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]

Is "Loss of Office for Heresy" Novatianism? No. Sedeprivationism probably is, though

Could This Happen at the Next Conclave?
Brian Holdsworth | 17 Dec. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNY4qMnbEJg

6:02 My problem with the "Council" is not that they were politicking. Or fighting. St. Nicholas punching Arius would absolutely not make Nicaea I invalid.

My problem is:

• it's legality, if any to start, was broken
• wrong side won.

Not just episcopates that were already rife with Evolution belief, bad enough, sufficient to ask if they were really Catholic, and as far as my closer look is concerned, to conclude they weren't, if they had Catholic Church authority it was because someone in Rome was supplying the authority or more precisely jurisdiction which ontologically they could not carry in their persons.

But one of these episcopates, victorious in the supposed Council, that of the Netherlands, had 12 men castrated for homosexuality over simply getting them to prison, and in the case of Henk Heithuis illegally, to cover up for his accusations he had been abused.

In other words, the papacy you are following is not that of Pope St. Damasus. You are more like a follower of Ursinus. Or, for the papacy of Innocent II, like a follower of Anacletus II.

You mentioned abiding by Church law and making things up. There was a faction that absolutely didn't let Church law stop their agenda. They prevailed in "Vatican II" by breaking the legality of the council, supposing "John XXIII" even was Pope. They prevailed against actual council texts and Church laws by twisting and bullying, as the prevalence of hand communion for decades has shown. A story you might know a thing or two about.

7:33 You are comparing incomparables.

Stating a Pope is not a Pope because he is a sinner is wrong, it's a heresy like Novatianism, Donatism, Lollardism, possibly Hussitism. By the way, one reason I'm conclavist and not just sedevacantist is that sedevacantists blocking an emergency conclave often hold to Materialiter non Formaliter, which I see as a revival in a slightly new form. "We cannot judge his faith" (we could by taking his word for it, i e for believing "God is not a Demiurge with an Omnipotent Magic Wand" and things), "but we can say that by lack of charity" (i e a mortal sin) "he is not intending to give the Church the direction of the Catholic faith"

OK, what is greater? To say he is a heretic, or to say he is a Catholic who with diabolic hypocrisy intends to get every Catholic except himself into heresy and damnation?

"and therefore he is not formally the Pope"

In other words, they say that through a mortal sin (the only thing they think they can judge, pretending heresy is above their paygrade) he has lost (at least temporarily) the use of his office. I think even temporal loss of office for mortal sin was already condemned about Lollards and (possibly) Hussites. I think this happened already in Constance.

However, the proposal I am making is, he's a heretic. The "Popes" who had Cantalamessa as chaplain and who believed Evolution and Heliocentrism up to this day, are heretics. A bishop can exercise episcopal authority up to when he's judged for heresy, because the Pope is supplying the lacking authority for the interval. A Pope who has no Pope over himself cannot. Loss or non-accession to office for heresy is not just not condemned, but both Vatican I and St. Francis of Sales explicitly taught this, not ex cathedra, but when answering questions. So, to correct myself, Vatican I did not teach it in the canons, but certainly the Council fathers did think this when in a pause the question came up. Dimond brothers may be bad at reading a decision from Trent that contradicts them, like "aut voto ejus" (or the desire of it, i e of Baptism), but they are not bad historians or liars, as far as I can make out.

If Paul III was a sinner when he convoked Trent doesn't matter at all. That he reformed his life is a probable good fruit of the Council.

As to the political situation, you have not shown that Trent was engaging in cabales resulting in opponents to the canons being silenced well before they were voted (like Cardinal Ottaviani was silenced more than once). You have not shown that the Council assembling at Trento nel Alto Adige (or Trent in Südtirol) behaved like a crowd of football supporters against each other or against a team among them. There was no change of culture to simple mob brutality in the procedings of that certainly valid and trustworthy council.

Karl Heven

@karlheven8328

Pius XII already was heliocentric and open to evolution as a hypthesis even in Humani Generis. Same could probably be said of Pope Pius XI and Leo XIII even though they did not make declarations on that as far as I know

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@karlheven8328 Leo XIII was very certainly not open to Evolutionary origins of Adam, and we have no direct indication Pius XI was.

Leo XIII probably was not even Heliocentric, he was fine with Catholics being Heliocentric if they thought he was, but he probably avoided taking side, just in case it were heretical.

So did very probably St. Pius X and Benedict XV.

No Pope actually taught Heliocentrism in a Catechism, up to §283 of CCC. Or in an Encyclical. It's obviously "an open secret" that Providentissimus Deus is talking about Heliocentrism and recommending taking Joshua 10:13 as phenomenological language. But it's still so secret that Pope Leo XIII never officially stated it. I'm not even sure you could find it in the memoires of Merry del Val about him.

This connotation was most conspicuously lacking in the actual text of Leo XIII's Providentissimus Deus. With some contracts, it's "read the fine print" but with some Encyclicals it's "simply read the print" (or the online text, as in my case).

7:43 Selling of Indulgences?

Did not happen. Indulgences were given for alms. This sometimes took on the spirit of sales transactions. Tetzel may have made a joke about it, which some took too seriously. Also, this was changed by the Council of Trent.

Political corruption within the Church? You mean like preferring Spain and Ireland over England under a schismatic monarch that persecuted clergy? That's what the English civilisation has been taught to view as corruption on a political level. Perhaps you should question parts of your upbringing.

Oh, by the way, if someone at Church said so, that's one of the bad fruits of Vatican II.

8:00 No, the reason the Protestant Reformation happened is:

• powerful people had for over a century believed in Realpolitik and in the Church taking hands off politics, and Protestantism seemed more accomodating;
• printing press was far less democratic than the internet, so, someone could explain, whatever he wanted, and sometimes the one trying to respond had no printing press, for instance in Sweden, the Carthusians introduced the first press, the first book printed in Swedish was on the Rosary, but then Gustav Wasa confiscated the press and gave it to the Reformers.

The Protestant Reformations happened for reasons similar to the Communist Revolutions. Some people are powerhungry. Some powerhungry people can monopolise the discourse (like I see some are trying to bring my viewer stats down). And powerhungry people who monopolise the discourse can afford to lie. And to do so so successfully that action on social levels ensues.

Appalachian Paisano

@AppalachianPaisano

Uno reverse card yourself lol

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@hglundahl

@AppalachianPaisano I'm not a very avid player of Uno.

Would you explain what this means?

12:15 I hope you aren't pushing some parallel between Azteks and Israelites.

And neither the Azteks nor the Incas fell to large Spanish armies. Both fell to small expedition forces, and in the case of the Azteks, Tenochtitlan was actually more taken by people who had been ruled by Azteks and saw the Spaniards as God-sent or gods-sent relief, than by the Spanish themselves. That's part of why the taking of Tenochtitlan was so bloody.

No, the Conquest of Méjico doesn't mark the Catholic Church as corrupt. At that point in history.

12:15 bis As to Vatican I, I agree there was some rowdiness involved at the last session. But it was not provided by the Fathers victorious at the Council.

And as you mention suspensions, perhaps, if "John XXIII" had been Pope, his best option if "Vatican II" had been a council would have been to suspend it over the frankly quarrels, so the issue could be discussed again at a later point with more calm.

Trent was not swayed by those quarrels. The Galileo judgement in 1633 was not swayed by Galileo's personal indelicacy or even insult (though hidden from the public) against his former friend and now Pope. You see, Urban VIII was not part of the judges, and his relative, another Cardinal Barberini, while on the trial, did not sign the condemnation.

13:09 I think Pope Michael II agrees with you encouragement.

Not just the specifics on where it applies.