ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2019 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, December 15, 2019

Mailvox: Kurgan-Dyer debate

I will wait to read the transcript before even attempting to develop an opinion of the recent debate between Jay Dyer and The Kurgan, but this was a summary sent to me by one witness to it:
It was an interesting watch for me as an Ilk that has consumed a sizable amount of Dyer's content and appreciates his niche.  Similar to you, my church background has been American Protestant Evangelical. Lately I've been studying the Orthodox faith, due in no small part to Jay's content.

Kurgan has accused Jay of being a lying gamma sperg. What I witnessed today went a ways toward confirming two out of three. I simply don't know enough about Catholicism to follow verbally what was flying around (especially from Jay), much less sedevacantism. So I have no idea if Jay is lying or not about Catholic law. He could simply be accurate or inaccurate.

But Jay's performance was demonstrably gamma sperg. He was clearly triggered. For long stretches it felt like he was channeling Shapiru. I don't watch a lot of debates, so I'm not sure shouting 'You just lost the debate!' is a validated method. Kurgan's demeanor was consummate adult. And by the end seemed like an adult managing a child's temper tantrum.

The chat was funny from a certain standpoint. It was like an audience of homeless people and junior highers having to sit through a theology debate. They just started giving each other wedgies and complaining about boredom. Can't say I'm happy about it. But it probably needed to happen.
If you happened to watch the debate and would like to express your opinion about it, please feel free to do so. But be judicious and specific, as the sort of fanboy posturing one sees on Twitter will not be permitted. And neither of the two participants will be permitted to comment here on their own performances.

Labels: ,

192 Comments:

Blogger JC December 15, 2019 7:19 AM  

I haven't watched the debate yet but between Fuentes and now Dyer, it seems like the overriding problem is the fans. It reminds me of the kind of people who followed Dawkins and Hitchens years ago. Both of the latter were at least intelligent and articulate though certainly wrong. Their fans on the other hand just repeated things they heard them say in videos and feigned a deep knowledge of the subject matter. I feel like that is exactly what is going on with Dyer fans in general.

I'm a Catholic but I like Dyer because I don't spend much time worrying about what people might be wrong about. After all this though, I do wonder about whether he is putting up a false front himself. If he is really so right and such a great debater as his fans would have us believe: wouldn't it be nice to see him totally destroy someone like Edward Feser in a debate on Thomism? Most of his opponents (Kurgan excluded), are not on the level he claims to be. It is fair to criticise Dyer on this too because he seems to encourage his gammas instead of removing them. Not a good sign.

I'll give the debate a watch tomorrow and see if I have to rethink my suspicions.

Blogger Fuzzums Wuzzums December 15, 2019 7:23 AM  

Vox is at a disadvantage in judging Jay's performance because he does not watch videos and does not know that Kurgan made several videos that were just insults towards Jay Dyer. Unwarranted and uncalled for when Jay always said he was open for a talk on anything regarding Christianity. So Jay had a bone to pick with Kurgan and rightfully so, especially after his fiance got attacked too.

Kurgan lost the debate, he thought Denzinger was a book written by a guy called Denzinger. I can show 3 other instances where Jay wins the debate in a similar manner, one of which is with Nick Fuentes. In all those instances Jay pulled back and let his opponents save face and made the debate into a friendly discussion. He did not do so with Kurgan which is why all critiques of Jay you will see are tone policing.

The live chat was telling: everyone complained how boring everything was, the Denzinger blunder happened and everyone was cheering for Jay, one hour later and chat turned on Jay because he would not stop beating a dead horse. Vox, you can ask Kurgan himself. His demeanor changed during the debate visibly and audibly. Picture Jeb Bush vs. Donald Trump.

Calling what Jay did as being a gamma sperg out is telling on which side you're not especially since the only insult he used was "goofus".

The fundamental rule of IBS is as follows: talk shit, get hit.

Blogger Unknown December 15, 2019 7:31 AM  

Jay might of sperged out quite a bit but kurgan got spanked debate wise. Not even close really...

Blogger Laramie Hirsch December 15, 2019 7:34 AM  

It was embarrassing when Kurgan thought Denzinger was a person.

Blogger JAG December 15, 2019 7:41 AM  

Caveat: I am not familiar with Dyer or Kurgan beyond the comments I've read here the last few years. This is my first look at both.

I'm also not Catholic.

Two main points from the debate that stood out to me.

The first was whether or not a Catholic just has to accept heretics for Popes if that is what the Curia gives them.

-- I agree with the Kurgan that this is not true.

The second is the claim that without a Pope, the Catholic Church ceases to be.

-- I agree with the Kurgan again that Jesus is the leader of the Church, not men who can be turned from the truth.

Overall impression - Dyer is more interested in being able to claim a win whereas Kurgan was trying to educate.

Here's a link to a youtube copy of the debate:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rbzBcRerQ9Q

Here's also evidence of both sperg and gamma behavior in the comments section of this video of Kurgan's:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5TbhGQ9f4

Blogger Max December 15, 2019 7:55 AM  

I really like Jay's pop-culture analysis, but his personality isn't conducive to friendly argument.

Blogger VD December 15, 2019 7:58 AM  

Vox is at a disadvantage in judging Jay's performance because he does not watch videos and does not know that Kurgan made several videos that were just insults towards Jay Dyer. Unwarranted and uncalled for when Jay always said he was open for a talk on anything regarding Christianity. So Jay had a bone to pick with Kurgan and rightfully so, especially after his fiance got attacked too.

Totally irrelevant. While that certainly justifies the use of similar rhetoric in response, it doesn't make any difference concerning the validity of the dialectic utilized.

The fundamental rule of IBS is as follows: talk shit, get hit.

I don't give a fraction of a damn what the rules for what increasingly appears to be rhetorical posturing for retards are. This has confirmed my strong preference for written debate where the parties can't hide behind performance art and emotional appeals.

Blogger borsabil December 15, 2019 8:01 AM  

I'm Catholic and I disagree with Jay's arguments but he won the debate. He's no gamma, but he is definitely a sperg and he constantly hammers on point until my ears bleed. The Kurgan came in badly prepped, I'm guessing he thought he could get by with rhetoric and insults. Jay won handily until his autism kicked in. Not the kind of thing I'd expect on the Killstream but good on Ralph for hosting.

Blogger Lovekraft December 15, 2019 8:04 AM  

Can we get the lowdown on the core issues of the debate?

Blogger lazing dirk December 15, 2019 8:08 AM  

Kurgan's demanour was impressive and speaks highly of him by itself. Another commenter compared Dyer's fanboys to those of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens etc in their behaviour but I think that this applies to Dyer himself just as well. Anyone who interacted with online new atheists knows their behaviour and tactics all too well. Dyer was just like that here not interested in truth but in gotchas, in trying to get a rise of his opponent, and especially with the whole aura he exhuded. I don't like to use autism as an insult for that is a condition that people don't choose to suffer from, but in the case of people like him and the aforementioned internet atheists I just have to do it.

Blogger VD December 15, 2019 8:15 AM  

Kurgan lost the debate, he thought Denzinger was a book written by a guy called Denzinger.

I am beginning to doubt some of you understand what a debate actually entails. How does one lose a debate by thinking that a book on Catholic dogma written by Heinrich Denzinger called Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum is a book written by Denzinger?

I presume there are two different Denzinger references. But prior to reading the transcript, I fail to see how any confusion of two things with the same name can be declared cause for losing a debate, unless of course the debate concerns the nature of the one true Denzinger.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother December 15, 2019 8:20 AM  

Ah yes, the No True Denzinger argument.

Blogger Dwayne Thundergrit December 15, 2019 8:21 AM  

I listen to Jay from time to time and have learned things listening to him. In this case, he ceased debating early on and started beating a little Tom Tom in Kurgan's face at which point, I stopped watching.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch December 15, 2019 8:30 AM  

I am beginning to doubt some of you understand what a debate actually entails. How does one lose a debate...

Maybe this is a good time to revisit some fundamentals. I remember asking myself this question before the debate began. In your opinion, what constitutes a successful debate outcome? What constitutes failure?

If you've discussed this previously, I can't recall what you said.

Blogger Lazarus December 15, 2019 8:31 AM  

Schrodinger's Denzinger.

catchy

Blogger Doktor Jeep December 15, 2019 8:37 AM  

It is always the fans. No matter what happens, the fans will say their guy won.
And as long as people are going to be like this, we will not have nice things.

Blogger VD December 15, 2019 8:51 AM  

In your opinion, what constitutes a successful debate outcome? What constitutes failure?

Convincing the opponent of the truth of your position. Failing to convince the greater part of the neutral audience of the truth of your position.

Dyer may well have presented a better position with stronger, sounder backing than the Kurgan. I don't know. But what I'm hearing from his fans so far indicates nothing more than he managed to catch out the Kurgan in a rhetorical gotcha.

It was embarrassing when Kurgan thought Denzinger was a person.

It should embarrass you to not know that Denzinger was a person. Your level of knowledge doesn't rise to the level of Wikipedia.

Heinrich Joseph Dominicus Denzinger (10 November 1819 – 19 June 1883) was a leading German Catholic theologian and author of the Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum (Handbook of Creeds and Definitions) commonly referred to simply as "Denzinger".

If I were debating someone who was clearly confusing the author of the work with the nickname for the author's work, I would not declare that I had won the debate on that basis. But obviously I'll have to read the transcript to see if Jay Dyer's reported claim to have done so is legitimate, a rhetorical pose, or an outright lie.

Blogger Gridhunter December 15, 2019 8:53 AM  

Watched a replay of the debate, without chat on. If the purpose of the debate was to lay out and advance arguments on the subject, I hold that The Kurgan made his case well.

Not being versed in Catholic dogma, it fell to judging based on consistency, clarity, and deportment. Jay Dyer fell short on all counts. Incontinent as a descriptor came to my mind before Kurgan uttered it.

Blogger Fuzzums Wuzzums December 15, 2019 8:55 AM  

VD wrote:Totally irrelevant. While that certainly justifies the use of similar rhetoric in response, it doesn't make any difference concerning the validity of the dialectic utilized.

I don't give a fraction of a damn what the rules for what increasingly appears to be rhetorical posturing for retards are. This has confirmed my strong preference for written debate where the parties can't hide behind performance art and emotional appeals.


I already understand all of this. We are speaking of two different mediums, which is why I keep on saying you're at a disadvantage with the not watching videos thing. The debate you are talking about and the debate I am talking about are two different beasts which is why I refer to the latter as IBS. You are interested in strategy and technique. IBS is interested in who wins. The two aren't mutually exclusive of course. This debate was not a written debate, this was IBS and will judge it as such. If you did not want this to be an IBS debate why have it on the Killstream? I even pointed out on the previous blogspots that the Killstream was the wrong choice for this.

Kurgan had no chance of winning even without the Denzinger blunder because he failed Sun Tzu 101: know your opponent. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was Jay that suggested the Killstream as a platform, yes? So he had no idea who Jay was, he had no idea why Jay is famous, he had no idea why people fold when Jay offers a debate, and he had no idea why the debate was on the Killstream. This is not the first time this has happened in IBS.

If he would have prepared he would have seen a clear opening to get back in the fight: when Jay was reading from Denzinger and Kurgan interrupted him Jay said "Shut up". Kurgan shut up and let Jay talk. That was capitulation. The correct response in IBS when someone yells at you to "shut up" is to fire right back with "no, you shut up when I'm talking". If the Kurgan would have stood his ground, even if he was wrong, and kept on the offensive he would have won the crowd, or part of it. Why? Because Jay already lost some of the crowd with him being triggered. But instead of getting back up the Kurgan just sat there and took it. Again, it was like Donald Trump vs. Jeb Bush.

Blogger ZhukovG December 15, 2019 8:58 AM  

These days, most verbal debates are little more than entertainment for the debater's fans. They prove little beyond showing who's the more agile debater.

I prefer the written format.

Blogger Dole December 15, 2019 8:59 AM  

I know absolutely nothing about the topic, and can not say who won. However, Dyer's debating tactics of shouting and attempting to lecture like a Gamma were underwhelming. Same can be said for his fans who I have hard time believing know what an argument even is.

Blogger Joe Smith December 15, 2019 9:05 AM  

I watched the debate. Dyer clearly had trouble keeping himself emotionally in check. I’ve seen him debate other people and this is relatively common, but yesterday was worse. From what I saw I believe that is because The Kurgan called him a liar in previous videos and he was pissed, but that’s just my personal impression. Dyer is a sperg and a duomaniac.

That said, the debate topic was one of his manias, and he just clearly knew more about the topic than The Kurgan did. Jay had the better dialectic performance. I can’t speak to the rest of the audience (most of them apparently didn’t care) but Jay’s logic went through for me.

Blogger Fuzzums Wuzzums December 15, 2019 9:09 AM  

JAG wrote:- I agree with the Kurgan again that Jesus is the leader of the Church, not men who can be turned from the truth.

You've got a fundamental misunderstanding on what the debate was about. It was about the minutiae of the Catholic faith as is written, not what anyone's opinions are on what is what. Jay is not a Catholic, the Kurgan is. Jay's claim was that you cannot be a Sedevacantist and claim to be a Catholic at the same time.

Here's a video of the Kurgan trying to educate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txUmJQCJCmE

Pre-debate Kurgan said he would do a post-debate analysis. I am very much looking forward to it. How people react to losing can indeed be very telling.

Blogger Jose Miguel December 15, 2019 9:13 AM  

I'll be reading the debate transcript after church. Kurgan's argument to me is strange, I've never heard of someone elevating Canon law above dogma and the councils among all the Catholic environments I've grown up in.

The things I'm looking for is, does Kurgan's position require jettisoning Vatican 1 as well? Is it dogma that the Curia cannot ever succumb to heresy? Does the Catholic faithful have to accept whom the Curia chooses even if he is a known heretic? And how does Canon law in Catholicism relate to the scriptures, the councils, the Creed, the liturgical traditions, the Papal encyclicals and the Fathers? Is it truly the supreme authority over what is the church as Kurgan argues in multiple videos?

The irony from this is it was the Kurgan who was the final nail in the coffin who sold me on Orthodoxy as the original Church in his lecture where he described the Orthodox as "stodgy old farts who don't change." I was already attending an orthodox Church at the time reading the antiniceane fathers, John Chrysostom and John of Damascus to see if the Orthodox tradition was more in line with the church of the first millennium than the Roman tradition, and became a catachumen the Sunday after that video log.

Blogger VD December 15, 2019 9:14 AM  

We are speaking of two different mediums, which is why I keep on saying you're at a disadvantage with the not watching videos thing. The debate you are talking about and the debate I am talking about are two different beasts which is why I refer to the latter as IBS. You are interested in strategy and technique. IBS is interested in who wins.

That's like saying I'm at a disadvantage because I can't understand what a drooling retard is saying. You simply don't understand that IBS is intellectually irrelevant, which is why I have zero respect or interest in it or those who take part in it. It's obviously fake debate for midwits who want to feel smart.

when Jay was reading from Denzinger and Kurgan interrupted him Jay said "Shut up". Kurgan shut up and let Jay talk. That was capitulation.

No, that's nothing of the sort. Kurgan violated the rules and Jay correctly called him on it. This is simply nonsense; one could more reasonably and conclusively settle an intellectual dispute with a boxing match.

However, this has been very useful. I now understand that IBS is boxing for gammas who are afraid to actually get hit in a real ring. It's not even about rhetoric as such, it's merely about who can throw more and louder verbal jabs.

Blogger Ransom Smith December 15, 2019 9:15 AM  

If the Kurgan would have stood his ground, even if he was wrong, and kept on the offensive he would have won the crowd,
Winning crowds is such a poor metric of concluding a winner.
It has no effect on accuracy, rhetoric, or truth.
It's just rule of mob.

Blogger Heinz Gudbearian December 15, 2019 9:17 AM  

To my eyes, the debate was an excellent example of the IQ communications gap. The two did not look to have a common understanding of each other’s underlying positions. Written debate with Pre listed articulations of each debaters understanding of such things as “curia” and “defected” would have provided some clarity to both arguments.
On performance, Jay’s obnoxious declarations of victory were very distasteful, and he tended to cling to a couple arguments he thinks are extremely clever, and then throw rhetoric. “I used to run in sede circles” is no more a testament to subject knowledge than “I went to catholic school for 8 years.”
Kurgan has a tendency to have his brain outrun his voice, i.e. “Ludwig Danziger”, and to be quick to dismiss some things without full explanation.
The debate didn’t appear to settle anything on the topic.

Blogger Fuzzums Wuzzums December 15, 2019 9:20 AM  

VD wrote:I am beginning to doubt some of you understand what a debate actually entails.

I suspect this whole comment section is just going to go in circles like this. We're using the rules of Handball to judge a game of Basketball on a Football field. Jay and Kurgan did not win any debate because they did not have one. They had an IBS match.

This is my last comment here because I know I'll push it until I get banned. I'm happy with a written debate between the two as well so you have my vote on that.

Blogger Dole December 15, 2019 9:25 AM  

@19
This was a debate about a specific topic, not a presidential debate which actually is a rhetorical debate. As such it is judged by who makes the best argument, not by who shouts the most on top of the other person.

Most Dyer fans are not doing that, which does not speak well for them.

Blogger Michael D. December 15, 2019 9:29 AM  

JC wrote:wouldn't it be nice to see him totally destroy someone like Edward Feser in a debate on Thomism? Most of his opponents (Kurgan excluded), are not on the level he claims to be. It is fair to criticize Dyer on this too because he seems to encourage his gammas instead of removing them. Not a good sign.

He wouldn't dare debate someone like Feser. His whole strategy is aimed at overwhelming and intimidating amateurs, with his academic training and the amount of reading he did... and whatever else can be said, people with his 'condition' can sponge up massive amounts of data on whatever subject they're focused on. 'Data' isn't 'knowledge', of course, but it works for him, as it did for so many like him.
Feser would never stood down to real time verbal debate with someone like Dyer but if he did he would obliterate him. Which is why Dyer will stick to debating amateurs.

Blogger Stg58/Animal Mother December 15, 2019 9:31 AM  

What is IBS in this context? Internet Bull Shit?

Blogger VD December 15, 2019 9:44 AM  

We're using the rules of Handball to judge a game of Basketball on a Football field.

But the challenge was to play a game of Handball and both disputants agreed to play Handball. Do you really not understand that? In your analogy, the football field is the Killstream. Who, in your opinion, was playing Basketball and who was playing Handball?

Jay and Kurgan did not win any debate because they did not have one.

That may well be. And this is why it is best to avoid "debate" with those who don't know what a debate is or how to engage in one.

Blogger VD December 15, 2019 9:46 AM  

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was Jay that suggested the Killstream as a platform, yes?

That's incorrect. Ethan graciously volunteered his platform and I suggested it to both parties, who accepted it.

Blogger Shane Bradman December 15, 2019 9:48 AM  

I ignored the debate because I figured it would turn into someone sperging out and being a waste of time. Sounds like that's exactly what happened. Other than the really obvious theology, it's best not to get into it too much. Nobody gives a shit about transubstantiation or technicalities of salvation because it doesn't matter.

Blogger Fargle Gumpshite December 15, 2019 9:50 AM  

Blood sports

Blogger John Best. December 15, 2019 9:53 AM  

The Kurgan won because he doesn't care about the thing Dyer couldn't handle. The Kurgan said this in his videos as well. The Kurgan makes a compete argument as well with context to back up his overall point. Dyer just keeps banging on about an 800 page book he has read twice.

Blogger Shane Bradman December 15, 2019 10:01 AM  

@24. That the Orthodox church is the same as it was 1000 years ago does not make it a more legitimate church than one that acknowledges that time can pass and that there must be some level of change in order to survive. The Catholic Church is a political organisation as well as a spiritual one, and it is through clever politicking that there are over a billion Catholics worldwide. Orthodoxy does not spread, it remains stagnant. Fundamental to the Orthodox mindset is stagnation. That can be good in some ways, like preserving historical culture, but you have to understand why people will criticise them for it.

Blogger James Lovebirch December 15, 2019 10:02 AM  

What the Kurgan did was equivalent to walking into a debate on free trade, not knowing who Ricardo is and maintaining till the end that Ricardo doesn't matter.

Jay cited the source of Catholic dogma repeatedly, and Kurgan's response was "nuh-uh". I was expecting Kurgan to lose, but not in such a pathetically ignorant, intellectually prideful way. His only solace is that most people will be too lazy or disinterested to verify that he was the one repeatedly lying about the source material.

Blogger Shane Bradman December 15, 2019 10:03 AM  

"it was like Donald Trump vs. Jeb Bush."

Except for the fact that neither Donald Trump nor Jeb Bush sperg out and are "debating" for the sole purpose of winning the crowd.

Blogger borsabil December 15, 2019 10:07 AM  

Kurgan misnamed Denzinger, he called him Ludwig and he thought that the Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum was a book written by him, rather than a curated work. He then doubled down by stating the work cited by Dyer was irrelevant as it wasn't canon law, wut? He just wasn't prepped, which is a shame.

Blogger yoghi.llama December 15, 2019 10:07 AM  

Jay won the dialectics, on every point.

Kurgan clearly hadn't prepared well. There were times he should have been able to clarify his position e.g. why is the Roman Curia no longer physically in Rome (and when did that happen?), but he couldn't add anything beyond his opening statement.

Jay often gets peevish with opponents, but this is the first time I've seen him hopping mad all the way through.

Blogger JAG December 15, 2019 10:11 AM  

Fuzzums Wuzzums wrote:JAG wrote:- I agree with the Kurgan again that Jesus is the leader of the Church, not men who can be turned from the truth.

You've got a fundamental misunderstanding on what the debate was about. It was about the minutiae of the Catholic faith as is written, not what anyone's opinions are on what is what. Jay is not a Catholic, the Kurgan is. Jay's claim was that you cannot be a Sedevacantist and claim to be a Catholic at the same time.

Here's a video of the Kurgan trying to educate: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txUmJQCJCmE

Pre-debate Kurgan said he would do a post-debate analysis. I am very much looking forward to it. How people react to losing can indeed be very telling.


Isn't acknowledging that Jesus is the leader of the Church germane to deciding if a person can be a Sedevacantist and a Catholic?

Is stating that Jesus is the leader of the Church minutiae, or fact?

Blogger Shane Bradman December 15, 2019 10:14 AM  

@38. I would love a free trade debate that makes no reference of Ricardo. It may actually be productive.

Blogger James Lovebirch December 15, 2019 10:16 AM  

@1

This critique is valid. Jay does not embody a high-value-male mindset in general. He's like a delta who demands respect for his specialty. He's not gamma because he's not dishonest.

@5

You need to stop talking because you don't know the first thing about how the Catholic church works. Watch the debate and Jay will explain that to you, as well as many other people on the internet

@17

We know Denzinger is a person because, apologoies if this sounds harsh, unlike the Kurgan we have the most basic education on this subject.

Blogger luisonmcbiel December 15, 2019 10:18 AM  

Kurgan looked suicidal, he contradicted himself a couple times, went against Vatican 1 with his choice proposing certain outcomes of the prediction on La Salette, overall a bad look on a guy who puffed himself for a whole month. And I find the takes classifying Jay as a gamma retarded, you may not like his personality but being loud and agressive does not mean someone is gamma, Kurgan made a fool of himself and Jay simply pointed it out.

Blogger Shane Bradman December 15, 2019 10:19 AM  

So the whole Denzinger autism is literally irrelevant because the source of the work has no importance to the work itself. Who cares if Kurgan made the heinous and despicable mistake of getting the wrong name of the guy who worked on the book that is known by his name because he worked on it?

Blogger VFM #7634 December 15, 2019 10:20 AM  

Sedevacantist here. I'll rebut Dyer's points, since many commenters here think he won and Kurgan did miss quite a lot of things.

1) There is a group that we call "Feeneyites" who deny that baptism of blood and desire exist. But they do. It's possible for an unbaptized catechumen to be martyred and go to Heaven. I believe there were anathemas put out centuries ago against Feeneyism. Dyer's being dishonest by suggesting that "sedevacantists" subscribe to what is a heresy.

2) The disagreement between sedeprivationists and strict sedevacantists are trickier but we generally actually get along. Both agree that the popes since Pius XII are fakes. The most notable rift in traditional Catholicism is actually between them and "recognize and resisters", such as the SSPX, who recognize the Vatican II antipopes as valid, and in fact insist on it.

3) Dyer is correct in that the Pope has jurisdiction over all bishops and that all Catholics have to submit to the Holy See. But while this is an effective blow to the "recognize and resisters", it doesn't apply to sedevacantists, since they don't think John XXIII and his successors are validly popes at all, so this argument doesn't apply to them.

4) Dyer is misinterpreting indefectibility, stating that it is impossible for there to be an obvious pope for decades on end. But he never demonstrates how. Indefectibility actually means the Church would never fall into heresy, but since the Novus Ordo manifestly has, maybe he's wrong about the possibility of there being decades without a Pope, or at least one able to exercise his office. 2 Thessalonians 2:7-8 is another hint that Dyer may be wrong.

5) "No Catholic has the right to judge the Holy See" -- sure, but every Catholic has the right, nay obligation, to judge whether or not it's actually the Holy See (and not the Unholy See) in the first place. Dyer claims, without evidence, that Catholics don't have that right either, making that the linchpin of his argument. According to Dyer, even if Francis presides over a pagan worship ceremony, we're supposed to turn off our brains and take it, and accept Francis as a true Pope, despite the fact the Popes pre-Vatican II always said a real Pope would never do such a thing, because submitting to the Holy See is the way to Heaven. He also brings up "conclavists", fringe sedes who elect their own popes, as a strawman.

6) Finally, he simply asserts it's "impossible" that the Roman Curia, which by now are entirely pro-Vatican II heretics, could be heretics. This is in fact why I don't subscribe to sedeprivationism, which asserts that the Vatican II antipopes are invalid but the men in the Roman Curia or the Cardinals still are valid electors. (I think that theory could possibly hold true until the putative election of JP2, where there were still valid Catholic cardinals living and participating, but not for Ratzinger or Bergoglio.) If the Papacy is to be reestablished, it will have to be by some other way, because the present Roman Curia is dead and corrupt.

Blogger Ska_Boss December 15, 2019 10:23 AM  

A mind convinced against its will is of the same opinion still.

I think I'll skip this one because most of the Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox debates and arguments I have witnessed or been part of end up being the equivalent of a verbal food fight.

Blogger Fuzzums Wuzzums December 15, 2019 10:23 AM  

VD wrote:But the challenge was to play a game of Handball and both disputants agreed to play Handball. Do you really not understand that? In your analogy, the football field is the Killstream. Who, in your opinion, was playing Basketball and who was playing Handball?

*I know I'm making an ass of myself for saying that my previous comment was my last comment*

I wholeheartedly agree with everything you've said here about IBS. You are correct in your assessment of it. In my analogy nobody was playing either sport correctly because the point of IBS is that it has no rules. Lies and truth, rhetoric and dialectic, insults and politeness are all part of it. The best part of IBS is also its worst part: people don't have a team, they just want to see someone lose and lose badly. It is that base and it's a guilty pleasure of mine. I have never seen in a regular debate audience members change their opinions on a topic but in IBS one team cheering for the other guy happens regularly. Blood for the Blood God.

I thought this was going to be IBS and everyone was on board with it. I was wrong.

Blogger Dan in Georgia December 15, 2019 10:31 AM  

Kurgan was trying to convince the audience that there is still legitimate Catholicism being practiced in the present day.

Dyer was trying to get back at the bully who gave him a wedgie, shoved him in his locker and took his girlfriend.

Blogger FUBARwest December 15, 2019 10:42 AM  

Forty comments in and nobody has said how Jay explained his position yet. Just that he called out the Kurgan for a lack of knowledge. Not even an explanation on how that lack of knowledge impacted any of the arguments. Video debates truly are dead.

Blogger Dan in Georgia December 15, 2019 10:43 AM  

I grew up RC and was a Southern Baptist for a while. The Kurgan’s position was reasonable and persuasive. I’m more inclined to explore traditional Catholicism now. If Dyer was trying to win converts to Orthodoxy, he wasn’t successful.

Blogger VD December 15, 2019 10:46 AM  

Kurgan looked suicidal

The fact that you need to resort to lying makes it clear that your opinion is irrelevant. I remember EvS and his fans falsely claiming that I was crying on a stream once, which was utter and obvious bullshit.

I tentatively feel bad for Jay Dyer. The behavior of his fans tend to make one assume that he is a lying little twerp, which is simply not fair to him whether he deserves it or not.

Blogger VD December 15, 2019 10:47 AM  

An Internet Bloodsports match must be watched; reading a transcript misses the point of the whole endeavor.

Then it is not a debate. If the relevant information "misses the point", the point is irrelevant.

Blogger SciVo December 15, 2019 10:55 AM  

I haven't watched it probably won't. So I'm just going to take the stand that the fact that people even care about Christian doctrine is a collective win. If people can have strong feelings about esoterica, then that is a solid sign for the core.

Blogger Shane Bradman December 15, 2019 11:00 AM  

People like Jay Dyer aren't trying to convert. They're trying to be smart boys. His people are very fucking annoying, almost as much as the Fuentes crowd.

"I tentatively feel bad for Jay Dyer. The behavior of his fans tend to make one assume that he is a lying little twerp"

We were right to judge Fuentes by his fans. It's the same deal here. When the debate was agreed to, Jay Dyer sperged out for hours on Kurgan's channel with snarky and shitty comments that read like they were written by a 14 year old kid trying to act tough on facebook. He encourages and practices that behaviour, which is enough for me to form an opinion on the guy.

Blogger Dan in Georgia December 15, 2019 11:03 AM  

Kurgan looked suicidal

I saw frustration because he was trying to debate and realized he was in a bar fight.

Blogger Dole December 15, 2019 11:04 AM  

Here is what I believe Jay Dyer put as the description of the debate on his podcast:

"After weeks of smack talk and insults, the Kurgan and I squared off in a debate. Within 20 minutes the debate was over as soon as he said "Ludwig Denzinger." The unbridled arrogance and hours of vitriol he spewed in his videos was shown to be exactly what I said - hot air. I told him I would not "be nice," and I wasn't. It wasn't even a debate."

So in his mind a debate that is not even a debate is over, because the opponent recalled a name wrong.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/debate-sedevacantism-vs-orthodoxy-jay-dyer-vs-kurgan/id959495150?i=1000459616130

Please confirm that Dyer indeed wrote that.

Blogger Dan in Georgia December 15, 2019 11:06 AM  

I don't believe The Kurgan would have acted any differently if the debate was in person. OTOH, Jay Dyer would never have acted that way with The Kurgan in front of him. I think that is a gamma tell.

Blogger dtungsten December 15, 2019 11:09 AM  

Irritable Bowel Syndrome

Blogger Doktor Jeep December 15, 2019 11:10 AM  

The world was better when it was text-based. Once it went viaual, the TV being the Apex of it, and hence feminine in approach - also known as feels - it started coming off the rails. Women are influenced by a politicians looks. The first purely visual propagandist the world would know was a woman.
So to those who watched the debate and base their conclusions on how the debaters "came off" or "sounded" or "appeared to" but the subject itself you are not well versed in, I would say: Stop being a bitch.
Given that, it makes sense that Vox would choose a written debate with NF. At the least, it would exclude the gammas who are just going to snipe about appearance.

Blogger jeffinjapan December 15, 2019 11:10 AM  

JD won the debate and it wasn’t even close and if you’re not familiar with Catholicism or with what Sedevacantism is, as some of the posters here have admitted, then your opinion on who won the debate means zip.

Kurgan was unprepared and looked like a fool before it was all done. And his not knowing anything about Denzinger and then dismissing him and his work known and the “Denzinger”, after JD took him to task for that, was one of the most retarded things I’ve ever seen.

Another head scratcher was Kurgan accusing JD of only using post Vatican II canon law and not canon law from 1917 to state his case. This was unbelievable because just moments before JD was actually quoting canon law...from 1917!!

At about the 45 minute mark I actually started to feel a bit embarrassed and even sorry for Kurgan so I went back to reading my Throne of Bones book.

And was JD mad, was he heated? Yes...but remember, Kurgan made a video a few weeks earlier that was nothing but ad hominem, so JD was more than justified to be angry.

I openly admit to being a financial supporter of Jay and I have been for over two years, but I’ve never been a big fan of his debates because he’s a bit hot headed and for the most part debates on just about anything are a waste of time. I only got sucked into this because Vox was tangentially involved so I wanted to see where it went.

That being said, as a former Catholic and as someone who flirted with Sedevacantism, I can say with a clear conscience that JD made Kurgen look like a babbling idiot.

Blogger James Lovebirch December 15, 2019 11:12 AM  

@46

The issue is that Kurgan first responded to the citations from Denzinger by claiming they are a theologian's interpretations of dogma when Denzinger is a curated collection of dogma. When the Kurgan was corrected on that basic error, he doubled down, changed his story and started claiming dogma doesn't matter. He had to do this because the dogma contradicts him, and his pride or something else did not allow him to debate in good faith.

Blogger jeffinjapan December 15, 2019 11:16 AM  

Did you watch the video? If not, watch it and you’ll see for yourself that Jay, in addition to pointing out Kurgan’s astonishing ignorance of Catholic teachings and dogmas, did indeed lay out his position as to why Sedevacantism is absurd.

Blogger borsabil December 15, 2019 11:20 AM  

@46 Kurgan didn't know who the author was, no big deal, but he also had no knowledge of the material being cited by Dyer. Claiming that a collection of Papal decrees are 'irrelevant' because they have nothing to do with Canon law is beyond silly. If you don't know then say you don't know. Dyer was wrapping himself in logical fallacies, something he rightly excoriates atheists and relativists for doing. Kurgan is correct in that Francis is a false Pope he just didn't have the chops to make his case. We need a better apologist for the next debate.

Blogger VD December 15, 2019 11:22 AM  

Another head scratcher was Kurgan accusing JD of only using post Vatican II canon law and not canon law from 1917 to state his case. This was unbelievable because just moments before JD was actually quoting canon law...from 1917!!

That's the first substantive point I've heard in favor of Dyer since posting this thread.

Kurgan made a video a few weeks earlier that was nothing but ad hominem, so JD was more than justified to be angry.

If that was actually a justification, then how much more cause do I have to be ranting and angry every single day? Do you think this blog or the Darkstream would be improved if I adopted that approach? Jay will need to put his big boy pants on and adopt a more stoic approach if he ever wants to be taken seriously.

But this has all been very useful and helped us settle some open questions, so I appreciate that.

Blogger Unknown December 15, 2019 11:23 AM  

As this was a debate about the state of the Catholic church, a certain amount of legalism is to be expected. The beginning of the debate, about baptism was not germane to the topic. This was brought up because Kurgan addressed a video refuting it as though that were the whole of the argument. The entire debate comes down to the state of the Roman Curia. For the Catholic church to be the one true faith, certain teachings must hold, one of them being the process of electing the pope. The argument, such as it was, about Denzinger was to define the body of those able to elect a pope. There is not much of an argument whether the seat can be empty (it can), or whether it can be held by a heretic (as with the antipopes). The problem with Kurgan's position is showing there can ever be a validly elected pope again. Jay used Denzinger to define the Roman Curia, Kurgan used the Canon Law to argue that the seat was vacant, but did not show that it could then be validly filled. If a pope cannot be elected, then the only way forward for the position is that we are living in the end times, which is why there seemed to be an inordinate amount of time in the debate on whether or not Jesus has returned. Kurgan needed to show that the church can continue, he did not.

Blogger Robert Pinkerton December 15, 2019 11:23 AM  

I am with those who request a transcript. I do not watch videos nor podcasts because I am deaf. (When I started pistol practice fifty-seven years ago, many fellow shooters thought ear protection was effete.) Give me text that I can read.

BTW, I hugely enjoy both Vox's opening post and the subsequent commentary.

Blogger Shane Bradman December 15, 2019 11:25 AM  

Jeff, I'm not a woman, but if I were I would have turned off my computer after reading your comment and taken a cold shower to clear my mind.

Blogger James Lovebirch December 15, 2019 11:26 AM  

@47

2) The issue is not whether you get along, it's whether you have the unity promised by Catholic dogma. You don't.

3) You as a layperson have no authority within the Catholic system to decide who is or is not Pope. The Roman Curia does. Accepting their authority is a necessary but not sufficient condition to be Catholic and not doing so makes you a schismatic in precisely the way you accuse the EO of being

4) He never claimed there can be no vacancies, and specifically said there can and have been. That matter is decided by the hierarchy in Rome, not laypeople like yourself, and when laypeople like yourself spread the idea that there is a vacancy in spite of what the actual, right authority decides, YOUR position necessarily logically entails a defection of Rome.

5) You are simply describing how Orthodoxy works and making the case for it. This is not how Catholicism works, and if you won't accept the dogmas that describe how Catholicism works, you are a schismatic.

6) He did not assert that. He asserted that Catholic dogma is built on the promise that the Curia is under the charism of Peter and infallible, which is a fact. If YOU as a layperson decide that the Curia has become heretical, YOU necessarily entail that Rome has defected, the promises are broken, and Rome is a failed church.

Blogger lazarus long December 15, 2019 11:31 AM  

I want to puke time an "ism" or "ology" is nailed to Christ on the cross. It's all just masturbatory ego crap.

I watch evangelicals twist themselves into guilt-wridden, conflicted states after buying into all this John Piper Calvinism crap. Read a damn history book, hang the theologists.

Blogger Shane Bradman December 15, 2019 11:32 AM  

James, you should have said that to begin with. "Kurgan said it was a theologian's interpretation when it was a collection of dogma, not interpretation" is a criticism. "Lol he said the name wrong he doesn't know anything" is wasting everybody's time.

Blogger VD December 15, 2019 11:45 AM  

Did you watch the video?

What part of "I don't watch videos" is hard to understand. Eventually someone will post the transcript and then I will a) link to it, and, b) read it.

Then, and only then, will I begin to develop an opinion. I have zero interest in rhetorical posturing. If that is all that matters, Big Bear is the foremost intellectual in the world and can destroy anyone in "debate".

He once summarized an extensive critique of free trade as "Ricardo retardo". And I have no doubt that his two word "argument" would have convinced far more people than my dialectical approach.

Blogger jeffinjapan December 15, 2019 11:47 AM  

If you’re going to talk about God, then you can’t escape theology. If you want good theology, read, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky

Blogger James Dixon December 15, 2019 11:48 AM  

> What the Kurgan did was equivalent to walking into a debate on free trade, not knowing who Ricardo is and maintaining till the end that Ricardo doesn't matter.

Well, if you actually know Ricardo's arguments, he doesn't.

> Dyer is correct in that the Pope has jurisdiction over all bishops and that all Catholics have to submit to the Holy See.

Specifically Roman Catholics, mayhap. You do realize other groups also consider themselves Catholic?

Blogger jeffinjapan December 15, 2019 11:49 AM  

Oooook

Blogger jeffinjapan December 15, 2019 11:54 AM  

What part of "I don't watch videos" is hard to understand. Eventually someone will post the transcript and then I will a) link to it, and, b) read it.

I was replying to, or at least I thought I was, FUBARwest

Blogger rcocean December 15, 2019 11:55 AM  

Why waste 90 minutes watching a video when you can read the transcript in 10 minutes?

Blogger Richard Rahl December 15, 2019 11:56 AM  

Kurgan thought that "Denzinger" is commentary or opinion on catholic dogma, when it is simply a compilation of catholic dogmas and papal encyclicals.
Saying Denzinger is irrelevant is close to saying the Catholic faith is irrelevant.

Blogger VFM #7634 December 15, 2019 12:05 PM  

@70 James Lovebirch

You're making the same assertion that we Catholics have to turn our brains off and accept whatever the heretics in the converged Roman Curia elect as Bogus Ordo pope, no matter what heresies the Vatican II pretenders promulgate and put forth. No. Again, we have no right to judge the Roman See, but whether it is in fact the Roman See at all is perfectly legitimate.

You're also completely ignoring the fact that heresy severs one from the Catholic Church, making all of these (post)modernists usurping the See ineligible to be Pope at all. They have no authority at all because they are heretics.

All Catholics had to make a judgment about who was the Pope during the Great Western Schism. As it turns out, some canonized Saints were even wrong.

And you're wrong about equating us with the Eastern Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox in fact do recognize the Roman Popes (making no difference between pre- and post-Vatican II), but refuse to submit to them, using a "first among equals" argument. They're basically more equivalent to the recognize and resisters, not sedevacantists. We say the Vatican II antipopes have no more authority in the Catholic Church than any other heretic would.

Blogger nyan December 15, 2019 12:13 PM  

The "This is IBS!" argument is facile. The topic of discussion is the catholic (that is to say orthodox) faith of Jesus Christ. If you cannot comport yourself in a manner that is reflective of Christ, you lost. Matthew 7:15-16a: "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits." This is why the "tone policing" canard pops up here from Dyer fanatics. As far as demonstrating Christ-like comportment, Kurgan won, hands down. The absurd dismissal of Dyer's obvious anger and absence of longsuffering by Dyer fanatics that Kurgan called Dyer mean names in some videos is pure cope. Dyer does this to people all the time; is he so fragile that he can't take what he dishes out? Yet head to head, Kurgan offers his opponent respect, as he ought.

The debate started off on the wrong foot with Dyer insisting on strawmanning Kurgan's position. The 12-8-12-8 format was poor for this. For this debate to be effective, as others have posted, there needed to be much more effort put in to getting both men on the same page. Dyer is uninterested in anything that might promote any belief set that isn't Orthodoxy, so this is literally alien to him. The order of speakers should have been inverted, with Kurgan first, because Kurgan was on the defense.

I am a student of Christ Jesus. I call neither Catholics, nor Sedes, nor Orthodox false disciples of my Master. After watching this debate, I concluded that Dyer is the poorer representative of my Master, and Kurgan the better.

Finally, switching gears, because it was mentioned in the debate and I couldn't find it anywhere, Kurgan's full name is Giuseppe Filotto. This information is found on his website, which he mentioned but I struggled to transcribe: http://gfilotto.com

Blogger Teleros December 15, 2019 12:14 PM  

VD wrote:Eventually someone will post the transcript and then I will a) link to it, and, b) read it.

About 5k words into one now, but that's only about 40-50% through the whole thing judging by the video length & where I am in it, plus there's family over so... it'll be a few hours yet.

Blogger KirkTownzen December 15, 2019 12:21 PM  

Kurgan got destroyed and it wasn't just because he didn't know Denzinger is a compilation that does not contain the theological opinions of the author. (It's on the order of saying the author of the Holy Bible is King James)

Every time Dyer backed Kurgan into a dialectic corner, Kurgan simply reiterated his position with. "Again, ....". He definitely looked more in control by keeping his cool, but from a dialectic perspective he didn't have much to work with. If he did any debate prep it wasn't obvious because he never brought any new arguments that he didn't already include in his pre-debate posturing.

Blogger FUBARwest December 15, 2019 12:28 PM  

"I was replying to, or at least I thought I was, FUBARwest"

No, I'll read the transcript. That doesn't change the point that was made.

Blogger Fargle Gumpshite December 15, 2019 12:37 PM  

Come on guys, it is clear that the real winner of this debate was Protestantism.

Blogger VFM #7634 December 15, 2019 12:41 PM  

@83 KirkTownzen

Kurgan was definitely a less facile debater than Dyer, but he was still more correct. If Dyer debated Fr. Anthony Cekada or the guy who runs Novus Ordo Watch, he'd get his a-- handed to him.

Blogger Shane Bradman December 15, 2019 12:44 PM  

Richard, you are a liar. Of the 1.2 billion Catholics, 1.2 billion have never heard of Denzinger. To say it's on the same level of importance as the rest of the Catholic faith is so stupid that you should never talk about Catholicism again.

Blogger VD December 15, 2019 12:50 PM  

it is clear that the real winner of this debate was Protestantism.

(laughs) And we have the Comment of the Day winner!

Blogger VFM #7634 December 15, 2019 12:55 PM  

Protestantism was 450 years too early.

Blogger Scuzzaman December 15, 2019 1:14 PM  

(It's on the order of saying the author of the Holy Bible is King James)

Closer to saying that the KJV is a commentary on scripture by some ancient monarch named James.

Provoking embarrassing gaffes is a rhetorical art and a useful one in some contexts. Just remember that it’s also not an argument.

Blogger Beardy Bear December 15, 2019 1:14 PM  

Jay approached this debate without giving his opponent the most favorable position possible. Indeed, he began with the Kurgan having the most unfavorable, evidenced by his tone of speech, and quick descent in manners when it began to appear to him he had the upper hand.

I don't watch or care about either of them. Kurgan might be wrong, but Jay is definitely a gamma with a self awareness of zero.

Blogger ShinFarm December 15, 2019 1:17 PM  

Dyer read word for word actual Catholic dogma from the sources themselves absolutely refuting Kurgans position. Whether he screamed them at the top of his lungs or whispered them makes no difference. Kurgans position was thoroughly refuted.

Blogger James Lovebirch December 15, 2019 1:22 PM  

@80

It's not me saying anything. This is your dogma.

I think it would be nice if Catholicism was like your and other Sedes' misunderstanding of it, and it allowed you to "think for yourself", judge and excommunicate Rome as the Orthodox did, but your Church is built on the charism of Peter. Your church promised at Vatican I that God would never allow Rome to defect into heresy like other regions might.

The Orthodox knew that was wrong 1000 years ago, that Rome can defect into error like any other man or institution.

Blogger Sam December 15, 2019 1:34 PM  

@37
What makes you think empire building is any more non-destructive when done by a religion instead of a state?

Blogger Joe December 15, 2019 1:34 PM  

Dyer (even Kurgan, though to a lesser extent) is an Internet Performance Artist. IPA's dominate the "rational" discussion of religious topics on the internet, this is not because they have a command of the topic, but because they present well.
Their raison d'être is to get likes and subscribers, to do this they entertain, they do not educate.
Just examine Dyers timeline, he changes religious belief systems with regularity, for a insightful examination of Jays beliefs through time, please see:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRLOQUnw-FY&feature=emb_title

Blogger Manuel December 15, 2019 1:41 PM  

Just finished watching the debate. I'm Catholic but I am not as well read nor have I investigated much the main point of the debate, that sedevancantism proves Orthodoxy.
Jay came out strong, he sounded very Catholic in fact in his first sally.
Then Kurgan laid out his points that Cannon Law states a manifest heretic cannot hold office then Dyer had to be reminded to follow rules of no interrupting. Jay is more used to these "Internet bloodsports" type of debates where they mix name calling with zingers and one liners.
The debate bogged down as to whether Dogma or Canon Law was the issue. Dyer kept citing this Vatican I document which stated the constitution of the Church continues into perpetuity, but did not mention the Petrine office ie the Papacy. I thought the Kurgan missed an easy one there, although he was close, as he did make it clear that we've always had interregnums between the death of one Pope and the election of the next one, the See is vacant but the Church continues. Are we in one long "in-between" now?
At the end Jay Dyer brought up some of the Kurgan's less mainstream views which were irrelevant but, again, appropriate to the type of debate Dyer is used to.

Blogger CM December 15, 2019 2:05 PM  

I'm with tungsten on this.

Blogger VFM #7634 December 15, 2019 2:17 PM  

It's not me saying anything. This is your dogma.

@93 James Lovebirch

No, it's your misreading of our dogma. It's nice that you purport to know more about our own religion than someone who actually is in the religion. If you would actually read what I wrote maybe you'd understand.

Again, since you appear to be quite slow: The fact that the offices in the Vatican are currently occupied by manifest non-Catholics doesn't indicate that Rome has lapsed into heresy, it indicates that the offices are illegitimately occupied. Usurped.

It's as if Barack Obama was actually born in Kenya, making him ineligible to be President. Under that scenario, all his actions taken as president would be illegitimate, even if everyone accepted them as legitimate. Similarly, heretics -- non-Catholics -- are ineligible to be Pope, or for that matter, have any office in the Church.

As St. Robert Bellarmine demonstrated, there has never been a Roman Pope who was a heretic, i.e. a non-Catholic, even if they were debauched like a lot of the Renaissance Popes. That's the big difference between then, and now with the six Vatican II antipopes.

Blogger Jose Miguel December 15, 2019 2:17 PM  

@37

Shane, from your perspective unchanging is a negative, from mine the Orthodox church being the same as it was 1000+ years ago is a ringing endorsement. From late childhood I've wanted the faith once and delivered in full to the apostles. Where we disagree is on whether changing the faith/Church over time is a positive evolution or a negative devolution.

On that politicking that lead to over a billion Catholics, my ancestors were subject to that in Colombia. The syncretism Catholocism utilized there resulted in my grandfather leaving the Catholic church for Evangelicalism by missionaries who claimed that all the statues of saints were actually European pagan deities just like the Muiscan gods whose statues stood by their side. Many of the Catholic churches I've been in have had indigenous gods, from the Sun god Sue on the cross instead of Christ to the naked moon goddess Chia in the place of Mary in the nativity. Nothing like a voluptuous naked woman holding the Christ-child to inspire devotion among the faithful.

Growing up in the US attending Catholic schools, none of my Italian or Irish friends or even priests I knew believed me that pagan gods were common in Latin churches. I'm heartened that European Catholics recently responded negatively to Pachamama, and are beginning to see what their Church leadership has allowed for centuries. Why have the bishops and popes tolerated what was and is happening in the Latin churches? Did not any of those popes have the authority over the Church to stop such practices? Or is that just part of the evolution of the Church to have another 400 million in the pews?

Though I think the Kurgan's position is in error, I pray he and others like him succeed in driving out the more egregious heresies in the Roman Church today.

Blogger Jack Amok December 15, 2019 2:17 PM  

...heresy severs one from the Catholic Church...

Maybe Dyer and Kurgan should have a rematch with the subject "what prevents heresy charges from becoming a Code of Conduct."

Blogger mike December 15, 2019 2:20 PM  

Just to remind everyone at the end:

Heinrich ["Henry"] Joseph Dominicus Denzinger (1819-1883) was a German priest, theologian, and professor of theology He died on 19 June 1883 at Würzburg.

Laughs in catholic

Blogger CM December 15, 2019 2:23 PM  

That the Orthodox church is the same as it was 1000 years ago does not make it a more legitimate church than one that acknowledges that time can pass and that there must be some level of change in order to survive. The Catholic Church is a political organisation as well as a spiritual one, and it is through clever politicking that there are over a billion Catholics worldwide. Orthodoxy does not spread, it remains stagnant. Fundamental to the Orthodox mindset is stagnation. That can be good in some ways, like preserving historical culture, but you have to understand why people will criticise them for it.

So God is stagnant because He is unchanging?

Unchanging in and of itself isn't the impetus of stagnation. Unchanging when one must change is.

That's the problem with the left and the protestant and mainline catholic churches in their quest to be "relevant". They think change for it's own sake is the ultimate calling. They think it's their core doctrines, founded in Biblical scholarship, surviving the fires of study and debate, that must change for the sake of change.

Perfect truth does not need to change or grow. It is perfect truth. God is perfect truth, therefore he is unchanging. Change should only occur in pursuit of the truth, not for the sake of change itself.

If the orthodox church is the closest to truth in the beginning, then much change isn't necessary beyond tactics or education approach when dealing with the variation of attacks throughout the ages. The core does not need to change if it is the truth. How you teach the truth is the only thing that should be altering as the culture and assumptions change.

But that doesn't mean changing the message like the Pope and the Episcopal church have done (abandoning truth to welcome in heretics and unbelievers and claiming Christ's inheritance for those unwilling to bow to Christ as he is presented in scripture). It means changing strategy in presenting the truth - just like 2G war doesn't get you anywhere in a 4G world.

But it appears that with the growth the Orthodox church has been experiencing, it isn't as stagnant as you claim.

Blogger Attack helicopter December 15, 2019 2:25 PM  

Jay manged to nail some points but because of his vanity he made this debate about his own personal ego and thus degenerated into cheap lawyering being unable to prove his most important points. I think both of them made logical errors and both lost the debate.

Blogger M Cephas December 15, 2019 2:25 PM  

It wasn't a very good debate. I think both sides got things wrong. But Jay Dyer does seem to have more overall knowledge of Catholicism than The Kurgan. Though he didn't come off as calm and collected as The Kurgan.

Blogger Unseen11 December 15, 2019 2:31 PM  

Jay Dyer brought up from the code of canon law 1917:
162_165
149
180
218-219
154-160
230-241
Fundamentals of catholic dogma: 279-281
Denzinger 1821-1824

Im still trying to get my hands on the code from our library. Can anyone explain to me why ONLY the roman curia can elect the pope and thats why we cant have another non heretic pope again. That seemed to be Jay dyers arguement but popes were elected by other means in the past and they were still valid popes

Blogger James Lovebirch December 15, 2019 2:43 PM  

@98

If you'd ever like to stop being wrong, reading Jay's citations would be a good start.

@96

If the things Jay and Kurgan were citing were actually in conflict, that would be evidence of the internal incoherence of Catholicism, but they're not in conflict. The Kurgan is interpreting what he cited ad hoc as allowing him to judge the Seat of Peter as a random layman typing on his keyboard, but what he cited is superseded by what Jay cited. The promise of infallibility to the Seat of Peter precludes any possibility of excommunication or judgement of the Pope from outside of Rome. Ask yourself, who ultimately defines what heresy is?

Blogger VFM #7634 December 15, 2019 2:44 PM  

Maybe Dyer and Kurgan should have a rematch with the subject "what prevents heresy charges from becoming a Code of Conduct."

Thankfully, Catholicism is much more crystal-clear in defining heresy than SJW Codes of Conduct: the Vatican II antipopes repeatedly accept and promote opinions condemned as heretical in pre-Vatican II papal encyclicals, such as Pius IX's Syllabus of Errors.

Now we have Francis saying things like "God wills the diversity of religions" and "Proselytism is solemn nonsense". But according to Dyer and James Lovebirch, that's a-okay, Francis is still Pope.

Blogger God Emperor Memes December 15, 2019 2:47 PM  

"Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever"
"Be all things to all men"

I can see how some may find it difficult to balance those two.

Blogger Scooter Downey December 15, 2019 2:57 PM  

As an outsider completely ignorant of most of the issues in the debate I may be mischaracterizing some things, but from what I was able to follow the debate boiled down to a few claims.

Jay argues from Vatican 1 and elsewhere that the office of Pope is the fundamental office of unity guaranteed to the end of time and has essential properties that cannot be abrogated, and that laity must accept who the Roman Curia elects. Prelates can apostatize per Canon 188 found in the 1917 Canon Law that Kurgan cites, but not the Pope. According to Jay, Vatican 1 promises that there will be no defections of the Roman See. Further, since Kurgan supposes that the Roman Curia have apostatized (and Jay argues that a vacancy for such a long period of time guarantees that the Curia have apostatized), there is no licit means by which to elect a new pope. Therefore, the office of Pope has not endured, making the promise of Vatican 1 void.

Kurgan counters by citing Mystici Corporis Christi that Jesus Christ is the head of the church and can choose to act through whom He will, including the lowest of the low. It also states that the highest offices are not immune from being taken over by evil. Kurgan then states that Jay Dyer in his video fabricates a quote from Satis Cognitum that supports his position on the endurance of the Pope, and argues that there have been many examples in the history of the Catholic church when there has been no valid and visible Pope. He further supports this by quoting the Papal Encyclical of Paul IV which makes the point that fake Popes and heretical Popes are not Popes at all, that there could be such antipopes in the future, and all of their pronouncements are invalid.

It is at this point that there is an argument on definitions; namely, whether the Pope has defected and the essential Constitution of the Church has changed since Vatican II. There might be a technical meaning to this term that I don't understand. Kurgan says that by Jay's definition, there have been plenty of times that the Pope has defected. Jay says 'no,' by the definition of Vatican I the Pope has never defected. Both Jay and Kurgan appear to be arguing that there hasn't been a papal defection strictly speaking, but on two different definitions. Kurgan's definition of papal defection is not clear to me.

They then argued about what constitutes the Roman Curia. Kurgan says that all bishops are (potentially?) part of the Roman Curia. Jay points out that not every bishop in the world elects the Pope, only those in Rome. Kurgan says if a bishop in the Roman Curia defects, another bishop replaces them. Kurgan thus believes that the Roman See still exists in those bishops that did not defect. Jay points out that this is an admission that the Roman See as a whole has defected (since the Roman Curia since Vatican 2 are all heretics), defying the promise of Vatican 1.

This is the hinge of the debate -- not that Kurgan was ignorant that Denzinger was a collection of dogmas. Kurgan makes an analogy to a nuclear bomb hitting Rome and destroying the Roman Curia. In his view, there would still be a Roman Curia, in those valid bishops who did not explode.

Jay claims the promises of Vatican 1 makes that impossible. Further, there is no visible unity among Sedevacantists, thus invalidating them as a replacement.

Kurgan replies that there is still time for these things to happen and for a valid Pope to be reelected, since Jesus has not yet returned. Jay says it doesn't matter that there's still more time; the essential constitution of the Church has been broken, which should not be possible.

In conclusion, Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants can all agree that the Pope and the Roman See are a bunch of imposters and pedophiles.

Blogger LSWCHP December 15, 2019 2:59 PM  

Might have. FFS.

Blogger LSWCHP December 15, 2019 3:00 PM  

Might have. It is might have.

Blogger Richard Rahl December 15, 2019 3:16 PM  

Shane Bradman wrote:Richard, you are a liar. Of the 1.2 billion Catholics, 1.2 billion have never heard of Denzinger. To say it's on the same level of importance as the rest of the Catholic faith is so stupid that you should never talk about Catholicism again.

Shane,
I'm not a liar, you are an idiot and a liar. The number of RCs that have never heard of "Denzinger" is not only irrelevant, but your implication that no RC know about "Denzinger" is a lie. And even if the vast majority don't know what "Denzinger" is says much of the state of that sect as a whole.

I'll simplify my point for you in baby steps:

Dogma Defined: "a doctrine or body of doctrines concerning faith or morals formally stated and authoritatively proclaimed by a church" - In this case the RCC.

1) "Denzinger" is identical to a list of RC Dogmas.

2) If "Denzinger" is irrelevant, RC Dogma is irrelevant.

4) If the RC Dogmas are irrelevant then there is no basis for RC belief.

Blogger ShinFarm December 15, 2019 3:17 PM  

The problem isn't just he didn't know the name. The problem is that "Denzinger"isn't a book written by a man giving his opinions as Kurgan stated. Denzinger is a book of compiled papal statements and roman catholic dogma. You can't be a part of religion and reject it's dogmas, which is what Kurgan essentially did and all sedas .

Blogger ShinFarm December 15, 2019 3:29 PM  

How do you know he's lying? After all, you didn't watch it. Suicidal is a strong word but I can testify that Kurgan looked as if he knew he had lost this .

Blogger ShinFarm December 15, 2019 3:33 PM  

You are passively aggressively attacking Jay. Essentially calling Dyer a liar and twerp without actually saying it yourself. Is that not gamma behaviour? I only ask because I know you're an expert on gammas.

Blogger VD December 15, 2019 3:35 PM  

How do you know he's lying?

Because that is how little gamma shits talk about people online. No one "looks suicidal" or "cries" even when things aren't going their way. It's an obvious attempt to push a false narrative.

The problem isn't just he didn't know the name.

Certainly. But regardless, that's not a basis to proclaim someone lost a debate. I think the most useful thing I've learned from this whole thing is that we definitely don't want anything to do with Jay Dyer or his fans, even if he conclusively won this debate.

Blogger CM December 15, 2019 3:48 PM  

In conclusion, Catholics, Orthodox, and Protestants can all agree that the Pope and the Roman See are a bunch of imposters and pedophiles.

Thanks for the rundown. That is a heartbreaking conclusion, and I don't blame Kurgan for defending his deposit of faith and I can't blame Dyer for wanting to convince Kurgan to abandon it.

By your breakdown, I think Dyer has the better argument ultimately, if not the best presentation of the argument.

I have the most sympathy for Kurgan and all traditional catholics.

They are needing prayer for wisdom, fortitude, and perseverance in The Faith - as do we all facing the same issues in our own denominations.

Blogger VD December 15, 2019 3:51 PM  

You are passively aggressively attacking Jay.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. To the contrary, I'm pointing out to him that his fans are not doing him any good at all. If my fans were doing that sort of thing, I'd have shut it down hard and fast. Just ask them.

Essentially calling Dyer a liar and twerp without actually saying it yourself.

No. If I determine Dyer is a liar and twerp, rest assured I will be very clear about that.

Is that not gamma behaviour?

Not even a little bit. If I ever decide to go after Dyer for whatever reason, you will definitely know it. I am neither passive-aggressive nor conflict-avoidant.

Blogger jkmack December 15, 2019 3:58 PM  

I have only listened to the first 30 minutes of the debate, but anyone that says that video is superior to reading a transcript is an idiot or executing mischief. Video contorts perception of what is being said by vagaries such as camera angle and lighting. If such minor variables can shift your perception of the truth of what is being said, how can video be a superior form of consuming a debate over transcription?

Blogger James Lovebirch December 15, 2019 4:04 PM  

@109

Something I would add to that is you can drop the Sedevacantism, resume communion with Rome and at that point there's some possibility to save the Catholic church from all the problems we know are there by working through the hierarchy that has been prescribed by Vatican I. You must accept that hierarchy, but in doing so you can work to influence it in good faith and from your proper place to try to correct any problems with it. You need to stop trying to be the secret king who everyone should throw Rome under the bus for for your special secret.

The problem with Sedevacantism is they want to have their cake and eat it too.

If they are the true church, as just about all of them believe, they carry none of the promised hallmarks of it from Vatican I. Jay goes into great detail on those identifying features that are promised to exist until the second coming. This means that by the logic and standards of the church they profess to be and represent, if their narrative was true, that very church has failed. Their dogma says if any of the ingredients are missing, this cake self-destructs: Jesus was apparently a liar.

Everything they do is a talmudic, ad-hoc cherrypicking of dogma, cannon law, historical facts and whatever else they can twist to suit whatever narrative they believe in at the moment. This is why Kurgan ridiculously spent an hour saying dogma doesn't matter in Catholicism. John Pontrello deals with just about all of their various theories that none of them agree on in a dialectical fashion in his book The Sedevacantist Delusion.

By the logic of the RC church they profess to represent and obviously to most of the rest of the Catholic world as well, they are not the true church; they are a bunch of schismatics. If you refuse to be in communion with Rome, the logical thing to do is stop saying you're Catholic. At that point you can convert to something else or devise some other plan of action.

In many ways, the sedevancantist movements are gamma psychology writ large.

Blogger mike December 15, 2019 4:15 PM  

Ok, watched most of the debate. Moderation was non-existent and that skewed the debate significantly. It was similar to when Pence won the debate by default almost. Dyers arguments when he screams them at the mike sound like arguments of 7 year old. Denzinger argument is just emotion bc not knowing a specific book even if its the collection of dogma doesn't lose the debate about Catholic Church rules. And Kurgans sources were exactly on topic. Church doesn't function on dogma but rather on laws interpreted from dogma. Dyer tried to self interpret the dogma to infer the laws, that has already been done and its the laws Kurgan was basing his argumentation on. Now the curia, whether it's in rome or not doesn't matter but what matter is its function and whether it can be formed from bishops. Well if we interpret that all current vatican occupants are heretics (this would have to be pronounced by next pope) and lso all cardinals are heretics its like Kurgan said its like the nuke hit and some virus spread and we lose all of them. Then obviously church can continue and remaining bishops can elect cardinals curia etc etc and elect the pope.
So sperg dyer is a gamma and mistakes knowledge with wisdom while also being extremely afraid of having his interpretations challenged and that's a gammatude

Blogger Unknown December 15, 2019 4:28 PM  

I agree with your assessment. Dyer resorted to name calling and constant interruptions. Kurgan kept his cool the entire argument. I know nothing of what these gentlemen argued about, but it was clear to me that Dyer is not a friendly debater.

Blogger Dwayne Thundergrit December 15, 2019 4:57 PM  

@114 the Kurgan showed his true colors when Jay challenged him to a pushup contest and the Kurgan refused.

Blogger VFM #7634 December 15, 2019 5:04 PM  

In many ways, the sedevancantist movements are gamma psychology writ large.

Ha ha. Not so. In my sociosexual readings of all the traditionalist Catholics I know, the Gammas tend to be the recognize-and-resisters -- Jay Dyer would definitely be one if he considered himself a Catholic -- or they latch onto a heresy of one kind or another, such as the Feeneyism of the notorious Dimond bros of "Most Holy Family Monastery".

Gammas project too, I guess.

Blogger Gregory the Tall December 15, 2019 5:14 PM  

Dyer comes across as the lawyer or general who will say "We will never win this battle, my advice is to settle and make peace with what is obviously a superior enemy."
The Kurgan, however, comes across as the fighter who says "Well, we will never know until we have tried, and there is a good chance God might help us."
So who won the debate?

Blogger Mr Smith December 15, 2019 5:22 PM  

Which one of the 35,000 Protestant denominations gets the award? The one with the married lesbian pastor or the poison drinking rattlesnake charmer for a pastor?

Blogger James Lovebirch December 15, 2019 5:35 PM  

@124

You would think that because you are incapable of approaching the topic dispassionately.

Also while Jay was VERY passionate during the debate in a way that didn't serve his cause, The Kurgan started this whole thing with his own 2 hours of spergey rants, 90% of which were calling Jay a gammarific omegaliar spergatronic autist, and thus 90% of those videos were devoid of substance. Those videos exemplify the unhinged personality that is very typical within the Sedevacantist movements.

Blogger Shadow Banisher December 15, 2019 5:46 PM  

It looked like a technically correct monkey vs. a grown adult who probably has better things to do.

Jay has an established pattern of impulsively jumping at debates, whether or not he's correct on the subject.

Love his stuff for its core content, and even some of his comedy; but this has long been a pattern.

Blogger Joe December 15, 2019 5:47 PM  

@124 If a heretic says, "2+2=4" is he wrong because he is a heretic? A hearetics error regards dogmatic teaching, it does not follow that all observations of a heretic are wrong.

Blogger Teleros December 15, 2019 5:55 PM  

Vox, I've just emailed you the finished transcript. Tad over 14k words for those wondering.

Blogger Luke December 15, 2019 6:08 PM  

For the perspective that this was a debate on theology - Jay won hands down. He's got decades of practice and knowledge... and it shows. The Kurgan seems to have spent too much time in the virtual world, opening the debate with self appraisal as a veteran on the blog, seeing himself as being competent to take on a seasoned professional because he knows someone as competent and accomplished as Vox.

It was difficult to watch, like seeing a heckler at one of Owen's gigs get pulled up on stage and told to crush. A lot of posturing but no self awareness and like a heckler can't read an audience, Kurgan cannot listen to his opponent. If he stopped using wizadry on Jay (actually if he hadn't negged him from the beginning before Jay knew who he was) he might of been given a chance to learn but I understand why Jay was done wasting his time and went for the throat. Boohoo feelings some are saying.

Jay Dyer's energy upsets a lot of people. He's self righteous and doesn't wait for you to catch up, but he is noble which is reflected in his first responses to the pre-debate videos where he had nothing but admiraton for Vox and took his word that Kurgan must be worth responding to. Compulsive liars are repulsed by humility. Jay's adversaries are overwhelmed by his knowledge first of all and it is uncomfortable to be confronted head on rhetorically too with ease and then laughed at. Kurgan was out of his depth.

Like the Nickers, the use of a handful of magic words is not an argument. Disappointing to see the revolting attacks on Jay and his fiance before this even happened. Unbelievable.

Blogger SirHamster December 15, 2019 6:43 PM  

ShinFarm wrote:The problem isn't just he didn't know the name. The problem is that "Denzinger"isn't a book written by a man giving his opinions as Kurgan stated. Denzinger is a book of compiled papal statements and roman catholic dogma. You can't be a part of religion and reject it's dogmas, which is what Kurgan essentially did and all sedas .

If Kurgan is unfamiliar with Denzinger and dismisses it, that does not mean he is actually dismissing Roman Catholic dogma.

Don't confuse the label with the object of the label.

Trying to make the debate, "do you know who/what Denzinger is?" is stupid.

Blogger Fuzzums Wuzzums December 15, 2019 6:56 PM  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3mVO9sx77Y&

We can clearly see that Jay's book is leather-bound whereas Kurgan's book is not.
Always go leather-bound.

Blogger VFM #7634 December 15, 2019 7:05 PM  

If a heretic says, "2+2=4" is he wrong because he is a heretic? A hearetics error regards dogmatic teaching, it does not follow that all observations of a heretic are wrong.

Sure, but the heretic tends to make his wrong opinions his baby. Such as recognize-and-resisters demanding sedevacantists recognize the Vatican II antipopes because reasons. If R&R types directed all their fire at the Novus Ordo instead, that would be one thing, but instead they usually shoot right, like every other flavor of cuckservative out there.

Blogger Dan in Georgia December 15, 2019 7:17 PM  

Vox reads faster than that.

Blogger furor kek tonicus ( you think it's a coincidence that Tucker Carlson shares initials with Ted Cobbler? Never Go Full Retard ) December 15, 2019 7:36 PM  

the fundamental problem with Kurgan's position is that he has already conceded that the Papacy is not protected from theological error by special dispensation from the Holy Spirit.

this is a core tenant of Catholic theology and is their pretext for lording it over OLDER denominations such as the Oriental churches or some of the Orthodox Communions.

IF
you admit that the Roman Pope can be theologically apostate
THEN
you admit that the churches who have opposed Rome down through the millennia and the various schisms might just have a point when THEY claim that the Romans were trying to contradict scripture.

i can name at least a half dozen such candidates off of the top of my head.

this is the reason why Crazy Eyes is so fixated on rehabilitating Benedict ( even though she herself has made the case that it was Benedict who had the goal of 'transforming' the papacy, and is thus apostate, although she claims that Benedict is merely "in error" ), it allows her a logical through point to insist upon the authority and legitimacy of the Catholic church in spite of Francis.

Kurgan discards this by claiming the Papacy to have been vacant since ~1960, and thus requires most of the Catholic clergy to have also been apostate since that point.

so now the Kurgan and i are merely quibbling about the date when the Catholic church went apostate, not whether or not it actually is apostate.

and i consider the latter issue to be the far more important one.



8. borsabil December 15, 2019 8:01 AM
but he is definitely a sperg and he constantly hammers on point until my ears bleed.


i got about 4/5s through Kurgan's video that Vox linked and turned it off because i was tired of the lack of Dialectic and the constant repetition of "Dyer the Liar".

perhaps Kurgan didn't do this in the debate?

Blogger Laramie Hirsch December 15, 2019 7:50 PM  

How to judge a won debate: Convincing the opponent of the truth of your position. Failing to convince the greater part of the neutral audience of the truth of your position.

Dyer may well have presented a better position with stronger, sounder backing than the Kurgan. I don't know. But what I'm hearing from his fans so far indicates nothing more than he managed to catch out the Kurgan in a rhetorical gotcha.


I agree. Convincing the opponent in the debate is definitely a victory. But I knew that these two men would convince each other of nothing.

So, in my mind (and by the looks of everyone else's mind), the metrics for victory in this case would be: who appears most validated? Who would look the most justified in their presentation?

So what I kept an eye out for was confidence in the participants. It is true that Dyer came out saying "You've already lost this debate" early on. At first blush, this reminded me of the many times you'd point out how gammas proclaim victory before any victory was achieved. So I did remember what you said about that.

However, two things seemed clear amid Dyer's talking:

1. Dyer was speaking from a position of knowledge and experience. I do not agree with his Eastern Orthodoxy position (in fact, here in the post-debate phase, he's extolling "the supremacy" of EO over RCC.) That said, he's spent YEARS dabbling in Traditional Catholicism, and when he criticizes Catholicism these days, his insults are particularly cutting because he knows what he's talking about. He's on familiar ground with Trad Cath Land.

And 2. Kurgan, on the other hand, has only been involved in his sedeprivationism since 2017, and it showed. If the debate was viewed in the video medium, you could see Kurgan's confidence waning with his manner and expressions. Kurgan also continued to fall back on repeating statements with his argument against Dyer, and Kurgan was the first one to noticeably insult Dyer. This all speaks of a shaky confidence to me.

These things considered, I think it's understandable that the audience considers Dyer the winner. (Again, I do not agree with Dyer's theology.) To me, it appeared that Dyer won dialectically and rhetorically against Kurgan.

As far as Dyer's fans are concerned, of course they're gonna hoot and holler over a victory. They're a fanbase. And not everyone's refined with their behavior.

Blogger Captain Barnacles December 15, 2019 7:53 PM  

The way his supporters are supporting him, Dyer sounds like a douche.

Orthodoxy is very appealing to me. I can do without the spergatry, though. Even the ethnic stuff is more tolerable, though I still say that the place for Thrace-Daco-Romanian pride is in Thraco-Daco Romania.

Blogger VFM #7634 December 15, 2019 7:54 PM  

the fundamental problem with Kurgan's position is that he has already conceded that the Papacy is not protected from theological error by special dispensation from the Holy Spirit.

If he said that, he messed up. Because he's wrong. That's the whole sedevacantist argument, in fact: the Papacy is protected from error, and only appears to have defected since 1958 because the men occupying the See starting with John XXIII were and are ineligible to be Pope, because they're not Catholics, since they all refuse to accept Papal magisterium from before Vatican II by continually and pertinaciously promoting ideas and opinions that all prior Popes condemned and anathematized in their encyclicals.

Kurgan is quite new to sedevacantism and is off in various areas.

Blogger Captain Barnacles December 15, 2019 8:01 PM  

“IF
you admit that the Roman Pope can be theologically apostate
THEN
you admit that the churches who have opposed Rome down through the millennia and the various schisms might just have a point when THEY claim that the Romans were trying to contradict scripture.“

That’s a really good point. But, is that how a large number of Orthodox Christians feel, worldwide? I certainly hope so.
I sympathize with that argument. It makes a lot of sense.
It’s unfortunate that Orthodox don’t want us to have a Western Rite.

Blogger Andy'scurious December 15, 2019 8:04 PM  

Nailed it .

Blogger Andy'scurious December 15, 2019 8:09 PM  

Agreed.
Raised catholic ,educated to be a priest , dropped it over the pedos , now learning orthodoxy directly from bishops .

Blogger Scuzzaman December 15, 2019 8:19 PM  

They are needing prayer for wisdom, fortitude, and perseverance in The Faith - as do we all facing the same issues in our own denominations.

This.

My church is just starting to wrestle with feminist demands for women as pastors and the lie that “just take one step back and we’ll stop pushing”.

We are all facing the same issues and we all need divine wisdom and strength to overcome them.

Blogger ghostfromplanetspook December 15, 2019 8:56 PM  

Jay made an appearance on the latest darkstream. Very nice of him to see if Vox is favoring his side of the debate.

Blogger CM December 15, 2019 8:58 PM  

If he said that, he messed up. Because he's wrong. That's the whole sedevacantist argument, in fact: the Papacy is protected from error, and only appears to have defected since 1958 because the men occupying the See starting with John XXIII were and are ineligible to be Pope, because they're not Catholics, since they all refuse to accept Papal magisterium from before Vatican II by continually and pertinaciously promoting ideas and opinions that all prior Popes condemned and anathematized in their encyclicals.

This is the clearest I've seen this laid out. So basically, if these new popes have papal authority, the old Popes were heretics because they disagree... both can't have true papal authority.

Is that the crux of the sedevantist position?

Blogger Ransom Smith December 15, 2019 9:08 PM  

Which one of the 35,000 Protestant denominations gets the award? The one with the married lesbian pastor or the poison drinking rattlesnake charmer for a pastor
Choosing to throw excrement at Protestantism when that isn't the topic, is how you get yourself tar and feathered.

Blogger VFM #7634 December 15, 2019 9:19 PM  

This is the clearest I've seen this laid out. So basically, if these new popes have papal authority, the old Popes were heretics because they disagree... both can't have true papal authority.

Is that the crux of the sedevantist position?


Yes. Exactly.

Blogger Mr Smith December 15, 2019 9:33 PM  

You guys have all the answers. Just which denomination is it? Until you guys figure it out I'll stick with the Orthodox.

Blogger furor kek tonicus ( you think it's a coincidence that Tucker Carlson shares initials with Ted Cobbler? Never Go Full Retard ) December 15, 2019 9:40 PM  

139. VFM #7634 December 15, 2019 7:54 PM
That's the whole sedevacantist argument, in fact: the Papacy is protected from error, and only appears to have defected since 1958 because the men occupying the See starting with John XXIII were and are ineligible to be Pope, because they're not Catholics, since they all refuse to accept Papal magisterium from before Vatican II by continually and pertinaciously promoting ideas and opinions that all prior Popes condemned and anathematized in their encyclicals.


so your position is that 95% of professing Catholics, practically all the clergy and all of the organs and functions of the church are in apostate hands.

and that you've not had a valid pope longer than most of us have been alive.


now, i'm certainly not willing to discount the 'correctness' of an argument simply because it's unpopular
...
but it doesn't much appear to me that the Catholic Church has been "protected" from apostasy.

Blogger James Lovebirch December 15, 2019 10:34 PM  

Just in case anyone missed it, the complete dialectical refutation of all strains of Sedevacantism is contained in John Pontrello's The Sedevacantist Delusion.

Blogger Akulkis December 15, 2019 10:49 PM  

"If YOU as a layperson decide that the Curia has become heretical, YOU necessarily entail that Rome has defected, the promises are broken, and Rome is a failed church."

Rome defected over a thousand years ago when the Bishop of Rome wanted to be held as most senior, and deliberately broke off from the rest of the church which was centered (culturally, not legally) in Byzantium/Constantinople/Istanbul.

I always laugh whenever a Roman Catholic accuses any Protestant of being a "splitter" or any other such word, as it was the Roman church itself who were the original "splitters" from the main body of Christianity. Most of the Protestant sects seek to undo the damage done to the Western branch of the Christian church *BY* the Church in Rome (the very fact that the Bishop of Rome was renamed "Pope" ("papa") in direct contradiction to Matthew 23:9 (regardless of what post-hoc "how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-head-of-a-pin" sorts of excuses Rome comes up with) tells you right there that since inducing their schism, the leaders of the Roman Church have never been in search of true subservience to Christ.

Luther had his 95 thesis. Most other branches of Protestantism believe that Luther was understating the extent of the problem.

The biggest problem in the Protestant churches is that they never sought to regain contact with, nor input AND GUIDANCE from the Orthodox churches.

Blogger Joe December 15, 2019 11:02 PM  

Lot's of misunderstanding of the popes teaching authority and how it is protected by the doctrine of infallibility. If you're interested, please see: https://www.catholic.com/tract/papal-infallibility

Blogger Akulkis December 15, 2019 11:07 PM  

@80
"All Catholics had to make a judgment about who was the Pope during the Great Western Schism. As it turns out, some canonized Saints were even wrong."

In light of the instruction from Jesus himself in Matthew 23:9 ("Call no man your father"), even arguing WHO to call father ("Pope" is merely a variant on "Papa" i.e. father), even CONSIDERING the question of *WHO* should be called father/papa/padre/pope immediately puts oneself on the wrong side of the Gospel.

The correct answer is not Man A nor Man B, but "NOBODY."

Medieval politics doesn't change that truth one iota. Nor do any number of arguments in the vein of "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin." or other intellectually masturbatory B.S. used to use some sort of verbal equivalent of division by zero to justify doing EXACTLY WHAT WAS PROHIBITED, ***SPECIFICALLY*** PROHIBITED, BY OUR LORD JESUS HIMSELF.

All while splitting off from the rest of Christianity over earthly politics and ego, and then daring to hold EVERYONE ELSE who doesn't join (or stay) with them in contempt from that time forwards... it's beyond the pale of reasonable consideration, let alone subservience to Christ's teachings.

Blogger Akulkis December 15, 2019 11:47 PM  

@37

" The Catholic Church is a political organisation as well as a spiritual one, and it is through clever politicking that there are over a billion Catholics worldwide. Orthodoxy does not spread, it remains stagnant. Fundamental to the Orthodox mindset is stagnation. That can be good in some ways, like preserving historical culture, but you have to understand why people will criticise them for it."

The most popular religion in the world is not Roman Catholocism, nor Islam, nor even ALL of the sects of Christianity of various veracity.

The truly most widely held religion in the world is one of which I'm sure you have tokens of in your own pocket -- the U.S. Dollar.

It is literally backed by nothing. It's value is one based on nothing less, and most assuredly nothing more, than faith.

It is a deity-less religion, yet a religion nonetheless.

It's also a false religion.

The number of adherents to a religion doesn't prove that it's better or more valid than any other adherents -- merely that more people have been roped into it by whatever means (in the case of the U.S. dollar, mostly by economic coercion and attendant emotional pressures) than other, less competitive religions.

The only REAL money is that which is backed up by tangible substances. The Poz was in the dollar religion from the get go. "Dollar" is derived from the German "Thaler" which itself means "credit." Credit-based currency (as opposed to asset based currency) is inherently pozzed.

Lastly, note that many lies are extremely popular. And many truths are just as, or even moreso extremely UNpopular

This concludes the unit of instruction regarding the Fallacy of Argument by Popularity.

Blogger Toby Temple December 16, 2019 12:46 AM  

"These things considered, I think it's understandable that the audience considers Dyer the winner. (Again, I do not agree with Dyer's theology.) To me, it appeared that Dyer won dialectically and rhetorically against Kurgan." - Laramie

What she said. Saw the debate. I cannot believe that someone who referred to this opponent as an idiot so many times prior to the debate made that 2 crucial mistakes on video and did not have the balls to admit it.

Blogger cyrus83 December 16, 2019 1:13 AM  

Sedevacantism and Sedeprivationism both have a problem looking forward, however much their criticisms of what is past might be on point.

There is the logical problem of how the church is going to get a new pope at this point if nobody has validly occupied the see since Pius XII died. Per the canon law in force in 1958, electing the pope is the job of the College of Cardinals, and cardinals are appointed by the pope. The trouble is that without a valid pope in the last 60 years, there are no longer any valid cardinals around to elect one.

Anti-pope situations have arisen before, but the key difference is that in every prior case, a legitimate pope had been elected according to the rules in force at the time. Sedevacantism extending back to 1958 not only has no pope to point to, it cannot make one going forward, validating Dyer's point since the office would then have failed, which per Vatican I it can't.

Sedeprivationism could work if it could point to a valid pope duly elected by valid electors but who is being blocked by a usurper. The difficulty here is that by now several events need to have happened - some group of the 1958 electors electing a different man following John XXIII's election, and then that pope appointing his own cardinals, who have had subsequent elections for pope. But without a succession of popes to point to, this is really Sedevacantism by another name, and fails similarly because it's not possible to get a new pope in office by the old rules.

Vatican II has the special problem that the English translations that came out initially were not that good, much as the original English translation of the Novus Ordo was garbage (read the 1970 English versus the 2011, then realize that in most cases the Latin original is the same in both editions). Flannery's translation of the documents from 1975 does not give the sense of a major rupture the way the 1960s translations had, but it was about 10 years too late as by then the "experts" had already formed opinion.

Blogger Ranger December 16, 2019 3:31 AM  

The sedevacantist/sedeprivationist position is Secret King Gammatude applied to the Church.

Truth is, the Patriarch of Rome not only CAN fall into error, he HAS fallen into error about 1,000 years ago and all his successors have remained in that error. They call the fact that they all remained fixed in that error "having an unchanging rule of faith".

God has now sent to the Roman Church evil men, obviously heretical and enemies of Logos, to rule her, in order to draw out from her Christians of good will. Come out. The Church is waiting for you.

Blogger Shane Bradman December 16, 2019 4:37 AM  

I propose a solution to the sedes. The Pope is legitimate and was legitimately elected, but he's an annoying shit that we best get rid of sooner rather than later. Alexander VI was a legitimate Pope and he was an absolute madman. Arguing about the legitimacy of the Pope is as pointless and tiresome as the legitimacy of Queen Elizabeth II. She's the queen, Francis is the Pope. They're both shit, but stop worrying about it.

Blogger JamesB.BKK December 16, 2019 5:18 AM  

International Boi Syndicate

Blogger JamesB.BKK December 16, 2019 5:21 AM  

Whoa there. On those thoughts, how soon til trannie priests are required for its survival?

Blogger JamesB.BKK December 16, 2019 5:23 AM  

Ricardo? More like Retardo.

Blogger Toby Temple December 16, 2019 5:28 AM  

"Dyer read word for word actual Catholic dogma from the sources themselves absolutely refuting Kurgans position. Whether he screamed them at the top of his lungs or whispered them makes no difference. Kurgans position was thoroughly refuted."

And that did not even made Kurgan pause before falsely claiming that Dyer's statements are irrelevant. That is how clueless he was of the contents of the book he showed off in the video.

If he, Kurganm, did read The 1917, then he would atleast be familiar with what Dyer was reading.

Blogger JamesB.BKK December 16, 2019 5:33 AM  

Seems much like what an ankle biter would do.

Blogger Tars Tarkas December 16, 2019 8:11 AM  

I watched the debate and IMHO it was a demonstration of why theology debates are completely pointless. It all comes down to which book is more important. If Jay's book is the right one, he won and if Kurgan's book is the right one, then he won. Kurgan's not knowing a book so central to Catholicism seemed weird for someone arguing Catholicism.

Blogger Unknown December 16, 2019 8:41 AM  

So Jay Dyer won the debate? If he is the example of what a "true" Christian should be I would never want to be one.

Blogger Ranger December 16, 2019 9:37 AM  

The debate was not about who is the true or better Christian, or who is a more pleasant person.

C.S. Lewis has written about how it is not possible to infer who has the better theology from a person's character. Without the help of the Church, Jay Dyer might be an even worse gamma.

Blogger Scuzzaman December 16, 2019 10:43 AM  

Shane Bradman

Or the legitimacy of Barack Obama.

There’s reasonable doubt In theory but in practice it’s utterly irrelevant.

Blogger VD December 16, 2019 12:00 PM  

If he is the example of what a "true" Christian should be I would never want to be one.

The truth cannot be judged on the basis of those who believe it.

Blogger VFM #7634 December 16, 2019 1:22 PM  

but it doesn't much appear to me that the Catholic Church has been "protected" from apostasy.

@149 furor kek tonicus

The Bible prophesies a Great Apostasy (or "falling away"), so it was bound to happen anyway. It's looking more and more like Vatican II was it. Also, the history of the Church is supposed to reflect the life of Jesus Christ, so being crucified and buried in a tomb, with seemingly no hope of recovery, is supposed to happen to the Church.

Well, at least that's over with now. And the Bogus Ordo "Mass" is very nicely described in the Bible as the "abomination of desolation".

@156 cyrus83

It's a mystery as to how the mess will be fixed, sure, but a mystery is a good deal better than a flat-out contradiction where the Pope isn't Catholic and we're expected to submit to a Marxist who insists religious differences are necessary and who presides over Pachamama worship.

@158 Shane Bradman

If you were talking about a strictly human institution, then sure, you could argue that as a solution, but since a heretic Pope is a contradiction in terms and can't be legitimized by divine law, we can't do that. The whole human race can't overrule God.

Blogger Rickaby007 December 16, 2019 5:05 PM  

>Dyer was trying to get back at the bully who gave him a wedgie, shoved him in his locker and took his girlfriend.

Except that stuff never happened.

I've consumed Jay's content for years. He is a bit of a sperg and has a bit of a short fuse but he is generally cool with people if they are professional in their interactions with him Certainly Kurgan pissed him off with unwarranted BS before the debate. To claim BS psychological reason like that is lazy and shallow.

Blogger Paisius December 16, 2019 7:36 PM  

It was enough to lose the debate because it is at the heart of the catholic church’s claims and dogmas. If you don’t even realize what this is and think the code of canon law is the end al be all, you should probably spend more time studying and less time calling other people heretics

Blogger Dan in Georgia December 16, 2019 8:03 PM  

Dan in Georgia wrote:Kurgan was trying to convince the audience that there is still legitimate Catholicism being practiced in the present day.

Dyer was trying to get back at the bully who gave him a wedgie, shoved him in his locker and took his girlfriend.


Rickaby007 wrote:>Dyer was trying to get back at the bully who gave him a wedgie, shoved him in his locker and took his girlfriend.

Except that stuff never happened.

I've consumed Jay's content for years. He is a bit of a sperg and has a bit of a short fuse but he is generally cool with people if they are professional in their interactions with him Certainly Kurgan pissed him off with unwarranted BS before the debate. To claim BS psychological reason like that is lazy and shallow.



It would have been easier to just copy and past my whole post. You unhighlighted the first part intentionally. Why? To try to make me look like a prick? Nice try. I've found out something about you now and I'm now even less inclined to consider Orthodoxy than I was after I watched the debate.

Blogger Jad December 16, 2019 8:28 PM  

Jay called him a 'buffoon,' 'doofus,' and 'goof' several times. Why is that so bad? Kurgan said way worse things about Dyer in other videos. Tit for tat?

Rhetoric aside, I enjoyed the debate but to me it seemed as though Kurgan got absolutely broadsided by the Denzinger argument, the bishops of Rome problem and just generally not understanding the differences between dogma, canon law, and encyclicals.

At the end of it, I am left wondering if there was any real benefit to anyone from this debate.

Blogger Jad December 16, 2019 8:33 PM  

I just listened to the debate and it appeared to me that Dyer called out Kurgan for not understanding that 'Denzinger' was a collection of catholic dogma and not a book of interpretive opinion on dogma by 'Denzinger.' I'll be interested to read your analysis.

Blogger cyrus83 December 16, 2019 8:53 PM  

@169

That answer doesn't work. It is a contradiction to rely upon Canon Law to make a determination that the see is vacant while at the same time having no way to fill the vacancy under the same Canon Law. Sedevacantism ceased to be tenable when the last men who were eligible to elect a pope under the law passed.

I am no fan of Francis, nor of the Spirit of Vatican II crowd. While I do not know how this mess is to be sorted out, the answer does not lie in Sedevacantism. It might be the election of Francis was illegitimate with Benedict the true pope at the moment, but like with Sedevacantism, if this idea is incorrect, time will eventually render the position logically untenable.

Blogger Jack Amok December 16, 2019 10:30 PM  

Atheists are going to have a field day with this comment thread.

Blogger Bernard Brandt December 16, 2019 11:40 PM  

VD,

You have asked for the opinions of people who have heard the debate. I have heard the first 40 minutes, which was all I could stand, and in which Dyer and Kurgan stated their initial cases. These are my opinions.

1. The whole damn debate was damned sloppy. I cut my teeth on debates in high school, and later, during my forty years of misusing the law, my attorneys tended to win 90% of the time. Good debates hinge on asking a question, and having the participants answer and contend accordingly. The question seemed to be: Whether a sedevacantist can be a faithful Roman Catholic.

By that standard, the Kurgan should have been allowed to speak first, to present the pro position. Then Dyer could rebut, and the fight would be on. That didn't happen, and I got treated to the following cluster hand-shake.

Instead, Dyer started out with the bog standard approach to Roman Catholicism (incidentally, one which, as an Eastern Orthodox, he rejects): A Roman Catholic is bound to accept the truths of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium. He believes that the promise of our Lord Christ to Peter, that to him (and as the RC Church alleges, to his successors) the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are given.

Kurgan basically answered by saying, yes, this is so, but there have been any number of times (forty or so, he said) when there have been anti-popes, whom the Church has later rejected. Further, it is also in Catholic Canon Law that even a prelate who has rejected any Catholic faith is, under the older Canon law, deposed as a cleric. So what?

And Jay Dyer responded by saying, "Hey, you confused Ludwig Ott's 'Fundamentals of the Catholic Faith' with Denzinger's 'Enchiridion Symbolorum'. You lose, you loser!"

That's what it looks like from my end. Since you now have the transcript, you can certainly come to your own conclusions.

But, having listened to this wretched excuse for a debate (or at least a part of it), I have come, if not to any conclusions, to some questions:

First: why does Dyer, who has a profound knowledge of the Catholic Faith, but believes little of it, dick with someone who is still in that faith, but has some real problems with its alleged leaders?

Second, why doesn't Dyer attempt to correct his brother in Christ, and suggest that he might try Orthodoxy instead of what appears to be a failed religion, in Roman Catholicism? I really don't understand that.

Third, I happen to have a couple of copies of Denzinger's 'Enchiridion Symbolorum'. Basically, it is the standard RC work collecting all of the canons of the councils of the Roman Catholic Church: the first seven Ecumenical Councils (in Greek) and the remaining Roman Councils (in Latin). I have the copy printed after Vatican I, and the one done after Vatican II (which doubled its pages). Few people are likely even to know of the damned book's existence, unless they are fluent in both Latin and Greek. I doubt that either Dyer or the Kurgan qualify. Dyer probably saw it in a library somewhere.

Personally, I think that it was a dick move on Dyer's part to focus on the Kurgan's knowledge (or lack thereof) of Denzinger. It was equal to an error in grammar, or spelling. Good debaters try to go past those, and address errors in facts or reasoning instead.

I don't know who won the debate. I certainly knew neither of the contestants before I came here. I certainly lost, though: at least 40 minutes listening to the debate, and the time I spent here writing about it.

Vox, you were quite right. Debates on theology suck.

Blogger Shane Bradman December 16, 2019 11:46 PM  

After reading through the debate, it's very clear that Kurgan made several substantial points and Jay Dyer made few. Kurgan made a convincing case while Jay Dyer relied almost exclusively on rhetorical flushes and easily rebutted points. I will never read or watch anything relating to Jay Dyer again because he is on the level of Christopher Hitchens. Jay Dyer's argument was all over the place while Kurgan was focused on Canon Law, which was to be expected. The "debate" was a kid who read the introduction of 50 books against a man who read the whole book cover to cover.

Blogger Bernard Brandt December 17, 2019 12:01 AM  

Actually, though, If I wanted to eff with the Kurgan, I'd undertake the following argument:

You say that we have been through many anti-popes before, and this is true. But what has happened before has only been within the lifetimes of the unfortunate people who lived through those times. Even on the occasion in which there were three anti-popes on their respective thrones, it all got sorted out before the College of Cardinals (and NOT the Curia) who elected new popes had all died out.

But if I understand what you are saying, the Papacy became vacant after the death of John XXIII, and has remained vacant from then until now.

But that means that if the last real pope was back in 1963 or so, and there has been no real pope since then, then all of the College of Cardinals, who were between 60 and 80 in 1963, have been long dead, and there are no remaining valid Cardinals to be present at a new convocation. This means that the gates of Hell (that is, sin, error, and death) have prevailed against the Church, and there is none other to revive it.

God forbid.

Blogger Nameless Bear December 17, 2019 12:36 AM  

The original video that The Kurgan had an issue with and is the reason this debate happened states at 12:06 that he's not making the video toward any specific group. In the debate, at 1:14:04, he contradicts himself by stating the initial video was directed at Feenyites. That's a lie. Doesn't declare win or lose but it does prove he's a liar.

In addition, Jay's argument has to assume to know when the end of the world is coming. He has to assume Bergoglio is not the last Pope (anti-pope). For this argument whether you believe he's valid or heretical doesn't matter. Jay has to be able to predict he's not the last one.

In order to understand who's idea is correct cannot be known, unless you know when the end of the world is.

Blogger Toby Temple December 17, 2019 2:02 AM  

"If Jay's book is the right one, he won and if Kurgan's book is the right one, then he won."

That is a horrendous summary of the debate. Kurgan only had one book during the debate and it's the 1917 Code of Canon Law. Dyer had that book and Denzinger's Enchiridion Symbolorum. Dyer even quoted directly from the 1917 Code of Canon Law.

Blogger Dwayne Thundergrit December 17, 2019 5:02 AM  

2173. Jad

Denzinger - Sources of Catholic Dogma

Ott - Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

Jay seems to think Ott is useless since Denzinger provides sources for Jay to interpret as he sees fit. That's now how Catholic Dogma works, nor the way Orthodox Dogma works. The interpretation of those sources is the key and Ott is more like what Jay seemed to be claiming Denzinger is.

Blogger Ranger December 17, 2019 5:52 AM  

@180
The only way that the Sedes can make their argument work is by being an End of Times cult. Perhaps THIS End of Times cult is right when all the others were wrong (which would be a strong argument for their position).

However, if someone's argument requires that we be at the End Times while the opponent's argument assumes that we are not there yet, I believe that the burden of proof lies on those making the extraordinary claim, not the ordinary claim.

Blogger Ranger December 17, 2019 10:13 AM  

Having finally heard the debate, I don't think Jay Dyer refuted the Kurgan.

But that is because the Kurgan's position is circular and fundamentally Protestant. While Luther had the "sola scriptura" and the private judgement of the believing Christian, the Kurgan has "solum codex" and the private judgement of the believing Sede. At least Scripture is inspired by God, and not a code of law written for canon lawyers, so good for Luther.

As to the Roman Curia argument. Though it is true that there is no set limit to how long can the Catholic Church survive without a Roman Curia, once there is no valid succession there is no valid apostolicity, and so one of the marks of the Church is missing which means that this Church is not the true Church. Kurgan's argument about a nuke is easily refuted. If a nuke killed ALL the possible transmiters of the Petrine Office that WOULD mean that the Roman Church failed, which would mean that the promises of Christ were not to the Roman Church itself. Likewise if all the Curia defects. Since all the Curia defected, the promises of Christ were not to the Roman Church.

Blogger Nameless Bear December 17, 2019 10:59 AM  

@183
I am not comparing the arguments. I am exclusively looking at Dyer's position. So I am not sure what you are responding to, but it is not my post. I have shown he is a liar, which you ignore.

"However, if someone's argument requires that we be at the End Times while the opponent's argument assumes that we are not there yet, I believe that the burden of proof lies on those making the extraordinary claim, not the ordinary claim."

Nothing to prove, and no claim is being made by either on end times, but Dyer has to assume this is not the last Pope.

Blogger Double King December 17, 2019 1:30 PM  

Listened to the debate in audio form in the car today, some takeaways:

Everyone describing Dyer as a lawyer seems to miss what I think is the point, that is that the best way to refute a position is on it's own terms. Any reasonable criticism of the Roman Church is going to be legal in nature because the entirety of the RC faith is legalistic. They define sin legally, determine morality through their code of law, it is a legal system as much as it is a religious one.

I am baffled by the Kurgans dismissal of Denzinger after it had been explained to him what it was (I agree that not knowing what it was makes no impact on his argument, just indicates his relatively new status as a Catholic.) Once you understand that is merely a list of dogmas with no interpretation, I fail to see how you can dismiss arguments based on that.

The previous comment describing it as a pseudo-protestant "Sola Codex" is very on the nose, because where the Sola Scriptura Protestant rejects the teachings of the fathers because they arent scripture while also ignoring that the fathers are the ones who compiled scripture, the Kurgan ignores the dogmas of the church because they arent canon law, ignoring that canon law is derived from the dogmas. The only possible explanations I see is
A:The Kurgan is not as smart as he thinks he is and is unable to see the contradiction in his claim.
B: He fully understands the contradiction and doubles down because of some other motive such as pride or spite towards Dyer
C: He is emotionally invested in the Sedeprivationist position and any pre-Vatican II dogmas that undermine this position do not register, the cognitive dissonance of the position forces him to believe that Dyer is fabricating claims for some nefarious purpose and lying.

Either way, I think this debacle was a bad call. The Kurgan is extremely new to the faith and should not be attempting to debate apologetics publicly. In the Orthodox world (especially on the internet) you constantly get these new converts and Catechumens running around denouncing others as heretics and throwing anathemas, and they just arent mature enough in their faith to be doing so. Everything about the Kurgans foray into this debate right from the initial video attacking Dyer screams Catechumen prelest and Dunning-Kruger.

Blogger Bernard Brandt December 17, 2019 7:07 PM  

@186:

You had me at Catachumen prelest and Dunning-Kruger.

Hey, it's an Orthodox thing. No one else would understand, especially the former phrase.

Blogger Double King December 17, 2019 10:40 PM  

I was semi-active on Ortho Twitter for while, but the phenomenon is definitely prevalent in Trad circles too. People who become some kind of TradCath for political protest reasons and start hitting the debate rings as though any church would want saplings to represent the orchard.

Blogger ghostfromplanetspook December 17, 2019 10:46 PM  

The Dyer v Ybarra debate is better imo

Blogger James Lovebirch December 18, 2019 2:14 AM  

@182

Jay provided enough to demonstrate that Kurgan is not representing the one true Church as he claims. However, it appears not to have been digestible to the readers of this blog who, while intelligent, mostly had little to no familiarity with the internal logic of Catholicism. Not terribly surprising for a heated exchange that lasted only an hour, and in which Jay lost the rhetorical side at least to this subset of the viewers.

@186

I believe the most likely explanation is C based on the way Kurgan phrased his rebuttals. Kurgan specifically accused Jay of making stuff up in the pre-debate and during the debate as well, which brings verbal debate to a standstill. Now we have to go into the texts to see who is the one bluffing.

@190

It's too bad Ybarra has been running from the debate about how to justify worldviews.

Blogger Ranger December 18, 2019 7:54 AM  

@190 Yes, if someone is not reasonably well educated on the internal logic of Catholicism they really have no business judging the debate on its merits, only on the debaters' performances.

Regarding the "making up stuff" claim, the one I did check (Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum) I would say that they are both somewhat right. This is because Jay, in his video, stopped before the end of the full sentence. Whether this was done correctly or not or dishonestly or not is a separate question.

The Kurgan claims that what Jay said "does not appear anywhere in Satis Cognitum". Whether this is a fair description of it or not, and whether it is charitable to call someone a liar over these difference is, again, a matter of individual judgement, specially in consideration of the fact that Jay's rendition of the quote is oral.

So I will just leave the full text from Leo XIII and Jay's rendition of it (reminding that both the text from the Vatican site and Jay's rendition are actually translations from the Latin original, so minor differences will exist):

http://www.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum.html:
"The Roman Pontiffs Possess Supreme Power in the Church Jure Divino

13. It was necessary that a government of this kind, since it belongs to the constitution and formation of the Church, as its principal element - that is as the principle of unity and the foundation of lasting stability - should in no wise come to an end with St. Peter, but should pass to his successors from one to another."

Jay's rendition in his video: The Roman Pontiff possesses supreme jurisdiction in the Church Jure Divino it was necessary that the government be of this kind, since it belongs to the constitution and formation of the Church as its principal element, its principle of unity, its foundation of everlasting stability, can in no wise come to an end

Blogger Double King December 18, 2019 9:05 AM  

@Ranger

I doubt he ended the sentence early to intentionally obscure since several times throughout the debate he affirms the dogma of succession directly from Peter, so the only part of the quote he didnt include was a part he mentions and affirms elsewhere.

I think it's really telling that people give a damn about Dyers demeanor. The Kurgans position was demonstrated to be entirely incoherent and heretical by the standards of the the Canon Law that he endorses, and all people seem to want to talk about is how Dyer shouted, or that he was arrogant about his success. Even in the debate itself the Kurgan did this, when refuted with Catholic sources he doubled down, when that was refuted he defaulted to the rhetorical equivalent of Twitter THOTs calling people they dont like incels "Oh, you just dont get it cause your an autist"

The Kurgan lost because he came in poorly prepared to defend an illogical worldview against an experienced apologist (who had zero interest in giving him any slack or patience on account of nearly 2 hours of ad hom attacks and ankle biting.)

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts