Rejecting V-II and Some Aftermath is Not Protestantism

Is MEL GIBSON a PROTESTANT or CATHOLIC ?
JD Catholic Engage | 16 Jan. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSe4mRQvYTU

Was "Vatican II" really gathered "cum Petro et sub Petro"?

According to Pope(s] Michael I and Michael II, no.

I have a deep problem with their pastoral. But when I express my impatience, I don't hear "you have crossed a line and are no longer part of the Church" ...

I do find that their view and them being the real last and present Pope solves a theological problem, which keeps growing and growing.

As long as you are in Communion with the Archdiocese of Paris, and that one treats the 1992 speech, CCC §283, 1994 Interpretation of the Bible in the Church as authentic expressions of the Magisterium requiring at least respect, you are basically participating in theological piracy. It's on issues like that one that I have sometimes in the past nicknamed Robert Barron the "Robber Baron of Theology" ... he pretty obviously is pretending to uphold a not obviously at all literal view of the historicity of Genesis 1 through 11, and as a science geek, I don't find the rational objections convincing, and as doing a good deal of history in and beside and after my University studies, I know too well that this is also not the position that the Church historically has.

Now, when it comes to submitting exegesis to the Church, the scope of Trent Session IV obviously includes the merely authentic magisterium. If Pope Michael II tells me, even in private, I am forbidden to explain the terms "bricks, bitumen, mortar" as meaning other materials, basically chalk of different types, than the usual meanings of the Hebrew words in Genesis 11:3, but compatible with the Hebrew etymologies, well, I'll at least need to shut up promoting the idea (hope it doesn't happen, though).

However, if Trent Session IV doesn't pose a limit as if the duty applied only to infallible dogma, it certainly poses another limit on obedience, it is to a sentence quam tenuit atque tenet Ecclesia, which the Church hath held and holdeth. That of Wojtyla, Ratzinger, Bergoglio on Genesis 1 to 11 is certainly NOT what the Church hath held prior to 1990. Popes Michael I and II don't require that contradiction in terms.

I did send Mel Gibson a little hint he should submit to the real Pope.



Fallacy of singular causality ... now, what was the prima via again?

According to Riccioli (who rejected it and preferred the ontological argument), it was the argument from Geocentrism. God is moving the universe around earth, or the visible parts of the universe, below His own throne room, each day. Nothing else could. Hence, the sequence of day and night, extending down to Monsoon winds and Oceanic Currents, and up to the Sphere of the Fix Stars, if not in exact same speed everywhere, shows a single mover, and points to a single God.

Suppose you reject the Geocentric part of Prima Via. Then there is no single movement, and why would the diverse movements not point to diverse first movers? Wouldn't the attempt to find one first mover be the "Fallacy of Single causality" if it is one (I'd like to check Aristotle's Organon, but yes, it kind of is ...)?

So, Romans 1, Prima Via, Geocentrism ... there is so much that your Conciliar Church is rejecting in upholding the acceptance of settled science.



I know a bit about the flourishing Church in Africa.

1) I have heard from someone who was in the archdiocese of Dakar in the time of Thiandoum, disciple of Mgr Lefebvre, that they make a point of Muslims and Catholics are one family. Even if they don't worship the same God?

2) I have been opposed as a Young Earth Creationist by and African, I actually thought priest at the time, who told me Young Earth Creationism was Racist, because it means we take the curse in Genesis 9 literally ... yes, but neither I nor any other YEC that I know of takes it as literally meaning that all Black men are cursed. I basically take it, Canaan was cursed for being a dishonest sommelier, making a prank on his grandpa making him drink too much of a thing he had himself tested but the grandpa hadn't, so the curse of Canaan was the same as that of Habacuc 2:15. His punishment was to remain a sommelier for life. And his descendants are Lebanese, not Black.

So, to the Church in Africa, it's perfectly OK to stamp someone as a racist or as misled by racists, because he believes what the Church has always believed. No, I don't think the Church in Africa is doing all that well, from my standpoint in Paris. It's perhaps not even Catholic, at this point.