Larry Chapp

@kalezelden It was great having you there!!!

Despite recording many barn burning convos with @LarryChappGS22 over the years, I hadn’t met him in person until this past Thursday. He’s even better in person. He and his wife Carrie are top rate hosts.

My latest in Catholic World Report gaudiumetspes22.com/blog/tracey-ro…

@ArguCatholic I agree

@LarryChappGS22 I think those of us who consider ourselves “no longer trads” may well be the fastest growing demographic within the Church. We love the TLM but have real trouble with what the “trad movement” has become.

My latest interview. gaudiumetspes22.com/blog/andrew-mi…

My latest interview. In this one Mark Stahlman and Peter Berkman join me to discuss AI and "apocalyptic disclosure" gaudiumetspes22.com/blog/mark-stah…

@LeahLibresco @DioQuixote Yes!

"Ratzinger presents a complete Jesus, with his demands and with the beauty of the encounter between faith and truth. Ratzinger’s legacy, for the Church of today and for the Church of the future, is the complete proclamation of Christ." pillarcatholic.com/p/christ-prese…

@roddreher And yet he is revered in many Trad circles. It is true that many young Trads are far more whimsical and open to the esoteric. But many are not. And sadly, Ripperger speaks to them. I have many many many Trad friends. Young and old. And most of them like this nutter

Interesting

@ChristineNiles1 Insanity

New levels of insane: "A combat-unit commander told non-commissioned officers at a briefing Monday that the Iran war is part of God’s plan and that Pres. Donald Trump was 'anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return to Earth,' according to a complaint by a non-commissioned officer. From Saturday morning through Monday night, more than 110 similar complaints about commanders in every branch of the military had been logged by the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF)." Jonathan Larsen reports: substack.com/home/post/p-18…

Kale Zelden and I discuss the war with Iran gaudiumetspes22.com/blog/kale-zeld…

@ThxTom90228 This is where we diverge. I disagree. I think the CIA knew darn well that there were no WMD in Iraq.

@LarryChappGS22 First, we were not LIED to about the Iraq war. There was a massive failure of intelligence. We thought we had good intelligence, but it turned out we did not. CIA assessed "curveball" as a legit source when he was not. Bush did not lie to us. Colin Powell did not lie to us.

A question to those who know about such things. The constitution says that only Congress can declare war. But if memory serves, the only war of modern times where Congress made an official declaration of war was WWII. Instead, what has happened is that an official congressional declaration of war has been replaced with "resolutions granting the President the right to military action". The Gulf of Tonkin resolution comes to mind as does the congressional resolution of 2002 authorizing the use of force against Iraq. And in both cases the President and/or his advisors misled Congress as to the facts of the alleged threats. So here is my question to the experts: What is the difference between a formal congressional declaration of war and a "resolution" authorizing force? And what of wars, like our new one, that have neither? Where is the Supreme Court these days when it comes to the constitutionality of our war making? They are quick to issue rulings on tariffs or immigration, but seem scared to tackle this issue. Or is it simply that nobody has challenged such presidential war making in court so it does not make its way up the chain to the Supremes? And don't get me started on the CIA efforts to undermine and topple regimes abroad without congressional approval or even presidential approval. I hate the Iranian regime. I hope that the result of our current war is the toppling of the regime. But that is utterly beside the point I am asking about here. The theologian Paul Griffiths made the point long ago in a debate in First Things over the Iraq war of 2003 that we must have a prima facie level of deep doubt about all of our war making since we now know that our government lies to us all the time about all manner of things. Therefore, the stated reasons for war are rarely the real reasons. I cannot help but wonder if the current war is not just another ruse for some deeper agenda. And no, I am not talking about Israel here.

@GrantAKaplan @no_no_nanett @FeserEdward That is the best way to know me Grant. “From afar”. 😂

@no_no_nanett @FeserEdward @LarryChappGS22 I’ve only admired Larry from afar (while occasionally disagreeing with him) & enjoyed stories from his former colleague Rod Howsare.

As an early endorser of DBH, stalwart opponent of the death penalty, & fierce resister to the Thomism that Feser frequently exposits, i must say (perhaps to the surprise of many) that @FeserEdward gets it EXACTLY right here, in words that could be called prophetic.

Where did I say this was about Israel? I specifically said it wasn’t. And if the Constitution is “quaint” on this issue then we need to amend it through the normal processes of constitutional amendment making. Until then, it is still the law of the land. But I agree with your comments about China, oil, Ukraine etc…

Without taking sides...the War Powers Act of 1973 gives the president 60 days before he needs a declaration or authorization and another 30 days extension for "safety". The US constitutional provisions are a bit quaint in the face of hypersonic missles, etc. So much can be done for good and evil in a few hours and days... Don't be so sure this is about Iran and Israel. It may be about China (cutting off oil, see also Venezuela) and the US military industrial complex (the real US "constitution"?) needing to reload after wasting armaments in Ukraine... which is interesting because we're doing a big favor to Russian oil sales.

@BobbyMixa Yes!!

@LarryChappGS22 Is that Aaron Riches with the beard behind you.

Great chatting with Schindler and Fr. Fessio this morning!

@hf_222222 What dishonesty and hypocrisy from Lewis

Not to keep talking about everyone's favourite dissenter from Pope Leo, but I've never understood the silly idea you can challenge the rationale for a dogmatic position, without challenging the conclusion. Who is ex post facto reasoning going to convince?

@FeserEdward @mfjlewis @Where_Peter_is I think he is dishonest and vicious. His concern has never been about defending papal authority. It has been about promoting a single pope. His Dear Leader.

The charitable interpretation is that he is just too unintelligent to see the contradiction. I know that sounds cruel, and I would rather not have to say such things publicly, but I know of no other explanation that does not attribute willful dishonesty to him. Plus, he is in any event already as obvious a case of the Dunning-Kruger effect as can be imagined.

Though he routinely unjustly accuses others of being “dissenters” from the teaching of the Church, @mfjlewis has now shown himself to be unambiguously guilty of such dissent. At @Where_Peter_is he has published an article challenging the Church’s teaching that ordination is reserved to men. Here on X he has said that such challenges “deserve a hearing” and “can only strengthen the Church.” This directly contradicts the teaching of Pope St. John Paul II, who in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in response to those who claim that the teaching is “still open to debate,” said: “I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.” Commenting on this document, then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, speaking in his official capacity as the pope’s doctrinal spokesman, said that “the Holy Father intended to make clear that the teaching… could not be considered ‘open to debate,’” that “it is a matter of full definitive assent, that is to say, irrevocable, to a doctrine taught infallibly by the Church,” and that “this doctrine belongs to the deposit of the faith of the Church.” (See the screencaps below) Note that Lewis cannot defend himself by saying that he has not personally actually rejected the doctrine. For the Church has not only taught the doctrine, but has declared that the doctrine is infallible and irreformable, that debate over it is closed, and that assent to it must therefore be full, definitive, and irrevocable. Hence, to claim, as Lewis does, that challenges to the doctrine “deserve a hearing” is itself heterodox. And by running such a challenge at Where Peter Is, he is not “strengthening the Church” but clearly aiding and abetting dissent from the settled and infallible teaching of the Church. He is manifestly guilty of exactly what he falsely accuses others of.