Calov: "The earth is fixed, not that it should be moved…", against Copernicanism

    I ran across this quote while translating the 3 volumes of the Baier-Walther Compendium and had to highlight it as another important Lutheran testimony not just against Copernicanism, but for Holy Scripture. It comes from the writings of the well known Lutheran theologian Abraham Calov. This quote is from volume 2, page 86, translated from the Latin by DeepL, italics in original:

"The earth is fixed, not that it should be moved, either in a circle or by any other means, much less that it should define the seasons by its own motion, which is the office given to the luminaries, but that it should stand firm and immovable. ‘He established the earth upon its foundations; it shall never be moved,’ Ps. 104:5. Although the earth is drawn from the waters and is washed by the waves of water that surround it and tower over it, it is nevertheless founded by divine power so that at no time, until the last day, can it be moved from its place as a whole. Cf. Job 26:7; 38:6-7; Eccl. 1:11. Therefore the Holy Scriptures oppose those who make the planet of the earth, or who constitute the earth as mobile, whether by ascribing to it both daily and annual motion, or either motion, along with Copernicus, Kepler, and Lansberg." (Syst. T. III. art. 5. c. 2. p. 952.)

There are other testimonies along with this one and the reader may want to explore them. — I plan to publish my own machine translations of the 3 volumes of the Baier-Walther Compendium soon. Watch for them.

Walther on Lutherans vs Episcopalians: first congregation's meeting place

      While translating and polishing the text of Walther's essay for the 1883 Western District, I ran across a short explanation of the relationship between Episcopalians and Lutherans. This was also of interest because the first congregation to form among these German Lutheran immigrants first met in an Episcopalian church building, as all histories report. But these histories generally do not report how that relationship ended. In Baepler's Century of Grace p. 33, it was reported that in 1839 

The older Walther serves the congregation which remained in St. Louis and is permitted to worship in the Episcopal Church.

From pp. 36-37 of the original report to the 1883 Western District convention, the younger C.F.W. Walther wrote about this:

It is commonly believed that the Episcopalians are closest to us Lutherans because they have pretty much the same doctrine of Baptism as the divine Word and, at least, do not speak out so decisively in favor of the Reformed doctrine of the Lord's Supper. The fact that they differ from us in their church constitution is considered incidental. But this is not so. What separates us from them, what once separated our first congregation in St. Louis from them, after the Episcopal Church had gladly allowed them to use its church for a time, concerns the great principle of Christianity, according to which we Lutherans grant Christians their full Christian freedom and do not grant any church minister power alongside the power of the Word as a power bestowed by God. 

So we see that the first "Missouri Synod" congregation, when confronted by this disparity of doctrine, had to find another meeting place and could not be seen as in fellowship with the erring Episcopalians. This historical fact should confront today's LC–MS as a word of warning for their pastors acting like the Episcopalians, particularly those associated with the "Gottesdienst" organization.

Lutheran vs Reformed: Walther responds to Reformed Krummacher, 1863

      While re-translating the last of six essays published in the 1933 CPH book What Is Christianity?, I ran across Pieper's reference to an important series of articles that C. F. W. Walther wrote in response to a propaganda article by a German Reformed theologian Emil Wilhelm Krummacher. Here is how Pieper introduces this essay: 

This article, written by Dr. Walther, extends through four issues of L. u. W. (vol. 9, Sept. to Dec. 1863) and is, incidentally, one of the most thorough refutations of the entire Reformed doctrine, insofar as it differs from the Lutheran doctrine.

This is particularly important here in America because of the prominent Reformed influence in this country. Lutherans are typically surrounded by all kinds of churches with different names, "non-denoms", "community" churches, etc., that are all basically Reformed in doctrine. I invite the reader to investigate what Walther wrote, as translated in the English version in the links above. Lutherans will be strengthened in their faith, and have a ready defense against the Reformed around them. (I may polish and publish this series in the future.)

Pieper: "Certainly not!", of deniers of Inspiration

      While reviewing old posts, I ran across a short section from Pieper's essay "Das Fundament" that fulfilled my desire to find the definitive statement by Pieper concerning whether those who deny the Inspiration of Holy Scripture can still be Christians. Here it is in all its forcefulness: 

This raises the question of whether it is still possible for someone to still stand in the Christian faith while denying the divine authority of Holy Scripture. We must say:

 Certainly not

if this denial is given its practical consequence. [emphases mine] Those who do not believe Christ and his Apostles when they testify of the Scriptures: “The Scriptures cannot be broken” [John 10:35] and: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God” [2 Tim. 3:16], he will consequently not believe Christ and the Apostles in what they teach about the forgiveness of sins for the sake of the Blood of Christ.

This teaching has caused me to question whether the "Walkout" men of 1974 actually stood in the Christian faith. It has caused me to question whether Prof. Joel Biermann of today's LC–MS stands in the Christian faith. "Certainly not" if their denial goes to its "practical consequence". Prof. Biermann, in his lectures, speaks of Pieper at times as if he was a good teacher, but this would not have been reciprocated by Pieper given the above statement.

AG12: Walther's Lutheran Church Alone Gives All Glory to God (11 essays in one BTL book)

      This concludes from Part AG11b (Table of Contents in Part AG1a) in a series presenting Walther's essays to the Western District that presented his theme "That Only Through the Doctrine of the Lutheran Church is All Glory Given to God Alone". — This series of essays has in many ways covered enough subjects to be considered a Dogmatics textbook that the old Missouri Synod desired so much from Walther, along with Walther's edition of Baier's Compendium. 

      While Franz Pieper did not explicitly refer to any of these essays in his Christian Dogmatics, he did refer to Walther's Baier Compendium 132 times. Since Walther worked on both writings at the same time, so the doctrines of these two teachers are essentially the same.

Download full DOCX file >> HERE <<; PDF file >> HERE <<.

(626 pages)

The advantages of this compilation have been touched on in my series of blog posts:

• All emphasis of wording is retained, while it is sometimes missing in the CPH translations.
• Omitted material has been included, though this is minimal.
• Wording sometimes follows Walther's more closely, although some errors remain.
• Hyperlinks for reference and navigation have been added, especially Luther's writings.

May the reader find as much spiritual benefit as this blogger found in reading and studying these again! Amen!

Excursus 2B: Grok's & Britannica's reports on suppression of the Jesuits by a Pope

      This continues from "Excursus 2A" (Table of Contents in Part AG1a) and follows Walther's 1886 essay in Part AG11b. The following is Walther's quote from the Jesuit Constitution that I first published 2 years ago, in his account of the defection Prof. Ed. Preuss to the Roman Catholic Church:

Thus, for example, in the constitution of the wicked Jesuit mob, [Jesuit gang] is written: “That no determination, explanation, or orders of any kind to live to a commitment can lead to a mortal sin or a venial [forgivable] sin: except when the superior commanded it in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, or in the power of obedience. (See the Constitution of the Jesuits, according to the Prague edition, which they themselves provided: Institutum societatis Jesu autoritate congregationis generalis XVIII recusum. Pragae 1757. Vol. I, fol. 414-415 [2025-12-15: "nullas Constitutiones, Declarationes, vel ordinem ullum <page 415> vivendi, posse obligationem ad peccatum mortale vel veniale inducere; nisi Superior ea in Nomine Domini Nostri JESU Christi, vel in virtute Obedientiae juberet"])  The Jesuits themselves refer to this passage in the index of this edition under the title: “Obedientia et obedire” as the determination of their principle: “The superiors can make it binding to sin in the power of obedience, if this brings many benefits”.

Now many writers, even Lutheran theologians, will largely deny Walther's reporting, certainly most of the narrative on much of the Internet defending the Order of Jesuits (or the "Society of Jesus" so-called). But I would publish what the AI tool from Elon Musk, Grok, gave as the "answer" when I gave it the following text: "Pope Clement XIV said, when he signed the Bull of Suppression: 'I am signing my death warrant.'" (with my comments inserted in red text):

Authenticity of the Quote

The quote appears in some 19th-century historical accounts [an admission that there were "historical accounts" of this], often [but not always] in anti-Jesuit or sensationalist sources, portraying the pope as reluctantly sacrificing himself for peace while fearing Jesuit retaliation [again an admission of these "historical accounts".]. However, it is likely [but possibly not] apocryphal or legendary rather than verifiable from contemporary records. Reliable modern sources (e.g., Catholic Encyclopedia, Britannica, scholarly histories) do not confirm [or deny] he uttered these exact words, though they describe his deep reluctance, remorse, and fear in his final years. [So non-papist sources "Britannica, scholarly histories" report this pope's "fear in his final years". What fear would he have from the state leaders if he followed their directions? But he would naturally fear the Jesuits because they were the ones being suppressed!]

This report by Grok is unlike Google Gemini's outright denial (see Excursus 2A) that there was such a statement made.  Here is what Britannica reports on the "suppression" Pope Clement XIV, in part (emphasis mine):

Fearing that France and Spain would resort to open schism, he finally yielded and on July 21, 1773, issued the brief Dominus ac Redemptor (“Lord and Saviour”) dissolving the Society of Jesus, which from its inception had dedicated itself to the service of the pope. Clement asserted that he did so because the Society could no longer attain its original ends and because he wanted peace within the church. The suppression lasted until 1814. Clement lived his last year in ill health, remorse, depression, and dread of assassination.

So we see that even with the "toned down" modern reporting of these events, Walther's reporting is not far from the truth. But those who understand the actual "spirituality" of the Jesuit Order (see Excursus 2A) will know that they are utterly to be condemned for their "exception clause" giving superior Jesuits the power to command others to sin if there are sufficient "benefits".

      In the concluding Part AG12, we combine all 11 essays from 1873 to 1886 into one complete book, and provide a download to another "BTL book".

Jesuit constitution in "black letter" (Walther's warning vs AI gods, Excursus 2A)

Jesuit seal (Wikipedia)

     In the previous series on Walther's essays to the Western District, Part AG11b (Table of Contents in Part AG1a) (p. 43) presented Walther's history of the Society of Jesuits. In America today, their are 28 Jesuit universities, according to their association AJCU. A US & World News article quoted one official saying: “What makes a Jesuit university distinctive, even among other Catholic universities, is the spirituality that is the spirit of the Jesuit order”. So what is this Jesuit "spirituality"?

      I asked Google's Gemini AI tool the following: "Is there a Jesuit clause where a superior can order another Jesuit to sin?", to which it answered (emphasis in the original answer): 

"No, there's no Jesuit clause allowing superiors to command sin, as it contradicts fundamental Catholic teaching and Jesuit principles".

Is this true?

      When one attempts to ask the "AI gods" about the evil actions of this group, one is faced with only charges of prejudice, or worse, and they then proceed to mitigate the dark side of the Jesuits. (Only Grok even mentioned what is to follow.) But Walther had hard evidence of their darkness, similar to what the legal profession calls "black-letter law".

      Walther quotes not from a Protestant writing against the Jesuits but from their own publication that presents their "constitution". Although I have recently updated my "Preuss7" blog post to provide the original Latin version that Walther translated, I want to give that piece it's own blog post so that it may be presented in all it's (dark) glory.

      Under the sub-section "That the Constitutions Do Not Impose the Obligation of Sin" (Quod Constitutiones peccati obligatlionem non inducunt), the Latin text states on pp. 414-415:

Um exoptet Societas universas suas Constitutiones, Declarationes, ac vivendi ordinem, omnino justa nostrum Institutum, nihil ulla in re declinando, observari; optet etiam nihilominus suos omnes securos esse, vel certe adjuvari, ne in laqueum ullius peccati, quod ex vi Constitutionum hujusimodi aut & Obedientiae, nullas Constitutiones, Declarationes, vel ordinem ullum <page 415> vivendi, posse obligationem ad peccatum mortale vel veniale inducere; nisi Superior ea in Nomine Domini Nostri JESU Christi, vel in virtute Obedientiae juberet: quod in rebus, vel personis illis, in quibus judicabitur, quod ad particulare uniuscujusque, vel ad universale bonum multum conveniet, fieri poterit: & loco timoris offensae, succedat amor & desiderium omnis perfectionis; & ut major gloria & laus Christi Creatoris, ac Domini Nostri consequatur.

Putting this through various Latin translators, this comes out reading this (my emphasis):

Therefore, may the Society desire that all its Constitutions, Declarations, and the order of living be observed in their entirety, in complete conformity with our Institute, without deviating in any matter; may also wish, nevertheless, that all its members be secure, or at least be helped, so that they may not fall into the snare of any sin, which, by the force of such Constitutions or of Obedience, no Constitutions, Declarations, or any order of living <page 415> can induce an obligation to a mortal or venial sin; unless the Superior should command it in the Name of our Lord JESUS Christ, or in virtue of Obedience: which may be done in those things, or persons, in which it shall be judged to be very convenient for the particular good of each, or for the universal good; and that in place of the fear of offense, love and desire of all perfection may succeed; and that the greater glory and praise of Christ the Creator and our Lord may be accomplished.

So while the Jesuits promote the notion that they "Do Not Impose the Obligation of Sin", yet in this very sub-section they do just that with their exception clause "unless the Superior should command it in the Name of our Lord JESUS Christ". That is their "spirituality". How did I find this out? By Walther's publishing of this exception in his essay on Ed. Preuss's apostacy from the Lutheran faith to the Roman Catholic/Papist faith! And Walther hammers home the Jesuit principle:

“The superiors can make it binding to sin in the power of obedience, if this brings many benefits”.

Let the Artificial Intelligence "gods" refute this "black letter" principle of the Jesuits. I will take Walther's warnings, and the Jesuits own publication, over AI nonsense any day. — In Part B of this Excursus 2B, we expand on Walther's history of the Jesuits that was first mentioned in Part AG11a previously.