Debate with Introibo

His original post, under which the debate took place:

Introibo Ad Altare Dei: Una Cum
Posted by Introibo Ad Altare Dei at 3:11 AM Monday, July 10, 2017
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/07/una-cum.html

The debate:

Hans Georg Lundahl

July 10, 2017 at 7:32 AM

I was under somewhat false pretenses lured into attending an SSPX Mass last Wednesday.

I knelt, because of the canon prayer and transsubstantiation and presence of Christ.

I also did NOT answer the prayers, like the Amen after Pater or Blessing.

Anonymous

July 10, 2017 at 12:58 PM

If a valid priest/Bishop & the SSPX is all that is available,please attend that chapel regularly!

Its better than not going I promise you.

We are blessed to have a sede chapel that celebrates the pre-1950 rubrics,holy week,etc...

If the SSPX with a valid priest was all I had available,I would attend every week!

Hans Georg Lundahl

July 11, 2017 at 3:05 AM

Pope Michael is against it.

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

July 11, 2017 at 3:08 AM

LOL! You have a good sense of humor George!

---Introibo

Hans Georg Lundahl

July 13, 2017 at 6:39 AM

Like Buster Keaton, often not intended on my part.

Like this time.

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

July 13, 2017 at 10:43 PM

Well of course "Pope" Michael is against Una Cum, because he delusionally thinks HE is the pope and should be mentioned! Any one who thinks his mommy, daddy, two nice neighbors and Theresa Benns (the ersatz "theologian" who set up the farmhouse "conclave") can make him "pope" has serious issues, no matter how nice and well intentioned.

---Introibo

Tom A.

July 23, 2017 at 6:16 AM

Anyone who thinks a bunch of heretics dressed up as Catholic cardinals can make someone a pope also has serious issues. While I am not a proponent of Michael being Pope, at least he was alledgedly elected by Catholics. We know that Bergolio was elected by modernists. So who's claim to the papacy is more valid?

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

July 23, 2017 at 6:56 AM

Tom, I'd have to respectfully say neither has a claim on the papacy. The reasons for Bergoglio you mentioned. For David Bawden ("Pope" Michael) it takes more than six lay Catholics (three WOMEN among them) to make a "conclave" Yet I take your point--Bergoglio is completely unCatholic. An apostate elected by a group of heretics, each of whom was appointed by a heretic. Bawden may be whacky but he is closer to authentic Catholicism than Bergoglio. God bless, ---Introibo

Tom A.

July 23, 2017 at 6:56 PM

Yes Bawden may be misguided, but at least he professs the Catholic faith. He also saw that the logical next step to sedevacantism is to elect a new Pope. Seeing how modernist imposters in Rome are incapable of electing a true Pope, the job falls on the remaining traditional bishops and clergy. I can sympathize with Bawden. Everyone complains about Rome yet no one gives the faithful a true Pope. Making a Pope is not a sacramental act. Its a legal action. In times of emergency, the law should not be used to tie mans hands for survival. The ultimate law is the salvation of souls so I would think the traditional bishops could take extraordinary steps to restablish order in the remnant of faithful left. What are they waiting for?

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

July 23, 2017 at 7:10 PM

I share your frustration Tom. When the Shepard is struck, the sheep are scattered. You have correctly put your finger on the problem, and the problem goes deep. The "Una Cum" issue is just one example of division that keeps an imperfect general council from happening. SSPV won't attend with Thuc Bishops. Certain Thuc Bishops won't attend with Lefebvre bishops--who still don't accept sedevacantism. Still other bishops DON'T want a council because they are sedeprivationists, and are waiting for Bergoglio or his successor to have their "Saul into St. Paul" experience and become formally (not just materially) the pope. It is a mess.

---Introibo

Hans Georg Lundahl

August 10, 2017 at 7:27 AM

OK, and thinking one can licitly consecrate bishops with no normal apostolic mandate is somehow better than convening a conclave, inviting cardinals, and considering them as heretics and no longer valid electors if they still accept Wojtyla after 1986?

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

August 10, 2017 at 8:00 AM

Hans,
Until we get a morally unanimous consensus that (a) we are in a state of sedevacantism and (b) we proceed according to the laws of the Church as properly set forth for such an extraordinary situation, it's the best we can do for now.

---Introibo

Hans Georg Lundahl

August 29, 2017 at 7:24 AM

Did Monsignor Lefèbvre wait for a morally unanimous consensus in 1988?

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

August 29, 2017 at 7:45 AM

Comparing apples and oranges. The requirements for a conclave is not the same as for a valid Sacrament.

---Introibo

Hans Georg Lundahl

August 31, 2017 at 2:27 AM

There is more than validity, there is also licitity of episcopal consecration.

If an episcopal consecration without normal apostolic mandate is normally IL-licit (if valid), the act of Monsignor Lefèbvre means that he considered there was a case of necessity, in which normal rules don't quite apply.

IF normal rules apply, Williamson, Galarreta, Tissier de Mallerais, Fellay were all validly consecrated, like Rifan, but the only one whom it is or was for long licit to approach about his episcopal powers was Rifan, since he quickly made up with Rome. It would in that case still be illicit to approach Bishop Williamson.

If on the other hand the matters are so bad that normal rules do NOT apply to the situation, or were so, why stop at episcopal consecration, and not add a conclave of emergency which removes the state of emergency?

Pope Michael - or if you prefer, Bishop Bawden (yes, he was consecrated in 2011, Gaudete Sunday, having been priest since c. 24 hours earlier) made a study of what epikeia as a virtue means, it is a virtue dealing with emergency situations in which normal rules don't apply, and the response he got is that for normal rules NOT to apply, one has to act in ways so as to remove emergency and restore full applicability of normal rules. Which means not stopping at episcopal consecrations out of normal licitness, but making a creative move about papal elections (usually referred to as "conclaves" due to the usual and normal mode in which e g Pope St Pius X was elected).

This is his argument against those who have been (in their view) prolonging the case of necessity which justified their positions.

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

August 31, 2017 at 6:24 PM

Normal rules means rules that are not of divine positive law that cannot be changed. For example, the mandate for episcopal consecration is of purely ecclesiastical origin and admits of circumstances that would render it null and void. On the other hand, the requirement that only a validly ordained priest can offer Mass is of Divine positive law, such that a layman cannot offer Mass validly no matter what the circumstances.

The election of a pope has changed over the years, but certain things have not. Women are barred from participating in a conclave or an imperfect general council. Bawden was "elected" by his mommy, his daddy, and two nice neighbors along with Mrs. Benns and himself. This is what is commonly known as a farce.

He is not even a bishop or priest. He derives his orders from one "Bp" Bob Biarnesen. Bp Bob received his orders through the Old Catholic line in the US which are held as doubtful. What ever happened to ol' Bp. Bob? We know nothing of his ecclesiastical training and education (if any). That compounds the doubt. Why did he leave Bawden? Why isn't he mentioned on his website and made a "cardinal" with an office outside the chicken coop?

David Bawden is a well-intentioned, yet delusional man.

---Introibo

Hans Georg Lundahl

September 1, 2017 at 2:31 AM

If women cannot even participate in a conclave, that makes the two votes of his mother and Theresa Benns invalid.

This leaves 3 votes against one (his own).

"He derives his orders from one "Bp" Bob Biarnesen. Bp Bob received his orders through the Old Catholic line in the US which are held as doubtful."

I had read sth on the wikipedia of some consecrating bishop actually deriving HIS line via two intermediates from Duarte Costa, which is not doubtful.

Sure Bob Biarnesen was chief consecrator and not just coconsecrator?

As to "delusional", this word smacks too much of modern psychiatry, in which ideologically charged questions can be used to denote insanity.

If you wanted to say "he is wrong", those words would have sufficed.

As to why the consecrating bishops are not mentioned, I have wondered that too, and just mentioned that for now I am supposing His Holiness has a good reason not to mention them (good as in valid, not as in excellent for egoistic purposes).

As for Theresa Benns, she also left him.

She - and one Indian man who debated with me while as Palmarian I was opposed to his election on the simple ground I considered the See filled in 1990 by "Gregorio XVII" - are on a site denouncing him as a fraud, and one of their grounds seems to be his ... character.

According to them, he is a bully.

Perhaps, but that changes nothing about the validity of his papacy.

For me, I have not been quite able to verify where certain blocks to my carreer as a writer and composer are coming from, even if His Holiness has not completely overturned them by publishing things by me either. Whoever IS responsible is very much a bully, but he could have been under pressure.

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

September 5, 2017 at 6:54 PM

Hans,
The very idea that there were only six Catholics left in the world is an absurd contention. Bawden voted for himself, and he has no clue on how to read the dense Latin pages on an imperfect general council. There can be no conclave of non-Cardinals. "Bp" Bob performed the ceremony alone and disappeared. Sound fishy? In the extreme.

---Introibo

Hans Georg Lundahl

September 6, 2017 at 1:47 AM

"The very idea that there were only six Catholics left in the world is an absurd contention."

I don't think that was the contention.

The only six who acted justly in the matter does not equal the only six who were Catholics, like such who hadn't heard of the invitations to the conclave.

"Bawden voted for himself,"

Says who?

I assumed he didn't, because in a conclave no one does, so if he did, I'd like to know a source for it.

"and he has no clue on how to read the dense Latin pages on an imperfect general council."

I have seen one fault in Latin by him in the past, but that does not mean he has no clue on how to read Latin - a page being dense has little to do with it.

"There can be no conclave of non-Cardinals."

If by "conclave" we mean ordinary and in usual legal form conducted papal election, agreed. If we mean papal election in general, I think he beats you in Church history.

""Bp" Bob performed the ceremony alone and disappeared. Sound fishy? In the extreme."

At least somewhat, yes. It could be a case of fraud, but it could also be a case of someone putting pressure on Bob after the fact or someone putting him up to putting His Holiness in an awkward position before it.

Also, I think I recall the ceremony was by two bishops.

One thought crossing my mind is that they had agreed beforehand to ordain him and consecrate him and then leave him, so he could not document it, properly.

I do not have proof culpability is on him.

It could also be they were blackmailed after the fact.

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

September 7, 2017 at 2:41 PM

That there were other methods of electing a pope but once gone, that method can no longer be used. Only an imperfect general council (or sedeprivationism) hold the key. No approved theologian teaches otherwise.

The source that Bawden voted for himself was Bawden's own site that claimed the vote was "unanimous." He may have changed it, but that's what I had read.

He has no formal Ecclesiastical training or education. He has a high school education and was expelled from SSPX.

---Introibo

Hans Georg Lundahl

September 8, 2017 at 1:41 AM

"That there were other methods of electing a pope but once gone, that method can no longer be used."

Not even in a state of emergency?

"Only an imperfect general council (or sedeprivationism) hold the key. No approved theologian teaches otherwise."

I tried sedeprivationism. Was John Paul II a material Pope? Could Benedict XVI have been a formal Pope? I hoped so. I have felt deceived since hoping so.

Imperfect general council ... I think that one was tried at Elx (Elche). I have rejected the result since I - like Pope Michael - am not a Feeneyite.

"The source that Bawden voted for himself was Bawden's own site that claimed the vote was "unanimous." He may have changed it, but that's what I had read."

OK, I took that as meaning five votes against one.

"He has no formal Ecclesiastical training or education."

I have noticed on certain issues.

But does that invalidate his conclusion? No.

If his conclusion on emergency conclave was valid, does it invalidate his election? No.

Formal training and formal education are overvalued items. No sacrament or faculty or jurisdiction depends on someone having it. If I were a bishop and ordained a man who had not got the philosophy course under others, and even one who had legitimately flunked philosophy and whom it would be sinful for me to ordain, he would still be validly ordained.

If I had given him faculties to hear confession, his faculties would not become invalid because I found out he had flunked or never even made the exams in moral theology or canon law.

And if I had died and the pope given him jurisdiction as administrator of my diocese up to election of bishop by a chapter vote, the jurisdiction he would be exercising would also not be invalid because he lacked formal training.

"He has a high school education ..."

Plus home schooling and continued studies at home.

"...and was expelled from SSPX."

You agree with him he has been a student at SSPX. He has given another version on how it ended.

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

September 9, 2017 at 9:38 AM

No, not even in a state of emergency can a conclave be called. It requires cardinals appointed by a pope. Right there it ends the "papacy" of Bawden. Some things can never be done even in a state of emergency. For example, if someone was in danger of death you could not validly baptize them using milk or beer as a substitute for water.

An imperfect general council has to meet the right standards, just as a conclave can't be called without real cardinals. You can't be elected "pope" by your mommy, your daddy and two nice neighbors on your Kansas farmhouse.

Read the theologians pre-V2 and you won't fall for phonies like Bawden or Dominguez ("Pope" Gregory) who taught heresy, molested the "nuns" and became a "Saint." His "stigmata" in a picture I saw looked like ketchup--and probably was!

---Introibo

Hans Georg Lundahl

September 11, 2017 at 1:17 AM

I am an ex-adherent of "Gregorio XVII".

Theologians (not Church fathers or scholastics, but contemporary) pre-V2 and especially pre-Pius XII even (like Dorsch) are no doubt good, but a bit hard to come by.

I ditched Dominguez over a doctrinal matter before hearing/reading he had molested monks as well.

"Antichrist sees the world from the fourth dimension, the Most Pure Virgin from the eighth dimension"

Hey, what about God creating space in THREE dimensions, to indicate He is THREE Persons?

So, I am an ex-Palmarian.

Ditching Dominguez came as per reading St Augustine, less hard to come by, most works, than Father Dorsch. Or as per having read Augustine.

Either way, validity of a sacrament is different from validity of jurisdiction.

And an antipope can become a true pope if one is needed and no one else is available.

One of my theories (abandoned) was that Pope Krav in Zagreb had been carrying the torch to 2012. But that was a comedy act, and the comedian gave it up when he saw sedevacantist popes exist for real. Now, if this had been right, the 1990 conclave would have been invalid for another reason, namely the see not being vacant.

That means, Pope Michael would have started out as an antipope, but could have become a true Pope after cessation of "Pope Krav" (had he been for real).

How come an antipope can become a true pope? See Pope St Felix II. He bagan to be Pope (after starting as an antipope) when clergy of Rome considered Liberius apostate, abdicated when Liberius cleared himself and reigned as true Pope a second time after Pope Liberius died.

On the other hand, this happened with "clergy of Rome" = equivalent of cardinals.

And "on the third hand" / "first hand again", time is a bit running out for sedevacantism proper. Perpetuos successores.

I got a view on an apologetics video by JPHolding, he defended replacing of Old Covenant by new by saying "olam" (I think it was, I'm no Hebraist) means perpetual rather than "eternal".

But the, if so, perpetual covenant of Sinai was interrupted for 70 years. 1958+70=2028.

That might be the limit for a break not changing perpetuity of papacy, as defined in Vatican council of 1869-70.

An imperfect general council could of course also confer papal jurisdiction on someone previously an antipope, I suppose?

Or recognise someone who was suspected of being so was a Pope, after all?

A decision of such an imperfect general council could trump the otherwise correct opinion of Father Dorsch, I suppose?

Introibo Blogger Has Well Defended the True Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth

An ex-Kibbutznik · What Does Antisemite Mean? · Introibo Blogger Has Well Defended the True Messiah, Jesus of Nazareth

Introibo Ad Altare Dei : Defending Jesus As The Messiah
Monday, July 17, 2023
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2023/07/defending-jesus-as-messiah.html

If Curiosity Killed the Cat ... It's Bad

See if Introibo approves my comments before St. Lucy ... · To illustrate the ineptness of Introibo on the question ... · If Curiosity Killed the Cat ... It's Bad

I don't hold with killing cats. I do not relish the death of cats. I borrowed the nod at a popular saying from Lee, a guest poster with Introibo.

Introibo Ad Altare Dei: Dangers of Randonautica
By Lee, Monday, December 12, 2022
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2022/12/the-dangers-of-randonautica.html

Who refers to St. Thomas Aquinas, in two quotes.

I will now take the quotes, not from Tour of the Summa, but from Summa Theologiae online. As in the Tour, I will quote only the corpus of each article on curiosity, which is II-II, Q 167.

Article 1. Whether curiosity can be about intellective knowledge?

Here I will intersperse my quotes with own comments.

I answer that, As stated above (II-II:166:2 ad 2) studiousness is directly, not about knowledge itself, but about the desire and study in the pursuit of knowledge. Now we must judge differently of the knowledge itself of truth, and of the desire and study in the pursuit of the knowledge of truth. For the knowledge of truth, strictly speaking, is good, but it may be evil accidentally, by reason of some result, either because one takes pride in knowing the truth, according to 1 Corinthians 8:1, "Knowledge puffeth up," or because one uses the knowledge of truth in order to sin.

On the other hand, the desire or study in pursuing the knowledge of truth may be right or wrong. First, when one tends by his study to the knowledge of truth as having evil accidentally annexed to it, for instance those who study to know the truth that they may take pride in their knowledge. Hence Augustine says (De Morib. Eccl. 21): "Some there are who forsaking virtue, and ignorant of what God is, and of the majesty of that nature which ever remains the same, imagine they are doing something great, if with surpassing curiosity and keenness they explore the whole mass of this body which we call the world. So great a pride is thus begotten, that one would think they dwelt in the very heavens about which they argue." On like manner, those who study to learn something in order to sin are engaged in a sinful study, according to the saying of Jeremiah 9:5, "They have taught their tongue to speak lies, they have labored to commit iniquity."

So, a scientist who forgets his maker or a man trying to learn things about bondage or psychiatry ...

Secondly, there may be sin by reason of the appetite or study directed to the learning of truth being itself inordinate; and this in four ways. First, when a man is withdrawn by a less profitable study from a study that is an obligation incumbent on him; hence Jerome says [Epist. xxi ad Damas]: "We see priests forsaking the gospels and the prophets, reading stage-plays, and singing the love songs of pastoral idylls."

We live in a society in which so many have so few duties incumbent on them.

The example given by St. Thomas was apt about his own day, with many priests of whom more than one could have easier made his salvation if remaining a layman. Looking at you, Andreas Capellanus! (Yes, he was a contemporary of St. Thomas, as a chaplain obviously a priest and made a kind of Ars Amandi).

In our day, one could rather complain about priests forsaking Shakespear and Tolkien to read psychology or Biblical criticism ...

We may presume that those using Randonautica usually do not have duties they neglect to go on their random randonnés (walks). Especially, as going on a walk is also a duty, to the bodily health.

Secondly, when a man studies to learn of one, by whom it is unlawful to be taught, as in the case of those who seek to know the future through the demons. This is superstitious curiosity, of which Augustine says (De Vera Relig. 4): "Maybe, the philosophers were debarred from the faith by their sinful curiosity in seeking knowledge from the demons."

And Oedipus and Orestes got into huge trouble by listening to them.

Thirdly, when a man desires to know the truth about creatures, without referring his knowledge to its due end, namely, the knowledge of God. Hence Augustine says (De Vera Relig. 29) that "in studying creatures, we must not be moved by empty and perishable curiosity; but we should ever mount towards immortal and abiding things."

This sounds more like a cue to throw out science books than to throw out randonautica.

Fourthly, when a man studies to know the truth above the capacity of his own intelligence, since by so doing men easily fall into error: wherefore it is written (Sirach 3:22): "Seek not the things that are too high for thee, and search not into things above thy ability . . . and in many of His works be not curious," and further on (Sirach 3:26), "For . . . the suspicion of them hath deceived many, and hath detained their minds in vanity."

Something people like Thomson Lord Kelvin and Rutherford should have thought of before proposing to search out the age of Earth without looking into Genesis 5 and 11.

Now, here is article 2. Please note that the man translating something as "sight-seeing" is very far from the current usage of that term in so doing. It is about seeing "spectacula" - dramas.

I answer that, The knowledge of sensible things is directed to two things. For in the first place, both in man and in other animals, it is directed to the upkeep of the body, because by knowledge of this kind, man and other animals avoid what is harmful to them, and seek those things that are necessary for the body's sustenance. On the second place, it is directed in a manner special to man, to intellective knowledge, whether speculative or practical. Accordingly to employ study for the purpose of knowing sensible things may be sinful in two ways.

Let's see.

First, when the sensitive knowledge is not directed to something useful, but turns man away from some useful consideration. Hence Augustine says (Confess. x, 35), "I go no more to see a dog coursing a hare in the circus; but in the open country, if I happen to be passing, that coursing haply will distract me from some weighty thought, and draw me after it . . . and unless Thou, having made me see my weakness, didst speedily admonish me, I become foolishly dull."

Well, here the problem is not so much the look at the spectacle - and when Tour of the Summa translates sight-seeing, that is bad. Deliberately to seek out a sight of something quiet is different from vetting an appetite for cruelty (as St. Augustine did in his youth), or to deliberately seek weighty thoughts, but forget them because a distraction dulls one. By the way, fatiguing someone to cure him from "curiosity" can dull him too. Georgina Kirrin, back in the age when she preferred to be called George and when Tim was alive, didn't allow Tim to chase rabbits. I think those were more plentiful than hares, in Cornwall.

So, the problem is actually double here, for St. Augustine:

• he risks backsliding into enjoying cruelty to animals (as he had done more frequently in his youth, and even if in this case the immediate perpetrator is also just an animal) - well, he no longer risks that, he's in heaven, but I mean he risked it then and those like him now risk it now;
• not keeping concentrated on a thought directed to piety and to the edification of others. (Likewise, no longer a problem).

The problem is not being captivated by a random sight, which is not cruel, and when one is not neglecting important thought for it.

Secondly, when the knowledge of sensible things is directed to something harmful, as looking on a woman is directed to lust: even so the busy inquiry into other people's actions is directed to detraction. on the other hand, if one be ordinately intent on the knowledge of sensible things by reason of the necessity of sustaining nature, or for the sake of the study of intelligible truth, this studiousness about the knowledge of sensible things is virtuous.

Let me highlight two quotes here:

even so the busy inquiry into other people's actions is directed to detraction.

Like the guys who inquire busily into my hours spent on internet, consider every second on a youtube as the vice of curiosity and detract from my capacities as a writer and as a Catholic one?

Involves both shrinks, I shouldn't wonder, and priests who would have done better to imitate Andreas Capellanus, scandalous as he was, than to have psychology studied at seminary!

Now, the other thing is, pretty apt about Randonautica.

on the other hand, if one be ordinately intent on the knowledge of sensible things by reason of the necessity of sustaining nature, or for the sake of the study of intelligible truth, this studiousness about the knowledge of sensible things is virtuous.

The sustentation of one's nature involves the sustentation of one's mental nature. And part of that is not seeing just the same things every day.

This being the purpose of Randonautica, one cannot say the purpose is wrong. But are the means? Lee evokes four cases of unpleasant surprises.

The app has as many as 10.8 million users as of July 2020, gaining popularity amid the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States as restrictions have been lightened.

Now, four unpleasant surprises is pretty low among 10.8 million users. Therefore, one cannot assume it is demonic on this account. Are there more? Certainly. How many more? Probably not 100 as drastic as this one.

In their questions page, Randonautica's creators have said that if the app generates coordinates inside a private property, it is a violation of their terms and conditions to trespass. In addition, Randonautica has also received allegations that the app is used for human trafficking, which its creators have denied, saying that data collected by the app are anonymous. It also ensured that the app is not designed to violate religious customs, saying that "the app is simply a tool. Just as a knife can be used either to prepare dinner or to cut somebody."

Now, the creators cannot absolutely know from their own actions whether someone else can be abusing their app for human trafficking. Just as the highways in the seventies could not be kept responsible for the crimes of Ted Bundy. Who abused the custom of hitch-hiking. My ma taught me some good things about hitch-hiking, like walking up to gas stations, and talking to the people you want a ride from. However, Ted Bundy could be charismatic, but even so, I think he more often picked up victims very quickly, with less time for getting an impression, who were walking along the way with their thumb up. When he didn't just grab, as with his last victim.

However, as to human trafficking, some place types could be especially attractive to girls, and if the trafficker puts himself in waiting there, and also uses the app ... may God avert it.

Furthermore, in two of the four cases evoked by Lee, Randonautica can have saved a life. Even if Mykena didn't call the help that saved the bleeding person from dying, it is possible and even probable someone else was also directed to that place and did call the ambulance. And the person who had a shop burned down was saved. The story doesn't tell what kind of shop it was, and I actually cannot find the story.

Now, is using Randonautica a vain observance? Here I will have to quote, not St. Thomas, but Lee.

How does it specifically know things so hidden as to be able to lead people to an exact location, with no possible history of stored data that leads to such things, which cannot be traced, such as expired driver's license from 15-20 years prior?

The app didn't know it. God did. As far as I am concerned, the connexion between using the app and finding the licence, is God's providence.

I personally believe that the app itself has some form of demonic power. Why? It has been known to bring about bad luck in peoples lives who use it obsessively.

If you go on random destinations very often, sooner or later you can come to a dangerous one.

It has the ability to know exact locations without any foreknowledge; a symptom of possessed people.

A software doesn't know exact locations, but stores them. Precisely as google translate doesn't know language, but stores language data. Stores and combines, in a way showing how statistic coincidence rules very much of correct translation, but very far from all of it. I have seen the Swedish word "uppståndelse" translated (by Bing) as "commotion" in the context of Easter where the correct expected translation is "resurrection" - or a Spanish poem from past centuries praised the Blessed Virgin as "preciosa" - meaning precisely as in English "precious - and a translator used the more usual meaning in modern colloquial Spanish, namely "funny" ...

It lures people away from belief in God or the devil by trusting it more.

The last person who started using it as a Christian, clearly Orthodox, not just believing in a God who is good, but also that this God has created an angel which recreated himself into the devil, and who ended up losing faith over using this app is who? Because, I have never heard of one. Indeed, by God's providence, the app could lead someone to a Church or a Christian bookstore and therefore to God.

It becomes like a god.

It does? How many other things do? Is each inherently bad because some so abuse it?

Lastly, it could lead to somebody's death if the person is in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This is indeed a danger of any innocent walk. And some of Ted Bundy's victims were doing their studies ... with studousness/

Even if the "intention" is good it can be a path leading right to Hell.

We can agree that dying in a car accident is death, and dying in a car accident in the state of mortal sin if Hell. Now, some Pilgrims on the way of Santiago have died crossing a certain road, because the paths with the yellow arrows point across this road (or did back in 2004). Is it mortally sinful to walk to Santiago too?

Gaucelmo died on arrival. He is honoured as a saint, accoridng to my memories from 2004, even if I can't find him on Spanish wikipedia. A woman was murdered in I think 2015 or 16 by faked yellow arrows leading her to the killer.

So, is walking to Santiago a mortal sin, because there are risks?

Staying locked inside during a confinement has its risks too. In France, wife murders skyrocketed during the first confinement. So, has the prospect of taking walks to unseen corners of your neighbourhood after it saved lives? Probably.

Let me give a parallel. You may be a celibate man, you may suck at cooking, or have no time to do it, and you may have the means to eat at restaurant every day. Is it mortally sinful to roll dice over which restaurant to use on each particular day? Mind you, on a Friday, one would pick Sushi Bar over Mongolian Barbecue without any dice, for obvious reasons, but on a day when meat is allowed? Could it lead to your death? Well, if it directs you to the restaurant where you get dangerous food poisoning, yes. Does that make it sinful? No. Variation in diet is healthy.

According to the Theologians McHugh and Callan, vain observances are described as:

Let's see if it fits.

(a) those (things) by which one puts into use vain ceremonies or objects in the expectation that they will secure certain desired effects, or puts an exaggerated confidence in lawful rites or sacred objects;

There is no vain ceremony in randomising, if the desired effect is a surprise or "a change" - it is a natural means to that end, not a quasi-supernatural ceremony for it. Case dismissed.

(b) those by which one directs one's life through fortuitous and impertinent happenings in the belief that they have the power to influence one's fortunes favorably or adversely.

We do not deal with this when the fortuitousness itself is used as a means to improve one's mood. Given that some people are now doing breast surgery because they carry Georgina Kirrin's child and teen quirk to the cube of too far, improving moods may be very vital these days.

This form of superstition is like divination by omens; the difference is that in using omens one chiefly seeks for knowledge of the future, while in observing chance events one chiefly intends the direction of one's conduct. Examples are found in persons who fear to make a journey on Friday or to begin any important affair during the dark of the moon.

Fridays and darks of the moon are not fortuitous. People avoiding important affairs during the dark of the moon may not fear, and I am not sure St. Thomas did not do it. Seeing 666 as a bad omen is arguably one preservation against rapidly and willingly taking the mark, and I do wait a little before logging in if the time is 13:32. I prefer making a prayer up to 13:34, since 1334 is two times 667. The next and last paragraph of this essay is on line 144 in the html. Was it bad to put two previous paragraphs toegether (not very separate logically) to avoid it going past 144?

And unlike this kind of thing, randonautica is about not fearing journeys and about affairs of free time, how to spend an afternoon. Again, case dismissed.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Ember Saturday of Advent
17.XII.2022

To illustrate the ineptness of Introibo on the question ...

See if Introibo approves my comments before St. Lucy ... · To illustrate the ineptness of Introibo on the question ... · If Curiosity Killed the Cat ... It's Bad

It's the second of the two posts I tried to comment on.

The problematic of Biblical hermeneutics and scientific advances came to the forefront when certain Catholic clerics began to question how to interpret the "days" of Genesis given the findings that indicate a universe billions of years old. Must the Hebrew word yom be interpreted as a literal 24 hour day, or can it be a certain "period of time" (as the word itself indicates) which can be much longer than 24 hours? The Pontifical Biblical Commission ("PBC"), the decisions of which are binding in conscience, investigated that question (and others relating to Genesis) during the pontificate of Pope St. Pius X.

As he goes on say, that was in 1909. Now, the pretended evidence for "a universe billions of years old" are either astronomical or radiometric. Introibo is going to mention Cygnus X-1, which was discovered in 1965. The radiometric "evidence that Earth is 4.5 billion years old" or back in the day of Pius XII in 1951 (record papal dupe, if he was indeed pope), "5 billion years" was Uranium-Lead, a method developed (or corrected) later.

What was the age of Earth in 1909, according to the then "thinkers" and "scientists" who disputed or ignored the Biblical chronology?

Thomson's initial 1864 estimate of the Earth's age was from 20 to 400 million years old. These wide limits were due to his uncertainty about the melting temperature of rock, to which he equated the Earth's interior temperature,[65][66] as well as the uncertainty in thermal conductivities and specific heats of rocks. Over the years he refined his arguments and reduced the upper bound by a factor of ten, and in 1897 Thomson, now Lord Kelvin, ultimately settled on an estimate that the Earth was 20–40 million years old.

...

Boltwood did the legwork, and by the end of 1905 had provided dates for 26 separate rock samples, ranging from 92 to 570 million years. He did not publish these results, which was fortunate because they were flawed by measurement errors and poor estimates of the half-life of radium. Boltwood refined his work and finally published the results in 1907. Boltwood's paper pointed out that samples taken from comparable layers of strata had similar lead-to-uranium ratios, and that samples from older layers had a higher proportion of lead, except where there was evidence that lead had leached out of the sample. His studies were flawed by the fact that the decay series of thorium was not understood, which led to incorrect results for samples that contained both uranium and thorium. However, his calculations were far more accurate than any that had been performed to that time. Refinements in the technique would later give ages for Boltwood's 26 samples of 410 million to 2.2 billion years.

So, the radiometric data was in 1909 new, untested, and the evidence was not yet reaching the 2.2 billion years some of Boltwood's samples would later be dated to, just 570 million years. I took these quotes from William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin and from Age of Earth. On wikipedia.

So, nothing in 1907 or in 1909 indicated to anyone, even the least Biblically minded that the universe were somehow "billions of years old" ...

But he tries to show off on Cygnus X-1 ...

Those who hold to a literal interpretation of the Hexameron argue the Earth/universe is about six thousand (6,000) years old.

Actually I am very happy to accept 7200 years and two decades more according to the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day, and some Greeks prefer Syncellus who goes for 7500 years and three decades (Christ born Anno Mundi 5199 or 5509 according to the two sources).

Apart from this comment, the priest who on behalf of Pope Pius X answered question VIII in the affirmative had in his introduction to the Old Testament in the 1880's stated that from the creation of Adam on, Biblical chronology could perhaps need adjustment if geological evidence came up by admitting a few more gaps in the Genesis 11 genealogy than just the Second Cainan, but as far as he knew then, it was enough if Christ was born 5509 after Adam was created. ALL of the old earth data, ALL of it, as far as he was concerned was prehuman.

With obvious humans carbon dated to 40 000 BC, both Neanderthal and "Sapiens" / Cro Magnon race, this is no longer the case. And having a very low carbon 14 (like 1/64 of how much the proportion is now) at the Flood and just before is way easier to motivate if the Earth at the Flood was just 2242 years, rather than with millions of years, by which time the carbon 14 level would have already reached an equilibrium probably at 100 pmC, which would make a decay worth 40 000 carbon years impossible in the 5000 years since the Flood (a bit less than 5000 in Roman martyrology, a bit more in Syncellus).

There is ample evidence of an old Earth/universe. My basic data comes from multiple sources including M. J. Reid, et al. The trigonometric parallax of Cygnus X-1. The Astrophysical Journal, 742:83, 2011.

He confused his data with the data given by non-Biblicals in 1907.

As I always tried to make things as easy to understand as possible for my middle school science students when I taught, I will condense one line of argumentation into terse bullet points:

Being a middle school science teacher apparently warps one's judgement, then ... but I'll gladly take point by point.

The distance to some astronomical objects has been found to be greater than six thousand light years by a very simple method of measurement. (One light year is the distance that light covers in one year at the velocity it goes now.)

It is in fact not a very simple method of measurement. First, I go to his source: M. J. Reid, et al. The trigonometric parallax of Cygnus X-1. The Astrophysical Journal, 742:83, 2011. Reasearchgate won't allow me to access the full text, but there is an abstract.

The distance of 1.86 (-0.11,+0.12) kpc was obtained from a trigonometric parallax measurement using the Very Long Baseline Array.

I have a very clear suspicion that "parallax measurement using the Very Long Baseline Array" is something different and less straightforward than the "parallax measurement" Introibo is thinking of.

Very-long-baseline interferometry (VLBI) is a type of astronomical interferometry used in radio astronomy. In VLBI a signal from an astronomical radio source, such as a quasar, is collected at multiple radio telescopes on Earth or in space. The distance between the radio telescopes is then calculated using the time difference between the arrivals of the radio signal at different telescopes. This allows observations of an object that are made simultaneously by many radio telescopes to be combined, emulating a telescope with a size equal to the maximum separation between the telescopes.

So, are radio observations in interferometry equal to optic observations in determining the angle?

I am fairly confident that even VLBI is not getting very far past 6000 light years ... otherwise, why would Cygnus X-1 have been news in 2011. But I could be wrong, this could be about as straightforward as using optically verified parallaxes for determining alpha Centauri is 4 light years away.

But there is an even more basic problem.

That is whether we are in fact dealing with a parallax, as Heliocentrics presume, which can be used for trigonometry.

I have obviously greatly exaggerated the angles, for clarity. If earth stands still, left side diagramme, the different angles to alpha Centauri are due to alpha Centauri moving in time with the sun - same obviously for Cygnus X-1. And with angelic movers for celestial bodies, as the Church has maybe not positively taught but at least certainly endorsed and allowed individual priests to call the most probable position (Riccioli does so), these could be moving those movements, meaning that there is - as the diagramme shows - a very long triangle of no base line but only one tip touching earth. At what level of it you cut off alpha Centauri is arbitrary.

In that position, there is no such thing as "has been found to be greater than six thousand light years by a very simple method of measurement" ... because in this case it isn't one.

It's only in the right hand diagramme, with the Earth moving around the Sun, that we get a base line for the triangle, since in this view two positions are different ones of Earth itself and there thus is created (not from observation, but supposition) a baseline of Earth to Earth via the Sun.

If light has always been traveling at the same speed, it means it had to leave these objects more than six thousand years ago in order to reach us now. The universe is therefore older than this. Could it be that light went faster in the past?

I'm not very interested in that tenet of Setterfield's. If these objects are one light day up, even with absolutely uniform speed of light in vacuum (and marginally slower in transparent media), the light left these objects the day before we see them. If stars were created on day IV, and only Adam and Eve had to see them on day VI, they could have been two light days up. But some of the fish and especially birds created on day V needed to be programmed for migration by star map. So, the light reached earth on day V, and the distance to earth was 1 light day (and could still be that).

The speed of light is part of the known laws of nature ... / Every atom or molecule emits a very special kind of light, a kind of signature called “spectral lines.” ... / The spectral lines we observe from remote objects in the universe are exactly the same as those we observe now in the laboratory ...

A long way to refute Setterfield, which if arguing against my position is ignoratio elenchi.

Observations confirm that the laws of nature were the same six thousand years ago (and more) as they are now. The speed of light was therefore the same then, when light left these objects. This is not an assumption; it is an observation.

This is overkill. If I am not defending Setterfield, there is still a difference between "it is logically derived from observations" and "it is an observation" - as a lawyer he should be familiar with items like the cross-examination of a witness asking "is this what you saw, or what you concluded from what you saw?"

Now, his conclusion:

Unless light was miraculously created in transit, it had to be up there more than six thousand years ago in order to reach us now.

I will give this argument an overall form.

A) Light was either moving faster or created in transit or emitted a very long time ago.
B) Light was not moving faster.
C) Therefore, light was either created in transit or emitted a very long time ago.

And if I had opted to argue "it was created in transit" he could have told me that this involves making God a liar, since by such light created in transit showing novas of stars exploding that never existed. No, I am not going that way.

Let me correct the argument. First a preliminary.

A) If stars are much shorter away, the Heliocentric world view has to be wrong.
B) Either stars are much shorter away, or light was moving faster or created in transit or emitted a very long time ago.
C) Either the Heliocentric world view is wrong or light was moving faster or created in transit or emitted a very long time ago.

Now to the corrected argument.

A) Either the Heliocentric world view is wrong, or light moving faster or created in transit or emitted a very long time ago.
B) Light was not moving faster.
C) Therefore, either the Heliocentric world view is wrong, or light was created in transit or emitted a very long time ago.

So, he is committing a false alternatives fallacy by ignoring the possibility that the Heliocentric world view is wrong.

Let me put it like this - this is also less than brilliant.

Oh, by the way, the problem with the radiometric dating in 1907 is knowing how much uranium or thorium there was to start with, and whether all radium started out as uranium or not.

There is a flip side to this, I have already briefly mentioned it. If the Earth is very old, the carbon 14 level in the atmosphere very long time ago reached an equilibrium between how fast it is created in the atmosphere and how fast it decays. This in turn means (and was so far presumed by nearly all actually using radiocarbon), that all sample decays (after sample was cut off from atmosphere) started the decay at c. 100 pmC. And this would mean that mankind is too old for the Biblical narrative.

Remember what Question VIII actually asked and was confirmed in. It was about the length of the creation days. There was no such thing as an authorisation to say Adam lived much longer time ago, or even never existed at all. And as Introibo is not a modernist, he should know it./HGL

PS, glad to say that Contending For The Faith—Part 10 is excellent. No ineptness there whatsoever, on this other question./HGL

See if Introibo approves my comments before St. Lucy ...

See if Introibo approves my comments before St. Lucy ... · To illustrate the ineptness of Introibo on the question ... · If Curiosity Killed the Cat ... It's Bad

I am not in a haste to stamp him as a proponent of cancel culture, though he has shown himself such in the past. Today is the Eve of St. Andrews. I preprogram the publication of this post to St. Lucy.

29.XI to 13.XII is two weeks. He has time to approve comments and respond if he feels like that. Or, more exactly and less colloquially, he will have had time to, etc.

I He gave an overview of the cosmological argument. Here I comment on that one:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.
3. The universe exists.

An Atheist would answer:
If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is in the necessity of its own nature.

The fact that you subvert this by appealing to what Atheists actually say, when by lack of culture they misrepresent their own arguments doesn't make it a valid argument.

Suppose Atheists could validly claim that Christians believed in a Flat Earth and that that were in the Bible - could they say this blunder on part of one Theist position, Christianity, and its proponents, Christians, proved Atheism?

Obviously no.

St. Thomas, however, doesn't bring "the universe" in at Tertia Via, but in Prima Via.

If all the Universe is moving around one single Earth, and that single Earth cannot be what is moving it, that means, there is one Single Mover. This is how Riccioli understood Prima Via, and this is also why breaking the one universe up in several solar systems (old terminology "worlds") led to an alternative between mootness of the argument or accepting a plurality of gods, since the rotations around Sirius are not necessarily the same mover as rotations around "our" Sun. Giordano Bruno reached that conclusion and got burned. His judge concluded - very reasonably - that Heliocentrism was dangerous soul killing stuff. He was relieved when Galileo didn't go near half or even a quarter of what Bruno had concluded, but still didn't want Galileo's book to be read.

That Pius VII allowed Settele's book to be read, and Gregory XVI allowed Galileo's to be read (and Foscarini's too, I think) is in and of itself no direct statement contrary to the 1633 judgement, that the beliefs of central sun and non-central, encircling the centre, also self-rotating Earth is a correct or even innocuous belief or can be entertained without danger to the faith.

Without Geocentrism, the first three ways break down to "matter and energy are the First Mover, Cause, Being" for the Atheist pov.

We need to refute them in terms they could potentially undestand (I think I do, judging from Dick Harfield's cancel culture against me), not malign them for inside mutual encouragement.

II He also pretended to know better than the Kolbe Center, and here I comment on that one:

Question VIII: Whether in that designation and distinction of six days, with which the account of the first chapter of Genesis deals, the word (dies) can be assumed either in its proper sense as a natural day, or in the improper sense of a certain space of time; and whether with regard to such a question there can be free disagreement among exegetes? — Reply: IN THE AFFIRMATIVE.
______________________
The clergyman approving this was the Sulpician who had himself promoted this.

If it is only a matter of exegesis, it could "à la limite" stand (but see Mark 10:6 for refutation).

But since 1909, we have carbon dating.

This means, the Sulpician, Fulcran Vigouroux, could imagine 100 000 or a million years passed from Creation of the world to Creation of Adam, but from the creation of Adam ON, we are pretty comfy with 7000 - 7500 years to now, as per LXX chronologies of the Bible.

Since then, we have carbon dated men (whose humanity it would be highly temerary as well as disingenious to doubt) to 40 000 or even 50 000 BP. Neanderthals in El Sidrón and La Ferrassie, 40 000. Flores Hobbit, 50 000.

Now, a Young Earth Creationist can give a coherent answer, "carbon 14 rose since these people lived" - I give it in even some detail. This however is only possible if the equilibrium between decay of C14 in the atmosphere and production of new C14 in the upper parts of the atmosphere, which we observe now, had not yet been reached.

But it not having yet been reached would be impossible if the earth were 100 000 or 1 000 000 000 years.

Therefore, the Old Earth scenario, which Fr. Fulcran found compatible with the Bible, has since then acquired an extra dimension which is not compatible with it.

If you say "Adam lived 7000 years ago, but Neanderthals are correctly dated to 40 000 years ago" you get the problem, how is Adam the first man?

If you say "Adam lived 50 000 years ago, before that Neanderthal" you solve the problem how Adam is the first man, but get another one, how is Genesis 3 history?

See Haydock comment on chapter 3 for the classic answer, and see how it breaks down if Adam lived 50 000 years ago.

And one more thing. Don't construe "can be assumed" as "we should reasonably assume" it simply means "can be assumed without directly falling into heresy." (which it could in 1909) If you misconstrue it, you are as inept to write on theology as a surgeon who leaves a scalpel in a stomach is to do surgery.

[My bad on one item, I forgot that Fr. Fulcran had not put the long chronology as sole, but as alternative to the six times 24 hours exegesis, so that he left everyone entirely free to stay with strict Young Earth Creationism, as per this act. Now, the equality may well have been there in his day - apart from Mark 10:6 - but as said, no longer after carbon dating, a new factor to take into account.]

[If you feel the words are uncharitable, those are his own words about Theresa S. Benns in relation to her promotion of the 1990 Emergency Conclave.]

III Contending For The Faith—Part 10 - on this one, he's right.

Introibo Nearly Comes Out as Old Earth Creationist

Here is Introibo:
Introibo Ad Altare Dei : Contending For The Faith—Part 3
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2022/05/contending-for-faith-part-3.html

Here is a comment of mine, that I tried to post, and he may have decided to still keep me off the blog, so I give him to tomorrow before this is published here. If he validates and answers, the debate will be around here, for now, my comment:

Tanquerey* ... did not ask himself at what physical age Adam was endowed with a human soul.

1) As a baby or from conception (his body being evolved implies there was such an age for his body)? What was it like for an image of God endowed with language capacity to grow up among non-images of God who had no human language to transmit to him?
2) Or, at adult age, after he had already been socialised as a non-human being? What was it like for a newly made image of God, given language, to recall growing up among anatomically similar creatures with himself also at the time not endowed with reason?

The 1909 decision came before carbon dating, and it was obviously still possible to hope the geological evidence was compatible with a fully Biblical chronology from Adam's creation on. This was indeed the position expressed by the judge signing the decision, namely Fr. Fulcran Vigouroux. He believed that since Adam's creation c. 7400 years had passed by 1900 AD.

Only mountains and non-human remains would be much older than the Biblical time scale. With carbon dates of 40 000 BP on some Cro-Magnon remains, normally taken to literally mean 40 000 years ago, if you believe the rest of the universe is much older, since it would be hard to place a "still very low" carbon 14 level after hundreds of millennia of earth already there, this hope is gone. The decision of 1909 no longer has its original object, except to those who refuse to think things through, like JW's do. To my best knowledge, they are the most typical representative today for the position that Fr. Vigouroux had back in 1909.

"This also comports with the Commission's decision of June 23, 1905 (also approved by Pope St. Pius X) that Scripture gives historical accounts except "...where without opposing the sense of the Church and preserving its judgement, it is proved with strong arguments that the sacred writer did not wish to put down true history, and history properly so-called, but to set forth, under the appearance and form of history a parable, an allegory, or some meaning removed from the properly literal or historical significance of the words."

But it is nowhere so proven. Therefore** the 1905 decision definitely promotes literalism in the reading of early chapters of Genesis!

There is a danger of falling into Protestant errors if information is gotten from heretical Protestant sources, such as Ken Ham.

And for some reason, this danger is not attended to when it comes to getting information from sources like Hugh Ross, who is avowedly a Calvinist?

You are sifting mosquitos and swallowing camels!***

Update, he actually did go to full support of Old Earth in the very next blog post's comment section:

Introibo Ad Altare Dei : The Authority Of Papal Allocutions https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2022/05/the-authority-of-papal-allocutions.html

Where he was asked:

Mary's Vagabond
May 21, 2022 at 1:55 AM
The Dimondbacks said that Pius XII taught the earth was millions of years old (a falsehood) in an allocution. Can you address that?

and in his answer quoted this passage from the allocution:

“ The examination of numerous spiral nebulae, carried out especially by Edwin E. Hubble in the Mount Wilson Observatory, led to the significant result° - albeit tempered by reserves - that these distant galaxy systems tend to distance themselves from each other with such speed that the interval between two such spiral nebulae doubles in about 1300 million years. If we look back at the time of this process of the " Expanding Universe ", it appears that, from one to ten billion years ago, the matter of all the spiral nebulae was compressed in a relatively small space, when the cosmic processes began… The oscillations of gravitation within these systems, such as the friction of the tides, again restrict their stability within the terms of 5 to 10 billion years. If these figures can move to surprise, however, even to the simplest of believers they do not bring a new concept different from that learned from the first words of Genesis " In the beginning", that is to say the beginning of things in time. To those words they give a concrete and almost mathematical expression, while a greater comfort flows from them for those who with the Apostle share the esteem for that Divinely inspired Scripture, which is always useful " ad docendum, ad arguendum, ad corripiendum, ad erudiendum"

and gave his own comment:

I personally subscribe to Old Earth, and believe it both on the science, as well as its gaining acceptance by Pope Pius XII and the approved theologians of the 1950s.

I would go as far to say IT IS BETTER SUPPORTED both by the Church under Pius XII and the discoveries of science, but it was not compelled by the Church. Had Vatican II not happened, I believe the matter would be settled for an Old Earth. That's just my layman's opinion, and Pope Pius was NOT making the matter settled.

As I know from Christine Pedotti, if the upheaval of the original schemas hadn't happened, Vatican II would have decided for Young Earth Creationism and for Adam being created out of non-organic matter, that is for God creating in the manner described in the Bible./HGL

PS, I always forget if it was Silvio Oddi or Alfredo Ottaviani, but I think the latter who wrote the discarded schema for Vatican II with this content. Alfredo Ottaviani was made cardinal by Pius XII, unlike Oddi only named by antipope (clear such) Montini./HGL

* Commenting on Humani Generis.
** See my comment on 1905, here:
Creation vs. Evolution : When Are Implicit Citations Licit?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2017/07/when-are-implicit-citations-licit.html
*** And perhaps even forgetting canon law, how about this one? Here:

Canon 129 (1983 CIC 279)
Upon ordination to the priesthood, clerics shall not interrupt their studies, especially sacred ones; in sacred disciplines, the solid and traditional doctrine that has been commonly received by the Church shall be followed, avoiding profane verbal novelties and what falsely passes for science.

° It means, Pius XII's acceptance of Heliocentric pseudo-science led him to believe, if not Old Earth, at least Old Universe, but I think other parts of the allocution also stated for Old Earth. This being so, I have wondered if Humani Generis was a betrayal of the faith in others, making him in a first step a material only pope and if the allocution was his coming out as an apostate and therefore in 1951 actually losing papacy.

Will Antichrist be of the so called Jewish Religion?

Introibo Ad Altare Dei : The Man Of Sin
http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-man-of-sin.html

Anonymous

April 30, 2019 at 5:14 PM

Introibo - I don’t understand why the majority think the Anti Christ will be a Jew. The Jews are already lost unless they accept Jesus as the Christ and join the True Church. Having the Anti Christ be a Jew makes no sense to me as the Jews are already duped. Since the Christians are God’s people wouldn’t it make more sense for the Anti Christ to be a Christian? Thanks.

JoAnn

Introibo Ad Altare Dei

April 30, 2019 at 6:53 PM

Joann,
The Jewish race is now at enmity with God and are guilty of Deicide. Antichrist will come out of the race which REJECTED HIM. They await the Messiah, so how much easier will it be for Antichrist to dupe them with false miracles and promising them what they want.

—-Introibo

It is more patristic to say that "the Jews who rejected the true Christ will accept the Antichrist" since that is a very common view on the meaning of

I am come in the name of my Father, and you receive me not: if another shall come in his own name, him you will receive.
[John 5:43]

It is not stated that the one coming "in his own name" will confess Judaism.

It is also not stated whether the ones so reacting in these close to end times are very unreligious Jews or highly religious ones. Which of these have more power right now?

And if I am right, they would not too much mind their Messiah confessing Christianity, of a sort, as long as it was clear he was not a true believer, not believing that the New Testament (or the Old Testament read with a Christian understanding) was unviolable truth.

In other words, it could refer to Jewish Modernists who will be accepting a "Christian" Modernist. Who might on the other hand also score a few extra points with them because of his Jewish origins.

But as Jews are a minority, some kind of Christians (ranging from Modernist to openly virulent Apostates?) will be needed for him to gain power as well. But they will be led on by such Jews as follow him./HGL

Introibo After Ultracrepidarians Again

His series "Contending for the Faith" has a July issue:

Introibo Ad Altare Dei : Contending For The Faith—Part 5
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2022/07/contending-for-faith-part-5.html

And here he goes:

Like the Feeneyites, Benns insists that anyone can read "the obvious meaning" of the words in Canon Law. In a similar fashion, Protestants reject the Magisterium on the grounds that they can "read the Bible for themselves." The cardinal said the canons were "clear in their obvious meaning"—to whom? Anyone? Young Bobby? (Maybe Bobby can do Mr. Robbins next guest post). No, it is understood that it is clear to those properly trained (canonists and theologians), just as the legal meaning of "not guilty" is clear to lawyers, not the average non-lawyer.

The legal meaning of "not guilty" in Scotland means "reasonably cleared of suspicion" since there it is co-divided with "not proven" meaning "not sufficient proof for guilt to condemn the person" - but in other than Scottish jurisdictions of English language, "not guilty" would legally mean either "reasonably cleared of suspicion" OR "not sufficient proof for guilt to condemn the person" as the pronouncement "not proven" does not exist.

There is a very big difference between rejecting the Magisterium and seeing one is cut off from access. There is therefore a big difference between doing as best as one can because that is what one has and "doing as best as one can" after cutting oneself off from the magisterium, deliberately.

As a former Protestant, I consider Introibo fairly incompetent in matters about Protestantism : many Protestant sects do have a sort of Magisterium and the adhesion to this day to certain Protestant errors do not come from rejection of the Catholic magisterium, still less from a happy go lucky confidence one can read the Bible oneself, but from acceptance of the Protestant de facto rogue magisterium. Often disguised as scholarship. "Greek and Coptic texts of Sub tuum praesidium are no longer dated to second century" they will say (important given that these non-Latin versions preserved an ending confirming the Immaculate Conception, and given the privileged position they give to pre-Constantine centuries) or "ekklesia doesn't mean denomination" (forgetting that it was very certainly a visible ekklesia with a visible structure and unity - which any casual reader of the New Testament could figure out, as long as he didn't allow Protestant "scholarship" (pseudo-magisterium) to stop him). While the historically "magisterial" Protestantisms are mainly non-US invented sects, like Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, a) these usually have more errors, more pernicious errors, and could be foreseen as having more pernicious errors, since they came to exist by direct rebellion against the Catholic Church, as compared to the US-invented sects, and b) the exemples of "scholarship" doing the office of magisterium I just gave involve precisely US-invented versions of Baptism.

It is truly dishonest of Introibo to blame an optimist view of one's own understanding of Scripture for the errors of Protestantism.

And even more so to, having made this the root error of Protestantism, when it wasn't, apply this to Catholics, whether Theresa Benns or myself, who disagree with them.

Now, being in communion with the late bishop Dolan, Introibo certainly has access to priests trained in seminaries - but which were not so prior to Vatican II. This poses the question which of the post-Vatican II and anti-conciliar seminaries is supposed to take the place of the prior to Vatican II real approval by real bishops in communion with real popes.

We are so very Ott, so utterly Tanquerey and so totally van Noort, therefore us ... fine, before the Council, a man who wanted to write anything on religion in the dioceses where these men were would arguably have had to deal with these men as they were approved. But they did not foresee the post-conciliar situation as Introibo sees it - does that mean that such as situation is unreal because they did not foresee it? What about the guys who also claim to follow Ott, Tanquerey and van Noort, but who disagree with Dolan and Introibo? But more so, what of those who could claim that there are other issues than the post-conciliar situation that Ott, Tanquerey and van Noort did not think through? Like Tanquerey's support for an Adam with "evolved body, receiving a soul directly from God" (beyond what his physical ancestry had received) ... he never posed the question whether this would affect in any way, shape or form how Adam grew up. To pose the question basically means to reject the option.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Holy Gorkum Martyrs
9.VII.2022

Brilae, in Hollandia, passio novemdecim Martyrum, Gorcomiensium nuncupatorum; quorum ex numero novem Sacerdotes ac duo Laici erant Fratres Minores, quatuor Presbyteri saeculares, duo Praemonstratenses, unus Regularis Canonicus sancti Augustini, et unus Dominicanus. Hi omnes, ob tuendam Ecclesiae Romanae auctoritatem et realem Christi in Eucharistia praesentiam, a Calvinianis haereticis varia ludibria et tormenta perpessi, tandem, in trabem acti, agonem suum, adstrictis laqueo faucibus, consummarunt; et a Pio Nono, Pontifice Maximo, inter sanctos Martyres relati sunt.

PS, see also citation here:

Introibo Ad Altare Dei : Get The Correct Interpretation And You're Home Free
https://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2022/06/get-correct-interpretation-and-youre.html

The true meaning is made even more clear by canonists Abbo and Hannon commenting on Canon 17:

Doctrinal Interpretation. Every theologian and canonist may interpret the law privately (i.e. with the authority warranted by their own private learning). Their interpretations, however, have only that weight which attaches to the reasons on which they are based. They possess special value when they are almost unanimous and consistent over an extended period of time, since in the latter case they would be practically obligatory. (See The Sacred Canons, [1952], 1:35; Emphasis mine).

Canon 17 mentions three types of interpretation, and private interpretation is not one of them. Abbo and Hannon in the comment add this, and the words "the authority warranted by their own private learning" or "only that weight which attaches to the reasons on which they are based" show v e r y clearly that the same would apply to someone who did not have the position of a cleric who has a Doctorate in Sacred Theology (STD) or of a cleric who has a Doctorate in Canon Law (JCD). As to the words of Rocca, "private doctor" - the word comes from a context of the Middle Ages which certainly does not in and of itself necessarily refer to an university degree of doctorate. See how St. Thomas Aquinas says that the Pope "may err as a private doctor" ... the opposition is not to someone who is not a university doctor of relevant discipline, it is to (in the case of the Pope) the official capacity "as pope" and (in the case of Della Rocca) to an interpretation that is, in the terms of canon 17 "authentic" - a type of interpretation of the law which has force of law!/HGL