Is MEL GIBSON a PROTESTANT or CATHOLIC ?
JD Catholic Engage | 16 Jan. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSe4mRQvYTU
Was "Vatican II" really gathered "cum Petro et sub Petro"?
According to Pope(s] Michael I and Michael II, no.
I have a deep problem with their pastoral. But when I express my impatience, I don't hear "you have crossed a line and are no longer part of the Church" ...
I do find that their view and them being the real last and present Pope solves a theological problem, which keeps growing and growing.
As long as you are in Communion with the Archdiocese of Paris, and that one treats the 1992 speech, CCC §283, 1994 Interpretation of the Bible in the Church as authentic expressions of the Magisterium requiring at least respect, you are basically participating in theological piracy. It's on issues like that one that I have sometimes in the past nicknamed Robert Barron the "Robber Baron of Theology" ... he pretty obviously is pretending to uphold a not obviously at all literal view of the historicity of Genesis 1 through 11, and as a science geek, I don't find the rational objections convincing, and as doing a good deal of history in and beside and after my University studies, I know too well that this is also not the position that the Church historically has.
Now, when it comes to submitting exegesis to the Church, the scope of Trent Session IV obviously includes the merely authentic magisterium. If Pope Michael II tells me, even in private, I am forbidden to explain the terms "bricks, bitumen, mortar" as meaning other materials, basically chalk of different types, than the usual meanings of the Hebrew words in Genesis 11:3, but compatible with the Hebrew etymologies, well, I'll at least need to shut up promoting the idea (hope it doesn't happen, though).
However, if Trent Session IV doesn't pose a limit as if the duty applied only to infallible dogma, it certainly poses another limit on obedience, it is to a sentence quam tenuit atque tenet Ecclesia, which the Church hath held and holdeth. That of Wojtyla, Ratzinger, Bergoglio on Genesis 1 to 11 is certainly NOT what the Church hath held prior to 1990. Popes Michael I and II don't require that contradiction in terms.
I did send Mel Gibson a little hint he should submit to the real Pope.
Fallacy of singular causality ... now, what was the prima via again?
According to Riccioli (who rejected it and preferred the ontological argument), it was the argument from Geocentrism. God is moving the universe around earth, or the visible parts of the universe, below His own throne room, each day. Nothing else could. Hence, the sequence of day and night, extending down to Monsoon winds and Oceanic Currents, and up to the Sphere of the Fix Stars, if not in exact same speed everywhere, shows a single mover, and points to a single God.
Suppose you reject the Geocentric part of Prima Via. Then there is no single movement, and why would the diverse movements not point to diverse first movers? Wouldn't the attempt to find one first mover be the "Fallacy of Single causality" if it is one (I'd like to check Aristotle's Organon, but yes, it kind of is ...)?
So, Romans 1, Prima Via, Geocentrism ... there is so much that your Conciliar Church is rejecting in upholding the acceptance of settled science.
I know a bit about the flourishing Church in Africa.
1) I have heard from someone who was in the archdiocese of Dakar in the time of Thiandoum, disciple of Mgr Lefebvre, that they make a point of Muslims and Catholics are one family. Even if they don't worship the same God?
2) I have been opposed as a Young Earth Creationist by and African, I actually thought priest at the time, who told me Young Earth Creationism was Racist, because it means we take the curse in Genesis 9 literally ... yes, but neither I nor any other YEC that I know of takes it as literally meaning that all Black men are cursed. I basically take it, Canaan was cursed for being a dishonest sommelier, making a prank on his grandpa making him drink too much of a thing he had himself tested but the grandpa hadn't, so the curse of Canaan was the same as that of Habacuc 2:15. His punishment was to remain a sommelier for life. And his descendants are Lebanese, not Black.
So, to the Church in Africa, it's perfectly OK to stamp someone as a racist or as misled by racists, because he believes what the Church has always believed. No, I don't think the Church in Africa is doing all that well, from my standpoint in Paris. It's perhaps not even Catholic, at this point.
Monday, January 8, 2024
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/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)