Quora Prevents Questions About the Mother of Preston Davey

New blog on the kid: Preston's Death · Should Amy Shepherdson Stand Trial? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Quora Prevents Questions About the Mother of Preston Davey

I tried to add this question:

Who Knows Who the Mother of Preston Davey Is, and Why She Was Set Aside?

I do not get it published, but when I push the button, I get:

This question should be more general. Try starting your question with 'What is...', 'How do I...' or 'Why does..

Papacy and Geocentrism

What JESUS Teaches About HIS Church! | The Jimmy Akin Podcast
Jimmy Akin | 14 July 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MG-URS075N0

7:43 So, Caiaphas = Shebna, Cephas = Eliacim.

Call it replacement theology or not, at least it teaches "translatio sacerdotii" very clearly.

13:45 I sense a little pique about my position.

We would agree that Paul III (?) over Urban VIII bound in regards of banning not just putting the Sun at the absolute centre, but also having Earth move, annually or daily or both. And that they were successors of Peter, indeed given the power to bind and loose.

You would say "John Paul II" was successor of Peter and had the power to loose, and he did so in 1992. From experience, I have seen people state he went further and bound, namely in § 283 of the CCC. In 2001, I was one day a parishioner in a reverent Novus Ordo parish (I hadn't renounced SSPX, but they don't hold that "normal" curates and bishops steal authority with a non-pope, nor that the Novus Ordo is always invalid).

I was promoting my YEC position to a newer convert (after 1990, so he did promise to agree with current positions of the magisterium, even non-infallible ones, and implicitly even non-traditional ones). He told me, showing me that paragraph, that I was wrong.

In Paris, also, even before going Sede and Conclavist, while attending SSPX Masses, I met this attitude from people in "normal" parishes, like the ones hosting breakfast for homeless in St. Ambroise' parish house.

My solution is, Wojtyla was not Pope. Meaning, the office is or was empty, and if it was empty someone else could be elected. RIP, Pope Michael I. Vivat, Pope Michael II.

No, I Was Still Not Wrong About This

Q

Did Latin speaking continue after the Western Roman Empire fell? How much did later Latin speaking missionaries and colonists understand of these older lost Romani Latin dialects?
https://www.quora.com/Did-Latin-speaking-continue-after-the-Western-Roman-Empire-fell-How-much-did-later-Latin-speaking-missionaries-and-colonists-understand-of-these-older-lost-Romani-Latin-dialects/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-2

Answer requested by

Nick Certeza

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Studied Latin (language) at Lund University

Ascension Day

14.V.2026

First, I don’t think there is any term like “Romani Latin”. Romani means an Indic language that came to Europe in Gipsy Caravans, a fairly Romantic, but not altogether Roman fate of a language (but they did dwell a while in East Rome, Byzantium).

You presumably mean “Romano-Latin” or “Romance Latin”.

Second, the answers are:

• yes, just as English would be spoken in the US, if the US were overthrown, however, the exception is Roman Britain, where only the upper class were really Romanised;
• I don’t know what era you mean by “later” … up to 800 AD, this was the standard way Latin was spoken, but in Gaul, comprehension by foreign priests was limited.
• Between c. 800 and 813, a foreigner was hired to teach people in Tours to speak Latin properly. Blessed Alcuin succeeded in making the Latin of the clerks comprehensible to English or Italian visitors …
• … but as a side effect, he made it incomprehensible to the people around there. Hence the decision in 813 (when Alcuin was dead) to not be content with a Gospel reading in Latin, but add a sermon explaining it, in Romance.
• This decision allowed priests to actually study how common people spoke, so as to come really close. Imagine standard English was for some reason rebooted and you suddenly had to speak to people from the Ozarks or to people using Ebonics in their very own way.
• By 880 or 890 they were so good at it, they wrote the first song in Old French, the song of St. Eulalia of Mérida.
• The same process was repeated with c. 200 years’ delay in Spain and in Italy.
• After c. 1100 in Spain or Italy, there was no dialectal Latin left that was represented by written Latin, except perhaps in the country between France and Italy. In whereever Romanian was spoken (Romania or Albania, opinions differ), there was no written Latin left. So, after 1100 or at latest 1200, there was no place left where a speaker of Medieval Ecclesiastic Latin, an Aux-Lang invented accidentally by Alcuin, would have met dialectal Latin and it would still have been written as Latin.

Book of Job, Read by Chesterton

The Book of Job Explained by G.K. Chesterton
The Apothecary | 9 Jan. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmB7HCqKouw

Reflection on the Ascension

Jesus Ascended on a Cloud—The Mind-Blowing Secret No One Talks About | The Jimmy Akin Podcast
Jimmy Akin | 11 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgMt8lh0914

Jesus went to a place that is above the sphere of the Fix Stars (the latter probably one light day up, could be two light days) and like the Earth, unlike anything from Fix stars to Ocean streams, immobile.

That place has the same coordinates up there as Jerusalem here.

The voyage between upper atmosphere and that place would be intermediates where He was using immortality and therefore invulnerability.

"our knowledge ... is different from theirs"

Two people can have different degrees of knowledge of a topic. But a duly specified question, they cannot have different knowledge.

If two people think:

• exh A, Empyrean Heaven is above the fix stars, which are a sphere somewhere above that of Saturn (or of Pluto)
• exh B, fix stars or simply stars aren't in a sphere, like a shell, they are in a possibly somewhat spheric volume, with distances like 100,000 light years

then, at least one, possibly both, of the exhibits is doing sth else than knowing.

That one of them is (mostly) in the past doesn't change this.

3:49 Archimedes, two light years?

Is the subtitling automatic and automatically correcting "light days"?

I'd actually say, the space up to the fix stars is two light days across.

I looked up the Sand Reckoner. It seems Archimedes thought the distance up to the fix stars as being 10,000 times the radius of the earth, or in other words, the sphere of the fix stars has a diameter that's 10,000 times the diameter of the Earth.

A light day is 25,902,600,252 km, two light days are 51,805,200,504 km.

However, divide that by 10,000, you get 5,180,520 km. The diameter of the Earth is 12,742 km, c. 407 times shorter in one of the three dimensions.

Wait, I was not counting his universe beyond the sphere of the fix stars.

4:34 Wait.

Radiance seems to indicate the sphere of the fix stars or the Empyrean Heaven just beyond is 10 light days up, not just 1.

Ascension to Pentecost, He arrives in Heaven and sends the Holy Ghost, Who, being immaterial, has no travel time.

If my "one light day" had been correct (it could still be correct for creation week, just no longer for Ascension), then He would have ascended 1/10 the speed of light.

However, since Hebrews 1:3 calls Him the radiance, that would indicate He ascended the exact speed of light. Meaning the travel distance was 10 light days.

5:27 You are aware Hubble's "discovery" builds on accepting things like Sirius being 8 light years away, which builds on accepting the parallax measure of 0.35 sth arc seconds as a parallactic indirect view of Earths own supposed movement in the distance of 2 Astronomic Units?

In other words, if Galileo was wrong, so was Hubble.

6:55 "Spiritual realm rather than a physical one."

Jesus still has the same body He rose in. It's a physical body, that could eat fish and show forth the wounds, since it's the same body He was born and died in. Ave Verum Corpus natum would make no sense on some Evangelical theory of Jesus now having an "entirely spiritual resurrection body" ... which I think was condemned in the IV Lateran council, the explanatory creed Firmiter credimus.

Given Jesus has a physical body, He has physical dimensions. Given He has physical dimensions, they are in a physical place.

And as we also believe Mary is up there (see last or upcoming August 15th), physically risen, there are right now at least two human living bodies that obviously need physical dimensions around them.

So, as a Catholic, I definitely wouldn't go to "Spiritual realm rather than a physical one." I heard one of the Vatican II "Popes" held such an opinion, I'm not invoking him either as a saint in Heaven, nor as an authority on Earth.

7:21 These bodies are extended in three dimensions.

If you read up the Eucharist in the Summa, on an Altar, Christ's body is present under the dimensions of bread and wine.

The own dimensions are present with Him, but not touching the surrounding space. However, there is a place where He is present in His own dimensions, that being Heaven.

9:33 "this humanity meanwhile hides him from the eyes of men"

Not from the eyes of Mary.

9:58 "which was pictured as being up from an earthly perspective"

What was the worst word in that sentence, especially as to time form or tense?

I'd say, "which is up" (and leave "from an earthly perspective" understood).

Seriously, what God communicated then cannot be improved on. Not from new revelation. Not from new science.

I'm Not Bringing That Darkness To My Readers

Are you bringing darkness into your household?
Christine Niles | 13 mai 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NQ0s0cTcJcw

Just in case you were thinking of me.

1) I don't consider my writing a full scale apostolate, it is writing, sometimes goofy and totally unconnected to spirituality, and contains apologetics.
2) I do not engage in pornography, whatever my enemies have said about me.

In case you are one of those who read Παιδόφιλος; Ἐγώ; without knowing Ancient Greek (there have been a few).

1) It's in Ancient Greek, the language period ended c. 300 BC and a certain term was coined in the 19th C AD.
2) The title involves a sign called "Greek Question mark" ... "The Greek question mark (Greek: ερωτηματικό, romanized: erōtīmatikó) looks like ;. It appeared around the same time as the Latin one, in the 8th century. It was adopted by Church Slavonic and eventually settled on a form essentially similar to the Latin semicolon." (I used a semicolon to type it) So the title actually means "Pedophile? Me?"
3) I answer the question first from what the compound would naturally mean in Ancient Greek (opposite of Pedophobe) and stated I want to have many boys, like Jacob.
4) I also drop the tongue in cheek at the end, and state I'm not erotically interested in prepubescent boys. You can infer that's also valid for prepubescent girls.

So, if that's what the blockade is about, drop it. Goes for you and a few more in the Vatican II Sect, who know my existence, know I write and refuse to refer directly to my writings. No, I don't have to earn being a writer by living the life of an apostle, but I am also not engaging in porn. Some would count erotic hypnosis* there, doesn't work that way for me.

---

Your Vatican II Sect has pretty long been, here in France, engaged in blocking me from success.

Oh, helping me with spiritual struggle? Sure. I wasn't asking that.

I have a material struggle, where quite a few "Catholics" have been on the entirely wrong side, for very long.

---

* I still leave such videos out of my Blog 37, on Auto Hypnosis Experience. In case you wonder why I do any of that at all, I am deliberately exposed to fatigue and stress, and hypnosis helps with stress management and replaces sleep. This night, I had five different groups or persons pass loudly, and the fifth was the five AM van for the newspaper dealer facing side of the road, and when I woke, after that, no one seemed interested in allowing me to catch up with sleep someone else had lost me.

Figures of Speech Exist in Scripture, Yes ... But ...

Before 18:27 and after 29:18 I had nothing to contradict nor elicit clarifications on.

Joe’s WORST Take?
Scholastic Answers | 9 May 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bzDFWHChEA0

18:27 While I certainly agree Scripture has figures of speech and popular expressions, this has of recent been vastly exaggerated in scope.

I just commented under Dr. Joel Duff who has some sharp things to say ... to me less interesting ... on how CMI have very exotic views on how to solve the Distant Starlight problem (if Andromeda Galaxy was created 6 to 7.5 k years ago, on day 4, and is 150,000 LY away, how do we see it less than 150,000 years after it started to shine light?).

My comment is how this problem is totally solved by Geocentrism and Angelic movers of celestial objects.

Some even earlier have taken "four corners" to be a figure of speech ... I take it Sts Isaias and John knew where Alaska, Cape Horn, Tasmania and Siberia are and through what lines their direction is outlined to Jerusalem (all four points are represented via closer intermediaries in Acts 2).

The idea of "popular" presupposes the existence of an erudition that "goes further than" popular views. If this erudiction didn't exist in Joshua's day, Joshua 10:13 cannot by a pregnantly popular expression.

In Joshua 10:12, the author is not describing what Sun and Moon ("appear to") do, but he is describing the words by which Joshua as miracle maker ordered them. If it was Earth that ceased and 12 / 24 h later resumed rotation, this would be the only time when a miracle worker adressed the order to sth other than that which was supposed to miraculously change behaviour.

A theory of "accomodation" among Protestants (19th, perhaps already 18th CC) indeed stated that God inspired Joshua to utter words better suited to the understanding of the Israelites. They also went as far as to suggest this also happened with his Namesake when referred to as and speaking as if casting out demons. This is inadmissible, therefore Joshua also gave the miraculous order, after praying, to whatever was to change behaviour, i e it was actually Sun and Moon that stopped, it is actually Sun and Moon that go around us each day, not we rotating below them.

18:51 "God also, speaking to men." (Pesch)

Valid as possible explanation of Joshua 10:13, since the hagiographer and ultimately God together tell us what the Israelites saw in the sky.

But in Joshua 10:12 God says to us what Joshua said, and Joshua wasn't speaking to men. Like his Divine Namesake in Mark 1:25 is also not speaking to men. Not even to the one possessed.

20:20 "as Benedict XV points out"

Where?

In praeclara summorum (cited by the Dimond brothers) has only a very indirect allusion to Geocentrism possibly not being true. A subordinate clause in concessive subjunctive.

21:02 "speak about certain historical figures"

Like the list between Adam (over Seth) and Noah and his sons in Genesis 5, and the list between the son Shem and Abraham, in Genesis 11, right?

You do hold Abraham was born between 292 and 1070 years after a universal Flood, and that between less than 1400 and 2262 years after Adam and Eve were created, right?

21:08 Ah, Spiritus Paraclitus!

Thank you!

21:08 bis After reading through Spiritus Paraclitus I find that the relevant passage is as chemically free from any direct endorsement of Heliocentrism as the previous encyclical he looked back on Providentissimus Deus is.

Neither Leo XIII nor Benedict XV are saying Heliocentrism is compatible with Joshua 10:12.

Both are skimming around the subject and so to speak tacitly inviting theologians to speak up if they think so.

And given the outcome, some of these theologians were horrible liberals.

Since 18 November 1893, theologians have basically a standing invitation to defend Heliocentrism without attacking Biblical inerrancy. Challenge so far not met, invitation so far not taken.

Date Calculator gave:

It is 48 386 days from the start date to the end date, end date included.
Or 132 years, 5 months, 23 days including the end date.
Or 1589 months, 23 days including the end date.

I'm not sure if it's programmed for 1900 not being a leap year.

somedude

@somedude7589

They did in fact answer it, Galileo himself offered the alternative interpretation of Joshua. Namely that it was a figure of speech akin to the rising and setting of the sun. The sun does not truly rise or set, because the earth is not flat, and yet we and Scripture speak this way.

The issue was that his interpretation was against the common understanding of the theologians and Fathers, and so only a grave cause could justify breaking from their consensus.

Saint Bellarmine himself, the man who judged Galileo, said that a scientific proof would make the breaking from the consensus justified. So the entire question is reduced to if such evidence was given, and it was. Man went to space and most importantly he detected stellar parallax. Now a parallax proves the viewer is moving, thus the earth moves.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@somedude7589 I'm sorry, but you are talking of Joshua 10:13. Joshua as narrator many years later, speaking to us, yes, that could be phenomenological language.

In verse 12, Joshua is adressing sun and moon as a miracle worker.

That's one Galileo that offered no solution for.

God inspired Joshua's words, when Joshua prayed, first half of the verse. And a miracle worker adresses what needs to miraculously change its normal or previous behaviour, he's not adressing sth else in order to accomodate to popular misconception. When Joshua adressed Sun and Moon, it was Sun and Moon that needed to stop, and when Jesus adressed demons, it was demons that needed to quit a human person. It was not Earth in the one case and a quirk in the psyche in the other case.

Did I make the distinction between the two verses clearer this time?

@somedude7589 "Man went to space"

The absolute movement Armstrong experienced on the Moon if it moves around Earth once every 25 or so hours is slower than the absolute movement we experience every day if Earth rotates.

Tychonian and Copernican systems are equal as to relative positions and movements. Assuming the Earth moves doesn't help space missions, other than perhaps ease of calculations.

"and most importantly he detected stellar parallax. Now a parallax proves the viewer is moving, thus the earth moves."

The problem is, if Angelic movers exist (see St. Thomas' STh Prima Pars Q 70 A 3 and Commentary on Job, ch 38 v 7), you cannot prove either the detected parallax or the detected annual aberration are actually what they are analysed as, they could both be two mathematical analytical aspects of angels moving "fix" stars. Just like the year involves an angel moving the Sun through the Zodiac.

27:11 I hope there is no ban on this opinion:

St. Luke in Acts 27 wrote about "Illyric Sea" and copyists changed it to "Adriatic Sea" after 140 AD so as to keep the text comprehensible in face of an official name change.

I just defended St. Luke's authorship of Acts on this ground against someone who pretended Acts were written after 140 AD.

29:18 In Providentissimus Deus, passage quoted, the wording "as left by the hagiographers" seems to indicate that the actual text could be different from the Vulgate, for instance the LXX or an older version of the LXX ... do I overread this?

Scholastic Answers

@MilitantThomist

You’re completely correct to note that. Many Catholic authors point this out to explain numeric differences, spelling errors, and the like.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@MilitantThomist Thank you very much, Sir!