Off the Menu: Episode 14
"Ajoutée le 16 déc. 2016
Charles takes questions on Saul Alinsky, the French Revolution, Catholicism in France, separation of church and state, and the Syllabus of Errors."
Charles A. Coulombe is a man I unfriended (FB-wise) over this question:
New blog on the kid : The Ideology Behind Wallström's Words Is One Reason I Left Sweden
He had joined and I refused to join a cause called "international fight against pedophilia", because I felt the INTERNATIONAL aspect of it would introduce lands who were wrong about the thing that essay is about. Apart from that, I consider him as a decent guy.
2:07 Lucifer/Satan "first Radical"? C'mon, he was the first WHIG! "Radical" is too unspecific. Besides, creating as opposed to not creating might be seen as somewhat more radical as a measure than rebelling against one's own and everyone else's Creator.
[At a description of Adam and Eve's fall as first democratic act:]
Adam and Eve could not outvote Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
5:44 Evangelistas also talk about Paradise and Fall.
Neo-Catholics or Cathomodernists don't.
[Just because I said that, I saw a video where Robert Barron does! Saw as in saw in the sidebar, have not seen it yet.]
Creation vs. Evolution : Catholicism is Creationist - even if Hekatolykism isn't
Creation vs. Evolution : Two Clarifications on Good and Bad Liturgy
25:52 [About liberal French clergy going sth like:] "it doesn't really matter what you believe, as long as you are nice"
Do you think that has sth to do with Lustiger being dedicated to saying Jews can be saved without conversion, for certain reasons?
27:50 [On his observation that every state has a state church, not necessarily the right one:]
Do you think France has Evolutionism as State Church?
Speaking of which:
Creation vs. Evolution : Science vs Pseudo-Science?
31:29 Apostolic, Nicene-Constantinopolitan, St Athanasius' Creed, and Trentine Creed, which is Nicene-Constantinopolitan with additions.
Some dioceses also enjoy the Creed of First Council of Toledo?
Credimus in unum verum Deum Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum, visibilium et invisibilium factorem, per quem creata sunt omnia in caelo et in terra. Hunc: unum Deum et hanc unam esse divinae substantiae Trinitatem. Patrem autem non esse ipsum Filium, sed habere Filium qui Pater non sit. Filium non esse Patrem sed Filium Dei de Patris esse natura. Spiritum quoque Paraclitum esse, qui nec Pater sit ipse nec Filius, sed a Patre Filioque procedens. Est ergo ingenitus Pater, genitus Filius, non genitus Paraclitus sed a Patre Filioque procedens. Pater est cui vox haec est audita de caelis: Hic est Filius meus in quo bene conplacui; ipsum audite. Filius est qui ait: Ego a Patre exivi et a Deo veni in hunc mundum. Paraclitus Spiritus est de quo Filius ait: Nisi abiero ego ad Patrem, Paraclitus non veniet ad vos. Hanc Trinitatem personis distinctam, substantiam unitam virtute et potestate et maiestate indivisibilem, indeferentem. Praeter hanc nullam credimus divinam esse naturam, vel angeli vel spiritus, vel virtutis alicuius quae Deus esse credatur. Hunc igitur Filium Dei Deum natum a Patre ante omne omnino principium sanctificasse uterum Mariae virginis, atque ex ea verum hominem sine virili generatum semine suscepisse, duabus dumtaxat naturis, id est deitatis et carnis, in unam convenientibus omnino personam, id est dominum nostrum lesum Christum; nec imaginarium corpus aut fantasmatis alicuius in eo fuisse, sed solidum atque verum; hunc et esurisse et sitisse et doluisse et flevisse et omnis corporis iniurias pertulisse. Postremo a iudaeis crucifixum et sepultum et tertia die resurrexisse. Conversatum postmodum cum discipulis suis quadragesima post resurrectionem die ad caelum ascendisse. Hunc filium hominis etiam Dei filium dici; filium autem Dei Deum hominis filium appellari. Resurrectionem vero futuram humanae credimus carni; animan autem hominis non divinam esse substantiam aut Dei partem, sed creaturam dicimus divina voluntate creatam.
An English translation available here:
Trento - Philaret (Catechisms) : Filioque far older than III Council of Toledo
Which also has a Spanish one taken from:
Concilio de Toledo I (año 397-400)
34:56 If a Pope contradicts prior infallible teaching ... he might have made a slip of the tongue or pen (and be correcting it as soon as someone points it out as some saint did with John XXII)? Or ... he might be a non-Catholic, hence a non-Pope?