Why I regret this tattoo
Taylor Alesia | 13 Sept. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1Gpffa5jJ4
October 13th? Actually one female saint on that day:
13 Octobris
Sancti Eduardi, Regis Anglorum et Confessoris, qui Nonis Januarii obdormivit in Domino, sed hac die, ob Translationem corporis ejus, potissimum colitur.
Apud Troadem, Asiae minoris urbem, natalis sancti Carpi, qui fuit discipulus beati Pauli Apostoli.
Cordubae, in Hispania, item natalis sanctorum Martyrum Fausti, Januarii et Martialis; qui, primo equulei poena cruciati, deinde, superciliis rasis, dentibus evulsis, auribus quoque et naribus praecisis, ignis passione martyrium consummarunt.
Thessalonicae sancti Florentii Martyris, qui, post varia tormenta, igne combustus est.
Apud Stokeraviam, in Austria, sancti Colmanni Martyris.
Antiochiae sancti Theophili Episcopi, qui, sextus post beatum Petrum Apostolum, ejusdem Ecclesiae Pontificatum tenuit.
Turonis, in Gallia, sancti Venantii, Abbatis et Confessoris.
Apud Sublacum, in Latio, sanctae Chelidoniae Virginis.
Et alibi aliorum plurimorum sanctorum Martyrum et Confessorum, atque sanctarum Virginum. R. Deo gratias.
The Dominical letter is an A, so, you are born a year when January 1st was also a Lord's Day.*
2:53 Not just the artist.
St. Paul in Romans 1 is speaking about things that were visible from creation which prove certain things of God, one of which is inexhaustible power.**
Well, if Earth stands still and if each day the rest of the visible universe turns around us, something or someone turning it around would need inexhaustible power. And if it were some thing rather than some one the intricacy of Geocentric astronomy wouldn't work.
I often say "God turns the Zodiac around us each day, in 23 hours 55 minutes, an angel turns the Sun around the Zodiac in one year" ... I am not implying any destiny in where the Sun goes, I'm simply saying "zodiac" instead of "ecliptic plane" because it's a more well known concept.
3:09 Lest perhaps lifting up thy eyes to heaven, thou see the sun and the moon, and all the stars of heaven, and being deceived by error thou adore and serve them, which the Lord thy God created for the service of all the nations, that are under heaven [Deuteronomy 4:19]
Obviously, if you believe a spirit is taking the Sun around empty space around the Earth from East to West, you might be tempted to worship that spirit instead of God who is turning all of them from East to West, while each is taking its own heavenly body (Sun, Moon, planets, a bit different for fix stars) around the Zodiac in a much slower pace from West to East.
3:53 It's not just about the Creator for those who have access to Genesis 1:1.
It's about the Mover of Heaven, which was accessible as an argument for Aristotle.
Now, some have recently stated (since Karl Marx's dissertation, actually, before he apostatised) that St. Paul in Colossians 2:8 targetted Aristotle whose philosophy involve "the four elements" but did you know that an alternative name for the "atoms" of Democritus and Epicurus and Lucretius was "elements"?
St. Paul in Colossians is lambasting Epicure, and in Romans 1 upholding Aristotle as a philosopher, while condemning him as a person (he actually did offer sacrifice to pagan gods and not to the prime mover he could prove).
7:10 "invite Him into your heart"
Between the Francis of Sales and Theodore Beza, successor of Calvin, two persons claiming the allegiance of Genevans (the bishop set his foot in that city twice or so, and he failed to access Beza on his deathbed) ... who of the two said so, over and over?
Beza's words are accessible in a Geneva Bible, which is commented.***
the theology of Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, and other Reformation leaders. It was first printed in 1560. / on the site Study Light (Beza edited it)
Francis of Sales' words are accessible in Introduction to the Devout Life, TAN Books.
By the way, I did so at age 10 (I'm 56).
Can GOD be known with CERTAINTY? Yes! Discovering the Catechism Episode 5
Catholic Unscripted | 12.III.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjrx0o_pF8M
9:46 Omnipotent isn't problematic at all, provided you start with Prima Via and, as Riccioli says (though for another reason he doesn't accept it) considers this as a proof from God's daily moving of the universe around us, that is, from Geocentrism.
Unless you for some inscrutable reason, or by sheer inconsistency (in any non-atheist, or anyone not a rabid atheist) start out by ruling out Geocentrism.
Even if Sirius is only one light-day up it would be seriously (!) impossible for anything less than omnipotence to move it full circle day after day around us.
OK, to Riccioli, the angel of Sirius was himself taking Sirius around earth. However, Riccioli's empty space for heaven is not an option after Foucault's pendulum. Either there is a common movement in all space surrounding Earth up to Sirius, and then the angel of Sirius can't be what's moving that, but someone bigger has to be that, or Earth would need to move around its axis, which we have no obvious reason to believe.
10:13 The relation of omnipotent, omniscient and our freewill is not the least problematic.
While God's omnipotence certainly would be sufficient to crush any free will He wanted to crush, that's not how God usually uses His omnipotence.
Given how God knows things, as St. Boethius said well before Aquinas, God's knowledge doesn't work in a way that limits free causalities (such as human freewill) in what He knows.
10:38 " 'proof' isn't accurate" ...
I hear a very dissonant echo from Ratzinger. This issue, and how he pretended "as per Einstein, Geocentrism is equally accurate" were the first warning signals about this man.
While the Church doesn't "offer a proof" (as in specify which proof) this doesn't mean we could say there is no actual proof.
Two kinds of things can be known with certainty. Things that are immediately evident, like a leaf being green, or being not being non-being (in the same aspect), and, things that are proven from such as are evident. Romans 1 places the existence and omnipotence of God into the latter category.
And Romans 1 also places the evidence material for that proof, or the main evidence material, within what could be observed with the naked eye all the 5200 + years from God creating Adam to when St. Paul was speaking. Geocentrism fits the bill.
10:47 If you can get to a point where you cannot doubt this, is this a subjective fact about your situation, or if not perfectly subjective at least sth which you could have a hard time communicating? Sth which C. S. Lewis could communicate in Surprised by Joy? But then CSL is CSL, and a genius of communication ...
Or is it a hard objective impossibility to doubt (unless you have bad faith)? One that can be fairly easily communicated.
In the latter case, it is actual proof. It can be formulated as actual proof.
And if there are since then red herrings, like the idea of Earth turning around her axis, they can be shown to be red herrings.
11:13 Catholic Heliocentrics, i e inconsistent people, have a knack of taking the proof by St. Thomas to be Tertia Via.
However, he himself said the most obvious one was Prima Via.
Manifestum est et patet sensibus aliquid moveri, utputa sol ...
11:47 In Tertia via, Aquinas is not yet dealing with the qualities of esse.
He is not yet determining whether it's one, whether it's good or whether it has any kind of consciousness at all. Here is the actual text of Tertia via, in Prima Pars, Q 2 A 3:
The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus. We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be. But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence. Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence — which is absurd. Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary. But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes. Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity. This all men speak of as God.
Necessity and eternity of being are however already given in tertia via.
12:29 "you come to recognise"
Those words are nowhere in the corpus of Q 2 A 3. Before the text of the five ways, you have this intro:
I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.
14:04 Humani Generis § 2
2. It is not surprising that such discord and error should always have existed outside the fold of Christ. For though, absolutely speaking, human reason by its own natural force and light can arrive at a true and certain knowledge of the one personal God, Who by His providence watches over and governs the world, and also of the natural law, which the Creator has written in our hearts, still there are not a few obstacles to prevent reason from making efficient and fruitful use of its natural ability. The truths that have to do with God and the relations between God and men, completely surpass the sensible order and demand self-surrender and self-abnegation in order to be put into practice and to influence practical life. Now the human intellect, in gaining the knowledge of such truths is hampered both by the activity of the senses and the imagination, and by evil passions arising from original sin. Hence men easily persuade themselves in such matters that what they do not wish to believe is false or at least doubtful.
Here the footnote goes to Vatican I, On Revelation, where the first 4 points are:
1) The same holy mother church holds and teaches that God, the source and end of all things,
can be known
with certainty from the consideration of created things,
by the natural power of human reason : ever since the creation of the world, his invisible nature has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. [13]
2) It was, however, pleasing to his wisdom and goodness to reveal
himself and
the eternal laws of his will
to the human race by another, and that a supernatural, way.
This is how the Apostle puts it : In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son [14] .
3) It is indeed thanks to this divine revelation, that those matters concerning God
which are not of themselves beyond the scope of human reason,
can, even in the present state of the human race, be known
by everyone°
without difficulty,
with firm certitude and
with no intermingling of error.
4) It is not because of this that one must hold revelation to be absolutely necessary; the reason is that God directed human beings to a supernatural end, that is a sharing in the good things of God that utterly surpasses the understanding of the human mind; indeed eye has not seen, neither has ear heard, nor has it come into our hearts to conceive what things God has prepared for those who love him [15] .
Now, the council of 1870 did NOT put stating that all of the truths about God, specifically His omnipotence, are hampered by the activity of the senses, the truths about God that are so hampered are the ones which call for our adhesion to an end above nature.
14:39 The true God becomes inaccessible as much to the Muslim who has a disordered appetite for spotting and punishing sodomy and drunkenness even where these things are not obviously apparent, as to a Woke-Commie, whose disordered appetite for sexual experience with no consequence in children to take care of leads him to conclude for "no God" where the Muslim has a false "God" (if it were true that "if a big quantity intoxicates, even a little quantity is haram" then one could not eat, because eating in certain quantities actually is intoxicating ... the real God cannot put such nonsense in His real revelation).
15:06 "no, we don't consider these things"
OK, is it still hidden if:
- a promise of old age pensions
- easy access to contraceptives and somewhat more difficult but not prohibitive to abortion
- lead to an aging of society
- which leads to hollowing out of resources for old age pensions
- and to loneliness of the old, and to annoyance among the young who are surrounded by old eager to advice them as much as old ones are surrounded by young ones eager to get advice on some point in saner societies
- and to Putin needing to do shenanigans in order to keep Navalny from pushing him down
- up to when the Covid epidemic and later the special operation continued to take attention from the issue where in 2019 he actually failed.
Similar things can be said about Macron.
22:08 "we are all children before God"
But not before each other.
Cain obviously thought he as big brother was a mature adult before God, but little brother Abel was somehow unable to take his own decisions. He didn't like being told at the sacrifice that he was not his brother's actual keeper.
23:33 In some items brought about during WW-II, Nazis were doing a bad echo of the English camps in South Africa during the Boer war.
But as to peacetime, it's not obvious that Nazis were worse baddies than Social Democrats since then, notably in Sweden, or Progressive Democrats in Canada, where I think Eugenics was abolished in the 1970's as in Scandinavia, and where Euthanasia by far surpasses the T-4 programme, evil as it was.
According°° to a writing by Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler, the Totenkopf had the following meaning: The Skull is the reminder that you shall always be willing to put your self at stake for the life of the whole community.
So, the Skull as such is not exactly an insignium of evil intent. Nor were all who wore it evil. It's pretty obvious Otto Carius or Colonel Valentin Müller were good people, but they are insofar bad examples about the Skull as they were Wehrmacht, not SS.
24:54 "and no admixture of error"
A good reason to reject a Catechism which actually does admix error in § 283.
25:19 Quibble, I think you mistook Incas for Aztecs.
Incas had human sacrifice too, but not hundreds of thousands.
27:00 Katherine Bennett ... you might enjoy the chapters I already wrote of Chronicle of Susan Pevensie.
The relation between Lucy and Susan, prior to and after the train wreck that kills Lucy, is described a bit in terms of Psyche and Orual.
* Actually not true. In October, 1, 8, 15, 22, 29 are A. I trusted the martyrology online, but after October 2nd correctly marked as B, October 3rd was incorrectly marked as E instead of C. Vandalism? Will it be fixed?
** The motor in the virus from CMI's article tomorrow (except it's already March 13th in Australia) is proof against abiogenesis, to be sure, but this is accessed only by microscopes that weren't available in St. Paul's day. It's a complement to what he was talking about, but it's not the main item.
*** I look up.
Behold, I stand at the gate, and knock. If any man shall hear my voice, and open to me the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
[Apocalypse (Revelation) 3:20]
Catholic theologians galore: "Jesus is knocking on the door of your heart, open up, quickly!"
Beza / Geneva Bible:
3:20 Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: {14} if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
(14) This must be taken after the manner of an allegory; John 14:23
° "by everyone" ... St. Thomas and Pius IX are not speaking about a boy in Tibet who grows up believing he's a reincarnation of some Boddhisattva, but "everyone" means "all sorts of people" namely the cleaning lady as much as the professor, the sinner as much as the virtuous philosopher.
°° https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Totenkopf
No comments:
Post a Comment