Bishop Barron Against Rad Trads

Gen Z Catholic made a four part video against Sedevacantism : his overview of the history omits Pope Michael I · Do I Believe the Papacy At All? Yes. · Gen Z Catholic's Video, a Dialogue · Gen Z Catholic vs Me, Argument on Valid or not Papacies, Part I, What Would St. Robert Really Say? · Can the Proposed Defense For "united himself to each man" stand? No · Bishop Barron Against Rad Trads · Gen Z Catholic vs Me, Argument on Valid or not Papacies, Part II, Misreading Documents, Are We? · Gen Z Catholic vs Me, Argument on Valid or not Council · Gen Z Catholic vs Me, Argument on Valid or not Orders

Bishop BARRON destroys the RADICAL Traditionalist CATHOLICS !
JD ENGAGE | 8 Jan. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fVm6f0b7_c

1:04 Excellent reason against FSSPX.

Pope Michael I agreed that they are not Catholics (he didn't agree that "John XXIII" or "Paul VI" were Peter or "Vatican II" an Ecumenical Council, though).

1:39 I have my definite problems with the idea of reconciling, I will not say "Vatican II" necessarily, but at least the "last three Popes" with Trent and Vatican "I".

If Michael II were to say "Vatican II was a real council after all, and Paul VI was a real Pope" I might obey. Probably not, and he will probably not do it.

But the point is, the "last three Popes" have since 1992 supported a CCC which contains §283.

I do not find it reconcilable with either Trent (Sessions IV and V, on Bible—Church Fathers and on Original Sin) or Vatican I (on Biblical inspiration).

So, if Robert Barron supports §283, he's himself picking and chosing in Trent and Vatican "I" ... or if not, he's some explaining to do.

Geoffrey Tarr

@notdonaldst

Who is Michael II? And what is CCC and §283?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

First things first, @notdonaldst.

Pope Michael I had by 1989 concluded that "John Paul II" was not Pope, so a "conclave" could be held, and he convoked an "emergency conclave" ... he got his ordination and consecration as a bishop more than 21 full years after the election in 1990.

He died August 2nd in 2022, and his successor was elected on July 29 last year, taking the name Michael II. He's from the Philippines. This time over, clergy was already available.

Now, the other half @notdonaldst ... CCC is short for Catechism of the Catholic Church, issued in 1992, after the election of Pope Michael I, by the then formally schismatic Antipope Karol Wojtyla.

It's paragraph 283 reads:

"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."121"

The footnote gives the reference: Wis 7: 17-22. Pretty clearly, this teaches that Deep Time, Deep Space, Big Bang Cosmology and Evolution, specifically Evolutionary Origin of Man, are true things, since these are the positions that refer to "many scientific studies" (i e the majority), and since they are credited as "discoveries" and are pretended to have "enriched our knowledge" ...

1:53—2:02

"this bad precedent might motivate individuals even within the radical traditionalist movement to reject other councils like the Council of Trent or the the Council of Nicaea simply because they disagree with certain aspects of it"

Been there, done that. I am a revert from Romanian Orthodox.

It's fairly rare.

It's not likely in practise to be treated as a precedent, even within FSSPX.

However, if you accept Popes Michael I (died in early August 2022) and Michael II (elected in late July 2023), there is no way of even making it a precedent.

And why not? Bc the statement involves Roncalli and Montini had fallen into heresy prior to their supposed elections, meaning "Vatican II" was not assembled cum et sub Petro.

Since it is dishonest of someone to stonewall someone else, refuse to engage directly with that someone, but at the same time either pray or make intrigues by human means so that that someone else is constantly confronted with one's view as forwarded by others, and one never has to engage with his response, I end watching the video here. It is also because it is dishonest to reduce the position I hold to one I formerly held, but reject, i e John XXIII and Paul VI being Popes, but bad Popes, Vatican II being an Ecumenical council, but a bad one. This post will instead be sent to Word on Fire, so it reaches Robert Barron.

Challenge has been forwarded, to Word on Fire, "interview with Robert Barron" and since the "interview" is a debate for another blog than this one, but I linked to this message as topic, here is the link to the other blog meant for publication:

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl
https://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/