Another Reason to Believe Novus Ordos are NOT All Apostates

Creation vs. Evolution: In Portugal, the Dogma of the Faith Shall Not Be Lost · Great Bishop of Geneva!: Another Reason to Believe Novus Ordos are NOT All Apostates

Not saying there is no apostasy going on anywhere, but just saying it's not universal.

I have seen less than five minutes of this film, and I am already confident, after she died, Sr. Clare Crockett was immediately (or the second she was judged) in a better position to pray for us, than we for her:

All or Nothing: Sr. Clare Crockett - Full Movie
Home of the Mother, 3 Nov. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSKiESB1Pfs

I Loved This Song While I Thought It Was Protestant (Pentecostal or Sth) ...

Great Bishop of Geneva! : I Loved This Song While I Thought It Was Protestant (Pentecostal or Sth) ... · Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Avec vous toujours avec vous ... the Composer

Be Thou My Vision | a new duet version by Abby and Annalie #HearHim
Abby & Annalie, 5.IV.2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1xbH_LccN0

And here is what wiki tells me ...

The original Old Irish text, "Rop tú mo Baile", is often attributed to Saint Dallán Forgaill in the 6th century.[4] However, scholars believe it was written later than that. Some date it to the 8th century;[5] others put it as late as the 10th or 11th century.[6] A 14th-century manuscript attributed to Adhamh Ó Cianáin contains a handwritten copy of the poem in Middle Irish, and is held at the National Library of Ireland.[7] A second manuscript is at the Royal Irish Academy, dating from about the 10th or 11th century.

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

Sourced on footnotes:

4) Be Thou My Vision Archived 2012-05-19 at the Wayback Machine at Cyberhymnal
5) Kenneth W. Osbeck, 101 More Hymn Stories, Kregel Publications, 1985, p. 43
6) Gerard Murphy, Early Irish lyrics: eighth to twelfth century, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1956, pp. 42–45, 190–191
7) Wright, Sheila Louise. ""Rop tú mo Baile" A Traditional 14 th C. Irish Poem/Song". Retrieved 11 December 2017.

" Rop tú mo Baile " A Traditional 14 th C. Irish Poem/Song - by Sheila Louise Wright
https://www.academia.edu/28437315

PS, in fact there are four OT names, apart from Miriam, which are kind of near synonyms to Mary. Abby = Abigail is one of them. The full list is: Jael, Ruth, Abigail and Judith. Jael and Judith because they killed men who by tyranny and fighting against God's people were images of Satan, whom Mary defeated. Ruth because she married an old man, and is ancestor of Christ. Abigail because she prevented King David of killing an Israelite./HGL

PPS, in case someone misunderstood the title, I love it even more now I know it is a Catholic lorica./HGL

Father Hartmann Grisar, S. J.

The History of Rome and the Popes in the Middle Ages, Volume 1 by Hartmann Grisar Part 1/2
LibriVox Audiobooks | 3 Sept. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeDJAL5vUqA

The History of Rome and the Popes in the Middle Ages, Volume 1 by Hartmann Grisar Part 2/2
LibriVox Audiobooks | 3 Sept. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45-NKjMZfv4

On the author, so far no English wikipedian article, but here is a German one:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartmann_Grisar

Can We Agree Pre-Adamites is Not a Christian Idea?

Creation vs. Evolution: Some Observations · Great Bishop of Geneva!: Can We Agree Pre-Adamites is Not a Christian Idea?

Here is from the French wiki on Préadamisme.

Malgré la prédominance de la croyance adamiste, certains courants religieux occidentaux et moyen orientaux continuèrent de croire que des hommes ont pu exister avant Adam. C'est le cas de la Familia Caritatis, une communauté religieuse frisonne fondée au début du xvie siècle1. Les Maimonïdes argumentèrent aussi sur les faits présentés par Ibn Wahshiyya.

En 1591, Giordano Bruno mort sur le bûcher pour avoir affirmé par ailleurs que l'homme est parent des singes, faisait valoir qu'il n'était pas crédible que les Juifs et les Éthiopiens puissent avoir le même ancêtre il y a 6000 ans, et que par conséquent soit Dieu a créé plusieurs lignées différentes, soit les Africains sont descendants d'hommes préadamiques2.

Let's try to translate this correctly.

Despite the predominance of the Adamist [monogenic] belief, some of the religious currents of the West and the Middle East coontinued to believe that men could have existed before Adam. It's the case with Familia Caritatus, a religious community from Friesland, founded in the beginning of the XVIth C. The Maimonide Family also argued about the facts presented by Ibn Wahshiyya.

In 1591, Giordano Bruno [later] dead on the bonfire for having furthermore affirmed that man is akin to apes, asserted that it was not credible that Jews and Ethiopians could have the same ancestor 6000 years ago, and by consequent, either God had created several different human lineages, or the Africans descended from pre-Adamite men.

Now, "continued to" is a fairly tendentious way of putting it, since the previous statements, like those concerning rejection of the Sabean myth that Ibn Wahshiyya just reported don't enforce the idea there had previously been any acceptance of pre-Adamites, but that Familia Caritatis was involved in pre-Adamism, well, it so happens, this seems to be footnoted.

Almond, 1999, p. 51. And Almond stands for Philip C. Almond, Adam and Eve in Seventeenth-Century Thought, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1999. (ISBN 0-521-66076-9).

The Giordano Bruno assertion from 1591 is also footnoted.

Graves, 2003, p. 25. And Graves stands for Joseph L. Graves, The Emperor's New Clothes : Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium, Newark, New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 2003. (ISBN 0-8135-3302-3).

So, if like me, you reject pre-Adamite men, you should reject Familia Caritatis, an Anabaptist sect founded by Henry Nicholis.

You should also reject Giordano Bruno, a man known as being burned for Heliocentrism — but in reality as this example shows, there was much more to it.

While technically Galileo did not promote Little Green Men, let alone pre-Adamites on earth, Giordano Bruno and Kepler had already set the tone for accepting the certitude to hypothesis of extraterrestrials as popular evidence for Heliocentrism — in the sense that any extra-terrestrial on his own planet would consider his own planet as the centre of the universe with "as much apparent" and ultimately "as little real" ground as we naturally (and reasonably, as long as you don't bring in extraterrestrials) tend to suppose Earth to be so.

I say this was a popular argument. Euler in his Letters to a German Princess instructed her that Newton, a very great physicist, had proven Earth had to orbit the Sun, not the reverse, but he didn't get into details. However, an argument which he did give on her supposed level of understanding was little green men. As I screenshotted and sourced here:

Euler als "Astronom"
https://aufdeutschaufantimodernism.blogspot.com/2017/12/euler-als-astronom.html

This being from letters 58 and 59 to the princess. As far as I can tell from later history, Friederike Charlotte of Brandenburg-Schwedt as well as other members of the Prussian high nobility and princes did believe Euler. And her own impression of his teaching was not the only decisive influence he had:

Friederike Charlotte was partly educated in Prussia, together with her sister Louise. Between 1760 and 1762, the mathematician Leonhard Euler sent her numerous letters in French about mathematical and philosophical subjects. These letters were published between 1769 and 1773 under the title "Letters to a German Princess" and were printed in Leipzig and St. Petersburg. The French edition alone enjoyed 12 printings. It was the Age of Enlightenment and Euler tried to explain physical issues and in particular their philosophical background in a generally understandable manner. Euler may have been employed as her teacher.

In other words, we don't know if they met, we do know that she was receiving epistolary instruction from him, and that the letters were widely spread outside this original context.

So, the tendency was, in the centuries that saw the social triumph of Heliocentrism, to downplay (at least to some readers) the mathematical proofs in favour of speculations about Little Green Men.

It may be worth while to take another look at the English article on pre-Adamism.*

The first known debate about human antiquity took place in 170 AD between a Christian, Theophilus of Antioch, and an Egyptian pagan, Apollonius the Egyptian (probably Apollonius Dyscolus), who argued that the world was 153,075 years old.[1]: 26 

An early challenge to biblical Adamism came from the Roman Emperor Julian the Apostate, who, upon his rejection of Christianity and his return to paganism, accepted the idea that many pairs of original people had been created, a belief termed co-Adamism or multiple Adamism.[2]: 6  [1]: 27-28,125 

Augustine of Hippo's The City of God contains two chapters indicating a debate between Christians and pagans over human origins: Book XII, chapter 10 is titled Of the falseness of the history that the world hath continued many thousand years and the title of book XVIII, chapter 40 is The Egyptians' abominable lyings, to claim their wisdom the age of 100,000 years. These titles tend to indicate that Augustine saw pagan ideas concerning both the history of the world and the chronology of the human race as incompatible with the Genesis creation narrative. Augustine's explanation aligned with most rabbis and with the church fathers, who generally dismissed views on the antiquity of the world as myths and fables, whereas Jewish and Christian claims were based on revealed truth.[1]: 27 

Augustine did take a critical view of the young earth narrative in some aspects, arguing that everything in the universe had been created simultaneously by God, and not seven literal days. He was primarily concerned with arguing against the idea of humanity having existed eternally rather than a Bible-based chronology of human history.[3]

So, not only should a Young Earth Creationist not embrace Anabaptists of the XVIth C, but he should embrace Augustine of Hippo, a clear Catholic.

The last of these paragraphs again has tendentious phrasing, the idea of a simultanous creation doesn't in any way make the universe less young, and a Bible-based chronology of human history, along with rejecting Gap Theory and Day-Age Theory = Young Earth Creationism. Obviously a "one moment creation" is the very opposite of Day-Age or Gap Theories.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. Moses
4.IX.2023

In monte Nebo, terrae Moab, sancti Moysis, legislatoris et Prophetae.

* Instead of discussing the wikipedian footnotes, I'll just give them under this footnote:
1) Popkin, Richard Henry (1987). Isaac La Peyrère (1596-1676): His Life, Work, and Influence. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill Publishers. ISBN 90-04-08157-7. Retrieved 25 February 2021.
2) Livingstone, David N. (2011). Adam's Ancestors: Race, Religion, and the Politics of Human Origins. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-8813-7. Retrieved 25 February 2021.
3) Young, David A. (1988). "The Contemporary Relevance of Augustine". Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. American Scientific Affiliation. 40 (1): 42–45. Retrieved 23 April 2021.

Jeremias 7 and 44 and the Duchess of Dorchester

Jeremias 7 and 44 and the Duchess of Dorchester · Duchess of Dorchester, Revisited

I came up with the title before I had heard of the wrestler The Duke of Dorchester and hope he won't mind.

Now, in Jeremias, the phrase "the queen of heaven" occurs once in chapter 7 and several times in chapter 44. The most prominent place would be chapter 7:18, since it involves God's anger.

The children gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire and the women knead the dough, to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to offer libations to strange gods, and to provoke me to anger
[Jeremias (Jeremiah) 7:18]

So, some suppose this means God is angry at anything referred to as the Queen of Heaven, including "Catholic Mariolatry" - we will see in a moment how I respond, but first a detour. I think it will be rewarding.

Suppose a King of England decided the third daughter of a prince of Wales or of a King, whoever comes first, shall have a new title, Duchess of Dorchester. Her husband shall have the title Duke of Dorchester (Pete Doherty, hope you don't mind!). Their offspring shall be Dukes of Dorchester until next time there is a third daughter of the king or of the Prince of Wales, whoever comes first. However, such a person is not yet there on earth, only the plan is.

Then suppose a drag queen even less feminine and less decent than Conchita Wurst turns up and decided to take the stage name "Duchess of Dorchester" ... I think a King of England would be annoyed, perhaps not HM Charles III, he's known for preaching tolerance to people of the habits of Conchita Wurst, but earlier kings of England (including those who privately were as indecent or even less decent than Conchita) most certainly would. Even James VI and I would have such a man drawn, quartered and beheaded. Right ....?

Now, for the relevance. Even to people in Dorchester, Heaven is more important than Dorchester. To God, most certainly. No one, including demons, is outside His jurisdiction (and female goddesses in at least many respects, perhaps not Athena as appearing to Ulysses on occasion, are drag queens). So, He has decided He will be born. He has decided who His mother will be. He has decided She will be Queen of Heaven. The anger of God expressed in Jeremias 7:18 is not about people giving Her the title that is Hers, Queen Mother in Heaven, but about people giving a demon a similar title (the Hebrew, I heard Patrick Madrid or someone say, has a word meaning ruling queen or queen consort in Jer 7:18). I think the case for God hating "Mariolatry" has been answered.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. John the Baptist
24.VI.2023

Sorry, HMK Charles III, I mean, of course!

Why is Romans 8 Not Prooftext for Calvinistic "Perseverance of the Saints"?

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Defeating Calvinism, with a Little Help from a (so far back then) Calvinist · Great Bishop of Geneva!: Why is Romans 8 Not Prooftext for Calvinistic "Perseverance of the Saints"?

Here are the two immediately relevant verses:

29 For whom he foreknew, he also predestinated to be made conformable to the image of his Son; that he might be the firstborn amongst many brethren 30 And whom he predestinated, them he also called. And whom he called, them he also justified. And whom he justified, them he also glorified.

Repetition from the Stuckey prompted* video comment:

1) the first two concepts are if chronologically ordered indication that God foreknew some before He predestined them.
2) because all the following pairs of concepts are chronologically ordered so that the first stated term comes before the next stated one.

All the examples:

• the predestination is from eternity, but the call comes in time, i e God's call to Abraham when he was 75, or God's call to Saulus on the road to Damascus.
• The calling comes before the justification, which involves a yes to the call;
• the justification, being in this life, is prior to the glory in the life to come.

One could reply, the foreknowledge and the predestination are both from eternity, and there is therefore no temporal sequence between them. This doesn't deny a metatemporal or motivational sequence, within God's eternal decision. So, the text is in fact a proof text for scientia media. Luís de Molina's concept of it would be close.

But the Calvinists would use the passage also in another way, namely to deny that any truly justified person could ever get lost. This would be deduced from the last pair:

And whom he justified, them he also glorified.

If taken with complete generality and unconditionally, this would spell out the doctrine of "Perseverance of the Saints" ... Two replies.

However, (first), there is a possibility that one or more pairs of concepts may hold the key to this being conditional, on the persons free will.

Whom He called, them He also justified, is this universal?

Jesus called a rich man to poverty, and the rich man walked away sadly. The call was conditional on the rich man's free will.

However, it is possible that the rich man was already justified, and didn't miss out on Heaven, but only on safer and happier ways of getting there with more merits for eternity. It is also possible he later followed the call, like the younger son who at first said no to his father, but then went on to do his bidding.

The other pair is, foreknowledge and predestination. Those who are not predestined to glory are technically in the Catholic Theology not at all known as "predestined to damnation" - that would be heretical, and go against the Council of Frankfurt "Deus neminem predestinat ad malum" - but as "foreknown" (i e foreknown as not making it to heaven). This means, both the predestined and the not predestined are both foreknown by God, so the first pair

whom he foreknew, he also predestinated

is proof that the sequence is in fact conditional, and not automatic and unconditional. Except of course that predestination itself cannot be foiled.

Further, second, one can say, the last pair

whom he justified, them he also glorified

is only validly universally true in the given context of precisely predestination, since this is mentioned before.

The one problem which can be posed is, if predestination cannot be foiled, how is this not irresistable grace? First, because God's offer of grace is extended further than to only the predestined ones. Second, because predestination is never foiled, this is only by grace being unresisted or efficient, not by its being also irresistable. The practical consequence is, one can say "Deus, facienti quod in se est, non denegat gratiam" - God is not refusing grace to anyone doing what he is then and there, with nature and with graces already given, able to do. The very thing the Reformers Luther and Calvin so vehemently denied.

A further confirmation in the previous verses:

25 But if we hope for that which we see not, we wait for it with patience. 26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmity. For we know not what we should pray for as we ought; but the Spirit himself asketh for us with unspeakable groanings. 27 And he that searcheth the hearts, knoweth what the Spirit desireth; because he asketh for the saints according to God. 28 And we know that to them that love God, all things work together unto good, to such as, according to his purpose, are called to be saints.

To them that love God ... reminds a little of St. Augustine saying, what Crowley gave a truncated quote of: "have God's love, and do what thou wilt"** - but either way, it makes nonsense of the idea that "the natural man is unable to love God" namely not just "out of his own powers" as we Catholics say, but "totally" as the Reformers say, up to a presumed and always dramatic moment when total hatred of God yields to total love of God motivated only by this remarcable mercy and never by anything else.
/Hans Georg Lundahl

* i e Defeating Calvinism, with a Little Help from a (so far back then) Calvinist ** Habe caritatem, et fac quod vis.

Does the Bible Say How Many Books It Has?

Great Bishop of Geneva!: Does the Bible Say How Many Books It Has? · somewhere else: Not Hallucinations - Argument II · Creation vs. Evolution Do Flood Stories Around the World Prove Oral Transmission Inaccurate?

Note, not which books, but how many?

Paul, and Sylvanus, and Timothy, to the church of the Thessalonians in God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ. Grace unto you, and peace from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ. We are bound to give thanks always to God for you, brethren, as it is fitting, because your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you towards each other, aboundeth: So that we ourselves also glory in you in the churches of God, for your patience and faith, and in all your persecutions and tribulations, which you endure, For an example of the just judgment of God, that you may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which also you suffer.

That's the beginning of II Thessalonians.

But the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea. Who, when they were come thither, went into the synagogue of the Jews Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, who received the word with all eagerness, daily searching the scriptures, whether these things were so.

Acts 17

So, if there is one thing which unites Thessaloniki and Veria, it might give us a road.

Veria (Greek: Βέροια or Βέρροια), officially transliterated Veroia, historically also spelled Berea or Berœa,[2] is a city in Central Macedonia, in the geographic region of Macedonia, northern Greece, capital of the regional unit of Imathia. It is located 511 kilometres (318 miles) north-northwest of the capital Athens and 73 km (45 mi) west-southwest of Thessaloniki.

Sorry, a clue. And yes, I think the road is the clue.

73 kilometers - the full Bible has 73 books.
45 miles - miles is an older measure than kilometers, right? - the OT has 45 books.

Wait a minute, 45 + 27 = 72 ...

Well, the official Catholic way of counting it is, "72 books, or 73 if Baruch be counted separately from Jeremias" ... So, the whole Bible is somewhat fluid between 72 and 73, and the Old Testament, by consequence, between 45 and 46.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Good and Holy Friday
7.IV.2023

PS — the Hackers and other onliners would arguably agree with 73 books for another reason.

50 + 40 + 27 + 36 + 34 + 24 + 21 + 4 + 31 + 27 + 22 + 25 + 29 + 36 + 10 + 13 + 14 + 16 + 16 + 42 + 150 + 31 + 12 + 8 + 19 + 51 + 66 + 52 + 5 + 6 + 48 + 14 + 14 + 3 + 9 + 1 + 4 + 7 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 2 + 14 + 4 + 16 + 15 = 1077
28 + 16 + 24 + 21 + 28 + 16 + 16 + 13 + 6 + 6 + 4 + 4 + 5 + 3 + 6 + 4 + 3 + 1 + 13 + 5 + 5 + 3 + 5 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 22 = 260
260 + 1077 = 1337

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

PPS — the informations about the distance vary somewhat, as you can see on these screenshots: