The Creed – Battle Royale Theology Remix

Now, as you all know by now, if you read here at all, the nickname given to me by others: The Kurgan, applies not only because of my happy-go-lucky and sunny disposition, but also for my intolerance of heretics. We all know: There can only be One (True Church).

What started as some kind of internet bumfight between theological retards, Jimbob and Owen Benjamin, has grown, as an avalanche started by their simultaneous thundering fart, to include the questioning of the very nature of the Trinity by scores of autists across the web.

And prompted Vox Day to clarify his position, as he has often been (incorrectly) accused of denying the Trinity.

The resulting discussion from Vox’s post on SG actually had some interesting commentary (as well as also the “thoughts” of various drooling retards).

So… although the topic is of very little interest to me personally, since my position is pretty ironclad, I thought it might be interesting to others, or at least entertaining. And perhaps they might find some historical background, or some logical thinking related to it, or, ultimately, my personal position, useful.

In that vain hope then, allow me to quote The Creed as the (real, Sedevacantist) Catholic Church currently has it:

Credo

Credo in Deum Patrem omnipoténtem, Creatórem caeli et terra; et in Jesum Christum, Filium ejus únicum, Dóminum nostrum, qui concéptus est de Spiritu Sancto, natus ex Maria Virgine, passus sub Póntio Piláto, crucifixus, mórtuus et sepúltus; descéndit ad inferos; tértia die resurréxit a mórtuis; ascéndit ad caelos, sedet ad déxteram Dei Patris omnipoténtis; inde ventúrus est judicáre vivos et mórtuos. Credo in Spíritum Sanctum, sanctum Ecclésiam cathólicam, sanctórum communionem, remissiónem peccatórum, carnis resurrectiónem, vitam aetérnam. Amen.

Which, translated into English for you heathens, heretics and schismatic is:

I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth; and in Jesus Christ his only begotten Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary, He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died and was buried; He descended into hell; on the third day he resurrected from the dead; He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of God the Father; He will return to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, the remission of sins, the resurrection of the flesh and life everlasting. Amen.

And that, of course, is the only Creed you need or should care about, since it is the one of the One, Holy, Apostolic, Catholic Church, which, I remind you, is infallible and will remain with us until the return of our Lord The Christ.

However… let me now take you through the various iterations and why this is so.

Beginning with Vox’s preferred credo, which he clarified is the one of the “Faith of the 150 Holy Fathers” also known as the Nicene Creed, of 325 AD, but which I believe he clarified (and I hope he corrects me if I got this wrong) meant the first version, as used by St. Cyril who was a catechist in 345 AD, and is also known as the Jerusalem Creed because this is where St. Cyril taught.

There are two forms of this. The first, a very abbreviated form used for the baptism of a new convert:

I believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost,
and in one baptism of repentance for the remission of sins.

And the second one, which was used when they made their vows of renunciation and faith before the whole congregation, in other words, when they were essentially confirmed as adult members of the Church.

It reads as follows:

We believe in one God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth,  and of all things visible and invisible. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God, begotten of His Father, very God, before all worlds, by whom all things were made, and was incarnate, and was made man, was crucified and was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven, and sat at the right hand of the Father, and is coming in glory to judge the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. And in one Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, who spake in the prophets, and in one baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, and in one Holy Catholic Church, and in the resurrection of the flesh, and in the life eternal.

Given that the second one was the one recited formally by the baptised adult (or at least of age of reason), it is obvious that the first is a condensed version just identifying the most important points, and the second one is a more complete version. That in and of itself already makes it clear that a so-called “revision” of the Creed, is acceptable; because it is not a revision or corruption, but merely a more complete and detailed version of the first one. So in principle, the one used by the Catholic Church is perfectly fine.

But far be it from me to deprive you of the thrill of a larger internet bunfight about theology. In essence then, what, if any, is the difference between the Credo I subscribe to and the one Vox subscribes to?

I posit it is very little. Let’s see them side by side and concept by concept with some commentary by yours truly. Always keeping in mind, I am not a priest or Bishop, merely a layman that submits to the infallible magisterium of Holy, Catholic, Mother Church.

And here is my commentary then, see the note number above for reference.

1. I see no relevant difference. We/I is ultimately irrelevant since each person professes it anyway at an individual level. If you must have an autistic take it might be that Catholics do not presume to speak for anyone but themselves when professing faith.
2. I see no relevant difference. Heaven and Earth assumes the entirety of creation in Catholic Dogma.
3. No relevant difference.
4. Here the appears to be a difference. The Jerusalem Creed focuses on the nature of God, the Catholic one states that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit (which in Catholic Dogma is still one of the three entities of God, so, ultimately, no difference that I can see as relevant).
5. No appreciable difference with reference to Jesus, but, an important omission in the Jerusalem Creed in that Mary is not mentioned at all. One might assume this is rather irrelevant since we all know Mary gave birth to Jesus and that He was Conceived by God (whether you want to limit that to God the Father or expressly state by the Holy Spirit, is, again, to my mind, quite immaterial since they are both aspects of God). The more obvious omission refers to Mary’s virginity. Which really should not be in question anyway, since every Christian for well over one and a half millennia has known that Mary was a Virgin while pregnant with Jesus. So, as far as any reasonable man goes, there is no appreciable difference. Some retarded person might however, infer that Mary was not necessarily a virgin, I suppose. I doubt this is Vox Day’s position.
6. No appreciable difference, although we Catholic remember better who did what and when (especially since our prayer for the Mass includes the guilt of the Jews).
7. A difference. Apparently, according to the Jerusalem Creed, Jesus either did not descend into Hell, or it was not worth mentioning, which I find rather a large omission.
8. No real difference but the Catholic version is more precise.
9. No real difference.
10. No real difference.
11. No real difference since the eternity of God’s Kingdom is assumed in Catholic Dogma, but the Jerusalem Credo is more detailed.
12. No real difference, although the Jerusalem Credo specifies at least one of the functions of the Holy Spirit in more detail. The word Paraclete is from the Greek Parakletos and can generally be translated as Comforter or Counsellor, or one who stays or is called to be beside another. In essence it is clarifying that the Holy Spirit spoke through the prophets. With which the Catholic Church has no argument.
13. No real difference. The Catholic Church Dogma is that there is only one baptism and it does remit all sins committed before it.
14. No difference.
15. A difference. This could potentially be quite a big one, if one is abysmally ignorant of Church history. In the first instance it could be interpreted as not requiring Holy Mass. However, as I said, anyone even remotely familiar with Church history will know that the Holy Mass was performed from the earliest times, with full concept of transubstantiation and so on. In the second instance, again, one abysmally ignorant of Church history might assume that there is no communion between a Christian that is alive and one that is dead. This is, the general error that Protestants make, (almost invariably ignorant of history in general, never mind Church history): Assuming that Catholics “pray” or “worship” dead people. The reality is that for a Catholic, as was the case for all Christians for well over one and a half millennia, it was always understood that the dead remain “alive” to us, whether in purgatory or in heaven and we can ask intercession from them, as you do of your friends when you say “please pray for me”. Which of course, applies to the Hail Mary prayer and many others. It is not a worship of Mary, it is an asking of her to pray for us sinners. That’s all. In this respect then, the omission from the Jerusalem Credo I think can lead to error, although, in fairness, at the time, this would have been omitted in the same way that one might omit saying water is wet. It was obvious to all. Then autists and gnostics came along, so, as the Church does from time to time, it specifies for all what has already always been the case anyway. And does so only to clarify for the laziest and most credulous, what devout Catholics have always known and done to begin with.
16. No real difference. Although it can be interpreted as being one. See point 13 above. The autist might, however, conclude, as the retarded Protestants do that the remission (forgiveness) of sins, as mentioned in the Jerusalem Credo means all sins, past, present and future. Which is, of course, the retarded take. The Catholic Credo, by placing it here makes it more clear that sins can be remitted/forgiven. The implication being that even after baptism, new sins one might commit, can be forgiven (not WILL BE, but CAN be). So in a sense the Catholic version is more precise.
17. No difference.
18. No difference.
19. A (presumed) difference. I presume this to be on the same level as point 15. It seems to not be expressly stated in the Jerusalem Credo because it was probably spoken out aloud anyway and everyone knew it. And makes no real difference to the theology either way.

This then, to my mind, puts to rest the appreciable differences that I might have with Vox’s theology, and to sum up, what are they, as far as I can see?

The bolded portions, at first glance.

I have not asked Vox his position, as I wanted to write this first, and then let him comment on it if he choses to, so any assumptions I may make on his behalf are subject to correction, and if he lets me know where I may have made a wrong one, I’ll be sure to let you know and update.

Right then, on point number 5: There are potentially up to three issues:

1. I do not assume Vox takes the position that Mary was not a virgin before the birth of Jesus.
2. I think he may take the position that she was not perpetually a virgin after the birth of Jesus, which is a Catholic dogma. Given he has not had a Catholic upbringing, as far as I know, I assume he would rely on his own relatively reasonable (at first impact anyway) assumption that once a woman has given birth she is no longer a virgin from a physical perspective. Even if this were the case, the Catholic Church, when referring to Mary’s perpetual virginity means that she never had sexual relations with anyone, even after the birth of Jesus, and that’s what matters. I do not know whether he subscribes to the idea that Mary did later have sexual relations with her husband Joseph after the birth of Christ. Possibly he might, if he is relying on the erroneous assumption that the man referred to as the “brother” of Jesus, called James, was an actual sibling of Jesus, rather than merely one of his ardent followers.
3. Anyone familiar with the details of priesthood, and things like the rituals required before entering the tabernacle, the death of anyone touching the ark of the covenant or indeed other things set aside for God, would understand that Mary, having been made a pure vessel for the incarnation of Jesus, was obviously set aside for God, and no man in his right mind would have dared trying to have sex with her. This is the position the Catholic dogma takes ultimately. In either case, at a practical level, I do not see that it makes any difference in how a man might go about his day-to-day life as a Christian. Possibly, the heretical view might lead one to be slightly less appreciative of the contribution to Christianity of women, in their role as mothers or of sexually pure brides and so on. In other words, if one was to err on the side of caution, the Catholic position would be the better one to side with.

On point number 7: I doubt Vox believes Jesus did not descend into Hell, but I suppose he might. Even if he does, I don’t see how that would affect his day-to-day actions or belief system. It would be an error as far as the Catholic Church goes, but I fail to see the consequences of it at a practical level. At a spiritual level, of course, having such an erroneous belief would diminish the work done by our Lord for those souls that remained in purgatory or limbo until he freed them, as well as diminish His power and ability to do, go and act as He deems required.

On Point number 15: Here may be the only real differences. I am not sure what Vox’s views on the need for Holy Mass, transubstantiation and the communion of (dead) Saints. As he is of a generically Protestant non-denomination, I assume he probably does not subscribe to transubstantiation. I assume he believes there is a need for going to Church, though I am ignorant of what aspects of what passes for Holy Mass in Catholic Churches is replaced by any specific beliefs Vox may have in this regard.

Overall then, I would sum the possible differences between Vox and myself, as far as our theology goes are probably limited to transubstantiation, the need for confession and it being a sacrament, an item that is not even mentioned specifically in the credo of either side (though it is implied within the context of Catholicism, by point number 16), and the possibility of asking for intercessionary prayer from the departed, including Mary.

Potentially, at a stretch, we might even guess at some unspecified difference of opinion or view of maybe women or mothers in general because of his Protestant leanings versus my Catholic ones, but frankly, I doubt it. And if there is, I doubt it would be very significant in practical terms. Lastly, and this only from a very brief conversation I had with him on the matter a few years ago, I believe that he may take the position that the Holy Spirit is an aspect of God (I am not sure whether he means from God the Father only, like the Eastern “Orthodox” do, or from both God the Father and Jesus the Son) that He sends to us, rather than a “third person” as such as is generally conceived by most people who call themselves Christians.

Adendum: A commenter helpfully referenced this post from 2013 which sheds more light on Vox’s position. To summarise it then, he questions the change from the original Nicean Credo regarding the position of the Holy Spirit. My understanding is that he does not equate the Holy Spirit with having the same quality of Godhood as Jesus or God the Father. Specifically, he objects to the description of the Holy Spirit being as “the giver of life” since life was already present and eternal as the result of Jesus’ arriving before the Holy Spirit (I assume here that Vox means that those who believed in Jesus as the Messiah even before Jesus was baptised were already given life eternal). Interestingly, Vox seems to also hold that the Holy Spirit must be able to proceed from both the Father and the Son. I am not certain, however, since he also, reasonably enough, states that God the Father and Jesus the Son cannot be wholly and totally interchangeable at all times, but he does not specify if he thinks the Holy Spirit precedes only from the father. I do not think that the position that Jesus and God the Father are both God, yet not exactly interchangeable at all times and in all ways is heretical. the very fact there is a distinction means there are differences. Similarly, being Catholic, it makes sense to me that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, as is, in any case, made quite clear in the Bible. As for Vox’s contention that the Holy Spirit is later raised to a status that is quasi identical to Jesus and God the Father, I honestly abstain from having an opinion on the matter. I don’t see it changes anything one way or the other how this aspect is viewed, and personally, do not even see that it makes a difference if the Holy Spirit is the third part of the Triune God as Vox interprets it or as he assumes the Catholic Church interprets it. I mean… it is literally a mystery, so I find the quibbling over it to be a complete waste of time in practical terms, and at most, a personal point of curiosity as to how another human being might perceive it, as observing such things often can give us new insights.

On this last point, I am not sure if it even makes a difference even at a dogmatic level in Catholic thought. I mean, I know that the Holy Spirit is presented as the third part of the triune God, but as to the exact specifics of the nature of the Holy Spirit, I really and truly believe such speculation is well above my ability or even concern to know. I am perfectly happy to submit to infallible Church dogma, whatever it may be, on the matter. And honestly, I cannot see that in practical terms as far as the way Vox may or may not act it makes any difference at all. For all I know such a belief may well land him in Hell, but I honestly have no knowledge of that, nor understanding of why, and more importantly, no concern at all to find out. As I said, like the great philosopher Harry Callahan, I know my limitations and am perfectly happy to take the dogmatic position of the Catholic Church on this subject.

So, that takes care of the view Vox has of the Trinty.

Now for the others…

This is a much simpler issue.

Owen Benjamin’s take on the Trinity has, without any doubt, been utterly, completely blasphemous, since he compared the relationship between God the father and Jesus the Son as a homosexual liaison with the Holy Spirit as the ejaculate. And no, I don’t for one second accept the cowardly excuse that he was “only joking.” Let me put it this way: Jean Parisot de Valette, who eventually became the leader of the knights of Malta and was possibly the man who single-handedly might have been most responsible for Islam not putting the whole of Europe to the fire and the sword, once beat a lay member of the order of Knights nearly to death. Allegedly for blasphemy. For which he did four months in prison. I see nothing wrong with that. Nothing at all. And in fact, if nearly killing a man for blasphemy was requiring of four months in the hole (it was literally a hole in the ground in which food and water were lowered to the prisoner) that seems about right to me. And if such laws were implemented across the civilised world, we would soon return to a saner, cleaner, more respectful and kind world.

In short, Owen’s take is absolutely retarded, blasphemous in the extreme, and he had best keep such an idiotic idea to himself. Especially is he’s ever near an actual Catholic who might have a temperament similar to good old de Valette.

It does need to be stated that if Owen holds such a belief, which I charitably doubt, or even just whatever belief allowed him to make such an absurd and blasphemous statement, it is quite clear he has a disordered mind, and that, at a rather obviously deep level of degeneracy to even come up with such imagery. Which, if what I am told about his streams by others is even only partially accurate, would also be obvious since apparently he spends a goodly part of his hours long streams referencing homosexual acts, male genitalia, or ejaculation, in graphic detail. Clearly, not the sign of a healthy mind.

But in any case, no one that made the comments he made concerning the Trinity can ever be taken to be a Christian of any kind, not even of some random version of absurd Churchianity like Mormonism. We can therefore only define Owen as a complete heretic (assuming he was ever validly baptised, which I don’t know). And if he was not validly baptised, then he is simply some kind of deranged non-denominational heathen or pagan. In short, we need not concern ourselves with his take on any aspect of christianity, theology, or frankly, much of anything else, since it is wholly irrelevant.

Whatever Jimbob’s take on the trinity is, I have no clue, as I have never watched any of his videos or read anything from him except the odd cartoon he draws, of which, I am not a fan. I just don’t like the look, but that’s a matter of taste and of no consequence. I really do not know anything at all about his view of the Trinity, but I am led to believe that Jimbob considers himself and Eastern “Orthodox” if this is the case, and if he holds the classic views of that schismatic sect, then the most likely difference he would have with me is that being as the schematic “Orthodox” don’t read their Bible very well, he assumes the Holy Spirit proceeds from the father alone, when it is quite clear that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both if one can read in normal human context. In any case, if this is the extent of the discrepancy between us, it is, again, of rather little consequence at a practical level and I doubt would lead Jimbob to act in any specifically degenerate fashion. As I said before, it might lead him to Hell spiritually, but as to the details of the how or why, beyond the fact it goes against Catholic Dogma, I do not profess, nor care, to know, I am happy to simply submit to the Catholic Church’s view on this.

Conclusion

So there we have it ladies and gentlemen. The only interest I have in this whole topic would be Vox’s specific views, and that purely on a personal level, because I find him interesting and his views usually present facets of reality I might not have considered before. From a personal theological perspective however, whatever Vox’s views might be in their detail, it is extremely unlikely to change my own. It might, possibly, add some level of detail or nuance though, I might not have considered before, and as such, it could be interesting.

The views of Jimbob and Owen on the Trinity (or pretty much anything else) are completely uninteresting and utterly irrelevant to me in the extreme. As are pretty much anyone else’s, unless I find your takes on a number of topics and your level of intellectual thought experiments to be engaging.

I now take my leave of what, no doubt, will be further fuel to the Internet Trinity Bumfight Dumpster Fire of 2023.