Errata — corrections to published Sanctum content.
What we got wrong, what is true, and where the fix stands.
Why this page exists
Our Editorial & Production Standards page makes a promise: “Errors discovered after publication are corrected publicly — see the Sed Contra errata page at /sed-contra/errata/ when one is logged.” This is that page, and every entry below names the asset, the error, and the source that settles it.
If you find an error in any Sanctum page, video, or reel — a misattributed quotation, a misnumbered Catechism paragraph, a wrong date, a saint’s canonical status stated wrongly — write to will@1765sanctum.com, and we will correct it, name the correction, and date it here.
| Date | Asset | What we said | Correction | Source | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-09 | Short / reel, “The Three Who Drank Alone” (YouTube, Instagram, and syndicated copies) | The reel presents Matt Talbot as one of “three saints.” | Matt Talbot is Venerable, not a canonized saint. Pope Paul VI declared him Venerable on 3 October 1975; he has not been beatified or canonized. He should have been named “Venerable Matt Talbot.” | Matt Talbot — “Though not formally recognised as a saint, he has been declared Venerable.” | Logged here 11 September 2026. The correction to the video’s own description is written and awaiting a platform sign-in step; the copies on other platforms are pending. |
| 2026-09-09 | Short / reel, “The Three Who Drank Alone” | “…and then forty years of charitable labor for the sick and the dying,” of St. John of God. | About thirteen years, not forty. His conversion came on 20 January 1537 and he died on 8 March 1550 — the hospital ministry ran c. 1537–1550. The error overstates it by roughly twenty-seven years. | John of God — conversion “on Saint Sebastian’s Day (January 20) of 1537”; “died on March 8, 1550.” | Logged here 11 September 2026. The correction to the video’s own description is written and awaiting a platform sign-in step; the copies on other platforms are pending. |
| 2026-09-09 | Short / reel, “The Three Who Drank Alone” | St. Urban of Langres “hid in vineyards during Roman persecution” and was made “patron of those the vine destroys.” | Two errors. Urban of Langres (327 – c. 390) became bishop of Langres in 374 — sixty years after the Edict of Milan — and the accounts describe local political turmoil, not a Roman persecution of Christians. And his patronage is of vine-dressers and vintners, the men who work the vine: we invented a patronage of those destroyed by drink and attributed it to the Church. | Urban of Langres — “sixth bishop of Langres from 374”; “political turmoil erupted”; “Urban is thus the patron saint of vine-dressers.” | Logged here 11 September 2026. The correction to the video’s own description is written and awaiting a platform sign-in step; the copies on other platforms are pending. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — The Trinity as Shirk, Catholic Rebuttal TRIN.3.R | Mary “needed a Savior and was redeemed by her Son like everyone else.” | That reads as a denial of the Immaculate Conception. Mary was truly redeemed by her Son, but from the first moment of her conception, kept free from every stain of original sin by a singular grace, through the merits of Jesus Christ — redeemed “in a more exalted fashion” than any other creature. The sentence now says so. | CCC 491–492 — Mary was redeemed from the first moment of her conception, and more sublimely than any other creature, by reason of her Son’s merits. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Both the visible text and the page’s JSON-LD were changed. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — The Third Temple, TEMPLE.1.R.S.R | The collective-Israel reading of Isaiah 53 “is absent from rabbinic literature before Rashi in the 11th century.” | False, and it flattered our own case. Origen records a Jewish disputant arguing exactly that reading around AD 248 — some eight centuries before Rashi. The page now argues the true and stronger point: the collective reading is ancient, but it was never Judaism’s only reading; the individual messianic reading stands beside it in Israel’s own sources. | Origen, Contra Celsum I.55 — the Jewish opponent replied “that these predictions bore reference to the whole people, regarded as one individual.” Also b. Sanhedrin 98b and Targum Jonathan, Isaiah 52:13. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Both the visible text and the page’s JSON-LD were changed. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — The Crucifixion Denied, CRUC.1.R | The Babylonian Talmud — “a thoroughly anti-Christian source” — “independently affirms the execution.” | Overstated. b. Sanhedrin 43a is late-redacted, its identification with Jesus of Nazareth is disputed, its mode of death in the standard modern text is a stoning with the body hung afterward, and it is not an independent first-century witness. Tacitus and Josephus carry the argument; the page now says so plainly. | b. Sanhedrin 43a (William Davidson edition) — “On Passover Eve they hung the corpse of Jesus the Nazarene after they killed him by way of stoning.” | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Both the visible text and the page’s JSON-LD were changed. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — The Church’s Atrocities and Morality Without God | Islamic conquest had seized “roughly two-thirds of the formerly Christian world.” | The proportion carried no source while every event around it did. It has been removed from all three places it appeared. The named and cited conquests — the Holy Land, Christian North Africa, Egypt, Syria, most of Spain, and Asia Minor after Manzikert (1071) — carry the argument without it. | No source. Removed rather than kept unsourced, per our own standard. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Both the visible text and the page’s JSON-LD were changed. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — The Third Temple, TEMPLE.1.R | Judaism “has been in a 1,955-year emergency.” | Wrong arithmetic (2026 − 70 = 1,956), stale every year, and a taunt at a living people’s worship. Replaced with the point actually being made: the Levitical sin-offerings Ezekiel commands have been impossible for every Jew and every Christian alike since AD 70. | Arithmetic. The sentence now carries no figure that can go stale. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Both the visible text and the page’s JSON-LD were changed. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — The Trinity as Shirk, TRIN.3.R | The Qur’an’s triad “almost certainly reflects a garbled report of the Collyridians.” | The Collyridian link is a scholarly hypothesis, not an established fact, and “garbled” was the only contemptuous word in the whole engine. The page now says the triad may reflect such a report, names the hypothesis as a hypothesis, and keeps the point that matters: whatever its source, that triad is not the Church’s Trinity. | Stated as a hypothesis rather than as fact. No source claims certainty. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Both the visible text and the page’s JSON-LD were changed. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — The Qur’an Preserved, QUR.1.R.S.R.AI.R and QUR.2.R.S.R | A miracle is “exactly the evidence the Qur’an declines to offer for Muhammad”; the Qur’an’s reply was “to disclaim miracle-working”; a miracle “asked for and withheld.” | Wrong about what Islam teaches, and it flattered our own case. Islam claims miracles for Muhammad abundantly — the splitting of the moon among them. Q 17:90-93 refuses signs on demand; it does not deny that he worked any. The page now says so, and rests the Catholic objection where it actually bites: the credential the Qur’an itself presses is the text, and a literary judgment rendered by adherents in one language cannot do the work a public, datable, falsifiable sign does. | Qur’an 54:1 — “The Hour has drawn near and the moon was split [in two].” Also Sahih al-Bukhari 3636, the chapter on the splitting of the moon. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Both the visible text and the page’s JSON-LD were changed where the claim appeared in both. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — The Qur’an Preserved, QUR.1.R | “Uthman’s recension did not preserve that revealed multiplicity — it abolished it.” | Our verdict stated as settled fact. What the aḥruf of Sahih al-Bukhari 4992 means is one of the most disputed questions in the Qur’anic sciences, and mainstream Muslim scholarship holds that the Uthmanic rasm accommodates them and the canonical qira’at preserve them. The page now states the dispute, gives the Muslim answer, and makes the Catholic point that the answer is text plus living authority. | Sahih al-Bukhari 4992 (Book 66), the seven aḥruf and the two recitations of Surat al-Furqan — as quoted in the page’s own citation card. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Both the visible text and the page’s JSON-LD were changed where the claim appeared in both. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — The Qur’an Preserved, QUR.2.R | “A leading early theologian conceded precisely the point the apologetic must deny” (al-Nazzam and ṣarfah). | Al-Nazzam conceded nothing. He affirmed the Qur’an’s inimitability and located it in God’s restraining of the Arabs rather than in the text’s intrinsic superiority. The Catholic point survives without the misdescription, and the citation label no longer calls his position a concession. | The ṣarfah doctrine as reported in the classical sources; the page’s own citation card, now relabelled. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Both the visible text and the page’s JSON-LD were changed where the claim appeared in both. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — The Qur’an Preserved, QUR.1.R | “Among the codices suppressed were those of Ibn Mas’ud and Ubayy ibn Ka’b” — placed under a citation of Sahih al-Bukhari 4987. | A misattribution. Bukhari 4987 says only that “all the other Qur’anic materials… be burnt”; it does not name those two codices. That identification comes from the later maṣaḥif literature, and the page now says which claim rests on which source. The reciter claim is true and now carries its own hadith reference. | Sahih al-Bukhari 4987 (quoted in full on the page) and Sahih al-Bukhari 3808, “learn the recitation of the Qur’an from four…” | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Both the visible text and the page’s JSON-LD were changed where the claim appeared in both. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — Original Sin Is Unjust, RED.1.R.S.R | Carthage’s canons “were received across the universal Church, East included, ratified at Ephesus (431).” | Ephesus did not ratify the African canons. It condemned the Pelagian party; that is a different act. The overreach is deleted, and nothing is asserted in its place, because the conciliar acta were not opened. The argument stands on Carthage’s reception and on Trent, which the page already cites. | Council of Ephesus (431) acta — not opened; the claim is withdrawn rather than replaced. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Both the visible text and the page’s JSON-LD were changed where the claim appeared in both. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — Jesus Is Not Divine (Islam), DIV.1.R.S.R | “the scholarly consensus across the critical spectrum” is that Philippians 2:6-11 is a pre-Pauline hymn. | Overstated, and it flattered our case. It is widely held, not a consensus — serious scholars hold Paul composed it. The argument only ever needed the early date, which nobody disputes, so the page now says “most critical scholars” and adds that even those who think Paul wrote it date it to c. AD 60. | The page’s own argument; no source is claimed for a consensus that does not exist. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Both the visible text and the page’s JSON-LD were changed where the claim appeared in both. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — Jesus Is Not Divine (Islam), Catholic Position, John 1:1 card | The predicate theos is “anarthrous by Greek grammar (Colwell’s rule).” | Colwell’s rule is about definite predicate nouns preceding the verb tending to drop the article; it cannot be run backwards to fix the sense of an anarthrous predicate. The point the argument wants is the qualitative force of an anarthrous preverbal predicate nominative, and the card now says that instead. | Standard Greek grammatical analysis of the anarthrous preverbal predicate nominative; the misapplication is a known one. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Both the visible text and the page’s JSON-LD were changed where the claim appeared in both. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — The Corruption of the Scriptures, TAH.1.S.R.AI.R | The Qur’an’s transmission “ran through a single political authority who suppressed the competing texts” — set against the Bible’s manuscript diffusion. | Incomplete, and it answers a claim Islam does not make. Islam’s primary preservation claim is mass oral transmission (tawatur), not manuscript diffusion. The Muslim answer is now stated on the page and then answered: an oral tradition standing over and fixing the written text is text plus living authority, which is the Catholic structure. | Sahih al-Bukhari 4987, quoted on the companion page; the tawatur claim is Islam’s own and is stated as such. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Both the visible text and the page’s JSON-LD were changed where the claim appeared in both. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — Isaiah 53, ISA53.1.R.S.R and the Catholic Position | “Rashi’s lateness is decisive. The national reading is attested first in the eleventh century”; the collective reading is “the late innovation… eleven hundred years after the apostolic age.” | False, and refuted by this page’s own Origen card. Origen debates a corporate reading with a Jewish interlocutor around AD 248. Rashi made the national reading standard; he did not invent it. The page now claims priority for the messianic reading, not exclusivity — which is both true and stronger. This is the same error the errata log already records on the Third Temple page, found on a second page. | Origen, Contra Celsum I.55; b. Sanhedrin 98b; Targum Jonathan on Isaiah 52:13. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Both the visible text and the page’s JSON-LD were changed where the claim appeared in both. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — Isaiah 53, ISA53.1.R.S.R and ISA53.2.R | The corporate reading “enters history as a polemic against Christianity, not as the native sense of the chapter”; the Targum is “apologetic damage-control.” | Neither is a claim we can make. Origen shows the corporate reading being used in disputation in AD 248; that is not evidence it originated as polemic. And the corporate reading has a real textual anchor this page concedes elsewhere (Isaiah 49:3; 41:8; 44:1, 21). Targum Jonathan is traditionally attributed to a first-century figure with later redaction; its author’s motive is not a datable fact. Both sentences now state what the record shows — order, not motive — and say plainly that we impute no bad faith to Jewish exegesis. | Origen, Contra Celsum I.55; Isaiah 49:3; 41:8; 44:1, 21, cited on the page itself. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Both the visible text and the page’s JSON-LD were changed where the claim appeared in both. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — Isaiah 53, the Sukkah 52a citation cards | The eulogy of Sukkah 52a given flatly as being “for Messiah ben Yosef who was killed.” | An incomplete citation. The folio records two opinions: that the eulogy is for Messiah ben Yosef, killed in the war of Gog from the land of Magog, and that it is for the evil inclination that was killed. The first opinion is all the argument needs, so giving both costs nothing. All five places now give both. | b. Sukkah 52a — both opinions verified at source. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Both the visible text and the page’s JSON-LD were changed where the claim appeared in both. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — Daniel’s Seventy Weeks, DAN9.1.R and the Sanhedrin 97b cards | Rav’s “all the ends of days that were calculated passed” presented as a rabbinic concession that the clock had expired. | The folio does not conclude in expiry. Rav’s view is one side of a dispute with Shmuel, and the curse on those who calculate the end exists precisely so that nobody concludes the Messiah “will no longer come at all” — the same passage directing Israel to Habakkuk 2:3, “though it tarry, wait for it.” The page now says all of this, and makes the narrower claim that is still telling: the tradition felt Daniel’s window closing in that era and answered by setting the clock aside. Completes a correction begun earlier the same day. | b. Sanhedrin 97b — Rav and Shmuel; the curse on calculators; Habakkuk 2:3. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Both the visible text and the page’s JSON-LD were changed where the claim appeared in both. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — The Unfulfilled Messianic Age, MSG.1.R.S.R and .AI.R | “No other figure in history has drawn the nations to the God of Abraham on this scale”; it happened “through Jesus of Nazareth and through him alone.” | A bare superlative that our own Catechism contradicts: the Church teaches that Muslims profess the faith of Abraham and, with us, adore the one, merciful God (Lumen Gentium 16, quoted at CCC 841). The page now says that plainly and makes the narrower claim, which is unmatched: of everyone who has ever claimed Israel’s messianic office, no other drew the nations to Israel’s God at all. | CCC 841 — quoting Lumen Gentium 16. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Both the visible text and the page’s JSON-LD were changed where the claim appeared in both. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — The Divinity of the Messiah, JDIV.1.R.S.R card (and the parallel card on jud-shema) | Sanhedrin 38b’s alternative given as “one [throne] for justice and one for mercy.” | A misquotation. The folio reads “one throne is for judgment and one throne is for righteousness.” The two pages had also been rendering the same line differently from each other; both now read judgment and righteousness. | b. Sanhedrin 38b — verified at source. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Both the visible text and the page’s JSON-LD were changed where the claim appeared in both. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — Psalm 22:16, PS22.1.R.S.R | “the mode of death is the rarest possible.” | Historically false: crucifixion was carried out on a mass scale in Roman Judea. The clause is deleted. Justin’s own narrower claim, which the page already quotes and which is survivable, carries the point unchanged: no one in Israel called King or Christ had ever had his hands and feet pierced. | Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, as already quoted on the page; the superlative was ours, not his. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Both the visible text and the page’s JSON-LD were changed where the claim appeared in both. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — Isaiah 7:14, ISA714.1.R.S.R | Irenaeus “names them by name and explains the motive… The chronology is decisive.” | A polemical attribution by one hostile patristic source, published as established fact about the motives of Jewish translators. We now report Irenaeus’s charge without adopting it, and say that we do not claim to know the revisers’ motives. The chronological claim is narrowed to the undisputed one: the Septuagint reading is pre-Christian and the neanis revisions as we have them are second-century. | Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses III.21.1, as the page cites it — reported, not adopted. The kaige dating that would bear on this was not opened. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Both the visible text and the page’s JSON-LD were changed where the claim appeared in both. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — Isaiah 7:14, ISA714.1.R.S.R | the translators chose parthenos “over the available neanis they used everywhere else.” | The Septuagint is not one translator: Greek Isaiah and Greek Genesis, Exodus and Psalms are different hands, so “they” and “everywhere else” cannot be said. The sentence now attributes the neanis renderings to the other Septuagint translators, which is what the evidence supports. The page’s separate count claim — that parthenos renders almah in only Genesis 24:43 and Isaiah 7:14 — is untouched and does the work. | Internal to the Greek Old Testament; the individual almah renderings were not opened, so no new count is asserted. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Both the visible text and the page’s JSON-LD were changed where the claim appeared in both. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — Is the Mosaic Law Eternal?, LAW.1/2.R.S.R.AI.R | The 2015 Pontifical Commission document referred to as “the magisterium” and as what “the magisterium itself forecloses.” | It is not a magisterial document, by its own preface. Saying so strengthens the page, because the magisterial weight then rests where it actually lies — Nostra Aetate 4 and the Catechism, which teaches (CCC 121) that the books of the Old Testament keep their lasting value because God has never revoked the Old Covenant. | PCRRJ (2015), preface — “The text is not a magisterial document or doctrinal teaching of the Catholic Church, but is a reflection prepared by the Commission…” Also CCC 121. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Both the visible text and the page’s JSON-LD were changed where the claim appeared in both. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — the Judaism tree, eight pagehead and footer notes, and three meta descriptions on jud-ps22 | Every page claimed the answer was built on “primary sources only.” | Not true as written. Eight of the nine pages carry the objection on named modern scholarship — Collins, Gunkel, Segal, Montgomery, Goldingay, Janowski — or on named counter-missionary apologetics. Every one of those sources is clearly attributed in the body; it was the claim about our method that was false. It now reads “primary sources first, with modern scholarship named wherever the objection relies on it.” jud-law, which carries no such source, was left alone. | The pages themselves. A public claim about how the work is made has to match how it is made. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Both the visible text and the page’s JSON-LD were changed where the claim appeared in both. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — Ancestral Sin (six places) and Redemption | That the Council of Carthage’s teaching on original sin was “ratified at Ephesus (431).” | The Council of Ephesus did not ratify Carthage, and its canons never mention Carthage. What Ephesus did do is condemn the Pelagian Celestius by name in its own canons. The pages now say exactly that. | Council of Ephesus, canons 1 and 4 (NPNF2 vol. 14) — canon 4: those who “presume to maintain the doctrines of Nestorius or Celestius” are to be deposed. | Corrected on both pages and logged here 20 September 2026. Visible text, source cards and JSON-LD were changed. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — Daniel 9 and the Seventy Weeks | That the Talmud’s curse on calculating the end “exists precisely because the calculations kept landing in the first century,” and that Daniel’s clock expired “by the Talmud’s own concession.” | Sanhedrin 97b does not say the calculations landed in the first century, and it concedes nothing about Jesus. It gives its own reason for the curse: men who calculate the end will say, once the date passes and the Messiah has not come, that he will never come. The page now quotes that reason, and presents the passage as a dispute between Rav and Shmuel that ends with Habakkuk 2:3, “though it tarry, wait for it.” | Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 97b (William Davidson edition) | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — the method line on 63 pages of the tree | That every tree is built from “primary sources only.” | Not true of every page: several trees cite named modern scholarship where the objection itself relies on it. The line now reads “primary sources first, with modern scholarship named wherever the objection relies on it.” The one page where “primary sources only” is literally true keeps it. | Our own citation lists, page by page. | Corrected tree-wide and logged here 20 September 2026 (visible text, meta descriptions and JSON-LD). |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — The Great Schism, SCH.1.R.S.R | The sack of Constantinople in 1204 “was the act of a renegade army defying the pope, not the policy of the See”, and a pope condemning it is “the opposite of ‘Rome’s responsibility for 1204’.” | A blame-shift, and self-refuting: the same paragraph cited John Paul II’s repentance while denying that Rome bore responsibility. Innocent III did forbid the attack and did denounce the sack — and he also reluctantly accepted the result, authorising the crusaders to stay and defend the new Latin empire — and he confirmed the election of a Latin patriarch for Constantinople that he had first called uncanonical, so the Roman See took into itself the chief ecclesial outcome of the sack. The page now owns the crime and the ratification, in John Paul II’s own words, and keeps the distinction that matters: 1204 is a grievous sin against charity, not evidence that Rome departed from the apostolic faith. | John Paul II, Athens, 4 May 2001 — “The fact that they were Latin Christians fills Catholics with deep regret”; forgiveness begged for sins “by action or omission against their Orthodox brothers and sisters.” Also Innocent III to his legate (PL 215, 669–702). | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Both the visible text and the page’s JSON-LD were changed. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — The Papal Primacy, PRIM.3.R.S.R | “the East has fractured into autocephalous churches now in broken communion.” | Wrong about the Orthodox. Autocephaly is the ancient and normal structure of the Orthodox communion, not a fracture. The sentence has been removed. The page’s next paragraph names the real rupture, and its wording was itself made exact: in 2018 the Moscow Patriarchate broke eucharistic communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate over the granting of autocephaly in Ukraine. The earlier wording (“each contesting who holds or names the true protos”) made one patriarchate’s act look mutual and misnamed the question in dispute. | Statement of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church (October 2018) — “it is impossible for all the clergy of the Russian Orthodox Church to concelebrate with the clergy of the Church of Constantinople and for the laity to participate in sacraments administered in its churches.” | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. The claim appeared in the visible text only; the page’s JSON-LD was checked and carried no copy of it. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — The Immaculate Conception, IMM.1.R.S.R | Of Mary’s conception: “the East does not merely tolerate it; it hymned it first” — “the East prayed this before the West defined it.” | An inference the living counter-example refutes: the Orthodox Churches keep the Feast of the Conception of the Theotokos by St. Anne to this day while rejecting the 1854 definition. What the Eastern feast and hymnography show is that the East honours Mary’s conception as a grace-filled event; what the East declines is the Latin definition of the mode. The page now says exactly that, and keeps the true historical point that the feast travelled from East to West. | The page’s own liturgical citations (St. Andrew of Crete, d. 740; John of Euboea) support the migration but not the inference. CCC 492 has been added: Mary was redeemed more sublimely than any other creature, by reason of her Son’s merits. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. The claim appeared in the visible text only; the page’s JSON-LD was checked and carried no copy of it. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — The Filioque, three citation cards and the page’s JSON-LD | St. Cyril of Alexandria’s words — “The Spirit proceeds (πρόεισι) from the Father and the Son… substantially” — were glossed as a proceeding that was “eternal, not merely economic,” and presented as settling the question. The cards did not say whose translation they were quoting. | The quotation is genuine — the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity quotes it, with its reference (PG 75, 585 A), in its 1995 study of the Greek and Latin traditions — but it did not prove what we made it prove. The same Holy See text keeps the Greek ekporeusis for the Spirit’s origin from the Father alone, and presents Cyril’s proeisi as the Alexandrian idiom of procession. The pages now quote Cyril from that Holy See text, name it, and keep the distinction the Church herself draws; the word “eternal”, which was our inference and not Cyril’s, is gone. A proof text presented as settling a question the Church has not settled is a fabrication that flatters our own case. | Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, The Greek and Latin Traditions regarding the Procession of the Holy Spirit (1995) — “The Spirit proceeds (proeisi) from the Father and the Son; clearly, he is of the divine substance, proceeding (proion) substantially (ousiodos) in it and from it” (St. Cyril of Alexandria, Thesaurus, PG 75, 585 A); and “This origin of the Holy Spirit from the Father alone as Principle of the whole Trinity is called ekporeusis by Greek tradition, following the Cappadocian Fathers.” | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Both the visible text and the page’s JSON-LD were changed. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — The Council of Florence, FLOR.1.R | That “a faction later reversed itself under nationalist and anti-Latin pressure is a failure of fidelity.” | Wrong about the other side on both counts. The repudiation of the union was not a faction’s but near-total in the East, and finally synodal; and we imputed a motive rather than granting that those who repudiated it held their reasons to be reasons of faith. The page now says so, and answers the reception question on its own ground instead. | The page’s own steelman and its reception argument; the synodal character of the repudiation is stated without resting on a synod we did not open this session. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Both the visible text and the page’s JSON-LD were changed. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — The Council of Florence, FLO.2.R.S.R.AI.R | Of St. Mark of Ephesus, whom the Orthodox Church venerates as a saint: the Catholic “prays that his evident love of Christ found its rest in the Christ who is one.” | Read aloud, that is a Catholic page doubting the salvation of a man the Orthodox Church honours as a saint. It was not meant so, and it should never have been open to that reading. The page now says that the Catholic “commends him to the mercy of the one Christ he loved” — and keeps the argument, which is about the thesis and not the man. | No doctrinal source is at issue: this corrects how we spoke of the other side. The Church’s own register toward the Eastern Churches is Unitatis Redintegratio 14–18. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. The wording appeared in the visible text only; the page’s JSON-LD was checked and carried no copy of it. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — The Essence–Energies Distinction, EN.2.AI.R | “serious Orthodox scholars have long been uneasy that a ‘real distinction’… threatens divine simplicity” — no scholar and no work named. | An appeal to unnamed authority on the other side, which is the form a flattering claim takes. We could name no scholar and no work for it, so the sentence has been removed rather than dressed up. The paragraph’s real argument — that Rome declines the metaphysical claim of a real ontological distinction within God while affirming the realities Palamas defended — stands on its own and is unchanged. | No source: the claim was unsourced when published and is withdrawn, not restated. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. The claim appeared in the visible text only; the page’s JSON-LD was checked and carried no copy of it. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — Azymes, Catholic Position, AZ.1.R, AZ.1.R.S.R.AI.R and the page’s JSON-LD | The Council of Florence’s definition on leavened and unleavened bread was attributed five times to the “Bull of Union with the Armenians (Exsultate Deo), 22 November 1439” — in three citation cards, in the page’s JSON-LD FAQ answer, and in the JSON-LD source list (dated 1439-11-22). | The quotation was accurate; the attribution was not, and the page contradicted itself — two cards later it named Laetentur Caeli correctly as the bull St. Mark of Ephesus refused to sign. Those words stand in the Bull of Union with the Greeks, Laetentur Caeli, Session 6, 6 July 1439; the Armenian bull of Session 8 re-promulgates the Greek decree. The correction strengthens the point: the definition that leavened bread truly confects the Body of Christ was agreed with the Greek delegation itself, not handed to a third party. | Council of Florence, Session 6, 6 July 1439 — “Let the heavens be glad and let the earth rejoice… Also, the body of Christ is truly confected in both unleavened and leavened wheat bread”; Session 8, 22 November 1439 (Armenian bull) — “Seventhly, the decree of union concluded with the Greeks, which was promulgated earlier in this sacred ecumenical council of Florence and which is as follows: Let the heavens be glad…” | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. All five surfaces changed: the three citation cards, the page’s JSON-LD FAQ answer, and the JSON-LD source list (whose date was corrected from 1439-11-22 to 1439-07-06). |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — Doctrinal Development, DEV.1.R.S.R.AI.R, DEV.2.R.S.R.AI.R and the page’s JSON-LD | In the Catholic voice: the East “freezes the faith at 1351 and calls the freezing ‘fidelity’… Rome can answer the question. The East can only refuse to ask it”; the Assumption reticence was “the absence of a living organ capable of rendering a final dogmatic judgment after the schism froze her conciliar life”; and “by what authority does anyone know the Dormition belief is true rather than pious legend, if no living Church can ever say?” | Wrong about the Orthodox, and uncharitable. The East does render synodal judgments — the Holy and Great Council gathered in Crete in June 2016. And the Catholic Church does not teach that these Churches are dead: Unitatis Redintegratio 14–15 describes them as possessing true sacraments and apostolic succession. The page now states the real disagreement, which is not whether the East defines but what makes a definition final — pan-Orthodox synodal consensus received by the whole body, against the competence of Peter’s successor with the college of bishops. The question is kept; the verdict on a living Church is gone. | Message of the Holy and Great Council of the Orthodox Church (Crete, 2016) — the Council “convoked by His All Holiness Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew by the common will of their Beatitudes the Primates of the local Orthodox Autocephalous Churches,” gathered “during the week of Pentecost (18-26 June 2016) on Crete.” See also Unitatis Redintegratio 14–15. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. All three surfaces changed in the same commit: both visible paragraphs and the page’s JSON-LD FAQ answer, which carried the same sentence where a search engine could quote it alone. The opening of a second JSON-LD answer (“The East develops doctrine repeatedly, while declining to call it that”) was reworded for the same reason. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — Doctrinal Development, DEV.2.R, the liturgical-historical citation card, and the page’s JSON-LD | “the Emperor Maurice (reigned 582-602) fixed its universal celebration on 15 August” — and, on the citation card, “The Byzantine Emperor Maurice fixed the universal observance… for the empire (c. AD 588) — establishing a shared East-West liturgical celebration.” | Stated as fact three times, including in the structured data, on a claim we could not trace to a primary source. A Byzantine imperial decree would also bind the empire, not the Latin West, so it could not by itself establish a shared East-West celebration. The page now reports the claim as a report we could not verify and says plainly that the argument does not rest on it — while keeping what is not in dispute: East and West kept the same feast of the Theotokos’s passing, on the same day, long before the separation. | No source: this is a correction for want of one. The primary evidence for the decree was not reached, and the claim is now hedged rather than asserted. The liturgical ground that remains is the one Munificentissimus Deus 16 itself gives: “since ancient times, there have been both in the East and in the West solemn liturgical offices commemorating this privilege.” | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. All three surfaces changed: the visible paragraph, the citation card (label, attribution and body), and the page’s JSON-LD FAQ answer. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — Doctrinal Development, citation card in DEV.1.R.S.R.AI.R | St. John Henry Newman’s An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine was filed under the label “Magisterial witness.” | A category error, on a page whose whole subject is what the Church has and has not defined. Newman’s Essay is the private theological work of a saint, not an act of the Magisterium. The card is now labelled a theological witness and says so. A card quoting the Church’s actual charter of development, Dei Verbum 8, has been added beside it. | Second Vatican Council, Dei Verbum 8 — “This tradition which comes from the Apostles develops in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. For there is a growth in the understanding of the realities and the words which have been handed down… the Church constantly moves forward toward the fullness of divine truth until the words of God reach their complete fulfillment in her.” | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. The label appeared in the visible text only; the page’s JSON-LD was checked and carried no copy of it. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — Catholic Theosis vs LDS Exaltation, The Catholic Position and EXALT.1.R.S.R, plus two JSON-LD answers | That Latter-day Saint doctrine is that “men may become Gods who rule their own worlds”; that “A pantheon of exalted men ruling their own worlds under a head God is exactly the graded, plural divinity that Nicaea drew its line to exclude”; and, flatly, that “LDS exaltation requires that God was once a man who progressed into godhood.” | We were arguing against a caricature that Church publicly disowns in its own official source. Its Gospel Topics essay Becoming Like God says the doctrine of exaltation “is often similarly reduced in media to a cartoonish image of people receiving their own planets.” On God having once been a man, the same essay says “Little has been revealed about the first half of this couplet, and consequently little is taught” — so “requires” claimed more than that Church teaches. The page now states their position from that essay, quotes the essay’s own sentence about the planets, and argues the real disagreement: whether a creature can come to be a god of the same kind as the Father. Nothing was softened. The King Follett discourse and Lorenzo Snow’s couplet are still quoted, because the essay quotes both itself. | Gospel Topics essay, “Becoming Like God” (churchofjesuschrist.org), opened 20 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Five surfaces changed: three passages of visible text and two answers in the page’s JSON-LD. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — Does God Have a Body?, page deck, the GHD.1 and GHD.2 responses to the AI, JSON-LD and the meta descriptions | That the Latter-day Saint Godhead is “three separate, progressing, embodied beings” — and, in the search and social descriptions, “the Mormon embodied, plural Godhead.” | The page’s own citation card refuted it four lines earlier. It quotes Doctrine and Covenants 130:22 in full: “the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.” In their teaching the Holy Ghost is expressly not embodied — that is the reason the verse itself gives. “Progressing” was the same kind of error: their own essay says little is revealed and little taught on it. The page now says what their canon says — three separate beings, the Father and the Son with bodies of flesh and bones and the Holy Ghost a personage of Spirit, united in purpose rather than in substance, with the door open to more gods — which is harder on the objection, not easier. The Catholic answer is unchanged: God is pure spirit, one in three consubstantial Persons. | Doctrine and Covenants 130:22, as the page itself quotes it, verified at churchofjesuschrist.org; on “progressing,” the Gospel Topics essay Becoming Like God. Both opened 20 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Every surface that carried it changed in one edit: three passages of visible text, the page deck, the meta, og and twitter descriptions, the JSON-LD page description, and two JSON-LD answers. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — Is the Book of Mormon Scripture?, BOM.1.R and BOM.1.R.S.R.AI.R, plus one JSON-LD answer | “The published affidavits describe a vision ‘by the power of God’” — and, as the whole weight of the answer, that the typesetter John H. Gilbert recorded Martin Harris saying “No, I saw them with a spiritual eye.” | Two failures in one paragraph. First, it is false of eight of the eleven affidavits: the Testimony of Eight Witnesses names no angel and no vision — “as many of the leaves as the said Smith has translated we did handle with our hands… we have seen and hefted.” The page now takes the two groups separately and quotes each from its own text: the Three describe an angel and a voice, the Eight describe handling. Second, the answer rested on a single late recollection — Gilbert’s memorandum, written some sixty years after the events and circulating mainly through counter-cult literature. No archival or non-polemical reproduction of it could be opened, so it was removed rather than dressed up; it is quoted nowhere on the page now. The argument stands on the affidavits themselves: an angelic showing to three men, plus eight men’s handling of an object that was on the account’s own terms returned to the angel, is not evidence anyone can check in either direction. | The Testimony of Three Witnesses and The Testimony of Eight Witnesses (churchofjesuschrist.org), opened 20 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Three surfaces changed: two passages of visible text and one answer in the page’s JSON-LD. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — Continuing Revelation, the meta, og and twitter descriptions | That the page was built on “Primary sources only.” | The same false method claim corrected across the rest of the tree earlier today, missed on this page. The page relies on named modern authorities where its argument does — Newman above all, cited six times — and its own footer already read “primary sources first, modern scholarship named where cited.” The three descriptions now read the same. | The page’s own footer and citation list. A public claim about how the work is made has to match how it is made. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Three surfaces changed: the meta, og and twitter descriptions; the visible text already carried the corrected wording. One page in the same tree, The Restoration of the Priesthood, carried the same words in its three descriptions and was corrected in the next pass the same evening (see the row below). |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — The Restoration of the Priesthood, the meta, og and twitter descriptions | That the page was built on “Primary sources only.” | Not true of the page: its argument names a modern Latter-day Saint apologist and leans on lexica it does not name. Its own footer already read “primary sources first, modern scholarship named where cited”; the three descriptions now read the same. | The page’s own footer and citation list. A public claim about how the work is made has to match how it is made. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. Three surfaces changed: the meta, og and twitter descriptions. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — Baptism for the Dead, BFD.1.R.S.R, BFD.1.R.S.R.AI.R and one citation card | Of the Marcionite rite St. John Chrysostom derides: “That is precisely the LDS practice”; “the very practice… that the LDS temple reproduces”; “the exact structure of vicarious proxy baptism”; and “They have re-adopted a second-century heresy.” | False in exactly the details that carry Chrysostom’s ridicule. The rite he describes has a corpse present and a living man hidden under its couch who answers in the dead man’s voice. Latter-day Saints do nothing of the kind: that Church’s own page says “A living person… is baptized on behalf of a deceased person,” in temples, and that the baptism’s validity “depends on the deceased person accepting it.” The page now says so plainly, and keeps the point that is true: the principle Chrysostom rejects — a living substitute receiving baptism for someone who has died — is the principle in dispute. The Holy See’s own judgment on Latter-day Saint baptism (5 June 2001) was added to the page. | St. John Chrysostom, Homily 40 on First Corinthians — “having concealed the living man under the couch of the dead, they approach the corpse and talk with him… and so they baptize him instead of the departed, like men jesting upon the stage.” Gospel Topics, “Baptisms for the Dead” (churchofjesuschrist.org), opened 20 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. The claims appeared in the visible text only (two responses and one citation card); the page’s JSON-LD was checked and carried no copy of them. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — Was God Once a Man?, the closing paragraph of the Catholic Position, the page footer, the JSON-LD and the three descriptions | That the King Follett Discourse is “the foundational Latter-day Saint expression of the doctrine that God progressed from manhood to godhood,” and “the foundational Latter-day Saint claim.” | It presented a sermon as that Church’s settled doctrine. The Latter-day Saints’ own Gospel Topics essay Becoming Like God quotes the sermon and Lorenzo Snow’s couplet, but says “Little has been revealed about the first half of this couplet, and consequently little is taught,” and in a footnote says the surviving sermon text “is not canonized and should not be treated as a doctrinal standard in and of itself.” The page now answers what Joseph Smith preached in 1844, says what that Church’s canon does carry (an embodied Father, Doctrine and Covenants 130:22), and rests the Catholic answer on what the claim means if it is true at all. | Gospel Topics Essays, “Becoming Like God” (churchofjesuschrist.org), body text and footnote 35, opened 20 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. The visible text, the page footer, the JSON-LD description, one JSON-LD answer and the meta, og and twitter descriptions were changed. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — Pre-Mortal Existence of Souls, two citation cards, the Catholic Position, one response, the JSON-LD and the three descriptions | The first anathema against Origen labelled “Ecumenical Council · the doctrine condemned by name” and cited as “the anathemas attached to the Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople II, 553)” — while the same page conceded, three blocks later, that scholars dispute whether those anathemas belong to the Council’s acts. | A contested text was labelled as the act of an ecumenical council. The cards now say what is known: the fifteen anathemas against Origen are associated with the Council of 553, and their place in its formal acts is disputed by modern scholarship. The page no longer rests the doctrine on them: the Church’s teaching is in her own Catechism. | Catechism of the Catholic Church 366 — the soul is created immediately by God, not produced by the parents, and is immortal. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. The visible text, two citation cards, the JSON-LD and the meta, og and twitter descriptions were changed. |
| 2026-09-20 | Sed Contra — LDS Eternal Marriage, the St. Augustine citation card and the JSON-LD | St. Augustine quoted as writing that in the resurrection “there shall be no… conception, no childbearing” (City of God XXII.17). | Those words are not in the chapter. What Augustine writes there is that “the sex of woman is not a vice, but nature. It shall then indeed be superior to carnal intercourse and child-bearing.” The card now quotes that sentence, and two smaller slips in the same card were corrected against the text. Words inside quotation marks have to be the author’s. | St. Augustine, The City of God XXII.17 (Christian Classics Ethereal Library; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, first series, vol. 2), chapter read in full on 20 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 20 September 2026. The citation card and one JSON-LD answer were changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — The Crusades, Inquisition, and Religious Atrocity, ATR.2.R, the closing line of ATR.2.R.S.R.AI.R, two citation cards and one JSON-LD answer | That “the Vatican opened the Inquisition’s central archives” and historians then “counted from the actual tribunal records”; and that John Paul II’s opening of the archives was “the act that produced the downward revision” of the Spanish Inquisition’s numbers; and, in a closing line, “The Church that opened her own archives to be counted by her critics.” | The page credited the Holy See with something it did not do. The modern count of the Spanish Inquisition’s cases was made by the historians Gustav Henningsen and Jaime Contreras from the tribunals’ own annual case reports (the relaciones de causas); those records are held in Spain’s National Historical Archive, not in a Vatican archive, and the authors themselves note that the series has gaps. The Holy See’s 1998 symposium on the Inquisition was a separate event: John Paul II’s letter receiving its proceedings reports no figures and mentions no archive. The page now says who did the counting and from what; neither citation card ties the numbers to an act of the Holy See, and the closing line no longer claims the archives. | Spanish Inquisition (Wikipedia: the Henningsen–Contreras statistics are “based entirely on relaciones de causas”; the Suprema’s archives are “held in the National Historical Archive of Spain”); Ereticopedia, on the number of victims of the Spanish Inquisition (“the authors themselves noted several gaps”); John Paul II, Letter to Cardinal Etchegaray, 15 June 2004 (vatican.va). All opened 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. The visible text in two places, two citation cards and one JSON-LD answer were changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — The Crusades, Inquisition, and Religious Atrocity, ATR.1.R.S.R.AI.R, its first citation card and the JSON-LD citation list | Of Pope Innocent III and the sack of Constantinople in 1204: “and he excommunicated the offenders”; on the citation card, “The reigning pope denounced and excommunicated the perpetrators”; the letter dated “12 July 1204”; and the account ending with the pope condemning the crusade “while it was fresh.” | The cited letter pronounces no excommunication. It condemns the crusaders’ conduct in the words the page quotes, and it rebukes the legate for absolving the crusaders of their pilgrimage vows: “you neither should nor could give any such absolution.” The translation we cite prints only “Given July 12,” without a year, so the page no longer gives a year or says how soon the pope wrote. And the page stopped before the part that hurts: Innocent reluctantly accepted the result, authorised the crusaders to stay and defend the new Latin empire, and confirmed a Latin patriarch for Constantinople after first denouncing his election as uncanonical. The page now says so, as the Orthodox page on the schism already did. | Innocent III, letter to the legate Peter, Cardinal Priest of St. Marcellus (Ep. 136, PL 215; trans. J. Brundage, The Crusades: A Documentary History, 1962; Fordham Medieval Sourcebook), read in full on 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. The visible text, one citation card and the JSON-LD citation list were changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Science, Faith, and the Galileo Affair, the Catholic Position, SCI.3.R.S.R and one JSON-LD answer | “She founded the universities of Bologna, Paris, Oxford, and Salamanca; the cathedral schools; the first hospitals”; and “the Church founded the university and the hospital.” | Too much. Bologna grew up around its students’ own guilds, and its students had their first privileges from the Emperor Frederick I (Authentica habita, 1158); Oxford has no known date of foundation; and “the first hospitals” is a superlative we could not source. What the sources support is strong enough: the medieval university grew out of the Church’s cathedral and monastic schools, Pope Gregory IX’s bull Parens scientiarum (1231) assured the independence and self-governance of Paris, and the hospitals of medieval Europe were religious communities staffed by monks and nuns. Salamanca is no longer named, because we could not open two sources for its founding. | Medieval university, Parens scientiarum and History of hospitals (Wikipedia); University of Oxford, Our history (“There is no clear date of foundation”). All opened 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. The visible text in two places and one JSON-LD answer were changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Science, Faith, and the Galileo Affair, SCI.1.R and one JSON-LD answer | “Galileo was never tortured and never imprisoned.” | Half right. He was never tortured. But he was interrogated under threat of torture, and the sentence of 1633 condemned him to formal imprisonment at the Holy Office’s pleasure; it was commuted to house arrest, which lasted the rest of his life. The historian Maurice Finocchiaro concludes that, with the possible exception of three days, Galileo was never held in prison. The page now says all of this. John Paul II’s address of 31 October 1992, which the page quotes for another point, says nothing about torture or imprisonment, and the page does not cite it for either. | Galileo affair (Wikipedia: “sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition”; “…commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life”); Galileo Galilei (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: the last hearing “was on June 21”; “formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition”); J. C. Ungureanu’s summary of Maurice Finocchiaro’s chapter on the prison-and-torture myth; John Paul II, address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, 31 October 1992 (vatican.va, in Italian). All opened 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. The visible text and one JSON-LD answer were changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — The Historicity and Resurrection of Jesus, the Catechism 640 citation card | Printed inside the quotation marks of Catechism 640: “The empty tomb itself, even before the appearances, was a sign for those who came to faith — a necessary condition of belief, though not by itself sufficient.” | That sentence is not in the Catechism. It was our gloss, printed as the Church’s words — and it displaced the Catechism’s own caution that the empty tomb is not, by itself, a direct proof of the Resurrection, since the body’s absence could be explained in other ways. The card then quoted paragraph 640 whole, as the Holy See prints it, with our comment outside the quotation marks. Words inside quotation marks have to be the author’s. | Catechism of the Catholic Church 640 (vatican.va), read on 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One citation card was changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — The Historicity and Resurrection of Jesus, the closing paragraph; and the Errata Discipline block on that page, on Religious Atrocity and on Science and Faith | “Every citation has been verified against its primary source…” And on all three pages, a promise that confirmed errors are “logged publicly” — with no link to this log. | Not true: the Catechism quotation corrected in the row above was on the same page as the claim. The sentence now says only what is done: citations name their documents so that a reader can check them against the source, and corrections are logged here as they are made. All three pages now link this log. Claims of the same kind still stand on the Sed Contra index and on at least five other pages, and have not yet been re-checked: Eternal Security and Assurance, The Real Presence, Images, Icons, and the Second Commandment, The Davidic Genealogy and the Virgin-Birth Problem and The Filioque and the Procession of the Holy Spirit. | This log. A public claim about how the work is made has to match how it is made. | Corrected on the pages and logged here 21 September 2026. One paragraph was changed on the Resurrection page, and one link was added on each of the three pages. Update, 21 September 2026: later the same day the claim was cut from the Sed Contra index’s structured data and from the closing paragraph of nine pages — Eternal Security and Assurance, Images, Icons, and the Second Commandment, The Davidic Genealogy and the Virgin-Birth Problem and The Filioque and the Procession of the Holy Spirit, together with Is Muhammad the Paraclete?, The Great Apostasy and the Restoration, Theosis and Exaltation, Original Sin and Ancestral Sin and Praying to the Saints and Relics. The index’s own two claims went with them: its structured data no longer says that entries are verified before they enter the corpus, and its closing note no longer calls every cited source verbatim. Of the pages named above, the claim now stands only on The Real Presence, whose closing block still says that tree was “adversarially verified against primary sources before publication”; that page has not been re-checked. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Miracles and Hume, MIR.1.R, its citation card and one JSON-LD answer | John Earman called “an atheist philosopher of science” (three places); and, in the JSON-LD, that Earman calls Hume’s essay “largely unoriginal.” | We had no source for what John Earman believes, and we put a religious label on a living scholar to make his testimony count for more. He is a philosopher of science at Pittsburgh, and what the page could support — that he is no Christian apologist — is what it now says. The words quoted from him are his judgment of Hume’s argument against miracles, the subject of his book, not of the essay as a whole; the JSON-LD now says so, as the page’s own citation card already did. | The page’s own citation card, which already described him without a religious label. No source was opened for his beliefs, and none is cited now. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Three surfaces were changed: the citation card’s label, the card’s body, and one JSON-LD answer. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Miracles and Hume, MIR.3.R.S.R | The splitting of the moon “rests on a single tradition with no independent contemporaneous corroboration”. | False, and it was a claim about someone else’s scriptures that we had not checked. The chapter of Sahih al-Bukhari on the splitting of the moon carries the report from more than one companion — Ibn Mas’ud, Anas ibn Malik and Ibn Abbas. The page now says that, says that no non-Muslim contemporary record of it is known, and keeps the exegetical dispute within Islam over whether a past event or a future sign is meant. | Sahih al-Bukhari, Book of the Virtues and Merits of the Prophet, chapter on the splitting of the moon — nos. 3636 (Ibn Mas’ud), 3637 (Anas) and 3638 (Ibn Abbas); the numbers are given so the reports can be checked in any edition. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One passage of visible text was changed; the objector’s own card was not touched. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Miracles and Hume, MIR.1.R.S.R, MIR.2.R, MIR.3.R, three citation cards and one JSON-LD answer | That the Lourdes Medical Bureau “has, since 1858, examined more than 7,000 claimed cures and certified only 72 as medically inexplicable”; that the same Bureau “certified 72”; and, on two cards, a “160+ year record” beside the Bureau’s own founding date of 1883. | Two errors. The Bureau was founded in 1883, twenty-five years after the 1858 apparitions, so it cannot have a 160-year record and did not examine cures from 1858; what runs from 1858 is the series of reported cures. And the Bureau does not declare miracles. The medical judgment that a cure is inexplicable belongs to the International Medical Committee of Lourdes; the declaration of a miracle belongs to the bishop of the cured person’s own diocese. We had given a medical office an authority that is the Church’s. The page now names both steps wherever the numbers appear. | Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes, “The miracles of Lourdes” — the Bureau “founded in 1883”; more than 7,000 healings “reported… since the apparitions”; “it is then up to the bishop… to decide whether to declare a miracle.” Opened 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Seven surfaces were changed: three passages of visible text, three citation cards (two labels and two bodies) and one JSON-LD answer. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Miracles and Hume, MIR.1.R.S.R, MIR.2.R’s citation card and one JSON-LD answer | That the Lourdes cures are examined “by physicians of any faith or none” and by a committee “composed of physicians and specialists irrespective of religion”; that a full investigation “takes a minimum of five years”; and that the files get “hostile review.” | Three claims about a procedure, none of them sourced. We did not open the medical committee’s statutes, so we could not say who sits on it; the sanctuary states no minimum period, only that the process may last several years; and “hostile” described a committee convened by the sanctuary itself. The page now says only what the sanctuary says, and describes the review as what it is: physicians whose professional task is to find the natural explanation first. | Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes, “The miracles of Lourdes” — “a long research process, which may last several years.” Opened 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Four surfaces were changed: two passages of visible text, one citation card and one JSON-LD answer. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Miracles and Hume, MIR.1.R.S.R.AI.R, MIR.2.R.S.R and one JSON-LD answer | “A standard that throws out more than 6,900 of over 7,000 cases”; “a hypothesis that is rejected in roughly 6,928 of 7,000 cases”; “a standard that rejects roughly 6,928 of more than 7,000 claims.” | That figure was our own subtraction, not anyone’s count. 7,000 is the number of cures reported at Lourdes; 72 is the number declared miraculous. Subtracting one from the other and calling the remainder rejected cases states as data something the sanctuary does not publish. The three sentences now put the ratio the sources do support: fewer than one reported cure in ninety has ever been declared miraculous. | Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes, “The miracles of Lourdes” — more than 7,000 healings reported since the apparitions; 72 declared miraculous. Opened 21 September 2026. 72 of 7,000 is one in ninety-seven. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Three surfaces were changed: two passages of visible text and one JSON-LD answer. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Miracles and Hume, the sub-headline under the title and the closing paragraph | “12 distinct counter-claims” in the sub-headline; and, in the closing paragraph, that the page answers “three counter-claims at full depth.” | The page could not count itself. It carries nine counter-claim cards, in three clusters — not twelve, and not three. The sub-headline now reads nine across three clusters, and the closing paragraph names the three things it actually lists, which are the clusters. | The page’s own cards, counted on 21 September 2026: six objector cards and three AI-counter cards, grouped in the three clusters the closing paragraph names. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Two surfaces were changed: the sub-headline and the closing paragraph. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Miracles and Hume, three St. Augustine citation cards | “De Civitate Dei XXI.8 (AD 412-426)”, on three cards. | We could not open a source for those composition dates. The quotation and the chapter are unchanged and still carry the argument; the date span is gone rather than replaced with a second guess. Where we cannot source a date, the page prints no date. | None. Two reference works were opened on 21 September 2026 and neither returned a composition date for the work, so nothing was put in its place. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Three citation cards were changed; the loci and the quotations were not. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — The Multiplicity of Religions, PLU.2.R, its Lumen Gentium citation card and one JSON-LD answer | Lumen Gentium 16 quoted to the words “those too may achieve eternal salvation” — and stopped there, in all three places. | We quoted the half of the paragraph that helped us and left out the half that complicates it. The same paragraph goes on: men are “often deceived by the Evil One,” have “exchanged the truth of God for a lie, serving the creature rather than the Creator,” and some, “living and dying in this world without God, are exposed to final despair.” What the Council teaches is a real possibility of salvation, not a presumption of it, and the page now carries both halves. The card also now marks which words are the Catechism’s English of the passage and which are the Council’s own. | Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium 16 and Catechism of the Catholic Church 847 (vatican.va). Both opened 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Three surfaces were changed: the visible text, the citation card and one JSON-LD answer; a second card quoting the Catechism’s paragraph 844 was added beside them. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — The Multiplicity of Religions, PLU.1, PLU.1.R, two citation cards and one JSON-LD answer | Nostra Aetate 2 quoted as “The Catholic Church rejects nothing of what is true and holy in these religions” (four places); and, on one card, that the Church “proclaims, and is in duty bound to proclaim without fail, Christ who is the way, the truth, and the life… in whom men find the fullness of religious life.” | Neither is the Council’s English. The Vatican translation reads “rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions,” and “she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ ‘the way, the truth, and the life’.” The sense is close, but words inside quotation marks have to be the document’s. All four places now read as the declaration reads, the card quotes only the words we could copy from it, and both attributions now name the Council, the date and the translation. | Second Vatican Council, Nostra Aetate 2 (vatican.va, English), opened 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Six surfaces were changed: two passages of visible text, two citation cards, two attributions and one JSON-LD answer. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — The Multiplicity of Religions, PLU.2.R and PLU.2.R.S.R.AI.R | Of Leonard Feeney: “the Church condemned his position and he was eventually excommunicated”; and of the Holy Office’s 1949 letter, that it was “the competent authority defining the sense of its own prior act.” | Both overstated. The Holy Office rejected Feeney’s interpretation in 1949, in a letter to the Archbishop of Boston; he was excommunicated on 13 February 1953, and the ground was his refusal to answer Rome’s summonses, not the doctrine. The censure was lifted in 1972 without a retraction being required of him. And a letter of the Holy Office is not a definition: it is the Church’s teaching office giving the authoritative sense of a definition already made. The page now says all of this, and no longer says Rome condemned a doctrine by excommunicating a man. | Leonard Feeney — excommunicated 13 February 1953 for “persistent disobedience to legitimate church authority”; reconciled in 1972. Opened 21 September 2026. The page’s own citation card for the 1949 letter, Suprema haec sacra, is unchanged. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Three passages of visible text were changed. We did not use the source our first draft reached for: the St. Benedict Center at Richmond, New Hampshire, is the Feeney party to this dispute and is not in full communion, and this site does not cite it as a Catholic authority. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — The Multiplicity of Religions, PLU.2.R.S.R and one JSON-LD answer | That Pius IX taught the inculpably ignorant are not lost in Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (1863), “a full century before Vatican II” — in two places. | The arithmetic was loose and the quotation was one-sided. From 1863 to Lumen Gentium in 1964 is a hundred and one years, and the same encyclical that teaches invincible ignorance also restates, in the next section, that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. We had quoted the concession and left out the conjunction. Both places now carry both, and say that it is the conjunction, not the concession, that is old. | Pius IX, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore (10 August 1863), sections 7 and 8, opened 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Two surfaces were changed: one passage of visible text and one JSON-LD answer. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — The Multiplicity of Religions, PLU.1.R.S.R | That Islam “must claim, against the manuscript evidence, that the Gospel was corrupted,” followed by a papyrus fragment of John “older than Islam by some five centuries.” | We told our readers what another religion must hold without opening a single Islamic source, and then answered the claim we had written for it. The sentence is gone. The manuscript argument went with it, because it was there to refute that claim and nothing on the page establishes that the claim is Islam’s. | None. No Islamic source on taḥrīf was opened, which is why the sentence was cut rather than rewritten. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One passage of visible text was changed. The objector’s own card, which raises the question in the objector’s words, was not touched. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — The Multiplicity of Religions, PLU.1.R.S.R | Of the golden plates: “plates that no longer exist (returned to the angel) — unfalsifiable by design.” | Two things we could not say. Whether the plates exist is not ours to assert either way; what the Latter-day Saint account itself says is that they were returned, so they are not available for examination. And “by design” imputed an intention to people we have not read on the point. The sentence now says only what follows: the object of the testimony cannot be re-examined by anyone. | The page’s own summary of the Latter-day Saint account, which is unchanged. No new source is cited, because the correction removes a claim rather than adding one. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One passage of visible text was changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Is God Just a Projection?, PRJ.2.R, PRJ.2.R.S.R, PRJ.2.R.S.R.AI.R and one JSON-LD answer | “The Church calls this faculty the sensus divinitatis and teaches that man is by nature a religious being”; and, in the body, “she calls it the sensus divinitatis, the natural religious sense.” | That is not the Church’s term. Sensus divinitatis is Calvin’s, taken up by Reformed thinkers after him; the Catechism never uses it. What the Catechism says (CCC 27, 44) is that the longing for God is inscribed in the human heart and that man is religious by his very nature and calling. The page now attributes the term to the tradition that coined it, quotes the Catechism for what the Church does say, and no longer puts a Reformed formula in the Church’s mouth. | Catechism of the Catholic Church 27 and Catechism 44 (vatican.va); Calvin, Institutes I.3 (Christian Classics Ethereal Library) — “a sense of Deity is indelibly engraven on the human heart.” All opened 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Four surfaces were changed: three passages of visible text and one JSON-LD answer. The term still appears three times where it belongs — in the objector’s card and as the Reformed term it is. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Is God Just a Projection?, PRJ.3.R.S.R | That the abolition of the slave trade was driven “by Wilberforce and the Quakers and the Catholic bishops.” | We put our own Church into a list where we could not source it. The abolition campaign named in that sentence was British, and we opened nothing showing Catholic bishops in it. The claim is cut, and nothing has been put in its place. | None. The claim was removed rather than replaced, because no source for it was opened. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One passage of visible text was changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Is God Just a Projection?, PRJ.3.R.S.R.AI.R and one JSON-LD answer | That the atheist states of the twentieth century “martyred its believers by the million” — in two places. | A number we had not counted. The persecutions were real and the page still says so; the scale was asserted without a source, so the words “by the million” are gone and no figure has replaced them. | None. No source for the figure was opened, and none is cited now. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Two surfaces were changed: one passage of visible text and one JSON-LD answer. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Is God Just a Projection?, the Freud citation card and the JSON-LD citation list | Freud’s quoted lines cited as The Future of an Illusion (1927), “ch. VI” — on the card and in the machine-readable citation list. | The locus was incomplete. One quoted line is from chapter VI and the other from chapter VIII, and the English we quote is James Strachey’s. Both now say so. A reader who went to chapter VI for the second line would not have found it. | Freud, The Future of an Illusion, trans. James Strachey (full text, Internet Archive), opened 21 September 2026: the title page prints “Newly translated from the German and edited by James Strachey”. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Two surfaces were changed: the citation card’s attribution and the JSON-LD citation list. The card sits inside the objector’s own cluster; only its citation line was touched. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Is God Just a Projection?, the St. Augustine citation card at PRJ.2.R.S.R.AI.R and the JSON-LD citation list | A card headed “Patristic witness · the wounded imago Dei”, citing Confessions VII.11 for “Augustine’s mature account of the soul that truly perceives God yet, wounded, grasps Him only by degrees.” | That chapter is not about a wounded faculty. Confessions VII.11 is headed “That Creatures are Mutable and God Alone Immutable,” and its subject is degrees of being in creatures. Our gloss described a text the chapter does not contain, so the card and its entry in the citation list were removed rather than re-glossed. The point they were there to carry is already carried on the page by its Romans 1:21-23 card. | St. Augustine, Confessions, Book VII (New Advent), chapter 11 read on 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Two surfaces were changed: the citation card was deleted and its entry removed from the JSON-LD citation list. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Is God Just a Projection?, PRJ.1.R.S.R | “‘If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy,’ the inference runs, ‘the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.’” | Those are C. S. Lewis’s words, and the page printed them unattributed, inside a Catholic answer, where they read as the Church’s own. They are the words of an Anglican layman arguing as a philosopher. The sentence now names him and says so. | None for the locus: we could not open a copy of the book giving the book and chapter, so the page names the author and not a chapter. The two fragments are still printed as two fragments, because nothing we opened shows them running continuously. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One passage of visible text was changed; no citation card was added. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Is God Just a Projection?, PRJ.3.R, PRJ.3.R.S.R, its citation card and one JSON-LD answer | That “the Catechism canonizes St. John Chrysostom’s words”, that it “enshrines Chrysostom’s words as binding Catholic teaching”, and a card label reading “Patristic witness · canonized by the Catechism”. | Quoting a Father is not canonizing him, and in the Church the word means something else entirely. The Catechism quotes St. John Chrysostom to state the Church’s teaching on the universal destination of goods; the binding teaching is the Catechism’s, not the quotation’s. All four places now say the Catechism quotes him. | The Catechism’s own structure, which the page cites at 1718 and 2443-2449. No new source is cited, because the correction is about what a citation means, not about what it says. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Four surfaces were changed: two passages of visible text, one citation card label and one JSON-LD answer. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Is God Just a Projection?, PRJ.1.R, PRJ.1.R.S.R and one JSON-LD answer | “A creature does not, as a rule, evolve a deep and species-wide appetite for a thing that categorically does not exist”; and, twice, “there is no natural, universal appetite of the human animal for which no object whatever exists.” | Both are universal claims about every human appetite, and we had surveyed no such thing. The argument from desire does not need them. The page now says that no such appetite is known to lack an object, and attributes the claim to the classical argument rather than asserting it as a fact of biology. | None. The sentences were narrowed to what the page can stand behind rather than sourced. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Three surfaces were changed: two passages of visible text and one JSON-LD answer. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Is God Just a Projection?, PRJ.1.R.S.R.AI.R | Of the verification principle: “which collapsed by the 1960s precisely because it is unverifiable.” | A date and a cause, neither of them sourced. We opened nothing fixing the decade, and the reasons philosophers abandoned the principle are more than one. The sentence now says that the philosophical mainstream abandoned it, in part because it is unverifiable. | None. The claim was narrowed rather than sourced. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One passage of visible text was changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — The Euthyphro Dilemma, MOR.2.R, MOR.2.R.S.R and one JSON-LD answer | “Parfit himself confessed he had no account of how such non-natural facts could be causally relevant to physical brains” (twice), and “Parfit died without an answer.” | Derek Parfit made no such confession that we can show. We attributed a concession to a named philosopher, twice in the visible text and once in the structured data, and it was ours, not his. The objection itself is a real one and the page still presses it — in the page’s own voice, as an unexplained difficulty in the position, with no words put in a dead man’s mouth. | None. No work of Parfit’s was opened, which is precisely the problem: the sentence was written as though one had been. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Three surfaces were changed: two passages of visible text and one JSON-LD answer. The objector’s own card, which cites Parfit fairly, was not touched. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — The Euthyphro Dilemma, MOR.3.R.S.R.AI.R | “the same total-destruction formula (‘man and woman, infant and suckling’) appears in the Moabite Mesha Stele… even where archaeology shows the populations were not exterminated.” | The Mesha Stele does not contain that phrase, and we printed it inside quotation marks as though it did. What the stele says, in André Lemaire’s translation, is that King Mesha took Nebo and killed everyone in it — “seven thousand men, boys, women, [daught]ers and pregnant women, because I devoted it to Ashtar Chemosh.” The page now quotes those words and names the translator. The clause about archaeology went too: we had opened no excavation report. | “What Does the Mesha Stele Say?” (Biblical Archaeology Society), Lemaire’s translation, opened 21 September 2026. The brackets are the translator’s and are printed as he prints them. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One passage of visible text was changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — The Euthyphro Dilemma, MOR.4.R, MOR.4.R’s citation card and one JSON-LD answer | That the atheist states of the twentieth century killed “on a scale (well over a hundred million)”; and that the Black Book of Communism “documents” a toll of 85 to 100 million, which the page applied to three named states. | The body figure was larger than the page’s own source, and the source was described wrongly twice over. The Black Book of Communism is an editorial estimate, not archival documentation, and its total is compiled across all communist regimes, not the three the sentence names. All three places now give the range the volume estimates, call it an estimate, and state its scope. | The page’s own citation card for the volume, which already read 85 to 100 million. No new source is cited; the correction brings the page into line with the source it had. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Three surfaces were changed: one passage of visible text, one citation card and one JSON-LD answer. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — The Euthyphro Dilemma, MOR.4.R, MOR.4.R.S.R’s citation card and one JSON-LD answer | That the Inquisition’s executions were “fewer than a single bad year of many secular regimes”; that they were “far fewer than comparable secular courts of the era” (twice); and that “Peters independently estimates roughly 3,000.” | Three comparisons with nothing behind them, and one false corroboration. We opened neither historian, and the two figures the page cites are not independent confirmations of each other: they cover different periods. The comparisons are gone, the word “independently” is gone, and the estimate now carries the window it belongs to — roughly 3,000 for the period 1550 to 1800. | None beyond the page’s own citation card, which supplies the window. Neither Kamen nor Peters was opened, which is why the comparisons were cut rather than sourced. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Three surfaces were changed: one passage of visible text, one citation card and one JSON-LD answer. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — The Euthyphro Dilemma, MOR.4.R.S.R | “Weinberg’s maxim is exactly backwards: it took the abolition of God to industrialize murder.” | A causal claim about history that we could not support, and one that reads as a charge that unbelief produces mass murder. It is not the Catholic claim and it is not what the page argues three paragraphs later, where every man is made in the image of God. The sentence now makes the point that can be defended: the mechanism Weinberg named — a transcendent certainty that licenses any atrocity — operated in those states without any God at all. | The page’s own answer at MOR.4.R.S.R.AI.R, which rests on Genesis 1:27 and the Catechism 1929-1930 and is unchanged. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One passage of visible text was changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — The Euthyphro Dilemma, MOR.4.R | “The Crusades were, in substantial part, a defensive response to four centuries of Islamic conquest.” | Two faults in one sentence. “Defensive” is a contested position among historians, and the page asserted it in its own voice with no historian named. And the interval the page itself lists runs from the seventh century to 1095 — nearer four and a half centuries than four. The sentence now states the conquests, which the page can source, and leaves the reader to judge the campaigns; the admission of real atrocities that followed it is unchanged. | The page’s own list of the territories and dates. No historian is named for a “defensive” reading, because none was opened. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One passage of visible text was changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — The Euthyphro Dilemma, the Catechism 2298 citation card | The Catechism (CCC 2298) quoted with an ellipsis that ran from its mention of cruel practices straight to its call to work for their abolition. | The ellipsis removed the hardest words in the paragraph. What 2298 goes on to say is that the Church’s own pastors took Roman law’s rules on torture into their own tribunals, and that, regrettable as this was, the Church always taught that clemency and mercy are a duty. We had cut the Church’s own admission against herself out of a quotation of the Church. Both sentences were restored. | Catechism of the Catholic Church 2298 (vatican.va), read on 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One citation card was changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — The Euthyphro Dilemma, MOR.3.R.S.R and its Origen citation card | That a Catholic condemnation of 1435 came “three hundred years before Voltaire”, and that Origen wrote “three centuries before Islam”. | Two intervals miscounted, both in the direction that flattered us. Voltaire was born in 1694, which is two and a half centuries after 1435, not three. Origen wrote in the middle of the third century, which is nearer four centuries before the Hijra of 622 than three. Each sentence now carries the interval its own dates give. | The dates the page itself prints, with Voltaire’s birth in 1694 and the Hijra in 622. The arithmetic is 1694 minus 1435, and 622 minus about 250. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Two surfaces were changed: one passage of visible text and one citation card. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — The Euthyphro Dilemma, the MOR.1 objector card | “Socrates asks Euthyphro: ‘Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?’” | Those quotation marks were ours, not Plato’s. The sentence is a modern restatement of the dilemma, not a line from the dialogue in any translation we cite. It is now given as a restatement, without quotation marks. The card’s own verbatim quotation from the Jowett translation, which is cited as such, is unchanged. | The card’s own Jowett citation, which is untouched. The restatement is not attributed to a translation because it is not from one. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One objector card was changed, and only the quotation marks around our own restatement. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — The Euthyphro Dilemma, the MOR.4.R.S citation line | “Antony Flew, ‘Theology and Falsification’ (1950); standard No-True-Scotsman analysis.” | Wrong document. The No True Scotsman argument is not in that paper, which is about falsifiability. We have not opened the work in which Flew states it, so the page now names him and the analysis without naming a document it cannot vouch for. | None. The citation was cut rather than replaced, because the correct work was not opened. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One citation line was changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — The Euthyphro Dilemma, MOR.4.R.S.R.AI.R | “The historian Tom Holland — himself not a believer — documents precisely this in Dominion.” | A statement about a living man’s beliefs, made to make his testimony count for more, and unverified. The page now names him as the historian he is and lets the book carry the argument. | None. No source for his beliefs was opened, and none is cited now. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One passage of visible text was changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — The Euthyphro Dilemma and Is God Just a Projection?, one citation card on each page and one JSON-LD date field | Pope Paul III’s bull Sublimis Deus dated “2 June 1537” on one page and “29 May 1537” on the other, with “1537-06-02” in the structured data. | The site printed two different days for one document, so at least one was wrong, and we could not settle which. Both pages now print the year alone, and the structured data with them. The year is not in doubt. | None. No archival source for the day was opened by anyone working on either page, which is why the day was dropped rather than arbitrated. | Corrected on both pages and logged here 21 September 2026. Three surfaces were changed: one citation card on each page and one JSON-LD date field. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Free Will and Divine Foreknowledge, FW.1.R, the FW.1 citation card and one JSON-LD answer | That “Libet himself preserved a conscious veto — ‘free won’t’ — the power to abort the impulse in the final ~150 ms”, in three places. | The phrase in quotation marks is not Libet’s, and the window was a figure we could not source. His papers are behind a paywall we did not pass, so the page neither quotes him nor times him: it says he preserved a conscious veto over the impulse, which is what the page can stand behind. | None. Libet’s 1985 paper could not be opened, which is why the quotation marks and the figure were removed rather than corrected. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Three surfaces were changed: one passage of visible text, one JSON-LD answer and one citation line inside the objector’s card. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Free Will and Divine Foreknowledge, the FW.1 citation card summarising Robert Sapolsky | An environment “‘over which you had no control’… and so ‘there is no free will’” — quotation marks on a card whose own label said it contains not a single verbatim line. | The card contradicted itself, and the quotation marks lost. We have not opened Determined, so no words are printed as Sapolsky’s. The summary stands, without quotation marks, still labelled as a summary; not one word of the objection was softened. | None. The book was not opened, which is why the marks were removed rather than the wording checked against it. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One citation line inside the objector’s card was changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Free Will and Divine Foreknowledge, FW.1.R and one JSON-LD answer | That “Aaron Schurger’s 2012 work showed the readiness potential is statistically consistent” with an alternative account. | A proposed model was reported as a demonstrated result, and we did not open the paper. The page now says the work argues it. The distinction matters here more than most places, because the whole cluster is about what neuroscience has and has not shown. | None. The 2012 paper was not opened, which is why the verb was hedged rather than the finding described. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Two surfaces were changed: one passage of visible text and one JSON-LD answer. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Free Will and Divine Foreknowledge, FW.3.R.S.R | “The holy angels who never fell were confirmed in glory through their own free first choice for God in their single decisive act.” | That is the traditional Scholastic account of the angelic choice, held by theologians; it is not a defined teaching of the Church, and the page stated it as though it were. The sentence now says whose account it is. Nothing else in it changed, and the page’s treatment of grace and freedom is untouched. | None is cited: the page names the account rather than resting it on a locus, because the article it would have cited was not opened. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One passage of visible text was changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Free Will and Divine Foreknowledge, the FW.3 citation card summarising J. L. Mackie | “(Verbatim-confirmed quotation of Mackie’s principle, applied to the heaven objection.)” | Nobody here had confirmed it. Mackie’s 1955 article is behind a paywall we did not pass, so the page was telling readers a check had been made that had not been made. The claim is gone; the quotation and the objection it carries are unchanged, and the reader is no longer told to trust a verification that never happened. | This log. A claim about how the work is checked has to match how it is checked. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One citation line inside the objector’s card was changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — the Errata Discipline block on all 71 debate pages, and the closing note on the Sed Contra index | “Citation errors, mistranslations, missing context, fabricated quotations: all corrected the day they are surfaced”; “Confirmed errors are corrected and logged publicly, the day they are found”; and on the index, “Every correction is logged publicly, the day it is found.” None of those blocks linked this log. | The same-day promise was not true. The three reel errors at the top of this page were found on 9 September, logged here on 11 September, and the copies on other platforms are still not corrected. A promise of public correction that names no place to read the corrections is also not much of a promise. All 71 pages and the index now say that confirmed errors are corrected and logged publicly, without the day, and every one of them links this log. | This log, and the rows above it. A public claim about how the work is made has to match how it is made. | Corrected across 71 pages and the index and logged here 21 September 2026. Two sentences were changed on each debate page and one on the index, and a link to this log was added to each of the 72. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — the structured data on every page of the tree, the structured data on the Sed Contra index, and the closing paragraph of eleven pages | On 68 pages, a description telling search engines and readers that the page answers its objectors “six levels deep, with verbatim primary-source citations from…” — 70 times in all. On the index, that every entry is “verified against the primary sources it cites (a citation that cannot be confirmed against the original document is cut) before it enters the corpus”, that it is stored as “fixed, source-verified data”, and, in the closing note, “Every cited source is verbatim from the canonical edition”. On the index and on three pages, the tagline and the description tags read “Primary sources only” — eleven times. And, page by page, that “every quotation above is verified against its primary source”, “every quotation is verbatim from its source”, “every claim traced to the primary sources”, “every patristic citation checked against the Greek or Latin original”, and “we do not put words in any mouth, friend or opponent.” | Those sentences were not true, and the rows above this one are the proof: the reviews of 20 and 21 September found misquotations, invented attributions and unsupported figures on most of the pages they opened, several of them on pages that carried the claim. The word “verbatim” is gone from all 70 descriptions, which now say the page cites its primary sources without promising that every citation is word for word. The index’s closing note now lists the editions it cites instead of calling them all verbatim, and “Primary sources only” has become “Primary sources first” — on three of those pages, with modern scholarship named where cited, which is what the pages do. The index and the eleven pages now say only what is done — the entries name and cite their sources so that a reader can check them, and confirmed errors are corrected and logged here. The same-day promise in the index’s structured data went with it, because the visible page had already stopped making it. | This log. A public claim about how the work is made has to match how it is made. | Corrected and logged here 21 September 2026. The counts below have different denominators: pages that carried the description, occurrences of it, and pages in the tree. The “verbatim” promise was cut from the page description of 68 pages across the whole tree, 70 occurrences, one of them earlier in the same day’s work and the other 69 in one pass. Inside the Sed Contra section that wording now survives only on this page, where the rows above quote it; outside it, “verbatim primary-source citations” still stands on three other pages of this site, and those have not been changed. The index’s own description said the answer comes “with verbatim citations to the primary source”; it lost the same word in its visible text and in its structured data. On the index, the structured data was changed in two further places and the closing note in one; “Primary sources only” was changed in eleven places across the index and three pages, Science, Faith, and the Galileo Affair, Unleavened and Leavened Bread and Praying to the Saints and Relics. Inside the Sed Contra section it survives only on this page, where the rows above quote it; outside it, “Primary sources only” still stands on twelve other pages of this site, and those have not been changed. The closing paragraph was changed on eleven pages: Eternal Security and Assurance, Images, Icons, and the Second Commandment, Is Muhammad the Paraclete?, The Davidic Genealogy and the Virgin-Birth Problem, The Great Apostasy and the Restoration, Theosis and Exaltation, Original Sin and Ancestral Sin, The Filioque and the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Praying to the Saints and Relics, Miracles and Hume and The Euthyphro Dilemma; two more pages in the same tree, on hell and on divine hiddenness, were cut in the same pass. The three description tags on Is God Just a Projection?, which said the page answered its objectors “with primary sources”, were corrected the same day to say primary sources first, with modern scholarship named where cited. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Evolution and Genesis, the Catholic Position and one JSON-LD answer | The Catholic Church “does not — and never did — require the special creation of biological species, a six-day chronology, or a young earth.” | The clause claimed more than we can support. It is a statement about every age of the Church’s history, and we had no source for it. Both places now read “does not require the special creation of biological species, a six-day chronology, or a young earth,” which is what the page can show. | No source. Removed rather than kept unsourced, per our own standard. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. The clause stood in the visible text and in one JSON-LD answer; both were changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Evolution and Genesis, EVO.2.R and EVO.2.R.S.R, the AI response, and one JSON-LD answer | Of Humani Generis §37: “§37 is a non-anathematized prudential judgment, not a defined dogma… That is precisely the kind of disciplinary, time-conditioned statement the Church leaves open to development as understanding advances.” And: “The Church has deliberately left room for development as the science and the theology mature.” | We graded a magisterial text for the reader and then told him the Church had left the question open. Neither was ours to say. The page now sets out what §37 says in its own words — that on this point “the children of the Church by no means enjoy such liberty,” that “the faithful cannot embrace that opinion which maintains that either after Adam there existed on this earth true men who did not take their origin through natural generation from him as from the first parent of all, or that Adam represents a certain number of first parents,” and the ground the encyclical gives, that “it is in no way apparent how such an opinion can be reconciled” with original sin “which proceeds from a sin actually committed by an individual Adam” — together with §20 of the same encyclical, that a matter on which the Supreme Pontiffs “purposely pass judgment” is one that, “according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.” How far that 1950 judgment binds today is argued among theologians, and the page now says plainly that it does not settle it. | Pius XII, Humani Generis (12 August 1950), §20 and §37 (vatican.va), read on 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Three places in the visible text and one JSON-LD answer were changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Evolution and Genesis, the Humani Generis §36 citation card and EVO.1.R.S.R.AI.R | The §36 card ended the quotation at “…souls are immediately created by God.” And one parenthesis cited “(Humani Generis §36; CCC §366)” for the claim about Adam. | Two citation faults. The card quoted the permission and stopped before the paragraph bounds it: Pius XII adds that the reasons on both sides must “be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church,” and that “Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain.” The card now carries both halves. And §36 says nothing about Adam; the paragraph that does is §37, which the parenthesis now names. | Pius XII, Humani Generis, §36 and §37 (vatican.va), read on 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One citation card and one response were changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Evolution and Genesis, the opening of the Catholic Position and one JSON-LD answer | St. Augustine wrote De Genesi ad Litteram “twelve centuries before Darwin.” | Fourteen, not twelve. The page dates the work AD 401–415 and Darwin’s Origin of Species to 1859; that is about 1,440 years. Both places now read “fourteen centuries before Darwin.” | Arithmetic on the page’s own two dates: 1859 − 415 = 1,444 years. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. The visible text and one JSON-LD answer were changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Evolution and Genesis, EVO.3.R, the EVO.3 epigraph, and two citation cards | Four passages printed inside quotation marks in words their named texts do not carry: “the lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the Lord” (Proverbs 16:33); the Latin epigraph “Attingit a fine usque ad finem fortiter, et disponit omnia suaviter”; “the same effect is ascribed to a natural cause and to God… but the whole effect proceeds from each” (Summa Contra Gentiles III.70); and “The rational soul can be made only by creation; which, however, is not true of other forms... It cannot be produced, save immediately by God” run together as one quotation. | Words inside quotation marks have to be the author’s. Proverbs 16:33 was corrected to the wording of a named edition, and on 24 September 2026 the page moved to the Douay-Rheims: “Lots are cast into the lap, but they are disposed of by the Lord.” The epigraph now matches the Nova Vulgata, “Attingit ergo a fine usque ad finem fortiter et disponit omnia suaviter” (Wisdom 8:1). The Contra Gentiles sentence is now given in Vernon J. Bourke’s published English and the translator is named. And the two Aquinas clauses, which come from different articles, are now printed separately — “The rational soul can be made only by creation; which, however, is not true of other forms” (I, q.90, a.2) and “it cannot be produced, save immediately by God” (I, q.90, a.3) — with the translation credited to the Fathers of the English Dominican Province. | Proverbs 16:33, Douay-Rheims; Nova Vulgata, Sapientiae 8:1 (vatican.va); St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles III.70, trans. Vernon J. Bourke; Summa Theologiae I, q.90 (newadvent.org, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province). All opened 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Two places in the visible text, two citation cards and one JSON-LD answer were changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Evolution and Genesis, the 1996 citation card | The card was labelled “Magisterial witness · the 1996 reaffirmation” and glossed “The Church accepts the biology and locates the dividing line exactly at the soul.” | Both overstated the weight of the text. A message to an academy of sciences is not a definition, and “the Church accepts the biology” is broader than anything the message settles. The label now reads “Papal address · not a definition,” and the gloss says what the address does: the pope tells the Academy that new knowledge leads to recognising evolution as more than a hypothesis, and locates the dividing line at the soul. | The card’s own text. We could not open the 1996 message itself on vatican.va at either path we tried, so the quotation on the card is unchanged and nothing new was added to it. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One citation card’s label and gloss were changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Evolution and Genesis, EVO.2.R, EVO.2.R.S.R and one JSON-LD answer | “Theologians working in the Thomistic tradition distinguish biological ancestry from theological humanity”; “recent work shows the two are separable”; and the distinction “is not a 2010 invention; it is the ancient distinction between body and soul applied to a new datum.” | Three attributions to scholarship we never named and had not read. The page now states the distinction on its own account — biological ancestry and theological humanity are not the same claim — and, where the objection says the distinction is recent, answers that the components are not new, that what is recent is their application to population genetics, and that recency is not refutation. | No source. The attributions were removed rather than kept unsourced, per our own standard. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Three places in the visible text and one JSON-LD answer were changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Is Eternal Hell Unjust?, HEL.2.R.S.R.AI.R, the Cantate Domino citation card, the 1949 card and one JSON-LD answer | “Florence condemns those who remain outside the Church — and the constant tradition, including the very Fathers cited, read ‘outside the Church’ as referring to those culpably outside… it codified the interpretation the magisterium had already defended against the rigorists.” The Cantate Domino card called this “the authentic, constant interpretation of extra Ecclesiam nulla salus.” And twice: “Vatican II codified, it did not reverse.” | We read a later qualification back into texts that do not contain it, and then told the reader nothing had developed. The 1442 decree states no exception for inculpable ignorance; the page now quotes it whole, as Norman P. Tanner’s Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils prints it, and says so. The limitation the Church now teaches — that one who knows that God, through Christ, founded the Catholic Church as necessary, and still will not enter her or will not stay in her, cannot be saved (CCC 846, quoting the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium 14) — is her own later authentic interpretation, and the Holy Office defended it before the Council, on 8 August 1949, ruling that the dogma “must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it.” The page now says the hard texts are hard and does not pretend the qualifier is in the 1442 text. | Council of Florence, Session 11, Cantate Domino (4 February 1442), trans. Norman P. Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils; Catechism of the Catholic Church 846–847 (vatican.va); Holy Office, letter to the Archbishop of Boston, 8 August 1949 (Suprema haec sacra). All opened 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One response, two citation cards and one JSON-LD answer were changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Is Eternal Hell Unjust?, HEL.2.R.S.R.AI.R, the anti-Origenist citation card and one JSON-LD citation entry | The anathema against Origen was quoted as condemning anyone who says the punishment of demons and the impious will end at some time, “or that there will be a restoration (apokatastasis) of demons or of impious men”; it was cited as “DS 211”; and it was said to have been “carried into the era of the Second Council of Constantinople.” | The quotation was not the translation’s words, and the link to the ecumenical council of 553 was ours, not the source’s. The canon now reads as Roy J. Deferrari’s English prints it — “that is to say, there will be a complete restoration of the demons or of impious men” — the translator is named, and the citation reads “Synod of Constantinople (543), canon 9 (Denzinger 211).” The sentences tying the canon to the council of 553 are gone. The page’s existing note that historians dispute whether the 553 council itself promulgated these anathemas is unchanged. | The Deferrari English of the Denzinger enchiridion, which prints this canon at 211, read on 21 September 2026. We publish no link: the host we read it on is not one we are willing to point readers to as an authority. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. The visible text, one citation card and one JSON-LD citation entry were changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Is Eternal Hell Unjust?, one JSON-LD answer | The Catechism (CCC 1735) quoted with the sentence closed after ignorance, the first of the factors it names as able to diminish or even nullify responsibility for an action. | The quotation was closed early, and closing it there made ignorance the whole of what the Catechism lists. The sentence goes on to name further factors, among them duress, fear and habit. The JSON-LD then carried the list whole, as the page’s own citation card already did. | Catechism of the Catholic Church 1735 (vatican.va), read on 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One JSON-LD answer was changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Is Eternal Hell Unjust?, HEL.3.R | The Supplement to the Summa is “a posthumous compilation assembled by Aquinas’s secretary from his earlier writings after his death.” | We named a compiler we could not source. The sentence now says only what is not in dispute: the Supplement is a posthumous compilation drawn after Aquinas’s death from his own earlier writings, it is his material but not his final redaction, and it carries no magisterial weight. | No source for the attribution. Removed rather than kept unsourced, per our own standard. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One response was changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Fine-Tuning, FT.1.R and one JSON-LD answer | “Worse, the inflationary multiverse imports its own notorious fine-tuning at the root: the initial low-entropy condition of the cosmos… the required precision is one part in 10^(10^123) — a number that does not shrink by adding more universes; it is a constraint on the generating conditions themselves.” | The number stood with no source beside sourced claims, and the sentence around it said more than we could show. The figure is Roger Penrose’s estimate for the initial conditions of our own universe, and the page now says so and cites it: “universes ‘resembling the one in which we live’ (2004: 343) populate only one part in 10^(10^123) of the available phase space volume.” The claim that the multiverse “imports” that fine-tuning, and the claim about the generating conditions, are cut. | “Fine-Tuning,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, reporting Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality (London: Vintage, 2004), p. 343. Opened 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. The visible text and one JSON-LD answer were changed, and a citation card was added. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Fine-Tuning, FT.2.R | “The challenger owes a single concrete model — one set of radically altered constants demonstrated to yield stable bound structures, an energy-flow gradient, and heritable complexity. None exists.” | False, and it was the kind of claim a reader would take on trust. Such models have been published. Harnik, Kribs and Perez, in “A Universe Without Weak Interactions” (2006), construct a universe that “undergoes big-bang nucleosynthesis, matter domination, structure formation, and star formation,” whose stars “burn for billions of years, synthesize elements up to iron, and undergo supernova explosions”; and Fred C. Adams, in “Stars In Other Universes” (2008), reports that “a sizable fraction of the parameter space (roughly one fourth) provides the values necessary for stellar objects to operate through sustained nuclear fusion.” The page now names both papers and says what is actually outstanding: no one has yet shown the further step to heritable complexity. | Harnik, Kribs and Perez, “A Universe Without Weak Interactions” (2006) and Fred C. Adams, “Stars In Other Universes” (2008), abstracts read on arXiv, 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One response was changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Fine-Tuning, nine citation-card labels and three JSON-LD references | Psalm and Wisdom verses labelled, for example, “Psalm 18:2 (Vulgate numbering) / Psalm 19:1 (Douay-Rheims)” and “Wisdom 11:21 (Vulgate) / Wisdom 11:20 (RSV-CE).” | The labels had the numbering the wrong way round. The Douay-Rheims follows the Vulgate numbering, so “Psalm 19:1” is not the Douay-Rheims reference; it is the Hebrew, and the Douay-Rheims reads Psalm 18:2. The cards now read “(Vulgate / Douay-Rheims) — … in the Hebrew numbering,” and the Wisdom cards, which quote the Douay wording, were labelled “Wisdom 11:21 (Vulgate / Douay-Rheims) — Wisdom 11:20 in the RSV-CE numbering”; on 24 September 2026 that note became “Wisdom 11:20 in most modern translations.” | Douay-Rheims, Psalm 18 — “The heavens shew forth the glory of God” at 18:2; also Psalms 8 and 146 at the same site. Opened 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Nine citation-card labels and three JSON-LD references were changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Fine-Tuning, the CCC §412 citation card | “Catechism of the Catholic Church §412 (citing St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas).” | Wrong Father. Paragraph 412 quotes St. Leo the Great and St. Thomas Aquinas; St. Augustine is not cited there. The card now names St. Leo the Great. | Catechism of the Catholic Church 412 (vatican.va), read on 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One citation card was changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Fine-Tuning, the Dei Filius citation cards and the JSON-LD citation list | A card quoting chapter 1 of Dei Filius was cited as “Denzinger 3025,” and printed the chapter as “This sole true God by His goodness and omnipotent power… immediately from the beginning of time fashioned each creature out of nothing.” | Two faults in one card. Denzinger 3025 is a canon of the same constitution, not chapter 1; the chapter is Denzinger 3002, which the same page already used correctly elsewhere, and the card and the JSON-LD list now say so. And the rendering matched no published English we could open. The card now prints the chapter as the published English we read has it: God “by an absolutely free plan, together from the beginning of time brought into being from nothing the twofold created order, that is the spiritual and the bodily, the angelic and the earthly, and thereafter the human which is, in a way, common to both since it is composed of spirit and body.” | First Vatican Council, Dei Filius, ch. 1 (papalencyclicals.net), opened 21 September 2026. That page names no translator, so the card names none. For the numbering, the Catechism’s own notes: the notes to “I believe in God the Father almighty, creator” (vatican.va) cite “Dei Filius I: DS 3002” and, separately, “Dei Filius, can. # 5: DS 3025.” Read on 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One citation card and the JSON-LD citation list were changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Fine-Tuning, the Summa Contra Gentiles III.70 citation card | Printed as Aquinas’s words: “When the same effect is attributed to a natural cause and to the divine power, it is not as though the effect were produced partly by God and partly by the natural agent: but the whole effect is produced by both, though in different ways, as the same effect is attributed wholly to the instrument, and wholly also to the principal agent.” | We could not match that wording to any published translation, and the card named none. It is now marked for what it is — a faithful summary of Summa Contra Gentiles III.70, in the same form the page already used for the same passage on another card — and the quotation marks are gone. Words inside quotation marks have to be the author’s. | No named translation. The quotation marks were removed rather than a translator invented. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One citation card was changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Who Caused God?, two citation cards and the JSON-LD citation list | Chapter 2 of Dei Filius cited as “Denzinger 3015” and chapter 1 as “Denzinger 3025.” | Both numbers belong to other texts. Chapter 2 is Denzinger 3004 and chapter 1 is Denzinger 3002 — the numbers the same page already used correctly on its other cards for the same chapters. The cards and the JSON-LD citation list now agree with the rest of the page. | The Catechism’s own notes on vatican.va: the notes to “The Knowledge of God According to the Church” cite “Vatican Council I, Dei Filius 2: DS 3004 cf. 3026,” and the notes to “I believe in God the Father almighty, creator” cite “Dei Filius I: DS 3002.” Both read on 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Two citation cards and the JSON-LD citation list were changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Who Caused God?, the COS.2.R.S.R citation card | Two conciliar texts printed in words no published English we could open contains: the Fourth Lateran Council defined that God “by His own omnipotent power at once from the beginning of time created each creature from nothing, spiritual and corporal”; and Dei Filius was quoted for God acting “from the very beginning of time.” | Both are now quoted as published. Lateran IV reads: God “by his almighty power at the beginning of time created from nothing both spiritual and corporeal creatures, that is to say angelic and earthly.” And Dei Filius reads: God “from the beginning of time brought into being from nothing the twofold created order, that is the spiritual and the bodily.” The Fine-Tuning page now prints the same English of that chapter, so the two pages no longer carry two renderings of one text. | Fourth Lateran Council (1215), constitution 1 and First Vatican Council, Dei Filius, ch. 1 (papalencyclicals.net), both opened 21 September 2026. Neither page names a translator, so neither card does. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One citation card was changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Who Caused God?, COS.3.R.S.R and the AI response | “the transformation and martyrdom of the eyewitnesses” and “transformed eyewitnesses who died rather than recant.” | Said of the eyewitnesses as a body, that is more than the sources establish. The page now says what they show: the transformation and perseverance under persecution of the eyewitnesses, who did not recant. | No source for the universal. Cut rather than kept unsourced, per our own standard. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Two places in the visible text were changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Who Caused God?, the Summa Theologiae I, Q.2, a.3, ad 1 citation card | The sentence “Since God is the highest good…” was attributed to “Summa Theologiae I, Q.2, a.3, ad 1 (the reply to the problem of evil)” and to no one else. | The words are St. Augustine’s. Aquinas is quoting him there: “As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi).” The card now names both — Aquinas’s reply, quoting St. Augustine of Hippo, Enchiridion 11 — as the Problem of Evil page now does. | St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q.2, a.3 (newadvent.org), read on 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One citation card’s attribution line was changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — The Problem of Evil, EV.3.R.S.R, the CCC §1008 citation card and one JSON-LD answer | The death the Catechism traces to sin is “the spiritual tragedy of human death, not the biological recycling of pre-human life”; and the death “introduced by sin” is “the spiritual death of man.” | That is not what paragraph 1008 says. The Catechism there speaks of bodily death: quoting Gaudium et Spes 18 and 1 Corinthians 15:26, it calls the death of the body, which man would have been spared had he not sinned, the last enemy still to be conquered. Making it spiritual death let the page answer the fossil record by changing the claim. All three places then said the death paragraph 1008 traces to sin is the death of man — bodily death, which he would have been spared had he not sinned — with the spiritual death, the rupture of the relationship with God, named after it, not in place of it. | Catechism of the Catholic Church 1008 (vatican.va), read on 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Two places in the visible text, one citation card and one JSON-LD answer were changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — The Problem of Evil, the trilemma citation card in the EV.1 cluster | The wording “Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then he is impotent…” was attributed to “The ‘Epicurean’ trilemma (as transmitted by Lactantius, De Ira Dei 13, c. AD 318).” | Those are David Hume’s words, not Lactantius’s — Hume’s, given to Philo, in the Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Part X (1779): “Epicurus’s old questions are yet unanswered. Is he willing to prevent evil, but not able? then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? whence then is evil?” The card now attributes them to Hume and prints them as the edition we read has them, except that it sets the name in small capitals. It also notes that an older, four-limbed form is transmitted by Lactantius, De ira Dei 13 (c. AD 318), who reports it as Epicurus’s argument, and keeps the page’s existing note that modern scholars judge the attribution to Epicurus likely false. | David Hume, Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (Project Gutenberg 4583), Part X, read on 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One citation card’s attribution and text were changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — The Problem of Evil, EV.1.R, two citation cards and one JSON-LD answer | “Aquinas answers it in a single line that has never been improved upon: because God is the highest good…” — with the line credited to the Summa Theologiae alone. | The line is St. Augustine’s, and Aquinas is quoting him: “As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): ‘Since God is the highest good…’” The page had also printed the same sentence twice, once under Aquinas and once under Augustine, so a reader saw one witness as two. Both cards now name both loci, the body says Aquinas answers by quoting Augustine, and the superlative is gone. | St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q.2, a.3, ad 1 and St. Augustine, Enchiridion 11, trans. J. F. Shaw (newadvent.org). Both read on 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. The visible text, two citation cards and one JSON-LD answer were changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — The Problem of Evil, EV.1.R and one JSON-LD answer | “The logical problem is, by the consensus of contemporary philosophy of religion — including its atheist practitioners — dead.” | We counted a discipline’s heads without having counted them. What we can show is narrower and stronger: J. L. Mackie, who pressed the logical argument in 1955, conceded in 1982 that “the problem of evil does not, after all, show that the central doctrines of theism are logically inconsistent with one another” (The Miracle of Theism, p. 154). Both places now say that instead, and both add that Mackie conceded the logical problem only and went on in the same book to press the evidential one. | “The Logical Problem of Evil,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which prints the sentence with the reference “(Mackie 1982, p. 154).” Opened 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. The visible text and one JSON-LD answer were changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — The Problem of Evil, the Salvifici Doloris citation card and the JSON-LD citation list | “St. John Paul II, Salvifici Doloris §18 (1984)” on the card carrying “Follow me!”, and “Salvifici Doloris §18, §19” in the JSON-LD. | Wrong section for that quotation. “Christ does not explain in the abstract the reasons for suffering, but before all else he says: ‘Follow me!’” is in §26; the card’s second quotation, “carries the greatest possible answer to this question,” is in §18. The card now reads “§26; the second quotation, §18 (11 February 1984),” and the JSON-LD list reads §18, §19, §26. | St. John Paul II, Salvifici Doloris (11 February 1984) (vatican.va), read on 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One citation card and the JSON-LD citation list were changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — The Problem of Evil, EV.3.R and EV.3.R.S.R | Pre-human natural evil as “a cosmic disorder Catholic tradition does not pin solely on the first human sin but also on the prior rebellion of angelic free will”; and “the existence of angelic free agency… is part of the deposit of faith long predating Darwin.” | Two different things were run together. That the angels exist and that some fell is taught by the Church. Extending their fall to explain natural evil in the pre-human world is a theological opinion held by some, not a teaching of the Church, and the page presented it as tradition and then as the deposit of faith. Both passages now make the distinction: the existence and fall of angelic free agency is taught; its application to pre-human natural evil is a theological opinion, not a defined teaching, and is offered as such. | The distinction itself, stated on the page. No new teaching is asserted, and the page cites no magisterial text for the application. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Two places in the visible text were changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — The Problem of Evil, EV.3.R and EV.1.R.S.R | The Free Will Defense described twice as “a Protestant-popularizer’s version” and “a Protestant-popularizer’s reduction.” | A misdescription of whose argument it is, and needlessly uncharitable. The Free Will Defense in its best-known analytic form is Alvin Plantinga’s. The page now names him, and makes the point it was actually trying to make: that the Free Will Defense is not the whole Catholic metaphysic of physical evil. | “The Logical Problem of Evil,” Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which attributes the Free Will Defense to Plantinga throughout. Opened 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Two places in the visible text were changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Divine Hiddenness, HID.3.R, the Lourdes citation card and one JSON-LD answer | The Church has certified “only about 70” cures at Lourdes as miraculous — with no date — and the recognition was credited to “the Lourdes Medical Bureau.” | The count was stale and the body wrong. Seventy-two cures have been declared miraculous, the most recent proclaimed on 16 April 2025 by the Bishop of Tursi-Lagonegro. And the Medical Bureau does not declare a miracle: the judgment that a cure is medically inexplicable belongs to the International Medical Committee of Lourdes, and the declaration itself to the bishop of the cured person’s own diocese. All three places now say so, and agree with what the page on miracles says. | Sanctuary of Our Lady of Lourdes, “Antonietta Raco, 72nd Lourdes miracle” — “Wednesday 16 April 2025 … the official proclamation of the 72nd miracle of Lourdes by Mgr Vincenzo Carmine Orofino, Bishop of the Diocese of Tursi-Lagonegro.” Opened 21 September 2026. The page’s separate figure for cures reported since 1883 is its own, older, unchanged wording and carries no new source here. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One place in the visible text, one citation card and one JSON-LD answer were changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Divine Hiddenness, HID.3.R, the AI response and one JSON-LD answer | “the Church runs one of the harshest screenings of supernatural claims on earth”; and “Catholicism is the religion that subjects its own claimed signs to skeptical, empirical review.” | Two comparisons with every other religion on earth, and we had compared nothing. The claims now say what the page can show: the Church subjects its own claimed signs to a screening that rejects the overwhelming majority of them. | No source for either comparison. Cut rather than kept unsourced, per our own standard. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. Two places in the visible text and one JSON-LD answer were changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Divine Hiddenness, HID.2.R.S.R and one JSON-LD answer | Lumen Gentium 16 quoted as saying that men have “very often, deceived by the Evil One, become vain in their reasonings and exchanged the truth of God for a lie”; and, shorter, “often, deceived by the Evil One, become vain in their reasonings.” | Neither matches the Council’s text. The Vatican English of Lumen Gentium 16 reads: “often men, deceived by the Evil One, have become vain in their reasonings and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie.” Both places now quote it that way, and name the text they are quoting. | Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium §16 (21 November 1964) (vatican.va), read on 21 September 2026. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. The visible text and one JSON-LD answer were changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — Divine Hiddenness, the Schellenberg citation card in the HID.1 cluster | The card called its own text “Schellenberg’s canonical form (argument-summary of his staged premises)” and then printed that summary inside quotation marks, as though the words were his. | A card cannot say it is a summary and then punctuate itself as a quotation. The wording is unchanged, the label is unchanged, and the quotation marks are gone; the card now reads “In summary:” before the argument. | The card’s own label. Quotation marks are a claim about who wrote the words. | Corrected on the page and logged here 21 September 2026. One citation card was changed. |
| 2026-09-21 | Sed Contra — the closing paragraphs of Is Eternal Hell Unjust? and Divine Hiddenness, and the descriptions and one citation label on The Problem of Evil | “More Sed Contra topics ship as each is verified against its sources”; “three clusters, six levels deep, every claim traced to its primary source”; “answered six levels deep with verbatim primary-source citations”; and a Richard Dawkins quotation labelled “River Out of Eden (1995) — verbatim.” | Not true, and the rows above are the proof: misquotations and unsourced claims were found on all three pages. The claims are cut. The descriptions on The Problem of Evil now say “primary sources first, modern scholarship named where cited,” and the Dawkins card no longer calls its quotation verbatim, because the book was behind a lending wall and the two hosts we could reach printed the sentence in two different wordings. The same wording — “with verbatim primary-source citations” — stood in the structured data of every Sed Contra page, sixty-eight of them, and it has been cut from all of them. | This log. A public claim about how the work is made has to match how it is made. | Corrected on the pages and logged here 21 September 2026. One closing paragraph on each of two pages, and three descriptions, one structured-data description and one citation label on a third, were changed; the word “verbatim” was cut from the structured-data description of every Sed Contra page in the same pass. |
| 2026-09-29 | Library guide, The Mass Guide (/mass-guide/ and the app’s copy), “The Presentation of the Gifts” | The priest blesses God for the bread and wine “which earth has given and human hands have made.” | That was the 1973 English wording, which the priest no longer says: the English of the Roman Missal has been different since Advent 2011. The guide now describes the prayer in our own words instead of quoting either translation. | The Roman Missal, Third Edition (2011), Order of Mass, the Preparation of the Gifts; its Latin reads fructum terrae et operis manuum hominum. | Corrected on the website and in the app’s copy, 29 September 2026. |
| 2026-09-29 | Library guide, “What Is Lent?” (/what-is-lent/), sources list | “Genesis 3:19 — ‘Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return’” | Those words are the Roman Missal’s formula for giving ashes, not the text of Genesis. Genesis 3:19 reads “for dust thou art, and into dust thou shalt return”; the formula echoes it. | Douay-Rheims, Genesis 3 | Corrected 29 September 2026. |
| 2026-09-29 | Library page, Fifty Saint-Prayers (/tools/rule-of-life-builder/library/fifty-saint-prayers/) | That Pope Paul VI “prescribed the new sacramental form” of the Anointing of the Sick in English words; and that the Confiteor printed there was the “Vatican English text.” | Paul VI prescribed the form in Latin (Per istam sanctam unctionem…). The English words, and the English of the Confiteor, are the translation made for English-speaking bishops by the International Commission on English in the Liturgy, not a text of the Holy See. The page now gives the Latin form with our own summary, and the Confiteor in its traditional public-domain form. | Paul VI, Sacram Unctionem Infirmorum (30 November 1972) | Corrected 29 September 2026. |
| 2026-09-29 | The Sanctum Dispatch #04, He Took His Body With Him (Ascension Sunday, sent by email 17 May 2026): its copy on this website and the newsletter’s own web copy | “The Catechism, paragraph 659, calls this the definitive entry of Jesus’ humanity into God’s heavenly domain. Paragraph 663: Christ’s body was glorified at the moment of his Resurrection, as proved by the new and supernatural properties it subsequently and permanently enjoys.” The page’s description cited “Catechism §§659, 663.” | The two paragraph numbers were wrong, and the first quotation was not word for word. The sentence about Christ’s glorified body is paragraph 659. The words about the Ascension are paragraph 665, in the “In Brief” summary at the end of that article of the Catechism, and they read: the Ascension “marks the definitive entrance of Jesus’ humanity into God’s heavenly domain.” Paragraph 663, which we had named, speaks of Christ seated at the right hand of the Father. The letter now cites paragraphs 665 and 659 and quotes both exactly, and its description, wherever the site repeats it, now reads “Catechism §§659, 665.” | CCC 659 and 663 and CCC 665 (vatican.va), read on 29 September 2026. | Corrected on this website and logged here 29 September 2026. The letter went out by email on 17 May 2026 and cannot be recalled; the correction to the newsletter’s own web copy is written and awaiting a publish step. |
A note on this reel
All three errors above are in the same asset, published 9 September 2026. The video’s description and the captions on the other platforms can be edited, and those corrections are in progress; the on-screen title card that reads “THREE SAINTS” is burned into the video frames and cannot be edited in place, and the video’s title repeats it. The choice was to leave the reel up carrying a correction rather than delete it, because deleting it would hide the correction this page exists to publish. If the frame is re-rendered, this entry will be updated to say so.
The underlying failure was ours: the reel passed our pre-publication gate, and that gate was checking the shape of the claims rather than fetching sources to confirm them. Retrieval-backed fact checking was wired into the generation gate on 11 September 2026 as a direct result.
Checked and stands
Not every objection is an error. When a viewer challenges a claim and the sources uphold what we published, we record that here too — publishing a “correction” that is itself false would be the worse failure.
| Date checked | Asset | Question raised | Why the claim stands | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-11 | Short, “They Burned Joan of Arc Alive — at 19” (published 4 June 2026) | A viewer objected that Joan of Arc was not burned alive — that smoke or asphyxiation would have killed her before the fire did. | The claim stands. The sources describe her conscious in the fire: a cross was held before her while she “called continuously upon the name of Jesus.” She was executed by burning at Rouen on 30 May 1431, aged about nineteen. No source we can reach states a cause of death other than the burning, and a person who dies of smoke in a fire lit beneath her was still burned alive. No correction is owed. | Catholic Encyclopedia, “St. Joan of Arc” |