In Case Some People Think I'm What Trent Horn Condemns in the Right

How Being "Based" Can Send you to Hell
The Counsel of Trent | 20 Nov. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mutrNUJNhU

2:31 More precisely the older brother of the prodigal son.

4:00 Can brand new converts be a public face of the faith?

First of all, this does not concern me. I converted in 1988. Certainly to the Novus Ordo Church, but I intended it as a conversion to the Catholic Church. In 2006 and 2009, I thought I had gone full circle around all Catholic alternatives to Novus Ordo, so I went to the Orthodox, from August 2006 to Pentecost 2009. But in this time I was technically biritualist, I never abjured Catholicism. So, it would be wrong to treat me even in 2009 as a fresh convert.

But second, yes they can, it happens that new converts immediately become public faces of the faith.

John Henry Newman.
Gilbert Keith Chesterton.
Thomas Merton.

Anyone who pretends I was Pentecostal last week is someone who last week was listening to Pentecostals who were overdoing what we have in common or overdoing their hopes of seeing me "see the light" and quit Catholicism for Pentecostalism. Dito for Jew, Muslim or Communist or Gay Activist.

5:42 Normally, Catholics in Right Wing outlets like Rivarol or Right Wing parishes like St. Nicolas du Chardonnet (they have requiem masses for Francisco Franco, and I have expressed a feeling it's no longer necessary, he's probably already in heaven, yes, he was sometimes somewhat heartless to what he saw as offenders, but that's probably a scar from the war on the Rif, we all have our quirks, St. Lewis was actually burning the lips of people who used the name of God in vain in his presence, perhaps over the top ...), would not support either jubilation over killed migrants or calling race mixing a sin (in St. Nicolas some would call it an imprudence generally speaking, but never universally sinful) or taking the "depends on race" view on abortion, or other things like that.

If nevertheless some of them do so, and I'm found awkward over opposing that kind of thing, which I do and always did (since before my Catholic conversion if not outright all of my life), always in my adult life from my late teens on, it's a thing they have never outright admitted to me.

However, it is also known that I am friendly to that parish (with reservations so grave I've never been to their masses since 2012, except once in 2013) and that paper (the now only pro-life weekly in France), and some very severely overdo how much that kind of thing is typical of these French right wingers. As having been in that parish, I know that being a Nazi there is less easy than being for Pétain and against Hitler (perhaps unless you count Laval in the Hitler category, which I did). But nevertheless, I've seen people who have pretended not just that St. Nicolas du Chardonnet are all Fascist (perhaps nearly arguable, though technically untrue, depending on how you define Fascist), but also, that they are all Nazis, which I know is definitely untrue.

One of my real grievances against St. Nicolas is, they have held to the idea that new converts cannot be public faces of the faith (which doesn't explain why they have boycotted the socially relevant parts of my writings or my musical compositions), and they have counted me as a new convert tout court after having been with the Orthodox, which is especially egregious since the way they view on the bishops and the pope actually works reminds very much of Eastern Orthodox.

But that is something other than wishing people to drown within eye-sight of Lampedusa because Italians don't come to the rescue, if sth like that happened.

Both Hitler and Mussolini came from "the Left" but of very different types. Hitler was a Communist in the Munich Soviet in early 1919. The exact same year Mussolini founded what is best known as Fascism on a much more Syndicalist programme. Chesterton thought of Mussolini as a Syndicalist. And Austro-Fascism is more correctly known as (a specific period of) the Christian Socials in Austria, a group co-founded by Johann Emmanuel Veith, convert from Judaism, friend of St. Clement Maria Hofbauer, and a Young Earth Creationist.

6:44 I am a very firm believer in Mit brennender Sorge.

It just so happens that after National Socialists, those falling most directly under that (and not yet quite under Divini Redemptoris) well before even Italian Fascism would be Scandinavian Social Democracy. In Italy a Gipsy didn't have to fear sterilisation or camps, at least not before the Salò Republic which was a puppet régime, but in Sweden, under democratically elected parliamentarian, chief of the largest party and named PM, Per Albin Hansson, they did have to fear that.

Some have pretended "Pius XI condemned Nazi Eugenics in Mit brennender Sorge" which is only indirectly true, basically the paragraph you quoted, but he condemned Eugenics in a much more direct way in Casti Connubii, before Hitler was in power, but while Carl Gustaf Ekman or his predecessor Arvid Lindman were so, a bit before Per Albin Hansson. While the procedure was legalised in 1934, under Per Albin, it was studied since 1922 in an officially funded institute, basically in tandem with Lenin starting to study it (and it was Stalin of all people who stopped it).

I think your cited paragraph also very much condemns putting public health or feminism or things over the natural law ...

Compared to that, Non abbiamo bisogno can hardly be considered a condemnation of Italian Fascism in all its forms, and by the way, I am for the Pope and not the Duce on those issues. Dollfuss and Schuschnigg, far from giving such concerns, were eager to follow Quadragesimo Anno.

7:33 If you want to show non-white cardinals, I have a not quite white Pope. A Pinoy. Michael II is not purely Spanish. He's arguably perfectly fluent in Tagalog and Pilipino.

9:36 I would like to know what Fr. Joseph Doherty would have said about the age bans on marriages in principle allowed by the Catholic Church.

In a somewhat more quiet society, one could perhaps imagine that couples one of which was under 18 were not banned from marrying, just (somewhat unreasonably long) asked to wait. However, after a certain age gap (a thing not banned in Catholic moral theology) is there, lots of feminists would mobilise all the paralegal (like psychological or even psychiatric) powers to stop it, so, asking them to wait can mean asking them to wait until their relation is destroyed.

Apart from that, banning teens partly or totally from marrying has obviously involved lots of teen mothers being more easily pushed to abortion.

11:04 Unfortunately, some of the FSSPX priests, perhaps Mgr Lefebvre himself personally discouraged it.

None the less, when a FSSPX priest in 1993 gave me a baptism sub conditione, my godmother had a son who married a black woman, and neither she nor the priest were against that marriage.

13:20 Just in case you wonder, I have never been against the devotion to the Sacred Heart.

I burned a few examples of Anders Arborelius' translation of it in 2001, but that was because of his declinsion of "holy" in the context Holy Ghost, which in Swedish is gendered, masculine adjectives end in -e, and only dialectally do you end all in -a. Or all in -e. The exact same evening, in reparation for either his mistranslation or any guilt or scandal involved in my act, I prayed the Litany, in Latin or German or once in each.

15:11 I have heard some rumour that the encyclical (of a non-Pope) on the Sacred Heart is heterodox. The quotes you have given aren't.

However, the next quote is not wise, but simply ... puritan and idiotic. He confuses AI, internet, algorithms.

If I want nostalgia for when I helped grandma or mother to bake, there certainly are algorithms on youtube which react to my love of that type of content.

The internet is not a kind of AI as usually understood (like ChatGPT or things), and I'm most definitely not dehumanising opponents in debates over the internet. Some may feel dehumanised over being exposed on my blogs, but if they were hiding under screen names, what have they to worry about? Or if they were already known, what right did they have to worry?

Others have imagined if I didn't dehumanise them, I'd already be Anti-Fascist (i e ditching Il Duce, Franco and Dollfuss, along with Hitler), or I would already be an Evangelical Protestant rather than taking refuge behind such inhuman mental constructs of hair brained ideology as (on their view) Apostolic Succession or analysing "Blessed Among Women" in the context of first Jael and Judith, next, given the implication of a very crushing victory over someone, Genesis 3:15. And taking Luke 1 as on that account confirming Ipsa conteret. By the way, I heartily feel much closer to some German FSSPX-ers, like Heinz-Lothar Barth, author of a book taking the title from St. Jerome's translation of Genesis 3:15.

Ipsa conteret. Maria die Schlangenzertreterin: Philologische und theologische Überlegungen zum Protoevangelium (gen 3,15)

Or, if I didn't dehumanise them over the internet, they as the very understanding and (obviously) intellectually superior to me shrinks that they are, would already have been able to convince me to get their therapy. In fact, I'd probably dehumanise them lots more offline, if they showed themselves in the capacity of shrinks. I beat and chased a man over his offering to become financial guardian for me.

Refusing Tyndalo-Mania

Apart from the stray comment on Tyndale, the conversation with Tulsi Gabbard is pretty intelligent.

Why The Left Fears Religious People - Tulsi Gabbard
Chris Williamson | 4 Sept. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=msCFOAdaU2U

7:10 completely decentralised?

No. Secularised. The guy who had the Bible after that was not the poor peasant, it was the rich peasant and any other employer, and the Bible in English or in Swedish or most other Protestant countries would mean, the employees had to go, most of the week, to the employer for interpretation, and on Lord's Day, when they had access to clergy, as they had, in many places, whereever there was Puritanism, the clergyman, in Presbyterian terms the "Teaching Elder" or "Minister" depended on a board of "Ruling Elders" who were typically the most important employers among the employers who were in that Church.

As you said that Tyndale was persecuted for translating the Bible, the Holy Roman Empire gave him pretty good leeway for that, as it was not forbidden there by any means. He had problems in Cologne because he was a heretic, and so he went to Antwerp, where he was apprehended, finally, for heresy, and tried on his theory of justification.

As you said "decentralised" ... Tyndale wasn't even Presbyterian, much less Congregationalist. He believed in Caesaro-Papism. Citing wiki:

A copy of Tyndale's The Obedience of a Christian Man (1528), which some view as arguing for Caesaropapism (the idea that the monarch rather than the Pope should control a country's Church), came into the hands of King Henry VIII, providing a rationale for breaking the Church in England away from the Catholic Church in 1534.

Jimmy Akin somewhat overdoes the concept of reconstructed dialogue, but not by much

It helps to counter the kind of views I suppose he can be suspected of at least defending in others, about Genesis. However, all of the video, most of my comment, is about the NT.

Reconstructed Dialogue in the Bible | The Jimmy Akin Podcast 008
Jimmy Akin | 4 Nov. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ig7RmmFfoyo

1:27 The equivalent of sthenographers, i e tachygraphers, did exist.

St. Mark took down by arguably tachygraphy what St. Peter spoke when comparing gospels of Sts Matthew and Luke and when adding some from his own memory.

2:36 For teaching occasions, I think there was a technique the disciples could have used.

Taking turns to memorise sentence after sentence. With twelve disciples, each had ample time to rehearse his sentence before it was his turn again. So, things like the Sermon on the Mount, to a lesser degree the Olivet discourse, would have been taken down word for word, basically.

6:58 Obviously, neither St. Peter, source of St. Mark, nor St. Matthew, would have repeated the words of a demon or of demons to learn them by heart.

The demons were not their teachers.

9:55 Obviously, the crowd was also not the teachers of the Apostles, they could well content themselves with a resumé. Probably a very boiled down one.

12:58 It is also notable that the places represent the four corners of the world.

Cape Horn to Jerusalem would pass by Egypt. Anchorage to Jerusalem would pass between Crete and Cyrene (and further away through Tunisia, which isn't mentioned). Kamtchatka to Jerusalem would pass by Persia, at least some, perhaps all of the three kinds of Persians mentioned. Hobart to Jerusalem would pass by Arabia, also mentioned.

16:53 I'd disagree on Olivet Discourse or Discourse of Last Supper involving more reconstruction.

They were teaching occasions, the one because they came asking, so probably came prepared, the other because He had already marked the extreme and unique importance of the occasion, so, they came prepared.

Unlike "the chosen", I do not think they took notes on paper, but obviously, I'd forward the same technique for learning by heart already mentioned.

24:02 The problem with the quote from Dei Verbum is, some find a way to weasel them into this or that or other not being properly an assertion of the hagiographer, presumably usually in combination with it having no (obvious) salvific significance.

Now, it may not have been obviously salvific to Fr. Fulcran Vigouroux that the creation days were actual days, because there was no carbon dating around in his time. He could believe and basically did believe, the fossils proved millions of years by a supposed succession of faunas, but Adam was the first creature that basically looked human and Adam lived as far back as the Syncellus chronology, the longest of the three Catholic chronologies, states. With millions of years, we have an old atmosphere, so we would have to deal with why Neanderthals are dated to 40 000 years ago. And apart from ignoring the issues, I don't see any way around this leading either back to the atmosphere isn't old, there were no millions of years, or to some kind of apostasy. So, while the question was not salvific for Fr. Vigouroux in 1909, it has become so for many since then.

Note also that the verdict involved a freedom for exegetes to discuss. That in itself involves a freedom for exegetes to conclude against the even Biblical licitness of Day-Age, since otherwise it would not be a freedom to discuss. It should not be taken as a definition that Day-Age is absolutely speaking OK as a Biblical exegesis.

Thank you very much for mentioning that short stories in short sentences are easy to remember. That means, the material for Genesis 1 through 11, at least the parts that fell under human observation, very well could be dictated in that form and then memorised in that form, without loss of information. By the way, this is how Fr. George Leo Haydock and others in the Catholic world of theologians, concluded that Moses knew the matter of Genesis 3 and other events. Your mention on the parables not needing much reconstruction is in this sense gold.

Publishing Industry Not In My Favour

What You ACTUALLY Need to Get A Book Deal (Not What You Think)
Alyssa Matesic | 22 Sept. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3AWzT-WZ1Q

I'm noting that "no obvious connection" actually involves people who are:

• at work
• home makers
• retired
• discrete.

It would seem, publishers might tend to think of these people as "more reliable" and "mature" than online influencers. Which reflects in 20.5/1.6 = 12.8 times as many deals, and which is obviously a worrying statistic and prejudice for an online influencer. Who, as he doesn't monetise his blogs, needs a book deal.

[Tried to add, follow up to it]

I'm also noting self published previously is less than twice onliners.

This obviously confirms the kind of prejudice I think I would be dealing with in terms of well established publishers (who have most of the titles, obviously)/

Sharing Ken Ham's Point on Parental Authority

This New Government Regulation Is a BIG Problem (They’re Coming for Your Kids)
Ken Ham | 13 Nov. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpP3cIsqxXg

"Did Mary Sin?" — God, Angel and Cousin Elisabeth Said No

God when adressing the snake, Genesis 3:15. Angel Gabriel and Elisabeth the wife of Zacharias, Luke 1. Between that for meaning of an expression, do also check Judges 5 and Judith 13. However, Jimy Akin pretended, "this is not formally defined by the Church", so, after link to his video, my answer to that.

Did Mary Sin? | Conversations with TJ (2 of 5)
Jimmy Akin | 30 Oct. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PU_G9X-NHQ

6:52 The one way to argue for Mary's Immaculate conception Biblically is as a maximal version of Her Sinlessness.

Do you know what "blessed among women" means?

In the OT there are exactly TWO women this gets applied to. Jael and Judith. For killing Sisera and Holophernes.

So, exactly whose head was Mary crushing? That's probably why She was confused about the Angel's Greeting.

When She arrived to Elisabeth, She already knew She was Mother of God, or within probability if Elisabeth confirmed it. BUT ... when Elisabeth added "and blessed is the fruit of thy womb" ... Genesis 3:15. As we know, this is when She was basically jumping for joy. Because this identified HER Sisera and Holophernes as Satan.

Now, again, this doesn't mean She was physically beating Satan in a boxing match, as if She were Thor of Marvel fame, no, it meant She had NEVER displeased God. She had NEVER done what Adam and Eve came to do. That's the victory a human person can have over Satan.

Why do I say She had NEVER sinned? Why wouldn't it just be enough if currently She wasn't? Genesis 3:15 says "enmities" and Hebrew uses this plural for complete enmity.

But since slavery is kind of nearly a friendship compared to ranged battle enmity, that also means NO slavery. She had given Satan not one single victory.

He that committeth sin is of the devil: for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose, the Son of God appeared, that he might destroy the works of the devil
[1 John 3:8]

This is something which applies to many men, but not to Her. The second however applies to Her Son ... and to Her.

We can immediately rule out the idea that She was crushing Satan only by being Mother of God. Immediately. The greeting of the Angel very clearly was given before he spoke of Her pregnancy in the future tense. The pregnancy very probably didn't begin before She had given Her "fiat mihi". She was not yet Mother of God when She had already utterly defeated Satan.

You should have asked him "can you be a Bible believing Christian and NOT believe in the Sinlessness of Mary?" (add as many exclamation marks as you like).

[I tried to add:]

In the fencing match of wills, see Satan as the bungler fat prison guard and Her as Zorro.

[I could not document the censorship, as this involves narrowing down the screenshot through Paint, and it was broken ... but censorship occurred. The comment was taken down basically as soon as given.]

Heschmeyer is Right, But Could Have Cited Me, and Also Been Geocentric

What Simulation Theory Proves About Atheism
Shameless Popery Podcast | 7 Nov. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKTSxPwdD9s

If you had been willing to acknowledge some kind of intellectual debt to me, you could have made an argument easier than by the Chinese room.

You touched on computers not doing math as a person, even a mathematically challenged person, does math.

You could have stated from some of my blog posts, that a computer no more understands arithmetic than an abacus does so.

You could also have stated that computers are unable to actually do language, also from my blogs. In Swedish, the word "uppståndelse" literally means to "stand up" (as to etymology) but it denotes (by its normal usage) two different things. In commotions people stand up from chairs. In resurrections people stand up from graves. Commotions are statistically more common than resurrections, and you can guess what Bing on FB did to a Swedish fellow Catholic's post about the object of the Feast of Easter.

Equally, in Spanish, "precioso" and "preciosa" originally meant exactly what it means in French or English. Statistically today, it more often translates as "funny" (like a child posing a funny question getting a comment like "eres precioso" ...). There was another occasion a poem about the Blessed Virgin. She was described as preciosa. You can guess what Bing on FB did to that. I think I noted that one on my blogs somewhere too.

As for ChatGPT, that's about the same technology as Poe on Quora. I posed a question for which as yet I have no real answers, I posed it to Sungenis and so far got no answer, namely about an occasion when Baronius is supposed to have said, and become the source of, the words Galileo anonymously cited to Cristina of Tuscany. Now, the problem is, the Poe actually offered a follow up question:

Can you provide sources that support the Baronius attribution?
Can you provide specific quotes from Baronius's writings supporting this?

And these phrases come up from "Annales ecclesiastici":

“The sacred writers had no intention to teach us the nature of the heavens, but rather to lead us to the knowledge of God and our salvation.”
“It is not the office of the Holy Scriptures to teach us the natural sciences, but rather to instruct us in divine truths.”

Which I search and then find only in Galileo's letter. Or a direction to St. Augustine. But not to Baronius.

5:10 A physicalist, obviously does not believe in any God who could perform a Geocentric universe or any angels that could perform Tychonian orbits or parallaxes / aberrations as real proper movements.

Do you have any independent argument for Heliocentrism / Modern Cosmology than:
a) Physicalism
b) Deism, which makes God and beginning of Universe a somewhat notable exception to a Physicalism that otherwise holds?

Please note, appealing to "Earth has the smaller mass compared to the Sun, it therefore makes sense that Earth orbits the Sun" presumes there is no immaterial and mightier than matter beings (God, angels) capable of overriding the raw product of gravity and inertia, both of which have to do with masses and their interaction.