I suppose I have been shunned for not abjuring all of Eastern Orthodoxy

Sent to : Oblationem, mhfm1

4/IX/2013 St Moses

I suppose I have been shunned for not abjuring all of Eastern Orthodoxy but what Pope would have me do so at present?

As to logic, here is a partial defense of them:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica : Answering Dimond Brothers about Eastern Orthodox
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2013/09/answering-dimond-brothers-about-eo.html

Sent to : Hans-Georg Lundahl

12/IX/2013

Re:I suppose I have been shunned for not abjuring all of Eastern Orthodoxy

Actually, when you were not honest about the geocentrism matter, and the import of Benedict XV's words, it became clear that it would be fruitless and a waste of time to continue with you. Until you admit you are wrong and conduct yourself more honestly, that is. If a person is dishonest, you cannot help that person.

Obviously you also need to reject 'Orthodoxy' and become a true Christian.

MHFM
www.vaticancatholic.com

Sent to : mhfm1

14/IX Holy Cross Feast

Objet :Re:I suppose I have been shunned for not abjuring all of Eastern Orthodoxy

You are treating the words of Benedict XV like as if a Pope as cautiously as possible merely suggesting - not defning or teaching - but suggesting an admission of a possibility of Earth not being the immobile centre of the Universe as if that meant a clear and infallible teaching this might not be so.

Popes are infallible when they sneeze? No, but when they clearly and authoratively teach something.

The one thing which IS very clear from that encyclical about Dante's Divina Commedia is that a theological novel is possible and that its theology being right is not dependent on its cosmology being right. A clear defense in advance of Narnia, Screwtape Letters, Akallabêth, Lord of the Rings - but very poor on the subject of whether heliocentrism has become licit.

The second clearest thing from that encyclical is that if Dante was great it was not for writing De Monarchia but for writing Divina Commedia.

The third clearest thing is that parts of Dante's Cosmology are very possibly incorrect, but when he gets to the subject of geocentrism, the Pope is less sure and more cautious about that than about the whole complex issue in itself. That is why I do not agree there is a "clear teaching" heliocentrism is a theologically valid possibility.

I am not sure at all about the details of the historical context of that encyclical, except that it was a jubilee of Dante's birth or death or writing Divina Commedia or something. I guess, though I am far from sure, that someone presented the Dante Jubilee to the Pope in similar hopes as those of the Pharisees at certain points "is it licit to pay tax to Caesar" and such.

Either - they may have thought - he will be against De Monarchia and against Dante, and so he will be an uncultured Barbarian. Or, he will admit to being for Divina Commedia though it is "discredited" (or so they thought) from modern cosmology. Or, finally, he will be forced to admit De Monarchia as a work of genious. Which it is in a diabolic sort of way, because it preaches laicism "king over priest = religious peace" basically. Or perhaps rather "king over priest = religious humility of priests". In all of the encyclical Pope Benedict XV avoided mentioning De Monarchia as scrupulously as Jesus avoided to mention sodomy while nevertheless condemning it implicitly along with divorce.

Vita Nuova, though not as diabolical, is in some ways an erotic work, and if Benedict XV had mentioned Vita Nuova, they could have said "oh you read that stuff".

Of course, if the Pope had taken up a minor work of Dante's like De Vulgari Eloquentia they could have asked him "is it true that Latin for yes is 'oc'?" Actually I think Dante in the enumeration of neolatin languages included Occitan and called it Latin because "Ladino" is a dialect of it and the only way to put that name into Latin is calling it Latin - because Ladino is a word that means Latin (as opposed to German in neighbouring villages).

But, no, on that encyclical I feel no guilt of dishonesty, rather I feel you could merit to ponder if you did not possibly want a clearer teaching condemning Geocentrism (which was the position of the Church for 1500 years and a bit longer, and of to me known Israelites before the Church too) so as not to feel any obligation toward the decision of 1633. Because, it is not only Dante but also Galileo that is on the list of "great men of renown" these days.

If you do wish to honour Galileo, why not do so for something he was not even an instant condemned for? Telescope at Milky Way, Moons of Jupiter, non-astronomical issues? That way you would follow the example of Benedict XV.

So much for my supposed dishonesty!

If you are sure Vatican I is a real Ecumenic Council, you need to accept that St Peter has perpetuos successores, and that these are not just any bishops but Popes and so there is a Pope now, there is no way the Holy See has been vacant since 1958 in that case. Sedisvacantism (properly speaking) and FSSPX both work - on the Orthodox view of St Peter's successors. Is it Francis I or Michael I or Alexander IX who is currently Pope on your real Christian view?