The CONFUSION of Pope Francis
23rd Febr. 2022 | Breaking In The Habit
6:02 Are you suggesting that when "Pope Francis" seems to very clearly and black and white answer the debate question given by Humani Generis in the pro-evolution way, he's with some ambiguity just trying to teach the controversy and is perfectly ready to dogmatise Young Earth Creationism if it comes out on top?
Because, I am arguing for Young Earth Creationism and I do not see a lot of those faithful to "Pope Francis" very eager to even allow me the debate on this one.
It seems some seek issue with my things being less tidy than they like, where I live as a homeless, and they are not too eager either to let me earn money on a writing dedicated, in some important part, to that debate - as long as I am on the YEC side.
9:33 "who prefer conspiracy theories to testimony of experts"
Excuse me, but would you consider Young Earth Creationism a "conspiracy theory"?
Would you consider an Evolutionist arguing for Evolution as "testimony" (not just opinion) of experts?
And, as I wrote in a so far unanswered mail to Jimmy Akin, are you aware, Latin, the official language of the Church, actually has no word that literally means "expert"?
A medicus was a physician, one of the statuses we would refer to as expertise, but there was no word for "expert status" - and Humani Generis mentions "periti" - "knowledgeable men" and not "philosophiae et theologiae doctores" - the kind of thing where Jimmy Akin sees "experts" as being such.
10:21 As to Viganò, he is, according to the Vatican II Sect, in a place of authority.
The rest of the people you present do NOT present themselves as wielding authority, which is not exactly what you said, but you allow lots of people to conclude it.
In other words, we have a case of a "Pope Francis" defender coming with unfounded accusations - if only by innuendo - against people who can be labelled as "enemies of Pope Francis".
I consider someone my enemy - he's blocking me from my livelihood hoped for as a writer - who makes some kind of gatekeeping against what I write.
But as for people who call me out (for my theses, not for things that can legitimately be allowed for in a homeless man lacking sleep), I consder them my friends. Are you OK with covering up for "Pope Francis's" lack of thick skin? Does it never bother you, yourself, to be actually tough skinned about what comes your own way, but present your "Pope" as a man who never learned to take knocks? Come on, the man has a background as a bar bouncer!
- Angelic Doctor
- People who lie about you are not your friends.
- I am tired
- and in Swedish they don't say "lie about you" but "lie about one" when speaking in general. So I first answer about myself.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Angelic Doctor Not if they lie behind my back, no.
If they say untruths to me, they could be honest if mistaken.
I'd not consider them friends as in close friends, just compared to those who:
- go behind my back with what they say
- attack me for how my luggage looks like garbage when someone takes off the blanket and makes a mess before "taking a look" or even a picture.
I had my luggage stolen yesterday.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Angelic Doctor Oh, when it comes to Antipope Bergoglio ... I don't think people should be considered as lying about him, if they happen to judge that his "magic wand" speech in 2014 was an actual apostatic thing or his honouring Pachamama.
It's about where one draws the limits and obviously some of us don't have those of Bergoglio, and that's a bit like when it came to obeying and trusting God, some Hebrews didn't have the same limits as Nimrod and his croneys - that's why God let them keep their language unconfused.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Angelic Doctor "This Channel will hopefully help my brothers and sisters return to the Catholic Faith."
"Actif depuis le 6 déc. 2014"
Did you judge people as having "left the faith" if they rejected Bergoglio? This came pretty close after the magic wand speech!
- Angelic Doctor
- @Hans-Georg Lundahl A rejection of papal teaching is a leaving of the faith to a certain degree of course. It's a defect in faith and an offense against God.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Angelic Doctor Yeah, Bergoglio rejected the teaching of quite a lot of Popes, councils and both Fathers and Scholastics.
Hence his defect not in but from faith is an offense against God.
10:37 I feel indirectly pointed at myself.
I don't ask someone to call out against "Father Casey OFM who accuses me without naming me" I stand up to the criticism.
Here. You can accuse Luther for having spread confusion among Catholics for ... 10-11.XI.1517 to 15.VI.1520. That is 2 years, 7 months, 4 days. Or 5, depending on what exact hour around St. Martin's Mass he nailed the theses.
After that, yes, he spread lots of confusion among disaffected and disobedient Catholics. But not among those heeding Exsurge Domine.
Why? Because of the famous dictum "Roma loquuta est, causa finita est".
Catholics had their life, Luther had his, it has involved lots of conflict, but not so much confusion - among Catholics. Actually, Lutherans back then liked to claim the title for themselves, calling themselves Catholic and us Papists.
But if "Pope Francis" actually took a cue from Pope Leo X, some confusion would cease. We would know if Viganò, Burke, and a few laymen you have told of were in communion with "Pope Francis" or not. If he did "excommunicate" them, he would normally have some kind of doctrinal issue to back this "excommunication" up with. And we would see in a very formal way what his dogma is. As it is, people who take issue with the infamous "magic wand" speech - yes, I looked it up fairly carefully in context and am aware it has backing by "Pope Emeritus Benedict" - can continue to consider him Pope on the excuse that the occasion was not a magisterial one. Not an encyclical, not a dogmatic bull, not even the doctrinal part of an excommunication.
I get a feeling, while you agree more doctrinally with Viganò and Burke than with Lutheran Satire (Hans Fiene is hilarious when making fun of "Pope Francis" and Patriarch Bartholomew or Kirill), you have less charity for them. Would you have more charity if they went off to submit to Pope Michael or he submitted to one of them, if elected in an imperfect ecumenic council, as recommended by van Noort?
You tell everyone and the world that Viganò and Burke are sufficiently your brothers to be responsible to your critique (while "Pope Francis" isn't to theirs, hierarchy suddenly back in place, it was only absent for a moment when a priest (?) critiqued two archbishops (?)...) and that they are your internal affair, and then you use the presumption of brotherhood to heap abuse on them and on laymen I respect, and by implication on me too. Does it strike you as somewhat inconsistent?
11:31 Are you admitting that Wojtyla "more than a hypothesis", Ratzinger "against a fundamentalist exegesis", Bergoglio "magic wand" and similar support for Evolution were courting a kind of clarity, even at the cost of reason?
11:56 If you tout a theory that shilly-shallies between alternative impossibles, without showing any possible between, like:
- was God allowing Adam to grow up as a feral child? (against God's goodness)
- were Adam's parents really human? (against Adam being the first man)
... or like:
- did Adam live 7000 years ago and were some Aborigines and pre-Columbians not descended from him, because they reached disconnected continents before his lifetime? (against monogenism)
- did Adam live 40 000 - 250 000 years ago and is Genesis 3 dubiously transmitted as history or pretended to be, contrary to traditional stance a vision of Moses (like six day account was)? (against the privileges of the Blessed Virgin, which are stated in Genesis 3:15)
... if you commit to neither (in either pair) and also don't show any logical way in which a tertium daretur, you clearly show a lack of candour about your orthodoxy. The suspicion of your being, if so, a heretic, is not grossly uncharitable. And since Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio were all arguably, the latter two certainly, Evolutionists before their supposed conclaves, I think the falsehood of their papacies actually does follow.
To a Young Earth Creationist, obviously, tertium datur, but that is the exact position they exclude, all three.
12:17 I am basically choking from all attempts to get me a more "balanced" and mainstream news source.
Your recommendation is one thing, but some people around where I am are de facto making this a kind of sectarian harrassment, while pretending to be caring about me, pretending to be concerned.
The part about choking does not include the actual debate I get with Evolutionists like Kevin R. Henke.
Post a Comment