah and then later to Aisha and Sawda and Zaynab and . . . well, let’s just say that he was very enthusiastic about marrying women. Joseph Smith Jr. was married to Emma Hale and Lucinda Pendleton and Louisa Beaman and . . . uh . . . let’s just say he was enthusiastic about marrying women, too.
We know about these women because they were honored figures as wives of The Founder, and if Jesus had a wife then (a) we would know about it and (b) the whole Church-as-the-Bride-of-Christ metaphor would never have come into existence.
And then there’s the fruit of marriage: offspring.
Now, Dan Brown wants to sneak a forgotten daughter of Jesus by us, but we tend to know about even the daughters of religious founders. Muhammad’s daughter Fatima comes to mind.
It would be much harder to sneak a forgotten son by the eyes of history. For example, Moses had Gershom and Joseph Smith Jr. had Joseph Smith III.
It’s not just hard to sneak sons past because patriarchal cultures focus more on sons, it’s also because of this: In traditional societies, the son is looked on as the father’s natural successor.
The son may not end up as successor, but we still tend to know about sons because of their role as potential successors. If a son dies before he can assume office, it’s viewed as a great blow to the community because it destabilizes the leadership and triggers a struggle for succession. That struggle gets recorded. Or, if the son doesn’t die, a succession struggle may break out anyway, and it, too, gets recorded. Thus when Joseph Smith Jr. was killed after shooting at the people who had come to lynch him (no passive martyr he), there was a succession struggle in the early Mormon community after which Joseph Smith III ended up out of power (later forming the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, now the Community of Christ) while Brigham Young ended up in charge of the main Mormon establishment.
And we know about this because succession struggles are the things history is made of and so they get recorded.
So if Jesus had a son named Judah (or anything else), we’d know about it. We know a lot about the politics of the early Church, and we’d certainly know about a succession fight involving the son of Jesus. We’d have all the arguments of the winning side about why their side was right and the son of Jesus was not his legitimate successor.
This is especially the case when you realize that Jesus’ surviving male family members were active in the leadership of the Church, like James the Just, who became bishop of Jerusalem. But it was his "brothers" who played these leadership roles, not his son.
Thus the ninth domino falls: The fact that nothing like Cameron’s version was recorded by anybody–including those hostile to the Church who would want to discredit it–underscores the utter implausibility of the whole idea.
Then there are the specific arguments brought forth by Cameron and his crew in favor of their hypothesis, but those have been ably rebutted by others.
AND HERE.
(CHT to the reader who e-mailed the last!)
Bravo and thanks.
Reasonably well informed Christians will not be personally troubled by James Cameron or Dan Brown. But I fear that many less informed (younger?) people on the visible margins of the Church and Christianity will have more ‘drips of doubt’ cast on their fire of faith. The presumption in many (half) intellectual quarters is that Christianity is not worthy of serious consideration because it is a debunked children’s fairy story at best and a dangerous attack on civil liberties at worst.
Bishops, priests, teachers and the rest of us should be using these high-profile media ‘threats to the faith’ as opportunities for clear and concise apologetics to show how well historically founded our beliefs really are.
We should be proactive: marshalling our arguments as soundbites, comments and essays (as appropriate) showing we are not afraid to discuss these matters but positively welcome discussion because what is proposed for our assent is essentially true.
Of course, to all who want their pet theories to be true (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary), all this will be irrelevant. As I’ve learned through much experience, you can’t talk someone out of his own version of reality.
Thanks so much for finally weighing in. My husband has been waiting with bated breath for your commentary. (I was hoping you’d have one.) He said, “If anyone can made sense out of this, Jimmy can.”
Thanks for being our “go-to guy.”
Of course, to all who want their pet theories to be true (despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary), all this will be irrelevant. As I’ve learned through much experience, you can’t talk someone out of his own version of reality.
Or as they say, things are received in the mode of the receiver. I would say it is possible to hammer away at pet theories, and there is a possibility it will break. It certainly worked with me as an atheist who converted. It also benefits lurkers.
I was thinking the same thing, ‘thann.
To the majority of those willing to entertain this particular theory, the facts from here on out will have absolutely no relevance, at all. The thing is the idea, itself. This tale will live on long after it is proven false scientifically, though in a diminished way.
It will become part of the general fog of anti-Christian lore, known to be questionable, but still, somehow, clung to and trotted out occasionally as an instance of “Could it be??…”
What’s odd is that all these contradictory theories are somehow understood to have cumulative weight. It’s as if, not knowing how to work a math problem, I gave the teacher 12 alternate ways of working it, all equally wrong, but expected her to be impressed with the amount of work, anyway.
Don’t the Muslims claim to have the real tomb of Jesus, body and all?
Sorry, I was responding to bill912’s post, not ‘thann’s, though I agree with that one, too!
The American Institute of Archaelogy has also issued on online editorial in which the claims of Cameron and Jacobovici are thoroughly dismissed.
The piece is neutral on the question of the resurrection, understandably enough. After all, it’s a secular organization for academic archaeologists.
But it is certainly not neutral on the claims of Cameron and Jacobovici.
Go here to read the editorial.
(tip–I don’t wear a cowboy hat or any other kind of hat for that matter– to Amy Welborn)
Dominos. Great game. And this one was particularly good.
From Romans 1:22-23
They claimed to be wise, but turned into fools instead; they exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images representing mortal men, birds, beasts and snakes.
Ummmm, does this mean that Jesus WASN’T eaten by wild dogs? You’re destroying my faith here…
Excellent- I wish this could be made into a booklet that could be given out to people!!
I agree with what Leo said- this won’t sway the strong in faith but those who are searching or non-believers,
That’s why I pray this(tomb nonsense) will be exposed as a hoax for all to see.
I just p
Thanks Jimmy,
I knew it was crap, but have given up internet surfing for Lent (you’re an exception since you are faith-related) and so I didn’t have time to run all over the net looking for rebuttals.
My only regret is that the rebuttals are too detailed. I can imagine a TV-addled believer in Cameron’s thesis having their eyes glaze over while your dominoes fall. I wish we could kill these things off with quick ripostes.
I’m of the assumption that Jesus’ story was invented by Paul, and many beliefs and myths were added onto the story until the bible was finally written 150-200 years “after the fact.”
Fall, 1971, Anthropology 101, Langara College, Vancouver BC. 8:01 a.m.
Larry Lepionka,Ph.D., Harvard University, stands at the head of the class and says:
‘We will NOT discuss the idiocies of Desmond Morris and I will answer NO questions about Naked Apes WHATSOEVER.’
Nutcases who write books were bashed back even then. Obviously an emminent professor was excersizing some form of professional censorship otherwise he would have to refute absolutly every question posed by an anthropology neopohyte.
He put some books on the INDEX (his index) and we respected that.
His status as a scholar was enough for us.
Well, “Athiest Jew”, I’m glad that your opinion is based on solid evidence as such you have presented in this forum today. Clearly such well presented points will be good material for debate and thought into the matter.
Also, you may want to look into the game “World of Warcraft”, playing a troll there may be much more interesting than doing so in people’s blogs. Just a thought.
Problem #1: Jesus’ actual followers, such as Peter and James and John, were real historical persons who lived in Jerusalem after Jesus’ death, who were personally met not only by St. Paul but also by his biographer and companion, Luke, the author of Luke-Acts.
These actual followers of Christ were pillars of the Jerusalem community of Christians that existed at the time(s) that Paul (and Luke) visited Jerusalem. The Christian community already existed independently of St. Paul, and its leadership included those who had known Jesus in life.
These meetings in Jerusalem, to which Luke give eyewitness record in Acts 15 and which Paul reports in Galatians 1-2, make it difficult to see how the historical life of Jesus can be separated from the faith and preaching of his immediate followers and from that of St. Paul.
Problem #2: No serious critical scholar attaches such late dates as you do to the NT documents.
Atheist Jew,
Although I don’t have references on hand at the moment, I believe the Gospels have been established to have been written before the end of the 1st century AD, meaning at most 70 years had gone by. There would likely have still been some people alive at the time who were present when the events actually happened (not to mention, the teachings of the Gospels were being preached even before they had been formally written).
But you’ve piqued my curiosity: how can someone be a Jew and an atheist at the same time?
Curious,
good point – my soundbites on this issue:
Jesus and Mary were among the most common names of that time and place. 99 grave inscriptions with the name ‘Jesus’ have been found of which 22 are on ossuaries. 70 Marys of which 42 are on ossuaries. Source: http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2007/02/jesus-tomb-titanic-talpiot-tomb-theory.html (Prof Ben Witherington).
If the disciples of Jesus made up the story of the resurrection then why did they label and preserve the body/bones?
Who is this alleged ‘James Cameron’ character anyway? The real James Cameron is dead and buried near Manchester UK. May he rest in peace. See pictures http://freespace.virgin.net/paul.cesnav/cameron.jpg and http://freespace.virgin.net/paul.cesnav/cemetery.htm
No, no, Leo! The real James Cameron’s body was eaten by wild dogs! (Or was that Crossan’s body? I get those 2 confused).
If the disciples of Jesus made up the story of the resurrection then why did they label and preserve the body/bones?
Leo:
Excellent point!
Why wouldn’t you get rid of the “incriminating evidence” but, instead, have it labelled and preserved???
That goes against all the rules of CON MAN-ship!
Like our enlightened friend ‘Realist’ who often makes the point (might I add, ‘ludicrous’ point) that Peter and Paul only preached what they did in order to open the purse strings of folks; wouldn’t it make sense for these CON ARTISTS, Peter and Paul, to actually get rid of Jesus’ remains in order to secure the continuation of their CON GAME?
Although, I still can’t seem to figure out that if it actually was a CON GAME, why would they actually allow themselves to suffer and die such horrible deaths, when all they needed to do to save their very lives was relent to the Roman Emperor of the day?
To reiterate with embellishments from the first discussion:
The question is what happened after the crucifixion. Does anyone really know? The Apostles and other followers apparently ran for their lives.
Twenty to thirty plus years later Paul et al started writing about the sayings and ways of Jesus. To make him comparable and competitive to the Caesars, and other Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Persian and Babylonian gods, did they give Jesus some god-like qualities? Miracles and physical resurrection were apparently scribal ways to embellish the lives of gods.
There has been much conjecture about the true burial site for Jesus, from mass graves for the crucified, no burial but eaten by wild dogs/crows, buried in a shallow grave with lime to enhance decomposition and of course the burial in “Joe A’s” tomb.
What is interesting is that scripturally the number of attestations and their timing gives credence to burial in “Joe A’s” tomb. ( see http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb070.html
(1) 1Cor 15:4a
(2a) GPet 2:3-5a; 5:15b; 6:21-24
(2b) Mark 15:42-47 = Matt 27:57-61 = Luke 23:50-56
(2c) John 19:(31-37*)38-42
(2d) Acts 13:29
The resurrection accounts cannot be verified using the same techniques.
If you accept Heaven to be a spirit state (as per Aquinas), Jesus’ bones are not in Heaven so maybe Sunday night we did see the long lost burial vault of “Joe A”.
Then again maybe it was “Joe A” in the tomb with his family members? Or maybe it was “Joe A” plus members of the original disciples?
“Joe A” is an interesting character with significant myths surrounding him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_of_Arimathea
He may have been one of the seventy new disciples of Jesus noted in Luke’s gospel:
“The names of the seventy. James, the son of Joseph; Simon the son of Cleopas; Cleopas his father; Joses; Simon; Judah; Barnabas; Manaeus (?); Ananias, who baptised Paul; Cephas, who preached at Antioch; Joseph the senator; Nicodemus the archon; Nathaniel the chief scribe; Justus, that is Joseph, who is called Barshabbâ; Silas; Judah; John, surnamed Mark; Mnason, who received Paul; Manaël, the foster-brother of Herod; Simon called Niger; Jason, who is (mentioned) in the Acts (of the Apostles); Rufus; Alexander; Simon the Cyrenian, their father; Lucius the Cyrenian; another Judah, who is mentioned in the Acts [of the Apostles]; Judah, who is called Simon; Eurion (Orion) the splay-footed; Thôrus (?); Thorîsus (?); Zabdon; Zakron.
http://www.answers.com/topic/seventy-disciples
Looks a lot like the names of the males found in the 1980 tomb. Add two Marys (wifes, sisters, sister-in-laws) and you have another theory.
Interesting that the entrance to the tomb was rectangular in shape, analogous the stone slab covering the deep entrance to the tomb.
Interesting depiction of the times (people living in brick/mud huts, riding donkeys, dirt roads etc. ) Does not give one a fuzzy feeling about wandering ghosts and talking angels!
Again, “Bones or no bones, the Good Word has been spoken and is being practiced by billions and that will not change.”
Esau posted:
“Although, I still can’t seem to figure out that if it actually was a CON GAME, why would they actually allow themselves to suffer and die such horrible deaths, when all they needed to do to save their very lives was relent to the Roman Emperor of the day”
Esau, the answer is simple, it is because they believed without compromise, and were unwavering in their faith
I would love to see if the Apostles had practiced “Ecumenism” in the form that it is being abused today, instead of “holding fast to Tradition” as St Paul instructs us to do would we even have a “church”?
Christians again prove many are unabashed enemies of the truth
Hello again Jimmy and all,
After finally watching the Jesus Tomb documentary and the hour of critical look “debates” following it, I am left with the sad conclusion that a large percentage of Christians will always oppose the truth, regardless of how it is presented. It has been amazing to watch people who regularly oppose critical thought and science hypocritically assert that critical thought and science supports so-called “biblical evidence” in their efforts to debunk this archeological find and associated theories.
Many of these same people have the gall to complain about “theatrics” used to present these findings, as if Christianity has never turned a profit or stooped to even slicker and far more dubious methods pushing their stories and historical interpretations. It is rank hypocrisy for Christians to attack the presentation of this documentary as unbalanced when Christian history and current activities fall far short of what they are demanding in this situation. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, because what goes around comes around.
Read More …
I think the motives people are quickest to impute to others often underly their own actions.
Realist seems always to bring up money.
“I am left with the sad conclusion that a large percentage of Christians will always oppose the truth, regardless of how it is presented.”
Oh, goody! A real-live gnostic has joined in. Now the circle is complete.
“People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, because what goes around comes around.”
My cliches can beat up your cliches.
John Posted:
Oh is that the reason why you’ve joined up with Realist, the very person who has REDUCED Scripture to MERE MYTHOLOGY!
This SPEAKS VOLUMES of the extent that YOU would go to just to bring down the Catholic Church just because it DOES NOT DO AS YOU COMMAND!
Nice to know that the Mothership is in orbit again. Please don’t bump into any satellites.
Just for clarification, I want to point out that I was not referring to Esau(or John or Relist, for that matter). I was responding to Tim J’s comment and who he was referring to.
“People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones, because what goes around comes around.”
Furthermore, he who laughs last laughs best, so you better go make hay while the sun shines, and keep spreading the word that we not put all our eggs in one basket. Remember, though, that pride goeth before a fall.
A stitch in time saves nine flies caught with honey not vinegar.
And lo, a hush fell upon the crowd of travellers as did appear a man claiming that the hand that ’twas dealt unto him did hold, not but one, nor e’en five, but a full seven … nay, not of spades nor clubs (both weapons of war most formidible in bygone days–and present as well if but wielded by an able warrior, regardless of firey technology’s bite) … but stars. The narrator, whilst apologizing for long-winded missives did point (with word not outstretched digit) toward the man’s website, unto the occupation there declared. “This man doth think he is the messiah.”
Be this declaration in jest or in earnest, the man may be thereunto proved a crank. E’en if this were insufficient reason of discreditation, a troll is he, both in jest and in truth.
Exit the narrator.
Sean Gallagher: Many thanks for the link to The American Institute of Archaelogy on online editorial which throughly dismisses the claims of Cameron and Jacobovici. http://www.archaeological.org/webinfo.php?page=10408
Copy and paste the above or get the direct link up above in Sean’s posting)
This is a great article. Maybe Realist should read it….
My, have I missed the presence of that NARRATOR!
Tim J,
Hmmm,
No mention of money in my last post but since you brought up the subject of money, a reiteration in keeping with the topic:
“Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God’s hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus’ failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing.”
From R.B. Stewart, editor of the new book, R.B. Stewart, “The Resurrection of Jesus, Crossan and Wright in Dialogue”, (with commentaries from many NT exegetes).
http://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-Jesus-Dominic-Crossan-Dialogue/dp/0800637852/ref=sr_1_1/104-5223156-3336742?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1173200457&sr=1-1
That sounds like a very interesting story, Realist, but I wonder if Stewart delves into some deeper issues.
– It is reported in the “official” Gospels that Judas led the prosecutors of Jesus to him, but the Vatican has covered up for years the fact that Peter had advanced knowledge of the impending arrest and did nothing to subvert it.
– Why was Peter seen on the Grassy Knoll when Jesus was being questioned? What part did he, Vice President Thomas, and Supreme Court Chief Justice John have in the ensuing cover up?
– The names of the Gospel writers are Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. If you add up the number of characters in their names it equals nineteen. Nineteen is the legal age to buy booze in Canada. Canada is located on the North American continent. Is this not a secret code to reveal that Jesus was, as is retold in Mormon history, actually in America visiting with the Native Americans at this time?
– We all know that fuel from a plane cannot collapse a structure as tall as the World Trade Center, no matter how high the heat rate. We know this from repeated demonstrations involving egg crates and chicken wire. Therefore, we must speculate that the real reason the Twin Towers were destroyed was because the Vatican wanted to hide the secret that Mary Magdalene was, in fact, Jesus’s father’s brother’s uncle’s nephew’s former roommate.
Layers.
Realist says:
“Reimarus (1774-1778) posits that Jesus became sidetracked by embracing a political position, sought to force God’s hand and that he died alone deserted by his disciples. What began as a call for repentance ended up as a misguided attempt to usher in the earthly political kingdom of God. After Jesus’ failure and death, his disciples stole his body and declared his resurrection in order to maintain their financial security and ensure themselves some standing.”
And this is the person JOHN (JTNOVA) would actually ally himself with???
Goes to show that Rad Trads would join up with even the Devil himself (not that Realist is actually the Devil) in order to bring down the Church!
Curious wrote:
My only regret is that the rebuttals are too detailed. I can imagine a TV-addled believer in Cameron’s thesis having their eyes glaze over while your dominoes fall. I wish we could kill these things off with quick ripostes.
In my experience, laziness is responsible for people accepting all sorts of untruths that are relatively easy to disprove. If the average pro-abortionist would spend 15 minutes looking at the evidence against an unborn child being a “blob of tissue,” that would go out the window, too.
But, all we can do is offer the rebuttals for those who are serious about finding the truth. Those who refuse to take the time to consider serious questions will have to answer for their sloth in the end.
Incidentally, is it just me or is the symbol on the top of the entrance look like the YU-GI-OH Millenium Eye symbol?
Sorry… that’s what you get when you have nephews into that stuff!
Paul Zummo,
You’d better watch out. Methinks you know too much!
Jarnor23- Ja mon! (sorry, couldn’t resist)
Y’know, I find it very reasuring that the only folks who have calm logic on their side in this page are the ones I agree with…. ;^)
Esau- I think it looks a little like the last symbol for Earth’s co-ords on Stargate….
Esau- I think it looks a little like the last symbol for Earth’s co-ords on Stargate….
THAT’S IT!!!
Thanks Sailorette!
I could almost here that guy with the glasses say (sorry–don’t know his name): “Chevron five encoded” or something like that.
Apologies, I haven’t watched it for so long!
Actually the stargate “earth” symbol is an open triangle with a circle above.
Since the circle is below the triangle then it must mean “under” the earth.
Then again is could be a giant rain drip protector like you see on an RV.
What do I know….
Actually the stargate “earth” symbol is an open triangle with a circle above.
Since the circle is below the triangle then it must mean “under” the earth.
Thanks Pseudomodo for the clarification!
Cue up the Stargate Music please!
Pseudomodo- Nah, I mean the little hint of a very wide ^ under the circle. My brain kinda ignores the big one over it, because it looks like a roof. *blush*
Esau
I have no idea what you are talking about with respect to me aligning with Realist whose posts are anti Catholic and by all accounts I am a “Rad Trad”
I think you know very little about the Catholic faith and upon your conversion to Catholicism from Protestanism, I wonder if you received any Catechism or did you just “join” as others who I know who “married” into the Catholic church, and had to sign papers acknowledging they would raise their children Catholic but never ever learned their faith
Can I ask what was your journey? Have you ever read the Dhouey Rheims Bible-which is much different than the Politically correct New American currently being used. Have you ever studied the Baltimore Catechism? What about the 1917 Code of Canon Law? The Council of Trent?
No need to answer as I am sure the answer to all of the above is NO
JOHN:
Now we’ve come to the HEART of the Matter — YOUR PREJUDICE TOWARDS PROTESTANTS, EX-PROTESTANTS, CATHOLIC CONVERTS!
Also, I’m surprised that you still continue to say things like:
I think you know very little about the Catholic faith…
Yet, when in the past I attempted a discussion with you regarding the anaphoras of Hippolytus and other such elements in Church History, you could not even acknowledge its existence and were, in fact, unaware (or dare I say “ignorant”) of the very canons of the historical Catholic Church!
Also, again, have you even acknowledged Canon 6 in the 22nd session of Trent which deals with not only the Roman canon (which is used in the Tridentine Mass) but other canons as well?
Mind you, this was issued in 1563. The canon that overrode all other canons was not issued until 1571. The Tridentine rite was imposed on the whole west years later.
Have you studied the Bible in its Original Languages rather than the supposed Duoay Rheims version you keep touting?
(Not that I have, mind you, but those whom I have consulted with are, in fact, scholars who have)
Have you studied the 1917 Code of Canon Law in such exact detail? Really? Prove it!
For the most part, you’ve not even demonstrated such knowledge here on this blog!
As for the Council of Trent, you tout a supposed mastery of the Council when, in fact, you aren’t even aware of several of its canons — especially canon 6! Thus, I doubt you even know of what’s in the other canons as well as the other sessions of Trent!
By the way, if you actually think that I was originally a Protestant, why don’t you watch footage of Pope John Paul II’s visit to America way back when — you might actually catch a glimpse of my classmates who were captured on film speaking to His Holiness and shaking his hands.
Hmmmm… maybe that’s how I obtained a Papal Rosary!
To paraphrase great movie lines:
“They have Cave Trolls”
“The Circus is now complete”
John,
For what it is worth, I have copies of the Dhouey Rheims Bible, the 1917 Code of Canon Law, a Baltimore Catechism, and a Roman Catechism. I have studied them all, and I find no support in any of them, or in the writings of St. Pope Pius X, for your caluminous attacks on the Holy Father.
One thing that did not change with Vatican II is that the Successor of Peter is still the visibile head of the Church, worthy of respect and obedience for that fact alone. The manner in which you display your disagreement with him is scandalous and betrays a complete lack of the Christian charity that you will find described at length in any good pre-Vatican II work.
Try starting with Pascendi Dominici Gregis, for starters:
The conserving force in the Church is tradition, and tradition is represented by religious authority
it is pride which rouses in them the spirit of disobedience … and which begets their absolute want of respect for authority, not excepting the supreme authority.
No, truly, there is no road which leads so directly and so quickly to Modernism as pride. When a Catholic laymen or a priest forgets that precept of the Christian life which obliges us to renounce ourselves if we would follow Jesus Christ and neglects to tear pride from his heart, ah! but he is a fully ripe subject for the errors of Modernism.
Finally, the Modernists try in every way to diminish and weaken the authority of the ecclesiastical magisterium itself by sacrilegiously falsifying its origin, character, and rights, and by freely repeating the calumnies of its adversaries.
In short, you have repeated the chief error of the protestants and the modernists which you profess to hate — you have turned your back on, no you have spit in the face of, the Holy Father which the Triune God has placed in a position of authority over you.
WHOA!
Esquire, you’ve GOT to remain a regular fixture here on Jimmy’s Blog and POST OFTEN!
You have a pretty profound knowledge of the Faith!
Many of us (ESPECIALLY John JTNOVA — and me as well!) need to get “edumucated” in these matters!
The Pope I would follow down an abyss, knowing he won’t lead us astray.
But you’ve piqued my curiosity: how can someone be a Jew and an atheist at the same time?
Jewish is both an ethnicity and a religion. One can be one and not the other.
Twenty to thirty plus years later Paul et al started writing about the sayings and ways of Jesus. To make him comparable and competitive to the Caesars, and other Roman, Greek, Egyptian, Persian and Babylonian gods, did they give Jesus some god-like qualities? Miracles and physical resurrection were apparently scribal ways to embellish the lives of gods.
Why in blue blazes did they pick him and not one of the other wannabe messiahs floating around at the time?
“There has been much conjecture about the true burial site for Jesus, from mass graves for the crucified, no burial but eaten by wild dogs/crows, buried in a shallow grave with lime to enhance decomposition and of course the burial in “Joe A’s” tomb.”
And in one snide aside, a throw-away line really, Realist demonstrates that she isn’t remotely interested in finding truth but rather diminishing Christian belief.
Of course, she also has styled herself a follower as well, which would make her a fool, following some semi-literate itenerant preacher of a Roman backwater.
Who takes seriously a weak mind with an axe to grind?
Realist is a he, unless he’s a girl with the first name of Bernard, in which case I pity her even more greatly.
Mary,
To answer your question “Why in blue blazes did they pick him and not one of the other wannabe messiahs floating around at the time?”
(as done previously), Good question. The number of disciples? The “filler” of John the Baptist’s shoes and ideas? Right time and place? The message? Anti-Roman stances? Peaceful rebellion? A fellow peasant? The experience of Saul before Paul with the movement? All of these?
Esquire (and Esau as always):
You have it exactly backwards. Faith comes first, and obedience follows. Moreover, Catholic doctrine is that the prime obedience of the faithful is not to the Church, but to Christ. This doctrine is clearly taught by St. Peter, the first pope, and can be found in the Acts of the Apostles (5:29/DR) as he is speaking to ecclesiastics of the time: “We ought to obey God rather than men.”
We know that everyone, even the pope, must adhere to the Deposit of Faith, that is, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (the Protestants don’t believe in the latter). The Fathers and Doctors of the Church unquestionably taught that, and the doctrine was formally defined at Vatican I (Decree Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4), a dogmatic council (as Vatican II was not).
The question is: what happens when Church authorities themselves go against Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition? St. Paul answers that question clearly for us in his Epistle to the Galatians (1:8-9):
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.
and again in his Second Epistle to the Thessalonians (2:14/DR):
Therefore, brethren, stand fast: and hold the traditions that you have learned, whether by word or our epistle.
Catholics are obligated to hold to Tradition. Vatican I held that any action contrary to Tradition is outside of the authority (ultra vires) of any ecclesiastical person, including the pope.
St. Athanasius, surely a great Saint and Doctor of the Church, in fact, one of the Four Great Eastern Doctors of the Church, stood against Pope Liberius, when the later unjustly excommunicated him and yielded to the Arian heretics. Likewise, St. Augustine, one of the Four Great Western Doctors of the Church, together with St. Aurelian, stood against Pope Zosimus, who was yielding to the Pelagian heretics. There are many other such instances in the history of the Church, when Saints stood up to popes.
There are many times where the present state of the Church can be understood only in the perspective of Church history, such as:
The fall of almost all the bishops of the fourth century into the Arian heresy
The persecution and false excommunication of orthodox Saints like Athanasius
The personal heretical leanings of some eight popes in the first eight centuries of the Church
The disputed papal election of the twelfth century (in which St. Bernard intervened on the side of the apparently invalidly elected pope)
The Babylonian Captivity and confusion of the 14th century (in which even the Saints couldn’t agree on who the true pope was)
The defection of all the English bishops but one from the Church of the 15th century
The persecution and false excommunication of St. Joan of Arc in the 15th century
The confusion and chaos in the Church since Vatican II, which was so obvious that it had to be admitted by Paul VI and John Paul II, is just the latest incarnation of the anti-traditional forces in the Church. Maybe it seems worse because we are experiencing it.
Yet there are powerful forces to combat it. Let no one dissuade someone who is determined to adhere to tradition in lieu of reform by name-calling. Our Lord was viciously attacked by the Pharisees. St. Athanasius was hunted down like an animal. Vile calumnies were made against St. Joan. Yet Our Lord had the final victory. St. Athanasius had the final victory. St. Joan had the final victory. We dare not think where their persecutors ended up!
We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then
Faith comes first, and obedience follows. Moreover, Catholic doctrine is that the prime obedience of the faithful is not to the Church, but to Christ.
Thank you, John!
You have provided the very argument that Protestant have used for centuries!
They separated themselves from the Catholic Church since in their view, their OBEDIENCE was not to the CHURCH, but to CHRIST!
To them, FAITH comes first before OBEDIENCE; therefore, what they considered GENUINE Christian Faith was what they believed they MUST OBEY.
In light of this, I still can’t see how you manage to cast such HATE AGAINST THE PROTESTANTS when, in fact, YOUR VERY ARGUMENTS JUSTIFY THEIR VERY ACTIONS!
Martin Luther believe that the Catholic church had corrupted the original message of Christianity. Martin Luther had thus rejected the authority of the Pope and Church Councils.
“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason and NOT by POPES and COUNCILS who have so often CONTRADICTED themselves, my CONSCIENCE is captive to the WORD OF GOD. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I cannot and I will not recant. HERE I STAND. I CAN DO NO OTHER. God help me.”
So, just as you said, John:
“… prime obedience of the faithful is NOT to the CHURCH, but to CHRIST.”
In one fell swoop, you have JUSTIFIED Martin Luther’s actions!
Your very reasoning argues rather magnificently for the side of the Protestants!
Thank you!
By John’s very arguments here:
…Faith comes first, and obedience follows…
…the prime obedience of the faithful is NOT to the Church, but to CHRIST…
…This doctrine is clearly taught by St. Peter, the first pope, and can be found in the Acts of the Apostles (5:29/DR) as he is speaking to ecclesiastics of the time: “We ought to obey God rather than men.“…
…The question is: what happens when Church authorities themselves go against Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition?
St. Paul answers that question clearly for us in his Epistle to the Galatians (1:8-9):
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema…
Are there still any DOUBTS folks?
By John’s own arguments, One CANNOT but reach the SAME CONCLUSION which MARTIN LUTHER himself reached during his lifetime!
Martin Luther believed that the Catholic church had CORRUPTED the original message of Christianity.
Even John, a so-called Catholic Traditionalist, has reiterated the very thing Martin Luther had been saying all along!
That: “We ought to obey God rather than men.”
It was, thus, that Martin Luther rejected the AUTHORITY of the Pope and Church Councils.
John asks the very same thing Martin Luther did:
What happens when Church authorities themselves go against Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition?
Here was Martin Luther’s answer:
“Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason and NOT by POPES and COUNCILS who have so often CONTRADICTED themselves, my CONSCIENCE is captive to the WORD OF GOD. To go against conscience is neither right nor safe. I cannot and I will not recant. HERE I STAND. I CAN DO NO OTHER. God help me.”
John,
If I am not mistaken, you have ridiculed Esau in the past for being a “cut and paste” hack, which makes this interesting when it is compared to your latest post.
Nonetheless, I’ll give it a read and give you my thoughts.
Esau
You rantings again hold no water. Traditionalists want to change NOTHING and Protestants, in their dismay (and rightfully I have to admit) changed everything and “Reformed”. (Remember who else also “Reformed”-The church after Vatican II). Again I say:
We are what you once were.
We believe what you once believed.
We worship as you once worshipped.
If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then
If I am not mistaken, you have ridiculed Esau in the past for being a “cut and paste” hack…
Actually, Esquire, he has done it several times even prior to my arrival on the blog.
Esau
You rantings again hold no water.
Really now?
Do you know how many tracts Protestants distribute that have cite the same biblical verses as you have in your posts in order to justify rejection of papal authority as well as that of the council of bishops?
“We ought to obey God rather than men.”
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema…”
You are truly so BLINDED by your aversion to the Catholic Church that you cannot even RECOGNIZE the SIMILARITY between you and Martin Luther!
Although, it’s funny that certain Protestants who have seen your posts have actually recognized this themselves and, further, this has reached certain Protesant boards already — you’ve already made news on their end without you not even knowing it!
Traditionalists want to change NOTHING
You mean DISOBEDIENCE to the Pope and the Council of Bishops on matters concerning Faith & Morals shouldn’t be regarded as a ‘CHANGE’?
As before, please show me how such things are part of Traditional Catholic Teaching?
John,
You have it exactly backwards. Faith comes first, and obedience follows.
This appears to be an interesting self-condemnation on your part. You clearly do not have obedience, and you seem to be attributing it to a lack of faith.
(Of course, we both know that the article that you cut and paste this from was actually responding to a different question, and so this answer would have at least made sense in that context. I’ll chalk up your failure to even modify the words a little bit to laziness and not hold you to a confession of no faith.)
We know that everyone, even the pope, must adhere to the Deposit of Faith, that is, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition (the Protestants don’t believe in the latter). The Fathers and Doctors of the Church unquestionably taught that, and the doctrine was formally defined at Vatican I (Decree Pastor Aeternus, chapter 4), a dogmatic council (as Vatican II was not).
Side note, but you do realize, don’t you, that Vatican II issued four Dogmatic Constitutions? But that is really beside the point.
We have been in communication with the Great Vatican I Council, and it has requested the opportunity to square off with you on this point. So, with no further ado, we bring you…Chapter 4 of Pastor Aeternus, the Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ issued by Vatican I.
The title of chapter 4 alone should suffice to demonstrate the silliness of your argument:
On the infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff.
OUCH! (At this point, the referee separates the combatants and checks John’s eyes to see if he is capable of continuing on.)
But let’s move on to the opening paragraph of Chapter 4 (keeping in mind this is your source cited for the purpose of excusing obedience to the Holy Father):
1. That apostolic primacy which the Roman Pontiff possesses as successor of Peter, the prince of the apostles, includes also the supreme power of teaching. This Holy See has always maintained this, the constant custom of the Church demonstrates it, and the ecumenical councils, particularly those in which East and West met in the union of faith and charity, have declared it.
Oh my! (The referee administers a standing 8 count. One hand on the rope, John struggles to one knee and stands up.)
2. So the fathers of the fourth Council of Constantinople, following the footsteps of their predecessors, published this solemn profession of faith: The first condition of salvation is to maintain the rule of the true faith. And since that saying of our lord Jesus Christ, You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church [55], cannot fail of its effect, the words spoken are confirmed by their consequences. For in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been preserved unblemished, and sacred doctrine been held in honor. Since it is our earnest desire to be in no way separated from this faith and doctrine, we hope that we may deserve to remain in that one communion which the Apostolic See preaches, for in it is the whole and true strength of the Christian religion.
He’s down and out. (Towel comes in from John’s corner.)
He’s been soundly defeated by the First Vatican Council, and we didn’t even get to section 3 of chapter 4, where they start listing all the other Councils that talk about the need to assent to the teaching authority of the Pope!
John — I’ll let you catch your breath and pick up where we left off later.
“We are what you once were.”
(Except in being subject to the Pope)
“We believe what you once believed.”
(Except for that bit about Papal Authority)
“We worship as you once worshipped.”
(In isolated conclaves, in defiance of the local Bishop)
“If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.”
Because, as everyone knows, the Pope and the Bishops have NO AUTHORITY, at all, to change ANYTHING without first getting permission from every Catholic who may not like it. What do they think the Church is, some kind of hierarchy? Who gave THEM the power to bind and loose?
Jesus celebrated the Last Supper, you recall, in Latin. The decline of Western Civilization is the result of priests facing the wrong way and speaking English. Abortion is God’s judgement on the modern Church for allowing women to wear slacks. Our duty as good Catholics during this dark time is to heckle our wayward brothers from the sidelines, and to post bitter comments on their blogs. All in love, of course.
Thanks, Esquire, for your presence here!
You’re really give many of us (including myself!) some much needed ‘edumucation’!
About what you said:
Of course, we both know that the article that you cut and paste this from was actually responding to a different question…
Actually, as I had mentioned, this was not the first time he’s done this. There was another good commenter here by the name of Innocencio who caught him several other times in the past as well.
“We are what you once were.”
(Except in being subject to the Pope)
“We believe what you once believed.”
(Except for that bit about Papal Authority)
“We worship as you once worshipped.”
(In isolated conclaves, in defiance of the local Bishop)
“If you were right then, we are right now.
If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.”
Because, as everyone knows, the Pope and the Bishops have NO AUTHORITY, at all, to change ANYTHING without first getting permission from every Catholic who may not like it. What do they think the Church is, some kind of hierarchy? Who gave THEM the power to bind and loose?
Tim J.
LOVE that post!!!
SO TRUE!
I wonder if John would like us to return to the time when venial sin was confessed in public. If all change is bad, then anyone who sells all of their belonging, but keeps from the community some of the profits, should be struck dead by God, correct?
Jimmy, you have done a great and logical obliteration of the propaganda being spewed by Cameron.
Cameron must think that people will abandon the Catholic Church (and the other protestant denominations) and join the Church of the Holy Mirror, where the self is worshipped above all others.
So, I wonder if he owns stock in mirror companies?
🙂
I think I’m going to go lock up the http://www.churchoftheholymirror.com website pronto.
Jimmy’s post addresses the statistical evidence only in a link. I read the link but it does not address the p value calculated by Andrey Feuerverger adequately. The term p value was not used in the documentary, but it is used in this interview with Scientific American:
http://sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=13C42878-E7F2-99DF-3B6D16A9656A12FF&pageNumber=2&catID=9
Wikipedia has an excellent article about what a p value is and is not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_value
God would not punish someone for having an open mind. If one loves the truth, one goes to heaven since the truth is God himself. Having true beliefs is not a requirement for being admitted to heaven, in my opinion.
God would not punish someone for having an open mind.
Eve and Adam had an open mind — look where it got them, and us.
Well your opinion could not even get you a 1 in the AP exams.
Having true beliefs is not a requirement for being admitted to heaven, in my opinion.
John:
If you mean the heaven as that in Christianity, being admitted to heaven then without accepting & adhering to true beliefs will prove difficult.
Matthew 19:16-21
16 ¶ And behold one came and said to him: Good master, what good shall I do that I may have life everlasting?
17 Who said to him: Why askest thou me concerning good? One is good, God. But if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments.
18 He said to him: Which? And Jesus said: Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness.
19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
20 The young man saith to him: All these have I kept from my youth, what is yet wanting to me?
21 Jesus saith to him: If thou wilt be perfect, go sell what thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me.
John 14:6
6 Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me.
John 6:53-54
53 Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen, I say unto you: except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
54 He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
“Side note, but you do realize, don’t you, that Vatican II issued four Dogmatic Constitutions?”
Actually Vatican II issued only two Dogmatic Constitutions, Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium. There was also a constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum Consilium, and a Pastoral (note, NOT a Dogmatic) Constitution, Gaudium et Spes.
Jordan,
Actually Vatican II issued only two Dogmatic Constitutions, Dei Verbum and Lumen Gentium. There was also a constitution on the sacred liturgy, Sacrosanctum Consilium, and a Pastoral (note, NOT a Dogmatic) Constitution, Gaudium et Spes.
Good catch. My bad. Thanks
So therefore as Jordan has pointed out (and I even question if 2 of the 16 are even dogmatic by definintion as they clearly retaught previously infallible church teachings such as Lumen Gentiums “subsist”)-One can ignore the 14 other documents including the liturgy which is not infallible except possibly in the case of Quo Primium which is a Papal Bull which has all but been ignored
Thanks for the clarification!
So tell me is this Protestant or what?
“The Lords Supper is the assembly or gathering together of the people of God, with a priest PRESIDING, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. For this reason the promise of Christ is particularly true of a local congregation of church: “Where two or three are gathered in my name, there I am in the midst”(Mt 18:20) (The General Instruction and the New order of Mass, 1969)
As compared to The council of Trent which declared:
Forasmuch as, under the former Testament, according to the tenstimony of the Apostle Paul, there was no perfection because of the Levitical priesthood, there was need that another priest should arise according to the order of Melchisedech..The oriest is Christ and because his priesthood was not to be extinguished by his death, in the last Supper, on the night in which he was betrayed..He offered to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine…Do this in commemoration of me…
As documened in “Inside the Vatican” on December 19, 1993 Jean Guitton, close friend of Paul VI stated “The intention of Paul VI with regard to the liturgy in particular that part of the liturgy normally called the Mass, was to reform the Catholic liturgy in such as way that it could almost coincide with the Protestant liturgy. I repeat, Pope Paul VI did everything in his power to bring the Catholic mass closer to the Protestant supper..”
So either you worship as a Protestant and be “obedient” or as a Catholic as the saints and martyrs did for centuries. The choice I think is clear
“One can ignore the 14 other documents including the liturgy which is not infallible”
That is EXACTLY the argument DJK has been using to argue for women priests and contraception.
“So therefore as Jordan has pointed out (and I even question if 2 of the 16 are even dogmatic by definition as they clearly retaught previously infallible church teachings such as Lumen Gentium’s “subsist”)”
No, John, that’s not how it works. Catholics don’t question the dogmatic status of a constitution that is issued by a valid oecumenical council. Vatican II was a valid council convened and presided over by a valid Pope. Therefore when Vatican II says a document is a “dogmatic constitution,” it’s a dogmatic constitution.
“One can ignore the 14 other documents including the liturgy which is not infallible except possibly in the case of Quo Primum which is a Papal Bull which has all but been ignored.”
No, John, that’s not how it works. Catholics do not ignore authoritative documents issued by valid oecumenical councils. We assent to them and receive them with all the honor that is due them.
Oh, and Quo Primum was not an exercise of the extraordinary papal magisterium, and therefore is not infallible. It was a disciplinary, juridical document, not a doctrinal one.
So tell me is this Protestant or what?
“The Lords Supper is the assembly or gathering together of the people of God, with a priest PRESIDING, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord.
So either you worship as a Protestant and be “obedient” or as a Catholic as the saints and martyrs did for centuries. The choice I think is clear
OH MY GOSH!!!
STOP THE PRESSES!!!
CALL JAMES CAMERON!!!
I JUST DISCOVERED THAT ST. PAUL WAS ACTUALLY A PROTESTANT!!!
1 Corinthians 11:24
24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.
In the original Greek, the word is ναμνησιν or, as it is better known: anamnesis!
John,
That Duoay-Rheims bible you keep touting — do you actually do anything with it (like read it) or do you just let it collect dust and decorate your bookshelf???
By the way, if you ACTUALLY READ your Duoay-Rheims bible, you would have NOTICED that each time I cited passages in Scripture, they were actually FROM a DUOAY-RHEIMS bible!
Esau,
I JUST DISCOVERED THAT ST. PAUL WAS ACTUALLY A PROTESTANT!!!
Too funny!
John,
So either you worship as a Protestant and be “obedient” or as a Catholic as the saints and martyrs did for centuries.
I think you had a typo again. Let me rephrase for you:
“So either you worship as a Protestant or be ‘obedient’ and worship as a Catholic as the saints and martyrs did for centuries.”
I’m going to start charging you by the hour for correcting your work.
The choice I think is clear
Yes, I think it is.
Esquire-You are becoming as Uncharitable as your friend Esau-Unless you are one and the same?
One would have thought attending the “New Order” of mass with handholding and preaching of the word of Love instead of sin and salvation from the pulpit each Sunday that you would be more charitable-After all after Vatican II everybody gets saved now, even those that deny Jesus-dont we?
John,
Please identify where you believe I have displayed a lack of charity and I will gladly evaluate.
John, I think this is important enough to reiterate;
“One can ignore the 14 other documents including the liturgy which is not infallible.”
That is EXACTLY the argument DJK has been using to argue for women priests and contraception; if it is not – to my satisfaction – infallible, Ex Cathedra, Defined Doctrine, it can be ignored.
Sorry, does ANYONE see an excess of humility and obedience as a real problem in the Church, right now?
Esquire posted:
“I think you had a typo again. Let me rephrase for you:
“So either you worship as a Protestant or be ‘obedient’ and worship as a Catholic as the saints and martyrs did for centuries.”
I’m going to start charging you by the hour for correcting your work”
Seems a bit uncharitiable in my opinion. Sorry if I am not the master typist you so desire
John,
The correction was not to your typing, but to your theology; I changed it from Protestant to Catholic.
(I was being charitable when I called it a “typo.”)
>God would not punish someone for having an open mind. If one loves the truth, one goes to heaven since the truth is God himself.
if one loves the truth, their mind is closed to error.
Don’t be so “open minded” that your brain falls out.
The term “open minded” has been declared a virtue by modern secularists, and has nothing to do with “truth” but simply “accepting truth and error as both are equal.”
>I think I’m going to go lock up the http://www.churchoftheholymirror.com website pronto.
and .org and .biz as well 🙂
As it was posted:
“That is EXACTLY the argument DJK has been using to argue for women priests and contraception; if it is not – to my satisfaction – infallible, Ex Cathedra, Defined Doctrine, it can be ignored.
Sorry, does ANYONE see an excess of humility and obedience as a real problem in the Church, right now?”
Sorry-the analogies are null and void. Traditionalists and neo cons want NO change whatsover, we feel that the changes that you and so many are so “obedient” to are the root cause of what DJK has proposed-you have a vague council with 16 documents that are so wishy washy that one line sounds catholic, the next something as far removed and deviating from past teaching, it becomes pastoral by definition. Two quotes I think sum this up:
“And there is no reason why those who obey God rather than men should be accused of refusing obedience; for if the will of rulers is opposed to the will and the laws of God, these rulers exceed the bounds of their own power and pervert justice, nor can their authority then be valid, which, when there is no justice, is null.
Pope Leo XIII, Diuturnum Illud”
Satan’s masterpiece is to have succeded in sowing disobedience to all Tradition through obedience (false obedience)-Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
The so called “disobedience” to the modernism of todays church and the new customs can easily be flipped around and accusing the modernists of causing anarchy and confusion by disobeying Sacred Traditions.
God would not punish someone for having an open mind. If one loves the truth, one goes to heaven since the truth is God himself. Having true beliefs is not a requirement for being admitted to heaven, in my opinion.
I disagree.
Many claim “a mind is like a parachute – they only work when they are open.” However, a parachute that is open all the time is a hinderance – it slows you down, gets stuck on unnecessary (and even dangerous) items, and can be torn up. Every good paratrooper knows the importance of proper care of a parachute and that 99% of the time, it is packed up and closed, only to be opened in the moment of most need.
Chesterton said, “Merely having an open mind is nothing. The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.”
We shut our minds on the truth, once we have captured it, because it is precious and, all too often, fleeting. Jesus wants us to have this Truth, because he IS the Truth. Heaven wouldn’t be Heaven otherwise.
you have a vague council with 16 documents that are so wishy washy that one line sounds catholic
You mean to say you actually READ ALL 16 Documents???
Tell me, where in it does it actually say the things you’ve cited previously; that is, the eradication of kneelers and hand-holding during the Our Father?
Sorry, does ANYONE see an excess of humility and obedience as a real problem in the Church, right now?”
Yes, and we should make things worse, as you are demonstrating by your very actions here and beyond, and promote further disobedience!
At any rate, why should we obey the AUTHORITY of the Pope and the Council of Bishops? It’s NOT like JESUS CHRIST was the ONE who gave them AUTHORITY in the first place, right?
HOLD ON —
There could be something here:
Matthew 16:19
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.
Hmmm… Okay, in the first passage, it was JESUS who gave Peter the KEYS, which finds its ‘TYPE’ in Isaiah:
Is:22:21: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
Is:22:22: And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
What is the significance of this?
Who did Christ give the Keys of the Kingdom to?
Did he give these Keys to others as well?
To my recollection, I believe this was given solely to Peter!
Thus, Peter is Father (i.e., ‘Papa’ or ‘Pope) to the New Jerusalem, which is the Church!
As the Prime Minister in this Isaiah passage was chosen by God to have such AUTHORITY on behalf of the King, so is Peter the Prime Minister chosen by Christ to have authority on behalf of his Kingship here on earth.
No other person was given the Keys of the Kingdom except Peter, the rock upon which Christ built his Church and, henceforth, as in Isaiah and the times of the Old Testament, it’s an AUTHORITY that’s passed onto Peter’s successors!
Now, as for the Council of Bishops, we also find Scriptural support (in addition to Sacred Tradition) in the following verses:
Matthew 18:17-18
17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.
So, John, really now, do you REALLY HATE the Catholic Church so much that you would actually go AGAINST Christ Himself?
John,
Perhaps you have http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_09051897_divinum-illud-munus_en.html” rel=”nofollow”>Divinum Illud Munus, Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical On the Holy Spirit, confused with Diuturnum, his Encyclical On the Origin of Civil Power.
The former contains no mention of authority, but the latter, interestingly enough, sets the stage by beginning with this thought:
before elaborating further:
As Pope Leo XIII made clear, to obey God one must obey his Church.
What I can see is that John neglects to understand that there was a REAL reason and need for Vatican II, especially in the context of the world changes that were taking place in the mid 20th century. And I’m not talking in the way that liberal or ‘progressive’ Catholics might talk, about a need to upgrade the teachings of Christ to possible permit many of the mofern sins, but rather, that there was a real and very ‘orthodox’ need for Vatican II to address very necessary corncerns affecting the modern world. And for this purpose is EXACTLY WHY the Holy Church convened the Vatican II council.
Just look at the history of the 20th century, and recall the profound scientific and industrial advances made! The Church was immersed in a vastly new world, a world where, in only 50 years since the invention of a homemade Wright Bros. airplane, turbo jetliners were screaming across the skies! Again, in just 50 short years!
And what about all of the other technologies like NUCLEAR POWER which has the ability to either greatly help or completely DESTROY the world, depending on how it is used.
So, in all of John’s demonstrated devotion for the past customs and practices of the Church, which I and many other ‘devout’ catholics also have, I think he overlooks this essential need the MID @)th CENTURY Church Magesterium had, to address the implications, consequences and effects of this MODERN SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION.
And then consider the cultural situations and conflicts involved! With the scientific achievements also came extreme cultural side effects, such as socialism and communism,(and secularism to boot!) which everyone knows are inherently athiestic. Moreover, after the Chinese Communist Revolution, almost 1/3 of the entire planet would thus be affected by such athiestic doctrines!
And don’t you think, John, that the Church needed to address these apparently ‘small’ and ‘insignificant’ scientific, cultural and religious changes??
Rather, in the heat of such scientific and cultural turbulance, the Roman Catholic Church, in the Wisdom and Guidence of the Holy Spirit, did what it needed to do. And this is what Vatican II was all about! And it was never intended to destroy the Church of the past, but rather, as Jesus might say “to perfect it” and adapt it to the NEW TIMES with it’s particularly NEW NEEDS. And even as the Lord had the ability to ‘perfect’ the Jewish religion, of His generation, ie..when “the day of the Lord” had arrived,…so too the Holy Church has always had the ability to adapt according to it’s various needs and circumstances, and in every generation since the founding of the Church, and all under the CHRIST promised ‘GUIDENCE’ of the Holy Spirit.
And so, to speak so badly of Vatican II, as you almost continually do, seems to deny the fact that it was indeed necessary to hold the Council in the first place, and to face these multitudes of NEW WORLD problems that continue up to this very day! And infact the present Magisterium is still refining the teachings and interpretation of Vatican II, and consequently, performing the objectives in which Vatican II was created for, very well!
And just because many things are indeed ‘NEW’, doesn’t mean that the Church doesn’t have the capacity or WISDOM to resolve such modern conflicts and controversies. Rather, it is for EXACTLY this that the HOLY AND WISE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH IS NEEDED MORE THAN EVER! For what other world body, organization or instituion has the wisdom or discernment to address these countless moral, spiritual and scientific dilemma’s??
Then, once we agree that, indeed, it was very wise to call for the Second Vatican Council in the first place, we only need to have faith that the Church conducted the Council in according to the guidence and Wisdom of the Holy Spirit (even as was the case in all of the other Church Councils.
And if the the Magisterium of the Church can falter in such a case as this (Vatican Council), can we really have faith that it would remain faithful to Christ in any, or all, other ways? Herein, more than ever, we need to believe we have the guarantee of Christ Himself, to the Magisterium of His Church for all ages to come, that “the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it”.
Last post with name omitted was mine. Sorry.
John,
That could conceivably be a correct statement if made in 1962, before the opening of Vatican II, not in 2007. To me, fixing 1962 as the time when all change must stop seems…rather arbitrary.
>Traditionalists and neo cons want NO change whatsover
NEO CONS? What is that?
Someone is confusing church and politics again, probably thinking that the Church is only a political instution like the leftwingers think.
NEO CONS? What is that?
Someone is confusing church and politics again, probably thinking that the Church is only a political instution like the leftwingers think.
BobCatholic:
Thanks for pointing out!
I, myself, never even heard of the term until I visited this blog!
Is there a bi-partisan system that I’m not aware of???
Esau posted:
“Is there a bi-partisan system that I’m not aware of???”
Esau-Yes there was a time before the “Reform of 1962” when were all just “catholic”.
Unfortunatly due to the divisiveness of the council and subsequent reforms, it has split the church not to mention those that have just go plain old fed up with the continued push to the left that has and is taking place, demanding the church become more “modern” to conform with the sinful secular society in the name of “enlightenment”-instead of asking the sinful world to conform to her tried and true beliefs, customs and traditions
Bold off.
Esau, if you can’t put your toys away when you’re done, you shouldn’t be allowed to play with them. 😉
SDG:
huh?
John:
Unfortunatly due to the divisiveness of the council and subsequent reforms…
On what AUTHORITY do you accept the actions of previous councils?
I just mean, Esau, that your rather liberal use of bold formatting sometimes get out of control, especially when it spills across multiple posts. This is hard on the eyes and makes other peoples’ posts hard to read, too.
>Yes there was a time before the “Reform of 1962” when were all just “catholic”.
But this doesn’t explain of the use of the term NEO CON, which is only used in secular USA politics.
Do you believe that the Church is only a political institution like the leftists do?
>Unfortunatly due to the divisiveness of the council and subsequent reforms
The council wasn’t divisive. The leftists who misinterpreted it were being divisive.
Bob Catholic:
You seem to contradict yourself. You state you never heard of the term “Neo con” which of course means “Neo Conservative”, and you question why such terms as you state that the “church is only a political institution as the leftwingers do” and that “The council wasn’t divisive. The leftists who misinterpreted it were being divisive.”
Your use of the term “left wingers” is political and if there are so called “left wingers” in the church who were allowed to interpret and have the power of those who are “obedient” to tradition-than what does that make the “left wingers” many of whom have been Pope such as John XXIII, Paul VI and JPII? Possibly heretics or apostates and if that is the case then should they be followed?
So we have concluded that it was not the council’s fault for being divisive, or the reform of the liturgy-but the blame lies solely on the left wingers or subversive liberal elements within the church who interpreted the council and its intent incorrectly
As we have had 5 sitting popes since the council was convened-have they not had the power to correct these ills-or are they possibly in agreement with them?
And if they are in agreement, as John XXIII promoted “aggiornamento”, and Paul VI the new mass, and what has been practiced for the past 40 years in many cases is not Catholic by definition, then can these men themselves be to blame as it is the responsibility of the Bishops on up to the Pope to lead the flock to salvation and are they therefore not to be followed and fallen into apostasy?
John says:
Bob Catholic:
You seem to contradict yourself.
Again, John, answer my question:
On what AUTHORITY do you accept the actions of previous councils?
John,
“what does that make the “left wingers” many of whom have been Pope such as John XXIII, Paul VI and JPII? Possibly heretics or apostates and if that is the case thenshould they be followed?”
Referring to the last three post as “Possibly heretics” is, in itself, baseless, irrational, illogical, unreasoning, scandalous, uncharitable, arrogant, and, in short, SINFUL. I am not telling you this for my own self-gratification. I’m telling you because it is a spiritual works of mercy.
David B posted:
“what does that make the “left wingers” many of whom have been Pope such as John XXIII, Paul VI and JPII? Possibly heretics or apostates and if that is the case thenshould they be followed?”
Now let it be knownt that I dont espouse such idea, but with 5 Popes and over 40 years to clean up the so called “misinterpretation” of a council, whether patoral or not, can lead one to conclude the following:
That none of the Popes have any sanity
That none of the Popes care less
That the Popes all actually agree with the abuses that are taking place
That all are incompetent to hold office
Now with the holy spirit supposedly guiding such decisions, even though we have had Popes who have been deemed heretical by popes in later years, one has to explore all possible reasons for the so called misapplication of a council by a small (I hope???) group of left wingers
As far as Paul VI and his instruction for the Novus Ordo Missae which he approved in 1969 which revised the sacrifice of the Mass to “The Lords Supper” and basically doing away with Transubstantiation, one has to also question the seminarians and subsequent priests that have been ordained (the rite of ordination was changed as well after vatican II making them “presbetyrs or “presiders” ), one must question whether these men even belive what is taking place, basically doing away with the Mass and making it invalid. I know first hand that many priests themselves question transubstantiation and in seminary here in NY were told to question this and it was Ok to do so. St Thomas was thrown out, and Karl Rahner replaced him.
The only safe course of action today is to find a Traditional Latin Mass and abide by untained code of canon law of 1917 (the translations can be found on line), the Baltimore Catechism as well as sacraments that have not been tainted, including Baptism which has done away with the “exorcism” and is now only “welcoming” one into the Christian community
rite of ordination was changed as well after vatican II making them “presbetyrs”
John, once again, do you ever manage to actually read Scripture???
There’s a popular writer in the bible called St. Paul.
He said:
1 Timothy 4:14
14 Neglect not the grace that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with imposition of the hands of the priesthood.
Now, the word for “priesthood” there in the Greek is πρεσβυτεριου which, in English, presbuterion.
Just for the sake of others reading this who might not know, πρεσβυτεριου or presbuterion came to be known as ‘priesthood’ since this is how it comes across in the Latin.
And, for the benefit of BOTH John and Other readers out there, be they Catholic or Protesant, here is some clarification provided by our own friend, Mr. Webster himself:
presbyter
One entry found.
presbyter
Main Entry: pres·by·ter
Pronunciation: \ˈprez-bə-tər, ˈpres-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Late Latin, elder, priest, from Greek presbyteros, comparative of presbys old man, elder; akin to Greek pro before and Greek bainein to go — more at for, come
Date: 1597
1 : a member of the governing body of an early Christian church
2 : a member of the order of priests in churches having episcopal hierarchies that include bishops, priests, and deacons
3 : elder 4b
— pres·byt·er·ate \prez-ˈbi-tə-rət, pres-, -ˌrāt\ noun
Now, for the 4th time —
John:
On what AUTHORITY do you accept the actions of previous councils?
Esau,
Most contemporary NT exegetes consider the Timothy epistles to be written by a “pseudo-Paul”.
See Father Ray Brown’s book, An Introduction to the New Testament”.
“David B posted:
“what does that make the “left wingers” many of whom have been Pope such as John XXIII, Paul VI and JPII? Possibly heretics or apostates and if that is the case thenshould they be followed?” ”
I DID NOT POST THAT.
Weeeelll, I actually did post that. However, you, John, have only responded to your own words, and didn’t even consider the content of my post.
“Most contemporary NT exegetes consider the Timothy epistles to be written by a “pseudo-Paul”.
You can ignore that, Esau. Most JA.O readers consider these comments to be written by a “pseudo-Realist”.
Or, as Jimmy himself once tagged him, “SurRealist”.
Mary,
To answer your question “Why in blue blazes did they pick him and not one of the other wannabe messiahs floating around at the time?”
(as done previously), Good question. The number of disciples? The “filler” of John the Baptist’s shoes and ideas? Right time and place? The message? Anti-Roman stances? Peaceful rebellion? A fellow peasant? The experience of Saul before Paul with the movement? All of these?
Does not answer the question. John the Baptist merely pushes back the question of “why him?” All these would-be messiahs were the same sort of time and place, within years of each other; why was that exactly the right time and place.
As for the rest, if they’re inventing stuff, why didn’t they just invent what they wanted?
I know it is vaguely related, but one of the reasons Our Lady was spoken of so little in the Bible, was that because if She was, the evil forces of the time (Sanehdrin, etc.) would make a party making Her a deity to make an opposing party against Our Lord, because there is certainly where to get an idea that Our Lady is divine. She is so perfect that even one saint that was brought to meet Her was tempted to adore Her, but realized that She was so perfect, but not divine. Not even the angels can measure Her perfection.
Tota pulchra es, Maria
et macula originalis non est in te.
Vestimentum tuum candidum quasi nix, et facies tua sicut sol.
Tota pulchra es, Maria,
et macula originalis non est in te.
Tu gloria Jerusalem, tu laetitia Israel, tu honorificentia populi nostri.
Tota pulchra es, Maria…
You can ignore that, Esau. Most JA.O readers consider these comments to be written by a “pseudo-Realist”.
Thanks Tim J.!
I needed that laugh!
John,
even though we have had Popes who have been deemed heretical by popes in later years
Source?
As far as Paul VI and his instruction for the Novus Ordo Missae which he approved in 1969 which revised the sacrifice of the Mass to “The Lords Supper” and basically doing away with Transubstantiation
Source?
The only safe course of action today is to find a Traditional Latin Mass and abide by untained code of canon law of 1917 (the translations can be found on line), the Baltimore Catechism as well as sacraments that have not been tainted, including Baptism which has done away with the “exorcism” and is now only “welcoming” one into the Christian community
Source?
Seriously, John, the Catechism’s not all that difficult to read. If you’ve got issues, at least deal with facts.
Wait, not that I am defending John, but I know for sure that a sainly pope went to the tomb of the previous pontiff and excomminicated him.
I know it doesn’t do much when they are dead, but that says enough. I’ll find out which popes were they.
Some Day,
Are you speaking of Pope Formosus? I am aware that he was exhumed and that his corpse was “tried” by the subsequent Pope and found unworthy to have held the office of the papacy (the “Corpse Synod”). My understanding, and please correct me if I’m wrong, is that the trial was based on prudential decisions that the subsequent Pope disagreed with, not doctrinal teachings.
Doesn’t make it good or keep it from being scandalous, but doesn’t make him a heretic either. I believe the judgment was later reversed by the next Pope, but again, correct me if I’m wrong.
That is great evidence that we’ve had great sinners as Popes in the Church’s history. It is not, as John described, evidence of one Pope declaring another to be a heretic. Which is why I asked him for a source.
Well, a Pope can be a heretic, but not proclaim it ex-catedra.
+J.M.J+
>>>Perhaps you have Divinum Illud Munus, Pope Leo XIII’s Encyclical On the Holy Spirit, confused with Diuturnum, his Encyclical On the Origin of Civil Power.
As Esquire points out, Diuturnum is about the authority of the State. If you read the quote John gave in context, Pope Leo XIII is clearly talking about withholding obedience to secular authorities, not ecclesiastical. To use his words to justify disobedience to the Church heirarchy is simply illegitimate.
A bit of Googling will reveal, however, that this quote (ripped from its context, of course) appears on many ultratraditionalist sites. Not too surprising.
John writes:
>>>As far as Paul VI and his instruction for the Novus Ordo Missae which he approved in 1969 which revised the sacrifice of the Mass to “The Lords Supper” and basically doing away with Transubstantiation
Eucharistic Prayer I: Bless and approve our offering; make it acceptable to you, an offering in spirit and in truth. Let it become for us the body + and blood of Jesus Christ, your only Son, our Lord.
Eucharistic Prayer II: “Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body + and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.”
Eucharistic Prayer III: And so, Father, we bring you these gifts. We ask you to make them holy by the power of your Spirit, that they may become the body + and blood of your Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, at whose command we celebrate this Eucharist.
Eucharistic Prayer IV: Father, may this Holy Spirit sanctify these offerings. Let them become for us the body + and blood of Jesus Christ our Lord as we celebrate the great mystery which he left us as an everlasting convenant.
Of course, each of these quotes is then followed by a valid consecration formula, stating “This is My Body” and “This is the cup of My Blood” – the words required for transubstantiation to take place
So exactly where does the Pauline Mass deny Transubstantiation?
>>>one must question whether these men even belive what is taking place, basically doing away with the Mass and making it invalid. I know first hand that many priests themselves question transubstantiation and in seminary here in NY were told to question this and it was Ok to do so. St Thomas was thrown out, and Karl Rahner replaced him.
I’ve never met a priest who questioned it.
>>>as well as sacraments that have not been tainted, including Baptism which has done away with the “exorcism” and is now only “welcoming” one into the Christian community
The current Rite of Baptism still has an exorcism:
Almighty and ever-living God, you sent your only Son into the world to cast out the power of Satan, spirit of evil, to rescue man from the kingdom of darkness, and bring him into the splendor of your kingdom of light. We pray for this child: set him (her) free from original sin, make him (her) a temple of your glory, and send your Holy Spirit to dwell with him (her). We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen
It uses an imploring formula rather than an imprecatory formula, which is still effective since it is the prayer of the Church. Therefore the new rite of minor exorcism of catechumens is valid. Of course, even if it somehow weren’t, as long as the proper Matt. 28:19 formula is used, a Baptism is still valid even without an exorcism (which is why even lay people can baptize in an emergency).
In Jesu et Maria,
Esquire, I so enjoy what you’ve added to these discussions.
Rosemarie, I always look forward to your posts.
According to Raymond E. Brown (An Introduction to the New Testament, 1997), the majority of scholars who accept a post-Pauline date of composition for the Pastorals favor the period 80-100. Scholars supporting a date in this mid range can draw on the description in 2 Timothy 1:5 of Timothy’s Christian mother and Grandmother who passed on their faith, as elluding to the original audience being third generation Christians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastoral_Epistles
Yeah, right, Realist.
Enjoy your cheeseburger.
“Scholars supporting a date in this mid range can draw on the description in 2 Timothy 1:5 of Timothy’s Christian mother and Grandmother who passed on their faith”
Of course it doesn’t say St. Timothy’s “Christian” mother and grandmother had passed on their faith to him. It says they had passed on to him “the unfeigned faith that is in thee.” The Book of Acts records that Timothy’s mother was a Jewess while his father was a pagan Greek. Thus, St. Paul is talking about St. Timothy having been taught the essential truths of the Jewish faith by his mother and grandmother, and is praising St. Timothy and his mother and grandmother for the spiritual quality of their relationships with God. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever to take II Tim. 1:5 as evidence that St. Timothy was mistakenly thought by the forger of II Timothy to have been a third-generation Christian. Taking II Tim. 1:5 to mean “Christian” faith is unwarranted eisegesis, not exegesis.
It’s stupidity like that that shows why merely being an “exegete” or a scholar doesn’t necessarily mean you have anything helpful or accurate to say about the Scriptures.
Esquire posted:
“As far as Paul VI and his instruction for the Novus Ordo Missae which he approved in 1969 which revised the sacrifice of the Mass to “The Lords Supper” and basically doing away with Transubstantiation”
Please look at the general instructions as issued in 1969 on the Vatican website whuch I have posted the link if I recall earlier in this thread which I can only suppose you and others have refused to read, dont know Latin and the church has not published the latin translation and dont teach their own priests Latin for the fear of exposure
When you call the sacrifice of the mass “The Lords Supper”-You are denying transubstantiation implicitly
With respect to Rosemaries “Eucharistic Prayers (Rosemarie-Are you saying that the Novus Ordo Mass ALLOWS FOUR DIFFERENT prayers for consecration??????????????)at the discretion of the Priest???????????????
These prayers and the intention of the New Mass is to only “re-enact” what our Lord said in scripture-that is the INTENTION!!
Take a look at your King James or any protestant bible-those same words are in there as well!!!
You fail to realize what the true meaning of the mass is and what changes took place. Amazing
Mary Kay,
Thank you, I have enjoyed yours as well, and I second your comments on Rosemarie’s posts.
Some Day,
Can we get an explanation here? Are you saying that the Pope can teach heresy, just not infallibly? If so, I’d appreciate any of the following (a) a reliable source (i.e., not John) that backs that up; (b) an example of what you consider to be a heretical teaching from a Pope.
If you mean something different, please elaborate clearly, because your comments are sure to be misconstrued.
John,
What is your understanding of what takes place during transubstantiation?
“When you call the sacrifice of the mass “The Lords Supper”-You are denying transubstantiation implicitly”
Wrong. The Eucharist is BOTH a memorial and the re-presentation of the scarifice of the cross. Christ’s body, eternally offered to God the Father on the heavenly altar.
“These prayers and the intention of the New Mass is to only “re-enact” what our Lord said in scripture-that is the INTENTION!!”
Wrong, again. The intention is to confect the Eucharist – body, blood, soul and divinity – using the very words of Christ. You have a problem with the words of Christ?
“You fail to realize what the true meaning of the mass is and what changes took place.”
Strike three. You’re out. YOU fail to realize that the language, exact wording of prayers, and gestures and motions of the priest can change (and have changed time and again) without altering the basic structure, intention and validity of the mass AT ALL. But why let facts stand in your way, now?
Just like the personal sins of a Pope do not affect his infallibility, a heretical stance, say he does not believe in transubstantiation, that makes his mass invalid for not properly believing or having the intention to consecrate, but that does not mean he is teaching this ex-catedra. That is a personal sin and heresy.
Some Day,
Pardon me, but you have not answered the question. Do you believe that a Pope can teach heresy, just not infallibly?
What is Heresy?
“Heresy consists in a stubborn denial of truths which have been defined an proposed by the Church as divinely revealed doctrines.” (Canon 1324-1325 of the 1917 Code of Canon Law).
Of course a Pope can teach heresy or else infallible councils and Doctors of the church would not have addressed such, as well as canon law!!
The Papal Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio of Pope Paul IV teaches that: if anyone was a heretic before the Papal election, he could not be a valid pope, even if he is elected unanimously by the Cardinals.
Canon 188.4 (1917 Code of Canon Law) teachers that : if a cleric (pope, bishop, etc.) becomes a heretic, he loses his office without any declaration by operation of law.
John,
Looks like you found a new site to cut and paste from, one that holds Benedict XVI to be a heretic.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Esquire
Are you then denying the truth of the above? Does it matter the source? Are you denying the above? Do you expect to find the above on Catholic Answers!!
Are you then denying the truth of the above? Does it matter the source? Are you denying the above? Do you expect to find the above on Catholic Answers!!
John:
Don’t even waste Esquire’s time with such risible arguments!
Does it matter the source?!?!
What kind of question is that?
It’s so ludicrous!
Of course the source matters!
If a source happens to produce filth, why should anybody give it credence?
“When you call the sacrifice of the mass “The Lords Supper”-You are denying transubstantiation implicitly”
Wrong. The Eucharist is BOTH a memorial and the re-presentation of the scarifice of the cross. Christ’s body, eternally offered to God the Father on the heavenly altar.
Thanks, Tim J.!
See, that’s what I can’t understand about John —
He touts how great the Duoay Rheims bible is, but does he actually read it?
That’s why it’s so very difficult for me to understand folks like him who are Catholic, often promoting how the Duoay Rheims bible is so superior than all the rest; yet, do these folks ever read their bibles?
Luke 22:19
19 And taking bread, he gave thanks and brake and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.
The Greek word there again is αναμνησιν, which is “anamnesis”.
As Tim J. had rightly put it, it is, thus, BOTH a memoral and a re-presentation (that is, to make present again) of the Holy Sacrifice of Our Lord!
That’s what I loved about being in Protestant churches and bible studies back in college because there, people actually read their bibles as well as reference the original biblical languages!
That’s why I THANK GOD that He had blessed the Catholic Church (especially in these times) with folks like Pope John Paul II (and our beloved B16) and Protestant Converts like Jimmy Akin, Tim Staples, and Scott Hahn who’ve helped to bring folks into greater knowledge and awareness of the Truths of the Catholic Faith, spread the Good News for the Salvation of many as Our Lord had instructed, and bring MANY back home, back into the fold, of the Fullness of Christian Truth that can only be found in the Catholic Faith!
It definitely SPEAKS VOLUMES of how God is really looking out for HIS Church!
Esquire, is the following not Canon law or not???
Canon 188.4 (1917 Code of Canon Law) teachers that : if a cleric (pope, bishop, etc.) becomes a heretic, he loses his office without any declaration by operation of law.
If this is canon law-you are clearly contradicted
With respect to the “Lords Supper” You are using words again!!!
Show me in the reform of the liturgy, Vatican II where it states that the reform of the liturgy is to better “re-enact” the SACRIFICE of the Mass and not the “LORDS SUPPER”
Esquire-Start Googling!!!
Esquire, you’re using words again? Shame on you!
John:
Do you actually KNOW or STUDY Catholic CHURCH TEACHING or even READ or STUDY the BIBLE?
You forget that Catholicism is based BOTH on Sacred Tradition AND Sacred Scripture — BOTH of which you neglect here, in fact!
Again, right from Scripture:
Luke 22:19
19 And taking bread, he gave thanks and brake and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.
The Greek word there again is αναμνησιν, which is “anamnesis”.
1 Corinthians 11:24
24 And giving thanks, broke and said: Take ye and eat: This is my body, which shall be delivered for you. This do for the commemoration of me.
In the original Greek, the word is ναμνησιν or, as it is better known also as: anamnesis!
Here’s a great definition provided by our Melkite brothers:
Anamnesis – Literally: “to remember.” The part of the Liturgy that recalls the narrative of the Last Supper and the events of Christ’s life. The biblical concept of anamnesis always includes the making of the remembered event a present reality.
From the GIRM:
GENERAL INSTRUCTION OF THE ROMAN MISSAL (par. 55)
The chief elements of the eucharistic prayer are these:
Thanksgiving (expressed especially in the preface): in the name of the entire people of God, the priest praises the Father and gives him thanks for the work of salvation or for some special aspect of it in keeping with the day, feast, or season.
Acclamation: united with the angels, the congregation sings or recites the Sanctus. This acclamation forms part of the eucharistic prayer, and all the people join with the priest in singing or reciting it.
Epiclesis: in special invocations the Church calls on God’s power and asks that the gifts offered by men may be consecrated, that is, become the body and blood of Christ and that the victim may become a source of salvation for those who are to share in communion.
Narrative of the institution and consecration: in the words and actions of Christ, the sacrifice he instituted at the Last Supper is celebrated, when under the appearances of bread and wine he offered his body and blood, gave them to his Apostles to eat and drink, and commanded them to carry on this mystery.
Anamnesis: in fulfillment of the command received from Christ through the Apostles, the Church keeps his memorial by recalling especially his passion, resurrection, and ascension.
Offering: in this memorial, the Church-and in particular the Church here and now assembled-offers the victim to the Father in the Holy Spirit. The Church’s intention is that the faithful not only offer the spotless victim but also learn to offer themselves and daily to be drawn into ever more perfect union, through Christ the Mediator, with the Father and with each other, so that at last God may be all in all.
Intercessions: the intercessions make it clear that the eucharist is celebrated in communion with the whole church of heaven and earth, and that the offering is made for the Church and all its members , living and dead, who are called to share in the salvation and redemption acquired by the body and blood of Christ.
Final doxology: the praise of God is expressed in the doxology which is confirmed and concluded by the acclamation of the people.
As one priest rightly put it:
Through the biblical understanding of anamnesis (memorial), the Eucharist enables us to become present to the once-and-for-all redeeming sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. The Eucharist embodies the mystery of our salvation and redemption in Christ.
From even Michael Davies (who, I’m sure, you’re probably a fan of!):
The Eucharist is the memorial of the Passion, anamnesis in Greek, and it commemorates the Passion by renewing it in an unbloody manner upon the altar.
In other words, READ the BIBLE — you might just learn something about JESUS and what the GOSPEL is actually all about!
Yeah, Esquire! Start Googling! ‘Cause everybody knows that anything you find in a Google search is blessed by God Almighty as infallible!!!!!
I have to correct myself as Vatican II did mention sacred tradition and the sacrrifice
It was the actual draft and reform as prepared by the committee that Cardinal Ottavani protested
Notwithstanding you once again have a docment which ways one thing throwing Tradition around, how the reform will honor sacred tradition-and then does something entirely else!
One big lie to appear to say one thing but to do another.
>You state you never heard of the term “Neo con” which of course means “Neo Conservative”,
I heard of that term as it deals with SECULAR USA POLITICS but not when it comes to the Catholic Church. What are “Catholic neo-cons” (if there is a such thing?)
>Your use of the term “left wingers” is political
Of course it is political. It is they who believe the Church is only a political institution!
Real Catholics don’t believe the Church is only a political institution.
And there are no “left wing” catholics and no “right wing” or “neo-con” catholics. There are either real Catholics or fake Catholics.
One can be of the spirit or of the flesh. Choose wisely.
>Esquire, is the following not Canon law or not???
According to Canon 16, the only one qualified to interpret Canon Law is the Pope or anyone authorized by him.
So, are you the Pope or anyone authorized by him?
If not, then step away from the mirror please.
>Canon 188.4 (1917 Code of Canon Law) teachers that : if a cleric (pope, bishop, etc.) becomes a heretic, he loses his office without any declaration by operation of law.
This is typical sedevacantist claptrap.
Let’s not listen to the Pope’s interpretation of canon law, or the interpretation of canon law of anyone authorized by the Pope. Let’s listen to Joe Schmoe Sedevacantist instead.
Sedevacantism = mirror worship. Claiming to have authority to interpret canon law which is not theirs.
Please show me where it says the Pope (the legislator) is subject to the legislation (canon law)?
Oh wait. It is not there.
Show me the authoritative interpretation. Or step away from the mirror.
John,
Can we deal with facts John? If so, you will agree that Canon 188.4 does not refer to the Pope.
But don’t let the facts (or the law) get in the way of a good argument.
BobCatholic ROCKS!
>Can we deal with facts John?
Facts and sedevacantism had a nasty divorce. And the children are suffering.
“We won’t accept the authority of the Pope. The mirror will do just nicely, thank you very much.”
John’s morning ritual:
“Miror, mirror on the wall — who’s BEST in declaring CHURCH TEACHING & DOCTRINE — instead of the Pope and ‘dem all?!”
Esquire-How can you say that canon 188.4 does not deal with a Pope when it says so right in the canon?
And I will do a cut and paste (Esquire Mr Google and Esau -Mr Cut and Paste) right from the Ottavani intervention, which clearly states and uses much better Aplogetics than anyone here sure can as to why the New Mass is Protestant and denies the sacrifice
The Critical Study of the New Order of Mass:
5 June 1969
A Group of Roman Theologians
Let us begin with the definition of the Mass. In Article 7 of the General Instruction which precedes the New Order of Mass, we discover the following definition:
The Lord’s Supper or Mass is the sacred assembly or congregation of the people of God gathering together, with a priest presiding, to celebrate the memorial of the Lord. [3] For this reason Christ’s promise applies supremely to a local gathering together of the Church: “Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst.” (Mt. 18:20)[4]
The definition of the Mass is thus reduced to a “supper,” a term which the General Instruction constantly repeats. [5] The Instruction further characterizes this “supper” as an assembly, presided over by a priest and held as a memorial of the Lord to recall what He did on Holy Thursday. None of this in the very least implies:
– The Real Presence – The reality of the Sacrifice – The sacramental function of the priest who consecrates – The intrinsic value of the Eucharistic Sacrifice independent of – the presence of the “assembly.” [6]
In a word, the Instruction’s definition implies none of the dogmatic values which are essential to the Mass and which, taken together, provide its true definition. Here, deliberately omitting these dogmatic values by “going beyond them” amounts, at least in practice, to denying them. [7] The second part of Article 7 makes this already serious equivocation even worse. It states that Christ’s promise, ( “Where two or three come together in my name, there am I in their midst”) applies to this assembly supremely. Thus, the Instruction puts Christ’s promise (which refers only to His spiritual presence through grace) on the same qualitative level (save for greater intensity) as the substantial and physical reality of the sacramental Eucharistic sacrifice. The next Article of the Instruction divides the Mass into a “Liturgy of the Word” and a “Liturgy of the Eucharist,” and adds that the “table of God’s Word” and the “table of Christ’s Body” are prepared at Mass so that the faithful may receive “instruction and food.” As we will see later, this statement improperly joins the two parts of the Mass, as thought they possessed equal symbolic value. The Instruction uses many different names for the Mass, such as:
– Action of Christ and the People of God. – Lord’s Supper or Mass – Paschal Banquet – Common participation in the Table of the Lord – Eucharistic Prayer – Liturgy of the Word and Liturgy of the Eucharistic
All these expressions are acceptable when used relatively–but when used separately and absolutely, as they are here, they must be completely rejected.
And the closing
To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries stood as a sign and pledge of unity in worship, [60] and to replace it with another liturgy which, due to the countless liberties it implicitly authorizes, cannot but be a sign of division–a liturgy which teems with insinuations or manifest errors against the integrity of the Catholic Faith–is, we feel bound in conscience to proclaim, an incalculable error.
How Prophetic!!!
I didn’t read everything above, but is John having a problem of 4 different Eucharistic Prayers?
Does he not realize that there are 8 other Rituals in the Catholic Church besides the Latin. Are these also invalid? Are you trying to butt heads with Sts. John Chrysostom and Basil the Great?
John,
I realized I did not directly answer direct questions. Just to be clear, the answer to all three of your questions is “yes.” The first because it’s not true. The second because your “source” paraphrased the original sources incorrectly. (Although you have accurately cut-and-pasted from your so-called “source.”) The third, again, because it is not true.
Esau -Mr Cut and Paste
You call me that just because of that one thread where I cut and pasted many of your comments from your other previous posts!
As for those times where I not only presented you a link to the source documents as well as excerpts from them; of course, I would have to feature those many excerpts in addition to the links since I knew that regardless of my having made available the links, you would never visit them — which many of your posts had, in fact, subsequently indicated!
>Esquire-How can you say that canon 188.4 does not deal with a Pope when it says so right in the canon?
It does? There is no Canon 188.4.
Can. 188 A resignation made out of grave fear that is inflicted unjustly or out of malice, substantial error, or simony is invalid by the law itself.
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__PN.HTM
Sorry, I don’t see it.
Propaganda? Or facts? I choose facts.
>Does he not realize that there are 8 other Rituals in the Catholic Church besides the Latin.
8?
More!
http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/catholic_rites_and_churches.htm
>right from the Ottavani intervention, which clearly states and uses much better Aplogetics than anyone here sure can as to why the New Mass is Protestant and denies the sacrifice
And what does this have to do with the TOMB?
Step away from the mirror, stop bashing the Catholic Church and deal with the topic at hand.
To abandon a liturgical tradition which for four centuries stood as a sign and pledge of unity in worship, [60] and to replace it with another liturgy…
Ahem…
You conveniently ignore:
There were actually other canons which existed at the time of Trent that were recognized by the Catholic Church. In fact, Canon 6 in the 22nd session of Trent deals with not only the Roman canon (which is used in the Tridentine Mass) but other canons as well. This was issued in 1563.
The canon that overrode all other canons was not issued until 1571. The Tridentin rite was imposed on the whole west years later.
Furthermore:
We all know about Eucharistic Prayer#1 since it’s the Roman canon. Early versions of this Canon were developed during the fourth to the sixth centuries, but it did not reach a definitive state until after the papacy of St. Gregory the Great, who led the Church from 590 to 604. The format became further standardized when Missals containing the entire text of the Mass began appearing in the eleventh century, and they were in general use by about the year 1200. After the Council of Trent (1545-1563) Pope Pius V issued the Missale Romanum in 1570 and made the new standard form binding throughout the Western Rite of the Church. This Tridentine Mass format remained virtually unchanged until the reforms that followed Vatican II. The text was fixed, and the only alteration permitted was the addition of saints’ names to the Communicantes and the Nobis quoque peccatoribus prayers.
However, as regards to the other Eucharistic Prayers:
Eucharistic Prayer II was composed from manuscripts of the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, written about the year 225, which describe the oldest known liturgical form of the Mass. These manuscripts have come down to us as translations in several languages. Thus Prayer II is the oldest of the four.
Eucharistic Prayer III is a revised version of what had been originally proposed as an alternative to the Roman Canon, and Eucharistic Prayer IV is based on a format of the type found in Eastern liturgies such as that of St. Basil (330-379).
Since the editors of the post-Vatican II Sacramentary made such an effort to compose and restore the Eucharistic Prayers to formats that are ancient in the Church, it is surprising that the Society of Pius X, which puts such an emphasis on tradition, has nothing but criticism for all aspects of the Novus Ordo liturgy. They should have especial praise for Eucharistic Prayer II of Hippolytus which is the most ancient, dating back to the year 225.
Of course, again, you’ll probably choose to NOT read the above, claiming that it’s so long for you — even though you’d actually read other things (regardless of their length) from such schismatic websites that would only endorse your view on the matter!
It was taught infallibly at At Vatican I the “what is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?”
It was stated that there had never been such a situation, but “from the moment he becomes a heretic he is not the head or even a member of the Church”.
People would not be obliged to listen to him when he begins to teach a doctrine the Church knows to be a false doctrine, and he would cease to be Pope, being deposed by God Himself.
The Papacy is not a Sacrament, it is an office of dignity, therefore it does not imprint an indelible mark.
These are all INFALLIBLE teachings and can not be overturned
When Pope Liberius excommunicated Athanasius it was St Athanasius who was made a Saint, yet gave Pope Liberius the distinction of being the first Pope not to be canonized up to that point.
When he was questioned why he stood so firm, and that “You have all of the Bishops against you”, St. Athanasius answered with “that proves that they are all against the Church.” St. Athanasius further stated: “Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”
John, step away from the mirror.
You’re not Athanasius.
Not even close.
Every single Sedevacantist claims to be Athanasius.
But Athanasius accepted the authority of the Church, accepted the excommunication.
He didn’t go around saying “There is no Pope for the Pope is a heretic!”
Bob Catholic, Esau and I have been over this one. He claims that there are 22 Rites of the Church. I claim that there are 22 different Churches in the Church.
When I use Rite I mean Ritual, and so do the majority of Catholic Ecclesiologists. So there are the Latin Rites, the Byzantine Rites, the Coptic Rites, the West Syriac Rites, the East Syriac Rites, the Armenian Rite, Ethiopian Rite, and the Maronite Rite. Some of these I’m playing fast and loose on the definitions. There could actually be only 5 Rites or even 3 Rites as many are derived from others.
John,
Since we’re on the subject of what was taught at Vatican I, maybe you could give us a paragraph reference or something. Shouldn’t be too hard. Not that I don’t consider your sedevacantist websites authoritative or anything, but others here might benefit greatly from seeing an actual council text on this so-called “teaching of Vatican I.”
If it was “infallibly taught,” it shouldn’t be too hard to find, should it?
>Bob Catholic, Esau and I have been over this one. He claims that there are 22 Rites of the Church. I claim that there are 22 different Churches in the Church.
Interesting.
Avoiding the issue of comparing yourself to Athanasius.
Avoiding the issue of claiming authority that is only for the Pope or someone authorized by the Pope.
Avoiding the issue of mirror worshipping time and time again.
Avoiding the issue of what the heck all this sedevacantist propaganda has to do with the TOMB article…
“Hey, I gotta be right. That’s the most important thing. Right Mr. Mirror ol’ buddy ol’ pal?”
it’s obvious these people are after money. what happen to = “gain the whole world but lose your soul?” teaching? let’s pray for these people who blaspheme our Lord. emarc
BobCatholic,
Aren’t you confusing Dr. Eric with John?
Smokey Mountain Hiker: You’re right, I stand corrected. My apologies to Dr. Eric and John for confusing the two of you.
John:
Please refer to the links I provided in previous posts:
and
JOHN:
On second thought, since I know you won’t actually visit the links I provided (as in the past), here are some excerpts (Jimmy, please delete if too long — thanks!):
CATHOLIC RITES
+J.M.J+
If it is a Protestant error to believe that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated as a memorial of Our Lord, then not only is the New Testament in error (as others here have aptly pointed out) but so is the Tridentine Rite. Here are the words of Consecration from the Roman Canon:
“For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the new and eternal testament: the Mystery of Faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins. As often as ye shall do these things, ye shall do them in remembrance of me.” (Hæc quotiescúmque fecéritis, in mei memóriam faciétis.)
The Tridentine Mass is clearly celebrated “in memoriam” of Christ – it’s right there in the Latin.
The Mass is a Memorial Sacrifice. Protestants err in trying to have a “memorial” without the Sacrifice, but that doesn’t mean the memorial aspect of the Eucharist is wrong. As you noticed later, the Second Vatican Council taught the sacrificial character of the Mass. Any Catholic today who denies it is being unfaithful to Vatican II.
>>>The Papal Bull Cum ex apostolatus officio of Pope Paul IV teaches that: if anyone was a heretic before the Papal election, he could not be a valid pope, even if he is elected unanimously by the Cardinals.
Of course, the question is: Who decides whether any given Pope is a heretic? It would take an Ecumenical Council to make such a decision; individual Catholic laypeople do not have the right to privately interpret Catholic doctrine, personally judge the Pope based on that private interpretation and then decide to withhold obedience from him.
The Holy Ghost has never given you or me the authority to judge the Pope. We have no right to arrogate that authority unto ourselves. Here’s an old Catholic saying for you: Papa a nemine judicatur: the Pope is judged by no one.
Also, if a heretical Pope ceases to be Pope, then what happens if he repents of his heresy in the Confessional? Does he then become Pope again? Yet seeing as the Confessional is private and protected by a seal, how would we know that he had confessed and been restored? How would we know that we must give him our obedience again?
What if he becomes a heretic a few times, repenting in the Confessional each time? Does he keep losing his office and regaining it? And how would we know this is happening? There are many problems with this sedevacantist notion.
>>>Canon 188.4 (1917 Code of Canon Law) teachers that : if a cleric (pope, bishop, etc.) becomes a heretic, he loses his office without any declaration by operation of law.
>>>How can you say that canon 188.4 does not deal with a Pope when it says so right in the canon?
You’ve been citing this canon as though it were a direct quote, but it’s not! Those are NOT the actual words of Canon 188.4!!! Here are the actual words:
Can 188. Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus:
4. A fide catholica publice defecerit;
188: Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:
4. publicly defects from the Catholic faith.
NO MENTION OF THE POPE! Of course, as others have pointed out, the Pope is always above the dispositions of the positive law, and Canon 188 falls into that category.
>>>It was taught infallibly at At Vatican I the “what is to be done with the Pope if he becomes a heretic?”
The First Vatican Council never infallibly taught that. That question might have been discussed among the bishops but it never made it into the infallible documents, so does not qualify an infallible teaching.
In Jesu et Maria,
Rosemarie,
Exceptionally well done. Thank you.
Esau (Mr Cut and Paste)
Nice job!!
Bob said:
“John, step away from the mirror.
You’re not Athanasius.
Not even close.”
Hey Bob-How are you to know? But maybe Archbishop Lefebvre is?
John:
I doubt you even read it since your knowledge is already so superior to the rest of us, including the Pope and the Magisterium!
What, I didn’t know that reincarantion was a radical sedevacantist traditionalist teaching! I thought that was a Vatican II innovation.
Learn something new everyday.
Ok then, we all then belive the Pope is infallible. Vatican I wanted to define Papal infallibility because they in 1870 feared for modernists and heretics in their midst to keep sacred the past teachings of the church
For example ecumenism where Pope Pius XI in his encyclical Mortalium Animos, referring to ecumenical congresses, said:
“Clearly Catholics cannot approve of these undertakings in any way, since they are based on that false opinion of those who think that all religions are more or less good and praiseworthy, all of which, although not in the same way, equally manifest and attest to that innate sense which is implanted in us, by which we are drawn to God and to the devout recognition of His sovereignty. Those who hold this opinion not only err and are deceived, but also, since they repudiate the true religion by distorting the notion of it, gradually turn towards naturalism and atheism. For this reason it clearly follows that whosoever adheres to such things, or takes part in their undertakings, utterly abandons the religion revealed by God.”
But then you have “santo subito” whose entire papacy was based on ecumenism which is apostasy because it reduces all of the dogmas of the Catholic Faith to relativity. With ecumenism and as per Vatican II Nostre Aetate, all religions are seen to have a certain part of the truth, and all religions are seen to therefore have a certain value. Therefore , JPII frequently repeated the heresy of Vatican II: that the Holy Ghost has not hesitated to use non-Catholic religions as means of salvation. How can this be Esau if you are so devout to everything in this council?
JPII preached for a “One World Religion” a great ecumenical temple (at Fatima no less) in which all religions will be able to co-exist.
Then you can go back to Vatican II where it was stated (cut and paste):
“Human nature, by the very fact that it was assumed, not absorbed, in him [Christ], has been raised in us to a dignity beyond compare. For, by his incarnation, he, the Son of God, has in a certain way united himself with each man. (Gaudium et Spes, no. 22)”
John Paul said the same in his first encyclical and at the famous Asissi meetings where he spoke of a pan-christian ecumenical day of Assisi (October 27, 1986: (cut and paste)
“Such a day seemed to express, in a visible manner, the hidden but radical unity which the Word has established among men and women of this world… the fact of having come together at Assisi is like a sign of the profound unity of those who seek spiritual values in religion… The Council has made a connection between the identity of the Church and the unity of the human race. (Lumen Gentium 1 and 9; Gaudium et Spes, 42)”
The council and the teachings of the Pope were clearly apostasy!!
Now I am not a sedevacanist as that is to far for me to believe, but I believe that JPII, John XXIII and Paul VI were horible popes, taught apostasy and heresy and should not be followed with matters that have to do with faith and morals because they preached heresy. You cant have one Pope who came earlier as teaching infallible and then another contradict him, it does not work
Vatican I wanted to define Papal infallibility because they in 1870 feared for modernists and heretics in their midst to keep sacred the past teachings of the church
Really John?
I thought that bit about St. Peter in both the Writings of the early Church Fathers as well as those passages in Scripture might have something to do with it!
From your superior knowledge, ever heard of the following regarding the Authority of the Church of Rome?
“We do put to confusion all those [heretics] by indicating that tradition [of doctrine] derived from the apostles of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul…for it is a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful from everywhere… ”
+J.M.J+
Mary Kay and Esquire: Thank you for your kind words. I wish I could say I enjoy posting here as much as you enjoy reading the posts, but it is very tiresome to constantly correct schismatic nonsense quoted verbatim from disobedient quasi-“Catholic” sites which pull passages from Church documents out-of-context and put the worst possible spin on them. Tiresome and time-consuming.
I actually stopped reading the comboxes on this blog for a while – or at least the ones for entries that I figured would likely devolve into a preconciliar/postconciliar fight. However, my interest in the whole phony “Jesus tomb” controversy drew me back in this time (great response, BTW, Jimmy). Whoever thought a blog entry debunking that dumb documentary could lead to this discussion – talk about a hijacked combox! Maybe I should have just given up blog comboxes for Lent. 🙂
In Jesu et Maria,
I might as well add in my 2 cents against this sede nonsense. When Pope Paul IV promulgated the Bull CUM EX APOSTOLATUS OFFICIO he was afraid(though it seems his fears were groundless) that one of his reform-minded Cardinals was a “secret Protestant”. He wanted to prevent that specific Cardinal’s election as Pope should he die (though that Cardinal wasn’t actually a heretic, the next conclave prudently did not elect him).
The effect this Papal Bull has on Canon law & Catholic doctrine is simply this: No non-Catholic Christian can be validly elected Pope. No Eastern Orthodox or Protestant can become Supreme Pontiff. Billy Graham, as nice a guy as he is, can never be elected Pope(as much as I like Billy I wouldn’t want him to be Pope anyway.)
The other effect is this: If any Cardinal secretly but formally joined another Christian denomination or was found to have done so while he was a Cardinal, such an act upon its discovery would render his election null & void.
This does not effect Popes who might privately hold to certain false doctrinal beliefs but never authoritatively teach them as Pope. The objective standard here is that you have to have FORMALLY(though secretly) joined another Christian denomination. That’s the only reliable guide to go by.
The problem with sedes who try to use this is they take doctrinal developments they don’t like, retroactively declare them “heresies” based on their private interpretation & apply this bull incorrectly to Popes who held them. That is not how it is to be used. If you are going to try to apply this Bull to John XXIII, Paul VI and JPII, please show me their confirmation certificate in joining the Lutheran, Methodist or Reformed churches. Put up or shut up.
The problem with the sedevacantist use of this Bull is that, applied consistently, any of the Protestant “reformers” could invoke it to denounce the Council of Trent itself & the teachings of Paul III, Paul IV and Pope St. Pius V. They could have just based on their private interpretation & “logic” said “These guys are not the Pope because they taught all these heretical doctrines which contradict our ‘true’ biblical teachings and the writings of St. Augustine.”
Sedevacantism is just high church Protestantism. I have no respect for it. Jesus Christ is not a liar, He hasn’t left His Church without a visible head for nearly five decades!
BTW in regards to “John” my wife Rosemarie has already handed him his head in this nonsense in misquoting of Canon 188. So like your average anti-Catholic fundamentalist Protestant what does he do? He simply ignores his error & comes up with NEW SET of charges! The question is why wife have to track down what Pope John Paul II ACTUALLY SAID (from primary scources instead of merely cribing them from Sede websites) if John is just going to ignore it & come up with a THIRD set of charges?
Sure Rosemarie can show us what Lumen Gentium and Gaudium et Spes ACTUALLY SAID but why bother? The minute she does “John” will ignore it & claim REDEMTORIS MISSIO denies EENS or SPLENDER OF TRUTH teaches the principles of freemasonry. With bogus quotes to match.
Oy Vey!!!!! Yeshua Ben Miriam help us!
Not to derail what you are talking about, but I still disagree with Esau and his link.
It is proper to call the Ambrosian and the Mozarabic Rites, Rites of the Latin Church.
But, for example, the Melkite Greek Catholic Church uses the Byzantine Rite but is a sui juris Church within the Catholic Church. But it is a misnomer to call it the Melkite Rite.
http://www.melkite.org/eastern.htm
BTW, the head of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church is His Beatitude Patriarch Gregory III. The Melkites are “full blooded” Catholics who are under the Fatherhood of their Patriarch who is in communion with the Holy See of Peter.
A sui juris Church has a head, besides the Pope being the Vicar of Christ. That’s the difference between a sui juris Church and a Rite.
I still can’t figure out how to make a URL a link. 🙁
Dr. Eric:
I still can’t figure out how to make a URL a link. 🙁
As you can tell, I barely learned recently!
Here:
[a href=”website address”]Linkname[/a]
Although, instead of [], use the karrots!
Hope that helps!
Let’s try:
Melkite
Thanks Esau! 🙂
Thanks Esau! 🙂
No prob!
Though I can’t believed you actually took the advice of somebody you disagreed symantecs with! ;^)
Just ’cause we disagree doesn’t mean we ain’t friends. 🙂
SPLENDER OF TRUTH teaches the principles of freemasonry
I KNEW IT!
Must’ve been written by John XXIII, and he just left it lying around for some future masonic pope to publish it. That is so brilliant! I just hope Dan Brown covers all that in his new thriller.
What do you think John?
Say…wait a minute! John XXIII is a mason. John…has…the…same…name! Do you suppose…
Just ’cause we disagree doesn’t mean we ain’t friends. 🙂
We actually agree!
Now — if only others in the world understood that as well, the world would be a better place! <=^) (j/k)
Esau,
Thanks for the lessons! Sometimes I think I subconsciously enrolled at JAU(Jimmy Akins University), and he has a killer staff and curriculum! I appreciate the long passages, so long as they are filled with pertinent info…which they usually are!
BenYachov(Jim Scott IV),
Even though John might not acknowledge the references and research given by your wife and others on this site… many others, like myself, do… and are learning from everything posted on these excellent subjescts and topics. After Rosemarie posted the info. on canon 188, I myself tried to do some more research on it, but unfortunately it was difficult to find the source material, in englich, on the web! So, really, I think a lot of this research can be seen as an act of charity, both in trying to correct the errant, and also instruct the faithful!
Hey!
Its the Ben (are you still defending Nostre Aetate with your Yiddish-have you converted to Catholicism yet?) and the Rosemarie show from Mark Shea? In case you dont know Ben is Mark Shea’s puppet
Well lets see how Rosemarie handed me my “head ” over Canon 188. She said:
“>>>Canon 188.4 (1917 Code of Canon Law) teachers that : if a cleric (pope, bishop, etc.) becomes a heretic, he loses his office without any declaration by operation of law.
>>>How can you say that canon 188.4 does not deal with a Pope when it says so right in the canon?
You’ve been citing this canon as though it were a direct quote, but it’s not! Those are NOT the actual words of Canon 188.4!!! Here are the actual words:
Can 188. Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus:
4. A fide catholica publice defecerit;
188: Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without declaration by tacit resignation recognized by the law itself if a cleric:
4. publicly defects from the Catholic faith.
NO MENTION OF THE POPE! Of course, as others have pointed out, the Pope is always above the dispositions of the positive law, and Canon 188 falls into that category.”
And lets look at Canon 188 in its entirety:
Can 188. Ob tacitam renuntiationem ab ipso iure admissam quaelibet officia vacant ipso facto et sine ulla declaratione, si clericus:
1º Professionem religiosam emiserit, salvo, circa beneficia, praescripto can. 584;
2º Intra tempus utile iure statutum vel, deficiente iure, ab Ordinario determinatum, de officio provisus illud adire neglexerit;
3º Aliud officium ecclesiasticum cum priore incompatibile acceptaverit et eiusdem pacificam possessionem obtinuerit;
4º A fide catholica publice defecerit;
5º Matrimonium, etiam civile tantum, ut aiunt, contraxerit;
6º Contra praescriptum can.141, §1 militiae saeculari nomen sponte dederit;
7º Habitum ecclesiasticum propria auctoritate sine iusta causa deposuerit, nec illum, ab Ordinario monitus, intra mensem a monitione recepta resumpserit;
8º Residentiam, qua tenetur, illegitime deseruerit et receptae Ordinarii monitioni, legitimo impedimento non detentus, intra congruum tempus ab Ordinario praefinitum, nec paruerit nec responderit.
A Catholic “servant”-anyone ordained with Holy Orders defects which INCLUDES the Pope. Becoming the Pope does NOT place you above Canon Law as the Papacy is NOT a new sacrament at all!
You in your cunning way once again look for any loophold
For that matter John Paul II as BISHOP was performing heretical acts which would have immediately through God himself caused him to lose his seat and never be the rightful Pope, which though it may take a century -will in fact become the case as one can not explain his ecumenism and kissing of korans
And Esau, with respect to you trying to piece together the different “rites” within the Church you are so horrible at explaining anything and your cut and pastes are so tiresome
The latin rite of the Novus Ordo is ONE rite but with its (4) different Eucharistic prayers not to mention all of the other novelities and innovations allowed the priest, if I recall my readings you can actually have up to 27 DIFFERENT forms of this ONE rite at any one time and still call it a so called “mass”-which is absurd!
The other so called rites as well as the Traditional Latin Mass has ONE and Only ONE allowed form to be used!!!
I am amazed at all of you
And SHALOM Ben Yachov the 4th, 5th whateve (or are you Ben Scott today???)
John,
You assertion about in each of the Rites only one for is used is wrong.
The Byzantine Rite (Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church, Melkite Greek Catholic Church, etc…) Uses 4 different Liturgies. The usual is the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.
But during the Great Fast the Liturgy on Sundays is the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, from which St. John Chrysostom “hacked up” if you will to shorten his Liturgy to only 1 1/2-2 hours.
Then on the weekdays of the Great Fast, the Liturgy of the Presanctified Gifts is used. This Liturgy is the one that St. Gregory the Great learned when he was an emissary to Constantinople, the Latin Church uses a form of it on Good Friday (the only day in the Latin Church in which no Mass is performed.)
Then, on the Feast of St. James the Brother of the Lord (no debate on the title please) some churches (especially in Jerusalem) use the Divine Liturgy of St. James the Brother of the Lord. This Liturgy is at least 4 hours long.
So you see that just because the Latin Church has 4 different Eucharistic Canons that doesn’t mean the Novus Ordo is invalid or Protestantized. Other Churches have more than one Liturgy too.
It’s not “Ben Scott,” it’s Jim Scott, who calls himself BenYachov, Hebrew for “son of James,” because that’s his dad’s name. And he’s not Mark Shea’s puppet.
“It’s not “Ben Scott,” it’s Jim Scott, who calls himself BenYachov, Hebrew for “son of James,” because that’s his dad’s name. And he’s not Mark Shea’s puppet.”
He is Mark Sheas puppet and a liberal troll
speaking of trolling…
Please note that due to the other “John” on this blog which is confusing to me and others”-I will use “Jack” going forward which is the equivalent of John if that is acceptable to all here?
Jack gives RadTrads a bad name.
So, John (now Jack) is a sede, after all.
Figures.
I agree with Ben Yachov’s brilliant statement that it is nothing but high-Church Protestantism.
John, the bitter tone of your posts, alone, is enough to inoculate me against giving the slightest consideration to your little clique. MY, you all sound like a joyous bunch.
The Barque of Peter is already righting itself after being struck broadside by the rogue wave of modernism. The voyage continues, and you’re going to miss it, sitting in your creaky little dingey in some sheltered, brackish cove.
A shame, that.
“Jack gives RadTrads a bad name.”
Please note that I always post my email as I have nothing to hide unlike Mr No Name
I will then stay with John
For a group of apostate loving Thomas Cranmer worshipping Catholics you are so mean! I would think with all of that hand holding, body swaying, hand shaking, shorts, flip flop, tank top wearing, “The Lord’s Supper or Mass” going Catholics!!
Also, I was doing some reading and is it true that the Canon of the Mass in the new (4) Eucharistic prayers is an “option” and deletes any reference to spotless victim or distinction between the priest offering up the sacrifice and the laity?
“Rad Trad”
“Sede”
Cant you seem to get your names straight?
I am a Catholic attached to the “old rite” who goes to the TLM every Sunday with my family but espouse to bring back all things in Christ and stop this reform before there is nothing left that resembles the Catholic faith as I was taught and worshipped
Those that are still so called “in the church” always blast those who attend SSPX or other Traditional groups for abandoning the church, but I can see why they do! When one stays in and fights for the faith, he or she is blasted with all kinds of names that the liberals and gays in the church are never called ! The Cardinals and Bishops even allow special masses for them, but liek Mahoney just said, he wont do anything for the so called 1% of those who want the TLM!
Who is really the hypocrite??
John,
“Sede” is short for “sedevacantist”, which you sure seem to be. A Sede would be a Rad-Trad by definition, though not every Rad-Trad would be a Sede (yet).
There are traditionalists (I might even count myself as one, since I would like to see a universal indult, as well as a return to Gregorian chant, and things like that), and there are Radical Traditionalists, who foment disobedience, and some of whom hold that the last few Popes (the ones they don’t like) were not really Popes. Those are the sedevacantists.
These need not be taken as insults. They are just ways of putting handy labels to these streams of thought. If you like, we could refer to Rad-Trads as Super-Trads, or Uber-Trads, or Mondo-Trads or whatever you like.
Conversely, I take no insult at being called a Vatican II Catholic, or a Novus Ordo Catholic, or even a Neo-Trad, if you want to use that tag to distinguish me from yourself.
Of course, you might prefer to call us “apostate loving Thomas Cranmer worshipping… hand holding, body swaying, hand shaking, shorts, flip flop, tank top wearing, “The Lord’s Supper or Mass” going Catholics!!”.
I understand that you say all this with the utmost love and respect. 😉
John (Jack),
Did you read my post about the Greek Catholics who use 4 different Liturgies?
What’s your problem with 4 Eucharistic Canons? The rest of the Liturgy is the same, there are just 4 different Eucharistic Prayers.
Not only that, but the readings are always changing in the TLM and the antiphons too.
Tim J
I am not a sede as that means I dont believe in the Pope (I guess) which I do or the “seat is vacant” which I dont as I fully obey and support Pope B16. I dont feel the same about JPII in any way whatsoever. Do I obey him? I guess so (If he told me to participate in an Assissi worship I would go tell him to jump in a lake or whatever Pope or no Pope). If that makes me a sede then I am
As far as a universal indult I am for that and more. As conservatives in the good old US of A I want a rollback of Roe V Wade among other liberal progressions and the advent of secularism and the all faiths are equal (we cant even have the Easter Bunny in our town!).
The same for the church, I want a rollback of the liberal reforms. WE all must put our foot down. I could easily in a heartbeat start attending the so calle Trad churches as that would be easy, but if we all left who felt as I do and there are many then what would be left?
“I am not a sede as that means I dont believe in the Pope (I guess)”
John,
I sincerely think you should try to avoid the occasion of sin that comes from associating with schismatic groups. For your own good.
David B
Most of my family (in laws all) and some cousins are SSPX and SSPV
I dont view them as lepers and they have never uttered a horrible word against anyone and for the most part are part of a growing, young devout church’s as I have attended their baptisms, weddings, funerals and alike. I have had my children catechised at their church as my church and diocese is terrible and I have the right as parent and protector to give my children the defenses they need as Catholics as I was given later in life (I was re catechised in the Baltimore Catechism because my earlier in the 1970’s was so bad)
I dont consider them schismatics
Read some articles from Latin Mass Magazines on the dilemna of many lay and priests.
Again, you throw barbs at these people who are Catholic but you quickly define as schismatics only for reason they ordained bishops without approval other than that they would be in good standing. Now I expect Esau to cut and paste a reply to this statement, but you should know and understand their and millions and millions of catholics like them, their dilemna and confusion and if you are so worth of being compassionate and like Jesus would understand
So many I notice here on JA and some other Blogs while I propose sound catholic doctrine and teachings for my reasoning for rollback, quickly resort to name calling. I respond at times as I did to Tim and others but I dont like it as it is not charitable and is exhausting. But the leaders of the church need to hear those that dont want any more of this change. Paul VI did away with the minor orders of the prieshood, allowed permanent deacons and on top of that later in the 1980s these deacons are now allowed to remarry. The stage is set for married priests and woman priests. The link I gave below is worth reading. The time is now for those like Tim J to stand up and demand a rollback
http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_emasculation.html
http://www.latinmassmagazine.com/articles/articles_main.html
John,
What is wrong with married priests?
Blessed Omeljan Kovc was a married priest.
I am in no way shape or form in favor of “women-priests.” That’s like saying a square-circle.
John, am I correct in assuming that you were a sedevacantist during JPII’s reign as Pope… that you do not accept his papacy as being legitimate?
It is very difficult to tell, at times, how you can claim to be under the authority of B16 when you say the things you do. He is either our Pope, and in authority over us, or not. We do not get to cherry-pick which teachings we will obey and which we will not.
You DO realize that Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) was one of JPII’s chief advisors, and that many see his influence all through the major events of JPII’s papacy?
Tim
Cardinal Ratzinger did not agree with much of what JPII did during his reign. He clearly disagreed on the liturgy and the Traditional Mass and admitted in his books that there were serious issues with the New Mass. He is an intelligent man who would restore much of what has gone wrong in the church but he has two major problems, one is the way the secular world and many of the Catholics loved JPII as well as the vast liberal corrupt state of the Cardinals who are a product of his generation and oppose anything that is not in the spirit of Vatican II
We must pray for someone like him in the wings for when he is gone. His choice of Levada leaves me and many puzzled to take his place, but there is still hope
JPII did acts which were heretical by all standards pre Vatican II. If he would have been pope 50 years earlier they would have run him out of Rome
John– Which acts?
Sailor
If I list all of the acts or sayings that JPII said which either contradicted past teachings of the church or by their actions themselves were deemed heretical that would just lead me to sin and change the thread.
I am sure these can be found on any site , and some may be deemed “Rad Trad” as they were sent to me, but they list their references (CNS, AP, etc) and I performed a search of their archives and yes it was there in many cases
We are all aware of the worship with Buddhists and Hindus (pagans), placing of pagan idols on the altars at Assisi (which Cardinal Ratzinger himself had issues with) as well as his participation in liturgical abuse (not heresy but not the place for the vicar of christ to be). I can only assume this fast track to sainthood is so that a future pope wont come and take a look at what he did and possibly change this course.
This is not a Trad or whatever issue, it is a Catholic issue. Was he a wonderful caring man? Yes he was. Was he a good guardian and successor to the chair of peter (could he have been Peter and stood up to the Jewish and Roman authorities is the question one must always ask themselves when it pertains to the papacy) and the question is a resounding NO
John, you’ve already changed the thread. Now you’re just refusing to support your claims.
Cite it like you actually care– put dates, exact offences, and the exact parts of canon that he was violating.
And my name is Sailorette. If you can’t manage that, call me Foxfier. I’m still edging towards you being just another forum troll.
You know I researched a little (ask Esquire asked me a question I was unsure of) and I found out that we are all waisting our time.
The arguement of if a Pope can be a heretic, if so when does he become one, when he acts so, says so or whatever, and if he becomes a heretic is he excommunicated, therefore cannot be a Pope, as you need to be a Catholic and excommunion will make him cease to be a catholic is one that started a VERY long time ago, and not the past century.
So if the REAL theologans have not got down, we “armchair theologans” will not.
A very prominent Catholic thinker once said that debate won’t be settled until 10 years after the Reign of Mary (according to St. Louis de Monfort and Our Lady in Fatima) has started…
So very interesting, but we won’t settle it here, and it has not been settled yet. And that is all there is for now.
So John, as much as you could be wrong or right, my problem with you is that false right attitude you argue. I’ll elaborate later…
Some Day
I dont for an instant ever think for a moment I know more than anyone as there are many persons more intelligent than I
What I do see though is a constant badmouthing of those that only want not to reform.
As in James 1:12 where it is stated “Blessed is the man who endures…for when he has been tried, he will receive the crown of life which God has promised to those who love him”.
Sailorette:
There are and have been books written on the questionable actions of JPII which border on heresy.
A few of the most publicized which have been deemed as groundbreaking but is in clear contradiction of an infallible council not to mention every past pope is what happened on April 13, 1986, in the Synagogue in Rome where John Paul II prayed in the temple with Jews and said “What unites us is the belief in the one and only God . . . You are our favorite brothers, one could say, our elder brothers …” which is fine and dandy except that The Third Council of Constantinople stated:
“If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meeting house of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion. If any bishop or priest or deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from communion.”
Then you have JPII on August 8, 1985, where he visited Togo and prayed in a “Sacred Forest” and consecrated to the worship of pagan gods and participated in a pagan initiation ritual in a grove sacred to the pagan animists, and then the most famous example of the total disregard of not only Catholicism but the 1st commandment when on On October 27, 1986, he participated in the prayer meeting at Assisi where Buddha was placed on top of the tabernacle. He did the same on January 24, 2002, for yet another “ecumenical prayer meeting” with Eastern Orthodox, Protestants, Jews, Islam, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintoists, Jianists, Confucianists, Sikhists, Zoroastrianism, and followers of Tenrikyo and African tribal religions.” (Documented by the Associated Press and every other news organizations).
Compare that for simplicity to a saint whose feast day we recently celebrated in St Blaise who in 316 due to the fact that he had a growing following was imprisoned by the Emperor. Whe he was ordered to adore false gods while in prison, he refused and was beheaded. Was his life and all other martyrs who died to refuse to worship false gods, as those that the Vicar of Christ prayed with-in vain?
God bless Pope B16 as reported today, the rollback has started. This is what I am talking about in comparing him to JPII who in 26 years did nothing to restore what had gone wrong in the church (dont even try to say Eccesia dei was such as that was something he had to do to find a place for those priests who did not want to go along with SSPX after the excommunication)
Horray! Lets see how this is covered on the blogs
Pope ignores protests to restore Latin mass
March 12, 2007
POPE Benedict XVI plans to bring back the celebration of mass in Latin, overriding a rare show of protest from senior cardinals.
With a papal decree said to be imminent, Catholic publishers in Rome are preparing new editions of the Latin missal.
They have sent proofs to Vatican authorities for approval, the Rome newspaper La Repubblica has reported.
Vatican sources said Benedict, who is fluent in Latin, is considering the publication of a papal motu proprio (literally, on his own initiative), which does not require the approval of church bodies.
This would enable Benedict to ignore opposition from several cardinals.
The decree would declare the Latin, or Tridentine, mass an “extraordinary universal rite”, and the vernacular mass, with which most Catholics are familiar, an “ordinary universal rite”.
The late French archbishop Marcel Lefebvre was excommunicated for opposing changes in the church agreed by the Second Vatican Council in the early 1960s, including the replacement of the Tridentine mass with updated liturgy in local languages.
The Pope’s proposal will be cheered by Lefebvre’s traditionalist followers.
A special Vatican commission, appointed to examine the demands of traditionalists, met in December to help draft the decree. Today, celebration of the Tridentine rite is limited. Bishops can allow it, but only on the condition that the celebration is deemed a sign of “affection for the ancient tradition” and not a criticism of the reforms.
Benedict wrote in his memoirs, My Life: Memories 1927-1977, published when he was still a cardinal: “I was stunned by the ban on the ancient missal.”
The Sunday Times
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21364512-2702,00.html
What does all of John’s posts have to do with the Tomb of Jesus nonsense?
Talk about going WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY off topic.
methinks that John should remember what is being talked about here.
The Church as the Bride of Christ. This image would never have arisen if there was a Mrs. Jesus living right there in Jerusalem. Look at what happened in other religions where the founder was married. Do we know about their wives? Well, let’s see . . . Moses was married to Tsipporah and then later to an Ethiopian woman. Muhammad was married to Khadijah and then later to Aisha and Sawda and Zaynab and . . . well, let’s just say that he was very enthusiastic about marrying women. Joseph Smith Jr. was married to Emma Hale and Lucinda Pendleton and Louisa Beaman and . . . uh . . . let’s just say he was enthusiastic about marrying women, too.
The Church as the Bride of Christ. This image would never have arisen if there was a Mrs. Jesus living right there in Jerusalem. Look at what happened in other religions where the founder was married. Do we know about their wives? Well, let’s see . . . Moses was married to Tsipporah and then later to an Ethiopian woman. Muhammad was married to Khadijah and then later to Aisha and Sawda and Zaynab and . . . well, let’s just say that he was very enthusiastic about marrying women. Joseph Smith Jr. was married to Emma Hale and Lucinda Pendleton and Louisa Beaman and . . . uh . . . let’s just say he was enthusiastic about marrying women, too.
well this comment of urs proves that how ur mind is conditioned by church and now u people can not tolerate anything wehich says jesus was married
John if you want to go about throwing quotes about Canons from the ECs I can throw one at you:
Canon XX of the First Ecumenical Council of Nicaea forbids kneeling on Sundays and throughout Eastertide until after Pentecost.
I got more if you want ’em.
“…There are and have been books written on the questionable actions of JPII which BORDER on heresy.”
John,
I think everyone ‘gets’ your opinion already. But I think you reveal yourself best when you state the above, ..”QUESTIONABLE actions of JPII which BORDER on heresy (with my empasis in CAPS). And this is exactly the point: There are indeed many questionable things JPII has done. And it is possible that some of these, if looked from a severe perspective, might place them in a position ‘bordering’ heresy. But, this, I think is where some wisdom, patience and charity might come in handy..in trying to interpret some of the “questionable” items in a positive light.
And if we REALLY know the heart of a person, we can often be a little more lenient with his specific acts. It’s like when we are speaking in public,or writing or teaching, sometimes we will fail to express ourselves correctly, due to inherent human weaknesses, defects and even sins. However, those who know the whole person, and have examined and experienced the heart of the same person, can often understand the ‘context’ of a persons words or actions in light of his overall personality and history in such things. so, if the habitual context of a persons is charitable, devout and faithful, we can understand a PARTICULAR ‘questionable’ act in a more positive light, taking into consideration the multitudes of ‘unquestionably’ virtuous, pious and devout words and acts. And so sometimes, we might need to realize that even popes might occasionally ‘put their foot in their mouths’, both by word and deed… even as most other humans on the face of the earth will accasionally, if not frequently, do!( And just think of how many times St. Peter put his foot in HIs mouth!..maybe as an example for patience with all future Popes??
And so I think we need to be very careful to analyse the ‘reign’ of JPII in its entirety, and in the context of the turmultous religious and cultural times that he lived in. And really, we all know that JPII was NOT indeed a heretic, even if some will wildly claim that he performed ‘particular’ acts which might, if viewed harshly, and without concern for all of his highly pious acts, words and deeds, might SEEM to BORDER heresy. And of course, many will not be satisfied with his achievements, saying they were too little for such a long term as Pope. And really, there are countless ways to criticise any person for countless deficiencies, since all of us fail to be the perfect Christians and servants of God that we might like to be!
And on the other hand, if we look at all the hidden defects of Pope JPII, we migh in justice try to count some of these HIDDEN and scanned over ACHIEVEMENTS that he has accomplished for the Holy Faith! Nor do we want to think of the possibilities that might have taken place had a more liberal pope been elected instead of JPII. In judging JPII, we really need to look at everything and every possible scenario during his ‘reign’, and especially realize how liberal the entire world actually was in those days. I posted, above, some comments on this earlier, and not only from a Catholic perspective, but from a perspective of world society as a whole.
You know how crazy the world was in 1968-1978! In this decade alone we had cold war, vietnam war, race war, acid rock,heavy metal, Ford Pintos, LSD,PCP,SPEED,COKE and raging pre-AIDS homosexuality (at least in San Francisco, which was from my perspective). As mentioned before, society as a whole seemed to reject ANYTHING seen as authoritative, ‘square’ of unflexible. This put the entire Church, which needed to be ‘pastoral’ to all these late 60’s to late 70’s– freethinkin’, pot smokin’, peace lovin’,war hatin’,govenment protestin’,coke snortin’,’shroom consumin’, rainbow wearin’, rock n roll thrashin’, mohawk sportin’, punk piercin’….yes…Catholic flock! And if you particularly were in no way affected, by these times and liberal customes, than you are certainly an exception and not the rule, as anyone who lived through the 60’s-70’s can attest. Even some of the most conservative, crew cut, persons in the 50’s and early 60’s ,sported relatively long hair and long sideburns in the early 70’s! Just review your family photo’s from these days!!
To make it short, the ‘reign’ of Pope JPII was at a time of extreme cultural turbulance and shock, with extreme polarization between liberals and conservatives and an almost complete ‘naivity’ as to what the long term effects such revolutionary social change might bring for the future of the world.(..remember this song..”This is the dawning of the age of aquarius??- Hair?)
Now back to JPII.
John, many of your complaints against JPII seem to overlook much of the world wide social and political turbulance discribed above. And in doing so, you can’t seem to understand the circumstances he was in at the time, which included trying to avert the possibility of a nuclear WWIII, trying to help bring down world communism, and trying to STEM the evil tide of this ‘global liberalism’. Moreover,your solutions seem to be almost too easy,ie.. everything could be resolved if we only kept the Tridentine Mass as it was!
However, these are ONLY your assumptions, as you really know nothing of the consequences that could have taken place, in the Church,had none of these VAT II reforms take place. And also, you seem not to be very thankful for any of the good that JPII did during this difficult time in human history..considering all the difficulties and events, not only in the church, but throughout the entire world, as discussed above!
And you might not realize that it is very possible that JPII was alot more intelligent in his pastoral strategies than you think! Knowing that he could not effect the changes in ‘one fell swoop’ as you might have liked, he set out to ‘lay the foundations’, so-to-say…and try to effect long term reformations.
And what are these foundations that JPII laid, moreover in a quiet but persistent way?
EVERYTHING that POPE BXVI is using today: The new Code of Canon Law, new Catequism, new Roman Missal,new Liturgical norms ie.’Redemptionis Sacramentum’, etc., new flock of MORE CONSERVATIVE bishops and cardinals,etc..
Really in all of this JPII might be compared to a ‘type’ of King David, and BXVI, to a type of’Solomon’. Everything you are so happy with in BXVI, all of these new changes, the foundations and resources, were laid by Pope JPII! So now, Benedict has it relatively easy, since the hard’soil’ of the 60’s- 90’s, was so well conditioned and fertilized for the new ‘reform’ seeds of BXVI, in this new, post 2000, millenium.
So, please, John…..try to put everything in PERSPECTIVE, and realize that you really don’t know what migh have happened if we didn’t have this so-described ‘heretic bordering’ Pope JPII(..it is quite possible that we might be currently living on an extremely irradiated planet, in complete misery, with no existing Vatican, except a 25 acre black water filled Roman crater, and all forced to study the Russian language, to boot! Who knows??
So, sometimes look on the bright side of things, like the rest of us, who are patient and struggling ‘lover’s of Christ’s Holy Catholic Church. WE patient Catholics can both appreciate and rejoice in the good we find in the Church( and world), but also be patient with the bad, evils or imperfections that we find in this life, somewhat like those experiences found in the Book of Job!
In all, I wholeheartly join you in giving thanks for the new reforms of BXVI…But I just don’t want to neglect in giving thanks for the very ‘foundations’ that made all of these reforms possible! Yes, and a very wise man was the reason for all of these foundations–yes! Pope John Paul II! Like him or not, it’s good to give credit, where credit is due!
I have to smile at the assertion that JPII packed the hierarchy with liberal bishops… all the liberals were furious at his stacking the deck with conservatives.
John, you might want to look over this post I did on why liberals despised JPII;
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2005/12/all_the_right_e.html
At the beggining of John Paul II’s pontificate, he was very well described as a liberal (though never in the moral spectrum) but as time went by, he experienced a sort of Bl. Pius IX conversion, and started being more conservative. But if we look at the acts that many consider heretical, you go to grab them and crush them, and they slip like soap, because it sounds and may even imply something wrong, but there is no heretical acts.
What you can say is that those acts are highly wrong in the tendencial sphere.
And through tendencies has evil always influenced.
Just a reminder that the current subject is “Tomb of Jesus Nonsense”.
I referred a few people to this page for (Jimmy’s) high-quality comments on the Talpiot affair. I now find that the last 2/3 of the comments are completely off-topic. This reduces the value of this page as apologetics on the core of our faith.
The damage is irrepairable.
We have certain trolls to thank.
Sorry.
JOHN ‘MARTIN LUTHER’ JTNOVA, JACK, or whatever your name is:
REGARDLESS of the many times we’ve tried to present historical information to you regarding the Ancient Rites of the Catholic Church, you still continue to IGNORE these FACTS!
Does your knowledge even extend to anything beyond the TLM? Do you carry with you one iota of knowledge of actual Church History
You accuse many of us here of having only knowledge that extends after Vatican II regarding the Catholic Church (although this isn’t even true at all); yet, from your very posts (current as well as past), your very IGNORANCE is displayed time and again for all the world to see in that you don’t even know of such important aspects of Church History!
Mind you, this was not even the first time that I presented such information to you. I had presented this even back in 2006!
Others, too, had gone on to support these facts that I presented then, folks like Ryan C. and others, who provided additional information on not only the Ancient Rites but on important Church Documents as well!
However, regardless of all these efforts and the veracity of these historical facts, you continue to play the NARROW-MINDED fool that you are and in spite of the evidence, continue to think (quite stupidly and stubbornly, I might add) that only the TLM was the only rite that ever has existed!
Furthermore, you continue to REJECT the AUTHORITY of the Pope and the Council of Bishops and IMPOSE arbitrarily your own authority over theirs! So, tell me, exactly, what makes you so different from Martin Luther?
You HIDE behind the label ‘Traditionalist’ although YOUR very beliefs and actions are anything BUT Traditional! Nothing you do or believe is even in accordance with Traditional Catholic Teaching!
For the 5th time, On what AUTHORITY do you accept the actions of previous councils?
Do you even know anything about the Catholic Church besides the TLM?
Esau and others
PLEASE
keep on topic.
Stop now. Having the last word does not win an argument. There will be plenty more on-topic opportunities.
I thinks most of these comments should be deleted as rude under rule 1
+J.M.J+
writes:
>>>well this comment of urs proves that how ur mind is conditioned by church and now u people can not tolerate anything wehich says jesus was married
And your comment proves that you cannot answer Jimmy’s excellent point about other married founders of religions, so you instead resort to an ad hominem accusation of closemindedness.
A Williams writes:
>>>You know how crazy the world was in 1968-1978! In this decade alone we had cold war, vietnam war, race war, acid rock,heavy metal, Ford Pintos, LSD,PCP,SPEED,COKE and raging pre-AIDS homosexuality
Hey, I could handle all that – except for those Ford Pintos! 🙂
Seriously, though, like I’ve said before, the new Catechism was intended to thwart the modernists in the Church. How many times, during that first twenty-eight years after the Council, did we hear “spirit of Vatican II” crowd say things like: “You can be a good Catholic and not believe in (add any infallible dogma here),” or “Oh, Vatican II did away with all that!” The Catechism basically restated the Church’s authoritative teachings – which is why modernists hated it so much and tried so hard to discourage Catholics from reading it! Have we already forgotten their shrill cries of: “The Catechism isn’t intended for the laity! It’s only for the bishops!”
In Jesu et Maria,
Now I expect Esau to cut and paste a reply to this statement…
What the heck does that mean?
Just because the sources I cite aren’t wing nuts like those from you!
Also, why do you still continue to do what Innocencio caught you doing even in the past?
Can’t you speak for yourself instead of adopting other people’s opinion in place of yours?
Are you so mindless in your beliefs about the TLM that you would go so far as to play the mindless automaton for the wing nuts of your church?
Leo:
I didn’t see your post until now.
I apologize, but the fact that John/Jack continues to denounce JP II as a heretic and that the Vatican II council holds no authority at all except that which the Masons give it, is simply intolerable.
+J.M.J+
>>>He is Mark Sheas puppet and a liberal troll
Gee, my very politically conservative husband would be surprised to hear that! Of course, “liberal” is just a slur John uses against anyone he disagrees with, so it’s as meaningless as a modernist Catholic calling us “Catholic fundamentalists.”
>>>We are all aware of the worship with Buddhists and Hindus (pagans), placing of pagan idols on the altars at Assisi
JPII never did that. The Pope had nothing to do with the “Buddha on the tabernacle” (not the altar) incident during the 1986 Assisi conference. He was not present when the Buddhists assigned to pray in that church put their statue of Buddha up on the tabernacle; they took it down after some Catholic visitors complained. But radtrad rumormongering has transformed that incident into alleged full-blown idolatry on JPII’s part – even though he was somewhere else praying with the Christian contingent at the time! He never prayed with the Buddhist or Hindu contingents at Assisi.
>>>Then you have JPII on August 8, 1985, where he visited Togo and prayed in a “Sacred Forest” and consecrated to the worship of pagan gods and participated in a pagan initiation ritual in a grove sacred to the pagan animists
I studied about that event. He merely visited a group of animists in their sacred grove; he did not participate in a “pagan initiation ritual” there. Another ultratraditionalist exaggeration.
Oh, and before he went to visit them he gave a speech to some animists outside of a Catholic Marian shrine, whom he told that Jesus Christ frees men from their sins and gives eternal life. Unfortunately, the text is only available in Italian on the Vatican website:
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/speeches/1985/august/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_19850809_animisti-santuario_it.html
When will the calumny against the late Holy Father end?
In Jesu et Maria,
Rosmarie– Probably about the same time as this hacking at Jesus.
Rosemarie, the problem here is that you are not an ultratraditionalist, therefore not a reliable source for what ‘really’ happened, regardless of what links to the originals you provide.
or do I mean ‘antidisirregardless’?
+J.M.J+
Yeah, I guess you’re both right. 🙂
One more comment on John’s statement above:
>>>Now I am not a sedevacanist as that is to far for me to believe, but I believe that JPII, John XXIII and Paul VI were horible popes, taught apostasy and heresy and should not be followed with matters that have to do with faith and morals because they preached heresy.
If the sedevacantists are wrong then JPII, John XXIII and Paul VI were all valid popes. The Church has never in her history taught that Catholic laity have a right to refuse to submit to a valid pope. That is a modern novelty invented by extremist trads, with no basis in Tradition. No one can hold that unCatholic opinion and say, “I believe what you once believed,” since the Church never believed anything of the sort!
In Jesu et Maria,
John —
Are you paying attention to what Rosemarie just said in her post above?
Here, for your convenience, this is what she said:
…The Church has never in her history taught that Catholic laity have a right to refuse to submit to a valid pope. That is a modern novelty invented by extremist trads, with no basis in Tradition. No one can hold that unCatholic opinion and say, “I believe what you once believed,” since the Church never believed anything of the sort!
Now are you finally getting it???
For the 3rd time:
Core to the Traditional Teachings of the Catholic Church is strict adherence to the AUTHORITY of the Pope & the Council of Bishops.
How can I even claim to abide by Traditional Church Teachings if I have, in fact, arbitrarily substituted my own authority over that of the Church, which Christ Himself gave to the Pope & the Council of Bishops? How exactly am I unlike Martin Luther if I do the very thing he had done in the past?
For the 8th time:
On what AUTHORITY do you accept the actions of previous councils?
To believe that it is even possible for a pope to “teach apostasy and heresy” seems to be calling our Lord a liar and denying His Divinity, as it flies in the face of Matt. 16. If the above is true, then the Gates of Hell prevailed against the Church. To believe such, one must believe that Jesus was wrong when He assured us that the Gates of Hell would never prevail. To believe that Jesus was wrong is to deny His Divinity.
To believe that it is even possible for a pope to “teach apostasy and heresy” seems to be calling our Lord a liar and denying His Divinity, as it flies in the face of Matt. 16. If the above is true, then the Gates of Hell prevailed against the Church. To believe such, one must believe that Jesus was wrong when He assured us that the Gates of Hell would never prevail. To believe that Jesus was wrong is to deny His Divinity.
A-MEN, brutha!
He speaketh the Truth!
I think frankly the answer to this debate is found in the words of the filmmaker. Let’s take a look at the director’s interview and his comments found at http://www.donsausa.com — he says “I don’t have to prove anything” and that his job is to “tell the story”…because its a “hot story”. When a journalist making a documentary says he doesn’t have to prove anything, I see dollar signs rather than truth.
” Thanks ” In the name of our personal Savior. Please keep up the good work. ” Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” Ty Clenney Baptist Minister for 47 years. God bless your work.
Until we get the whole picture complete after more evidence unveils (DNA studies would be great), we do not have theories, we have hypothesis. Here goes my hypothesis:
I consider the Discovery team got it wrong in several points:
1.- Matthew in the ossuary is in fact the apostle Matthew son of Alpheus and not a brother of virgin Mariam. So Matthew was one of the 6 apostle brothers, all were sons of a Maria which raised the children of Cleophas and Alpheus in different marriages.
2.- James in the ossuary can be a son of the old Joseph with a previous marriage (a non canonical scripture states that he had three more sons and two daughters: Justus, Judah, Simon, James, Assia, Lydia), so this James was half brother of Jesus, and NOT the well known apostle James which was instead buried close to the walls of Jerusalem
3.- Jose can be a brother of Matthew not of Jesus. Jose is also brother of the following apostles: Thaddeus, Simon, Judah and James the lesser.
4.- Maria in the ossuary would be the name for the wife of Cleophas (she was the mother of half of the apostles).
5.- Mariam mother of Jesus died elsewhere, maybe Turkey maybe Pakistan…site still to determine.
The Discovery Channel team got it right in the following considerations:
1.- The Mariame ossuary can contain the remains of Maria Magdalene, but it is inscribed with her original infancy name, as she came from wealthy royalty and they would use the greek Mariame as a sign of distinction for their daughters.
2.- Judah son of Jesus ossuary is evidently son of Mariame and Jesus, or else why would he be there in the first place since he is not blood related? Marriage could be the answer.
3.- Jesus was the messiah. The unique inscription at the entrance is also carved on another ossuary at the christian cemetery in the Mount of Olives. Since it has not been found in another tomb, it must be a distinction signal for such a special family
Final comments:
Maria of Cleophas is indeed a relative of Mariam mother of Jesus (not a direct sister, for there would not be two Marys in the same family) and that is why she has an ossuary there. Non canonical scriptures state that Joseph and Cleophas were brothers, so Maria of Cleophas and virgin Mariam would be sisters in law. This makes the 6 apostles cousins of Jesus.
– Mariam mother of Jesus only had one child. We are not sure who the father was.
– Mariame owned the tomb, her parental family was the only one who could afford such a construction, and they always supported the holy family and the
– Mara (in the Mariame ossuary) was her sister Martha, buried in the same box as was sometimes the custom. The Acts of Phillip present them as sisters. But they have no relationship to Mariam of Bethany nor her sister Martha and brother Lazarus which correspond to another family and have been found elsewhere in a common christian cemetery.
This is a view of a searcher of truth, not of merit or faiths. Most of the genealogy is quite clear in the Bible, but gnostic scripture is indispensable for uniting the missing dots. It all adds up to very promising historical discovery.
Until we get the whole picture complete after more evidence unveils (DNA studies would be great), we do not have theories, we have hypothesis. Here goes my hypothesis:
I consider the Discovery team got it wrong in several points:
1.- Matthew in the ossuary is in fact the apostle Matthew son of Alpheus and not a brother of virgin Mariam. So Matthew was one of the 6 apostle brothers, all were sons of a Maria which raised the children of Cleophas and Alpheus in different marriages.
2.- James in the ossuary can be a son of the old Joseph with a previous marriage (a non canonical scripture states that he had three more sons and two daughters: Justus, Judah, Simon, James, Assia, Lydia), so this James was half brother of Jesus, and NOT the well known apostle James which was instead buried close to the walls of Jerusalem
3.- Jose can be a brother of Matthew not of Jesus. Jose is also brother of the following apostles: Thaddeus, Simon, Judah and James the lesser.
4.- Maria in the ossuary would be the name for the wife of Cleophas (she was the mother of half of the apostles).
5.- Mariam mother of Jesus died elsewhere, maybe Turkey maybe Pakistan…site still to determine.
The Discovery Channel team got it right in the following considerations:
1.- The Mariame ossuary can contain the remains of Maria Magdalene, but it is inscribed with her original infancy name, as she came from wealthy royalty and they would use the greek Mariame as a sign of distinction for their daughters.
2.- Judah son of Jesus ossuary is evidently son of Mariame and Jesus, or else why would he be there in the first place since he is not blood related? Marriage could be the answer.
3.- Jesus was the messiah. The unique inscription at the entrance is also carved on another ossuary at the christian cemetery in the Mount of Olives. Since it has not been found in another tomb, it must be a distinction signal for such a special family
Final comments:
Maria of Cleophas is indeed a relative of Mariam mother of Jesus (not a direct sister, for there would not be two Marys in the same family) and that is why she has an ossuary there. Non canonical scriptures state that Joseph and Cleophas were brothers, so Maria of Cleophas and virgin Mariam would be sisters in law. This makes the 6 apostles cousins of Jesus.
– Mariam mother of Jesus only had one child. We are not sure who the father was.
– Mariame owned the tomb, her parental family was the only one who could afford such a construction, and they always supported the holy family and the
– Mara (in the Mariame ossuary) was her sister Martha, buried in the same box as was sometimes the custom. The Acts of Phillip present them as sisters. But they have no relationship to Mariam of Bethany nor her sister Martha and brother Lazarus which correspond to another family and have been found elsewhere in a common christian cemetery.
This is a view of a searcher of truth, not of merit or faiths. Most of the genealogy is quite clear in the Bible, but gnostic scripture is indispensable for uniting the missing dots. It all adds up to very promising historical discovery.
Until we get the whole picture complete after more evidence unveils (DNA studies would be great), we do not have theories, we have hypothesis. Here goes my hypothesis:
I consider the Discovery team got it wrong in several points:
1.- Matthew in the ossuary is in fact the apostle Matthew son of Alpheus and not a brother of virgin Mariam. So Matthew was one of the 6 apostle brothers, all were sons of a Maria which raised the children of Cleophas and Alpheus in different marriages.
2.- James in the ossuary can be a son of the old Joseph with a previous marriage (a non canonical scripture states that he had three more sons and two daughters: Justus, Judah, Simon, James, Assia, Lydia), so this James was half brother of Jesus, and NOT the well known apostle James which was instead buried close to the walls of Jerusalem
3.- Jose can be a brother of Matthew not of Jesus. Jose is also brother of the following apostles: Thaddeus, Simon, Judah and James the lesser.
4.- Maria in the ossuary would be the name for the wife of Cleophas (she was the mother of half of the apostles).
5.- Mariam mother of Jesus died elsewhere, maybe Turkey maybe Pakistan…site still to determine.
The Discovery Channel team got it right in the following considerations:
1.- The Mariame ossuary can contain the remains of Maria Magdalene, but it is inscribed with her original infancy name, as she came from wealthy royalty and they would use the greek Mariame as a sign of distinction for their daughters.
2.- Judah son of Jesus ossuary is evidently son of Mariame and Jesus, or else why would he be there in the first place since he is not blood related? Marriage could be the answer.
3.- Jesus was the messiah. The unique inscription at the entrance is also carved on another ossuary at the christian cemetery in the Mount of Olives. Since it has not been found in another tomb, it must be a distinction signal for such a special family
Final comments:
Maria of Cleophas is indeed a relative of Mariam mother of Jesus (not a direct sister, for there would not be two Marys in the same family) and that is why she has an ossuary there. Non canonical scriptures state that Joseph and Cleophas were brothers, so Maria of Cleophas and virgin Mariam would be sisters in law. This makes the 6 apostles cousins of Jesus.
– Mariam mother of Jesus only had one child. We are not sure who the father was.
– Mariame owned the tomb, her parental family was the only one who could afford such a construction, and they always supported the holy family and the
– Mara (in the Mariame ossuary) was her sister Martha, buried in the same box as was sometimes the custom. The Acts of Phillip present them as sisters. But they have no relationship to Mariam of Bethany nor her sister Martha and brother Lazarus which correspond to another family and have been found elsewhere in a common christian cemetery.
This is a view of a searcher of truth, not of merit or faiths. Most of the genealogy is quite clear in the Bible, but gnostic scripture is indispensable for uniting the missing dots. It all adds up to very promising historical discovery.
It’s fun to watch the loving “Christians” attack each other on this blog. Let’s start with the real facts. There is no historical contemporaneous attestation for the bible Jesus outside of the gospels. Not one historian of the time and era even mentions him…and don’t give me the phony FJ accretions. There is evidence that the “gospels” weren’t written until 100-150 years after his purported death. There were 25 or more known people named Jesus in the area at that time. Before you debate this silly tomb question…shouldn’t you provide credible evidence that such a person actually existed in history?
It’s fun to watch the loving “Christians” attack each other on this blog. Let’s start with the real facts. There is no historical contemporaneous attestation for the bible Jesus outside of the gospels. Not one historian of the time and era even mentions him…and don’t give me the phony FJ accretions. There is evidence that the “gospels” weren’t written until 100-150 years after his purported death. There were 25 or more known people named Jesus in the area at that time. Before you debate this silly tomb question…shouldn’t you provide credible evidence that such a person actually existed in history?
“It’s fun to watch the loving ‘Christians’ attack each other on this blog.” Shouldn’t you provide credible evidence to support this claim?
“There is no historical contemporaneous attestation for the bible Jesus(whatever that means) outside of the gospels.” That would come as a shock to the rabbis who wrote about Him.
“Not one historian of the time and era even mentions him…and don’t give me the phony FJ accretions.” So you know about Flavius Josephus, you know his writings give the lie to your irrational rantings, therefore you have to label his writings “phony”. Is that the best you can do? Shouldn’t you provide credible evidence to support your libel of Flavius Josephus?
“There is evidence that the ‘gospels’ weren’t written until 100-150 years after his purported death.” Shouldn’t you provide credible evidence to support such a claim?
My first comment on this thread–the second comment overall–speaks right to Rob.
Yeah, I just wanted to call in and say I agree with whatever you boys are saying. Great show…great show. Keep on truckin’. 🙂
I’ve been studying this find for years, long before it became public knowledge following the mass media exposure. I believe that it’s a serious find, which warrants further study.
The critics of this find’s magnitude basically argue:
1. That the Jesus family would be buried in Nazareth, not Talpiot;
2. That the ‘Jesus’ ossuary would have been inscribed ‘of Nazareth’;
3. That the Jesus family couldn’t have afforded a tomb like the Talpiot tomb;
4. That the “Jesus son of Joseph” ossuary is not inscribed “Yeshua” (Jesus) at all;
5. That the names inscribed on these ossuaries were supposedly common;
6. That the “Mariamne” ossuary didn’t contain the remains of Mary Magdalene, but of two other women;
I believe the first five of these allegations against the book’s premise don’t carry much water. The sixth argument actually supports the conclusion that this is the real thing. My comments:
1. Talpiot is the right place for Jesus’ family tomb- Per Luke, 2:3-4, the family’s LEGAL residence was Bethlehem, not Nazareth. The fact that Joseph and the pregnant Mary could not take the census in Nazareth but had to take it in Bethlehem indicates that Bethlehem was their DOMICILIUM under Roman Law. That basically means that they had no intention to reside in Nazareth permanently. Therefore it would have made little sense for them to have a family tomb in Nazareth, that they wouldn’t be able to frequently visit at a later stage in their lives. They would have wanted a family tomb close to Bethlehem and Jerusalem, easily accessible also to future generations of the family. The fact is indeed that Mary and her children moved to Jerusalem around 30 AD.
2. The traditional name of Jesus in Hebrew, as reflected also in the Talmud, is “Yeshu Hanotzri.” This appellation stems from “Netzer” (Shoot or Branch). It alludes clearly to Isaiah 11:1, indicating the Royal birth of Jesus, to substantiate his claim for Jewish messiahship. Not to indicate the place he comes from.
There’s actually no evidence in Jewish sources, such as the Old Testament or the Mishna and Talmud, that a place called “Nazareth” even existed in or before the first century. I’m not disputing the evidence per the NT, that there was indeed a place called Nazareth. But to the best of my knowledge, there’s no mention of Nazareth at all in any ancient writings outside the New Testament. So the place existed, but nobody knew about it. And those in close proximity in Galilee who did know about it, obviously thought derogatorily of it , cf. “can anything good come from Nazareth?” (John 1:46.) Therefore there was no reason to call Jesus “of Nazareth.” Either in life or on an ossuary. He was called “Jesus the Branch” (of David) in Hebrew/Aramaic.
The line of argumentation detracting this discovery around the supposed Nazareth origin of Jesus’ family may therefore be based on a very shaky foundation.
3. Talpiot is located about 2.5 miles North of Bethlehem. Jesus’ family, of Davidic descent according to the New Testament, could have held the burial cave there even before it moved to Nazareth. Davidic birth was absolutely the most exalted in Judaism, always. The suggestion that any person of Davidic descent could be of the lowest social echelon, that couldn’t fund or get funding for a burial cave, doesn’t make much sense, if any. There’s substantial evidence to the contrary, e.g. 1. Jesus had some very wealthy active supporters like Joseph of Arimatea and Nicodemus (known as Nakdimon ben Gorion in post biblical Jewish sources-one of the richest Jews in Judea;) 2. Josephus, A.J. XX, 9:1. Note the prominence of James, brother of Jesus.
4. The inscription on the Jesus ossuary does say “Yeshua bar Yehosef” (“Jesus son of Joseph”)to my eye. All letters but one are quite clearly there. The only letter which is somewhat more difficult to discern at first blush is the second letter- “Shin”. That’s because it’s written in a somewhat irregular form (in a regular Shin there are three teeth in the fork, pointing upwards. Here there are two teeth, pointing sideways to the right.) But that particular irregularity appears also on other ossuaries- notably numbers 9 (this one has two “Shin”- one with three teeth pointing to the right, and one with TWO teeth pointing to the right. Exactly like the subject inscription) and 121 in the Rahmani catalogue, which both feature also a “Yeshua.”
Still, the name “Yeshua” on this ossuary is among the most, if not the most, difficult to read names of all ossuaries listed in Rahmani’s catalogue of Jewish ossuaries. It is almost written as a person’s complex signature on a check. Contrast that with the patronymic following the first name. This is written in a simple straightforward fashion, which is very easy to read. There’s no other example in Rahmani’s catalogue of a first name that has to be deciphered, and a patronymic that’s so plain and clear. Is this merely a coincidence?
5. Some critics make the following comment to my post:
“The inscription, Pfann said, is made up of two names inscribed by two different hands: the first, “Mariame,” was inscribed in a formal Greek script, and later, when the bones of another woman were added to the box, another scribe using a different cursive script added the words “kai Mara,” meaning “and Mara.” Mara is a different form of the name Martha.
According to Pfann’s reading, the ossuary did not house the bones of “Mary the teacher,” but rather of two women, “Mary and Martha.'”
Here’s my thought about that:
If the Mariamne ossuary indeed housed the bones of Mary and Martha, these are two sisters of NT fame. One of them could have been married to “Jesus son of Joseph.” -Whether or not she was Mary Magdalene (Maybe the Mary who anointed Jesus’ feet and then dried them with her hair- very intimate scene.) The other sister would than also automatically belong in the family. It still fits. Actually it increases the statistical odds that this is the real thing quite substantially.
This is a very intriguing possibility indeed, fitting perfectly with John 12:3. Intimate contact with a man, as described in this NT passage, was allowed only to a woman who was an immediate blood relative of that man, his wife (…or a working woman.) That’s all. Therefore Mary of Bethany was quite possibly by elimination Jesus’ wife or in the process of becoming his wife. In that context, Margaret Starbird already theorized that similar anointing with spikenard oil was part of pre marriage ritual of a Davidic king, per certain passages in the Song of Songs. Note also that intercourse by itself was sufficient under Jewish Law in certain circumstances to constitute valid marriage. That practice, termed Bi’ah marriage, was abolished in the 6th century, but it was lawful in Jesus’ time.
Mary of Bethany could have become pregnant by Jesus while he stayed at her house, shortly before his crucifixion. In that case it’s quite possible that she bore Jesus’ son posthumously and named him “Judah.” And in that case both she and her sister Martha would have become part of Jesus’ family, which earned them a place in the Talpiot family tomb..
Reminds me of the reaction to this find of a BBC reporter in 1996- It seems like all balls in the national lottery coming one by one.
I have no knowledge of Greek, so I can only discuss the two propositions. Assuming that the ossuary does say “Mary and Martha”, here’s what I think the names are:
* 1.”Jesus son of Joseph”(“Yeshua bar Yehosef” in Hebrew/Aramaic script;)
* 2. “Mary” (“Marya” in Hebrew/Aramaic script);
* 3. “Joseph” (“Yose” in Hebrew/Aramaic script. Precise nickname of Jesus’ second brother- cf. Mark 6:3);
* 4. “Mary and Martha” (“Mariame kai Mara” in Greek)-they must have been sisters because Jewish law didn’t allow burial together of two unrelated women;
* 5. “Matthew” (“Matya” in Hebrew/Aramaic script)- Name of Jesus’ first cousin, son of his father’s brother Alphaeus/Clophas. As James Tabor suggests in a different context, Matya could also well have been Jesus’ half brother, considering a certain specific rule of the Torah (Deuteronomy 25:5-10.) This rule was applied in Jesus time- see Matthew 22:24-28;
* 6. “Judah son of Jesus”(“Yehuda bar Yeshua” in Hebrew/Aramaic script.)
* Therefore out of eight names actually inscribed on these ossuaries (including the “Joseph” father of Jesus on the first ossuary) four names undoubtedly relate to Jesus’ immediate family, and three other names relate to the same with a somewhat lower probability. In any event, they all relate to Jesus’ extended family. Note that first century Jewish family tombs were usually a clan thing.
* The eighth name is “Yehuda bar Yeshua”- must have been the son of Jesus and one of the sisters Mary or Martha. More likely Mary, as explained above.
6. While the full versions of all these names were indeed common in Jesus’ time, the derivatives, nicknames and contractions were not. Thus “Yeshua” for Jesus was less common than “YeHOshua;” ditto “YeHOsef” instead of “Yosef” for Joseph; “Marya” for Mary was extremely rare in Hebrew/Aramaic script; “Yose” for Joseph is unique. Therefore out of these eight names, two are irregularities, one is a particularity, and one a singularity.
BOTTOM LINE- Ask yourself inversely a hypothetical question- If the Talpiot tomb hadn’t yet been found, how would Jesus’ family tomb have looked , which ossuaries would it have contained, to when would it have been dated and where would it have been located.
I would have thought of a tomb just like the tomb we’re discussing. It fits perfectly with what I’d have expected Jesus’ family tomb to be. Right place, right period, right names. I therefore believe that this matter, delicate as it obviously is, warrants further investigation. This could include opening and examination of the adjacent tomb, and forensic examination of the skeletal remains found in the Talpiot ossuaries, and apparently reburied back in 1980. These could hopefully be relocated by comparison to the mithochondrial DNA samples already taken from two of these ossuaries.