What was Wrong with Ussher?

Commenting on quotes from:

Appendix B—The Forgotten Archbishop

In 1625, he was appointed Archbishop of Armagh, which was the highest position in the Irish Anglican Church.

Anglican? Big mistake number one.

That "Church" got its 39 Articles confirmed by a Secular Popess named Elisabeth Boleyn or "Tudor". She had six fingers and probably six toes. She employed Magicians like John Dee and Edward Kelley, pirates like Francis Drake and even Protestant Reformers like Matthew Parker.

Let us remain a bit with Matthew Parker. A man able to deduce from Ælfric's near verbal quote from St John Chrysostom that - very unlike same St John Chrysostom as we know him from other contexts, including the Orthodox doctrine upheld at Jerusalem and Iasi or details about the veneration due to the Blessed Sacrament even after reception - said Ælfric did not believe in Transsubstantiation or True Presence. And so the True Presence was not affirmed in the 39 Articles, and Ussher subscribed to them. And he allowed himself to be appointed even Archbishop within the Ecclesiastic Body that subscribed to them.

However, Cromwell, who headed the rebellion, held him in great esteem. When Ussher died, Cromwell held a magnificent funeral for him and had him buried in Westminster Abbey.

Getting honoured by Cromwell, possibly a big mistake number two. I mean, would any sane Catholic want to be honoured by the man who for Catholics had the plan "to Hell or Connaught"? Of course, Ussher being as said an Anglican was not a sane Catholic ...

I say this was just possibly a big mistake number two because:

He was critical of the rebellion against Charles the first.

Maybe it was then not his fault he was honoured by Cromwell? God may have mercy on people who get honours tacked to their back that they should not have. Especially if they do not really want them! Anyone agree the Donkey Puzzle had no reason to despair (Last Battle)?

Now, there was arguably another mistake in what he is nowadays most known for. But it is not all of what he is most known for that is mistaken.

If as he thought Adam was 130 years when Seth was born, you add up early lives of Adam, Seth, Enosh to get 325 when Cainaan was born: 130, 105, 90.

He should obviously have added up 230, 205 and 190, as did Josephus and St Jerome. Cainaan was born in 625 Anno Mundi.

But that comes from downplaying the Septuagint:

An expert in Semitic languages, he argued for the reliability of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament and wrote widely on Christianity in Asia, and other Bible-related topics.

Now, apart from the text he chose, his method was not bad. St Jerome used exactly that method on the Septuagint text. Josephus for time up to flood uses it too and his text is either the Septuagint or a Hebrew text still agreeing with it.

So, no, Ussher, the world is not 6000 years old, any Catholic can tell you it is 7200 years old.

But that is peanuts compared to being Anglican (and a certain man passing for Pope among certains claims Anglicans need not convert ... I suppose since they are now so Darwinian he means not only do they not need to convert from the faults already Ussher had, but they do not need convert even to the virtues Ussher still was keeping, like Biblical inerrantism ... maybe on the Day of Judgement Ussher's Secular Popes Kings James and Charles will rise up against that man who said Anglicans need not convert).

Meanwhile, I recall another Archbishop ... of Dakar and Tulles. His followers in Rome were trying to give a Former War Criminal a decent burial, but secular "authorities" seem to have stepped in and stopped that. That other Archbishop - who really was one - was not a fan of Evolutionism either, as far as I have been able to verify. He was certainly no fan of Teilhard de Chardin. And he told Anglicans that they do need to convert.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
Bpi, Georges Pompidou
St Luke the Gospeller
18-X-2013