Joe Heschmeyer is doing very well on his own.
Protestants Are Wrong About Mary's Assumption. Here's Why:
Shameless Popery Podcast | 15 Aug 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFc0Jndw-ng
I mostly have minor quibbles or sometimes parallel work to offer in my comments:
12:18 I'm not sure of this.
First, the very first rosary of St. Dominic of Guzman was more like a litany, with each (out of 50-51 mysteries) statement of a mystery preceded by a Hail Mary, ending in "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus, who / whom" at which point the leader states the mystery (this was before the final part of the Hail Mary was added).
In fact, it's only Alanus a Rupe or Alan of the Rock who reorganises the rosary into fewer mysteries each a decade.
Second, I seem to recall some statement such and such a pope replaced the original fourth and fifth glorious with Marian ones, the original ones being Second Coming and Last Judgement.
12:25 "Catholic, Orthodox, and Coptic"
And Armenian, and Oriental Orthodox.
I checked.
14:23 Apart from missing out on the Apocalypse, the guy also missed out on "Hebrew Republic" writings of the 16th C.
The point of those books was that even as a monarchy, the Hebrew state was essentially Republican in ethos, with high powers to dignitaries other than and even independent of the King.
In other words, if the analysis is right the guy behind that Got Questions answer is denying Jesus to be specifically a King of the Jews. Even a King of them.
Plus, I obviously share St. Augustine's analysis of the saints reigning a thousand years. (I think "one thousand years" is exact or close to the medium rule of each saint, St. Stephen starting his already 1990 years ago, and Sister Clare Crockett hers only 8 years ago, that's a medium of 999 years between these two, but there are obviously more).
I think his irritated tone might involve an idea of a certain passage in Jeremias, which I answered in my (intended to be humorous) essay involving a Duchess of Dorchester title created for a certain eventuality not having occurred yet and the king of England getting furious at a bad comedian drag queen type claiming the title he had intended for a granddaughter).
Citing my work:
Suppose a King of England decided the third daughter of a prince of Wales or of a King, whoever comes first, shall have a new title, Duchess of Dorchester. Her husband shall have the title Duke of Dorchester (Pete Doherty, hope you don't mind!). Their offspring shall be Dukes of Dorchester until next time there is a third daughter of the king or of the Prince of Wales, whoever comes first. However, such a person is not yet there on earth, only the plan is.
Then suppose a drag queen even less feminine and less decent than Conchita Wurst turns up and decided to take the stage name "Duchess of Dorchester" ... I think a King of England would be annoyed, perhaps not HM Charles III, he's known for preaching tolerance to people of the habits of Conchita Wurst, but earlier kings of England (including those who privately were as indecent or even less decent than Conchita) most certainly would. Even James VI and I would have such a man drawn, quartered and beheaded. Right ....?
Great Bishop of Geneva! Jeremias 7 and 44 and the Duchess of Dorchester
https://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com/2023/06/jeremias-7-and-44-and-duchess-of.html
Meaning, that's a pale image of how God felt about demons taking up a title He intended for His upcoming Mother.
15:39 Yes, I think I had to answer that one last year.
On the return from a failed trip intended to visit my mother before she died, already knowing she had died, at the Bahnhofsmission of Münster, I get seated at the same table as a man who cites Jeremias 7 or 44 or both.
Hence, also last year, after returning to Paris, I wrote what I just cited. "Jeremias 7 and 44 and the Duchess of Dorchester" -- actually the very day I returned, since St. John's Feast, 24th June.
17:50 A horrible argument.
Doesn't stop some unbelieving Jews from using it, I recall.
20:26 While you are showing that beautiful map, may I refer to "Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser" by Haydn?
Or my happiness of having been in those countries, Empire of Charlemagne, Croatia and Slovenia excepted?
20:32 I have an idea where.
That kind of Anticatholic Protestant often, not always, but often, will have the bad judgment to trust Alexander Hislop who:
- not only affirmed Constantine had mixed Christianity and Roman Paganism
- but also that Roman Paganism is basically Babylonian under just a difference of names
- and on top of that had pretended to trace lots of Roman Catholic rites and doctrines and simply social conventions like Easter Eggs to Babylon, the culture of which he wrote about before Cuneiform was well understood.
When is Hislop wrong? As often as a Tuborg is just right, that is everytime!
21:08 You could even make a stronger case the woman in Apocalypse 12 were based on Leto or Latona.
I think some Antichristians do.
33:01 You can't write fan fiction about Susan Pevensie, if there are no Narnia novels yet ...
Never realised how august a place fan fiction holds in Apologetics.
49:52 Ezechiel 44!
I was trying to find that reference in the Psalms that other day!
Thank you!
Hope you had a Blessed Feast!
51:45 Here and the chapter division between Hebrews 11 and 12 are two places where Stephen Langdon did readers less of a good turn.
He's not canonised.
54:28 "my brother and my sister and my mother" ... right?
No comments:
Post a Comment