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

Thursday, January 23, 2020

A challenge to Catholics

The Kurgan lays out a logical case for Sede Privationism for nominal Roman Catholics:
In order to make this very simple and to show that there is literally not a single valid refutation to the position of Sede Privationism, I have constructed the below logical argument.

Please note there are several resources at the end of the post to find legitimate Mass Centers and clerics

Axiom: The Catholic Church is the true and Valid Church instituted by Jesus Christ on Earth. This is the assumed starting axiomatic point. That is, regardless of if you personally agree or not with it, for the purposes of this argument it is assumed to be true and correct as our starting point.

Question 1. Is the Pio-Benedictine code of canon law of 1917 the legitimate code of Catholic Canon Law that was legitimately and correctly put together by the Church?

If Yes, go on to question 2.

If No, demonstrate this with specificity and exhaustive proof.

Question 2. The Vatican II documents are 16 documents produced between 1963 and 1965. Do you agree that in every case these documents contain heresy that is not in keeping with the doctrine of the Catholic Church from the start to at least 1958?
Reference:The Heresies of Vatican II

If Yes, go on to question 3.

If No, you’re probably a vile heretic yourself, but go, on, try and refute even just the linked reference document IN DETAIL and specifics. Honestly, you can’t because facts are facts and objective truth exists.
Those are just the first two questions. There are four in all. Read the whole thing there, if it is a matter of concern to you. Being a non-denominational Christian, I'm not particularly interested one way or the other; it seems readily apparent to me that the current so-called "Pope Francis" is about as genuinely a legitimate Christian bishop as I am the President of the Milky Way Galaxy.

Labels: ,

188 Comments:

Blogger Warunicorn January 23, 2020 1:29 PM  

I can't stand Francis; man strikes me as the type who serves the physical rather than the metaphysical, as are most men of his worldly, globalist stripe.

I was looking at the resources, like where Latin Mass was being celebrated. I was surprised to not find one for Massachusetts. I could have sworn there was a church in Boston that did it but that was literally decades ago. I did find a site that listed several, but it seemed they don't do them all the time.

Blogger DougW January 23, 2020 1:31 PM  

You're NOT the President of the Milky Way Galaxy? I've been living a lie......

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 23, 2020 1:35 PM  

@1 https://www.latinmassdir.org/country/us/#location=massachusetts

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 23, 2020 1:41 PM  

Kurgan does not understand the nature of authority within the church. The CCL has no authority on it's own, it was not handed down by God. All authority it has derives from and is subsidiary to the bishops.
And Kurgan (nor any other layman) has no authority to declare in any binding way that anyone at all, much less a bishop of the Church, a heretic or apostate. That authority resides with the bishops as well.

As custodian of his own soul, and guardian of his family's, Kurgan has every right to separate himself and them from any environment that poses a danger to their souls. What he does not have the authority to do is declare that anyone who disagrees with him and refuses to join his Protestant sect is anti-God and non-Catholic.

Kurgan will now demand my answers to his specific questions, and declare himself the winner of the argument when I repeat, again, that the argument he is making is entirely beside the point.

Blogger Robert What? January 23, 2020 1:45 PM  

Remember the old joke "Is the Pope Catholic?" Now it's not a joke; it's a legitimate question.

Blogger Meanoldbasterd January 23, 2020 1:49 PM  

I'm sure he can show the current occupant of Saint Peters throne to be as non-catholic as he likes, the bishop of rome,STILL isn't a law unto himself and the last true ecumenical Council was at Nicea. The end.

Blogger IrishFarmer January 23, 2020 1:50 PM  

Aside from the overdramatic tone of hysteria in his argument "you can only reject this if you reject all humanity, reason, logic and...frankly, if youre a little bit gay" ...in the broadest sense he is conflating specifically teaching heresy vs specifically denouncing something as heretical. Does a cleric have to specifically state that Vatican 2 is filled with heresy on pain of being a heretic themselves? No. They only have to not teach the heresy themselves. The argument falls apart from there other than against Francis who is and has taught heresy and has never recanted. Well probably others, but certainly the list is less than 100% of all clerics.

The novus ordo is garbage and leads to apathy and apostasy, however i am still convinced it is valid.

Besides, if we accept his argument, then the Catholic Church is effectively dead with no hope of a revival. It strictly depends on passing down the authority, but if 100% of clerics are frauds, as this argument suggests, then theres nothing to hand down.

Blogger Flannel Avenger January 23, 2020 1:56 PM  

"join his Protestant sect is anti-God and non-Catholic."

Speaking for the Protestants, we would prefer to be left out of this.

Blogger Attempted Dialectic January 23, 2020 1:58 PM  

Axiom should be "The Roman Catholic Church" otherwise why do I have to argue from RC cannon law?

Blogger Nate January 23, 2020 1:59 PM  

the kurgans monomania is approaching Wheeler levels.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch January 23, 2020 2:01 PM  

@4 I agree.

Blogger Jason January 23, 2020 2:03 PM  

The great thing about Catholicism is that doctrine and dogma can be navigated by Tradition (oral and written) and reason, even in the face of heretical prelates who may be trying to tickle your ears.

In the current case, it is easy to see we are being given bad shepherds and to conclude we are in a chastisement (search St. John Eude's quote on Bad Shepherds and chastisements).

Given bad prelates, stay close to Tradition and do as St. John did during the Passion, stay close to the BVM. This will pass, or Our Lord Jesus Christ will be riding in on clouds from the East.

Kurgan's logic is problematic. One example: What if a priest committed the novus ordo, then was given graces, and now solely does the Traditional Latin Mass? Is he not validly a priest?

Blogger idprism January 23, 2020 2:03 PM  

Now I wish he were legitimate just so you could be a galactic-tier Dark Lord.

Blogger Salt January 23, 2020 2:09 PM  

First, I'm not Catholic. No dog in this fight, so to say. I read the link, continuing till here - this is the stumbling block in the argument as both viewpoints can be true simultaneously, each having its own authority on the tangent as it approaches the question.

"*Sede Privationism is the position that the Holy See is not in fact empty (Sede Vacantis – from the Latin meaning Empty Chair) but rather filled, by an impostor, non-valid, fake cleric of the Church, thus Preventing (Privating) the seat from being legitimately filled."

Call it, The Problem of The Prisoner of Zenda. Two competing tangents, both pointed at the same subject, each having its own basis of authority.

The King is not the King! Then who is sitting on the throne? Both Kurgan and Snidley are correct, but for different reasons.

Blogger Anglican January 23, 2020 2:11 PM  

We Bible-believing Anglicans are Catholic without the hocus-pocus and priestcraft.

Blogger xevious2030 January 23, 2020 2:16 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Rhino Bear January 23, 2020 2:20 PM  

@warnicorn. I found 2 in Massachusetts. I'm not sure if you've seen these.

Most Holy Trinity Roman Catholic Mission
Courtyard Marriott Andover Hotel
10 Campanelli Drive (off Ex 45 of I-93)
Andover, Massachusetts 01810
Fr. Peter Lemay, (508) 778-5532
SU 10 am

Sacred Heart Church

321 South Broadway, Lawrence, MA 01843
(978) 686-7921
www.SacredHeart-OP.org SacredHeartOP@yahoo.com
Fr. Anthony Paul Quigley, OP
SU 10 am, M-TH 9 am, FR 6:30 pm, SA 9 am
Holy Days M-FR 10 am & 6:30 pm, SA 10 am

I found my Church through the Kurgan. Latin Mass is beautiful and solemn and I've never felt closer to God.

Blogger xevious2030 January 23, 2020 2:27 PM  

Yep, like Snidely.

Elsewise. A heretic is a de facto heretic, but pronouncement is a matter of administration, it is clerical recognition (pun intended afterward). There is also the prodigal son. Say, one who brings back the possibility of officially allowable Latin mass, part of something one did not understand fully, and got caught up in, when young and dumb. Bergoglio a not-Pope, Benedict XVI a Pope in self-imposed exile. Not a Cannon lawyer, nor compelled to be, so again, not. Not impressed by an accumulation of knowledge, though generally a fan of Kurgan for same. Simply listened to the words of the Pope and anti-Pope in recent times, listened to the Spirit with the resulting ease or unease. The besting or leasting of an argument is a far distant second to that last, the listening. Beats the Mandela effect too. “If it were possible.”

Blogger Newscaper312 January 23, 2020 2:32 PM  

I was raised Catholic, went to parochial schools thru HS. Altar boy 7 years in the 70s - no never a whiff of anything wrong. Married in the Church, raised our son Catholic. But I am not a devout Catholic. TBH went through an atheist phase in my early 20s, but was never hostile, never anti-Catholic like some Boomers and Silents were. Since then I've gradually sort of been working my way back, admittedly very slowly.
Any, at 55 as an early GenX, I do remember the altar rail, communion on the tongue with patens etc. Clearly V2 introduced a lot of crap, or opened the door to crap being done in its name. This Pope stinks.

But I also remember some of the old timers when I was a kid who were a bit too eager to send a whole lot of people to Hell, almost got off an it.
IMO that needed to moderate, but no idea how to get do that without throwing out the baby with the bathwater as was done.

Blogger tantonj January 23, 2020 2:34 PM  

Mr President, please tell the Gurklongs to stop dumping their space garbage in my back yard.

Thank you.

Blogger Beardy Bear January 23, 2020 2:45 PM  

You heard it here: SDL for PMWG

Blogger furor kek tonicus ( no need to be racist, Ratchets can Karen better than anybody ) January 23, 2020 2:48 PM  

2. DougW January 23, 2020 1:31 PM
You're NOT the President of the Milky Way Galaxy? I've been living a lie......



an uploaded internet Superintelligence is not consanguineous with "President of the Milky Way Galaxy".

i know, an easy mistake to make.



4. Snidely Whiplash January 23, 2020 1:41 PM
What he does not have the authority to do is declare that anyone who disagrees with him and refuses to join his Protestant sect is anti-God and non-Catholic.



i consider this the primary theoretical problem for the Catholics.

once you go on board with appeals to the Magisterium of the ROMAN Church and doctrinal infallibility and whatnot, the Laity no longer have any way of constraining or disciplining a Clergy which has gone apostate.

which is what Kurgan is trying to do and which is what Barnhardt is constantly hectoring lay people about, that it is some sort of "weakness" on their part that they didn't demand reform of the Church / Clergy prior to this.

effectively, how is that any different than Luther's theses? was not Luther demanding the reform of obvious church error?

and how does it not contradict your own assertions that the Holy Spirit and the Magisterium of the Church protect the RCC from all theological heresy?

it does amuse me that Kurgan is calling Barnhardt a heretic though. although it's fair as i believe she calls Seda Privationists / Vacantists heretics.

something, something, "sowing confusion".


7. IrishFarmer January 23, 2020 1:50 PM
Aside from the overdramatic tone of hysteria in his argument


he's attempting to do Rhetoric.

the problem being that Rhetoric is an emotive appeal to the Masses.

but the Rhetoric which Kurgan is displaying accuses +99% of the people on the planet of being apostate and heretical. and this is supposed to get the masses of people on his side?

it's a rather self contradictory play. now you understand how the whole Jay Dyer debate went so sideways.

15. Anglican January 23, 2020 2:11 PM
We Bible-believing Anglicans are Catholic without the hocus-pocus and priestcraft.



yeah, God *HATES* divorce. i'll ( maybe ) take Anglicans seriously when they rebuke and reject Henry.

Blogger John Best. January 23, 2020 2:48 PM  

@15 Anglicanism is a posture. If you want to not longer posture, you need to join with people who actually fight. Which means you can't be Anglican.

Blogger LAZ January 23, 2020 2:50 PM  

All hail Vox, dark lord of the milky way!

Blogger Akulkis January 23, 2020 2:52 PM  

"The great thing about Catholicism is that doctrine and dogma can be navigated by Tradition (oral and written) and reason, even in the face of heretical prelates who may be trying to tickle your ears."

Sounds rather like the Pharisees.
I seem to recall Jesus sharply rebuking those who put arguments and traditions of men above scripture.

Blogger carnaby January 23, 2020 2:59 PM  

Latin Mass is beautiful and solemn and I've never felt closer to God.

Do you understand the words? If not, what is the point? How many people attending Latin mass can understand? If you can't understand it, then is it more or less like listening to instrumental music?

Blogger Elijah January 23, 2020 3:00 PM  

question: did the church have the authority to change the language of the mass? was the Latin mass part of the deposit of faith that cannot be changed or was it a doctrine that the magisterium could change?

Blogger James Lovebirch January 23, 2020 3:01 PM  

I won't rehash my arguments here when that was pretty thoroughly handled on the last thread and Snidely and others have already begun to touch on that stuff in this one. As poorly as he was received here, Jay Dyer also gave the Kurgan all the references he needs to read to get straight on this too. I predict within 5 years Kurgan won't be Catholic anymore unless he's stopped actively learning how the Catholic church works.

I hope he'll become Orthodox. Many of his arguments are good, but the wise thing to do with them is admit that the gates of hell prevailed against the Catholic Church, not call for further schism. Schism is worse than heresy

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 23, 2020 3:01 PM  

furor kek tonicus ( you think it's a coincidence that Tucker Carlson shares initials with Ted Cobbler? Never Go Full Retard ) wrote:i'll ( maybe ) take Anglicans seriously when they rebuke and reject Henry.
They will as soon as they discover that he was Islamophobic.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 23, 2020 3:03 PM  

carnaby wrote:Do you understand the words? If not, what is the point?
It's not about you. The Mass is not for your entertainment.

Blogger Bernard Korzeniewicz January 23, 2020 3:08 PM  

Like Snidley.

but also 4 valid point suggesting that there is something outside of TheKurgan's box:
1/ Freemason penetration of my Church had been completed around 1830s when "usury" had been stricken from the list of sins. So the end date for the Church should be 1840.
2/ Never the less we have St. Pio https://infogalactic.com/info/Pio_of_Pietrelcina - who died 1968 and did not denounced Vaticanum II.
3/ The Mass in the national language (yes, the Holy Mass - wait for explanation) came to my Poland not by official Vaticanum II document but by some memo signed by a commision.
4/ Despite that The NOM produced in Poland at last 2 Eucharistic Miracles (Sokolka 2008 and Legnica 2013). The Eucharistic Miracle is the bed news of the highest level - a priest just lost his faith! Never the less the Eucharist can not change onto man's flesh (a man's heart muscle) and blood (A1B Rh+), and_if the Mass is not valid_.

Never the less I still like and respect TheKurgan. Deus Vult.

http://www.jacek-legnica-sanktuarium.pl/info/page

Blogger Newscaper312 January 23, 2020 3:09 PM  

@22 furor
re: but the Rhetoric which Kurgan is displaying accuses +99% of the people on the planet of being apostate and heretical. and this is supposed to get the masses of people on his side?

I touch on that in @19

Someone else -- the weakness to me in only focusing on Scripture is the fact that the early Church *was* building up practices in the same time frame -- and before -- that the Gospels and other works were coming together in that next century or so, and another couple hundred years or so IIRC before they firmed up and the gnostic gospels and other apocrypha fell by the wayside.

Blogger John Regan January 23, 2020 3:12 PM  

I'm not sure logic is all there is to it, though of course logic is important.

For example, the rule at confession is that you must sincerely promise to sin no more, under pain of further sin, but the church requires that you keep going to confession.

It's not logical. But it makes sense on another level.

Blogger Balam January 23, 2020 3:13 PM  

Related is a reprimand a bunch of Catholics signed against Pope Francis back in 2017, including at least one Bishop.
https://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2017/09/24/sixty-scholars-and-priests-issue-correction-of-pope-francis/

"The signatories emphasise that they do not accuse the Pope of committing the personal sin of heresy, or the canonical crime. But they claim that the publication of Amoris Laetitia, and the Pope’s subsequent words and actions, have led to the spread of “heresies and other errors”.
[...]
The signatories say that they are permitted to address the Pope because of natural law – which allows a subject to correct a superior – and by canon law, which permits the faithful to make known their views to their pastors. They also cite the example of St Paul rebuking St Peter in Galatians 2."

Blogger Stilicho January 23, 2020 3:14 PM  

Having trouble signing in to comment. New phone. Shows me signed in as "Google account" but it looks like comments are getting spammed (using old phone for this comment). Any advice appreciated.

Blogger Meanoldbasterd January 23, 2020 3:15 PM  

I laughed.... C'est vrai

Blogger Bernard Korzeniewicz January 23, 2020 3:23 PM  

@James Lovebirch

I do not know what kind of Orthodox Jay Dyer is. From the net I know only an American brother Nathaniel (VSOP!)

But I personally know people from the Polish, the Russian and the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches and from the Ukrainian Greek-Orthodox Church.

Sad truth is Orthodox "batiushka" here, in Central and Easter Europe is just the State officer like a Lutheran priest in Sweden or Norway - all talk no faith. Customs and ritual are observed but there is no evangelization at all.

Pray tell how does Orthodox Church fulfill the direct order to go and teach about Jesus Christ???

BTW - I have no quarrel with Orthodox people, just like I have no quarrel with Armenians. Go with God.

Blogger Newscaper312 January 23, 2020 3:23 PM  

@30 I guess carnaby has never heard of missals that have the local local vernacular translations alongside the Latin.
My 21yo son has attended a Tridentine? Mass in Latin and loved it -- of course he had 4 years of Latin in HS so had a leg up. HS was classical and not ecclesiastical but close enough for government work. I have not had the chance yet.

Some things that I detest, fruit of V2 if not prescribed by it: the bland interiors for many churches built in the 70s or later with little that is uplifting, no longer having the tabernacle behind the altar, girls for altar servers - destroying one path to the priesthood as boys abandon the role, etc, etc. I have seen some newer churches being built returning somewhat to an earlier 20th century layout and beauty. Yes, Mass or worship is not about the place - -but the right place *helps*. Priest facing the congregation during Liturgy of the Eucharist rather than facing the altar w tabernacle behind it? I'm mixed, both have legitimate reasons IMO but not sure which should take primacy. People can make legitimate complaints about a certain mystic mumbo jumbo factor in RC or Orthodox ritual, but again it does serve a purpose in inspiring a reverential attitude.

Blogger MagnusStout January 23, 2020 3:41 PM  

Was re-reading Matthew to my daughter recently and I was struck by how strongly Jesus clashed with the religious leaders of his day (Pharisees & Sadducees). Jesus summarized all of the Law (Matt. 22:40).

If that is our ultimate aim, and if we fail to follow those commands it doesn’t matter what building you worship in, what ceremonies you follow, or words you utter—you are not bearing fruit and are in danger of being “thrown into the fire.”

By that same metric (judging one by the fruit they bear), there are many Christians around the world in various churches (and across time) that we can learn from. Important to not get distracted by legalisms. Whether the Catholic Church is “true” or not is irrelevant to the *personal* choice all of us have to make to follow Him and His commandments. Put differently: Jesus saves, not the Church.

God Bless Kurgan on his spiritual journey and God Bless Jay Dyer on his. God give us the spiritual discernment to make the right choices for Him. And, remember James 2:24 & 3:17.

Blogger Seth S January 23, 2020 3:50 PM  

I really don't get Catholics. Why try to save a converged organization when you can be a christian without it?

Blogger Richard Holmes January 23, 2020 3:54 PM  

I am the President of the Milky Way Galaxy. VD

Oh wow.. If there was an election to the office of the president of the Milky Way Galaxy, I'd certainly vote for you.. :)

Blogger Rhino Bear January 23, 2020 4:00 PM  

@26. The words are written in English right next to the words in Latin in the missal.

Blogger R.G. Camara January 23, 2020 4:03 PM  

This debate is beyond me as a Catholic, as I have neither studied canon law nor Vatican II's documents in great detail. However, I would love to see a debate between Kurgan and Dr. Taylor Marshall or Michael Voris, two current staunch anti-Francis, anti-Vatican II, Traditionalist Catholic thought-leaders who nonetheless have dealt with and rejected Kurgan's conclusions.

That said, let me add this for those who want Kurgan's conclusions to be true:

Francis is a bad pope (thus far). The Church since Vatican II has been heavily infected from within with corruption from homosexuals, communists, thieves, Masons, and satanists, and the theology of Vatican II and its descendants is awful. The Church is in a low state.

But none of that means that the Church or the Pope is illegitimate, either wholly or in part.

Church history is replete with bad, low, corrupt times. The pornocracy, the Cursader losses, the Muslim invasions, the rise of Protestantism, the enlightenment attacks, the masons, communism, etc.

And we had bad popes. Evil popes. The Borgias are practically synonymous with it. And one of the first popes (can't remember the name) actually committed blasphmeny by sacrificing to a Roman idol---after he had become a member of the clergy.

But the Church was still legitimate through it all, and rose again afterwards, and its corruption was purged.

Remember that even when Jesus was literally around and running things directly in the form of a man, His Church was corrupt----because Judas Iscariot sold his own bishopric office, and Jesus himself, out because of 30 pieces of silver and some hurt feelings.

So I take the long-term view that the corruption will end one day. Remember that Pope Paul VI himself ---who was heavily involved in pushing Vatican II--came out afterwards and specifically declared that none of the Vatican II's documents or holdings were infallible.

For such a pro-Vatican II man to make such a statement that undercut the legitimacy and heft of Vatican II is nothing short of a theological miracle. It offers the way to reform. Vatican II's heresys and errors will be undone. And the corruption will end.

Blogger carnaby January 23, 2020 4:03 PM  

It's not about you. The Mass is not for your entertainment.

Interesting. What is it about?

Blogger DL January 23, 2020 4:05 PM  

1. The code of cannon law is about the laws governing the administration of the Church. It is not an infallible document on faith and morals.
2. The 16 documents can be read and interpreted in a heretical hermanutic. It can also correctly be interpreted with a hermanutic of continuity with scripter and other Church Councils of past ages.
The hermanutic of heresy will die out because it will wither on the vine. The hermanutic of continuity will grow by the Holy Spirit.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd January 23, 2020 4:07 PM  

Richard Holmes wrote:If there was an election to the office of the president of the Milky Way Galaxy, I'd certainly vote for you.. :)

I think I would rather see Vox continue to busy himself here.

Blogger Jose Miguel January 23, 2020 4:09 PM  

I'm with Snidely, looking at back when the Church was all one in the first millenium, authority lied with apostolic succession aka the bishops, the Canons derive their authority from that, not the other way round. The authority of the Scriptures is also derived from the Councils of apostolic successors that put the Scriptures together and canonized them. The Kurgan's unstated presupposition that Roman Canon law is authoritatively superior to everything else in the Church runs contrary to the history of the Church.

@28 James Lovebirch

I assume you meant "admit that the gates of hell prevailed against the Roman Church, not call for further schism."

@27 Elijah

Considering the first liturgies in the first century were Aramaic, and the Greek liturgy being the liturgy performed in Rome for the two centuries after, and the first Classical Latin Mass was done in the third century, the Church better have had the authority to change the language used!

Blogger Ominous Cowherd January 23, 2020 4:12 PM  

The Kurgan probably made a decent argument, but I lost interest after reading the first axiom.

Blogger Iamblichus January 23, 2020 4:13 PM  

Doesn't that also mean that every pope since the 382 AD Nicean creed is invalid because the trinity is also heretical

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 23, 2020 4:15 PM  

Iamblichus wrote:Doesn't that also mean that every pope since the 382 AD Nicean creed is invalid because the trinity is also heretical
Assuming falsities gets us nowhere.

Blogger Matthew Baker January 23, 2020 4:17 PM  

Gamma pope’s lives matter.

Blogger Mother Country January 23, 2020 4:17 PM  

Latin Mass is beautiful and solemn and I've never felt closer to God.

Do you understand the words? If not, what is the point? How many people attending Latin mass can understand? If you can't understand it, then is it more or less

Most churches will furnish a translation in a book in the pew, and even if they don't, it's not too hard to follow along if you are familiar with the passages in the New Testament about the Last Supper. That's all it is, including the Lord's Prayer.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd January 23, 2020 4:18 PM  

Elijah wrote:was the Latin mass part of the deposit of faith that cannot be changed or was it a doctrine that the magisterium could change?
Did Jesus tell us ``Have this ceremony, say these words in this language?''

If not, there is nothing sacred in the ceremony or the language.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd January 23, 2020 4:20 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:
It's not about you. The Mass is not for your entertainment.

Serious question then, Snidely: what is the purpose?

Blogger Mother Country January 23, 2020 4:21 PM  

but the wise thing to do with them is admit that the gates of hell prevailed against the Catholic Church,

No, the Catholic Church in its official teachings has never denied Jesus Christ. If and when that happens, I will leave skid marks in the parking lot, but that has not happened thus far.

Blogger Ominous Cowherd January 23, 2020 4:25 PM  

Seth S wrote:I really don't get Catholics. Why try to save a converged organization when you can be a christian without it?
First, if God has called you to stay and fight to save the denomination you are in, that's what you must do.

Second, I suspect that most Romans believe that only their denomination is Christian. That is how I read the Kurgan's first axiom.

Blogger Daniel January 23, 2020 4:28 PM  

Question 1 - Yes.
Question 2 is a problem, however. Take the civil right (a) heresy of Vatican II. I believe that "religious freedom is fundamental to the human spirit and therefore a civil right" is grossly destructive and complete idiocy. Is it in direct error to fundamental Catholic teaching? I don't know. My guess is that it is heresy, but I can't prove it. I don't know what "rule of Catholicism" it violates. Obviously, it resulted in the destruction of the Spanish Constitution, but is that because it was in error, or is that because it was just a terrible idea, poorly applied? Bad effects after the effect are useful supports in a charge of heresy, but if a redline canon law cannot be specified, the heresy can't be proven.

For example, it is obvious heresy to claim that Jesus Christ was an immaterial being during his time on earth. I can point you to the violations of Church codes (both scriptural and traditional) that cause this to be heresy.

Bad ideas do not equal heresy.

Now, having said that, there are plenty of heresies in the Vatican II documents, but this argument depends on every last document containing heresy.

In addition, you have clear heresies against Catholic Canon law that are not heresies against Scripture. This is confusing. It is important to identify them, if for no other reason, proper categorization. After all, canon law can be amended under special circumstances (the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, for example). Scripture cannot.

So, if nothing else, Question 2 needs a lot more refinement. Frankly, if ANY of the Vatican II documents contain heresy against Scripture, that is likely enough to damn the entire batch...but the syllogism of the argument doesn't allow for that.

In any case, this gross generalization of heresy then renders Question 3 problematic. IF Question 2 is properly worded, THEN Question 3 is quite obvious: any cleric supporting any aspect of V2 since 1966 or so is a persistent heretic.

However, what if a cleric does not teach, preach or believe the heretical components of Vatican II? For example, what if he merely interprets the "procreate/primary" purpose of marriage language to be a poorly worded support of the traditional view? Or what if he views this discrepancy as mere violation of interpretation, but not a violation of scripture? After all, wasn't Eve first made for Adam's solitude, then for being frutiful and multiplying?

So, although it makes for good rhetoric, a good case has not been made that all Catholics who accept some parts of V2 are all now heretics.

One cannot argue that a heresy is one against Scripture by avoiding the scripture and appealing to a Father, such as the list of heresies does in trying to catch Vatican II's argument that an idea does not "follow from Holy Scripture". Daly then quotes the interpretation of Cornelius a Lapide, to refute this, rather than the Scripture itself.

These are minor critiques, ultimately, because I think a good case can be made for Sede Privationism without every bad idea in Vatican II fulfilling the standard of heresy. I think an even better case can be made for the empowered Catholic Church (as it is currently known) being a better model for the deceptive supernatural organization under the shadow of the antichrist than for any honest reflection of the Kingdom of Heaven.

Blogger Solon January 23, 2020 4:34 PM  

Non-denominational Christian here, so no dog in the fight, not an expert on Canon law, etc. etc.

However, I lean toward the sede privationist view, as does The Kurgan, seemingly.

Catholic laity does have the very serious problem of being unable to influence their leadership in any legal way. As Snidely says, a layman has no authority under the Catholic faith to claim that a priest is a heretic or an apostate. That is all done by bishops, of which the Pope is the highest.

Do you not see the issue? You have a class of faithful that is removed from chastisement by all but themselves and God. Man is weak, and constantly tempted by sin. (Almost) inevitably, you will be led to a situation like this in the RCC, or in any form of governmental institution really, such as the current elite politicos of most of the Western world.

If the Pope spreads lies and heresy, what can the layman do? The shepherd leads the sheep into the maw of the wolf, and a significant number of his field hands do his bidding. How do you cut this Gordian knot?

There's only two possibilities, as I see it: the sheep rebel, and leave the flock, or they go to the slaughter blindly. For if you follow this false shepherd, are you not just as guilty of his sin as he is? Does not the Bible say that a teacher of falsehood is even more damned, for he leads others into sin and thus suffers for their sins as well as his own?

The outcome will be either the collapse of the RCC, or its reformation. Hopefully the latter, because the former would be a serious blow dealt by The Deceiver, and all Christians are my brothers, I would not see their faith lessened by a liar and his lies.

At the very least, Protestantism doesnt have to deal with this issue; we have Sola Scriptura, and our only shepherd is Christ. Makes for quite the excellent shepherd, although we have just as many, if not more, heretics and wolves in our pen.

I pray for my Roman Catholic brothers: may you purge the heresy in your ranks, or, failing that, may you remain faithful to God and not suffer for your failure, but be granted the wisdom to see the path to the Kingdom clearly, God willing, and amen.

The Gates of Hell will not prevail against us, and even if Satan lands a solid blow, we bow to none but God. Deus Vult.

Blogger Cis Scum January 23, 2020 4:34 PM  

There is the question of whether Bergoglio is or is not a self declared diabolist. If the answer is yes then the case for sede privationism is undeniable and conclusive.

Bergoglio in his own words (translation follows):

«Ma io credo a questo. [Il mondo] non tollera la Madonna, non tollera e non tollera di più quella parola del vostro nome: Immacolata. È stata l’unica persona solamente umana nella quale lui sempre ha trovato la porta chiusa, dal primo momento».

Chi è lui? Lo scopriamo con le parole conclusive:

«Non tollera. Ma pensate anche il momento che voi vivete adesso come una persecuzione diabolica. Pensatela così».

https://www.cruxfidelis.it/maria-contro-il-serpente/

"But I believe in this. [The world] doesn't tolerate the Madonna, it doesn't tolerate and no longer tolerates that word in your name: Immaculate. She was the only solely human person in whom he has always found the door closed, from the first moment".

Who is he? We find out with the concluding words:

"It doesn't tolerate. But you may also think of the moment you currently live as a diabolical persecution. Think of it thus."

Is Bergoglio a self declared diabolist or is he not? This is the question.

Blogger tublecane January 23, 2020 4:42 PM  

I am an "ethnic Catholic" heretic, and like most people raised Catholic I don't know much Catholic doctrine. I do know some history, but I don't know what we're supposed to do when an anti-Pope usurps the throne of Peter.

If only people were rushing the Vatican walls instead of U.S. border checkpoints.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 23, 2020 4:46 PM  

Ominous Cowherd wrote:Serious question then, Snidely: what is the purpose?
To participate in Christ's sacrifice of the Cross. To offer our own crosses, not to complete His sacrifice, but to complete our participation.
To worship God in Spirit and Truth.
To eat His body and drink His blood, as he commanded us to do, in memory or Him.
To drink from the font of limitless grace.

One of the problems with worship services in the vernacular is that the participants worry about accidentals, like learning, or admonition or what Mary said to Martha, rather than the inward disposition of offering and acceptiance that are the actual essence.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 23, 2020 4:48 PM  

Solon wrote:How do you cut this Gordian knot?

There's only two possibilities, as I see it: the sheep rebel, and leave the flock, or they go to the slaughter blindly.

Ours is not the battle. The battle is God's. Ours is our duty, to remain faithful.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 23, 2020 4:50 PM  

tublecane wrote:I do know some history, but I don't know what we're supposed to do when an anti-Pope usurps the throne of Peter.
Bear your cross, it's what He told us to do.

Blogger Jose Miguel January 23, 2020 4:55 PM  

@40 Seth S

I really don't get Catholics. Why try to save a converged organization when you can be a christian without it?

I really don't get Noah. Why try to live Godly building an ark when you can live Godly without it?

I'm not Roman Catholic and even I get the point.

Blogger Daniel January 23, 2020 4:59 PM  

Snidely Whiplash wrote:tublecane wrote:I do know some history, but I don't know what we're supposed to do when an anti-Pope usurps the throne of Peter.

Bear your cross, it's what He told us to do.


So who is best bearing his cross: the Kurgan in defiance of the false pope and Vatican II, or the "regular" Roman Catholic in submission to the same?

Blogger Mad Dad January 23, 2020 5:02 PM  

Fr Ripperger the exorcist says demons have the same reaction to Novus Ordo host as they do to Latin Mass host in cases of possession, implying its validity. Instead of quabbling about
what a "public defection from the faith" is interpreted as, let's get video footage of a blind test by someone who's manifesting. Latin Eucharist, novus Eucharist, and Boone's Farm.

Blogger xevious2030 January 23, 2020 5:03 PM  

“did the church have the authority to change the language of the mass”

The issue is not simply the changing of one language to another one. If so inclined to answer, what was the weapon God unleased at Babylon in Genesis 11? Same, what did the V2 people do to the RCC?

Blogger carnaby January 23, 2020 5:06 PM  

Newscaper312 wrote:guess carnaby has never heard of missals that have the local local vernacular translations alongside the Latin.

You are correct! That's very interesting, the entire year of service is worked out in advance, and is read from Latin or English (or whatever is the local language I presume)? And everything else I need to know via Info Galactic:

https://infogalactic.com/info/Missal

Blogger VD Bear January 23, 2020 5:07 PM  

@jose
Is your Noah analogy specifically from The Kurgan’s perspective? Noah had no other option if he wanted to live. Seth S’ point is objectively true (unless you agree that only Catholic receive God’s saving grace through Jesus Christ). I would suspect that Seth is stating a common opinion of catholics among Protestants, that they care a great deal about lots of other documents besides the Bible to the point that it’s confusing.

Blogger Zeke OF Confettii January 23, 2020 5:09 PM  

But SDL, thou art the Presiding Dark Lord of this Galaxy, and I believed the terms to be concurrent.

Blogger Daniel January 23, 2020 5:10 PM  

Jose Miguel wrote:@40 Seth S

I really don't get Catholics. Why try to save a converged organization when you can be a christian without it?

I really don't get Noah. Why try to live Godly building an ark when you can live Godly without it?

I'm not Roman Catholic and even I get the point.


Yes, but this assumes the RC org is holy, and merely troubled. The Sede Privationist argument is that it is, in fact, unholy and heretical: that there is nothing to save.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 23, 2020 5:24 PM  

Daniel wrote:So who is best bearing his cross: the Kurgan in defiance of the false pope and Vatican II, or the "regular" Roman Catholic in submission to the same?
I won't say I know Kurgan, but I know some of his burdens. This is the least of his crosses, if it even qualifies as a cross.

Daniel wrote:The Sede Privationist argument is that it is, in fact, unholy and heretical: that there is nothing to save.
Those who accept that argument have left. Those who do not, remain.

BTW, not even the most simplistic of Traditionalists argue that the Church has no right to change the language of the Mass. There are instead 3 questions: Was it wise to do so? 2) are the changes within the scope authorized by the council at Vatican II? and 3) is the changed Mass still a valid Mass?
The answers are No, No, and Yes.

Blogger Gregory the Tall January 23, 2020 5:28 PM  

Who watches the watchers or in this case the pope and the bishops? I assume God does waiting calmly unto the day he decides to act. Which will be nasty for those who acted against him, but very sweet for those who are with him.

Blogger The Kurgan January 23, 2020 5:31 PM  

@4 Snidely Whiplash you are being either fundamentally dishonest or are genuinely too emotionally invested to bother be rational. As you and I have argued this ad nauseam, I will point out the illogic and errors in your "argument" such as it is, for the benefit of others.

1. It is not *I* who decides whether a cleric is a valid cleric or not. It is the Magisterium of the Church. Now pay attention, because I have explained this to you only about 2 dozen times: The Magisterium of the Church put the Code of Canon Law together. That means it is BINDING on lay people and clergy alike and that same Code SPECIFIES that anyone who is a persistent heretic LOSES THEIR OFFICE Snidely. And it also specifies, that NO ONE requires to pronounce or officialise ANYTHING for this to happen. It spells it out: The law itself convicts them. No one need judge anything. It is done. It is a fact. Which is an eminently obvious and simple and logical necessity of reality. If a guy starts swinging a golf club at a basketball game, he clearly is no longer playing basketball and whatever he does on the court has no bearing on basketball.

2. I can't assume you're ignorant because you have been told this repeatedly and I have given you a personal copy of the Code of Canon Law of 1917. Which you LIED about, stating you had read and knew all about it and in fact I proved (I still have the screencaps) that you had NEVER read it and you were referring to the FAKE code of 1983, created by non-clerics. Which is why you THANKED me when you received a copy. Unfortunately you have since then not ever made a logical argument against what I just wrote, you merely repeat your nonsensical and demonstrably false statements like a mantra.

So as to you point that *I* don't have the authority to state Bergoglio and all the impostors that don't reject V2 are fake clerics, I agree. And I am not doing any such thing. I am simply following what the Church, through its valid Magisterium has made Law. You know this and had no response to this logic, so stop pretending otherwise.

Blogger Karen took the Kids January 23, 2020 5:31 PM  

Jordan Peterson is the only legitimate President of the Milky Way Galaxy. Stay in your lane Dark Lord.

Blogger Mary MacArthur January 23, 2020 5:36 PM  

"*Sede Privationism is the position that the Holy See is not in fact empty (Sede Vacantis – from the Latin meaning Empty Chair) but rather filled, by an impostor, non-valid, fake cleric of the Church, thus Preventing (Privating) the seat from being legitimately filled."

If that's the premise of Sede-Privationism, history proves it ridiculous. The existence of an antipope doesn't prevent the existence of a legitimate pope, even if the antipope is the one in the Vatican and the real pope is elsewhere. There have been multiple such cases.

Blogger The Kurgan January 23, 2020 5:40 PM  

@7 Irish farmer I assume you're some -1sd in IQ.
1. Where did I say 100%
2. I specifically link to places that have genuine Catholics
3. Your stench of despair is unbecoming of any Christian, since we are not give to a spirit of fear.
4. try not to make assumptions without any evidence to support them. You've made a bunch.
5. Novus Orco is not Catholic at all or valid at all. Your "belief" has nothing to do with it, it's a legal argument, which frankly, I don't think you understand.

Blogger The Kurgan January 23, 2020 5:44 PM  

@12 Jason, your logic is flawed, not mine. If a "priest" is "ordained" in the Novus Orco he is not actually a valid priest of the Catholic Church, since the people "ordaining him" are not valid clerics and can't bestow valid sacraments, so it's immaterial what he does after his fake ordination.

Blogger Chris Ritchie January 23, 2020 5:48 PM  

I would ask what the Kurgan proposes to do with those he deems "heretics." This should cut through all of the theological banter.

Blogger The Kurgan January 23, 2020 5:50 PM  

@28 James Lovebirch - Jay Dyer was stomped in our "debate" the fact people responded to internet bumfight techniques is irrelavant since MPAI. I have disected every one of Dyer's arguments at my blog gfilotto.com feel free to try to refute any of the points I made there on the entire debate and every one of Jay's points.

Blogger Chris Ritchie January 23, 2020 5:52 PM  

One man's heretic is another man's reformer.

Why are we all so concerned with what others believe? Should one group be able to wield the sword over another group to force compliance to a line of thought? You know where I'm going with this. Look at the parallels through history. Oh and Calvin is just as guilty with his theocracy in Geneva and the murder of Michael Servetus.

Blogger James Lovebirch January 23, 2020 5:52 PM  

@37

There are issues of dead faith. Orthodoxy as a whole has internal conflicts, and people, chapels, bishops and even patriarchates can fall away. But I'm not entirely convinced you gave those people a fair shake.

What do you think Orthodox people should do differently? Should every churchgoer fly to Guatemala to build houses or something?

Don't underestimate the effect of living right and doing right. The most important thing is worrying about yourself and setting a good example.

@47

Fair and point taken, but I think people understood what I meant.

@55

Kurgan's arguments entail that, and that's what he should do in order to be more logically consistent. RCC dogma is that Jesus promised Rome would never fall to apostasy. If the Pope is apostate as Kurgan believes, RCC is a false church by its own logic, but he doesn't understand RCC dogma yet and appears to be caught up in a delusional bubble fueled by pride.

Blogger Newscaper312 January 23, 2020 5:54 PM  

OT -- Brexit Act passed Parliament and the Queen has assented.
Adios EU, next Friday.

https://twitter.com/DExEUgov/status/1220354468207874048

Blogger caecus January 23, 2020 5:56 PM  

President of the Galaxy...Zaphod Breeblevox

Blogger Ominous Cowherd January 23, 2020 6:09 PM  

@61, thank you, Snidely. That's new info to me.

Blogger The Kurgan January 23, 2020 6:10 PM  

@76 impressive display of binary logic there. Did I say it makes it impossible for a valid Pope to exist concurrently? No. YOU assumed that. Although in the current circumstances, because of the extent of the Novus Orcian take-over even if a Legitimate Pope could be elected, which is extremely doubtful since none of the offices of the Holy See are currently occupied by valid clerics, it would be unwise to do so.

Blogger furor kek tonicus ( no need to be racist, Ratchets can Karen better than anybody ) January 23, 2020 6:12 PM  

27. Elijah January 23, 2020 3:00 PM
question: did the church have the authority to change the language of the mass?



Jesus and the Apostles spoke Aramaic.

a "Latin Mass" is already a "change of the language". a long standing one, to be sure, but a change nonetheless.

nor is there anything particularly "holy" about the language of the pagan Roman empire. that's a knee slapper if ever there was one. tell it to the Christian martyrs being murdered in the Coliseum.



29. Snidely Whiplash January 23, 2020 3:01 PM
They will as soon as they discover that he was Islamophobic.



i'd have thought that the fact that he liked adult women would have been sufficient ... but i've been wrong before.

https://infogalactic.com/info/Anglican_Church_sexual_abuse_cases
"In 2015 the Anglican church has considered bringing back the ability to permanently dismiss or "defrock" an Anglican priest because of clerical abuse; this ability was abolished in 2003 over concerns about wrongful convictions."

IF
a prelate cannot absolutely and conclusively demonstrate his innocence in a matter as significant as the rape of children
THEN
he would, by definition, fail to meet the Biblical requirement that he have a good reputation in order to hold authority in the Church.

ie - the priorities of the Anglicans, as with the Orthodox and Catholics before them, are completely bass ackwards. they are FAR more concerned with protecting the privileges of the Clergy than protecting the rights of the parishioners.



50. Snidely Whiplash January 23, 2020 4:15 PM
Assuming falsities gets us nowhere.



so why are you arguing with Kurgan?

i've got to get going so i'll leave off at comment 50. if anybody else has something pithy to say to me i'm not ignoring you, i just don't haven't read it yet.


Blogger papabear January 23, 2020 6:15 PM  

"Axiom: The Catholic Church is the true and Valid Church instituted by Jesus Christ on Earth. This is the assumed starting axiomatic point. That is, regardless of if you personally agree or not with it, for the purposes of this argument it is assumed to be true and correct as our starting point."

This might be an axiom but it's not the only one. He also assumes Latin ecclesiology, especially concerning the bishop of Rome. Only a few Latin theologians are willing to entertain the possibility of a manifest heretic occupying the see of Rome. Most Latins believe that it is impossible for a manifest heretic to be the valid bishop of Time because of infallibility, the gates of hell, and all that. Hence they have to figure a way out of this problem: some sede-theory, conspiracy theory concerning the papal conclave, etc.

For the separated Apostolic Christians and some non-Latin Catholics who accept the traditions of their separated brothers, there is no such problem as they believe it is quite possible for a heretic to become the bishop of Rome or for the bishop of Rome to teach heresy. Different ecclesiologies, different implications.

As for Vatican 2, which was an ecumenical council only for Latins and Latinized non-Latin Catholics, I do not know of any clear heresy in it's documents, that is to say some error is presented as being of Sacred Tradition and necessary to believe for one's salvation. But there may be plenty of erroneous statements in the document, e.g. concerning the modern world, Jews, Muslims, etc. Not yet heresy as they are not said to be of the Tradition or the Gospel. But still wrong.

Blogger Ranger January 23, 2020 6:22 PM  

According to the Catholic Church, who has the authority to interpret the Code of Canon Law? Can any layman interpret it as he wills? What happens when the interpretation of 2 people differs?

Blogger M. Bibliophile January 23, 2020 6:27 PM  

Snidely nailed it. Thank you, brother.

Blogger Wild Ape January 23, 2020 6:39 PM  

I would like to see a class action lawsuit against CNN and others for election interference. This is the second Democrat primary that they rigged with debate times, giving their candidates questions and one sided reporting. It also is a point of division within the Democrats that can be exploited. I would love to see their work droid turn and tend the press and call out their game news. It makes the popcorn taste better.

Blogger Creepingsancy January 23, 2020 6:48 PM  

Wasn't Martin Luther trying to accomplish the same thing as the Kurgan? Namely "bring the chruch back to it's rightfull place?""

Blogger Shane Bradman January 23, 2020 6:53 PM  

As per Kurgan's insistence to us all to read the Vatican 2 documents, I found a flaw in his argument. Lumen gentium 14 states that the Catholic Church is the only means to salvation, leaving exception for when normal initiation into the Church can be skipped. This is a direct contradiction to the claim that Vatican 2 claims the Catholic Church is not the only means to salvation. I believe the translation that "The Heresies of Vatican II" uses is intentionally misleading.
All Catholics must remember that schism must be avoided and if we have any issues, we solve them from within.
But all Catholics must also accept that since Vatican 2 Catholicism has declined. Vatican 2 is one of the factors, and anything that drives people away from the Church cannot be good. I'm not a bishop so my opinion on the theology is worthless, but my opinion on the fruits is very valid.

Blogger Servant of the Chief January 23, 2020 7:00 PM  

All else being equal, his first question is already answered because the 1983 Code of Canon Law superceded and abrogated the 1917 code of canon law. Trying to justify the literally impossible stance of Sede-privationism through legalistic wrangling is shenanganery worthy of Jay Dryer.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch January 23, 2020 7:04 PM  

@10, @12, @28, @30 @43, I agree.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch January 23, 2020 7:11 PM  

@61, @73 Agreed.

Blogger God Emperor Memes January 23, 2020 7:12 PM  

"Latin Mass is beautiful and solemn and I've never felt closer to God."

Obama said something similar about hearing the Islamic Call To Prayer

Blogger Elder Son January 23, 2020 7:13 PM  

Dr. Michael Heiser & The Rock in Matthew 16:18 - Which Rock Will The Church Be Built On?

Short version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73CJPCf_jDo

Long version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLxGOv76hOU

Blogger Scott January 23, 2020 7:13 PM  

I know nothing about the Catholic political controversy. But, I bet the Jesuits did this.

Blogger Gallant January 23, 2020 7:23 PM  

The discussion here is 2 levels of theological analysis above how I, and I suspect many, went through the catholic experience growing up. Just realize many of us just look at this pope and where things are going and think : "Something is going very, very wrong here"

Blogger VFM #7634 January 23, 2020 7:48 PM  

And Kurgan (nor any other layman) has no authority to declare in any binding way that anyone at all, much less a bishop of the Church, a heretic or apostate. That authority resides with the bishops as well.

Ah yes, THAT argument.

Just because we lack legal authority to boot the fake pope and bishops out of their sees doesn't mean we don't have the right -- nay, obligation -- to use our God-given reason to recognize that they're fakes, and furthermore to make it clear to everyone we can that they're fakes.

Blogger CM January 23, 2020 7:53 PM  

It's not about you. The Mass is not for your entertainment

Your right. It's not about us. But liturgy is about the people giving worship to God, and how do we worship if we know not what we are saying?

However... anyone attending latin mass should be reading scripture as well, being daily in the word. They should also be educated in what the latin says. So if you do this, worshipping in an unfamiliar language shouldn't be a barrier to heartfelt worship.

Something protestant churches lack is a "fear" of the Lord - a respect that comes with recognizing His Holiness and Might. The latin mass and high church are more effective at communicating this than the low church is. However, there's a place for low church to, where we can experience the close intimacy that came with Jesus' sacrifice. You sorta need both, though. Jesus' sacrifice is meaningless without coming to terms with God as Almighty and Holy God and His love for us is not truly appreciated without the personal "face to face" with the Savior.

Blogger Jay Will January 23, 2020 7:54 PM  

Maybe kill all the pedos first and work the rest out after.

Blogger VFM #7634 January 23, 2020 7:54 PM  

We Bible-believing Anglicans are Catholic without the hocus-pocus and priestcraft.

@Anglican
That's otherwise known as "Protestant".

Do you understand the words? If not, what is the point? How many people attending Latin mass can understand? If you can't understand it, then is it more or less like listening to instrumental music?

@carnaby
I like how the major argument the pushers of the Bogus Ordo used for using the vernacular was that people are too stupid to learn another language. Particularly when it was used for something that they saw every Sunday.

I really don't get Catholics. Why try to save a converged organization when you can be a christian without it?

@Seth S
We're trying to be Catholics, i.e., Christians who accept the tenets of the Catholic Faith, without the fakes in the Vatican.

According to the Catholic Church, who has the authority to interpret the Code of Canon Law? Can any layman interpret it as he wills? What happens when the interpretation of 2 people differs?

@Ranger
Only two possibilities: Either one person is objectively correct and the other wrong, or they're both wrong. You do believe in objective truth, right?

Blogger Ska_Boss January 23, 2020 8:05 PM  

Christ builds his church one stone, one believer at a time. It is not an earthly kingdom, he says so himself.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch January 23, 2020 8:24 PM  

@102

Maybe this will help.

"Latin: The Sacramental Language"

https://onepeterfive.com/latin-high-language/

Blogger MisesMat January 23, 2020 8:28 PM  

Sadly, this entire argument is moot.

Canon Law cannot depose a Pope. Only DIVINE law can. As Mr. Whiplash is (I believe) trying say. Only an improper council of cardinals can declare the Pope deposed.

So, when the Kurgan has says, "*I* am not declaring the Pope deposed but cannon Law is!" he is gravely mistaken. The Pope cannot be deposed by Cannon Law because the Pope is ABOVE Cannon Law.

Further, Pope Francis is Pope because he has Universal Acceptance as Supreme Pontiff. (See here for a good explanation: https://onepeterfive.com/dogmatic-fact-francis-pope/)

Kurgan, would you be willing to debate Robert Siscoe on this? He or John Salza would be happy to do so since they have written the most comprehensive refutation of a position almost identical to yours. (See www.trueorfalsepope.com)

Blogger Laramie Hirsch January 23, 2020 8:40 PM  

@107 Another debate! That'd be a good one. An even better one, really.

Blogger MisesMat January 23, 2020 8:41 PM  

My apologies for not including this link in my original comment. It shows what I mean about the Kurgan's argument from Cannon Law being false:

http://web.archive.org/web/20130420071139/http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature_-_The_Errors_of_Sedevacantism.pdf

Would be happy to set up a written or oral debate with you and Siscoe/Salza!

Blogger ZhukovG January 23, 2020 8:45 PM  

I'll let the guy who was Pope for most of the Council say it:

Pope Paul VI: "In view of the pastoral nature of the Council, it has avoided proclaiming in an extraordinary manner any dogma carrying the mark of infallibility.`` --Pope Paul VI, Audience of 12 January, 1966

Pope Paul VI: "The magisterium of the Church did not wish to pronounce itself under the form of extraordinary dogmatic pronouncements…`` -Pope Paul VI, discourse closing Vatican II, 7 December, 1965

Bottom line, Protestants were correct when they criticized Vatican II of changing nothing.

However, the since the council any number of 'wolves in sheep's clothing' have taught all manner of error under the cover of a 'Spirit of Vatican II'.

Blogger Shane Bradman January 23, 2020 8:49 PM  

@92. No, Martin Luther was not attempting to return the Catholic Church to its former state. He was trying to radically alter Catholic doctrine with heretical theology. His behaviour reflects this. You cannot accuse Kurgan of being a heretic. A schismatic, possibly, but he's certainly no heretic.

@104. Anglicans are somewhere between schismatics and heretics. It's hard to tell. We don't look at them as fondly as we do the Orthodox, but we don't have the same disdain that we do for Protestants. The Queen's chaplain was offered a position of Bishop when he converted to Catholicism because some of the Anglican procedures are considered legitimate. Nobody really has any idea what's going on with the Anglicans. There are protestant factions and more Catholic factions to it.

Blogger Shane Bradman January 23, 2020 8:51 PM  

@99. "I know nothing about the Catholic political controversy. But, I bet the Jesuits did this."

We can all stop commenting on this thread. All that needs to be said has been said.

Blogger Cash January 23, 2020 8:54 PM  

This is what happens when you don't have sex.

Blogger jeandearc January 23, 2020 8:55 PM  

The Kurgan is, nonetheless, a false traditionalist. Firstly, his claims of "sedeprivationism" was never taught as dogma by the Magisterium. The correct position is Sedevacantism which means the Chair of St. Peter is empty, a period wherein there is no pope. This happens after a pope dies or after a pope resigns. However, the seat can also be considered empty if the one occupying is proven to be a manifest heretic, like in the case of the Vatican II antipopes from John XIII to Francis. These antipopes perpetuated Vatican II, a false council which taught doctrines condemned by the Church, e.g. false ecumenism, the new mass, etc. Manifest heretics are automatically excommunicated from the Church and are not legible for ecclesiastical positions, hence why Francis is not a pope. And also, the Church can exist even for decades without a pope. The Great Western Schism is a primary example that lasted for almost 40 years. What's happening in Rome now is the Great Apostasy prophesied in the Bible.

Secondly, the Kurgan is a manifest heretic despite his rejection of Vatican II because he believes in the heretical doctrines of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. His rejection of the necessity of water baptism is condemned by the Council of Trent. He believes pagans, atheists and other non-Catholics can be saved due to their ignorance. That is false and, in my own opinion, absurd. God, by His Providence, allowed them to be left in their ignorance because He knows they'll likely reject the truth as it is. In order to be saved and merit Eternal Life, one must be a member of the Catholic Church and must believe and follow its doctrines. How does one to become a Catholic? Through the Sacrament of water Baptism as Our Lord clearly stated in John 3:5 "Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." There is only one baptism: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." [Ephesians 4:5]

Now, in regards to Snidely's rebuttal to Kurgan. He is completely wrong in regards that laymen cannot declare someone as heretic or apostate. I'll quote the arguments for that. "The authority a Catholic has to determine that heretics are not members of the Church is Catholic dogma, which teaches us that those who depart from the Faith are considered alien to the Church. Pope Leo XIII, Satis Cognitum (# 9), June 29, 1896: “The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM.”
The Catholic Church also "teaches that formal processes and judgments are not necessary for ipso facto (by that very fact) excommunications to take effect... Most heretics are are known to be heretics without a trial or declaratory sentence, and must be denounced as such. Pope Pius VI, Auctorem fidei, Aug. 28, 1794: “47. Likewise, the proposition which teaches that it is necessary, according to the natural and divine laws, for either excommunication or for suspension, that a personal examination should precede, and that, therefore, sentences called ‘ipso facto’ have no other force than that of a serious threat without any actual effect” – false, rash, pernicious, injurious to the power of the Church, erroneous." (Answers to the Most Common Objections Against Sedevacantism https://www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com/)

Blogger Shane Bradman January 23, 2020 9:00 PM  

"What's happening in Rome now is the Great Apostasy prophesied in the Bible."
No it's not. We are not in the end times. Don't predict the end times. Stop thinking about the end times. That's not our responsibiliy or anything we should be worried about. The Catholic Church is in a bad spot right now and we need to fix that. That's all we should focus on.

Blogger Ransom Smith January 23, 2020 9:04 PM  

I really don't get Catholics. Why try to save a converged organization when you can be a christian without it?
Best to let them argue amongst themselves and stay out of it.
Don't fight a fight that isn't yours.

Blogger MisesMat January 23, 2020 9:11 PM  

Hello Jeanderc,

I'm afraid you badly misunderstand a number of points. Please prayerfully consider some of the arguments I'll link too.

The Kurgan is actually correct on the "Baptism of Desire." See this article: http://web.archive.org/web/20130115102234/https://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature%20-%20Salza%20v%20Goddard%20on%20Baptism%20of%20Desire.pdf

Likewise, your citation of Pius VI is in reference to "known heretics" such as Protestants or atheists such as Richard Dawkins. It is not going to work on, say Pope Francis. (See here: http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/the-bonds-of-unity-with-church-reply-to.html)
I'll pray for you tonight, I ask you do the same for me.

Blogger MisesMat January 23, 2020 9:15 PM  

Also, jeandearc, I'm not sure if you're interested in Debating Robert Siscoe, but I'd be happy to set something up!

Blogger Jose Miguel January 23, 2020 9:23 PM  

@69 VD Bear

Moreso the general Roman Catholic one than the Kurgan's specific one. One of the central claims of the Roman church at least since the mid thirteenth century is that there is no salvation outside of submission to Rome. It was one of the final nails in the coffin for those who sought to mend the Great schism.

If this claim is true, as most Trad Roman Catholics I know believe, then one would stay and fight to kick the servants of Satan out of the pilot seat of the one and only ark. Jumping out of the ark and into certain damnation to them would be madness.

@71 Daniel

Then the Sede Privasionist argument is amazingly similar as the argument all the other ancient Churches gave Rome a millennia ago.

Blogger Akulkis January 23, 2020 9:24 PM  

<<"We Bible-believing Anglicans are Catholic without the hocus-pocus and priestcraft.

@Anglican
That's otherwise known as "Protestant".>>

The irony of the members of a church which split from the rest of Christiandom because their Bishop wanted to be recognized as superior to everyone else, after which rot sets in, casting aspersions on anybody who leaves that corrupt body is absolutely astounding.

The original splitters calling anyone else splitters, by any form, would be downright hilarious if it wasn't so sad.

And why did everyone else split from the original splitters? Precisely for this problem with popes that keeps recurring in the Roman church, century after century.

Whatever criticisms you have with Protestants of any stripe, why don't you keep your complaints to doctrine, as opposed to doing to the Roman Church exactly what the Roman Church did to the rest of the Christian world, but with the difference that the Roman church split out of a quest for power, whereas the Protestant churches split with Rome over manifest evil in Rome.

Blogger VFM #7634 January 23, 2020 9:32 PM  

@107 MisesMat

So, when the Kurgan has says, "*I* am not declaring the Pope deposed but cannon Law is!" he is gravely mistaken. The Pope cannot be deposed by Cannon Law because the Pope is ABOVE Cannon Law.

Oh facepalm. Canon Law is stating an objective fact, that a heretic cannot be Pope.

Further, Pope Francis is Pope because he has Universal Acceptance as Supreme Pontiff.

Not really. It doesn't apply to Kurgan. It doesn't apply to me. It doesn't even apply to those who mistakenly think Benedict XVI is still Pope. So it looks like your Acceptance by Catholics isn't very Universal, isn't it?

Kurgan, would you be willing to debate Robert Siscoe on this? He or John Salza would be happy to do so since they have written the most comprehensive refutation of a position almost identical to yours. (See www.trueorfalsepope.com)

Their tome, which is clearly dripping with Gamma, is debunked here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dmjb5xw72C0

Blogger VFM #7634 January 23, 2020 9:34 PM  

"What's happening in Rome now is the Great Apostasy prophesied in the Bible."
No it's not. We are not in the end times.


@115 Shane Bradman
If Vatican II isn't the Great Apostasy, it'll do very well until the real Great Apostasy gets here.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch January 23, 2020 9:53 PM  

@115 Incorrect. We are to keep our eyes open to the End Times and persevere and stay strong throughout them. This is why Christ told us of those days, to say nothing of the other miracles since Bible Times.

Blogger Azure Amaranthine January 23, 2020 10:02 PM  

"To participate in Christ's sacrifice of the Cross. To offer our own crosses, not to complete His sacrifice, but to complete our participation.
To worship God in Spirit and Truth.
To eat His body and drink His blood, as he commanded us to do, in memory or Him.
To drink from the font of limitless grace."


Sound without meaning can convey a spirit at best, and possibly not even that will be received. Never can the body of meaning be received by words that are not understood. Participation is then debatable.

To worship God in Spirit and Truth. This is a good answer. They cannot be worshiping him in truth, being separate from the meaning, but in spirit it is possible.

For the Eucharist, can they recognize His body and blood?

To drink from the font, certainly.

All in all, well answered.

"The Sede Privationist argument is that it is, in fact, unholy and heretical: that there is nothing to save."

I'm sure there are things to save. Perhaps not much of the hierarchy though. Different people are of course still fit to save different things.

"The existence of an antipope doesn't prevent the existence of a legitimate pope, even if the antipope is the one in the Vatican and the real pope is elsewhere."

Doesn't necessarily prevent permanently. It certainly can prevent temporarily. If you want to argue that point, answer me who's the legit Pope right now? Would that seat have been allowed to stand so long empty if there were not an imposter in it?

For anyone else on the Orthodox or Catholic axis, who's hosting/serving dinner? That's the leader. Whoever wishes to be greatest among you must...?

Blogger jeffinjapan January 23, 2020 10:03 PM  

I realize Jay Dyer is not very popular in this neck of the woods, but he, as well and other apologist, have completely destroyed the Sede positions.

Blogger Chris Ritchie January 23, 2020 10:08 PM  

In order to be saved and merit Eternal Life, one must be a member of the Catholic Church and must believe and follow its doctrines.

“The practice of the Church has always been the same, as is shown by the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, who were wont to hold as outside Catholic communion, AND ALIEN TO THE CHURCH, WHOEVER WOULD RECEDE IN THE LEAST DEGREE FROM ANY POINT OF DOCTRINE PROPOSED BY HER AUTHORITATIVE MAGISTERIUM.”

This is what the Catholics think of all Protestants?

Don't follow Catholic dogma = not in Catholic Church = No chance of Eternal Life?

Blogger Matthew Baker January 23, 2020 11:16 PM  

I think this video (and accompanying blog for the readers) addresses it well.

https://youtu.be/cuIBNIrUoPI

Blogger Elder Son January 23, 2020 11:17 PM  

“I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me."

"For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them." <--- There is your Church.

Not in the name of your denomination. Not in the name of the Catholic Church, or Protestant Church. Not by some Pope, or Pastor. You come to the Father through one, and one only, Christ Jesus.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 23, 2020 11:19 PM  

VFM #7634 wrote:doesn't mean we don't have the right -- nay, obligation -- to use our God-given reason to recognize that they're fakes, and furthermore to make it clear to everyone we can that they're fakes.
Of course you can. What you don't get to do is declare that anyone who disagrees with you on the matter is a satanist and paedophile, which is basically Kurgan's whole schtick.

MisesMat wrote:Canon Law cannot depose a Pope. Only DIVINE law can. As Mr. Whiplash is (I believe) trying say. Only an improper council of cardinals can declare the Pope deposed.
False. When it comes down to it, the people of Rome can depose a pope, and have.

MisesMat wrote:the Pope is ABOVE Cannon Law.
False. Canon law is the expression of the Magisterium of the Church, Kurgan is right in this, as far as it goes. The Pope is the administrator and ultimately the interpreter of Canon law, and is explicitly empowered to make exceptions and judgements within the law, but is not above the law, any more than the Supreme Court or the Queen are.


Oh great the Feeneyites have shown up. Prepare for IQ lowering


Blogger James Lovebirch January 23, 2020 11:43 PM  

@80

I read one section of your response to the debate and then verified your claim that something Jay Dyer cited was not in the sources, which you misrepresented (or we could say you lied in order to be as gracious with you as you with Dyer). I believe Ranger pointed out the very example I saw in the last thread we had and explained how your mistake likely happened, which was translation differences. At that point, your response write-up was too reminiscent of a gamma wall of text declaring yourself the winner of a fight you lost for me to continue.

Since you're so fond of picking out quotes from canon law, perhaps you can find a single instance that speaks to what happens when ROME SPECIFICALLY becomes apostate, how it's judged and excommunicated or corrected from without and what all the relevant procedures are? Such a citation would begin to address Snidely, Dyer, others and my criticisms of your position and go a long way to proving the sede position isn't a fool's errand.

Until then, you are a schismatic guiding fellow Catholics to damnation because as Jose points out RC dogma states there's no salvation outside submission to Rome. Schism is worse than heresy because you aren't just wrong, you're attempting to steal God's flock out of his church.

@120

"And why did everyone else split from the original splitters? Precisely for this problem with popes that keeps recurring in the Roman church, century after century."

This is good to point out. I sympathize with the Kurgan's ideas and logic. When supplemented by a more complete understanding of the history of the church, the correct conclusion to come to from his logic is that the RCC was the false church in the schism.

Blogger James January 23, 2020 11:47 PM  

Wow. 116 comments by a majority of religious and Christian men and vastly different interpretations and accusations and condemnations of each other and of each others interpretations. Is this the legacy of Jesus Christ? Was it really meant to be this complicated and full of rules and regulations and codes and counter codes? Ill continue on my path of finding the Truth for myself and my family. You can keep all of this shite. Peace.

Blogger NegrosBear January 23, 2020 11:47 PM  

@114


"Secondly, the Kurgan is a manifest heretic despite his rejection of Vatican II because he believes in the heretical doctrines of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. His rejection of the necessity of water baptism is condemned by the Council of Trent. He believes pagans, atheists and other non-Catholics can be saved due to their ignorance. That is false and, in my own opinion, absurd. God, by His Providence, allowed them to be left in their ignorance because He knows they'll likely reject the truth as it is. In order to be saved and merit Eternal Life, one must be a member of the Catholic Church and must believe and follow its doctrines. How does one to become a Catholic? Through the Sacrament of water Baptism as Our Lord clearly stated in John 3:5 "Jesus answered: Amen, amen I say to thee, unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." There is only one baptism: "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." [Ephesians 4:5]"



Ok I am confused about this one since pre and post Trent Popes and church fathers have said that baptism of blood is not only valid but probably the most Surefire way for salvation.

like St Agustine, St John Chrysostom and St Leo III the Great for pre Trent

And Pope Pius IX and Pope Pius XII for post to name a few



Then there is Trent itself which Session 6, chapter 4


"By which words, a description of the Justification of the impious is indicated,-as being a translation, from that state wherein man is born a child of the first Adam, to the state of grace, and of the adoption of the sons of God, through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our Saviour. And this translation, since the promulgation of the Gospel, cannot be effected, without the laver of regeneration, or the desire thereof, as it is written; unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God."

Either the laver or the desire.
So I don't understand how it can be heretical to hold baptism of blood/desire

Blogger Unknown January 23, 2020 11:51 PM  

swatting

Blogger cyrus83 January 24, 2020 12:01 AM  

I take issue with the definition of Sede Privationism after the questions. The Holy See is either occupied or it is not at any given moment. If there is an imposter claiming the see such a man is an anti-Pope, but an anti-Pope has no bearing on whether or not the see has a legitimate claimant, any privations are a red herring to the question of who holds the office. If there is an anti-Pope and no legitimate Pope, by definition the see is vacant.

There are only 3 possible situations. One is that Francis is pope. The other 2 involve Francis being an anti-Pope, in which case either Benedict XVI is the pope and has been since 2005, or else the see is vacant, having been so since the death or defection of whomever is considered the last legitimate pope.

I lean toward Benedict still being the pope, last week's book authorship kerfuffle in Rome shows something is not on the up and up with Benedict's situation, and it's not the first time.

As for why Catholics will stay and fight the evil in the Church rather than just leaving to start the St. Torquemada Church of the Universal Inquisition, but it has to do with the theology of communion.

Christ is the head of the Church, with the other members part of the body, all the members of which are in communion with each other (that is, Christ, the saints, those suffering in purgatory, those among the living). Leaving the Church is the same as leaving Christ the head in that situation, and is as much folly as the foot desiring to be separated from the body because it dislikes what the hand is doing.

Blogger Mother Country January 24, 2020 12:11 AM  

114 Jeandearc:
Secondly, the Kurgan is a manifest heretic despite his rejection of Vatican II because he believes in the heretical doctrines of Baptism of Desire and Baptism of Blood. His rejection of the necessity of water baptism is condemned by the Council of Trent.

I was taught these doctrines by a very aged and devout Monsignor many years ago who was no heretic. He explained that many people converted in desert areas where pools of water were not available, and that people had converted and been martyred before they could be baptized. (He also told me the Catholic Church has no objection to immersion baptism, and my baptism at age nine in a river was accepted when I converted.) More recently, the 21 Martyrs of Libya included an African man who converted on the beach before being beheaded. It's heresy to believe that man is saved? Really?

Blogger Laramie Hirsch January 24, 2020 12:19 AM  

@125 "I realize Jay Dyer is not very popular in this neck of the woods, but he, as well and other apologist, have completely destroyed the Sede positions."

Which I find very amusing, given that I disagree with Dyer's theology. Who says God isn't without a sense of humor?

Blogger Theproductofafineeduction January 24, 2020 12:28 AM  

Because God Wills It

Blogger God Emperor Memes January 24, 2020 2:38 AM  

These endless bickerings do seem rather Pharisaical at times.

Blogger Ranger January 24, 2020 3:12 AM  

@VFM#7634
"Just because we lack legal authority to boot the fake pope and bishops out of their sees doesn't mean we don't have the right -- nay, obligation -- to use our God-given reason to recognize that they're fakes, and furthermore to make it clear to everyone we can that they're fakes."

Otherwise known as protestant.

"Only two possibilities: Either one person is objectively correct and the other wrong, or they're both wrong. You do believe in objective truth, right?"

Sure. But that still doesn't answer my question. According to the Catholic Church, who has the AUTHORITY to say who is right and who is wrong (or to pronounce them both wrong) in such a dispute? Which judicial or legislative body has the right to declare it?
The code of canon law is a LEGAL code. By its own nature, it demands a structure for settling such disputes.

Blogger JE Hamilton January 24, 2020 4:01 AM  

I think if I was going to arrogate to myself the judgement of heresy, I would investigate myself, and not pick out arguments from a biased list. Besides, wth is it with that site, with a freakin' pyramid for the 'Shop' link? Dodgy paganism, much?

E. Michael Jones had the best of it, IMHO. The rot set in a lo-ong time before Vat II, when the church was bamboozled into accepting Freud's ideas, and accepting Marx's framing of the argument about the working class (even if it resisted Marxism itself). It was pretty much downhill from there. Cardinal Kroll must have been blackmailed to be co-opted the way he was; and there's only one thing that could have blackmailed him.

Blogger James Lovebirch January 24, 2020 5:08 AM  

@74

I have a hard time understanding how you can be so dense. This was spelled out for you in the debate with Dyer and the last thread, so I doubt you'll be able to admit the truth this time. As you said, for the sake of the other readers:

1. Your cherrypicked quote from canon law does not apply to Rome. RC dogma states Rome will never defect and become a bad shepherd. It is protected in its full constitution at the time of V1 by divine providence until the end times. If your argument is right, RC dogma is wrong. Woops

I believe you're right, so I'm not RC as eventually you will be as well.

@78

Your position is that there have been no valid priests ordained since the NO. You believe the RCC has failed and exists into the future only as a LARPed parody of itself. Outside of the 300 chapels on that one website you showed us of course; you think that's equivalent to the historical RCC in defiance of all history, common sense and your dogma.

But again I see why you're reduced to such ridiculous statements:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgKweu0ZWVs

We can all agree something's wrong with that video.

@86

Here you admit you believe the Papacy is permanently defective. This means the RCC is a failed church according to the dogma you don't understand or aren't aware of. Maybe now you can review Jay's citations instead of just lying repeatedly saying he made them up. And then stop pretending to be Catholic while agitating for real Catholics to join your schismatic sect.

Blogger JovianStorm January 24, 2020 6:45 AM  

The Church and Bible are the least important parts of Christianity, with fealty to Christ being the most important. Any organization that purports to speak for God and then spends all its time on rules and rulings is not of the Cross but of the Pharisees.

We don't necessarily need professional churches to sustain Christendom. As an ex-Catholic, I've since chosen the nondenominational route.

Blogger The Kurgan January 24, 2020 7:01 AM  

@130 James, no, you are demonstrably lying. At my write up I have quoted verbatim what Dyer said, what is at the actual document he "quoted" and intentionally misrepresented and I even said it might be possible he believes his own nonsense, which would make him incredibly stupid but not technically a liar, but personally I find that explanation very unlikely.

Nor do I owe you anything. My position is in writing. If you have a counter one that makes sense write it up at my blog and I'll publish it and dissect it, but if you insist on lying as you did in this comment 130.

With regards to Rome becoming apostate as you and your guru Dyer put it, you are making a category error, because you're binary thinking Protestants that can't think in a different way about pretty much anything. This is why American law is so cumbersome too. You have to specify every article or possibility because you are simply not able to use plain logic to extrapolate fairly obvious conclusions from baseline premises.
"Rome" doesn't go apostate. Individual clerics do. And the rules for that are very clear and undeniable, as I have shown. The fact that a majority of them may have become apostates to the point that not a single one remains valid in the Vatican may well be a fact but it doesn't change the rules to be applied, and the rules are fairly straight forward and all have parallels and even exact repetitions of how it is dealt with in the past.
You seem to be ignorant of a great many things, such as the fact of how exactly bishops become ordained and the details of it. Which you'd know if you would have read my dissection of Dyer's "argument".

The plain fact is that you are just plain wrong and are too lazy, emotionally incapable or dishonest to even read and understand the issues before you squawk like a chicken "I can't even!"

And for the record, Snidely has now admitted in private communication that my position is essentially correct but that he disapproves of my rhetoric and methodology of prodding nominal Catholics. His criticism is entirely valid at a personal level, but unfortunately irrelevant at a mass scale and so it shall not change for people like you.

Cattle prods exist precisely for people like you, if not Snidely.

Blogger Bolt January 24, 2020 7:04 AM  

2 Year Converts should sit down and shut up, they shouldn't be declaring who is or is not pope, stop doubling down, you were absolutely stomped by Jay Dyer and your pride won't let you admit it.

If the Sede position is true then Vatican I is also untrue which unravels the whole religion.

Recent converts are full of pride, prelest and misplaced zealotry, they should humble themselves instead.


Blogger The Kurgan January 24, 2020 7:08 AM  

@132 Negrobear, you're entirely correct. Jeandearc is either at least partially autistic or intentionally deceptive. It may also be the general arrogance of the midwit thinking he is smarter than everyone around him, when in truth he is only educated to the level of a CNN sound byte.

For example he states that Sede Privationiosim is not taught as dogma ...duh... then goes on to say the correct position is Sede vacantism.
This is what happens when people think they know thingsa nd instead fail to grasp baseline fundamentals...
Sede Vacante is simply latin for "empty chair" and the chair is quite clearly NOT empty. It is MATERIALLY filled with an impostor. The only VACANCY is in the spiritual office. So, if you are sloppy with words you might call yourself a sedevacantist because in the big picture of things there is no valid Pope in the chair, but I put it to you that just because the guy sitting in it is not a valid Pope, the fact he physically occupies that office makes a huge difference. And only a moron would disagree.

and Negrobear at 132 has already addressed the rest of the nonsense he types so, done and done.

Blogger The Kurgan January 24, 2020 7:09 AM  

@MisesMat drop me an email and let me know what you have in mind and I'll get back to you in due course if I am interested.

Blogger FrankNorman January 24, 2020 7:14 AM  

Looking at the whole RCC self-destruct spiral from the outside, this whole "everyone who doesn't agree with me is a vile heretic" mindset seems unhelpful.

Roman Catholicism teaches people not to think for themselves, but to accept what "The Church" teaches... but all the people who've been doing that are "vile heretics" because what they thought was "The Church" actually isn't?
Seems a bit self-contradicting.

Anyone else noticed what a black-pill mentality this sort of thing leads to?

Blogger ZhukovG January 24, 2020 7:19 AM  

Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Philippians 4:8

Blogger Laramie Hirsch January 24, 2020 7:24 AM  

@139, @140, @141 I agree.

@142 "The Church and Bible are the least important parts of Christianity, with fealty to Christ being the most important."

I once wrote an article, "Christianity Survives Without the Bible". It caused some Protestant caluminators to clutch their pearls and hold a catty grudge for years. It was hilarious.

http://forge-and-anvil.com/2019/03/25/christianity-survives-without-the-bible/

It astounds me how people fail to comprehend people obtaining salvation if they're illiterate or never check the internet news on an hourly basis, not even knowing the pope's name. These days, the monomaniacs argue you have to be a fully-developed lawyer to be practicing the right religion, which is of course wrong.

Blogger VFM #7634 January 24, 2020 7:38 AM  

@129 Snidely

Of course you can. What you don't get to do is declare that anyone who disagrees with you on the matter is a satanist and paedophile, which is basically Kurgan's whole schtick.

Right. I agree with you that this is a bit silly and would qualify as rash judgment. But at the same time, "You don't have the authoritah!" is used all the time by defenders of Francis and the other Vatican II fakes to shut up any skepticism about their validity.

Oh great the Feeneyites have shown up. Prepare for IQ lowering

Okay, that was funny. They're almost as bad as sincere flat-earthers. And the Dimond bros are probably the most Gamma traditionalists I know of.

Sure. But that still doesn't answer my question. According to the Catholic Church, who has the AUTHORITY to say who is right and who is wrong (or to pronounce them both wrong) in such a dispute? Which judicial or legislative body has the right to declare it?
The code of canon law is a LEGAL code. By its own nature, it demands a structure for settling such disputes.


@139 Ranger
Right now? Nobody. Which is why we're engaging in this Protestant-style wrangling at all. "I shall strike the shepherd and the sheep shall be scattered" is quite clearly a prophecy, not just an offhand remark.

Which also makes the AUTHORITAHH argument to shut up skepticism about the Vatican II pretenders even more ridiculous. You can't appeal to an authority if it's the very authority that people are skeptical about which is the problem. It's a feedback loop, or division by zero, or something like that.

I believe you're right, so I'm not RC as eventually you will be as well.

@141 James Lovebirch
Oh, this is just hilarious. So you're a non-Catholic trying to convince Catholics to stay in the Vatican II Bogus Ordo sect.

How about you stop piping up in complete ignorance, butt out, and let people who actually understand the issues debate.

Blogger MisesMat January 24, 2020 8:31 AM  

@121 VFM #7634

Oh facepalm. Canon Law is stating an objective fact, that a heretic cannot be Pope.

Correct. And Cannon Law *also* states how that applies in the case. I don't know if you read the article I linked to in my second comment, but it spells out what I mean: http://web.archive.org/web/20130420071139/http://www.scripturecatholic.com/feature-articles/Feature_-_The_Errors_of_Sedevacantism.pdf

You wrote: " Not really. It doesn't apply to Kurgan. It doesn't apply to me. It doesn't even apply to those who mistakenly think Benedict XVI is still Pope. So it looks like your Acceptance by Catholics isn't very Universal, isn't it?

I'm not sure you read the article I posted which explains this position properly. Here it is again: https://onepeterfive.com/dogmatic-fact-francis-pope/

Here is a list of quotations that lay out exactly what I mean by "universal acceptance": http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/peaceful-and-universal-acceptance-quotes.html

Their tome, which is clearly dripping with Gamma, is debunked here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dmjb5xw72C0


Actually, the authors responded this this video here:

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/sedevacantist-watch-its-all-over-for-fr.html

I would ask that you prayerfully and carefully read through these articles before responding further. Thank you, and I'll pray for you! I ask you do the same for me.

Blogger MisesMat January 24, 2020 8:38 AM  

@129 Snidely Whiplash:

*False. When it comes down to it, the people of Rome can depose a pope, and have.*

I would ask that you please provide a link to this particular episode in history. When did this happen and which antiPope did it happen too?

*"False. Canon law is the expression of the Magisterium of the Church, Kurgan is right in this, as far as it goes. The Pope is the administrator and ultimately the interpreter of Canon law, and is explicitly empowered to make exceptions and judgements within the law, but is not above the law, any more than the Supreme Court or the Queen are."*

Allow me to further explain, as I believe we are talking past each other. Part of what is often called "Cannon Law" is actually considered "divine law," and yes, no Pope could ever change this. When a pope loses his office it is because he has severed a link with the part of "Cannon Law" that is considered "Divine Law."

However, he is "above" Cannon Law in the sense that there is no earthly superior would could declare, enforce or remove him from office.
(For a nuanced take on this, see here: https://www.catholic.com/magazine/print-edition/is-the-pope-above-canon-law)

I hope this clears up any confusion. The Kurgan is wrong, however. The Pope is above cannon law (in the sense in which I meant, though may have been unclear on). For just how the Church properly understands removing a Pope, please read this:

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/concerningthe-churchs-treatment-of.html

Blogger The Kurgan January 24, 2020 8:41 AM  

@141 James, you continue to lie.
1. show me where and how exactly it says that. You don't know and you cannot because V1 nor any of the other things Dyer quoted says what you imagine they say.

2. Even IF V1 said what Dyer wants it to, the apostasy of the entirety of the Vatican does NOT equate with the Apostasy of "Rome" because "Rome" is NOT as you and your fearless leader Jay want it to mean, actually mean the city of Rome, or the Vatican, or the offices of the Vatican, but it means those PERSONS who compose the HEAD of The Church, that is, the remaining VALID Bishops, and the fact a valid Pope does not currently exist is no impediment to this either as interregnums have amply demonstrated many times before.

Again, you are plain wrong and frankly simply incapable intellectually of grasping the issues, though, to be fair, that is also at least in part due to the fact you're too lazy to actually look them up and engage them so you (dishonestly) think you can "wing" it, on the basis of Jay's misrepresentations.

In short, you are a dishonest and dim waste of time and require no further response until you become more relevant to the realities and facts present before your unwilling eyes.

Blogger The Kurgan January 24, 2020 8:45 AM  

@141 oh and you also lie about me saying there have not been valid priests ordained since V2. Outright lie. Show me where I ever said that or retract immediately. Anything less proves that you are just trolling.

ditto your false assumption that I believe the Papacy is permanently defective. I have whole videos on how this is certainly not the case and even steps to take to fix it. So AGAIN, you lie. Whether because you're too dim to think in anything but the most simplistic binary forms or because you're a deceiver. Either way, there is nothing to be gained in discussing the matter further with someone of your nature.

Blogger ZhukovG January 24, 2020 8:45 AM  

You know in the end, regardless of denomination, all Christians are Southern Baptists.

All Christians are Methodist. All Christians are Lutheran. All Christians are Eastern Orthodox. And all Christians are Roman Catholic.

We are one body.

United by one Lord, one Faith and one Baptism. Saved by Grace and Justified by Faith animated by Hope and Charity; We are The Church, Militant, Suffering and ultimately Triumphant.

The very gates of Hell shall not prevail against us.

Blogger MisesMat January 24, 2020 9:03 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger MisesMat January 24, 2020 9:18 AM  

The Kurgan wrote:
@MisesMat drop me an email and let me know what you have in mind and I'll get back to you in due course if I am interested.


Yes, sir! And thank you for being so bold. Email just sent to GF@GFilotto.com

Blogger VFM #7634 January 24, 2020 9:25 AM  

@MisesMat

Sorry, that wasn't any more tenable and Cekada shot that one down too:

https://youtu.be/RLJerBPp3uo

I don't understand why you're so desperate to have a heretic and apostate as your Pope, but you can't fix stupid I guess.

Blogger MisesMat January 24, 2020 9:35 AM  

VFM #7634 wrote:@MisesMat

Sorry, that wasn't any more tenable and Cekada shot that one down too:

https://youtu.be/RLJerBPp3uo

I don't understand why you're so desperate to have a heretic and apostate as your Pope, but you can't fix stupid I guess.


I hope you have prayerfully gone through the numerous articles I supplied. Mr. Salza and Mr. Siscoe responded to this video of Fr. Cekada's as well:

http://www.trueorfalsepope.com/p/itsall-over-for-fr.html

Please read through it carefully. I am not desperate for Pope Francis to be Pope. But I want to defend the office of the papacy from some folks on this blog who tragically don't fully understand it. Also, taking the road you are will lead to heresy and schism which are crimes against truth and charity. I hope these comments will lead you to (or back to) the true church (which remains true regardless of who is pope.)

Please pray for me and I'll pray for you.

Blogger xevious2030 January 24, 2020 9:46 AM  

First, not picking a fight with Protestants, because of Luke 9:49 “49 And John answered and said , Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.” Strictly speaking to a Catholic about RCC stuff.

1. Was, so is, with the caveat of the best arrangement for the time and the condition.
2. Have not read them, but when was a kid, my Parish was threatened and so changed in the late 1970s, as it was a Latin mass church, and largely defiant as so. Have not read the documents, but the changes were gross, saw them firsthand. So, yes.
3. Yes, if they are aware.
4. No, my Parish persisted until around 1980, but pedantic, non-issue. No, further. Aware of controversy, not necessarily recognizing the heresy. The comparison is false, as familiarity is assumed to be synonymous with the particularities of the individual priests calling, and their legal competence both equal and high. As a 100 IQ, or 90 IQ physicists being equally capable and highly capable, in comparison to a 180 IQ physicist. With the formers, an amount of trust deference may be present in a way not similar to the latter. And that they have both been made aware, and are competent in the distinctions, is an assumption lacking in absolute reality.

01. Reasonable.
02. No, see 4.
03. The mass is the mass, and is not a result of their authority. Transubstantiation is no a magic trick by the power of the operator.
04. Depends on if there were any persons involved that were not heretical, see 4.
05. The removal of validity was invalid. That contrary to the better form is simply inferior.

Blogger VFM #7634 January 24, 2020 10:02 AM  

@MisesMat

Well, this could go on forever, so we'll leave it to the impartial observer as to whether Cekada on the one hand, or Salza and Siscoe on the other, are arguing logically and reasonably, or are consistently using dishonest slides like Adam Schiff. I'm quite sure your heroes are the dishonest ones.

Blogger Akulkis January 24, 2020 10:16 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Akulkis January 24, 2020 10:18 AM  

"Was it really meant to be this complicated and full of rules and regulations and codes and counter codes?"

No, it was not.

The Apostle Paul was formerly called Saul, and was a Pharisee judge and rabbi, and known as "a Pharisee of Pharisees," and probably the greatest enemy of the early Christians.

He was on his way from Jerusalem (where he had recently sentenced Stephen to death by stoning) to Damascus, where he intended to arrest Christians and take them back to Jerusalem for trial.

However, on the road to Damascus, Paul had a personal, supernatural experience with resurrected Christ, in which he was surrounded by bright light, causing Saul to fall to the ground, and he heard a voice asking, "Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?"

Saul replied with his own question, "Who are you, Lord?"
And the reply was, "I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do."

Saul's companions heard the voice, but didn't see anybody, and when Saul opened his eyes, he was blind for the next three days, and his companions lead him by hand into Damascus.

At the same time, Ananias of Damascus received divine instruction to go to the house of Judas on a street called Straight, and visit Saul.

He arrived in Damascus a devout Christian, but his reputation as a persecutor of Christians preceded him, so much that the Christian community feared that he was trying to trick them, until he was vouched for by Ananias.

It was Paul who first introduced evangelizing to Gentiles (with the approval of Peter, John, and James) and was the first to start Christian churches composed of Gentiles.

Now James (a literal brother of Jesus) and Peter were of the opinion that the Gentile* converts should follow the Jewish Law as laid out in Leviticus, and who are referred to as "Judaizers."

Paul argued (and apparently won) the idea that Gentiles need only follow the Mosaic law (The Commandments), but not the dietary, etc. laws of Leviticus, and wrote letters to the churches he founded among the gentiles telling them to beware of, and disregard the words of Judaizers.

Note, above that Peter was one of these Judaizers. It appears that, having been thwarted in piling the laws of Leviticus onto the Gentile churches started by Paul, Peter then went to Rome, established a Gentile church there, and started culture which produced it's own, new set of Leviticus-like laws for Christians which are found in no other Church, other than, to some extent, some of those which separated from it, after it separated itself from the rest of Christianity (and which eventually sent out an army which sacked Constantinople, which was the undisputed center of the Christian world from about 100 AD until being sacked by the Roman church's armies which were supposedly raised for the purpose of a Crusade to liberate Jerusalem from the Moslems.)

The rest of us Christians would rather not participate in this endless Talmudic-like arguing like what is found in the Roman church, nor (in contradiction to the scriptures) following men who never have a wife and children while calling these same men "father."

The whole of this argument within the Roman church is due entirely to their violating the words of Jesus, who specifically said, "Call no man your father"... and so they call their local leader "father" and their senior bishop, "pope" (which is just another word for papa = father).

* mostly Greek, since many Jews outside of, and some living inside, Jerusalem spoke Greek as their first language

Blogger VFM #7634 January 24, 2020 11:29 AM  

Furthermore, MisesMat, it would behoove you not to be so trusting of a 32nd-degree Freemason, even if -- especially if -- he claims not to be one anymore.

Blogger Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi January 24, 2020 11:55 AM  

I haven't had the time to go through all of the Kurgan's arguments, but at a first glance it just seems like an updated version of Donatism.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash January 24, 2020 11:59 AM  

Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi wrote:at a first glance it just seems like an updated version of Donatism.
You're too dumb to contribute anything to this conversation.

Blogger NegrosBear January 24, 2020 12:20 PM  

@163

Alukis that is bullroar Rome was always considered the tiebreaker at the councils and had the final say, while Constantinople is a patriarchate to be sure it's position was tenuous at Best in comparison to Rome or even Antioch or Alexandria historically speaking.


The 4th crusade is far more complicated than you let on

1st of all the Rhomanoi had, even though THEY asked for help from the west on multiple occasions didn't do their part to to help the Latins


2nd Andronikos I let the massacre tens of thousands Latins in Constantinople


3rd the Crusaders intention was never to destroy the city but instead put in the rightful emperor in Exile Alexios IV back on the throne

Which they did but then the trator Alexios Doukas murdered Alexios IV. So the Crusaders had no choice but to take Constantinople by force to avenge the Emperor and get the funds they were promised so as to continue the Crusade against the saracens

And even then they did not destroy the city which was thier right since they were betrayed AGAIN for the upteenth time

Blogger Jean Durtal January 24, 2020 12:55 PM  

Wow, that turned into a brawl...

While I classify myself as a nominal Sedevacantist (and accept most of their arguments), I lean toward being a "Sede impeditist." The idea being that there was, and possibly still is, a legitimate pope out there since the 1958 election, he has just been prevented from taking his rightful public position, and/or has not revealed himself (for any number of different reasons).

This is one of the main reasons I hesitate with Kurgan's and other "conclavist's" idea of just having the legitimate Catholic world come together to elect a real pope. "Forcing the issue" might not be what God has in mind.

There is also the seemingly legitimate argument that Vatican I stated unequivocally that the office of pope would continue until the end of time. If another sede has an argument against that particular point, I'm interested to hear it.

Blogger Gregory the Tall January 24, 2020 12:56 PM  

We Bible-believing Anglicans are Catholic without the hocus-pocus and priestcraft....
But with the complete English real estate of the catholic church!

Blogger Bernard Brandt January 24, 2020 1:14 PM  

Jeez, EVERY DAMN TIME I swear I'm never gonna drop into the comments section here, something comes up here that seems to require an answer. Here's mine.

I come from the perspective of being a theist, a Christian, and an Eastern Catholic, that is, a member of a Byzantine or other Oriental Church in union with Rome.

It looks to me here as though some definition of terms would be useful. So, at risk of being accused of writing a 'wall of words', here goes:

PREAMBLE

A Christian is one who believes that Jesus Christ is Lord. That is, that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and one with God the Father. Christians generally all believe that both the Hebrew Old Testament (or Tenach) and the Greek New Testament contain the words of God.

By the time that the Roman Emperor Constantine issued the Edict of Toleration, the Christian Church within his ekumene (or area of rule) consisted of five patriarchal churches, based in Jerusalem, Antioch, Rome, Alexandria, and Constantinople.

Between the fourth and eighth century, the bishops of these five churches gathered together in counsel seven times, to define just what the Orthodox and Catholic faith was. In the course of these seven ecumenical councils, they made a number of rules of order, which they called canons. In making these canons, the bishops were guided by both Holy Scripture and the teachings of the Apostles, which was preserved by those who came after those Apostles. This they called Holy Tradition. A number of these canons involved right belief, and those who did not believe in accordance with those canons were called heretics, from the Greek word haeresis, meaning 'choice'.

Between the ninth and eleventh centuries, the Bishops of Rome began to claim that they had plenary authority over the other four Patriarchal Churches, and the authority to issue Rome's own canons, to which the other churches were subject. They disagreed, and ultimately there was a split between the four Orthodox Churches and the Roman Catholic Church.

The Orthodox Churches remain guided by Scripture, Tradition, and the canons of the first seven Ecumenical Councils. The Roman Catholic Church, while also guided by Scripture, Tradition, and the Ecumenical Councils, are also guided by the teachings of the Popes, as defined by them, and the twenty (or so) Papal Councils called by Popes after the first seven Councils (at least for RCs). All of these teachings are collectively called the 'Magisterium'.

Since the split between the Orthodox East and the Catholic West, there have been a number of occasions in which Popes have issued revised Codes of Canon Law. The last two times were under Benedict XV in 1917, and John Paul II in 1987.

MY AMBLE

Two small points to the author of the webpage that VD linked to, and to the Kurgan:

1) The webpage begs the question elaborately. If you are going to call someone a heretic, or an entire Papal council, it is YOU that bear the burden of proof, not me. In the Roman Church, a heretic is someone who has chosen to believe something which the Roman Church has defined as required to believe as true, which can be found in the canons of the Ecumenical or Papal Councils, or the teachings of the Popes.

So, YOU are gonna need to point out the teachings, and where the Second Vatican Council or I have departed from those teachings.

2) If Vatican II has taught heretical error, and all the bishops have been ordained under that error, they are no longer valid bishops. Since that was fifty years ago, the Council Fathers have long since died, that would mean that the entire Apostolic Succession of the Roman Catholic Church has since lapsed, and would be dead.

That would seem to be the reductio ad absurdum for which the Kurgan is arguing. If he's right, his Church is therefore dead. In which case, he would be best advised to go Orthodox.

Blogger VFM #7634 January 24, 2020 6:26 PM  

2) If Vatican II has taught heretical error, and all the bishops have been ordained under that error, they are no longer valid bishops. Since that was fifty years ago, the Council Fathers have long since died, that would mean that the entire Apostolic Succession of the Roman Catholic Church has since lapsed, and would be dead.

That would seem to be the reductio ad absurdum for which the Kurgan is arguing. If he's right, his Church is therefore dead. In which case, he would be best advised to go Orthodox.


The Church is supposed to have a similar life as Jesus Christ. And Jesus Christ was crucified and buried in the tomb for three days, and it looked like no recovery was possible. So is it with the Church.

Blogger Laramie Hirsch January 24, 2020 7:56 PM  

@171 And those who can't stomach the passion she goes through---even going so far as to separate from her and attack her with her enemies---are like Judas.

Blogger papabear January 24, 2020 9:04 PM  

@170 Thumbs up from this Eastern Catholic.

Blogger James Lovebirch January 25, 2020 12:18 AM  

@153 @154

The criticism about how I phrased the priest part is fair, but I did mention your chapels you do accept.

It appears you think there's some hidden fallback in the RC system where if the papacy permanently fails, the church reverts back to how it operated in the first millenium, which is also how the EO church has always operated. That common-sense, very logical way of doing things was rejected permanently at the schism. Keep reading and see if my assessment isn't right. Papal infallibility, the promises to Peter, etc., etc.

Blogger VFM #7634 January 25, 2020 9:19 AM  

Papal infallibility, the promises to Peter, etc., etc.

One of the promises made to Peter was that he and his successors wouldn't be teaching heresy.

Which means that since there have been antipopes before, that if an apparent pope is teaching heresy, he has to be an antipope.

Again, clearly you know nothing and need to butt out.

Blogger James Lovebirch January 25, 2020 11:15 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger James Lovebirch January 25, 2020 11:46 AM  

The previous existence of anti-popes doesn't make the case for the Papacy stronger, and you haven't had a Pope since the 60s in most sede narratives. Something's gotta give.

Blogger Gregory the Tall January 25, 2020 12:28 PM  

If all humans are fallen it is logical that the pope cannot be unfallable.
Anyway the papal infallibility is widely overestimated in its applications as it only comes into play when difficult decisions on difficult issues are announced.

Blogger NegrosBear January 25, 2020 7:43 PM  

@178

"If all humans are fallen it is logical that the pope cannot be unfallable.
Anyway the papal infallibility is widely overestimated in its applications as it only comes into play when difficult decisions on difficult issues are announced."

No Papal infallibility is very simple. As long as the Pope is teaching faith and morals for example, at a Council speaking ex cathedra and it does NOT go against previous teachings/magisterium.


For exemple making divorce or abortion okay and not grave sins. That he is perfectly sinless like Jesus is a common misunderstanding.


And it was made cannon at Vatican 1 precisely for this situation in which starting at Vatican 2. The anti Pope John 23rd invalidated himself by going against the magisterium established previously for example at Trent. Thus all that he and his ilk has said is heresy and any thing from Vatican 2 should not be followed.

Blogger James Lovebirch January 26, 2020 12:49 AM  

@179

It's correct to say the Pope as a person is not sinless or infallible. In his duties as Pope, he exercises infallibility or so I've seen it described.

Could you provide a citation or at least point me in a direction to find something for this part "and it does NOT go against previous teachings/magisterium". Logically, it should also describe what happens when the Pope violates that.

My understanding is that up to V2 at least the dogma is that the office of Peter is protected by providence from error, and this is logically necessary as otherwise you have an unimpeachable government who can fall into error and run the church into the ground. As such no prescriptive stipulation like you say would have been made because it was believed a heretic becoming Pope was not something that God would allow to happen. If you can show how your statement worked though, that would be an interesting line of evidence for the sede position.

Blogger NegrosBear January 26, 2020 7:10 AM  

"Could you provide a citation or at least point me in a direction to find something for this part "and it does NOT go against previous teachings/magisterium". Logically, it should also describe what happens when the Pope violates that"

Sure, Canon law 1917 has a section on heretics holding office... they can't. If a Bishop(that includes the Pope, who is Bishop of Rome) is a heretic and does not recant as per canon 188 part 4 then they no longer hold said position.

Now the heresy part... well there are tons in VA2. for example VA2 took input from protestants, which changed the mass and is a violation of the council of Trent(which is part of the magisterium ). And I'm not talking about just the vernacular. whole prayers were taken out. and that is just the tip of the iceberg of issues.


"My understanding is that up to V2 at least the dogma is that the office of Peter is protected by providence from error, and this is logically necessary as otherwise you have an unimpeachable government who can fall into error and run the church into the ground. As such no prescriptive stipulation like you say would have been made because it was believed a heretic becoming Pope was not something that God would allow to happen. If you can show how your statement worked though, that would be an interesting line of evidence for the sede position. "


Your correct the office is protected as I showed above all Popes from VA2 onward are not Popes at all. But rather are Anti Popes. Which has happend before for almost 40 years. That time of troubles did not invalidate the church then it doesn't now

Blogger James Lovebirch January 26, 2020 1:20 PM  

Yes I'm aware of that canon from the 1917 book. Here's the interesting question that renders it irrelevant. Who executes discipline against the Office of Peter?

Or we can argue descriptively. All those clowns are still in office. Therefore, the cherrypicked code of canon law obviously does not apply to them (because the Curia and the Pope defected together, indeed had been becoming infiltrated for centuries probably)

You guys seem to think Catholic laymen have a right to decide, pronounce judgement and reject the Pope. But that just makes you no longer Catholic.

Blogger James Lovebirch January 26, 2020 1:45 PM  

Also I missed that last bit

"That time of troubles did not invalidate the church then it doesn't now"

That's true as long as there was just an anti-pope, the next Pope would keep the ball rolling. Anti-popes undermined Papal Infallibility, but they didn't disprove it. This time, the Pope and the Curia have defected at the same time and for 60 years; therefore, the Holy Roman See as a whole has defected, apostolic succession has lapsed, the dogma is wrong, and the RCC is invalid.

Blogger NegrosBear January 26, 2020 2:16 PM  

@182

Have you even read it? If you did you would know that

"Any office becomes vacant upon the fact and without any declaration by tacit resignation recognised by the law itself if a cleric:

Part 4: Publicly defects from the Catholic Faith"

As you can see by the law itself the clerics of the sham and heretical VA2 no longer hold thier office automatically.


It's not my word or your word or any other layman's authority. Rather the authority of canon law.



"Or we can argue descriptively. All those clowns are still in office. Therefore, the cherrypicked code of canon law obviously does not apply to them (because the Curia and the Pope defected together, indeed had been becoming infiltrated for centuries probably"


Yes which is why the novus ordo church is a heretical anti church. And once a majority of nominal Catholics realize this the sooner they can be kicked out. With Anti Pope Francis protecting and promoting pedophiles, homosexuals and pagan worship on Church grounds. It won't be much longer God willing.


"You guys seem to think Catholic laymen have a right to decide, pronounce judgement and reject the Pope. But that just makes you no longer Catholic."


No it makes me an actual Catholic following canon law in rejecting an anti Pope and his Anti Church. And as I have demonstrated all VA2 clerics are invalid Heretics.




Blogger James Lovebirch January 26, 2020 4:15 PM  

Yes, the authority of canon law, which is nil. What authority has canon law if no one enforces it? Do blasphemy laws in the USA have authority too?

Of course by that very same canon law none shall judge the Roman See.

Blogger NegrosBear January 27, 2020 12:07 AM  

@184

"Yes, the authority of canon law, which is nil. What authority has canon law if no one enforces it? Do blasphemy laws in the USA have authority too?

Of course by that very same canon law none shall judge the Roman See."


That's ridiculous just because a murderer isn't punished yet does not make him anyless of a murderer(And they will be, this life or the next). While these sodomites and Heretics are squatting where the Holy See should be, does not make them anymore the Holy See.

Therefore it is not only your right to, but a duty to call them out and oppose them.



Blogger The Kurgan January 27, 2020 7:24 AM  

An impressive display of duplicitous stupidity there by James Lovebirch, who was roundly beaten about the tiny brain by NegroBear. Good to see.

For an even more complete take-down of one of the many deceivers, I have now drawn and quartered the "famous" John Salza and his "arguments". You can see it here: https://www.gfilotto.com/shooting-down-the-false-objections-to-sede-privationsim

Blogger Jason the Gentleman January 31, 2020 5:53 PM  

"as I am the President of the Milky Way Galaxy."
Well drats, if I had known you weren't going to take your election to the role seriously, I wouldn't have voted you in! Reddit warned me about this....'Don't vote him in' they said, '[H]e'll not take it seriously,' they said. Should have just voted you in as the Dark Lord of the Galaxy instead...you probably would have accepted that role. They use dark chocolate in their cookies, so it seems the obvious choice in retrospect...

Post a Comment

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

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts