Figures of Speech Exist in Scripture, Yes ... But ...

Before 18:27 and after 29:18 I had nothing to contradict nor elicit clarifications on.

Joe’s WORST Take?
Scholastic Answers | 9 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzDFWHChEA0

18:27 While I certainly agree Scripture has figures of speech and popular expressions, this has of recent been vastly exaggerated in scope.

I just commented under Dr. Joel Duff who has some sharp things to say ... to me less interesting ... on how CMI have very exotic views on how to solve the Distant Starlight problem (if Andromeda Galaxy was created 6 to 7.5 k years ago, on day 4, and is 150,000 LY away, how do we see it less than 150,000 years after it started to shine light?).

My comment is how this problem is totally solved by Geocentrism and Angelic movers of celestial objects.

Some even earlier have taken "four corners" to be a figure of speech ... I take it Sts Isaias and John knew where Alaska, Cape Horn, Tasmania and Siberia are and through what lines their direction is outlined to Jerusalem (all four points are represented via closer intermediaries in Acts 2).

The idea of "popular" presupposes the existence of an erudition that "goes further than" popular views. If this erudiction didn't exist in Joshua's day, Joshua 10:13 cannot by a pregnantly popular expression.

In Joshua 10:12, the author is not describing what Sun and Moon ("appear to") do, but he is describing the words by which Joshua as miracle maker ordered them. If it was Earth that ceased and 12 / 24 h later resumed rotation, this would be the only time when a miracle worker adressed the order to sth other than that which was supposed to miraculously change behaviour.

A theory of "accomodation" among Protestants (19th, perhaps already 18th CC) indeed stated that God inspired Joshua to utter words better suited to the understanding of the Israelites. They also went as far as to suggest this also happened with his Namesake when referred to as and speaking as if casting out demons. This is inadmissible, therefore Joshua also gave the miraculous order, after praying, to whatever was to change behaviour, i e it was actually Sun and Moon that stopped, it is actually Sun and Moon that go around us each day, not we rotating below them.

18:51 "God also, speaking to men." (Pesch)

Valid as possible explanation of Joshua 10:13, since the hagiographer and ultimately God together tell us what the Israelites saw in the sky.

But in Joshua 10:12 God says to us what Joshua said, and Joshua wasn't speaking to men. Like his Divine Namesake in Mark 1:25 is also not speaking to men. Not even to the one possessed.

20:20 "as Benedict XV points out"

Where?

In praeclara summorum (cited by the Dimond brothers) has only a very indirect allusion to Geocentrism possibly not being true. A subordinate clause in concessive subjunctive.

21:02 "speak about certain historical figures"

Like the list between Adam (over Seth) and Noah and his sons in Genesis 5, and the list between the son Shem and Abraham, in Genesis 11, right?

You do hold Abraham was born between 292 and 1070 years after a universal Flood, and that between less than 1400 and 2262 years after Adam and Eve were created, right?

21:08 Ah, Spiritus Paraclitus!

Thank you!

21:08 bis After reading through Spiritus Paraclitus I find that the relevant passage is as chemically free from any direct endorsement of Heliocentrism as the previous encyclical he looked back on Providentissimus Deus is.

Neither Leo XIII nor Benedict XV are saying Heliocentrism is compatible with Joshua 10:12.

Both are skimming around the subject and so to speak tacitly inviting theologians to speak up if they think so.

And given the outcome, some of these theologians were horrible liberals.

Since 18 November 1893, theologians have basically a standing invitation to defend Heliocentrism without attacking Biblical inerrancy. Challenge so far not met, invitation so far not taken.

Date Calculator gave:

It is 48 386 days from the start date to the end date, end date included.
Or 132 years, 5 months, 23 days including the end date.
Or 1589 months, 23 days including the end date.

I'm not sure if it's programmed for 1900 not being a leap year.

somedude

@somedude7589

They did in fact answer it, Galileo himself offered the alternative interpretation of Joshua. Namely that it was a figure of speech akin to the rising and setting of the sun. The sun does not truly rise or set, because the earth is not flat, and yet we and Scripture speak this way.

The issue was that his interpretation was against the common understanding of the theologians and Fathers, and so only a grave cause could justify breaking from their consensus.

Saint Bellarmine himself, the man who judged Galileo, said that a scientific proof would make the breaking from the consensus justified. So the entire question is reduced to if such evidence was given, and it was. Man went to space and most importantly he detected stellar parallax. Now a parallax proves the viewer is moving, thus the earth moves.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@somedude7589 I'm sorry, but you are talking of Joshua 10:13. Joshua as narrator many years later, speaking to us, yes, that could be phenomenological language.

In verse 12, Joshua is adressing sun and moon as a miracle worker.

That's one Galileo that offered no solution for.

God inspired Joshua's words, when Joshua prayed, first half of the verse. And a miracle worker adresses what needs to miraculously change its normal or previous behaviour, he's not adressing sth else in order to accomodate to popular misconception. When Joshua adressed Sun and Moon, it was Sun and Moon that needed to stop, and when Jesus adressed demons, it was demons that needed to quit a human person. It was not Earth in the one case and a quirk in the psyche in the other case.

Did I make the distinction between the two verses clearer this time?

@somedude7589 "Man went to space"

The absolute movement Armstrong experienced on the Moon if it moves around Earth once every 25 or so hours is slower than the absolute movement we experience every day if Earth rotates.

Tychonian and Copernican systems are equal as to relative positions and movements. Assuming the Earth moves doesn't help space missions, other than perhaps ease of calculations.

"and most importantly he detected stellar parallax. Now a parallax proves the viewer is moving, thus the earth moves."

The problem is, if Angelic movers exist (see St. Thomas' STh Prima Pars Q 70 A 3 and Commentary on Job, ch 38 v 7), you cannot prove either the detected parallax or the detected annual aberration are actually what they are analysed as, they could both be two mathematical analytical aspects of angels moving "fix" stars. Just like the year involves an angel moving the Sun through the Zodiac.

27:11 I hope there is no ban on this opinion:

St. Luke in Acts 27 wrote about "Illyric Sea" and copyists changed it to "Adriatic Sea" after 140 AD so as to keep the text comprehensible in face of an official name change.

I just defended St. Luke's authorship of Acts on this ground against someone who pretended Acts were written after 140 AD.

29:18 In Providentissimus Deus, passage quoted, the wording "as left by the hagiographers" seems to indicate that the actual text could be different from the Vulgate, for instance the LXX or an older version of the LXX ... do I overread this?

Scholastic Answers

@MilitantThomist

You’re completely correct to note that. Many Catholic authors point this out to explain numeric differences, spelling errors, and the like.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@MilitantThomist Thank you very much, Sir!

No, My Apologetics is NOT Putting My Faith into Danger

Is it a Sin to Watch Protestant Videos?
Scholastic Answers | 26 Febr. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HI2-5BrY2GY

We can agree that someone who said "the Catholic Church teaches that Adam had non-human pedigree, but this means God was putting Adam in the way of a most serious child abuse well before Adam had sinned, therefore we need not believe ..." insert the Catholic Church or Adam and Eve ... has lost the faith.

However, you can not apply that so as to say "IF the Catholic Church WERE to teach that Adam had non-human pedigree, that WOULD mean etc and therefore, this is not how God created Adam and also not what the Church teaches" is a loss of faith.

Very much on the contrary, it's a defense of faith.

0:25 Just mentioning, I never called you a retard.

Unless you mean retarded acquisition of correct theologumena compared to what is desireable in a channel such as yours.

But no, not retarded acquisition of normal adult intelligence.

0:40 On the day (discounting the Julian to Gregorian shift) 777 years passed between a burning of the Talmud before Notre Dame, Paris, and the burning of Notre Dame Paris.

Jews pretend God took revenge for the burning of the Talmud.

Do you think Jews did so, or God for complicity with the Talmud?

6:34 Do people who hold "Leo XIV" to be Pope and Mater Populi Fidelis to be a Papal Encyclical sin by denial of either Papal infallibility or Coredemptrix?*

"To give an example, I 9:29 myself have spent a few years reading 9:31 Protestant theology and do not 9:33 particularly suffer from sins against 9:34 the faith. Further, it is part of my job 9:36 to speak to those who oppose the faith 9:38 in order to provide answers that will 9:40 remove the force of these objections. 9:42 For me to read Protestant theology or to 9:44 watch a theology debate both has a 9:46 sufficient justification and places me 9:48 in no unique danger of sin."

Apart from the Protestant Theologian Prevost, I agree.

Is my case too, except I don't read Mater Populi Fidelis without a good reason.

12:13 Would you consider that someone is overdoing things, if he makes the syllogism:

• CSL was a heretic (didn't convert to Catholicism before dying 22 Nov 1963)
• HGL states he has read CSL
• therefore we can conclude HGL is putting his and other peoples' faith in danger, for no reason at all

Close quote, do you think he's overdoing things?

* Someone asked if I was Sede or Benevacantist, I'm Conclavist. Christian Wagner did an interview with Pope Michael I before he died, I think one with Pope Michael II too.

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

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

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

RandomKnight

@randomknight5236

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@randomknight5236 Thank you.

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

And, judging from the words so far, Wagner.

---

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

Dávid Bernhardt

@davidbernhardt551

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

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@davidbernhardt551 "based on style"

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

"external evidence"

Like what?

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

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

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

"something like the Ten Commandments and other clear statements"

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

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

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

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

---

Other dialogue:

Billy G

@billyg898

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

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

I

RandomKnight

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@randomknight5236 How are these different?

RandomKnight

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@randomknight5236 No, wooden literalism is not plain meaning.

The metaphor is perfectly clear even to a plain understanding.

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

RandomKnight

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

The firmament is the exception.

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

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"depicts the world as flat"

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

"with a hard dome over it"

"firm" need not mean "hard"

"with water above the dome"

Or in the upper parts of it.

"and below the earth."

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

"has windows which is how rain comes through."

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

Billy G

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

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

Surface.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are hydrogen and water molecules up well above the atmosphere?

Obviously yes.

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

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

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

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

III

ʙᴀᴛᴀᴠɪᴄᴀ ♰

@Batavica

Slippery slope fallacy

Billy G

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

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

ʙᴀᴛᴀᴠɪᴄᴀ ♰

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

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

Billy G

@Batavica what? No consensus that Genesis is literal?

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

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

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

Hans-Georg Lundahl

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

Say solid instead of hard.

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

LARP-ing Isn't Evil Nor (to Catholic Sensibilities) Awkward

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Sharing on Eugenics · On Vikings and Sapmi · LARP-ing Isn't Evil Nor (to Catholic Sensibilities) Awkward · HGL's F.B. writings: Fascism (Why Nordic Social Democracy is Worse) · New blog on the kid: Swedish Social Democrats Were Criminal in a Way that Franco Wasn't

I get the feeling some people are trying to adapt Catholicism to Baptism or to KGB type "Orthodoxy".

It can be mentioned, in Sweden and Norway part of the popularity of LARP garb is kind of an envy for Lapps having a different garb, a bit how the envy of Indians can have contributed to larping getting popular in the USA.

@MilitantThomist
DESTROY Grudges, FIGHT Libs ft. Timothy Gordon
Catholicism DESTROYS LARPing...
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/r_wI0EehrhI

Neither the IV commandment nor the other duties of a Catholic are against LARP-ing.

While God put us in the days we are put, for a reason, the reason may be to lament that better days are gone:

And he humbled himself afterwards, because his heart had been lifted up, both he and the inhabitants of Jerusalem: and therefore the wrath of the Lord came not upon them in the days of Ezechias.
[2 Paralipomenon (2 Chronicles) 32:26]

So, the days of Ezechias were, for instance happier than those of his successors.

Ethnic identity ... a modern costume allows a European, and American and a Pakistani to all wear suit jacket, pressed trousers, white shirt and necktie. If I wear a Medieval hood, that's exclusively European. No one in the Americas wore it before modern larping outside Dominicans and Franciscans and similar who are indeed larping the Middle Ages. Nor did Pakistanis wear them. If I use the kind of cape-jacket the Hungarians call a mente, I narrow down to Austro-Hungarian, and while I'm a Swede, I'm born in Vienna.

If I wear breeches, tied under the knees, I'm seeking common ground between Europeans and Americans. If the breeches are leaned down, 18th C. wise, I am again approaching Austro-Hungarian customs. Austrians wear them. And, still not Pakistanis. In France it has an added flavour of "I'm not a sansculotte" ... which it seems some freemasons want me to regret.

And as Dominicans and Franciscans are larping the Middle Ages, 12th C., so Jesuits are larping 16th C. Academics. Benedictines are larping 6th C. Aristocrats. I just hold, larping is not an exclusive prerogative of men in religious orders.

Honouring our father and mother. I don't think any larper, ever was in the impression that their parents were uncool for simply not larping, and if the parents are larping too, how can it possibly be against the IV? You are making up rules that aren't in the commandments of either God or Holy Mother Church!

---

TheJollyViking

@thejollyviking8083

I mean, call it larping, being a reactionary, being a luddite, or whatever else you want, but I see nothing wrong with looking at ways in which past societies were better than ours, or aspects of our society which are bad and saying "let's do the better thing and not do the bad stuff."

Unless this is simply a statement that you shouldn't literally try to live in an identical situation as a 1200s Medieval peasant... in which case, yeah. But I feel as though that makes this statement extremely uninteresting. I'm about as close to the "I want to reject all modern technology and political institutions and retvrn to the 1200s" sentiment as someone can get and even I know I can't live in a replicated situation.

nox play

@noxplay4906

The issue is if you forget about the true aim of life which is union with God and you subsume Catholicism under that worldly ideology (which is unfortunately exactly what we're seeing right now.)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@noxplay4906 How can you tell he is forgetting?

How can you tell from this one comment he's subsuming Catholicism under a wordly ideology rather than the other and correct way around?

No, Dei Filius is NOT About Apologetics, It's About the Revelation that Apologetics is Meant to Defend

New blog on the kid: Christian Wagner Might Not Appreciate Me Being Into Apologetics? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: No, Dei Filius is NOT About Apologetics, It's About the Revelation that Apologetics is Meant to Defend · I Note, Alex O'Connor Didn't Mention Looking Into Geocentrism

0:29 The assertion that Dei Filius is actually about Apologetics is, to my immediate suspicion and first check (F-search "apol" on the Latin document on the va site), as unsupported as Providentissimus Deus being about the Galileo affair.

Scholastic Answers

@MilitantThomist

lol

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@MilitantThomist enjoy the chuckle, you may need it ...

MarvAlice

@marvalice3455

"I used control f and didn't find a word therefore you are wrong"

The fact that you are comfortable using this argument is going to color everything else I ever see from you. There is nothing you are going to be able to bring up where "but he thought he could word search a document and it would be a valid argument" is not going to be a serious concern

Caleb Adcock

@calebadcock363

“It doesn’t use a specific word, therefore it’s not about that topic”

That is abominable logic

Syed Hasan Ahmed (Hasan)

@syedhasanahmed3514

It just means that you dont know the definition of the tract on apologetics in our traditional books

Justinus

@-Justinus-

Providentissimus Deus does obliquely answer the Galileo Affair in one part tho...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@-Justinus- Key word: obliquely.

So very obliquely it doesn't even specify which way.

Caleb and Marv, did you notice my wording "first check" ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@syedhasanahmed3514 Which one of your "traditional books" gives a "definition" of "the tract on apologetics"?

Either you are citing one specific book, more probably a recent trad book than a traditional book, and mistaking it for THE traditional definition ... or you are simply making up words.

Syed Hasan Ahmed (Hasan)

@hglundahl literally any book on 'de revelatione' for example. Have you looked at any of the manuals?

Idk why you have to be so rude and intentionally aggressively ignorant

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@syedhasanahmed3514 I'm not in a seminary study, so, no, not that type of manuals.

EXCEPT one on OT theology, by Fr. Fulcran Vigouroux.

Those are not the kind of works that normal Catholic laymen are supposed to know. Including as far as I know when doing Apologetics, since that is NOT an office pertaining to the sole priesthood.

In Islam, that's different, your former religion has no sacraments or sacerdotal sacrifice (correct me if I'm wrong, but any male is sacrificing animals for certain feasts, not just clergy) and clergy are mainly intellectuals. In Catholic Christianity, the layman is not required or normally expected to be deep in theology or do apologetics, but some do.

My own traditional is St. Thomas or St. Augustine, to name the two I consult most often.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@-Justinus- While Hasan is getting over (if ever) that I don't share Muslim concepts of respect, culturally (I know he converted theologically), let me expand.

I suppose you mean this sentence:

Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - `went by what sensibly appeared,"(54) or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to.

It can be construed as referring to "Scripture uses Geocentric description, because that's how it appears, doesn't mean this is meant to fathom the actual physical fact."

First, the actual physical fact is only a "secret of nature" if Heliocentrism is true. If Geocentrism is true, the actual physical fact is instead obvious.

Second, the reference in Aquinas is about a Church Father explaining why Moses didn't describe the crystalline spheres which on Aristotelic theory were there.

THIRD .... it turns out that by going by what appears sensibly on that issue (no crystalline spheres appear) Moses was siding with actual physical fact, since Tycho Brahe disproved crystalline spheres.

In other words, the support for the interpretation I put into quotes, and which certainly represents the interpretation of the Olivieri* school in France, is just so oblique it can be completely turned around and it fits the Thomistic reference better.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@syedhasanahmed3514 You are aware that an appeal to manuals from a few decades is NOT a valid appeal to tradition, NOR to universal ordinary magisterium of those decades, since many dioceses may have used older manuals or preferred an older book over the manual on a given question?

So, for instance, appealing to manuals between 1880's and Ludwig Ott is not a valid way to prove that Biblical chronological information can't be taken to indicate a chronology.

The bigger the manual, the more probable it is it will include things the author and those approving it think are helpful even if they are not dogmatic.

They don't have more authority because they are for priests, they have less authority than things Popes and Councils have directed to the large public, like Encyclicals, Bulls, Constitutions.

* Assumptionist Father Olivieri who was provincial head in France interpreted the 1820 and 1822 decisions as if everyone was now allowed to actually believe Heliocentrism is true.

Mexicans in the US (Illegally entered and those Firemen to Texas back in July)

Pope Leo Said Something BASED About IMMIGRATION???
Scholastic Answers | 15.X.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFBnV0HoO_g

11:33 With all respect to Nick Fuentes, do you think AAS 1943 disproves Mussolini's feminist motivation for war in Ethiopia?

The Rota had applications from Ethiopia for annulments of marriages conducted under duress, in reference to the Ethiopian custom of bride rapine, and the Rota concluded that force could not be proven, i e the custom didn't work the way Italians imagined, girls were actually free to reject a suitor who had kidnapped them, it was just very frowned on and could cost them other marriage opportunities.

20:20 Videos on what ICE agents have done exist and the man you consider Pope is fluent in American English.

22:57 In LA ... should US or CA patriotism prime?

A Latino immigrant is a stranger to a man from NYC. But to a man from LA, he may be what a Canadian or Irishman is in NYC.

23:30 A citizen in LA has a duty of obedience to both Newsom and Trump.

Between them, it would seem that Trump has misjudged the case.

1) A man (actually a Latino citizen from LA) thought that 8 times as fast deportations were needed.
2) In a part of what has happened so far, it seems Trump is going twice as fast as Biden, and obviously it's already hurting.

One can hardly claim the girl who sang El pendón estrellado was not a patriot. It is true that CA has English as official language. But California Proposition 63 was voted into law as late as 1986.

Michael Felix

@b00g3rs21

It's not obedience to Newsom or Trump, it's obedience to the law.

I don't understand what you mean by Trump has "misjudged the case".

You provide no reasoning for why you think "the girl who sang El pendón estrellado was not a patriot."

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@b00g3rs21 There is a very good case to be made that ICE is in constant violation of the law or was a month or two ago. Perhaps the situation calmed down since.

If someone crosses the border without the paper work in order first, there are two ways of obeying the law, namely deportation or allowing the paper work to be done retroactively. In some cases ICE agents came after people who were just that day going to get the Green card.

I did not say that she was not a patriot. I said "One can hardly say that" etc.

She sang that on some stadium (forget which exact sport) in specific support of Latino migrants. As a Latino citizen from LA and a patriot. In other words, patriots come in pro-immigration flavours too.

Michael Felix

@hglundahl You passively state there is a case to be made, if there's a case make it, don't wave your hands to some illusory abstract as though it's concrete. If there was a valid case of ICE violating the law, you can rest assured it DEFINITELY would have been brought.

You're conflating legal immigration with illegal entry, in general Americans are pro immigration, but not illegal entry.

Jack

@CatholicismRules

“Allowing the paper work to be done retroactively.”

If someone is driving a semi-truck, I don’t care if they were going to get licensed later that day or later that hour. Someone needs to get them off the road.

If someone breaks the law to enter the country illegally, I don’t care when they were planning on getting their paperwork, especially because that just incentivizes even more illegal immigration/invasion.

Do you want people driving semi-trucks in expectation of maybe someday getting their license? Or people practicing medicine because they’re in undergrad, hoping to go to med school and residency one day?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CatholicismRules The licence is not simply a permission, it's a permission contingent on learning certain things.

A man who has been in the US for ten years without a green card very arguably knows more about what to do and what not to do than a man who got his green card one month ago but arrived today.

Your parallel totally breaks down.

There are things you need to know before entering on US American citizenship, like the difference between a state and the union, and each US citizen being dual, like in the old times you were a citizen of Pompeii and of Rome or of Liechtenstein and Holy Roman Empire. There were people who had bothered to go through that process, and who were deported by ICE just the day when being sworn in by the mayor or whereever (mayor would make sense, but could be my bad memory) as citizens.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@b00g3rs21 "You're conflating legal immigration with illegal entry,"

You are conflating illegal entry will illegal activity once entered.

ICE has targetted people who have paid taxes for years.

"if there's a case make it"

I was going to refer to c. 5 or 10 videos about ICE brutality, but I can mention simple facts of detainment without due process. It's admitted.

And no, due process doesn't apply just to people who are citizens or legal residents of the US, by the fact of walking the streets of LA you are subject to the jurisdictions of California and of the Union. Just as I, a citizen of Sweden, by being in Paris am subject to the laws of France. I mention this bec. of one of the bad excuses made about due process not applying.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@CatholicismRules "If someone is driving a semi-truck, I don’t care if they were going to get licensed later that day or later that hour. Someone needs to get them off the road."

You are even wrong on semi-trucks.

If someone is planned to get his licence later that day, he has already learned all he needs to be on the road, and he could exceedingly well be on his way to the driving school, as a prerequisite for getting his licence there.

Driving schools don't allow pupils to drive with things on the road before they have mastered certain skills on simulators or on safe "road stretches" off the road system. And they very certainly don't allow pupils to get their licence weeks or months ahead of doing that stuff.

24:20 Clermont Ferrant. Deus vult (phrase as such debated). Were Crusaders profaning the authority of Pope Urban II?

24:20 bis. Germany. You know when. Were people distributing Mit brennender Sorge profaning the authority of Pius XI?

29:37* Notably, employers (and landlords) have no right to do what landlords in Ireland did to tenants during those years 1847 to 1853.

"No, potatoes were on the contract, wheat wasn't ...."

Wheat being at that point the thing that could keep them from starving to death. Potatoes being for the moment out.

33:08 Verbal quibble. "Underexaggerate" .... I suppose you meant "underemphasise" ...

Meanwhile, on immigration. The man you call Pope Leo has said deportations as ongoing are off limits. Is the one rational objective to have all illegally entering out of the borders, or could one achieve some reasonable goals by opening up ghost towns and hoping for voluntary resettling, with special perks to illegal immigrants and to homeless?

Like if many ghost towns are in the Mid West, far from Rio Grande, a Latino who choses to resettle there is not very suspect of going back and forth across the border with illegal substances for one thing.

Could some goals be achieved by making regularisation of employments more easy? There are two sides to this. You don't want a Latino immigrant to steal jobs from workers who receive the legal pay and perks. Some leftists don't want Latinos kicked out who work cheap for them (like a Lutheran "episcopissa" except that word actually meant a bishop's wife in the old church). Don't kick them out. Don't keep them underpaid. Get them registered for social rights (like pension payments and so on). Also has the upside that an immigrant worker who achieves stability is less likely to take to crime for the sake of finally getting some decent income.

Meanwhile, Latinos, but not immigrants. Mexico sent help to Texas, and now Mexico is suffering. Has the US offered to return the favour?

34:09 As you may know, that "profession of faith" is from 1990. I converted in 1988.**

37:19 When it comes to deportations (as opposed to simple rejections at the border) in this mass application, if you think Leo is Pope or Francis was Pope ... why oppose what they say, rather than work around it.

Can I bring up music history? The Church banned secular musicians who performed on streets from using cadences used in Church music, and as these were typically in Doric, Frygian, Mixolydian, Lydian, Plagal or Authentic, secular musicians came up with using way more Aeolic and Ionic, also known as ... Minor and Major. Can you say secular music lost from obedience?

* He had praised Rerum Novarum.
** I made a different profession of faith. "Whatever the Holy Catholic Church Believeth, Teaches and Proclaims to be Revealed by God, that I Believe and Confess."

De Bello Iusto

This War Is EVIL According to the Church
Scholastic Answers | 23.VI.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzKyS1THIno

Trent Horn Answered Pretty Decently to Redeemed Zoomer, Mostly

I studied Protestantism for 20 years. . . I’m not converting. (Reply to ‪@redeemedzoomer6053‬)*
The Counsel of Trent | 2 May 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knw_mypga_s

12:20 It so happens that knowledge of human development still leaves what Aquinas taught about Jesus and Mary extremely exceptional.

He doesn't just say they immediately had rational souls (or perhaps one moment delay with the Blessed Virgin), he says they immediately had the use of reason.

Like, could already consciously pray to God, at the very minimum.

13:29 St. Paul in Romans 1 supports natural theology.

Very arguably that of God turning the universe around Earth each day. Or a few minutes faster. The 24 hours of the Sun being also partly due to an angel taking it the other direction.

Denial of that led to Paley's clockwork / clockmaker analogy, which is basically Deism. St. Thomas could in theory have seen a clockwork, perhaps not actually, but suppose he had ... he would still have preferred saying that the universe was an instrument that God first made (like Stradivarius) and then played (like Paganini).

Again, when you accept long ages, you get very funny views about what the Fall of Adam was. The one possibility that's not a huge no no in Trent Session V is, Adam lived 750 000 years ago as single ancestor of Homo Sapiens, Denisovans and Neanderthals, or even better in this respect even longer ago, so he also is ancestral to Homo erectus, and the fall took place as Genesis 3 describes.

The problem with this view is, not from Trent Session V, but from historicity of Genesis 3. If you argue that Moses saw it in a prophecy, you land with two more questions: why, if so, did Moses' prophecy get the genealogies from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Abraham so wrong? and why did Moses' prophecy describe two people (Adam in Genesis 3 and Cain in Genesis 4) as tilling, sowing, harvesting, if that was 750 000 years ago?

Without a historic Genesis 3, you could ask "did God really say" (!) about Genesis 3:15 which is a major proof text for the Immaculate Conception.

So, Thomas Aquinas and Ken Ham, "même combat" as they say over here in France. Ultimately, Ken Ham hasn't discovered the implications of Genesis 3:15 yet ...

* RZ also accepted a challenge from Scholastic Answers, here they are both on same livestream:

Converting Redeemed Zoomer to CATHOLICISM (ft. RZ)
Scholastic Answers | 1 May 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rrJOQUOxu0

It links to:

The Key to Understanding 'Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus' and Vatican II
Christian B. Wagner | Apr 1 | Updated: Apr 14
https://www.christianbwagner.com/post/the-key-to-understanding-extra-ecclesiam-nulla-salus-and-vatican-ii

Two Things Below the Video By Wagner

The Ignatius Study Bible: Critical Appreciation
Scholastic Answers | 16.I.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asg7IdIdnao

43:45 Have you seen the Lapide commentary where stars being ensouled is refuted with reference to 19th C cosmology or astrophysics?

I think it was the commentary on Day IV.

This was the Lapide comment I could find online, do you have the original text for day IV?

As I recall it, stars being moved by angels is not even mentioned. To some that's a synonym for ensouled stars.

1:07:27 I would say:

• references to the execution are about Jesus and are blasphemous.
• references to the disciple of Joshua Ben Pekharia have been taken as about Jesus, and have therefore become blasphemous, but I think they could be about Odin (the man who came to Uppsala presenting himself as a god), and therefore have not been originally blasphemous. Nor have they been taken as about Jesus by all Jews (except the Russian ones).

In connection with the latter, I thinks the Sons of Zebedee had a father who once was believed to be Thor. Before he repented.

He called them boanerges (this means "moo-makers" or "bullroarers" in Greek) because "sons of Thunder" (the explanation is not of the etymology of boanerges as a word, since that is clear).

Reconstruction:
Jesus: hey, sons of Thor!
James and John: nooooooooooooooo ...!!!!!!
Jesus: OK, sorry, oxmoaners, then!

[Most other questions, I agree with Wagner. Except he mispronounces Migne.]

[This latter comment brought me some online harrassment:

In this case the Commie could be a Catholic:

What would you call a parody of the bride riding a good candidate for the Scarlet Beast?]

What's in Newman or Tyrrell? They Are Not the Same.

Evolution of Dogma is Orthodox
Scholastic Answers | 12 Jan. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhlhHj7kPxM

I entirely agree with the quotes given.

I do not agree with considering Deep Timers who maybe even hold Adam had Evolutionary ancestry, or people who hold to all of modern cosmology, way beyond Heliocentrism in 1820 (which was already erroneous) are doing Homogeneous Evolution of Dogma.

They are guilty of transformation.

Creation Ministries International, Answers in Genesis and a few more, while inheriting transformations of the 16th C., are on the topic of how to understand God as Creator and the exegesis of Genesis 1 to 11, the ones who are doing homogeneous evolution of dogma.

So am I. St. John did not explicitly state in Apocalypse 7:1 that the four corners are:

• Alaska (like Point Barrow)
• Cape Horn

in the West and

• NE Siberia (like Anadyr)
• Hobart, Tasmania, Commonwealth of Australia

in the East.

B U T stating this is totally homogeneous with everything that Bible and Church have said about Apocalypse 7:1. So, I venture, is the idea of this being a prophecy about an end times conversion of the Jews.

Trudging on in a Quagmired Video: Five More Minutes

First Forty Minutes where Scholastic Answers at least partly Misjudges the Case of Jake Brancatella · Ten More Minutes · Trudging on in a Quagmired Video: Five More Minutes

Same video as previous two.

50:09 He did not ask about the code of canon law, he asked about the canon law.

It was 14 / 12.

That was also the minimal age in Spain back in 1910. In civil law.

[previous was taken away before I posted next:]

50:55

SIIIG
The age of disposing the affairs of other in the [W]est was much higher than 12. Other people like Basil give ages of adulthood like 21.

Imagine a boy of 14 and a girl of 12 marry. By consummating the marriage, they are disposing the affairs of their own bodies.

Once a child reaches 7, the boy is by then at least a man of 21, so, he has reached the age of disposing of others, as by Aristotle, St. Thomas, and apparently also St. Basil.

As to "adulthood" in fact it is even today a thing that varies according to subject. In some states of the US, you can vote before you can drink alcohol outside the home and parental supervision.

[previous was taken away before I posted next:]

51:31 The Roman Empire had marital age legally at 14 / 12 since Caesar Augustus.

Among early Christians, according to a statistic I have mislaid the link for, c. 20 % of the women were married by 12. Basically none before 11. Among Pagan Romans this was not so, you have a gravestone in Vaison la Romaine for a wife who married at age 10 ... and didn't live too long after that.

In traditional Judaism (which is not inerrant, but which shares heritage with the Catholic truth), a girl between 12 + 1 day and 12 + 6 months + 1 day had a complex situation, but from 12 + 6 months + 1 day she could marry "on her own authority" (I think this means she's pronouncing the "I do" or what corresponds), and before 12 (this is erroneous of course) she could marry with the father signing the marriage contract for her.

In Nordic countries, it was more like 14 or beyond, but this is due to the fact that before electricity and imports from more southern countries, the light and vitamin levels were so low that puberty used to be delayed. Hence, St. Bridget marries at 13 (possible according to canon law) but her husband Ulf Gudmarsson waits till she's 14.

In the 19th C. in Nordic countries and UK, puberty was considered normal only from 15 or 16, given the climactic factor. Puberty blockers were not developed by the trans-agenda, but by doctors obeying this prejudice against "precocious" puberty, and delaying puberty to what they consider a more normal age.

The probable reason why the mother of St. Francis of Sales married as late as 14 was that Savoy nobility had some Burgundian heritage, and Burgundians come from Nordic countries, more precisely from Bornholm, short for "Burgundarholmr" and that's one of the islands of Denmark, East of Zealand, and the one major island of Denmark that's as far East as South Sweden.

When Deenresponds asks "So what was the age of adulthood for the early church?" he's presuming there is a uniform "age of adulthood" common to caring for affairs of others (like running a business) and marrying (which certainly doesn't count as "caring for affairs of others" before c. 8 years after marriage is consumed, not sure if being a parent ever counted as that).

52:44 "you're doing a massive taweel"

I checked Islamweb:

The term Ta'weel is used to denote different meanings, which Shaykh Ibn ʻUthaymeen may Allaah have mercy upon him explained, saying:

"Note: It is deduced that Ta'weel has three different meanings:

The first meaning is: Tafseer (explanation and elucidation), and this is the definition of the term according to the Tafseer scholars. This meaning is clear in the supplication of the Prophet, sallallaahu ʻalayhi wa sallam, for Ibn ʻAbbaas may Allaah be pleased with him: 'O Allaah! Grant him profound understanding of the religion and teach him the Ta'weel (Tafseer of the Quran).' This meaning is known by scholars in relation with the verses about the divine attributes of Allaah and others.

The second meaning is: the reality of how something will occur and its result. This meaning is deduced from the usage of the word Ta'weel in the Quran and Sunnah. For instance, Allaah, The Exalted, says (what means):

- {Do they await except its Ta'weel (result/fulfillment)?} [Quran 7:53]

- {That is good (advantageous) and better in Ta'weel (in the end).} [17:35]

Ta'weel of the verses about the divine attributes of Allaah, in this sense, means to be aware of the true reality of these attributes, and this knowledge is exclusively possessed by Allaah.

The third meaning is: figurative interpretation, that is changing the meaning of the words and interpreting them in a way that does not conform to their literal meaning. In other words, taking a word away from its apparent meaning. This definition is held by the late scholars of ʻIlm Al-Kalaam (Scholastic theology) and others. This type can be divided into two categories: praiseworthy and blameworthy. If there is a textual proof to support it, then it is praiseworthy. For instance, Allaah, The Exalted, says (what means): {So if you recited the Quran, seek refuge in Allaah from Satan, the expelled (from His mercy).} [Quran 16:98] The intended meaning of the verse is, 'When you wish to recite the Quran, (first) seek refuge with Allaah from Satan...' If there is no textual proof to support it, then it is blameworthy, such as interpretation of the Istiwaa' of Allaah over The Throne as to denote seizing and controlling, and His Hand as to denote His power and grace, and the like."

[previous two were taken away before I posted next:]

53:41 Deenresponds probably thought you could immediately see his chat comment "what was the age of adulthood in the early Church" ...

53:53 The Cappadocians and Emenius (of Edessa?) established an age of 16 ...

For what exact adulthood? Like now there are different adulthoods for learning to drive, being able to drink, being able to vote ... what exact age were the Cappadocians establishing as 16?

Marital age or another one?

Plus I have seen St. Basil's canons for monks abused by Kollyvites (look it up!) as some kind of canon law for laymen.

You are aware that a man who has killed in battle, even if justly and even when confessing, unless he is in the danger of dying without communion has to abstain for one week from Communion? Well, Kollyvites made this 3 years, based on a decision St. Basil made for monks

I would not be the least surprised if SIIIG* were referring to an age relevant for entry into the monastic life. This is not automatically the same age as minimal age for marriage.

If we check Supplementum Q 58 A 5:

Objection 2. Further, just as the tie of religion is perpetual so is the marriage tie. Now according to the new legislation (cap. Non Solum, De regular. et transeunt.) no one can be professed before the fourteenth year of age. Therefore neither could a person marry if defective age were an impediment.

Reply to Objection 2. The same answer applies, since the religious vow is about matters outside the inclination of nature, and which offer greater difficulty than marriage.

Now, this looks back to "ad primum" ..

Objection 1. It would seem that deficient age is not an impediment to marriage. For according to the laws children are under the care of a guardian until their twenty-fifth year. Therefore it would seem that before that age their reason is not sufficiently mature to give consent, and consequently that ought seemingly to be the age fixed for marrying. Yet marriage can be contracted before that age. Therefore lack of the appointed age is not an impediment to marriage.

Reply to Objection 1. In matters to which nature inclines there is not required such a development of reason in order to deliberate, as in other matters: and therefore it is possible after deliberation to consent to marriage before one is able to manage one's own affairs in other matters without a guardian.

And note, "in matters to which nature inclines" pretty definitely destroys your idiocy about 14 / 12 being only for matrimonia rata nondum consummata. Nature most definitely does NOT incline to waiting with the consummation, once puberty is reached.

* If it was he. Can't find the popup from the chat right now ...

55:20 1) You actually bumped into a debate involving Muslims, voluntarily.
2) Your knowledge of sacramentology is highly defective on this issue.

No, you don't Jake is wrong.

[My comments are taken down before next action, if it doesn't show because the screen is not rebooted, the taken down comment is one one cannot comment below]

Grgur Ivas

@CroElectroStile

based

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

Totally unbased, and on top of that, he keeps taking down new comments of mine after I had barely gone through even half of the video.

[All previous comments from today have been taken down by now]

Chris Knox

@Aspiring3033

@MilitantThomist your shoes are great & very enjoyable & very helpful particularly as I was welcomed into the Catholic faith as a former Protestant last Easter. So I know you love St Thomas & Pope St Pius the X & I was think when you said Pius didn’t want Catholics to read bible that would cause them to be led astray. So I thought something that would be based to do one day. Would be to have a bible with annotations & notes on key passages from both St Thomas & Pope st Pius X who loved st Thomas! An Aquinas & Pius X study bible, I think it would be based. Any way God bless you & your family & all that you put your hand to.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"when you said Pius didn’t want Catholics to read bible that would cause them to be led astray."

You mean Bible without commentary?

I highly doubt that he said Bible, even with commentary.

[And the comments under Grgur Ivas and Chris Knox can no longer be accessed, even if they are counted]

Why is Michael II the real Pope?

Mostly letting him and his interviewers speak for themselves:

"I am the REAL Pope"
Scholastic Answers | 27.VIII.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhJ_0BFpqsI

Footnotes on my part:

23:27 "Pius XIII" was some time known better than Michael I.

When I was Palmarian, I came to discuss this issue with His Holiness, the late Pope Michael I, more than a decade before I accepted him.

David Allen Bawden convened a physical election in 1990, and took the name Michael when elected.

Pulvermacher convened a virtual election in 1998 (so, eight years later) and took the name Pius XIII when "elected" ...

Pope Michael I had three reasons against Pulvermacher's election:

• there already was a Pope (Michael I)
• Pulvermacher made use of the pendulum, for Pulvermacher it can be said the Curate of Ars used it, but Pope Michael I insisted Pius XII had enumerated the pendulum among superstitious practises
• the "conclave" was virtual, there was no way to verify all or even most participants were bona fide Catholics.

Pulvermacher died before Michael I, and had no successor.

RtHonLimbu forgot Linus II, an FSSPX priest who arranged an election and then stepped back (Victor von Pentz, I think he's called). That one was also after 1990, so, both von Pentz and Pulvermacher found fault with Michael I being elected by laymen, and perhaps even with his being at the time a layman. Pope Michael I was ordained priest and consecrated bishop only in 2011 or Advent of the Church year 2012, the Gaudete weekend. Pulvermacher's fault with von Pentz was that he had been in communion with "John Paul II" ... since he stepped back, von Pentz has also died, the year before Pope Michael I, actually.

50:08 Jacobus I have only heard of very lately, just the last weeks.

I wonder if he's the Father Thiago (Santiago = Sanctus Iacobus) of the Carmelite sisters.

I sent him an email asking why he thought he was more legitimate than Michael II.

51:09 I am not sure if animé and manga are as great in the Philippines as in Japan, China and Korea.

54:08 — 55:14

"I issued already my uh statement uh when uh Israel uh bombarded Hamas um in my uh statement I said that uh they should uh respect each other's territory uh War cannot uh help but uh everything are actually losers in war so with that uh regard uh we have to respect the uh Palestinian with their uh own uh territory and uh Israelites with their uh territory uh I am not uh after of uh the position of whether I'm a Zionist or not what's important is uh peaceful uh coexistence"

Vivat!

Ten More Minutes

First Forty Minutes where Scholastic Answers at least partly Misjudges the Case of Jake Brancatella · Ten More Minutes · Trudging on in a Quagmired Video: Five More Minutes

Same video.

41:24 No, no.

The marriage would not be immoral, provided neither was already married or in consecrated celibacy.

And consummating it would also not be immoral.

41:29 "Disposing the affairs of others" does not refer to marriage.

You are basically stating that St. Thomas argued a man could marry a girl of twelve when both of them were in puberty, but still had to wait till she was 25.

Idiocy. 13 years of unconsummated marriage is inhuman, if both are physically capable of coitus.

When a child is procreated, the spouses are disposing of themselves, it is God who is disposing about the child.

The boy has reached the age to dispose of himself at 14, the girl supposedly due to lesser perfection overall reaches that perfection at 12, a little before the end of the second seven years.

This is, note it well, still today the medium age of puberty, 12 plus some month for girls, 14 plus some months for boys.

And pretending from "25, age of disposing of others" that it would be immoral to consummate marriage at this age is tantamount to making God, as creator of our organisms, the originator of temptation.

Disposing of others doesn't in this context even mean one's own children. They are nearly strictly one's own affair. If one isn't very clearly with very good proof convicted of incest or of murder with one's children, Medieval justice has no intereference with your children, oh, one more, if they are baptised and you are not Catholic (like if you have fallen into heresy or sth like the Mortara case).

If you are a master and you are not paying your journeymen, or lord of the manor and overcharge the villeines in labour days, they can sue you.

But if you are someone's child, you can even to this day not sue your parents for not giving you the usual amount (in your school) of pocket money.

This fact alone should dispose of the idiotic argument that "disposing of others" would include having children.

The wife of St. Lewis IX was 12 or 13 when they married in 1234, and even if their oldest daughter was born 8 years later in 1241, the waiting was not mandatory. Rather, they had pretty different characters.

St. Bridget was 13, she married in 1316, and her oldest child was born in 1319. Are you saying she was sinning since neither she nor her husband had reached 25?

41:40 "you wouldn't be able to dispose of your household"

A wife of 12 would indeed not have been able to sell a house or even rent out a hut without consulting her husband.

But 25 does not refer to raising children. "Pueri naturaliter sunt aliquid parentis" ... they are not the kind of other party that could sue you.

42:23 "the governance of family and provisions in the twenty-fifth"

Meaning, not that a husband between 14 and 25 had no right to make children, just that he was still under a tutor.

43:24 I think you may be reading from CIC 1917.

It was raised that year.

Or not. I e you are not reading from it.

"For the custom of a country is the best interpreter of the natural law in matters of this kind"

NEITHER in 1917 canon 1067 NOR in 1983 canon 1083.

If you are reading from a comment, say so.

Canon 1067
§ 1. A man before completing the sixteenth year of age, and a woman before completing the fourteenth year of age, cannot enter into valid marriage.
§ 2. Although marriage can be validly contracted above the ages, nevertheless, let pastors take care to discourage youth from entering into marriage before that age that, accordng to the accepted manner of the region, they are wont to enter marriage.

Canon 1083
§ 1. A man before he has completed his sixteenth year of age and a woman before she has completed her fourteenth year of age cannot enter into a valid marriage.
§ 2. The conference of bishops is free to establish a higher age for the licit celebration of marriage.

Here is another writing, which is a comment:

Too young to marry
from: Edward Peters, "Too young to marry", America (22-29 Jun 1996) 14-16.
https://www.canonlaw.info/a_tooyoung.htm

"New annulment petitions are assigned by our judicial vicar to the tribunal judges on the first day of the month. Retrieving mine from the shelf, I know before cracking a file that at least one-fourth of my cases will involve a teenage petitioner or respondent. In many months that percentage will exceed one-third, and in a significant number of all cases both the petitioner and respondent will have been teenagers at the time of their wedding. That teenage marriages are markedly prone to failure is not surprising. That modern canon law still considers a 14-year-old ready for marriage is."

So, the guy commenting is in the business of too generous annulments.

Next paragraph says:

"Until 1917, canon law had basically considered anyone above the age of 12 capable of marriage. Thus, when the 1917 Code raised the minimum age for marriage in the church to 14 for girls and 16 for boys (1917 CIC 1067), the change was greeted as an improvement that recognized that something beyond mere reproductive ability was required for Christian marriage."

In other words, Edward Peters, a canonist (that's the only kind of people who deal with annulment petitions!) says that canon law prior to 1917 allowed girls (and according to his words even boys) to marry from age 12.

Now, the problem is not how many annulment petitions come from teen marriages. The real problem is how many teen marriages lead to annulment petitions.

Or, even more basically, how many of them lead to actual annulments. Edward Peters again:

"The idea of children hardly into their adolescent years being allowed to marry is a little embarrassing, and canonists queried on the topic usually reply that very few 14-year-olds get married anymore. Canon law, we add, was meant to apply in a wide variety of cultures, including those in which 14-year-olds marry happily (just where that land is we leave to anthropologists to determine), and in any case, we note, boys cannot marry until they are 16. Obviously, not all questioners are satisfied with these replies."

Anthropologists or historians. Pre-modern times generally. And for that matter, even in the 1980, Christians in Syria could marry from age 14, as that was the marriage age in Syria. In Spain that had changed some time between the beginning and the end of the now past century. If Franco was involved in the change, that would be one more point in his disfavour (I started out adult life as since my teens very pro-Franco).

44:25 Every canon involving validity of marriage is applicable not just to "ratum tantum" but to "ratum et consummatum".

You are not making up the "ratum tantum" category, but you are inventing when you pretend ages 14 to 25 would have only this but no licit "ratum et consummatum" ...

A person aged 9 would not validly enter a ratum tantum marriage, unless very precocious, because not yet able to make it a consummatum marriage.

46:36 "inducing thereby the impediment of public decorum"

Does NOT mean they are invalid, it does mean they are considered only betrothals up to when consummated.

The impediment of public decorum refers to this being an impediment against marrying someone else not of this being an impediment to that marriage itself as soon as it can be naturally consummated.

You have probably read lots more sources than I have, but you have not learned to read them.

46:47 "The marriageable age in France, Italy, Belgium, and Roumania, is eighteen for men, and fifteen for women (France requires also, under penalty of nullity, the consent of parents)."

France changed the parental consent clause earlier, but the age limit as such stood up to 2006, having been lifted from 14 / 12 by Napoleon Bonaparte.

In pre-revolutionary marriages in the families of Lafayette and his wife, women married at 12 and men at 14 existed.

The requirement of parental consent was, both in kingdom and under Code Napoléon, a heritage from pre-Trent local custom as part of the council was not promulgated in France. Jesuits, as we see from "Place Royale" by Corneille (the square is now known as "Place des Vosges") were circumvening the requirement by marrying young people anyway, and the marriages were then defended, as divorcing them would be a sacrilege.

France 1900 is not equal to France 1200—1300 when St. Thomas was writing. The question you responded to was not whether Napoleon was a pedophile, but whether St. Thomas was one.

48:04 Jake very much did read the material correctly, since these episcopal conferences adapting to secular legislation are adapting to norms that were put into place centuries AFTER St. Thomas Aquinas.

48:48 Again, you are referring to modern conditions.

Leo XIII in Arcanum Divinae makes it clear that secular legislation is basically meant to reflect canon law.

49:29 I'm glad ScholasticZoomer has some sense.

And again, 25 as per governing of household is not so much a fact of canon law as of civil law at the time.

The correct age for marriage as per St. Thomas is 14 / 12. Minimum age, that is.

50:01 As said, 25 was legislation of emperors, 21 was the opinion of Aristotle.

And if you are a girl married at 12 and giving birth at or close to 13 that's when your first child is 8. Especially as your spouse is 14 at marriage and 21 when the child is 6, if he also married at minimum age.

So, no, marriages contracted and consumed at 12 are not problematic this way.

Not even if "governing rational beings" had involved own children, which it actually didn't, legally speaking.

First Forty Minutes where Scholastic Answers at least partly Misjudges the Case of Jake Brancatella

First Forty Minutes where Scholastic Answers at least partly Misjudges the Case of Jake Brancatella · Ten More Minutes · Trudging on in a Quagmired Video: Five More Minutes

Jake Brancatella is WRONG... (Ft. SIIIG)
Scholastic Answers | 24.VIII.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWyTTmrc5IM

2:46 As neither Muhammed nor Aisha were baptised, sacramental validity would be irrelevant.

It seems noteworthy that Medieval Christians weren't critiquing Muhammed for Aisha's age, more like for polygamy.

3:42 "it's usually someone who's a creep and a weirdo"

Is that so when Sweden has 15 and UK 18 as age of consent and this contradicts even the canon law of 1917, not to speak of the canon law prior to that?

6:19 "mature"

If St. Thomas differred between Sentences commentary and Summa, we can treat the statement in the Summa (for instance, creation days as actual days, compared to his earlier preference for one moment creation) as more mature, as it is his final word.

This doesn't mean we can dismiss his judgement in Sentences Commentary or presumably even earlier (if genuine) Postilla in Libros Geneseos as immature, generally speaking.

If his last word on a topic is from the Commentary, and then this was reused in the Supplementum, this was his last word, the last word of the doctor of the Church.

If his last word (if any) was even earlier (like Postilla mentioning the Tower of Genesis 11 could be a militarised skyline rather than a skyscraper), that was his last word and should also not be dismissed, even if he was still among the Benedictines of Roccasecca.

Yes, I know I might be a minority of one in preferring to see Postilla as genuinely Thomasic.

7:31 Validity is not just a question of sacramental validity but also contractual validity, and therefore falls under the category of capacity for contracting a contract.

11:45 Let's be real.

Medieval dates of specific people are often irretrievable when it comes to exact dates.

In seven female* lineages, the dates I could find on wiki, the birth year would be given with a "c." meaning at least the two neighbouring AD years are possible, and the year of marriage would furthermore often not give exact dates, so there is a third year of variability depending on whether the woman was married before or after her birthday that year.

The median age for female marriage was therefore variable between 14 and 17 depending on accuracy or otherwise of the sources.

But, even on the idea of taking every age at the top of variability (i e median = 17), there were 32 % married before 15. That's not late teens, that's early teens. St. Bridget was married at 13, and the marriage was consumed at 14.

Couples of equal age certainly existed, but so did couples where the husband was ten or sometimes even 20 years older. For the parents of St. Francis of Sales, the husband was significantly older than the 14 year old bride, and the saint was born the year after the marriage, so there was no long delay in consuming it. The saint's father of the same name (sometimes with addition "de Thonon") was old enough to recall when Calvinism didn't exist.

The saint was born in 1567.

His father would have been at least sth like 14 years old when Calvin in 1535 went to Basel. So, at latest born 1521.

67 - 21 = 45, at 44 (at youngest) he was married to a 14 year old.

* Seven Female Lineages, Seventyone Women, High or Classic Middle Ages
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2024/07/seven-female-lineages-seventyone-women.html

22:55 Would a marriage while in mortal sin be sacrilegious, if the mortal sin was one one was combatting by marriage?

27:33 It must be kept in mind, there was one impediment of age, and that one nullifying.

There was not another impediment of age when it came to liceity.

It must also be kept in mind that St. Thomas is defending papal legislation. Canon law is an even higher authority than St. Thomas, at least when it comes to precepts.

I'm not sure how recent the papal legislation was, but it could have come as a reaction against John Lackland's daughter being married off at 11 to the King of Scotland, being forced to consume the marriage and suffering a miscarriage. Her brother brought her back to England.

I am however sure that marriages that were rata tantum were being done as low age as 9 in the lineages we are talking about.

32:03 "this is fourteen" — in males.

Supplementum Q 58 A 5, 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.

33:03 "things that are outside him"' = like running a family business.

Marriage specifically is about deliberating oneself about the own person.

You would be highly dishonest to argue from age requirements of running your own business or administrating your own heritage to the same requirements being applicable for liceity or prudence of a marriage, except perhaps in the hsuband, insofar as he's the breadwinner.

However, since it's now common for breadwinners to be simple employees, who are not obliged to deliberate about the company, even that is not quite applicable.

Marriage is both valid and morally licit from the age of 14 / 12, except perhaps if the 1917 code raised it to 16 / 14.

33:35 It would stand to reason that husbands aged 14 are typically either royalty / nobles or shepherds, in which cases someone else definitely is governing the larger household (court or village) in which they live.

It could also occur among employees if the employer provided household facilities.

But procreating children being the natural end of marriage is a thing which definitely does not require this mature a judgement. This is a thing to which nature most pushes, and therefore does not require all that much deliberation, because there is not much room for uncertainty.

As to educating children, let's distinguish babies and schoolboys.

With a teen mother of 13 at the birth, she'll be 18 (towards the end of the third seven) when the boy or girl is even five, let alone 7 (school starting age in Sweden) when she'll be 20.

While chosing a school requires mature deliberation, changing diapers doesn't. Or breastfeeding. "I'll feed from my right breast because I consulted the horoscope" (which back then would have been a case of deliberation!) is definitely over the top. Feeding from the right or the left breast is not all that important.

And being chatty (like telephone bills of unmarried teen girls tend to suggest) is if anything a huge asset in teaching the infants to talk as they become toddlers.

34:16 No, this is not going to be the mere ratification.

St. Thomas very clearly speaks of marriage ratum ET consummatum.

Why? Because a ratum marriage is contracted by verba de praesenti, which means that it's meant to be consumed usually pretty straight off.

A longer waiting period was actual weird cases with nobles who could pull off a marriage that was ratum at an age which is more suitable for betrothal. Like, yes it occurs, at 9.

34:38 Age 25 implies the capacity of giving orders to beings with their own will, not a requirement to take care of toddlers or even 5 year olds.

Obviously, if a man is winning his bread as master of a trade in which mere journeymen are unmarried (and the journeymen who never become masters remain unmarried), very obviously such a man is not a breadwinner until 25, the age at which he can be master.

Unlike a shepherd (who could be doing this for the village since he was 7) or unlike a royalty or noble who's position is winning his bread.

35:12 Who says nobles are "weird cases"?

In the case of townspeople, being master of the trade was often required of the husband, as a breadwinner.

But in the case of villeines, in the time of St. Thomas it was far from a weird case if the lord of the manor decided to cut down some woods and create a new village and the first owners of land would be young couples.

Confer the US in 1860. Teen marriages would be much more common on the West, among new settlers, than one the East Coast in old towns or cities. That's available census data.

35:26 "this was spoken against during this time"

For clergy, I believe you.

For marriage, I would like an example. A source. I don't think you can get one as authoritative as Canon law or even as authoritative as St. Thomas.

37:07 When St. Thomas spoke of positive law, he pretty certainly meant Church law.

It's well into Modern Ages when states begin to have marital laws distinct from it.

When it comes to 21, in Austria before the World War, a man or a woman could marry at 21, but a woman as low as 14 with parental consent.

Obviously, that rule was not from the Babenberg era or early Habsburg era of Austria.*

France had 14 / 12 as law up to Napoleon who changed it to 18 / 15.

* St. Thomas lived in Paris basically during the time between the Babenberg and Habsburg rules in Austria.

Als Österreichisches Interregnum bezeichnet man die Zeit zwischen 1246 und 1256 bzw. 1278 oder 1282. Das ist jener Zeitraum, in dem in Österreich die Babenberger ausstarben und die Habsburger an die Macht kamen.

37:18, Gregory IX, thank you.

So between 1227 and 1241.

38:15 St. Thomas is saying that if a girl actually consumes marriage at 10, even though that is below the age requirement 12 (later on a Pope would to a Pole specify such wavering could only go down to 11 and a half), this consummation proves the maturity, so the marriage is not dissolved. Or if a boy consumes it at 13 or even 12.

The dissolution would only be of marriages just ratified but not consumed, but the non-dissolution would be typically of marriages consumed as the consummation proves the bodily maturity.

38:27 If they do not have the bodily maturity to perform a coitus, how could they even attempt to consume the marriage?

39:07 Yes, here St. Thomas outright said that the actual coitus is more important than whether one has reached the "age of" puberty. The 14 / 12 limit.

How many times does he have to repeat it and you still miss the point?

Citing St. Thomas:

"if someone should arrive at the required maturity before the time established, such that the strength of his nature and his reason should supply the defect of age, the marriage is no dissolved, and therefore of the parties contracting before the age of puberty were joined sexually before the age established the marriage would nevertheless stand as indissolvable."

Citing you, beginning a bit before 38:23

"before this bodily maturity is reached, they attempt to consummate the marriage, that would be not a consummation"

If the man had neither rise nor ejaculation, sure.

Citing you again, 39:19 "but if bodily maturity [occurs] before this age, it would be dissolvable, because it would be merely ratified, not consummated"

You are contradicting St. Thomas.

40:43 "this is canonical minors"

No, under 25 is minors in the laws of the EMPERORS. Not in the laws of the POPES.

Original video of Jake Brancatella, with my answer to the title and description:

Why Jay Dyer Dodged This Question...
Jake Brancatella | 23.VIII.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gL4eIebZ2s

No, he's not.

He was asexual. More specifically, he prayed for asexuality and got it.

He also never advocated for coitus before the physical occurrence of puberty, meaning he is not pedophile by proxy either.

He put the age limits a but higher up than Mohammed did.

1:16 The only criticism I know that St. Thomas made about your prophet's marriages is, polygamy.

3:49 Correct definition of paedophilia is, sexual attraction, exclusive or predominant, to beings who have not yet bled in the case of girls, not yet had an ejaculation, in the case of boys.

Certain other definitions come from feminism and from communism.

It's a bad day when Christians accept such incorrect definitions.

4:30 I don't share your view of Samuel Shamoun, but I will give you a point for consistence.

The attack on Muslims you describe doesn't come from Christianity, but from Soviets and Putinism.

5:16 It's not just about St. Thomas Aquinas, it's about a Church law by Pope Gregory IX.

We cannot be so advanced in science that we can restrospectively say that discipline of Apostles or legitimate successors (like that Pope) and that over centuries (so, not a temporary fad) is restrospectively wrong.

“Good and evil have not changed since yesteryear, nor are they one thing among Elves and another among Men. It is a man's part to discern them, as much in the Golden Wood as in his own house.”

-Aragorn to Eomer

5:33 In fact, since St. Thomas was canonised, in Avignon by John XXII, in 1323, he is at least for certain types of persons (monks, friars, theologians etc) an example for all remaining times up to doomsday.

6:50 Jay Dyer is like Orthodox?

I think it was Czar Nicolas II who raised the age from 14 / 12 to 15 / 13.

It was Vladimir Lenin who raised it to 18 / 18.

Are Jay Dyer's holier relics in a Cathedral or a Mausoleum?

Bishop Williamson Closed by Reminding of the Rosary (Even for Non-Catholics)

BANNED Bishop Williamson Tells ALL…
Scholastic Answers | 16.VIII.2024 ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHWFLbgqXzg

14:02 Perhaps unusually for a Conclavist, I'm actually taking Garabandal seriously.

Despite recalling it was part of Garabandal message which included "there is no other pope whom to obey" spoken of Paul VI.

1) While Popes Michael I and II certainly believe that Paul VI was an Antichrist and Antipope, it's sufficient for them being Popes if the ones from Wojtyla on weren't, and I'm not sure they made a formal definition of those times being times of Sedevacancy;
2) the wording "there is no other pope whom to obey" is not directly saying "Paul VI is the pope" — why is that if he was the Pope? The wording could have been directed against Palmarians, or rather, since prior to 1978, against Jean-Gaston Tremblay, perhaps if early enough even against Michel Collin.

20:14 "they were not firing on evidence, they were firing on something else, obedience" ...

Sounds like an excellent description of Old Earth Creationists who came to this position after carbon dating.

Classic Old Earth Creationism means, yes, millions of years prior to Adam, perhaps, but 6 to 7 or at most streching Genesis 11 a great bit, 10 millennia since Adam.

Carbon dated bones of clearly human persons dating to 47 000 BP is only possible if the atmosphere was very young in their day, or if they actually were living 47 000 BP, both of which go against Old Earth Creationism, and the first doesn't go against Young Earth Creationism.

21:11 I think His Excellency would be speaking of Heroldsbach and of San Damiano. For Germany and Italy.

I'm less sure about where in Austria.

I found a reference to Bad St. Leopold im Lavantal, which petered out and then this:

"Absam, Luggau und Marbach"

https://www.krone.at/2980505

Could it have been Marbach?

25:42 Theilhard was a false mixture, true enough.

He was enabled by Institut Catholique de Paris, guess why I am not interested in studying there.

In 5th Arrondissment, there are pretty close to each other and close to rue Mouffetard, the streets of Calvin and of Theilhard.

Calvin was a great believer in necessity, and I sometimes go to his street from necessity (it has a public toilet). But I shun the Theilhard street pretty consistently.

26:04 If Theilhard was one of the main reasons for Vatican II, what was the main reason for Theilhard?

I mentioned Institut Catholique de Paris, and I could go further and point to Fr. Émile Mangenot, who, in his article on Hexaëmeron, in 1920, with imprimatur from the archbishop (or at least imprimi potest), rejected:

• YEC
• Day Age
• Gap Theory

and instead put:

• Framework theory.

30:39 — 31:16

lay women have no business to be taking part in the selection of priests God lovely women they need to marry they need to have children and poor things they refused children today which is why they're going crazy and forcing themselves into the direct director's positions in all the men's Enterprises because they're not given children to keep to keep them for them to occupy and to do what God wants of them which is to have children God's purpose is to populate not depopulate these depopulaters are criminals they don't know it many of them but they are they're violating the will of God for the whole of creation the whole purpose of creation is to send souls to heaven for their own sake

[primarily for the glory of God, secondarily for their own sake]

lovely!

39:43 Mgr Williamson basically assesses "Paul VI" like Pope Michael I did. And Michael II presumably does too.

Where does that leave the "there is no other pope" quote if it is from Garabandal?

Can my analysis of it be acceptable?

44:33 "no desire to adapt to the criminal modern world"

Except on the issue of Heliocentrism? Distant Starlight, perhaps?

That's what I'm seeing in St. Nicolas du Chardonnet.

Carsonian The Great

@carsonianthegreat4672

Wut

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@carsonianthegreat4672 1) You are perhaps aware that St. Nicolas du Chardonnet is a Church run by an FSSPX parish in Paris?
2) You may not know that I was one of their parishioners?
3) You might therefore not know that part of the conflict that drove me away from the parish involved me being Geocentric and Distant Starlight isn't all that Distant, and no problem for YEC?

46:27 Gotthard Base Tunnel, 2016.

Volker Hesse was the director. Did "Nathan der Weise" by Lessing 33 years earlier.

48:02 "Williamson made numerous similar statements in the southeastern Minnesota city of Winona, where he was rector of the St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary between 1988 and 2003, the newspaper reported."

That's ten years after David Bawden was dismissed from a US SSPX seminary in 1978, Armada, not Winona.

50:52 I'm not sure it is, either way.

I don't think it matters all that much.

51:33 In disfavour of the moonlanding, the van Allen belt.

57:35 If a pope is publically wrong on doctrine, how is he not preaching heresy?

If he's preaching heresy, how is he not autodeposed as Nestorius?

59:55 Toasters that can play golf?

Sounds you like Norton Juster.

1:00:26 I wonder if it will ever be impossible to buy and sell without certain things ...
1:05:34 I was debating someone on Quora.

As to Joseph Smith, I left it undecided if he was a conman or deluded by demons taking advantage of his ignorance (or even his opening to them by joining for some time Freemasonry).

Someone asked "why demons?"

He eventually was shown as:

ex-Christian

more specifically ex-Catholic

and [one who] didn't believe demons exist while he was "Catholic" ...

1:12:35 And between the two, a Polish priest was denied to celebrate Mass in the Olympic village, I just heard from Anthony Stine.

1:20:06 Moral rot follows on bad doctrine, cfr Romans 1.

If certain abuses began in the 1940's, could it be because certain priests were not believers in the true God, once they considered He had allowed Adam to be born to non-human progenitors, while already human, which would have been child abuse if true?

1:30:03 to 1:30:31, great quote:

Unity is secondary.

The question of unity is around what are you uniting.

Are you uniting around the truth, Bingo go right ahead!

Are you are you uniting around a mixture of oil and of water and petrol, forget it.

Unity is secondary — it's secondary to truth.

Truth is the correspondence of the mind to reality.

1:42:23 I don't think the cause of defending Ukraine against invasion is a bad one.

People who despise Zelensky still don't want him to lose to Putin.

I don't think Russia's conversion can come with Putin at the head as he's behaving. He has lots of power. He knows there is a demographic crisis/ He asks Russian women "pretty please, don't abort, do us all a favour!" And instead of forbidding abortions which would in some decades solve the problem behind the pension reform, he's trying to shrug off criticism for that by deflecting to Ukraine.

Ukraine was, by the way, consecrated to Our Lady, in its capacity of Kievan Rus. If She asks for the consecration of Russia, She doesn't count Muscovy as main heir of Kievan Rus.