What About Bad Popes?

Refuting Gene Kim on Slow Apostasy and Perhaps More · What About Bad Popes? · McCullough on France · Three Secret Societies and Catholicism their Enemy Misrepresented

Top 10 Worst Popes in History
TopTenz | 21.I.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZTy8l26PJG8

Intro

0:21 "millions have been slaughtered in the name of God" - care to expand on that?

[He didn't, but may have referred to Urban II and Boniface VIII, neither of whom slaughtered millions even indirectly.]

Boniface VIII

2:30 Sacking of Palestrina can not be put down to Boniface VIII.

Leo X

3:59 The indulgences for St. Peter's Basilica were actually given as indulgences precisely for contributions to that goal.

It's not as if he he given indulgences for his own private spending.

4:07 As to homosexuality, wiki only has:

"Suggestions of homosexual attraction appear in works by two contemporary historians, Francesco Guicciardini and Paolo Giovio. Zimmerman notes Giovio's "disapproval of the pope's familiar banter with his chamberlains – handsome young men from noble families – and the advantage he was said to take of them.""

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Leo_X#Sexuality

Francesco Guicciardini was a friend of Macchiavelli - arguably a secularist, hardly interested in defending a pope.

The footnote says:

"Paolo Giovio, De Vita Leonis Decimi Pont. Max., Firenze (1548, 4 vols), written for the Medici Pope Clement VII and completed in 1533; and (covering the years 1492 to 1534) Francesco Guicciardini, Storia d'Italia, Firenze (1561, first 16 books; 1564 full edn. 20 books) written between 1537 and 1540, and published after his death in the latter year. For the characterisation of the relevant passages (few and brief) in these authors, see, e.g., Vaughan 1908, p. 280:- and Wyatt, Michael, "Bibbiena's Closet: Interpretation and the Sexual Culture of a Renaissance Papal Court", comprising chap. 2 of Cestaro, Gary P. (ed.), Queer Italia, London (2004) pp. 35–54 a. To these can be added Zimmerman, T.P., Paolo Giovio: The Historian and the Crisis of Sixteenth-Century Italy, Princeton University Press (1996), citing at p. 23 Giovio's disapproval of the banter. Two pages later Zimmerman notes Giovio's penchant for gossip."

I checked the Latin text of Giovio, it certainly lacks the word "sodomia[m]".

Giovio was a physician, so used to interpreting small signs, perhaps overinterpreting some.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paolo_Giovio

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/scanned/paulo_giovio_de_leonis_x.htm

His dying in bed with a boy might be from one Bale, John Bale, known as Bilious Bale ...

Urban II

5:41 Disagree on First Crusade. It was a defensive war.

Atrocities committed during a war do not always reflect on those who ordered it, unless also leading it.

Urban II at Clermont said nothing about doing atrocities to either Jews or Eastern Schismatics (whom he was trying to help), and for that matter neither about any against Muslim civilians.

Part of what damaged the actual morality of the war effort was bad discipline (Geoffroy of Bouillon notably took three days before succeeding in stopping a massacre, that of Jerusalem), part of it was leaders who were ambitious for own power gains, like Tancred and Bohemond whose grandparents or greatgrandparents or something (perhaps a bit further back, though) had been Pagan Vikings.

Julius III

7:03 You are for "Julius III" showing Raphael's portrait of Julius II. That is, of the predecessor of Leo X.

Your assessment of Julius III may for all that be fairly correct.

Stephen VI / Sergius III

Relating to Formosus trials

9:25 sth, "his ordinations were declared null"

Very good point.

Protestants have argued against Apostolic succession due to schisms in Rome, when Popes have retroactively been declared non-popes - but the succession depends on validity of ordination or episcopal consecration and this can be the case even when the man consecrating held his episcopal or papal functions illegally.

Declaring someone's ordinations and episcopal consecrations null is an extra, it doesn't follow from someone being an Antipope. This means earlier and later Antipopes can - as well, obviously as real Popes and all real bishops also not Pope or not even bishop of a See - transmit Apostolic succession, plus obviously even Formosus' consecrations being null doesn't mean all other bishops consecrated prior to him suddenly lost Apostolic succession too.

Whether you consider Stephen VI or Formosus the baddy, either way, the story when studied in detail debunks a few Protestant ideas - probably gotten from misapplying this declaration of nullity to all other Popes who were declared Antipopes.

As to Sergius III burning the corpse of Formosus over again, that seems physically impossible.

Benedict IX

11:43 Henry intervened, but ineffectively, however, then Benedict IX resigned for real and died penitent in a monastery. Probably Pope St Leo IX had also lifted the ban on him.

Alexander VI

12:58 No, not quite no.

9th and 10th C. Popes were equal to Alexander VI's worst moments.

Belloc considered him "a bad liver and a good pope". Liver arguably not as "foie" but as "viveur" - "un mauvais viveur mais un bon pape". Then, Belloc could have been somewhat biassed against the somewhat puritanic Savonarola who was victim of a trial where he basically had ordered the outcome.

If Savonarola had told people "you need to stay in Florence if possible and if not live like here elsewhere, so everyone needs the bonfires of vanities", he would have been over the top, but it seems the bonfires were voluntary and those who didn't throw jewels, cosmetics, paintings and novels on them were either discreet or leaving Florence, so, Savonarola could have been innocent.

Plus, unlike Julius III, Alexander VI was at least hetero.

13:28. I suppose you mean "Borgia Pope".

A Borgia non-Pope was by contrast a good Jesuit priest, even a saint : Francis Borgia.

And while he tried to foist the see of Carpentras on his son Cesare, the latter refused, preferring to be a layman.

Meaning, Carpentras after that got a bishop Alexnader VI nominated on his merits, not their family relation.

Extro

14:19 This somewhat not so correct presentation we hosted by Simon Whistler, a very popular presenter, and authored by Keith Burnside.

TopTenz taking on Historical Myths ... Mostly Good

On seven out of ten, I had no major quibble here:

Top 10 HUGE Historical MYTHS
TopTenz | 5.X.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBYuV1aESlQ

Here are the 3 of 10 on which I had such:

I

"9. Marriages Were Between the Young Back in the Day"

"Lives were shorter" you said?

Not all that much. - If you survived childhood, that is.

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Governors of Indiana, 25 = 2*12
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2019/03/governors-of-indiana-25-212.html

I count such governors of Indiana as were born up to 1840's as having spent at least childhood and youth in what were in America pre-modern or pre-industrial times.

Confer also links to the stats from Middle Ages in the second last paragraph.

"Plus we assume that people from days past wouldn't have the psychological sophistication we do now to pressure people that aren't fully matured"

• 1) If you are past puberty, you are fully matured.
• 2) Judging from my own teens, I wouldn't have needed pressure to get married, had it been possible. Same obviously true for lots of others.

"In France and Italy during those centuries, the average age of women during their first marriage was around 20, for men it was around 30"

If this is true for commoners, it was partly due to poverty.

It was at least in France very much not true for royalty and high nobility.

Ladies gave:

Median 16, lower quartile 15, upper quartile 19.

Gentlemen gave:

Median 23/24, lower quartile 20, upper quartile 29. A longer count with 47 men instead gave Median 23, lower quartile 20, upper quartile 29.

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Age at first marriage : a rough estimate
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2018/05/age-at-first-marriage-rough-estimate.html

The estimate is based on statistics detailed in the earlier parts of the blog post series, as is the age at death one:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Age at death
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2018/05/age-at-death.html

"A relatively "old" twenty-three, not far shy of middle age at the time."

You don't normally count someone as middle aged because he is half the age that is life expectancy at birth.

While life expectancy at birth, for Middles Ages, could be c. 45, the normal age at death for non-infant mortality and non-youth mortality would have a fairly large span with a median varying between 55 for royalties and 65 for people with calmer occupations (including peasants).

Sorry, that "normal" would be not for any young, but for those who became ancestors or worked in a profession, the overall median if you came past puberty was in fact like 45 for men.

43 for women.

It is higher quartiles which correspond to ancestor bias and professional bias.

58 for women and 57 for men.

But here I have counted death occurring as early as 12 for ladies and 14 for gentlemen.

If we limit ourselves to those occurring after 20 ....

I'd get for men, lower quartile 33 inseatd of 31, median 48 indtead of 45 and higher quartile 57.

And cutting away the ladies dead before 20 as youth mortality, I get lower quartile 32, median 45 and higher quartile 59.

Ah, if we count from 25 ... lower quartile 36, median 48 for ladies, higher quartile 60.

Dito for men, lower quartile 37, median 49, higher quartile 58.

II

"3. Jewish Slaves Built the Pyramids"

"doubts on the biblical assertion that slaves taken from Judea were involved in building the wonders in Ancient Egypt"

This is heavily strawmanning the Bible.

• 1) Hebrews were not "taken from Judea" in the sense of having been a population in Judea and then taken away as slaves to Egypt.
  
  They were a group of families in Hebron, went to Egypt as honourable guests, as their relative Joseph had risen to power (Imhotep would be his name in Egyptian annals).
  
  They then were enslaved after an attempt at genocide, after they had been seen as troublesome immigrants (you can compare to the St Brice' day massacre, which also failed).
  
  
• 2) The Bible does not state they were building any pyramids.
  
  [8] In the mean time there arose a new king over Egypt, that knew not Joseph: [9] And he said to his people: Behold the people of the children of Israel are numerous and stronger than we. [10] Come, let us wisely oppress them, lest they multiply: and if any war shall rise against us, join with our enemies, and having overcome us, depart out of the land. [11] Therefore he set over them masters of the works, to afflict them with burdens, and they built for Pharao cities of tabernacles, Phithom and Ramesses
  
  Storehouses are not pyramids.

"Even Jewish scholars agree, that there's almost no evidence of all inhabitants being taken on the journey voluntarily or in bondage."

So?

The Hebrews who started out as a group of about 70 peoples, were not at all even near all the population of what later became Judea. They were clustering in Hebron in a few tents. When they left, they were easily replaced by other people.

They grew to a nation in Egypt.

"There's not been so much as a shard of pottery, and no records from the area around Judea of a mass movement like this."

Why would pottery have been different among the small kernel group of Hebrews from what it was among their Canaanean neighbours? Since it was not, pottery can tell no story.

As to "records" the time of Joseph is in real history c. 1700 BC, but in carbon dates it is 2600 BC (carbon 14 ratio being lower back then, still rising toward present equilibrium), as that is the date of Djoser, who was pharao of Imhotep, that is of Joseph.

Now, records, earliest ones are Eblaite tablets, and these begin c. carbon dated 2400 BC, which is after Hebrews arrived to Egypt.

Also, records were more concerned with treaties and alliances than with demographics.

As to Hebrew slave labour, it was not concerned with pyramids anyway, so records of pyramid workers having been paid and contracted are no refutation.

Also, Egyptian records do not form a continuous history, not like Anglo-Saxon chronicle or overlapping Medieval historians do.

If the Exodus came to pass just before Hyksos invasion, the Ipuwer papyrus records both a memory of the plagues and a much worse outcome than departure of Hebrews, namely arrival of Amalekites, also known as Hyksos.

III

There is no actual continuity between Xenophanes and Feuerbach ... they are as far apart as Primitive Church and Mormons claiming to restore it, except, Mormons had a Catholic Church between earliest Catholics and themselves, while Feuerbach had no atheistic society bringing him Xenophanes' position as a tradition.

Enlightenment (both Deism and Atheism) might owe something to Mencius, but he was more of a Deist, and the other one quoted was less standard and less well known by Europeans.

Early Hindoo versions of Materialism as well as certain African tribes were clearly not the beginnings of the Atheistic movement which involves men like Hume or Feuerbach or Dawkins.

You could nearly as well cite Theravada Buddhism, which arguably is a form of Atheism.

While it has beliefs you would class as "supernatural" they would not make that distinction.

They are much closer to believing the spooky than the divine.

Update, this one was less good:

Top 10 Ways The Past Was WAY MORE AWFUL Than You Think
TopTenz | 30.IV.2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yi6yqintlH8

I

4:24 Would that 1847 story of horrid psychiatry perhaps be from the Puritan New England area? (Or Old England?)

II

8:14 As you mentioned Victorian London, it my be noted, this is after industrialism.

Same goes for earlier mentioned size of NYC with so many horse carriages and so much horse manure.

III

For your category one, the most precise ones were both recent and both involving non-West European and capitalist items : 19th C Russia and 19th C British Empire.

Few famines would have equalled the potato famine on Ireland or the Holodomor in Ukraine with neighbouring regions, both brought about by strongmen, Capitalist ones in Ireland (who forbade farmers to eat the wheat they had grown, preferring to sell it in England) and a huge Communist one for Ukraine, known as Stalin.

IV

Overall, you are (or were back in 2016) a bit into lumping "the past" together.

For anaesthetics, often getting drunk on wine was used.

If field surgeons wanted to cut your leg or operate a leg, you were regularly offered to get soak drunk, and the Catholic theologians considered this as one licit occasion for this (as opposed to getting soak drunk for pure fun), while some heroic men did do without it.

Certain psychiatric abuses which were heavily sexist came about in 19th C. and would have been unthinkable one century earlier.

Some Arguments Against School Compulsion

Whether TopTenz saw it like that or not.

10 Mind-Bogglingly Terrible Decisions Made by Schools
TopTenz | 12.I.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xH2LQn8S4rk

I

10 - so the Jewish children were ok with it, why are you not?

How many Jews are for instance ok with The Dictator by Chaplin or with Mel Brooks?

How do you judge there was no such context?

II

Before even watching:

"9. School tries to ban Harry Potter for being about magic, allows students to read Chronicles of Narnia series"

It so happens, in Narnia series, any human or mortal humanoid practising magic is in fact doing sth wrong.

Starting the series with The Magician's Nephew very much highlights this.

A few quibbles on this point.

• a) using yellow and green rings to get from world to world is in fact wrong, and Uncle Andrew is guilty for inventing this, and this is exactly why Aslan tells Digory and Polly to bury the rings, in The Magician's Nephew, and why in The Last Battle, they are never used.
• b) being brought between worlds by a wardrobe (Lion, Witch, Wardobe) or by an irresistible pull (Prince Caspian) or by a painting (Voyage of the Dawn Treader) or by a door one was simply trying to get away from school and hide from bullies (The Silver Chair) or through a train crash the split seconds before you die in a train crash (The Last Battle) is, unlike the use of rings, not practising magic.
• c) Cornelius' practise of "sleep magic" seems to be either hypnosis or a sleep drug (in other words, in normal terms he is not practising magic).
• d) Voyage of the Dawn Treader is in parts a bit flaky on this point, but at least gives some hints on morality of magic use, as in what not to use it for, while the actual use not wrong is in obedience and basically under a death threat - at the same time, Coriakin is also not a mortal human, but a star.

Harry Potter makes the "a bit flaky" side the rule for those who are going to Hogwarts. And who are mortals at least in the sense they can be killed. PLUS can be born of Muggles. That is perfectly normal human mortals.

It seems, Narnia reflects a Christian morality on this point, while Harry Potter looks more like some versions of Jewish morality.

(So much for "Judeo-Christian").

For instance, Kaytek the Wizard (the author of which is better known for King Matt) has hero learn to "deal responsibly" with having magic powers. That school should logically endorse Narnia and The Satanic Mill (where magic is, correctly, presented as a deal with the devil the hero needs to be delivered from), and ban Harry Potter and Kaytek.

Nothing like any kind of illogic in what the written summary has shown.

The idea is a bit like saying one must either allow or forbid both Narnia and Dark Materials - because both involve getting to another world through a wardrobe. But one has reasonably argued Dark Materials is morally an "anti-Narnia".

1:40 "promotes witchcraft and the occult"

Key word : promotes.

While, precisely, Narnia definitely warns against it.

2:16 In LWW an evil precisely witch is overcome by powers of good like Son of God incarnate in that world as a lion having created it.

In Harry Potter, an evil warlock is overcome, but not by any God, but by other warlocks and witches who are just not evil (though they occasionally enjoy a magic prank or two, of the kind specifically warned against in Voyage of the Dawn Treader, where Lucy fiddles around with that kind of thing, when she shouldn't).

Narnia says "witchcraft is evil". Harry Potter says "witchcraft can be used for good or evil, and small pranks with it aren't really evil".

III

8 - I agree. Eavesdropping by computers is as evil as eavesdropping by other means.

3:14 None on the school saw that as a big deal?

Well, perhaps they were avidly reading Harry Potter before they became school staff?

You know, the moral world in which magical (and by extension technological) minor pranks is ok ...

3:57 (#7) Also agreed. Schools should not push commercial preferences on their students (ok, some, like what Latin books to buy ... because that's the one the Latin teacher uses).

"disruptive" seems to be a code word for lots of "undesirable" behaviour, these days.

#6 - agree again. Btw, both 7 and 6 argue for my and against your point on #10.

IV

#4 - Banning that book may have been a move of sarcasm or irony on part of people who had erroneously been considered as racialist for ... using the N-word.

How many have come from Germany or Sweden where "neger" simply is the normal word for a man with skin of darker shades of brown?

And how often is this even done these days, if not in Germany at least in Sweden by hawks of the PC movement?

One librarian (himself immigrant) removed Tintin in Congo "for being racist".

What Kind of Prepper Am I?

While I have violently disagreed with some things said on this channel, I don't think ignoring is the solution, and this video is a good example on why ignoring won't work.

Top 10 Foods That (Almost) Never Expire
TopTenz | 27.II.2019
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aPjKumyGLPw

I

Medical advice on consumption of hard liquor : dilute with water, coffee, lemonade, cocos milk, whatever, and don't drink on the rocks if stomach is empty.

It is great, I love a good whisky with sparkling water or rum in tea or calvados in coffee, but ... my grandpa was a distiller. He was in the habit of drinking one shot of what is now referred to as Absolut every morning. When he got to hospital a few months before he died, it was for a bleeding ulcer. Sure, other things killed him off, but a bleeding ulcer is not a pleasant start of your last months this side of your personal Doomsday.

Some non-distilled liquor, like beer or cider, I obviously drink undiluted, though, especially if I have food along with it. Wine, I use both methods.

II

How long does normal coffee last?

Instant coffee is drinkable with milk added, or possibly with liquor added.

So, how about normal coffee?

Yes, granulated white sugar, but instant coffee is still not very drinkable even so, without milk or (possibly, I haven't tried) liquor.

Ah, dry milk also lasts, coffee problem perhaps solvable (pun noted).

Btw, dry milk is atrocious unless you have coffee or tea or sth to dissolve it in!

III

Speaking of honey and apocalypse, does it seem apocalyptic that Monsanto is not too keen on keeping bees alive?

Simon Whistler, would you mind passing on the question to Shannon Quinn?

... on Expertise

10 Famous People Mistakenly Cited as Experts
TopTenz | 28.V.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR5tSIovOeE

I

1:34 Come on, a debate and a productive conversation are two different types of verbal interaction.

And while climate change was perhaps on the debate Ham vs Nye, the main topic was Creation vs Evolution.

What is the scientific field for that one, if there is any?

And Tyson being good at explaining concepts doesn't exactly mean he is good at examining what concept needs to be considered as true.

And I mean this on a "simple concept" level.

II

I think your obsession with "no training at all" is somewhat of an appeal for East Bloc "intellectual hierarchies" ...

In the East Bloc, however, people were also trained in ideology and it spread very well thanks to Darwinism and Draper White, so, this means while people were basically required to either listen to "trained people" or shut up, they were also required to listen to this ideology. And in some cases, like Oparin's idea of abiogenesis, there was more ideology than science.

Experiments have to date failed to replicate what Oparin was suggesting.

Speaking of which, while you are not the active researcher behind all of your shows, you definitely have hosted some badly researched comments, like Uighurs being a Muslim sect rather than a majority Muslim ethnicity in China.

Check this link:

Comic Guide : Marco Polo : Band: 6 - In der Höhle der gelben Teufel
https://www.comicguide.de/index.php/component/comicguide/?controller=details&file=book&content=short&comment=short&id=31129&page=5

If you look at the picture in the link, you will see one Marco Polo in fictitious situations and just before him, an Uighur who is a Buddhist. While that person is a comic book fiction by Enzo Chiomenti and Jean Ollivier, that comic book seemed to be well researched and therfore, if it features an Uighur Buddhist, I take it Uighurs in historic times have been both Buddhists and Muslims.

Since the image doesn't click up on previous link, here is a link directly to image:

https://www.comicguide.de/pics/large/31132.jpg

III

10:46 You're the opposite of Beyoncé in my criticism.

She got credit for writing songs written by her team, you got discredits for research done by the teams you represent ...

Apart from the difference between credit and discredit, the situation is parallel.

Internet users are often these days used to doing their thing without a team behind them, that includes me, I sometimes get dialogue partners or correspondence debates, but there is no standing team I consciously work with (there might be one hiding from me, but making youtube recommendations, though), so, I see a vlogger (I'm a blogger, with b) and assume he's researched what he is saying. My bad.

Taking note, the author of this one is Gregory Myers.

IV

12:57 In other words, how about starting to cite C. S. Lewis or G. K. Chesterton instead of Einstein?

They were amateurs, but they certainly cared and certainly did amateur level research ... they also showed me the way to a clearly well trained theologian like St Thomas Aquinas, and I am probably not the only one.

V

13:40 Actually, the individual mom ought to be more important than any number of scientists a to the vaccines her baby is or is not given in shots.

The fact there are even groups of moms shows that governement has been giving too much power to scientific expertise and too little to those God actually gave the task of taking care of the children, moms and pops.

"many deadly diseases that were thought beaten could start seeing a serious resurgence"

Oh, the way mankind survives is by beating deadly diseases till all are immortal, not by reproducing so those who die are replaced in their families?

So not the case.

These scientists may be well trained in immunology, in epidemology and so on, but they have no training in Christian morality (as can be seen from some supporting abortion and contraception) and therefore their view on whether vaccines should be compulsory or not is morally worthless - at least not greater than that of moms and pops.

14:13 "The problem comes down to the way many people evaluate information,"

And so scientists should be given the power to evaluate it for other people and enforce their evaluation? Sounds horribly East Bloc to me.

"and it leads to many parents improperly considering other mothers or parents as experts simply because they happen to also have a child"

I'm not sure considering them "as experts" is really the correct term.

They may be considered as a relevant counter culture. Their stance may be considered as the morally correct stance. Which the epidemologist as epidemologist, the immunologist as immunologist, has really no superior knowledge or training about.

Probably the idea of "many deadly diseases" ties in with "we live significantly longer now than back before medicine checked epidemics".

We have less child mortality, unless you count abortion and in at least one case a vaccination cocktail gone wrong.

But adults certainly do live at most a decade or two more than earlier, and those who live longest seem to be most tied to caring homes. While people leading rich lives, even among atheists, one could cite Christopher Hitchens who died at 62 a few years below the median of a medieval non-royal and non-feudal known person.

Like C. S. Lewis, 64. Tolkien dying at 81 would be like near upper end of pre-modern known people.

VI

14:27 "as if having a child made you an expert not only on child rearing, it also makes you an expert at everything that could possibly befall them"

We live under God's providence, there is no such thing a an expert at everything that can befall anyone.

I prefer someone erroneously getting a similar status by the actual parents over someone being given by the state such a status against parents, as in CPS decisions.

14:31 "she is just sure of it"

Well, how have revolutions happened in the past?

Even erroneous suspicions against people in certain positions have been decisive for taking action. Sometimes bad action, as storming of the Bastille, with a blood bath on the guards, but those doing it had no training in military discipline any more than the first crusaders and those having such training were exactly the suspects.

Collectively, and due to an overkill a few months earlier, perhaps not quite unreasonably.

Here it is experts who are the suspects.

If you recall what expertise were giving as advice to the Kennedy family about Rosemary, perhaps not too unreasonably either.

I'd agree with Gregory Myers that she was wrong in saying her child got autism from vaccines.

I think you are likely to be wrong whenever you say your child has autism, even if it is from a psychological or psychiatric authority saying so.

On more Fact Check Fails "for Simon Whistler"

... on a Few Items where "Simon Whistler" Needs Better Fact Check · .... on a Few More Items Where "Simon Whistler" Needs Improving "His" Fact Check · ... on Use and Abuse of Wiki · On more Fact Check Fails "for Simon Whistler" · Fact Check Miss on Myself, Too

... or for Dustin Koski, author, in this case. Or for Shell Harris, executive producer.

Top 10 Countries Infamous for RELIGIOUS Persecution
TopTenz | 24.VIII.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqbP8f5yWsQ

I

2:25 "Most of their abuse does not come from the National Front, even though it's an openly fascist organization and we know the history that political movement has with Jews."

Double error in fact check.

• 1) National Front is very much not openly or even closet Fascist, it is openly anti-Fascist. And, for context, pro-Jewish.
• 2) No, most people - that is what you would be referring to as "we" - don't know more about the history of Fascism with Jews than the Commies in Czechoslovakia knew back when it was a Communist country.
  
  
  • a) Do most people in most countries - notably US - know that Jews were overrepresented in Mussolini's Fascist party up to the bad turn when Mussolini introduced racialism, including then Antisemitic racialism as late as in 1938 (after he had been in power for 16 years)?
  • b) Do most people know that the worst Austrofascism did physically to Jews was beating a gang in a fistfight provoked by the Jews insulting the memory of Dollfuss?
  • c) Do most people know that Spain was receiving Jewish refugees during World War II, and that Raul Wallenberg and Spanish diplomats were agreed on Ashkenazim to Sweden and Shepharad to Spain?
  • d) Or that Salazar was as much pro-England as Franco was pro-Germany, but both even more pro-each-other and therefore kept Iberian Peninsula neutral during World War II?

I don't think so.

Now, I'll scroll back a bit in the video.

2:06 I don't see this as abusive of Jews.

"French Jews will have to give up Israeli citizenship, says Le Pen"

Marine Le Pen also wants French Algerians and Moroccans to give up Algerian and Moroccan citizenship.

She is simply against dual citizenship. And it seems this is limited to "with non-European countries" and this limitation is itself limited "except for Russia".

It would be perhaps unduly favourable to Russia, but it is not targetting Jews. Least of all openly.

II

4:07 "The Chinese Islamic sect known as the Uighur"

Relevant senses of Uyghur after disambiguation page I am quoting:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uyghur

Uyghur may refer to:

Uyghurs, a Turkic ethnic group living in Eastern and Central Asia
Uyghur language, a Turkic language spoken primarily by the Uyghurs

Uyghur alphabets, any of four systems used to write the language
Uyghur Khaganate, a Turkic empire in the mid 8th and 9th centuries
See also
Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region

In other words, Uyghurs are not a sect of Islam, they are an ethnicity.

It seems they have been Muslims (mostly) since ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamization_of_Xinjiang

4:22 I don't think Uyghurs appreciate being called "Chinese."

They are Chinese citizens like Lapps are Swedish citizens, they are not Chinese, like Lapps are not Swedes and like Lakotas are not Yankees.

III

5:04 In a sense I am glad you considered National Front as "openly fascist".

You see, the things you are saying about Egypt can be read in one or two papers in France.

La Croix, close to modern mainstream Vatican II Catholicism and not for National Front.
PRÉSENT, also Catholic, but more like Trads, and close to National Front.

So, when I have cited sources close to PRÉSENT about Egypt, this has in France got me a stamp as "facho" ... while that is not wildly inaccurate, I appreciate the support about facts from one not "facho".

IV

6:51 - 6:53 "All especially hard to believe in light of Buddhism's reputation as a passive, meditative religion."

Guess why Viet Nam was conquered by the French in the first place?

There was Buddhist persecution against Catholics from the place around French Catholic missionaries.

I'm not forgetting that ...

V

7:18 I wonder, considering the number of Somalians France is taking as refugees, how many Somalians have been involved in painting me as a madman who thinks he's Jesus ... or who has other "issues" ...

I and they have shared day shelters, notably SOS Accueil in Versailles and also I think one in Beauvais (not sure if they were Somalians there, but possible).

VI

10:15 "on the Muslim sect Yazidi"

What I previously knew of Yazidis didn't consider them a Muslim sect and what I learn from wikipedia now doesn't do so anymore.

Besides Christianity, Judaism and Islam, there are also smaller roughly Abrahamic or semi-Abrahamic religions. Samarians are perhaps the smallest, but not the worst targetted.

Then we have Yazidis, Mandeans and perhaps some more.

Some have called Yazidis "devil-worshippers" due to them thinking "the peacock angel" (Satan, basically) will repent and will be restored to grace with God, wherefore they also give honours to him. They also believe in reincarnation.

I don't think calling them "other Muslims" will actually help them. Against ISIS, Christians, Shia Muslims and Yazidis have a common cause of defense.

Here is wiki on them, what I learned new from it involves them being likened to Zoroastrians, as well as them believing reincarnation (as do some Jews):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazidis

They aren't really.

Zoroastrians don't believe in the restoration of Ahriman, and I don't think that the first man is considered to have been Adam either. With Yazidis, he is.

For Mazdeism (not to be confused with Mandeism), here is from a summary of book 7 of Denkard:

"the span of human history beginning with Gayomard, in Zoroastrian tradition identified as the first king and the first man, and ending with the Kayanid dynasty. This section of book 7 is essentially the same as that summarized in the first part of book 5, but additionally presents Zoroaster as the manifest representation of khwarrah (Avestan: kavaēm kharēno, "[divine] [royal] glory") that has accumulated during that time."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denkard#Book_7

"One of the key creation beliefs held by Yazidis is that they are the descendants of Adam through his son Shehid bin Jer rather than Eve.[107][not in citation given] The Yazidis believe that before Adam and Eve copulated with each other for the first time, Tawûsê Melek encouraged them to see if they could reproduce on their own. He had the couple place their reproductive fluids in jars and store them for several months. When each jar was opened several months later, Eve's was found to contain vermin and insects, and Adam's was found to have contained a beautiful baby boy, Shehid bin Jer.[112] This lovely child, known as son of Jar grew up to marry a houri and became the ancestor of the Yazidis. Therefore, the Yazidis regard themselves as descending from Adam alone, while other humans are descendants of both Adam and Eve.[113][109]:33 This is the reason given for Yazidis being exclusively endogamous; clans do not intermarry with non-Yazidis and accept no converts to Yazidism.[citation needed] A severe punishment for breaking this rule is expulsion, which is also effectively excommunication as the soul of the exilee is forfeit.[citation needed]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yazidis#Descendants_of_Adam

In fact, this is what I get from the note 107:

"The Yazidis believe that they are the descendants of Adam only, while the rest of the world are descendants of Eve, hence inferior. It is impossible to convert to Yazidism; you must be born one. The strongest punishment among Yazidis is expulsion, which means that your soul is lost forever."

http://looklex.com/e.o/yazidism.htm

Ah, while they do not consider Melek Taus as source of evil, their story of him parallels the Muslim story of Satan's fall, both being ordered to bow down to Adam, both refusing.

Muslims, notably, consider this disobedience meant Satan was damned, while Yazidis (according to this source!) consider this was Melek Taus passing a test.

Hence a very obvious religious conflict between the two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melek_Taus

It seems this high regard for Melek Taus (or Tawzi Melek) is confirmed by a Yazidi source:

http://www.yeziditruth.org/the_peacock_angel
A Humanitarian Organization. Hosted by: International Order of Gnostic Templars - United States

A false religion. On the Christian system, they should not have to suffer for it, as long as not baptised and apostasising (unlikely since all are endogamous), and as long as they do not agress Christians (or possibly someone Christians should protect for some other reason).

Referring obviously to what constitutes just war and just punishment about infidelity in St Thomas Aquinas.

Unfortunately, ISIS targetting Yazidis gives them good publicity ...

... on Use and Abuse of Wiki

... on a Few Items where "Simon Whistler" Needs Better Fact Check · .... on a Few More Items Where "Simon Whistler" Needs Improving "His" Fact Check · ... on Use and Abuse of Wiki · On more Fact Check Fails "for Simon Whistler" · Fact Check Miss on Myself, Too

Top 10 Most Pathetic Ways People Abused Wikipedia
TopTenz | 16.XI.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4GzuE5ROWU

I

6:20 "Now we're not going to begrudge someone for using Wikipedia as a jumping-off point"

Thank you, I often quote wiki articles (usually attributing by link, unless I quote very many articles on a theme, when I link to only one), so I appreciate this stance.

Some seem to have the idea, if you quote wiki, even with attribution, you are braving the acacemic rule against plagiarising wiki.

As to Jarre quote which was made up, fortunately I often access things which are less interesting to make up.

II

8:44 I have been accused of vandalising French wikipedia.

Here is the story.

I am a Geocentric. I am also well versed in the historic controversies around it.

On the French page of Géocentrisme, I made some changes:

• 1) Geocentrism doesn't say Earth is "centre of the solar system" (pointless, and as for Tychonic geocentrism arguably misleading), but "of the universe."
• 2) I deleted "in perfect circles" which is true for some types of geocentric systems (notably Aristotle) but inessential and not true of Tychonian system as updated by Riccioli.
• 3) I added a set of paragraphs on how Geocentrism involved more than one system (Aristotelic, Ptolemaic, Tychonic)
• 4) I involved a paragraph on how Geocentrism sees astrophysics in Thomistic style (God moves the whole shebang and within it angels move the several diverse celestial bodies).
• 5) I finished this off with a paragraph on how parallax contributed to Catholics accepting Heliocentrism, while the parallax as discussed between Galileo and St Robert Bellarmine not was identic to the parallax which was thereupon discovered by I think it was Herschel ... meaning there is no reason to reject Geocentrism.

That's it. That final touch is perhaps against the wikipedian rules of impartiality and non-controversial content (not editing in own research or controversial theories, which mine arguably is), but the other ones are simply improving on the historiography of the article.

I did a similar remark on the passage "parallaxe de la lumière stellaire" in the article Parallaxe.

Now, this was back in 2005 and 2006.

I was of course noting that parts of my work was being discarded by subsequent edits, so, in order to have my work not lost, I copied the articles as I had left them on a site of mine, an MSN Group, which no longer exists any more than other MSN Groups since Bill Gates did furious vandalism in february 2009 on lots of MSN Groups, all which could not be transferred to Multiply, which postings I then copied onto the blog where I saved all 50 French postings on that group ...

Here they are, and "ma version 1" refers to work of 2005, "ma version 2" to work of 2006.

Note, some are seemingly still stamping me as a wikipedia vandal because of this:

En français sur Antimodernism : Parallaxe
http://avantlafermeturedantimodernism.blogspot.com/2008/10/parallaxe.html

En français sur Antimodernism : Géocentrisme, ma vers. 1
http://avantlafermeturedantimodernism.blogspot.com/2008/10/gocentrisme-ma-vers-1.html

En français sur Antimodernism : Géocentrisme, ma vers. 2
http://avantlafermeturedantimodernism.blogspot.com/2008/10/gocentrisme-ma-vers-2.html

III

In sum : some would probably be abusing other features of the internet, like bounce rates:

New blog on the kid : Si Russie et Ukraine manipulent le lectorat ailleurs?
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2019/01/si-russie-et-ukraine-manipulent-le.html

.... on a Few More Items Where "Simon Whistler" Needs Improving "His" Fact Check

... on a Few Items where "Simon Whistler" Needs Better Fact Check · .... on a Few More Items Where "Simon Whistler" Needs Improving "His" Fact Check · ... on Use and Abuse of Wiki · On more Fact Check Fails "for Simon Whistler" · Fact Check Miss on Myself, Too

10 Fascinating Documents From the Vatican Secret Archives
TopTenz | 7.II.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW0wu1u16o8

I

2:31 "make an example of Galileo"

Don't think so.

Galileo's work comprised much more than Heliocentrism, so Pope Urban's previous praise is not to be taken as a praise of Heliocentrism.

Back when he was cardinal Barberini, he had told Galileo "God was free to create the world any way He chose, and to make it appear any way He chose". In other words, no argumentations about how God "must" have created allowed.

Except perhaps one, God being no liar and it appearing to our senses that the heavens turn around Earth ... it is arguable the heavens do turn around Earth.

3:03 Classical Greek logic would hold even if Heliocentrism had been true.

And no, the concern of upholding Aristotelianism is not a major point in what the trials reveal (the one against his book under St Robert Bellarmine, the one against himself in 1633).

What stopped moving in Joshua 10 was one major point in the earlier trial, when Galileo was called as a "witness in defense of his book."

3:18 "settled for burning Galileo's books instead of his body"

Since he had made no abjuration and been asked to make no abjuration in the earlier trial and therefore had not gone back on an abjuration, and since he did make an abjuration at the end of the 1633 trial, according to the rules of the Inquisition, burning him was not an option.

If you think of St Joan of Arc, that was not Papal but Royal English Inquisition, as per the law of 1401 (the bishop of Beauvais had asked the parliament of Paris if he really could do that and they had answered "yes" on one 14th of July, bad date in France that one). She also had made a false abjuration under too much pressure (a degree of pressure the Papal Inquisition would not have used) and went back on that one and she was not willing to renew that abjuration.

So, no, the Inquisition as per Papal rules was not a cangaroo court and whether Galileo or just his books went into flames was a thing he could influence.

3:21 "it wasn't until 1992 that a Pope finally apologised for the error"

1633 trial was no error, no apology was needed, and the man who apologised in 1992 was not a real Pope.

House arrest was warranted due to the fact that while Galileo had made no abjuration in 1616, he had received an admonition about the subject matter.

II

4:20 "Clearly they underestimated the deep conviction of Buddhists and Hindus ..." in the wisdom of the elders.

And clearly the seventh Dalai Lama was breaking the accord he had given to the Pope.

"... just as they had elsewhere, hence the limited spread of Catholicism in Asia, despite its unlimited reach."

Catholicism has to have an unlimited reach as per Matthew 28:18 which states "all nations". The effective reach, the reach which was not hindered, was in fact limuited, as Catholics were persecuted by inter alia Buddhism, in China, in Japan (up to 1868), in Vietnam just up to when France under Napoleon III made a kind of Crusade to give freedom to Catholics in Indo-China, hence French Indo-China up to basically Vietnam war.

Look, I'm just a layman, I am not underestimating the deep conviction of Evolutionists and of Heliocentrics and yet I argue against these errors.

III

7:29 You mentioned "enslave"

You were probably reading about Inter Caetera on this page:

Native Voices : AD 1493: The Pope asserts rights to colonize, convert, and enslave
https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nativevoices/timeline/171.html

However, the text portion cited says nothing about enslaving anyone. I'll look up a fuller text but "all rights and dominions" means all political power, nothing against the personal freedom of anyone.

It's like 1945 when the allies claimed all political power in Germany, that doesn't mean German particulars could be enslaved whenever someone wanted (at least not on the paper and barring the general enslavement of populations under Communism).

I did a search on Ctrl+F on this page, nothing on "slave", "slaves", "enslave" or "servitude":

Inter caetera by Pope Alexander VI (May 4, 1493)
Encyclopedia Virginia, Primary Reource
https://www.encyclopediavirginia.org/Inter_caetera_by_Pope_Alexander_VI_May_4_1493

The only thing about Africa is that Alexander VI was also giving Africa to Portugal and the Philippines (divided from Africa by a line 180° from the Tordesillas definition pertaining to Azores) to Spain.

It was an authorisation to colonise any power not Christian, as is evident from the clause:

With this proviso however that none of the islands and mainlands, found and to be found, discovered and to be discovered, beyond that said line towards the west and south, be in the actual possession of any Christian king or prince up to the birthday of our Lord Jesus Christ just past from which the present year one thousand four hundred ninety-three begins.

The Yaki nation actually claimed to be already Christian, to have all the Christian beliefs except knowing the name of Jesus, and so the Spaniards were respecting Yaki independence (at least that is the version I have heard of a Yaki friend of mine).

The Yakis only got into trouble when Mexico came into the hands of Porfirio Diaz and when some were on the US side, which did not respect the bull Inter Caetera and therefore also not the proviso just cited.

By saying "enslave" you are crediting a biassed source and their header, when the actual story under the header and the "cap" (is that how you say "chapeau" in editorial sense in English?) doesn't at all support one of its claims.

IV

8:34 Bad journalism again ...

"the doctrine of immaculate conception, that Mary gave birth to Jesus as a virgin free from original sin"

No, that is totally garbled. You are mixing two totally different doctrines and indeed both are also dogmas.

Immaculate conception refers to the conception of the Blessed Virgin Herself : She did not inherit original sin from her two human parents, meaning, if She had died straight at birth, She would not have gone to Limbo (damnation without pain, "Hell lite"), but to the bosom of Abraham. She also had no inclination to sin and never sinned.

That She was a Virgin is summed up in the other doctrine of Virginal Birth, shared by "all other Christians" as ecumenists would put it: She was virgin prior to the birth, during the birth and remained virgin after the birth. Some protestants reduce this to virginity prior to birth.

Now, Limbo, that unbaptised infants go there, is not directly dogma, it is doctrine. However, it is dogma that all men are conceived with original sin, that is heading for damnation, with the two sole exceptions of Jesus and Mary.

8:47 "even borders on idolatry"

Bad journalism again. If you share the Protestant or Jewish conviction that She is not God's own chosen Queen of Heaven, you will consider Catholic honours to Her are idolatrous or border on idolatry. If you do not, you cannot claim honours given Her in specifical countries where the folklore is very openly Marian do so either.

What was it CSL made his novel character Professor Kirke say ... "Logic! Why don't they teach logic in these schools?"

8:53 "so it's surprising that Christ's virginal birth wasn't official Catholic doctrine until well into the mid-nineteenth century."

Bathos of your journalism.

Virginal birth is official dogma since apostles, since in the creed "natus ex Maria virgine".

The two sides that were competing up to 1854 (or 1853?) were both agreed on it.

The question was : was Mary (Herself, not Her Son) conceived without original sin, or was She conceived with it, then freed from it one second after Her conception, on praying for it?

The decision was, She was actually conceived without it.

If you doubt it, have a look at the actual text of Ineffabilis Deus:

Ineffabilis Deus
on The Immaculate Conception by Pope Pius IX - 1854
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm

You were right on the date, december 1854. With your track record on journalism on Catholicism, I felt I needed to look it up.

9:08 "there's apparently no mention whatsoever of a virgin birth in the Bible"

Three bloopers in one.

• 1) Catholicism does not accept Sola Scriptura, meaning that for us Catholics a thing does not have to be directly mentioned in the Bible to be not just true, but a compulsory truth revealed by God under pain of damnation on those denying it;
• 2) Immaculate conception and Virgin birth are not the same fact. They are different facts.
• 3) Virgin birth is mentioned in the Bible.

Luke 1:[26] And in the sixth month, the angel Gabriel was sent from God into a city of Galilee, called Nazareth, [27] To a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David; and the virgin's name was Mary. ... [34] And Mary said to the angel: How shall this be done, because I know not man? [35] And the angel answering, said to her: The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the most High shall overshadow thee. And therefore also the Holy which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

In other words, she was a virgin when the angel came, and the angel did not suggest that she would have normal intercourse, but said that God would do sth which made it superfluous.

9:16 "On the contrary, in Luke 1:47 Mary adresses God as her "savior", implying that she was just as sinful as the rest of us."

Luke 1:47 is indeed a favourite "proof text" Protestants give about Her not being conceived without sin or even not remaining without personal sin.

However, the implication is not cogent, since the Immaculate Conception was a miracle by which God precisely saved Her from becoming as sinful as the rest of us.

Note the text:

And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.

She does not say She ever repented or needed to repent.

Also, Luke 1:28 blessed art thou among women. - It refers to a military victory, only two women in the Old Testament had been called so, Jael who slew Sisera, Judith who slew Holophernes.

Since the Blessed Virgin had lived a peaceful life, She did not quite understand.

She is pregnant when She arrives to Elisabeth, and she tells Her:

Luke 1:42 Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb.

Well, this made it all a lot clearer. Here is God speaking to Satan:

Genesis 3:15 I will put enmities between thee and the woman, and thy seed and her seed: she shall crush thy head, and thou shalt lie in wait for her heel.

If you react to "she" shall crush, in Hebrew both woman and seed are feminine nouns and either would be referred to as "she" since Hebrew, like French, has no separate word for "it". Vulgate translates as if referring to woman. Either way, this verse (if the serpent is Satan, as is at least the basic understanding among Christians since Christianity began) has a woman and her seed defeat the serpent and its seed. Now, with the situation in Luke 1:42 the "blessed among women" becomes so much clearer. She was told she had done the basic part required of the woman.

And since sin is slavery under Satan, enmities with Satan is not sinning, so, She was told, both by Gabriel the angel and by Elisabeth, the wife of a cohen, that She was this non-sinning woman who was contributing, with Her Seed, to Satan's defeat. Hence, Pius IX was perfectly right as is also evident from his patristic supports.

V

11:11 - 11:15 "This unique window of opportunity gave Pope Innocent IV a chance to exercise his influence - or so he thought."

Pseudo-empathy.

You have no reason to attribute to Innocent IV any calculation Kublai would be in awe of his influence, of which, in China and Mongolia he had none and knew he had none.

I think it was St Joan of Arc who once said (as did St Catherine of Siena and some more, unless I misrecall) "my mission is to tell, not to convince".

The Pope had to speak up for the truth even if with Kublai Khan he had humanly speaking as little chance to be heard as ... me or Pope Michael by Antipope "Francis" Bergoglio (if not less).

So, you are reading into his mind a motive which was not there. Incidentally, this pseudo-empathy happens to coincide with what would make him look ridiculous.

Would it be pseudo-empathetic on my part to presume this might not be quite a fortuitous coincidence?

You have no reason to believe the Pope could not have expected the hubris given by Kublai.

VI

14:16 You cannot prove a blood relation to an order.

An order is a juridic person, not a physical one.

This means, no order even could prove a blood relation to it, though one could prove a spiritial and juridic relation to it.

The order of Calatrava came to include lots of Templars who no longer had the Templar order to fall back on and who outside France were not burned.

By contrast, the territory of present day Estonia and Latvia used to belong to The Sword Bearing Order and territory now Kaliningrad Enclave with neighbouring parts of Poland used to belong to the Teutonic Order (these orders had merged and split, I am not sure of all details).

Now one grand master of Teutonic order wanted to treat Prussia as his personal territory ... he made a feudal vow to the King of Poland in 1525 to no longer have Prussia as the order territory of his order, but as the feudal territory of his bloodline (he was a Brandenburg, and if he had remained a monk, he could not have inherited Berlin ... also, he became a Lutheran to motivate this secularisation of the order territory).

The Grand Masters in Estonia (corresponding to Northern half of modern State so called), Livonia (Southern half of Estonia, most of Latvia) and Curonia (a peninsula in Latvia) did about the same move, but without a clear infeodation. The result was some turmoil ending up with these territories being inherited by Sweden, whose king ruled both across the Baltic to the West and across the Finnish Bay to the North, and this temporarily made the Baltic mostly a Swedish lake.

But no, blood relatives even of Jacques Molay and his consorts could not sue to get Templar property back, since it never was Jacques Molay's personal property, he administered it on behalf of the order. Imagine Nazis invading Romania (wait, they did) and then Commies doing so (wait, they did that too) and imagine Margareta or Romania suing Germany and Russia over the tax money from Romanian citizens that King Carol was deprived of in the process. Not over the personal wrongs to King Carol, but to the withdrawing of the tax money, over loss of power and of power related income ... that is about the equivalent of Jacques Molay's relatives suing over property of Templar order.

VII

Oh, by the way, if this is supposed to prove Pius XII could have stopped the Nazis, chuck it.

The Vatican had lost quite a lot of its influence since Alexander VI made a diplomatic decision between Spain and Portugal. Or since the Pope failed to save the Templars from burning on the stake (wait, that wasn't exactly proof of the Pope's influence, was it?) as far as France goes.

... on a Few Items where "Simon Whistler" Needs Better Fact Check

... on a Few Items where "Simon Whistler" Needs Better Fact Check · .... on a Few More Items Where "Simon Whistler" Needs Improving "His" Fact Check · ... on Use and Abuse of Wiki · On more Fact Check Fails "for Simon Whistler" · Fact Check Miss on Myself, Too

"His" channels TopTenz, Today I Found Out and Biographics are in fact very popular. - Btw, he's the speaker for them, not the author. I have also already promoted some. After seeing the following, either I'd have to cease promoting "him", or publish an antidote, opting for the latter. Here is first "his" video:

10 Diabolical Things Supposedly Hidden Away in the Vatican
TopTenz | 22.I.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWRTZ8IHFg4

I did not comment on the "time machine" or "past TV", which is either a fraud or demonic (and therefore also a fraud, but a more intricate one than normal mediums, but not necessarily wildly inaccurate, since demons know the past) or simply a delusion by a priest slightly mad. Glad he didn't get psychiatry for it. I also did not comment on grimoires, obviously men like Amorth do have a right to look at the devil's deceptions at close hand.

I had more imoportant things to comment on and here they are:

I

1:27 "This is of course one of the world's most secure private collections we're talking about"

Private in what sense?

Papacy is an institution, not a private company or business dynasty.

II

3:14 - 3:18 "and it's doubtful even Szekely did either, since there is no record of his visit to the Archives."

Could this be a cue about the thousands of "eyewitnesses" who claim to have seen porn in the Vatican archives?

Earlier, I have my theory that Essenes are mentioned in NT, namely as zealots. It seems Essenes were militantly anti-Roman and this means, even the sicarii type of zealots could have an Essene connection. It would seem one of the twelve was an ex-Essene, the one named "Simon the zealot" (could that be your patron Saint, Mr Whistler?)

III

3:57 Probable he started a family before 30?

Let me give you some facts.

• 1) in Jewish society, as in later Medieval Christian bourgeois society, it was hardly abnormal for a man aged thirty to marry a teen girl. Why? Both would have been able to marry legally since their teens, but the man would also be expected to be a bread winner and many men would only be in that position from their thirties.
• 2) if your story were true, Christ would have not provided for his wife and children. Now hear his stepbrother (son of St Joseph in an earlier marriage, youngest older stepsibling):
  
  Sorry, it was actually St. Paul:
  
  "But if any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."
  [1 Timothy 5:8]
  
  
• 3) This one really has a bearing on St James the brother of God. As he was the youngest son of St Joseph from his first marriage, he was like the rest of St Joseph's sons, a potential heir to the carpentry workshop and whatever fortune it had brought.
  
  Now, the older siblings, who were not immediately faithful, agreed to deny Jesus a share. St. James was a believer and not prevailing against his older siblings, gave Jesus half his own share. This argues Jesus and James were the two poorest of the siblings, least likely to start a family.

The only chance for a Jesus bloodline would be one of the older siblings after the Crucifixion saying "oh, my brother died without male offspring, I need to marry his widow", then assigning a widow, then marrying her, and then having their first child count juridically as the son of Jesus. This is a perfectly valid option.

4:11 "After all, if anyone alive today was found to be the direct descendant of Jesus Christ (and therefore God) the implications for the Church would be huge."

Would they?

Specifically if one cannot rule out that the line was based on levirate rather than on real physical descent?

A man like that, descending from St Joseph, but not from God in the Flesh, would be of the Davidic line, but if a Christian, he would also consider the Messiah had already come (I am a Christian and do consider that, btw).

If he were not a Christian and if he believed Jesus had really made children (other than by creating them as God, every child in the world ever born), he might make a Messianic claim and the Church would reasonably counter "even if you are of King David's line, the Messiah already came, and even if you have Jesus in your ancestry, that is by levirate, and he did not leave his family in charge of the Church anyway".

What would the exact implication for the Church be? Outside Teabing's dreams, that is?

"At the very least the Pope would be rendered useless as humanity's go-between"

No. For the reasons stated.

4:46 I think you need to consider genealogy a bit better.

• 1) If we trace our ancestry back 120 generations, to around 1000 BC (with centuries or up to a millennium leeway either way) among the ...
  
  1 undecadillion / sextillion
  329 decadillion / quintilliard
  227 nonillion / quintillion
  995 octillion / quadrilliard
  784 septillion / quadrillion
  915 sextillion / trilliard
  872 quintillion / trillion
  903 quadrillion / billiard
  807 trillion / billion
  060 billion / milliard
  280 million
  344 thousand
  576
  
  posts of ancestry, our actual physical ancestry will involve far less people sharing the posts. We don't know exactly how few. Probably a million, but certainly not everyone on earth, for instance, probably not everyone in Americas or Australia back then, hardly even in China or Africa, if you are European or Middle East.
  
  It will also not involve the lines that have no descendants today. There are quite a few of those.
  
  
• 2) It is certain that the Church has included "desposynoi" - relatives of the Lord - arguably descending from the brethren of Jesus, and this may have allowed the Church opportunities of ... limiting descendants, by encouraging monastery or episcopate.
  
  Obviously, I say "encouraging" as the Church has no right to force someone into the monastery (according to her own legislation, the canon law).
  
  
• 3) Even if there were a lot of descendants, there would still be a question of primogeniture.
  
  
• 4) But as already stated, in the Christian religion, descent from David can no longer motivate a position as Messiah, since the Messiah already came, and as for the Church, Christ provided for it by other means than by being his relatives; notably by papacy.

IV

6:38 One explanation for "John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II" not publishing third secret is:

• 1) They are Antipopes;
• 2) The Third secret mentions them.

You know, a bit like those who espouse Evolution and deny the Universal Flood are not too keen on flagging around II Peter 3, verses 3 to 7. It's not what they shout out with shofar or brass trumpets, drums or kettle drums ...

V

7:32 "astrobiology" ... I think I will need to try to forward the following essay to their man Guy Consolmagno ....

New blog on the kid : Is interstellar space travel possible?
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2019/01/is-interstellar-space-travel-possible.html

Would you mind going between? I think he has my email on a block list, and that's bc I'm geocentric ....

VI

Your number 2) Full moon ... crucixion was at least very near full moon.

However, drawing a moon which is not quite full is not easy. Drawing an actual full moon would have been an artistic licence.

Also, the moon was not observed that closely beyond first day of the month, at new moon. The Friday actually was the "Parascheve of the Jews" - they were going to eat Seder that night, which Our Lord had done the night before, He can have begun Nisan one date earlier when not in Judaea and He can have been refused mentions on when the new moon had been observed by the Temple. So, He can have done his best and an actual accurate assessment, on when the 14th of Nisan really was.

Faking a death and a resurrection would have helped Rome how?

Jesus told his followers to pay tax to Rome?

So did everyone in one way or another except the Essenes. Pharisees probably on some Hillel type general lax observance, which Jesus had in principle rejected.

Keeping Jesus alive in hiding after faking His death would also have posed a problem about how to motivate Him to shut up. He had for 3 years been what one could term a cult leader or what one could term an academic professor, and not naming Himself would have meant foregoing all that. He seemed a pretty passionate type at times.

Not the type who would settle for "realism" if given such an offer.

So, Baigent's idea is simply ... idiotic.

I felt sorry for the naïveté of Sophie Neveu in believing that kind of stuff. Mr. Teabing is a fellow freemason of her deceased grandfather, therefore he must be right?

Hard to account for her naïveté even during a few days of pressure and extreme stress.

VII

12:51 "commonly" - among the fans of Hochuth?
"for his role in supporting the Nazis." - like leaving Rome and closing down all Churches the day Hitler visited Mussolini? Like complaining that German Lutheran soldiers had committed sacrilege by holding a Lutheran service in Notre Dame? Like ordering the hiding of thousands of Jews (in all probability)? Like preparing an encyclical (now unearthed, but not published as an encyclical, just published as a historic document), entitled Humani Generis Unitas (he reused the first two words in another context later, a document he did publish as encyclical), and then putting it into a shelf because he was afraid its publication would backfire on Jews? If that's supporting Nazis, what does it take to be not supporting them?

Sorry, I seem to have been confusing two occasions:

• A) Walter Bussmann has argued that Pacelli, as Cardinal Secretary of State, dissuaded Pope Pius XI — who was nearing death at the time[43] — from condemning Kristallnacht in November 1938,[44] when he was informed of it by the papal nuncio in Berlin.[23] Likewise a draft, prepared by September 1938, for an encyclical Humani generis unitas ("On the Unity of the Human Race"), was, according to the two publishers of the draft text[45] and other sources, not forwarded to the Vatican by the Jesuit General Wlodimir Ledochowski.[46] On 28 January 1939, eleven days before the death of Pope Pius XI, a disappointed Gundlach informed the author La Farge: "It cannot continue like this. The text has not been forwarded to the Vatican."
  
  He had talked to the American assistant to Father General, who promised to look into the matter in December 1938, but did not report back.[47] It contained an open and clear condemnation of colonialism, racism and antisemitism.[46][48] Some historians have argued that Pacelli learned about its existence only after the death of Pius XI and did not promulgate it as Pope.[d] He did however use parts of it in his inaugural encyclical Summi Pontificatus, which he titled "On the Unity of Human Society".[25]
  
  
• B) On 26 July 1942, Dutch bishops, including Archbishop Johannes de Jong, issued a decree that openly condemned Nazi deportations of Dutch workers and Jews. The Nazi response was the rounding up of over 40,000 Catholics of Jewish descent which never were heard from again. After this event, Sister Pascalina Lehnert said the Pope was convinced that while the Bishop's protest cost forty thousand lives, a protest by him would mean at least two hundred thousand innocent lives that he was not ready to sacrifice. While politicians, generals, and dictators might gamble with the lives of people, a Pope could not. Pius XII often repeated what he told the Italian ambassador to the Vatican in 1940, "We would like to utter words of fire against such actions [German atrocities] and the only thing restraining us from speaking is the fear of making the plight of the victims even worse."[58]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII_and_the_Holocaust

13:40 Here is Cornwell's argument:

"In 2004, Cornwell stated that Pius XII "had so little scope of action that it is impossible to judge the motives for his silence during the war, while Rome was under the heel of Mussolini and later occupied by Germany ... But even if his prevarications and silences were performed with the best of intentions, he had an obligation in the postwar period to explain those actions".[4][5] He similarly stated in 2008 that Pius XII's "scope for action was severely limited", but that "[n]evertheless, due to his ineffectual and diplomatic language in respect of the Nazis and the Jews, I still believe that it was incumbent on him to explain his failure to speak out after the war. This he never did."[6]"

Sister Pasqualina Lehnert, a nun who served in his household, did.

Now, one motive for not speaking up was, he had been saving Jews in secretive ways.

By putting out all in the open, he would have been exposing the secret army of helpers. And he would not have agreed that now after 1945, everyone was okidoki, no one to be feared like Hitler anymore, so no risk in that.

Some of them may have helped Nazis escape an excessive revenge, some of them may have helped Christians not involved with Nazism escape commies, some of them may have known the identity of people who kept as a secret having been up to the war, Jews.

AND some Jews were converted to Christianity while hidden, obviously not too popular with parts of Jewry and since Jews after the war were not confined, he had a motive to not expose these converts to the sectarian recuperation of Jews, perhaps none immediate, but we see some upcoming now, and it was foreseeable that would sooner or later come along.

So many reasons to not wash your laundry in public, even if it wasn't very dirty.

Now, he has a perfectly good reason to appeal to, his predecessor had alredy condemned the actions of Nazis in defiance of the terms of the Concordate in 10 March 1937 (but bearing a date of Passion Sunday, 14 March), the Encyclical Mit brennender Sorge which the then Cardinal Pacelli (the later Pius XII) helped to pen, the Pope only signing it. This was done in peace time, when there were occasions for talking. Later, in the beginning of Pius XII's time, came the Germano-Polish, etc parts of World War II - the turn was for cannons to speak. With two fairly bad dictators Hitler and Stalin, not much use doing even a peace initiative like Benedict XV had tried.

Also, there was no one making accusations against him just after the war.

The Deputy / The Representative by Hochhuth was from 1963 - when not just Pius XII, but also Antipope John XXIII were either dead or had few month left to live.

It is not certain (or known to me to be certain) Hochuth informed even John XXIII of the play. It was held in Berlin, in German, and neither in Italy, nor in Italian or French.

VIII

14:30 - 14:35 "But the fact remains that in those days the pope was by far the most influential man in Europe. If anyone had the power to stop Hitler, it was him."

"Fact"? Hey, some fact check would be welcome.

Cornwell found Pius XII disliked Jews, it's not uncommon among Catholics and it's mutual, and even so you don't have a lot of people accusing the Synagogue of persecuting the Church (though parts of Jewry arguably did side with Lenin, ok), and he disliked blacks, and as for his proof to the contrary, either Cornwell or you were not quite clear on what it was.

But he sided with Pius XI's Casti Connubii, which specifically was meant to protect blacks, amerindians and esquimaux not forgetting half Québecquois Métis against forced sterilisation (outside Germany, it was before Hitler came to power) and he helped hide Jews.

He may have been a jerk to Jews, he was not a crook.

And him having power to stop Hitler is nonsense. He was among the least influential men in Europe, due to people like Voltaire, like Marx and a few others undermining Catholic influence. There were lots of people willing to go to Mass and still have nothing to do with the Church's mandate in politics. You know, some well known pro-abortion politicians who go to Communion and then a conservative Catholic gets angry because the bishop didn't make sure he was refused Communion. Happens more than once in US. This would not happen in a society where nominal Catholics really would be listening to the Church, all of them.

So, that's just nonsense.

Oh, one correction, "among the least influential men" is not taken with unrestricted literality, but with the understood restriction "among those who were after all somewhat influential" - obviously he was more influential than a Catholic shoe polisher, if less so than Churchill or the US President.