Responding to "Critics of Pope Francis, What’s your End-Game?"

New blog on the kid : So, Catholicism is Demographic - But is the Catholic Demography Always Catholic? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : On Marcel Lefebvre and "Traditionalist Dissent" · Responding to "Critics of Pope Francis, What’s your End-Game?"

Here is the link:

Critics of Pope Francis, What’s your End-Game?
by Mike Lewis · May 9, 2018
https://wherepeteris.com/critics-of-pope-francis-whats-your-end-game/

My answers are:

• to title question : I accept Pope Michael
  
  
• to another question, in the text, see exchange below. Note, Mike Lewis very graciously supplied the exact text of my comment:

Mike Lewis

... Ultimately, however, the argument is useless. Regardless of how emphatically and convincingly someone insists on the historicity of the heresy of Honorius, they still can’t point to a single point of doctrine or canon law that says anything about how Catholics are to respond should a pope teach heresy. ...

Hans Georg Lundahl

You are forgetting Saints are a valid interpretation of God’s law.

Liberius : St Athanasius explained his stance as circumstanced by persecution and ignored it (as a forced concession), St Felix the second accepted to become Pope in his stead (he seems to have already been antipope, but now, acc to Liber Papalis, “began to be Pope”).
Honorius : St Sophronius ignored his laying on the lid.
John XXII : I recall from my SSPX days that St Paschalis (was it he?) threatened to “withdraw his obedience”. On SSPX interpretation, that threat, if John XXII had persisted, would have been a “recognise and resist” stance. On a probably more realistic sede (and orthopapist) stance, if John XXII had persisted, St Paschalis would have concluded he was not Pope.

For any SSPX : the stance of St Paschalis was a temporary one which effected what it intended (conversion of a Pope from an inconsiderate statement) within a reasonable delay. The stance of St Sophronius simply seems to have been “laying on the lid” is not really and truly a Papal power, so he could ignore that (and Honorius does not seem to have demanded any direct acceptance of Monotheletism).

That of St Athanasius was only possible because there was a reasonable position the papal stance at Sirmium was more a tortured than a freely papal one, and St Felix conceded this and stepped back for Liberius when he came back and cleared himself. So, the stance of St Athanasius before having full proof of Pope Liberius having been forced and to what extent of concession (only ambiguity) would correspond to the Palmarian stance to “Paul VI” as “prisoner in the Vatican”. So far, unlike Liberius, we have no proof he was (I’m an ex-Palmarian, btw).

Feel free to comment here, either with a blogger account, or using name+URL!

Charles A. Coulombe Wavering on the Flood Issue

Four Creeds referred to in video : Apostlic, Nicene, Athanasian and Trentine, I suppose.

Noah & the Flood
Tumblar House | 23.II.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OILJ1RPbSU

I

1:55 Charles, you were exemplary ... it is that "Father" who should have been either recanting or (back in those days) being put on a bonfire, personally, or if he escaped to non-Catholic territory (well, that is where he was) by proxy of a haydoll.

II

2:45 ... I said you were exemplary ...

http://ppt.li/3zo

III

6:45 "maybe the standard view of fossilisation generally is right"

By fossilisation, we usually mean permineralisation. Creationists (Kent Hovind on some videos, notably - and I just checked CMI too) have documented cases of rapid such (linking to CMI, before reading):

http://creation.com/make-no-bones-about-it

The reason fossils are supposed to support long age and evolution is actually another one, which I deal with here:

http://ppt.li/3zp

Extended links

http://ppt.li/3zo = Creation vs. Evolution : Can Six Days or Eve from Side of Adam be a Metaphor?
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2018/06/can-six-days-or-eve-from-side-of-adam.html

CMI : Make no bones about it!
May 28, 2000
http://creation.com/make-no-bones-about-it

http://ppt.li/3zp = Creation vs. Evolution : Archaeology vs Vertabrate Palaeontology in Geology
http://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2016/06/archaeology-vs-vertabrate-palaeontology.html

Austrofascism, as Some Call It ... and Italian Fascism

Fascism
Tumblar House | 8.XII.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8OS-e3xEHw

I

On a topic related to America and Italy.

Are all or most Americans from Tierra del Fuego to Newfoundland and Alaska descended from Amerigo Vespucci or namesakes of him or disciples of other Aymerics, like Anne Catherine Emmerich?

Or could it be they are only called Americans after living between Tierra del Fuego, Newfoundland, Alaska and that place having its name after an Emmerick whose Italian pronunciation of it was Amerigo ... the mapmaker Vespucci?

You see, that case is a bit parallel to whether Palestinians are called so because Philistines (they aren't, at least except marginally), or whether they are called so from Palestine, the Roman name imposed in memory of Philistines, while themselves being Israelites.

II

Nobody else?

I think Dollfuss didn't look too mournful over sharing the label with Mussolini and even Finzi.

Calcandi Serpentes

As Catholics we have a lot more in common with fascism than any other secular political belief.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I suppose you consider Distributism as a directly Catholic, then?

III

[Benito Mussolini named after Juarez, since Italian for Bennett is Benedetto was mentioned by Charles A. Coulombe:]

Speaking of Benedetto. The ASCII value of BENEDETTO, as of Portuguese PAPABENTO, is ... matching the Greek gematria for BENEdIKTOC ... (sorry, can't copy paste proper Greek spelling from Greek wiki, the firefox in Nanterre University Library won't allow that). In other words, it matches Apocalypse 13:18.

B 66 060 06
E 69 120 15
N 78 190 23
E 69 250 32
D 68 310 40
E 69 370 49
T 84 450 53
T 84 530 57
O 79 600 66

IV

12:22 In fact, the corporativist view on shoe industry working together for the common good is one which was in fact shared by Christian Social Party as well as Italian Fascism, National Socialism and I think also Peronismo.

Partly, but not totally even by Swedish Social Democrats : LO would be for "we want higher wages", but if they went to strike to long, SAP governments would tell them "you go to a table with your employers".

It does make some sense to call that strategy fascism, insofar as Benito Mussolini was for it once he had hit down the Communist Unions ... (dopo il biennio rosso) and before either Hitler or Dollfuss took power in 1933 or Saltsjöbad deals were signed in 1938 or Perón got elected in 1946.

I also honour the mayor of Assisi who collaborated with Father Ruffino Niccacci to save Jews because he was a Fascist of the early days recalling when Jews were even overrepresented and considering Salò Republic was a puppet régime with Hitler pulling the strings.

And I honour a socialist adversary to whom I expressed my objection to class struggle and my preference for harmony between classes - he said "harmony between the classes is fascism" and I replied "then I'm a fascist".

Meaning of course, while I think you have a right to not call Christian socials fascists, I think it is somewhat pedantic to exact this same behaviour of everyone else (unless you are a Habsburg ... if you have Otto's word, I'll assume I'll ... if not enthusiastically obey at least try to not disobey too much ...)

No, I am of course not using "Austrofascist" of people I dislike. I consider myself an Austrofascist myself, unless Otto von Habsburg or his heirs were to actually forbid me to use that word of Christlich Soziale Partei ...

One thing they did wrong, though - the camp for tramps. Yes, it was not a labour camp or a death camp, but it falsified the labour market by forcing tramps to look for work ... and I am not surprised it was made in Oberösterreich (that is where Hitler came from and there is even a fossile whale there - a monster from before the deluge, you know like that horror that swallowed Jonah and the one that swallowed Pinocchio ...) ... but apart from that, I am a fan of Austrofascism - or to call things by proper names, of course, Christian Socials ...

On Marcel Lefebvre and "Traditionalist Dissent"

New blog on the kid : So, Catholicism is Demographic - But is the Catholic Demography Always Catholic? · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : On Marcel Lefebvre and "Traditionalist Dissent" · Responding to "Critics of Pope Francis, What’s your End-Game?"

Marcel Lefebvre: Father of Traditionalist Dissent
by Mike Lewis · Published June 2, 2018 · Updated June 2, 2018
https://wherepeteris.com/marcel-lefebvre-father-of-traditionalist-dissent/#comment-1210

Comments debate:

To article:

E, F, G, H=G, I=H=G, K (really previous), and its double answer L and M, or latter one is posted so.

E

Hans Georg Lundahl

June 2, 2018 at 4:15 pm

Tradition and Bible are higher than the Magisterium, insofar as the Magisterium is there to protect them – not primarily itself – from neglect or abusive misunderstandings.

Answered twice, C and D

C

Mike Lewis

June 2, 2018 at 4:23 pm

Fixed that sentence. I agree. I initially put the word “Tradition” in quotes to denote that it was their private interpretation of/appeal to Tradition, but I can see that my meaning wasn’t clear.

Hans Georg Lundahl

June 3, 2018 at 3:13 pm

If your line of Popes were to say “two plus two make five” and I insist it makes four, does that become my private interpretation of mathematics?

If Magisterium habitually makes Bible and Tradition actually accessible, it follows they remain accessible even if Pseudo-Magisterium would seem to reduce their actual content to private interpretation. If it doesn’t, it follows Bible, Tradition and Magisterium are useless since incomprehensible, inaccessible.

Answered twice, A and B

A

Mike Lewis

June 3, 2018 at 3:38 pm

We actually have a post on that. https://wherepeteris.com/225-2/

Hans Georg Lundahl

June 4, 2018 at 6:42 am

The post does not adress the issue.

The issue was the precise level on how far obedience can force you to go against your most basic intuitions. Saying the argument “can backfire” because someone could erroneously apply it to so and so, or saying it does not apply where we think it applies are other levels.

Also, I argued elsewhere, when it comes to an adulterous couple, we can perhaps hope they are not in mortal sin every sex act both of them, we can perhaps hope there are intermittent moments of the state of grace, but we cannot hope there is a continuous state of grace for both of them in moments where they chose to continue a cohabitation which will lead them to sin.

B

carn

June 4, 2018 at 10:15 am

“If your line of Popes were to say “two plus two make five” and I insist it makes four, does that become my private interpretation of mathematics?”

Doesn’t matter what the Pope says about mathematics. As a more relevant example:

http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

number 23 sentences 3 to 5:

“A very solid scientific consensus indicates that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system. In recent decades this warming has been accompanied by a constant rise in the sea level and, it would appear, by an increase of extreme weather events, even if a scientifically determinable cause cannot be assigned to each particular phenomenon. Humanity is called to recognize the need for changes of lifestyle, production and consumption, in order to combat this warming or at least the human causes which produce or aggravate it.”

First and second quoted sentences are statements about what is known by science, just like 2+2=5 would be a statement about mathematical knowledge.

A catholic might decide that Pope Frances is writing in these two sentences complete utter nonsense and that he will completely disregard what the Pope says there; that would not be disobedience to the Pope (it might be “disobedience” to logic, facts and science, but that is not necessarily sinful).

In the third sentence the Pope draws effectively a moral conclusion; namely that if quoted sentences 2 and 3 are correct, that then there is a moral duty to do something about climate change.

If a catholic presumed it to be true that there is climate change, it would be disobedience to the Pope if said catholic concluded, that due to this facts he has absolutely no duty whatsoever to do anything at all; as the question of “Need we do check whether to do something if there is manmade and potentially problematic climate change?” is not one of science but a moral one.

(Of course the issue gets complicated if some clever catholic thinks: “Socialism always causes more pollution than capitalisn; all the eco politics will lead to socialism; hence, to minimize pollution every eco-politic must be opposed”; such a catholic might appear disobedient, although in a very technical sense he isn’t, if he arrived after honest and careful thinking at said ideas; as he would have followed his moral duty to consider adjusting his liefstyle and concluded that doing nothing at all than good old Repbulican politics is best course of action).

Hans Georg Lundahl

June 4, 2018 at 12:09 pm

You did not adress those who say “we have no such duty since there is no evidence of global warming”.

By the way, my own take on it, some things which would reduce emission of fossil fuels are desirable on other grounds, which would therefore coincide with the ecological agenda in some applications.

Not in others, like when people are now in Paris forbidden to light a fire in the fireplace.

carn

June 5, 2018 at 10:01 am

“You did not adress those who say “we have no such duty since there is no evidence of global warming”.”

You are correct; it should have been “namely that if quoted sentences 2 and 3 are correct and the scientific consensus does not err”

Hans Georg Lundahl

June 5, 2018 at 10:15 am

Oh, so a Pope’s recommended or commanded action is in fact subject to the rights and wrongs of why he thinks so?

That opens the gate for quite a lot of dissent.

D

jong ricafort

June 2, 2018 at 10:42 pm

Hans Georg Lundahl,

Good day!

Please reflect on the statement below of Arch.Lefebvre:

As scriptures said “from the fullness of the heart a mouth speaks”

“The situation in the Church after the Council [is] such that we no longer know what to do. With all these changes or we risk losing faith or we give the impression of disobeying.I would like to get on my knees and accept everything; but I can not go against my conscience.” (Arch.Lefevbre)

Look closely on this words

• 1. “The situation in the Church after the Council [is] such that we no longer know what to do..
  • (DUBIA/Confusions set’s in)
  
  
  
• 2.”I would like to get on my knees and accept everything… (PRIDE; cannot & will not bend his knees)…”
  
  
• 3. …but I can not go against my conscience.”
  • (FREEWILL, don’t want to submit his will to abide God’s Will…Unsubmission or Disobedience)

So you see the very words that comes out of Arch.Lefevbre is the same opposing spirits that Lucifer manifested when God presented His Will. The Son of Man is willing to remove His Glory & Majesty in Heaven to become a GOD-MAN….

This is paralleled to TLM vs. Novus Ordo….

The Holy Spirit is also willing to be stripped of Royal Robe in Worship, the Holy Mass removed of it’s external beauty for the sake of Ecumenism, to follow the Will of the Father “that they maybe ONE as we are ONE”(John17:22)

This is my personal reflections…you may not agree with it…but certainly Arch.Lefevbre ignores the Breathe of the Holy Spirit in forming His Church to face the Third Millenium…

Tradition must be ALIVE to follow the BREATHE of the Holy Spirit where it WILLS…

The three opposing spirits took place in the following sequence DUBIA, PRIDE and DISOBEDIENCE…

As Ted Flynn in his article stated “Dubia belong to Satan, and Faith belong to Christ”…

And our beloved Pope Francis said only thru CONVERSION the DUBIA will be clear-out, by seeking the Light of the Holy Spirit.

Godbless.S&IHMMP4us.Amen

Hans Georg Lundahl

June 3, 2018 at 3:17 pm

If there was some pride, I’d say it was rather about his caution not daring to call out Paul VI / Montini as a sham Pope.

Do you know what Rev. Georges de Nantes did?

He made a long documented case file against Pope Paul VI and put it before Pope Paul VI. A real Pope would have taken that and handed the accusation over to judges he appointed over himself. Montini called the Carabinieri to get Rev. de Nantes out.

It seems he also sent a pill (known to be abortive as part of its effect) to nuns having been raped in Congo.

Jong ricafort

June 3, 2018 at 4:54 pm

Proverbs18:2

Ofcourse how can he say that word “sham” infront of a Pious Pope, remember Pope Paul VI will be ecanonize soon to Sainthood.

That documented allegations backfired now it has no merits to a pious pope recognize by the Church as Saint.

While Arch. Lefevbre is also prematurely proclaim by Trads as candidate for Sainthood, the only question is who will canonize him, but more problem is to what church? The Vatican II Church which some Trads doesn’t recognize..

St. Pope Paul VI had won the prize of Heaven and his life is a witness to God given victory over his Pontificate while supporters of Arch. Lefevbre will have a long journey to sainthood if ever Heaven will approved the binding.

It wont happen belonging to a church without a Living Pope and Church Magisterium.

As St. Ambrose said…

“Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclessia, Ibi Deus.

Godbless

Hans Georg Lundahl

June 4, 2018 at 6:38 am

“Ofcourse how can he say that word “sham” infront of a Pious Pope, remember Pope Paul VI will be ecanonize soon to Sainthood.”

For those who consider Bergoglio a Pope. If we rather think David Bawden was validly elected in an emergency conclave, validly accepted and validly took the name Pope Michael, I am fairly sure Paul VI will NOT be canonised.

F

jong ricafort

June 2, 2018 at 8:42 pm

Thanks for the great article….

I see clearly now how to connect the words of Arch.Lefebvre to Lucifer words in Heavenly Realm, as St.Pope Paul VI stated Lefebvre has taken “the spirit of opposition”….

What can we reflect on this?

When God the Father shows His “Divine Plan in the Salvation of Man”…How does Lucifer manifested his behavior?… by “strong opposition” and says the famous word “NON-SERVIAM/I WILL NOT SERVE”…

For me this is the ROOT of the spirit manifest by Arch.Lefebvre…”I WILL not go against my conscience…meaning he wants only to OBEY his OWN WILL”…

How can we confirm this actions?

Vatican II Council is the BREATHE of the Holy Spirit inspired to the Church to prepare it’s new task in the coming Dawn of the Third Millenium…the New Evangelization focusing on Pastoral Care & Ecumenism…this would mean only ONE THING, both the Clergy & Faithful must be docile to the Voice of the Holy Spirit and must allow TRADITION to Breathe IN New Life it cannot be stagnant it must develop/progress to allow the Breathe of the Holy Spirit to move where it WILLS”….

This was the core message of Pope Francis to the DUBIA Clergy Theologians, Lay faithful to seek CONVERSION of mind and heart.

This WISDOM of Pope Francis was so great it is BIBLICALLY True..Why? it can be paralleled to the DUBIA/Confusions suffered by the body of believers and even the Apostles in John6:66…But Jesus does not offer explanations or compromise the HARD TRUTH, Jesus simply let them go separately…and what did Jesus do to clear-out the DUBIA to the remaining Apostles & Disciples, the Spirit of Truth descend to Lighten Up their Confusions.

This is exactly what is needed by the Clergy now Conversion,a personal Pentecost.

That’s why we can see that Traditionalist in some channel does not believe in the coming Second Pentecost, first they choke the Breathe of the Holy Spirit in the Vatican II Council and now they are preventing the faithfuls to seek the Light of Conversion offered by Pope Francis.

Pastoral Care and Discernment needs a lot of graces and strength from the HELPER/ADVOCATE….but who is the Helper it is always been the Mother of the Church…Advocata Nostra…and in my prayerful reflections the SPIRIT OF TRUTH in John14:16 chose to DWELLS in a Maternal Heart to reveal the TRUTH… The Holy Spirit had CHOSEN from eternity His Advocate too…in the humble Jewish Woman…who said to St. Bernadette ” I AM”…the Immaculate Conception… OVERSHADOWED…

Sweet Heart of Mama Mary be my salvation.S&IHMMP4us.Amen

G

carn

June 2, 2018 at 11:08 pm

“, the most commonly shared view is that popes can make serious doctrinal errors or even promulgate heresy in the exercise of their ordinary (non-infallible) magisterium. This goes contrary to the traditional teachings of the Church on papal primacy, as we have demonstrated in the past, and as Stephen Walford discusses convincingly in this February 2017 piece for La Stampa.”

The words “non-infallible” are misplaced if in ordinary magisterium a Pope cannot make serious doctrinal errors.

“In a future piece, I will delve deeper into the similarities of thought between the Archbishop Lefebvre and many of Pope Francis’s critics today.”

Similarities between Pope Francis and Pope Paul VI in this regard would be nice:

“We are the first to deplore excesses. We are the first and the most prompt to look for a remedy.”

especially in respect to excesses that are and will be made out of AL.

““I find him confusing sometimes””

Never understood, what the fundamental problem with such statement should be. If someone finds some other person confusing sometimes, why should one not say so?

After all, i know for certain that if i would say: “I fully understand what Pope Francis teaches in AL.” that i would be lying.

The usual solution – simply ask the one one does not understand a few questions for resolving unclear issues – is unfortunately not possible with Pope Francis. And there i find him completely confusing, cause i cannot wrap my head around why one should not answer questions of confused subordinates; after all, they are going to completely ruin any good plan, if they are too dumb/confused to follow it, so giving them some answers which resolve their confusion and get them back in line is usually paramount.

Jong ricafort

June 3, 2018 at 5:16 pm

Pope Francis akready answered the solution to Dubia remember it is paralleled to John gospel chapter six.

When the body of believers was confused even all the apostles were troubled. But thanks to St. Peter contemplative heart saying “to whom shall we go”

In times of confusion one must not leave the Church nor attack its leadership.

What did Jesus promised to them to ckear out their confusions.. Jesus said He will send the ParacleteAdvocate.

Pope Francis encourage Dubia Clergy to undergo Conversion, their Dubia will be clear out by seeking the Light of the Holy Spirit. Pope Francis is calling all Clergy to be docile to the voice of the Holy Spirit.

Discernment is a gift one must possessed to understand AL.

And Pope Francis declaring Mama Mary as Mother of the Church is a clear sign the help will come, remember Mary is the Spouse of the Advocate the Spirit of Truth resides fully and mystically to the Woman… Overshadowed!

As St.Kolbe teaches that the word “I AM” the Immaculate Conception transcends mystically.

As Pope Francis beautifully expresses his reflection in saying ” the Church as a Teacher and Guide always look to a Loving & Merciful Mother”…Mama Mary is truly the Helper/ Advocata Nostra in this end times.

Godbless

carn

June 4, 2018 at 2:30 am

“Pope Francis encourage Dubia Clergy to undergo Conversion”

Conversion from what to what?

Also, if someone i asked to convert away from X, but does not hold X, then said person cannot follow the request. And, if someone is asked to convert to Y, but has no idea what Y is, then again said person cannot follow the request.

“In times of confusion one must not leave the Church nor attack its leadership.”

So do nothing and wait is the plan of the day. Ok.

“Discernment is a gift one must possessed to understand AL.”

Regarding the secular definition of discernment, i am quite competent at discernment. Yet, that helps little.

So at best, i do not understand what “discernment” means in this context.

“Pope Francis akready answered the solution to Dubia remember it is paralleled to John gospel chapter six. When the body of believers was confused even all the apostles were troubled.”

Difference is that the hard to understand teaching was clarified by Jesus himself during the last supper and by subsequent events.

On the other hand supposedly said clarification already happened in respect to AL (e.g. the letter to Argentine bishops); but that does not resolve the issue.

On this site there are some people, who maybe have an explanation that resolves nearly all problems; unfortunately, it is similar to what Cardinal Müller said and says; which would be fine, if Pope Francis had ever implied “Listen people, Müller got it right and understood how to work out AL in line with doctrine; I’ll make sure he has a position in which the Church can make good use of his excellent skill resolving dogmatic questions”; unfortunately, it seems Pope Francis actions imply rather the opposite.

Jong ricafort

June 4, 2018 at 2:46 am

You answer seems to confuse yourself.

Conversion means humbling oneself to God, aaking God’s help to enlighten us.As scriptures said “God resist the proud and give more graces to the humble. ”

That’s what Pope Francis is saying the Dubia Clergy lack the GRACES for understanding the Holy Spirit inspiration in this Time of Mercy.

The Dubia cannot & must not insist their will on orthodoxy as the Holy Spirit inspiration is Conversion.

The Clergy must provide Pastoral care or accompaniment and discernment without God’s graces and Light coming from the Holy Spirit the Clergy will be subject to human error and judgement.

Your understanding that the confusion of Apostles was cleared at the Last Supper was a great error. Why?

All the Apostles hide except for Peter and John… The mission of Jesus is not cleared to them. It was in the Upper Room where all of them was given the GRACES to know and proclaim the Truth of who Jesus is.

So the Dubia Clergy must seek Graces and Light thru humility not orthodoxy.

Hope this is now ckear to you.

Godbless

carn

June 4, 2018 at 3:39 am

“Conversion means humbling oneself to God,”

And if after humbling oneself to God the confusion remains? Then what?

“Your understanding that the confusion of Apostles was cleared at the Last Supper was a great error. Why?

All the Apostles hide except for Peter and John… The mission of Jesus is not cleared to them. It was in the Upper Room where all of them was given the GRACES to know and proclaim the Truth of who Jesus is.”

I did not say, that the Apostles understood; i said that the potentially unclear teaching –

“Then the Jews started arguing among themselves, ‘How can this man give us his flesh to eat?’

53 Jesus replied to them: In all truth I tell you, if you do not eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.”

– was resolved by institution of the sacrament of Eucharist; that the Apostles did not understand it at the moment and only later does not change that the somewhat challenging issue – we are to eat his flesh? what exactly are we supposed to do? – was answered at the last supper.

“Hope this is now ckear to you.”

Not the slightest bit; starting with you presuming that there is actually a lack of humility; i have no idea how you could even begin to discern whether or not and to which extent a lack of humility is a problem on my side.

That is what makes my maybe scratch my head the most; people telling me its all about discernment and yet same people demonstrating that – unless they have telepathic powers – they have little skill in discernment; that is the basic first step of any discernment – what does the available information allow to discern?

Which here must have at once among other things the answer: “Ok, whether carn has enough humility or not, cannot be determined based on the given information.”

I suspect the same of course with some people and the dubia cardinals; scores of people saying that discernment must reign supreme and that these cardinals they have never met in person or talked at length to lack humility; ridiculous.

Only with Pope Francis and other cardinals i give the benefit of doubt, that they might have the information to assess the character of Burke et al. lack humility or not; of course – as judging whether some individual lack humility is not a matter of infallibility – i also give the benefit of doubt to Burke et al. that Pope Francis et al. are simply erring in their character assessment of Burke et al.

But as it seems that Pope Francis claims that thousands or maybe a few hundred thousands individuals, who have this or that problem with AL, all, every single one without exception lack humility and that this lack is in every instance the main cause of their AL problems and that at the same time it is highly important to only discern individual situations and avoid generalizations, the benefit of doubt given to Burke et al. is quite large.

Jong ricafort

June 4, 2018 at 3:49 am

Ted Flynn simply answers your long discourse into two spirit forces.

Dubia belong to satan and Faith belong to Christ.

The Holy Spirit is both Light and Truth, Dubia cannot exist in the Heart who seeks Conversion thru humility.

Godblesss.

H=G

carn

June 4, 2018 at 6:24 am

“Dubia belong to satan and Faith belong to Christ.”

A claim that would require evidence or arguments.

“The Holy Spirit is both Light and Truth, Dubia cannot exist in the Heart who seeks Conversion thru humility.”

Again a claim that would require evidence or arguments.

“your long discourse”

Again an indication that some people talk about discernment without having the slightest idea what forms it might take.

Are you able to formulate in words, what i (or someone else) would have to do to fulfill what you request namely “humbling oneself to God, aaking God’s help to enlighten us”?

The only meaning i can see there is get on my knees before God and pray for humbleness, guidance and help.

Been there, done that; resolved a lot of issues; but not the issues of AL.

carn

June 4, 2018 at 6:25 am

That should have been an answer to:

“Jong ricafort
June 4, 2018 at 3:49 am”

Jong ricafort

June 4, 2018 at 6:35 am

Ok, As a brother in Christ I will give you a clue on humbling oneself to God.

St. Montfort Wisdom says… The Holy Spirit is only attracted in a heart that resembles the heart of Mama Mary..

Read the True Devotion to Mary. That is the answer.

Consecration to the Immaculate Heart of Mary will lead a humble soul to receive the Light of the Holy Spirit.

That is the answer to Dubia, and Pope Francis recently implore the help of Mama Mary declaring Her Mother of the Church… See the connections?

Mary and the Holy Spirit are inseparable in Guiding and Teaching the Church to see the Light of Truth.

Godbless!

I=H=G

Hans Georg Lundahl

June 4, 2018 at 6:45 am

To Jong ricafort and carn:

“Dubia cannot exist in the Heart who seeks Conversion thru humility.”

A heart containing a dubium said : “can something good come out of Nazareth?”

Christ said of that heart : “he is a true Israelite in whom there is no falsehood”.

Jong ricafort

June 4, 2018 at 8:33 am

Proverbs18:2

[A fool receiveth not the words of prudence: unless thou say those things which are in his heart.]

Hans Georg Lundahl

June 4, 2018 at 8:36 am

A Pope, even a true one, is not guaranteed to be always and everytime speaking words of prudence.

Hence, for those who do still take Bergoglio as Pope, I don’t, a dubium or two or three may be apposite ….

carn

June 4, 2018 at 9:38 am

“Hence, for those who do still take Bergoglio as Pope, I don’t,”

Is is not yours to decide who is Pope.

Till their is some irrefutable evidence that for whatever reason he might not be Pope (note that even if he privately were an heretic/apostate he would still be Pope; only when doing so publically and attempted offically in his function as Pope, one might get at something) it is your duty to accept him as Pope, however much nonsense he might in your view say.

And pray for him, he needs it.

See it this way: not every Priest or Bishop we had and will have in our lifetime above us is a perfect shepherd (with me currently Priest quite ok and Bishop … well, better not say); if you think the current Pope is less than perfect, than accept the burden just as you would have to accept it if your Bishop and/or Priest would be subpar.

Besides, i of course agree with you that insofar “dubia” = “doubt formulated into question”, it is of course nonsense to presume that dubia cannot exist in a humble heart seeking conversion. We all have doubt from time to time. Formulating it into a question and asking them to someone superior/more knowledgeable is no intrinsic evil and can be prudent.

Hans Georg Lundahl

June 4, 2018 at 10:31 am

“Is is not yours to decide who is Pope.”

It is everyone’s duty to verify who is Pope so as to submit to him.

“Till their is some irrefutable evidence that for whatever reason he might not be Pope (note that even if he privately were an heretic/apostate he would still be Pope; only when doing so publically and attempted offically in his function as Pope, one might get at something) it is your duty to accept him as Pope,”

It is on the contrary my duty to verify between those who are claimants, whoever is most probable or least improbable.

Irrefutable evidence of public heresy previous to papacy is the view with Quarracino on validity of marriages while he was “archbishop of Buenos Aires”, as well as his “canonisation” of “John Paul II” for which irrefutable evidence of public apostasy is Assisi prayer meetings.

K

carn

June 4, 2018 at 11:05 am

“Irrefutable evidence of public heresy previous to papacy is the view with Quarracino on validity of marriages while he was “archbishop of Buenos Aires”,”

I did not check whether their actually was some prior public heresy, since it is irrelevant; even an unrepentant murdered who literally said he was happy to murder in spite of the to be discarded ten commandments, could be elected Pope and only if he repeated his heresy or continued with murder sprees, he might lose the office.

“as well as his “canonisation” of “John Paul II” for which irrefutable evidence of public apostasy is Assisi prayer meetings.”

Even if the Assisi prayer meetings had been public apostasy, JPII might have repented later and hence his canonization would not prove that Pope Francis is not infallible.

Besides, the evidence i googled for Assisi to be Apostasy seems to bit short of irrefutable evidence. It might even with the most negative view of the other religions/”religions” involved still be just a dumb and scandalous idea. Sometimes Popes in the past have literally shaked hands with people having the blood of millions upon their hands and yet smiled nicely and said some nice words to them.

Answered twice, my own at M and his own at L

L

carn

June 4, 2018 at 12:24 pm

Ok, i now checked JPII speeches at beginning and end of prayer meeting.

Mind you, if one with respective authority to go through AL with red ink and mark anything i consider problematic, badly formulated or potentially having several interpretations of which some would be potentially heretic, you would find some chapters with a lot of red ink.

On first glance i found in JPII speeches four problematic things:

– the situation where different people pray on after another aloud might lack some clearness regarding that these are separate prayers; but the intent for officially separate prayers was there, so having that worded not clear enough is not a canonical problem

– he says that all persons present are also aligned towards protection of human live from a mother’s womb to the deathbed; that is in my view might be a false statement, if persons of other religions present submit to their dogma/scriptures; but it is nothing about catholic faith, morals or dogmatism; he can tell complete nonsense about the intentions of people present and even about other religions and it is just a “political” problem of having a maybe uninformed, dumb and/or naive Pope (or maybe i am the uninformed); but nothing serious canonically

– he says all persons present prayed for peace; that could be as above, as for some religions “peace” might have a serious different meaning than what JPII wanted to express

– he says that all religions respect conscience; again see above

Thats it.

Also – and maybe that maybe will surprise others reading this – we have to consider the intent.

The intent was a “lets have world peace”-happening with the presumed intent of preventing wars with piles of dead numbering in the millions. Again, maybe ill advised, naive, ineffective, whatever. But a through fully noble intent. That means that unless he did commit some intrinsic evil act, JPII did probably not even sin in organizing and partaking in the gathering, if after honest and carefully thinking he thought that the event might help regarding the piles of dead.

Furthermore, if his actions did prevent a few piles of million dead here and there (which is hard to know) his successors should hurry to repeat the event if they also see some remote chance it can work. Just take care about that praying one after another (which in subsequent meetings was done in silence, so the problem was taken care of; even if loud praying was apostasy, canceling that would count as repentance).

And very positive to note, he spoke numerous times about Jesus Christ and even once explicitly he proclaimed Jesus to be savior of all mankind (leaving out the detail, that it works only for the willing part); i presume i such a speech were held today by some “conservative” prelate every “liberal” catholic would go after him for the “evil thing” called “proselytism”; so in essence he not only tried to have some peace-event supposedly preventing some piles of dead, but also tried to drive the point home that Jesus is the savior.

In total i do not see any clear evidence of JPII committing apostasy/heresy; actually if becoming holy was about scoring points on some heavenly scale and if the peace event did prevent some piles of dead bodies (which we do not know, but our Father knows this) he could have amassed quite some number of points with this event, with special bonus for it being a very delicate situation and yet he seemed to have avoided any serious slip (i presume the speeches were carefully drafted to avoid any of the issues that we discuss here today; probably then Cardinal Ratzinger was also doing his part there; if that were spontaneous speeches, then the Holy Spirit was with him, as any mere human holding a speech in such a delicate situation would certainly have a slips and would say something which by the words would be heresy/apostasy).

Also, in general about praying with non-believers, let me tell a story.

Abortion clinic. Pro-lifers doing there thing.

A clearly muslim girl approaches the clinic with probably her father. The pro-lifers invite the two to pray the Lord’s Prayer. They agree and afterwards decide against abortion.

Your position is that said pro-lifers committed apostasy/heresy? After all they prayed in public with two Muslims; while the words were the Lords Prayer it has to be presumed that said muslims in their hearts might actually have addressed the supposedly supernatural creature Mohammed preached about.

And yet, if you happen to be next to them, knew about the story, they see again a muslim woman approaching and ask you “Maybe we should again invite her to pray the Lords Prayer? The last time this prevented a baby from being shredded into bloody pieces. Please give us your advice, whether there is any reason we should refrain from trying to attempt that way from being literally ripped to pieces. We will heed your advice”,

would you advise them to not try it?

I certainly would advice them to try, if they had no better plan, as there is nothing intrinsic evil about trying to teach a muslim the words of the Lords Prayer. As my intent would not be to commit apostasy/heresy, i hope that “insurmountable ignorance”-thing would lessen my guilt, if there is guilt in this advice.

Hans Georg Lundahl

June 4, 2018 at 12:35 pm

“[I]f his actions did prevent a few piles of million dead here and there”

They seem to have done the opposite. Assisi II in 1994 (or late 93?) was held before the massacre of Srebrenica.

“The pro-lifers invited the two to pray the Lord’s Prayer”

Bad comparison with occasions which explicitly removed crucifixes so non-Christians could pray clearly non-Christian prayers.

carn

June 4, 2018 at 12:50 pm

“They seem to have done the opposite. Assisi II in 1994 (or late 93?) was held before the massacre of Srebrenica.”

Tough luck, but bad outcome of something intended honestly with good intent and otherwise unproblematic, might not even be a sin.

“Bad comparison with occasions which explicitly removed crucifixes so non-Christians could pray clearly non-Christian prayers.”

Which is apostasy/heresy because?

But i have to ask, inviting non-christians for common prayer in hope of avoiding baby-shredding is permissible?

That would imply that inviting non-christians for prayers to avoid wars would not be in principle problematic (though of course the details could cause problems).

But thanks for the interesting discussion anyway.

Hans Georg Lundahl

June 4, 2018 at 1:20 pm

It was not otherwise unproblematic.

“inviting non-christians for common prayer in hope of avoiding baby-shredding is permissible?”

If they had been invited to pray their prayer, like Shahada or Five Prayers towards Mecca, no.

M

Hans Georg Lundahl

June 4, 2018 at 12:06 pm

“I did not check whether their actually was some prior public heresy, since it is irrelevant; even an unrepentant murdered who literally said he was happy to murder in spite of the to be discarded ten commandments, could be elected Pope and only if he repeated his heresy or continued with murder sprees, he might lose the office.”

No, the fact of being a heretic at the moment of (not sure whether election or accepting papacy or both) renders the election and its acceptance null and void since a heretic is not eligible.

It’s like the “birther” case against Obama, except there is better evidence for Bergoglio being heretic before accepting than for Obama having been born in Kenya, in a school board house called “Hawaii”.

“Even if the Assisi prayer meetings had been public apostasy, JPII might have repented later and hence his canonization would not prove that Pope Francis is not infallible.”

Might have repented is a case for “he might not be in Hell” not a case for “he can be canonised”.

carn

June 4, 2018 at 12:37 pm

“No, the fact of being a heretic at the moment of (not sure whether election or accepting papacy or both) renders the election and its acceptance null and void since a heretic is not eligible.”

Source?

And BTW, is this automatic requiring no legal action whatsoever?

“Might have repented is a case for “he might not be in Hell” not a case for “he can be canonised”.”

If the Pope doing the canonization is aware about repentance, that is enough.

Besides, as we talk about maybe eternal law, what about St. Peter?

He was made Pope (“rock”, etc.), said three times that he is not a Christian (whichis implied by not knowing Jesus) in public, and for him continuing to be Pope repenting was sufficient. How does that work out under eternal unchanging law?

Or would you date his “election” as Pope to be of later date?

carn

June 4, 2018 at 12:59 pm

Besides, i think if you would be correct, that clearly there isn’t a Pope Francis, then maybe – if its the only recourse – it might be legit for any individual catholic getting aware about the situation, to go to Rome and drag the man known as Pope Francis literally from the Papal chair in front of the “Cardinals” and call all “Cardinals” to repent and line up with maybe pius brotherhood for them to check whether they are probably disposed to become Priests and/or Bishops (they might have validly ordained people; though that would have to be checked); after all the man called Pope Francis would be committing an ongoing crime against all catholics and hence every catholic individually would have the right to act in self-defense against this attack.

The only caveat might be that dragging him literally from the Chair has to be the least serious cause of action.

You understand that i would insist for a quite high burden of proof before implying that that course of action might be a last resort legitimate – especially as the Swiss Guard might intervene and things might turn bloody.

Hans Georg Lundahl

June 4, 2018 at 1:28 pm

“Source?”

Definition of material cause of a Pope : male, baptised, Catholic.

Theology of St Robert Bellarmine.

“And BTW, is this automatic requiring no legal action whatsoever?”

Yes, like an invalid matrimony if they later discover they were brother and sister, it is invalid from start, not just by the later action ensuing the discovery.

“If the Pope doing the canonization is aware about repentance, that is enough.”

No, he must of so preach of the repentance.

Canonising St Christopher doesn’t mean we can say “he was once serving Satan, and he’s a Saint” unless we also say that he repented of habing served Satan. A canonising Pope secretly knowing of repentance of a public sin won’t cut it.

“He was made Pope (“rock”, etc.), said three times that he is not a Christian (whichis implied by not knowing Jesus) in public, and for him continuing to be Pope repenting was sufficient.”

Since Pope is “vicar of Christ” St Peter was not Pope as such before Ascension. He was already going to be Pope, but was not formally such before Ascension.

Or the occasion at Lake Genesareth when Jesus tells him “feed my lambs”.

“Besides, i think if you would be correct, that clearly there isn’t a Pope Francis, then maybe – if its the only recourse – it might be legit for any individual catholic getting aware about the situation, to go to Rome and drag the man known as Pope Francis literally from the Papal chair in front of the “Cardinals” and call all “Cardinals” to repent and line up with maybe pius brotherhood for them to check whether they are probably disposed to become Priests and/or Bishops (they might have validly ordained people; though that would have to be checked); after all the man called Pope Francis would be committing an ongoing crime against all catholics and hence every catholic individually would have the right to act in self-defense against this attack.”

I think David Bawden was telling cardinals to repent and line up to an emergency conclave … if not, he considered they had already apostasised by Novus Ordo.

He considered the emergency conclave that legit act of self-defense. It took place in 1990, four years after Assisi I.

And what took place there met a high burden of proof.

carn

June 5, 2018 at 5:02 am

“Definition of material cause of a Pope : male, baptised, Catholic.”

To stop being catholic one must have at least formulated such intent in no unclear terms; committing heresy normally is no such declaration; usually it means intent to still be member of the Church and turn the Church into something it cannot be.

So this cannot render the election of Pope Francis invalid.

“No, he must of so preach of the repentance.”

I cannot see any reason for this; a wrong canonisation would show the respective Pope to be fallible and hence a non-Pope; but wrong a canonization would only be, if said person would not be in heaven; hence, even if a Pope kept repentance private it would not be a wrong canonization; just a potentially confusing one.

“And what took place there met a high burden of proof.”

High burden of proof in respect to JPII having stopped being Pope.

I cannot see that in his speeches of Assisi; nowhere did he seem to suggest to pray towards anywhere else than towards the higher authority above us – so God as trinity – and he several times tried to drive home, that salvation is through Jesus aka that the higher authority is God as trinity.

He probably deliberately accepted and expected and it probably happened so, that some attendees prayed instead to some other real or imagined entities, but he did not ask them to do so.

So he seems to be on the safe side and certainly had intent to avoid the problem you suggest (again intent could be relevant, as unintentional apostasy/heresy is as far as i know unheard of)

carn

June 5, 2018 at 5:06 am

I think we can conclude from our discussion, that at least one of us is out in the dark and seriously needs a guiding light.

Because either i am trying to be obedient to a fake Pope although you tried to warn me about this

or

you have found JPII and/or Francis guilty of something although they are innocent and based it on insufficient reasoning/evidence although i warned you about that.

I suggest we pray at least for each other, for whoever is in error to find a way back in a direction towards truth.

And also some prayer for the people in whose “backyard” we have this discussion, as they consider us to be both in error and – to some extent – vice versa.

Hans Georg Lundahl

June 5, 2018 at 10:18 am

It is a pious suggestion, but I have difficulties with keeping up with even basics (like daily three Hail Mary’s), so I cannot take on habitually an obligation of praying for you.

Jong ricafort

June 5, 2018 at 4:52 pm

From the fullness of the heart a mouth speaks.

Can blessings and curses comes forth from the same mouth? (James3:9-10)

How can anyone pray to God and continue to slap the face of Christ with false accusations, false testimony and slander?

God clearly said “Do not touch my anointed one”(Psalm105:15)

And Jesus remind everyone an attack on Pope Francis and His Church is a direct attack on Himself.

“Saul, Saul why are you persecuting me? “(Acts9:4)

You cannot claimed to be Catholic and spread your Lies on Pope Francis.. Amoris us an approved Magisterial Teachung either you embraced the Holy Spirit Inspiration on God’s Infinite Mercy that transcends orthodoxy or you insist your OWN confusions.

Your inability to grasp the Supernatural Teahing on Interior Conscience thru gift of Discernment does not make AL an unclear doctrine but a failure on your part to see that the Light of Truth is found only in Conversion.

As God resists the proud and give more graces to the humble

The prayer of the just man avail much.

So dont expect graces when you cannot follow Psalm105:15 and Acts9:4

Remember Dubia belong to satan and Faith and Clarity belong to Christ and found only thru Conversion by humbly seeking the Light of Truth from the Holy Spirit and not from the Dubia Clergy, to whom like you are confused too.

Godbless

I tried to answer

Jong ricafort at June 5, 2018 at 4:52 pm, but found I could not.

This is where I decided to repost the debate.

Obviously, it is one thing to persecute the Church and another to say that "PF" is not its true Pope, since we live in a time with more than one claimant, and it is also somewhat eery to be called a persecutor, when I have not asked for any lynchmobs to deal with PF clergy, while it seems - I am carefully saying seems, since if so it is behind my back - PF clergy has maligned sometimes my sanity, sometimes my Catholicism, sometimes this is, if so, reflected in a stray remark by a layman who seems to have been informed in advance who calls my inerrantism "sola scriptura" (confusing a condemned heresy with a defined dogma), and sometimes the remarks from a pious layman have been less stray on "how are you, really everything well?"

I get the impression Jong is an ex-avangelical who thinks Popes are "superpastors" (pastors in evangelical sense) and who back when he was evangalical thought "your pastor is inspired by God, right?" (words supplied from a still anti-Catholic man who couldn't see the difference between nagetive infallibility and positive inspiration, BS on these debates : On Honours to the Blessed Virgin and On Praying to or for departed and involving statues

At another point he claims, as would a Pentecostal in a conflict involving his "inspired" pastor : "Discernment is a gift one must possessed to understand AL."

It is normally for Popes to express Encyclicals in such a way that people of very little gross or non discernment at all should understand what they say. When I in a sense claim to read Humani Generis with cautious discernment (not necessarily the gift, nor necessarily not the gift), I am claiming it is written in a bad way - unless the actual content itself is even bad. But Jong ricafort is prepared to say, those who real Amoris Laetitia and don't find it orthodox "lack discernment" like the guys who couldn't see the Emperor's New Clothes.

Jordan Peterson No Fan of Homeschooling (What do you Exspect? He's a Shrink). I'm Not a Fan of Him

Jordan Peterson on Homeschooling
Bite-sized Philosophy | 9.XI.2017
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGu2U3X9-sk

I

3:12 Consensus as safeguard against pathology.

Not.

Both 1983 and 2018 Ireland came up with if not consensus at least qualified majorities (right above in 1983, right below in 2018) for two amendments so opposite one of them is pathological (hint, it's the recent one) if that word is at all used about human behaviour.

Jordan Peterson is here playing the psychologist who makes pathological parents (parents being God's first vicars about child education) an excuse to get a very often pathological public education system power over children.

And obviously, that is the kind of stance that psychologists tend to get their pay for.

The following remark "you need a board of advisers" sums up the economic interest of shrinks to say a thing like this. They are obviously among those profitting financially from the need (or perceived need) of board of advisers.

II

5:07 "Put your children in a situation where they are not going to be indoctrinated ..." (I'd add personally : or harrassed)

Sure, what my mother was doing till child welfare stopped her from it and forced us either SSHL or a school for mentally deficient.

SSHL NOT being such a kind of school, yet - supposedly - tolerant of difference due to being so international.

Problem is, the other pupils in the homes I were in were not very tolerant of devout Christianity or of Christian dogmaticism.

I had to support one guy who wanted me to despise Christian sex ethics in reference to "every sperm is sacred" - he was one of the less objectionable types and in fact succeeded in making me appreciate Italian Fascism, with which I had been unfamiliar.

You had other guys there like taken straight from the Third Republic in France (and some of them were in fact Swedes or Franco-Swedes raised previously in France), and you had people from Jewry well aware of Catholicism being Christianity (i e Protestants being as much Christian as Druses are Muslims or Joel Baden is a Jew) and at the same time as bitter about Catholicism as - well that attitude of "Hitler was a Catholic [unstated but relevant : believer]" and "Catholic Antisemitism prepared the Holocaust" (both of which are despicable lies) and making their attitude to Christianity hinge on that.

They were like in one home chronicle enumerating positive and negative traits for each.

HG : positivt : han är romantisk, negativt : han är kristen

Another home chronicle told my then best pal sth about inadvisability of homosexuality, I got the hint, he assured me it was just a joke, and years later admitted his boarding school home had a running rumour about our friendship being a gay couple - which he was punched in the stomach so as not to reveal it.

(That other home was where the King had gone to that school, myself I was on the home of Olof Palme - where I also was when he was murdered).

So, the consensus of CPS in Malmö and its shrinks was, that school (or one for mentally handicapped) was what I needed, rather than one more year of homeschooling, even with the best correspondence course for ninth grade and then getting back to class rooms after chosing literary "line" and getting among my likes rather than among my opposites.

The one good thing : that school made me Roman Catholic (by trying to do the exact opposite, and RC pals were not encouraged to get to know me well, unlike esoterics and atheopaths).

III

5:09 * not clapping *

More on Why he is Wrong - and Where he is Right

Why Joel Baden is Wrong · More on Why he is Wrong - and Where he is Right

There Are Many Voices in the Bible, Thank God
The Nantucket Project | 22.XII.2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U_mwUBxpvs

I

1:25 The Bible, Homer and Virgil.

When St Augustine tells diehard Pagans they are wrong, he takes the text from Virgil to show what Daniel showed Nebuchandnezzar about Bel and the Dragon.

Yep, Pallas Athena and the rest were very worshipped in Troy. Nope, she was a fairly bad debtor to Trojans.

II

4:37 We do NOT clearly accept the Bible can generate new meaning.

In 813 when the council of Tours told priests that they needed to give a sermon on days like Sundays and Feast days in Roman or Theudic tongue (Franco-Provençal and Alamannic German?) depending on audience, the background was, they had just been changing the pronunciation of Latin.

Imagine Greek Church decided to change from "en tee arkhee o theos" to "en tay ark-hay ho t-heos" ... suddenly people in Athens would be at a loss. That is what had happened when Alcuin had come around.

So the sermon was the equivalent of adding, after "en tay ark-hay ho t-heos" the real vernacular "stin arkhee o theos".

But sermons also do explain ... well, yes, but the sermon can be very conservative at that. Imagine a Greek bishop for Easter rereading the Easter sermon of St John Chrysostom - for the thousandth and six hundredth or so time in that Cathedral.

In fact, when I see a text generate meaning that is new, I do a check whether it is contradicting old meaning that is canonic. Example : "a tower the top of which shall reach heaven".

I go "oh, they tried to build a three step rocket". The important check is not, did they have the knowhow to succeed (probably not and God averted a major disaster by stopping them back then up to fairly recently at Cape Canaveral), the important check is, "is this interpretation contradicting what all the Church Fathers have said?"

Since I checked St Thomas' Postilla on Genesis, it seems "no, Church Fathers were not united on skyscraper, some were for skyline and tower as metonymical for towerS". In other words, phew, I am not contradicting sth all the Church Fathers say on the subject.

III

5:21 No, you don't know that the Flood story in the Bible is not the original one.

Moses lived from 1590 to 1470 BC. He was probably born just a bit before Sesostris III died. But the funeral ship of Sesostris III is carbon dated to 1713 BC. About one century (in carbon dates, which take some squeezing if carbon 14 in atmosphere is on the rise) after the oldest clay tablet involving whichever Mesopotamian and Polytheistic version of the Flood story is oldest.

And Moses was relying on oral or written tradition among Hebrews, so, their oral or lost written pre-Mosaic version would very possibly have been older than the possibly recent attempt of Sumerians and Babylonians to retell the Flood story in a polytheistic way.

5:40 I think the Mesopotamian and Polytheistic Flood stories add up to a grand total of three.

The one in Atrahasis, the one in Enuma Elish and the one in Gilgamesh - where it only comes in because that man (some say he was Nimrod) bragged about having gone to a mountain to see Utnapishtim (Sumerian for Noah), which was probably a lie.

The real background would possibly have been Nimrod sees opposition from some, they say "Noah wouldn't have liked this" and he said "you know what, I went and saw Noah". After Babel's confusion, Noah is by some remembered as Utnapishtim (no, that is not a result of gradual language change) and Nimrod (if he's the guy) as Gilgamesh.

But Atrahasis and Enuma Elish are in fact retelling Genesis material for its own sake.

5:50 "a sole survivor"

A group of survivors - or does Atrahasis or Utnapishtim get a wife created fresh for them after the Sumerian Floods?

6:00 "Too noisy for the gods"

For one of them, Enlil, right?

Imagine Nimrod pushing some new theology, calling the God of Noah "Enlil" (he could have used "Elohim" previous to confusion of tongues) and demonising him, promoting instead the trickster god "Enki" to whom he had privileged access.

Obviously considering "Enlil got a headache" was a mean but efficient propaganda move.

And, in the end, God really did get a headache (a crown of thorns) ...

IV

6:38 In fact, Noah and Shem would have tried to preserve the story correctly as family tradition - it being accessible to Moses a few (less than ten "minimal overlaps") generations later.

6:49 "the one we all talk about"

Yeah, right, how come Nordic people talk more of Noah than of Bergelmer, Greeks and Romans more of Noah than of Deucalion and Pyrrha, Iraqis more of Noah than of Utnapishtim ... I think the answer lies 2000 years back in time ... you know Whom I am referring to?

6:54 And I suppose irony is the best you can do about that reference, so far?

V

7:44 "the ark was more crowded etc"

I think the key could be, Genesis 6 is Noah's redaction, Genesis 7, 8 and 9 come from each one of his sons ... either written down on a smaller tablet or fixed for learning by heart.

In other words, there is more than one telling of certain events.

VI

7:51 The water comes both from sky and from ground.

The rain part lasted 40 days and 40 nights. After that you have 150 days when the waters "prevail".

The raven is sent out once and does not return, the dove is sent out and returns, and then returns again with an olive branch.

God tells of the no more Flood twice, and two of Noah's sons recall more or less of these words, just like Mark and Matthew tell diverse parts of the discourse on Ascension Day.

VII

9:39 As a Christian, I have always thought of Noah sacrificing.

Obviously, sacrificing some animal that is pure for sacrifice is not deleting it, since there were "seven and seven" (three and a half couples or seven couples) of those kinds. The life of those kinds has also been saved, so there is no discrepancy.

VIII

10:00 As living outside US for nearly all of my childhood (except one summer) and all of my teens and adult life, I do not have any relation to that song.

IX

11:44 If you think you can't retell the Gospels so all details from all of them are in, you are wrong.

St Augustine already did that.

And in case you ask "where they five loaves and two fish or seven loaves and some fish", I say both occasions happened.

If you ask whether Christ cleansed the temple right at the start or right at the end of His public ministry, I say both, there was a set up on "will he do it again?" and He did.

X

Title : not contradicting it.

But there is a difference between the polyphony of Palestrina and the polyphony of Stravinsky or Alban Berg.

An irreconcilible factual contradiction, making a continuous and coherent retelling impossible would be a chord of sharp dissonance.

In Palestrina you find mild dissonance - dominant seventh, fourth six appogiatura and some - and it is resolved.

That is comparable to a Bible with many apparent contradictions, but no real ones, and if you look at it, they are resolved (not always apparent which resolution is correct, but there always is at least one).

Why Joel Baden is Wrong

Why Joel Baden is Wrong · More on Why he is Wrong - and Where he is Right

Joel Baden: The Bible Doesn't Say What You Think it Does
The Nantucket Project | 2.XI.2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS7LgbMr1m4

I

12:00 Yes, one can tell a single story by adding details of interpretation.

Main story:

In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth: [5] And every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth.

Close up one:

In the beginning God created heaven, and earth. ... These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth. It reveals the "day" in the most general overview was really seven days.

Close up two:

But a spring rose out of the earth, watering all the surface of the earth. ... And they were both naked: to wit, Adam and his wife: and were not ashamed. It reveals all detail of day six.

Order of creation: Paradise formed already on day 3 (while light source was the uncreated light or at least light directly depending on God, before the sun). When God creates man, He then places him in this paradise. And gives him a guided tour. Then animals:

• either are brought fourth which had already been created earlier on days six and even five
• or were created an extra example to show Adam God's creative power. Then of course creation of Eve and Adam's words about Eve.

God's command in Genesis 1:28 comes before or after Adam's words, before or after the ensuing they were naked and not ashamed. It was part of Adam's mémoirs, the real nature of Genesis 2, but was by Moses put back into the first overview in Genesis 1.

II

12:48 At the sham diagram : order of Creation can be solved two ways, either by translating some Hebrew perfects as pluperfects (and perhaps even an imperfect followed by wa as such), or by saying God created extra examples of some kinds before Adam's eyes.

As to "one day" the words in first verses of chapter two use "day" metonymically, unlike in chapter one.

Also, chapter division is not original part of the text. They were added in 1200's by a Catholic bishop. So, first verses of chapter 2 can be considered as summing up chapter one.

As to woman's creation, most of chapter two is a close up on day six in chapter one.

III

13:04 "if one of these stories is true, by definition the other cannot be"

Sorry to hear you are going to Hell for apostasy, how about changing your mind before it's too late?

And especially do so before the poor students you are shown as misleading in this video!

IV

Bef. 14:41 In fact, 1-1=0.

If two things oppose and are equal, they cancel. Suppose you have a temperature of 5° C. Then you get two factors, one would by itself pull it down to -5 ° C, another raise it to 15° C, simultaneously, and obviously, if they are equally strong, they cancel out, temperature stays 5° C, and the change in temperature is +-0.

V

16:47 Truth cannot contradict truth.