An Actually Pious Protestant, Against Flat Earth, As He Should, Not For Heliocentrism, and He Shouldn't

Does the Bible teach a flat earth?
Answers from Scripture | 3 June 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U1SKmdMCGCs

3:07 Science may have said the Earth is a sphere since Aristotle, but Geography has said so since Magellan.

To the point: Aristotle's four proofs have as the strongest one a pseudo-Magellan. The point was weakened when that error was found to be one, and strengthened beyond destruction once we have Ferdinand Magellan and his shipmates.

Answers from Scripture

@answersfromscriptureonline

And the Bible stated it plainly more than two thousand years before Magellan.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@answersfromscriptureonline In theory, a disc could also hang on nothing.

The more plain statement, with today's geographic knowledge is the four corners.

[omitting a private one]

7:15 Fixed Earth, however, is a fact.

You cannot have the universe turning around earth each day, moved by God, if it's earth that's moving.

And Romans 1 (18 to 20) and John 5:17 say God is moving the universe around us each day.

Answers from Scripture

You need to re-read your proof texts. They say nothing whatsoever resembling your claim for them. Sie sollen ihren Beweisrext wieder neu lesen. Die sagen überhaupt nicht was sie von ihnen behauptet haben.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@answersfromscriptureonline Well, as to John 5:17, the one work that God is undisputedly performing in the present every Sabbath is referenced, what other could it be than keeping the universe turning, since otherwise time would stop at a Sabbath evening?

Upholding in existence could be argued as not a work, but an ongoing result from creation week. Don't think that's the case, but could be argued, and probably more so among Jews back then. 5I don't have a time machine, and am not a Jew, despite some ancestry).

As to Romans 1, you need a proof for God, which is visible (excludes human reason, despite the proof in Miracles, chapter 3, by CSL), visible without modern equipment (excludes the flagellum of the bacterium), is undisputedly ongoing action (excludes existence or the ordered working of an automaton), argues he ... aïdios autou dunamis = everlasting power, a power that doesn't get tired.

A work of turning the universe around earth each single day certainly fits that bill.

And it also argues the theiotes over all of the universe.

7:35 If it hasn't been proven either way, Geocentricity, as what we observe, is the default.

As what we normally observe, I should say. If you are in a car, you can see the ground move from under your nose and back, if you are in a chopper around the Eiffel Tower, you can see the Eiffel Tower move, and if the Moon moves around Earth every 25 hours, that explains why Armstrong saw the Earth "turn around itself" ...

But if we stand on the ground, the ground isn't moving, the Eiffel Tower isn't moving, the whole Earth isn't moving, but cars, choppers and the Moon are moving.

There are exactly two ways to argue conclusively about God and Tychonian Geocentrism.

Tychonian Geocentrism cannot work without God and angels.
God and angels don't exist.
Therefore Tychonian Geocentrism is false.

Tychonian Geocentrism cannot work without God and angels.
Tychonian Geocentrism holds, as observed.
Therefore God and angels exist.

Answers from Scripture

Your argument is both subjective and circular.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@answersfromscriptureonline Show me the circulus in probando.

And show what's faulty in the subjectivity.

8:02 The four corners in Apocalypse 7:1 are the NW corner (Alaska), the SW corner (Cape Horn), let's go across the Pacific, evening and then morning, NE corner (Siberia), SE corner (Tasmania).

Even if the four winds are N, E, S, W, that would be angels, two and two keeping back the wind between them.

Now, each of these corners would also exist on a flat earth map, but the Northern ones would no longer be outer corners, and instead Cape of Good Hope would be a third outer corner. To get a fourth one, you'd need to add the other South corner of Australia, which is disingenious.

Therefore the four corners are with modern geographic knowledge rather a proof text for globe than for disc.

Answers from Scripture

I agree with you that the four corners argument doesn’t need a flat earth to be accurate.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@answersfromscriptureonline By now it can't have a flat earth, unless you want Australia to be two of the four corners.

10:12 is where I saw "proven either way"

You'll excuse me for using the verse divisions of Douay Rheims rather than KJV.

Here is Joshua 10:12

Then Josue spoke to the Lord, in the day that he delivered the Amorrhite in the sight of the children of Israel, and he said before them: Move not, O sun, toward Gabaon, nor thou, O moon, toward the valley of Ajalon
[Josue (Joshua) 10:12]

If it was earth that stopped and was again set in motion, rather than God ceasing the daily Westward motion of the Universe, and angels the longer Eastward motions of Sun and Moon, this would be the very only time in the Bible when a miracle worker adresses a different thing from what needs to be changed.

You could speak of man and leprosy cleaned, but the one is the man getting "saubergewaschen" and the other is the leprosy getting "abgewaschen" so the Gospeller used a pun in the same verb.

The men who think Joshua apparently adressed Sun and Moon, while really commanding Earth, they could argue the other Yehoshua apparently adressed demons while really commanding the functions of a human brain and nothing else. Obviously, that's refuted by some drowning pigs too, but normally, we will assume the miracle worker adresses what needs to have a miraculous change of state or behaviour.

Meaning, Joshua adressed Sun and Moon because it was Sun and Moon that needed to cease moving.

You cannot argue the words to Sun and Moon were his prayer, they must have come after his unquoted prayer, because "sun" and "moon" are not names of God.

Answers from Scripture

Nobody was saying any of this. I think you were typing instead of listening in this section.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@answersfromscriptureonline You said, by the way I was reading, not hearing, this library has no headphones, that you don't think it's "proven either way."

I argue it very much is, due to the verse where Joshua makes his miraculous command to Sun and Moon.

10:21 No, we are not told of what he asks for.

We are only told what he says once he's done asking.

They took therefore the stone away. And Jesus lifting up his eyes said: Father, I give thee thanks that thou hast heard me And I knew that thou hearest me always; but because of the people who stand about have I said it, that they may believe that thou hast sent me When he had said these things, he cried with a loud voice: Lazarus, come forth
[John 11:41-43]

For the other Jesus, the son of Nave or of Nun, we are not told the words that correspond to "Father, I give thee thanks" but only the ones that correspond to "Lazarus, come forth".

"Sun, stand still" = "Lazarus, come forth"

Jesus didn't ask the grave to roll back from around him, he told him to walk out of the grave.

Joshua didn't ask the earth to stop moving, he told Sun and Moon to stop moving.

Answers from Scripture

You are correct that “Sun stand still was spoken as an imperative, not an interrogative, but that changes in no way the rest of the monologue on that issue.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@answersfromscriptureonline My point was not that it wasn't an interrogative.

My point is, that injunction cannot have been the prayer, since you and I and also Joshua would never adress God as "Sun" or as "Moon" ... his predecessor had recently received very strict orders not to bow down to them.

The prayer must have preceded, unquoted.

The following comments

have disappeared, and so have my replies to Answers from Scripture in the previous dialogues.

10:57 If the Azteks actually had a story about a day lasting two days, their ancestors can't have been in Mexico back then

Sure it isn't a night lasting two nights?

Because a two day long day and a two day long night are delimited in eastern China, on a globe.

12:07 Phenomenology works fine for verse 13, Sun standing still.

Phenomenology doesn't work for verse 12, since it's not a story of what it looked like, but the inspired words of the miracle worker.

14:40 Those factors, the same they will use to talk about "impossibility of Sun orbitting Earth", those factors are under natural laws.

Now, the natural law only states what way the result will go from that factor, or you could make more ones about two interacting factors, but it doesn't state and it cannot state that there are no other factors or that the other factors cannot significantly alter the outcome, or that the other factors that alter the outcome can only come from among those subjected to natural law.

One must realise what natural laws do and don't state.

A current in a wire will obey both Ohm's law for some reason (like thickness and material of the wire) and Ampère's law, but if they interact ... bad example, I suppose, since these two are actually pretty separate. But the two body problem of astronomic orbits involves laws related to gravitation and to inertia, and their interaction, the result being neither exactly what gravitation would produce by itself, nor what inertia would produce by itself.

Neither of the laws state that God and angels can't modify the outcome even more.

Deacon Frederick Bartels Is Wrong (Except on Earth Being a Globe)

Does the Bible Teach a Flat Earth?
Deacon Frederick Bartels | 28 March 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qw85zLuNdqM

Based on tons of scientific evidence, the vast majority of people believe the Earth is a sphere.

I would say you are only speaking of educated people in the Western world.

Some Hindus are so anti-Portuguese, they will call Magellan a fraud, I suppose. And that could be the tip of an iceberg.

However, no, it's actually based on tons of GEOGRAPHIC evidence, including the flight between Sydney and Santiago de Chile etc.

Geography isn't a science or an episteme, it's, like history, a historia. I hope you are familiar with the distinction. You can deduce from first principles how bright a light bulb is at so and so many Ohm, with so and so many Ampère and Watt going through, because electromagnetism and related are "cognitio certa per causas" ... you cannot deduce from first principles where Landsend in Cornwall is. That tip of a land could have ended closer inward or closer outward.

the earth is set on pillars.

These are identifiable within the tektonic plates, literally true, without any flat earth.

It can never be moved.

Geocentrism unlike Flat Earth isn't refuted by Geography. Unless you count galactic geographies in Star Wars as documentaries (I have a hunch they are fiction, and so useless as proof of modern cosmology).

It is also true. There are even better proof texts for Geocentrism, than this psalm, like Romans 1 and John 5:17.

But has nothing to do with Flat Earth. (OK, all FE are GC, but at least one can very well be GC and not FE, like St. Thomas and Riccioli).

In fact, the ancient Hebrews had a view of the earth that follows that pattern.

Possibly true. However, this does not constitute the literal sense of the passages. The existence of pillars in tectonic plates and the fixedness of earth suffice, without flatness.

To give a parallel, one can well consider St. John saw a gematria counted in ASCII, like V=86, L=76, A=65, D=68 etc, since God is above time, even if his audience would certainly have imagined something like M=40, N=50, E=5, P=100, O=70, Y=400, A=1 (one can really speak of honest Nerva, if he was the one St. John sent the Apocalypse to, and he made himself the saint's mailman to seven churches despite an apparent designation of himself as 666).

Therefore, King David can well have spoken of pillars in tectonic plates and of fixedness of a globe earth, even if his audience imagined a flat one.

The key element here is that we need to understand what the human authors intended to assert.

No, both to you and to the weasel Ratzinger.

If a thing is at all stated, rather than for instance quoted or hypothesised as a question, the author intended to assert it.

It is also not to the point to ask about "teach science" since it is a moot point whether the questions even belong to science in the ordinary sense, as electromagnetism is a science.

They put down in writing everything God wanted them to write, no more and no less.

Exactly. By the way, dictation theory is not outside Catholic theology, even if it's out of fashion.

The pillars of the earth and its non-movement ... this is a pun by the way, "earth" referring to two different senses of eretz ... are truly part of what God intended to convey.

given the belief some people have that scripture teaches the earth is flat, we have to ask whether God intended to teach the earth is flat as a matter of salvation.

God intended to teach that Earth is fixed, to avoid errors like the one soon to be promoted by Spielberg. [Ironically, the above video runs a commercial for Disclosure Day]

God also intended to teach land plates have pillars and land has four outer corners, so as to make this credible.

The Biblical text never ever stated that the earth is flat, nor anything that even implies it indirectly.

Nor did the authors of scripture intend to make scientific cosmological statements about the shape of the earth or the actual position of the stars in the universe etc.

The four corners are an accurate GEOGRAPHIC descriptor of the shape of the LAND, as opposed to sea.

The four corners are against the Pacific, which fills the other side of the globe.

The fact is the authors of the Old Testament had no concept of modern science or cosmology

You speak of them as of uninspired human writers, who are not above time, nor inspired by the one Who is.

And what a lot of "modern science" referred to in your CCC § 283 is concerned, the MAIN author of the OT, Jesus, said what needs to be said in Mark 10:6, just as He did of divorce and of "gay marriage".

Since God is truth, truth found in the Bible cannot contradict those truths which reason correctly discovers about the universe.

Key word: correctly discovers.

Catholic Exegesis Involves Some Eisegesis (as it Should)

When a Catholic Apologist Says THESE THINGS, They Are Wrong (Here's How You Answer)!
BiblicallyMotivated | 8 June 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8---ti8nIw

Excuses, I just took a look at the caption.

That image of an angry priest in a Lent sermon or hearing confession, did you get it from a Hollywood film or is it AI?

---

Lots of church history, sometimes some Latin, lots of confident assertions about what the father said, but when you actually press them back to the text of scripture, things wax interpretive pretty fast. Because most Catholic ecclesiastical arguments aren't exeetical. their interpretive frameworks built on top of scripture and then read back into it. The text gets cited, but it's rarely doing the work they claim it's doing.

How do you avoid this with Christian interpretation of the OT?

As you may be awareish of, a certain Tovia Singer will interpret those passages differently.

I would say, yes, Catholic interpretation of the OT is a framework on top of OT Scripture which Jesus read back into it, on His walk to Emmaus and on other occasions after rising and before ascending.

I note that 4 out of your 5 examples deal with "Formalprinzip" (equivalent to Protestant "sola Scriptura") and only Apostolic Succession gets to the meat ("Materialprinzip", equivalent to Protestant "whereever the Christian faith is truly taught" and so on).

BiblicallyMotivated

@BiblicallyMotivated

The difference is in new revelation. The prophets told the Jews to expect a new covenant which would naturally include new revelation. The OT passages quoted in the NT that deviate from their original context is the right of new revelation and attributable to "manifold fulfillment" where various scriptures from the OT would be applied in new ways or given a new layer of meaning. I fully expect this to happen again at the return of Christ, but not until then.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@BiblicallyMotivated We agree that there is no new revelation (other than as to pragmatical detail) prior to the second coming after the last Apostle died.

However, with OT, we know that Jesus gave a Christian interpretation of all of the OT, Moses and all the prophets, and that's more than the few comments within NT quotes supply us with.

Our claim isn't we are authorised somehow to add, our claim is, we have preserved all of that.

john irish

@johnirish989

@hglundahl A Christian interpretation. Wow. GOD's interpretation. We allege you simply and wonderfully are not INSPIRED.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 I agree it's God's interpretation.

But it is also a thing over and above the bare text.

---

Wait, your Apostolic Succession is not the Catholic term.

The Catholic term doesn't refer to Apostolic origin of Scriptures, but to Apostolic origin of sacramental Church leaders.

As to Apostolic origin of Scriptures, you actually may have a point.

Like CMI certainly has a point (from Behe, I think) that the flagellum of the bacterium proves God as Creator, as Intelligent Designer.

However, the problem is, for Behe, Romans 1 doesn't refer to a thing which will be discovered close to 20 centuries later in a microscope. And your view on how NT books are authenticated involves a kind and degree of philologic work which would have been way beyond most people in the first and second centuries.

St. Paul relied on Geocentrism. We observe it, it's not a set of shining things attached to one solid cylinder or spheric inside, since Sun, Moon and other planets have orbits independent of the Sphere of the Fix Stars, therefore this needs, in the present, a very good and conscious coordinator, who, for being able to roll the universe around us needs to have inexhaustible power.

And second C. Christians relied on Tradition. Hebrews actually has two alternative authorships within the first centuries, Tertullian thought or mentioned that some thought, it was written by St. Barnabas (whom we celebrate today).

Please, do tell me if you ever get to grips with what Catholics mean by Apostolic Succession, and do a reply to that. Would you like my defense first?

john irish

The total silence of Scripture. Hmm.

But sure, school us, teacher.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 A silence can be very deafening, if you are deaf or don't turn the ear in the right direction.

Silence on what? Our sense of Apostolic Succession?

Matthew 28:16 to 20 says Jesus will be with His Apostles to the end of time. Apostles, if you note verse 16, He was not speaking to all faithful.

Now, this would be redundant if it were just about Apostles in their own persons, since they (Judas was already gone) went to Heaven.

Therefore it refers to them having successors.

Acts 1 shows the traitor getting, not exactly a successor in this sense, but a replacement, but in his quality of sacramental bishop, he was successor of the other 11.

I think it was Antioch that started out without Apostolic Succession, Apollo hadn't even got a Christian Baptism, but the Apostles in Jerusalem saw to it that this didn't remain so.

People in Antioch with Apostolic succession laid hands on Paul and Barnabas.

Meanwhile, in Acts 8 (I think) the Apostles had shown they had a power that the other disciples lacked, and Simon Magus wanted it. Now, Peter didn't tell him "this isn't how it works" but "your motivation and assumption about God are blasphemy". We may assume Simon Magus was right he would have been able to baptise in Holy Spirit if Peter had laid hands on him, which he didn't.

Paul, as said, had Apostolic succession at one remote (if none of the twelve was in Antioch in Acts 13), he gave it to Timothy and told Timothy about who to give or not give it to.

Complaining you don't find this in one passage is like complaining the chronology of Kings isn't in one passage.

john irish

You're adding much to Scripture. Sacramental bishops in Acts 1. Why are we adding that? Those with Apostolic succession in Acts 13. Why are we adding that?

Acts 13:1-3, 2 Timothy 1:6, 1 Timothy 4:14, 1 Timothy 5:22: Wow. Not a peep about succession.

You're reading your bias into Scripture. Indicating desperation. Your desperate church so badly needs craves legitimacy, POWER.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 Sorry, but you are making yourself obtuse. The only thing I positively added was the terminology, so as to explain it from the Bible.

You read like a JW accusing Trinitarians of adding to the NT.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 OK, it seems your questions for two of them actually have some sense.

"Sacramental bishops in Acts 1. Why are we adding that?"

Because the laying of hands is a sacramental sign and because the other thing about being an apostle, namely having witnessed the Resurrection, Matthias already had, or he wouldn't have been eligible.

"Those with Apostolic succession in Acts 13. Why are we adding that?"

Because we know from earlier, Acts 11, that the Apostles had had direct contact with Antioch.

john irish

@hglundahl Your adding garbage rcc terminology.

Again, NADA linking hands to succession.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 12. Antioch. Paul and Barnabas. Timothy and Titus. Those Timothy were going to lay hands on.

WHAT is this if not a succession?

And especially as Matthew 28:16 to 20 promises one.

john irish

@hglundahl You have heard of Google, no? It's hyper-quick these days. Yeah yeah, we already know. YOU'RE smarter.

But definitely the Google is uninspired, human, prone to error. You have to RIGHTLY DIVIDE it, too. It's not Godgle. Way too often a trinny. And yet, often quite the helpful.

Alright my brother. It's hot but I'm going on my long walk.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 I'm sorry, are you giving up argument and telling me "google it"?

Or are you suggesting the answer I had spent hours of Bible reading for a previous post was just sth I happened to hit as I googled it?

Either way, you are not winning the argument.

john irish

@hglundahl I couldn't have outed you any better. For you people Truth is irrelevant. It's all about winning.

POWER

And no. Googling questions is, just like I said, often quite the helpful.

Scared of a prenate. Don't be weird.

Alright. Let me get my lazy behind up.

Arnold the Schwartz: I'll be back.*

* footnote

If he called me Austrian, danke fürs Compliment; but if he considered me well trained, it's a bit too ridiculous to be one. I might as well ironise about myself before he does.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 Actually, truth was not relevant to your comments on Google.

I'm not scared to google a question, but I know there are diverse Protestant takes on Apostolic succession (including some Protestants claiming, "we have it, from the Catholic Church") and I'm interested on your take.

I also don't know what a prenate is. Did you mean prelate? No, not all that much.

I do know they can confer and I can't confer ordination, they can confer and I can't confer absolution. By the way, the power God gave His eleven minus Thomas to absolve is antecedent to successions to this power.

About another kind of power. When you tell me to google it, you are basically assuming the role of schooling me.

I'm sorry, I'm up for a debate, but not for schooling. I'm 57. I have lost decades of my life to people who are about the age of my parents, wanting to school me, but who aren't my mother. The one who did school me, when the time was the right one.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 Just in case you missed it, I actually did google it.

I found one reddit and one Ligonier ministries, and lazy slop dealing with the question on both.

1) "not found in Scripture" is a negative universal, and I happen to have found it in Scripture.
2) "not clearly found in Scripture" is a weasel word: Ligonier admit that it is found in Scripture as Catholics interpret it, but don't give the details or why the interpretation is rejected
3) Nestorius was validly ordained but still rejected, also Ligonier: yes, we differentiate between valid succession (which he had) and valid jurisdiction (which he lost), or in other words between sacrament and pastoral
4) "we place more importance on succession in truth than on succession in bishops" (freely after Ligonier) - we actually need both, since truth, as expressed in Scripture, actually does give us a very clear indication of Apostolic succession.

Calvin was totally right in commenting in Matthew 28:20 that someone who has succession but betrays truth is not heir to this promise. The next problem isn't that he applies this to Catholics. The huge problem is, he's not showing whom he considers to have preserved both sides, succession and truth, or at least whom he considers to have preserved truth — himself he was not claiming to preserve, but to rediscover it, contrary to the term "all days".

john irish

Read all my comments for this video. I'm too tired to repeat them and your pay sucks. You need another Google. I absolutely never read reddit. They got CIA written all over them. Yeah, you definitely have to rightly divide Google.

The only succession in Scripture that my tired brain can think of is Mathias. God silent on the issue otherwise. Some struggle with silence.* An enemy. Compelled to fill it themselves if need be. God: Be still. I was a shuttle bus driver for years. This one woman. Wow. Couldn't go 10 seconds without running her mouth. Because of her, they also didn't pay enough.

You can learn from all sources of things, people. YT Eric Church: Three Year Old.**

Alright kid, good luck.

Oh yeah:

You destroyed me.

* footnote

I'm not bothered to answer this peace of pseudoempathy, to him, but he is wrong about me, if he thought of me.

I don't GET enough silence to enjoy silence.

** footnote

Actually a good song:

https://genius.com/Eric-church-three-year-old-lyrics

Haven't heard the music yes, this library has no headphones:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fOI4X3x6JY

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 "The only succession in Scripture that my tired brain can think of is Mathias."

Look at a tree, miss the alley ...

I gave you a succession of hands on heads.

12 - > some in Antioch
some (including Simon Niger) in Antioch -> Paul and Barnabas
Paul -> Timothy and Titus
Timothy -> those he shall and shan't lay hands on.

In parallel with a non-succession:

Simon Peter // Simon Magus

And obviously also in parallel with the succession you mentioned:

11 -> Matthias n° 12

None are as blind as won't be bothered to see.

john irish

@hglundahl Uh. No. Are we looking to be clever? LOL. Just simply cite the Scripture that ties binds hand laying to succession. Easy-peasy.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 That's like asking for one scripture saying Rohoboam was successor to David. There was a Solomon between, so there are two Scriptures* adding up to that.

I've already given those adding up to Apostolic succession, and you are not clever to play obtuse, key word play.

* footnote

More like four, since there is a parallel in Chronicles.

---

[dialogue]

Patrick Pawol

@patrickpawol8639

Malachi 1 verse 11 is a prophecy of the Eucharist in the Holy Sacrifice of the in Catholic Mass.

i

Romans (E.J.)

@Repent.Believe.obeyJesus

Christians believe in the Eucharist, what's your point?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Repent.Believe.obeyJesus Did you catch the nuance "Holy Sacrifice of the Mass"?

It's not just that Jesus is on the altar.

It's that Jesus' sacrifice on Calvary is on the altar.

Malachi speaks of a "pure oblation" ... a sacrifice among the Gentiles, so, after the Jewish temple.

ij

john irish

A MEMORIAL.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@johnirish989 That it is a memorial, as per "hoc facite in meam commemorationem" doesn't exclude it is a sacrifice "qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum" / Malachi 1:11.

iij

Jesse Bryant

@jessebryant9233

No, the Eucharist is NOT a holy sacrifice. Christ's sacrifice was "once for all", just like the Bible says.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@jessebryant9233 You'd have a point if any Catholic said the Mass was another sacrifice.

Then said I: Behold, I come to do thy will, O God: he taketh away the first, that he may establish that which followeth In the which will, we are sanctified by the oblation of the body of Jesus Christ once

And every priest indeed standeth daily ministering, and often offering the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins But this man offering one sacrifice for sins, for ever sitteth on the right hand of God From henceforth expecting, until his enemies be made his footstool For by one oblation he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified
[Hebrews 10:9-14]

What we are saying is not that Mass is another oblation, but that it is, from Heaven's view, the same one.

And that so it is, we prove in Malachi 1:11 and in ...

We have an altar, whereof they have no power to eat who serve the tabernacle.
[Hebrews 13:10]

No, Pope Michael I Didn't Rewrite the Bible

And Pope Michael II doesn't deny the need to be in union with the Pope, as per Unam Sanctam. And if you say a Pope needs to have his residence in Rome, take that up with Pope Benedict XII.

Are SSPX Priests No Longer Catholic?
Catholic Answers Live Clips | 8 Febr. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snL_0GziY_s

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

Sedevacantist and SSPX, you are forgetting the third category, Orthopapist.

Part of them mysticalist (St. Jovit in Canada being one and Palmar de Troya outside Seville in Spain another headquarter of ... Popes chosen or with predecessors chosen by whoever revealed himselves or themselves to these men).

Part are conclavist. The theological position is, sedevacancy leads, as usual, to a right and duty to elect a new Pope. The unusual thing being cardinals siding with a wrongful Pope, so one has to do without cardinals.

Pius XIII is out, without successor, since he died.
Linus II is out, he withdrew.

Remains, the first one and his successor, Popes Michael I and II.

Copecanada

@chrismah6248

The same ones who thought to correct and rewrite the Bible? Who had a "pontiff" see the errors and leave their church?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@chrismah6248 I think you are confusing Palmarian with Conclavist.

Or perhaps you only saw top of my comment, the sentence "some of them are Mysticalists" which include Palmarians. Michael I and II have 1) not rewritten the Bible, and 2) not had any known defectors. Prove Michael I didn't die but arranged his death is about when you could speak of a defector.

Copecanada

@hglundahl I probably am mixing the two up

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@chrismah6248 Yes, look up the other guys, there is an interview on Chris Wagner's channel Scholastic Answers.

"Unworthy of the Universe" — Does Dawkins Want It to be Worthy and to be Worshipped? Is That Where He Puts the Attributes of God?

Is Jesus "Unworthy of the Universe"? | Richard Dawkins vs John Lennox
Larry Alex Taunton | 6 Dec. 2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZO7tsnHI8s

Lennox starts a most important question with "is there a God" ...

Well, I suppose Dawkins would consider it petty and unworthy of the universe to believe in a God who does one very gigantic pushup a day, the one we observe as morning and evening, and then as any given constellation appearing disappearing and reapparing.

But St. Paul didn't find it petty and unworthy of God, if you read Romans 1 and Jesus refers to that undoubted work of God each day as performed even on Sabbaths (otherwise time would have stopped at two visible stars a Friday evening over Jerusalem's time zone), and if the Pharisees had said "yes, but God is God, He doesn't need to exert Himself and make an effort to do that" Our Lord could just have lifted the hand to His right ear and answer "would you repeat that, please?"

John Lennox on C.S. Lewis, Oxford, and the Faith That Shaped His Life
Larry Alex Taunton | 9.VI.2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08Xrx4xABFw

pdxeddie1111

@pdxeddie1111

how strange for anyone that declares himself an atheist to comment "how unworthy of the universe" as if the universe is worthy or unworthy of anything when by their own admission the universe simply is. It makes myself not believe in atheists. Atheists it seems no matter how much they want to detach themselves from the reality of things can't seem to not make things personal. People want to believe that there is some sort of order to it all and the chink in the armor of atheists is that they are still human and not robots.

The following comments are mine, unless a dialogue specifically begins with a handle:

1:44 So, Dawkins said "how petty"?

After that, I don't think Lennox needed to answer. Dawkins had given up the game, he had shown he wanted to give the attributes of God to the Universe.

Which as a Geocentric, I absolutely don't want!

16:21 John Lennox, has he read Unwanted Priest / Prêtre rejeté, by Revd. Bryan Houghton?

Both English original and French translation exist, perhaps only the latter in print.

18:00 Were they just calling the man Pulverulentus Siccus, famous Latin grammarian of the Narnian world? (Telmarine or perhaps adopted Telmarine ... from the Roman world).

33:19 Ah, Lennox does accept that Babylonian "creation" stories begin in Abiogenesis, like Norse and Evolutionist ones?

44:18 Marxism is Atheistic?

If you mean that as they are Atheisising, yes. It probably isn't genuinely Atheist though.

I get the feeling some would like me to be a figurehead for a Marxist revival, and accept some kind of Spinozism to bolster it on the religious side.

Marx seems to have prayed to black tapers in his room and by a chance a maidservant opened it, many testimonies, Wurmbrandt analysed them as he was Satanist. He certainly had a period of flirting with Satanism, I cannot say for sure Wurmbrandt was wrong. And whichever be the case, he was Satanic.

46:58 I remember Rosengård, being already pro-Palestinian, I was somewhat courted by Palestinian refugees, including very religious ones.

I recall a Christian Palestinian, redhaired, and I went to exactly one lecture. I don't know if he got back, I didn't.

He went out, probably visibly to all, when the lecturer attacked the theory of Evolution.

I stayed.

Next topic, embryology. Citation from the Quran, affirmation that this is supported by scientific embryology. I go out. Presumably pretty visibly too.

1:03:58 Dawkins pronouncing judgement on himself?

Reminds me of a Catholic priest who died, was judged to Hell, and Mary intervened before Jesus telling Him to give him another chance.

The priest was quite ready to accept being damned, because he knew Jesus was right. (It was about putting off the confession and amendment of some mortal sins he knew himself to be such).

Some who pronounce judgement on themselves don't remain judged, being the moral of the story.

MIGHT I suggest you pray a Hail Mary for Dawkins' conversion?

Yesica1993

@Yesica1993

Mary? She's dead. She is not intervening for anyone. Christians do not pray to Mary, ask her to pray for us, or worship her in ANY way.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@Yesica1993 That's not what the tradition of the Church says.

Even from OT times, I'll start with the life of Jesus, prior to Crucifixion:

I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
[Matthew 22:32]

After this there appeared also another man, admirable for age, and glory, and environed with great beauty and majesty Then Onias answering, said: This is a lover of his brethren, and of the people of Israel: this is he that prayeth much for the people, and for all the holy city, Jeremias the prophet of God
[2 Machabees 15:13-14]

Plus the Church says Our Lady was taken up, body and soul. That's what we celebrate 15 August.

Yesica1993

@hglundahl Christians are to follow what the Bible teaches, not what the Catholic Church teaches.

@hglundahl Plucking verses here and there is not the way we should read any book, much less the Bible.

"Plus the Church says Our Lady was taken up, body and soul. That's what we celebrate 15 August."

The Bible teaches NO such thing. Cease your idolatry. You will give account to Jesus Christ one day. Mary will not be able to help you then.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Yesica1993 On the contrary, it is Mary who will definitely help those who are saved.

Did you know She called Herself "Blessed" matching two women of the OT and was called "Blessed Among Women" matching two other ones?

One of the OT blessed women was Abigail, whom David - note, Jesus is Davidic King - called blessed because she averted him from killing an Israelite.

The Bible also teaches to follow what the Catholic Church teaches:

And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
[Matthew 18:17]

Or do you propose another Church with unbroken, visible continuity since AD 33?

she didn't

answer about the continuity of the Church, perhaps a case of Seymore syndrome (not hitting the "See More" button).

Yesica1993

@hglundahl

"On the contrary, it is Mary who will definitely help those who are saved."

The Bible teaches no such thing. There is ONE mediator between God and man, and that is Jesus Christ. (1 Timothy 2:1-7)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Yesica1993 And apart from the typology of Abigail, when Jesus turned water into wine, it was Mary who mediated between the hosts of the wedding and Jesus.

It's about as easy as turning a sinner into a saint.

Sharing

Why Are Israeli Forces Harassing Catholics?
Christine Niles | 4 June 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAMdHkASx20

Recency of All Protestant / Anabaptist Type Churches

Comment on the title of following video, they should be bothered. I'll be here responding to the first half:

Why Do Protestants Seem So Unbothered By Their Own Recency?
Ready to Harvest | 24 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xsVYtTxmcWk

2:26 The arguments can be reduced to three. One of which is a conclusion of the other two:

1) The Church was founded by Jesus
2) It cannot go out of existence.
3) Therefore any newer Church cannot be the Church.

You don't need to have between 1 and 2 another "2" of "is the Catholic Church" because, when you take away "newcomers" (obvious such) as well as extinct ones (see point 2) you are only left with a handfull of alternatives. From there on you can narrow it down between Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Etchmiadzin and Qudshanis / exile in Chicago.

"Second, the church Christ founded was the Catholic Church. Protestants agree. They separate out the Catholic Church from what they call the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic Church just means the universal church. And so, they would say that Jesus founded this church, which is made up of all people who are truly believers in Christ and contains all congregations where the gospel is truly preached."

That in itself is an argument for leaving out your "2", namely that the Protestants redefine "Catholic" and dilute definitions to include words like "truly" ... you recall how the Georgia Guidestones were again and again harping on governments to be "wise" but left no concrete suggestions of what this meant, except a few hugely bad ones, like one world government and reduced / controlled world population?

This kind of definition is parallel to defining Ancient Israel so as to include Righteous Gentiles with no Abrahamic ancestry and no direct contact, let alone adoption or citizenship, into the Holy Land's Holy People.

Jesus defined the Church as being Apostolic "you" in Mt 28:20 isn't adressed to believers indistinctly, but to the Eleven, and as having a governance (Mt 18:27), and as being visible (Mt 5:14—15, again, this is adressed to the disciples in "you", not to those hearing the "for all" sermon in Luke). No wonder the Protestant Holzmann wanted to argue Marcan priority so as to argue "later accretions" in Matthew!

"Many Protestants would say that the institution of today's Roman Catholic Church came into existence slowly sometime after the time of Christ and that Peter wasn't really the first pope and such."

Insofar as they argue Catholics are non-Christians, this involves the paradox of an imperceptibly slow apostasy.

Insofar as they argue Catholics are Christians, this leaves the question, why leave it? If you can be saved, no problem whatsoever, in an already existing community, why leave it?

"Most Protestants agree and would say that there will always be true believers somewhere and so the church will always continue too."

Given apostolicity and visibility of the Church, "true believers somewhere" cannot be widely different communities with no mutual contact, like Paulicians and if Waldensians went back to Claudius of Turin, as some claim.

Church plants Church. Non-Church doesn't plant Church.

"Fourth, any new church other than this original church that arrives later is not the church that Christ founded. Protestants accept this too. A particular denomination can come along later because it's not a new church per se. It's part of that same church that Christ established, the universal church."

It isn't if (at its founding) breaking away from what it calls other parts.

It also isn't if at the moment of founding they considered there were no other parts left to attach themselves to.

Calvin failed to attach to Cyril Lukaris. Lutherans didn't even try.

It cannot be a part of the Church if they admit so and so are fully parts of the Church and still we sever communion. It also cannot be a part of a Church that never goes out of existence if at the moment of founding there were, on their view no other parts to attach to.

Note, a Church can be "born orphan" and attach later, like the Korean Catholics did, baptising each other and waiting for a bishop. But it cannot say "OK, there actually is no one else to attach to, other than very loosely to other newcomers" because that implies a de facto admission of their "ideal Church" having gone out of existence.

"And it's because they view the universal church or Catholic Church as not belonging to any institution"

But, since the original Church had visibility and governance, it was precisely an institution.

Protestant views on this are, sorry, a mental breakdown.

"According to this Protestant idea, when a new denomination begins, for example, Lutheranism, it is simply a reformation of what already exists. It's still the same universal church. When a new institution is founded, these institutions are incidental, not essential."

The pretense that Lutheran Christianity already existed is, historically, bunk.

Luther's best try was to make a wedge between Hussites willing to reunite and Catholics. But Hussites only take you from early 1500's to late 1300's. This move is also partially responsible for both the Thirty Years' War and National Socialism. Czech National Socialism harkened back to Hussites, German National Socialism started in 1905 as a reaction and mostly copy of it (adding racial delusions). "How great thou art" was written by a man who later came to side with National Socialist Germany, and "Horst-Wessel-Lied" was written by the son of a Lutheran clergyman.

Many who show Hitler together with "Catholic clergy" will miss that only Schachleiter was there on the Catholic side and that a Lutheran Diaconess is not a Catholic nun, and a Reichsbischoff is a bishop of the Evangelische Kirche, while the Landesbischoff of Saxony was a direct successor of Luther.

"But for these Protestants, there's nothing that says institutions have to be the same. And if an institution seems to have lost its way and is resistant to reform, then it can be abandoned and a new institution can replace it."

Only already existing parts of it, institutional ones, can replace it.

The salient point about conclavism is, a) against a 17th C. commenter on Cum ex apostolatus, for how long can one discover the elected pope was actually heretic? and b) how far down below cardinals can the duty and right to elect a new pope devolve if cardinals are unavailable as all killed, all captive or all apostates?

If the answer is "even ten years later" and "even down to laymen", than David Bawden saved papacy on the juridical side in 1990. People had been calling out Vatican II popes since Joaquín Sáenz y Arriaga who died already in 1976. 18 years after the purported "election" of Roncalli.

As to the sacramental side, he was consecrated and ordained, in lineages of bishops already existing and reconciled to his jurisdiction, in 2011. His successor in 2023 was elected already a bishop.

That's a very far cry from saying "the institutional church became unsound a few centuries after the apostles, we must now reform that 1000 years later" ...