Dum Diversas, 1452

The Catholic Church and Slavery
Reason & Theology | 9 July 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxtYdmNO8X4

Wiki:

Dum Diversas (English: While different) is a papal bull issued on 18 June 1452 by Pope Nicholas V. It authorized King Afonso V of Portugal to fight, subjugate, and conquer "those rising against the Catholic faith and struggling to extinguish Christian Religion"—namely, the "Saracens (Muslims) and pagans" in a militarily disputed African territory. The document consigned warring enemies that lost to "perpetual servitude".

I glanced at the bull from an 1868 Bullarium for bulls directed to Portugal.

It seems the "in perpetuam servitudinem" phrase occurs about the magistrates and military of the kingdoms and duchies involved. I would say, unless I misread, Portugal went beyond that and illicltly encouraged slave trade. So to speak applying to civilians or citizens what should only apply to their magistrates.

Also, it is not clear that "perpetuam" would mean "hereditary" rather than "lifelong" ...

If Ted Bundy hadn't got electric chair, he would also have got perpetual servitude, as do some teens that have killed in the US.

Doctrinally, it means that perpetual servitude is permissible, for certain types of offenders.

If it weren't, Trump would have to close lots of facilities and redirect prisoners of more than 20—30 years to either electric chair or pardon.

The context clearly says kings, princes, dukes etc and kingdoms, principalities, duchies, etc. It would be a modern misreading to apply this to the whole population, it applies to the ruling class and those fighting for them.

I don't see the conclusion for Sicut dudum really differs. In Sicut dudum, they were clearly speaking of the population and especially Christian converts.

Or from Intra Arcana and Pastorale officium (forbidding the enslavement of Indians, this referring in 1537 clearly to civilian ones already subjected to Spain).

The prudential judgement implies a doctrinal proposition, namely that perpetual servitude is sometimes OK as a punishment.

The scope of Dum Diversas are the guys Portugal is fighting against, rulers and armies of certain Saracen kingdoms.

I don't see it as over the top that those in a particular occasion had deserved to go to lifelong prison all of them, and the doctrinal proposition simply means offenders can be punished with, among other things, perpetual servitude.

It also means, states can be criminal.

I Had Missed This One

Transgender defeat before Supreme Court; Apple doesn't regret of the blasphemy; death cult ...
Christine Niles | 20 June 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wU8iCP0YAcw

4:08 I'm insisting that both "Lite"* and "Mulvaney" are reasons to ditch Bud for Pilsner Urquell, their rival (also one of my favourite beers).

4:44 Oh, the LA Dodgers' Management which forbade Nezza to sing El pendón estrellado is forcing Clayton Kershaw to wear a pride cap ...

Her stance may have inspired his.

I remember the words of CSL's gardener Paxford to Susan Pevensie (in a fan fiction of mine), after discussing the Flood:

"whenever I see a r a i n b o w I think the next disaster will be a fire" ...

6:24 US, Dobbs. UK, what you just mentioned.

Fort McHenry, Sept 14 (Holy Cross!) 1814 was a victory for God's own.

* My bad, Bud Lite is nearly the same strength as Pilsner Urquell. In fact, in Sweden, Bud Lite would not count as a "lite beer" but as a "strong beer" and so would Pilsner.

Third World War? Some Would Like It

De Palaestina et de Ecclesia · Third World War? Some Would Like It

These* Evangelicals Try to Trigger World War III
Shameless Popery | 8 July 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqrjjDCAbnc

Agatha Christie had a novel entitled "Why didn't they ask Evans?" .... if WW-III breaks out, I offer in advance the wry joke "why did they ask Evans?"

Shameless Popery

@shamelesspopery

I hope that we have the presence of mind to remember the joke should that day come.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@shamelesspopery we could be nuked first of course

4:22 This is probably one poisonous fruit of belief that Satan remains the prince of this world, even after crucifixion.

Jesus cast him out. In St. Paul we see someone, either God or Satan, referred to as "god of this world" / "God of this world" ... who blinds those that are lost. But we do not see that Satan holds power over the kingdoms, as he did back in Matthew 4 / Luke 4.

More than one Catholic reading actually refers that text to God: He choses to blind those who have basically already refused to see, he provides the shutters people are asking for.

On the other hand, if you believe as those guys do, Satan is still not cast out, no state or place of land can be in a good shape until Jesus returns.

8:20 One thing he gets wrong in Late Great Planet Earth, not that I have read it, but the detail ha been highlighted, is the character of the Antichrist.

Nicolae Jetty isn't very convincing. Hal Lindsey ... the late great writer Hal Lindsey ... believed too much in the Antichrist seducing in the way someone charms by being a genius and providing solutions.

He basically just cast Mozart and Otto von Bismarck into the role ... now, both actually do have Antichrist vibes, for very different reasons, Mozart was a Freemason and liked to use the two scales with three flats, and basically wrote them out so they looked like 6-es. Otto was into oppressing Catholics, whether by excluding Austria and including Bavaria, or by attacking Napoleon III. Or by promoting (if not inventing), though underhandedly, the Marcan priority plus liberal theology in order to pretend Papal claims were "later accretions" ....

10:53 Catholics who have taken it about end times have noted that "this generation" = the generation of the faithful.

As or insofar as the Catholic Church still stands, this is so far verified.

16:12 I have not taken to reading Magog allegorically.

I think Magog is an actual ethnicity and it's currently or will shortly be present at all the four corners of the mainland (taking the Atlantic as kind of an inland sea).

Those four corners are Alaska and Cape Horn in the West, NE Russia as the NE corner and Sydney, Hobart, possibly even "Wellington" in the role of the SE corner.

Those four corners would also seem to include actual Israelites converting to Christianity.

One reading is, an Ashkenaz by matrilinear descent, which counts in Judaism, is (or many of them are) Magog. By patrilinear descent, which counts in Christianity, he descends from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and so he can represent the twelve tribes as soon as he becomes a Christian.

Another one would be Magog are Indo-Europeans.

A third would be, Magog actually still mainly means the geographical area North of the Iranians, which today would be for instance Russia. There are exile Russians on the four corners since the Russian Revolution.

* As he is a lawyer, he very wisely avoided to say "Evangelicals" as if it typically applied to all or most.

On Attitudes Against the Homeless

MY CITY IS HOSTILE... and so is yours. Here's why.
Type Ashton | 2 June 2024 GERMANY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lj7d9j3_r7A

12:17 "help homeless people not be homeless"

Depends a bit on how one does it.

Matt Walsh did a piece on a couple who had been offered "an appartment" ... the "appartment" was one in a facility for different types of disabled persons with routines partly reminiscent of how old peoples homes are run.

In other words, they were not offered an actual home, it was just that they weren't homeless any more. I generally have some liking for Matt Walsh, but that video and his reaction against El pendón estrellado (which made me look up what the Star Spangled Banner actually was about - I had no idea of the situation behind "And the rockets' red glare / The bombs bursting in air" I thought it was just generic battle scenery to show the Banner served a military purpose ... and I found out how that banner served so much more in the life of a poet who thought the Brits were taking Fort McHenry, and then they didn't!), those are my least favourite of his production.

The best option for me to not be homeless would however be for me to have an income from my writings so I could rent an appartment from my income ... some people prefer standard measures like social workers observing and so on. The factors that led to me becoming homeless actually involve precisely social workers and their misdecisions back in Sweden.

My point against Matt Walsh is, he framed it as if they were just complaining for nothing.

Evangelical TikToker Lies About Jesus, Dan McClellan Overreacts Against the Harmony of Scripture

Jesus didn't drink wine ?
Dan McClellan | 4 July 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KU_xK5FNvvc

0:20 The Habacuc quote is also heavily truncated.

I like Kent Hovind's views on some Evolutionist arguments. But his view on alcohol is simply ... as coherent as Mr. Dawkins' on our origins.

Woe to him that giveth drink to his friend, and presenteth his gall, and maketh him drunk, that he may behold his nakedness
[Habacuc (Habakkuk) 2:15]

My hunch about a famous passage in Genesis 9* is, Noah had no experience with wine, Canaan had, and he wanted to see his grandfather drunk, the reason we don't see this is that the only witness to Canaan's evil after Noah droused down was Ham. Not meaning Ken, obviously.

1:37 I would say that Jesus was in fact upholding the ban on gluttony and drunkenness.

Not as extremely as St. John the Baptist, but still.

The guys He's referring to were simply exaggerating his quantities in wine and food. Or pushing down the correct limits. Some still do so.

Perhaps especially egregious when some Evangelicals similarily exaggerate someone's consumption in alcohol or push down the correct limits (drunkenness is not defined by "DUI" just because it's nicknamed "drunk driving"), when they have at the same time lost all sensitivity against gluttony.

So, no, the Bible was NOT contradicting itself, Dan.

1:50 Drinking alcohol is not a sin except in OT contexts of either Nazirism or (I think) Temple service.

Drinking excessive alcohol is a sin. Apart from Nazirs and priests serving in the Temple, drinking some alcohol was actually required at feasts.

It's still perfectly recommendable, and I do from time to time make publicity for monastic wine producers.

6:16 Over use is responsible for those deaths, except when misdiagnosed.

Some doctors with religious family background like the guy you presented and like Muslims are so bent on demonising alcohol, they will probably blame a homeless man's destroyed intestines on alcohol when the real culprit was people like them pushing to gluttony in order to "save" someone from alcohol.

Most deaths where "alcohol is responsible" are neither accidents due to drunkenness nor ethylic comas (like the one Winehouse could have avoided if the enforced cure hadn't lowered her tolerance, and maybe wouldn't have been risking if the enforced cure hadn't depressed her even after getting out), they are assessments about what destroyed a liver (in my case fat and sugar could be probable alternatives, should I endure liver failure) or caused a cancer.

* Dan McClellan is here dealing with that, but misses the parallel between Habacuc 2:15 and Noah's curse, and therefore doesn't realise why probably Canaan, though unstated, did in fact merit the curse.

What Did Ham Do to His Father Noah in Genesis 9:20–27?
Dan McClellan | 12 Febr. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cKrGiZYOxU

I've said it before, I'll say it again: Canaan was condemned to drink nothing, while serving CORRECT quantities, NOT EXCESSIVE ONES to his brethren. Perhaps after that he could drink some left over.

Calvin Smith on Church Fathers and St. Augustine

Christians Who Believe This Are AGAINST the Ancient Church
Answers in Genesis Canada | 25 Aug. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xeBZdQQuQAE

18:14 sth First, he was perfectly right that Sirach is a canonic book.

You have none but the Christ-rejecting Jews from the time to oppose this. Or, marginally, as a personal sidenote, St. Jerome, but in a context showing he knew he was outnumbered by the bishops of the Church.

But second, the real flaw between St. Augustine and St. Jerome is this one.

St. Jerome had a very classical Latinity, and enjoyed giving a good rhetoric performance. St. Augustine forbade him to use it. He was obligatorily to use current vernacular Latin.

And Sirach in the Greek says: Ο ΖΩΝ εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα ἔκτισε τὰ πάντα κοινῇ. Now, κοινῇ could mean "in general" or could mean "together" .... St. Jerome took it to mean "together".

Here is the problem. Translate it to perfect classical flawless Ciceronian Latin, there is one word for "together" ... "iunctim" ... however, "iunctim" would have sounded like Shakespear to most. St. Augustine had severly told him to use totally commonplace words. He had even prayed for an angel to attack St. Jerome in the night in case he had disregarded this (and he had), so the angel beat him up and scolded him "Ciceronianis es, non Christianus!" ... St. Jerome complied. This is problematic with "together" ...

In some parts of the Latin world, "iunctim" was replaced with "insimul" (French ensemble, Italian insieme). In others with appropriate declinsion forms of "iunctus" (todas las cosas juntas in Spanish) ... "omnia creavit insimul" or "omnia creavit iuncta"? The fact is, St. Augustine was from the "iunctus" area, North African Latin is part influence on Spanish Latin, whereas St. Jerome was on the "insimul" area. Now "insimul" was very vulgar, so, one mollified it as "simul" ... which to St. Augustine simply meant "at one and the same time" ...

27:37 You know what certain "Catholics" actually like to quote from St. Augustine?

“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men. If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books in matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learnt from experience and the light of reason? Reckless and incompetent expounders of Holy Scripture bring untold trouble and sorrow on their wiser brethren when they are caught in one of their mischievous false opinions and are taken to task by those who are not bound by the authority of our sacred books. For then, to defend their utterly foolish and obviously untrue statements, they will try to call upon Holy Scripture for proof and even recite from memory many passages which they think support their position, although they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion [quoting 1 Tim 1:7].”
― Augustine of Hippo, The Literal Meaning of Genesis, Vol 2
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/737513-usually-even-a-non-christian-knows-something-about-the-earth-the

So, if in our days, "even a non-Christian" is supposed to know sth, even as false and absurd as long ages or Heliocentrism, somehow this must be what the exegete goes for. They think they agree with St. Augustine in principle, if not on the specific issue.

---

Webster is somewhat later than St. Augustine and Church Fathers, see here:

We Found the Historical Adam!
Answers in Genesis Canada | 23 Dec. 2022
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxrprgFr9XU

Sedevacantism Seen by an SSPX-er

American Sedevacantist
I Miss Christendom | 6 July 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QPxyhoxoqs

When it comes to Flat Earthers, aren't the best points the ones that coincide with Geocentrism, even that of Globe Earth Geocentrics?

15:48 I would say that the Dimond brothers are in practise homealoners for the US, but they do consider Sede clergy valid, and presumably that's Mexican clergy.

They are Feeneyites, and consider CMRI and SSPV as heretics for believing in Baptism of Desire. And especially when it's implicit desire.

Not sure how they react to the condemnation of Fr. Feeney, except for one thing, it was the same form as the condemnation of Galileo, and according to them, that means "not infallible" ... Pope Michael I considered Epikeia could and should go up to a total removal of the emergency, i e an irregular but still necessary and therefore licit and valid election, the one in which he was elected. He also supported the condemnations of both Feeney and Galileo.

---

Source for the Siri thesis:

The Siri Thesis
Compiled by William G. von Peters, Ph.D.
website: The Pope in Red (write in one word, add dot com)
http://www.thepopeinred.com/thesis.htm

Pope Michael was unfavourably neutral on it. The question is, if a man could remain pope after agreeing to apparently to outsiders accept a false Pope. Now, in the case of Siri himself, it would be a question of remaining Pope after a normal acceptance of the papacy, according to the thesis. But Siri died the year before Pope Michael I was elected, so, whether Siri was and remained Pope or not, the see was not impeded by Siri.

However, some go further, and this is part of the rationale of some Sede impedita theorists, that Siri could have secret successors. The answer is no, one cannot validly accept papacy as a secret charge, it is by definition a charge carried openly. Hence, no secret successor of Siri should be taken account of as a reason not to hold a papal election. Just as no "material but no formal Pope" should, there is no such thing. The idea a man can loose the use of his office because of mortal sin, while retaining the office because the mortal sin is not the one of preaching identifiable heresy, is a version of Lollardism and Hussitism, condemned at the Council of Constance.