Catholic vs Protestant, Roman vs Jewish, HRE and Inquisition (on quora)

I

Do you believe that Mary was free of original sin to keep Jesus clean from it as well?
https://www.quora.com/Do-you-believe-that-Mary-was-free-of-original-sin-to-keep-Jesus-clean-from-it-as-well/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1m ago

Catholicism · Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

Partly that, but even more so Jesus Who existed before His Mother could do the very best salvation of Her, namely, not just deliver Her from original sin already contracted, but rather deliver Her in advance from even contracting it.

Scriptural proof : “I will put enmities between you and the woman”. Genesis 3:15.

Sin (original or personal) is a kind of slavery under the serpent, and therefore is incompatible with this perfect enmity, which Hebrew designates with the plural “enmities”.

II

Did the Catholic Church burn William Tyndale at the stake? What crime did he commit?
https://www.quora.com/Did-the-Catholic-Church-burn-William-Tyndale-at-the-stake-What-crime-did-he-commit/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1h ago

Catholicism · Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

Theories:

• He translated the Bible to English;
• He translated “presbyteros” as “elder” instead of “priest” in the Bible;
• something else.

His Bible, with faults in translation, like those noted and alas defended by Kathleen Neuen, was not the cause of his burning, but of his exile from England;

Once he was taken before the Spanish Inquisition in Netherlands, he was in fact tried and executed for something else, namely, how he interpreted Romans 3.

His Inquisitor Jacobus Latomus had a correspondence with him, and we know from his preserved answers that Romans 3 was the key issue.

EDIT : it is Latomus’ answers to Tyndale that are preserved.

III

What are the central ideas behind Protestant ecclesiology?
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-central-ideas-behind-Protestant-ecclesiology/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1h ago

Catholicism · Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

As there are several different Protestant ecclesiologies - already stated by Steve Hayes - there is one common idea, to most if not all Protestantism (notable exceptions Ruckmanites, Mormons, perhaps 7 Day Adventists, but not JWs) that “Reformation is OK”.

This is opposed to the Catholic ecclesial idea that at no point in history, even for 24 hours, the Church can be so sunken that it needs to reform doctrine by denying what it has as present dogma, shared by Ruckmanites, and this is also opposed to the Mormon idea that if it is so sunken, only a revelation, like that to Joseph Smith, can restore the Church.

In other words, this means Protestantism has a blind spot about the implications of Matthew 28:20.

IV

How did the Protestant Reformation affect the Catholic clergy?
https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-Protestant-Reformation-affect-the-Catholic-clergy/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

2h ago

Catholicism · Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

Depends on country and locality. In some places the Reformation meant death, martyrdom.

Let’s take the Franciscan convent in Ystad, then Danish. The king’s men came to pull down the convent and the prior opposed himself, getting a halberd through the vortex for it, then the other ones left.

V

Was the Holy Roman Empire a democracy?
https://www.quora.com/Was-the-Holy-Roman-Empire-a-democracy/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

22h ago

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

No, but it involved local democracies, like cantons of the Swiss type, or cities.

VI

Since the Romans were the authors of the Jewish diaspora, why did the Jews not reestablish their kingdom after the fall of the Western and Eastern Roman Empire?
https://www.quora.com/Since-the-Romans-were-the-authors-of-the-Jewish-diaspora-why-did-the-Jews-not-reestablish-their-kingdom-after-the-fall-of-the-Western-and-Eastern-Roman-Empire/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Hans-Georg Lundahl

23h ago

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

The Western and Eastern Empires fell together in World War I.

Just after World War II, the Jews preferred, for some reason, a Republic - at least those invovled in the Herzl movement and in Israeli Founding Fathers.

Andrea Licenzieschi

23h ago

I didn't know WW1 was a Medieval war.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

22h ago

• 1. When West went down, Roman Empire was kept up by East plus vassals in the West.
• 2. Charlemagne resumed the RE in the West, and it continued, with some modification as Holy Roman Empire to 1806 and then as Austria and Austria Hungary to WW I.
• 3. When East fell, for one thing the West was back, and for another, Russia was founded, which also continued to WW I and Russian Revolution.

VII

Is there any truth to the claim that most (if not all) medieval European kingdoms originally developed out of the political structure of the late Roman Empire's local provincial governments ?
https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-truth-to-the-claim-that-most-if-not-all-medieval-European-kingdoms-originally-developed-out-of-the-political-structure-of-the-late-Roman-Empires-local-provincial-governments/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

John Morthonde

Hans-Georg Lundahl

1h ago

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

It is fairly correct.

Some simply continued this on Roman ground, some copied it outside what had been Roman ground. Germany did both (Trier was Roman, Magdeburg wasn’t).

King Ina’s laws were basically a shortened version of Codex Iuris Civilis. The diverse laws of Germanic peoples (Salian, Visigothic etc) on Roman territory were usually limited to the aspects where they differed from Roman legislation.

Exceptions were Ireland and Scandinavia, since these had strong prior traditions, and unlike Poland (which also had such) were not overly close to cities in Germany.

VIII

Have you ever considered that Catholicism may be influenced by Paganism?
https://www.quora.com/Have-you-ever-considered-that-Catholicism-may-be-influenced-by-Paganism/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Barock Caleb

Hans-Georg Lundahl

23h ago

Catholicism · Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

I have heard it several times over before converting and rejected one claim of that type before another.

Updates

next day:

IX

Isn’t Latin mass forbidden according to 1st Corinthians 14:19?
https://www.quora.com/Isn-t-Latin-mass-forbidden-according-to-1st-Corinthians-14-19/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Barock Caleb

Hans-Georg Lundahl

21m ago

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

But in the church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, that I may instruct others also; than ten thousand words in a tongue.

Sed in ecclesia volo quinque verba sensu meo loqui, ut et alios instruam : quam decem millia verborum in lingua.

You gave the reference, I gave text according to Douay Rheims and Vulgate.

No, it is definitely not so. Speaking in tongues as here portrayed is a matter of speaking in tongues unknown to both speaker and audience, or most of it.

Latin is not a tongue unknown to the priest and it is, prior to English, one language likely to be internationally understood by laymen of a certain instruction too.

Mass is a sacrifice, and not about instruction. The Gospel reading in Latin is about instruction and must therefore be translated or explained to the language the audience understands.

As to understanding the set words, those common to each mass, Catholic laymen get an instruction about the general meaning of each ceremony, identifiable with opening words. But as these are not about instruction, they are prayers, the exact meaning is not a necessity for laymen assisting mass to understand.

The phrase which in English is that I may instruct others also; and in Latin is ut et alios instruam is already provided for by translation of Gospel or explanation of Gospel in a sermon.

X What does Catholicism teach about how Mary died? What is the source?
https://www.quora.com/What-does-Catholicism-teach-about-how-Mary-died-What-is-the-source/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Barock Caleb

Hans-Georg Lundahl

54m ago

Catholicism · Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

Up to Pius XII, on August 14th one recalled the Dormition of Mary and on August 15th Her Assumption. One presumes both occurred August 15th, and as Assumption is a matter for feast, one prepones the sadness of Dormition to the eve of the feast.

This is based on St. Andrew of Crete.

As Francis Marsden noted St. John Damascene arguing She should be spared the wages of sin, both death and corruption, others have argued, it was fitting She should either not die, or die of love. She was granted to die - the dormition - because Her Son had died. Corruption had not touched Her Son, and did not need touch Her. She also did not need to remain dead to the third day, since Her death as such is not a dogma, this is why the West assumes She was resurrected and assumed from the grave the very same day.

St. Andrew of Crete goes on to say, St. Thomas (Didymus) opened Her grave (on the third day) and found it empty.

No, December 25th was not a calendar date prior to Caesar ...

Q

If the Romans were originally the ones to create the calendar year, what did the very ancient civilizations use before them?
https://www.quora.com/If-the-Romans-were-originally-the-ones-to-create-the-calendar-year-what-did-the-very-ancient-civilizations-use-before-them/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Marc Bloemers

Hans-Georg Lundahl

just now

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

They used other calendars.

The Greek one is close to the Hebrew one. So was the Roman up to Caesar, but more clumsy and left to abandonment between Punic Wars and Caesar. 12 months all years, but a 13th month some years, somewhat less often than every second year. Months were lunar.

Probably, some calendars, like the one of Romulus and the pre-Christian Norse, but this is speculative, counted months only over non-winter, and had a winter leave between counting months next year - in this case the winter leave would have varied between two and three months for earliest calendar of Rome.

Babylon had 360 days each year, precisely as Muslims have 12 lunar months each year, no leap years, and for Babylon the months were all of 30 days. In Egypt also you had 30 days times twelve, but you also had five non-month days, which were making the rotation of the year around the seasons slower. They did not have leap years.

Yeah, I know, December 25th was not mentioned in the question, but it is arguably about the claim Nimrod'd birthday was "December 25th". Indirectly./HGL

The Answer Led to an Off Topic Debate

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Is unbroken history necessary for true Church? · The Answer Led to an Off Topic Debate · Great Bishop of Geneva!: Refuting CARM and Matt Slick

Cecilio J. Morales, Jr.

Thu

Excellent answer.

I would argue that the “perpetual” virginity of Mary is a case of mariological inflation, just as the immaculate conception and other such concepts.

Myriam of Nazareth’s virginity has more to do with the abysmal biology of the day than with proven, incontrovertible facts. Until 1836, it was not scientifically known that the woman had an ovum that contributed half of the fetus. The sperm was thought to be a “little man” and women merely vessels for it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Fri

Excuse me, but where exactly does the lack of embryologic knowledge come into play with the dogma?

Cecilio J. Morales, Jr.

Fri

I’m explaining how a bunch of fishermen and tax collectors could have come to that conclusion. Dogma was much later.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sat

Dogma or not, why would the lack of scientific knowledge, or presumed lack, have any more to do with it than exact knowledge of the actual facts, obtained because they knew Her Son and because they knew the Beloved Disciple who hosted Her, and because they knew Her?

What makes you think it was a conclusion than a straight off being told the fact from the ones knowing them?

Cecilio J. Morales, Jr.

Sat

The ones who knew it? How many friends have told you how their mothers lost their virginity?

Cecilio J. Morales, Jr.

23h ago

My point is that virginity was obviously a point raised in discussions among the Nazoreans well after Jesus was raised. It was a discussion that got out of hand. There was a defamatory story circulating that Myriam had been impregnated by one Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera (whose tombstone was found in Bingerbrück, Germany, in 1859). The virginity claim was a response by believers.

Cecilio J. Morales, Jr.

23h ago

To be clear: I don’t deny the virginity of Myriam as a matter of faith. I just place the teaching in its historical context.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

Jesus gave His disciples a good overview of OT exegesis as it applies to Him. Some of them, like the tax collector who was also a Levite were very well familiar with the texts before that.

Genesis 3:15 involves His mother as sinless (being sinful is against being enemy of the serpent).

Gideon’s fleece involves combining motherhood and virginity. This is the point here.

More practically. Jesus’ siblings were older ones, from St. Joseph’s previous marriage. When He was born, St. Joseph seemed to take up married life and yet produce no children. This needed some explaining.

Again, the Blessed Virgin was one of the people St. Luke interviewed. She was what some might consider “obsessed by” virginity. If She had been hysteric, this medical practitioner might have concluded against it being true. Since She was perfectly calm and holy and since Her Son had proven to be God, he trusted Her word.

This is tradition, basically.

Your idea that lack of scientific knowledge would have been involved in concluding this without evidence, is about as intelligent as a story I will now tell on the US War of independence. George Washington had no access to BBC. He never came to master British English, and even written English, as he was from Ozark. He nevertheless became governor of Virginia under George III. Now, he was himself fine with remaining under British rule. He thought he was obeying George III, when he had misheard someone else’s reading of the king’s letter to him, which included some conditional of the unreal and he took it for a future in the jussive meaning, when he sat down with friends to get penned a Declaration of Independence. Obediently, he sent it back to his king, not quite sure what the declaration contained either. George III was furious, and sent soldiers. George Washtington was surprised and took this as treason on the king’s side. Hence the war in 1776. In 1783, the treaties did get properly signed on all hands, because Lafayette had mastered the Ozark English of George Washington and George III mastered French. Credible reconstruction? No, I don’t think so, and I don’t think you think so either.

As to Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera, if his tomb was found in Germany, how does one know he was ever in Palestine? And that the diffamatory story is not from Jews later, making his tombstone in Germany the origin of their character?

James Irungu lied on quora about "second commandment"

Why isn't the adulation of the Virgin Mary in the Catholic faith considered idol worship?
https://www.quora.com/Why-isnt-the-adulation-of-the-Virgin-Mary-in-the-Catholic-faith-considered-idol-worship/answer/James-Irungu-1

James Irungu

January 29

Lives in Nairobi, Kenya

Several years back, the second commandment was not in their bible; it had been deliberately removed so that so that it might not convict them of idolatry. Instead they had pushed the third into second place and so on until the tenth which they had split into two to make up for the missing one. It is true they adore, venerate, worship, pray to her(the hail Mary) and shower her with all kinds of praises. To them that is not idol worship. Isaiah 48:11 is explicit, God cannot give His glory to another; why should we? Why would one worship a fellow human being instead of God? That is the highest form of idolatry, sanitized.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wed

“the second commandment was not in their bible; it had been deliberately removed so that so that it might not convict them of idolatry”

This is a lie.

The words that you consider as “II Commandment” have never been deleted from Catholic Bibles, it is just that we consider these words as part of “I Commandment”.

James Irungu

Wed

Please follow the link below to have a wider view of my claim. It would be prudent not argue about what you don’t know; ask and it will be shown you.

Roman Catholic Church Version
https://www.the-ten-commandments.org/romancatholic-tencommandments.html

James Irungu

Wed (in parallel with previous)

FYI I am a former Roman Catholic so I know each and every detail. You can pull this from the web if you please. I don’t joke with matters concerning the Word. Read below and tell me what you think. Where is the part about graven images? It was removed deliberately because they know their churches are full of them and are part of their worship. You can’t fool everybody all times.

[image of both versions side by side]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Wed

The “RC version” is not a quote from the Bible, it is the Catechism version, where each commandment is given in a very short statement.

It is not a deletion in the Bible text it is that “I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me” resumes all verses up to 20:6, precisely as catechism version also omits the creation week reference for Sabbath commandment, and the promise of long life to commandment about honouring parents.

The version given in the catechism is meant to be easier to learn by heart than the full chapter in the Bible.

James Irungu

Wed

Please stop justifying what even the blind can see; that part of the second commandment was removed on purpose. The Roman Catholic church, if in the real sense you can call it that, is full of idols and having that law in place would raise eyebrows. That’s why it was removed. Look at RC commandment number three, since when did Sunday become a sabbath? They have the law right in their faces yet they choose to disobey just because it is still not a dogma. They tried to hide under a veil but you cannot short change God’s word. Let me remind you again I was one of them and I noticed the anomaly even before I was thirteen. You speak of the catechism like it preceded the bible; it came after the bible, 1555 to be precise. Your catechism would rightly omit the week reference of the Sabbath on purpose: it is the Roman catholic church that changed the worship day from Saturday to the first day of the week. Can you tell us why the catechism would differ with the bible? What would be the logic of teaching what your very bible, according to you, has something different? I reiterate my earlier stand: that law was removed on purpose; not to accuse the church fathers of double standards or rather defying the bible in part on the Mosaic Law particularly. The sources I picked from are written by different authors and there are many more with same sentiments. Does it mean they are wrong and the RC have the appropriate stand? The book of Revelation warns those who remove from the word of God, they have a reward waiting for them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

23h ago

Look here, the first two commandments are given in short version. So were more than one of the following.

1) I am the LORD your God: you shall not have strange Gods before me.
= Exodus 20:[2] I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. [3] Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. [4] Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. [5] Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me: [6] And shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments.

2) You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
= Exodus 20:[7] Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of the Lord his God in vain.

As you can see, the second commandment takes on exactly where the first leaves off in the Bible. Verse 7 follows verse 6. No verse is deleted.

Now, what you could pretend is we divide the Bible text wrong, see below, and that verse 4 to 6 should be a separate commandment. This was discussed by St. Thomas Aquinas, here:

The moral precepts of the old law (Prima Secundae Partis, Q. 100, A. 4)
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2100.htm#article4

Objection 1. It would seem that the precepts of the decalogue are unsuitably distinguished from one another. For worship is a virtue distinct from faith. Now the precepts are about acts of virtue. But that which is said at the beginning of the decalogue, "Thou shalt not have strange gods before Me," belongs to faith: and that which is added, "Thou shalt not make . . . any graven thing," etc. belongs to worship. Therefore these are not one precept, as Augustine asserts (Qq. in Exod. qu. lxxi), but two.

…

Reply to Objection 1. Worship is merely a declaration of faith: wherefore the precepts about worship should not be reckoned as distinct from those about faith. Nevertheless precepts should be given about worship rather than about faith, because the precept about faith is presupposed to the precepts of the decalogue, as is also the precept of charity. For just as the first general principles of the natural law are self-evident to a subject having natural reason, and need no promulgation; so also to believe in God is a first and self-evident principle to a subject possessed of faith: "for he that cometh to God, must believe that He is" (Hebrews 11:6). Hence it needs no other promulgation that the infusion of faith.

So, back from 1555 you go back to 13th C. and from 13th C. St. Thomas sends you back to 4th C. and St. Augustine of Hippo.

"part of the second commandment was removed on purpose"

Yes, on the very good purpose of making a catechism lecture easier to recall than the actual text in the Bible. Jews learned it by heart, but didn't also have Creed and Lord's Prayer to learn by heart.

Did our Lord ever shorten commandments or approve of those who did? Look at what we call the fourth one:

Exodus 20:[12] Honour thy father and thy mother, that thou mayest be longlived upon the land which the Lord thy God will give thee.

Matthew 19:19 Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

Yes, Our Lord gave a shorter version.

“You speak of the catechism like it preceded the bible; it came after the bible,”

I am well aware it came after the Bible, but it also did so for a purpose of being easier to learn doctrine from.

Now, first three commandments - as we count them - in the Exodus text each involves one Old Testament application as to ritual.

I => no images back then. God had not become man, so could not be depicted, and depicting his saints but not Himself might give them a psychological higher importance. Now Christ can be depicted and therefore so can His saints.

II => Adonai as name of God, rather than Father, Son and Holy Spirit

III => Sabbath rather than first day, rest from creation week rather than resurrection and pentecost, as Lord’s day.

You do not find one single Christian confession that claims all three of these is of primary importance.

Sabbatarian confessions usually do not insist on Tetragrammaton as primary name of God, like JW’s do, and JW’s are Sunday worshippers and most Puritans do neither, but are very fond of your dividing verses 4 to 6 into a separate commandment.

To prove that no Bible text was deleted, the 1555 catechism which is for priests, cites verses 2 to 6 in full for first commandment.

// THE FIRST COMMANDMENT : "I am the lord thy god, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them. I am the lord thy god, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, to the third and fourth generation of them that hate me, and showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments."//

I cited it here, in parallel with Russian Orthodox I and II commandments, as Filaret of Moscow actually agrees with you on how the commandments are divided, but not on how the “second” commandment applies today:

Trento - Philaret (Catechisms) (post on Trent “I”, Filaret “I-II”).
https://trentophilaret.blogspot.com/2009/05/on-first-commandment.html

According to wiki, the Catechism of Trent is actually from 1566.

James Irungu

22h ago

The fact remains they were removed for a sinister purpose; any new comer would hardly see the difference and would never see what is supposed to be there and what is there in the spur of the moment. I told you I am a former RC follower and until I learnt to read and to write, I never new the portion about ‘graven images’ ever existed. The ten commandments are I know off my heart miss that detail. I wonder how may more have missed that and never got to know the truth. There is something about RCC over the centuries that you perhaps don’t know, when they are caught in fix, they maintain a simple stance: silence. They know arguing will expose them all the more. You have tried but your argument is not convincing at all because they would have ‘abbreviated’ the whole bible for simpler understanding. I am sure that Rome did not have a shortage of paper and neither the brains to understand five, yes, only five extra verses from the catechism. It is interesting.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

21h ago

It was actually the Protestants who were newcomers to Protestantism, and the reference to “Bible alone” was added for a sinister purpose.

“I told you I am a former RC follower and until I learnt to read and to write, I never new the portion about ‘graven images’ ever existed.”

Yeah, so? I am a former Protestant and knew it existed before converting.

“There is something about RCC over the centuries that you perhaps don’t know, when they are caught in fix, they maintain a simple stance: silence.”

Care to give examples that I can’t refute (unlike your claim verse 4 was removed from our Exodus 20)?

Plus, didn’t you on the other thread where you removed your answer when my answers to you and that lady became bothersome?

“You have tried but your argument is not convincing at all because they would have ‘abbreviated’ the whole bible for simpler understanding.”

You forget that the catechism of 1566 very much did show all verses. It just grouped verses 2 through 6 under same first commandment. Will you delete your answer now, to be able to remain silent on that one?

James Irungu

20h ago

Search the web, it is all there. Catholicism is a sham in general. Here you are convincing me they did not remove anything while is clear they did. Hiding a lie will not change what they did. Your last sentence is just a claim like any other RCC fuss. I am at liberty to delete my content or block anyone to avoid arguing endlessly or rather hear lie upon a lie. Look at the screen shot below, in my answer below, what is lacking on the RCC column? How much space would the proper contents occupy or exist? What is not in the bible does not deserve to be there because it worthless, what is there should remain; anything extra-biblical is nothing but the wish of an individual. The bible should not be given direction, rather it gives direction; the same one they altered to fit in their wishes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Just now

“Here you are convincing me they did not remove anything while is clear they did.”

So did Our Lord in Matthew 19:19. Shortening while citing is not the same as removing from Bible text.

Ten thousand hits on google agreeing with you won’t remove this solid fact and the fact that the Catechism of the Council of Trent in 1566 cited ALL the text of Exodus 20:2–6, removing nothing, when giving First Commandment. It will just mean that ten thousand sites reflect a sham claim by Protestantism (not the only one by the way, but one of the more aggressively anti-Catholic ones).

“Your last sentence is just a claim like any other RCC fuss.”

Not at all, I linked to a blog of mine setting side by side comparable parts of Trentine catechism and that of Filaret of Moscow. If you had gone to the link and read, you would have known I had backing for the claim.

The Trentine catechism has a very long section on First commandment, and it’s too long for me to write just for lying on a blog, whatever I may be worth as to honesty, do take my laziness into account!

Is unbroken history necessary for true Church?

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Is unbroken history necessary for true Church? · The Answer Led to an Off Topic Debate · Great Bishop of Geneva!: Refuting CARM and Matt Slick

Q

Does an unbroken history mean the Roman Catholic Church is true?
https://www.quora.com/Does-an-unbroken-history-mean-the-Roman-Catholic-Church-is-true/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

context

https://carm.org/roman-catholicism/does-an-unbroken-history-mean-the-roman-catholic-church-is-true/

Hans-Georg Lundahl

just now

Catholicism · Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

There are five confessions claiming with some realism (plus Ruckmanites, totally without historic realism) an unbroken history.

Roman Catholicism.
Eastern Orthodoxy.
Copts.
Armenians.
Assyrians.

Of these, Copts and Armenians are sometimes together known as “Monophysites” but are not in communion with each other any more than both RC and EO “Chalcedonians” are so. Assyrians are also known as Nestorians.

After Ephesus condemning Nestorius, whom Assyrians consider a Church Father, and Chalcedon condemning “Monophysites” (rejected independently by Copts and by Armenians) there is one more split that is more or less symmetric, namely between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox in 1054.

With such a symmetric split, both sides can with some realism pretend they are the side that continue what went on before.

All Protestantisms and Neo-Manichaeans, on the other hand, come from very assymetric splits against usually Roman Catholics, rarely Eastern Orthodox (as Bogumils) and Armenians (as Tondrakians). These assymetric splits, it is very clear that even if Protestants or Neo-Manichaeans claim to revert to original Christianity, they have no realistic claim of continuing it with an unbroken history. Albigensians and more recently Ruckmanites came with very spurious claims to that. Albigensians being Neo-Manichaeans of the Middle Ages, and Ruckmanites being Baptist Protestants.

Now, such and such a Church claiming an unbroken history may indeed be on the wrong side of a (near) symmetric split and therefore not be the true Church, but coming from an assymetric split and not at all having any claim to an unbroken history guarantees you are not the true Church. Unbroken history is not a sufficient, but a minimal claim to be the true Church.

Roman Catholicism has four rivals in this respect.

Protestantism most definitely isn’t Apostolic Christianity, because it doesn’t claim unbroken history, or when it does, like Ruckmanites, it cannot back it up and trace an unbroken presence since any (near) symmetric split.

Why is unbroken history a necessary criterium for the Church? Note, I say necessary, not sufficient, but why is it necessary? Matthew 28:20. Christ was speaking to the very visible leaders of the very original and very visible Church He had Himself founded. He promised to be with them all days, not of just their lifetimes, but to the consummation of all time.

This doesn’t give a clear preference for one of the five over the others, but it does give a totally unambiguous preference for these five over all and any Protestantism.

The alternatives are not:

• “Catholicism is true because it has unbroken history”
• or “Protestantism is true despite not having unbroken history.”

The alternatives are:

• Catholicism, Orthodoxy, Copts, Armenians or Assyrians are the True Church as having unbroken history;
• Ruckmanites are the true Church despite immense improbability historically of them having unbroken history;
• or, as no Church has unbroken history, Christianity is not true, Jesus either didn’t make or could not keep the promise in Matthew 28:20.

In each of these cases, a Protestantism claiming any kind of actual Restoration (Reformation, Joseph Smith revelation, Ellen White revelation, Churches of God or Russellians coming to a better understanding of Scripture) and therefore claiming any kind of break or even low point in doctrine needing to be restored from and this centuries earlier, loses.

The page you link to rounds off with a kind of vindication for Protestantism:

"the many teachings of the Roman Catholic Church which are clearly not found in Scripture:

• purgatory,
• indulgences,
• Mary’s perpetual virginity,
• salvation by faith and works, etc."

Unfortunately for the criticism, all four of these are in some form present in all of the five that can be the true Church. So, if any of these is not true, Christianity is false. Least obvious here is “purgatory”. One Greek Orthodox “defender of Orthodoxy” (against Roman Catholicism - they are Photius, Palamas and this one), namely Mark of Ephesus, went out of his way to deny purgatory. But this does not mean Mark of Ephesus considered all Christians go to Heaven if they don’t go to Hell. He believed both in soul sleep and in prayers for the dead, whether this be retroactively for a deceased person’s having had a good death in Christ, or for relief from possible nightmares in the soul sleep … which is much closer to purgatory than to the Protestant concept. Tondrakians prefigured Luther in their protest against indulgences, as Armenians have an indulgenced animals sacrifice (with meat given to the poor and the rite reminiscent of OT sacrifices).

All the five believe in perpetual Virginity of Mary and in works being necessary for salvation (except for that of infants dying after baptism before personal sins).

And “clearly not found in Scripture” would be more damning if “sola Scriptura” clearly were found in Scripture, which it isn’t, or weren’t contradicted in Scripture which it is.

I may get one other day into whether the page is right in denying unbroken history to Catholicism, but the question here was just if it would, if true mean it were the true Church.

I actually didn't wait till another day ...

Great Bishop of Geneva!: Refuting CARM and Matt Slick

Mike Schmitz was nearly good for a while, but then screwed up

Did People in the Bible Really Live for 900 Years? | Fr. Mike Schmitz
16th Jan. 2021 | Catholic Answers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK9yC-trcQ4

I

2:31 No, the 900 year long and some more lifespans between Adam and Flood would have been a very natural situation back then.

The present situation has to do with radioactivity. From Flood to Babel (if it was Göbekli Tepe and not even later like some say Eridu), the carbon 14 rise is depending on a production c. 10 times faster than at present. This production would go with more radioactivity from cosmos, more milliSieverts per year from cosmos, right now it is 0.34 at medium height of inhabited places, but back then it would have more or less equalled the other components of background radiation if not more.

This would have had another effect, shortening lifespans, as the genetics of man degenerated.

This would after some more than a millennium, rather than a millennium and a half lead to Moses dying at 120, which today is still reachable, but extreme. Like, Japan, Crete, very healthy living.

Living in the Upper Palaeolithic would have been very unhealthy due to the radiation (plus those dying in it would have died prematurely, since even Shem would have lived into Neolithic). Hence our much shorter lifespans.

Note, I count Babel as c. 40 years between death of Noah and birth of Peleg.

II

5:00 Here is City of God, book XV, by St. Augustine:

The City of God (Book XV)
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120115.htm

St. Augustine was very clear that the lifespans like 930 were natural between Fall of Adam and a later post-Flood stage, so much that one reason he gives for Enosh born when Seth was 205 is ... puberty as much delayed as lifespans were longer.

I have a confirmation for this one, less favoured, elsewhere : Ishmael is carried on his mother's back when he is 14, 15 at least. Sungenis spoke of "he would have been ten" ... no, he was past 14 and as small as if he had been ten. And this was a son of the Abraham who lived to 175 (impossible today) and brother of Isaac living to 147 (impossible today).

But I'd agree with him, he's a Church Father, that later puberty was not all of it.

III

6:13 No struggle needed. Science will tell you radioactivity is bad for you, and therefore will provide four our genome being less good than that of pre-Flood or even early post-Flood patriarchs.

IV

7:30 "science is answering the question oftentimes "what" and "how" ...

What a bore! How awful ...

Faith is answering the question "who and why"

Genesis 1 never states why God created, except for the creation of man.

It very often adresses what and at least partly how, namely "in what sequence". And "by what method" (divine fiat, the famous "magic wand" decried by "Pope Francis" in 2014).

V

8:37 No, there is nothing which says Genesis 1 to 11 is highly poetic.

It is highly oral, each chapter is shorter than Nicene Creed, and all of it not much longer than the songs of the Iliad that aeidoi were learning by heart from Homer to Peisistratos.

It is not pre-history. There is, overall, no such thing as pre-history, except the times given in Genesis 1 and 2 before Adam, the first human observer, was introduced. Or other references to before God created, like in Wisdom. From his creation on, Genesis is history.

To anyone in ages prior to Romanticism, "poetic" would not have conveyed "fictional", so even if poetic had been correct, as it is for psalms, it doesn't mean non-accuracy, not literality and so on.

Here is a double reference to Exodus and Flood:

Thou by thy strength didst make the sea firm: thou didst crush the heads of the dragons in the waters.
[Psalms 73:13]

While "firm sea" refers to walls of Red Sea leaving Hebrews dry, and "crushing dragon heads" means drowning Egyptians, it is also very descriptive of mud flows during Flood of Noah and dino fossils typically found either body without head or head without body. And dinos can fairly well be described as dragons. Literally, not just poetically.

8:38 There is no such thing as a switch over to "* history * history". Abraham's story begins in chapter 11. He's born 541 years after Peleg. But as he is no longer just receiving very short texts meant for oral transmission, he discovers, on written support, he can afford to be more prolix, and this goes on to Genesis 50.

No, 8:49, the chapters are not from "life before history existed" except most of Genesis 1 and some part of Genesis 2.

8:56 So, you interpret it according to that understanding of the genre, you are wrong on both genre and how to interpret it.

VI

10:15 I refer to Aristotle.

Experience of doing well leads to enlightenment. Experience of doing ill leads to illusion.

Your experience of interpreting Scripture would, if you take Genesis 1 to 11, be an illusory one.

Your reference to The Office. I don't know the show. But it is not unlikely that some have correctly assessed it as fiction, but for the wrong reasons, so as to assess even fact as fiction. Among atheists, it is very often you find "supernatural" = "fiction". We know this is not true, but this means, you can be looking for the wrong things.

It is in fact lots wiser to conclude, genre differences do not at all go into the difference between fact and fiction, or if they do, that is accidental to the general principle, due to "parallel universes" like Narnia not existing, God made one creation, but this cannot be drawn out to a general principle. Some of the tragedies about Hercules would have included lots of either fiction or misunderstanding. But Persae was contemporary history. Only dialogues are fictionally reconstituted, which was standard for much of historiography later on too.

The one real, and spottable, difference between Genesis 1 to 11 and Genesis 12 to 50 is in how detailed each man's life is described, even some men are less described in last chapters than Adam in chapters 1 through 5. Ephraim and Manasseh. The reason is, oral texts have to be either short or poetic to be memorisable. Faithfully transmittable. In Genesis 1 to 11, the authors went for short.

As I asked Robert Barron - could he faithfuly teach the Nicene creed to a dying child without books at hand? Well yes. And any chapter 1 through 11 is shorter, and Nicene Creed is also prose.

If you assess Genesis 1 to 11 as poetry, you are not familiar with the genre of Hebrew poetry.

If you assess poetry as implying need not be taken as literal history, once again you are not familiar with the genre of Hebrew poetry.

Can Church Doctrine Ever Change? - Differing from "Breaking In The Habit"

Can Church Doctrine Ever Change?
25th Jan. 2021 | Breaking In The Habit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfYNE4hnjA8

I

2:07 "always be there to guide them"

His actual words:

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]

In other words, He does not promise any guidance beyond His actual already stated words.

When we get to John 16, we do get

[12] I have yet many things to say to you: but you cannot bear them now. [13] But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth. For he shall not speak of himself; but what things soever he shall hear, he shall speak; and the things that are to come, he shall shew you.

Does this mean, Christ did not ever say these things, they are only after Pentecost?

No - it means He could not tell them certain things before the passion, on that occasion:

• constraints on human memory (one evening, vs 40 days from Resurrection)
• grief of Apostles at Crucifixion, already foreboded by dangers
• lack of grace yet to be supplemented.

Challoner annotates:

[13] "Will teach you all truth": See the annotation on chap. 14. ver. 26.

And if we go back there, we do indeed find:

[26] "Teach you all things": Here the Holy Ghost is promised to the apostles and their successors, particularly, in order to teach them all truth, and to preserve them from error.

However, we find this in connection with the Holy Spirit promised to remind "whatsoever I shall have said" - i e what He had already said but also what He was going to say during 40 days between Resurrection and Asciension.

These words preclude inspiration after death of last apostle:

For he shall not speak of himself;

In other words, the apostles could know it was the Holy Spirit by:

• direct reference to words of Jesus
• direct reference to already extant Scriptures, i e Old Testament
• or, at most "wild," syllogism from any of above.

II

2:28 Confession, prayers for the dead, perpetual virginity of Mary were all known to the Apostles.

It is on the day of Her Dormition that She went out of direct observation of them. They knew She had no other children and could not imagine She could have been infertile if having intercourse, as well as them knowing Her Son remained a virgin, as well as probably also having His exegesis on certain OT passages. And She would have confided to St. John the beloved how his virginity (lifelong or when She lived with him?) pleased Her because of Her (indeed lifelong) virginity, as well as Her Son's.

Confession had been instituted with the power to absolve, given in John 20:21-23.

Purgatory would have been known, at least with some reasonable approximation, since Maccabee times.

Not a trace of "development of doctrine after the Apostles" - supposing that were even what Newman meant in that famous but not so often read long essay.

Delvin George

Are you saying Doctrines are not developed as in solidify into Dogmas?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Delvin George I am saying they are not developed as from simple silence.

Dormition was "solidified into dogma" in 1950, if Pius XII was still Pope then.

But it hadn't changed. He did not and could not for instance define there was no Dormition. He could not define Apostles did not surround what was looking, till She closed Her eyes, like a death bed.

III

4:23 "limiting it to the Pope"

The Pope is infallible in three ways:

• united to the universal episcopate in ordinary magisterium (directly involves more men than the Pope, namely all or nearly all the bishops)
• signing a universal Council (directly involves more men than the Pope, namely majority of bishop vote)
• speaking ex cathedra to define (directly involves only the Pope, in practise certainly some other men, but not necessarily outlined which ones).

IV

4:48 "being a part of the Catholic Church does not necessarily make one a part of the Mystical Body"

That goes beyond the actual statement in Lumen Gentium. What SSPX has complained about has been another way to distinguish this from the statement of Mystici Corporis ... so, the theologians behind the passage did not follow the recommendation of GaSp, since their expression was less suited to bring clarity.

Some decades ago, the exegesis on LG would have been like mystical body were present in other communities too.

Plus, sounds false. Being a part of the Catholic Church does not necessarily make one a living member of the Mystical Body, but while a Catholic one cannot be totally cut off either. Know the amputations where gangrened limbs are taken off? Well, that kind of outside the body is like being in external forum a Catholic no more. Dead limbs still Catholic have some hope to be resurrected ones.

I think your position was very clearly condemned in condemnations of Baius, Jansenius and Quesnel.

V

a) 5:47 Religious liberty. In Dignitatis Humanae, this is presented as due to the person, and not as sometimes (in our times in most aspects and instances) due to peace or limits of accountability in external forum for those never raised as Catholics.

b) 6:48 What did Pope Leo X give permission to, exactly?

• 1) the paper work for loans needs personnel, and this personnel could be paid a modest living - not a lavish one - for the work, and this would be provided even in total by interest (which would also pay janitors for where the business was conducted)
• 2) but he also said, it is far holier if the municipality (the montes pietatis were run by municipalities) paid for half of these expenses by whatever the revenue of the city involved.

This is a far cry from permitting interest tout court.

I seem to have forgotten to link to where I found the text, but here is my copy:

EN LENGUA ROMANCE EN ANTIMODERNISM Y DE MIS CAMINACIONES : Lateranense V Concilii Sessio X
https://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/04/lateranense-v-concilii-sessio-x.html

multo tamen perfectius, multoque sanctius fore, si omnino tales montes pietatis gratuiti constituerentur, hoc est, si illos erigentes, aliquos census assignarent quibus si non omni, saltem vel media ex parte huiusmodi montium ministrorum solvantur impensae, ut ad leviorem aeris solvendi portionem medio hoc pauperes gravari contingat, ad quos, cume huiusmodi census assignatione, pro impensarum supportatione exigendos Christi fideles maioribus indulgentiis invitandos esse decernimus.

6:49 "by the 18th C. the Church gave universal permission"

Source needed!

Plus, if true, would have been on a so much lower level as not to disrupt the authority of the councils of Lateran V or III or decree 29 of Vienne. A N D may have been the reason why the Church was chastised by secularisations and French Revolutions in the second half of that century.

c) The statements for Portugal and about enslaving Muslims (Arab or Black) would have been not adressed to the Church.

It would also have been in acts of retribution, since Alger and similar pirate bases did enslave Christians. While most of the population would not have taken direct parts in the acts of piracy, exploiting it by buying Christians on the slave market would have been more widespread.

A portion of mainly Portuguese bishops tolerating slavery even after Paul III would have been simply one episcopate, not the universal magisterium.

VI

8:35 Geocentrism is rooted in Scripture. Young Earth Creationism is rooted in Scripture.

Acceptance of Heliocentrism (in a limited but palpable way) came, if you are correct, around the time of acceptance of usury, and were punished by French Revolution.

Acceptance of Deep time came in 1909, but on the condition that this was just exegesis of days in Genesis 1. Soon after we have the World War I.

Acceptance of Evolution, as in Adam's body (but not soul) evolving from beasts came in 40's - the same time period as the earliest French reports known now about clerical abuse of boys come from.

Jesus is God in the flesh and as such not ignorant of anything He had to teach the apostles:

Summa, III part, Q 15, A 3
https://www.newadvent.org/summa/4015.htm#article3

VII

9:04 "we might have to realise that we have misunderstood the dogma for many years and so must completely change a discipline of the Church"

Well, the problem is, this is one instance where you would have to invoke such a freedom of change.

In the reassessment of theological statements in 1983 "canon law", which I did not know when converting in 1988, the discipline relating acceptability to unanimous consensus of Church Fathers, from Trent, was scrapped.

Isn't it easier to say you have wrongly assessed what the criteria for valid councils and popes are for about 60-70 years? And some in Paris, about Genesis, for about a century, since E. Mangenot, SJ, was inventing the framework theory? 1920, that would be 100 years and a few months rather than 101 years as yet?

9:18 Founded by Christ, run by the Holy Spirit - well, we got criteria for HOW the Holy Spirit guides the Church, meaning such changes do bother.

No, changing doctrine doesn't show we are growing closer to perfection. They show we are getting closer to or have passed the time called by St. Paul "revolt" - as to Church Fathers who considered it was one against the Roman Empire, the I World War and the Russian revolution and Austrian Anschluss would fit that bill.

DR : II Thess 2
http://drbo.org/chapter/60002.htm