I hope who have watched this video and the one prior to it, appreciate what these three Catholic gentlemen are doing to keep the integrity of the Faith intact. Jesus Christ is the beginning and end of all things. the navigation between can sometimes be confusing and is often used to mislead souls. With mu Episcopel blessing, I am H.E. Tetherow, SVC
Boy, if this isn't the most glaring example of the blind leading the blind I've seen in the last few years. I had no intention of responding anymore to Alex, but after this "correction" video popped up in my feed, I think one last correction is in order. I will not be responding after this. For those of you who don't know, Michael Creighton is critiquing my translation of canon 737, a translation which I provided after pointing out that Creighton's Latin was completely wrong in the previous video. Just a quick aside - I've studied Latin for over 20 years and have been a Latin teacher for nearly 10, so those are my credentials. Michael's credentials are that he picked up Latin from his children's homeschooling lessons. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people self-teaching, learning, and homeschooling; but if you're going to do it, do it right. It would be generous to say that Michael has anything more than a first-year Latin student's level of knowledge on the subject. Which brings us neatly back to the matter at hand. Michael's so-called correction at the beginning of the video is yet another blunder that shows his ineptitude in Latin. He gave you one source from an online dictionary and told you those were the possible meanings of the word "ad". He then further explained that translating "ad" as "for" was a weak translation. He's wrong on both counts. If Michael had thought to check one or two other sources, he might not have made yet another blunder. Cassel's Latin-English dictionary, for example, gives "for" as a correct and proper translation for "ad" when used in purpose clauses. Or perhaps he could have checked the Oxford Latin Dictionary, which has an entry for "ad" spanning over three pages, to illustrate the broad range of its uses. In order to understand what "ad" means, you have to know the context in which its used. Let me illustrate this with a simple English example. Bow and bow are two different words. Without context you have no way of knowing which bow is the weapon and which is the gesture, but in the following sentences you know exactly which is which. -- The soldier shot the man with a bow. -- I bow to my king. You see how context can clarify the meaning of the word? Now, in order to understand and properly translate the preposition "ad", you need context. When we take the context of Canon 737, the word "necessarius", modifying "baptismus" works in conjunction with the prepositional phrase "ad salutem" to create a purpose clause, which preposition in this case, more often than not, is translated with the word "for". So when Michael says that translating "ad" as "for" is a "weaker translation", he yet again shows that he hasn't the faintest idea what he's talking about. Not only is it not a weak translation; it is a proper and quite literal translation. And when Alex says that he didn't want to leave people with the impression that Michael's translation in the previous video was the only way to interpret canon 737, he's still leaving open the possibility that it's a correct translation. It's not. It's a wrong translation through and through. These people have no idea what they're talking about. I know the issue is much bigger than a single translation, but the simple fact that they got it wrong twice in a row, even after being corrected (in private the first time, I might add), shows they have no business commenting on matters such as this.
Hello Benedict, thank you for your reply. Is it your opinion that "for" is the only possible way to translate the sentence? And if so, how would that prove the Canon is heretical?
Can you explain then, how 737 isn’t to be understood as partly future oriented in the Latin? Because even if one actually receives baptism, that doesn’t secure them heaven, Like the Protestant false doctrine of once saved always saved. We know all men must persevere until the end of their lives in unity with God to be saved. So if you understand this passage as a present but also future oriented thing on salvation, (on both accounts, actually receiving baptism or the desire of having baptism like a catechumen,) they both are on the road to salvation if you think of it. Yes the one who is truly baptized is more on the road than the other. But can you see the logic behind this? The first step to actually being sacramentally baptized, is to desire baptism as an adult! And this understanding I believe perfectly aligns with the church teaching on the sacrament of baptism. We are saved from sin and death, made new creatures , adopted sons and daughter of God Most High! But we can lose our salvation if we do not persevere till the end. It’s not a guarantee of salvation. I feel your interpretation of the Latin, if you believe it teaches bod, you would have to act as if it’s teaching Protestant once saved always saved. If you understand it the catholic way, you don’t have to believe it teaches Bod or once saved always saved. Let me know your thoughts!
@@catholicwife given the parallel of your TH-cam handle to Alex's, I assume you're his wife. If my assumption is correct, then you can read the response I sent him in private only moments ago. As I said, I won't be addressing the issue anymore here.
@@servusdeiomnipotentis7981You have not explained how your position doesn't lead to defection, you just said you don't think it does. Your position is that the Pope promulgated the Code with heresy in it to the universal Church. You can pretend that isn't defection, but it would be if what you and MHFM were correct.
Thank you all for posting this discussion! It was very interesting. Although I do not hold your position on Baptism of Blood, I do find your criticisms of Baptism of Desire extremely helpful. Mostly because it is difficult today to find any one who does not have a position on BoD that is not Religious Indifferentism or something close to it. Thus there is not much effort to discuss the historic details of what those who positively did teach BoD did and didn't actually say! To my knowledge: Accepting BoB and BoD is never explicitly condemned. Rejecting BoB and BoD is never explicitly condemned. Religious Indifferentism has been explicitly condemned over and over, everywhere, from the beginning, and in all regions. Thank you for discussing the BoD + Invincible Ignorance = Non Catholics are saved error. This position really troubles me and seems to be clearly contrary to a massive amount of historic Catholic teaching. At least some of the well know Trads who teach it will admit that "not just Catholics are saved" 🤮 while others will say that they are made Catholics at the time of their death, having never once shown any attempt or intention of conversion. Very discouraging. Please keep up the good work. I look forward to seeing your next video. Also, what is Mr. Luke's TH-cam Channel please?
At 1:46:42 the speaker claims that in the encyclical Orientalis Omenes Ecclesias Pius XII refers to Eastern schismatics as "Christians". This is false. The encyclical refers solely to the faithful of the Ruthenian Church, which was obviously in union with the Papacy . The encyclical is available to read online.
Thank you for pointing that out. I will double check that. However, the overall point stands - Pope Pius XI called for the "union of Christians" in Mortalium Animos. According to the logic espoused by Bro. Michael in "Vatican II, Council of Apostasy", that would be heresy. What say you to that?
I am going to double check on your claim about Omenes Ecclesias from Pius XII. However, the overall point made still stands because Pope Pius XI said this in Mortalium Animos: Pope Pius XI: “So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ…” (Mortalium Animos # 10, Jan. 6, 1928) I pulled this citation right off of MHFM's website. He clearly calls non-catholics "Christians" and yet, he is not condemned for heresy by MHFM. Do you believe Pope Pius XI was in heresy for this teaching in Mortalium Animos?
I hope who have watched this video and the one prior to it, appreciate what these three Catholic gentlemen are doing to keep the integrity of the Faith intact. Jesus Christ is the beginning and end of all things. the navigation between can sometimes be confusing and is often used to mislead souls. With mu Episcopel blessing, I am H.E. Tetherow, SVC
Thank you Your Excellency - I am very grateful for all your help and feedback. I'm looking forward to our May 11th interview on Apostolic Succession.
MHFM has an excellent video covering this issue, the ‘17 code/bod.
Boy, if this isn't the most glaring example of the blind leading the blind I've seen in the last few years. I had no intention of responding anymore to Alex, but after this "correction" video popped up in my feed, I think one last correction is in order. I will not be responding after this.
For those of you who don't know, Michael Creighton is critiquing my translation of canon 737, a translation which I provided after pointing out that Creighton's Latin was completely wrong in the previous video. Just a quick aside - I've studied Latin for over 20 years and have been a Latin teacher for nearly 10, so those are my credentials. Michael's credentials are that he picked up Latin from his children's homeschooling lessons. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for people self-teaching, learning, and homeschooling; but if you're going to do it, do it right. It would be generous to say that Michael has anything more than a first-year Latin student's level of knowledge on the subject.
Which brings us neatly back to the matter at hand. Michael's so-called correction at the beginning of the video is yet another blunder that shows his ineptitude in Latin. He gave you one source from an online dictionary and told you those were the possible meanings of the word "ad". He then further explained that translating "ad" as "for" was a weak translation. He's wrong on both counts. If Michael had thought to check one or two other sources, he might not have made yet another blunder. Cassel's Latin-English dictionary, for example, gives "for" as a correct and proper translation for "ad" when used in purpose clauses. Or perhaps he could have checked the Oxford Latin Dictionary, which has an entry for "ad" spanning over three pages, to illustrate the broad range of its uses. In order to understand what "ad" means, you have to know the context in which its used.
Let me illustrate this with a simple English example. Bow and bow are two different words. Without context you have no way of knowing which bow is the weapon and which is the gesture, but in the following sentences you know exactly which is which.
-- The soldier shot the man with a bow.
-- I bow to my king.
You see how context can clarify the meaning of the word? Now, in order to understand and properly translate the preposition "ad", you need context. When we take the context of Canon 737, the word "necessarius", modifying "baptismus" works in conjunction with the prepositional phrase "ad salutem" to create a purpose clause, which preposition in this case, more often than not, is translated with the word "for".
So when Michael says that translating "ad" as "for" is a "weaker translation", he yet again shows that he hasn't the faintest idea what he's talking about. Not only is it not a weak translation; it is a proper and quite literal translation.
And when Alex says that he didn't want to leave people with the impression that Michael's translation in the previous video was the only way to interpret canon 737, he's still leaving open the possibility that it's a correct translation. It's not. It's a wrong translation through and through. These people have no idea what they're talking about. I know the issue is much bigger than a single translation, but the simple fact that they got it wrong twice in a row, even after being corrected (in private the first time, I might add), shows they have no business commenting on matters such as this.
Hello Benedict, thank you for your reply.
Is it your opinion that "for" is the only possible way to translate the sentence?
And if so, how would that prove the Canon is heretical?
Can you explain then, how 737 isn’t to be understood as partly future oriented in the Latin? Because even if one actually receives baptism, that doesn’t secure them heaven, Like the Protestant false doctrine of once saved always saved. We know all men must persevere until the end of their lives in unity with God to be saved. So if you understand this passage as a present but also future oriented thing on salvation, (on both accounts, actually receiving baptism or the desire of having baptism like a catechumen,) they both are on the road to salvation if you think of it. Yes the one who is truly baptized is more on the road than the other. But can you see the logic behind this? The first step to actually being sacramentally baptized, is to desire baptism as an adult! And this understanding I believe perfectly aligns with the church teaching on the sacrament of baptism. We are saved from sin and death, made new creatures , adopted sons and daughter of God Most High! But we can lose our salvation if we do not persevere till the end. It’s not a guarantee of salvation. I feel your interpretation of the Latin, if you believe it teaches bod, you would have to act as if it’s teaching Protestant once saved always saved. If you understand it the catholic way, you don’t have to believe it teaches Bod or once saved always saved. Let me know your thoughts!
@@catholicwife given the parallel of your TH-cam handle to Alex's, I assume you're his wife. If my assumption is correct, then you can read the response I sent him in private only moments ago. As I said, I won't be addressing the issue anymore here.
@@servusdeiomnipotentis7981You have not explained how your position doesn't lead to defection, you just said you don't think it does.
Your position is that the Pope promulgated the Code with heresy in it to the universal Church.
You can pretend that isn't defection, but it would be if what you and MHFM were correct.
Does Luke have a channel?? He mentioned a debate w Nick Santosusso? Would be interesting to see.
Here is the first of 2 debates with Nick Santosusso: th-cam.com/video/tT6cKGg83PI/w-d-xo.html
@@LivingEchoes1890 Thank you!!!
@@CATHOLICVEGAN85 You are welcome
Thank you all for posting this discussion! It was very interesting.
Although I do not hold your position on Baptism of Blood, I do find your criticisms of Baptism of Desire extremely helpful. Mostly because it is difficult today to find any one who does not have a position on BoD that is not Religious Indifferentism or something close to it. Thus there is not much effort to discuss the historic details of what those who positively did teach BoD did and didn't actually say!
To my knowledge:
Accepting BoB and BoD is never explicitly condemned.
Rejecting BoB and BoD is never explicitly condemned.
Religious Indifferentism has been explicitly condemned over and over, everywhere, from the beginning, and in all regions.
Thank you for discussing the BoD + Invincible Ignorance = Non Catholics are saved error. This position really troubles me and seems to be clearly contrary to a massive amount of historic Catholic teaching. At least some of the well know Trads who teach it will admit that "not just Catholics are saved" 🤮 while others will say that they are made Catholics at the time of their death, having never once shown any attempt or intention of conversion. Very discouraging.
Please keep up the good work. I look forward to seeing your next video.
Also, what is Mr. Luke's TH-cam Channel please?
Thank you for watching and for your comments. Would you like to join the podcast one day to discuss Baptism of Blood?
@@LivingEchoes1890 I would be delighted to!
@@EarlyChristianBeliefs Very good. After August 5th my schedule opens up. Can you email me at LivingEchoes1890@gmail.com ?
@@LivingEchoes1890 sounds good. I hope to talk with you soon.
At 1:46:42 the speaker claims that in the encyclical Orientalis Omenes Ecclesias Pius XII refers to Eastern schismatics as "Christians". This is false. The encyclical refers solely to the faithful of the Ruthenian Church, which was obviously in union with the Papacy . The encyclical is available to read online.
Thank you for pointing that out. I will double check that.
However, the overall point stands - Pope Pius XI called for the "union of Christians" in Mortalium Animos.
According to the logic espoused by Bro. Michael in "Vatican II, Council of Apostasy", that would be heresy. What say you to that?
I am going to double check on your claim about Omenes Ecclesias from Pius XII. However, the overall point made still stands because Pope Pius XI said this in Mortalium Animos:
Pope Pius XI: “So, Venerable Brethren, it is clear why this Apostolic See has never allowed its subjects to take part in the assemblies of non-Catholics: for the union of Christians can only be promoted by promoting the return to the one true Church of Christ…” (Mortalium Animos # 10, Jan. 6, 1928)
I pulled this citation right off of MHFM's website. He clearly calls non-catholics "Christians" and yet, he is not condemned for heresy by MHFM. Do you believe Pope Pius XI was in heresy for this teaching in Mortalium Animos?
@@LivingEchoes1890 Your argument is absurd. Stop misrepresenting Pius XI and stop attacking Most Holy Family Monastery.
@@soupoftheweek2402Is the Pius XI quote heresy?
@@CatholicHusband No.