Exposing the fake “clergy” of the Novus Orco

This is really quite long as it is a partial transcription of back and forth that went on on Social Galactic for a period of about 2 months. The nesting/breaks/threads between comments also means that although it is as faithful a reproduction as possible, a few comments may appear out of order. There is no nefarious purpose behind this, it is just the nature of the somewhat chaotic methodology the discussion was had and the limits of the platform, which does not have a thread export function.

In any case, although it might take a little while to read, this lengthy series of back and forth is useful because it highlights really quite well, the exact nature and deception that these fake “Catholics” pretending to be valid clergy of my Church are like. You will notice the supposed humility and wish to simply “dialogue” at the start is soon dispelled, and later, when he thinks he has a “kill shot” (by appealing to the false authority of a translator, no less) the mask slips entirely for a little while.

Do notice how every trick in the book is used. In the upcoming tome that will become the definitive defence for Sedeprivationism each of these tactics is examined in detail, but this is a very good primer in both the type of deception you will encounter and in how clarity of thought and not being fooled into conflating disparate topics serves as a razor-like sword to expose these vicious liars for the frauds they are. Enjoy the digital vivisection this transcript shows.

***

The Kurgan @Kurgan 2 months ago
And my answer will be: the Magisterium of the Church gave me that DUTY.
Which includes recognising the consequences of persistent heresy are an automatic vacation of ANY clerical office without any further pronouncement by anyone.
As per Canon 188 part 4 of the only valid code of canon law.
No cleric can be considered Catholic if he does not reject the 16 documents of vatican 2 as the heresy they are.
So, if you are a cleric, what will be your answer when you are asked why you did not defend, protect and stand up for the Church when it was infiltrated by the enemy and they started to teach heresy as if it were truth?

The Kurgan @Kurgan 2 months ago
My last post was for you @CatholicDeacon
I’m honestly interested in your answer if you have one.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 2 months ago

@Kurgan Never heard of Sede Privationism before (they didn’t go over it in deacon school!)
I look forward to reading, researching, and contemplating the subject, and discussing it with you in the future. God bless.

@Kurgan Yes, I am a Catholic deacon. Thanks for giving me a reason to dive back into Church history Ecclesiology, and Canon law. This is going to take a while! No matter how this goes, I wish more people had your fervor and passion.

@Kurgan I guess my first question is, “In your view, am I a validly ordained deacon, and if not, what must I do or believe to be/become one?”

This will help me to understand your position.

The Kurgan @Kurgan 2 months ago

@CatholicDeacon
First of all thanks for engaging.
As to your ordination I do not know the specifics of it without which I cannot answer.
But let us assume for a moment you ARE validly ordained, doubtful as it may be, my next question to you would be do you recognise that every one of the 16 documents of V2 contain heresy that overturn positions the Church has always had and also use ambiguous language (in addition to the heresy) to muddy the intent as much as possible and as such no real Catholic cleric can or ever should present anything of V2 as being anything other than heresy?

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 2 months ago
@Kurgan Here’s some more information about my ordination that should help you in determining my status:

I was ordained in 2019 by a Bishop in the United States

The Bishop that ordained me was ordained a Bishop in 2003 by the Archbishop in New Jersey
The bishop that ordained me was ordained a priest 1n 1982 by a Bishop from Spain
The Spanish Bishop was ordained a Bishop in 1976 by an Archbishop from New Jersey
The Spanish Bishop was ordained a Priest in 1950 by a society in Italy (Priest Unknown)
The recently mentioned Archbishop from New Jersey was ordained a Bishop in 1966 by the Titular Bishop of Crepedula (Africa)
The recently mentioned Archbishop from New Jersey was ordained a Priest in 1939 by the Archbishop of Paris.
I can’t find any information on who attended Vatican II, how they voted in each of the sessions, or their views concerning the council documents.
So, am I a deacon, or not, and how did you reach your conclusion?

The Kurgan @Kurgan 2 months ago
@CatholicDeacon
Thank you for the information.
Now, in order of importance:
1. While The Spanish Bishop was validly ordained a priest he vacated his office along with all the others in the chain you mentioned if they ever:

A) taught, promulgated, or instructed others to do so, any of the documents of V2 as Catholic Doctrine.

B) considered, referred to or taught that any of the apostates after 9th October 1958 were legitimate Popes

In other words, to all intents and purposes unless they specifically denounced V2 prior to your ordination, then they had no authority to ordain you, so I would say no. You are not validly ordained even if your intent might be good and pure.
As a result you would have to speak to a valid bishop (I can put you in touch with some if you want) to figure out what the process would be for you to become validly ordained.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 2 months ago
@Kurgan Thanks for the detailed reply. To move along our discussion, I will consider myself not validly ordained unless/until I can prove otherwise. Time to search the basement for my notes, papers, and 1917 copy of canon law. God bless.

The Kurgan @Kurgan 2 months ago
@CatholicDeacon your humility and reasonableness is both surprising and very much appreciated so far.
Were it only the others who are genuine in intent but perhaps ignorant or misguided on the truth and the history be as open to honest investigation as you are.
I look forward to your eventual continuation of our conversation.
Thank you. And I wish more clergy (at least the one that thinks they are valid clergy because of ignorance and not intention to deceive) were more open to looking at the facts before pretending to know better.
I hope this will be a fruitful communication.

The Kurgan @Kurgan a month ago
@CatholicDeacon
Any progress on reviewing the code of 1917 with regard to Canon 188 part 4 and the Sedeprivationist argument?

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon a month ago
@Kurgan I haven’t made it that far yet. I have a question though: If there hasn’t been a valid Pope since Pius XII, doesn’t that make denouncing the V2 documents unnecessary? You need a valid Pope for any valid council/document anyway, no?

The Kurgan @Kurgan a month ago
Because Roncalli died before the official publication of the first V2 documents (which is irrelevant because he was in any case invalidly elected and in any case the creator of V2) there are some that would question whether the (fake) “Popes” after Roncalli could have been valid. But they are not because they all went along with V2 documents.
In any case it is precisely the fact that V2 are heretical that proves those “popes” were fake, because none of them denounced the heresy.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon a month ago
@Kurgan Looking at your whitesmoke1958 link now. On 26 Oct 1958, was Joseph Cardinal Siri elected Pope, or did he not have time to accept (Giuffre seems to have changed positions in 1990). Just trying to get my timeline correct.

The Kurgan @Kurgan a month ago
@CatholicDeacon #kurganpadre
To my mind, whether Siri was officially elected and forced to resign or not is almost entirely irrelevant. What is clear is that the election of Roncalli was at the very best, highly suspect, and of course, as good Catholics, we should use prudence and steer clear of anything suspect. But to a certain extent it’s also immaterial whether Roncalli was a valid Pope or not (he was not, but even if we assume he was for the purposes of the exercise). What is absolutely clear is that Montini without any doubt became a heretic and vacated his office 6 months after he failed to denounce the first issue of the V2 heretical documents.
This is really the truck of it. there is absolutely no logical argument for refuting the antipapacy of Montini and all those who followed given that V2 are heretical. So, ultimately, that is the focal point.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon a month ago
#kurganpadre Hello Kurgan.
So if V2 ended on 8 Dec 1965, are you saying that any bishop who did not denounce all of the V2 documents as being heretical by 8 June 1966 were heretics and lost their office?

The Kurgan @Kurgan 22 days ago
@CatholicDeacon Yes. That’s at its most charitable.
I did blog on it in some detail, and I think the date might be the 7th, but aside that, in essence yes.
And keep in mind that the code of 1917 was in full force then. As it is now, since the 1983 “code” was created by the same impostors and for the sole purpose of “invalidating” the 1917 code which exposed them.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon a month ago
@Kurgan #kurganpadre Yes I have read what you’ve written. I just like to simplify things for my own brain, and for people who might be following along. No need to get ahead of ourselves, we have plenty of time.

The Kurgan @Kurgan 22 days ago
@CatholicDeacon ok.
Dunno about plenty of time though, it’s been 62 years.
About time cradle “Catholics” woke up.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon a month ago
@Kurgan #kurganpadre Being that the doctrine of the Incarnation and the Trinity took over three hundred years to work out, the Church has plenty of time. We, however, will probably be dead….

The Kurgan @Kurgan 22 days ago
@CatholicDeacon i wouldn’t say it took that long to work out. Maybe that long to beat out gnostics. And complacency in the face of a direct attack on mother church, ESPECIALLY by clergy is why we’re in this situation currently. Wouldn’t you agree?

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon a month ago
@Kurgan #kurganpadre I agree, but I would replace ESPECIALLY with EXCLUSIVELY, as ALL heresies have been started by Catholic priests, as they are the only ones who have the ability to propagate them.
Hence their names, Arianism, etc.

The Kurgan @Kurgan a month ago
@CatholicDeacon clergy doesn’t have exclusivity on heresy. Anyone can be guilty of it.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon a month ago
@Kurgan #kurganpadre Please read precisely what I wrote. My statement was that all heresies have been STARTED by clergy. Of course anyone can be guilty of heresy. Clergy DOES have exclusivity at starting heresy.

The Kurgan @Kurgan 25 days ago
@CatholicDeacon no, they don’t.
Not all heresies were started by clergy. Unless you have a very loose definition of clergy.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon a month ago
@Kurgan #kurganpadre I believe that the Vatican 2 document “Inter Mirifica – Decree on the Media of Social Communications” does not contain any heresy. Therefore, your Question #2 – that all V2 documents contain heresy is false. Thoughts?

The Kurgan @Kurgan 22 days ago
@CatholicDeacon #kurganpadre
Inter mirifica is possibly the most insidious because it’s language is technically “good” but in essence promoting a set of skills and activities that are inherently dishonest.
Ask yourself if Pope Pius X would have agreed.
But in any case, let’s for the sake of argument, assume inter mirifica is absolutely not heretical, so what? At best it is neutral commentary on the use of technology. How does it in any way “save” Vatican 2?
It doesn’t. Vatican 2 was in its entirety and from the outset a Freemasonic and Protestant plot. I don’t understand, if you’re legitimately interested in truth, what you’re still waiting for before declaring Bergoglio is NOT a legitimate Pope and none of the V2 Impostors were either.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 22 days ago
@Kurgan #kurganpadre Question 2 of your logical challenge states that “in every case” the 16 documents of V2 contain heresy. I am saying that at least 1 document does not contain heresy, and that this makes your Q2 statement false.

The Kurgan @Kurgan 25 days ago
@CatholicDeacon and I would disagree because of that document’s context being Vatican 2 and who created it.
But even allowing for the sake of argument, your point, so what?
It changes nothing practically and all the fake clerics are still fake clerics.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 22 days ago
@Kurgan #kurganpadre This matters to me because it would mean that a cleric would only need to renounce 15 documents of V2 and be able to not lose his clerical state (following your logic) instead of all 16 . Ya follow me??
@Kurgan #kurganpadre Your exact wording is “in every case”, but I believe that is what you meant. Please correct my thinking if necessary.

The Kurgan @Kurgan 25 days ago
@CatholicDeacon
Sure, so why are you not denouncing the 15 yet? Hell, I’d settle for you denouncing as heresy, officially just 2 or 3 of them.
How about one?

The Kurgan @Kurgan 24 days ago
@CatholicDeacon
So… will you denounce ANY of the V2 documents as heresy yet?
If you’ve had enough time to look for the one that might pass muster if taken in isolation and out of context, surely you’ve read the other 15 too?
#kurganInquisition

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 18 days ago
#kurganpadre @Kurgan If a complete English translation of the Latin 1917 Code of Canon Law was never published, and translations were actually forbidden to prevent interpretive disputes, how can you interpret using the english version from Sept 1, 2001 (the version that we have)? How did anyone who wasn’t a canon lawyer able to know anything about the 1917 code before 2001? I think we can use the english version for reference only, no?

The Kurgan @Kurgan 17 days ago
@CatholicDeacon #kurganpadre
So: firstly to my direct question of “Are you ready to denounce ANY of the V2 documents as heresy yet?” You give no reply.
Secondly, you ask how a supposedly Catholic Priest (or deacon which is en route so to speak) could ever, ever, ever, possibly know ANYTHING about canon law that was in that mysterious language: Latin. Are you serious? You want to be, or worse, call yourself Catholic clergy, yet you are not familiar with Latin? Or with the Vatican II controversy that raged since the early 60s?
That would be like me saying I want to be a structural engineer and how could I possibly, ever, ever be expected to know ANYTHING about calculus!
But let me be charitable and ask how old you are and what your studies to be a deacon/priest have included. It may be you were deceived from the start.

The Kurgan @Kurgan 17 days ago
@CatholicDeacon #kurganpadre
Let’s be clear also about something without any avoiding of the issue:
I would like for nothing better than you to verify the sedeprivationist position for yourself, see the errors you have, perhaps unknowingly and perhaps even intentionally been directed into, possibly by others, renounce them and become a proper and new addition to actual Catholic clergy.
But your avoidance techniques to date do not cover you in glory so far. And if you either intend to become actual Catholic clergy at some point, or presume to be one now, I fully intend to hold your feet to the fire until we all see you exactly for what you are. Which is no less an inquisition that I would give any man that wanted to be in any position of authority over others, policeman, warrior, priest, etc. Or than I give myself insofar as I claim any kind of duty to truth, justice and Catholicism.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 18 days ago
@Kurgan My question was what gives you (or us) the ability to use the english translation of the 1917 code to interpret the status of clerics in 1966, when translations were banned to prevent interpretations not in Latin to begin with.
There is a reason why it takes 10 or 12 years of study to become a canon lawyer, no? For you, or anyone to think that you can read canon law (in English on less!), and interpret the status of clergy is the height of pride and hubris

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 18 days ago
@Kurgan I want you to know that however rocky our discussion gets, I still love ya man! You’re more interesting to talk to than anyone at church. Love the passion!!

The Kurgan @Kurgan 17 days ago
@CatholicDeacon #kurganpadre No. That’s not a question. That’s subterfuge to try and avoid the truth.
Your “question” at face value is a joke.
Are you seriously asking how a catholic cleric could possibly ever, ever know about canon law before it is translated into English?!?
You’re ridiculous. Every Catholic priest had to be fluent in Latin if only to say the mass!
And what kind of priest should not be at the very least conversant with canon law? Just like every engineer has to be able to do maths and at least have a general idea of what the bending moments that apply to say bridges might be like.
You’re seriously trying to say that over 90% of Catholic clerics didn’t call out heresy (just like YOU are avoiding to do concerning ANY Vatican 2 documents) because they didn’t read good Latin?!? Besides it doesn’t even matter if they knew canon law in detail. Calling out heresy is a duty of EVERY Catholic. Which reminds me: what documents of V2 are you willing to condemn as heretic?

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 17 days ago
@Kurgan Yes, we are to call out heresy, but that doesn’t give us the right to call any person a heretic. Just like we are to call out sin, but we cannot know what’s in someone’s heart, so we can not call them a sinner. See the difference?

The Kurgan @Kurgan 14 days ago
@CatholicDeacon what a load of nonsense and direct lie. You are clearly a Norco deceiver, trying to conflate one issue (unknowable heresy) with a very different one (demonstrated publicly for extended periods of time, absolutely confirmed heresy). You are clearly a liar and deceiver and you yet again refused to answer as to which documents of V2 you denounce as heresy. Which means: none.

The Kurgan @Kurgan 14 days ago
@CatholicDeacon more lies.
The change of the Mass was directed and instigated by Montini.
Stop pretending heretics were not involved at every turn.

The Kurgan @Kurgan 14 days ago
@GrumpusAurelius he is lying. @CatholicDeacon has now demonstrated his unwillingness to call out any document of V2 as heretic and to instead use subterfuge, avoidance and conflation tactics to try and hold the Novus Orco (Norco) party line.
He’s a fraud and an impostor and not even remotely Catholic.

The Kurgan @Kurgan 14 days ago
@CatholicDeacon absolute lie.
Someone who publicly defects from the faith by persistent, public heresy is automatically defined as a heretic. End of.
As is 100% the case with fake clerics like yourself you pretend EVERY TIME that canon 188 part 4 doesn’t say what it very clearly says. There is NO further process required and no further delay or time to wait once you fall foul of 188.4 you are thereafter a heretic, known as such by all.
And just so you know, I am never going to stop exposing your continued lies and pretence of being a Catholic when you are very clearly only yet another henchman of Bergoglio, vicar of pedophiles on Earth.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 14 days ago
@Kurgan People who deny the authority of the Pope and bishops are normally called Protestants, but when you deny the authority of the Pope and bishops, that makes you one of the few real catholics, and the billion others protestant. Got it.

The Kurgan @Kurgan 14 days ago
@CatholicDeacon again you lie.
I don’t deny any Popes were Popes.
I deny impostors like yourself are Catholic at all since Canon Law clearly states that persistent heretics who publicly denounce their faith vacate their office (if they ever were clergy to begin with) without any further pronouncement or statement required by anyone. Hence, fake Popes are not Popes. I deny impostors were ever Popes. That’s the actual situation.
This is not hard. Basketball players on a golf course playing basketball are not golfers, no matter what they call themselves.
You, as a demonstrable heretic that has refused to denounce a single vatican 2 document filled with heresy are therefore, at best, a heretic. And as such not Catholic or clergy of any kind other than perhaps some satanic Bergoglian cult dedicated to Moloch.
It’s really not difficult.

voxday @voxday 14 days ago
It is absolutely begging the question. You can’t hide it behind word games about “normal use” in a highly technical debate. The Kurgan’s position, right or wrong, is at least consistent with the dictionary definitions:
CATHOLIC
(among Roman Catholics) claiming to possess exclusively the notes or characteristics of the one, only, true, and universal church having unity, visibility, indefectibility, apostolic succession, universality, and sanctity: used in this sense, with these qualifications, only by the Church of Rome, as applicable only to itself and its adherents and to their faith and organization; often qualified, especially by those not acknowledging these claims, by prefixing the word Roman.
PROTESTANT
any Western Christian who is not an adherent of a Catholic, Anglican, or Eastern Church.
If the apostolic succession broke, or untruth is confirmed to have entered into the organization, then the RCC cannot be considered Catholic anymore by its very own lights.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 14 days ago
@voxday Actually, he is denying the authority of the previous 6 Popes and almost all the bishops and clergy since.
I take your opinion very seriously Vox, and I will try and up my game. Thanks for the input.

The Kurgan @Kurgan 14 days ago
Thank you @voxday
Once again, please take note:
Vox, a supposed Protestant who, adheres to dialectic, objective facts, and reality, has a better grasp of my position than the very vast majority of nominal “Catholics” who are actually Churchians through ignorance.
I don’t consider intentional liars and deceivers like @CatholicDeacon to be ignorant, because they have been presented with all the facts and instead engage in sophistry, conflation, avoidance and outright lies to maintain their false narrative that they are Catholics.
The lie that I somehow redefined the word “Catholic” and “Protestant” being absolutely obvious to anyone that has followed the discussion even marginally.
This proves another point I have been hammering for years:
The biggest and most important trait in human beings is their willingness to face objective reality honestly. Frankly the supposed theological differences between Vox and I approach zero precisely because of this quality.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 14 days ago
@Kurgan The 1917 Code of Canon Law was abrogated by the 1983 cic 6.1.1. The 1917 cic 188 refers to the loss to ecclesiastical OFFICE, not clerical state.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 14 days ago
@Kurgan For those wondering what this is in reference to, i posted in a different thread that the 1917 Code of Canon Law was abrogated by the 1983 Code of Canon Law, and that the 1917 code 188 referred to a loss of ecclesiastical OFFICE…

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 14 days ago
@Kurgan and not the priesthood or clerical state. For these views, I was called a liar, a “Norco of Moloch” whatever that means (helper of Satan?). Everyone following so far?

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 14 days ago
Look back on his responses to my questions. I’ve been called a liar, and deceiver, a joke, ridiculous, and a heretic. A am an ordained Deacon, so when he calls me “fake clergy”, he is indeed a liar in the extreme.

Fubear @Fubear 14 days ago
oh, we are following it just fine. You seem to be the one struggling, Padre.

The Kurgan @Kurgan 13 days ago
@CatholicDeacon more lies.
The 1983 “code” is about as relevant to Catholicism as a Harry Potter book, since it was put together by impostors and non-Catholics like yourself.
Thanks for finally coming right out and proving you’re a full blow Norco of Moloch.
Secondly, what do you think loss of office means?
Once again your attempts at sophistry and conflation are pathetic. You’re going to be dissected live.
And remind me: which of the documents of V2 do you agree is heretic? Even a single one?

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 14 days ago
@Kurgan The one and only English translation of the 1917, the copy that Kurgan swears by, the copy that he uses to deny the 1983 code and to deny people priesthood and clerical state, was curated by Dr. of Canon Law Edward Peters.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 14 days ago
@Fubear @Kurgan Please bear with me. So Kurgan, you must think that Dr. Edward Peters is really smart. After all, you are using his book to prove all of your points, correct? Anyone can figure this stuff out! How can Padre be so stupid!
Well, I decided to email Dr. Edward Peters himself, and ask him the questions that we have been debating (forgive me if I didn’t get your views 100% correct, I had the grandkids with me). Here is his response:

 

 

 

 

@Kurgan So, when you were just calling me a liar, a heretic and a servant of Satan, you were actually referring to Dr of Canon Law and Civil Law Edward Peters. You know the guy whose book you are misinterpreting to lie, and deceive with.

@Kurgan What Kurgan has been hiding from you, is that in the “Curators introduction” and “Researching the 1917 Code in English” sections of the Po-Benedictine Code book, Dr. Edward Peters states that the 1983 Code is the governing code now
He also states that interpretations are to be made by approved Church officials only, and only in Latin.
So is Dr. Edward Peters wrong about 1917 Code 188 Kurgan? Do you know more than the Doctor who wrote the book your using? How arrogant.

@Kurgan It turns out that you were the liar and deceiver, because you were hiding information from Dr. Peters IN HIS OWN BOOK that didn’t prove your conclusion. A simple email and less than an hour later you would have your clarification
And Dr. Edward Peters explains in his introduction how the 1917 code, V2, and the 1983 all fit together. He admits that there are issues with both of the codes. That has nothing to do with the interpretation of 188
You don’t have to take my word for anything. Email Dr. Peters yourself. HE WROTE THE BOOK. If you want to believe that Kurgan’s is more reliable than the Dr. who wrote the book, good luck with that. Kurgan still hid contrary information.

The Kurgan @Kurgan 13 days ago
@CatholicDeacon
Why would I care at all what a curator or even translator of a book thinks about the book?
And I point out two points:
1. I don’t think about Peters one way or the other, so stop putting words I never uttered in my mouth. He is irrelevant.
2. He provided exactly ZERO argument to canon 188.4.
3. Repeating an obvious lie doesn’t make it real. So saying “yes the code of 1983 wins” is completely meaningless since neither you nor he have in ANY WAY shown ANY argument as to why Code 188.4 shouldn’t mean exactly what it says.
4. I asked a direct question which you and he BOTH fail to answer: let’s try again:
What precisely do you think loses his office means in the way canon 188.4 applies it?
Be specific.
I told you’d be dissected live. This will not go well for you, faker.
Bonus: still haven’t answered which documents of V2 you consider heretic if any. Go on, admit it…

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 14 days ago
Kurgan called the guy who wrote the book he loves a liar and an agent of Satan. If the Dr. is reliable, then Kurgan is wrong, And if the Dr. is a liar, then he can’t trust the 1917 translation. Which is it Kurgan?

The Kurgan @Kurgan 14 days ago
@CatholicDeacon and now you lie yet again.
I said YOU are a liar and satanic spawn.
Peters for all I know is just stupid.
But I did note he too avoided making ANY argument. Usually not a good sign.
Liars hate direct objective arguments, don’t they?

The Kurgan @Kurgan 13 days ago
@CatholicDeacon you utter moron.
Peters did not write canon law.
He TRANSLATED IT.
Are you really too dim to understand the difference?!?
Peters is completely irrelevant to canon law. He didn’t compile it. He didn’t have any say in it at all.
If I translate homer’s odyssey does that make me homer?
That’s the level of discourse you are proposing.
And as others have already pointed out, your absolute atheist/satanist dance around a very simple question is plain for all to see:
Which documents of V2 are you agreeing are heretic, if any. And if not any, why are you terrified of answering this simple question?

The Kurgan @Kurgan 13 days ago
@CatholicDeacon it doesn’t matter at all what Peters thinks. If he is an idiot that may well be the case, there are many in the world. He certainly hasn’t answered any of the Sedeprivationist arguments at all, much less with any logical argument. Neither have you.
Your pathetic attempt at argument by authority is a well known logical flaw that elementary school children understand.
And it has zero bearing on truth or reality.
I don’t care if Peters pretends to be knowledgeable of Catholicism. If he can’t read the plain words and understand them in either Latin or English that’s of no consequence to anyone but his own soul.
Lastly, you again LIE. No one, get it, NO ONE need pronounce ANYTHING. In ANY Language. At all. Once you fall foul of 188.4 you are a heretic. End of.
I will never tire of repeating it. Because it’s plain as day and you have zero argument against it. The law itself convicts you and your satanic colleagues. You fraud.
You are NOT a cleric of the Catholic Church.
PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 13 days ago
Wow, the pride, hubris and arrogance you have is astounding Kurgan. The guy who did the translation, and did all of the research and work tells you you’re wrong, and you ignore it. Unbelievable.
You actually think that the guy who wrote the book that you’re using to tell people they are no longer clergy, clarifies what’s in HIS OWN BOOK, and tells you you’re wrong, that he’s full of it? How can you just make up what it means. WOW

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 13 days ago
@Kurgan No you can’t. Why don’t you try reading the beginning of the book, the part that tells you you’re WRONG, post it here so people can make their minds up for themselves. Anything that shows you the least bit wrong gets attacked. Fool

Uncle John’s Band @unclejohnsband 14 days ago
The argument is painfully simple. Either V2 is
A) heretical or B) not
If A, anything subsequently (after, like 1983) promulgated by a V2 compliant hierarchy is void. By 1917 Canon Law. In Latin.
The question boils down to A or B?

Uncle John’s Band @unclejohnsband 14 days ago
So presumably Edward Peters doesn’t consider V2 heretical.
@Kurgan does.
The argument hinges on @CatholicDeacon ‘s take. Which he appears reluctant to state plainly.
Uncle John’s Band @unclejohnsband 14 days ago
But if V2 is heretical, and Dr. Peter’s is compliant, than he is irrelevant.
If V2 isn’t heretical then he is authoritative.
This is the problem with dodging a plainly worded question on the legitimacy of V2 and it’s consequences.

Uncle John’s Band @unclejohnsband 14 days ago
Less a question of knowledge than legitimacy. Cycling back to the question of V2 and its implications.
That’s the crux of this. The rest is obfuscation. A or B.

Uncle John’s Band @unclejohnsband 14 days ago
The avoidance of the question comes from the fact that V2 is indefensible. But to admit that would lead to… other unpleasant implications.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 14 days ago
Kurgan called the guy who wrote the book he loves and liar and an agent of Satan. If the Dr. is reliable, then Kurgan is wrong, And if the Dr. is a liar, then he can’t trust the 1917 translation. Which is it Kurgan?

 

The Kurgan @Kurgan 14 days ago
@CatholicDeacon you moron, Peters did NOT write the entire canon law of the Catholic Church. He didn’t write a single word of it. He translated existing text. At most. And he didn’t even do that. He curated the translation of it. Learn English. You lie so idiotically that it can be seen from Mars with the naked eye.
He translated a book that was put together by the magisterium of the church. And was finished by 1917.
Peters did not contribute a single word to it.
His opinion of canon law is completely irrelevant. It’s like saying that a guy who paints an airplane should have a say in how it’s piloted.
Your lies are becoming so absurd you may have a place in Hillary Clinton’s next election run. Or maybe Baghdad Bob.

The Kurgan @Kurgan 14 days ago
@CatholicDeacon you’re barking up the wrong tree if you think I am moved by an atom’s width by your moronic appeal to an authority that doesn’t even exist.
A translator has zero relevance to the topic of the work he translated.
I wouldn’t be moved by any fake authority either, like yours, nor by any ignoring of objective reality, like the deceivers like yourself perform habitually, so your usual stick, that works on the uneducated, and maybe frightened women and children is not going to go well for you here.
You are a demonstrable non-Catholic impostor, supporter of the heresies of V2 and the infiltrators like yourself some of whom claimed to be popes but in fact we’re deemed not even catholic by canon law.
Just like you.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 14 days ago
@Kurgan I know I know, you don’t bow to any authority, not even the Canon Lawyer who curated the book you know more then him about.

The Kurgan @Kurgan 14 days ago
@CatholicDeacon there is no part of the code of 1917 that tells me I am wrong.
Go ahead and post whatever you think that part is. Take a good picture and make your argument.
Of course you’re just hoping people get bored of the long thread and get lost in the details and assume maybe you have a point.
But this is the wrong place for that. People here tend to pay attention better than on places like Twitter that are run by @jack, who by all indications seems to be on the side of the pedophiles as I have recorded elsewhere previously.
You have zero legs to stand on and are bleating that Peters “wrote the book”. He didn’t. He translated it. The fact he is dim about what the contents mean or how to apply them is neither here nor there. I wouldn’t ask the translator how to fly the plane of a manual for flying he just translated from say Polish either.
Why are you appealing to a translator for interpreting canon law? Aren’t you SUPPOSED to be a deacon? Can’t you do it?

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 14 days ago
There is more to it than just translating. You were never allowed to use the English version anyway, and it’s only been around since 2001. I guess you can break any Church rule, because it’s breaking Church rules that makes you Catholic?
Of course i appeal to authority, THAT’S WHY I’M CATHOLIC silly

The Kurgan @Kurgan 14 days ago
No moron, you don’t appeal to a non existent authority.
Peters is a translator. At best.
In any case, I am very comfortable with the Latin of canon 188.4 too.
Oh… ooopss… thought I didn’t know that did you?
More fool you.
If anything the original Latin is even more absolute with regard to canon 188.4
But it’s all sophistry anyway.
The plain reading of a sentence or a 100 is not difficult in any language one understands.
As usual you try to divert from the very simple, direct point that is 188.4

HRH Snidely Duke of Whiplash @Snidely 14 days ago
You realize that @Kurgan ‘s language abilities far exceed your own, right?

The Kurgan @Kurgan 14 days ago
@CatholicDeacon I bow to legitimate authority when it is required I do so.
That means Jesus Christ and, at times, those people who correctly act in similar submission to our Lord.
Impostors like yourself, deceivers, or plain idiots who can’t understand basic things certainly I do not bow to.
And no, I don’t care if you call yourself king or bishop or queen of spades.
If you’re a liar like you, or dim witted, then you certainly don’t get submission from me.
Now go on and tell me with a LOGICAL argument why anything I wrote here isn’t perfectly in keeping with Catholic belief.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 14 days ago
It’s not just a quick translation. There is a 12 volume set called the “Canon Law Digest”, which contains all of the published documents that affect canon law. These, and the whole of the Canon must be considered. IT’S VERY COMPLICATED!

The Kurgan @Kurgan 14 days ago
@CatholicDeacon no it’s not.
Catholic canon law is really quite direct and logical. Unlike the snake’s tail of obfuscation and self contradicting intentional pack of manure that is the fake code of 1983.
There is absolutely nothing complicated in following the plain non-legalese for the most part of canon law.
Certainly anyone that can navigate almost any modern contract will find canon law to be a very direct, plain and easy to follow breath of fresh air.
The squeal of the impostor is always the same:
1. It’s very complicated!
2. You don’t have the authority!
3. Let me conflate that for you…
4. Let me sophistry it for you…
5. You’re being arrogant!
6. Pointing out objective facts is rude!
7. I have studied under master Pu of the secret handshake of Duck for 97 years, you couldn’t possibly understand
Ad nauseam

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 14 days ago
@Kurgan No argument is needed. The 1983 code has been in effect for 37 years, Vatican 2 did occur, there have been Popes since 1958. Do you really have so much disregard for people who take 10 or 12 years to become a canon lawyer?

The Kurgan @Kurgan 14 days ago
“No argument needed” because authority of 12 years of study.
^^^THAT ladies and gentlemen is the official position that this Novus Orco ”priest” takes concerning the plain reading of a simple directive of canon law that clearly states that heretics are not clerics of the Church.
Why…. it’s enough to make you suspect that only a fake cleric, an impostor, an agent of the prince of lies would take such a position. After all… what need have truth and reality to hide from facts?

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 13 days ago
Canon law “clearly” states nothing, that’s why so much school is needed. The requirement to join the Legal Legion of Evil isn’t just to know English, because everything else is obvious.
Motu Proprio of Benedict XV – 1 Following the example of Our Predecessors, who entrusted who entrusted the interpretation of the decrees of the Council of Trent to a special Commission of Cardinals, We hereby establish a committee or Commission which shall have THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT OF AUTHENTICALLY INTERPRETING the Canons of the Code. Written 15 Sept 1917.
Let me guess, you don’t care what the Pope wrote, and it makes you more Catholic. Got it.

The Kurgan @Kurgan 14 days ago
@CatholicDeacon what a disgusting liar you are.
Canon law, as with all papal encyclicals before 1948 is plain, direct and even when profound and subtle always extremely clear and logical.
By contrast you here have avoided answering every single direct question, appealed to the authority of a translator, appealed to authority in general (a recognised logical flaw that has its own name), refused to answer any detail of the heresies of V2, refused to make any Logical argument against the sedeprivationist position, tried to obfuscate and conflate at every turn and so on.
I think my work here is done.
You have been properly exposed to all with eyes to see.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon a month ago
@Kurgan Here’s a Vatican 2 teaching that I believe was an improvement, but Kurgan thinks is a heresy. This deals with the Catholic teaching of “outside the Church there is no salvation”. If you follow this link from Kurgan’s website, and scroll down to “c”, and read what Kurgan believes, you will see that he believes that all non-catholics, protestants, and everyone else go to Hell (per the Council of Florence declaration from 1441)
archive.is/jy4tm
The Heresies of Vatican II
archive.is

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon a month ago
No one really knows what “outside of the Church” really means, but it was interpreted very strictly, and it was taught that way. As you can imagine, this teaching was a little divisive and off-putting to say the least.
One of the goals of Vatican 2 was ecumenism and “dialogue” with other faiths. It was meant not to be strictly doctrinal, but more pastoral. The Vatican 2 document on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, clarifies, improves and expands the meaning of “outside the Church”, but does not change the teaching. Doesn’t it make sense that you can make it to heaven even if you weren’t raised catholic? Sure it does! Vatican 2 is what says this. Did it make the teaching less precise, more wishy-washy? Yes. But it doesn’t mean it made it heretical. If you are a protestant and you agree with Kurgan on what “there is no salvation outside of the Church” means, then you are going to Hell. If you agree with Vatican 2, there is room for everyone. I think that this Vatican 2 teaching is better, more accurate, and more in touch with reality than the one from 1441. Thoughts Kurgan?

Jiu-Bear @Jiu-Bear a month ago
Fwiw, I’m really enjoying these exchanges. I have no opinion worth sharing on any of these points, but I love thinking on them.

Markku @markku a month ago
The Vatican 1 teaching is at least a claim that I can understand. Grace is mediated in the mass specifically by an “unbloody sacrifice” (direct quote). Hence, you need a priest that executes the sacrament properly (ex opere operato). If this does not happen, then grace doesn’t come to that person, and he is judged for the sins that remain on his account, and therefore he goes to hell. That is the system, and I at least understand how it works. But if you make any room for someone who doesn’t participate in the sacrament in the supposedly correct way, then how doesn’t that lead directly to universalism? It’s not only Protestants who can be saved, it is literally everyone including atheists. You cannot hold on to the doctrine of the mass and still restrict it to Christianity. We Protestants give up the doctrine, and hence we have an explanation for why universalism isn’t true. But you can’t have both at the same time.

Markku @markku a month ago
On the other hand, a Vatican 1 Catholic who makes any room for the salvation of the Eastern Orthodox is not being coherent either. In the Donatist Controversy it was decided that the efficacy of the sacrament comes from ex opera operato, not ex opera operantis. This happened 409 A.D., way before The Great Schism. So, even if the Eastern Orthodox were to have a direct and unbroken line to the apostles, it wouldn’t matter one bit. Because it was decreed that the efficacy comes from the form of the sacrament, not from who is performing it. EO and RCC don’t do it the same way. Only one of the two can be right about the form, and therefore only one of the two can be actually communicating grace. OR, it could be absolute free for all. This is, of course, the Vatican 2 position.
We Protestants on the other hand believe it comes from making an appeal to Christ to use his sacrifice as atonement for your sins, and Christ accepting the appeal. This restricts salvation to Christianity.

The Kurgan @Kurgan a month ago
@CatholicDeacon you know you have utterly destroyed your own position when @markku whom I respect for his honesty although I believe he is wrong ultimately in being a Protestant, sides with the Catholic.
Markku pretty much hates the Catholic Church I would say almost passionately.
Yet he, unlike the pretender “Padre” Geo is honest. Once again, I’d much rather be in a foxhole with an honest protestant like Vox or Markku than this human skin sack of lies that dares to impersonate a Catholic of any sort, much less a deacon.
#exposefakeclergy

Dances with λόγος @DanceswithLogos a month ago
Did the kurgan explicitly state that as his belief? I think I recall listening to sedevacantist Bishop Sanborn (per his recommendation) and hearing salvation can occur but is rare

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon a month ago
@Kurgan I asked you what is your understanding of “outside the Church there is no salvation”. You asked me to name and defend a V2 teaching that I agreed with, and I did. Will you ever answer a question in return?

Markku @markku a month ago
I just find the situation so amusing. In V1 times, the position was tremendously counterintuitive, but at least it was a coherent claim. You just had to bite the bullet. “Yes, all the other denominations of Christianity are damned, because they are not performing the correct mass, and hence not communicating grace.” The Protestant position was the one that could be accused of being wishy-washy because it depended on Jesus personally accepting, or not accepting, the appeal. That would allow some difference in the specifics of “doing Christianity” but if there was no appeal at all made, there couldn’t be any salvation.
But then in one fell swoop, RCC just decided to go right past us and into the woods like a bullet train. YAY, SALVATION FOR EVERYONE! INCLUDING ATHEISTS!
And Protestants are like, “wait, what?”

Markku @markku a month ago
I have no attraction to either position, but at least one position rises to the level of being wrong, with the other remaining at “not even wrong”. At least I can understand the V1 claim in order to be able to reject it.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon a month ago
@markku Agreed. The problem is there are multiple types and degrees of heresy. The only thing that could be called beyond a doubt formal heresy would be the statement “There IS salvation outside the Church”. less right is not heresy.
And the V2 councils were full of powerful protestants (and communists). That is why the statements condemning communism were removed. But the views still apply, as we view all councils as “one big one”.

Markku @markku a month ago
Yep, you are arguing for the doctrine of “inclusivism” there (the official V2 position), but in my view there is no difference between it and universalism. It seems to me that an inclusivist is just a universalist who doesn’t have the guts to use that word.

Markku @markku a month ago
From all appearances, this is EXACTLY how the epistemology of the V2 RCC works:

 

 

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon a month ago
@markku The problem is that the Church infallibly declares people in heaven (saints), but does not declare people in Hell (I wish they did!). This is why I stress that we can know that most people go to Hell, but don’t have the ability to tell any individual person they are going there. And as clergy, what do you tell a distraught mother whose fallen-away son just died of a drug overdose? Their sons in Hell?? It’s up to God in the end, isn’t it?

Markku @markku a month ago
Well, Mother Theresa has been known as Saint Teresa of Calcutta from 2016. The definition of a saint in the RCC system is someone who gets to skip purgatory. Was this an infallible declaration? If it was, what do you make of her statement that she is not trying to get any Hindu to become a Christian, but just to become a better Hindu? Because that is a statement of a universal principle, not a particular individual. Let’s take a particular Hindu person. Do we know that he will go to hell? No, because we don’t know if he’ll accept salvation at some point. Possibly at deathbed, and we’ll NEVER know. Fine, I can understand that claim. But this is not the same principle. This is a general principle about any given Hindu. So, in your view, is this a statement that is at least extremely spiritually destructive, considering how many people will follow it because it was said by a Saint? Let’s leave out the question of official heresy out. Will people get damned because they believed it?

Markku @markku a month ago
Well, becoming a pastor had actually crossed my mind in my youth and that is exactly why I decided I don’t want to. Because I knew that I would be faced with that situation many times, and I could not lie to the person. The only comfort I could offer is a possibility that he accepted salvation before dying, and we just don’t know it. This is the approach that John Piper advocates and I agree with it. But I just couldn’t do it. Just like I wouldn’t have the stomach to perform surgery, even though it is good that people perform surgeries.

Markku @markku a month ago
Correction: “Will people get damned because they believed it?” was supposed to be phrased as “Will people get damned as a direct or indirect result of many people believing it?” I didn’t mean that believing it causes that particular person to be damned.

Dances with λόγος @DanceswithLogos a month ago
@CatholicDeacon wouldn’t her fallen away son have been baptized as an infant as a Catholic? Even if not, would that even be close to anything a priest would say to a grieving mom?

Markku @markku a month ago
@DanceswithLogos well, the question of baptism is irrelevant if we are talking about a death that happened in the commission of a mortal sin. Quote: www.britannica.com/topic/cardinal-sin
Mortal sin, also called cardinal sin, in Roman Catholic theology, the gravest of sins, representing a deliberate turning away from God and destroying charity (love) in the heart of the sinner. A mortal sin is defined as a grave action that is committed in full knowledge of its gravity and with the full consent of the sinner’s will. Such a sin cuts the sinner off from God’s sanctifying grace until it is repented, usually in confession with a priest. A person who dies unrepentant of the commission of mortal sin is believed to descend immediately into hell, where they suffer the separation from God that they chose in life.
mortal sin | Definition & Examples
Mortal sin, in Roman Catholic theology, the most serious of sins, representing a deliberate turning away from God. A mortal sin is defined as a grave action that is committed in full knowledge of its gravity and with the full consent of the sinner’s wi…
britannica.com

Dances with λόγος @DanceswithLogos a month ago
Accidental drug overdose holds the same weight as intentional suicide?😕 I suppose it is best to strive for the best in life, but all these rules can be a little overwhelming

Markku @markku a month ago
infogalactic.com/info/Seven_deadly_sins
Gluttony (Latin: gula) is the overindulgence and overconsumption of anything to the point of waste. The word derives from the Latin gluttire, meaning to gulp down or swallow. In Christianity, it is considered a sin if the excessive desire for food causes it to be withheld from the needy.
I’d say that it’s pretty clear that if you consume something to the point that you die, you have performed the sin of overconsumption to the point of waste.
Note: As a Protestant, I don’t actually believe that. This is an RCC doctrine. But as I said, the V1 claim at least presents me a coherent argument that I’m able to think about, and as it turns out, ultimately reject. The V2 claims don’t even rise to that level. They are just noise to me.

Dances with λόγος @DanceswithLogos a month ago
Repent, accept Christ as your Lord and savior, get baptized, read scripture, keep the commandments, live well and spread the gospel. I don’t like to think of people going to hell
Dances with λόγος @DanceswithLogos a month ago
I was raised Novus Ordo and stopped attending mass around age 14. I got back into Christianity through the influence of my protestant husband/his wonderful mother. I’m new to RCC

The Kurgan @Kurgan a month ago
@CatholicDeacon notice how this wormtongue continually conflates and misrepresents every principle of Catholicism intentionally and twists it into a complete falsehood. Observers take note.
#exposefakeclergy

The Kurgan @Kurgan a month ago
@CatholicDeacon you need to stop lying. It’s becoming obvious.
Tell me which ones you have read and do NOT classify as heretical then. Be specific since you have had weeks to look at this now.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon a month ago
@Kurgan Not yet, but I’m slowly working my way through the ones that you think are heretical, and explaining why they are not. You sill didn’t answer my question, and your personal attacks in the face of my calm dialogue is getting old.

The Kurgan @Kurgan a month ago
@CatholicDeacon is an outrageous liar so please don’t accept ANYTHING he says at face value but verify it: I mean in the last couple of hours he has made the following 100% false statements:
1. Said I asked him to defend a v2 document (never did)
2. Stated what I “believe” and linking to a site he attributes to me or being mine but absolutely isn’t.
3. Pretends he has answered a single direct question I asked him
4. Conflated the concepts of salvation outside the Church and binary thinking of what that technical phrase means
5. Pretended a translator literally wrote all of Catholic canon law…
I mean this is definitely a priest of moloch but as far as being Catholic goes… I think you see the point.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 25 days ago
@Kurgan As a catholic deacon, I have 5 years of academic study in the catholic faith, with various college level professors and priests. Just wondering if you have a degree or any university study in the catholic faith. Thanks in advance.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 25 days ago
As you can see, one of my last classes was a class in Canon Law. This was the class I was using, along with my old notes, to try and explain why the 1983 code is valid, and the 1917 code cannot be used.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 25 days ago
Christianity teaches that you have a unique soul, created by God at the moment of conception, and when you die, it lives on for eternity. Reincarnation thinks you’re soul is recycled, in a way.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 25 days ago
Mother Teresa in Calcutta (mostly Hindu), found this belief to be part of the reason why no one helped the poor. The thought was that if you were sick and poor, you deserve it because of something bad you did in your “previous life”

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 25 days ago
As other cultures enter political office in Christian nations, this belief fits in with the “abortion up till birth” view. if you’re only coming back, what difference does it make if we kill you now? The women behind the NYC law is hindu.

The Kurgan @Kurgan 25 days ago
No.
As a Novus Orco infiltrator and fake cleric, you have zero knowledge or understanding of Catholicism.
You have demonstrably rejected logic, reason and facts. Have refused to answer simple direct questions about Vatican 2. Have failed to make an argument against the sedeprivationist position as I have laid out on my blog (link at the end).
Have lied demonstrably in our conversation and resorted only to subterfuge, sophistry, conflation and other usual tactics of the satanists you intentionally and knowingly serve.
Aside from all that, you also continue to try to argue from inexistent authority, so let me educate you further: argument from authority is a known logical fallacy. Your famed human “authority” is irrelevant. Facts matter. And in any case, you appealed to a translator’s authority while pretending he actually wrote all of canon law, and now your fake one as a fake cleric of the Church. Risible.
www.gfilotto.com/logical-challenge-to-ann-and-all-nominal-catholics

The Kurgan @Kurgan 25 days ago
@CatholicDeacon also, simple and direct:

 

 

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 25 days ago
@Kurgan From the 1917 Code of Canon law, “Curators introduction”, page xxiv, “During the sixty-five year enforcement period, the 2,414 canons of the1917 Code were never translated from the original Latin and published in English as an entire work. Indeed, translations of the 1917 code were FORBIDDEN, at least in part to ASSURE THAT DISPUTES ABOUT THE APPLICATION of what was, for the Church, a revolutionary legal structure would be resolved within the language of the Legislator, and not according to the scores of languages amid which the 1917 code operated”. Per the introduction of the book you are using, you cannot use the English translation to determine and Corncerning the purpose of the translation, “Curator’s Introduction” to the 1917 Code of Canon law in English, pages xxvi-xxvii “This translation seeks, therefore, to serve two ends: first, obviously, to present in one place a reliable English translation of the entire text of the Pio-Benedictine Code, including its famous preface, its enabling legislation, and the most important of the supplemental documents originally incorporated therein; second, insofar as the 1917 Code was a living document subjected to official interpretations, emendations, and scholarly reflections, to identify where such pronouncements on and major studies of the text can be found in English, allowing researchers to determine the extent to which such additional information might be relevant to their own studies.” The purpose is NOT to help the layman understand the Latin better. You ignore the front matter of the 1917 code because it proves you wrong. You made up your purpose of the English translation to serve your own agenda.

The Kurgan @Kurgan 25 days ago
@CatholicDeacon You keep LYING. Now go ahead and show me where I EVER say that I have the authority to enforce Canon law. Go on, I’ll wait.
Because I never have said such a thing. All I have ever said was that I FOLLOW what the magisterium of the Church has already judged, decreed and made obvious. Which is, as per Canon 188 part 4, that YOU and all your masters are FAKE clerics, invalid, never were Catholics, and that if the antipopes HAD been Catholic, they certainly ceased to be as of July 1966 in the very best of cases.
Again you set up a FAKE straw man trying to accuse me of claiming an authority that I never have. I simply follow the teachings of the Church, and they tell me without ANY NEED FOR ANY FURTHER PRONOUNCEMENT BY ANYONE, that you are an impostor. And everyone here can see you more every day for the liar you are.

The Kurgan @Kurgan 25 days ago
@CatholicDeacon further evidence of your conflating and sophistry…trying to make the English translation an issue when it is not one at all. The English translation is simply to facilitate for laymen the understanding of the laws that are in Latin. The Latin is even more clear, oh…oh…ooopss..you thought I didn’t know the latin. You sad, poor creature, but it’s IRRELEVANT even if it were written in Chinese. The point is that Canon 188 part 4 makes you and all the antipopes what you are: NOT Catholics, of any sort. Heretics at best, but in your case obviously just infiltrating satanists, since you were never Catholic Clergy at ANY time, since your fake IN-ordination happened after 1966. It doesn’t matter if it’s in Latin or not. It says what it says.

Xevious2030 @Xevious2030 25 days ago
Yep, I have been looking at the Latin of 1917. Slowly, relearning, when time available. And so far, it is looking like I will need to concede the point to @Kurgan . Not there yet, but looking like it. Based on 2314.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 25 days ago
@Xevious2030 At the bottom of 2314 do you see the references to various volumes of the “Canon Law Digest?” These must also be looked at to determine the meaning of 2314, which is referenced by 188.4.
I just ordered a cd of all 10 volumes as they are out of print in book form. If it has any further info on the topic at hand, I’ll let you know.

Xevious2030 @Xevious2030 25 days ago
Padre, in this general timeframe, I’m focused on the individual and the sect.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 25 days ago
@Kurgan To quote Canon 188 of the 1917 code, “Any OFFICE becomes vacant upon the fact….” Where did you get that “office” is the same as clerical state?? Under 188.3 it even says “Accepts another ecclesiastical OFFICE incompatible with the prior” Dr Edward Peters, the canon lawyer who wrote the book we’re using for our discussion, agrees that office is not the same as clerical state. I emailed him the question. Please site your source for this. Thanks.

The Kurgan @Kurgan 25 days ago
@CatholicDeacon Ah, up to your usual sophistry, which I have already dealt with once in this specific case. Do you think people forget?
You really keep trying to redefine words don’t you? Classic Marxist/People of the Lie.
Go on, tell me how a HERETIC is a perfectly valid priest and can perform all the sacraments.
Is that what you’re saying?
Are you saying Canon 188 part 4 allows you to be a cleric when you publicly defect from the faith?

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 25 days ago
@Kurgan YES, that is EXACTLY what i’m saying, and exactly what the Church teaches, that being a heretic does not remove your priestly abilities (once a priest, always a priest). It is a dogma that once a priest always a priest. When a man is ordained he receives the character of the priesthood. This endows him with the power to confect the Sacrament of the Eucharist; and that power is not taken away if he becomes a heretic or a schismatic. But don’t take my word for it. Let’s look at Pope Leo XIII, Apostolicae Curae, Sept. 13, 1896 no33: “When anyone has rightly and seriously made use of the due form and the matter requisite for effecting or conferring the sacrament he is considered by that very fact to do what the Church does. On this principle rests the doctrine that a sacrament is truly conferred by the ministry of one who is a heretic or unbaptized, provided the Catholic rite be employed. On the other hand, if the rite be changed, with the manifest intention of introducing another rite not approved by the Church, and of rejecting what the Church does, and what by the institution of Christ belongs to the nature of the sacrament, then it is clear that not only is the necessary intention wanting to the sacrament, but that the intention is adverse to and destructive of the sacrament.”
The above assertion has always been the teaching of the Church. It is why the Eastern Schismatics (the Eastern “Orthodox”) have valid sacraments, valid priests, valid bishops, and valid Masses, even though they have been separated from the Church for about 1000 years.
To believe that the moral state of the minister invalidates his ability to administer the sacraments is a form of Donatism, and that is what the Donatists believed in the 5th century:
www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Donatist
Isn’t this logical and merciful? If you are in danger of dying, and the only priest that is available to you for confession is an evil, heretical, awful, Novus Ordo, progressive priest or bishop, your confession is valid and efficacious.

The Kurgan @Kurgan 25 days ago
@CatholicDeacon Ah, more conflation and lies and avoidance. The key point is INTENTION and yours has been demonstrably shown to be the character of a liar and deceiver, so it is an absolute logical conclusion that you would have the wrong intent. But even that Logical assumption is not required because you have changed the FORMS of the Catholic rite so your “sacraments” are fake and invalid, like your fake Mass. Go on, tell us all what Quo Primum is. Show us you know SOMETHING.
As for your “mercy” no, it’s a lie. Because a fake priest, a practicing deceiver HAS no powers, no clerical mark at all. You were never validly ordained by any Valid priest in the correct manner so you are NOT Catholic Clergy. You keep pretending to ignore that fact. You have no more ability to do the Catholic sacraments than an Eskimo who’s never heard of Christ. Less actually, because if taught how he could probably properly baptise with the right intent. Yours would be suspect at best.

The Kurgan @Kurgan 25 days ago
@CatholicDeacon As for pretending Donatism is involved here, again, let’s not skip steps buddy. You would have to be an actual valid priest before we concern ourselves with your “moral character” You are not, so the point doesn’t even come into it.
And you have demonstrated to be a habitual and persistent liar, so…you wouldn’t be fit for Clergy even if you were genuinely trying to become one.
You are precisely what Canon Law and the Magisterium of the Church says you are. A faker, never was Catholic, and certainly not Clergy of the Catholic Church. I do accept you might be a priest of Moloch however, since you serve Bergoglio who has known ties to child traffickers.

The Kurgan @Kurgan 25 days ago
@CatholicDeacon @Xevious2030 Seriously, you fake priest, do you EVER stop lying? The references are given so you can understand where the rule came from for those who want to delve deeper into the thought behind it. it is NOT there to interpret ANYTHING. That is what the Canon Law is there for and does. It’s like saying that you have to read the history of how Pythagoras came up with the theorem in order to use it correctly. No. You absolutely don’t.
Just like you do NOT use the references to “interpret” canon law. That is an outrageous lie and would invalidate the whole point of canon law itself, which I know is something you are DESPERATELY trying to do. But I must thank you. Nothing I could say would create better evidence for my position being true and correct than your continued floundering attempts at obfuscation, conflation, subterfuge and outright duplicity of the basest sort.

The Kurgan @Kurgan 25 days ago
My previous post referred to this outrageous lie

 

 

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 25 days ago
@Xevious2030 At the bottom of 2314 do you see the references to various volumes of the “Canon Law Digest?” These must also be looked at to determine the meaning of 2314, which is referenced by 188.4.
I just ordered a cd of all 10 volumes

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 23 days ago
@Kurgan For the sake of moving our discussion along, I am going to take the position that there is nothing in Vatican 2 that rises to the level of formal heresy (meaning a direct contradiction of an official dogma). I am NOT saying that I agree with this, I am NOT saying that you are wrong, I am NOT saying that I can’t be convinced otherwise. I am open to your point of view. Since it is impossible to discuss all 16 documents at once, what I would like from you is to pick just one part of one document that you believe is heretical, and the corresponding dogma that it contradicting. That way we can have a focused discussion on a specific item. Thanks, and hopefully you can put off claiming my scalp for a bit.

The Kurgan @Kurgan 23 days ago
@CatholicDeacon it’s really amazing how duplicitous you are. Now pretending not to have “AAAANY IDEAH, Aaaany IDEAH at all, Sir!” As to what I find to be heresy in V2 when I have directed multiple times to a website that links this:
holyromancatholicchurch.org/heresies.html

The Kurgan @Kurgan 23 days ago
@CatholicDeacon Also:
“I am going to take the position that there is nothing in Vatican 2 that rises to the level of formal heresy (meaning a direct contradiction of an official dogma). I am NOT saying that I agree with this, I am NOT saying that you are wrong, I am NOT saying that I can’t be convinced otherwise.”
So you’re taking a “position” that you don’t agree with that you are not saying is the opposite of what I am saying (even though it absolutely is) and you are not actually taking a position.
The tongues of eels are less slimy. Tell you what: take a position and hold it.
Except you won’t because then you would be shown to be 100% wrong within minutes.
Let me show you how it’s done:
V2 is heresy and you are a fake catholic shamefully posing as a cleric, no less.
Why? Because canon 188 part 4 judges you so.
And it’s an absolute position. So, either argue the FACTS or admit you’re a satanist in disguise. Repent, impostor.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 23 days ago
@Kurgan Thanks for the link. i will pick a specific heresy for us to discuss if that’s OK with you. I see your heresies link was edited by a “John Lane”. Would it be the same John Lane that is talking with conservative catholic Louis Verrecchio in this recent youtube video? The video has Louis, a staunch conservative catholic, talking with John Lane, a sedevacantist. They are trying to understand each other,
www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwseHV4_Grk&t=558s
and discuss the things that they have in common with each others viewpoints. We do have some things in common Kurgan, and like Louis, I am trying to understand your views.

The Kurgan @Kurgan 23 days ago
@CatholicDeacon who cares? what does it matter which John Lane it was that edited it? It’s completely irrelevant to the task at hand. Look at how you CONSTANTLY try to deflect from the very simple task of simply identifying (as I have) or refuting (as you supposedly will) HERESY in the V2 documents.

The Kurgan @Kurgan 23 days ago
But let us carry on @CatholicDeacon.
Let’s start with heresy (b)
(b) Revelation was completed at the Crucifixion.
“Finally, He brought His revelation to completion when He accomplished on the Cross the work of redemption by which He achieved salvation and true freedom for men.” (Declaration on Religious Liberty Dignitatis Humanae, paragraph 11)(continued here: holyromancatholicchurch.org/heresies.html)

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 21 days ago
@Kurgan Concerning the document you reference on the heresies of Vatican 2, who is John Daly, and why should I believe your appeal to his authority?
archive.is/jy4tm
The Kurgan @Kurgan 22 days ago
@CatholicDeacon no. We have nothing in common:
1. I am Catholic, you are not, you serve the Norco Church
2. You avoid direct dialectic, I live there.
3. You have demonstrably used all the modus operandi of the deceivers: conflation, subterfuge, distraction, sophistry, false appeal to authority, false appeal to charity, false appeal to compassion and outright lies, I don’t deal in any of those things.
4. You pretend to be a valid cleric of my Church while seeding lies, doubt and false teachings, I am exposing you for it.
You are literally the enemy of truth, God, Christianity in general and Catholicism specifically, and whatever my human failings I fight for the opposite side to you.
Until you confess your sins and repent fully all you are is an enemy that has made a bad choice of whose trench to line up across from.

The Kurgan @Kurgan 21 days ago
Damn but you’re a disgusting deceiver.
IT DOESN’T MATTER WHO JOHN DALY IS!
Nor am I appealing to his “authority” I am appealing to the magisterium of the church WHO HAS ALWAYS considered this heresy.
Answer the charge of heresy, impostor. It makes no difference who makes it since ANYONE can and should charge a heretic with heresy. Especially a fake cleric like you, you servant of moloch.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 21 days ago
If you are a Catholic, dogmas are specific beliefs, with multiple definitions and classifications. I recommend “The Sources of Catholic Dogma” by Henry Denzinger, and “The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Ludwig Ott, to go deeper.

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 21 days ago
@Kurgen “ANYONE can and should charge a heretic with heresy.”
So I’m charging you with heresy, because you are resisting papal authority. You are the objective definition of a ‘schismatic”. I have this right per your last post, correct?

PadreGeo @CatholicDeacon 21 days ago
@Kurgan Per their definitions, it is a FACT that I am catholic clergy. It is your OPINION that I am not. I have positive proof I am. Either show your positive proof I’m not, or stop the libel/calumny/detraction.

The Kurgan @Kurgan 20 days ago
You are NOT even Catholic. You CERTAINLY are not Catholic Clergy. You refuse to identify ANYTHING in Vatican 2 as heretic and you were “ordained” (fakely) by people who are ALSO not Catholics and FAKE clergy like yourself. You may as well say that Donald Duck Crowned you Pope.
The Proof is the same as it has always been for your sort: Canon 188 part 4. Which judges you as a heretic and hence of zero consequence to the Church since you would have vacated your office if you had ever held one legitimately. You never did of course because it was others like yourself that “ordained” you. It’s all very simple and clear.
And the answer will NEVER change because the Magisterium of the Church has already pronounced on it and judged on it and nothing further needs be said by anyone.
The nail in your coffin is always canon 188 part 4
canon 188 part 4
canon 188 part 4
And it will NEVER change. You are a demonstrated liar and now you’re spiralling because all your lies are soon exposed

The Kurgan @Kurgan 21 days ago
@CatholicDeacon no. You have zero rights.
1. You are not a Catholic
2. You are a practicing satanist servant of satanists
3. There has not been a valid Pope since 1958 so your attempt at pretending Bergoglio is Pope is laughable.
4. I have never resisted Papal authority. Bergoglio is no more Pope than you are Catholic.
Thanks for playing you have now fully exposed yourself. To a much wider audience than you realise.
#exposefakeclergy

Tags: novus orco, social galactic, the kurgan, vox day

[ X ]

This entry was posted in Social Commentary. RSS 2.0 feed.