Fake History Can in Principle Be Traced

Fiction is something else, but once something from the start makes a claim of being history, it can be traced, and a fake history can be traced to a fake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uj_vwtWt06o

Did Quintus write a letter to Marcus (the brothers both being named Tullius Cicero) saying Romans were at that time building Stone Henge?

No.

How did this source come to be taken for that?

A) A man named Sir Thomas Brown in 1684 writes a list of among other things Latin works we don't have.
B) David Erskine Earl Buchan in the end of the XIXth C first writes it presenting it as a translation, then when discovering it has been quoted as a serious source republishes under his own name what was a satire.
C) Not all were reached by Buchan's decision to own he had written "Quintus Tullius Cicero's" Letter himself. So, continued to quote it as an actual historic source.

What is very important to note is, Britain just after the time of the Roman conquest was NOT the immediate origin of the society that Brown and Earl Erskine inhabited. Rather, it was its far off past.

What is also very important to note is, it's not just the book of Mormon, but also modern scholarly speculation about the past that's in the same boat.

BUT, given the Gospels and Acts are immediate origin story of a Church claiming them as such, we don't have that wiggle room to speculate that it could have been a misunderstood work later taken as fact. The Church was not likely to forget the actual immediate origin in AD 50 or even AD 150. Just as Thomas Brown was not forgetting the Restoration after Cromwell and David Erskine was not forgetting the Acts of Union 1707. And by 150, the Church would already have such an ossified view of its immediate origin that it would have been impossible for a new source to gain traction with a new idea about it./HGL

Pascal Boniface : Raphaël Glucksmann, 1 : 0

Pourquoi Glucksmann veut interdire TikTok ?
Pascal Boniface | 25 juin 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh9mfErLJts

Deux propositions complementaires :

• une liberté d'expression complète n'est pas l'idéal de l'Église catholique, pourtant, ce qui, dans le meilleur des cas, limite la liberté d'expression doit être la vérité catholique, normalement à travers l'Église catholique, et non pas de l'argent à travers les structures de possession des média mainstream ;
• que la liberté soit accessible à des gens sans capital et aux jeunes, et qu'elle peut servir comme correctif, comme mentionne Pascal Boniface, n'a rien de contraire à la doctrine catholique. Bien entendu traditionnelle, avant les documents contestés de "Vatican II". L'index librorum n'existait qu'après l'invention de la presse, qui donnait un pouvoir disproportionné à des riches de s'exprimer. Et à leurs potes et protégés.

Il y a des Catholiques tradis qui, pour trouver faute avec la liberté d'expression qu'on exerce sur les média sociaux font appelle à Pape Léon XIII.

Il y a trois paragraphes qui en traitent, et ils aiment citer le sens des premiers deux :

Et maintenant, poursuivons ces considérations au sujet de la liberté d'exprimer par la parole ou par la presse tout ce que l'on veut. Assurément, si cette liberté n'est pas justement tempérée ...

Accordez à chacun la liberté illimitée de parler et d'écrire, rien ne demeure sacré et inviolable ...

L'inconvénient à éviter était pourtant déjà atteint avant les média sociaux. On ne va donc pas l'éviter en décourageant l'utilisation des média sociaux. Voici le troisième des paragraphes qui parle de cette question, et qu'on oublie parfois de citer :

Mais s'agit-il de matières libres que Dieu a laissées aux disputes des hommes, à chacun il est permis de se former une opinion et de l'exprimer librement ; la nature n'y met point d'obstacle ; car une telle liberté n'a jamais conduit les hommes à opprimer la vérité, mais elle leur donne souvent une occasion de la rechercher et de la faire connaître.

LIBERTAS PRAESTANTISSIMUM
LETTRE ENCYCLIQUE DE SA SAINTETÉ LE PAPE LÉON XIII SUR LA LIBERTÉ HUMAINE
https://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/fr/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_20061888_libertas.html

Pour résumer. Dieu n'a pas accordé la liberté de recherche ou d'expression ou d'éducation pour faire remplacer les premiers 11 chapitres de la Genèse par les thèses sur des millions d'années ou une évolution graduelle envers l'humain. On n'est pas une espèce qui parle en ayant inventé le langage, on n'a pas une morale parce qu'on se soit auto-domestiqués et on n'a pas le droit de se ranger avec Yves Coppens, Pascal Picq ou Théilhard de Chardin. Sous réserve que Pascal Picq ne se convertira pas, il n'est pas encore mort. Par contre, la solution exacte comment par exemple une date carbonique de 42 000 ans puisse être calculé si l'univers n'en à que 7200, Dieu n'a pas explicitement tranché dans la Bible, et je suis libre et dois être libre de proposer ma solution. En général : Newer Tables, Flood to Joseph in Egypt, pour les dates antérieurs du Déluge : What Would 220 Before the Flood Date To? Carbon Wise?, pour des dates de 40 000 ou 42 000 des choses avec une continuation directe après le Déluge : Did the Jomon People Arrive to Japan in Pre-Flood Times? (les hommes attestés par outils ou boucherie à Takegahana pour l'année carbonique 40 000 avant nous sont à mon avis pas identiques aux Jomon), Did Tianyuan Man Live Pre- or Post-Flood? (l'homme de Tianyuan a vécu après le Déluge, un effet réservoir très probable par rapport à son calcium par l'eau ou sa nourriture en poissons l'a fait dater comme avant le Déluge). Ni ma défense de la vérité biblique, soutenue longtemps par le magistère indouté de l'Église, ni mes solutions techniques, sont fautifs d'un point de vue catholique./HGL

Biden

Source supplémentaire :

BREAKING: Joe Biden Officially Becomes Master Freemason!!!!
Spencer Smith | 25 janv. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU__8QOh74Y

La discussion dans la vidéo n'est pas mon propos.

Ceci est une troisième source à côté de deux autres vidéos citées dans l'article anglais : I Do Not Intend to Join Joseph Robinette Biden Jr. In Masonry. Dans lequel je clarifie que ma non-appartenance à la maçonnerie est de mon intention et va durer.

Le truc est, Mr. Michael Lofton s'est posé la question si, à côté de l'excommunication automatique (latae sententiae) il y a aussi une excommunication par "le pape" (il vise Bergoglio). Dans le cas que Biden accepta l'appartenance pendant sa présidence, seul le pape peut canoniquement prononcer une excommunication.

Et certains diraient que Bergoglio ne va pas le faire.

Sur une excommunication automatique, on peut ajouter une excommunication prononcé, mais aussi une simple déclaration que l'excommunication automatique était incourue. Comme le fit Wojtyla le 2 juillet 1988 à propos du Mgr Lefèbvre, dans le cadre du document Ecclesia Dei.

Contrairement à l'excommunication pour la maçonnerie, celle pour national-socialisme (oui, il y a eu une telle) n'était pas automatique dans la loi canonique. Par contre, avant 1933, tous les membres de NSDAP étaient excommuniés par les évêques catholiques d'Allemagne. À partir du concordat au moins ceci ne vaut que pour les national-socialistes de haute position dans le parti. Dont évidemment Hitler.

La raison adéquate pour laquelle Pie XII n'ait pas excommunié Hitler pour national-socialisme est qu'il était déjà excommunié pour ça. La raison pourquoi il ne l'ait pas excommunié pour d'autres crimes est, il avait peur que Hitler se venge sur les faibles sous son pouvoir, Catholiques comme Juifs.

C'est probable que dans la démarche de Biden il y ait une provocation : que fera "le pape" (et les autres reclamant d'être pape) ? Car, il semble indéniable que ce fut pendant la présidence qu'il encourut l'excommunication.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. François de Sales
29.I.2025

Mr. Vance, Did You Know That ...

... A, the sanctity of Church asylum is a tradition of the Church going back to when it became legal?
... B, this had a precedent in the Old Covenant?

The need to protect the public is actually met by keeping someone in a sanctuary. And some violent criminals are in fact not very violent people, if only certain others would leave them alone.

I was convicted of violent crime once. It was in 1998. About a month earlier, I had been acquitted.

So, I was only convicted in a court of appeal.

The people I would have preferred to be left alone from were mental health professionals.

I have spent 20 years in France (or it will be 20 years a few months from now) and 15 + years in Paris with surroundings. The time in the South functioned as a sanctuary, meaning, it was in some sense repressive, though obviously less so than a prison, the time in Paris and surroundings has been more and more intensity of indirect, palpable but not seizable, harrassment from mental health professionals. Or people pretending to be. I have not committed any second violent crime despite this, but I sometimes wish I had. The criminal party is they, and the harrassment makes me irritated and they can describe me as dangerous.

It's obviously a very different story with someone who had simply assaulted a perfectly innocent person, for instance to commit a robbery or a rape, who has been convicted of that. But I bet some people who are even convicted of certain violent crimes could be in a situation where they were in some sense defending their dignity against an unjust aggressor like psychiatry. The Swedish one being apparently prepared to compare someone denying a current explanation in sciences to someone committing radical scepticism over all sense experience and use the deviance from Swedish very prevalent scientism to crack down on someone as mentally ill. And obviously, there are very obnoxious people here and there who will try to crack down on someone simply for having his luggage somewhere in the street or a corner of a building or for needing a place to pee and maybe even shit when the closest toilets are closed. When it comes to missing children, in how many cases are they missing according to the other side of a custody battle? Maybe even involving CPS? At least hear the children out in what they say themselves./HGL

PS, to clarify. When I say different, I do not mean in relation to the right of asylum granted by a Church. I mean in relation to getting back one's honours as a respectable citizen./HGL

Communist One World State — Condemned

St. James day of 1920, Pope Benedict XV:

Est enim flagitiosissimi cuiusque votis atque exspectationi maturus ortus Cuiusdam universalis reipublicae, quae perfecta hominum aequalitate et bonorum communione, tamquam principiis innitatur, et in qua nec ulla sint nationum discrimina, nec patris in filios, nec publicae potestatis; in cives, nec Dei agnoscatur in homines consociatos auctoritas. Haec si deducantur in usum, miros terrores sequi necesse est; et eos nunc quidem non exigua Europae pars experitur ac sentit. Atqui condicionem eiusmodi ceteris etiam populis quaeri videmus, concitatisque paucorum furore et audacia plebibus, magnas hic illic turbas subinde exsistere.

Official Latin text: BENEDICTUS PP. XV
MOTU PROPRIO BONUM SANE
https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xv/la/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xv_motu-proprio_19200725_bonum-sane.html

S’è infatti maturato nei voti e nell’aspettazione dei più sediziosi l’avvento di una certa repubblica universale, la quale sia fondata sulla uguaglianza assoluta degli uomini e sulla comunione dei beni, e nella quale non vi sia più distinzione alcuna di nazionalità, non si riconosca l’autorità del padre sui figli, né del potere pubblico sui cittadini, né di Dio sugli uomini riuniti in civile consorzio. Cose tutte che, se fossero attuate, darebbero luogo a tremende convulsioni sociali, come quella che ora sta desolando una non piccola parte d’Europa. E appunto per creare anche tra gli altri popoli una simile condizione di cose, noi vediamo che le plebi sono eccitate dal furore e dall’impudenza di pochi, e qua e là si verificano ripetutamente delle sommosse.

Official Italian translation: BENEDETTO XV
BONUM SANE
https://www.vatican.va/content/benedict-xv/it/motu_proprio/documents/hf_ben-xv_motu-proprio_19200725_bonum-sane.html

Indeed, in the votes and the expectations of the most seditious, an idea has matured of a certain universal republic to come, founded on the absolute equality of men and on the communion of goods, in which there would no longer be any distinctions of nationality, and in which is recognized neither the authority of the father over his children, nor the public authority over the citizens, nor the authority of God over men united in a civil consortium. All things which, if they were realized, would necessarily give rise to tremendous societal convulsions, such as that which is now devastating a not small portion of Europe. And precisely to bring about a similar condition of things among other peoples, we see that the common people are agitated by the fury and the impudence of a few, and here and there we see riots.

Possibly private English translation: St. Joseph against Socialism: 100 Years of Bonum Sane
https://fssp.com/st-joseph-against-socialism-100-years-of-bonum-sane/

Other English translation of this paragraph, without the last sentence:

« The coming of a world state is longed for, and confidently expected, by all the worst and most disordered elements. This state, based on the principles of absolute equality of men and a community of possessions would banish all national loyalties. In it no acknowledgment would be made of the authority of the father over his children, or of God over human society. If these ideas are put into practice, there will inevitably follow a reign of unheard of terror. »

Pope Benedict XV on One-World Government
https://www.virgosacrata.com/benedict-xv-on-one-world-government.html

Voici, en effet, que mûrit l’idée que tous les plus dangereux fauteurs de désordre appellent de leurs vœux et dont ils escomptent la réalisation, l’avènement d’une république universelle, basée sur les principes d’égalité absolue des hommes et de communauté des biens, d’où serait bannie toute distinction de nationalités et qui ne reconnaîtrait ni l’autorité du père sur ses enfants, ni celle des pouvoirs publics sur les citoyens, ni celle de Dieu sur la société humaine. Mises en pratique, ces théories doivent fatalement déclencher un régime de terreur inouïe, et dès aujourd’hui une partie notable de l’Europe en fait la douloureuse expérience. Or, ce triste régime, Nous voyons qu’on le veut étendre à d’autres peuples encore ; Nous voyons l’audace de quelques exaltés soulever la populace et susciter çà et là de graves émeutes.

French translation by (or through) SSPX: Motu proprio Bonum sane
https://laportelatine.org/formation/magistere/motu-proprio-bonum-sane-1920

Sancte Petre, ora pro nobis. Sancte Iacobe, ora pro nobis. Sancte Ioseph, ora pro nobis./HGL

Refutation of Dr. Steven Nemes

New blog on the kid: Refutation of Dr. Steven Nemes · I Heard the Cardinal Zen had Taken on Michael Lofton · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Michael Lofton on Marcel Lefebvre, Me on Both and on Pope Michael · Sola Scriptura is NOT My Position · Michael Lofton Responded to Cardinal Zen · Great Bishop of Geneva! Blunder, Gendron!

My citations of his original may exceed the percentage for fair use. Sorry, but not very sorry. His video is at the bottom.

I'm going to be uh presenting on 0:09 the subject the myth of apostolic succession I'm going to be arguing that 0:15 the earliest evidence that we have for a notion of apostolic succession in the 0:21 Catholic or Proto-Catholic churches does not support the conception of apostolic succession that you find in 0:27 for example modern Roman Catholic the theology or Eastern Orthodox or Anglican theology as well

Yeah!

Protestant goes to Tradition and forgets the Bible!

It is true, in a banale way, that the apostolic succession in a see mentioned by early Church Fathers is sth else than the apostolic succession we speak of when a bishop A consecrating bishops B, C and D, has these for Apostolic Succession (e g Williamson, Tissier de Mallerais, Galareta and Fellay are the Apostolic Succession of Archbishop Lefebvre) and each of them has him closest in their Episcopal Lineage.

However, the latter exists in the Bible.

Sts Barnabas and Paul had Simon Niger and a few more in their Episcopal Lineage, while St. Paul had Sts Timothy and Titus in their Apostolic Succession.

the notion of apostolic succession is essential to the 1:23 Roman Catholic Church's self-conception the Bishops of the Roman Catholic Church claim to possess theological authority over Christians 1:30 because they are the successors of the Apostles

Yes.

the apostles took care to appoint successors 4:52 because they knew that their mission had to continue to the end of the world um it's hard to 4:59 uh reconcile this idea with the suggestion that the apostles were expecting the world to end within their 5:06 lifetime um or that the apostles maybe died before you know being able to enact uh 5:13 appoint successors um they probably thought of themselves as being you know 5:19 if if you're expecting that the world is going to end during your lifetime and your death comes upon you suddenly I don't think you have the the frame of 5:25 mind or even the concern to you know appoint successors.

Great! He argues from the idea that the first Christians were wrong about when the world was ending, but even worse, the idea that their Church structure so reflected this that it was a fleeting thing, like Burning Man.

they not only had helpers in their Ministry but also in order that the mission assigned to 5:38 them might continue after their death they passed on to their immediate Cooperators as it were in the form of a testament the duty of confirming and 5:45 finishing the work begun by themselves recommending to them that they attend to the whole flock in which the Holy Spirit 5:51 placed them to Shepherd the Church of God they therefore appointed such men and gave them the order that when they 5:58 should have died other approved man would take up their Ministry

Pretty closely matches what St. Paul is teaching two of his successors in the Pastorals!

Here he cites a source on Catholic doctrine:

in the practice of both the Church of the East and of the West it is clear 9:03 that by means of the imposition of hands and the words of consecration the grace of the holy spirit is so conferred and 9:09 the sacred character so impressed that Bishops in an eminent and visible way sustain the roles of Christ himself as 9:14 teacher Shepherd and high priest and that they acts in his person therefore 9:19 it pertains to the Bishops to admit newly elected members into the Episcopal 9:25 Body by means of the sacrament of orders let me read that last sentence one more time there therefore it pertains to the 9:31 Bishops to admit newly elected members into the Episcopal poy by means of the sacrament of 9:39 orders

Again, matches Pastorals. Timothy had the sacrament from Paul, and handed it on, and the sacrament is expressed by the laying on of hands and confers grace.

Impose not hands lightly upon any man, neither be partaker of other men's sins. Keep thyself chaste
[1 Timothy 5:22]
For which cause I admonish thee, that thou stir up the grace of God which is in thee, by the imposition of my hands
[2 Timothy 1:6]

If it didn't confer also some kind of special authority, why would St. Paul add "neither be partaker of other men's sins"?

He's basically saying, because ordination confers authority, the one who lays hand on an unworthy candidate is an enabler who pushes victims into the way of an abuser.

Precisely as Dr. Steven Nemes in the following minutes characterises episcopacy, the Bible describes it. The Father has sent Jesus Who sends the Twelve (John 20, Matthew 28), these then select others and initiate them. While St. Paul was selected by Jesus as Apostle, he was initiated as bishop by Simon Niger and a few more (Acts 13). Now he is going to make his observation:

no 10:38 one can become a bishop unless made one by another bishop or by an apostle ... the last point 11:43 there from this it follows that every true Bishop should be capable of tracing his consecration back to an apostle by means of other duly consecrated Bishops 11:50 um this is the big important part okay because if you were consecrated Bishop 11:55 by somebody who's not a bishop then you're not really a bishop in Roman Catholic theology and also in the the Theology of Eastern 12:01 Orthodoxy and um traditional anglicanism so this is the important part this also 12:07 is I think the myth of apostolic succession now one principal reason why I am not a Roman Catholic or an Anglo-12:14 Catholic or an Eastern Orthodox for that matter is that I believe that this notion of apostolic succession is12:19 mythical

He is now going to prove the point by ignoring the Bible as the very earliest source and call Church Fathers "the earliest sources" ..

there is a notion of apostolic succession in the earliest sources but 12:24 it is not the doctrine that the Roman Catholic Church presents and which these other communions also take for granted 12:31 more specifically there is not only no evidence in favor of the proposition that all Bishops can trace their 12:36 consecration by means of other duly consecrated Bishops back to an apostle but there is also some considerable 12:42 evidence to the contrary

He will now ignore the Gospels, Acts and Pastorals as earliest source.

no early Source says that a bishop can only made such by an apostle or another Bishop so 13:02 this idea is nowhere to be found in the early sources at least so far as I can tell if I'm wrong somebody can prove me 13:07 wrong um the second Point some early sources seem to imply that not all 13:12 Bishops were made such by other Bishops

As the Bible has already outlined Apostolic Succession in the modern sense of the word, and as it was being practised all over the field, it's no big deal if the doctrine finds no distinct mention but is implied with another doctrine, like that of series pastorum, as guardians of tradition.

Now, I'll skip forward to where he pretends a source will imply that some bishops were made such, but not by anyone already a bishop.

But OK, first he comments adversely on First Clement.

so there are a lot of things to say here about first Clement 18:44 but let's notice what does he what does it explicitly say it says that the apostles appointed Bishops and 18:49 deacons uh it says that they made the office of Bishop and Deacon permanent now this seems ridiculous to me if you 18:56 if you are aware of the um eschatological expectations of the early church and the fact that Jesus and 19:03 the apostles and Paul and all the rest of them were anticipating that Christ would return in their own lifetime

Yeah, right, the idea that the first Christians expected to see the world end in their own lifetime ...

I think that 19:26 this is just um a story that that Clement is making up here I don't think that there's any reason to believe it

And his own idea of the ideas of the first Christians isn't somehow made up by some modern theologian?

But if this idea is not true, there is no remaining reason to stamp Clement's actual claim as untrue.

Ha, meanwhile I actually got to the point where he claims that he has early proof against "only a bishop can make a bishop" ...

here's another thing he says if the Bishops 19:39 appointed by the apostles should die other people should take their place so there always has to be a bishop in place 19:44 and a bishop can have been appointed either by the apostles or by other reputable men with the consent of the 19:50 whole church now this seems to imply that a bishop could be made such by someone who isn't a bishop because maybe 19:56 your Bishop dies and there's no one else around to consecrate him but a bishop 20:02 can be appointed by reputable men with the consent of the whole church

Pope Michael was appointed bishop of Rome in 1990, on July 16th, Our Lady of Carmel. He was consecrated bishop in 2011 or since it was already Advent, the Gaudete weekend, Saturday and the next day being Third Lord's Day of Advent, in the Church year 2012. This delay, whether you hold the claim he was really elected as true or as false, should illustrate the difference between appointment and consecration.

now so what Clement says is that a bishop may have been appointed by an 20:21 apostle or by reputable men with the consent of the whole church what does Clement not say he does 20:29 not say that a bishop must be able to trace his consecration back to an apostle either directly or indirectly by 20:34 means of other duly consecrated Bishops

No, but the Pastorals in the Bible make it very clear. St. Timothy could lay hands on people (I Tim 5:22) because St. Paul had laid hands on him (II Tim 1:6). St. Paul could do this because Simon Niger and others had laid hands on him and on Barnabas (Acts 13).

it has to be um a project that everyone 21:02 can get on board with right but it doesn't have to be a bishop making the person a bishop

Again, conflating appointment with consecration.

Now, the pastorals had already spoken of the consecration. The appointment procedure actually did see some modifications while the Apostles were living, and most notably, whatever city St. Peter had first been bishop in (Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome) or where St. Paul had planted the first local bishop (St. Paul planting St. Timothy in Thessalonica) needed procedures for appointing of bishops after that. This means these procedures are of human origin. This is why the procedures both for papal elections and for other episcopal elections in the West have been modified.

he could have written that himself uh that would have also notably 21:19 that would have invalidated the Corinthian Rebels from the very start because if they suddenly declared 21:24 themselves Bishops he could have just said from the beginning you are not Bishops since no Bishop ordained you

But what if the rebel bishop DID get a valid consecration? As I recall Second Clement, once he has submitted, there is a recommendation of receiving him elsewhere ... meaning he had a kind of episcopal charge, not that of Corinth, he could not just get back into the laity. In other words, he probably was validly but illicitly consecrated. Obviously, some Protestants have theorised Second Clement is a forgery ... this means they have more motives than the one that Second Clement doesn't come in obvious response to an already given demand for mediation. Their ways of "proving" books forgeries which are accepted by Tradition have obviously been reused in polemics against the Four Gospels.

I would say that the fact that the Corinthians deposed Bishops already shows that they did not have the notion 21:55 that a bishop had to be made such by another Bishop

Dr. Steven Nemes is presumably doctor in Theology some place. It is abundantly clear that he does not care or grasp the distinction between appointment and ordination / consecration.

I think there is very good evidence that the apostles were not talking with each other um one strong 23:15 piece of evidence is the fact that there are competing traditions in early Christianity about when to some when to 23:20 celebrate Easter um there is evidence in papius uh I mentioned in my earlier video a couple weeks ago or a week or 23:27 two ago uh that papus seems to know a few of Jesus's disciples but he intentionally ignores Paul

If Papias or his source, as he said, was around where the Twelve were speaking together (if there was any such place after Jerusalem), the consequence is he was not around where St. Paul was.

Acts 9:26—28 And when he was come into Jerusalem, he essayed to join himself to the disciples; and they all were afraid of him, not believing that he was a disciple. But Barnabas took him, and brought him to the apostles, and told them how he had seen the Lord, and that he had spoken to him; and how in Damascus he had dealt confidently in the name of Jesus. And he was with them coming in and going out in Jerusalem, and dealing confidently in the name of the Lord.

Galatians 1:17—19 Neither went I to Jerusalem, to the apostles who were before me: but I went into Arabia, and again I returned to Damascus. Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem, to see Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen days. But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord.

um there is 23:34 simply no evidence I think that the apostles were always talking with each other and Consulting with each other and 23:39 doing things as a group

There is a reason St. Peter is not counted as the first bishop of Jerusalem. Acts 1 says the Eleven were all together when St. Matthias was chosen as New Twelfth, and Acts 2:43, 44 And fear came upon every soul: many wonders also and signs were done by the apostles in Jerusalem, and there was great fear in all. And all they that believed, were together, and had all things common. This does not include St. Paul.

now we should not read too much into this verb Koto because it's 25:09 the word that's used for ordination and so on in uh modern uh Greek and in in 25:16 Byzantine Greek the verb means stretching out one's hand to vote at in an assembly okay so uh what 25:25 the what the D is suggesting is vote for yourselves who's going to be the bishop 25:30 and the Deacon in your churches okay that's what it says you cannot read too much into the verb hoto which is an old 25:36 Greek verb um what does the did not say notice that the person's chosen to be 25:42 Bishops it does not say that the person's chosen to be Bishops must be consecrated by Apostles or by other Bishops who can trace their consecration 25:49 back to Apostles that idea doesn't come up at all not only that the fact that these churches are being told to appoint 25:55 Bishops implies that they did not already have any if there were already a successional Episcopal system in place 26:01 in the churches there would be no need to tell them to appoint Bishops because they would be doing it already Okay so this successional Episcopal system of 26:08 the sort that Roman cathology Roman Catholic uh Roman Catholic theology envisions

We are still on First Clement of Rome to the Corinthians. Three hypotheses are perfectly available.

• the quarrel about the rebel bishop involved a break with ensuing confusion
• St. Clement reminded them of things they perfectly well knew
• St. Paul having formed Corinth, they were not sure if their rules matched that of "mainline Apostolic," so needed confirmation about it.

Now he reads a passage from St. Irenaeus, book 3. Since he will argue another time that Presbyters and Episcopi are identic in Irenaeus, I'll answer another time.

there are a lot of things we can talk about here in Irenaeus um I address irus at length in my book Theology of the Manifest and also in my book 37:35 Orthodoxy and heresy but what can we say about Irenaeus here first of all what does he say he says that the apostles 37:42 appointed successors in the churches that they founded uh he says that they were careful in choosing their successors since the teaching had to be 37:48 passed on accurately for future Generations these successors passed down the apostles teachings in the from the 37:54 beginning and at least in some cases these successors can be named the apostolic succession thus in Irenaeus is 38:01 primarily about the succession of the apostolic teaching it's being passed down from one person to the next the 38:07 responsibility of the bishop in Irenaeus

Yes, as mentioned St. Irenaeus is giving the important byproduct of apostolic succession that a series pastorum is. It's the Bible itself that gives apostolic succession as the term is now understood. Local bishop is one main function that a consecrated bishop can have, and the one that usually (Paris 1920 was an exceptional breakdown) is most important for maintaining Apostolic Tradition.

So, St. Irenaeus never makes the actual argument that a bishop to be a bishop needs to have consecration going back to the Apostles, instead he makes the argument that a local bishop to be a local bishop needs to have a series pastorum going back to the Apostles. Dr. Nemes will say that that ...

strongly suggests that the concept of the episcopate was different in his day 39:39 people the the the understanding of the place of the bishop and how you can become a bishop and Etc it was just 39:45 different in those days than it was for than it is in later Roman Catholic theology

When did it change?

He's willing to posit change from indirect evidence, but is very evasive about when the change is supposed to have happened, and how.

and the reason why is because 39:51 he has a very easy um you know bulletproof argument to make against the 39:57 Heretics if he did think that the episcopate was a closed Circle and the only way into it was to be welcomed into 40:02 it by somebody who's already in he never makes that kind of argument a few notes about irenaeus here 40:08 I don't believe him when he says that he can list the succession of the Bishops and all the churches founded by the apostles I don't believe that for a 40:14 second um I think actually that we do not know what happened or at 40:21 least not with very much Clarity what happened to most of the Apostles where they ended up how they taught there are later Traditions I think these are all 40:26 made up

Again, when were the original events forgotten and how were these traditions replacing the original one?

It's kind of a case of Mormonism positing a Great Apostasy just after the Apostles died, but it's really a case against Christianity he's making.

Scholars doubt the veracity of the Roman succession list that he 41:28 supplies it's contradicted by for example Tertullian and other figures who have 41:34 Clement being made the first Bishop of Rome not Linus

A list can be veracious even if it is not inerrant. It can have a fault or oversight without being made up.

The lists starting with Clement (after Peter and Paul, I presume) would not really prove a time gap between Sts Peter and Paul and Clement, just a gap in the transmission of the tradition. Given the acts of Clement about Corinth, he's vastly more colourful than Linus and Cletus, which would explain how these were forgotten.

um and it's notable that 41:39 Irenaeus only lists succession lists uh from communities with which he was closely associated in his own time um so 41:48 he mentions Polycarp in Smyrna um he mentions 41:54 Rome I don't he he says that you can do this for all the church but I think that's just Bluster I think he's making 41:59 that up I don't think it's true at all

How about this: he could not do it for all of the churches personally, but he knew other churches could equally supply their series pastorum. Without reading his words, I think he would be using "we" rather than "I" here.

Dr. Nemes is so cocksure of the Protestantism for which he needs to disprove the idea of Apostolic Succession, that he's casting suspicions on the honesty of a very early Church Father and Martyr. That attitude stinks worse than the rotting lice in parts of my scalp. Apart from throwing doubts on Christianity.

There is another probable reason why Tertullian (whom Nemes now cites) should be regarded as mistaken in making Clement the first successor of Peter:

the Church of Rome which makes Clement to have been ordained in 45:32 like manner by Peter in exactly the same way the other churches like exhibit their several worthies whom as having 45:38 been appointed to their Episcopal places by Apostles

Very likely, Clement was not named immediate successor, but received ordination or consecration of some sort from St. Peter himself. Three possibilities:

• Clement received consecration as bishop without immediately receiving a see
• Clement was ordained as a presbyter (these two could combine as presbyters in some cities regularly being directly consecrated bishops back then)
• Clement was first in another see (not recorded)

However, Dr. Nemes will misconstrue this in this way, but first note what he quotes from Tertullian:

he says that 47:27 it's possible to name the succession of Bishops and all the churches founded by the apostles in the 47:32 cities what else does he say he says that there are churches which cannot derive their founding to an apostle or 47:37 an Apostolic man and yet are considered properly Apostolic because of their Doctrine if the Bishops of these 47:44 churches had to be consecrated by other Bishops whose consecration could be traced back to an apostle then they 47:50 would have been able to derive their founding to an apostle or to an Apostolic man so notice he's he is not 47:55 giving an argument here that he would give if this notion of the episcopate was the same in tulan as earlier um if 48:01 tertullian thought that every person who is a who is a a legitimate Bishop had to be duly consecrated by another Bishop 48:08 who could trace his consecration back to an apostle if that was the notion of apostolic succession at play he would have made this argument but he does not

What this boils down to is really that Tertullian is, like Irenaeus, discussing the series pastorum aspect, not what we would call apostolic succession.

And the reason for the preference is pretty obvious. It's easier to say that André Vingt-Trois came after Jean-Marie Lustiger (in a probably no longer fully apostolic doctrine, see the Paris break in 1920 and the Rome break in 1962-65), than to say that Lustiger was consecrated by Cardinal Marty or that he himself consecrated (?) Vingt-Trois.

The consecrations (which Sedevacantists would put in doubt due to change in rite) were two days, 14 October 1988 and the former one on 8 December 1979. The occupations (apparent) of the archsee were 1981 to 2005, 2005 to 2017, 24 and 12 full years.

Tertullian and Irenaeus were not taking their argument from what's more important, but from what's more apparent.

there are churches being founded in the present day which cannot derive their founder 48:22 back to the apostles but what makes them to be Apostolic is the fact that they agree with the apostolic churches in Doctrine 48:27 so this seems to imply that a bishop did not have to be made such by another Apostle by an apostle or by another 48:32 Bishop

Again, Dr. Nemes is dense for a supposed Dr. of Theology. Or he's really looking for excuses.

The first bishop of, for instance, Tours, St. Gatian, was not named or consecrated bishop by the Apostles, and he was also not named bishop of Tours by a previous bishop of Tours. B U T, he had been consecrated in Rome by Pope St. Fabian.

According to Christian historians,[2] during the consulship of the Emperor Decius and Vettius Gratus (250 AD), Pope Fabian sent out seven bishops from Rome to Gaul to preach the Gospel: Gatianus to Tours, Trophimus to Arles, Paul to Narbonne, Saturnin to Toulouse, Denis to Paris, Austromoine to Clermont, and Martial to Limoges. A community of Christians had already existed for many years in Lyon, where Irenaeus had been bishop.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatianus_of_Tours

Which brings us to the question, was the first bishop of Paris Denis the Areopagite or Denis sent by Pope Fabian?

I would say, there were two Denis in Paris, first the Areopagite, then the Church was left without residing bishop for some century, then refounded as a see by Denis sent by Pope Fabian.

So, Denis (II?) of Paris, as well as Gatian of Tours could trace their consecration back, they were not first bishops in their episcopal lineages, but only in their series pastorum.

at this time Apostolic Doctrine by itself is the sufficient for 48:40 apostolicity

Overreading. Apostolic doctrine certainly makes up for a series pastorum that doesn't go back to the Apostles, but it's not stated and it's elsewhere counterstated what Dr. Nemes seems to imagine, that it could as easily make up for an episcopal lineage not going back to the apostles.

now what does Tertullian not say he does not say that a bishop must be able to trace his consecration 48:46 back to an Apostle by means of other Bishops who can do the same

No, but St. Paul had basically made that point.

but he does not say that all the Bishops in that succession have to be consecrated by 49:47 another person who's already a bishop um or by an apostle

Actually, an Apostle who's not yet a bishop (Paul in Acts 9 to beginning of 13) could not do so ...

The reason he doesn't do so is that the series pastorum is more visible than the succession of consecrations.

If the recent archbishops of Paris had been presumed valid, the 24 years 1981 to 2005 are more visible than the one date 8 December 1979; the 12 years 2005 to 2017 are more visible than the one date 14 October 1988.

none of these early 51:00 sources say that a person can only be a bishop if he's made such by another bishop or by an apostle nobody says this

Is this one early enough?

And the things which thou hast heard of me by many witnesses, the same commend to faithful men, who shall be fit to teach others also
[2 Timothy 2:2]

At least for the training of the teaching office this clearly is so, and presumably therefore as to the consecration as well. There is a reason why modernist Protestants (like Evangelische Kirche in Prussia / German II Empire) have, since the 19th C. pretended the Pastorals are not by St. Paul.

each Source here suggests some of them more strongly than 51:13 others that people were being made Bishops without being consecrated by other Bishops

None of them do, except by the misreading of a Protestant who thinks that appointment and consecreation are the same. Perhaps a natural mistake within a human tradition where no one is consecrated bishop without being appointed bishop, no one ordained priest without being appointed priest of some charge, but as to readings of ancient sources, this is not even natural as a misreading.

And he's going to repeat his conclusion. This wrong conclusion.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
Feast of the Most Precious Blood
1.VII.2024

PS, his name corrected after publication, I always instinctively use ph, when sometimes it's v./HGL

The myth of apostolic succession in Roman Catholic doctrine
Dr. Steven Nemes | 27 juin 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Txmhl64bKY

Heschmeyer on Marriage and Church, Sharing

What Jesus’ Radical Marriage Teaching Reveals About the Church
Shameless Popery Podcast | 25 April 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knpjNwEO5Fk

Mark Hausam on Infallibility

Creation vs. Evolution : Answering Mark Shea · HGL's F.B. writings : Mark Shea's Post and My Comments + Debate · New blog on the kid : Mark Hausam on Infallibility

Here is a fairly great article:

How the Infallibility of the Church Works
by Mark Hausam · July 31, 2019
https://wherepeteris.com/how-the-infallibility-of-the-church-works/

How it is true can be exposed by an example: When a man who has followed Baius, Jansenius and Quesnel is confronted with something like the bull Unigenitus, he has no right to just shut up but still in his interior believe Jansenism.

He is obliged to believe Jansenism false, at least as to the condemnations included in the bull he is seeing (for instance Unigenitus).

This means, whoever is Pope has a real right to interior obedience of the faith of the faithful, not just an external obedience of silence.

Now, here is a point:

The fact that non-definitive teaching is not necessarily irreformable is not contrary to its reliability, for the reformable nature of such teaching does not come from any unreliability in the teaching but in the non-definitiveness of the magisterial intention. If the Pope teaches us that X is the best position to hold right now and that we ought to hold position X, but that this is not necessarily the final word on the subject, if later on we find that X is false we cannot be said to have been led astray by the Pope’s teaching, for that teaching did not teach us that X would never be overturned. But the reliability of the Pope’s ordinary teaching obviously precludes that teaching from including ideas that contradict what the Church has previously affirmed definitively–so, for example, heresy cannot occur in papal teaching (or any magisterial teaching), since “heresy” involves the denial of previously definitively taught dogmas–for we already know that such teachings cannot be true and that we should not hold them.

So, suppose "Pope Francis" were Pope. He has presumably taught that accepting evolution and long ages is the best position to hold. Suppose this is not intended to be definitive, in that case even so a Catholic were obliged to believe them, though perhaps in a non-definitive way.

But suppose again these positions are in and of themselves heretic. In that case we have a conundrum:

• do we conclude that, "as Francis is Pope," evolution (of clearly different kinds, like cat and dog from common ancestor) and millions of years and billions of years and a universe billions of lightyears across is to be believed?
• or do we conclude that, as common ancestry of cat and dog, as millions of years, directly or implied by seen distances, are contrary to the Bible and to the constant teaching of the Church, we must conclude "Francis" is not Pope?

I conclude the latter. A logical rule saying two things are incompatible (of themselves, or given a third, like "Pope Francis" words on "magician with omnipotent wand"*) does not of itself tell us which is to be discarded. However, one can look beyond the two, on some third.

St Augustine considered that Genesis 5 and 11 are straightforward history, to be taken as such. While St Jerome seems to have envisaged a possibility of the spirit world, the heaven of angels, being around for a long while before Earth was created, this cannot be applied either to Earth or anything on it or to celestial bodies. No Church Father envisaged in an endorsing way a long history of earth or of any material thing before the creation days. St Thomas Aquinas may or may not have written in his youth (I think he did, before getting to Paris or even Dominican order) Postilla in libros Geneseos** but he did swear an oath on upholding three texts. These are Historia Scholastica (by Peter the Eater), Sentences of Peter the Lombard, and Decree of Gratian. The one I mentioned first is a Biblical history, with sneak views on non-Hebrew history. Christ is born 5199 after Creation and Troy is taken when Eli was judge in Israel.

In other words, Fathers and Scholastics are all of them Young Earth Creationists.

So was Fr. George Leo Haydock, as can be seen from his last words in comment on Genesis chapter III:

Concerning the transactions of these early times, parents would no doubt be careful to instruct their children, by word of mouth, before any of the Scriptures were written; and Moses might derive much information from the same source, as a very few persons formed the chain of tradition, when they lived so many hundred years. Adam would converse with Mathusalem, who knew Sem, as the latter lived in the days of Abram. Isaac, Joseph, and Amram, the father of Moses, were contemporaries: so that seven persons might keep up the memory of things which had happened 2500 years before. But to entitle these accounts to absolute authority, the inspiration of God intervenes; and thus we are convinced, that no word of sacred writers can be questioned. H.

And bishop Challoner (cited just before) seems to leave no room for considering the sufferings of Cro-Magnon attributable to their being pre-Adamites rather than descendants of fallen Adam:

Thus we have seen how rapidly Moses describes the creation of all things, the fall of man, and the promised redemption. But in these few lines, we discover a solution of the many difficulties which have perplexed the learned, respecting these most important subjects. We know that the world is not the effect of chance, but created and governed by divine Providence. We are no longer at the loss to explain the surprising contrast of good and evil, observable in the same man. When we have attentively considered the Old Adam and the New, we find a clue to lead us through all the labyrinths of our Holy Religion. We could wish, perhaps, for a greater detail in Moses, but he left the rest to be supplied by tradition. He has thrown light enough upon the subjects, to guide the well-disposed, and has left sufficient darkness to humble and to confound the self-conceited and wicked, who loved darkness rather than the light. C.

In other words, if a Neanderthal was both a great technician, mastering glue, and a great sinner, in Belgium if not in Spain, doing cannibalism, while another Neanderthal in Shanidar was a sign of non-utilitarian care-taking, it is because he descends from Adam who both was created in God's image and ate the forbidden fruit.

One could of course imagine, all of them were so in a non-definitive way. Actually, if we go from Mark Hausam to the sources, I don't think there is room for that. For one thing, the mention by Pope St Gregory IX on "per se irreformabiles" has the qualification "nisi quid subreptum sit" (if my memory serves, I do not have Denzinger or Hefele before the eyes right now on the right page). But a teaching which is so constant and geographically universal cannot be "subreptum".

Indeed, when something is so ingrained into the fabric of dogma as original sin and of credibility of faith as a relatively short generational distance between first human sin by Adam and Moses writing it down, one cannot imagine anything like it could be "subreptum".

So, the rule of Mark Hausam is per se good and it should make us discard the papacy of "Pope Francis". Why?

It would be contrary to the justice and truth of God for legitimate authority appointed by him to legitimately bind us to teaching that it would be wrong to hold.

Thank you! However, this poses the problem where the Church is, if not in communion with "Pope Francis" - and the not too popular solution I endorse is, it was saved by the emergency conclave of David Bawden in 1990, from which he emerged elected and having accepted election as Pope Michael.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Audoux Library, Paris
St. Alphons Maria Liguori
2.VIII.2019

* Or, more seriously, "Catechism of the Catholic Church" endorsed by "Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis" in paragraph 283 treating modern "discoveries" on the "age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man" as precisely discoveries, as enrichments of the faith, and even attributing to the "discovering" experts a right to use the words of King Solomon in Wis 7: 17-22 - verses actually referring to inerring knowledge of Bible writers, which the modern scientists are not.

** It's latinity is clearly different from that of mature St. Thomas, but that could be because he had learned Latin first less classically with Benedictines, later more nearly classical with Dominicans.

I came across Edwin Benson's lampooning of Panera Cares again

New blog on the kid : Are Some Conservatives Trying to Tell me "Socialism Doesn't Work"? · I came across Edwin Benson's lampooning of Panera Cares again · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Is Anticapitalism a Condemned Socialist Heresy?

He seems to think*, a phrase penned by Karl Marx is automatically wrong because Marx penned it - or even just because Marx drew wrong conclusions from it:

In 1875, Karl Marx penned his most famous line, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” The idea was not original, but his precise wording is seared into the consciousness of every socialist and pseudo-socialist in the world.

It so happens, Popes have condemned socialism of the Marxist kind.

It so happens, Popes have a tradition of being very precise about what they condemn.

Pope Leo X for instance never said "I condemn the 95 theses of Luther". At least not in his preserved documents. He did say he condemned the 41 theses enumerated in Exsurge Domine. It can be stated that Lutherans have claimed Exsurge Domine was unjust, since lots of the theses stated in that document were not verbatim stated in the same words by Luther. If so, Pope Leo was asking Luther to remove suspicions of having intended the ones. And Luther showed a clear unwillingness to condemn these.

However, this means, if Marxist socialism is faulty because of the idea "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," then one can expect this idea to be adressed directly in one encyclical condemning Marxist socialism.

So, I did a little test on searching:

from each according to his ability to each according to his need
site:www.papalencyclicals.net/

First a false hit**, Misericors Dei Filius, Pope Leo XIII, because one paragraph featured both "according to" and "his ability", but not in the same sentence.

Next, Quam Singulari by Pope St Pius X twice features "according to his", namely:

2. A full and perfect knowledge of Christian doctrine is not necessary either for First Confession or for First Communion. Afterwards, however, the child will be obliged to learn gradually the entire Catechism according to his ability.

3. The knowledge of religion which is required in a child in order to be properly prepared to receive First Communion is such that he will understand according to his capacity those Mysteries of faith which are necessary as a means of salvation (necessitate medii) and that he can distinguish between the Bread of the Eucharist and ordinary, material bread, and thus he may receive Holy Communion with a devotion becoming his years.

So, "from each according to his ability" or "... capacity" apparently is OK in some contexts.

Next, Ecclesiam Dei on St Jehosaphat, by Pope Pius XI.

18. We invite most sincerely the Schismatics to join with Us in this unity of the Church, and We desire also that all the faithful, following the teachings and in the footsteps of St. Josaphat, may strive, each according to his ability, to cooperate with Us towards the achievement of this purpose. May all realize, too, that unity is not so much promoted by discussions or by other artificial means, as by the example of a holy life and by good works, especially those dictated by charity towards our Slav brethren and all other Easterners. This, too, is the thought of the Apostle St. Paul when he writes: “Be of one mind, having the same charity, being of one accord, agreeing in sentiment. Let nothing be done through contention, neither by vain glory; but in humility, let each esteem others better than themselves: each one not considering the things that are his own, but those that are other men’s,” (Philippians ii, 2, 4).

The other "according to his" was about God, according to His Holy Will:

24. Under his guidance and patronage let us especially devote ourselves to honoring the Sacrament of the Eucharist, the pledge and chief cause of unity, that mystery of the Faith which, because of their belief, enabled the Eastern Slavs who, even while they were separated from the Roman Church jealously preserved their faith and love for it, to avoid the impieties of the worst heresies. From it, too, we may hope for those fruits which Holy Mother Church prays for in all confidence at the celebration of this August Mystery, that “God may deign to grant us the gifts of unity and peace, which are represented mystically under the offerings of bread and wine.” (Secret of Mass of Feast of Corpus Christi) United, let the Latins and Easterners implore, in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, this grace of God; the Easterners “praying to Our Lord for the unity of all,” the Latins praying the same Christ, Our Lord, that “taking into consideration the faith of His Church, He may deign to bring it peace and unity according to His Holy Will.”

And, we come to an Antipope, probably, who in 1959 wrote Ad Petri Cathedram.

81. Once when a terrible schism was rending the seamless garment of the Church, Bishop Theophilus of Alexandria addressed his sons and brethren with words of pastoral zeal. We take pleasure in addressing these same words to you: “Dearly beloved, we have all been invited to heaven. Let each, then, according to his abilities imitate Jesus, our model and the author of our salvation.

90. We repeat this prayer, as does the whole Catholic world in union with Us. We are spurred by a burning love for all men, but also by that interior humility which the gospel teaches. For We know the lowliness of him whom God raised to the dignity of the Sovereign Pontificate, not because of Our merits, but according to His mysterious designs. Wherefore, to all Our brethren and sons who are separated from the Chair of Blessed Peter, We say again: “I am . . . Joseph, your brother.”[40] Come, “make room for us.”[41] We want nothing else, desire nothing else, pray God for nothing else but your salvation, your eternal happiness.

101. “But may . . . God supply your every need according to his riches in glory in Christ Jesus,”[51] that you may reap rich harvests and gather rich crops from the fields you have cultivated by your toil and your sweat.

So far, no condemnation of the sentence by Marx. It is a bit like looking for "Jesus rose from the dead" as said by Luther among the condemnations by Leo X. Since Jesus rose from the dead, Leo X was not likely to censor that.

In fact, we have 5th Ecumenical council saying:

Our great God and saviour Jesus Christ, as we are told in the parable in the gospel, gives talents to each one according to his ability, and at the proper time asks for an account of what has been done by each one. If the person to whom only one talent has been given is condemned because he has not worked and increased it, but has only preserved it without diminishment, how much more serious and more frightening must be the condemnation to which the person is subjected who not only fails to look after himself but scandalizes others and is a cause of offence to them ? It is clear to all believers that when a problem about the faith comes up it is not only the heretical person who is condemned but also the person who is in a position to correct the heresy of others and fails to do so.

Ooops, was Our Lord and God a socialist?

Quadragesimo Anno has three "according to his":

126. Although pained by the injustice and downcast in fatherly sorrow, it is so far from Our thought to repulse or to disown children who have been miserably deceived and have strayed so far from the truth and salvation that We cannot but invite them with all possible solicitude to return to the maternal bosom of the Church. May they lend ready ears to Our voice, may they return whence they have left, to the home that is truly their Father’s, and may they stand firm there where their own place is, in the ranks of those who, zealously following the admonitions which Leo promulgated and We have solemnly repeated, are striving to restore society according to the mind of the Church on the firmly established basis of social justice and social charity. And let them be convinced that nowhere, even on earth, can they find full happiness save with Him who, being rich, became poor for our sakes that through His poverty we might become rich,[58] Who was poor and in labors from His youth, Who invited to Himself all that labor and are heavily burdened that He might refresh them fully in the love of His heart,[59] and Who, lastly, without any respect for persons will require more of them to whom more has been given[60] and “will render to everyone according to his conduct.”[61]

(in 136) Those who are engaged in producing goods, therefore, are not forbidden to increase their fortune in a just and lawful manner; for it is only fair that he who renders service to the community and makes it richer should also, through the increased wealth of the community, be made richer himself according to his position, provided that all these things be sought with due respect for the laws of God and without impairing the rights of others and that they be employed in accordance with faith and right reason.

(end of 137) And the workers, sincerely putting aside every feeling of hatred or envy which the promoters of social conflict so cunningly exploit, will not only accept without rancor the place in human society assigned them by Divine Providence, but rather will hold it in esteem, knowing well that everyone according to his function and duty is toiling usefully and honorably for the common good and is following closely in the footsteps of Him Who, being in the form of God, willed to be a carpenter among men and be known as the son of a carpenter.

In Rite Expiatis, paragraph 34, we have an observation which includes the full phrase (or half of it) in an economic context:

To these rules were added others of no less importance; for example, on the duty of hearing Mass; of attending meetings called on certain fixed days; on the giving of alms by each according to his ability to help the poor and, especially, the sick; on the performing of the last rites for dead members; on the manner of exchanging visits in case of illness; on the manner of bringing back to the ways of virtue those who had fallen or were obstinate in sin; on the duty of not refusing the offices and functions assigned to each and to fulfill these with care; on the manner of settling disputes.

Rerum Novarum has:

31 It cannot, however, be doubted that to attain the purpose we are treating of, not only the Church, but all human agencies, must concur. All who are concerned in the matter should be of one mind and according to their ability act together. It is with this, as with providence that governs the world; the results of causes do not usually take place save where all the causes cooperate.

And another according to before:

20. Of these duties, the following bind the proletarian and the worker: fully and faithfully to perform the work which has been freely and equitably agreed upon; never to injure the property, nor to outrage the person, of an employer; never to resort to violence in defending their own cause, nor to engage in riot or disorder; and to have nothing to do with men of evil principles, who work upon the people with artful promises of great results, and excite foolish hopes which usually end in useless regrets and grievous loss. The following duties bind the wealthy owner and the employer: not to look upon their work people as their bondsmen, but to respect in every man his dignity as a person ennobled by Christian character. They are reminded that, according to natural reason and Christian philosophy, working for gain is creditable, not shameful, to a man, since it enables him to earn an honorable livelihood; but to misuse men as though they were things in the pursuit of gain, or to value them solely for their physical powers — that is truly shameful and inhuman. Again justice demands that, in dealing with the working man, religion and the good of his soul must be kept in mind. Hence, the employer is bound to see that the worker has time for his religious duties; that he be not exposed to corrupting influences and dangerous occasions; and that he be not led away to neglect his home and family, or to squander his earnings. Furthermore, the employer must never tax his work people beyond their strength, or employ them in work unsuited to their sex and age. His great and principal duty is to give every one what is just. Doubtless, before deciding whether wages are fair, many things have to be considered; but wealthy owners and all masters of labor should be mindful of this — that to exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain, and to gather one’s profit out of the need of another, is condemned by all laws, human and divine. To defraud any one of wages that are his due is a great crime which cries to the avenging anger of Heaven. “Behold, the hire of the laborers . . . which by fraud has been kept back by you, crieth; and the cry of them hath entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabbath.”[6] Lastly, the rich must religiously refrain from cutting down the workmen’s earnings, whether by force, by fraud, or by usurious dealing; and with all the greater reason because the laboring man is, as a rule, weak and unprotected, and because his slender means should in proportion to their scantiness be accounted sacred.

Were these precepts carefully obeyed and followed out, would they not be sufficient of themselves to keep under all strife and all its causes?

I think Pope Leo XIII actually paraphrased "to each according to his need" in this paragraph. Certainly, he makes it the duty of employer, not of state or of violent protest. But he makes "to each according to his need" an actual duty.

Here we have, again in non-financial context:

6. Since Jesus Christ has proclaimed that the special sign of discipleship with Him is that we “have love one for another” (John xiii, 35; xv, 12) can we give a mark of greater love for our neighbors than to assist them in putting behind themselves the darkness of error by instructing them in the true faith of Christ? As a matter of fact, this type of charity surpasses all other kinds of good works inspired by love just as the mind surpasses the body, heaven surpasses earth, eternity surpasses time. Every one that acts thus, inspired by love and according to the full measure of his ability, demonstrates that he esteems the gift of faith in the manner that one should esteem it.

It's from Rerum Ecclesiae.

So what about the encyclicals against socialism and communism?

Rerum Novarum is already cited. Divini Redemptoris actually has 16 occurrences of "according".

9. The doctrine of modern Communism, which is often concealed under the most seductive trappings, is in substance based on the principles of dialectical and historical materialism previously advocated by Marx, of which the theoricians of bolshevism claim to possess the only genuine interpretation. According to this doctrine there is in the world only one reality, matter, the blind forces of which evolve into plant, animal and man. Even human society is nothing but a phenomenon and form of matter, evolving in the same way. By a law of inexorable necessity and through a perpetual conflict of forces, matter moves towards the final synthesis of a classless society. In such a doctrine, as is evident, there is no room for the idea of God; there is no difference between matter and spirit, between soul and body; there is neither survival of the soul after death nor any hope in a future life.

Quoting 12 in full, because it actually cites the phrase:

12. What would be the condition of a human society based on such materialistic tenets? It would be a collectivity with no other hierarchy than that of the economic system. It would have only one mission: the production of material things by means of collective labor, so that the goods of this world might be enjoyed in a paradise where each would “give according to his powers” and would “receive according to his needs.” Communism recognizes in the collectivity the right, or rather, unlimited discretion, to draft individuals for the labor of the collectivity with no regard for their personal welfare; so that even violence could be legitimately exercised to dragoon the recalcitrant against their wills. In the Communistic commonwealth morality and law would be nothing but a derivation of the existing economic order, purely earthly in origin and unstable in character. In a word. the Communists claim to inaugurate a new era and a new civilization which is the result of blind evolutionary forces culminating in a humanity without God.

Ah, wait, the problem was not voluntary adhesion to a principle like "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." The problem is ... the collective society sees this as an occasion to draft people, to force them to give according to their full ability and to receive no more than they need, or rather actually less. This involves numbers both 2 and 3 of "according".

15. How is it possible that such a system, long since rejected scientifically and now proved erroneous by experience, how is it, We ask, that such a system could spread so rapidly in all parts of the world? The explanation lies in the fact that too few have been able to grasp the nature of Communism. The majority instead succumb to its deception, skillfully concealed by the most extravagant promises. By pretending to desire only the betterment of the condition of the working classes, by urging the removal of the very real abuses chargeable to the liberalistic economic order, and by demanding a more equitable distribution of this world’s goods (objectives entirely and undoubtedly legitimate), the Communist takes advantage of the present world-wide economic crisis to draw into the sphere of his influence even those sections of the populace which on principle reject all forms of materialism and terrorism. And as every error contains its element of truth, the partial truths to which We have referred are astutely presented according to the needs of time and place, to conceal, when convenient, the repulsive crudity and inhumanity 540 of Communistic principles and tactics. Thus the Communist ideal wins over many of the better minded members of the community. These in turn become the apostles of the movement among the younger intelligentsia who are still too immature to recognize the intrinsic errors of the system. The preachers of Communism are also proficient in exploiting racial antagonisms and political divisions and oppositions. They take advantage of the lack of orientation characteristic of modern agnostic science in order to burrow into the universities, where they bolster up the principles of their doctrine with pseudo-scientific arguments.

OK sounds like he would have disagreed with Panera Cares? Not to me.

In paragrapg 29 we are again reminded that the "Commie phrase" cannot be all the measure according to which, because there are other "according tos":

29. But God has likewise destined man for civil society according to the dictates of his very nature. In the plan of the Creator, society is a natural means which man can and must use to reach his destined end. Society is for man and not vice versa. This must not be understood in the sense of liberalistic individualism, which subordinates society to the selfish use of the individual; but only in the sense that by means of an organic union with society and by mutual collaboration the attainment of earthly happiness is placed within the reach of all. In a further sense, it is society which affords the opportunities for the development of all the individual and social gifts bestowed on human nature. These natural gifts have a value surpassing the immediate interests of the moment, for in society they reflect the divine perfection, which would not be true were man to live alone. But on final analysis, even in this latter function, society is made for man, that he may recognize this reflection of God’s perfection, and refer it in praise and adoration to the Creator. Only man, the human person, and not society in any form is endowed with reason and a morally free will.

30. Man cannot be exempted from his divinely-imposed obligations toward civil society, and the representatives of authority have the right to coerce him when he refuses without reason to do his duty. Society, on the other hand, cannot defraud man of his God-granted rights, the most important of which We have indicated above. Nor can society systematically void these rights by making their use impossible. It is therefore according to the dictates of reason that ultimately all material things should be ordained to man as a person, that through his mediation they may find their way to the Creator. In this wise we can apply to man, the human person, the words of the Apostle of the Gentiles, who writes to the Corinthians on the Christian economy of salvation: “All things are yours, and you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.”[12] While Communism impoverishes human personality by inverting the terms of the relation of man to society, to what lofty heights is man not elevated by reason and Revelation!

Same in paragraph 34:

The Church does not separate a proper regard for temporal welfare from solicitude for the eternal. If she subordinates the former to the latter according to the words of her divine Founder, “Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and His justice, and all these things shall be added unto you,”[18] she is nevertheless so far from being unconcerned with human affairs, so far from hindering civil progress and material advancement, that she actually fosters and promotes them in the most sensible and efficacious manner.

39. This, Venerable Brethren, is the doctrine of the Church, which alone in the social as in all other fields can offer real light and assure salvation in the face of Communistic ideology. But this doctrine must be consistently reduced to practice in every-day life, according to the admonition of St. .James the Apostle: “Be ye doers of the word and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.”[21] The most urgent need of the present day is therefore the energetic and timely application of remedies which will effectively ward off the catastrophe that daily grows more threatening. We cherish the firm hope that the fanaticism with which the sons of darkness work day and night at their materialistic and atheistic propaganda will at least serve the holy purpose of stimulating the sons of light to a like and even greater zeal for the honor of the Divine Majesty.

In context, St James is especially speaking of good prayer : neither unconstant, nor impatient.

43. Nevertheless We cannot deny that there is still much to be done in the way of spiritual renovation. Even in Catholic countries there are still too many who are Catholics hardly more than in name. There are too many who fulfill more or less faithfully the more essential obligations of the religion they boast of professing, but have no desire of knowing it better, of deepening their inward conviction, and still less of bringing into conformity with the external gloss the inner splendor of a right and unsullied conscience, that recognizes and performs all its duties under the eye of God. We know how much Our Divine Savior detested this empty pharisaic show, He Who wished that all should adore the Father “in spirit and in truth.”[24] The Catholic who does not live really and sincerely according to the Faith he professes will not long be master of himself in these days when the winds of strife and persecution blow so fiercely, but will be swept away defenseless in this new deluge which threatens the world. And thus, while he is preparing his own ruin, he is exposing to ridicule the very name of Christian.

...

45. But the poor too, in their turn, while engaged, according to the laws of charity and justice, in acquiring the necessities of life and also in bettering their condition, should always remain “poor in spirit,”[29] and hold spiritual goods in higher esteem than earthly property and pleasures. Let them remember that the world will never be able to rid itself of misery, sorrow and tribulation, which are the portion even of those who seem most prosperous. Patience, therefore, is the need of all, that Christian patience which comforts the heart with the divine assurance of eternal happiness. “Be patient, therefore, brethren,” we repeat with St. .lames, “until the coming of the Lord. Behold the husbandman waiteth for the precious fruit of the earth, patiently bearing until he receive the early and the later rain. Be you therefore also patient and strengthen your hearts, for the coming of the Lord is at hand.”[30] Only thus will be fulfilled the consoling promise of the Lord: “Blessed are the poor!” These words are no vain consolation, a promise as empty as those of the Communists. They are the words of life, pregnant with a sovereign reality. They are fully verified here on earth, as well as in eternity. Indeed, how many of the poor, in anticipation of the Kingdom of Heaven already proclaimed their own: “for yours is the Kingdom of Heaven,”[31] find in these words a happiness which so many of the wealthy, uneasy with their riches and ever thirsting for more, look for in vain!

...

49. But charity will never be true charity unless it takes justice into constant account. The Apostle teaches that “he that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law” and he gives the reason: “For, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal . . . and if there be any other commandment, it is comprised in this word: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”[36] According to the Apostle, then, all the commandments, including those which are of strict justice, as those which forbid us to kill or to steal, may be reduced to the single precept of true charity. ...

...

66. In addition to this individual apostolate which, however useful and efficacious, often goes unheralded, Catholic Action must organize propaganda on a large scale to disseminate knowledge of the fundamental principles on which, according to the Pontifical documents, a Christian .Social Order must build.

OK, a whole document dedicated on refutation of a certain type of socialism, and not a single condemnation of the phrase, as such, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Note, Panera was not drafting rich customers to eat there and pay double price, so poorer could eat half price or for free, Panera Cares was not a collectivity. Somehow, what Edwin Benson finds wrong with the phrase doesn't seem to quite resonate with the Popes.

Why did I return to this? Well, you see, I was reading a much better essay by Plinio Maria Solimeo on The Only Divorce-Free City in the World.***

And before it was finished, Return to Order site had put in, as a distraction, a link to This is How Panera Found Out That Socialism Does Not Work* - so, I will take a look at how the failure was analysed:

Unfortunately, Mr. Shaich’s faith in this premise proved overly optimistic. Eater Detroit describes Panera Cares’s short history. “[T]he restaurants weren’t financially viable… Panera Cares was reportedly only recouping between 60 and 70 percent of its total costs. The losses were attributed to students who “mobbed” the restaurant and ate without paying, as well as homeless patrons who visited the restaurant for every meal of the week.”

In 2017, Panera was sold to a conglomerate. Mr. Shaich left the company the following year. The new owners pulled the plug on Panera Cares. On February 15, the lights went out.

Well, "the new owners" and "sold to a conglomerate" sounds like reasons why things don't work out for the best in Capitalism. Typical such.

The same human and economic forces that ate away the altruism of Panera Cares has consumed Venezuela.

No, or if so, this would be a very great accusation against international capitalism, as far as Venezuela goes.

Venezuela, however, is not about voluntarily fulfilling an ethos of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Venezuela is about :

a collectivity with no other hierarchy than that of the economic system. It would have only one mission: the production of material things by means of collective labor, so that the goods of this world might be enjoyed in a paradise where each would “give according to his powers” and would “receive according to his needs.”

Now, that happens to be wrong. It also happens to be sth which Panera Cares was not about.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Benedict
21.III.2019

In monte Cassino natalis sancti Benedicti Abbatis, qui in Occidente fere collapsam Monachorum disciplinam restituit ac mirifice propagavit; cujus vitam, virtutibus et miraculis gloriosam, beatus Gregorius Papa conscripsit.

Update, I was tired yesterday, and so forgot to put blockquotes around the sentence beginning "The same human and economic forces", which is by Edwin Benson, not me, as you can see from my answering "No" in the next paragraph./HGL

* This is How Panera Found Out That Socialism Does Not Work
By Edwin Benson
http://www.returntoorder.org/2019/02/this-is-how-panera-found-out-that-socialism-does-not-work/

** Papal encyclicals in general from:

Papal Encyclicals Online
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/

In particular most cited one, here:

Divini Redemptoris
On Atheistic Communism
Pope Pius XI - 1937
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/pius11/p11divin.htm

*** The Only Divorce-Free City in the World
By Plinio Maria Solimeo
http://www.returntoorder.org/2019/03/the-only-divorce-free-city-in-the-world/