måndag 21 maj 2018

From Ruckman's errors - and giving a correction

In his comment on Thessalonians and Philemon, chapter 1:

"In step with them were several billion Catholics (since A.D. 500) who followed a wine-drinking bachelor in Rome who taught that Mary was born sinless and was omnipresent after her death, that you could swallow Jesus Christ and then take Him again a week later, and that no one could know where they were going until they were dead (including all Popes)."

Breaking this down:

"In step with them were several billion Catholics (since A.D. 500)"

Why that year?

"who followed a wine-drinking bachelor in Rome"

St Paul was a wine drinking bachelor who died in Rome.

"who taught that Mary was born sinless"

Even conceived sinless. Genesis 3:15.

"and was omnipresent after her death,"

Not taught. She was received into Heaven Body and Soul.

Oh - it is also taught, by St Jerome, all who follow the lamb wheresoever he goeth are not so much "omni-" as "anywhere" present.

" that you could swallow Jesus Christ and then take Him again a week later, "

As Our Lord taught Himself. John 6.

"and that no one could know where they were going until they were dead (including all Popes)."

No one, except those who are given a special revelation, yes.

Ecclesiastes 9:[1] All these things have I considered in my heart, that I might carefully understand them: there are just men and wise men, and their works are in the hand of God: and yet man knoweth not whether he be worthy of love, or hatred:

torsdag 12 april 2018

Did the Church Alter the Commandments?

Here is the text in a Catholic Bible, Exodus 20:

[2] I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. [3] Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. [4] Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. [5] Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me: [6] And shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments. [7] Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of the Lord his God in vain. [8] Remember that thou keep holy the sabbath day. [9] Six days shalt thou labour, and shalt do all thy works. [10] But on the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: thou shalt do no work on it, thou nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy beast, nor the stranger that is within thy gates. [11] For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them, and rested on the seventh day: therefore the Lord blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it. [12] Honour thy father and thy mother, that thou mayest be longlived upon the land which the Lord thy God will give thee. [13] Thou shalt not kill. [14] Thou shalt not commit adultery. [15] Thou shalt not steal. [16] Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. [17] Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house: neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his.

As you can see, there are no Roman Numerals above each commandment here. Nor are there here, Deuteronomy 5:

[6] I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. [7] Thou shalt not have strange gods in my sight. [8] Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any things, that are in heaven above, or that are in the earth beneath, or that abide in the waters under the earth. [9] Thou shalt not adore them, and thou shalt not serve them. For I am the Lord thy God, a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon their children unto the third and fourth generation, to them that hate me, [10] And shewing mercy unto many thousands, to them that love me, and keep my commandments. [11] Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for he shall not be unpunished that taketh his name upon a vain thing. [12] Observe the day of the sabbath, to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee. [13] Six days shalt thou labour, and shalt do all thy works. [14] The seventh is the day of the sabbath, that is, the rest of the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not do any work therein, thou nor thy son nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant nor thy maidservant, nor thy ox, nor thy ass, nor any of thy beasts, nor the stranger that is within thy gates: that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest, even as thyself. [15] Remember that thou also didst serve in Egypt, and the Lord thy God brought thee out from thence with a strong hand, and a stretched out arm. Therefore hath he commanded thee that thou shouldst observe the sabbath day. [16] Honour thy father and mother, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee, that thou mayst live a long time, and it may be well with thee in the land, which the Lord thy God will give thee. [17] Thou shalt not kill. [18] Neither shalt thou commit adultery. [19] And thou shalt not steal. [20] Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour. [21] Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife: nor his house, nor his field, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his.

And here is how a Catholic would usually divide this in Commandments, with numerals:

[6] I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. [7] Thou shalt not have strange gods in my sight. [8] Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any things, that are in heaven above, or that are in the earth beneath, or that abide in the waters under the earth. [9] Thou shalt not adore them, and thou shalt not serve them. For I am the Lord thy God, a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon their children unto the third and fourth generation, to them that hate me, [10] And shewing mercy unto many thousands, to them that love me, and keep my commandments.
[11] Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for he shall not be unpunished that taketh his name upon a vain thing.
[12] Observe the day of the sabbath, to sanctify it, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee. [13] Six days shalt thou labour, and shalt do all thy works. [14] The seventh is the day of the sabbath, that is, the rest of the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not do any work therein, thou nor thy son nor thy daughter, nor thy manservant nor thy maidservant, nor thy ox, nor thy ass, nor any of thy beasts, nor the stranger that is within thy gates: that thy manservant and thy maidservant may rest, even as thyself. [15] Remember that thou also didst serve in Egypt, and the Lord thy God brought thee out from thence with a strong hand, and a stretched out arm. Therefore hath he commanded thee that thou shouldst observe the sabbath day.
[16] Honour thy father and mother, as the Lord thy God hath commanded thee, that thou mayst live a long time, and it may be well with thee in the land, which the Lord thy God will give thee.
[17] Thou shalt not kill.
[18] Neither shalt thou commit adultery.
[19] And thou shalt not steal.
[20] Neither shalt thou bear false witness against thy neighbour.
[21] Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife:
nor his house, nor his field, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his.

The forbidding of images is not away from our Bibles, as it is commented on by Challoner in Exodus 20, 4:

[4] "A graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing": All such images, or likenesses, are forbidden by this commandment, as are made to be adored and served; according to that which immediately follows, thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them. That is, all such as are designed for idols or image-gods, or are worshipped with divine honour. But otherwise images, pictures, or representations, even in the house of God, and in the very sanctuary so far from being forbidden, are expressly authorized by the word of God. See Ex. 25. 15, and etc.; chap. 38. 7; Num. 21. 8, 9; 1 Chron. or Paralip. 28. 18, 19; 2 Chron. or Paralip. 3. 10.

Let's take a look to prove that Exodus 20:4 and its parallel Deuteronomy 5:8 does not in general overall forbid images:

Description of Ark in Exodus 25:

[16] And thou shalt put in the ark the testimony which I will give thee. [17] Thou shalt make also a propitiatory of the purest gold: the length thereof shall be two cubits and a half, and the breadth a cubit and a half. [18] Thou shalt make also two cherubims of beaten gold, on the two sides of the oracle. [19] Let one cherub be on the one side, and the other on the other. [20] Let them cover both sides of the propitiatory, spreading their wings, and covering the oracle, and let them look one towards the other, their faces being turned towards the propitiatory wherewith the ark is to be covered.

Exodus 38:7 parallels preceding verse Exodus 25:15 and so implies the cherubim were also made, at least later, by King Solomon.

Numbers 21:[8] And the Lord said to him: Make brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: whosoever being struck shall look on it, shall live. [9] Moses therefore made a brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: which when they that were bitten looked upon, they were healed.

I Chronicles 28:[18] And for the altar of incense, he gave the purest gold: and to make the likeness of the chariot of the cherubims spreading their wings, and covering the ark of the covenant of the Lord. [19] All these things, said he, came to me written by the hand of the Lord that I might understand all the works of the pattern.

II Chronicles 3:[10] He made also in the house of the holy of holies two cherubims of image work: and he overlaid them with gold.

This is a reason why the forbidding of images is not seen as a separate commandment, but as part of the first one.

So also Luther divided the beginning of commandments, he only changed the last two, taking Exodus 20 instead of Deuteronomy 5:

[17] Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house:
neither shalt thou desire his wife, nor his servant, nor his handmaid, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is his.

LXX has Exodus 20 in agreement with Deuteronomy 5:

[17] οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις τὴν γυναῖκα τοῦ πλησίον σου
οὐκ ἐπιθυμήσεις τὴν οἰκίαν τοῦ πλησίον σου οὔτε τὸν ἀγρὸν αὐτοῦ οὔτε τὸν παῖδα αὐτοῦ οὔτε τὴν παιδίσκην αὐτοῦ οὔτε τοῦ βοὸς αὐτοῦ οὔτε τοῦ ὑποζυγίου αὐτοῦ οὔτε παντὸς κτήνους αὐτοῦ οὔτε ὅσα τῷ πλησίον σού ἐστιν

Gynaika means woman or wife. If house is translated τὴν οἰκίαν, meaning the material building, perhaps with garden and so on, it is obvious that it is less offensive to God to desire that than to desire the neighbour's wife. On the other hand, some would perhaps (I think Luther might have done so) have taken "house" as household, ton oikon, meaning that the desire to be lord where someone else is lord of his household is even worse : we Catholics would of course consider that as against the IV commandment, we don't agree with that either.

No, we have not taken commandments out of the Bible. But we have divided them differently from Calvinist and similar Protestants later than we, and this means that when we state them in shorter terms, as in the catechism, we sometimes leave out part of commandments rather than memorise all the text of each.

Hans Georg Lundahl
St Zeno of Verona*

* Veronae passio sancti Zenonis Episcopi, qui inter persecutionis procellas eam Ecclesiam mira constantia gubernavit, et, Gallieni tempore, martyrio coronatus est.

fredag 30 mars 2018

Dealing with "Trail of Blood" Claims

Copied from:

Trail of Blood, wikimedia upload

My photoshopped combination in vertical is here:

[edit : click for a larger view, so you can read it.]

So, the essential claims are, in chronological order:

  • Baptist Churches in 251 excommunicated ("disfellowshipped") the "irregular" Churches (term sounds like taking from lodges, right?) who practise pedobaptism, that is, baptism of infants;
  • Constantine at Nicaea gets bishops only from irregular non-Baptist Churches
  • Emperor remains head of the Catholic Church until Pope Leo II takes over
  • Baptist Churches continue all the time (visible on full chart, as is next)
  • Donatists continue from 3:rd into 8:th C (!) and therefore overlap with Paulicians starting in 7:th C, both being Baptists.

So, James Milton Carroll very correctly realised the implications of Matthew 28:20. An on-and-off Church, which ceases to exist with Constantine and comes back to existence with Reformation is a huge no no.

He therefore wrote The Trail of Blood -: Following the Christians Down through the Centuries - or, The History of Baptist Churches from the Time of Christ, Their Founder, to the Present Day to prove his point.

Now, language like "regular" and "irregular" Churches, which is part of what he used but an external is not too fortunate. To someone steeped in Masonic culture as many Anglo-Saxon Protestant countries were, that may not sound too bad, but if you start with Anti-Masonry, as Catholicism did from start, In eminenti apostolatus specula, Papal Bull from April 28th 1738, and as Jack Chick is catching up with as per lately (as also Ulf Ekman who converted, unfortunately only to Vatican II Catholicism), it doesn't sound quite right. But that is an external.

What is worse is the claim Donatism survived into the times of Paulicians, and this is a dualist, a manichaean sect, which most Baptists, especially those embracing Young Earth Creationism, would rightly detest. This is a dual claim, and here is the discussion of each on its merits.

Does secular history agree that Donatism is continuing up to 8th C?

No, more like fith and sixth.

Donatism (Latin: Donatismus, Greek: Δονατισμός Donatismós) was a schism in the Church of Carthage from the fourth to the sixth centuries AD. Donatists argued that Christian clergy must be faultless for their ministry to be effective and their prayers and sacraments to be valid. Donatism had its roots in the long-established Christian community of the Roman Africa province (now Algeria and Tunisia) in the persecutions of Christians under Diocletian. Named after the Berber Christian bishop Donatus Magnus, Donatism flourished during the fourth and fifth centuries.[1]

The Roman governor of North Africa, lenient to the large Christian minority under his rule throughout the persecutions, was satisfied when Christians handed over their scriptures as a token repudiation of faith. When the persecution ended, Christians who did so were called traditors—"those who handed (the holy things) over"—by their critics (who were mainly from the poorer classes).[2]

Like third-century Novatianism,[3] the Donatists were rigorists; the church must be a church of "saints" (not "sinners"), and sacraments administered by traditors were invalid. In 311 Caecilian (a new bishop of Carthage) was consecrated by Felix of Aptungi, an alleged traditor. His opponents consecrated Majorinus, a short-lived rival who was succeeded by Donatus.

Two years later, a commission appointed by Pope Miltiades condemned the Donatists. They persisted, seeing themselves as the true Church with valid sacraments. Because of their association with the Circumcellions, the Donatists were repressed by Roman authorities. Although they had local support, their opponents were supported by Rome. The Donatists were still a force during the lifetime of Augustine of Hippo, and disappeared only after the seventh- and eighth-century Muslim conquest.

This last information is from:

Cross, FL, ed. (2005), "Donatism", The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church, New York: Oxford University Press.

However, if we look at their succession of bishops, that is meagre:

  • Majorinus (311–13)
  • Donatus Magnus (313–55; exiled 347)
  • Parmenian (355–91)
  • Primian of Carthage (391–93)
  • Maximianus (393–94)
  • Primian of Carthage (394–c. 400)

Now, I suppose some may have suspected me of Donatism. Therefore of ultimately sympathising with Donatists and their succession. So, am I a Donatist, this is a little aside?

I am not. Suppose Pope Michael is at present involved in some atrocious crimes against me to block my writings from being read, to keep me poor, to keep me under the sway of some shrinks.

Would that invalidate his papacy? In itself no, not unless he did so with good conscience while knowing the real facts.

Precisely as the kind of favour of the doubt I was giving Ratzinger on similar accusation points, probability of fact, but possibility there is still orthodoxy.

Supposing it invalidated his papacy, because it involved pro-psychiatric heresies - and he was validly ordained priest and consecrated bishop in 2011, would it invalidate the sacraments he makes, like saying Mass, like ordaining priests?

Still, no.

It can invalidate his state of grace, it can invalidate his orthodoxy and therefore his papacy and jurisdiction, but it does not invalidate his sacraments.

Similarily, a priest validly ordained before the new rite, even if celebrating Novus Ordo, certainly would be celebrating a valid Mass if he said the normal Mass, the Mass of St Pius V.

I think he could probably even be saying a valid Mass if he used Novus Ordo - but this is disputed. Or, he could have until I discovered that first mention of "fruits of the earth" in the Bible is with Cain's sacrifice, which was unpleasing to God, so, probably Cain had no cultivated wheat to sacrifice, so, the words would in their first use have involved a matter which is now invalid matter for the sacraments (unless he sacrificed spelt, which is older than cultivated wheat, and which the rubrics allow only on condition that real wheat flour is unavailable).

So, I do not have a Donatist view of the validity of sacraments.

Neither does the SSPX (both I and Pope Michael are former faithful of the SSPX).

Here is the article on Donatism on that subject:

In the Catholic Church, the Society of Saint Pius X has been accused of Donatist beliefs.

Obviously SSPX, Pope Michael, Sedevacantists and so on totally reject that accusation. When Anders Piltz decades ago warned me against SSPX, he accused them of being Donatist. Perhaps, once I had joined them, he or someone of similar prejudice against them stamped me as having become a Donatist, which is false.

Montini may have been a heretic, he may have committed sacrilege even when he said valid Mass after the older rite (which is still the rite of the Catholic Church, unlike Novus Ordo sect), but his masses were still valid, at least presumed to be such, at least as long as he didn't change the rite.

The accusation against Novus Ordo for being an invalid rite is not a Donatist accusation, it is the accusation which Pope Leo XIII confirmed about Anglican sacraments, on the ground that rites had been changed to incorporate a new theology.

Now, the confusion about Donatists leading up to modern Baptists may come from the fact that Wycliffe and the Lollards really did revive the errors of Donatism, the rigorism which says "mortal sin means no more office and no valid sacraments". Lollards also applied this on secular rulers. If the policeman is a sinner, cheated on his wife or whatever, the man in the street on that view has no obligation to obey him as a policeman. Well, how shall we know if the policeman is a sinner? We can't.

I resisted a policeman once twenty years ago, not because he was a sinner, but because he was doing a sin which could not be a valid act of policing, a crime of psychiatric slave hunt. I thought so then, I think so now.

If he hadn't, if he had next day told me to come to the police office for interrogation on this or that subject where I was a suspect, well, interrogating suspects is not a sin, per se, it is not a crime, it is a valid act of policing. I would have obeyed and in fact did obey such acts of valid policing, even if I thought the police were arguably jerks and even heretics about the conditions for marriage (I was a suspect for courting a 14 year old whom I hoped to marry, and in Sweden age of consent is 15 and age of marriage was then normally and now universally 18 : but as to an unjust suspicion of sexual harrassment, I considered myself obliged to obey the police on some accounts as in their doing valid acts of policing. However much jerks and however much heretics they may have been.

So, I do not have a Lollard view of authority, nor do most Baptists who refer to Wycliffe and Lollards, after Waldensians, as the true Church.

Nor do I have even a Donatist view of validity of sacraments.

But, the Baptists do or did have a Donatist view of the validity of ministerial acts.

You find out the pastor who baptised you was cheating on his wife, on that Baptist view, you need to get rebaptised. That is wrong.

That is the impossible Christian life, which Pope Miltiades rightly condemned.

It is impossible, because when it comes to your neighbour's state of grace, freedom of sin, some people are obvious and most are greyzones. And your ecclesial pastors are among those neighbours.

But "The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church" in 2005 incorporated a statement that Donatism " disappeared only after the seventh- and eighth-century Muslim conquest."

I don't believe that.

"Early kharijites, a strict sect of Islam the same Berber region" are cited as Later Influence - I obviously do not believe that either.

The Khawarij, Kharijites, or the ash-Shurah ("the Exchangers") are members of a group that appeared in the first century of Islam during the First Fitna, the crisis of leadership after the death of Muhammad.[1] It broke into revolt against the authority of the Caliph Ali after he agreed to arbitration with his rival, Muawiyah I, to decide the succession to the Caliphate following the Battle of Siffin (657).[2] A Khariji later assassinated Ali, and for hundreds of years, the Khawarij were a source of insurrection against the Caliphate.

(leaving out IPA and Arabic alphabet, it's pronounced Khawaridge or Kharidge)

Sounds like the kind of chaos Donatism breeds, but I don't think Donatism is relevant. Why?

The origin of Kharijism lies in the First Fitna, the struggle for political supremacy over the Muslim community in the years following the death of Muhammad. After the death of the third Rashidun Caliph, Uthman, a struggle for succession ensued between Ali and Muawiyah I, the governor of Syria and cousin of Uthman, in league with a variety of other opponents. In 657, Ali's forces met Muawiyah's at the Battle of Siffin. Initially, the battle went against Muawiyah but on the brink of defeat, Muawiyah directed his army to hoist Qurans on their lances.[11] Mu'awiya proposed to Ali to settle their dispute through arbitration, with each side appointing referees who would pronounce judgment according to the Quran.[12] While most of Ali's army accepted the proposal, one group, mostly from the tribe of Tamim, vehemently objected to the arbitration and left the ranks of Ali's army.[12]

So, this began "after the death of Mohammed". It's in the East, not in Western North Africa or Maghreb, where a Donatist influence would be possible.

So, one cannot cite, as I suspect Cross did, Kharijites as proof Donatism lingered on to Muslim Conquest.

No where near Tunisia, where Donatists might be expected to be, right?

In 659 Ali's forces finally moved against the Kharijites and they finally met in the Battle of Nahrawan. Although Ali won the battle, the constant conflict had begun to affect his standing.[47] Tom Holland writes "Ali won a victory over them as crushing as it was to prove pyrrhic: for all he had done, in effect was to fertilise the soil of Mesopotamia with the blood of their martyrs. Three years later, and there came the inevitable blowback: a Kharijite assassin."[52]

While dealing with the Iraqis, Ali found it hard to build a disciplined army and effective state institutions to exert control over his areas and as a result later spent a lot of time fighting the Kharijites. As a result, on the Eastern front, Ali found it hard to expand the state.[53]

Ali was assassinated by Kharijites in 661. On the 19th of Ramadan, while Praying in the Great Mosque of Kufa, Ali was attacked by the Kharijite Abd-al-Rahman ibn Muljam. He was wounded by ibn Muljam's poison-coated sword while prostrating in the Fajr prayer.[54] When Alī was assassinated, Muawiyah had the largest and the most organized and disciplined force in the Muslim Empire.

Obviously, Nahrawan in Iraq is far from where the Donatists had been.

Look at the years, this is from article on Muslim Conquest of Maghreb, while involving non-Maghreb conquests too in the text as now accessed:

The first invasion of North Africa, ordered by Abdallah ibn Sa'd, commenced in 647. 20,000 Arabs marched from Medina in the Arabian Peninsula, another 20,000 joined them in Memphis, Egypt, and Abdallah ibn Sa'd led them into the Byzantine Exarchate of Africa. The army took Tripolitania (in present-day Libya). Count Gregory, the local Byzantine governor,[2] had declared his independence from the Byzantine Empire in North Africa. He gathered his allies, confronted the invading Islamic Arab forces and suffered defeat (647) at the Battle of Sufetula, a city 240 kilometres (150 mi) south of Carthage. With the death of Gregory his successor, probably Gennadius, secured the Arab withdrawal in exchange for tribute. The campaign lasted fifteen months and Abdallah's force returned to Egypt in 648.

All further Muslim conquests were soon interrupted, however, by a civil war between rival Arab factions that resulted in the murder of Caliph Uthman in 656. He was replaced by Ali, who in turn was assassinated in 661. The Umayyad Caliphate of largely secular and hereditary Arab caliphs, then established itself at Damascus and Caliph Muawiyah I began consolidating the empire from the Aral Sea to the western border of Egypt. He put a governor in place in Egypt at al-Fustat, creating a subordinate seat of power that would continue for the next two centuries. He then continued the invasion of non-Muslim neighboring states, attacking Sicily and Anatolia (in Asia Minor) in 663. In 664 Kabul, Afghanistan, fell to the invading Muslim armies.

The years 665 to 689 saw a new Arab invasion of North Africa.

The Second Invasion

It began, according to Will Durant, to protect Egypt "from flank attack by Byzantine Cyrene". So "an army of more than 40,000 Muslims advanced through the desert to Barca, took it, and marched to the neighborhood of Carthage", defeating a defending Byzantine army of 20,000 in the process.

OK, so, the territory where remaining Donatists were supposed to have influenced early Kharidgites was, while Kharidgism started, not at all Muslim territory, but either Byzantine or in Vandal hands.

In other words, Kharidgites are no proof Donatists survived past Primian of Carthage.

But how about Paulicians? Trail of Blood claims Paulicians continued where Donatists left off.

Paulicians (Old Armenian: Pawłikeanner; Greek: Παυλικιανοί;[1] Arab sources: Baylakānī, al Bayālika)[2] were a Christian sect, accused by medieval sources of being Adoptionist, Gnostic, and quasi-Manichaean. They flourished between 650 and 872 in Armenia and the eastern themata of the Byzantine Empire. According to medieval Byzantine sources, the group's name was derived from the 3rd century Bishop of Antioch, Paul of Samosata.


The sources show that most Paulician leaders were Armenians.[5] The founder of the sect is said to have been an Armenian by the name of Constantine,[6] who hailed from Mananalis, a community near Samosata. He studied the Gospels and Epistles, combined dualistic and Christian doctrines and, upon the basis of the former, vigorously opposed the formalism of the church.

Regarding himself as having been called to restore the pure Christianity of Paul (of Tarsus), he adopted the name Silvanus (one of Paul's disciples), and about 660, he founded his first congregation at Kibossa, Armenia. Twenty-seven years later, he was arrested by the Imperial authorities, tried for heresy and stoned to death.[7] Simeon, the court official who executed the order, was himself converted and adopting the name Titus became Constantine’s successor. He was burned to death (the punishment pronounced upon the Manichaeans) in 690.[7]

Oh, the Armenian Apostolic Church stoned Constantine Silvanus to death for heresy ... like I said King David would have done if an Albigensian had arrived in his court by a time loop. However, the stoning was not the official punishment, it seems Simeon Titus was ordering someone or was ordered to stone, so it would seem Constantine Silvanus had been killed by his own men. But was burning, reminiscent of later heresy punishments, really the death of Manichaeans or of Symeon Titus?

So, how about a source for this, outside wikipedia? Here:

Constantine-Silvanus, also called Constantine Of Mananali, (died c. 684), probable founder of the Middle Eastern sect of Paulicians, a group of Christian dualists.

Constantine-Silvanus is said to have come from Mananali (Mananalis), near Samosata, Syria. In assuming the additional name of Silvanus, he intended to honour a companion of St. Paul; this duality of names was imitated by subsequent Paulician leaders. Becoming a noted teacher, he founded, during the reign (641–668) of the Byzantine emperor Constans II, a Paulician community at Kibossa, near Colonia, Armenia, and directed it until his death. He died by stoning after his arrest by soldiers sent by the emperor Constantine IV (reigned 668–685) to suppress heresy. The leader of this force, Symeon-Titus, became a convert to Paulicianism and was himself martyred (690).

Insisting that the New Testament (as he interpreted it) should be the only written source of religious guidance, Constantine-Silvanus left no known writings.


In other words, Constantine Silvanus was a reformer, not a continuer, as far as anyone can accurately tell, and also, he refused the Old Testament, and also, he was killed, not by Papacy, but by Byzantine Empire. Also, this seems at least to omit Symeon Titus was burned at a stake.

It also omits the sources from which we are supposed to know this.

In the absence of own writings, or such of immediate or at least early successors, who really claimed any opposite of what history represents Paulicianism as, we must take the verdict of those martyring them, if "martyring" is the right word. They rejected the Old Testament. They did not believe Creation was Very Good. In other words, like the Manichaeans before them and Albigensians after them, they were not Christians.

And this is where the trail of blood shows some impure blood.

The essential continuity claim outside Catholic Church is broken.

What about the claims about 251 "disfellowshipping" and Constantine getting only "irregular" Churches?

Partly correct, but only as far as exterior events are concerned, that was Novatian's opposition to election of Pope Cornelius:

Novatian's strict views existed before him and may be found in The Shepherd of Hermas.[3] After his death, the Novatianist sect spread rapidly and could be found in every province, and were very numerous in some places.[1] Those who allied themselves with the doctrines of Novatian were called Novatianists. However, they called themselves καθαροι ("katharoi") or "Purists" (not to be confused with the later Cathars) reflecting their desire not to be identified with what they considered the lax practices of a corrupted and what was hitherto a universal Church.

While Novatian had refused absolution to the "lapsi" (those who had renounced their Christianity under persecution but later wanted to return to the church), his followers extended this doctrine to include all "mortal sins" (idolatry, murder, and adultery, or fornication). Most of them forbade second marriage. They always had a successor of Novatian at Rome, and everywhere they were governed by bishops.

Because Novatianists (including Novatian) did not submit to the bishop of Rome, they were labeled by Rome as schismatics. Additionally, Rome also labeled Novatianists heretics for denying that the Church had the power to grant absolution in certain cases (such as to the lapsi). Beyond that, their practices were the same as that of the universal Church, including monasticism in the fourth century.

In the 4th and 5th centuries, the Donatist sect in Africa Proconsulare maintained a similar belief about Christians who had lapsed under the pressures of persecution. They too were declared heretics.


Novatian Baptists? No. Donatist Baptists? Partly, but not really. Donatists liked to postpone Baptism to the deathbed, like Constantine is said to have done. They did not consider pedobatism invalid, just imprudent.

Or, remaining claim, Pope Leo II taking over after Emperors had headed the Church?

Background and early activity in the Church

He was a Sicilian by birth (the son of a man named Paulus). He may have ended up being among the many Sicilian clergy in Rome, at that time, due to the Islamic Caliphate battles against Sicily in the mid-7th century.[3] Though elected pope a few days after the death of Pope St. Agatho on January 10, 681, he was not consecrated till after the lapse of a year and seven months (17 August 682).[2] Leo was known as an eloquent preacher who was interested in music, and noted for his charity to the poor. [4]

Reign as Bishop of Rome

Elected shortly after the death of Agatho, Leo was not consecrated for over a year and a half. The reason may have been due to negotiations regarding imperial control of papal elections.

These negotiations were undertaken by Leo's predecessor Agatho between the Holy See and Emperor Constantine IV. They concerned the relations of the Byzantine Court to papal elections. Constantine IV had already promised Agatho to abolish or reduce the tax that the popes had been paying to the imperial treasury at the time of their consecration, an imperial policy that had been in force for about a century.[2]

Leo's short-lived pontificate did not allow him to accomplish much, but there was one achievement of major importance: he confirmed the acts of the Sixth Ecumenical Council (680–681). This council had been held in Constantinople against the Monothelite controversy, and had been presided over by the legates of Pope Agatho. After Leo had notified the Emperor that the decrees of the council had been confirmed, he made them known to the nations of the West. In letters written to the king, the bishops, and the nobles of Spain, he explained what the council had effected, and he called upon the bishops to subscribe to its decrees.[2]

During this council, Pope Honorius I was anathematized for his views in the Monothelite controversy as tolerant of heresy. Leo took great pains to make it clear that in condemning Honorius, he did so not because Honorius taught heresy, but because he was not active enough in opposing it.[5] In accordance with the papal mandate, a synod was held at Toledo (684) in which the Third Council of Constantinople was accepted.

Regarding the decision of the council, Leo wrote once and again in approbation of the decision of the council and in condemnation of Honorius, whom he regarded as one who profana proditione immaculatem fidem subvertare conatus est (roughly, "one who by betrayal has tried to overthrow the immaculate faith"). In the Greek text of the letter to the Emperor in which the phrase occurs, the milder expression subverti permisit ("allowed to be overthrown...") is used for subvertare conatus est.

At this time, Leo put an end to the attempts of the Ravenna archbishops to get away from the control of the Bishop of Rome, but also abolished the tax it had been customary for them to pay when they received the pallium.[6]

Also, in apparent response to Lombard raids, Leo transferred the relics of a number of martyrs from the catacombs to churches inside the walls of the city. He dedicated two churches, St. Paul's and Sts. Sebastian and George.[6] Leo also reformed the Gregorian chant and composed several sacred hymns for the divine office.


Leo was originally buried in his own monument; however, some years after his death, his remains were put into a tomb that contained the first four of his papal namesakes.[7]


No trace of all previous Popes (from Cornelius or Sylvester on) taking orders from Emperors, nor of all subsequent Popes being very brave against all imperial intrusions in the ecclesial office or "Church Ministry". Best even trace I can dig out for James Milton Carroll's claim is, he confirmed a Church Council. But all previous ecumenic councils had also been confirmed by Popes, either personally or through legates.

In other words, James Milton Carroll very well knew that for Baptism to be the true Church or Church type, according to Matthew 28:20 he needed Baptist Continuity. What he didn't knew so well (let's charitably presume he was at least subjectively honest) was the actual history on which he based the Baptist Continuity thesis.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Good Friday

lördag 10 mars 2018

King David on the Blessed Virgin

Acts 2 [25] For David saith concerning him: I foresaw the Lord before my face: because he is at my right hand, that I may not be moved. [26] For this my heart hath been glad, and my tongue hath rejoiced: moreover my flesh also shall rest in hope. [27] Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thy Holy One to see corruption. [28] Thou hast made known to me the ways of life: thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance. [29] Ye men, brethren, let me freely speak to you of the patriarch David; that he died, and was buried; and his sepulchre is with us to this present day. [30] Whereas therefore he was a prophet, and knew that God hath sworn to him with an oath, that of the fruit of his loins one should sit upon his throne. [31] Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ. For neither was he left in hell, neither did his flesh see corruption. [32] This Jesus hath God raised again, whereof all we are witnesses.

What does the Prophecy of King David say of the Blessed Virgin?

When St Peter, the first Pope, spoke these words, he could not speak of her Dormition and burial and of St Thomas the Twin finding Her tomb empty on the third day but Her veil and belt left behind. It had not happened yet.

The Blessed Virgin was still alive, and since 52 days living with one John, St John the Theologian, whether it was the son of Zebedee as most think, or another man, not of the Twelve, but either way, with the author of the Gospel of St John. She was his stepmother and he Her stepson, according to the words of Christ.

You can of course pretend, if you like, the prophecy of King David referred to Christ only.

Er ... no ... blessed and holy are synonyms.

The holy one of whom King David principally speaks is Our Lord, of whom Elisabeth, and through her the Holy Ghost said "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb".

But before that, she had said - and the Holy Ghost had said : "blessed art thou among women".

This means, the Mother and Her Son are a team. If God was not leaving the one in the grave, neither the other. If God did not allow the one to be touched by corruption, neither the other.

A Lutheran, Anglican, Calvinist tradition is "Scripture interprets Scripture". Or "let Scripture interpret Scripture". It is often misapplied by them, it is inadequate when separated from the continuing CHurch of God, the Catholic Church, but it is not per se false, and has been used more than once by the Church Fathers. It applies to the words of the Holy Ghost.

It cannot be applied to the factual information of [Mark 3:17] because the only place in which either Boanerges or the entire phrase "The sons of thunder" is found in all 73 books is Mark 3:17. There we need other information, if we want an interpretation. But this is not the case with the designation twice given the Blessed Virgin and a third time over accepted by Herself from us, from all of our generations.

So, for "blessed among women" can and should be interpreted in the light of other Scripture.

She was not "blessed among the women of Israel", because She was of Judah, while Judith was of Israel. She was not "blessed among women who dwell in tents", because She lived in houses. But Jael and Judith are the two cases in which an even similar phrase is mentioned about a woman.

In the case of the Blessed Virgin there is no restriction similar to "of Israel" or "who dwelleth in tents". This means, She is blessed among women overall, among all of them.

What did it mean in the case of Jael and Judith? They were war heroines. They had killed and therefore utterly defeated a major enemy of the People of God, Sisera and Holophernes.

You can bet that this background, certainly known to Her whose cousin was the wife of one High Priest, at least Priest, of the Old Covenant, would have made Her wonder what the angel Gabriel had meant. She had killed no Sisera or Holophernes ... only utterly defeated - with the fruit of Her womb - the old serpent. Which She didn't get until the second time over, when She could see the similarity to Genesis 3:15.

I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

In Hebrew, the word for woman and the word for seed are both feminine, so the pronoun or rather verb form used is the one for "she". LXX translates "autos" or "he" because taking it of the seed, of Our Lord (this translation was prophetic, since before Christ actually came). Vulgate of Saint Jerome translates it as "ipsa" or "she" - taking it of the woman. I recommend the study of Heinz-Lothar Barth on this point - Ipsa conteret. Maria die Schlangenzertreterin: Philologische und theologische Überlegungen zum Protoevangelium (gen 3,15) (Buch auf Deutsch)

The word She used about Herself, of what we were to call Her or even praise Her is also restricted. The word is used for two women connected to King David : Ruth and Abigail.

Ruth was called "blessed" because, while a young widow, she took an old man, Ruth 3:10, which, if Proto-Gospel of St James is genuine was the one connection the Blessed Virgin could have even started to make at the words of the angel, humanly speaking, from Her situation.

And Abigail was called "blessed" because she held back the hand of King David from killing an Israelite in wrath. Yes, we call the Blessed Virgin blessed, all of our generations, so often Christ could kill us according to "I will spit you out" and who is holding back His hand? I am letting the words of King David to Abigail interpret the words of the Blessed Virgin in the Magnificat.

So, this in mind, She as much as Her Son is definitely eligible for the worth prophecied by King David as cited by St Peter :

Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thy Holy One to see corruption.

Now, watch the next words of King David, spoken inspired by the Holy Ghost:

Thou hast made known to me the ways of life: thou shalt make me full of joy with thy countenance.

And now watch the first words of Our Lady in the Magnificat:

Luke 1:[46] And Mary said: My soul doth magnify the Lord. [47] And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

Life and soul are near synonyms and joy and rejoice are two forms of same root.

Yes, the Psalm cited by St Peter is referring to Magnificat. I am letting Scripture interpret Scripture. I am letting the words of Her, inspired by the Holy Ghost, comment on the words of him, Her ancestor, inspired by the Holy Ghost.

If you say "you only say this because of tradition, you do not dare interpret Bible yourself" no, definitely no. If you deny it, you deny it only because of your Protestant tradition. If you say it is unconvincing, you are blinding yourself to correctly applying your own principle, "let Scripture interpret Scripture".

If you say "you only say this because you think Pius XII was successor of Peter and because he said so in Munificentissimus Deus" no, fifteen years or more over times no.

I had read something like (what I remember, giving first the wrong text):

Quae quidem immaculata conceptione sua peccatum devicit, atque adeo, singulari prorsus privilegio, legi illi permanendi in sepulcri corruptione obnoxia non fuit, neque corporis sui redemptionem usque in finem temporum exspectare debuit. [This is not what it says on the Vatican site]

I had criticised this as wrong, as saying either She did not even in any sense die (denying the Dormition, which the Latin Church had up to 1950 commemorated on the day before Feast Day of Assumption, while Eastern Christians* commemorate it on August 15 itself) or all other saints at least somewhat rot (denying the info on Two Witnesses from Apocalypse 11:8-11, or how I remembered it, but I don't think they will rot at all).

Here is what it says:

Quae quidem, singulari prorsus privilegio, immaculata conceptione sua peccatum devicit, atque adeo legi illi permanendi in sepulcri corruptione obnoxia non fuit, neque corporis sui redemptionem usque in finem temporum exspectare debuit. (This is what it says)

Ah, it is the immaculate conception and by it defeating sin (even all the years before She conceived Christ) which is "by a totally singular privilege" - no problem!

So, if between 2001 and 2018 I have been critical of the Bull, only recently seeing what I misread, obviously while I was believing this all the time, it was not because Munificentissimus Deus. It was not because I allowed Pius XII to think for me.** It was because of Apostolic Tradition or at least very probable such, as summarised above. And I never found it contradicted the Written Word of God, nor do I do so now, obviously.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Holy Forty Martyrs

* Definitely all Schismatics of Eastern type, probably also or to recently also, Uniates. ** I have vacillated between considering him an Antipope and thinking local bishops (and sui iuris abbots) are successors of St Peter, this last between 2006 and 2009, when I returned to Roman Catholic, and some doubt lingering on to 2010.

onsdag 14 februari 2018

Sign of the Cross Babylonian, Says Who? Hislop? Or ...?

Catholic priest says, "We don't worship statues and idols" oh really? Landmark 2018 Stockton ca
GabeTheStreetPreacher | 26.XI.2017

Here is a guy who pretends after he had told Catholics not to make the sign of the Cross, it was rebellion against "the preacher" to make the sign of the Cross anyway.

Now, there is a problem already here, since the "fides ex auditu" passage says preachers have to be sent.

That is why I content myself with Apologetics, which even a layman can do, and do not pretend to preach or assume authority over people on God's behalf.

But we see more:

He was the second before - as subtitles seemed sufficiently consistent - speaking of the Sign or the Cross.

Now, he claims, Apostles never did that, contrary to the Catholic claim, we have the Sign of the Cross by tradition from Apostles.

One little query is, how does he know a negative about Apostles, directly that is, not as a conclusion from the following?

If he claims to have received tradition from the Apostles, he can start stating where the intermediates between them and himself were in the 5th or 8th C. Or other centuries previous to Reformation and its post-year-thousand prequels.

If he doesn't claim that, he is claiming it is in the Bible - but it isn't directly.

While we Catholics claim it is consistent with the Bible and a fuller realisation of certain words of Christ on taking the cross, and a tradition from Him through His Apostles, or simply from His Apostles guided by the Holy Ghost, we do not claim to see the words "sign of the cross" mentioned directly in the Bible.

I "google" the words sign of the cross in drbo dot org and get the result "No verse contains all the words in the query."

So, he can't have found a verse which contains the phrase "sign of the cross" and considers it as idolatry or invented by non-Apostles outside the Apostolic Church or by Pagans before them.

Therefore his sole case rests only on concluding this from a piece of information from outside the Bible.

Namely, as he states, "that ritual goes back to ancient Babylon".

Now, he does not have this from the Bible, as "sign of the cross" is in no verse (and a Douay Rheims Bible has more books and more verses than a King James Bible, not fewer, so it can't be the verse missing).

He does not get it from a "real Apostolic Church" having all the time existed outside the Catholic Church and been there before it, since there isn't any.

He does also not get it from any real research about what the Babylonian rites actually involved, as far as I can tell.

If he does, he might want to share the source, but for my part, I believe he gets that statement from someone like Hislop, probably either he read himself the fraudulent work The Two Babylons, or he got his info from someone who had.

His next statement actually involves making Hindoos Babylonian.

"making hand gestures, a mudra" (visible subtitle at 1:26 in video)

I have in fact read (but not much practised) a book on yoga for children, and seen how the mudras look. First of all, they are not hand gestures, since hand is usually resting on knees of a lotus position while one does them. They are finger positions. But the Sign of the Cross also has a few finger positions, do the mudras coincide with them? None of them has thumb against next two fingers and last two fingers folded into the palm (Austrian sign of the cross "mudra"). None of them has thumb against last two fingers and the two longest ones crosses in an X (Orthodox Sign of the Cross "mudra", perhaps also used by Uniates). I don't recall any Hindoo or Yoga mudra either having the fingers aligned like a flat surface (Roman Sign of the Cross "mudra").

I very definitely don't see any exercise of yoga, with or without mudras, involving hand going from forehead to breast and then from shoulder to shoulder (left to right for Catholics and right to left for Orthodox) and then back to breast.

I also do not recall any taking the own thumb and drawing two crossed lines or a T on the forehead, the mouth and the breast.

I will actually have to ask a person who actually did get into yoga.

That said, I don't think Yoga and Hindooism are very Babylonian things.

Babylonian mythology seems to be materialistic, all gods coming from pre-existent matter, a bit on the lines of abiogenesis. Not Pantheistic, like Hindooism has become. Even in idol worship, apart from philosophy, Hinduism seems not to have worshipped any "super strong" over gods (while Mithra and Varuna are indeed monster killers, they are closer to Castor and Pollux than to Bel, and Indra seems to lose importance in proportion as Hindoos start meditation).

In the Vedas, Indra is the king of Svarga (Heaven) and the Devas. He is the god of lightning, thunder, storms, rains and river flows.[6] Indra is the most referred to deity in the Rigveda.[7] He is celebrated for his powers, and the one who kills the great symbolic evil (Asura) named Vritra who obstructs human prosperity and happiness. Indra destroys Vritra and his "deceiving forces", and thereby brings rains and the sunshine as the friend of mankind.[1][8] His importance diminishes in the post-Vedic Indian literature where he is depicted as a powerful hero but one who is getting in trouble with his drunken, hedonistic and adulterous ways, and the god who disturbs Hindu monks as they meditate because he fears self-realized human beings may become more powerful than him.

So, the Hindoo god who is most Babylonian is also least relevant for yoga.

This does not seem like a good clue about mudras coming from Babylon, actually, since they are associated with yoga, not with Indra worship. Apart from already mentioned fact that Hindoo mudras are finger positions other than those used for Sign of the Cross, apart fril the already mentioned fact that no yoga exercise includes any look alike of Sign of the Cross - that I know of, at least.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Ash Wednesday

* Ash Wednesday comes before St Valentine's Day, when they coincide, as this year.

tisdag 23 januari 2018

Why Confessional?

I have heard or rather read over internet that Hislop or his continuer Jack Chick credits Baal worship in Babylon with inventing the confessional.

It is also said - technically correct - in the cited Chick tract that the confessional is not in the Bible.

At Vatican II, Catholics (whether still in some sense in the Church despite being now also involved with the Vatican II Anti-Church or not) of certain stripes (not the good Poles, though!) becoming sensitive to Protestant pleas or rather accusations, and also to Greek Orthodox who do confession without confessional, you kneel before a man who is seated visible in front of you, they defend this by this being more caring and personal, and becoming so more and more, decided to abolish confessionals, in many dioceses and parishes.

You can guess what happened next? Yes, sex scandals involving priests.

So, the confessional is a safeguard - protecting both priest and penitent from unduly sexualising the procedure. As you may guess, Poles having uniformly kept the confessional are also very low on clerical sex scandals:

During 2013 the public in this deeply Catholic country became concerned about reports of child sex abuse scandals within the church, some of which reached the courts, and the poor response by the church. The church resisted demands to pay compensation to victims.[104][105] In October 2013 the Catholic Church in Poland explicitly refused to publish data on sexual abuse, but said that, if the data were to be published, the scale would be seen to be very low.[106] Bishop Antoni Dydycz said that priests should not be pressed to report sexual abuse to state authorities, invoking the ecclesiastical "seal of confession," which bans them from revealing what is said in the rite of confession.[107] In November 2013 the Minister of Justice said that there were 1,454 persons in prison for acts of pedophilia, of whom one was a Catholic priest.[108]

Catholic Church sexual abuse cases: Poland

Next country:

In the United States, which has been the focus of many of the scandals and subsequent reforms,[109] BishopAccountability.org, an "online archive established by lay Catholics," reports that over 3,000 civil lawsuits have been filed against the church,[110] some of these cases have resulted in multimillion-dollar settlements with many claimants.

Care to guess one country with heavy abolition of confessionals? You have nailed it : US.

No, the Confessional does not come directly from the Bible, except from this verse: But prove all things; hold fast that which is good. [1 Thessalonians 5:21]

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Emerentiana*

* 23 Januarii : ... Romae sanctae Emerentianae, Virginis et Martyris; quae adhuc catechumena, dum oraret ad sepulcrum sanctae Agnetis, cujus fuerat collactanea, a Gentilibus lapidata est.

tisdag 9 januari 2018

Restorationism is Consistent Protestantism

Or in other words, mainstream Protestantism is Restorationism with inconsistencies. It is also sth else with inconsistencies.

Here is my source for what the word Restorationism means:

What is Restorationism?
on got?questions

Here is the definition:

“Restorationism” refers to a group of unaffiliated 19th-century movements from within Christianity based upon the premise that the true faith and practice of the church had been lost due to apostasy and that the church needed to be restored to its New Testament model.

Well, how exactly does this differ from Protestantism?

Reformers were accusing the Catholic Church of being an Apostate Sect.

That is what "Babylonian Captivity of the Church" and identifying Papacy over several centuries as the Antichrist was about. No wonder these early Protestant positions are very popular with Restorationist "Churches." Most sites now presenting Newton's famous or infamous reading of the 1260 days as chronologically 1260 years that I know of are 7th Day Adventist ones.

Here is a further discussion of what it means:

While all these groups teach widely divergent theologies, and while some restorationist groups are considered cults (Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses) with other groups being considered valid Christian movements (the Restoration Movement), they have in common the notion that true Christianity had died out many years ago and it needed to be restored to its original New Testament form. Some of these groups believe they alone are the embodiment of true Christianity, some going so far as to teach that all other groups, including mainline Protestant denominations, are not really Christians at all, having lost their way over the centuries to complete apostasy. They are convinced that the drift from Christian principles is so extreme as to render the church irredeemable, and, therefore, it must be completely rebuilt. Denying that past historical patterns have any validity at all, they are free to embrace what they understand to be pure biblical truth as revealed to the apostles.

Well, the thing is, if the Church found by Protestant Reformers was not "irredeemable", why was it so important to them to leave it? Which, after some time of Luther shilly-shallying, they did. With violence about pre-existing Church buildings, which Catholics wanted to keep as they were and Protestants wanted to demolish the interior of, as a consequence.

How much is this "mainstream Protestant" site ready to concede to Restorationism?

Certainly, there have been abuses and misuses of the Word of God down through the years by churches claiming to speak for Christ. One has only to look at the Roman Catholic doctrines of purgatory, prayer to Mary, and the veneration of saints—all of which are completely unscriptural—to agree that, in some cases at least, church tradition has superseded the Bible as authority.

Now, the man writing claims these are "completely unscriptural", a charge which doctrine for doctrine I have answered elsewhere.

If a Church claiming to be that of God has doctrines which are "completely unscriptural", I take this means not just not directly in the Bible but against the Bible, how can it be the Church of God?

Perhaps if such a doctrine is optional. From Pius XII to recently, "Adam's body evolved from primates, but his soul was created immediately by God and so was Eve, from his rib" has been considered optional, a valid option for Catholics wanting to accomodate Evolution.

A diocese which in 1947 or 1950 agreed on this would not automatically become a diocese outside the Church of Christ, since, while this doctrine was strictly unscriptural (a point which Pius XII refused to decide, leaving it for future discussion, like Pilate "washing his hands", nearly), the diocese in Paris in 1947 or some diocese in US or UK on 1950 were not pretending to outlaw the traditional doctrine, both Biblical and Patristic.

I would say, this is true even if the situation has gone on longer. Since at least 1820, Heliocentrism is considered optional. But Geocentrism was not outlawed. The Geocentric Father Anfossi was told he could not condemn the physics book by Settele, but he was not told he had to become a Heliocentric himself.

Also in 1893, Pope Leo XIII was vaguely (without direct mention of the point) commending as optional the Heliocentric view, with an exegesis of "phenomenal language" for Geocentric passages. Note, optional. Or actually, it is saying some phenomenal language does occur, but not specifying if Geocentric expressions are part of that case. Therefore, Heliocentrism is optional. Any theoretical diocese (I have no historic knowledge of a factual one, with certainty) which treated this solution as obliging the faithful to abandon the Biblical and Geocentric world view was at least wrong, and by itself would have been automatically excommunicated : for schism, because arrogating to itself the right to declare illicit what had been lawful before and at times even obliging, when the Pope himself had not declared it illicit, and for heresy, because the doctrinne is in fact unbiblical, and by making it obligatory, they are not excusing individual adherents from the sin of heresy, but falling themselves into that, bishop and clergy along with laymen. It could only have survived as a Catholic Diocese by the Pope excusing the bishop as an overenthusiastic reader of Providentissimus Deus 18 on some few sentences:

To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost "Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation."(53) Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.

Some other sentences make inerrantism exceedingly clear as non-optional, like it has always been.

And that Pope so excusing the bishop remaining Catholic (true of at least Leo XIII, St Pius X, most probably Benedict XV and again certainly Pius XI) as deciding to leave corrections or real decisions for later, when things clear up. And that Pope remaining Catholic also holding the diocese to be Catholic. Just as a King*, representing God's justice on earth, can decide that a murder is not executed, (especially while deciding a bit more if it was murder of self defense) a Pope, representing the Faith and Grace on Earth, can decide that someone not materially orthodox is nevertheless not cut off from grace for heresy.

Is it necessary for the Pope to explicitly have at least in pectore have considered Geocentrism as true and in fact obliging? I think a Pope could also be excused, as long as Heliocentrism remained optional to him.

So, the Catholic Church can remain Catholic, if that is the right Church, as long as unbiblical doctrines like Heliocentrism and Evolution remain optional. If however a diocese starts treating these errors as dogma and the truths as heresy, even the Pope has no power to declare such spiritual tyranny to be acts of a bishop ruling in the Catholic Church over a diocese. A Pope not excommunicating such a diocese would fail in his duties, as lamentably as Honorius I when it came to Monotelethism.

Now, what does this principle mean for the claim of "got questions"?

Supposing "the Roman Catholic doctrines of purgatory, prayer to Mary, and the veneration of saints" had been un-Biblical, the Roman Catholic Church could only have remained the or a Church of Christ by leaving these doctrines as optional.

But in fact it did not.

It was liturgically confessing these doctrines, and therefore obliging anyone participating in the liturgy to "confess with his mouth" these points. Not just since this or that more or less recent Council claimed as Ecumenical, but by the constant liturgic practise. August 15 was a Holiday of Obligation** and each diocese was obliging all faithful not having a particular excuse to be in Church, as on a Sunday, even if it was not a Sunday, because Assumption of Our Lady was kind of equivalent to a Sunday. Attending in Church on that day automatically implied you were accepting the Mariological content of the feast. Or, the Protestants would have it, the "Mariolatrous content".

The feast is older even than the Schism between East and West, in the East it is called Dormition of Our Lady and it is held she did not remain in the grave. She was taken to Heaven and is its Queen, just as Her Son is Heaven's King.

If you don't believe that, you have no business being in Church on August 15, and ALL Catholic dioceses, as well as ALL Orthodox, as well as ALL Coptic and Armenian and as well as ALL Nestorian ones required you to be in Church that day.

Fact checking for Nestorians, first attempt:

Confessional Gadfly : Are You a Nestorian?
Rev. Eric J Brown | Monday, August 16, 2010

"Over at his blog, Rev. Mason Beecroft posts his sermon from yesterday in which he laments that the LCMS calls August 15th "Mary, Mother of our Lord" instead of "Mary, Mother of God." (Okay, he rails)."

(Mason Beecroft's blog is private, that is why I cite the post citing it)

In fact, not a good fact check, since LCMS is Lutheran Church in Malaysia and Singapore or Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod. While considered by some fellow Lutheran as Nestorianising, it is not the communion going back to Nestorius.

Here is a better fact check:

Tuesday August 15th, 6:00pm

Tuesdays are not Sundays.

And here is a liturgic text***:


In the plan of your wisdom
she who bore the Christ in her womb
was raised body and soul in glory to be with him in heaven.

Note, of the Pre-Protestant Churches, Nestorians are furthest away from Roman Catholics. They too believe she remained virgin, and, what Lutherans and Anglicans and Calvinists usually don't do, that she was lifted to Heaven.

If you don't believe that, for centuries you had no diocese to go to and worship with.

A Nestorian Church will consider you as a sinner and as an apostate if you consistently don't go to Church on August 15. Precisely as a Catholic and an Orthodox Church will. On the other hand, if you believe this doctrine is unbiblical, you are committing hypocrisy or even apostasy in your own eyes if you go to Church on August 15 (unless it's a Sunday).

So, a Calvinist not believing this would have to ultimately choose between Restorationism or Catholicism (of some sort, ranging from Roman to Nestorian).

How does "got questions" deal with this?

Of course, parts of the church have apostatized, but there has always been a remnant of the faithful preserved by God for His purposes.

Either believing Our Lady is with Christ in Heaven, body and soul - and this imples she is Queen there, since in Judah the queens were mothers of the King - is not apostasy or it is. If it is not apostasy, "Mariolatry" is no reason to leave the Catholic Church. If it is, the "remnant of the faithful" was an invisible one. Or has since become so to us.

And, as said elsewhere, an invisible remnant is un-Biblical. Whether the rock in Matthew 16 is Christ or St Peter or both, it is clear the Church is built on a rock. One way of looking at it is, the Church is a city built on a Hill.

One cannot have centuries through which a City built on a Hill is hidden behind a city built around a swamp (on seven hills or not). Not even hidden in retrospect.

All attempts to identify this faithful remnant for centuries like the Vth Century AD or VII C. AD have failed - obviously for those thinking the great mass of Catholics back then were apostates. A Catholic need not identify "a remnant" for those centuries, since identifying those centuries as not being the ones after the Great Apostasy, not being the ones in which the true Church is reduced to a remnant.

Note how very different Pope Michael's claim is from the restorationist one. He is Young Earth Creationist and Geocentric and can point to recent decades in which the positions were at least licit.

A Restorationist like Calvin could not point to recent decades in which Catholic dioceses had not been obliging the faithful to August 15.

Now, the mainstream Protestant position of "got questions" is inconsistent.

In 1400, apparently, one could in most places (those not obliged by presence of Hussites or Culdees) celebrate August 15, believing or confessing belief like a Catholic. But in 1600 you were somehow obliged (at least unless stranded among Spaniards) not to do so, on pain of being an apostate.

On the other hand, if in 1600 you were stranded among Spaniards, you would still, on this view, be obliged to confess your horror of "mariolatry" since maintaining silence and pretending too much to acquiesce (like going to Church on August 15°) you would be

In fact, criteria for apostasy can change through Church discipline. Each new council of the Church adds to the criteria. This is why we don't quite consider the Nestorians as Christians, when refusing Her the honour of Mother of God. Ephesus I, 431 AD. I have heard, Nestorius himself accepted the verdict, resigned as Patriarch and went into a monastery, from which he only emerged again after Chalcedon, 20 years later, after 20 years of penitential silence. He considered, after what I heard, Chalcedonian formula is what he meant.

But an act like the Reformation - not involving higher clergy, usually, not pointing back to recent decades of admitted orthodoxy or at worst optionality of heterodox position - is not a licit means for changing the criteria of what is Christian faith, either true or at least possible, and what is apostasy and known to be so.

The Protestants were doing it anyway, because, at heart, they were Restorationists, in the above meaning of the word.

And that meaning is clearly at variance with Matthew 28, as said elsewhere.

Now, the reason Protestants backed down from Restorationism very quickly is, the Catholics pointed out the absurdity and they needed to admit it. Any Lutheran, Calvinist or Anglican today is heir of the admission made in the debates from back then that pure Restorationism is wrong.

So, mainstream Protestantism became inconsistently Restorationist. Catholicism remained consistently, I will not say "anti-restorationist", because that is not the substance, only the comparison, but I will say it remained consistently "Continuationist". The Church of God which was present in Jerusalem when St Stephen was martyred is exactly the same which was present in many places in 1400 and some fewer ones in Europe due to Reformation, but more ones overseas, thanks to Columbus and Cortez and a few more, in 1600 and which required you to participate in the liturgy of August 15.

What is the other thing which mainstream Protestantism was also inconsistently?

The other thing is "Ecclesio-Imperfectionist". Admitting a position of the Church presented as obligatory can in fact be all the time and later also recognised as being damnable. However, for this to be consistent, you need to admit you must be in a Church even if it has a damnable doctrine. But for this to be consistent, you need to say the Reformation was as such a mistake - obviously not one making it wrong to be Lutheran, since the damnable doctrine of the Reformation being necessary did not disoblige people in Lutheran countries from being in a Church.

Since this, the doctrine of "Ecclesio-Imperfectionism"°° has been more purely distilled in the originally Protestant movement of Ecumenism. It is also apparent in the changes due to Vatican II (which is one reason for a Catholic to stand apart from that establishment, and probably also the council texts as such). In other words, the largest "Ecclesio-Imperfectionist" confession in our days is Novus Ordo Catholicism. It is not consistently Continuationist, though many even Novus Ordo worshipping Catholics are very Continuationist. Why? Because, if you agree with "Pope Francis" on matrimonial validity, you disagree with centuries of Church discipline. And you consider that as an imperfection of those centuries without any as yet psychology from Freud and his ilk. And if you agree with the earlier centuries, you consider "Pope Francis" and his Encyclical Amoris Laetitia are after all a clear imperfection, but also not so much of an imperfection as to make discommunion with them necessary.

The doctrine common to Restorationism and Continuationism is, heresy is worse than schism. The opposite doctrine is that of Ecclesio-Imperfectionism, schism is worse than heresy. Isolation from other Christians is worse than error. No, it is not. But Ecclesio-Imperfectionists say it is.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Sts Vital, Revocate and Fortunate
Martyrs of Smyrna

PS, quoting once more the article I respond to:

The second, and far more destructive, result of restorationist philosophy is that it denies God’s ability, or willingness, to preserve the faith “once delivered to the saints” (Jude 3), rejects His sovereignty over His people, and disavows His plan to bring to pass His will without fail, despite attempts by Satan and his minions to derail it. God did not send His Son to die on the cross for the sins of His people only to allow those same people to lapse into apostasy and languish there for 1800 years.

Exactly why I am no longer a Protestant./HGL

* The notion of King would normally include Presidents of the US, even if they are Kings only for 4 years at a time. That they are elected has no bearing, since "king" is not tied to the dynastic principle. Swedish Kings were elected in Westrogothia and could even be deposed by Westrogothia. Even if that was a long time ago - when all Christians were still Geocentric and Young Earth Creationists. ** And as Our Lady was patron saint of Sweden like so many other kingdoms, national feast day of Sweden. (När Nordens Drott blef Jesus Christ, du Nordens Drottning blef förvisst ...) *** Putting it in italics, since not one of the Roman Catholic Church. I think a Catholic liturgic text would be referring to Her as Mother of God. The enumeration of memories for August 15 begins with Assumptio sanctissimae Dei Genitricis Virginis Mariae. ° If last August 15 I did not go to Church it is because in Paris no Church is in Communion with Pope Michael. Many are in Communion with Antipope "Francis". °° My coinage ad hoc, not sure if there already is a word for it.