How Being "Based" Can Send you to Hell
The Counsel of Trent | 20 Nov. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_mutrNUJNhU
2:31 More precisely the older brother of the prodigal son.
4:00 Can brand new converts be a public face of the faith?
First of all, this does not concern me. I converted in 1988. Certainly to the Novus Ordo Church, but I intended it as a conversion to the Catholic Church. In 2006 and 2009, I thought I had gone full circle around all Catholic alternatives to Novus Ordo, so I went to the Orthodox, from August 2006 to Pentecost 2009. But in this time I was technically biritualist, I never abjured Catholicism. So, it would be wrong to treat me even in 2009 as a fresh convert.
But second, yes they can, it happens that new converts immediately become public faces of the faith.
John Henry Newman.
Gilbert Keith Chesterton.
Thomas Merton.
Anyone who pretends I was Pentecostal last week is someone who last week was listening to Pentecostals who were overdoing what we have in common or overdoing their hopes of seeing me "see the light" and quit Catholicism for Pentecostalism. Dito for Jew, Muslim or Communist or Gay Activist.
5:42 Normally, Catholics in Right Wing outlets like Rivarol or Right Wing parishes like St. Nicolas du Chardonnet (they have requiem masses for Francisco Franco, and I have expressed a feeling it's no longer necessary, he's probably already in heaven, yes, he was sometimes somewhat heartless to what he saw as offenders, but that's probably a scar from the war on the Rif, we all have our quirks, St. Lewis was actually burning the lips of people who used the name of God in vain in his presence, perhaps over the top ...), would not support either jubilation over killed migrants or calling race mixing a sin (in St. Nicolas some would call it an imprudence generally speaking, but never universally sinful) or taking the "depends on race" view on abortion, or other things like that.
If nevertheless some of them do so, and I'm found awkward over opposing that kind of thing, which I do and always did (since before my Catholic conversion if not outright all of my life), always in my adult life from my late teens on, it's a thing they have never outright admitted to me.
However, it is also known that I am friendly to that parish (with reservations so grave I've never been to their masses since 2012, except once in 2013) and that paper (the now only pro-life weekly in France), and some very severely overdo how much that kind of thing is typical of these French right wingers. As having been in that parish, I know that being a Nazi there is less easy than being for Pétain and against Hitler (perhaps unless you count Laval in the Hitler category, which I did). But nevertheless, I've seen people who have pretended not just that St. Nicolas du Chardonnet are all Fascist (perhaps nearly arguable, though technically untrue, depending on how you define Fascist), but also, that they are all Nazis, which I know is definitely untrue.
One of my real grievances against St. Nicolas is, they have held to the idea that new converts cannot be public faces of the faith (which doesn't explain why they have boycotted the socially relevant parts of my writings or my musical compositions), and they have counted me as a new convert tout court after having been with the Orthodox, which is especially egregious since the way they view on the bishops and the pope actually works reminds very much of Eastern Orthodox.
But that is something other than wishing people to drown within eye-sight of Lampedusa because Italians don't come to the rescue, if sth like that happened.
Both Hitler and Mussolini came from "the Left" but of very different types. Hitler was a Communist in the Munich Soviet in early 1919. The exact same year Mussolini founded what is best known as Fascism on a much more Syndicalist programme. Chesterton thought of Mussolini as a Syndicalist. And Austro-Fascism is more correctly known as (a specific period of) the Christian Socials in Austria, a group co-founded by Johann Emmanuel Veith, convert from Judaism, friend of St. Clement Maria Hofbauer, and a Young Earth Creationist.
6:44 I am a very firm believer in Mit brennender Sorge.
It just so happens that after National Socialists, those falling most directly under that (and not yet quite under Divini Redemptoris) well before even Italian Fascism would be Scandinavian Social Democracy. In Italy a Gipsy didn't have to fear sterilisation or camps, at least not before the Salò Republic which was a puppet régime, but in Sweden, under democratically elected parliamentarian, chief of the largest party and named PM, Per Albin Hansson, they did have to fear that.
Some have pretended "Pius XI condemned Nazi Eugenics in Mit brennender Sorge" which is only indirectly true, basically the paragraph you quoted, but he condemned Eugenics in a much more direct way in Casti Connubii, before Hitler was in power, but while Carl Gustaf Ekman or his predecessor Arvid Lindman were so, a bit before Per Albin Hansson. While the procedure was legalised in 1934, under Per Albin, it was studied since 1922 in an officially funded institute, basically in tandem with Lenin starting to study it (and it was Stalin of all people who stopped it).
I think your cited paragraph also very much condemns putting public health or feminism or things over the natural law ...
Compared to that, Non abbiamo bisogno can hardly be considered a condemnation of Italian Fascism in all its forms, and by the way, I am for the Pope and not the Duce on those issues. Dollfuss and Schuschnigg, far from giving such concerns, were eager to follow Quadragesimo Anno.
7:33 If you want to show non-white cardinals, I have a not quite white Pope. A Pinoy. Michael II is not purely Spanish. He's arguably perfectly fluent in Tagalog and Pilipino.
- Shell Back Beau
- @shellbackbeau7021
- The Pope is South American, not Filipino.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- @shellbackbeau7021 You mean Antipope Bergoglio.
The Pope is called Michael II, or in the civil registers of the Philippines Rogelio Martinez.
9:36 I would like to know what Fr. Joseph Doherty would have said about the age bans on marriages in principle allowed by the Catholic Church.
In a somewhat more quiet society, one could perhaps imagine that couples one of which was under 18 were not banned from marrying, just (somewhat unreasonably long) asked to wait. However, after a certain age gap (a thing not banned in Catholic moral theology) is there, lots of feminists would mobilise all the paralegal (like psychological or even psychiatric) powers to stop it, so, asking them to wait can mean asking them to wait until their relation is destroyed.
Apart from that, banning teens partly or totally from marrying has obviously involved lots of teen mothers being more easily pushed to abortion.
11:04 Unfortunately, some of the FSSPX priests, perhaps Mgr Lefebvre himself personally discouraged it.
None the less, when a FSSPX priest in 1993 gave me a baptism sub conditione, my godmother had a son who married a black woman, and neither she nor the priest were against that marriage.
13:20 Just in case you wonder, I have never been against the devotion to the Sacred Heart.
I burned a few examples of Anders Arborelius' translation of it in 2001, but that was because of his declinsion of "holy" in the context Holy Ghost, which in Swedish is gendered, masculine adjectives end in -e, and only dialectally do you end all in -a. Or all in -e. The exact same evening, in reparation for either his mistranslation or any guilt or scandal involved in my act, I prayed the Litany, in Latin or German or once in each.
15:11 I have heard some rumour that the encyclical (of a non-Pope) on the Sacred Heart is heterodox. The quotes you have given aren't.
However, the next quote is not wise, but simply ... puritan and idiotic. He confuses AI, internet, algorithms.
If I want nostalgia for when I helped grandma or mother to bake, there certainly are algorithms on youtube which react to my love of that type of content.
The internet is not a kind of AI as usually understood (like ChatGPT or things), and I'm most definitely not dehumanising opponents in debates over the internet. Some may feel dehumanised over being exposed on my blogs, but if they were hiding under screen names, what have they to worry about? Or if they were already known, what right did they have to worry?
Others have imagined if I didn't dehumanise them, I'd already be Anti-Fascist (i e ditching Il Duce, Franco and Dollfuss, along with Hitler), or I would already be an Evangelical Protestant rather than taking refuge behind such inhuman mental constructs of hair brained ideology as (on their view) Apostolic Succession or analysing "Blessed Among Women" in the context of first Jael and Judith, next, given the implication of a very crushing victory over someone, Genesis 3:15. And taking Luke 1 as on that account confirming Ipsa conteret. By the way, I heartily feel much closer to some German FSSPX-ers, like Heinz-Lothar Barth, author of a book taking the title from St. Jerome's translation of Genesis 3:15.
Ipsa conteret. Maria die Schlangenzertreterin: Philologische und theologische Überlegungen zum Protoevangelium (gen 3,15)
Or, if I didn't dehumanise them over the internet, they as the very understanding and (obviously) intellectually superior to me shrinks that they are, would already have been able to convince me to get their therapy. In fact, I'd probably dehumanise them lots more offline, if they showed themselves in the capacity of shrinks. I beat and chased a man over his offering to become financial guardian for me.
No comments:
Post a Comment