Showing posts with label de iacobo akin. Show all posts
Showing posts with label de iacobo akin. Show all posts

Wednesday, 3 April 2019

Antipope Bergoglio : One Good, One Bad


Antipope Bergoglio : One Good, One Bad · In Previous, I was lauding Antipope Bergoglio for one comment

By the good one he gives some people a strong impression he's Catholic.

By the bad one, he uses that impression (whether from this or previous occasions) to seduce into error.

Good one first:

LifeSiteNews : Pope Francis rejects abortion in cases of rape: It’s never okay to hire ‘assassin’ to solve ‘problem’
Martin M. Barillas | News | Abortion, Catholic Church | Tue Apr 2, 2019 - 12:37 pm EST
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-asks-when-is-it-licit-to-hire-a-murderer-to-solve-an-abortion


Near the end of a wide-ranging interview that touched on immigration, homosexuality, and the Catholic Church’s response to the sexual abuse crisis, Évole posed an extreme theoretical case of a girl victim of trafficking who is impregnated as a result of rape. When the journalist asked if the Pope could understand the girl’s choice to end her child’s life, the Pope said, “I would understand her desperation, but I also know that it is not licit to eliminate a human life in order to solve a problem.”

When Évole countered, “And in one of those extreme cases?” the Pope asked, “Is it licit to eliminate a human life to solve a problem? Is it licit to hire someone to eliminate [the baby]? The answer is yours, not mine.” Évole refused to answer, saying, “No, I have not come to answer. I am going to try to get as many answers from you that I can.”


Excellent observation.

There have been Jesuits who have said that using the methods of an assassin is OK, if it is against someone whom legitimate state authority condemns in contumaciam, for a serious crime, but in that case the person would not be actually an assassin.

However, the abortionist is in a very different position from that : his methods differ from that of the Classic hitman, because his victim is not able to defend himself, but the moral is still that the victim is innocent, and therefore the act is murder, like any other assassination or death camp.

I would, if I were giving an interview to Jordi Évole obviously add that I am for civil law punishing both aborting mothers and abortion providers. In a case when parents and boyfriends have pushed a very young girl (say 13) to abort, I would hold such a mother guiltless and consider such parents and such boyfriends (or his parents) need to get punished.

Here is the bad one:

LifeSiteNews : Pope Francis warns Moroccan Christians against ‘proselytism’
Dorothy Cummings McLean | News | Catholic Church, Faith | Tue Apr 2, 2019 - 11:53 am EST
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pope-francis-warns-moroccan-christians-against-proselytism


“What are Christians like, in these lands? To what can we compare them?” he asked. “They are like a little yeast that Mother Church wants to mix in with a great quantity of flour until all of it is leavened,” he continued.

“For Jesus did not choose us and send us forth to become more numerous! He called us to a mission. He put us in the midst of society like a handful of yeast: the yeast of the Beatitudes and the fraternal love by which, as Christians, we can all join in making present his kingdom.”

Francis stated that the Christian mission does not consist in baptizing more Christians but in generating “change” and awakening “wonder and compassion.” He said that Christians do this by the way they live with their non-Christian neighbours. The pope condemned proselytization — the attempt to bring others into the Christian community — and cited the words of his predecessor.

“In other words, the paths of mission are not those of proselytism. Please, these paths are not those of proselytism! Let us recall Benedict XVI: ‘the Church grows not through proselytism, but through attraction, through witness’,” he said.


Well, proselytism is one way of doing that.

It is not the only way, and it is usually not the duty of each Christian layman, but it is definitely the duty of the Church as a whole. In some cases it may be especially incumbent on a layman, as he may be the only man able to reach out to a friend or colleague who is not Catholic.

See Matthew 28.

Antipopes Ratzinger and Bergoglio are basically saying a Church that stays quiet and isn't missionary is still a Church. Locally, this may hold, but universally, this may not hold. The Japanese Catholics who stayed hidden between the time when the Shogun persecuted them and the time when Catholicism was made licit again, they may have stayed a Church, or God may have damned some of them for not being missionary, but if they did stay a Church, it was thanks to their being in Communion with Catholics who were proselytising.

Like Veuillot, a man who proselytised Freemasons and Liberal Catholics. Like Father Kolbe of holy memory, whose Rycerz Niepokalanej was proselytising both Freemasons and Jews.

The sentiment of the so called Pope reminds me of that of Communists who between 1952 and 1981 forbade the publication of Rycerz Niepokalanej.

Now, there is a time ago, when Bergoglio said a similar thing to Scalfari, and Jimmy Akin commented on that.

New Catholic Register : Did Pope Francis just say that evangelization* is “nonsense”? 8 things to know and share
Jimmy Akin | Blogs | Oct. 1, 2013
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/did-pope-francis-just-say-that-evangelization-is-nonsense-8-things-to-know


Jimmy Akin has undertaken there to defend "Pope Francis" against a charge of not taking the duty of evangelising seriously.

So, what was the exact word of Bergoglio? Note, Scalfari is an atheist, and Bergoglio as supposedly Pope Francis supposedly represents Christianity or Catholicism, and here is the story as told by Scalfari:

The Pope smiles and says: "Some of my colleagues who know you told me that you will try to convert me."

It's a joke I tell him. My friends think it is you want to convert me.

He smiles again and replies: "Proselytism is solemn nonsense, it makes no sense. We need to get to know each other, listen to each other and improve our knowledge of the world around us.
"

What has Jimmy Akin to say?

5) Does Pope Francis’s statements regarding proselytization mean that he believes we should not evangelize or convert people?

No. Pope Francis has an extremely clear focus on evangelization.

...

6) Isn’t proselytization the same thing as evangelization?

Although the word has historically been used this way, in recent decades a new, technical meaning for “proselytization” has emerged in ecclesiastical circles.

It is not the same thing as evangelization, and Pope Francis was not dissing evangelization in his remarks.

7) So what is “proselytization” in this new sense?

Basically, it’s trying to strong-arm people into the faith, putting undue pressure on them rather than allowing them to make a free choice for Christ. ...


Does it really mean that?

In fact, if I argue with someone, for instance arguing that Matthew 28:20 requires the Church to have been present and (in the light of Matthew 5:15 visibly so) all centuries, and this would leave sufficient traces to verify the presence of the Church historically, then a Protestant would protest I were trying to "strong-arm" him into Catholicism. Or putting undue pressure. As long as he was not in fact convinced by my argument, he would feel the pressure my tactic was trying to put on his error by pointing out it leads to Christianity being untrue, Christ's promise not kept, even if it was made both in Matthew 28:20 and Matthew 16:18, was an undue pressure. Even if he were convinced, someone who was in his Protestant surroundings would feel that the pressure I had put on his error was an undue pressure. And if they in turn were convinced, someone else would feel that.

In theory, one could have a Catholic hierarchy strongly forbidding strong-arming, but highly recommending arguing well. But in practise, if the hierarchy (supposed such) says that so and so is proselytising, in the sense of strong-arming, it is arguable that they have simply caved in to the Pharisaic scandal taken by someone over a Catholic using strong arguments. Which the Catholic has a right to use, because they are true. In other words, the hierarchy is willing to have no blame over proselytising in their own ranks, but to tell any outsider "scandalised" by some layman "proselytising" that sure, the outsider was free to go after that proselytiser, the hierarchy has no part in him.

So, in fact, the word proselytisation or proselytism, it means in practise some outsider accused so and so of proselytism, accused so and so of strong-arming.

It is probably taken over from "Orthodox" who were caving in to Communism, and what Bergoglio told Christians in Morocco is precisely what Patriarchate of Moscow was saying in the 70's and continuing to say in the 80's. It is the same rot as when - I think it was Kirill - said that forbidding abortion is "Christian Sharia" - even if it was Christian legislation from the time of Constantine to the Russian Revolution. I think I later saw a contrary statement from Kirill, he stated abortion must be forbidden, which is correct. But in certain decades, Russian Orthodox of the Moscow type (not the ROCOR type) were criticising Evangelicals and Catholics for demanding Pro-Life politics.

Morocco allows abortion to save a woman's life, to preserve her physical health, to preserve her mental health, after rape and incest and in case of foetal impairment. So, Morocco has a very anti-Christian take on abortion, allowing too much, and forbidding only in case of economic and social factors and on request. In that sense, Morocco is nearly comparable to Communist dictatorships. Only, usually they allowed abortion then too. Belarus, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Hungary, Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Slovakia, Ukraine still have abortion free for all these cases. This is a horrible list of shame. Same goes for Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Greece, Italy, Kosovo, Montenegro, Portugal, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Republic of Macedonia, most of which are ex-Communist, and had the same arrangement under Communism, but Italy, Spain and Portugal changed laws to more Communist ones after Fascism was ended.

Here is how this list of shame began:

By the mid 20th century, many countries had begun to liberalize abortion laws, at least when performed to protect the life of the woman, and in some cases on woman's request. Under Vladimir Lenin, the Soviet Union legalized abortions on request in 1920. The Bolsheviks saw abortion as a social evil created by the capitalist system, which left women without the economic means to raise children, forcing them to perform abortions. The Soviet state initially preserved the tsarists ban on abortion, which treated the practice as premeditated murder. However, abortion had been practiced by Russian women for decades and its incidence skyrocketed further as a result of the Russian Civil War, which had left the country economically devastated and made it extremely difficult for many people to have children. The Soviet state recognized that banning abortion would not stop the practice because women would continue using the services of private abortionists. In rural areas, these were often old women who had no medical training, which made their services very dangerous to the women's health. In November 1920 the Soviet regime legalized abortion in state hospitals. The state considered abortion as a temporary necessary evil, which would disappear in the future communist society, which would be able to provide for all the children conceived.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law

This gives us occasion to look back on one bad aspect even on the good news, the news where Bergoglio was interviewed by Jordi Évole and he stated:

When Évole countered by saying that in some countries there are women who have been imprisoned for participating in the abortion of their children, the Pope said, “I won’t argue about the civil law of each country. My question comes before civil law, before Church law, to the human: Is it just to eliminate a human being to solve a problem? Is it just to hire an assassin to solve a problem? Everything else stems from that. That is the basic question.”


Obviously, a Catholic should defend the legislation which punishes abortion. A statement like "I won’t argue about the civil law of each country" is at best a bit over cautious, but could also mean a refusal to admit that Christ has a right to rule over bodies as well as over souls, and therefore through State as well as through Church.

Note, this right of Christ does not mean that the state can sacrosanctify itself as representative of Christ when doing anti-Christian legislation. Moroccan law saying that converting to Christianity is forbidden and merits prison is a crime, not a law, and in that law, Morocco's state (from Mohammed VI down to the least police constable) is not representing Christ. Precisely as Nero was representing Christ when punishing thieves, but not when martyring Christians.

Similarily, abortion cannot be allowed just because Nero, Lenin or Mohammed VI are not or not sufficiently forbidding it. These men were not representing Christ in that respect. Christ has a right to rule through the state, and a secular ruler who allows abortion or forbids conversion to Catholicism or forbids Catholics to remain Catholics despite antipopes like Ratzinger and Bergoglio, is stealing from Christ.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre UL
Pope St. Xystus I**
3.IV.2019

* Jimmy Akin uses the American spellings, where Greek verbs in -izo get -ize. ** Romae natalis beati Xysti Primi, Papae et Martyris; qui, temporibus Hadriani Imperatoris, summa cum laude rexit Ecclesiam, ac demum, sub Antonino Pio, ut sibi Christum lucrifaceret, libenter mortem sustinuit temporalem.

This one is so good, that Bergoglio cannot yet be completely the false prophet:

America : Pope Francis says give to the homeless, don't worry about how they spend it, as Lent begins
Michael J. O’Loughlin February 28, 2017
https://www.americamagazine.org/politics-society/2017/02/28/pope-francis-says-give-homeless-dont-worry-about-how-they-spend-it-lent


I don't mean he is not a likely candidate, but even Satan was once good. My point is, this is a sign he has not yet fallen that deeply, and can still avert it./HGL

Wait, perhaps I spoke too soon./HGL

Thursday, 7 February 2019

Rivalling Jimmy Akin, as Scholastic


When I say "rivalling", I am treating him as a man of goodwill. There is a word that says Noli aemulari in malignantibus somewhere in Psalm 36. Ergo, I am rivalling only a man of goodwill ... which Jimmy Akin is at least showing on this occasion by being a scholastic. I have not yet heard his audio, so I don't know he blows it. Here is first from Mark Shea's intro to Jimmy:

All of which is to say that Jimmy Akin stands in a deeply Catholic–and proudly nerdly–tradition of theological speculation as he ponder the wonderfully weird, but very interesting question of (among other things) teleportation and the Eucharist.

Jimmy Akin Stands in a Grand Tradition of Catholic Speculation
February 6, 2019 by Mark Shea
https://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2019/02/jimmy-akin-stands-in-a-grand-tradition-of-catholic-speculation.html


So do I. I also stand in it.

Now, there is a link to Akin's audio, here ...

Catholic Answers Live : Weird Questions
Jimmy Akin | February 02, 2019 - 12am
https://www.catholic.com/audio/cal/8914


... and I find on it not just the audio I cannot access right now, but also a list of questions:

  • 01:36 - In the Swedish New Testament, we use Lukas for Luke, Matteus for Mathew, Markus for Mark and Johannes for John. What were the names in the original language?
  • 08:40 - If teleportation is ever invented, would a teleported Eucharist still be the body of Christ?
  • 14:20 - Is there a parallel universe?
  • 21:40 - If we discovered extraterrestrial life, would we evangelize them or only teach the cardinal virtues?
  • 29:02 - What is the Church’s stance on Ghosts, specters, and hauntings? Can a soul that’s departed this life stick around to “haunt” things or can these be interpreted as demons trying to “trick” us?
  • 30:34 - How can we square scientific discoveries of early human life and the creation story?
  • 35:00 - Will those who have died and been buried on Mars miss out on the final Resurrection?
  • 44:25 - Can angels appear as dogs and cats?
  • 45:51 - Are binaural and isochronic tones safe, from a Spiritual standpoint? Does the Church have anything to say on these?
  • 48:15 - What may the existence of the Holy Grail mean for the faith?
  • 50:42 - If Limbo does exist as the afterlife of unbaptized infants, are they aware of their status of being outside of heaven?
  • 53:00 - Can you debunk the flat earth theory?


Here are my own answers, before hearing even a second of his audio:

  • 01:36 - In the Swedish New Testament, we use Lukas for Luke, Matteus for Mathew, Markus for Mark and Johannes for John. What were the names in the original language?


Greek : Loukas, Matthaios, Markos, Ioannes.
Latin : Lucas, Matthaeus, Marcus, Iohannes

Now, English gets its names from older French pronunciations of them, and possibly Sweden might have had a similar system in which one Gospel was "Sankt Mats Evangelium" and another "Sankt Hans Evangelium". If this ever was so (probably not, but I'd need to check) this was ended because of how Reformation brought Renaissance Humanism to Sweden (the Petri brothers were disciples of Luther, who had at one time been disciple or admirer of Erasmus), and one of the perks or pains in the asses of Renaissance Humanism, depending on where you stand (I'm 50% / 50 %) is bringing back the old pronunciation and old spelling. Hence someone having either of the two or three John's of the new Testament would since then equally be called "Hans" or "Jan" or "Johan" or "Johannes" depending in style register parents were aiming for. A bit like a Russian might equally be known as Ivan (that form seems Ukrainean in origin) or as Ioan (the Church Slavonic form).

  • 08:40 - If teleportation is ever invented, would a teleported Eucharist still be the body of Christ?


Probably it cannot ever be invented.

The answer would depend on how the probably impossible invention would be working in a way that is probably impossible for natural causes to achieve.

  • 14:20 - Is there a parallel universe?


As far as we know, there is not.

However, God could have created one, or several, as easy as that. Narnia is not a fact, but it is not impossible for God. Parallel incarnation of the Son as Aslan probably is, since the incarnations would be valid in heaven, which according to the premiss is common to all parallel worlds, but that can be fixed by considering God the Son as Incarnate Man is in Narnia present under the accidents of a lion. However, that would need some speculations on what actually happened when in the book Aslan tickled Bree's ear and said "I am a true beast".

  • 21:40 - If we discovered extraterrestrial life, would we evangelize them or only teach the cardinal virtues?


We won't.

If the universe is small, the stars are probably too small to have habitable planets around them. Even if it is not much larger than so far proven, travel would take too much time. I mean, the radius from Earth in the centre is at least one light day out, and in 40 years a fairly small probe as Voyager 1 has only come as far as 18 light hours out, about.

Other question, if we discovered hitherto undiscovered populations, and they seemed to be human rather than angelic or demonic, we should evangelise them if they did not already know the Gospel. And sorting out whether human, angelic or demonic would take some doing. Also, supposing a race of very longeval men had lived underground since a fourth son of Noah (the three sons are fathers of all populations above ground, so if a fourth son ever was born, either he has no descendants or his descendants live under ground, or they form no speparate population, unlike the ones descended from sons and grandsons of the three sons) and had what seemed like magic powers to us, they could do fairly roundabout manoeuvers to avoid us asking many questions or give them any tips.

Narnia is in this respect somewhat ... a mixed bag, theologically. On the one hand, men in Narnia are adamites, descended from Frank and Helen or from pirates in the south sea or other people in our world. On the other side, there are humanoids of whom it is implied they are not true men.

Giants, dwarfs, centaurs, fauns and marshwiggles are on the one hand bodies with rational souls, and therefore men, corresponding to "homo est animal rationale" and on the other hand created separately from Frank and Helen and therefore presumably not Adamites, therefore not partaking in Adam's fall and therefore not eligible to Christ's redemption. A bit like some view Cro-Magnons and Neanderthals as pre-Adamites. This is impossible.

  • 29:02 - What is the Church’s stance on Ghosts, specters, and hauntings? Can a soul that’s departed this life stick around to “haunt” things or can these be interpreted as demons trying to “trick” us?


Both occur, but demonic frauds are more common. First, apparitions of saints from heaven do not count here, as they are visibly different from ghosts by being glorious.

Second, demonic frauds definitely abound (including some false apparitions, that is why it is important to see what the Church said about an apparition, like Shiluva and Lourdes are approved Marian ones and the time when St James personally walked back to the parish his statue had been stolen from is at least not disapproved).

Third, souls from Hell or Purgatory could be given permission to appear for two purposes, I'll give the best-knonw literary examples:

  • Scrooge could really see the ghost of Marley warning him against joining him in Hell for sins of greed and incompassion (or any other mortal sins, but those were the besetting ones of Scrooge, except on Chesterton's analysis of the work - he had secretly been giving away Turkeys all his life);
  • the Ghost of Canterville could really appear in order to ask intercessionary prayer to get him from Purgatory (however, the other parts of the story seem to colour, excuse the pun, this story with motives borrowed from Poltergeists who are usually demonic).


The more serious magisterial motive for accepting these two cases are St Gregory the Great saying so in Dialogues.

  • 30:34 - How can we square scientific discoveries of early human life and the creation story?


No problem - once we see the limits of science.

Göbekli Tepe was built by men. One could imagine it built by giants and men only coming in as unlucky involuntary guest, we do know about human guests in Göbekli Tepe. Who did not enjoy the end of their stay, presumably. They are skulls with holes in them and cut off from their bodies, and the skulls were put on a rope, one above another.

Bottom layers of Göbekli Tepe are carbon dated to, I think, calibrated 9600 BC. Top layer is similarily dated to 8600 BC.

If we accept the dates, we are left with pre-Adamites, which is theologically impossible.

If we accept they were fallen men, descended from Adam, and Adam was really created 5199 or 5500 years (some would even try 4004 years) before Christ, then we must conclude something has been pushing the carbon dating to a mis-dating.

The very simple solution is, carbon 14 levels were rising, Göbekli Tepe is Babel, and so the carbon level at the start after the death of Noah in 2607 BC was such as to give an "instant age" of an extra 6993 years. And at the end, in the time when Peleg was born, as Julius Africanus specifically allows us to calculate 401 years after the Flood, 2556 BC, the carbon level had risen so as to give only an "instant age" of 6044 years. One could match the levels a bit more narrowly to each other, so as to make Babel last only 40 years, rather than 51, but I enjoy remaking calculations on this one and similar ones. This example would imply carbon level in 2607 was 42.916 percent of modern carbon 14 (percent modern Carbon, and abbreviated pmC, in French pCm since adjective is turned about), and in 2556 it has risen to 48.136 pmC. I use the carbon date calculator for this one, link below under the calculations.

Now, how much faster was carbon 14 being produced than now in this case?

2607 carbon level was 42.916 pmC. How much would be left of that 51 years later?

99.385 pmC is what a 51 year old organic object has these start out with 100 pmC. So, 99.385 % of 42.916 pmC = 42.6520666 pmC (the last three digits are appropriate for Nimrod's work ... giving calculation to make under link to the calculator).

How much new carbon is now formed in 51 years? Well, atmosphere unlike 51 year old dead organic objects has access to new carbon. And atmosphere now as then is 100 pmC.

100 pmC - 99.385 pmC = 0.6149999999999949 or 0.615 pmC.

If you add that, that is, if you suppose carbon 14 was forming at present speed back then, what do you get?

42.6520666 + 0.6149999999999949 = 43.2670665999999949 or 43.267 pmC. What do we want?

48.136 pmC. How much carbon 14 was in fact added?

48.136 pmC - 42.6520666 pmC = 5.483933400000005 or 5.4839334 or 5.484 pmC.

Now, how much faster was carbon 14 produced? Added carbon 14 = added pmC, so we compare theoretic and actual outcome:

5.483933400000005 / 0.6149999999999949 = 8.9169648780488625634

Carbon 14 was in Babel forming 8.917 times faster than now.

What do I suppose carbon level to have been back at the Flood, and why?

Neanderthals and Denisovans seem to be pre-Flood races, and they both seem to have died out in 40 000 BP. You may have heard of a survival to "ten thousand years later" in Gibraltar, but the Gibraltar cave has dates after 40 000 BP for Mousterian tools, not for carbon dated Neanderthal body parts. All the first 8 post-Flood people had been pre-Flood people and therefore some of them would have known Mousterian ware and how to use it, perhaps also how to produce it.

Let's remake the calculations for 2957 BC vs 38 000 BC (under the link to calculator). We'd need to have the carbon level for 35043 years to know the one for number of "instant years". 1.442 pmC.

Let's remake the calculation of buildup speed too. 1.442 pmC would in 350 years degrade to ... 1.442 pmC * 95.854 % (calculation under links), meaning 1.382 pmC. Meanwhile, normal speed of carbon 14 addition is now in 350 years ...

100 pmC - 95.854 pmC = 4.146 pmC.

And 1.382 pmC + 4.146 pmC = 5.528 pmC, but that is not what we find. For reasons stated we find 42.916 pmC.

42.916 pmC - 1.382 pmC = 41.534 pmC. That is how much carbon was produced net in 350 years.

41.534 pmC / 4.146 pmC = 10.01784852870236 ... let's say 10 times faster. This is compatible with levels of cosmic radiation being sustainable without gross damage to the body. Probably living at the equator back then was a bad idea. Probably living in caves was a good one. And probably this helped to shorten lifespans. AND ... yes, cosmic radiation is higher at times when it also gets colder, more probable (and a mechanism is proposed) cosmic radiation is affecting weather, and so, this also helped to produce the one single post-Flood glaciation.

Now, there are more methods of dating than just carbon 14, but this is the more reliable one. A potassium argon date probably says how cold the water was during the Flood, when lava cooled how much quicker than it would in air and affecting how much more argon was trapped. Note also, the peopling of Australia has as oldest organic and dated remains Mungo man, for whom carbon dates are post-Flood in this scheme.

2957 9600 2957 8600
0350 2607 0401 2556
2607 6993 2556 6044
 
Carbon 14 Dating Calculator
https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/c14/carbdate.html


Scientific Calculator
https://web2.0calc.com/


99.385 * 42.916 / 100 = 42.6520666

1.442 * 95.854 / 100 = 1.38221468
 
38000 9600
-2957 2607
35043 6993


  • 35:00 - Will those who have died and been buried on Mars miss out on the final Resurrection?


If that ever happens, as far as I know it hasn't, no, they will by angels be brought to the right spot.

  • 44:25 - Can angels appear as dogs and cats?


Good angels usually would not take that appearance, though they could, but angels definitely can have some control over behaviour of cats and dogs, so guardian angels can use cats and dogs to save lives (just saw a great video about top tenz how cats saved lives, well, the guardian angels of the people concerned were not inactive and cats were not insensible or rebellious to them).

  • 45:51 - Are binaural and isochronic tones safe, from a Spiritual standpoint? Does the Church have anything to say on these?


I would consider it depends partly on how deep you go, but even more what the "message" is. In case there are verbal messages in a meditation for inducing a trance, obviously one should check there are no suggestions contrary to the faith in it, nothing about "out of body experiences" or "astral journeys", nothing about previous lives, nothing about Hindoo gods.

But as binaural and isochronic tones, that would normally be non-verbal, and that would more depend on what it does to you.

  • 48:15 - What may the existence of the Holy Grail mean for the faith?


That all relics are not accounted for by the Church. There was a time before St Helen discovered the Holy Cross when True Cross was not found and even Holy Grave was covered by a Venus temple.

  • 50:42 - If Limbo does exist as the afterlife of unbaptized infants, are they aware of their status of being outside of heaven?


Yes, and that would be their one sorrow, with no physical suffering to worsen it, and with the consolation they can thank God for physical comforts and therefore have a natural and non-saving love of God.

  • 53:00 - Can you debunk the flat earth theory?


Bible says FOUR corners, and if we project continents from a globe we do get four corners of land. With the projection presupposing North Pole as centre of a disc and South Rim as circumference of it, you get either three corners or have to let Australia count for two corners. Not very impressive match to the Biblical verses. Especially the one where "four points of the compass" is NOT an acceptable interpretation.

After these things, I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that they should not blow upon the earth, nor upon the sea, nor on any tree. (Apocalypse 7:1)

As to observations, I think flight times over large stretches of the globe as well as how the heavens look from Southern hemisphere are, with Magellan's and Elcano's journey, a fairly final scientific proof.

Thus I have answered, tu autem Dne msre nob9!