... on a Few Items where "Simon Whistler" Needs Better Fact Check

... on a Few Items where "Simon Whistler" Needs Better Fact Check · .... on a Few More Items Where "Simon Whistler" Needs Improving "His" Fact Check · ... on Use and Abuse of Wiki · On more Fact Check Fails "for Simon Whistler" · Fact Check Miss on Myself, Too

"His" channels TopTenz, Today I Found Out and Biographics are in fact very popular. - Btw, he's the speaker for them, not the author. I have also already promoted some. After seeing the following, either I'd have to cease promoting "him", or publish an antidote, opting for the latter. Here is first "his" video:

10 Diabolical Things Supposedly Hidden Away in the Vatican
TopTenz | 22.I.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWRTZ8IHFg4

I did not comment on the "time machine" or "past TV", which is either a fraud or demonic (and therefore also a fraud, but a more intricate one than normal mediums, but not necessarily wildly inaccurate, since demons know the past) or simply a delusion by a priest slightly mad. Glad he didn't get psychiatry for it. I also did not comment on grimoires, obviously men like Amorth do have a right to look at the devil's deceptions at close hand.

I had more imoportant things to comment on and here they are:

I

1:27 "This is of course one of the world's most secure private collections we're talking about"

Private in what sense?

Papacy is an institution, not a private company or business dynasty.

II

3:14 - 3:18 "and it's doubtful even Szekely did either, since there is no record of his visit to the Archives."

Could this be a cue about the thousands of "eyewitnesses" who claim to have seen porn in the Vatican archives?

Earlier, I have my theory that Essenes are mentioned in NT, namely as zealots. It seems Essenes were militantly anti-Roman and this means, even the sicarii type of zealots could have an Essene connection. It would seem one of the twelve was an ex-Essene, the one named "Simon the zealot" (could that be your patron Saint, Mr Whistler?)

III

3:57 Probable he started a family before 30?

Let me give you some facts.

• 1) in Jewish society, as in later Medieval Christian bourgeois society, it was hardly abnormal for a man aged thirty to marry a teen girl. Why? Both would have been able to marry legally since their teens, but the man would also be expected to be a bread winner and many men would only be in that position from their thirties.
• 2) if your story were true, Christ would have not provided for his wife and children. Now hear his stepbrother (son of St Joseph in an earlier marriage, youngest older stepsibling):
  
  Sorry, it was actually St. Paul:
  
  "But if any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."
  [1 Timothy 5:8]
  
  
• 3) This one really has a bearing on St James the brother of God. As he was the youngest son of St Joseph from his first marriage, he was like the rest of St Joseph's sons, a potential heir to the carpentry workshop and whatever fortune it had brought.
  
  Now, the older siblings, who were not immediately faithful, agreed to deny Jesus a share. St. James was a believer and not prevailing against his older siblings, gave Jesus half his own share. This argues Jesus and James were the two poorest of the siblings, least likely to start a family.

The only chance for a Jesus bloodline would be one of the older siblings after the Crucifixion saying "oh, my brother died without male offspring, I need to marry his widow", then assigning a widow, then marrying her, and then having their first child count juridically as the son of Jesus. This is a perfectly valid option.

4:11 "After all, if anyone alive today was found to be the direct descendant of Jesus Christ (and therefore God) the implications for the Church would be huge."

Would they?

Specifically if one cannot rule out that the line was based on levirate rather than on real physical descent?

A man like that, descending from St Joseph, but not from God in the Flesh, would be of the Davidic line, but if a Christian, he would also consider the Messiah had already come (I am a Christian and do consider that, btw).

If he were not a Christian and if he believed Jesus had really made children (other than by creating them as God, every child in the world ever born), he might make a Messianic claim and the Church would reasonably counter "even if you are of King David's line, the Messiah already came, and even if you have Jesus in your ancestry, that is by levirate, and he did not leave his family in charge of the Church anyway".

What would the exact implication for the Church be? Outside Teabing's dreams, that is?

"At the very least the Pope would be rendered useless as humanity's go-between"

No. For the reasons stated.

4:46 I think you need to consider genealogy a bit better.

• 1) If we trace our ancestry back 120 generations, to around 1000 BC (with centuries or up to a millennium leeway either way) among the ...
  
  1 undecadillion / sextillion
  329 decadillion / quintilliard
  227 nonillion / quintillion
  995 octillion / quadrilliard
  784 septillion / quadrillion
  915 sextillion / trilliard
  872 quintillion / trillion
  903 quadrillion / billiard
  807 trillion / billion
  060 billion / milliard
  280 million
  344 thousand
  576
  
  posts of ancestry, our actual physical ancestry will involve far less people sharing the posts. We don't know exactly how few. Probably a million, but certainly not everyone on earth, for instance, probably not everyone in Americas or Australia back then, hardly even in China or Africa, if you are European or Middle East.
  
  It will also not involve the lines that have no descendants today. There are quite a few of those.
  
  
• 2) It is certain that the Church has included "desposynoi" - relatives of the Lord - arguably descending from the brethren of Jesus, and this may have allowed the Church opportunities of ... limiting descendants, by encouraging monastery or episcopate.
  
  Obviously, I say "encouraging" as the Church has no right to force someone into the monastery (according to her own legislation, the canon law).
  
  
• 3) Even if there were a lot of descendants, there would still be a question of primogeniture.
  
  
• 4) But as already stated, in the Christian religion, descent from David can no longer motivate a position as Messiah, since the Messiah already came, and as for the Church, Christ provided for it by other means than by being his relatives; notably by papacy.

IV

6:38 One explanation for "John XXIII, Paul VI and John Paul II" not publishing third secret is:

• 1) They are Antipopes;
• 2) The Third secret mentions them.

You know, a bit like those who espouse Evolution and deny the Universal Flood are not too keen on flagging around II Peter 3, verses 3 to 7. It's not what they shout out with shofar or brass trumpets, drums or kettle drums ...

V

7:32 "astrobiology" ... I think I will need to try to forward the following essay to their man Guy Consolmagno ....

New blog on the kid : Is interstellar space travel possible?
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2019/01/is-interstellar-space-travel-possible.html

Would you mind going between? I think he has my email on a block list, and that's bc I'm geocentric ....

VI

Your number 2) Full moon ... crucixion was at least very near full moon.

However, drawing a moon which is not quite full is not easy. Drawing an actual full moon would have been an artistic licence.

Also, the moon was not observed that closely beyond first day of the month, at new moon. The Friday actually was the "Parascheve of the Jews" - they were going to eat Seder that night, which Our Lord had done the night before, He can have begun Nisan one date earlier when not in Judaea and He can have been refused mentions on when the new moon had been observed by the Temple. So, He can have done his best and an actual accurate assessment, on when the 14th of Nisan really was.

Faking a death and a resurrection would have helped Rome how?

Jesus told his followers to pay tax to Rome?

So did everyone in one way or another except the Essenes. Pharisees probably on some Hillel type general lax observance, which Jesus had in principle rejected.

Keeping Jesus alive in hiding after faking His death would also have posed a problem about how to motivate Him to shut up. He had for 3 years been what one could term a cult leader or what one could term an academic professor, and not naming Himself would have meant foregoing all that. He seemed a pretty passionate type at times.

Not the type who would settle for "realism" if given such an offer.

So, Baigent's idea is simply ... idiotic.

I felt sorry for the naïveté of Sophie Neveu in believing that kind of stuff. Mr. Teabing is a fellow freemason of her deceased grandfather, therefore he must be right?

Hard to account for her naïveté even during a few days of pressure and extreme stress.

VII

12:51 "commonly" - among the fans of Hochuth?
"for his role in supporting the Nazis." - like leaving Rome and closing down all Churches the day Hitler visited Mussolini? Like complaining that German Lutheran soldiers had committed sacrilege by holding a Lutheran service in Notre Dame? Like ordering the hiding of thousands of Jews (in all probability)? Like preparing an encyclical (now unearthed, but not published as an encyclical, just published as a historic document), entitled Humani Generis Unitas (he reused the first two words in another context later, a document he did publish as encyclical), and then putting it into a shelf because he was afraid its publication would backfire on Jews? If that's supporting Nazis, what does it take to be not supporting them?

Sorry, I seem to have been confusing two occasions:

• A) Walter Bussmann has argued that Pacelli, as Cardinal Secretary of State, dissuaded Pope Pius XI — who was nearing death at the time[43] — from condemning Kristallnacht in November 1938,[44] when he was informed of it by the papal nuncio in Berlin.[23] Likewise a draft, prepared by September 1938, for an encyclical Humani generis unitas ("On the Unity of the Human Race"), was, according to the two publishers of the draft text[45] and other sources, not forwarded to the Vatican by the Jesuit General Wlodimir Ledochowski.[46] On 28 January 1939, eleven days before the death of Pope Pius XI, a disappointed Gundlach informed the author La Farge: "It cannot continue like this. The text has not been forwarded to the Vatican."
  
  He had talked to the American assistant to Father General, who promised to look into the matter in December 1938, but did not report back.[47] It contained an open and clear condemnation of colonialism, racism and antisemitism.[46][48] Some historians have argued that Pacelli learned about its existence only after the death of Pius XI and did not promulgate it as Pope.[d] He did however use parts of it in his inaugural encyclical Summi Pontificatus, which he titled "On the Unity of Human Society".[25]
  
  
• B) On 26 July 1942, Dutch bishops, including Archbishop Johannes de Jong, issued a decree that openly condemned Nazi deportations of Dutch workers and Jews. The Nazi response was the rounding up of over 40,000 Catholics of Jewish descent which never were heard from again. After this event, Sister Pascalina Lehnert said the Pope was convinced that while the Bishop's protest cost forty thousand lives, a protest by him would mean at least two hundred thousand innocent lives that he was not ready to sacrifice. While politicians, generals, and dictators might gamble with the lives of people, a Pope could not. Pius XII often repeated what he told the Italian ambassador to the Vatican in 1940, "We would like to utter words of fire against such actions [German atrocities] and the only thing restraining us from speaking is the fear of making the plight of the victims even worse."[58]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Pius_XII_and_the_Holocaust

13:40 Here is Cornwell's argument:

"In 2004, Cornwell stated that Pius XII "had so little scope of action that it is impossible to judge the motives for his silence during the war, while Rome was under the heel of Mussolini and later occupied by Germany ... But even if his prevarications and silences were performed with the best of intentions, he had an obligation in the postwar period to explain those actions".[4][5] He similarly stated in 2008 that Pius XII's "scope for action was severely limited", but that "[n]evertheless, due to his ineffectual and diplomatic language in respect of the Nazis and the Jews, I still believe that it was incumbent on him to explain his failure to speak out after the war. This he never did."[6]"

Sister Pasqualina Lehnert, a nun who served in his household, did.

Now, one motive for not speaking up was, he had been saving Jews in secretive ways.

By putting out all in the open, he would have been exposing the secret army of helpers. And he would not have agreed that now after 1945, everyone was okidoki, no one to be feared like Hitler anymore, so no risk in that.

Some of them may have helped Nazis escape an excessive revenge, some of them may have helped Christians not involved with Nazism escape commies, some of them may have known the identity of people who kept as a secret having been up to the war, Jews.

AND some Jews were converted to Christianity while hidden, obviously not too popular with parts of Jewry and since Jews after the war were not confined, he had a motive to not expose these converts to the sectarian recuperation of Jews, perhaps none immediate, but we see some upcoming now, and it was foreseeable that would sooner or later come along.

So many reasons to not wash your laundry in public, even if it wasn't very dirty.

Now, he has a perfectly good reason to appeal to, his predecessor had alredy condemned the actions of Nazis in defiance of the terms of the Concordate in 10 March 1937 (but bearing a date of Passion Sunday, 14 March), the Encyclical Mit brennender Sorge which the then Cardinal Pacelli (the later Pius XII) helped to pen, the Pope only signing it. This was done in peace time, when there were occasions for talking. Later, in the beginning of Pius XII's time, came the Germano-Polish, etc parts of World War II - the turn was for cannons to speak. With two fairly bad dictators Hitler and Stalin, not much use doing even a peace initiative like Benedict XV had tried.

Also, there was no one making accusations against him just after the war.

The Deputy / The Representative by Hochhuth was from 1963 - when not just Pius XII, but also Antipope John XXIII were either dead or had few month left to live.

It is not certain (or known to me to be certain) Hochuth informed even John XXIII of the play. It was held in Berlin, in German, and neither in Italy, nor in Italian or French.

VIII

14:30 - 14:35 "But the fact remains that in those days the pope was by far the most influential man in Europe. If anyone had the power to stop Hitler, it was him."

"Fact"? Hey, some fact check would be welcome.

Cornwell found Pius XII disliked Jews, it's not uncommon among Catholics and it's mutual, and even so you don't have a lot of people accusing the Synagogue of persecuting the Church (though parts of Jewry arguably did side with Lenin, ok), and he disliked blacks, and as for his proof to the contrary, either Cornwell or you were not quite clear on what it was.

But he sided with Pius XI's Casti Connubii, which specifically was meant to protect blacks, amerindians and esquimaux not forgetting half Québecquois Métis against forced sterilisation (outside Germany, it was before Hitler came to power) and he helped hide Jews.

He may have been a jerk to Jews, he was not a crook.

And him having power to stop Hitler is nonsense. He was among the least influential men in Europe, due to people like Voltaire, like Marx and a few others undermining Catholic influence. There were lots of people willing to go to Mass and still have nothing to do with the Church's mandate in politics. You know, some well known pro-abortion politicians who go to Communion and then a conservative Catholic gets angry because the bishop didn't make sure he was refused Communion. Happens more than once in US. This would not happen in a society where nominal Catholics really would be listening to the Church, all of them.

So, that's just nonsense.

Oh, one correction, "among the least influential men" is not taken with unrestricted literality, but with the understood restriction "among those who were after all somewhat influential" - obviously he was more influential than a Catholic shoe polisher, if less so than Churchill or the US President.