New blog on the kid: I have Consistently Said, a) I am Catholic, b) I'm a Writer, c) I Intend to Get Married ·
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere:Is It Licit to Point Out Who the Man of Sin Is or Isn't? Overall Yes ·
All the Bible is Essential Doctrine, If You Have Time to Read
What Charlie Kirk Gets Wrong About Catholicism
The Counsel of Trent | 8 Jan. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2LOt7SJaGc
Essential doctrines, proportionate to capacity and needs.
The six necessary truths everyone has to be aware of and believe, if for instance you have fifteen minutes left to live before dying and the priest is priorising what he asks you to believe before giving you the sacraments.
ALL of the Bible, in its Catholic exegesis, in quite a few cases of larger learning and time to learn the faith.
Btw, while Pope Leo X did some reference to "day and hour" when banning preachers from date setting, there is not a dogmatic exegesis forbidding to say "we are in the end times" or "this person could be the Antichrist, and he has the gematria mentioned in Apoc. 13:18" ... Session 11 of Lateran V was disciplinary, and concerned the selection and prescribed behaviour about preaching in Church or on behalf of the Church. I and Catholic Answers both fall outside this disciplinary scope. Just in case someone wanted to bring that "discrepancy" up against me and my claim to be Catholic.
10:22 I think you would agree that if Bergoglio openly denied the Trinity, every Catholic would be free and have the duty to get another Pope, ideally elected by Cardinals, but not the ones named by Bergoglio. If not the cardinals, ideally the bishops but ...
Point being, Charlie Kirk has a point. At certain points, it may be clearer who the Pope is than what the correct reading is. But at some point it is actually clearer what the correct reading is than that someone clearly denying it is Pope.
Bergoglio lost me, and I went to Michael I, now Michael II, over this quoted statement, sorry for not giving the Italian: "God is not a Demiurge with an Omnipotent Magic Wand" ...
I think the Traditional view of Creation, if not necessarily the timeline (though the dispensations to disagree with that one have sounded hollow for a very long time by now) at least the nature of the creative act, is so clearly taught that by that quote, Bergoglio had stamped himself as a non-Catholic.
11:10 Pope Michael I made a point of the Hebrews quote and the Magnesians quote against the SSPX position of "recognise and resist" ...
I think the positions of SSPX and the Cassaciacum Thesis are both out. You have just given the refutation of Bp Fellay, and as to Sedeprivationism, when it says that "Vatican II Popes due to lack of goodwill have not taken up the duties of the office" basically equals saying "someone is not in office, when he's in mortal sin".
Any Sedeprivationist would agree, IF he could bring himself to claim Bergoglio was a heretic, THEN he would be free to hold a conclave or rather emergency election, perhaps in an imperfect ecumenic council. So, he is not arguing total loss of office due to heresy preached, he is arguing loss of acting in office while in mortal sin. Chesterton pointed out that it would be convenient for a driver if when he was checked by a policeman he could claim "oh, you are not living as a Christian, so I don't have to obey you" .... in other words, the Lollard position is absurd, and it's revived by Cassaciacum thesis, inventor, holders, obeyers.
A consistent Catholic position is only possible in three ways:
- Bergoglio is Pope Francis
- someone else is Pope (I'd say Michael II over Peter III)
- someone else will be Pope, when we have made some kind of election.
Now, suppose a Pope were wrongfully elected, 1990 and 2023 or in the future, and it turned out Bergoglio were not heretic, and therefore Pope. We would not be worse off, not by necessity of the case type, than when a Pope Felix stepped back in Rome after Pope Liberius had cleared himself.
11:52 I think you are confusing authority of sacramental office with authority of jurisdiction.
It is at least a position of the Dominicans, that a bishop elect receives jurisdiction immediately on accepting the election, even if not yet ordained priest and consecrated bishop.
With Pope Michael I, he first made sure, honestly or not, we can no longer ask him, that as many as could be relied on to be Catholic and willing to participate elected a man to the jurisdiction of Pope, this was Our Lady of Carmel in 1990. In 2011, he used the jurisdiction to reconcile two up to then Vagante bishops, the main consecrator being Bob Bjarnesen, who had apostolic succession from Duarte Costa who had it from Sebastião da Silveira Cintra, a bishop in Communion with Pius XI in 1924. And Duarte Costa remained in communion with Pius XI, and up to 1950 with Pius XII. Pretending his ordinations and consecrations are invalid would be against the sacramental theology used in assessing that an Orthodox bishop who converts only needs to submit to Rome and get a see or other episcopal office to be a Catholic (usually Eastern Rite) bishop.
Speaking of the Orthodox, Michael II, prior to his election, had been consecrated bishop by Eastern Orthodox, after which he was some time a vagante bishop of Charismatics, after which he was reconciled to Pope Michael I, whom he was, after a year, elected to succeed. Or, rather, somewhat less than a year.
If you have heard that Conclavists have no Apostolic Succession, that's by now Fake News, rooted in reusing very Old News as a debunk, even when these are no longer true any more. In 1995 it was certainly true Pope Michael I didn't have orders. By 2012 it was no longer true. It has never been true for Rogelio Martinez or since 2023 Pope Michael II, since he joined the Conclavist movement. And back in 1998, Pius XIII may have been more mediatised due to being at least a priest, then Michael I, but for holding of jurisdiction, he was 8 years too late.
Pope Michael I:
Pontifacts Interview with Pope Michael
Pontifacts Podcast | 2 Oct. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJ0CYtplMnQ
Pope Michael II:
"I am the REAL Pope"
Scholastic Answers | 28 Aug. 2024
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhJ_0BFpqsI
12:44 What if on that clip, Charlie Kirk was actually obeying his actually sinful pastor?
Some of the things C. S. Lewis got wrong, like he considered a collective fall instead of an individual Adam an option, The Problem of Pain, or he considered perhaps there was some degree of inspiration to non-Christian religions, like Mohammed and Zoroaster, he was simply following a certain Charles Gore. Whom the Anglicans consider as a bishop.
Now, you cannot go from "a pastor has the authority to correct a sinful layman" to "a layman can never correct and dismiss a heretical pastor" ... Pope St. Coelestine I confirmed in 430 that everyone who had rejected the authority of Nestorius from when he rejected the Theotokos, had in fact acted correctly. The first who shouted "that is heresy" was in fact a layman.
At the end of 428, or at latest in the early part of 429, Nestorius preached the first of his famous sermons against the word Theotokos, and detailed his Antiochian doctrine of the Incarnation. The first to raise his voice against it was Eusebius, a layman, afterwards Bishop of Dorylaeum and the accuser of Eutyches. Two priests of the city, Philip and Proclus, who had both been unsuccessful candidates for the patriarchate, preached against Nestorius. Philip, known as Sidetes, from Side, his birthplace, author of a vast and discursive history now lost, accused the patriarch of heresy. Proclus (who was to succeed later in his candidature) preached a flowery, but perfectly orthodox, sermon, yet extant, to which Nestorius replied in an extempore discourse, which we also possess.
Nestorius and Nestorianism
https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/nestorius-and-nestorianism
13:15 "The Holy Spirit guides the Church"
But not always the man who otherwise would appear to be your pastor.
In Session IV of Trent, exegesis was tied to the sense which the Church "hath held and holds" specifically because of people like Cranmer or to a lesser degree Laurentius Petri Nericius, who could appear as legitimate successors of William Warham and of Gustav Eriksson Trolle, undoubted Catholic archbishops, and who were nevertheless not keeping the faith of their predecessors. It would have been easier for a Swede to know Trolle had held to the sacrifice of the Mass or for an Englishman to know Warham had, than to know the technicalities on why Cranmer and Laurentius were not in fact enjoying jurisdiction as Catholic bishops. By the way, both of them had Catholic consecrators, Cranmer because he started as legitimate bishop and Laurentius because the king forced an old man to lay hands on him, under threat of exile.
Now, you may answer "but this cannot be the case with all the Church" — true — and you may add "and therefore not with a Pope or what you would call an apparent Pope" — does not follow. It is clearly within Church teaching and discipline that an election can be automatically null if the elected man, even to papacy is a heretic, and it is equally within Church teaching that
if a Pope could fall into heresy (undecided question),
then he would lose papacy.
18:31 In 1992, after my conversion, so it was not part of what I explicitly signed up for, a man you consider as having been pope then denied that the Earth is centre of the universe.
Pope Michael I has had some kind of bad luck with Amazon publishing, when reissuing a booklet by a priest, with imprimatur or imprimi potest, so certainly with nihil obstat, detailing the nine papal condemnations of Heliocentrism (1633 being one of them, it wasn't Papal at the judgement, but became so when Pope Urban VIII demanded its promulgation to Catholic universities around the world).
You just mentioned as grave sin, I would say grave sin against the faith, to go directly against an infallible definition. And by grave sin against the faith, it would if one did so knowingly, be one amounting to heresy. By citing Galileo, Wojtyla showed he was aware of the case. Very hard to say that he didn't confirm the point which a back then layman in 1989 had made about Assisi 1986, that Wojtyla was not a Catholic.
19:32 That quote is excellent stuff, but lacks one thing.
The distinction, made in Trent Session IV, between "what the Church hath held and holdeth" as opposed to a new doctrine (even if it were presented in such a way as to appear to be now held by the Church).
The idea of "his mind and will are apparent" also reduces to hay and stubble the idea of "we cannot really know if John Paul II seriously holds universalism" ... a queezy point for some SSPX priests, as I found out in Berlin. At that time, I thought "universalism" in this context was hyperbole for hyperecumenism, but since then I have heard that "by the incarnation in a certain manner ... united Himself to every human person indissolubly" ... which cannot hold true, since the at least potential union a living person has with Christ (i e he can later receive membership in the body of Christ or he already is united to Christ) utterly ceases when a person is damned.
But SSPX are saying, unlike the Constantinopolitan layman Eusebius, "who are we to judge" ... I think the quote answers their point.
The will and mind of a person who really is Pope can be known, and be compared to other known Catholic doctrine, from the dignity of documents, from consequences (like excommunications on those denying), from frequent returns to the same point, and so on, and therefore, this can also be said of someone who appears to be Pope, apart from certain doctrines he has uttered.
20:52 "the Church does not presume to settle scientific questions"
Laudato si 188?
Not even when the scientific question is also Biblical?
Hmmm, that position is not what the Church hath held, for instance in 1633 and also now holdeth. It's also not the only reading of things in Providentissimus Deus or of Dei Verbum. The one certainly being an Encyclical of a certain Pope, Leo XIII, the other a "dogmatic constitution" of what you claim to be an Ecumenical council, while some of us, including me, and Popes Michael I and II disagree.
22:17 You are comparing apples and oranges.
1) If the Cephas mentioned in Galatians 2 is really Peter the Apostle, he withdrew the scandal by accepting correction of his inferior Paul.
2) The denial was before he assumed papal office, namely that being on Lake Kinnereth when Jesus told Him "feed my sheep" ...
3) Sedevacantist (except Sedeprivationist) and Conclavist proposals are not about Popes giving scandal by sin or by living against known and interiorly adhered to doctrine, for convenience, they are about people showing loss of office or never-real-assumption of office by heresy.
