Tolkien's Letter to German Censors, Two Looks

Tolkien vs. Hitler and the Nazis
Tolkien Lore : 4.VI.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dd96FrUOTQ

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Don't you think he was a bit unfair to Hitler as a painter?

Wouldn't it have been better if Hitler had stayed a painter?

Tolkien Lore

The world would probably be incomprehensibly better if most politicians would be painters instead. 😂

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Oh, there are indeed other politicians who should have remained painters or cooks as well ....

Schnick

This comment made my day! lol

Cian McCabe

Hans-Georg Lundahl I have often wondered what things would have been like had he just drawn landscapes my favorite version of that alternate history is where the Nazi's are led by Walt Disney instead.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

National Socialism led by Walt Disney? Hmmmm ...

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

4:35 Would you agree that Mozart and Wagner were actually Aryan to some extent - because there is a chord involving the Hungarian Gipsy scale?

D - F # - A b - C if you compare to Hungarian Gipsy scale? This chord was used by both.

Tolkien Lore

Not well versed enough in music to intelligently answer that question, but that is a fascinating and hilarious piece of trivia if true. 😂

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You can look it up in Hungarian Gipsy Scale and in music books on Wagner and Mozart ... it is basically a Dominant seventh chord, but with a flattened fifth.

III

Hans-Georg Lundahl

6:00 "Jews are great people" [update, I am overanalysing, he already had read the actual text and gave an offhand comment.]

I think he said something about "that gifted race". He certainly, as a Catholic, said nothing of "that true faith" ...

So, while he is taking a distance from racial antisemitism, he is still prepared to the liturgy on Good Friday which involved (up to Liturgic Reform after Vatican II) "oremus et pro perfidis Judaeis" and "Deus, qui et Judaicam perfidiam a tua misericordia non repellis" ...

Cian McCabe

Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm not familiar with that particular practice but I've always thought that being Catholic requires a certain amount of respect for the Jewish people after all if it wasn't for Abraham and Moses who ever they may have been historically we would never have been gifted God's grace and love.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

According to the Catholic faith, WE are the heirs of Abraham, we are the subjects of the King of the Jews and they are the new "Samaria" (as like Samaria was between Jeroboam and the woman at Sychar).

Tolkien Lore

Citation? I’m not aware of anything in the Catholic faith that treats the Jews as being the new Samaria.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Even from that time, when Israel was rent from the house of David, and made Jeroboam son of Nabat their king: for Jeroboam separated Israel from the Lord, and made them commit a great sin."
[4 Kings (2 Kings) 17:21]

The prequel to "we have no King but Caesar".

Also, Amos calls Samaria "cows of Bashan" and Christ by citing Psalm 21 implicitly called the Jews mocking him "bulls of Bashan".

Tolkien Lore

That’s talking about Samaria, not Judea.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Look, if I consider Judaism the new Samaria, there must be some parallel to Samaria.

BULLS of Bashan - how many Samarians classical sense surrounded Christ on Calvary?

None. So Amos speaks of COWS of Bashan when it comes to literal Samaria, what kind of Samaria is BULLS of Bashan? Can we see in clue in Samaria being too feminist under Jezebel and Judaism being too machist?

I do.

Tolkien Lore

But you were saying the Catholic view was that Jews were the new Samaritans. That’s what I asked evidence for.

I’m also not sure what the Good Friday liturgy proves. It’s a prayer FOR the Jews, so if anything they are given special place rather than the reverse.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"But you were saying the Catholic view was that Jews were the new Samaritans."

Technicality.

According to the Catholic faith, = refers specifically to what I intended to say, namely the immediately following.

WE are the heirs of Abraham, we are the subjects of the King of the Jews = Catholic faith.

and they are the new "Samaria" (as like Samaria was between Jeroboam and the woman at Sychar). = my own interpretation.

So, I was not really saying the Catholic faith officially terms Jews "the new Samaria", I was just being sloppy about what was Catholic official doctrine and what was my own thoughts on it.

"It’s a prayer FOR the Jews, so if anything they are given special place rather than the reverse."

It's a prayer for their conversion. It is in context between conversion prayers for "schismatics and heretics" and for "mohammetans and idolaters".

So, yes, it is a special place, but one very close to what Samaria was. Accepting Torah, but not Davidic kingship is a bit like accepting Old but not New Testament.

Tolkien Lore

Ok, fair enough, but I still don’t see how any of this reflects negatively on Tolkien.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I never said it reflected negatively on Tolkien.

You resumed his attitude as "Jews are great people" and I recalled his actual words as "that gifted race".

I just objected to your transition from secundum quid (great talented people would be a fair resumé of what he wrote) to simpliciter (great as in great overall, no reservations).

Tolkien Lore

Considering the context of responding to Nazis, great seems like a fair (comparative) translation lol.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Tolkien would probably have wanted to be so precise on theology, that he was not just concerned with whom he was answering.

Tolkien Lore

But by that logic no people are great people, and thus the most natural way to take my comment is that they’re just as great as any other, and certainly compared to how the Nazis viewed them. Seems to me you’re just being overly nit-picky. It’s not like my statement was intended to convey any theological message, and I read his statement verbatim so I’m obviously just glossing.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"But by that logic no people are great people"

I think Tolkien would have said Spaniards and Irish were great people, not just a gifted race.

"they’re just as great as any other, and certainly compared to how the Nazis viewed them."

Being a gifted race whom it would be an honour to be part of - note, he didn't say it would have been an honour to be part of the synagogue - is great compared to how National Socialists viewed Jews, but even so, JRRT is not content to say "they are great" or "they are great compared to how you view them", he is more specific, the race is gifted.

"I read his statement verbatim"

After this resumé?

It's three weeks since I saw the video and it is possible I commented before hearing all of the video.

Tolkien Lore

Which, again, I quoted....

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Before or after time signature 6:00 ?

I stopped video at 6:00 to comment on this.

Tolkien Lore

Did you not watch the part where I literally read his letter aloud?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

It was three weeks ago, you'd know better than I if it was before or after time signature 6:00 - which was it?

Tolkien Lore

Should be before.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I'll probably have to rewatch the video, but not this session at the cyber.

You did.

I might have been overtired, or I might have been forced to pause and resume later.

At three weeks distance I don't know which.

See acknowledgement in update.

My point can be restated like this.

There is a difference between telling a fan of Varadkar or Obama "I like Trump more than I like you" and telling them "there is nothing wrong whatsoever with Trump".

Exchange Varadkar or Obama for Hitler and Trump for Jews, I took Tolkien as basically saying the former and you sounded to me as taking his words in the latter sense.

Tolkien Lore

No, not at all. I was merely pointing out that Tolkien thought it would be a source of pride rather than shame to have Jewish ancestry.

Or even if not pride, at least advantage.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I agree - as long as the ancestry came without involving him in the Jewish synagogue.

I have, in that sense, the honour of being partly of that talented or gifted people as to ancestors - and of not being part of their synagogue myself.

Obviously, I am an ardent fan of Messianic Jews, ONE FOR ISRAEL and similar, despite their being Protestant ...

Hans-Georg Lundahl

PS, about as much as people like they (or for that matter not yet converted but hope he converts Pearlman) are giving me a nicer view of Jews, well, so also Trump seems to have signed an Executive Order to stop border police from separating children from parents. One more point in Trump's favour. If he signs another one to stop CPS from doing so IN the country to his own citizens, he's up a notch and on hero levels.

IV

Hans-Georg Lundahl

10:23 If I happen to have an interest in Nordic things ... and someone puts it down to an enthusiasm for Hitler (beyond his painting talents, that is!) do you think there is some similarity to the impertinent questions of some German censors in 1937 ...?

10:41 I haven't read the poem Beowulf to the full, but there is a Spanish comic book version (aesthetics similar to Conan), and I loved the scene where the Geats sit around waiting for Beowulf to come up ...

Geats know how to wait, when hope waneth ...

I think that (and how Beowulf, like Sigfrid, was a dragon killer), which persuaded St Sigfrid to become a missionary over at Skenninge and the neighbourhood ...

Cian McCabe

Hans-Georg Lundahl I've heard the man couldn't paint the human face for shit if you want to see his paintings I would advise you to find the ones with the fewest people.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

He did a lot of paintings with architecture and landscape.

His architecture is so good, one conspiracy theory I've considered is, after the war he survived and became a Disney employee, making the backgrounds for the technicolour movies.

I'm not very serious about this being the fact, but he and Disney have gorgeous architecture.

V

Hans-Georg Lundahl

11:41 Also, hindsight is always 20:20.

Whatever number of Jews were murdered, whatever was going on in the camps, Tolkien wrote in 1941 - and in 1943 it is only that the very rightwing Arvid Fredborg writes Behind the Steelwall, in which he among other things tells the world that German officers have a feeling something foul is going on ... he is actually a correspondent in Berlin for the most conservative Swedish daily.

(Note, Arvid was himself sharing some of the evils of the Nazi régime, like endorsing Eugenics)

VI

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Now, I wonder if you are as interested as I in the fact that Tolkien didn't like Azaña better than Hitler ... the letter where he and CSL met Roy Campbell?

Tolkien Lore

Doesn’t ring a bell off the top of my head.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Roy Campbell was the South African born convert to Catholicism.

JRR wrote (to Michael, I think) that he looked like Strider. He also wrote, Jack (CSL, of course) was so taken in by the Left propaganda, he couldn't believe what Roy was saying about Spanish Republican régime in fact involving persecution of Christians (I say "in fact involving" because I can't recall the exact words of JRRT and I don't want to judge on how much Azaña was directly promoting and how much he was just passively in collusion with the guys who had persecuted Carmelites).

Can't recall offhand which letter, but I could look it up.

Tolkien Lore

That sounds familiar now, but I don’t know enough of the full historical context to intelligently answer that either.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Well, how about reading a bit on the Spanish War, then ... http://ppt.li/3z6 (short link, because Firefox on this library does not allow me to copy paste full link)

http://ppt.li/3z7

VII

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Shared a link to this post.

Full links

http://ppt.li/3z6

Francisco Franco: A Life From Beginning to End (English Edition) Format Kindle
de Hourly History (Auteur)
https://www.amazon.fr/Francisco-Franco-Life-Beginning-English-ebook/dp/B075YHCDNN/ref=sr_1_2/258-7467097-9978429?ie=UTF8&qid=1528122960&sr=8-2&keywords=Francisco+Franco#reader_B075YHCDNN

http://ppt.li/3z7

La Guerra Civil Española (edición actualizada) (Espagnol) Broché – 6 avril 2017
de Paul Preston (Auteur), JORDI;MARIA LUISA BORRAS GONZALEZ;RODRIGUEZ DE LECEA, FRANCISCO; BELTRAN FERRER (Traduction)
https://www.amazon.fr/Guerra-Civil-Espa%C3%B1ola-edici%C3%B3n-actualizada/dp/8466339485/ref=sr_1_15?s=english-books&ie=UTF8&qid=1528123238&sr=1-15&keywords=Francisco+Franco

On Folded Steel and Related Subjects

How do I say NO to Masonry? · On Folded Steel and Related Subjects

The mysteries of folded steel in swords REVEALED! #katana
Shadiversity | 7.XI.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLqZdfcVoV8

Highlighting a bit of your words ...

11:15 "folding of steel is only necessary if you have imperfect steel in the first place"

11:22 "and in fact, taking good quality steel and folding it opens up to more detrimental results"

11:26 "it develops possibility for scale to be caught inbetween the folds"

11:28 "and scale is bad..."

11:31 "...right, rusty bits of steel inbetween the folds"

11:34 - 35 "and it also creates a higher level of decarborisation, through the forging process"

11:41 "so, far from the pop culture idea of 'forging steel makes it better' - no"

11:47 "forging good quality steel has higher chances of making it worse than what it was"

11:53 "and therefore the only reason you'd want to do it is for the artistic, beautiful result of the pattern"

So, if for instance a network were thinking of me as a bit of steel needing forging, and I don't like the pattern they are trying to impose, and think of myself as if not best quality steel, at least lots better than they reckon with, I have every reason in the world to persist in a NO THANKS ... or even a very steelhard NO?

Dionysus as Mangled Moses Revisited

Not meaning there are not also other sources, many of which were mentioned in a video I commented on*:

Miscellaneous Myths: Dionysus
Overly Sarcastic Productions | 15.VI.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5brAr51ip_k

Persephone as stepmother?

Ties in with my theory he's (very loosely and indirectly) based off Moses.

Pharao's daughter / Land of the Dead, get it?

4:04 It would seem the syllabic script was gone well before Greek alphabet arose.

It would also seem syllabic script was mainly used for tax purposes, not for literature.

Hence syllabis script is once referred to in Homer (about Bellerophon, in a side view from Iliad) as "semata lygra" (illboding signs).

I guess you can see why signs used mainly by tax collectors would be called lygra, right?

Bef. 4:30 Posei-Dôn ... in Mycenean it was Potei-Daon ... they adressed their main god as "lord Daon" ... Getting any glimpse of any memory to glean a comparison from?

Yep = Dagon.

6:42 When Greco-Romans compared BOTH Hinduism or Buddhism AND Judaism AND Christianity at first too to Dionysus worship, might we be seeing a hint these religions have some similarity to Orphicism?

9:50 6000 BC = carbon dated.

Actually Noah was probably dead by those objects last breath.

If you mean real years, 6000 BC is vastly inflated and a non-extant date.

12:13 Dionysus is found in a short episode or side view of the Iliad.

14:00 Dionysus has horns - so did Moses in some legend.

Thebans his followers? Well, Hebrews and Phoenicians (in Mycenean times Thebes would have been a Phoenician enclave).

Pentheus - confer role of Pharao ("let my people go").

Remember, Euripides is writing Bacchae about 1000 years after the actual life of Moses, plenty of times for Pagans to get the facts wrong more than once in a row.

New blog on the kid : Mythus de Baccho
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/07/mythus-de-baccho.html

* As usual, time signatures, except first comment mark where I commented on sth in the video.

Tommy Robinson?

Tommy Robinson? · Forwarding about Tommy Robinson

Here is one thing which tends to give me a clue or shape my impression:

Tommy Robinson arrest: video evidence that invalidates the license breach charge
Politico | 4.VI.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nZ-7lXCxaI

Leaving off at 9:56, this is my first impression (at somewhat earlier):

Did I get it right?

Tommy Robinson enumerated what charges were being made, the Sikh was affirming guilt (when? before or after verdict?) and it is Tommy Robinson who is considered the prejudicial journalist?

Mohammed and Joseph Smith Revisited

Mohammed and Joseph Smith Revisited · Lutheran Satire Gave the Word to Luther · ... on Luther and Swedish Reformation · Where "Lutheran Satire" Misses a Nuance on Where Rome Is (eternal vs present)

A Latter Day Re-Gift
LutheranSatire | 26.VIII.2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7bukaRhbI0

My comment:

Except for considering "saved by grace alone through faith alone" as orthodox and using good works for (keeping) your salvation wrong, excellent stuff.

I think I said sth similar on msn group Antimodernism ten years earlier, but msn groups went down in 2009, so I can't prove it.

His comment under video:

Also, I recognize that most of the captions fly by too quickly to read, so go to the following website, and I'll have them all linked there:

The High Mid Life : A Latter Day Re-Gift Quotes
http://thehighmidlife.blogspot.com/2012/08/a-latter-day-re-gift-quotes.html

David Wolf is Good

Leftists call for 'Humane Population Control'
David Wolf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6HOYcUCWx0

16:17 You know that Malthus was promoting no contraceptives or abortions, just "self control" and requiring that of other people.

A prime example of what Malthus himself promoted was later marriages. He minted the idea that it is "virtuous" for girls and for boys too not to marry as soon as it's physically possible.

Now this ideology is shaming girls who get pregnant at 13 and that shaming is not leading to early marriages (in many states of Europe and even US strictly forbidden with no pregnancy exception even at age 13), but to "abortion" or "adoption is the responsible option" - i e a mother of 13 is not allowed to be mother to her own children either way.

Yes, Malthus was in for evil.

18:46 I think Malthus did not actually advocate direct murder - more like making begging so irksome they die off by themselves.

Also evil, obviously.

And his words meant a lot more evil than he thought, perhaps ...

25:13 While Herero genocide was a horrible thing, it was not unprovoked and not unprecedented.

In Boer War, a few years earlier, English soldiery took away Boer population from countryside to avoid them supporting Krüger. They were put in concentration camps where black guards (with some animosity due to some racist attitudes from Boers earlier on) were doing things that were starving inmates to death, as far as the book "the century of camps" which I started reading a few years ago (but didn't finish).

Hereros had killed Germans before that genocide, so it was a kind of excessive retaliation, not just targetting innocents from Darwinian bias. That said, Darwinian bias will certainly have contributed to making genocide the "acceptable" solution it was not.

Glad my own partly German geographical background is more Austrian and West Germany than Berlin or Hamburg.

Update

with dialogue:

David Wolf

That is correct, the British did horrific policies on the Dutch speaking people in South Africa. And you know, concerning your comment about retaliation, the Ottomans said the same thing about the Armenians, that they were killing Turks and all that. This does not change the fact that there was indeed a eugenist interest in the genocide of the Herero and Nama.

Tallis Keeton

the most ardent helpers of Turkish mass massacre on Armenians were Circassians who were persecuted by the stronger state of Armenians in earlier times :) Is there no end to this madness :(

??

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"This does not change the fact that there was indeed a eugenist interest in the genocide of the Herero and Nama."

Unfortunately, yes.

Chesterton had a reason to write The Barbarism of Berlin.

"the most ardent helpers of Turkish mass massacre on Armenians were Circassians"

Some of whom were imported to the Muslim contingent of Palestinians in 19th C?

Not meaning Muslim Palestinians are generally Circassians, mainly they are Islamised descendants of Christian Palestinians, but some of the imports in 1860's (I think) could be dangerous.

End

of update.

later on vid: Quibble, it seems the overall thing is now called Max Planck Society and it involves several Max Planck Institutes.

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

I note from article, first president was Adolf von Harnack:

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

Harnack traced the influence of Hellenistic philosophy on early Christian writing and called on Christians to question the authenticity of doctrines that arose in the early Christian church. He rejected the historicity of the Gospel of John in favor of the Synoptic Gospels, criticized the Apostles' Creed, and promoted the Social Gospel.

In the 19th century, higher criticism flourished in Germany, establishing the historical-critical method as an academic standard for interpreting the Bible and understanding the historical Jesus (see Tübingen school). Harnack's work is part of a reaction to Tübingen, and represents a reappraisal of tradition.

He didn't reappraise it enough, though ...

Update on

notification

Hans-Georg Lundahl

http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/06/david-wolf-is-good.html

David Wolf

Thank you for your blogpost!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You are welcome, it has been updated with our dialogue!

Kallistos Ware Is An Evil Heretic
David Wolf
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbcQAkSRolI

0:44 I heard you quote him right?

"Persons of heterosexual orientation have the option of getting married ..."

One man, one woman. Doesn't Biblically or Traditionally matter if both are 100 % heterosexual, or one or both is bisexual or the bisexuality is even predominantly (except for the other person) homosexual.

A Mormon showed more Orthodoxy than Ware on this issue, when at age 14 he noticed he fell in love with boys, he said "this is not right, I need to get God's help to fulfil His law" and so he asked a girl who was a friend to help him get a girlfriend.

He ended up marrying, not the girlfriend, but the girl who was a friend.

So, his temptations against fidelity are homosexual ones, but his fidelity is a clearly lawful one, he has four daughters (last time I checked) with his wife.

Yes, Kallistos Ware is a heretic, as you quote him.

His view of Catholicism, in his Church History, is more moderate than say Romanides (an evolutionist by the way) or likeminded, but that's the good I can say of him.

While I strayed some years into Orthodoxy, I had about his attitude to the Catholic Church and on many other questions a Palaeohimerite one (against evolution, for one).

I hurried back when I heard a Pentecost sermon where "Benedict XVI" was targetted for being uncharitable in denying condom's as a good solution for Africa. I now consider him an antipope, and adhere to Pope Michael. Ratzinger was wrong on other things than on that one, and on that one perhaps even wrong in opposite direction to what that "Orthodox" priest was preaching on Pentecost Day 2009.

0:54 He actually said "but homosexuals have no such option?"

BBL, posting links to two videos including comments so far ...

Update, back as promised:

5:30 "they want you to think they are so smart"

Or they simply have that habit. You see a yellow taxi car in New York, "oh, they put on yellow taxis to make it look American" - or you conclude New York regularly has yellow taxi cars?

There is a culture which strikes some as "it's so smart" and some as "they want you to think" etc. But first of all, it's a culture. It's not the best one, but it is one.

7:13 Actually, nearly all of the time I was among Orthodox, I was ready to defend "filioque" not in the Creed, but as an optional and probably correct doctrine, since it had more backing early on than denying it.

St Augustine, St Leo, St Hilary of Poitiers ... ("yeah, that is because Blessed Augustine made a mistake and the others followed him" - but they do celebrate St Leo I who did follow him, if so, and not just as "Blessed Leo").

But also St Athanasius, which you can tell from letters even if you think his "quicumque vult" is a fake, which I don't think.

Also Hispania in Roman times, before Visigoths, I Council of Toledo, since in its explicatory creed against Priscillianism (that Council ended AD 400, when St Martin of Tours died).

9:26 If you don't like people who believe in evolution, you MIGHT like:

Creation vs Evolution
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com

It's my Creationist apologetics blog - before my general Christian, and Catholic vs Protestant ones (which I also cite):

somewhere else
http://notontimsblogroundhere.blogspot.com

Great Bishop of Geneva!
http://greatbishopofgeneva.blogspot.com

That Blogs Are Credible Sources - At Least on Pocahontas' Real Story

The Messed Up TRUE Story of Pocahontas
TheThings
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZMvyfDKMoQ

I got this right ... one source of your criticism of the Disney version is this blog:

https://pamunkeyblogger.wordpress.com/about/ ?

It seems you did:

[Pocahontas & John Smith: fact or fiction?
Research : Posted by Strong Bull on July 14, 2011 in Pamunkey]
https://pamunkeyblogger.wordpress.com/2011/07/14/26/

You know, some guys claim, no one would never take a blog seriously - thank you for proving otherwise!

How do I say NO to Masonry?

How do I say NO to Masonry? · On Folded Steel and Related Subjects

What It Took To Become A 32nd Degree Freemason. Who Is Nimrod In Masonry?
Chad Swans
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0-OxIpEzQ0

@Chad Swans : how do I totally AVOID harrassment meant to initiate me into freemasonry and similar?

It would seem that there is a year of silence, in which future masons can be harrassed by those already masons in the lodge he wants to join, and part of his testing is his keeping silent.

This means, any lodge wanting to harrass me out of Catholicism and into freemasonry can arrange to pretend I am in that year of silence. What can I exactly do to get out of that Masonic trap?

I am very much NOT intending to become a Mason, nor have I ever even considered it since back when I was 15 and my mother forbade me to join a secret society (probably sth like De Molays, I never learned what it was).

So, any Masons pretending to initiate me, and I mean any of whatever lodge, and for that matter even Knights of Columbus, Knights of St Patrick, Templars, Rosicrucians and so on, are committing a very grave fraud.

There are other explanations for my situation, also involving some type of fraud, but this is one of the explanations on my list.

Exactly HOW do I give, finally and forever, Masonry a clear and resounding NO?

For instance, if I am a Christian, and as such detest Nimrod, and denounce Göbekli Tepe as the seat of Nimrod's tyranny known Biblically as Babel, what does it take for Masons to see, I do very much not want to be initiated and do not even totally care what Nimrod means to Masons.

Douglas Gresham at Liberty University

Douglas Gresham - Liberty University Convocation
Liberty University | 11.I.2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34rrfsoQieg

9:54 "the man who was on speaking terms with High King Peter of Narnia"

Was CSL or was Digory Kirke? In my fan fic, CSL rescues Susan who has just fled from some Rabadash like type (but in England!) before he inherits the papers of his somewhat distant friend Digory Kirke (who also was teacher of Indiana Jones) which papers include six stories, one by Digory and Polly and five by children they talked to.

The seventh story comes from Susan's true dreams (well after her converting from the state described by Lady Polly while they were talking among the recently died before talking to Aslan about Susan ...) - tested as such by her previously dreaming in agreement with Digory's notes on Eustace and Jill ... who was also between that story and what we know only from her dream, an archery pupil of hers.

So, in my fan fic, CSL never was the one recording what the children were saying about Narnia, it was all the time his friend (a somewhat distant one) Digory Kirke.

In Voyage of the Dawn Treader an authorial voice is saying that Lucy would always say when talking about this or that ... to Digory, on my view, not to CSL. See end of Lion, Witch and Wardrobe ...

B U T he and Warnie were on speaking terms with Queen Susan, just before you came - just after she had lost everyone (except George Kirrin and her friend Nobby and the famous five ... reduced to four since Tim died).

And his friend Tolkien was on speaking terms with Queen Lucy somewhat before that ... (that's why the seven could come to Aslan's country from our world - Tolkien was Catholic, you see, and they prayed the rosary on that train).

Btw, my fan fic is just half written - less than 80 chapters and should have c. 150 (and no, it is not all the end ones missing and all the earlier ones there, that would be too easy, one of the last chapters was one of the first written).

28:18 Exegi monument' aere perennius ... yes, I think Narnia and LotR will be read up to Doomsday. However, probably also because some bronze from then will still be around too, namely Doomsday not too far off, I shouldn't wonder ...

Just Sharing This Video - On Free Speech

When Free Speech Gets You Arrested: A True Story about the Dangers of Handing Out the Constitution
Alliance Defending Freedom | 14.VI.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qvt5IBRBQ8

(PS, if you want to hear of another threat, see here: https://saveyourinternet.eu : #SaveYourInternet · #DeleteArt13)

On Catholics Believing Evolution

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : On Catholics Believing Evolution · Creation vs. Evolution : Does Humani Generis say we must subject to a future judgement of the Church as if there was none already pertaining to the matter? · What did the Allocution Say?

Practical Catholicism: Can Catholics Believe in Evolution?
St. Benedict Monastery | 14.V.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyGOCkp-TEk

I

1:28 "belief has to do with matters of salvation, not with matters of science"

FAITH has to do with matters of salvation, but not always to exclusion of matters of science (for instance, it is a matter of science that if a boy having fallen from first or second floor through a window has broken the neck and does not breath and has no pulse, he will not usually start walking the next minute : it is a matter of faith, as in how the faith was revealed, that St Luke seems to have met St Paul over diagnosing a death by involuntary defenestration and watching St Paul raise the boy to life).

BELIEF is not the same concept as FAITH, even if German and Swedish express both concepts with same word (Glauben / Tro).

Note, in the Creed, the word "I believe in" denotes both belief as the general mode of faith and faith as the firmness mode of this particular belief.

Note also, in the Creed, one of the things we believe in with divine faith is Holy Spirit having spoken through the prophets, meaning also the hagiographers whose texts we have.

1:54 "the process God used to make everything that is something we don't know"

To make matter out of nothing or life out of no-life is not a natural process. It is a miraculous act. It involves nothing comparable to natural processes of growth or reproduction. When a boy grows to a man or when a man and a woman make a boy or a girl, there is a pre-existing capacity within what you start out with and what you end up with. And bringing this natural capacity to its fruition involves a process. Not so with things that start out with no natural capacity for what the result is to be, or no complete capacity : as with creating the first man, or as with a rational soul being given to the body as ovum and spermatozoon meet and unite : while human genetics are made so the soul can express its rationality, they cannot produce it.

So, we can know there was an absence of process - therefore we cannot pretend to be ignorant of "by what process".

And if your "Pope Francis" in 2014 denied this absence of process, so much the worse for him.

2:30 "expresses our belief about how the universe came into being"

It expresses our belief insofar as it also dictates our belief. Lex orandi, lex credendi. If we read it at Easter Vigil, we are also required to believe what is in it. Precisely as if we recite "et carnis resurrectionem" we are also not allowed to pretend eternity involves only a spiritual resurrection, that one happening soon after death of each rather than on Doomsday for all (or very few exceptions).

And you said very well about how the universe came into being : the story tells us of the process, not as natural process, but as a very well ordered series of miracles. It also involves a definite time span, since the days are said to have evening and morning after the creation acts in them.

II

"we can also see that it's not a scientific account of what happened"

OK. If we put day 2 in scientific terms, the waters above the firmament are mainly hydrogen, and on day 4 God uses the hydrogen to create Sun and most stars (all burning ones and the gas giant planets Jupiter and Saturn). So, because Moses does not use the term hydrogen, but uses water indiscriminately for H2O and for H2 and for plasma state H ... is that a bit of how you meant?

2:52 "for instance, in the story of Genesis, earth is treated as the centre of the Universe"

Well, so? It is, isn't it?

Or do you consider Galileo a great scientist? Or Kepler a huge improvement not only on Tycho Brahe but on Riccioli?

Riccioli famously accepted most Keplerian improvements on Tycho, but not his rejection of Geocentrism.

Or do you consider Herschel was a great scientist because he took "relative Heliocentrism" over from Kantian philosophy which took it over from heresies of Bruno?

So, your example is bad.

2:58 "and all the other planets and heavenly beings are merely lights in the sky"

The word "merely" is not in the text. Secondary to earth, granted. And they are lights in the sky, even a very small asteroid in asteroid belt is, if you use a good telescope. It is lighter than the black background. At least on the side reflecting sunlight.

3:05 "there just isn't any concept of the sheer breadth of the universe as we now know it"

As we "now know it"? Or as conclusions from Herschel on have misrepresented it?

3:14 "the story even says that God credated a dome around the earth to keep the rain water up in the sky"

Take a close reading:

And God said: Let there be a firmament amidst the water: and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made a firmament, and divided the waters that were under the firmament, from those that were above the firmament, and it was so. And God called the firmament, Heaven; and the evening and morning were the second day.

• 1) The firmament is not given as being a dome in the sense of a shell or cupola : it could very well be one thing throughought the thickness of space (especially if it is grammatically possible to see "waters above firmament" as "waters in upper part of firmament"), and sth which, by its daily rotation, helps to keep things up where they are;
• 2) The waters above the firmament are also not directly said to be rain water.

If my Hydrogen reading is correct, the "flood gates of heaven" (chapter 7, Flood account) need not be trap doors in a cupola under a rain water reservoir, it could mean the normal space separating higher layers of oxygen from lowest layers of hydrogen.

In other words, unless you start out with Evolutionist or Heliocentric bias, there is nothing positively offending scientific understanding in the Genesis account, even if some technical detail is left out.

III

"the Biblical writers"

As far as I know, Genesis 1 account has one writer : Moses, who received on Sinai a vision of the six days.

"were [!] conveying the message ..."

"They were" or rather he was conveying a lot of factual material too. Celestial bodies created on day four after plants created on day three, for one.

While God's creative power is indeed a salvific truth, Genesis 1 is not limited to saying Qui vivet in aeternum creavit omnia simul or sth like that.

Making a story, unless it is a short parable announced as such, out of a statement that is true, while some details in the story are not, that is not the work of a hagiographer, but of a novelist. While novelists have their use, we do not confess of the Holy Spirit that He has spoken through the poets.

3:57 "and they expressed it based on the ideas that they had at the time"

Suppose flatness of earth was a common idea back then, why was it not expressed?

Why does the Bible often speak of "four corners of the earth" which is literally correct if taken as "four corners of the land" / "of the continents" (more than four corners implies we do not quite know which of the continental corners are enumerated as the four Biblical ones, but not that they do not exist), and why does it never say "the Earth is a square which has four corners"?

Well, one reason could be, hagiographers were never flat earth, though they took care not to be too overtly round earth either, or, an alternative one could be, while they were personally flat earth, God protected them from expressing it, as He would have protected a Pope personally considering the Blessed Virgin was sanctified from original sin after her first instant from expressing that in more than a private manner prior to 1854.

So, why would Moses have enjoyed less protection, less even negative infallibility, than Popes?

Of hagiographers, we predicate positive inspiration and therefore total inerrancy, of Popes only negative protection and therefore just infallibility as to doctrine and morals ... and you are saying in effect that "hagiographers" (reducing Moses to a committee!) had less even infallibility than Popes?

They had at least as much, if they were personally flat earth, and more, if they were personally round earth. Indeed, they had more than negative infallibility, not less! Including Moses in his first few paragraphs, obviously.

"their ideas were not based on scientific that they did not have"

Their ideas were based on God given knowledge which the scientists of today do not have.

IV

"we can accept [evolution] like the writers [!] of Genesis accepted the ideas of their time"

No, we can't. If you "can" you are contradicting the Creed (see previous), the council of Trent, the chronology in the Christmas proclamation being one Trentine item (we are not supposed to criticise the received Roman liturgy) and the consensus of Church Fathers on a short overall history being another one (we are not supposed to have, perhaps even extrapatristic-consensus, certainly not counterpatristic-consensus exegesis of the Bible).

"It's our belief God was the one who set everything in motion"

• 1) this is not an accurate rendering of Prima Via. God in Prima Via is not concluded as earliest mover in a temporal series of movements, but as first, like the pedalling biker is first mover of the wheels, in a contemporary series of linked movements;
• 2) it is not in any text of the Bible
• 3) it sounds like a combination of Newton and Voltaire, like Deism.

Therefore, it does not accurately reflect Catholic belief.

So, you are getting wrong what we can accept, but also wrong what is "our belief".

V

Dialogue

starting with Jorge Ramos and myself.

Jorge Ramos

St Augustine and others said that we cannot take literal the whole Bible, specially the book of Genesis chapters 1 to 11. If you take it literally, there are contradictions with logic of the real world and God cannot contradict itself. In addition, there are 2 creation narratives and 2 Noah’s Ark accounts. If we take everything literal we are in a contradiction because in the first creation narrative man and woman were created last after everything else, while the second narrative God creates man first and woman last. However, we are allowed to believe either narrative or evolution ir any other rational explanation as long as it does not contradict Catholic teaching. But we should form our consciences and be rational in matters of science and faith.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"St Augustine and others said we cannot take literal the whole Bible, specially the book of Genesis chapters 1 to 11"

In what work and what book and chapter, please?

NOT De Genesi ad Literam Libri XII, I specifically checked.

"If you take it literally, there are contradictions with logic of the real world"

• 1) which ones do YOU note?
• 2) do you say St Augustine noted any, and which ones if so did HE note? Work, what book, what chapter?

"and God cannot contradict itself"

Himself, you mean? That is the one thing you have said so far I agree on, even if your English is not excellent.

"If we take everything literal we are in a contradiction because in the first creation narrative man and woman were creaed last after everthing else, while the second narrative God creates man first and woman last"

• 1) Two narratives, but they do not contradict, since they do not have the same scope.
• 2) Woman after man does not contradict first account, since it is a close-up.
• 3) Animals after man is not clearly in the text of second account, which says "God having created beasts brought them fourth to Adam" - it could mean the beasts He had created earlier on day six but brought fourth to Adam after He had created Adam, and it could also mean He created extra examples of each before Adam's eyes, so Adam was to know He was the creator.

"However, we are allowed to believe either narrative"

No, required to believe both.

"or evolution"

According to what decision by the Catholic Church? What level of magisterium? What exact wording?

If Humani Generis (only an encyclical) contradicts a canon by Council of Trent (infallible), Humani Generis cannot be Church teaching. If on the other hand Humani Generis does not really necessarily contradict that canon, perhaps Humani Generis is NOT allowing us to believe (actually believe) evolution : just preliminarily allowing learned men to argue for it. And requiring them to combine good exegesis with good science, when doing so.

"But we should form our consciences and be rational in matters of science and faith"

Here is one rational thing for you : God cannot contradict what He actually did. Now read Mark 10:6.

Updates

on this dialogue, if forthcoming, are below here.

Other Dialogue

resuming some earlier:

I

2:52

"for instance, in the story of Genesis, earth is treated as the centre of the Universe"

Well, so? It is, isn't it?

Or do you consider Galileo a great scientist? Or Kepler a huge improvement not only on Tycho Brahe but on Riccioli?

Riccioli famously accepted most Keplerian improvements on Tycho, but not his rejection of Geocentrism.

Or do you consider Herschel was a great scientist because he took "relative Heliocentrism" over from Kantian philosophy which took it over from heresies of Bruno?

So, your example is bad.

K Boudreaux

Hans-Georg Lundahl geocentricism, i.e., planets and stars revolve around the earth...either my understanding of geocentricism is wrong or geocentrism is obviously false

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If by "revolve around the earth" you mean "revolve in perfect circles centred on earth" it contradicts observations.

I don't mean that, there is also room for epicycles.

Other than that, I don't know what you mean by "obviously false".

K Boudreaux

Hans-Georg Lundahl I'm saying the planets and stars do not revolve around the earth in repeated patterns, be it circles or elliptical patterns. I'm also saying that the earth is not the center of the universe since the earth is not fixated at one point, the earth moves, the galaxy moves, the universe expands...Im also saying that if the Bible says these things then it is wrong and therefore cannot be taken to be interpreted as literal descriptions of natural phenomenon

Hans-Georg Lundahl

You were saying not only that, but that the denial of this was "obviously" false, i e your position is "obviously" right.

Beyond social indoctrination, what is obvious about your position being right?

• Claim : "earth moves around itself" - test?
• Claim : "earth moves around Sun" - test?
• Claim : "Sun and Solar system move around the centre of the galaxy" - test?
• Claim : "the galaxy moves in the universe, like moving away from other galaxies" - test?

How many of these tests are on top of that obvious?

The one which is obvious is "the scientists say so now". The reply is fairly obvious "the scientists said the opposite earlier".

"if the Bible says these things then it is wrong"

So, you put your faith in scientists above your faith in God?

"and therefore cannot be taken to be interpreted as literal descriptions of natural phenomenon"

If the Bible is wrong on the literal plane, why would it be right on any other one?

It doesn't function like Lord of the Rings, or like Narnia, it is presented as history.

K Boudreaux

you are correct, from the viewpoint of an observer on earth, it appears that the earth is fixed and everything else in the sky moves, hence geocentricism. so geocentricism might be true relative to an observer on earth, though this is something all together different than saying it is objectively true independent of a particular frame of reference. I will grant you that the insights of modern physics and astronomy are not obvious.you are also correct that science changes its theories in light of new evidence. if understandings which were thought of as true are proven false, then they must be discarded. as technology becomes more sophisticated, new observations must be accounted for. You are well read, I'm sure you are aware of the observations which discredit geocentricism. Also, I never claimed the earth moves around itself, never said the sun and solar system move around the center of the galaxy, and as far as galaxies moving away from other galaxies, this is observed. Also, I'm curious, do you accept the theories and observations of modern physics an astronomy or do you believe the earth remains fixed and everything else moves around it?

So, you put your faith in scientists above your faith in God? I believe that the scientific method provides accurate (although limited) knowledge of the natural world, I believe this because science makes predictions that work. This belief is not mutually exclusive to having faith in God. do you not trust modern medicine? do you believe that motors operate by magic? the technology that we utilize everyday is based on understandings about reality that came about through the scientific method. that these technologies work confirm the likelihood of its assertions and theories, and both of us assume the likelihood of these predictions to be practically certain, we do this on a daily basis. you cannot use a computer, drive a car, go to the hospital, take medicine without having 'faith' in science...I disagree that the bible is presented as history in the modern sense of the word to mean linear descriptions of factual events. The bible is written as salvation history which is altogether something different than modern scientific history. it is kerygma...

well, one thing is clear, both of us are trying to reckon with the obvious contradictions between the biblical description of the cosmos vs the modern scientific description of the cosmos. You either have to make twists and turns to the biblical texts to fit the modern scientific schema OR you have twist and turn the scientific schema to fit the biblical schema, or perhaps you have to do a little bit of both on each side. Either way you chose is a distortion nonetheless and undesirable in my opinion. maybe the answer is to leave the bible to matters of faith and morals and leave science to descriptions and explanations of natural phenomena. the metaphysical, theological, and moral truths in the bible don't lose credibility if you assert that its historical and scientific truths are inaccurate...its just not a big deal to me, but maybe I'm missing something.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Let's break your answer down a bit ...

"I believe that the scientific method"

More like good science, there is no one such thing as THE scientific method, despite a hype around Popper.

"provides accurate (although limited) knowledge of the natural world,"

I agree, except for the subject "scientific method" which refers to Popper.

"I believe this because science makes predictions that work."

• 1) This sounds a bit like Popper;
• 2) How do you test a "prediction" like "galaxies move apart"?

"This belief is not mutually exclusive to having faith in God."

As far as you have stated it so far in the last comment, no. But the point is, you were just applying sth from what I'd consider bad and ultimately atheistic science paradigms over the revealed word of God.

"do you not trust modern medicine? do you believe that motors operate by magic? the technology that we utilize everyday is based on understandings about reality that came about through the scientific method."

Ian Fleming discovering penicilline and that shepherd in South France who discovered Roquefort Cheese (which contains natural penicilline) surely did not wait for Popper to tell them how to do discoveries.

Your drift seems to be the positive inverse of "guilt by association", it's more like "heroism by association" ... and it is not a very either logical or scientific type of thought process.

"that these technologies work confirm the likelihood of its assertions and theories,"

When it comes to theories like electromagnetism ... well, actually, magnets and at least static electricity were known and worked before Maxwell came around.

The point is, electricity as technology and electromagnetism as Maxwell's theory about it are about things that can be studied here and know, at close hand. OK, electrons as particles actually can't.

BUT things like "alpha Centauri is 4 light years away" and "Andromeda Galaxy is 2 500 000 light years away" or "this meteorite is 4 500 000 000 years old" are NOT things which in themselves can be studied here and now.

What you have here and now are certain things, which according to certain theories, like Heliocentrism being true or like all Lead in the meteorite coming from Uranium, indicate certain things, however, these theories are less easy to test than electromagnetism.

Saying they are validated by fridge and combustion engine is like saying the fridge validates the theory behind the combustion engine or the combustion engine all theories about the fridge. No.

And what about technologies - there are LOTS of them still used - discovered by people who actually were Geocentrics (and sometimes Flat Earthers) and relatively speaking (both Hebrews and Egyptian Pagans) Young Earth Creationists?

"and both of us assume the likelihood of these predictions to be practically certain, we do this on a daily basis. you cannot use a computer, drive a car, go to the hospital, take medicine without having 'faith' in science..."

False, I use all of these by taking faith in the relevant scientific discipline - not in "science" as an abstract collection or hypostasis of all of them. Or, actually, I don't drive a car, so I don't use all of them. But I certainly do have faith in the scientific theories of the combustion engine.

These have not been discovered by the self same method as all other scientific theories, there is no such thing as THE scientific method. There are scientific methodS, and they are more or less likely to be true, more or less scientific.

"I disagree that the bible is presented as history in the modern sense of the word to mean linear descriptions of factual events."

I am sorry, but you are citing a VERY unscientific discipline, namely "history of sciences", if even as much.

"Linear" (at least roughly so) "description of factual events" was always a thing, it is NOT a modern discovery.

"The bible is written as salvation history which is altogether something different than modern scientific history. it is kerygma..."

I am sorry, but salvation history is still history and it is factual, and it is also linear : creation came before fall, fall before curse, curse before flood, flood before old covenant, old covenant before incarnation and so on.

Putting salvation history or kerygma in a different category from history "as we understand it today" is NOT believing it.

I missed two other ones.

"you are correct, from the viewpoint of an observer on earth, it appears that the earth is fixed and everything else in the sky moves, hence geocentricism."

And this is prima facie evidence, though perhaps not definitive one, as far as we can know at first. It should be upheld as long as opposite cannot be proven.

"so geocentricism might be true relative to an observer on earth, though this is something all together different than saying it is objectively true independent of a particular frame of reference."

The wager that what's true to an observer on earth is also so to an observer above the fix stars is not a stretch.

"I will grant you that the insights of modern physics and astronomy are not obvious."

Thank you. I'd add, they are not all of them even proven insights.

"you are also correct that science changes its theories in light of new evidence."

Or in the light of new bad arguments, too.

"if understandings which were thought of as true are proven false, then they must be discarded."

Key word : proven.

"as technology becomes more sophisticated, new observations must be accounted for."

I believe all new observations can be accounted for within geocentrism.

"You are well read, I'm sure you are aware of the observations which discredit geocentricism."

I am aware of the observations which are often supposed to discredit it.

I am also aware of some gaps in the logic about this discrediting.

"Also, I never claimed the earth moves around itself, never said the sun and solar system move around the center of the galaxy, and as far as galaxies moving away from other galaxies, this is observed."

This is not observed, this is claimed.

"Also, I'm curious, do you accept the theories and observations of modern physics an astronomy or do you believe the earth remains fixed and everything else moves around it?"

Either directly or indirectly, below the Empyrean Heaven (where we hope to go to Glory, where Christ and Mary are seated not just souls but live bodies), which unlike lower ones is not moving.

"well, one thing is clear, both of us are trying to reckon with the obvious contradictions between the biblical description of the cosmos vs the modern scientific description of the cosmos."

Obviously.

"You either have to make twists and turns to the biblical texts to fit the modern scientific schema OR you have twist and turn the scientific schema to fit the biblical schema,"

Or even discard wholesale certain parts of what is supposed to be these days the "scientific" schema.

"or perhaps you have to do a little bit of both on each side. Either way you chose is a distortion nonetheless and undesirable in my opinion."

Discarding bad science is not a distortion.

"maybe the answer is to leave the bible to matters of faith and morals"

First matter of faith "Deum Patrem Omnipotentem, Creatorem Coeli et Terrae" and one more "Spiritum Sanctum ... qui loquutus est per prophetas".

In other words, faith is not just about values, it is about facts.

"and leave science to descriptions and explanations of natural phenomena."

Science informed by revelation, please.

"the metaphysical, theological, and moral truths in the bible don't lose credibility if you assert that its historical and scientific truths are inaccurate..."

You are missing the point that metaphysics as accounting for also includes physics, and theology as being about the God who created not just our souls but also our bodies and where they are placed should have physical implications too.

You are missing the point that the moral truths come through by a story which is a true one - which is the definition of history.

"its just not a big deal to me, but maybe I'm missing something."

Indeed, I'd say you are missing quite a lot. You reason like a Kantian, not like a Thomist.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"the Biblical writers"

As far as I know, Genesis 1 account has one writer : Moses, who received on Sinai a vision of the six days.

"were [!] conveying the message ..."

"They were" or rather he was conveying a lot of factual material too. Celestial bodies created on day four after plants created on day three, for one.

While God's creative power is indeed a salvific truth, Genesis 1 is not limited to saying Qui vivet in aeternum creavit omnia simul or sth like that.

Making a story, unless it is a short parable announced as such, out of a statement that is true, while some details in the story are not, that is not the work of a hagiographer, but of a novelist. While novelists have their use, we do not confess of the Holy Spirit that He has spoken through the poets.

K Boudreaux

Hans-Georg Lundahl when the Bible talks about the 'water above the heavens' where are the heavens and where is the water?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I take "above" as also meaning "in the upper part of".

Water = H2 and H2O molecules which are plentyful in space.

K Boudreaux

Hans-Georg Lundahl yet 'above' and 'in the upper part of' indicate different spatiotemporal locations in relation to 'the heavens'. So if 'above' means 'in the upper part of' then why does scripture say 'above' instead of 'in the upper part of'. but, you say 'I take to also mean' so if it is true that there is water above the heavens, where is 'above the heavens' and where is the 'water above it'.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Hans-Georg Lundahl yet 'above' and 'in the upper part of' indicate different spatiotemporal locations in relation to 'the heavens'."

In the English translation.

I am NOT at all sure this is quite true either for Hebrew or for St Jerome's near vernacular Latin of the Vulgate.

Also, the H2 and H2O in space are clearly above some of the Heavens, like the atmosphere.

A Catholic starts with the presumption that the text has a literally accurate meaning, even if it be not quite obvious, not that the literal meaning should be demonstrated as inaccurate.

K Boudreaux

if you admit that you don't know what the actual word in Hebrew means, then how can you possibly attempt to interpret 'above' to also mean 'in the upper part of' you expand the meaning of the word above to 'in the upper part of' while at the same time admitting that you don't actually know what the word means in the original language

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I don't know Hebrew, but I very much do know that prepositions and local adverbs have diverse ranges of meaning across languages.

Commenting on CMI, Two Videos

Video A

Creationists damage Christianity? (Creation Magazine LIVE! 7-10)
CMIcreationstation | 6.VI.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCiVk5hTAnc

I

@ 9:18

Forensics you say is two things:

• collecting data
• making a story that will fit them

History actually comes in on more than just the latter, so, more:

• having a history involving a need to collect data
• collecting them and analysing them
• making a story which will fit both the data and the already known parts of history.

II

@ 22:09 or a little before

While it is true that Geocentrism was very widely held so that at a time a serious Heliocentric (not just considering the idea nice sci fi, as Nicolas Oresme) would have been at a smaller percentage than "clinically insane" (how good clinical insanity back then was not decided like that!) ... it is totally envisageable that Geocentrism is actually totally true (absolute Geocentrism, that is), even if the proportions are inversed now.

Why? Because the "geography" of space is no more tested science (beyond certain points, like last object which can give trigonometry by angle of reflected sunlight on it) than history of the universe.

Unless, of course, you take the prima facie evidence of sight and inner ears (these latter saying earth is not moving as we stand on it) as the scientific argument it actually is.

As to Phlogiston, it certainly had a passing majority, but it was a fairly new theory (about a few decades) by the time it was rejected.

Video B

Archaeology supports the Bible (Creation Magazine LIVE! 7-06)
CMIcreationstation | 14.III.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RE6yyn4dFms

I

15:35 How can an archaeological discovery show that the magnetic field was 40 % stronger in AD 1000? So far you have mentioned THAT archaeology supports that, but not HOW ...

II

18:02 I do not support the idea of radioactive decay rates having been much faster in the recent past.

In Barry Setterfield's version, it also involves speed of light having been much faster - totally unnecessary if geocentrism accounts for trigonometry to "near stars" not being trigonometric and the stellar distances therefore possibly very much closer to us.

For Argon or Helium trapped in rocks, they could be from atmosphere ...

As to Potassium Argon and alpha decay resulting in Helium, one can also doubt that the half life was correctly measured in the first place.

With half life of Carbon 14, we can check it against historically identifiable organic material. Take a bone splinter from Charlemagne - he died in 814 so his bones are 1204 years old. If they contain 86.446 percent modern Carbon, this confirms the halflife of 5730 years.

You can't get any comparable confirmation for long half lives, and 5730 years is not a half life calculated in a lab, since Libby calculated 5568 years, not 5730 years.

For decaying carbon 14, it is easy to get material that is 1/3 or 1/4 the age of a halflife, historically dated, but for decaying potassium or uranium, it is impossible.

III

2300 BC Ebla Tablets?

That would have been between Joseph in Egypt (carbon date 2600 BC, as per Djoser if Joseph was "Imhotep") and birth of Moses (carbon date 1713 BC as per funeral ship of Sesostris III).

Note, it seems coherent texts in any language come from this time ...

IV

At 25:49 - it seems you have already drifted from the topic of archaeology.

Keaton Halley's "atheists can know morality, but only because atheism is wrong" is of course gold.

But it is another topic.

Now, nowhere on the archaeology topic did you mention carbon 14 and rising C14 levels up to the present level (which on my view was reached well before the present).

So, perhaps time to mention it : if Genesis 14 as per Osgood 1986 on CMI was at the end of Chalcolithic of En Geddi (Hazazon Tamar), this means it's carbon dated about 5000 years old but it is really from only about 4000 years ago.

This means the carbon 14 level was at least as low as in samples that are now 1000 years old, that being 88.606 percent modern Carbon, but probably even lower. Genesis 14 is thus still during the "carbon 14 rise".

You might want to take a look at my overview attempt over this carbon 14 rise: http://ppt.li/3zr

As you mentioned evolution based morality of Hitler, it may be noted that not all the movements often lumped together as Fascism share it. Notably, the other German Fascism, Austrofascism (actually a stage in the longer story of Christian Social Party) did not.

Full link

http://ppt.li/3zr
= Creation vs. Evolution : Ultra Brief Summary on Carbon 14 Method
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/05/ultra-brief-summary-on-carbon-14-method.html

Responding to "Critics of Pope Francis, What’s your End-Game?"

New blog on the kid : So, Catholicism is Demographic - But is the Catholic Demography Always Catholic? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : On Marcel Lefebvre and "Traditionalist Dissent" · Responding to "Critics of Pope Francis, What’s your End-Game?"

Here is the link:

Critics of Pope Francis, What’s your End-Game?
by Mike Lewis · May 9, 2018
https://wherepeteris.com/critics-of-pope-francis-whats-your-end-game/

My answers are:

• to title question : I accept Pope Michael
  
  
• to another question, in the text, see exchange below. Note, Mike Lewis very graciously supplied the exact text of my comment:

Mike Lewis

... Ultimately, however, the argument is useless. Regardless of how emphatically and convincingly someone insists on the historicity of the heresy of Honorius, they still can’t point to a single point of doctrine or canon law that says anything about how Catholics are to respond should a pope teach heresy. ...

Hans Georg Lundahl

You are forgetting Saints are a valid interpretation of God’s law.

Liberius : St Athanasius explained his stance as circumstanced by persecution and ignored it (as a forced concession), St Felix the second accepted to become Pope in his stead (he seems to have already been antipope, but now, acc to Liber Papalis, “began to be Pope”).
Honorius : St Sophronius ignored his laying on the lid.
John XXII : I recall from my SSPX days that St Paschalis (was it he?) threatened to “withdraw his obedience”. On SSPX interpretation, that threat, if John XXII had persisted, would have been a “recognise and resist” stance. On a probably more realistic sede (and orthopapist) stance, if John XXII had persisted, St Paschalis would have concluded he was not Pope.

For any SSPX : the stance of St Paschalis was a temporary one which effected what it intended (conversion of a Pope from an inconsiderate statement) within a reasonable delay. The stance of St Sophronius simply seems to have been “laying on the lid” is not really and truly a Papal power, so he could ignore that (and Honorius does not seem to have demanded any direct acceptance of Monotheletism).

That of St Athanasius was only possible because there was a reasonable position the papal stance at Sirmium was more a tortured than a freely papal one, and St Felix conceded this and stepped back for Liberius when he came back and cleared himself. So, the stance of St Athanasius before having full proof of Pope Liberius having been forced and to what extent of concession (only ambiguity) would correspond to the Palmarian stance to “Paul VI” as “prisoner in the Vatican”. So far, unlike Liberius, we have no proof he was (I’m an ex-Palmarian, btw).

Feel free to comment here, either with a blogger account, or using name+URL!

Charles A. Coulombe Wavering on the Flood Issue

Four Creeds referred to in video : Apostlic, Nicene, Athanasian and Trentine, I suppose.

Noah & the Flood
Tumblar House | 23.II.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OILJ1RPbSU

I

1:55 Charles, you were exemplary ... it is that "Father" who should have been either recanting or (back in those days) being put on a bonfire, personally, or if he escaped to non-Catholic territory (well, that is where he was) by proxy of a haydoll.

II

2:45 ... I said you were exemplary ...

http://ppt.li/3zo

III

6:45 "maybe the standard view of fossilisation generally is right"

By fossilisation, we usually mean permineralisation. Creationists (Kent Hovind on some videos, notably - and I just checked CMI too) have documented cases of rapid such (linking to CMI, before reading):

http://creation.com/make-no-bones-about-it

The reason fossils are supposed to support long age and evolution is actually another one, which I deal with here:

http://ppt.li/3zp

Extended links

http://ppt.li/3zo = Creation vs. Evolution : Can Six Days or Eve from Side of Adam be a Metaphor?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/06/can-six-days-or-eve-from-side-of-adam.html

CMI : Make no bones about it!
May 28, 2000
http://creation.com/make-no-bones-about-it

http://ppt.li/3zp = Creation vs. Evolution : Archaeology vs Vertabrate Palaeontology in Geology
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/06/archaeology-vs-vertabrate-palaeontology.html

Austrofascism, as Some Call It ... and Italian Fascism

Fascism
Tumblar House | 8.XII.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8OS-e3xEHw

I

On a topic related to America and Italy.

Are all or most Americans from Tierra del Fuego to Newfoundland and Alaska descended from Amerigo Vespucci or namesakes of him or disciples of other Aymerics, like Anne Catherine Emmerich?

Or could it be they are only called Americans after living between Tierra del Fuego, Newfoundland, Alaska and that place having its name after an Emmerick whose Italian pronunciation of it was Amerigo ... the mapmaker Vespucci?

You see, that case is a bit parallel to whether Palestinians are called so because Philistines (they aren't, at least except marginally), or whether they are called so from Palestine, the Roman name imposed in memory of Philistines, while themselves being Israelites.

II

Nobody else?

I think Dollfuss didn't look too mournful over sharing the label with Mussolini and even Finzi.

Calcandi Serpentes

As Catholics we have a lot more in common with fascism than any other secular political belief.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I suppose you consider Distributism as a directly Catholic, then?

III

[Benito Mussolini named after Juarez, since Italian for Bennett is Benedetto was mentioned by Charles A. Coulombe:]

Speaking of Benedetto. The ASCII value of BENEDETTO, as of Portuguese PAPABENTO, is ... matching the Greek gematria for BENEdIKTOC ... (sorry, can't copy paste proper Greek spelling from Greek wiki, the firefox in Nanterre University Library won't allow that). In other words, it matches Apocalypse 13:18.

B 66 060 06
E 69 120 15
N 78 190 23
E 69 250 32
D 68 310 40
E 69 370 49
T 84 450 53
T 84 530 57
O 79 600 66

IV

12:22 In fact, the corporativist view on shoe industry working together for the common good is one which was in fact shared by Christian Social Party as well as Italian Fascism, National Socialism and I think also Peronismo.

Partly, but not totally even by Swedish Social Democrats : LO would be for "we want higher wages", but if they went to strike to long, SAP governments would tell them "you go to a table with your employers".

It does make some sense to call that strategy fascism, insofar as Benito Mussolini was for it once he had hit down the Communist Unions ... (dopo il biennio rosso) and before either Hitler or Dollfuss took power in 1933 or Saltsjöbad deals were signed in 1938 or Perón got elected in 1946.

I also honour the mayor of Assisi who collaborated with Father Ruffino Niccacci to save Jews because he was a Fascist of the early days recalling when Jews were even overrepresented and considering Salò Republic was a puppet régime with Hitler pulling the strings.

And I honour a socialist adversary to whom I expressed my objection to class struggle and my preference for harmony between classes - he said "harmony between the classes is fascism" and I replied "then I'm a fascist".

Meaning of course, while I think you have a right to not call Christian socials fascists, I think it is somewhat pedantic to exact this same behaviour of everyone else (unless you are a Habsburg ... if you have Otto's word, I'll assume I'll ... if not enthusiastically obey at least try to not disobey too much ...)

No, I am of course not using "Austrofascist" of people I dislike. I consider myself an Austrofascist myself, unless Otto von Habsburg or his heirs were to actually forbid me to use that word of Christlich Soziale Partei ...

One thing they did wrong, though - the camp for tramps. Yes, it was not a labour camp or a death camp, but it falsified the labour market by forcing tramps to look for work ... and I am not surprised it was made in Oberösterreich (that is where Hitler came from and there is even a fossile whale there - a monster from before the deluge, you know like that horror that swallowed Jonah and the one that swallowed Pinocchio ...) ... but apart from that, I am a fan of Austrofascism - or to call things by proper names, of course, Christian Socials ...

On Marcel Lefebvre and "Traditionalist Dissent"

New blog on the kid : So, Catholicism is Demographic - But is the Catholic Demography Always Catholic? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : On Marcel Lefebvre and "Traditionalist Dissent" · Responding to "Critics of Pope Francis, What’s your End-Game?"

Marcel Lefebvre: Father of Traditionalist Dissent
by Mike Lewis · Published June 2, 2018 · Updated June 2, 2018
https://wherepeteris.com/marcel-lefebvre-father-of-traditionalist-dissent/#comment-1210

Comments debate:

To article:

E, F, G, H=G, I=H=G, K (really previous), and its double answer L and M, or latter one is posted so.

E

Hans Georg Lundahl

June 2, 2018 at 4:15 pm

Tradition and Bible are higher than the Magisterium, insofar as the Magisterium is there to protect them – not primarily itself – from neglect or abusive misunderstandings.

Answered twice, C and D

C

Mike Lewis

June 2, 2018 at 4:23 pm

Fixed that sentence. I agree. I initially put the word “Tradition” in quotes to denote that it was their private interpretation of/appeal to Tradition, but I can see that my meaning wasn’t clear.

Hans Georg Lundahl

June 3, 2018 at 3:13 pm

If your line of Popes were to say “two plus two make five” and I insist it makes four, does that become my private interpretation of mathematics?

If Magisterium habitually makes Bible and Tradition actually accessible, it follows they remain accessible even if Pseudo-Magisterium would seem to reduce their actual content to private interpretation. If it doesn’t, it follows Bible, Tradition and Magisterium are useless since incomprehensible, inaccessible.

Answered twice, A and B

A

Mike Lewis

June 3, 2018 at 3:38 pm

We actually have a post on that. https://wherepeteris.com/225-2/

Hans Georg Lundahl

June 4, 2018 at 6:42 am

The post does not adress the issue.

The issue was the precise level on how far obedience can force you to go against your most basic intuitions. Saying the argument “can backfire” because someone could erroneously apply it to so and so, or saying it does not apply where we think it applies are other levels.

Also, I argued elsewhere, when it comes to an adulterous couple, we can perhaps hope they are not in mortal sin every sex act both of them, we can perhaps hope there are intermittent moments of the state of grace, but we cannot hope there is a continuous state of grace for both of them in moments where they chose to continue a cohabitation which will lead them to sin.

B

carn

June 4, 2018 at 10:15 am

“If your line of Popes were to say “two plus two make five” and I insist it makes four, does that become my private interpretation of mathematics?”

Doesn’t matter what the Pope says about mathematics. As a more relevant example:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

number 23 sentences 3 to 5:

“A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events, even if a scientifically determinable cause cannot be assigned to each particular phenomenon. Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it.”

First and second quoted sentences are statements about what is known by science, just like 2+2=5 would be a statement about mathematical knowledge.

A catholic might decide that Pope Frances is writing in these two sentences complete utter nonsense and that he will completely disregard what the Pope says there; that would not be disobedience to the Pope (it might be “disobedience” to logic, facts and science, but that is not necessarily sinful).

In the third sentence the Pope draws effectively a moral conclusion; namely that if quoted sentences 2 and 3 are correct, that then there is a moral duty to do something about climate change.

If a catholic presumed it to be true that there is climate change, it would be disobedience to the Pope if said catholic concluded, that due to this facts he has absolutely no duty whatsoever to do anything at all; as the question of “Need we do check whether to do something if there is manmade and potentially problematic climate change?” is not one of science but a moral one.

(Of course the issue gets complicated if some clever catholic thinks: “Socialism always causes more pollution than capitalisn; all the eco politics will lead to socialism; hence, to minimize pollution every eco-politic must be opposed”; such a catholic might appear disobedient, although in a very technical sense he isn’t, if he arrived after honest and careful thinking at said ideas; as he would have followed his moral duty to consider adjusting his liefstyle and concluded that doing nothing at all than good old Repbulican politics is best course of action).

Hans Georg Lundahl

June 4, 2018 at 12:09 pm

You did not adress those who say “we have no such duty since there is no evidence of global warming”.

By the way, my own take on it, some things which would reduce emission of fossil fuels are desirable on other grounds, which would therefore coincide with the ecological agenda in some applications.

Not in others, like when people are now in Paris forbidden to light a fire in the fireplace.

carn

June 5, 2018 at 10:01 am

“You did not adress those who say “we have no such duty since there is no evidence of global warming”.”

You are correct; it should have been “namely that if quoted sentences 2 and 3 are correct and the scientific consensus does not err”

Hans Georg Lundahl

June 5, 2018 at 10:15 am

Oh, so a Pope’s recommended or commanded action is in fact subject to the rights and wrongs of why he thinks so?

That opens the gate for quite a lot of dissent.

D

jong ricafort

June 2, 2018 at 10:42 pm

Hans Georg Lundahl,

Good day!

Please reflect on the statement below of Arch.Lefebvre:

As scriptures said “from the fullness of the heart a mouth speaks”

“The situation in the Church after the Council [is] such that we no longer know what to do. With all these changes or we risk losing faith or we give the impression of disobeying.I would like to get on my knees and accept everything; but I can not go against my conscience.” (Arch.Lefevbre)

Look closely on this words

• 1. “The situation in the Church after the Council [is] such that we no longer know what to do..
  • (DUBIA/Confusions set’s in)
  
  
  
• 2.”I would like to get on my knees and accept everything… (PRIDE; cannot & will not bend his knees)…”
  
  
• 3. …but I can not go against my conscience.”
  • (FREEWILL, don’t want to submit his will to abide God’s Will…Unsubmission or Disobedience)

So you see the very words that comes out of Arch.Lefevbre is the same opposing spirits that Lucifer manifested when God presented His Will. The Son of Man is willing to remove His Glory & Majesty in Heaven to become a GOD-MAN….

This is paralleled to TLM vs. Novus Ordo….

The Holy Spirit is also willing to be stripped of Royal Robe in Worship, the Holy Mass removed of it’s external beauty for the sake of Ecumenism, to follow the Will of the Father “that they maybe ONE as we are ONE”(John17:22)

This is my personal reflections…you may not agree with it…but certainly Arch.Lefevbre ignores the Breathe of the Holy Spirit in forming His Church to face the Third Millenium…

Tradition must be ALIVE to follow the BREATHE of the Holy Spirit where it WILLS…

The three opposing spirits took place in the following sequence DUBIA, PRIDE and DISOBEDIENCE…

As Ted Flynn in his article stated “Dubia belong to Satan, and Faith belong to Christ”…

And our beloved Pope Francis said only thru CONVERSION the DUBIA will be clear-out, by seeking the Light of the Holy Spirit.

Godbless.S&IHMMP4us.Amen

Hans Georg Lundahl

June 3, 2018 at 3:17 pm

If there was some pride, I’d say it was rather about his caution not daring to call out Paul VI / Montini as a sham Pope.

Do you know what Rev. Georges de Nantes did?

He made a long documented case file against Pope Paul VI and put it before Pope Paul VI. A real Pope would have taken that and handed the accusation over to judges he appointed over himself. Montini called the Carabinieri to get Rev. de Nantes out.

It seems he also sent a pill (known to be abortive as part of its effect) to nuns having been raped in Congo.

Jong ricafort

June 3, 2018 at 4:54 pm

Proverbs18:2

Ofcourse how can he say that word “sham” infront of a Pious Pope, remember Pope Paul VI will be ecanonize soon to Sainthood.

That documented allegations backfired now it has no merits to a pious pope recognize by the Church as Saint.

While Arch. Lefevbre is also prematurely proclaim by Trads as candidate for Sainthood, the only question is who will canonize him, but more problem is to what church? The Vatican II Church which some Trads doesn’t recognize..

St. Pope Paul VI had won the prize of Heaven and his life is a witness to God given victory over his Pontificate while supporters of Arch. Lefevbre will have a long journey to sainthood if ever Heaven will approved the binding.

It wont happen belonging to a church without a Living Pope and Church Magisterium.

As St. Ambrose said…

“Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclessia, Ibi Deus.

Godbless

Hans Georg Lundahl

June 4, 2018 at 6:38 am

“Ofcourse how can he say that word “sham” infront of a Pious Pope, remember Pope Paul VI will be ecanonize soon to Sainthood.”

For those who consider Bergoglio a Pope. If we rather think David Bawden was validly elected in an emergency conclave, validly accepted and validly took the name Pope Michael, I am fairly sure Paul VI will NOT be canonised.

F

jong ricafort

June 2, 2018 at 8:42 pm

Thanks for the great article….

I see clearly now how to connect the words of Arch.Lefebvre to Lucifer words in Heavenly Realm, as St.Pope Paul VI stated Lefebvre has taken “the spirit of opposition”….

What can we reflect on this?

When God the Father shows His “Divine Plan in the Salvation of Man”…How does Lucifer manifested his behavior?… by “strong opposition” and says the famous word “NON-SERVIAM/I WILL NOT SERVE”…

For me this is the ROOT of the spirit manifest by Arch.Lefebvre…”I WILL not go against my conscience…meaning he wants only to OBEY his OWN WILL”…

How can we confirm this actions?

Vatican II Council is the BREATHE of the Holy Spirit inspired to the Church to prepare it’s new task in the coming Dawn of the Third Millenium…the New Evangelization focusing on Pastoral Care & Ecumenism…this would mean only ONE THING, both the Clergy & Faithful must be docile to the Voice of the Holy Spirit and must allow TRADITION to Breathe IN New Life it cannot be stagnant it must develop/progress to allow the Breathe of the Holy Spirit to move where it WILLS”….

This was the core message of Pope Francis to the DUBIA Clergy Theologians, Lay faithful to seek CONVERSION of mind and heart.

This WISDOM of Pope Francis was so great it is BIBLICALLY True..Why? it can be paralleled to the DUBIA/Confusions suffered by the body of believers and even the Apostles in John6:66…But Jesus does not offer explanations or compromise the HARD TRUTH, Jesus simply let them go separately…and what did Jesus do to clear-out the DUBIA to the remaining Apostles & Disciples, the Spirit of Truth descend to Lighten Up their Confusions.

This is exactly what is needed by the Clergy now Conversion,a personal Pentecost.

That’s why we can see that Traditionalist in some channel does not believe in the coming Second Pentecost, first they choke the Breathe of the Holy Spirit in the Vatican II Council and now they are preventing the faithfuls to seek the Light of Conversion offered by Pope Francis.

Pastoral Care and Discernment needs a lot of graces and strength from the HELPER/ADVOCATE….but who is the Helper it is always been the Mother of the Church…Advocata Nostra…and in my prayerful reflections the SPIRIT OF TRUTH in John14:16 chose to DWELLS in a Maternal Heart to reveal the TRUTH… The Holy Spirit had CHOSEN from eternity His Advocate too…in the humble Jewish Woman…who said to St. Bernadette ” I AM”…the Immaculate Conception… OVERSHADOWED…

Sweet Heart of Mama Mary be my salvation.S&IHMMP4us.Amen

G

carn

June 2, 2018 at 11:08 pm

“, the most commonly shared view is that popes can make serious doctrinal errors or even promulgate heresy in the exercise of their ordinary (non-infallible) magisterium. This goes contrary to the traditional teachings of the Church on papal primacy, as we have demonstrated in the past, and as Stephen Walford discusses convincingly in this February 2017 piece for La Stampa.”

The words “non-infallible” are misplaced if in ordinary magisterium a Pope cannot make serious doctrinal errors.

“In a future piece, I will delve deeper into the similarities of thought between the Archbishop Lefebvre and many of Pope Francis’s critics today.”

Similarities between Pope Francis and Pope Paul VI in this regard would be nice:

“We are the first to deplore excesses. We are the first and the most prompt to look for a remedy.”

especially in respect to excesses that are and will be made out of AL.

““I find him confusing sometimes””

Never understood, what the fundamental problem with such statement should be. If someone finds some other person confusing sometimes, why should one not say so?

After all, i know for certain that if i would say: “I fully understand what Pope Francis teaches in AL.” that i would be lying.

The usual solution – simply ask the one one does not understand a few questions for resolving unclear issues – is unfortunately not possible with Pope Francis. And there i find him completely confusing, cause i cannot wrap my head around why one should not answer questions of confused subordinates; after all, they are going to completely ruin any good plan, if they are too dumb/confused to follow it, so giving them some answers which resolve their confusion and get them back in line is usually paramount.

Jong ricafort

June 3, 2018 at 5:16 pm

Pope Francis akready answered the solution to Dubia remember it is paralleled to John gospel chapter six.

When the body of believers was confused even all the apostles were troubled. But thanks to St. Peter contemplative heart saying “to whom shall we go”

In times of confusion one must not leave the Church nor attack its leadership.

What did Jesus promised to them to ckear out their confusions.. Jesus said He will send the ParacleteAdvocate.

Pope Francis encourage Dubia Clergy to undergo Conversion, their Dubia will be clear out by seeking the Light of the Holy Spirit. Pope Francis is calling all Clergy to be docile to the voice of the Holy Spirit.

Discernment is a gift one must possessed to understand AL.

And Pope Francis declaring Mama Mary as Mother of the Church is a clear sign the help will come, remember Mary is the Spouse of the Advocate the Spirit of Truth resides fully and mystically to the Woman… Overshadowed!

As St.Kolbe teaches that the word “I AM” the Immaculate Conception transcends mystically.

As Pope Francis beautifully expresses his reflection in saying ” the Church as a Teacher and Guide always look to a Loving & Merciful Mother”…Mama Mary is truly the Helper/ Advocata Nostra in this end times.

Godbless

carn

June 4, 2018 at 2:30 am

“Pope Francis encourage Dubia Clergy to undergo Conversion”

Conversion from what to what?

Also, if someone i asked to convert away from X, but does not hold X, then said person cannot follow the request. And, if someone is asked to convert to Y, but has no idea what Y is, then again said person cannot follow the request.

“In times of confusion one must not leave the Church nor attack its leadership.”

So do nothing and wait is the plan of the day. Ok.

“Discernment is a gift one must possessed to understand AL.”

Regarding the secular definition of discernment, i am quite competent at discernment. Yet, that helps little.

So at best, i do not understand what “discernment” means in this context.

“Pope Francis akready answered the solution to Dubia remember it is paralleled to John gospel chapter six. When the body of believers was confused even all the apostles were troubled.”

Difference is that the hard to understand teaching was clarified by Jesus himself during the last supper and by subsequent events.

On the other hand supposedly said clarification already happened in respect to AL (e.g. the letter to Argentine bishops); but that does not resolve the issue.

On this site there are some people, who maybe have an explanation that resolves nearly all problems; unfortunately, it is similar to what Cardinal Müller said and says; which would be fine, if Pope Francis had ever implied “Listen people, Müller got it right and understood how to work out AL in line with doctrine; I’ll make sure he has a position in which the Church can make good use of his excellent skill resolving dogmatic questions”; unfortunately, it seems Pope Francis actions imply rather the opposite.

Jong ricafort

June 4, 2018 at 2:46 am

You answer seems to confuse yourself.

Conversion means humbling oneself to God, aaking God’s help to enlighten us.As scriptures said “God resist the proud and give more graces to the humble. ”

That’s what Pope Francis is saying the Dubia Clergy lack the GRACES for understanding the Holy Spirit inspiration in this Time of Mercy.

The Dubia cannot & must not insist their will on orthodoxy as the Holy Spirit inspiration is Conversion.

The Clergy must provide Pastoral care or accompaniment and discernment without God’s graces and Light coming from the Holy Spirit the Clergy will be subject to human error and judgement.

Your understanding that the confusion of Apostles was cleared at the Last Supper was a great error. Why?

All the Apostles hide except for Peter and John… The mission of Jesus is not cleared to them. It was in the Upper Room where all of them was given the GRACES to know and proclaim the Truth of who Jesus is.

So the Dubia Clergy must seek Graces and Light thru humility not orthodoxy.

Hope this is now ckear to you.

Godbless

carn

June 4, 2018 at 3:39 am

“Conversion means humbling oneself to God,”

And if after humbling oneself to God the confusion remains? Then what?

“Your understanding that the confusion of Apostles was cleared at the Last Supper was a great error. Why?

All the Apostles hide except for Peter and John… The mission of Jesus is not cleared to them. It was in the Upper Room where all of them was given the GRACES to know and proclaim the Truth of who Jesus is.”

I did not say, that the Apostles understood; i said that the potentially unclear teaching –

“Then the Jews started arguing among themselves, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’

53 Jesus replied to them: In all truth I tell you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

– was resolved by institution of the sacrament of Eucharist; that the Apostles did not understand it at the moment and only later does not change that the somewhat challenging issue – we are to eat his flesh? what exactly are we supposed to do? – was answered at the last supper.

“Hope this is now ckear to you.”

Not the slightest bit; starting with you presuming that there is actually a lack of humility; i have no idea how you could even begin to discern whether or not and to which extent a lack of humility is a problem on my side.

That is what makes my maybe scratch my head the most; people telling me its all about discernment and yet same people demonstrating that – unless they have telepathic powers – they have little skill in discernment; that is the basic first step of any discernment – what does the available information allow to discern?

Which here must have at once among other things the answer: “Ok, whether carn has enough humility or not, cannot be determined based on the given information.”

I suspect the same of course with some people and the dubia cardinals; scores of people saying that discernment must reign supreme and that these cardinals they have never met in person or talked at length to lack humility; ridiculous.

Only with Pope Francis and other cardinals i give the benefit of doubt, that they might have the information to assess the character of Burke et al. lack humility or not; of course – as judging whether some individual lack humility is not a matter of infallibility – i also give the benefit of doubt to Burke et al. that Pope Francis et al. are simply erring in their character assessment of Burke et al.

But as it seems that Pope Francis claims that thousands or maybe a few hundred thousands individuals, who have this or that problem with AL, all, every single one without exception lack humility and that this lack is in every instance the main cause of their AL problems and that at the same time it is highly important to only discern individual situations and avoid generalizations, the benefit of doubt given to Burke et al. is quite large.

Jong ricafort

June 4, 2018 at 3:49 am

Ted Flynn simply answers your long discourse into two spirit forces.

Dubia belong to satan and Faith belong to Christ.

The Holy Spirit is both Light and Truth, Dubia cannot exist in the Heart who seeks Conversion thru humility.

Godblesss.

H=G

carn

June 4, 2018 at 6:24 am

“Dubia belong to satan and Faith belong to Christ.”

A claim that would require evidence or arguments.

“The Holy Spirit is both Light and Truth, Dubia cannot exist in the Heart who seeks Conversion thru humility.”

Again a claim that would require evidence or arguments.

“your long discourse”

Again an indication that some people talk about discernment without having the slightest idea what forms it might take.

Are you able to formulate in words, what i (or someone else) would have to do to fulfill what you request namely “humbling oneself to God, aaking God’s help to enlighten us”?

The only meaning i can see there is get on my knees before God and pray for humbleness, guidance and help.

Been there, done that; resolved a lot of issues; but not the issues of AL.

carn

June 4, 2018 at 6:25 am

That should have been an answer to:

“Jong ricafort
June 4, 2018 at 3:49 am”

Jong ricafort

June 4, 2018 at 6:35 am

Ok, As a brother in Christ I will give you a clue on humbling oneself to God.

St. Montfort Wisdom says… The Holy Spirit is only attracted in a heart that resembles the heart of Mama Mary..

Read the True Devotion to Mary. That is the answer.

Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary will lead a humble soul to receive the Light of the Holy Spirit.

That is the answer to Dubia, and Pope Francis recently implore the help of Mama Mary declaring Her Mother of the Church… See the connections?

Mary and the Holy Spirit are inseparable in Guiding and Teaching the Church to see the Light of Truth.

Godbless!

I=H=G

Hans Georg Lundahl

June 4, 2018 at 6:45 am

To Jong ricafort and carn:

“Dubia cannot exist in the Heart who seeks Conversion thru humility.”

A heart containing a dubium said : “can something good come out of Nazareth?”

Christ said of that heart : “he is a true Israelite in whom there is no falsehood”.

Jong ricafort

June 4, 2018 at 8:33 am

Proverbs18:2

[A fool receiveth not the words of prudence: unless thou say those things which are in his heart.]

Hans Georg Lundahl

June 4, 2018 at 8:36 am

A Pope, even a true one, is not guaranteed to be always and everytime speaking words of prudence.

Hence, for those who do still take Bergoglio as Pope, I don’t, a dubium or two or three may be apposite ….

carn

June 4, 2018 at 9:38 am

“Hence, for those who do still take Bergoglio as Pope, I don’t,”

Is is not yours to decide who is Pope.

Till their is some irrefutable evidence that for whatever reason he might not be Pope (note that even if he privately were an heretic/apostate he would still be Pope; only when doing so publically and attempted offically in his function as Pope, one might get at something) it is your duty to accept him as Pope, however much nonsense he might in your view say.

And pray for him, he needs it.

See it this way: not every Priest or Bishop we had and will have in our lifetime above us is a perfect shepherd (with me currently Priest quite ok and Bishop … well, better not say); if you think the current Pope is less than perfect, than accept the burden just as you would have to accept it if your Bishop and/or Priest would be subpar.

Besides, i of course agree with you that insofar “dubia” = “doubt formulated into question”, it is of course nonsense to presume that dubia cannot exist in a humble heart seeking conversion. We all have doubt from time to time. Formulating it into a question and asking them to someone superior/more knowledgeable is no intrinsic evil and can be prudent.

Hans Georg Lundahl

June 4, 2018 at 10:31 am

“Is is not yours to decide who is Pope.”

It is everyone’s duty to verify who is Pope so as to submit to him.

“Till their is some irrefutable evidence that for whatever reason he might not be Pope (note that even if he privately were an heretic/apostate he would still be Pope; only when doing so publically and attempted offically in his function as Pope, one might get at something) it is your duty to accept him as Pope,”

It is on the contrary my duty to verify between those who are claimants, whoever is most probable or least improbable.

Irrefutable evidence of public heresy previous to papacy is the view with Quarracino on validity of marriages while he was “archbishop of Buenos Aires”, as well as his “canonisation” of “John Paul II” for which irrefutable evidence of public apostasy is Assisi prayer meetings.

K

carn

June 4, 2018 at 11:05 am

“Irrefutable evidence of public heresy previous to papacy is the view with Quarracino on validity of marriages while he was “archbishop of Buenos Aires”,”

I did not check whether their actually was some prior public heresy, since it is irrelevant; even an unrepentant murdered who literally said he was happy to murder in spite of the to be discarded ten commandments, could be elected Pope and only if he repeated his heresy or continued with murder sprees, he might lose the office.

“as well as his “canonisation” of “John Paul II” for which irrefutable evidence of public apostasy is Assisi prayer meetings.”

Even if the Assisi prayer meetings had been public apostasy, JPII might have repented later and hence his canonization would not prove that Pope Francis is not infallible.

Besides, the evidence i googled for Assisi to be Apostasy seems to bit short of irrefutable evidence. It might even with the most negative view of the other religions/”religions” involved still be just a dumb and scandalous idea. Sometimes Popes in the past have literally shaked hands with people having the blood of millions upon their hands and yet smiled nicely and said some nice words to them.

Answered twice, my own at M and his own at L

L

carn

June 4, 2018 at 12:24 pm

Ok, i now checked JPII speeches at beginning and end of prayer meeting.

Mind you, if one with respective authority to go through AL with red ink and mark anything i consider problematic, badly formulated or potentially having several interpretations of which some would be potentially heretic, you would find some chapters with a lot of red ink.

On first glance i found in JPII speeches four problematic things:

– the situation where different people pray on after another aloud might lack some clearness regarding that these are separate prayers; but the intent for officially separate prayers was there, so having that worded not clear enough is not a canonical problem

– he says that all persons present are also aligned towards protection of human live from a mother’s womb to the deathbed; that is in my view might be a false statement, if persons of other religions present submit to their dogma/scriptures; but it is nothing about catholic faith, morals or dogmatism; he can tell complete nonsense about the intentions of people present and even about other religions and it is just a “political” problem of having a maybe uninformed, dumb and/or naive Pope (or maybe i am the uninformed); but nothing serious canonically

– he says all persons present prayed for peace; that could be as above, as for some religions “peace” might have a serious different meaning than what JPII wanted to express

– he says that all religions respect conscience; again see above

Thats it.

Also – and maybe that maybe will surprise others reading this – we have to consider the intent.

The intent was a “lets have world peace”-happening with the presumed intent of preventing wars with piles of dead numbering in the millions. Again, maybe ill advised, naive, ineffective, whatever. But a through fully noble intent. That means that unless he did commit some intrinsic evil act, JPII did probably not even sin in organizing and partaking in the gathering, if after honest and carefully thinking he thought that the event might help regarding the piles of dead.

Furthermore, if his actions did prevent a few piles of million dead here and there (which is hard to know) his successors should hurry to repeat the event if they also see some remote chance it can work. Just take care about that praying one after another (which in subsequent meetings was done in silence, so the problem was taken care of; even if loud praying was apostasy, canceling that would count as repentance).

And very positive to note, he spoke numerous times about Jesus Christ and even once explicitly he proclaimed Jesus to be savior of all mankind (leaving out the detail, that it works only for the willing part); i presume i such a speech were held today by some “conservative” prelate every “liberal” catholic would go after him for the “evil thing” called “proselytism”; so in essence he not only tried to have some peace-event supposedly preventing some piles of dead, but also tried to drive the point home that Jesus is the savior.

In total i do not see any clear evidence of JPII committing apostasy/heresy; actually if becoming holy was about scoring points on some heavenly scale and if the peace event did prevent some piles of dead bodies (which we do not know, but our Father knows this) he could have amassed quite some number of points with this event, with special bonus for it being a very delicate situation and yet he seemed to have avoided any serious slip (i presume the speeches were carefully drafted to avoid any of the issues that we discuss here today; probably then Cardinal Ratzinger was also doing his part there; if that were spontaneous speeches, then the Holy Spirit was with him, as any mere human holding a speech in such a delicate situation would certainly have a slips and would say something which by the words would be heresy/apostasy).

Also, in general about praying with non-believers, let me tell a story.

Abortion clinic. Pro-lifers doing there thing.

A clearly muslim girl approaches the clinic with probably her father. The pro-lifers invite the two to pray the Lord’s Prayer. They agree and afterwards decide against abortion.

Your position is that said pro-lifers committed apostasy/heresy? After all they prayed in public with two Muslims; while the words were the Lords Prayer it has to be presumed that said muslims in their hearts might actually have addressed the supposedly supernatural creature Mohammed preached about.

And yet, if you happen to be next to them, knew about the story, they see again a muslim woman approaching and ask you “Maybe we should again invite her to pray the Lords Prayer? The last time this prevented a baby from being shredded into bloody pieces. Please give us your advice, whether there is any reason we should refrain from trying to attempt that way from being literally ripped to pieces. We will heed your advice”,

would you advise them to not try it?

I certainly would advice them to try, if they had no better plan, as there is nothing intrinsic evil about trying to teach a muslim the words of the Lords Prayer. As my intent would not be to commit apostasy/heresy, i hope that “insurmountable ignorance”-thing would lessen my guilt, if there is guilt in this advice.

Hans Georg Lundahl

June 4, 2018 at 12:35 pm

“[I]f his actions did prevent a few piles of million dead here and there”

They seem to have done the opposite. Assisi II in 1994 (or late 93?) was held before the massacre of Srebrenica.

“The pro-lifers invited the two to pray the Lord’s Prayer”

Bad comparison with occasions which explicitly removed crucifixes so non-Christians could pray clearly non-Christian prayers.

carn

June 4, 2018 at 12:50 pm

“They seem to have done the opposite. Assisi II in 1994 (or late 93?) was held before the massacre of Srebrenica.”

Tough luck, but bad outcome of something intended honestly with good intent and otherwise unproblematic, might not even be a sin.

“Bad comparison with occasions which explicitly removed crucifixes so non-Christians could pray clearly non-Christian prayers.”

Which is apostasy/heresy because?

But i have to ask, inviting non-christians for common prayer in hope of avoiding baby-shredding is permissible?

That would imply that inviting non-christians for prayers to avoid wars would not be in principle problematic (though of course the details could cause problems).

But thanks for the interesting discussion anyway.

Hans Georg Lundahl

June 4, 2018 at 1:20 pm

It was not otherwise unproblematic.

“inviting non-christians for common prayer in hope of avoiding baby-shredding is permissible?”

If they had been invited to pray their prayer, like Shahada or Five Prayers towards Mecca, no.

M

Hans Georg Lundahl

June 4, 2018 at 12:06 pm

“I did not check whether their actually was some prior public heresy, since it is irrelevant; even an unrepentant murdered who literally said he was happy to murder in spite of the to be discarded ten commandments, could be elected Pope and only if he repeated his heresy or continued with murder sprees, he might lose the office.”

No, the fact of being a heretic at the moment of (not sure whether election or accepting papacy or both) renders the election and its acceptance null and void since a heretic is not eligible.

It’s like the “birther” case against Obama, except there is better evidence for Bergoglio being heretic before accepting than for Obama having been born in Kenya, in a school board house called “Hawaii”.

“Even if the Assisi prayer meetings had been public apostasy, JPII might have repented later and hence his canonization would not prove that Pope Francis is not infallible.”

Might have repented is a case for “he might not be in Hell” not a case for “he can be canonised”.

carn

June 4, 2018 at 12:37 pm

“No, the fact of being a heretic at the moment of (not sure whether election or accepting papacy or both) renders the election and its acceptance null and void since a heretic is not eligible.”

Source?

And BTW, is this automatic requiring no legal action whatsoever?

“Might have repented is a case for “he might not be in Hell” not a case for “he can be canonised”.”

If the Pope doing the canonization is aware about repentance, that is enough.

Besides, as we talk about maybe eternal law, what about St. Peter?

He was made Pope (“rock”, etc.), said three times that he is not a Christian (whichis implied by not knowing Jesus) in public, and for him continuing to be Pope repenting was sufficient. How does that work out under eternal unchanging law?

Or would you date his “election” as Pope to be of later date?

carn

June 4, 2018 at 12:59 pm

Besides, i think if you would be correct, that clearly there isn’t a Pope Francis, then maybe – if its the only recourse – it might be legit for any individual catholic getting aware about the situation, to go to Rome and drag the man known as Pope Francis literally from the Papal chair in front of the “Cardinals” and call all “Cardinals” to repent and line up with maybe pius brotherhood for them to check whether they are probably disposed to become Priests and/or Bishops (they might have validly ordained people; though that would have to be checked); after all the man called Pope Francis would be committing an ongoing crime against all catholics and hence every catholic individually would have the right to act in self-defense against this attack.

The only caveat might be that dragging him literally from the Chair has to be the least serious cause of action.

You understand that i would insist for a quite high burden of proof before implying that that course of action might be a last resort legitimate – especially as the Swiss Guard might intervene and things might turn bloody.

Hans Georg Lundahl

June 4, 2018 at 1:28 pm

“Source?”

Definition of material cause of a Pope : male, baptised, Catholic.

Theology of St Robert Bellarmine.

“And BTW, is this automatic requiring no legal action whatsoever?”

Yes, like an invalid matrimony if they later discover they were brother and sister, it is invalid from start, not just by the later action ensuing the discovery.

“If the Pope doing the canonization is aware about repentance, that is enough.”

No, he must of so preach of the repentance.

Canonising St Christopher doesn’t mean we can say “he was once serving Satan, and he’s a Saint” unless we also say that he repented of habing served Satan. A canonising Pope secretly knowing of repentance of a public sin won’t cut it.

“He was made Pope (“rock”, etc.), said three times that he is not a Christian (whichis implied by not knowing Jesus) in public, and for him continuing to be Pope repenting was sufficient.”

Since Pope is “vicar of Christ” St Peter was not Pope as such before Ascension. He was already going to be Pope, but was not formally such before Ascension.

Or the occasion at Lake Genesareth when Jesus tells him “feed my lambs”.

“Besides, i think if you would be correct, that clearly there isn’t a Pope Francis, then maybe – if its the only recourse – it might be legit for any individual catholic getting aware about the situation, to go to Rome and drag the man known as Pope Francis literally from the Papal chair in front of the “Cardinals” and call all “Cardinals” to repent and line up with maybe pius brotherhood for them to check whether they are probably disposed to become Priests and/or Bishops (they might have validly ordained people; though that would have to be checked); after all the man called Pope Francis would be committing an ongoing crime against all catholics and hence every catholic individually would have the right to act in self-defense against this attack.”

I think David Bawden was telling cardinals to repent and line up to an emergency conclave … if not, he considered they had already apostasised by Novus Ordo.

He considered the emergency conclave that legit act of self-defense. It took place in 1990, four years after Assisi I.

And what took place there met a high burden of proof.

carn

June 5, 2018 at 5:02 am

“Definition of material cause of a Pope : male, baptised, Catholic.”

To stop being catholic one must have at least formulated such intent in no unclear terms; committing heresy normally is no such declaration; usually it means intent to still be member of the Church and turn the Church into something it cannot be.

So this cannot render the election of Pope Francis invalid.

“No, he must of so preach of the repentance.”

I cannot see any reason for this; a wrong canonisation would show the respective Pope to be fallible and hence a non-Pope; but wrong a canonization would only be, if said person would not be in heaven; hence, even if a Pope kept repentance private it would not be a wrong canonization; just a potentially confusing one.

“And what took place there met a high burden of proof.”

High burden of proof in respect to JPII having stopped being Pope.

I cannot see that in his speeches of Assisi; nowhere did he seem to suggest to pray towards anywhere else than towards the higher authority above us – so God as trinity – and he several times tried to drive home, that salvation is through Jesus aka that the higher authority is God as trinity.

He probably deliberately accepted and expected and it probably happened so, that some attendees prayed instead to some other real or imagined entities, but he did not ask them to do so.

So he seems to be on the safe side and certainly had intent to avoid the problem you suggest (again intent could be relevant, as unintentional apostasy/heresy is as far as i know unheard of)

carn

June 5, 2018 at 5:06 am

I think we can conclude from our discussion, that at least one of us is out in the dark and seriously needs a guiding light.

Because either i am trying to be obedient to a fake Pope although you tried to warn me about this

or

you have found JPII and/or Francis guilty of something although they are innocent and based it on insufficient reasoning/evidence although i warned you about that.

I suggest we pray at least for each other, for whoever is in error to find a way back in a direction towards truth.

And also some prayer for the people in whose “backyard” we have this discussion, as they consider us to be both in error and – to some extent – vice versa.

Hans Georg Lundahl

June 5, 2018 at 10:18 am

It is a pious suggestion, but I have difficulties with keeping up with even basics (like daily three Hail Mary’s), so I cannot take on habitually an obligation of praying for you.

Jong ricafort

June 5, 2018 at 4:52 pm

From the fullness of the heart a mouth speaks.

Can blessings and curses comes forth from the same mouth? (James3:9-10)

How can anyone pray to God and continue to slap the face of Christ with false accusations, false testimony and slander?

God clearly said “Do not touch my anointed one”(Psalm105:15)

And Jesus remind everyone an attack on Pope Francis and His Church is a direct attack on Himself.

“Saul, Saul why are you persecuting me? “(Acts9:4)

You cannot claimed to be Catholic and spread your Lies on Pope Francis.. Amoris us an approved Magisterial Teachung either you embraced the Holy Spirit Inspiration on God’s Infinite Mercy that transcends orthodoxy or you insist your OWN confusions.

Your inability to grasp the Supernatural Teahing on Interior Conscience thru gift of Discernment does not make AL an unclear doctrine but a failure on your part to see that the Light of Truth is found only in Conversion.

As God resists the proud and give more graces to the humble

The prayer of the just man avail much.

So dont expect graces when you cannot follow Psalm105:15 and Acts9:4

Remember Dubia belong to satan and Faith and Clarity belong to Christ and found only thru Conversion by humbly seeking the Light of Truth from the Holy Spirit and not from the Dubia Clergy, to whom like you are confused too.

Godbless

I tried to answer

Jong ricafort at June 5, 2018 at 4:52 pm, but found I could not.

This is where I decided to repost the debate.

Obviously, it is one thing to persecute the Church and another to say that "PF" is not its true Pope, since we live in a time with more than one claimant, and it is also somewhat eery to be called a persecutor, when I have not asked for any lynchmobs to deal with PF clergy, while it seems - I am carefully saying seems, since if so it is behind my back - PF clergy has maligned sometimes my sanity, sometimes my Catholicism, sometimes this is, if so, reflected in a stray remark by a layman who seems to have been informed in advance who calls my inerrantism "sola scriptura" (confusing a condemned heresy with a defined dogma), and sometimes the remarks from a pious layman have been less stray on "how are you, really everything well?"

I get the impression Jong is an ex-avangelical who thinks Popes are "superpastors" (pastors in evangelical sense) and who back when he was evangalical thought "your pastor is inspired by God, right?" (words supplied from a still anti-Catholic man who couldn't see the difference between nagetive infallibility and positive inspiration, BS on these debates : On Honours to the Blessed Virgin and On Praying to or for departed and involving statues

At another point he claims, as would a Pentecostal in a conflict involving his "inspired" pastor : "Discernment is a gift one must possessed to understand AL."

It is normally for Popes to express Encyclicals in such a way that people of very little gross or non discernment at all should understand what they say. When I in a sense claim to read Humani Generis with cautious discernment (not necessarily the gift, nor necessarily not the gift), I am claiming it is written in a bad way - unless the actual content itself is even bad. But Jong ricafort is prepared to say, those who real Amoris Laetitia and don't find it orthodox "lack discernment" like the guys who couldn't see the Emperor's New Clothes.