Saint Ratzinger? Nope.

Talks Underway to Make Pope Benedict XVI a Saint?
Cross Examined with Michael Lofton and Knowledge & Wisdom | 14 janv. 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMehPnUQSLA

He was involved in "The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church" because the PBC depends on the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith.

He was involved in CCC, with its §283.

No, I don't think so.

Lofton Struggles to Understand the Essence of AI

ChatGPT Says the Mark of the Beast Is Coming Soon (NOT Clickbait)
Reason & Theology | 13 Aug. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eklCZZOhIoo

13:32 Have you ever asked how much mathematics an abacus* understands?

An abacus can do mathematics, or better, you can do mathematics on it, but it doesn't understand mathematics.

ChatGPT can understand neither language nor logic.

Interesting test case.

Trent Horn claimed (I think twice even) that Cardinal Baronius (a very holy man, disciple of St. Philip Neri, also pretty crucial in Apologetics contra Lutherans on the terrain of history) had said "the Bible tells us how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go" ....

The immediate search on google for the phrase was in Galileo quoting it to Duchess Christina. However, Galileo didn't specify either in what context or what Church man he was quoting.

On Quora I posed the question "is there any early source that it was Cardinal Baronius who said etc."

Now, I have got so far no answers. But, there is a Quora bot, pretty similar to ChatGPT. It kept circling back to the Galileo letter which I already knew didn't mentioned Baronius by name. It wouldn't have done so if it understood the terms of the question. However, what such bots are programmed to do is copy text and especially copy probable continuations of any phrase already given (including questions, obviously).

So, ChatGPT is giving you the answers people are giving on the internet.

15:24 The answer pretty obviously means, from someone's side, "given the hypothesis of Christianity, x is likely" ...

And when I say "someone" I don't mean ChatGPT but a programmer.

16:45 The machine is neither confused nor lying.

It's simply not conscious at all.

That you presume to do theology apparently without knowing that is however either confused or facetious in your case, since you are conscious.

21:26 Popularity leads to frequency of an answer being written online.

Frequency of an answer leads to higher likelihood of ChatGPT sharing it.

Or do you believe it's 23:16 simply a sign that AI isn't yet fully 23:18 consistent and reliable and is open to 23:21 manipulation?

23:18 Did you say "isn't yet"?

Will never be, more like it.

* For the illustration, I modified the illustration on wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abacus#/media/File:Abacus_(PSF).png

By Pearson Scott Foresman - This image has been extracted from another file, Public Domain, Link

What About the Oral Torah?

Did Moses REALLY Give Us an Oral Torah? Reacting to Rabbi Tovia Singer
Reason & Theology | 5 Dec. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbygRTQI6vM

6:40 The oral transmission could have been preserved but dismissed?*

7:26 We know it isn't, they rejected the true Christ and so the views on what the Torah commanded were reassessed accordingly, falsifying it.

If you want the correct oral Torah, you need to get it from Apostolic Tradition, not Rabbinic.

Sts. Paul and Timothy were repositories of the oral Torah before they became Christians and became the fulfilment of that by becoming Christians.

* Mr. Lofton refers to the loss of the book of the law, recovered by IV Kings 22, arguing, the oral tradition needs to have been lost too. I argue it could have been preserved and dismissed.

Thank You Very Much Mr. Lofton

@reasonandtheology
Did Pope Benedict XVI Believe the Magisterium Has Erred?*
Mailbag: What is the Age of Consent in Catholicism?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jV0R-eCFcE4

As to consent, 1917 also sees it as puberty, and also takes the biological medium age rounded to nearest whole year.

Yes, marriage is raised to 16 for a male, 14 for a female, BUT in order to contract infamy by law, in that specific category one could equate to "pedocriminal", the limit remains 14 /12.

As you may know, the people who reject "Vatican II" and its "popes", we still hold to 1917.

16 and 14 are when c. 95 % of males and females each have gone through puberty.

* Haven't seen the whole video this is a clip from, but if he did, that's a warning flag against taking him for having been Pope.

Moral Unanimity of Church Fathers

How Much Authority Do the Church Fathers Really Have? | The Michael Lofton Show
Reason & Theology | 29 Sept. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/live/rxayz5Pde3c

14:59 You are aware EO adressed Protestantism in Jerusalem and Iasi?

18:52* More important: % of what total?

Of all Church Fathers, regardless of how little they wrote and that is preserved, even if they never touched the question? Or of all Church Fathers that spoke on the question?

Geocentrism and YEC will have a low % of all CCFF overall, but 100 % of all CCFF who spoke on the question. (David Palm dug up one CF who spoke about a Pagan philosopher "discovering" that the Earth goes around the Sun, the context is not Joshua 10, the context is Pagan philosophers, so I presume "discovered" could have been said tongue in cheek).

I would say, the former idea would make the criterium meaningless.

20:52 How we establish unanimity?

You establish unanimity among the ones you have read, and challenge the opponents to show dissenting voices among the CCFF.

David Palm was able to dig up that one CF who considered (in a very specific context) Heliocentrism as a "discovery" (of human reason? or of human reason perhaps gone wrong?)

22:23 If you pretend "heliocentrism" and "geocentrism" are a matter of "science" and therefore not of faith and morals, sorry, that's the error of non-overlapping magisteria.

It was coined by a modernist Jew, Stephen J. Gould, who held Torah only required morals and not faith.

It is also attributing to our forefathers in the faith a distinction which presupposes the concept we have of science, as an institution, which is anachronistic.

If you pretend they touch on no article of the faith or no major item in Christian philosophy, and therefore not of faith and morals, sorry again, by now heliocentrism / acentrism touches on "what is heaven" and therefore "sedet ad dexteram Patris" and "what is resurrection" and therefore on Lateran IV "resurgam eadem carne quam nunc gero" (eadem, not eiusmodi). By "distant starlight" it touches on age of the universe, which by now, after C14 dating (which wasn't available to Pius XII in 1951 or to Fr. Fulcran Vigouroux in 1909 or in the 1880's when he wrote his manual) touches on God's goodness to Adam and on Adam as universal progenitor.

The same is obviously true of other arguments in Old Earth / Young Earth.

It can be added that St. Paul in Romans 1 wasn't speaking of the flagellum of the bacterium, since it isn't visible to the naked human eye, and microscopes haven't been around since creation. He arguably was speaking precisely on God moving Heaven around us each day.

It can also be added that Nazi Catholics who endorsed Eugenics despite Casti Connubii reasoned that way "it isn't a matter of morals, but of science" ... Pius XI obviously condemned that position, and in 1937, Mit brennender Sorge was targetting that and other persecutions of the poor and marginalised, since Auschwitz wasn't around yet. Not all Nazi Catholics did, though, I hope Albanus Schachleiter who died in 1937 didn't, he did call out Nazism for going in too Protestant a direction (mainstream Protestant Churches had at the time a pretty complete endorsement of Eugenics).

22:34 You omitted the strongest Biblical argument apart from Romans 1.

Joshua 10:12.

Joshua first spoke to God, words not recorded, then adressed Sun and Moon. If it was instead of Sun and Moon only Earth that ceased rotating, it would be the only place in the Bible where a miracle worker adressed something other than what needed adressing.

If you speak of leprosy and "be clean" and "leprosy was cleansed", there are different aspects of cleansing. The man is cleansed pure and the leprosy is cleansed off**

18th or 19th C. German Protestant theologians have pretended "God accomodated to popular error" both in Joshua's long day and in the exorcism of demons.

Or, if you pretend the prayer is the words to Sun and Moon, sorry, but Sun and Moon are simply not names of God.

25:45 It may be remarked that the condemnations of Bishop Tempier of Paris in 1277 (or 1276 as they counted then) were never revoked, except if there was an indictment against St. Thomas as suspect for holding this, this indictment was revoked 48 years later. The syllabus part wasn't.

Now, this doesn't just concern Paris, but also French and English speaking colonies in N. America, because Louisiana and Québec (larger historic sense) were colonised with people speaking Paris French as it was back then, and I think it was bishop Arundel who in a council that was regional re-adopted the same condemnations for all of England.*** So, anything from Maine to Georgia would be bound by the syllabus of Tempier too.

While it doesn't condemn the proposition of there being no angelic movers, angelic movers were certainly on the table, and weren't condemned as such.

Meaning in French and English colonies, explaining retrogrades and the movements known as aberration, parallax and proper movement by angelic movers is licit.

27:27 I'm suspicious of the idea that Church Fathers collectively have less authority than the universal magisterium.

If anything, that would concern matters of formulation and establishing minimal agreements with the doctrine.

27:43 For their flock ... correct.

At that time only? No ... up to when a decision, if it ever is, is rescinded locally or superseded by higher authority. That's why a decision from 1277 is still applicable, except insofar as the original decision involved suspicions against the Angelic doctor.

However, if flock after flock is told the same thing era after era, and we find no or only superficial or only marginal exception, that is a moral unanimity reflecting the body of bishops in union with the pope, century after century. A third way, apart from Papal decisions and Ecumenic councils for Pope and Bishops to exercise their power.

28:05° Hippo is a decent standin for Carthage if we have no dissenting voice from Carthage.

Hippo is a decent sample of the Church Universal, if we have no dissenting voice from Carthage, Rome, Damascus, Seville, Jerusalem, centuries on centuries.

29:03 Access to all? Doesn't matter. In footage from a crime scene, it should matter, but in Patristics, it shouldn't.

If all Patristics we have access to is Young Earth Creationist (including those who aren't Six-Literal Days), we can't go "but an unknown Church Father might disagree" or "a Church Father known for writing only on the sacraments might have disagreed in a lost sermon on Genesis" ...

That approach would, precisely as a % of all CCFF approach, make the criterium from Trent meaningless

30:10°° Indeed, from St. Augustine the New Advent site omits "De Genesis ad litteram libri XII" and "Contra academicos" ...

34:28 If you think I have relied on a CF who is misattributed, go for it.

I think modern editions of City of God (on New Advent) or of De Genesi ad litteram libri XII (in Budé, with facing French translation) are suspect, I think you are streching it. I cite that for taking Genesis 5 and 11 (genealogy part) as literal chronology and for St. Augustine being Geocentric.

34:54 1) St. Athanasius' Quicumque vult was a Latin original, 2) the Greeks simply didn't have the First Council of Toledo and Pope St. Leo I promoting it 40 years later (from Toledo to Astorga).°°°

37:21# The vast majority except Young Earth Creationism and Geocentrism (both of which were held by Council Fathers at Trent, neither of which was directly disputed in Providentissimus Deus — I checked, given the reception of that encyclical).

And obviously Christ is risen and the Mass is a Sacrifice.

---

* Michael Lofton was asking what percentage is moral unanimity. ** German has the useful distinction between "reingewaschen" and "abgewaschen" ... *** I copied the "English" version from an appendix of a book by David Piché, giving the original with French translations, mainly, and the Appendix started with Chapter VI of the English document:

Index in stephani tempier condempnationes
https://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/index-in-stephani-tempier.html

Collectio errorum in Anglia et Parisius Condempnatorum
https://enfrancaissurantimodernism.blogspot.com/2012/01/collectio-errorum-in-anglia-et-parisius.html

qui sic per capitula distinguuntur

Capitulum VI

Isti articuli qui sequuntur, condempnatisunt a domino stephano parisiensi episcopo, de consilio magistrorum theologie, anno domini M °. CC °. LXXVI, die dominica qua contatur "Letare Ierusalem" in curia parisiensi, ubi excommunicauit in scriptis omnes illos qui scienter eos docuerint uel defenderint. Et primoordinantur qui sunt de deo ...

° Michael Lofton said a decision by St. Augustine of Hippo isn't magisterial today (basically, even in Hippo). I hedge that very severely in my comment. °° English is a drop in a bucket. °°° Resource here:

First Council of Toledo / Concilium Toletanum primum:
https://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_043t.htm

# Michael Lofton had stated, CCFF disagree on the vast majority of things.

Dum Diversas, 1452

The Catholic Church and Slavery
Reason & Theology | 9 July 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JxtYdmNO8X4

Wiki:

Dum Diversas (English: While different) is a papal bull issued on 18 June 1452 by Pope Nicholas V. It authorized King Afonso V of Portugal to fight, subjugate, and conquer "those rising against the Catholic faith and struggling to extinguish Christian Religion"—namely, the "Saracens (Muslims) and pagans" in a militarily disputed African territory. The document consigned warring enemies that lost to "perpetual servitude".

I glanced at the bull from an 1868 Bullarium for bulls directed to Portugal.

It seems the "in perpetuam servitudinem" phrase occurs about the magistrates and military of the kingdoms and duchies involved. I would say, unless I misread, Portugal went beyond that and illicltly encouraged slave trade. So to speak applying to civilians or citizens what should only apply to their magistrates.

Also, it is not clear that "perpetuam" would mean "hereditary" rather than "lifelong" ...

If Ted Bundy hadn't got electric chair, he would also have got perpetual servitude, as do some teens that have killed in the US.

Doctrinally, it means that perpetual servitude is permissible, for certain types of offenders.

If it weren't, Trump would have to close lots of facilities and redirect prisoners of more than 20—30 years to either electric chair or pardon.

The context clearly says kings, princes, dukes etc and kingdoms, principalities, duchies, etc. It would be a modern misreading to apply this to the whole population, it applies to the ruling class and those fighting for them.

I don't see the conclusion for Sicut dudum really differs. In Sicut dudum, they were clearly speaking of the population and especially Christian converts.

Or from Intra Arcana and Pastorale officium (forbidding the enslavement of Indians, this referring in 1537 clearly to civilian ones already subjected to Spain).

The prudential judgement implies a doctrinal proposition, namely that perpetual servitude is sometimes OK as a punishment.

The scope of Dum Diversas are the guys Portugal is fighting against, rulers and armies of certain Saracen kingdoms.

I don't see it as over the top that those in a particular occasion had deserved to go to lifelong prison all of them, and the doctrinal proposition simply means offenders can be punished with, among other things, perpetual servitude.

It also means, states can be criminal.

For Some Who Wonder Whether I'm a Catholic Apologist and Actually Catholic.

I have made comparisons with what Michael Lofton states under the first half of this video:

BREAKING: Sam Shamoun Has NOT Converted to Catholicism? – The Evidence Considered
Reason & Theology | 27.VI.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ax9-q0HIgRY

11:25 Was Gilbert Keith Chesterton a Catholic Apologist while still Anglican?

Some would say yes.

Was John Henry Newman a Catholic Apologist in the years preceding his final reception into the Catholic Church?

What he later says in Apologia suggests he practically considered himself such ...

There are Catholics who will cite Chesterton from Orthodoxy, a work he wrote while still Anglican (1908, Orthodoxy, 1922, Catholic conversion), and there are Catholics who will cite Newman Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, which he wrote 1845, same year as his conversion, but before it, and before receiving instruction.

He was specifically under orders to give sincerely and without a Catholic filter the reasons he had found as still an Anglican to become a Catholic.

14:06 Produce receits ...

I did make a public confession of faith in the chapel of Mary Immaculate on Ekgatan in Malmö. 1988. May 22 or 25 whichever is a Sunday. The other date is my baptismal date in the Lutheran Church of Sweden earlier on, on a Friday, in 1984, when I was 15 and 1/2.

However, when it comes to paperwork, I did not get "receits" into my hands.

Was the Catholic Church, Diocese of Stockholm, deliberately fudging the paper work so I could not prove I'm a Catholic or no one could prove it against me, should I later desire to return to Protestantism?

If so, that kind of collaboration with the kind of people who stamped me as immature when I was 20 and will continue to stamp me as immature till I die, as long as I am a Christian believer, is an extra reason to prefer Pope Michael II. In fact, however, I think they put the paper work in the parish register, which would now be in Maria i Rosengård. The chaplain who received me, Father Wilhelm Imach, OMI, and the parish priest, Father Rudolf Basista, OMI, have both died since. They were ordained before 1970. Father Wilhelm in 1962, Father Rudolf in 1958.

Father Wilhelm was ordained in Obra, Greater Poland. As was Father Rudolf. Apparently, the former Cistercian Abbey is the seminar of the Oblates of Mary Immaculate.

16:45 The profession of faith I made was different.

"Allt som den Katholska Kyrkan tror, lär och förkunnar vara uppenbaradt af Gud, det tror och bekänner jag"

Everything that the Catholic Church believes, teaches and proclaims to be revealed by God, that I believe and confess.

17:52 I received first penance and first communion in 1988, but confirmation (if valid) only later, in 1990.

The catechesis I received was extensive, a Catechism from the 1960's Germany translated into Swedish [during] the last year [of my catechesis], and in parallel I had already bought and started reading privately Konvertitenkatechismus, 1950, Paderborn, and that means it was by the Jesuits.

Before that year, there had been false starts with that book in the background.

24:57 Was Henry VIII still a Catholic Apologist after going into schism?

He had earned the title, given by the Pope, of Defensor Fidei, for a work entitled Defense of the Seven Sacraments (against Martin Luther).

Obviously, he backtracked on submission to the Pope, but not on the natures of the sacraments.

So, in a sense, yes.

Meanwhile, it would seem that members of parishes run by SSPX, Sedevacantists and, in my case, Orthopapist Conclavists, are not in the sense of canon laws here considered "parts of non-Catholic Churches" ...

(Though Pope Michael I has ruled SSPX are actually non-Catholics).

I am technically a biritualist with Romanian Orthodox, when I decided to convert to them in 2006 I was not required to abjure Roman Catholicism, and when I decided to get back in 2009, I did not formally abjure Romanian Orthodoxy.

However, a few weeks before I converted in Malmö, in the chapel on Ekgatan (oak street), I did get out of the Church of Sweden, and the reason I hadn't done so already was, I had presumed that the Catholic Church would handle that paper work. It didn't, I was asked to do the paper work with CoS myself.

Not Bad, Mr. President!

🚨Trump Stuns World: Announces PEACE DEAL Between Israel and Iran: 'We Win, World War 3 is Cancelled’
Benny Johnson | 24 June 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=roaDM7j0XQI

Great work, Mr. Trump.

Now that is out of the way, perhaps he might broker:

• Israel paying damages for the kidnapping of the Madleen
• Israel opening up non-UNWRA contributions to the Gazawis, apart from those provided by Israel itself.

[A certain detail:]

Real estate boom on stolen land. The American dream
Nicole Jenes Entertainment | 12 Febr. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viVRF4ZTde4

[Benny Johnson confirmed from second source]

Trump Declares Ceasefire Deal Between Iran and Israel
Reason & Theology | 24.VI.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgHvsZY8uxc

Celarent or Cesare?

I am Not a Usurer · Celarent or Cesare? · Defending the 1990 Emergency Conclave

Which mode of syllogism is valid about St. Robert's principle?

Cardinal Bellarmine: Patron of Popesplainers?
Reason & Theology | 30.III.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3D7T5vvI24

If Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio have all upheld (since 1992), this:

The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements... for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."

I don't see how this is material.

It involves heresy, since it involves denial of Geocentrism and Young Earth Creationism to a degree beyond what Leo XIII or Fulcran Vigouroux could have imagined.

So, the options are, according to St. Robert:

A Pope cannot uphold CCC 283
John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis are Popes
= John Paul II, Benedict XVI, Francis have not upheld CCC 283

Or:

A Pope cannot uphold CCC 283
Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio have upheld CCC 283
= Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio are not Popes.

Zen and Lofton

Loisy and Mangenot · Zen and Lofton

Cardinal Zen: The Catholic Church Will End if This Happens
Reason & Theology | 19.X.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFX_HCPbD-o

10:17 Can confirm.

I'm very happy to comply with the VERY first Syllabus of errors that I know of, issued by the Bishop of Paris in 1277 (and before you say "you mean Archbishop", no, Paris changed status and became Arch under Lewis XIV).

Stephen II Tempier issued it, and since his intro involved some suspicion about the orthodoxy of St. Thomas Aquinas, so before the latter was canonised, Stephen III (Bourret ? Bourrel ?) did not lift the doctrinal condemnations, but any and all suspicions of St. Thomas falling under them.

The Pope did not canonise the saint, before the Bishop of his see of residence had cleared him of doctrinal suspicions.

37:59 Their teaching can actually add up to infallibility.

It is impossible that it was not infallibly known that the Four Gospels were canonic by the dioceses accepting each even prior to Councils of Rome, Hippo, Carthage, and even more so Council of Trent.

However, prior to large "bishop conferences" Rome, Hippo, Carthage, it was basically local bishops saying so.

When local bishops around the world agree, they are infallible.

40:44 Before I converted, I was directed to the existence of SSPX disagreeing with Rome (I was also told they think Mickey Mouse is demonic), and I was directed to the then recent Assisi Prayer Meeting.

Now, I later changed my mind about that (and I have never during the years been told by any SSPX priest that it's wrong to read Mickey Mouse), but that's on me.

However, when I converted in 1988, I was told I did not need to be a YEC.

Later on, in 2001, when briefly returning from the SSPX, I was told I was wrong to be YEC. In the meantime, in 1992, your Church had issued CCC, with its § 283. I appreciate Jimmy Akin saying what I heard in 1988, I appreciate Trent Horn saying the same (though he is disingenious pretending on the one hand the freedom exists, and on the other, he warns against using it, and marginalises those who would use it). But over here in Europe, things are not the same, CCC § 283 seems to mean if you are YEC, you are mentally ill or schismatic.

I don't think I was the one lacking in due diligence on that one!

And obviously the post-Vatican II archdiocese of Paris is not in agreement with the 1277 diocese.

41:51 Lateran V gets us kind of stuck between Syllabus Errorum and CCC § 283

Condemned sentence in the former:
13. The method and principles by which the old scholastic doctors cultivated theology are no longer suitable to the demands of our times and to the progress of the sciences. — Ibid.

Proposed catechesis point of the latter:
283 The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers. With Solomon they can say: "It is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements. . . for wisdom, the fashioner of all things, taught me."

If Lateran V is true, both of these cannot be papal teaching.

43:43 If Sweden pays reparations to Lapps and Tatters and Gipsies who were targetted with eugenics and sterilised, Swedish tax payers obviously pay. Even if that ended 50 years ago, give or take. (The ethnic categories were not formally targetted, but nomadism, a lifestyle ethnically shared by them, was, and it obviously involved abuses of actual racism, apart from the theory probably having racist origins).

In the context, one can mention that Roger Mahony was promoted by "John Paul II" and Timothy Manning by "Paul VI"

44:47 While Cardinal Zen was wrong on the issue, the conditional statement "if X happens, the Church ends" is not equipollent to entertaining a doubt that the Church will end.

There is a psalm saying:

Canticum graduum. Nisi quia Dominus erat in nobis, dicat nunc Israel nisi quia Dominus erat in nobis : cum exsurgerent homines in nos forte vivos deglutissent nos; cum irasceretur furor eorum in nos forsitan aqua absorbuisset nos
[Psalms 123:1-4]

45:32 I don't think the analysis is correct.

A similar analysis was also not correct against Mgr Lefebvre saying "unless I consecrate bishops, the Church will end" or against David Bawden saying shortly thereafter, "unless we elect a real pope, the Church will end" ...

None of the three ever said the Church had ended or that indefectibility was proven wrong.

Two of them actually did, and the third is vaguely suggesting to do, something which on their views saved the Church from ending, i e was God's chosen means to provide indefectibility.

46:15 In the context, let me remind of a nuance in Trent.

contrary to that sense which holy mother Church,—whose it is to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the holy Scriptures,—hath held and doth hold; or even contrary to the unanimous consent of the Fathers

Why not simply "doth hold" without reference to "hath held" or to the fathers?

Because one had recently seen episcopates in the North of Europe defect. Some were no longer bishops at all, like I think Parker, but some were validly consecrated and teaching heresy (I think this was the case with Laurentius Petri, who, while validly consecrated, did not validly ordain or consecrate, for lack of intention externally expressed in his deviant new rituals for ordination and consecration).

Lots of validly ordained priests, who had exercised pastoral as promoted by the Catholic Church, were promoting errors.

So, I think the Trentine fathers did foresee situations in which this could apply to a global level, with only a minority adhering to the true Pope.

46:43 Cardinal Zen could be contrasting the "we" with diverse Catholic to near-Catholic non-adherents of "Pope Francis" ...

• Vigano
• SSPX
• Bishop Pivarunas
• Pope Michael II
• Peter III

He would probably not yet have made up his mind or at least not wanted to state where among these the Catholic Church would be, but his words do not imply the Catholic Church would have ended.

Sharing

BREAKING: Second Trump Assassination Attempt - Suspect in Custody
Reason & Theology | 15.IX.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omep8Pf-rWU

See also:

New blog on the kid: Tolkien's Politics · I Thought That Decree Was by Franco · Why I am Not Capitalist or for Unrestricted Free Market · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Tolkien Supported Franco's Side in the 36—39 War · Prince Caspian · Lord of the Rings: Motivations for Fandom · Tolkienophobes, Buzz Off! · Tolkienophobe Identified? · J D Vance-Phobes? · Crooks' (or Yearick's?) Body Gone · Sharing On The Shooting

And, for that matter:

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Three Takes on Morality · Pro-Death: Misreporting the Kate Cox Case and Misjudging the Ohio Girl of Ten Case · Harris Spoke a Lie, Trump Spoke the Truth · New blog on the kid: Best wishes for your recovery, Mr. Trump! · Yearick or Crooks?

Do they imagine Harris could be better off trying to beat Vance?/HGL

Moscow in Alexandria

Orthodox Bishops SILENT on Patriarch of Moscow's Power Grab
Reason & Theology | 11.IX.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klSE-2A-kPI

["What does this sound like to you?" I answer]

2:15 I'm reminded of what Moscow is accusing Rome of when it comes to Uniates in Kiev.

Some People Can't Relate to Any Decency (I Mean the Female Pastor)

Pastor Says Jesus Would Approve Abortion? Outrage Erupts!
Reason & Theology | 3 Sept. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKP1KvKVWrM

2:26 "the moral responsibility of reproductive power"

The heresy of today is "responsabilism" ...

In older parlance, a responsability is normally a liability. It's virtuous to meet the responsabilities one has. Not to heap responsability on responsability whether it's one's own responsability or not.

Or whether one gets anything in return for it or not.

She was, very demonically, meeting responsabilities she created out of thin air, just so as to have an excuse for meddling with and in this case ending a fellow human person's life. That she calls this heresy sacred is about as blasphemous as calling murder Christ-like. And it's arguably oppressive on the two children she did decide to not kill.

One usually has some kind of gratitude to the parents for making one. Adding a gratitude for not deciding to kill is over the top.

[The comment was deleted, again, since, after refreshing the page, the last visible one is 24 minutes old]

Candace Owens-Farmer and Michael Lofton

Candace Owens' SHOCKING View on Zionism
Reason & Theology | 18.VIII.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J5W7DwqyQh4

2:49 There were at least two cases I saw on video a few years ago.

Not sure I can retrieve those.

[Seems Mr. Lofton saw the same videos or partly about same persons]

3:50 paedophilia is not a crime.

Let me qualify.

Paedophilia is a paraphilia, meaning the abnormality of attraction in people who sexually get aroused by prepuber children.

By feminists, it is a term often abused to cover also hebephilia, an attraction to (usually) women who have already menstruated but are not all that much older than that, say to teens who are legal minors.

BOTH attractions (and I refuse to call the second one abnormal) can lead to crimes. NEITHER is the name of one of these crimes, at least not in the jurisdictions I know of.

The crime statutory rape can be committed by a paedophile, if the victim is 9 years old. It can be committed by a hebephile, if the real or supposed victim is for instance 14 in a country where the age of consent is 15. And either -philia can be held by people who do not commit the crime.

I'd consider the first of them is clearly an aberration, the second one isn't. I examinated a sample of 71 women of the High Middle Ages (around 1200's), from wikipedia. Taking insecure dates into accounts, I gave upper and lower counts for lifespan and age at first consumed marriage of each.

The median age at first marriage was 14 on the lower count and 17 on the higher count. In today's England, all of these marriages would have been illegal, so half of the sample would have been victims of "statutory rape" under the recently changed English law, now setting age of consent at 18.

Those married before 15 (the age of consent in Sweden), that's on the lower count of ages c. 51 % and on the higher count of ages c. 32 % of the sample.

I recall a discussion on quora some years ago, where the topic of early Christians came up. A woman married by 12 was not totally THE norm, it was not the average, but very far from abnormal.

In my sample, there were not marital ages for all women, married before 13 was the proportion 14 / 67 to 23 / 67 or 20.9 to 34.3 %. If you accept calling hebephiles paedophiles or perpetrators of statutory rape paedophiles, you are insulting the history of Christendom.

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica | Seven Female Lineages, Seventyone Women, High or Classic Middle Ages
https://filolohika.blogspot.com/2024/07/seven-female-lineages-seventyone-women.html

6:05 Theodor Herzl was absolutely not an Orthodox Jew.

As an ex-Zionist, I happen to keep track of that.

7:07 Two questions.

1) Are there at least suspicions that the Rothschilds are Frankists?

If you consider the suspicions unfounded, the allegations untrue, how unlikely are they?

2) Are there very broad hints that Rothschilds were involved as important financers of the Zionist movement?

8:02 There is a big difference between serial killers and a cult.

Serial killers usually don't educate their children to become serial killers.

(Some types of politicians excepted).

People in a cult have a much greater interest in educating their children in that cult.

10:02 I think she may have been confusing the JFK with the RFK assassination, the latter one on June 5th 1968.

The convicted person is Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian.

In a 2018 interview with The Washington Post, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., son of the murdered Kennedy, said that he had traveled to California to meet with Sirhan in prison and that, after a relatively long conversation (the details of which he would not disclose), believed that Sirhan did not kill his father and that a second gunman was involved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sirhan_Sirhan

So, suppose Sirhan was after all innocent, was there some undue consideration for Israel involved in his getting the blame?

My bad, it was about the JFK assassination, and involved the man who killed Oswald Harvey [Lee Harvey Oswald].

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Ruby

11:08 USS Liberty, believed to be an enemy ship.

Three hostages held by Hamas, whether liberated or not, were shot by IDF who believed them to be Gazawis.

I think the Zionists have some talent for killing people wrongly believed to be the enemy. Like "shoot first, ask questions later" ...

13:09 So, official investigations are credible evidence, and credible final evidence for whether certain evidence is credible or not ...

You recall the shooter who was killed after wounding Trump's ear?

His body has been cremated. It's impossible to get DNA to see if he really was Thomas Crooks or for instance Maxwell Yearick.

15:45 "just because he had a photo of his daughter"

Not of his own daughter, but of Jacob Frank's.

Eve Frank or Eva Frank (1754 – 1816 or 1817)[1][2] born Rachel Frank in Nikopol, Ottoman Empire (now Bulgaria),[1] was a mystic cult leader, and the only woman to have been declared a Jewish messiah according to historian Jerry Rabow. She was the daughter of Jacob Frank, the claimant to the position of Jewish messiah in the 18th century, and allegedly Sophie Ascania/Catherine the Great.

Photo would be misrepresenting it, but a picture of Jacob Frank's daughter would be some kind of evidence. Pictures of "Benedict XVI" don't totally prove you believed "John Paul II" was vicar of the real Messiah, but they strongly suggest that. Eve Frank was Jacob's successor as Messiah claimant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eve_Frank

19:21 Before we call out Candace Owens for calling out paedophilia not based on truth, what about legals systems and psychiatric systems that misdefine it so as to for instance classify hebephilia as paedophilia or sex with persons who could have married if the laws in 1200 had still been in place as statutory rape?

I do NOT admire Putin for calling out paedophilia as the worst of crimes, worthy of the worst of punishments, when his judges have harrassed Yuri Dmitriev with false accusations and regularly overturned incarcerations for at one time child pornography, because he had photos of the chest of an 11 year old daughter who had a disease in her chest (lungs or bronchiae, I think).

I do not admire how the Swedish attitude to paedophilia has worked.

That's why I fell out with my theretofore friend Charles A. Coulomb when he invited me to "international fight against paedophilia" ... international would mean collaborating with Putin and with Sweden.

Mr. Dmitriev was first arrested after investigators raided his home and found naked pictures of his adopted youngest daughter, Natalia, on his computer. A court in the Karelia region capital, Petrozavodsk, cleared him of these charges in 2018 after hearing testimony that the pictures of his daughter had been taken simply to monitor the medical condition of the girl who, at the time of her adoption, was malnourished and had severe developmental problems.

So, what a setup ...

a) doctor says he needs to see those pictures
b) Yuri complies
c) pictures are found on his computer.

The head of a local museum who had assisted Mr. Dmitriev at Sandarmokh was also arrested and charged with pedophilia. He died in prison earlier this year.

(NYT article is from 2020)

Seriously, does the Russian Penal Code call it paedophilia or is it just sloppy terminology on part of the journalist?

Russian Historian Who Found Stalin-Era Graves Is Convicted
By Andrew Higgins | July 22, 2020
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/22/world/europe/russian-historian-sex-crime-conviction.html

19:31 "engaging with paedophilia", guess I'll call out Candace Owens for the same terminological error as yourself.

21:24 Thank you, we know that you are a huge fan (even if the foe-fan type) of that show.

Your favourite meme about what you consider misinformation about Catholicism as long shown on videos on your channel, they have kind of referred to that.

We have heard of "reductio ad Hitlerum" and it's counting in Godwin points, when it comes to "reductio ad Antiquos Alienos" it would need to be counted in Lofton points, if the trend catches on.

Candace may be giving more speculation than stringent argumentation because that's what she considers her role as a commentator and you may be applying standards meant for work in academia.

Taking precautions based on not yet fully substantiated allegations may sometimes be necessary.

22:19 Candace Owens as a Jewish Zionist plant is just a bit less absurd than Tovia Singer counting her as more or less a Sedevacantist Antisemite because:

Candace Owen's husband George Farmer = Mel Gibson = Hudder Gibson.

Or his fan who was considering Candace as a hatefilled person who loves to slander.

As I'm an ex-Zionist, this has very little to do with Candace's theories or priorities.

1) I used to believe Palestinians were descended mainly from invaders from the Arabian Peninsula, I found out they descend mainly from Judaeans, Samarians and Galilaeans 2000 years ago.
2) I used to believe Jews had a right to recompensation after what they went through 1939 to 1945, but the Palestinian population was not at fault for what happened.
3) I used to believe that it had only to do with UN giving the Jews national sovereignty, and found out (from a Jew on helgon.se) that village territories had been bought up from landowners and village populations had been evicted as part of the settling.

The new landowners did not have the right to evict entire villages to accomodate their people. What they bought was basically a right to collect rent from Palestinians and at the utmost evict someone who was really misbehaving, not an entire village that was duly paying the rent as usual.

It's not quite the same when it comes to evicting just a single family to accomodate a single family, the new house owner can evict the family that arrived latest or has fewest children or has the closest other house in Paris to get a new flat in, but when situations divorcing usufruit from ownership lead to replacement of the entire population of a village (and there were hundreds of them), there is sth wrong.

Sharing on Opening Ceremony (and evidence from Barbara Butch's twitter account)

WOKE Paris Olympics DJ Sues Christians for Defamation?
Reason & Theology | 31.VII.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n2weq4jjLQ

Michael Lofton Responded to Cardinal Zen

New blog on the kid: Refutation of Dr. Steven Nemes · I Heard the Cardinal Zen had Taken on Michael Lofton · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Michael Lofton on Marcel Lefebvre, Me on Both and on Pope Michael · Sola Scriptura is NOT My Position · Michael Lofton Responded to Cardinal Zen · Great Bishop of Geneva! Blunder, Gendron!

Did Cardinal Zen Just Refute Me on Papal Heresy?
Reason & Theology | 1 July 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hecOQSg7PE

1:17 Thanks for the reminder.

I asked Cardinal Zen if CCC and §§ like 283 and 390 are also so low one can ignore them (rather than for instance accuse "John Paul II" of heresy, which I didn't say).

My post which linked to his after this comment was placed, was published 4th of July, it's the 6th over here in Paris. He did not validate my comment.

14:00 I'm accused of dissent from 1820 and 1909 because I am YEC and Geocentric.

I would argue that 1820 never made Heliocentrism law of the Church, and 1909 never made Day Age law of the Church.

I would argue, also, that both positions as developed since these times have come to involve statements not originally covered by the decisions.

Pope Pius VII never envisaged that Heliocentrism could lead to statements like "the furthest visible stars are 13.8 billion light years away" and St. Pius X never intended Day Age to cover statements like "Adam never individually existed" / "Adam lived 50 000 years before Moses' time" / "Adam is not ancestor of all men" / "anatomical men are not necessarily created in God's image" (if you can avoid all of these logically while holding to deep time, tell me how, please!), and the same year he allowed Fulcran Vigouroux to sign it as a possibility back then licitly to be investigated, he canonised St. Clement Mary Hofbauer, whose close friend wrote a YEC tract ...

I would say, to the mind of the Popes concerned, with 1820 and 1909, rejecting YEC and Geocentrism as either wrong or at least certainly not the meaning of inerrant Scripture as such, is not a requisite. Even if some Sedes and SSPX-ers say the opposite.

19:43 The way to fulfil the stipulation of §38 would be a blessing like "God bless you for seeking a lesbian pair for a partner exchange, as soon as possible" ... (to a gay pair).

22:00 The eighth? Constantinople IV?

[Fourth Council of Constantinople : 869-870
Papal Encyclicals dot Net
https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum08.htm]

If you mean part sorry, canon 10, it says:

As divine scripture clearly proclaims, Do not find fault before you investigate, and understand first and then find fault, and does our law judge a person without first giving him a hearing and learning what he does?. Consequently this holy and universal synod justly and fittingly declares and lays down that no lay person or monk or cleric should separate himself from communion with his own patriarch before a careful enquiry and judgment in synod, even if he alleges that he knows of some crime perpetrated by his patriarch, and he must not refuse to include his patriarch’s name during the divine mysteries or offices.

It does not seem to involve doctrinal criticism against open statements, and in context, the previous to Photius patriarch had been accused of personal crimes, not doctrinal heresy, or not doctrinal heresy exclusively, prior to the imprisonment of himself and illegal (that time) elevation of Photius.

In the same way we command that bishops and priests who are in distant dioceses and regions should behave similarly towards their own metropolitans, and metropolitans should do the same with regard to their own patriarchs. If anyone shall be found defying this holy synod, he is to be debarred from all priestly functions and status if he is a bishop or cleric; if a monk or lay person, he must be excluded from all communion and meetings of the church until he is converted by repentance and reconciled.

Distant seems to imply resisting simple rumours about misconduct. It's like saying one had no right to leave communion with McCarrick (supposing one held to Vatican II as licit) prior to his being convicted of whatever the accusation was (recycling offenders against chastity of the young or perhaps even of children, if my memory serves right, and this knowing their evil track-record).

Canon 6 speaks of accusations specifically against Nicholas and Hadrian, not against any and all accusations against otherwise apparent popes.

29:56 I would obviously disagree the sentiment that an attack on Bergoglio is per se an attack on the papacy, but as long as Cardinal Zen considers Bergoglio to be Pope ... you may have some kind of point.

Michael Lofton on Marcel Lefebvre, Me on Both and on Pope Michael

New blog on the kid: Refutation of Dr. Steven Nemes · I Heard the Cardinal Zen had Taken on Michael Lofton · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Michael Lofton on Marcel Lefebvre, Me on Both and on Pope Michael · Sola Scriptura is NOT My Position · Michael Lofton Responded to Cardinal Zen · Great Bishop of Geneva! Blunder, Gendron!

Was Marcel Lefebvre (SSPX) a Closet Sedevacantist?
Reason & Theology | 27 June 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMIw6PPVy64

1:53 "he never comes out and says the see is empty"

Would he have if he had seen 1992—1994, CCC, "Galileo was right", "Evolution is more than [just] a theory", "Exegesis of the Bible in the Church"?

2:32 No, the part "approved by the Church" is not incorrect.

1) St. Robert Bellarmine is approved by the Church through his canonisation.
2) St. Francis of Sales is approved by the Church through his canonisation.
3) The Council Fathers at the Vatican Council are approved by the Church, or they would not have been holding a valid council in 1869 to 1870.

In the pauses of the latter council:
"what if there is a pope who falls into heresy?"
"he would immediately lose papacy" ...

They thought this so obvious they didn't bother to waste time on it, and it was raised and so answered in the proceedings, apparently with no one contradicting.

Forget which Dimond Brothers video I owe that to, for St. Robert, I already knew before I heard of them.

10:27 1987 was four years before he died. He was 82 years old. Or 81, since it's before his birthday.

One can understand if he did not draw out the conclusions fully, which would have involved a drastic change for him. Even so he did a drastic move the next year.

A younger man did draw out the conclusion fully, he was already out of Winona by 1989, and for 1990, he convened an emergency version of an election in which he got elected.

11:45 I'm noting that the quote from 1976 was 13 days after a Suspension a divinis he considered invalid (by the way, the exorcist concluding he was great because a demon was afraid of him, that was before this day, 22 of July 1976, when the penalty or pseudo-penalty was pronounced, he was still "in full communion" any metric you wish, from a Novus Ordo perspective).

Back then he could have shied back from pronouncing sede vacante in the hope of some bargaining space. And also because there was only a suspension, no excommunication pronounced from the man held by some to have been "Pope Paul VI" ... he could have felt that going as far as fully pronouncing sede vacante would be raising the tone too quickly.

13:01 Supposing the Council had been in fact a real one, denying that would not be heresy, it would be schism.

He would have been denying a dogmatic fact, not a dogma. And the dogmatic fact would have been accessible as such by "full communion with the Church", hence the term schism.

Precisely as an Orthodox who says St. Thérèse Martin was no saint would not be denying a dogma, but a dogmatic fact (also infallible), and one accessible through full communion with the Church (and this time over, I would myself use that term, as Pius XI was really Pope).

How come you will defend communion with Orthodox who deny filioque, (which I did not do while Romanian Orthodox, not even the moment of "converting", I thought I had an insight it was theologically superfluous), while you say counting "Vatican II" as non-council is heresy, not just schism?

15:12 December 2, 1986, is an interesting one.

According to that, the need for a nihil obstat and imprimi potest or imprimatur, or at the very least a nihil obstat would still be there, even if "Paul VI" abolished it.

Which brings us to the question if Apologia pro Marcel Lefebvre had such a thing. On the online version from SSPX-Asia, I don't find it.

If they thought their own approval was equivalent, then St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, or their superiors in the District of France, or in Écône, could have, when I was there, a weekly and nearly daily parishioner, taken some of my stuff, given it their own equivalent of imprimatur, and printed it, while we were in agreement on where the Church was to be found.

I could have had an income from my writing, and an appartment, and a wife, I could be raising soon to be teens by now ... I have never had a full explanation from the parish why it didn't happen or why it doesn't happen now. I mean, presumably they won't state that "earth was 5200 years old when Jesus was born" or "earth neither spins on its axis nor orbits the sun" is equivalent to "Michael II is pope" much as they dislike that idea, and presumably also, they don't feel bound by CCC § 283.

In fact, I have never even had a partial explanation. Did they think I was gay and did they take that from an Orthodox misjudging my taking of advice from an older man about First Millennium examples of actually papacy (Rome as adequate succession of Petrine office)? If so, did they think printing the works of a (supposedly) gay man was collaboration in evil? I have had hints going in those directions, but nothing precise enough to pinpoint that that is what they mean ....

15:34 No, he was not saying "Rome's in schism with me" he was saying "the Conciliar Church is in schism with predecessors" ... i e much like Laurentius Petri was in schism with Gustav Trolle and Johannes Magnus, much like Cranmer was in schism with William Warham and with the early part of his own carreere.

The statement was not about Marcel Lefebvre, but about the very recent and verifiable past of the Church. Even if it had been wrong, it would not have been a statement about Marcel Lefebvre.

16:30 No, "Rome is in apostasy" is not tantamount to "the Church has defected from the faith", so the statement as such is not heretical. If erroneous, it would be schismatic.

If true, the one question is, what was he doing about it?

David Bawden did what his words spelled out.

18:15 No, what Marcel Lefebvre taught was not equivalent to these condemned theses:

23. Excommunications are only external penalties and they do not deprive man of the common spiritual prayers of the Church.
24. Christians must be taught to cherish excommunications rather than to fear them.

Condemned by the real Pope Leo X. In Exsurge Domine.

Marcel Lefebvre was not making such general statements about excommunications, he was focussing on a very narrow frame in which certain (apparent) officeholders abuse the penalty while being otherwise heretical. If Marcel Lefebvre was in a real but limited sense sedevacantist (and Pope Michael I would agree that in 1988 there was no Pope), the statement was not the least equivalent to Luther's statement. Since, obviously, Luther was not the least trying to call Leo X a non-Pope or doubtful Pope or someone in schism with his recent predecessors.

18:48 I'm noting "of excommunication" is not even in the Marcel Lefebvre quote, it is in square brackets.

Marcel Lefebvre referred to it as "the sanction" (presumably on part of a non-Church) and not as "the excommunication" or "sanction of excommunication" as if he considered it equivalent to those actually hitting Luther.

21:41 As said, he was arguably an old man afraid of his own conclusions.

24:00 Here is the take of Pope Michael I on SSPX:

Lefebvrites

On June 30, 1988, Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre and Bishop Antonio de Castro Meyer consecrated four priests of Lefebvre’s Apostles of Jesus and Mary, known under its public title as the Priestly Fraternity of Saint Pius X. Both Lefebvre and de Castro Meyer had participated in Vatican II and accepted some of the more minor heresies of that Council. They also recognized the claimants to the papacy of the Conciliar Church, namely Paul VI, John Paul I and John Paul II were valid Popes, which makes them technically schismatics.

St. Cyprian “”To adhere to a false Bishop of Rome is to be out of communion with the Church.”

Three of these bishops in turn consecrated Bishop Rangel for the priests that were under Bishop de Castro Meyer. Bishop Rangel has reunited with the Conciliar Church. Bishop Williamson has consecrated two other bishops.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190327225441/http://pope-michael.com/pope-michael/summary-of-the-position/validity-of-the-ordination-and-consecration-of-pope-michael/

24:25 Not remotely same way.

Marcel Lefebvre held that Roncalli was a valid Pope and that Pius XII was valid.

Luther pretended to have his own predecessors way back before his lifetime, like in the time of the Apostles and also of Constantine, but not all that much further on if it came to full orthodoxy.

27:45 If you think that "valid councils are schismatic" is equivalent to "this council" [in fact, unlike what the speaker thinks it is a valid one] "is schismatic" you have a problem in logic.

If you think "this council" [in fact, unlike what the speaker thinks it is a valid one] "is schismatic" is condemned along with "valid councils are schismatic" or in error etc, you should not be teaching "Magisterial studies" ...

Michael Lofton on Stabbing, Censorship and Islamophobia ...

New blog on the kid: Sharing on Mar Mari Emmanuel · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Michael Lofton on Stabbing, Censorship and Islamophobia ... · Words From Mar Mari Emmanuel

JUST IN: Australia Orders Facebook and X to Remove Videos of Bishop Being Attacked
Reason & Theology | 16.IV.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wd-14gkpdRQ

7:44 Good recovery to Mar Mari Emmanuel!

9:56 Speaking of which.

The Catholic Church absolutely does not allow killing Jews for being Jews, either for their race or, in the case of unbaptised Jews, for practising Judaism. While in principle the Inquisition had not just authority but also justice in punishing false Christian crypto-Jews, the Catholic Church has not called for any prolongation of this after 1820 or 1830, whichever year was the last year of the Spanish Inquisition.

It has not been a priority in countries which never had any threat of Jews betraying their country and after that at least a perceived threat of Jews falsely converting. The one country which perceived such a threat was Spain in 1492, that ended in 1830, we need not repeat.

However, obviously some NS people, some of whom were Catholics (though in the SS the Catholics were just 1/4, like the NS new religion of "Gottesgläubige", the 1/2 were Protestants).

Do you have any idea how many of the pro-NS priests would have supported NS policies against the Jews?

There were no per se pro-NS bishops even in Germany, but Monsignor Mayo de Lupe (a priest with Monsignor honours, not a bishop) compared the NS to the Teutonic Order. However, even that says nothing about how to treat Jews, and the comparison was partly unfair to the better people (there were obviously very bad ones too) in Operation Barbarossa. What the Teutonic Order did in 1410 or, the Baltic part, in 1525, was not Catholic. But as said, that statement is not any kind of endorsement to treat innocent Jews bad.

Also, the statement in a Franciscan Catechism on Apologetics with German Workers, from the Third Reich, on why La Commune didn't attack rich Rothschilds "weil die Sozialisten eine Judenschutztruppe sind" says more about rejecting Socialism than about endorsing attacks on Jews. You see, in the question, they had referred to other rich people that La Commune did sack the properties of, as well as destroying Churches, and the Franciscans didn't approve that either. It appears they did not know the Rothschild Hospital had treated Communards free of charge, so there was a question of gratitude.

So, do you know any actual person on record, in the Catholic clergy, who was pro-NS (as some priests, but no bishops were) who endorsed the poor treatment of Jews?

I don't think there was one, and one regularly hears allegations from some. I have family who take "The Deputy" for a documentary. But the work was a piece of fiction, which Hochhuth only wrote when Pius XII was dead and his defenders marginalised by Vatican II.

16:39 "So this verse discusses dealing with those who violated their agreements and attacked the Muslims"

Oh, is that a fact?

Unless every Christian on the Arabic Peninsula had betrayed Muhammed, which I doubt, the expression seems to lack some necessary distinctions ...

18:30 "should people sometimes qualify those 18:07 snide comments like that guy who said the religion of Peace strikes again and they called that islamophobia can some 18:14 people qualify that better of course they can you could qualify and say his his 18:20 particular group's interpretation of Islam strikes again clearly the religion 18:25 of Peace doesn't uh apply to his version of 18:31 Islam"

I'm reminded of a few Muslims in the homeless day shelter of the Centre Frédéric Ozanam in Versailles.

I was being pinpointed by some as an extremely fanatical Catholic.

Like, some people were viewing me as the Catholic potential equivalent of that stabber.

Now, the proof of that was, I went to St. Nicolas du Chardonnet, FSSPX, which some leftwing Catholics are giving the reputation of an NS stronghold.

So, a day when I went there, someone asked me what I thought of Pius XII.

I did not particularly condemn him, and someone else asked me why he betrayed the Jews.

I got angry at the crowd, and a lady from the Catholic volunteers over there, one who knew those Muslims (obviously not holding the stabber's ideology), thought that her only chance of saving me, if not from death, from a beating was to excuse me as a madman.

If those people had been into the extremes of Islamism (overtly), they would not have allowed that crowd the freedom to become a threat to me.

Days or weeks later, some Muslim boys from Tunisia, also not the version of the stabber, outside the other day shelter, were waiting for me.

They called me "Jesus!" and I said "no, my name isn't Jesus" and they wouldn't quit. They started to become threatening.

Some civil enforcement officers passed by, separated us, heard their version with intense interest and gave me the chance to get out of harm's way. In order to get my version of the facts heard by law and order in Versailles, I was told, if I really, really bothered, I'd need to go to the police station.

Once there, I had to wait and wait. That was an hour or more after my harrassers had told their version.

The police officer I had to do with there was one Karim Ounoughi. Care to guess if he was Catholic or Muslim?

And, if he was Muslim, he obviously was not of the ideology of the stabber.

So, he told me, these things were childishness, I shouldn't bother (about being involved in a blasphemy against Jesus!) and he wrote a PM, which I signed in fatigue.

It can be mentioned, before this happened, I had in fact been hospitalised the previous month, after trying to help a girl against what seemed like a psychiatric intervention.

At no point in my short stay among shrinks did I pretend to be Jesus, but some guys seem to have made the worst of it and really did know.

Some Muslims were involved in the personnel and one in the patients of that mental hospital, and the personnel certainly did not have the exact ideology of the stabber.

Nevertheless, they seem to have been pretty effective in fighting a Christian in another way.

Except, when they do not have that ideology, some Catholics won't call them out as persecutors.

20:51 "come back when you have ever actually studied theology"

"some people don't belong in these discussions, you are one of them"

Come on. You can see for yourself, there is a double threat.

a) from Muslims of a certain type (you may be less aware of Muslims of another type also being a threat to some, I tried to fix that)
b) from the part of authorities trying to strangle free speech.

Is your whole strategy to go on pretending we are still in the era before the internet, when discussions with a wide audience could easily exclude some by simply refusing them entrance into a physical room?

Doesn't seem like a very good way of saving the Christian West.

On the other hand, it seems like a very good way of making the case that those demonetising you want.

21:20 Saying "Islam is the religion of Satan" is not a strawman, since it is not meant for verbal discussion with Muslims in the first place. It's a warning, not one of the talking points for that warning.

I may disagree, I may think that Islam is a religion of Satan among some others, but the question of how Muslims take it is not uppermost in everyone's mind.

Oh, Muslims who take it badly could go to extremes like that stabber? That's making the case for what he was saying.

Or, no, that's not what you meant, you just think he should be silenced anyway? That's making the agenda of the Muslims of another ideology, right?

One which (as perhaps you didn't know, but now you should know it) on occasion also helps to persecute, if not spokesmen of Christianity at least individual Christians.

Now, what are on my view the other religions of Satan? I'd say the existence of real witchcraft (as in human sacrifice) would be the worst, but it is not uppermost right now. It's not likely to come out in the open directly in such a demonic way. The ones which could be the seven heads would be:

• Modernism for the lion of Pagan Babylon (mainly among Lutherans and Anglicans), it will not have wings after the lioness lost them
• some Orthodox spirituality for feet of a bear
• the general form of a leopard corresponds to four of the heads : Judaism, Islam, Calvinism and at least Theistic Freemasonry (with lots of Modernist Greek Orthodox)
• Communism (which involves psychiatry, evolution belief, mandatory spirit of tolerance between religions, no mandatory tolerance for atheists against religions, obviously also abortion, historically at least eugenics, which could come again ...).

With his reply to the first commenter in the feed he reads, he would seem to discredit himself as a friend of censorship when he's pretending to complain about censorship.

Mike Winger Has His Issues, As Noted by Reason and Theology

Mike Winger Foolishly Mocks the Saints #pope #catholic
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jEXK9mHdixU

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

Sts Symeon Stylites and Genevieve of Paris (or of Nanterre, where she was born) had visio conferences by miracle, like later Sts Clare and Francis of Assisi.

It's thanks to Sts Symeon Stylites and Genevieve that France and generally the West exists.

It's thanks to them that the Roman world didn't continue in a rut much like the Putin version of Russia or fall down as prey to Arian invaders in the West.

The FP is clearly merited.

II

Ave Maria

@AveMaria33777

That's what you call a lack of education.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

to be deep in history is to be Catholic
to be shallow in history is to remain outside, unless you're cradle Catholic, apparently

III

Joshua Young

@JoshYng

Idk anything about pillar saints. But wouldn’t this logic lead Mike Winger to have to also say fasting is stupid because it’s intentional suffering for God?😂

Reason & Theology

@ReasonandTheology

Right.

James Mcphillips

@omentrikal1

It is

IV

Ck

@Ckkkkkkk12345

Mar Maroun or St. Maron did that, he would go up to the mountain and stand their with his arms open for very long periods in repentance for sinners.
Now he is the only saint in the world who has a sect that carries his name.. the maronites that are mainly in Lebanon now although he was from Syria

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Not sure one should refer to Maronites as a sect ... they are one of the Rites of the Catholic Church (like Latin, Byzantine etc).

V

Michael Bottorff II

@michaelbottorffii4913

I'm with Mike on this one. These public displays seem to directly defy Jesus's warnings against self-righteous displays of prayer and fasting from Matt 6:5-18.

James Adams

@jasmadams

Oh yeah, when I want to look good and preen in front of my peers, this is precisely what I do. Get a grip...

Michael Bottorff II

@jasmadams Why do you harden your heart to the Words of our Lord?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The pillar saint is living so far from the public, even with "public display" he can't possibly enjoy honours given him.

No Pharisee (they were what Jesus talked about!) was ever a pillar saint.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@michaelbottorffii4913 Your misuse of Our Lord's word is NOT the word of God.

VI

Tom Gjokaj

@tomgjokaj

Poor Mike, just wings it

Reason & Theology

Basically

Harley Mann

@harleymann2086

Wing-ding is more than a font on our computers 🤣

VII

Chwedl

@chwedl13

Just making God looks weird to everybody else while in truth its only in Protestants people like them but for us Catholic we respect and honor them. 🙄🙄🙄

Hans-Georg Lundahl

amen!

VIII

Hjc

@hjc1402

Isn’t this considered asceticism?

Reason & Theology

Yes

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, and it's the original Greek word for St. Paul's words about athletes!

Continuing the Same Video

Michael Lofton Pretends that Anyone Finding a Contradiction in "Pope Francis" Would, on Same Standards of Logic, Find Them In the Bible Too — Continuing the Same Video

When Catholics Argue Like Atheists
Reason & Theology | 20 Jan. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcI86MwPN58

XIV, Number of Captured — is it Perhaps "Parashim"?

25:13 On this one, I'll have to admit I am stumped.

Just possibly, the author of the earlier book, which I suppose II Kings is (or the second part of Samuel), could have transmitted an incomplete summation, while the more complete figure was incorporated into the later book.

I e, the Bible would in such a case basically be saying:
"He took 1700 .... wait, it's actually 7000 ..."

The harder part was, did King David really subjugate Syria and Moab to Damascus and to Euphrates?

Then I was reminded that, yes, we know the kind of people who would be too dishonest to admit that in their own chronicles.

25:13, bis. Other possibility, "parashim" literally means horse, but is used as technical term "horseman" which might well be a charioteer.

Suppose that the 7000 really were horses? Horseman a mistranslation in this case?

7000 / 1700 = 4 point sth ..

The problem with that one is ... why are only 1000 chariots taken if 1700 charioteers are?

XV Numbers Returning (Neh 7:1, Ezra 2:1)

25:26 In my online Douay Rheims, verse 1 gives no different numbers, not even same numbers, and further down its 42 360 in each.

W a i t ... there are discrepancies.

One of them is this one:

13 The children of Adonicam, six hundred sixty-six.
18 The children of Adonicam, six hundred sixty-seven.

One of them is the first time they were counted, one of them the second time they were counted. A new person had been born or reached adulthood in the meantime.

The actual odd thing is, the total it adds up to is the same.

XVI Divorce Bill.

26:05 Jesus put the standard of justice one notch further up.

26:20 He's just revoking a temporary dispensation.

XVII Omniscience, Day and Hour

28:09 We have patristics on this one.

Jesus knew the day and hour, but He chose not to divulge it. He used the phrase about "not knowing" as meaning a refusal to divulge.

E, fifth tu quoque

28:58 Now, if the "magisterium" of "Popes" Wojtyla through Bergoglio is not indefensible, how about defending the accurate meaning of CCC § 283?

XVIII Achimelech or Abiathar?

30:18 II Kings 21 says Ahimelech the priest received King David.
Mark 2 says David was received under Abiathar the High Priest.

Pretty simple, Abiathar did not receive in person. Ahimelech at this point was only priest, not yet High Priest.

By the way, we know from Paralipomenon (I or II, forget which) that Ahimelech was the son of Abiathar.

XIX, "This Generation"

31:38 A Patristic reading is, the parts that refer to Doomsday will take place within "the generation of the just" = the time of the Church.

A Jesuit, I think, and perhaps Haydock resuming him, have said some of the things in this speech are actually about the Destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70 (37 years later, obviously some are still alive).

32:38 There is a reading about Sun = papacy; Moon = Imperial power; Stars = bishops.

The apostasy in all of these areas is a bit more apocalyptic than the astronomical observations.

32:47 The generation of the just would seem to be precisely two thousand years so far (or not a full decade in defect).

XX Not One Stone — Wailing Wall

34:13 Damien Mackey states that the wailing wall was not part of the temple.

XXI Shema or Trinity? St. Athanasius says : Both.

35:40 Why did St. Athanasius write Quicumque Vult in Latin when the rest of his writing is in Greek?

Because he was in Trier, an outpost just before the un-Roman Germania. Augusta Treverorum, if you take a time machine back then and ask for directions.

Why did he state what he stated in it? Because Jews were asking him this exact question.

Here is his answer:

So the Father is God, the Son is God,
and the Holy Ghost is God.
And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
So likewise the Father is Lord, the Son Lord,
and the Holy Ghost Lord. And yet not three Lords, but one Lord.

F, sixth tu quoque

37:52 I actually do not think "ah, whatever!?"

And Church discipline as in FS § 31 or Church Catechesis as in CCC § 283 are not supposed to be divine mysteries to the faithful.

XXI, Paradoxes of the Resurrection.

39:13 God will sort the atoms out, so the molecule that was in someone's body when he died will typically, but not totally all of them be around in the body that's risen.

Thank you for citing Job against the Waldensian and one extreme Protestant heresy, by the way.

I say typically but not all cases, because people who die at age 80, will, if rising in glory, be resurrected the physiological age 33. People with obesity will lose weight (I bet St. Thomas was looking forward to that one) (Chesterton too). People who are too lean will get weight back or gain weight they never had.

39:49 First of all, the cannibal's body cannot be all consisting of that victim's body's matter, and second, that victims body arguably has parts a cannibal won't eat. Or can't eat.

So, some matter will certainly belong to each body alone, and not to the other.

G, seventh tu quoque

40:48 This seems like the seventh major direct tu quoque.

So, the fact is, I don't think there are any ways to harmonise CCC § 283 with Trent Session V, Decree on Original Sin, canons 1 to 3, without getting into even worse stuff than the mere contradiction.

Now, if you think I am wrong there, how about trying to help me, or at least my readers out?

You see, I would publish your answer on my blog. Probably along with my snarky comment on it, but still. Some of my readers might actually agree with you.

___________________________________

One in the feed has a point:

When will the Pope bashers realize that "praying for the Pope's conversion" is flying in the face of God

Thanks Mike. If Bergoglio is Pope Francis, we shouldn't pray for his conversion. If we should pray for Bergoglio's conversion, we shouldn't call him Pope.

Precisely why I took issue with a text by Father Schmidberger, where he says "also today, Peter is in chains, in chains which he has forged for himself, chains of heresy and error" ... er, no. If Wojtyla was in such chains, he was not Peter. If he was Peter, he was not in such chains.