Second Epistle to the Qalasheen, Concerning Modernism

[thesmellypocket 1859]

Second Epistle to the Qalasheen, Concerning the Scrolls

 

 

I.Introduction. Continuing to Wish Blessings and Friendship. Outlining Qalasheen Objections.

 

To our Qalasheen brethren in blessed Horen the Prophet, greetings. Over this past month, I have considered the response to my first Epistle, and have further endeavoured to learn your country’s language. I wish to make clear that I have nothing but good intentions toward your people, for which I continue to pray for the exaltation and health thereof. My wish is that, with a firm conviction as to the truth of the Canonist Faith, out of love I may correct error. For nations are not built on opinions, neither mosques nor cathedrals: but on conviction alone can greatness be built. And on my conviction I have resolved to live and die.

 

It seems the objections to my first thesis of late, overwhelmingly come in two forms. 

 

I)The first is to say that the Canonist doctrine has ‘changed’, whereas those of the Rashiduns has not; that the Canonist doctrine has been corrupted, whilst the Rashidun doctrine remains pure. But I will presently refute this argument.

 

II)The second is the more serious argument; namely that which dealt more squarely with my original point. I pointed out that, in the Scrolls given to us by the Prophets, the Prophetic authority and origin of the Church is clearly shewed. Suspicions have arisen that the Church somehow altered or changed these documents, which will be clearly refuted in this latest Epistle, which should clear the air, and therefore show the authenticity and truth of Canonist claims to legitimacy. 

 

These arguments, therefore, will I tend to refute in this Epistle, which should calm any fears that I have fabricated in the slightest, but have shewed only the authentic documents, which shew clearly that the Prophets which the Rashidun accept instituted the Church by Divine commandment. 
 

II.On The Unchanging Development of Doctrine.

 

Firstly, to this argument that the Canonist Church has changed in her essential beliefs, and that the Rashiduns have remained the same. Now, firstly, I must mention that my original argument was mistook. I wrote: 

 

‘I will not shrink from uttering my firm conviction, with the whole of human history as my witness, that never has there been an institution governed with so much rampant folly, so much wanton extravagance, and so much thoughtless malice as the Church of the Canon. And yet, for all that, she has survived countless wars, schisms and heresies: for all of, and, in spite of, all the olds, God truly has NOT repented: He has, in the end, always preserved His Church and her divine office. ‘

 

This was taken as an admission that the Church’s essential doctrine has been corrupted; which I do not hold. Rather, I hold that often-times her ministers have failed, but that the doctrine has never been corrupted, owing to the fact that God has preserved it from His own glory. I will show now that the essential doctrine of the Canonist Church has remained unchanged and pure, and that only the way it is expressed, or rather, the fullness of its detail, has changed.  You will see, rather, that without the authority of the Church, that truth is never firmly established, and that the Rashidun doctrine has often-times varied from era to era for reasons I will explain.

 

Take, for instance, on the veneration of Saints. I will show three historical documents to show that the essential doctrine on this matter has been preserved over centuries, despite all the corrupted folly which has often governed the Church.

 

This manuscript, written in 1424, or perhaps even earlier, is the exact same as the next one, written some time in the second half of the same century. Now, the next manuscript is written several centuries later, sometime in the 16th century, or perhaps the early 17th, yet the words remain the same. Now, this last document I will show is the current Catechism, promulgated in His Holiness’, Daniel VI’s, last Pontificate. It will become abundantly clear and historically certain that at no time has the essential Canonist Faith changed; it has the same traits as it did when it was founded by the Prophets, and the Faith we believe in now is the same Faith that the Exalted Prophets founded.

 

Now, the historians among you will note that 1424 is within the lifetime of Exalted Siegmund. So we are looking at a document that could only have been produced with Prophetic approval. The fact that this document continues to be valid, and has never been contradicted by later dogma clearly proves that the Church of the Canon has not wavered by the divine doctrines and authority given to her by the Prophets.

 

Now, this first document of 1424 says on the Creator:

 

‘The most fundamental concept of the True Faith is a rigorous monotheism, called the Doctrine of One. The Creator is architect of the universe and progenitor of humankind. He is unique and inherently one, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent.’

 

(https://www.lordofthecraft.net/forums/topic/86410-the-faith-in-a-simplistic-view-just-to-give-a-small-idea/?tab=comments#comment-753624)

 

Now notice how the substance has remained entirely the same, despite at least a century of distance:

 

‘The most fundamental concept of the True Faith is a rigorous monotheism, called the Doctrine of One. The Creator is architect of the universe and progenitor of humankind. He is unique and inherently one, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omnibenevolent.’ 

 

(https://www.lordofthecraft.net/forums/topic/151145-dogma-and-principles-of-the-church/?tab=comments#comment-1427870 see section: The Dogmatic Tenants)

 

Compare this to the current doctrine, seen in the Catechism:

 

‘God, sometimes called “the Creator,” “Godani,” or “the Lord,” is the single omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent creator of the universe. It is He who drives the motion of all things, and who is the source of all goodness and righteousness. He spoke the Holy Scrolls to the Exalted, and He rewards virtuous mortals in the Seven Skies. God has no aspects, no internal divisions, and no physical form.’

 

(https://www.lordofthecraft.net/forums/topic/183892-the-catechism-of-the-canonist-church/?tab=comments#comment-1719098)

 

Do you see how the deposit of Faith has been guarded by God? Surely, the way it is expressed here is slightly different: because it is written for the evangelisation and education of peoples, whereas the previous documents are written to outline Dogma in its purity. The essential doctrines of omnipotence, omnipresence and omnibenevolence have remained unchanged: and this can be seen with any doctrine of the Church. I dare you to show me any dogmatic pronouncements of the Church that contradicts a previous one.

 

Before you should rush to the printing press, I should mention that I mean Dogma, not Practice. The Church has changed in practice but never in Dogma. For example, she has at some periods permitted married priests, but now does not. But never has there been any dogma prohibiting married priests: instead, the Dogma of the Church has remained silent on this, and the Pontiffs have ruled against them for practical and disciplinary reasons. The essential beliefs: on what the Church is, where she comes from, and what she believes, has remained pure over centuries, and these historical documents bear witness on this doctrine of Monotheism alone. Therefore any accusation that the Canonist doctrine is always changing and that the Rashidun doctrine has remained pure is entirely false. 

 

Now, it is the Rashidun doctrine that has changed over centuries: namely because you have no set doctrine. Of course, you have the authority of the Prophets, as we do, and you have your own alleged Prophet, who is supposed by you to have given a final revelation. Yet do you have set doctrine? No, not without religious authority. To the Qali, the only judge in religious matters is personal conscience and his own interpretation of the revelation, making his religion dangerously vulnerable to modernism and doctrinal relativism. 

 

I have heard, in my discourse with the Qalsheen, that some believe in the veneration of the Prophets and Saints, and asking them to pray for us, whilst others do not. Well, I would say this. Some have called the veneration of Saints idolatry. So the question is this: either the veneration of Saints is a noble and just practise as our Faith maintains, or it is foul idolatry and deeply sinful behaviour that must be rooted out at all costs. Some Qalsheen are of the first opinion, but a great many of the second. Yet only one can be true; some Caliphs, it must be so, have believed one, whilst some the other. You are not, then, truly a single Faith, but you have as many personal Faiths as you do adherents, for without an infallible judge to render in religious matters, you quickly fall into the clear error of Iconoclasm in many cases, or, as I say, doctrinal relativism. I hope this will satisfy any qualms, and prove that our Faith has remained pure despite all the turmoil of modern and past times. 
 

III.On the Infallibility of Scripture.

 

With the doctrinal integrity of the Church upheld, I do not think it a stretch to say that the Divine Revelation of the Prophets has also remained pure in the hands of the Pontiffs. For you alleged that although these texts that I shew clearly prove the authority of the Church, they are as yet clearly altered, and that Church no longer resembles that which was founded by the Prophets, thus spawning the need for another Revelation. This latter point I have already refuted by showing the unchanging character of doctrine.

 

It will be sufficient to say that I have already shown documents from Siegmund’s own time, which could only have been printed and promoted publicly, let alone preserved, with the Prophet’s approval. This clearly shows his backing of the Church, and that he supported each and every doctrine thereof. 

 

Now, as a printer and historian by background, I must say that modifications made to texts centuries after the fact are very obvious and cannot possibly be concealed. Therefore, if the Church has at any time altered the Scrolls, then the additions or subtractions are so meaninglessly minor as to not alter in any way the essential meaning of the text. The whole reason the Church has insisted that the Scrolls remain in Flexio is that they be preserved without modification or bias. The Scrolls were given to us in Flexio, and such is the commitment of the Church to textual purity that she will not consent to these Scrolls being in any other language, except that in which we received them. Yet surely it is in our interest that these Scrolls be more widely known and printed? For they confirm the Church’s authority, by making it clear that Owyn and Siegmund founded them. Yet they have remained in the original language, because God would rather preserve the purity of His word, then gain the greater advantage for His Church.

 

Consider your own argument. The historical record literally proves, without a doubt, that Siegmund at least proclaimed, by the earlier dogmas, the Canonist faith to possess only the fullness of truth. Yet you expect us to believe that, for some reason, the Church usurped the authority of the Prophets, and altered their works to make it seem as if they had Divine approval? Despite raising Canonism as the official Faith of the Empire in the 15th century, that the Prophets have been corrupted in their works by power-hungry men? The historical record flatly contradicts every claim you make. The historical record shows the unchanging Dogma of the Church, and that this Dogma was supported and proclaimed by the Prophets as the only true religion. 

 

-May the Divine Assistance Remain Always with You-

Br. Philip Pius Coppinger.

-Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam-

[osumanduas 1442]

Moved to The Great Library. It shall be sorted into the appropriate category shortly.

 

If you feel this is a mistake, please contact myself or any FM and we'll restore it.