In support of JJ McCullough vs Bill C11

My opening statement opposing Bill C-11, the awful YouTube bill
2ndJune 2022 | J.J. McCullough
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4fuMKeGRMg

The rationale behind this bill is arguably a weary parallel with TV and radio broadcast over - for instance - Canadian (or French or German) territory.

If you want to watch TV1France, you had better not be too far South in Spain or too far East in Germany ... in other words, it's viewed by the exact country making laws about what their TV canals can broadcast.

But transposing the idea is obviously totally topsy turvy once you take into account that I can view JJ Cullough in France, someone else can do so in Germany, and yet another person in South America or Ireland, from the original youtube.

Responding to Holly Ordway

S5E47 – AH – "Imaginative Apologetics" – After Hours with Dr. Holly Ordway
May 31st 2022 | Pints with Jack
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rg-66uYnMSw

I

The "talking snake" is not a metaphor, it is, like the talking donkey in conditions closer to us and Moses, a question of angelic beings vocalising through the apparatus of a snake and a donkey. Or despite it. This is at least the common RC scholastic understanding of what happened. (Note, I'm excluding modernist understanding as irrelevant, like bishop Robertson's Honest to God understanding of Gospel miracles).

II

In fact, most centuries of Christians do have taken statements about Heaven more literally than CSL would have done. He documented part of this story in "The Discarded Image" - which is a belated, but welcome self rebuttal against that statement in Mere Christianity.

Saying Our Lord "ascended to Heaven" as meaning a place, higher up and therefore further away from the centre of the Earth, is literally true. Above the planets you have fix stars, above fix stars Empyrean Heaven, and in Empyrean Heaven a heavenly city sharing the coordinates of Jerusalem much further down, and in that city, there is a throne, a material throne.

Why? Because unlike what certain ill chosen phrases by CSL suggested (I think of the chapter "Horrid Red Things" and his equation of ancient Platonism with Hegelianism or even worse) Our Lord did not cease to be fully Man and fully resurrected as to the body at Ascension. He was not "absorbed back into the Deity" since He never ceased being God. He was not ever separate from God.

Calvin and St. Robert agree that Our Lord now has a physical body, which in its natural proportions (I like to refer to them as "six heavenly feet" since a "foot" is the sixth of a human height of reference and He is the reference up there - never mind if they were six English or French feet or between or above the French or below the English) is situated in Heavenly Jerusalem and habitually often seated on a throne there, especially when judging deceased souls. They only disagree on whether this same body is also miraculously present in the Blessed Sacrament. As to this issue; obviously. Or for Calvin, put King James VI and I, who, while Anglican, was educated a Calvinist. He actually had debates with St. Robert Bellarmine.

III

33:13 You know the new translation of a stanza in Havamal?

Cats die,
kindred die,
to be candid, so do you
one thing wot I
that will not die
the word on a dead dude

This kind of brings home what sin is - it's the reason why cats die (some are more callous about kindred or self). If Adam hadn't bitten in a certain fruit (yes, that's taken literally by most centuries, at least as the literal concrete level of God's testing his obedience) either cats wouldn't have died or at a minimum, no animals dying would suffer unnecessarily before that (view of St. Augustine, St. Bede and St. Thomas, as I recall).

IV

35:37 Possible example of a guilty pleasure : feeling relief (for oneself) someone died.

Probably not even there, unless one hastened it and as long as not getting on to exultation for a world without so and so.

V

41:59 It's not just "people who have money, who can afford to have beautiful things in their homes" ... sometimes they prefer having ugly things, like Picasso, and the poor may actually have a cheap print of a devotional painting that is beautiful. I don't know your reaction to the guardian angel who is leading a boy or a girl or both across a bridge, but I find it beautiful, and it is in many poor homes.

It is more like people who don't like beauty to be spent on liturgic and therefore historic Christianity. They may tolerate beauty in a Jack Chick setting, but often enough, even Jack Chick is too close to what Christianity is mostly about. Renouncing sins, getting peace with God, even if Jack Chick's ideas on how to do it are more idiosyncratic than this Jack's. They would prefer beauty in a bank, a police station, a hospital, a scientific institution and so on ... especially in a Carl Sagan like evocation of galaxies.

And in some cases, they are thinking, as did Judas about a certain ointment, on how much money they could get if abstracting certain objects and materials from the use in honouring Our Lord Jesus from Nazareth, the Christ and Saviour as well as God who made us.

ON AiG, 30.V

Here's Why Most Pastors Aren't Biblical
30th May 2022 | Answers in Genesis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gx0JIbQol-o

4:05 By 1900, I think the Catholic priests who were still Young Earth Creationist may have been c. 37 %.

Depends on country, Italy was better than France. The Catechism of Pope St. Pius X involved no compromise stated with Evolution or Old Age, in 1909, day age got a pass, but inserting evolutionist ideas into chapters 2 to 11 didn't, and at the even of Vatican II, a cardinal Oddi or Ottaviani, preparing the council, planned to dogmatise "God created the world as stated directly in the Bible, reinterpretations not needed" - though they were outvoted by people from elsewhere. And actually, their "schema" was not individually put onto a vote even.

The document that is there now is ambiguous, Dei Verbum does have a passage on interpreting according to genre (which you know how evolutionists will take to their advantage), but so is § 3:

"3. God, who through the Word creates all things (see John 1:3) and keeps them in existence, gives men an enduring witness to Himself in created realities (see Rom. 1:19-20). Planning to make known the way of heavenly salvation, He went further and from the start manifested Himself to our first parents. Then after their fall His promise of redemption aroused in them the hope of being saved (see Gen. 3:15) and from that time on He ceaselessly kept the human race in His care, to give eternal life to those who perseveringly do good in search of salvation (see Rom. 2:6-7). Then, at the time He had appointed He called Abraham in order to make of him a great nation (see Gen. 12:2). Through the patriarchs, and after them through Moses and the prophets, He taught this people to acknowledge Himself the one living and true God, provident father and just judge, and to wait for the Savior promised by Him, and in this manner prepared the way for the Gospel down through the centuries."

17:54 One problem is considering actual paedophilia (exclusive attraction to children) acceptable (for self and others).
But another one is considering things that aren't paedophilia as such, and relations which could have been marriages 100 years ago (if mended after the initial sin) as "statutory rape" and "sign of paedophilia" - and St. Paul doesn't make an exception for teens in I Cor 7:9.

And this other problem is already here.

18:14 The horrible ambiguity of it!

Adults sexually attracted to people who are not just minors but even children is not OK to act on, and also not OK to harbour in one's heart.

Sexual attraction to people of the opposite sex who are legal minors but already in or past puberty is a totally different story.

It's OK to act on in different ways, in a Christian world view:

• get to a state where you can marry (if I couldn't marry a girl of 16 in France any more, I could so in England);
• or wait till the minor is no longer minor (the parents of St. Francis of Sales were engaged when the mother was 8 and they obviously waited, saw each other only in her parents' presence to when she was 14 and could legally marry in Savoy)
• if a sin is committed, treat it as other sins of premarital sex, try to get married esp. if making a baby.

19:45 I don't think it is just paedophilia or child sex abuse.

I think they are trying to get hebephiles attracted to legal minors they could have married in other jurisdictions drafted into the company of actual paedophiles.

Death penalty for murder, arseny and jaywalking.
Level 4 consequences for arson, physical assault or calling Georgina Kirrin "her"
Measures adapted for paedophilia applied to Satanic group rape of babies, to Afghan (non-Taliban) abuse of boys age ten, and to a man who could have married a girl, if the couple had been living a few decades earlier.

It's not just calling evil good, it is also calling good evil.

20:00 Getting rid of the police (or most of it) - actually feasible. Yes, even after Adam sinned.

The police was mostly introduced at the Renaissance or later. After models in the Muslim world.

A city in Antiquity or Middle Ages didn't have one. But they did have every citizen armed and required to know how to use arms and required to use them in defense of own or neighbour's rights, like going after a thief running from a shop with a merchandise.

One Church Father said "other cheek" applies to your own rights, but not God's or the neighbours'. Another one, St. Augustine, considered, it applies not even to your own rights when you get to the point when you can bear it no longer. So, Christians were not outside the system of not a police, but a citizens' militia.

20:00 bis (update). In France, yellow vest protesters against higher fuel prices have been both tear gassed by police and some had their eyes blown away by police using sth like paintball bullets on their eyes. This is old news, there was a caricature of a police prefect who was collecting eyes like beads on a string these last years.

Ted Morris has sth to say about Liverpool supporters getting tear gassed at Stade de France.

Today, police wanted to stop a car, and when the driver tried to get away, he and a female passenger were shot at, brought to hospital and could be dying.

In Brazil, there were more dead from police, doing sth other than their normal job, than there were in Uvalde from a guy stopped by the police. Also recent news.

You say that citizens' militias (what Europe had before the police forces) could end with chaos? Well, so can the police.

28:36 "after Babel" - let's look at the dates a bit.

"Sediment analysis at Denisova cave indicates the Denisovans occupied the site from 300,000 to 50,000 years ago."*

300 000 YA - nothing like C14, irrelevant.
50 000 YA - some C14 dating.

How soon after Flood do you think an object would have sufficiently low carbon 14 to date 50 000 YA?

And how long after the Flood would it take for Denisovan to diversify from common type of man?

It actually makes more sense to say:

• 50 000 YA = a real date before the Flood
• Denisovans had up to 2242 years to diversify after Adam and didn't get into the Ark
• except someone with part Denisovan heritage did get into the Ark!

youbetyourwrasse

No one can say for sure that the carbon dating is accurate, unless one has (ie) 50,000 years of data. So carbon dating can say anything and we can believe it. BUT it is NOT scientifically accurate unless we have actual carbon as a reference in the lab we've been watching for 50,000 years. Which we don't! Satan is wanting us not to believe the Bible .. we forget Almighty God can make anything appear any way.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@youbetyourwrasse Two things.

• 1) I was not contradicting the Bible, and if God can make anything appear anyway, He is also truthful;
• 2) I was not saying uniformitarian carbon dating is correct - I am saying a carbon date like 50 000 BP depends on a very low initial carbon 14 content, and such is likelier just after or even before the Flood.

This means, I think, precisely Biblically, carbon dates exceeding 40 000 BP (you can discuss the exact limit) = samples from and up to the Flood. Not after Babel.

29:24 With Denisovans, it is not just anatomy from very incomplete evidence, but genome from fairly complete one.

And Pääbo found Denisovan genome fairly well matches the one of Antecessor in Atapuerca, and that has a morphology matching Heidelbergians, who were really big.

There were giants in those days, anyone?

Blue eyes = genome, evidence in tooth.
Food = calculus, evidence on tooth.

By the way, blue eyes is Neanderthal, Denisovan are brown eyes, and yes, the genes for either can be taken from a molar.

Jer Smith

Could you put that in layman's terms?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Jer Smith Here are a few explanations.
Svante Pääbo does gene testing on ancient human skeleta.
Denisovans = the race of a pinky finger of a girl (or woman?) from Denisova cave in Russia, and some of its genes are around in some human populations today, like Tibetans and Australian aborigines have some genes for breathing in common with her.
Antecessor - a race found galore in Atapuerca cave in Spain, and some of them had eaten each other.
Heidelbergians - a race found in Heidelberg and Terra Amata.

We already knew that Heidelbergians and Antecessors looked alike, the reason they are not considered the same would be mainly the dates, I think. Then Pääbo who knew the genome of the Denisova girl (I think the information "teen girl" was decided on basis of the size of the preserved finger) tested the genome of the Atapuerca population, not identic, but surprisingly close.

So, as a Creationist : Antecessor = Heidelbergian = I ignore the dates, they are obviously physically close. Antecessor = Denisovan = Svante Pääbo nearly said so, and again I ignore the dates.

* Australian Museum : The Denisovans
Fran Dorey, 20/04/20
https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/the-denisovans/

Seven hills are seven kings ...

Q

Do the Seven Hills of Revelations refer to Rome? Would this point to the revived Roman Empire?
https://www.quora.com/Do-the-Seven-Hills-of-Revelations-refer-to-Rome-Would-this-point-to-the-revived-Roman-Empire/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Stef Lynn

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

Answered Wed

The question has two parts:

Do the Seven Hills of Revelations refer to Rome?

Arguably, yes.

Would this point to the revived Roman Empire?

The seven hills are there irrespectively of what constitution or wideness of direct and official political power Rome has.

In my view of end times, a revived Roman Empire could very well be an interruption in the progress of Antichrist’s power.

Also, the fourth beast was the Imperium of a Senatorial Republic, whether you consider it arriving in the Holy Land already as Antiochus IV Epiphanes (who was a vassal to the Senate!) or only in Pompey (who was later going to defend the Senatorial Republic against Caesar’s populistic monarchy revival).

During the fourth beast, Rome was ruled by double monarchs elected for one year, called consuls, and [in the same period] one Sextus Calvinus founed Aix-en-Provence, recalling modern Republics and recalling John Calvin. As well as a condominium between a pretended “Pope Emeritus” and a pretended “Pope” neither of whom are Catholics.

Crusader Pub took on Kent Hovind

Kent Hovind Reinvents Baptist History
14 Aug. 2021 | The Crusader Pub
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8EhJYS14AI

I actually, while appreciating Kent Hovind on the YEC, have done response essays related to his imagination on "Catholics started Islam, because Alberto Rivera heard that in a private briefing from Augustin Bea" or on the Mass wine used by Our Lord on the First Mass.

0:35 Real, Norwegian, pronunciation (I'm Swede) is in fact: hoo-vin. I think the nd is decorative spelling for nn, where English at the end of a word would have n. Otherwise, add a d too.

6:05 I'd say Church history is the least good area of theologically relevant subjects for people like Hovind (or CMI and AiG, who at least have heard of St. Thomas Aquinas) ...

9:41 He believes, and so do some other guys, "Protestants" came from the 16th C. Reformation, but "Baptists" were always around, previously known as Lollards, Waldensians, even Albigensians according to some, Manichaeans, possibly, definitely Donatists and Novatians ... if this makes you want to feel like doing a facepalm, you feel free to do so.

So, the real Church, according to them, played leapfrog between widely different localities, never near universal, names, even doctrines, unless non-Baptist doctrines of some (like Albigensians on creation of material world, K H would not agree with these!) are put down to slanders by Inquisitors ....

If you feel like refreshing you by reading sth that has a somewhat closer resemblance to history, take a dose of Hal Foster (I mean, if Baptists can be Albigensians, why can't Vikings be King Arthur's allies against the Saxons?)

13:05 Actually, no.

When EO held synods in Iasi and Jerusalem in reference to Reformation and Counterreformation, there were some condemnations of RC (basically copied from Photius, Caerularius, Mark of Ephesus) repeated, but much more condemnations afresh, basically parallel to Trent, condemning Protestantism.

Seven Sacraments, Mass is a real Sacrifice, Mary is sinless and raised to Heaven, body and soul, and so on ...

14:25 Catholicism traditionally actually does say the Orthodox do have valid (though illicit) Eucharist, while Protestants do not.

15:42 Actually, I think the First Council of Toledo may have prefuted some Orthodox theology on "uncreated energies" ... it also directly stated (in an explanatory, not a liturgic creed, not identic to Nicene creed as said at Mass) they believed (in AD 400) that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son - it may be noted that less than 100 years earlier, a Spanish ecclesiastic had been close to St. Athanasius, whose creed (probably also explanatory, or even an explanatory essay, handed down to the Pope) also states the Holy Ghost proceeds from both.

The Spanish ecclesiastic, was it not someone like Hosius?

16:09 Orthodox use, obligatorily, leavened bread.
Catholics use unleavened in the Latin rite, but clearly leavened too in Eastern rites.

Caerularius considered unleavened bread as "Judaising heresy" (rubbed me the wrong way back when as a teen I was deciding between RC or EO, while definitely heading away from Lutheran), but more seriously, St. John says Christ was crucified when it was the Parascheve of the Jews, so Caerularius concluded, He can't have made a real Seder the eve before that, it would have been 24 h before the Jews were having their Seder.

I think, as "of the Jews" is narrator voice, as St. John as narrator (but not when the word is in Christ's mouth) uses "Jews" as non-Christians or even anti-Christians, and as the Lunisolar calendar back then was Empiric, the solution could be, Our Lord started Nisan 24 hours earlier than the Temple did. The other alternative, if Christ made a real Seder and Caerularius was wrong, Kaiaphas, as head of the Jewish Church (which was still the Church of God up to his implication in the Deicide), had given Christ a special permission to celebrate the Seder 24 h early. And He did so, with His disciples.

20:25 While six days could have as alternative one moment, the ideas of day age and gap theory are not viable with the dug up evidence (palaeontological or archaeological, whatever you prefer to call parts of it) and the idea of theistic evolution is when analysed on how Adam grew up either totally frivolous (if Adam had parents who taught him to speak, they were human, he was not the first human, his sin should not have had consequences, his marriage should not have been the model) or horrid (if Adam had progenitors with human anatomy and without human souls, these could not have spoken, could not have taught him to speak, and he would have been a feral child before he sinned).

25:14 Kent Hovind is in fact a pastor. He does represent the local congregation of a certain Baptist church in Pensacola. Or did, not sure it lasts after prison.

30:34 Please to note, the Flood, as historical event, is the symbol.

A human author like Guillaume de Lorris or Jean de Meun may tell a story through symbols chosen by them, but which did not happen.

God, as author of all history, can make sure the symbols He intends to put to important use are first of all real history. See thereon Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Q I, and I think it was A 10.

41:30 You missed an important part.

Christ actually forbade us, not the pagan objects of worship, that went without saying, but the pagan mode of worship. And He did not say "do not use vain repetitions" - He said "do not stutterspeak" = as I read that, and as one can see if going to an actual pagan prayer in the Greco-Roman world, end of Velleius Paterculus, = do not start over and over again, to explain and make sure God really understands you.

Repeating a phrase to let it sink into your heart is sth very different and was not a part of the Greco-Roman prayer style.

You may object, it was and still is, part of the Hindu and Buddhist prayer style - but ...

• Hindus and Buddhists, when very rarely referenced by Romans, as well as Jews and Christians, were considered as Dionysus-worshippers (earliest imperial bans on Christianity were quoting the text "sei quis uelitod bacchanal habuisse") and stood out as fairly odd to the mainstream of pragmatic and official Romen worship;
• Hindus and Buddhists do not quite as much have the sense of getting their prayers heard when thus repeating them, so it still wouldn't fit the bill (Hindus also have prayers more Greco-Roman style, at marriages or wars and so on).

What does fit the bill is Velleius Paterculus taking precautions so the gods really hear him, by not omitting any title of any god that might be relevant to the request, which a Christian would have asked in the words "God bless Rome!"

46:58 Do we speak about marriage or about sex slaves?

Bc in St. Thomas' time, 12 was considered a marriageable age for a girl, by us Catholics. This was only changed after the times of St. Pius X.

If you mean the marriages are forced, well, that is bad, and it does make some of these marriages (when no consent was made after the force) invalid and the actual relation one which could be called sex slavery.

But I think Islam did start out with an even lower age of marriage for girls and at least some times girls were ordered to marry, given no choice. And I mean in the family of their prophet. Zayneb. First she was ordered to marry a freed slave Muhammed had adopted as son, then he was ordered to divorce her, then she married Muhammed herself. The adoptive father of her former husband.

48:01 Welcome to the world of Alberto Rivera.

He was a Jesuit, and he had a conversation with Cardinal Bea who in a confidential briefing told Alberto that the Vatican had started Islam. Alberto Rivera then eventually found Christ and became Evangelical. And he broke the seal of confidentiality. First, it seems the background for Rivera as a Catholic priest has failed to solidly materialise, but when I wrote a reply to Kent Hovind on that one, I did not know it, so, supposing the confidential briefing had really taken place, why would anyone take a confidential briefing as solid proof?

It seems, if this was the case, Alberto was not on par with St. Albert when it came to reasoning skills ... a confidential briefing about things about to happen the next few weeks, fine, they may materialise and you find out the confidential briefing was not bogus, this military really was involved in planning this operation and it works according to his plans and so on. But a confidential briefing about things centuries in the past? It's like believing Jesus was married because Teabing argued so to Robert Langdon and Sophie Neveu. In a private and confidential briefing ... no guarantees that Bea's briefing hasn't been similarily made up, albeit not for a work of fiction, but for a fraud.

In fact, when hearing this, I was not fond of Bea, since I thought he had been father confessor to Pius XII during the Humani Generis year 1950 - not so, there was another one - so I am less inclined to have bad feelings about Bea.

I can't find the statement right now on Introibo's blog, so I don't know if it was Guérard de Lauriers or, as I suspect, someone else, who was both confessor to Pius XII in 1950 and involved in sedeprivationist arguments (whether hypothetical or, as with de Lauriers, pointed at people like "John Paul II").

_______________

49:07 - a real look, by a real indulgence issued by Pope Leo X:

INDVLGENCIA PLENARIA (mss 445)
https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/pittsarchives/mss445/pdf/mss445.pdf

Citing the translation:

Pope Leo X, our most holy father and lord in Christ, grants by divineprovidence to each and everyone one of both sexes of the faithful inChrist who visit the church, From the evening of the first Sunday immediately proceeding the feast ofAscension up to the sunset of the Sunday itself, and from the first vespers of the vigil of the Ascension, that is the vespers of the Wednesday before the feast of the Ascension, up to the evening of the festivities, for those lending helping hands to the builders of the church and convent of Saint Mary of the sacred Carmelite order in Gorgona . The plenary indulgence removes punishment and guilt : both on behalf of the dead and on behalf of the living:
It is valid for those who are contrite and for those who have not made a confession and yet have the intention of confessing, and also for those absent
For absolution and for the exchange of all vows , if given in writing. And for absolution from all crimes and excesses. And also for failings and for which the apostolic seat has withheld the observance of the Lord’s Supper with the appointment of confessions, at the pleasure of the commissary and the delegation, if given in writing . With the power of substitution regarding all things most compresensively that can be seen in the copy of the apostolic brief, which are are left in the power of the Lord’s reverent vicar or prelate.
Translation by Armin Siedlecki, PhD and Sarah Bogue, PhD

So, actual "price list" : visiting a specific Church.

_______________

49:23 Wouldn't you also love to know the real price lists Pope Leo X made?

Like visiting a specific Church (situated in Rome) and confessing, communicating, praying for the Holy Father's intentions - plenary.

It actually states "for all crimes and excesses" presumably meaning that if you confess in conjunction with this indulgence, you can be absolved for things otherwise needing up to the Pope to deliberate on.

Abraham was Justified before God by Works (Not Previous, but Subsequent)

Documentary: Protestantism's Big Justification Lie
4th March 2015 | vaticancatholic.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L14UNjaZJm8

2:55 "forensic justification" in the sense of forensic only justification is contrary to any description that describes someone as gratia either plena or plenus (the Blessed Virgin from the start, St. Stephen at a moment close to his martyrdom, Our Lord), since the grace in that case would overshadow but not indwell and gratia adumbrata or adumbratus would be more correct.

4:51 Exactly. What Sproul just said would be correct if for "account" he had said "life" - our sins transferred to Christ's life nailed Him to the Cross, were annihilated in the process (in the case of those for which He died effectively, not just potentially) and His reighteousness brought into our life by Sacraments or at least their reception in voto transforms us (in the case of those of us who are in a state of grace).

5:20 It can be added, to the honour of McArthur, while he distinguishes justification from sanctification, he thinks the latter actually does change the one being sanctified, Luther didn't.

To us, obviously, justification is the first moment of sanctification beginning, or beginning again after the disaster of mortal sin.

"It describes what God declares about the believer, not what He does to change the believer. In fact, justification effects no actual change whatsoever in the sinner's nature or character. Justification is a divine judicial edict. It changes our status only, but it carries ramifications that guarantee other changes will follow."

The latter was not Luther's position.

Catholics : to be justified, the adult must intend to do good works, and as long as in the state of grace will do good and meritorious works.
McArthur : to be justified, you get a declaration from God, who intends to make you do good works
Luther : to be justified, you get a declaration from God, without imagining you can start doing good works.

The fact that he compares the "legal" (only) act of justification to the "legal" (only) act of marriage (on his view), shows he does believe a sanctification follows, a real walk with God, just as in marriage, the legal act is followed by living together.

His problem with both can be resumed in his considering the marriage to be a legal only act, and not one of the seven sacraments - when vows are exchanged, God changes the disposition of the spouses to each other by a grace enabling fidelity to their duties (to each other and to children).

However, after looking at Luther's larger, it is apparent even he believed in sanctification of sorts, but in this life never complete.

He would disagree with White, he doesn't believe OSAS, he actually stated one could get outside the Church, and outside the forgiveness worked by the Holy Spirit, if one tried to base one's salvation on works lose their salvation:

"But outside of this Christian Church, where the Gospel is not, there is no forgiveness, as also there can be no holiness [sanctification]. Therefore all who seek and wish to merit holiness [sanctification], not through the Gospel and forgiveness of sin, but by their works, have expelled and severed themselves [from this Church]."

If they have severed themselves, it means they were in it before, and they were both justified and being sanctified before. Ergo, he does not believe in OSAS.

If one liked, one could parody his position that to him, believing justification without works, is the work necessary for salvation.

23:18 The non-Feeneyite would consider what Piper just said as a fairly hopeful sign of his perhaps not being outside the soul of the Church, to take a word used in the Larger Catechism of St. PIus X.

25:33 And with McArthur, one can ask, given what he just said, whether his verbal statements of believing in forensic (only) justification are in him a deliberate mortal sin, or an oversight, like (I had kicks on my head a few weeks ago) "reighteousness" instead of "righteousness" ... obviously unintentional.

34:34 Are these the guys Pope Gregory XVI was talking about?

Perhaps this pope was talking of what you call "historic protestantism" or perhaps he was considering the fact that Anglicans and Calvinists galore were abandoning all pretense of actually believing the Bible (liberal protestantism) or perhaps both.

That's why a certain passage in Mirari Vos might not apply to "Protestants" like these, as long as it's on this issue.

Obviously, there is also the refusal, very widespread (as in Ray Comfort, a recent video) to believe the Real Presence, and obviously being deliberately wrong on that one is sufficient to damn them, even if they would be Catholics on the justification issue.

37:57 "That is why every Protestant in the world who believes in justification by faith alone"
(believes in verbal confession, or having actually fully internalised?)
"operates under the core principle of forensic justification ... even if he doesn't know it"

If he doesn't know it, how is he guilty of it? Sounds like "alien unrighteousness" to me?

I thought I had been believing in "justification by faith alone" and it took me one major mortal sin, a bit out of the ordinary, to make me realise, I actually did believe sacraments and doing penance was necessary, and starting to take steps to convert (by the way, I had not been involved in believing Protestant anti-Catholicism, and when learning how it was really implied in the reformation, I had already taken the intention to sooner or later convert, ideally along with other High Church Lutherans, some of whom I knew. And some of them (notably some back then Lutheran Benedictines and Bridgettines) have since then also converted (I'm not sure Stephan Borgehammar, Church Historian, is one of them, from back before his conversion, he probably to too certainly appreciates them).

40:31 Note also how a Protestant is adding, not Sts Eustace or Emerentiana, but Dr Martin of Wittenberg to the "hall of fame of faith" in Hebrews 11.

He not only refutes (I am tired, I trust you on this one) the forensic justification, by his account of Luther's acts, but also the aversion against reverence for the saints, by his tone. V e r y visibly.

41:40 Back from when I was a Lutheran (though very superficially instructed), I do not recall these words of Luther.

I do know some Protestants believe in highly novelised versions of his life, like Ellen Gould White (to whom my father has owed allegiance, not I, I did not grow up with him) depending much on Merle d'Aubigné who was not always historically accurate. I'd like to know if the man from Ligonier ministries is citing Tischreden or Merle d'Aubigné for Luther's experience.

But perhaps I misspoke, it sounds at least like Luther's exuberant prose. Rhetoric : Logic = 7 : 3 or sth ...

52:05 But the words "they have been kept for you" do not preclude them One Who kept them from having transferred them to your inside, rather than only a paper in a courtroom (by the way, names on papers are somewhat important, there is such a thing as the book of life).

I refuse to indict Piper on account of that word.

53:09 Indeed. If I am unable to pray the Our Father due to impossibility of forgiving some, my next move to try to save my soul is speaking up about it.

Hence my words to the blogger Introibo. And my remark, if Bishop Dolan had prayed for me to remain celibate, that might have been the reason God gave him opportunities to see my situation better or at least (if he wasn't saved) took away opportunities to affect how more innocent laymen pray the rosary for me, while I am not doing it.

And the kick on the head was before my words to Introibo, it was not God punishing me for the words, but possibly for feeling that way and not speaking up.

Hence my words to Introibo blogger (found on my blog - New blog on the kid - url distinctive part "nov9blogg9") after the kicks I received, lest God should punish me more for my silence.

53:46 If Tyndale had heard James White, he might have come to agree with Latomus and stand in a yellow short shirt rather than on a bonfire in Wilvoorde.

Thank you for documenting, to me, at least some hope, the Protestant leopard head seems to have a leopard wing, which will perhaps not be part of the final, wingless, beast.

55:57 Happy that St. Jerome has ablue and abluti estis - same cognate for same verb - on both texts.

Really tired, when writing Latin, would you use for "I took a photo" the more Latinised "photograpsi" or the more purely Greek "photegrapse {?]

58:38 Lutherans and Anglicans have, however, tended to keep Baptismal Regeneration.

I say "tended to" because one of the conflicts entered on by Puseyites was against their contemporaries denying this (the group being larger by far than Puseyites, therefore more likely what Pope Gregory XVI had in mind for Mirari Vos).

1:00:03 Apart from hatred of the Bible, they also hate Martin Luther and Thomas Cranmer, and even Tyndale whom they (usually, unhistorically) consider as "martyr for the Bible translation"

1:05:58 Do you have the author of an apologetic commentary I read decades ago, with that title?

A former Anglican, I think, gone Catholic priest.

1:11:57 It can be stated, part of the reasons why Luther went to his error you are talking about is another one you are not talking about, one examplified by Ray Comfort "what do you call someone who tells a lie" - "a liar" - as if venial sins and lies of jocularity (followed by "April Fools") didn't exist in their moral theology.

Luther explicitly denied the distinction between venial and mortal, that is how his experience of sometimes venial sins (while he was still a more or less Catholic) came to drive him to a false conclusion and the world one lion head and one leopard head closer to the final beast.

1:13:38 I think you were alluding the Johannine Epistles? [confirmed - he cited I John 5:6]

1:14:07 As some of the sins you mentioned as mortal are of a certain type, it reminds me ...

But for fear of fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

... in other words, the fact, those who have been praying for my ongoing celibacy may have been praying for either my damnation or my getting saved only at a very high price to myself, as if I were principally to blame for the people who deliberately "[forbade] to fast and to marry" (not reading this as of Gnostics, but of people who pretend such and such guy is neither mature enough to marry, nor should he be allowed to use ascesis to get chaste. If I had taken up monastic ascesis at 20, perhaps 30, I might have been saved, with little difficulty, then. I do not think that is the case any more. The exact thing I consider some were praying wrong about.

It is also very possible, if I had made a more serious try back then, I would have had a firm but kindly indication from a Novice Master to get a job and a wife instead, back when having an employer was lots less irksome to me, than it became after two of them were involved, so far, in pushing me out of opportunities to even talk to girls I was hoping to marry.

If I got a male employer, old and wise, and he were putting an arm around my shoulder to encourage me to confide, or even to simply keep going, I'd feel that as a homosexual agression, even if I would be careful not to judge him guilty of such an intention. At 9000 + blog posts and the existance of technology able to transfer text from computers to paper, I should be living off my writing, and not from getting an employer anyway.

1:19:32 If I had believed that, "a man can commit suicide and if he is a true Christian he will go straight to glory" (end of quote) there are times when I might on that belief have acted as if that was advise.

I am glad I had C. S. Lewis rather than that pastor giving me advise, through books where the horror of Hell is made very clear, and through The Great Divorce in which one suicide is a prime example of one chosing to remain damned.

I do not think it is excessive hatred of old malefactors to hate the systems that gave them such power to destroy my life back then, since the systems remain in existence and remain destroying other people's lives. School compulsion, psychiatry and a few more.

1:20:52 I think the correct term is "unnecessary occasions for sin" - if I am courting someone I hope to marry, seeing her may be an occasion, but necessary relative to my hope to marry, like if someone is a policeman and needs to step in with blows and gunshots, that is an occasion for sins of hatred or of unjust manslaughter or maiming, but relative to the duty of the policeman to eliminate threats to others, if correctly assessed, a necessary one.

I am afraid some will have prayed for me to avoid all occasions of unchastity, including such as are necessary to get me into a state where chastity is less irksome, since allowing for more satisfactions. I consider encouraging to such prayers is being guilty of Forbidding to marry, to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving by the faithful, and by them that have known the truth. If themselves accepting marriage as a good, they would be collaborators with such (for instance left wing shrinks) who do no so consider it.

Göbekli Tepe mentioned by Answers in Genesis, I promote my take

Right at the start at the video:

Evolutionists Have a Bold New Claim
9th of May 2022 | Answers in Genesis
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQyB-n6ViwA

Hans-Georg Lundahl

As indicated in the chat, I disagree on "post-Babel".

Interesting Tim Chaffey and at least most on CMI consider Babel lost and some time in the palaeolithic, probably, some other guy, an archaeologist ... Douglas Petrovich considers it was in Eridu, both miss the option Göbekli Tepe was itself the city of Babel.

So, Graham Hancock, a fairly New Agey guy who takes carbon dates at face value, noted Göbekli Tepe starts at a carbon date coinciding with Plato's or Solon's date for Atlantis, but on top of that, he believes ancient alien astronauts (along with Atlanteans) came to help previous palaeolithic population built it. His argument for aliens is among others, some things look like rocket launches. Now that would also fit with Nimrod being an ancient aspiring astronaut - which would figure if "a tower the top of which might reach into heaven" were meant as much as a three step rocket as it sounds to my modern ears.

Lubosh Camber

What on earth you just compiled here 😳

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Lubosh Camber A theory that we have found, physically, the city of Babel and that we have identified, in type of artefact, the tower of Babel AND solved a theological problem (if God freaked out over a clumsy skyscraper, why is He allowing rockets) AND got a good both geography and carbon date for Babel : West, not South, of Landing Place, between Flood and Genesis 14, which also can be identified as to carbon dates.

I hope that answers your question?