Prima Via, with a Franciscan

... on Theology and Evolution, Logic and Geocentrism · Prima Via, with a Franciscan

It's Time to Stop Believing in "God" (Mostly Clickbait)
Breaking In The Habit | 11.V.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSmDlC7PB3g

Hans-Georg Lundahl

A little tip.

Five ways.

Since Heliocentrism, Third way is way more (!) used than first way.

Speak of God as first MOVER - the guy who turns the universe around Earth each day and so much else with it down to Coriolis effect by being allpowerful, or omnipotent, and without whom not one day and night is turning (reason why He could easily stop Sun and Moon for Joshua) ... rather than "necessary being".

WHEN speaking of the God of the Bible, we DO need to defend that He exists and is powerful enough for what the Bible describes.

Grace and Rust

Regarding the First Way, the definition of "motion" used by Aquinas and those following his thought tradition does not mean simple "translation through space," but involves change in general, and is especially concerned with causal chains where "secondary causes" cannot exercise causal power on their own--all their causal power is "derived" from the first cause. The proof is actually more detailed than the part of the Summa people read in philosophy of religion anthologies.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

the definition of "motion" used by Aquinas and those following his thought tradition does not mean simple "translation through space,"

There are several species of motus and translation through space is the most noble one, since not changing what is moved.

It is also the most obvious one, and I am not sure the text is nowcorrect on New Advent site:

"It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion."

I recall "utpote sol" - "as for instance the sun" : if not here, at least in the parallel version, in Contra Gentes.

Riccioli also refers to St Thomas' argument as this, but since he denies there is a general overall motion of heaven, thinks individual bodies just move through empty space, and like St Thomas holds the individual bodies are moved by angels, he dismisses this argument for God.

"is especially concerned with causal chains where "secondary causes" cannot exercise causal power on their own--all their causal power is "derived" from the first cause."

Exactly : Coriolis, Gulf stream, daily motion of Sun and Moon are all derived from God's general daily movement of the Heavens.

Grace and Rust

Thanks for your feedback, but I think you're misreading when you cite Aquinas' appeal to the senses as an argument that he had translation through space in mind specifically rather than just as one of the different kinds of motus. My problem is that numerous forms of change are evident to the senses besides translation through space (including ageing and death, the reddening of an unripe apple, and others). Consequently, that passage alone doesn't do enough to rule out this general point. I expect that Riccioli--whose name has never appeared in what I've read about Aquinas--has other arguments to support his interpretation--you mention the use of the sun as an example, so he probably appealed to it as well. I'll try to find what you recommend, and I'll let you know if I'm unable to find it.

I'm also skeptical about the objection he gives. A general, overall motion throughout the cosmos doesn't seem necessary to the First Way, and even the Third Way seems like it can survive without it. My impression, although I'm following the likes of Edward Feser and Garrigou-Lagrange, is that we only need for change to require an external explanation. Even a conglomerate of things moving through space without any harmony between them could suffice, at least if we make the right provisions (such as rejecting inertia, or granting an "impetus" theory of motion).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"evident to the senses besides translation through space (including ageing and death, the reddening of an unripe apple, and others)"

He said manifest, not just evident.

You cannot watch an apple as it gets red, but you can most definitely watch the sun either rise or set.

You can watch death, but not pregnancy as a whole in one session, and birth is a translation in space.

"I expect that Riccioli -- whose name has never appeared in what I've read about Aquinas -- has other arguments to support his interpretation -- you mention the use of the sun as an example, so he probably appealed to it as well."

Check the full Latin of the Proof in Summa Contra Gentes.

You are right he has, like unity of God in Q XI A 3 referring back so as to make it clear the ONE motus of the universe in circle around earth was one thing he thought of.

Riccioli is asking the questions on celestial mechanics and solving them by appeals to authority in Almagestum Novum.

For instance, God Himself is by acts of will moving each star - very few authorities Riccioli knew, the one he thought worth mentioning being Albertus Magnus (back then not yet canonised), but each star having an angel to move it (not the other way round!) he cited a very long list, including St Thomas, Coimbra Jesuits ("Conimbricenses"), Nicolas of Cusa and a few more.

On the question of how heaven is moved, Riccioli goes against St Thomas, saying "by angels" since he thinks heaven consists only of heavenly bodies (under the Heaven we hope to go to which has pearly gates, of course) each of which is moved ...

In Josephus Antiquitates, Abraham realises there is one God by watching sun, moon and stars with Riccioli's (or similar) mechanics : all these different spirits moving bodies without collision, they need to obey a single direction.

St Paul also mentions "from heaven" before stating "from the visible things the invisible things of God are made manifest, and in De Fide Orthodoxa, as far as I recall, St John of Damascus gives a similar proof of God.

As to errors, which negatively attest to the truth they contradict, Giordano Bruno was polytheistics and pantheistic on claiming each what we now would call "solar system" has its own prime mover, its own God (in his interpretation specifically "world soul", that in our being his blasphemy against the Holy Spirit). And Deism, Atheism both start out after Newton repromotes Heliocentrism.

"A general, overall motion throughout the cosmos doesn't seem necessary to the First Way"

If so, the first way can get into things like atomism and polytheism.

"and even the Third Way seems like it can survive without it."

It's not directly relevant to third way, but without it, atomism is an option for God of third way.

"we only need for change to require an external explanation."

Atomism provides one external to the outer and apparent changes.

"Even a conglomerate of things moving through space without any harmony between them could suffice, at least if we make the right provisions (such as rejecting inertia, or granting an "impetus" theory of motion)."

By rejecting inertia or granting an impetus theory of motion, full Newton style, I presume, you get into difficulties with First Way requiring at each moment a simultaneous cause for each change.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sorry for delay, but writing the reply involved copy pasting onto combox, which I can in this cyber but could not on Saturday in Nanterre University Library.

Here is their URL, if you want to contact them:

http://scd.parisnanterre.fr/bibliotheques/bibliotheque-universitaire/la-bibliotheque-universitaire-492834.kjsp

And here is visual proof of an earlier failed try :



http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2018/05/harrassment-at-nanterre-university.html

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhjhDOmx70B4ATAu_mdZE12neUTr-m9mn1lmsdHwO6IDcGg4FAnribs8PZ3cRQsMzXtOVuGsWjPCSWhOuOU9wagsTYoP1Xi8aZ0vmKj5hGXgNjyKp7nwcncrzRWPmOQf9oLC8_lmkXJD45a/s1600/yep.jpg

Grace and Rust

Don't worry about taking a long time to respond, I usually don't back back to people for a few days.

I think you'll need to be more specific than to direct me to the Latin proof in the Summa Contra Gentes; my current source for English and Latin texts from St. Thomas is the DHS Priory of the Immaculate Conception, and they didn't mention Riccioli either. I also tried the library you directed me to, but they don't seem to have works by him or mentioning him that talk about Thomas' philosophy. I guess I'll have to find his Almagestum novum. I'll make some time to read it once I do.

Until then, you do a few other claims that don't seem to hinge on what Riccioli said, and I think delving into them would be the most profitable course.

1. The appeal to the term "manifest" to rule out other forms of motus seems suspect to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the term manifestus and related mean "plainly apprehensible, clear, apparent, evident;" of offenses, "proved by direct evidence;" of offenders, "caught in the act." I think we still agree that St. Thomas meant "manifest to the senses." But that change of any form is apparent or evident, doesn't require our ability to observe the whole process of change from beginning, through the middle, to the end. The fact that something was originally X, and is now Y can be proved by direct evidence without watching the whole process. Our senses attest to these even when we do not see the entire act of change.

2. Suppose we accept that motus can refer to change of any kind, rather than exclusively to translation through space. It's unclear why allowing for the cosmos to be a conglomerate of changing parts, rather than having a general motion, makes atomism and polytheism into imminent threats. The definition Aquinas gave for motus as reduction of potency to act can only have those implications if we grant that more than one thing can be pure actuality, since the point of the proof is that there is something purely actual. But this is impossible; St. Thomas addresses this point (Summa Contra Gentes, I.42), and we can derive it from his metaphysics independently.

Hans Georg Lundahl

Why should DHS Priory texts mention Riccioli any more than Tolkien or CSL, two latter day more or less Thomist Christians?

I didn't go to Riccioli to study St Thomas, but to see his view on angelic movers ... which was that of St Thomas and cited him as one authority. I glanced at the other question, on daily motion of all heaven, and saw he disagreed with his view and therefore proof.

Liber 1 caput 13:

#2 Primo autem ponemus rationes quibus Aristoteles procedit ad probandum Deum esse. Qui hoc probare intendit ex parte motus duabus viis.

#3 Quarum prima talis est: omne quod movetur ab alio movetur. Patet autem sensu aliquid moveri, utputa solem ...

aside : hence perhaps my intrusion into Summa theologica. Note also the difference between proving from senses and what is explicitly and immediately manifest to them (patet).

Ergo alio movente movetur. Aut ergo illud movens movetur, aut non. Si non movetur, ergo habemus propositum quod necesse est ponere aliquid movens immobile. Et hoc dicimus Deum.

And if - for instance the Sun - is not moved directly by God (a position which was that of St Albert his teacher, not his own), it is moved by sth other, which is either moved by sth other and other and other in infinity, meaning I presume larger and larger spheres around earth, or by a finite number of spheres (in St Thomas' view presumably one per celestial major body, in mine a single one, the firmamentum of aether) moved by God. But the alternative is ruled out by the impossibility of infinita simul moveri.

What does that mean?

In a Newtonian and Kantian infinite universe, infinite numbers of planets around infinite numbers of stars would be moving simultaneously in any finite time, like they would be moving significant parts of their years in the finite time of an Earth year. Or, more to the point, they would be turning significant parts of their days in the finite time of an Earth day.

But Aristotle says, as given by St Thomas:

#12 ... Si in motoribus et motis proceditur in infinitum, oportet omnia huiusmodi infinita corpora esse, quia omne quod movetur est divisibile et corpus ... omne autem corpus quod movet motum, simul dum movet movetur. Ergo omnia ista infinita simul moventur dum unum eorum movetur.

If we go back to number 3, Thomas has in mind (and I think I have seen a fuller text, stating this more explicitly) a scenario where Sun while moving for instance the spheres down to atmosphere and passage winds and oceanic currents is moved in its sphere by a sphere outside that by another sphere outside that.

I think there is a passage to restore in which the ultimate reason why this is impossible is, it would involve corpora moved at infinite speed. Infinity times two times pi / day = infinity.

I recall copying this and starting an article on philologica in which I translate the full passage, as given earlier. And that draft is gone. Not first time sth on my blogs seems to have been hacked and gone.

"The fact that something was originally X, and is now Y can be proved by" ... watching state Y and not watching but recalling state X.

In other words, a red apple or yellow grass which was green is not manifest to the eye as moving from anything else to yellow. It is only evident by comparing memory with present state. You can see a cheek go from normal to red when someone blushes, but you cannot see, only conclude from sight with memory (sth else, as St Thomas knew) that an apple which is red had gone from green.

As I can detect, but not catch redhanded, a change in the text by comparing the present version of it to my memory of it.

http://www.corpusthomisticum.org/scg1010.html

I'll have to leave this library to copy paste elsewhere, Nanterre University Library is still playing funny with the abilities to copy paste onto youtube comments. They claim it is Firefox, but Firefox has worked fine before.

Continued outside the library, which seems only to have firefox [which has only firefox, which seems to block as said], now in a cyber with google chrome:

"Our senses attest to these even when we do not see the entire act of change."

Already dealt with : pregnancy, growth, maturing and withering of plants and so on are all not "manifest to senses" as much as evident between manifest sensation and memory of previous such.

"Suppose we accept that motus can refer to change of any kind, rather than exclusively to translation through space. It's unclear why allowing for the cosmos to be a conglomerate of changing parts, rather than having a general motion, makes atomism and polytheism into imminent threats."

Even from studying the Giordano Bruno case? That was for polytheism. For atomism, we can imagine having energy as first mover and that would leave diverse manifest movements in diverse parts of universe as diverse conglomerates of energy quanta.

Have a look at Q XI A 3, two points, reversing order because second will go back to an earlier one:

"Thirdly, this is shown from the unity of the world. For all things that exist are seen to be ordered to each other since some serve others. But things that are diverse do not harmonize in the same order, unless they are ordered thereto by one. For many are reduced into one order by one better than by many: because one is the per se cause of one, and many are only the accidental cause of one, inasmuch as they are in some way one. Since therefore what is first is most perfect, and is so per se and not accidentally, it must be that the first which reduces all into one order should be only one. And this one is God."

In this definition of world, where everything is ordered in relation to all other, solar systems are worlds, galaxies perhaps in the case of spiral ones if even that and the universe as seen by modern science not at all.

Hence Bruno expressed his belief in many solar systems as a belief in many worlds. And drew the conclusion of many gods.

"Secondly, this is proved from the infinity of His perfection. For it was shown above (I:4:2) that God comprehends in Himself the whole perfection of being. If then many gods existed, they would necessarily differ from each other. Something therefore would belong to one which did not belong to another. And if this were a privation, one of them would not be absolutely perfect; but if a perfection, one of them would be without it."

Actually, this would not suffice against atomism, if each quantum particle were thought of as a god, and if omnipresence was not a divine perfection .... but let's go back to Q IV A 2:

"Secondly, from what has been already proved, God is existence itself, of itself subsistent (I:3:4). Consequently, He must contain within Himself the whole perfection of being. For it is clear that if some hot thing has not the whole perfection of heat, this is because heat is not participated in its full perfection; but if this heat were self-subsisting, nothing of the virtue of heat would be wanting to it. Since therefore God is subsisting being itself, nothing of the perfection of being can be wanting to Him."

A quantum theory atomist could claim that some extension, some mass and some forces is all there is to the perfection of being and that all other perfections above quantum level are illusory, but here he points to QIII A4 ...

"First, whatever a thing has besides its essence must be caused either by the constituent principles of that essence (like a property that necessarily accompanies the species—as the faculty of laughing is proper to a man—and is caused by the constituent principles of the species), or by some exterior agent—as heat is caused in water by fire. Therefore, if the existence of a thing differs from its essence, this existence must be caused either by some exterior agent or by its essential principles. Now it is impossible for a thing's existence to be caused by its essential constituent principles, for nothing can be the sufficient cause of its own existence, if its existence is caused. Therefore that thing, whose existence differs from its essence, must have its existence caused by another. But this cannot be true of God; because we call God the first efficient cause. Therefore it is impossible that in God His existence should differ from His essence."

Very fine if first mover is one as moving one universe (old sense) and therefore identic to a single necessary being (as opposed to quanta) ...

"Secondly, existence is that which makes every form or nature actual; for goodness and humanity are spoken of as actual, only because they are spoken of as existing. Therefore existence must be compared to essence, if the latter is a distinct reality, as actuality to potentiality. Therefore, since in God there is no potentiality, as shown above (Article 1), it follows that in Him essence does not differ from existence. Therefore His essence is His existence."

Quanta would have very little potentiality, very little variation ... as to no potentility, well:

"First, because no body is in motion unless it be put in motion, as is evident from induction. Now it has been already proved (I:2:3), that God is the First Mover, and is Himself unmoved. Therefore it is clear that God is not a body."

What induction is that?

"But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it. Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold. It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself. Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another."

The one example other than translation in space is heat - sth which moves life and a lot of other qualities from movement of the Sun.

So, accept the Sun is only one among many, not moved per se but in relation to earth by movement of earth, and then a lot of things are moved adequately in each moment - on your theory, not mine - by inertial forces and gravitation.

Riccioli, I cite him in this post on angelic movers:

http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/08/what-opinion-did-riccioli-call-fourth.html

And link back to his book, online:

https://www.e-rara.ch/zut/content/pageview/194748

I think you will find motion of heaven as a whole by going backwards a few pages. I think it is the next page (without looking), that you find opinion four with lots of authorities including St Thomas.

To be

perhaps continued?

Two Subjects : Ireland and a certain "social conservatism" of Sensus Fidelium

... on Golding's Famous Novel and on Youth · Two Subjects : Ireland and a certain "social conservatism" of Sensus Fidelium

The fall of Ireland
PatrickCoffin.media | 27.V.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOJ_is-bi4s

First three responses to what Patrick Coffin said:

I

Snakes returning soon?

Not more like a micro deluge, as demanded by St Patrick, to avoid getting the Irish into the Great Tribulation?

II

Countries going for contraception will get abortion?

Did you also mention, they will lose old age pensions?

Sweden has privatised them, France has postponed retirement, Germany is chasing the young (at least on what I heard in Berlin, former East Germany) to pay taxes to the old who need the pensions.

III

African priests?

Do you know how they act in Paris? One parish was arranging the favourite breakfast for my Saturday mornings (I'm homeless) and it also had an African priest. This was some years ago, and I have since been often stamped as a Protestant simply due to being Young Earth Creationist.

If their superior is Evolution and Old Age compromiser (as they say over at CMI), they think they would be disobeying by being Young Earth. They really overrate obedience, the probable identity of the curse of Ham (there was a prayer about it endorsed by the Catholic Church) is this overrating of obedience. They demonise Milongo, rightly or wrongly, as "disobedient" and cannot imagine someone could not obey the same authorities as they and get better results than Milongo (not sure how Pope Michael will see married bishops, he is already endorsing married men getting ordained even in Latin rite - or authorising, I should say).

IV

is a debate, so names are out, not each one being mine. No anonymisation, since comments on youtube are public.

Sensus Fidelium

The elephant in the room. When did the culture really start going down? When the church rejected Catholicism. How many priests have Ireland ordained since the council? How’s the priesthood there? Contraception came into Ireland after the changes and if you can change the Mass you can change everything. What is the ‘new evangelization’? Many speak of it but none know what it is. Didn’t the old evangelization work? Even St JP II mentioned it was redoing the old way not recreating happy clappy weird stuff or Lizzie Answers etc. we have to drop this ‘we need cool catholicism’ & get back to what we lost. It starts with the liturgy. You can apologetic till you’re blue in the face and sell your books but nothing will change till the liturgy is fixed. It flows from there. 50 yrs of banging our heads in the wall and look around us. It gets worse. Yet full steam ahead let’s not change anything. Let’s not talk about what the doctors and saints said and use modern ‘theologians’ instead of saints to teach us. Frustrating to say the least.

Steve B

Sensus Fidelium You absolutely nailed it.

themousepolice

I agree with you and love your YouTube channel by the way.

I’m certainly not in Lizzie’s demographic but I have watched some of her videos. I’m a cradle Catholic and, having Italian parents, I was brought up with the Saints and love them dearly. I love their inspiring stories and want to be like them but Lizzie’s background is completely different. She, like many protestants was brought up to hate Catholicism and her parents are not happy with her conversion. She said she was so sure Catholicism was wrong in the beginning and I remember her telling her followers she could never be Catholic. She had a problem, like many protestants, with the perceived idolatry, what she thought was the worship of Mary ...all the usual things protestants wrongly perceive to be the case. It has been a complete turnaround for her and I think it’s commendable that she discovered, for herself, and with the love and support of many of her Catholic followers and her boyfriend (who also converted) where the Truth lies. I just don’t think we can discount that. She actually very nearly joined the Orthodox Church because of the fact it was more traditional. The only thing that made her choose Catholicism over Orthodoxy was the fact that she realised Peter was the rock...all this on her own! I think it is very admirable. Tradition is actually what many of the young need and want. Have you watched any of her videos? She explains things quite well and I can see why she appeals to younger viewers. She has also revised many of her videos since she converted so that they are now more in line with Church Teaching. God bless...I love your channel and all your priests there are awesome!

Sensus Fidelium

themousepolice yes I’ve watched a few seconds of her stuff. Too ditzy for me I cannot bare to listen long. Seems narcissistic in a sense as people like being on camera. Her theology needs a lot of work and it’s dangerous teaching people if one isn’t ready to as they’ll be judged for all of it but she does it to make $. I know I’ll get told I ask for donations but I drive uber 10 hours a day and still get videos up. I’ve sent it to priests and they say the same thing as i ‘how does she get 30,000 views for crying on a video?!’

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I just noted that the amendment number 5 came in the late seventies.

[Referring to a connection between a probable reading of Dignitatis Humanae and amendment 5, deleting special place of Catholic Church from constitution. This was ignored, I'm going with where these people are directing the discussion, responding to that:]

themousepolice

Sendus Fidelium I get what you’re saying and you certainly have a point. She does have sponsors nowadays and unfortunately for her, she suffers from Bipolar disorder. Of course, I bow to your superior knowledge with regard to Theology. Keep up the great work! I love your videos although I notice some have gone missing...are you revising them?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"clappy weird stuff or Lizzie Answers etc"

I suppose a fat man with a cloak and a broad brimmed hat is not your style either?

"we have to drop this 'we need cool catholicism' & get back to what we lost"

Is a cool person defending Catholicism showing "we need cool Catholicism"? It is not a guitar mass, Lizzie is even fond of the Latin Mass. And she says so.

But a layman (including laydamsel) being cool when defending Catholicism is perhaps in your book equivalent to guitar masses? Even outside liturgy?

Is "what we lost" an Anglican atmosphere of:

• clergymen defend their confessions in strict, clergylike manners before other clergymen;
• people who are not clergymen are supposed to be converted by their clergy getting converted;
• and people who neither are nor have clergy are to be fought and marginalised rather than converted?

"too ditzy for me I cannot bare to listen long"

So, people who are that ditzy are not supposed to count on your pastoral in your parish?

And somehow Lord of the Flies is NOT too ditzy for you?

"Her theology needs a lot of work"

Which you know after watching a few seconds? Heard of hasty judgement?

And you mean in order for her to have the standard of a priest in the ambone?

"and it's dangerous teaching people if one isn't ready for it"

Meaning, I presume, if one hasn't either an ordinary duty or a venia to preach after a bishop has verified the theological credentials?

A fat man with a cloak and a broad brimmed hat who was writing in the very ditzy Yellow Press would most likely not be your ideal defender of the faith?

"but she does it to make $"

You heard her say so in the confessional before refusing her absolution, or you think you are Padre Pio?

"I ask for donations, but I drive uber 10 hours a day and still get videos up"

Do you drive OVER 10 hours a day? Or do you drive Taxis on UBER 10 hours a day? In the latter case, why would you need donations to pay?

"I've sent it to priests and they say the same thing as i 'how does she get 30,000 views for crying on a video?!'"

She actually does not get them for that. She gets it for theological content given in a readily assimilable way.

And adding Protestant Conservative Bourgeois bitterness over low class is not exactly putting your own theology on a more sophisticated level.

In fact, the priests who have said that have shown their dishonesty. They have been dishonest in what at least seems an attempt to humiliate her, if not before herself, at least before potential viewers.

With priests having such hearts, a perfect Latin Liturgy will not win more souls than a guitar mass.

Note : I have so far presumed the video channel owner Sensus Fidelium is the priest whose sermons are heard on the videos. If there are more priests than one and Sensus Fidelium is not one of them, but a Taxi driver, on Uber, that would explain his lack of response to me. Since usually I do not hear videos, but watch them minute by minute and stopping to comment, in a library with no headphones using subtitles, and no income from driving Taxi or Uber, I have, if these things are so, missed it./HGL

Update: if you want to pray for Sensus Fidelium (if he's a priest) or for his priest(s) if he only uploads his or their sermons for them, here is a prayer on Dympnah's Road, she is forwarding from a book with imprimatur:

A prayer for the redemption of bad priests
http://dymphnaroad.blogspot.com/2018/06/a-prayer-for-redemption-of-bad-priests.html

Or, well, perhaps not. It is for priests straying from the altar, not for priests sacrilegiously celebrating Mass in mortal sin due to obstinate errors on moral theology ...

A Good Video on Inquisition, with Some Quibbles of Mine

I did not know, previous to seeing this video, that Kamen is a Jew, not a Catholic:

Catholic Inquisition Myths Busted
vaticancatholic.com | 9.XII.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJ_xohxaLEo

I

Whether Luther called for the death of cardinals and popes or not doesn't change that Lutheran Orthodoxy - a position growing up around Luther and Melanchthon - did not.

Also, among the originally condemned 42 theses, one says "it is contrary to the will of the Holy Spirit to burn heretics".

So, in Lutheran countries, Catholics were killed as rebels against the king (who was granted a "ius reformandi" as one of the "iura circa ecclesiam"), but not as heretics.

Calvinism and Anglicanism (examplied by burning of Anabaptists in 1612) were not as peaceful.

II

Note also, since 1401 England had a very peculiar Inquisition procedure. De comburendo heretico (or in plural) was a law by the parliament, against the Lollards.

In it, the judges applying (indirectly?) death penalty were territorial bishops who could try the guilt any way they wanted. Bishop Cochon of Beauvais asked the Paris parliament if he could proceed against St Joan of Arc on that system (he was in English territory and so "under English law" including "de comburendo"). The answer was given one 14th of July in the affirmative, which led to the burning of a saint. Another July 14th was when Karamustafa laid siege on Vienna in 1683 ...

Lollards were partly considered heretical by reasons of being "antisocial" in a purely secular sense, and part of that was their rejection of English wars - including that against the restored Valois, as well as those against Celtic Fringe Independentists. While their rejection of arts in liturgy was doctrinally unsound, rejecting finery in other aspects is a licit stance, as examplified by Savonarola, Jansenism and your own attitude to Louis XIV, right?

That said, they were also really heretical about the sacraments. But in the end some were burnt whose connection to them was limited to owning a Pater or Creed in English - because some bishops went hysterics.

III

It would be interesting to compare heresy condemnations to death and sex predator condemnations to prison.

In the tribunal of Toulouse about 1 in 20 landed on the stake of all sentences (the propertion could be higher if some significant percentage of the sentences more than one concern same person, like first a prison sentence and then a sentence freeing him on abjuration), and about as many had dolls of straw burned while themselves escaping (Inquisitors were not gaolors of Alcatraz security levels), and in Spain, I had read a conservative 19th C. Protestant (probably close to Henry Charles Lea in opinions) in Sweden consider 40 000 tried and 4000 burned. If my memory serves well.

How many of those who are tried for "pedophile crimes" are condemned? Perhaps more ...?

(I say "pedophile crimes" in quotation marks because the term pedophile is morally meaningless, having at least 3 different and more or less incompatible applications, the correct term for many crimes would be rape, sexual harrassment, molestation with aggravating circumstance of youth of victim, while in some cases the "statutory rape" sentences victimise the "victim" more than the acts, since enforcing a too high age of marital and sexual consent).

"40 000 tried and 4000 burned" - the number is for all periods between 1490 (1480?) and 1830.

It is probably also partly refuted by Kamen, since then ...

IV

9:30 Spanish vs English Inquisitions.

Protestants love to refer to Coventry martyrs (who were close to the "historian" of Inquisition, Foxe), and it seems the English bishop of Coventry took hours to days finding some uneducated commoners guilty of heresy.

They also love to refer to Tyndale. He was taken by the Spanish Inquisition in what is now Belgium in the vicinity of Vilvorde in 1529, it was probably common knowledge and accepted by Inquisitors he had made an English translation of the Bible, and he was not found guilty and executed until 1536. Seven years, certainly uncomfortable, but as certainly not a case of hasty and hysteric "condemnations to left and right".

V

10:12 "But their conversion was not sincere."

In some, fairly many, cases, it obviously was.

The uncle of Torquemada had converso relations and stopped a lynch mob from lynching what they thought were insincere conversos. St Theresa of Avila was certainly not practising Judaism in secret. She also was of converso heritage.

Addendum:

In fact, when checking which years Tyndale was being tried, I came across an article on his Inquisitor, his judge. Part of the seven years procedure was a polemic between them, Tyndale was allowed to write a book to the Inquisitor, he answered with a book, in total three books defending the Catholic faith and it was verified that Tyndale had understood and rejected his arguments before he was sentenced to death. The first of the three books begins:

In order to satisfy your request, Tyndale, as far as the Lord shall grant, in which you ask me to reply in writing to the declaration and proof of your first assertion, in which you affirm that only faith justifies before God, it seems advantageous both for the clarity and the brevity of the discussion, that I should first set out those points on which we agree, so that only those on which we are at issue may be left for discussion. Therefore, as I estimate, we agree on this, that all Holy Writ is divinely inspired, and that every part thereof is true, as being divinely revealed. Secondly we agree on this, that predestination, election, vocation, and justification, by which men from being unjust [B] become just, and from being impious become pious, from being sinners become innocent, and by which in general terms remission of any sin takes place both as concerns the guilt and stain of it and as concerns the liability to eternal punishment - that these things, I say, occur freely and are not subject to human deserving. Thirdly we are at one on this, that the grace which is given to those who worthily receive the sacraments of baptism or penance is not subject to human merit, but is simply given freely by God through Christ from the merit of his Passion - a thing which manifestly appears in little children who are now baptized or formerly were circumcised; for since they lack the use of reason, it is plain that theM in no wise cooperate with God, who sanctifies them by the washing of regeneration. Fourthly, as regards adults, we agree in this, that faith does not justify them unless they acknowledge their sin and confess that the law is just and that its Author is just, unless condemning themselves and their sins they flee to the refuge of Christ's blood so that they may freely receive from God not only mercy and the remission of sins, but also the spirit of grace and the strength to fulfil the law, &c. Fifthly, that the dogma [C] of those is false, who assert that an evil life can consist with the best faith, whether faith be understood as confidence or hope or sure expectation of good promised by God. Sixthly we do not differ on this point, that you say that justifying faith is not simply any faith, but that faith which works through love, and that does not exist alone in the mind of the man justified or believing, but has companions both antecedent and following - antecedent being the fear of God and contrition and sorrow for one's sins, to which may be added the hope of forgiveness, while following are tolerance and meekness and compassion and the other fruits of Christ's Spirit. I have decided not to make it an issue that you seem to put faith before charity, when charity is the form and as it were the life of faith, as the Apostle says that the way of charity is more excellent than that of faith, and that there now abide these three, faith, hope, and charity, and that the greatest of these is charity. Setting that aside, or reserving it for another time, we agree in this, that a solitary faith, without the accompaniment of other virtues, does not justify. [D] Seventhly we agree in this, that the Apostle in saying that man is justified by faith without the works of the Law (in Romans and Galatians, and wherever he says this) does not mean this only of the written law proper to the people of the Jews, i.e. ceremonial and judicial laws, but of moral laws which had their binding force not only from the law of Moses but from natural or written law, and that by the benefit of such laws men knew what was right action and what was sin, but that such knowledge did not suffice to fulfil the Law without the grace and spirit of Christ, and that this grace and spirit are given by Christ to whomsoever they are given. These are the points in which we do not disagree. Now having set out briefly in what matters we agree, we must next see what those are on which we disagree.

I had been used to, in answering Protestants, to disagree in this last point with Tyndale, saying St Paul did mean the works of the ceremonial law did not even contribute. Interesting ...

Here is the book and the two sequels:

Jacob Latomus His Three Books of Confutations Against William Tyndale
https://web.archive.org/web/20080517104730/http://www.tyndale.org/Reformation/1/latomus1.html

Point one is obvious to me, but may be of interest to those who consider "Biblical literalism" has nothing to do with "Conservative catholicism".

Seems the Format Has Merit

Others are trying it:

On Trad + Cath + Forum:

Lane-Cekada Debate on Ignis Ardens (2012)
http://tradcath.proboards.com/thread/1269/lane-cekada-debate-ignis-ardens?page=1

The forum message begins with a link to a pdf (can't correctly link to pdfs on the blog, so click from the link I give) and also contains this word:

A special thank you to member EricH, who had wisely saved this thread from the now defunct Ignis Ardens forum.

Ah, yes, saving threads from fora that can go defunct or where old threads can be cluttered by newer ones, is a wise thing. That is what this blog is about, in part./HGL

Responding to AronRa on Politics

While he is speaking, the video is not on his channel.

Aron Ra - How Conservatives are Ruining America
Mechaghostman2 | 21.III.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQZTJYyvO30

My comments will, through link to this post, be posted there too, meanwhile, here they are:

I

0:50 "the Puritans came to this country to escape religious persecution"

Here is what they were trying to avoid:

"King James I of England made some efforts to reconcile the Puritan clergy in England, who had been alienated by the conservatism blocking reform in the Church of England. Puritans embraced Calvinism (Reformed theology) with its opposition to ritual and an emphasis on preaching, a growing sabbatarianism, and preference for a presbyterian system of church polity as opposed to the episcopal polity of the Church of England, which had also preserved medieval canon law almost intact. They opposed church practices that resembled Roman Catholic ritual."

Sounds like persecution? Not really.

Here is what they brought on, at least in Massachusetts:

"Roger Williams preached religious toleration, separation of church and state, and a complete break with the Church of England. He was banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony and founded Providence Plantations, which became the Rhode Island Colony and provided a haven for others such as Anne Hutchinson.[7] Quakers were also expelled from Massachusetts, but they were welcomed in Rhode Island.[8] Years later, four Quakers known as the Boston martyrs remained in Massachusetts and were executed by hanging for practicing their religion."

Sounds like they were very much into religious persecution - and fled because Charles I was too tolerant of Catholics for their taste.

My source for the quotes is this wiki:

Wikipedia : Puritan migration to New England (1620–40)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puritan_migration_to_New_England_(1620%E2%80%9340)

"and they brought it with them"

More like, they came to US to start it up. In US.

II

3:12 Why would one not support accidental parenthood?

Yes, one thing Tea Party is right on is, criminalise abortion.

"God bless Ireland, said the heros" ... I'm obviously for the 8th amendment being kept rather than increasing excuses for killing babies before they can get born.

No, if so and so has some accidental parenthood, it's her accident, but God's plan, for the little one.

By the way, let's not make it too accidental : a father who refuses to marry someone he made pregnant (if he is free to marry) should be fined at least. Or, if pushing for abortion, put in prison.

3:29 How about more opportunities for teen agers to provide for children? More allowance for teens marrying, better opportunities for teens to get some work ...

III

3:51 Eliminating free education is not an excellent idea, but not having it compulsory is one.

All school shooters either were in legally compulsory education or one which was in practise compulsory to them - or had been there to shortly before the shooting.

If I'm wrong on that stat, correct me on it.

What if Klebold had been able to get a job ... before 1999.

IV

4:02 The Saudi school - or whatever other Muslim school you showed - would in a Muslim country be as much tax funded as the nearly directly Atheist school, as it often is, is tax funded in US.

In Iran, at least Christian children are not forced to Muslim schools, I've heard.

Not that I'm a fan of a country where converts to Catholicism were just sentenced to ten years' prison.

V

4:14 Racial segregation - was it really Tea Party?

Thought those doing it before Civil Rights movement were Democrats?

But, OK, let's say it was Tea Party. It has other roots than just Christianity applied to politics.

VI

4:23 Are you sure you are not misrepresenting Tea Party here?

Would they not allow Non-Profit schools in poor areas? Would they not allow a private school that usually charges tuition to not charge from a poor family? Would they not allow it to get only what they need to pay teachers and have no shareholders?

VII

4:45 Child labour laws are a boon in cases where the child labour would be really hazardous to the health, like doing small services in big factories with hot smelting ovens or other dangerous machines.

I am reading Roots. I don't think Kunta ever heard of anyone in Juffure saying "I don't want to tend goats, I want more school" - and he had been a goat herd well before 17.

In Johanna Spyri's novel, Peter is also child labouring with goats and his mother has to be coaxed before he goes to school also - I don't think he was as unhappy with the goats as Heidi (the heroine) was in Frankfurt in the Sesenmann house. Btw, she (Johanna Spyri, not Heidi) knew something about depression. Her father was not a shrink, he lived off mainly somatic cases, but he took cases of depression, even deep depression, to live with his family - so she had observed it first hand.

I also don't think a boy of 14 minded walking with father on the business of sowing or perhaps even ploughing in the Middle Ages. You know a serf was obliged to a certain number of man-work days per year, but he need not come in person, he could send his sons. The more he had, the more leisure they had (but also somewhat less food, until perhaps a greater lot involved some more debt of man-work days).

VIII

4:58 Minimum wage ... is it equal all over US, or is it graded as per expenses for warming?

A minimum wage which is adequate for Alaska is a little fortune in San Diego. A minimum wage which is good for San Diego would freeze you to death in Alaska.

In the Middle Ages, I think there was for each line of business usually one wage for all employees, all over the companies, they had no right to compete by cutting expenses or by trying to get best workers - but that one was decided by local authorities, not national ones.

IX

5:38 Wages and lack of instruction ... factories didn't exist in exactly that sense in the Middle Ages. Cutting corners by making a very large factory where many men could be employed "more rationally" (a k a sweated) was not a thing licit to businessmen in the Middle Ages, and when Liberalism in the 19th C. made it licit, Luddites and the similar revolt of "les Canuts" tried to stop this as not in the interest of workers - or, ultimately public.

As said, wages were regulated, locally. So was the duty of the employer to instruct school child age apprentices:

• Catechism
• Reading and Writing
• the kinds of Math applicable to the trade (instead of pi, many a tradesman has learned squaring the diameter and multplying by what is really approx pi/4, namely 11/14).

So, the apprentice going to journeyman (full paid employee?) at 14 was not uninstructed and the owner had been through and the owner's son was about to go through the exact same conditions of employment as the non-owning ones. You are employed under a weaver who has 3 employees, at 14, you have one chance in three of being in business as your own man 10 years later.

You are employed in a weaving factory which has 100 employees and where owners are not former employees, you are not likely to have even 1/100 chance, rather much closer to zero, to become your own man.

Answering Donald Trump, President of U. S., on Subject of Embassy Moved to Jerusalem

His words on video:

President Donald J. Trump's Message Upon the Dedication of the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem
The White House | 14.V.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfuujUD-LD8

My answer in comments, also (so far) under the video:

I

Suppose Mexico invaded US ... not likely, but suppose ... would Mexico have a right to place its capital in Chicago?

To Israel, the Palestinians and all of their neighbours!

Thank God for that! God bless you for not quite forgetting the Israelites of Christian and Muslim confessions ... (if you wonder what I mean, do read last chapter of The Desert a City, it will give you a clue on what happened to Christians from Judaea, Samaria and Galilaea at the Persian and Muslim invasions).

II

Note, previous comment is from before I knew of the massacre Zionist army personnel perpetrated on protesting Palestinians.

Have you called the ambassador back?

Btw, was he a Jew?

Do you know how the Palestinian reaction was in c. 1920, when a Jew was sent as Britain's local government of Palestinian mandate?

Read up on it in The New Jerusalem, by Gilbert Keith Chesterton - it's a travel book.

THE NEW JERUSALEM
by G. K. CHESTERTON
http://www.gkc.org.uk/gkc/books/GKC_New_Jerusalem.html

Here are two more books I recommend to understanding the post-Acts and post-Bellum Judaicum history of the Holy Land:

The Desert a City: An Introduction to the Study of Egyptian and Palestian Monasticism Under the Christian Empire (Anglais)
Broché – 1 janvier 1977
de Derwas J. Chitty (Auteur)
https://www.amazon.fr/Desert-City-Introduction-Palestian-Monasticism/dp/0913836451

Mostly on Egypt, but partly - last chapter - Holy Land. Here is the other one:

How the Holy Cross Was Found: From Event to Medieval Legend With an Appendix of Texts
Paperback – 1991
by Stephan Borgehammar
https://www.amazon.com/How-Holy-Cross-Was-Found/dp/B01HF0LLNW

As to the Muslim Hebrews, there seems to have been at least some degree of recklessness:

A Baby Died in Gaza
May 16, 2018 by Susan Wright
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/susanwright/2018/05/a-baby-died-in-gaza/

That said ... were Israeli troops firing and using tear gas when babies were around?

Chomsky's Not Happy, and Trump's Not the Main Issue

Noam Chomsky: Donald Trump is a Distraction
ANONYMOUS | 3.III.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQvig0KvUaE

I

Supposing you are right on global warming, Chomsky ... I can think of an analogue.

Nimrod projecting to launch from Göbekli Tepe or perhaps Harran a three step rocket fueled, not by "controlled Uranium," but by an atomic bomb like explosion.

I do not know whether global warming is happening or not, but am for measures which would if so reduce petrol use - and am for them on other grounds. As a distributist I think a more local economy is excellent for more widespread ownership of means of production.

If you buy an ecco shoe, in most towns in the world, getting the shoe to you has cost petrol or perhaps in trains electricity (Harrisburg, Chernobyl, anyone?). But also, in most towns where you can buy an ecco shoe, you are hard set to earn your living as a local producer of a similar footwear (in some ecco shoes are well balanced by locally made sandals or ... looked it up ... Espadrille shoes, but in Paris I think the cheap Espadrilles are from elsewhere (also, not ideal to walk the streets in)).

While bakers are very well employed and self emloyed in France, Harry's and Banette are taking away some opportunities - perhaps not too many, though. Banette also at least gives a local baker some opportunity to finish the work and get a margin while concentrating on making, perhaps, flan, chocolate breads and croissants, or sth. Harry's and Banette obviously get to most places in France (outside Marseille for Banette and I don't know where for Harry's) in trains or on roads.

So, a more localised economy in the physical sense (leaving perhaps internet as the most globalised thing, not as a byproduct of globalisation) would be good in my view and would also do good on the view of those deploring petroleum use.

II

I can agree on Republican Party.

Under Trump they did not try to vote any bill outlawing abortion.

Have you seen William Tapley's video on that one?