Showing posts with label franciscanfriars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label franciscanfriars. Show all posts

Thursday, March 2, 2023

Marcel Lefebvre - a new St. Athanasius or a new Martin Luther?


Michael Lofton Heard of Quo Primum Long After I Did · Ecclesiology of Mgr Lefebvre - Compared to Pope Michael · No to 1988 Consecrations = Yes to 1990 Emergency Conclave · Marcel Lefebvre - a new St. Athanasius or a new Martin Luther?

Any Lutheran reading this or watching the video, brace yourself, we Catholics use Martin Luther as a cussword ...

SSPX Founder's Distorted Theology on Tradition & the Church - Nov 16 - Homily - Fr Terrance
franciscanfriars, 16 Nov. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MnUj56vLRbg


Three or four of the issues raised by Fr. Terrance (Franciscans of the Immaculate) will be answered here.

  • should one compare Lefebvre to St. Athanasius or Vatican II to Nicaea I (you can't do both)?
  • did Mgr Lefebvre treat Tradition like Martin Luther treated the Bible?
  • did Mgr Lefebvre deny the indefectibility of the Church?
  • did Mgr Lefebvre define jurisdiction in the Catholic Church in a Lutheran way, as "derived from the people"?


Here are my comments:

3:47 "which in certain respects is even more important than that if Nicaea"*

Well, a good question to ask is, was "Vatican II" like Constance 1414 or like Pisa 1409?

Council of Pisa (1409) attempted to solve the Great Western Schism.
The council is not numbered because it was not convened by a pope and its outcome was repudiated at Constance.


As Mgr Lefebvre did not go to the Sedevacantist conclusion about validity of Popes residing in the Vatican after 1958, he was not in a position to make the parallel very clear ...

4:04 Who clearly condemns that comparison?
"Paul VI" - according to those who number Montini as a Pope, which is not the case with the late Pope Michael or with his followers
"now a canonised saint" - according to those who number Bergoglio as a Pope, which is not the case with the late Pope Michael or with his followers.

7:48 What if "Paul VI" had, if not immediately stepped down, at least stepped aside?

What if he had tried to name a commission with the express task to judge him on the accusations of people like Mgr Lefebvre or Georges de Nantes?

10:45 How many dead have anti-lefebvrists raised?

I know one miracle attributed to Paul VI. Oh, two, by now.

The first miracle involving Pope Paul VI took place in California in the 1990s. It also concerned an unborn which was found to have a serious health problem that could mean brain damage. Doctors advised that it be aborted, but the mother entrusted her pregnancy to Paul VI. The child was born healthy.


If the child was diagnosed months before birth, the healing could be natural. As to no brain damage, there was no diagnosis of brain damage having actually occurred.

This second miracle attributed to Pope Paul VI concerned the healing of an unborn in the fifth month of pregnancy. According to the Catholic News Agency the mother, from Verona in Italy, had an illness that risked her own life and the life of her unborn and was advised to have an abortion.

A few days after the beatification of Paul VI by Pope Francis in October 2014, the mother prayed to the now Blessed Paul VI at a shrine in Lombardy and the baby girl was later born in good health.**


I had read previously a more detailed news on the second miracle, it involved premature rupture of amniotic liquid, and while the baby was born healthy, the remainder of the pregnancy was without the aid of amniotic liquid and so, though the life was saved, an abnormality remained for some time.

In other words, two cases were the miracle would not have been attributed to the Blessed Virgin if it had occurred in Lourdes.

12:35 His actions cannot be compared to Luther's action about the Bible, because, Luther had not know the Biblical Church of the New Testament, first hand, but Lefebvre definitely had known pre-conciliar Tradition first hand. And been approved for knowing it.

Places of confidence like :
  • ordination to priesthood 1929
  • doctorate of theology 1930
  • professor of theology at Libreville, Gabon
  • Vicar Apostolic, later Archbishop of Dakar
  • bishop of Tulle
  • head of Holy Ghost Fathers


and the last of these up to 1968 ... this definitely means, he did know the pre-Conciliar Tradition very well.

Now, Luther obviously also knew the pre-Reformation Tradition first hand. But the problem is, he broke with it. And before you state "Lefebvre broke with it too" - well, certainly he broke with nothing in relation to obedience to the Pope until the perceived Pope had committed at least a perceived break with pre-Conciliar Tradition himself, the New Mass. Luther absolutely had no such excuse.

Since Luther had a more strict stance against interest taking than Pope Leo X, one could have imagined Luther might have gone into schism over Leo X officially allowing Montes pietatis to take a moderate interest to pay for the upkeep of the commodity (and not for making the upkeepers a kind of businessmen, mind you) ... but he didn't. This disagreement was never cited in the 95 theses, never cited in Exsurge Domine, which I have actually read, never cited when Luther spoke at the Diet of Worms, as far as I've been told (I haven't read detailed protocols, I only know the "history teachers' story" of it), never cited as far as I know in Luther's explanation of burning Exsurge Domine, and never cited in Decet Romanum Pontificem.

So, the one exact item where Luther could just possibly have been compared to Marcel Lefebvre, was totally irrelevant for the Reformation, even so much so, that Lutherans since his day disagree with Leo X on the other opposite, stating that interest taking is licit.

At least on the side of the understanding of tradition, so far there is no excuse for comparing Marcel Lefebvre to Luther.

12:56 "for all practical purposes, he cancelled 1500 tears of Church History"

Specifically with a New Liturgy, right? Now, look at 1969, who was making a New Liturgy which was at least accused of cancelling more than a millennium of Liturgic History? It was not Marcel Lefebvre.

13:33 He analysed the dogma of the indefectibility.

According to a theologian of the 19th C involved in Vatican "I" the Church stays Herself as long as there is at least one bishop still alive and faithful.

No one can deny Marcel Lefebvre had episcopal consecreation, no one can deny he was alive when what you talk of happened, so, Marcel Lefebvre did not deny being faithful, ergo, on that criterium, the Church had not defected - therefore, Marcel Lefebvre had not denied the indefectibility of the Church.

I wonder if the name of that theologian was "Mura" - it was probably not Antonio Mura, though ...

13:43 Stating that a given social body is no longer Catholic does not equate to denying that the Catholic Church has ceased to exist, as long as one affirms that the Catholic Church actually does exist outside that specific body.

This is obvious, for a social body the size of the pre-Reformation Church of for instance England or Sweden, and it is at least arguable that it could happen on the level of the Church universal, insofar as it is socially perceived as such while the real remaining Church universal remains as a remnant, and being socially perceived as extremists.

Does exist - and that there never was a meantime when it didn't exist, that is.

13:59 Nice move of equivocation. Also known as lying.

Luther heretically stated that ordinary jurisdiction came from the faithful people ...
Lefebvre stated that the jurisdiction the society claimed after the suspension a divinis and so on was a case by case emergency jurisdiction, derived from faithful individuals who would otherwise be deprived of correct pastoral.

Suppose a man in 1980 had said "I don't need to go to Lefebvre's Masses, I am fine with the priests the diocese provides" - well, in that case, the response would properly have been, on this principle "we have no jurisdiction over you, since you are not in an emergency" - there would be cases where one would not have said this, because one would have considered that man as being in an illusionary safety, but that is what the principle means.

Luther's principle pretty much means the opposite, it means that "since we are the people here and you are one of us, you need to submit to the priests whom the people here have given jurisdiction, you cannot apply to Rome, even for emergency" ... - and that's also historically how remaining Catholics were in fact treated after the Reformation, in Sweden or England - as defectors having to leave or outright traitors and rebels having to die.

Now, Pope Michael has a somewhat different criticism. He doesn't deny the concept of emergency jurisdiction - but he considers it inadequate to stay put with that for years, see no repentance from presumed Popes, continue to treat them as Popes, or see the See as "occupied by a material but no formal Pope" - rather, while a layman, he took the initiative to make an emergency election - to restore ordinary jurisdiction.

14:19 I found the letter you refer to very quickly.

Remarks with Respect to the New Bishop to Succeed His Excellency Bishop de Castro Mayer,
Marcel Lefebvre, February 20, 1991.
http://www.archbishoplefebvre.com/bishop-mayer-replacement.html


He very much does not say that jurisdiction in the Catholic Church comes from the people and in fact, the word "people" does not even occur in it. Here are two paragraphs which contrast the two types of jurisdiction:

First of all, it must be noted that his situation is not exactly the same as that of Bishop de Castro Mayer. This latter is Bishop Emeritus of Campos, after having been its residential bishop. Hence, one could conclude that he kept, if not a juridical power, at least a moral power, which given the present circumstances, could justify a pastoral action with respect to his former priests and faithful.

This is not the case with the new bishop, who has no other basis for jurisdiction than that which comes from the requests of the priests and the faithful to take care of their souls and those of their children, and who have asked him to accept the episcopacy so as to give them true Catholic priests and the grace of the Sacrament of Confirmation. Thus it is clear that the jurisdiction of the new bishop is not territorial but personal, as becomes also the jurisdiction of the priests.


Please note, the concept of "personal jurisdiction" and of it applying because of a personal choice is there in canonic practise. Fr. Terrance is not under the local bishop, but under Fr.Immacolato M.Acquali, FFI. Opus Dei has extended the possibility to laymen. And all the FSSPX is doing, along with in the case of the Fraternity of the Curate of Ars, is extending this to "jurisdiction of emergency" .... while this is not a durable solution, it is simply calumny to call this Lutheranism.

14:34 The two miracles attributed to "St John Paul II" could not have passed in Lourdes.

A) The French nun seems the remission had relapses
B) The Latin American woman seems the remission, though remarcably quick, was not instantaneous.

* True or False Pope : Letter of Pope Paul VI to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre
http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/lefebvre-june-29-letter-from-paul-vi.html


** Irish Times : Vatican approves second miracle needed for canonisation of Pope Paul VI
Patsy McGarry, Tue Feb 6 2018 - 19:09
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/vatican-approves-second-miracle-needed-for-canonisation-of-pope-paul-vi-1.3382583

Wednesday, November 5, 2014

... on Responsability (Neither a Virtue, Nor - at least not totally - in the Bible)

Fr Mahan: God Expects Us to Be Responsible
franciscanfriars
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Swb8PmJKlIM


I
I am not sure the word is very well chosen.

Could not find 'responsabilibus' in verses.

Show all words that start with 'r' or 're' or 'res'

Show all words that start with 'R' or 'Re' or 'Res'


I had already used up the forms of the singular and the other forms of the plural.

Douay-Rheims Bible Online site, Latin Vulgate, search="responsabilibus"
http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?t=0&q=responsabilibus&b=lvb


So, the word is not in St Jerome's Vulgate, nor in DRB [see below - however, an earlier search I recall as giving "am I responsable for my brother?" in the mouth of Cain]. What about St Thomas?

  • Aucun document ne correspond aux termes de recherche spécifiés (responsabilis site:www.corpusthomisticum.org/).
  • Aucun document ne correspond aux termes de recherche spécifiés (responsabili site:www.corpusthomisticum.org/).
  • Aucun document ne correspond aux termes de recherche spécifiés (responsabile site:www.corpusthomisticum.org/).
  • Aucun document ne correspond aux termes de recherche spécifiés (responsabilem site:www.corpusthomisticum.org/).
  • Aucun document ne correspond aux termes de recherche spécifiés (responsabiles site:www.corpusthomisticum.org/).
  • Aucun document ne correspond aux termes de recherche spécifiés (responsabilium site:www.corpusthomisticum.org/).
  • Aucun document ne correspond aux termes de recherche spécifiés (responsabilibus site:www.corpusthomisticum.org/).

    Those seven are the only phonetically and orthographically distinct forms of the word right?

    Oh, forgot neuter plural (N/A/V):

  • Aucun document ne correspond aux termes de recherche spécifiés (responsabilia site:www.corpusthomisticum.org/).

    Now for noun:

  • Aucun document ne correspond aux termes de recherche spécifiés (responsabilitas site:www.corpusthomisticum.org/).
  • Aucun document ne correspond aux termes de recherche spécifiés (responsabilitatis site:www.corpusthomisticum.org/).
  • Aucun document ne correspond aux termes de recherche spécifiés (responsabilitati site:www.corpusthomisticum.org/).
  • Aucun document ne correspond aux termes de recherche spécifiés (responsabilitatem site:www.corpusthomisticum.org/).
  • Aucun document ne correspond aux termes de recherche spécifiés (responsabilitate site:www.corpusthomisticum.org/).
  • Aucun document ne correspond aux termes de recherche spécifiés (responsabilitates site:www.corpusthomisticum.org/).
  • Aucun document ne correspond aux termes de recherche spécifiés (responsabilitatum site:www.corpusthomisticum.org/).
  • Aucun document ne correspond aux termes de recherche spécifiés (responsabilitatibus site:www.corpusthomisticum.org/).

  • BUT, do we find all the words used by St Thomas this search?

    Let us take the word "movetur" alternative spelling "mouetur" (certainly present in Prima Via "nihil mouetur nisi ab alio motum")

    Yes, indeed:

  • movetur site:www.corpusthomisticum.org/
    Environ 387 résultats (0,31 secondes)


II
For English, there is only one form:

Could not find 'responsable' in verses.

Show all words that start with 'r' or 're' or 'res'

Show all words that start with 'R' or 'Re' or 'Res'


Douay-Rheims Bible Online site, Douay Rheims Bible, search=responsable
http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?t=0&q=responsable&b=drb


Same form, alternative spelling:

Could not find 'responsible' in verses.

Show all words that start with 'r' or 're' or 'res'

Show all words that start with 'R' or 'Re' or 'Res'


III 2:09
the virtue of responsibility is an important one ...

The Bible passage you gave rather makes clear that the virtues of Charity to God and Neighbour or the one virtue of double charity, is "important."

Wonder if the word important is in the Bible [see previous]? The word "necessary" is. Now, everything which is necessary, a word which is really in the Bible, is in the sense we understand it important, but:

  • are all important things necessary?

  • is a non-necessary "important" thing really any more "important" than another non-necessary thing? Or are we completely free to make our own priorities among things that are not necessary?


On the wandering through the Desert, it was necessary to collect mannah for the day, and on fridays for the day and the following day (no collection was allowed on sabbath). But since this was easy to do in very much less time than a day's labour, as I suppose, it was also necessary they had time for things not necessary.

So, what were they doing that time? Some were no doubt giving notes to Moses about what happened behind his back so he could write all of Exodus-Deuteronomy, except last chapter of the latter. And if two notes contradicted each other, Moses was inerrantly inspired to take the right one, exactly as in his choices as to documents involved in his final redaction of Genesis. But certainly not all of them or even very many. Apart from this work, necessary as such, but necessary only for a few to be actually doing if it was to be done, they were free to chose. And do not pretend they mended clothes, at the most they made new clothes for those born, since clothes and sandals were not worn out during the wandering.

So, what were they doing? They were in fact free to do, most of the time, what they wanted, and it is not written they had a fixed set of priorities as to what was most "important" among the things not necessary.

So, virtue of "responsibility" is "important" but still not found in the Bible. Neither is the word "important":

Could not find 'important' in verses.


Douay-Rheims Bible Online site, Douay Rheims Bible, search=important
http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?t=0&q=important&b=drb


Can as well check on "responsabilia" ...

Could not find 'responsabilia' in verses.


Douay-Rheims Bible Online site, Latin Vulgate Bible, search=responsabilia
http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/s?t=0&q=responsabilia&b=lvb


IV 2:25 etc
"show that you are responsible, show up on time"

You mean "show that you are a faithful employee [servant], show up when your employer expects it" I suppose?

Note that this is indeed, not important but necessary for an employee. As he is a kind of servant. BUT this is not a paradigm for virtues of those not employees. Virtues of those not servants.

Obviously, if someone has trouble showing up on time every morning, this does not mean he is, even according to the most common modern understanding of "responsability" an "irresponsible person", it means it is "responsible" of him to seek positions where showing up in the morning is either easier (living closer to where you show up or showing up closer to where you live) or not a requirement (working late if you live alone and have no one waiting for you and if also you enjoy flex-time is a solution).

[Or being self employed, without customers expecting you to show up at the bakeries' opening hours]

And if one is still in a position to be a disappointment about showing up, there is also the virtue of modesty. A Lithuanian lesson had already had its first half (me waiting outside so as not to disturb) and the professor would have been happier about my "atsiprašau" (excuse me) if I could have told her in perfect Lithuanian "I missed the bus".

I was of course talking about the most common understanding, there are sectarian and Puritan understandings of the word too - and that is really where the word comes from.

V 2:56
"how many irresponsable people there are in a work place"

Could not find 'irresponsabilibus' in verses. - Will you trust me I searched the other forms and even this one without a link?

But "how many irresponsable people there are in a work place" is a problem with any large workplace, because it is so collective. Work places don't have to be very collective. St Joseph, his sons from previous marriage or his nephews, Jesus ... a carpenter's shop where probably everyone knew exactly what to do and most of the time did it. Take instead the huge factories where log after log is rid of branches and cut up in planks ... we have such in Sweden, no doubt Canada has them galore as well. The noise means it is irresponsible to take out your earplugs. Hearing orders means it is irresponsible to have the earplugs in. Men are so plentiful, if you are the least bit lazy, you know if you wait a few seconds more, someone else is bound to do it while you take the next task in a slower way. If men taking this attitude get fired easily, there will certainly be lots of men PUSHING to do their part and a bit more, and that will also result in carelessness and very damaging, lifedamaging or mortal accidents.

VI 2:34
"do what you are supposed to do"

As long as it is within personal capacity (as showing up on time is not always within mine) and consistent with the law of God, sure, that is part of what being a faithful servant means.

"don't complain, don't make excuses"

You are resuming part of US culture here. While complaining is annoying anywhere (unless voicing the complaint of many), there are really different attitudes to making excuses if they are true and not damning on one's capacity. Making up untrue excuses is of course against the virtue of veracitas.



VII 3:03
"how being responsible will distinguish you from the herd"

I have not tried working where they cut up timber. I have tried working where they pick strawberries. Part of my slowness was simply slowness - I do my fastest and am still behind. But part of it was also being careful not to pick green berries. I was "distinguished from the herd" - and my employer, with one exceptional privileged mission (picking for the family) was not exactly treating me better than the rest for it.

Meanwhile, the "herd" was pushed into picking faster, some were covering green berries with nice red ones to get it done, and one day we were told the shops had complained and sent the strawberries back for a second sorting.

This we were supposed to do without getting pay tickets* for it ... because "we" had been picking irresponsibly.

This resulted in my feeling I was morally better (more honest in commutative justice) than my employer, and I wanted no more to be under him. I tried to start my pilgrimage to Santiago, which I had already decided, in order to get close to a girl I had met there. I could not get out of Denmark yet, or even of Zealand. People thinking I must have been an alcoholic for forsaking my work without pay were simply not hospitable enough. I was getting back to the pay (in the hope aslo to see the girl, but she was already gone) with a severe stomach flue. Only after getting back, getting the pay and still staying around in the barracks a few days while trying to get better, was I thrown out of the barracks and started my pilgrimage to Santiago.

* pay tickets = given per strawberry boxes and later exchanged for cash pay, with employer counting them.

VIII 3:25
"if you can be trusted in small things"

Now that is about trustworthiness, not directly about responsibility as US culture understands it.

"then you will later be trusted with greater responsibility/responsibilities"

Positions, yes. Responsibility - which is here a different matter than the modern name of a modern virtue - was according to Douay Rheims not the word he used for it. Here you use "responsibility" to mean a position - something that requires trustworthiness, rather than this virtue itself.

IX 3:58
as to the talents, initiative is a better word [and so is confidence] than "responsibility" for what the faithful servants had showed. It is not in all positions that initiative is expected from one. And it may be expected from one from the side God who knows as well as oneself what one can do and cannot do, even if not from one from the side of others.

X 4:42
We are united with Jesus Who "takes responsibility for our sins" ... here you mean pays our debt.

XI 4:59
"to pay the ransom for our irresponsibility" ... you mean for our sins.

Sin and "irresponsibility" are not synonymous.

XII 5:22
"that we might be made able to take on"

Yes.

"the responsabilities that He gives us."

You mean the duties and good works to fulfil and the sins to avoid.

As said, though responsability is an understandable word for it, even I think used by Chesterton in context of polemising against Calvinism/Determinism which leaves no person responsible for anything, I am not sure it is the best one.

XIII
While I was trying the first time to write above comment, I was hampered as I think by a librarian acting on behalf of a shrink who is pulling such strings behind the curtains in order to "responsabilise" me, as if a) using the internet as I do and seeking the carreer as a writer that I do seek were "irresponsible" and as if b) this supposed irresponsability were a bad thing.

First problem on screen: back to history of youtube watching.

Back to video, second problem on screen, video goes full screen.

An irritating first problem which also interrupted the first time I tried to write it, after I had written most of it. Can be arranged if someone is abusing computer admin privileges. Alas. Could theoretically be an accident, I think not.

XIV
Why do I not think it was an accident?

There is a person I sometimes see in the cafeteria of the library. I sometimes catch him chatting with some single person in ways suggesting he is his therapist. I saw him in the psychology shelves, close to the philosophy and theology ones. Now, this is my third session before a computer with the video. After first one, when posting lack of word "responsability" in Vulgate and DRB, I saw him look sharply at me in the cafeteria. It is not the first time he does so precisely after I write something displeasing to certain networks.

Between that sharp look and the above provocation, there was also another one, which could have interrupted my writing more completely, like I could have got thrown out for the reaction I gave on someone else's provocation.

Tuesday, May 6, 2014

... on Supreme Rule of Faith

Video:
Tour of the Catechism #4 - Relationship, Tradition & Scripture
franciscanfriars
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuTSCFEETRo
I
"Sacred Scripture, taken together with Sacred Tradition [is] the supreme rule of [the Church's] faith."

From Dei Verbum, supplying words understood correctly from context within square brackets, otherwise quoting exactly from official translation, from #21.

Exactly. Meaning Magisterium in the present is the proximate rule. Meaning it can be licitly bypassed if betraying the supreme rule, at least by those sufficiently familiar with the supreme rule.

This means that any passage or aspect of many passages in Scripture, which Tradition has consistently taken as being literally true in their obvious sense, must be taken so and stand above Magisterium and Faithful alike in that precise way.

II
Of those who say Sacred Scripture is in its beginning to be understood as metaphors conveying truth but not accurate history, can their position be traced in accurate Church History from the Apostles and Our Lord Jesus Christ to us, and that in its entirety?

MSN Group Antimodernism in memoriam : One group member promoted Hutchison
antimodernisminmemoriam.blogspot.com/2014/03/one-group-member-promoted-hutchison.html


"When Our Lord Ascended to Heaven, He didn't leave behind a book, He left behind a Church"

Not quite. He left behind a Church equipped already with a book it got from those who had faithfully waited for Him and for His Church, namely the Old Testament. And he had during 40 days given a complete crash course of Old Testament exegesis, clarifying every allegory about Himself, about His Mother the Blessed Virgin Mary, about the Church, about their adversaries.

This might also have served, since allegory starts at verse 1 of Genesis, to indicate whether the text was only to be taken as allegory, or as factual history with an allegorical aspect added to it. Since nearly all Church fathers have taken it the second way, we must conclude that either He directly told His Apostles so, or He knew they already knew this and saw no need whatsoever to correct this as if their previous prejudice thereon were a kind of mistake.

And this was pointed out by the Biblical Commission of Pope St Pius X in 1909. Old Age Compromisers always cite Q 8 of the answer, how about looking at Q 2?

Creation vs. Evolution : Mark Shea Recommended David Palm Who Misconstrues Bible Commission of 1909
creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2014/01/mark-shea-recommended-david-palm-who.html


What is correct is that He left behind a Church of the New Testament which had as yet not written any books of the New Testament.

[But St Matthew was written 1 to 7 years after the last events. Oh, I already said that in the comment:]

3:35
It is traditionally rather often thought that St Matthew wrote his Gospel in a first version in Hebrew so it was published the year after that of Our Lord's Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension. Year 34, I have heard even. 
III
John 21:25, what can't it be used for?

Well, it would be difficult to argue that Christ told the Apostles:

a) to accept Evolution and Heliocentrism

and

b) still to include in his Gospel words He knew that Creationists would use and that without correcting explanation.

That would have been an instruction to duplicity.

Also, it can't be used to argue for Him telling His Apostles to accept Heliocentrism when it was proven, but say nothing on the subject and indeed leave OT passages arguing Geocentrism (which He knew would be used by Dominicans in San Marco in Florence to ring the alarm bell over Sidereus Nuntius), not to mention His own words considering the fact that footstools are often fixed in a place under the chair while one is sitting in such a one, because if that were the case how come Pope Urban VIII forgot it when Christ had promised the Holy Ghost would remind them of EVERYTHING he had said, including obviously what St John covered as not to be mentioned singly in one book.

John 21:25 what CAN it be appropriately used for?

Well, if St James was going to write on Penance and Extreme Unction, perhaps Christ was explaining in detail the Seven Sacraments.

If St Paul (or possibly St Barnabas) was going in the Epistle to the Hebrews to bring up that Christ was "priest" - sacrificial priest - "according to the order of Melchisedec", perhaps He had really given detailed instructions about what He meant with Hoc Facite ... In Meam Commemorationem.

Especially since the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Seven Sacraments, the Real Presence are not likely to be:

  • Roman Catholic innovation after 1054 (though, just conceivably, Transsubstantiation as opposed to not thinking too much about details, might purely theoretically be so, but it may equally well be something really explained in detail to the Apostles);
  • nor common RCC/EOC innovation after Chalcedon;
  • nor even common RCC/EOC/Monophysite innovation after Ephesus.


And it CANNOT be a common Traditional Christian innovation after the Apostolic age, since according to Matthew 28:18-20 there can be none such. At least not harmful to the faith. Therefore not in any important matter.

Can John 21:25 be used about ANY matter of cosmology?

Well, He could have forestalled, at least for Rome, and therefore also Byzantium, a premature decision in favour of earth being flat.

[Pope St Zachary was from Byzantium, and was first prepared to condemn a round earth believer, but only because he thought there was a belief in antipodes involving non-Adamite men. THIS is severly forbidden.]

Jews and Nestorians seem to have made that mistake a matter of doctrine for centuries.

But Biblical authors as well as Tradition as a whole has not been tied down to Flat Earth.