The Lamb of God Who Takes Away the Sin(s?) of the World
G.D.O'Bradovich III
January 17, 2015
Background
According to Leo Strauss, one of the hallmarks of esoteric writing is inexact repetition. This subtle technique is missed by the majority of readers, or in this example, by hearer and readers. Careful writers, by definition, are not prone to contradictory writing.
The Texts Compared
We will compare the fourth Gospel”s declaration “The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29) and the Latin Mass’s statement that “The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” .
Because of this “inexact repetition” between the Mass from the Bible, we will allow a famed Jesuit scholar, and friend of this website, to assist us in determining which version is authentic and which one is fraudulent, or otherwise stated, which one is original and which some is secondary.
Hardouin’s Ideas
The translation by Edwin Johnson of Hardouin’s Prolegomena will be quoted and one of the Hardouin’s primary ideas is that deists of former times falsified history, corrupted the mass and introduced atheism by the introduction of writings under names of the “Church Fathers”. While this is a startling, if not amusing, belief, we quote Hardouin’s observation:
“For not one of the “Fathers” has said that our hope is to be place in Christ’s merits; neither in epistles nor tractates, nor in discourses to the people, nor in disputations, nowhere in fact does that dictum occur...The hiding of so great a matter, what is it but a denial of it?...if God is simply Nature, there can be no place for merits. But...religion and unwritten tradition teach another doctrine.” page 82
Church Traditions
Hardouin maintains that the customs or traditions of the Church may contradict the writings of the alleged Church Fathers and he states is ”not the custom of the Church to call any writers Fathers; if it had held this custom it would still retain it. But it does not retain it.” page 133
Hardouin states that the writings of the alleged Church Father describe baptism as “...triune immersion alone. Yet was that observed…? It was utterly neglected, tradition and ancient use prevailing over the mischiefs of the impious band …”
page 77
“The Lord’s Prayer in Latin seems to have been accepted from tradition, before the Gospel was written. For where we say “daily” (quotidianum) Matthew wrote “supersubstantial”.” page 83
Integrity of the Vulgate Bible Maintained
Hardouin maintains the integrity of the Vulgate Bible against the impious gang since “...they could not adulterate that book...they had to feign that it was recent, as compared with the Greek Books (Codices), which they declared to be far more ancient.” page 51
“So neither could the Vulgate Edition, from the time it began to be in the use of the faithful, be corrupted…” page 52
“The wicked faction invented the suspicions against the accuracy and certainty of the Vulgate Edition…” page 53
“The fraud appears to have first begun with the Ecclesiastical Office, after the Bible had been completed and the Greek version had been conficted.” page 91
Hardouin gives the reader no indication of when the Vulgate began to be used by the faithful.
Additions to the Mass
Alterations “were introduced into the daily Office, in the Missal, into the Ritual very many prayers alien from the true faith…” page 83
Hardouin states that the “enemies of the true deity have inserted many falsehoods into... the prayers of the Liturgy itself-falsehoods that we daily recite in their integrity…” page 92
Discussion
Our acknowledgement of the conflicting text between the Gospel and the Mass is the beginning of our quandary regarding which variant is the correct version.
We offer the following:
If Vulgate version is correct and could not be adulterated, then the Liturgy of the Mass has been corrupted by the impious gang.
If the tradition of the Mass is correct because it is universal and could not be altered, then the Vulgate Bible has been corrupted by the wicked crew.
Therefore: The unadulterated Vulgate Bible is in agreement with the universal Mass.
Since both statements can not be true, we do not know whether the Mass or the Vulgate BIble has the error.
The Greek Liturgy Examined
The Greek Church does not use this text from the fourth Gospel in their liturgy, although the words “Lamb of God” are found in both liturgies (Basil and Chrysostom). “The Lamb of God is broken and distributed; broken but not divided. He is forever eaten yet is never consumed, but He sanctifies those who partake of Him.” is found in the Liturgy of Saint Basil the Great, so the Greek Church does recognize Jesus as “The Lamb of God”.
Corruption of the Greek Texts
The Septuagint Bible has for this reading the single feminine accusative reads “τὴν ἁμαρτίαν” and agrees with the Vulgate Bible.” However, regarding the Greek Codices, Hardouin observes that the “manifest corruption, falsation, adulteration; it should be manifest that he falsation was practised for the purpose of overthrowing Religion..” pg 54
Conclusion
Since the Greek Church does not use the complete text in the Divine Liturgy, we must conclude that the issue of whether the Lamb of God takes away one sin or multiple sins is a problem best addressed by the Western Church.
According to Leo Strauss, one of the hallmarks of esoteric writing is inexact repetition. This subtle technique is missed by the majority of readers, or in this example, by hearer and readers. Careful writers, by definition, are not prone to contradictory writing.
The Texts Compared
We will compare the fourth Gospel”s declaration “The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29) and the Latin Mass’s statement that “The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world.” .
Because of this “inexact repetition” between the Mass from the Bible, we will allow a famed Jesuit scholar, and friend of this website, to assist us in determining which version is authentic and which one is fraudulent, or otherwise stated, which one is original and which some is secondary.
Hardouin’s Ideas
The translation by Edwin Johnson of Hardouin’s Prolegomena will be quoted and one of the Hardouin’s primary ideas is that deists of former times falsified history, corrupted the mass and introduced atheism by the introduction of writings under names of the “Church Fathers”. While this is a startling, if not amusing, belief, we quote Hardouin’s observation:
“For not one of the “Fathers” has said that our hope is to be place in Christ’s merits; neither in epistles nor tractates, nor in discourses to the people, nor in disputations, nowhere in fact does that dictum occur...The hiding of so great a matter, what is it but a denial of it?...if God is simply Nature, there can be no place for merits. But...religion and unwritten tradition teach another doctrine.” page 82
Church Traditions
Hardouin maintains that the customs or traditions of the Church may contradict the writings of the alleged Church Fathers and he states is ”not the custom of the Church to call any writers Fathers; if it had held this custom it would still retain it. But it does not retain it.” page 133
Hardouin states that the writings of the alleged Church Father describe baptism as “...triune immersion alone. Yet was that observed…? It was utterly neglected, tradition and ancient use prevailing over the mischiefs of the impious band …”
page 77
“The Lord’s Prayer in Latin seems to have been accepted from tradition, before the Gospel was written. For where we say “daily” (quotidianum) Matthew wrote “supersubstantial”.” page 83
Integrity of the Vulgate Bible Maintained
Hardouin maintains the integrity of the Vulgate Bible against the impious gang since “...they could not adulterate that book...they had to feign that it was recent, as compared with the Greek Books (Codices), which they declared to be far more ancient.” page 51
“So neither could the Vulgate Edition, from the time it began to be in the use of the faithful, be corrupted…” page 52
“The wicked faction invented the suspicions against the accuracy and certainty of the Vulgate Edition…” page 53
“The fraud appears to have first begun with the Ecclesiastical Office, after the Bible had been completed and the Greek version had been conficted.” page 91
Hardouin gives the reader no indication of when the Vulgate began to be used by the faithful.
Additions to the Mass
Alterations “were introduced into the daily Office, in the Missal, into the Ritual very many prayers alien from the true faith…” page 83
Hardouin states that the “enemies of the true deity have inserted many falsehoods into... the prayers of the Liturgy itself-falsehoods that we daily recite in their integrity…” page 92
Discussion
Our acknowledgement of the conflicting text between the Gospel and the Mass is the beginning of our quandary regarding which variant is the correct version.
We offer the following:
If Vulgate version is correct and could not be adulterated, then the Liturgy of the Mass has been corrupted by the impious gang.
If the tradition of the Mass is correct because it is universal and could not be altered, then the Vulgate Bible has been corrupted by the wicked crew.
Therefore: The unadulterated Vulgate Bible is in agreement with the universal Mass.
Since both statements can not be true, we do not know whether the Mass or the Vulgate BIble has the error.
The Greek Liturgy Examined
The Greek Church does not use this text from the fourth Gospel in their liturgy, although the words “Lamb of God” are found in both liturgies (Basil and Chrysostom). “The Lamb of God is broken and distributed; broken but not divided. He is forever eaten yet is never consumed, but He sanctifies those who partake of Him.” is found in the Liturgy of Saint Basil the Great, so the Greek Church does recognize Jesus as “The Lamb of God”.
Corruption of the Greek Texts
The Septuagint Bible has for this reading the single feminine accusative reads “τὴν ἁμαρτίαν” and agrees with the Vulgate Bible.” However, regarding the Greek Codices, Hardouin observes that the “manifest corruption, falsation, adulteration; it should be manifest that he falsation was practised for the purpose of overthrowing Religion..” pg 54
Conclusion
Since the Greek Church does not use the complete text in the Divine Liturgy, we must conclude that the issue of whether the Lamb of God takes away one sin or multiple sins is a problem best addressed by the Western Church.