A Catholic View of Alcohol

A Catholic View of Alcohol · Drinking in Moderation is OK · Narcissism and Selfishness do NOT Define Sin

Catholic view of Alcohol! | When it can become a mortal sin
LizziesAnswers | 8 July 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRMEFqUV2Qk

Below are my comments on video, and dialogues, the first in response to a comment by me.

0:53 I thought St. Gambrinus was the patron saint of brewers (and by extension of my grandfather, when he was at work)?

Augustine of Hippo?

6:22 On a country road in certain parts of Ireland, where cars drive slow and not meet very often, I don't think taking a beer before the last part of the ride is endangering anyone's life.

In defense of a man I hitchhiked with in 1986 - the same trip to Ireland where I also bought a folder on the Rosary for my upcoming conversion (received in 1988, before Monsignor Lefebvre was declared automatically excommunicated, and by a priest who approved of him "except for the lack of obedience" - he used the Novus Ordo).

I

wolfthequarrelsome

@wolfthequarrelsome504

That's not Ireland in 2023.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@wolfthequarrelsome504 There are two roads from Tralee to Killarney.

One of them is N22. The other is more winding. I still think that other one could be more empty, since those in a hurry would take N22.

11:58 What of friends who pressure you to eat more and more?

Like, I am homeless, and some Muslims who know a real solid meal will not allow a small amount of alcohol to make you even tipsy, when they see me take a small amount of alcohol, they get eager to provide a big amount of food.

What if a light meal and alcohol (2 - 4 cl pure = c. 25 cl wine or a pint of beer) will make one pee well and then sleep well, while a big meal will make one wake up too early next morning (even 1 am) and not be able to get back to sleep?

12:34 Let's take the kind of friends (not only Muslims) who would like me to drink no alcohol at all, or if I do, have no benefit of it.

Do they give me the peace needed to pray a rosary? No.

Read a book ... nice the day hours are long now. I did manage to finish "Fantômette contre Fantômette" day before yesterday - before the eyes of some who were worried to see me lying down. It's about as long as a Famous Five. I have not been able to finish a Lord of the Rings [reading] since I became homeless, while, before that, I used to do yearly complete rereads.

A walk? Public transports in Paris leave me lots of stretches to actually walk on foot, even if I take a transport.

Talking with friends and family? Hmmm ... family I don't know. Friends (not the kind I mentioned) who are not willing to be seen with me at all times.

II

The Rooted Word (Ukraine)

@TheRootedWord

An ad for alcohol was played before this.

LizziesAnswers

@LizziesAnswers

That's SO funny!!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@LizziesAnswers I hope it said "always drink with moderation" -- alcohol ads in France are required to.

III

M

@WanM786

I beleive that some facts were fabricated. That is why there is such a contradiction. Remember, Martin Luther also said that the Church leaders were fabricating facts.

Therefore, I hope you are also convinced that they have fabricated facts. I beleive Jesus never gave alcohol to anyone.

Church leaders wanted to drink alchool , so they just came up with this imaginary story thag Jesus gifted alchool to someone.

Come on ! Everyone knows that Jesus said Alchool is your enemy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Are you suggesting that the Church of martyrs was faking Gospel texts?

Are you aware that the Old Testament commands the use of alcohol on festive occasions? (Probably does not apply to Nasirs).

Are you saying Jews faked the text of the Torah as well, even if the laws are not commonly listed in divergences between Masoretic, Samaritan and LXX?

Are you a hardcore, like a Muslim, or a lightcore like people who make believe that Jesus transformed water to unfermented grape juice and that's what St. Paul was talking to when it came to St. Timothy as well?

"Jesus said Alchool is your enemy."

No. He didn't. Even the word wasn't in use, since the original use of it was for distilled liquor, and that was invented much later.

Can a Catholic be a Young Earth Creationist, or Does this Reveal Sloppy Reception into the Church (or a False Claim of Reception)?

Can a Catholic be a Young Earth Creationist, or Does this Reveal Sloppy Reception into the Church (or a False Claim of Reception)? · Can a Catholic Believe in Any Kind of Sedevacantism?

What to expect in RCIA! Responding to Protestants. Why I LOVED it. (now called OCIA)
LizziesAnswers, 9 April 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qSyXNOiHWOI

2:06 Jesus gave 12 and 72 followers a 3 and a half years long course in OT exegesis, with Christological implications.

What does the commenter even mean?

10:04 It may be noted, when I became a Novus Ordo Catholic in 1988 (for a priest ordained in the old rite, in 1958!), and I made that statement:

• I had been taught what you would call OCIA for longer than foreseen, since interrupting and starting over, for more than a full year
• I had been taught from a Catechism fully compatible with YEC
• I had been verbally told I did not need to be YEC, not no one had said I couldn't
• and pour cause - Antipope Wojtyla hadn't as yet come out as Theistic Evolutionist, which he did in 1992, by which time I was a Trad - considering him as kind of Pope, but not to be obeyed, since a Modernist (I know - the FSSPX position is not totally coherent, even if Rev Paul Natterer tried to make it such).

My Harrassers Took on Lizzie Reezay

Why Catholics have Crucifixes (rather than empty cross)
LizziesAnswers, 19 Febr. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os5oF7cAPOE

Dialogue A:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

0:35 sth ... if you were looking at the crucifix, you were in fact assisting at Mass in a perfect way.

As Catholics we believe the sacrifice of the Mass is really and truly the same sacrifice as on Calvary.

ISR Berlinerin

Your catholic arrogant self-righteousness and delusional thinking has no bounds . To claim that a catholic Mass is the same as what the living Savior and Lord did on the Cross of Calvary is utterly bizarre and an insult to the living Savior . By the way Jesus Christ is not a catholic religion nor any other religion , he does not live in religious symbols and rituals ! The living Savior and Lord Jesus Christ lives only in the hearts of people that receive Him follow and worship only Him .

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ISR Berlinerin I am sorry, but you are attacking me as a person for in fact remaining a Catholic.

Jesus said so Himself by "do this in remembrance of me" and "which shall be shed for the forgiveness of sins" ...

I believe what Jesus said, and you do not.

When you go to Hell, you will see who was the arrogant one in God's eyes.

5:47 The prayer you mentioned, loosely based on Corinthians, is one of the additions in the New Liturgy.

You may note it is not there in either Latin Mass or Eastern Liturgies ... it is one of the reasons some have to reject the New Liturgy, as "until you come again" sounds like an odd thing to say after transsubstantiation, when Christ is already there before us.

That said, the actual text in Corinthians is a proof text for Mass really being a sacrifice.

7:30 "Protestant reaction"

Baptist reaction. Lutherans are Protestants too, Anglicans are Protestants too.

Both of these do have Crucifixes. For Calvinists, I am not sure, in fact I think they haven't.

8:00 Given what psalm He quoted, was He really perfectly kind against all his persecutors?

They could sense He was comparing them to the Oxen of Bashan ..

Dialogue B:

ISR Berlinerin

The living Savior and Lord Jesus Christ as you well know is Risen and the cross is empty .Jesus Christ suffered for the redemption of all humanity . That was and is Gods plan of salvation and you catholics nor any other religion can add to the sacrifice . When we take communion Jesus said do this in remembrance of Me . He did not say you catholics keep me on your catholic crucifix and suffer and sacrifice all the time it is religiously delusional .It is also obvious you do not know what the meaning is pick up your cross and follow Mw , because you are not "Born Again " (spiritual birth ) you catholics follow every other catholic symbol and ritual . You read a few scriptures with a false interpretation so it fits into your catholic box . It is clear from all you stated that do not even know the living risen Savior its all religious lip -service !

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"and you catholics nor any other religion can add to the sacrifice"

Making the sacrifice present again is not adding to it.

"When we take communion Jesus said do this in remembrance of Me"

Do "this" ... namely what Jesus had just done. Made His Body present in the remaining appearance of the Bread. Made His Blood present in the remaining appearance of the Wine.

Made His Body and Blood present separately, because they were separated on Calvary.

The Mass is a remembrance that contains the sacrifice it recalls. The species are signs, that contain Whom They signify and What They signify.

"it is religiously delusional"

Are you part of a psychiatric persecution against Catholic converts?

"because you are not "Born Again " (spiritual birth )"

Both Lizzie and I were what you call born again, before deciding hat becoming Catholic was the way to STAY God's children.

We also know the verses in John 3 refer to sacramental baptism, which is available for children too.

"You read a few scriptures with a false interpretation so it fits into your catholic box"

I am better equipped to find scriptures that do not fit yours, than you to find scriptures not fitting ours.

Using phrases from Scripture to denounce someone doesn't equal disproving his position from those texts.

When you land in Hell, you'll find that out ... unless (unlikely, but nothing is impossible for God) you decide to actually listen and eventually see how wrong you are.

I am not a priest. I do apologetics to amuse me, but partly also to defend me against crooks like you, whose cabales heap up obstacles around the Catholic life I want to live.

So, I do not promise to be patient or gentle with you.

ISR Berlinerin

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I can tell your self-righteousness ,rebellion and Pride speak very loudly . You never were truly Born Again like Jesus Christ said you must to enter the Kingdom of God . John 3: 3-7 . If that were true you would not call me a crook and spew other venomous insults .It is obvious how indoctrinated and deceived you are and the Roman Cult is your little god . Calling scriptures phrases shows how less you think of the Written Word of God and again you catholics are very selective what scriptures to believe and the rest you dismiss . You believe the catholic religion is the way to stay Gods children , who are you trying to convince ? Its yourself ! Your counterfeit religion could never save a soul ! Jesus Christ Said ; I Am The Way (not a dead religion) , I Am The Truth ( not the Roman pseudo Mary + Saints ) I Am The Life ( spiritual new birth ) No One comes to Father but by Me . By the way sacramental baptism for children and adults its another catholic delusion just like so many other rituals , its just not biblical . So again watch what you say wishing me to go to hell , you religious folks heap only condemnation on your self !

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ISR Berlinerin Did you note "of water and Spirit"? Christ said sacramental baptism.

" you catholics are very selective what scriptures to believe and the rest you dismiss"

Which ones are we supposed to be dismissing according to you?

"So again watch what you say wishing me to go to hell"

I was not wishing, but predicting ...

You worship God YOUR way, I'll worship Him in HIS.

Denunciation:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It's pretty probable that ISR Berlinerin lives in Germany.

It's pretty obvious to me that Catholics largely ignore me and I have a heavy following by non-conformists or evangelicals, including 7DA, who are not the least interested in getting my writing into print, but very interested in finding out what's "wrong" with me ... take a look at the stats from my main blog. Overall, the stats from the 16th were on over 10 000 on my blogs, and this is not the first time. It's usually Germany and Sweden that head those days, in the week stats from today you'll find the US has come in above Sweden, but not above Germany.

One week 3,58 k, one single day, the 16th, above 2.5 k.

Germany 2041 United States 645 Sweden 381
Russia 256 France 196 India 26

The Netherlands 5

Canada, Finland, Ukraine 3 each, 9
Benin, Czechia, United Kingdom, Turkey, Vietnam 2 each, 10
Belgium, Cyprus, Greece 1 each, 3

Other 8

2041 + 645 + 381 + 256 + 196 + 26 + 5 + 9 + 10 + 11 = 3580

Two Comments on an Excellent Catholic Apologetics Video

And the latter led to some debate.

Why the word "Catholic" IS NOT in the Bible!!! Does it prove Protestantism? 🤔
26th of August 2021 | LizziesAnswers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbgOvRg8Huc

Hans-Georg Lundahl

6:51 Have you also heard Protestants claiming Councils of Orange match "grace not works"?

It actually says, you cannot GET justified by doing certain things, but once grace justifies you, you start doing some of them (obviously not all do monastic vows, specifically mentioned in C of O, specifically impugned by Luther and Reformers).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

7:36 "heretics violate the faith itself by a false opinion about God"

Are you sure you have the right Pope?

Bergoglio, whom you presumably call "Pope Francis" stated things in 2014 about "magic wand" that seem very close to denying the actual omnipotence of God and are somewhat pointless if that wasn't the case.

I have come across "Catholic priests" (well, one at least, "Assumptionist Father" Antoni) who denies Adam and Eve were literally individual people who lived like you and I do. Check Council of Trent, and I don't mean just session IV with Biblical inerrancy, I mean more specifically session V, decree on original sin, canons 1, 2 and 3.

Julie Elizabeth

Not everything that comes out of the pope's mouth is a change in doctrine, and certainly not from any priest.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Julie Elizabeth What comes out of a pope's or a priest's mouth should NEVER be an actual CHANGE in doctrine.

Definitions that are infallible are not the only occasion that a Pope and a simple priest need to agree with already defined doctrine, need to be NOT heretical.

The "magic wand" quote is prima facie in contradiction with previously defined dogma about God's omnipotence. That these do not contain an actual "magic wand" doesn't mean his words cannot fall under their condemnation, as "magic wand" was obviously a rhetorical flourish on the theme of being able to do exactly ANYTHING He wanted to do and without having to wait.

Evolutionism is very widely accepted among Bergoglio's "Catholics" and the priest who contradicted session V of the Council of Trent was a shocker on what lengths this could go to.

Accepting an evolutionary timeline for man contradicts one way or the other the doctrines about Adam.

1) You pose him 40 000 or 90 000 BP - no chance of Genesis 3 being accurately accepted history, not to mention Genesis 4 making him a farmer;
2) You pose him along Biblical timeline or not too far earlier back than that, you get a problem how he could be ancestral to Amerindian and Australian aborigine populations.

It is implied in dogma that Genesis 3 is correctly transmitted, both Session V of Trent and Marian dogma (1854, for instance), and the idea of men coming from non-Adamite ancestry (remotely possible exception - via Adam) is condemned both when Popes defined Amerindians are real men (somewhat hard to believe for some Conquistadors after watching Aztek human sacrifice) and when they condemned a book by Isaac de la Peyrère, whose idea on pre-Adamites is hailed as a precursor of Darwin. Therefore, whenever you pose Adam, you get a contradiction with Catholic dogma, unless you pose the beginning of the Universe and Earth at the same time, meaning you accept creation science.

When Pius XII said he did not want to condemn the idea of Adam having not quite human but anatomically close ancestors, he had no idea of carbon dating, which is involved in Cro-Magnon skeleta and Neanderthal skeleta from same Europe back in carbon dated 45 000 to 40 000 BP, living together for what carbon wise appears to be 5000 years. He could have imagined the modern "science" would be content to use geological datings and to prove Neanderthals way earlier, and then to accept a couple of non-human, purely animal Neanderthal or even Cro-Magnon progenitors (despite Cro-Magnon) giving rise to a child who by God's miracle was raised to become a man. And that this man lived c. 5000 or not much more than 10 000 BC and that he was ancestral to all populations.

It is bad enough that he envisaged Cro-Magnon and that he envisaged Neanderthals as non-human, but with carbon dates for advent of Cro-Magnon to different parts of the world, he would eventually (if he hadn't already been very old) have had to face the conundrum I outlined.

Note well, his words have been abused as being a definition that Evolution is acceptable theology, in fact it isn't. It includes a provision for a debate between Evolutionists and Creationists provided they are both versed in sciences and in theology. This debate was shortcut by the moral theologians concluding that if Pius XII didn't forbid Evolutionists to debate, he must have meant Evolutionism could not be condemned. On the contrary : since he mentions Biblical experts on both teams, one part of the debate would have had to be whether Evolutionism was theologically acceptable or whether there were sound Biblical arguments for condemning it which he had not foreseen.

True Food True Drink

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Illogical argumentation. Will you reject Jesus because of Judas? You can win a sin argument only if you are sinless.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@True Food True Drink It's not a sin argument, it's a heresy argument.

And to win a heresy argument, I only need to be orthodox, not sinless.

Luther had a sin argument about Alexander VI, I suppose, but no heresy argument.

I have a heresy argument about Antipope Bergoglio, not a sin argument apart from that (for the moment, or as sufficient for my rejection).

True Food True Drink

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Your arguments reflects mere lack of knowledge. Charism of Infallibility is applicable only when Pope teaches excathedra for the whole Church on faith and morals. It seems that you are a Sedevacantist. Sedevacantism is a heresy too.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@True Food True Drink 1) Sedevacantism has never been defined as a heresy;
2) it is under certain circumstances the position of St. Robert Belarmine;
3) both he and I hold, the circumstances in which a Pope is required to be orthodox, non-heretical, are not JUST infallible statements.

Sure, a pope could make a slip outside these, but in that case he would correct himself or accept fraternal correction from an inferior. If a "pope" on occasion after occasion promotes a heresy, whether "infallibly" or NOT infallibly, he cannot be reputed a Catholic and his "papacy" cannot be reputed as a papacy.

Bringing in "ex cathedra" into the mix is a red herring. Your doing so shows either dishonesty or the "mere lack of knowledge" being on your side.

True Food True Drink

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Bellarmine is not the Catholic Church. So that argument is irrelevant. You wrote “ Pope promotes heresy , infallibly or not infallibly”! Can you show me a heretical excathedra statement?.How is it even possible? So you are displaying not only lack of knowledge but also lack of faith. For us, Jesus is God and He has promised that “ the Gates of hell will not prevail against the Church”, So we Catholics keep complete faith on Jesus’ promises. Lack of faith in Jesus’ promise is the root of all heresies.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@True Food True Drink "Bellarmine is not the Catholic Church. So that argument is irrelevant."

It's not, unless you can pretend he's outside the Church.

"Can you show me a heretical excathedra statement?"

Canonisation of JP-2 would figure, but not ex cathedra would definitely do as well, as per Bellarmine.

And if you excommunicate Bellarmine, you have suddenly made Pope Pius XI a non-Pope, since canonising St. Robert definitely was an ex cathedra statement by him you see.

"So you are displaying not only lack of knowledge but also lack of faith."

Where so?

"For us, Jesus is God and He has promised that “ the Gates of hell will not prevail against the Church”, So we Catholics keep complete faith on Jesus’ promises."

He has also promised that His Church have the sign of Orthodoxy (Matthew 28:16-20) through its pastors.

Something which excludes Bergoglio from being one, especially the highest one, and therefore the one whose heresy cannot be suspended as deposition or invalidation ground until judged by a superior.

I have neither said the Gates of Hell have prevailed, nor anything that implies it. 1400 and 2000 are years having in common that there were more than one man claiming to be Pope and having followers accepting his claim. The former occasion was resolved in 1429, the latter is not yet resolved.

True Food True Drink

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Figment of imagination! The allegations does not need a reply. But I have a suggestion. Since the sedevacantism is not even a unified group, why dont you take the task of unifying them first, so that you all will have one voice atleast. Then it will be prudent to attack the Catholic church, because, as you are aware, the basic attribute of the Church is its visibility with a governance structure which is lacking in sedevacantism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@True Food True Drink "Figment of imagination! The allegations does not need a reply."

Nice try to obfuscate you don't have one!

"But I have a suggestion. Since the sedevacantism is not even a unified group, why dont you take the task of unifying them first, so that you all will have one voice atleast."

But I am not a sedevacantist, I am a conclavist.

"Then it will be prudent to attack the Catholic church, because, as you are aware, the basic attribute of the Church is its visibility with a governance structure which is lacking in sedevacantism."

It's not lacking under Pope Michael. Btw, the other two versions of Conclavism have now disappeared, Linus II having stepped back and Pius XIII having died. Both of them were also later in the field.

Palmarians (of which once I was one) are mysticalists, to me the alleged revelation discredited itself by the words "the Antichrist views the world from the fourth dimension, the Most Pure Virgin from the eighth" - not sharing basic Geocentric cosmology with the Bible. Or with Pope Michael. Or with me while accepting them and prior to accepting Pope Michael.

Lizzie Reezay took on Vatican II Opposers, Vaccines and Our Lord's Brothers and Sisters

Did Jesus have siblings? Vatican 2 HATERS. Writing A BOOK! Why I WON'T veil at Mass! | Ask Lizzie 33
7th Jan. 2021 | LizziesAnswers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuZ2aks6c1k

I

2:19 "not for the vaccine"
Oh yes, it does. You cannot get research on a specific vaccine without cultivating the pathogen.

With bacteria, it's no problem.

With viruses, it used to be with bovine livers back at original mass produced small pox vaccine, but now animal cells are abandoned in favour of cell lines from aborted feti.

What is however decades back is the abortion that the cell lines are from.

I thought this was an anti-vaxxer wild claim, but here you have a hospital saying so:

Children's Hospital of Philadelphia : News & Views: Why Were Fetal Cells Used to Make Certain Vaccines?
Published on Apr 25, 2017 in Vaccine Update for Healthcare Providers
https://www.chop.edu/news/news-views-why-were-fetal-cells-used-make-certain-vaccines

II

3:44 "we just trust Church authority"

After 1986, can "John Paul II" and his successors be safely claimed to represent it?

You know that in divine law, deposition from Church jurisdiction is immediate on preaching heresy, as was actually stated by Pope St. Celestine I in 430 AD, just before the Council of Ephesus.

Dimond brothers made a well researched video on the topic:

Great Proof Texts For Sedevacantism Show That Francis Is Not The Pope
8th Jan. 2021 vaticancatholic.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfdJ0g5dnho

You can of course say they don't represent the majority of Catholics, which is true if Vatican II accepters and Novus Ordo accepters count as such, but that doesn't mean they don't represent reality - since reality is not by majority vote.

III

14:07 I think the actual Greek for cousin is "exadelphos, exadelphe" or "anepsios, anepsia".

My explanation why the word is used has to do with Deuteronomy 25 (I think the chapter was) with Ruth : closest male relative having the right and duty to marry widow and make a child who counts as child of a man deceased without male heirs. Moses only spoke of brothers, but Ruth shows actual application involves wider family relations if no live brothers are available.

Greek Kinship Terminology
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 23 December 2013
M. Miller, extract
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-hellenic-studies/article/abs/greek-kinship-terminology/C06B1DC2DFA4A7B3A00615D06A7EDA9E

Zack Pearlman

Jesus had many siblings. James, Joseph, Judas and Simon, ALL mentioned in the Bible (Mark (6:3) Matthew (13:55–56)). They have also found James' Ossuary (the place his bones were put after his body decomposed). This girl knows nothing about the Bible.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Zack Pearlman The question is not whether they existed, but why they are called "brothers".

Someone who pretends to know the Bible but thinks Mary gave birth to them is actually deviating into heresy.

Continued

on separate post Zack Pearlman tried to tell me not to listen to Lizzie Reezay

IV

20:00 While St. Irenaeus is your patron saint from confirmation, I think you have one Mrs Elisabeth Cohen - first cousin of the mother of God - as patron saint too.

V

21:53 Have you noted how many Atheists have a beef with both Catholic institutions and Calvinist redemption theology without realising these things don't belong together.

VI

One more on vaccine:

Dr Yeadon’s (former Pfizer VP) Coronavirus Vaccine Safety Petition
POSTED ON DEC 4, 2020 on Dryburgh.com
https://dryburgh.com/mike-yeadon-coronavirus-vaccine-safety-concerns-petition/

Why Catholic at All, Then?

Conciliar Church · Why Catholic at All, Then? · What About an Inkling Reading Protestant, which I was · And the Evolution Believing Near Atheist Before That? · Extra on Helio / Geo

Why SO MANY "Church of Christ" people are becoming Catholics! | Top 5 Reasons!
LizziesAnswers | 16.X.2020
https://youtu.be/R_KsH0H_5pY

I

5:58 That way CoC would remind of High Church Anglicanism and High Church Lutheranism.

In Swedish Church, you often have, for a Sunday "högmässa" (literally high mass, liturgically has some loose connexion to sung mass as opposed to low mass, but is not a real sacrifice of the mass even in the following version) but some Sundays "högmässa, hhn" = "högmässa, Herrens heliga nattvard" = "high mass" Lord's Holy Last Supper. Even then not a real Eucharist, not a real Mass, but that's the idea.

In High Church parishes, a "högmässa" automatically is "högmässa, hhn".

My last year before deciding to convert was as a High Church Lutheran.

Difference, like with Anglo-Catholicism, you also have an attitude of half and half "affirming Catholicism".

6:30 While Lutheranism does have the Augsburg Confession, the High Church movement within it does also have theological creativity - so, of course, have Liberal Theologians. The "strong intellectual tradition" (within one doctrine) which existed has been weakened.

II

7:11 Eventually it's going to snap ... here is the point in favour of either Feeneyism or near Feeneyism : how does one explain the cases where it doesn't?

How is not snapping and staying in a Protestant Church not going to lead one to Hell?

I mean, I think St. Thomas said idiots and ignorant people can have an excuse. A Protestant today is not likely to be ignorant like a Lutheran peasant in 16th C. Sweden or not for very long, and most do not have trisomy 21.

III

8:17 In other words, CoC, quite opposite John Wesley, has some quite pronounced "Feeneyite" tendencies, except they are not Feeneyite since not Catholic?

IV

Here is one for Lutherans not applying to CoC : Lutherans used to be State Church or Established Church all over Scandinavian Area.

We tend to think of Matthew 28:16-20 as a command for collective conversions of nations, meaning, we also come to wonder how Christianity became established "over here" (I'm out of there since 2004, but still).

It began with St. Ansgar - a Benedictine Monk from New Corvey.

All over the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church was established. From 1520 to 27, Sweden was in schism, but not Lutheran, then, 1527, Sweden became Lutheran. It was horrible, risings like "Pilgrimage of Grace" were quashed with blood, printing press of Carthusians, first book a booklet on the Rosary, was given to two students of Martin Luther (who had literally been in Wittenberg) and the second book was a Smaller Catechism by Martin Luther.

It was like reading of how Baptists were persecuted in Soviet Russia, and like reading about the Russian Revolution (in Sigtuna, of 20 Churches only one, the Dominican St. Mary's Church, was spared, and was confiscated from them to the new Lutheran parish "priest").

I : With Ignatius of Antioch and Ron Aller : Before I Get In & My First Response

With Ignatius of Antioch and Ron Aller : I : Before I Get In & My First Response · II : Two Days Ago / One Day Ago · III : Less than One Day Ago · IV : Epilogue

Comments debate took place under:

Dare We Hope? Why I STOPPED Believing in Universal Salvation!
LizziesAnswers | 3.II.2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y_qSUmyl_mQ

It started with "Ignatius of Antioch" giving some context on Origen not necessarily being condemned or having been for universal salvation.

Ignatius of Antioch

People who think Origen's anathema is authentic and he was a universalist need to read all his writings from the same work and after like this;

"It is not possible to receive forgiveness of sins without baptism" (Exhortation to the Martyrs 30 [A.D. 235]).

Origen said, "But since the discourse has reminded us of the subjects of a future judgment and of retribution, and of the punishments of sinners, according to the threatenings of holy Scripture and the contents of the Church's teaching, that when the time of judgment comes, everlasting fire, and outer darkness, and a prison, and a furnace, and other punishments of like nature, have been prepared for sinners — let us see what our opinions on these points ought to be." (De Principiis, Book 2, verse 1, [230 AD])

Origen said, "If the expression can be used, do they come down from the upper world to this hell. For that hell to which the souls of the dead are con­ducted from this world, is, I believe, on account of this distinction, called the lower hell by Scripture, as is said in the book of Psalms: You have deliv­ered my soul from the lowest hell. (De Principiis, Book 4, verse 23 [230 AD])

Ron Aller

There is BUT ONE AUTHORITATIVE and ABSOLUTE version of history – the Word of God. All the rest is ‘human perspective’ and may be perfectly accurate and even ‘Spirit-led’. But there is no way to know that for certain. All historical study and conclusions are our best understanding, inquiry into and interpretation of the events and the information we have concerning them – Historie - Geschichte!

HOWEVER, as one studies Church History, it very soon becomes very evident that “mainstream Christianity” was often the seat of the HERESY and the “heretics” were the ones with whom we would agree. As a matter of fact, as Church History progresses through the centuries, it becomes more and more true that the “mainstream Christianity” is the seat of more and more “heresy” in doctrine and praxis. It is the “remnant” that is often 5 the “keeper of truth” and oftentimes the ones who pay very dearly for their adherence to what we would today consider to be “Orthodoxy.” Not only is that true, but as you study Church History you begin to realize that there were individuals – sometimes part of “mainstream Christianity” and sometimes not so much – who contributed some “good doctrine and praxis” to the Church while at the same time contributing some “bad doctrine and praxis” to the Church. Origen of Alexandria is one those key individuals. Even more so is Augustine of Hippo. Also, Pelagius may well be placed on that list – even though Augustine considered him a ‘rank heretic’ (the Augustine/Pelagius Controversy is one of the more ‘famous’ theological/doctrinal controversies of Church History). The point of this “hiatus” is to emphasize that the “orthodoxy” and the “heresy” in Church History – OUTSIDE THE NEW TESTAMENT– is often very difficult to discern. Oftentimes, the books on Church History are written from a certain ‘doctrinal/theological’ perspective. There are many that are excellent and very ‘sound’ theologically. But, it is important that every student of Church History be “ALERT” to theological/doctrinal biases of the person they are ‘reading’ or under whom they are studying. Sometimes it is necessary to go back to the original source material – as much as it is possible – in order to derive your own convictions about what an individual was saying. But again, even when reading “original documents” one must realize that they too are at best ‘copies and translations of copies’ and oftentimes far less attested and reliable than the many copies and translations that we have of the NT. This is not to discourage the study of Church History – quite the opposite. But it is a caveat that we all need to bear in mind.

Ignatius of Antioch

Sola Scriptura is a false unbiblical doctrine and a tradition of men.

The "Word of God" is spoken utterance given from his flesh from the mind of God. "Logos" is not like the English word for "word" it is speech only. Scripture is "graphe" or "grapho."

2 Peter 1:20 says that no teaching of scripture is for private interpretation which is why the Ethiopian Eunuch an educated read scripture and needed an interpreter in Acts 8:29-31. The Eunuch said he couldn't understand it on his own. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 says there two traditions we keep oral and Epistles. 1 Thessalonians 2:13 says we shouldn't even be around those who profess Christian but don't keep the tradition. Ultimately this is about the faith once delivered in Jude 1:3.

In Matthew 2:23 it says it was "spoken" through the prophets that Jesus "shall be called a Nazarene" which isn't in the Old Testament he was citing a tradition from God through prophets passed on orally. In Matthew 23:2-3 Jesus teaches a Jewish tradition as being valid he says to obey the people on the "chair" or "cathedra" in the Greek of Moses and obey them. There is no reference to them reading scripture and the judges or rulers chair undermines that view, not to mention Moses only wrote 5 books. In 1 Corinthians 10:4 St. Paul a rock that “followed” the Jews through the Sinai wilderness which is not found in the Old Testament. In 2 Timothy 3:8 he says, “As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses” which names aren't the Old Testament or the related passage Exodus 7:8. In Acts 15:6–30 St. Peter lead the first council and with the Church authorities exercised Apostolic authority.

Sola Scriptura proof texts don't teach Sola Scriptura 2 Timothy 3:16–17 doesn't say, "only scripture" and if look at the context 2 Timothy 1:13–14; 2:2; 3:14 we can see St. Paul makes reference to oral tradition 3 times. In addition, the same author in Ephesians 4:11–15 it proves the sufficiency of pastors and teachers for the attainment of Christian perfection. In Ephesians 4, the Christian believer is equipped, built up, brought into unity and mature manhood, and even preserved from doctrinal confusion by means of the teaching function of the Church. This is a far stronger statement of the perfecting of the saints than 2 Timothy 3, yet it does not even mention Scripture. The other relevant verses are Matthew 23 verses 8 and 10 where Jesus says no one can teach or instruct. So how can you be Sola Scriptura without teachings your self or instructing your self or others on how to understand scripture or relying on someone breaking this command?

Ultimately Sola Scriptura is really a matter of cherry-picking, adopting later "traditions of men," reading into scripture with your theology, removal the full context and using a narrow window scripture. You can't read a single word of Koine Geek without tradition on what the words mean relying on mostly patristic writers from the early Church since the classics were written in earlier Greek and all complete works by them are from 7th to 13 century AD copies that were revised to modern Greek often by monks. In fact, not a single commentary from the 7th or 8th century in Latin or any other language exists on the Greek. You can't know what a "widows mite" is without a reference or where things in the Bible were without a map. Ultimately without tradition, you don't have the "Word of God" because you have never heard it then.

Concerning the early Church writers, you won't find anything said by an actual Father of the Church that contradicts one of the 7 Ecumenical Councils. There is no one who taught against dogma. All the things you oppose were in the Didache, the Epistle of Barabas, Clement of Rome's writings, Papias's work, Justin Martyr, Polycarp and Ignatius of Antioch's works. In addition, everything the Fathers say isn't dogma the bar to be dogma outside an Ecumenical Council is really high. To be dogma it must be attributed to the Apostles, Jesus, be all in agreement on an issue or having others silent but almost all in agreement. Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 that the Church would never die and your position requires it dying for as long as 1500 years. Hebrews 13:17 says to obey the leaders of the Church they're leaders.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ron Aller //As a matter of fact, as Church History progresses through the centuries, it becomes more and more true that the “mainstream Christianity” is the seat of more and more “heresy” in doctrine and praxis. It is the “remnant” that is often 5 the “keeper of truth” and oftentimes the ones who pay very dearly for their adherence to what we would today consider to be “Orthodoxy.” //

If the remnant had been a constant one, always revolving about same points of its internal theology, not just same criticism of Catholicism, you might have had a point, and other condition, if the constancy extended to time.

You can locally have and will have or already do have a situation where what's mainstream there and then is wrong. Example, by 1560, in Sweden it was very mainstream to be a Lutheran which is wrong.

But Christ left us a coherent doctrine, which includes the existence of a magisterium, of successors to his Apostles, and it also includes this magisterium has to be mainstream enough most of the time to actually teach the nations. As you may have guessed, I am referring to Matthew 28:16-20 for a description of Christ's Church which clearly doesn't match yours.

Remnant is Biblical, but a Church that's only "remnant-hopping" isn't. Remnant means remnant of sth larger and that larger thing is the Catholic Church as it has existed over near 2000 years.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ignatius of Antioch You are very correct in everything you say.

I hope you are not the kind of "association judgers" who consider Young Earth Creationism as "sola scriptura" when very clearly all Church Fathers were Young Earth, if not all Six-Literal-Days, Creationists.

That's why there is a difference between appealing to a remnant of Catholics who still are Young Earth Creationists (which even the larger today extant body was up to Vatican II, and including Dei Verbum, 1992 being some decades after this), and appealing to a remnant that hopes it resembles an earlier remnant which is hoped for as resembling an even earlier one, with the majority being always wrong, as Ron Aller does.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Ron Aller "But there is no way to know that for certain. All historical study and conclusions are our best understanding, inquiry into and interpretation of the events and the information we have concerning them – Historie - Geschichte!"

If you mean the certainty which we have of faith dogma (including but not limited to any Bible verse rightly understood and translated for those not reading original languages), agreed, history is less certain ... but it is not uncertain as in being a guess over all the field.

Some things are more certain than others and sufficiently certain to include in what we base our world views on - otherwise we would not have a reason to believe in the Early Church or the Bible either.

This being so, I cannot consider that Novatians and Montanists, Albigensians and Waldensians, 17th C. Sabbatarian Anabaptists are all part of one same remnant or series of remnants, they cannot be one Church since they do not share one doctrine. The 17th C. Sabbatarian Anabaptist was not around in the day of the Novatians and the Montanist was not around in the day of the Albigensian. Therefore, if they are not one Church, which they aren't, they cannot be THE Church, which Christ promised survival for "all days even unto the consummation of all time".

Marriage, Single Religion or Obedience to Parents

Can a Catholic marry a Protestant?
7.XI.2019 | LizziesAnswers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q1n04mF4Bg4

Hans-Georg Lundahl

A bit of a follow up on your point.

The Catechism of Trent, perhaps even the council of Trent in the canons, says that it is usually a mortal sin to marry against the will of one's parents.

Now, suppose you are Catholic and your dad is a Protestant and your dad hopes you will become a Protestant again, and so opposes your marrying a Catholic, since that obviously would interfere with returning to Protestantism, would you still be obliged to refrain from marrying a girl if your father opposes it?

I would think that would be a very good reason to make an exception on that "usually" rule ...?

Heroica Knight

I'm no expert, but I strongly think that a ruling like that is less binding these days. Sure, honoring parents' opinions and wishes is good, but they're is God's will as well. In your scenario, the father is trying to refuse his child God's call. While he's you're going against a parent's will, I don't think it would be mortally sinful.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Heroica Knight Thank you, I don't think so either.

Reviewing Lizzie's Convert's Guide to Catholic Lingo

Convert's Guide to CATHOLIC LINGO!!!
LizziesAnswers | 14.I.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrI9q5Aj0Kg

I

3:17 Gospel ... did you know that the Latin used in France in 790 for the reading was fairly close to the spoken language on its way from Latin to French, since the prounciation was not after Classic rules, that this changed in Tours diocese in 800, when Alcuin from York arrived, in England Latin had been taught as a foreign language since Anglo-Saxons arrived and even earlier only relatively few spoke Latin compared to elsewhere in the Empire, so, the Anglo-Saxon Latin knowledge was fairly Classical, and this coming to effect in Tours in 800 led to no one (nearly, except clergy following the courses of Alcuin) understood Latin AND then 813, only 13 years later, a Gospel paraphrase or explanation in the local language of the parish was required

II

4:39 sth - wouldn't it be better if communion in the hand was strictly forbidden, as it used to be up to Vatican II and a few years on?

Actually it is not quite a laughing matter, since stolen hosts have been used for sacrilege, both some committed on youtubes now taken down and some for black mass.

III

6:08 Back in Time to the Last Supper.

AT the Last Supper they were forward in time to Calvary, so you are (with a valid Mass) back in time to Calvary.

IV

10:36 Actually, it used to be called Communion of the Saints.

You forgot one category of souls that Catholics on earth have communion with : those in Purgatory.

We usually pray for them, but they intercede on one point for us, namely, waking up in time. Since many of them are there because they "woke up" just in the nick of time to avoid Hell, they are collectively patrons saints of waking up in time.

Used to be = with Pope Michael still is, I suppose.

V

14:16 "the bishop was the priest"

I don't think that is true.

With house churches, you had one bishop heading all the priests in a city and several priests saying Mass in different houses same Sunday.

On week days they might more probably celebrate in the same place a their bishop, perhaps a catacomb.

I'll modify this, in real big cities the bishops arguably had priests under them, perhaps not in small towns (if there were Christians there).

VI

14:43 Becoming deacon, priest, bishop is indeed sacrament of orders, but becoming monk or nun is joining an order, sth different, it is not a sacrament.

You usually enumerate first the five sacraments "all" or most with very few exceptions Catholics receive, then the two which are made in relation to others of the communion:

1) Baptism; 2) Confirmation; 3) Eucharist; 4) Confession; 5) Extreme Unction (other parts of last rites are 4 and 3, or with someone unbaptised, 1 and 3);
6) Orders or 7) Matrimony.

You may wonder why Eucharist is enumerated before Confession or Penance ... well, if you were baptised half an hour ago and confirmed quarter of an hour ago, you can probably receive the Eucharist without going to Confession first, as was often the case with adult converts from Paganism. Also, when babies were given Confirmation and Eucharist directly after Baptism, as was the case, no Confession was required.

Other reason, the first three are building up your spiritual life of grace, the next two are repairing it, when lost or damaged. The last two are preparing it by providing a) ministers for sacrament and liturgy of the word and b) ministers for a Catholic education of their own children.

VII

15:17 RCIA - you taught me the acronym, in Sweden it is called "conversionsförberedelse" ...

I had quite a lot of RCIA, since starting twice over and that after quite a lot of other studies to convert. I decided at 16 after reading Umberto Eco's Name of the Rose, and I was received a few months before 20.

That was while Wojtyla was less directly schismatic than after election of Pope Michael and a few months before the consecration of four bishops by Lefebvre and Castro Mayer.

The priest who had done the last year of my "RCIA" and who was my confessor first year I practised was a Pole, ordained before the change in ordination rites, so a real priest, very conservative, mainly in sympathy with Monseigneur Lefebvre, but considered he was "exaggerating" by "disobeying" ... I sometimes observed he seemed to have a somewhat hard time obeying some things, especially when it came to understanding what he was supposed to obey.

Citing (and partially answering) Lizzie Reezay on the Eucharist

WHY "EAT MY FLESH" IS LITERAL in John 6!! | Real Presence of the Eucharist
LizziesAnswers | 18.XII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ciVmWKzI1iE

I

[watch the video

these are side notes]

Τρωγων ... sth to do with John 21 "feed my sheep" passage?

Curiosity - the other two instances of τρωγω outside John 6?

Wait, did I catch a reference to St. John Bosco in Greek words for pasture ...

II

15:19 There was a Catholic priest who considered that lack of Last Supper account in John means this John was not one of the 12, but the beloved disciple was actually the host of Christ and the 12 and also took the Blessed Virgin into same house, which he had in Jerusalem - not Capharnaum - bc he was a Cohen.

True, he accepted Vatican II (which so far you don't seem to mind) but he was ordained well before that, in the time of Pope Pius XI. Jean Colson.

Feel free to forward to Trevor.

TH n°010 L'ÉNIGME DU DISCIPLE QUE JÉSUS AIMAIT
Jean COLSON
https://www.editions-beauchesne.com/product_info.php?products_id=353

Btw, Colson does adress St Irenaeus claiming the Beloved Disciple, the Gospeller, was John of Zebedee : he had heard St. Papias or someone speak of two different John and had misunderstood (he had left Asia Minor while still rather young).

III

16:37 Heresy alert.

"when he died and could have gotten away from his physical body, instead he was resurrected into a new body of matter"

SAME body. It changed quality from mortal to immortal, but is still the SAME body.

He showed the wounds to St Thomas the Twin.

SAME body which He also shows forth in Heaven to the Father Apocalypse 5:6 a Lamb standing as it were slain,

I had several debates with Evangelicals about a month or two ago, in which they seemed to have trouble grasping identity of risen body with that Crucified (hence their obtuseness on Eucharist), with that born of the Virgin (hence their obtuseness of Mariological matters).

I'm not your father confessor, so I can't give you a canonic penance, but I counsel you to recite and rehearse Ave Verum Corpus Natum. It is a prayer of the Church.

IV

18:08 "the cellular material of bread and wine"

Not sure if "cellular" was your word, but that's what subtitles say.

Rather : their accidents are.

View the Eucharistic host through electromicroscopy, and you will see molecules of starch, but you will see it, doesn't mean they are there. Their accidents are there, like viewability through electromicroscopy.

Actual molecules of starch would belong to the actual substance of bread.

V

A little find here ...

Q. Do you take the Bible literally?

Yes. Except where things are intended as metaphor, analogy, symbolism, etc. (i.e., Jesus saying “I am the bread of life”). Otherwise I believe that God says what He means and means what He says.

Beginning and End : My Beliefs
https://beginningandend.com/my-beliefs/

A Protestant Fundie claiming Protestantism poses a limit on his Fundamentalism .....

Lizzy Reezay on Vlogging

what no one tells you... [channel trailer}
LizziesAnswers | 13.X.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMCToaisPDw

Comments applying to my parallel experience of writing:

I

1:59 Never watch TV?

Sounds like one of the assets.

"Sleep deprived" in college?

So was I often even in senior high school, say five to seven nights a month, to 3 am, even more regularly to midnight or 1 am, most of the time reading and rereading, one specific night deciding both to change the course I was taking from IB to Classics and also to convert, some few nights over speaking with school comrades.

Btw, I would use sleep deprived when something other than an interesting thing you do is keeping you awake - like toothache or people making noise where you try to sleep. What you describe is more like sleep sacrifice.

II

5:21 I am a blogger, not a vlogger.

When I change views, I do simply make an update (unless it's an old blog that was disconnected for me but not taken down, but those include no views I changed).

Made one single exception, where my calculation of a kind of musical scale not based on major or minor but with thirds between major third and minor third and not based on a Pythagorean fifth sequence after I posted it revealed I had made a few mistakes which would have made it terribly dissonant.

III

8:22 When you publish a thing, you consent to anyone being able to find that thing out.

When you publish many things in a row, you consent to anyone chosing how much or little to find out about you.

It cannot literally be everything, like a conversation you forgot and never published or what you ate for breakfast today unless you publish that.

BUT this is also one reason why, as a blogger, I am NOT going into myself or my situation most of the time, I am going into topics.

Sn (theoretically) "I found out you believe in six days"
Me (if so) "yes, I regularly publish on that, it's like saying you found out Kent Hovind believes in a literal global flood"

This One Only Agrees with Lizzy's Points - Except One (see item IV)

HOW TO AVOID Becoming Catholic!!!
LizziesAnswers | 24.X.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrURxxQuNTY

I

To title

Guessing what to put in there as two of the methods ...

• 1) suicide (when one is in Hell it is too late to convert) (but OK, you still will know Catholic truth if you go there, just you won't profit from it)
• 2) apostasy to atheism (and make sure you definitely drop all interest in religious questions)
• 3) apostasy to Judaism or Paganism.

OK, makes three or perhaps even four if you count 3 as "3 and 4" ....

II

2:29 Speaking of Protestant commentaries, have you seen many that even try to deal with Matthew 16:19?

Obviously at verse 18 they say "the rock is Jesus". Fine, what do they say about verse 19?

I saw one which claimed St Peter had the keys for a once only use, when receiving Cornelius who was not circumcised.

But that only deals with opening side.

Also, opening and closing is paralleled by binding and losing in John 20, where it is put next to the power of absolution.

III

5:01 My bad, I was fascinated with Middle Ages even before becoming a Christian.

I recently saw a French Protestant claim Inquisition killed over 60 million, and I compared this to a proverbially slow calligrapher being reported as winning a contest in speed typing ...

Look at the time taken with Tyndale (whose Inquisitor James Latomus wrote him a decent answer on Romans, I think [chapter] 3) or with Giordano Bruno (whose Inquisitor St Robert Bellarmine made sure the next Heliocentric did not get burnt on his account, that being Galileo).

Or that episode in 14th C France where some Waldensians had been in prison for years, and Inquisitors pleaded "please, help us keep them so we can convert them" and people (Catholics) said, "no, let them go, you've tried, enough is enough" ... (you can read of if in Charles Henry Lee or Henry Charles Lee who was NOT partial for Inquisition, I am not even taking this from Kamen - who is or was Jewish, not Catholic).

Even worse, I actually like to ask questions like "how did Latin become languages like French or Spanish".

If you tell me "Bible was in Latin in 600 AD so that only clergy should be able to understand," I'll laugh or puke depending on quantity of Protestant absurdities I had been consuming previous to seeing that in the past two hours.

Sure, people in France back then spoke so Cicero could not have understood, but that's how we pronounce English so Chaucer could not have understood. We spell English nearly as Chaucer, and they spelled their language nearly as Cicero. Plus Vulgate was even a bit updated compared to Cicero in vocabulary and phraseology and simplified syntax.

Latin only became incomprehensible to French speakers in 800 and following decade in Tours when Alcuin arrived telling the monks how Latin should really be pronounced. And 813 a synod there decided "you must translate the correct Latin of the Gospel in a sermon in whatever the people speak".

5:08 And reading Umberto Eco's Name of the Rose, while partial against Inquisition, was actually telling me a bit more than I had known about what the heresies around then were.

Not what I had been told after ma went to a Bible school ... I was 16, and already in favour of Catholicism since about 13, and even more since reading up on Reformations in England and Sweden. Only "Inquisition" was keeping me back from taking the step ... obviously, if Protestants ever burn books, Name of the Rose will sniff go into flames along Lord of the Rings and Letters by J. R. R. Tolkien.

IV

5:20 "created sciences like ... genetics, evolution"

Genetics, yes, Mendel.

Evolution, that pseudo-science, owes everything to Protestants.

James Hutton, Charles Lyell, Georges Cuvier, Charles Darwin, all of them were raised Protestants. Those of them who didn't apostasise remained Protestants, they did not convert to Catholicism.

Astronomy was actually created well before Christianity.

V

6:39 How about avoiding Malachi 1:11 where the prophet is not talking of Cohanim sacrificing, since not allowed outside Temple of Jerusalem, but still talking of a sacrifice?

Pretty specific on Mass being a sacrifice, right?

Isaiah on keys of the kingdom?

No verse contains the word 'keys' when searching the Old Testament.

Ah, singular does it, third hit of three is:

"And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open."
[Isaias (Isaiah) 22:22]

Yes, fairly specific. Especially since Kingdom of Heaven in Apocalypse is described in very Davidic terms. As well as the titulus on the Cross describing it so, even if that is more than Pilate bargained for, possibly.

VI

6:53 The first part of Hail Mary is two verses from Luke 1 plus adding the name Jesus which Elisabeth didn't know yet.

The second part is a separate prayer which was then added to the first part.

When St Thomas wrote a sermon on Hail Mary, its last word was still the name "Jesus".

I don't know what method of Grignon's you use for the Rosary, back when I still prayed, it was nearly always the second method, in which the mystery is spoken directly after the name Jesus, added by a relative pronoun "whom, thou, o virgin, conceivedest of the Holy Ghost" and so on.

In Austria, that's how it is done.

VII

7:48 Speaking of Apologists, you obviously need to avoid Chesterton.

And Belloc.

So ... since Tolkien possibly liked both and both he and CSL liked Chesterton, avoid the two main Inklings as well.

Wonder why the "John Todd" testimony - he was after all received by very anti-Catholic Evangelicals back then - involves a claim he had been paying CSL and JRRT on behalf of illuminati?

When John Todd left Illuminati (which could still be true, even if he was forced to add a false story to escape), Tolkien was dying and CSL had died ten years earlier. Conveniently for that testimony, neither was around to answer it.

On Patrick Coffin's Interview with Lizzie Reezay (first half) - Since it brings back memories of my own conversion (Bonus : Jesus Healed by Whose Authority?)

Video commented on

68: Protestant YouTube Star Becomes Catholic—Lizzie Estella Reezay
PatrickCoffin.media | 27.III.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y1NAl4ZUkQ

(After watching first half).

I

"well, I actually kind of respect that point of view, yeah, in light of the claims of the Church, the Church isn't just a little bit wrong, if she's wrong we are in serious trouble"

Well, one reason to check out who between Bergoglio and David Bawden was licitly elected Pope as in was even eligible ...

Or, whether, when David Bawden held the emergency conclave, one could reasonably say that the perpetrator of 1986 (twice, visiting a synagogue and the prayer meeting) could possibly be a real holder of the Holy See, the seat of St Peter ...

Defender of The Catholic Faith Peter Augustine

Hans-Georg Lundahl
IN THE MALAY LANGUAGE, "WHEN THE HOUSE HAS BEEN BUILT, THE CHISELS START TO MAKE NOISE."
WHENEVER THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS COMPLETED HER WORK, THE PROTESTANTS START TO MAKE NOISE.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I don't know what that has to do with any of what I said, since the emergency conclave was held by a Catholic up to then lay theologian.

You cannot classify David Bawden as Protestant by any stretch, whether you do or do not consider him as Pope Michael.

The Assisi Prayer Meeting of 1986 (and subsequent ones after the emergency conclave) clearly show that Wojtyla, known to some as Pope John Paul II, and even as saint or as the great, was not completing a Catholic work.

Defender of The Catholic Faith Peter Augustine

Hans-Georg Lundahl
ALL THE NOISES THE CHISELS AND YOU MAKE WILL NOT CHANGE A THING.
THE CHISELS AND YOU CAN KEEP QUIET.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You really do take me for a Protestant?

If you were a Catholic, why are you a liar?

If you are NOT a liar, why do you repeat a misudnerstanding after I corrected it?

If you have a bishop, why is he not shutting up your mouth of lies, imposing silence until you have learned some honesty?

Defender of The Catholic Faith Peter Augustine

Hans-Georg Lundahl
I WISH THAT YOU WERE A PROTESTANT. IF YOU ARE NOT A PROTESTANT THEN IT IS NO FUN TALKING TO YOU.
AT LEAST A PROTESTANT WHEN HE SAYS THAT I HAVE LIED, HE WILL TELL ME MY LIES.
YOU HAVE SAID THAT I HAVE LIED BUT HAVE NOT TOLD ME WHEN, HOW, WHY, WHAT I HAVE LIED ABOUT.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You have lied by calling me and Pope Michael protestants after I already explained we were not.

KA Fleury

Hans-Georg Lundahl ... if you do not believe and accept EVERYTHING that the Catholic Church teaches, then you're protesting the Church that Christ established; the Church that He promised He would not leave orphaned; the Church He promised would be safe from the gates of Hell. All the breakaways said they were taking their marbles, which they claimed were the real marbles. All the breakaways said that the bishop seated on the Chair of Peter didn't have any authority over them. That's what you're saying. Ergo, you are schismatic.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"All the breakaways said that the bishop seated on the Chair of Peter didn't have any authority over them."

Actually, SSPX is saying "yes, he has authority, but no, we still don't owe him obedience".

You have a problem with the following one:

"That's what you're saying."

No, I am saying that heresy makes a man ineligible for papacy, which means that if an apparent Pope was heretic in public prior to supposed election, that election can be known to be invalid.

New blog on the kid : Bergoglio and Quarracino Neognostics?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/05/bergoglio-and-quarracino-neognostics.html

II

7:20 "before the Gospels began to be formed"

Look here, in the Catholic Church we believe in Tradition.

It may be divided on whether IV Gospel was written by the son of Zebedee or by John the Presbyter, also known to Papias, but it is not divided on date of composition being earlier than even Apostolic Fathers, except perhaps St Polycarp.

Nope, St Polycarp too was independently active mostly after it was written.

It is also not divided on I Gospel being written by St Matthew. Very early after the events.

It is also not divided on II and III Gospels being written while Saints Peter and Paul were still alive.

III

10:52 As convert from Protestantism and revert from Orthodoxy, I don't think Stephen K. Ray's book would have helped me as much as experience of Orthodox.

I could kind of make a case for every local ordinary being a successor of St Peter and papacy only a coordinator iure eccelsiastico, replaceable by Ecumenic Patriarch.

I could not make a case for the Modernism of Neohimerite Orthodox or for the Anticatholicism of Palaeohimerite Orthodox (in Russian Church that would have been Patriarchate of Moscow vs ROCOR - I was myself a Romanian Neohimerite).

And if those were the Orthodox there were?

And if on top of that, some who were respected in both camps, Paul Balaster-Convalier, a Greek bishop in Mexico, were actually lying about St Robert Bellarmine, who still was a very favourite Saint of mine, not least because he was defending Geocentrism ... I came to the conclusion, I had courted trouble.

So, I came back. Then to FSSPX (which would work a bit better with every local bishop as successor of St Peter than with purporting to be Papalist, faithful to Vatican I), now to Pope Michael.

Those today most faithful to Palamas, on either the Blessed Virgin or St Peter, would seem to be Catholics, including Uniates of Byzantine rite (who explicitly refer to him in justifying the Unija).

IV

12:48 Conferring notes.

Back when I was Protestant, I thought the Bible self explanatory.

It is in great deal, and I only came to see the Catholic explanation in the verses, but, I had not seen interpretation as an intellectual game.

I do so more now, but of course, deferring as I do to Trent, I check I am not contradicting all of the Church Fathers in any one.

For instance, could Tower of Babel have been a rocket (not saying Nimrod could have made it work, only that could have been his project)? Well, "the top of which reaches into heaven" and absence of "so tall that" seems to argue it, but, I do care to not contradict all Church Fathers, like if everyone of them had been into the skyscraper interpretation, which seems fairly classic, I would have had to be wrong. You can check Postilla in Genesim by St Thomas Aquinas, that was not the only interpretation around, and so there is no patristic unanimity I am opposed to on this one.

V

13:44 "Like historicity of Jonah"

No, I think that would be braving all of the Church's tradition.

The idea Jonah could be a religious novel is imported from Rabbinic Judaism (and I am certain it is post-Christian rabbis, not Gamaliel or Shammai or Hillel), via Calvin.

It would be braving the tradition about his grave in Nineve, which was recently vandalised by Daesh. It would be braving the tradition of how Assyrians - uniates as well as Nestorians - think of how their Church was prepared already in OT times.

VI

16:17 Fulton Sheen is no favourite of mine.

Freedom is freedom to do what I ought?

At its basic foundation, yes.

But at its social realisation, no.

If freedom is in its social realisation freedom to do what I ought, someone can imagine what I personally ought to do and say it is better for me than what I want to do (we are speaking within the limits of licit choices).

Chesterton, please!

And yes, physical freedom, the gift God created us with, is of course freedom to do what we want, even go to Hell, as Chesterton mentioned.

VII

Patrick Coffin, did you say Heaven is no destination?

Dimond Brothers said this was also sth which Wojtyla held:

"John Paul II also taught universal salvation, denied that heaven, hell and purgatory are places, agreed ..."

The Antichrist and The False Prophet, at 3:53
vaticancatholic.com | 11.III.2013
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DucdCF4hMf8&t=233s

Well, while there is a continuity between the state of grace and Heaven, between mortal sin and Hell, they are not the same and Heaven and Hell must be, beyond states (but unlike those on earth with eternal fixation and no sensory distraction from what one's state is, no corporeal bliss in Hell, no corporeal suffering in Heaven), also, since we will rise in our bodies, actual places.

VIII

time for some dialogue, so here I note my name when it's me:

tiarnan

Will she discuss the torture tools used on Bible believing Christians by the Vatican during the Inquisition in which 50 million Christians were first tortured in the most horrific ways and ultimately massacred...

Corolla 97

50 million? - more like 3,000 over the 400 years of the Spanish Inquisition

john b

tiarnan; Exaggerated numbers.Maybe you should ask your protestant friends how anti catholic they were in England and Ireland. They stole catholic church property killed nuns and priests; so don't give us the I am innocent and the church is guilty.

Matter of fact it was only recently that a catholic could even become prime minister of England.

Arnold Conrad

50,000,000?! There weren't that many in all of Europe in those times. That is a propaganda number invented by anti-Catholic polemicists.

Pat B

50 million? Do you even think there were 50 million people living in Europe? Seriously, European population was lower than that even at it's high levels before the Black Death and the Great Famine of the 14th century. Also, you are aware that the Church never tortured anyone, that it was the civil authorities. The worst, most abusive episode--the Spanish Inquisition--was conducted by the King and Queen of Spain. Did you know that oftentimes criminals would commit some blasphemous act so that they might have their cases adjudicated by the Church rather than by civil authorities because the Church was more just?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@tiarnan - I don't think many people having academic levels of history knowledge about the past 2000 years would subscribe to either Trail of Blood or Foxe' Book of Martyrs.

Just as they hardly would agree that VICARIVS FILII DEI was a current papal title.

There is a difference between historic recriminations for undisputed events, like Huguenots killed in St Bartholomew's massacre and Pope saying a Te Deum because he considered the French king had been saved from Protestant terrorists and recriminations for undocumented events claimed only by very biassed accusers.

I'd challenge you to one thing a bit outside this dispute. You would presumably agree that when St Jerome translated the Vulgate, he did so in a Roman Empire where Latin was a spoken language, his Latin in Vulgate was at least as close if not closer than King James' to your own English.

You would probably also claim, and here disagree with me, that after this, there was a time when the Church decided to keep it all in Latin to keep the Bible from the faithful who didn't know that language.

Now, my challenge : when exactly do you think this occurred? And how exactly do you think this happened?

I'll give you one clue in advance, your guess will be wrong.

tiarnan

Hans-Georg Lundahl -

Let me ask you a quick question first - seeing as though you want to change the topic.

Do you believe in Evolution and the Universe being 13-15 billions of years old?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If you had checked my other comments, no.

I also don't believe Wojtyla, Ratzinger, Bergoglio (anti-Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis) are or were Catholics or Popes of the Catholic Church.

tiarnan

Hans-Georg Lundahl

What other comments?

Anyway my question was -

Do you believe in Evolution and the Universe being 13-15 billions of years old?

They're just two simple 'yes' or 'no' question/answers....

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I made comments to Patrick Coffin about "yes, Heaven is a place" and "yes, Jonah most definitely is historical". Not under your comment, but elsewhere.

The simple answers:

• 1) Evolution as in common descent (a wolf and a sheep, not a wolf and a dog having common ancestor) - no.
• 2) Universe being 13 billion years old - no.

I believe, as the Roman Martyrology said up to the time of Antipope Wojtyla, God created Heaven (all Universe!) and Earth 5199 years before Christ was born.

Or possibly 5500 years before, as the Byzantine's count the LXX chronology.

Defender of The Catholic Faith Peter Augustine

tiarnan
Will you show us the concrete historical facts to verify your accusations?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

And while you are at it, for the century 1200 to 1300, for the groups Albigensians, Waldensians and Catholics, show which one is documented as being Young Earth Creationist?

Defender of The Catholic Faith Peter Augustine

Highlighted reply
Hans-Georg Lundahl

THESE THINGS A EXERCISES IN FOLLY.
DON'T WASTE YOUR BREATH.
WHAT IS IMPORTANT NOW IS TO FOLLOW THE CHURCH THAT JESUS FOUNDED.
USE YOUR BREATH, ENERGY AND FINANCE AND THE LIFE STILL LEFT IN YOU FOR THE CHURCH THAT JESUS BUILT. AND MAKE SURE AT THE END OF YOUR LIFE YOU ARE SAVED

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am sorry, I think you are really dreadfully wrong on how to deal with tiarnan.

He is not from a Catholic culture. He can have excuses in ignorance, and it is the job of a Catholic Apologist to actually correct him, not to ask him to shut up, nor to be rude.

I don't know what YOU consider an exercise in folly, but being a Young Earth Creationist was interesting enough for St Thomas Aquinas, whom I suppose you still honour as a Saint, even though you are Novus Ordo or sth like it.

tiarnan

Hans-Georg Lundahl -

Just as Muslims are blinded by the crimes of Islam and its priests Catholics too are blinded by the crimes of their Church and its hierarchy - the only difference being, Islam has only carried out a fraction of the atrocities carried out by the Catholic Church...

I'm sure you think all of the Popes from the Papal families: Borgias, Farnese, Orsini, Medici etc were infallible men of God (even though the average lay person is well aware of their most obvious crimes, if you did some basic research however you'd begin to uncover their untold crimes against Christians)....just as Muslims think all the Imams who call for terrorism to be unleashed across the West and for Western women to raped unmercilessly also think their Imams and Mohammed are also infallible men of God...

One day, hopefully you'll listen to the Words of Jesus Christ in Revelation:
"And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." Revelation 18:4

I'll leave it there as unfortunately I have to work a lot and don't have time to spoon feed evidence you can easily get for yourself.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Islam has only carried out a fraction of the atrocities carried out by the Catholic Church..."

Sayz who ... a Muslim?

"I'm sure you think all of the Popes from the Papal families: Borgias, Farnese, Orsini, Medici etc were infallible men of God"

I think of the Popes as infallible in office as to certain types of official statements.

I do not think of them as impeccable.

"even though the average lay person is well aware of their most obvious crimes, if you did some basic research however you'd begin to uncover their untold crimes against Christians"

Keyword : untold. When you speak of 50 millions of Christians murdered by the Catholic Church, this seems to have remained untold back then and is only being told now by James Milton Carroll, a Baptist Minister.

You took Young Earth Creationism as one criterium of a Bible believing Christian. I fully accept that - or at least, if you can be a Christian without it, it is because God has some patience with your ignorance and circumstances.

I asked you, between Catholics, Albigensians and Waldensians, which group can be DOCUMENTED as being back in 1200-1300 Young Earth Creationist, the answer is Catholics.

The Albigensians, while remaining so, were not even past Genesis 1:1. Suppose an Albigensian had appeared in the times of King David saying "in the beginning God created heaven, then an angel betrayed him and created earth, our souls come from heaven and our bodies from that fallen angel".

Well, I think some of the Hebrews back then would have began to murmur the CORRECT text of Genesis 1:1 and started picking up some stones, just to be prepared after King David pronounced sentence, and I am sure if the guy didn't repent, King David would have told the stoners "go ahead".

Waldensians seem a bit closer to Christian. Now, a point is, once Albigensians were out of the way, Waldensians were a lot less persecuted.

One more detail. Numbers. Bernard Gui had a reputation of severity. His list of sentences as Inquisitor in Toulouse is preserved. 930 cases overall, of which above 300 to prison so as to correct heretics about in ways similar to some of the gentler modern kinds of Mental Institution, even if locked in. More like they would handle someone "suicidal" than someone "schizophrenic". Note, this was not torture, these were cases where guilt of at least material heresy, at least saying a thing that was wrong, had already been established, sometimes by torture, often not.

The other cases involved 45 whose dolls were burned and 42 who were burned in person.

OK, over half escape the awaiting death sentence? Look, that is NOT really how you conduct a killing business. More than those together were the ones who were freed from prison.

The rest involve some cases of carrying the cross, some cases of pilgrimages, some cases of other penances.

This was a preserved list of sentences - so, Inquisition is certainly off the hook when it comes to mass murder; whether you count Albigensians as Christians or not (I don't), whether you count Waldensians as Christians or not (I feel iffy, about as with some Pentecostals or Baptists).

So, were the Crusades against Heretics then mass murders?

No. Even the Crusades against Islam were fairly gentle as war goes, with some atrocities, not a long ongoing atrocity. The Crusade against Albigensians was more brutal, but also more marginal in terms of war effort.

It is impossible that more Albigensians were killed than there were victims (especially Christian but also Jewish ones) under many centuries more of much wider application geographically of Islam.

"just as Muslims think all the Imams who call for terrorism to be unleashed across the West and for Western women to raped unmercilessly also think their Imams and Mohammed are also infallible men of God..."

No Catholic clergyman is calling for brutal terrorism, and the call for crusades was not similar to such calls.

Clergy didn't go into details about how gory things were to be done, and when laymen filled out the blanks on the gory side, they sometimes were corrected by their clergy.

//One day, hopefully you'll listen to the Words of Jesus Christ in Revelation: "And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues." Revelation 18:4 //

I did get out of communion with Bergoglio and Wojtyla already. As to the Catholic Church historically, well, I have never seen ANY cogent argument it should be equated with the harlot in scarlet.

"I'll leave it there as unfortunately I have to work a lot and don't have time to spoon feed evidence you can easily get for yourself."

Nice try to play the wiser guy ... come back when you have time, I do my work arguing, sometimes in essays, sometimes in debates wth people like you.

Two clarifications, "Albigensians, while such" = until they repented and reverted to Catholicism.

Bernard Gui's other sentences = forgot some confiscations and pecuniary punishments, fines.

Great Bishop of Geneva! : Dealing with "Trail of Blood" Claims
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.fr/2018/03/dealing-with-trail-of-blood-claims.html

Bonus video

Did Jesus receive His power from Satan?
ONE FOR ISRAEL Ministry | 5.IV.2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nq3txBXe8_s

With my comments:

I

2:11 What if there was a man who did learn magic arts in Egypt, and then, going to Sweden, raised no dead to new corporeal life (but like the witch in Endor raised ghosts to momentary appearances, not saying Samuel's spirit was her usual fare), cured no lepers, gave sight to no blind and so on, but did things like what even hypnotism can achieve?

I think Swedish and Norwegian history calls that man Odin.

I also think, his grandsons or greatgrandsons were contemporary to Our Lord's birth, so he could have been in Holy Land in the days of Mariamne.

Jesus obviously did no necromancy, but one man accepted by the Jews did, if you have heard of Onkelos.

II

5:50 "to leave their idols and to believe in the God of Israel"

Strictly true on one condition : that Catholicism is not "thinly veiled paganism" as some claim.

Think about that one!

Bonus video II

Vladimir Putin Is In The 33 Boys Club
Shaking My Head Productions | 21.III.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEmQ1o_62eQ

First, the video goes into details, more or less plausible, about Putin.

One good thing, he was born on October 7, the old day of St Bridget and the day of Our Lady of the Rosary.

This is less interesting than how whoever made it tries to pass of Catholicism as evil. Here are my comments on that part:

I

15:36 Rome became the Catholic Church and the Roman Emperor became the Pope.

YOU claim.

Roman Emperors after Constantine:

Constantine II with Constantius II and Constans; Julian the Apostate, Jovian; Valentinian I and Valens; same Valens also with Gratian and Valentinian II; Theodosius I (who made Catholicism the state religion several decades after Constantine, died 395), then split.

West : Valentinian III, Petronius Maximus, Avitus, Majorian, Libius Severus, Anthemius, Olybrius, Glycerius, Julius Nepos, Romulus Augustulus (some consider Julius Nepos to have been the last, since he survived the deposition of Romulus Augustulus).
East : Arcadius (died 408), Theodosius II, Marcian, Leo I the Thracian, Leo II, Zeno, Basiliscus, Zeno again, Anastasius I Dicorus (died 518), Justin I, Justinian I, Justin II, Tiberius II Constantine, Maurice (with his son Theodosius, died 602), Phocas, Heraclius (reconquered Jerusalem from Chosroes), Constantine III, Heraklonas, Constans II, Constantine IV, Justinian II - first reign, Leontios, Tiberios III (died 703), Justinian II - second reign (died 711), Philippikos Bardanes, Anastasios II, Theodosius III, let's take a break, I don't like the Iconoclast successor ...

Now, in the time of Constantine, there was a Pope, Sylvester, here are a few Popes before Sylvester:

he came after Miltiades, who came after Eusebius, who came after Marcellus I, who came after Marcellinus (who began his reign in 296), who came after Caius, who came after Eutychian, after Felix I, after Dionysius, after Sixtus II, after Stephen I, after Lucius I, after Cornelius, after Fabian, after Anterus, after Pontian, after Urban I, after Callixtus I, after Zephyrinus (who accessed in 199), after Victor I, after Eleutherius, after Soter, after Anicetus, after Pius I, after Hyginus, after Telesphorus, after Sixtus I, after Alexander I, after Evaristus (who accessed in 99), after Clement I, after Anacletus, after Linus, after Peter who became Pope in Jerusalem in AD 33 from where he had gone first to Antioch and then to Rome.

So, if Popes existed before Constantine and if Roman Emperors existed well after Gregory the Great whom I think you too would count as Pope, how do you reckon Emperors became Popes?

It doesn't add up.

Now, Popes stepping into some of the Emperor's shoes, as secular lord of Rome and middle Italy, that does, once Romulus Augustulus is deposed and Barbarians have ceased too, but you are trying to pretend papacy is an offshot of Roman Empire.

It does so NOT add up.

II

16:11 Double Headed Eagle being a symbol of 33:rd degree masonry ... well, I think quite a few in Russia, Germany, Austria and Albania do not quite appreciate this, as with Serbia as well.

Guess what? Freemasonry was founded in 1717, well after the Double Headed Eagle was a well established symbol of the Roman Empire.

This means, its older uses cannot be sullied by Freemasonry.

III

around 16:47 "many compromises were made with paganism, instead of the Church being separate from the world, it became a part of this world system"

As it should - as long as there were no real and serious compromises with paganism.

Christ had told the Apostles to make all nations into His disciples. That begins with the ones in Roman Empire, as well as with even before, Armenia.

17:07 "wholesale mixtures of paganism and Christianity"

You might want to document that one.

Of course, Jews will say Catholicism is Pagan, insofar as they deny that Christ ended Paganism. [Over many, so far not all, nations.]

17:54 "neither did he build great shining cathedrals"

No, but He had ordered the building of a Temple which prefigured His Body.

"with great pageants on the holidays"

You would like to check that up with how the Old Testament cult was organised. Judaism now has not such great pageants since the Temple was destroyed, but great pageants are NOT a sign of paganism. Nor are holidays.

18:12 "where a poor [etc] would be turned away at the door"

In Holy Mass you are not turned away at the door because you are homeless in the Catholic Church.

If you think of some special concert, that is another question, but normally being homeless per se is not an exclusion, since a concert in Church is normally for free. Or for voluntary contributions.

I can say that with good conscience, since, from 2009 to 2010 (or even 2011) I though accepting "Benedict XVI" was OK, and resisting his modernism was OK, and so going to SSPX was OK, and I was homeless and practised in the SSPX parish of St Nicolas du Chardonnet, going to Church every Sunday. I was not turned away because I was homeless.

The idea of a Catholic Church which does not welcome the homeless doesn't exist.

I have been ill received as a writer, since some have accepted the Protestant idea that a writer needs to be an Academic with a well ordered life, but I was always very well received insofar as I was coming primarily as a homeless. As to my being a writer, I have not been better received by Protestants, including your own version of that.

On Ten Heresies Often Seen Among Evangelicals

10 HERESIES I BELIEVED AS A PROTESTANT!!!
LizziesAnswers | 22.III.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGIIPFQ1VJw

I, Gnosticism

1:34 A spiritual only resurrection?

Actually that is one of the reasons I believe that Mainstream Protestantism is better with Heliocentrism than either Catholicism or Hebrew Roots, since these both proclaim a bodily resurrection very clearly.

Where is the Heaven that contains the bodies of at least Christ and the Blessed Virgin and will contain ours?

• 1) Beyond the limits of visible universe being the traditional one, that is Empyrean Heaven just above sphere of fix stars, but in modern cosmology that would be 13.8 billion light years away in every direction we look;
• 2) A kind of elfland with on and off visibility to us mundane, somewhere in space, and right now on an off mode of visibility - explains things, but is not traditional;
• 3) non-spatial = Gnosticism, no bodily resurrection.

[If she answers, I'll update.]

II, Sabellianism

skipping to comment.

III Arianism, V Nestorianism

4:30 I just had this idea of Catholics each Dec 6 going out and slapping a JW, but actually, no, Arius had less excuse than Charles Taze Russell, since he grew up a Protestant, and St Nicholas actually apologised for the violence.

More seriously, if you did view God the Son in a Sabellian way, and did not explicitly repudiate His being the same as Jesus, it is perhaps more like the Nestorian heresy you held.

It is the top reason why "left wing" Protestants (unlike Lutherans and Anglicans) deny the words "mother of God", and it is also a reason for their heresies on other Marian dogmata.

Dimond Brothers, who are Sedevacantists, deal very thoroughly with that in these two videos:

Mary: Mother Of God & Ark Of The New Covenant - Absolute Proof!
vaticancatholic.com | 29.VIII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFdujLSVL5Y

Mary's Sinlessness: A Biblical Documentary
vaticancatholic.com | 28.VIII.2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTVyptxPQ04

As you mentioned yourself as number 5 ...

IV Helvidianism

skipping comments.

More on V Nestorianism

7:51 Speaking of which [honouring Mary being about sound Christology], the Hail Mary.

In the Middle Ages, it was two Bible quotes + the name Jesus.

Now you add an extra prayer that can also be said separately, which the Orthodox also use, but only separately, and which begins "Holy Mary, Mother of God".

The Greek Orthodox Church on the other hand has a kind of Hail Mary (sung three times at vespers each day) where the Bible quotes are not exact but paraphrased, and the first word is "Theotoke" = "Mother of God".

VI, Pelagianism, VII Semi-Pelagianism

9:23 For God to be fully present in someone, they have to be in a state of grace.

This means, if they are in a state of original sin (we are not made or even born with God fully present in us, as in indwelling in our soul) or of mortal sin, they must be saved, get grace from God, namely, not just any actual graces, but sanctifying grace.

The usual road for the sanctifying grace is the seven sacraments, and of course, longing for a sacrament which no one is there to give you can replace it, at least momentarily.

The question between Feeneyites and others is, among other things, can non-guilty ignorance of Catholic doctrine and absence of Catholic sacraments last along the state of grace up to when you die?

Obviously, if God has given you sanctifying grace, at least usually He is going to take steps to give you the rest as well.

(Feeneyites delete "usually" and insert "always" [John 7:17] being a proof text : I said "at least usually" so as not to exclude "always").

9:59 "but that's just because we believe God is present in every single person"

By sanctifying grace? No. Some have not yet received it, some have already lost it.

11:15 God's grace is working in us all the time - as long as we don't reject it and lose it by mortal sin.

More on VII Semi-Pelagianism

10:36 Evangelicals being often enough Semi-Pelagian is actually not too ironic with Protestantism.

The original results of Reformation, "churches" one generation away from Catholicism, were really in some sense hyper-Augustinian and by concentrating on anti-Pelagian parts of St Augustine really had a perspective from which Molinism kind of looks like Semi-Pelagian.

However, the Evangelicals are more like 4 generations off the Reformation event in each denomination, meaning that they may have veered to where a Molinist would call them Semi-Pelagian.

VIII Iconoclasm

IX Sola Scriptura

skipping comments. She does just fine without me here.

X, Sola Fide

15:25 More if you are challenged on Sola Fide:

Epistle Of Saint Paul To The Philippians Chapter 2 : [12] Wherefore, my dearly beloved, (as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but much more now in my absence,) with fear and trembling work out your salvation. [13] For it is God who worketh in you, both to will and to accomplish, according to his good will. [14] And do ye all things without murmurings and hesitations; [15] That you may be blameless, and sincere children of God, without reproof, in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation; among whom you shine as lights in the world.

It may pay off to read also previous verses, since the work of Christ in Incarnation and redemption and its being to the Glory of God is what "wherefore" refers back to.

You may also get a thing or two on Church history about a Council of Orange. Yes, it condemned Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism, BUT it did so by enumerating a lot of works as the fruits of grace.

Keeping commandments, fasting, giving alms, pilgrimages, vows and some more are there all enumerated as fruits of grace.

In other words, nothing like "if you believe in grace, you don't need these works".