A CSL Fan Saying CSL Was Wrong

A CSL Fan Saying CSL Was Wrong · As Said, Horrible Red Things is NOT CSL's Best Chapter

I'd Never Heard This C.S. Lewis Argument Before
Matt Fradd | 1 Sept. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nwsmIgZpD00

3:13 That's not my favourite chapter of Miracles.

It's a horrible (if not red) thing in exegesis. I think the exact same example is where CSL applies this to the Ascension, and that reading of the Ascension ends up basically saying the Incarnation was reversed.

Nope, wasn't. Jesus still has a body which certainly is present in each validly consecrated Host, but primarily is present under its own dimensions in Heaven, which therefore is a place and not just the Divinity. A physical place.

3:32 Old man in the clouds is a conflation of two Biblical images ... with physicality to them.

Daniel saw God the Father as "the ancient of days".

Jesus says He's coming back "in the clouds" ...

4:44 "signage"

I suppose that means a collection of sign posts, like "no U turns" and so on.

Would be a very good parallel if the Bible were only teaching values and if all the facts and especially physical ones were only obiter dicta. I think that position has been fairly recently condemned and with the precise wording "obiter dicta" in the condemnation, but I could be wrong.

5:17 The problem with Jordan Peterson is, he doesn't take Biblical truths seriously, when they are statements about fact, rather than value.

Two Comments under a Bergsma Video

The Douay-Rheims Only Controversy? w/ Dr. John Bergsma
Matt Fradd | 27 May 2021
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_38mE9ruuA

0:38 I just read up Genesis 11:2 in New Jerusalem Bible or Revised such and in Douay Rheims.

"Now, as people moved eastwards they found a valley in the land of Shinar where they settled."
Genesis, 11 - Bíblia Católica Online
Leia mais em: https://www.bibliacatolica.com.br/new-jerusalem-bible/genesis/11/

And when they removed from the east, they found a plain in the land of Sennaar, and dwelt in it.
Douay-Rheims Bible Book of Genesis Chapter 11
http://drbo.org/chapter/01011.htm

Can I comment under this comment, or is it deleted?

Now, eastward and from the east contradict.

miqqedem means from the east.

And the reason for the change is a supposition about the story : that the Ark landed in the vicinity of Mt Ararat and Babel is supposed to be around Classic Babylon.

39°42.113′N 44°17.899′E for Ararat
30°48′57″N 45°59′46″E for Eridu.

Obviously Eridu is further east than Ararat. So, eastward would make sense.

Now, make another little supposition instead. Mountains of Armenia includes Mountains of Turkish Armenia, which includes Mount Judi near Cizre. The Babel we will see about is also known as Göbekli Tepe.

37°22′10″N 42°20′39″E for Mount Judi
37°13′23″N 38°55′21″E for Göbekli Tepe.

Obviously Mount Judi is further east than Göbekli Tepe, so "from the east" makes sense. This is also what miqqedem means.

Two other observations. If you go from Ararat to Eridu, you will find the plain before crossing the Tigris into Mesopotamia. The plain surrounds Mesopotamia. It would make sense with "they found a plain, namely Shinar". If you go from Judi to Göbekli Tepe region, you cross the Tigris immediately, so you are already inside Sennaar when you find the plain around Harran (on Turkish-Syrian border today) as within this larger land. So, "they found a plain in the land of Sennaar," makes sense. Göbekli Tepe is midway of the Western half of the Northern limit of this plain. If Göbekli Tepe had another purpose than everyday dwelling and they dwelt a bit further South in the plain, the following words "and dwelt in it" also make perfect sense.

And, with Judi to GT, the E-W axis preponderates over the N-S, with A-E, N-S vastly preponderates over E-W.

Now, what does not make sense with Göbekli Tepe, on the face of it, and I have admitted as much, is, verse 3.

Bricks and mortar have so far not been found in Göbekli Tepe.

I can make a supposition on the meaning and consider etymological Hebrew senses, namely "they made whites and burnt them with burning and used thickening for thickening"* and argue, it describes stamped earth around skeleta of burned chalk, of which the presence of such burned chalk inside the stamped earth could be tested.

I may be right, I may be wrong, but I am not authorised to replace verse 3 as it stands with the actual text "and made stamped earth with burnt chalk skeleta" even though this is a possible way of building and one that is used, for instance in stables in Scandinavia (stöphus).

Just as, even if I am right about verse 4 ... well, let's check the two versions on it.

'Come,' they said, 'let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top reaching heaven. Let us make a name for ourselves, so that we do not get scattered all over the world.

And they said: Come, let us make a city and a tower, the top whereof may reach to heaven: and let us make our name famous before we be scattered abroad into all lands.

The Hebrew has: "and a tower and the top [is] in the heavens"

It is neutral between the two, but the use of New Jerusalem "with" suggests that the tower still stands under the top while it is in heaven, while the Douay Rheims at least allows that the top reaches heaven after discarding the tower - in other words that this describes the project of a three step rocket.

Even if I am right, with my supposition on content, that doesn't give me any right to change the text.

* I am not a Hebraist, but explanations adding up to this were given by one who was.

2:28 Not a Hebraist, but:

masculine singular third person הוּא hu he / it
feminine singular third person הִיא / הִוא hi / hiw she / it

Strong resemblance in spelling for he and she, right?

Sheshallcrush

@SheShallCrush

Vetus latina from 2nd century AD says “she”. That Latin manuscript predates Jerome and copied from Greek texts. Jerome wrote “she.” There is a Greek Septuagint found by Origin with surviving fragments published by Bernard Montfaucon that says “she shall crush.” It was in the Caesarea library Jerome utilized. Don’t ever let someone tell you “she” is a copyist error. Also, Bernard de Rossi, Kennicott, Fr. Francis Xavier Patrizi, and 1572 Polyglot contains Hebrew manuscripts that say “She.” The original was a “she” pronoun surrounded by masculine verb “shall crush.” Scribes coming across this original changed it to “he” so that it matches the verb. Scribes thought they were fixing it but actually ruined the original. This is how he became dominant while she died out. Ancient Hebrew also has plenty of gender discord (I.e Song of Songs). “She” pronoun with masculine verb to crush is evidence of antiquity. Also, the masoretic Hebrew is not the original. It dates to the 9th century AD and contains vowel pointing not present in the original. The original had a she vocalization tradition. However many manuscripts are visually ambiguous. According to Lectio Difficilior Potior “he” tradition came later. “She” was original. Look up Lectio Difficilior Potior. Hope this helps

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@SheShallCrush Checking, I thought you were wrong about the Hebrew, but here is the current Masoretic:

... zar·‘āh; hū yə·šū·p̄ə·ḵā

So, yes, there actually is a personal pronoun before the verb, which could have been "hi" (she).*

Thank you!

It does help!

* footnote

She shall crush thy head is the original Hebrew for Genesis 3:15
Sheshallcrush | 21 June 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5jk4nDagEg

She shall crush thy head original Hebrew part 2
Sheshallcrush | 28 June 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwCgmifNZIU

That Galileo Was a Jerk Doesn't Matter (Unless if You're Praying for His Repose), and Didn't Matter as to the Process

The Truth About the Inquisition, Galileo & the Flat Earth Myth | Dr. Thomas Madden | Last Call Ep 11
Matt Fradd | 24 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8qy5pV1u2U

3:45 Four arguments.*

The one he considered most secure was a mistake, but the argument if not the fact is replicated by Magellan.

5:25 "which is true"

You just made the bans of 1616 and renewed because applied to Galileo, 1633, applicable to you.

Besides, you don't believe the Sun is centre of the Universe, you believe it's centre of the Solar System, which is a further departure from classical Christian Cosmology.

Galileo, unlike Bruno, didn't do that, as I recall. He still believed the Universe had an identifiable centre and a periphery in the sphere of the fix stars.

5:36 You're forgetting that in order to not get censored, Copernicus waited to the death bed and even than just stated it as a hypothesis, to make calculations easier, not as a fact about the universe.

6:28 St. Robert Bellarmine actually did have other objections than purely scientific ones.

And I think his proposal to Galileo, if any, was not "look at the sky more carefully, we don't see the Copernican model" but "you know, Tycho and Copernicus give us the same visual effect on the sky, what about Tycho Brahe?"

6:46 I think you are getting this from the Pro-Heliocentric side in 1822.

Father Olivieri could say this kind of things, because noone in Rome could check, the archives were in Paris where Napoleon I had stolen them to.

"Tutti i francesi, sono ladroni?
- Non tutti, mai buona parte"

7:28 Sorry, but he was in fact not free to promote Heliocentrism as science, as physical fact rather than mathematical shorthand, since the theology by Dominicans involved Joshua's miracle and Sun and Moon ceased to move.

Not Earth. Sun and Moon.

Galileo's theological and unacceptable response was "non-overlapping magisteria" ...

8:01 Howeversomuch Galileo may have been a jerk, the Inquisition doesn't give people abjurations and lifelong house arrest for that.

He was given that for doctrine, not character.

And as "Simplicio" took an argument that the Pope, while still a cardinal, had used, it is significant the Pope (who could be insulted) abstained from being among the judges, and his relative, among them, abstained from voting.

The argument, by the way, is this: God could create the world any way He wanted, and God could make the world look anyway He wanted. Now, on some level, this could be considered a sceptic argument, namely if the world looked Heliocentric. But as it looks Geocentric, it's an appeal to God's honesty.

8:26 It doesn't mean just he had to spend time at home, rest of his life.

It means he had to abjure.

The Dialogo is what he was being judged on. It's fiction, not everything said in it is his own view. It's as if Dan Brown would have been given an opportunity to abjure the Bloodline of Jesus theory after writing The da Vinci Code making him vehemently suspect ...

8:33 While his villa was different to a dungeon, like Liparic Islands are different from Siberia, he was denied social life, except with his spiritual caretakers and very close, including a daughter who was a nun.

An author whom Stalin didn't like could go to Siberia and hard work. One whom Mussolini didn't like to Liparic Islands, and a state pension while he was there. Both would be denied normal social interaction with their previous surroundings.**

Roddy Cavin

@roddycavin4600

If Galileo had written anywhere else in Europe at that time belittling the countries monarch and remember Urban viii was an absolute monarch, he would have been at best beheaded or in some states hanged drawn and quartered. I think he got away with it quite well.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@roddycavin4600 You are confusing apples and oranges.

First, the argument by then cardinal Barberini was given in private by the not yet then Pope Urban VIII.

The character Simplicio was not a politically transparent insult to the monarch as such, it was a privately wounding way of dealing with old discussions.

BUT second, there is a juridical difference between trial by the Inquisition and trial for political treason. Galileo was tried for heresy, not for treason or rebellion.

Roddy Cavin

@hglundahl Yes, in Galileo’s Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (1632), the character Simplicio was widely understood to be a caricature of Pope Urban VIII, who was formerly a patron of Galileo. By naming the character Simplicio—meaning "simpleton" in Italian—and having him spout the Pope's own arguments, Galileo heavily insulted him, leading to the infamous 1633 heresy trial.

Yes, in 1632, during the reign of Charles I, insulting the king could absolutely lead to execution, or at the very least, severe, life-altering punishment

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@roddycavin4600 "was widely understood to be a caricature of Pope Urban VIII"

Where do you get "widely" from?

"Yes, in 1632, during the reign of Charles I, insulting the king could absolutely lead to execution"

That's England, not the Papal States.

But certainly, in such a case Charles I would not have reapplied "de haeretico comburendo" and make it a heresy trial.

10:19 "they are basing everything on the Bible"

Or so they claim.

"and on the literal word of the Bible"

And Catholics are supposed to have been different?

Remember, it''s we who literally take Jesus' word for being (when communing) in a position to munch on God's Human Body. See Lizzie Reezay's excellent video on the verb "trogo" ...

Seriously, the very first book on Heliocentrism, a few years before Copernicus "De revolutionibus orbium coelestium" was by his Lutheran (and criminal) disciple Georg Joachim Rheticus. From the printing press in 1540, according to Sungenis it made it directly to the Index Librorum.

Hannam tried to back up the claim of Catholic "non-literalism" by saying Scholastics took the Earth to be round "despite" Four Corners. Well, in languages other than Germanic ones, many of them, probably formerly though not currently Slavic ones too, "terra" or "eretz" would refer not just to the body in / under Heaven, but also to the surface feature that's dryer than seas. And it has, literally, four outer corners.

---

* Aristotle against a Flat Earth. ** Again, it's a punishment, not for being a jerk, but for what he suggested.

No, Evolution Isn't True and Isn't Catholic

Genesis 6, Archaeological Confirmation · Jimmy Akin on Genesis 1—11 and the Magisterium · No, Evolution Isn't True and Isn't Catholic

Stephen C. Meyer joins the show tomorrow to tackle matters of creation and evolution. Don't miss it!
@pintswithaquinas | 20 April 2026
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/hs1_4cTC1dM

Evolution is dead in science, but still has a good thriving as a religion.

Including by Syncretists in the Vatican II sect.

Daniel Krcmar

@danielkrcmar5395

We've literally observed evolution happening.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@danielkrcmar5395 Oh, you mean things like Ateleryx Algirus and Erinaceus Europaeus having a common ancestor?

I meant things like pretending ape and man have one.

ochem123

@ochem123

@danielkrcmar5395 Selection of traits via breeding practices includes an intelligence making any adjustments. We have never observed evolution of species as described by atheists. “Theistic evolution” is an ad hoc intermediate position. 🐬⚜️❤️‍🔥🇻🇦🇺🇸⚕️

Daniel Krcmar

@ochem123 Except, we have.

Scientists have observed, or identified through genetic tracking, the evolution of several new species and distinct populations in modern times. Key examples include the Big Bird finch lineage on Daphne Major, Pod Mrcaru lizards evolving new digestive traits, and numerous insects developing resistance to pesticides.

@ochem123 We have but I'll leave your ignorance to you to correct yourself.

ochem123

@danielkrcmar5395 Do not confuse mutation and natural selection for “evolution.” Observing mutations and natural selections in observations of animals is not evidence of the origin of humanity. One must read Scripture and pray in order to know that.

What is the origin of the animals? Just as the Book of Genesis says. 🐬⚜️❤️‍🔥🇻🇦🇺🇸⚕️

Daniel Krcmar

@ochem123 Mutation and natural selection are quite literally the mechanisms by which evolution occurs.

We have observed the evolution of new species.

Evolution was from the book 'The Origin of Species' not 'The Origin of Life'. Evolution does not negate the possibility of a creator as it doesn't not address what caused life.

ochem123

@danielkrcmar5395 All mutations are bad. Did you not know that? Mutants are worse than the non-mutants. You claim that mutations lead to improvements?

Hybrids of animals, humans, and angels have been formed by intelligent beings to create monsters with mixed characteristics, but that is not a random process.

God’s hand guides all things, but you think randomness produces order? ️️‍🇻🇦🇺🇸️

Daniel Krcmar

@ochem123 Okay, this is clearly pointless. You are wrong. Science has observed this happening. I never said God's hand wasn't involved. Genesis 1-13 are historically read as allegory and not literal history.

ochem123

@dan @danielkrcmar5395 The Bible is literal, and allegory can only be applied under that lens. Do you read Genesis 1-13 to argue with the plain sense of the text? Or do you read it to understand what happened before you were born? Big difference. ️️‍🇻🇦🇺🇸️

Daniel Krcmar

@ochem123 The Bible os a massive collection of literary works with historical records, laws, allegory, poetry, songs, etc.

You can't read literal as allegory as they're opposite definitions.

The early Popes, Church Farthers, thinkers and modern Popes read 1-13 as allegory and not literal history.

ochem123

@danielkrcmar5395 If one reads the Bible with an open heart, one can see the Truths contained therein. Can you give a specific example you say is not literal? You cited thirteen chapters, rather than a specific idea. What concept are you saying is not literal? The Creation account? Six days? Why would you believe a secular “scientist” over a prophet of God? 🐬⚜️❤️‍🔥🇻🇦🇺🇸⚕️

Daniel Krcmar

@ochem123 Why would you believe a lay person over The Pope and early Church Farthers?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@danielkrcmar5395 "Genesis 1-13 are historically read as allegory and not literal history."

You are historically wrong.

They are historically read as literal history with an added layer of prophetic (meaning Christological) allegory.

@danielkrcmar5395 "Mutation and natural selection are quite literally the mechanisms by which evolution occurs."

That's a bit like saying sound laws, analogy, word swaps, borrowings are the mechanism by which languageS evolve.

That doesn't remotely mean that they could explain how language evolved from sth non-human. And what you propose cannot explain how man evolved from sth non-human or even how fish evolved into mammals.

@danielkrcmar5395 "Why would you believe etc"

You are misrepresenting, very gravely, the early Church Fathers.

And if by "the Pope" you meant Wojtyla or any of his successors, you are mislabelling him or them.

Daniel Krcmar

@hglundahl We have fossil records of fish turning into mamals and land mamales returning to the water.

It is, that's just how it is.

We know that Whales speak and use language, as well as having unique names for each other. Language is not unique to humans.

@hglundahl
- Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–254)
- Augustine of Hippo (354–430)
- Clement of Alexandria (c. 152–217)
- Philo of Alexandria (1st Century)
- Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–395)

- Pope Pius XII
- Pope John Paul II
- Pope Benedict XVI (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger)
- Pope Francis

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@danielkrcmar5395 "We have fossil records of fish turning into mamals and land mamales returning to the water."

No, we don't. We don't have proof of descent in these series.

"We know that Whales speak and use language, as well as having unique names for each other."

No, we know they have unique names for each other.

They come as close to language as song birds, which is closer than apes do.

Neither whales and songbirds, nor apes, have double articulation or three levels, but song birds and whales at least has one articulation or two levels, namely different sounds combining for a name or a song.

In apes, it's one sound or gesture that means one message. That one not being a unique name. One level, no articulation.

@danielkrcmar5395 "Pope Pius XII"

Not mislabelled, but didn't call the chapters "allegory".

Origen, Augustine and I dare wager the other ones as well did affirm historicity of the narratives.

Augustine misunderstood Origen as having affirmed Christological allegory only and no history, he did make such a comment on the Ark, but it was just one sentence in desperation over what he saw as problems about it.

The fullest treatment of the chapters in Church Fathers is St. Augustine, City of God, and it is clearly affirming literal history.

Daniel Krcmar

@hglundahl We do, but I'll let you love in ignorance if you don't want to do your own research.

You can't argue against them having language by saying they have a more basic level of language than humans. Of course they have a more basic language but language, is language and proves that it's not unique.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@danielkrcmar5395 "if you don't want to do your own research."

I did. That's what I'm telling you.

"a more basic level of language than humans."

No. A one level communication system and a three level communication system are not "more basic" or "more elaborate" they are functionally distinct.

There is no possible overlap.

There is a world, not just a degree, between having about as many messages as you can distinguish sounds and gestures and the messages helping you to convey emotions and what needs to be done, and having sounds with no message, combining to "words" or "endings" that are so to speak "message modules" but not yet full messages, and these then combined to full messages on the lines of predicative logic. Able to convey any subject of curiosity.

Daniel Krcmar

@hglundahl It is just more basic. A 3 year old has basic language skills but they can't communicate in the same way a 20 year old can, but you wouldn't say they don't have language.

One level communication is fundamentally a language structure because it uses structured symbols to transfer information.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@danielkrcmar5395 A three year old or even a two year old has all three levels of human language.

Maybe not all the sounds of his language (some take longer in pronouncing R), certainly not all the words or endings (that takes to c. age 5), possibly no more complex phrases than subject + predicate with or without negation.

But that's still all three human levels.

That's still a totally different structure from ape communications.

If you don't get it, you don't know what language is.

"it uses structured symbols to transfer information."

So do traffick signs and emoticons. Apart from making some of them stand for letters they are similar too (cheating), that won't get you to conveying even "I ate yoghurt today" ... (not yet true, by the way).

Giving the Word to Father Jason Charron (Byzantine Catholic Ukrainian)

Differring from Mr. Taunton on Ukrano-Russian Relations (he could be giving a pov he didn't share) and on Progress and St. Thomas · Giving the Word to Father Jason Charron (Byzantine Catholic Ukrainian)

Steel Manning the Pro Russia Position (Fr. Jason Charron)
Matt Fradd | 22 April 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hWdYsvcQ6Vg

"we don't want secular relativism"

0:54 ... that argument is for very selective use, on the Russian homefront ....

2:50 sth "which dictators don't do" ...

Fr. Jason Charron just said that the Austrofascist "dictators" weren't such, since the changes to the constitution in a time of chaos were drawing on a paragraph of the constitution of the First Republic.

Das war sehr schön, es hat mich sehr gefreut!

3:30 If you want criticism of Russia from the right ...
a) I've mentioned that Ukraine is more Christian, over 80 % versus over 60 %
b) I've mentioned that Ukraine, not just in raw numbers, but in proportion, has fewer abortions.

While I'm no fan of Zelensky, personally (he has a weird sense of humour), I don't think Ukraine should pay for having elected him!

Shakespear, Marlowe or Catholic?

The blatant ABSURDITY of Shakespeare's authorship
bastian conrad | 27 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MkwdE7nZ-w

bastian conrad

@bastianconrad2550

What might be the reason for the absence of any commentary to a proposal for solving the undoubtedly existing Shakespeare riddle???

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

The other candidates have deeper problems. This includes Marlowe.

Most people by now know that a merchant would at this time and place not be illiterate. At least those taking an interest in the Middle Ages and the Tudor times.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Plus the Catholic hypothesis actually makes sense of the difficulties:

Was Shakespeare a SECRET CATHOLIC?! w/ Dr. Aaron Urbanczyck
Matt Fradd | 16 Aug 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8dWFzXEykbU

I May Have Forgotten to Blog One of These Exchanges

Indeed, I search the title of the video, Did Adam & Eve Evolve? w/ Jimmy Akin & Gideon Lazar, and there is not any post here with this content.

I posted one comment, it involved me in debates with one YAJUN YUAN whose comments are now missing, and now I got one comment more.

Did Adam & Eve Evolve? w/ Jimmy Akin & Gideon Lazar
Matt Fradd | 11 March 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orxnSfWHJ0s

2:51 To Gideon Lazar : why after the Flood?

The Ark was a genetic bottleneck for any created kind, including mankind, so there would have been a greater diversity before the Flood!

YAJUN YUAN

[missing comment]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

YAJUN YUAN Obviously yes, but he'd be wiser to compare shortly before the Flood to now rather than shortly after to now as you agree he is doing.

YAJUN YUAN

[missing comment]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

YAJUN YUAN One cannot conclude "from the ice age" because they had features adapted to the ice age.

So no, Neanderthals would have been pre-Flood too.

Catholic 'Splaining

@CatholicSplaining101

Encyclical: Arcanum, Pope Leo XIII

“We record what is to all known, and cannot be doubted by any, that God, on the sixth day of creation, having made man from the slime of the earth, and having breathed into his face the breath of life, gave him a companion, whom He miraculously took from the side of Adam when he was locked in sleep.”

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CatholicSplaining101 Yes, Sir.

But since that sixth day of creation was 2242 or 2262 years before the Flood, this in no way shape or form contradicts what I just said.

Is Writing Above the Station of a Homeless? — No.

Should I Thank Protestants Who Worry? No. · Now, is Pope Michael II the True Pope? Hope So. · For the Feast of St. Thérèse · Advice on Turning the Other Cheek · Is Writing Above the Station of a Homeless? — No.

It may for most of history have been above his resources, but if it's not above his resources, it's not "above his station" either.

How to Love the Poor with Boundaries (Fr. Mark-Mary Ames)
Matt Fradd | 3 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAgo0vGASvA

"like we're supposed to be fathers 2:43 to the poor and father is also set 2:45 boundaries"

Excuse me, I don't think "we are supposed to be fathers to the poor" is anywhere in the Bible, but if it's in a Church Father or a Scholastic, I happen to have missed it.

I'm pretty familiar with Sts. Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas. If it's in St. Jerome or St. John Chrysostom, I could however have missed it.

Besides, if it were, where does that leave friars? Technically they are precisely poor, so does that mean that people who hold possessions have the right and duty to set boundaries for them, like cutting their "air time" if a sermon comes to touch stinginess?

Some of the examples he gives however, are definitely more avoidable by people taking homeless people they like home for dinner (the last time this happened, the couple had been in Mauretania and were pretty chill with slavery in Mauretania, they could have scared others off from becoming to close with me), than it is for any type of shelter, day shelter or night shelter, which serves the poor en masse and where each poor is inconspicuous between a lot of other poor and lots fewer people who are into looking after the crowd.

I am homeless. I am also a writer.

It is a fact that yesterday and today I could not get a shower, yesterday bc the shower that was open Saturday afternoon had been closed for renovations on October 1st, today because I arrived less than 20 minutes before the shower was closing.

It is also a fact that I had on Good Friday 12 000 blog posts, the majority of which are not "my day was fine" or "check this link" but essays or dialogues, or comments on Quora. The dialogues, like some very little fan fiction, obviously involves someone else's copyright, so I keep it unmonetised on the blogs, I do not try to get it into print without authorisation from the ones I were debating. But some of the dialogues, I basically already have an authorisation, like with Stephan Borgehammar, and the essays obviously are my own copyright.

I get trapped in homelessness, and YOUR "Catholic Church" as holding many shelters has been involved in it, over evil people pretending that as homeless, I should live under boundaries preventing me from even hoping to get even one essay into print. I'm sad to say that Trad Caths have not been without guilt on this issue.

I have however not seen any kind of indication that Novus Ordos or EOFs intend to be anything like more respectful of my right to expression or my free choice of trade.

To some, the fact I am homeless obliges me to modesty and my writing is a sin against that modesty. I obviously disagree.

I remain a Catholic. I have for seven years opted for accepting Pope Michael I and then Pope Michael II as the true Pope. Neither of them has a parish in Paris, this means I can't go to Church, but neither of them has explicitly repeated this kind of oppressive view against the homeless because they are homeless, by people who have seen too many and obviously recall the bad guys better. Obviously, I do NOT imagine a future me taking care of homeless en masse, and as obviously, I do NOT imagine a future me remodelled by my experience into the kind of modesty certain people have expected.

You pretend that Karol Wojtyla is a saint, I suppose.

I consider he betrayed me as well as lot of other Catholics to the Scarlet Beast, by making some kind of peace agreement with psychiatry, around the time the second interreligious prayer meeting was held, and that one a few weeks or months before the massacre of Srebrenica.

Extra:

Can Rich People Go to Heaven? | Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.
Matt Fradd | 6 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-QTVRs7ZS0

[To the question and before hearing Fr. Pine]

Obviously yes.

Unless they go out of their way to keep poor people poor despite honest and prolonged efforts.

A certain Franciscan for Renewal that you may know via Matt Fradd was stating that "we are supposed to be fathers to the poor" ...

The one Patristic quote that just possibly could be interpreted that way is the comment on the beatitudes.

Now one says, "many are poor in spirit who are rich in substance, many are poor in substance and rich in desires" ... unless I get a little richer, I can very easily be damned as one of the latetr.

Another says that God has put rich and poor among us so that rich may merit by disposing and poor by their patience.

If this means "disposing" about a finite amount of material alms, and patience about a finite amount of material alms, I'm totally on board.

Some seem to take this as rather meaning the rich is supposed to dispose globally about the poor and the poor are supposed to be globally patient and make no initiatives until a rich person disposing about them makes one for them or suggests they should tell them about them.

To me that version (which would fit the comment by Fr. Mark-Mary Ames) doesn't come off as Catholic, but rather as Protestant or possibly Opus Dei (which at certain times got nicknamed "the Catholic Calvinists" not bc of their view of Predestination, but in reference to their social mores).

[Matt Fradd seems to have set my channel on some kind of automatic delete. Both videos have both of my comments deleted.]

Jimmy Akin gets lots right, some wrong

Can Faith and Reason Coexist? w/ Jimmy Akin
Matt Fradd | 27.V.2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISO-Ch0uTHc

With my comments, in chronological order and numbered as to themes:

I

Faith may involve continuing to believe contrary to what for the moment seems to be good evidence.

Not all come into that situation, and it should ideally get cleared up by getting the evidence straightened out, but the case exists and it is featured as a recurring one in "Miracles" at the very end. Especially for beginners. (C. S. Lewis was no Catholic, but I think a moral theologian would also argue for instance you need to believe the Catholic truth that wine is innocent even when an AA club is telling you otherwise - I'd add not to join any AA clubs, btw).

2:01 "what you want is the evidence" - even as one's pre-Christian habits or habits taken over from non-Christian friends would distort what it should look like and how it looks to you right now? See example of a Catholic joining AA:ers, which alas happens (St Eustache in Paris hosts AA meetings certain evenings).

II

2:48 Jimmy, there is hope for you! Tell me when you converted to literal belief in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah!

III

3:16 I believe in miasma, they are what pestilence masks blocked out so physicians visiting plague patients didn't get all bubonic themselves... I believe in earth element being influenced by Mars for iron and Venus for attraction qualities, that's how Marco Polo's compass imported from China worked ... "blague à part" : electricity is a proven phenomenon, but electrons are to my mind a bit too specific a cause to be proven by it. A bit like deducing from the five ways of St. Thomas that God would die on a Cross and be named Jesus.

3:25 I do enough about the experiments to know that electrons as particles are deduced from cloud chambers. I also know I find the reasoning between the cloud chamber experiment, which I used to know details of, and that electrons are particles when in electron shells around a nucleus is not convincing. The evidence of chemistry and valencies, and molecule structures can be seen by electronic microscopy, suggest very clearly that the charges classed as negative are real, and quantified in discrete quantities, and layered into shells with different charge numbers for completion, the best I could do is Thomas Bradwardine who argued that if one aspect of reality is quantum, or atomic as they would have said, so are all, so if charges are quantum, on that idea, presumably so are what carries these as a quality. Interestingly, he argued against quantum and for Aristotelic continuum. The mere fact that electricity exists is neither sufficient to disprove him on that nor to show one needs to trust the experts. There is no general moral obligation to have a stance on what electricity is, as there is on believing the Blessed Trinity, once one knows how God in the Flesh revealed it.

3:29 "who do understand these things" - sufficient to provide electricity does not imply sufficient to analyse it correctly as to essence - "and can prove them" - within their charmed circle, as long as scholastics extend to them the favour St. Thomas did to geometricians about sum of angles (but when he said it was stupid not to believe them, he had presumably already seen a proof).

Proving a thing oneself in detail may not be necessary to believe a thing, but having a good idea about how the details should go, by sketching out a general proof, is normally a requirement for having any opinion.

IV

5:28 Excellent point about blind man holding up a number of fingers to prove sight exists in others ...

5:56 One point. It seems Karl May was born blind and gained sight by an eye operation - he actually did experience colour visions when people told him, especially the tales of his granny, before he could see. A bit like you can imagine a blue object that's not present if you close your eyes.

6:35 One moment, just for the fun of being a bit paranoid ... is there anyone pretending to test me if I am a prophet with supernatural awareness? I'm not, I'm a scholastic, but to some non-Catholics that looks at first like "prophet or fool" and then "fool" starts to edge out when I'm coherent. As a Catholic, you shouldn't believe those people. But obviously, such a test cannot be why you usually don't bother to answer my points, that would be ... "zu anmassend" as they say in German (forgot the English right now).

V

6:46 Above the sky would in fact be literally true, not of God's omnipresence, but of where He receives adoration from angels and from souls of saints and above all from the Blessed Virgin, who is there BODY AND soul. (You are aware bodies exist in space, right?)