Citing Mark Shea on the Prejudice of Certain People he Considers as Racist

New blog on the kid : Citing Mark Shea on the Prejudice of Certain People he Considers as Racist · HGL's F.B. writings : Mark Shea : For Kaepernick AND For Tebow

Attentive readers of the blog may know, I often read Mark Shea. So I did today.

When white people* do well in this country, it’s because of their hard work and pluck. When the black president reminded them that the infrastructure of this country was not their doing, but was the fruit of immense state efforts to, for instance, create the colossal interstate system under Eisenhower or electrical grid under Roosevelt, he famously told them “you didn’t build that”. The ginned up Right Wing Lie Machine outrage over that supposed insult to hard-working white individuals resounded for weeks. How dare the black guy suggest we owe a thing to our country? We hard-working independent white people did it all with no help from anybody.

And when those white people march under the banners of the two regimes–Confederate and Nazi–who spilled more American blood on the Stars and Stripes than any other, our Traitor -in-Chief calls the marchers “very fine people” and pretends he gives a crap about the American flag while he calls the black protester Kaepernick a son of a bitch.

But when black people do well in this country, they are instructed to be “grateful”. They are where they are because we white people allowed them to get there and they would be nothing without our generous patronage and support. They didn’t build that. We did. And we might just take it away if they get too uppity.

Don’t ever forget that double standard. It’s one of the reasons people like Kaepernick kneel.

Indeed, there is a double standard about gratitude here.

One could of course say that the people Mark Shea refers to as Christianist have one standard - and one prejudice.

That prejudice being : white men contribute as tax payers, black men live off the dole, live off the tax payers.

And, sure, that prejudice forgets highways and policemen, army and judges are as much paid for by taxes as the doles of poor people.

It also involves some kind of "statistical likelihood" prejudice. Now, black people are perhaps statistically likelier to live off the dole and white people less likely, in US. But there are many blacks who do not live off the dole, and there are many whites who do.

So, a black man who doesn't needs to be solidaric with the black men who do, a white man who doesn't needs no such solidarity to white men who do?

Obviously false.

This kind of double standards I have once referred to as "bourgeois prejudice" to one Anthony Zarrella (I hope I got his last name right this time : memory technics, his family being Italian, and Italian language is generous in double consonants) and I got lectured on bourgeois not being more erroneous in erroneous prejudices than proletarians and no less right in right prejudices.

That was not the point. Erroneous prejudice is, first of all, diverse among diverse groups, and this one is of the type you can label bourgeois (except the bourgeoisie tends to be anti-racist, so uses it on other divisians than racial ones), and on that occasion I was simply saying what type of erroneous prejudice I was momentarily annoyed at.

Also, such bourgeois prejudice is far from absent from the proletariate - and is part of what fuels more "proletarian" prejudice. I spoke to a man who had a prejudice about "kissing cousins" erroneously thinking genetic conditions leading to lower intelligence are more a genes mutation problem (where you need same gene from two parents) than a karyogrammatic one. He put this into a Proletarian rant about monarchy being kissing cousins (somewhat true in Victorian times) and this having led to fall of monarchy in France (when there were under pre-Revolutionary Europe so many principalities and high noble fiefs that kissing cousins was mostly not a thing).

I saw Mark Shea lable the post "racism is a sin" ... I am not sure that is adequate. Chesterton once said "capitalism is a sin, socialism is a heresy" - and I think he would have labelled racialism as a heresy, not just a sin.

There may be on some non-Christian blacks a curse of Ham - since a prayer of the Church asks God to lift that curse from their hearts. Meaning, it is not a genetic curse, it is a moral one, which definitely can be lifted by Grace.

And it is not the same thing as living off the dole, anyway.

Some of my readers might know I like Mussolini, but some of the more attentive ones may also know I like him better for 1935 (when he told Chesterton he despised racialism) and for 1936 (when he helped Schuschnigg against Hitler) than for 1938 (true, he was helping Franco, BUT he was also giving Hitler free space to gobble Austria - and sign ...), Carta della Razza.

Some of my readers may also know, I am concerned about "le grand remplacement" - fewer babies from our own countries and more immigrants to replace them - but some of the more attentive ones may also know, I have not argued being mean or stupid to the immigrants already here is a solution. I have argued making more babies is a solution. And with or withut immigrants, a necessary one, you know old age pensions don't get automatic value (despite some Proletarian prejudice) just by being paid in advance when the pensioners were still working and laying aside. Real value has to be produced for real value to be consumed. An old man may occasionally drink a Burgundy from when he was working, but he is not likely to eat crackers from when he was working.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Torcy
Nativity of the Blessed Virgin
8.IX.2018

* Citing : On the Dumb Nike Flap
September 6, 2018 by Mark Shea
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markshea/2018/09/on-the-dumb-nike-flap.html

Reflection on Sedevacantism and Conclave of 1990 (quora)

I H. H. Pope Michael on Lent 2015 · II Five Years Ago · III Pray for a Pope · IV Reflection on Sedevacantism and Conclave of 1990 (quora) · V How Many are Currently Claiming Papacy or Claimed to be Popes?

Q

Are sedevacantists Catholic?

Anthony Zarrella

Lifelong Catholic and avid student of theology

Written Wed

No.

At least, definitely not with a “Big-C”.

The Catholic Church is, by definition, the Church led by the holder of the Petrine See (i.e., the Pope), and Jesus’s promises to Peter and the Apostles guarantee that the papal succession cannot fail.

In the early days following Vatican II, I could see a reasonable argument for “sedes” being Catholic still. (They call themselves “sedes” when I talk to them - it’s not an insulting term.) They could say, “This papal election was invalid, so the Cardinals need to do it over.” I wouldn’t agree with their premise, but I wouldn’t have said it fundamentally disqualified them from being Catholic.

But now, as one sede told me himself, there are no Cardinals left who were appointed by a “valid” Pope (in the sede perspective, I mean), and no bishops left who were ordained with the approval of a “valid” Pope. This would mean that the papacy is not only vacant, but cannot be filled, because there’s no one left to choose a new Pope.

It would also mean that Jesus, Who promised that “the gates of Hell [would] not prevail against” His Church, has allowed two whole generations of Catholics to be without any valid Pope.

So, in essence, any modern sedevacantist is asserting that the line of Peter has failed - which means that the Church has failed. It’s possible to believe that - but only if you believe that the Catholic Church in the line of Peter never was the Church to which Jesus gave His promise.

And that’s fundamentally incompatible with calling oneself “Catholic”.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

“But now, as one sede told me himself, there are no Cardinals left who were appointed by a “valid” Pope (in the sede perspective, I mean), and no bishops left who were ordained with the approval of a “valid” Pope. This would mean that the papacy is not only vacant, but cannot be filled, because there’s no one left to choose a new Pope.”

Your canonic premiss is flawed.

If all cardinals are apostates, that leaves the bishops next.

If all bishops consecrated with approval by an undisputed valid Pope refuse or are even suspect of apostasy (I would not go that far, refusal is enough, if non-papacy is clear), it is for next layer to take a turn.

That would be bishops consecrated in a resistance - or … there was a layman in 1990 (four years after Assisi) who had an idea which such bishops did not go along with until c. 2003 or 2004. The result being a series of conclaves electing Alexander IX, if you prefer him over Pope Michael.

Anthony Zarrella

“That would be bishops consecrated in a resistance - or … there was a layman in 1990 (four years after Assisi) who had an idea which such bishops did not go along with until c. 2003 or 2004. The result being a series of conclaves electing Alexander IX, if you prefer him over Pope Michael.”

I would argue that, as in the days of the heresiarchs of old, a bishop who is validly consecrated is nonetheless an invalid papal elector if he is illicitly consecrated.

I take as my precedent the decision of the First Council of Nicaea regarding Meletius of Lycopolis and the clergy ordained by him (in fact, at that time, some of them weren’t even regarded as valid ordinations, much less licit). The decision did not specifically have to do with papal elections, but it established the principle that an illicit bishop is to have no authority in the Church unless that authority be confirmed by a licit prelate.

To make more of an argument from first principles, in a quasi-Thomist sense, no one may confer that which he himself lacks. So, it is then axiomatic that a bishop who does not possess canonical legitimacy or liceity cannot confer canonical legitimacy or liceity upon a putative Pope.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

However, a bishop consecrated in resistance is not necessarily illicitly consecrated.

[They would be if the resistance were an unnecessary and de facto rebellious act.]

“So, it is then axiomatic that a bishop who does not possess canonical legitimacy or liceity cannot confer canonical legitimacy or liceity upon a putative Pope.”

David Bawden was fully aware of this point.

It is not the conclave which CONFERS legitimacy on the Pope it elects. It ONLY designates the person on whom GOD confers it.

Let’s say we had been talking about the Roman Emperor, whom the Pope is crowning and on whom the Pope is conferring legitimate secular authority.

It is the Pope, not the seven princes elector who confer the Imperial dignity on the Roman Emperor.

Precisely so, it is also the Pope who confers episcopal dignity of jurisdiction on a bishop of Paris even back in the times when the bishop of Paris was designated whether it be by a “local conclave” (older type of episcopal designation) or even by the King of France.

It is accidental that more lately the Pope is BOTH designating the bishop AND conferring authority on him. Essentially, these two things are not the same function. Or, in a democracy : the people do not confer authority on the president, nor do “electors” as the US system has it. The voting people and the electors are just designating who shall receive authority from God (receiving it formally from the Pope being somewhat out of date, but actually also from God via the Pope’s approval, if the president in question is ruling over baptised faithful). So also, the conclave needs not have an authority to confer on the Pope, the cardinals are only designating him so God can confer His authority on the Pope.

Note, btw, that Pope Michael considers the Sedes properly speaking as heretical. He thinks the days are over in which one could have been right in waiting for cardinals to take a step and so on.

This does not mean he disapproves of their recent asking for roraries to be said for impetrating from God a Pope.

Update, the above was posted on his wall, he responded.

Dixit David Bawden / Pope Michael:

If Francis is Pope, we should go hand in hand to the Novus Ordo singing Kumbaya. The various other positions are problematic. The SSPX both branches are waiting for the Pope to convert. However, if he must convert, then that means he is not a Catholic. The sedeprivationists are waiting for the same thing, but deny he has authority until he converts. The sedevatancists, hold that there is no Pope, but with one exception have take no steps to end the vacancy.

He linked to:

Pray for a Pope: Join the Rosary Crusade to get a true Pope back on the Chair of St. Peter
Sedevacantists of the world, let us unite in praying the Holy Rosary of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary to beg Almighty God to grant us once more a true Pope!
http://www.prayforapope.com/