"Clearly Hit"

New blog on the kid: Renee Nicole Good · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Both Videos (Except the Guy's Own) · A Veteran Analysing · "Clearly Hit"

NEW Footage in Renee Good ICE Shooting Changes Everything
TriggerSmart | 15 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=897HM4BU4Xk

Did Sean Hiller Give a Reason Why Wojtyla Was Not Pope?

Can You Still Call Yourself Catholic If You Reject Church Teaching
Sean Hiller | 14 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmMKbEFYC3Q

Did Karol Wojtyla in 1992, both Galileo speech and CCC with its §283 reject Church teaching?

Icy Freez

@TheHockey991

How so?

My answer

was apparently removed. It referred to Genesis 5 and 11 and to Trent Session IV.

My point being that Genesis 5 and 11 need to be understood in the sense that the Church "hath held and now holdeth" ... not just one it recently changed to.

It could also have just been hidden bc it linked to the Bible chapters.

Paul Mualdeave

@paulmualdeave5063

Who would this be?

Please explain to me the Acts to Constantinople IV canon 21. It applies to your question.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@paulmualdeave5063 It kind of doesn't:

If, then, any ruler or secular authority tries to expel the aforesaid pope of the apostolic see, or any of the other patriarchs, let him be anathema.

It speaks of violent removal.

It doesn't speak of concluding in conscience and telling other people that such and such a person is not Pope.

Furthermore, if a universal synod is held and any question or controversy arises about the holy church of Rome, it should make inquiries with proper reverence and respect about the question raised and should find a profitable solution; it must on no account pronounce sentence rashly against the supreme pontiffs of old Rome.

This presupposes we actually have one.

You are aware that the Synod of Sutri could conceivably fall under this ban, and that Caerularius pretended Constantinople had for forty years omitted the Popes of Rome from the diptychs?

That's because after Sutri, a man became Pope who wouldn't have been, unless the secular ruler had (with soldiers) removed the previous claimant.

No, I don't think Constantinople IV, canon 21 can be used against either Sedevacantism or Conclavism.

Note also "false" in the following passage:

Whoever shows such great arrogance and audacity, after the manner of Photius and Dioscorus, and makes false accusations in writing or speech against the see of Peter, the chief of the apostles, let him receive a punishment equal to theirs.

Photius had falsely pretended the Pope was overstepping the territorial limits of his jurisdiction in Bulgaria.

Overall, it is possible that canon 21 is a disciplinary canon, and can be changed. Therefore doesn't decide a doctrinal question.

All the parties on Constantinople IV, Patriarch Nicholas (the one who had been deposed), Photius (who had replaced him), the Popes, the bishops assembled, were Young Earth Creationists, who held that Adam had been created directly by God, with no nearly human precursors, and also with no delay after Adam to Christ of more than some thousands of years (4 to 5 and a half, depending on text choice and other interpretative choices).

Now, the Caesaro-Papist boogey-man, so to speak, before Constantinople IV, was a secular power stepping in and violently replacing an ecclesial dignitary with an usurper.

Before Trent, we have a somewhat different scenario. Cranmer wasn't an usurper. But he did go against what his predecessors had taught.

So, Trent spoke out against not obeying the Church, on the explicit condition that it sticks to its prior teachings. A Pope may decide between two competing theories, a Pope may make binding what was before just recommended, but he cannot dissolve the teaching of previous centuries back to Christ. And before.

Saint Ratzinger? Nope.

Talks Underway to Make Pope Benedict XVI a Saint?
Cross Examined with Michael Lofton and Knowledge & Wisdom | 14 janv. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMehPnUQSLA

He was involved in "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" because the PBC depends on the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.

He was involved in CCC, with its §283.

No, I don't think so.

Prayer to the Saints in the Time of Jesus

Is This PROOF of Prayer to Saints in Jesus' Time?
Sips with Serra | 12 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7HtBmQwGLM

One could say:
if it was a) believed by Jews at the time of Jesus and b) nowhere condemned in the NT nor from Apostolic Tradition, it means it's OK, because the precursor of the Catholic Church was the Jewish Church.

I have made this argument about Purgatory. Or minimally, prayers for the dead.

Calvin understood the principle, that's why he pretends that Jews started praying for the dead in the time of Rabbi Akiba, and whether II Maccabees is canon or not is beside the point, simply by being history, it disproves Calvin.

7:06 I'm noting, Calvin uses the pretext of mockery in commenting on verse 47, but Calvin doesn't comment on verse 49.

Here is part of Calvin's comment on verse 47:

For Satan has no method more effectual for ruining the salvation of the godly, than by dissuading them from calling on God. For this reason, he employs his agents to drive off from us, as far as he can, the desire to pray. Thus he impelled the wicked enemies of Christ basely to turn his prayer into derision, intending by this stratagem to strip him of his chief armor. And certainly it is a very grievous temptation, when prayer appears to be so far from yielding any advantage to us, that God exposes his name to reproaches, instead of lending a gracious ear to our prayers. This ironical language, therefore — or rather this barking of dogs — amounts to saying that Christ has no access to God, because, by imploring Elijah, he seeks relief in another quarter.

Pretty obviously, seeing verse 49 is incompatible with the interpretation, that's arguably why Calvin didn't comment on it.

Nova Gazer

@Nova_Gazer

Just a careful (possibly not needed) clarification. Elijah was not bodily assumed into heaven in the sense that the Blessed Mother was. No one entered heaven (the Beatific Vision) until after Jesus' Crucifixion. According to my (scanty) research, Church Fathers and theologians liked to use the word "translated" into heaven or more properly the paradise which would likely be the same paradise Abraham and the Old Testament Saints were in before Jesus rescued them.

I

Kinghood of Mousekind

@kinghoodofmousekind2906

The "Bosom", right? It is interesting how in Italian and other Romance languages we say "Paradiso" for "Heaven", with "il seno di Abramo" for the Bosom of Abraham.

I answered

twice, A and B

A

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

Not really.

Henoch and Elias are translated into a lower Heaven than the Empyrean one, and that bodily, unlike the souls who were translated souls only into the Bosom of Abraham.

Jesus and Mary are in the Empyrean Heaven, above the fix stars.

Henoch and Elias are probably on one of the planets that God has made inhabitable for them.

TomasTomi

@TomasTomi30

@hglundahl what? What planets?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TomasTomi30 Which one would be third from Earth?

Posito primo raptu, ponitur consequenter secundus raptus. Et duo facit: primo ponitur raptus, secundo raptus excellentia, ibi audivit arcana, et cetera. Sed notandum, quod Glossa dicit istum raptum esse alium a primo. Et si bene consideretur, bis legitur aliquid de apostolo, ad quod possunt isti duo raptus referri. Nam Act. IX, 9 legitur de eo quod stetit tribus diebus non videns et nihil manducans, neque bibens, et ad hoc potest referri primus raptus, ut scilicet tunc fuerit raptus usque ad tertium caelum. Sed Act. XXII, 17 legitur quod factus est in templo in stupore mentis, et ad hoc refertur iste secundus raptus. Sed hoc non videtur verisimile, quia quando in stupore mentis factus fuit, missus iam fuerat in carcerem apostolus; sed hanc epistolam scripsit apostolus diu ante, unde prius scripta fuit haec epistola, quam apostolus fuisset in stupore. Et ideo dicendum est, quod differt iste raptus a primo, quantum ad id in quod raptus est. Nam in primo raptus est in tertium caelum; in secundo vero in Paradisum Dei. Si vero aliquis tertium caelum acciperet corporaliter, secundum primam acceptionem caelorum superius positam, vel si fuerit visio imaginaria, posset similiter dicere Paradisum corporalem, ut diceretur quod fuerit raptus in Paradisum terrestrem. Sed hoc est contra intentionem Augustini, secundum quem dicimus, quod fuit raptus in tertium caelum, id est visionem intelligibilium, secundum quod in se ipsis et in propriis naturis videntur, ut supra dictum est. Unde secundum hoc oportet non aliud intelligere per caelum, et aliud per Paradisum, sed unum et idem per utrumque, scilicet gloriam sanctorum, sed secundum aliud et aliud. Caelum enim dicit altitudinem quamdam cum claritate, Paradisus vero quamdam iucundam suavitatem. In sanctis autem beatis et Angelis Deum videntibus sunt excellenter haec duo, quia est in eis excellentissima claritas, qua Deum vident, et summa suavitas, qua Deo fruuntur.

St. Thomas considers that St. Paul just might have been raptured to the Terrestrial Paradise in II Cor 12, but he cautions that St. Augustine thinks differently.

I don't think St. Thomas on II Cor is available in English translation.

TomasTomi

@hglundahl This speaks nothing to me, I will rather (ask and) listen to my bishop and priests he appointed in our local church which is in communion with the succesor of st. Peter. As is the tradition since year 33 A.D. God bless.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TomasTomi30 You are obviously free to do so, but tell him, I'm pretty familiar with St. Thomas. The one from "Sicily." Aquino outside Naples.

I never claimed to be your bishop, I only claim to be a knowledgeable Catholic layman.

TomasTomi

@hglundahl No you did not, but on my question you presented me only a latin text, you spoke of planets and did not defended your claims. I am sorry but you seem to me like an internet troll not a knowledgeable catholic. I do not say you are troll, but this way of argumentation is no good. Have a good day

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@TomasTomi30 "but on my question you presented me only a latin text,"

With a resumé of some highlights and a regret that I didn't have an English translation.

"you spoke of planets and did not defended your claims."

My best defense would arguably be, somewhere St. Thomas (or someone he cited) mentions earthly paradise being lifted up from Earth, not destroyed, and also not lifted up into Empyrean Heaven where God is in His throne room, but into one of the lower planets.

To those familiar with Medieval and Late Antiquity cosmology, that means a planetary heaven.

"you seem to me like an internet troll not a knowledgeable catholic."

The two are not exclusive. If the word troll had been used like that, pretty certainly Gilbert Keith Chesterton and Hilaire Belloc would have been called ink-and-print trolls, and probably (though I haven't read her) Flannery O'Connor as well.

"The truth will make you odd" she has been quoted as saying.

The two others were decorated by Pope Pius XI.

"this way of argumentation"

I didn't catch you were making an objection, so I didn't try to provide an argumentation. I was only quickly trying to respond to what I took as a question. My bad.

@TomasTomi30 I have now added, into the post with comments and dialogue, a translation of the passage:

[link to this post]

B

Hans-Georg Lundahl

To clarify:

• the Bosom of Abraham was in a sense Paradise,
• but is different from Earthly Paradise, from which Adam and Eve were expelled, and which was arguably translated upward, to one of the planets, at the latest in the Deluge.

Kinghood of Mousekind

@hglundahl good clarification!

II

Brutus Kelpamine

@BrutusKelpamine

Wrong ! The only person who went to heaven before Jesus was Enoch..

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@BrutusKelpamine Have you read this?

And as they went on, walking and talking together, behold a fiery chariot, and fiery horses parted them both asunder: and Elias went up by a whirlwind into heaven.
[4 Kings (2 Kings) 2:11]

Translation of the Thomas passage:

Posito primo raptu, ponitur consequenter secundus raptus.		Given the first rapture, the second rapture is consequently posited.
Et duo facit: primo ponitur raptus, secundo raptus excellentia, ibi audivit arcana, et cetera.		And he had two of them: first is stated "raptus", second, the excellence of the rapture, "there he heard secrets" and so on.
Sed notandum, quod Glossa dicit istum raptum esse alium a primo.		But note, the Gloss says that this rapture was other than the first one.
Et si bene consideretur, bis legitur aliquid de apostolo, ad quod possunt isti duo raptus referri.		And if we consider well, twice we read sth of the Apostle to which the two raptures could refer.
Nam Act. IX, 9 legitur de eo quod stetit tribus diebus non videns et nihil manducans, neque bibens, et ad hoc potest referri primus raptus, ut scilicet tunc fuerit raptus usque ad tertium caelum.		For in Acts 9:9 is read of him that he stood three days without seing and eating nor drinking nothing, and to this the first rapture can be referred, namely this was when he was raptured into the Third Heaven.
Sed Act. XXII, 17 legitur quod factus est in templo in stupore mentis, et ad hoc refertur iste secundus raptus.		But in Acts 22:17 is read that in the Temple he incurred a stupor of the mind, and to this that second rapture is referred.
Sed hoc non videtur verisimile, quia quando in stupore mentis factus fuit, missus iam fuerat in carcerem apostolus; sed hanc epistolam scripsit apostolus diu ante, unde prius scripta fuit haec epistola, quam apostolus fuisset in stupore.		But this does not seem likely, since when he was in a stupor of the mind, the Apostle had already been imprisoned; but this Epistle the Apostle wrote long before, so, this Epistle was written before the Apostle was in a stupor of mind.
Et ideo dicendum est, quod differt iste raptus a primo, quantum ad id in quod raptus est.		And hence we say, this rapture differs from the first, as to that into the rapture was.
Nam in primo raptus est in tertium caelum; in secundo vero in Paradisum Dei.		For in the first, the rapture is into the Third Heaven; but in the second into the Paradise of God.
Si vero aliquis tertium caelum acciperet corporaliter, secundum primam acceptionem caelorum superius positam, vel si fuerit visio imaginaria, posset similiter dicere Paradisum corporalem, ut diceretur quod fuerit raptus in Paradisum terrestrem.		But if someone accepts the Third Heaven in a corporeal manner, according to the first meaning of heavens posed above, or if the vision was imaginary, he could likewise say a bodily Paradise, so as to say that the rapture was into the Terrestrial Paradise.
Sed hoc est contra intentionem Augustini, secundum quem dicimus, quod fuit raptus in tertium caelum, id est visionem intelligibilium, secundum quod in se ipsis et in propriis naturis videntur, ut supra dictum est.		But this is against the understanding of St. Augustine, according to which we say, that the rapture was into the Third Heaven, that is into a vision of intelligiblesn according to how they are seen in themselves and in their own nature, as said above.
Unde secundum hoc oportet non aliud intelligere per caelum, et aliud per Paradisum, sed unum et idem per utrumque, scilicet gloriam sanctorum, sed secundum aliud et aliud.		Hence, according to this, one should not understand one thing by the Heaven and another by the Paradise, but one and the same by both, that is the glory of the saints, but according to different aspects.
Caelum enim dicit altitudinem quamdam cum claritate, Paradisus vero quamdam iucundam suavitatem.		For Heaven meansof a certain height with light, but Paradise a certain blissful sweetness.
In sanctis autem beatis et Angelis Deum videntibus sunt excellenter haec duo, quia est in eis excellentissima claritas, qua Deum vident, et summa suavitas, qua Deo fruuntur.		But in the blessed saints and Angels who see God, these two are foremost, since in them is a highest light, in which they see God, and a highest sweetness, in which they delight in God.

A Veteran Analysing

New blog on the kid: Renee Nicole Good · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Both Videos (Except the Guy's Own) · A Veteran Analysing · "Clearly Hit"

Did the ICE agent was it really 16:16 smart to be like directly in front of 16:18 the vehicle if you thought there was a 16:20 chance it was going to flee? Probably 16:22 not, right?

...

Is it a smart idea to 16:36 flee federal agents in your SUV? Also 16:39 not a good idea, right?

Analyzing THAT Minneapolis ICE Video
Combat Veteran News | 8 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rJrmINvVDc

[A highlight on Jonathan Ross:

While Ross’ name has been widely reported, the DHS has, so far, refused to “expose the name of this officer,” DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. But the agency has confirmed that Ross was seriously injured in June while trying to arrest an immigrant who had refused to get out of his car.

In both cases, Ross was confronting a driver at the wheel of a vehicle.

In the June incident, Ross broke the window of a car when the driver refused to exit the vehicle and then found himself being dragged at least 50 yards when the driver hit the gas.

The ICE officer who killed a Minnesota woman is a war veteran who spent over a decade working for DHS
Jan. 10, 2026, 3:43 AM GMT+1 / Updated Jan. 10, 2026, 5:12 PM GMT+1 | By Daniella Silva, Rebecca Cohen and Corky Siemaszko
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ice-officer-jonathan-ross-veteran-spent-decade-dhs-rcna253254

OK. Was it really smart to crush a car window and stick his arm in?]

Both Videos (Except the Guy's Own)

New blog on the kid: Renee Nicole Good · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Both Videos (Except the Guy's Own) · A Veteran Analysing · "Clearly Hit"

What Does the Law Say About the ICE Shooting in Minnesota?
Washington Gun Law | 9 janv. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y04ndAPynMk

7:06 If we see the event from both angles, what the second video doesn't show is, while he was in front and was "kicked" by the vehicle, which the first video doesn't show, [what the first video does show is] she was turning the other way, he came in from the left (and he actually chose to go in there in front of the vehicle) and she turned to the right.

7:31 The shot was fired when the ICE officer was already safe, because the vehicle had already rolled away from him.

torpedo 1

@torpedo1306

That is very short sighted of you, that officer would've had no idea which direction that woman was going to go. The officer was more than justified to protect himself from that woman's poor decision making.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@torpedo1306 Whether he was subjectively justified or not, my point is, he was not objectively so.

@torpedo1306 However, I think he could feel she was rolling away.

10:04 From the other angle, second video, it may look as if accelerating in his direction, but given the first video, first, it shows he was stepping in front of the car, from the left, second, it shows the car was turning to the right, away from him.

The first video doesn't do justice to the fact he was touched, the second doesn't do justice to the fact she was avoiding to touch him more than (from her pov) necessary to get away.

11:25 Courtroom ... like where ICE officers have typically not been allowing deportees to go until they were already deported?

Under the pretext (perhaps not theirs) that due process applies only to US Citizens, because others are not under American jurisdiction (well, if so, why is ICE applying American any kind of jurisdiction?).

15 persons have died in ICE custody, according to their statistics, since the policy change. Here is one of them, in their own words on the "immigration history", the Haitian Ms BLAISE, Marie Ange:

On February 12, 2025, the United States Customs and Border Protection (CBP)
encountered Ms. BLAISE at Henry E. Rohlsen International Airport, located in
Saint Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, while attempting to board a flight to Charlotte,
North Carolina. CBP transferred Ms. BLAISE to Juan F. Luis Hospital and
Medical Center, in Saint Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands, for elevated blood pressure
(BP).
• On February 13, 2025, Ms. BLAISE was charged with removability by CBP.
• On February 14, 2025, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) Miami
assumed Ms. BLAISE’s custody and detained her at San Juan Staging Facility,
located in San Juan, Puerto Rico, and later transferred her to Miami Staging Facility,
in Miami, FL.
• On February 21, 2025, Ms. BLAISE was transfered to Richwood
Correctional Center (RCC) in Oakdale, LA.
• On April 5, 2025, ICE transferred Ms. BLAISE to Broward Transitional Center
(BTC), located in Pompano Beach, Florida (FL).

Adding: Date of Death: April 25, 2025

No criminal history.

Criminal History
N/A

She was detained for 73 days, no process, and moved around more than once, which would not have facilitated getting one.

I think it is fair to say, ICE has done quite a few bad things. And these 15 deaths do not take into account what may have happened that time when instead of repatriation, people were flown to a country in Africa.

Young Turks give a close-up with slow motion, from a video by Colin Rugg "who hasn't posted" (meaning his X was emptied?), near five minutes in:

NEW Video Of ICE Shooting Released
The Young Turks | 9.I.2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMuQN_PaVw4

Christmas Story in Bethlehem

Bethlehem’s Muslim Residents Discover the Christmas Story for the First Time #christiannews
CBN News | 23 Dec. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NbTNaBT4H4o