... on a Few Items where "Simon Whistler" Needs Better Fact Check · .... on a Few More Items Where "Simon Whistler" Needs Improving "His" Fact Check · ... on Use and Abuse of Wiki · On more Fact Check Fails "for Simon Whistler" · Fact Check Miss on Myself, Too
10 Fascinating Documents From the Vatican Secret Archives
TopTenz | 7.II.2018
- 2:31 "make an example of Galileo"
Don't think so.
Galileo's work comprised much more than Heliocentrism, so Pope Urban's previous praise is not to be taken as a praise of Heliocentrism.
Back when he was cardinal Barberini, he had told Galileo "God was free to create the world any way He chose, and to make it appear any way He chose". In other words, no argumentations about how God "must" have created allowed.
Except perhaps one, God being no liar and it appearing to our senses that the heavens turn around Earth ... it is arguable the heavens do turn around Earth.
3:03 Classical Greek logic would hold even if Heliocentrism had been true.
And no, the concern of upholding Aristotelianism is not a major point in what the trials reveal (the one against his book under St Robert Bellarmine, the one against himself in 1633).
What stopped moving in Joshua 10 was one major point in the earlier trial, when Galileo was called as a "witness in defense of his book."
3:18 "settled for burning Galileo's books instead of his body"
Since he had made no abjuration and been asked to make no abjuration in the earlier trial and therefore had not gone back on an abjuration, and since he did make an abjuration at the end of the 1633 trial, according to the rules of the Inquisition, burning him was not an option.
If you think of St Joan of Arc, that was not Papal but Royal English Inquisition, as per the law of 1401 (the bishop of Beauvais had asked the parliament of Paris if he really could do that and they had answered "yes" on one 14th of July, bad date in France that one). She also had made a false abjuration under too much pressure (a degree of pressure the Papal Inquisition would not have used) and went back on that one and she was not willing to renew that abjuration.
So, no, the Inquisition as per Papal rules was not a cangaroo court and whether Galileo or just his books went into flames was a thing he could influence.
3:21 "it wasn't until 1992 that a Pope finally apologised for the error"
1633 trial was no error, no apology was needed, and the man who apologised in 1992 was not a real Pope.
House arrest was warranted due to the fact that while Galileo had made no abjuration in 1616, he had received an admonition about the subject matter.
- 4:20 "Clearly they underestimated the deep conviction of Buddhists and Hindus ..." in the wisdom of the elders.
And clearly the seventh Dalai Lama was breaking the accord he had given to the Pope.
"... just as they had elsewhere, hence the limited spread of Catholicism in Asia, despite its unlimited reach."
Catholicism has to have an unlimited reach as per Matthew 28:18 which states "all nations". The effective reach, the reach which was not hindered, was in fact limuited, as Catholics were persecuted by inter alia Buddhism, in China, in Japan (up to 1868), in Vietnam just up to when France under Napoleon III made a kind of Crusade to give freedom to Catholics in Indo-China, hence French Indo-China up to basically Vietnam war.
Look, I'm just a layman, I am not underestimating the deep conviction of Evolutionists and of Heliocentrics and yet I argue against these errors.
- 7:29 You mentioned "enslave"
You were probably reading about Inter Caetera on this page:
Native Voices : AD 1493: The Pope asserts rights to colonize, convert, and enslave
However, the text portion cited says nothing about enslaving anyone. I'll look up a fuller text but "all rights and dominions" means all political power, nothing against the personal freedom of anyone.
It's like 1945 when the allies claimed all political power in Germany, that doesn't mean German particulars could be enslaved whenever someone wanted (at least not on the paper and barring the general enslavement of populations under Communism).
I did a search on Ctrl+F on this page, nothing on "slave", "slaves", "enslave" or "servitude":
Inter caetera by Pope Alexander VI (May 4, 1493)
Encyclopedia Virginia, Primary Reource
The only thing about Africa is that Alexander VI was also giving Africa to Portugal and the Philippines (divided from Africa by a line 180° from the Tordesillas definition pertaining to Azores) to Spain.
It was an authorisation to colonise any power not Christian, as is evident from the clause:
With this proviso however that none of the islands and mainlands, found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered, beyond that said line towards the west and south, be in the actual possession of any Christian king or prince up to the birthday of our Lord Jesus Christ just past from which the present year one thousand four hundred ninety-three begins.
The Yaki nation actually claimed to be already Christian, to have all the Christian beliefs except knowing the name of Jesus, and so the Spaniards were respecting Yaki independence (at least that is the version I have heard of a Yaki friend of mine).
The Yakis only got into trouble when Mexico came into the hands of Porfirio Diaz and when some were on the US side, which did not respect the bull Inter Caetera and therefore also not the proviso just cited.
By saying "enslave" you are crediting a biassed source and their header, when the actual story under the header and the "cap" (is that how you say "chapeau" in editorial sense in English?) doesn't at all support one of its claims.
- 8:34 Bad journalism again ...
"the doctrine of immaculate conception, that Mary gave birth to Jesus as a virgin free from original sin"
No, that is totally garbled. You are mixing two totally different doctrines and indeed both are also dogmas.
Immaculate conception refers to the conception of the Blessed Virgin Herself : She did not inherit original sin from her two human parents, meaning, if She had died straight at birth, She would not have gone to Limbo (damnation without pain, "Hell lite"), but to the bosom of Abraham. She also had no inclination to sin and never sinned.
That She was a Virgin is summed up in the other doctrine of Virginal Birth, shared by "all other Christians" as ecumenists would put it: She was virgin prior to the birth, during the birth and remained virgin after the birth. Some protestants reduce this to virginity prior to birth.
Now, Limbo, that unbaptised infants go there, is not directly dogma, it is doctrine. However, it is dogma that all men are conceived with original sin, that is heading for damnation, with the two sole exceptions of Jesus and Mary.
8:47 "even borders on idolatry"
Bad journalism again. If you share the Protestant or Jewish conviction that She is not God's own chosen Queen of Heaven, you will consider Catholic honours to Her are idolatrous or border on idolatry. If you do not, you cannot claim honours given Her in specifical countries where the folklore is very openly Marian do so either.
What was it CSL made his novel character Professor Kirke say ... "Logic! Why don't they teach logic in these schools?"
8:53 "so it's surprising that Christ's virginal birth wasn't official Catholic doctrine until well into the mid-nineteenth century."
Bathos of your journalism.
Virginal birth is official dogma since apostles, since in the creed "natus ex Maria virgine".
The two sides that were competing up to 1854 (or 1853?) were both agreed on it.
The question was : was Mary (Herself, not Her Son) conceived without original sin, or was She conceived with it, then freed from it one second after Her conception, on praying for it?
The decision was, She was actually conceived without it.
If you doubt it, have a look at the actual text of Ineffabilis Deus:
on The Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX - 1854
You were right on the date, december 1854. With your track record on journalism on Catholicism, I felt I needed to look it up.
9:08 "there's apparently no mention whatsoever of a virgin birth in the Bible"
Three bloopers in one.
- 1) Catholicism does not accept Sola Scriptura, meaning that for us Catholics a thing does not have to be directly mentioned in the Bible to be not just true, but a compulsory truth revealed by God under pain of damnation on those denying it;
- 2) Immaculate conception and Virgin birth are not the same fact. They are different facts.
- 3) Virgin birth is mentioned in the Bible.
Luke 1: And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth,  To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. ...  And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man?  And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.
In other words, she was a virgin when the angel came, and the angel did not suggest that she would have normal intercourse, but said that God would do sth which made it superfluous.
9:16 "On the contrary, in Luke 1:47 Mary adresses God as her "savior", implying that she was just as sinful as the rest of us."
Luke 1:47 is indeed a favourite "proof text" Protestants give about Her not being conceived without sin or even not remaining without personal sin.
However, the implication is not cogent, since the Immaculate Conception was a miracle by which God precisely saved Her from becoming as sinful as the rest of us.
Note the text:
And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.
She does not say She ever repented or needed to repent.
Also, Luke 1:28 blessed art thou among women. - It refers to a military victory, only two women in the Old Testament had been called so, Jael who slew Sisera, Judith who slew Holophernes.
Since the Blessed Virgin had lived a peaceful life, She did not quite understand.
She is pregnant when She arrives to Elisabeth, and she tells Her:
Luke 1:42 Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.
Well, this made it all a lot clearer. Here is God speaking to Satan:
Genesis 3:15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.
If you react to "she" shall crush, in Hebrew both woman and seed are feminine nouns and either would be referred to as "she" since Hebrew, like French, has no separate word for "it". Vulgate translates as if referring to woman. Either way, this verse (if the serpent is Satan, as is at least the basic understanding among Christians since Christianity began) has a woman and her seed defeat the serpent and its seed. Now, with the situation in Luke 1:42 the "blessed among women" becomes so much clearer. She was told she had done the basic part required of the woman.
And since sin is slavery under Satan, enmities with Satan is not sinning, so, She was told, both by Gabriel the angel and by Elisabeth, the wife of a cohen, that She was this non-sinning woman who was contributing, with Her Seed, to Satan's defeat. Hence, Pius IX was perfectly right as is also evident from his patristic supports.
- 11:11 - 11:15 "This unique window of opportunity gave Pope Innocent IV a chance to exercise his influence - or so he thought."
You have no reason to attribute to Innocent IV any calculation Kublai would be in awe of his influence, of which, in China and Mongolia he had none and knew he had none.
I think it was St Joan of Arc who once said (as did St Catherine of Siena and some more, unless I misrecall) "my mission is to tell, not to convince".
The Pope had to speak up for the truth even if with Kublai Khan he had humanly speaking as little chance to be heard as ... me or Pope Michael by Antipope "Francis" Bergoglio (if not less).
So, you are reading into his mind a motive which was not there. Incidentally, this pseudo-empathy happens to coincide with what would make him look ridiculous.
Would it be pseudo-empathetic on my part to presume this might not be quite a fortuitous coincidence?
You have no reason to believe the Pope could not have expected the hubris given by Kublai.
- 14:16 You cannot prove a blood relation to an order.
An order is a juridic person, not a physical one.
This means, no order even could prove a blood relation to it, though one could prove a spiritial and juridic relation to it.
The order of Calatrava came to include lots of Templars who no longer had the Templar order to fall back on and who outside France were not burned.
By contrast, the territory of present day Estonia and Latvia used to belong to The Sword Bearing Order and territory now Kaliningrad Enclave with neighbouring parts of Poland used to belong to the Teutonic Order (these orders had merged and split, I am not sure of all details).
Now one grand master of Teutonic order wanted to treat Prussia as his personal territory ... he made a feudal vow to the King of Poland in 1525 to no longer have Prussia as the order territory of his order, but as the feudal territory of his bloodline (he was a Brandenburg, and if he had remained a monk, he could not have inherited Berlin ... also, he became a Lutheran to motivate this secularisation of the order territory).
The Grand Masters in Estonia (corresponding to Northern half of modern State so called), Livonia (Southern half of Estonia, most of Latvia) and Curonia (a peninsula in Latvia) did about the same move, but without a clear infeodation. The result was some turmoil ending up with these territories being inherited by Sweden, whose king ruled both across the Baltic to the West and across the Finnish Bay to the North, and this temporarily made the Baltic mostly a Swedish lake.
But no, blood relatives even of Jacques Molay and his consorts could not sue to get Templar property back, since it never was Jacques Molay's personal property, he administered it on behalf of the order. Imagine Nazis invading Romania (wait, they did) and then Commies doing so (wait, they did that too) and imagine Margareta or Romania suing Germany and Russia over the tax money from Romanian citizens that King Carol was deprived of in the process. Not over the personal wrongs to King Carol, but to the withdrawing of the tax money, over loss of power and of power related income ... that is about the equivalent of Jacques Molay's relatives suing over property of Templar order.
- Oh, by the way, if this is supposed to prove Pius XII could have stopped the Nazis, chuck it.
The Vatican had lost quite a lot of its influence since Alexander VI made a diplomatic decision between Spain and Portugal. Or since the Pope failed to save the Templars from burning on the stake (wait, that wasn't exactly proof of the Pope's influence, was it?) as far as France goes.