sedeprivationism « The Kurgan Blog

Giuseppe Filotto Logo

Special Operations & Exploration

Posts Tagged ‘sedeprivationism’

As I had a post on Catholic grifters, liars and so on and a new book coming soon on the actual Satanists that run the Novus Orco due out later this month, it’s only fair I take my two handed sword to a Protestant Churchian next.

Lest it be said I am uncharitable allow me first of all to state that my personal impression is that White is, at least mostly, simply obstinately stupid and probably not a completely knowing deceiver and grifter like the three stooges I discussed here.

White responded to a tweet by James Fox Higgins with a video that I will now dissect below. Here however was the offending tweet by James.

And here is the start of White’s response, which carries on from the linked timestamp below of about 30min in to at least 1:05 before I stopped watching. To be fair the first 5 minutes or so from about 00:30 to 00:35 he just waffles on about how he’s been defending Sola scriptura for 30 years and yet how almost no one, Protestants included, use the term correctly. Cue speTHial reasons why his definition is super SpeTHial. Which is essentially an appeal to his own completely inexistent authority. So he’s been advocating for a completely idiotic idea for 3 decades without learning anything about the idiocy of it. Not a great start.

Here is a link to the roughly 00:30 start of his response.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyEO9LlRCZc&feature=youtu.be&t=1858

My own video response for those allergic to reading is here.

And for those who prefer the written format as I do, here are my notes so there is no dodging of anything later.

1. White Defines Sola Scriptura (SS) as only scripture (the Bible) as being “God breathed”. Which according to him is therefore almost as if God Himself had spoken it and this is a higher quality and inerrant aspect that nothing else has.

Counter: What I would like to know is:

A) who defined what the Bible is actually composed of? In other words which books it is made up of exactly that are “God breathed” only? As far as I know White doesn’t tell us but there is a clue as he states that scripture took 1500 years to be put together (at about 39:30 or so). So presumably he is telling us that all those guys who sat around and put the Bible together about 300 years after Jesus ascended, using letters, parts of oral tradition, various books etc etc basically had done a sloppy job until the Fat German with lust for nuns in his heart came along and “fixed” the Bible. Which until then and for the previous 1200 years obviously had “non-God breathed” writings in it polluting it all up.

B) how do you know when the final editing is completed? I mean, if we had to wait for that beer swigging, sweary, “if the wife is not willing (to have sex) use the maid” German to put the finishing touches, how do we know that a flamboyantly gay transvestite who will decide that all of Paul’s vile, vile, comments on sodomites are ALSO just apocrypha like the letter from James that squarely rejects the other idiotic idea of Protestantism, Sola Fides?

I mean that’s why Martin the nun-banging “monk” decided James was not “canon” after all and all those poor martyrs of the previous 1500 years just had it wrong don’t you know.

And who’s to say Kaytlin with a y, (formerly Bruce with the deuce) will not further educate us on the benefits of being a raging sodomite and how all references to the opposite of that were just apocrypha too?

2. At about 38:30 or so – White states that the enemies degrade scripture precisely so it can then be attacked as all just non-God breathed stuff.

Counter: A bit of projection going on there, since changing the supposedly infallible Bible is precisely what Luther did as item 1 on his list really. Especially since the Latin translation of the original Hebrew (Old testament) and Greek (New testament) known as the Vulgate is a better translation than the Protestant KJV which used manuscripts for the Old Testament that had been edited by literal pharisees who rejected Christ (the modern day “Jews” which are Talmudic Jews since original Jews that actually followed their religion became Christians).

And the Catholic Bible certainly hasn’t changed or been edited at all, so… who exactly is degrading things here?

3. At about 40:30 he makes probably the most hilarious hypocritical statement of the decade, accusing non-Protestants of just inserting their own ideas into the Bible and all of them just having their own views instead of God’s.

Counter: Hahahahahahaha. I mean really. That’s the whole point of Protestantism! Everyone to interpret for themselves! Literally interpreth as thou will is the only law of Protestantism.

Catholicism has dogmatic principles and beliefs that are explicitly stated. You can’t be Catholic if you reject any of those dogmatic positions. It is literally the opposite of what he is saying. It is Protestants who make it up to suit their needs, not Catholics, who literally have a book of all the canon laws and dogmatic catechisms all set out in writing. Unified. One Church. One approved Dogma. Not 40,000 and counting.

4. He almost outdoes himself at about 41:30 though when he states that you can’t degrade part of the Bible to make any part of it lower or less “God Breathed” than any other part.

Counter: You know except for the book of James…. and… the other “apocrypha” that made Martin look foolish. That had to be degraded in the first place. Except that wasn’t *akkkshually* degrading the Bible that had existed in the same form for 1200 years, not really, because Martin, like Mohammed really, was just another perfectly good and proper prophet that had to fix the Bible and decide better for everyone what God really meant.

5. At about 42:30 White says that papal infallibility is an example of this “adding in stuff by the reader” and that it happened 150 years ago and is claimed by the Catholics as part of oral tradition.

Counter: This is just flat out wrong and due to either stupendous ignorance and complete lack of even 30 seconds research on google, or just plain outright lying. I’ll assume the first to be nice about it. (Which however means the man is extremely stupid since he speaks authoritatively on things he has literally not even bothered to google for 10 seconds and which any half competent Catholic knows off the bat). The writings of the first 700 years of Christianity ALL described the Bishop of Rome as having Primacy over the other Patriarchates. See the writings of Clement of Rome(~91-101A.D), Cyprus of Carthage (~200-258 A.D.), Pope Leo I, Hormisdas and Agatho (~681 A.D.), to mention a few. Furthermore, Papal infallibility was formally invoked by the Franciscan Pierre de Jean Olivi (1248-1298) when he was worried that a future fake pope (antipope) would strip the Franciscans of their rights. Papal infallibility meant that a future Pope could not undo what a previous Pope had already done. This was highlighted by Olivi, but had in any case always been assumed and used throughout the history of the Church, just like when the Code of Canon Law of 1917 was put together all it did was to formalise in one place the rules the Church has always had. And for those saying but… but… Papal Primacy is not Papal infallibility, you’re not thinking things through, or possibly you are also very ignorant of Catholic Dogma.

Catholic dogmatic positions:

1. The Magisterium of the Church and thus the Church is infallible because of the supernatural protection it enjoys due to the promise of Jesus to always be with his Church. Since Jesus is infallible, His protection means the Church too will be infallible even though at the end only a tiny remnant of the faithful will remain. Nor does this mean the Church will not have bad, flawed, and very fallible men in it. In fact it is assumed all of them are.

2. The Magisterium is headed by the Pope.

3. The Bishop of Rome ALWAYS settled tied votes and disputes between the other Bishops (primacy) and since the Church is infallible and the Pope is the head of it, he also has to be infallible when making dogmatic official (ex cathedra) pronouncements.

In any case Papal infallibility derives from the Bible, primarily Matthew 16:18-19.

6. He then makes the most hypocritical statement of the last ten years at about 43:40 when he states that, well, you can’t have “new” revelation like Papal infallibility (he lies about papal infallibility being new as explained above but that aside…) because it wasn’t taught for the first 1000 years of the church… (it was, as explained above, but let’s leave that aside too…)

Counter: So… you CANNOT have new revelation that wasn’t taught for the previous 1000 years but… you can have *new, super-improved* MARTIN revelation another 500 years AFTER that! Like divorce and banging nuns being A-OK! The hypocrisy…. it just boggles the mind.

7. And lastly at about 1:05 White literally says that Ratzinger is wrong as can be but is still a brilliant theologian. Because he was the head of the modern Inquisition.

Counter: Aside from the fact that Ratzinger is no more Catholic or a theologian of any sort except perhaps of Moloch-ism than Bergoglio is, White is clearly Impressed by titles. Saying Ratzinger is completely wrong yet brilliant at his ONE JOB. Is basically like saying that a pilot that crashes a perfectly functioning plane right on his first flight during standard take off with no adverse weather is nevertheless a brilliant pilot. Of course, given White’s demonstrated sub-normal intelligence, he may very well make such a statement, all while fancying himself a very good judge of piloting ability for the last 30 years!

David Dunning and Justin Kruger should probably present him with a plaque or something.

CONCLUSION

What we can conclude from this is quite categorically a graphical illustration of the level of clarity of thought and reason present in the usual Protestant theologian. Behold:

By G | 5 August 2020 | Posted in Social Commentary

Exposing Duplicitous Little Trolls Too

Some cretinous little liars think that if they refuse to go public with their lies —on a blog somewhere, in their own name, like any honest man can do freely and easily— that is, if they refuse to put their name to the absolute deceptions they try to pass as Catholic knowledge, I may not savage them in the arena of reason, logic, canon law, and truth.

One such filthy little Brazilian who goes by the name @Ranger on Social Galactic believes his hiding and sniping will prevent him from the rightful scourging he deserves. Well, as the little meme below shows, he miscalculated, so now I will prove beyond shadow of a doubt that he is an intentional liar.

It would be tedious to repost the last 2 months of proofs of his constant deception and extreme gammaness, but it is always instructional to point out a few obvious lies. It helps other see the maggot-like twitching against truth and the plain meaning of words, so that you will be better able to avoid such creatures in all areas of your life. And since he’s certainly nowhere near as important as the fake clergy that was exposed in the last post, this will be a quick Kurganing. Barely enough energy released from this one’s head to charge an AA battery.

Let us begin: Lie number 1

An outrageous lie in multiple ways:

The commission was put together not to have a bunch of rules lawyers argue with laymen or even clergy about how this or that sentence really means the opposite of what it says, or, what the meaning of the word is, is. No. It was put together to ensure that the over 6,000 documents of the Catholic Church that were consulted to make sure the Code of Canon Law of 1917 was coherent and did not go against any of the dogma of the Church, previous rules and so on. In fact, the commission was not even going to respond to ANY questions from laymen, but only to clergy IF they found something from older documents that seemed to contradict the code. As a matter of fact, it was put in place to ensure the continuity of the Code was correct. And guess what, from thousands of even MORE documents that were consulted AFTER the code was published, in some 30 years, there was required the grand total of a single minor change to PART of canon 1099. So Ranger’s suggestion and implication that the Code of Canon Law is a vastly complicated system that only rules lawyers can use, is nonsense. Rules lawyers like himself, as he admitted to being trained in law, but apparently not practicing, thank God for small favours. He probably failed the game of hopscotch that passes for the Bar Exam wherever he lives.
He KNOWS that Roman Law does not operate as Common or American Law, so his intention here was to confuse and make the average person who doesn’t know these things assume that a Pope put in place a bunch of Canon Lawyers to argue endlessly about what the meaning of the word is, is. No. How do I know he knows this is completely not the case with regard to Roman Law. Well… he tells us he knows.

Lie number 2: He pretends that I think Canon 2314 applies in the case of Canon 188 part 4.

It does not. It never has and never will because, come on, you know this by now, Canon 188 part 4 applies instantly, requires no pronouncement from anyone and is judged by the law itself. As it clearly says. In fact, it clearly states in Canon 2314 that when considering the ignored warning given to suspected heretics, one must have due regard for canon 188 part 4. Which, of course states no pronouncement required by anyone. So in actual fact canon 2314 further CONFIRMS that Canon 188 part 4 is an exception. This is obvious to anyone who reads this canon in any language. Though he also tried to say it read differently in French, or English or…so guess what…I put the French, the English and the Latin all next to each other, and lo and behold, it’s very clear in all of them. But in any case Canon 2314 doesn’t even come into it for a second reasons, the people who fall foul of Canon 188 part 4 are notorious public heretics already judged by the law itself. The sentence is ALREADY PASSED ON THEM.

But notice the delicious subterfuge, in his message, while he pretends to be praising my view of not falling for ….whatever nonsense he will say next (see below), he tries to imply that canon 2314 applies at all in conjunction with Canon 188. As we have seen before, it does not. Because…

No.

Pronouncement.

Required.

By.

Anyone.

Ever.

Not for Canon 188 part 4. And further, his implication is that I too agree that Canon 188 and 2314 go together. No. They do not, and you can be sure I made that very clear over the last few months.

Lie number 3: He continues with his deceptions pretending that before you can say Bergoglio is a heretic, you need to prove Karol was. Well, that’s not a stretch at all since Karol, just like Joey-Nazi and Jose Bergoglio and the other antipopes ALL promoted, taught, did not repudiate, and call out Vatican 2 for the heresy it was, making them of course, also fall foul of Canon 188 part 4.

Notice also how he is trying to seed the usual doubt that “Oh well, but the Code of 1917 has been made redundant”. No, it has not. Because non-clerics, non-catholic, public and notorious heretics and their equally non-catholic, heretic, Freemasonic and hence practicing satanist henchmen, do NOT get any say in ANYTHING within the Catholic Church, so their fake Code of 1983 has less authority than second-hand toilet paper.

Lie number 4: coming up… An ignoramus we have met before asks a genuine question, and Ranger promptly goes on to use more subterfuge and lies.

And how does our worm-tonguing liar, that lies lyingly, lie? He lies thusly:

Notice again that he is an accomplished deceiver. He pretends to faintly praise my knowing that the fake code of 1983 did in fact literally try to overturn the entire of Code of 1917 and in particular canon 188, as we have seen in detail before in this post, while still “pretending” that the fake Code is valid in any way. And then goes on to lie about its contents. Again, I refer you to the clear dissection of the fake code against the real one in the post mentioned above.

There are, of course, more lies he spews with practically every text he types, but I trust the above suffices to show the point.

By G | 7 July 2020 | Posted in Social Commentary

Ann Barnhardt is Spiralling

I have written before about Ann’s blind spot, namely her refusal to look at the simple fact that the papacy has not had a valid claimant since 9^th October 1958.

The logic — a Catholic virtue she correctly is always championing — is inescapable, and yet, she still refuses to accept the inevitable conclusion that Sedeprivationism is obviously correct. Recently, however, she has done the intellectual equivalent of taking her objections to Sedeprivationism for a long walk in the woods and then shooting them in the back of the head with a .44 magnum.

Before I present the post-mortem on the bodies, let me quickly summarise for any new readers:

Truly, if the Catholic Church is indeed the One, True, Holy, and Apostolic Church instituted by Jesus Christ on Earth, and therefore its Magisterium is supernaturally protected from drastic and fatal error, the ONLY viable conclusion we can logically, legally and in accordance with the Magisterium of the Church, arrive at, at this point, is that every “Pope” since 28^th October 1958 has in fact been either invalidly elected, or has vacated their office due to heresy in accordance with the Canon Law then in use (The one of 1917; which consequently also means it remains the only Canon Law still in use, since the 1983 version is created by the same non-Catholic impostors that have either never been Catholic to begin with, or have vacated their office for the same charge of public defection from the faith already discussed in some detail before).

Even if you are not Catholic and don’t believe the Catholic Church is the one true Church, if you can actually do logic and follow the applicable Canon Law, you cannot come to any other conclusion that, as per Catholic Doctrine and Canon Law, the Catholic Church has been infiltrated by impostors and has had no valid Pope since in all probability 9^th October 1958, but, even at its most charitable, as already explained elsewhere, definitely and without question since 7^th June 1966, at the most outlandishly generous.

In fact, I believe that Ann is now starting to struggle with the cognitive dissonance that is assailing her. She is increasingly spiralling, complete with smoke, flames, and mentioning things that frankly are out of place unless you are a Sedeprivationist, since they don’t make sense in the context of someone who accepts Ratzinger. Remember that Ratzinger (or RatNazinger, as I call him) was one of the chief architects of the Protestantisation that was the infiltration and dumpster fire of treachery and cowardice that bears the name Vatican 2. Remember he is German and Ann herself documented how he was a proponent of the destruction of the Papacy by making it some kind of German union of Bishops. And trust me, as someone who has seen Germans have 9 hour meetings and resolve absolutely nothing, such a proposal is far more worrying than a simple dirty nuke going off at the centre of St peter’s Basilica.

And now we come to the death of her objections. Consider for example Ann’s ONLY stated reasons for not accepting Sedevacantism as recently as her podcast 101 and then view them in light of the two comments she makes (below).

Her two objections to Sedeprivationism were, as she clearly stated in her podcast 101 and documented here:

1. The Church has to be visible

Well… in this blog post, she torpedoes that point exactly as I have been saying for some years now. Besides which, given the internet, I think even actual blind people are aware and have visibility if they want to at all be interested in the point. Extract from her post:

Remember, the Visibility of the Church is NOT a matter of how many people see it, or claim that they can’t see it. The Church will always be visible – lit up by the Light of Christ – but people fallen into the darkness of sin will be blinded to it. Imagine Ray Charles standing on the Las Vegas Strip. Ray’s blind. He can’t see it. That doesn’t mean that Las Vegas is “invisible”. It just means that Ray is blind.

And 2. Well….62 years is JUST TOO LONG. Of course, there is NO prescribed time limit on an interregnum so…that one is just a “this is what I want/feel/desire” and has nothing to do with Catholic Dogma, Canon Law or historical tradition of the Church, all of which line up perfectly with my position of Sedeprivationsims.

But take a look at this comment, which I would say goes precisely to the fact that heretics can’t be clerics, and consequently, all they do will become increasingly Satanic, banal and trash. Her post this is in is here.

When instruction and correction are framed as “attack” by default, only stagnation and then profound retrogression result.

There is no clearer cultural example of this today than the post Vatican II – Novus Ordoist Catholic Church. Banality, primacy of individual conscience, toxic sentimentality, all yielding REBELLION manifesting as a contempt for sacred tradition, beauty, objective truth, and ultimately contempt for the Law, which is nothing less than hatred of God Himself.

And notice also…she specifies Novus Ordoist…it’s a short step Ann… it’s called Novus ORCO. Say it with me. They are not Popes or Priests or Bishops. They are Spiritual Orcs. Twisted by Satan to do evil.

And honest Catholics around the world are starting to awaken from their slumber and realise it.

Join us Ann. You’re a good fighter and I believe, despite your struggles with reality of late, ultimately and fundamentally honest and a good servant to our Lord.

Also, because your continued request to pray for Ratzinger to be recognised as the true Pope is about as likely as God listening to prayers of people asking Him to make Bruce Jenner accepted as the most beautiful woman in the world.

By G | 12 February 2020 | Posted in Social Commentary

Blog Topics
- Categories

Blog Archives

RECLAIMING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

Books I Wrote

Shop

Special Operations & Exploration

Posts Tagged ‘sedeprivationism’

Blog Topics

Blog Archives

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

RECLAIMING THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

Posts Tagged ‘sedeprivationism’

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

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