Saturday, March 23, 2024

Is Heschmeyer indirectly making a poke at me? I don't know. I do know some things put me on the defense.

The Biblical Case for Infallibility
Shameless Popery Podcast | 21 March 2024

Now give the Biblical case for whether Infallibility resides in "Francis" or in Michael II ...

26:52 Are the guys you consider as the last three Popes bad Catholics, as § 283 and the §§ around 390 of CCC tend to (though do not immediately force) a denial of an individual Adam, unless, here it even does force a denial, who lived no longer ago than to be able to transmit Genesis 3 to Moses over a moderate number of necessary intermediates?

Trent Session V.

30:48 Creationism, I think there is a strong both Patristic and Tridentine case for it being obligatory.

As in Young Earth Creationism.

I have not seen any good rationale for the opposite, except:
  • rashly and boldly asserting science does not allow it
  • rashly and boldly asserting certain people were Popes, the CCC is their prerogative, they must be followed even if not infallible on the point OR they are infallible when predecessors were not (because infallibility came with Darwin and Galileo, not with Peter on Pentecost) ...

32:18 There is a specific place and time before which no Catholic interpreted the Hexaemeron according to what is called the Framework Theory.

Paris, Eugène Mangenot, 1920.

He points back to 26 years earlier Catholic Interpretation being divided between Young Earth Creationism, Gap Theory, Day Age theory.

That's about 27 years before (again, Paris) pesters Pius XII, "pretty please, can we state that Adam had evolutionary ancestry? Yes? Yes, thank you!" and 3 years later, Pius XII is content with a correction that implies they cannot impose it ...

The earliest Day Age and Gap Theorists also have a terminus post quem, namely Lyell's work in the Paris basin, 1830's.

Prior to 1830, whether a Catholic believed literal six days (St. Basil) or literally one moment (St. Augustine), Vulgate (Ussher compatible), Christmas Proclamation (St. Jerome's Ussher type calculation), a mention in Nicaea II (George Syncellus' Ussher type calculation), he was a Young Earth Creationist.

33:58 Honorius and Pius XII both stepped away from that, and said "let's agree to disagree" ...

1) Monotelethism
2) Humani Generis.

Honorius was ignored or not obeyed by St. Sophoronius, who was mainly concerned with contradicting Patriarch Sergius.

Immediately, or so.

50 years later you have a council which has been interpreted differently, by Catholics who see it as condemning Honorius' indecision, and by non-Catholics who see it as condemning Honorius as a heretic.

For Pius XII, there was no immediate Sophronius stating "no, the magisterium cannot give up its dogma, Adam never came from Evolution" ...

73 years later, the guy in Paris who is perfectly traditional is:
  • accused by Novus Ordos of being divisive
  • accused on many sides of being totally incompetent in science
  • and accused by some Trads of being JW (who are actually as Day Age as those Trads) or "sola Scriptura" or "private judgement" (a thing which was never actually condemned, only certain things it could lead to were condemned in Trent IV, and in Mortalium Animos, it was not condemned, but pointed at as an inadequate basis for unity, much like you do, but not considered in and of itself as a sin when handled within Catholicism).

IF there is already a St. Leo II, his name is NOT Francis, as far as I have seen.

41:45 What translation is this?

10 Sunt enim multi etiam inobedientes, vaniloqui, et seductores : maxime qui de circumcisione sunt : 11 quos oportet redargui : qui universas domos subvertunt, docentes quae non oportet, turpis lucri gratia.

I think the Latin of the Vulgate seems closer to "they need to be argued against" than "they need to be silenced" ...

43:02 I am not stating I am a preacher, I am stating I am an essayist.

What is the authority laymen have to do apologetics in that role?

1) the example of St. Justin (I am also, like he, a dialogist)
2) the direct words on lay apostolate by Pope Pius XI.

Do I submit to a successor of Pius XI? Yes, if Popes Michael I and II are true successors of his, I do so both in my intention and in fact, and if they are not, I at least have some good intention about it. Does your Pope have an intention to submit to his predecessors or supposed such, on Creationism?

47:01 Depends a bit on what kind of "teaching" you refer to. For authoritative pastoral teaching also known as preaching, agreed. That's why I don't preach. For proposing ideas in writings, not agreed. Things can be printed under three conditions, if they concern theology. 1) Imprimatur = the strongest one = the direct instruction to promote this text teaching these things by a bishop, archbishop or Pope; 2) Imprimi potest = a weaker one, where not printing on part of those taking the initiative is not sinful, but but printing is clearly not sinful either; 3) Nihil obstat = a necessary pre-stage for Imprimatur or Imprimi potest, but can sometimes also be used on its own. And this basically just concerns only formal theology and formal pastoral, while Chesterton on private initiative got The Everlasting Man printed, it has none of the three notes from the Magisterium, and so far from being silenced for this act, Pope Pius XI actually made him Knight or Knight Commander of the order of St. Gregory.

49:28 The authority that you have considered as being that of the Catholic Church, I once also did so consider (not with "Pope Francis", I was wiley after feeling fooled by both JP-II and B-XVI, but the general establishment). It has in more than one way given me opposed commands to make it impossible for me to follow, to snare me into at least apparent disobedience. If I were asked about the details, by a priest who knows canon law, whichever "Catholic denomination" (Novus Ordo, Ecclesia Dei, Écône, Sedes, Palmarians, or the authority I accept, Pope Michael II), in writing ideally so I could document dodges from the other side, I could make a case for this assessment. Paris has not accorded me the rights that their bishops gave Sungenis or Hugh Owen. St. Nicolas du Chardonnet has not accorded me the rights that his FSSPX prior or other closest FSSPX priest gave Kennedy Hall. I have been singled out for some kind of destruction or impossible test. One I did not sign up for.

No comments: