In my recent video chat with Peter of Two-Cities Podcast, I was correctly chastised by a viewer because I tended to interrupt Peter and go on a bit about this or that principle of Catholic dogma. This was not based on my ego, etc, as can be seen in other interviews where I am happy to let the other person answer at length and I don’t interrupt at all. I was aware while doing the livestream that this was happening, but my intent was to prevent Peter from going too far down an erroneous rabbit hole.
That is, for example, there is quite a common idea in “traditional” circles of Catholicism that if you no longer have valid Cardinals you can’t vote a Pope in. This stems from the fact that in the Code of Canon Law it states various things about Cardinals being able to vote in a new Pope etc.
The typical Anglo-Saxon mind, marinated in Anglo-Saxon version of legalese, interpret this to say if you have no Cardinals you have no ability to vote in a Pope.
In this instance, the error is one of doctrine and dogma. If you are not aware that the rules concerning Cardinals are merely ecclesiastical rules, that is, rules for the smooth running of the Church as a whole, in other words, human rules, and you assume that all rules in Canon Law have equal weight, then you will not understand that Ecclesiastical or human rules can change, but they can never invalidate Divine dogma or rules. And since in the past people who were not even ordained priests voted in a Pope, and since the office of the Pope is a Divinely instituted office, it can never disappear, it also means whatever rule applied in the past must necessarily still be valid (because the truth does not change), it means you absolutely to NOT need Cardinals, not 72 of them, or whatever the number now is supposed to be, to vote in a valid Pope. The rule applies only if everything else is in order, but since it is very far from that, and no one of the Novus Ordo “Church” clergy is even Catholic, and since the past cannot invalidate the future (and vice-versa) it is logically clear in Roman Law that no, you do not need Cardinals.
It is a simpler, more human, and perfectly logical system of law. Unlike the anglo-Saxon perversions of it, where case law becomes “new law”.
In Anglo-Saxon thinking, if you now have a rule you need 72 Cardinals under age 80 to vote in a Pope, and you only have 71 left, or, as is the case now, none, then “AW MAH GAWD!” it means a Pope can never be elected again and the Church has defected because the office of the Papacy has no hope of ever being filled again.
If, on the other hand, you understand logic and reason, you are used to thinking in terms of Roman Law, and so you realise that if in the year 300 sixteen peasants of which only 8 were priests and 2 were bishops, voted in a valid Pope, well…your not having any Cardinals today is not that big a deal. I mean, it is… in that clearly something tragic has happened (and it has: Vatican II and the fake Popes that created it and promulgate it), but it by no means implies the Church has defected.
This approach to thinking pervades almost every sphere of life and results in either a higher level of mechanisation of human beings, going from Roman Law to say English Law, to, the truly Satanic, American Legal System. Or, a more human-centred and divinely inspired system of legal system and thus social order among men, going from: Satanic bureaucracy no human mind can possibly comprehend in any part of its totality (American Legal System), to a slightly better system that is still intrinsically unfair and geared to protect the wealthy and a certain class of person (English Common Law), to an actually logical and reasonable system that while encompassing the ultimate punishment (death penalty) it also recognises the uniqueness of each human specific legal or illegal interaction, the details of which ultimately make a big difference.
In Roman Law, for example, there is the concept of silent assent.
If I tell you that X is or should happen and that requires you to do Y, and you keep silent, that means you agreed you must do Y.
This concept is enough to send English people and Indians, scurrying for the caves in the hills.
Roman Law is truly the most divinely inspired of legal systems on Earth, because it is based on principles, but makes allowances for the unique details of each case.
Pondering this would do away with a LOT of the chaotic confusion many people seem to have concerning what is “fair” or “just”, as well as understand the rules of Catholic dogma in a far superior fashion.
This post was originally published on my Substack. Link here
