God blesses Abraham due to works

In Genesis 12 we see no works mentioned at all as to the reason why Abraham was blessed, let's look at what God says:

 

No mention of works--God just blessing Abraham

Now the LORD said unto Abram: 'Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father's house, unto the land that I will show thee. And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and be thou a blessing. And I will bless them that bless thee, and him that curseth thee will I curse; and in thee shall all the families of the earth be blessed.'--Genesis 12:1-3 

And the LORD appeared unto Abram, and said: 'Unto thy seed will I give this land'; and he builded there an altar unto the LORD, who appeared unto him.--Genesis 12:7

And the LORD said unto Abram, after that Lot was separated from him: 'Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art, northward and southward and eastward and westward; for all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed for ever.  And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth; so that if a man can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered.  Arise, walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for unto thee will I give it.'--Genesis 13:14-17

And He brought him forth abroad, and said: 'Look now toward heaven, and count the stars, if thou be able to count them'; and He said unto him: 'So shall thy seed be.' And he believed in the LORD; and He counted it to him for righteousness.--Genesis 15:5-6

In that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram, saying: 'Unto thy seed have I given this land, from the river of Egypt unto the great river, the river Euphrates;--Genesis 15:18

In these prior verses Abraham did not do much besides move where God said to and believe. However, after Genesis 22 when Abraham was willing to sacrifice Isaac because of God's request, God now cites His previous promises as being done BECAUSE of Abraham's works and obedience, even using the same language about the stars and sand.

By Myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, that in blessing I will bless thee, and in multiplying I will multiply thy seed as the stars of the heaven, and as the sand which is upon the seashore; and thy seed shall possess the gate of his enemies;  and in thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed; because thou hast hearkened to My voice.'--Genesis 22:16-18

And the LORD appeared unto him, and said: 'Go not down unto Egypt; dwell in the land which I shall tell thee of. Sojourn in this land, and I will be with thee, and will bless thee; for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these lands, and I will establish the oath which I swore unto Abraham thy father;  and I will multiply thy seed as the stars of heaven, and will give unto thy seed all these lands; and by thy seed shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves; because that Abraham hearkened to My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.'--Genesis 26:2-5

 Genesis 26 explicitly refers to Abraham's blessing because of his commandment/statute/law keeping.

Abraham also tells others about the Covenant with God in Genesis 24, not mentioning his obedience:

The LORD, the God of heaven, who took me from my father's house, and from the land of my nativity, and who spoke unto me, and who swore unto me, saying: Unto thy seed will I give this land; He will send His angel before thee, and thou shalt take a wife for my son from thence.--Genesis 24:7

 Why doesn't Abraham mention his works this time after Genesis 22? Because of humility, and it was all possible BECAUSE of what God did.

We see in Abraham a man that believed God and was accredited with righteousness, but the very thing he believed was partly accomplished because of Abraham's obedience to God. God made these promises because God knew in advance that Abraham WOULD be obedient and keep His Commandments once he believed!

Does Genesis 1 teach there are gods?

A while ago two missionaries from "World Mission Society Church of God" came to my door. They are a religious organization that believes in the Protestant bible canon, but goes further and insists that two Koreans are "Gods." One man and another a woman (ie "God the Mother"). Their missionaries showed me a view and asked me to comment on it. Their video is on youtube. The video has a "commentary" on Genesis 1 which insists the Hebrew word Elohim as it is used in Genesis 1:1 means "Gods." While it is trux suffix -im is plural, and the word elohim is at times plural in the Hebrew bible, referring to multiple deities, judges, angels etc, this is not one of them because of the grammar. 

Genesis 1:1-3 says:

    בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָרֶץ וְהָאָרֶץ הָיְתָה תֹהוּ וָבֹהוּ וְחֹשֶׁךְ עַל-פְּנֵי תְהוֹם וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים מְרַחֶפֶת עַל-פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם. וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי אוֹר וַיְהִי-אוֹר

 My transliteration (I don't follow the normal convention, but aim more at accuracy an pronunciation, the word "Eloheem" it typically spelled "Elohim") :

B'résheet bara Eloheem ét hashshamayeem v'ét ha'aretz hay'tah tohu va'vo'hu v'ḥosheḥ al-p'néy t'hom v'ruaḥ Eloheem m'raḥefet al-p'néy hammayeem. Vayyomer Eloheem y'hee or vay'hee or.

One of the translations of it is:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. Now the earth was unformed and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the spirit of God hovered over the face of the waters. And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light.

The words in read are the words that have the plural ending in Genesis 1, they are "God-Eloheem," "hashshamayeem-heaven", "hammayeem-water." Most people don't know the words water and heaven in Hebrew have plural endings, in fact does the word face.  Anyway, let's focus on the phrase וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי אוֹר וַיְהִי-אוֹר which means "(and) God said "there shall be light", and there was light." The word for said here is singular וַיֹּאמֶר its used for when there is one person speaking, not more than one, it shows the plural ending ים of the word אֱלֹהִים Eloheem does not refer to the third person plural (that is "they"), but rather the third person singular (that is "he). Let's compare a verse where multiple people say something with this (the word for speak is highlighted):

Genesis 11:4 says:

וַיֹּאמְרוּ הָבָה נִבְנֶה-לָּנוּ עִיר, וּמִגְדָּל וְרֹאשׁוֹ בַשָּׁמַיִם, וְנַעֲשֶׂה-לָּנוּ, שֵׁם

And they said: 'Come, let us build us a city, and a tower, with its top in heaven, and let us make us a name;

Genesis 1:3 said:

וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים יְהִי אוֹר וַיְהִי-אוֹר

And God said: 'Let there be light.' And there was light.

 The word in in Genesis 11:4 וַיֹּאמְרוּ vayyom'ru is the third person PLURAL, which means 2 or more are speaking, however, Genesis 1:3 uses וַיֹּאמֶר vayyomer, which means just one person is speaking! If "Gods" were intended in Genesis 1:3 it would've read:

...וַיֹּאמְרוּ אֱלֹהִים יְהִי אוֹר

In this case it would be translated:

"And gods said: "Let there be light!"..."

 (Note, I leave the rest of the verse out, so as not to tarnish the sacred text with corruption.)

Calvinism: Keeping the commandments is not impossible

First of all, many Calvinists (such as Matt Slick) insist its IMPOSSIBLE to keep the commandments (whether old or new). This is contradicted by the fact Revelation says:

So the dragon was enraged with the woman, and went off to make war with the rest of her children, who keep the commandments of God and hold to the testimony of Jesus.-Revelation 12:17

Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.--Revelation 14:12

 Likewise, he told me that the first and greatest commandment which says that we must love God "with all your heart..." is impossible to keep, however, the Scriptures say otherwise.

For it came to pass, when Solomon was old, that his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not whole with the LORD his God, as was the heart of David his father. -1 Kings 11:4

And he walked in all the sins of his father, which he had done before him; and his heart was not whole with the LORD his God, as the heart of David his father. For because of David, the Lord his God gave him rule in Jerusalem to set up his son after him to preserve Jerusalem. Since David did what was just in the eyes of the Lord and he did not turn away from all that the Lord had commanded him, all the days of his life, except in the matter of Uriah the Hittite. -1 Kings 15:3-5

But the high places were not taken away; nevertheless the heart of Asa was whole with the LORD all his days.-1 Kings 15:14

For he clave to the LORD, [and] departed not from following him, but kept his commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses--2 Kings 18:6

And like unto him was there no king before him, that turned to the LORD with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; neither after him arose there any like him.--2 Kings 23:25

And I will give them a heart to know Me, that I am the LORD; and they shall be My people, and I will be their God; for they shall return unto Me with their whole heart.--Jeremiah 24:7

And ye shall call upon Me, and go, and pray unto Me, and I will hearken unto you. And ye shall seek Me, and find Me, when ye shall search for Me with all your heart.--Jeremiah 29:12-13 (notice this verse also says people can seek God)

And the king stood in his place, and made a covenant before the LORD, to walk after the LORD, and to keep His commandments, and His testimonies, and His statutes, with all his heart, and with all his soul, to perform the words of the covenant that were written in this book.And he caused all that were found in Jerusalem and Benjamin to stand to it. And the inhabitants of Jerusalem did according to the covenant of God, the God of their fathers. -2 Chronicles 34:31-32 (A Calvinist might say they simple agreed to this covenant but did not do it, however it clearly says they "did according to the covenant...")

St John also in his epistles states:

By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, and keep his commandments. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.-1 John 5:2-3

Notice St John doesn't even think for a moment that it is impossible to love God, or to keep the commandments, but uses this as evidence, then states the commandments are not grievous.

St Luke states about Elizabeth and Zechariah (the parents of the Prophet St John the Baptist):

And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.-Luke 1:6

Although Abraham did commit some sins in his life the LORD still said about him:

Abraham hearkened to My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws.-Genesis 26:5

Abraham DID keep the commandments and the law, despite Calvinists insistence that such is not possible. If you read the previous verses you will see why God blessed Abraham's seed.

Mary in the Canticles of Solomon (Songs of Songs)

A Protestants questioned when did Catholics start saying Mary was the woman in the Songs of Solomon, specifically chapter 6.  Though, I have no idea about chapter 6, what I can say is that around 446 Songs 2:2 was applied to Mary.

"A virgin, innocent, spotless, free of all defect, untouched, unsullied, holy in soul and body, like a lily sprouting among thorns. [Songs of Songs 2:2]"—Theodotus of Ancrya,Homily VI:11(ante A.D. 446),in THEO,339

 This is taken from

Like a lily among thorns is my darling among the young women.--Song of Songs 2:2 (aka Songs of Solomon aka Canticles)

 Another reference is by St John Damascene (generally considered the "last" early Church Father):

"Then, having spoken these words, she would have raised her hands, I imagine, and would have blessed those there; and she would have heard, "Come, my blessed Mother, 'into the place of my rest' [Ps 132:8 (LXX); cf Ps 95:11 [LXX]]. 'Arise, come, my dear one; beautiful among all women; 'for behold, winter has passed, and the time of pruning has come' [Songs of Songs 2:10-12]. 'My dear one is beautiful, and there is no blemish in you' [Songs of Songs 4:7]. 'The odor of your ointments surpasses all fragrance' [Songs of Songs 1:3 cf. 4:10]. And having heard these words, the holy woman would have committed her soul to the hands of her Son."--St John of Damascus, Homily II on the Dorimition, paragraph 9 (pg 290)

He is quoting:

My beloved spoke, and said unto me: 'Rise up, my love, my fair one, and come away.  For, lo, the winter is past, the rain is over and gone--Song of Songs 2:10-11

Thou art all fair, my love; and there is no spot in thee.--Song of Songs 4:7

How fair is thy love, my sister, my bride! how much better is thy love than wine! and the smell of thine ointments than all manner of spices!--Song of Songs 4:10

 The 7th Century Patriarch of Jerusalem Modestus of Jerusalem applied Songs to Mary too:

"She who remained a Virgin, the "sealed fountain" [Songs of Songs 4:12] of divine gifts, has been led out to meet him through her, the garden of the orthodox Church is watered, and is tended by the second Adam, born of her, who drank from the virginal fountain of her breasts as from a flowing spring, and who gave life to Adam, God's first creation, as he lay in death."--Modestus of Jerusalem, Patriarch of Jerusalem (c. 630-634), "An Encomium on the Dormition of Out Most Holy Lady, Mary, Mother of God and Ever-Virgin" paragraph 6

 Another reference is Songs of Songs 4:12

A garden shut up is my sister, my bride; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed.

I have also read that St Ephraim the Syrian refers to her as such in his Carmina Nisibena.

Another point that should be mentioned is that the idea that they mocked the idea Songs could be about Mary, since one of the insist it was about Solomon's wife.  Well whether it was about Solomon's wife is irrelevant, since it perhaps was originally. Though it should be mentioned Solomon did not have a wife, but rather countless wives. The idea that its just about Solomon and his wife is absurd, what benefit is it really to anyone if its just chapter of Solomon and his wife? The most common interpretation among the Fathers was that it was about Jesus and the Church, the other interpretations were the Holy Spirit and Mary. The Rabbis interpreted it as Israel and God.

To be continued

Validity of the Paul VI ordination

Normally I dislike the SSPX for their schismatic tendencies, but they have a few articles that are good that refute the lies and ignorance of Sedevacantists (who plagiarize each others lies). Here is one on the validity of the Ordination of bishops by Pope Paul VI.  Note most sedevacantists never bother to actually read primary sources or look into an issue besides plaguarising people like the phony "Demon Bros."  Here is the link showing the validity of the rite http://www.sspx.org/miscellaneous/sedevacantism/validity_of_episcopal_consecrations.pdf

It shows the rite of ordination of Paul VI is restoration of an older rite used in the early Church taken from the "Apostolic Traditions" by a Hippolytus. Some may argue that this document contains a rite never actually used, whether that is true or not, it is true that the Copts and Maronites has historically used an almost identical rite of Ordination--and their bishops validity was NEVER questioned.

Rad Trad Canon Fabrication

I have noticed there is widespread dishonesty, incompetence and fabrication in the groups of people that style themselves "traditionalists," whether they be SSPX, SSPV and especially the Sedevacantists. Here is one example

If any ecclesiastic or layman shall go into the synagogue of the Jews or to the meeting-houses of the heretics to join in prayer with them, let them be deposed and deprived of communion If any Bishops or Priest or Deacon shall join in prayer with heretics, let him be suspended from Communion" - III Council of Constantinople (sometimes cited as II Council of Constantinople)

This canon I have not found in any of the four Councils of Constantinople. Nor in Denzinger! This "canon" is quoted by this list of incompetent sources (exclude me since I will appear on there for this article). This has a number of Sedevacantists and "rad trads" site and forums.  Notice none of these sites even bother to quote the "canon number" or section of the council! And as I mentioned above--they are inconsistent with what council it is! I accidently ran into what I think is the REAL source of this canon--the "Apostolic Constitution" which was written around AD 400--this document lacks ANY authority and cannot be quoted as part of the magisterium! Here is what the "Apostolic Constitution" says:

If any one, either of the clergy or laity, enters into a synagogue of the Jews or heretics to pray, let him be deprived and suspended. --Apostolic Constitution, Books VIII, Canon 65

 The Rad Trads have used this against Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis (I) to try to condemn them for entering synagogues--which they did! But the issue is did the popes pray "with" the Jews, or AT their place of worship? Its more likely the SECOND case! Either way, NO ONE is bound by the Apostolic Constitution! In any case, this shows that ignorance, incompetence, plagiarism, and dishonesty are PREVALENT among the "rad trads."

Apostolic Constitution: Sabbath and Holy Saturday

Note: This article is to prove the Apostolic Constitution did not teach a weekly Sabbath keeping where work was not to be done, but only a "annual" day on the Sabbath--Holy Saturday where work was not done, and fasting was expected. This article does show the antiquity of many ecclesiastical practices, fasts etc, however, despite its dating (c AD 400) it lacks authority, and its more "apocryphal" than anything.

Once before I met a Judaizer that used the Apostolic Constitution as proof that it was standard practice that the early Christians kept a weekly Sabbath. However, this is not what the Apostolic Constitution taught. Though, the Apostolic Constitution does refer to Christians observing a Sabbath "rest" on the 7th day of the week, there was ONLY one week in the whole year this was to be done--Holy Saturday, which in the early Church was also special fast day (it was part of the 40 hours that Christian kept a special fast, from the time Christ died til He rose up). Anyway, here are the references to the Sabbath day in the Apostolic Constitution:

You shall observe the Sabbath, on account of Him who ceased from His work of creation, but ceased not from His work of providence: it is a rest for meditation of the law, not for idleness of the hands.--Apostolic Constitution Book II: Section XXXVI, The Recital of the Ten Commandments, and After What Manner They Do Here Prescribe to Us.

Then the same book II mentions the Sabbath again without mentioning rest, since in the early Church they still tended to refer to the 7th day of the week as the "Sabbath" and had mass held on it, despite the fact they did not observe the Sabbath as a Hebrew would under the Old Law given to Moses. 

Let your judicatures be held on the second day of the week, that if any controversy arise about your sentence, having an interval till the Sabbath, you may be able to set the controversy right, and to reduce those to peace who have the contests one with another against the Lord's day.--Apostolic Constitution Book II: Section XLVII

 Notice how this document refers to the "Lord's Day" in the Early Church this REFERED to SUNDAY (the first day), not the Sabbath (the 7th day). Here is another instance where "Sabbath" and the "Lord's Day" appear together, but for separate days:

Be not careless of yourselves, neither deprive your Saviour of His own members, neither divide His body nor disperse His members, neither prefer the occasions of this life to the word of  God; but assemble yourselves together every day, morning and evening, singing psalms and praying in the Lord's house: in the morning saying the sixty-second Psalm, and in the evening the hundred and fortieth, but principally on the Sabbath day. And on the day of our Lord's resurrection, which is the Lord's day, meet more diligently, sending praise to God that made the universe by Jesus, and sent Him to us, and condescended to let Him suffer, and raised Him from the dead.--Apostolic Constitution Book II: Section LIX

The next time the word Sabbath appears in the Apostolic Constitution is book V where it refers to the Sabbath fast on Holy Saturday:

But He appointed us to break our fast on the seventh day at the cock-crowing, but to fast on the Sabbath day. Not that the Sabbath day is a day of fasting, being the rest from the creation, but because we ought to fast on this one Sabbath only, while on this day the creator was under the earth. --Apostolic Constitution Book V: Section XV

Then it discusses a sort of mini Lent during Holy week where some forms of fasting, abstaining from meat and wine are done, and refer to the one Sabbath rest to be kept, note that "Passover" itself has its own Christian connotation in fact in most traditional Christian languages like Latin, Greek, Spanish, Aramaic the word "Passover" is still used:

Do you therefore fast on the days of the passover, beginning from the second day of the week until the preparation, and the Sabbath, six days, making use of only bread, and salt, and herbs, and water for your drink; but do you abstain on these days from wine and flesh, for they are days of lamentation and not of feasting. Do ye who are able fast the day of the preparation and the Sabbath day entirely, tasting nothing till the cock-crowing of the night; but if any one is not able to join them both together, at least let him observe the Sabbath day; for the Lord says somewhere, speaking of Himself: "When the bridegroom shall be taken away from them, in those days shall they fast." In these days, therefore, He was taken from us by the Jews, falsely so named, and fastened to the cross, and "was numbered among the transgressors." --Apostolic Constitution Book V: Section XVIII, Concerning the Great Passover week

Then the next section XIX refers to some more rules for Holy Saturday and the week in general and includes prayers for the conversion of unbelieving Israel that they might repent of their crime of slaying the Lord Jesus. The section also refers to a the eucharist as a "sacrifice" using Luke 22:19 as a proof text

For this reason do you also, now the Lord is risen, offer your sacrifice, concerning which He made a constitution by us, saying, Do this for a remembrance of me;

Obviously, emphasizing the word "anamnesis" which general refers to a sacrifice.  However, because of its length you can go read it yourself.  Anyway, on to the next occurrence of the word Sabbath in Apostolic Constitution

And Esther, and Mordecai, and Judith, by fasting, escaped the insurrection of the ungodly Holofernes and Haman. And David says: "My knees are weak through fasting, and my flesh fails for want of oil." Do you therefore fast, and ask your petitions of God. We enjoin you to fast every fourth day of the week, and every day of the preparation, and the surplusage of your fast bestow upon the needy; every Sabbath day excepting one, and every Lord's day, hold your solemn assemblies, and rejoice: for he will be guilty of sin who fasts on the Lord's day, being the day of the resurrection, or during the time of Pentecost, or, in general, who is sad on a festival day to the Lord. For on them we ought to rejoice, and not to mourn.-Apostolic Constitution Book V: Section XX

I included this paragraph also, because it refers to the person "Judith" and "Holofernes" are only found in the Canons of the Bible found in the historical Christian Churches--the Catholic and Orthodox (both eastern and oriental). This book was removed by Protestants, Baptists, "evangelicals" from their bible canon, thus subtracting from the Word of God and falsely claiming we "added" to It! This document also makes mention of the ancient practice of fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays, this practice is largely abandoned in modern times, now this practice remains with the abstaining from meat on Ash Wednesday, and the weekly Friday penances (especially the Good Friday where fasting is expected). In regards to the Sabbath it mentions having Holy Mass said on it all weeks, except one. Note "solemn assemblies" is one of several older terms for Mass. Mass is a relatively new term for an ancient Divine Liturgy. The next occurrence of the word "Sabbath" in this text is book VI, which is quoting Isaiah "your new moons, and your Sabbaths, and your great day, I cannot bear them" which is a favorite verse of the Fathers when referring to the 7th day Sabbath, Tertullian uses this too. I will skip quoting this and go on to the next instance where the issue is really discussed:

He who had commanded to keep the Sabbath, by resting thereon for the sake of meditating on the laws, has now commanded us to consider of the law of creation, and of providence every day, and to return thanks to God.--Apostolic Constitution Book VI: Section XXIII

This section is a commentary on the Matthew 5's sermon on the mount. This section is saying that we are commanded to "consider the law of creation and of providence EVERY DAY, and to return thanks to God," which it says is the purpose of the Sabbath day rest on Saturday. This seems to be another reference to the "perpetual Sabbath" many of the ante Nicene Fathers spoke of which was spiritual, not physical. This next section perhaps best explains the Sabbath in the Apostolic Constitution:

But let not your fasts be with the hypocrites; for they fast on the second and fifth days of the week. But do you either fast the entire five days, or on the fourth day of the week, and on the day of the Preparation, because on the fourth day the condemnation went out against the Lord, Judas then promising to betray Him for money; and you must fast on the day of the Preparation, because on that day the Lord suffered the death of the cross under Pontius Pilate. But keep the Sabbath, and the Lord's day festival; because the former is the memorial of the creation, and the latter of the resurrection. But there is one only Sabbath to be observed by you in the whole year, which is that of our Lord's burial, on which men ought to keep a fast, but not a festival. For inasmuch as the Creator was then under the earth, the sorrow for Him is more forcible than the joy for the creation; for the Creator is more honourable by nature and dignity than His own creatures. --Apostolic Constitution Book VII: Section XXIII

This explicitly states there is only ONE time the Sabbath "rest" is to be observed in the whole year and that is Holy Saturday, which is a fast day also according to them! It explains the Sabbath is a remembrance of creation, probably referring to Genesis 2's "rest" on the 7th day.  This is interesting because this document has two consecutive fast days! Good Friday and Holy Saturday! Also, interesting this section also states why Christians fast on Mondays and Thursdays--because those days the "hypocrites" do, referring of course to the Pharisees who Jesus battled against. It states the "fourth day" and the "preparation day" are fast days, ie Wednesday and Friday, which as I mentioned before is a practice still done by some Catholics.

Anyway, the rest of the references to the Sabbath day are found in Book VII section XXXVI, where it pretty much repeats the same things. Book VIII section XXXIII claims to have Peter and Paul stating slaves are not to work during Holy Week (including Holy Saturday), the Ascension, Christmas and a few other days. This canon 64 of that section claims Peter and Paul issued a condemnation of clerics that fast on Sabbath and Sundays (except Holy Saturday).

Veneration of saints in Jewish Tradition

Note:This blog entry is a modification of MY OWN webpage at http://www.freewebs.com/orthodoxcatholic/saints.html

Here are some places in Jewish tradition--mostly the Talmud (Talmidim) where the veneration of saints was done, where the "tzaddik" was physically dead, but a Jew believed they can still hear their plea for intercession, Jews refuse to use the word "pray," however, the concept of "asking" is the same. Notice some of these references even have the person prostrating at the tomb of their "saint." Most of these are Tractates from Seder Mo'ed. One is from the Zohar. The translations are from the link provided, which are mostly Socino:

“And they went up by the South and he came unto Hebron — it should have read 'and they came'! — Raba said: It teaches that Caleb held aloof from the plan of the spies and went and prostrated himself upon the graves of the patriarchs, saying to them, 'My fathers, pray on my behalf that I may be delivered from the plan of the spies'. (As for Joshua, Moses had already prayed on his behalf; as it is said: And Moses called Hoshea the son of Nun Joshua, [meaning], May Jah save thee [yoshi'aka] from the plan of the spies.) That is the intention of what is written: But My servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him. “—Sotah 34b

ויעלו בנגב ויבא עד חברון ויבאו מבעי ליה אמר רבא מלמד שפירש כלב מעצת מרגלים והלך ונשתטח על קברי אבות אמר להן אבותי בקשו עלי רחמים שאנצל מעצת מרגלים יהושע כבר בקש משה עליו רחמים שנאמר (במדבר יג) ויקרא משה להושע בן נון יהושע יה יושיעך מעצת מרגלים והיינו דכתיב (במדבר יד) ועבדי כלב עקב היתה רוח אחרת עמו--Original Text of Sotah 34b

 “Why do they go to the cemetery? — With regard to this there is a difference of opinion between R. Levi b. Hama nad R. Hanina. One says: [To signify thereby], We are as the dead before Thee; and the other says: In order that the dead should intercede for mercy on our behalf.”— SEDER MO‘ED, Tracate Ta'anit 16a [Taanis]

למה יוצאין לבית הקברות פליגי בה ר' לוי בר חמא ור' חנינא חד אמר הרי אנו חשובין לפניך כמתים וחד אמר כדי שיבקשו עלינו מתים רחמים (Ta'anit 16, original text)

“R. Mani, was annoyed by the members of the household of the Patriarch, he went and prostrated himself on the grave of his father and exclaimed: “Father, father, these people persecute me.” Once as they were passing [the grave] the knees of their horses became stiff [and remained so] until they undertook not to persecute him any longer.”-- SEDER MO‘ED, Tracate Ta'anit 23b [Taanis]

 

ותו רבי מני בריה הוו קא מצערי ליה דבי נשיאה אישתטח על קברא דאבוה אמר ליה אבא אבא הני מצערו לי יומא חד הוו קא חלפי התם אינקוט כרעא דסוסוותייהו עד דקבילו עלייהו דלא קא מצערו ליה --Ta'anit 23b original Aramaic text 

 

"Forthwith, R. Joshua went and prostrated himself upon the graves of Beth Shammai. He said, "I crave your pardon, bones of Beth Shammai. If your unexplained teachings are so [excellent] how much more so the explained teachings." Hagigah 22b (chagigah)

 

מיד הלך ר' יהושע ונשתטח על קברי ב"ש אמר נעניתי לכם עצמות ב"ש ומה סתומות שלכם כך מפורשות על אחת כמה וכמה - Hagigah 22b (original Aramaic text)

 

 

Rabbi Haviva said, “Rabbi Haviva son of Surmaki told me: “I saw one of the rabbis whom Elijah used to frequent. In the morning his eyes were lovely, but in the evening they looked as if they had been burnt by fire. I asked him, ‘What is it?’ He told me that he has asked Elijah, ‘Show me the [departed] rabbis as they ascend to the Heavenly Academy.’ He [Elijah] replied: ‘You can gaze at all of them except for the carriage of Rabbi Hiyya, at which you cannot gaze.’ ‘What is their sign? [How can I distinguish between them?[‘ ‘All are accompanied by angels as they ascend and descend, except for the Rabbi Hiyya’s carriage, which ascends and descends on its own.’ ‘Unable to restrain myself, I gazed at it. Two sparks of fire shot forth and struck that man [i.e. me], blinding him. The next day I went and prostrated myself upon his [Rabbi Hiyya’s] grave, crying, “Your mishnah is my mishnah,” and I was healed.”” (taken from Zohar, Hadqamat Sefer ha-Zohar p21)

 

For more on the Jewish perspective on asking the righteous (Tzadik) to pray for Jews on earth, though they reject the use of the words “pray to” and use “ask” or “chat,” and avoid using intermediary, but nonetheless uphold the practice and point to its ancient origins., and how it does not conflict with the prohibition of “beseeching the dead” etc…see chabad.org

The Son is not the Father: Oneness

Every one therefore that shall confess me before men, I will also confess him before my Father who is in heaven.—Matthew 10:32

All things are delivered to me by my Father. And no one knoweth the Son, but the Father: neither doth any one know the Father, but the Son, and he to whom it shall please the Son to reveal him.—Matthew 11:27

Jesus answered: If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father that glorifieth me, of whom you say that he is your God.—John 8:54

This commandment have I received of my Father.—John 10:18

Jesus answered and said to him, "Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and WE will come to him and make OUR dwelling with him. Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; yet the word you hear is not mine but that of the Father who sent me.—John 14:23-24

Nor does the Father judge anyone, but he has given all judgment to his Son, so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him.—John 5:22-23

Isaiah 9:6 and Modalism

Some modalists assume that simply because the term "Father" is applied to Jesus in Isaiah 9:6 (9:5) that this means Jesus is God the Father. This is not the case at all. "Eternal Father" (Avi Ad in Hebrew) simply is a term of authority here. The whole subject of Isaiah 9:6 (5) and the subsequent verse Isaiah 9:7(6) is about authority. Making references to the "government" "counselor" "El" (which can mean God, judge, mighty), "Father" and "Prince."

The term "father" is used elsewhere in Isaiah 22:21 where it says about Eliakim

I will commit thy government into his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.

We see the term "father" here is just an authority figure.

Likewise, when Joseph was made an advisor to Pharoah and given authority he says of himself that he was a "father to Pharoah" (Genesis 45:8)

More Proof anabaptists were not modern baptists

One topic that keeps coming backup is Baptists making the false claim that they've always existed (despite the lack of evidence, writings etc). Well here is a quote of one of the Anabaptist "creeds" (remember there were several rival groups called anabaptists in the "radical reformation")

The baptizer first testifies to the baptizand and asks if he believes in God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.   The baptizand confesses.  He then is asked if he desires to yield himself to God to live for Him and His church.  If so, he is told to kneel before God and church, and water is poured upon him.  If baptism cannot be performed before the entire church, the baptizer may perform the ordinance alone.--Ridemann's Rechenschaft,1540: Article VII, The formula for Baptism

As is commonly known, Baptists INSIST on FULL immersion and NOT pouring. Yet, these Anabaptists in 1540 were fine with pouring, in fact they recommended it!

 

Here is another early Anabaptist confession:

Thereby shall also fall away from us the diabolical weapons of violence--such as sword, armor, and the like, and all of their use to protect friends or against enemies--by virtue of the word of Christ: "you shall not resist evil."--Schleitheim Confession (1527), Anabaptist, Article IV

 These anabaptists were opposed to weapons of violence, unlike modern American Baptists (eg Southern Baptists) who are very fond of weapons of violence, particularly guns!

 

The fact is for the most part the descendants of the groups called anabaptists in the 15th and 16th century were  are now called the Mennonites, Amish, and Unitiarian & Universalists. Obviously, the latter is not the same as the first two. In any case, the anabaptists of the 15th, 16th century were STARTED by ex-Catholics.  Just as the other form of anabaptists were lead by people that were CATHOLIC. According to one reformed website modern day baptists descend from "particular baptists" that broke from the Anglican Church--they were originally more Calvinist is doctrine, then after coming to America conformed to the culture and resulted in a more Arminian form of Baptist theology. In the case of the Donatists of St Augustine's time, these "anabaptists" accepted all Catholic theology but held errors like baptisms performed by a sinful priest were not valid (therefore requiring "rebaptism).

Rebuttal to the Baptist "And" argument for Acts 2:38 Mark 16:16

Points made:
1) Mark 16:16 & Acts 2:38 teach baptism saves
2)The thing mentioned after "and" and before "saved" or "for the remission of sin" is not superfluous
a)If it was intended to be unnecessary detail then Jesus and Peter were both guilty of poor communicating
b)They could have phrased the verses in such a way as to say baptism does NOT save
c)John 3:5 likewise has two things joined together by an "and"--this would mean only "being born of water" saves, and not being "born of Spirit"!


Two significant verses that link baptism with salvation and forgiveness of sins are:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.--Mark 16:16 KJV

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.--Acts 2:38 KJV

Some Protestants in their last ditch effort in order to deny baptismal regeneration / salvation have concocted another theory that goes like this:

Mark 16:16 is like sayings "whoever believes and is born in Dallas shall be saved" that doesn't mean being in Dallas makes you saved or had any contribution to being saved!

The argument essentially is that the second thing mentioned in the "and" is absolutely superfluous and was just added for detail. Here is how these Protestant essentially understand the verses:

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved--Crossing out the "extra, unnecessary section" of Mark 16:16 following the fake "and rule" 

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.--Crossing out the "extra, unnecessary section" of Acts 2:38 following the fake "and rule"

This means they believe Jesus was saying something unnecessarily and placing it in a sentence where it would be bound to be more than likely misinterpreted! If Jesus WANTED to say being baptized had nothing to do with being saved why didn't He instead say it like this:

He that believeth shall be saved and [should] be baptized; but he that believeth not shall be damned.--How some Protestants want to read Mark 16:16

Likewise, with Acts 2:38, why didn't St Peter just say:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent every one of you for the remission of sins and be baptized, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.--How some Protestants want read Acts 2:38

Okay, let's assume that the "is/be baptized" in Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 are just added, completely unnecessary detail the Lord and St Peter just threw in there. Let's now apply this rule that the thing following after "and" is just unnecessary, added detail and has no real bearing on salvation.  We have John 3:5, a favorite verse especially among Baptists:

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.-John 3:5 KJV

 Now this is how the verse looks like when we apply their fake "what's mentioned after and doesn't matter rule" is applied (let's cross out the "unnecessary, added detail that follows and, just as they did with Acts 2:38 & Mark 16:16):

Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.--Apply the same Protestant rule used in Acts 2:38 & Mark 16:16 to John 3:5

Congratulations! Universalism is now true! Now everyone will enter the kingdom of God because they are simply "born of water" (the amniotic vaginal fluid according to Baptists) by this fake rule.

Conclusion: We should not arbitrarily make rules up to fit our theology as some Protestants do with Acts 2:38 and Mark 16, as well with their fake rule about parables not having "names" like in Luke 16 with the "rich man and Lazarus."

St Augustine did not consider all sex evil

Contrary to some Protestant claims, and the Pelagians of St Augustine's day, he did not view ALL sex as being sinful, rather he considered having sex outside of the purpose of procreation as sinful, but even then, if it were between a married couple it would be a venial sin (small sin that is not deadly). Here is what St Augustine says on this matter:

It is, however, one thing for married persons to have intercourse only for the wish to beget children, which is not sinful: it is another thing for them to desire carnal pleasure in cohabitation, but with the spouse only, which involves venial sin. For although propagation of offspring is not the motive of the intercourse, there is still no attempt to prevent such propagation, either by wrong desire or evil appliance.--St Augustine On Marriage and Concupiscence Book I Chapter

It should also be mentioned St Augustine refers several times to Marriage as being a sacrament (at least in some sense of the word) unlike the Protestants who deny it sacramental status in any sense.

 

Acts 2:38: Are you baptized because you are already forgiven?

 

This is an expansion of my previous article on Acts 2:38

 

Arguments refuted in this article are

 

1) The false claim that: That eis in Acts 2:38 means "because of"

 a) By showing this would mean you repent because you have already been forgiven

 b) By showing that the same Greek phrase "for the forgiveness of sins" when used by Jesus at the Last supper would have to mean that Jesus' blood was shed "because of the forgiveness of sins" meaning He died for nothing since since were already forgiven, making the atonement meaningless.

c)By claiming that "eis" in Matthew 12:41 is proof that it means "because of."

 

2) The false claim that: That baptism here does not refer to water baptism, but a separate, dry Holy Spirit baptism.

 

3) The false claim that: Remission does not mean forgiveness.

 

 

Saving Baptism from the Baptists:

 

Baptismal regeneration is taught in Acts 2:38

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.--Acts 2:38 KJV

Argument 1a: Some Protestants, especially Baptists (and similar groups like Calvary chapel, pentecostal etc) that deny baptismal regeneration will offer a rebuttal to this argument trying to draw on the ambiguity of the term "eis" in Greek, which the KJV and most Bible translate as "for" or "into," they will argue that it here REALLY means "because of," despite the lack of bible translations that use this! Before we look at the word "eis"'s meaning in the New Testament let's change the verse to say "because of" instead of "for."

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ because of the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.--Acts 2:38 "theoretical" and non existent translation

 Now, this theoretically rendering would mean something more than just saying you are "baptized because you ALREADY have the remission of sins." It means you "repent" for the same reason--that you were ALREADY forgiven! that is: "Repent... because of the remission of sins." No one outside of some Calvinists would agree with this statement that repentance comes AFTER forgiveness. 1 John 1:9 tells us the opposite order occurs: repent->forgiven not forgiven ->repent!

If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.-1 John 1:9 KJV

So clearly the word "eis" cannot mean "because of" otherwise it would contradict 1 John 1:9 that says repentance causes forgiveness!

Argument 1b: Now let's say someone is obstinant and insists Acts 2:38 still means "because of" in regards to baptism. We know this cannot be case because an identical phrase is used in the gospels in both Greek and English. Let us see (the relevant phrase is in red:

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.--Acts 2:38 KJV

Πέτρος δὲ πρὸς αὐτούς· Μετανοήσατε, καὶ βαπτισθήτω ἕκαστος ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματι Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν ὑμῶν, καὶ λήμψεσθε τὴν δωρεὰν τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος·-Acts 2:38 *(as found in the Textus Receptus and the Majority of Byzantine texts)

compare with:

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins.-Matthew 26:28 KJV

 τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν τὸ αἷμά μου τὸ τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης τὸ περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχυνόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν-Matthew 26:28 * (as found in the Textus Receptus and the Majority of Byzantine texts)

The other 2 usages of "for the remission of sins" "εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν" are Mark 1:4, Luke 3:3, but since they are about John the Baptist's "preaching of baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins" I omit them since they are of a similar nature to Acts 2:38, which would bring no clarity to the subject.

Looking at Matthew 26:28's "for the remission of sins" "εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν" does it make sense to translate the verse here as:

For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many because of the remission of sins.-Matthew 26:28 (theoretical baptist translation)

certainly not! Since such rendering is a rejection of the atonment! It would have to mean Jesus' blood was shed because sin was ALREADY forgiven which is blasphemous nonesense! So why should we translate "eis" differently in Acts 2:38?

Argument 1c: Some Protestants in recent years, as part of their desperate attempt to reject baptismal regeneration have concocted the claim "eis" means "because of" in Matthew 12:41 in reference to Jonah:

The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.--Matthew 12:41 KJV

 ἄνδρες Νινευῖται ἀναστήσονται ἐν τῇ κρίσει μετὰ τῆς γενεᾶς ταύτης καὶ κατακρινοῦσιν αὐτήν: ὅτι μετενόησαν εἰς τὸ κήρυγμα Ἰωνᾶ, καὶ ἰδοὺ πλεῖον Ἰωνᾶ ὧδε. --Matthew 12:41 All Greek texts
 

One thing to first note is that NO translation that I have looked at translates "eis" here as "because of. Looking at the lexicon of "eis" it means "into" and not "because of." Essentially, it means they "repented INTO the preaching of Jonah," its not saying they repented "because of" or "in order to." Here is a Protestant website that quote two Protestant professors who both reject baptismal regeneration--the later is a Baptist:

 

Professor Daniel Wallace is associated with the Dallas Theological Seminary in Texas. From a personal theological perspective, he does not believe that baptism is required as a condition for the remission of sins. This is important to keep in mind. Dr. Wallace is the author of the highly acclaimed work, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics. Therein he has a discussion of the so-called causal use of eis. He contends that studies have shown that “the linguistic evidence for a causal eis” falls short of proof. He stingingly calls this misguided twisting of the preposition an “ingenious solution” that “lacks conviction” (1996, 370-371).

 The celebrated Baptist scholar, H.B. Hackett, rendered the Greek phrase, eis aphesin hamartion in Acts 2:38, as “in order to the forgiveness of sins,” and referenced Matthew 26:28 and Luke 3:3 as parallel texts (1879, 54)--https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1152-the-use-of-the-preposition-eis-in-matthew-12-41

The same article I just cited also claims the word that would have been used to express because of it "dia"--through! That is the people "repented through the preaching of Jonah." So eis does not mean "because of" there either.

 

Argument 2: Now, for the second argument that Acts 2:38 is about a separate Holy Spirit baptism.  It makes you wonder why Act's uses the phrase in several other verses EXCEPT here. The authorize themselves to declare any reference to simply "baptism" to be "Holy Spirit baptism" based on their own theological bias. By even making this argument they are making St Luke, the writer of Acts (writing by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit) negligent by refering to "baptism with the Holy Spirit" as simply "baptism," when elsewhere like in Acts 1, Acts 11. Acts frequently uses the term "Holy Spirit" and "baptism" and certainly St Peter, who was one of the 12, and was familiar with John the baptist and his reference to baptism of the Holy Spirit (Acts 11:16), then it must be asked if St Peter in Acts 2:38 was refering to a dry "Holy Spirit baptism" then why doesn't Acts or St Peter simply STATE "be baptized with the Holy Spirit." Furthermore, we have a number of verses in Acts were baptism is simply used and it undeniably refers to immersion in water, does this mean these people never received the Holy Spirit baptism, or that Acts did not care to report if they did? And if the people in Acts 2:38 receieved a "Holy Spirit baptism" then why is there no reference to their baptism in water?

In short, this claim that Acts 2:38 is a dry baptism relies on reading assumptions into the text!

Argument 3: For the third claim, that "remission" is like "cancer in remission" this claim I refuted in another article see question 7. The word in the Greek text for remission and forgiveness is actually the exact same word and historically in the English speaking Christian church was used interchangably.

The word remission can mean both forgiveness and the alternate meaning. However, forgiveness/pardon is the meaning when dealing with sins. Here is the origin of the word remission itself:

early 13c., "forgiveness or pardon (of sins)," from O.Fr. remission, from L. remissionem (nom. remissio) "relaxation, a sending back," from remiss-, pp. stem of remittere "slacken, let go, abate" (see remit). Used of diseases since c.1400.

But, this is not so helpful since this is just a translation of the Greek. The Greek word used in Acts 2:38 that bibles like the King James Version and the Douay Rheims for what the translation as "remission" is λήμψεσθε. λήμψεσθε simple means to let something go. Mark 3:29 uses this Greek word in the sense the eternal sin can never be "forgiven" it would not make much sense if this eternal sin were only suppressed or whatever other secondary sense exist in English. In fact the King James Version translates λήμψεσθε as "forgiven" a few times Acts 5:31, 13:38, 26:18, Ephesians 1:7, Colossians 1:14. It means forgiven.

 

 

 

 

 

 



Sedevacantism disproved by Vatican I

These are the canons the Sedevacantists hate to deal with. The fact is the Papacy will endure til the end of time according to Vatican I, sedevacantist pretend its only the office. However, the council says there Popes will always have successors!

 Let's read Vatican I chapter two called "the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman Pontiffs." My comments are in italics

Chapter 2.
On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs

1. That which our Lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time [45].

 

This alone put the nail in the coffin of sedevacantism that says or implies there never will be another pope. It states the Papacy is for the "CONTINUAL SALVATION" and "PERMANENT benefit of the Church" a sedevacantism might make an aburd argument that this might refer to the benefit of the past, long dead popes, however, the next statement destroys this notion by saying the papacy must "of necessity REMAIN FOR EVER." How in any sense can the papacy "remain forever" and have no occupant for 50 years? Especially, after all the Cardinals have long died?! Since, there are no procedures in Church Law for electing Popes by non Cardinals it must be conceded that there never will be another pope! This heretical, sedevacantist position logically means the papacy's "remaining forever" is not actually a "NECESSITY" for the Church!

Furthermore, the words about the Chuch being founded on the Rock, which is Peter and the Popes (St Peter's successors), show that the Church stands firm because Christ established the papacy to last "until the end of time."  

     

2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood [46].    

 

This quotes the words of a Papal Legate at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon.  Even back then it was recognized St Peter would have perpetual successors! Notice it says ST Peter "FOR EVER" "lives and presides....in his successors."  Taking a position that there can be no more pope denies these very words! The sedevacantist position would mean that St Peter NO LONGER "lives and presides and excercises judgement in his successors"! Sedevantists when they read this have to ignore the word successors!

5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.

 

It says St Peter would have "perpetual successors." Sedevacantists try to say this is qualified by the following phraise "in the primacy," the pretend this means "as long as there is a pope he will be in the primacy." However, read the rest of the canon and it specifically condemns the idea that maybe the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of St Peter in the primacy. The sedevancantists might have a point if the word "perpetual" were ommited, and the canon said instead "that blessed Peter should have successrs in the primacy"! However, the word PERPETUAL is there.  They can try all the want to make this word superfluous.
 

I do not expect a serious answer from a Sedevacantist. Since, in my experience 9/10 of them are just "Demon Bros" clones that get the vast majority of their misinformation from those heretics. And yes, they are heretics for their denial of Catholic dogma such as "baptism of desire." They are major proponents of "Extra Ecclesia Nulla Salis." They will be judge by this doctrine on Judgement Day when they are proved to be OUTSIDE the Church (should they die in their sinful error) for their denial of Christian dogma, being authors of schism, and for rejecting the Rock on which the Lord built His Church! Below are two videos I recently made on Sedevacantism.

Discovering Aaronic DNA?

There are some people that think they are Jewish and of the sons of Aaron simply because they took a DNA test.  Though, Jews that associate with the tribe of Levi are more likely to have the "Aaronic DNA." The truth is this DNA occurs in many other Middle Eastern peoples too.

http://www.smgf.org/resources/papers/ASHG2005_Jayne.pdf