A Catholic Lay Apologist Does Not Need to Have the Church as an Employer

No, I Do Not Believe in Sola Scriptura, and Sola Scriptura is Not the Foundation of Protestantism · Some People Would Love to Save Me From Catholicism · A Catholic Lay Apologist Does Not Need to Have the Church as an Employer

Let's take a look at some other lay apologists:

Support
Help support Catholic Answers in achieving its vision for spreading the Good News of Jesus Christ. We are an independent, lay-run apostolate that is fully faithful to the magisterium of the Catholic Church, but we neither ask for—nor receive—financial support from the Vatican, any diocese or bishops conference, or any other organization that is part of the institutional Catholic Church. Donations to Catholic Answers, a registered 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, are tax-deductible to the extent permitted by law.

https://www.catholic.com/about

Let me underline:
"we neither ask for—nor receive—financial support from the Vatican, any diocese or bishops conference, or any other organization that is part of the institutional Catholic Church."

So, the Apologists on Catholic Answers are NOT financially affiliated to the Vatican or to the United States Conference of Bishops, or anything. They do NOT have the Church as Employer, unlike quite a lot of priests who have a diocese as Employer.

But they can state this? Here:
"that is fully faithful to the magisterium of the Catholic Church,"

Well, depends on where you think the magisterium is. If it's momentarily displaced to Topeka, they aren't.

Timeline
Our history begins in 1979, with a flyer placed on car windshields that became our first tract. In it, Karl Keating responded to false Fundamentalist claims about Catholicism. He signed the flyer “Catholic Answers” and opened a P.O. box under the same name. Visit the Catholic Answers Timeline for all the highlights and photos of our apostolate’s history.

That is, since back in 1979, Catholic Answers have been confusing Fundamentalism with Protestantism, Fundamentalism with Protestant Sects of the Fundamentalist tradition.

They have taken a position, back then not that of the Vatican II Sect, that Fundamentalist exegesis is not that of the Church.

That this is now accepted by the Vatican II Sect is a reason why I don't consider it as Catholicism. What I converted to in 1988, what I intended to convert to, certainly allowed people to consider Genesis 1 to 11 as not historically accurate if taken literally, and I was aware of that. I was also, like a lot of Young Earth Creationists back then, not strictly adhering to the Biblical timeline, I was willing to allow omitted generations in the Genesis 11 genealogy, though for my part I didn't use it for accomodating the Evolutionist timeline. Instead I acccomodated lost civilisations, which are partly a must from a Biblical view (given that Iron Age came centuries after Bronze Age in my recalibrated carbon tables, and more than a millennium, close to two, in standard archaeology, none of those are the Nodian Civilisation) and partly a favourite theme in fantasy literature I liked (like Conan by Robert E. Howard) or still like now (like Tolkien).

Since then, both the Vatican II Sect and I have changed. In the early 90's, I was already a Trad, as in SSPX, consequently I missed how the Vatican II Sect changed - CCC, new Christmas proclamation, the document Exegesis of Bible in the Church, all of them made a non-Fundamentalist reading of Genesis if not totally mandatory (Robert Sungenis seems to be fine with his bishop when he's defending Young Earth), at least more mandatory than it was.

I changed too, a bit later. When I was transferred from prison to forensic psychiatry, I read City of God by St. Augustine of Hippo, translated to Swedish. It had been losely implied in lots of informal conversations to me that the Church Fathers (whom I knew to be the gold standard of Bible interpretation) were against Literalism in the interpretation of Genesis. I read St. Augustine and found - it is anything but. When I was released, which was when I was supposed to get out of prison, I came out as a Young Earth Creationist. During the first year or year and a half when I was free, and had no access to FSSPX masses, I attended Novus Ordo masses reverently celebrated by priests I knew believed in the sacrifice of the Mass. During that year, I came across CCC. And its § 283.

Since then I have, for one part, been searching for the Church, and for another, since the "election" of "Pope Francis" been sure it was not the Vatican II Sect, but rather Pope Michael.

This obviously means, I differ from Catholic Answers on where the Catholic Magisterium is. I do not feel obliged by the new Christmas Proclamation, I promote the traditional one, which was part of the Roman Missal since its first edition, and I could not oppose the version it previously had in Usuardus, since an edition in the late 1400's, with the fall of Troy marked too. I do not feel obliged by Exegesis of the Bible in the Church. I do not feel obliged by CCC or its § 283. Pope Michael never made any ruling against what I wrote on my blogs, except perhaps insofar as him presuming the Novus Ordo mass inherently invalid can be one or taken the shape of one, overriding the own take I had in accepting the Buenos Aires Eucharistic miracle. I have not been asked to take that post (on two of my blogs) down.

Some will consider me unfaithful to Humani Generis. While I consider it a very bad move on the part of Pope Pius XII, it does not define that Adam's evolutionary ancestry according to some is definitely acceptable. It explicitly refrains (unfortunately) from defining definitely that it is inacceptable. He did not state that this was his position, only that both positions were for the moment unsanctioned.

This said, I can not be pintpointed to being unfaithful to the Magisterium, except that of the Vatican II Sect, to which I feel no obligation. I may feel obligations of courtesy to its members, such as seem Catholic, and I may see such members, as did Pope Michael, as displaced souls. I do not feel an obligation to see CCC as a Catechism of the Catholic Church, it had some number of own approved ones. The one I most read for my conversion is one approved in Germany in the 1960's within the Vatican II Sect, but by bishops who had certainly been ordained priests and consecrated bishops within the actual Catholic Church, before that. Its position was not very explicit on all Young Earth Creationist themes, but its position was clearly more immediately compatible with Young Earth Creationism than with the § 283 and its implications.

This should suffice for any allegation that "Catholic" would be fraudulent on my part. It's not. I have gone out of my way more than most born outside the Church to live a Catholic life, I have been opposed more than most, and I have not given up.

So, a Catholic lay apologist may have not the Church as Employer, but still be under a non-profit organisation? Indeed. But that also is not a requirement. Chesterton, as far as I can verify, was not a formal member of the Catholic Evidence Guild. I do not forbid non-profits from using my material, even if they are in the Vatican II Sect.

Conditions, comment les imprimer/how to print them
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/p/conditions-comment-les-imprimerhow-to.html

But I do not consider I should depend on approval from them before I can do what I am already doing.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Quinquagesima
19.II.2023