Friday, August 25, 2023

First Half of Heschmeyers Video Against Mike Gendron

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: First Half of Heschmeyers Video Against Mike Gendron · Heschmeyer Refutes "Trail of Blood" · Great Bishop of Geneva! Could Anabaptists Be Right That Reformation was a Meiji Régime for the True Christians? · back to Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: I May Feel Like Exonerating Mike Gendron, But I Won't Admire Him

Does Ex-Catholic Expose TWISTED Teachings of the Catholic Church?
Shameless Popery Podcast | 8 June 2023

0:40 Just curious, is he considering the Rosary has 33 or 66 beads?

Like, looking at a real rosary and counting 5 * (1 big 10 small) + 1 * (1 big 3 small) and actually adding it to 53 small or contiguous and 6 big or "lonely" beads = 59 beads ... somehow doesn't seem to cross their minds ... like, quitting Catholicism was so traumatising that they forgot all the views they previously had of actual rosaries ...

4:08 The three anathemas against deniers of original sin, which involve an individual Adam, Session V, would that fact make someone denying Adam was an individual (like CSL did in a certain chapter in the Problem of Pain, hope he came to his senses later) a Protestant?

There is an Assumptionist in Paris who might need an answer on that, from another source than myself ideally ...

12:41 A certain type of Protestantism, a very Anticatholic one, was never my own brand of near Evangelical not yet baptised Church Hopper, it lost me even back then, some time between 9 and 11 and a half (I met them in Catholic Vienna, not in Lutheran Sweden), way before I converted.

The guys who make the Beast rule "1260 prophetic days, i e literal years" ... I was back then a pre-millennialist (St. Augustine in City of God does a good job of telling us why we should be post-millennialist, we are after most of the "thousand" years - between 0 and 1990 years evens out on 995 years that saints rule in Heaven since 33), but whereever you put the millennium, it is still problematic if the Bible says 1000 years for Christ, 3 and a half years for Antichrist, and someone makes this "mean" 1260 years for Antichrist.

Some of these guys seem like they are somehow influenced - not necessarily possessed, that's a different league, not necessarily not possessed, as in no one of them ever - by demons who see the real millennium, the Catholic Church, from the wrong side.

13:05 And Gamaliel seems to have lasted.

There is some Church tradition that, like his disciples Sts Paul and Barnabas, he died as a confessing Christian (wait, isn't it even somewhere in a martyrology reading?)

14:16 Speaking of which, criterium, Orthopapism is in a better position today than in 1998.

Pope Michael I recently got a successor, Pope Michael II.

The rivals Linus II and Pius XIII (von Pentz and Pulvermacher) are gone.

What looked like another rival claim in Argentina, "Alejandro IX" seems to have stepped totally out of the limelight, not sure if they are Vatican II-ers or Orthodox by now, they used to be Feeneyite and Latin rite only.

Orthopapism as in conclavism has one claimant : Michael II.

The other claimants in orthopapism are mysticalists, like Palmarians (who by now seem to think KIng Solomon was Bathsheba's FIRST son who DIDN'T die!) and successors of Jean-Grégoire XVII.

Back two decades ago, 1998 or even 2004, some people were joking that alternative popes are popping up like mushrooms from the ground ... no longer the case.

16:06 Technically, St. Paul is not stating that these are two teachings.

Also, the Greek doesn't say "forbid marriage and enjoin abstinence" it is one and the same verb, so actually means "forbid marriage and abstinence" ...

What would a Catholic want to do if right now he can't marry? Well, perhaps fast a little more, to make the waiting time less unchaste.

Or, if for some reason he can't abstain? Well, marry, so the extra testosterone goes to acts that are more licit.

Going after someone in ways that both stop him from having a social position allowing him to marry and a chastity allowing him some normal semi-monklike dignity while not yet married, would that not also be fulfilling the criteria of St. Paul? And wouldn't the "seared conscience" and "doctrine of demons" in the case be things like thinking one is doing the guy a favour by so doing (like proving he needs to quit every drop of alcohol or proving he cannot save himself by works or proving he needs to become a Muslim or that not becoming a Jew is dishonouring his mother - who certainly actually intended to be Christian as to religion! or whatever).

17:07 Two reasons to not believe St. Paul spoke of the Gnostics.

1) Given we are now 19 and a half centuries after he wrote, and the Gnostics both arose a few decades later and disappeared a few centuries later, after which they have made sporadic comebacks. St. Paul says "in the last times" ... OK, ἐν ὑστέροις καιροῖς, I get a feeling ὑστέροις is a comparative, so, the translation could be "in later times" ... however, the very old translation to Latin, the Vulgate, actually has "in novissimis temporibus" which is a superlative.

2) κωλυόντων γαμεῖν, ἀπέχεσθαι βρωμάτων, - i e either they are most intuitively both enjoining marriage and abstinence, or both forbidding marriage and abstinence. Translating the one verb as two verbs with opposed meanings (though the actual meaning has, like "sanction" a range of usage involving those opposed meanings), with one single verb meaning two opposed things in relation to the infinitives "to marry" and "to abstain" is what the Gnostic identification would lead you to.

The situation I have described actually allows κωλυόντων to mean "forbid" in relation to both infinitives.

And by the way, St. Jerome has for κωλυόντων also the single participle prohibentium, here:

prohibentium nubere, abstinere a cibis, quod Deus creavit ad percipiendum cum gratiarum actione fidelibus, et iis qui cognoverunt veritatem.

While it is true eating meat should be done with thanksgiving, fasting should also be done with thanksgiving ... as should drinking wine (in due moderation) or beer (dito) or cider (dito) or distilled things (dito even more unless diluted).

That said, Challoner would agree with you:

"[3] "Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats": He speaks of the Gnostics, the Marcionites, the Eneratites, the Manicheans, and other ancient heretics, who absolutely condemned marriage, and the use of all kind of meat; because they pretended that all flesh was from an evil principle. Whereas the church of God, so far from condemning marriage, holds it a holy sacrament; and forbids it to none but such as by vow have chosen the better part: and prohibits not the use of any meats whatsoever in proper times and seasons; though she does not judge all kind of diet proper for days of fasting and penance."

He doesn't explain how he deals with κωλυόντων / prohibentium ...

20:44 You are aware that some in those Anticatholic sects consider "myths" to involve things like:
  • enjoying literary productions of Mythopoeic Society (JRRT, CSL, etc)
  • believing Hercules and Romulus lived as men
  • believing a spirit is moving the sun, even if one isn't worshipping that spirit ...

Agreeing with Aquinas and Riccioli that God confided the visible burning body we call the Sun to an angel to get it moved (over the sky each day and) around the Zodiac, and not worshipping that angel too obviously falls outside "worshipping the host of heaven" - but some people think they have a gotcha with St. Paul in 2 Tim ... 4? ... using the word "myth" since Riccioli's view is near identic to that of Greek mythology ...

23:23 Some in 1962 wanted the Church to actually condemn, certainly not just 1) polygenism, but even 2) Adam having biological ancestry, possibly even 3) day age theory and gap theory (Christine Pedotti and the Introibo blogger have apparently opposite takes on whether Ottaviani meant to condemn more than up to 2 in the preparatory schema, which I haven't read in integrity). But even if the opposite to strict YEC was not condemned, YEC remained clearly licit, and Dei Verbum § 3 is clearly incompatible with some of the alternatives, possibly all of them.

However, in the 1990's this changes. There is a new version of the Christmas proclamation, which an US Jesuit is defending because it's not into the Ussher method, while St. Jerome and Julius Africanus we have the text from (though the fall of Troy was censored between Usuardus and Martyrologium Romanum proper) actually did use the Ussher method, they just used it on a LXX based text, without the second Cainan.

The Congregation for the Faith issues a warning against Fundamentalism, not meaning people like Mike Gendron, but pretty obviously people like Ken Ham, which is a wholly different thing.

(It's a paragraph of the Exegesis of the Bible in the Church).

A new catechism is called Catechism of the Catholic Church. It's §283 is incompatible with the Roman martyrology for Dec 25 and with §3 of Dei Verbum.

The guy you consider as having been Pope that decade (just after Michael I was elected), makes declarations both in favour of Evolution and Heliocentrism.

Remember, I was received in 1988, before these things happened, and while Wojtyla was not yet formally schismatic against Michael I.

And when after some absence (FSSPX, village life, less pleasant situations than that) I come back to a Novus Ordo parish in 2000 and find this out, I am suddenly forbidden to believe what I was believing when converting - YEC is true and Catholic.

Meanwhile, I have found out that the flagship of a certain urban legend against YEC being Patristic, namely St. Augustine, actually very clearly was YEC.

You have just outlined a criterium by which the Evolution believers left the Church of Christ in the 1990s, without relinquishing mitres and buildings to do so.

25:53 According to Trent session IV, not every heretic in history can point to a consensus of the Church Fathers.

I've actually seen "Catholics" ridiculing the idea of relying on CF consensus in "matters of science" (David Palm, possibly, Jimmy Akin, certainly on one occasion - ah, here is the reference:

"Understanding the “Unanimous Consent” of the Church Fathers, Jimmy Akin | August 13, 2018"

According to Trent Session IV, while it belongs only to the Church to judge on Scripture, we are obliged to what she "tenuit atque tenet" / "hath held and doeth hold" ... not to things which would be better described as "never held before, but holdeth now" ... (like, since 1990's ...)

27:00 They also all agreed God created it fairly recently compared to Sumerian or Egyptian chronologies.

In other words, CCC, §283 fails the test of Trent Session IV ...

Troll Patrol
Jack Chick tell you this?

Hans Georg Lundahl
@trollpatrol7215 No.

I am a Latinist and can read St. Augustine of Hippo without the help of Jack Chick.

I would also be very suspicious of a man able to compose a comic like The Death Cookie, or to promote Alberto Rivera. So, even if I weren't a Latinist, I would not take any help from Jack Chick when it came to the early Church.

@trollpatrol7215 I'm half joking about being a Latinist in this context, reading long swathes of St Augustine is sth I prefer doing in translation, but one more thing.

You give Jack Chick too much credit if you think he knows about Trent Session IV or about CCC §283, unless you can show that knowledge from his works.

And a question for you : when you put my words in doubt on this one, are you basing that on priests who are about as candid about the YEC of CF as Mike Gendron is about the Catholicism of the NT Church?

Could there be one Jesuit in the 60's who spread an urban legend in this context, which also became popular with the orthodox?

For if you aren't, I would expect you to actually show forth a Patristic quote that favours consderable gaps in the Genesis chronologies in chapters 5 and 11, or else a long time of earth being created before Adam. Good luck, but I will not be holding my breath ...

Troll Patrol
Wonderful. Are you infallible? @hglundahl

Hans Georg Lundahl
No, @trollpatrol7215.

But Trent Session IV is, and makes the consensus of the CCFF infallible.

If you want to defend CCC § 283 you simply show a CF who would be OK with accepting at least a Sumerian or Egyptian chronology over the Biblical one. Even these are far shorter than the millions and billions of years schmuck.

Troll Patrol
I can only take note of your peculiar viewpoint. @hglundahl

Hans Georg Lundahl
My dear @trollpatrol7215 ... how do you pronounce that?

// I can only take note of your peculiar viewpoint. //

Oh, please do.

// I can only take note of your peculiar viewpoint. //

What stops you from checking books 12 to 17 in City of God to check St. Augustine?

Perhaps you can't buy a Loeb or Budé edition with De Genesis ad Litteram Libri XII, but you might hitchhike to a library that has it, you could maybe spend an hour or two on books I, V and VI?

Or for that matter, to check Mark 10:6 to check that of Jesus, our Lord and Saviour, God in the flesh?

Troll Patrol
I have no idea if you are Pagan, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist or??? You are speaking cryptically and euphemistically. From whom do you derive your doctrines? @hglundahl

Hans Georg Lundahl
I'm a Roman Catholic @trollpatrol7215.

One who sees a conflict between Council of Trent Session IV and Catechism "of the Catholic Church" §283 and in this conflict choses Trent over Antipope Wojtyla, as well as over certain Sedes.

Take a source of doctrine by a Pope or Council prior to Pius XII, I'll buy it.

31:09 Speaking of showing evidence.

St. Augustine very famously departs from 6 days = 144 hours, in Confessiones and in De Genesi ad Litteram libro XII. However, he does that in favour of one moment creation (a position which the Palmarians btw dogmatised, despite this being a minority position). St. Thomas Aquinas says two guys share this idea, Augustine and Origen. However, one can add Clement and Philo, even if it's perhaps less sure that Philo became a Christian.

I think everyone else in Migne will line up with six literal days (Graeca, Latina, Syriaca). Or at least the most well known ones.

But did you know that St. Augustine in Confessiones mentioned this bc six days sounded ridiculous to the not yet Catholic Augustine, and where he goes into detail, it's books V and VI of De Genesi ad Litteram Libro XII (available in Budé editions in George Pompidou Library), and in book I, he has given the technical solutions how 24 hour days worked before the Sun was created, and after the presentation of one moment creationism, he says basically "but taking the six days literally is OK for beginners and less subtle people"

More importantly, in City of God, he very strictly upholds timeline as well as other details for Genesis 4 - 11.

Oh, you believed some half god ruled Egypt 40 000 years ago? Too bad for you.
Or, you didn't think Noah literally was 950 when he died? Too bad for you.

When discussing Flood and Ark, he outlines the exegetical principles of Quadriga Cassiani, basically.

Origen and Clement were also not very keen on extending the Biblical timeline, even if Origen was lazy in adding up (less than 10 000 years, well, that's actually back then, like St. Augustine said with more precision, less than 6000 years).

Just in case you had the slightest doubt that CCC §283 is a clear novum.