fredag 23 december 2016

Barnes NOT getting around Matthew 28:20 ...

Great Bishop of Geneva! : 1) Makarios · 2) Once Saved, Always Saved - True for Church, Not True for All Christians Individually · 3) Protestants - Not - Getting Around Matthew 28 Last Three Verses: John Calvin's Attempt · 4) Barnes NOT getting around Matthew 28:20 ... · 5) Since St Francis of Sales had Real Objections to Calvinism ... 6) Contra Sproul 7) Barnes on Jewish Tradition 8) If Constantine had Founded the Catholic Church ... 9) Salvation and Schrödinger's Cat Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : 10) ... on Apostolic Succession, both as to Reasons and Answering an Objection or Two (quora)

First, a hat tip to Armstrong for citing Barnes on Matthew 16!

Peter the “Rock”: Protestant Contra-Catholic Exegetical Bias
October 20, 2016 by Dave Armstrong

Now to Barnes.

Matthew 16:18

And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter - The word “Peter,” in Greek, means “a rock.” It was given to Simon by Christ when he called him to be a disciple, John 1:42

Cephas is a Syriac word, meaning the same as Peter - a rock, or stone. The meaning of this phrase may be thus expressed: “Thou, in saying that I am the Son of God, hast called me by a name expressive of my true character. I, also, have given to thee a name expressive of your character. I have called you Peter, a rock, denoting firmness, solidity, stability, and your confession has shown that the name is appropriate. I see that you are worthy of the name, and will be a distinguished support of my religion.”

And upon this rock … - This passage has given rise to many different interpretations. Some have supposed that the word “rock” refers to Peter‘s confession, and that Jesus meant to say, upon this rock, this truth that thou hast confessed, that I am the Messiah and upon confessions of this from all believers, I will build my church. Confessions like this shall be the test of piety, and in such confessions shall my church stand amid the flames of persecution, the fury of the gates of hell. Others have thought that Jesus referred to himself. Christ is called a rock, Isaiah 28:16; 1 Peter 2:8. And it has been thought that he turned from Peter to himself, and said, “Upon this rock, this truth that I am the Messiah - upon myself as the Messiah, I will build my church.” Both these interpretations, though plausible, seem forced upon the passage to avoid the main difficulty in it. Another interpretation is, that the word “rock” refers to Peter himself.

This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the Church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other interpretation would have been sought for. “Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm, and suitable for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it. Thou shalt be highly honored; thou shalt be first in making known the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles.” This was accomplished. See Galatians 2:9. But Christ did not mean, as the Roman Catholics say he did, to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was the only one upon whom he would rear his church. See Galatians 2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed - a thing which could not have happened if Christ (as the Roman Catholics say) meant that Peter was absolute and infallible. More than all, it is not said here, or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter would have infallible successors who would be the vicegerents of Christ and the head of the church. The whole meaning of the passage is this: “I will make you the honored instrument of making known my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles, and I will make you a firm and distinguished preacher in building my church.”

Will build my church - This refers to the custom of building in Judea upon a rock or other very firm foundation. See the notes at Matthew 7:24. The word “church” literally means “those called out,” and often means an assembly or congregation. See Acts 19:32, Greek; Acts 7:38. It is applied to Christians as being “called out” from the world. It means sometimes the whole body of believers, Ephesians 1:22; 1 Corinthians 10:32. This is its meaning in this place. It means, also, a particular society of believers worshipping in one place, Acts 8:1; Acts 9:31; 1 Corinthians 1:2, etc.; sometimes, also, a society in a single house, as Romans 16:5. In common language it means the church visible - i. e., all who profess religion; or invisible, i. e., all who are real Christians, professors or not.

And the gates of hell … - Ancient cities were surrounded by walls. In the gates by which they were entered were the principal places for holding courts, transacting business, and deliberating on public matters. See the notes at Matthew 7:13. Compare the notes at Job 29:7. See also Deuteronomy 22:4; 1 Samuel 4:18; Jeremiah 36:10; Genesis 19:1; Psalm 69:12; Psalm 9:14; Proverbs 1:21. The word “gates,” therefore, is used for counsels, designs, machinations, evil purposes.

“Hell” means, here, the place of departed spirits, particularly evil spirits; and the meaning of the passage is, that all the plots, stratagems, and machinations of the enemies of the church would not be able to overcome it a promise that has been remarkably fulfilled.

Matthew 16:19

And I will give unto thee … - A key is an instrument for opening a door.

He that is in possession of it has the power of access, and has a general care of a house. Hence, in the Bible, a key is used as a symbol of superintendence an emblem of power and authority. See the Isaiah 22:22 note; Revelation 1:18; Revelation 3:7 notes. The kingdom of heaven here means, doubtless, the church on earth. See the notes at Matthew 3:2. When the Saviour says, therefore, he will give to Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he means that he will make him the instrument of opening the door of faith to the world the first to preach the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles. This was done, Matthew 18:18. The only pre-eminence, then, that Peter had was the honor of first opening the doors of the gospel to the world.

Whatsoever thou shalt bind … - The phrase “to bind” and “to loose” was often used by the Jews. It meant to prohibit and to permit. To bind a thing was to forbid it; to loose it, to allow it to be done. Thus, they said about gathering wood on the Sabbath day, “The school of Shammei binds it” - i. e., forbids it; “the school of Hillel looses it” - i. e., allows it. When Jesus gave this power to the apostles, he meant that whatsoever they forbade in the church should have divine authority; whatever they permitted, or commanded, should also have divine authority - that is, should be bound or loosed in heaven, or meet the approbation of God. They were to be guided infallibly in the organization of the church:

  • the teaching of Christ, and,
  • the teaching of the Holy Spirit.

This does not refer to persons, but to things - “whatsoever,” not whosoever. It refers to rites and ceremonies in the church. Such of the Jewish customs as they should forbid were to be forbidden, and such as they thought proper to permit were to be allowed. Such rites as they should appoint in the church were to have the force of divine authority. Accordingly, they commanded the Gentile converts to “abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood” Acts 15:20; and, in general, they organized the church, and directed what was to be observed and what was to be avoided. The rules laid down by them in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles, in connection with the teachings of the Saviour as recorded in the evangelists, constitute the only law binding on Christians in regard to the order of the church, and the rites and ceremonies to be observed in it.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible : Matthew 16

So, what does Barnes concede?

1) "Peter" means "rock" and "upon this rock" means "upon Peter previously called Simon Bar Jonah". 2) Church means here community of ALL faithful, so that anything pretending to be or be part of it, but not being built on Peter is not part of all faithful, especially not part of their ordinary and regular community. 3) Keys mean power to open gates, which includes-Barnes adds "is limited to" which I do not add-opening the gates of the Church to Gentiles. 4) Binding and loosing means ruling over - in this case, as per "whatever - acts, whether moral or ritual, as binding or as permissible.

What does he say to counter the Roman claim?

  • 1) That we claim the Church was to be built solely on Peter - which is a strawman - which is contrary to other passages of Scripture, sth which we acknowledge.

  • 2) That there is no set of successors to the end to time in this power of binding and loosing.

    "The rules laid down by them in the Acts of the Apostles and in the Epistles, in connection with the teachings of the Saviour as recorded in the evangelists, constitute the only law binding on Christians in regard to the order of the church, and the rites and ceremonies to be observed in it."

    No later binding, no later loosing allowed, then.

    This is very interesting when we go to his exposition of Matthew 28:18-20.

  • 3) Perhaps this is overreading, but since he explicitly mentions ... "This does not refer to persons, but to things - 'whatsoever,' not whosoever." ... perhaps one can infer he thought Peter and other apostles only had power over legal aspects of organisation, not over judicial aspects over persons.

    This is of course counter to the express words of Acts where St Peter is judging Ananias and Sapphira, persons, not just things, and judging favourably over Cornelius, again, over a person, not just a thing, and also is an overreading - if Barnes intended it as I suspect - of the choice of words "whatsoever".

    Elsewhere Jesus says sth about "whomsoever", namely in John 20, when He gives the apostles the keys of absolution which the Church uses in confession.

Now, I already dealt with "solely on Peter" as being a strawman, I also dealt with whatsoever and whomsoever as powers given at diverse occasions, remains the aspect of successors or no successors.

Here we go to Matthew 28:19 and 20.

Verse 19

Go ye therefore - “Because” all power is mine, go! I can defend you. The world is placed under my control. It is redeemed. It is given me in promise by my Father, as the purchase of my death. Though you are weak, yet I am strong! Though you will encounter many troubles and dangers, yet I can defend you! Though you die, yet I live, and the work shall be accomplished!

Teach all nations - The word rendered “teach,” here, is not the one that is usually so translated in the New Testament. This word properly means “to disciple, or to make disciples of.” This was to be done, however, by teaching, and by administering baptism.

All nations - This gracious commission was the foundation of their authority to go to the Gentiles. The Jews had expected that the offers of life under the Messiah would be confined to their own nation. Jesus broke down the partition wall, and commissioned his disciples to go everywhere, and bring the “world” to the knowledge of himself.

Baptizing them - as an emblem of the purifying influences of the Christian religion through the Holy Spirit, and solemnly devoting them to God.

In the name … - This phrase does not mean, here, “by the authority” of the Father, etc. To be baptized in the name of the Father, etc., is the same as to be baptized “unto” the Father; as to believe on the “name” of Christ is the same as to believe “on Christ,” John 1:12; John 2:23; John 3:18; 1 Corinthians 1:13. To be baptized “unto” anyone is publicly to receive and adopt him as a religious teacher or lawgiver; to receive his system of religion. Thus, the Jews were baptized “unto Moses,” 1 Corinthians 10:2. That is, they received the system that he taught; they acknowledged him as their lawgiver and teacher. So Paul asks 1 Corinthians 1:13, “Were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” - that is, Were you devoted to Paul by this rite? Did you bind yourselves to “him,” and give yourselves away to “him,” or to God? So to be baptized in the name of the Father, or unto the Father, means publicly, by a significant rite, to receive his system of religion; to bind the soul to obey his laws; to be devoted to him; to receive, as the guide and comforter of the life, his instructions, and to trust to his promises. To be baptized unto the Son, in like manner, is to receive him as the Messiah - our Prophet, Priest, and King - to submit to his laws, and to receive him as a Saviour. To be baptized unto the Holy Spirit is to receive him publicly as the Sanctifier, Comforter, and Guide of the soul. The meaning, then, may be thus expressed: Baptizing them unto the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by a solemn profession of the only true religion, and by a solemn consecration to the service of the sacred Trinity.

The union of these three names in the form of baptism proves that the Son and Holy Spirit are equal with the Father. Nothing would be more absurd or blasphemous than to unite the name of a creature - a man or an angel - with the name of the ever-living God in this solemn rite. If Jesus was a mere man or an angel, as is held by many who deny his divinity, and if the Holy Spirit was a mere “attribute” of God, then it would have been the height of absurdity to use a form like this, or to direct the apostles to baptize people under them. How absurd would be the direction - nay, how blasphemous - to have said, “Baptize them unto God, and unto Paul, and unto the “wisdom or power” of God!” Can we believe that our Saviour would have given a direction so absurd as this? Yet, unless he himself is divine, and the Holy Spirit is divine, Jesus gave a direction substantially the same as this. The form of baptism, therefore, has been always regarded as an unbreakable argument for the doctrine of the Trinity, or that the Son and Holy Spirit are equal with the Father.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Whole Bible : Matthew 28

A great plus that he refutes JW in this passage, precisely as do the Haydock commenters! Only, I can just now not find where ...

What is Barnes omitting? He is omitting first part of next verse "Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you:" where Christ is using the same "whatsoever" as in Matthew 16:19.

Back to Barnes:

Verse 20

Lo, I am with you - That is, by my Spirit, my providence, my attending counsel and guidance. I will strengthen, assist, and direct you. This also proves that Christ is divine. If he is a mere man, or a creature, though of the highest order, how could he promise to be “with” his disciples “always,” or at all? They would be scattered far and wide. His disciples would greatly increase. If he was “with them” always, he was God; for no finite creature could thus be present with many people scattered in different parts of the world.

Unto the end of the world - The word rendered “world,” here, sometimes means “age or state” and by some it has been supposed to mean, I will be with you until the end of this “age,” or during the continuance of the Jewish state, to the destruction of Jerusalem. But as the presence of Christ was no less necessary after that than before, there seems to be no propriety in limiting the promise to his own age. It may therefore be considered as a gracious assurance that he would aid, strengthen, guide, and defend all his disciples, but more especially his ministers, to the end of time.

Here he is admitting ministers up to the end of time - rather than, as some, limiting this promise to the age up to destruction of Jerusalem (which would leave St John without this assistance when writing Apocalypse and Gospel, at least!).

But he is a little less eager to admit that the ministers are successors of precisely the eleven to which Christ adressed the words (verses 16-18a : [16] And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. [17] And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. [18] And Jesus coming, spoke to them,)

He has also omitted to comment on the fact that they are given as teachers of ALL Christian specifically moral and ritual, but by extension also explanatory doctrine. That is, that there is a Church with teaching authority extending from Apostles to us and beyond.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Victoria of Rome

tisdag 6 december 2016

Linking, on Women During Reformation

CWR : Women and the Protestant Reformation
November 30, 2016 | Amy Welborn

Luther and the Reformers went to war against the evangelical counsels as ideals and as the core of a vowed, religious life. Every woman—it was assumed—was meant for marriage, children, and homemaking.

Amazon : The Short Chronicle (The Other Voice in Early Modern Europe)
New edition Edition
by Jeanne de Jussie (Author), Carrie F. Klaus (Translator)

Not recommending the series editors' introduction, just Jeanne de Jussie's short chronicle! And, well, the volume editor's introduction is worthwhile too./HGL

söndag 20 november 2016

Catholic vs Protestant Morality, a Challenge to JPHolding

11-17-2016, 02:23 PM I posted this on a board not viewed on Theologyweb unless you log in:

Does God's Law (Both Testaments) forbid deliberate infertile sex + interest on money?

I would answer, yes it does.

Or rather, as I am Catholic, above is polite and I am by canon law bound to that answer.

Now, for the arguments.

JPHolding had a very GOOD pair of videos on why Christians do have to avoid homosexual so called marriage but don't have to avoid shrimp sandwiches.

In it he said (I don't recall on which) sth about the landlord having certain principles and tastes which could be evident from contracts, and could be used to supplement a newer and shorter lease contract. Only fault of video was saying that the older contract can still be signed.

BUT, I am not here (on this thread) to debate that fault, I am here to use that excellent point.

The "landlord" being of course allegory for the one true God who was exacting certain things from signatories of an older covenant and is now exacting at least partly other things, in detail, but essentially same thing from signatories of the newer one.

Now, deliberately making the sex act (meaning here an act which if done will procure sexual pleasure and in man ejaculation) unfertile can be done in a few ways. I am here supposing all parties agree that killing of fetus after conception is murder, so we only need to discuss what happens up to it.

  • Barrier.
  • Chemistry.
  • Interrupting sex act.
  • Chosing partner of same sex.
  • Chosing partner of different, bestial, kind.
  • Doing it yourself.

The first two are not mentioned as such.

This is where the advocates of contraception get their argument, and essentially it is a sola scriptura (and therefore heretical) argument about Christian morality. Though most adherents of sola scriptura have not made it and not agreed with it, up to 1930 Lambeth Conference.

But the argument that JPHolding made about the two testaments is not quite in as great detail fleshed out in scripture. So, perhaps at least longstanding Christians or those of Jewish descent should skip shrimp sandwich after all?

Or worship on Sabbath, extending it only to Sunday morning?

Or, sola scriptura requiring each forbidden thing to be forbidden in a chapter and verse in Bible perhaps does not apply?

As Holding actually argued.

ALL of the other methods are mentioned and ALL of them in very negative terms. Of these three, two and a half are directly mentioned in Old Testament:

  • Interrupting sex act.
  • Chosing partner of same sex.
  • Chosing partner of different, bestial, kind.

The mid one is only mentioned about masculine homosexuality in Old Testament.

In St Paul we come to a verse which also condemns the feminine homosexuality, directly.

AND one, will check if same, which forbids doing it yourself.

No, different ones. First word in 1 Cor 6:10 means those who do it solo. And it is Romans 1, verses 26 and 27, which mention lesbianism before sodomy.

There is another one.

Doing it during infertile period. It is explicitly mentioned in Old Law, and St Thomas argues that if that does not hold under mortal sin in New Law, that is because girls can sometimes get pregnant while menstruating. Obviously, that implies St Thomas was living in a society where a girl marrying and begetting before her periods become really periodic, more like 12-13 than 18-20, perhaps, and St Thomas argues "it is not a mortal sin, since the period does not totally prevent the conception of children, but a venial one, since children so produced are often damaged".

He was probably thinking of babies born to 12 year old mothers who had been giving premature birth and thus given birth to babies who were weak after only 8 or 7 months, or sth. Reinterpreted in light of later gynaecology, this would imply a girl marrying very young is a venial rather than a mortal sin, considering the risks.

So, doing it during menstruation in order to avoid children might have been one of the things God detested Canaanites for.

That leaves virtually no, not even the unmentioned barrier and chemistry methods, untouched by God's wrath. And makes J. P. Holdings argument for an alternative reading about Onan very improbable, even apart from being un-Catholic.

For J. P. Holding, but NOT for me, there is another text too.

KJV 1 Cor 7:1 has "in this present concern", where my DR has "Now concerning the thing whereof you wrote to me:". And perhaps KJV is more literal to the Greek actual wording.

Holding takes (took?) "present concern" as meaning a starvation. I think this unlikely, since nowhere else in 1 or 2 Cor does St Paul directly refer to any, but let's suppose so.

The following part is important:

"It is good for a man not to touch a woman."

If Christian spouses had been allowed to use the barrier method (and yes, it existed, even if it might have been more expensive than chemicals), why would there be any economic danger in touching a woman? After all, the argument is, in Holding, though not to us Catholics, there are more mouths to feed and so it is risky during a starvation.

Well, if Christian spouses are free to use the barrier method, and Corinth was certainly not a place where it was unknown! then that would take care of it. A couple without children leaves cheaper than the two separately. So, in a starvation, if couples are free to use contraception, why not extol couples instead of discouraging them?

There are two answers to that one, one being that the "present concern" was simply a question about marriage and celibacy asked by the Corinthians (who know Jews were usually supposed to be married, but who had seen St Paul unmarried).

That one J. P. Holding unfortunately rejects, but this leaves him with the other answer, namely that Christian spouses are supposed to make children (or to try, or not to try not to) when embracing each other.

Same video also brought to my mind the question of usury. Did a google on DRBO, first four hits:

1 Leviticus 25:36
Take not usury of him nor more than thou gavest: fear thy God, that thy brother may live with thee.
2 Leviticus 25:37
Thou shalt not give him thy money upon usury, nor exact of him any increase of fruits.
3 Deuteronomy 23:19
Thou shalt not lend to thy brother money to usury, nor corn, nor any other thing:
4 Deuteronomy 23:20
But to the stranger. To thy brother thou shalt lend that which he wanteth, without usury: that the Lord thy God may bless thee in all thy works in the land, which thou shalt go in to possess.

First of all, is stranger anyone outside family, anyone outside alliance, or rather enemies, conversely is brother your family members, or do conational otherwise strangers also qualify, or do even not conationals qualify?

For first passage (the four hits are just two passages), the previous verse is:

[35] If thy brother be impoverished, and weak of hand, and thou receive him as a stranger and sojourner, and he live with thee,

Sounds a bit further off than just close family, right?

For second passage we have this:

[7] Thou shalt not abhor the Edomite, because he is thy brother: nor the Egyptian, because thou wast a stranger in his land.

In other words, yes, the prohibition against taking interest (that is how usury is defined in first passage) extends even beyond the national boundaries of Israelites.

How about the New Testament?

Three hits are given.

First two are inverted as per verses, putting them right way:

  • "2") Luke 6:34
    And if you lend to them of whom you hope to receive, what thanks are to you? for sinners also lend to sinners, for to receive as much.

  • "1") Luke 6:35
    But love ye your enemies: do good, and lend, hoping for nothing thereby: and your reward shall be great, and you shall be the sons of the Highest; for he is kind to the unthankful, and to the evil.

  • 3) Luke 11:5
    And he said to them: Which of you shall have a friend, and shall go to him at midnight, and shall say to him: Friend, lend me three loaves,

Did you get it? "for sinners also lend to sinners, for to receive as much" - hoping to recover the capital but taking no usury is not very righteous. The really righteous thing to do is to not even hope to recover the capital.

That obviously means not making moneylending your main business.

I included third hit, because here it is about lending loaves. In Deuteronomy, besides money is mentioned corn. This means that the principle also extends to consumable goods.

Corn is consumed whether you sow it or bake it. Loaves are consumed if you eat them.

The person borrowing three loaves was not expected to give back three and a half loaves or three loaves and one donut. To the Bible, this is the principle valid for money too.

So far not answered by J. P. Holding, though one of his supporters gave adverse reviews on my value on marital market, and he chimed in with that one. That is about three days he shirks debate./HGL

Arguments received in return so far (but not from Holding) include strawmen like:

What about infertile couples?

When infertility is known, abstinence is recommended, but sex in such a case is not "deliberately infertile sex" since the infertility is not by human deliberation, but by an act of God (or Providence) and can be removed by such (at least by Miracle, or by diagnosis being mistaken).

What about inflation?

Updating nominal account is NOT charging interest on real value, if strictly just an updating of it.

Also, real points:

Real Point
"thy brother" means kinsman.

Not so, see context for one OT prooftext.

Real Point
Banks charge interest and invest in stockholding.

Stockholding is different, since you take a risk of losing value if company loses value.
Real Point
Banks charge interest and invest in stockholding.

[Point not fully given yet:]
Real Point
Banks charge interest and invest in stockholding.

That bank takes interest makes it comparable to thief, you are therefore accepting stolen goods by accepting interest from bank. You should give back, not to bank but to those it took interest from, or the poor, or the Church.

torsdag 20 oktober 2016

One Popular Protestant Ecclesiology Voiced in Novel by Catholic Character

"The Church would still somehow exist in God"
on the blog G.K. Chesterton

MacIan burst out like a man driven back and explaining everything.

" ... If we all fell dead suddenly, the Church would still somehow exist in God. ... "

Without being ardent Catholics like MacIan, Pentecostals and such often resort to this sort of thing.

They are correct that the Church does not depend on its members.

But they are not correct in thinking that once upon a time every real Christian in the Catholic Church died and it was left to Apostates, who then proceeded to remake the Church.

The Church which exists in God is the Church which CANNOT cease to exist visibly.

Obviously, when Chesterton put these words in the mouth of MacIan, he was not quite a Catholic himself:

The first chapters of the book were serialized from 1905 to 1906 with the completed work published in 1909.

The conversion was finally made in 1922./HGL

fredag 14 oktober 2016

Catholic to Protestant : We Gave You the Bible, defended against Matt Slick

First question: is the Catholic Church contradicting Holy Writte when saying we have its canon from Tradition? Or is it true?

Matt Slick says nay, claiming this contradicts 1 Cor. 4:6.

How does bishop Witham with some others make out the meaning of 1 Cor. 4:6?

1 CORINTHIANS - Chapter 4 : 6 But these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollo, for your sakes: that in us you may learn, that one be not puffed up against the other for another, above that which is written.

Ver. 6. These things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself, and to Apollo. Literally, these things have I transfigured in me and Apollo, that is, I have represented the divisions and disputes among you, as if it were by your contending, whether I, or Apollo, or Cephas were the best preachers, without naming those, as I might do, who are the true causes of these divisions, by striving who should be thought men of the greatest and brightest parts.

That in us, and by our example, who have no such proud disputes, you might learn that one be not puffed up against the other, and above that which is written, against the admonitions given in the holy Scriptures of being humble: or against what I have now written to you, that we must strive for nothing, but to be the faithful ministers of God, and not seek the esteem of men. (Witham)

It is the opinion of St. Thomas Aquinas and likewise of Estius, that St. Paul, Apollo, and Cephas were not the real causes of the divisions that existed amongst the new converts at Corinth, but that in making use of these names, he wished to teach them, that if it was unlawful to keep up these divisions even for the sake of the apostles, how far should they be from doing any thing of this kind for those whose authority was much less in the Church. But Calmet is of opinion, that the divisions amongst the Corinthians were certainly on account of Paul, Apollo, Cephas, and perhaps some others, whose names are not mentioned.

So, no, this socalled "unfortunate psychological effect" of the Catholic claim is not there. It is not unfortunate, it is not contradicted by the Bible.

First of all,
Matt Slick
the Roman Catholic Church was not really around as an organization in the first couple hundred years of the Christian Church.

The approach makes the argument that what is specific to the Roman Catholic Church is efficient organisation.

In fact, there are some "do it yourself" moments in Catholicism, as Billot discussed about the Nestorius affair, which I was just watching in Father Cekada's video.

Pope Fictions 1: Nestorian Story Time
Rev. Anthony Cekada

You hear your bishop utter heresy, you stop attending his Masses or even all Masses of priests depending on him, even before you get a confirmation from Rome it is heresy. Such "do it yourself" defense of doctrine is part of the Catholic "organisation".

The Christian church was under persecution,


and official church gatherings were very risky in the Roman Empire due to the persecution.

Well, that is more like an argument against Greek Orthodox ecclesiology! It was easier for weighty matters to be brought before the one pope in Rome in presence of some few of his trusted men and that by two delegates from each bishop concerned, than for the bishop(s) concerned to invite all neighbouring ones for a council, in the areas where the persecution was serious.

Catholicism, as an organization with a central figure located in Rome,

Catholic hierarchy was headed by the Pope. One of the very early ones was at least acting as patriarch, probably as Pope over Corinth. Papal series from Sts Peter and Paul was the cornerstone of orthodoxy to St Irenaeus. St Ignatius of Antioch - ALSO a successor of St Peter (who had been in Antioch between Jerusalem and Rome, as a residing bishop even) showed clear deference to the Romans.

did not occur for quite some time in spite of its claim they can trace the papacy back to Peter.

And we are supposed to take the word of a Protestant for it?

Matt Slick
the Christian Church recognized what was Scripture. It did not establish it.

How do you recognise a thing without establishing it? If you as a state officially recognise today that "all men are created free and equal" you are establishing a precedent for tomorrow someone wanting to abolish slavery.

This is a very important point. The Christian Church recognizes what God has inspired and pronounces that recognition.

So far, so good.

And how does she - supposedly - do this without also establishing what she has recognised?

In other words, it discovers what is already authentic.

The claim "the Catholic Church gave us and you the Bible" does not mean the Church enjoyed creativity and liberty in deciding what books to include. It means the Church enjoyed ACCESS to God's authentification.

An access not directly enjoyed by for instance each individual Christian. But the Christian enjoys this access THROUGH the Church.

Back when I was a non-denominational and unbaptised believer, at the start I had access to a Swedish Bible of the 1917 translation promoted by the Swedish Church. It was a 66 book one.

Later I got a Catholic Bible in German (easy enough in Vienna) which included Maccabees and stuff in OT.

As individual believer, how should I know whether Maccabees was part or not? Personally, I didn't doubt it. If you like, "my inner light" led me right. Or my childlike taste in matters of faith. In that case whoever is guided by his inner light to exclude II Maccabees, his inner light leads him wrong.

So, though the inner light led me right for the moment, I have no difficulty in seeing how inner light is a very erratic criterium per se. Unless complemented by a higher one.

Therefore, the Church needs more than just the inner light of each believer.

The Church needs to be able to voice a COMMON decision, and that means some-ONE has to be able to VOICE the decision of the Church.

Jesus said "my sheep hear my voice and they follow me . . . " (John 10:27). The church hears the voice of Christ; that is, it recognizes what is inspired, and it follows the word.

Correct. Precisely what we claim the Catholic Church DID and the Protestant "churches" did NOT.

It does not add to it

We claim very seriously the Catholic Church has not added to it.

as the Roman Catholic Church has done.

We claim very seriously, this is a false and baseless accusation.

Therefore, it is not following the voice of Christ.

Rather, YOU are not, as you follow people who for personal preference cut out books they had received by the Church previous to them.

The phrase "the Catholic Church gave the Protestants the Bible" is at LEAST true in the very obvious and immediate sense that it was in Catholic Church buildings and monasteries that Martin Luther, Huldrich Zwingli and his associate Oecolampadius, the less mainstream-Protestant reformers Sozzini and Münzer, and the later ones Calvin and Knox, Farel, Bucer, Cranmer, Tyndale, Petri brothers, Agricola, Tausen, Melanchthon had first found their Bibles.

As I had first found mine in the Swedish Church, basically, though circulating outside it.

Difference, I exchanged to a version existing before me, they made a new version not existing before them.

I ceased to take the Bible from their successors and took it from the Church they had got it from.

Matt Slick
the Roman Catholic Church did not give us the Old Testament which is the Scripture to which Christ and the apostles appealed.

Equivocation. You are taking "not the Catholic Church" as being sufficiently meaningful in the sense of "work done before apostles". But the Catholic Church is built on Patriarchs and Prophets, Apostles and Gospellers, with Christ Himself as corner stone. It reaches back to before Christ came in the flesh.

The Old Testament was produced by the predecessor of the Christian Church which was the Jewish Church, with High Priests between Aaron and Kaiaphas.

But that old Jewish Church is the same, ontologically, as the Christian Church.

In fact, if the Jewish Church ever divided into two, either one or other faction was not just "unfriendly" by not keeping company, but WRONG by no longer obeying the common authority.

So, either Jesus or Kaiaphas broke that unity. If Kaiaphas did it, one cannot appeal to his successors, the successors of his apostasy, nor to the Rabbis for the Old Testament : the first Christian Church already had it.

And faithfully transmitted it.

1517 in West Europe, between Protestants and Catholics, certainly Catholics had the immensely better claim to be continuing this Church.

And in fact, the Reformers were not appealing to Patriarchs of Constantinople or Iasi or Moscow for a shorter OT canon, but to non-Christian rabbis.

Who said the non-Christian rabbis were any longer in any position to know what the Bible was?

If the Roman Catholic Church wants to state that it gave us the Bible, then how can they rightfully claim to have given us the Old Testament which is part of the Bible?

By being the legitimate successor AND fulfiller of the Jewish Church, established by Moses with High Priests ranging from Aaron to Kaiaphas.

It didn't, so it cannot make that claim.

She did in this indirect manner (if you call a reference to its OT pre-existence indirect, when apostles were of Jewish Church) and that is why she can make the claim.

The fact is that the followers of God, the true followers of God, recognize what is and is not inspired.

Individually or by collective decision? If by collective, by hierarchic or by huge assemblies (hint : huge assemblies were dangerous in the Roman Empire before Constantine, as you mentioned yourself).

If either way by a collective decision, where were the true followers simply KEEPING the canon already given in 1517?

Among Catholics? Among Churches of Constantinople and Iasi (which have both books of Maccabees, and even a III and a IV)? Among Church of Moscow? It has a First Esra, to which our First Esra or Esra is their Second Esra.

Prot RC RsO
- - I Esra
Esra I EsraII Esra
Nehemia II EsraIII Esra

Among Nestorians? I thought they had a book of Barch that even we lack.

Or Copts? They have another book of Baruch than even we lack.

Prot RC Nest Copt
- (I) Baruch ? ?
- - II Baruch -
- - - III Baruch
- - - (Eth.) Henoch

So, for the 66 books, the only two options are, either they got it from pure non-hierarchical inspiration without any known precedent or they were mixing the Christian canon's new testament with the canon of the rabbis.

Either way, the Reformers were not taking the Word of God from any previous Church of God existing before them.

The Rabbinic Judaism is not legitimate heir, more like a fossil, of Jewish Church as extant between Aaron and Kaiaphas.

And an inner light, why did the Holy Ghost wait to 1500's?

Matt Slick
when the apostles wrote the New Testament documents, they were inspired by the power of the Holy Spirit.


There wasn't any real issue of whether or not they were authentic.

To themselves no, but the rest of the Church needed at least to be notified.

And the notification to be ratified as really coming from an apostle and not from a fraud.

Their writings did not need to be deemed worthy of inclusion in the Canon of Scripture by a later group of men in the so-called Roman Catholic Church.

The RC claim of having given the Church (and the parallel claims of GkO, RmO, RsO, Nest, Copt, Arm Churches) the canon is NOT a claim about a "later group of men".

It is directly a claim about the Apostles and about what MS called "a later group of men" NOT being really later, but reaching back to precisely these, since being the Church Christ founded on them.

To make such a claim is, in effect, to usurp the natural power and authority of God himself that worked through the Apostles.

No, for the Church does NOT claim to have inspired the Scriptures and does NOT claim any power of adding new books to it.

At utmost, she could ratify books claimed by Copts or Nestorians, by Orthodox bodies and Armenians as original part of OT canon despite these not having been recognised by councils of the real Church after the schism.

But she cannot add any new ones, and never did claim any such power.

Matt Slick
the Scripture says, "But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, 21 for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." (2 Pet. 1:20-21).

Very accurate reason why:

  • final redaction of Genesis was by Moses and not by any previous patriarchs who redacted parts of it
  • certain OT books, like the 4 books of Kings (or "book of Samuel" and "book of Kings" as the Jews say) or Paralipomenon or Psalms having a collective and usually (except most individual Psalms) anonymous authorship
  • either Christians or Jews needed to have the right canon from start of division AND the one who are the right Church of God needed to be the one having that
  • Reformers were in a worse position than the Catholic Church.

The Bible tells us that the Scriptures are inspired by the Holy Spirit. Therefore, the very nature of the inspired documents is that they carry power and authenticity in themselves. They are not given the power or the authenticity of ecclesiastical declaration.

This contradicts the very point made by the quote. 2 Peter 1:20-21. Unless by "carrying authenticity in themselves" you mean one which can be recognised and definitely so by - precisely the Church. Or unless by "give authenticity" you were to mean anything other than "give voice to recognising authenticity".

And that is all the Catholic Church claims to do or rather to have done and to continue to do in the matter.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St Callixtus I, Pope and Martyr

onsdag 12 oktober 2016

Carbon Dating of Turin Shroud and Hacking and Conventional vs Creationist Dating

Creation vs. Evolution : 1) C14 Calibrations, comparing two preliminary ones, mine and Tas Walker's · 2) Radioactive Methods Revisited, Especially C-14 · 3) What Some of You are Thinking / Ce que certains de vous sont en train de penser · Great Bishop of Geneva! : 4) Carbon Dating of Turin Shroud and Hacking and Conventional vs Creationist Dating · Creation vs. Evolution : 5) A Fault in my Tables? A Plan for Improvement? · 6) Pre-Flood Biomass and More · 7) Advantages of a Shorter Carbon 14 Chronology · 8) Hasn't Carbon 14 been Confirmatively Calibrated for Ages Beyond Biblical Chronology? By Tree Rings? · HGL's F.B. writings : 9) Comparing with Gerardus D. Bouw Ph. D., Debating with Roger M Pearlman on Chronology · 10) Continuing with Pearlman, Especially on Göbekli Tepe and Dating of Ice Age

These are actually three subjects, the one common to both others being that of hacking. Excuse my looseness today.

The Shroud of Turin : Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker? (1)

Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker? (2)

Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker? (3)


[Above (click to enlarge): Schematic of the Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (AMS) radiocarbon dating system at the University of Arizona in 2005. Note the "Control Console" bottom left next to the photo of a computer. While this is presumably not the actual system used to radiocarbon date the Shroud of Turin in 1988, that 1981 system is apparently still operational. And as we shall see below, both then and now it is the computer which that actually reports a sample's radiocarbon date.]

Were the radiocarbon dating laboratories duped by a computer hacker?: Summary

I came across the blog while searching first for this:

CreationEvolutionDesign : Ancient skull found in Ethiopia

And also finding this:

phys . org : Taung Child's skull and brain not human-like in expansion
August 25, 2014

Back to hacking of computers.

In october and november 2015, I was extensively using an online computer in which I could insert % of C14 left and get age, insert age in years and get %.

Now, I used this to recalibrate within the Biblical chronology. You see, there are TWO ways of reading such a "reading".

12.5% can get me three halflives as age of an object holding now 12.5% - if I believe it has 100% when alive.

But 12.5% can also get me three halflives as evolutionary extra years (more years than real age) of an object holding 12.5% back when dying.

91% (or sth, eighth root of 0.5 or 1/2, corresponding to 1/8 times the number of years for a halflife) obviously can get me and does get me 716 point sth years (the computer programme showed 730, but that was perhaps with calibrations) since an object alive as man, beast or plant 716 years (or 730 years) ago had about 100% of the present C14 level. But it can also give the number of extra years on objects alive more than 1000 years earlier. Namely back when the athmosphere was at a level of 91% of present C14, at the end of the rise, before we get fully useful datings.

  • Now, perhaps some somewhat incompetent had been afraid I had been fooled by a hacked computer. No, I had only used the non-hacked computer programme in an unexpected and not by its setters online intended way.

  • Or perhaps they had been afraid I would hack the computer programme if they left it accessible online. Or that my work would be used for a future hacking. NOT my intention.

  • Or perhaps the programme went offline as a result of a hacking, but then it would be up again ...

    Not Found

    The requested URL /Chem/CHEM869Z/CHEM869ZLinks/ was not found on this server.
    Apache Server at Port 80

    ... it is not.

So my remaining most favourite theory about why the link went down is, whoever had put it up would not want to use it for anything other than conventional dating in ages, and was shocked at someone else doing so and opted for a more opaque scientific community than it was back in 2015.

You see, with this observation, unlike hacking of computer for one dating or series of such - some Commie not liking Shroud of Turin to be genuine - a Creationist need not invoke systematic hacking of computers to doubt the "pre-Biblical" ages.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Saints Evagrius, Priscian
and Companions, Martyrs

tisdag 11 oktober 2016

Heard this one? Donation of Constantine a fraud to extort the Peter's Pence, like?

I googled "donation of constantine used to exact peter's pence"

Here is one hit:

The Pope and the State. - England, Poland, Norway, and Sweden, Portugal, Aragon, Naples, Sardinia, Corsica, and Sicily, not to speak of portions of Central Italy, were in this period, for a longer or shorter time, fiefs of the Apostolic see. In 1299, the same claim was made over Scotland. The nations from Edessa to Scotland and from Castile to Riga were reminded that Rome was the throbbing centre of divinely bequeathed authority. The islands of the West were its to bestow. To Peter was given, so Innocent wrote, not only the universal Church, but the whole earth that he might rule it.1865 His practice, as we have seen, followed his pen. There was a time when the pope recognized the superior authority of the emperor, as did Gregory the Great in 593.1866 Peter Damiani, writing in the age of Gregory VII., recognized the distinction and coordination of the two swords and the two realms.1867 But another conception took its place, the subordination of all civil authority under the pope. To depose princes, to absolve subjects from allegiance, to actively foment rebellion as against Frederick II., to divert lands as in Southern France, to give away crowns, to extort by threat of the severest ecclesiastical penalties the payment of tribute, to punish religious dissenters with perpetual imprisonment or turn them over to the secular authorities, knowing death would be the punishment, to send and consecrate crusading armies, and to invade the realm of the civil court, usurp its authority, and annul a nation's code, as in the case of Magna Charta,—these were the high prerogatives actually exercised by the papacy. The decision rendered on the field of Roncaglia by the jurists of Bologna, asserting the independent rights of the empire, was only an episode, and popes snapped their fingers at the academic impertinence. Now and then the wearers of the tiara were defeated, but they never ceased to insist upon the divine claims of their office. In vain did emperors, like Frederick II., appeal to the Scriptures as giving no countenance to the principle that popes have the right to punish kings and deprive them of their kingdoms.

The declarations of the popes were clear and positive. The figures employed by Gregory VII., comparing the two realms to gold and lead, sun and moon, soul and body, Innocent elaborated and pressed. Gregory asserted that it rested upon him to give account for all the kingdoms of God. 1868 To him had been committed universal dominion—regimen universale.1869 Innocent III. found in Melchizedek, the priest-king, the full type of the pope combining in himself the sacerdotal and regal functions.

Men of less originality and moral power could do no more than reaffirm the claims of these two master rulers and repeat their metaphors. Of these no one had more self-assurance than Gregory IX., who, at an age when most men are decrepit, bravely opposed to Frederick II,'s plans the fiction of the Donation of Constantine. Was not the Roman sceptre committed to the Apostolic see by the first Christian emperor, and did not the Apostolic see transfer the empire from the Greeks to the Germans, Charlemagne and Frederick himself being the successors of Arcadius, Valentinian, Theodosius, and the other Christian emperors of Rome.1870 But Innocent IV., 1254, returned to the position assumed by Hildebrand, that the papacy does not depend upon Constantine for secular dominion, as Peter received it directly from God.1871

When the struggle with the Hohenstaufen had been brought to a close, and peace established by the elevation of Rudolf of Hapsburg to the imperial throne, Gregory X. wrote to Rudolf: "If the sacred chair is vacant, the empire lacks the dispenser of salvation; if the throne is empty, the Church is defenceless before her persecutors. It is the duty of the Church's ruler to maintain kings in their office, and of kings to protect the rights of the Church." This was a mild statement of the supremacy of the Apostolic see. It remained for Boniface VIII., in his famous bull, unam sanctam, 1302, to state exactly, though somewhat brusquely, what his predecessors from Hildebrand, and indeed from Nicolas I., had claimed—supreme right to both swords, the spiritual and the temporal, with the one ruling the souls of men and with the other their temporal concerns.

These claims were advocated in special treatises by Bernard and Thomas Aquinas, two of the foremost churchmen of all the Christian centuries. Bernard was the friend of popes and the ruling spirit of Europe during the pontificates of Innocent II. and Eugenius III. the mightiest moral force of his age. Thomas Aquinas wrote as a theologian and with him began the separate treatment of the papacy in systems of theology. In his Rule of Princes and against the Errors of the Greeks, Thomas unequivocally sets forth the supremacy of the Apostolic see over the State as well as in the universal Church. As for Bernard, both Ultramontane and Gallican claim his authority, but there are expressions in his work addressed to Eugenius III., De consideratione, which admit of no other fair interpretation than that the pope is supreme in both realms.


Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997. The material has been carefully compared and corrected according to the Eerdmans reproduction of the 1907 edition by Charles Scribner's sons, with emendations by The Electronic Bible Society, Dallas, TX, 1998.

Though this has some Protestant bias, this is rather sober. It is critical, but it is not talking about extortion of enormous riches. It is also not, at least what I saw, saying anything about the Peter's Pence.

But the first hit was another one.

The Vatican Billions
Two Thousand Years of Wealth Accumulation from Caesar to Space Age
by Avro Manhattan

I haven't found the passage on which the googled phrase (googled without quotation marks) bears, but I found some which displays his method:

Pope Gregory, on the other hand (590-604), promised Queen Brunhilda remission of her sins.

"The most Blessed Peter, Prince of the Apostles.. will cause thee to appear pure of all stain before the judge everlasting" (2) as long as she granted him, Gregory, what he asked of her, that, money, real estates, and investitures which yielded abundant revenues to the Church: a practice which became a tradition during the oncoming centuries.

Gregory went even further and sent the nobleman Dynamius a cross containing "fillings" from St. Peter's chains, telling him to wear the cross at his throat,

"which is like as if he were wearing the chains of St. Peter himself.," and adding "these chains, which have lain across and around the neck of the most Blessed Apostle Peter, shall unloose thee for ever from thy sins".

The gift, of course, was not a free one. It cost money and gold. (3)

Not content with this, Gregory began to send out "the keys of St. Peter, wherein are found the precious filings and which by the same token also remit sins" - provided the recipients paid in cash or with costly presents. (4)

Now, let's check these notes.

  • 2. St. Gregory, Letter 65
  • 3. Willibald, Vita Bonifacii, 14; also Liber Pontificalis
  • 4. St. Gregory, Letters 12-17

Do you know that these references are worthless? There is no such thing as St. Gregory's "Letter 65" or "Letters 12-17".

Here is the collection of his letters:

Epistles of St. Gregory the Great

Here is the collection of the text on that page, not giving every link, just showing what is linkable:

BOOK I: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 39 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 52 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 66 | 67 | 72 | 74 | 75 | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80

BOOK II: 3 | 6 | 7 | 9 | 10 | 12 | 15 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 22 | 23 | 26 | 27 | 29 | 30 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 36 | 37 | 41 | 42 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 51 | 52 | 54

BOOK III: 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 12 | 15 | 22 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 35 | 36 | 38 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 51 | 53 | 56 | 57 | 59 | 60 | 65 | 66 | 67

BOOK IV: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 15 | 18 | 20 | 21 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 38 | 39 | 46 | 47

BOOK V: 2 | 4 | 5 | 8 | 11 | 15 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 23 | 25 | 26 | 29 | 30 | 36 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 48 | 49 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58

BOOK VI: 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 12 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 22 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 29 | 30 | 32 | 34 | 35 | 37 | 43 | 44 | 46 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 63 | 65 | 66

BOOK VII: 2 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 15 | 17 | 19 | 20 | 23 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 42 | 43

BOOK VIII: 1 | 2 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 10 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 17 | 18 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 29 | 30 | 33 | 34 | 35

BOOK IX: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 23 | 24 | 26 | 27 | 33 | 36 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 49 | 55 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 65 | 67 | 68 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 91 | 93 | 94 | 98 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 125 | 127

BOOK X: 10 | 15 | 18 | 19 | 23 | 24 | 31 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 39 | 42 | 62 | 63

BOOK XI: 1 | 12 | 13 | 25 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 32 | 33 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 40 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 50 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 76 | 77 | 78

BOOK XII: 1 | 8 | 24 | 25 | 28 | 29 | 32 | 50

BOOK XIII: 1 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 12 | 18 | 22 | 26 | 27 | 31 | 34 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42

BOOK XIV: 2 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 12 | 13 | 16 | 17

And here are the SEVERAL letters 65 of each book having one:

Book III, Letter 65

To Mauricius Augustus.

Book VI, Letter 65

To Mauricius, Emperor.

Book IX, Letter 65

To Januarius, Bishop of Caralis (Cagliari).

Book XI, Letter 65

To Augustine, Bishop of the Angli .

This in its turn reminds me of my tribute to St. Gregory's mission through St. Augustine of Canterbury here:

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : And His Word Went Marching On

Yes, I was singing of the same Gregory and Augustine as in Gregory writing epistle book XI letter 65 to Augustine, bishop of the English.

There was none of the several letters 65 which was to Brunhilda.

But let us take a closer look at book I. Letter 65 is missing. ... | 61 | 62 | 63 | 66 | 67 | 72 ...

Could it be Avro Manhattan was using Book I, letter 65?

As you see, more than 65 are missing from the book. Next book, letters 1 and 2 are missing. And so on.

Let's look at letters "12-17".

Book I, that means 3 letters:

... 12 | 16 | 17 ...

Book I, Letter 12
To John, Bishop of Urbs Vetus (Orvieto).

Book I, Letter 16
To Severus, Bishop of Aquileia.

Book I, Letter 17, from which I quote below:
To all the Bishops of Italy.

Gregory to all, etc.

Inasmuch as the abominable Autharit during this Easter solemnity which has been lately completed, forbade children of Lombards being baptized in the Catholic faith, for which sin the Divine Majesty cut him off, so that he should not see the solemnity of another Easter, it becomes your Fraternity to warn all the Lombards in your districts, seeing that grievous mortality is everywhere imminent, that they should reconcile these their children who have been baptized in Arian heresy to the Catholic faith, and so appease the wrath of the Almighty Lord which hangs over them. Warn, then, those whom you can; with all the power of persuasion you possess seize on them, and bring them to a right faith; preach to them eternal life without end; that, when you shall come into the sight of the strict judge, you may be able, in consequence of your solicitude, to show in your own persons a shepherd's gains.

Book II can't be meant, since that has only 12, 15 in the space. Same for Book III. Book IV has only letter 15. Book V letters 15, 17.

Not what Avro referred to, but since that spells out "1517" as in a year, 400 years before the coming one, I'll link anyway.

Book V, Letter 15

To John, Bishop.

Gregory to John, Bishop of Ravenna.

In the first place this makes me sad; that your Fraternity writes to me with a double heart, exhibiting one sort of blandishment in letters, but another sort with the tongue in secular intercourse. In the next place, it grieves me that my brother John even to this day retains on his tongue those gibes which notaries while still boys are wont to indulge in. He speaks bitingly, and seems to delight in such pleasantry. He flatters his friends in their presence, and maligns them in their absence. Thirdly, it is to me grievous and altogether execrable, that he imputes shameful crimes to his servants , whatever the hour may be, calling them "effeminate;" and, what is still more grievous, this is done openly. Then there is this in addition that there is no discipline for keeping guard over the life of the clergy, but that he exhibits himself only as their lord. The last thing, but first in importance as evidence of elation, is about his use of the pallium outside the church, which is a thing he never presumed to do in the times of my predecessors, and what none of his predecessors ever presumed to do, as our delegates testify (except it might be when relics were deposited, though with regard to relics one person only could be found to say that it was so); yet this in my days, in contempt of me, with extreme audacity, he not only did, but even made a habit of doing.

From all these things I find that the dignity of the Episcopacy is with him all in outside show, not in his mind. And indeed I return thanks to Almighty God that at the time when this came to my knowledge, which had never reached the ears of my predecessors, the Lombards were posted between me and the city of Ravenna. For perchance I had it in my mind to show to men how severe I can be.

Lest, however, you should suppose that I wish your church to be depressed or lessened in dignity, remember where the deacon of Ravenna used to stand in solemnization of mass at Rome, and enquire where he stands now; and you will recognize the fact that I desire to honour the church of Ravenna. But that any one whatever should snatch at anything out of pride, this I cannot tolerate.

Nevertheless I have already written on this matter to our deacon at Constantinople, that he should enquire of all who have under them even thirty or forty bishops. And if there is anywhere this custom of their walking in litanies wearing the pallium, God forbid that through me the dignity of the church of Ravenna should seem to be in any way lessened.

Reflect, therefore, dearest brother, on all that I have said above: think of the day of your call: consider what account you will render of the burden of episcopacy. Amend those manners of a notary. See what becomes a bishop in tongue and in deed. Be entirely sincere to your brethren. Do not speak one thing, and have another in your heart. Do not desire to seem more than you are, that so you may be able to be more than you seem. Believe me, when I came to my present position, I had such consideration and charity towards you that, if you had wished to keep hold of this my charity, thou still wouldest not have ever found such a brother as myself, or one so sincerely loving you, or so concurring with you in all devotion: but when I came to know of your words and your manners, I confess I started back. I beseech you, then, by Almighty God, amend all that I have spoken of, and especially the vice of duplicity. Allow me to love you; and for the present and the future life it may be of advantage to you to be loved of your brethren. Reply, however, to all this, not by words, but by behaviour.

Well, he could have written almost same things to his own successor Leo X, couldn't he?

And here is 17:

Book V, Letter 17

To Cyprian, Deacon.

Gregory to Cyprian, etc.

I received your letters of most bitter import about the death of the Lord Maximianus in the month of November. And he indeed has reached the rewards he longed for, but the unhappy people of the city of Syracuse is to be commiserated as not having been counted worthy to have such a pastor long. Accordingly let your Love take anxious heed that such a one may be chosen for ordination in the same church as may not seem to obtain undeservedly the same place of rule after the lord Maximianus. And indeed I believe that the majority would choose the presbyter Trajan, who, as is said, is of a good disposition, but, as I suspect, not fit for ruling in that place. Yet, if a better cannot be found, and if there are no charges against him, he may be condescended to under stress of very great necessity. But, if my wishes are asked with regard to this election, I inform you privately of what I do wish: for no one in this same church appears to me so worthy after the lord Maximianus as John the archdeacon of the church of Catana. And, if his election can be brought about, I believe that he will be found an exceedingly fit person. But he too must first be enquired about by you privately as to any charges against him that may stand in the way. If he should be found free from any, he may be rightly chosen. Should this be done, our brother and fellow bishop Leo will also have to give him leave to go, that he may be found free to be ordained. These things, then, I have taken care to intimate to your Love; and it will now be your concern to look round you on all sides carefully, and arrange what is pleasing to God.

Could he have been speaking about book VI? Here only 13 is lacking.

... 12 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 ...

Book VI, Letter 12

Quoting beginning:

To Montana and Thomas.

Gregory to Montana, etc.

Since our Redeemer, the Maker of every creature, vouchsafed to assume human flesh for this end, that, the chain of slavery wherewith we were held being broken by the grace of His Divinity, He might restore us to pristine liberty, it is a salutary deed if men whom nature originally produced free, and whom the law of nations has subjected to the yoke of slavery, be restored by the benefit of manumission to the liberty in which they were born. And so, moved by loving-kindness and by consideration of this case, we make you, Montana and Thomas, servants of the holy Roman Church which with the help of God we serve, free from this day, and Roman citizens, and we release to you all your private property.

Sounds more like general Robert E. Lee than like Avro Manhattan's guy from this one.

Book VI, Letter 14

To the Count Narses.

Gregory to Narses, etc.

Your Charity, being anxious to learn our opinion, has been at the pains of writing to us to ask what we think of the book against the presbyter Athanasius which was sent to us. Having thoroughly perused some parts of it, we find that he has fallen into the dogma of Manichæus. But he who has noted some places as heretical by a mark set against them slips also himself into Pelagian heresy; for he has marked certain places as heretical which are Catholicly expressed and entirely orthodox. For when this is written; that when Adam sinned his soul died, the writer shows afterwards how it is said to have died, namely that it lost the blessedness of its condition. Whosoever denies this is not a Catholic. For God had said, In the hour you eat thereof, in death you shall die Genesis 2:17. When, therefore, Adam ate of the forbidden tree, we know that he did not die in the body, seeing that after this he begot children and lived many years. If, then, he did not die in the soul, the impious conclusion follows that He himself lied who foretold that in the day that he sinned he should die. But it is to be understood that death takes place in two ways; either from ceasing to live, or with respect to the mode of living. When, then, man's soul is said to have died in the eating of the forbidden thing, it is meant, not in the sense of ceasing to live, but with regard to the mode of living;— that he should live afterwards in pain who had been created to live happily in joy. He, then, who has marked this passage in the book sent to me by my brother the bishop John as heretical is a Pelagian; for his view is evidently that of Pelagius, which the apostle Paul plainly confutes in his epistles. ...

Skipping the rest. Obviously "the presbyter Athanasius" is NOT the Saint and bishop from about 3 centuries earlier, but one having him as patron saint. Saint Justin martyr has another view on what Genesis 2:17 means, applying Psalm 90(89):4 and 2 Peter 3:8. Adam died within 1000 years and Eve did not survive him for very long.

But this is also a sense of Genesis 2:17. Some say "if one sense is true, the other is just a false conclusion", but for us Catholics, this is not how we read the Bible.

Book VI, Letter 15

To John, Bishop.

Gregory to John, Bishop of Constantinople.

As the pravity of heretics is to be repressed by the zeal of a right faith, so the integrity of a true confession is to be embraced. For, if one who declares himself sound in the faith is scorned, the faith of all is brought into doubt, and fatal errors are generated from inconsiderate strictness. And hence not only are wandering sheep not recalled to their Lord's folds, but even those that are within them are exposed to be cruelly torn by the teeth of wild beasts. Let us then fully consider this, most dear brother, and not suffer any one who truly professes the Catholic faith to be distressed under pretext of heresy, nor (which God forbid) allow heresy to grow the more under show of correcting it. ....

A principle some Catholics might do well to consider when it comes to me, perhaps. Or to Monsignor Williamson.

Book VI, Letter 16

To Mauricius, Augustus.

Gregory to Mauricius, etc.

Seeing that in you, most Christian of princes, uncorrupt soundness of faith shines as a beam sent down from heaven, and that it is known to all that your Serenity embraces fervently and loves with entire devotion of heart the pure profession in which by God's favour you are powerful, we have perceived it to be very necessary to make request for those whom one and the same faith enlightens, to the end that the Piety of our lords may protect them with its favour, and defend them from all molestation. When certain men scorn the confession of faith of such persons they are shown to contradict the true faith. For, since the Apostle declares that confession of the mouth is made unto salvation, he who will not consent to believe a right profession accuses himself in rejecting others Romans 10:10.

Now all the proceedings against John, presbyter of the church of Chalcedon, having been read in council and considered in order, we have found that he has suffered the greater injustice in that, when he declared and showed himself to be a Catholic, it was not his guilt, but an uncertain accusation of long standing, that crushed him; and this to such an extent that his accusers declared in their open reply that they did not know the heresy of the Marcionists which they referred to. ...

Defending one falsely accused of heresy ... OK, not quite what Avro Manhattan seemed to imply in his footnote. Shall we continue our search?

Book VI, Letter 17

To Theotistus.

Gregory to Theotistus, kinsman of the Emperor.

We know that the Christianity of your Excellency is always intent on good works and therefore we provide for you occasions for reaping reward, which you are certain to be glad of, so that we by so providing may have a share in your merits.

We therefore inform you that John the presbyter, the bearer of these presents, has come out free from those by whom he had been accused. ...

What about Book VII? ... 12 | 13 | 15 | 17 ...

Book VII, Letter 12

To Respecta, Abbess.

Gregory to Respecta, Abbess of Massilia (Marseilles) in Gaul.

The demand of a pious wish ought to be accomplished by a consequent result, that so the benefit demanded may be validly attained, and sincerity of devotion may laudably shine forth. Accordingly to the monastery consecrated to the honour of Saint Cassian wherein you are selected to preside— in accordance with the petition of our children Dynamius and Aureliana, who are shown, in their religious devotion, to have united it to the house in their possession by connecting the buildings— we have seen fit to allow these privileges:— We appoint that on the death of the abbess of the aforesaid monastery, not a stranger, but one whom the congregation may choose for itself from among its own members, shall be ordained; whom (provided however that she be judged worthy of this ministry) the bishops of the same place shall ordain. Further, with regard to the property and management of the same monastery, we decree that neither bishop nor any ecclesiastic shall have any power; but appoint that these things shall in all respects pertain to the charge of your Solicitude, or of her who may be abbess in the same place after you. ...

OK, a nun monastery in Marseilles, dedicated to Saint Cassian is given its privileges in the typical way.

Book VII, Letter 13

To Fortunatus, Bishop.

Gregory to Fortunatus, Bishop of Fanum.

As it is reprehensible and deserving of punishment for any one to sell consecrated vessels except in cases sanctioned by law and the sacred canons, so it is not a matter for reproach or penalty if they should be disposed of with a compassionate purpose for the redemption of captives. Since, then, we find from the information given us by your Fraternity that you have borrowed money for the redemption of captives, and have not the means of repaying it, and on this account desire, with our authority, to dispose of some consecrated vessels—in this case, seeing that the decrees of both the laws and the canons approve, we have thought fit to lend our approval, and grant you leave to dispose of the consecrated vessels. But, lest their sale should possibly lead to any ill-feeling against yourself, they ought to be disposed of, up to the amount of the debt, in the presence of John our defensor, and their price should be paid to the creditors, to the end that, the business being completed with observance of this kind, neither may the creditors feel loss from having lent the money, nor your Fraternity sustain ill-will now or at any future time.

I don't know exactly who the captives were, but redeeming captives was one occasion on which one could actually directly sell holy vessels. I presume the same applies to relics. Or perhaps even not sellable in that case?

This looks like Avro Manhattan got something rather wrong here ...

Book VII, Letter 15

To George, Presbyter.

Gregory to George, Presbyter, and to Theodore, deacon, of the Church of Constantinople.

Mindful of your goodness and charity, I greatly blame myself, that I gave you leave to return so soon: but, since I saw you pressing me importunately once and again for leave to go, I considered that it might be a serious matter for your Love to tarry with us longer. But, after I had learned that you had lingered so long on your journey owing to the winter season, I confess that I was sorry that you had been sent away so soon. For, if your Love was unable to accomplish your intended journey, it had been better that you had lingered with me than away from me. ...

OK, the priest George could get a cold when getting back to Constantinople and St Gregory had been thoughtless and is excusing himself. Adds up to extorting money from Brunhilda exactly how?

Book VII, Letter 17

To Sabinianus, Bishop.

Gregory to Sabinianus, Bishop of Jadera.

If you had been at pains to weigh with careful consideration the rule of ecclesiastical administration and the order of ancient custom, neither would any fault of unlawful presumption have crept in upon you, nor would others have incurred danger by occasion of your sin. Now there is no doubt that you were aware how that, certain things having come to our ears about Maximus which were no slight bar to his advancement to the priesthood, we had not given our assent to it, and that it was our will that he should not attain to what he strove after till there had been adequate satisfaction concerning the things that were said. But, when you ought by all means to have observed this, it came rather to pass that he, snatching at the episcopate with the greediness of a blind mind, inclined you unwarily to favour him in spite of our prohibition. But, lest even then the things that had been reported to us should remain unexamined, he was summoned to come hither by letters from us. And, when he was so perversely inclined as to defer doing so, we took care to admonish him in repeated letters, under pain of interdiction from communion, to make haste to come to us for his purification, putting aside all excuses: but he chose rather to submit to excommunication than to evince obedience. ...

I think Leo X had occasion to say similar things after Luther had refused to listen to Exsurge Domine warning ...?

STILL no indication of what Avro Manhattan was talking about!

Book VIII can not be meant, it lacks letter 12. Book IX has letters 12, 17, none in between, it would have been fault to cite that as 12-17, but here goes anyway:

Book IX, Letter 12

To John, Bishop of Syracuse.

Gregory to John, etc.

One coming from Sicily has told me that some friends of his, whether Greeks or Latins I know not, as though moved by zeal for the holy Roman Church, murmur about my arrangements [i.e. of divine service], saying, How can he be arranging so as to keep the Constantinopolitan Church in check, when in all respects he follows her usage? And, when I said to him, What usages of hers do we follow? He replied; you have caused Alleluia to be said at mass out of the season of Pentecost ; you have made appointment for the sub-deacons to proceed disrobed , and for Kyrie Eleison to be said, and for the Lord's Prayer to be said immediately after the canon. To him I replied, that in none of these things have we followed another Church.

For, as to our custom here of saying the Alleluia, it is said to be derived from the Church of Jerusalem by the tradition of the blessed Jerome in the time of pope Damasus of blessed memory; and accordingly in this matter we have rather curtailed the former usage which had been handed down to us here from the Greeks. ...

Liturgy bores you to death? Not me. I am glad I distinguished my own ditty very clearly from "liturgic Alleluia", since the Pope and Saint really cared about how liturgy was performed.

Book IX, Letter 17

To Demetrian and Valerian.

Gregory to Demetrian and Valerian, clerks of Firmum (Fermo).

Both the ordinances of the sacred canons and legal authority permit that ecclesiastical property may be lawfully expended for the redemption of captives. And so, since we are informed by you that, nearly eighteen years ago, the most reverend Fabius, late bishop of the Church of Firmum, paid to the enemy eleven pounds of the silver of that Church for your redemption, and that of your father Passivus, now our brother and fellow bishop, but then a clerk, and also that of your mother, and that you have some fear on this account, lest what was given should at any time be sought to be recovered from you—we have thought fit by the authority of this precept to remove your suspicion, ordaining that you and your heirs shall henceforth sustain no annoyance for recovery of the debt, and that no process shall be instituted against you by any one; since the rule of equity requires that what has been paid with a pious intent should not be attended with burden or distress to those who have been redeemed.

Books X, XI, XII, XIII do not have both 12 and 17, and book XII even has none of the series. So, how about book XIV?

... 12 | 13 | 16 | 17 ...

Book XIV, Letter 12

To Theodelinda, Queen of the Lombards.

Gregory to Queen Theodelinda.

The letters which you sent us a little time ago from the Genoese parts have made us partakers of your joy on account of our learning that by the favour of Almighty God a son has been given you, and, as is greatly to your Excellency's credit, has been received into the fellowship of the Catholic faith . ...

Not finished yet. Here we actually get some hint of relics, sent as ... gifts (as said, not sure they could be sold even for redemption of captives):

Further, to our son the King Adolouvald we have taken thought to send some phylacteries; that is, a cross with wood of the holy cross of the Lord, and a lection of the holy Gospel enclosed in a Persian case. Also to my daughter, his sister, I send three rings, two of them with hyacinths, and one with an albula , which I request may be given them through you, that our charity towards them may be seasoned by your Excellency.

Even a relic of the Holy Cross.

If that was all for corrupt gain, why didn't he mentions any demands to Theodelinda or Adolouvald for payment?

Book XIV, Letter 13

To Alcyson, Bishop of Corcyra .

Gregory to Alcyson, etc.

To brethren who bethink themselves and return to wholesome counsels kindness is not to be denied, lest a fault seem to weigh more in the minds of bishops than charity. We have therefore received, in the presence of your Love's responsales, Peter, reader of the Church of Euria, who came to us with letters from our brother and fellow bishop John, and, when the letters which he had brought had been read, we took care to ask him if he had anything to say against the allegation of those your responsales. And on his stating that he had been charged with nothing, and had no answer to make, beyond what the epistle of his bishop contained, we decreed without tardiness, under God, what was agreeable to the canons. After a long time, however, the above-written Peter produced a document which he asserted had been given him by his bishop; and so the case underwent delay. But inasmuch as in this document the above-mentioned bishop was found to say that he had hoped to have leave to deposit the holy and venerable body of the blessed Donatus in the church of the blessed John which is within the camp called that of Cassiopus, saying that he is prepared, on account of its being proved to be in your diocese, to give your Love a security that no prejudice to you should thence arise, we thought it right that his petition should not be left without effect, now that in a time of necessity he desires provision to be made for him in such a way as to secure his acknowledgment in all respects of the jurisdiction of your Church. Moved therefore by this reason, we exhort your Fraternity by this present letter, that, without any delay or excuse you afford opportunity for depositing the venerable body of the above-written Saint in the aforenamed Church of the blessed John; on condition only that he previously protect you by a security in writing that he will never on any plea whatever claim to himself any jurisdiction or privilege in the aforesaid Church or camp, as though he were the bishop of the place, but guard there inviolably all the right and power of your Church, the place being in your diocese. At the same time it becomes you also, as the same our brother has requested, to reply to him that whenever, peace being restored by the mercy of God, he may be at liberty to return to his own place, it shall be lawful for him to take away with him, without any objection made, the aforesaid venerable body. Herein, lest what is done should seem to be personal, and occasion should possibly be found for stirring up the contention anew, your successors also should be in all respects included in this promise to keep things as they are, to the end that through this preventional security neither may he in future presume to claim anything there in your diocese against equity and the decrees of the sacred canons, nor the rights of your Church ever in any manner sustain any prejudice from such concession.

Curious, another case of relics, and another time Avro Manhattan's purported sources give nothing about exacted payments.

Book XIV, Letter 16

From Felix Bishop of Messana to St. Gregory.

To the most blessed and honourable lord, the holy father Pope Gregory, Felix lover of your Weal and Holiness.

The claims under God of your most blessed Weal and Holiness are manifest. For, though the whole earth was filled with observance of the true faith by the preaching and doctrine of the apostles, yet the orthodox Church of Christ, having been founded by institution and most firmly established by the faithful fathers, is further built up through the teaching of divine discourses, while instructed by your hortatory admonition. To it did all the most blessed apostles, endowed with an equal participation of dignity and authority , convert hosts of peoples; and by salutary precepts and admonitions, piously and holily, brought such as were foreknown in the grace of divine predestination from darkness to light, from error to the true faith, from death to life. Following the merits of these holy apostles, and perfectly acting up to their example, your honoured Paternity adorns with them the Church of God by probity of manners and holiness of deeds; and, strong in sacred faith and Christian manners, enjoins what should be done to please God, and unceasingly follows and fulfils pontifical duties, thus observing the precepts of divine law; since (as says the Apostle) Not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified

Editor then inserts the correct reference: Romans 2:13

There is however also some business in the letter, namely marriage business:

As we were meditating on these things, news was brought us by certain who came from Rome that you had written to our comrade Augustine (afterwards ordained Bishop for the nation of the Angli, and there sent by your venerable Holiness), and to the Angli (whom we have long known to have been converted to the faith through you), that persons related in the fourth degree of descent, if married, should not be separated . Now this was not formerly the custom either in those or in these parts, when I was brought up and taught together with you from infancy; nor have I read of it in any decrees of your predecessors, or in the institutes of other Fathers generally or specially, or learned that it had been allowed hitherto by any of the wise. But I have found from your holy predecessors, and from the rest of the holy Fathers, assembled as well in the Nicene synod as in other holy councils, that this [i.e. this prohibition of marriage] should be observed down to the seventh degree of descent; and I know that this is carefully seen to by men who live aright and fear the Lord. While these things were being discussed among us, other things also supervened, concerning which it seems necessary for us to consult your authority. For there came to us both Benedict, bishop of the Syracusan Church, and also others of our brethren, being bishops, weeping, and saying that they were greatly disturbed and afflicted in mind on account of the immoderate proceedings of secular and lay persons, in consequence of which some unjust things were also being said against them.

And business about what to do when in doubt:

There are also some churches in our province about the consecration of which doubt is felt; and, because both of their antiquity and of the carelessness of their custodians, it is unknown whether they have been dedicated by bishops or not. As to all these things we beg to be instructed by your Holiness, and by the authority of your holy see; and we ask to be informed by your letters whether what, as we have before said, we have heard that you had written to our aforesaid comrade Augustine and to the nation of the Angli was written specially to them or generally to all; and we desire to be fully informed both on this matter and on the others above written.

And an assurance that giving the rules is not meant as criticism:

For we do not signify to you what we have read, and what we know to be observed by the faithful, by way of finding fault (which be far from us); but we seek to know what we may reasonably and faithfully observe in this matter. And, since no slight murmuring is going on among us on this question, we seek an answer from you, as from the head, as to what we should reply to our brethren and fellow bishops; lest we should remain doubtful in the matter, and lest this murmuring should remain among us both in your times and in times to come, and your reputation, which has always been good and excellent, should be lacerated or disparaged through detractions, or your name (which God forbid) should be evil spoken of in succeeding times. For we, observing under God what is right with humble heart, being bound to you in one bond of charity, and defending your religion in all things as faithful pupils, seek knowledge of what is right from you. For we know that, as the apostles in the first place who were prelates of the holy See, and their successors afterwards, have always done, so you also take care of the universal Church, and especially of bishops, who on account of their contemplation and speculation are called the eyes of the Lord; and that you think continually about our religion and law, as it is written, Blessed is he who shall meditate in the law of the Lard day and night Psalm 1:2. Which meditation of yours is not only seen by reading, through the outward expression of letters, but, by the grace of Christ abounding in you, is known to be immoveably engrafted in your conscience; while the most holy law of Christ the Lord in no wise departs from your heart; as says the Prophet in the Psalms, The mouth of the righteous will meditate wisdom, and his tongue will be talking of judgments: the law of God is in his heart Psalm 36:30; written not with ink, but in secret by the Spirit of the living God; not therefore on tables of stone, but on the tables of the heart. Let all gloom of darkness, we pray you, be dispelled by your most wise replies and assistance, that the morning star may shine upon us through you, most holy Father, and a dogmatic definition causing joy to all everywhere, because the glorious Fathers of holy Church are known to have preached proper and most pious dogmas unto secure inheritance of eternal life.

Subscription. May the Lord keep you safe and well-pleasing to God for ever, holy father of fathers, while you pray for us.

OK, but XIV:17 must be the real source of Avro Manhattan, right?

Book XIV, Letter 17

To Felix, Bishop of Messana.

To our most reverend brother, the Bishop Felix, Gregory, servant of the servants of God .

Same guy? Yes. FF to one same subject:

For, following the examples of your predecessors, you have thought it right to consult the Apostolic See, in which you have been brought up and educated, on three points; that is on marriages of consanguinity, on vexation of bishops by subordinates, and on doubt with respect to the consecration of churches. Know then that what I wrote to Augustine, bishop of the nation of the Angli (who was, as you remember, your pupil), about marriages of consanguinity was written specially to him and to the nation of the Angli which had recently come to the faith, lest from alarm at anything too austere they should recede from their good beginning; but it was not written generally to others. Of this the whole Roman city is my witness. Nor did I thus order in those writings with the intention that, after they had been settled in the faith with a firm root, they should not be separated, if found to be below the proper degree of consanguinity, or should be united, if below the proper line of affinity, that is as far as the seventh generation. But for those who are still neophytes it is very often right in the first place to teach them, and by word and example to instruct them, to avoid unlawful things, and then afterwards, reasonably and faithfully, to shut out things that they may have done in matters of this kind. For according to the Apostle who says, I have fed you with milk, not with meat 1 Corinthians 3:2, we have allowed these indulgences for them only, and not (as has been said above) for future times, lest the good which had been planted so far with a weak root should be rooted up, but that what had been begun should rather be made firm, and guarded till it reach perfection. Certainly, if in these things we have done anything otherwise than as we ought to have done, know that it has been done, not of wantonness, but in commiseration. Wherefore, too, I invoke God as my witness, who knows the thoughts of all men, and to whom all things are naked and open. For, if I were to destroy what those who came before me established, I should be justly convicted of being not a builder but an over-thrower, as testifies the voice of the Truth, who says, Every kingdom divided against itself shall not stand Luke 11:17; and every science and law divided against itself shall be destroyed. And so it is needful for us all with one accord to hold to the appointments of our holy Fathers, doing nothing in contention, but, unanimous in every aim of good devotion, to obey, the Lord helping us, the divine and constitutions.

FF to other same subject as in previous letter:

Concerning doubt as to the dedications of churches, about which among other things you have wished to consult us, you ought duly to hold to this which we have received as handed down to us from those who have gone before us; namely, that, as often as doubt is entertained as to the baptism or confirmation of any persons, as well as the consecration of churches, and there is no certain account to be given, either from writings or witnesses, as to whether persons have been baptized or confirmed, or whether churches have been consecrated, that such persons should be baptized and confirmed, and that such churches should be canonically dedicated, lest such doubt should become ruin to the faithful; inasmuch as what does not appear by certain proofs to have been duly done is not in such case done a second time. This, divine grace supporting us, we desire so to hold; and we enjoin it on you, as you have requested, to hold and teach; and we wish not wantonly to break through, but faithfully to observe, what has been determined by holy Fathers before us. Wherefore we implore the mercy of our Redeemer to assist you with His grace, and give unto you to carry into effect what He has granted you to will, since in this matter the good gifts of retribution by so much the more accrue to us as the zeal of labour is increased. But we decree that every one of those who have been faithfully taught, and already stand ineradicably planted with a firm root, shall observe his descent even to the seventh generation. And as long as they know themselves to be related to each other by affinity, let them not presume to approach the association of this union; nor is it lawful, or shall be lawfully for any Christian to marry a woman of his own kindred whom he has lived with as a wife, or whom he has stained by any unlawful pollution; since such intercourse is incestuous and abominable to God and to all good men. But we read that it has long been determined by holy Fathers that incestuous persons are not to be reckoned under any title of wedlock. And so we desire not to be blamed by you or any other of the faithful in this matter, seeing that in our indulgence herein to the nation of the Angli we have acted, not as laying down a rule, but as taking thought lest they should leave imperfect the good which they had begun, etc.

Now, what exactly was Avro Manhattan referring to in his note 4?

4. St. Gregory, Letters 12-17

Looking up in text again ...

Not content with this, Gregory began to send out "the keys of St. Peter, wherein are found the precious filings and which by the same token also remit sins" - provided the recipients paid in cash or with costly presents. (4)

Hrrrrmmmm, could Avro Manhattan simply be somewhat inaccurate and on top of that be strewing about lots of footnotes that look impressive as long as you DON'T check?

By the way, the guys who gave me the tip about Donation of Constantine being used for extortion of Peter's Pence from all over the Roman World (as if newly Christianised nations outside the ancient limes weren't paying it, for one!), I asked if he got his information from Chick Tracts or the publications of Jack Chick. He thought I was VERY "on the defense" for doubting his info as being Church Bashing. Now look at this (each non linked link given as title, description, url):

  • The Vatican's Holocaust
    Avro Manhattan, world-renouned expert on the Vatican in politics, shows us the true face of Rome in his book "The Vatican's Holocaust."

  • 'The Inquisition' by Avro Manhattan
    by Avro Manhattan. If Hitler should return and proclaim deep love for the Jews; or Stalin appear and declare himself a Capitalist, would we not take them with a ...

  • Is the Vatican financially broke?
    BC Article - Periodically, Catholics are urged to give to 'Peter's pence,' to help defray Vatican expenses. But author Avro Manhattan shows it's just a ploy to hide ...

  • Cortinas De Humo - ¿El Hombre Mas Rico En La Tierra?
    Ahora permítame citar de LOS BILLONES DEL VATICANO, escrito por Avro Manhattan. Creo que le indignará tanto como a mí. Además, esta información se ...

  • Hitler's death camps: Holocaust or Inquisition?
    by Avro Manhattan.) The most detailed evidence available that many of these World War II executions resulted from the refusal to convert to Catholicism comes ...

  • Catholic League officials influence New York textbooks
    This involvement was carefully documented by men like Edmond Paris and Avro Manhattan long before the appearance of the play. How desperately the ...

  • Pope pushing WWII mass murderer for sainthood
    Here the entire text of Avro Manhattan's book, The Vatican's Holocaust is posted. Other information can be obtained in the Battle Cry section of the Chick web ...

  • A Woman Rides the Beast - A City on Seven Hills
    153-59; Hakluytus Posthumus (William Stansby for Henrie Fetherstone, London, 1625) as cited in Avro Manhattan, The Vatican Billions (Chino, CA. 1983), p. 90.

  • Answer to critics of former Jesuit priest, Alberto Rivera
    Avro Manhattan factuates this truth in his book, "Vatican in World Politics." One more statement by Buckley in this same editorial is worthy of mention. He says ...

  • FAQ's Concerning Roman Catholicism
    Roman Catholic Church Information Center featuring 'freqently asked questions' about Roman Catholics. Access all online information about Roman ...

I was searching avro manhattan on - which is the home page of Chick Tracts. As you can see, is also in every one of the links.

Not only is Avro Manhattan connected to Church Bashing, he is also even connected to the most infamous one, among supposed Christians, namely Jack Chick.

And a guy who seems to have his info from Avro thinks I am "too brainwashed" not to realise he is citing facts rather than Church Bashing.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Mootherhood of the Blessed Virgin Mary