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?

On : Benedict XV, To/From : mhfm1, Dates: 29-VII - 4-VIII-2013

Series on Canonic Position of Heliocentrism:
	Sola Scriptura or Tota Scriptura? Did Benedict XV call Geocentrism in Question? other look on same: On : Benedict XV, To/From : mhfm1, Dates: 29-VII - 4-VIII-2013 Are "Talking Stars" Ramandus or Oyerasu acc. to Baruch? A Christian Also Could Say: there is no religion higher than truth ...
Series with Dimond Brothers:
	On : Benedict XV, To/From : mhfm1, Dates: 29-VII - 4-VIII-2013 ... on Magic Acts vs Real Demonic and Some Not Getting Difference

Important update, Sts Simon and Jude 2016 : I had here accused them of falsely translating a Latin document, when in fact they were probably following someone else's false translation into an English document. Something tolerated, apparently, in 1921, as much as when later "Missal of Paul VI" has a Latin original stating "pro vobis et pro multis" and an English, Spanish, French translation stating "pour tous", "pro todos", "for all". Sth "Benedict XVI" rightly did away with. Even if for other reasons he's more suspect of being Antipope Ratzinger./HGL

29-VII-2013

benedict xv

36:44 yet later Roman Congregations under Popes reversed the previous ban on Heliocentric works. In 1757 Pope Benedict XIV suspended the decrees of the congregation of the Index against heliocentric works. In 1822 under Pius VII, the Holy Office allowed the printing of books teaching the movement of the earth. [...] Pope Benedict XV explicitly taught that the earth may not be the centre of the universe, contrary to the/contradicting the ...

Antimodernism in memoriam : Sola Scriptura or Tota Scriptura?
http://antimodernisminmemoriam.blogspot.com/2012/10/sola-scriptura-or-tota-scriptura.html

Triviū, Quadriviū, 7 cætera : Did Benedict XV call Geocentrism in Question?
http://triv7quadriv.blogspot.com/2012/10/did-benedict-xv-call-geocentrism-in.html

"and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ."

He is not explicitly teaching THAT earth may not be the centre of the universe, that is not his point, but that if it were not it would still be etc.

[Note here in my first statement that I am not at all saying he said the contrary, that earth must be in the centre, but that he was mentioning the possibility only in a concessive clause and so it was not his point to teach even the possibility he mentioned.]

hanc autem terram quam nos homines incolimus licet ad universi caeli complexum iam non quasi centrum, ut opinio fuit, obtinere dicenda sit, ipsam tamen et sedem beatae nostrorum progenitorum vitae fuisse, et testem deinde tum eius, quam illi fecerunt ex eo statu prolapsionis miserrimiae tum restitutae Iesu Christi sanguine hominum salutis sempiternae.

"manet tamen ... terram ... licet ... iam non quasi centrum ... obtinere dicenda sit, ipsam tamen et sedem ... fuisse et testem ..."

"The earth, even if it should not so to speak be said to obtain the centre it remains nevertheless that itself was seat ... and witness ..."
Envoyé à : mhfm1

Re:benedict xv

You are totally wrong. He says that 'this earth may not be the center' - YOU CANNOT SAY THAT IF IT'S A TEACHING THAT IT IS THE CENTER! You are attempting to explain away the clear meaning of the words. It's ridiculous.

MHFM
Envoyé à : Hans-Georg Lundahl

30-VII-2013

Objet :Re:benedict xv

Sorry for your Latin grammar, if that is what you think.

Main clause is restat - it remains that - and immediate dependent clause on that one is

hanc autem terram quam nos homines incolimus ipsam tamen et sedem beatae nostrorum progenitorum vitae fuisse

in which he inserts a very demoted and weak concessory clause:

licet ad universi caeli complexum iam non quasi centrum, ut opinio fuit, obtinere dicenda sit,

"even if it be (sit) not (non) necessary to say of her (dicenda) that she obtains so to say the centre to the complex of universal heaven as the opinion was"

That is not a clear teaching, it is a waiving of the question by something like "oh have it your way".

We do not have any "dicenda non est centrum obtinere", we have only "LICET non quasi centrum obtinere dicenda SIT".

Have I made myself clear?
Envoyé à : mhfm1

31-VII-2013

Re:Objet :Re:benedict xv

Your problem is that you don't read with comprehension in any language, or you are just a liar.

You cannot say concerning a dogmatic truth: even if it may not be true. You cannot say: 'although it is not necessary to say Jesus is God, it is still true that he impacted history in a unique way..." That's heresy. Get it now?

If you provide your own translation of the portion I will demonstrate the point from your own translation. So, please provide what you think is the correct translation of the entire passage at issue.

MHFM
Envoyé à : Hans-Georg Lundahl

1-VIII-2013

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:benedict xv

I do not think Benedict XV considered Geocentrism a dogmatic truth or he would not have said even that.

[Note: this does not mean that he considered it clearly an open question either after 1633. He may have been in doubt on dogmatic status thereof. Neither clearly thinking 1633 binding nor clearly thinking it not binding.]

I think he may either have not wanted to take even a risk, or had the luck to have his opinion checked in the back of his mouth by some guardian angel or the Holy Spirit.

What he did say is not tantamount to "clare docuit terram posse non centrum rerum obtinere". And you cannot make it so by the argument you gave.
Envoyé à : mhfm1

to which I followed up with following:

Objet :Re:Objet :Re:benedict xv

oh, translation:

"If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation, that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist, that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be, still the fundamental principle remained that the universe, whatever be the order that sustains it in its parts, is the work of the creating and preserving sign of Omnipotent God, who moves and governs all, and whose glory risplende in una parte piu e meno altrove; and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene of the original happiness of our first ancestors, witness of their unhappy fall, as too of the Redemption of mankind through the Passion and Death of Jesus Christ."

IN PRAECLARA SUMMORUM
On Dante, Encyclical or Pope Benedict XV promulgated on April 30, 1921.
http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Ben15/b15summo.htm

Here the translation is a bit stronger than the original.

Close up:

"... though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought, it was the scene ..."

My correction:

"... though this earth on which we live might not have to be said to obtain the centre of the universal heaven as the opinion was, it remains that it was the scene ..."

All more firmly pronounced modification's of Dante's cosmology are compatible with the sentence of 1633.

1) "If the progress of science showed later that that conception of the world rested on no sure foundation"

Tycho Brahe made great steps away from Ptolemy whom Dante [had] used.

2) "that the spheres imagined by our ancestors did not exist"

Tycho Brahe had to do away with spheres, his heliocentric disciple Kepler (as you will know from Lyndon LaRouche's laudatories of this man) actually thought he could save the spheres by becoming heliocentric.

3) "that nature, the number and course of the planets and stars, are not indeed as they were then thought to be"

Gravitation has had a possible correction about its nature by Newton. Four elements have given way to periodic table. Electromagnetic forces have been discovered. Natura in the close sense - biology and fertility related things - have discovered cells, egg cells and spermatozoa, microbes, mitochondria, chromosomes (or at least even back in his time "tied genetic variables", thank you Mendel OSB!).

Beyond Saturn have been discovered Uranus, Neptune, Pluto (which remains discovered whether a planet or not), and Tycho Brahe discovered a nova.

All of which are quite compatible with 1633. Notice how directly he says it, but even there not with certainty.

Compare that with "although earth might/may not have to be said to obtain the centre of the universal heaven" ... how convoluted and indirect on top of doubtful.

Not what I call a clear teaching./HGL
Envoyé à : mhfm1

2-VIII-2013

typo corrected version

You either cannot read with understanding, follow simple points or you are a total liar.

When he says: " and though this earth on which we live may not be the centre of the universe as at one time was thought," that proves exactly the point we made in the video. It's a heresy to deny or DOUBT a teaching of the Church.

I'll explain it for you again, because you are obviously in a fog:

If it's a heresy to say that the Earth may not be the center (as the Holy Office taught in 1633), then you cannot doubt that truth by saying that 'this earth on which we live may not be the center". Do you get it? It's not hard to understand. You cannot deny it or DOUBT IT BY SAYING IT MIGHT NOT BE TRUE.

Thus, Benedict XVI's statement means that either 1) the 1633 Holy Office inaccurately identified that position as heretical or 2) Benedict XV taught what the Holy Office called a heresy. It proves the point, made in the video, that popes can be completely wrong about the theological status of a truth.

The point we made was absolutely correct. What we said about Benedict XV was absolutely correct; yet, in your blindness and failure to comprehend or just outright dishonesty, you called it false. You should apologize.

MHFM
Envoyé à : Hans-Georg Lundahl

3-VIII-2013

Objet :typo corrected version

Sorry, you discount or neglect two aspects:

• The difference between primary and secondary heresy and the fact that the first may be immediately identifiable from the creed while the second is rarely if ever defined even by magisterium - which may have given Benedict XV a certain doubt about 1633 decision;
  
  
• The fact that it is very much not a case of clearly teaching anything at all in that clause.

The encyclical is about Dante and about Divina Commedia. What he clearly teaches is that Dante remains a great poet and Divina Commedia a great Christian poem despite any possible inaccuracies of cosmology.

And among those, the possibility of Geocentrism being inaccurate does cross his mind and is admitted, but with less tone of clear authority and clear teaching than other parts of cosmological and scientific related paragraph.

As to your own tone, your irritation leads me to doubt you have real patience for the kind of distinctions either scholasticism or reading of canon law requires.
Envoyé à : mhfm1

Re:Objet :typo corrected version

You write: "...the possibility of Geocentrism being inaccurate does cross his mind and is admitted..."

You just proved my point and refuted yours. The point you originally said was false. Perhaps you still don't understand: the point we made in the video, which was correct, was not that Benedict XV was a heretic, but that he taught something previous popes considered heresy. Get it? That proves that popes can be completely wrong about the theological status of a truth WITHOUT necessarily being heretics. That was our point, and that was correct, as your own words show. Yet, in your blindness you called it wrong.

You are also an outrageous hypocrite; for even though you were the one falsely said our point was wrong, and you couldn't have been more wrong, you also threw out personal insults after you were refuted. Yet, you now complain about our 'irritation.' You don't see yourself. You are blind by pride, and you need to realize that you don't actually know what you are talking about.

You are too dishonest and too lost in a spiritual fog to even be commenting on these matters, as your comments show.

MHFM
www.vaticancatholic.com
Envoyé à : Hans-Georg Lundahl

4-VIII-2013

Objet :Re:Objet :typo corrected version

I would have refuted mine if I had said "he did not clearly teach Geocentrism may be false but clearly he taught Geocentrism may not possibly be considered false".

I claimed no such thing.

I claimed that his admission of Geocentrism being possibly false is so demoted and weakened that it does not amount to clear Papal teaching on the subject.

The only subject at issue in the Encyclical was Dante and Divina Commedia.

So, does that leave me dishonest or stupid? Or does that leave you a bit obtuse or over eager to prove a point which may not be true?

My point on a higher ground is now this: Urban VIII and Benedict XV were both Popes (I admit that if even inner heresy would cut off from the body of Christ and from Papacy Benedict XV might not have been so). They did not contradict each other in clear teachings.

What in Benedict XV may have amounted to a contradiction of (but possibly only a non-defense of) the clear teaching of Urban VIII has been clearly shown not to have been his clear Papal teaching on this subject.

[Not meaning the opposite was his clear teaching, only that he did not give one on the subject.]

This is therefore no-wise a parallel to your claim that Eugene IV made an infallible teaching against Baptism of Desire and later Popes ignored it due to ignorance when clearly teaching for instance Baptism of Desire or endorsing Catechisms that clearly teach it, both the Trentine Catechism, whichever Pope it was endorsed by and that of Pope Saint Pius X, English translation being I think known as Catechism of Christian doctrine, where in the Greater Catechism it is said:

27 Q: Can one be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church?

A: No, no one can be saved outside the Catholic, Apostolic Roman Church, just as no one could be saved from the flood outside the Ark of Noah, which was a figure of the Church.

28 Q: How, then, were the Patriarchs of old, the Prophets, and the other just men of the Old Testament, saved?

A: The just of the Old Testament were saved in virtue of the faith they had in Christ to come, by means of which they spiritually belonged to the Church.

29 Q: But if a man through no fault of his own is outside the Church, can he be saved?

A: If he is outside the Church through no fault of his, that is, if he is in good faith, and if he has received Baptism, or at least has the implicit desire of Baptism; and if, moreover, he sincerely seeks the truth and does God's will as best he can such a man is indeed separated from the body of the Church, but is united to the soul of the Church and consequently is on the way of salvation.

as I quoted it on this message:

deretour : Since some people try to confront me with a problem, I leave the word to Pope St Pius X
http://hglundahlsblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/since-some-people-try-to-confront-me.html

Your parallel for that one would rather be, if you want one on Geocentrism issue, John Paul II apologising for condemnation of Galileo. And him you count, or did last time I checked, as a heretical non-Pope.

I at least consider "he was wrong on that one", just as he was wrong to accept a Tilak. Though the matter was less important.
Envoyé à : mhfm1