On First Half of a Barron Video · Second Half of Same Video (and Recursion to Debated Statement)
Bishop Barron on Pope Francis, Tradition, and John Henry Newman
Bishop Robert Barron | 11.VI.2019
"fundamentalism of the museum"
As Marine le Pen said on another issue (I know you know French) "je me sens visé, mais pas coupable" (changing spelling to adapt for other gender of speaker).
Your "Pope Francis" has seemingly so deep a friendship with non-Catholic enemies of Fundamentalism, like Rabbi Skorka and the late Tony Palmer, that he shares - remember I said seemingly - compulsively their enmity for it.
Pope Michael may be flawed when it comes to pastoral of personal choices, being allergic to too independent such and confusing the role of Pope with that of Novice Master (he's an avid reader of Little St Thérèse), but your "Pope Francis" is allergic to doctrinal positions that are in fact Catholic, like Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism.
Because that is part of what Fundamentalism means.
There was a time, when Mouseion meant, not what we refer to as Museum, with dead exhibits of animals, stuffed, or skeletal or fossilised remains impregnated with shellac, or houses no longer inhabited, clothes no longer worn, tools no longer used except on entertaining rather than commercially productive occasions in the Museum.
There was a time, when Mouseion simply meant an institute of higher learning, not cut off from the past.
An Universitas Studiorum is, as you may know, an extention of the concept. From the litterae humaniorae like occasion at the Mouseion of Alexandria (with a library according to some far too practical, like Hogwart in book form) to all kinds of learning available in Paris where there were also colleges like Sorbonne.
Now, one could argue, Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism at Sorbonne were there because Heliocentrism was not available, deep time was not available.
I argue, Sorbonne was a true University, with true learning before these positions contradicting its learning were invented, and that means the positions of Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism should be defended like St Thomas defended the Creed against Averroes.
Sure, it's no longer the Blessed Trinity, but it's still an attack on traditional full understanding of "creatorem coeli et terrae". Meaning, the discourse on "God is not a magician with an omnipotent magic wand" is a repetition of errors shared between Averroes, probably Spinoza (whom I know less, I know Averroes through oponents like St Thomas and Bishop Tempier, but CSL was less concentrated on refuting Baruch Sp.), probably Jewish kabbalism of some non-Theistic version.
And your "John XXIII" has also been accused, not with certainty, but at least with realism, of being a non-Catholic, Masonic, Communist infiltrator.
His flawed starting of a council clearly merits his counting as either a bad pope or none at all. If saint at all, not canonisable. Especially not as Pope.
Some point, one should be able to state truth directly without recurring to an image, but as you wish for an image of gardening, I'd liken modernism ("John XXIII" and "Pope Francis" included) to Monsanto like tampering with the genomes.
Monsanto can of course sue me for libel for likening them to antipopes Roncalli, Montini, Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio ... but their take on infertilising seeds of upcoming plants, so one is obliged to buy seeds from Monsanto next year again, that reminds so much of a Magisterium where recalling what it said yesterday isn't good enough, you have to check what it says today. I think I might win if Monsanto sued me.
- Patric M.
- Excellent point, Hans.
3:09 Ah, the development of doctrine, in Newman's sense, btw, which of them ...?
He wrote a book with a title referring to the concept, but it was "an early version of his Apologia", and in the foreword, he specifically stated he had written it about his decision before receiving Catholic instruction, so it could be identified as a comprehensible decision by an Anglican clergyman, which he had been, and not stated in terms imposable by his Catholic catechists.
Meaning, the Catholic Church specifically wanted it to risk including errors Newman had made prior to learning from the Church. And this is stated as a kind of foreword.
This is the exact reason why I have dared use aether as medium of not only light, but even vectors and as surrounding medium around atoms, despite this not being specifically taught by the Church, as it defends Geocentrism.
This is the exact reason why I have claimed "tower of Babel" was planned as a three step rocket, and God meant what He said in Genesis 11:6. The "tower" eventually stood over Cape Canaveral.
The fact that it was not called "rocket" in so many words might be because "tower" has an apt "sensus technicior" in three step rockets, since before takeoff they look like towers.
By "sensus technicior" I mean a sense still in contact with primary sense and not yet fully formalised as a "sensus technicus".
And reason why God said no, back then, apart from disobedience, well re-utilising Uranium known from Mahabharat wars (extended but corrupted version of Genesis 6 verses 4, 5, 11, as well as of Genesis 4 description of Lamech's family), would have been a very bad rocket fuel. God wanted to prevent a mushroom cloud over Göbekli Tepe, and did just that.
Genesis 1 - 11 is literally history (traditional doctrine) fell unto a mind so lively some have taken it for heretic (though I did check there was no patristic unity about skyscraper version of intended tower) and some for mad. As it happens, though this is of less concern to other than myself and those dealing with me, mine.
That is dealing with me as something other than a writer.
4:38 "to live is to change"
As far as we know, not for God. God being unchangeable. At least in relation to our time. God evaluated every split second of my life before he said "fiat lux" in fluent Hebrew.
5:40 "an animal changes to remain the same."
In a pastoral sense, as dealing with "animals" (sheep are animals and animalia rationalia need have no qualms of being likened to these animalia irrationalia, better sheep than goats) so does the Church.
This is why I think, while Montini was an Antipope who had no authority to abolish the duty of previous submission to Church censors, through him, God was doing a favour, both to Catholics caught up in his Vatican II sect, and even to the up to now less unified in command non-Vatican-II-ers, since to a blogger it makes much more sense submitting to a post factum judgement of a legitimate bishop than submitting everything before publishing on a blog - which is a true publishing, unless it's a private blog for invited readers only - to previous censorship.
N'en déplaise pas trop à Pape Michel!
In a doctrinal sense, no.
An animal which changes chewing habits as teeth grown and are lost, still is not supposed to change the DNA. And doctrine is to Church as DNA to livestock.
6:02 It so happens, a white fence might be less tarnished by going black over no touch policy than by going rainbow colours over a different and changed painting strategy. Especially with a certain today well known symbolism of rainbow colours.
- Bishop Robert Barron
- Well, of course...
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Bishop Robert Barron You are aware, the Church is the mystical body of the God-Man and cannot change anything He revealed while on Earth, right?
- Bishop Robert Barron
- Hans-Georg Lundahl Development is not change in the sense that you mean. You’re referring to corruption.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Bishop Robert Barron A changing DNA is corruption.
Mutations mean aging and less fit (if at all affected) offspring.
Now, in organisms, DNA is information.
In the law, hagada, what it says is facts, is information.
What obliges may change somewhat according to circumstances, for instance the Sabbath from the old creation be trumped by the Sunday of Resurrection, this morning of the New Creation, or Temple Sacrifices be replaced by Holy Mass. Plus lots of lesser instances.
What must be believed cannot mutate.
It can flourish, show new sides, etc, but it cannot mutate. The Yellow Rose of Texas can't be a red rose unless it's another rose.
A N D what God as Man revealed c. 2000 years ago can be interrogated from all scholastic and scientific and possibly other angles, but it cannot change.
- Bishop Robert Barron
- Hans-Georg Lundahl Friend, that’s what I mean. You’re more or less inventing a quarrel here.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- Oh, we are on the same side in principle. Fine!
So, where did your quarrel with the Fundies come from?
You agree that Mark 10:6 situates creation of Adam and Eve far closer to beginning of time than to time of Our Lord speaking, right? You agree He could be ignorant in the sense of not knowing one way or the other, but He could not be in positive error when He was teaching, right?
On to : Second Half of Same Video (and Recursion to Debated Statement)
Post a Comment