El tiempo de Génesis 5 y 11 no es incalculable

Carlos Salazar es moderador o administrador del grupo defiende tu fe catolica y evangelica.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

13 décembre, 22:23

Por ciertos - nosotros católicos creemos la Vírgen sin pecados por causa de Génesis 3:15.

Me gustaría saber que los otros católicos aquí también creen un tiempo bien limitado y definido entre Adán y Abrahán ... como lo precisan los cabildos 5 y 11 ...

Carlos Salazar

MUY BUENO. INTERESANTE.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

LXX, entre la creación de Adán y el Diluvio, 2242 años.

Según una versión de LXX sin el secundo Cainán, 942 años entre el Diluvio y el nacimiento de Abrahán.

3184 años después la creación y el nacimiento de Abrahán, quien vió Egipto faraónico ... no hay problemas por creer Génesis 3 bien preservado, ya que es breve, fácil a memorizar, y ya que la gente vivieron muy longo.

Bueno, hay también ciertos católicos (no los de aquí, espero) que no creen solo 3184 años entre creación y Abrahán.

Carlos Salazar

Hans-Georg Lundahl @ COMPLICADO NO LO CREES?

EL TIEMPO DE DIOS ES INCALCULABLE.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Peró, con Génesis 5 y 11 hay questión del tiempo de los hombres ... no de la eternidad de Diós.

Y el tiempo de los hombres no es incalculable.

[Can I Discuss in Portuguese? No, But I do it Anyway] O milagre de Josué e a exegese de todos os sigos ..

Bajo una video

que poco importa per la discusión fuero el hecho que menciona la terra como centro del universo como un factoido de la ciencia erronea y pasada.

Desde - a

"December 8 at 2:23pm - December 13 at 5:01 pm"

Hans-Georg Lundahl

A terra é o centro do universo, é a verdade ... Josue 10:12,13.

Riso

do Miguel de Jesus (por emoticon)

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Miguel de Jesus, que pense Vocé sobre o feito que Josue diou o ordem ao sol e aa luna, e nao aa terra?

Miguel de Jesus

Hans-Georg Lundahl, penso que Josué se deixou iludir pelo movimento aparente do sol, como acontecia até à pouco tempo. Hoje a ciência já provou o inverso.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

mais em um milagro nao sao as aparencias a que o ordem milagroso se dereita, sao as realdades

e como a ciencia "provou o inverso"?

Miguel de Jesus

Coloco outra questão: qual é a prova que Josué apresenta para defender essa ideia?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Jesús da ordens aos ventos cuando os ventos tenem que calmarse, aos demonios cuando os demonions tenem que irse ao inferno.

Admeter o que admetes pelo libro de Josue da um peligroso ... uma peligrosa Jurisprudência pelos evangelios.

Miguel de Jesus

Hans-Georg Lundahl, Josué não é Jesus. Além do mais, o contexto do relato não parece referir um milagre.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

O contexto nao parece referir um milagre? Explique isso!

"Josué não é Jesus"

Pessoalmente, nao.

O rei Ezequias nao mais.

Mais, Ezequias tiveu a linea davidica e Josué o nome do Jesus (Jesus = Iehoshua = Josué, os LXX lo chaman "Jesus Nave").

Por isso, o sol obedeceu a Ezequias e a Josué, como senhalou a crucifixao pela obscuraçao e como dançou pela Virgem em Fatima.

Miguel de Jesus

Nem todos os relatos bíblicos são factuais. É o caso das Bodas de Caná. É um episódio meramente catequético.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nem = "nao" (mais o menos)?

O sacerdote parece um apostata ...

Miguel de Jesus

Não = Non; Nem = nec.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

O sacerdote do quem prendes catequismo e apostata ... "Nem todos os relatos bíblicos são factuais" e um proposto de apostata.

Miguel de Jesus

Hans-Georg Lundahl, estude mais exegese bíblica.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

estude a boa, nem a exegese de apostatas ...

Riso

do Miguel de Jesus

Miguel de Jesus

Qual é a boa, a do séc XII?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

A de toudos os sigos ... cada vez que o sigo XII e o sigo XIII e o sigo XIV concurrem no mismo, e a boa.

Miguel de Jesus

Por isso, a actual também.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Entonces só issa actual que concurre com o sigo XII ou com sigo XIV ... nem a outra que difere dos toudos sigos.

Miguel de Jesus

Errado. A exegese actual, difere e bastante da antiga.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Nao e "a exegese actual". E uma exegese actual e nao a boa.

Miguel de Jesus

Depende da perspectiva. Eu acho que o senhor está errado, o senhor acha que eu estou errado. É palavra contra palavra, com a diferença que minha está certa, porque concorda com o que está no site do Vaticano.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Depende da perspectiva."

Issa do San Vincente de Lerinos, issa do Conselho do Trento ... dogmatizada.

"com a diferença que minha está certa, porque concorda com o que está no site do Vaticano."

Es proba que o sito do Vaticano nao tem o verdadeiro papa.

Riso

do Miguel de Jesus

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ries tres minudos?

E bom pola saudade ... [es bueno per la salud]

Miguel de Jesus

?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Desde 4 minudos só o riso baijo (?) o meu comentario, nem continua vocé o argumento ...

Rir e bom pola saudade, mais só reir nao e bom pola logica ..

Espeiro que nao sao os hispanismos ou castilhanismos que dao deudos sobre o que digo ....?

atualizações :

a referencia na video:

-5:30 Durante milhares de anos acreditou-se que a Terra era o centro do Universo.

Eu dei

um link para o blogpost

Miguel de Jesus

Afinal isto é uma discussão em português. Não parece LOL

Hans-Georg Lundahl

nao parece, verdade, mais o meu português es muito ...

"meu português é muito ruim" (Google translate)

I was expecting sth like má or mao ...

"sua teologia é muito ruim" (Google translate, també)

And a Controversial One at That, Sometimes

HGL's F.B. writings : But I AM a Latinist · And a Controversial One at That, Sometimes · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Latin Spoken to When? Quora

3 octobre

Pau Amaro-Seoane

Why is it "deinon" in this sentence and not "deiná" ("terrible things"), in plural... which I would expect... "The storms do terrible things". Am I wrong?

Samuel Kaldas

I think δεινόν (masc. acc. sg.) is modifying χειμῶνα (masc. acc. sg. of χειμῶν). So it's something like "the winds produce [make] a terrible storm"

Pau Amaro-Seoane

that would be deinoos (written with omega), Brian

Brian Kelly

Correct. kai ... kai .. here gives us 'both ... and ...' - need better glasses and more coffee.

Diane Warne Anderson

Samuel has said it, χειμώνα is masc. acc. sing. also. (Sorry for the modern Greek accents)

Pau Amaro-Seoane

τόν χειμῶνα... yes, right... for some reason I thought it was n. and not m. and believed it was an accusative plural... everything clear now... thanks to everyone! It's nice to know that I can get my questions replied so quickly.

Bert McCollum

We are aware that's not Latin,,,,right?

Abran Serge

:D

Oneida Musa

Nonis latinius? Ummmm....confusinitus erat Greekasbus. or....scribbelious!

Bert McCollum

At least no one has had the temerity to say, "It's all Greek to me!"

Brian Kelly

Rome, Athens, Constantinople - it was all the Roman Empire (and after AD 476 those eastern bits *were the Roman Empire) - and the Greeks insisted they were Romans! The Greeks had a word for it too: Romiosine.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

(and after AD 476 those eastern bits *were the Roman Empire)

Hmmm ... no. Francia was from close after 476 to 800 auxiliarii, and its kings started off with patricia dignitas conferred by Constantinople.

Meaning that from 800 Aachen is as Roman as Constantinople.

Brian Kelly

Didn't deny that! But my point was that the Greek-speaking emperors and their circle insisted that they were ROMANS - a point not often appreciated by west Europeans.

[If I had taken it as if he had denied it, it was his use of "were THE Romans", and I did not have time to formulate a sensible answer before closing time of library.]

Pau Amaro-Seoane

Dialects of the same language, anyway...

Brian Kelly

.... although it is interesting that a lot of Greek words don't appear to be Indo-European (at least that's how it seems to me) - indications of the pre-Indo-Europeans of Greece?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Indications of IE unity being of Balkan type rather than of Romance type?

Abran Serge

Pelasgi.

Brian Kelly

A lot of common and important words have been identified as 'Pre-Greek' loan words:

Pre-Greek substrate - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Greek_substrate

Abran Serge

Like "labyrinthos"....

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Brian Kelly, that is according to the theory that Greek developed from Proto-Indo-European.

Brian Kelly

Do you doubt that, Hans-Georg? It looks certain to me on comparative grounds (which is what historical linguisitcs is all about).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Comparative grounds speak for there being cognates.

But cognates are possible both on Balkan model and on Romance model, both Sprachbund and Proto-Language.

I do not doubt for a minute that water and Swedish vatten are related to the Hittite words.

I also do not doubt for a moment that pater / father is the same word with a real common proto-form in :

• Greek, Latin, Sanskrit
• Germanic
• possibly Celtic (but athir could be a conflation between pater gloss and attas gloss, and triggering, when perceived as cognate of pater, the other losses of initial p or h).

I also do not doubt that pater, pater, frater all originated in the same language as the -teros ending for comparatives and in Latin esp binary choices.

But pater and water could in theory be from two different languages, neighbouring each other in the same area for sufficient long to exchange words - like the three sides of the Aegean, Asia Minor, Bulgaria and Greece, Balkans, extending east perhaps as far as - shall was say "Babel" or "Göbekli Tepe"?

In neighbouring languages, some syllables will yield instant cognates as soon as a word is borrowed. Any French word in té will yield an English one in ty, an Italian one in tà.

But I AM a Latinist

HGL's F.B. writings : But I AM a Latinist · And a Controversial One at That, Sometimes · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Latin Spoken to When? Quora

Gabriel Svoboda

I have a few questions about what the 3rd declension looked like in Archaic Latin – namely whether it was more regular in the past than it looks today. I have a theory that 3rd declension nouns originally had only one stem (for example leg-) and the irregular singular nominatives are a result of later phonological or orthographical interactions between the stem and the nominative singular ending -s or -is (for example leg- + -s --> lex).

I understand ius/iuris was originally ius/iusis (then the s-->r change happened between vowels).

Was corpus/corporis originaly corpus/corpusis, or corpos/corposis, or none of the above?

Was curator/curatoris originally curatos/curatosis?

Was carcer/carceris originally carces/carcesis?

Was sermo/sermonis originally sermon/sermonis (then the n nasalized the preceding o and disappeared)?

What did origo/originis look like in Archaic Latin? Was it origin/originis (and then the word-final -in somehow managed to become -o)?

Was veritas/veritatis originally veritats/veritatis (then the t was assimilated by the following s)?

Was virtus/virtutis originally virtuts/virtutis?

Was miles/militis originally milits/militis, or milets/miletis, or none of the above?

Was gens/gentis originally gents/gentis?

Was fraus/fraudis originally frauds/fraudis?

Was sanguis/sanguinis originally sanguins/sanguinis?

Was crimen/criminis originally crimin/criminis, or crimen/crimenis, or none of the above?

Was opus/operis originally opus/opusis, or opes/opesis, or none of the above?

Was cinis/cineris originally cinis/cinisis, or cines/cinesis, or none of the above?

Was vulpes/vulpis originally vulpis/vulpis?

What about iter/itineris?

What about senex/senis?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"I understand ius/iuris was originally ius/iusis" Yes.

"Was corpus/corporis originaly corpus/corpusis, or corpos/corposis, or none of the above?"

Corpos, corposis, then r shift and last o > u when not before r, I think. Perhaps rather corpos, corposes, since -es > -is arguably at same time as -os > -us.

"Was curator/curatoris originally curatos/curatosis?
Was carcer/carceris originally carces/carcesis?"

No, these two words have r from start.

"Was sermo/sermonis originally sermon/sermonis (then the n nasalized the preceding o and disappeared)?"

Sermo would have been sermon, yes, but probably before any recorded Latin, the Greek has Platon, Platonos, where Latin has Plato Platonis.

"What did origo/originis look like in Archaic Latin? Was it origin/originis (and then the word-final -in somehow managed to become -o)?"

Probably something like origo (long II o) *origones (short II o), where later *origones became originis. o > i because a vowel in short internal syllable not before r or labial, e > i because e and o when short in final syllables get closed to i and u.

I am not sure if what comes before woul have been orig- or perhaps oreig-.

"Was veritas/veritatis originally veritats/veritatis (then the t was assimilated by the following s)?"

Possibly, but possibly avoidance of -ts group was longstanding, so that it changed well before both Latin and Greek : both languages have III declinsion dental stems with nominative -s, not -ts.

Same for miles, gens, fraus, except that gens may have been nominative gentis, an -i-stem, since having gentium as genitive plural. I think we are dealing with gentis, genteis becoming gens, gentis.

"Was sanguis/sanguinis originally sanguins/sanguinis?"

Do not know.

"Was crimen/criminis originally crimin/criminis, or crimen/crimenis, or none of the above?"

Crimen, crimenis, then e > i, like all vowels in short medial syllables, not before r or labial.

"Was opus/operis originally opus/opusis, or opes/opesis, or none of the above?"

Probably opos, oposes, possibly opos, opeses. Medial short vowels become e before r, unless, sometimes, they stay o (corporis). I think opos oposes and corpos corposes were same declinsion type exactly, but the "sound law" vaccillated on the resulting internal vowel.

"Was cinis/cineris originally cinis/cinisis, or cines/cinesis, or none of the above?"

Could have been either. Cines would have become cinis because short e and o in final vowels close, unless before r. Cinisis would have become cineris, because short internal vowels before r become e (or sporaidically o, if originally o or u).

"Was vulpes/vulpis originally vulpis/vulpis?"

Not sure.

"What about iter/itineris?"

Originally iter itinis. If water had not been aqua, it would arguably have been **uater, uatinis, with a nominative close to English and German forms, an oblique stem close to Swedish and Icelandic forms : you probably find that in Hittite, if not in Latin.

Then itinis became itineris, contaminated with the r from nominative, like iecur, iecinoris.

"What about senex/senis?"

Two different word formations taking turns around a paradigm.

Magisterio de Todo Tiempo o Magisterio Vivo?

Abraham Peralta Lesme

¿PUEDEN LOS CATÓLICOS INTERPRETAR LA BIBLIA O DEBEN ESPERAR QUE SUS LÍDERES LA INTERPRETE DE ACUERDO A LA CONVENIENCIA DE SU RELIGIÓN ...?

Cuando les preguntamos a los amigos católicos si ellos pueden interpretar las Escrituras nos dicen lo siguiente: yo no puedo interpretar lo que dice la Biblia, para eso está el Papa y el Vaticano, a través de las enseñanzas del catecismo.

Vamos a analizar esto.

Primero vamos a ver qué dice el Vaticano al respecto en el catecismo:

#85 “El oficio de interpretar auténticamente la palabra de Dios, oral o escrita, ha sido encomendado sólo al Magisterio vivo de la Iglesia, el cual lo ejercita en nombre de Jesucristo” (DV 10), es decir, a los obispos en comunión con el sucesor de Pedro, el obispo de Roma.”

Es bastante claro lo que enseña el Vaticano, los únicos que pueden interpretar las Escrituras son los obispos y el papa.

... [hé cortado lo que queda, para responder a lo citado]

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"El oficio de interpretar auténticamente la palabra de Dios, oral o escrita, ha sido encomendado sólo al Magisterio vivo"

La última palabra, excluyendo el Magisterio del pasado, no es enseñanza del Concilio Trentino.

New blog on the kid : Grammatica et Logica de Canone Celeberrimo Concilii Tridentini
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2014/07/grammatica-et-logica-de-canone.html

No dice "tenet hodie" o "tenent vivi hierarchi", dice "tenet ac tenuit".
No dice que el fiel no puede comprender algo solo, dice solamente que si comprende algo contrariamente al Magisterio de todos los tiempos, comprende mal y, si se obstine, tiene que ser excomulgado.

El fiel que no es obispo, según lo Tridentino como según mismo ese "catequismo" puede interpretar con una opinión o con la certeza de interpretar con la Iglesia, peró mismo no puede interpretar "de officio".

Lo que difiere es que la certeza de interpretar con la Iglesia, en Trento se refiere al Magisterio de Todo Tiempo, en ese "catequismo" al Magisterio "vivo", es a decir de hoy.

Abraham Peralta Lesme

La Biblia no dice eso

Es una herejía del catolicismo pagano

Hans-Georg Lundahl

La Biblia sí dice que hay un magisterio.

En el Antiguo Testamento, en los tiempos de Jesús mismo, hubo un Magisterio farisáico, una extención tardía del magisterio cohénico.

Y Jesús lo confirmó. Mateo 23. Lo confirmó mismo por el caso que los enseñantes sean malos, como era generalment el caso con los Fariseos.

Y por el Nuevo Testamento, fundó el magisterio de los 12 y de los 72 y de San Piedro.

Update with Craig Crawford

1) Debate on Angelic Movers - and 1054, Photius · 2) Craig Crawford is back in the fray on angelic movers! · 3) Debate with Craig Crawford Continues · 4) Update with Craig Crawford

Craig Crawford

Hans-Georg Lundahl John Romanides was a new calendarist ecumenist heretic, and in no way was he an authentic witness for the Orthodox Church. Genuine Orthodox Christians do not accept him, or his heresies.

Sergius (Stragorodsky) of Moscow was a notorius anathematized heretic, and his heresy goes by the name of Sergianism. No one in the Church honors his memory, but he is thrice-cursed.

Neither of these two individuals were Orthodox. They are not honored as saints by the Church, and in no way speak for the Church.

The Orthodox Church has never accepted the heresy of Evolution, and a number of Orthodox saints have openly voiced their rejection of it.

If one wants to learn what the Orthodox Church teaches regarding the heresy of Evolution, they should first and foremost directly consult the approved historical writings of the saints, but the following is an excellent summary of the patristic consensus:

Genesis, Creation and Early Man: The Orthodox Christian Vision
http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Creation-Early-Man-Christian/dp/1887904026

I recommend reading at least the first few chapters of the book online for free here:

Genesis, Creation and Early Man
The Orthodox Christian Vision
Fr. Seraphim Rose
http://www.creatio.orthodoxy.ru/english/rose_genesis/index.html

Important note, here Seraphim Rose becomes heretical: We may also see another, a mystical reason, for the fact that the light precedes the sun in the days of creation. Here, admittedly, we have no Fathers to quote, and we offer this interpretation as our own opinion. We will see below that the separation of man into male and female was not part of the original "image" in which God created him; and we know that it will not be part of man's nature in the eternal kingdom of heaven, for in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven (Matt. 22:30). Rather, God made the division into male and female foreseeing the fall of man and that the increase of mankind would require a passionate mode of generation. HGL, ... PS on remark, NOW the page ends before the quote I took from it, on end of section 3 of the chapter. As if someone wanted to hide that Seraphim Rose had made a heretical statement. Could that be why Chapter Four. The Creation of Man (Genesis 1:26-31,2:4-7) is not uploaded? It can have been earlier and someone pointed out this mistake?/HGL ...now back to comment of Craig Crawford:

One will note, that in chapter three, Fr. Seraphim relates the teaching of the Church, that the Earth is the center of the universe.

"But Divine revelation, as interpreted by the Holy Fathers, tells us the contrary: that the earth comes first, both in time and in significance, and the sun comes second. If our minds were not so chained to the intellectual fashions of the times, if we were not so fearful of being thought “behind the times,” we would not have such difficulty in opening our minds to this alternative explanation of the world’s beginnings.

In the Scriptural-Patristic view the earth, as the home of man, the pinnacle of God’s creation, is the center of the universe. Everything else—no matter what the scientific explanation of its present state and movement, or the physical immensity of it in comparison to the earth—is secondary, and was made for the sake of the earth, that is, for man."

The Orthodox Church has never advocated contraception.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I am glad for all this, but if you see any problem with angelic movers from a technical point of view, you remind me of these.

And if you consider scholasticism wrong, you seem to be buying Romanides' view of what is sane and what is a "mental disease".

While I was among Orthodox, Seraphim Rose was one man I did consider a saint.

To say the stars or heavenly bodies are moved directly by God with no angels obeying Him and moving them even in their slower movements is perhaps untrue, but certainly not heretical.

My point about angelic movers was that cosmology is not tied down to only gravitational and similar "physical" movers.

However, if God provides the BIG movement of ALL celestial bodies every day, and if angels were, before men, created in His image, I consider God gave some of them the task to provide Sun with yearly, Moon with monthly and so on movements.

If daddy is a great biker, won't he give some of the sons bikes for presents?

Many men give their sons the first bikes on the fourth birthday, why could God not have given angels a kind of bikes on the fourth day of their existance, some of them, and that which is "bikes" to them is light and heat and lifegiving seasons to us?

But I say SOME of them, since, if all stars and planets may be guided by angels, it is wrong and forbidden to say all angels are there and only there to carry stars.

Condemned proposition 77: Quod si esset aliqua substantia separata que non moueret aliquid corpus in hoc mundo sensibili, non clauderetur in uniuerso

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Capitulum VII
Errores de intelligentia uel angelo
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.fr/2012/01/capitulum-vii.html

Bishop Tempier's condemnations for the list of 219 seems to have never been revoked in the diocese of Paris and it was also accepted in England.

Where people divided it into systematic chapters (77 becomes error 12 of chapter 7).

Collectio errorum in Anglia et Parisius Condempnatorum
qui sic per capitula distinguuntur

Capitulum VI

Isti articuli qui sequuntur, condempnatisunt a domino stephano parisiensi episcopo, de consilio magistrorum theologie, anno domini M °. CC °. LXXVI, die dominica qua contatur "Letare Ierusalem" in curia parisiensi, ubi excommunicauit in scriptis omnes illos qui scienter eos docuerint uel defenderint. Et primoordinantur qui sunt de deo, scilicet :

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Collectio errorum in Anglia et Parisius Condempnatorum
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.fr/2012/01/collectio-errorum-in-anglia-et-parisius.html

Full index, here:

En lengua romance en Antimodernism y de mis caminaciones : Index in stephani tempier condempnationes
http://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.fr/2012/01/index-in-stephani-tempier.html

added later

I'd like to get the Latin text clear and into this:

"Nec sicut cogitantur angeli mundi spiritus caelestia corpora inspirantes atque ad arbitrium quo seruiunt deo mutantes atque uersantes neque si omnes, cum sint milia millium, in unum conlati unus fiant, nec tale aliquid deus est."

Vicifons : De trinitate (Aurelius Augustinus)/Liber VIII
https://la.wikisource.org/wiki/De_trinitate_%28Aurelius_Augustinus%29/Liber_VIII

• Main clause:
  
  "Nec ... neque ...nec tale aliquid deus est."
  
  Neither [this] nor [that] neither is such a thing God.
  
  
• First level subsidiary clause I:
  
  "sicut cogitantur angeli mundi spiritus"
  
  As the angel are though of [indicative, are in fact thought of] as pure spirit ...
  
  Second level subsidiaries, by participles rather than clauses:
  
  
  
  
  • 1) "caelestia corpora inspirantes"
    
    ... which inspire the celestial bodies (participles has agreement with angeli, not with caelestia corpora)
    
    
  • 2) "atque ad arbitrium ... mutantes"
    
    ... and change them at will
    
    [what will? the will]
    
    Third level subsidiary: "quo seruiunt deo"
    
    by which they serve God
    
    
  • 3) "atque uersantes"
    
    And turn ["them", "at will" supplied from previous].
  
  
  
• First level subsidiary clause II:
  
  "si omnes, ... unus fiant,"
  
  if all were to become [present conjunctive or subjunctive, hypothesis]
  
  
  • Second level subsidiary to "omnes":
    
    "cum sint milia millium," as they are millions
    
    
  • Second level subsidiary to subject angeli itself with unum fiant:
    
    "in unum conlati"
    
    [previously] gathered together.
  
  
  
• So:
  
  "Neither the angels as they ARE thought of as clean spirits" [clean as opposed to unclean, blessed angels as opposed to demons] "and as inspiring the celestial bodies" [whatever inspiring means] " and as changing and turning them around at their will, a will bny which they serve" [the real] "God, nor all of them if they WERE to be put together and to become one, neither of these is God."

My analysis from English stands measured by the Latin text.

Pius XI, Dollfuss, Mussolini - a Debate with a Wholehearted Admirer of the Latter

1) HGL's F.B. writings : Pius XI, Dollfuss, Mussolini - a Debate with a Wholehearted Admirer of the Latter, 2) New blog on the kid : Once Again : Austrofascist and Nazi is NOT the Same Thing.

Background

I had on a FB photo commented that Italian Fascism was better before introducing in 1938 Carta della Razza (before which moment there was no at least officially or directly racist policy, and that means the beginnings of Italian Fascism were in that respect better than later. Perhaps a few more things. I get a PM:

JW to HGL

April 12th, 1:34pm

On Benito Mussolini being a great Catholic and Italian hero Look these are some of the things that Benito Mussolini did for Italy! :

• Mussolini ordered crucifixes to be put back in classrooms and courtrooms.
  
  
• He made religious instruction mandatory in schools.
  
  
• He brought respect back to the Church and to religion in a time when anti-clericalism dominated Italy.
  
  
• He eliminated Freemasonry.
  
  
• He eliminated the Mafia. "By the beginning of the Second World War, the Mafia was restricted to a few isolated and scattered groups and could have been completely wiped out... “- Michael Pantaleone
  
  
• He decreased crime.
  
  
• He created food packages for the poor.
  
  
• He oversaw the Italianization of Italian territories.
  
  [Including of what he called Alto Adige and I call Südtirol]
  
  
• He brought fear and respect back to Italy, after Italy had been treated as second-class by the English, French, and Austrians.
  
  [By Austrians? Here is some confusion. Austro-Hungarian Empire could have been considered to "look down on Italy" before 1870 or even up to WW-I - but Mussolini was not involved in changing that. In Mussolini's time such a large Austria no longer existed, so it cannot have done so either.]

The list is endless for what Mussolini did for Italy.

Benito Mussolini made Catholicism the official religion in Italy:

Citing Costituzione della Repubblica Sociale Italiana, Capo 1., Art. 6:

"La religione cattolica apostolica e romana è la sola religione della Repubblica Sociale Italiana." (The Roman Catholic and Apostolic religion is the only religion of the State.)

Resuming his words:

Benito Mussolini made religious education mandatory in schools:

Citing Costituzione della Repubblica Sociale Italiana, Capo II., Art. 86:

"La Repubblica Sociale Italiana considera fondamento e coronamento dell’istruzione pubblica l’insegnamento della Dottrina cristiana secondo la forma ricevuta dalla tradizione cattolica: perciò l’insegnamento religioso è obbligatorio nelle scuole pubbliche elementari e medie. La legge può stabilire particolari casi di esenzione." (The Italian Social Republic considers as the foundation and fulfillment of public education the teaching of Christian doctrine in the form received from the Catholic tradition: therefore religious education is obligatory in public elementary schools and secondary schools. The law may establish certain exceptions.)

[That was only in Salò Republic, and as much as Austrofascists did.]

Resuming his words:

Benito Musssolini made the Vatican an independent State. Without Mussolini there is no Vatican City. Benito Mussolini was actually the first Fascist leader to come to power as well! Benito Mussolini came to power in 1922, Francisco Franco in 1939, and Adolf Hitler in 1933. On February 13, 1929, Pope Pius XI praised Mussolini as the man "who was sent to us by Providence" and shortly after ordered the clergy to say a prayer "for the King and the Duce" ("Pro Rege et Duce") at the end of daily mass. Soon after the pope's speech, four weeks before the invasion, the cardinal's legate once again celebrated Mussolini as "the man of Providence" at the national Eucharist Congress. Many clergy also said this man was divinely appointed by God! :

Citations:

"Just as the "Divina Mens" sent Octavian; so also in Italy there arose the Man of Providence, the Man of Genius, who saved the State, and founded the Empire, and gave a more perfect consciousness of Italian national unity and religious peace." - Cardinal Schuster

The renowned Padre Pio also praised Mussolini: “Mussolini is one of the greatest politicians that I have ever seen, his views reflect the sake of what is written in the holy Bible and is the perfect driver of humanity." - Padre Pio

[Not totally doubtful, but a closer reference to where in their works or biographies would be appreciated.]

Resuming his words:

Mussolini was overwhelmingly loved, it is in fact a characteristic of his rule which non-polemical authors even admit. (Fact: His body was desecrated by Yugoslavian Communists and Italian Partisans that were also Communists NOT his own people)

Citing Luisa Quartermaine in 'Mussolini's Last Republic' (2000):

"I shall be very clear about this. Mussolini was loved by the people, but was hated by those who knew that his revolution would gradually destroy their privileges. He was hated also by a few ambitious politicians and officers, who could not accept their inferiority when compared with his genius, and aspired to take over from him."

Citing Sugata Bose in 'His Majesty's Opponent' (2011):

"It seems to me that the majority of the Italian people love the iron government of Mussolini."

Resuming his words:

Benito Mussolini even kept a confessor! A personal priest, Fr. Tacchi Venturi! It was Fr. Venturi who baptized Mussolini's kids in 1923, married him to his wife in 1925 (in a solemn religious service/ a Catholic marriage), helped with the Lateran Pacts in 1929, etc.

Regarding Mussolini being an atheist: His only time as an atheist was during his Socialist days, approximately the early 1900's to approximately 1919 or 1920 or so. A period of about 15 years. He was Catholic the entire rest of his life, both before and after that period.

He officially ceased to be a Socialist between 1914- 1919.

He was Catholic definitely by 1920. Possibly earlier.There is the fact that he married his wife in a religious ceremony, after having already been married to her civilly. He made it a sacrament.

[Though that could be because SHE was a Catholic, like his brother and his mother.]

I have a couple early quotes from him from 1920- 1923 or thereabouts:

Citing:

“I maintain that the Imperial and Latin tradition of Rome is represented today by Catholicism.”
-Benito Mussolini, Speech Before the Chamber, June 21, 1921

"Fascism is not an anti-religious movement. Fascism is not anti-religious in general, and is not anti-Christian or anti-Catholic in particular."
- Benito Mussolini, Article from Il Popolo d'Italia, July 27, 1922

"My spirit is deeply religious. Religion is a fundamental force which must be respected and defended. I am therefore opposed to anti-clerical and atheistic demagogy, which represents an old game. I affirm that Catholicism is a great spiritual and moral power, and trust that the relations between the Italian State and the Vatican will henceforth be very friendly."
— Benito Mussolini, Statements Made in Lausanne, November 21, 1922

"Fascism respects religion; it is not atheist, it is not anti-Christian, it is not anti-Catholic. It rarely happens that a Fascist funeral rite is secular."
-Article from Il Popolo d'Italia, May 25, 1922

Citing Other quotes:

"Just before I came out here I went into the church and knelt before the altar. That was not done to pay superficial homage to the religion of the State ; it was the expression of an intimate conviction, for I believe that a people cannot become great and powerful, conscious of its destinies, without religion ; unless it looks on religion and feels the need of it as an essential element of its public and private life. With this thought as motive for your actions you will see how country is served above all in silence, humility, discipline, without many or great phrases but with unfailing daily works."
— Benito Mussolini, Speech in Vicenza, September 23, 1924

The Doctrine of Fascism: Benito Mussolini (1932)
"Fascism, in short, is not only a law-giver and a founder of institutions, but an educator and a promoter of spiritual life. It aims at refashioning not only the forms of life but their content - man, his character, and his faith. To achieve this propose it enforces discipline and uses authority, entering into the soul and ruling with undisputed sway. Therefore it has chosen as its emblem the Lictor’s rods, the symbol of unity, strength, and justice."

“My labor had not been easy nor light; our Masonry had spun a most intricate net of anti-religious activity; it dominated the currents of thought; it exercised its influence over publishing houses, over teaching, over the administration of justice and even over certain dominant sections of the armed forces. To give an idea of how far things had gone, this significant example is sufficient. When, in parliament, I delivered my first speech of November 16, 1922, after the Fascist revolution, I concluded by invoking the assistance of God in my difficult task. Well, this sentence of mine seemed to be out of place! In the Italian parliament, a field of action for Italian Masonry, the name of God had been banned for a long time. Not even the Popular party the so-called Catholic party had ever thought of speaking of God. In Italy, a political man did not even turn his thoughts to the Divinity. And, even if he had ever thought of doing so, political opportunism and cowardice would have deterred him, particularly in a legislative assembly. It remained for me to make this bold innovation! And in an intense period of revolution! What is the truth! It is that a faith openly professed is a sign of strength. I have seen the religious spirit bloom again; churches once more are crowded, the ministers of God are themselves invested with new respect. Fascism has done and is doing its duty.”
- Benito Mussolini, My Rise (Autobiography), 1928

Resuming:

On the Fascist symbol, is it pagan? : First of all, just because a symbol is used by people who were pagans does not make it a pagan symbol. Not every symbol used by ancient people has a religious meaning. The Fascist symbol is the Fascio Littorio or Lictors Rods, also called a Fasces. It is a bundle of rods and an axe tied together with a rope. It symbolizes authority and unity in society. This has nothing to do with paganism or theology. It is actually a Protestant mentality, found very often in anti-Catholic literature.

"Pagans used candles, therefore Catholics are pagan; pagans invented the Roman institutions, therefore the Catholic Church practices paganism; pagans breathed oxygen, therefore true Christians should kill themselves"

etc.

What is Fascism? Fascism: A great political ideology! Fascism stands for Traditionalism; it believes in traditional social, family, and religious values. The Fascist State does not attempt, as did Robespierre, to set up a "god" of its own; nor does it vainly seek, as does Bolshevism, to efface God from the soul of man. The Fascist State sees in religion one of the deepest of spiritual manifestations and for this reason it not only respects religion but defends and protects it. Fascism indeed has its moral code; it proclaims true Catholic ethics as its moral character. It is for this reason that true Catholicism completes Fascism; for without it, Fascism would not be the same. In keeping with this moral code, Fascism opposes homosexuality, egalitarianism, feminism, contraception, abortion, pornography, etc. as against nature and as detrimental to society. Fascism is also not opposed to a Monarchy, for the first 20 years the Italian Fascist State was officially a Catholic Monarchy. Many Fascists are also strong supporters of Irredentism. No aspects of Fascism as an ideology are heretical.

[That depends on who defines Fascist ideology - a book of Gentile was on the index. By the way, I had NOT called the Fasces a pagan symbol.]

And neither Mussolini, nor any Fascist Party member, were ever formally excommunicated, like the Communists were.

Citing Emilio Papasogli, in 1923:

"In truth, Fascismo constitutes the reaction of the Latin mind and of Catholicism against the aberrations and the degeneracies of the modern spirit. The ascendancy of modern thought, born with the Protestant reformation and developed through the French revolution, is now at an end. With Fascismo, reaction and renovation, a new age begins."

And moreover:

"What is Italy defending? Italy is defending her Catholic faith with equal violence from 'Russian' Bolshevism on the one side, and the confusing and sectarian doctrines of the Anglo-Saxons governed by Jewry on the other."
— Carlo Scorza, Secretary of the National Fascist Party, July 18, 1943.

Pius XI felt the need to write against both Germany and Italy, and the Holy Office under him condemned anti-Semitism, but never once did he speak out against Jewish crimes. Mussolini suppressed the Catholic Action group because it was engaging in covert political operations. So they actually violated the concordat, and Mussolini rightly suppressed them for their anti-Fascist political activity. The Concordat specifically forbade these groups from engaging in politics, they violated that, and Mussolini responded. Catholic Action carried out political propaganda. This was forbidden by both the German and Italian concordats. They were to stick solely to religious and charitable work, and stay away from politics. They did not live up to their agreement.You can read the concordat/ Lateran treaty of 1929 here! :

THE LATERAN TREATY
11th February, 1929
http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/docs/THE_LATERAN_TREATY.pdf

Regarding who was right Benito Mussolini or Pope Pius XI: Pope Pius XI was in the wrong. Pius XI got greedy, did not appreciate what he had. He pushed for church control of education, while hypocritically arguing that education should be in the hands of the parents (which means neither the church nor the state). He was not content with the fact that Catholicism was mandatory in state schools. This was the main point of contention. The other point was the issue of Catholic youth groups, which were "hotbeds" of democratic and anti-fascist political propaganda. The groups were supposed to be purely spiritual and apolitical (non-political), but continued to privately promote anti-fascism. Pius XI denied this at the time, but the fact that there was such a strong network ready to form anti-fascist parties and groups in 1943 after Mussolini was overthrown shows these groups were in fact privately harboring anti-fascism, and anti-fascist defenders of Pius XI later boasted of this fact after the war, when it became popular to disassociate the Church from Fascism; they boasted that these groups violated the concordat.

There was no country in Europe in the 1920's and 1930's that was more Catholic than Italy. Italy was one of the few countries in Europe at the time that still had an official religion, and which also mandated religious instruction in schools. While Portugal (in the 1920's) and Spain (in the 1930's) were being overrun by socialists, anarchists, anti-clericals and Masons, the Church was flourishing in Italy; crucifixes were in every classroom; new churches were built; priests blessed the founding of new cities; every flag, banner and monument was blessed; Fascist funerals were solemn religious services; Fascists partipated in all Catholic ceremonies and observed Holy Days; Fascists advanced the cult of St. Francis and St. Catherine; Canon Law was the official law of the State. Name one State that was more Catholic in this period. People love to go on about Catholic Poland, but many people do not realize that Catholic Poland recognized Talmudic Judaism alongside Christianity in their constitution. People also love to go on about Catholic Austria, but even Catholic Austria, which had a very pro-Catholic government in 1934, did not make Catholicism the official religion of the State when they issued their new constitution.

[They had a strong Calvinist minority in Burgenland - which contributed to Nazism, btw. Hungary just East was NOT confessionally Catholic and Horthy was a Calvinist.]

Some extra sources for my "On Benito Mussolini being a great Catholic and Italian hero " article here:

[Lists:]

• the Duce on religious matters generally." here:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pietro_Tacchi_Venturi
  
  [I think the article has changed since he looked at it.]
  
  
• Regarding Catholic action violating the Concordat we read "and when Fascists said that catholic action was disloyal they were right to the extent that some real opposition to Fascism in Italy grew with time" even though Pius XI denied it, here:
  
  https://books.google.com/books?id=nqloAAAAMAAJ&q=and+when+fascists+said+that+catholic+action+was+disloyal+they+were+right+to&dq=and+when+fascists+said+that+catholic+action+was+disloyal+they+were+right+to&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hwPnVIWqMYevogTt2YLgDg&ved=0CB8Q6AEwAA
  
  
• In 1924 a law was passed mandating crucifixes in all schools , courts and hospitals. It's a well known law that became controversial a few years ago when crucifixes were banned. Here is a classroom from the Fascist period:
  
  http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/0/0f/Aule_nel_1930.JPG
  
  
• This is simply a matter of looking up dates. I don't know why this can not be done without me having to do all the work. The most notable church is the Chiesa di Sant' Antonio da Padova built in Predappio, Mussolini's birthplace, thanks to donations by Mussolini's family. It can be viewed here:
  
  http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiesa_di_Sant%27Antonio_%28Predappio%29
  
  
• Just one example, the new city of Aprilia being blessed:
  
  http://lnx.lepinimagazine.it/lepini/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/posa-prima-pietra-Aprilia.jpg
  
  
• As for banners, flags, etc. being blessed, there are hundreds of examples.
  
  Here is a gonfanon (banner) being blessed by Cardinal Gasparri:
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i5aVkUXctU
  
  
• Mussolini himself said that Fascist funerals were very rarely secular. One example of a solemn Catholic service here:
  
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qoGSvZQK8s
  
  
• Mussolini himself speaks of the salary of priests in his Autobiography, here:
  
  https://archive.org/details/MyAutobiography
  
  
• The advancement of the cult of Saint Catherine of Siena in Fascist Italy can be read about here:
  
  https://books.google.com/books?id=18DBLbQ8kpEC&pg=PA53&lpg=PA53&dq=it+was+against+this+background+that+the+promotion+of+the+cult+of+saint+catherine&source=bl&ots=PbzBxm1qPh&sig=0J1S7fRSK4AbITt_y-5gZWKtgM0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7__mVIm1L5CwogSj_YCgDw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=it%20was%20against%20this%20background%20that%20the%20promotion%20of%20the%20cult%20of%20saint%20catherine&f=false
  
  
• It is well known that Fascists celebrated the 700th anniversary of St. Francis in 1926, with Mussolini honoring him in his speech, and urged the Vatican to make him the Patron of Italy, which it did in 1939. Mussolini praised Saint Francis of Assisi as the "the most Saintly of Italians, and the most Italian of Saints." Mussolini also declared October 4th a National holiday in the Saints honor. This can be read here:
  
  Fascist Voices: An Intimate History of Mussolini's Italy
  Christopher Duggan
  https://books.google.com/books?id=Lkuo4RmOncoC&pg=PA109&dq=%22the+most+Saintly+of+Italians,+and+the+most+Italian+of+Saints.%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MgHnVILgOZHWoASi-4K4Dw&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22the%20most%20Saintly%20of%20Italians%2C%20and%20the%20most%20Italian%20of%20Saints.%22&f=false
  
  
• Benito Mussolini made Canon Law (Church disciplinary laws) the official law of the State: The references to Canon Law can be found in theLateran Accords of 1929, here:
  
  THE LATERAN TREATY
  11th February, 1929
  http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/docs/THE_LATERAN_TREATY.pdf

The May Constitution is from 1791. That's two centuries prior to what we're even talking about. We're talking about the Poland of the interwar period, the Poland which is defended and extolled as a great Catholic country, while Italy is condemned. The Polish Constituion of March 1921 was very controversial, and Catholic clergy at the time were outraged. It is written about here:

[Link given as: http://books.google.com/books?id=RUOMAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA92... =?=]

Poland in the Modern World: Beyond Martyrdom
Brian Porter-Szücs
http://books.google.fr/books?id=RUOMAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA92&redir_esc=y

Citing Article 114 of the Constitution states:

"Wyznanie rzymsko-katolickie, będące religią przeważającej większości narodu, zajmuje w państwie naczelne stanowisko wśród równouprawnionych wyznań." "The Roman Catholic religion, being the religion of the overwheliming majority of the nation, will have a primacy among other religions which all have equal rights."

Resuming his words:

Therefore there was no State religion, and all other religions, including Judaism and Protestantism, were considered to have equal rights. All that is awarded to Catholicism is a sort of "primacy of honour" ("first amongst equals") because most of the populace was Catholic. This is word for word the same policy of Napoleon, who is also criticized and condemned by traditional Catholics for his religious policies. Yet these same people give their undying devotion and support to "Catholic Poland" and condemn Italy -- which was undoubtedly more Catholic at the time than Poland. And while the Polish Constitution was met with outrage in 1921, the Italian Lateran pact was met with universal praise in 1929.

My friend a true Italian Fascist gave me this information.

[I think he might have gotten my reference to Pilsudski wrong. I had said nothing implying that Pilsudski régime was more Catholic, though I considered Austrian was, since Austrofascists considered themselves obliged for societal organisation by the Popes' words. I said that if Mussolini had not invaded Ethiopia, which was anyway an ambition inherited from the bad old anti-Catholic days of Risorgimento, Mussolini and Pilsudski instead of Hitler could have led sth like Operation Barbarossa to deliver Russia and Ukraine and Belorussia from Communism - and they would have done a better job. That is a compliment to Mussolini too, not just to Pilsudski.]

HGL to JW

April 12th, 9:22pm

"He brought respect back to the Church and to religion in a time when anti-clericalism dominated Italy."

I'd like this to be true. But he upheld some kinds of anticlerical activities, as Pius XI complained in Non abbiamo bisogno.

"He eliminated Freemasonry."

One of the viceroys of Italy, I think Badoglio, was a Mason.

Generally speaking, his mother and his brother Alessandro were pious Catholics, he not so clearly, or at least at times very clearly not.

This does not mean a Catholic cannot be a Fascist or admire him.

"He brought fear and respect back to Italy, after Italy had been treated as second-class by the English, French, and Austrians."

In my book, first of all Austria had not treated Italy as second class up to any act of Mussolini, second, Austria owes a mixed gratitude to Mussolini, he defended Austria against Anschluss in 36, but no longer in 38, third and most important, Austria was a far more Catholic country than influential parts of Italy.

"Benito Musssolini made the Vatican an independent State. Without Mussolini there is no Vatican City."

Owed back to Popes was in reality all of Papal States. He wiggled that out of Pius XI.

"Benito Mussolini came to power in 1922, Francisco Franco in 1939, and Adolf Hitler in 1933."

Engelbert Dollfuss became a Fascist dictator in 1933. I hold Engelbert Dollfuss far over Hitler, and somewhat over Franco and Mussolini as well.

Not meaning I hate Mussolini or anything like that, he's just more problematic than Dollfuss.

"On February 13, 1929, Pope Pius XI praised Mussolini as the man "who was sent to us by Providence" and shortly after ordered the clergy to say a prayer "for the King and the Duce" ("Pro Rege et Duce") at the end of daily mass."

And a bit later, as this was fulfilling his part of agreement, Pope Pius XI, without abrogating these measures, complained Mussolini had not kept his side of the bargain. Non abbiamo bisogno, as said.

He praised Dollfuss more by agreeing the latter was applying Quadragesimo Anno correctly. And he never took that back.

JW to HGL

April 12th, 10:36pm

Pius XI felt the need to write against both Germany and Italy, and the Holy Office under him condemned anti-Semitism, but never once did he speak out against Jewish crimes. Mussolini suppressed the Catholic Action group because it was engaging in covert political operations. So they actually violated the concordat, and Mussolini rightly suppressed them for their anti-Fascist political activity. The Concordat specifically forbade these groups from engaging in politics, they violated that, and Mussolini responded. Catholic Action carried out political propaganda. This was forbidden by both the German and Italian concordats. They were to stick solely to religious and charitable work, and stay away from politics. They did not live up to their agreement.You can read the concordat/ Lateran treaty of 1929 here! :

THE LATERAN TREATY
11th February, 1929
http://www.whitehorsemedia.com/docs/THE_LATERAN_TREATY.pdf

Regarding who was right Benito Mussolini or Pope Pius XI: Pope Pius XI was in the wrong. Pius XI got greedy, did not appreciate what he had. He pushed for church control of education, while hypocritically arguing that education should be in the hands of the parents (which means neither the church nor the state). He was not content with the fact that Catholicism was mandatory in state schools. This was the main point of contention. The other point was the issue of Catholic youth groups, which were "hotbeds" of democratic and anti-fascist political propaganda. The groups were supposed to be purely spiritual and apolitical (non-political), but continued to privately promote anti-fascism. Pius XI denied this at the time, but the fact that there was such a strong network ready to form anti-fascist parties and groups in 1943 after Mussolini was overthrown shows these groups were in fact privately harboring anti-fascism, and anti-fascist defenders of Pius XI later boasted of this fact after the war, when it became popular to disassociate the Church from Fascism; they boasted that these groups violated the concordat.

HGL to JW

April 13th, 9:09am

"never once did he speak out against Jewish crimes."

• 1) He condemned eugenic crimes in Casti Connubii.
  
  Racial legislations about marriage are also a Jewish crime, originated in synagogue saying "you may marry someone of Jewish origin whether they are baptised or not" and imitated by Hitler in Nuremberg laws of 1936 and alas by Mussolini too in 1938, which Mussolini had condemned as late as his interview for Chesterton, see the latter's The Resurrection of Rome (1930).
  
  
• 2) He condemned Capitalistic crimes in Quadragesimo Anno. Dollfuss, whom he supported, had removed Jews from administartion with individual exceptions and also forbidden them access to Catholic Universities;
  
  
• 3) He condemned Communism;
  
  
• 4) Killing Christian children had hardly been done since back in the Beyliss case in Russia [1911];
  
  
• 5) Zionist crimes were not yet being done on a large scale, and if any Church officials in Palestine were condemning such, they probably enjoyed full support of Pope Pius XI.

So, Pope Pius XI was condemning Jewish criminality everywhere where it was to be condemned.

[If we were to extend list of Judaeo-Typical crimes to 6, religious crime of Judaism, it was Pius XII who started loosing up the condemnation for that in some respects, not Pius XI, and to 7, psychiatry, this crime was shared by Mussolini.]

"Mussolini suppressed the Catholic Action group because it was engaging in covert political operations. So they actually violated the concordat, and Mussolini rightly suppressed them for their anti-Fascist political activity. The Concordat specifically forbade these groups from engaging in politics, they violated that, and Mussolini responded. "

That is not really the version I think Pius XI would have agreed to.

"Catholic Action carried out political propaganda. This was forbidden by both the German and Italian concordats. They were to stick solely to religious and charitable work, and stay away from politics. They did not live up to their agreement."

If a Catholic group in US would say "you must not vote for pro-abortion politicians", would it be doing "politics"? Or would it be doing catechism, thus religion?

I think the latter!

[Of course, Mussolini was not as bad as abortion liberals!]

"Pius XI got greedy, did not appreciate what he had. He pushed for church control of education, while hypocritically arguing that education should be in the hands of the parents (which means neither the church nor the state)."

• 1) Parents as in neither Church nor state is FULLY realised when parents decide without any State interference who they hadn their children over to for education.
  
  Catholic parents would homeschool, give children over to Catholic artisans for apprenticeships or give them over to schools of the Church. Protestant or Atheist parents would not do so, and neither would state enforce them doing so anyway, nor would Church ask that, as long as it was not a group the Church asked to suppress anyway (like Albigensians in 1300). As long as they had a right to exist in civil liberty, they also had a right to decide freely on schools.
  
  In the Papal States before 1870, Jews were NOT required to send children to Catholic schools. The one Mortara case, the baptised Jewish child was practically homeschooled by Pope Pius IX of venerable memory.
  
  
• 2) This was NOT the case in Italy. The Excommunicated Kings of the robber state which had violated Papal States, Austria and Two Sicilies had instituted school compulsion of some sort.
  
  This being so, Church had a right to defend the conscience of Catholic parents within schools it was not directly running. Namely those which the State was forcing Catholic parents to send their sons and daughters to.

So, Pius XI was perfectly in the right.

Moreoever, Italian schools under the 19th C. liberals were certainly, and under Mussolini at least still possibly honouring men like Galileo and Giordano Bruno. This was possibly a breach of Lateran Treaty on part of Mussolini, and certainly, if continued under him, a breach against the natural law and the respect due to the conscience of parents.

You said he "got greedy". Well, I say the Lateran Treaty was his NOT being "greedy" enough. He committed basically a crime of treason against the Papal States by handing most of them over to Italy.

That said, my take on Mussolini is his one problem was being too loyal to Italy as established by the excommunicated Sardinian tyrants. And that means I hate Vittorio Emmanuele II and Cavour and the Roman Mayor Nathan in a way I do not hate Mussolini.

Mussolini could also have avoided the Ethiopian misadventure, if he hadn't been inheritor of the ambitions of 19th C. idiotic liberals of nationalist bent. AND if the freemason Badoglio had not been sent as viceroy there. At least possibly.

If anything, Pius XI was too weak against Italy.

"Pius XI denied this at the time, but the fact that there was such a strong network ready to form anti-fascist parties and groups in 1943 after Mussolini was overthrown shows these groups were in fact privately harboring anti-fascism, and anti-fascist defenders of Pius XI later boasted of this fact after the war, when it became popular to disassociate the Church from Fascism; they boasted that these groups violated the concordat."

If this is so, that means that Pius XI may have been ignorant of what was going on.

[Other explanation, see below after I actually looked up article 43 - I had considered JW as a man capable of reading with reading comprehension up to giving this answer, and then later - see below - found I was wrong.]

That would mean that part of his complaints (that part) in Non abbiamo bisogno, was due to his being misinformed about fact.

Let us hope he was so, rather than hypocritical.

JW to HGL

April 14th, 3:01am

""Italy illegally took the Pope's land, Pope Pius IX excommunicated all those who supported Italy."

I think that the person who said this needs to mind their own business; that matter was settled nearly 100 years ago, move on.

It is funny that the people clamouring for the restoration of the papal states are people who do not come from Italy, and apparently are not well versed in history.

The Vatican State is the modern papal state, and the pope in 1929 (Pope Pius XI) relinquished all claim to other parts of Italy, and was given compensation. In other words, THE PAPACY HAS ALREADY RENOUNCED THE TERRITORIES IN EXCHANGE FOR MONETARY COMPENSATION AND THE RECOGNITION OF THE SOVEREIGNTY OF THE VATICAN CITY-STATE ON THE PART OF ITALY.

Who are you (or anyone else) to start claiming for the popes what the popes themselves have renounced?

Yes, the siezure in the 19th century was illegal, but that makes no difference now, because today (and ever since 1929) Italy has legally possessed all the territories, and the popes have recognized this fact.

And if these people want the pope to have more land, then go ahead and offer him their own country.

This siezure wasn't even under Mussolini either, it was during the Italian Wars of Independence in the 19th century, which led to the Roman Question, which was solved in 1929 by Benito Mussolini.

The pope was given millions in compensation, he was given a library by Mussolini, the Vatican State was recognized as independent and sovereign. And in exchange the pope relinquished all claims to Rome and Italy.

So, it really doesn't matter what Pius IX said or did, because Pius XI made his own political decisions in the name of the papacy."

HGL to JW

April 14th, 12:23pm

"I think that the person who said this needs to mind their own business; that matter was settled nearly 100 years ago, move on."

If so, why don't you move on about Mussolini's honour and the breaches of the Lateran Treaty?

Either we can or we can't take sides in past conflicts.

I'm not the one saying we can't.

But you are basically saying you can and I can't.

"Who are you (or anyone else) to start claiming for the popes what the popes themselves have renounced?"

Cardinal Stickler claimed there were according to Canonists three things even a Pope cannot touch. One of them is "Status Ecclesiae". He did not decide what it means. I think it means "Kirchenstaat" = "Papal States".

In other words, Pope Pius XI overstepped his competence in granting Papal States outside Vatican City and Castel Gandolfo to Italy.

Moreover, Papal States had subjects which had families. This means that up to 1870 Popes were showing how a state should deal with family rights.

Italy has taken a wrong turn in several items, like school compulsion, and like 18 year age limit for marriages (these crimes were committed by other states, Soviet Union and by now most European States have imitated this evil). It is true that the criminal pseudolegislation hurt Italy before Mussolini. But it is also true that it did hurt.

Maria Goretti and Alessandro Serenelli might have had a decent married life under Popes in Papal States, if, for instance, he could have instead of proposing to make her pregnant to get a dispensation to marry her before she was 18, he could have said "you are soon 12, shall we engage with your mothers' consent and marry in a few months?"

Saint Maria Goretti is really in a way IL CIELO sopra la palude, but it was replacing Papal States with Italy which provided la palude.

And did so for the poisoning of Serenelli's mind with anticlerical stuff too.

Oh, one more thing, look which article Paul VI and Italian police broke:

Citing Art. 4 of Patti Lateranensi, 11 Febbraio 1929, Trattato:

La sovranità e la giurisdizione esclusiva, che l’Italia riconosce alla Santa Sede sulla Città del Vaticano, importa che nella medesima non possa esplicarsi alcuna ingerenza da parte del Governo Italiano e che non vi sia altra autorità che quella della Santa Sede.

Resuming own words

Abbé de Nantes came to Vatican to depose an accusation dossier against Pope Paul VI for heresy before Pope Paul VI as judge.

Abbé de Nantes was impeded from deposing this, illegally against all Canon law, since evicted. But there is more to it. He was not evicted by Swiss Guards, but by Italian policemen clearly breaking article 4 of the Lateran Treaty. but that was of course a fault of Montini/Paul VI, of which Pius XI is innocent.

After going from Trattato to Concordato [Patti Lateranensi, 11 Febbraio 1929], here are a few things (not quoting whole articles) which struck me:

Citing Art. 37

I dirigenti delle associazioni statali per l’educazione fisica, per l’istruzione premilitare, degli Avanguardisti e dei Balilla, per rendere possibile l’istruzione e l’assistenza religiosa della gioventù loro affidata, disporranno gli orari in modo da non impedire nelle domeniche e nelle feste di precetto l’adempimento dei doveri religiosi. …

Resuming own words

This was broken by Fascists, which is one reason for Non abbiamo bisogno. And stated as such in the text thereof.

Citing Art. 36

L’Italia considera fondamento e coronamento dell’istruzione pubblica l’insegnamento della dottrina cristiana secondo la forma ricevuta dalla tradizione cattolica. …

Resuming own words

This means that the Church needed a right to say stop if part of the public instruction was in any way against “the Christian doctrine according to the form received by the Catholic Tradition”. As I argued earlier.

Citing Art. 34

Lo Stato italiano, volendo ridonare all’istituto del matrimonio, che è base della famiglia, dignità conforme alle tradizioni cattoliche del suo popolo, riconosce al sacramento del matrimonio, disciplinato dal diritto canonico, gli effetti civili. … Quanto alle cause di separazione personale, la Santa Sede consente che siano giudicate dall’autorità giudiziaria civile.

Resuming own words

I left out a big chunk, but the problem is that the Church seems not to have insisted that a priest marrying a fourteen year old young man to a twelve year young lady, should be able to not only do so, but have this recognised and of course not rescinded in any civil court. Here I think Pius XI was simply weak.

Oh, yes, the question of Azzione Cattolica ...

Citing Art. 43

Lo Stato italiano riconosce le organizzazioni dipendenti dall’Azione Cattolica Italiana, in quanto esse, siccome la Santa Sede ha disposto, svolgano la loro attività al di fuori di ogni partito politico e sotto l’immediata dipendenza della gerarchia della Chiesa per la diffusione e l’attuazione dei principî cattolici. La Santa Sede prende occasione dalla stipulazione del presente Concordato per rinnovare a tutti gli ecclesiastici e religiosi d’Italia il divieto di iscriversi e militare in qualsiasi partito politico.

Resuming own words

But since “Democrazia Cristiana” was NOT a political party at the time, simply criticising Fascism for totalitarian tendencies did not constitute a breach of the article.

[And White Horse media also does not quote the article other than forbidding political parties. The requirement was not verbally to be totally apolitical in every respect, that would have been an reinterpretation, like First Amendment (or was it second?) is reinterpreted as "separation of Church and State" in US.]

"et lux non loqui"

MM (status in a Latin group)

I saw this on Jimmy Kimmel. any ideas on what it could mean?

et lux non loqui

25 other

comments, involving hint at "and light not to speak" but not settling on it, due to grammatical incongruence.

I bump in:

too word by word translation of phrase "and the light not to speak"?

Like "[the grace to know] and the light not to speak"? Or some such context?

I am sure it was not by a Latinist (unless very Tacitean, Tacitus is magnificently short cutting), but rather by google translate.

Guess verified:

"and light not to speak"
"et lux non loqui"
https://translate.google.com/?hc_location=ufi#en/la/and%20light%20not%20to%20speak

In other words, someone might be using some kind of roundabout tactics to give a known Latinist (which would by now include me) hints about omertà. Using google translate when not knowing Latin himself would be such a roundabout way, for instance. And yes, I am a man who has seen other hints about omertà, due to my blogs:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Huius autoris bloggi
http://filolohika.blogspot.fr/p/huius-autoris-bloggi.html

Vobis quasi divinandum est in quo articulo meorum bloggorum provocavi hoc rete quod reclamat "homeritatem" (si hoc modo vertere possim vocabulum "omertà").

Forsitan quisnam sectator technologiae computatri voluit me habere lucem ut non loquar?

Literal Truth of Genesis, Chapters 1 and 2 : Debates on more than one aspect

Friend (status)

Do you believe that the biblical account of creation is the truth?

Ten:

Yes (or one of them a Yep)

NP

Unless one sincerely identified the self as something other than Christian, I suppose the answer would have to be in the affirmative..,

NG

One has to, to remain Catholic.

JM (after three consecutive yes among above)

And the belief in evolution is boarding on mad!

To believe in something so absurd as life popping up from non living material by random chance, is incredible. It is not science, but an unreasonable faith.

GP

Central tenet of the Catholic faith. You could say the philosophic framework of the beginning of God's work with man.

JM

But this is the only faith allowed in the classrooms in this insane county of ours.

NP

Sts Aquinas and Augustine state that the account must be assented to literally

NB

Yes, evolution is a lie. How could man evolve from inferior beings? To be so like that, these inferiors beings would have to have a superior intelligence to Man. Also, matter by itself cannot transform in nothing else different than what what already is. Man is an animal, but a rational and spiritual one, raw matter does not possess any of these properties.

JM

Man has not evolved but devolved! Sin brought death into the world!

All are born into this world under the curse inherited by the fall of our first parents. Christ came to free us from that curse.

John Vennari

There is no reason not to

MO

Yep. Even the Big Bang is described in Genesis.

SB

Ask an evolutionist how we went from being dust into the first cell and they get stuck n say " oh that's now a separate field of study ", or something like that. Shouldn't they have to prove these things before they ask us to prove that God exists ?

JG

Theistic evolution is a cowardly way of giving into modern social pressure. You can't have it both ways.. Once you say God wasn't speaking literally about creation you will start to use the same logic for issues like the Eucharist, and baptism. and before you know it you have homosexual ministers in your "church"

AK

Yes, absolutely. It is the foundation for everything else. Creation in the image and likeness of God, and the original sin explain humans quite well.

JG

Unfortunately even in traditional churches theistic evolution beliefs are rising rapidly. Read an article the other day written by a man who claims to be catholic saying theistic evolution is 100% compatible with Christians. Made me sick.

AM

The Big Bang Hypothesis and the Evolutionism Hypothesis are both Perpetual Motion Machines and thus violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and are thus false.

AK

The primary scientific problem with macroevolution is the increase in complexity of information which is not observed to take place anywhere in the universe without a rational agent actin upon the information. Not sure what the Big Bang has to do with a perpetual motion machine.

MMcB

I do believe in the literal account of the creation as given in Genesis.

SC

"In matters that are obscure and far beyond our vision, even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture, different interpretations are sometimes possible without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such a case, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search of truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it. That would be to battle not for the teaching of Holy Scripture but for our own, wishing its teaching to conform to ours, whereas we ought to wish ours to conform to that of Sacred Scripture.

"On interpreting the mind of the sacred writer. Christians should not talk nonsense to unbelievers."

-St. Augustine, Commentary on Genesis

St. Augustine does, of course, demand that we believe in the literal truth of the Scriptures, but by this he does not mean what an American fundamentalist might describe as the "plain truth" of Scripture, nor does he necessarily admit any doctrine of perspicuity.

Theistic evolution is not a cop-out. It is a fine application to the findings of modern science of the principle set forth in St. Thomas' Summa Contra Gentiles, 3a 75 & 76, in which the application of Divine Providence to all contingent singulars and to all singulars immediately is established. The notion that a Christian could believe that there are particular events occurring in nature that are not willed by God is absurd.

N., in good Thomistic thought, an instrumental cause may be lower than its effect. That's the whole point of theistic evolution.

Sadly, AM, neither the Big Bang nor Evolution demand infinite time in either direction. With respect to evolution in particular, Earth is not a closed system, and it receives abundant energy from without in the form of solar radiation.

AK, even if you take the increase in [genetic] information to be a real problem demanding a prior complexity to explain it, the whole mechanism of evolution as willed by God could easily be viewed as a cosmic pencil, which operates according to mechanical principles, and the physical reality of whose writing is ultimately explained by these mechanical principles, but which is writing that which is meaningful as willed by the Writer. It would do no good to say that the ink in the pen could not wholly explain the words on the page just because they are information-bearing. Genes may be explained fully in a physical way by the process of evolution, directed however by Providence in such a way as to bear information.

David Bawden, alias HH Pope Michael

Creation is true as recounted in Genesis.

AM (answering SC here, but doing so much later)

SC, you don't read too well and you are lacking in logic skills. I never said anything about the earth as a closed system. The universe however, IS a closed system. As for the earth, it's energy gain from the sun is equal to its energy loss, and if it weren't then the temperature would either increase or decrease. The earth however gains no biological material from space, nor expels any into space, so therefore as far as biological matter and energy is concerned, the earth IS a closed system and the overall entropy is increasing within biological matter and substances.

Five (including me)

Yes, most assuredly, the account of creation given in Genesis is to be taken literally, I believe the biblical creation is the truth, not a iota of it shall pass away.

HGL, me

"Even the Big Bang is described in Genesis." (MO) - Where is the dislike button? Georges Lemaître who invented BB (as it was later called) was not so literalist about first two chapters of Genesis as the 1909 Biblical Commission's answers demanded.

[turning to SC:]

" but by this he does not mean what an American fundamentalist might describe as the 'plain truth' of Scripture, nor does he necessarily admit any doctrine of perspicuity."

- Again, where is the dislike button? He does NOT say that because it is Scripture it is automatically "obscure and far beyond our vision". He is saying that WHEN it is of such things Scripture treats, then it may be interpreted differently.

Read all of this series (links on top of each message, numbered 1 - 12, bt actually fifteen or sixteen, since some have a/b or a/b/c), here is 1:

Creation vs. Evolution : Newspeak in Nineteen - Eighty ... er Sorry ... Ninety-Four
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2013/12/newspeak-in-nineteen-eighty-er-sorry.html

And this one too:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Dating History (with Some Help from AronRa)
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2014/07/dating-history-with-some-help-from.html

JCCD (to status/question, presumably)

Yes.

AD

I don't understand why people feel the need to try and marry principles set forth specifically to undermine the traditional Catholic teachings with actual Catholic doctrine. I guess it's the fear of possibly putting faith into something that scientism claims it can disprove? Either way, this heliocentric, (r)evolutionary thought has no place in the Church.

PK

I enjoy this analogy the best.....So, I go into an auto part store or warehouse that has every thing for all types of cars. So, I blow up the store/warehouse, and the parts miraculously fall from the sky, assembled themselves into various vehicles.....That makes as much sense as the randomness of Evolution.

SC

Hans-Georg,

No, St. Augustine does not say that Scripture is "obscure and far beyond our vision." Nor did I. But matters relating to the mechanics of the origins of the Universe are obscure and far beyond are vision. And they are matters that remain obscure and far beyond our vision, "even in such as we may find treated in Holy Scripture."

Which is exactly what I said. Now, please, speak to point.

The point is that the plain sense of "speak" is what we do in conversation every day. But Augustine presses the meaning of this word. The plain sense of "light" is what is generated by the sun. But Augustine also admits that a spiritual light, the light that enlightens rational beings, could be *a possible* literal sense of the passage.

So St. Augustine is not married, as I claimed, to perspicuity or to the "plain sense" of the text, although he will certainly agree that the text is literally true---although the literal sense may have to be sought out.

[AP]

"For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God."

-Pius XII, Humani Generis

"So you will allow me to be more concise with regard to evolution. First I would like to point out that no serious theologian will dispute that the entire “tree of life” is in a living internal relationship, which the word evolution fittingly describes. Likewise, no serious theologian will be of the opinion that God, the Creator, repeatedly at intermediate levels had to intervene almost manually in the process of development."

-Pope Benedict XVI, a "man experienced" in sacred theology, on the present state of his field on this question, in a letter to Prof. Odifreddi

Now, please. They have a place in the Church.

[PK]

Theistic evolution does not magically do away with the doctrine of God's providence.

Now, I will be fastforwarding along ...

... my debate with SC. Sometimes. When messages start to split up in numbered arguments, I will follow each number before going back to the next number starting from same message as previously. But I will also interesperse this with other dialogue along the debate.

HGL

To SC, and

[1 2 3 see below FIRST SPLIT.]

"Schoolteacher."

Ah, and how would you fare among colleagues or even pupils and their parents, if outing yourself as a YEC (or even Geocentric)?

I was a schoolteacher for one term. I am glad I am no more, as schools are now. Including not only this doctrinal matter, but also the moral matter of school compulsion. To a moral schoolteacher, the pupil with his parents would normally be the client and the parents would decide on their part if teacher can stay with pupil, as well as teacher deciding on his part whether pupil can stay with him.

BUT in the modern system being a schoolteacher implies earning money on DRAFTED pupils. Plus excludes expelling nasty pupils.

SC

Hans-Georg,

In my locality, the American Middle West, I would fare better and better if I held either of those opinions.

(1 2 3 - see below, as noted.)

EPISODE PREVIOUS TO START OF SPLIT

PK

SC, I am not so smart so I will believe God for things beyond my comprehension....Meanwhile, it is 7:45 a.m. in the Midwest. Don't you guys have to get dressed and go to work, and earn a living? Or, are you all independently very wealthy?

SC

Schoolteacher.

PK

Then class must be happening soon, Eh, SC?

SC

Summer break. :)

PK

Oh, right. It's Summer back at home in the States.

Living in two worlds and 2 time zones is confusing as heck.

SC

I can imagine!

PK

Is the economy getting better, worst, or staying just the same back at home?

SC

Phew, what a question. I couldn't really say. My best guess would be that it is static. I have been very blessed to have been called for my jobs, rather than having to apply, so I don't have a good handle on what the job market is like.

It's still a good time to buy a house...

PK

Not when only about 50 million to 68 million Americans have some kind of jobs, and about 146 millions are jobless....Folks don't have money to buy much of anything these days.

SC

Well, I mean to say, it's a buyer's market.

PK

Yes, it does. Well, Sean, if you are pretty certain that you will have your job for the next 15 to 30 years, then go for it. For goodness' sake, please don't take out a variable - balloon type - loan. You will be so very sorry if you do. I'm sure you already know this.

FIRST SPLIT

First split

1 - 2 - 3 above taken separately

1)

HGL

1) the answer to me:

"But matters relating to the mechanics of the origins of the Universe are obscure and far beyond are vision."

To the mechanics, yes.

To the story line no.

I have ventured a guess myself:

On day two, the "waters above the firmament" means, at least partly, H₂. The firmament itself is O₂, oxygen.

On day four, God used H₂ from day two, but not all of it, to make sun and stars.

When windows of the firmament were opened under flood, that part was the hydrogen and the oxygen layers meeting in small overlaps ("windows") and reacting with combustion (2 H₂ + O₂ => 2 H₂O).

Meaning some of it is now lost in the oceans (lost for star production and combustion, at any rate).

Yes, some of the mechanics may be obscure, that doesn't mean the story line is.

SC

(1) The basic storyline that God created the Heavens and the Earth is not in dispute. The fact that whatsoever he willed, he brought about, is not in dispute. But just where does the "basic storyline" end? If I may believe equally with many of the Fathers that the world was created in seven literal days, or with St. Augustine, in an instant, and that the earth bore in itself the potency to bring forth the various species according to their kinds; if I may believe in a literal spoken word of God, in literal light or in the rational, intelligible principle having been created...

I don't see how this passage yields to obvious scientific interpretation in any way. Particularly not when considered together with Genesis 2.

2

HGL

2) To the answer to AD:

a) Pius XII did not forbid that Discussions take place. That does not equal him allowing Catholics to accept evolution as factually true. One can see that encyclical as shilly shally on the point.

If one stated that a Catholic may neither believe nor defend theistic evolution, but he is free to discuss it with non-Catholics believing it and not allowed, if a professor at a university, to stop in the name of the Church non-Catholics from defending it, this would not be the most plausible meaning of the words, taken by themselves, but a possible one, and theologically preferrable insofar as one accepts him as having been Pope.

b) Now to Ratzinger:

"So you will allow me to be more concise with regard to evolution."

I bet he had no wish to get into details, that might give the internal contradictions away. Concise he was allowed to be.

"First I would like to point out that no serious theologian will dispute that the entire “tree of life” is in a living internal relationship, which the word evolution fittingly describes."

What nonsense if we look at it biologically!

"Likewise, no serious theologian will be of the opinion that God, the Creator, repeatedly at intermediate levels had to intervene almost manually in the process of development."

What God had to do, and what, according to what He showed Moses or told Adam, actually did are two different things.

The syllogism "potuit, decuit, fecit" may be right about the immaculate conception (which is anyway, irrespective of syllogism, true), but in order for it to exist, there must be not only a "potuit" but also a "decuit".

I have horrors for the kind of moral theologian who would say that it "decuit Deo" to create the species through a drawn out process of suffering and death before Adam sinned. Or that it "decuit Deo" to create Adam's body through so many intermediates, while reserving only the soul for Himself.

Furthermore, denying that "God intervened manually in the process of evolution" can mean two very differnet things:

• a) denying that there was a process of evolution which is the right meaning, but not very likely seeing the nonsense he uttered about "the tree of life";
• b) admitting the process of evolution, but saying He did "not have to intervene" because He had programmed it so perfectly beforehand.

SC

(2) The biologists don't concur with your characterization of their science. If you wish to impute bad faith to an entire profession, I can't stop you, but the interrelationship between all life is certainly not "nonsense" from a biological perspective.

3)

HGL

3) Answer to PK:

The latter (see my discussion of Ratzinger just above) does not deny God's providence? It does, because it replaces providence with continual manual intervening in every aspect of the history of the entire universe with a preprogramming that excludes manual intervening.

But whether it denies or does not deny Providence, it very certainly denies Verbal Inspiration of the Scriptures (as affirmed by Pope Leo XIII) as well as Patristic-Sense-Only Exegesis (as defined by Trent). Church Fathers differed on details (most notably on whether earth was round or flat or they refused to decide, on whether carnivore kinds were created carnivores or vegetarians, on whether creation of six days was six days (nearly all Fathers) or one moment (St Augustine in books Five-Six of De Genesi ad Litteram Libri XII). But they all differ in one single way from long age exegesis.

And they should.

SC

(3) No, as you correctly observed earlier, there is a difference between what God "had to do" and what He did do. Providence is neither simply the direct intervention of God into contingent reality nor simply His prevenient ordering of it. It is both. It is all the ways in which God directs history to His purpose.

HGL (to 1 - 3)

It is one verse in Genesis 2, or maybe two or three, that made St Augustine believe that the six days were same day and hence same moment. No other canonised Church Fathers held that (Origen is not canonised). BOTH sides agree the universe was not much older than Adam. Genesis 2 is obviously a detailed account of things described more generally as day six.

"If you wish to impute bad faith to an entire profession"

Biologists are very certainly NOT an entire profession all agreeing on tree of life. Those who do have been through academia where pressure was that way. They are majority, but not all. And of the majority, much is lipservice due to intellectual terror from evolutionist establishment.

"the interrelationship between all life is certainly not 'nonsense' from a biological perspective."

If by interrelationship you DO mean tree of life, it is at best a non-proven. One could argue even contradicted item.

If by interrelationship of all life you do NOT mean common ancestry, then "tree of life" and "evolution" are very bad names for it.

"Providence is neither simply the direct intervention of God into contingent reality nor simply His prevenient ordering of it. It is both."

Reality is sufficiently contingent for it to mean the first. The second is what God took maximum six literal days to do, according to any Church Father, including St Augustine, and it is not called providence, it is called creation.

When St Augustine brings up the question whether light created on day one was literal - i e visible - or intelligible, he certainly did not exclude the visible light from being created or from being created first instant of day one. Whether or not one should accept any time for the "and the earth was empty and void" before day one.

Two boys quarrel "pa bought the house on an auction for 30 dollars before fixing it" - "no, it was only one dollar". Will anyone say that their pa buying it for a million from a luxurious broker is within the frame of discrepancy between the boys? I would say they agree that being excluded.

EPISODE STARTING AFTER START OF SECOND SPLIT

AD

SC, Pius XII gave permission to study it, not believe in it.

Benedict XVI, though he's the Pope, has no way of making that stupidity binding on the faithful.

If you believe it, or just want to defend people's supposed "rights" to believe it, then you're going to have to settle that with your own conscience. It's not Catholic. It's opposed to the Fathers of the Church. It's absurd. It's a waste of time. It's scientism.

SC

How very incredible you would make the Faith.

As I do not reject wholesale similar statements of the postconciliar Magisterium, my conscience is quite at ease.

HGL

AD, "Benedict XVI, though he's the Pope, has no way of making that stupidity binding on the faithful."

Is ... as in his resignation was invalid?

But actually, not only no Pope has any way of making that stupidity binding, it is a real suspicion if the man was not a heretic while uttering those words, and if that was before election of 2005 (or if he made similar ones while apparently cardinal) he was never elected, since he had made himself ineligible.

AD

I'm not passing any judgement on any pope. All I know is that Benedict XVI was elected, and is still alive. Francis was also elected. My judgement is that we have 2 living popes.

Whether or not his resignation was valid will have to be determined by the Church at some point in the future. I don't know enough about popes resigning to know if it can even legally be done.

HGL

WHO does [have that kind of knowledge]?

But a theological position like that one is heretical, and I know that a man holding it while otherwise elected Pope was disqualified by heresy - if that position was pertinacious.

So far he has not shown otherwise.

SECOND SPLIT

1 - 6 are now the diverse parts of each word between SC and me, and we are here splitting up the dialogue according to numeration. On 3 - 6 SC will be giving me the last word. On 1/2 I will at one point give a unitary answer, which will lead up to the end.

1

SC

(1) And what exactly is "not much older?" How old must I believe the universe to be before I am in disagreement with the Fathers?

HGL

So old that retelling the story you believe in your own words to a modern scientific public would entail not chosing the words of Genesis and the Fathers.

SC

(1) Since we have been arguing *this whole time* whether the literal sense of the words contained in Genesis are compatible with a scientific understanding of the age of the earth and the descent of living creatures, my case is that, yes, certainly the literal sense of the words of Genesis is true.

2

SC

(2) The Creationists are building an amusement park at great cost near my house, where they have already built a museum. They are not welcome everywhere, but they are welcome in certain places, and they have money. I certainly don't see productive research coming from their model.

HGL

I do not see productive research coming from people engaged in dating dinosaur bones to 65 million years Before Present either. And those guys have LOTS of more money.

SC

(2) To quote Pope S. John Paul II,

"Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than an hypothesis.* In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."

1 and 2)

HGL

Here is where we disagree, and I do not count the pseudo-canonised previously pseudo-pope Wojtyla as an authority.

Above

Will be answered by SC at the END.

3)

SC

(3) "One could argue even contradicted?" It is a model that proves explanatory and even predictive of both fossil and genetic data.

HGL

Except of course the genetic data they chose to disregard.

Like impossibility of chromosome fission resulting in new pairs of chromosomes, especially in mammals.

SC

It is very weak to rest a scientific case on a negative claim. One thing I do know, however, that they do not "ignore" this problem, but study it like everything else, which is why you can find it discussed in the scientific literature.

HGL

My claim is NOT negative. It is a claim about positive obstacles making chromosome fissions (outside evil genetic engineering) as giving rise to new pairs of chromosomes, biologically impossible in mammals.

So, this is a strong argument.

So strong, when I had argued it under PZ Myers' blog post on subject, he deleted comments after a date that by a year or so preceded my first comment, i e he deleted all my comments.

Here, SC Discussed no further.

I on my part forgot to answer his claim that the problem is discussed in the scientific literature. It is, but VERY cautiously. IN Sweden we say "like a cat around hot porridge".

Since he did not dispute my reclaim, I did not have a chance to link (in the thread, as I had intended, had he not avoided the issue) to my own contribution to the discussion:

Creation vs. Evolution : Letter to Nature on Karyotype Evolution in Mammals
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2011/11/letter-to-nature-on-karyotype-evolution.html

Which omission I have here before my readers corrected.

4)

SC

St. Thomas Aquinas appears to disagree with your notion of contingency in the Universe, in SCG 3a, 75.

HGL

S c G, III, 75 Chapter 75
THAT GOD’S PROVIDENCE APPLIES TO CONTINGENT SINGULARS

Which is what I said.

SC

Here is what you said, "Reality is sufficiently contingent for it to mean the first," in response to my claim that Providence cannot *merely* mean God's manual intervention into reality, but can also mean His good ordering of that reality, in knowledge, to direct things to their ends.

Here is what St. Thomas says:

"However, suppose someone says that God takes care of these singulars to the extent of preserving them in being, but not in regard to anything else; this is utterly impossible. In fact, all other events that occur in connection with singulars are related to their preservation or corruption. So, if God takes care of singulars as far as their preservation is concerned, He takes care of every contingent event connected with them."

Also St. Thomas' favorite example of the master arranging the meeting between two servants by sending them both to market at the same time. It appears a chance event to them, when in fact it was carefully planned from the beginning.

[I forgot to answer that one on thread, unless he added to the comment afterwards, but here St Thomas is not saying anything on careful providential plans from the beginning having to be subsumed in the general rules - on the contrary, a master sending both to a market would be manually working that providence outside the general rules of the household, if not against them.]

HGL

4) Your quote from St Thomas neither contradicts my position, nor any of my actual words.

My point is that ORDERING THINGS IN NECESSARY RELATIONS is what God did during the creation week, and those relations do not change.

PROVIDENCE is taking care of singulars. The passage you just cited means God is not only taking care of each singular with a view to itself, but also with a view to other singulars in view of necessary relations between such established ... previous to the providence, under creation week.

5, context

[St Augustine on creation of intelligible light to exclusion or inclusion of visible light on day one]

SC

I'm not arguing for exclusion here, but inclusion.

HGL

Good, then ALL church Fathers agree God created visible light on day one. And therefore that He created it independently of the Sun.

How so? Even if to St Augustine, in the one-moment-exposition, the six days are not temporally consecutive, they are however ordered in an order of internal necessity. Meaning light necesarily comes before the sun, not the reverse.

SC

Which makes sense, given that more than the Sun in this Universe gives off light. My question was about literal days.

HGL

More than the sun gives off light? No, no, no, this is NOT what I meant.

I meant God created visible LIGHT before He created ANY light source, naturally such. Including, but NOT limited to the Sun.

A bit like bread being the natural cause of the accidents of bread, how it looks, etc. BUT in Holy Eucharist God upholds accidents of bread very much without this natural source of these accidents.

6

SC

So, to (1) you apparently mean "less than a literal week." Why would the first day be a space of 24 hours, when the Sun had not yet even been created?

HGL

Indeed, the Patristic Options are:

• a) a Literal Week (all Church Fathers, incuding St Augustine in Book One of De Genesi) perhaps minus a few hours;
• b) Less, i e a single moment (St Augustine in Books 5 - 6 of De Genesi ad Literam).

Your question was answered in Book one of the Genesi ad Literam, I think it was chapter ten. Heaven rotated before Sun rotated with it. God had divided a light part or light direction of the universe from a dark part or earth shade direction of the universe before creating the Sun, and therefore when later He created the Sun, it just started going along.

Actually, one could argue, all days prior to creation of Sun may have had the length of stellar days, that is the speed of rotation of the Universe. I e a few minutes less than 24 h.

SC

But, my question is not answered because that is not how day and night work.

HGL

"God had divided a light part or light direction of the universe from a dark part or earth shade direction of the universe before creating the Sun"

That is indeed not how night and day work now.

"and therefore when later He created the Sun, it just started going along."

That is however how night and day work now, therefore your question is answered.

Yes, I am a Geocentric, both because this aspect of creation week warrants it AND because it takes care of Distant Starlight problem.

End of

Second split. SC answering some of above, and me replying will start the END.

EPISODE NEAR END OF SECOND SPLIT

SDKR @ friend

do you believe?

Friend

Yes.

SDKR

then why ask?

its like asking, do you believe in the blessed trinity?

of course i do. duh

Friend

Because a Catholic I know does not and I was wondering about my friends on here.

SDKR

is he or she in your fb account?

why wonder?

i know no catholic who doesnt agree with the catholic church's teaching. solemn or ordinary. submission. we are the church taught.

if one considers himself or herself as catholic, SUBMIT!

[Edoting remark: Sure, but some guys, I think SC is among them, submit to a pseudomagisterium - to acts that would not be sufficiently magisterial for that submission even if their doers were holders of magisterium.]

END

SC

We are not making any headway. We have discovered no common ground further in the course of this discussion than that with which we began. I think our principal disagreement is, as you pointed out (1) & (2).

Pius XII permitted discussion at least, and at latest John Paul II permitted belief. That cinches it for me. That will never cinch it for you.

[Editor: And therefore he thinks any discussion of what evidence is about chromosome numbers or what St Thomas said about providence is superfluous to him?]

HGL

Pius XII did not go further than permit discussion, and provisorical holding in discussions.

John Paul II did not only permit but recommend belief. That means there is an abyss separating their two doctrines.

AM

Hans-Georg Lundahl in software engineering terms, God created classes before he created instances of the classes (objects).

HGL

That would be what St Augustine was saying. And that the creating of classes took a single instant for God, but six or seven instants for angels looking on. St Thomas harmonises the views insofar as he says God THEN created the first (or with Sun/Moon and a few more: only) instances DURING A WEEK of really successive time. Thank you AM.

SC

Why permit discussion on a thing if it is impossible that it be true? One of the possible results of a discussion would in fact be the recommendation of belief in the thing that has been discussed. They exist in continuity with one another, particularly given the enormous space of decades between them.

HGL

Pius XII was stalking for time.

The one recommendation the Church COULD finally give was of the traditional doctrine.

The Church cannot define evolution to be true and revealed in Depositum Fidei any more than she can define Heliocentrism to be true and defined in Depositum Fidei.

SC

A Pontiff's personal recommendation of scientific belief on scientific grounds and his authoritative judgment (which presumably accompanies it) that such belief is compatible with Christian doctrine are distinct.

HGL

Which PRESUMABLY accompanies it?

The problem is there was no EXPLICIT authoritative judgement that either Heliocentrism or Darwinism was compatible with Christian belief. Ever. And there might be a reason for that.

In my view, the reason is that such an authoritative statement would equal "infallible heresy" = a statement claming infallibility while being heretical as to content = a proof the one making it was not Pope while making it, and that means, acc. to most theologians WE consult, a proof he was never validly elected Pope, since a heretic and ineligible in the first place.

Meaning St Robert Bellarmine went through the theoretical worst case scenarios, and he concluded, among other things, that a man who was Catholic while elected Pope could never, while staying Pope, become a heretic.

So, if an apparently elected Pope not by slip of tongue but in the most solemn manner imaginable utters a heresy, he is proving he was never Pope.

Leo XIII, Benedict XV both AVOIDED doing that by explicitly endorsing Heliocentrism, so they only hinted indirectly Heliocentrism might just possibly be licit. So as to keep in their persons the faith, so as to keep their authority, so that persons on lower levels endorsing Heliocentrism in what they considered obedience to them would at least be subjectively obeying a real Pope. And Pius XII seems to have done sth like that about Darwinism. With JP-II, B-XVI, "Formula I" we are seeing a real break.

Even J-XXIII and P-VI where conducting a more quiet break, with acceptance of psychology.

SC

(1) Presumably may be used in many senses. Rephrased, "which it would make sense be given at the same time," rather than, "which I presume to be understood in the first."

(2) And what does an EXPLICIT authoritative judgment take? As I am aware, there is no explicit judgment on the part of papal magisterium that I cannot accept most of evolutionary doctrine. There are your theses, held privately, about the consensus patruum, but as I am aware, this has never been formally invoked to compel the beliefs of Catholics on a "six-day-or-less" Creation, as you would have it. There are certain points that are given as non-negotiable, including the origin of humanity from a single pair, &c., but none of these needs contradict modern biological theory.

(3) The heliocentrism "problem," if you're going to be accurate, should be taken back past Leo XIII to Benedict XIV, who permitted publication of heliocentrist works.

HGL

"As I am aware, there is no explicit judgment on the part of papal magisterium that I cannot accept most of evolutionary doctrine."

Council of Trent explicitly condemns non-patristic exegesis of Genesis as well as any other parts of the Bible. You have shown no way around the Patristic explicit unity on an earth that is millennia old rather than millions or billions of years.

A bit more explicit than that: Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Charles Darwin, had his book placed on the index.

"There are certain points that are given as non-negotiable, including the origin of humanity from a single pair, &c., but none of these needs contradict modern biological theory."

One of the non-negotiables is Adam's soul created directly by God.

This means that if he corporeally descended from non-humans, his consciousness would have been radically different from that of his parents.

This would have made it impossible for him to honour the parent animaks of which he was a human offspring - unless he lost them before he became a human. And that again would imply death before sin.

Also, Pius XII is not alone in speaking of the first human couple. Our Lord did so too. Marc 10:6. Does NOT look pretty comparing timescales ... if you take the evolutionary view.

"Benedict XIV, who permitted publication of heliocentrist works."

Benedict XIV permitted publication of works treating of heliocentrism as a hypothesis. NOT works treating it as real truth.

Hence the Settele case.

Father Anfossi was overridden. But - one thing Sungenis said and one thing I know myself about this affair - the then Pope had no access to the 1633 condemnations, he was even misled about their contents (thanks, Sungenis), AND the Pope did NOT explicitly state a Catholic was free to believe such printed works as that of Settele.

I studied THAT one more than a year ago:

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Father Filippo Anfossi was right against Giuseppe Settele
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2013/02/father-filippo-anfossi-was-right.html

So, Benedict XIV and Pius VII BOTH refused to make an explicit retraction of the 1633 ruling, and BOTH refused to make an explicit endorsement of the Copernican system as not at variance with faith. They only made lesser acts which could reasonably be presumed to imply Copernican theory was OK.

QUOTE:

In 1829 "when a statue to Copernicus was being unveiled at Warsaw, and a great convocation had met in the church for the celebration of the mass as part of the ceremony, at the last moment the clergy refused in a body to attend a service in honor of a man whose book was on the Index." And in the same year, a Spanish bishop consulted the Roman Inquisition about whether the Copernican system could be retained, and instead of a definite answer he was sent the recent rulings stemming from the Settele episode.

FROM

Retrying Galileo, 1633-1992
Par Maurice A. Finocchiaro [p. 198]

Settele had changed a phrase before getting a first imprimatur. He claimed to have in his book a proof that the earth moves. I am afraid it is not a proof receivable for a Thomistic metaphysician.

EPILOGUE

SC

Multum videtur mihi legendum, domne! Gratias pro explicationibus tuis perplenis tibi ago. Nec do, nec concedo, sed haudquaquam plus contribuere possim nisi plus et legem.

Tuas paginas interretales maximo studio adspiciebam.

HGL

Bene est, aspice et hanc paginam:

[Hanc ipsissimam, in quam uinculum dare superfluum uidetur.]

SC

Mirabile visu! Tot dialogos quasi Neoplatonicos! Quisnam autem sum? Sumne Timaeus?

HGL

Es "SC".