Heschmeyer Refutes "Trail of Blood"

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

Did the Catholic Church MURDER the "True Church"?
Shameless Popery Podcast, 28 Sept. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywMfhI8S4Qg

2:15 I think there are six or seven theologically consistent approaches to Matthew 28:16-20. Not saying they are consistent with other proof texts or with history, all of them.

• a) Roman Catholics are the true Church (continuing since Christ founded it, understood in all the following).
• b) Eastern Orthodox are the true Church.
• c) Coptics Monophysites or Miaphysites are the true Church.
• d) Armenian Monophysites or Miaphysites are the true Church.
• e) Assyrians (Nestorians) are the true Church.
• f) Baptists are, as Ruckman claimed, the true Church.
• g) several denominations together, in no real schism, are in pseudo-schism, and are together the true Church.

F can be ruled out since Matthew 5 says God made the Church visible, and F leaves the "true Church" invisible over centuries, apart from a "trail of blood" which isn't one, a fully Trinitarian Baptist, which I think Ruckmanite Baptist Kent Hovind is, is not in the same Church as a Bogumil, even if Ruckman claimed it so, and a Bogumil is not a Donatist.

G can be ruled out from Christ founding one Church. Abstaining from schism being one of the orders He gave Her means pseudo-schisms within the Church are not a prevalent thing.

The five remaining can be narrowed down to either RC or EO, since a Christological golden mean, and between these, the more Papist one is preferrable, because:

• Matthew 16:19 (Orthodox like Protestants, when disputing Christ gave Peter a special office like to end the pericope on verse 18)
• Copts, Armenians, Assyrians are all more Papist or pseudo-papist and therefore quasi-papist than EO.

Fortunately, my Protestant background before converting was not F but G, not Ruckmanite, but Branch Theory.

7:01 Thanks for the reference to Matthew 5, verses 14 and 15 as you mention.

3:47 That interpretation is also contrary to the "all days" promise in Matthew 28:16-20.

9:55 I think the Trail of Blood theory falls flat against Matthew 5.

Suppose 100 000 "real Christians" converted Marseille from Roman Paganism and then Constantine sent in 200 000 Papist fake Christians with legions, and the real Christians were massacred, while the fake ones took over the recent converts (a scenario I think utterly ridiculous per se, but sth which I think Ruckman could have imagined), well, the 200 000 + the legions are a fine excuse for the 100 000 to be invisible, but it still leaves them invisible to us, at least in retrospect. Which again is against Matthew 5, verses 14 and 15.

Or if you suppose a case where they aren't entirely invisible, it's just invisible how they were Trinitarians believing God to be a good creator including of material things, that is clearly not visible of Albigensians. Well, the problem once again is, the enemies of the true Church would have for all future generations have manipulated their memory. This is conceivable for an individual, but not for the entire set of the true Church of a specific period even of the past.

18:56 4 000 000 killed / 100 years

40 000 killed per year

It is very impossible for as large scale a murder as this to be simply hidden.

21:40 Belloc would it be 5 000 000 people at the time of the Domesday book - key point, only the pater domus of each household was mentioned.

27:01 A possible assessment for some group within the true Church (real life example, Japanese Catholics prior to 1868).

But theologically speaking, an impossible assessment for the Church as a whole.

Matthew 28:16-20 actually does not just give an "all days" promise, but ties it to an "all truths" command.

Carroll was basically abandoning the real base line of his claim.

30:25 One of the groups now commonly added are the Culdees.

Why? Why not see them simply as RC priest? Well, they were in schism with Rome. They refused to obey Rome and the paschal calendar.

For those considering "Paul VI" was Pope, this just turned Monseigneur Lefebvre, when he died, into one of these Culdees.

Even more Culdee vibes for Écône - the idea of non-territorial bishops under a command not necessarily a bishop - when Écône was ruled by Father Schmidberger, this mirrored several bishops under a non-bishop abbot in the many monasteries of the ... Culdees.

Thought you might need a good chuckle ...

30:26 "what do historians actually believe the Donatists taught"

Historians like Carroll and Ruckman believed they taught Baptism.

There is a difference between "real history" and "historians" ... the latter can be wrong. Lots of historians these days will claim:

• the Trojan War didn't happen
• Ulysses didn't even roughly speaking return to Ithaca as the Odyssey claimed
• Agamemnon wasn't murdered by Clytaemnestra, who in her turn was murdered by their son Orestes, with accomplice Pylades, acting on the instigation of Apollon
• Hercules and Theseus are figures of fiction, much like Superman and Batman ...

That's not what the stories say, and saying the stories themselves were fiction is not how they were taken by for instance Eratosthenes. He made a chronology up to his own and Alexander's time, involving the Pelopponesian war and the war against Persia, and starting with Trojan War and Return of the Heraclides.

The problem is not that historians thought Donatists taught a definitive thing, it is how much this view is consistent with contemporary evidence or as near contemporary as possible.

32:53 When Petilian here uses "faithless" he is obviously not using it as synonym of "heretic" or (final, unrepentant) "apostate" but as a synonym of "traitor" ...

That heretics cannot perform valid baptisms because of heresy is not the main issue. St. Cyprian or Cyril (forget which, I think it's Cyprian) actually held this.

A very different question is whether certain heretics in fact do not perform valid sacraments, if in obedience to their heresy they changed the sacraments.

A Sede who holds that Novus Ordo is invalid or Novus Ordo ordinations are, is not a Donatist. At least not for that reason. If his main issue is with Clown Masses, yes, that would be Donatism.

40:17 Albigensians and Cathars only have half the evil St. Paul is talking of.

Forbidding marriage.

Note, the other half is not enjoining abstinence from meat, but forbidding it.

Yes, I know, the Greek verb can also mean enjoin. But it is just exactly one verb, it would be odd to have it used in both opposite meanings when used only once.

• If you take a man, and you state - with sufficient social interactions to make this work as the social reality surrounding a man - that he is too immature to marry, you are forbidding him to marry.
• If you then think that making him more desirous of sex would make him more pliable to your demands to "mature" or "grow up" and in that purpose sabotage his attempts to abstain from meat at least on days of fast and abstinence, you are also forbidding him abstinence from meats.
• If you continue doing this, and continue to ridicule him for whatever scrapes not being married leads him into, you are on top of that showing how you are hypocritical and have cauterised normal reactions of your conscience.

SUCH people, not Albigensians as such, is what St. Paul is primarily talking of.

As for doctrines of demons, psychiatry and psychoanalysis are good candidates for the modern manifestation of Delphic Apollo.

43:06 A good example of double standards.

[Heschmeyer is speaking of believing a Ouija board can be unholy, but not believing a medal or a crucifix can be holy, Spurgeon believes damnation came to Adam by eating, but mocks that salvation can come by eating the Eucharist]

Other Heschmeyer, with very little to comment on, so added as appendix:

Proving that the Saints in Heaven Hear Our Prayer
Shameless Popery Podcast, 21 Sept. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2F3KoXs5Uk

My rare comment on this:

45:06 Heschmeyer "sent for to serve" and then added "on earth" ...

I find this a somewhat off topic remark, possibly a slur against sth I said. Let's check the Biblical reference:

Hebrews 1:14 has Are they not all ministering spirits, sent to minister for them, who shall receive the inheritance of salvation?

Does this refute the scholastic theory that angels guide the celestial bodies?

No. For two reasons. Apart from the obvious fact that scholastics had more time to scrutinise the Bible than either Heschmeyer or modern day priests.

1) Hebrew 1:14 doesn't say "on earth" ... an angel guiding the sun might never ever be anyone's guardian angel, but he would still be acting on God's appointment, and what the Sun does by moving North and South along the Zodiac is important to lots of souls, since it is important for their bodies.
2) But suppose it really meant that each angel had to serve at some time as guardian angel to a single soul or to a community, even so it wouldn't follow, since men are fewer, not vastly more numerous, than angels.

How is this relevant?

For each angel to have a man or a community to guard, they would take turns on earth. They are doing something in the meantime.

No man has lived all of the 7222 years since God created Adam, let alone even longer, if you adher to modern un-Biblical chronologies. This means, any angel who is guardian angel longer than 1000 years (for very early men) or even a shorter limit (lifespans at the end of Genesis 11 or directly modern ones) would need to be successively guardian angel of several different people.

But it stands to reason this is not the case, therefore the rest of the time, each angel has not been guarding a specific person, but rather spent some time in heaven, most of his existence in time.