Creation vs. Evolution : "Introibo" makes an ass of himself - unless his priest is abusing him ·
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Introibo Blogger Misrepresents Galileo Case Inter Alia
On St Joseph's Day Introibo blogger posted this:
Introibo Ad Altare Dei : The Ordinary Magisterium Of The Papacy
http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.fr/2018/03/the-ordinary-magisterium-of-papacy.html
As to the times when I wrote that I posted a reply not yet validated by the Introibo blogger, here are two webcites and these are just after I checked if he had validated and answered, and a few minutes after that, after he had added a reply.
http://www.webcitation.org/6y5X59Rx3
http://www.webcitation.org/6y5XJup47
He added no validation for my replies, nor answer to them so far, but if he does, this post will be updated.
- I
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- "But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians."
In Humani Generis, Pius XII did the reverse, like in 1820 but more explicitly : put up for dispute what had thitherto been judged on.
- Introibo Ad Altare Dei
- Explain what you mean.
—Introibo
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- Up to 1820 it was a decided thing that treating Heliocentrism as more than a Mathematical model (hypothesis as they said) was wrong.
Up to Humani Generis, the chronology of the universe was tied to Patristic exegesis of the Bible, which would be for instance the Byzantine and Roman chronologies used in liturgy, Byzantine New Years on Sept 1 dating from a Creation in 5509 BC and Roman Christmases on liturgy first Mass of Christmas Day involving Christ born 5199 After Creation, 2957 after Flood and some more.
In no way, shape or form did any Pope in 1820 or even 1836 decide that Heliocentrism is truth, or in 1950 that Evolution and Deep Time are truth, but in each case the untraditional party was given a new explicit liberty.
- Introibo Ad Altare Dei
- This was in response to a better understanding of science. As Pope Leo XIII wrote:
If dissension should arise between them [science and scripture], here is the rule also laid down by St. Augustine, for the theologian: 'Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures; and whatever they assert in their treatises which is contrary to these Scriptures of ours, that is to Catholic faith, we must either prove it as well as we can to be entirely false, or at all events we must, without the smallest hesitation, believe it to be so.' To understand how just is the rule here formulated we must remember, first, that the sacred writers, or to speak more accurately, the Holy Ghost 'Who spoke by them, did not intend to teach men these things (that is to say, the essential nature of the things of the visible universe), things in no way profitable unto salvation.' Hence they did not seek to penetrate the secrets of nature, but rather described and dealt with things in more or less figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even by the most eminent men of science. Ordinary speech primarily and properly describes what comes under the senses; and somewhat in the same way the sacred writers-as the Angelic Doctor also reminds us - 'went by what sensibly appeared,' or put down what God, speaking to men, signified, in the way men could understand and were accustomed to."Providentissimus Deus (1893)Para #16
The shift away from geocentrism began before 1950, and with good reason.
---Introibo
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- "This was in response to a better understanding of science."
Does not say so in the paragraph you quote from Providentissimus.
"The shift away from geocentrism began before 1950, and with good reason."
Also does not say so in the paragraph you quoted from Providentissimus Deus.
And the part "for good reason" is not true.
- Introibo Ad Altare Dei
- Try again, ..." 'Whatever they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature, we must show to be capable of reconciliation with our Scriptures;"
The heliocentric model is universally accepted by modern science and has no impact on faith or morals. It is therefore the shift away from geocentrism began before 1950.
The fact that you were gullible enough to follow the Palmar de Troya cult, and now recognize the "papacy" of Bawden--"Pope" Michael ("elected" by his mommy, daddy, two nice neighbors and a "female theologian") doesn't speak well for your discernment or knowledge base. Don't expect me to give credence to your knowledge of science. I'm a former NYC science teacher and hold a Masters degree in science.
My statement stands.
---Introibo
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- "The heliocentric model is universally accepted by modern science"
Even if it were true, as it is not, it does not equal "what they can really demonstrate to be true of physical nature".
"and has no impact on faith or morals"
After Earth or Purgatory, you hope to go where?
To Empyrean Heaven above/around the limits of what you hold to be visible Universe, 13.8 billion light years up?
To a kind of elfland in space, which is there in Solar System but invisible for now, as elflands sometimes are?
Or to a non-space? Well, if to a non-space, where is Christ present under the proper dimensions of His Body?
Where will your risen body be?
Or are you a Waldensian?
"It is therefore the shift away from geocentrism began before 1950."
I don't dou[b]t there has been a "shift away from" Geocentrism, nor that it began well before 1950 and, I also mentioned 1820.
My point is, no document up to and including Humani Generis in 1950 (if it is Papal) ever states Heliocentrism is true or even directly Heliocentrism is licit to believe, a Heliocentric view of Joshua 10 miracle is a licit exegesis. Haydock was ambiguous between the exegeseis.
"The fact that you were gullible enough to follow the Palmar de Troya cult, and now recognize the "papacy" of Bawden--"Pope" Michael ("elected" by his mommy, daddy, two nice neighbors and a "female theologian") doesn't speak well for your discernment or knowledge base."
Ad hominem.
"Don't expect me to give credence to your knowledge of science."
I never ever asked anyone to do that.
I did several times over ask people to give credence to their knowledge of scientific details and to logic.
"I'm a former NYC science teacher and hold a Masters degree in science."
I'd love a science debate with you - if you dare. So far, you have been blustering about my person.
- Introibo Ad Altare Dei
- Please name respected scientists who hold the geocentric view. I won't hold my breath. Vatican II apologist Robert Sungenis put out a short movie "The Principle" attempting to prove geocentrism. The contract signed by physicist Lawrence Krauss was carefully worded to avoid any mention of geocentrism, either directly or indirectly, merely stating that the documentary would cover various theories and controversies concerning cosmology. See also
Slate : I Have No Idea How I Ended Up in That Stupid Geocentrism Documentary
By Lawrence Krauss | April 8 2014 11:56 AM
http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2014/04/08/lawrence_krauss_on_ending_up_in_the_geocentricism_documentary_the_principle.html
[As said below, this was either a lie or bad memory. Note by HGL.]
The theory has no impact on faith or morals. According to theologian Pohle, "It is easy to ridicule these naive ideas [about geocentrism] from the advanced standpoint of modern science, as Draper and Flammarion have done. But no sane philosopher will argue Hell does not exist because 'there is no place for it in the Heliocentric system.' We readily admit that modern astronomy has corrected many erroneous notions and that the progress of geography and physics has exercised a wholesome influence on Eschatology." (Dogmatic Theology 12:50)
"No sane philosopher"--what does that say for you Hans? What you call "ad hominem" is not. As a lawyer, I must bring up instances of a witness having been a liar in the past to show a propensity for such things. I also will question someone's credentials if they purport to be an expert in a certain field, otherwise they are unfit to speak to the subject matter.
I am not a theologian, and this blog would not exist but for the great apostasy. YOU seem to think you are a "theologian" when you are clearly not qualified (no one presently is unless from pre-Vatican II).
I merely show what the teaching of the Church is--that's all. You seem to question the papacy of Pope Pius XII--a Vacancy Pusher as I call it.
Clearly Pohle, an eminent theologian, completely disagrees and sees NO impact on Heaven or Hell as places if you are Heliocentric. But YOU know better.
Your judgment has been shown as highly flawed and you lack the credentials as a theologian. So any further discussion is moot. I don't discuss law theories with non-lawyers, or theology with non-theologians. If you want to show how faith and morals are implicated in this matter as taught by the Church--that would be different. Over and out.
---Introibo
- HGL
- not yet validated
- part 1
- "Please name respected scientists who hold the geocentric view."
St Albert the great, St Thomas Aquinas (at least science amateur, but at that disciple of previous, the ace of science), Riccioli and, involved in Galileo case, St Robert Bellarmine : while an amateur himself, he consulted Clavius and I think also Riccioli along the process of Galileo's book.
"Vatican II apologist Robert Sungenis put out a short movie "The Principle" attempting to prove geocentrism."
I am not sure he is a Vatican II apologist by now, I think he is more SSPX, but I could be wrong.
Short? 90 minutes is in my understanding of movies full length, though of course Last Emperor and Gandhi were longer.
To prove Geocentrism? More like to prove the baselessness of Heliocentrism.
You are willing to quote slate for Krauss version of the story, here is Rick DeLano answering:
SMOKING GUN: Lawrence Krauss Admits Signing Release, Doing Interview for "The Principle"
Where he links to:
a video on an account no longer there (for some reason).
Perhaps Lawrence Krauss wanted the account closed ...?
"According to theologian Pohle, 'It is easy to ridicule these naive ideas [about geocentrism] from the advanced standpoint of modern science, as Draper and Flammarion have done. But no sane philosopher will argue Hell does not exist because 'there is no place for it in the Heliocentric system.' We readily admit that modern astronomy has corrected many erroneous notions and that the progress of geography and physics has exercised a wholesome influence on Eschatology.' (Dogmatic Theology 12:50)'
It may be noted that he was a Jesuit, a disciple of Jesuit astronomers and that was the order to which Settele belonged.
"'No sane philosopher'--what does that say for you Hans?"
In fact nothing, since I am arguing the reverse of what Flammarion et al. are doing : since Heaven and Hell exist and are places, Geocentrism has to be true.
But suppose he had shared your idea that the reverse also is not sane, well, that would say he was calling me a fool and so may be in Gehenna (Matthew 5:22). On the other hand, I may charitably suppose that unlike you he did not think the reverse argument also insane.
I'd also reply that no accurate philosopher can get around the conundrum posed by the fact that Heaven and Hell must be real places in Catholic Theology. I recall a footnote to the Leonine edition of Summa, in which Pope Innocent III was proposing to Waldensians returning to the faith a confession of faith signed under oath including the belief that I will rise in "eadem corpore quod nunc gero".
(Continued in following)
- HGL
- not yet validated
- part 2
- (Continued from previous)
"What you call "ad hominem" is not. As a lawyer, I must bring up instances of a witness having been a liar in the past to show a propensity for such things."
When I was Palmarian, I was not lying to others more than to myself, about things like certain new Marian doctrines. I did not even spread them to others, or not much. So, my being Palmarian back then says nothing about propensity to lie. Item with my accepting David Bawden, provisorically, as Pope Michael.
A bona fide position is no lie. Now, you may consider it gullible or not, but gullible as such does not mean being generally bad in logic, it means not using logic quickly to detect lies in others, which has no bearing on my qualifications to reason on the issue.
"I also will question someone's credentials if they purport to be an expert in a certain field,"
I did not have any pretention to be an Academic expert.
I am an undergraduate Latinist, and in Sweden that involves St Bridget of Vadstena and on occasion also St Thomas Aquinas (prima pars).
"otherwise they are unfit to speak to the subject matter."
That is a false ideologeme.
You are forgetting amateur expertise.
Just in case you want to take up St Thomas Aquinas' "omni artifici de sua arte loquenti credendum est" I counter that astrophysics is not exactly a practical ars, you cannot do experiments in starbuilding.
I do believe cobblers on what they have to say on soles, but not shrinks on what they have to say on souls, because while shrinks are in a way "artifices" and human soul is in a way their "ars" they may be heretics in that ars. But non-planar astronomy is not even an ars.
The other day I had to correct Mark Shea on his view of how Hebrews before Christ thought of Trinity and Incarnation, Death and Resurrection : he followed C. S. Lewis who was misled by Anglican modernists on that account.
Note, St Thomas argued that the learned knew these things explicitly, but the unlearned implicitly, having faith in the faith of the learned. The point is, he did not say we can have faith in the learning of the learned. Not in Old Testament and not in New.
(Continued on third)
- HGL
- not yet validated
- part 3
- (Continued from second)
"I am not a theologian, and this blog would not exist but for the great apostasy."
I could say the same for my own blogs.
"YOU seem to think you are a "theologian" when you are clearly not qualified (no one presently is unless from pre-Vatican II)."
In that case, the way in which the Church teaches has changed.
"I merely show what the teaching of the Church is--that's all."
You have shown nothing to the point, so far.
Providentissimus Deus does not say "the Church teaches Heliocentrism" and Divino Afflante Spiritu also does not say "the Church teaches Heliocentrism" and Humani Generis also does not say "the Church teaches Evolution".
They neither say the Church teaches Heliocentrism and Evolution to be true in faith and morals, nor even to be true in science.
These are probable occasions on which two Popes (or at least former of them) would have perhaps wished to do so, and even so ... they refrained. Perhaps the Holy Ghost prevented them from uttering what was nearly on their lips.
"You seem to question the papacy of Pope Pius XII--a Vacancy Pusher as I call it."
While I could push beginning of vacancy back to before 1958, by about 20 years, you are pushing its end to soon 38 years after it occurred.
"Clearly Pohle, an eminent theologian, completely disagrees and sees NO impact on Heaven or Hell as places if you are Heliocentric."
While that is so, you have not quoted any direct adress to the problem I just posed for what is clearly his position.
"But YOU know better."
I know better than St Thomas Aquinas in the question of Immaculate Conception, thanks to Pope Pius IX. I also know better than Pohle in this respect thanks to Trent. And to Urban VIII.
And, even more, thanks to the non-reversal of previous sentences (beyond book concerns) in cases like Anfossi case, Providentissimus Deus and your quote in Divino Afflante.
Now, let's quote myself: I'd love a science debate with you - if you dare. So far, you have been blustering about my person.
Here is your response:
"Your judgment has been shown as highly flawed and you lack the credentials as a theologian. So any further discussion is moot."
Now, that is an ad hominem. And I was not involving any credentials as a theologian either.
"I don't discuss law theories with non-lawyers, or theology with non-theologians."
That is not really a Catholic habit. You are challenged on science by an outsider ... in Catholic civilisation, unlike Pharisaic one, such challenges are heeded.
"If you want to show how faith and morals are implicated in this matter as taught by the Church--that would be different. Over and out."
I did just show how faith is implicated in a way which you found no refutation for in Pohle. You did just show how Catholic vs Pharisaic morals are involved.
- II
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- "The day may come when an opinion of this kind needs to be modified. The Church Herself allows for this possibility by not proclaiming it as definitive and binding for all time. The holding of this opinion will possibly be seen as no longer necessary for the purity of the faith. The labors of the approved theologians will, in large part, be responsible for this development. The modifications of these declarations, when and if such modification ever comes, in no way violates the infallibility or Indefectibility of the Church since the doctrine in question was never presented as infallible and irreformable teaching."
An approved theologian, unless a bishop, is as much a part of ecclesia docta as anyone else.
In other words, a man who on the theory here proposed was obliged to opine the non-infallible statement, but, at the same time, as he is responsible for the sentence being reversed, was not obeying that duty.
How do you square that?
- Introibo Ad Altare Dei
- Theologians work in tandem with the bishops. As theologian Scheeben explains, “Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to theologians, nevertheless the assistance promised to the Church requires that He should prevent them as a body from falling into error; otherwise the Faithful who follow them would all be lead astray. The consent of the theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine's dictum, 'Not to resist an error is to approve of it---not to defend a truth is to reject it.’”
Theologians are permitted to further clarify opinionative statements or think they may need to be reversed, as long as the pope has not closed off discussion by declaring the matter settled. Laymen are not theologians.
—-Introibo
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- Scheeben forgets:
- 1) laymen depend on bishops rather than on theologians;
- 2) and St Augustine's dictum is nowhere near proof that bishops explicitly approve of what theologians say, but if at all, then over centuries.
Like those in which Church Theologians taught Earth unmoved and stars moved by angels. Thomas Aquinas, Nicolas of Cusa, Riccioli.
And:
- 3) Bishops are also subject to the Pope's encyclicals.
- Introibo Ad Altare Dei
- 1. Theologians work with the bishops--"an extension" so to speak.
- 2. Pre-Vatican II the bishops were vigilant in approving what was taught in the seminaries. Hence, the the restraints placed on Congar, Ratzinger, Roncalli, etc. When Roncalli usurped the throne of St. Peter, they began to be rehabilitated, and hence came the Great Apostasy.
As to an unmoving Earth taught by Aquinas, Pope Pius XII explains:
Divino Afflante Spiritu (1943):
"The first and greatest care of Leo XIII was to set forth the teaching on the truth of the Sacred Books and to defend it from attack. Hence with grave words did he proclaim that there is no error whatsoever if the sacred writer, speaking of things of the physical order 'went by what sensibly appeared' as the Angelic Doctor says,speaking either 'in figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even among the most eminent men of science.' " (para. # 3)
- 3. Yes, bishops are subject to the pope's encyclicals, but as teachers of the Faith, they may continue to examine any opinion unless the pope authoritatively declares the matter settled.
---Introibo
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- "As to an unmoving Earth taught by Aquinas, Pope Pius XII explains:"
Neither Pius XII, in Divino Afflante, which you just quoted, nor Leo XIII in Providentissimus Deus previously quoted, states that it is "As to an unmoving Earth taught by Aquinas".
You have been left free to imagine that, but it has not been stated.
- Introibo Ad Altare Dei
- Try again. "...speaking either 'in figurative language, or in terms which were commonly used at the time, and which in many instances are in daily use at this day, even among the most eminent men of science.' "
Even scientists speak of the "sun rising" when in fact it is the Earth turning.
Maybe get a ruling from "Pope" Michael? Call his mommy and ask if he can come to the phone after he feeds the chickens.
---Introibo
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- "Even scientists speak of the "sun rising" when in fact it is the Earth turning."
That is one way in which the Encyclical WOULD be applicable if in fact the Earth were turning.
Actually, on the Classic Geocentric view, "sun rising" is also phenomenal language.
We do not believe Earth to be a plane and Sun to shift between upper side on day time and lower side at night, as Osiris worshippers did.
We believe Sun is concretely moving westward each day, at about equal height above Earth. Hence, sunrise is as much a phenomenal language to us as to you.
Also, Pope Leo XIII wisely choose a quote with a certain context.
In the days of Aquinas as well of as St Basil whom he quotes, scientific near consensus was crystalline spheres in layer after layer, for each heavenly body between us and fix stars.
St Basil explained as St Thomas quoted why Moses spoke of void and not of crystalline spheres.
If you examine St Basil a bit closer, you will even find that he was not an over devout believer in the scientific consensus of his own day.
You wanted me to get the hint YOU read between the lines in Providentissimus Deus, so, why can't I want you to get the hint which I ON MY PART read between the lines?
I am an undergraduate Latinist and my Latin Docent was a Teriary Dominican well versed in St Thomas Aquinas, and I know the difference between Thomasic positions and what now passes for Thomism.
- Introibo Ad Altare Dei
- I guess your a better Thomist than Pohle or Garrigou-Lagrange. See my answer to you above.
Over and out.
---Introibo
- HGL not yet validated
- They are Thomists in a Neo-Thomistic since, I am so in a Thomasic sense (as Neo-Thomists like to say).
As a Latinist, I am clearly qualified to read St Thomas in his original text and that includes works not translated to modern languages.
I was the other day reading De Regno, and only a few times did I have to look aside on the very recent French translation opposite page, to make sure I had misunderstood nothing.
Neo-Thomists often appeal to how St Thomas would have reasoned if he had known what scientists know now, by which they mean, accepted the conclusions of the scientists without criticism, as if they were simply empirical data catalogued.
I go to St Thomas' reasoning and to the raw data and see if the modern theorems stand up to his epistemology. Usually not.
- III
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- "The Council goes on to explain that such presentation may be done in an extraordinary manner (infallible definitions of popes and ecumenical councils), or in a universal and ordinary way (the unanimous teachings of the approved theologians or teachings of the bishops spread throughout the world)."
I would like the exact words, this is what I recall too, since, if this is so, both Young Earth Creationism and Geocentrism are covered by the Universal Ordinary magisterium of many centuries.
- Introibo Ad Altare Dei
- Neither of those topics concerns Faith or morals. The Church does not pass judgement on such topics, unless it is connected to the Faith. If a scientist intrudes upon Biblical exergesis, then the Church corrects him. For example, the Church does not declare any medical operation condemned unless it impacts morality, such as a vasectomy.
—-Introibo
- Anonymous
- Or a heart transplant, because I believe the heart needs to be harvested from a living person.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- "Neither of those topics concerns Faith or morals."
- 1) If so, the traditional stance cannot be heresy any more than the modern one;
- 2) If so, why did the Church actually pass judgement?
1633 involved a man being obliged to abjure errors. The sentence was not a private one for the diocese concerned, but was sent to the Catholic world.
Was Pope Urban VIII wrong on what concerns Faith?
"If a scientist intrudes upon Biblical exegesis, then the Church corrects him."
Young Earth Creationism and Geocentrism are part of the Church's traditional exegesis.
The other positions if accepted as science automatically change the exegesis : a man cannot believe Earth is stationary when reading the Bible and next moment that it revolves around itself and orbits the Sun when reading a science book.
Anonymous is here warning us that sometimes the Church is not as active as it should be.
- Introibo Ad Altare Dei
- I wrote a post about the Galileo affair which answers your queries (I also used the same teachings from Pope Leo and Pope Pius):
Introibo Ad Altare Dei : Galileo, The Papacy, And Modern Science
http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/10/galileo-papacy-and-modern-science.html
---Introibo
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- Answering some of your misrepresentations in that post:
"We are indebted to the Church for the Copernican revolution in science."
No.
"Copernicus delivered lectures in Rome by command of Pope Leo X, held a professional chair"
Without in these times stating anyting relative to heliocentrism.
"and published his treatise on heliocentrism by command of (and by the aid of) Pope Paul III. His work went forward to the world, bearing the sanction of the Holy See."
It is obfuscating the issue to not note that it was approved as what was then called a hypothesis, what would now be called a mathematical model, not bearing any necessary relation to reality except in mathematical results.
"The problem arose when Galileo tried to prove his theory from Scripture."
While Galileo did try to prove it from Scripture, he also adapted Geocentric proof texts, and that is how his book earlier on had become censored by Cardinal Bellarmine.
So, not only he was not free to prove Heliocentrism from Scripture, he was not even free to adapt Scriptural understanding, as an understanding of fact and of facts involved in some scriptural events, like Joshua 10, to Heliocentrism.
- Introibo Ad Altare Dei
- You offer no citations and you are "correcting" the work of Bishop John Walsh, one of the great theologians from the Vatican Council? Give it a rest Hans. Maybe "Pope" Michael can make you a "cardinal" of the Congregation of the Inquisition located next to the barn.
---Introibo
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- "You offer no citations"
Which exact fact about the case as I presented it do I need one for? Which of them are you in doubt about?
You know, the highest cardinal of the very first Pope was mending fishernets.
As for me, I know my position, it is not one of teaching from some cathedra (Papal or lower) but arguing, like St Justin Martyr and like Gilbert Keith Chesterton.
Pius XI, very far from being angry about his involvement in Lay Apostolate, made him a knight commander with Star of order of St Gregory.
So, you have two options for real rebuttals:
- 1) argue me wrong as to facts;
- 2) argue me wrong as per defined doctrine.
Telling me I have no teaching authority is boxing a straw man to the ground.
John Walsh's view of the Galileo case may have been yours, he may have pushed for including the words "on faith and morals" into the definition about infallibility for this reason, does not mean each and every bishop on the Council shared exactly his concern about this. Does not mean the Council dogmatised his position about this.
Btw, as you called me gullible, as to your story about John Walsh, so far I am. I will check, though, and I will certainly not defer more to him than to St Robert Bellarmine or to the literal definition of Trent or to Sts Basil and Thomas.
- Introibo Ad Altare Dei
- argue me wrong as per defined doctrine.
Ok. All modern pre-Vatican II theologians see nothing wrong with heliocentrism and the faith as I explained in another comment to you on this post.
Telling me I have no teaching authority is boxing a straw man to the ground.
No, it's a fact.
Over and out.
---Introibo
- HGL not yet validated
- So, you chose to argue me wrong as per defined doctrine ...
"All modern pre-Vatican II theologians see nothing wrong with heliocentrism"
Except the one who edited a book about nine papal condemnations of Heliocentrism, reedited by Pope Michael. A lawyer was pretending he couldn't buy that, despite the older imprimatur of the work, since an old imprimatur needs to be renewed. He obviously favours papacy of Bergoglio.
Bishops were not forbidden to use older (also pre-Vatican II) theologians.
The criterium you gave about bishops implicitly approving Heliocentrism because they approve their theologians and not to oppose error etc, is also a criterium on which a bishop over populations like Gipsies, Amerindians, Esquimaux, Africans, perhaps Lapps, tolerating in them both Geocentrism and Animistic beliefs, such as those differing St Thomas and St Francis from modern Neo-Thomists is insofar approving of them also.
AND since the totality of bishops, not just the majority, is required in the idea of ordinary magisterium, even a minority of bishops can keep the faith up.
F u r t h e r m o r e ... Church, as you said, can define doctrine in faith and morals. If I can be wrong about rejecting Heliocentrism in faith and morals, obviously, the condemnation under Pope Urban VIII which was then promulgated by him was also possibly infallible.
That is perhaps the precise risk on which Leo XIII stopped short of even saying as a mention, directly "we now know Heliocentrism is true", that is perhaps the precise risk on which Pius VII indeed required Anfossi to let Settele's book pass, but did not require Anfossi to believe Settele was correct.
That is have no teaching authority is a fact. But telling me so, as if I had pretended to have one, is adressing a straw man.
- IV
- Anonymous
- So does this basically mean if a pope makes a statement regarding faith and morals (assuming non infallibly) that no theologin or person can take an alternate stand or argue against it except a future pope? Also what is the threshold level? ( a speech, a letter, an encyclical, etc)
- Introibo Ad Altare Dei
- If the pope declares a mater settled, it is settled. No theologians may question it. Otherwise, the theologians may continue to further examine it, but not laymen.
As I wrote to another commenter above,” As theologian Scheeben explains, "Although the assistance of the Holy Ghost is not directly promised to theologians, nevertheless the assistance promised to the Church requires that He should prevent them as a body from falling into error; otherwise the Faithful who follow them would all be lead astray. The consent of the theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine's dictum, 'Not to resist an error is to approve of it---not to defend a truth is to reject it.'"
God Bless,
—-Introibo
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- // The consent of the theologians implies the consent of the Episcopate, according to St. Augustine's dictum, 'Not to resist an error is to approve of it---not to defend a truth is to reject it.'" //
That is iffy, since theologians may get more involved in technical details than bishops can fully keep up with and as episcopal and even papal negligence (Honorius) have been heard of.
But it was probably fairly correct for Scheeben's time, which was before Pope Pius XI approved of the lay apostolate.
"né à Meckenheim, près de Bonn (Allemagne) le 1er mars 1835 et décédé à Cologne le 21 juillet 1888,"
Matthias Joseph Scheeben
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthias_Joseph_Scheeben
Theologians when he began were generally NOT definite supporters of Heliocentrism, at least Haydock wasn't and even when he ended, they were not fans of Darwin.
- Introibo Ad Altare Dei
- Darwininsm was not being discussed. You may believe geocentrism if you wish, but heliocentrism has the manifest weight of the credible evidence, as well as no implications on the faith.
Over and out.
---Introibo
- HGL not yet validated
- "You may believe geocentrism if you wish,"
Then you are not condemning my position as per defined doctrine.
"but heliocentrism has the manifest weight of the credible evidence,"
Which you were challenged to show in debate, not just to pretend as a matter of your superior knowledge inaccessible to the likes of me.
"as well as no implications on the faith."
So, as Pohle said it had none, perhaps you having read him more than I could say which alternative he gives for things like:
- locality of Our Lord's risen body up to Armageddon
- locality of Our Lady's assumed body
- locality of our own future risen bodies if we get to Heaven.
He was perhaps saying this had no implication, but you didn't quote where he explained whether it was:
- Empyrean Heaven (as previously) just billions of light years further up
- an elfland within visible space (corporeal but invisible to us)
- or non-spatial, which, as per Pope Innocent III (unless I missrecall) formula for repenting heretics is already condemned as an option.
- V
- Anonymous
- Unless what the pope says contradicts a previous pope or defined doctrine? (Why we are ok saying VII is bad)
- Introibo Ad Altare Dei
- The pope cannot contradict what a prior pope has dogmatically defined! The Holy Ghost would prevent that from happening. If that were to happen (think: Vatican II), it’s a sure sign that the pope, as a private theologian, fell into heresy and lost his office!
—-Introibo
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- What if a Pope gives liberty where a previous Pope has given an opiniative level at least decision?
- Introibo Ad Altare Dei
- No problem. An opinionative decision is neither infallible nor immune from revocation.
---Introibo
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- Well, still less is the liberty.
Also, note I said "an opiniative level at least decision", namely not granting that Pope Urban's inquisitors only went that far.
I find it likely it is doctrinal level, as with the judgement on Berengar of Tours, which is cited in Denzinger. Despite containing no "anatema sit" or anything like that, just a firm demand that Berengar of Tours revoke his errors, which he did, like Galileo did.
- Introibo Ad Altare Dei
- You reject the way the Church teaches us. As long as you do, you will always be in error and find "errors" where none exist.
---Introibo
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- "You reject the way the Church teaches us."
You reject the way the Church chooses Popes.
In fact you don't really do that, you reject the outcome in 1958 as showing that the way had become inadequate. Pius XII (whose words about "whatever excommunication" have been used to argue that a freemason had become eligible, even if such, especially if secretly) was (if honest) not foreseeing a new situation.
I can say a similar thing about how Scheeben viewed theologians, and espacially that since his time Pius XI has changed, since involving lay theologians in the work.
- Introibo Ad Altare Dei
- Pope Pius XII dispensed from ECCLESIASTICAL impediments. Heresy is an impediment of Divine-positive Law from which NO ONE may dispense.
YOU reject how the Church chooses popes. Was not your former "pontiff" Clemente Domingues, "mystically crowned" "pope" by Christ Himself? Can you cite another time that happened please? What theologians or Church Fathers teach about it?
Didn't think so.
Over and out.
---Introibo
- HGL not yet validated
- For Pope, no.
For secular rulers, St Joan of Arc was on Christ's request for some hours ruling queen of France, so that she could dedicate France to Christ as King, and so that the King enthroned, Charles VII, as I recall, should rule as Christ's vassal.
Furthermore, I am Palmarian no more, less due to this than to "the Antichrist sees the world from the fourth dimension, the Most Pure Virgin from the eighth dimension".
God created space with three dimensions, as I know from St Augustine, and of non-spatial parameters the word is improperly used.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- "Pope Pius XII dispensed from ECCLESIASTICAL impediments."
He didn't say so explicitly.
"Heresy is an impediment of Divine-positive Law from which NO ONE may dispense."
That may apply to Heliocentrism as well, that in Anfossi case and so on only ecclesial impediements were removed.
- Introibo Ad Altare Dei
- Wrong!
Pope Pius Cannot dispense from Divine Law so why would he "say so explicitly"? He wasn't writing to laymen who fancy themselves "theologians". Here is what canonists said,
“All those who are not impeded by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law are validly eligible [to be elected pope]. Wherefore, a male who enjoys use of reason sufficient to accept election and exercise jurisdiction, and who is a true member of the Church can be validly elected, even though he be only a layman. Excluded as incapable of valid election, however, are all women, children who have not yet arrived at the age of discretion, those afflicted with habitual insanity, heretics and schismatics.” (Wernz-Vidal, Jus Can. 2:415)
Thus heresy is not a mere “ecclesiastical impediment” or censure of the type that Pius XII enumerated and suspended in paragraph 34 of "Vacantis Apostolicae Sedis." It is instead an impediment of DIVINE LAW which Pius XII did not suspend — and indeed could not have suspended, precisely because it is one of Divine Law.
I notice that you haven't responded to me regading your assertion that **I** don't understand the way the Church chooses popes. You accepted "Gregory XVII" as "pope" because he was "mystically crowned" by Christ. Since you understand how the Church chooses popes, this must be a valid way of doing it. Please cite where the Church chooses popes via "mystical coronation by Christ."
See my comment to my readers directly below.
---Introibo
- Introibo Ad Altare Dei
- To my readers:
Hans Georg Lundahl keeps sending me long comments in an attempt to debate. I love a good debate and I never run from one. However, my time is limited, unlike Hans who doesn't work. I therefore cannot go back and forth with anyone more than a few times. What I will do is put out a post that geocentrism is in no way a "dogma" as Science Deniers, who want to impose their views as obligatory, believe. I will do so within the next couple of months.
- HGL not yet validated
- "Pope Pius Cannot dispense from Divine Law so why would he "say so explicitly"?"
Well, for one thing, because there has been an inclarity about this.
"He wasn't writing to laymen who fancy themselves 'theologians'."
The inclarity is shared by theologians who use it to attack the position that Roncalli, Montini, perhaps Luciani, then Wojtyla, Ratzinger and Bergoglio were not eligible.
These theologians involve the back then Novus Ordo priest, Dominican Tertiary, Anders Pilz, who was also my Latin Docent and one year long my father confessor. Unless my memory misrepresents his position, but I don't think so.
As to Wernz-Vidal, Jus Can. 2:415, it was published in 1928-1938, meaning before Pacelli was even elected, meaning, if he was eligible and if he was Pope when relegislating about conclaves, he was able to override their position.
Precisely as much as Providentissimus Deus would have overridden previous theologians (including St Robert Bellarmine) condemning Heliocentrism, if Pope Leo XIII had shown an unambiguous explicit intention of that, which he did not.
"However, my time is limited, unlike Hans who doesn't work."
My work is writing - both essays and my parts of debates.
(Stories and poems and musical compositions usually secular are more seldom occurrences).
My blogs did at latest count contain more than 6000 posts, making for definitely over one post a day. That is full time work.
Some people who pretend I do not work have also pretended I take myself for a theologian in the full sense, and should for that reason be shunned, these people have helped to block my blog posts from being monetised in print by the guys who would normally be the most prone to do so, namely Catholic and traditional faithful.
If you think I bluff, I posted a comment linking to my own reblogging of the debates I participate in (which you did not validate), and you can check the tab "other blogs by same writer" in the top section.
"What I will do is put out a post that geocentrism is in no way a "dogma" as Science Deniers, who want to impose their views as obligatory, believe."
Looking forward to refuting it, meanwhile you have two options:
- Geocentrism is as much dogma after 1633 as Transsubstantiation was after revocations of the errors Berengar of Tours had been guilty of, since there was in both cases a judgement of one particular and this judgement being sent to the whole Church;
- or Astronomy is somehow too unconcerned with dogma for this to be possible, at least on this issue, which I do not believe is true, and in that case Popes have no more power than the next guy in the street to oblige us to take Heliocentrism for the best conclusion of science.
As to "science deniers" that is an ad hominem. We do not agree we deny science rightly so called, we consider we call out science wrongly so called.
Also, if you left your combox free, with some occasional cleanup of spam comments, you can get support from other commenters. Meaning you need not take the debate on your own full time.
- Hans Georg Lundahl
- "I notice that you haven't responded to me regading your assertion that **I** don't understand the way the Church chooses popes. You accepted "Gregory XVII" as "pope" because he was "mystically crowned" by Christ. Since you understand how the Church chooses popes, this must be a valid way of doing it. Please cite where the Church chooses popes via 'mystical coronation by Christ.'"
[He did not validate the posted comment in which I gave St Joan of Arc's action about the Kingdom of France as a parallel! But I noticed this after I had written this response.]
It could pass for a strawman, since I have since then accepted Pope Michael who at least opines, last time I checked, like you, mystical coronations are impossible.
I can get only near precedents, namely, as mentioned, St Joan of Arc mediating Christ's dispositions for the kingdom of France, and Sts Bridget and Catherine telling Popes to return and then that the Roman Pope rather than the Avignon Pope was the true one.
However, since a mystical coronation of Michel Colin after Christ rejected Pacelli in 1950 would solve a few problems and not interfere with Pope Michael being Pope (Gaston Tremblay forced an adbication in 1968, which therefore is not a valid one and Clement XV, if such, died in 1974, 16 years before conclave convoked as emergency conclave by Bawden, this still leaves Bawden as not interfering with a non-vacancy in the conclave where he was elected and took the name Pope Michael).
- Introibo Ad Altare Dei
- Translation: “I never understood how the Church elects popes.”
Clearly, St Joan of Arc didn’t claim anyone to be “mystically crowned pope.” Not even close.
Michael Colin was a seriously disturbed individual who claimed to be “Consecrated a bishop” and crowned “Pope” Clement XV by Christ Himself. Colin was excommunicated by Pope Pius XII in 1951. Colin “ordained” female “priests” who can only “offer mass (sic)” for other women while kneeling.
This is apparitionism in the extreme. Private revelations supplant Church doctrine. Mystical coronations, supernatural episcopal consecrations, female “priests” —-what a bunch of demonic inspired insanity!
You write, “after Christ rejected Pacelli in 1950.”
Are you claiming Pope Pius XII lost the papal office? Careful, “Pope” Bawden recognizes Pope Pius! You might be excommunicated as he reads his decree from the papal pig sty in Kansas!
Compared to you, Bawden seems sane.
—-Introibo
- HGL not yet validated
- I did not know already Colin was ordaining "women priests".
If it had been Gaston Tremblay now ... do you have an example of a woman ordained already by Colin?
Well, guess that would rule out the other apparitionist alternative too.
Apart from the virulence, and pending the further information asked, thank you for the correction.
- VI
- Ryan Goff
- If the Pope is the Vicar of Christ then what higher authority on earth can there be? Surely a Pope would outrank a king or a judge. If you don’t have the right to resist an order of those people by what right do you have to resist the orders of a Pope?
- Introibo Ad Altare Dei
- It’s very straightforward Ryan! Unfortunately, many people go to great lengths to convince themselves (and others) that you can “resist” a true pope.
God Bless,
—-Introibo
- Anonymous
- "If the Pope is the Vicar of Christ then what higher authority on earth can there be?"
ANS: Salza, Gruner, Dimond, Matt, Williamson, Fellay, Siscoe, etc. etc.
- Introibo Ad Altare Dei
- @Anon 4:26
Lol! Funny yet sadly true!
—-Introibo
- HGL not yet validated
- "If you don’t have the right to resist an order of those people by what right do you have to resist the orders of a Pope?"
In fact we do sometimes have the right to resist the orders of Kings and Judges.
Even of Emperors.
I'd like to recommend Dictionnaire Apologétique de la Foi Catholique, the article Insurrection Légitime.
It is pre-Vatican II.
Neither St Thomas nor this article pretends directly we can resist Popes, but we do have saints resisting them momentarily (until they shape up within short notice), but both St Thomas and this article clearly say we can on occasion have a right and duty to resist secular rulers.
Applications include:
- Cristeros - forbidden by Pius XI to continue
- Franco - not forbidden, since Pius XI had seen the bad faith of the enemies of the Church about Cristeros
- my own shots in Likenäs, resisting an order about taking me to psychiatric evaluation.
- VII
- JoAnn
- Introibo - The recognize and resisters use the Bible verse Galatians 2:11 where Paul rebukes Peter to his face to vindicate their stance. How do you explain this bible verse?
- Introibo Ad Altare Dei
- Joann,
This is a favorite verse of Protestantism to disprove the papacy, but it does no such thing. This passage has nothing to do with St. Peter leading people astray. St. Paul opposed St. Peter because he was separating himself from the Gentiles during meals. Why was this significant? St. Peter was the one who infallibly taught that the Gentiles were equal members of the New Covenant. Peter was the one who made this monumental decision as we read in the book of Acts. St. Paul was criticizing Peter’s conduct, not his teaching authority.
In the same way there were popes that did horrible things, e.g., fornicate, lie, steal, and even kill. They were rebuked as to their conduct, not their teaching or for acts of heresy! The ONLY sin that deprives a pope of his office is heresy—nothing else. (See theologian Haydock, for example on Galatians)
I hope this helps!
God Bless,
—-Introibo
- JoAnn
- Introibo - Your explanation of Galatians 2:11 made the verse crystal clear to me!! Thanks much!!
- Introibo Ad Altare Dei
- Always glad to help, Joann!
—-Introibo
- Anonymous
- The Dimond Brothers made a recent video on Galatians 2 in which they claim to have discovered that the Cephas rebuked by Paul was not Peter but another person. Doing some additional research of my own I believe the Dimond Brothers did not discover anything on their own but that they plagiarized arguments on the subject that date back many years.
But I also found that some of the great saints did not agree with the Dimond Brothers and did hold that cephas was the same Simon Peter. Introibo, are you familiar with this discussion on the real identity of Cephas?
Introibo Ad Altare DeiMarch 21, 2018 at 10:02 AM
I honestly do not know of any theologian who teaches anything on the "real identity" of Cephas. What I do know of the Galatians verse, I explained in a comment above. If you have a citation, please pass it on to me and I'll dig deeper.
---God Bless,
---Introibo
- JoAnn
- Introibo - I was intrigued by Anon 8:03’s post and came up with the following concerning St. Peter and Cephas.
Clement in the fifth book of his Hypotyposes says that Cephas in Galatians 2:11 was one of the 70 disciples and not St. Peter.
new advent.org/fathers/250101.htm
(Book 1, Chapter 12, Paragraph 2)
Is the above of any significance? Thanks.
- Introibo Ad Altare Dei
- Thank you for that citation Joann! It would further destroy the Protestant case, because St. Paul would not even be addressing St. Peter! Thank you for the research!
God Bless,
---Introibo
- JoAnn
- Introibo - Wouldn’t the above citation also affect the Recognize and Resisters theory?
- Introibo Ad Altare Dei
- Absolutely!!
---Introibo
- HGL not yet validated
- At least to some extent.
We cannot say the belief that Cephas in Galatians was St Peter has not been at least tolerated by the ordinary magisterium.
Also, if it had been St Peter, as per Dimond brothers' video it arguably was not, it would have been a short resistance and St Peter mending quickly - that is of significance as to those who recognise and resist decade after decade.
- VIII
- Anonymous
- Hi Introibo,
You've stated (on this thread):
"I am not a theologian,..."
"When Roncalli usurped the throne of St. Peter,..."
"As a lawyer, I must bring up instances of a witness..."
Could you please provide the requisite solid evidence for the non-papacy of John XXIII/Roncalli, and then show/explain how same proves beyond all doubt that Roncalli was a pseudo-pope/anti-pope?
Thank you.
- Introibo Ad Altare Dei
- The evidence against Roncalli:
Roncalli rehabilitated various theologians formerly considered suspect by the Holy See or even condemned for heterodoxy. Some of them were exponents of the Nouvelle Théologie (New Theology). Philippe Levillain wrote this about the theological commission that prepared the Council:
"Among the advisors, one noted the presence of Frs. Congar, de Lubac, Hans Küng and others. The whole group of theologians implicitly condemned by the Encyclical Humani Generis in 1950 had been called to Rome at the behest of John XXIII" (See [reference left out]
The list of the most important exponents of Nouvelle Théologie that became prominent under John XXIII includes Karl Rahner, Yves Congar, Henri de Lubac, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Edward Schillebeeckx, Hans Küng and Joseph Ratzinger.
Was influenced by the excommunicated modernist Loisy and by modernist writer Duschene. (The Destruction of the Christian Tradition, updated and revised, 2006, Rama P. Coomaraswamy p. 134)
-Was involved in the youth organization “Opera Dei Congress” that was dissolved by Pope St. Pius X for modernism. (The Destruction of the Christian Tradition, updated and revised, 2006, Rama P. Coomaraswamy p. 134)
-Was associated with notorious modernists such as Bishop Radini Tedeschi, Bishop Carlo Ferrara of Milan, Bishop Bonomello of Cremona, and Lamberdo Beauduin. (The Destruction of the Christian Tradition, updated and revised, 2006, Rama P. Coomaraswamy p. 134 cited Giancarlo Zizola’s, The Utopia of Pope John XXIII (Orbis: N.Y., 1978)
-His closest seminary friends including roommate (later Bishop of Bergamo) who assisted at his ordination were excommunicated for modernism. (The Destruction of the Christian Tradition, updated and revised, 2006, Rama P. Coomaraswamy p. 134 cited E. Poulat (Integrisme et Catholicisme integral)
-Was a Professor of Patristics at the Lateran University, and removed several months “on suspicion of modernism” and for teaching the theories of Rudolf Steiner, an illuminati member and originator of “The Science of the Spirit known as Anthroposophy.” A file dated to 1925, the Holy Office had maintained a dossier on Angelo Roncalli which read “suspected of Modernism.”
-Roncalli continued a close association with the defrocked priest, Ernesto Buonaiuti, who was excommunicated for heresy in 1926. (Lawrence Elliott, I Will Be Called John, 1973, pp. 90-92)
-When Roncalli was Nuncio to France, he was appointed Observer for the Holy See to the United Nations cultural agency, UNESCO. In July 1951, he gave a speech “lavishly praising UNESCO…” Roncalli called UNESCO “this great international organization…” (Alden Hatch, A Man Named John, p. 117 -118)
-During his Nunciature in Paris, “Cardinal Roncalli attended in civilian clothes the Great Lodge where he found again the Jesuit Riquet. His adviser was Maurice Bredet, author of ‘Mystic and Magic,’ who boasted that he had prophesied the Tiara to Cardinal Roncalli.” (The Hidden, But Victorious Way Of The Free-Masonry, Rev. Fr. Henri Mouraux)
– “When necessary he simply contradicted previous Popes. He rejected in toto Gregory XVI’s Mirari Vos and Singulari Nos, and the Quanta Cura of Pius IX, to which was attached, as appendix, The Syllabus of Errors. John was ruthless in dismissing the views of his predecessors.” When asked about following in the footsteps of so great a man as Pius XII, John XXIII responded, “I try to imagine what my predecessor would have done, and then I do just the opposite.”
-Was greatly influenced by modernist heretic Teilhard de Chardin.
(Continued below)
- Introibo Ad Altare Dei
- his encyclical Pacem In Terris (1963), he stated in paragraph #11, "Also among man's rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public." This is blatant heresy. Although the Vatican II sect did not begin until 1964 with the promulgation of Lumen Gentium by Antipope Paul VI, we can be morally certain Roncalli was not pope from at least this date. His encyclical clearly repudiates the teachings of all previous popes, most especially Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX: "Now we arrive at another cause of the evils with which we suffer at seeing the Church afflicted at this moment, to wit, this “indifferentism,” or this perverse opinion spread everywhere by the devious action of bad men. According to it, one could achieve eternal salvation by any profession of faith, as long as the customs are upright and honest. It will not be difficult for you, in such a clear and evident matter, to drive so fatal an error from the midst of the peoples under your care. Indeed, since the Apostle had warned us that “there is but one God, one faith, one baptism” (Eph 4:5), those who believe that all religions offer the means to reach eternal salvation must fear and comprehend that, according to the testimony of the Savior Himself, “those who are not with Christ are against Him” (Luke 11:23); and that they scatter in sadness, since they do not gather with Him. Consequently, there is no doubt that “they who do not profess the Catholic Faith and maintain it whole and inviolate will be eternally lost” … From this infected source of “indifferentism” flows that absurd and erroneous maxim, or rather this delirium, that it is necessary to grant everyone “freedom of conscience.” This most pernicious error has its way prepared by a full and immoderate freedom of opinion that is widely spread for the ruin of religious and civil society. Some repeat with extreme impudence that it brings an advantage for religion. However, St. Augustine asked: “What could be a worse evil for the soul than the liberty of error?”"--Pope Gregory XVI, Mirari Vos (1832)--Emphasis mine.
He was publicly praised by the Masonic Lodges for promoting ecumenism.
(Compiled from various sources)
—-Introibo
- HGL not yet validated
- part 1
- "Roncalli rehabilitated various theologians formerly considered suspect by the Holy See or even condemned for heterodoxy."
Pius VII in the Settele-Anfossi case?
Gregory XVI going further than either Pius VII or Leo XIII in accomodating Heliocentrism, taking Galileo off index? (1836)
"Some of them were exponents of the Nouvelle Théologie (New Theology)."
How is it related, if at all, to Divino Afflante Spiritu?
(Citing Philippe Levillain via Introibo)
"Among the advisors, one noted the presence of Frs. Congar, de Lubac, Hans Küng and others. The whole group of theologians implicitly condemned by the Encyclical Humani Generis in 1950 had been called to Rome at the behest of John XXIII"
Implicitly condemned by Humani Generis? In what way? The paragraph of Ordinary Magisterium?
Or the paragraphs relating to Darwinism, even if they thought they had been using the liberty outlined in a moderate way?
"Was influenced by the excommunicated modernist Loisy and by modernist writer Duschene."
Being influenced by someone excommunicated is not in itself a matter for excommunication.
What exact proposition of Roncalli or even of Lubac was condemned in the condemnation of Loisy?
"Was involved in the youth organization “Opera Dei Congress” that was dissolved by Pope St. Pius X for modernism."
So, a bishop who had been involved in Action Française, dissolved by Pius XI is also suspect of heresy?
"Was associated with notorious modernists such as Bishop Radini Tedeschi, Bishop Carlo Ferrara of Milan, Bishop Bonomello of Cremona, and Lamberdo Beauduin."
Apart from Lamberdo Beauduin, they seem to have been bishops?
"His closest seminary friends including roommate (later Bishop of Bergamo) who assisted at his ordination were excommunicated for modernism."
Both Farel and one early Jesuit were involved in the Cénacle de Meaux. Farel was obviously excommunicated for Protestantism, does that make Martial Mazurier a Protestant? True, he had made a retraction first...
"Was a Professor of Patristics at the Lateran University, and removed several months 'on suspicion of modernism' and for teaching the theories of Rudolf Steiner, an illuminati member and originator of 'The Science of the Spirit known as Anthroposophy.' A file dated to 1925, the Holy Office had maintained a dossier on Angelo Roncalli which read 'suspected of Modernism.'"
That Rudolf Steiner was originator of Anthroposophy is not doubtful. That that makes him an illuminati member however is.
And I would like to know exactly what tenets of Steiner (who presumably believed that 2+2=4, so all his tenets can't have been equally bad) he was suspected of teaching and in what way he taught them.
Now, if he was removed, he came back after several months. If he was not requested to abjure any tenet of Steiner, either he hadn't taught his theories with approval, but critically, or he had not taught any clearly heretical one of them.
Being in a file with "suspect of" equals a suspicion, not solid proof. (Continued in part 2)
- HGL not yet validated
- part 2
- (Continued from part 1)
"Roncalli continued a close association with the defrocked priest, Ernesto Buonaiuti, who was excommunicated for heresy in 1926."
In what intention? Converting him?
"When Roncalli was Nuncio to France, he was appointed Observer for the Holy See to the United Nations cultural agency, UNESCO. In July 1951, he gave a speech 'lavishly praising UNESCO…' Roncalli called UNESCO 'this great international organization…'"
UNESCO is great in the literal sense, as in big. His Pope or supposed such, Pius XII, in 1951 had no beef with the Nuncio to France praising UNESCO.
"During his Nunciature in Paris, 'Cardinal Roncalli attended in civilian clothes the Great Lodge where he found again the Jesuit Riquet. His adviser was Maurice Bredet, author of "Mystic and Magic," who boasted that he had prophesied the Tiara to Cardinal Roncalli.'”
We would like to know where Rev. Fr. Henri Mouraux got this from.
“When necessary he simply contradicted previous Popes. He rejected in toto Gregory XVI’s Mirari Vos and Singulari Nos, and the Quanta Cura of Pius IX, to which was attached, as appendix, The Syllabus of Errors. John was ruthless in dismissing the views of his predecessors.” When asked about following in the footsteps of so great a man as Pius XII, John XXIII responded, “I try to imagine what my predecessor would have done, and then I do just the opposite.”
Sources, please?
"Was greatly influenced by modernist heretic Teilhard de Chardin."
Sources, please?
Plus, what Pius XII making a Deep Time pronouncement (less high ranking than encyclical) in 1951?
Plus, are you considering perhaps "cosmic liturgy" as more aggravating than admitting Heliocentrism, Deep Time and Evolution? I'd consider St Thomas and St Francis give a good case for a cosmic liturgy, but not for what Teilhard shares with Pius XII.
"his encyclical Pacem In Terris (1963), he stated in paragraph #11, "Also among man's rights is that of being able to worship God in accordance with the right dictates of his own conscience, and to profess his religion both in private and in public." This is blatant heresy."
Even when it says "RIGHT" dictates of his own conscience?
Even if Mirari Vos is doubtful, since Gregory XVI was arguably Heliocentric previous to election, and while Pius VII had taken Heliocentric books off index, for Settele, he did not explicitly say Heliocentrism was OK to believe.
(Continued in part 3)
- HGL not yet validated
- part 3
- (Continued from part 2)
"Although the Vatican II sect did not begin until 1964 with the promulgation of Lumen Gentium by Antipope Paul VI,"
You mean "subsistit in"? Actually, if you know scholastic terminology, "subsistit in" involves "is". Man subsists in me, in you, in JoAnn, in Anonymous (once or several times), in Jesus Christ, in the Blessed Virgin, in Adam and in Eve, in the Beast (up to his beastness, at least) and in the False Prophet. But, man is a common noun. Now, the Church is a singular noun, as is shown from context. Therefore, the Church subsists only once on Earth, from Incarnation on, and this is not heterodox.
The rest of those paragraphs is highly reminiscent of Mystici Corporis.
Or the sentence about Muslims? It could be taken in a non-stringent manner. Despite His Holiness Pope Michael not doing so (you can of course appeal to his decision against my doubt, but that would involve your recognising him).
Confer also the end of the paragraph which is decidedly less optimistic about Idolaters and Atheists. And its very end involves the duty of Mission, as per Mark 16:16. To Jews, Muslims, Protestants and Orthodox presumably too.
Or the description of how papacy interacts with bishops? Well, that is perhaps at least as much to the point with regards ordinary magisterium as Vatican Council.
"His encyclical clearly repudiates the teachings of all previous popes, most especially Popes Gregory XVI and Pius IX: 'Now we arrive at another cause of the evils with which we suffer at seeing the Church afflicted at this moment, to wit, this 'indifferentism,' ...”
Is his encyclical "clearly" indifferentist? Many EO Form holders would say no.
In the continuation, Mirari Vos reads fairly Feeneyist, and obviously you are not a Feeneyist yourself.
You actually stated, things that imply that if Mirari Vos was opinionately binding to Feeneyism back then, this can have been reversed by a subsequent Pope.
Now, here is my beef with Roncalli:
IN fact, it is easier to document notorious heresy in Roncalli after election paragraph 6 of – I think it was after all Pacem in Terris (unless it was Mater et Magistra), where he clearly implies the universe is ruled by laws unlike those of man’s moral behaviour. Which would be true if universe were moving only in mechanistic ways. But this is contrary to tradition.
New blog on the kid : What is De Facto notoriety?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2015/12/what-is-de-facto-notoriety.html
You'll know better than I whether it was Pacem in Terris or Mater et Magistra.
I checked, Pacem in Terris, § 6:
"But the mischief is often caused by erroneous opinions. Many people think that the laws which govern man's relations with the State are the same as those which regulate the blind, elemental forces of the universe. But it is not so; the laws which govern men are quite different. The Father of the universe has inscribed them in man's nature, and that is where we must look for them; there and nowhere else."
Are the forces of the universe blind and elemental? Or is there room for angelic movers and for God moving the whole shebang East to West around Earth each day, below Empyrean Heaven?
Well, you already declared, you are with Roncalli on this one ...
- HGL added
- not yet validated
- "He was publicly praised by the Masonic Lodges for promoting ecumenism."
Can Masonic lodges have had any ulterior motives for such praise?
Can the Masons have had their intenttions and Roncalli other ones?
- Outside above
- but related:
- A
- On Joseph Pohle
- "Pohles Gnadenlehre ist molinistisch geprägt."
As it should be.
"Zur modernen Philosophie stand er in Gegnerschaft."
Meaning, he is less likely to actually have taken issue with me for opposing it a bit more than he.
"Umstritten ist Pohles These, dass Soldaten, die für ihr Vaterland sterben, im Rang eines Märtyrers stünden."
Meaning, with his degree of patriotism, his support for Heliocentrism can have been at least somewhat a matter of patriotism.
Since he was born and died in successive versions of Prussia, Koblenz being in Royal Prussia by Viennese Congress, which validated Napoleon's secularisation of Cologne, and Breslau still being in the Weimar Republic as successor state to Imperial Prussia, and since his work was published during WW-I, he can have been under pressure or rather the convictions he anyway had fitted the pressure the Catholic Church was undergoing in Prussia.
It may also be noted, in 1916, Pope St/Bl Pius X had died and Benedict XV (who also validated a canon law with Pacelli as adviser, one relaxing bans on interest taking) had relaxed the fight against Modernism. I am not pushing "the vacancy" back to 1914, but 1914 to 1922 can have been one earlier vacancy or Benedict XV can have been a true but a weak Pope.
- B
- Paragraph 6
- New blog on the kid : Good and Bad Stuff in Mater et Magistra
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.fr/2015/04/good-and-bad-stuff-in-mater-et-magistra_10.html
When I correct myself, it is actually in Pacem in Terris that I find that incriminating paragraph 6.
- C
- Galatians and Dimond Brothers, first their video:
Did St. Paul Really Rebuke St. Peter In Galatians 2?
vaticancatholic.com | 11.II.2018
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxDvhDIiVc0
Then, my comment:
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : ... on Galatians 2, on whom St Paul withstood to his face
http://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2018/03/on-galatians-2-on-whom-st-paul.html
I start off sceptical, but warm up to it when they first cite Clement of Alexandria as sharing the idea and then show Pope Leo XIII as considering him a Church Father.
Unknown to me when watching it, there was an earlier publication than theirs:
The Shield of Faith : Did St. Paul withstand St. Peter to his Face?
http://divinefiat.blogspot.fr/2015/07/did-st-paul-withstand-st-peter-to-his.html
It is from Wednesday, July 22, 2015 according to settings.
- D
- Answers on Lawrence Krauss' charges:
"Thoughtcrime: The Conspiracy to Stop The Principle"
The Principle Movie | 17.XI.2015
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eVUSDy_rO0
Whence the Controversy Over The Principle Documentary?
https://www.theprinciplemovie.com/whence-the-controversy-over-the-principle-documentary/
Welcome to the Thought Crime Virtual Lab.
https://www.theprinciplemovie.com/ThoughtCrime/
- E
- Is this blog worthwhile to respond to?
- 23 Mar 2018 08:26 – 23 Mar 2018 10:25
- United Kingdom 39 France 28 Ukraine 11 Poland 2 - when I switch from countries to posts, this post gets 5 hits.
When looking in the column of posts, where the stat is given by another software, it has a total of 87 views. Least views week being 148 for this one and least views month being 605 for this one. Yesterday I recall it was among top ten for the week. But some things about stats could be fudgy.
- 22 Mar 2018 11:00 – 23 Mar 2018 10:00
- United Kingdom 665 France 231 Canada 52 Poland 31 Turkey 27 Spain 26 Ireland 23 Russia 21 Ukraine 11 United States 6 ...?
- 16 Mar 2018 11:00 – 23 Mar 2018 10:00
- United Kingdom 4253 France 2046 Turkey 413 Canada 197 Poland 148 Russia 123 Ukraine 66 United States 46 Spain 41 Ireland 25 ...
- 22 Feb 2018 – 23 Mar 2018
- United Kingdom 17,898 France 11,272 Turkey 1971 Canada 844 Russia 508 Ukraine 441 United States 272 Poland 218 Italy 144 Spain 106 ...
Pageviews last month 41,413
17,898+11,272+1971+844+508+441+272+218+144+106 = 33,674
7739 in countries with fewer views than 106 or maximally as much. That makes for 73 countries more on a medium of 106, meaning, the stats could be from all countries in the world, though there are many I haven't "caught".
Of course, the stats adding up to 33,674 views on top ten are another stat than those adding up to a total (all relevant countries) for 41,413.
