Tuesday, 7 March 2017

For those of you who woke up optimistic this morning : Bergoglio, the Antipope "Francis"

But since then?

Have I missed sth? I don't believe the so called "Pope Francis" ever has revoked his Rabbit-Gate mentality. I have not heard anything about Hans Joachim Schellnhuber not having been named to Papal Academy of Sciences or about his remarks on Copenhagen conference being misquoted by Breitbart. I have not heard anything about "Cardinal" Turkson being misquoted.

To this very day.

Or did he revoke it, were above links fake news after all? I just saw an article accusing conservatives of spreading fake news ... shall I doubt?

No, not really, the actual "correction" I saw does speak of another article as fake news, but not of above two.

Now, here is that story, with my comments:

Abbey Roads:
LifeSiteNews offers a correction ...

Life Site News A
Pope has urged having fewer children if ‘you cannot bring them up properly,’ claims Vatican academy member
Jan Bentz Fri Mar 3, 2017

Life Site News B
CORRECTION: Vatican academy member misquoted in story on Pope Francis
The Editors Mon Mar 6, 201

Own observation:
The correction may be due as such, due to a misquote of the exact words, but the misquote in my view did not substantially falsify the news story, as to the attitude of "Pope Francis".

"Fake news"
On March 3, LifeSite published an article originally titled: “'Pope Francis has urged us to have fewer children,' claims Vatican academy member.” That article misquoted botanist and environmentalist Peter Raven, who was reported to have said at a Vatican press conference that, “Pope Francis has urged us to have fewer children to make the world more sustainable.”

What he actually said was, "We need at some point to have a limited number of people which is why Pope Francis and his three most recent predecessors have always argued that you should not have more children than you can bring up properly."

We are always having a limited number of people.

Always and everywhere, all through history, human numbers have been less than infinite. They have been finite.

So, what exactly does it mean to say "We need at some point to have a limited number of people"?

It means that man should set up a limit as sustainable and claim that people above that limit are somehow "not sustainable". If it doesn't mean that, it is meaningless, since either way we always have in fact a limited number of people.

If it does mean that, it means Malthusianism.

There is in fact a kind of Malthusian solution which is Catholic. Monasteries. As long as they are voluntary.

And what does it mean to say "which is why Pope Francis and his three most recent predecessors have always argued that you should not have more children than you can bring up properly"?

If bringing up properly means giving instruction to disciplined hearers, you are more likely to bring up properly if you have more children, unless you are grossly neglecting their well being, not doing your work to keep them fed.

So, "no more than you can bring up properly" might seem to be concerned with some obvious material matters.

And that is where the idea is wrong.

You don't know how well or ill you will be equipped when the mouth you are perhaps making and perhaps not making is big enough for its eating to be an issue.

In jurisdictions where child labour is not totally forbidden, older children can actually contribute, by sewing, by knitting, by other easy but good resulting home crafts. Or by taking a turn at the plough or feeding the poultry, if you are on the country.

This means that more children will only be more drain on resources for so long, until the oldest start helping out for their younger siblings.

Or, it may even mean the topsy turvy idea that discipline means strict control of every child, and you shouldn't have more of them than you can successfully enslave to your own plans.

But, Catholicly speaking, the phrase "you should not have more children than you can bring up properly" is either meaningless or means gross materialism.

Some child protective services would argue you are not bringing up your children "properly" if you raise them on a so called "dirt floor". Pope St Pius X was raised on a "dirt floor" ("jordgolf" in Swedish actually means "earth floor") as one in 21.

I would not want someone to be taken for "Pope" if he agrees with that.

And I am thankful for the precision : "which is why Pope Francis and his three most recent predecessors have always argued"


  • Bergoglio, alias "Pope Francis".
  • 1) Ratzinger, alias "Pope Benedict XVI"
  • 2) Wojtyla, alias "Pope Saint John Paul II"
  • 3) "John Paul I" whoever he was?

Or perhaps "John Paul I" didn't count, since he was in charge too shortly for "always arguing" anything. Then we have:

  • Bergoglio, alias "Pope Francis".
  • 1) Ratzinger, alias "Pope Benedict XVI"
  • 2) Wojtyla, alias "Pope Saint John Paul II"
  • 3) Montini, alias "Pope Blessed Paul VI"

I would say we so called Sedevacantists (some of us do have a Pope we acknowledge, as I do with Pope Michael) are in quite a different position than Protestants. These cannot agree, as has been argued by Devin Rose, whether it was second century or sixth century Catholics who lost track of the true Church.*

Here, a friend of one of the people we call Antipopes is providing a list of - the main Antipopes (excluding "John XXIII" who seems not to have been keen on this subject?).

This is a main difference between Sedevacantism and Orthopapism (a k a Alteropapism) and Protestantism. This is a main difference between Mgr Lefèbvre and his students like Father Cekada or Monsignor Dolan or Pope Michael and Martin Luther. Some of us can or [do] point to sth they have lived as true Catholicism.**

The bishop of Geneva, St Francis of Sales, was given admonition by his father, when as a young student he doubted whether Calvinism could possibly be true. "Protestantism is a new religion : I have seen it born" or words to the effect he said.

Some would perhaps point to Sedevacantist positions or Alteropapist positions about the Papal Claimants in Rome as radically different from previous centuries when Catholics didn't hesitate to consider Pius IX or St Pius X as Popes***. But if you analyse theological discourse, some on our side have a way better claim to this than they, to the observation, that is, of the father of St Francis of Sales.

And here we have some confirmation.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Nanterre University Library
Tuesday in Ember Week of Lent
Memory of St Thomas Aquinas

* Either in If Protestantism is True: The Reformation Meets Rome – June 6, 2011 - or in The Protestant's Dilemma: How the Reformation's Shocking Consequences Point to the Truth of Catholicism – February 27, 2014. Actually it was first subsection of Part 1 : The Church of Christ, 1:Divine Authority, namely "If Protestantism is true, Christ revoked the authority he gave to the Church when he founded it", which is followed by one paragraph, a subheading "The Fall of the Church" and a portion of text from which the first speaks of trying to pinpoint Constantine, and the second - first sentence - is my reference "But Protestants in general are usually not so exact in their dating estimates and instead claim that corruption entered the Church somewhere between the second and sixth centuries." ** The paragraph was updated with clarifying emphases and adding a word thought but forgotten to write. *** Except when some did : La Petite Église considered that Pius VII had made a pact with the Devil and an act of Apostasy by his Concordate with Napoleon. So they concluded he was not Pope.

No comments:

Post a Comment