While I Have Touched on Theology, More Than A Little, I Have Not Proclaimed Myself a Theologian

For all the Self-proclaimed theologians.
The Catholic Wire | 9 Febr. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9AdQRqB2JM

6:39 Who introduced psychology into seminars?

9:17 I have seen a commentary by Lapide, which, for Creation week day IV, introduces a discussion from the 19th C.

Haydock is a commentary for laymen, and we know he writes in the 19th C. Some whom he cites wrote in the patristic or scholastic era, but the only trace of Heliocentric compatibility that I have seen (and by compatibility, I mean not considering Heliocentrism condemned by a passage) are from Haydock, on Joshua 10, and from Guillaume François Berthier, SJ, whose work on the Psalms was published posthumousy in 1782. None of the commenters, not even Haydock or Berthier, show a Heliocentric preference.

Pope Michael I was an outspoken Geocentric, as you may know. His successor has not retracted that.

So, supposing I'm not wrong to take the election as validly by the virtue of epikeia transferring the task of electing a pope downward, I know I have the backing of the latest Pope who pronounced himself.

9:42 Deo gratias, si uolo studere Postillae in Libros Geneseos uel Condempnationibus Episcopi Parisiensis Stephani II Tempier et sine versione anglica id possum.

Refutaui quendam "Balaster Convalier" qui scripsit Sanctum Robertum dixisse, "si papa dixerit quid contra ueritatem uel moralem, ecclesia est obligata credere falsa uel mala", quia semel una bibliotheca Dominicanorum inueni Robertum Bellarminum et uidi eum reuera dixisse "si papa dixerit etc, ecclesia esset obligata etc" in casu irreali.

Eo tempore aliqui Photiani incoeperunt me pro catamitam ponere et in tergo quasi mihi, quasi non mihi dicere dimidiam accusationis.

In facultate Lundensi latinae et graecae linguis studium feci ... et pro latina, nunquam nimiam aerugam patiebatur.

[tried to add:]

numquam nimia aerugine patiebatur, my bad

10:44 I am very aware that a certain man in Manresa was told by the Inquisitors, he was not allowed to continue giving women advice on the difference between venial and mortal without studying moral theology. I hope the man was from Heaven not too pround of Berthier, but regardless of when corruption came into his order, I am, when touching on theology, which is not always the case when I write, abstaining very consciously from giving that kind of advice.

Nevertheless, Gilbert Keith Chesterton did not have the full training of a priest in seminary when he wrote The Everlasting Man, which is part of what Pius XI rewarded him for.

I try to give comment in the Apologetic field mainly, when at all theological. When political, I tend to take cues from Franco, Dollfuss, Schuschnigg ... and Chesterton. Not forgetting his comrade Belloc. When engaged in comments on the MIddle Ages of Latin Christendom, I take as part base the things I learned from C. S. Lewis, J. R. R. Tolkien, G. K. Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc, plus some extra tidbits that have been dug up later, like it was probably some kind of Eurocommunist who wrote the book I read in Swedish "den dynamiska medeltiden" where I learned about Nicole d'Oresme ... the man who said, "Heliocentrism is, against every objection, a) possible, and b) totally pointless" ... (yes, the author was Swedish, the book is from 1984).

I also use statistics taken from wikipedian articles arranged inter alia by genealogy (for Lewis XVI and Marie Antoinette, I take each as Sosa-Stradonitz 1 and go back to Sosa-Stradonitz 63 or 127 or so ...). Or facts I find in contemporary historians of the Middle Ages.

But, as said, I respect what the Inquisitors told St. Ignatius of Loyola. Unless the issue is very obvious, like getting slightly tipsy just before you go to bed is not a mortal sin.

There have been 24 years since I came on the internet, my plan to get a better life has always been to get texts from my blogs (essays, with permission from other participants even dialogues, some poems, some sheet music) commercially valorised. You know, at least part of the occupation that Chesterton made his living from. In this query, I have been harrassed from the left, by Protestants who think I really must come to terms with Apologetics not really proving things, "reasons without proof" as someone put it, as well as Christian virtue being impossible, and from a kind of right who, incorrectly, have perceived me as some kind of rival to priests.

I have been under some kind of pastoral at a distance from trad priests who have taken the idea, on my blogs "he doesn't really need the money, it's not like we rob him, he's not interested in getting married" and on any show I am making of trying to get married "oh, he can't responsibly marry, he has no income" ... I would consider those who take this approach as robbers.

An explanation of Sedevacantism - Is the SSPX correct?
The Catholic Wire | 11 Jan. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvpbzcwJW0o

[under this one, I posed the question where he stood on Pope Michael II
... deleted or hidden]