- Q
- Is it wrong to try and convert people to Catholicism?
https://www.quora.com/Is-it-wrong-to-try-and-convert-people-to-Catholicism/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms
- Just now
- Absolutely not wrong at all.
If a “Catholic” clergyman (of whatever apparent rank) tells you it is, it’s something wrong with his “Catholicism” - and you may already know, I don’t consider Bergoglio as being the Pope.
Tuesday, July 5, 2022
Obviously Proselytism is Right
Saturday, July 2, 2022
Thursday, June 30, 2022
Trent Horn Bungles Catholic Historic View of YEC
Trent Horn - The Big Bang, Evolution, and Catholicism
15 Oct. 2015 | Catholic Answers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91fPeIvcA6I
1:07 Reference for the Catholic religion being compatible with Big Bang and Evolution?
Humani Generis only states that the compatibility may be investigated (not that it's there).
2:08 "knowing with foresight human beings would come to exist"
Seems to go quite a bit further away from Traditional teaching that Humani Generis, to which Adam's soul is not something that "would come to exist" but which God created directly.
2:58 Ussher basically repeated Bede, if I may trust CMI on Ussher (they are a bit biassed for him).
George Syncellus and St. Jerome had done the same thing with LXX based texts. Julius Africanus nearly agreed with their total for Genesis 5, 2262 years instead of standard 2242 years.
Syncellus had and St. Jerome lacked a Second Cainan in Genesis 11, and the chronology of St. Jerome made its way via Historia scholastica to the Roman martyrology.
3:06 "only to record who people's ancestors were, they can't be relied upon to date" ...
1) why do they then mention ages?
2) how many other infos actually directly given in the Bible are not reliable either?
4:22 "YEC were actually very novel and came about in the 20th C."
YEC was the sole player in the field up to Lyell, in 1830. 1838 - 1896 the three Catholic schools were YEC, Day Age and Gap Theory. See the article on Exaéméron by Fr. Émile Mangenot, SJ, 1920 (Dictionnaire Apologétique de la Foi Catholique? Dictionnaire de Théologie catholique?), when he ditches all three and invents, de novo, a kind of Framework Theory.
Sts Augustine and Aquinas were YEC.
Wednesday, June 29, 2022
Gavin Ortlund Answered on Bodily Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary
The Assumption of Mary: Protestant Critique
27th June 2022 | Truth Unites
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMhlrM8Zb3M
0:15 You claim to have made responses to non-Protestant traditions.
That's RC, EO, Copts, Armenians and Assyrians.
Has it not occurred to you that all of above have a feast related to the belief, whether it counts as "infallble dogma" or not?
0:57 These issues alone are a good reason to shun Protestantism.
2:08 Moo-nee-fee-chen-tiss-im-ooss Day-ooss.
4:20 "to all of us"
John Henry Newman meant "all of us Puseyites - the ones he was just leaving.
His book was written before he converted, and he was considered to know the faith well enough to convert without instruction, so, the book was finished to the model of his viewpoints as an Anglican converting, not yet a well instructed Catholic.
6:22 Church history.
Same reason we have to believe St. Matthew wrote the Gospel of Matthew.
Read it in St. Andrew of Crete.
8:00 unknown in the early Church
What he really means is, unattested in the few texts we have from the early Church.
Immaculate conception is actually better, since Greek and Coptic versions of Sub tuum praesidium involve a phrase changed in the Latin, with the Greek version being "Su mone hagne, su mone eulogemene."
9:43 End of fifth century - more than one of the martyrologies are actually younger than that.
This is when we start getting hagiography.
12:29 Let's confer 25 September.
Apud castellum Emmaus natalis beati Cleophae, qui fuit Christi discipulus, quem et in eadem domo in qua mensam Domino paraverat, pro confessione illius a Judaeis occisum tradunt, et gloriosa memoria sepultum.
When does this kind of information about early martyrs start getting recorded?
Let's take Martyrologium Hierosolymianum. It's before the time frame you give. However, the three oldest manuscripts of it are later, and the wiki says ..."all relatively late, from the 8th century, which means they have inevitably suffered interference in the course of transmission" ... meaning, if August 15th is found (I don't know whether this is the case) in the Echternach example, you count that as a contamination.
Mid 4th C. and Hierosolymianum is when local traditions start getting a spread by combining their material into works spanning basically all of the calendar.
And lack of such mention before 450 (apart from possibly this one) would be because the tradition was local to Jerusalem.
Now, you could object that St. Cleophas dying a martyr in Emmaus where he had hosted God might also have been mentioned in Eusebius of Caesaraea. The thing is, as Stephan Borgehammar mentioned in How the Holy Cross was Found, this man had his biasses. I am not sure I recall exactly which ones, but Caesaraea is geographically close to and therefore rival to Jerusalem. So, Eusebius might have had some unwillingness to disclose things that gave more glory to Jerusalem.
14:05 Not an oral tradition that is generally known - Jerusalem would suffice.
16:31 Obviously, an oral tradition in Jerusalem would not necessarily be accessible on Cyprus, where Salamis is.
And if John II of Jerusalem would have been the one source who could have told him, Epiphanius had already rubbed him the wrong way, by demanding a retroactive condemnation of Origen, which John II refused. Hence Epiphanius deliberately could have been served imprecise informations.
17:13 (Isidor) Her tomb in the valley of Josaphat ... perfectly coherent with the account of St. Andrew of Crete, who says Her assumption was discovered by St. Thomas Didymus discovering Her tomb empty as to Herself, but having left Her belt and Her veil.
And if John II suspected Epiphanius of what would later be known as iconoclastic tendencies, it is not implausible why he would have refused to show him these very precious relics.
10:52 bay-AH-tay mu-REE-ay VIRR-djin-iss
13:42 I think you just earned the cyber an occasion to pour me a coffee!
18:26 In fact, the Latin West was the "odd man out" when it came to Immaculate conception. The Latin version of Sub tuum praesidium ends in another way.
While the Latin West was still going with St. Augustine on this one, between himself and Duns Scotus, people like Gregorius Palamas (and the Gk / Cp versions of Sub tuum) were affirming in some diverse ways the Immaculate conception.
St. Augustine (and Tertullian) are also some fairly big distance from Jerusalem.
22:46 Jacob of Serugh was in the Antiochene patriarchate, also not in Jerusalem area.
24:52 Arguably the oral tradition was tied to Jerusalem and to the showing of the relics (now in the hands of Russian Orthodox).
You could easily disprove this hypothesis if untrue : if one of the written sources against the bodily assumption is from Jerusalem, that means I am wrong.
in Syria and around Jerusalem
May I underline and around Jerusalem again?
28:22 No, it does not give every indication of being a later accretion.
And it so happens, normally with preceding Dormition, some kind of dying, this is believed by all five confessions that have Apostolic Succession:
Roman Catholics
Greek Orthodox
Coptic Anti-Calchedonians
Armenian Anti-Chalcedonians
Assyrian Anti-Ephesians.
I checked. If this were a "later accretion," why was it not just limited to for instance Chalcedonians (Roman Catholics with Greek Orthodox) or Anti-Chalcedonians?
29:03 Thank you for the reference to Joseph's dream, Genesis 37:9.
I consider this is an indication this is Mary. Recall what Her most chaste bridegroom was called? Joseph.
30:19 Bodily assumption : And a great sign appeared in heaven: A woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars:
In heaven = She's there.
Clothed, feet, crowned head = bodily.
The rest is retrospect.
The one perhaps indication against this being the Blessed Virgin would be was in pain to be delivered - could be considered as indicating normal pains at birth, which is against tradition stating She remained virgin in giving birth.
But it could also be considered as referring to a state before actually giving birth, And it came to pass, that when they were there, her days were accomplished, that she should be delivered. and in that sense it would not conflict with the full sense of the Virgin Birth.
The dragon attacking Her = through Herod.
Into the Wilderness = some part of Egypt outside Alexandria. Perhaps where early monks appear in Sketes later on.
There are actually two entities that could be called "Frau Zimmerman" (Mrs Carpenter) : the Church as wife of Christ and the Blessed Virgin as spouse of St. Joseph.
Salvation Between Noah and Abraham
- Q
- Would anyone besides Noah have been saved to eternal life in Heaven between the time of the flood and the time of Abraham?
https://www.quora.com/Would-anyone-besides-Noah-have-been-saved-to-eternal-life-in-Heaven-between-the-time-of-the-flood-and-the-time-of-Abraham/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1
- Answer requested by
- Marc Bloemers
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Catholic convert, reading many Catechisms
- Just now
- Yes, for one thing a lot of the Hebrews. For another, lots of the Gentiles not personally participating in Babel or in (later) beginning idolatry.
Idolatry began a few centuries after Babel, under Ninos, son of Belos, as the Greek version of the royal names go (in fact Nin is Sumerian for Lord/Lady, Bel is Accadic for Lord, Belit for Lady), in the time of Sarug, who himself did not fall into idolatry, but his son and grandson did, and he overlapped 50 years with the lifetime of young Abram.
You know the places like Lac de Chalain or the skeleta like Ötzi? They would have been contemporary with Sarug and out of reach for an early spread of idolatry. This means they would have had if no longer Hebrew language (that went at Babel), at least some scraps of Hebrew theology and not necessarily too much superstition to weigh it down into damning errors.
That said, when they died, they did not go to Heaven, for those escaping Hell and needing no time in Purgatory, since Heaven was closed to c. 33 AD (exact year of the Crucifixion is somewhat debated, Belloc thought it was 29 AD). They went to the uppermost section of Sheol and waited with Adam and Eve, with Noah and later on Abraham and David and lots more for Christ to come down to them. And that’s also where the Good Thief went. Where Lazarus had gone during the 4 days he was dead, and where he had had his conversation with a Rich Man (whose brothers indeed were not converted by his raising from the dead!). Only when Christ Resurrected, He opened the Pearly Gates and up they went, above Moon, Sun, and even Fix Stars, above every part of the universe that moves each day around Earth.
"If the Tower of Babel is a Myth, What is it Conveying?" - Sorry, it's Fact!
- Q
- What was the myth about the Tower of Babel meant to convey as to me it seems like a comedy of nonsense?
https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-myth-about-the-Tower-of-Babel-meant-to-convey-as-to-me-it-seems-like-a-comedy-of-nonsense/answer/Hans-Georg-Lundahl-1
- Answer requested by
- Graham C Lindsay
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- none/ apprx Masters in Latin (language) & Greek (language), Lund University
- Just now
- You presume two or three things:
- Genesis 11:1–9 is a myth
- myths are meant to convey something
- but are not factual.
Myth is a very illdefined concept and stories so labelled are basically meant (with more or less accuracy in the result) to convey fact, apart from a few novels with divine content (Eros and Psyche, for instance).
Real history often does seem like a comedy of nonsense, as you can see from the months between Sarajevo (28 June) and battle of Cer (12 August) or first battle of the Marne (5 to 12 September).
So, accept history as often a comedy of nonsense and see what the Tower of Babel conveys as historic fact to you … to me it conveys the correct date for Göbekli Tepe. All recorded language differences are after GT. In GT, no writing. Before GT, some palaeolithic signs, the same 32 all over the caves of the upper palaeolithic. Without imperialism, it is unusual for different languages to develop the same writing system.
Tuesday, June 28, 2022
While National Socialism was Fascist, that is not all that it was
... and all fascisms are not like National Socialism. Here is a video by Ryan Chapman, which doesn't duly adress the point.
Misconceptions About Nazism
20th March 2022 | Ryan Chapman
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gfYbEk6rBY
2:15 It can be considered possible that some who identify with some degree of generic fascism would make the comment in a sense meaning "while National Socialism is perhaps one fascism, it is not the definition of fascism" - which, as an Austrofascist, moderately supportive of early but not late Italian Fascism, I certainly endorse.
National Socialism is : fascism + racism + eugenicism + medical tyranny + seeing some as "untermenschen" + light ecologism and heavy feminism + anticlericalism and school compulsion.
Austrofascism never categorised anyone, Jews and handicapped included, as Untermenschen.
In other words, it may come from the same general direction as a Trotskist saying "Stalinism isn't Communism"
It so happens, in schools, people are often told moderately about Italian or Spanish fascism nearly nothing of the smaller ones and BIG about National Socialism - meaning, some could be tempted to categorise National Socialism not just as a fascism, but as The Fascism (apart from name being plagiarised from Mussolini).
And some commenting would be saying "no, fascism really and truly doesn't have to be like that!"
4:53 I heavily disagree with your definition of generic fascism, NS certainly was what you just mentioned, and Italian Fascism tended to become more of it as time went by, but I'd not put that part under the heading "fascism" but under the heading "anticlericalism and school compulsion" - same thing with Azañas attempt to school compulsion, same thing with the French original in III Republic, namely Ferry Combe school laws - they were subordinating individuals and not-the-French-state communities (Bretons, Church) under an aggressive nationalistic consciousness.
And in Italy, I would say Garibaldi was more of that than the early Mussolini, along with Cavour. In other words, I consider liberal (and socialist) régimes are perfectly capable of subordinating individuals en masse under an aggressive nationalistic consciousness. But I do not consider liberal (and socialist, at least usually) régimes to be fascist.
Canada's Residential School program was very certainly an example of subordinating individuals en masse under an aggressive nationalistic consciousness. Canada at this point was also not fascist, even if social credit economics were promoted in some state.
My definition of fascism (and I am myself one and a half of the three points), is:
- syndicalism with national solidarity opposes class struggle (both against socialism and against capitalism)
- mistrust or indifference to parliamentarian democracy compared to this
- readiness to take up violence to promote this.
All three are present in Mussolini's Sansepulcrism of 1919. On your definition, Mussolini would not yet have been a fascist, which is pretty absurd, if you ask me. It was prior to WW-I that Mussolini was not yet a fascist.
- Psychonaut Pupildiallater
- Roger Griffin's definition of fascism~ "A political ideology whose mythic core in its various permutations is a palingenetic form of populist ultra nationalism",..
Sounds ALOT like Zionism,..... Hmmmm?
Are the Jews fascists?
Some would say yes,.....
Bet the ones that say no,.. are Zionists?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Psychonaut Pupildiallater I think there was a time when Il Duce was more decent to African Italians than some Zionists are to Palestinians and even Israeli Arabs (Palestinians of their own citizenship) today.
Zionists may from time to time have done real good in the area (defending Copts, Maronites), but they have also done more evil than is totally tolerable on the ground they primarily occupy.
It's the impression I get from Rivarol, it's the impression I get from the facts about Shireen Abu Akleh's death (outside Rivarol too). However, I have heard one little promising thing, three soldiers of the Tsahal are being investigated and have got their weapons confiscated.
@Psychonaut Pupildiallater There are possibly also some Fascists who say no, since I am into Corporatismo.
I am not against what one can call "hobby Communism" as long as the kibbutz is not on stolen land (stolen from someone actually needing it, Christiania was just stolen from a Danish army no longer using the area). But I cannot consider a consideration of sometimes ruthless capitalism with hobby communism heavily sponsored as Corporatismo.
- Psychonaut Pupildiallater
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl Every land is "stolen" from someone else at some point,.
To say what Israel has done isn't fascist to the Palestinians wouldn't fly very far,...
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Psychonaut Pupildiallater "Every land is "stolen" from someone else at some point,"
Like with me having some knowledge of history, would you mind telling me when Sweden was stolen and from whom?
"To say what Israel has done isn't fascist to the Palestinians wouldn't fly very far,..."
Because Il Duce allora ancora futuro saving companies from Commie expropriations (like 1920-22) is comparable to actual expropriations of homes? Or because Il Duce (gia tale) having penalties on abortions is comparable to pro-abortion Israelis being mean to Palestinians over their anti-abortion stance not being decmocratic?
I think you may be unfair to Il Duce (though, I don't think Israelis so far have used mustard gas, like Italians under Badoglio did in Ethiopia).
6:15 Webster's definition would exclude Dollfuss and include (at least by now) Putin.
Absurd.
It may be noted, Webster's comes from a country that was inimical both to Fascist Italy and to National Socialist Germany, and which also entered into the war after Mussolini's Fascism had "lost its innocense" if I may so put it.
What you did miss, both by Griffin and by Webster is, Corporatism, which considering you mentioned both Communism and Capitalism is a somewhat glaring omission!
Corporatism certainly was part of the régime in both NS Germany and F Italy, but so it was in the early years of posguerra Franco Spain, and in Austria. To this day, the Conservatives of Austria are Corporatists and not Capitalist.
Obviously, to some Capitalist sensibilities, Corporatism could seem like "heavy economic reglementation" but I'd reserve that phrase for Communism. Corporatism is more like light economic reglementation.
By the way, I'm dubbing Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal a "honorary Fascism ..."
7:00 You are reading Italian Fascism through the lenses of Gentile and some of Il Duce's rhetoric, rather than for instance Carta del Lavoro or Corporazioni - actual measures, back in the better days of Italian Fascism.
7:28 I consider your "playbook" is fairly miscategorising Italian Fascism, especially in its early days.
It does come to the level of an actual problem - this "playbook" - when it drives Italy to some of the measures mentioned in Non Abbiamo Bisogno.
8:34 Early on, Mussolini was in fact antiracist. Not heavily, he had racists in the administration (the guy who bungled the Ethiopia war despite Mussolini calling him back home being one), but at least clearly non-racist.
When Chesterton interviewed him, he considered racism (and eugenics and all that) a Teutonic fad. The blood part of Blut and Boden being not quite the Romance nations' cup of tea.
Let's take the date of Carta della Razza. 1937. I'd like to see this as a "best before date" for Italian Fascism, back in 36 Il Duce had defended Austria, in 38 he handed Hitler Austria on a plate.
1937 - 1922 = 15 years.
1945 - 1937 = 8 years.
By contrast, Hitler was obsessed with race before he came to power, the Nuremberg laws are from 1935.
1935 - 1933 = 2 years (or a little less)
1945 - 1935 = 10 years.
I think it is common sense to say:
Racism is a part of National Socialism
Racism is not a part of Italian Fascism per se.
In other words, NS = Fascism + Racism.
8:54 I also do not consider that the passage on the screen qualifies as "racism" - I note it is from 1928.
The part clearly visible shows Mussolini was "aware of a race problem" as some would like to put it.
The last paragraph on the screen has much blotted out, but it seems Mussolini did not believe in a kind of determinism of "demographic laws" or that state sponsored racist measures (over and above some kind of "Alltagsrazissmus" as they say now in Germany, among the citizens) were necessary to defend the white race.
In other words, he was not yet what I would call a racist.
To the point : "every goodwilled, normal, reasonable person wants to fight racism"
(Noelle Mering, video for Franciscan University of Steubenville, 9.II.2022, time sig up to 4:54)
Clearly true about things like pushing people down because they are another race or impeding marriages that are racially mixed.
And that is the definition of racism I do not see Mussolini as fulfilling in the 1928 extract.
10:22 Mussolini here is seen as using a distinction between "fascism" ("a fascist one") and "Fascism" ("which Fascism was spared"). Is this in the Italian original or is it the English editor's choice?
This is 1933, and Mussolini's comment does involve a tinge of disapproval for some NS / Hitlerian measures. Or at least regret for Germany not being spared them, so to speak.
Unfortunately, he already has a rhetoric of demo-social-liberal forces being not just wrong about some things, but the enemy, and this reflects the Leggi fascistissimi - not my favourite part even before 1937.
Though, it could be a geopolitical observation at the time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)