Posts Tagged ‘catholicism’

Don Ricossa of the IMBC on Vigano

For those of you that don’t speak Italian, here is a summarised version that I perfectly share and agree with, as I hope was already evident from my previous post on it a short while ago.

Don Ricossa states that [items in bold and square brackets are my notes]:

  • Vigano in his response to the request he presents himself in Rome to answer for his supposed crime of schism, and therefore, ultimately heresy, stated he refuses to present himself in Rome since he does not recognise the legitimacy of the current occupier of the See of Rome and wants nothing to do with it, nor to remain in communion with it since he describes the current Bergoglian hierarchy as the final metastasis of the cancer that is Vatican II.
  • Don Ricossa started out by saying that although he does not usually like to discuss current events, since there is such a need of understanding the gospels at present, the present situation that everyone is talking about concerning Vigano is an excellent opportunity to possibly begin to heal the Church, if it is considered and acted upon fruitfully. He goes on to explain how and why as follows:
  • In the first place, while it is true that the current situation is terrible, it is important to note that this is merely an effect of the cause and not the cause itself. In short, while it is true that the cancer is bad, the problem started at the origin of the cancer and that is Vatican II. And this being the case, the focus should absolutely be on explaining and detailing the exact issues with Vatican II. This has already been done in various ways by various people [including by me —-in what I believe in the most exhaustive way I am aware of—- in Reclaiming The Catholic Church, where I list at least some of the heresies present in all 15 of the 16 documents that compose Vatican II that have direct heresy in them] and Father Ricossa mentions that one can bring to the attention of everyone (including Vigano) these arguments, and their already detailed and well presented points. Or one can expand on them or even start them anew and as thoroughly as one likes [As far as I am aware a complete listing of all the heresies of the Vatican II documents has not been done for there are so many, but I believe my version is the one that so far comes closest.]
  • Further, once you do this, it become obvious that the problem is not just the current impostor on the throne of Peter, but also all those from the very start of Vatican II who have continued to promulgate, promote and agree with Vatican II. [In short, here, Don Ricossa states simply the same thing I have been telling everyone from 2017 on, which is that every single fake Pope from Angelo Roncalli on, and all the Novus Orco clergy are invalid and as such heretics and non-Catholics. Nor is anything they teach related to Catholicism, but rather, its inversion.] Don Ricossa therefore clearly implied that this situation, that is, that Vigano has not yet explicitly stated this, needs to be corrected.
  • He goes on that, in order to be coherent, Vigano can only refuse the order to come to Rome, as well as refuse to recognise Bergoglio’s authority if he truly believes Bergoglio is not a legitimate Pope AND he can demonstrate too that this is the case (because Catholics follow the rules, not their feelings about what they think of particular cotta). And once again, this leads back to Vatican II and how it is indeed possible (and the case) that only fake “Popes” has been present in the Vatican since 28th October 1958. Otherwise, failing to obey a legitimate Pope is indeed schism and this can only eventually become heresy.
  • Don Ricossa goes on to say that therefore, it is absolutely necessary to explain, formally, and clarify:
    • Why the current occupier of the Vatican is not a valid Pope.
    • And also to clarify Vigano’s position on the matter, [that is of not formally and clearly declaring all the previous fake “Popes” and all previous and current fake “clergy” as the fakes they are] this removing for is the current doubt we have about what is Vigano’s real thoughts on the matter.]
    • He goes on to say that he has never had any communication with Vigano, so it is not a matter of the person of Vigano as such, but rather that while Vigano has expressed an opinion that Don Ricossa agrees with (i.e. that the Novus Ordo Church is a fake mess) Vigano needs to follow through, for the sake of clarity and the truth of it for all concerned, from Bergoglio and his retinue to you and I mere laymen.
  • He goes on to say that his suggestion (though he points out no one asked him) to Mr. Vigano, is to hold fast to his position, focusing on the validity (or rather, lack of validity) of Bergoglio’s election as a “Pope”. He also explains that nowadays a lot of people (unlike before when we were the only ones stating the seat of Peter was vacant) are claiming it is vacant with reference to Ratzinger having been the real Pope. And Don Ricossa here states he will not enter into the various theories and details that such “sedevacantists” hold, because it is not our problem/issue to do so, since the reality is that none of rhe Popes from Roncalli on have been legitimate. He specifies that NO ONE who has accepted the so-called cancer of Vatican II can ever be the legitimate authority of the Church, (since Vatican II is heresy and the Church, being infallible, obviously cannot promulgate heresy) and so while Bergoglio is not legitimate, neither was Ratzinger.
  • It would be therefore a massive error to allow yourself to be fooled into this error that “Ratzinger was the real Pope” which so many are now trying or thinking of following [Hi Ann, Andrea Tossato, and others].
  • Instead, Vigano should hold to his position that regardless of whether you consider the election of any specific “Pope” to have been valid or not, it becomes clear that the incumbent has NOT accepted the election validly because it is clear from his actions, that are habitual, repetitive and obvious, that he has not
  • In summary, Vigano must clarify his position, because while it appears that Vigano is rejecting the current usurper of the Roman See, at other times one is left perplexed he says, because in the same document where he rejects Bergoglio, he also says he aligns himself with Msgr. LeFebrve, original position, but Msgr. LeFebrve at the time communicated with all the clergy while telling them they should rebel against the (according to Lefebrve) legitimate Pope [which is why the SSPX position is nonsense, as I and many before me, including Father Chekada before his passing made abundantly clear]. But Vigano says he rejects the authority of Bergoglio, so he cannot claim he aligns with LeFebrve’s position. If he rejects Bergoglio, and thus all of Vatican II he should say and detail how and why, and the same if he does not. And while the man also refers to a book by Lefebrve that defends the validity of the Pope he disobeys, one can only ask: what is then, the real opinion of Mr. Vigano? [Personally I have already expressed that Vigano is not anyone to follow or put any trust in, as per Canon Law. No heretic shall have ecclesiastical authority over anyone even if his repentance were 100% genuine, and Vigano is far from fulfilling the idea his repentance is in fact genuine as far as I am concerned].
  • He reiterates once more that Vigano should be clear as to if he does reject Bergoglio as legitimate or not, and he should say so in direct, simple terms, as well as why he does if he does. So as to be perfectly and unambiguously clear.
  • As a third and final point, once clarity has been made, and if Vigano in fact refutes Vatican II and all its authors and not just the current impostor in the Vatican, but all those before him [back to Pious XII who was the last legitimate Pope] since, as already explained the Church cannot schism from itself and therefore anyone who does so from it cannot be part of the Church, then what to do? And here he uses the example of Montini who while pretending to talk about the “ongoing destruction of the Church” he was the very one destroying it by the most assiduous enactment of the 14 Vatican II documents replete with heresies he himself produced, along with the 2 produced by his predecessor Roncalli, leat Vigano be another one of these impostors speaking from both sides of their mouth, or, as the errors of those at the time of Montini who kept silent, waiting for Montini to die and hoping a successor would come along to put right all the things Montini had destroyed. And instead he says this was an illusion, aince the successors of Montini only continued with the destruction of the Church. [I must interject a note here that while I respect Do Ricossa and the other members of the IMBC, I cannot, in good conscience be as charitable to those timid and cowardly bishops, cardinals and priests who kept silent at the time of Montini. Logically they had no excuse for their silence, as neither did Vigano for over 50 years. It is only cowardice and self-serving reasons that kept their mouth shut, or, at best, a criminal level of ignorance inexcusable from any member of the clergy, that in secular terms is equivalent to the charge of criminal negligence. Nor, am I wrong, nor can I be criticised on this matter given that St. Luis stated it very clearly that a heretic making a heretical comment in Church should not be argued with, but rather run through with a sword. If a Saint of the Church made that point, mine surely must be valid too. Furthermore, while in no way being disrespectful to the valid clergy of the Church which remain and of which Don Ricossa is undoubtedly a member, it is the absolute duty of any Catholic to call out heresy wherever it is present, and the level and extent of dereliction of duty in this regard, of the clergy at the time is one I will never permit to happen again, as best I can, as ling as I live.]
  • Vigano, therefore, inasmuch as he is supposedly a “bishop” (and Don Ricossa specifically states he is not now going to get into the details concerning the validity of Vigano’s legitimacy as such, because the point is that Vigano has a huge “weight” within the “Church” and as such he has the opportunity (unlike the e average layman or even priest) to gather around him as many people as he can with his same perspective, and thus, in essence, create a much more widespread acknowledgements of the situation, while being very clear about the errors of Vatican II and therefore NOT recognising the authority of ANY of those who promulgated them, and if he did so this, there could be many improvements and who knows, perhaps also a beginning of the solution to the current situation.
  • He closes stating of course all this needs the help and grace of God and his own suggestions are provided in utmost humility.

Personally I find Don Ricossa to be too charitable and too humble, and while I absolutely understand why and respect his way and his position and his methodology, in good conscience, I can only maintain my position, which is that while all this CAN —and indeed I too very much hope does— improve things, and results in many more proper Catholics returning to the fold in good standing (that is, that of 1958 Sedevacantists) I will always hold the canonical position that once a heretic, even if the repentance is true, a heretic clergyman should spend the rest of his days in perpetual penance with authority over precisely no one.

Nor do I in any way begrudge Don Ricossa or any other valid clergy from holding positions like his. But even a porter was not a priest and yet he controlled the entry to the Church.

And at various times in history it was nobility, duty bound, that helped restore the legitimate Papacy to its throne, and not infrequently by direct and even violent action.

Well, as a Catholic, and even if only a minor noble (the lowest of the ranks: Patrician) it remains my family name’s duty to take as unpleasant and as direct and even offensive a stance as I deem necessary to protect the sanctity of the Church. So, even if Vigano were to truly repent, and even restore the Church, I will never formally recognise him as having any legitimate authority in the Catholic Church. And the same goes for every Novus Orcian “clergy”.

No related posts.

By G | 23 June 2024 | Posted in Catholicism, Reclaiming the Catholic Church, Sedevacantism, Social Commentary

Some Spiritual Realities

It occurred to me that there is something quite obvious about the various religions that I had never considered before.

Catholicism originated from the most absurdly improbable roots and was so diffused throughout the world that we literally date our time on the basis of the birth of Jesus.

First, consider that Catholicism, or Christianity, since the words are synonymous as ALL Christianity was always and only Catholic before the infiltrations and schisms were created by the enemy, allowed anyone around the world, to participate in a Holy Mass that was identical wherever you were in the world, and regardless of what language you spoke. This was the case since the 1960s when the Satanic impostor Montini, against canon law, dogma and Catholicism itself, changed the Mass in line with the equally Satanic Vatican II events.

Secondly, consider that it started with 4 women and 11 guys too scared to adit they followed Jesus. And it civilised the world. Despite constant attacks from gnostics, other religions, atheists, $cienc-eh and so on. It’s really quite astonishing since the divine principles of Catholic dogma remain unchanged after 2000 years.

So let’s look at what other religions had also a decent run, time-wise at least.

Islam, of course, Hinduism, though it is mostly secularised, 40,000 versions and counting of Protestantism, which can’t really be said to agree on anything other than “Catholicism bad”, Eastern “Orthodoxy” which is starting to split off like Protestantism but much slower and in any case is really quite schizophrenic historically and hasn’t spread itself very far comparatively speaking and the only fruits it can boast of is that presently Russia is the least cucked country on the planet. Novus Ordo fake Catholicism doesn’t really count, because this Satanic institution was only really “born” in 1958, when Angelo Roncalli became the first of the current and ongoing era of fake Popes, but really the infiltrators are mask-wearing Stanists. Satanism itself, in its many, many, many guises and under its legion of names, is, of course older than Christianity, being the first rebellion, or Protestation, against truth. And of course, Pharisaical or Talmudic Judaism which is what people who call themselves Jews today are. There is also Buddhism and Shintoism, and I think that covers the main ones. People LARPing at being “Pagans” really fall in the category of cosplayers at comic book conventions, if not furries and other fetishists, so we can’t seriously consider them, especially given their pitiful numbers and not insignificant mental health issues.

There have been many other religions that fell to the wayside for many reasons, conquest often being the main one, either physical or intellectual/spiritual. The Pagan religions of the Vikings for example died out because they gradually and spontaneously converted to Catholicism. The Mayan beliefs died out because the Spanish conquered them and the survivors converted too. and so on.

But the point is that only religions that have a spiritual basis in reality tend to stand the test of time.

And according to Catholic doctrine and belief, every one of those religions does, to some extent, square with reality, because they essentially are the creation of, or the literal worshipping of demons.

I will give a necessarily very brief and absolutely incomplete and also reductionist view of each of them below. It will be easy to critique any of these thumbnail summaries for being “simplistic” or incomplete, nevertheless, they will give a good and not unfair general sense of each one. And for good measure, I will give an equally brief and objective view of Catholicism at the end so you can get a feel for the level of both reductionism and oversimplification, but also of fairness and no overt or intentional mischaracterisation of any of them.

Protestantism – (See also Catholicism below) – The idea that a unified religion with one set of rules agreed to by a hierarchy that referred directly to God and was promised to be infallible until the end of time, should be split into each individual interpreting these divine truths independently and on their own, from one book alone, that had been edited and had parts removed by the founder of this hydra-like religion, who also expressly stated that because “reason was the whore of the devil” it should essentially be abandoned and all his ideas and theories (or the ones of your own head) should be accepted purely on faith. The obviously deaf, dumb and blind kind, one presumes, since reason could not be part of it.

Islam – the idea that a mass-murdering pedophile could do no wrong, and was the spokesman for a God that does whatever He wants arbitrarily. Reason is once again not required. Merely obedience. Conquest and conversion by force is perfectly acceptable, and should ultimately be done as soon as you are strong enough to impose it on non-muslims. Treating anyone not Islamic as an enemy, lying to them, and pretending to be their friend, but always holding in your heart the concept that they are enemies, being the right way.

Hinduism – Belief in a wide ranging pantheon of Gods for various specific things each deity takes care of. Some of these deities are said to have been historical personages from the ancient past with extra-solar origins, and others are considered to be proper deities. Regardless of either case, human beings are divided into various classes from untouchables to nobles that are like princes and reincarnation is the only way you can move up or down the hierarchy, and this is achieved by burning or not accumulating Karma in your present life.

Catholicism (today only found in 1958 Sedevacantists) – The idea that God came down to Earth as a man to take on all the sins of the world past, present and future, and any human beings who accepted this truth and kept his laws and rules would also be saved from separation from God and thus Hell. The baseline behaviour is to treat others as you wish to be treated and to spread these good news all over the world, but no one can become catholic other than by free choice.

Novus Ordo “Catholicism” – false representation of Catholicism that inverts its dogmatic principles in order to create what is ultimately a false religion, analogous to Protestantism, which informed much of its creation, alongside the push from Jewish interests behind it too and the obvious Freemasonic infiltration the real Church suffered for centuries.

Eastern Orthodoxy – The idea that keeping Christianity mostly confined to your own country, that there is no overarching authority in it, and that splitting from the origins of Catholicism, then asking their help when Muslims go to war with you, and when the Catholics come to help, you literally backstab them and try and murder them 3 times in a row, you are somehow the victim when the fourth time they sack your capital city. You also ignore basic tenets of the original religion like priests being celibate, which were in place both before, during and after the arrival of Jesus Christ.

Buddhism – The idea that life is suffering and eternal permanent death (Nirvana, the absence of all desire and therefore consciousness) is the ultimate aim of reincarnation. Mostly harmless in its wider worldly extent, but ultimately nihilistic.

Shintoism/Zen agnosticism/Taoism – While each is a distinct belief system, they all have Buddhist origins and generally do not refute reincarnation and veneration of the ancestors for guidance. In this respect they are similar to Catholicism (veneration of Saints) although not with regard to reincarnation, which Catholicism refutes as irrelevant and unnecessary at best and possible demonic deception at worst. The emphasis is on trying to achieve serenity, balance and harmony in everyday life in order to achieve it also spiritually.

Judaism – The idea that Catholicism is the worst possible religion on Earth and needs to be destroyed, and that all non-Jews are but cattle to be enslaved in order to serve Jews. According to their own most revered Rabis, the Jews worship the god of this World, known by Catholics as Satan.

What can we deduce by this brief thumbnail summary of religions from a Catholic perspective then?

  • Judaism most directly serves Satan
  • Hinduism could be said to serve various demons and/or long-since dead personages that originated from space
  • Protestantism and Novus Ordo False Catholicism are a perversion of every Catholic Principle
  • Eastern “Orthodoxy” is schismatic at best
  • All Buddhist linked religions that do not worship pantheons of false Gods (ie Hinduism) or even any specific “gods” are the least bad of the Pagan religious beliefs, though far from ideal as while many of them promote generosity and friendliness towards strangers, there is no clearly defined rules on it.

If you also look at the fruits born by each of these religions over time, we see that Protestantism and more recently Novus Orcism (they are Orcs, let’s call them Orcs) are merely tools to secularise Catholicism into a human based false religion The object of “worship” is a false idol. A God with no set rules, no set divine Laws, where everyone is “free” to believe s they will and is saved anyway because they agree Jesus is King. That is literally the same level of “Christianity” that demons have. They too know Jesus is King. the result has also been acceptance of contraception, divorce, and ultimately baby murder because babies get in the way of reckless fornication with people you do NOT want to have children with.

Eastern “Orthodoxy” is slow-burn Protestantism, and hasn’t produced much of anything but its stagnant state is presently proving rather useful as a bulwark to the disintegration of faith in general in the West.

Hinduism is a horrible caste system where your station in life is determined solely by your birth, and can’t be escaped, nor is it desirable to escape it since anyway all is karma, so why bother. The resulting inefficiency, squalor and destitution of the people who practice this religion, compounded with purely worldly attempts to gain more wealth by any means necessary, is rather well-known, and surpassed only by Judaism which is, however, very effective at it, since its central principle is to enslave the world to bring it under the yoke of the Jews themselves who will rule all the non-Jews as their property and slaves.

Buddhist types are for the most part the equivalent of mostly harmless NPCs. Individuals may be positive or not, but overall as a religion they do not cause particularly good or bad societies, and the tendency tends to be towards them being organised, clean, safe and efficient.

Catholicism is the only religion that has drastically elevated the whole of humanity while keeping the individual at its core as the important thing, while also understanding his or her role in the wider social context.

There are really only four routes:

  • Direct Satanism
  • Indirect Satanism
  • Indirect Satanism Lite
  • Catholicism

So take your pick of the oldest religion of all, or one of its offshoots, or Catholicism.

Good Luck.

No related posts.

By G | 18 March 2024 | Posted in Catholicism, Christianity, Sedevacantism

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:

  • Pretty sure both Vox and myself do not like having human authority over us. I think the generic difference might be that I am willing to go along with it for the greater good as long as the human with “authority” over me continues to follow the correct rules. As far as Catholicism goes, if the priest/bishop does not himself contravene Canon Law (as per Code of Canon Law of 1917) and his advice is in line with it, I will obey. The reason I believe the Code of Canon Law is correct is because at core, I believe that Jesus would not have left a FALLIBLE Church on Earth. He wanted a Church and we are instructed to use reason and logic to figure stuff out, but not that it’s all guesswork. Having read the CoCL twice, while I find rules that personally bug me, in objective consideration, even those rules are civilisational, and my personal preference is the one that is not ideal to building a truly civilised world. The classic example is duelling. I am all for it, but Catholicism forbids it, because, in general, duelling would be a sin of pride. Not really my problem, but if it were widespread you can see that the sin of pride would be what motivates it for most, instead of a burning desire to see justice done.
  • Pretty sure we both dislike dishonesty in general and especially dishonesty designed to lead people astray spiritually.
  • One thing I think we differ on is that I think Vox is more prone to the error of Erroneous Loyalty. Something I discussed in Reclaiming the Catholic Church at some length. It is an error I used to live myself for many years, so I think I understand the dynamic well. As an extreme and hypothetical example that ignores human laws for the purpose of the intellectual exercise, I recall a long while back, in one of his posts, Vox mentioned that under certain circumstances, a friend that was guilty of certain crimes would be best served by being handed a pistol with one bullet in it and leaving him alone in his room, giving him the dignity of suicide. I believe he was referencing a supposed “friend” of John Scalzi that had been discovered to be some kind of sexual predator, and if memory serves Vox’s comment was along the lines of what you would do if someone you considered to be a friend turned out to be, say a child rapist. In my case, my loyalty of friendship would NOT prevent me (again, in a hypothetical world of no human laws being present) from helping the man pull the trigger, or even doing it for him. You don’t want to leave these things to chance! In fact, as per my comments many times, I absolutely believe that the punishment for child rape should be the legalised and accepted method of burning at the stake. Suicide is considered a mortal sin by Catholicism and as such, judgement by the community so you burn at the stake gives you the chance to repent while you burn and possibly enter purgatory and eventually heaven instead of eternal Hell. So, in broad terms, I think Vox may be more prone to being loyal beyond the just point. As I say, an error I myself had for a long while in my youth, but that I gradually got out of over several years until I finally realised that the line of Justice is more important than the line of loyalty. Vox may have other theories on this, which I am unaware of but that’s the sense I have of it presently.

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.

  • One more difference between Vox and myself I need to point out, the man is certainly more patient than I am as well as far more forgiving. I remember we briefly discussed Jordan Peterson at the time and Vox stated the man was intelligent. I was astonished and asked why on Earth he thought that, he quite correctly pointed out that in order to spew the level of bafflegarble nonsense he does and fool a lot of people into thinking he is not some absolutely insane globalist with severe psychological issues, takes a certain level of IQ. Personally I evaluated the bafflegarble nonsense and concluded the man is mentally unstable and absolutely wrong and a liar. I can’t reconcile that with being intelligent, but strictly speaking, that is an error on my part conflating ethics and sanity with intelligence.

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

The Subtlety of the Demonic within Protestantism

Oh I know, protties will ass-u-me that this is just yet another rant against their facile and absurd version of Christianity. But no, it is actually something quite subtle yet very important.

It has taken me about the last two years to really begin to observe the clarity with which the protestantism zeitgeist affects really not just protestants specifically, but in fact, pretty much all of the English-speaking world. Regardless of your religious beliefs, I think if you take the time to read this, and then make some observations, there is a real benefit you might gain from it. Even if you remain a protestant (tragically misguided as that position would be).

In a succinct three sentences, the problem is this:

Protestantism mechanises human beings, and is designed to do so by its ultimate “creator”, reducing the humanity between people and subjugating the individual to ever growing rules, as if he were simply a cog in a machine.

Catholicism (the real one, not the Novus Ordo version, which is just a Satanic perversion of Christianity) on the other hand is religion best suited for human beings, it ennobles, elevates, and improves the condition of the individual at the individual level, and thus of the family, and thus of society at large. Never losing sight that the individual is the key and his or her individuality is a gift and joy when expressed within the protective confines of Catholic dogma.

This assertion, which might at first seem mere opinion, can be verified by you in a number of ways. Most of these are what I would call large scale statistical studies/observations and as such, while individual counter-examples can be found aplenty, they do not in any way invalidate the overall thesis. Here are some of the easiest and most profitable areas you may wish to investigate for yourself:

Marriage – Divorce and Abortion – Family unit Cohesion – Children

While the Novus Ordo Satanic cult has damaged this institution a lot in the intervening nearly 70 years, even today, divorce, even in nominally “Catholic” families is viewed as a great failure and although the stain of scandal is much reduced, there is still a hint of it. This, of course, stems from the concept that marriage should be for life. A stance that the Catholic Church always had, and even the present day Satanic impersonators find difficult to reverse, though they give out annulments like confetti as of late. In fact, until the early 1900s, even amongst protestants, divorce was still quite the stain. It all changed with the introduction of contraception in pill format, invented by a Jew, and readily taken up by Protestantism. Although condoms had existed for a long time, their use was banned by Catholicism, since, as per Catholic dogma, the PRIMARY purpose of marriage, is to raise a family, which means children, which means divorce is out because you should be adult and possessed of reason enough to know this BEFORE you even enter into any kind of sexual liaison with the proposed wife/husband. Meaning you will make your choice based on their suitability for that as your PRIMARY point, and your compatibility in terms of sex, lustful attraction, and so on, only as a distant second, if not third or fourth. The reason being obvious, in that two people actively working towards creating a harmonious environment for their children will both work towards finding a harmonious compatibility of a sexual nature, and, as my pre-Catholic experience tells me, almost any man and any woman can become sexually really quite compatible, when they both aim to do so, even if at first this might not seem the case. The honest wish to have children and raise them together makes it an easy thing to ensure both parties work hard at any apparent incompatibility or lack of symphony in their individual ways. So it all stems from the lack of contraception amongst Catholics, which is a far deeper and fundamental aspect of marriage than most people today, imbibed in the Protestant mindset, even begin to realise. Divorce is the result of placing the lust/attraction/ephemeral traits of the potential partner ahead of the fundamental/primary/lifelong attributes. If your focus is on the ephemerals, these will inevitably change and degrade over time. The fundamental aspects, are far more resilient and knowing this consciously helps you make better choices from the very start. The extreme of this attitude of focusing on the ephemeral instead of the fundamental is, of course, the total inversion of the very essence of marriage, where children are seen as an inconvenience to the extent that we then murder them in the womb. Tearing them literally apart, limb from limb so as to not get in the way of our buying a new iPhone and having sex with whoever we fancy, without any wish to even have a long conversation with them, much less spend a lifetime together. Catholicism has this aspect correct, and protestantism has it completely wrong and inverted. As a result protestant society is no longer family oriented and what children result from the bonobo-like couplings of humans are often urban-feral examples of disrespect, savagery, complete lack of moral character or discipline, and the denizens of broken homes. You can see this in broad terms by simply observing the generic or “average” behaviour of teens in Anglo-Saxon/teutonic countries (which are overwhelmingly protestant) and comparing them to nominally and presently really ex-Catholic countries, like Spain, Portugal, Italy and to a lesser and modified, but still valid extent, South American also ex-Catholic countries. The family unit in such cultures still matters, and children will tend to get corrected sharply and quickly if they behave in unacceptable fashions (much less so now than say 50 years ago, but it still is a much improved situation when compared to the protestant countries).

Anglo-Saxon or (God forbid, American “law”) Vs. Roman law

The British legal system is fundamentally flawed in that it tries to mechanise and compartmentalise human behaviour in a number of pigeon-holes. You kill a person you get punishment X to Z depending on prior case law (that is, whatever happened in the past to some other guy in supposedly similar circumstances will fit here too, regardless of square pegs and round holes). And quite often, even just punishment X regardless, and not even the option of Y or Z.

The American legal system is actually a complete perversion of any hint of justice and merely a façade to keep the average plebeian and brainwashed American mostly quiet, into thinking they have an actual functioning system of law and order, when in truth, all they have is a system designed to keep the oligarchy well and truly above the rest of their society, while they do whatever they please at the expense of the little people.

Roman law, instead is a perfectly humane and human-based legal system, where a general principle applies, but the details to each case are looked at in the specific. So, yes, murder is generally always wrong, but the pre-meditated murder of a little old lady to steal her pension, is quite different from the premeditated murder of a child rapist. And while the Anglo-Saxon system pretends to adhere to this with various degrees of penalties for various degrees of murder, in reality, the practical aspects are that very often people are forced to make a guilty plea in order to avoid prescribed sentences. The Roman system of law, which is rapidly being ousted by the ever-encroaching Americanism spreading like a plague over the planet, is fundamentally different in that it is dependent on human aspects of life that we are all both familiar and subject too. In Italy, still today, construction contracts are only a few pages long, because the so-called spirit of the law, applies and is self-evident to any honest person. By contrast, in UK law, —which remember has a principle of “the reasonable man”— a similar contract, for a similar job, would be at least a couple hundred pages. In America, it is usually a few hundred pages and also references a bunch of other documents which can run to several thousand pages. As in for example, the Federal rules for Acquisition Regulations. Which is a stack of Satanic nonsense compiled into several volumes that sits well above a metre high if you pile them on top of each other.

Work Ethic and Social Dynamics

The protestant work ethic is often touted as a superior thing above those shiftless Catholics. And I myself, having lived mostly in protestant countries and working as a freelancer all of my life, have also, always appreciated the aspect of the “mechanisation” of work-related routines. The interchangeability of personnel, also meant that as long as I outperformed my colleagues, I would always have a job, since I had an almost endless supply of firms that would be only too eager to slot me in, cog-like, in their machinery. And outperforming my colleagues was not hard to do if your slight autism lets you play “by the book” while your Venetian genetics uses all the instinctual genetic humanity involved to produce results the poor binary thinking protestants can’t even imagine, never mind implement. By contrast, working with my countrymen was exasperating, they would almost never respect deadlines and at times even used strong-arm and duplicitous tactics to stay in the game. As in “Eh… you are already neck deep with us, if you try to get rid of us and change supplier you will lose out even more, so… suck it up and wait/pay.” To which my general response was to play along while I set up an alternative, then I would dump the offenders with a claim on them to boot. I had zero interest in wasting my time talking with them about their (or my) dog, children, whatever, that had zero impact on the job. I never particularly enjoyed my job or work, and I tried to avoid the rat race as much as I could, but when I do enter it, I give it my best to perform my job well. My attitude is pretty much samurai/soldier when it comes to work. It may be a necessary evil, but that doesn’t mean I should be half-assed about it. I perform well for whoever hires me, and have always done so, even when the specific people that hired me, or even the company as a whole may have been populated by complete assholes. When/if their evil/retardation/dishonesty/harm-causing behaviour crossed a certain point I simply left. And in a few cases, took corrective action to the point they would fire me. I have never been fired by “surprise”, I always knew it was coming and why, and it was usually because I put them in a position where they either corrected their ways (which, paradoxically would also improve their profit margins) or got rid of me for being a “meddlesome interloper” as they would see it in their corrupt view, instead of an honesty and profit increasing asset, as I would see it, looking merely at the bottom line and not the egos of the people involved.

All of that preamble to say that I too was under the mistaken idea that a Protestant work-ethic was superior. Well… after a couple of years in a decidedly non-protestant operating country, I have to re-evaluate that idea massively. So, here in note form, are the “positives” of the protestant work ethic:

  • Increase efficiency in the final result overall
  • Increased efficiency in production/delivery/timeline
  • Increased efficiency if there is illness/absenteeism
  • Reduced down time when critical people die/leave
  • Standardisation of systems and methods across the board
  • Standardisation even across industries
  • A supposed “positive” is work-life being very distinct from home-life
  • Due to the standardisation even average or sub-average people can “perform” “adequately”.

Now, pretty much every one of those points turns into a negative for the Catholic work ethic. Less efficient, and so on. However, two of those points above are a “positive” in the Protestant world, but actually a negative in the Catholic world. So let’s consider what the positives of a Catholic work ethic are:

  • Personal relationship based results. Loyal customers and well-performing companies are generally given automatic preferential treatment.
  • Meritocracy based results. Those that perform well can rise to the top because the average is so generally poor on things like delivery timelines.
  • In general, attention to quality in bespoke items is second to none. Timelines are non-existent, but often quality is unmatched by Protestant systems until those systems are mechanised by sufficiently advanced technology; in some industries this wipes out the Catholic competition, but in others the Catholic version is unlikely to ever be replaced by mere AI and higher technology.
  • The absence of a neat separation between work and home life seems impractical and intrusive to Protestants, but, if your society is composed of Catholic-observant human beings, then there should be no huge separation. Which is why they take a siesta in the middle of the day and see their families for lunch. The human connection aspect is more important than the chase for profit margins. Seeing your children at lunch-time and taking a break is good for the family and the mental health of all involved. The customer is of course important, but always second-fiddle to my family and my good friends. As it should be. And of course, those good customers that become also friends, eh… you might work through the weekend or at 3 am to help them out. Because they are friends, not because of profit.
  • The relationships are generally more human-based. In general, if I do work with an Italian firm (after careful selection and experience with them) I am also happy having those guys over for lunch at my house or vice-versa. This has hardly ever been the case with the semi-automatons I worked with (even quite pleasantly) in the Anglo-Saxon world. While I am happy enough having Giovanni the client or sub-contractor over for lunch, the last fucking thing either me or John from the UK want, is to spend any more time in each other’s company after work. And that’s even if I like John and he likes me. John may be a great guy, and he may think the same of me, but John knows, that he will see me at the office, and he will keep well away from my front door. And I will extend the same basic courtesy to him. This is why Anglos will have “team-building” days. The Latins look at that and go, “What is this shit? Are you trying to force us to like each other? That’s not gonna work!” And it doesn’t. I never heard of a Latin firm doing “team-building” days. They do invite and spoil clients to lavish dinners or things like that, but even then, it is only in the last decade or so that this has become more common-place. And generally used to be more of a way to introduce themselves to a client. Hey we build blue widgets and you seem to like blue widgets, can we take you for a nice dinner and chill so you will later come visit our factory and see what you think?

In short then, the protestant work ethic is a better machine. But do you want to spend half your life inside a machine? Or would you rather spend your life surrounded by all the messy inefficiency of humans, but also their beautiful and redeeming human aspects too? I for one was convinced the Protestant way was better. I am misanthropic by nature (and by virtue of my IQ I learned later in life, which makes me feel generally bored or exasperated by average humans for the most part) and have learnt since a young age that I can be fine in quite extended solitude. However, if you develop your charity, humanity, and grace, broadening your perspective of the average human (yes, ok, he may not grasp physics, or astronomy, or respect deadlines, or keep proper accounts, or, or, or… but… he is a great dad, a loyal husband, and will come help you with totally unrelated stuff at 2 am because he’s a good guy) then the Catholic perspective is INFINITELY better, because it allows you to interact with your fellow humans in a much more pleasant way even if you have very little in common with them, and that interaction is not the same as the plastic-world “Have a nice day!” of the USA. It may be a grumpy “Ah, what a shit day, fighting with the wife, screw it!” or it may be “Have a nice day!” but it is intrinsically more human and connected. So yeah, you may not get your work done in the timelines you wanted and if that is all you see, you will eventually move to a 15 minute city merely for the organised functions. Or you know, a prison. Things run on time there too. But if you are interested in the humanity of life, then, you will begin to enjoy the messy side of life, out here in the Catholic “jungle”.

The Subtle Implications of Boxed-in/Binary Thinking

This is the most subtle aspect, but —in my opinion— also the most important. Because Catholicism is true, and founded on God’s Will, it generates a certain “built-in” charity and grace when dealing with the rest of humanity, tempered by a steely resolve to do whatever is necessary to preserve our way of life, our loved ones, and innocents in general. There is a very wide and fluid range of human interactions, which have as wide a capacity for harmony even between very different personalities as possible. Which is not to say that there are not hard lines. There are. But, just as God finds extremely improbable, even miraculous ways to turn even evil to an ultimate good, so too, the average Catholic has a much wider supply of responses to life and other people, all while inhabiting the very clear lines of Catholic dogma. The protestant, not having a culture or tradition, or habit of being imbibed in humanity and its myriad idiosyncrasies, nor viewing them through a theological lens that is also in keeping with both God’s mercy and charity as well as God’s Justice, is far more limited in his response to both situations and people. Things tend to fall into a good or bad category. Permissible or forbidden. Much like the Anglo legal systems, these approaches to life, events, and especially other people, including your children, is very sub-optimal, and over time leads to quite serious perversions of reality and life. Particularly for the raising of children.

My wife at times got upset with me for treating each of our children differently when faced with situations that are apparently, superficially, the same. It took some time for her to begin to appreciate what I explained, that each child is unique, and their internal motivations, drives, and responses are unique and different from each other. It has absolutely nothing to do with any child being more or less like me, or me caring more or less about any one of them over another. I would take a bullet for any of them without hesitation in exactly the same fashion. The point is that you need to adjust the lesson to the individual (again, Roman Law over Anglo “law”).

Having had the benefit of doing and teaching martial arts for some decades, it became very clear that everyone improved faster when the lesson was general for everyone, but the corrections or suggestions were unique to every person in the class. how much more important this is with your own children!

But to a Protestant, this can seem unfair, unbalanced, or being biased or preferential of one person, or group of people, over another. It certainly can appear that way, and be experienced that way by the subject of the treatment, but it is in fact, nothing of the sort. It is the best approximation of actual Justice, since one tries to adapt the situation to the details of the individual or group involved. Anyone that has ever been in serious martial arts, or life and death situations on a regular basis as a pert of their routine, will understand this. Farmers will understand this too. Basically anyone that has to deal with reality in ways that give a serious consequence if you don’t deal with reality but rather your own erroneous perception or idea of it.

This “simplification” of perception, is a real issue and a real problem in the Protestant dominated Zeitgeist (which is pretty much almost completely global by now). And it applies at every level of life, be it the interpretation of natural phenomena (see Rupert Sheldrake’s excellent ideas on even things such as the speed of light on this and other topics), reality in general, theological concepts simplified to the absurd (sola scriptura, sola fides, once saved always saved, all completely unmitigated nonsense any normal child of ten sees for the completely illogical rubbish it is), and really, pretty much all human interactions. Everything from sex (instead of lovemaking) to friendship, becomes transactional and calculated, even if unconsciously, to an extent that damages and degrades the actual humanity between humans. And in fact has steadily done so for five centuries, and taken some nitrous oxide in the last fifty or so.

Conclusions

The afternoon siesta, the inability to use watches or stick to well-balanced “just-in time” delivery schedules, all pale in comparison to the benefits gained by stopping in the middle of your work-day because you saw Paolo and you grab a coffee together, as is, your ability to forgive Giorgio for having done the same thing and coming to pick up your car a day late.

Just as I would rather die fighting to be left OUT of a 15 minute city, in the feral and untamed, wild and unpredictable “jungle” outside of it, so too, I have come to appreciate the humanity of my Catholic ancestors to a huge and fundamentally important degree. I hope you can benefit from these thoughts, and am very open to discussing these points with intellectually aware and honest interlocutors. So, feel free to let me know your views, while keeping in mind the rules.

No related posts.

By G | 6 September 2023 | Posted in Catholicism, Christianity, Human Performance, Relationships, Social Commentary

Who’s a Good Catholic Then?

My friend Tony sent me a link to this article, which is a very decent and short, to the point, article on Catholicism today. He deals well with the whole Sedevacantist and not sedevacantist issue.

In essence, and much more politely, it is not far from what I have been saying for years now.

And in case you are not aware, in summary, my position is this:

  • ANY clergy of the Novus Orco are NOT Catholics, nor valid clergy at all, and not members of the Church. If ordained before 1958 (or 1964 if one wants to be extremely charitable) they are apostate heretics that have defected from the faith, as per canon 188.4 of the Code of Canon Law of 1917. If they were “ordained” after 1964 at the latest, then they are not validly ordained to begin with and in any case the charge of non-catholic, either because knowingly and intentionally heretic or never-was catholic/Freemason/Satanist, or heathen pretending to be Catholic through INEXCUSABLE ignorance. Which all results in all the same thing: They are ALL, without exception, to be treated as heretics. Should ANY ONE or more of them, confess, publicly, repent and accept the true Catholic position, then, as per Cum Ex Apostolato Officio, they should spend the rest of their days sequestered in a remote monastery in perpetual penance and with authority over precisely no one.
  • Any layman that subscribes to the Novus Ordo (Orco, I say, ORCO!) in abysmal ignorance and laziness of their own purported religion, is guilty of laziness and ignorance, but is not, in such cases, a heretic and in his or her genuine innocence, remains, in fact, by virtue of their actual ignorance, a member of the Catholic Church. HOWEVER, if you have read this far, that no longer applies to you. If you have heard of the controversy of Vatican II, of sedevacantists now being the only Catholics, and so on, it is incumbent upon you to research and satisfy yourself of what the truth is, and where the actual Catholic Church is. So, while ignorance might be “bliss”, wilful ignorance is not. At best, such people who refuse to educate themselves once the facts are presented before them, are definitely guilty of wilful ignorance, wilful laziness (sloth) and probably a good dose of pride. While these people might still be considered Catholics, they are in definite error and wilfully so, and should be shunned and shamed, as one would a perpetual fornicator, adulterer, habitual drunk, and so on.
  • Sedevacantists are the only genuine Catholic left.
  • Disagreements amongst sedevacantists are not “schisms” but merely personal opinions they may hold, of which some will be in error and some will be less so. Humans are always in some degree of error, as we Catholics know, so this is nothing new or a reason for trying to label the other as a “schismatic” or heretic. And generally, the lay-people of Novus Orco “Catholicism” are also merely ignorant and/or lazy, but can be considered Catholics, though in error. There, are however, among them, definite wolves in sheep’s clothing, so SOME of these lay people can in fact be heretics and/or (more likely) Freemason/Satanists intent on leading the masses astray. Case in Point, see the degenerate Milo. Or any of a bunch of Opus Dei funded grifters.

In general terms, the article says the same sort of thing, except that I have two objections, a major and a minor one.

My “major” objection, is one that I well understand can be used by enemies as pointing to my “arrogant self-determining authority” (it is no such thing. I can simply read and do logic, just like insisting that 2+2 is 4 is not arrogant, regardless of how many fools say it is 5) and by idiots to become protestant in their “interpretation” of canon law, (the 2+2 = purple brigade) so one must tread carefully when voicing it, but in essence, it is this:

Whether a Pope is valid or not may not ALWAYS be absolutely and immediately obvious, but, logic, and God, demands that they eventually become so. Because Catholicism is the TRUTH and as such, sooner or later it reveals itself. And when it does, it does so unambiguously. Because the truth, like math, is not subject to opinion. And canon law is, like math, eternal and not subject to opinion, only error by those not adequately possessed of the faculties required to understand it, just as math is not subject to opinion, but only error in the same way.

In this regard then, I object completely to the idea that is initially expressed along the lines of “well, if everyone goes along with it (Bergy the Oleous being Pope) you gotta as well”. I no more need do this than go along with 2+2 being recognised as being 5 by an overwhelming majority.

Truth is not decided by a majority but by the laws of nature, reality, and God. End of.

And a second objection: quoting this or that doctor of the Church is irrelevant in trying to make a definitive argument. It is really merely a distraction. At best it can just be supporting evidence to further elucidate the only thing that matters: dogmatic, canon law.

In this regard then, while I understand, and appreciate the writer’s intent, and it is a very noble and good one, and I do not wish to detract from his fine points, well and succinctly explained, I must point out that, if one is careful, observant, and follows the rules of Roman Law (which are essentially reason and logic turned to the human condition) there is no ambiguity as to whom is or is not a valid Pope, and, as I have detailed in my works, from 28th October 1958, that is, from Roncalli on, we have not had a valid Pope to date.

No related posts.

By G | 4 September 2023 | Posted in Catholicism, Sedeprivationism, Sedevacantism

« Older Entries

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