Calvin, Institutio christianae religionis, 1.11.11
Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Directory of sheep and wolves
Calvin, Institutio christianae religionis, 1.11.11
1) S. Jetchick (2008-October-12)
2) D. Arseneault (2008-October-14)
3) S. Jetchick (2008-October-22)
4) D. Arseneault (2008-November-05)
5) S. Jetchick (2008-December-22)
-----Original Message----- From: Stefan Jetchick Sent: 12 octobre 2008 17:57 To: Daniel Arseneault Subject: RE: Correspondance avec Réjean Joly Hi Dan, Once again, thanks for showing up to protest against the abomination that occured the day before yesterday, here at the Citadel, when a killer was decorated with the Order of Canada. Since you told me, while we were protesting, that you wouldn't mind "going online" with our debate, even under your real name, I'm taking the liberty of firing the first shot. (Of course, readers have to understand that we've already exchanged several e-mails about this topic. Also, Daniel personally participated in this mailing, so it's understandable if I poke him a bit!) My claims are true, but intensely boring. Basically, the Pope is right and you're wrong! ;-) To give a bit more details, my claims will probably revolve around two things: 1) Calvin is absolutely right when he says we should only adore God. [Ex 20:2-5] Except kneeling down in front of a creature is not necessarily an act of adoration. Otherwise veterinarians who kneel down in front of young calves, in order to better examine them, would be committing mortal sin! In the same way, I would be going to Hell, because I once kneeled down to beg someone to come back into the Catholic Church! After all, I was kneeling down in front of a creature (of the female sex, to make matters worse!), and praying her to do something! 2) The Catholic Church cannot be partially right, and neither can Jesus. The Catholic Church doesn't claim She transmits some of the teachings of Jesus, but all of them, and with no admixture of error whatsoever. If there is a single error in the official teachings of the Catholic Church, that Church is completely full of baloney. Moreover, if Jesus cannot found a Church and ensure that His Church teaches all of His teachings, with no admixture of error whatsoever, then Jesus is a jerk and a liar. After all, Jesus Himself clearly claims the gates of Hell will never prevail against His Church [Mt 16:18]. A "god" who is too stupid to found a church that faithfully transmits his message, is not the real God. Looking forward to your first official reply, Stefan Jetchick
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Arseneault Sent: 14 octobre 2008 14:13 To: Stefan Jetchick Subject: Correspondence with Mr. Daniel Arseneault Stefan, In this exchange, I will argue against the infallibility of the Catholic Church. Let me explain how I intend to do this. The Catholic Church claims that it cannot err on official Church teachings. Two examples of official Church teachings are: 1) That all its teachings are in accordance with the Bible, and 2) The veneration of the saints is not idolatry. If I can demonstrate that the veneration of the saints is forbidden by scripture, then I will also have demonstrated that the Catholic Church is not infallible in saying that its teachings do not contradict the Bible. You began this discussion by writing: 1) Calvin is absolutely right when he says we should only adore God. [Ex 20:2-5] Except kneeling down in front of a creature is not necessarily an act of adoration. Otherwise veterinarians who kneel down in front of young calves, in order to better examine them, would be committing mortal sin! In the same way, I would be going to Hell, because I recently kneeled down to beg someone to come back into the Catholic Church! After all, I was kneeling down in front of a creature (of the female sex, to make matters worse!), and praying her to do something! Don't you see any difference between a vet kneeling to work on a calf and kneeling before the statue of a saint? Most Catholics would object to your comparing the two. It is quite clear that when God said: "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them" (Ex 20:5), he was not referring to examining the bellies of animals. The kind of kneeling God was talking about is a gesture that confers honour upon a deity. The same can be said for your use of the word "pray." The term prayer denotes "Make devout supplication to (God, object of worship)" (OED). [d3] Your use of the word in the above example is archaic. Besides, whichever way you choose to use the word, it is clear in the scriptures that people do not address God in the same way they do other people. Prayer, while being verbal communication in most instances, also expresses honour, reverence. 2) The Catholic Church cannot be partially right, and neither can Jesus. The Catholic Church doesn't claim She transmits some of the teachings of Jesus, but all of them, and with no admixture of error whatsoever. If there is a single error in the official teachings of the Catholic Church, that Church is completely full of baloney. Moreover, if Jesus cannot found a Church and ensure that His Church teaches all of His teachings, with no admixture of error whatsoever, then Jesus is a jerk and a liar. After all, Jesus Himself clearly claims the gates of Hell will never prevail against His Church [Mt 16:18]. A "god" who is too stupid to found a church that faithfully transmits his message, is not the real God. Your logic is clearly at fault. If the Catholic Church claims it is 100% right, and yet it teaches some specific error, that does not make it wrong in everything it teaches. That only makes it wrong about two things: 1) the specific error it teaches, and 2) the claim that it is 100% right. While it does teach some errors, I certainly don't believe that the Catholic Church is full of baloney. I don't see why Jesus would be a jerk if the church he founded is capable of error. His #1 disciple, Peter, denied him three times. Does that make Jesus an incompetent teacher, since he personally trained Peter for three years? (Even after the resurrection, Peter had to be corrected by Paul when he had stopped eating with the gentiles.) Secondly, he would not be a liar simply because the church is capable of error. There's a huge difference between the church teaching errors and the gates of Hell prevailing against it. If Mt 16:18 refers to the church at all (some think it refers to the truth stated by Peter: "Jesus is the son of God"), it could mean that the church will never be defeated by the forces of the devil, which is a far cry from teaching a single error. Your final statement is unfounded. It's easy to say: "God is not stupid, therefore he would not do this or he would do that." But your idea of "stupid" and what God would or wouldn't do is definitely no standard for making such an inference. I could say that God is not stupid, therefore he would not have created a human body capable of bearing disease. Such an inference would obviously be wrong. In order to achieve my goal of demonstrating that the Church is not infallible, I don't need to prove that your inferences are faulty. I only need to show that a single doctrine of the Catholic church is contrary to the Bible. Since you got the ball rolling with your two points, I'll send it back by presenting my preliminary arguments against the veneration of the saints from a scriptural standpoint. SCRIPTURE It is clear from the following passages that God condemns the practice of honouring other beings or things in the same way that he should be honoured: "I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images." (Is 42:8; cf. 48:11) "For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God." (De 4:24) It is also clear that one of God's main purposes in his dealings with men is to glorify himself: "[God hath chosen the] things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory in his presence." (1Co 1:28-29) "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast." (Eph 2:8-9) "Ye men of Israel, why marvel ye at this? or why look ye so earnestly on us, as though by our own power or holiness we had made this man to walk? The God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, hath glorified his Son Jesus; whom ye delivered up, and denied him in the presence of Pilate, when he was determined to let him go." (Ac 3:12-13) "And when we burned incense to the queen of heaven, and poured out drink offerings unto her, did we make her cakes to worship her, and pour out drink offerings unto her" (Jr 44:19; cf. 7:18, 44:17-18; 44:25) ARGUMENT #1: Only God should receive the glory for things he accomplishes. The Catholic Church teaches that it is fitting and proper to offer praise to the saints. In the case of Mary, she is honoured and praised by Catholics because of the role God has given her in the birth of Jesus. If God will not share his honour with another being (Is 42:8), how can we rightly honour someone other than him for something that he himself has done? If God's purpose is to glorify himself (1Co 1:29), why should we praise anyone other than him for something that he has done? In Acts 3, Peter was astonished that people would honour him because of his apparent "holiness" when they ought to have been honouring God, since God was the one doing the healing. And yet, the Catholic Church teaches that it is proper to offer praises to Mary because she is "holy." ARGUMENT #2: Praying *to* the saints is different from praying *for* the dead. Secondly, nowhere in the Catholic scriptures do we see someone praying *to* a dead person, however good they may have seemed during their lives. There is, however, a single reference to praying *for* the dead: 1 Mc 12:45-46. In 1 Samuel chapter 28, when Saul wanted to speak to Samuel, he had to "disturb" him by means of a medium and was reprimanded for doing so. I have no specific scripture reference to support this particular argument, since there are no instances of someone praying to a person other than God in the Bible. The mere fact that it is never mentioned, combined with the fact that prayer is always addressed to God alone in the examples we do have, should be enough to justify this argument from a scriptural standpoint. ARGUMENT #3: Prayer is an act of worship. Thirdly, prayer (in the usual sense of the word) is an act that should always be reserved to God. If you choose to speak to someone other than God, you do it differently than you would to God. Prayer is the most common act of worship a believer can accomplish. In this sense, prayer and worship are intimately linked. Nevertheless, the Catholic Church teaches that one should "pray" the saints in a way that, incidentally, resembles the way one would pray God. Theologians have invented artificial distinctions between the two from a purely theoretical standpoint, but in practice there is little or no difference in the way a Catholic prays Mary and the way he prays God. For example, he kneels, lights a few candles, does the sign of the cross, folds his hands, recites the Our Father, and goes on to tell Mary how he loves her, how perfect and holy she is, and how he needs her intervention in some specific areas of his life, then finishes with a Glory Be. How can anyone claim that prayer to Mary in circumstances such as these is not an act of worship? That's not the way we talk to people around us; only God should be addressed in that way. Talking to Mary the way one would talk to God is reminiscent of how the idolaters of ancient Israel would offer sacrifices to the "queen of heaven" in much the same way as they would honour the true God (Jr 44:19) -- no pun intended on the title "Queen of Heaven" borne by Mary! I look forward to your rebuttal. Daniel
-----Original Message-----
From: Stefan Jetchick
Sent: 22 octobre 2008 19:51
To: Daniel Arseneault
Subject: RE: Correspondence with Mr. Daniel Arseneault
Hi Daniel,
>> If I can demonstrate that the veneration of the
>> saints is forbidden by scripture, then I will also have demonstrated
>> that the Catholic Church is not infallible in saying that its
>> teachings do not contradict the Bible.
Ah Lord! Thank you! Finally, someone who argues based on logic
and facts!
Praise the Lord for Daniel's love of Logic and Facts!
>> Don't you see any difference between a vet kneeling to work on a calf
>> and kneeling before the statue of a saint? Most Catholics would
>> object to your comparing the two.
Daniel, I beseech thee, don't forget about that thing called "Logic"
which I mentioned a short while ago in this e-mail!
;-)
Of course I see a difference, and so do you (and all sane people).
The object of that comparaison was not to liken the Virgin Mother
to a silly cow!
:-)
What I was trying to do was to make you reflect upon what
specifies human acts. We are going to need that "intellectual
instrument", because we are going to examine what it means
to pray to saints. We need to be able to determine precisely
the nature of a human act.
For example, a vet kneeling down in front of a calf is
physically kneeling down. So is a Christian kneeling down
to adore Christ, who is walking through his town,
curing the sick and spreading the Gospel.
Both men are kneeling down. Materially, their bodies are in
the same position. But the species of their act is
different. Why?
Let's take some more examples, to spur on our reflexions.
An Atheist, who hates Christ, sees Him walk through his town,
but does not kneel down to adore Him. A Christian in
the same town wants to adore the Lord, but is paralysed and
therefore remains in his bed, without kneeling down to adore
the God-Man Christ. Neither knelt, but one will burn for it
(unless he repents). Why?
It can get more complicated. A blind Christian can be told
by nasty neighbors that Christ is standing in front of him,
so this Christian might momentarily kneel down to adore a
donkey. Or a young Jewish boy can be told by his parents that
Jesus is very bad man, a liar and a threat to the true religion
of YHWH, so this young boy refuses to kneel down to adore
Christ. One kneels, the other doesn't, and neither sins. Why?
Another interesting case is the Christian who is totally
convinced that Jesus Christ is the Lord, and yet he just
sits there, eating bread and fish [Jn 21:13], instead of
kneeling. Other Christians who meet Christ face-to-face
avoid eating for days [Ac 9:9]. Others prostrate themselves
[Mt 14:33]. Why?
While trying to prepare my answer, I was checking out the
Summa Theologica. Among others:
Accordingly a fourfold goodness may be considered in a human
action. First, that which, as an action, it derives from its
genus; because as much as it has of action and being so much has
it of goodness, as stated above (Article 1). Secondly, it has
goodness according to its species; which is derived from its
suitable object. Thirdly, it has goodness from its circumstances,
in respect, as it were, of its accidents. Fourthly, it has
goodness from its end, to which it is compared as to the cause of
its goodness.
[ST, q. 18, a. 4.]
In other words, the traditional doctrine of the three sources
of morality: the act itself, the circumstances, and the
intention. And of course, all components must be in order, for
the act to be good. In other words, "bonum ex integra causa..."
Sorry, that was a bit long, but I do need those concepts (and more)
to answer your questions.
>> It is quite clear that when God
>> said: "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them" (Ex 20:5), he was not
>> referring to examining the bellies of animals. The kind of kneeling
>> God was talking about is a gesture that confers honour upon a deity.
Precisely!
Therefore kneeling which does not "confer honor upon a deity" is OK,
which is my point entirely!
>> The same can be said for your use of the word "pray." The term prayer
>> denotes "Make devout supplication to (God, object of worship)" (OED).
Daniel, I implore thee, don't forget about that thing called "Facts"
which I mentioned a short while ago in this e-mail!
;-)
In the sentence "I was kneeling down in front of a creature [...],
and praying her to do something", the word "praying" is the verb
"to pray". Merriam-Webster's 11th Collegiate Dictionary says:
Main Entry: pray
Function: verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French prier, [...]
Date:13th century
transitive verb
1 : ENTREAT, IMPLORE - often used as a function word in
introducing a question, request, or plea *pray be careful*
2 : to get or bring by praying
intransitive verb
1 : to make a request in a humble manner
2 : to address God or a god with adoration,
confession, supplication, or thanksgiving.
>> Your use of the word in the above example is archaic.
Je t'en prie, Daniel, ne me dis pas que je parle de
manière archaïque, quand je te parle en bon français moderne!
Seriously, that's not what my recent dictionary says. Moreover, that
is irrelevant. As a lawyer, you know full well that a text
must be interpreted given the meaning of the word that the
legislator intended. If a text was written a long time
ago, and that word meant this or that meaning in those days,
then that is the meaning of the word that should be used.
>> it is clear in the
>> scriptures that people do not address God in the same way they do
>> other people.
Concedo, of course, but beside the point, since it is clear
that the Catholic Church does not address God in the same way She
does saints.
>> Prayer, while being verbal communication in most
>> instances, also expresses honour, reverence.
In other words, when we pray, we pay due service to a lordship.
And lordship can be absolute (hence latria) or relative (hence dulia).
For God has absolute and paramount lordship over the
creature wholly and singly, which is entirely subject to His power:
whereas man partakes of a certain likeness to the divine
lordship, forasmuch as he exercises a particular power over
some man or creature. Wherefore dulia, which pays due service
to a human lord, is a distinct virtue from latria, which
pays due service to the lordship of God.
[ST, IIa-IIae, q. 103, a. 3, in corpus]
Whether Protestants like it or not, we can pray to a person in two
ways (Remember a "person" is "a somebody", something which has
intelligence and free will. Hence you're a person, but so is Jesus,
and the angel Gabriel, etc.):
Prayer is offered to a person in two ways: first, as to be
fulfilled by him, secondly, as to be obtained through him. On
the first way we offer prayer to God alone, since all our
prayers ought to be directed to the acquisition of grace and
glory, which God alone gives, according to Psalm 83:12, "The
Lord will give grace and glory." But in the second way we pray
to the saints, whether angels or men, not that God may through
them know our petitions, but that our prayers may be effective
through their prayers and merits. Hence it is written
(Apocalypse 8:4) that "the smoke of the incense," namely "the
prayers of the saints ascended up before God." This is also
clear from the very style employed by the Church in praying:
since we beseech the Blessed Trinity "to have mercy on us,"
while we ask any of the saints "to pray for us."
[ST, IIa-IIae, q. 83, a. 4, in corpus]
Nothing wrong with praying to a mere human person, as long as it
is done the way Saint Paul does it:
Further, the saints who are in heaven are more acceptable to God
than those who are on the way. Now we should make the saints, who
are on the way, our intercessors with God, after the example of
the Apostle, who said (Romans 15:30): "I beseech you . . .
brethren, through our Lord Jesus Christ, and by the charity of
the Holy Ghost, that you help me in your prayers for me to God."
Much more, therefore, should we ask the saints who are in heaven
to help us by their prayers to God.
[ST, Suppl., q. 72, a. 2, sed contra]
>> If the Catholic Church claims it is
>> 100% right, and yet it teaches some specific error, that does not
>> make it wrong in everything it teaches. That only makes it wrong
>> about two things: 1) the specific error it teaches, and 2) the claim
>> that it is 100% right. While it does teach some errors, I certainly
>> don't believe that the Catholic Church is full of baloney.
We are both right on this one. It's just a question of defining
our terms properly.
Of course, you are right, in the sense that if the Catholic Church
teaches that 2+2=4, on top of teaching that the moon is made out
of cheese, we can safely say the Church is right for 2+2=4, and
wrong about the cheese.
But we must also note that the Catholic Church is not like many
other Christian or "Christ-oid" churches. Many other churches claim
officially that they have erred in their official teachings. My
favorite example used to teach contraception was a sin, until 1931,
when it changed its mind. There are many churches out there that
"teach by committee", that specifically do not claim that their
church is 100% infallible in its official teachings.
If a Church claims its teachings are 100% infallible because God
guides its Magisterium, and its teachings are 99.9% true, that
Church is still a lie. There might be bits and pieces that are
true, but essentially that Church is one big lie.
In a way such a Church would be even worse that other kinds of Christian
churches, since She would be constitutionally blind to Her errors!
Her very nature would prevent Her from backing down from Her mistakes.
She would be blind today, and blind forever. No possibility of
amending Herself, since She is convinced that "God told Her do
teach this and that"!
Don't lose sight of the forest because of one tree. The
Catholic Church's claim that She is infallible in matters
of dogma and morals is a HUGE claim! If that claim is false,
then the Catholic Church is essentially a big lie (even
though it might have little "truth-ettes" here and there).
>> I don't see why Jesus would be a jerk if the church he founded is
>> capable of error. His #1 disciple, Peter, denied him three times.
... yes, as predicted by Christ. Christ also prayed for Peter's Faith
to be solid ("I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you
have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers." [Lk 22:31], and
told him to strengthen his bretheren, after he came back
(from his denial). Christ officially entrusted the Church into Peter's
hands after he came back from his denial [Jn 21:15-17].
>> Does that make Jesus an incompetent teacher, since he personally
>> trained Peter for three years?
No, it just shows Jesus knew what men were made of!
>> (Even after the resurrection, Peter
>> had to be corrected by Paul when he had stopped eating with the
>> gentiles.)
Of course. Remember the limits of the dogma of Papal infallibility.
>> There's a huge difference between the church teaching
>> errors and the gates of Hell prevailing against it.
Distinguo. An error about accessory things?
Concedo. An error about the actual essential teachings?
Nego.
We need to define our terms. "Teaching an error", in this
context, means teaching an error about dogma or morals, i.e.
teaching that a false statement is true, a false statement
about what must be believed to be a Christian (dogma),
and what must be done to go to Heaven (morals).
A single error about such statements means the faithful will
be lead into Hell, because they are taught to listen to
the Church, as if Christ was speaking [Mt 18:18; Lk 10:16].
>> it could mean that the church
>> will never be defeated by the forces of the devil, which is a far cry
>> from teaching a single error.
If a single human soul ends up in Hell, because of the official
teachings of a Church, then the gates of Hell have prevailed on
that Church. Christ didn't promise to be able to save some, maybe.
He promised He could save all those who believed in Him. Period.
>> But your
>> idea of "stupid" and what God would or wouldn't do is definitely no
>> standard for making such an inference.
Nego.
>> I could say that God is not
>> stupid, therefore he would not have created a human body capable of
>> bearing disease. Such an inference would obviously be wrong.
On the contrary, that is exactly how we came out of God's hands!
This is the whole doctrine of the praeternatural gifts:
For man's body was indissoluble not by reason of any intrinsic
vigor of immortality, but by reason of a supernatural force
given by God to the soul, whereby it was enabled to preserve
the body from all corruption so long as it remained itself
subject to God.
[ST, Ia, q. 97, a. 1]
>> In order to achieve my goal of demonstrating that the Church is not
>> infallible, [...] I
>> only need to show that a single doctrine of the Catholic church is
>> contrary to the Bible.
Great! We're back on track with Facts and Logic!
>> It is clear from the following passages that God condemns the
>> practice of honouring other beings or things in the same way that he
>> should be honoured:
Concedo to all that, of course.
Except that is not how Catholics honor saints, as explained above.
>> It is also clear that one of God's main purposes in his dealings with
>> men is to glorify himself:
Concedo to all that, of course.
Except that is not how Catholics honor saints, as explained above.
>> ARGUMENT #1: Only God should receive the glory for things He
>> accomplishes.
Distinguo.
First, ultimately, everything good comes from God, so all glory and
honor are due to God, for ever and ever. So for that, Concedo.
Second, if God never used secondary causes, and only acted directly,
then Concedo. Except that is not how God proceeds. I find
the explanation currently difficult, because it involves one of the
toughest philosophical problems: divine premotion. I think the
answer is in Section 4. - La prémotion. Take special
note of the beginning of §1049, where Thonnard explains Occasionalism.
If Occasionalism were true, your Argument #1 would be completely
true.
But God does not proceed that way. As Peter Kreeft says, God likes
to "exalt His subordinates", God likes to go through second causes,
so the goodness and perfection of being a cause can be disseminated
in other beings:
Now just as a carnal father partakes of the character of
principle in a particular way, which character is found in God in
a universal way, so too a person who, in some way, exercises
providence in one respect, partakes of the character of father in
a particular way, since a father is the principle of generation,
of education, of learning and of whatever pertains to the
perfection of human life: while a person who is in a position of
dignity is as a principle of government with regard to certain
things: for instance, the governor of a state in civil matters,
the commander of an army in matters of warfare, a professor in
matters of learning, and so forth. Hence it is that all such
persons are designated as "fathers," on account of their being
charged with like cares: thus the servants of Naaman said to him
(2 Kings 5:13): "Father, if the prophet had bid thee do some
great thing," etc.
Therefore, just as, in a manner, beneath religion, whereby
worship is given to God, we find piety, whereby we worship our
parents, so under piety we find observance, whereby worship and
honor are paid to persons in positions of dignity.
[ST, IIa-IIae, q. 102, a. 1]
>> God will not share his honour with another being
>> (Is 42:8)
... as God.
God will not share His honor of being God.
>> how can we rightly honour someone other than Him for
>> something that He Himself has done?
By giving to each his due. To God, God's honor. To
men and angels who collaborate with God, the honor due
to creatures who collaborate with God.
>> In Acts 3, Peter was astonished that
>> people would honour him because of his apparent "holiness" when they
>> ought to have been honouring God
Yes, that is an excellent example of men worshipping another
man as if he was a deity. Peter of course rightly opposes
that.
>> the Catholic Church teaches that it is proper to
>> offer praises to Mary because she is "holy."
:-)
Daniel, I make a humble request: The Virgin Mary is not "holy" with
scare quotes! The Holy Scriptures (remember, the
Bible, God's inerrant Word? Remember the Bible?) say that
she is "full of grace" [Lk 1:28], and that "all generations will call
her blessed" [Lk 1:48]. She is holy, period, with no scare quotes.
At some point of time, if the Bible is not true, then we are
wasting our time!
Is the Blessed Mother's holiness absolute? Does her holiness
come from herself? Of course not! Says who? Says the Bible, for
crying in a pail! She calls God her Saviour! [Lk 1:47] She didn't
give herself her holiness, she got it from God!
Most Evangelical Protestants tend to forget about the Bible when
they see the words "Virgin Mary"!
:-)
>> ARGUMENT #2: Praying *to* the saints is different from praying *for*
>> the dead.
Concedo, but beside the point.
>> Secondly, nowhere in the Catholic scriptures do we see someone
>> praying *to* a dead person
Concedo.
Now it's time to roll out the heavy artillery: Ludwig Ott!
1. Veneration and Invocation of the Saints
It is permissible and profitable to venerate the Saints in
Heaven, and to invoke their intercession. (De fide.)
The veneration of the saints is called "Absolute Dulia." [...]
As regards the invocation of the saints the
Council declared: "It is good and profitable to appeal to them
for help." [...]
The declaration of the Council of Trent is directed against the
Reformers, who rejected the invocation of the saints as
unbiblical and as incompatible with the one mediatorship of
Christ. Cf. Conf. Aug., and Apologia Conf Art. 21. Art. Smalcald.
P. II. Art. 2, 25-28. Amongst the ancient Christian Fathers the
Gallic priest Vigilantius is remarkable by reason of his
opposition to the veneration and invocation of the saints.
Holy Writ does not explicitly refer to the veneration and
invocation of saints, but it asserts the principle out of which
Church teaching and practice developed. Our right to venerate the
saints can be deduced from the veneration offered to the angels
as attested by Holy Writ. (Cf. Jos. 5,14; Dn. 8,17, Tob. 12,
16.) The ground for the veneration of the angels is their
supernatural dignity, which is rooted in their immediate union
with God (Mt. 18, 10). Since the saints also are immediately
joined to God (1 Cor. 13, 12; 1 John 3, 2), it follows that
they too are worthy of veneration.
2 Mac. 15, 11-16 attests the faith of the Jewish people in the
intercession of the saints: Judas the Maccabean sees in a
"credible" vision how two deceased just men, the High Priest
Onias and the Prophet Jeremias, intercede with God for the Jewish
people and for the Holy City. Cf. Jer. 15, 1. According to Tob.
12, 12; Apoc. 5, 8; and 8, 3, the angels and the saints lay the
prayers of the holy on earth at the feet of God, that is, they
support them with their intercession as also might be expected
from the permanency of charity (1 Cor. 13, 8). The propriety of
invoking them logically follows from the fact of their
intercession.
Historically the veneration of the saints appears first in the
form of the veneration of the martyrs. The oldest testimony is
afforded by the Martyrium Polycarpi (about 156). The author makes
a sharp distinction between the veneration of Christ and the
veneration of the martyrs: "This (Christ) we adore, because He
is the Son of God. To the martyrs, on the other hand, we offer
the love which is due to disciples and imitators of the Lord, on
account of their unsurpassable devotion to their King and
Teacher" (17, 3). He also testifies for the first time to the
custom of celebrating the birthday of the martyrdom, that is,
"the date of the death" (18, 3). Tertullian (De corona mil. 3)
and Cyprian (Ep. 39, 3) mention the offering of the Eucharistic
Sacrifice on the anniversary of the death of the martyrs. St.
Jerome defends the veneration and the intercession of the saints
against Vigilantius (Ep. 109, 1; Contra Vigil. 6). St. Augustine
defends the veneration of the martyrs against the reproach that
it is an adoration of men. As the purpose of this veneration he
mentions imitation of their example, utilisation of their merits,
and the grace we receive from God through their intercession
(Contra Faustum XX 21). The invocation of the saints is first
attested by St. Hippolytus of Rome, who turns to the three
companions of Daniel with the prayer: "Think of me, I beseech
you, so that I may achieve with you the same fate of martyrdom."
(In Dan. II, 30). Origen teaches that "with him who properly
prays not only the High Priest (Jesus Christ), but also the
angels and the souls of the pious who sleep pray." The biblical
proof of the doctrine of the intercession of the saints is
derived from 2 Mach. 15, 14; the proof from reason derives from
the continuation and completion of neighbourly charity (De orat.
II; cf. Exhort. ad Mart. 30 and 38 ; In lib. Jesu Nave hom.
16, 5; In Num. hom. 26, 6). Cf. St. Cyprian, Ep. 60, 5. In ancient
Christian tomb inscriptions, not only martyrs, but also other
deceased who were believed to be in eternal blessedness, are
frequently invoked for their intercession on behalf of the living
and the dead. The objection made by the Reformers that the
intercession of the saints belittles the mediatorship of Christ
is not cogent, as the intercession of the saints is a secondary
one and is subordinate to the one mediatorship of Christ, while
its efficacy rests on His redemptive merits. The invocation and
veneration of the saints redound therefore to the glorification
of Christ, who as God dispenses grace and who as man merited
grace, and co-operates in its conferring. "We show veneration to
the servants so that it might radiate back from them to the Lord"
(St. Jerome Ep. 109, 1). Cf. Roman Catechism. III 2, 14.
[Ott, Ludwig. Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Tan Books, 1992, p. 318-319.]
(See also the CCC, #970.)
>> there are no instances of someone praying to a person
>> other than God in the Bible.
Nego. See above. And remember the idea that "Only the Holy
Scriptures can tell us what Christ taught" is itself contradicted by
the same Holy Scriptures [2Th 2:15].
Remember the Bible came after the Church. Christ
founded a Church. He didn't write a Bible.
>> ARGUMENT #3: Prayer is an act of worship.
>> Thirdly, prayer (in the usual sense of the word)
Nego for the word "usual", as explained above.
>> If you choose to speak to someone
>> other than God, you do it differently than you would to God.
Concedo.
>> Prayer
>> is the most common act of worship a believer can accomplish.
Distinguo. Prayer to God? Concedo.
>> the
>> Catholic Church teaches that one should "pray" the saints in a way
>> that, incidentally, resembles the way one would pray God.
Define "incidentally".
>> Theologians
>> have invented artificial distinctions
"Artificial"? Those distinctions are clear and have solid
foundations, as shown above.
>> in practice there is little or no
>> difference in the way a Catholic prays Mary and the way he prays God.
Daniel, I humbly implore you! "Thou shalt not bear false witness"
[Ex 20:16].
Speaking as a Protestant, it's hard for you to know what goes
on inside the head and the heart of a Catholic!
Remember "nostra autem conversatio in caelis est" [Ph 3:20],
so a Catholic who is speaking with persons in the heavenly court
can be speaking to God, or angels, or saints.
How do you know who he is speaking to? You cannot know. Not unless
he tells you. And we've already seen that just by looking at
the material posture, you can't make any firm assertions.
And what about the "Catholics" who get excommunicated because
they worship the Virgin Mary with latria, and not hyperdulia?
You can verify this excommunication, and the reasons why it was
leveled at these people. See Section 7 of:
A reading list for the members of the Army of Mary
>> For example, he kneels, lights a few candles, does the sign of the
>> cross, folds his hands, recites the Our Father, and goes on to tell
>> Mary how he loves her, how perfect and holy she is, and how he needs
>> her intervention in some specific areas of his life, then finishes
>> with a Glory Be.
Sounds great! You should try that! Ask the Blessed Mother to pray
for you, so that God may grant you a love for the Mother of Christ,
just like Christ Himself loves her! That would be a great start!
Notice also how very Biblical all of this stuff is. The "Our Father"?
How could it be more Biblical! The "Glory be to the Father, and to
the Son, and to the Holy Spirit"? Talk about adoring God and giving
Him due honor! Now what about that pesky "Hail Mary" stuck in
between those two?
"Hail (Mary), full of grace, the Lord is with thee"?
Biblical [Lk 1:28]. Next:
"Blessed are thou amongst women, and blessed is the fruit
of thy womb (Jesus)"
Duh! Biblical again! [Lk 1:42] Let's continue:
"Holy Mary"
Well, she is holy (being full of grace), and the Bible calls good
Christians "holy" or "saints" (for example, [Col 1:12])
"Mother of God"
That's an easy one. Your children are your children, even though
you didn't give them their spiritual and immortal souls. What
made Jesus divine? His body? No, His soul! Who gave Jesus His
body? Mary, of course! She didn't give Him His soul, but that
doesn't prevent her from being His mother, any more than you
for your children are still their father!
And Mary is the mother of who? Jesus! And what is Jesus? God!
So Mary is the Mother of God!
"Pray for us, sinners, now and at the hour of our death"
Well, well, what do you know. Catholics don't say: "Redeem us
from our sins", or "Forgive us our sins", when they speak to
the Virgin Mother. They do when they speak to Jesus (like
"Deliver us from evil", in the aforementioned "Our Father").
It's as if Catholics knew the Blessed Mother could not give
us those things, but could only humbly beseech God to give
them to us.
Jeepers, it's as if Catholics didn't pray to the Virgin Mary
the same way they pray to Jesus! Wow! I never would have guessed!
;-)
>> How can anyone claim that prayer to Mary in
>> circumstances such as these is not an act of worship?
It's an act of dulia (hyperdulia, actually). Defined above.
>> Talking to Mary the way one would talk to God is reminiscent of
>> how the idolaters of ancient Israel
Concedo, except Catholics don't talk to Mary as they talk to God.
They talk to Mary as a creature (one who spent her life as the best
disciple of Christ, and who now sees God face to face for eternity),
and to God as the Creator.
Sancta Maria, Ora Pro Daniel!
:-)
Stefan
-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Arseneault Sent: 5 novembre 2008 20:38 To: Stefan Jetchick Subject: Correspondence with Mr. Daniel Arseneault Stefan, voici la suite de notre échange. >> Therefore kneeling which does not "confer honor upon a deity" is OK, >> which is my point entirely! My point is that Catholics kneel before statues in a way that one would kneel to confer honour upon a deity, which is not OK. What you're saying is that they kneel in a different way. Not the way a vet kneels before a calf, and not the way a person kneels before God, but somewhere in between. These kinds of distinctions strike me as artificial and unfounded in the facts. An ancient Roman would tell you that certain gods deserved more honour than others. Certain rites were reserved for Jupiter, for example. The fact that a Roman offered a sacrifice to Saturn in a different way than to Jupiter doesn't keep him from committing idolatry. In the same way, even though Catholics may pray differently to Mary than to God, they're still committing idolatry. >> Daniel, I implore thee, don't forget about that thing called "Facts" >> which I mentioned a short while ago in this e-mail! As an English speaker, you know that we don't usually say "pray" the way you were using it in your previous email. That fact is confirmed by the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) which gives the above definition as the FIRST one. Common usage doesn't seem to agree with Webster's placing the primitive meaning of the word at the head of the definition. There is a difference in everyday speech between the word "pray" and "ask". This difference is also present in the scriptures. One characteristic of prayer, as opposed to regular speech, is the fact that we are speaking to someone who has no physical means of hearing us. Another characteristic is that it involves reverence, honour, and ultimately worship. >> Concedo, of course, but beside the point, since it is clear >> that the Catholic Church does not address God in the same way She >> does saints. I fear that our discussion will ultimately end by our disagreeing on this point. While it's true that the Catholic Church CLAIMS to not address God in the same way as it does saints, I submit that this claim is contrary to the facts. It's as if the Catholic Church claimed that an apple is a pear, even though it's red and tastes like an apple. >> In other words, when we pray, we pay due service to a lordship. >> And lordship can be absolute (hence latria) or relative (hence dulia). The primary sense of both words is "to serve" (Liddle and Scott: latreia, douleia), and we read in Ex 20:5, "Thou shalt not serve them." Show me in practice how praying to Mary differs from praying to God. You ask Mary to pray God for you, but aside from that, every other element in your prayer resembles prayer to God. You thank her for her supernatural intervention, praise her for her glory and her perfection, dedicate your children to her, just as one does to God. People don't do this to their fellow men, and if they did, they would be committing idolatry. In many Marian prayers, Catholics do far more than just ask Mary to pray for them. They ask her to personally intervene by her own supernatural power. >> Nothing wrong with praying to a mere human person, as long as it >> is done the way Saint Paul does it: Except he's not addressing them the way he would God. That's the point of what I said earlier about the difference between talking to God and talking to people. If Paul were to talk to the Romans in the way a Catholic talks to Mary, for example by asking them to intervene supernaturally in a given matter, then he'd be praying to them. Fortunately, he doesn't praise them for being pure and holy, thank them for their intervention in his life, repeat the same prayer about 50 times in a row... >> Christ officially entrusted the Church into Peter's >> hands after he came back from his denial [Jn 21:15-17]. The point is that Jesus never claimed to found a church incapable of error, just as he never claimed to train disciples that were incapable of error. Peter is the proof. >> A single error about such statements means the faithful will >> be lead into Hell, because they are taught to listen to >> the Church, as if Christ was speaking [Mt 18:18; Lk 10:16]. How could it lead them to hell? Would it cause them to commit mortal sin? In order to do so, they would have to be conscious of the fact that the Catholic Church is teaching an error, for sin requires a certain degree of intention. >> Christ didn't promise to be able to save some, maybe. >> He promised He could save all those who believed in Him. Period. I don't see how the official teachings of the Church, however erroneous they may be, could send a soul who believes in Christ to hell. Christ will save everyone who believes in him. I'm not saying that you can sin all you want so long as you believe in Jesus; a person who would act in this way is no true believer. >> On the contrary, that is exactly how we came out of God's hands! >> This is the whole doctrine of the praeternatural gifts: Since you seem to esteem logic, here is a syllogism that proves my point: God created my body. My body is capable of bearing disease. Therefore, God created a body *capable* of bearing disease. Seems pretty conclusive to me. No need to talk about "praeternatural gifts." Another syllogism: Since God created a body capable of bearing disease and God is not stupid, God can also create a Church capable of erring, and that doesn't make him stupid. >> If Occasionalism were true, your Argument #1 would be completely >> true. From the scripture I quoted, I was talking about situations where we are told God acts directly. Peter chastised people for praising him because of what God did supernaturally. Catholics believe it's fine to offer thanks to Mary because of what God has made of her, so we know that God is the direct cause, and yet you are honouring Mary instead of Him. >> Yes, that is an excellent example of men worshipping another >> man as if he was a deity. Peter of course rightly opposes >> that. Wrong. Read the passage again. This is not an example of men worshiping another man. These were Jews he was talking to, not pagans, and they were not making him into a deity. Peter was chastising them because they were attributing the healing to Peter's power instead of God's, just like Catholics do with Mary. >> She is holy, period, with no scare quotes. Stefan, give me a little credit. The purpose of the quotes was to make a parallel between the word "holiness" in Acts 3:12 and the word "holy" used in reference to Mary. >> Concedo, but beside the point. It is not beside the point. The point of this particular argument is to prove that prayer to anyone but God is unbiblical. Thus, praying to Mary and the saints is unbiblical, and the Catholic Church is in error. >> And remember the idea that "Only the Holy >> Scriptures can tell us what Christ taught" is itself contradicted by >> the same Holy Scriptures [2Th 2:15]. I read the above passage from Ott's book a couple of times, and I am still unable to see where in scripture someone prays to another person than God. Let's make this easy on everyone. Give me a scripture reference of a person praying to someone other than God. I concede that it's not because the Bible doesn't mention a doctrine that it's necessarily unbiblical. (Such a view is indeed held by supporters of sola scriptura who believe in the "sufficiency of scripture," but I am not a fan of sola scriptura.) For this reason, my argument #2 is inconclusive and does not prove in itself that praying to someone other than God is unbiblical. But the fact that we never see anyone in the scriptures praying to someone other than God (ie. speaking to someone who has no physical means of hearing us) is a good indication of the nature of prayer, that is an act which involves God only. >> Speaking as a Protestant, it's hard for you to know what goes >> on inside the head and the heart of a Catholic! Beware of ad hominems. Even if it's not necessary for me to do this, I'd like to point out that I'm a baptised, confirmed, and married Catholic, educated in catholic schools, so I have a good idea of what goes on inside the Catholic head. But you're not completely mistaken in saying that I'm a Protestant, because I also have solid ties to evangelical Christianity. >> Now what about that pesky "Hail Mary" stuck in >> between those two? So you noticed how the fictional Catholic in my example sandwiched a prayer to Mary between two prayers to God? Funny how there seems to be a confusion between the two, eh? One minute he's praying with latria, the next minute he's using dulia, then back to latria. Wouldn't it be a more likely explanation that he's just PRAYING, in one case to God, and in the other case to Mary, in both cases in the same way? >> Concedo, except Catholics don't talk to Mary as they talk to God. That's what you think, but I don't agree, so now we're back to square one, as I wrote earlier in this email. I suspect that we won't be able to get beyond this one point. Catholics claim that they don't talk to Mary as they talk to God, but that's simply not the case. In this email, I didn't bother to reply to a lot of the stuff you wrote because I didn't think it was necessary to further the current discussion. However, if there is a particular point that you think I need to come back on, please tell me. Maybe I skipped over something that was essential to your counter argumentation. Daniel
-----Original Message----- From: Stefan Jetchick Sent: 22 décembre 2008 17:58 To: Daniel Arseneault Subject: RE: Correspondence with Mr. Daniel Arseneault Hi Daniel, Jeepers, I'm really sorry. I'm over one month late. No excuses. Sorry again. >> What >> you're saying is that they kneel in a different way. Not the way a >> vet kneels before a calf, and not the way a person kneels before >> God, but somewhere in between. Roughly. >> These kinds of distinctions strike me >> as artificial and unfounded in the facts. You have repeated several times that such a distinction was unfounded in facts, but I have not seen you perform a careful analysis of everything I've sent you explaining that distinction. To help you, I have re-phrased as clearly as I can the theological basis for that distinction. See Section 4 of: Mariolatry, Or Mariophobia? >> An ancient Roman would >> tell you that certain gods deserved more honour than others. Certain >> rites were reserved for Jupiter, for example. The fact that a Roman >> offered a sacrifice to Saturn in a different way than to Jupiter >> doesn't keep him from committing idolatry. Concedo, of course. >> In the same way, even >> though Catholics may pray differently to Mary than to God, they're >> still committing idolatry. "In the same way"? :-) Carefully re-read your own argument: Ancient Romans considered creatures to be gods. Catholics DO NOT consider Mary to be God. Therefore, both Ancient Romans and Catholics commit idolatry. Hilarious! >> As an English speaker, you know that we don't usually say "pray" the >> way you were using it in your previous email. Concedo, but that's irrelevant. My point is the word "pray" does not have one unique meaning. >> That fact is confirmed >> by the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) which gives the above >> definition as the FIRST one. If the OED gives that definition as the "FIRST", then that means there must be other definitions! Which proves my point! >> Common usage doesn't seem to agree with >> Webster's placing the primitive meaning of the word at the head of >> the definition. Sure, why not. Webster didn't properly order the various meanings. But my point is not based on the proper order of those meanings, but on the fact there are several meanings to that word. >> One >> characteristic of prayer, as opposed to regular speech, is the fact >> that we are speaking to someone who has no physical means of hearing >> us. God can't hear us? And God is Almighty, but He is unable to transmit our message to anyone He wants? >> Another characteristic is that it involves reverence, honour, >> and ultimately worship. Concedo, if you remember those words are not univocal. >> I fear that our discussion will ultimately end by our disagreeing on >> this point. It seems probable, as you indicate. >> While it's true that the Catholic Church CLAIMS to not >> address God in the same way as it does saints Concedo. >> I submit that this >> claim is contrary to the facts. Yes, I totally agree that you claim the contrary. Except you've never carefully analysed my main argument: See Section 4 of: Mariolatry, Or Mariophobia? >> It's as if the Catholic Church >> claimed that an apple is a pear, even though it's red and tastes >> like an apple. Well, of course, if that was the Church's argument, it would be false, and you'd be right! Except instead of apple and pear metaphors, you need to actually carefully analyse the argument. See Section 4 of: Mariolatry, Or Mariophobia? >> Show me in practice how praying to Mary differs from praying to God. Here it is again, Section 6.1: Mariolatry, Or Mariophobia? >> You ask Mary to pray God for you, but aside from that, every other >> element in your prayer resembles prayer to God. Well said! And you clearly show the basis for your accusations: "resemblances". Also known as "guilt by association". If that's all you have, you don't have much! >> You thank her for >> her supernatural intervention ... of intercession? Concedo. Of actual direct intervention? Nego. >> praise her for her glory and her >> perfection ... obtained from God, her Saviour? Concedo. Glory she has obtained by herself? Nego. >> dedicate your children to her ... Concedo, as long as it's not "just as one does to God", as you say. >> People don't do this to their fellow men ... who are not saints in heaven. Concedo. >> if they did, they >> would be committing idolatry. Concedo. >> In many Marian prayers, Catholics do >> far more than just ask Mary to pray for them. They ask her to >> personally intervene by her own supernatural power. "By her own supernatural power"? Nice accusation. Do you have any facts to back up that accusation? I have plenty of facts, not taken from Protestant web sites, but from the mouth of the real Defense Attorney. >> Except [Saint Paul is] not addressing them the way he would God. Concedo. And the Catholic Church teaches exactly that! >> That's the >> point of what I said earlier about the difference between talking to >> God and talking to people. Catholics never said we should pray to "people". Catholics say it's a good thing to pray to canonized saints. >> If Paul were to talk to the Romans in the >> way a Catholic talks to Mary Distinguo. The way Daniel Arseneault claims we talk to Mary? Concedo. The way the Catholic Church explicitely and officially teaches we should talk to Mary? Nego. >> he doesn't praise them for being pure and holy ... since they are not in Heaven (yet). >> thank them for their intervention in his life ... since they are not in Heaven (yet). >> repeat the same >> prayer about 50 times in a row... An act of "latria" toward a creature is idolatry, whether the act is repeated 1 time or 1000000 times. And an act of "dulia" toward a creature who sees God face to face is not idolatry, whether the act is repeated 1 time or 1000000 times. >> The point is that Jesus never claimed to found a church incapable of >> error As I've said, that is hard to reconcile with [Mt 16:18-19]. >> How could it lead them to hell? Would it cause them to commit mortal >> sin? In order to do so, they would have to be conscious of the fact >> that the Catholic Church is teaching an error, for sin requires a >> certain degree of intention. Distinguo. Mortal sin requires knowledge, freedom and grave matter? Concedo. If one doesn't know it was a sin, can one be guilty? Sub-distinguo. Was the ignorance involuntary? Concedo. See Section 6 of: Error: "To Act Well, We Just Need To Obey Our Conscience!" Was the ignorance voluntary? Nego. Can a man be guilty even though he dutifully follows the incorrect moral teachings of a religion, when he is convinced that this religion is a true religion? Yes. See [Romans 2:14]. God doesn't just teach us morality with the Bible, He has also inscribed the Natural Law in our hearts. A religion that was not founded by God can be detected by a honest man using his reason. See Section 7 of Philosophy, Queen of Sciences and Door Opened to the True Religion >> I don't see how the official teachings of the Church, however >> erroneous they may be, could send a soul who believes in Christ to >> hell. See above. >> Christ will save everyone who believes in him. Concedo, if you define "believe" correctly. As you know, the devils too believe [James 2:19], and they will burn in Hell forever. >> I'm not saying >> that you can sin all you want so long as you believe in Jesus; a >> person who would act in this way is no true believer. Concedo. >> God created my body. My body is capable of bearing disease. >> Therefore, God created a body *capable* of bearing disease. Seems >> pretty conclusive to me. Distinguo. Logic is divided into Formal and Material. Your argument is formally correct? Concedo. Materially correct? Nego. The body you have now is not a human body the way it came out of God's hands in the beginning. >> No need to talk about "praeternatural >> gifts." If we want to talk about the cure for tuberculosis, or some other topic unrelated to our current debate. But if we want to talk about how the human body was, before Original Sin, we have to talk about praeternatural gifts. >> Another syllogism: Since God created a body capable of bearing >> disease and God is not stupid, God can also create a Church capable >> of erring, and that doesn't make him stupid. If the human body came out of God's hands the way it now is, Concedo. Except that is false. >> Catholics believe it's fine >> to offer thanks to Mary because of what God has made of her Catholics don't thank Mary for things that God has done. Catholics thank God for what God has done. >> yet you are honouring Mary >> instead of Him. "Instead"? Catholics don't honor God? Catholics honor God, and Mary, and the angels, etc. And don't tell me the word "honor" in the previous sentence is univocal! >> Peter was >> chastising them because they were attributing the healing to Peter's >> power instead of God's [Ac 3:12]: "When Peter saw this, he addressed the people, "You Israelites, why are you amazed at this, and why do you look so intently at us as if we had made him walk by our own power or piety?" Exactly what I said. Remember the distinction between absolute and relative? You can attribute that healing to Peter absolutely (which is wrong, since only God can do that), or relatively (which is right, since Peter really was a second cause for the cure of that man). >> just like Catholics do with Mary. ... claims Daniel! >> prayer to anyone but God is unbiblical. Nego. >> I read the above passage from Ott's book a couple of times, and I am >> still unable to see where in scripture someone prays to another >> person than God. Let's make this easy on everyone. Give me a >> scripture reference of a person praying to someone other than God. Incredible! Ott says: "Holy Writ does not explicitly refer to the veneration and invocation of saints" Did you really read that excerpt from Ott? >> I concede that it's not because the Bible doesn't mention a doctrine >> that it's necessarily unbiblical. OK, now go read Ott's argument. It is clear, logical, and based on Scripture! At least quote it sentence by sentence, doing the "Concedo, Nego, Distinguo" thing on it. >> the fact that >> we never see anyone in the scriptures praying to someone other than >> God [...] that is an act which involves God only. See above. >> I'd like to point out that I'm a baptised, confirmed, and married >> Catholic, educated in catholic schools ... and a flaming heretic! Seriously, I'm not a Bishop, so I can't authoritatively say that. But based on your obstinate rejection of several Catholic dogmas (e.g. Papal Infallibility), any one of which leads to automatic excommunication, my opinion is that you were automatically excommunicated a long time ago. You can check out what parts of the Code of Canon Law I base myself on to assert such things: Excommunication, That Gesture Of Love! >> I have a good idea of >> what goes on inside the Catholic head ... given that you're a flaming heretic? ;-) >> One minute he's praying with >> latria, the next minute he's using dulia, then back to latria. >> Wouldn't it be a more likely explanation that he's just PRAYING, in >> one case to God, and in the other case to Mary, in both cases in the >> same way? Sure, if guilt by association is enough to convict! >> I suspect that we >> won't be able to get beyond this one point. Concedo, if you continue to refuse to analyse my arguments with as much care as I read yours. >> In this email, I didn't bother to reply to a lot of the stuff you >> wrote Hum, did I mention a refusal to analyse my arguments with as much care as I read yours? ;-) >> Maybe I skipped over something >> that was essential to your counter argumentation. Honest. If a good method of analysis applied to my argumentation doesn't do the trick, then all that I can do is ask the Virgin Mary to intercede for you. On my knees, of course! ;-) Merry Christmas in advance, and take care! Stefan
Let's Adore Jesus-Eucharist! | Home >> Directory of sheep and wolves