Trent Horn Bungles Catholic Historic View of YEC

Trent Horn - The Big Bang, Evolution, and Catholicism
15 Oct. 2015 | Catholic Answers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91fPeIvcA6I

1:07 Reference for the Catholic religion being compatible with Big Bang and Evolution?

Humani Generis only states that the compatibility may be investigated (not that it's there).

2:08 "knowing with foresight human beings would come to exist"

Seems to go quite a bit further away from Traditional teaching that Humani Generis, to which Adam's soul is not something that "would come to exist" but which God created directly.

2:58 Ussher basically repeated Bede, if I may trust CMI on Ussher (they are a bit biassed for him).

George Syncellus and St. Jerome had done the same thing with LXX based texts. Julius Africanus nearly agreed with their total for Genesis 5, 2262 years instead of standard 2242 years.

Syncellus had and St. Jerome lacked a Second Cainan in Genesis 11, and the chronology of St. Jerome made its way via Historia scholastica to the Roman martyrology.

3:06 "only to record who people's ancestors were, they can't be relied upon to date" ...

1) why do they then mention ages?
2) how many other infos actually directly given in the Bible are not reliable either?

4:22 "YEC were actually very novel and came about in the 20th C."

YEC was the sole player in the field up to Lyell, in 1830. 1838 - 1896 the three Catholic schools were YEC, Day Age and Gap Theory. See the article on Exaéméron by Fr. Émile Mangenot, SJ, 1920 (Dictionnaire Apologétique de la Foi Catholique? Dictionnaire de Théologie catholique?), when he ditches all three and invents, de novo, a kind of Framework Theory.

Sts Augustine and Aquinas were YEC.

Gavin Ortlund Answered on Bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary

The Assumption of Mary: Protestant Critique
27th June 2022 | Truth Unites
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMhlrM8Zb3M

0:15 You claim to have made responses to non-Protestant traditions.

That's RC, EO, Copts, Armenians and Assyrians.

Has it not occurred to you that all of above have a feast related to the belief, whether it counts as "infallble dogma" or not?

0:57 These issues alone are a good reason to shun Protestantism.

2:08 Moo-nee-fee-chen-tiss-im-ooss Day-ooss.

4:20 "to all of us"
John Henry Newman meant "all of us Puseyites - the ones he was just leaving.

His book was written before he converted, and he was considered to know the faith well enough to convert without instruction, so, the book was finished to the model of his viewpoints as an Anglican converting, not yet a well instructed Catholic.

6:22 Church history.
Same reason we have to believe St. Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew.

Read it in St. Andrew of Crete.

8:00 unknown in the early Church

What he really means is, unattested in the few texts we have from the early Church.

Immaculate conception is actually better, since Greek and Coptic versions of Sub tuum praesidium involve a phrase changed in the Latin, with the Greek version being "Su mone hagne, su mone eulogemene."

9:43 End of fifth century - more than one of the martyrologies are actually younger than that.

This is when we start getting hagiography.

12:29 Let's confer 25 September.
Apud castellum Emmaus natalis beati Cleophae, qui fuit Christi discipulus, quem et in eadem domo in qua mensam Domino paraverat, pro confessione illius a Judaeis occisum tradunt, et gloriosa memoria sepultum.

When does this kind of information about early martyrs start getting recorded?

Let's take Martyrologium Hierosolymianum. It's before the time frame you give. However, the three oldest manuscripts of it are later, and the wiki says ..."all relatively late, from the 8th century, which means they have inevitably suffered interference in the course of transmission" ... meaning, if August 15th is found (I don't know whether this is the case) in the Echternach example, you count that as a contamination.

Mid 4th C. and Hierosolymianum is when local traditions start getting a spread by combining their material into works spanning basically all of the calendar.

And lack of such mention before 450 (apart from possibly this one) would be because the tradition was local to Jerusalem.

Now, you could object that St. Cleophas dying a martyr in Emmaus where he had hosted God might also have been mentioned in Eusebius of Caesaraea. The thing is, as Stephan Borgehammar mentioned in How the Holy Cross was Found, this man had his biasses. I am not sure I recall exactly which ones, but Caesaraea is geographically close to and therefore rival to Jerusalem. So, Eusebius might have had some unwillingness to disclose things that gave more glory to Jerusalem.

14:05 Not an oral tradition that is generally known - Jerusalem would suffice.

16:31 Obviously, an oral tradition in Jerusalem would not necessarily be accessible on Cyprus, where Salamis is.

And if John II of Jerusalem would have been the one source who could have told him, Epiphanius had already rubbed him the wrong way, by demanding a retroactive condemnation of Origen, which John II refused. Hence Epiphanius deliberately could have been served imprecise informations.

17:13 (Isidor) Her tomb in the valley of Josaphat ... perfectly coherent with the account of St. Andrew of Crete, who says Her assumption was discovered by St. Thomas Didymus discovering Her tomb empty as to Herself, but having left Her belt and Her veil.

And if John II suspected Epiphanius of what would later be known as iconoclastic tendencies, it is not implausible why he would have refused to show him these very precious relics.

10:52 bay-AH-tay mu-REE-ay VIRR-djin-iss

13:42 I think you just earned the cyber an occasion to pour me a coffee!

18:26 In fact, the Latin West was the "odd man out" when it came to Immaculate conception. The Latin version of Sub tuum praesidium ends in another way.

While the Latin West was still going with St. Augustine on this one, between himself and Duns Scotus, people like Gregorius Palamas (and the Gk / Cp versions of Sub tuum) were affirming in some diverse ways the Immaculate conception.

St. Augustine (and Tertullian) are also some fairly big distance from Jerusalem.

22:46 Jacob of Serugh was in the Antiochene patriarchate, also not in Jerusalem area.

24:52 Arguably the oral tradition was tied to Jerusalem and to the showing of the relics (now in the hands of Russian Orthodox).

You could easily disprove this hypothesis if untrue : if one of the written sources against the bodily assumption is from Jerusalem, that means I am wrong.

in Syria and around Jerusalem

May I underline and around Jerusalem again?

28:22 No, it does not give every indication of being a later accretion.

And it so happens, normally with preceding Dormition, some kind of dying, this is believed by all five confessions that have Apostolic Succession:

Roman Catholics
Greek Orthodox
Coptic Anti-Calchedonians
Armenian Anti-Chalcedonians
Assyrian Anti-Ephesians.

I checked. If this were a "later accretion," why was it not just limited to for instance Chalcedonians (Roman Catholics with Greek Orthodox) or Anti-Chalcedonians?

29:03 Thank you for the reference to Joseph's dream, Genesis 37:9.

I consider this is an indication this is Mary. Recall what Her most chaste bridegroom was called? Joseph.

30:19 Bodily assumption : And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:

In heaven = She's there.
Clothed, feet, crowned head = bodily.

The rest is retrospect.

The one perhaps indication against this being the Blessed Virgin would be was in pain to be delivered - could be considered as indicating normal pains at birth, which is against tradition stating She remained virgin in giving birth.

But it could also be considered as referring to a state before actually giving birth, And it came to pass, that when they were there, her days were accomplished, that she should be delivered. and in that sense it would not conflict with the full sense of the Virgin Birth.

The dragon attacking Her = through Herod.
Into the Wilderness = some part of Egypt outside Alexandria. Perhaps where early monks appear in Sketes later on.

There are actually two entities that could be called "Frau Zimmerman" (Mrs Carpenter) : the Church as wife of Christ and the Blessed Virgin as spouse of St. Joseph.

Salvation Between Noah and Abraham

Q

Would anyone besides Noah have been saved to eternal life in Heaven between the time of the flood and the time of Abraham?
https://www.quora.com/Would-anyone-besides-Noah-have-been-saved-to-eternal-life-in-Heaven-between-the-time-of-the-flood-and-the-time-of-Abraham/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Marc Bloemers

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms

Just now

Yes, for one thing a lot of the Hebrews. For another, lots of the Gentiles not personally participating in Babel or in (later) beginning idolatry.

Idolatry began a few centuries after Babel, under Ninos, son of Belos, as the Greek version of the royal names go (in fact Nin is Sumerian for Lord/Lady, Bel is Accadic for Lord, Belit for Lady), in the time of Sarug, who himself did not fall into idolatry, but his son and grandson did, and he overlapped 50 years with the lifetime of young Abram.

You know the places like Lac de Chalain or the skeleta like Ötzi? They would have been contemporary with Sarug and out of reach for an early spread of idolatry. This means they would have had if no longer Hebrew language (that went at Babel), at least some scraps of Hebrew theology and not necessarily too much superstition to weigh it down into damning errors.

That said, when they died, they did not go to Heaven, for those escaping Hell and needing no time in Purgatory, since Heaven was closed to c. 33 AD (exact year of the Crucifixion is somewhat debated, Belloc thought it was 29 AD). They went to the uppermost section of Sheol and waited with Adam and Eve, with Noah and later on Abraham and David and lots more for Christ to come down to them. And that’s also where the Good Thief went. Where Lazarus had gone during the 4 days he was dead, and where he had had his conversation with a Rich Man (whose brothers indeed were not converted by his raising from the dead!). Only when Christ Resurrected, He opened the Pearly Gates and up they went, above Moon, Sun, and even Fix Stars, above every part of the universe that moves each day around Earth.

"If the Tower of Babel is a Myth, What is it Conveying?" - Sorry, it's Fact!

Q

What was the myth about the Tower of Babel meant to convey as to me it seems like a comedy of nonsense?
https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-myth-about-the-Tower-of-Babel-meant-to-convey-as-to-me-it-seems-like-a-comedy-of-nonsense/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1

Answer requested by

Graham C Lindsay

Hans-Georg Lundahl

none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University

Just now

You presume two or three things:

• Genesis 11:1–9 is a myth
• myths are meant to convey something
• but are not factual.

Myth is a very illdefined concept and stories so labelled are basically meant (with more or less accuracy in the result) to convey fact, apart from a few novels with divine content (Eros and Psyche, for instance).

Real history often does seem like a comedy of nonsense, as you can see from the months between Sarajevo (28 June) and battle of Cer (12 August) or first battle of the Marne (5 to 12 September).

So, accept history as often a comedy of nonsense and see what the Tower of Babel conveys as historic fact to you … to me it conveys the correct date for Göbekli Tepe. All recorded language differences are after GT. In GT, no writing. Before GT, some palaeolithic signs, the same 32 all over the caves of the upper palaeolithic. Without imperialism, it is unusual for different languages to develop the same writing system.

While National Socialism was Fascist, that is not all that it was

... and all fascisms are not like National Socialism. Here is a video by Ryan Chapman, which doesn't duly adress the point.

Misconceptions About Nazism
20th March 2022 | Ryan Chapman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gfYbEk6rBY

2:15 It can be considered possible that some who identify with some degree of generic fascism would make the comment in a sense meaning "while National Socialism is perhaps one fascism, it is not the definition of fascism" - which, as an Austrofascist, moderately supportive of early but not late Italian Fascism, I certainly endorse.

National Socialism is : fascism + racism + eugenicism + medical tyranny + seeing some as "untermenschen" + light ecologism and heavy feminism + anticlericalism and school compulsion.

Austrofascism never categorised anyone, Jews and handicapped included, as Untermenschen.

In other words, it may come from the same general direction as a Trotskist saying "Stalinism isn't Communism"

It so happens, in schools, people are often told moderately about Italian or Spanish fascism nearly nothing of the smaller ones and BIG about National Socialism - meaning, some could be tempted to categorise National Socialism not just as a fascism, but as The Fascism (apart from name being plagiarised from Mussolini).

And some commenting would be saying "no, fascism really and truly doesn't have to be like that!"

4:53 I heavily disagree with your definition of generic fascism, NS certainly was what you just mentioned, and Italian Fascism tended to become more of it as time went by, but I'd not put that part under the heading "fascism" but under the heading "anticlericalism and school compulsion" - same thing with Azañas attempt to school compulsion, same thing with the French original in III Republic, namely Ferry Combe school laws - they were subordinating individuals and not-the-French-state communities (Bretons, Church) under an aggressive nationalistic consciousness.

And in Italy, I would say Garibaldi was more of that than the early Mussolini, along with Cavour. In other words, I consider liberal (and socialist) régimes are perfectly capable of subordinating individuals en masse under an aggressive nationalistic consciousness. But I do not consider liberal (and socialist, at least usually) régimes to be fascist.

Canada's Residential School program was very certainly an example of subordinating individuals en masse under an aggressive nationalistic consciousness. Canada at this point was also not fascist, even if social credit economics were promoted in some state.

My definition of fascism (and I am myself one and a half of the three points), is:

• syndicalism with national solidarity opposes class struggle (both against socialism and against capitalism)
• mistrust or indifference to parliamentarian democracy compared to this
• readiness to take up violence to promote this.

All three are present in Mussolini's Sansepulcrism of 1919. On your definition, Mussolini would not yet have been a fascist, which is pretty absurd, if you ask me. It was prior to WW-I that Mussolini was not yet a fascist.

Psychonaut Pupildiallater

Roger Griffin's definition of fascism~ "A political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra nationalism",..
Sounds ALOT like Zionism,..... Hmmmm?
Are the Jews fascists?

Some would say yes,.....
Bet the ones that say no,.. are Zionists?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Psychonaut Pupildiallater I think there was a time when Il Duce was more decent to African Italians than some Zionists are to Palestinians and even Israeli Arabs (Palestinians of their own citizenship) today.

Zionists may from time to time have done real good in the area (defending Copts, Maronites), but they have also done more evil than is totally tolerable on the ground they primarily occupy.

It's the impression I get from Rivarol, it's the impression I get from the facts about Shireen Abu Akleh's death (outside Rivarol too). However, I have heard one little promising thing, three soldiers of the Tsahal are being investigated and have got their weapons confiscated.

@Psychonaut Pupildiallater There are possibly also some Fascists who say no, since I am into Corporatismo.

I am not against what one can call "hobby Communism" as long as the kibbutz is not on stolen land (stolen from someone actually needing it, Christiania was just stolen from a Danish army no longer using the area). But I cannot consider a consideration of sometimes ruthless capitalism with hobby communism heavily sponsored as Corporatismo.

Psychonaut Pupildiallater

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Every land is "stolen" from someone else at some point,.
To say what Israel has done isn't fascist to the Palestinians wouldn't fly very far,...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Psychonaut Pupildiallater "Every land is "stolen" from someone else at some point,"

Like with me having some knowledge of history, would you mind telling me when Sweden was stolen and from whom?

"To say what Israel has done isn't fascist to the Palestinians wouldn't fly very far,..."

Because Il Duce allora ancora futuro saving companies from Commie expropriations (like 1920-22) is comparable to actual expropriations of homes? Or because Il Duce (gia tale) having penalties on abortions is comparable to pro-abortion Israelis being mean to Palestinians over their anti-abortion stance not being decmocratic?

I think you may be unfair to Il Duce (though, I don't think Israelis so far have used mustard gas, like Italians under Badoglio did in Ethiopia).

6:15 Webster's definition would exclude Dollfuss and include (at least by now) Putin.

Absurd.

It may be noted, Webster's comes from a country that was inimical both to Fascist Italy and to National Socialist Germany, and which also entered into the war after Mussolini's Fascism had "lost its innocense" if I may so put it.

What you did miss, both by Griffin and by Webster is, Corporatism, which considering you mentioned both Communism and Capitalism is a somewhat glaring omission!

Corporatism certainly was part of the régime in both NS Germany and F Italy, but so it was in the early years of posguerra Franco Spain, and in Austria. To this day, the Conservatives of Austria are Corporatists and not Capitalist.

Obviously, to some Capitalist sensibilities, Corporatism could seem like "heavy economic reglementation" but I'd reserve that phrase for Communism. Corporatism is more like light economic reglementation.

By the way, I'm dubbing Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal a "honorary Fascism ..."

7:00 You are reading Italian Fascism through the lenses of Gentile and some of Il Duce's rhetoric, rather than for instance Carta del Lavoro or Corporazioni - actual measures, back in the better days of Italian Fascism.

7:28 I consider your "playbook" is fairly miscategorising Italian Fascism, especially in its early days.

It does come to the level of an actual problem - this "playbook" - when it drives Italy to some of the measures mentioned in Non Abbiamo Bisogno.

8:34 Early on, Mussolini was in fact antiracist. Not heavily, he had racists in the administration (the guy who bungled the Ethiopia war despite Mussolini calling him back home being one), but at least clearly non-racist.

When Chesterton interviewed him, he considered racism (and eugenics and all that) a Teutonic fad. The blood part of Blut and Boden being not quite the Romance nations' cup of tea.

Let's take the date of Carta della Razza. 1937. I'd like to see this as a "best before date" for Italian Fascism, back in 36 Il Duce had defended Austria, in 38 he handed Hitler Austria on a plate.

1937 - 1922 = 15 years.
1945 - 1937 = 8 years.

By contrast, Hitler was obsessed with race before he came to power, the Nuremberg laws are from 1935.

1935 - 1933 = 2 years (or a little less)
1945 - 1935 = 10 years.

I think it is common sense to say:

Racism is a part of National Socialism
Racism is not a part of Italian Fascism per se.

In other words, NS = Fascism + Racism.

8:54 I also do not consider that the passage on the screen qualifies as "racism" - I note it is from 1928.

The part clearly visible shows Mussolini was "aware of a race problem" as some would like to put it.

The last paragraph on the screen has much blotted out, but it seems Mussolini did not believe in a kind of determinism of "demographic laws" or that state sponsored racist measures (over and above some kind of "Alltagsrazissmus" as they say now in Germany, among the citizens) were necessary to defend the white race.

In other words, he was not yet what I would call a racist.

To the point : "every goodwilled, normal, reasonable person wants to fight racism"
(Noelle Mering, video for Franciscan University of Steubenville, 9.II.2022, time sig up to 4:54)

Clearly true about things like pushing people down because they are another race or impeding marriages that are racially mixed.

And that is the definition of racism I do not see Mussolini as fulfilling in the 1928 extract.

10:22 Mussolini here is seen as using a distinction between "fascism" ("a fascist one") and "Fascism" ("which Fascism was spared"). Is this in the Italian original or is it the English editor's choice?

This is 1933, and Mussolini's comment does involve a tinge of disapproval for some NS / Hitlerian measures. Or at least regret for Germany not being spared them, so to speak.

Unfortunately, he already has a rhetoric of demo-social-liberal forces being not just wrong about some things, but the enemy, and this reflects the Leggi fascistissimi - not my favourite part even before 1937.

Though, it could be a geopolitical observation at the time.

Just in Case Anyone Confuses me with Derrida

Peter Hitchens Handled First Ten Minutes Very Well (My Comments Start at 11:08) · Just in Case Anyone Confuses me with Derrida

Why French Postmodernists were Pro-Paedophilia in the 1970s
26th Oct. 2021, The Living Philosophy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwLyP-vSnt0

1:06 It is not necessarily a defense of paedophilia, since most of the girls and some of the boys that age would no longer be children. I mean, relativeley many girls would have had first menstruation, and some boys first ejaculation by 13. Which makes it hebephilia, except for the cases when it is between young people who are both that age.

Renata Yuuki

I did at 12 and was a child very curious about sx

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Renata Yuuki "as child" = before that?

According to Catholic scholasticism, you were no longer a child at 12.

1:33 And I suppose having girls able to marry in France up to 2006 at age 15 is also to be understood in the light of 1968? I mean, Napoleon Bonaparte who raised the marital age of girls to 15 was so obviously a pal of Derrida and Foucault et consortes, and same thing with the guys who stated (quoting one of them, you guess which one) it was OK to marry from 14 for boys and 12 for girls:

"I answer that, Since marriage is effected by way of a contract, it comes under the ordinance of positive law like other contracts. Consequently according to law (cap. Tua, De sponsal. impub.) it is determined that marriage may not be contracted before the age of discretion when each party is capable of sufficient deliberation about marriage, and of mutual fulfilment of the marriage debt, and that marriages otherwise contracted are void. Now for the most part this age is the fourteenth year in males and the twelfth year in women: but since the ordinances of positive law are consequent upon what happens in the majority of cases, if anyone reach the required perfection before the aforesaid age, so that nature and reason are sufficiently developed to supply the lack of age, the marriage is not annulled. Wherefore if the parties who marry before the age of puberty have marital intercourse before the aforesaid age, their marriage is none the less perpetually indissoluble."

Now, explain how a time capsule arrived with disciples of Foucault back into the 13th C. pretty please?

4:06 Are you sure Summer of Love in 1967 was all that big a thing in France? In US, it obviously was, with the hippies ...

Peter Mackie

I doubt if it was. The scene in France was much more political. Amsterdam and Copenhagen were the two hippy centres in Europe.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Peter Mackie Precisely.

This being so, I doubt the Summer of Love contributed all that much to Paris May of 68!

4:56 Obviously these guys were not quite into the recipy of St. ... 13th C. Scholastic, still letting you guess ... of actually letting someone start as adult a thing as marriage at age 12 for girls or 14 for boys. These guys, regrettably, were pretending that the girls they had just towsed and made pregnant were still children, not fit to be mothers ... like France to this day has c. 1000 pregnancies with mothers under 15, and 772 of them end in abortion, per year ... (it's like one JRRT aborted every year, since 772 is the ASCII gematria for JRRTOLKIEN).

It may also be mentioned, even just those few abortions for mother being under 15 are more numerous than the Muslim terrorist related deaths in France per a year.

9:22 Oh, by the way, as long as you cannot document lots and lots of these guys doing what ... Matzneff ... did not do, namely marrying the girls that they had had sex with and keeping with them until they were dead themselves and the "childbrides" if you will something like widows in the thirties or forties, that is not the side I am finding myself on. JFYI.

Carrey quote

Jim Carrey's Speech NO ONE Wants To Hear — One Of The Most Eye-Opening Speeches
16th June 2022 | Motivation Mentors
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB2nWAAuXpA

"not the least of which is, that you can fail at what you don't want, so you might as well take a chance at doing what you love."

God help me not to take the mark!

Here is, first, Katherine Albrecht:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Albrecht
Dr. Katherine Albrecht on 'DNA Tracks'
13th March 2015 | CBN News
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84NRnQj9OgY

And here is Emma Thorne taking on a children's book by her:

Terrifying Christian Book for Kids | "I Won't Take the Mark" 📖
25th June 2022 | Emma Thorne
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8BIH8-8ydY

4:24 Have you checked up on the actual rights and freedoms of clients of child welfare and psychiatry before assuming slavery is gone?

What about penal slavery, when you get so and so many years of prison?

4:49 A possible realisation, if it comes back.
Masks or vaccine certificates. Masks are worn on the face, and "metopon" in Greek is less restricted than just the area above the eyebrows, and certaificates are shown by a cell phone, usually in the right hand. But where is then "man" whose number is 666? The med corps swears an oath to Apollo and if you add up the five Greek cases of Apollo, you get 2666. Hebrews have a habit of mentioning only non-millennial numbers, so the 2000 are ignored. Wait - isn't Apollo a god? Well, some Greek gods were also first of all men. And the Catholic bishops who back in the 1400's 1500's decided you could swear the oath like that argued, Apollo and his relations Asclepius, Panacea and Hygiea were a family of very pious healers, so one was swearing by pre-Christian saints, a bit like a cobbler swearing by St. Crispin was swearing by a Christian saint.

So, does it mean all doctors are bad? No, of course not. But it means the med corps is not a role model to wear on your right hand held cell phone (CELLPHONE adds up to 666 exactly in ascii) or on your metopon.

Toastbrottitan _

That's a good example of madness.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Why?

12:53 Your comment doesn't take into account how tyranny works.

Some guy in Germany was perfectly good in 1933 to 45, he was just forced to be Antisemite ... and so he contributed to force others to be so too and to the rounding up of Jews. Without such "perfectly good people" Hitlerism would not have worked.

Take a look at the guys over here in France who have been driving for others on busses and in groceries and bakeries to be forced to wear a mask ... when you think the kind of thing you obey is "normal" this means the guy who opposes it openly becomes "abnormal" ...

18:29 "How come he fucked it up the first time?"
How come He allowed some of us to fuck it up the first time? Free will and God respecting it.
The second time, all have already made their choice, those who made a bad one won't be able to push it and those who made a good one will no more be pushed.

J. C.

So free will won't exist anymore?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J. C. Not the same way as now.

Now on earth, we have freedom to chose our way, then we will have freedom to enjoy or suffer what we chose.

J. C.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl In what way, then, will free will exist?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J. C. As the freedom to enjoy our choice.

And of doing acts within it.

J. C.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Then why didn't your god just create everything with that type of free will from the get-go without the possibility of evil and suffering?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J. C. Because then they would not have had an own choice to either enjoy or suffer.

J. C.

@Hans-Georg Lundahl But why is that important?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@J. C. Because, without that, the unchanging state would not be a type of free will.

19:31 The real question for me is, why is there a new earth?

I mean, the inside of the Earth will still contain Hell. The blessed will still be in Heaven (above the fix stars). What is the surface of the Earth good for? I'd say, for reliving memories.

"doesn't make any ... sense"

perhaps not to a Heliocentric ...

20:12 John was in AD 90, when exiled to Patmos by Domitian, the last survivor of those who had seen Jesus risen from the dead.

If he was adult in 33, he was not going to be pristinely young 57 years later.

22:52 [taken down] You know that before the war, Putin was getting a bit big with a vaccine, called Sputnik V. As with Astra-Zeneca, every single dose is disactivated viruses, and as with Astra-Zeneca, the viruses were cultivated on fetal cells. From an abortion in the 70's.

B t w ... Putin has three versions for adding up to 666. V POUTINE - like V. PUTIN, in French and _pointless_ - WLADIMIRA (genitive and accusative of WLADIMIR, if you prefer that spelling) - VLADIMIRB (B = II, which he is both as ruler of Muscovy and in his known family).

23:23 If He is in control ... why was I exposed to Lib Christian and Atheist bullying in school? Why was I refused homeschooling when both I and me were OK with that?

Well, God allows His enemies exactly so much fun with His own, before He defends them.

24:06 You don't think there was some sense in Bishop Clemens von Galen telling German Catholics they couldn't participate in Eugenics or Euthanasia, even if God had allowed Hitler to take power?

26:00 What about politically possible? Post-Cold-War? Global agreements?

Including those recommended by WHO...

And while a tattoo would be technologically possible, this would hardly make much sense (as yet).

It's difficult to impose sth purely arbitrarily, let alone get masses worked up about disagreement, so you can start killing opponents, and it is pretty certainly some type of pragmatic reason (real or more arguably sham) behind it.

That's why a simple tattoo is unlikely.

27:27 I don't know your experience of your teens.

If I had been with ma, and told to refuse discos with hand stamps (or discos tout court) I might have got involved with some serious Christian girl and be married.

I was sent to a boarding school, I took such stamps, I went to such discos, and I am still a virgin at 53.

29:17 "weird, horrible, objectionable person, who argues with everything"

If we didn't have more and more things reminding of the mark, why would a resolve to refuse to take it add up to arguing with everything?

I was in prison. I was doing the task of adding paper clips to papers. Somewhat weird ones. In plastic. And with a dotted triangle on it.

I counted. 36 dots per side. Do you know how you make a triangular number? n * (n+1) : 2. Put in 36 for n. 36 * (36+1) : 2 = 666

Some guys who produced paper clips in Sweden thought it a great idea to push prisoners to put paper clips with 666 dots on them on paper. [This was back in 1998 - divide that by 3]

Gatekeeping is gatekeeping

Censored! Something Bad Is Coming! I Tried To Warn You!
24th June 2022 | Lisa Haven
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1W42AUBHzkI

6:48 I have been serving as a one man army against Commie lies like:

• evolution, heliocentrism (already a liberal lie before commies)
• eighth graders can't be ma's and married
• anyone who for any reason is pregnant and can't be a ma should get abortion, and who isn't yet pregnant contraception
• only chance of gay and lesbian people of sex is "gay marriage" (on the contrary, see Josh Weed and my countryman Svante Pääbo, even though the former failed)
• school compulsion, CPS, psychiatry
• anti-Catholic and anti-Monarchist views of the history of Western Christendom
• fake news in linguistics, some of which tend to credit some lies (determinism is no longer how linguists see sound "laws" and intelligent design has a place in changes between languages, in other words, in the life of one language, anatomic men who develop without a human language in the parent generation can't invent language)
• false views on the relation between history and science, and between history and myth (see my debate with Kevin R. Henke on Creation vs Evolution)

So far, God has sent you a one man army, and you have done gatekeeping like leftists against Mr. Trump.

Peter Kreeft Again

Dr. Peter Kreeft | How to Win the Culture War | Franciscan University
22th Nov. 2011 | Franciscan University of Steubenville
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tm08x8YiuXk

7:45 Philanthropy and euergetism seem related.

Antiochus VII Euergetes, Seleucid king, reigned 138–129 BC
Attalus III Philometor Euergetes, king of Pergamon, reigned 138–133 BC
Mithridates V Euergetes, king of Pontus, reigned 150–120 BC
Nicomedes III Euergetes, king of Bithynia, reigned 127–94 BC
Ptolemy III Euergetes, king of Egypt, reigned 246–222 BC
Ptolemy VIII Euergetes II, king of Egypt, reigned 169–164, 144–132, 126–116 BC
Telephos Euergetes, Indo-Greek ruler, reigned 75–70 BC
Tiraios I Euergetes, king of Characene, reigned 95/94-90/89 BC

Now read Luke 22 ... I think you can guess what verse ...

[ὁ δὲ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς· οἱ βασιλεῖς τῶν ἐθνῶν κυριεύουσιν αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ ἐξουσιάζοντες αὐτῶν εὐεργέται καλοῦνται.]

If you prefer the term "philanthropy" I can mention there is a Greek saying "philanthropos ho Theos" meaning, perhaps, that assuming the title philanthropist is kind of taking a title of God for yourself.

8:47 "since the essence of sainthood is unselfishness" - is it?

A saint is never selfish? W a i t ... have you heard of the sisters Martin?

One of them wanted Our Lord just for herself and the other ones wanted Our Lord and their sister just for themselves ...

15:22 into the video.

Peter Kreeft's voice is agreeable all through, hard to imagine him as Screwtape.

At the computer beside, for some minutes by now, another voice is smattering, a near bald man surrounded by high generals in a Russian square somewhere.

Peter doesn't grow weary of sounding nice and some other Vlad doesn't grow weary of sounding angry, irritated.

The square looks a bit surrounded by red, by the way ...

And despite title being in Hungarian, it seems that the video recorded an event from May 9th 2022 - victory day for WW-II.

19:04 so is the universe, by 7161 years, according to the Roman Martyrology ... did I hear you mentions some other number?

That other number is over here promoted by calling it sophistication and nuance.

41:07 Some women want abortion because their daughter didn't bother about birth control.

Tom Zimmer and Donald Trump

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Tom Zimmer and Donald Trump · New blog on the kid : Why I Don't Do Conspiracy Reporting · Some May Feel the Wall is Not God's Will · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Great minds think alike ...

1983 Premonition: Trump Leads World Back to God. 5.6 minutes
6th July 2020 | Wayne Harropson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGN9m11uOms

Original longer video unavailable, closed account.

I met myself Tom Zimmer in 1986 - before the Assisi sacrilege, on Pentecost vacation, during the novena. He gave me Hope 84, to Honor Our Lady's Assumption.

Peter Hitchens Handled First Ten Minutes Very Well (My Comments Start at 11:08)

Peter Hitchens Handled First Ten Minutes Very Well (My Comments Start at 11:08) · Just in Case Anyone Confuses me with Derrida

Peter Hitchens DESTROYS Pro Ab0rt, Adam Rutherford
25th of May 2022 | Pints With Aquinas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OyffzNR2R5U

11:08 "teenagers are gonna have sex"

Some definitely are. In the century of St. Thomas Aquinas, most teenagers who had sex were married, and most teenagers who had sex and weren't married tried to get married. In some cases, however, they financed child-rearing by prostitution. Please note, here, if Alessandro Serenelli and Maria Goretti had lived under the Papal State rule, Alessandro could have simply asked Maria to marry him a few months later.

His attempt of seduction (which led to the murder when failing) was probably meant to exploit an Italian Monarchy exception for pregnancy. Because the Italian Monarchy was the first country (or second after Prussia?), even before the Soviet Union (second or third), where marriage was legally delayed to 18 for both sexes.

11:17 "I'm saying people shouldn't have sex outside marriage, that's my belief"

Mine too. Relegalise teen marriages where they have been made illegal, that should save some unborn babies from abortion!

11:30 "To a large extent, yes it will"

The ages of faith with a (fairly) strong moral system (though not Calvinist or Jordan Peterson strong, please!) were ages specifically allowing for teens to marry.

They were very definitely not times when marriage was legally delayed to 18 and socially well beyond and when a strong moral system helped millions and millions all over the board, all classes and social subcultures to avoid having sex before that. If that's what Peter Hitchens and Matt Fradd dream of, they have a problem.

I Cor 7:[8] But I say to the unmarried, and to the widows: It is good for them if they so continue, even as I. [9] But if they do not contain themselves, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to be burnt.

And note, in Supplementum Tertiae Partis, the impediments for marriage are in these Quaestiones : IMPEDIMENTS: The impediments of marriage in general (50) and in particular: error (51), slavery (52), vows and orders (53), consanguinity (54), affinity (55), spiritual relationship (56), legal relationship by adoption (57), impotence, spell, insanity, incest, and defective age (58), disparity of worship (59), and wife-murder (60). Impediments which supervene marriage: A solemn vow (61), which affects an unconsummated marriage; and fornication (62), which affects a consummated marriage..

And the key one to this question is Question 58. The impediments of impotence, spell, frenzy or madness, incest and defective age, and the key article is Article 5. Whether defective age is an impediment to marriage? and here I cite the whole corpus:

I answer that, Since marriage is effected by way of a contract, it comes under the ordinance of positive law like other contracts. Consequently according to law (cap. Tua, De sponsal. impub.) it is determined that marriage may not be contracted before the age of discretion when each party is capable of sufficient deliberation about marriage, and of mutual fulfilment of the marriage debt, and that marriages otherwise contracted are void. Now for the most part this age is the fourteenth year in males and the twelfth year in women: but since the ordinances of positive law are consequent upon what happens in the majority of cases, if anyone reach the required perfection before the aforesaid age, so that nature and reason are sufficiently developed to supply the lack of age, the marriage is not annulled. Wherefore if the parties who marry before the age of puberty have marital intercourse before the aforesaid age, their marriage is none the less perpetually indissoluble. [my emphasis]

11:53 The "horror and dislike" for premarital sex was in Catholic societies very different for the case if the man married the woman after making her no longer a girl, or if he refused.

Read El Alcalde de Zalamea. The nobleman refuses to marry the "mayor's" (Alcalde's) daughter, whom he has seduced. She isn't noble, you see.

The Alcalde (let's recall that the Spanish administration had "mayors" who were also judges, like "kadis" in the Muslim world) then executes the noble. Not for personal vengeance, but for keeping seduced girls in the capacity of getting married to the seducer!

Two playwrights wrote on it, both Calderon and Lope de Vega. It was a real event. So, "El Alcalde de Zalamea" is equivocal as to what literary work, but non-equivocal as to what event.

The reason why Paris had prostitutes was, partly, to allow teen boys (but also husbands on business journeys away from wives) to make babies with harlots, who legally got a vacation with pregnancy and childbirth, instead of doing it with virgins, where the duty would be to marry her. And yes, I mean in the century of St. Thomas, in the century of St. Lewis IX.

12:03 I agree the Middle Ages had a better society, but I am (as Umberto Eco would be) somewhat more aware of what this better society was, than I think Peter Hitchens is.

If he thinks Puritan gone Victorian and just prior to the sexual revolution was better, yes, in a way, but also not in a way. It was better as fewer were aborted, but worse as making things unnecessarily hard on an as yet unwed mother.

Mike Winger took on Catholicism

Roman Catholicism: Contending for the Faith
26th June 2020 | Mike Winger
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ZVHHmCOjOg

Steve Hammer

Having this discussion with two people who are not Catholic invalidates everything. This allows you to make assertions without permitting a Catholic to refute or affirm your claims. Kind of cowardly to be honest.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Actually, it's not a discussion, and I am supplementing by adding Catholic (Not V-II) comments. With time stamps.

4:26 Thank you, you admit, as Catholics do, St. Jude is talking about the doctrines, the belief.

This will be interesting. A first question, quickly jumps to my mind : if the faith was once delivered, it ought to be accessible "all days until the consummation of all time" (Mt. 28:20) and this visibly (Mt. 5:14,15). Sure, you could point to previous verse (Mt 5:13) as a possibility of a "Great Apostasy" (as understood by Restaurationists), but we would in view of the other prooftexts considere this loss of savour refers to either individual or smaller collective losses of good exemple (doctrinal and in discipline) than a full scale whole church apostasy. So, the question : where was the faith once given in AD 400?

7:08 As St. Paul said sth in Galatians about not through the law, could you clarify from the context that it is indeed the kind of law he is upholding for all in Ephesians (when it talks of human relations) or which he upholds in negative in the list of sins in I Cor 6, or is it rather the kind of law which was a paedagogue in Galatians 3 and to which he is far from holding Titus?

Because, the "works" we are "adding" are not the Mosaic kashroot!

7:49 The people the lady heard saying "I had no idea the Catholic Church teaches that" could have been lying from embarassment at seeing a cherished tenet attacked in a way Modernist catechesis has not prepared them for.

But they could also have been genuinely ignorant, for two reasons:

• it's the US, the dominant culture is not Catholic, getting Catholic information as a Catholic will get you stamped as geeky if not worse;
• Modernist catechesis may have been so lacunary it left them not just unprepared to defend, but also ignorant of some points.

And here is a third reason. Many priests and religious and other catechists in the Vatican II Sect and some in the parallel Trad jurisdictions, are confortable with being the one who explains so others need to depend on them. Meaning, they are confortable with giving a fairly superficial overview stated in current terms rather than exact ones. I've seen an Orthodox priest (yes, i was "on excursion" to those 2006 to 2009) explain the pre-baptismal exorcism as "getting rid of spiritual environment hasards" rather than the correct one "since Adam we are born under the dominion of Satan, except Our Lord and Our Lady and two more saints sanctified in the womb, and this means demons could very well already be active around the child, so we want to free him (or her) even before letting in the Holy Ghost through baptism" - you see what I mean with current terms rather than exact terms?

There are Roman Catholics who think that:

• // homosexual persons, that is persons with predominant same sex attraction, not acting out this disorder, still cannot marry one of the opposite sex, but are by default called to celibacy // - no doctrinal statement to the effect, except a half and half, interpretable, remark by "Paul VI" who some of us (me included) refer to as Antipope Montini, with a footnote to a text from 1568 which actually does mention penance in solitude - but this being for priests and monks who had already promised too much to marry and for things beyond the mere attraction, like sodomy or touching another male's butt (and while this text was enforced, we did not have the crisis the Vatican II Sect got in the seventies, with processes still ongoing, though malfeasance took a turn down in the 90's);
• // teens are morally not allowed to marry, and for an unwed teen mother, adoption and not marriage is the responsible option // despite canon law having the 14 / 12 limit for centuries since the Middle Ages, and despite the raising only was to a new 16 / 14 limit (higher age for the male partner, since boys come later into puberty);
• //a man of 40 and a girl of 14 is paedophilia// despite there being no such defined crime, and despite the Catholic Church definitely not having banned marriages of such an age relation in the past.

In other words, Catholics adapt a bit too much to the surrounding culture.

8:14 So, you don't want to say Catholicism alters essential Gospel truths ... easy, if you can document a Church alongside Catholicism over all the centuries of Catholicism (since its doing so) and having the fairly reasonable appearance of being a candidate for existing before Catholicism, as much as Catholicism for having existed before it.

Or, if you can't, impossible, since the alternative to Catholicism (or Orthodoxy, or Copts or Armenians or Assyrians) preserving the Gospel and the Faith once given is, Christ could not keep his promise or didn't even make one in Matthew 28:20.

Oh, wait, Baptist continuity ... yeah, you make a case that early Christians were Baptists (though there is no prooftext in Bible or Early Church Fathers for it), and since you are Baptist, this is still around ... key word "still" ... were you anywhere in particular in AD 500? Was a Baptist minister sent by a Baptist minister in Rome to convert the Anglo-Saxons about a Century later? I for my part stick to Pope St. Gregory and St. Augustine of Canterbury having been Catholics, not Baptist ministers!

8:51 Yeah, we do.

Sources of Revelation:

• Bible (73 books, not 66)
• Tradition (Church Fathers, especially when unanimous, questions not touched by them, next generation, scholastics, plus obviously canonic law and liturgic statements, the older and more universal the better).

Expression of this in disputed and important questions:

• Pope deciding ex cathedra
• Bishops voting in a council convoked or confirmed by a Pope
• Bishops unanimously teaching one and the same thing across the globe and over the centuries.

There is no statement that is in the Bible that can be erroneous, unless attributed to a non-authoritative person, but in the rest of these, there are types of statements on each level that could be fallible but shouldn't be supposed erroneous unless there is a very good reason. Pope decides ex cathedra on moral or doctrine intending to bind the whole Church = infallible. Pope decides to erect a diocese in Africa or give the Papal States to Mussolini = not infallible, and each of these could be unjudicious. At least, when Antipope Montini erected two dioceses in Africa, he uniquely applied to himself a title "Vicarius Filii Dei" which up to him is in Catholic sources only found in those exact words in the Donatio Constantini, where it applies to St. Peter, not to Popes after him, and in citations from that, discussing that. Also, PAULUS PP / PAULUS PP. (not the obvious spelling of "Pope Paul" - one could try PAVLVS papa or PAVLVS pp.) in ASCII gives 666.*

* It's PAULUS PP even before the .

9:10 "and the priests who are underneath them"

While a priest is normally supposed to have studied theology more and be a quick reference authority in relation to the layman, a priest who is not a bishop or bishop elect (or at the very least a sui juris abbot) actually belongs to the "ecclesia docta" - like the layman, the lay brother monk, the religious sister, the seminarian.

Only Popes and Bishops (and possibly sui juris abbots even without episcopal consecration) belong to the "ecclesia docens."

And "in the New Testament" Christ said something of ...

And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.
[Matthew 18:17]

Now, the Church for this purpose has to be visible, and it has to wield an actual authority over its faithful, not just these being under the Bible, but according to the Bible under a body of people here referred to as "the Church" - while some pretend this in the NT meant the whole local congregation, with no hierarchic distinction, this is not in the Bible and it is also not in Church history.

When Pope St. Clement of Rome writes to the Corinthians, it is because, to a quarrel in Corinth, he is the Church. And this happened before AD 100, before St. John wrote his Gospel.

9:17 Yeah, you are making a case for there being no priests, as to a special priesthood over and above the general one, but this case depends on a non-infallible reading of I Peter 2:9, which goes at loggerheads with certain facts, like Christ chosing :

• among the general followers and disciples 72
• and 12 (probably already within the 72, and then 12 new ones added or not)
• and one among the 12, Peter.

Similarily, in Acts, the apostles (arguably meaning both 12 and 72) set out to elect 7 deacons in the specific purpose of allowing themselves more time for typically priestly chores, like exposing the word.

9:45 "these are leaders of local fellowships"

According to an ingenious philological analysis ...

And using "elders" for priests presupposes that the Catholic view of a "priest" is does not correspond to what a "presbyteros" was in the NT. In face of the apparent continuity over the centuries, the burden of proof is on you.

But suppose you were right where were ... let's not rant on AD 500, so, let's take AD 700 instead?

9:52 "they are not even leading cities, they are just local groups"

In Rome you had one bishop (aka the pope) and lots of presbyters even deacons "leading" (we'd prefer the term presiding) smaller Churches (which usually later became visible from street Church buildings).

Archaeology does prove there were house churches (not quite what the term suggests today, like they were major villas in some cases, the kind of place where a private man could gather lots of guests to do lots of stuff (anything from plotting to overthrow the Republic to actually overthrowing its paganism by being Christians). What archaeology does not prove though is that the different presbyters and deacons all over Rome were all independent from not just each other but also a bishop (of Rome as a whole).

10:08 Actually what you are holding in your hand is a non-Catholic document.

I'm not sure what percentage of the text is Catholic between 80 and 99 %, but I am sure it's not a fully Catholic text, it was edited by an Antipope, Wojtyla, and his "cardinal" and successor as then upcoming antipope, now emeritus such, Ratzinger.

But probably what you will cite now is in fact Catholic.

10:38 Now, I am tracing back CCC 937 ... it's footnoted CD 2, and CD = Vatican II document CHRISTUS DOMINUS, where the paragraph two reads:

"2. In this Church of Christ the Roman pontiff, as the successor of Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the feeding of His sheep and lambs, enjoys supreme, full, immediate, and universal authority over the care of souls by divine institution. Therefore, as pastor of all the faithful, he is sent to provide for the common good of the universal Church and for the good of the individual churches. Hence, he holds a primacy of ordinary power over all the churches."

This paragraph is not footnoted.

Some things sound a bit queer if you "misunderstand the terminology" (best case) ... there are 1 billion Catholic souls in the globe, and stating the pope enjoys universal authority implies he enjoys authority over every soul, and immediate means this authority is not blocked by having to pass through different canals.

The thing that is queezy here is, could one fear the pope could hear a rumour about someone whom he can't talk to, take a decision and apply it, without passing through those who would normally have the first turn? Or hope?

The normal way this would work out however is, if the Pope has sufficient good knowledge about one of the 1 billion souls, he is not bound by inferior decision makers in his decisions. He can decide to lift an excommunication issued by the local bishop and doesn't even have to ask the bishop for permission, he overrides the local bishop.

One can add, if someone takes a decision (from the priest you confess to who is not even head of your parish but only a chaplain in it, up to the pope) takes an adverse decision based on erroneous information, the person himself is not bound by it in conscience. Not sure if you find it in CCC, but you do find it in St. Thomas Aquinas. Now I'll try to read up on Vatican I (i e the real Council of the Vatican) to see if 1870's decision have the same phrase.

Yep, it is really authoritative:

Si quis itaque dixerit, Romanum Pontificem habere tantummodo officium inspectionis vel directionis, non autem plenam et supremam potestatem iurisdictionis in universam Ecclesiam, non solum in rebus, quae ad fidem et mores, sed etiam in iis, quae ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem diffusae pertinent; aut eum habere tantum potiores partes, non vero totam plenitudinem huius supremae potestatis; aut hanc eius potestatem non esse ordinariam et immediatam sive in omnes ac singulas ecclesias, sive in omnes et singulos pastores et fideles; anathema sit.

But if anyone shall have said that the Roman Pontiff only have the office of inspection and direction, but not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church, not only in what pertains to things that are to faith and morals, but also in the ones that are to the discipline and regimentation of the Church diffused all over the globe, or that he has only the mightier parts but not the entire plenitude of this supreme power, or that his power is not ordinary and immediate whether as to all and every church, or as to all and every pastor and faithful, let him be anathema.

However, an important difference as to CCC 937 : Pastor Aeternus speaks of jurisdiction, the "care of souls" involves things that are not totally jurisdictional, that could be whims, that a confessor could try to figure someone out or sth ... Pastor Aeternus doesn't say the "fine art" of care of souls, if you want to put it that way is rightly exercised at a distance without hearing the person himself. But obviously, there are things of jurisdiction that are not "fine art" but really basics. You do excommunicate a priest for celebrating the Eucharist in potato crisps and coke, you do not excommunicate a priest for refusing to celebrate along with such an abuser, and if a bishop is going after someone for being too traddy, the pope both has the right and should use it to immediately lift the excommunication.

Wonder why "Paul VI" didn't use that power, having himself signed Christus Dominus a few years before the liturgic hazzles began ... one clearly realistic explanation would be, he was not the Pope and somewhat superstitiously aware of it, or he did not intend the good of the Church, or both.

10:52 "he's the boss of the world"

Not quite, he doesn't have this kind of authority over unbaptised non-Christians, since they do not belong to the Church universal.

He can at an utmost limit take measures when certain countries criminally deprive their residents of missionaries, to ask kings and emperors and such to conquer such lands and overthrow such criminal governments, this being what pope Alexander VI did when it came to dividing missionary and crusader efforts (with gains in power and riches along with them) between Spain and Portugal. But he cannot for instance state that a government that does allow Catholic missionaries should be overthrown.

11:07 Yeah, certainly. St. Peter outranked Nero who did not chose to obey him but to crucify him.

The Pope very definitely does outrank secular governments, and so do even Catholic bishops on their limited non-Roman territory.

A President who allows abortions, each Catholic bishop in US can do to him what one brave man did to Pelosi : tell the office holder to repent and defend unborn life, or to keep away from the Eucharist.

12:04 "if someone in the local church down the street said 'hey, I am in charge of the whole world' "

... I would ask as a reply "when did a Catholic conclave elect you?"

Seriously, if the original Church had been lots of independent local churches, how could such a claim have been accepted by as many as the whole Catholic world? The acceptance (with a few hurdles on how equal the patriarch of Constantinople is to him, whether the jurisdiction is really immediate or only one of appeal and whether he needs to obey the Emperor in Church things or the Emperor needs to obey him in secular things, that is, whether Church or State is in charge of "mixed matters") was fairly universal, it did not come as a reply to a specific boast made then and there, as soon as we see the Church in full daylight, at Nicaea, and before we have full unity on the 27 books of the NT.

Go to Acts 7, or 8, whenever Samaria gets its Church, the second Church in the Church universal, after Jerusalem, which originally carried the supremacy now in Rome, Samaria is not autonomous, it gets its ordinations and confirmations from, precisely the headquarter in Jerusalem. But perhaps you imagine Samaria was independent after that? Well, wrong again, check Acts 15, a council in Jerusalem, not holding pastors (even at bishop level) from all the Christian world, pretends to decide for the Christian world.

12:37 "poll out little pieces of church history"

Now, that's a devious way of putting it.

You make it sound as if we had access to lots more of church history (recorded, not reconstructed like you do) and that if we looked at a wider picture, we would come to a very different conclusion.

What we say is, we take the Church history that is still available to us, and we think, when it is unanimous, God speaks through it, like He spoke through the history of Israel. When it is not unanimous, there may be ways to make it speak anyway, like logical conclusions from other things unanimously taught.

Because, making the claim that "oh, sure, in AD 400, I don't find any small independent, less than big city sized congregations, and in AD 500 I don't find them and in AD 600 I don't find them and in AD 700 I don't find them and in AD 800 I don't find them either, but this is still the basic rule," and then when a Catholic says "in AD 400 I find churches ruled by bishops in communion with the Pope, and in AD 500 I find that and in AD 600 I find that (notably involved in how English Pagans became English Christians) and in AD 700 I find that and in AD 800 I find that (notably involved in how a Mission began in Sweden and took root in North Germany, specifically Hamburg)" you then turn around and say we are cherrypicking, that is for one thing disingenious, if you really would like us believe you mean you are accusing us of the cherrypicking, and also, if you admit your small local and yet fully independent congregations got lost along the way (apart from being your reconstruction of what the texts from back very early say) and now are back, you are claiming, contrary to Matthew 28:20, that essential truth was lost. The faith once given is now a faith twice given, first to 1st C Apostles and some millennium later again to ... Waldensians, if that's your taste. But St. Jude doesn't speak of a faith "twice" given, it's a faith once given.

12:50 The basic rule is:

• if a Church Father we quote agrees with other Church Fathers, he is authoritative
• if he should disagree with other Church Fathers, neither side is fully so, unless logically supported by other tradition, or supported by a Church Council.

When it comes to Sts Augustine and Jerome, we have a better grip on this than the Reformers had.

St. Augustine sometimes sounds a bit like a Jansenist, like Luther, like Calvin. Let's say such people really had a case for pretending he fully agreed with them. He also told St. Jerome to include books in the LXX for which he had no Hebrew original.
St. Jerome didn't want to, but he very clearly believed in freewill, since he was quoted and overquoted by Erasmus in his dispute with Luther.

Now, the fact is, we don't find lots of Church Fathers sounding as if they denied freewill, but we do find Church Tradition (individual authors as well as collective decisions) to include what you would call "Apocrypha" - hence, we are correct in this respect before Tradition, to affirm freewill and the 73 books.

You have preferred the topsyturvy dealing with these two, namely accepting Jerome on the Bible canon (while he disagrees with lots of people and that was what St. Augustine told him, and my example would be councils of Carthage and Rome, between Nicaea and Constantinople) and accepting St. Augustine (or even just your reading of him) when that one (at least the reading) disagrees with more Church Fathers (I can mention a desert father who made a clear statement on the difference between temptation and consent).

13:23 Not only is CCC much more voluminous than the ... Catechism of St. Pius X ... but the documents of "Vatican II" are more voluminous than "previous" (actual) councils.

Though I suspect half of the volume may be explanations in what you are holding up.

14:48 A Catholic is not obliged to know all of the Bible and explicitly believe every page in it.

He is obliged to know parts of the Bible and explacitly believe all of it he knows.

And same with the text mass you were holding up, lots of it is for pastors and for theology geeks, not for the common interest of most faithful - and much of it which is so is taken for granted. Like, I suppose you take Nicene definitions on the Trinity for granted.

15:17 When you speak of Catholics who are informed and don't know Trent, could it be they accept "Vatican II" as a Council and are under pastors so doing?

If so, I see a far more natural explanation than "vast amount of data" ...

Yeah, if you go to some apologists on "Catholic Answers" I bet they don't feel too well along with a text from Trent.

16:08 "it really does become a different Gospel" - oh, sure, from your (per)version, definitely!

It's a different question if it became a different Gospel from the one faith once given.

16:15 "it's not the simple Gospel that we are supposed to ..."

The lady never was able to tell what we were supposed to do with a "simple Gospel" - one thing is sure, believing a "simple Gospel" as opposed to a complex one is not in the Bible.

16:22 Since Mike Winger interrupted.

"It's definitely added to the Gospel"

How does he know, when the fact there is more text than the text of the NT doesn't imply that?

"The real difficult question is, do those additions compromise"

It's in fact your own additions, like "being supposed to believe a simple Gospel" that are compromising the Christian truth.

18:59 "as far as the visible Church is concerned, there are so many ways in which Catholicism is part of Christianity"

And in AD 400, 500, 600, 700, 800, it was so too, but, as far as the visible Church is concerned, there was no way in which Baptism was part of Christianity.

George Pierson

@georgepierson4920

Say what? How is Baptism, instituted by Jesus Christ, and taught and administered by the Apostles, not part of Christianity.

Geoffrey John

@geoffjs

What nonsense, no credibility

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@georgepierson4920 I did not mean the Sacrament, I meant the Denomination.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@geoffjs You mean the Denomination of Baptism lacks credibility given my arguments?

21:51 As you are back to Luther's misreading of Galatians ... Bear ye one another's burdens; and so you shall fulfill the law of Christ. ... But let every one prove his own work, and so he shall have glory in himself only, and not in another. For every one shall bear his own burden. This is from Galatians 6.

So, is St. Paul adding works? Is St. Paul adding the law of Christ?

22:37 If you are indeed hearing from Catholics who tell you "those issues don't matter" - give them a slap.

They do, if it's at the level of the highest magisterium, that is, the kind of statement that a Pope or Council marks as infallible.

Before I became a Catholic, I would not have considered it mattered that all of the substance of the bread and wine is changed, only the accidents remain.

I went like basically "what's wrong with consubstantiation" - as long as you affirm that Christ is really present?

Well, more than one thing actually. And I am concerned that some Orthos went to canonise Huss because he taught consubstantiation.

1) The truth of Christ's words "this is my body" - note, He said "this" and not "here"

If the visible accidents of bread and wine had still indicated the actual existence of bread and wine, the word "this" would have referred to the bread and wine, and claiming it was Christ's body would have been a lie (unless you plan on defending impanation, which has its own problems).

So, Christ stated "this" was his body not "here" or "herein" ... it's true if all of the bread became Christ's flesh and therefore the visible accidents of bread became markers of where this flesh of Christ is, and nothing else.

2) The mode of Christ's coming into the place He has in the Eucharist.

Remember, Christ is seated at the right hand of the Father, physically, in a place above the stars which is Biblically known as Heaven. Can He bilocate Himself and at the same time be present elsewhere, like some place on Earth where He wants to make a revelation (like on Patmos)? Sure.

But when Christ bilocates that way, He does not change size. He's around six earthly feet tall. Not just inches. Since He is present under the quantity (meaning length, breadth and backtofront parameters) of His body, like He is in Heaven.

In the Eucharist, He is present within the inches that used to be bread. What is happening? He "takes on" the accident of quantity of bread, not as a new quantity of His own body, but as where all of it is within them as He is present in the Eucharist. So, He is arguably taking it from the bread to His body, and this through transsubstantiation. All of the bread within the precise inches of its presence, becomes the Body of Christ. But when x becomes y, x doesn't remain x.

3) The inadequacy of some attempts to get around it.

a) Zwingli and Calvin are actually denying the real presence and very palpably contradicting Christ (so palpably even I could not miss it)
b) Luther attempted consubstantiation, at least wrong from truth perspective
c) Luther also attempted "omnipresence of Christ's body" while Catholics and Calvinists agree that Christ's humanity remains fully human and His body therefore does not extend from one end of the world to the other - so Luther came to nudge the monophysite errors condemned by Calchedon.

Credits to a Novus Ordo priest, formerly my father confessor, for clarifying this to me.

Veritas Muy

YOU: the kind of statement that a Pope or Council marks as infallible
ME: and how do you KNOW which words of the Roman popes are "infallible from GOD" and which are just their own opinions that they CLAIM are from God ??? What is your mechanism for differentiating between the two ??

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Veritas Muy If a real Pope or Council marks something as obliging all Catholics, it is from God.

The difference is not with what they "only claim" is so, the difference is what they do NOT EVEN claim the assent of all Catholics under pain of anathema.

The question whether a Pope or Council could mark something as infallible when it wasn't is about how the promises of Christ to His Church work. We don't believe that happens.

Veritas Muy

@Hans-Georg Lundahl YOU: The question whether a Pope or Council could mark something as infallible when it wasn't is about how the promises of Christ to His Church work. -- ME: So you are saying that the warnings of Peter and Paul that church leadership will be wolves teaching false doctrines in Acts 20:29-30, 2Peter 2:1-3, 1Timothy 4:1-6, etc -- were false warnings because the "church leadership" (pope/council) are infallible and can not teach false doctrines ???

The "promise of Christ to His Church" in Matthew 16:18 that the gates of Hell will not prevail against it, is not about infallibility of church leaders.

Hell is the compartment in Sheol that houses the Spirits of unbelievers until the final Judgement of unbelievers in Revelation 20:14-15. Hell does not attack the church. Demons are not in Hell, they are here on earth tormenting, tempting, and possessing Man. Satan is not in Hell, he is roaming the earth to see who he can devour with temptation, lack of faith, etc (1Peter 5:8, 2Corinth 4:4, 1John 5:19, etc)

What are "gates" ?? It is how you ENTER something. Read ALL of Matthew 16:15-18. Jesus is saying that Simon is "fortunate/happy" because GOD has revealed that Jesus IS The Christ/Savior, thus Simon is a "PETROS/rock/stone" (1Peter 2:5). Jesus then says that he will build his church upon THIS PETRA -- those that BELIEVE Jesus is the prophesied Christ/Savior will not enter thru the GATES of and into Hell -- because Hell is for UNBELIEVERS -- thus the "gates of Hell" can not prevail against BELIEVERS who have Eternal Life with GOD thru belief/faith in Jesus Christ (John 3:36, Rom 5:1-2).

For you to think that the Roman Church leadership can not teach false doctrines contradicts God's Holy Scripture -- corrupt men have ALWAYS been in God's physical religious system -- in the OT (Isaiah 9:16, Matthew 23, Matthew 15:1-9, etc), and ALWAYS will be even in the NT church (2Peter 2:1-3, 1Tim 4:1-6, Acts 20:28-29, etc.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Veritas Muy A very brief reply will suffice.

There are wolves in sheeps' clothing, and some of them were the Reformers.

A few more of them are recent Antipopes, like Wojtyla, Ratzinger and now Bergoglio (all three blatantly Heliocentric and Evolutionist, so contradicting the Bible).

The question of whether there are corrupt men in the NT Church is not of the ultimate leadership, since one blatant heresy and one blatant contradiction against the Bible (on far easier grounds than the words you take up) will suffice to prove someone is not a Catholic and therefore cannot be, for instance, Pope.

Veritas Muy

@Hans-Georg Lundahl YOU: There are wolves in sheeps' clothing, and some of them were the Reformers. -- ME: LOL. Paul and Peter are warning about church LEADERSHIP teaching the laity false doctrines -- Luther wasn't a leader or part of the Roman Vatican deciding church doctrines. The warnings of Peter and Paul are not about the Reformers or Protestants -- as a matter of fact, Luther was simply doing what Jesus did; trying to get his Pharisees to reject their added traditions and return to following only written Scripture -- Matthew 15:1-9, Mark 7:7-9,13, etc. But BOTH the Pharisees and the Roman Vatican refused to give up their money making added traditions, and instead went on the attack and slander of those attempting to return God's people to God's Holy Scripture.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Veritas Muy "Luther wasn't a leader or part of the Roman Vatican deciding church doctrines."

He was a leader in Wittenberg.

Calvin replaced and expelled the Bishops of Geneva.

Calvin's disciple Knox subverted more than half of Scotland, and especially its upper class, while Luther's disciples Olaus and Laurentius got support from the Swedish King or usurper Gustav Wasa to change the religion all over Sweden.

And they decided Church doctrine for what parts of Christendom followed them.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Veritas Muy "what Jesus did; trying to get his Pharisees to reject their added traditions and return to following only written Scripture"

It doesn't say that Jesus tried exactly that.

The statutes of men which He disagreed with were recent relaxations of duties. Precisely like the Reformation at a certain time very recently relaxed other rules.

It doesn't say He had any beef with "et in traditionibus non scriptis"

23:52 Authority claim ...

• "wasn't given by Jesus" - except Mt 16:19 and Jn 21:15-17
• "isn't in the first century" - except Acts 15, except St. Clement of Rome to the Corinthians
• "or the second" - except lavish claims for Rome's authority by St. Ignatius of Antioch
• "or the third" - except ... here we get a discussion.

In the third century, the guys who decided for two different sets of Christians how to deal with apostasy (especially when regretted) clustered around two claimants to the papal throne : Novatius for the Novatians and Cornelius for the Catholics.

So, how come Rome was so important that people with different views came to cluster around two different candidates for the papacy?

24:05 Sure, Our Lord definitely did not promote changing the laws of God (the kashroot as material expressions is one thing, but not the laws) and He said sth about adding pilpuls for avoiding to give what your parent asks you.

But before you make any kind of claim Catholicism suffers from this fault, you have a problem of proof and of consistency:

• Prove that the authority claim was an addition and not originally there? Meaning in face of evidence provided it was originally there.
• Supposing one granted this as a possibility, show where the Church that didn't compromise true Christianity persisted in the same times?

Lepi Doptera

Dude, the world is large enough to accommodate several variations of the Jesus based Nigerian Prince scam. There are more than enough fools to go around to keep you and Mike well fed. ;-)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Lepi Doptera If it were a question of a scam, you'd have a point. As it isn't, I have so.

I am by the way not duly fed by my role as writer, so the point is not adressed to me anyway.

Veritas Muy

@Hans-Georg Lundahl YOU: Our Lord definitely did not promote changing the laws of God
ME: Jesus was a JEW under the Law Contract of Moses (Galatians 4:4), and speaking to JEWS that were still under the Law of Moses (Matthew 15:24, Romans 15:8) -- thus Jesus told them to obey the Law of Moses for their Righteousness before GOD (Matthew 5:19-20, Deut 6:25). That was BEFORE Jesus died/resurrected, which made all things NEW, including a New Contract/Testament with GOD, which was Righteousness by FAITH ALONE -- see Romans 5:1-2 -- because Jesus became CURSED on the wooden cross (Galatians 3:13) by taking all of our sins and all of GOD's judgement for our sins upon his own body on the cross (John 12:31-33, John 3:14-15) and gave us his perfect Righteousness (2Corinth 5:21, Hebrews 10:14).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Veritas Muy Romans 1:1-2.

[1] Being justified therefore by faith, let us have peace with God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: [2] By whom also we have access through faith into this grace, wherein we stand, and glory in the hope of the glory of the sons of God.

Doesn't say "by faith alone" but does say "by faith."

Veritas Muy

@Hans-Georg Lundahl YOU: Doesn't say "by faith alone" but does say "by faith." -- ME: When someone makes a statement of fact and then puts a [PERIOD] at the end of the sentence, that means nothing else is to be added. For instance, in John 3:15-18,36 Jesus states a fact: those that BELIEVE (faith) that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah sent from God, HAVE Eternal Life -- and those that DO NOT BELIEVE (no faith) in the Son of God/Messiah receive the wrath of GOD/damnation [PERIOD].

Jesus' statement means ETERNAL LIFE = FAITH ALONE. Jesus' statement DOES NOT mean that "Eternal Life = faith + good works + confessing every sin to a Roman priest + acts of penance + an unspecified amount of time in purgatory for "purification"" If those things were part of receiving Eternal Life, then Jesus would have listed them in John 3:15-18,36 and John 6:28-29,40,47, etc.

Veritas Muy

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Here is a simple example: If I tell you that you will receive $1million if you will tap your head 7 times [PERIOD]. Would you be upset if after you tapped your head 7 times and wanted to receive your money, I then told you that what a REALLY meant was that you would receive $1million if you tapped your head 7 times + rubbed your belly 4 times + did the hokey pokey + had your dog step on a bee ??

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Veritas Muy Oh, Romans 5 says "faith" ... and does not mention works.

John 3 also says "faith" - and very clearly refers to works a few verses down.

But the parallel is faulty insofar as the Bible is not God speaking directly to each one of us, and meant to be understood by everyone without explanation. We have on the contrary clear examples of at least OT (which was already "Bible") needing explanation, both by Christ and by St. Philip.

Hence, if some Catholic hearing the Romans 5 in a reading, claimed "hullo, it doesn't mention works here, why do I need to keep the commandments to stay in a state of grace?" (to stay saved!) his priest would probably tell him that as per John 3, the faith that really saves is an obedient faith, and that means works are included, and also that it says "justice" which by definition involves good works and excludes evil works.

a)

Veritas Muy

@Hans-Georg Lundahl YOU: the faith that really saves is an obedient faith, and that means works are included -- ME: The Thief on the cross did not do "works" -- all the Thief did was to BELIEVE in his heart and CONFESS with his mouth that Jesus is Lord/Messiah/Savior, and Jesus said the Thief would be in Heaven that very day.

All the Thief did for Salvation/Eternal Life was Romans 10:9-10. No works necessary to RECEIVE Eternal Life. The Thief was not water baptized, did not confess every sin, did not consume Jesus' flesh/blood, did not do acts of penance, did not do "good works", etc -- and the Thief was not gonna spend time in purgatory, he was going straight to Heaven.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Veritas Muy Yes, you are wrong here:

"The Thief on the cross did not do "works""

Here is an enumeration of his works, from Matthew 26:

[40] But the other answering, rebuked him, saying: Neither dost thou fear God, seeing thou art condemned under the same condemnation?

[41] And we indeed justly, for we receive the due reward of our deeds; but this man hath done no evil. [42] And he said to Jesus: Lord, remember me when thou shalt come into thy kingdom.

He certainly did believe, but he also corrected a sinner (a work of mercy) and recognised his sins (a part of confession).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Veritas Muy "The Thief was not water baptized, did not confess every sin, did not consume Jesus' flesh/blood"

He died during the Old Law, before these things became obligatory.

"and the Thief was not gonna spend time in purgatory, he was going straight to Heaven."

The least one could deduce from the bare text is, he was not spending more than a few hours in Purgotary, less than before the Jewish date was shifting at c. 18:00 hours. But Catholic tradition actually accords you this, Our Lord canonised him. He is celebrated as St. Dismas, one of the lesser feasts for March 25, considering it was a March 25 that the Good Friday took place.

He accepted his cross (very literally so), even if it was just an hour or less before he died.

b)

Veritas Muy

@Hans-Georg Lundahl YOU: John 3 also says "faith" - and very clearly refers to works a few verses down. -- ME: Having to do "works" in order to receive Eternal Life is not in John 3 -- "doing Truth" = "coming to the Light" and is talking about BELIEVING in Savior Jesus. John 3:36 sums up the POINT Jesus is making in John 3. Let's read it together.....

"He that BELIEVES on the Son HAS Eternal Life; and he that BELIEVES NOT the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of GOD abides on him."

Oops, no mention of having to do "works" in order to receive Eternal Life.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Veritas Muy Since you count the Sacraments of the Faith as "works", here is one of them in John 3:

[5] Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

And here is proof from John 3 that good works are necessary:

[19] And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. [20] For every one that doth evil hateth the light, and cometh not to the light, that his works may not be reproved.

Also, elsewhere, in order to stay saved, one needs to bear fruit:

Every branch in me, that beareth not fruit, he will take away: and every one that beareth fruit, he will purge it, that it may bring forth more fruit.
John 15:2

In order for the first part to happen, someone needs to first be a branch in Jesus, that is be, initially, saved, and then to lose the salvation from doing no good works.

a & b

taking his three replies in no particular order. Giving one answer.

Veritas Muy

@Hans-Georg Lundahl YOU: someone needs to first be a branch in Jesus, that is be, initially, saved, and then to lose the salvation from doing no good works. -- ME: There is only ONE unpardonable sin that sends a person to Hell -- and that is rejecting Jesus as the Messiah/Savior (Matthew 10:32-33, John 3:36, Matthew 16:15-16, etc). ALL other sins of the entire world have been paid for by Jesus' death on a wooden cross -- see 1John 2:1-2, John 1:29. Jesus took ALL of the sins of the entire world and ALL of God's judgement for our sins, upon his own body on the wooden cross -- see John 12:31-33 -- Jesus because CURSED with our sins upon the wooden cross -- see Galatians 3:13, 2Corinth 5:21.

SIN has already been dealt with and paid for 2000 years ago when Jesus placed his sinless blood on the altar in Heaven (Leviticus 17:10-11) -- giving Believers ETERNAL FORGIVENESS for all of our sins (Hebrews 9:12,26). Doctrines that DENY the total redemption purchased by Jesus' shed blood (purgatory, etc) are the doctrines that Peter warned you about in 2Peter 2:1-3.

If Believers remain in FAITH in Savior Jesus until they physical die, they receive Eternal Life -- it is our FAITH that is our victory over this world -- see 1John 5:4-5. There is only ONE WAY for a Believer to lose their Salvation, and that is to renounce/reject Jesus as their Savior (to stop heavy persecution, etc) -- once a Believer renounces Savior Jesus, they return to Damnation, NEVER to receive Salvation again -- see Hebrews 6:4-6, Hebr 10:23-39.

The reason that UN-believers will burn in the Lake of Fire is because they have rejected the payment for their sins (Jesus).

Veritas Muy

@Hans-Georg Lundahl YOU: Since you count the Sacraments of the Faith as "works", here is one of them in John 3: [5] Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. -- ME: John 3:3-6 does not mention physical water baptism. Jesus is talking about TWO BIRTHS: the FIRST BIRTH is "physical/mother's womb/water sack" and the SECOND BIRTH is spiritual/indwelling of the Holy Spirit.

In John 3, Nico asks a specific question to Jesus: Does a physical man have to climb back into his physical mother's womb in order to receive the SECOND BIRTH or to be BORN AGAIN ?? And Jesus answers that the first birth is physical and the second birth is spiritual. "That which is born of the FLESH is flesh (physical); and that which is born of the SPIRIT is spirit."

No mention of water baptism in John 3 -- being water baptized does NOT mean that you have received the Second Birth or the baptism/indwelling of the Holy Spirit -- see Acts 19:1-6.

"Whosoever BELIEVES (faith) that Jesus is the Christ is BORN OF GOD (second spiritual birth); and every one that loves Him that begat, liveth him also that is begotten of Him."

Veritas Muy

@Hans-Georg Lundahl YOU: He died during the Old Law, before these things became obligatory. -- ME: Even Jesus had to be water baptized according to Jesus himself in Matthew 3:13-16. John was baptizing from the very beginning of Jesus' ministry -- water baptism did not start after Jesus' death. You are saying that the Thief did not need water baptism for Salvation, but after Jesus' death Believers need water baptism in order to receive Salvation ??? Acts 10:44-46 proves you wrong. After Jesus' death, Gentiles can receive Salvation/indwelling of the Holy Spirit WITHOUT being water baptized.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Veritas Muy I am sorry, but trying to pretend I know the verses of the Bible as well as you do is not my game.

As a Catholic, I know the sense of the Bible, I am not required to know every verse or how it fits in. Not as long as I am a layman, and I do not intend to become a priest.

John 3. For Greek text, both Nestle-Aland 28 and UBS GNT5 have ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὕδατος καὶ πνεύματος, which can be squeezed into only second part referring to ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἄνωθεν (verse 3), but the context of verse 3 should rule this out. The Latin text has nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua et Spiritu which clearly refers both parts to the rebirth.

Acts 10, sometimes the "res sacramenti" - the grace of the sacrament - is given before the actual reception of the sacrament. As a general rule, after Christ died we need water baptism, and the one received by Christ from St. John was in fact not identical, we now need water baptism in the name of the Blessed Trinity.

As to "only unbelief will damn you, all other sins were forgiven on the cross" I cannot go through all your verses claimed to mean that I can refer to Matthew 25 which proves the opposite. C. S. Lewis pretended the parable refers to those who haven't heard, but in that case, it would mean that those who were never Christians, but gave alms, get to heaven. I take it, this is not your position.

In Tribute to Peter Kreeft

Dr. Peter Kreeft | 10 Lies of Contemporary Culture | Commencement Address at Franciscan University
1st June 2022 | Franciscan University of Steubenville
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F7eIrh80V8

4:52 The devil is not "evil itself" but the most evil with the second most evil being the Antichrist.

With all my loathing for Gates works to promote child limitation (by perversion or by murder) and for his move of shutting down the MSN Groups in February 2009 (my group Antimodernism was one victim in a wood of victims, you know "the broken sword" in Father Brown), I think someone else has better numerological and even carreer wise reasons to be best suspect. For the moment, many Ukraineans would agree with me.

7:32 Are you speaking of this publicity? Here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzCLCwBGClw

I happen to disagree on what a certain pop song has to do with Hell.

Those who damn themselves, they certainly at a level tried to make it their way, but Satan made sure to streamline them before they got damned.

Speaking of Satanic streamlining, prayers for me getting out of such situations would be appreciated.

And those who get to Heaven can as easily echo the song by keeping the rhythm and saying "God did it my way" ... what martyrdom could be more Eustace than the one where they ended up (he and his) as hunted stags, after he converted when seeing a cross and a crucified man between two antlers?

12:11 It is even more remarkable if you include singulars in your search. So what did I do?

49 verses found, which contain this word. inimicus, nom sg
86 verses found, which contain this word. inimici, gen sg / nom / voc pl
8 verses found, which contain this word. inimico, dat / abl sg
23 verses found, which contain this word. inimicum, acc sg
1 verse found. inimice, voc sg (Acts 13:10, St. Paul adressing Elymas)
74 verses found, which contain this word. inimicorum, gen pl
66 verses found, which contain this word. inimicis, dat / abl pl
93 verses found, which contain this word. inimicos, acc pl

49 + 86 + 8 + 23 + 1 + 74 + 66 + 93 = 400

400 = Tau = a Sign.

Looking closer at the one verse:

E 69 060 09
L 76 130 15
Y 89 210 24
M 77 280 31
A 65 340 36
S 83 420 39 = 459

Elymas = 459 + 5*32 = 619

S 83 080 03
A 65 140 08
T 84 220 12
A 65 280 17
N 78 350 25
A 65 410 30
S 83 490 33 = 523

SaTaNaS (like vowels lowercase) = 523 + 96 = 619

Like father, like son, right? St. Paul also called him "fili diaboli"

12:40 Our Lady, warrior ... indeed, and St. Gabriel and St. Elizabeth said so.

"Blessed among women" had been spoken to two ladies in the OT, Jael and Judith. As anyone with some culture knows, they were more warlike than Eowyn.

13:25 a hat tip to JRRT is appreciated!
"who condemns escapism? jailors!" (On Fairy Stories, the chapter entitled Escape)

15:09 a hat tip to Chesterton is also appreciated.
Forgot where he said open mouths and minds exist to get food or truth in, then the mouth or mind closes to keep them in. But he said it, or, even better, allowed Father Brown to say it.

[the word of flies and maggots is also an apt word, Dr. Peter Kreeft's addition!]