Wednesday, April 10, 2024

I May Feel Like Exonerating Mike Gendron, But I Won't Admire Him

In Case Someone Accuses Me of Losing the Faith · I May Feel Like Exonerating Mike Gendron, But I Won't Admire Him

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: First Half of Heschmeyers Video Against Mike Gendron · Heschmeyer Refutes "Trail of Blood" · Great Bishop of Geneva! Could Anabaptists Be Right That Reformation was a Meiji Régime for the True Christians? · back to Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: I May Feel Like Exonerating Mike Gendron, But I Won't Admire Him

I May Feel Like Exonerating Mike Gendron, But I Won't Admire Him · A Comment of Mine Sparked a Debate · Which Went On ... and Was Censored? · Continuing · Carolina Jackson Continued · Antecedent Will, Clarity of St. Paul, Access to Apostolic Tradition

Does Ex-Catholic Expose TWISTED Teachings of the Catholic Church?
Shameless Popery Podcast | 8 June 2023

[Earlier parts of the video were already watched and are answered on First Half of Heschmeyers Video Against Mike Gendron]


I Corinthians
The First Letter of Paul to the Corinthians, probably written about 53–54 ce at Ephesus, Asia Minor, deals with problems that arose in the early years after Paul's initial missionary visit (c. 50–51) to Corinth and his establishment there of a Christian community. (Britannica)
Before his departure from Judea, to preach the gospel to distant countries, he yielded to the solicitations of the faithful; and about the eighth year after our Saviour's resurrection, the forty-first of the vulgar era [A.D. 41], he began to write his gospel: i.e., the good tidings of salvation to man, through Christ Jesus, our Lord.
His gospel, therefore, he wrote as he heard it; but the Acts of the Apostles, from his own observations; and both, as some believe, about the same time in which his history of the Acts finishes, towards the year of Christ 63. But the received opinion now is, that St. Luke wrote his gospel in Achaia, in the year 53, ten years previously to his writing of the Acts, purposely to counteract the fabulous relations concerning Jesus Christ, which several persons had endeavoured to palm upon the world.

Certainly Matthew, possibly Luke, were already written. (The quotes are from intros to the Gospels in Haydock).

38:20 Speaking of misreading, Tovia Singer doesn't seem interested (or I forgot to ask him) to inform if the ones mentioned in Mark 7 are actually part of what he would consider the oral torah.

The reason being, I had a debate with a Protestant, under his video, and I claimed perhaps rashly that this was more parallel to "traditionS" (like friday abstinence being enough) rather than "apostolic TraditioN" (like fasting on wednesdays and fridays, from which the friday abstinence is derived, and which is found in the Didaché). Equally it's part of "traditionS" to say reading with your own private judgement or trusting your own talent in interpreting is per se sinful and heretic, but that is not what either Trent Session IV nor Mortalium Animos says.

In Trent Session IV, such trust is a precondition for actual heresies, namely contradicting all the CCFF or contradicting what the Church hath held and holds, but it is not in itself constitutive of heresy without these. In Mortalium Animos, Pius XI is just saying it's not a sufficient cause for Church unity.

Neither "anti-private-judgement" text actually states in so many words private judgement is wrong. Oh, btw, if you would mention the one using private judgement to conjecture a solution to some exegetic problem has to be prepared to submit to judgement of the Church, I have so far not been condemned by either Michael I nor Michael II, at least the former of whom actually certainly read some of my stuff, and while I accepted "Benedict XVI" as Pope, no one tried to condemn me from the side of that "papacy" either. That I'm aware of. Not Ratzinger, not Vingttrois, not curates under Vingttrois ... Abbé Pagès has approved some of the things I wrote, though I adressed him less often than Pope Michael I.

So much for the difference of "traditionS" rather than "Apostolic Tradition" ... do you have a clue on whether the "traditions of men" in Mark 7 have joined what Jews call "oral torah" or "tradition from Moses on Sinai" or whether it's just "traditionS"? Because, if the latter is the case, the Jewish Church actually can be said, as I claimed, to have enjoyed infallibility up to the Deicide. I e up to its end.

39:17 actually .... first, that's not true, there was a Sola Scriptura thesis (which I think St. Thomas held and am pretty certain that St. Augustine held) and there was a Scripture + Tradition + thesis, pretty probably held by William of Occam.

Now the first thing to note is, neither theses involves the Magisterium as yet another source for truth. And the reason is, both sides assumed that when the Church Magisterium actually decided, it did so from the correct source or sourceS of truth. The Magisterium never adds, only formalises what's already there.

But the second thing to note is, the sola scriptura thesis in the Catholic sense was not the only one, William of Occam enumerates 5 kinds of truth we have to believe.

1) Scripture
2) Apostolic Tradition
3) Credible Chronicles
4) Conclusions that logically follow within or between above
5) Private revelations that are duly authentified before the whole Church.

There actually is a Biblical case for the last category, since those disbelieving and opposing Henoch and Elijah will be punished by God, but on the other hand their identity as Henoch and Elijah will be authentified in a similar manner as a private revelation is. Did you really see those two guys step out of a firey chariot that angels then took up empty? Did you really see them work a miracle? Are they so far free from contradicting dogma? Etc.

So, Mike Gendron is wrong, both about the fact, and about what the partial fact even means in context.

42:18 So, William of Occam could appeal to St. Irenaeus.

Now, Sts Augustine and Thomas are more often read than St. Irenaeus, meaning, Mike Gendron can have his clue from sth he verbally read in these.

For instance, there is a quote from Enchiridion, and in I pars, Q I, all ten articles, St. Thomas consistently refers to Holy Writ and doesn't mention Tradition once.

So, Mike Gendron at least has some excuse for his error. The problem is, he means sth else than they by Sola Scriptura.

43:54 If you have read my story about the Mexican in Edinburgh, you'd have a perfect parable for Mike Gendron's mistake on this "timeline" ...

Short version. The Mexican has a correspondence with an intelligent man in Edinburgh. He then visits and is shocked at the Scotsman walking around in skirts and drinking some kind of grappa destroyed by smoke, and concludes the Scotsman very recently went mad after all this correspondence.

Just because he didn't find kilts and whisky in the letters.

44:02 On the eighth day.

In older canon law, I think it was required, it was certainly civil law in Sweden in those times, when we had become Catholic, and exceptions were granted most basically to confer baptism in haste if one feared the child would die before the eighth day, but also I suppose if no priest was available for some time after the eighth day.

It mirrors the OT regulation about circumcision.

45:02 It is even more remarkable that Ferguson is not the kind of Protestant that anyway accepts Baptismal regeneration (Lutherans and Anglicans do so unconditionally, Presbyterians do so about the ones that are Elect), since he's in Abilene, he's probably Churches of Christ.

46:43 Not that I agree with them, but they often say "water"' refers to the first birth (waters break at childbirth) and only "Spirit" refers to "anew" ...

I've met that approach more than once.

By contrast, Douay Rheims has:

Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

Vulgate has:

Respondit Jesus : Amen, amen dico tibi, nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua, et Spiritu Sancto, non potest introire in regnum Dei.

In this text, unlike the one you cited, it is perfectly clear that "water" also belongs to the rebirth.

48:55 Noting Acts 19 is a less disputable proof text.

50:11 Poor Mike Gendron, that's heavy attillery, you're citing Sts Ignatius, Irenaeus and Justin!

52:03 Habemus altare, Hebrews 13. St. Ambrose gives a RC understanding of "once and for all" in Hebrews, well before 500. Malachi 1:11 prophecies the Mass as a sacrifice, so does Psalm 109 in conjunction with Genesis 14. As Jeremias' 33 prophecies the kingship of Christ, so also the continued priesthood.

53:41 "this is what was always believed"

Unlike a literary framwork theory for Genesis 1's creation days, invented in 1920.

Karl Keating, the founder of your private ministry (if you like to call it that) took on very unequal battles when confronted with Fundies in the days when he was not yet the Founder, but rather the Pioneer of Catholic Answers. He defended the Eucharist, the Sacrifice of the Mass, totally correctly. He defended Theistic Evolution, as if that were more traditional than literal acceptance of Genesis 1 through 11, when on that point the Fundies of San Diego were more Catholic than he.

55:36 "we don't rekill"

Physically. However, the separate consecrations, where the blood remains in the body only "ex naturali concomitantia" but not "ex vi verbi" actually are a symbolic repeat of the killing. And one which contains what it signifies.

Objection 1. It seems that the whole Christ is not contained under both species of this sacrament. For this sacrament is ordained for the salvation of the faithful, not by virtue of the species, but by virtue of what is contained under the species, because the species were there even before the consecration, from which comes the power of this sacrament. If nothing, then, be contained under one species, but what is contained under the other, and if the whole Christ be contained under both, it seems that one of them is superfluous in this sacrament.

... skipping 2 and 3 ...

I answer that, After what we have said above (Article 1), it must be held most certainly that the whole Christ is under each sacramental species yet not alike in each. For the body of Christ is indeed present under the species of bread by the power of the sacrament, while the blood is there from real concomitance, as stated above (Article 1, Reply to Objection 1) in regard to the soul and Godhead of Christ; and under the species of wine the blood is present by the power of the sacrament, and His body by real concomitance, as is also His soul and Godhead: because now Christ's blood is not separated from His body, as it was at the time of His Passion and death. Hence if this sacrament had been celebrated then, the body of Christ would have been under the species of the bread, but without the blood; and, under the species of the wine, the blood would have been present without the body, as it was then, in fact.

Reply to Objection 1. Although the whole Christ is under each species, yet it is so not without purpose. For in the first place this serves to represent Christ's Passion, in which the blood was separated from the body; hence in the form for the consecration of the blood mention is made of its shedding. Secondly, it is in keeping with the use of this sacrament, that Christ's body be shown apart to the faithful as food, and the blood as drink. Thirdly, it is in keeping with its effect, in which sense it was stated above (III:74:1) that "the body is offered for the salvation of the body, and the blood for the salvation of the soul."

... dito. III Q76 A 2.

Q 79 A 7

I answer that, As stated above (Article 3), this sacrament is not only a sacrament, but also a sacrifice. For, it has the nature of a sacrifice inasmuch as in this sacrament Christ's Passion is represented, whereby Christ "offered Himself a Victim to God" (Ephesians 5:2), and it has the nature of a sacrament inasmuch as invisible grace is bestowed in this sacrament under a visible species. So, then, this sacrament benefits recipients by way both of sacrament and of sacrifice, because it is offered for all who partake of it. For it is said in the Canon of the Mass: "May as many of us as, by participation at this Altar, shall receive the most sacred body and blood of Thy Son, be filled with all heavenly benediction and grace."

But to others who do not receive it, it is beneficial by way of sacrifice, inasmuch as it is offered for their salvation. Hence it is said in the Canon of the Mass: "Be mindful, O Lord, of Thy servants, men and women . . . for whom we offer, or who offer up to Thee, this sacrifice of praise for themselves and for all their own, for the redemption of their souls, for the hope of their safety and salvation." And our Lord expressed both ways, saying (Matthew 26:28, with Luke 22:20): "Which for you," i.e. who receive it, "and for many," i.e. others, "shall be shed unto remission of sins."

[I did not find this directly in article 3 as given there, wonder if the online text is tampered with]

57:41 Didache, not quoted by you, but on the screen "but let none who has a quarrel with his fellow join in our meeting until they be reconciled, that your sacrifice be not defiled"

The FSSPX and some Sedes claim that I basically lost the Catholic faith some time like 2012 when I ceased to go to Mass in St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, and only went to few masses at the chapel of the Sedes, but, prior to accepting Pope Michael I, my basic motivation was first and foremost to obey precisely this principle.

I thought and think I would be sinning if I went to the Communion rail that was also frequented by a Catholic publisher, like Francis Bergeron (back then publisher of Présent, a prolife daily, now defunct) also went there, if I hated his guts because he preferred seing me poor and homeless rather than admit I had written sth he could profit from printing and he hated my guts for my (from his view) lack of modest humility in my ambitions.

So, my refraining from Mass is very far from a Protestant view of the Mass, I am, among other things, literally obeying the exact words of the Didache, while Francis Bergeron presumably isn't. Well, now he no longer has that paper, but he's other publisher contacts, he's a colleague of Enid Blyton in the Famous Five sense. Plus he wrote one or more of the collective series Le Hussard (about a man who isn't really in the Hungarian cavalry, but is so nicknamed, and is a detective).

1:02:28 The Orthodox who reject Purgatory (like they will say prayers for the dead are for the well being of dreams during soul sleep or they will say the prayers are applied by God to a pre-death purgation of them before they died, a completeness of their repentance, or they will claim airy tollhouses are radically different from Purgatory), they will in fact also point to Pope Gregory.

He spoke in Dialogues of souls from Purgatory who had asked for intercession. They were prayed for and ceased to appear.

Those Orthodox would claim we have the exact details of Purgatory (as opposed to their three alternative versions of it) from Gregory I, Dialogues, and they would approve these revelations, but pretend we just take them too literally.

When William of Occam spoke of "5, truths contained in private revelations" he might have been thinking of these specifics about Purgatory.

A more general sense that we need to pray for the dead is very certainly shared by Jews at least since the Maccabees era, and a passage in Book of Henoch that parallels the Stabunt Iusti actually continues in ways suggesting the souls ashamed for having misjudged the saints are released from punishment -- on their prayers.

1:02:30 Calvin claimed the first to be "Antichrist" (i e make Roman Catholic papal claims) was Pope Gregory's successor.

So, Mike Gendron doesn't get this either entirely from nowhere, he's just trusting the wrong people.

1:10:04 The Catholics who considered She was not immaculately conceived, prior to 1854, were not stating She started being sinless at a later stage, they say She had original sin for one moment, miraculously was aware, prayed to be delivered, was, and therefore got rid of original sin and never committed a personal one.

This is what I considered as true while Orthodox, this is what I gave up for the full dogma of Immaculate Conception at my return.

1:11:23 I think habitually teaching something with virtually all of the bishops alive at the time of a papacy is actually one of the occasions of infallibility as defined in 1870.

This means, I consider Young Earth Creationism and Geocentrism are covered by Papal infallibility of previous popes.

It also means, if "John Paul II", "Benedict XVI" and "Francis" were Popes, given most bishops, even Cardinal Sarah who's sane on other issues, mostly, agree with them, the opposite would also be covered by Papal infallibility. If however Michael I and Michael II have been popes for all the time since before "John Paul II's" famous discourses in the nineties, infallibility remains in harmony with itself.

Dimond brothers had tried to pretend that Benedict XV in his encyclical on Dante had basically defined that Geocentrism was no dogma, I think that is very much overreading a concessive clause.

Leo XIII doesn't in Providentissimus Deus directly adress the issue, only a more general one, and he refers back to Geocentric Church Fathers. (St. Basil, I think).

1:13:07 He might have misconstrued (as I think do some Spanish Catholics) 1950 as a denial there even was a Dormition.

What does "expleto terrestris vitae cursu," mean? If it means "the very same second she had completed her terrestrial course of life" ... well, that would contradict the Orthodox, that would contradict even Catholic Tradition prior to 1950, the Orthodox on 15th of August actually celebrate "Dormition of the Theotokos" = Her deathbed. Here is a quote from Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America:

In front of the bed of the Theotokos is a candle that helps to form a central axis in the icon. Above the candle is the body of the Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary. Standing over His mother is Christ holding her most pure soul. Above Christ the gates of heaven stand open, ready to receive the Mother of God.

This great Feast of the Church and the icon celebrates a fundamental teaching of our faith—the Resurrection of the body. In the case of the Theotokos, this has been accomplished by the divine will of God.

So, at the moment depicted, Her soul is outside Her body, in the arms of Jesus, but later on, She will resurrect.

In a pre-Fifties Missal, you will find that as the deathbed is a kind of mourning, it was commemorated on the 14th of August, the Vigil and Vigil Fast. This is no longer there.

Mike Gendron presumably means that Catholics in 1950 defined away Her deathbed and ensuing Resurrection, replacing them with an immediate elevation, like for Elijah. The thing is, if Elijah was immediately elevated and She wasn't, it's not because Elijah is higher than She, it's because Elijah will come back and be martyred, he's still waiting for his death (upcoming in Apocalypse 11).

Carolina Jackson
Hello! Could u pls tell me the source that Elijah should be one of the 2 witnesses in Revelation 11? I'd like to know where it comes from.

Hans Georg Lundahl
@carolinajackson7621 1) Tradition.

Orthodox icons (and Byzantine Catholic icons of the same tradition) speak of "St. Elias the second forerunner." (St. John the Baptist being the first).

2) The Bible:

Behold I will send you Elias the prophet, before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord.
[Malachias (Malachi) 4:5]

Carolina Jackson
@hglundahl the prophecy of Malachi was already fullfilled in John the Baptist

Hans Georg Lundahl
@carolinajackson7621 Not fully.

He's the first forerunner, before Calvary, but it is arguable that Malachias envisaged Doomsday as in the still upcoming event too, or even principally.

So, 1:14:31, if St. Epiphanius is on the side of those denying there was a deathbed, by comparison to Elijah, St. John Damascene, quoting from your screen, says:

"To-day the living ladder, through whom the Most High descended and was seen on earth and conversed with men" (he's citing Baruch 3!) "was assumed into heaven by death."

Note, "by death" - he's affirming the deathbed.

Note, how do you concile Her deathbed with Her sinlessness? Well, actually there is a way, as I learned from Glories of Mary.

1) It's not that She had sin. At all.
2) It is also not that Her death is coredemptive with Her Son's. Her coredemtive act is on Calvary, not on Her own deathbed.
3) But "either she should not die at all, or she should die from love" ... She had on Calvary wished to be dead, because Her Son was. Her deathbed is the Son fulfilling His Mother's wish, though with a delay of some years.

However, if it was fit that She should die in likeness with and from love of Her Son, it was also fit She should resurrect and be assumed as Her Son had been.

St. Alphonsus of Liguori is a great saint on Marian doctrine, he's also good on when Popes are not Popes. Dimond brothers cited him from other works, that, unlike Glories of Mary, I hadn't read.

1:16:39 "he's lying, he's getting all of these wrong"

Well, he could be honest and have been taught wrong.

He could also have not made the connexion between this thing of the timeline, which he takes for knowledge and the other actual knowledge he has on the difference between doctrine and formal dogma. There is such a thing as being simply inconsistent. It's a bad inconsistency. It probably involves some lying to himself. It is misinformation which he is spreading. But we need not assume he does so while intending to spread what he knows to be misinformation.

Go to my blog "Great Bishop of Geneva!" and look up the Mexican in Edinburgh. That kind of misunderstanding is where his timeline comes from. You can say, he, as former Catholic, should have known better, but you cannot guarantee he absolutely did. Inquisitors didn't assume everyone who elevated "the book of two principles" into Scripture had totally done so from malice, they found lots of people whom a few hours of conversation about principles and Bible quotes from the NT (which Albigensians nominally accepted) could straighten out. But that had also not happened while they were secure among themselves. And some of these cases had been practising Catholics before the "perfecti" came around.

1:17:16 Obviously it is a mistake to invite Mike Gendron.

But you know who else makes that mistake? The guys who ask Eugene Scott a k a Genie Scott about what Young Earth Creationists believe and how they argue for it.

She will very arguably give a good, perhaps outdated version of what Young Earth Creationists believe. But she will not be all that keen on letting all the arguments of Young Earth Creationists shine.

Some references to my works: The Mexican in Edinburgh and Church History · William of Ockham, Dialogus, part 1, book 2, chapter 5 (referring back to William of Ockham, Dialogus, part 1, book 2, chapters 1-17) · Rome en 1857 n'a pas approuvé la position de Sébastien Antoni (FR — about the Assumptionist)

No comments: