Author Topic: Eleison Comments, Truth First (Read 1682 times)

Machabees · « **on:** March 01, 2014, 11:27:12 PM »

Eleison Comments, Number CCCXLVI (346)

1st March 2014

TRUTH FIRST

There must be many objections to the argument of recent issues of these “Comments” that, divine truth being prior to human teachers, then the fallibility of Popes need not concern us all that much because the true Faith is behind, beyond and above them. But here is a classic objection: the Truth in itself may be above them, but to us human beings it only comes through them – “faith is by hearing” (Rom.X, 17). Thus Our Lord entrusted to Peter (i.e. the Popes) the task of confirming his brethren in the faith (Lk.XXII, 31-32). So to us Catholics the teachers are prior to the Truth which we cannot receive without them. Moreover the Holy Ghost guides them (Jn.XVI, 13), so how can I possibly tell if or when he is not doing so ?

Also in Scripture lies the answer. St. Paul writes to a flock which he has instructed in the Faith: “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” And the point is so important that St Paul immediately repeats it: “As we said before, so now I say again: If anyone preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema” (Gal.I, 8-9)

But, a Galatian might have objected, why should we believe your gospel on your first visit to Galatia and not an eventually different one on your second ? St. Paul immediately gives a first reason: “ The gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. For neither did I receive it of man, nor did I learn it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ” (Gal.I, 11-12). And St Paul confirms this by narrating how little contact he had with those who might have taught him, the other Apostles, before he began preaching (I, 15-19), a fact obviously verifiable by them, and he swears to the Galatians that he is not lying (I, 20). A second reason he gives a little later, which is the miracles and experience of the Holy Spirit (III, 2-5) that the Galatians themselves had witnessed as the direct result of the preaching of Paul’s first visit.

Thus Paul proves that God both taught him, and confirmed for the Galatians, the gospel of that first visit, and the contradiction between it and any different gospel the Galatians would be not only able but also obliged to discern for themselves, if they wished to save their souls. And no matter if (I,8) the preacher of the different gospel were an angel or Paul himself – or a Pope ! – the Galatians would still have the absolute duty to stay with Paul’s first gospel. The truth that had been set before them (III,1) the Galatians had recognized and accepted it (III, 3), just as one recognizes that 2 and 2 are 4, so it would have priority over any teacher eventually contradicting it, whatever authority to teach he might appear to have (I,9).

Thus Archbishop Lefebvre used to say that for the 19 centuries between St Paul and Vatican II the Church had preached exactly the same gospel, coming from God and ever and again confirmed by him. That gospel is, as revealed by God, Revelation; as handed down by churchmen, Tradition; as taught with authority by the Church, its Ordinary and Extraordinary Magisterium. Between that gospel and Vatican II the contradiction is obvious, so we must accept and believe Tradition, if we wish to save our souls, whatever the apparent authorities of the Church may say to the contrary. So help us God. How then can the Archbishop’s own Society of St Pius X be officially seeking reconciliation with the authorities of Vatican II ?

Kyrie eleison.

Galatians I, 8-9 is a classic text to prove the priority of truth over authority, i.e. of Catholic Tradition over today’s Rome.

fast777 · « **Reply #1 on:** March 01, 2014, 11:43:54 PM »

"Also in Scripture lies the answer. St. Paul writes to a flock which he has instructed in the Faith: “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” And the point is so important that St Paul immediately repeats it: “As we said before, so now I say again: If anyone preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema” (Gal.I, 8-9) "

Did +Williamson just agree with +Sanborn?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #2 on:** March 02, 2014, 02:02:22 AM »

Quote from: fast777

"Also in Scripture lies the answer. St. Paul writes to a flock which he has instructed in the Faith: “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” And the point is so important that St Paul immediately repeats it: “As we said before, so now I say again: If anyone preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema” (Gal.I, 8-9) "

Did +Williamson just agree with +Sanborn?

Sorry, if you want anyone to know what you're talking about you'll have to provide the quote and reference from him.

Quote from: +W

And no matter if (I,8) the preacher of the different gospel were an angel or Paul himself – or a Pope !

The thing that sedes miss again and again is this point that St. Paul was personally infallible, just as the rest of the Apostles were. But only the popes after them have inherited this charism. The bishops of the world do not have this mark of infallibility -- only the popes do.

And as St. Paul says there, if he were to come later preaching a different gospel, the Galatians were to not believe the NEW gospel, but should hold fast to the FIRST gospel of St. Paul, because he had learned it directly from Jesus Christ.

St. Paul would live out his days in full knowledge that he could botch the whole thing and fall into error -- only at the very end of his life did he conclude that he had been successful in not falling into error, when he said he fought the good fight and had stayed his course. He had managed to remain faithful to the mission he had been given by Our Lord in person, after His Ascension.

Notice St. Paul did not say he would be INCAPABLE of teaching error. And by extension, neither would any of the successor popes be incapable of teaching error. After the infallible definition in the 19th century, we now know that the way the pope prevents error is by condemning it, and that is how the Holy Ghost protects the Church from error.

The pope is only able to protect the Church when he condemns error.

But the popes stopped condemning error in October of 1962.

.

JPaul · « **Reply #3 on:** March 02, 2014, 09:37:52 AM »

Quote

I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel. Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

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.

For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

Now notice that some are quite free to quote the fist without drawing the consequential conclusion of the second, which is repeated so that there is no mistake as to the instruction which our father Paul has given.

Let him be ANATHEMA! He does not say let him be resisted but otherwise undisturbed, no, for this grave and supreme offence he say thats he is to be considered anathema, apart from us.
But the courage and rectitude of modern men is too weak to obey and proceed as instructed by Holy Writ.

Clemens Maria · « **Reply #4 on:** March 02, 2014, 07:34:13 PM »

anathema = a formal ecclesiastical curse involving excommunication.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm

Quote

In the New Testament anathema no longer entails death, but the loss of goods or exclusion from the society of the faithful. St. Paul frequently uses this word in the latter sense. In the Epistle to the Romans (9:3) he says: "For I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren, who are my kinsmen according to the flesh", i.e. "I should wish to be separated and rejected of Christ, if by that means I would procure the salvation of my brethren." And again, using the word in the same sense, he says (Galatians 1:9): "If any one preach to you a gospel besides that which you have received, let him be anathema." But he who is separated from God is united to the devil, which explains why St. Paul, instead of anathematizing, sometimes delivers a person over to Satan (1 Timothy 1:20; 1 Corinthians 5:5).

...

Anathema remains a major excommunication which is to be promulgated with great solemnity.

...

The Roman Pontifical reproduces it in the chapter Ordo excommunicandi et absolvendi, distinguishing three sorts of excommunication: minor excommunication, formerly incurred by a person holding communication with anyone under the ban of excommunication; major excommunication, pronounced by the Pope in reading a sentence; and anathema, or the penalty incurred by crimes of the gravest order, and solemnly promulgated by the Pope.

How is R&R equivalent to anathematizing V2 popes?

JPaul · « **Reply #5 on:** March 02, 2014, 08:10:07 PM »

Quote from: Clemens Maria

anathema = a formal ecclesiastical curse involving excommunication.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455e.htm

Quote
In the New Testament anathema no longer entails death, but the loss of goods or exclusion from the society of the faithful. St. Paul frequently uses this word in the latter sense. In the Epistle to the Romans (9:3) he says: "For I wished myself to be an anathema from Christ, for my brethren, who are my kinsmen according to the flesh", i.e. "I should wish to be separated and rejected of Christ, if by that means I would procure the salvation of my brethren." And again, using the word in the same sense, he says (Galatians 1:9): "If any one preach to you a gospel besides that which you have received, let him be anathema." But he who is separated from God is united to the devil, which explains why St. Paul, instead of anathematizing, sometimes delivers a person over to Satan (1 Timothy 1:20; 1 Corinthians 5:5).

...

Anathema remains a major excommunication which is to be promulgated with great solemnity.

...

The Roman Pontifical reproduces it in the chapter Ordo excommunicandi et absolvendi, distinguishing three sorts of excommunication: minor excommunication, formerly incurred by a person holding communication with anyone under the ban of excommunication; major excommunication, pronounced by the Pope in reading a sentence; and anathema, or the penalty incurred by crimes of the gravest order, and solemnly promulgated by the Pope.

How is R&R equivalent to anathematizing V2 popes?

It is not. It does not follow the proscriptions of Holy Writ or the dogmatic instruction of Vatican I.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #6 on:** March 04, 2014, 06:15:33 AM »

.

This EC provides an answer to the question that asks, "What's wrong with Fr. Themann's second sentence in his 'Resistance to what?' summary, where he says that 'Truth is not firstly a question of words but of the ideas for which the words stand'?"

Quote from: +W

Also in Scripture lies the answer. St. Paul writes to a flock which he has instructed in the Faith: “Though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.” And the point is so important that St. Paul immediately repeats it: “As we said before, so now I say again: If anyone preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema” (Gal.I, 8-9)

NOW remains the following question:

Is this gospel of Fr. Themann THE SAME AS, or is it in some way DIFFERENT FROM, that which we have received from the Church of Apostolic origin?

.

hugeman · « **Reply #7 on:** March 04, 2014, 07:18:08 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

Quote from: fast777

The thing that sedes miss again and again is this point that St. Paul was personally infallible, just as the rest of the Apostles were. But only the popes after them have inherited this charism. The bishops of the world do not have this mark of infallibility -- only the popes do.

And as St. Paul says there, if he were to come later preaching a different gospel, the Galatians were to not believe the NEW gospel, but should hold fast to the FIRST gospel of St. Paul, because he had learned it directly from Jesus Christ.

St. Paul would live out his days in full knowledge that he could botch the whole thing and fall into error -- only at the very end of his life did he conclude that he had been successful in not falling into error, when he said he fought the good fight and had stayed his course. He had managed to remain faithful to the mission he had been given by Our Lord in person, after

The pope is only able to protect the Church when he condemns error.

But the popes stopped condemning error in October of 1962.

.

NO,
(and that doesn't mean Novus Ordo!),
Could you show how you reconcile these two statements of yours?
That St. Paul was personally infallible, yet He himself said 'if I TEACH you a
(heresy) doctrine different than that I taught yesterday...'?

How is this different than what Fellay and Co are now saying--that these VC 'popes' are protected
by the Holy Ghost from teaching error?

Where is the reference for St. Paul being personally infallible, and, if He was, why didn't He know it? If St. Paul was, was not St. Peter -- And yet Paul was moved to publicly correct Peter on a very fundamental matter of the faith?
Thank you

JPaul · « **Reply #8 on:** March 04, 2014, 09:35:24 AM »

Fr. Themann is a small potato, he simply suffers from poor theology born of bad formation as do the new formation priests.

The question is have Francis and his cohorts brought to us another Gospel?

Asked and answered!

R&R denies this by its refusal to honor the Gospel and Vatican I, both in its recognition and in its meaningless form of resistance.

Now, that group from the Catholic Patriarchate of Ukraine has no problem acting as Catholics.

The Catholic Biblical principle which addresses those who are corrupters of the Faith is to be found in Galatians 6-9, and its reiteration by the First Vatican Council.

One does not protect the Faith and defend souls by allowing such corrupters to roam free among the flock without the sanction which the Church by Christ's will commands.