RtT on Two Pronouncements by Bergoglio (feat. Sts Thomas and Pope Pius V)

Francis Debases The Greatest Catholic Minds Of All Time
30th of Sept. 2022 | Return To Tradition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbmn-8lKw7c

6:40 As the words stand, there is something to it.

Me and David Palm don't see eye to eye on Geocentrism : he thinks he's debunking it, but uses the Atheist Alec MacAndrew (including on a post I just looked up, "What is the Single Best Argument Against Geocentrism?"). [to do it for him.]

Obviously, no God moving the Universe (below Empyrean Heaven) daily around the Earth, no angels moving planets around the Zodiac or stars in the movements compounded by "aberration" and "parallax" and both planets and stars in "wobbles." This is clearly not how St. Thomas thought about the issues.

To defend this, he likes to cite:

• St. Thomas saying other physical orbits (than the Ptolemaic ones) could equally give full justification for our observations;
• St. Thomas saying that the "ordinary providence" (between Creation and New Heaven and New Earth, outside miracles) of God uses secondary causes, which Palm interprets as for astronomy meaning only gravitation, tied to relation of two masses, and inertia, tied to each mass of physical matter; and the following is not explicitly cited but behind how he treats Alec MacAndrew:
• every "expert" should be believed "in his expertise."

Each of these is twisted in some way:

• St. Thomas certainly admitted the heavens could move differently from how Ptolemy thought, but he didn't admit to earth being part of what was moving, which would ruin part of his case for "prima via" the proof from movement, even more tied to astronomy in a passage from Contra Gentes, and also earth moving being contrary to our senses;
• St. Thomas does not paint an internally consistent system locking out anything outside it, the secondary causes being for each result intermediary between the First Cause (God), and the last result we are observing, and the secondary or intermediate causes being finite - meaning there is one particular secondary cause which in each case is moved directly by God, precisely as in a miracle, furthermore, angels are also secondary causes, and according to Riccioli more noble than purely physical ones, therefore more apt to move celestial bodies than solely these;
• St. Thomas says every artisan should be believed in his art. He included liberal arts (his example is from geometry, all triangles have the corners equal to two corners of a square to parapharase), but it does not follow he would also include astrophysics, just because he included observational astronomy. His view on what's knowable without faith excludes contingents that are:
  • 1) past or future
  • 2) far off
  • 3) or hidden
  and if you'd like to answer "astronomy has proven that celestial bodies move by physical necessity" - not so. Neither God nor angels move by physical necessity, and the two physical causes admitted, gravitation and inertia, cannot impose a physical necessity on the net result unless they are somehow excluding all other factors. They do not exclude one divine mover, nor angelic movers, just beause they ar too big to admit human movers using muscular power.

The next question is of course : will the man Bergoglio use his semblance of papacy to allow me to say this, or will he use it to silence my voice?

So far, apart from what one could call "networks of discretion" it has been the latter.

7:08 No, Thomism is NOT exclusively the official philosophical system of the Catholic Church. Pope Leo XIII specifically mentions that Scotism is also approved.

This leaves the first (to me) known author of a Syllabus of Errors, Bishop Stephen II Tempier of Paris, as intermediate between Thomism and Scotism equally approved, in the implications of his 1276 condemnations (in his time 1277 began March 25 or something, and the condemnations are a few weeks before that).

7:18 While Bergoglio may want a relativistic theology, this does not follow from the quotes given.

Please note, I count the last Pope as Pope Michael who died August 2nd this year, so I do count Bergoglio as an Antipope. I am not defending these words, because I want to defend him, but because I want to defend against overly inculpating eisegesis into people's words.

8:52 Agreed on the TLM.

Pope Michael did allow non-Latin (specifically English) translations of the TLM, perhaps bc of the bishops who consecrated him bishop (part of their heritage is ICAB, started by Duarte Costa), perhaps because some of his priest vocations were late ones, perhaps converting after an already extant past as Protestant pastors, who were no longer apt at becoming good Latinists. But he does not condone the fiddling with rubrics or text from 1962 onward. His Mass liturgy is, apart from the linguistic aspect, 1950's.

10:34 I wonder, is not not sufficient if the Mass becomes source of an individual Christian life?

Should hermits not ask priests to come to them and say mass in hermitages, must they go to places where the Mass is celebrated in a communal way?

(To clarify, I am not a hermit, I abstain from Mass as in Paris no priest is "una cum papa nostro Michael" prior to Aug. 2:nd).

11:00 Oh, it would be "anachronistic" to defrock any and all seminarians, priests or monks who commit any kind of sodomy?

De horrendo scelere, 1568, St. Pius V.

Or would it be "anachronistic" to allow someone not bound to celibacy to marry after committing an act of sodomy? Does all and any acts of sodomy automatically pose someone as degree 7 on the Kinsey scale?

This bull has been used to motivate that all homosexually minded persons (a category not mentioned as such in it) should be bound to celibacy, as the bull mentions "penance in solitude" (for sodomites or near sodomites who were already previously bound to celibacy, monastic profession or orders beyond subdeacon). The bull as such does not state any such thing.

11:19 He is in a sense already rejecting Quo Primum by accepting "Paul VI" as his predecessor.

But "stuffed nostalgic memory" - if this is a reference to people who prefer the TLM, he's arguably so out of touch with us, that he falls into the trap of pseudo-empathy : when he meditates on what goes on inside our minds, he gets something else than what is actually going on here.

In order to not commit the same error with him, I will also not exclude the position of no empathy at all, using the kind of minimalistic pseudo-empathy others made before him (a tenth or less of what empathy is about, but even that pseudo, in error), and which has hardened into a catchword.

As to pseudo-empathy being a fallacy rather than any attempt of empaty with any kind of talent above autistic automatically being knowledge, or at worst a good guess, see the enumeration of what St. Thomas considers as unknowable (apart from by faith) - among these are hidden and contingent things.

[at the end]

If I publish this one (link to your video, conspectus of my comments) next on my debate blog, it will be number 1556 (including drafts) or 1454 (of published ones). In 1556, we have Paul IV as Pope - Cum ex apostolatus officio (though that one was 1559). I think I will do it. Btw, some of the comments are to you, and some to what you cite from Bergoglio.