Half Pint with Sophia Holcomb ("Discovering C. S. Lewis")
Pints with Jack, 31.X.2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUVL1hp-ieQ
Best wishes for all saints day, and for upcoming conversions!
8:32 One reason why CSL is more popular than Chesterton is, if you follow up the logic of the latter, you will see how Jesus founded exactly one Church — and a lot of people feel cornered by that.
9:48 Or entering and scaring off Jadis a first time when creating Narnia.
Pretty absent from most chapters of The Magician's Nephew ... except as a very unobtrusive providence.
None of the children gets trapped in constant company with a guinea pig inside the wood between the worlds ... nor corrupted by Andrew Ketterley.
Sry, neither of the children, etc.
10:47 I recall Vanauken ... a good publicity for the RC view of what should happen in a married couple's bedroom.
Which was still the Anglican view also in 1920 Lambeth Conference, no longer in the 1930 Lambeth Conference.
And whatever CSL thought himself, a dito for the dialogue of Merlin with what's her name ... Jane Studdock.
17:10 Dorothy Sayers too?
Murder must advertise, but friendships apparently needn't.
btw, I forgot what mystery Murder Must Advertise was about.
18:18 The Inklings no longer meet after 1949?
My bad, for a solution to a problem in Chronicle of Susan Pevensie.
22:59 I definitely read Surprised by Joy way before Mere Christianity.
It involves my intro to his apologetics ...
23:08 You get some of his past as an occultist as well.
27:58 Obviously, I read THS before the other two, then found out they were a trilogy.
Part of what got me started to take an interest in Latin a few centuries down from Cicero and Caesar. About a century after St. Augustine, but in a part with lots less schools to keep it classical.
29:18 His least coherent moments were arguably:
- not becoming a creationist straight away (hope he made up for that later, the chapter on Original Sin in PP is a disaster doctrinally)
- not becoming a Catholic in the Tiber sense ...
29:41 As I did have SLE, I recall that essay title.
30:15 The title "Letters to children" is not totally candid, as with one, perhaps two, of the correspondents, it continued up to university days of the other (Joan, I think I recall).
Unlike the Letters as a bigger volume, and unlike the correspondence with an Italian priest (facing pages Latin as per correspondence, and English translation), I actually owned that book.
34:13 "different view on predestination"
Are there Calvinists at that school?
Molina rules!
36:15 Jesus faithfully preserving His Church in England spells "A Man for All Seasons" and his bishop John Fisher.
Possibly also a "Shfordus" (Shaksperus Stratfordus?) hiding Catholic priests after going to a Jesuit school in Italy (a "Shfordus" according to my memory of an online article actually is found in the registers of some Jesuit college)..
37:22 Cranmer certainly received a valid consecreation. Parker didn't hand on one.
In Sweden, the main reformer, the "good" (as in talented) preacher, Olaus Petri, had a brother, Laurentius Petri who may have received and definitely did not hand on valid episcopal consecration.
May have received — a Catholic bishop who was elderly consecrated him under duress.
Did not hand on — I know from his writings he did not believe in ordaining priests for the Sacrifice of the Mass.
If you want a quick justification of that doctrine (which CSL held to be the main divider, remember), see John on why Jesus' legs were not broken. John ties this to fulfilling the law about the Passover lamb. I e, Jesus is our Passover lamb on the Cross, and as it is in the Eucharist we eat Him as passover lamb, He is on Calvary during the either communion or very close preparations (a few minutes earlier) just before it.
40:28 The one thing CSL does better in Mere Christianity than in the triple follow up Miracles, The Problem of Pain, The Abolition of Man, is avoiding the heresy expressed in The Problem of Pain.
He said himself elsewhere that individuals have will and mind and eternal souls, communities as such do not, they only include people who have these things.
In the chapter on Original Sin or The Fall in that book, he pretends the first sin that gave the Devil power over mankind was a collective one ... ah, no. Ah, no.
This would be Supralapsarian Calvinism, either by excess of God's omnipotence so He decreed a collective sin and then ad hoc decreed it should carry on, or by too little of God's omnipotence to protect the potential frailty of a creaturely freewill. Either way, it would make God a monster.
But apart from that heresy, everything in those three books does "Mere Christianity" in a glorious expansion.
43:57 "further up and further in" is probably a twist on "further on and further up" as you translate "Ultreya e suseya" (in Classical spelling "Ultrerius et surserius" but then into the feminine or neuter plural).
The Medieval Church and the Protestant Reformation
Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals, 23 Oct. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-6EF1xfhWs
[the comments "under this one" are posted under the previous one]
2:18 into the podcast on the reformation, Calvin's jibe about the relics of the Cross was mentioned.
I recommend anyone, even a Protestant, to get familiar with the facts. A French antiquary* (my friend Stephan Borgehammar will roll his eyes over my forgetfulness, but I always forget the name) made a more accurate calculation about the known pieces of the Cross. He didn't think the piece filled all of the casing. His conclusion was, the added volume of the pieces are about 1/5 of the probable volume of the original Cross or of a typical Roman execution cross.
He concluded Calvin must have calculated:
- with the casing as almost filled by the relic
- or with two many pieces, more than those extant in the antiquary's day
and I conclude Calvin was probably more into rhetoric than exact calculations anyway. I have read sufficient of Erasmus to know the Renaissance was about as much about rhetoric as political agitators of the Interwar period (though a somewhat more refined rhetoric culturally speaking).
"as big as a ship"
Wasn't it even Noah's Ark he said?
Well, that would at least have made some spiritual sense ... sometimes the inside is bigger than the outside.
But as mentioned, literally speaking, about the volume, it is balderdash ....
* Louis de Combe. There seems to be a further update by Anatole Frolow. From pieces now account for, one could reconstitute half of the Cross.
La relique de la Vraie Croix: recherches sur le développement d'un culte
Anatole Frolow
https://books.google.fr/books/about/La_relique_de_la_Vraie_Croix.html?id=bB7SAAAAMAAJ&redir_esc=y
2:33 It is probable false relics existed.
It is certain false money exists.
False money doesn't invalidate Bank of England or Fort Knox, and false relics don't invalidate IV Kings 13 (St. Martin being the Eliseus bis of the new testament) or Acts 19:12.
3:59 Whatever Formosus could have said or not had he been in a "somewhat more vivid state" at the trial, the fact as such is a go to for Sedevacantists.
Fake popes have existed and exist today — doesn't invalidate Mt 16:19 (the guys who say "Simon wasn't made into the rock" love to end the pericope at verse 18, saw that in the Gk Ortho bishop Paul Ballaster converted to as well). Or Peter speaking for the eleven in Acts 2.
4:50 Wonder whether reformers like Philip Neri (third apostle of Rome) and Ignatius of Loyola are upcoming on the podcast ... or the two great Carmelites, St. Teresa and St. John.
6:41 "practises, devotions, beliefs, that were contrary to the Bible"
Is the guy a Protestant or is he a fake Catholic?
Either way, this is inaccurate.
Ah, Breccia di Roma is an Evangelical Church. She's interviewing an Italian Pentecostal. These are often more anti-Catholic than people like Mike Winger or similar ....
"The Bible wasn't read at home," OK ... like the normal laymen of the early Church were reading it at home?
The printing press was not invented in antiquity, forgotten in the Middle Ages and then re-discovered in early Modern Ages, it simply wasn't there before Early Modern Ages.
It became a popular thing, not by Bibles, which were too costly even with the printing press, but by calendars and devotionals, like the first printed book in Swedish was an instruction manual on the Rosary (Carthusians owning the press), and second one, same press, stolen from Carthusians and given to the Petri brothers, by royal orders, was the Smaller Catechism by Martin Luther.
7:42 "Dr. Leonardo de Chirico .... lecturer in historical theology at the institute IFED in Padova"
For a doctor or lecturer, so far, unless this is a warming up before the concrete examples, he is very imprecise.
Movements going back to the Bible which the Reformation relaunched ... does he mean Flemish and French Catholic prelates getting Biblical histories into popular (if not every home) circulation? Or does he mean Wycliff was a Culdee who secretly helped to disseminate the Bible?
The former is not wrong, but I don't think the Reformation has more credit than the Jesuits for continuing it.
The latter is ... what I basically refuted ten years ago, on the first post of my Catholic Apologetics blog "Great Bishop of Geneva!" first post being a denunciation of the pseudo-documentary "The Forbidden Book" ...
7:48 Oh, the Waldensians. A milder branch of Iconoclasm by the 13th C. The more virulent and clearly anti-Incarnation one being Albigensians.
Not exactly what Peter Waldo had hoped for.
In fact, at the time of the Reformation, the true heirs of Petrobrussians and Waldensians were mostly the Radical Reformation.
Which was mostly a violent outburst of Revolutionaries.
Lollards are an exception, and owe some of their conflict with Catholicism to English Catholicism being exceptionally amateur at Inquisition, and exceptionally much against Bibles in lay hands.
8:28 Trusting to a dog to save your children ... well, it was a place where Catholic priests had been absent for some time.
The Curate of Ars had a few things to say about what that could lead to.
His comment might even be a reference to the story of that dog ...
8:55 "filled with strange beliefs"
Like 24 elders handing on our prayers to God? Like souls of the martyrs lying under the heavenly altar like bodies of martyrs are placed under altars here on earth?
I think Heschmeyer had a few things to say about this being "strangely" reminiscent of the actual Bible, if you really read it, instead of gassing on about Medievals not reading it.
If he thinks Catholic clergy didn't read the Bible, he's historically ignorant. If he thinks laymen got their views from a vacuum rather than from Catholic clergy (except when they were absent, as the dog story shows), he's incoherent. If he thinks ignorant laymen and their Biblical vacuum was exploited by evil priests and that was the origin of Catholic views, well, he just earned the Jack Chick memorial award for kooky conspiracy theorist.
He = Chirico, which sounds like a film from Ghibli studios!
9:05 God unaccessible, Christ was too high ... so they needed other mediators.
Fine story. Not true.
If St. Bridget could consider Christ as her bridegroom, she obviously didn't turn to Mary or other saints because she didn't dare approach Christ, she did so because she felt they were part of His surroundings!
9:42 It is more like Iconoclasts were completely misunderstanding God becoming Man.
They missed this meant God Himself could actually be depicted.
I am reminded of the revulsion I feel about Protestants like these doing the psychoanalysis of dead people.
Only worse thing is when they actually proceed to do what counts as psychoanalysis before society of living people, and use that as a platform for anti-Catholic prejudice.
One good thing about CSL, he was not a huge fan of Freud et al. See his portrayal of Claptrap!
10:44 "the robes pretended to have belonged to St. Francis"
C o m e on!
Garb gets worn. At a certain point even a Franciscan, even Il Poverello himself can mend it no more! Therefore, he must have left more garbs behind than one.
And "Hollywood star" ...
A team of physicists from the Italian Institute for Nuclear Physics (INFN) in Florence, subjected fibers from two tunics reputedly worn by the Little Poor Man of Assisi to radiocarbon dating. The first came from the Church of St Francis in Cortona, Italy, and the second from the Basilica of Santa Croce, in Florence.
Jeanna Bryner, from Live Sicence, reports that the garment from Santa Croce was found to have been made between the late 13th and late 14th centuries. As Saint Francis is known to have died in 1226, it was determined that this tunic could not have been worn by St Francis himself.
The tunic from Cortona, however, was dated between 1155 and 1225, firmly within the saint’s lifetime. It is believed that this tunic was brought to Cortona by St Francis’ successor, Friar Elias, along with two other relics attributed to the saint: an embroidered cushion and a book of the Gospels.
There has been no scientific testing performed on the other two tunics said to have been worn by St Francis. These two relics remain preserved in the city of Assisi, St Francis’ hometown, and in the Sanctuary of La Verna in Tuscany.
Four garbs is not a Hollywood star!
The actual tunic worn by St Francis of Assisi
04/10/2019 — Archdiocese of Malta
https://church.mt/the-actual-tunic-worn-by-st-francis-of-assisi/
Chirico is lying like Calvin!
It could be Chirico is only repeating someone else's lies, but that is an optional excuse for Calvin as well. Hearsay and bad fact checking.
It's still Calvin's treatise we have about the relics of the Holy Cross, and it's still Chirico's voice on a podcast I have for 4 garbs of St. Francis equalling the wardrobe of a Hollywood actor.
12:07 "will receive the pardon for their sins"
Will receive remission of remaining temporal punishments due to past sins already forgiven if mortal, or forgiven then if venial if one also detaches oneself from an attachment to venial sins.
I dread the next few seconds where I am sure Chirico is going to mangle Catholic theology in order to pretend we don't know it is through Christ that sins are forgiven.
12:33 "we are not meant to access the grace of God through a relic"
IV Kings 13 and Acts 19 tell a different story.
And presumably, he could go on "through an icon, through a sacrament, through ..." basically any holy thing except the Bible and the interior workings of the own soul, and that poses the question of why God chose the Incarnation to save us, why Christianity is right and Islam is wrong, on his view.
I don't have that problem.
12:37 faith alone in Christ alone
Well, the five solas have one drawback (a major one as long as sola Scriptura is one of the five) of not being in the Bible.
They are also not in the tradition from the Apostles.
12:46 The Middle Ages saw what one can describe as a consolidation of a certain spectrum of early Christian beliefs about the afterlife of most believers.
Orthodox who reject purgatory end up retaining the other parts of the spectrum with some imprecision. Airy tollhouses are not very far from Purgatory, to take an example from Russian Orthodox. Probably, given some elements on how CSL held one is personally saved, if he had picked his pick, he would have chosen airy tollhouses. Either way, he famously said "I believe in purgatory, just not the Roman doctrine of purgatory" and as an example of the doctrine showed the pictures on prayer cards for the holy souls, rather than specific texts, especially doctrinal ones.
He may have re-read Dante's Purgatorio in DLS' translation.
It may be added, Pope St. Gregory the Great was pretty instrumental in taking it the way of the Western Middle Ages, by having credence in ghost apparitions asking for intercession.
13:06 "we are justified not because of what we do, but because of what Christ has done for us"
Depends very much on whether you mean "what we do" as in previous or subsequent to our justification.
Abraham when hearing God's call and believing it (or whenever he started out as a justified believer) was not justified for any previous acts of his, but certainly with a view to his subsequent ones, including the "binding of Isaac" ...
Tyndale was dying a pseudo-martyr's death for denying this.
Ephesians has in chapter two these three verses, of which Protestants have a tendency to leave out the last one:
8 For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; 9 Not of works, that no man may glory. 10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.
Did you catch the last words?
in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them.
While God has prepared them, it's we who need to walk in them. Not to get saved, but to stay saved.
13:13 "imputed righteousness"
Rather than transforming righteousness.
Not in the Bible. Not in the Church Fathers. Not in the magisterium over the centuries.
Only in some very corrupt RC clergy who founded mainstream Protestantism.
13:54 Was every believer who died during the OT worthy of getting to Abraham's bosom, directly on dying?
Not according to II Maccabees chapter 12.
If you want "creatio ex nihilo" you go to Maccabees, by the way.
Not according to Jews doing the Gedenktag.
Calvin pretended this arose only in the time of rabbi Akiba, but II Maccabees proves him historically wrong. Even if II Macc were not inspired Scripture, it was not wildly fictional purely personal speculation, a Cohen Gadol actually did get a sacrifice done to make prayers for the sins of already deceased Jews. And as the author points out, that Cohen Gadol was not yet a Sadducee heretic.
14:36 Given that Chirico is an Italian very Anti-Catholic man, he is not the best go to for how Catholics justify this or that or sundry.
Good question.
An Antipope is simply someone who is not Pope in the first place.
There are with papacy as with royalty two ways out of legitimacy.
Usurpation means someone else is already having the position. So, in 1399, the canonisations that are valid are those pronounced in Rome, not in Avignon. Some Saxon patriots may enjoy that Charlemagne is from the point of view of Rome just "blessed" (no one is required to honour him but one can) and not "saint" (no one can say he was not holy).
Tyranny means abuse for purposes other than those the office is for. A person who is directing the efforts of French tax payers off the bonum commune into his personal agenda (interest or ideology) is a tyrant. A "papal tyrant" would be one rooting for false doctrines, like Bergoglio might be rooting for the idea of preparing union with men like Chirico.
15:24 "preceded by technical expressions like"
Biblical example, Acts 15:28.
16:04 "and yet the historical record is full of Popes who have been totally unreliable"
In what capacity? As to their life? Or as to their doctrine? There is a difference.
And then, "full of" ... like four garbs of St. Francis constituting a Hollywood actor's wardrobe? Exaggeration is nice for rhetoric, but less nice for accuracy.
16:19 OK, popes are not good as authoritative teachers of God's word ... who are, then?
Chirico is presumably more into denying Apostolic succession overall than into crediting (wrongly) CoE and related with it.
Or he might be into pretending very unverified and ill documented office holders of reputed very great seriousness, like the elders of Waldensians (or perfects of Albigensians) are the true successors. Not very credible if you have a wider perspective on AD 1100 than Piemonte.
Pretending there are no authoritative teachers is in contradiction with Romans 10, "and how shall they preach unless they be sent" (which was a deal breaker for two Catholic convers, one of whom is my confirmation sponsor, the other of which was his confirmation sponsor.
17:02 For once Chirico was fairly accurate.
"Condemning the other as a heretic" ... definitely as an antipope and an usurper. Therefore also schismatic. As a heretic? I'd like to see some documentation for that.
Today, we have at least three men claimed to be Pope and claiming to be Pope.
- Pope Michael II (whom I adher to)
- the Palmarian "Pope" Odermatt (whose predecessor I adhered to while getting to know Michael I, back in 2002 or sth)
- the Vatican-II-ist "Pope" Bergoglio (whom I consider an usurper since a heretic).
More meat on how the schism was ended:
With the support of King Sigismund, enthroned before the high altar of the cathedral of Constance, the Council of Constance recommended that all three papal claimants abdicate, and that another be chosen. In part because of the constant presence of the King, other rulers demanded that they have a say in who would be pope.[7]
Gregory XII then sent representatives to Constance, whom he granted full powers to summon, open, and preside over an Ecumenical Council; he also empowered them to present his resignation of the papacy. This would pave the way for the end of the Western Schism.
The legates were received by King Sigismund and by the assembled Bishops, and the King yielded the presidency of the proceedings to the papal legates, Cardinal Giovanni Dominici of Ragusa and Prince Carlo Malatesta. On 4 July 1415 the Bull of Gregory XII which appointed Dominici and Malatesta as his proxies at the council was formally read before the assembled Bishops. The cardinal then read a decree of Gregory XII which convoked the council and authorized its succeeding acts. Thereupon, the Bishops voted to accept the summons. Prince Malatesta immediately informed the council that he was empowered by a commission from Pope Gregory XII to resign the Papal Throne on the Pontiff's behalf. He asked the council whether they would prefer to receive the abdication at that point or at a later date. The Bishops voted to receive the Papal abdication immediately. Thereupon the commission by Gregory XII authorizing his proxy to resign the Papacy on his behalf was read and Malatesta, acting in the name of Gregory XII, pronounced the resignation of the papacy by Gregory XII and handed a written copy of the resignation to the assembly.
Former Pope Gregory XII was then created titular Cardinal Bishop of Porto and Santa Ruffina by the council, with rank immediately below the Pope (which made him the highest-ranking person in the church, since, due to his abdication, the See of Peter in Rome was vacant). Gregory XII's cardinals were accepted as true cardinals by the council, but the members of the council delayed electing a new pope for fear that a new pope would restrict further discussion of pressing issues in the church.
By the time the anti-popes were all deposed and the new Pope, Martin V, was elected, two years had passed since Gregory XII's abdication, and Gregory was already dead. The council took great care to protect the legitimacy of the succession, ratified all his acts, and a new pontiff was chosen. The new pope, Martin V, elected November 1417, soon asserted the absolute authority of the papal office.
Wiki.
After deciding Ratzinger was a heretic, I had hoped he would do sth like Gregory XII ... he didn't. His "normal" abdication paved way for Bergoglio.
18:23 "devotions which are not centred on Christ"
Unless they are. Because the persons other than Christ that they immediately focus on are in their turn centred on precisely Jesus the Christ.
His "problems of the Medieval Church" is simply making it a problem it was Catholic and not Protestant.
18:55 "non-Biblical" — a catchword.
It's kind of a motte and bailey. He can attack them as if they were anti-Biblical, but if he's attacked on that, he can just say he meant they are not (directly) found in the Bible.
19:47 He misconstrues what Newman means by "development of doctrine" ... the uninterrupted chain is of continuing bishops and continuing doctrine.
"Development" is simply a question of explicitating ...
To be fair, some Catholics themselves believe this Protestant parody of Newman, like when they believe it is licit to change about Young Earth Creation or Geocentrism, both of which have doctrinal ramifications beyond the purely historic or physic, and touching dogma.
When a Catholic who is supposed to know, not just a layman, but one claimed to be a priest (most Sedes deny the validity of Novus Ordo orders, as much as those conferred by Parker or Laurentius Petri), professes the "CSL theory of collective first sin" (as found in PP), I call him out as a heretic. They would presumably defend themselves with "development of doctrine" which presupposes that they accept the Protestant theories of where sinlessness of Mary came from.
20:08 Two errors in one sentense!
"Scripture was no longer the external ultimate authority, and the Reformation was needed"
Scripture very certainly was one of the external ultimate authorities, with Church Fathers and recent magisterial pronouncements. According to itself, it was never meant to be the only external authority or ultimate authority.
Pretending the Reformation was needed is tantamount to saying the Catholic Medieval Church ceased to be the Church of God or ceased to do the work Christ had set up His Church to do.
That is contradicting the promise in Matthew 28:20, where Jesus promised to be with His Church all days — presumably not excluding a century or two prior to the Reformation, at least that's the non-exotic exegesis.
20:23 "and not to become its own self referential"
The Catholic Church never was that. In the Middle Ages, Scripture was quoted on every turn on every controversy.
However, the Catholic Church was meant from AD 33 to be "self referential" in relation to Jews rejecting Jesus or in relation to heretics leaving Her bosom.
In other words, She was meant to be their judge, in one sense or another.
"self imposed authority"
I presume that Chirico would agree St. Peter and St. Paul were authorities that Christ imposed on the Church, not self imposed ones.
I presume he would equally agree that Sts Tim and Tite, though not personally speaking to Jesus in person, were nevertheless imposed by Him, as they were so by His apostle St. Paul.
I presume he would even grant that Sts Tim and Tite were making bishops who were continuing this totally legitimate authority imposed by Jesus the Christ on His Bride.
At what point would this end? Universally or locally or regionally?
Well, a change of doctrine, from original Christian to deviant, would be such a point.
Historically, there is no single point at which Catholic theology can be pretended as answering to such a situation (possibly EO could point to the Gregorian Reform, if anything, I'd dispute that, but anyway Chirico would hold the approximately same grudges against EO theology), but there is a very precise moment in which this can be said for Protestant theology : the Reformation. At the minimum, this is a clear point at which the new teacher deviated from the teaching of the previous teacher. When Luther stands up as new master of Wittenberg in 1522 or 1523, he is implementing a change, which could at least theoretically be this kind of situation.
And the idea that all of the West and all of the East previous to his time had been what really deviated is tantamount to Jesus not keeping His promise in Matthew 28:20.
20:35 "there is a sense in which the Catholic Church developed over time, but away from the authority of Scripture"
Unless of course the real developing away from the authority of Scripture happened much quicker, and was perpetrated by the Reformers.
Calvin didn't want to believe miracles were still happening, as with relics, he pretended these things were frauds, and so he pretended "no miracles happen right now" ...
This is away from Scripture, which foresees no cessation of miracles, and into the mindset of Roman pagans like Cicero (for whom the "gods" were no entities, but abstractions with literary figures of speech) or Livy (who considered there had been an end to divine interventions at the end of the "mythological age").
Again, when the Catholic Church thinks of ...
For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood; but against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the world of this darkness, against the spirits of wickedness in the high places.
[Ephesians 6:12]
... the Catholic Church thinks of exorcism, while Beza considered this superstitious.
The ones really developing or rather gallopping away from the Bible, that was the Reformers.
20:50 "the authority of God's word over the mistakes of the Church"
There can be mistakes of Church men. There is no Scriptural warrant there can be a mistake, other than a tactical mistake, of the Church.
Christ has two wills, a human one perfectly obedient and united in this obedience and consciousness of being God the Son with His divine will.
This follows from Chalcedon, and for c. 50 years Honorius and subsequent popes tolerated (but did not themselves perpetrate) the heresy that Christ had only one will — one or "une" rather than "united" ... that was a tactical mistake, and I think a real Pope made a similar one in 1950, and another real Pope allowed one leading up to that one, in 1909. But Pope St. Pius X never taught "the creation days are really very long periods" and Pope Pius XII never taught that Adam had biological ancestry. That way, those mistakes are tactical. When it comes to three recent apparent successors of them, they have made a doctrinal mistake, for instance paragraph 283 in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. But by the time this happened, in 1992, they were no longer the only option on what line of people are Popes of the Catholic Church.
Both the line from Clemente Vincente to Odermatt and the line from Pope Michael I to now Pope Michael II are not just "Adam was created separately" but even Young Earth.
And the election of David Bawden as Pope Michael I was in 1990, only 40 years after the tactical mistake by Pius XII, a timelapse comparable to between Honorius and St. Leo II.
22:01 When I became a teen ager, my sins convinced me, I needed to go to confession. I needed Christ present now and in a priest, not just having accepted Him as my saviour (which I did at 10).
22:49 In CSL, pretty much is actually Homeric.
In JRRT, lots is specifically set in periods very incompatible with being the Middle Ages, though in some ways parallel.
I notice he is avoiding the issue, which is presumably books about the Medieval conditions he was talking about.
I'd definitely recommend Umberto Eco's Name of the Rose (thanks to which I quite prejudices against the Inquisition) over Trail of Blood (which I have skimmed some small parts of, like the timeline and the names of pretendedly Christian and continuing groups).
23:44 It could be St. Thomas Aquinas or bishop Tempier.
I became interested bc my mother had told me (and back then believed) this:
"William Booth had Apostolic Succession by John Wesley, John Wesley by Martin Luther, and Martin Luther had it from the Catholic Church"
I finally became somewhat expert at tracing back Protestant denominations on such lines, and saw lots of roads leading back to Rome, when going backwards.
I was later on immediately interested in aspects of the Reformations of England and Sweden that looked like the Commie takeovers in Russia, since I had been a fan of Myrna Grant's Ivan Nazaroff series.
"maybe around a coffee"
Why not wine?
But apart from such hypothetic chats, how about reading some more, might cure him of the idea they were wrong and anti-Scriptural ...
No comments:
Post a Comment