Answering a Got Questions Video, Part 1

What is the origin of the Roman Catholic Church?
Got Questions Ministries | 18.X.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xCdrGWurdoQ
Les commentaires ont été désactivés pour cette vidéo. (So, I do not enable direct clicking to this video).

"Even a brief reading reveals" - universal negatives like the following? Taken from a still at 0:36

No mention (in NT) of:

• the papacy
• worship or adoration of Mary
• praying to saints
• apostolic succession
• the ordinances of the church functioning as sacraments
• infant baptism
• confession of sin to a priest
• purgatory
• indulgences
• or the equal authority of church traditions and Scripture.

Now, generally speaking, I don't think an extensive corpus should be analysed for universal negatives like "no mention of" by any brief reading.

You may of course argue, these things are searched for and none of them mentioned by that exact term.



You cannot find "papacy" in any single verse in a Catholic Bible, but in this version, neither can you find "Jeremiah".

Computers are not all knowing superminds, they process mindless information (like letters in a book are mindless in and of themselves) and do it very quickly, but with no circumspection either as to synonyms or as to spelling variants.

It is very easy to find Jeremias in the same Bible. But only if you search for "Jeremias" with that spelling. The computer could not find "Jeremias" when "told to" search "Jeremiah", so why should we expect it to find "papacy" under synonymous terms not at all same word, but just same meaning?

So, even an allscanning but non circumspect computer search like the one I did for papacy (the search engine is obviously not searching the Challoner comments, otherwise it would have been easy to find papacy under one of them) will not reveal the concept you pretend to look for if you don't use the right terms for it.

The fact is, one of the instances is a strawman against Catholicism, namely the second one, we do not worship the Blessed Virgin with adoration, we give her an honour clearly inferior to that given God, namely honour due to saints more to Her than to any other (in Greek it is called hyperdulia, while adoration is called latria).

So, the list as actually given contains one fraudulent claim against the Catholic Church, namely the claim it practises Mariolatria. We have actually condemned sects that do that, like some sectarians have considered Her a Fourth person of the Trinity or Incarnation of the Holy Ghost, we have condemned that. We would also condemn Mariolatria of the Hindoo type, where some Hindoos would consider the Blessed Virgin a manifestation of a Hindoo goddess.

Now, for the other claims, I hope to prove that there is indeed a mention. I will also give such for a corrected version of this claim.

I do not claim each mention is as direct as to be incontrovertible on the ground of "sola scriptura", but I do not take the ground of sola scriptura.

And this brings us to the last item, for which there is a pretty direct mention.

I

the papacy

mention

Matthew 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

Unlike previous verse, where some quibble on who is "rock", this is no place to doubt on who receives the keys of the kingdom from Christ.

Acts 1:15 In those days Peter rising up in the midst of the brethren, said: (now the number of persons together was about an hundred and twenty:)

Had Jesus explicitly said there would be a replacement for Judas? No. St. Peter is exposing two places of psalms:

"Let their habitation be made desolate: and let there be none to dwell in their tabernacles."
[Psalms 68:26]

"[May his days be few:] and his bishopric let another take."
[Psalms 108:8]

The first might indicate Judas should NOT have a successor, but St. Peter evidently considers that part as fulfilled about Haceldama instead, and only the second argues he SHOULD have one. St. Peter decides which is operative to decide, and the men obey.

II

adoration hyperdulia of Mary

mention

Genesis 3:15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

Luke 1:41b - 43 And Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost: And she cried out with a loud voice, and said: Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?

St Mary had obviously had some kind of initial if not misgiving at least fear and hesitation about blessed art thou among women. (Luke 1:28b) This designation had been used twice previously in a very warlike connection. Obviously she had not cut off the head of any human Holophernes or hammered a nail through that of any human Sisera.

When Elisabeth says Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb She knew from Genesis 1:15 what kind of enemy she would crush the or even had crushed the head of. The one whose seed Her Son would crush the head of. Or will, since Apocalypse 19:20 has not yet happened, as we generally suppose.

But after that, St Elisabeth reacts to the Blessed Virgin like King David to the Ark:

II Kings 6:9 And David was afraid of the Lord that day, saying: How shall the ark of the Lord come to me?

Noted by Dave Armstrong:

New Catholic Register : Amazing Parallels Between Mary and the Ark of the Covenant
Dave Armstrong | Feb. 13, 2018
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/darmstrong/amazing-parallels-between-mary-and-the-ark-of-the-covenant

III

praying to saints

mention

Here I will have to analyse the concept, and then I'll search each part.

When I sit down in a car (not mine, I have no driver's licence), make a sign of the cross, and say "dear St Christopher, pray for us" - what am I doing and what am I counting on?

I am adressing a man who died as a martyr. Some have even denied historicity of his existence. I am trusting the Catholic Church, Roman martyrology entry for him, on July 25th, just below St James:

In Lycia sancti Christophori Martyris, qui, sub Decio, virgis ferreis attritus, et e flammae aestuantis incendio superna Christi virtute servatus, ad ultimum, sagittarum ictibus confossus, capitis obtruncatione martyrium complevit.

Trusting that this happened is however not the issue.

The issue is, this means he already died. I am adressing a departed man, a man who has died.

I then count on God bringing him to me (probably in some version of Narnian time, since presumably otherwise St Christopher would be at some pains to keep up with all adressing him every day) or on God telling his soul in heaven "Hans Georg wants your prayers for himself and this driver (and other passengers), what do you say on the matter?", hoping that St Christopher will feel our car journey should be safe, and hoping that Christopher will pray and God will hear his prayer for the car journey.

First of all, have I "asked the truth" or asked for a service? Is St Christopher "dead" or "living in Christ"?

I answer, I have asked a service of someone who, even if he died is not dead, but eternally lives in Christ. Why is this important? Well, if I had "asked the truth of the dead" I would be running afoul of ...

"Nor charmer, nor any one that consulteth pythonic spirits, or fortune tellers, or that seeketh the truth from the dead."
[Deuteronomy 18:11]

So, what I am seeking from St Christopher is not "the truth" but his prayers, and he is not "dead" but living in Christ.

"Jesus said to her: I am the resurrection and the life: he that believeth in me, although he be dead, shall live:"
[John 11:25]

Also, I am not entering into a seance, I am performing a prayer, in the sense I count on God to make the contact which will remain invisible to me in this life, ordinarily speaking.

Now, I mentioned two versions on how St. Christopher could know of my prayer.

God, the Son, made Man and made Sacrifice for my sins, could be taking him along:

"These are they who were not defiled with women: for they are virgins. These follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were purchased from among men, the firstfruits to God and to the Lamb:"
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 14:4]

Or, St. Christopher could be watching me from Heaven. Like OT saints were already in the days of St Paul:

Hebrew 11:36 - 12:1 And others had trial of mockeries and stripes, moreover also of bands and prisons. They were stoned, they were cut asunder, they were tempted, they were put to death by the sword, they wandered about in sheepskins, in goatskins, being in want, distressed, afflicted: Of whom the world was not worthy; wandering in deserts, in mountains, and in dens, and in caves of the earth. And all these being approved by the testimony of faith, received not the promise; God providing some better thing for us, that they should not be perfected without us. And therefore we also having so great a cloud of witnesses over our head, laying aside every weight and sin which surrounds us, let us run by patience to the fight proposed to us

So, wait, what does "over our head" mean? Watching us from heaven?

This would seem they are both watching and praying for us:

Apocalypse 6:9-11 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held. And they cried with a loud voice, saying: How long, O Lord (holy and true) dost thou not judge and revenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth? And white robes were given to every one of them one; and it was said to them, that they should rest for a little time, till their fellow servants, and their brethren, who are to be slain, even as they, should be filled up

So, I obviously count on this "rest a little while" to not be actual sleep, or slumber, but peacefully waiting and watching. As St Christopher actually was slain ... now souls under the heavenly altar, which is Christ Himself, clearly reflects the practise of relics under altars of stone, as the Catholic Church still does. If without necessity you are celebrating the Eucharist NOT on an altar containing relics of martyrs, while the Mass may still be valid, you are committing a sacrilege.

IV

apostolic succession

mention

I already mentioned the succession of Judas, where St Matthias replaced him as Apostle, as one of the twelve.

But in more general terms too, the Apostles definitely had successors, and have so to the end of time:

Matthew 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.

How is this promise truly fulfilled?

• a) None of the eleven nor St Matthias died? False.
• b) The world was already consumed while at least some of them were still alive, year 70? Has been argued, but I have seen no match to all of the details in Apocalypse 19 and 20 about how this is to happen.
• c) It refers to them being alive in Christ after dying? While this also fulfils the promise, this would seem out of place as primary fulfilment, especially since in Heaven they are not directly engaged in teaching the nations, though they certainly pray for those who do.
• d) It is not fulfilled - if so, Christianity is false.
• e) It is fulfilled by ... tadah ... Apostolic Succession. When speaking to the eleven, He was speaking about themselves but including their successors.

Btw, just so you don't imagine it is simply a succession of all the faithful, look at verses 16 to 18:

And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.

Obviously, a few days later St Peter is adressing 120 faithful, we know from St Paul there had been an earlier occasion with 500 ones (most of whom are still alive). So, the eleven (perhaps adding up top thirteen with disciples of Emmaus, see Mark 16) are definitely NOT all of the faithful.

On the contrary, the eleven definitely are clergy taken out from among the faithful:

Luke 6:12-16 And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and he passed the whole night in the prayer of God. And when day was come, he called unto him his disciples; and he chose twelve of them (whom also he named apostles). Simon, whom he surnamed Peter, and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alpheus, and Simon who is called Zelotes, And Jude, the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, who was the traitor.

Luke 9:1 Then calling together the twelve apostles, he gave them power and authority over all devils, and to cure diseases.

"And after these things the Lord appointed also other seventy-two: and he sent them two and two before his face into every city and place whither he himself was to come."
[Luke 10:1]

Meaning, there is clergy lower than the twelve (or on Ascension day eleven) and still above the general number of the faithful.

Also, the fides ex auditu passage ... my godfather's godfather converted bc of that one ...

Romans 10:14-15 How then shall they call on him, in whom they have not believed? Or how shall they believe him, of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear, without a preacher? And how shall they preach unless they be sent, as it is written: How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace, of them that bring glad tidings of good things!

This means, sent as or by apostles:

"He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you."
[John 20:21]

So, Jesus sent the Apostles, as such, are others sent by them?

Acts 13:1-5 Now there were in the church which was at Antioch, prophets and doctors, among whom was Barnabas, and Simon who was called Niger, and Lucius of Cyrene, and Manahen, who was the foster brother of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul. And as they were ministering to the Lord, and fasting, the Holy Ghost said to them: Separate me Saul and Barnabas, for the work whereunto I have taken them. Then they, fasting and praying, and imposing their hands upon them, sent them away. So they being sent by the Holy Ghost, went to Seleucia: and from thence they sailed to Cyprus. And when they were come to Salamina, they preached the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews. And they had John also in the ministry.

It would seem, as one priest converted from among Anglicans had to say "prophets and doctors" were a name for certain types of bishops who were not themselves apostles. Obviously ordained and consecrated by these directly or with intermediates. While St Paul was chosen as Apostle, i e eyewitness of the resurrection, by Christ only, on the Road to Damascus, it is here that he received the episcopal powers which the other earlier Apostles had so far not given him.

But if Apostles and there successors are supposed to consecrate successors, we might expect some kind of mention of this?

I Tim 3:1-10 A faithful saying: if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. It behoveth therefore a bishop to be blameless, the husband of one wife, sober, prudent, of good behaviour, chaste, given to hospitality, a teacher, Not given to wine, no striker, but modest, not quarrelsome, not covetous, but One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all chastity. But if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God? Not a neophyte: lest being puffed up with pride, he fall into the judgment of the devil. Moreover he must have a good testimony of them who are without: lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil. Deacons in like manner chaste, not double tongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre: Holding the mystery of faith in a pure conscience. And let these also first be proved: and so let them minister, having no crime.

While St Paul was chosen for Apostolic ministry before being a neophyte, as we saw, he was not quickly admitted to the service - but when he was, his mission by the Church counted as mission by the Holy Ghost.

One might object that next verse mentions women - and these are not clergy. One can answer that St Paul was either talking of widows and virgins, what we now refer to as nuns, or of wives and female relatives already there, not just daughters but also mothers or sisters or aunts or nieces living in same household. Or even of both.

Later on in the chapter:

These things I write to thee, hoping that I shall come to thee shortly. But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

• a) St Paul was hoping soon to instruct St Timothy orally, with more detail, hence importance of Church traditions, but ...
• b) giving a very brief written instruction just in case, and this instruction related to the "house of God ... pillar and ground of the truth".

So, in other words, a community not having a series like this going back to the Apostles is not having the pillar and ground of truth.

And, here I take a rest, and publish this first, since otherwise the page would have difficulties uploading and it is probably already some job scrolling it, so I recommend writing the articles out.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. John Cantius
20.X.2018

PS. Today's saint is probaly for the idea of Jeszcze Polska nie zginela, but unlike Poland, the Church cannot be absent "from the map" a single day. Matthew 28:20 does not allow for partitioning and three foreign or even one foreign occupation over the whole Church, nor does the last sentence in Matthew 16:18./HGL

Does God Impute Righteousness? Not in Douay Rheims!

Impute:

"Said to him: Impute not to me, my lord, the iniquity, nor remember the injuries of thy servant on the day that thou, my lord, the king, wentest out of Jerusalem, nor lay it up in thy heart, O king."
[2 Kings (2 Samuel) 19:19]

"To all them, who with their whole heart, seek the Lord the God of their fathers: and will not impute it to them that they are not sanctified."
[2 Paralipomenon (2 Chronicles) 30:19]

Imputed:

"When thou hast made a vow to the Lord thy God, thou shalt not delay to pay it: because the Lord thy God will require it. And if thou delay, it shall be imputed to thee for a sin."
[Deuteronomy 23:21]

"And Joab answered: The Lord make his people a hundred times more than they are: but, my lord the king, are they not all thy servants: why doth my lord seek this thing, which may be imputed as a sin to Israel?"
[1 Paralipomenon (1 Chronicles) 21:3]

"Take unto you therefore seven oxen, and seven rams, and go to my servant Job, and offer for yourselves a holocaust: and my servant Job shall pray for you: his face I will accept, that folly be not imputed to you: for you have not spoken right things before me, as my servant Job hath."
[Job 42:8]

"Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin, and in whose spirit there is no guile."
[Psalms 31:2]

"None of his sins, which he hath committed, shall be imputed to him: he hath done judgment and justice, he shall surely live."
[Ezechiel (Ezeckiel) 33:16]

"Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin."
[Romans 4:8]

"For until the law sin was in the world; but sin was not imputed, when the law was not."
[Romans 5:13]

Imputing:

"For God indeed was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself, not imputing to them their sins; and he hath placed in us the word of reconciliation."
[2 Corinthians 5:19]

What about Romans 4?

Faith was reputed Abraham to righteousness and so were a lot of other good deeds, not those of the Mosaic ritual law. Obviously, verse 8 (see above) in this chapter has "imputed", but it is here a question of imputation or better non-imputation of sin. Not a question of imputing righteousness.

So, verse 8 has "imputed" about sin, verse 24 has "reputed" about righteousness.

How about Vulgate and Greek?

		Vulgate		Nestle-Aland
Romans 4:8		Beatus vir, cui non imputavit Dominus peccatum.		μακάριος ἀνὴρ οὗ οὐ μὴ λογίσηται κύριος ἁμαρτίαν.*
Romans 4:24		sed et propter nos, quibus reputabitur credentibus in eum, qui suscitavit Jesum Christum Dominum nostrum a mortuis,		ἀλλὰ καὶ δι’ ἡμᾶς, οἷς μέλλει λογίζεσθαι, τοῖς πιστεύουσιν ἐπὶ τὸν ἐγείραντα Ἰησοῦν τὸν κύριον ἡμῶν ἐκ νεκρῶν,

I must admit, Greek has the same verb. I presume that St. Jerome perceived a difference in meaning when translating Romans 4. I presume that Greek logizesthai of which logisetai is a form has a wider range of meaning than either.

In fact, it is a very common word in Classics, and I think that word study will have to wait.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
St. Francis of Assisi
4.X.2018

PS, I think English "count" or "reckon" which is given is a sufficient range of word meaning. Blessed is the man whose sins the Lord hath not counted. But also for us, to whom it shall be counted/reckoned, if we believe in him, that raised up Jesus Christ, our Lord, from the dead, - it is a question of God accepting or not accepting sth as being "on our account" and the things on our account need to be acts in us, like believing./HGL

God didn't promise to preserve the English language

I am not sure you have heard how John XXIII, often considered as bad by traditionally minded Catholics or indeed as a non-Pope, also had a Catholic side or two.

One of these was the document Veterum Sapientia.

Well, Kent Hovind has just made the point for why Catholics do things in Latin (or Classic Greek, or Church Slavonic or Coptic or the Syriac spoken in Jesus' time). In context, he is arguing against Gap Theory, a long gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2, and one of the arguments was KJV in Genesis 1:28 says "replenish" which would seem to mean "fill again". Here is his answer:

The Bible says that God told Adam to “replenish the earth.” (Gen 1:28) And the Gap theory folks always say: “Well see, right there it says replenish and the word replenish means, fill again.” Look it up in the dictionary. And sure enough, you look it up in a dictionary, and it says, replenish: fill again. Well, you better look up the meaning of the word in 1611, when they translated this. The King James translators came across the word ‘male’ which means, fill, and they chose the word ‘replenish’, because back in 1611 the word replenish only meant, fill. In 1650 an author named Bacon added a second definition to the word, called fill again. It never meant, fill again, until 1650. You get some old dictionaries, like an 1828 dictionary. You can see for yourself, the primary meaning of the word ‘replenish’ is, fill. The secondary meaning is, fill again, recover former fullness, added by Francis Bacon, ok. Here's an 1891 dictionary. The first definition of the word is, fill. The second definition is, recover former fullness. In 1892 the dictionaries switched the definitions. The first one in 1891 is, fill; in 1892 the first one is, fill again, and the secondary meaning becomes, to fill. Huh, what happened here? Modern dictionaries changed it again. 1989 only shows, fill again. They left out what used to be the primary definition of the word, fill. There's a 21st Century Dictionary: Replenish: make full again. See, English words change meanings all the time.

When I was a kid, the word ‘cool’ meant, not hot. And ‘gay’ meant, happy. Anybody remember those old-fashioned days? How would you decipher this verse here? James 2 (v. 3): “Ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing.” Would you agree that word has changed meanings in the last 30 years or so? And you probably shouldn't say that to somebody today. “Wow, you have gay clothing on today.” That would not be a good thing to say if you want to keep your teeth, right?, ok. Paul said: “I would have come to you, but I was let hitherto.” (Rom. 1:13) You know the word ‘let’ used to mean, hindered? Now it means, allowed. English words change meanings. You see, God promised to preserve His Word; He did not promise to preserve our English language.

From Seminar 2 The Garden of Eden, part a
Dr Kent Hovind's Creation Seminars, this one from 2005
http://wiseoldgoat.com/papers-creation/hovind-seminar_part2a_2007.html

Too true, too true ... I alluded to a sentiment by Puddleglum about being "gay and frolic" when asked by school mates how I dealt with the life of one oppressed often enough by bullying. I found out the next minutes what a change the word "gay" had underwent since C. S. Lewis wrote that passage. French still uses "gai" in the proper sense. If it means "gay" in the pride sense, it spells it "gay".

Chesterton put this as "the alternatives are not a dead language versus a live language, if you mean one which stays alive, but a dead language versus a dying one" Ah here:

SOME OF OUR ERRORS
in The Thing, (essay collection 1929)
http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/The_Thing.html#26

Paragraph antepenultime, or third from end:

It is a question between a dead language and a dying language. Every living language is a dying language, even if it does not die. Parts of it are perpetually perishing or changing their sense; there is only one escape from that flux; and a language must die to be immortal. The style of the English Jacobean translation is as noble and simple a thing as any in the world; but even there the words degenerate. It is not their fault; but ours who misuse them; but they are misused. No language could lift itself into a loftier or simpler strain than that which begins, “Comfort ye, comfort ye my people”; but even then, when we pass on to “speak ye comfortably to Jerusalem,” we stumble over a word we have vulgarised.

Jerusalem suavely lectured on an interesting topic from an armchair ... that is what the the new English meaning of the word "comfortably" suggests. Chesterton was alluding to KJV Isaias 40:1, 2a. Here is Douay Rheims, quoting verse 2 in full:

[1] Be comforted, be comforted, my people, saith your God. [2] Speak ye to the heart of Jerusalem, and call to her: for her evil is come to an end, her iniquity is forgiven: she hath received of the hand of the Lord double for all her sins.

And Vulgate has:

[1] Consolamini, consolamini, popule meus, dicit Deus vester. [2] Loquimini ad cor Jerusalem, et advocate eam, quoniam completa est malitia ejus, dimissa est iniquitas illius, suscepit de manu Domini duplicia pro omnibus peccatis suis.

Suddenly it is no longer C. S. Lewis giving a lecture from an arm chair, say on writing, which is a subject he mastered in full, and lectured very suavely on, it is a messenger of God giving a vital message to His Bride. Even a sense of the messenger being an "advocate" ...

For some reason, God seems to have preserved the English of Douay Rheims and even the "irrelevant" vernacular associations of Vulgate Latin a bit better than the English of King James.

Either way, the Latin language was also dying.

It was in fact dying in France up to 800. It only rose from the dead when Alcuin declared her dead - and brought her back to life. Incidentally, he needed to invent (or allow close disciples to invent) vernacular as sth other than Latin in the process, that is why we had a decision 813 requiring that Gospel reading on Sundays and Obligatory Feast Days be followed by a sermon in the vernacular. One language was declared dead, two languages rose from the grave.

Now, I gave that story in somewhat more prosy detail on the wall of another Creationist, Robert Carter, that other day. For good measure, I'll copy all of that comment, starting with a quote from the paper by Carter:

"Early on, Venema makes another poor argument when he tries to explain what he means by ‘evolution’ by comparing the random changes that occur in DNA to how languages change. But language development cannot be separated from the mind or from conscious choice, e.g. the widespread borrowing of words and phrases. In fact, had he done any homework at all, he would have known that biblical creationists had a ready answer to his false comparison."

Apart from the facts that:

• you cannot prove a LUCA for all IE languages anymore than for all life;
• the argument is often misstated, like Latin "developing" to French.

In fact, Latin was *written* as vernacular in Gaul from Caesar (and even before in the South, one Sextus Calvinus coming in during the "IV Beast era" of ancient Rome, the Senatorial Republic) all the way to Charlemagne.

During this time *pronunciation* and the popular colloquial *usage on cases* (and other forms) did develop, and in the North to the direction of French. But the *written* French actually does result from a few creative initiatives:

• 1) Latin pronounced in Francia was getting unintelligible to priests from elsewhere, so, one imported Alcuin to start correcting pronunciation in the monastery of St Martin in Tours, 800
• 2) followed by the discovery 813 that this led to people no longer understanding the Gospel and so the sermon was invented as a real staple of even a normal priest's Sunday duties (Patristic sermons are typically by bishops), with the new function of more or less translating the Gospel
• 3) and preparing these sermons made priests aware of how the vernacular differed from the written Latin, a bit like if one were required to spell out "don't" rather than "do not" to a text which doesn't even have the circumlocution with do. A Gospel in which Christ approves the rich man's enumeration of commandments, like "murder not" gets a translation like "don't murder".
  
  In the language concerned, let's go to Vulgate and then reconstruct how the sermon may have sounded:
  
  Gospel reading includes:
  
  "[20] Mandata nosti : non occides; non moechaberis; non furtum facies; non falsum testimonium dices; honora patrem tuum et matrem."
  [Luke 18:20]
  
  Sermon includes this retelling:
  
  "Tu seis li mandats : tu ne tueras, tu ne fereis adultère, tu ne voleras, tu ne direis fals tesmein, onore teon pèdre et tea mèdre"
  
  (Actually, this is more like what it would have sounded like in 1200 than in 813 ...)
  
  "Tu sabes li mandates : tu no tuer habes, tu no fair habes adultero, tu no voler habes, tu no dir habes falso tesmeino, onora teon pèdre et tea mèdre"
  
  (This is a bit more adapted to Strassburg Oaths)
  
  AND
  
  
• 4) this prepared them to one day compose original texts in vernacular, the first preserved being a pronunciation guide for the "Latin" version of the Strassburg Oaths, soon followed by things sounding even less Latin, like Song of St Eulalia.
  
  This kind of social development I would like to call "language divorce". A bit like very recently in the 1970's, New Greek as in Dhimotiki was "divorced" from Classic Greek or Katharevousa.

So, in other words, the "Veteres" whose "Sapientia" John XXIII was lauding were Carolingians, and especially an Anglo-Saxon invited such. I suspect in heaven Chesterton may by now have met a greeting from Alcuin "was hail, landës-man! thou wert up to something" - or its equivalent in a more eternal tongue. Or, why not, both.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Bibl. Parmentier
St. Thérèse of Lisieux
(of Child Jesus and of the Holy Face)
3.X.2018