Saturday, January 4, 2025
Contra Mark Driscoll and Some "Catholics"
Protestant Pastor Blasts Catholic Priests (Priest Reacts)
Father David Michael Moses | 3 Jan. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3noA_lU6qg
7:19 I'm very fine with being a radical witness for faith and orthodoxy.
I'm not fine with being drafted to a radical witness for poverty and chastity. I asked a monastery back in 1999 or early 2000, they said no. I was fine with that. Since then I have been trying to get an income from my writing, and a place to live and a wife.
In my life I'm dragged back and forth between Catholics who admire me for the wrong qualities a celibate and a poverty not of my chosing, and anti-Catholics who'd be happy as a day to arrange a marriage and a work (other than my Apologetic writing), if I just let go of Catholicism.
YOUR Pope and HIS man in Paris, since "Benedict" and since André Vingt-Trois have not been helping me to get rid of the people who put celibacy and poverty as a price tag on my remaining Catholic. And before Paris even since "John Paul" and since Anders Arborelius and since Claude Feidt and since Jean-Pierre Cattenoz ...
I admire celibate men, but not if their only way of staying celibate is admiring me as one, when I didn't intend it!
Friday, January 3, 2025
Deciding Quickly Does Not Mean Deciding Irrationally
Which number is larger? – Math puzzle
Math Queen | 18 Nov. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jpR7fvSWhVU
1:16 I have it.
The midmost factor in both is 50, no difference.
The two surrounding ones are however either 50 * 50 (2500) or 51 * 49 (I would say: 2499).
So, 50^99 is greater.
[tried to add:]
10:44 What did I say?
[censorship confirmed]
Can Laymen Interpret Scripture, According to the Catholic Church?
Analyzing the objections of an ex-Catholic | Part 1
Just A Catholic | 22 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBd09HZPUXg
okay so it's not necessarily the 1:51 case that only the priest can properly 1:53 interpret scripture it's more like uh 1:55 the church is is the um it safes guards 1:58 scripture it it ensures it's in 2:01 safeguards uh proper interpretation of 2:04 scripture so that uh it people will not 2:06 be led into heresy okay
Thank you very much.
Trullo and the Bible Canon
One Question Catholics CAN’T Answer
Cleave to Antiquity | 31 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_RovWtvru4
1:48 keep us ... keep us ... stuttering?
Aren't you violating Matthew 6:7?
5:50 Two types of councils are binding on the entire Church.
1) Ecumenical or general councils.
2) Regional or particular councils if they are confirmed by the Roman Pontiff.
Into the latter category you find basically the Councils of Toledo and Orange, and, pretty probably the council of Rome as well.
How it works? As soon as the bishops have signed the council acts, it becomes, indeed, binding on the region. Like Tours 813, as soon as the bishops signed the act, every priest on every Lord's Day and Major Feast was obliged to say first the Gospel in the Latin they had learned the older pronunciation of from Alcuin, and then to give a paraphrase or explanation either in the popular Latin or citing the council, because that's what Alcuin didn't consider Latin "lingua romana rustica" or in the teutonic language, both of which were apparently back then spoken in Tours, depending on the audience.
This is true for the councils of Orange and Toledo as well. However, one step further comes in. A Pope of Old Rome takes interest and approves it. Like Toledo I on the authority of Pope Leo I was sent to Baetica, which hadn't participated, if I recall correctly. This is a big deal, since Toledo I includes a decision on a creed (not the liturgic one from Nicaea) which includes (for repenting Priscillianists) the filioque.
8:44 Thanks for the link* about Council of Rome:
but also if there are councils hitherto held by the holy fathers of lesser authority than those four, we have decreed [that] they must be both kept and received. Here added below is on the works of the holy fathers, which are received in the catholic church.
Likewise the works of blessed Caecilius Cyprian the martyr and Bishop of Carthage;
likewise the works of blessed Gregory Nanzanensis the bishop;
likewise the works of blessed Basil Bishop of Cappadocia;
likewise the works of blessed John Bishop of Constantinople;
likewise the works of blessed Theophilus Bishop of Alexandria;
likewise the works of blessed Cyril Bishop of Alexandria;
likewise the works of blessed Bishop Hilary of Poitiers;
likewise the works of blessed Ambrosius Bishop of Milan;
likewise the works of blessed Augustine Bishop of Hippo;
likewise the works of blessed Jerome the priest;
likewise the works of blessed Prosper a most religious man;
Now, as you said, Jerome the priest did not opine that the books not found in Hebrew were canonic. However, he's not the sole man to have his works approved, globally, and this global approval doesn't make any of these infallible, and the fact is other men here, notably St. Augustine, did not share the opinion of Jerome on the LXX, and presumably not on these books. In one place Jerome also mentions he would have preferred not to translate them from Greek, but he bowed down to bishops.
You are arguing as if Jerome was sole authority received at this council and that infallibly.
But one more thing. Under Damasus, some of these men were still alive. They would typically not be called "blessed" during their lifetime.
I think Ernst von Dobschütz may have unwittingly have included a scholion into the text, from the manuscript he had, or even that he actually marked it as a scholion, since the letters are here smaller. So, I would even argue it's at least possible that this passage is actually not something decided under Pope Damasus.
Plus, above it we have:
HERE BEGINS THE DECRETAL 'ON BOOKS TO BE RECEIVED AND NOT TO BE RECEIVED' WHICH WAS WRITTEN BY POPE GELASIUS AND SEVENTY MOST ERUDITE BISHOPS AT THE APOSTOLIC SEAT IN THE CITY OF ROME
In other words, this is a council from the 490's which is not concerned with the Bible canon, not the council of Rome from 382, for which the text was apparently added as intro to the longer version of the Gelasian text.
So, the one misunderstanding the Council of Rome is arguably you.
9:22 "You can be correct without being infallible."
Can you be correct and binding on the whole Church without being infallible?
The reason for St. Robert Bellarmine's adjudging infallibility to the Pope is:
1) he is the supreme judge of all the Church, which is bound to obey him
2) if he could be wrong in something so stated as to bind the Church, the Church would be bound to error or evil, which is absurd
3) therefore he cannot be wrong in those decisions, and that is all that infallible means.
Note, before you say "so Pope Francis is infallible?" St. Robert Bellarmine also said sth about a heretic not being able to be Pope. What would happen if a Pope fell into heresy after election was not canonically decided, St. Robert opined a) this could probably not happen, but b) if it happened he would automatically lose office on starting to preach heresy. For someone being ineligible by being heretic prior to (and in the moment of) being apparently elected, it was canonically decided (Cum ex apostolatus officio) that the election would be null and void, and everyone would lose any even apparent duty of obedience as soon as it was found out.
9:43 St. Jerome wrote the Vulgate after** the council of Rome, which was therefore not in a position to affirm or deny his remark.
Going on his opinion for the intent is like going in Benjamin Franklin's personal opinion instead of going to the Founding Father's actual text.
10:04 1) Cajetan and Glossa Ordinaria author opined that St. Jerome was correct about how to interpret the Council of Rome, even if apparently Jerome wasn't at this point mentioning the council, he could even have forgotten about it;
2) they are trumped by the Council of Trent.
Please note here that for whatever book is actually canonic, the first infallible decision was local by the Church in recognising it as inspired, so St. Timothy infallibly was able to say that Ephesians, I Timothy, II Timothy and the Johannine corpus were canonic, and so on for other books.
Later on these separate acts of infallible canonisation, not all of which had been received by all, were resumed as conjointly canonic, at Rome. The infallibility extends certainly to the books being canonic, as that was decided, but not to the non-inclusion of for instance Henoch or Psalm 151 or III Maccabees, this same being true for Trent as well. However, the distance between Beroea and Saloniki being 45 miles or 73 km, the canon of Trent is probably complete.
3) No one in his right mind said one could not deduct historical facts from II Maccabees, one of which is that the High Priest believed in a kind of Purgatory and another being that he believed in the intercession of Jeremias. Since these beliefs existed before Jesus' time and He didn't argue against them, this is in itself confirmation at least probable, and hence the position of the Church on these matters is confirmation sufficient and certain.
the position that 10:50 you currently hold is not the position 10:53 that the early church held
Traditional does not simply mean ancient. It means preserved since ancient times (at least somewhere in the Church, like Immaculate Conception for a long time in the East).
It's opposed to modern and to restored after a clear break.
According to Matthew 28:16—20, it's actually impossible to have a break in an important doctrine. Whether you later restore it or not.
as a matter of fact the Eastern 11:02 Orthodox actually had a closed Cannon by 11:05 Trullo
Is your source a reddit thread with a purported citation from canon 85?***
11:34 What is your position on Constantinople IV?
Both 869 (to 870?) and 879 (to 880) have been affirmed as being that council.
Whichever is true, Popes have backpaddled on the issue.
If 869 is the council, then 879 is just an appendix reconciling Photius (who therefore died in the Catholic Church, disappearing somewhere, my fav theory is he retired to an Anglo Saxon monastery and wrote Beowulf).
If 879 is the council, that means, and this is the EO position, that the later Pope revoked 869.
But if 869 is the council and 879 isn't, that could well imply that 879 was first promoted and then demoted.
So, a Pope can backpaddle on whether a given council is ecumenic. Medieval Reform councils at one point were not considered as ecumenical. In Florence, I think many on both sides saw this as the first council since Nicaea II or possibly Constantinople IV that was ecumenical.
A council that has found acceptance within the whole Church for centuries can however not be demoted this way.
Trullo ... it was never fully applied in the West, according to Craig Truglia.° He explains this by Economia, and bemoans that Economia disappeared from the Western Church. It didn't, it just changed names to Dispansatio. Now Trullo affirms Economia (aka Dispensatio) so even if it were objectively a valid general council and a future Pope or a present one should reaffirm it, it wouldn't make the Western Church a transgressor.
* https://tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm
** https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgata
Im Auftrag des Papstes Damasus begann dessen Vertrauter Hieronymus nach 382 eine Revision der lateinischen Übersetzungen der Evangelien. Dabei bearbeitete er in geringerem Umfang auch die übrigen Schriften des Neuen Testaments. Nach dem Tod des Papstes 384 siedelte Hieronymus nach Bethlehem über und wandte sich der Übersetzung des Alten Testaments zu. Anfangs übersetzte Hieronymus einige alttestamentliche Bücher aus der griechischen Septuaginta: den Septuaginta-Psalter, das Buch Hiob, die Sprichwörter, das Hohelied, das Buch Kohelet sowie das erste und zweite Buch der Chronik. Dem ließ er ab 393 eine Übersetzung des gesamten Alten Testamentes folgen, laut eigenen Angaben „nach dem Hebräischen“ (iuxta Hebraeos), vermutlich aber auch auf Basis der von Origenes aufbereiteten Hexapla-Ausgabe,[2] die neben der griechischen Septuaginta-Version und anderen griechischen Übersetzungen auch den hebräischen Text in griechischer Transkription enthielt. Die neuere Forschung schätzt inzwischen die hebräische Sprachkompetenz des Hieronymus wieder höher ein.[3]
*** This thread:
https://www.reddit.com/r/OrthodoxChristianity/comments/12rv9rh/council_of_trullos_canon_list/?rdt=49460
is on this point not confirmed when searching canon 85 here:
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3814.htm
° https://orthodoxchristiantheology.com/2022/04/21/did-rome-accept-the-canons-of-trullo/
Carbon's Not Refuted By Mount St. Helen's
Why Evolutionary Dating Methods Are a Complete LIE
Answers in Genesis Canada | 1 March 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxkhKF6L4eg
44,000 to 45,000 years old wood?
Sounds like my calibration is confirmed.
The wood was obviously pre-Flood, is obviously stuck on mud from the Flood. But in my calibration, back in 2958 BC, the year of the Flood, the carbon 14 level was a bit higher than 1.6 pmC, meaning the Flood year crops would date to 39 000 BP. So, I'm not suprised that the carbon date is a bit older than that.
1:06 Carbon 14 has a pretty good track record for recent centuries, like the last 3000 years and some more.
6:01 If I do believe carbon dating can be calibrated validly, it's because:
1) what we measure is different, it's a ratio, we never dealt with a lump of 100 % carbon 14 in the first place
2) the atmosphere being fluid tends to equalise the proportion over short time, meaning "the height of the candle" tends to be equal for samples from the same age
3) the exceptions to this (reservoir effect and bomb effect) need certain physical things to be present (diet of fish, water supply with old carbon in calceous rock, remains of whatever exploded in a radioactive way)
4) the uncertainties kind of cancel out.
Showing what the last means is like this. For 1179 BC, when Troy fell, excavations at Troy (Hisarlık) reveal a carbon date close enough to 1180 BC.
This is of course possible (my main theory) if C-14 decays at 5730 years' halflife and samples started out with 100 pmC. But supposing the halflife were 11 460 years instead, it would work out just fine, provided the initial amount was 80 pmC instead. However, I think there are recent samples that allow to exlude the idea of a halflife twice as long.
7:03 I don't think Nitrogen 14 atoms in samples are even used in carbon dating.
There are samples from 1950, they are accepted as dating as if 200 years old (due to fluctuation in Industrial Revolution, and the samples from two hundred years before that, from 1750, actually date as 1950, meaning the carbon 14 level was a bit high.
The measure is not of parent element to daughter element, but parent isotope to the non-radioactive isotope. So, carbon 14 to carbon 12.
Accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) is a modern radiocarbon dating method that is considered to be the more efficient way to measure radiocarbon content of a sample. In this method, the carbon 14 content is directly measured relative to the carbon 12 and carbon 13 present. The method does not count beta particles but the number of carbon atoms present in the sample and the proportion of the isotopes.
This is from the presentation of Beta Analytic, who unlike me actually do carbon dating.
Since carbon 13 is also a small amount, this basically means carbon 14 to carbon 12. Now, I must admit, I do not know how carbon 13 enters the game. One reading would be:
Carbon 13 + Carbon 12 = Carbon non-14. One measures Carbon 14 in relation to Carbon non-14 (most of which is Carbon 12).
So, a daughter element of Nitrogen 14 (if that is the case, when small I heard or thought I heard Carbon 14 decayed to Carbon 12) is not measured. This is a unique feature among radiometric dating methods. I don't think it's a bug. Nitrogen 14 could (if that's the daughter element) come from atmospheric Nitrogen that never became Carbon 14. Most Carbon 12 (and vastly so, and if this is the actual daughter element) would be the Carbon 12 that God created probably at Genesis 1:1.
7:43 Does this refute my calibration?
Marlstone Rock Formation
Thickness 10 metres (33 ft)
A thickness of 10 metres could actually be accounted for by post-Flood landslides.
So, 20 000 years old, 18 000 BC, this would mean the real date is between 2725 BC and 2712 BC, respectively dated as 18,786 BC and as 17,081 BC. Around 240 years after the Flood.
No, I don't think this refutes my calibration.
8:40 No, the "impossible dates" don't show that C-14 is very unreliable, because they are only impossible to the Evolutionist.
The explanation of "bomb effect" / "contamination" is only needed by the Evolutionist.
To a YEC, the C-14 dates are perfectly possible and don't discredit the method as such, if one only makes a Biblical calibration for it. Which I did.
My interpretation of Biblical chronology isn't mine own, I simply use the chronology of the Christmas proclamation.
5199 after Creation, 2957 after the Flood, 2015 after the Birth of Abraham, 1511 after the Exodus, formerly also stated 1179 after the Fall of Troy, 1032 after the anointing of King David ... and a few more, Christ was born, angels greeted Him. This is what Catholic priests have been reciting up to Vatican II (or perhaps a bit longer) and what Traditional priests still recite, in the context of the Midnight Mass.
If we are 7200 + after Creation, the original amount of C-14 should be reduced to 41.855 % of the original amount. If we are 5000 + after the Flood, the original amount of C-14 should be reduced to 43.63 %, assuming the halflife of 5730 years is correct. Carbon 14 should be detectable, unless it was completely undetectable to start with.
So, if at the Flood, the carbon 14 level would have dated fresh things to 34 000 years old, most places in the world, the remaining level would date the things from the Flood to 39 000 years old.
9:28 My recalibration very much does NOT say that.
The starting ratio "1 in a trillion" (if that's the correct value) is technically also known as 100 pmC. This had never been the starting ratio for things prior to the Fall of Troy. That event is the first event for which we have archaeological evidence and historic evidence completely agreeing with the carbon dated archaeology. Prior to that, the Fall of Jericho is dated to 80 years before it really happened. If God used the Santorini or Thera eruption to provide some material for the Ten Plagues, the Exodus is dated to about a century before it happened.
Btw, sorry, 1510 after the Exodus, the Exodus was in 1511 BC, because Jesus is born in 1 BC, while 1 AD starts with His circumcision (provided that Denis the Short got the date correct).
So, the modern typical ratio, corrected for pre-Industrial values, is technically also known as 100 pmC.
At the Hallstatt plateau, when it starts in 750 BC, the carbon date is 550 BC (which has led archaeologists carbon dating too early to assume the founding of Rome was "mythical" in the popular sense). This means, the level was then higher than 100 pmC. That's outside my calibration, that's accepted standard calibration, which I just gratefully note. But it was not much higher than 100 pmC, 101 or 102 pmC or so. At the end of the Hallstatt plateau, when it ends in 450 BC, it still carbon dates to 550 BC. The level is about as low as at the Exodus. But these are vaccillations since the "100 pmC point" which I place at 1179 BC or Fall of Troy.
11:21 Two questions:
1) you showed a diagramme for Carbon 14, but was it included in the article?
It's partly behind a paywall, so I don't know.
2) His method involves a freezing to zero [0° K, not F or C) ... are there cases in which this could have massively happened to Carbon 14 during the actual history of Earth as opposed to his lab experiment?
13:19 A Biblical creationist need not say both weren't working, he's fine with saying the carbon date uses the wrong calibration.
Ask me. I'm a Biblical creationist, and I say the carbon date is working just fine once you recalibrate:
44 000 YA > 39 000 YA
45 000 YA > 39 000 YA
> 39 000 YA carbon =
> 5000 YA Biblical
so, some time before the Flood. If you bathe your babies, what happens when you throw out the bathwater?
15:06 None of the Carlsbad Cave dates were less than 70 000 years, so none of them was carbon 14.
Not a debunker of carbon 14. To paint a picture of a total carbon 14 debunking YEC or Biblical Creationist, there was an oil painting from a modern course in oil paintings that carbon dated to 10 000 years old. Obviously the painting was NOT that old, so the method is bogus ... not so fast, acrylic paint (which is used in oil paintings along genuine oil paint) actually does contain old carbon, mostly from the Flood, extracted in the form of petrol. So, that's not a debunking of the method. Certain white pigments would also involve old carbon.
15:47 I actually am trusting the Bible from Genesis 1:1 to Apocalypse 22:21. All 73 books, and Daniel 3 including the song of the 3 young men.
Most of my anchor points for calibration are from Biblical events in a specific Biblical chronology, not the most typical edition of the LXX, but still a Biblical text.
How Genesis 11:3 fits into Göbekli Tepe is a conundrum, since we don't find things that are obvious bricks and bitumen, but there are ways to solve that.
a) If they were rooftiles, and 2563. chomer has more translations than mortar, the roofs could have been destroyed in fires or in a fire, especially if 2564. chemar was actual bitumen for making the roof water tight, since that's inflammable
b) 3843. lebenah and 2564. chemar could refer to other substances than ceramic bricks and bitumen and involve for instance stomped clay with burned chalk skeleta (objects of chalk have been found in the Tashtepeler area)
c) the bricks could be missing for some other reason, or be partially found in the Jericho of the time (yes, they had pavements involving ceramic bricks in Neolithic Jericho). After all, the "bricks" decision was independent of the "city and tower" decision.
The "tower the top of which might reach to heaven" was a rocket project which never got even to take-off. God interrupted it so that Wernher von Braun could have a go 4500 years later with better technology and understanding than Nimrod had.
Notice, there is no "lest" in the verse 11:7. Unlike 3:22 which has 6435. pen. The only 6435. pen in Genesis 11 is in the words of the ones deciding.
And the story doesn't necessarily begin with 11:1, that could be the end of the Table of Nations, and even if it were, the 3rd masculine plural of bə·nā·sə·‘ām (11:2) does not obviously grammatically refer back to kol ha eretz — we have no direct affirmation that the Babel builders were all of humanity. I think they were a certain international élite. The "lest we be scattered" isn't about the spread of mankind, it's about each regional leader staying too much with his people and getting too few contacts with the other ones, which would led to them scattering away from each other and out among their subjects.
UPDATE, debate, starting with two comments by Micamex, one by myself to the second of them:
- Micamex
- @2killnspray9
- American Protestants are a shame to all Christians...with their Young Earth creationist bullshit.
- Micamex
- Why protestants in this country are so often anti-science hardcore conspiracy theorists like this? And reading the Bible literally? Yes there are issues with carbon 14, but that's not eveen the only method used to mesure the age of something. And it is absolutely obvious that eart is way older than 6000 years old. How can someone believe this crap ??? Even the pyramids, the maya etc dates aat least from -4500 BCE that's already 6500 years old. Carbon 14 can measure until 55,000 years old with a 100 year precision and up to 100,000 before not being detectable. So we know that earth, even just with this method, is already minimum 100,000 years old.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- "conspiracy theorists"
I didn't see any conspiracy theory peddled in this video.
"Even the pyramids, the maya etc dates aat least from -4500 BCE"
Citing wiki:
The Maya are a people of southern Mexico and northern Central America (Guatemala, Belize, western Honduras, and El Salvador).[6] Archaeological evidence shows that by the Preclassic Maya (1000 B.C., approximately 3,000 years ago) they were building pyramidal-plaza ceremonial architecture.
I suppose you meant the pyramid like structures in Niger:
Preceded by assumed earlier sites in the Eastern Sahara, tumuli with megalithic monuments developed as early as 4700 BCE in the Saharan region of Niger.
Citing my tables:
- 2143 BC
- 72.688 pmC, dated as 4780 BC
- 2120 BC
- 73.82 pmC, dated as 4629 BC
So, the pyramids of Niger are in fact from between 2143 and 2120 BC, after Nahor was born but before Reu died.
Tolkien was NOT Part of the Anglo-Saxon Club (nor was Il Duce, nor was my ma, nor me)
Why the Anglo-Saxon Club Was Obsessed With Purity
NYTN | 3 Jan. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWldaTVNK34
the 1:34 membership list read like a who's who of 1:36 Virginia's Elite okay because this is 1:39 really based in Virginia it spread out a 1:40 little a little outside that but the 1:43 center point was Virginia you have 1:45 politicians you have lawyers you have 1:46 doctors people of power and influence 1:49 were flocking to this club
Have you checked how many of them were Freemasons?
3:51 I'm sorry, but I think you are mis-analysing what the Anglo-Saxon Club was saying.
They were not saying that mix-race (if you want to use that term) couples were culpable of a plot to destroy racial purity. They were saying precisely that they were "collateral damage", and that depriving them of children "might seem cruel" but was "taking responsibility" ...
I'm not the least saying they were right. I'm just saying they were not in a blame game, they were in a "taking responsibility" game. What they did was not their revenge, what they did was their "responsibility" ...
I am not the least saying it was a good or even slightly correct responsibility to take. I'm just saying that their evil came, not from revenge, not from punishing people they thought evil, but from a desire for taking responsibility.
While we are here, how many of the guys who have flagged your videos could be guys who think JRRT was in this Anglo Saxon Club just because he enjoyed rereading Beowulf? I'm a Tolkien fan, I'm against racism, not all forms of xenophobia, but against this which really deserves to be called racism, and the guys who take Tolkien for a racist are taking me for one as well, even if he wasn't one either.
5:07 Oh, Walter Plecker ... I think I've heard the name.
Ein Pleck auf der Ehre der Menschheit ...
5:07 bis ... just as to refute eugenics, the man was Walter Ashby Plecker.
The name Ashby actually involves at least three good people:
1) Alexander of Ashby (Latin: Alexander Essebiensis) was a celebrated English theologian and poet, who flourished about the year 1220. Scarcely anything is known of his history, except that he appears to have been prior of Canons Ashby, in Northamptonshire. Some writers make him a native of Somersetshire; others of Staffordshire; and some have confounded him with Alexander Neckam.
He wrote various theological and historical works in prose, particularly a chronicle of England, which are still found scattered in manuscripts. His poetry, in which he sought to imitate Ovid and Ausonius, is much praised by John Bale. Amongst other poems, we may enumerate one in elegiacs, giving a description of all the saints' days throughout the year, with the lives of the saints who were celebrated on each and a metrical compendium of Bible History.
2) George Ashby (name uncertain) (died 1537) was an English Cistercian monk of Jervaulx Abbey.
A monk of this name, or Astleby (perhaps a surname taken from a location) is mentioned in various English martyrologies, as a victim of government reprisals after the Pilgrimage of Grace.
3) Make it, at least two:
Thomas Ashby was an English religious dissident who was executed at Tyburn on 29 March 1544.
He was originally included in the process for canonising the English martyrs, as he had been executed for denying the king's supremacy. However this was later rejected as there was some doubt that he died as a Catholic. "And the xix. day of March [1544] was draune from the tower unto Tyborne . . . . . Ascheby, that was some tyme a prest and forsoke it, and there was hongyd and qwarterd and there byrryd."
Well, I guess it is possible that he just forsook the celibate vows and clerical duties (or just the latter ones) and made up for it by dying as a martyr.
So, a possible relative of theirs was Walter Ashby Plecker. I suppose Judas Ischariot was a relative of some good people too ...
6:05 Till 1967? Thank you, I was going to ask .. the year when I was made.
1947 was the year my ma was born. I think you will agree it was a good year in other ways too.
8:29 Did Virginia have even one Catholic policeman in 1967?
I'm as happy about Loving v. Virginia as I'm about Dobbs v. JWHO.
Noting that JWHO are colleagues of Mr. Plecker.
9:10 The man doesn't know what recessive genes mean.
One could dread a future in which immigrants of inferior culture, equally ignorant of recessive genes, were starting to blame wives for infidelity if both husband and wife were brown-eyed and a child was blue eyed.
But one could not foresee a future in which mixing of eye-colours in marriages, even if very prevalent, destroyed blue eyes by biological necessity. That's not how recessive genes work.
Thursday, January 2, 2025
"CHRIST THE KING LUTHERAN CHURCH" disfigures Church History About Luther
Follow up of dialogue in earlier post:
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Why Don't I Share Lutheran Admiration for Luther?
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/03/why-dont-i-share-lutheran-admiration.html
2:55 "the Church had put a bounty on his head, that if anyone killed him"
Can you document that?
Or are you informing yourself on Luther by Merle d'Aubigné, who should have been a novelist rather than a pastor?
- brandenburg2388
- @brandenburg2388
- Are you a direct descendant of Grigori Rasputin?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- @brandenburg2388 Are you part of "Christ the King Lutheran Ministries"?
If not, why are they not answering, but leaving a kind of ad hominem to "people" (if that's even the word) like you?
- brandenburg2388
- @hglundahl I'm just curious because you look so much like Rasputin from your hairstyle and beard.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @brandenburg2388 Hairstyle and beard are very non-genetic things.
OK, women don't have beards, and some people are genetically bald, but otherwise ...
- Jude Enweremadu
- @judeenweremadu609
- These guys love to spread falsehood against the Holy Roman Catholic church
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @judeenweremadu609 Indeed!
- Watermaster
- @watermaster2197
- The papal bull stated that anyone who killed Luther would be held safe from any spiritual or secular punishment.
- I answered.
- The answer disappeared, but here is its content:
a) the part about killing was part of the Imperial ban, Charles V was Emperor, not Pope
b) there was probably no bounty, just a promise of non-punishment
c) the bull Decet Romanum Potificem declared that he should be reduced to begging:
IV We add to our present declaration, by our Apostolic authority, that states, territories, camps, towns and places in which these men have temporarily lived or chanced to visit, along with their possessions—cities which house cathedrals and metropolitans, monasteries and other religious and sacred places, privileged or unprivileged—one and all are placed under our ecclesiastical interdict, while this interdict lasts, no pretext of Apostolic Indulgence (except in cases the law allows, and even there, as it were, with the doors shut and those under excommunication and interdict excluded) shall avail to allow the celebration of mass and the other divine offices. We prescribe and enjoin that the men in question are everywhere to be denounced publicly as excommunicated, accursed, condemned, interdicted, deprived of possessions and incapable of owning them. They are to be strictly shunned by all faithful Christians.
There was also a note that the papal bull should be nailed to Church doors.
Irony?
Anti-Catholic Arguments by Stephen Hackett — Answered
Why I'm not a Catholic
Biblical Studies and Reviews, Stephen Hackett | 8 Aug. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xBksHAy8cM
4:40 Two possible answers.
1) the Biblical rule gives the maximum, in "husband of one wife" (not two, not three, but on the other hand no wife at all is fine, see St. Paul)
2) the NT term "episkopos" might even mean "presbyteros" (and "presbyteros" may be one of the several NT terms for "episkopos") and in Eastern Rite, the presbyteroi are allowed to marry before, but not after ordination. Pope Michael I restored this for the Latin rite as well.
5:06 The passage just cited is obviously for the case that someone actually does have a family. It's not a ban on ordination of celibates, since St. Paul (Acts 13) was ordained, and (I Cor 7) was celibate.
5:51 Actually the requirement is not of ruling a family first, but of, if he has a family, showing he is able to rule it.
A celibate man who is not running into affairs but is instead chaste is also ruling his house, namely his own body.
6:37 As I hinted, it is possible that the NT usage of "episkopos" and "presbyteros" have been switched.
St. Peter was what we call a bishop, and he adresses his "synpresbyteroi".
St. Paul talks of "episkopoi" in manners that somewhat seem applicable to simple priests.
The solution one Apologist offered is, the NT had no unified word for bishop, but interchangeably spoke of:
- apostoloi
- euangelistai
- prophetai
- aggeloi
- presbuteroi
The word for priest however being "episkopos" ...
After the first generation, several categories died off, so, instead of chosing between "aggeloi" and "presbuteroi" one took the word "episkopoi" (the twelve were the first bishops and of Judas a prophecy ran "may his episcopate be given to one another"... while the original "episkopoi" got the demoted word "presbuteros" ...
6:51 The multiple bishops in Ephesus do not prove they were not what we call bishops, just that they were not all of them the ordinary.
7:39 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
[Matthew 18:17]
And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven
[Matthew 16:19]
Also, Jesus is giving the first bishops, a select group within the believers, the task of perpetuating all of His teaching:
And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them And seeing him they adored: but some doubted And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world
[Matthew 28:16—20]
To the twelve, in presence of their host:
But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you
[John 14:26]
7:38 apart from the Scriptures given in a comment that for some reason is taken down, but saved for publication on my blog, I'd add that the formulation in "CCC" (which is not the traditional format of a catechism, where the number of questions is more limited so as to make learning by heart a possible task, which is not Catholic, which is not of the Church) that you gave is both true and untrue.
It is true if you give "authentikos" its full Greek meaning.
Like in "the authentic text" not just meaning "a correct text" but an obligatory reference text.
However, in Protestantism, which has largely shaped the culture, and even more so in Protestant countries, learning has usurped the place of authority and become a kind of magisterial authority. Since learning is concerned with finding "the correct text" (as far as humanly possible), the word "authentic" has by now taken on this nuance.
Seen like that, the statement in CCC is absurd. The correct formulation is:
decrees, that no one, relying on his own skill, shall,–in matters of faith, and of morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, –wresting the sacred Scripture to his own senses, presume to interpret the said sacred Scripture contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,–whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,–hath held and doth hold;
So, the Church is giving a judgement, not just an expert opinion, and the magisterium has a monopoly of that kind of judgements, but it doesn't claim to have one on expert opinions. Also, the power of the Church even to judge is itself limited, namely to things that were already doctrine (at the minimum licit doctrine) from time immemorial even before the judgement was made. The council of Trent was very aware that the certainly valid bishop Cranmer and the at least possibly valid bishop Laurentius Petri Nericius (his consecrator had acted under constraint while being a frail man) had abused the magisterial authority that went with the consecration to impose a new sense which the Church had not previously held.
7:51 Come on, Beroea and neighbouring Thessalonica were Jews not yet converted to Christianity.
The intense research into the (OT!) Scriptures were within making the decision to become Christians.
The Catholic Church still to this day places a great worth on studying before making the final decision to convert. In a Susan fiction of mine, where Susan, who's going to get to Aslan's country from OUR world obviously converts, her coversion is actually very fast-forwarded, she's received a few hours after getting convinced, but this is a highly exceptional thing, indeed possibly an act of God. If she had waited a few months more between the trainwreck and the publication of LWW, that book could have ruined even her first confession. Her having been to Narnia could have been classed as a private revelation, and the Church exercises extreme caution with such. In real life experience of Catholic conversions, it takes at least one year or at the very least six months, unless the person was previously known to be an overall good theologian, and also to have a good grasp on Catholic doctrine. Newman fulfilled those conditions and even so:
In February 1843, Newman published, as an advertisement in the Oxford Conservative Journal, an anonymous but otherwise formal retractation of all the hard things he had said against Roman Catholicism. Lockhart became the first in the group to convert formally to Catholicism. Newman preached his last Anglican sermon at Littlemore, the valedictory "The parting of friends" on 25 September, and resigned the living of St Mary's, although he did not leave Littlemore for two more years, until his own formal reception into the Catholic Church. An interval of two years then elapsed before Newman was received into the Catholic Church on 9 October 1845 by Dominic Barberi, an Italian Passionist, at the college in Littlemore.
To my own conversion, delays after delays were put, the first one being, in 1985, before my 17th birthday, I asked a Jesuit what to do to convert, and his main response was "wait a year" and in 1986, another Jesuit told me the same thing, and I told him I had already been told that. My conversion studies made a false start just before Christmas in 1986, and another one in the Spring Term of 1987, after which I finally had two terms of conversion studies autumn 1987 and spring 1988, being received a few months before Marcel Lefebvre "was excommunicated" as people would have it over where they were editing the "CCC" ...
This is not by any means a warrant that someone who already is a Christian has a right or duty to regularly double check the magisterium with the Scriptures.
Moreoever, the checking that the Beroeans did was mainly about the spiritual senses of the OT, like, "can Jesus on the Cross really have been a Paschal lamb (as St. John says He was in chapter 19 verse 36)?" or "was Mary the new Jael and Judith" (traditional text of Luke 1:28) "and was She the woman foretold in Genesis 3:15?" ...
The OT was all they had and a straightforward literal reading only would not have immediately shown them that Jesus was the Messias, except for certain prophecies (and "did Churches of Jerusalem and Samaria show Isaias 11:13 fulfilled?")
Furthermore we know that Jesus Himself was not content with a literal only reading of the OT (Luke 24:27 shows Jesus exposing the spiritual and prophetic sense of even historic books and laws of the OT).
So, St. Paul was bringing the Church to them, something which at this time certainly had more structural similarity to the Catholic Church than to Protestantism today, he proposed a reading of the Scriptures which was new to them, and before converting, they needed to double check if that other reading was really compatible with the OT Scriptures as such. They were very far from being laymen double-checking whether people already their pastors agreed with how they already were reading the Bible, OT and NT.
Your error about the Beroeans is comparable to that of 7DA who from St. Paul preaching in Synagogues on the Sabbath to not yet converted Jews concluded that Sabbath (Saturday, starting with Friday evening, ending on Saturday evening) was his own day of worship.
8:31 The "ye" (Ephesians 3:4) is still very valid for an instructed Catholic reader.
None of the readers in Ephesus, and especially not St. Timothy, their first monarchic bishop (who is not designated as "episkopos" but more often as "thou" or as "Timothy" in three Bible books) who had already learned the OT Scriptures, was probably a Yanuka, and had probably already been taught the Christian reading of the OT by St. Paul, none of them were modern Protestants, brought up in Bible alone Christianity, and so it is not clear that the "ye" includes these.
8:37 St. Paul certainly expected that people back then could read his epistles and understand them at least in part, but St. Peter equally noted he was already back then misunderstood in parts.
My pet theory is that St. Peter was especially referring to the Epistle to the Romans here:
And account the longsuffering of our Lord, salvation; as also our most dear brother Paul, according to the wisdom given him, hath written to you As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction
[2 Peter 3:15-16]
But even if every word St. Paul had written in his epistles had been perfectly clear to everyone in the First Century, this does not necessarily translate to them remaining so to a Modern and especially not instructed as Catholic reader. Context which was obvious to everyone back then has been lost, is no longer common cultural background knowledge. The Sitz im Leben of all the NT books, there are many guesses, and some of them very wrong, made about particular books in order to counter particular points, by Protestant scholars. However there is one huge and if you think of it very visible point that the Protestant believer as believer regularly forgets: they were all given in and preserved by and read by a Church which was certainly unified, well beyond what Baptists and Methodists could agree on as "core doctrine", which was certainly hierarchic, whether or not bishops and priests were two different things. And which was also receiving instructions in other ways than by the NT books, for instance for the liturgy. Three conditions that the Protestant reader is regularly short of, since the continuity with that Church was certainly broken at the Deformation.
8:56 Your quote is actually a vindication of his own apostolic authority. And of oral tradition.
But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema
[Galatians 1:8-9]
Now "received" here does not refer to receiving a book, it refers to receiving a message. And especially, it's a corollary to "hand on" (paradidein, I think, tradere).
Every Catholic in England and Sweden who laid down his life rather than become Protestant was avoiding that curse.
Now, a Protestant may pretend that the Gospel Paul had handed on to the Galatians was the Protestant view of the Gospel, sorry, impossible, it would have been lost for too long, Jesus would in that case not have kept the promise in Matthew 28:20. It was in fact a Gospel which excluded Judaising.
9:28 "but those things have been now transmitted to us in Scripture"
You show a page of Romans chapter 1, presumably not as finding a prooftext there, but only as examplifying.
There was no such prooftext in Romans 1.
St. Paul never tells anyone, "I preach no more, from now on rely on my writings only" but on the contrary:
To the Greeks and to the barbarians, to the wise and to the unwise, I am a debtor So (as much as is in me) I am ready to preach the gospel to you also that are at Rome
[Romans 1:14-15]
So, while Romans is written, oral preaching and oral tradition is still an ongoing concern.
It's a talking point among Protestants that this is no longer the case. For instance, Gavin Ortlund is not willing to trust oral tradition beyond the first century. He thinks that by the time one appealed to it about the Assumption of Mary, it had been corrupted, like a bad text, and that now the only "good text" to the Gospel message is a "good text" (in the closer sense) of the actual NT books.
But this claim is actually nowhere made anywhere, neither about the then present, nor about the then future, which partly would include what's past to us. The NT authors take for granted that the Church that Jesus founded, Paul, Timothy, the men Timothy laid his hands on, later men that they laid their hands on, and so on, would continue to preach up to the end of time.
The quote from Galatians is a bad talking point for "grace not works" polemics, as St. Paul was very arguably speaking of "NT works, not OT works" .... but it's not even a talking point at all for Scripture alone or against the magisterium except (note it very well, like the Council of Trent did note, and the excerpt you gave from "CCC" didn't note) a magisterium that changes its mind in comparison to previous positions.
10:07 You are relying on NIV?
Because this is exactly how St. Paul treats tradition.
Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
[2 Thessalonians 2:14]
I'm not a fan of CCC, but what you just quoted is a straight off translation of II Thess. 2:14.
You may not agree with the claim that the present tradition of the Catholic Church is the same as that given by St. Paul. But it is obvious that whatever tradition is, needs to be on the same foot as Scripture. And before you say "but no tradition is that any more" you have introduced a position that is nowhere at all found in the NT as a prophecy of the future even, and which contradicts Matthew 28:16—20. Jesus said His tradition through the Apostles could not be lost.
Mark 7:9 actually has "paradosin ton anthropon" = tradition of men, but the pregnant point is, it is tradition of men ... Jesus denied the traditions he enumerated were from Moses. He did not deny to Himself handing down traditions through His apostles.
Colossians 2:8 is comparing Jewish tradition about the kashrut to Epicurean philosophy, to materialism.
1 Peter 1:18 is probably speaking of pagan traditions prior to the conversion of the Romans he was adressing.
In each of these cases "tradition" or "traditions" has a qualifier, which demotes it from authoritative dignity. "Of men" " of men according epicurean philosophy" "of your fathers" (not "our fathers", so St. Peter is adressing Gentiles, whose traditions had been in error). In II Thess. 2:14 there is no such qualifier, and "tradition" is in context a totally good thing.
κρατεῖτε τὰς παραδόσεις ἃς ἐδιδάχθητε , εἴτε διὰ λόγου , εἴτε δι’ ἐπιστολῆς ἡμῶν .
Itaque fratres, state : et tenete traditiones, quas didicistis, sive per sermonem, sive per epistolam nostram
Therefore, brethren, stand fast; and hold the traditions which you have learned, whether by word, or by our epistle.
It's a sad thing that NIV gives another translation here.
And sure, a word can be polysemic in the NT, but I think generally speaking a tradition from back then is a better detector of polysemy and other semantic issues, than a reconstruction from much later on.
10:48 I find "traditions of men" in the sense you speak of in Protestantism.
Not in Catholicism.
11:19 "Jesus had brothers and sisters"
[correcting the diagramme shown here, below]
St. Joseph was a widower. Or these guys were first cousins, even.
When brethren dwell together, and one of them dieth without children, the wife of the deceased shall not marry to another: but his brother shall take her, and raise up seed for his brother:
[Deuteronomy 25:5]
This Booz, with whose maids thou wast joined in the field, is our near kinsman, and behold this night he winnoweth barley in the threshingfloor
[Ruth 3:2]
Neither do I deny myself to be near of kin, but there is another nearer than I
[Ruth 3:12]
Whatever their exact degree of kinship was to Jesus, they would have been his brothers and sisters if the duty of levirate could fall on them. Being full siblings (or given they did not have God as actual father half siblings) is not required, as the book of Ruth shows. Elimelech and Noemi only had two sons, so neither Booz nor the other man were siblings to Mahalon or Chelion, these being each other's sole male siblings.
11:31 What you really think is not the rule of the Church.
And it is also not Scripture. And it is kind of disingenious to dismiss the Catholic answer as "verbal gymnastics" ... If Scripture interprets Scripture, the "brethren" in the Gospel can be interpreted from Deuteronomy 25:5, which in turn is further interpreted as not necessarily a sibling by Ruth 3:2, Ruth 3:12. So, when Scripture interprets Scripture and gives a Catholic result, it's suddenly "verbal gymnastics"?
11:38 Yes. Free from any personal sin, or for that matter original sin.
And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women
[Luke 1:28]
Now what does "blessed among women" mean?
After all, even Mary asked what it meant.
Who having heard, was troubled at his saying, and thought with herself what manner of salutation this should be
[Luke 1:29]
Mind some double-ckecking? An OT search on "benedicta in mulieribus" gives 23 hits, and many are irrelevant, like Jeremias 20:14. The relevant ones are, and I'm switching back to English (which was offering 422 hits for "blessed among women"), these:
Blessed among women be Jahel the wife of Haber the Cinite, and blessed be she in her tent
[Judges 5:24]
And Ozias the prince of the people of Israel, said to her: Blessed art thou, O daughter, by the Lord the most high God, above all women upon the earth
[Judith 13:23]
Our Lady certainly new Scripture very well, so the thought must at least have passed Her mind "whom am I supposed to have killed?"
The answer that overjoyed Her was a repetition with a twist:
And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb
[Luke 1:42]
This is so close an echo to:
I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel
[Genesis 3:15]
She hadn't killed a man, She had killed the old serpent. What exact act of Hers could have affected Satan as a mortal headwound? Wielding a sword from Numenor? No. So, what about a non-act?
He that committeth sin is of the devil: for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose, the Son of God appeared, that he might destroy the works of the devil.
[1 John 3:8]
So, if She was totally NOT of the devil, that says something about Her relation to Sin. Total opposition.
12:14 OK ... Romans 3.
For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption, that is in Christ Jesus
[Romans 3:23-24]
"all have sinned" doesn't mean Jesus has sinned. He's an exception, as per being the redeemer. But as redemption is a snake hunt, or connected to it in Genesis 3:15, and as this snake hunt also involves Mary, She is perfectly free to be also an exception.
12:43 300 years? Really?
Sub tuum praesidium / Ὑπὸ τὴν σὴν εὐσπλαγχνίαν / Under thy Protection
- 1) The earliest text of this hymn was found in a Coptic Orthodox Christmas liturgy. Rylands Papyrus 470 records the hymn in Greek, and was dated to the 3rd century by papyrologist Edgar Lobel and by scholar Colin Henderson Roberts to the 4th century.
- 2) The opposing view that the papyrus is from 8th C. comes from Hans Förster who has a detectable bias:
1997 Promotion zum Dr. theol. an der Ev.-theol. Fakultät der Universität Wien
By contrast, Edgar Lobel was simply a scholar.
Before papyri, Lobel’s elective field of research was Greek palaeography. In 1933, he published a book on the manuscripts of Aristotle’s Poetics.
- 3) The Greek text ends up by telling the Blessed Virgin She is uniquely pure:
μόνη Ἁγνή, μόνη εὐλογημένη.
Note, as the adjectives are feminine, this absolutely does not exclude Her Son, by definition masculine, from being pure and blessed.
But if you go to non-liturgic texts, many of them in the Ante-Nicene Fathers are reinventing the wheel to give an umpteenth:
- exposition of the Christian faith, in short form
- defense of the Christian faith, in short form
- dialogue defending the faith, in somewhat longer form (unless the Dialogue with Trypho is one in its kind).
In other words, the preferred formats would have excluded Mariology if it was traditional and taken in a stride, just as much as if (contrary to Matthew 28:16—20!) the Mariology was a later invention.
12:50 "these aren't things that were passed down by the apostles"
That's more than you know.
The genre of most Ante-Nicene Fathers like that of most NT books isn't prolix enough to involve a full fledged Mariology.
However, the OT with a spiritual reading is. And that's where we tend to go to for Mariology, starting with Genesis 3:15.
The kind of silence you state as condemning Mariology is the kind of silence that secularists tend to pretend as a refutation of the Exodus. Namely silence in a source material that's too scarce to judge, except by oral traditions having survived to later texts, or in the case of Exodus, texts attested only in later manuscripts. If you pretended that an 8th C. date for Rylands Papyrus 470 refutes the apostolic origin of Sub tuum praesidium, you could as well pretend that the 9th / 10th C. dates for Corpus Caesareum disprove the historicity of the Gallic wars or that the time between the Exodus and the oldest manuscripts of anything besides the Aaronite benediction disprove the Corpus Mosaicum.
Protestants who believe Moses wrote Genesis and Exodus but disbelieve an early date for Sub tuum praesidium are like saying:
- this criterium is very important when we want it
- this criterium is totally negligible when we want that instead.
13:28 There is a difference between mediating the redemption of mankind as such and mediating the graces needed for a particular man to be part of that redemption rather than excluded from it.
So, if you take this difference into account, you have to ask, are Jesus and Mary mediating in the same sense or in different senses, in Catholicism. If it's in different senses, you are equivocating when finding an opposition between Mariology and I Tim 2:5.
14:11 Mary's role was a spiritual one.
The Acts actually does mention Her in one very important place. Totally compatible with Mediatrix omnium gratiarum.
Then they returned to Jerusalem from the mount that is called Olivet, which is nigh Jerusalem, within a sabbath day's journey And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode Peter and John, James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James of Alpheus, and Simon Zelotes, and Jude the brother of James All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren
[Acts Of Apostles 1:12-14]
If such an initial mention is not a spotlight, what is?
Most of Acts are external events, the word "prayer" is mentioned in passing.
All these were persevering with one mind in prayer with the women, and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brethren.
[Acts of Apostles 1:14]
Now Peter and John went up into the temple at the ninth hour of prayer.
[Acts of Apostles 3:1]
But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.
[Acts of Apostles 6:4]
Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thy alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God.
[Acts of Apostles 10:31]
Peter therefore was kept in prison. But prayer was made without ceasing by the church unto God for him.
[Acts of Apostles 12:5]
And upon the sabbath day, we went forth without the gate by a river side, where it seemed that there was prayer; and sitting down, we spoke to the women that were assembled.
[Acts of Apostles 16:13]
And it came to pass, as we went to prayer, a certain girl, having a pythonical spirit, met us, who brought to her masters much gain by divining.
[Acts of Apostles 16:16]
Seven times. First time Mary prays before Matthias is chosen to replace Judas and before the Holy Ghost falls on the Apostles. Last time before a demon is cast out.
So, while the word is mentioned very sparingly, it is still very important, and the very first mention involves Mary the mother of Jesus.
14:40 Was Jesus saying His mother was nothing special?
Or was Jesus saying "my mother prefers another compliment" (and some anonymity while in the earthly life).
There is nothing in Luke 11 to state that Jesus was not giving His Mother the compliment She liked best.
Elisabeth stated that Mary had already believed, namely that She was Mother of God. So, that's not the news that made Her so excited. The news was:
And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb
[Luke 1:42]
In other words, Her own Sisera was a snake, as per Genesis 3:15.
[Along his next point, he gives what he considers photo evidence]
15:10 A very beautiful procession.
It very much is part of official teaching on liturgy that such processions are licit.
And it very much does NOT constitute the worship of latria.
Precisely as carrying the Ark of the Covenant in similar processions in the OT did not mean one believed the Ark was the Lord God.
15:29 Matthew 6:7 has a Greek word that is
μὴ βατταλογήσητε
In the Syriac, this is "do not stutter", in the Coptic, this is "do not stutter" (I don't speak these languages, I checked on quora) and in the Latin it is "nolite multum loqui," or "speak not much"
The clue which clinches it can't mean repetitions like in the Rosary is "sicut ethnici" or "ὥσπερ οἱ ἐθνικοί" since Greco-Roman prayers to Olympic or Capitoline gods show no trace at all of repeating short phrases many times.
There is an example from the exact same year, by Velleius Paterculus. He isn't repeating any phrase. He's just repeating the main thought in very many variations, like if he was best served by adressing the prayers to Capitoline Jove or to Vesta and wouldn't it be best to add that "our projects" are just and noble ones, since the gods like justice and nobility.
Jesus isn't forbidding the Rosary. He's forbidding the use of speeches where you heap formulation on formulation because you nervously hesitate (i e stutter) on how to best make your case before the divine.
The translation "do not use vain repetitions" is a piece of biassed and ultimately fraudulent scholarship. It incporporates Calvin's personal dislike of repetitive prayers into the Bible translation, starting with the Geneva Bible. No previous translation, including Tyndale and Martin Luther, use this.
Luther 1545 has "sollt ihr nicht viel plappern"
Not a word about "vain repetitions" or any repetitions.
You are relying on a fake Bible text.
15:45 Just in case you haven't noted, Hail Mary is not composed of a hither and thither between different approaches to persuading God or Mary, it is just quoting the angel Gabriel and Elisabeth.
Plus adds the name Jesus "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" (here Elisabeth ended) "Jesus" (which the Church knows from elsewhere than Luke 1).
Plus another prayer which acknowledges Her as Mother of God (i e is Trinitarian) and as Mediatrix of the Graces I personally need [in order for me] to be part of Christ's redemption.
15:57 No, on this topic, your conscience is bound to the word of Calvin as dishonest Bible translator.
You could just as well advocate Thnetopsychism while using the translation of the Watchtower society for Jesus' words to St. Dismas.
When Jesus went down to the Netherworld, His Soul went to the Bosom of Abraham, and St. Dismas' soul was there too. The exact same day, before Sunset in Jerusalem.
But the Watchtower society is just fiddling with what "today" refers to. Calvin is fiddling with what a word translates as.
You are following the traditions of men.
16:20 That text Matthew 23:9 is best translated as "don't make anyone your sensei or your mentor" ...
He is not forbidding children to call their physical male progenitors father and He's not forbidding St. Paul to call himself (and obviously to expect to be called) father of the Corinthian Christians:
For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you.
[1 Corinthians 4:15]
So, what exact nuance does "father" have?
- physical progenitor? Not meant
- spiritual father in Christ? Not meant
- mentor or sensei ... very much meant.
16:32 "saints" refers to three concentric circles.
- all Christians
- died faithful whose souls are glorified
- those of these remembered by the Church, all in general on 1 November, other specifically designated on Biblical criteria.
Point 1, the Scripture you will cite.
Point 2.
And Jesus again crying with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost And behold the veil of the temple was rent in two from the top even to the bottom, and the earth quaked, and the rocks were rent And the graves were opened: and many bodies of the saints that had slept arose And coming out of the tombs after his resurrection, came into the holy city, and appeared to many
[Matthew 27:50-53]
Point 3
a) Jesus canonised St. Dismas.
b) when the Church canonises criteria are the miracle workings of the relics.
So that even there were brought from his body to the sick, handkerchiefs and aprons, and the diseases departed from them, and the wicked spirits went out of them.
[Acts of Apostles 19:12]
That's a second degree relic for each case.
And some that were burying a man, saw the rovers, and cast the body into the sepulchre of Eliseus. And when it had touched the bones of Eliseus, the man came to life, and stood upon his feet
[4 Kings 13:21]
That's first degree relics.
And obviously working miracles in life and in person as well counts as proof.
With St. Thomas Becket, as Gavin Ashenden noted, 703 miracles were recorded by notarians just during the first year [after his martyrdom].
16:44 "sainthood is sth that only a few Christians achieve"
Unless you add "canonisable" I would like you to give a source for it.
Btw, the canonised sainthood is already a thing in the Bible, namely the "Hall of Faith" in Hebrews 11 ending in the verse 12:1.
you can see 16:56 this trajectory in the early church 16:58 there was this very simple movement of 17:01 Christians who loved the Lord who were 17:04 dedicated they they wore simple garments 17:07 they were despised poor people
The "informal movement" never existed, is nowhere described in the NT.
Jesus made a hierarchy of seventy-two among the disciples in general, and of twelve among the seventy-two, and of St. Peter among the 12.
Wearing simple garments (in daily life, as opposed to liturgy) is clearly an adiaphoron. Also not true of St. Joseph of Arimathaea or of St. Nicodemus, both of whom were rich Pharisees, like the house possessors in all the house churches were rich, that being the structure of Roman society. Owning a domus, as opposed to renting an apartment in an insula in Rome was for the rich, for people comparable to Trump.
While liturgic garments are not directly mentioned in the NT, they can be implied as seen as appropriate with a comparison with the Aaronite priesthood, which St. Paul puts in parallel with the Christian clergy:
We have an altar, whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle
[Hebrews 13:10]
The NT has a few reproaches against OT clergy, but not one of them is being clergy and not one of them is a criticism of their liturgic garments while serving in the temple.
Father Wilhelm Imach who received me in the Catholic Church (or at worst Novus Ordo sect, but he was validly ordained, before Vatican II) had a simpler wardrobe than you seem to have. Like the wardrobe he wore in the kitchen or at catechism. Liturgy is different.
17:21 You know, the general outline of a basilica in the time of Constantine and later is the outline of a Roman market hall, not of a Roman pagan temple.
Getting your facts straight, like checking outside Bible scholars with specialists on Roman Antiquities might help if you have the honesty to try it.
Which I recommend.
Roman house churches, as archaeologists dig up, were fine villas, not poor men's cottages. In Jerusalem, a house could hold 120 people in one room, that's not a poor man's cottage either.
And if you are still concerned that Cathedrals look like Pagan Temples, how about the similarities between the Temple of Solomon and Egyptian architecture? The temple part of which was obviously dedicated to false gods who were humiliated in the Ten Plagues.
But part of your problem with a Cathedral is that it is big, it is meant to serve a Christian people basically coextensive with the general population, while you seem to think being Christian means being part of a fairly exclusive club, only a religious minority, like the Church started out as. Correct me if I get you wrong. The problem with your attitude is, you contradict Matthew 28:16—20, this time the words "teach all nations" ... your theology seems to be anchored in the New World translation: "teach you people from out of all nations" which is not what the Greek says.
μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη
While Notre Dame was built as a temple of God, it was big, because it was meant for a sizeable part of the ethnos of Paris. This is true whatever you believe of the new decition, which I did not participate in.
17:36 Special hats and special garments are found in Exodus~Leviticus.
Crucifixes are found since God allowed St. Helen to find the true Cross.
Yes, this relic of God's death worked miracles.
18:10 I went to Latomus' refutation of Tyndale about Romans 3.
Unlike the Counsel of Trent, later on, Latomus agreed with Tyndale that "works of the law" were simply works of the Decalogue, of God's law in general.
Tyndale "neither previous nor subsequent works are required"
Latomus "previous works are not required, subsequent are"
It's as if Tyndale read a fav. passage of Protestants. Ephesians 2:8,9.
Latomus read a fav. passge of Catholics. Ephesians 2:8—10
Wednesday, January 1, 2025
No, Jesus was not a Muslim (In the Normal Sense of the Word) — nor a Protestant
When They Tell You Jesus Was a Muslim . . .
Apologetics Roadshow | 5 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QEHL32CXe4
Eddie had a point that Jesus wasn't a Protestant.
Jesus fasted like some devout Polish Catholics do for Christmas. 40 days. OK, not touching any food this time, that's a bit more radical than even Poles fasting for Christmas.
For lots of the rest of us, we are content with doing the same during Lent (same as Poles for Christmas, usually not the same as the total fast of Jesus) before Easter instead.
Did he say "Ramadan"? That's 29 or 30 days.
Jesus fasted 40 days, like the 40 (intermittent) days of Lent or the 40 days from St. Martin to Christmas (you know, the diehard Polish Catholics).
5:35 You certainly have a point about the mode of fasting.
However, the fact there is a set time is actually not betraying what is an absolute secret.
What is secret is:
a) personally decided fasts
b) how much you actually fast during the Lent before Easter (and, if you are a Pole, those days from St. Martin's to Christmas as well).
6:15 Did they actually refer to Joshua 7:6?
But Josue rent his garments, and fell flat on the ground before the ark of the Lord until the evening, both he and all the ancients of Israel: and they put dust upon their heads
[Josue (Joshua) 7:6]
Fell flat on the ground is a somewhat different gesture
12:59 I'm sorry, you are using a horrible Bible translation. Here is a better one:
And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women
[Luke 1:28]
The latter being an echo of the praise given to Jael and to Judith. But it's missing from your Bible.
However, your point is about a few verses later:
Behold thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and shalt bring forth a son; and thou shalt call his name Jesus He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father; and he shall reign in the house of Jacob for ever
[Luke 1:31-32]
Fair enough, but get a decent Bible translation. The one I'm using is Douay Rheims in the Challoner revision.
18:16 "the most obvious false prophet ever"
Apart from Marx, with Engels, Darwin and a few more?
25:15 A syllogism (including one syllogism in a polysyllogism) needs three terms to meet in three propositions, two of which involve major or minor term and the middle term, the last of which involves the major and minor term, i e predicate and subject of the last proposition a k a conclusion, and any term is distributed in a proposition if it is either the subject of a universal proposition ("dog" in "all dogs are mammals") or predicate in a negative proposition ("dog" in "no cats are dogs").
The fallacy occurs if the middle term is undistributed in both the first propositions, in both the premisses.
("dog" in "some dogs are French Poodles, some dogs are German Shepherds", "dog" in "some dogs are police dogs, some dogs are working dogs" ... the occurrence of "dog" in both tells us nothing about how the major and minor terms relate, since NO French Poodles are German Shepherds and ALL police dogs are working dogs).
On New Year's Day, or Circumcision of God
The Gifts Of Grace Bestowed Upon Mary | Fr Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange
Return To Tradition | 1 Jan. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hJcoO3STjE
Happy New Year!
1:19 I thought you said Dom Guéranger, no, Fr. Garrigou-Lagrange, my bad, haven't read him, will listen
13:22 What I have stated about the good surprise that She had when visiting St. Elisabeth amounts to:
a) She suspended final judgement about being the Mother of God and of the Saviour until an earthly ecclesiastic authority confirmed it, basically like She told Bernadette to do;
b) She did not know or had at least suspended final judgement about Her being sinless, until Elisabeth explained the words of the angel with a clearer reference to Genesis 3:15.
Total defeater of Satan = totally sinless.
And if you ask me, She was happier about this even than about being the Mother of God. This is confirmed by Her divine Son's words "nay rather" which amount to saying: "give my mother the compliment she really savours" and also is how She raised Her Son. He was, humanly, happier about pleasing the Father than about being the Son.
What exactly do I mean?
"blessed among women" = total and mortally so defeater of someone (Jael and Judith, you just said She knew Scripture very well, which is true)
"and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" = woman and son = Genesis 3:15, it was the snake's head She had already crushed.
Unlike the Witch-King of Angmar, Satan can't be defeated by swords, so the one total defeat he could suffer from a human person was that someone being sinless.
And She knew also it was not just Her divine Son's sinlessness, since She had been told this by the angel before She was pregnant. Confer what the angel tells Her the following verses, "thou shalt conceive" ...
I don't understand what the Protestants are doing, those who claim to believe the Bible and refuse to believe the total sinlessness, hence the Immaculate Conception.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)