This kind of stuff is usually on Assorted Retorts. Some of that blog is about answering questions on quora + ensuing debates, and then the initial comment has a very clear bearing to a very short question.
But some of it is also about comments under youtubes. Plus sometimes ensuing debates. In that case several comments on the same video may have very little connexion to the title. You can treat each comment as a kind of aphorism (sometimes with something I respond to cited),
or you can look up the video and connect my comments to the (usually given) time stamps.
Such a post may be updated, if someone responds to my comments. Therefore I sign, before it actually begins.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Quadragesima Lord's Day
26.II.2023
Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/
In response to The Crusader Pub on Assorted Retorts
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20Crusader%20Pub
Is Pope Francis a MASON?
The Crusader Pub, 26 Febr. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AQa4uCDnWU
4:51 Extra info.
Why Jesuits rather than Jesuats? Given Jesus = Jeschua, Jesuats would have been more like it?
The Jesuats already existed. They were also called the "aqua-vitae-fathers" ... as a grandson of a distiller, I obviously find their particular type of "tentmaking" fairly attractive.
Not so the case with some stern Pope of the 17th C. who abolished them - after the Jesuits already existed and it was too late to call
them Jesuats.
5:08 They are not
diocesan priests. They are incardinated into the order, not the diocese.
But a bishop is perfectly free to name a regular rather than a secular the curate of a given parish.
Including, but not limited to:
OMI, Jesuits, formerly Jesuats, Franciscans, Dominicans, Augustinians, Carmelites, Unshod Carmelites, Capuchins, who are to Franciscans like Unshod to Carmelites ...
Possible exception - I think being a Carthusian is somewhat incapacitating for being a parish priest.
But
I think even Cistercians and Benedictines have served as curates. And perhaps even Trappists. Trappists being to Cistercians what Unshod Carmelites are to Carmelites, and what Capuchins are to Franciscans, not to mention that the Cistercians themselves are to Benedictines what Unshod Carmelites are to Carmelites and what Capuchins are to Franciscans ...
6:25 [John Fullerton MacArthur Jr. speaking]
"the true Church of the Lord Jesus has always understood it"
Let's see, in the time of Pope Cornelius that might have been, on his understanding, Antipope Novatian.
In the time of "McArthur" himself, it is obviously "McArthur" himself.
c. 200 – c. 258 = time of Novatian.
Sorry, it's MacArthur ... John Fullerton MacArthur. Relative of a blessed lady Fullerton, who wrote "helpers of the holy souls" ...
"From 1964 to 1966, MacArthur was hired by his father as associate pastor at the Harry MacArthur Memorial Bible Church (now Calvary Bible Church in Burbank, California), which his father Jack had planted and named after his own father"
John Fullerton MacArthur Sr:
"In November 1954, he and his staff left that church to establish the independent, nondenominational Harry MacArthur Memorial Bible Church of Glendale, which was named for his father;"
OK, that's 17 centuries from 258 to 1954.
Where was this famous "true Church of the Lord Jesus" in 358, 458, 558, 658, 758, 858, 958, 1058, 1158, 1258, 1358, 1458, 1558, 1658, 1758 and 1858?
I'll not be satisfied if his answers start out only in 1558 ...
By the way "not famous" is perhaps a solution for "individual souls" but these cannot be all there is, without fame, to the Church as a whole.
You don't teach a nation by living under a rock (unless lots of people come to that rock.)
Waldensians, we see a very narrow line between 1158 and 1458, in that case .... funny that good Bible comments from this time seem to come from what he considers the fake church ...
7:31 While the "Big Bang theory" is - if true, which I do not grant - evidence for a divine being, it's not that for the One Whom the Bible speaks of or the Church Fathers preached.
9:53 In the 1940's some priests were starting to state "Adam had non-human ancestry" - in the 1940's also (1946) Lemaître reaffirmed his BBT. Other thing of the 1940's? Yes. A French commission about sex abuse has cases starting in the 1940's in 2019, and this despite the fact that some would still have been alive, if they had been abused in the 1930's ... - what's the connexion? Read Romans 1.
btw, Lemaître was a diocesan priest, not a Jesuit
11:06 "he still attributes the cause as being God"
Does he explicitly say so in
The Primeval Atom – an Essay on Cosmogony or is that your deduction from his being Catholic?
12:10 or sth ... Richard Rohr might be taking a few cues from an actual Jesuit. You know, of Piltdown fame and
Le Phénomène humain - a street I tend to avoid going on.
There is a toilet on Calvin street, so I sometimes go there for
necessity but I make a bend around Rue du Père-Teilhard-de-Chardin.
13:34 I am certain Kennedy Hall and Antony Stine have less trouble
motivating a suspicion about Bergoglio being Mason.
Not that they would fall for stating it without evidence.
My own suspicion is, he's Anglican. No, not like official part of the Anglican Communion, but closer to Tony Palmer than to Anunciado Serafini (the consecrator of his "consecrator") in theology. At least on certain salient specific areas.
But you
are aware that Rotary is forbidden, if not for laymen, for clergy, and yet he agreed to be honorary Rotarian?
14:14 Obviously, if Tony Palmer can be mentioned as a shadow on the theological reputation of Bergoglio, I think there may be a slight shadow on His late Holiness' reputation, as Pope Michael had some fondness for Charles Chiniquy.
15:25 sth I think Ireland and Malta were claiming to be Catholic countries and after 1990 Poland and Slovenia followed suit .... in early 1980, Spain was a Catholic country.
16:04 Blavatskaya was Russian by marriage, but German by birth ... so, von Hahn's were Protestants when starting, but I'm not sure about Peter Hahn - only, Protestant or Orthodox, he was willing to put down Poles with ruthlessness. Her mother, abandoned by him, was Ukrainean. As her husband was vice-governor of Erevan, he very arguably was Russian.
16:51 I wondered what Chesterton meant about "Isis Unveiled" when he spoke of mystagogues in Paris ... it's a book by Blavatskaya ...
17:28 Ha, sounds like Escobar would have considered it OK to use the exorcism of Anne-Liese Michel in favour of Marcel Lefebvre, then!
Since this was in
January 1976, however, he was still in perfectly good standing with the man he held to be Pope. He only "incurred suspension a divinis" later that year. It is however possible that Peter's confession in Matthew 16 is an example, if this came after one specific verse in Mark 3 ... if so, St. Peter was giving an example for those who consider that exorcism a very good reason to believe in January 1976 Marcel Lefebvre was the best voice available in the Church (apparent, except to Sedes) ...
17:44 I
do read Latin, but I have no access to the text of Escobar.
However, as an amateur theologian, I must say the quote seems perfectly sound. Imagine you came to know of someone's pregnancy in a séance, that's diabolic, you would presume the demon wasn't going to ruin his reputation by saying directly false things, once you have repented, can you still use (for good things, like providing the woman a husband or a poor couple a home) that knowledge, before you have occasion to check? Escobar says, yes.
Imagine that Escobar gave half and half credence to the book of Henoch.
If that book is true, a demon helped Tubal Cain invent swords. This does not make it unlawful for people after Tubal Cain to craft or learn to use swords, in a transmission of knowledge that is human rather than diabolic.
The counterdistinction he's making, is, if Satan gave me knowledge of Mandarin Chinese without my studying it, to make things clear, while I know a few things about Mandarin Chinese, I do
not know it,
basically at all, I could for instance
not use Satan's help to speak to someone in Mandarin Chinese, since in that case, the "preservation of the knowledge" would in fact depend on the devil as much as the acquisition.
In other words, what Escobar is saying is sth which only
sounds bad to a very unthoughtful Puritan.
17:57 "Escobar died at Valladolid in 1669, following which, ten years later, Pope Innocent XI publicly condemned his sixty-five sentences, as well as teachings of other ethical authorities, for being propositiones laxorum moralistarum; nonetheless, it was a criticism towards few judgements and not the scholar in general."
Let's be precise.
No specific book was condemned, only 65 sentences.
Is the one cited among these? I don't know. I personally wouldn't think so. But it could be checked.
18:04 That ends justify or damn means which are morally neutral in and of themselves, or even justifies means that are
usually forbidden, but not the prime target of a commandment, not intrinsically evil ones, is in fact compatible with the teaching of the Church, and I think you can find this in St. Thomas.
For instance, commandment V is not primarily forbidding the "killing of a human being" but "the killing of an innocent human being" - usually this translates to not killing anyone at all, since the neighbour must usually be presumed innocent. Does not apply in situations of self defense. In that case, the licit end of defending one's own life or freedom would justify the killing of a life presumed (as unjust agressor) to be not an innocent one. Obviously, a robber being arrested has no right to defend his freedom, and a man who is justly condemned to die does not have the right to defend his life. I mean those who, usually, do have a right to self defense.
However, big difference, abortion is the killing of someone who can not be presumed guilty. Hence, it is in and of itself identical to one case of "the killing of an innocent human being" and is therefore a prime target of the V commandment.
18:52 Protestant atrocities like seducing Bergoglio to a modernist Anglican position? Or do you mean only historic ones?
