The World is Going to Hell "in a Handbasket"

A Good Reason to Not be National Socialist, an Even Better One Not to be Communist, and an Excellent One to Make Peace with God · The World is Going to Hell "in a Handbasket" · If Anyone Thought that "Leo XIV" was the Good Response to Trump ...

Trump Attacks Pope Leo XIV - Here's What Happened
Cross Examined with Michael Lofton | 13.IV.2026
https://www.youtube.com/live/A-Gl1Us9LzA

"and I don't want a pope who criticizes the president of the United States because I'm doing exactly what I was elected in a landslide to do"

What was a certain man who should have remained a painter saying about German elections and Mit brennender Sorge?

"Leo XIV" is arguably not the Pope, unlike Pius XI, but at least he gets it that a pope can judge a politician, like in a pretty harsh way Pope Pius V did with Elisabeth Tudor (or Boleyn, as some have termed her).

Actually, the question need not be rhetorical.

On EWTN, I found this* on what happened after Mit brennender Sorge:

It was said that, in fact, Hitler was so beside himself that for three days he did not want to see or receive anyone.

So, he kind of had the decency, as kind of part still Catholic, to remain silent.

9:55 Did Hitler ever try to tell Pope Pius XII "if I hadn't been here, they would not have taken a former nuntio to Germany"?

I don't think so.

But some people in the business world are prone to overdoing the concept of gratitude, as it applies to men, very vastly.

I mean, Putin once showed incompetence about Indonesian pork consumption (there is a Christian minority and there are tourists).

Trump's showing some less than full competence about what the job of a Pope is.

* The Encyclical That Infuriated Hitler
ROME, 4 APRIL 2007 (ZENIT)
https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/library/encyclical-that-infuriated-hitler-2844

"Withdraw obedience"

The Debate That EXPOSED Martin Luther as a HERETIC (The Leipzig Debate)
The Michael Lofton Show | 21.I.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOL3FP-4zm0

... the Duke interrupts 2:25 and he says look why does it even matter 2:27 it doesn't matter if the papacy is by 2:30 divine right or a human institution he's 2:32 the pope and we got to obey him no 2:34 matter what! So Luther interjected and 2:36 said he agrees with the Duke and he says 2:38 look either way the pope is the head of 2:41 the church so yeah we shouldn't disobey 2:43 him. Now Eck immediately saw through this 2:45 and he called Luther out he said this is 2:47 deceptive because he knew you can 2:50 withdraw obedience if the papacy is 2:52 merely a human institution

One can also withdraw obedience from someone who seems to expose himself as not a real carrier of the office, since heretical.

When Pope John XXII came down on the side of Soul Sleep and perhaps Eternal fates finally decided only at Doomsday (which some Orthos would agree to), one saint threatened to withdraw obedience.

The final outcome was that Pope John XXII made amends on his deathbed.

7:16 Trent (session IV) agreed with Luther's point there.

sententiam quam tenuit atque tenet ecclesia ...

7:44 Please note, in 1519, Constance was 101 years back in time, and it hadn't been contested by anyone except the ones it condemned.

"Vatican II" condemned no one and is contested by lots in a way shorter time.

What Luther couldn't do at all is what Sedevacantists and Orthopapists (Conclavist as well as Palmarian) are doing with V-II.

17:38 It so happens, Exsurge Domine didn't excommunicate Luther. It threatened him with excommunication unless he recanted.

It was Decet Romanum Pontificem that excommunicated Luther.

18:04 Actually, it's their differences and loseness that go back to the Leipzig debate.

But the tenets go back to denying Holy Mass. Lutherans deny it's a sacrifice, but affirms the real presence. Zwingliites denies Jesus is even there at all in any other than a symbolic sense, many fall in between about the Presence, but all deny it's a sacrifice.

18:27 One can win a debate with an argument that is on some issue erroneous.

Eck was not quite fair to Luther, who was actually agreeing the Bible was an authority (except the books he couldn't stand) ... even over himself. You can share the analyses of Eck, but that is not what Exsurge Domine threatened or Decet Romanum Pontificem excommunicated him for. Pope Leo X was more concerned with content than procedure.

Has Hamas exposed the Zionist régime between October 7 2023 and now? Well, even if they have, that doesn't justify what they did that day.

When it comes to handling debates, I think Tyndale was enjoying a better sparring partner than Luther. Latomus was materially erroneous about what Romans 3 meant, if we take the verdict of Trent to be exclusive, but he was materially and formally right about the faith, since Ephesians 2:8 through 10 says the same thing.

Eck's argument has been turned against converts by Lutherans and Anglicans "you think you are smarter than the Church God providentially placed you in?"

When is Magisterium Infallible?

Critiquing a Sedevacantist on the Magisterium
The Michael Lofton Show | 16.I.2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkofwxWIjl8

0:05 Before I see who it is, my guess is, it's not a Conclavist ...

3:18 I would say, secundary objects actually are objects of supernatural faith.

I'd like you to show a pre-Conciliar source for your criticism.

By the way, while St. Thomas distinguishes between primary and secondary object of faith (supernatural virtue), he divides it differently from you, making lots of things in the Bible on his division secondary, as they are not the salvific truths themselves, but the circumstances in which they are revealed.

5:21 I see you invoke one other scholar saying the Ordinary Universal Magisterium can teach non-definitively.

The point made would be:

• whatever status explicit or implicit the actual individual participants in the universal magisterium at any given point intend or express, the status changes because it is "universal" ... this is not a who, it is the exceptionless totality of a who
• unlike when a doctrine is only held by Pope and most bishops, even vastly so, the actual exceptionless quality of the agreement makes a difference making the status definitive.

The opposite view seems to be a cop-out to make room for heretical statements like:

• Mankind is way older than the generations of Luke 3 indicate
• Joshua thought he was commanding Sun and Moon to stand still, but God made sure it was the Earth that stopped rotating
• You could make a parallel about Jesus as Man and Jesus as God about exorcisms (Church of Sweden progressives in the 19th C. did so [unclear, see link])
• Taking more back of a consumed in use commodity (food or money) than was lent with no justification other than the time is a licit way to conduct loans.

In each of these cases, the consensus of centuries makes for a longstanding Universal Ordinary Magisterium, and if you want to push the heresies, it's obviously convenient to pretend the Church wasn't teaching that definitively.

The opposite attitude was shown in Trent Session IV, the formulation "tenuit atque adhuc tenet" where a magisterial statement to be such cannot be in overt conflict with all the past of the Church.

[The idea of "Authentic Magisterium" is, as he said, "Merely Authentic Magisterium", that criticism is pertinent.]

To conclude, what you say about the Merely Authentic Magisterium, no, it cannot teach heresy. Including not yet defined heresy.

The teaching of heresy auto-deposes from magisterium. In the case of Nestorius, Pope St. Coelestine I confirmed this, 430, and this before a solemn condemnation of Nestorianism in 431.

When you say "the Ordinary Universal Magisterium" is a "who" or a "subject" I think you take the "Pope and Bishops" as operative for the who.

However, for Ordinary Universal Magisterium, there is, like for Universal and Peaceful Acceptance (sth your and my line of Popes have lacked since 1950 at least), a circumstance beyond the general "Pope and Bishops" namely, the lack of opposing voices among the bishops (and for acceptance, the faithful).

This circumstance is providential, not a structural automatic occurrence, and as such constitutes a how.

You could pretend from your pov that Pope and Bishops teach Evolution. Well, Bishop Williamson doesn't, the Sede bishops don't always (though one of them went for Deep Time), Pope Michael I who became a bishop in 2011 didn't, and since Thuc consecrated the antipope (to which I once adherred) "Gregory XVII" of Palmar, and that man rejected even Deep Time, I think it's safe to say Thuc rejected at least Evolution. That's how your position cannot be Ordinary Universal Magisterium even if it were Pope and most Bishops.

However, for centuries past, it is beyond reasonable doubt that the Ordinary Universal Magisterium has taught that not just mankind but the material universe as such was created no further back than the genealogy of Luke 3. This is because you do not find one opposing voice within the ranks of the magisterium or otherwise among Church Fathers. This circumstance is providential, and therefore this view is infallible.

Joseph Freymann is Sloppy on the Galileo Case

The Crusades, the Inquisition and Galileo w/ Joseph Freymann
The Michael Lofton Show | 7.XII.2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy-05JYSYIk

I'm commenting only on the Galileo case. I trust his view on the Crusades and the Inquisition is fair enough.

"had said that if the 21:24 facts of science seem to contradict scripture in certain places then script may need to be reinterpreted"

Ouch ... sloppy citation.

Science as an institution deciding on the facts and then presenting them.

No. Science as a monolithic institution with ONE faculty per subject didn't exist. Philosophy were competing institutions.

Then, he did not only say that one could be wrong on exegesis, in the same breath he said it could also be the philosophy that was wrong.

The criterium was experience and logic as in solid proof.

"he insisted on teaching as a law 21:43 Heliocentrism which was really just a theory um he was free to consider it a 21:50 theory but he crossed the line when he against the church's wishes stubbornly 21:56 taught it as a law"

I think the correct view of the Church's wishes was, he was at liberty to write a dialogue, but in it he should give at least equal weight to the Geocentric evidence. In other words, he was required at least some benevolent neutrality, in order to not fall afoul of a decision which already in 1616 had stated that Heliocentrism was an error or a heresy.

I don't know what you mean by "teach it as a law" since in his day the gradation "hypothesis, theory, law" didn't exist as it does now. It's like saying "you are allowed to considere the dog the same family but not the same genus as the wolf" (very hypothetic example, contrived even), when this was before Linnaeus.

"the church overreacted they subjected him to a 22:15 trial right and they said that the only way to understand certain chapters or 22:22 certain verses in the Old Testament that indicate heliocentrism"

Geocentrism?

"is the literal way and they should should have known 22:29 better because even Augustine centuries before had said that there was room for reinterpretation of of scripture"

Not in the absence of solid proof and especially not in the presence of solid exegesis.

This had already been established in 1616, back when Galileo was a sidekick to Foscarini from the PoV of the Inquisitors.

"but why did they overreact it was because of the 22:42 Protestant Reformation see Along Comes Luther 1517 95 Theses and what does he 22:49 do, he starts accusing the Church of being anti-scripture of of keeping the 22:54 masses from knowing the Bible right um and so what the church was being very careful during The Counter Reformation 23:01 of they were being careful to not despise Scripture right that's why they 23:07 were not eager to have Galileo Teach as a law something that seemed to 23:14 contradict the literal interpretation of Scripture"

As I remarked to a Protestant fundie.

Joshua 10 verse 13 could theoretically be phenomenological language.

But Joshua 10 verse 12 includes a word by Joshua, which was not identic to the prayer he had said to God, and which was the miracle working word on God's behalf.

As God is the Creator, He should be able to adress a direct divine command directly to the things that need to behave in a manner other than previously.

This means, if He inspires a man to miracle working words, that should apply to these also.

If this was not so here, it was the ONLY place in all of Scripture, a big anomaly, where sth other needed to be adressed than was adressed and it was still the word of a miracle worker.

"they would however have embraced it if he had come up with 23:20 conclusive evidence which he didn't have which he didn't have and the last thing 23:25 I'll say about Galileo is not only did he not have the evidence yet which we do now but he was partly wrong he was 23:33 partly wrong"

If you are right, he was still asked to abjure sth as "at least an error" which would then be true.

And remember, the form of the condemnation of the theses is such as that of the condemnation of Feeney.

You will gladly say that Feeney was wrong, because he was condemned, even if he was not required to directly abjure the thesis or theses he was condemned for, but you will pretend Galileo was at least partly right in what he was required to abjure, even if he actually did abjure.

As far as the Church "would gladly have embraced" that's not exactly the tone of Cardinal Bellarmine, and while a different one has been attributed to Cardinal Baronius, it's on shady grounds.

And "if he had had the evidence" ... first, this does not cut the condemnation of sth as a theological error rather than as unproven science, and punishments reserved for theological error, second, where do you presume that evidence has been given since?