While I Have Touched on Theology, More Than A Little, I Have Not Proclaimed Myself a Theologian

For all the Self-proclaimed theologians.
The Catholic Wire | 9 Febr. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9AdQRqB2JM

6:39 Who introduced psychology into seminars?

9:17 I have seen a commentary by Lapide, which, for Creation week day IV, introduces a discussion from the 19th C.

Haydock is a commentary for laymen, and we know he writes in the 19th C. Some whom he cites wrote in the patristic or scholastic era, but the only trace of Heliocentric compatibility that I have seen (and by compatibility, I mean not considering Heliocentrism condemned by a passage) are from Haydock, on Joshua 10, and from Guillaume François Berthier, SJ, whose work on the Psalms was published posthumousy in 1782. None of the commenters, not even Haydock or Berthier, show a Heliocentric preference.

Pope Michael I was an outspoken Geocentric, as you may know. His successor has not retracted that.

So, supposing I'm not wrong to take the election as validly by the virtue of epikeia transferring the task of electing a pope downward, I know I have the backing of the latest Pope who pronounced himself.

9:42 Deo gratias, si uolo studere Postillae in Libros Geneseos uel Condempnationibus Episcopi Parisiensis Stephani II Tempier et sine versione anglica id possum.

Refutaui quendam "Balaster Convalier" qui scripsit Sanctum Robertum dixisse, "si papa dixerit quid contra ueritatem uel moralem, ecclesia est obligata credere falsa uel mala", quia semel una bibliotheca Dominicanorum inueni Robertum Bellarminum et uidi eum reuera dixisse "si papa dixerit etc, ecclesia esset obligata etc" in casu irreali.

Eo tempore aliqui Photiani incoeperunt me pro catamitam ponere et in tergo quasi mihi, quasi non mihi dicere dimidiam accusationis.

In facultate Lundensi latinae et graecae linguis studium feci ... et pro latina, nunquam nimiam aerugam patiebatur.

[tried to add:]

numquam nimia aerugine patiebatur, my bad

10:44 I am very aware that a certain man in Manresa was told by the Inquisitors, he was not allowed to continue giving women advice on the difference between venial and mortal without studying moral theology. I hope the man was from Heaven not too pround of Berthier, but regardless of when corruption came into his order, I am, when touching on theology, which is not always the case when I write, abstaining very consciously from giving that kind of advice.

Nevertheless, Gilbert Keith Chesterton did not have the full training of a priest in seminary when he wrote The Everlasting Man, which is part of what Pius XI rewarded him for.

I try to give comment in the Apologetic field mainly, when at all theological. When political, I tend to take cues from Franco, Dollfuss, Schuschnigg ... and Chesterton. Not forgetting his comrade Belloc. When engaged in comments on the MIddle Ages of Latin Christendom, I take as part base the things I learned from C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, G. K. Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc, plus some extra tidbits that have been dug up later, like it was probably some kind of Eurocommunist who wrote the book I read in Swedish "den dynamiska medeltiden" where I learned about Nicole d'Oresme ... the man who said, "Heliocentrism is, against every objection, a) possible, and b) totally pointless" ... (yes, the author was Swedish, the book is from 1984).

I also use statistics taken from wikipedian articles arranged inter alia by genealogy (for Lewis XVI and Marie Antoinette, I take each as Sosa-Stradonitz 1 and go back to Sosa-Stradonitz 63 or 127 or so ...). Or facts I find in contemporary historians of the Middle Ages.

But, as said, I respect what the Inquisitors told St. Ignatius of Loyola. Unless the issue is very obvious, like getting slightly tipsy just before you go to bed is not a mortal sin.

There have been 24 years since I came on the internet, my plan to get a better life has always been to get texts from my blogs (essays, with permission from other participants even dialogues, some poems, some sheet music) commercially valorised. You know, at least part of the occupation that Chesterton made his living from. In this query, I have been harrassed from the left, by Protestants who think I really must come to terms with Apologetics not really proving things, "reasons without proof" as someone put it, as well as Christian virtue being impossible, and from a kind of right who, incorrectly, have perceived me as some kind of rival to priests.

I have been under some kind of pastoral at a distance from trad priests who have taken the idea, on my blogs "he doesn't really need the money, it's not like we rob him, he's not interested in getting married" and on any show I am making of trying to get married "oh, he can't responsibly marry, he has no income" ... I would consider those who take this approach as robbers.

An explanation of Sedevacantism - Is the SSPX correct?
The Catholic Wire | 11 Jan. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvpbzcwJW0o

[under this one, I posed the question where he stood on Pope Michael II
... deleted or hidden]

Does Anti-White Racism Exist? Yes

YouTuber Alec Gunter Called Me a N4zi, F4scist, YT Supremacist, Racist. My Counter Attack
Metatron | 31 March 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIAnSygfZdo

I'm a bit affected by this kind of thing.

I came out in defense of Kyle Rittenhouse.

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: A Thread As Allie Denounced Disney +
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2023/02/a-thread-as-allie-denounced-disney.html

It came up again in 2023:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: A Thread As Allie Denounced Disney +
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2023/02/a-thread-as-allie-denounced-disney.html

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Allie's Video, Outside the Thread with J R
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2023/02/allies-video-outside-thread-with-j-r.html

I live in the street, I have to this day people of coulour passing by with noise when I try to sleep, in some cases very clearly deliberately, because they perceive me as a racist.

[tried to add:]

Sorry, first link should be:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: "This takes us back to enslavement" a Black woman said ...
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2021/11/this-takes-us-back-to-enslavement-black.html

Galileo Case

What Galileo Means For Atheists, Catholics, and Protestants in 2025
Gavin Ortlund | 31 March 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wS4rjpaZKmA

How do you feel about the idea that the best proof text for Geocentrism is Romans 1?

You know, there are Catholics and even Protestants who haven't abandoned the historic reluctance for the position of Galileo.

I think Pope Michael I on occasion cited Gerardus Dingeman Bouw. Doctor in Astrophysics.

2:16 You are levying a heavy accusation against Pope Urban VIII.

He did not sit in judgement over Galileo. Among the assessors, one other Barberini, a relative of the Pope, did not vote.

If he was annoyed, he went to some length to assure the annoyance would not play into the judgement.

10:38 I think this is the second or third if probably not fourth time you call Galileo's attitude prior to 1633 "Augustinian" ... is your criterium for that the very overquoted "it sometimes happens" passage?

Because if you read book I of De Genesi ad Litteram libri XII, St. Augustine actually comes out very directly as a Geocentric.

7:30 Antipope Wojtyla was not just feeling sorry for how Galileo was treated, he also expressed, erroneously, that he was right.

19:50 For once, Luther is spot on.*

The result, chapter 10, verse 13, is given in narrative and could be phenomenological language.

But the immediate miraculous cause, Joshua's words after the prayer to God, we don't expect phenomenological language in the words working a miracle. We don't expect a miracle worker to say the words that someone else expect's them to say to adress what is involved in the result, but we expect them to say the words that are in fact things involved in the result. If Jesus tells a demon "go out of him" or "go out of her" we don't expect this to be a roundabout adress to a mental disease that's intrapersonal, we expect that another person, created thousands of years earlier, was interfering with the person (from the inside) and told to get out.

19:50 For once, Luther is spot on.

The result, chapter 10, verse 13, is given in narrative and could be phenomenological language.

But the immediate miraculous cause, Joshua's words after the prayer to God, we don't expect phenomenological language in the words working a miracle. We don't expect a miracle worker to say the words that someone else expect's them to say to adress what is involved in the result, but we expect them to say the words that are in fact things involved in the result. If Jesus tells a demon "go out of him" or "go out of her" we don't expect this to be a roundabout adress to a mental disease that's intrapersonal, we expect that another person, created thousands of years earlier, was interfering with the person (from the inside) and told to get out.

21:41 John Owen is actually doing Heliocentrism too much honour in pretending it "built on fallible phenomena" ... no, the phenomena Galileo observed were good, but Heliocentrism was not built on them. And Ptolemaic astronomy is not privileged over Tychonian in Scripture.

John Owen and John Calvin examplify two of the things I mistrust and at times (when too exposed) detest in some Protestants:

• granting the erring scientist that the phenomena support him, like a certain type of Creationist very far from Creation Science who would pretend that Dino bones if real would be a point in favour of Deep Time and Evolution, so they must be false;
• or pretending mad, demon possessed and monstruous someone disagreeing with them, like it seems some Protestants do about my relative support for the Inquisition (while it lasted) and my support for Inquisitors being right and Galileo being wrong.

23:23 Would you mind going a bit further?

Put yourself in their mindset, imagine one of them transported to the present and confronted with all the arguments of modern scientific establishment, BUT not having received this from childhood at home PLUS several times over in school.

What in the modern arguments would persuade them?

I have basically "St. Thomas looking over my shoulder" as I peruse the modern arguments. To me it's clear, if the Medieval and Ancient arguments are given a fair hearing, nothing can persuade anyone short of an Atheist of Heliocentrism. Or some very impersonal type of Pantheist, like a Spinozist or Hegelian. Also no Christian.

In the Middle Ages, one Nicolas Oresme, who ended up as bishop in Lisieux, which you may imagine many Catholics would consider a Holy Place, bc of St. Thérèse Martin or Sister Thérèse of the Child Jesus and of the Holy Face, before that, as a scholastic in Paris, gave an argument about Heliocentrism.

a) everything in it is theoretically possible
b) but it is totally superfluous, Geocentrism works just fine.

23:52 Where do you get it from that Heliocentrism was genuine scientific advance (or has become so since)?

Is it just a postulate to make the Galileo case this "cautionary tale"?

24:58 Is Augustinianism short for this overquoted and quotemined quotable quote "it sometimes happens that ..."?

25:26 Tycho Brahe would interpret these verses exactly as a Medieval Ptolemaic would.

You are suggesting that Scripture could say things that go beyond the immediate context verbally and still not really mean them.

26:33 I'm reading Scripture in the context of the Church that made Oresme a bishop and Galileo a suspect.

26:50 To us Catholics that would primarily be Haydock.

The commentary explicitly compatible with Heliocentrism is late:

92:1 This does not prove that the earth moves not on its own axis daily, and round the sun every year. (Berthier)

95:10 The Christian faith shall not be abolished, (Menochius) or corrected. (Haydock) --- "Faith is not to be reformed." (Tertullian)

103:5 The established order shall subsist, though the earth may move, Psalm ci. 27. (Berthier) --- It is fixed by its own gravity in the centre. (Worthington)

Worthington took the position of St. Thomas and held Aristotelic Gravity.

W. F. Berthier wrote in 1782, sorry, was published in the year of his death, namely 1782:

Guillaume-François Berthier, S.J.

One metaphoric sense goes against reforming the faith with modernity changing the meaning.

* "However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth."

Defending the 1990 Emergency Conclave

I am Not a Usurer · Celarent or Cesare? · Defending the 1990 Emergency Conclave

Traditional Catholic Groups Explained
DenshiVideo | 30 March 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wbrt_UDi5EA

32:05 You are actually attributing to the late Pope Michael I a motive that cannot be totally verified.

Bawden wanted to see if a Pope could be elected.

Ask Theresa S. Benns if she believed and perhaps participated in David Bawden sending out invitations to lots of bishops. If he actually did, he hoped for someone else to become Pope.

If he didn't, but the other participants believed he did, they at least believed the "emergency conclave" was validly convoked. And it's those other five who elected him.

So, to the purposes of at least five people (the only ones who voted for him, he didn't vote for himself) he tried to get a Pope elected.

32:37 Thanks for noting Michael II exists and at least admitting he's a priest.

You could have done one better and also admit Michael I was ordinained priest and consecrated bishop the Gaudete weekend in 2011.

Ruin a Man's Life with False Evidence ....

The New Jerusalem Report 65-Taking responsibility
The New Jerusalem Report | 31 March 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex-tZKhamPA

6:32 I think some people have taken me for that bitter man in prison, and think they are angels when they are offering themselves as mentors.

The reality is, legally I got out of prison in 2000. People who think they are mentoring me are just prolonging the sentence illegally.

6:42 How do you expect someone to forgive if he's never allowed to have a life?

If every day is stolen by people who think they are teaching him forgiveness?

8:42 I'm providing myself with work and God is allowing me to write about things.

Some people think I need their service for the homeless "to raise me up" and so are against me living off my work.

The New Jerusalem Report

@TheNewJerusalemReport

A man's only freedom is inside himself.You get to choose what you want to believe.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@TheNewJerusalemReport There are actually external freedoms as well.

And St. Paul seems to encourage us to keep them.

"You are bought with a great price, don't become slaves to men"

11:23 At least for young Jewish inmates in the camps, I get the impression the Nazis wanted to mentor them.

It's certain that at least some Jews who were old or sick or handicapped were killed, the perpetrator was one of the 1945 suicides, but Hitler had ordered the same thing about Germans in the Aktion T4. I believe the actual deaths were also meant to scare Jewish youngsters inside into compliance. By faking death threats.

Tovia Singer Judges Monotheletism ...

How Many Jews Will Tovia Singer Convert to Christianity? · Tovia Singer Judges Monotheletism ...

... but he thinks he's judging Christianity.

Judaism vs. Christianity on the Messiah: Why We Differ -Rabbi Tovia Singer
Tovia Singer | 10 Sept. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_SWAcZqTbE

From the side of the human will, He could theoretically have sinned, as Adam sinned, though previously innocent.

From the side of the divine will, and of their perfect union, He could not have sinned. A will that in itself was capable of falling, was gifted by the divine will, of the same person, with the gift of impeccability, like that of the blessed after the Resurrection.

He was in the earthly life "simul viator et comprehensor" i e He was simultaneously in the state of those who haven't died yet and of those who are Resurrected in Glory (starting with Him and His Mother). Concretely, therefore, He could not have sinned, but there was in Him sth which apart from this circumstance could have. Which therefore could experience the strain of the temptation.

Thanks for reminding me Monotheletism (the doctrine He only had one will) is a heresy.

5:51 Isaias 2, first four verses: 1 The word that Isaias the son of Amos saw, concerning Juda and Jerusalem. 2 And in the last days the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be prepared on the top of mountains, and it shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it. 3 And many people shall go, and say: Come and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, and to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us his ways, and we will walk in his paths: for the law shall come forth from Sion, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem.

Catholic comment:

[2] "The last days": The whole time of the new law, from the coming of Christ till the end of the world, is called in the scripture the last days; because no other age or time shall come after it, but only eternity.-- Ibid.

[2] "On the top of mountains": This shews the perpetual visibility of the church of Christ: for a mountain upon the top of mountains cannot be hid.

The Catholic Church actually began teaching in Jerusalem, in Acts chapter 2.

6:20 That war will come to an end as soon as the Messias comes does not follow from the prophecies you have cited.

Two things should not be conflated:

• Judah and Ephraim will make no more wars against each other and will have no armies (fulfilled in the Palestinian Christians who descend from First Century Jews and Samaritans, and by the way, they have not made wars against either Mitsrahi Jews or non-Christian Samaritans).
• God's word of peace will go out to the peoples.

It has. It has not abolished all war, but it has changed the way war is viewed. You may have noticed a certain Herzog and a certain Netanyahu arguing for total war, as if you were Joshua fighting Canaaneans. You may also have noticed quite a few Christian voices basically stating "we don't do total war, we don't kill civilians" ... well, that's the effect of God's word of peace going out to the nations 2000 years ago. Class relations have changed. Sex relations have changed. Age relations have changed. Slavery has been abolished in Christian country after Christian country (South of US and Brazil were the last ones, at least among Catholic and Protestant countries, Russian serfdom may not have been quite the same, I'm not totally sure of conditions in Ethiopia prior to Italy and to Communism). Women are seen as fully honourable, equal in honour if not all other rights to men. Children are not slaves of parents, disobedient children are not stoned or decapitated.

6:41 Indeed, the first Christians were Jews who repented.

6:52 St. Paul doesn't say no one can repent.

He says no one can make an initiative to repent independently of God. Big difference. When God saves, in precisely St. Paul, the ones saved as adults repent.

Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God. And such some of you were; but you are washed, but you are sanctified, but you are justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Spirit of our God

I e, the sinners whom Jesus saved were saved by repenting. I Cor. 6:9-11.

6:58 Here is the LXX text for Isaias 59:20

καὶ ἥξει ἕνεκεν Σιων ὁ ῥυόμενος καὶ ἀποστρέψει ἀσεβείας ἀπὸ Ιακωβ

The exact same wording is found in St. Paul's Greek in Romans 11, except there is no "kai" and "heneken" has been changed to "ek" ...

9:05 Jesus could as man fear God, while as God being God.

Again, no problem. He did the appropriate thing in both natures.

9:55 Again no contradiction. Eccl. 12:13

Let us all hear together the conclusion of the discourse. Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is all man:

Ah, wait, you translate "kal ha adam" as "all man's" and we as "all man" ...

But I think "kal" / "kol" can also be translated "the whole" ... now, "this is the whole man" ... what about the broken man who currently doesn't do that? He needs to become whole, which is where a Christian redeemer comes in. (I don't master Hebrew by the way, I consult the interlinear know what a status constructus is, guess "kal" is constructus for "kol" and consult 3605. kol for the range of meanings being All, every, whole, entire, total).

10:20 Obviously the "we" or "our sins" in Isaias 53 refers to the believers.

We don't say "Jesus died for our sins" is the only thing you have to believe.

The presence of the "we" obviously proves that the suffering servant is not the people of Israel.

10:41 No, freemasonry and some versions of Judaism (kabbalism, lots of mentorship going on) is that highly developed version of mystery religions.

11:24 No, as a Jew not believing in Jesus you are not a light to the nations. Jesus passed that office to those believing in Him:

You are the light of the world. A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid.
[Matthew 5:14]

The audience were Jews, they were not exclusively His disciples, the mountain was still Zion, but they were listening and believing. That is what Catholics do to this day. (Oh, not all of us, there are some bad Catholics too).

@ToviaSinger1
The Christian Lie About the Septuagint! -Rabbi Tovia Singer
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/O8FfKX1-H60

Already in the five books of Moses we have an example of Jews having a motive to change the text.

I'd also say the rest of the LXX was extant before Christianity came around, like when St. Paul refers to the Scriptures which St. Tim had known since childhood, since St Tim was a Hellenistic Jew, he knew them as the LXX.

Back to the motive. With a Masoretic Genesis 11, you could argue that Melchisedec was Shem, which was clearly not the opinion of St. Paul about the tithing of Abraham.

Celarent or Cesare?

I am Not a Usurer · Celarent or Cesare? · Defending the 1990 Emergency Conclave

Which mode of syllogism is valid about St. Robert's principle?

Cardinal Bellarmine: Patron of Popesplainers?
Reason & Theology | 30.III.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3D7T5vvI24

If Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio have all upheld (since 1992), this:

The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements... for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."

I don't see how this is material.

It involves heresy, since it involves denial of Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism to a degree beyond what Leo XIII or Fulcran Vigouroux could have imagined.

So, the options are, according to St. Robert:

A Pope cannot uphold CCC 283
John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis are Popes
= John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis have not upheld CCC 283

Or:

A Pope cannot uphold CCC 283
Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio have upheld CCC 283
= Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio are not Popes.