Saturday, October 31, 2020

Stephen J. Shoemaker, "Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition and Assumption"

 

1 November 2020 will mark the 70th anniversary of the dogmatising of the Bodily Assumption of Mary as a de fide dogma in Roman Catholicism. Due to such, I think it is apropos to plug one of my favourite books, not just on the topic of the Dormition and Assumption, but Mariology as a whole:

 

 


Stephen J. Shoemaker, Ancient Traditions of the Virgin Mary's Dormition and Assumption (Oxford Early Christian Studies) 


The book is pretty expensive, even as a paperback on Amazon. However, at the time of writing, it appears that they are working on a relatively inexpensive Kindle version.


On the Assumption itself, see, for e.g., Refuting Taylor Marshall on the Bodily Assumption of Mary

Halloween-Themed Post: The Scariest Image Known to Humanity (TRIGGER WARNING!!!!)

 This is not for the faint of heart.


No, seriously, if you are scared easily, please, do not progress any further




Honestly, trigger warning!




Well, don't say I did not warn you.




This, ladies and gentlemen, is the scariest image known to all of humanity.








The water temple from Ocarina of Time:










Friday, October 30, 2020

Some Excerpts from G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, Volume II: Christ’s Church

 

 

The privilege of infallibility is not merely actual absence of error, but the impossibility of erring. It is of course a supernatural gift, and since it works not to the advantage of the recipients themselves, but to that of the whole Church, it is a gratia gratis data or charism. It is often called “the charism of truth.” (G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, Volume II: Christ’s Church [trans. John J. Castelot; Cork: The Mercier Press Limited, 1961], 119)

 

Assertion 3: With the exception of the Roman pontiff, no bishop possesses authority over other bishops by divine right.

 

The body of bishops continues the college of the apostles. Now among the apostles no one was placed in authority over the rest of them by Christ, except St. Peter. The conclusion is obvious. Consequently, all the degrees of hierarchical rank factually existing between the papacy and the episcopacy—patriarchal, primatial, and archiepiscopal—are ecclesiastical in origin. From this it follows that: (a) the office of patriarch, primate, etc., considered precisely as an office, consists in a kind of participation in the papal office; (b) the supra-episcopal authority possessed by patriarchs, etc., over bishops within their orbit is bestowed upon them by the pope. The fact is symbolized by the cloak (pallium) which “taken from the body of St. Peter,” is sent to them as a sign of their sharing in a supra-episcopal jurisdiction” (See Pontificale Romanum, p. 1, De pallio).

 

Assertion 4: Bishops to be able to exercise jurisdiction over their flocks, must be adopted by the authority of the pope.

 

The way in which individual bishops are established must now be discussed. Even though the episcopal office is something established by God, it is quite obvious that individual rulers of individual dioceses are directly established not by God, but by men. At this juncture we are not inquiring from whom the bishops proximately receive their jurisdiction . . . but what is required for them actually to function as pastors of their diocese and to exercise their jurisdiction there. To be able to do this, we state, they must be adopted by the authority of the supreme pontiff. Adoption (assumption) is a short form standing for “adoption or assumption into the corporate body of the pastors of the Church.” It designates the factor by which the formal admittance of a selected or elected candidate is brought to its final conclusion. We use the phrase, “by the authority of the people” to indicate that a direct, personal intervention by the people is not necessarily required. So long as the adoption be done by someone to whom the people has entrusted the task (regardless of the precise way in which the pope commissions him to do so), or in accord with regulations already established or approved by the pope, in saying that papal adoption is necessary, we do not mean it is merely necessary because of ecclesiastical law currently in force; we mean it is necessary by the divine law itself. Even though this necessity has never been explicitly defined, it follows absolutely from Catholic principles.

 

It is a fact that a bishop cannot act as a pastor of the Church unless he is a member of that body which is a continuation of the apostolic college. Now the Roman pontiff, as Christ’s vicar, presides over that college with full and supreme authority. It would be ridiculous, therefore, to think that someone could be constituted a member of that body in such fashion as not to need to be acknowledged or adopted in any way by the very head of that body, i.e., the Roman pontiff. Again, the Roman pontiff is the supreme shepherd of the entire Church to which the bishops may be compared as subordinate shepherds for each individual part of the Church. Clearly it would be nonsensical to think someone would take charge of part of the sheepfold without the agreement of the one who rules the universal sheepfold with complete authority.

 

The objection is raised: in ancient times the peoples did not intervene in any way at all in the selection of bishops. That they did not always intervene directly and by explicit consent, is granted; that they did not intervene at all, not even mediately and by legal consent, we deny. In the absence of historical testimony, it is admittedly impossible to prove this statement directly.

 

Still, keeping in mind Catholic principles, it is fair enough to reconstruct the process somewhat as follows. The apostles and their principal aides, in accord with Peter’s consent and will, both selected the first bishops, and decreed that thereafter when sees became vacant the vacancy should be taken care of in some satisfactory way, and in a way which at the very least would not be without the intervention of the neighboring bishops. As often, therefore, in accord with this process, established with Peter’s approval, a new bishop was constituted in the early Church, Peter’s authority ratified that selection implicitly. Later on, when ecclesiastical affairs were arranged more precisely by positive law, the patriarchs in the Eastern churches and the metropolitans in the Western churches used to establish the bishops; but they did so only in virtue of the authority of the Apostolic See by which they themselves had been established, even though in a variety of ways. Finally, in later centuries the matter of establishing bishops was set up in different fashion; indeed in such a way that in the Latin church especially, the direct intervention of the Roman pontiff was required. (Ibid., 322-24, italics in original)

 

 

G. Van Noort on the Authenticity of Matthew 16:17-19

 

 

Some objections are based on rather broad tendentious views of the whole Christian message. The text is to be rejected because it does not square with the rest of Christ’s teaching. Thus, according to the eschatological theory, Jesus did not intend to found a society or Church which would continue after Him. He preached the kingdom of God which He was to inaugurate within a short time when He would reappear as the Messias in glory. Hence there was no need to make provision for the future, since He was expecting the consummation of all things in the very near future. Jesus therefore preached the kingdom of heaven. But instead of this kingdom there came the Church. Since the Parousia did not take place and the world continued to move on, the followers of Jesus, in order to survive, were forced to accommodate themselves to circumstances and to organize themselves into a society under an authority with gradually came to be considered as founded by Christ Himself. It follows necessarily from such a conception of the teaching of Christ that anything implying an enduring organization was wholly foreign to the mind of Jesus and is therefore to be rejected, since it merely grew out of the conditions of the later Christian community. Clearly, then, the present text with its reference to a Church which is to last forever and is organized under a supreme head, peter and his successors as representatives of Christ—such a text, so strikingly “ecclesiastical,” cannot be part of the teaching of Jesus, but corresponds to a later situation and is therefore an interpolation.

 

It is naturally impossible at this point to discuss fully the view on which this rejection of our text is based. It involves a study of the nature of the kingdom as preached by Christ and of His claims concerning His own Person. A few words of reply to this revolutionary system must suffice here. There are some words of our Lord’s which, taken all by themselves, might suggest the idea of an immediate Second Coming or the like (e.g., Matt. 10:23). But alongside of such passages, which are admittedly difficult, there are many others which are certainly authentic and which cannot be construed in the eschatological sense. Thus, in Matthew 13, several of the Kingdom Parables suggest anything but a kingdom to be established in a miraculously divine manner and within a short time, not, at least, in the eschatological sense. Likewise the parts of the instructions in Matthew 10 which regard the future do not imply a view of the kingdom like that supposed by the Escathologists. Ao also the choice of the Twelve and the care given to their training by our Lord imply at least the intention of preparing for the future. Our Lords teaching concerning Himself should be taken into account too. Unless we are ready to admit that He was completely mistaken about His Person and His mission, we cannot consistently force the eschatological system upon Him. And if we grant that His horizon was not limited to the immediate future by the thought of the impending kingdom and Second Coming, then we cannot deny the possibility of His thinking of the future development of His work and of providing for it.

 

Some objections are of a more specific character. It is claimed, for instance, that the text is not authentic for reasons derived from the context. Thus from the point of view of the Two Source Theory, the promise betrays itself as an addition since it is wanting in the Gospel of Mark, the main narrative source of the first Gospel. And it was not in Q or the Logia, since St. Luke, who also used Q, does not record these two verses. To this difficulty we may reply that even from the standpoint of the Two Source Theory of the origin of Matthew, the conclusion of the critics is unwarranted. For, however, the absence of these verses from Mark and Luke may be explained, the fact remains that they have a very pronounced semitic flavor. In addition to the expressions discussed above, there are, in verse 17, the words, “Simon bar Jona” (Simon, son of Jona), and “flesh and blood.” Of these semitisms, one at least, the play on words in verse 18, is explicable only in Aramaic, and points clearly to an Aramaic original for our text. The linguistic character of the passage, therefore, establishes its Aramaic origin and, consequently, the early date of the tradition to which it belongs. Hence from the point of view of language alone we might hold, even on the Two Source hypothesis, that Matthew added these verses on the authority of an ancient Aramaic source which we should have no right to set aside lightly. Abstracting from the Two Source Theory and accepting the tradition of the Aramaic origin of the first Gospel, we may maintain that the striking Aramaic character of this text proves that it must have belonged to the Aramaic Gospel itself.

 

In favor of this conclusion, we may add that the promise in verses 17-19 forms the natural sequel to Peter’s confession in the preceding verses rather than betrays itself as an adventitious addition. Jesus had not questioned His disciples in order to find out for Himself, for His own personal information, what people in general or His disciples thought of Him. His intention was to obtain a profession of faith from them. When this profession, which He has Himself elicited, is forthcoming, we should expect Him to make some comment on the answer He has obtained. This comment we have in the words given in verses 17-19, which thus form an appropriate conclusion.

 

Consequently, whether we consider the peculiarities of the language of these verses or their relation with the preceding context, there is no solid reason for rejecting their early date and authenticity. It may be noted in addition that the later the date when the verses were supposed to have been introduced into the text *during the second century, according to some), the more difficult it becomes to explain their origin satisfactorily. We should hardly expect a forger at such a late date to try to create the impression of authenticity by giving his production its strong Aramaic flavor. Nor could we explain readily how such an addition would have passed into all the MSS and into all the ancient versions. The text is found everywhere in the form in which it is known to us. There are some variants but they are no more serious than they are in other parts of the Gospel.

 

As a final reason confirming the authenticity of these verses, we may appeal to the unquestionable fact attested by the New Testament in various places that Simon, the brother of Andrew, received from Jesus the name of Peter (Kepha’). Such a strange and significant name, which finds no explanation in the character or temperament of its bearer, must have been explained on some occasion. This is just what Matthew reports to have taken place on the occasion of Peter’s confession.

 

The conclusion from this review of the arguments against the authenticity of verses 17-19 is that there is no evidence compelling us either to reject or even to question their authenticity but rather that a number of reasons speak distinctly and loudly in favor of that authenticity. And so it is not surprising to see some critics unable or reject or condemn the text as a whole, rejecting only some words as interpolated. Or, if they keep the text as it stands, they try to force upon it an altogether different interpretation. Their frantic and often embarrassed efforts to be rid of or to adulterate the passage offer eloquent testimony to the importance they attach to it. (G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, Volume II: Christ’s Church [trans. John J. Castelot; Cork: The Mercier Press Limited, 1961], 403-6)

 

Some mention should be made here of the rather desperate attempt of Harnack, in his 1918 essay on Peter as Rock of the Church, to disprove the authenticity of the crucial verse 18. He appeals to the fact that St. Ephraem, in his commentary on Tatian’s Diatessaron, does not quote 18b, but only 18a and c, and that in 18c, instead of “shall not prevail against it,” he has “shall not prevail against thee.” But, although St. Ephraem, quotes an incomplete text and has a change of pronouns, it does not follow that his source, the Diatessaron, had this shorter text and in this form. For the rest of St. Ephraem’s explanation, wherein he describes the building of the Church, proves that he was acquainted with 18b also. To say with Harnack that this knowledge of 18b was derived from the “Separated Gospels” and not from the Diatessaron is a poor explanation. According to the conclusions of recent critics who have thoroughly examined this point, all the evidence shows that St. Ephraem used only the Diatessaron. Hence if it is admitted that this comment on the verse reveals his knowledge of 18b (even though he does not quote it), it follows that he read 18b in the Gospel text, i.e., in the Diatessaron. Therefore, the absence of 18b from the words of the text quoted by St. Ephraem proves merely that he did not feel bound to quote the text in full. And if he felt that way, we cannot hold that he must necessarily have reproduced with scrupulous care the part which he actually did use. Since he dealt freely with his text by omitting part of it, we may conclude that he dealt freely with the part which he actually did use. Thus, though he says “shall not prevail against thee,” there is no real proof that the Diatessaron had the second person pronoun instead of the third. Rather, since he omitted 18b with its mention of the rock and of the Church, he had to change the pronoun “it” to “thee” in order to make sense. This change, required by the turn he gave the sentence, may have suggested itself to him all the more readily since, like other commentators of antiquity, he understood that the gates of hell would not prevail against the rock on which the Church is built instead of against the Church itself, and he identified the rock with Peter.

 

Hence nothing can be concluded against the traditional text of verse 18 from St. Ephraem’s commentary. There is no serious evidence that the Diatessaron had an older form which lacked 18b, and thus there is no external evidence permitting us to regard this clause as a later insertion into the verse. And even if Harnack had proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that St. Ephraem—and the Diatessaron—did not read 18b, what would he have proven? Simply the fact that one father and one version of the Gospel omitted part of verse 18. What possible conclusion would this solitary instance permit us to draw regarding the authenticity of the text in the face of its otherwise universally attested integrity? (Ibid., 409 n. 11)

 

Thursday, October 29, 2020

Dallin Oaks, "Racism and Other Challenges"

 Dallin Oaks recently gave a devotional at BYU:


Racism and Other Challenges


The video can also be viewed on youtube:




Some progressive members of the Church have taken one portion of Oaks' speech out of context as if he supports the group Black Lives Matter (which is a terrorist organisation, for all intents and purposes). However, Oaks said the concept of the lives of black people (including the unborn black children [*]) matters, but distinguishes the sentiment from the group with the same name:

 

The shocking police-produced death of George Floyd in Minnesota last May was surely the trigger for these nationwide protests, whose momentum was carried forward under the message of “Black Lives Matter.” Of course, Black lives matter! That is an eternal truth all reasonable people should support. Unfortunately, that persuasive banner was sometimes used or understood to stand for other things that do not command universal support. Examples include abolishing the police or seriously reducing their effectiveness or changing our constitutional government. All these are appropriate subjects for advocacy, but not under what we hope to be the universally acceptable message: Black lives matter.

 

In spite of some misrepresenting what Oaks said, he is not moving towards progressive concepts. Indeed, he has been, and continues to be, conservative on homosexuality and other issues.


Much still has to be done to address the racism of the Church's past history, including the temple and priesthood restriction. For a good book on the history of blacks within the Church, the following is a must-read:


Russell W. Stevenson, For the Cause of Righteousness: A Global History of Blacks and Mormonism, 1830-2013 (Greg Kofford Books, 2014)


(*) Here is an excerpt from Sam Brunson wishing that black women would murder in the womb more of their unborn black children on the By Common Consent blog (and no, I am not proving the URL--I would rather link to Neo-Nazi material than pro-abortion nonsense like this, but it does show what white progressives really think about black people:








Two Undisputed Instances where כפר (LXX: ἐξιλάσκομαι) is used to mean "propitiate/appease"

The following are two instances I found today where כפר is used in the sense of propitiate/appease, further refuting the thesis of C.H. Dodd et al:

 

And you shall say, "Moreover your servant Jacob is behind us." For he thought, "I may appease him (Heb: כפר ; LXX: ἐξιλάσκομαι) with the present that goes ahead of me, and afterwards I shall see his face; perhaps he will accept me" (Gen 32:20 [v. 21 in Hebrew] NRSV)

 

A king's wrath is a messenger of death, but a wise man will appease it (Heb: כפר ; LXX: ἐξιλάσκομαι) (Prov 16:14 NRSV)

 

  I have added these to the discussion of the atonement being propitiatory to my lengthy review of The Christ Who Heals:


Critique of "The Christ Who Heals"

François Decret on Cyprian and the Roman See

 

 

While the mission to teach, signified by the notion of "chair" (cathedra), was first given to Peter, it was also conferred with the same authority on all of the apostles: "The other apostles were the same as Peter except that Peter occupied a primal place of authority (primatus). This shows that there is but one church and one seat of authority. All of the apostles are good shepherds, yet there is one single flock that is led in one accord out to pasture. This unity must be firmly defended, especially by those of us who are bishops" (Cyprian, On the Unity of the Church 4-5). On the basis of the earlier text of On the Unity of the Church, Peter's primacy emerges as a symbol of and exhortation to unity. While Rome's privileged position could be likened to the rights of a firstborn, or conferred due to its ecclesiastical seniority, it did not mean that the Roman bishop had authority and jurisdiction over his episcopal colleagues . . . According to Cyprian, next to Christ's eminent authority, the Catholic church's greatest source of authority was the united collegium of bishops speaking with one voice in Christ's name. This notion of collegiality was especially developed among the African church leaders as bishops were elected by the clergy and laity and were later consecrated by other key provincial bishops. Hence, the bishop of Rome was not empowered with the authority to single-handedly make doctrinal or disciplinary decisions for the entire church. Firmilian's harsh words regarding Stephen have been noted: "to cut himself off from the unity of charity, to alienate himself from his brethren in everything" (Cyprian Letter 75.25.2). The Holy Spirit should serve as the ultimate guide and judge for the universal church, not the church at Rome. Thus, if the Roman bishop cut himself off from the church, which speaks through its unified body of bishops, it is imperative for the sake of unity that he be shown the error of his ways. In condemning Marcianus of Arles, Cyprian had already written: "it is plainly evident that a man does not hold the truth of the Holy Spirit with the rest of his colleagues when we find that his opinions are different from theirs" (Cyprian Letter 68.5). (François Decret, Early Christianity in North Africa [trans. Edward L. Smither; Eugene, Oreg.: Cascade Books, 2009], 74-75, 75-76)

 

 

1QHa XVIII and the meaning of "none besides me"

In the Thanksgiving Hymn (1QHa XVIII) from Qumran, we see that the language of “none besides me” (cf. Isa 44:6, 8) does not deny the ontological existence of other beings in the same category (Gods/gods, etc) but instead, a statement of incomparability:

 

See, you are the prince of gods and the king of the glorious ones, lord of every spirit, ruler of every creature. Apart from you nothing happens, and nothing is known without your will. There is no-one besides you, no-one matches your strength, nothing equals your glory, there is no price on your might. And who among all your wonderful great creatures will have the strength to stand before your glory? And what, then, is someone who returns to his dust, to retain [stren]gth? Only for your glory have you done all this. (1QHa XVIII 8-12 as found in The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition, eds. Florentino García Martínez and Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar [Leiden: Brill, 1997], 1:187; my thanks to my friend Christopher Davis for pointing this out to me).

 

 Further Reading


Refuting Jeff Durbin on "Mormonism" (exegetes Isa 43:10; 44:6, 8 and other relevant texts such as Gen 20:13 where Abraham states his belief in the ontological existence of plural gods--cf. the Book of Abraham)

C.J. Labuschagne on the language of "incomparability" in the Old Testament and Literature of Surrounding Cultures

Wednesday, October 28, 2020

G. Van Noort on the Lack of True Unity Within Protestantism

I recently got a loan of a book that I have seen referenced in a number of works by SSPX and Sedevacantists, Christ’s Church by G. Van Noort. Commenting on the lack of true unity among Protestants (in spite of their bogus claim to only disagree on “minor” issues), he noted:

 

Unity of doctrine is again quite obviously missing in Protestantism considered as a totality. In fact unity of doctrine can not be found even in the individual Protestant churches: each of them, at least the large Protestant bodies, has always been split by internal divisions—divisions and subdivisions which have increased with time. There is nothing strange in this fact, seeing that the fundamental principle of Protestantism—private judgement—is a principle which by its very nature militates against unity. (G. Van Noort, Dogmatic Theology, Volume II: Christ’s Church [trans. John J. Castelot; Cork: The Mercier Press Limited, 1961], 182)

 

In the footnote for the above, Van Noort continued:

 

This fact is not gainsaid, but emphasized by the modern Protestant ecumenical movement. Protestants themselves have grown weary of the fracturing process induced by the very principles of the Reformers and are hungry to restore Christian unity. While viewing the ecumenical movement sympathetically one must not confuse the external unity achieved by federating churches or by practical cooperation between various sects with the internal, organic unity we are here discussing. Such confusion evidently existed in the mind of the journalist who naively captioned his article un the United Church of South India (a merger of Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregational, and Reformed Churches in 1947): Lesson in Unity, (Life, Dec. 26, 1955, pp. 148-153). Actually this kind of unity has threatened to cause a crisis in the Anglican Church. Ronald Knox long ago envisioned the possibility of this type of Christian unity in a witty, devastating essay entitled: “Reunion All Round.” It showed how one might hope to unite in the Church of England “all Mahometans, Jews, Buddhists, Brahmins, Papists and Atheists” (Essays in Satire [1930] pp. 47-77). To achieve such unity all one has to do is eviscerate Christianity.

 

 

Listing of New Translations of the English Bible in the United States, 1808-1880

 The following useful table comes from:


Paul C. Gutjahr, An American Bible: A History of the Good Book in the United States, 1777-1880 (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1999), 193-94:

 

Year

Translator

Denomination

Scripture

1808

Charles Thomson

Non-aligned

Bible

1815

Charles Thomson

Non-aligned

Gospels

1823

Abner Kneeland

Universalist

N.T.

1826

Alexander Campbell

Baptist/Disciple

N.T.

1827

George R. Noyes

Unitarian

Job

1828

John Gorham Palfrey

Unitarian

N.T.

1830

Egbert Benson

 

Epistles

1833

Noah Webster

Episcopal

Bible

1833

Rodolphus Dickinson

Episcopal

N.T.

1833-37

George R. Noyes

Unitarian

Prophets

1842

A.C. Kendrick

Baptist

Bible

1845

Isaac Leeser

Jewish

O.T.

1848

Jonathan Morgan

Universalist

N.T.

1849

Nathan Whiting

Adventist

N.T.

1849

Francis Patrick Kenrick

Catholic

Gospels

1850

Spencer Cone & Wm. Wyckoff

Baptist

N.T.

1851

James Murdock

Congregational

N.T.

1851

Francis Patrick Kenrick

Catholic

Acts, Epistles, Apocalypse

1852

Hezekiah Woodruff

 

N.T.

1855

Andrews Norton

Unitarian

Gospels

1857

Francis Patrick Kenrick

Catholic

Psalms, Wisdom Lit.

1858

Leicester Sawyer

Presbyterian

N.T.

1859

Francis Patrick Kenrick

Catholic

Job, Prophets

1860

Francis Patrick Kenrick

Catholic

Pentateuch, Historical books

1861

Leicester Sawyer

Presbyterian

Prophets

1861

Leonard Thorn

 

N.T.

1862-64

American Bible Union

Baptist et al.

Partial N.T.

1864

Leicester Sawyer

Presbyterian

Daniel, Apocrypha

1864

H.T. Anderson

Disciple of Christ

N.T.

1865

Benjamin Wilson

 

N.T.

1867

Joseph Smith Jr.

Mormon

Bible

1868

George R. Noyes

Unitarian

N.T.

1869

Nathaniel S. Folsom

Unitarian

Gospels

1876

Julia E. Smith

 

Bible

1878

John B. Rotherham

Wesleyan/Baptist/Disciple of Christ

N.T.