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
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment