Church History, History of Schools too, Not forgetting Latin and Vernaculars

Is Exodus 20:4 "second commandment"? · Excerpts from New Debate on Mariology · Church History, History of Schools too, Not forgetting Latin and Vernaculars

Continued from Excerpts from New Debate on Mariology V.

With GF:

HGL

I do pray to Mary as in honour her, say she is blessed among other women and indeed all created persons, and ask for her intercession, no, that is NOT idolatry, calling it so is un-Biblical and un-Ecclesial (therefore doubly un-Biblical) prejudice.

GF

HGL then you are living and reading a false gospel. There is only one mediator between God and man and that is Christ Jesus. Nowhere in the Bible does it say it’s ok to pray to anyone else and in fact it says you are disqualified for eternal life if you do so

HGL

GF You already said as much, and you are breaking the promise of "end of discussion".

GF

HGL idiot. End of topic

HGL

GF Matthew 5:22

GF

HGL you are not my brother because you do not do the will of my father

[leaving it at that]

With AT,

subdivided into seven subthreads according to his topics 1 to 10, of which 4,5,6 are closely related and 8,9 also. Therefore same subthreads here.

1

AT

HGL

1. You did not provide good arguments against the OT or Jewish 10 commandments. If the Jews had the wrong interpretation of OT then we cant trust anything they wrote.

RCC is not free to their own interpretation. They either have the same Jewish OT 10 commandments or they changed them. Compare the Jewish and RCC and find out.

HGL

I am sorry, but you are confusing Jewish tradition with OT. They are not the same thing.

RCC is the Church Jesus founded. It took the text from the Jews back then, it is not obliged to obey their later tradition about how to interpret them or what constitutes a commandment of its own and what belongs to same commandment as previous text.

2

AT

HGL

2. "Latin writing is the expression of the spoken language"

Most of the common people did not understand spoken latin, let alone read in latin. Why were the reformes the first to translate Bibles and to start teaching common people how to read? Why did the RCC wait more than a 1000 years before starting imitating the reformers? Most of the catholics in my country even today have no clue about what is written in the Bible. But they sure know their "Hail Marys". If RCC realy wanted them to know Gods word and Jesuss commandments I would expect the Catolics to be the firstmost but they are far behind in their knowledge. So even today it is clear what are the "fruits" of RCC, ignorance and disobedience to the word of God.

HGL

2."Most of the common people did not understand spoken latin, let alone read in latin."

False in France, Spain, Italy up to 800 in France and up to even later in Spain and Italy.

Why? Since Latin was pronounced like the normal language.

Precisely as English is written like in the time of Malory, nearly as in the time of Chaucer, but pronounced very differently.

Imagine speaking Slovene and spelling it in Serbian, but always pronouncing the Serbian letters as the Slovene words (like pronouncing mleko as mliko).

This went on to 800, when Charlemagne had heard complaints that visiting priests from elsewhere couldn't understand the Latin in France. So he imported Alcuin from York, where Latin for centuries had been only a learned language (and where in his day Anglo-Saxon Bible translations or Bible part translations existed for this reason) and where therefore the pronunciation was much closer to the letters.

Imagine English getting a pronunciation reform where letters "I love reading books" instead of as now being pronounced "aj lav riding buks" get pronounced "i love reding bokes" (slight change of spelling back to earlier bookes / bokes) - this is when there was a new Latin pronunciation which normal people couldn't understand. It happened in 800, and in 813 the same place where Alcuin had given his lessons in correct pronunciation was the place where bishops decided that Gospel readings on Sundays and Feast Days had to be in Latin BUT also followed by a sermon explaining what had just been said.

How Latin from the pulpit sounded before that can be gathered from Strasburg oaths. German side party to the oaths would be used by then to the new pronunciation of Latin (introduced by Alcuin) and not know how to pronounce Latin so that French side nobles understood, hence, the spelling rules by Alcuin were not used to pronounce Latin of the books as many centuries earlier, but to write sth new pronounced as the Latin that was on its way to becoming French, Provençal and Franco-Provençal.

"Why were the reformes the first to translate Bibles and to start teaching common people how to read?"

You are propagating a false history.

You can ask "why?" when you have correctly settled "if".

"Why did the RCC wait more than a 1000 years before starting imitating the reformers?"

You are propagating a false history.

You can ask "why?" when you have correctly settled "if".

"Most of the catholics in my country even today have no clue about what is written in the Bible."

Not your perversion of its meaning, I hope.

"But they sure know their "Hail Marys"."

Which is in the Bible. Luke 1:28, 1:42.

"If RCC realy wanted them to know Gods word and Jesuss commandments I would expect the Catolics to be the firstmost but they are far behind in their knowledge."

I am sorry, but you are comparing apples and oranges. Cathoolics are all classes of people in totalities of nations (or were to recent apostasies), while 7DA are an élite group.

"So even today it is clear what are the "fruits" of RCC, ignorance and disobedience to the word of God."

No, the real ignorance and the real disobedience are on your part.

AT

"Imagine speaking Slovene and spelling it in Serbian"

You gave a good example, since Serbs write in cyrillic so I have no clue how to write in their language. E.g. the Bible in Slovene is = "Biblija" but in Serbian they would write the Bible as = "библија".

Spoken word is easier for us to understand.

But you gave a good example how similar languages like Slovenian and Serbian can also have a big barrier to understand each other. How bgger would be the difference between Slovene and Latin. I cant understand anything in latin, not even any spoken words.

That is why it is important to preach and give the gospel to the people in their OWN language and the reformers understood this just like Paul understood it (I already provided quotes - 1 Cor 14).

HGL

You have just shown you are fairly NOT literate. Imagine a neighbouring language having a different alphabet, imagine it is so close you can read some if you learn that different alphabet, and imagine then NOT learning that different alphabet!

That is NOT the attitude of a literate man.

"E.g. the Bible in Slovene is = "Biblija" but in Serbian they would write the Bible as = "библија"."

Znam, I can read both. I never learned a Slavic language to the full (started with Polish and had to interrupt that 2004), but I did learn Cyrillic even before that. Just as I learned Greek alphabet in childhood too, well before studying Greek. I even knew the Hebrew alphabet, and recently found out I had confused the shape of Tsade with the shape of Ayin (they are rather close, Ayin looks like handwritten Y - two lines, the upper right being the one continued to lower left - and Tsade is that backwards plus a third horizontal line below, which is even omitted in final Tsade). Learning more alphabets than the one you have use for is one thing literate people do.

"Spoken word is easier for us to understand."

Then learn Cyrillic and start reading texts in Serbian, and try Bulgarian too!

"But you gave a good example how similar languages like Slovenian and Serbian can also have a big barrier to understand each other."

I don't think it's bigger than Swedish to Danish. I read Danish.

"How bgger would be the difference between Slovene and Latin."

My comparison was writing the language Gregory of Tours spoke in Latin.

"I cant understand anything in latin, not even any spoken words."

Never disputed that.

"That is why it is important to preach and give the gospel to the people in their OWN language"

Gospel MESSAGE? Catholics did. Gospel TEXT? Catholics sometimes did that too. Though, Slovene is not one of those examples. Church Slavonic is.

"and the reformers understood this just like Paul understood it (I already provided quotes - 1 Cor 14)."

And they also understood the rhetorical value of misrepresenting Latin Mass as bad communication with people, when it is in fact the priest praying officially to God on their behalf.

3

AT

HGL

3. "Latin and Greek were spoken by common people all over Roman Empire"

I would disagree on this point. Provide some solid sources pls. I will quote from a book that I have unfortunately only in Slovene that says even the majority of nobility didn't write/read latin, let alone common people (see point 6).

HGL

Get a grip on Cena Trimalchionis:

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

It's not very edifying reading, but it definitely shows common people, like a rich guy whose parents were poor. He speaks Latin and uses lots of Greek words, so, Italy arguably in Nero's time (author Petronius was arbiter elegantiarum to Nero) spoke Latin and Greek.

Also, languages other than Latin and Greek dropped dead the centuries around Christ, Etruscan, Phrygian and Gaulish and Illyrian being four very late survivors, while Lydian was extinct in BC, as was Luwian, as was Celtiberian in Spain, as was Lepontic, as was Siculic and Sicanic on Sicily, as was Umbrian in central Italy, as was Venetic in Venetian Italy and in Slovenia, even Croatia; so, now to AD, Oscan in South Italy was extinct by AD 100, Iberian in Spain (not same language as Celtiberian!) was extinct by 200 AD, perhaps Basque being a localised survivor, Ligurian (SE France), was extinct by 100 AD or little after, Rhaetian survived to 300 AD, and while Dacian was probably extinct by 600 AD, latest actual very short texts are earlier and its cognate Mysian was extinct in BC times, look up each word and you will find a wikipedian article.

What languages took over while these died? Latin and Greek very obviously.

"I will quote from a book that I have unfortunately only in Slovene that says even the majority of nobility didn't write/read latin, let alone common people (see point 6)."

That would not have been the Roman Empire era.

Also, I would like to know if the book is a normal history book and from what period. As far as I know so far, you can have trusted a "Church History" by 7DA.

AT

I would also disagree with your statements that common people spoke latin (or/and Greek). Especially in the near time before reformation. People in Slovenia spoke German and Slovene, minority perhaps some other neighbour languages but as I pointed out the vast majority was not able to read/write.

HGL

"I would also disagree ... Especially in the near time before reformation."

It did not refer to "near the time of the reformation". It referred to the time when you place the beginning of the RCC. 1200 years earlier.

"People in Slovenia spoke ... not able to read/write."

Slovene, German and Italian, I'd say. And you are wrong on not being able to read or write, unless you mean farmers rather than city people.

AT

I gave you the title of the book I quoted. You can google it. As I said it is a secular book that only gives a history timeline.
On the other hand I haven't seen much sources from you, so I could easily be as sceptical towards your claims - you could be just quoting some RCC Jesuit sources or worse it could all be just in your imagination.

HGL

"I gave you the title of the book I quoted. ...."

It is also not by a historian of culture, I found out who the author was.

Here is a piece I wrote on him:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : This Guy is Supposed to Have Known Medieval Education System Better than I ...
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2018/11/this-guy-is-supposed-to-have-known.html

"On the other hand I haven't seen much sources from you, ..."

Or it could be memory from my fairly wide studies at university, especially in Latin, after that in Greek and therefore also including some kind of outlook on what happened to Latin after 476 when Odoakar (I think it was) deposed Romulus Augustulus.

When I speak of the Latin that was still a written form of the spoken language, I am referring to Latin such as written by Jordanes and by Gregory of Tours. I had to read Gregory of Tours in university, and it was MUCH harder than either Cicero or St Thomas Aquinas - bc it was the spoken language 700 years after Cicero and not yet the artificial language introduced by Alcuin in 800.

4, 5, 6

AT

HGL

4. "First printed books, there are Medieval documents in Slovene." [he misunderstood the sentence, which is shown below]

I just dont know how to respond to your lies. Pls provide sources.

It so well know history that I am really surprised at your statement.

At least check wikipedia if nothing else:

"Primož Trubar was a Slovenian Protestant Reformer of the Lutheran tradition, mostly known as the author of the FIRST Slovene language printed book...In 1550, while a Protestant preacher in Rothenburg, he wrote the FIRST TWO books in Slovene, Catechismus and Abecedarium"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primo%C5%BE_Trubar

Catechismus - was a short introduction to the Bible and Christianity for common people.
Abecedarium - was a first grammar and language tool book for common people.

The first Bible in Slovenia was also translated by a reformer Jurij Dalmatin in 1568.

"his most important achievement is the complete translation of the Bible into Slovene"

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

To make things more solid here is the source from our official government site:

FIRST SLOVENE BOOK
http://www.ukom.gov.si/en/media_room/background_information/culture/first_slovene_book/

Now stop deceiving people Hans.

5. "First (gymnasiums) since when?"

Since ever. I apologize since I wasn't very clear, I wrote first high schools but I meant first gymnasiums.

"first at what, at teaching in Slovene rather than Latin, while in 16th C to be educated, you normally should have received teaching in Latin"

I will quote from the book about the history of gymnasiums in Slovenia. I can provide slovenian links if you want, title : "GIMNAZIJA KRANJ IN STOLETJE NJENIH MATUR – Valentin Pivk"

It says "until protestantism occurred the majority of nobility was illiterate(!)".

So even the noble people didnt know how to read let alone common people.

"Protestants social and economic status was worse than of catholics, since they rejected luxury... schools were open also for the poor people and the social structure in the schools therefore changed."
"These schools were mostly focused on teaching people how to read and write.They teached Slovene, German and Latin."

[Pivk is probably not saying they were the first foundations in reading, more like "read and write" as opposed to maths and sciences, since that was his subject]

So that is about the schools but the biggest result of protestantism was the development of our language as a formal language and first translated books including Bible and the already mentioned above.

After protestant gymnasiums followed the Jesuits gymnasiums. But I wonder if the protestants hadnt started translating and educating people if the RCC ever would?

6. "Oppressed by what?"

I was thinking primarily of the spiritual oppression by the Church of Rome, of course we were also oppressed by the secular authorities especially Germany and Italy, later also Yugoslavia. That is why it was so crucial for our nation that the reformers started using our own language and translating books - that is how our nation liberated from these oppressions.We would disappear from the map long ago if it weren't for the reformers.

"Oppressed by what?"

I consider keeping people in the dark oppression. Far worse than secular is spiritual oppression - Matthew 23:13:

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to."

HGL

4. // First printed books, there are Medieval documents in Slovene. //

"I just dont know how to respond to your lies. Pls provide sources."

Wiki: "Like all Slavic languages, Slovene traces its roots to the same proto-Slavic group of languages that produced Old Church Slavonic. The earliest known examples of a distinct, written Slovene dialect are from the Freising Manuscripts, known in Slovene as Brižinski spomeniki. The consensus estimate of their date of origin is between 972 and 1039 (most likely before 1000). These religious writings are among the oldest surviving manuscripts in any Slavic language."

Early history / Slovene language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slovene_language#Early_history

"It so well know history that I am really surprised at your statement.

At least check wikipedia if nothing else:

"Primož Trubar was a Slovenian Protestant Reformer of the Lutheran tradition, mostly known as the author of the FIRST Slovene language printed book...In 1550, while a Protestant preacher in Rothenburg, he wrote the FIRST TWO books in Slovene, Catechismus and Abecedarium"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primo%C5%BE_Trubar

// Catechismus - was a short introduction to the Bible and Christianity for common people. Abecedarium - was a first grammar and language tool book for common people. The first Bible in Slovenia was also translated by a reformer Jurij Dalmatin in 1568. //

Did you note the word PRINTED?

Freising manuscript is handwritten, not printed.

But as it was read by Catholic priests who knew Latin, it was certainly used to instruct Slovenian peasants who didn't know Latin.

"his most important achievement is the complete translation of the Bible into Slovene"

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

Not disputing that, very possible that only parts (perhaps even short verses of phrases) of Bible had been translated in Middle Ages (if even that).

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

// To make things more solid here is the source from our official government site:

http://www.ukom.gov.si/en/media_room/background_information/culture/first_slovene_book/ //

Quoting your source:

"The publication of first Slovene book is one of the most important cultural events in the Slovene history."

In other words, it is about printed books, as publication usually means these days.

"Now stop deceiving people Hans."

I am not.

5. "Since ever. I apologize since I wasn't very clear, I wrote first high schools but I meant first gymnasiums."

In modern territory of Slovenia, right?

But let's suppose that protestants were even first at calling such things gymnasia, they had predecessors in Middle Ages:

"Die Anfänge des gelehrten Unterrichts in der Neuzeit waren im Mittelalter Klosterschulen und Stadtschulen. Dabei handelte es sich meist um kirchliche Einrichtungen, die vor allem der Ausbildung angehender Priester dienten. In protestantischen Gebieten wurden mit der Reformation im 16. Jahrhundert häufig auch diese Schulen zu Lateinschulen umgestaltet, deren Schulaufsicht zu den Landesfürsten oder den Räten der Stadt wechselte. Hauptziel der Schulausbildung blieb weiterhin der Erwerb lateinischer, zunehmend auch griechischer Sprachkenntnisse zur Bibellektüre. Die Bezeichnung als Gymnasium war sowohl für protestantische (Philipp Melanchthon) als auch katholische (Jesuitenschule) gelehrte Schulen, die zum Studium qualifizierten, in der frühen Neuzeit üblich. Viele Gymnasien waren auch direkt mit einer Hohen Schule verbunden, an der ein Studium möglich war. Sie wurden Gymnasium academicum oder Gymnasium illustre genannt. Erst mit dem Zeitalter der Aufklärung im 18. Jahrhundert wurden zunehmend auch Deutsch, moderne Fremdsprachen (überwiegend Französisch) und Naturwissenschaften Unterrichtsfächer."

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gymnasium#Entwicklung_der_Gymnasien_im_deutschsprachigen_Raum

"Klosterschulen und Stadtschulen. Dabei handelte es sich meist um kirchliche Einrichtungen"

Monastic schools and city schools mostly ecclesial.

However, gymnasiums properly so called began with Reformers, as it was a new paedagogy. But they had approximately same type of pupils.

"I will quote from the book about the history of gymnasiums in Slovenia. I can provide slovenian links if you want, title : "GIMNAZIJA KRANJ IN STOLETJE NJENIH MATUR – Valentin Pivk""

I saw a picture of him. He was educated under Titoism. [Born early in 1933 - 12 years when Tito won, higher education definitely under Titoism.]

"It says 'until protestantism occurred the majority of nobility was illiterate(!)'.
So even the noble people didnt know how to read let alone common people."

I am not sure even he would have considered illiterate necessarily meant not able to read at all. Your analysis is faulty if you take his "illiterate" as a synonym for "analphabetic".

"Protestants social and economic status was worse than of catholics, since they rejected luxury... schools were open also for the poor people and the social structure in the schools therefore changed."
"These schools were mostly focused on teaching people how to read and write.They teached Slovene, German and Latin."

Note : Latin - hence the gymnasium (like Medieval Cathedral schools and Monastic schools) was for those learning Latin. Note, in your quote it says "schools were open also" not "Protestants schools were open also". If Pivk thinks this was a novelty compared to Middle Ages, I think he is wrong.

Some did in the Middle Ages too:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ljubljana#Middle_Ages

"So that is about the schools"

and your mistaking gymnasiums for common education of all masses, and also a priority in gymnasiums as a priority in overall education of pre-teens and young teens, when gymnasium was simply a new paedagogy.

"but the biggest result of protestantism was the development of our language as a formal language and first translated books including Bible and the already mentioned above."

Admitted, if you limit "books" to "printed books", but Freising manuscript arguably translates quite a lot of liturgy.

"After protestant gymnasiums followed the Jesuits gymnasiums. But I wonder if the protestants hadnt started translating and educating people if the RCC ever would?"

They did in a by then traditional way. Cathedral schools, not gymnasiums.

6. "I was thinking primarily of the spiritual oppression by the Church of Rome,"

That was candid.

"of course we were also oppressed by the secular authorities especially Germany and Italy, later also Yugoslavia."

Look, Yugoslavia oppressing Slovenes that are nationalists after World War I does not equal Carinthia and Carniola oppressing Slovenes in the Middle Ages, when arguably they were not yet nationalists. [To be ultraclear "does not equal" is here used like "does not mean that". The point is, as Medieval Slovenes were not nationalists, they didn't feel oppressed by the authorities using other languages officially. Slavs - some of them at least - seem very bad at pragmatics and idioms of English.]

"That is why it was so crucial for our nation that the reformers started using our own language and translating books - that is how our nation liberated from these oppressions."

Which didn't exist as far as I am concerned in the Middle Ages.

"We would disappear from the map long ago if it weren't for the reformers."

You weren't on the map in the first place, Carinthia and Carniola were and they included parts of what is now not Slovenia.

"I consider keeping people in the dark oppression. Far worse than secular is spiritual oppression - Matthew 23:13:

"Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to." "

Agreed, but not providing education and not translating full text of Bible for people who were not likely to read all of it anyway or correctly understand what they read, that is in my book not keeping them in the dark.

Are you aware that Jews commonly learning to read was not indicated in the law of Moses, apart for the specialists called priests and scribes? The common people would hear the law orally once every seven years, when the Cohen Gadol was reciding all of the Torah for all of the people.

AT

I might take the time to read your entire response on Sunday, Monday but I am disappointed by a few things as I scrolled through.

E.g. 4. point. You said that first Slovene PRINTED books were medieval documents:
"First printed books, there are Medieval documents in Slovene.".

I clearly rebuked that and gave you sources and I am not sure why you would even further argue about that. Sure we had other handwritten material before but we are talking about PRINTED books (which were faster and easier to distribute).

The fact that the protestants translated our first Bible, printed first grammar books, started first gymnasiums for lower classes etc... that tells me a lot. But you might have some other criteria, perhaps you wouldn't like that lower classes are illiterate?

HGL

"E.g. 4. point. You said that first Slovene PRINTED books were medieval documents:"

// First printed books, there are Medieval documents in Slovene.//.

Your English is bad. The phrase "First printed books" refers to your phrase or your authority's phrase "first books". The phrase "there are Medieval documents in Slovene" is to be understood as "there are before that Medieval documents in Slovene" while you took it as "THESE are Medieval documents in Slovene", which I never said.

"I clearly rebuked that"

I don't care a whit for your rebukes, especially if they are based on not understanding English.

"and gave you sources and I am not sure why you would even further argue about that. Sure we had other handwritten material before"

Ah, you say that now! Najlepša hvala!

"but we are talking about PRINTED books (which were faster and easier to distribute)."

Your language existed before printed books.

"The fact that the protestants translated our first Bible, printed first grammar books, started first gymnasiums for lower classes etc... that tells me a lot."

It tells me monolingual Slovenes were a bit depriorised by German speaking authorities in Laibach, Graz, Klagenfurt.

Reformers exploited it, and then Jesuits corrected it.

"But you might have some other criteria, perhaps you wouldn't like that lower classes are illiterate?"

You mean the opposite, if you are ironic? In fact, you are illitterate. You are not an analphabet, you use letters, you can read words that are written, but you have a bad grasp of literature and that makes you illiterate.

Going to a gymnasium was very far from the only way to learn to read. A gymnasium was were you went to learn to read and speak LATIN and not only that, but LATIN OF CICERO. OK, in the Middle Ages you learned Alcuin's Latin (the one existing since Carolingian Renaissance, replacing Latin/Early-Romance as native language) in Cathedral schools or Monastic schools if you wanted to pursue an academic, specially an ecclesiastic carreer. But also one in medicine or law. The gymnasium was a novelty, I just learned when researching to answer you, yes, Protestantism favoured these. A new standard of Latin (and calling those who only knew the old standard "illiterate"), a new keenness on using rhetoric in debates and therefore ultimately a more exclusive school type.

Note

Kranj is the city where Vladimir Pivk's gymnasium was/is. Look at this:



Link to wiki, Kranj
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kranj

Traces of the old Slavic settlement (a Slavic burial site) date from the 9th and 10th centuries. As the seat of the margraves of Carniola in the 11th century, it was the most important settlement in the territory. The town itself is believed to have developed in the early 13th century; citizens of the town of Kranj appear in a document from 1221, and Kranj was officially referred to as a town in 1256. It was the seat of a court whose jurisdiction extended between that of Radovljica and Kamnik. In 1414 a decision was issued relieving the citizens of the town from paying tolls. In 1422 an ordinance required houses to be built of stone to prevent fires. A parish school was established in Kranj in 1423, and the same year the right was granted to Kranj to elect its own judge. Kranj was laid waste in 1471 in an Ottoman attack. Emperor Frederick III granted Kranj the right to collect tolls in documents from 1488 and 1493, and a 1493 document also granted the town the right to hold fairs twice a year. The town hospice records date back to the 15th century.[6]

Crafts developed in Kranj during the Middle Ages. Mills first developed along the Sava and Kokra rivers, and this was followed by butchers, fur merchants, hide and wood processors, and then weavers of canvas and woolen cloth. Habsburg efforts to maintain Vienna's monopoly on trade with Italy resulted in trade routes bypassing Kranj.[6]

Footnote six gives the reference Savnik, Roman, ed. 1968. Krajevni leksikon Slovenije, vol. 1. Ljubljana: Državna založba Slovenije, pp. 159–162.

7

AT

HGL
7. Talking about the latin mass you said:
"So? If you mean they did not understand the exact words, what is the problem?"

Well at least read 1 Corinthians 14 and how Paul puts emphasis on prophesying and explaining to the people in a way that they can understand what you are saying!

Read the entire chapter but here are some quotes from Paul:

"Dear brothers and sisters,[c] if I should come to you speaking in an unknown language,[d] how would that help you?"
"And if the bugler doesn’t sound a clear call, how will the soldiers know they are being called to battle?"
" It’s the same for you. If you speak to people in words they don’t understand, how will they know what you are saying? You might as well be talking into empty space."
"But if I don’t understand a language, I will be a foreigner to someone who speaks it, and the one who speaks it will be a foreigner to me."
"But in a church meeting I would rather speak five understandable words to help others than ten thousand words in an unknown language." etc!

Hans Jesus didn't come to give us more nonsense tradition in latin but He came to give us a clear Word of God. Paul understood this, why dont you? Have you been indoctrinated by the Roman Mysteries?

HGL

"7. Talking about the latin mass ... at least read 1 Corinthians 14 and how Paul puts emphasis on prophesying and explaining to the people in a way that they can understand what you are saying!"

The ordinary of the Mass is not a charismatic prophecy occurring with different words in each mass. It is a set text. That set text is explained as to main meaning and implications in a Catholic catechism. There are different ways for laymen to follow Mass, one of them being to say the Rosary in quiet.

However, there is also the proper of the Mass, according to date or sunday of the Church year, including the Gospel reading.

As said, in France (or Tours area at least), this Latin became incomprehensible in AD 800, but it was supplemented by a sermon in the popular pronunciation of whatever was the common people's language in AD 813 for Sundays and major feasts (in fact the days when Catholics must go to Church and not just optionally can do so).

"Read the entire chapter but here are some quotes from Paul:"

"Dear brothers and sisters,[c] if I should come to you speaking in an unknown language,[d] how would that help you?"
"And if the bugler doesn’t sound a clear call, how will the soldiers know they are being called to battle?"
" It’s the same for you. If you speak to people in words they don’t understand, how will they know what you are saying? You might as well be talking into empty space."
"But if I don’t understand a language, I will be a foreigner to someone who speaks it, and the one who speaks it will be a foreigner to me."
"But in a church meeting I would rather speak five understandable words to help others than ten thousand words in an unknown language." etc!

[He omitted a verse relevant for the situation of a priest if no parishioner understands Latin which originally was not the case and is not always the case even now. I Cor 14:2 For he that speaketh in a tongue, speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man heareth. Yet by the Spirit he speaketh mysteries. - a perfect case for Canon of the Mass, said in near silence and not just in Latin.]

Look here, did you just quote "If you speak to people in words they don’t understand,"? Because the Mass is not spoken to the people, it is spoken to God, except a few responses which someone not knowing Latin can learn by heart (Dominus vobiscum and a few more), and except for sermon. Which is not in Latin. The huge part of the Mass is not instruction or even any kind of direct exhortation to the people, it is spoken by the priest to God.

"Hans Jesus didn't come to give us more nonsense tradition"

Agree there is no nonsense in it.

"in latin"

In fact, three languages were available as non-sacral ones in Holy Land - Aramaic, Greek and Latin. Why would he have excluded the language of Roman soldiers?

"but He came to give us a clear Word of God."

Sure, and that is why the Church took hold of languages which already had a grammar, like Latin, Greek, Syriac and Coptic, not dialects which were either dead of dying.

"Paul understood this, why dont you?"

Who says I don't?

"Have you been indoctrinated by the Roman Mysteries?"

Indoctrinated is a favourite word with commies.

8, 9

AT

HGL
8. "Titoist Yugoslavia... the education system was obviously heavily biassed."

Yes it was biased. It hated christianity and promoted atheism but yet they were unable to erase Gods history of protestantism in Slovenia :)

9. "Again, learn history."

Hans not only have I shown that you gave false arguments about protestantism but I am concerned you also have no clue about the true RCC history.

HGL

8. "Yes it was biased. It hated christianity and promoted atheism but yet they were unable to erase Gods history of protestantism in Slovenia :)"

Guess what, Marx being from a Protestant family, he already had your type of Protestant hatred for Catholicism, he just extended it to Protestantism.

9. "Hans not only have I shown that you gave false arguments about protestantism"

Tried to show, unsuccessfully.

"but I am concerned you also have no clue about the true RCC history."

I have a very big clue about what YOU probably think it is (you may have read "Trail of Blood"), and I also have a very big clue how this book is centuries later analyses very divorced from the century to century documents of the periods it is supposed to cover.

10

AT

HGL
10. If I go back to the 10 commandments. You havent commented much on that issue but yet you say that the RCC teaches Jesuss commandments.

Well explain to me then why are the 10 commandments that the RCC teaches different than those in the Bible?

I think it is funny or sad that I still havent met a catholic (not counting the priests although I am afraid it is not much better) that would actually know the 10 commandments from the Bible. They usually dont even know the first one "I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me." In fact they usually don't even know all of the RCC 10 commandments. If your argument that the RCC teaches people the commandments of Jesus was true than I would expect catholics to tell all the commandments in a blink of an eye and I would also expect they would be the best at knowing the Bible but usualy they/you know the least. How so? Doesn't the RCC have enough power, money and infrastructure to educate people properly? Or is there another agenda that the RCC is playing called deceiving and blinding the masses? :) What do you think?

ps: if I skipped any point I will respond again tomorrow. God bless!

HGL

"10. If I go back to the 10 commandments. You havent commented much on that issue but yet you say that the RCC teaches Jesuss commandments."

I also showed it in a thread I had with the guy abbreviated as DT on this post:

HGL's F.B. writings : Is Exodus 20:4 "second commandment"?
https://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com/2018/11/is-exodus-204-second-commandment.html

"Well explain to me then why are the 10 commandments that the RCC teaches different than those in the Bible?"

You mean, they have a shorter overall text mass than Exodus 20:2-17? Mark 10:19 even has a shorter text than the RCC Catechism, Jesus there omits the commandments directly about divine worship or about illicit desire.

Or you mean they divide differently?

Well, the divisions you put into the text Exodus 20:2-17 are not there from the time of Moses. Exodus was written as one continuous text, and neither chapters, verses or commandment numbers were marked, as far as we know.

We do not have the stone tablets to check if He did write into the stone numbered or unnumbered commandments, your clue to your division is simply putting Jewish tradition over the main Christian one. But even suppose your division were right (St John Chrysostom supports it and EO generally enumerate after his division, it is not impossible), that is why EO and Eastern Rite Catholics do not have statues but flat icons. You see, "graven" means carved or sculptured, not painted.

"I think it is funny or sad that I still havent met a catholic (not counting the priests although I am afraid it is not much better) that would actually know the 10 commandments from the Bible."

Why that, when Jesus Himself was content with a shorter enumeration of them?

"They usually dont even know the first one 'I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. You shall have no other gods before me.'"

You don't know it, since you cut it short too soon. [This is still First commandment continuing : [4] Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. [5] Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me: [6] And shewing mercy unto thousands to them that love me, and keep my commandments.]

"In fact they usually don't even know all of the RCC 10 commandments."

In that case, you are dealing with ill instructed and not very active Roman Catholics.

"If your argument that the RCC teaches people the commandments of Jesus was true than I would expect catholics to tell all the commandments in a blink of an eye"

Without checking:

1) I am the Lord thy God, have no other Gods before me
2) do not take my name in vain
3) keep holy the Lord's day
4) honour thy father and thy mother
5) thou shalt not kill
6) thou shalt not commit adultery
7) thou shalt not steal
8) thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neigbour
9) thou shalt not desire thy neighbours wife
10) thou shalt not desire thy neighbours property

"and I would also expect they would be the best at knowing the Bible"

In exact texts, if they are not clergy?

"but usualy they/you know the least. How so? Doesn't the RCC have enough power, money and infrastructure to educate people properly?"

These days, no. Much of the resources formerly owned by RCC are now in the hands of the Vatican II sect.

But even so, as to power, no. Secular authorities are in most countries tugging children and teens away from Catholic catechism or allowing them a reduced portion in proportion to the rest they are obliged to learn, and it has been like that since Enlightenment.

"Or is there another agenda that the RCC is playing called deceiving and blinding the masses? :) What do you think?"

I rather think the enemies of the Church want to blind the masses.

"ps: if I skipped any point I will respond again tomorrow. God bless!"

Thanks for the well meaning. Now I am responding and it already is tomorrow.

AT

I ll just end with the 10 commandments since you try to dodge that one most I think :) and it also shows the TRUE face of RCC.

So you say that RCC has the right to their own interpretaion of the text in Exodus 20 and it can contradict the old Jewish interpretation which non-sence.

The only "agrument" you give is that Jesus founded RCC :) but you see - Jesus also founded the Israel nation and the OT, so why would Jesus contradict Himself. Unless you would like to argue that Jesus changed the 10 commanments when He came?

It is clear that RCC omited the 2. commandment
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"

but lets just focus on the 4. commandment (3. by catholic false list):

4. "Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.”

Nowhere in the Bible will you find a change from Sabbath to Sunday. Your churc RCC took the authority to change this comandment (therfore they tried to change Gods law and TIMES as God foretold us that the Antichrist will try that (Daniel 7:25).

All your other arguments are not as important as Gods comandments are. So even if everyone in the dark ages was able to speak and write in Latin, Greek, Hebrew etc that would still be insignificant to the issue

"is the RCC the True Church of Christ".

Because if RCC teaches/ed the wrong commandments they clearly are NOT. And that then also explains why they persecuted people who translated first Bibles.

HGL

"I ll just end with the 10 commandments since you try to dodge that one most I think :) and it also shows the TRUE face of RCC.

So you say that RCC has the right to their own interpretaion of the text in Exodus 20 and it can contradict the old Jewish interpretation which non-sence."

Who says the Jewish - Rabbinic Jewish - interpretation is older?

"The only "agrument" you give is that Jesus founded RCC :) but you see - Jesus also founded the Israel nation and the OT,"

I agree.

"so why would Jesus contradict Himself."

He doesn't.

The text He gave to Moses in Torah (unlike tablets, perhaps?) has no divisions for where one commandment begins and another ends.

"Unless you would like to argue that Jesus changed the 10 commanments when He came?"

Indeed, he changed the ritual content of the three first commandments. He omitted what you call "II commandment" by Himself being an image. Even a graven image, God's sculpture of Himself. He omitted the Tetragrammaton from being main part of II Commandment, teaching us the "name of God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit", and He also changed the Sabbath (III) by resting from Redemptive efforts on the Sunday of Resurrection. Each of these commandments is morally the same, but ritually changed due to His Revelation.

//It is clear that RCC omited the 2. commandment
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image" //

The text is not omitted from the Bible, the text portion in New Law is no longer fully part of the Commandment.

// but lets just focus on the 4. commandment (3. by catholic false list):

4. "Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.”

Nowhere in the Bible will you find a change from Sabbath to Sunday.//

Except that Acts says sth different. Instead of assembling in Synagogue Friday and Saturday evening, the main service (requiring rest from work) is Sunday morning.

"On the first day of the week let every one of you put apart with himself, laying up what it shall well please him; that when I come, the collections be not then to be made."
[1 Corinthians 16:2]

"And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, being to depart on the morrow: and he continued his speech until midnight."
[Acts Of Apostles 20:7]

"Your churc RCC took the authority to change this comandment"

Accepted Christ's changing it, rather. AS did Luther. AS did Primož Trubar.

"(therfore they tried to change Gods law and TIMES as God foretold us that the Antichrist will try that (Daniel 7:25)."

No, since God Himself changed it. Beginning with what you called II commandment, see Colossians 1:15

"All your other arguments are not as important as Gods comandments are."

Which is why I refer to God's promise in Matthew 28:20. You CANNOT trace Sabbatarian and Tetragrammatist Iconoclasts across the history of the Church, therefore that CANNOT be the correct understanding of the commandments, whatever Rabbinic Jews are saying after rejecting Christ.

"So even if everyone in the dark ages was able to speak and write in Latin,"

The case for those able to write in France. If by Dark Ages you mean 476 - 800 AD. [I'm afraid he used it of Middle Ages!]

"Greek,"

The case for those able to write in Byzantine parts of Empire.

"Hebrew etc that would still be insignificant to the issue"

I agree commandments are really more important than education.

// "is the RCC the True Church of Christ".
Because if RCC teaches/ed the wrong commandments they clearly are NOT.//

You haven't proven they do.

"And that then also explains why they persecuted people who translated first Bibles."

Not even the first printed Bibles, I'd say, not in all languages. Here I will quote a Jesuit manual, KOnvertiten-Katechismus from Paderborn 1950. When Luther made his Bible translation, there were already 14 translations to High German and 4 to Low German. Luther even made fun of the German in Catholic translations, because it was not his own dialect.

AT

HGL

But let me give you some of the quotes RCC representatives made about this:

Cardinal James Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers (Ayers Publishing, 1978): 108:

But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.

The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine (1957): 50:

Q. Which is the Sabbath day?
A. Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Q. Why Do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.

Chancellor Albert Smith for Cardinal of Baltimore Archdiocese, letter dated February 10, 1920:
If Protestants would follow the Bible, they should worship God on the Sabbath day by God is Saturday. In keeping the Sunday, they are following a law of the Catholic Church.

Stephen Keenan, Catholic—Doctrinal Catechism 3rd Edition: 174:
Question: Have you any other way of proving the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?

Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her, she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the 1st day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the 7th day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority.i

John A. O'Brien, The Faith of Millions: 472-473:
John A. O'Brien, The Faith of Millions: 472-473: "The third commandment is: 'Remember thou keep ...

Our Sunday Visitor (February 5, 1950):
Practically everything Protestants regard as essential or important they have received from the Catholic Church... The Protestant mind does not seem to realize that in accepting the Bible and observing the Sunday, in keeping Christmas and Easter, they are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the church, the Pope.

Louis Gaston Segur, Plain Talk about the Protestantism of To-Day (London: Thomas Richardson and Son, 1874): 213: Thus the observance of Sunday by the Protestants is a homage they pay, in spite of themselves, to the authority of the (Catholic) Church.

The Catholic Mirror (September 23, 1893):
The Catholic Church, for over one thousand years before the existence of a Protestant, by virtue of her divine mission, changed the day from Saturday to Sunday..."

Catholic Priest T. Enright, CSSR, Kansas City, MO:
It was the holy Catholic Church that changed the day of rest from Saturday to Sunday, the 1st day of the week. And it not only compelled all to keep Sunday, but at the Council of Laodicea, AD 364, anathematized those who kept the Sabbath and urged all persons to labor on the 7th day under penalty of anathema.

[If he accepts 66 books, the OT canon of Laodicea is his only Christian ancient authority]

John Henry Newman


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Henry_Newman_by_Sir_John_Everett_Millais,_1st_Bt.jpg

Catholic Priest T. Enright, CSSR, lecture at Hartford, KS, Feb 18, 1884:
I have repeatedly offered $1000 to any one who can furnish any proof from the Bible that Sunday is the day we are bound to keep...The Bible says, “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy,” but the Catholic Church says, “No, keep the first day of the week,” and the whole world bows in obedience.

Cardinal John Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine (London: Basil Montague Pickering, 1878): 373:
The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons…are all of pagan origin and sanctified by their adoption into the Church.

[He wrote this essay at his conversion and was told to write it before getting instructions on certain matters - so the book should show the motives of conversion from what he knew already while Anglican. It is unjust to him to quote that book as if it were his final opinion.]

Catholic Record (September 1, 1923):
The [catholic] Church is above the Bible, and this transference of the Sabbath observance is proof of that fact.

Pope Leo XIII, Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae (The Reunion of Christendom), June 20, 1894: �
We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.

[truncated but real, and note "hold the place" of does not mean "is" :

Praeclara Gratulationis Publicae

"But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth, and now that Our advanced age and the bitterness of anxious cares urge Us on towards the end common to every mortal, We feel drawn to follow the example of Our Redeemer and Master, Jesus Christ, Who, when about to return to Heaven, implored of God, His Father, in earnest Prayer, that His Disciples and followers should be of one mind and of one heart: I pray . . . that they all may be one, as Thou Father in Me, and I in Thee: that they also may be one in Us. And as this Divine Prayer and Supplication does not include only the souls who then believed in Jesus Christ, but also every one of those who were henceforth to believe in Him, this Prayer holds out to Us no indifferent reason for confidently expressing Our hopes, and for making all possible endeavors in order that the men of every race and clime should be called and moved to embrace the Unity of Divine Faith."]

“Pope,” Ferraris’ Ecclesiastic Dictionary:
The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not a mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God.

[Cannot check, and the dictionary is not an official Church document.]

Our Sunday Visitor (April 18, 1915): 3:
The letters inscribed in the Pope’s miter are these: VICARIUS FILLII DEI, which is the Latin for, “Vicar of the Son of God.”

[Can have been said by some US American priest who wrongly believed this allegation often made by Protestants.]

Letter from C.F. Thomas, Chancellor of Cardinal Gibbons on October 28, 1895:

Of course the Catholic Church claims that the change was her act…And the act is a MARK of her ecclesiastical power and authority in religious matters.

American Catholic Quarterly Review (January 1883):
Sunday...is purely a creation of the Catholic Church.

Catholic American Sentinel (June 1893):
Sunday...It is a law of the Catholic Church alone...

S.C. Mosna, Storia della Domenica (1969): 366-367:
Not the Creator of the Universe in Genesis 2:1-3, but the Catholic Church “can claim the honor of having granted man a pause to his work every seven days.”

[S. C. Mosna, was he even Catholic? Sort of, his book was printed by Vatican II sect in 1969]

Arthur Weigall, The Paganism in Our Christianity (New York: Putnam’s Sons, 1928): 145:
The Church made a sacred day of Sunday…largely because it was the weekly festival of the sun; for it was a definite Christian policy to take over the pagan festivals endeared to the people by tradition, and to give them a Christian significance.

[Weigall was an Egyptologist, his opinions do not speak for the Church]

John A. O'Brien, The Faith of Millions: the Credentials of the Catholic Religion Revised Edition (Our Sunday Visitor Publishing, 1974): 400-401:
But since Saturday, not Sunday, is specified in the Bible, isn't it curious that non-Catholics, who claim to take their religion directly from the Bible and not from the Church, observe Sunday instead of Saturday? Yes, of course, it is inconsistent; but this change was made about fifteen centuries before Protestantism was born, and by that time the custom was universally observed. They have continued the custom even though it rests upon the authority of the Catholic Church and not upon and explicit text in the Bible. That observance remains as a reminder of the Mother Church from which the non-Catholic sects broke away—like a boy running away from home but still carrying in his pocket a picture of his mother or a lock of her hair.

[About 15 centuries before Protestantism was born = around AD 33, Pentecost described in Acts 2]

HGL

AT In response to long list of quotes:

But let me give you some of the quotes RCC representatives made about this:

// Cardinal James Gibbons, The Faith of Our Fathers (Ayers Publishing, 1978): 108:

But you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify. //

I could not find that in google books except on anticatholic sites.

// The Convert's Catechism of Catholic Doctrine (1957): 50:

Q. Which is the Sabbath day?
A. Saturday is the Sabbath day.
Q. Why Do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday?
A. We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday. //

I think this may be another edition, 1930. OR you are omitting a next "Q." on why Catholic Church did so and "A." because Christ so instructed Her. I think by the way that book is one of the five catechisms I did read at my conversion. In other words, the Catholic Church did so as the Church of Acts, the Bible book, not centuries later.

In the Trentine Catechism you will have as examples of not-Bible written but still apostolic doctrine : sign of the cross, rest and worship on sundays, fasting on wednesdays and fridays.

// Chancellor Albert Smith for Cardinal of Baltimore Archdiocese, letter dated February 10, 1920: If Protestants would follow the Bible, they should worship God on the Sabbath day by God is Saturday. In keeping the Sunday, they are following a law of the Catholic Church. //

Correct. But he did not add "which the Church made up centuries later", as you seem to think it means.

// Stephen Keenan, Catholic—Doctrinal Catechism 3rd Edition: 174: Question: Have you any other way of proving the Church has power to institute festivals of precept?

Answer: Had she not such power, she could not have done that in which all modern religionists agree with her, she could not have substituted the observance of Sunday the 1st day of the week, for the observance of Saturday the 7th day, a change for which there is no Scriptural authority. //

Indeed. We have it from Apostles, via tradition, but not from a very direct command in Scripture. Or, Keenan can have overlooked Corinthians, the quote I gave.

// Our Sunday Visitor (February 5, 1950): Practically everything Protestants regard as essential or important they have received from the Catholic Church... The Protestant mind does not seem to realize that in accepting the Bible and observing the Sunday, in keeping Christmas and Easter, they are accepting the authority of the spokesman for the church, the Pope. //

Well, in the case of Sunday, it was the first Pope Peter. Easter dates have changed later, though. And been decided by Popes, last time Gregorian calendar reform which EO reject.

Now, did the "Jewish Church" (not under rabbis as yet, but still under the Cohen Gadol from Aaron to Kaiaphas) have a similar power? Yes, that is why Hanukkah and Purim are celebrated. And Hanukkah is given in the Gospel, as celebrated by Jesus, Purim in the book of Esther itself.

AT

HGL

You have too much time :)

Not only would you like to change the 10 commandments but you would also like to rewrite Slovenian history :D

"You CANNOT trace Sabbatarian and Tetragrammatist Iconoclasts across the history of the Church"

I guess I ll just blindly trust your Jesuit opinion (NOT) ...

Matthew 28:20 does not mean an institution (like RCC) will be with us always but Jesus will. So that passage does not prove your point at all.

A hill close to our city is called Holy Sabbath and it was not named by the Jews but by Christians. I guess you had no clue about this hill just like you have no clue how many Sabbatarian Christian Churches there acctualy were.

[If he means Murska Sobota he perhaps is wrong : Officially, the city is known as Murska Sobota, although informally it is usually simply referred to as Sobota by its inhabitants and Murska by people from other parts of Slovenia.[citation needed] The traditional German name of the city is Olsnitz, which is derived from the old Slovene name Olšnica. The modern Slovene name is a translation of the Hungarian name Muraszombat, which was the official name of the city until 1919. In Hungarian, szombat means 'Saturday', referring to the city's practice of holding fairs every week on that day. Murska Sobota was a district (Hungarian: járás) city of Vas County in the Kingdom of Hungary until 1918. It was occupied by Hungary again during World War II, from 1941 to 1944. Between 1944 and 1945 it was under Nazi German occupation and it was liberated by Soviet troops in May 1945. It was also part of the Balatin Sanjak, which belonged at first to the Budin Eyalet, later the Kanije Eyaleti, before the Treaty of Karlowitz. - if there is a smaller hill called Sveti Sobota anywhere, I haven't found it.]

So unless you can 100% prove there were no Christians honering Sabbath on Saturday after Christ than you are just attacking a strawman which you created (which is a con-man tactic).

4. "Remember to keep holy the Sabbath day.”

What you quote from 1. Cor is just a gathering of money which makes sence that they did on Sunday since it was not allowed on Sabbath.

The second occasion was just gathering not worship.

I am not sure if you mentioned the incident when the disciples were hiding from the Jews on Sunday but that was also not worship.

In fact in Acts we can offten read that Paul teached on Sabbath and that acctualy is part of worship (not like your arguments of gathering money and hiding...). E.g.: Acts 13:42 (KJV)

"And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath"

Notice it was the gentiles that wanted to meet on the next Sabbath not the Jews.

Even Jesus kept the Sabbath as it was His custom (Luke 4:16) and He even warned people about the FUTURE that they pray for Sabbaths concerning the destruction of Jerusalem (Matthew 24:20) - I guess Jesus would know if He changed the Sabbath or not right?

So why would He warned people about it in the future if He knew He changed it - makes no sensce from your point of view.

But who cares about logic in RCC, just follow the Jesuits right!

"and He (Jesus) also changed the Sabbath (III) by resting from Redemptive efforts on the Sunday of Resurrection"

No Hans, Jesus rested on the seventh day Sabbath (like He did at creation), then He rose on the first day Sunday and started His work again.

I had far longer disqusion on Sabbath that a few lines from Acts and NT - if you really wanted the truth you would flee from the Whore of Babylon.

ps: I appologise for spelling mistakes, Sabbath is close so I am of at least till Sunday :) I might read the rest you wrote Hans but I dont promise since you clearly have much more time than me and more knowledge on some topics (at least you claim so) but I am not sure if you have the true knowledge.

Note

he gave an excellent argument why St Paul preaching and arguing in synagogues on Sabbath does not mean he was keeping it as his day of rest.

HGL

"I guess I ll just blindly trust your Jesuit opinion (NOT) ..."

Or my wider knowledge of history than you have?

NOT?

Now, the actual burden of proof is on you. It is not for me to prove there were no Christians doing ALL these anti-Catholic things over the centuries, and sparse between those who did some of them, it is for YOU to prove a continuity in all of them.

"Matthew 28:20 does not mean an institution (like RCC) will be with us always but Jesus will."

Check verse 16. He is talking to the 11 Apostles. Now, the backbone of RCC is APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. To us, this verse proves, since Jesus is always with HIS CHURCH (specifically most directly mentioned clergy, since the 12 were highest clergy of His choice), therefore the CHURCH is ALSO always there.

"A hill close to our city is called Holy Sabbath and it was not named by the Jews but by Christians."

When was it named? You have documented THAT time. On one of the three issues (btw, Sabbatarians would usually be also be iconoclasts, so two, but not all three). UNLESS the Hill in question was so named for another reason.

"What you quote from 1. Cor is just a gathering of money which makes sence that they did on Sunday since it was not allowed on Sabbath."

A gathering of voluntary monetary gifts would definitely have been allowed on Sabbath, since neither buying and selling, nor reclaiming a debt was involved.

A priest who is concerned with the tithe cannot claim it on a Sunday, but he can pass the basket for voluntary gifts on a Sunday, and that is what Corinthians was talking about.

"In fact in Acts we can offten read that Paul teached on Sabbath and that acctualy is part of worship (not like your arguments of gathering money and hiding...)."

He did not preach to his disciples on Sabbath, but argue with adversaries or possible converts on a Sabbath - that is more like the work actually forbidden. And NOT part of the worship.

"Even Jesus kept the Sabbath as it was His custom (Luke 4:16) and He even warned people about the FUTURE that they pray for Sabbaths concerning the destruction of Jerusalem (Matthew 24:20) - I guess Jesus would know if He changed the Sabbath or not right?"

He was speaking before He had changed Sabbath to Sunday and using the language about that.

He could also have taken thought for some unnecessarily Judaising but still tolerated Christians in the Church of Jerusalem.

"But who cares about logic in RCC, just follow the Jesuits right!"

Or be a bit more logical than you are.

"No Hans, Jesus rested on the seventh day Sabbath (like He did at creation), then He rose on the first day Sunday and started His work again."

His body rested in the Sabbath, but His soul was down preaching to the spirits held captive. On Sunday, He was in a good mood, taking walks, being friendly, reassuring His disciples, suffering neither crucifixions, nor confrontations with Pharisees.

"I had far longer disqusion on Sabbath that a few lines from Acts and NT - if you really wanted the truth you would flee from the Whore of Babylon."

You had a long list of quotes to which I gave a somewhat shorter answer. And, as you are illiterate (not just shown in spelling mistakes) you are mistaken on what some of them mean.

HGL

And here on commandment:

[said after an addition pertaining not to 10 but to 4,5,6]

BALTIMORE CATECHISM #3
LESSON 32 - FROM THE SECOND TO THE FOURTH COMMANDMENT
http://www.baltimore-catechism.com/lesson32.htm

Q. 1248. Are the Sabbath day and the Sunday the same?

A. The Sabbath day and the Sunday are not the same. The Sabbath is the seventh day of the week, and is the day which was kept holy in the old law; the Sunday is the first day of the week, and is the day which is kept holy in the new law.

Q. 1249. What is meant by the Old and New Law?

A. The Old Law means the law or religion given to the Jews; the New Law means the law or religion given to Christians.

Q. 1250. Why does the Church command us to keep the Sunday holy instead of the Sabbath?

A. The Church commands us to keep the Sunday holy instead of the Sabbath because on Sunday Christ rose from the dead, and on Sunday He sent the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles.

Q. 1251. Do we keep Sunday instead of Saturday holy for any other reason?

A. We keep Sunday instead of Saturday holy also to teach that the Old Law is not now binding upon us, but that we must keep the New Law, which takes its place.

Epilogue

AT made a short comment back, so here it is uncut and my answer is incut, with an even shorter exchange after that, with IP.

AT

HGL

1. You said: "You CANNOT trace Sabbatarian and Tetragrammatist Iconoclasts across the history of the Church"

Since you PROCLAIMED a 100% claim it is on you to show that your claim is 100% true.
Just because you CANNOT trace it that does not mean it doesnt/didnt exist.

So please provide 100% proof(s) for your 100% claim.

2. (Jesus kept the Sabbath)
"He was speaking before He had changed Sabbath to Sunday and using the language about that."

Firstly you haven't argued anything on Matthew 24:20 where Jesus destroys your claim that He "changed the Sabbath".

Secondly I will respond to this in combination to your catholic quotes:

"Sabbath...is the day which was kept holy in the old law"

"(RCC changed worship day) because on Sunday Christ rose from the dead, and on Sunday He sent the Holy Ghost upon the Apostles + also to teach that the Old Law is not now binding upon us"

Sabbath is not just a part of the old law but MUCH more. It was instituted as a day of rest by Gods example and blessed AT CREATION for ALL creation and ALL people - not just the Jews and their OT, since the Jewish nation didnt even exist at creation.

Gen 2:3
"Then God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, BECAUSE on it He rested from all the work of creating that He had done."

Sabbath is still valid, it was confirmed in the OT and by Jesus, since Jesus rested on the Sabbath just like at creation and He talked about it in future tense. So He confirmed the Sabbath and gave once more a clear example for us to follow just like at creation. So you can rest on Sabbath just like Jesus did or you can follow RCC and their proxies instead.

Thirdly you haven't provided any scriptural arguments why Jesus according to you and RCC changed the Sabbath?

You only provided some RCC statments and:

"He was in a good mood, taking walks"

This is definitely not an argument to change the blessed day of creation :)

Jesus walked with and comforted His disciples every day, so we could say every day is now Sabbath according to your logic.

You have to provide a clear scripture argumentation for your claim "He had changed Sabbath to Sunday".

3. "His soul was down preaching to the spirits held captive"

Pls provide arguments, verses for this claim also. I personally don't believe in any spirits down there so scripture verses would be appreciated.

4. "And, as you are illiterate"

Why are you responding to an illiterate fool anyway? :)

I guess if Jesus came today He would only pick the most educated Jesuits for His disciples right? 😂😂 God would never pick some common fishermen right Hans? Right Hans?!!

"Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes."

"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up the kingdom of heaven against men: for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entering to go in."

note: I am not saying God cant use wise and educated people but such people usually dont choose God, you are too proud.

"“God resists the proud,
But gives grace to the humble.”"

HGL

"Why are you responding to an illiterate fool anyway?"

I never said fool. I said illiterate.

You are illiterate if you think that someone speaking in the Renaissance and calling someone illiterate meant he could neither write nor read.

"I guess if Jesus came today He would only pick the most educated Jesuits for His disciples right?"

Not at all, I am following Pope Michael - and having issues with his lack of literacy in the theology he is reading.

"I am not saying God cant use wise and educated people but such people usually dont choose God, you are too proud."

If it's pride to correct someone's mistake in History.

There was a parish school in Kranj from 1423. This means that butchers and merchants were sending their children to school, and you claim nobles could not read.

But as you spoke of pride, Humanists and Reformers were really proud of being fully literate in Classical Latin, finding the Latin of the Vulgate jejune and considering some as illiterate because they were better at Medieval than at Erasmian Latin.

As for me, I was illustrating what the word "illiterate" really meant in their mouth. I was not saying you could not read or write.

IP

What has all this got to do with the subject? Should we pray to unresurrected dead saints or not?

HGL

Now - Mary is not even unresurrected.

And, yes, we should.

AT

"I never said fool. I said illiterate."

One and the same Hans-Georg, unless you are talking to a 3 year old then illiterate is normal.

(I am considering the normal definition of illiterate person and not your special definitions.)

I have no need to argue with you about the history of our country, every history book (even catholic) will confirm what I wrote.

And since you haven't argued any of the Biblical points I consider this discussion closed.

IP, Hans hasn't provided any scriptural basis for his opinion that you should pray to dead people (even though I asked him that already) so I wouldnt recommend such practice unless Hans can clearly prove such practice is permitted and even encouraged in the Bible.

IP

AT I wonder if he also believes that Mary is the Bride of Christ and that Jesus mates with his Mother, sicko stuff.

Mary, Bride of Christ
Donal Flanagan, First Published September 1, 1962
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/002114006202800304

HGL

AT "One and the same Hans-Georg, unless you are talking to a 3 year old then illiterate is normal."

In a three year old, analphabet is normal.

"(I am considering the normal definition of illiterate person and not your special definitions.)"

Your "normal" is not the normal of illiterate, but of analphabet.

Only very bad language like Communists and UNO would use "illiterate" as "analphabet".

Also, even an adult analphabet is NOT a fool - but I never said you were one.

"I have no need to argue with you about the history of our country, every history book (even catholic) will confirm what I wrote."

No, since Valentin Pivk whom you quoted was not a Historian, but a retired school director, specialised in Maths, Physics, Economics and the administration of his school.

A school book in History is about his level of historic knowledge beyond what he managed to research very outside his field after retiring. And that school book would be from Communist era.

Now, did you check that other comment of mine where I cited a Slovene work via wikipedia, proving that in 1423 (well before Reformers) Kranj had a parish school, that is normal people from the small town of Kranj were sending their boys to learn how to read and write?

"And since you haven't argued any of the Biblical points I consider this discussion closed."

I did, but you are ILLITERATE in theology. You can't recognise a Biblical point when you see one.

"IP, Hans hasn't provided any scriptural basis for his opinion that you should pray to dead people (even though I asked him that already)"

You have given quite a lot of arguments and I may have missed one or two.

In Mariology, we are not dealing even with a dead person.

"so I wouldnt recommend such practice unless Hans can clearly prove such practice is permitted and even encouraged in the Bible."

The rich man in Hades was not told you can't pray to Abraham for intercession, he was told intercession cannot reach you because of the chasm (meaning the rich man was in Hell).

On such a weighty thing as a ban, the burden of proof is on those claiming the Bible is making such a ban.

HGL

IP We don't believe nuns, also brides of Christ, physically mate with Him.

IP "When we examine the patristic and later tradition on the Church as the bride of Christ it emerges that the Fathers and theologians saw in 2 Cor. I1:2i a reference to an espousal in faith. The Church is the bride of Christ; she is espoused to him in faith. She becomes the bride of Christ anew in each individual soul who accepts the word of the Gospel in faith and by this acceptance becomes espoused to Christ in the Church. This constant theme of tradition-the Church, bride of Christ espoused to him fundamentally in faith-is the key to understanding why for Christian writers Mary is bride of Christ."

No trace of what you were thinking of.

IP

HGL Hyslop? maybe, it's old news

HGL

"Semiramis (Assyrian;ܫܲܡܝܼܪܵܡ Shamiram, /səˈmɪrəmɪs, sɪ-, sɛ-/;[1] Greek: Σεμίραμις, Armenian: Շամիրամ Shamiram) was the legendary[2][3] Lydian-Babylonian[4][5] wife of Onnes and Ninus, succeeding the latter to the throne of Assyria.[6] The legends narrated by Diodorus Siculus, who drew from the works of Ctesias of Cnidus[7] describes her and her relationships to Onnes and King Ninus, a mythical king of Assyria not attested in the far older and more comprehensive Assyrian King List.[8] The indigenous Assyrians of Iraq, northeast Syria, southeast Turkey, and northwest Iran still use Semiramis (also Shamiram) as a given name for female children.[9] "

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