Dimond Brothers Bungle Latin and Theology · No, Mark 16:9—20 Are Not a Different Category
The Most Misunderstood Catholic Decree - Council Of Trent, Sess. 6, Chap. 4
vaticancatholic.com | 14 sept. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BaMNH1sBTw
I happen to be a Latinist. I also happen to know that my comments tend to get deleted, so, I put this in response to their pinned comment. But first the quote:
- vaticancatholic.com
- @vaticancatholic-dimond
- This new video covers an extremely important matter with new points. It contains crucial information that’s relevant to understanding the faith and the Magisterium.
To see future videos, sign up for our e-mail list here: https://mhfm.email
The permanent page for this video is here: https://endtimes.video/catholic-decree-council-of-trent/
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- I think "aut eius voto" is pretty plain ...
1:48 Even if "sine" applies to both lavacro and voto, the Latin has the same phrase type as English
"without the laver, or the wish thereof"
It does not have the same idiomatic meaning as
"without the laver or without the wish thereof"
as that would imply that if either is lacking one is not justified. That would be heretical as it involves newly baptised infants going to Limbus infantum instead of heaven if they die.
The "without" actually applies to the whole of "the laver or the wish thereof" which, whether in nominative or ablative or accusative would suggest and does suggest, that "the wish thereof" is a standin.
If you dispute this, please tell me, if you have a phrase "the laver, or the wish thereof" in any case whatsoever, would you put "votum" in the same case as "lavacrum" or would you not.
St Emerentiana can be presumed to be saved "with the laver, or the wish thereof" ... also the ablative. Would you have put "or the wish thereof" in the nominative?
2:21 Yes, you have just stated that a newly baptised infant who dies in a car accident can't go to Heaven, since he didn't wish to be baptised.
No comments:
Post a Comment