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

Sunday, January 26, 2020

Whose authority would that be?

The Kurgan addresses John Salza's The Errors of Sedevacantism and Ecclesiastical Law in detail:
As a result of Vox Day mentioning my earlier blog post challenge to nominal Catholics concerning the fact that we have only had antipopes since 1958, one of the commenters there brought up some supposed studied theologians who claim to have fully refuted the position they call Sedevacantism (but I call SedePrivationism for precision, since words matter). My post on the antipopes and the legal reasoning why is here and it is rooted in the fact that we, as obedient catholics, must believe the fake Popes are fake, and have been at the very least since 1963, for certain, because that is what the Code of Canon Law of 1917 necessarily states, which being put together by the Magisterium of the Church, we, as Catholics could never and should never had ignored when Vatican 2 raised its evil and apostate head from the darkness. Nor can we ignore it now. Remember that the only current and valid code of canon law is the one of 1917, since the one of 1983 was put together by the same impostors, non-clerics and non-catholics that usurped the Chair of Peter in the first place, and it was also specifically designed to try and invalidate the truth of the code of 1917 and obfuscate its clarity and precision.

Not having read or known anything about the two individuals mentioned by the commenter at VP calling himself MisesMat, who later emailed me and assured me both these gentlemen would be happy to debate me, in writing, I did a quick search for one the names that he mentioned and found Salza’s document online, which I reproduce below with my commentary. His words are in black and mine in red.
Not being Roman Catholic, I only scanned both documents in passing. So, I won't pass any judgement on either man's case, except to say that I am extremely dubious of anyone who, in light of the observable misrule of the present Fake Pope, could possibly reach the following conclusion.

Restoring the Church will be furthered by recognizing the authority of the current Pope.

Extremely dubious is, of course, a significant understatement.

Labels: ,

179 Comments:

Blogger nbfdmd January 26, 2020 12:46 PM  

I don't mean to sound like a smart boy, this is a genuine question: For any Catholics here, how do you square the notion of the Roman Catholic Church being ordained by God with the current situation?

And for non-Catholics, at what point did the fledgling Church go astray? Was Constantine the one who fucked it all up, or did it happen earlier?

Blogger DiogenesCynic January 26, 2020 12:55 PM  

If it is important to humanity to have a Pope, (apart from being a matter of maintaining discipline within the Catholic church), shouldn't there be some discernible consequences to not having one? Might, for instance, sensitive people become troubled by ghosts complaining that they can't get into either Heaven or Hell because the last man who held the keys has disappeared with them?

It is obvious that many of those accepted by official Catholicism as valid Popes have been very bad men. For instance see the free downloads from Nexus magazine, such as the three part series on the Criminal History of the Papacy by Tony Bushby. https://nexusmagazine.com/free-downloads/?v=79cba1185463#/categories/religious-revisionismmysteries

I thought that Jay Dyer demonstrated from official Catholic sources, that Catholics are stuck with the Pope they have got, even if he is a bad man and they don't like him. I'm not sure Catholics can any longer go 'full Medieval' and get a bunch of Cardinals to elect another, or several others. Sometimes there were three or even four 'Popes' competing with each other, none clearly more authentic than the others. I think the winners were usually those supported by the King of France, but he and the Italian families who generally controlled the Papacy are no longer available. Are there modern equivalents? It seems that nowadays lefties become Popes.

The Catholic church remains a huge and influential corporation, although it is no longer the power it was. It can't any longer have people who disagree with it or refuse to pay up and attend church regularly, executed or tortured, so its public relations have become a lot more smiley and 'touchy-feely'.

It might be helpful to regard the church as a big business, like, say Coca-Cola. The market may change so the corporation alters its product and its sales methods, moves its headquarters to or from Avignon, maybe changes its organization from a Papal to a Conciliar model; but it is still selling a lot of holy sugared water, even though the original spiritual cocaine may have been dropped from the list of ingredients. Of course, desperate attempts to modernise may be a sign that a corporation has lost its way and its current management is driving it to bankruptcy.

Maybe, just possibly, earlier Catholics had something, but the Papal model of organisation may be obsolete. So may be the expectation that there must and can only be 'one true and only' spiritual supply organisation on earth. Perhaps there is value in considering the words of Jesus, that in my Father's house are many mansions, as well as Tennyson's lines that the old order changeth, yielding place to new, and God fulfills himself in many ways, lest one good custom should corrupt the world.

Blogger Gregory the Tall January 26, 2020 1:01 PM  

It all comes down to one point:
Is there any authority which has the right and the means to expel a heretic pope? I mean this guy seems to be more difficult to get rid of than the deep state.

Blogger Ranger January 26, 2020 1:09 PM  

I am truly astounded that the stench of secret king gammatude stemming from the sedeprivationist position (not to mention the wall of text and the rhetorical sniping) does not rise to the dark lord's nostrils.
I can only explain it by, being a protestant himself, the Dark Lord does not realize the fundamentally protestant nature of that position, which tries to simultanously claim Peter's succession.

Blogger VD January 26, 2020 1:10 PM  

I am truly astounded that the stench of secret king gammatude stemming from the sedeprivationist position (not to mention the wall of text and the rhetorical sniping) does not rise to the dark lord's nostrils.

You're confusing law with gamma. I suggest actually reading the relevant canons.

Blogger Ingemar January 26, 2020 1:20 PM  

I'll answer for the Catholics--because God permissively wills evil to happen so that men can put their hope and trust in Him. This is similar to how God could allow the pagan Assyrians and Babylonians to destroy the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

Also, see the parable of the wheat and the tares. "An enemy hath done this" (Matthew 13:28) that is, purposefully planted bad doctrine and even bad clergy to intermingle with the true believers.

This video is helpful (it starts less than a minute before the relevant section (47:20), for context) https://youtu.be/62Hok9BkYcY?t=2808 . Not a full endorsement as she promotes Flat Earth goofiness.

Blogger papabear January 26, 2020 1:25 PM  

@1 I am Eastern Catholic; I don't hold the Latin view of the papacy or Latin ecclesiology, so even if Francis were to be shown to be a heretic, it wouldn't be a Church-destroying event some Latins think it would be. I think Francis ( and probably his successor as well) is permitted to be pope to show Latins their ecclesiology is wrong.

Blogger papabear January 26, 2020 1:26 PM  

@1 There were problems with the Constantinian accommodation, but part of the problem with clericalism may be that bishops looked to secular analogues for authority to understand their mission.

Blogger Dave January 26, 2020 1:27 PM  

I'm seeing this same confusion on gamma, secret king, and wall of text on SocialGalactic. These words and phrases are used as simple pejoratives and derogatory slurs when clearly the users do not understand the meaning or intent.

Ideally we see this addressed on a future Darkstream before it becomes completely out of hand.

Blogger Seeingsights January 26, 2020 1:31 PM  

The current Pope is a disaster.
Someone said that the Cathedral of Notre Dame will ring again, giving glory to God.
Trump said that, not the Pope.
The cardinals who elect the Pope are supposed to be guided by the Holy Spirit.
Ratzinger, before he came Pope, said that there have been Popes the Holy Spirit would not have chosen.

Blogger binks webelf January 26, 2020 1:32 PM  

The real question is simpler & more basic than Canons, and despite the Kurgan's assertions via the small sect he is attached to, *has* been discussed & dealt with at length, given the Avignon Papacy, the later duelling popes, and discussion from at least the Council of Constantinople onwards. That is: Can God's infinite & perfect will towards the Church, His Bride, be ultimately frustrated? Has He somehow bound Himself by canon law & the machinations of sinful men?

As I tried to say to the Kurgan on SocialGalactic, a logically perfect syllogism as he presents may still not accord with reality, and with the mystery of how God's Church abides, despite sin, the Gates of Hell (death), the vagaries of history, all under the overarching providence of God. Almighty God finds a way.

The onus is not on the Orthodox or the Catholics to prove their ecclesiology (understanding of the Church), but rather on the tiny minoritarian schismatic sect such as the sedeprivationists to explain how they are actually the real, true, uninterrupted & full Church of God.

So many questions are involved in sorting this out, not least of which is the relation of canon law to God's will; of Canon law to legitimate authority; the status of past & present canon law, and the relation of canon to dogma (established teachings) as laid out & summarized in Denziger & other sources, for example.

A nice syllogism does not explain or negate that entire structure of the Church, her teaching, authority, and past solutions to crises in the papacy, or even massive apostasies like the Arian Crisis of the 4th century, for example.

Blogger Matthew Baker January 26, 2020 1:35 PM  

Notice what is missing here: a definitive teaching of the Church regarding a heretical pope and council. Because it doesn’t exist. The situation we are in is unprecedented, but this means that it is ambiguous at BEST to argue such things, and NOT at all morally binding on ANYONE.

Blogger James Lovebirch January 26, 2020 1:36 PM  

Sedeprivationism and vacantism are infinitely better apologetics for Orthodoxy than Jay Dyer ever could be.

Kurgan's selections from canon law are missing an important part. As Gregory pointed out, who executes judgement and discipline against the Holy See?

Nobody? Then Kurgan's logic is still impeccable and correct, but what it proves is that the RCC is a false church.

The gammaness Ranger's talking about is that the Sedes seem to think they have that authority and then the right to usurp Rome by agitating for Catholics to join one of their of schismatic sects.

They do have the right to judge the Pope, but in exercising it they cease to be Catholic.

Blogger Falcor January 26, 2020 1:41 PM  

Watching this reminds me of Lysander Spooner’s quote,

“ But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”

Blogger VFM #7634 January 26, 2020 1:41 PM  

Maybe, just possibly, earlier Catholics had something, but the Papal model of organisation may be obsolete.

The Catholic religion can still operate without a functioning papacy. It must, in fact. The Vatican no longer teaches Catholicism. Protestants who come along and try to state that "you can be Christian without the papacy" are missing the point: they want traditional Catholics to become Protestant, not to hold to the Faith.

It's more important to have a papacy that doesn't teach heresy than it is to simply have any papacy at all. After all, if the papacy is teaching heresy, as the Vatican has since 1958, it's worse than useless.

Is there any authority which has the right and the means to expel a heretic pope? I mean this guy seems to be more difficult to get rid of than the deep state.

The Catholic Church insisted on having a top-down structure, and because of that, once the SJWs took over the top position, it was pretty much irrecoverable.

You can't have a Cardinal come along promising to Make the Catholic Church Great Again if all Cardinals have to be vetted by the head Communist in charge.

Catholics -- in the United States, mainly represented by the CMRI and the SSPV folks -- since then have had to resort to a 4GW leaderless-resistance model. Bp. Sanborn and/or Fr. Cekada explicitly said as much.

Blogger R.G. Camara January 26, 2020 1:43 PM  

@ nbfdmd
"I don't mean to sound like a smart boy, this is a genuine question: For any Catholics here, how do you square the notion of the Roman Catholic Church being ordained by God with the current situation?"

As I wrote in another thread, corruption in the Church is nothing new, and in fact the equivalent or near-equivalent of the current mess has happened multiple times in the past. And the Church has always come roaring back.

Most important, even the original Church constituted by Jesus was corrupt--because He chose Judas, who sold his office of bishop out for 30 pieces of silver and sold Jesus himself into death.

So if the Good Lord can be literally in the flesh running things and have corruption afoot in His Church, He was trying to say that corruption does not negate the truth of the Church.

The Church is in a bad state, but it has been in bad states before, and it is eternal, and it will go on. It will survive Francis, because not even the Gates of Hell shall prevail against it.

Blogger nbfdmd January 26, 2020 1:53 PM  

@6: So the Church is essentially a big test for Christians? What if Christians, or Catholics, decide that the Church is fundamentally unviable? In other words, how do you justify not being a Protestant?

Is the Church only legitimate during the times when a good pope is in office? Is it the framework itself that's legitimate? But if that's the case, how could it be legitimate if it has a tendency to elect bad popes?

Blogger upchuckmcduck January 26, 2020 1:54 PM  

The one thing I do not understand about is that if the Cannon Law of 1983 is wrong for being written by heretics what makes people so confident that the 1917 Cannon Law wasn't, at least in part, written by heretics as well? The Catholic Church has had plenty of dubious clergy over the years that prized the material over the spiritual. Does anyone know if there has been anything written on this or have some insight to this topic?

Blogger timothyjander January 26, 2020 2:19 PM  

I'm new to concept of semi-privation. Is there a difference if a Pope was a material heretic vs. a formal heretic?

Blogger Pathfinderlight January 26, 2020 2:19 PM  

Catholic here.

Part of the issue is our difference in what we regard as the church. To Catholics, the Church isn't the building. It isn't even the organization. It's the set of all people who believe in Christianity. The church is full of people who are victims of original sin and people who will try to infiltrate it for their own wicked aims. Many times, the church has been infiltrated at the highest levels.

With that in mind, what do you think good Catholics are going to do? There is no retreat, because for us to run isn't to turn our backs on the organization. It's to turn our backs on God. So we fight. There is no other way. That's why leaving and creating our own "pure" version of the church is unthinkable. It would be to abandon God in his mercifulness and betray our fellow's to the clutches of evil.

Blogger VFM #7634 January 26, 2020 2:21 PM  

The one thing I do not understand about is that if the Cannon Law of 1983 is wrong for being written by heretics what makes people so confident that the 1917 Cannon Law wasn't, at least in part, written by heretics as well?

Because at the time the 1917 Code was written, the Papacy was orthodox and functioning as it should, and was overseeing and vetting the Code.

Incidentally, the same problems with the 1983 Code also apply to the 1992 "Catechism of the Catholic Church".

Blogger VFM #7634 January 26, 2020 2:23 PM  

As I wrote in another thread, corruption in the Church is nothing new, and in fact the equivalent or near-equivalent of the current mess has happened multiple times in the past. And the Church has always come roaring back.

Ah yes, the "bad popes" argument.

The crucial difference is that the bad, corrupt Popes of the Middle Ages and Renaissance never taught heresy. They were still Catholics.

The current Vatican antipopes are heretics and non-Catholics. They're as qualified to hold the office as Ayatollah Khamenei.

Blogger R.G. Camara January 26, 2020 2:44 PM  

The current Vatican antipopes are heretics and non-Catholics.

Again, that does not negate the truth of the Church, only the truth of what the pope may say or teach. Judas was a corruption present in the original founding of the Church, and he is its greatest human harmer, and yet nothing he did negated the truth of the Church.

If you're thinking about papal infallibility coming into play here, its not. Papal infallibility does not attach to everything a pope says or does----that's a common misconception. Papal infallibility only attaches in extremely limited, rare circumstances that have only officially been recognized to have occurred for a handful of dogmas---I think literally less than 10, (and most have had to do with specific Catholic dogma about Mary).

It's best to think of papal infallibility as a super-strict method of dictating dogma. You can look up the requirements and procedures online.

Now, if Francis tried to follow the procedures to invoke papal infallibility and declare some sort of heresy as incontrovertible dogma, then as heresy it couldn't be accepted as infallible; it's not a magic formula you whisper and everyone has to obey. He would cause an earthquake in trying to doing so, because traditionalists would likely try to outright remove him, so he's likely very wary against it. It would likely cause a schism----the corrupt bishops would promote it as true, the faithful ones as false. The next pope would have to resolve it.

But, again, corruption in the highest office does not negate the existence of the One True Church.

Blogger James Lovebirch January 26, 2020 2:46 PM  

@18

A couple very interesting books are Occult Rennaissance Church of Rome by Michael Hoffman and John Courtney Murray, Time/Life, and the American Proposition by David Wemhoff.

I think most people would admit the RCC has been infiltrated and subverted for centuries if for no other reason than Jesuits.

Some people have mentioned that God might be letting the RCC descend into madness to test the faithful. The EO church maintains apostolic succession and doesn't have bishops praying to Mecca, blessing Pachamama, promoting religious liberty, etc.

The EOC has its fair share of issues, but it has procedures in place for a situation like the patriarchate of Ukraine right now, which is the same thing they did to Rome way back when. Who judges and disciplines the Holy Roman See? The EOC has an answer.

Blogger VFM #7634 January 26, 2020 2:47 PM  

So the Church is essentially a big test for Christians? What if Christians, or Catholics, decide that the Church is fundamentally unviable? In other words, how do you justify not being a Protestant?

I've never addressed this before, so I will now.

There are important differences between Protestants on the one hand, and traditional Catholics who've turned their backs on the Vatican on the other.

Protestants reject the whole idea of holy orders, sacraments, and bishops and priests (aside from the nominal bishops and priests of the Lutheran and Anglican churches, which are essentially ministers with no power to confer sacraments). The Anglican Test Act, for example, explicitly required the oathtaker to deny transubstantiation.

Catholics who've rejected the Vatican do not. We continue to accept priests and sacraments. This means we're more like Eastern Orthodox than Protestant.

But at the same time, unlike the Orthodox or other schismatics, we also accept that we should, in principle, submit to the Roman Papacy as our ultimate rule of faith.

The problem is, we don't think the current occupants of the Vatican are in fact real Catholic Popes because they teach heresy, and so reject them on that basis. By contrast, schismatics recognize them as the valid Catholic Popes but refuse to submit to them for other reasons.

Blogger jeffinjapan January 26, 2020 2:59 PM  

Catholics, if they want to call themselves Catholic, must accept the authority of the pope as Vatican I clearly states. You do not have the authority to pick and choose who your pope is. The Roman Catholic church severed itself from the root of Orthodoxy many centuries ago and that rotten fruit that was inevitably, has now manifested itself as clear as day in the current pope. Find a local Orthodox Christian Church and leave the RCC ASAP. And Protestant churches...? Lol!

Blogger WillBound January 26, 2020 3:42 PM  

"The very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called 'Catholic,' when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house." (St Augustine A.D. 397).

Still true!


Blogger The Pitchfork Rebel January 26, 2020 3:54 PM  

@1
Because the current situation is the constant situation.


The Lord said the "gates of hell shall not prevail", not the "gates of hell shall not assail".

As for me, I find my self with Cardinal Consalvi's alleged to quote to Napolean:

"Your majesty, we, the Catholic clergy, have done our best to destroy the church for the last 1,800 years. We have not succeeded, and neither will you."

and Hillaire Belloc:

"When one remembers how the Catholic Church has been governed, and by whom, one realizes that it must have been divinely inspired to have survived at all"
















Blogger Weouro January 26, 2020 4:03 PM  

I'm a trad Catholic but don't really care either way anymore. I do think it is foolish and futile to deny papal authority outright. It will all shake out in the long run and a better pope in the future will need to wield the authority. What if for example pope Francis for some unlikely reason appoints a traditional bishop whom Kurgan adores to the papacy. Kurgan would almost c ertainly devise some chain of logic that recognizes a fake appointment by an imposter as legitimate. Reality is these are Sola scriptura moralizers but using Church documents in addition to the Bible the same way other Sola scriptura people use the Bible alone. The church isn't primarily a discursive teacher and isn't ultimately constrained by rationalism. Again, I don't claim to know what the exact true reading of scripture and tradition is though I do believe one exists. I mainly believe in the sacraments. There has always been confusion and ambiguity. It gets cleaned up in the historical record. The Church is a body not a doctrine machine

Blogger Akulkis January 26, 2020 5:08 PM  

"The very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone"

Catholic means UNIVERSAL. It is hardly any such thing. The constant complaints about Protestants are proof enough that it is merely the Roman Church, not the Roman Catholic Church... and that 's BEFORE we even get into the various Orthodox churches and the Coptics.

Blogger Akulkis January 26, 2020 5:14 PM  

" I do think it is foolish and futile to deny papal authority outright."

There are Christian churches older than the Church of Rome, and NONE of them have ever had a pope, nor called any of their priests or other leaders any variant of the word "father".
This flies directly in the face of instructions directly from the mouth of Jesus. The title of Pope (Papa, father) isn't just wrong, it's heretical in and of itself.

Quit relying on the traditions and arguments of MEN (which is what Jesus condemned the Pharisees for), open your Bible, and learn to follow the word of God himself.

This entire argument is nothing more than Pharisees 2: Electric Boogaloo.

Blogger Shane Bradman January 26, 2020 5:20 PM  

Which is the bigger sin: to begrudgingly accept that the current Pope is what we have to deal with for the next decade, or to become a schismatic and divide the unity of the Church?
Nobody says Francis is great, but to join a schism is surely a sin while staying with the Church is not. The Borgia Pope was very likely a heretic but everyone accepted he was Pope. Benedict IX was definitely a heretic and his three papacies are all recognised as legitimate. It wasn't acceptable to form schism when those dipshits were in charge and it's still not acceptable now.

Blogger Shane Bradman January 26, 2020 5:35 PM  

I agree, noting that the sedevacantist list of supposed heresies that Kurgan uses relies entirely upon one man's opinion, as opposed to the official position of hundreds of bishops who are all licensed to interpret such things. Paul VI even said that Vatican 2 was not doctrinally binding and John XXIII clearly stated what the purpose of Vatican 2 was. Sedevacantists ignore this in their disobedience.

Blogger nbfdmd January 26, 2020 5:51 PM  

@20: To say that Catholicism isn't the belief in the very organization is a contradiction. That is literally the definition of being a Catholic. As soon as you discard the legitimacy of the organization, which you do, whether you admit it or not, you're not a Catholic.

@23: Same thing. You're not a Catholic, buddy. If you say that the One True Church isn't the Vatican, you're a Christian, but certainly not a Catholic.

@25: Fair enough. When I said "Protestant", I was being sloppy. What I really meant is non-Catholic. So yes, the Eastern Church would be closer to what I was describing. Thank you for pointing that out.

@32: Divide the unity of the Church? I'm pretty sure the boy fucking did that already. And lots of other things before that. But perhaps you want something more unified. Maybe check out Sunni Islam.

Blogger Shane Bradman January 26, 2020 6:24 PM  

Akulkis, when you call your biological father "father" is that a sin? Is it heresy? If you can answer this question, you will understand why Catholics don't take protestant complaints seriously.

Blogger Ranger January 26, 2020 6:26 PM  

To answer the post's title question, by this authority:
"Following the example of our predecessors, who entrusted the interpretation of the decrees of the Council of Trent to a special assembly of cardinal fathers, we set up a council, or a commission, as they call it, which will have the EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO PRONOUNCE ON THE AUTHENTIC INTERPRETATION OF THE CANONS OF THE CODE (bolded for emphasis), after having however listened, in cases of particular importance, to the opinion of the Sacred Congregation that raised the question submitted for examination by the Commission itself. We want this council to be composed of some cardinals of the Holy Roman Church, one of whom is designated to preside over it, chosen directly by our authority and our successors; to these will be added a secretary, with the task of drafting the acts of the Council, and some Consultors, of one and the other clergy, experts in canon law, designated by the same Authority; but the Council will have the right to hear also the opinion of the Consultors of the Sacred Congregations from which the questions have been proposed." (Pope Benedict XV, Cum Iuris Canonici).

So, according to the Roman Pontiff, how I, or the Kurgan, interpret the Canons, it's irrelevant, since neither myself or, I assume, the Kurgan, has been appointed to that commission (which is still operational).

Look, I fully sympathize with those who cannot accept Bergoglio as the Vicar of Christ. He obviously isn't. But he IS the duly appointed bishop of Rome who has, unfortunately, fallen into heresy. He is not the first, and probably shall not be the last. Which means Vatican I is wrong, which means the Roman Church is not, exclusively, the Church to which Christ's promises were made. It's as simple as that.

Blogger Ranger January 26, 2020 6:39 PM  

Also, Vox, since you only scanned both documents, consider that John Salza's article is from 2010, when only Argentineans were unhappy enough to know of Cardinal Bergoglio, and Ratzinger sat on the papal throne.
The trad cat position was somewhat reasonable until Papapaco. Not anymore. The sedes position was somewhat reasonable while there was still a possibility of valid succession through the College of Cardinals. Not anymore.

Blogger Mad Dad January 26, 2020 7:05 PM  

In the sedevacantist scenario, only a small fridge of Catholics receiving sacraments through Latin Mass priests can actually be saved.

Invalid sacraments is a much bigger deal to practicing Catholics than an evil Pope, as us laity believe our confession, Eucharist, and Sunday mass are all valid and keeping us in a state of Grace.

Blogger JovianStorm January 26, 2020 7:37 PM  

What is the attraction of Catholicism when you find out that it's the modern day equivalent of the Pharisees?

Is it the pageantry or the cool costumes or the feeling of being in a large group that causes people to mindlessly accept rules and laws that Jesus never cared about?

Blogger Jose Miguel January 26, 2020 7:44 PM  

@31 Akulkis
Philemon 1:10 I beseech thee for my son Onesimus whom I have begotten in my bonds.
1 Timothy 1:2 Unto Timothy my own son in the faith: Grace, mercy and peace from God our Father and Jesus Christ our Lord.
Titus 1:4 To Titus, mine own son after the common faith: Grace, mercy and peace, from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ our Savior
1 Corinthians 4:14–15 I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

Paul called himself the father of those in Corinth as well as Titus, Timothy and Onesimus. He does so again and again throughout his letters, and refers to fathers plural.
Unless you believe Paul and all of the local churches the apostles established were heretics on this matter, you would do well to read the entirety of Matthew 23 and it's interactions with the rest of Scripture, especially the part about a non-scriptural tradition of honoring the seat of Moses, instead of quote mining to back your presuppostions.

Now let the Romans fight this True Pope issue out and maybe you'll learn something old.

Blogger papabear January 26, 2020 7:57 PM  

(There are Christian churches older than the Church of Rome, and NONE of them have ever had a pope, nor called any of their priests or other leaders any variant of the word "father".
This flies directly in the face of instructions directly from the mouth of Jesus. The title of Pope (Papa, father) isn't just wrong, it's heretical in and of itself.)

Not sure to which churches you are referring, as using "Father" of presbyters and bishops is the custom in the ancient Apostolic Churches, and the (Coptic) Patriarch of Alexandria is called "pope."

Blogger jla January 26, 2020 8:03 PM  

Akulkis wrote:" I do think it is foolish and futile to deny papal authority outright."

There are Christian churches older than the Church of Rome, and NONE of them have ever had a pope, nor called any of their priests or other leaders any variant of the word "father".

This flies directly in the face of instructions directly from the mouth of Jesus. The title of Pope (Papa, father) isn't just wrong, it's heretical in and of itself.

Quit relying on the traditions and arguments of MEN (which is what Jesus condemned the Pharisees for), open your Bible, and learn to follow the word of God himself.

This entire argument is nothing more than Pharisees 2: Electric Boogaloo.


Amen, amen, amen!

Blogger M Cephas January 26, 2020 8:13 PM  

Pope: No. I am your father.
Kurgan: No...no. That's not true. That's impossible!
Pope: Search your feelings, you know it to be true!
Kurgan: Noooo! Nooooo!

Blogger VFM #7634 January 26, 2020 8:46 PM  

@38 Mad Dad

Paul VI mutilated Holy Orders in 1969, so that the consecration of bishops is now patently invalid, and ordinations of priests now doubtful. If your priest was ordained in the new rite by a bishop who was consecrated in the new rite, yes, he's as valid as an Anglican priest, i.e., not at all.

I'd use the term "firing blanks" if it didn't already have a salacious sense applied to it, since it does capture the idea better than anything else I can think of.

Blogger RandyJJ January 26, 2020 9:04 PM  

@35 Shane Bradman

Akulkis, when you call your biological father "father" is that a sin? Is it heresy? If you can answer this question, you will understand why Catholics don't take protestant complaints seriously.

Jesus prohibited calling men not just 'father,' but also 'master' and 'teacher.' Note the he exhorts us not just to not call other men that, but not to be called that ourselves. This does not apply to biological relationships because these are not the sort that he is talking about (note how he says "you have one father who is in heaven"; clearly not talking about biological relationships here).

Paul likens himself to a father for the Corinthian church because he was the first to preach there and he has an interest in their future and growth on a personal level beyond his station as an apostle. He did the same with individuals such as Timothy; again, because of a personal affection and interest, not just because of his station. Note that he does not do this for the Roman church, for he had never been there. Yet in the Catholic/Orthodox view, that would have been equally appropriate. The prohibition was not to abolish fatherly affection or older counsel, it was to prevent elevating men to spiritual headship and authority, such as a father holds over his son.

The Catholics hold that because Paul described himself as a father to those whom he had born into Christ's kingdom through the gospel, that therefore it is all right for a man to be addressed as father by someone who has literally never seen him before simply because of his station.


Counter challenge:

The Catholic view is that since Jesus did not mean his prohibition to apply to all things, he therefore did not mean it to apply to anything at all.

If you consider this claim a bit, you will start to see why Protestants don't take the typical Catholic response very seriously. If you can explain where it gets things wrong, you will have done more than 99.9% of Catholics do when this question comes up.

Blogger The Pitchfork Rebel January 26, 2020 9:32 PM  

@39

You, know there's a lot of Protestants here express their reservations with Rome thoughtfully. Folks I'd love to have dinner with, even if we have profound disagreements.

And then there's the occasional Trevor Noah wannabee.

You want a "cool costume"? Check out Joel Osteen's immaculately tailored suits and stellar white chompers.

@30

There are an enormous number of Churches that are in communion with Rome, but not Latin Rite. There's fourteen different Churches within the Byzantine Rite alone.

Personally, I wouldn't mind if Chaldean Bishop Amel Nona became Pope. He certainly has a brutally unencumbered understanding of Islam.

https://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2014/08/archbishop-of-mosul-i-have-lost-my.html


Blogger Mad Dad January 26, 2020 10:13 PM  

That notion creates a lot of cognitive dissonance for me. It reduces sacraments to the same fake consolations of emotionalism and intellectual stimulation many Christians call their faith.

Blogger John Regan January 26, 2020 10:14 PM  

@VFM: I'd be interested to know how you feel so sure that the rite of consecration of bishops is "patently invalid". I've never been persuaded of that.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 26, 2020 10:23 PM  

"Which is the bigger sin: to begrudgingly accept that the current Pope is what we have to deal with for the next decade, or to become a schismatic and divide the unity of the Church?"

It has to and is going to be fixed, right? Well, how are things made new? There are only two means I am aware of, rejection of the corruption or replacement of the organ. If you want to retain the organ that is the RCC, you need to purge the corruption. Saying "it will be fixed but I won't be among the instruments of its repair" is nothing but laziness or cowardice with pretensions of humility.

If it is dead or other, is it part of the body? If it accepts and follows what is dead or other is it part of the body? A man cannot serve two masters, which will it be, Christ or the man currently called the Pope? Take the living, leave the dead to bury the dead. There is no unity between what is living and what is dead, whether or not you recognize the divorce.

Blogger Weouro January 26, 2020 10:43 PM  

The Bible was written and compiled and canonized over time by men, and you're a man, reading the words and coming up with an interpretation that you find persuasive under the influence of scholars you probably have never heard of. Sola Scriptura is incoherent silliness.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 26, 2020 10:44 PM  

"Nobody says Francis is great, but to join a schism is surely a sin while staying with the Church is not."

What church? The one locked in submission to wickedness? The schism is caused by the wickedness, not the rejection of it.

Blogger Weouro January 26, 2020 10:45 PM  

You don't know whether the ordinations are invalid. You read a text and came to your own conclusion just like protestant read the Bible and determine to their own satisfaction that the Catholic Church is the whore of babylon

Blogger Akulkis January 26, 2020 11:01 PM  

Part A

What I've learned is part of why my Lithuanian/Ukrainian great grandfather took his family and left the Roman church and joined a protestant sect.

I'm witnessing an overly legalistic debate about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin ... without a pin.

It's so pointless.

I didn't use the term Pharisees lightly. What's being discussed is how to solve the problem of what to do in this circumstance in which a man has taken hold of their church while openly cavorting with an evil which is thoroughly condemned from Genesis all the way through to, and into the New Testament, and then chastising those who point out that such sin is not to be tolerated.

Why? Because the Roman church has built itself an edifice of laws. An edifice of man-made laws, arrived at with varying levels of reason and logic, but which are, obviously, unable to solve the current situation, and thus flawed. And yet both sides argue about how to resolve the situation while adhering to a mass of legalisms which were created by men 1000 years and more removed from Christ and His apostles.

I wouldn't even comment on these threads about Kurgan and the Roman church, except every time, protestants get dragged into this argument, even though it has nothing to do with us.

And yet, in general, protestant churches (not every single one, but a good enough number of them to demonstrate the principle) have little to no difficulty ejecting men who hide their evil ideas until becoming the lead pastor (or whatever term you wish to use for one who leads a congregation, along with subordinate assistants), or even a deacon or bishop within the church. While it might take some time, but there's no difficulty with the action, once it's decided upon.

My parents' church had such an issue about 20 years ago. It started out in the late 1990s(*) with the senior pastor one Sunday declaring that the King James translation is the only valid English-langauge version of the Bible, and that anybody using any other translation is a heretic. (Some of you can already anticipate what follows.) In retrospect, it doesn't take much to realize that such an odd pronouncement from a position of someone in authority probably has an axe to grind, and grinding his particular axe relied on making sure that there could be no appeals to other translations. This man had come up with a way to twist the meaning of the scriptures, and it depended upon using the King James translation, to the exclusion of all others -- but he couldn't spring the whole thing on them immediately.

(*) This time seems to be significant, as there were a LOT of churches being factionalized and even splitting around that time, and most of the cases I heard about revolved around leaders who seem determined to sow animosity, distrust, and chaos among the peoples whose tithes were paying their salary, and in many cases, even providing these supposed leaders with a parsonage to live in.

End of Part A

Blogger Akulkis January 26, 2020 11:02 PM  

Part B

For those well-versed in military terminology, when he declared that ONLY the King James version would be valid within the church, he was conducting psychological preparation of the battlefield. In 4G warfare terms, he was attempting to secure to moral level before initiating his war.

Now, many ignored his pronouncement, and just said, "whatever," and went about worshiping as usual, because he didn't make any immediate moves after that. He just insisted that ALL scripture read out loud be from the King James version. So, those leaders and other outspoken people who liked to read scriptures out loud to fellow worshippers all made sure they had a KJV Bible. After a few months, things started to change for the worse. Small groups started in-fighting with one another.

Within a couple of years, this pastor had sown much chaos and animosity within the church, and eventually, the K-12 school this church ran, in a building constructed specifically for that purpose, had to be closed down due to a significant drop-off in donations by the congregation, even with some teachers offering to teach for free until the financial situation improved. There wasn't enough money to keep the lights on in the K-12 school.

This man's actions, and the resulting chaos, eventually brought about a similar split among the congregation, with similar sorts of arguments as Kurgan's arguments, and those arguing against Kurgan.

However, one thing that was NOT a factor in those arguments were any appeals to authority of "Canon Law says XYZ" or "The ABCist doctrine of Whosawatsit prohibits JKL," or anything like that, because the church has no such body of law. The only law in this church is the Bible itself, and the bylaws written at the time the church incorporated as a non-profit religious organization. Which is to say, minimal -- basically, committing a felony, or other grossly unethical behavior will get you kicked out of any leadership position, and for everything else, refer to the Bible.

And so the problem was eventually resolved using the tools which are given right in the New Testament. Some of the congregation went to the him, explained what he was doing wrong, why it was wrong, and gave him an opportunity to repent and change his ways. To make a long story short, he refused to change. So the group who went to him initially got the de facto leaders of the by then two warrning factions together, explained the conversations they had with the pastor, and that his behavior had not improved, nor had he asked for forgiveness for stirring up all sorts of trouble. And so the leaders of the two sides talked to their factions and explained that if the problem isn't resolved, the church will undoubtedly split, harming both factions even further, and that this unrepentant, possibly evil man will have succeeded at his dirty work. And so, the deacons had the congregation take a vote, and they excommunicated the pastor from their congregation. It took some years to heal, but the church is now healthy once again.

End of Part B

Blogger Akulkis January 26, 2020 11:06 PM  

Part C

The problem that the RCC laity has is that it's governed a set of laws which allow leaders to censure and excommunicate subordinates and lay people, but apparently no mechanism for subordinates and lay people to excommunicate an evil leader nor the College of Cardinals. And since the means and mechanism can't find it in the collection of in-house rules, they believe that the situation is either hopeless, or alternatively that they are stuck with an action that in itself brings on a logical paradox.

This is because they are so beholden to man-made Canon Law that they completely ignoring what is in the Bible itself.

The biggest complaint every protestant sect has with the Roman church is that they are so wrapped up in their Canon Law that they utterly ignore what's written in the Bible itself. And this is no different than when Jesus chastised the Pharisees for their blind adherence to legalistic arguments, while ignoring what was in the scriptures already written. This is why in the accounts of his various debates with the Pharisees, he consistently upends them with "Isn't it written .... " and then quotes some scripture which completely upends the Pharisees' justification for villifying and repressing some poor sot who was caught in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation... but the "all choices are wrong" rules didn't come from scripture, they came from layers upon layers of arguments and counter-arguments, until the original principle was completely in all of the talmudic argumentation.

If the Roman church wants to survive, then a bottom-up movement (starting with the traditional conservative parishoners) needs to be started to excommunicate not only Francis, but any of the Cardinals who support and defend his sins and crimes.

Instead, I'm watching a bunch of people debating how what is a ground rule double in a football game, and what are the rules for icing and penalty shots and how should they be applied in baseball.

The answer is not in Canon Law, because the Canon Law was written by men charge who intended to continue to be the men in charge. Of course there are no rules for what to do when the men at the top are not merely wrong, but downright evil -- to even entertain the possibility brings down the entire house of cards which is Canon Law. The laws of a bureaucracy are not written for the benefit of the people supposedly served by said bureaucracy, they are written for the preservation of the bureaucracy.

So ignore those laws which were written by self-serving men, and go directly to the one indisputably legitimate source -- the scriptures, and use the power of excommunication which is available to ALL, not just a select culture of bureuacrats. Excommunicate Francis, and his senior supporters, and you'll have your church back.

End of Part C
End of series.

Blogger Chad January 26, 2020 11:16 PM  

Part 1
Doing a comment in multiple parts, as I'm usually a lurker and wrote it out before I knew there was a text limit. Please forgive the text wall, and chalk it up to trying to address a combination of legally and theologically complex issues. If Vox or the moderators don't like it, feel free to delete it. It's your house, your rules.

While not an expert, having done some reading of how canon lawyers approach canon law over the years, I have a few things to point out to the discussion.

The TLDR summary is that Kurgan is intelligent, well read on Sedevacantist / privationist / whatever, but that he's interpreting things out of context. He's not interpreting canon law properly. He has no delineation between the differences between believing heresy without guilt, with guilt, being condemned by The Church as a heretic, and the different issues with these on both a moral and juridical level; that morally one can be guilty of the sin of heresy, be void of the theological virtues of Faith, Hope, and Charity, but not fall under any juridical punishments as per Canon law, and thus never fall within the legal jurisdiction of the law. You'd be damned to hell, but still able to act with authority within the Catholic Church, as Christ told the Jews to continue to obey the authority of their hypocritical, white washed tombs of priests in His day.

The first thing to address is that canon law, as a matter of ecclesiology, is a legal code for how the perfect society of The Catholic Church governs itself. It is not infallible, has changed, is complicated, and there's a reason that they have canon lawyers. This is because to know how this interacts with the Faithful, you need to know Catholic doctrine, have a correct understanding about legal systems / justice, know history, etc.

If you're not a cannon lawyer you should realize that the rest of us just dabble in study to try to understand the basics, and seek the lawyers for complicated issues. Despite Kurgan trying to paint it as a simple issue, it is anything but.

As per Vatican 1, and the arguments of the fathers of the council leading up to it, the Pope is the authority from which all the authority of The Church flows. This is meant in the same way that Mary is she through whom all grace is communicated to those on earth. Every bishop, priest, and laity -acting as a Catholic and within the Catholic Church's hierarchy- only is able to have any authority because it is communicated to them from God, through the incarnation of the Second person of The Trinity, to his Vicar, who has distributed/delegated different authorities for how to govern The Church through the centuries. Another anology is the relationship between King and nobility. The nobility have their authority (not necessarily power) through the king. This source of authority does extend to the Code of Canon law, in that the canons derive their authority from those that crafted the law back to the Pope, and through him alone to God. It is a complex matter that does not mean that the Pope gets to ignore Canon Law, but does mean that it should be approached.... with caution.

Blogger Chad January 26, 2020 11:16 PM  

Part 2
With this in mind, we have to understand how the different authorities, such as Canon Law, have come to exist. Previously, different parts of The Church operated under different Canons, as the Eastern rite of the Catholic Church does to this day. All canon law has to be looked at in total for the same reasons that scripture is interpreted in total, and there are often parts that are not immediately relevant that still affect how The Church governs herself through canon law. For instance, there are multiple reasons an automatic punishment does not occur, given in both the 1917 and current Canons, that Kurgan hasn't addressed (that I've seen). These issues / qualifications would have to be met / avoided for any automatic excommunication even if his interpretation is correct. Given that one of these is that the person has full knowledge of the evils they're committing, it becomes a much trickier subject than one might believe at first blush. For how can one tell if an individual has been given the graces to understand doctrine correctly unless you make sure to approach him about the errors, with love, multiple times? Another is if the one making the act is acting under duress - does the average Catholic know if the Pope is being threatened by Communists, by the lavender mafia, or various politicians? While these and others may have different affects on the moral rectitude of the act (denouncing God is always sinful and a good reason for choosing martyrdom instead), they -DO- make any automatic punishments null and void. One must remember, canon law is a tool of governance, to avoid chaos, and not one which tries to get to the inner workings of the human soul to determine it's state as far as salvation. It can only judge outward actions, in specific ways, and is not a tool to cause the chaos where someone can interiorly accuse of heresy, claim they are obstinate, and thus not Catholic, without ever talking to the person accused in their head about the subject. Instead, it must take into account observable actions of the individual, their responses to authorities when corrected, the whole of canon law, and the history of the law.

An example of this is given by Kurgan in the article linked by Vox. He gives an example of how the law is unclear /contradictory, without thinking about how the extra legal language gives clear guidance to the laity. The current canon law mentioned by Kurgan about the local ordinary needing to enforce the automatic punishment is NEEDED. He's the one with the authority to govern the flock on a juridical level to avoid the sins of scandal and gossip tearing apart the faithful.

Another important item is that you have to know some of the history around when each of the canons were written. A relevant example to the topic is that it has historically been a problem that heretical sects, such as the Anglicans, would infiltrate Catholic seminaries, become ordained, and then go to serve in their heretical sects. The Church crafted canons such as these for such reasons. My understanding of the Code Kurgan continually refers to is that it is intended for those that exteriorly and publicly perform or attend heretical / schismatic worship; not what Kurgan would call such, but Catholics becoming Anglicans, Episcopalians, Baptists, Eastern Orthodox, etc. To be sure I would have to study the different authoritative commentaries of the 1917 throughout its history as well as any previous Code of Canon law upon which is was based. Even then it is a matter of governance - they still retain the eternal mark on their soul as priests that would merit them further damnation for their apostasy should they not return to Holy Mother Church. Said priests can even give absolution and last rites in specific cases given in the same code Kurgan refers to!

Blogger Chad January 26, 2020 11:18 PM  

Part 3 (final part)
For those that teach heresies within the folds of the Catholic Church, the history of the Church's dealings with such people should guide the interpretation of the canons (and keep in mind they reflect those of St Paul to give them 3 chances of repentance, from different groups, with time between to consider and repent before declaring anathema). If following St Paul's guidance, you must do so in love as an equal, and then with greater degrees of authority. How does one do this with Christ's Vicar? You see this being worked out in different ways, at different times in history, with different results, but no resolution on what to do if he continues. From what I've seen Kurgan has completely ignored the commentaries addressing this issue from St Robert Bellarmine and St John of St Thomas (if I remember the latter's name correctly)

Last is the issue of heresy. One can believe, profess, and act upon heresy without fault if one has not been given the graces from God to believe The Faith correctly, is literally retarded / dumb, has not had the opportunity to learn it correctly, and a few other possibilities. These, however, are all interior dispositions of the soul or intellect that may manifest themselves in different exterior words and deeds, but it is in the interior where the error and sin would lie. It becomes sinful when grace has been rejected to know and adhere to The Faith, but that would make one guilty of the sin of heresy but NOT a heretic. Becoming a heretic can happen by either practicing the faith of a heretical sect openly, or by being pronounced one by the Church. When talking of someone being a heretic, it thus becomes important to define which kind of heretic is being discussed. As stated, canon law is a juridical system for governance of the Catholic Church, and makes legal decisions based on observable, objective realities.

Thus canon law is, at best, able to apply the canons of automatic excommunication of heretics to those that are observably, objectively, practicing heresy. When discussion those that profess themselves Catholics, it only does so when an authority over them has taken previous actions and they have nothing that the code recognizes as an obstacle to the automatic sanction.

Blogger Charles January 26, 2020 11:20 PM  

The late Patrick Henry Omlor's "The Robber Church" can be found online. It runs 400 pages and none of it is easy reading. It is not for casual readers nor for various Protestants, schismatics, heretics and the like. It refutes the Novus Ordo not with emotion but with Church teachings, the Magisterium.

Blogger Akulkis January 26, 2020 11:32 PM  

@46

"You want a "cool costume"? Check out Joel Osteen's immaculately tailored suits and stellar white chompers."

I had the unfortunate experience of seeing Joel Osteen doing his thing one Sunday morning. A complete sermon, and not once did he mention any verse in the Bible, any book of the Bible, any author of those books, nor even a single person in the Bible. He did say the name Jesus a couple times, but in the most sachharine way -- "Jesus wants you to .... " just bald assertion without any evidence.

In my view, the only difference between Joel Osteen and Francis the Perverse is the amount of money they can get their hands on. I saw no evidence that he has ever actually studied the Bible, let alone even attempted to teach it (something which I am personally terrible at), and there was nothing in the entire presentation which would lead me to believe that he wants to do anything to convert a single person to Christianity.

I can't even say that he preaches to the converted. What I heard was a lot of pablum for people who want to think well of themselves.

In essence, he is the personification of Churchianity.

It's no surprise that he's got himself a TV show.

Blogger Akulkis January 26, 2020 11:53 PM  

@50

"Sola Scriptura is incoherent silliness."

As an engineer, one thing we are taught is to always check our result (both numerical/mathematical and qualitative) against our initial assumptions, and more importantly, our axioms.

I'm sure you've seen the supposed "proof" that 1 = 2 (which relies on using a not so obvious division by zero, which is prohibited, thus making the proof invalid).

Now, say you're not very sophisticated, and you don't notice that in one step, there is a fraction with (x - x) on the bottom, which is the illegal step, because that right there is your division by zero.. .but you don't spot it because it's written as "x - x" rather than "0"

So you continue past that point, and then you get to the last line: 1 = 2.

Now, you don't have to be an absolute expert at algebra to realize that something is absolutely wrong with this proof.

Either 1 and 2 are distinctly different values, and the proof is wrong,
OR
The proof is correct, and ALL OF MATHEMATICS INCLUDING THE NUMBER LINE is invalid.

You don't have to be a genius to realize that if the proof is true, even measuring tapes and rulers are useless... and since measuring tapes and rulers ARE useful devices, then the proof must be wrong.

The problem with this debate is that the arguments lead to nonsensical conclusions. Therefore, the arguments FROM BOTH SIDES are invalid, because one results in paradox, and the other ends in endorsing evil hoping it just goes away.

Go read the ground rules -- the Bible.

The Bible solves this problem without a single invocation of Canon Law. Excommunicate the SOB, drive him from your church, and likewise anybody who complains.

It's not your right to excommunicate Frances.

It's your OBLIGATION to each other to do so.

Likewise, excommunicate every single politician who claims to be one of you, and then gives support (either votes or propaganda) for abortion.

This is not the least bit difficult.

Withhold all financial support until Francis and his band Lavender Mafia leave. Fill the pews, and turn your back on the local parish priest until he signs a document saying that he and his parishoners call for the excommunication of Francis.

Can one of you do it all by yourself? Of course not.
But any congregation, no matter how spread out, can join together to excommunicate a member who is doing evil, knows he is doing evil, and refuses to stop doing evil.

Canon Law is supposedly based on the Bible, so there can be no reasonable objections to a call from the laity to excommunicate him, regardless of whether you or anybody else can find a section of Canon Law allowing it, because the source document specifically allows it for ANYBODY, which includes the man designated as Pope.

Blogger Akulkis January 26, 2020 11:54 PM  

"Nobody says Francis is great, but to join a schism is surely a sin while staying with the Church is not."

What other lies did the Pharisees teach you?

Blogger Chippewa January 27, 2020 1:51 AM  

"Sola Scriptura is incoherent silliness"

The typical Catholic strawman of it certainly is, for sure. The people behind the Council of Trent, for all their faults, were both more versed and honest in their interpretation of it than most modern day Catholics.

As pretty non-denom myself (and before chime in, yes, that means I don't consider myself Protestant either), I ask this. If one is to subsume his brain and "personal interpretation" to the diktats of the "One True Church", whether that be Catholic, Orthodox, or whatever else, how does one first determine what the "One True Church" is? "Personal interpretation"? Yikes. Big filthy Prot idea there. "Act of the Holy Spirit"? Another biiiiig yikes, getting pretty Lutheran/Calvinistic there as well!

Blogger NegrosBear January 27, 2020 1:54 AM  

@13


"Sedeprivationism and vacantism are infinitely better apologetics for Orthodoxy than Jay Dyer ever could be.

Kurgan's selections from canon law are missing an important part. As Gregory pointed out, who executes judgement and discipline against the Holy See?

Nobody? Then Kurgan's logic is still impeccable and correct, but what it proves is that the RCC is a false church.

The gammaness Ranger's talking about is that the Sedes seem to think they have that authority and then the right to usurp Rome by agitating for Catholics to join one of their of schismatic sects.

They do have the right to judge the Pope, but in exercising it they cease to be Catholic."


Look again just because a thief has not yet been punished as a thief does not make him anyless a thief.

Pagan worship on church grounds, desecration of the mass and denying the Divinity of Jesus etc. Are all against the magisterium and heresy. Opposing anti-pope Francis means you ARE a Catholic.



Now since the argument "You can not enforce the law at this moment nullifies the law" is a ridiculous and asinine argument.


How about you argue the facts

1. Is "Pope" Francis a manifest heretic?

If you can't argue against that. It then leads us to what does canon law say about clerics who are heretics?

And you know what canon law says. Which leads us to.


2. Then how can you justify shirking your duty to opposing an anti-pope and still be a Catholic?




Blogger Shane Bradman January 27, 2020 2:46 AM  

@1 Latin Rite Catholic
The Church has been through dozens of bad periods and always survived them. Some Popes have literally worshipped pagan idols, others were murderers, adulterers, men who bought and sold the office, all kinds of terrible things. We survived them all because the Church was established by Christ Himself and it is through God's grace that we continue to exist. Francis is not great, but he's not even in the top 10 worst and he will not irreparably damage the Church. No earthly organisation so full of corruption and villainy could survive 2000 years and maintain much of its strength.

Blogger SirHamster January 27, 2020 3:38 AM  

R.G. Camara wrote:So if the Good Lord can be literally in the flesh running things and have corruption afoot in His Church, He was trying to say that corruption does not negate the truth of the Church.
Did Jesus stutter? What is this nonsense of "trying to say"?

Weouro wrote:The Bible was written and compiled and canonized over time by men, and you're a man, reading the words and coming up with an interpretation that you find persuasive under the influence of scholars you probably have never heard of. Sola Scriptura is incoherent silliness.
Messengers shouldn't confuse themselves as the author of the message they were sent to deliver.

Blogger James Lovebirch January 27, 2020 3:43 AM  

@49

"There are only two means I am aware of, rejection of the corruption or replacement of the organ."

Either would be pointless because what the RCC has had over protestantism was the promise of infallibility until the end times from Jesus and the unbroken apostolic succession. Doing any sort of revolt against Rome would be to admit the church never had the former, and it would break the latter.

Catholics would be better served by admitting Rome defected at the schism and converting.

Blogger JE Hamilton January 27, 2020 5:21 AM  

If this genius is so convinced of his own orthodoxy, why doesn't he go form his own church? In fact, someone already has, he calls himself Pope Michael. Last I heard his holiness still lived with his parents.

The alleged 'sins' of the current Pope, when you go and do your own research, are hopelessly overestimated. The one thing that sticks out from all of them is how many axes people have to grind.

One really good example is the 'idolatry' that allegedly took place recently. It turned out to be tripe! Anti-Francis blogger Eric Giunta did a number on it here: https://ericsgiunta.wordpress.com/2019/11/07/my-last-word-on-the-fake-vatican-pachamama-idols-controversy/

If there is a New! Orthodox! church founded, they'd spend all the money on gold vessels, fancy new churches and flashy vestments, and it'd dissolve into witch-hunts and heresey-hunting from the word go. With the new, stronger authority, paedophiles would grivitate to it like flies to a turd.

The church survived the Borgia Popes; it'll survive one lefty, for heaven's sake.

Blogger FrankNorman January 27, 2020 5:24 AM  

Bible: For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, that whomsoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.

Roman Catholicism: "No, no, just believing in Jesus isn't enough! People also need to accept our leadership as infallible and get given sacraments and and and..."

There's a reason that some people see Roman Catholicism as a completely different religion from Christianity.

Now to Mr Kurgan directly: Vast numbers of people are attending services of what they think is the Roman Catholic Church, being given that they are told are sacraments, and so on.
On the premises of your sede-privationist viewpoint, are all those people going to Hell? Not because of their own lack of faith or desire to find God, but because someone else didn't say some words exactly right, or something?
If a priest or a bishop can think that he's been validly ordained, but really hasn't been, because the archbishop who performed the ritual was secretly a heretic, or maybe the guy who ordained him was, or the guy who ordained him, and so on... well then what hope does your sacramental religion offer anyone?

What test can you perform to know if your parish priest actually has the "real thing" or not? Because based on your position, he almost certainly wouldn't - even if he thought he did!

Blogger M Cephas January 27, 2020 6:02 AM  

I am extremely dubious of anyone who, in light of the observable misrule of the present Fake Pope, could possibly reach the following conclusion.

Restoring the Church will be furthered by recognizing the authority of the current Pope.

Just for the record, Pope Francis was not the Pope when John Salza wrote that statement. The article is a decade old.

Blogger Shane Bradman January 27, 2020 7:27 AM  

Akulkis, if this has nothing to do with your religion, why are you writing a 4 page backstory for us? Please stop accusing us of ridiculous things. It's as silly as accusing protestants of worshiping guitars because they're a very popular instrument in Sunday services.
This is not your fight. This is for us, the Orthodox and the various recent schismatics.

Blogger VFM #7634 January 27, 2020 7:38 AM  

@VFM: I'd be interested to know how you feel so sure that the rite of consecration of bishops is "patently invalid". I've never been persuaded of that.

@48 John Regan

This video explains things pretty well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahzcFOFA9qE

The idea that the new consecrations are invalid, and the new ordinations doubtful and therefore to be considered invalid, is pretty much standard among traditionalist Catholic dissenters.

The problem is that the new rite of episcopal consecration had the essential prayer that makes the man a bishop stripped out and replaced with one that lacked the proper form, which was laid out providentially enough by Pius XII in one of his encyclicals (I forget which one right now).

Blogger VFM #7634 January 27, 2020 7:39 AM  

Just for the record, Pope Francis was not the Pope when John Salza wrote that statement. The article is a decade old.

I should point out that Salza & Siscoe fans ignore the fact that Salza was a 32nd-degree Freemason -- and as far as we know, could still be one, only with a new assignment from his Lodge.

Blogger The Kurgan January 27, 2020 8:13 AM  

I find it astonishingly interesting that the vast majority of commentators on here seem utterly incapable of basic reasoning and apparently also basic reading comprehension. I also find it rather amusing that Vox, who I know for a fact truly has very little interest in denominational differences and even less so in specifics of detailed Catholic Canon Law is nevertheless clearly capable of understanding the basic issues and the fact of the legal argument. As well, I would posit, that the legal argument (from the Catholic perspective) matters, because God wanted things to be a certain way, which the Catholic Church tries to do as required and is supernaturally protected from going into error that would thoroughly destroy it. Though, for clarity, we are absolutely told it will all come crashing down save a few people towards the end, and we also know from history that it can go through very bad times indeed when all would seem lost.

I am not sure if the issue is only the IQ gap, because it would appear to me that many are simply emotionally incontinent and quite incapable of sticking to the facts and instead careen off in a panic about their own fears (which usually entail wholly different topics).
James Lovebirch is the poster boy of this here, but I found one comment that is worth addressing as it hopefully answers many others:

@69 writes: Now to Mr Kurgan directly: Vast numbers of people are attending services of what they think is the Roman Catholic Church, being given that they are told are sacraments, and so on.
On the premises of your sede-privationist viewpoint, are all those people going to Hell? Not because of their own lack of faith or desire to find God, but because someone else didn't say some words exactly right, or something?

No. As with most of us who believe, and due to God's mercy, I expect such people would end up in purgatory. According to Catholic teaching a man is not guilty and deserving of eternal damnation through genuine ignorance. God is not a lawyer.


If a priest or a bishop can think that he's been validly ordained, but really hasn't been, because the archbishop who performed the ritual was secretly a heretic, or maybe the guy who ordained him was, or the guy who ordained him, and so on... well then what hope does your sacramental religion offer anyone? See above. Although a priest would be in far more grave danger since his ignorance would seem to be due to an astonishing level of laziness considering what his job is supposed to be and that any interested layman can quite reasonably discern which cleric is or is not a heretic on the basis of their public adherence (or not) to Vatican 2.

What test can you perform to know if your parish priest actually has the "real thing" or not? Because based on your position, he almost certainly wouldn't - even if he thought he did! It's not hard. Ask him if he thinks Bergoglio is the valid Pope.

Blogger The Kurgan January 27, 2020 8:17 AM  

@70 Just for the record, Pope Francis was not the Pope when John Salza wrote that statement. The article is a decade old.

Which should make any thinking person understand that the current problems did NOT originate with Bergoglio. Precisely as I have pointed out. The exact moment beyond which no one can deny that Roncalli became an apostate (although there is plenty of hard evidence he was invalidly elected as well) is when the first documents of Vatican 2 became published and Roncalli did not denounce the heresy contained within them. The fact he also created Vatican 2 would naturally also prevent any Catholic from accepting anything Roncalli ever said or did as valid, as we are instructed by unchanging Catholic doctrine.

Blogger The Kurgan January 27, 2020 8:30 AM  

In any case, I find it really quite entertaining that I can have a very pleasant conversation with Vox on Christian doctrine, as we did briefly when I saw him after I was baptised, with neither of us even dreaming of trying to "convert" the other, and in fact, finding, I dare say, not just common ground on the topics we discussed, but no real divergence of view.

I personally would be interested in discussing Vox's view of his non-denominational character and compare them with my hardcore Catholic ones, but I suspect there would be about 5 people who could follow the conversation and 2 of those would be me and him. And I am also certain that because of that, it would be of almost no interest to anyone else. Nor even as entertainment as I am certain it would not devolve to an Internet Bum Fight.

Yet...when I look here, even at the supposed Catholics, the proud "intellectuals", and so on, all accusing me of assuming the right to judge who is and is not Pope when I have literally referred to the one sentence that makes it absolutely obvious I am doing no such thing and I am in fact following the rules set down by the Church, multiple times, ad nauseam in fact, it become obvious:

One of the most reasonable views of my position comes from a man that is supposedly bound to be denouncing me for my heresy, and vice-versa. And instead, we are friends.

Perhaps all you clever boys should stop and think for a minute. And then go read what I actually write and check it against the actual documents, before you pipe up in such colourful displays of mental insufficiency.

Blogger John Regan January 27, 2020 10:38 AM  

@72 Thanks VFM, still not convinced because both the older rite and the newer one could be subjected to the same argument. This guy Larson makes a good case here Of course, any change post VII is suspect. But I'd like a better case to be made before concluding that the NO church is basically out of bishops.

Thanks so much for the response though.

Blogger Akulkis January 27, 2020 11:08 AM  

"Akulkis, if this has nothing to do with your religion, why are you writing a 4 page backstory for us? Please stop accusing us of ridiculous things. It's as silly as accusing protestants of worshiping guitars because they're a very popular instrument in Sunday services.
This is not your fight. "

Then quit dragging protestants into the middle of it for no purpose other than to use as punching bags!

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 27, 2020 11:49 AM  

By all his words of tongue and pen, a man obfuscated a law again.

If/Then: IF Vatican II is heretical THEN The Kurgan is correct, the counter-arguments to his ouroborically depend from themselves. What are repeated are catch-22s intentionally laid, defining the impostors as "The Church" and then claiming that the only entity with the authority to depose them is one of them.

It's like begging the question.

The Catholic church saw ahead. Give it up. Heretics are automatically invalidated and stripped of office according to already established law. As it should be, God's laws trump men, and you can't fool him.

Carry on strong brother. Millstones for deceivers, God will collect the retards that belong to him.

Side note, how did so much evil come down the pipe specifically in 1965? Numerologically significant? Take away the beginning for consumption by the end and twist the now-first numeral to inversion? Half in jest, but who knows.

Blogger Coyote Man January 27, 2020 1:16 PM  

I'm a Roman Catholic.

A lot of non-Catholics don't seem to understand that the RCC is larger than the Pope. It is the entire body of Catholics all over the world.

We've had great Popes, good ones, mediocre ones, bad ones, and terrible ones over the centuries but despite that the Church has endured.

This is really nothing more than an opportunity for people who enjoy squabbling on the Internet to do so. Sure, Francis has done a lot of stupid things and made some idiotic statements, but these things and these kinds of legalistic keyboard controversies really have little to no bearing in the lives of most Catholics. It doesn't alter the validity of the Sacraments, it doesn't affect our prayers, or have any other effect on our lives.

Blogger papabear January 27, 2020 2:37 PM  

Latin ecclesiology --> Latin canon law (Canon 1556 of the 1917 Code)

"The first see is judged by no one."

Blogger James Lovebirch January 27, 2020 3:01 PM  

@64

I agree with the sedes that Bergoglio is trouble, but to discipline him is not possible if the college of cardinals is on his side and all future Popes are going to be the same deal. So the Kurgan is beginning to consider excising Rome, but what he's missing is that the resulting institution would not be the Roman Catholic Church; RCC dogma would be invalidated and its constitution altered beyond recognition, and you would not have apostolic succession nor any pretense of Jesus's promises. You're in the same boat as protestants at that point and would continue to fracture indefinitely exactly as they did. Some like the Kurgan might be happy with that, but real Catholics shouldn't be.

If the Kurgan is interested in excising Rome, the next thing he should apply his big brain to proving is that such a reborn church has any connection to the church Jesus founded as the RCC and EOC do. I would also like to see a plan for keeping it unified where the protestants failed with an honest acknowledgement of how sedes as a whole have already begun fracturing.

But the truth is the sede movement probably only serves to accelerate the disintegration of the RCC if that is what we are witnessing. Your only true hope to save it would be to work with the proper authorities to have them repent. Maybe you guys gamma-sperging can help that along indirectly.

Blogger The Kurgan January 27, 2020 3:10 PM  

@81 I see you, like John Salza, like the wormtonguing of not telling the whole story.
The First see is judged by no MEN and that is the meaning of that canon, it is however, clear in code 1557 that the Pope himself can indeed judge the first See. Can you imagine why? Because The Church, in the form of the Magisterium of the Church is deemed to represent Divine Will, and God most assuredly DOES and CAN Judge the First See.

And what does the Magisterium of The Church say?
A Heretic is a heretic is a heretic, and is not a valid cleric of any kind and no one need listen to anything he said, even if he was a legitimate Pope previously. And in case Canon LAw is not clear enough for you tiny mind there is always the Papal Encyclical Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio, which spells it out like a hammer to the face.

So thanks for proving to everyone here you're a wormtongue that tries to twist things by not telling the whole story.

Blogger Alen January 27, 2020 3:19 PM  

I realize it’s open season on Catholics here, so I’ll keep it short. Consumed by your hatred for this one Pope, or a set of doctrines you disapprove of or sins committed you justly hate, you go into persecution mode, well beyond denominational sniping.

But for all your intelligence, you have no wisdom.

"What is dark while it is meeting us, reflects the Sun of Righteousness when it is past."

This full-on assault on Catholics, and it is the people you attack when you attack the Church, since the Church IS the people, will only break up your ranks. Why do it then?

Blogger papabear January 27, 2020 4:10 PM  

@83

There is no story here, just you Latins having difficulties with the logical consequences of your ecclesiology. It's not the Church's Canon Law, it's the Canon Law of the Patriarchate of Rome.

Blogger Gregory the Tall January 27, 2020 5:10 PM  

Trump should declassify what the CIA has on Bergoglio. That would probably get us a tacit resignation.

Blogger Dad29 January 27, 2020 6:02 PM  

The current Pope is a trial for Catholics who are actually paying attention.

Be that as it may, it is beyond "dubious" when someone determines--on his own "study"--that there has not been a valid Pope since XXXX.

The 'sensus fidelium' (sense of the faithful) simply does not agree with that claim, and although "the faithful" are not lettered (or not) authorities, they--as a whole--are not wrong on a matter this grave.

Sheesh.

Blogger Guy B January 27, 2020 7:56 PM  

Since Kurgan’s alternative Church is so small, the only option for most, if this is true, is to leave Catholicism.

I don’t know how I would cope with that.

I think the consequences of it being true are so awful, and so devastating for so many souls, that it cannot be true.

The truth of it is so hurtful to the Church, as in the people it consists of, that it must be error.

Blogger xevious2030 January 27, 2020 9:46 PM  

“Messengers shouldn't confuse themselves as the author of the message they were sent to deliver.”

Hard to overstate.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 27, 2020 9:47 PM  

"This full-on assault on Catholics, and it is the people you attack when you attack the Church, since the Church IS the people, will only break up your ranks. Why do it then?"

Why do you try so hard to define heretics as the Church? Take what truly belongs to you, cast away the rest. If heretics are yours then you too are a heretic.

Blogger xevious2030 January 27, 2020 9:48 PM  

“Cum Ex Apostolatus Officio”

Have read that. Beautiful document. Spells things out nice and clean. That what is, is what it is.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 27, 2020 9:49 PM  

"There is no story here, just you Latins"

So why open your mouth about what you neither know nor care?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 27, 2020 10:08 PM  

"Be that as it may, it is beyond "dubious" when someone determines--on his own "study"--that there has not been a valid Pope since XXXX."

I mean, you can cast all the aspersions you want, stranger things have happened and do happen all the time. Or, you know, you could lock horns with the argument itself, if you want to be pushing more than a bandwagon fallacy.

"I think the consequences of it being true are so awful, and so devastating for so many souls, that it cannot be true."

Narrow is the way. "So many people so bad" is unfortunately not a strong argument, even from what we are already told.

Blogger Timitz January 27, 2020 10:38 PM  

Nothing makes me not want to be Catholic more than watching Catholics nastily tear at each other's throats like wild animals over thousands of pages of traditions and laws.

It is so viciously legalistic, mean, and built on minutia that most people can't understand that it makes me question if it is even POSSIBLE to be a good Catholic. You have to be breaking a law somewhere and if you do it's obvious that you certainly won't find love, forgiveness, and mercy from the leaders and intellectuals.

Blogger Guy B January 28, 2020 2:48 AM  

“ Narrow is the way. "So many people so bad" is unfortunately not a strong argument, even from what we are already told.”

I think it unlikely that the way is narrow in this particular way (physical impossibility, despite desire and commitment).

If Kurgan is correct that the post V2 Church is false then it wouldn’t drive me into the arms of his real Catholic Church because I physically cannot attend Mass with them- they do not have enough of a presence in the world.

What it would make me do is investigate something like Eastern Orthodoxy instead. That would be the only possible option for me, and I don’t think God wants it to be impossible for believers to make the right choice.

Blogger Guy B January 28, 2020 3:02 AM  

To follow up on the above; if what Kurgan writes is true, what then?

I and the other members of my Church are left devastated, and our ability to continue with the true Church identified by Kurgan is a lottery based on location?

I have not read all that Kurgan wrote because I don’t know what I would do if it was true. I will summon up the courage at some point.

But if I am left, bereft and alone without a Church, I don’t think it means the Church I cannot reach is the Church. Instead it means I must look away from the RC Church altogether.

Blogger Alen January 28, 2020 5:04 AM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:Why do you try so hard to define heretics as the Church?

Why do you ignore the comment Chad made?

"He has no delineation between the differences between believing heresy without guilt, with guilt, being condemned by The Church as a heretic, and the different issues with these on both a moral and juridical level;"

Why are you so confident you can judge what heresy is or how deeply it runs, and condemn someone for it. Are you proud of your own mind?
"Judge not, lest ye..."

Why do you ignore the fact that the Catholic Church is structured according to the principle of parochialism (parishes), not just the ecclesiastical hierarchy, invalidating your claim that heretics in one part make everyone else heretical.

"Catholics are not obliged to worship only at the parish church to which they belong, but may for convenience or taste attend services at any Catholic church."

Blogger Ranger January 28, 2020 8:07 AM  

By good fortune, while reading Kurgan's alleged refutation and checking all the relevant canons, I stumbled into this website (gcatholic.org/documents/year/1917.htm), which contains all the documents published by the See of Rome in 1917, in several languages (including the one I mentioned earlier, which makes clear the Kurgan-or anyone commenting here, I suppose- has NO authority to interpret the Code of Canon Law as he sees fit).

As the links to the Code of Canon Law were only in Latin (which I don't know), and French (which I do), I was using the French translation of the Code, which sheds some light in the situation:

"En vertu de la renonciation tacite admise ipso jure, sont vacants 'ipso facto' et sans aucune déclaration, quelque office que ce soit si le clerc:
...
IV- Apostasie publiquement la foi catholique."

Ah! This is a lot more clearer than the somewhat vague word "defects". To LOSE OFFICE (not talking here about excommunion, which has different rules, but for the specific effect of LOSING OFFICE), is required a PUBLIC apostasy, and THIS is why there is no need for a declaration from an authority. The cleric himself either states something like "I no longer believe in the Catholic Church and want to be no part of it" or publically joins another religion (becomes a Protestant minister, a Muslim Imam, or whatever). There is no doubt, there is no controversy, there is no need to debate (from people with no authority) whether the person has committed heresy or not. There is no chance of 99.9% of baptized Catholics and ordained Bishops mistaking it. If you read the relevant canon (188) you will see that all the other cases are like this. Either the cleric has married or not. Either the cleric has joined the army or not. Either the cleric is not using his garbs or not. And either the cleric has joined another religion (or declared himself an atheist or whatever) or not.

Now is the part that the Kurgan will accuse me of being a liar and a wormtongue, which is ironic, since Wormtongue is the character in Lord of the Rings which is specifically called out by Gandalf for too readily accusing others of lying "That word comes too oft and easy from your lips".

It is entirely irrelevant, by the way, whether my interpretation of Canon 188 or the Kurgan's is the right one, since neither of us has the authority to interpret it. Perhaps the proper authority (the Commission set up by the Pope that I mentioned earlier) HAS already interpreted it one way or another. But something tells me that if it has interpreted the way I suggest, then the Kurgan will claim that they only do so because they are fake clerics with no authority at all. Since he has usurped to himself (and to those who agree with him) sole authority within the Church to interpret the Code of Canon Law, his position is indeed unassailable. But it's protestant, not catholic.

Blogger Ranger January 28, 2020 9:07 AM  

One of the interesting effects of the Kurgan's position, that ANY faithful can come to the conclusion that the Pope has no authority for heresy, with not even a need for a tribunal to so establish it, is this: King Henry VIII did nothing wrong. Work it out, you will see that this is the effect of his position.

Blogger Gregory the Tall January 28, 2020 9:10 AM  

The assumption that after Bergoglio things can only get worse in the Catholic Church based on the assumption that the Dark has placed its minions all over the Catholic hierarchy could be wrong. It certainly feels like blackpilling (How dare you to object to the notion that he robbed the seat! He must tacitly resign immediately because that is the law! Sign our petition, otherwise everything is lost!). No man can tell the future. Maybe Trump will one day at a ripe age convert and run for Pope, and that will be the game changer we all are waiting for...

Blogger Guy B January 28, 2020 12:27 PM  

“ Since he has usurped to himself (and to those who agree with him) sole authority within the Church to interpret the Code of Canon Law, his position is indeed unassailable. But it's protestant, not catholic.”

I would agree, it is a very Protestant position to take. Which is why I hope he is wrong.

Thanks for your post, it makes some sense of the matter and allows me to relieve some tension.

Blogger Akulkis January 28, 2020 1:02 PM  

Again, with the canard that the Protestants were wrong for splitting with the Roman church, as if separation for any reason is wrong, while completely ignoring that Rome separated from the rest of Christianity, and for the most bogus of reasons.

Seriously, Catholics, the more you keep pointing your fingers at Protestants as being wrong SOLELY for the supposed crime of splitting off of a corrupt church, the more I will point out that the Roman Church split off from the rest for a reason that was actually sinful -- the Bishop of Rome's personal pride.

Blogger James Lovebirch January 28, 2020 2:20 PM  

@98

"But it's protestant, not catholic."

It's as valid as protestantism. They'll argue that they're keeping the trappings of RC faith and practice, which they're right about; they're breaking off from the living church and LARPing as their idea of Catholicism circa 1920 minus a Pope.

Blogger The Pitchfork Rebel January 28, 2020 2:25 PM  

@94
Nothing makes me not want to be Catholic more than watching Catholics nastily tear at each other's throats like wild animals over thousands of pages of traditions and laws.

"It is so viciously legalistic, mean, and built on minutia that most people can't understand that it makes me question if it is even POSSIBLE to be a good Catholic. You have to be breaking a law somewhere and if you do it's obvious that you certainly won't find love, forgiveness, and mercy from the leaders and intellectuals."

Oh please. Nobody claims Catholics are sinless. Human beings (not just Catholics) will always be argumentative and at times, petty and nasty.

The Apostles had Christ in the physical presence and they argued about who was the greatest, they fell asleep, Peter denied knowing Christ.

But you are walking advertisement for the moral pride shown in Luke 18:11, so enjoy your unique moral rectitude.

That having been said I'd rather have a fight over something that matters than do what is happening to the Methodists (an event that I take no joy in, I have Methodist in-laws I know are discomforted by this fracture) where the error will continue.

As for your proposed question about whether it's possible to be a "good Catholic", let's be honest, is what you really mean is it is impossible to be Catholic and good?

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 28, 2020 3:06 PM  

"Why do you ignore the comment Chad made?

"He has no delineation between the differences between believing heresy without guilt, with guilt, being condemned by The Church as a heretic, and the different issues with these on both a moral and juridical level;""


Yes, he does have a delineation. You're the one who didn't read. Remember the mention of purgatory? Even if he hadn't mentioned that, your argument is irrelevant to his.

"invalidating your claim that heretics in one part make everyone else heretical."

I never claimed that. Try reading more carefully. I said that whom choose heretics over the rest reveal themselves as heretics as well.

"which is ironic, since Wormtongue is the character in Lord of the Rings which is specifically called out by Gandalf for too readily accusing others of lying"

Wormtongue also himself constantly lies and obfuscates. You are cherry picking to fit your bias.

"It is entirely irrelevant, by the way, whether my interpretation of Canon 188 or the Kurgan's is the right one, since neither of us has the authority to interpret it."

It doesn't need interpreting, it's plain. What you're referring to as interpretation is someone being able to take the words and make them mean anything they want, including what they clearly do not mean. Yes, you are wormtonguing.

"One of the interesting effects of the Kurgan's position, that ANY faithful can come to the conclusion that the Pope has no authority for heresy, with not even a need for a tribunal to so establish it"

No, you're too short for this ride. Loss of office or not is not dependent on subjective opinions, but his objective relation to established law. They can come to whatever conclusion they like, they'll still be objectively either right or wrong, and neither they nor the Pope decides what the truth is.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 28, 2020 3:07 PM  

"I think it unlikely that the way is narrow in this particular way (physical impossibility"

Narrow isn't impossible. It's narrow.

Blogger Ranger January 28, 2020 3:10 PM  

@akulkis, I think you are being overly defensive. No one here is criticizing Protestants. To point out that a position is protestant is not a criticism against protestantism, it is a criticism against a position that intends to be Catholic.

Blogger Guy B January 28, 2020 3:17 PM  

“ Again, with the canard that the Protestants were wrong for splitting with the Roman church, as if separation for any reason is wrong,“

I don’t think anyone has said this kind of thing in the recent conversation. Someone noted that the action of the group to which Kurgan belongs is very Protestant, and I agreed. No judgement was passed upon Protestantism.

I don’t think jumping into this argument as a Protestant is very helpful to you or to the Catholics. It is a bit pointless.

Blogger Guy B January 28, 2020 3:21 PM  

“ they're breaking off from the living church and LARPing as their idea of Catholicism circa 1920 minus a Pope”

This is why it is Protestant in spirit. It is all about finding the Church we want, and avoiding the Church that actually exists.

Blogger Ranger January 28, 2020 4:04 PM  

@Azure Amaranthine

Accusations of wormtonguing are no substitute for argument. We disagree on the interpretation of Canon 188. I have provided an alternative interpretation, which is not only fully consistent with the rest of Canon Law, but has the advantage of not throwing the Church into complete chaos nor putting 99.98% of baptized catholics receiving fake sacraments from fake priests. Who has the right interpretation? Who decides it? According to the Church, neither me nor you, but the Comission appointed by the Pope.

And no, saying "only retards/liars/heretics/wormtongues disagree with my interpretation" is not only uncharitable in the extreme, it also is not an argument and does not substitute for the need of an authoritative interpreter of the Code and the Canons.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 28, 2020 4:21 PM  

"they're breaking off from the living church"

The what now? Is it or is it not under the control of heretics? If it is, can they be removed? If not, it's the dead church. The living part is going to be one that cut off the dead part.

Again, it's the wickedness that causes the schism. Your argument is bandwagon fallacy at best. What, you think righteousness is democratic?

"This is why it is Protestant in spirit. It is all about finding the Church we want, and avoiding the Church that actually exists."

Begging the question. That's only a valid argument if it's a valid church. Either you don't consider the leadership heretics, or you don't consider the church under their authority, or you're going through some extreme mental gymnastics in attempt to square a church lead and controlled by irremovable heretics as still a valid church.

If the church isn't under their authority, then they aren't the leadership. That leaves you either considering them not heretics, or the gymnastics, or with a plan to remove heretics from authority perhaps like The Kurgan. Which?

Blogger Alen January 28, 2020 4:28 PM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:I said that whom choose heretics over the rest reveal themselves as heretics as well.

One of his "proofs" is the "Clown Mass", a one-off, performative occurrence that most Catholics have never seen in their entire lives, nor are they likely to. You’re not even aware of what you are trying to prove.

I don’t think you understand what heresy is. By definition, it is what deviates from the official teaching of the Church, period. The Church proposes a set of doctrines in one of its councils, and you can either accept or reject it. If you reject it, you are potentially a heretic. If you actively and persistently try to get others to leave the church they are in, you are one. If you simply refrain from making a decision, because you cannot accept, for one reason or another, this set of doctrines, you are not, and deserve patience and understanding.

It’s not complicated. There is no absolute standard of truth toward which the council decisions converge, which you or anyone else can then judge. There is simply the Official teaching. To call official teaching heretical is a contradiction in terms. You didn’t notice this?


If Vatican 2 rejected any of the basic dogmas of Christianity, you would have a case. But it didn’t.
Atonement, Virgin birth, Resurrection, Trinity... All there. Verdict: not heretical.

What did it do? A revamping and modernization of the liturgy. If you want to understand it better, you can classify it all under Outreach, which was its basic motive, and probably long overdue.

Blogger Alen January 28, 2020 5:27 PM  

I like this Ranger of the North, he cleared things up nicely.

Blogger papabear January 28, 2020 7:21 PM  

@92
"So why open your mouth about what you neither know nor care?"

1. I know plenty about the Latin ecclesial tradition.

2. There is more to the Catholic Church than the patriarchate of Rome. (Just as there is more to the Church Universal than the Catholic Church.) And Rome's pretensions concerning the bishop of Rome is still an obstacle to the full reconciliation of the separated Apostolic Christians. So we all have a stake with regards to countering Rome's claims about the bishop of Rome.

Blogger VFM #7634 January 28, 2020 8:59 PM  

@98 Ranger
Sorry, but you're completely ignorant about what heresy actually is. You think the antipope has to out-and-out state that he doesn't believe in something defined as dogma. But it's enough to cast doubt on it, or to undertake actions that make it clear he doesn't believe the dogma. After all, actions speak louder than words. All of these -- casting doubt, or doing things -- count as heretical.

Also, there's the idea that a Pope can teach heresy if he isn't defining something ex cathedra. That's wrong, too. All pre-Vatican II Popes stated that papal magisterium was always safe to follow and a sure norm for getting to heaven. Which means infallibility doesn't even need to apply for us to figure out something smells fishy. Sulfurous, more like.

Furthermore, Francis even canonized John XXIII, Paul VI, and John Paul II as saints. That's an infallible act. Either those three apostates are in heaven, or Francis is an antipope. Choose one.

@113 Alen
You are way too stupid to even comment here.

Blogger Akulkis January 29, 2020 12:51 AM  

This hole debate seems to be one of Kurgan arguing with people who have full on Stockholm Syndrome, making any excuse they can imagine to NOT leave their tormentors nor to tell said tormentors to leave and never come back.

Blogger James Lovebirch January 29, 2020 2:51 AM  

@105

"They can come to whatever conclusion they like, they'll still be objectively either right or wrong, and neither they nor the Pope decides what the truth is."

This is what we mean when we say you guys have a protestant spirit. You think you're in a position to access the truth directly, when the way the RCC works is that it's accessed through the Pope.

Most English-speaking Orthodox I've encountered went through an intensive research process in order to decide to reject Roman Catholicism. When one of these Orthodox attempts to explain to a Catholic how their church really works, many Catholics don't believe it because it sounds too silly.

That all being said, I, like the sedes, have seen enough to reject the last few Popes as Godking over all Christians on Earth as well. It's quite illogical to have a Pope at all; this was the inevitable result of building your church around a single point of failure.

Blogger patrice January 29, 2020 5:22 AM  

Just wanna say a big thank you patrice cythia for introducing me to Dr Idedia the great HERBALIST that helped me prepare home remedies that cured my herpes simplex virus (HSV1&2)
I was infected with herpes for the past two years and i was not happy all day so i was desperate to get a cure so that i can live normal and get healthy.One day i was less busy so i decided to make latest research on herpes  cure  and i found a site were everyone was talking about Dr Idedia and has ability to cure Herpes, HIV, HPV, Cancer, ALS, COPD, Anthrax, genital wart, cold sore, Arthritis skin tag and all manners of diseases and virus.So i discussed with cythia and she explained to me that its very easy working with Dr Idedia  so i contacted Dr Idedia via email  dr.idediatraditionalhealinghome@gmail.com and he helped me just as he has helped others now I am  now cured from herpes am very happy now.and i can also assure you that he can also help you. so if you need the service of DR Idedia kindly contact him dr.idediatraditionalhealinghome@gmail.com or whatsapp +2349074505296.
visit his websites  https://dr-idedia-traditional-healing-home9.webnode.com/ Or https://sites.google.com/view/dridediatraditionalhealinghome/ Or https://dr-idedia-traditional-healing-home.business.site/ 

Blogger The Kurgan January 29, 2020 5:24 AM  

@98 it's always interesting to note how viciously the sulphur covered wormtonguers will try to argue the LIE that I and other sedeprivationists are arrogating to ourselves the judgement of clergy when it is absolutely plain as day we are doing nothing of the sort but in fact simply OBEYING the dictates of the magisterium of the Church which tells us with curb-stomping finality that heretics are not valid clerics and they vacate their office ipso facto. No declaration or judgment required by anyone.

So his lie
Since he has usurped to himself (and to those who agree with him) sole authority within the Church to interpret the Code of Canon Law, his position is indeed unassailable. But it's protestant, not catholic. is always a variation on a theme. There is no "interpretation" required, wormtongue. No more than one needs to "interpret" if 2+2=4.

Persisitent heretics vacate their office. End of. Fin. La riens ne va plus.
Of course, being French your ancestors divested themselves of the best genes long ago, so it is only natural you're a malformed wormtongue who lies lyingly at every turn.
And I'm just going to keep hammering your face with Canon 188.
No interpretation required.
No declaration required.
The punishment is defined and absolute in the canon itself:
They vacate their office.
End of.
They are simply not Catholic nor clerics of the Church. Only liars (like you), impostors, frauds, pederasts etc. And it is rightfully the duty of any Catholic, to do whatever they might to turf out these scum from the buildings they usurped.

It would not be prudent, wise or likely to succeed, now at least, which is why we will focus on educating enough of the fooled first, but for my money, an armed group of Catholics entering the Vatican and burning every one of the impostors living there at the stake in St. Peter's square would be a good start. And yes, we would be as perfectly justified in doing so as we would be to turf out a Muslim invader sitting in the Vatican.

Now crawl back under your rock wormtongue.

Blogger Alen January 29, 2020 5:27 AM  

VFM #7634 wrote:But it's enough to cast doubt on it, or to undertake actions that make it clear he doesn't believe the dogma. After all, actions speak louder than words. All of these -- casting doubt, or doing things -- count as heretical.


Your superficial and sketchy summary of what heresy is is pretty amusing. "Enough to cast doubt on it..." You are either completely uneducated or mendacious. Choose one! See, I can present false dilemmas too.

Here, read up:

"Pertinacity, that is, obstinate adhesion to a particular tenet is required to make heresy formal. For as long as one remains willing to submit to the Church's decision he remains a Catholic Christian at heart and his wrong beliefs are only transient errors and fleeting opinions."

Straight from the Catholic Encyclopedia. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07256b.htm

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 29, 2020 6:44 AM  

"Accusations of wormtonguing are no substitute for argument."

Spoken as if I didn't provide an argument.

Your counter argument is not a separate definition of the canon from The Kurgan, it's a separate interpretation of what constitutes open heresy. Look at the logical consequence of your idiotic interpretation. Someone can be an open heretic without actually saying "I'm a heretic"." If it required them to literally state that they identified themselves as heretic or apostate, it would be completely pointless.

"One of his "proofs" is the "Clown Mass", a one-off, performative occurrence that most Catholics have never seen in their entire lives, nor are they likely to. You’re not even aware of what you are trying to prove.

I don’t think you understand what heresy is."


You don't have the capacity to interpret what I am and am not arguing, so I'll make it explicit. I'm not arguing whether or not they're heretics. I'm arguing what you do IF they are.

"It’s not complicated. There is no absolute standard of truth toward which the council decisions converge, which you or anyone else can then judge."

Liar. Whether or not someone is aware of the truth has no bearing on its existence.

" There is simply the Official teaching. To call official teaching heretical is a contradiction in terms. You didn’t notice this?"

Begging the question again. If it's heretical it's not official.

"still an obstacle to the full reconciliation of the separated Apostolic Christians. So we all have a stake with regards to countering Rome's claims about the bishop of Rome."

Fair.

Blogger Ranger January 29, 2020 8:04 AM  

Part 1: As I already admitted (unlike the sedes), I do not have the authority to interpret the Code of Canon Law. Not only am I not part of the Commission instituted by the Pope, I'm not even a canon judge or lawyer. I am, however, a lawyer who studied in a Catholic university in a country with the Continental Law tradition (for those who don't know it, this tradition is heavily influenced BY ancient Roman Law THROUGH the Roman Catholic Church Canon Law).
Having that background, I can easily spot the errors of the sedes (it is VERY relevant that the vast majority of sedes are from anglo-saxon countries, who have no tradition of continental law or understanding of Roman law. It is not so relevant, but it sure is funny, that the bishop through which most Sedes claim apostolic succession was Vietnamese. The misunderstanding of how the Roman Church works usually comes from people of lands newly converted, like Luther was).
1st error: Mixing up the effect of LOSS OF OFFICE, which ONLY happens "ipso facto" and "ipso jure" when there is NO room for doubt (It is clearly like this in ALL other cases of canon 188, it should be like this for 188.4), with EXCOMMUNICATION, a theological CENSURE. This censure, while it DOES happen "ipso facto" for heresy in the internal forum (which means before God and one's OWN conscience), for it to have effects on the external forum (like loss of office) REQUIRES a process, clearly delineated in the Code itself.
2nd error: Believing that the requirement of a declaratory sentence means that the penalties are not considered valid since the act. Here is where having a background in law helps. I will try to explain it with a different example. When a civil judge, after a trial, determines that there was a civil union between a man and a woman (something like a common law marriage), he gives a DECLARATORY sentence, stating that these 2 people were in a civil union since a particular date, established by the evidence given at the trial. The EFFECTS of this sentence retroact to the date that the judge has established (this is called ex tunc effects). Ailmony and division of assets are calculated upon the basis of the day determined by the judge. This type of DECLARATORY sentence is in opposition to a CONSTITUTIVE sentence, which establishes the effects from the date of the sentence, called effects ex nunc (the prime example of such a sentence is a divorce sentence- the spouses may SEPARATE in fact, which has some legal effects, but they are only DIVORCED once a judge gives a sentence stating it). This is why the Kurgan is wrong (if I were like him I would say that he is lying, though there is no doubt that his refutation has several falsehoods, and at least one whopper, that no one asks for sacraments or acts of jurisdiction from Bergoglio) when he states that the Canon Code of 1983 is self-invalidating. The requirement of a declaratory sentence by a proper authority DOES NOT MEAN that the EFFECTS start only from the sentence. (continues)

Blogger Ranger January 29, 2020 8:05 AM  

Part 2:
3rd error: Mixing up their PRIVATE judgement of heresy (which they, in their conscience, have the right to make, but at grave risk when that judgement contradicts the judgement of the Bishops) with the PUBLIC judgement of heresy and the declaring of someone a heretic, which they DO NOT have the right to make. The Code of Canon Law very clearly states how this declaratory public sentence is given. It works like this: Someone becomes a willing, knowing, heretic. They are, upon that moment, according to Canon 2314 n1, excommunicated. They very obviously do not immediately lose their office, since Canon 2314 n2) clearly states: “If, after admonition, they do not repent, that they be deprived of any benefit, dignity, pension, office or other charge, if they had any in the Church, and that they be declared infamous; after two admonitions, those who are clerics must be deposed.” As anyone can clearly see, for a cleric to lose his office- i.e, be deposed- by the crime of Heresy (not by tacit resignation by a clear as day act of public apostasy), it is REQUIRED that they be admonished twice. Which brings us to the final error of the sedes.
4th error: Believing that an admonition is something like “a warning” or “an accusation”, which just anyone can make. It is not. An admonition is one of the types of penal remedies enumerated in Canon 2306, and is defined by Canon 2307: “Anyone who is on near occasion of commiting an offense or who, after investigation, is seriously suspected of having committed one, will be admonished BY THE ORDINARY HIMSELF or by an intermediary.”
The question that the Sedes have to answer to make their case is thus very simple: Who, according to the Canon Laws of the Roman Catholic Church, is the Ordinary entitled to make an admonition to the Bishop of Rome? Is any random layman, or even random bishop, entitled to do so? If no one is, a Pope may have been excommunicated for heresy in the internal forum (i.e, before God and his conscience), but has not lost his office on the external forum, and all his acts of jurisdiction are not only valid, but, if asked by the faithful, licit, as stated by canon 2264. Likewise with the sacraments administered by such an excommunicate, they are valid and, if requested by the faithful, licit, according to canon 2261.2. The Kurgan’s argument that they are invalid and illicit because a declaratory sentence has already been pronounced by virtue of canon 188.4 is just embarrassing, showing that he has no idea even of what “a sentence” means.

Blogger Ranger January 29, 2020 8:07 AM  

I expect no argument here from the Sedes. Just accusations of lying, obfuscating, and wormtonguing. What I wrote is not to argue with them. Is to show other people why the sedes are wrong and have no idea what they are talking about.

Blogger Ranger January 29, 2020 8:23 AM  

There will be one last objection to what I have just presented: The argument that "God would not let His Church fall into the trap of being led by a heretic without any recourse". This argument is true, and fair. But, as I have just demonstrated, either Papapaco is NOT a heretic OR the Roman Catholic Church HAS fallen into this trap. The Roman See, according to the laws of the Roman Church, is judged by no man. There is no Ordinary to admonish the Pope if he falls into heresy. IF God would not let his Church fall into this trap, AND the Roman Catholic Church has fallen into it (i.e, if you come to the conclusion that Francis is a heretic), THEN what should follow is not to close your eyes and stop your ears to the evidence and repeat, mantra-like,"188.4", but to recognize that the Roman Catholic Church is not the Church of God. For myself, having seen the heresies of Francis, I came to the conclusion, with considerable personal cost and inconvenience (being from a Roman Catholic country -not French or French-speaking, by the way-, and living in a different country also within the Roman Catholic Tradition) that the Orthodox Church is the Church instituted by Jesus Christ.

Blogger Ranger January 29, 2020 8:42 AM  

@The Kurgan
"There is no "interpretation" required, wormtongue. No more than one needs to "interpret" if 2+2=4."

Spoken like a true Protestant, who claims that the teachings of the Bible are simple and require no interpretation by the Church.
No, Canon Law is not an easy subject. It requires interpretation and NO canon (much less 1 item of a canon- your interpretation of 188.4 doesn't even fit properly with the rest of canon 188) is to be interpreted on its own. To claim otherwise and to say that anyone can interpret Canon Law (or that it is so simple that there is no need for interpretation) is to deny the authority of Pope Benedict XV, who established a Commission with exclusive right to interpret it.

Blogger Alen January 29, 2020 9:03 AM  

Azure Amaranthine wrote:Liar. Whether or not someone is aware of the truth has no bearing on its existence.

I wasn’t talking about Truth, but about the process for the formulation of doctrines.

You are way in over your head here.

Here are just a few snippets that deal with the issues:

"IF Christianity is a fact, and impresses an idea of itself on our minds and is a subject-matter of exercises of the reason, that idea will in course of time expand into a multitude of ideas, and aspects of ideas, connected and harmonious with one another, and in themselves determinate and immutable, as is the objective fact itself which is thus represented."


"Christianity differs from other religions and philosophies,...being informed and quickened by what is more than intellect, by a divine spirit."

"Principles require a very various application according as persons and circumstances vary, and must be thrown into new shapes according to the form of society which they are to influence."

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/index.html

You can study the Development of Doctrine, so maybe things will become clearer.

As if the Ranger just didn’t completely demolish your pretensions, I will add this:
Your sin is intellectual pride. "The impelling motives are many: intellectual pride or exaggerated reliance on one's own insight;"

He literally bought a copy of the canon law on the internet and started interpreting it by himself, which is insane.



Blogger Joe Smith January 29, 2020 10:32 AM  

@Ranger I've been following this thread out of interest, and I am in no way knowledgeable enough on the subject to challenge anyone in the thread. So my intention is not to do that in any sense. I am simply curious, as you seem to be well versed in the subject: Popes die eventually, so couldn't a future Pope be the legitimate Ordinary entitled to censure a previous Bishop of Rome? As you say in your point #2 above, these penalties can be applied retroactively.

Blogger Ranger January 29, 2020 11:51 AM  

@Joe Smith. I am not so well versed in the subject either, and claim no authority, except the knowledge that comes from being a lawyer in the Continental tradition. The reason I started studying it was exactly the debates that appeared here recently. As my family, all Roman Catholic, is entreating me to NOT take the step of becoming Orthodox, and because I have been following Vox for the past 4.5 years and respect his judgement, I thought I would do well to give a read upon the arguments presented by the Kurgan and, in a manner of speaking, "sponsored" by Vox. It is not an exaggeration to say I was greatly disappointed, both by the very poor dialectic and by the repetitive rhetoric (liars! retards! wormtongues!).

So, to answer your question, I honestly don't know. Some Roman theologians will say it is impossible for a Pope to teach heresy, or to become a heretic (which is a different thing), that he is protected by the Holy Spirit from doing so. From the way I see it, there has been, in the past, at least one Roman Pontiff who taught heresy for a long time as Pope, recanting only later(John XXII), and there has been at least one Pope convicted of heresy by an ecumenical council, Pope Honorious (though there is debate whether he TAUGHT heresy or only permitted, through negligence, others to do it... something very germane to the particular subject of the post-Vatican II popes). It is exactly this "trap" of the Roman See being judged by no man, combined with the scandal of the Papacy of Papapaco, that made me conclude that the Orthodox have the more robust ecclesiology. It is not one particular See that is protected from falling into heresy, it is the Church as a whole.

Blogger James Lovebirch January 29, 2020 1:08 PM  

Ranger and Chad brought the heat. Thanks for taking the time to teach me (and I'm sure many silent others) a lot about these topics.

Blogger James Lovebirch January 29, 2020 1:10 PM  

@119

The Kurgan converted about 2 years ago and is already plotting a violent coup. Could anything possibly be more Kurgan?

Blogger Dad29 January 29, 2020 1:51 PM  

@ #36: Which means Vatican I is wrong

Sorry. Zero.

VatI propounds that the Pope is infallible WHEN PROPOUNDING DOCTRINE OR DOGMA.

If nothing else, Bergoglio is very clever. He has never propounded his errors as doctrine or dogma. Maybe "Jesuitical" is synonymous with "clever"....

Anyhow, try again.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 29, 2020 3:13 PM  

"This is what we mean when we say you guys have a protestant spirit. You think you're in a position to access the truth directly"

Found another person who can't read English as well as he thinks he can.

"I wasn’t talking about Truth, but about the process for the formulation of doctrines."

You: "There is no absolute standard of truth toward which the council decisions converge, which you or anyone else can then judge."

Me: "God is in the anyone else category. Even apart from God, your council has to be his legitimate and sole authority on Earth to support your argument."

Your stance is that:

A: Heresy is deviation from official doctrine of the Catholic Church.
B: Therefore only the Church authorities can define what heresy is (wrong even if A is accepted).
C: It's not possible for anyone other than those in the positions of Church authorities to have any bearing on the matter.

My stance:

A: Heresy is what deviates from Christianity while hiding under cloak of Christianity. Your A stance depends on multiple assumptions, and those assumptions circle back into themselves in a logically baseless fashion.
B: God is the ultimate authority of the Church, and the Pope is not his sole prophet or voice or translator or line of authority to man.
C: Those in the apparent positions of Church authorities can be frauds or heretics. This has happened in the past and will happen again. If they are such, they are logically automatically invalid authorities, whether or not according to the law of man.

"The question that the Sedes have to answer to make their case is thus very simple: Who, according to the Canon Laws of the Roman Catholic Church, is the Ordinary entitled to make an admonition to the Bishop of Rome?"

...And there we have the TL;DR, even though I sadly did: Your opinion is that once a man is seated as Pope, he cannot be removed, within the law of the Catholic Church, by man.

If so, and if the Pope deviates in any way from what God wants, the Catholic Church has a serious problem somewhere along the line. That is my main point.

Blogger Joe Smith January 29, 2020 3:32 PM  

@Ranger Thanks for the info. It does seem pretty clear historically that the Holy Spirit hasn't protected various Pope from becoming heretics, but as I said I'm no expert. It would be a useful feature for Catholics if future Bishops of Rome could just nullify past heretic Popes retroactively. This all gets a little legalistic at some point, though it is interesting.

Blogger Akulkis January 29, 2020 4:44 PM  

"Popes die eventually, so couldn't a future Pope be the legitimate Ordinary entitled to censure a previous Bishop of Rome? As you say in your point #2 above, these penalties can be applied retroactively."

1. The Pope is chosen by the College of Cardinals... the same pozzed group who chose these demonic individual.

2. The College of Cardinals will remain pozzed because when a vacancy occurs, the same pozzed group will choose another pozzed idiot to replace the one who died or retired.

Therefore, the College of Cardinals will remain pozzed
Therefore, all future Popes will be pozzed.

Blogger Alen January 29, 2020 4:52 PM  

Your stance A is ahistorical - the very definition of heresy arose in the Church’s confrontations with different ideologies.

"The subject-matter of both faith and heresy is, therefore, the deposit of the faith, that is, the sum total of truths revealed in Scripture and Tradition as proposed to our belief BY THE CHURCH. (my emphasis)The believer accepts the whole deposit as proposed by the Church; the heretic accepts only such parts of it as commend themselves to his own approval."

"On the other hand the will may freely incline the intellect to adhere to tenets declared false by the Divine teaching authority of the Church."

Azure Amaranthine wrote:while hiding under cloak of Christianity

But it doesn’t even try to hide. "Instead of unravelling the knot, he simply cut it by bluntly asserting that Christ was not God like the Father, but a creature made in time."

If to this you answer that this is the part that deviates, then what would be the purpose of the cloak, since it’s a plain assertion, obvious to anyone.

My point is not that "only the Church authorities can define what heresy is", it is that historically they have had to define it, the definition arose through the theological discussions in the councils. For a good dialogical presentation of the council discussions, I recommend Claude Fleury’s Histoire ecclésiastique (History of the Catholic Church). The process is clearly seen in those books.

Your B stance starts correctly. God is the ultimate authority of the Church, but then you deviate into a mixed bag of irrelevant terms - prophet etc.. Pope is the earthly authority. "Voice" and "translator" also are not useful concepts here. "Line of authority", sort of, but more like the pinnacle of the earthly hierarchy with best interpretation skills - you still think about the truths of faith on your own and discover different aspects of it as a Christian. The Church authority does not jeopardize you in this.

C - Apparently they can be, and yet the dogmas are preserved. Shouldn’t this simple fact inspire some distinction or awareness of what a man can corrupt and what God preserves? Whether they are "invalid authorities" is beside the point, but if while being in position of authority they corrupt the basic teaching. For some unaccounted reason, they do not.

Also, one other thing. Several times you both mentioned the canon law needs no interpreting, that it’s plain to see. Let me disabuse you of this naive notion. We all inevitably interpret. There is no getting away from it.

It is the first thing you will learn in any theological or philological school. We all become involved in a cycle of interpretation the moment we open a book. None of us has pure eyes.

Blogger Ranger January 29, 2020 5:42 PM  

@133

"And there we have the TL;DR, even though I sadly did: Your opinion is that once a man is seated as Pope, he cannot be removed, within the law of the Catholic Church, by man."
MAYBE he could, potentially, be removed by the WHOLE Church (meaning here, at the very least, an overwhelming majority of baptized Catholics, both laity and clergy, not a tiny splinter group with special pleadings from Canon Law). And, since he is supposed to be the Vicar of Christ, Jesus Christ Himself can do it also, obviously.

"If so, and if the Pope deviates in any way from what God wants, the Catholic Church has a serious problem somewhere along the line. That is my main point."
It sure does. At least we are agreed on that. Which is why I'm on my way to the Orthodox Church.

Blogger Ranger January 29, 2020 6:11 PM  

@132
Papapaco has done so already, which was the last straw for me.
"The Supreme Pontiff Francis, in the audience granted on 11 May 2018 to the undersigned Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has approved the following new draft of no. 2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church, arranging for it to be translated into various languages and inserted in all the editions of the aforementioned Catechism.

The death penalty

2267. Recourse to the death penalty on the part of legitimate authority, following a fair trial, was long considered an appropriate response to the gravity of certain crimes and an acceptable, albeit extreme, means of safeguarding the common good.

Today, however, there is an increasing awareness that the dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes. In addition, a new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. Lastly, more effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens but, at the same time, do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.

Consequently, the Church teaches, in the light of the Gospel, that “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”,[1] and she works with determination for its abolition worldwide."

it was the last straw not because I am a big proponent of the death penalty, but because it's a very obvious departure from past teaching, AND because this was not an off-the-cuff remark or a weird practice, subject perhaps to a charitable interpretation, but a change to the catechism, through an act of his ordinary Magisterium. An action that the Roman Church and several saints once taught as being moral, now she teaches it as being immoral.

Blogger papabear January 29, 2020 6:50 PM  

@129 If remaining in communion with Rome is important to you, you could check out the various Eastern Catholic churches -- some are less Latinized than others. Perhaps the least Latinized, from what I have experienced, are the Melkites, who use the Byzantine rite. As for the Orthodox, some jurisdictions are more traditional than others, and some are definitely more ethnic than others, but if you have parishes of different jurisdictions in your area, you could check them all out.

Another option is to just stay Latin and recognize that what Rome claims is dogma (the stuff pertaining to the papacy, but also other teachings given by their recent councils) isn't really so. But this can be a a difficult option, as it will be rare to find fellowship with others who share this mindset -- most "orthodox" Latins are "orthodox" because they accept what Rome says, and the "progressives" refuse to submit to Tradition.

Blogger VFM #7634 January 29, 2020 7:14 PM  

This hole debate seems to be one of Kurgan arguing with people who have full on Stockholm Syndrome, making any excuse they can imagine to NOT leave their tormentors nor to tell said tormentors to leave and never come back.

@116 Akulkis
Swedes may be the dodo birds of the human race, but these Novus Ordo and recognize-and-resist Catholics sure are giving them a run for their money.

I sometimes wonder if the Catholics weren't literally bred to be extremely docile, obedient, and gullible by the time Vatican II rolled around.

In my own case, anecdotally, about half of my 19th-century ancestors were Protestants, and most of the Catholics were Irish. Hmm...

"Pertinacity, that is, obstinate adhesion to a particular tenet is required to make heresy formal. For as long as one remains willing to submit to the Church's decision he remains a Catholic Christian at heart and his wrong beliefs are only transient errors and fleeting opinions."

@120 Alen
Are you really dumb enough to believe these antipopes are NOT pertinacious?

Look at the logical consequence of your idiotic interpretation. Someone can be an open heretic without actually saying "I'm a heretic"."

@121 Azure Amaranthine
And ironically enough, several of the popes themselves in their encyclicals stated all these different tricks that heretics do: ambiguity, casting doubt... Arius didn't come out and say he was an Arian. He claimed he was an orthodox Christian the whole time. Martin Luther always claimed to be a Catholic.

Here is just one example:
https://novusordowatch.org/pius6-auctorem-fidei/

Ranger clearly has never been too fond of papal encyclicals. At least the real ones pre-Vatican II.

Ranger, for the hundredth time... we're not talking about the legal process of defining someone as a heretic. We as laymen do have no authoritahhh to depose an antipope. But that's not what we're trying to do.

We're pointing out to all who will listen -- and yes it's a private, unofficial interpretation, but it's the CORRECT one, and all your lawyering won't make it incorrect -- that Francis and the other official Vatican heads back to and including John XXIII are heretics, and antipopes, and therefore have had no right to hold the office at all.

Blogger Alen January 29, 2020 7:22 PM  

Ranger wrote:it was the last straw not because I am a big proponent of the death penalty, but because it's a very obvious departure from past teaching,

There seems to be a good book on the subject: https://www.amazon.com/Capital-Punishment-Catholic-Tradition-Second/dp/0268022410

"In particular, he argues that the magisterial documents from the papacy of John Paul II, specifically Evangelium Vitae and Catechism of the Catholic Church, move firmly in the direction of an abolitionist position."

Blogger VFM #7634 January 29, 2020 7:26 PM  

Swedes may be the dodo birds of the human race, but these Novus Ordo and recognize-and-resist Catholics sure are giving them a run for their money.

I sometimes wonder if the Catholics weren't literally bred to be extremely docile, obedient, and gullible by the time Vatican II rolled around.


And as for these Eastern Orthodox converts... egads. A toxic mix of sophistry, superior attitude, and denial. And these Eastern Orthodox schismatics accuse US of being schismatics, even though we're not the ones junking the Faith!

Blogger Alen January 29, 2020 7:36 PM  

VFM #7634 wrote:Are you really dumb enough to believe these antipopes are NOT pertinacious?

Look at the logical consequence of your idiotic interpretation. Someone can be an open heretic without actually saying "I'm a heretic"."



I’m afraid yes, I’m dumb enough. I like the idea of an antipope, though. It sounds very dramatic and apocalyptic, like from the movies. But John Paul II was a saint, as great a saint as I ever saw. I consider myself lucky to have lived during his reign.

Oh, and they wouldn’t out and openly state they were a heretic, like hey look I’m wearing a funny hat. It would be more subdued, you know. The point is, it’s hard to prove it, and given Francis’s timid, even cowardly temperament, the things he states boldly out in public he would probably backtrack instantly if confronted about it twice in a row by a commission.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 29, 2020 11:22 PM  

"Your stance A is ahistorical - the very definition of heresy arose in the Church’s confrontations with different ideologies."

The definition of heresy existed before the Catholic Church considered itself the only church or the main church or the middle-church-kingdom. THAT is history.

"But it doesn’t even try to hide. "Instead of unravelling the knot, he simply cut it by bluntly asserting that Christ was not God like the Father, but a creature made in time.

If to this you answer that this is the part that deviates, then what would be the purpose of the cloak, since it’s a plain assertion, obvious to anyone."


They still hold to all the rest, as you yourself point out. More, they claim that their position is the truth, and gather followers to themselves from the church if they can. There's no way to interpret this as anything else but hiding under the cloak, because the cloak isn't democracy or any other human construction. The cloak is Truth.

"but then you deviate into a mixed bag of irrelevant terms - prophet etc.. Pope is the earthly authority."

Only earthly authority according to your logic. See below.

"sort of, but more like the pinnacle of the earthly hierarchy with best interpretation skills"

No, it'd have to be the only one. "Best" can only cover so much divergence if anyone else is even remotely in the ballpark.

"Whether they are "invalid authorities" is beside the point, but if while being in position of authority they corrupt the basic teaching. For some unaccounted reason, they do not."

There we have it, you consider that the current Pope doesn't corrupt the basic teachings.

"Also, one other thing. Several times you both mentioned the canon law needs no interpreting, that it’s plain to see. Let me disabuse you of this naive notion. We all inevitably interpret. There is no getting away from it."

I did not say that canon law needs no interpretation, I said that this specific part of it was plain. On the interpretation side of things, you're three steps behind. One, I've been operating under that understanding all along. Two, that some things are difficult to interpret does not mean that everything is. Three, when the Pope says that black is white or the logical equivalents, he has to be the only interpreter with any ability to interpret whatsoever for your stance to hold.

Bonus point four, the Holy Spirit is the actual eminent interpreter.

"The point is, it’s hard to prove it

With some of the past popes, sure. Francis? Good luck with that.

Blogger Chad January 29, 2020 11:25 PM  

Part 1
Ok, time to catch up on a few things and clarify. Again, sorry for the wall of text, I hope moderators understand legal + theological = detailed, and that I sincerely am trying to clear up questions and respond to issues above

Some short answers:

Future Popes will be able to judge the current Pope, as has been done historically. Pope Honorius and the Cadaver synod are examples.

Councils, bishops, and individual Catholics can guide and remind a Pope what Catholic doctrine is, if he is doing/saying things that are damaging to the Church. Church teaching, defined multiple times, is that other than fraternal correction in the mode of a inferior to a superior, is incorrect. Not even ecumenical councils have more authority than a Pope. The history of the Gallican's and France after Henry the Fair are examples

Yes, if we have a bad Pope we must suffer with weeping, fasting, and penance. Penance! Penance! Penance! The laity must do so with all clergy, though aside from the Pope they can also appeal to higher authorities. Our historically bad Popes are examples.

No, there is no human authority that can remove the Pope. There are theories that, after multiple corrections from bishops, councils, etc; that Jesus Christ himself will remove His vicar. What that looks like no one knows. There are theories that it will be evident enough that a council will be able to be called and declare the Pope deposed by God. But what that looks like no one knows. St Bellarmine and St John of St Thomas are good to read

The Catechism is not, and never has been held to be, infallible. It is not the official teaching of the Church, it is simply what the Church is trying to teach at the moment. It's similar to how in different parts of history there have been issues with correct translations or source documents of scripture, but that scripture itself is infallible. If you still don't understand the differences there, I or someone else can clarify.

Blogger Chad January 29, 2020 11:30 PM  

Part 2
Ok, now on to heresy and the Code of Canon Law.

It seems that some people decided that historically significant issues that have occurred in Europe, where the Code was framed, don't matter to their interpretation.

Just because America suffers from multiple heresies, the relevant ones to the topic being the heresy of Americanism and indifferentism, doesn't mean Europe always has. Historically there have always been heretics that have infiltrated the Church to obtain the sacramental priesthood, and then gone into schism or heresy. Anyone claiming that the Code is worthless and pointless because, "Then a heretic would have to say he's a heretic!" hasn't read when that has happened in the protestant revolt. Anglicans were notorious for this, but before modernism and the idea of subverting the Church from within, most people had a good enough grasp of Theology and were blunt enough to do so.

The Donatists declared themselves much the same as the sedevacantists do, in that they said that those who had betrayed the Faith and became apostates were no longer inheritors of the Church, and they remained the only true Church in the world. It might be relevant to point out they were upset about the traditors who turned over relics, burnt incense, and generally apostatized. They appealed to local ordinaries, appealed to the government, appealed to Rome, and decided that Rome was wrong. They started their own sect and had valid sacraments. They are considered a mix of heresy and schism both at the time, from St Augustine's writings, as well as now, but I'm unsure if they were officially declared as in Schism.

St Augustine spent decades of his life rooting this evil out. He declared Schism worse than heresy, as shown in the Old testament punishments God meted out to each in the books of Moses.

Blogger Chad January 29, 2020 11:30 PM  

Part 3
Now, from Schism and Heresy to Canon Law

Again, the Code of Canon Law is there for things which can be objectively proven. The sin of Heresy is, in its nature, an inward action. It CANNOT, on a metaphysical level, be objectively determined by outward actions unless full due diligence has been given to make sure that it is known the individual has had superiors invoke obedience to The Church's teachings through the position of authority they hold over the individual to ascertain whether they, through the effects of original/actual sin, were able to correctly know if what they thought or taught was heretical or wrong. As stated above, the process has nuances. It must happen multiple times, over a long enough period for repentance, with ever higher levels of authority correcting the person, with the individual accused of heresy able to appeal to higher authorities than the one giving it (unless given by the Pope or a council approved by the Pope).

Again, this goes to the distinctions of different types of heresies given above, as well as individual actions. For instance, someone could have the correct belief of what doctrine is, but simply be a poor speaker. Or dumb, scared, drunk, retarded, etc. Thus, while what they say might be INHERENTLY heretical, they themselves have not committed the sin of heresy and ARE NOT A HERETIC. This does not change whether they have done so for 2 days, 6 months, or 60 years. Or through no fault of their own they could believe the wrong doctrine, not having been taught, or understood the doctrine incorrectly when they were taught through no fault of their own. Thus theoretically they could actually hold a heretical position, be good at expounding upon the heresy to others, convince them of it, but not be at fault.

However, someone could know the doctrine, know they're bound to obey it, and in their pride decide not to. Immediately, on a level of sin and guilt, they are a heretic. HOWEVER, legally there is no way to know this, which means the juridical tool of Canon Law has nothing to say about it until and unless they either have an authority act upon it, or they manifest their heresy in unambiguous ways through going to become an Anglican priest or something.

Yes, legal laws such as the Code of Canon law deal with what can be legally proven in a court of Canon Law.

To show that the Sede's likely have the interpretation of this incorrect, the Church has dealt with heretical teachings in this manner even after the adoption of the Code of 1917. There are multiple, nefarious, well known people who spread heresy afterwards who were not treated as if they were automatically deposed but tried and expelled. I would be interested if they can bring up one example otherwise, seeing that the Church has historically been quick to judge the words / works of people, and slow to declare them excommunicant, apostatized, or heretical.

Now, at this point, one might look above and ask what I mean by "Inherently Heretical." It means words or deeds that would lead the Average Catholic through out all of history to believe in heresy or think that the person acting or speaking believes in heresy. It does not presuppose the person is a heretic, but given time and multiple repetitions one could start to say that the individual's teachings are heretical.

Such a statement does not declare the person a heretic, just that their teachings and mannerisms are. As stated above, they could easily just have the wrong ideas about how people will respond to their words. Or have the wrong definitions of words. Or be speaking in a language that is not their native tongue. Who knows? Which is the point of fraternal correction by a superior owed obedience under pain of sin.

Blogger Chad January 29, 2020 11:31 PM  

Part 4
Finally, to address some of the... misunderstandings regarding the indefectability and infallibility of the Catholic Church, and why one would remain Catholic.

The Catholic Church claims to be the continuation of the one true religion worshipping God, the same one through which Adam and Eve were saved, the same one through which Aaron and the old covenant priesthood were begun, which the new covenant continued in an elevated fashion.

The Catholic claim is that it inherited the old priesthood, which was a foreshadowing of the Catholic Church's role in the new covenant. In the same manner that the priesthood of the old covenant could do grave harm, and even perform heretical worship, yet it was still the one, true Faith; so now the Catholic Church is the one true Faith. There are greater promises that have been given to The Catholic Church, such as the protection of the Holy Ghost, rising from the Incarnation of the Word as Jesus Christ. While certainly anyone that says all is well has his head in the sand, or that our current pontiff is ideal, the official teachings have not changed, even if what is being taught is not the official teachings.

God permits the wickedness of men.

Yet, through out all the Church's trials, she has continuously said that no one is above the Pope. No one can judge him. His authority is that which gives authority to the rest of the magisterium. The issue with Eastern Orthodox is, that while their ecclesiology might be logically coherent (as is the Roman), it specifically is at odds with a great deal of the Fathers of the Church. If you look at not just their words, but the historical actions of the individuals and groups, they profess a different ecclesiology than the Fathers.

Blogger FrankNorman January 30, 2020 5:51 AM  

Yes, if we have a bad Pope we must suffer with weeping, fasting, and penance. Penance! Penance! Penance! The laity must do so with all clergy, though aside from the Pope they can also appeal to higher authorities. Our historically bad Popes are examples.


Chad, why should you, personally, have to weep and fast and do all that "penance" for something that is not your doing, and which you have no control over?

Also - if the person that the cardinals elected as pope starts teaching things that you know to be heresy, you're not obliged to start accepting those things as true, just because he's the pope, right?

Blogger Ranger January 30, 2020 8:46 AM  

Approximately 24 hours have passed since my simple question to the Sedes("Who, according to the Canon Laws of the Roman Catholic Church, is the Ordinary entitled to make an admonition to the Bishop of Rome?"). As I have demonstrated, the answer to that question is NECESSARY for anyone to LOSE OFFICE (and not just to be excommunicated in the internal forum) due to the crime of Heresy. As it has not been answered, we can assume it is because they can't answer it(apart from the accusation of "lawyering"-which I was already expecting- when what's under discussion is the proper interpretation of a legal code!).

Their position can be described as the position of William Roper in "A Man for All Seasons", in the classic scene about the nature and differences of human law and divine law (you can check it here: https://fee.org/articles/id-give-the-devil-benefit-of-law-for-my-own-safetys-sake/). They believe the last occupants of the See of Peter were evil heretics. They don't care about the law, they just want to get to them somehow (by violence if possible, right Kurgan?). They do not look at the Code with cool reason, but with the hot will of finding some way to condemn them. I have very little doubt that the position spoused by them would not be accepted by ANY canon lawyer worth his salt in 1955. They have created this special pleading, contradictory to the rest of the Code and incongruent even with the rest of Canon 188 itself, as a way to resolve their cognitive dissonance, arising from holding these 2 contradictory beliefs simultaneously:
1- The occupants of the See of Peter since 1958 were heretics;
2- The See of Peter is protected by the Holy Spirit from authoritatively teaching heresy.

I don't believe that they can be reasoned with. I'm not a psychologist, but from the little I know there is hope for treatment.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 30, 2020 11:53 AM  

"Anyone claiming that the Code is worthless and pointless because, "Then a heretic would have to say he's a heretic!" hasn't read when that has happened in the protestant revolt."

You don't need to declare someone a heretic or remove them from office if they do it themselves. Still worthless/pointless if your interpretation is correct.

"St Augustine spent decades of his life rooting this evil out. He declared Schism worse than heresy, as shown in the Old testament punishments God meted out to each in the books of Moses."

I repeat a third time, it is the wickedness that causes the schism first. Whether or not the fruits of schism can be or are evil is beside the point. You are still reversing cause and effect.

"It CANNOT, on a metaphysical level, be objectively determined by outward actions unless full due diligence has been given to make sure that it is known the individual has had superiors invoke obedience to The Church's teachings through the position of authority they hold over the individual to ascertain whether they, through the effects of original/actual sin, were able to correctly know if what they thought or taught was heretical or wrong."

Read your own words again. Superiors, authority, metaphysical, spiritual. Law written by man has no necessary bearing on these.

"Thus theoretically they could actually hold a heretical position, be good at expounding upon the heresy to others, convince them of it, but not be at fault."

Scripture admonishes teachers to be extremely cautious because they WILL be held accountable.

"Now, at this point, one might look above and ask what I mean by "Inherently Heretical." It means words or deeds that would lead the Average Catholic"

I repeat a third time here as well. Truth is not democratic. Justice is not democratic.

"While certainly anyone that says all is well has his head in the sand, or that our current pontiff is ideal, the official teachings have not changed, even if what is being taught is not the official teachings."

Pick. One. If THE officials are teaching it, it is literally ________ _________.

So, you either mean something different than the literal meaning of your words, or your words mean nothing. Encyclicals don't count or do? Admonitions to actions before witnesses don't count or do? Catechism doesn't count or does? And so on and so forth.

"The issue with Eastern Orthodox is, that while their ecclesiology might be logically coherent (as is the Roman), it specifically is at odds with a great deal of the Fathers of the Church."

The specifically "Catholic" fathers of the church where "Catholic" literally does not mean catholic.

"Chad, why should you, personally, have to weep and fast and do all that "penance" for something that is not your doing, and which you have no control over?"

To be fair, prayer and fasting is also called for in order to cast out certain evil spirits. From people who aren't you. Do you have to? No, but it's a faithful extension of the grace God shows you.

"you're not obliged to start accepting those things as true, just because he's the pope, right?"

According to them, they could just stay silent. Forever or until God himself intervenes, whichever comes first.

Blogger VFM #7634 January 30, 2020 3:00 PM  

@Ranger

Had a reply eaten in mod.

Short answer: it’s irrelevant. We’re laymen with no authoritahhh to depose an antipope. But at the same time, we’re holding the correct position that these antipopes are heretics and have no right to the office they usurped. Yes, it’s unofficial. Yes, it’s private. But that doesn’t mean it’s wrong or unreasonable, as you’re trying to prove.

The Vatican II heretics aren’t going to rule themselves fake. It ain’t gonna happen.

So get off your high horse.

Blogger James Lovebirch January 30, 2020 4:20 PM  

@152

The Kurgan:

"it's always interesting to note how viciously the sulphur covered wormtonguers will try to argue the LIE that I and other sedeprivationists are arrogating to ourselves the judgement of clergy when it is absolutely plain as day we are doing nothing of the sort but in fact simply OBEYING the dictates of the magisterium of the Church which tells us with curb-stomping finality that heretics are not valid clerics and they vacate their office ipso facto. No declaration or judgment required by anyone."

Negrosbear:

"How about you argue the facts

"1. Is "Pope" Francis a manifest heretic?

"If you can't argue against that. It then leads us to what does canon law say about clerics who are heretics?"

I can appreciate that you are beginning to concede the truth, but let's not try to wipe away what your compatriots in this thread have been arguing, nor sedes in general throughout the history of the movement.

Blogger Ranger January 30, 2020 4:27 PM  

Thank you for finally admitting my point; that your interpretation is NOT the Catholic one, but has the sole authority of your own private judgement (buttressed, I suppose, by your big brains, as demonstrated by the very basic and embarassing mistakes you Sedes make, and your Christian charity and holiness, as demonstrated by your constant accusations of lying to those who disagree with you).

Now just stop pretending to be Catholic and admit you are a Protestant and we can end this discussion satisfactorily.

With my apologies to the Protestants, of course- they have Sola Scriptura, based on the unchangeable Word of God, while Sedes have Solum Codex, based, well, on a changeable legal text, no matter how high its quality as a legal text. A text, moreover, already revoked in the real world -though not on Sedes Gammafantasyland- by the proper authorities.

Blogger Dan Karelian January 30, 2020 5:14 PM  

@148 Chad
What patristic authority prior to the eleventh century do you think acted or professed as if the Roman catholic ecclesiology was normative?

Blogger VFM #7634 January 30, 2020 6:59 PM  

Ranger, honestly -- if Adam Schiff were Christian I imagine that he would sound exactly like you. Heck, you're even a lawyer, just like Salza & Siscoe. Just because you're well versed in BS and have quite obviously gotten high on your own supply doesn't mean you're telling the truth.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 30, 2020 7:21 PM  

@Ranger: Who are you responding to? Apparently not I.

Blogger Chad January 30, 2020 11:03 PM  

@ Frank
"Chad, why should you, personally, have to weep and fast and do all that "penance" for something that is not your doing, and which you have no control over?"

Because, in the same way that we have personal duties to our family, communities, nations, and states; we also have duties to The Church. I didn't pick to be born into my family, to my nation, to live in the United States, etc. I didn't pick this era of history to be born in. I don't deny the wickedness that those arguing the Sedevacantist position use in their arguments aside that we can't judge the Pope as a heretic, only that his actions and words are intrinsically ordered to spreading heresy and objectively bad, if they're correctly reported through a liberal media who loves to black pill us, when they work with multiple translations of a man who speaks multiple languages and does off the cuff interviews.

So, I have the same duty to pray and do penance for the Pope as I do my biological father, if not more so, though for different reasons. I also have to pray for my priests, bishop, etc.

"Also - if the person that the cardinals elected as pope starts teaching things that you know to be heresy, you're not obliged to start accepting those things as true, just because he's the pope, right?"

I have no obligation to believe anything other than what has been taught by the Church through out history as she furthers the science of theology.

Blogger Chad January 30, 2020 11:31 PM  

@ Azure
"You don't need to declare someone a heretic or remove them from office if they do it themselves. Still worthless/pointless if your interpretation is correct."

No. Heretics have different legal claims, in justice, than do the Faithful. How is it hard to see it as pointless or worthless to a legal system to have an easy, objective and surefire method to dismiss the claims and defenses of such people? It keeps them from having legal ground to try and keep land or property, of trying to keep retirement packages, etc. One must also keep in mind that, historically, many governments gave specific offices a benefice which the cleric could draw upon as income, which would then be voided.

There are a whole host of reasons why it's a good law. All of them have to do with the governance of The Church and the exterior forum, which is what the Canon Law deals with.

"I repeat a third time, it is the wickedness that causes the schism first."

Of course it does. Wicked is the man who would abandon his Holy Father when his Holy Father needs him most. A father who beats his son doesn't stop being the father of his son, and the son continues to owe his father Honor and Love in Christ. That doesn't mean you ignore the situation in either case, you must simply respond appropriately within the moral options available to you. Schism is not one of those options.

"Read your own words again. Superiors, authority, metaphysical, spiritual. Law written by man has no necessary bearing on these."

Odd that you claim that law written by man has no bearings on the such subjects, when we're discussing the sins of heresy and schism that include them either intrinsically or tangentially. Odd too that you would take such a stance when your claim rests on the law, in and of itself, being able to pass judgments upon men through the instrumentality and intentions of those men who wrote the law you claim has no bearing on the subject.

"Scripture admonishes teachers to be extremely cautious because they WILL be held accountable."

Of course they will be. But if God doesn't give them the grace, then they won't be held accountable by God for something that He didn't give them the power to do. However, those that didn't pray or fast for their clerics when they should have may be held accountable for not meriting such graces for them.

"I repeat a third time here as well. Truth is not democratic. Justice is not democratic."

Of course it's not. However, the sin of Scandal is based upon appearances, and must be judged on the objective reasoning of how an individual without access to the internal forum of the man acting or speaking would respond.

If I say, "God is Dead." is that heresy? What if it's on Good Friday, and I'm making a reference to Christ's death? What if it's pulled out of context? Or what if I am making a reference to something that happened on Good Friday in a conversation with friends, but one of them wasn't there for the event? Could not that one think I'm uttering heresy, and have objective proof of me doing so? I would claim, yes, that he would have proof, but that I have not uttered heresy.

Now, such a simple example is exactly that, reduced for simplicity. We have a Jesuit Pope, has he EVER uttered a simple word as pontiff?

Blogger Chad January 30, 2020 11:35 PM  

@ Azure
"So, you either mean something different than the literal meaning of your words, or your words mean nothing. Encyclicals don't count or do? Admonitions to actions before witnesses don't count or do? Catechism doesn't count or does? And so on and so forth."

Individuals who hold official positions can still act as individuals and not use the authority of their position at all times. You are not always and at all times a representative of the business you work for, are you? Do you always represent your family in an official manner, or is it at times rather more casual?

The same is true with those in power in the Church. There is a hierarchy of authority in documentation and positions. Vatican 2 was a pastoral council that did not invoke the Holy Spirit and changed no official teachings. If you had gotten the same number of hippies gathered together smoking dope in a forest it would have had the same affect on the official teachings as Vatican 2.

The same is with regards to the Catechism. It would be more true to view it as a primer on Church teachings without the authority to actually change the teachings. An analogy would be a class on United States law at a University. A good school or catechism will teach the law / doctrines correctly, a bad one won't, but neither has the ability to actually do anything other than change the perception of what the law/doctrine is. In both cases, the source remains untouched, though it can be besmirched if taught poorly or glorified if done so with due diligence.

Official teachings are put forward in encyclicals and Ecumenical councils that gather with the purpose to define doctrine and repudiate heresy. A priest may try to teach from the official teachings, but in no way does he have the power or authority to actually change the teachings. The Pope and councils can only pass along and further clarify the teachings handed to them; in no way can they change them or have they. The modernists have only confused and muddled the waters, and while sadly such abhorrent and foul behavior has resulted in the loss of souls, they can't change the official teachings. Whether an individual is either a modernist, dumb, retarded, drunk, incompetent, naive, etc; I leave to those in authority and God.

I try to pray for them all.

"According to them, they could just stay silent. Forever or until God himself intervenes, whichever comes first."

If this is your understanding, you haven't been listening and I would encourage you to look to medieval history where peasants and paupers rightly felt they could advise the Pope. St Catherine of Sienna was a laity that was incredibly influential in changing the Pope's mind to end the Avignon papacy. There is plenty of ability to advise a Pope, ask for clarity, rebuke false teachings, hold judgment over a decision regarding the Faith or governance of the Church, etc. However, none of those judges a Pope for heresy, but only addresses the objective and outward behavior of the man, and can be done by someone to their superior. In the case of the Pope, they must be addressed to him as a superior, and with the reverence and meekness due to such a situation.

Blogger Chad January 30, 2020 11:55 PM  

@ Dan
"What patristic authority prior to the eleventh century do you think acted or professed as if the Roman catholic ecclesiology was normative?"

Those that dealt with heresies and schisms referred back to Rome for judgment constantly. Augustine was very clear in that, if Rome had judged, it was judged, and that one had to stay in communion with Rome. Cyril and Methodius that began the Syrian Rite (if I'm getting both my saints and rites right), never denied Rome's authority when they were translating Scripture into the vernacular, creating a new written language to do so, and starting a new rite; despite the fact that they came from the Eastern right. Cyril and Cyprian defer to Rome. Saint Bede's history relates a great deal of saints in the history of England that defer to Rome. Athanasius deferred to Rome.

The fact that a council can't be considered official without the Pope, or a legate of the Pope, judging the council and approving of it defers to Rome.

Popes St Gregory the Great and St Leo the Great, both held as Sts by the Eastern Orthodox, seem to have the same Ecclesiology as the Roman Catholic Church.

Early Synods and other patristic documents also refer their differences and decisions to the judgment of Rome, even if not the closest.

While there are certainly sources you can find otherwise, I haven't come across one until the 600's if my memory serves me correctly, and many seem to have politics rather heavily influencing them surrounding Constantinople and the powers of the Emperor influencing the Eastern Church at the time.

Blogger Ranger January 30, 2020 11:58 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Ranger January 31, 2020 12:01 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Ranger January 31, 2020 12:07 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Akulkis January 31, 2020 12:48 AM  

"I have no obligation to believe anything other than what has been taught by the Church through out history as she furthers the science of theology."

Why do you have an obligation to believe, let alone follow, rules that were specifically constructed to keep evil men in positions of power in the church?

Plus, the whole concept of antipope + papal infallibility is literally crazy. The Pope is infallible because he's chosen from the College of Cardinals who (blah blah blah)... UNLESS they screw up, and their choice turns out to be an antipope.

It is obvious that not only is Francis a blaspheming heretic, but he enjoys the support of the College of Cardinals, which means THEY too support blasphemous heresy -- because they have not taken any steps to remove him. So, the entire top of your bureaucracy is corrupt, and your canon law requires them to fix anything.

The root of this insanity starts with Leo IX and the schism he created. The error isn't just with Francis, it's the result of centuries of holding some rules of dubious origin in a higher position than God's Word itself. This is the same thing the Pharisees were doing -- holding debates ABOUT the scriptures as being more important than the scriptures themselves.

You don't need canon law to solve this problem (especially since the canon law was written precisely to prevent you from solving this situation). It's in the New Testament how to resolve these sorts of issues.

Once your figure out that the purpose of canon law SHOULD be to support obedience to the Word of God, rather than what appears to be holding canon law as supreme, then you can solve this problem.
Conversely, as long as you hold canon law as a superior structure above the New Testament, then you will continue to be plagued with these problems.

Stop listening to men who are 2000 years removed from, and obviously not interested in following Jesus; instead pay attention to the words of the men who were chosen by Jesus himself.

And if anyone uses "schismatic" at you as some sort of scare word, the response is simple -- this schism is caused by the College of Cardinals AND their leader, Francis. Also remind them that Leo IX was a schismatic when he broke off the Roman church from the rest of Christianity.

Blogger Ranger January 31, 2020 4:13 AM  

@156, VFM#7634: The projection here is painful. No, it is you who acts like Adam Schiff. You decide on the guilt and the penalty first and look for the law justification for it later. This is not how law works among civilized people.

@157, Azure Amaranthine: on my @154 post, to VFM#7634, specially his admission that all of this is just his private interpretation of a law code. (Though some of the "your" in my reply to him referred to Sedes generally, specially on the rhetoric side of dealing with those who disagree with you. Damn English for just having one pronoun for both singular and plural 2nd person).

I deleted posts 162-164 for clarity, this post contains the text of those 3 posts.

Blogger Ranger January 31, 2020 4:41 AM  

@141: Everyone has a breaking point. Mine was this change to the Catechism. And it IS a change in the moral teaching, quite different from what John Paul II was arguing. It is one thing to say that, in contemporary conditions, it might be advisable to abolish the death penalty. This is a sociological and political statement, with no Magisterial authority. As it advises Catholics to work to abolish it, those who are responsible for the public good are obliged to take it into account in their decisions. But this sociological and political statement does not oblige the conscience of anyone, and it is not a teaching on morals.

When Francis changes the Catechism to say, instead, " “the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person”, what he does is something very different. He is authoritatively giving a universal moral teaching. A universal moral teaching that contradicts the former universal moral teaching of the Catholic Church (i.e, that the death penalty IS admissible under very particular circumstances).

Blogger James Lovebirch January 31, 2020 5:15 AM  

@156

Sede cognitive dissonance loop:

"What kind of sulphurous wormtongue argues like a lawyer about canon law. Joke's on you, I came!"

Blogger VFM #7634 January 31, 2020 2:15 PM  

@167 Ranger

Oh, this is just too much.

So you're confronted with Francis' heresy about the death penalty, where he clearly contradicts pre-Vatican II magisterium, and yet you don't think that maybe, just maybe, the man is an antipope? Instead, you junk Catholicism as a fake religion and convert to Eastern Orthodoxy because you decide Francis is absolutely the Pope, and no way no how are sedes possibly correct that he's illegitimate, we're all nuts, and have no authority to use our God-given judgment to look at all the evidence and figure out that he's a heretic and an antipope.

Condemned out of your own mouth. You admitted that he teaches heresy, even though you came to a completely wrong conclusion. Congratulations.

Blogger Dan Karelian January 31, 2020 4:03 PM  

First St. Augustine said all manner of incorrect things, saints are not infallible.

Appealing to the doubly apostolic 'Glory of Old Rome' and the 'Place of Honor' in no way necessitates Petrine supremacy, nor equates to exclusive authority.
Appealing to Rome or any other see was valid only so long as Rome or Antioch etc. remained orthodox. Likewise communion with Rome was only necessary so long as the Roman patriarchy confessed orthodox faith. This however veers into the epistemic differences between the EO and RC paradigms, which is a whole other issue.

St. Athanasius the Pope of Alexandria certainly condemned all manner of heresies and declared his faith on his own without the need for approval from the Pope of Rome, whom he corrected in arguing for the Apocalypse of John to be brought in the canon.
Not to mention that his theology is completely different from the post-schism Thomistic system of Rome.

Pope Honorius I would not have been excommunicated in the sixth council in the way he was, had he been part of the Vatican I system of papal monarchy.

No pope ever called for an ecumenical council, the emperor did. Confirming the decisions of a council does not mean the person confirming them dictated the result in the first place.
Judgement was from the church participating in the council as a whole, not just Rome and overtime the councils are received and accepted by the churches, because the faithful know the faith. Again there is an epistemic difference.

St. Paul corrects errors of the Roman church and warns them and St. Peter from being cut out of the body of Christ. Again not the Vatican I paradigm.

You will have to be more clear about what you think "seems" papalistic about St Gregory the Great and St Leo the Great.
Pope St. Gregory the Great writes in his letters rebuking that his is the sole jurisdiction over all other churches and calls it the claim of Antichrist. That claim is now Roman catholic dogma.

The pre-Nicene Synods were conciliary and decentralized, see the point on appealing above. Some of the documents pertaining to the issue are admitted forgeries.

The papal system didn't really begin to develop until Charlemagne desired to be declared the emperor of Rome. Theologically the split can be traced at least back to St. Augustine and his neoplatonic filioque teaching, but politically you don't see Rome assert itself systematically above others until the 9th century.

Blogger Ranger January 31, 2020 5:20 PM  

@169
First of all, this has been my open and clear position from the start of the thread:
"Look, I fully sympathize with those who cannot accept Bergoglio as the Vicar of Christ. He obviously isn't. But he IS the duly appointed bishop of Rome who has, unfortunately, fallen into heresy. He is not the first, and probably shall not be the last. Which means Vatican I is wrong, which means the Roman Church is not, exclusively, the Church to which Christ's promises were made. It's as simple as that."

Secondly, yes, if my beliefs ("it's not possible for the Bishop of Rome to authoritatively teach here") contradicts reality ("the Bishop of Rome HAS authoritatively taught heresy), I change my beliefs, I do not deny reality and say "the Bishop of Rome is not the Bishop of Rome".

Blogger Ranger January 31, 2020 6:11 PM  

Additionally,the conclusion I came to (that the ecclesiology of the Roman Church is wrong) in no way invalidates the argument I presented (that the Sedes arguments, as presented here, is legal nonsense and only people with severe cognitive dissonance- charitably apeaking- could fall for it).

Blogger James Lovebirch January 31, 2020 6:50 PM  

@169

Ranger said:

"They have created this special pleading, contradictory to the rest of the Code and incongruent even with the rest of Canon 188 itself, as a way to resolve their cognitive dissonance, arising from holding these 2 contradictory beliefs simultaneously:
"1- The occupants of the See of Peter since 1958 were heretics;
"2- The See of Peter is protected by the Holy Spirit from authoritatively teaching heresy."

I could add 3: The Roman Catholic Church is the one true church instituted by Jesus Christ

So now we circle back to how Jay Dyer refuted you guys. V1 and other sources show a consistent presentation that the Roman Pontiff is protected by providence from definitively defecting before the end times. But ALL sede narratives are logically reducible to a defection of the Roman Pontiff once you cut through whatever sophistry is being employed in the moment

You assert you represent the one, true, Roman Catholic church, but, IF any of your narratives were correct, your church is founded on falsehood. Your position is self-refuting at a fundamental level before anyone dissects your specious interpretations of canon law.

Blogger Akulkis February 01, 2020 6:55 AM  

"Your position is self-refuting at a fundamental level before anyone dissects your specious interpretations of canon law."

And this was already apparent before Martin Luther and his 95 theses.

Blogger VFM #7634 February 01, 2020 8:20 PM  

@173 James Lovebirch

You quite clearly missed our point that their occupation of the Roman See is illegitimate. Fake.

I don't know if you're willfully obtuse or just plain stupid, but obviously, if someone is holding an office illegitimately, he can do all manner of things that he wouldn't if he was legitimate.

A legitimate occupant of the Roman See would not ever teach heresy. I repeat: a LEGITIMATE occupant of the Roman See, a LEGITIMATE Roman Pontiff, would not ever teach heresy.

Jay Dyer did not refute us at all. He's making the same mistake you just did. Calling a fake heretic antipope the Pope is like calling pyrites gold. It's a category error.

Come on... how hard is this to understand?

Blogger James Lovebirch February 01, 2020 11:29 PM  

@175

Vatican I, On the permanence of the primacy of blessed Peter in the Roman pontiffs (retrieved from https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum20.htm):

"5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema."

Vatican I says you are anathema to the Roman Catholic Church.

Blogger James Lovebirch February 02, 2020 12:53 AM  

Just in case anybody isn't following:

So if one of the sede narratives is right and the current bishop of Rome is illegitimate, then Vatican I is wrong and your church is invalidated. Or you're just wrong. Either way you are a fool, you are also not Roman Catholic, and you most certainly do not represent the one true church instituted by Jesus Christ

Blogger Ranger February 02, 2020 4:53 AM  

@James Lovebirch: I know you are, like me, posting more for the benefit of those jn doubt about it, not arguing with the Sedes. For that is entirely useless. In the same way they claim to be the only legitimate interpreters of the Code of Canon Law, they will also claim to be the only legitimate interpreters of Vatican I.

This is their position:

"A legitimate Roman Pontiff would never teach heresy, because, if he teaches heresy, that means he is not legitimate."

I am surprised that the supposed defendants of the Roman Church would attribute to her such obviously circular reasoning. Criticize the Roman Church for many things, don't say she's this stupid. Apart from the circularity, this argument strikes at the very heart of the supposed benefit that Papal Infalibility brings to God's Church, i.e, the surety that the faithful have that, following Peter, they will not be led into error. There is absolutely no need for an infallible Papacy in the Sedes ecclesiology.

Now, everyone remotely familiar with Church history, both pre and post-schism, knows that, after a Council, it's very common for some people, who are unhappy with its decisions, to split from the Church.
After Vatican I, these people called themselves Old Catholics. This is what Pope Pius IX had to say about them. Sounds familiar?:
"They obstinately reject and oppose the infallible magisterium both of the Roman Pontiff and of the whole Church in teaching matters. Incredibly, they boldly affirm that the Roman Pontiff and all the bishops, the priests and the people conjoined with him in the unity of faith and communion fell into heresy when they approved and professed the definitions of the Ecumenical Vatican Council. Therefore they deny also the indefectibility of the Church and blasphemously declare that it has perished throughout the world and that its visible Head and the bishops have erred. They assert the necessity of restoring a legitimate episcopacy in the person of their pseudo-bishop, who has entered not by the gate but from elsewhere like a thief or robber and calls the damnation of Christ upon his head."

@VFM#7634: Your argument, as I already explained, confuses excommunication with loss of office.

Blogger John Regan February 02, 2020 8:12 AM  

So, you've got the problem of the de fide proposition that outside the Catholic Church there is no salvation, and that belonging to the Catholic Church requires submission to the pope, so what happens if the pope is a heretic? Can you submit to heresy? Obviously not.

Is the pope a sinner? Sure. He has a confessor. He goes to confession. That has always been the case.

So if the pope commits the sin of heresy, does he cease being pope? No. He can go to confession, the sin is forgiven, and all is put right again.

So when we postulate that we have a heretical pope, we're not just talking about committing the sin of heresy, we're talking about some kind of irredeemable sin of heresy. Like a sin against the holy ghost kind of heresy. But that's not just the sin of heresy; that would be something like final impenitence.

The traditionally enumerated sins against the holy ghost are illuminating. Final impenitence is one. Two of them are, on the surface at least, opposites: despairing of salvation; and presuming salvation.

Maybe we've been considering the wrong question. Maybe the question is not whether the pope is a heretic; rather, the question is whether he has committed a sin against the holy ghost. And maybe the answer to that question is the same for the pope as it is for anyone else: it's unknowable, even to the pope himself.

I'm just musing here, casting about for some kind of resolution. On the personal level I don't worry too much about the pope's foibles. It's not really my problem unless someone makes me a cardinal.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts