At least, that is how I would have to describe Vox’s enthusiastic response to my “theological challenge” if I were using the Western’s zeitgeist concerning the war with evil Russia and how they are now obviously on the ropes.
The Kurgan makes his pre-Vatican II Roman Catholic perspective clear in a recently published article; to which I may or may not respond at some point in the next ten years depending upon my time and interest.
As you can see he’s obviously a hair’s breath away from total conversion!
Be that as it may, and probably surprising to many that read his blog, Vox is actually a very subtle writer, and even subtler reader. I think he admitted it himself as being, if I recall correctly our conversation, a “literary snob”.
Which means the man can both read and write at a level that is today rapidly becoming as rare as finding an original Atlantean. So, totally unwarranted, but driven by my ungentlemanly curiosity, I will take a few of the things he wrote and comment on them.
Evil observably exists. Mankind is observably fallen into evil. The world is observably ruled by an immortal being that hates Man, Jesus Christ, the Good, the Beautiful, and the True. Jesus Christ, the Son of God and the Living Word, is literally and observably the only hope of Man.
And that is the full extent of the theology I am willing to assert and defend.
This, is why I have very little issue with Vox’s theology. In essence, his position is really not that different from the one of millions and millions of illiterate Catholic peasants throughout the ages that were in fact good catholics despite their inability to read or write. And yes, I know how this looks based on the previous paragraphs, but I am not actually taking pot shots. On a personal level, my own theology is not far from this either, with the only added point that, as far as I can tell to date, the REAL Catholic Church, has made no errors in dogma or doctrine, and even those parts I personally resist, or dislike, are objectively better for making as a whole to follow and in fact cause no harm in any case.
That being the case, it is absolutely of imperative importance from my perspective, to make as many people as possible (especially the fooled “Novus Ordo” laypeople) aware of the fact that, actually, yes, an infallible Church does exist, as reason and logic demand, and here it is. And yes it was fought against and infiltrated and also comprised corrupt men from the very start, because, duh: Humans. Do you even READ the Bible? Or LISTEN to the actual Church? They been telling you this from the start too. And yet, every single infiltration, usurpation and attack against it has ultimately failed, the doctrine remained unsullied and in fact more explicit and clarified as time passed, precisely to fend off the further and future attacks, culminating in the saintly and to my view obviously infallible and supernaturally protected Code of Canon Law of 1917, which comprised and summarised EVERY bit of Catholic doctrine, rule and law since Christianity began, all the way to 1917. And since the last valid Pope died on October 9th 1958, whatever other writings he pronounced ex cathedra, could also be added to it. I especially like his encyclical, Mystici Corporis Christi even if the link it’s from is from the current Satanic coven pretending to be Catholic clergy, so perhaps save a local copy before they start editing in how sodomy is part of it all.
The point of agreement I think are likely to be valid for both me and Vox are, aside from his above professed theology, the fact that human beings need rules for civilisation to thrive, as a generic but EXTREMELY statistical significant fact. And by civilisation he and I would both mean something both he and I would recognise as civilised and good and beautiful, despite possible minor details being different.
There are another two points he makes that I think can be seen as quite meaningful. The first:
Nor do I take my own occasional contemplations on the subject terribly seriously; I am from the “glass darkly” school of theological thought.
One can hardly argue with him on this point. In fact, it is a very wise perspective to have. One thing we can ALL be absolutely certain of, is that every single one of us is in error.
I think that once one really begins to appreciate the magnitude and type and kind of error you are in, you begin to be far more likely to think that perhaps, St. Augustine, which Vox is not particularly fond of, mostly, if my memory is correct, or at least in part, because of St. Augstine’s habit of referring to himself as the most miserable of miserable sinners and wretches and so on and on. I get it, when you have a healthy self-esteem, or you build one, as the case may be, for most of your life, you’re not likely to look favourably upon some guy grovelling in a manner that appears to you as some kind of worm-tongue looking to not be squished like the maggot he clearly is.
And that is indeed so.
Until you have a moment before a tiny part of the radiance of God. Or as in my case, and/or people Like Saul/Paul who tend to fall off horses and go blind for a few days when it happens. Then, when faced with the true dimensions of your multiple and seemingly endless errors, you begin to start, to have an inkling of an idea, that perhaps, good old St. Augustine, really did know something about reality. And probably a good fat chunk of it more than you or I.
Since we are ALL in error, it makes logical sense to some degree, that any absolute conviction about Christianity (or Catholicism, as it should be properly called, heh!) must be also in error. And absolute errors are bad, so should be avoided. Kinda.
Because far worse than a categorical and absolute error, is relativism. Putting an innocent man to death, or a young woman, in the case of Joan of Arc, is very, very bad (and in her case done by corrupt evil bastards too, so sort of beside this point), but letting all blasphemy and various crimes of ever escalating violence go unpunished, inevitably results in a failed civilisation, as history continues to show.
The difference, then between Vox’s theology and my own, as I suspected, comes down to the precise things he and I would agree or disagree are non-negotiables.
And I am sure there are some. But probably less than he suspects.
The Catholic Church itself has it as doctrine that while there is such a thing as Papal infallibility (explained many times of this blog, so use the Search Me link on the right if you are not sure what it is) and that the Magisterium of the Church is similarly infallible (hence why the CoCL of 1917 also is, since it was put together by the Magisterium of the Church and approved by two valid Popes), the Church itself is NOT necessarily always infallible.
There are doctrines that are deemed to be absolutely and forever unchangeable, of course, known as divine doctrine, as they come straight from God and there really is no question about them, or are evidently simple to understand and extrapolate from such rules (the idea of non-catholics not being valid catholic clergy being an obvious one) but other rules might just be for the running of the Church or apply in almost but not all cases and so on. A deep understanding of Roman law and Catholic doctrine may be required for some of these, but in essence the Church clearly states that ultimately, the only true infallibility comes from God.
Which is not to say that infallible doctrine might be flawed, but rather, that humans within the Church can and do make plentiful errors as well as some making consciously and known heretic attacks on it.
One of the points Vox makes that could be construed as a criticism is this:
My chief criticism of all theology and all theologians is this: they tend to artificially narrow the art of the possible, by which I mean they usually assign divine significance to one of several possible interpretations of a phrase – often a phrase that has already been translated one or more times – and then deny all potential legitimacy to the other possible interpretations.
I don’t really have any objection to this point, and I think Vox may have it possibly as being more familiar with the endless squabbling that goes on amongst Protestant theologians. But in this respect, it could possibly be applied to the idea that Peter was not only the leader of the Apostles but also the first Pope and the Rock upon which the Church is built, and what follows from it, as I explained in my original post from which this one stems from.
But the fact is that as far as I am concerned, the whole “Peter is the Rock” thing is absolutely not limited to one quote from the Bible. This attitude of selecting a tiny piece of text from the Bible and then applying it patch-work style to whatever nonsensical idea your average protestant is trying to defend, is really a Protestant hobby, not so much a Catholic one at all. And when I say Protestant, I include the fully Protestant, satanic Novus Orco Vatican II fake Church.
Peter being the Rock is borne out by not just one or two lines in the Bible, but several passages taken in context, as is the entire 2,000 year history of the Church. Christianity literally would NOT EXIST without THAT specific interpretation of it. And even more stunningly, is the fact that the Catholic Church is literally the LONGEST form of reign that has EVER taken place in the entirety of known human history. All the attacks against it ultimately failed. Including the Arian heresy during which 97% to 99% of ALL then existing bishops subscribed to it. Or as the current era when out of nearly 2 billion nominal “Catholics” there are maybe say a million Sedevacantists. This crisis too will pass. Because either the Catholic Church is true and real and infallible, as it has proven itself to be for two millennia if you bother to really look into it, or it is not, in which case ALL of Christianity is a complete fairy tale. Which happens to be what I USED to believe for over 40 years of my life.
The inescapable conclusion I make, is based not on this one, or that other single scarp of evidence, or quote, or Biblical sentence, or other evidence in its singular form. No, my conclusion is based on the absolutely overwhelming totality of evidence that:
- Catholicism created the absolute best conditions for human beings bar none in the entire history of mankind we know of.
- Catholicism in the main and almost alone in this was responsible for the creation of the actual, valid, real scientific method that ultimately created science, engineering and so on, and this was done precisely because Catholic doctrine hinges of God being a Loving, Just, Merciful and LOGICAL God. That is, reason is a thing. And that theological concept meant that the Universe could be studied and greatly understood. Protestantism both thanks to the explicit statement of Luther that “Reason is the whore of the devil” and the abundantly clear and obvious evidence presented by Protestants in general, rejects reason entirely. It’s all about the feels and possibly some foggy notion of following “God-breathed” theology, which is unfortunately indistinguishable from pastor-con-man-grifter farted theology.
- Catholic doctrine and dogma did this and I can find no flaw or fault in it once I properly examined any specific dogma or doctrine as it actually is, instead of how people might tell you it is.
- Catholicism literally is Christianity and “Christianity” that is not Catholicism:
- Would not exist at all without Catholicism, since they are all bastardised and corrupted offshoots of Catholicism, first split-off in this specific manner by the fat German maid-raping, nun-banger, Martin.
- Secondly has DEMONSTRABLY created a far worse lot for humanity, since it has slowly and consistently corroded Catholicism to the point that now we have accepted as a general, global whole: sex before marriage, contraception, divorce, and ultimately baby killing (abortion). And now have shifted on to “transgenderism” and tranny “bishops” in Protestant Covens oh… sorry… “Churches”.
- And that’s just to scratch the surface. Keep in mind about 500 years ago, Jean Parisot Le Valette beat a man nearly to death for blasphemy and he did only four months in jail.
In 1538, while on Malta, Valette was sentenced to four months in a guva (a hole in the ground) on Gozo for nearly beating a layman to death, and he was subsequently exiled to Tripoli for two years to serve as military governor. Upon his return he was punished again for bringing a negro slave not liable for servitude.
As you can see, even back then, Catholicism was way ahead of the rest of the world on even things like slavery.
In short, and to clarify, my position on Catholicism does not hinge simply on Matthew 28:18-20, but on, as I said, a staggering preponderance of evidence, of which the above are really just the highlights.
This is also the reason why I remain interested in further investigating the issue. If I were utterly closed to the concept, as many assume, I would not care to. And in truth, in MANY aspects of “Christianity” I have zero interest left in “exploring” the issue. Not because I am “closed off” but because those particular rabbit warrens have been thoroughly excavated, mined and blasted and there is simply nowhere else to go.
Catholicism (the sedevacantist one, which is the original one) is the truest philosophy of reality bar none that I have found to date. And it is so by many, many, many light years of distance from the next truest thing I had found up to then, which was a mixture of semi-Shintoists, Zen-Agnosticism, with elements of Feudal Japanese Samurai philosophy.
And surprising as the revelation of actual Catholicism being absolutely true AND the best descriptor of reality was to me, it remains the case. And the reason it was so surprising was because essentially, EVERYTHING I thought I knew about Catholicism was actually a carefully crafted network of absolute lies concocted by various “Christians”. What I thought was Catholicism, was in fact “Catholicism” or Novus Orco “Christianity” which is absolute Satanry of the worst sort. And of which, Protestantism was its initial offshoot of evil intended to pervert and twist.
So, there are some of my clarifications.
I look forward with baited breath to Vox’s additional, en passant, coincidental, possibly related, commentary on same, in the next fifteen to twenty years; probably without fail!
Oh No! Kurgan vs Vox Day Theology!
I know there are now going to be heads exploding in various gamma hives around the internet as they hope and pray to their slithering nether-gods for a major rift between myself and Vox.
While I am sure nothing of the sort is or will be the case. In fact, many moons ago, I asked Vox if he would be willing to have a friendly discussion/debate on Catholicism vs Protestantism, or to be more precise, my Sedevacantist Catholicism and his specific brand of Protestantism which I believe hinges on the original Nicene creed.
Even back then, somewhat to my surprise, he said he wasn’t against it in principle, but the time required for it (and I suspect utility of it) was not really worth it. Which, in general I agreed with.
That all said, my brain can’t help but want to continue down paths that in my view are likely to increase my understanding of reality. Christianity, is one of those paths that is essentially endless in this regard, so, like say learning to paint, or make music, is a lifelong continuous investigation.
With such endeavours, after a time, there comes a point where your understanding or skill in the topic is good enough to outdo the common men and women in the field and then even the well-known ones. In short, it becomes difficult to find other minds against which you can confront yourself in order to learn more of the topic that interests you. And when you do find one, naturally, at least for me, you’d like to investigate it and push and prod at it and test your theories and ideas and baselines against.
Well, Vox has such a mind. I also consider him a friend and few things in life are as enjoyable to me as philosophical conversation of some substance with a friend. Preferably over a good wine and light meal, or with decent cognac after a good dinner. Alas, distance and circumstance prevents such discourse in the customary civilised fashion I just described. So I find myself limited to this rather barbaric format. Blog to blog. Well, perhaps we might do a livestream on it one day, but be as it may, I will now simply dive into the post Vox put up which prompted this one for me: This is it.
As baseline axioms I think I have the following, which are:
Given the above premises/axioms, I will then look at the above linked post critically. And consider that I am absolutely in no way defending the Boomertastic Doug Wilson. I read a couple of his post years ago, before I was even a Christian and the illogic and hypocrisy prevalent in Protestantism made me conclude he’s an idiot and not worth listening to at all.
Vox concluded that Doug Wilson is a gatekeeper but still keeps tabs on him clearly, which is understandable, as I keep tabs on other gatekeepers like Milo and EM Jones and Taylor Marshall and so on. But perhaps does not condemn him as thoroughly as I do, and perhaps, in general he might not condemn the gatekeepers as thoroughly as I do. I may be wrong, but I suspect he is more forgiving than I am on such matters.
Anyway, to examine the post in more detail:
I will first note that this is precisely the same defense that is regularly offered up on behalf of other gatekeepers like Jordan Peterson and Ben Shapiro, and also of books like the Harry Potter series. Don’t criticize the obvious errors and the demonstrable falsehoods when they are otherwise doing so much good? Don’t you understand that if they tell the truth instead of lying, they won’t be able to reach as many of those who need the truth? Isn’t it better that they read godless tales of evil being portrayed as good than not read at all?
And the answer is no. This is a false, pernicious, and fundamentally short-sighted perspective. It is less a defense than an attempt to negotiate a guilty plea in exchange for a lesser penalty.
And so far we are in absolute agreement. For example, the Catholic Church teaches that it is better to leave aborigines in jungles alone and not instruct them at all than to instruct them with Protestantism. Because as per Church doctrine, a savage that has never heard of Christ might yet enter heaven judged by God on the merits of his own conscience, but one that has taken on a perverse version of Christianity is far less likely to escape the mortal sins of pride and in essence, choosing “me and my way” over “God and His ways”. I have always had the same idea. I met some of the last Khoi San that were free of any influence from so-called civilised men, and I found them to be honest, reliable, friendly, and just. Their society might be very primitive, but within the confines of that limitation they were essentially innocent and good people. Take a couple of generations of essentially Protestant “education” and a previously scrupulously honest primitive people become dishonest, haphazard, unpredictable and liable to suffer from everything to alcoholism to being criminals.
Let me be perfectly clear: No one who advocates equality of any kind, and no one who is a civic nationalist of any variety, and no one who falsely asserts that which is not a sin is a sin, should ever be considered a genuine or reliable advocate of the Good, the Beautiful, and the True, no matter what their other positive attributes might be.
Because liars cannot, and will not, defend the truth. They will always produce one reason or another for refusing to do so. And if you are foolish enough to trust or follow a liar, you will come to regret it, as all of you – and readers here should recall, the vast majority of you – who used to lionize Jordan Peterson and consider him to be a great intellectual champion should know.
Again, I agree whole-heartedly. Although, I realise Vox here was referring specifically to Civic Nationalism and so on, the fact remains that:
no one who falsely asserts that which is not a sin is a sin, should ever be considered a genuine or reliable advocate of the Good, the Beautiful, and the True, no matter what their other positive attributes might be.
And this remains the absolute point for me which I cannot reconcile with Vox’s theology.
Vox, is, after all, a Protestant. A very unique one he might be, but he (as far as I know) does not subscribe to the rules of the Catholic Church as per the Code of Canon Law of 1917 which in essence simple explains/extrapolates from both the Bible and Catholic (Christian) Tradition and has compiled and summarised all the various extrapolations, dictates, and dogma of the Catholic Church into one volume that covers all of those documents from the period of human history up to the year 1917. As a Catholic, you then may also wish to add the Papal ex-cathedra commentaries made from 1917 to 1958. After that we have not had any valid Popes since, so everything else can be safely ignored.
I am fairly sure Vox has not read the Code of Canon Law. And if he did I think the things he might object to are probably not as many as he might envision, but I am (foggily) aware he has some issue with some aspects of Mariology, though I am not sure what they are. I feel fairly confident he is well-read enough to be aware that Catholics do not actually “worship” Mary, but simply ask for her intercession, as we do to various Saints. In essence, the difference between catholics and Protestants is that we don’t stop communicating with our dead friends and people. We pray for them and we also ask them to pray for us.
One of the only times we briefly discussed my Catholicism (sedevacantism) and I pointed out some of the main issues he immediately said words to the effect of “Oh, well, those are Catholics I can get behind”. So again, I doubt the differences between us are huge in terms of theology.
He also agrees with me that in general humans need rules, otherwise they will pretty much eat each other alive in the street, which, to a certain extent we are starting to really see on a global level when Christianity fades.
We are also both smart enough understand that, while perhaps a certain optional rule for people may not really be designed for me or him specifically, we can’t really have rules for thee but not for me. And if there are exceptions, they should be based on sound reasoning, logic, and justice, not personal preference. So, in short, I ask myself:
“Why is Vox not actually a sedevacantist?”
I am presently only aware of one possible hitch which is his specific interpretation of the Trinty. Which I will not attempt to speak for him on as I would probably get it wrong. For myself, I do not pretend to know the intricacies of the Trinity, and I am perfectly happy to act in this regard very much as an illiterate peasant from the year 800. The Church says the Trinity works thusly, and I accept it as a given. I see no possible profit in trying to atomise that concept, nor do I have any interest in it.
While I may atomise the concept of not duelling and understand it very well, and instinctively want to say: “But Bishop, I don’t want to run that guy through with a rapier because I am proud, but because he defrauds little old ladies and steals candy from children, and blasphemes! C’MAWN…Just this one (ok, half-dozen) time?!” But intellectually I understand I must just bow my head and NOT challenge the man to a duel to the death. And if I do confront him, it would be a sin to smack the living crap out of him until he makes amends. I know that. Which makes it a bad sin. But… y’know… I’m only human. Maybe next time I’ll give him a warning first. You know, if I really see the error of my ways. Otherwise all I can do is really try to work on it over time. But in the meantime: no duels have been had. #winning.
So, it might be an intellectual disparity, perhaps the things that interest Vox to dissect are so different from the ones that interest me that it causes him a problem with Catholicism. And this, THIS is the real interest to me.
What are those details? Is he seeing something I am not, or is it vice-versa? Or is there a third possibility that we are both missing?
Such conversations, or investigations, if you prefer, are what fascinates me, and the ones that I think help us to see more truth when done with an intellectually honest person that is also curious enough and interested enough to examine such details.
I seem to recall for example that Vox also labelled Once Saved Always Saved as a retarded concept (he may have been more polite about it) and I would expect he similarly considers Sola Scriptura as absurd, but I never asked him the question. I also seem to recall that his generic approach to the Bible was not that this or that version was “better” but to just read one and go with it as best you can, which is “close enough” for really about 99.99% of people.
I suspect that his avoidance of hardcore Catholicism is linked to what he believes are “lies” or untruths that the Catholic Church has as various dogmas. What these are, however I am unaware, and it is my experience that most such ideas are usually rooted in some Protestant fake news about Catholicism. Several aspects of which, honest historians like Rodney Stark have pointed out even though they are not Catholics.
At any rate, I would certainly be interested in looking at what the differences between his and my theological philosophies are.
I suspect he doesn’t have the time, but the invitation is open.
UPDATE: A reader pointed out I have not explained the absolute point that anyone who advocates that a sin is not a sin should not be trusted. As often happens with me, I thought the point was obvious, but I failed to realise it is not as obvious to many as I think. So, to clarify, The very concept of Protestantism that each man can interpret the Bible as he wishes, is a pernicious sin of pride. Even the sola scriptura retards must know that man is perfectly honest, clean and good as well as smart and reasonable. It very clearly states this in Hebrews and elsewhere if memory serves.
Secondly, it is just as obvious that a good and loving God would not leave a DYI kit for interpreting His Will and what the rules He wishes us to follow are. Because given the fact we are all a bunch of retards to one degree or other, we are guaranteed to screw it up. And the idea a flawless and loving God would leave us a flawed theology is equally retarded.
Therefore, a FLAWLESS theology MUST exist. And there must be a way to know which it is. As it happens, there is. Jesus Appointed Peter as the Head of His Church, instructed the Apostles to teach His teachings and Paul tells us also that we are to reject things that are not as per their teachings as given to them by Jesus (that is, Apostolic succession, is a thing).
All of which would still screw up if it were not for the fact that Jesus also told us He would be with us to the end of time. Now, if Jesus is with us always to the end, and He commanded the Apostles to teach what He taught them, then their teachings cannot be in error. Not because even the Apostles are flawless, but because Jesus is.
That is the whole point of Papal infallibility. It’s not due to some superhuman characteristic of Popes. There have been plenty of greedy, power-hungry, deviants as Popes, but they did not teach erroneous dogma when speaking ex-cathedra because of the supernatural protection due to Jesus’ promise. Who can speak erroneous or wrong doctrine? People who are not protected by Jesus’ promise and who is that? People who are not the foundation on which the rock is based, which has two parts. The non visible supreme one, Jesus, and his vicar on Earth, which is the man holding the position that Peter held as leader of the Apostles.
18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.
19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.
Priests can lie or be wrong. Bishops can lie or be wrong. Popes can lie or be wrong. But valid, legitimate Popes talking officially for the entire Church on matters of faith and morals, that is the foundational principles of Christianity, cannot be wrong. Again, not because they are infallible in and of themselves, but because Jesus specifically said he was specifically with them to the End of the World. And Jesus cannot be wrong, nor is he a liar. And what He taught the apostles is true and He also specifically stated he would build the Church on Peter,, renaming him from Simon to Peter, which in Latin, Aramaic and most Latin languages literally means Rock.
Regardless of whatever brain-twisting Protestants come up with to try and say Jesus didn’t mean or say what he meant and said, even a child can understand that if someone says, to a guy called Simon:
“Hey buddy, come here, gonna run a little test by you…”
And he does, and Simon passes, and the guy says:
“You know what buddy, I’m gonna call you Rock from now on, and on this rock, I will build my church.” It’s a fairly clear point that Good old Simon/Rock, is now the head of the Church. Seriously, a child gets it. You need to be indoctrinated into lies from birth not to see this as it is.
So, the first lie is to tell people that to not be Catholic is not a sin. It is. You’re ignoring God’s Will. And the entire retinue of sins that follows from anyone following that advice is literally endless. And frankly, it ALL stems from pride to begin with. Some German fattie with a penchant for sexing up nuns and raping maids and swearing and calling reason literally “the whore of the devil”, comes along some 1500 years after Christ and the Catholic Church which has been the ONLY valid Christianity to that point and he FIXES everything? It’s moronic. Jesus didn’t say:
“Oh, by the way, all the people for the next 1500 years or so that call themselves Christians, and all the Popes which everyone agrees for that long are the main dudes, yeah, well, forget about all of them, they are all wrong and Pagan worshippers that ask my mother and a bunch of dead guys of no importance whatsoever to put in a good word for them with me. Anyway, all those guys? Going straight to Hell. Only when that rotund German with the beer and all the sex comes along will AKCHUAL Christianity be fixed. And he will do it by changing the Bible before he says it’s the only thing you should refer to at all. But only the one he changed, not the one everyone used for 1200 or so years and that was put together by the same Catholics who got it all wrong. And oh that Bible that the German guy changed, which was also changed by the Pahrisees, you know, the guys who had me killed, for 700 years before him, that’s the good Bible, scrap that other one. And oh, oh, one more thing: The best Bible, it’s the one with 33,000 translation errors ordered to be put together by a flamingly homosexual English King. Jimmy boy, that’s his name. He also starts up the Freemasons, which are Satanists, but don’t let that bug ya, seriously, his version of the Bible is the best one.”
So… yeah. I hope it’s kinda obvious now.
No related posts.
By G | 11 November 2023 | Posted in Catholicism, Reclaiming the Catholic Church, Sedeprivationism, Sedevacantism, Social Commentary