Monday, December 5, 2022

Did I Really Understand What My Conversion was Supposed to Imply? Yes.

Gavin Ortlund on Cameron Bertuzzi's Conversion to Catholicism
The Counsel of Trent | 5 Dec. 2022

3:06 A bit like my friend and benefactor Stephan Borgehammar.

He's the son of a now deceased Lutheran "priest" (they kept the title and some rituals of ordination, but without intending to convey the power to offer the sacrifice of the mass, no priesthood is conveyed).
He's the sole man in his family who is Catholic.

He's author of How the Holy Cross was Found - from event to Medieval legend.
He's now working on a book on the Cathedral of Lund, which was Catholic before the Reformation, then Lutheran.

10:19 You have geysirs on Iceland. Perhaps smaller than Yellowstone, but still.

Geysir is actually an Icelandic word. I think it is related to yeast and the imagery involved in calling hot springs that is boiling water looks like beer brewing or sth.

Wrong, I was, it seems the verb "geysa" means "gush" ...

11:15 At my first conversion to Catholicism, 1988 (starting Christmas 1984 and even earlier), I actually missed getting all that Catholicism has to offer, so as to be attracted later (2006 to 2009, notably) to Eastern Orthodoxy that also has Real Presence. When I really came to realise the duty to obey the pope is when I went Sedevacantist and a few months later Pope Michael.

Sure, SSPX has a point one need not obey an evil order even from a superior, but when said superior continues and continues to show he really means it, decades on row, the options narrow down to "am I wrong, or is he a heretic and hence not Pope" ... (= not a superior).

11:52 I do know Laurentii-Stiftelsen in Lund does practise Eucharistic adoration.

Their problem is, they think that they could get real bishops and priests even through lines that denied the Mass is a sacrifice.

Even Laurentii-Stiftelsen will not state that the Mass is a sacrifice that is:
  • offered for atonement of sins
  • to reunite us with God and all graces necessary
  • and also of praise
  • and thanksgiving.

They would state it is only a sacrifice of
  • of praise
  • and thanksgiving
and hence not properly speaking a sacrifice.

What FSSPX have tended to accuse the Novus Ordo of is, "it destroys the sacrificial character of the Mass" ...

15:42 However, Lutherans and Anglicans believe Confession is a Sacrament, and that it is not strictly necessary, but advisible for those who would otherwise not be confident enough in their sins already being forgiven due to the Cross.

In Catholicism, confession is mandatory, if accessible. One can make peace with God and say "I'll confess later, when I can" but not if one says "I'll skip confession" ... as in definitely.

In the Lutherans parish where I was, before converting, we were not vividly encouraged (or at all encouraged) to confess. Impossible in a Catholic (or Orthodox) setting.

The other question is of course, what pastoral will I get when I confess ....

17:08 It has in fact become more common within High and Mid Church Anglicans and Lutherans.

I'm not sure whether Hans Fiene hears confession, but I am sure C. S. Lewis went to confession. Not very probable outside Recusants prior to Pusey.

Then, they are not priests (CSL anyway, but I'm comparing the man who heard his confession with Hans Fiene), and their absolutions are invalid.

17:44 As far as I know Luther, he actually did propose that the hearing confession would among other things be for restoring the (subjective) assurance of one's sins being covered by Christ's sacrifice.

So, Luther is not exactly OSAS, but he thinks the one thing you can do to lose your salvation is not believe that you're forgiven for the sake of Christ's sacrifice.

The different definitions of faith between Catholics and Luther are:
  • we believe faith means believing every dogma and is itself not sufficient to save without hope and charity (both of which are expressed in works, btw)
  • Luther restricts the one thing we have to do is believing we are saved or that Christ died for us (each individually "for me").

Note, some on Laurentii-stiftelsen would here disagree with Luther and have a more Catholic view.

19:12 However, I do have the freedom to believe whatever is not:
  • contrary to dogma
  • contrary to the settled and judicially imposed position of a man who is actually pope.

So, if Pope Michael is the last Pope we had, I am obliged to believe Geoncentrism and YEC and free to believe in Angelic movers.

If "Pope Francis" is the Pope we have now, I am at once:
  • prohibited to be geocentric and YEC (because he is favouring relative Heliocentrism for each solar system, and Old Earth)
  • obliged to be geocentric and YEC (because Trent Session IV implies it, add Romans 1 for Geocentrism and Trent Session V for YEC).

Back in 1988, Pope Michael had not yet been elected, and "JP-II" with Ratzinger had not yet attempted a crack-down on Fundamentalism.

It can be added, Sedevacantists proper, people who think we still have no true Pope, tend to think of Pius XII as the last Pope we had and to take his support for Big Bang as obliging at least in doctrinal prudence if not actual dogma.

Orthopapists who claim we have had Popes since and who are not the ones of "Vatican II" and successors, on the other hand usually have Popes (real of not) who support YEC, and in the case of Pope Michael, also Geocentrism.

Britton Cain
Are you trying to imply that Pope Francis is not the true Pope?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Britton Cain Indeed.

For John XXIII over John Paul I, I think it probable they were not true Popes, and accept when Pope Michael defines they weren't, for John Paul II through Francis, I could have figured it out myself, due to their stalwart support for the Evolutionist Belief system and explicit targetting of Fundamentalism.

Britton Cain
@Hans-Georg Lundahl So how exactly was Pope Michael ordained as a valid Pope in your eyes?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Britton Cain One is not "ordained as a valid Pope."

One is elected as a valid Pope and ordained or rather consecrated a valid bishop.

The first happened by emergency conclave 1990, the second when he found bishops of the Duarte Costa line submitting to him and ordaining him a priest on a Saturday and consecrating him bishop on Gaudete Sunday (civil year 2011, Church year 2012).

Britton Cain
@Hans-Georg Lundahl And now that Pope Michael has passed, who is his successor?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Britton Cain Papacy is not inherited, I think the conclave is upcoming for 2023.

Carolyn Kimberly
Sorry. You are at least in schism. "Pope Michael"? Please.

Markus Hill
@Hans-Georg Lundahl You really buy this "Pope Michael" nonsense? You're kidding. You're schismatic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Markus Hill Since 1990, those accepting "Popes" called "John Paul II", "Benedict XVI" and now "Francis" are schismatic, not just wrong.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Carolyn Kimberly The one in schism is you.

The TyRant
@Hans-Georg Lundahl An "emergency conclave" held by 6 laymen including the candidate himself and his parents? In a thrift store? At what point does this sound 'validly' elect? If this is the case, then can anyone hold an 'emergency conclave?' He wasn't even "consecrated" until 2011 either apparently. So for 21 years, you had a Pope that couldn't even celebrate a Mass? Carlos Duarte Costa was also excommunicated by Pope Pius XII. So that line is dubious at its best.

We're getting into Joseph Smith's levels of nonsense. It's honestly asinine.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@The TyRant It would not sound the least validly elected if there had been any substantial chance of "John Paul II" being Pope.

Synagogue visit and Assisi 1986, Sant'Egidio 1993, and his very outspoken distance from Fundamentalist exegesis, voiced by then "Cardinal" Ratzinger and shared by Bergoglio, explicitly in the 2014 "magic wand" speech.

"Carlos Duarte Costa was also excommunicated by Pope Pius XII. So that line is dubious at its best."

When Orthodox priests or bishops convert, they aren't reordained. As you may know, Humbert (a real Cardinal) on behalf of St. Leo IX, excommunicated Michael Caerularius. Excommunication makes episcopal succession illicit (they were reconciled top Pope Michael before ordaining him), not invalid.

Congratulations to showing off your ignorance of sacramental theology, which is in this context at least getting rampant in the Vatican II Sect!

The TyRant
@Hans-Georg Lundahl "It would not sound the least validly elected if there had been any substantial chance of "John Paul II" being Pope."

This is question-begging and doesn't answer my question. I'm not arguing the validity of Pope's post-V2, that's an entirely different argument. I am asking what makes this conclave valid? I have a Catholic study group of 7-8 people. Apparently, if we held a conclave and if they all vote for me, I would actually have a more valid claim to the Papacy than Michael did at the time.

"When Orthodox priests or bishops convert, they aren't reordained. As you may know, Humbert (a real Cardinal) on behalf of St. Leo IX, excommunicated Michael Caerularius. Excommunication makes episcopal succession illicit (they were reconciled to Pope Michael before ordaining him), not invalid."

I never said anything about his Orders being invalid. Only dubious for his line of succession. Canon 1041.2 would state that anyone in heresy or schism would be irregular and have to be dispensed from that canonical requirement. Now can an illicit Bishop actually do that? Unsure. Canon 1047.2.1 would say that this dispensation would have to come from Rome. The Orthodox Church, SSPX, PNC, Assyrian Church of the East, have all been recognized and dispensed by Rome. Canon law also says that any of the impediments on that list "prevent" one from receiving orders which includes married men (Which Duarte Costa was a proponent of), murderers, anyone who is ordained illicitly, etc. But this just blurs the line on the liceity vs validity issue. This is all just presuming though that Biarnesens was even validly ordained by his line.

I'm sure if a canon lawyer was involved, it can make short work of this question.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@The TyRant "I am asking what makes this conclave valid?"

The case of necessity. As said, an apparent pope, who is not a real one, and cardinals and bishops accepting him, and therefore not making the move that St. Robert Bellarmine had put on them delegates the duty to provide the Church with a Pope downward.

This makes the question of whether "John Paul II" was Pope paramount.

"I have a Catholic study group of 7-8 people. Apparently, if we held a conclave and if they all vote for me, I would actually have a more valid claim to the Papacy than Michael did at the time."

Not any more since Pope Michael was already out. If you discount him due to smallness and laymen-only-ness of conclave, you obviously are not in a position to repeat the same thing. But, if you had held a conclave a few months before David Bawden held his, unaware of his initiative, and he found out you had been elected even just 1 day before he was, he would have (at least that's how he's presented himself) stepped back.

Now, if you are remotely interested, how about finding out about the conclave that's upcoming and join that one, if this second one can involve laymen?

"Only dubious for his line of succession."

Ah, no. I'll tell you why in a moment.

" Canon 1041.2 would state that anyone in heresy or schism would be irregular and have to be dispensed from that canonical requirement. Now can an illicit Bishop actually do that? Unsure."

Not the least. The canonical requirement here is simply about licitness, not about validity.

AND, what's more, Pope Michael was already bishop elect of Rome, already had jurisdiction, so could already lift any and every irregularity.

"The Orthodox Church, SSPX, PNC, Assyrian Church of the East, have all been recognized and dispensed by Rome."

Not back in the day, OK. Not back in the day. An illicit consecration of a bishop is still valid, because in modern ecumenical times it would be too late to restore validity to Michael Caerularius' consecrations after being excommunicated. The consecrations needed to be valid, even if totally illicit. This means, the pope had valid succession, but needed to give a dispensation (and gave it in time) to also have licit succession. Duarte Costa line is therefore not unsure.

You are trying to smuggle in a false theologumenon popular with some Orthodox, that a schismatic bishop cannot ordain or consecrate. Or a heretic one.

This is false, the only case when heresy takes away succession is when the heresy changes the intention, as with such Protestants who claim "apostolic succession" (Porvoo communion).

22:03 Thanks for the guy who said Evangelicals are not Protestant.

They are at least far closer to Catholicism than Lutherans or Calvinists are. For instance, when I read the Baptist Edgar Andrews' From Nothing to Nature (unlike its component parts, it appeared in Swedish before English), the last part compares a man with grace or without grace to a wet or a dry sponge. Grace actually is something added to his own will and nature and permeating him. I was a Lutheran and rejected it in favour of "forensic grace" - grace being not what God does in us, but decides about us, like when a death penalty is wavered.

As a Catholic, I understand Edgar Andrews was simply right. Grace is something inside us, it is God Himself living in our soul.

I think you are confusing Grace and the Holy Spirit in your last sentence.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@YAJUN YUAN Sanctifying grace IS the Holy Spirit indwelling.

@YAJUN YUAN To see that sanctifying Grace and the Holy Spirit are the same, both are called "gift" here two passages:

Jesus answered, and said to her: If thou didst know the gift of God, and who he is that saith to thee, Give me to drink; thou perhaps wouldst have asked of him, and he would have given thee living water.
[John 4:10]

But Peter said to them: Do penance, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins: and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
[Acts of Apostles 2:38]

22:24 The non-denominational Church hopper (or home-aloner) is free to be far more Catholic in his exegesis than any Protestant denomination is.

From a Catholic perspective, he can be classed as Protestant for what he lacks - a clergy with valid orders that presents God with the sacrifice of the Mass and after his baptism offers him valid Confession (at least in the hour of death, like faculties are not needed then, of the priest is a real priest he can, even if he's excommunicated).

23:18 I think Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio did precisely that in relation to Trent Session IV.

The Bible is to be read as the Church hath held and holds (not as "it/She" happens to hold now in contrast to before) and no contradictions to the consensus of Church Fathers are allowed.

This pretty much defines most of what Evangelicals mean by Fundamentalism as at least indirectly through the Bible and the Church Fathers dogma.

24:01 Let's confer Classic Protestantism as it was when Catholicism condemned it.

A Lutheran would say you could in principle lose your salvation by being Catholic or Calvinist. Not necessarily. Not if you were unaware of how these positions (really for Calvinism or supposedly for Catholicism) contradict the Bible. This has watered down by interdenominational Ecumenism inside Protestantism, which sometimes is inclusive and sometimes exclusive of Catholicism. This is a failure of each of the original Protestant denominations.

27:04 Valid succession is not tied to all doctrinal truth, only to those that define orders and what the Holy Mass is, for the sake of which orders exists.

If Novus Ordo consecrations of bishops, if Novus Ordo ordinations of priests, deacons and subdeacons are valid, then the German bishops are as validly bishops as Pope Francis.

If on the other hand Novus Ordo orders are invalid, Antipope Bergoglio is as much a layman as Cardinal Marx.

If it were a question of right doctrine and lack of schism, the Orthodox, the Copts, the Armenians and the Assyrians would not have valid orders, but according to Catholic doctrine they actually do have that.

27:33 It was true when the non-Catholics were Gnostics. Or Ebionites.

They had no true bishops. (Certain for Gnostics, at least reputed for Ebionites). By now, lots of non-Catholics do have true bishops.

27:58 No, it can not happen to the Church as a whole.

It could at worst happen to large swathes of the Church, but never to the Church as a whole.

There would still be a visible standard of holiness in the contemporary Church.

28:25 Sure, you had a lot of priests who were not formed properly and in every century and decade, you also had lots of priests who were. Meaning before the council of Trent. And arguably, in any decade, most places, the latter outnumbered the former (least so in Rome - Alexander VI tried to make his son bishop of Carpentras).

28:33 People with comcubines were arguably far more a concern in the days of 1545 - 63 than illiterate priests.

But some who were considered as illiterate were simply sticking to Medieval Latin rather than New Latin (which was far more Classical).

30:18 I am sorry, but if you were to say that executing heretics for heresy in certain cases (notably relapse, but also pertinacity) is per se against the faith, you are supporting Luther against Pope Leo X. Proposition 33 of Exsurge Domine, and Michael Lofton simply did a bad job of arguing otherwise.

One reason why Vatican II is not a valid Council (if Leo X was a valid Pope).

It is a different matter whether executing heretics now would do any good, I think it would do more harm than good. I already said so in 2013. But burning heretics is not generally and in and of itself against the Will of the Holy Spirit. Burning Tyndale after he had butchered the exegesis of Romans 3 was not a crime (unless the refutation by James Latomus maligned his position).

Carolyn Kimberly
V2 was valid in that it was called by a Pope and included the bishops.

You can't say with right mind that The Holy Spirit's will is in line with burning heretics at the stake. Are we talking about the same God who wants people to repent?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@takmaps God wanted Ted Bundy to repent. Does that mean God was against him frying?

Tyndale had plenty of time to repent of misrepresenting Romans 3. He refused.

It would however not do much good now to start it all over again, for pretty obvious geopolitical reasons.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Carolyn Kimberly If Dignitatis Humanae was valid, that means Leo X (a Pope) was in error. If Exsurge Domine condamnations of theses are infallible, that means Dignitatis Humanae is not, and arguably V-II no valid council.

Pope Michael considers Roncalli and Montini as having been antipopes, making all documents of V-II invalid. At least he did so last time he expressed himself publically before dying.

30:47 One could add that all the Classic versions of Protestantism were violent against Catholics. John Calvin may in Geneva have been content with banishing Catholics and sexual harrassment, but his disciple in Scotland, John Knox, started wars against Catholics that still plagues Northern Ireland in mitigated ways or did when I was small and Bernadette Devlin was dragged by police for protesting inhumanity of the ... apartheid.

Lutherans and even more Anglicans executed Catholics as "traitors" against the Kings "good pleasure" ...

My first long term reaction to learning the violence of the Reformation was "I'll convert when the Swedish Church, or a larger portion of it, does" - and this changed when I learned by Umberto Eco what the Albigensians were. In the OT they would have been stoned for blasphemy, if not outright for sodomy.

31:23 I had to check.

While Miguel Serveto was a Spaniard, he actually was in Vienne when he started to flee to Geneva.

He escaped the Inquisitors (not very efficient or brutal jailors, were they?) and ...

"Meaning to flee to Italy, Servetus inexplicably stopped in Geneva, where Calvin and his Reformers had denounced him. On 13 August, he attended a sermon by Calvin at Geneva. He was arrested after the service[29] and again imprisoned, and all his property was confiscated."

34:04 While after my conversion to Catholicism I did shilly-shally about what obedience of papacy (Novus Ordo, Palmarian or Pope Michael) or episcopacy (FSSPX, Sedes, Orthos), I never felt tempted to get back to Protestantism.

One half hour, the memory of a word by St. John Chrysostom made me question whether Calvin could have been right about "only spiritial presence" and if so, whether I was among those effectively predestined to Hell, but apart from that half hour, I have not looked back to Protestantism.

I can love what Jonathan Sarfati writes, mostly, but I cannot go to a service with him. I can find Kent Hovind in some respects genius as an intellect, but I am not going to his adventureland to give my life to Christ. Loving Fundamentalism is very different from loving Protestantism.

No comments: