Thursday, September 21, 2023

Contra Calvin


Contra Lofton Misdefining Luther to Blacken Trad Catholics with Him · Contra Calvin

A good video:

Calvinism logic: Allen Parr explains why God wants us stupid
Truth With Sue, 3 Sept. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joqeukEgkPY


My reactions to it:

Hello!
If you recall some about European history of the 16th and 17th C., a little less bad in the 18th, and you think, correctly, that Calvinism is Satanic, what camp would you put St. Michael in?

4:38 yes, heard of Kristi Burke ...

18:04 Another problem Calvinists have ...

They think free will and God's omnipotence somehow contradict.

However, God's omnipotence doesn't mean "everything God decrees and only what God decrees happens" ...

It means "everything God decrees, and besides that only what God allows happens"

God being omnipotent doesn't mean He's clumsy.

If you were a giant, able to move a mountain with your hand, you would be clumsy, and you would not be able to move people or cats with your hands without squeezing them to death accidentally.

But God's omnipotence isn't physical strength and no more, it isn't clumsy, so He can BOTH move mountains AND move people into exactly the right circumstances to actually enjoy real freedom.

Flying Max
If God can “move people into exactly the right circumstances to actually enjoy freedom” isn’t that intervening in our free will?

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@flyingmax9029 Intervening and stopping are not the same thing.

Yes, God certainly intervenes in our free will, but precisely so that it can be free (ideal example: grace intervening so as to make the will freely chose God's will).


Another good video:

How Calvinists Misunderstand Free Will
Belief Bite, 10 Sept. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4f2ppfs0Ho


Same person also made another one:

Why Non-Calvinists Become False Teachers 🐺🍪
Belief Bite, 10 Sept. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goFwJSChXQE

To which I said:

4:14 Look up St Thomas Aquinas and Molina.

The one is ... nearly but not quite Calvinist.
The other is ... nearly but not quite Arminian.

St. Thomas never denies we have free will or pretends grace being irresistible takes free will away.

Molina never pretends God ceases to be sovereign.

Contra Lofton Misdefining Luther to Blacken Trad Catholics with Him


Contra Lofton Misdefining Luther to Blacken Trad Catholics with Him · Contra Calvin

https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/why-i-am-a-catholic

"Now that the world is not going Puritan but pagan, it is the Church that is everywhere protesting against a pagan laxity in dress or manners. It is doing what the Puritans wanted done when it is really wanted. In all probability, all that is best in Protestantism will survive only in Catholicism, and in that sense all Catholics will still be Puritans when all Puritans are pagans."


How You Might Be A Protestant Without Knowing It!
Reason & Theology, 17.IX.2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZhcYOp5fT8


3:02 I note, Donum Veritatis came just a few months before the election of Pope Michael - one man who did not stand for saying "JP-II is Pope" and at the same time judging him.

His solution was "JP-II is an antipope, that's why we need a new Pope after Pius XII" ...

4:34 How come saints approved by the Magisterium have not historically held this, but instead held that persons otherwise prone to be accepted as part of the Magisterium would need to be judged as not being such, ipso facto for deviating from the Deposit of the Faith?

4:46 "in conflict with the magisterium"

You gloss over the distinction "with the magisterium as it stands right now" or "with the magisterium as it stood and still stands" or to put it in the words of Trent:

"quem tenuit et tenet ecclesia, cuius est iudicare"

In other words, for Trent, the position of the magisterium of the past is paramount for whether the present purported magisterium can really be such.

Pour cause. In Protestant country after Protestant country, at least where Anglicanism and Lutheranism were concerned, the new heretics were stepping into the shoes of former titles of the Catholic magisterium, like "archbishop of Uppsala" or "archbishop of Canterbury" ... A Catholic was obliged to resist the apparent magisterium of Cranmer or Parker or of Laurentius Petri Nericius and his son in law Laurentius Petri Gothus.

6:36 Note here the rejection of past popes, and of past councils. In Luther, that is.

7:46 "This Pope contradicts this Pope, this council contradicts this council"

Sorry, but that was a Trad, not Luther.

"so unless you can convince me that this is Biblical"

That however was Luther if you add "Biblical or reasonable" ...

There is a big difference in rejecting the magisterium of the past, because one already knows one's opinion goes against too many centuries of it, and appealing to the magisterium of the past, because one knows an intruder by the discrepancy in tone with predecessors.

8:30 Again, a huge difference between "I'm gonna ignore what the [current] Pope is teaching here" and "I'm gonna ignore what Popes have been teaching over centuries" ...

Not saying either is OK. But there is a difference between being trapped by wrongful acceptance of "Pope Francis" into chosing between him and those whom one supposes "his predecessors" and rejecting out of hand current and preceding Popes.

9:20 "they're assuming their interpretation of this council is the accurate one"

Oooops ... Trent is not exactly a document from the Near East from a culture steeped in pre-Christian traditions we are partly fortunate in knowing little about unless we are specialists.

Trent is within Christendom and after the Renaissance set in, so, the likelyhood of misinterpreting Trent is much slimmer than of misinterpreting the Bible.

One can very frankly say Luther misinterpreted Romans 3, because Jewish Kashrut were not paramount in his mind.

Would you mind telling me, as an apologist for "Donum Veritatis" being magisterium, which I dispute, what I am missing about Trent Session IV saying "tenuit atque tenet" rather than just simply "tenet" ?

Note, by disputing Donum Veritatis being magisterium, I am also disputing Ratzinger back then being successor of Ghislieri back then and Wojtyla then being successor of Pius IV back then. I am also disputing Ratzinger later became a successor of Pope Pius V, which Ghislieri became, probably already being a saint.

9:33 You'd agree that if "John Paul II" was genuinely Pope and "Cardinal" Ratzinger genuinely prefect of the dicasterium of faith, CCC would be genuinely an act of the magisterium, along with its constituent paragraphs, including obviously §283?

I mean, no one can excuse that pretended papacy by saying this was an airplane interview or on par with it?

10:04 No, it's not.

He was forced to ditch pope after pope of the past because he was not just disagreeing with the then pope or a very recently starting line of popes with a common agenda different from previous ones ...

10:19 Calvin and Zwingli were also not pulling the gambit of "magisterium of the past" since they were also aware of how it condemned them.

10:58 At the core of how Trent condemned Luther, Zwingli, Calvin etc, there is this distinction which you keep missing.

They were not just getting against the then popes, they were definitely not appealing to the magisterium of the past.

And Trent was definitely not saying they needed to back down to something which was only the magisterium of the present, if it disagreed with the past.

13:03 You know what I concluded about some very anti-Catholic Protestants? I am not even speaking mainly of Luther, it's more like Hislop ...

They are treating papacy as an anti-papacy - not as a sequence of anti-popes, but as a sequence of sth which is anti-infallible, presumably in-rectible ...

Instead of looking at the Bible to see whether this or that doctrine ends up on the Catholic side or not, they treat the existence of the Catholic side as proof this is not the Biblical side.

You have done the same gambit. Instead of treating Popes (including those who condemned Protestantism) as your directive, you are treating Luther as your anti-directive. Something you have a duty to disagree with on every level or as many levels as conceivably possible.

The problem with this is ... all errors will overlap with truth. Some errors will not overlap with each other, but all will overlap with truth.

This means that whenever you set out to avoid all overlap between yourself and a certain known error, you are likely to end up outside the truth and in the opposite error.

So distance from Luther is very much less of a criterium for Catholicism than adherence to Trent or to Pius V ...

13:03 bis Your title ... "How You Might Be A Protestant Without Knowing It!"

It's so Jack Chick or Hislop to Catholics, telling them "How You Might Be A Pagan Without Knowing It!"

Maiorianus on Europe 700 AD


Walking through Cities of Europe in 700 AD: What would you have seen?
Maiorianus, 14 Sept. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v95R9_cR6Gw


13:09 Conclusion, apart from buying some of your merch ... Rome really did fall when Charles the Last left Hofburg and when Nicolas II was killed, a little more than 100 years ago.

(Optionally, you can add exile of a Hohenzollern and of a Sultan respectively to Netherlands and to France to Rome successors falling 100 years ago).

Graham Hancock Commented on When Mega-Fauna Died


Graham Hancock on What Could Be HIDDEN In Antarctica
FLAGRANT CLIPS | 28 June 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rw63ui_o8-o


8:54 Death of Megafauna

"12 800 years ago and a slot of 1000 or 1200 years after that."

10 800 BC to 9 800 / 9 600 BC.

10 800 BC

2666 B. Chr.
0.354608 pmC/100, so dated as 11 216 B. Chr.*
2644 B. Chr.
0.380408 pmC/100, so dated as 10 644 B. Chr.


(2666 + 2644) / 2 = 2655
(0.354608 + 0.380408) / 2 = 0.367508 pmC/100 = 36.7508 pmC => 8300
8300 + 2655 = 10955 nope

(2666 + 2644 + 2644) / 3 = 2651
(0.354608 + 0.380408 + 0.380408) / 3 = 0.371808 pmC/100 = 37.1808 pmC => 8200
8200 + 2651 = 10 851 BC, nearly good enough

9 800 / 9 600 BC

The latter is well known, beginning of Babel, or perhaps a bit earlier

2621 B. Chr.
0.406138 pmC/100, so dated as 10 071 B. Chr.
2607 B. Chr.
0.428224 pmC/100, so dated as 9607 B. Chr.


(2621 + 2607) / 2 = 2614
(0.406138 + 0.428224) / 2 = 0.417181 pmC/100 = 41.7181 pmC => 7250
7250 + 2614 = 9864 BC, nearly good enough ...

Can we improve?

(2666 + 2666 + 2644 + 2644 + 2644 + 2644 + 2644 + 2644) / 8 = 2649.5
(0.354608 + 0.354608 + 0.380408 + 0.380408 + 0.380408 + 0.380408 + 0.380408 + 0.380408) / 8 = 0.373958 pmC/100 = 37.3958 pmC => 8150
8150 + 2650 = 10800 BC precisely

(2621 + 2621 + 2607 + 2607 + 2607) / 5 = 2612.6
(0.406138 + 0.406138 + 0.428224 + 0.428224 + 0.428224) / 5 = 0.4193896 pmC/100 = 41.93896 pmC => 7200
7200 + 2613 = 9813 BC, definitely good enough

So, according to my calibration, the megafauna should be killed off between 2650 and 2613, during a span of 37 years.

Did the Younger Dryas weaken them? Possibly. But was there a hunter during this time? Definitely. See Genesis 10:

8 Now Chus begot Nemrod: he began to be mighty on the earth. 9 And he was a stout hunter before the Lord. Hence came a proverb: Even as Nemrod the stout hunter before the Lord. 10 And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon, and Arach, and Achad, and Chalanne in the land of Sennaar.

* Creation vs. Evolution : New Tables
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/08/new-tables.html

Wednesday, September 20, 2023

First Half of a Video by Kristi Burke


Metatron Made Some Mistakes in His Video on Historic Truth being Objective · First Half of a Video by Kristi Burke · Continuing with Kristi Burke

Is it Reasonable to Reject Biblical Claims? | Thoughts From an Ex-Christian
Kristi Burke, 17 sept. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRljZtsDvmU


3:28 "Supernatural claims"

4:03 I haven't seen any war action.

I haven't been to Ukraine, sure, but I still have never seen any war action.

Nor have I seen a peace treaty being signed. Sure the Versailles Treaty or the Capitulation of Appomatox aren't myths?

4:11 "because supernatural claims cannot be proven"

As I have been accused of being a flat earther, I do take good looks at some nooks and crannies flat earth is really coming from.

"I don't believe in Portuguese claims like Magellan, because Portuguese claims cannot be proven. Round earth claims cannot be proven"

Said by any and every Hindu in Goa who was flat earther because of distrust in the Portuguese ...

I have personally not been to China, and not further into the Pacific than a stretch of Newport beach in CA ... can you prove the Pacific exists and China exists, without appealing to stories, like that of Marco Polo, nicknamed Il Millione or politicians claiming to visit Xí Jìnpíng, and who said politicians never lie? You know the joke:

"Q How do you know a politician is lying?"
"A He's moving the lips"

Something which also might apply to salespeople ...

4:18 "science is our best way to make conclusions about our reality"

Because scientists never lie?
Or because they are never mistaken in how they conclude?
A N D ... what is the relevance in relation to supernatural claims?

For the last of these, the fact is, any given science will definitely study natural claims, and by the very fact of doing so, will be leaving out whether nature exists on its own or exists in dependence of something supernatural, and if so, how much or little that interferes ...

4:21 "the scientific method"

No science ever was content with what Popper called the scientific method.

All of them, without exception, need lots of pieces of method that are not involved in Popper, and if there be such a thing as a "science about what actually happened" ... it definitely is so different from what sciences are usually like, that it needs a method of its own, very distinct from it.

Wait - heard of history, going by eyewitness testimony?

4:33 Peer review is definitely not part of the "scientific method" as outlined by Popper.

It's just (especially in pre-publishing peer review, a kind of censorship) the protocol followed currently by researchers in many fields over many universities.

4:39 "it's literally a process in which you attempt to prove yourself wrong"

Literally this is so since Popper.

In fact, no.

The good test is not asking a scientist "did you attempt to prove yourself wrong" - "yes" - "what happened" - "I failed" - "oh, you are probably right, then" ... the good test is when scientists and other types of researchers attempt to prove each other wrong. It's called "debate" ...

4:58 Two methods for studying the supernatural world.
  • a) metaphysics (including but not limited to irreducible complexity and Kalam)
  • b) history (supernatural, by definition, is sth independent of nature, but of which nature is not independent - could show in miracles ... hence, is it most likely that Matthew:
    • i) lied
    • ij) was mistaken
    • iij) or wrote the truth?)


5:36 "not verifiable"
According to what methodology?

Or according to your parrotting of a favourite scientist you looked up to?

What you mention are (mostly) events, and you have not given any ground for there being a different process of verifying a talking snake from an orally handed down genealogy, or a water jar getting water in and putting wine out than verifying whether a specific man went to a specific party.

7:04 "they ate something"

Seems to be already refuted:

"Some believe[5] the dancing could have been brought on by food poisoning caused by the toxic and psychoactive chemical products of ergot fungi (ergotism), which grows commonly on grains (such as rye) used for baking bread. Ergotamine is the main psychoactive product of ergot fungi; it is structurally related to the drug lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD-25) and is the substance from which LSD-25 was originally synthesized. The same fungus has also been implicated in other major historical anomalies, including the Salem witch trials.[11][12]"

"In The Lancet, John Waller argues that "this theory does not seem tenable, since it is unlikely that those poisoned by ergot could have danced for days at a time. Nor would so many people have reacted to its psychotropic chemicals in the same way. The ergotism theory also fails to explain why almost every outbreak occurred somewhere along the Rhine and Moselle rivers, areas linked by water but with quite different climates and crops".[2]"


And as you are so into peer reviews, The Lancet after all is a peer reviewed paper.

"sth psychological"

W a i t ...

"Waller speculates that the dancing was "stress-induced psychosis" on a mass level, since the region where the people danced was riddled with starvation and disease, and the inhabitants tended to be superstitious. Seven other cases of dancing plague were reported in the same region during the medieval era.[1]"


Footnote links to Viegas, Jennifer (August 1, 2008). "'Dancing Plague' and Other Odd Afflictions Explained : Discovery News". Archived from the original on October 13, 2012. Retrieved 2023-04-24.

The problem with her idea it's a natural result of psychological factors is, she only gives a parallel, equally unexplained, which equally warrant the question of whether there was something demonic involved.

"1962. Tanganyika, East Africa. In a rural boarding school on the shore of Lake Victoria, dozens of adolescent girls began to laugh and cry uncontrollably. After trying to stem these mysterious breakouts for a month and a half, school officials gave up and sent everyone home. As the girls fanned out to their homes across the region, their behaviors spread too. Over 1000 people were affected. Families and governments enlisted all kinds of experts to give them a clue about what was going on. Eventually, an official diagnosis: mass hysteria. About two years after it began, the epidemic petered out. Nobody died. Everybody recovered."


Two notes on it:
  • 1) they were adolescent, meaning staying in school was perhaps not the best choice for their chastity;
  • 2) 1962 was the year when Vatican II was convoked - if the girls in Tanganyika were not Catholic, God could have decided Lutherans and Anglicans needed to give a good chuckle to a false council actually helping their bad cause.


"The Christian population is largely composed of Roman Catholics and Protestants. Among the latter, the large number of Lutherans and Moravians point to the German past of the country while the number of Anglicans point to the British history of Tanganyika. All of them have had some influence in varying degrees from the Walokole movement (East African Revival), which has also been fertile ground for the spread of charismatic and Pentecostal groups."


7:20 "Lack of consistency"

9:04 If a medical faculty tells a psychologist to do real bonding, and an epidemologist to do measures of hygiene ... (neither case extended to all of human society outside clinics, btw) ... is the medical faculty being inconsistent? Or is it dealing with different actors in different situations in ways that are different according to the different roles and situations?

A military conquering a homeland - better needed then than in 1948 - and a caste of people living extra holy (we Catholics refer to some of the things you quoted as "Evangelical counsels" = not for everyone!) =|= NOT the same thing.

Dealing with people whose human sacrificing idolatry was a plague worse than Nazism and Communism combined (at least in immediate gruesomeness, in Communism abortions are at least hidden away) and dealing with normal people around you =|= ALSO NOT the same thing.

BETH
Can you expound on your thoughts? I’m confused as to what you believe, respectfully

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Go through it again, @BETH-dr4ko.

I was adressing the claim of inconsistency between the directives given to Joshua in taking Canaan and the directives given in the Sermon on the Mount by Our Lord Jesus Christ.

THEN ask if there is still some particular that is unclear to you.


9:50 Theophany vs revelation of God's nature=|= AGAIN NOT the same thing.

10:27 "Timing of written events"

11:04 the claim that Synoptics were written after AD 70 comes so late (recent centuries) as to be very untrustworthy compared to Church internal traditions of when ...

11:53 Have you heard of sth called "learning by heart"?

Also, Sermon on the Mount is in Matthew, traditionally the earliest Gospel, 30's or 40's.

12:02 Do you remember "A, B, C, D"?

Do you remember lyrics of any song?

Have you ever learned a text by heart?

Can repeating a text you have learned by heart over and over help you accurate recall?

I know for a fact that people can learn not just the Apostolic but also the Nicene Creed by heart.

Now go to the longest of the texts, I suspect it is the Sermon on the Mount, and see how many Nicene Creeds long it is ...?

I checked it myself.

CLXX words Nicene Creed in Latin

DCCXV words Matthew V (except intro)
DLXIX Matthew VI
CDXXXIX Matthew VII

MDCCXXIII words Sermon on the Mount = c. 10 Nicene Creeds.

12:22 Take a look at this part:

Every one therefore that heareth these my words, and doth them, shall be likened to a wise man that built his house upon a rock, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell not, for it was founded on a rock.

And every one that heareth these my words, and doth them not, shall be like a foolish man that built his house upon the sand, And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and they beat upon that house, and it fell, and great was the fall thereof.


Once you hear that and learn it by heart, what are the chances you get any of it wrong, as not just not the right word, but not the right meaning?

Or this part:

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land. Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God. Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God. 10 Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. For so they persecuted the prophets that were before you.


In fact, this has also a very clear thematic unity, which makes the miss-out unlikely.

You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt lose its savour, wherewith shall it be salted? It is good for nothing any more but to be cast out, and to be trodden on by men. You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle and put it under a bushel, but upon a candlestick, that it may shine to all that are in the house.

So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.


You have a parallel between salt and light ... but the city on a mountain comes in a bit off beside the other parts.

Can St. Matthew have learned sth by heart, forgotten part of it, and kept what he recalled?

Or can he have mixed up what was said on this occasion, with other ones where "candle on a candlestick" and "city on a mountain" are put in parallel?

Well, it could be Jesus actually did add this quirky extra on the spot, as it stands, but if He didn't, if a part connected with city is lost or if mountain and bushel are paralleled because of bushel mentioned in other lessons Our Lord gave, does it matter, as the teaching is obviously the same (and one which Protestants don't like - visible perpetuity of the Church, as Jesus founded it = no room for the Reformation)?

Would it matter?

12:32 Falling asleep is a process that takes some minutes.

Those words were probably what they heard before falling asleep. Perhaps heard repeated while waking up a few times very uneasily and falling back into sleep.

They were close enough for Jesus to stop praying and wake them up when He wanted to.

12:51 How many oral retellings does it take before sth becomes unreliable?

It is not just a question of how many inbetweens, but also of, how long and detailed instruction is each giving the next one. It was given the culture of oral teaching very arguably a very far cry from telephone game (no long or detailed instruction even allowed).

I note the prayer in Gethsemane was written down in Matthew, by one of the original earwitnesses (you can hear what someone's saying even if you have your eyes closed while going to sleep).

12:57 "God breathed the story"

In fact one God-breathed word in this connexion is:
Forasmuch as many have taken in hand to set forth in order a narration of the things that have been accomplished among us; According as they have delivered them unto us, who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word: It seemed good to me also, having diligently attained to all things from the beginning, to write to thee in order, most excellent Theophilus, That thou mayest know the verity of those words in which thou hast been instructed.
Another one is:
And he that saw it, hath given testimony, and his testimony is true. And he knoweth that he saith true; that you also may believe.


This pretty much excludes the theory that Gospel writers were unaware of the story apart from the inspiration from God they were receiving while writing. On the contrary, normal acts of memory and research are at work, and God inspires recalling exactly the right thing or chosing exactly the right version, not any kind of new knowledge of it coming ex nihilo.

13:37 Time to:
  • prop Jesus up as a God, though He did not call Himself so
  • go from Jewish Apocalyptic cult into actual separate religion
  • to create subgroups of Christians (with different ideologies)
  • write / discover new things


These operations actually:
  • take more than just time
  • do not explain the records of the miracles.


Unless you go for people having time to get martyred and then deciding to change their message with some frauds ...

The subgroups with different ideologies are outside the Church that Jesus founded and which wrote the Gospels, they are prime examples of "heresy" ....

14:14 What contradictions?

14:55 How about dedicating your next week (that's not your entire life, I hope) to finding three events in history (outside miracles) and asking yourself exactly how much they could have got wrong and why?

Metatron Made Some Mistakes in His Video on Historic Truth being Objective


Metatron Made Some Mistakes in His Video on Historic Truth being Objective · First Half of a Video by Kristi Burke · Continuing with Kristi Burke

Here is his video:

The TRUTH About Historical Revisionism, Once and For All
Metatron, 1 June 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-fK55zA4iY


Here are my answers:

10:39 Fact - when Thomas Morus knew that Tyndale had left the country (searched for translating the Bible into English, which in English - national - anti-heresy laws was an offense), he notified the Holy Roman Empire, as he was minister of Henry VIII - Tyndale later died burned on the stake as a heretic in Vilvoorde (and it was not for the Bible translation).
Fact - when Thomas Morus was asked to make a pledge to Henry VIII, he refused because the pledge contained wording referring to the King, which according to Catholic Church law and by now even dogma, as well as the Bible as Thomas Morus read it, could only licitly be applied to the Pope.
Fact - before either happened, when Thomas Morus was corresponding with Erasmus, he wrote some humourous poetry, one of the pieces of which paints a rape as sth actually desired by the woman.
Fact - he gave his daughter an education in Latin, something in these days often done only for men.

TRUTH = how these facts add up.

Was Thomas More a villain and Tyndale a hero, and More just outvillained by another villain, as some Protestants think?
Was Thomas More on the contrary doing his duty without overzeal when it came to Tyndale and then a real hero when it came to opposing the Oath of Supremacy?
Were Tyndale and More both heros, like C. S. Lewis thought?

You know, there was a correspondence between CSL and an Italian obviously Catholic priest, held in Latin. In it, I think it was, CSL arged "Tetzel and Henry VIII were damned men. I'll grant you Luther and Torquemada too. But Tyndale and More ..." were in his view heros.

Back when I read it, my Latin wasn't good enough to read the Latin pages in facing pages, I read the English.

All three views cannot be correct. But all three can be defended, at least by people who have no known irrationality beyond taking the wrong side in a confessional quarrel.

Similar, was More a misogynist or a feminist, or neither?

There is of course another view entirely : that historic truth is NOT concerned with "histoire événementielle" or history of events, only with history of culture, which is more neutral ground, and perhaps a bare facts approach to very major and undisputed events. Perhaps that one is yours, but if so, it is a highly revisionist one ...

11:52 literary evidence, cultural evidence, archaeology ...

None of these will per se give us a certain and on all parties undisputed view of the Storming of the Bastille.
None of these will per se give us a certain and on all parties undisputed view of the characters of Tyndale and More.

They may in some cases give us clues on whether the Southern States were deluded in thinking they could win the war (a new industralised way of making military boots quicker than before was in the hands of the North), but even that will not determine who was fighting for the right or wrong thing (on my view, both good and bad motives were mixed in those fighting on both sides).

Eyewitness reports are the major knowledge basis for events.

Sounds like you are somewhat outside the view that history is still concerned with events ...

12:10 Good luck confirming the Battle of Cannae or the battles in Caesar's Gallic war. By archaeology, that is.

It's even tough to ascertain Waterloo by archaeology by now, and absolutely impossible for battle field archaeology of Waterloo to determine (without the actual reports) who won.

I'll give you a very schematic reason for that kind of impossibility, with a battle field archaeology far beyond that of Waterloo in preserved materials.

Suppose you find 10 clear Hittites or Japanese dead.
Suppose you find 100 clear Romans or Vikings dead.

You could reason the Hittites or Japanese had fewer casualties than Romans or Vikings. But what this will not tell you is who had most surviving soldiers after the battle. If you reason Hittites or Japanese won, you might be right if Hittites or Japanese were numbering 1000, and Romans or Vikings 200. But the 110 corpses you find will not tell you the numbers of those surviving and walking away. It could also instead be, Hittites or Japanese were very good at inflicting fairly huge losses quickly, and that explains the 100 Romans or Vikings you find, while when depleting the method (perhaps some kind of kamakaze, but wood and cloth is already lost, so you couldn't identify a WW-II Japanese airplain), the Hittites or Japanese had already lost ten, but seeing they were outnumbered by far gave up to avoid further losses (admittedly, not a very bushido thing to do ... but that's outside the archaeology).

Sunday, September 17, 2023

On Music, Liturgic and Popular


What Music Would Jesus Choose for Mass?
Brian Holdsworth, 15 Sept. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cV4r1w6xvIo


What music did Jesus sing the psalms?

Jews don't just say the psalms, they sing them.

Did you know that a cousin* of a famous physicist, who was himself music historian, started out the music of the western world by noting that Gregorian psalmody is basically synagogal psalmody, but with less rhythmic variety?

It would arguably be:
A Short History of Music, translation of Geschichte der Musik, 1937, rev. 1938, 1947

I read a Swedish translation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Einstein

* from the article:
"While one source (1980) lists Alfred as a cousin of the scientist Albert Einstein,[2] another claims (1993) that no relationship has been verified.[3] Some websites claim they were both descended from a Moyses Einstein seven generations back, hence they were sixth cousins.[4] In 1991, Alfred's daughter Eva stated that they were not related.[5] On the other hand, she wrote in 2003 that they were fifth cousins on one side, and fifth cousins once removed on the other, according to research by George Arnstein. They were photographed together in 1947 when Albert Einstein received an honorary doctorate from Princeton, but they did not know that they were distantly related.[6]"


It shows how overrated the physicist is, that this passage gets 5 footnotes, and his actual work in music only gets one.

1:42 Pharisees and Disciples would actually BOTH be the kind of background that now counts as middle class.

The Aristocrats in Jewish society would often enough have been Herodians.

(Some argue, Herodians were not just friendly with Herod, but in the case of Herod the Great backers of his claim to Messianity ...).

Jesus was foster son of a carpenter, an entrepreneur in building. Four at least of his disciples were involved in fishing, also as entrepreneurs, not employees.

That's a somewhat different story, involving the politics known as Distributism in English and as Propriétisme in French, not totally unrelated to Crédit Social in Québec (the one in certain anglo-states was Antichristian, since pro-eugenics, that's another issue).

However, there actually was a kind of degree of dissimilarity of background, but it was more about region, Galilee means country bumpkins, who are perhaps less familiar with using Hebrew in the everyday discourse than Jews of Judaea, which is partly where Jesus had runins with Pharisees.

Either way, when singing the psalms, I'd say the Synagogue of Capharnaum like any Synagogue in Jerusalem would have sung the psalms in Hebrew and in a musical style going back to King David and getting on to both Gregorian and modern Synagogal (Alfred Einstein arguably overdid the extent to which ancient Synagogal was identic to modern Synagogal).

As for listening to Classical music, in Vienna some people go to a cheap Opera house and stand up (or sit on stairs) during the performance, I highly doubt this means they are aristocrats .... I suppose the thing is somewhat similar to the situation in Milan, but I have never lived there or even visited.

Another type of Aristocrats, Cohanim and Levites, certainly included one of the Twelve, St. Matthew, and probably, if Fr. Jean Colson was right, another disciple, the author of the Johannine corpus and the one to whom Our Lord confided His Mother.

2:46 If you like Kumbaya, it is probably OK to sing it outside Mass (given the meaning, which actually parallels EO prayers, where kyrie eleison is said instead of kumbaya, it should perhaps still be in Church, like when the priest is coming in for Eucharistic adoration with the host in a monstrance) ....

3:11 "nobody spoke liturgical Hebrew"

Not quite true, in Judaea they actually did.

A certain Cohen Gadol was called (in Greek transscription, which is where a nominative -s comes in) Kaiaphas, arguably in Hebrew. His father in law a few weeks after he had crucified Our Lord recognises another Cohen Gadol - the one named by Jesus - as "unlearned" because for his name he had answered in Aramaic "Kephas" ....

4:05 I suppose this is where the publicity break comes in for Dubliners or Angelo Kelly and Family?

5:35 It may here be noted:

  • the first mass production of anything intellectual or artistic was not the vinyls of either Decca or anywhere else, it was in fact Gutenberg's press that was Mass producing Bibles and Missals and Breviaries;
  • and while the texts in these are a a closed set, apart from new three prayers and one martyrology reading per new saint's day, basically, Classical music was certainly mass produced in the artistic sense. Tommaso Zillio considered the composer of the Baroque era as "a human version of a jukebox" ... and the words of Johann Mattheson (1681–1764) in his "Der vollkommene Capellmeister" gives very "unsensitive" advice on how to compose a sonata : 1) take an already existing sonata, 2) keep the bass line and write a new melody for it, 3) if you want to be really, really original, keep your new melody and write a new bass line for it.


Classical music, very unlike "modern Classical music" was not "l'art pour l'art" without any kind of commercial view in sight. Johann Mattheson, singing Opera, was an employee. Leopold Mozart was an employee of the archbishop of Salzburg. His son Wolfgang became a partner to Opera houses, the kind which promoted singers like Johann Mattheson.

Opera in the day (and to some in Vienna still this day) was what Hollywood and Broadway have become in the US.

In fact, associating Classical Music, Opera and Ballet with specifically aristocrats probably comes from Russia and the Bolshoi Theatres in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Especially in Moscow, probably, that very Western music never caught on, and Rimski-Korsakov never became the full equivalent of Classical, so Classical became associated with Aristocrats. And as for performers probably with homosexuality. Since a certain Revolution, as foretold in Fatima, Russia has spread its errors (including erroneous perspective on Classical music) over the world.

6:30 When I commented on Alfred Einstein, I was wondering whether this was going to be brought up - yep. Dr. Peter Kwasniewski didn't miss that one.

7:03 Indeed. I missed on that one ...
believer : worshipping God = courtier : serving/petitioning his king

As Charles A. Coulombe mentioned "God is a monarchist" .... now, before you go off to pledge allegiance to an Anglican, recall, so is the devil. Simius Dei and all that.

11:33 It may be noted, popular music has increasingly been divorced from Church music since the Church hierarchy were getting annoyed with the Vaganten.

More and more of the cadences from psalmody and motets were being forbidden to these popular music performers, and therefore they were forced to look in another direction.

If you want any music made by non-Church-musicians that sound otherworldly, it is probable that some Satanist rock actually comes closest to Church music.

I think Rammstein made one hit with some Satanist lyrics, anyway it exists, and I was a guest so could not quite escape the occasion, and the music is very close to Church music, except it is more violent.

Since hearing that, and recalling (perhaps wrongly) it was by Rammstein, I am officially not a fan of Rammstein ...