I'm Not Part of the Ones he's Calling Out

Catholic Apologists, STOP Saying THIS
Scholastic Answers | 17 janv. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FPgprPQPnvY

Or, I don't need to know Dorcas / Tabitha lived in Lydda near Joppe to be saved, therefore someone denying it is not a heretic.

RandomKnight

@randomknight5236

You're confusing two things. You're confusing the things necessary for faith with everything that is an object of faith. If you culpably deny something that is divinely revealed you do not have faith. It doesn't matter how necessary that thing is for salvation. If you culpably deny it, you don't have faith

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@randomknight5236 Thank you.

My "or" was in reference to what Wagner said, I totally agree with you.

And, judging from the words so far, Wagner.

---

Adam begat Seth when he was 130 / 230 (depending on text) years old. You apply this principle to the add-up of Genesis 5 and of Genesis 11 too?

Dávid Bernhardt

@davidbernhardt551

We have good reason to believe that is not meant to be literal history, based on style, external evidence and the fact that other similar ancient texts in that region also used symbolic numbers for ages.

A better example would be something like the Ten Commandments and other clear statements, obviously you didn't need to wait until Evangelium Vitae to know that killing an innocent human being is intrinsically wrong.

But I agree that it would be ridiculous to apply this to these random statements not concerning faith and morals.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@davidbernhardt551 "based on style"

Like bone dry genealogy. Sounds pretty pointless other than as literal history.

"external evidence"

Like what?

"and the fact that other similar ancient texts in that region also used symbolic numbers for ages."

How do you prove they were meant as "symbolical"?

How similar are the texts? If the similarity is on subject matter, is it a matter of diverging accounts of the same events?

"something like the Ten Commandments and other clear statements"

You keep the Sabbath, abstain from all images and call God the Tetragrammaton, or avoid doing so by saying Adonai?

"it would be ridiculous to apply this to these random statements not concerning faith and morals."

Not on Christian Wagner's view and certainly not on mine. Watch the video once again!

It is specifically about statements that themselves are not matters of "faith and morals" in the subject matter.

---

Other dialogue:

Billy G

@billyg898

Genesis, on a plain reading, depicts the world as flat with a hard dome over it, with water above the dome and below the earth. The dome (the firmament) has windows which is how rain comes through.

Even the most determined young earth creationist doesn't go this far. But why shouldn't they if we are to take the plain reading of scripture?

I

RandomKnight

Bro, Wagner is talking about when the sense of the text is plain, not interpreting Scripture in a plain way

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@randomknight5236 How are these different?

RandomKnight

@hglundahl When Scripture says "God is my rock" to interpret it plainly would be to say that Scripture is saying that God is quite literally a rock. While the sense being plain means that what the sense of the text is is plain to us. Ignoring that OPs examples were poor examples

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@randomknight5236 No, wooden literalism is not plain meaning.

The metaphor is perfectly clear even to a plain understanding.

I'm not sure how the OP's examples were bad, he got them wrong.

RandomKnight

@hglundahl That's the point. Reading something plainly and the meaning being plain are two different things. OP is confusing the two. And the reason OPs examples were bad is because they're either wrong (the earth being flat) or ignorantly informed (his understanding of the firmament)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@randomknight5236 I'm not sure he is confusing the two, he's misapplying plain reading.

Most of his examples are such that the meaning is plain if we presume the things to be true and use our knowledge of the globe.

The firmament is the exception.

The earth being flat is in fact not in the text, and he might be deriving this from a confusion between waters being below the earth (surface) and this meaning below an earth disc.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"depicts the world as flat"

No. Give me the passage, I'll give the correct meaning. It won't be abstruse.

"with a hard dome over it"

"firm" need not mean "hard"

"with water above the dome"

Or in the upper parts of it.

"and below the earth."

Or below the surface of the earth, below the land.

"has windows which is how rain comes through."

The Floodgates of Heaven could have been a mechanism applying to only the Flood. Like an upper atmosphere mixing of Oxygen and Hydrogen into Brown's gas.

Billy G

@hglundahl thank you for the reply. I should note that we can help understand Genesis by other passages in scripture.

What do you suppose is meant by the word "face", as in "face of the deep", "face of the waters", "face of the whole earth", etc? The rest of scripture also seems to depict a flat earth, sitting on a foundation.

The text does seem to explicitly say the water is "above" the firmament in gen 1:7, so the firmament is able to hold the water up, indicating it is firm. We still must contend with the fact that it plainly says that the windows of the heavens were opened and closed. Like with the "fountains of the deep" bursting open and then being closed, we all know what that is. Applying it to floodgates or windows, the plain reading is that there was a physical opening and closing in the firmament. This all indicates something physical hard.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@billyg898 "What do you suppose is meant by the word "face" "

Surface.

A globe has as much a surface as a disc has.

"The rest of scripture also seems to depict a flat earth, sitting on a foundation."

If you mean immobility passages, I'm Geocentric, I have no problem with them.

If you mean "pillars of the earth" there actually are things describable as pillars in tectonic geology.

"The text does seem to explicitly say the water is "above" the firmament in gen 1:7, so the firmament is able to hold the water up, indicating it is firm."

Can air hold water up in the clouds? While air is in that sense "firm" it isn't hard.

Are hydrogen and water molecules up well above the atmosphere?

Obviously yes.

Now, my main view of the firmament is, it is the aether that God is turning around Earth each day.

Another possibility is, it's the magnetic field around Earth.

The passage about flood gates of heaven can be understood this way:

In the pre-Flood world, the atmosphere had more oxygen and oxygen higher up, and more hydrogen and a thick hydrogen layer further down. The opening means, something which had separated them disappeared, lightnings ignited this and produced water, the closing, the exhaustion of both gasses reintroduced a space between them.

III

ʙᴀᴛᴀᴠɪᴄᴀ ♰

@Batavica

Slippery slope fallacy

Billy G

@Batavica i agree, its a slippery slope, but can anyone explain what is the fallacy?

Why should we take the forming of Adam from dust as it plainly states, and the ages as it plainly states, etc, but when it says plainly that there are windows in the firmament that open and close, we dont take that plainly?

ʙᴀᴛᴀᴠɪᴄᴀ ♰

@b @billyg898 because “literal until proven otherwise” is not held by any of the fathers, the correct reading of any verse is whatever the writer intended it to mean.

There was never a consensus that Genesis was literal, and the church holds to consensus of the fathers.

Billy G

@Batavica what? No consensus that Genesis is literal?

The church fathers are unanimous that it is literal. It was almost completely unanimously believed the firmament was a literal hard dome with water above it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Batavica I would concur that there is a definite patristic consensus that Genesis is litteral.

Any patristic support for allegory in Genesis is in addition to the literal sense, not instead of it.

Adam literally slept and Eve was created from his side. Christ "slept" on the Cross and Church was born from His side (that's the allegory part applicable to Genesis 2).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@billyg898 "It was almost completely unanimously believed the firmament was a literal hard dome with water above it."

Say solid instead of hard.

Non-solid bodies have certain types of solidity as well, as a study of aerodynamics will tell you. If you don't believe that, I hope you never take an airplane, you wouldn't see that air has sufficient solidity to keep the plane up.

Why did Noah Curse Canaan?

I saw a bad theory:

Why Did Noah Curse Canaan Instead of Ham? | The Real Sin in the Tent
Unforsaken | 2 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ct5J7IqhIk

[I'm not making it clickable, feel free to copy-paste if you must torment yourself, but here is my answer:]

Idiocy.

The solution is far less dramatic (within Noah's close family).

1) Canaan was the first to test the wine, got drunk, and
2) Noah asked him how much he could safely drink
3) but Canaan gave him too much.

Woe to him that giveth drink to his friend, and presenteth his gall, and maketh him drunk, that he may behold his nakedness
[Habacuc (Habakkuk) 2:15]

Woe is a synonym for "cursed be" and "drunk" and "nakedness" are direct matches to Genesis 9.

Now, this supposes that Canaan was already old enough to taste wine (as he was already old enough to be a servant). This means, there were other people alive than just the 8 on the Ark plus the grandchildren of Noah. Noah's embarassment could have social consequences and have led to Nimrod's rise to power.

Unforsaken

@GodsUnforsaken

That theory simply is not in the text. Genesis does not say Canaan tested the wine, advised Noah, or got him drunk, and it does not place Canaan in the tent at all. It explicitly says Noah drank, became drunk, and Ham saw his father’s nakedness. Quoting Habakkuk does not rewrite Genesis, and importing later verses to invent a new character role is not exegesis, it is speculation. The narrative is clear, the actors are named, and the attempt to shift the event onto Canaan contradicts the plain reading of the passage.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@GodsUnforsaken "Genesis does not say Canaan tested the wine, advised Noah, or got him drunk"

No, but the parallels between Genesis 9 and Habacuc 2:15 are striking enough to justify reading this or some very similar thing between the lines.

Unlike my theory, yours is drawing from nowhere at all in the Holy Scriptures.

Other gods? Well, not real gods, but sometimes real people or things

@StandingForTruthMinistries
Atheists Say, “You Reject All Other gods!” – Here’s Why That Argument Fails.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/BaABR-sjwOA

Fun quip.

But your guest believes the other women exist, right?

Here is where it gets interesting. I think St. Paul mentioned Hercules in Romans 1: "the likeness of the image of a corruptible man"

Now, Hercules was corruptible. But he was also a man.

"Clearly Hit"

New blog on the kid: Renee Nicole Good · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Both Videos (Except the Guy's Own) · A Veteran Analysing · "Clearly Hit"

NEW Footage in Renee Good ICE Shooting Changes Everything
TriggerSmart | 15 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=897HM4BU4Xk

Here is the view of a lawyer from the Rodney King case:

These 5 FACTORS Could FLIP the CASE in Minnesota ICE Shooting
Talking Feds with Harry Litman | 14 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-QKRj8iaSM

Did Sean Hiller Give a Reason Why Wojtyla Was Not Pope?

Can You Still Call Yourself Catholic If You Reject Church Teaching
Sean Hiller | 14 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmMKbEFYC3Q

Did Karol Wojtyla in 1992, both Galileo speech and CCC with its §283 reject Church teaching?

Icy Freez

@TheHockey991

How so?

My answer

was apparently removed. It referred to Genesis 5 and 11 and to Trent Session IV.

My point being that Genesis 5 and 11 need to be understood in the sense that the Church "hath held and now holdeth" ... not just one it recently changed to.

It could also have just been hidden bc it linked to the Bible chapters.

Paul Mualdeave

@paulmualdeave5063

Who would this be?

Please explain to me the Acts to Constantinople IV canon 21. It applies to your question.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@paulmualdeave5063 It kind of doesn't:

If, then, any ruler or secular authority tries to expel the aforesaid pope of the apostolic see, or any of the other patriarchs, let him be anathema.

It speaks of violent removal.

It doesn't speak of concluding in conscience and telling other people that such and such a person is not Pope.

Furthermore, if a universal synod is held and any question or controversy arises about the holy church of Rome, it should make inquiries with proper reverence and respect about the question raised and should find a profitable solution; it must on no account pronounce sentence rashly against the supreme pontiffs of old Rome.

This presupposes we actually have one.

You are aware that the Synod of Sutri could conceivably fall under this ban, and that Caerularius pretended Constantinople had for forty years omitted the Popes of Rome from the diptychs?

That's because after Sutri, a man became Pope who wouldn't have been, unless the secular ruler had (with soldiers) removed the previous claimant.

No, I don't think Constantinople IV, canon 21 can be used against either Sedevacantism or Conclavism.

Note also "false" in the following passage:

Whoever shows such great arrogance and audacity, after the manner of Photius and Dioscorus, and makes false accusations in writing or speech against the see of Peter, the chief of the apostles, let him receive a punishment equal to theirs.

Photius had falsely pretended the Pope was overstepping the territorial limits of his jurisdiction in Bulgaria.

Overall, it is possible that canon 21 is a disciplinary canon, and can be changed. Therefore doesn't decide a doctrinal question.

All the parties on Constantinople IV, Patriarch Nicholas (the one who had been deposed), Photius (who had replaced him), the Popes, the bishops assembled, were Young Earth Creationists, who held that Adam had been created directly by God, with no nearly human precursors, and also with no delay after Adam to Christ of more than some thousands of years (4 to 5 and a half, depending on text choice and other interpretative choices).

Now, the Caesaro-Papist boogey-man, so to speak, before Constantinople IV, was a secular power stepping in and violently replacing an ecclesial dignitary with an usurper.

Before Trent, we have a somewhat different scenario. Cranmer wasn't an usurper. But he did go against what his predecessors had taught.

So, Trent spoke out against not obeying the Church, on the explicit condition that it sticks to its prior teachings. A Pope may decide between two competing theories, a Pope may make binding what was before just recommended, but he cannot dissolve the teaching of previous centuries back to Christ. And before.

Saint Ratzinger? Nope.

Talks Underway to Make Pope Benedict XVI a Saint?
Cross Examined with Michael Lofton and Knowledge & Wisdom | 14 janv. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMehPnUQSLA

He was involved in "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" because the PBC depends on the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.

He was involved in CCC, with its §283.

No, I don't think so.

Prayer to the Saints in the Time of Jesus

Is This PROOF of Prayer to Saints in Jesus' Time?
Sips with Serra | 12 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7HtBmQwGLM

One could say:
if it was a) believed by Jews at the time of Jesus and b) nowhere condemned in the NT nor from Apostolic Tradition, it means it's OK, because the precursor of the Catholic Church was the Jewish Church.

I have made this argument about Purgatory. Or minimally, prayers for the dead.

Calvin understood the principle, that's why he pretends that Jews started praying for the dead in the time of Rabbi Akiba, and whether II Maccabees is canon or not is beside the point, simply by being history, it disproves Calvin.

7:06 I'm noting, Calvin uses the pretext of mockery in commenting on verse 47, but Calvin doesn't comment on verse 49.

Here is part of Calvin's comment on verse 47:

For Satan has no method more effectual for ruining the salvation of the godly, than by dissuading them from calling on God. For this reason, he employs his agents to drive off from us, as far as he can, the desire to pray. Thus he impelled the wicked enemies of Christ basely to turn his prayer into derision, intending by this stratagem to strip him of his chief armor. And certainly it is a very grievous temptation, when prayer appears to be so far from yielding any advantage to us, that God exposes his name to reproaches, instead of lending a gracious ear to our prayers. This ironical language, therefore — or rather this barking of dogs — amounts to saying that Christ has no access to God, because, by imploring Elijah, he seeks relief in another quarter.

Pretty obviously, seeing verse 49 is incompatible with the interpretation, that's arguably why Calvin didn't comment on it.

Nova Gazer

@Nova_Gazer

Just a careful (possibly not needed) clarification. Elijah was not bodily assumed into heaven in the sense that the Blessed Mother was. No one entered heaven (the Beatific Vision) until after Jesus' Crucifixion. According to my (scanty) research, Church Fathers and theologians liked to use the word "translated" into heaven or more properly the paradise which would likely be the same paradise Abraham and the Old Testament Saints were in before Jesus rescued them.

I

Kinghood of Mousekind

@kinghoodofmousekind2906

The "Bosom", right? It is interesting how in Italian and other Romance languages we say "Paradiso" for "Heaven", with "il seno di Abramo" for the Bosom of Abraham.

I answered

twice, A and B

A

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

Not really.

Henoch and Elias are translated into a lower Heaven than the Empyrean one, and that bodily, unlike the souls who were translated souls only into the Bosom of Abraham.

Jesus and Mary are in the Empyrean Heaven, above the fix stars.

Henoch and Elias are probably on one of the planets that God has made inhabitable for them.

TomasTomi

@TomasTomi30

@hglundahl what? What planets?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TomasTomi30 Which one would be third from Earth?

Posito primo raptu, ponitur consequenter secundus raptus. Et duo facit: primo ponitur raptus, secundo raptus excellentia, ibi audivit arcana, et cetera. Sed notandum, quod Glossa dicit istum raptum esse alium a primo. Et si bene consideretur, bis legitur aliquid de apostolo, ad quod possunt isti duo raptus referri. Nam Act. IX, 9 legitur de eo quod stetit tribus diebus non videns et nihil manducans, neque bibens, et ad hoc potest referri primus raptus, ut scilicet tunc fuerit raptus usque ad tertium caelum. Sed Act. XXII, 17 legitur quod factus est in templo in stupore mentis, et ad hoc refertur iste secundus raptus. Sed hoc non videtur verisimile, quia quando in stupore mentis factus fuit, missus iam fuerat in carcerem apostolus; sed hanc epistolam scripsit apostolus diu ante, unde prius scripta fuit haec epistola, quam apostolus fuisset in stupore. Et ideo dicendum est, quod differt iste raptus a primo, quantum ad id in quod raptus est. Nam in primo raptus est in tertium caelum; in secundo vero in Paradisum Dei. Si vero aliquis tertium caelum acciperet corporaliter, secundum primam acceptionem caelorum superius positam, vel si fuerit visio imaginaria, posset similiter dicere Paradisum corporalem, ut diceretur quod fuerit raptus in Paradisum terrestrem. Sed hoc est contra intentionem Augustini, secundum quem dicimus, quod fuit raptus in tertium caelum, id est visionem intelligibilium, secundum quod in se ipsis et in propriis naturis videntur, ut supra dictum est. Unde secundum hoc oportet non aliud intelligere per caelum, et aliud per Paradisum, sed unum et idem per utrumque, scilicet gloriam sanctorum, sed secundum aliud et aliud. Caelum enim dicit altitudinem quamdam cum claritate, Paradisus vero quamdam iucundam suavitatem. In sanctis autem beatis et Angelis Deum videntibus sunt excellenter haec duo, quia est in eis excellentissima claritas, qua Deum vident, et summa suavitas, qua Deo fruuntur.

St. Thomas considers that St. Paul just might have been raptured to the Terrestrial Paradise in II Cor 12, but he cautions that St. Augustine thinks differently.

I don't think St. Thomas on II Cor is available in English translation.

TomasTomi

@hglundahl This speaks nothing to me, I will rather (ask and) listen to my bishop and priests he appointed in our local church which is in communion with the succesor of st. Peter. As is the tradition since year 33 A.D. God bless.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TomasTomi30 You are obviously free to do so, but tell him, I'm pretty familiar with St. Thomas. The one from "Sicily." Aquino outside Naples.

I never claimed to be your bishop, I only claim to be a knowledgeable Catholic layman.

TomasTomi

@hglundahl No you did not, but on my question you presented me only a latin text, you spoke of planets and did not defended your claims. I am sorry but you seem to me like an internet troll not a knowledgeable catholic. I do not say you are troll, but this way of argumentation is no good. Have a good day

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TomasTomi30 "but on my question you presented me only a latin text,"

With a resumé of some highlights and a regret that I didn't have an English translation.

"you spoke of planets and did not defended your claims."

My best defense would arguably be, somewhere St. Thomas (or someone he cited) mentions earthly paradise being lifted up from Earth, not destroyed, and also not lifted up into Empyrean Heaven where God is in His throne room, but into one of the lower planets.

To those familiar with Medieval and Late Antiquity cosmology, that means a planetary heaven.

"you seem to me like an internet troll not a knowledgeable catholic."

The two are not exclusive. If the word troll had been used like that, pretty certainly Gilbert Keith Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc would have been called ink-and-print trolls, and probably (though I haven't read her) Flannery O'Connor as well.

"The truth will make you odd" she has been quoted as saying.

The two others were decorated by Pope Pius XI.

"this way of argumentation"

I didn't catch you were making an objection, so I didn't try to provide an argumentation. I was only quickly trying to respond to what I took as a question. My bad.

@TomasTomi30 I have now added, into the post with comments and dialogue, a translation of the passage:

[link to this post]

B

Hans-Georg Lundahl

To clarify:

• the Bosom of Abraham was in a sense Paradise,
• but is different from Earthly Paradise, from which Adam and Eve were expelled, and which was arguably translated upward, to one of the planets, at the latest in the Deluge.

Kinghood of Mousekind

@hglundahl good clarification!

II

Brutus Kelpamine

@BrutusKelpamine

Wrong ! The only person who went to heaven before Jesus was Enoch..

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@BrutusKelpamine Have you read this?

And as they went on, walking and talking together, behold a fiery chariot, and fiery horses parted them both asunder: and Elias went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
[4 Kings (2 Kings) 2:11]

Translation of the Thomas passage:

Posito primo raptu, ponitur consequenter secundus raptus.		Given the first rapture, the second rapture is consequently posited.
Et duo facit: primo ponitur raptus, secundo raptus excellentia, ibi audivit arcana, et cetera.		And he had two of them: first is stated "raptus", second, the excellence of the rapture, "there he heard secrets" and so on.
Sed notandum, quod Glossa dicit istum raptum esse alium a primo.		But note, the Gloss says that this rapture was other than the first one.
Et si bene consideretur, bis legitur aliquid de apostolo, ad quod possunt isti duo raptus referri.		And if we consider well, twice we read sth of the Apostle to which the two raptures could refer.
Nam Act. IX, 9 legitur de eo quod stetit tribus diebus non videns et nihil manducans, neque bibens, et ad hoc potest referri primus raptus, ut scilicet tunc fuerit raptus usque ad tertium caelum.		For in Acts 9:9 is read of him that he stood three days without seing and eating nor drinking nothing, and to this the first rapture can be referred, namely this was when he was raptured into the Third Heaven.
Sed Act. XXII, 17 legitur quod factus est in templo in stupore mentis, et ad hoc refertur iste secundus raptus.		But in Acts 22:17 is read that in the Temple he incurred a stupor of the mind, and to this that second rapture is referred.
Sed hoc non videtur verisimile, quia quando in stupore mentis factus fuit, missus iam fuerat in carcerem apostolus; sed hanc epistolam scripsit apostolus diu ante, unde prius scripta fuit haec epistola, quam apostolus fuisset in stupore.		But this does not seem likely, since when he was in a stupor of the mind, the Apostle had already been imprisoned; but this Epistle the Apostle wrote long before, so, this Epistle was written before the Apostle was in a stupor of mind.
Et ideo dicendum est, quod differt iste raptus a primo, quantum ad id in quod raptus est.		And hence we say, this rapture differs from the first, as to that into the rapture was.
Nam in primo raptus est in tertium caelum; in secundo vero in Paradisum Dei.		For in the first, the rapture is into the Third Heaven; but in the second into the Paradise of God.
Si vero aliquis tertium caelum acciperet corporaliter, secundum primam acceptionem caelorum superius positam, vel si fuerit visio imaginaria, posset similiter dicere Paradisum corporalem, ut diceretur quod fuerit raptus in Paradisum terrestrem.		But if someone accepts the Third Heaven in a corporeal manner, according to the first meaning of heavens posed above, or if the vision was imaginary, he could likewise say a bodily Paradise, so as to say that the rapture was into the Terrestrial Paradise.
Sed hoc est contra intentionem Augustini, secundum quem dicimus, quod fuit raptus in tertium caelum, id est visionem intelligibilium, secundum quod in se ipsis et in propriis naturis videntur, ut supra dictum est.		But this is against the understanding of St. Augustine, according to which we say, that the rapture was into the Third Heaven, that is into a vision of intelligiblesn according to how they are seen in themselves and in their own nature, as said above.
Unde secundum hoc oportet non aliud intelligere per caelum, et aliud per Paradisum, sed unum et idem per utrumque, scilicet gloriam sanctorum, sed secundum aliud et aliud.		Hence, according to this, one should not understand one thing by the Heaven and another by the Paradise, but one and the same by both, that is the glory of the saints, but according to different aspects.
Caelum enim dicit altitudinem quamdam cum claritate, Paradisus vero quamdam iucundam suavitatem.		For Heaven meansof a certain height with light, but Paradise a certain blissful sweetness.
In sanctis autem beatis et Angelis Deum videntibus sunt excellenter haec duo, quia est in eis excellentissima claritas, qua Deum vident, et summa suavitas, qua Deo fruuntur.		But in the blessed saints and Angels who see God, these two are foremost, since in them is a highest light, in which they see God, and a highest sweetness, in which they delight in God.