To Honour St. Maria Goretti

Theologians ATTACK St Maria Goretti's Purity
Return To Tradition | 10 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fO3BRQshk3c

I would say, the piece by Philippa Haase is simply attacking the "demands made on victims" by elevating St. Maria Goretti as a model.

It's a bit like priests freaking out over elevating St. John Nepomuk or Bl. Andrew Faulhaber as models of martyrdom rather than divulging the secret of confession.

I didn't actually see any direct attacks on St. Maria Goretti's virtue.

I would not see her as a martyr for consecrated virginity, in the sense that St. Barbara was, but she was martyred for wanting to stay a virgin up to marriage. If Protestants became Catholics, certain purity rings would be inscribed "SMGPFM"

Dear St. Maria Goretti, Martyr, and dear St. Alessandro Serenelli, Penitent, pray for me!

Doug Wilson Trying to Square the Circle

Calvinist Problem Passage: What Does It Mean to Fall Away? | Doug Wilson
Canon Press | 22 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWtuToAuGMA

Romans 8 says all who are predestined go to Heaven. It doesn't say all who are currently justified are actually predestined.
Nor that anyone will both be predestined and remain faithful without serious efforts.

John 10 has a disputed text. But if we take "no one can snatch them" as referring to the faithful, it could also refer to just the predestined faithful.

2:40 On this issue, Catholicism agrees.

The elect cannot be finally deceived. "will deceive even the elect" (in some measure, for some time) "if that were possible" (finally it isn't).

3:07 Or away from his own, right? PBH ...

3:14 For someone like Calvin, we believe he fell away, not from God's decree of election, which he hadn't, but from justification as well as from the Catholic faith. I mean John, not Calvin Smith. There is still hope for that man, as for Peppone's son Camillo Lenin Marx or whatever it was ...

3:57 Fall away from the Covenant.

Great. Now, is justification part of the covenant, specifically of the new covenant?

Therefore one can fall away from justification, whether one also falls away from the faith or not.

4:35 I would say, it definitely was a salvific attachment.

It would have saved them, had they been faithful. It was, in and of itself, in the process of saving them, and had saved them from sin, original and (if any) mortal.

Because, if it hadn't been salvific, if it hadn't put salvation within their reach, they wouldn't have been real branches.

5:46 "The assurance of salvation can never be attained by looking inside."

Prove there is an individual assurance, not reasonable prognostic, but quasi doctrinal, assurance of being among the elect?

The Council of Trent says, this assurance, not the prognostic, but the "this assurance is part of my faith" thing, like "I'm saved" = "Jesus rose" usually cannot be attained in this life. Exceptions being like people to whom God reveal the assurance, like St. Mary revealed eternal assurance to St. Bernadette (along with suffering in this life).

Show if you can that the Bible opposes this?

6:15 Oh, you alluded to the first Pope?

Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works you may make sure your calling and election. For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time.
2 Peter 1:10

What was he saying again? "by good works" ...

Like, branches without fruit are cut off. People who give no alms end up among goats and not sheep. When we are justified, Ephesians 2, we are not so by any previous works of ours, but we are signing up for the good works that God has prepared for us that we should walk in them ....

2 Peter 1:10 seems perfectly Trentine Catholic to me. Like Eph 2:10 ends the dispute between Latomus and the man he got burned at Vilvoorde about Romans 3, and it's on Latomus' side, not Tyndale's.

6:26 Your practical solution is perfectly correct, it's also the one of St. Ignatius of Loyola.

7:04 Look to Christ is a great practical solution.

It's just that one way of doing so is ...

Itaque qui se existimat stare, videat ne cadat.
1 Corinthians 10:12 (I often find the Latin more easy to remember and to search)

Wherefore he that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall

Looking to Christ is a great way of doing that. But doing that is also a great way of looking to Christ.

In other words, avoiding mortal sins and repenting those one didn't avoid, if possible in confession, and doing good deeds isn't optional for the elect.

7:07 Yes, but our doctrinal position allows for formulating it.

What's "Addiction" in the Bible?

New blog on the kid: The Day Before Yesterday, I Bought a Flask of Whisky · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: What's "Addiction" in the Bible?

Is Alcohol A Sin According To The Bible?
Taco Talks | 9 Jan. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmoNQJHY1f8

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

You misunderstand what happens to grape juice if not pasteurised, refrigerated etc.

It doesn't go very bad. But within two weeks or so, it starts turning to wine.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

Being drunk is a sin, or rather getting drunk is a sin, once one is drunk it's too late.

Drinking in moderation is not a sin, also true.

Where in the Bible do you find "being addicted to alcohol is a sin"?

Bibi Bobo

@Bibi_Bobo1234

It says that in a couple of places. The word for “addiction” didn’t exist back then. Drunkenness in this context in this sense isn’t just getting drunk once. In this context and sense it means addicted, they just didn’t have that word. They used two words, 1 “drunkenness” 2 “slavery”. Being a slave to anything is sin, and is addiction. Being a slave to alcohol is addiction to alcohol, a slave to lust is addiction to lust. Galatians 5:19-21 uses the word “drunkenness” which in that sense means addiction to alcohol. John 8:34 “everyone who sins is a slave to sin” meaning anyone who sins is addicted to sin, in this sense, any sin including drunk. The Bible also speaks about heart idolatry. Which means that addiction is a form of idolatry. Prioritizing a substance over Christ. It reveals a divided will, where the desire for the created thing is overshadowing the desire for the Creator. In essence the Bible treats “slavery” and “drunkenness” as addiction, the word addiction was just not a word back then.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@Bibi_Bobo1234 "Drunkenness in this context in this sense isn’t just getting drunk once. In this context and sense it means addicted, they just didn’t have that word."

As far as I know, getting drunk means getting drunk, even if it's just once.

Note, drunk, not slightly tipsy.

Ergo, the word does not refer to "addiction" as such. If you are in fact addicted to getting drunk, drunkenness is a sin, each time.

"Being a slave to anything is sin, and is addiction."

I don't see "slave" used in contexts that immediately cry out "addiction" ... especially in the medical sense. Habitual sin certainly is slavery to sin. Whether a substance is used or not.

But Evangelicals who pretend to diagnose who's "slave to" things are annoyingly apt to diagnose it with any great interest, if it isn't theirs. Or any daily habit, if it isn't theirs.

@Bibi_Bobo1234 "Prioritizing a substance over Christ."

How many are priorising their habits over your view on how to serve Christ, and you treat that as idolatry or addiction?

Duarte Costa Line and Two Popes

The Validity of Bishop Carlos Duarte Costa Apostolic lineage
Pope Michael II | 29 June 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ayAgWJRKPY

Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerick Seems to be Close to Getting that Prophecy Fulfilled

"The Greatest Schism in Catholic History" The Shocking Prophecy of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich
Jerome Chong | 6 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fnr8j8cFB6Q

6:29 A little note.

Anne Catherine Emmerick would have said "Evangelische" which doesn't equate to American Evangelicals, but more to sth like United Church of Canada. They are in fact a union of Lutherans and Calvinists.

Evangelische Kirche is the infector of "Synodal Way" and very much of it, if not all, made the Hitler salute back in the day.

"Noachide Laws" — Historically Wrong, Will Probably Remain Wrong

A) Sharing because of importance
B) Reservations on her teachings elsewhere: she's probably not a Catholic.

Warning! These Noaide laws are evil !
God’s Little Hummingbird- Bible Teachings | 3 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1zriiAOZnww

Jimmy Akin Probably Wrong on Johannine Dates

Gospel of John Was Written MUCH Earlier Than Scholars Say–Here's the Proof! | The Jimmy Akin Podcast
Jimmy Akin | 6 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nStpeGNrTtU

5:06 The traditional biography of John, while Fr. Jean Colson may have had a point that the Beloved Disciple wasn't the son of Zebedee, so not one of the Boanergs, would probably just be making a conflation and unlike his views actually be accurate to the Beloved Disciple after misplacing him into the twelve, and it specifically states that Domitian:

• tried to kill John by boiling him in oil and failed
• then banished him to Patmos
• whence he was released by "honest Nerva"

If St. John's measure to get the Apocalypse to the Seven Churches was writing to Caesar (as a banished person was allowed to), I would say that Apoc. 13:18 plus the fact that M. NEPOYA (genitive and vocative of M. NEPOYAC) adds up to 666, plus the fact that the book reached the Seven Churches and John was released actually does show Nerva was a very honest man.

I don't know what "the most recent persecution John mentions" is about, but the seven churches could be persecuted in other ways than by official Caesarian policy, the official Caesarian policy could have been there but be now missing, and if it's in the part that's traditionally taken as end times related, it wouldn't be about a persecution that John saw at all.

I obviously have very little patience for the revisionism that wants to see Apoc. as Preterist. Not how the Church traditionally read it.

5:55 Confirmed.

I started publishing in 2001 on MSN Group Antimodernism, and some Swedish and English stuff from back then is salvaged to blogs on my blogger account, when all MSN Groups closed down, and I am still publishing basically daily (though not yesterday). (For future reference, this is 7.VII.2026)

8:48 Yes, I've used the argument of:

• how St. John in his voice uses the word Jews
• contrasted with how Jesus in His voice used it before the woman of the well of Sychar, in Samaria.

I would tend to argue, 1) in Apocalypse he promotes a greeting from Heaven to Jewish heritage believers: "for the King of the Jews, you are the real Jews, your persecutors aren't" and then 2) guided by the Holy Spirit, in his Gospel tells them "but here on earth, you are actually pretty wise to allow those guys to use the word" ....

10:28 I'd say that St. Paul's use 2 Corinthians 11:24, like that of Jesus before Pilate in the Gospel of John, 18:36, was situational.

"The Jews" was a conenient shorthand, especially before Gentiles for that group of perpetrators.

In the Gospel, I suspect John is actually telling Christians whose grandfathers were Second Temple Jews "now it's time to leave that word to the other set" ...

For instance, in the Synoptics, when Jesus reproaches a group of Jews, generally that specific group (for instance "scribes and Pharisees") is specified in the actual words of Jesus, in the vocative.

In John, the group is left out, "to the Jews" is in the the sentence where John introduces the word, and Jesus is obviously NOT represented as saying "woe to ye Jews" .... whether He specified a group or not, John leaves it out, and in his own intro resumes this as "the Jews" ...

So, I'd date the Gospel to c. 100 AD, when the Sanhedrin of Jamnia or Yavne had claimed the name for non-Christians.

It's intriguing that one leading figure at that Sanhedrin was Yohanan Ben Zakkai, and I'm not sure he wasn't an unbelieving son to a believing Zacheus. Mentioned in Luke 19.

17:22 Horror of horrors.

I just saw a timeline where you put Matthew after Mark and Luke!

In the 19th C. a set of German liberal Protestants started campaigning for Marcan priority and while it was some time before the Kulturkampf, it was clearly popularised by the Kulturkampf.

You see, to certain Protestants, "accretions" are not just after the Bible, in Tradition, but even in the later written books of the NT. So, if Matthew was late, as they liked to argue, that could mean that the Papal and Indefectibilist statements of the Church in Matthew were "later accretions" ...

Traditionally, Matthean priority holds.

St. Matthew, the author of the gospel that we have under his name, was a Galilean, the son of Alpheus, a Jew, and a tax-gatherer; he was known also by the name of Levi. His vocation happened in the second year of the public ministry of Christ; who, soon after forming the college of his apostles, adopted him into that holy family of the spiritual princes and founders of his Church. Before his departure from Judea, to preach the gospel to distant countries, he yielded to the solicitations of the faithful; and about the eighth year after our Saviour's resurrection, the forty-first of the vulgar era [A.D. 41], he began to write his gospel: i.e., the good tidings of salvation to man, through Christ Jesus, our Lord. Of the hagiographers, St. Matthew was the first in the New, as Moses was the first in the Old Testament. And as Moses opened his work with the generation of the heavens and the earth, so St. Matthew begins with the generation of Him, who, in the fulness of time, took upon himself our human nature, to free us from the curse we had brought upon ourselves, and under which the whole creation was groaning. (Haydock)

George Leo Haydock was a grandnephew several generations removed of one of the English martyrs. He published his comment in ...

George's brother, Thomas, was the Bible's publisher. Production began in 1811 and was completed in 1814, in a large, folio edition.[6] As were many editions of the Bible at the time, Haydock's was published and sold by subscription, a few leaves at a time. Subscribers would accumulate the sets of leaves over the years and ultimately have the completed Bible bound. Different copies have general title pages dated 1811, 1812, 1813 or 1823,[7] showing variously Thomas Haydock's Manchester or Dublin locations. English Catholics enthusiastically welcomed this impressive volume that symbolized a reinvigorated Catholicism on the verge of winning its long fight to repeal the Penal Laws. At least 1,500 copies of the first edition were sold.

So, it's not as if I came with some kind of novelty ...

21:25 There are some more interpretations on who the seven kings are:

A) Berean:

Let's us briefly examine the historical kings of Rome to see where we are in the timeline at the time of the books writing. Here are the kings of Rome:

1) Julius Caesar (49-44 BC)
2) Augustus Caesar (31 BC – AD 14)
3) Tiberius Caesar (AD 14-37)
4) Gaius "Caligula" Caesar (AD 37-41)
5) Claudius Caesar (AD 41-54)
6) Nero Caesar (AD 54-68)

We see, starting from the first Caesar of Rome, that Nero would be the sixth. But what about this future seventh one, you ask? You know, the one that the book says was to come but only for a little while. That will surely be a tell-tale point to determine if we're in the right spot with this counting. Well, after the suicide of Nero in 68, the next king to appear was Galba, and guess what? He reigned just seven months before being murdered in January of 69.

The page is going to argue what you have also argued that 666 refers to nrwn qsr.

B) Haydock:

Ver. 9. Seven mountains. We have already observed that ancient Rome stood upon seven mountains. The same cannot be said of modern Rome, as some of the hills are not inhabited. --- The seven heads....are seven kings, or seven Roman emperors, who were particularly distinguished as the chief supporters of idolatry, and the most virulent persecutors of the Christian religion. Their names were Nero, Domitian, Severus, Decius, Valerian, Dioclesian and Antichrist. --- Five of them are fallen or gone, viz. Nero, Domitian, Severus, Decius, Valerian, who supported the idolatrous empire for a time; one is, viz. Dioclesian, with whom the reign of idolatry falls; and the other is not yet come, that is, antichrist.

Ver. 10. Five are fallen, one is, and the other is not yet. The meaning of this is obscure. And perhaps it were better to own with St. Augustine that we do not know the meaning, than to advance suspicions and conjectures. But it is not improbable that by these seven kings may be understood the collection of kings, in what are called the seven ages of the world, from its creations to its consummation. The first age, is reckoned from Adam to Noe[Noah], and the deluge: the second age, from Noe to Abraham; the third, from Abraham to Moses; the fourth, from Moses to David; the fifth, from David to Christ. These five were past, and fallen, when St. John wrote. The sixth is, and is to last from Christ to antichrist. And another, the seventh, is not, being the time of antichrist, and only a short time. See Cornelius a Lapide on this verse. (Witham)

C) Peter Goodgame and Rob Skiba II:

1) Nimrod
2) Pharao of Exodus
3) King of Babylon
4) King of Tyre
5) Antiochus IV Epiphanes
6) Nero or Domitian, depending on the date of the Apocalypse
7) Hitler

"the eighth is one of the seven" ... they take this not as Satan, with the seventh as Antichrist, but that number 8 is the Antichrist. Rob Skiba thought it was Nimrod.

Now, I'd say Lenin was both more evil and ruled a shorter time and over a larger space. He's still in a maosoleum. So, I'd replace Hitler with Lenin on the list.

23:05 Consecutio temporum.

In Latin, you have separate tense forms for "prior" and "subsequent" action.

qua morte clarificaturus esset Deum.

In Greek, however, you have aorist for "prior" and future for "subsequent" in subordinate clauses.

23:43 "or has happened so recently"

I think you have answered your Bethesda argument.

John could simply not have known that the well's porticos had been destroyed. W a i t ...

πέντε στοὰς ἔχουσα would be true simply if it had five porticos back when this was about.

The porticos may have been erased by Titus, but that doesn't mean the well wasdried up. And St. John doesn't even specify that it still has those five porticos, since, in Greek, a participle is "contemporary", now, primarily to "estin" but ... this functions as an intro to the actual story. So, it could be contemporary to the story ensuing, even if the only part still true when he wrote was that the pool still existed.

26:03 By definition, John the Beloved, whether he was son of Zebedee (as St. Irenaeus thought) or a Cohen and host to Jesus (as Jean Colson thought), was living memory.

The late date is no obstacle.

If, one of my options for John the Beloved, building on Jean Colson, he was Theophilus Ben Hanan, though my friend Stephan Borgehammar contradicted that from Revelations of St. Bridget saying John was a virgin (though not exact same terms as John the Baptist was a virgin), that would mean that, dying by c. 100 AD, he had lived to 120, the last hagiographer like the first one (unless you count Job as written before Moses by the man concerned). 120 is a humanly possible lifespan.

You might hear "but back then they only lived to around" ... sorry, but medium lifespan is no indicator on how far out the extremes go. For a selection of Polish and Austrian royals, imperials, ducals, royal ancestors prior to Sobieski, I got lifespan mediums 43 for men, 42 for women. But maxima reached 78 for men and 61 for women. On other selections, I've seen for great-great-great-great-grandparents of Marie Antoinette: Médiane 50/52, Maximum 80.