Archive for the ‘Sedevacantism’ Category

Sede Priest Explains Cassiciacum, etc.

Father Steenbergen is one of the most awesome people I know, and I am glad he did this interview. He even refers to the Finnish couple who came to visit me towards the 1:17 mark, and shortly after, indirectly, to people like me, with words to the effect of… you wouldn’t BELIEVE the kind of people that are coming to get baptised these days! Meaning people with no Catholic history in their background whatsoever that come to it in almost miraculous ways. And it’s true. Just over a decade ago, the idea I would one day be a hardcore Catholic would have made me spill my drink if I had been drinking. And here I am now.

All sorts of people are waking up to the truth, and it’s accelerating from the attendances I have seen over the last few years.

Sede on Sede Violence

Adam has written a post about sedevacantism here.

Let me quote the pertinent part, in which he quotes a letter written by a fake priest who got chastised by a fake Archbishop, for doing a fake “traditional” blasphemous mass in Latin.

Let me quote a small passage from the end of his letter:

Despite the differences of opinion we have with them, we respect the Holy Father, Pope Francis and Archbishop Timothy Costelloe. We acknowledge them to legitimately hold their respective offices even if we do not understand and agree with all of their actions. We continue to pray for them in each and every Mass offered at St Anne’s.

The praying part is good and just. But the rest is straightforward naivety.

I find it a little ironic that Adam calls this fake priest writing to a fake Archbishop, “naïve”.

Don’t get me wrong. I like Adam and I consider him a friend, he’s a good guy and he’s visited me on the farm and a great time was had by all. I am not “having a go” at him. I also realise that his intent, or result anyway, is to educate and teach and thus bring to the truth those confused (or lazy) nominal “Catholics” that wallow (or prefer to wallow) in ignorance (or wilful ignorance) regarding Bergoglio and his retinue of pedophiles, cocaine fuelled partakers of homosexual orgies and general frauds and criminals that are currently in the Vatican as well as all those that continue to pretend that the Novus Orco is anything other than Satan’s Church.

Any ACTUAL Catholic knows this is the reality. Those who continue to pretend otherwise are either, lazy AND ignorant, flat out cowardly, or intentional deceivers. But that’s the lay people. None of the “clergy” can be excused. NOT A SINGLE ONE.

I don’t care if they tell you they were “fooled” I don’t care if they think Ratzi the Nazi was “Pope” instead of Bergy the Oleous. They have a DUTY to know. And their “ignorance” cannot be put down to mere indoctrination, generational ignorance or laziness. It is intentional.

It would be like a doctor not knowing that eating rat poison is bad for you. Or a surgeon thinking that use of an axe and no aesthetic for heart surgery is how you do it. Or an engineer thinking you can just pile bricks on top of each other without mortar to build skyscrapers.

These people are not naïve Adam.

They are guilty.

They are guilty of mass spiritual murder. They are leading souls to Hell on purpose. I would not give any mercy whatsoever to a child murdering rapist. Regardless of his personal sob story. So why on Earth give any to a mass-murderer on a spiritual level that is leading souls to eternal damnation?

To every Sedevacantist out there:

  1. Laity claiming they are Catholic MIGHT be, due to generational ignorance (born and raised in Novus Orco) but they are also LAZY. Because they profess that they believe in the Catholic God but made zero effort in studying the history and nature of Catholicism. So how important is it to them, really?
  2. Pretend clergy of ANY rank, that continues to profess the Vatican II Novus Orco heresies are HERETICS AT BEST! Get it? Because most likely they are KNOWING and INTENTIONAL Satanists. Certainly all the Cardinals that bowed down to the child-eating Demon Pachamama INSIDE the Vatican, absolutely are.
  3. You are infallibly and perpetually told that heretics are to be deprived of every natural human kindness. Ex Apostolato Officio.

So… you wanna become Catholic, then read a bit. Learn the history of the Church from the people who were there at the time. Read the patristic fathers. There are VOLUMES of stuff written before 200 AD. Read it.

And so learn what Catholicism is. Then follow it through. Read what Vatican II documents actually SAY. And learn why there has NOT been a valid Pope since 1958. Yes you can save yourself time by reading my books Believe! or Reclaiming the Catholic Church, but I don’t care if you learn from me and my work or somewhere else. Just learn.

And then stop acting as if the Satanist with Catholic masks on are relevant, or right about anything or not the fake, Satanic scum they are. Give them NO QUARTER.

I know, Adam is the nice guy going around the village saying “Guys, those people there are not really your friends, this is why…”

Well… there is a time and place. I am more the guy on horseback with a lance shouting “CHARGE!”

What Next?

There are three paths I can go down with respect to the next book I write.

NAZI MOON (linked) is now available at least in the US and CANADA and should be available soon in other countries too.

Do you Prefer I next write:

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

I have been asked to do the relationship book by friends and men in general for years; at least 20 of them. I resisted the impulse* for at least a couple of decades, primarily because, as one of my alter egos/nicknames —given to me by friends in Italy over 20 years ago— said in one of the graphic novels he appears in: “Any man that says he has understood all there is to know about women, is either a liar or insane.” And it’s close enough to the truth in some ways. Nevertheless, I feel that after two divorces, a lot of women in between, and finally a proper Catholic marriage, not to mention 4 children I fathered, I have probably made —and persevered!— and (one hopes), learnt enough that it is probably acceptable to pass on a few pointers to younger men; at least on those issues I feel I have now got enough experience to retroactively note when I did the right thing (regardless of outcome), and when I did the wrong thing (again, regardless of outcome). I mention this, because as I say, there have been a lot of people asking me for this for a long time.

With regard to my non-fiction, each book I have written so far, is really mostly a compilation of my theories and conclusions formed with many years of experience.

The Face on Mars was the result of a lifelong interest in Astronomy from very early childhood. I understood what a light-year was at age four, thanks to an uncle who was, and remains, a total geek to this day. He also sent me a telescope in my early teens, with which I observed the mountains of the moon, and how the moon itself moved. I also saw Haley’s comet with it, from our home in Africa at the time. And to this day the concepts I put forth in that book were then, and for the most part continue to remain today, unique. Some have badly plagiarised aspects of it (hello Graham Hancock) but the overall main issue had not been understood by anyone I am aware of before I saw it. And most remain totally ignorant of it, despite the predictions and theories I made back in 1995, playing out as correct in the intervening time. The update in 2014 also added a new dimension to the reality of my ideas, which is partly expanded on a lot more in my fiction work.

Systema was similarly, a book I wrote after I had personally spend decades in the martial arts world. And I wanted to demystify a LOT of the nonsense that goes with many martial art “concepts” and their related egos, and which —in particular— seemed to have a vortex of “mystic ninjas” concerning the Russian system. Which is an impression many martial artists might have if they have not experience of it firsthand. By merely watching YouTube videos or hearing “fantastic” stories of almost magical ability, they are most likely going to assume it is some woo-woo nonsensical “martial art”. That thought is disabused within minutes of confronting any of the top exponents of it. Unfortunately, as always, along with the really good practitioners, there were also a lot of “mystic ninjas” and some of the practitioners did nothing to demystify the situation, so I did it. I have been doing martial arts since I was a very small child, thanks to my dad, so I had pretty extensive knowledge of it before I put hand-to-keyboard after almost four decades of it.

Reclaiming the Catholic Church was in some ways the “odd man out” because I had a road to Damascus Event in 2013 and the book came out in 2020, that is, only 7 years later. However, I had been reading different books on all the main religions, mysticism, “spiritual” and even New Age stuff, again, since my teens, and literally infiltrating various cults as a hobby, in order to see if anyone had anything that was demonstrably true, real, or worthwhile. I had settled on a basic Zen-Agnosticism, with a clear understanding there must be an intelligence behind creation (the math, astronomy, biology and physics, as well as logic, pretty much confirms it many, many, many times over) but no sense of a God as such that was specifically interested in us mere mortals, much less me specifically. That changed in a radical, unexpected and utterly surprising way, that while “subjective” in the sense that I cannot prove it to anyone else, was absolutely objective and very much so for me. The other part that helped was that because the Catholic Church has ALL of its rules and dogmas written down, it was fairly easy to follow the thread of its history and see the astonishing truth it is founded on. As it was, to see that the current inhabitants of the Vatican are, without putting too fine a point on it, flat out Satanists.

BELIEVE! Instead, published a year before RTCC, was a much smaller work, putting out my new, or updated, basic outline philosophy. For those who have read both books, you will notice that BELIEVE! is not even a fifth of the size of RTCC, at just under 100 pages, and is a lot more open with respect to overall views and concepts. RTCC was the follow up that basically said, “OK, so that’s sort of where I am with respect to religion as a whole (BELIEVE!) now let’s take a look at this one path that I state is the best one I can see so far, and in this book, (RTCC), I went full autist, covering every aspect of Sedevacantism (i.e. the actual, current, only Catholicism left) and demonstrating it in a manner that no one has so far even attempted to refute, much less succeeded. The result is that RTCC is the foundation on which BELIVE! is really sitting on, which is probably why even if a much smaller and less detailed book, BELIEVE! has resulted in now over 100 people converting to Sedevacantist Catholicism (aka simply: Catholicism).

The reason I point all this out, is because in these last two non-fiction books, it becomes obvious that even my overall looser and more generic ideas, as expressed in BELIEVE!, for example, clearly have had a lot of genuinely positive effects on people who read them. And we know it was this that sparked the results, because BELIEVE! came first, and yet, even without all the details (presented in RTCC), it had a serious impact on people’s lives.

I see a LOT of confusion, struggles and heartache among young men today concerning intimate relationships and finding the right woman.

I literally get questions, emails, or messages on the topic to a frequency that is starting to become hard to keep up with. And as anyone that reads my blog knows, I have a rather low opinions of PUAs, and would very much hate to be mistaken for one. That said, I know for a demonstrable fact that my advice benefits these younger men, because they are getting married, having babies, and resolving issues they had for many years of their lives. I have literally had everything from friends, neighbours and even strangers, asking for advice, on an ad hoc basis, to hypnosis sessions with people that were under clinical care as supposedly paranoid schizophrenics under medication that went on to stop the medication (yes with doctor approval and full knowledge of my sessions with them) and go on to have a productive life with a functioning relationship, when prior they were 29 year old virgins. And I have been doing this for at least 15 years, with positive results.

So, perhaps, there is some utility in putting together some of the baseline concepts concerning male-female interactions and so on.

The other options (SF saga continuation) or YA SF books are, respectively, more a divertimento for myself and, a less fun, but I think helpful addition to the current dearth of adventure stories for boys mostly. I am not aware of anything like the Hardy Boys and so on coming along anytime recently, which is why Castalia House is doing well printing old classics. I would not enjoy writing such books as much as my own adult Science Fiction, but it would not be too difficult to do and they should be able to be produced fairly quickly. Although, I am not likely to be acclaimed as a children’s author anytime soon, or even long after I am dust, so the effort might not be worth it.

Anyway, I’d appreciate your thoughts on the matter, so please feel free to leave comments after you vote, thanks. 

* Vox, on this post, referring to someone else, Taleb, in this case, said something that holds true for most of us. Personally I have always genuinely tried to resist the temptation, and often people have been quite “deflated” when trying to make me their “guru”, when, after being asked something I know little or nothing about or at least I don’t feel qualified to take a stand on, I simply say “I have no idea”. Some were quite insistent nevertheless and I always consciously dissuaded that, as I explained in some detail in my book Systema: The Russian Martial System.

Church Militant?

Oh, what, you want my opinion on the Gay grifters pretending to be Catholics? Ah… when will you guys begin to take heed of the things I tell you about gay and fake Catholics being Grifters?

I told you about at least three of them back in July 2020. Which was late for it anyway.

Or you could just type in their names like say Milo in the Search Me button on the right there.

Seriously, are any of you who read here even a little bit surprised by any of what was going on/is going on/will continue to go on at Church Militant?

If you read my blog regularly and you are… well… there may be a place for self-flagellation in proper Catholicism yet.

Indeed

And this is why you can know without a doubt that NOVUS Ordo is NOT Catholicism, and why the only Christians left are Sedevacantists.

Interestingly though, the Sedes are more like the Empire… down to a few but loyal “emperors” and their “henchmen” going out there and through their diligent work, recruiting and uplifting proper Catholics, even as they spread the truth to rebellious fools.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is 1xbi8x-591642492.jpg

While we mere laymen, do the Lord’s work with heretics.

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Screenshot-2023-12-08-at-16.45.35.png

The Dyer Debate Revisited

It is now something like 4 years after the original debate and as always, time demonstrated that I was in fact right and everything the man said was nonsense or a lie.

I recently received this comment on YouTube which reminded me of the debate again, which is now, here, with all the commentary from me to give the full context, while the originals have all been memory-holed and disappeared. I wonder why, eh?

I’m at about minute 36 of your video, where you’ve read out the various canons and shown that they bear no relation to what Jay claims they are speaking about. I am struck by this because a few years ago I was watching his series on Tragedy and Hope, with a copy of the book in hand, same edition as Jay’s. He was summarising it page by page, citing where he was, and yet I found that his ‘summary’ bore no relation what so ever to the pages he was referencing. I don’t know why he was doing this, but it was very strange.

Interestingly enough, the comment itself has now apparently disappeared from YouTube, which has been behaving increasingly bizarrely. So I will not mention the man’s full name other than to say that if Stephen wants to get in touch and make his full name public so I am not accused of making things up, he can do so. In any case, it may be he deleted the comment himself not to receive the usual barrage from the dyer-bots, which can indeed be quite annoying.

At any rate, if you are into autistic theological debates interspaced with entertaining ridiculing of deceivers, you may wish to get some popcorn and go see it here.

The Complete Deceiver Stephen Fry

Stephen Fry, outright LIES about Thomas Moore, and pretty much everything else regarding the Catholic Church in this 20 minute presentation.

The adoring comments by historically illiterate people under the litany of nonsense this deviant spouts is nauseating.

Fry’s historical knowledge doesn’t even rise to Wikipedia level of understanding. And we can hardly assume such an “erudite and intelligent” “man” (excuse me while I laugh out loud) is ignorant of these facts, can we.

So we MUST assume intentional deception.

Fry, at minute 7 and some 20 seconds begins with this outrageous lie:

“…just imagine in this square mile, how many people were burned, for reading the Bible in English. And one of the principal burners and torturers of those who tried to read the Bible in English, here in London, was Thomas Moore.”

and here is the relevant part of the wikipedia entry, which, as I say, is hardly a defender of the Catholic faith.

Controversy on Extent of Prosecution of Heretics

There is considerable variation in opinion on the extent and nature of More’s prosecution of heretics: witness in recent popular media the difference in portrayals of More in A Man for All Seasons and in Wolf Hall. The English establishment initially regarded Protestants (and Anabaptists) as akin to the Lollards and Hussites whose heresies fed their sedition.[note 5] Ambassador to Charles V Cuthbert Tunstall called Lutheranism the “foster-child” of the Wycliffite heresy[66] that had underpinned Lollardy.

Historian Richard Rex wrote:[49]: 106 

Thomas More, as lord chancellor [1529-1532], was in effect the first port of call for those arrested in London on suspicion of heresy, and he took the initial decisions about whether to release them, where to imprison them, or to which bishop to send them. He can be connected with police or judicial proceedings against around forty suspected or convicted heretics in the years 1529–33.[note 6]

Torture allegations

Torture was not officially legal in England, except in pre-trial discovery phase[67]: 62  of kinds of extreme cases that the King had allowed, such as seditious heresy. It was regarded as unsafe for evidence, and was not an allowed punishment. 

Stories emerged in More’s lifetime regarding persecution of the Protestant “heretics” during his time as Lord Chancellor, and he denied them in detail in his Apologia (1533). 

Many stories were later published by the popular sixteenth-century English Protestant historian John Foxe in his polemical Book of Martyrs. Foxe was instrumental in publicizing accusations of torture, alleging that More had often personally used violence or torture while interrogating heretics.[68] Later Protestant authors such as Brian Moynahan and Michael Farris cite Foxe when repeating these allegations.[69] Biographer Peter Ackroyd also lists claims from Foxe’s Book of Martyrs and other post-Reformation sources that More “tied heretics to a tree in his Chelsea garden and whipped them”, that “he watched as ‘newe men’ were put upon the rack in the Tower and tortured until they confessed”, and that “he was personally responsible for the burning of several of the ‘brethren’ in Smithfield.”[20]: 305 

Historian John Guy commented that “such charges are unsupported by independent proof.”[note 7] Modern historian Diarmaid MacCulloch finds no evidence that he was directly involved in torture.[note 8]  Richard Marius records a similar claim, which tells about James Bainham, and writes that “the story Foxe told of Bainham’s whipping and racking at More’s hands is universally doubted today”.[note 9]

More himself denied these allegations:

Stories of a similar nature were current even in More’s lifetime and he denied them forcefully. He admitted that he did imprison heretics in his house – ‘theyr sure kepynge’ – he called it – but he utterly rejected claims of torture and whipping… ‘as help me God.’[20]: 298–299 

More instead claimed in his “Apology” (1533) that he only applied corporal punishment to two “heretics”: a child servant in his household who was caned (the customary punishment for children at that time) for repeating a heresy regarding the Eucharist, and a “feeble-minded” man who was whipped for disrupting the mass by raising women’s skirts over their heads at the moment of consecration, More taking the action to prevent a lynching.[70]: 404 

Execution allegations

Burning at the stake was the standard punishment by the English state for obstinate or relapsed, major seditious or proselytizing heresy, and continued to be used by both Catholics and Protestants during the religious upheaval of the following decades.[71] In England, following the Lollard uprisings, heresy had been linked to sedition (see De heretico comburendo and Suppression of Heresy Act 1414.)

Ackroyd states that More zealously “approved of burning”.[20]: 298  Novelist Richard Marius maintained that in office More did everything in his power to bring about the extermination of Protestants.[72]

During More’s chancellorship, six people were burned at the stake for heresy, the same rate as under Wolsey: they were Thomas HittonThomas BilneyRichard BayfieldJohn TewkesburyThomas Dusgate, and James Bainham.[20]: 299–306  However, the court of the Star Chamber, which More was the presiding judge of, as Lord Chancellor, could not impose the death sentence: it was a kind of appellate supreme court.[73]: 263 

More took a personal interest in the three London cases:[49]: 105 

  • John Tewkesbury was a London leather seller found guilty by the Bishop of London John Stokesley[note 10] of harbouring English translated New Testaments; he was sentenced to burning for refusing to recant. More declared: he “burned as there was neuer wretche I wene better worthy.”[74]
  • Richard Bayfield was found distributing Tyndale’s Bibles, and examined by Bishop Cuthbert Tunstall. More commented that he was “well and worthely burned”.[20]: 305 
  • James Bainham was arrested on a warrant of Thomas More as Lord Chancellor and detained at his gatehouse. He was examined by Bishop John Stokesley, abjured, penalized and freed. He subsequently re-canted, and was re-arrested, tried and executed as a relapsed heretic.

Moynahan alleges that More influenced the eventual execution of William Tyndale in the Duchy of Brabant, as English agents had long pursued Tyndale.[75] This was despite the fact that the execution took place on October 6, 1536, several years after More had resigned as Chancellor and been executed, as well as in a totally different country. A historian has called this “bizarre”.[49]: 93 

Go on and read the whole entry, by ALL accounts, Moore was a very fair man, as mentioned, going on to whip a man to save him from a lynching. He was a loving and devoted father and step-father and he promoted the education of women more than anyone else had ever done at the time.

Everything else Fry mentions is very much as with this one historical character assassination based on nothing but outrageous lies and his own deviant nature, rebelling at the fact that Christianity has always known that his specific sexual deviancy, leads to nothing good, since it is, in a very obvious and fundamental level, simply unnatural. The human species would literally die out after 45 years if everyone on Earth decided to become a homosexual. And that’s without even mentioning a litany of other problems that lifestyle creates for both those who practice it, as well as those it is inflicted upon by sexual violence when they are children.

And to be clear, I see homosexuality as an unfortunate deviancy if it is there from birth (which it is in a MINORITY of cases, as evidenced by science done over 30 years ago, which was widely reported at the time even in scientific American and such publications but that has been memory holed since), much like one might be born with six fingers, or without legs.

And a sexual deviancy for those that progressed into it consciously and gradually, and a case of particularly vicious trauma for those that end up there as a result of sexual abuse and/or rape. There are known cases where men who are repeatedly raped for years in jail, who absolutely were not homosexual when they went in, come out and are unable to perform sexually with women any more. But such things are not talked about. And lest Stephen Fry accuse me of wanting to burn homosexuals at the stake, let me be absolutely clear that I personally do not care at all if someone choses to be a homosexual, as long as he doesn’t try to tell everyone, or anyone, else that it is a normal and natural thing to do. It is not. Math is also not racist and men cannot become women or vice-versa. And night follows day and water is wet. I also would like it that those people who chose to stop being homosexual and decide to heal whatever ails them, are allowed to do so without persecution, which, unfortunately, the LGBT lobby does.

And let’s not forget, in case, you are unaware, or assume I am simply “casting wild aspersions” that Stephen Fry has certain “predilections” shall we call them? And as the images below would seem to indicate, has had them for years. He also regularly comes up with rather odd things to say.

Cohen, (above) incidentally, was dumped at age 40 for a 26 year old, when Fry was 54 and supposedly offered Cohen a bunch of money from the sale of a house Fry owned in exchanged for signing an NDA.

Who is Steven Webb, which it is reported Fry introduced as his new partner? he’s the guy in the image below.

And who did Fry get engaged to after Webb?

And they went on to get “married” too.

Make up your own mind, but —unlike his accusations against Thomas Moore, which are completely false— there is certainly nothing untrue about what I have linked to here.

What that says about Fry in the specific, I will leave for the reader to decide. I will however, point out that this is just one point of his 20 minute rant, and the other 19 minutes or so could all be gone into similar level of detail.

This exercise is one worth doing if you care to, because it will once and for all demonstrate to you, the precise way in which people like Fry intentionally and expertly, twist, manipulate and pervert facts, in order to present a totally false narrative. Once you have seen the breath-taking facility with which they lie and misrepresent, obfuscate, and pervert facts, you will become a lot more immune to their lies. Which can only be a healthy thing.

If you want to really delve, deep, I do identify the 11 things that deceivers do in my book, Reclaiming the Catholic Church. They only have those 11 modus operandi, nor is it limited to religious lying, it applies in any context in life where they are trying to gaslight you into some false belief based on lies, and once you have seen each one of those methods, the world will suddenly make a lot more sense.

Once you see things as they really are, it might be a bit grimmer, but you can’t fix anything if you’re not even aware what the problem is. And the main problem in this world is liars and deceivers like Fry, and the people in power who make him look like a good choir boy.

Bruce The Deceiver is at it again

In typical, cowardly, effeminate, weak, English, passive-aggressive fashion, Bruce Charlton, or Brucie, as he will henceforth be named, has obviously seen my latest exposition of him for the liar, blackpiller and general heretical gnostic and non-christian sophist that he is.

Because trust me, that little wormtongue checks to see what I say. Except he is too cowardly to actually come out and try and respond, so instead he makes some vagueposting about sedevacantists.

So, because he probably has some kind of humiliation fetish, in line with all his other “quirky” passive aggressive, worm-tonguing, I will oblige, and once more vivisect his rubbish right here at my blog. His rubbish has a grey background to represent the fog-fart nature of his shrivelled soul.

JRR Tolkien and the disaster of the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II) – implications for the legalistic sedevacantist position

To judge by his behaviour (if not by his explicit statements) there seems little doubt that JRR Tolkien regarded the consequences of the Second Vatican Council with a combination of deep dismay and horror; indeed, I once wrote that Vatican II may have been the most deeply dismaying event of Tolkien’s whole life

His friend (and fellow Catholic) George Sayer; believed that Tolkien saw little or nothing wrong with the pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic Church. 

Well, Brucie, that would be because there was little to nothing wrong with the pre-Vatican II Catholic Church. I mean, it was already infested to the gills with communists, homosexuals and Freemasons, as history has proven, and Bella Dodds has confessed, along with other undeniable proofs, some of which I highlighted in my book Reclaiming the Catholic Church. But that problem aside, the Dogma of The Church was as pristine as it has ever been. Not that most would know it, since most have literally no actual idea what the dogma of the Catholic Church is. They only THINK they do, thanks to 500 years of Satanic/Protestant lies, as even other honest Protestants will readily admit, like the Baptist Rodney Stark in his Bearing False Witness, or the man who wrote The Four Witnesses, Rod Bennett, who ended up converting as a result of reading up on the first 200 years of Christianity.

This is worth contemplating because it shows that a Catholic as devout as Tolkien could be in deep opposition to Vatican II; but without making reference to “legalistic” aspects of the validity of Papal elections. I imagine Tolkien would have found that whole “sedevacantist” line of argument on both sides to be extremely distressing and fraught with dangers – especially when engaged-in by lay people. 

God, Brucie, you’re such a raging faggot. Let me explain ladies and gents: Here, Brucie, while he waves his wrist limply in my general direction but without ever making eye contact, is trying to imply that because people like me (probably, as far as Brucie knows, and thinks, and expects) respect the memory of Tolkien not just as a writer (personally I respect him a lot more for having literally invented the Elvish language. JRR would have been an absolute genial game master for a Dungeons and Dragons game!) but as a Catholic.

So, because Brucie says so, I (and other sedevacantists) are supposed to now assume that Brucie had a direct line of knowing what JRR would have thought or said about Sedevacantism, and because Bruce says so, we should recoil in horror at taking a position Brucie imagines JRR might have had (should have, according to Brucie, nay would have had) with respect to Sedevacantism. That’s right ladies and gents, we are supposed to assume because Brucie says so, that Tolkien would have wagged a stern finger in our direction and told us: Bad Catholic! Submit to a fake Pope.

Seriously. How passive aggressive and sophistic and gay, GAY, Brucie, GAY, do you have to be to behave like such a little, whiny, bitch?

Besides which, what do you care? You like the Moronic Mormons. Go find yourself a tuba hat with a “seer-stone” in it so you can decipher your own bullshit, eh, Brucie?

This may have some implications for traditionalist Catholics who all agree that the RCC took a severe wrong turn, a down-turn and movement towards apostasy, with the Second Vatican Council. 

Oh Mah GAWD! Brucie! Bring out the fainting couches! IMPLICATIONS you say (with emphasis on YOU SAY) Good God Brucie, what’s next? Will CONSEQUENCES ever be the same again, now, after the IMPLICATIONS?

My point is that the disastrous nature of Vatican II may be regarded as common ground among serious Roman Catholics. And indeed all serious Christians of any- or no-denomination, who wish for the recovery and renewal of spiritual health in the largest and most influential Christian church – this may be common ground quite apart from the legal arguments. 

What a transparent and ineffective satanist you are Brucie.

Translation: Because Catholics recognise that the Novus Ordo is just the latest and most noxious branch of Protestant heresy (with apology to the Protestants, really, because the Novus Orco really is Satanic) everyone should come together and all be “christians” together. Making the satanic nonsense of the fake churches a common cause, why a… a… dare I say it, a fraternity even, you know, like in the Freemason words of “Spiritual Fraternity among men of Goodwill”. What’s your code name in the “brotherhood” Brucie? I propose if they haven’t given you a Freemason codename yet you ask for Brucie-of-the-flower.

In other words; sedevacantism can reasonably be regarded as one of several (or many) possible hypotheses for explaining the disastrous effect of Vatican II; and, most importantly, how to set it right

And here he is, trying to add sewage to sedevacantism. The usual sewage by the way, nothing original even.

“Oh it’s just a THEORY!”

“Just one of many HYPOTHESES, you see”

“It’s all very LEGALISTIC and COMPLICATED, you see.”

No Brucie, No.

It’s childishly simple. The Catholic Church has and always had, unchangeable divine dogma, which is ALL codified, and was ALL collated and summarised and approved by the INFALLIBLE Magisterium of the Church in the Code of Canon Law of 1917.

That’s ALL the Rules of Catholicism from the year zero to 1917 all in one place, Brucie. And guess what, as Code 188 part 4 makes eminently clear, as do ALL the other even tangentially related codes to it, ANYONE, who publicly defects from the faith —which teaching heresy as though it was valid doctrine counts and always has counted as doing so— is no longer a representative of the Church, and NO ONE need say or approve, or pass ANYTHING. Its done. The law itself convicts them. It’s VERY clear, and VERY simple. A Child gets it. If you are NOT a CATHOLIC, you are not in the club. You can’t speak for it, you are not part of it, you are irrelevant to it, and even anything you did while you might have been a member before then, becomes instantly invalid and worthless. It’s Very, very, very, simple and only sophists and freemasons like you have tried to make it “complicated” by lying, and lying, and lying, with every breath you take.

It is indeed possible that the sedevacantist legal arguments for why the papal seat is empty might be true; but the legalistic solutions may nonetheless be ineffective or counter-productive in solving the Roman Catholic Church’s many and deep problems. 

Hahahhahahah and here he reveals his true nature. Pay attention to what he says:

“Oh yes, X may be true, but we can’t have truth be used to solve anything!”

“No, no, truth is counter-productive to solving anything, you see?!”

What a disgusting creature. He probably has candle-lit dinners with Jordan Peterson, while they agree on truth being untruth.

That is, indeed, my opinion – I mean that the sedevacantist solutions (i.e. their advocated approach to dealing with the RC problems) are ineffective, and would be counter-productive: they are wrong in their spirit

Firstly Brucie, no one, literally no one on Earth gives a flying crap about your opinion. You are absolutely irrelevant to everyone with the possible exception of your cat, if you have one. But even if some misguided soul cared anything for your opinion, let me assure you that not a single Catholic does. That is Sedevacantist or even just nominally ignorant lay Novus Order kind that is simply fooled by the impostors pretending to be Pope and Bishops and priests. Because you are NOT Catholic Bruce. You’re a Gnostic. You are the enemy. We really don’t consider you at all other than as I am doing now, to make an example of you for others to point and laugh at the tarring and feathering and ass-kicking you’re getting here metaphorically speaking.

Secondly, who on Earth would YOU be to judge what is or is not wrong “in the Spirit” whatever that new-age-gnostic phrase is supposed to mean. You silly, cowardly wormtongue, Brucie, go fret for your tuba hat and the Angel Moroni, go on, get out of here, you spiritually empty sack of lies.

And third, Sedevacantism is growing by leaps and bounds. Our Churches are literally bursting at the seams, with often standing room only, and guess what, it’s young people in them. People making children. LOTS of Children Brucie. I know, I know, a lifelong incel like you can’t understand, especially given the faggotry you speak, but believe me Brucie, Sedevacantism is booming.

Because I think it can be known in advance – from multiple experiences in multiple churches – that legal solutions will not have a good effect; that a re-set is impossible (and the attempt undesirable) because it will empower the wrong people and set faithful Catholics at each others throats… 

Again, first, NOTHING can be known in advance, especially not by “people” to use the term loosely, like you.

Secondly there has never been any such thing as “multiple experiences in multiple churches” the way you mean it, because there is no such thing as “multiple churches”. There is ONE Church, Brucie, the ONE, True, Holy, and Apostolic CATHOLIC CHURCH.

It doesn’t matter if YOU believe in it or not. None of us care. It is an unchangeable Catholic dogma that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic Church, so there IS only one Church. The Catholic one. Obviously. And logically. Because unlike what “people” like you want to pretend, Brucie, there is only ONE truth. Can only BE one truth. Either Catholicism is true, in which case we are right, or it is not, in which case Christianity doesn’t exist. And again, it doesn’t matter if you and the rest of the world disagrees. We don’t care. We never have cared in two millennia. Catholicism IS Christianity and the ONLY Christians are Catholics.

Thirdly, there is absolutely nothing to “re-set”. The Catholic Church continues as it always did undisturbed. All that Vatican II did is expose all the fake Catholics, those too lazy to learn the facts, those too lazy to hold the line. And of course, the infiltrating Satanists. It’s fine, we’re fine. As I said, our Churches continue to grow and basic game theory makes it mathematically obvious that by being as we are, either eventually we win, or, it’s the end times and we win anyway too. Besides which, either way, the current goings on are all prophesied, so we really have nothing to worry about.

Lastly, faithful Catholics are never at each other’s throats. Stop making shit up. Catholics call out deceivers, gnostics, satanist, and liars like yourself, because it is the duty of every Catholic to do so, and we will always call your kind and Bergoglio’s and all the fake impostors out. But there is never any issue between faithful Catholics. Because we’re all one family. Of course, those genuinely deceived into thinking the Novus Ordo is the “real” Church are just fooled ignorants at best and very lazy ones in the worst cases, but all it takes is a little study and they will see the truth. And THAT is what you fear Brucie, which is why you keep attacking the Sedevacantists, unlike any other of the fake denominations you carry water for. Including the absurd Mormons with their insane idea that a sex pervert with a tuba hat with a “seer-stone” in it was the only one that could decipher the hidden scrolls from the Angel Moroni, and that those pronouncements created the Book of Mormon. That is who you publicly carry water for the most in fact. You’re such an obvious degenerate, infiltrating, miserable, sad little clown Brucie.

That this negative potential can be known in advance from experience, and legalism eschewed, even despite that (probably) nobody has yet proposed any other clearly promising and practical way of genuinely revitalizing the Roman Catholic Church in the West. 

There is nothing to “revitalise” never has been. The Novus Orco is not Catholic, so you go ahead and “revitalise” it any gay way you want, Brucie. The actual Catholic Church and its practitioners will continue on as we always have and continue to grow our churches and communities and families.

For what little it is worth; I suspect that an answer might be found in the actual practice of Roman Catholicism at its Christian best; rather than in abstract theories about the matter. 

Sedevacantism IS the practice of Catholicism, Brucie. So you have that as a pesky little spanner in your intended works of subversion. Because nothing else IS.

Something to do with the lives of ordinary Catholics (including ‘ordinary’ Saints); rather than the models and hypotheses of canon lawyers, theologians, philosophers, church bureaucrats or the like.  

Look at the wormtongueing. It’s almost impressive. Here Brucie is trying to say that Catholic Canon Lawyers, Catholic Philosophers, Catholic Theologians and validly ordained Catholic Clergy (that’s what he means by bureaucrats) have the wrong model of Catholicism. The arrogance in even trying this trick is stunning. Incidentally exposing Brucie’s narcissistic streak in thinking he can get away with it.

It’s a sleight of hand of course, he’s pretending your average street crier with a megaphone is the equivalent of an actual Catholic priest. Or that your current day “philosopher”, who is unaware after 4 years of University that Logic is indispensable in philosophy, is somehow comparable to, say, Thomas Aquinas. It’s all implied you see, none of it spelt out, typical sophist language. Letting your own mind fill in the false “gaps” he implies without stating.

And ending off with that “humble” appeal to “just ordinary folks” don’t you see? Good old Marxist approach, eh Brucie? I’m starting to wonder if you may have been born in a synagogue, Brucie.

The problem you have Brucie, is that “ordinary Catholics” who are actually Catholic, are all, in the main, kinda like me. Really not susceptible to your lies. Because once you have seen the truth Brucie, you can’t be so easily fooled again. And the lies of your kind are failing more and more regularly and more and more people see you for the masked soul-robber you are.

Maybe the most luminous, rich, and inspiring aspects of the pre-Reformation Catholic ‘world’ – something rather like GK Chesterton’s imaginative pictures of “Merrie England” – could be found to contain clues toward the changes that are needed and would work and could grow; and also (and vital) what aspects ought to be de-emphasized… 

You shameless vermin, someone should really slap your mouth for daring to mention good men like Tolkien or Chesterton in that whore’s hole you speak your nonsense out of. Chesterton and Tolkien were proper Catholics, which is why Tolkien made a point to LOUDLY protest the Novus Ordo fake Mass every single time he went to Church. He would have got on just fine with us other Catholics. i.e. Sedevacantists. Especially since he died in 1973, when the situation had hardly crystallised, since Vatican II ended at the end of 1965, and people were still trying to see if there was anything salvageable. De Laurier’s only published his thesis on Sedeprivationism in 1979, six years after Tolkien had already passed on. And Lefebvre opened his SSPX seminary only in 1970. Both of these in continental Europe, not England. So Brucie is also imagining things that are counter to likelihood by many orders of magnitude. I feel quite certain that had Tolkien been able to transported to today, he would almost without a doubt be a Sedevacantist.

Selected cuttings from that ancient tree of faithful living might be planted to yield new and different fruits, but recognizably derived from the same root stock. 

And again, in the end, he gives himself away as the modernist deceiver he is.

No Brucie, Catholicism is not Protestantism. We don’t do “branches”.

Oh, and Brucie…? Every time you lift your head above the parapet to try and lob dirt on Catholicism, that is, the ONLY Catholicism left, Sedevacantism, I’ll be here.

Apparently the infiltration is everywhere

Those who read here know that the Novus Ordo is nothing but a coven of impostors and pederasts, but a reader sent me the following, at the end of an email:

On another topic, have to tell you that the mascalzoni in the House of Windsor (you mentioned them) are not British but Germans, likely Ashkenazi. 
Even wiki admits: in 1901, a line of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha succeeded the House of Hanover to the British monarchy with the accession of King Edward VII, son of Queen Victoria and Prince Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. In 1917, the name of the British royal house was changed from the German Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to the English Windsor, taking its name from the royal residence in Berkshire.They changed their names because of the anti-German sentiment in England after that war to end all wars. 

I knew about their Germanic genes, of course, but until I found out all the male sons are circumcised by a Rabbi, or at least a few decades ago, I would have probably thought the label of being Ashkenazi was fanciful invention.

Considering the more recent information that the males are indeed snipped by a Rabbi, AND that they are the last surviving royal house in Europe, when all others were wiped out by the machinations of the Satanists (Freemasons, Illuminati, Carbonari, they took different names in different countries to further muddy the waters) certainly does make it look like quite the Cohen-cidence. Not that I have any incontrovertible evidence one way out he other, nor care particularly, as my interest in the entire ruling class is essentially limited to that a carpenter may have had in the late 1700s in, oh, say France.

Blackpilling Gnostics – Bruce Charlton Edition. Again.

Blackpilling deceivers, gnostics, and sophists need to be ignored. At least until we can change the laws back to outlawing them, ostracising them from civilised society, and in the worst cases make their nightmares come true by burning them at the stake.

My friend Adam posted a very nice, polite, well-reasoned missive for the indefatigable Ann Bernhardt, basically asking her a slightly different take on the question I have been asking her for years now.

My version: Ann, show me where in Canon Law it states there is a limit of duration to an interregnum.

Adam’s take: Ann, ALL of these “Cardinals” are demonstrable demon worshippers. And when Bergoglio kicks the bucket THEY will be “electing” the next “Pope”. Can you see why I am using inverted commas and why we 1958 Sedevacantists are correct and not you, laughably wrong 2023 sedevacantist?

But Ann will not respond to either of us, I am certain.

I know, I know, to you non-Catholics, and therefore non-Christians, this all sounds like the Baptist joke about the guy who’s gonna jump from a bridge.

But that’s only because you’re an ignorant heathen, a pretend-Christian of some rebellious Protestant denomination, or you simply never got round to reading the Patristic fathers, the history of Christianity, or the Bible. Take your pick, it doesn’t matter, because the point of this post is simply to show in the clear light of day, what a sophist, deceiver, and mollusc Bruce Charlton is, and why anyone sane will ignore pretty much anything he has to say.

I first came across Bruce because of an admittedly brilliant little pamphlet he wrote (free on the internet) called Addicted to Distraction. It really is good and you don’t need to be in any way religious to enjoy it.

That said, pretty much everything else after that has been a steaming pile of Gnosticism, spiritual deviancy, and sophistry.

For reasons only known to himself, (or perhaps the demons riding him) Bruce decided that the best thing he could do to Adam’s post was discourage anyone from being a proper Catholic. i.e. a Sedevacantist.

Interesting; since Bruce has professed for some time that he feels the closest thing he is Christianity-wise, is to a Mormon.

I thought he’d misspelt Moron (as I think Mormons have too) but he repeated it quite a lot a while back. Now, far be it from me to criticise anyone who believes Joseph Smith wasn’t a complete sex perverted charlatan who made the whole idiotic thing up, including there being golden sheets of words written by an Angel called Moroni (there’s a hint here, honest!) that he put inside a box and that only he, and he alone, could read, and then only with a seer stone inside his tuba hat, but no one else was allowed to see the sheets and the “translated” Angelic words were noted down by a scribe on the other side of a screen from Smith who “read them” using his special tuba hat. And that was how the Book of Mormon, and his fucking everyone’s wife, and the entire Moronic/Mormonic religion came about.

If you think I am having a fever-dream-hallucination, you are wrong, that insanity is literally how Mormonism came about. Yes. I know, it makes the Scientologists with their Xemu seem a LOT more plausible.

But yeah, when THAT guy starts telling people to NOT be proper Catholics… well… light him up is what I’m gonna do, so here it is. And here is Bruce’s first Gnostic comment.

bruce g charlton 1 day ago

@Adam – One difficulty of going back to Vatican II is logistical, given the importance given to a valid apostolic succession. Because most of what has happened in the RC church all over the world over the past half-century would be utterly invalidated.

Indeed, so large and complex is this problem, that it seems (obviously!) utterly impossible to unpick the valid from the invalid – and spiritually almost lethal even to try.

In other words, I am sure that a strict and logical legalism – even if completely honest and rigorously applied – cannot extricate the RCC from the mess that it now inhabits. Therefore, that legalistic approach to the problem is doomed to fail, and therefore should not be embarked-upon.

But that does Not mean the task is impossible, merely that a legalistic approach cannot accomplish the task.

I am sure that insofar as Roman Catholics are motivated to live in accordance with God’s will; then ways will be found in practice to “short circuit” these problems – and these ways will be clear and simple, and known in their hearts to be valid, by those Roman Catholics of genuine good will.

Thus will a part of the Roman Catholic survive and thrive – to the benefit of all.

But the strictly legalistic approach would (will) need to be let-go at some point; or else it will block what is necessary and good.

I wasn’t the first one to get a shot back at him…

 Reply to  bruce g charlton 1 day ago

That’s not the way this works. All that happened over the last several decades is in fact invalid and it can and must be recognized as such. Catholicism is not Romantic Christianity.

But I think mine was more balanced, fair and complete:

 Reply to  bruce g charlton 1 day ago

Bruce, you whiny, gnostic, coward.
Crawl back under the retarded rock of Moroni you climbed out from under.
You literally stated that the absurd cult of Mormonism is the closest you come to Christianity, and here you are, once again, trying to dissuade anyone from even thinking about sedevacantism; aka actual Catholicism, which is thriving and expanding daily and makes perfect sense since what happened with V2 is really simple enough an honest ten year old can understand it. But not deceivers like you. Just like you ran away from the truth I forced your nose into at my blog (you deleted my replies on yours) run along now, sede blogs are not places for spineless Brits like you.

If you think that didn’t explain too much, you’re right, but that’s because me and Bruce have had this out before, so if you need more information, you might start here for generics on Sedevacantism, or buy one of my books Believe! (short) or Reclaiming the Catholic Church (long).

If instead you want to read up on Bruce and me, knock yourself out, here. I started to call him out over a year ago.

Bruce ignored my comment, of course, but felt the need to keep making random sophistry up. Which is such bullshit I just need to break it up and comment on it.

Problems don’t go away just because they are unacknowledged; and the worst real problems are those due to unacknowledged metaphysical assumptions.

No, Bruce, the worst problem is intentional, lying deceivers like you trying to lead souls to Hell by lying to them.

One such is that the bottom line essence of Roman Catholicism is legalistic in nature – i.e. that the legal aspects trump all other considerations.

No Bruce. The Bottom Line of Catholicism is that it is the TRUTH. And the Truth cannot be lied about, changed, made different or perverted. Legalism, as YOU use it is simply subterfuge, lies, and twisting the truth. What the Church does is not “legalism” Bruce, it’s defending the factual, inerrant, infallible, eternal TRUTH. Yes, your very Nemesis, the thing that sends you scurrying like a cockroach for shadows and sophistry. You would not know this, being what you are, but you see Bruce, honest men will NEVER flex or bend or break before creatures of shadow like you. Nope. We will look at the truth and point it out, and call you out for the deceiving liar you are.

Until That is recognized as an assumption, and that assumption compared with other possible assumptions, then discussion cannot proceed beyond primary school playground verbal scraps (yawn…).

Yawn away you little runt. There is nothing assumed in Catholicism. It is reasoned, thought out, proven, checked against scripture and tradition and divine dogma, and reality. And because Jesus instituted the Church on Earth, and he is not a liar, the Church too, despite being filled with flawed men, remains infallible in its Magisterial teachings. Yes, even after there has been no valid Pope since 1958. Because Jesus promised he would be with us until the end times, and so it is. Real Priests and real Bishops continue to exist. Just nowhere in the Vatican. None within the Novus Ordo Satanic impostor religion pretending to be Catholicism. But as it always did, the Church continues to exist.

If discussion gets trapped by unexamined legalistic assumptions that contain necessarilydestructive consequences, then it will be Roman Catholicism that suffers.

There is no legalistic assumption, only undeniable fact and reality. There is nothing destructive in Catholicism. And in case you are wondering, yes, burning heretics at the stake is salutary and civilisational, as history has proven time and again, not destructive. Not even for the heretic, since contemplating his own burning flesh gives him time to ponder his errors and possibly repent, thus entering Purgatory and eventually Salvation too.

This is why fifth columnists within all churches have so often hidden their real (and anti-Christian – often personal, or ideological) agendas behind a façade of strict legalism. Such agents destroy and personally profit (or simply enjoy the process of destruction), while pretending to protect.

Nope. You’re now trying to conflate sophists and liars like yourself with being strict. The truth IS strict, Bruce. Reality IS strict. That’s just how it is. And so, liars like you are called out for the liars they are.

And the same can happen unconsciously, delusionally, or from a desire for “certainty” – in order, to “settle the question” once and for all. Many motives are possible.

Look at all the nonsense you’re throwing at Sedes, hoping something will stick. Amazing. Well, I know you’re not doing this “unconsciously” Bruce, it’s very intentional and conscious on your part. Nor is it delusional. Underhanded, subversive, deceitful, false, and cowardly, yes, it’s all of those, but not delusional. Well, except if you think your ploy will work on actual Catholics, then yes, you would be delusional. But that’s not your target, is it Bruce, no, like all the gatekeeping Satanists, your target is the newly interested neophyte. You aim to prevent anyone from even looking at sedevacantism. Because you know if they do they will see the perfect reasoning of it and become proper, actual, Christians. And that would leave you out in the cold. Well… for. bit, you’ll get to a real warm place in due course.

The point is that In These Times we can be sure that (later if not sooner) our fundamental assumptions will be exposed, and tested to breaking point. The question is: what then breaks?

You. Bruce. You break. And all those like you. You know what doesn’t break? Catholicism. Or Catholics. At most we die. And either as martyrs (the best of us) or as warriors, taking as many of you scum as possible down with us, except your ride will be a lot lower down and more permanent than ours.

It was good to see I was not the only one that recognised Bruce for what he is. CT had some pertinent thoughts on the matter.

C T Reply to  bruce g charlton 15 hours ago

What a steaming heap of bafflegarble. When the new Inquisition is put into place, you are not going to make it.

As is known now, the Secret King Bruce had to continue to try to have the last word

bruce g charlton Reply to  bruce g charlton 9 hours ago

I should add that I regard the basic “sede” stance – i.e. that the RCC was poisoned by Vatican II – as obviously correct.

Here he uses one of the tried and tested methods of the deceiver: “Oh but I agree with you, see? Now come walk with me down this yellow-bricked road…”

But I suggest that this position can and should be reached without recourse to legalism, and the solutions to Vatican II should not be legalistic either.

Transaltion: But I suggest that this position can and should be reached without recourse to TRUTH, and the solutions to Vatican II should not be TRUE either.

I would have thought it obvious that the Holy Ghost can and will (as I said) “short circuit” the impossibly complex legal problems to provide direct answers that can be agreed by all Catholics of good (i.e. genuinely Christian) motivation.

See? You are a “good” Catholic, if you listen to old uncle Bruce here who has genuine “Christian” motivation. And we’ll skip right over the simple fact that Catholicism IS Christianity. That the ONLY Christianity that has ever existed IS Catholicism, and all else is heresy, nonsense, lies and deceit.

What a serpentine mollusc you are Bruce, you might as well write, All men of good brotherhood can agree that good brotherhood and equality and liberty is the true “catholicism”. You freemason brothers would be proud.

But this can only happen if other factor/s than legalism are regarded as primary and foundational to the Catholic faith. Legalism (aka Pharisees-ism) – if adopted – will empower the wrong people by focusing on the letter, will utterly fail to solve the real problems – and will prove utterly destructive of the Christian spirit (as it always has done and will continue to do). If any church survives, it will be an empty shell.

Translation: But this can only happen if other factor/s than TRUTH are regarded as primary and foundational to the Catholic faith.

See Bruce, you have a bit of a hurdle here, in the sense that K2 or Mount Olympos is a “bit of a hill”. Catholicism has always stayed very clearly that it is the ONLY, ONE, TRUE, HOLY, APOSTOLIC, RELIGION. You really can’t get away from that. Now, you can agree or not. Don’t agree, then you’re not Catholic. Buh-Bye. Off you go, piss off and don’t bother us again. No Catholic cares about your opinions of Catholicism, you are not one of us, you don’t count. End of. Or you agree, in which case, you can’t water down the truth Bruce. You can’t twist it. You can’t change it. You can’t ignore it. Which is what you are advocating for. Precisely what you’d like Catholics to do is completely anathema to us. Oh, does it hurt you feel that we plainly say, we are right and yes, all of you who are not with us are wrong? Hmmm…I wonder who else said if you are not with me you’r against me. Anyone? Anyone? Guy in Galilee? Answered to the name of Jesus? Ever heard of Him, Bruce? Guess what, we Catholics ARE with him. People like you, I’m fairly sure He’s gonna say “I never knew you.” Go look it up. You might as well read that Bible one day eh?

CT too also fired back. More gentlemanly than I, as is often the case. But then I am not going for polite. I want to obliterate any shred of credibility these charlatanic gnostic deceivers have, forever. So Orbital Nukes is more my speed.

C T Reply to  bruce g charlton 3 hours ago

You often make these weird mistakes — e.g. “pharisees-ism” — that make me wonder sometimes what language you actually speak.

No, God won’t “short-circuit” His own law. That’s a stupidity that only a maleducated, non-Christian midwit could envisage. The plain truth is that outside of the Church there is no salvation, therefore all who wish to be saved must be brought into It, legally and publicly because there is no other way. Baptisms and other sacraments must be performed properly, evil must be publicly renounced, penance must be visibly performed before the apostates can be accepted as Catholic.

You are not even a member of the Church. You are so far from being a well trained and educated cleric that you can only aspire to be a layman. You have no say, are entitled to no opinion, can offer no relevant advice on the matter.

Quite. And on that note, we once more, turn the page on the non-Christian, liar, deceiver and intentional sophist Bruce Charlton.

All content of this web-site is copyrighted by G. Filotto 2009 to present day.
Website maintained by IT monks