THE JAY DYER DEBATE – Written After-Report

This is probably going to be a long entry requiring various updates I have divided this into four sections. I’ll add to them as time permits and if required by any commentary.

It refers to a debate between myself and Jay Dyer prompted originally by his zombie-like followers harassing me for months that I should listen to, debate, etc this guy. When I eventually, after a few months of this decided to go look at who or what this guy was it was clear within five minutes that he was deceitful and also exhibited some autistic traits (in the worst possible sense), and those of you horrified at me beating on a poor autist, remember I have Aspergers’ myself, so, relax. 

UPDATE: On that very note, ironically, I have noticed a fault of mine I must admit to. It’s not that I wasn’t aware I had this issue, I did, but the hundreds of comments both on my channel, at Vox’s blog, emails etc I got regarding this debate, there was a thin, yet noticeable pattern that in all fairness I have to admit I am almost certainly guilty of, and that would be a lack of patience and to a certain extent of charity too.

I would like to be precise, since this problem is ultimately one of precision and while from my perspective the issue is simply one of almost everyone else being mostly too stupid to follow things that seem obvious to me, it is also true that that IQ gap issue is a real thing and ultimately, given I am generally the one with the higher IQ, it is absolutely incumbent upon me to bridge the gap (insofar as it can be bridged, which honestly, sometimes I think is just not possible). So I have made an attempt at correcting below, in green so that there is no revisionism and my faults are exposed properly, what could possibly be misunderstandings rather than out and out deception on the part of Jay Dyer. I did make an attempt at this in the debate itself, when I said that perhaps we were talking past each other and I tried to understand if he perhaps meant something different than what I was perceiving, but Jay of course was busy repeating himself, and not really listening to anything so that didn’t work either, anyway, the rest below remains unaltered and my general reasoned and instinctive opinion, however, you could look at any green text as an alternative view I theoretically could have or maybe should have come up with instead if I was giving the befit of the doubt at every turn. 

It’s not something I tend to do because of my general life experience, but I can see that in some instances, and genuine argument/debate is one place, where in proper etiquette, it should probably almost always be extended, so if nothing else I have possibly learnt that, even if, in practice it’s a lost art and I don’t think there are but a handful of people capable of doing it. That said, there is objectively no reason why I could fault the green version of events on deeper reflection, so it’s at least possible.

The debate is here

UPDATE: Apparently the full debate has been deleted for whatever reason. There is however a 3 minute mostly recap of the internet bunfight main points.

SPOILER: It’s well made because I am sure it will let the idiots who follow Jay continue to believe they are right, despite the fact that Jay absolutely wrecks himself with the correct answer to the question: How do you interpret Catholic Dogma Jay? The answer, of course, is CANON LAW, which is precisely the point, the entire volume of Denzinger, or the works of  Ott, or Thomas Aquinas for that matter, are irrelevant, because HOW you interpret it, is by using Canon Law.

Jay Dyer’s original Video I was critiquing is here

and of course, my channel is here 

with a post-analysis for video (not as exhaustive as this post but for those of you who find reading painful) is here

***

PART I – Answering the spergs – This is simply a list of the false accusations made against me by both Dyer and his colony of gamma zombies with responses to the individual items. Some agglomerated for ease of reply, some with examples to show the level of IQ the morons making them have.

PART I A – The Denzinger Debacle – As this was a main point of contention and one his spergy followers couldn’t grasp I devoted a whole little section to it.

PART II – The actual issues – This will be rather lengthy and grow over time as I add details, this first draft is taken from the general notes I had taken and adjusted slightly to try and deal with the points made, it also tries to follow the original format of the debate in terms of Chronology but not necessarily.

PART III – Conclusions – My take on it all

***

PART I – Answering the Spergs

Various accusations were made, namely that:

• I thought Denzinger was a person – This one is so amusing I screen capped the moron’s comment from Vox’s Blog for amusement, as well as Vox’s reply to it. You may recall of course that “Laramie” is the pedophile supporter I spanked here a while back concerning his wishes to kiss Bergoglio’ ring.

 

• I thought “Ludwing Denzinger” was one person – This is not the case, though I recognise in the spoken word and because I was talking fast, the comma between the two names may not have been understood by all, apparently not by Dyer certainly, but if you watch the video, you will see I try to explain but then leave it as it’s not important, and later I also raised two fingers and mouthed “two” I was simply stating that regardless of who Jay claimed authority from, whether Ludwig (comma) Denzinger, or his hero John Puntrello, it made not one blind bit of difference because we don’t need to interpret their ideas, thoughts, etc, nor assume how the Church may have done so, for the very simple reason that the way dogma is applied is through the use of Canon Law (see PART IA for a fuller explanation). A point Jay had to admit to later when he kept going on about Denzinger and I had to repeat the same question “How do you apply dogma Jay?” several times until he had to answer…”Canon Law” like a stunned deer in headlights. Exactly. So while reading Denzinger, Thomas Aquinas, etc is useful, fun if you’re that way inclined, inspirational, etc etc, it doesn’t matter. The final arbiter of HOW that dogma is interpreted and APPLIED in the real world is CANON LAW. Which in Catholicism is all nicely compiled into one book, the Pio-Bendictine Code of Canon Law of 1917. Unlike the protestants and the orthodox, who can therefore weave little sophistry into their positions, the position of the Catholic Church is eminently clearer and more easily critiqued because it’s all written down! Like my ancestors used to say “Verba Volant, Scripta Manent” (words fly, writing stays).

 

• I didn’t know who/what Denzinger was – Again, not true, Denzinger was a theologian who compiled basically a list of Catholic teachings into one work, initially referred to as Enchiridion Symbolorum et Definitionum and later curated by others and so on. Dyer is proud that he read the 800 page volume twice. The fact is that it doesn’t matter what Denzinger lists as Catholic Dogma, and even if it were all exactly correct and true, the original documents from which these references are compiled too would need to be looked at etcetera, I am sure it is a great work and useful for general research purposes, but it is absolutely irrelevant when it comes to interpreting or applying those dogmas in a legal way, for the simple fact that you do that according to Canon Law. A point that seems to escape the low intellects that swim around Dyer’s shallow pond. 

 

• I accused Dyer of ONLY Using the Fake Canon Law of 1983 – I did no such thing. I simply stated that the “canon law” of 1983 is irrelevant and invalid since it was created by the same false Clerics that currently pretend to be Catholics but are in fact Novus Orcians. Dyer did mention the Canon Law of 1917 and when he realised I knew the one of 1983 was irrelevant, to his credit I don’t believe he referred to it again, and I don’t in fact recall him referring to it originally in this debate, but he certainly did refer to it in the original video I critiqued, so again, showing he knows the positions but is not above misrepresenting things to serve his duplicitous cause.

 

• I am determining who is or isn’t a valid Pope and/or Bishop and/or part of the Curia in Rome myself and have no right to do so – No. How anyone can accuse me of this is utterly dishonest since I started out stating very clearly that no sede Privationist believes this. It is not I who determines who is and is not a valid Pope or Bishop. It is Canon Law, which was put together by the Magisterium of the Church and as such has full powers to do so and the law itself states a heretic loses their office without any pronunciation required by anyone. End of. Simple. I made a more detailed syllogism here if you want to go into more detail. To date not a single person has been able to argue against it logically.

 

Part I A – The Denzinger Debacle – The contention here (as already seen in Part I above is variously that I didn’t know who Denzinger was or that I didn’t know what the works of Denzinger were. And that somehow, the work/s of Denzinger devastated my position on…something…everything? Only Jay knows.

Let me repeat what I said in the debate multiple times: IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT DENZINGER SAYS, SAID OR WROTE DOWN. Now let me explain why using short words so even the mentally handicapped can follow along.

Denzinger was a theologian and his work that Jay kept showing in the video like a talisman against truth, is one he apparently read twice. According to him, and I’ll grant him the point in full if you like, it is merely a list of dogmatic beliefs of the Church. Let’s assume this is entirely true, I don’t know nor care, as I haven’t read the book. I do however know who Denzinger was, but fine, let’s give Jay, who I have demonstrated objectively is a lair (see later) the benefit of the doubt, if one exists here, and say he is entirely accurate on this point. Does it matter? No. Not at all. Why, because even assuming that the work of Denzinger is literally just a list of quotes from Papal encyclicals, it still makes no difference. HOW those quotes, and writings and so on are APPLIED by the Church is NOT for Jay to say. Or Denzinger. Or you. Guess who decides HOW you apply the dogmatic beliefs of the Church? The Magisterium of the Church. And guess what, the Magisterium of the Church did just that and produced the actual rules of HOW you apply the dogmas of the Catholic Church. It’s called the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law of 1917. YOU, or Jay, or his spergy followers, do NOT get to tell ANYONE how the Church defines or interprets or executes dogma. The Church does. And did. And wrote it all down in the code of Canon Law of 1917. And THAT is what you use to determine how things ACTUALLY work. Not how you would like them to work, not how Jay would like them to work, but how the CHURCH has decided they work. Which, if you are Catholic and believe the Church is supernaturally protected, really means how God would like us to do things. Jay HAD to admit this at 1 hour, 7minutes and some 30 seconds in the debate video, HERE IS A LINK TO A SHORT VIDEO THAT STILL HAS IT where I repeatedly ask him how is dogma applied and he eventually answers “Canon Law” and if you watch carefully you can see for a second his brain realises he’s just admitted what I have been saying all along.

If you want an analogy, it’s like saying Denzinger wrote the best book ever for a learner driver. Does it matter, if you actually have the enforceable rules of the road in law at your fingertips and understand them and how they are applied? Will it affect the law? NO. At best you can say you LIKE Denzinger, or that he is inspirational, or provides some context, but guess what, Denzinger is NOT Canon Law. 

But…But…Surely….NO. Surely nothing, and I will prove it empirically now with an actual quote from Jay that supposedly comes from Denzinger and then show you how Canon Law ACTUALLY interprets things, instead of how Jay would like it to be, or Denzinger, possibly.

This is the quote, screen capped from one of Jay’s spergy comments he left all over my channel before the debate

 

Aside the fact that several commenters after this explained his error to him, thusly:

 

Let me quote again, the same letter I received from a valid priest concerning what Canon Law says of this:

“And yes you are right in thinking about salvation and Baptism of desire and of blood, these are exceptions (not the general rule) that do not contradict the dogma: “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”, outside the Catholic Church nobody can be saved. This Dogma is ALWAYS true, but we have to consider HOW exactly someone can belong to the Church: the possibility does exist that someone doesn’t belong to the body of the Church “in foro externo” (for men, public, outside) but belongs to the Church “in foro interno” (for God, in conscience): if this situation is not of his own fault, such a person can be saved, even if it is very difficult as he misses al the means of salvation that Christ gave to His Church. Nobody will be damned through no fault of his own.”

What does this prove? That Denzinger’s statement (if it actually reads that way, since as we will see Jay is not above making quotes up out of thin air) is NOT to be interpreted the way Jay would like it to be. So…again…Denzinger is IRRELEVANT when it comes to applying the Dogmas of the Catholic Church in the real world.

We can also see from this that Dyer is a very autistic binary thinker, who cannot understand Catholicism or Catholic Canon Law. Catholic Canon Law is very reasonable and logical and beautiful and not that difficult to understand if you possess reasonable ability of doing logic. But we already knew that Dyer is incapable of this from the fact he stated himself he was a Calvinist for many years, a position only someone so afraid of the unknown that he’s functionally mentally handicapped could hold. God is NOT a lawyer with a box ticking sheet (it’s even worse, because as a Calvinist you believe all the boxes are already ticked forever anyway).

So…I hope those who were swayed by Rhetoric in the video and distracted by Jay’s Internet Bum Fighter tactics, are able to now see the point clearly.

(I do know there are far more idiots than reasonable, logical people in the world, MPAI is a real thing after all, but I don’t care about the 95% who can’t do a shred of reasoning, so while I expect the numbers will be swayed by IBF technique, the people who actually matter in life will be able to follow this).

 

PART II – The Actual Issues

I have most of this as my notes but needs a bit of cleaning up and reformatting to take into account the fact Dyer backed away from at least two of his positions, namely that:

1. I couldn’t determine who was and wasn’t a fake Pope (see the answer to this in PART I – Answering the Spergs at the end, directly above here), since I am not the one determining it, Canon Law does, and,
2. That you can’t have a period without a visible Pope without the Church collapsing. Implied in this too is the fact that how long that period can be is nowhere identified, so the fact it has been 61 years is not a limitation on it.

One initial point, which goes somewhat to the whole “Denzinger is the Law” nonsense that Dyer believes is that Dyer stated right at the start of his debate that you cannot have baptisms of Desire or of Blood. This was also stated in his Original Video Sedevacantism proves Orthodox Theology. This is demonstrably false and again, Dyer refers to Denzinger for his belief, but his belief is wrong and irrelevant, because Catholic Canon Law applies and there are principles into how this is applied, I quoted part of an e-mail I received from the battle priest that baptised me when I asked him the question, just to confirm if my reading of Canon Law on the subject was correct, he replied in the affirmative and I re-quote here that part of the e-mail I read out to Dyer in the debate. To his credit I believe he conceded the point (not graciously, but still…)

“And yes you are right in thinking about salvation and Baptism of desire and of blood, these are exceptions (not the general rule) that do not contradict the dogma: “extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”, outside the Catholic Church nobody can be saved. This Dogma is ALWAYS true, but we have to consider HOW exactly someone can belong to the Church: the possibility does exist that someone doesn’t belong to the body of the Church “in foro externo” (for men, public, outside) but belongs to the Church “in foro interno” (for God, in conscience): if this situation is not of his own fault, such a person can be saved, even if it is very difficult as he misses al the means of salvation that Christ gave to His Church. Nobody will be damned through no fault of his own.”

Another point he had to concede is that the Holy See doesn’t HAVE to be in Rome, it’s just always been there mostly because of Peter having been martyred there, but it also was outside of Rome at certain times. I do believe Dyer knew this and when confronted with it he backed away from it, but if you look at his original video, it makes it clear that he hammered this point that it HAD to be in Rome as if it was pivotal. It isn’t.

 

In essence in his original Video Dyer made various claims, some slightly modified in the debate, here they are:

• He conflates SedePrivationism with wandering bishops, trailer park popes, and generic crazy people, essentially saying they are all one and the same.I refute the claim made about wandering bishops and sede privationsits being one and the same because it is a deception by conflation, and this is proven by, Mr. Dyer himself, since in the same video he later refers to wandering Bishops and trailer park popes as essentially con-men, that are often connected to the intelligence world and he himself states they have no legitimacy whatsoever and are not considered seriously by anyone that looks at them in any detail, and that they in fact infect every denomination of Christianity. Meaning Mr. Dyer is well aware that mentioning wandering bishops in the same breath as sede privationists is an intentional conflating of two things that are not at all related.

1. 2. In fact, wandering bishops were linked to both Lee Harvey Oswald as well as Jack Parsons, who was one of the founders of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. I believe Mr. Dyer is very aware of this since it’s one of his areas of interest. In any case, the point is refuted by Mr. Dyer himself since he states these people are con-men that infect almost all denominations in some way or other, and that they have nothing to do with any legitimate Christianity.

• He makes the claim that the sede privationist movement is a tiny, fragmented, mostly online presence only with little or no real world activity Firstly, I refute this by the simple reason that if you go to ecclesia.luxvera.org you will find a current list of churches that reject Vatican 2 and who are served by sede privations clerics only. There are 364 Churches around the world listed, 179 of them in the USA alone. And these are almost all brick and mortar churches with very healthy congregations, and this does not take into account the many more groups not listed who do in fact meet in halls and even people’s houses with valid clerics to receive the sacraments. So as a movement sede privations is larger than almost all Protestant denominations since at last count there were some 40,000 protestant denominations and counting.

1. 2. Secondly, I believe Mr. Dyer is fully aware of this and it can be inferred from the fact that it would make little sense to spend two and a half hours to try and discredit a tiny, irrelevant group of crazy people on the internet.

1. 3. Thirdly, the effect of sedeprivationism on the world are demonstrable, since Bergolgio went from being hailed as the best thing ever, when he was first fake elected, to now almost every nominal catholic hating him and there being constant exposure of his connection to and protection of pedophiles and child traffickers. This happened because of the growing and constant pressure of the sedeprivationist movement which continues to grow. 

1. 4. And Forthly, In any case, you cannot deny the influence of sedeprivationists on the planet, since the most successful film ever made about Jesus, The Passion, was made by a sede privationist who rejects Vatican 2, Mel Gibson.

In the debate he denied he said it was a tiny irrelevant movement but he certainly did imply this in his original video.

 

• He claims that the head and foundation of the Catholic Church is the Pope and without a visible and valid Pope in office, the Church fundamentally ceases to exist.                                     

For the most part Mr Dyer refers to the papal Encyclical Mystici Corporis for this, which is the 1943 Papal Encyclical of Pius the 12th explaining the Church as the mystical body of Christ, and Satis Cognitum, the Papal encyclical of Leo the 13th of 1896. It would seem reasonable to use these as the main documents because they both were created AFTER Vatican 1 which happened in 1868 and yet Mystici Corporis also refers to Vatican 1, so it would be reasonable to use them to prove his point, if only it were true, which it is not and I refute for the following five reasons:

1. 1. 1. Mystici Corporis itself and what it says.

• • • • • There are 113 paragraphs in Mystici Corporis, and only 2, if you squint just so, read them completely in isolation and ignore the rest of the document entirely could even remotely be interpreted to support Mr. Dyer’s astonishing theory, these are paragraph 41 and 69. However there are at least 16 other paragraphs that DIRECTLY and unambiguously state that the only Head of the Church is Jesus Christ and that he acts through those he chooses on Earth, including the lowest of the low in times of crisis. In particular paragraphs 46 to 60. Time prevents us from going through a detailed vivisection of the details, however, if there should be enough interest we can do so, I will limit myself here to quoting a few of the better examples that contextualise instead of atomise the issue.

• • • • • In addition to the 16 paragraph just mentioned, there are further paragraphs that clearly point out that the highest offices are not free from being taken over by evil and turned men and that Jesus permits this as a teaching moment really, so that those who DO hold the faith can come to the fore in unexpected and almost miraculous ways. More specifically paragraph 66 which warns us that even the most exalted are not immune to turning against truth and the Church, and paragraphs 86 and 87, which explains we have free will to go against Jesus, but this is not Jesus’s fault, because he wants us to participate in his Realm, not just be blindly obedient sheep who do it as automatons. Paragraph 39, and 44 both beautifully contextualises the whole document making it clear that Jesus is the head, and that he acts through us, all of us, in the Church to carry out his plan. And that when his wishes are assaulted by evil, duplicitous, corrupt or lost men, he uses us, again, all of us, directly and with his angels, to protect the Church in ways that surpass our understanding.

• • • • • But perhaps the most contextualising of all these many paragraphs is number 44 which I will quote here because it demonstrably put the lie to Mr. Dyer’s assertions:

• • • • • • “44. Because Christ the Head holds such an eminent position, one must not think that he does not require the help of the Body. What Paul said of the human organism is to be applied likewise to the mystical Body: “The head cannot say to the feet: I have no need of you.” 69It is manifestly clear that the faithful need the help of the Divine Redeemer, for He has said: “Without me you can do nothing,” 70and according to the teaching of the Apostle every advance of this Mystical Body towards its perfection derives from Christ the Head.71 Yet this, also, must be held, marvelous though it may seem: Christ has need of His members. First, because the person of Jesus Christ is represented by the Supreme Pontiff, who in turn must call on others to share much of his solicitude lest he be overwhelmed by the burden of his pastoral office, and must be helped daily by the prayers of the Church. Moreover as our Savior does not rule the Church directly in a visible manner, He wills to be helped by the members of His Body in carrying out the work of redemption. This is not because He is indigent and weak, but rather because He has so willed it for the greater glory of His spotless Spouse. Dying on the Cross He left to His Church the immense treasury of the Redemption, towards which she contributed nothing. But when those graces come to be distributed, not only does He share this work of sanctification with His Church, but He wills that in some way it be due to her action. This is a deep mystery, and an inexhaustible subject of meditation, that the salvation of many depends on the prayers and voluntary penances which the members of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ offer for this intention and on the cooperation of pastors of souls and of the faithful, especially of fathers and mothers of families, a cooperation which they must offer to our Divine Savior as though they were His associates.”

• • • • • • So Mystici Corporis simply and clearly states what in any event history and the other points I shall mention already proved, that the pope is simply the visible head and has jurisdictional power over the Church when he is around, but it is the whole body of the Church that acts towards the perfection of the Church and periods can and do and have existed when the Pope is either not there physically or temporarily replaced by an impostor. Both things that have happened many times in the history of the Church.

• • • • • In any event I suggest anyone at all interested read the actual document for themselves, it’s at papalencyclicals.net online and quite a beautiful document it is too.

• • • • • let me give Mr Dyer the most benefit of the doubt possible and I will qoute at least paragraph 41 in full here:

• • • • • • “They, therefore, walk in the path of dangerous error who believe that they can accept Christ as the Head of the Church, while not adhering loyally to His Vicar on earth. They have taken away the visible head, broken the visible bonds of unity and left the Mystical Body of the Redeemer so obscured and so maimed, that those who are seeking the haven of eternal salvation can neither see it nor find it.”

• • • • • • In complete isolation you MIGHT take this to mean what Mr. Dyer wishes it meant, however, the lie to that idea is given immediately by reading almost any of the other paragraphs, for example number 39 just above it reads as follows:

• • • • • • • “But our Divine Savior governs and guides the Society which He founded directly and personally also. For it is He who reigns within the minds and hearts of men, and bends and subjects their wills to His good pleasure, even when rebellious. “The heart of the King is in the hand of the Lord; whithersoever he will, he shall turn it.” 55 By this interior guidance He, the “Shepherd and Bishop of our souls,” 56 not only watches over individuals but exercises His providence over the universal Church, whether by enlightening and giving courage to the Church’s rulers for the loyal and effective performance of their respective duties, or by singling out from the body of the Church — especially when times are grave — men and women of conspicuous holiness, who may point the way for the rest of Christendom to the perfecting of His Mystical Body. Moreover from heaven Christ never ceases to look down with especial love on His spotless Spouse so sorely tried in her earthly exile; and when He sees her in anger, saves her from the tempestuous sea either Himself or through the ministry of His angels, 57 or through her whom we invoke as the Help of Christians, or through other heavenly advocates, and in calm and tranquil waters comforts her with the peace “which surpasseth all understanding.”58

On this point in the debate at the end Dyer agreed that you could have a vacant seat and a fake invalid Pope so he essentially conceded this point.

 

1. 1. 1. Satis Cognitum itself and what it says: Mr. Dyer to support this idea, at one points reads a supposed quote from Satis Cognitum, he does so at 1 hour, 16 minutes and 35 seconds in his video saying, and I quote: 

• • • • • ”The Roman Pontiff possesses supreme jurisdiction in the Church jure divino it was necessary that the government be of this kind, since it belongs to the constitution and formation of the Church as its principal element, its principle of unity, its foundation of everlasting stability can in no wise come to an end.” End Quote. 
      •  
      •  
      •  
      •  
        • The actual document reads as follows: “13. It was necessary that a government of this kind, since it belongs to the constitution and formation of the Church, as its principal element that is as the principle of unity and the foundation of lasting stability – should in no wise come to an end with St. Peter, but should pass to his successors from one to another.”
      •  
      •  
      •  
      •  
        • You can see that the sense of what Jay said and what is actually written (see point 13 for yourself here) is quite different. Some people think this is just a difference of miss-speaking, but to me it is a clear misrepresentation of the facts. Why read a thing that is not in the original as though it were? Why truncate it to try and support the position he did in the original video I critiqued where he kept insisting that the whole Church hung on the Pope, when it clearly doesn’t since his successors are potentially any of the Bishops that could possibly become Pope? To ME this is clear evidence of intentional duplicity. However, on reflection, could it be a mixture of lesser accuracy, possibly due to a pre-conceived idea as well possibly lower intelligence with a little autism thrown in? In all fairness I can’t say that isn’t the case, even though it is a consistent pattern of behaviour with Jay, which to my mind seals it as intentional duplicity, but there is a thin sliver of a possibility that he truly is simply that limited (he was a Calvinist for years after all!) and to a certain extent, though it is not charitable of me to say so (at least it will not be perceived as charitable because of how I express it) it may simply be that Mr. Dyer is just that limited. And if so, in a way, it’s slightly unfair of me to beat on him for being a duplicitous liar, when he might just be somewhat functionally retarded. Like I said, I’m not exactly expressing this in the most charitable of fashions, but God didn’t dispense me with a lot of political correct verbiage, in fact he plain seems to have left it out altogether, so I hope those who can understand the point get it and see that despite appearances I am really trying to give Dyer some kind of out.

• • • • • He uses this supposed quote as being a definitive and conclusive evidence of his position as stated by Pope Leo the 13th himself.

• • • • • The problem is that this quote does not appear anywhere in Satis Cognitum, which you can verify for yourself since it is online at papalencyclicals.net, so once again, Mr. Dyer is simply either making things up out of whole cloth, or trying to conflate and confuse distinct ideas into a new and unwholesome mess.

0. 0. 2. The historical objective facts of the catholic Church and the many times it had no valid visible Pope, both as a result of interregnums, (Latin for “between kingdoms” periods between Popes when there was no valid Pope at the head of the church) as well as the fact that the Church recognises it had more than 40 fake Popes or antipopes even before 1958 and the current situation.

0. 0. 3. The Papal Encyclical Cum ex Apostolatus Officio which Mr. Dyer mentions only once and very quickly skips over it, which is interesting since this Papal Encyclical, of Paul the 4th of 1559, unambiguously and directly spells out not only that there have been and could be again fake Popes, heretics, and even validly elected Popes that later become heretic and as such become completely invalid, it also very clearly and directly points out that any rules, laws, or edicts, or promotions made by any such fake popes, are to be treated as completely invalid alongside with all the people they may have elected to various offices. In other words, the very opposite position of what Mr. Dyer claims is part of the Catholic Church’s official position. Antipopes have always existed and will again, and they must be rejected in the absolute and in their totality.

0. 0. 4. The Fact that sacraments, continue without any problem during all interregnums as do the Bishoprates, Parishes and so on. And always have done, with no interruption of sacramental powers by any valid cleric.

Dyer never addressed this point at all, indicative to me that he knew it was an outright lie.

• He claims that the sede privationist position is essentially untenable and wrong because of various claims he makes, most of which are that:

1. 1. The Catholic Church cannot exist, in fact breaks down and disappears without a visible Pope at its head. His claim here in fact is that the foundation of the whole catholic church is the Pope itself. We have already seen this in not the case from the points I made above, which demonstrate objectively how Mr. Dyer conflates different things to come up with a new interpretation he alone holds and that has nothing to do with Catholic Dogma.

1. 2. Sacraments and the continuation of the curia, that is the bishops which compose the see of the Catholic Church end and cannot continue without a visible Pope’s presence. This is easily shown to be untrue, since the sacraments have always continued to be given uninterrupted by Bishops and Priests throughout the world whenever a pope was not present on the throne at every interregnum in the history of the church, of which there have been hundreds.

1. 3. He claims that if the Catholic Church has been in fact infiltrated and the Papacy been hijacked by Satanic infiltrators (regardless of origin) this would put the lie to the promise of Jesus that the Church will always be with us. This is demonstrably false in a number of ways:
      1. Firstly, the papal Encyclical of 1559 Cum ex Apostolatus Officio makes it absolutely clear that fake popes have existed in the past and will exist in the future and it details exactly how they are to be dealt with, and that is, they are to be completely ignored and anything they taught to be ignored and anyone they promoted to be ignored as none of it would be Catholic at all.
      2. Secondly, we are taught in the bible by Paul that whenever men choose to delve into perversion, inequity and straying from the path, God gives them over to their perversions and passions, so we know for a fact, every single human on Earth can choose to go down a bad road, Popes are no more exempt from this than anyone else, nowhere does it say that a Pope is immune to this way that God often chooses to deal with perverts, liars and other people of the Lie.
      3. Thirdly, we are told in the Bible that many, in fact most people will in fact be deceived and that the true path is difficult and narrow, yet we are also told that the Church will remain with us right to the end, at which point eventually Jesus will return for if he did not, even the elect, that is the most highly faithful servants, would ultimately be deceived by Satan and the antichrist, and here we have a perfect parallel of that. The Church remains true and visible, as long as you take the time to look properly, while the superficial fake, Novus Orco Church pretends to be the real Church and deceives millions and millions of supposedly nominal Catholics.
      4. Fourthly, anyone who actually bothers to be a genuine Catholic and actually informs himself about Catholic Dogma cannot in any logical, reasonable, or true way, make any kind of argument against the fact that Vatican 2 was a complete heresy and that anyone who does not reject it loses their office and as such their validity as a cleric of the Church, WITHOUT anyone having to pronounce anything officially at all. Anyone who is interested can go to this blog post on the 7th of September which lays out the syllogism and it remains utterly unopposed by anyone. Because the logic is ironclad, founded on purely Catholic Canon Law and there really is not a single logically valid opposition to it.

1. 3. 5. Therefore it is clear that the Church remains visible, that the visible head of the Church not being currently present is not an obstacle to that; and never has been in the past either. The only thing we can say is that this time the length of time this situation has been in place is longer than any previous one, which I think was something like 16 years before the present 61 years.

1. 4. Mr. Dyer claims that the situation is not comparable to an interregnum because it has lasted for some 61 years. But he offers no proof at all, no canonical law or papal encyclical that places a specific limitation on the duration of an interregnum. So this is merely a Jay Dyer position, not supported by any Catholic dogma whatsoever.

1. 5. He claims that even if one were to accept the sede privationist position it’s untenable because there is no possible way to ever have another Pope because no one knows who the next Pope might be or how he would ever be elected and as such he makes the link here to the trailer park Popes and wandering bishops. But this is a demonstrable lie for a number of reasons:
      1. In the first place, NO ONE ever knows who the next Pope will be between kingdoms. So the fact we do not know in advance who the next Pope is, is nothing new or special, in fact it is the normal and natural situation every time a Pope died and a new one had to be elected. So I don’t know why Mr. Dyer makes appeal to some kind of clairvoyant ability in the first instance.
      2. Secondly, the process for electing a new Pope is clear and well understood. The valid bishops who form the curia, generally in Rome, get together and vote a new Pope in, which can take quite some time as it’s a rather complicated process. The reason this is not taking place now is very simple and clear, the. Church follows the rule of prudence as one of its virtues and since the vast majority of what are perceived to be valid bishops today are in fact, impostors, and really clerics of the Novus Orco Church and nothing Catholic at all, it would be imprudent for the true and few remaining Bishops to hold a conclave at this stage and elect a new Pope for no other reason that it would be perceived by the vastly uneducated and deceived masses as an illegitimate position of a “few crazy schismatics” which is what Mr. Dyer would very much like to pretend SedePrivationsts are. Instead of what they are, the true remnant of the Church, so firstly, there needs to be a vast educational campaign, something that after the deluge and damage that was done at Vatican 2 is now finally beginning in earnest and more and more nominal Catholics are finally becoming acquainted with the true facts concerning the church, which is why Bergolgio and his pederast retinue in the Vatican are increasingly nervous.
      3. In other words, once enough people have realised the true position, the balance of power in the general zeitgeist will shift and at such a time, if it happens, there will then be another conclave and a new Pope can be elected, but this would be unwise to be attempted now. The Church has suffered a massive though not fatal blow and needs to rebuild and heal before it goes directly up against the Novus Orco Satan Church.

1. 6. He claims that no one has the authority to mention, claim or expose a heretic in high office in the Church. This is an outright lie because it is the duty of every Catholic to expose any heretic, regardless of their office. And in fact has been done throughout history.

ADDITIONAL POINTS – CANON LAWS MENTIONED

As I said I will in due course, as time permits, address every single point Dyer made, if only to prove his dishonesty, one of the next ones I will spend some time on is his supposed mentioning of various canons referring to Papal Election, and the Holy See and how they support his idea that the Pope is the foundation of the Church and together with the offices of the Holy See are indefectible and so on, from the code of 1917. At about 10 minutes in he begins to list the following canons as his evidence, I will list the number he mentions, the actual Canon in full and then in red the reason or concept related to it and why it is not as Jay wishes it was.

149 – Those elected, postulated, presented, or appointed by anyone to ecclesiastical office are not to be confirmed, admitted, or instituted by a Superior below the Roman Pontiff until they are evaluated as suitable by their own Ordinary, even by examination, if it is required by law or by reason of the office or if the Ordinary deems it opportune.

Doesn’t really affect anything or go against anything I said. 

218 – § 1. The Roman Pontiff, the Successor in primacy to Blessed Peter, has not only a primacy of honor, but supreme and full power of jurisdiction over the universal Church both in those things that pertain to faith and morals, and in those things that affect the discipline and government of the Church spread throughout the whole world.

§ 2. This power is truly episcopal, ordinary, and immediate both over each and every church and over each and every pastor and faithful independent from any human authority.

Again, no disagreement with anything I said and note it is NOT independent from the Magisterium of the Church (remember that the Magisterium of the Church is deemed to be infallibly protected by divine and supernatural edict, so it is above any human authority)

219 – The Roman Pontiff, legitimately elected, immediately upon accepting the election, obtains by divine law the full power of supreme jurisdiction.

Again, legitimately elected is key, and sure, a valid Pope is valid. Nothing changes here.

154 through to 160

154 – Offices that encompass the care of souls either in the external forum or the internal cannot be validly conferred on clerics who are not initiated into priesthood.

Not really relevant and in any case obvious

155 – The provision of an office to which no term is prescribed by special law shall not be deferred beyond six months’ available time from the receipt of notice of the vacancy, with due regard for Canon 458.

Again, not really relevant to his assertions

156 – § 1. Two incompatible offices cannot be conferred on anyone.

§ 2. Those offices are incompatible that cannot be fulfilled by the same person at the same time.

§ 3. With due regard for the prescription of Canon 188, n. 3, the grant of a second office made by the Apostolic See is invalid, unless, in the petitioning document, mention of the first incompatible office is made or a derogatory clause is attached.

Sort of relevant because it clearly states that NO ONE (including the Pope) can hold two incompatible offices. Which means that for example, if one is a Satanic, Stang bearing (satanic staff, say presented to *cough* Bergoglio *cough* by a pair of lesbians), apostate, he clearly also cannot be a valid Pope. In other words, this one goes to my side of the argument if anything.

 

157 – An office vacant by resignation or by sentence of privation from an Ordinary who accepted the resignation or who issued the sentence cannot validly be conferred on his or the resigning one’s familiars or blood-relatives or affines up the second degree inclusive.

Not really relevant, but good to know the fake Popes can’t have their progeny elected to their post either.

158 – Whoever, while supplying for another’s negligence or inability, confers an office acquires no power thereby over the one appointed; instead the juridic status thus constituted is the same as if the provision had been made according to the regular norm of law.

Not relevant to the topic at hand

159 – The provision of any office is to be done in writing.

Not really relevant to the topic at hand

Article 2—On election

Canon 160 – The election of the Roman Pontiff is guided solely by the const. of [Pope] Pius X Vacante Sede Apostolica of 25 Dec. 1904; in other ecclesiastical elections, the prescriptions of the canons that follow are to be observed [as well as] those special ones, if there are any, that are established for individual offices.

Sort of relevant because it puts the lie to Dyer knowing anything about Papal election, since one of the points of mentioning these canons was supposedly also to show the election of the antipopes is “valid” because of some mysterious canon laws and/or Jay Dyer delusion. Well, it isn’t. As can be clearly seen, almost every one of the Canons he mentions is irrelevant to the points he is supposedly trying to prove and in this canon in particular it makes it abundantly clear that the rules for Papal election are to be found ONLY in the Constitution written by Pope Pius the X on the 25th December 1904. Which, interestingly enough, is NOT present at the current Vatican Archives in the hands of apostates, fake clerics and impostors. Funny that eh? It is available online in the original Latin and only one translation exists I could find in English, which is a little dubious even though it supports the Sede Vacante/Privation position. In any case it is mostly a set of rules as to the form to be followed and says nothing that would invalidate the Sede Privationist/Vacante Position. So again, if anything, this one goes to my side again.

230 – The Cardinals of the H. R. C. constitute a Senate of the Roman Pontiff and are the principal counselors to him in governing the Church and are helpers who assist [him].

No relevance to anything we’re arguing about. Except it shows the Cardinals are subject to the Pope NOT some kind of “Holy See” separate from him that is of some Dyeresque equal standing.

231 –

• 1. The Sacred College [of Cardinals] is divided into three orders: episcopal, to which belong only those six Cardinals over the various suburbicarian dioceses; presbyteral, which consists of fifty Cardinals; and diaconal, which [consists of] fourteen [Cardinals].
• 2. Every Cardinal priest and Cardinal deacon has his own title or diaconate assigned in the City by the Roman Pontiff.

No Relvance. Just more smoke and mirrors.

232 –

• 1. Cardinals are men freely selected by the Roman Pontiff from throughout the whole world who are at least constituted in the presbyteral order [and who] are notably outstanding for their doctrine, piety, and prudence in conducting affairs.
• 2. Prohibited from the dignity of the cardinalate are:

 1.° Illegitimates, even if they were legitimized by a later marriage; likewise all those irregular for or impeded from sacred orders in accord with canonical sanction, even if they were ordained [or placed in ecclesiastical] dignities with apostolic authority, including dispensation [necessary for] the episcopate;

 2.° Those who have received children even from a legitimate marriage or grandchildren from same;

 3.° Those who are related in the first or second degree of consanguinity to a living Cardinal.

Again, no relevance.

233 – § 1. Cardinals are created and published by the Roman Pontiff in a Consistory, and those so created and published obtain the right of electing the Roman Pontiff and the privileges described in Canon 239.

§ 2. If, however, the Roman Pontiff announces the creation of some [Cardinal] in Consistory [but] keeps his name reserved in his heart, one so promoted in the meantime enjoys no rights or privileges of a Cardinal, but, when the Roman Pontiff later makes his name known, he enjoys these from the date of publication, but with right of precedence from [the time of] the reservation in the heart.

Again, not really relevant or going against anything I said. It is very interesting however (at least for those who didn’t believe it/me) that a precedent is set here (in case history, facts and logic wasn’t enough) that clearly shows that Papal intent can be retroactively applied and assumed fully legitimate even when they had no rights. In other words, thanks Jay for pointing out that Bishops, etc currently operating as ACTUAL Catholic Bishops, who profess and confess without reservation that they would immediately submit to the jurisdiction of a valid Pope should one appear, are most likely going to be fully and retroactively invested with all the abilities and powers they are currently exercising (this whole concept is ancient in the Church and why it totally invalidates Dyer’s claim that there are no currently valid Bishops/Curia.

234 – If one promoted is absent from the [Roman] Curia, he must, upon receiving the red biretta, swear that within one year, unless detained by a legitimate impediment, he will present himself to the Supreme Pontiff.

Again, no relevance.

235 – Unless provided otherwise in particular cases by the Holy See, upon promotion to the sacred purple, the one being promoted loses by that fact not only all dignities, churches, and benefices that he already possessed, but also all ecclesiastical pensions are lost.

236 – 

• 1. By an option made in Consistory and approved by the Supreme Pontiff, Cardinals in the presbyteral order can transfer to another title, observing priority of ordination and precedence, and Cardinal Deacons [can move] to another diaconate and, having passed ten years in the diaconal order, can also go to the presbyteral order.
• 2. A Cardinal in the diaconal order who transfers to the presbyteral order takes a place before all those other Cardinal priests who took up the honor of the sacred purple after he did.
• 3. If a suburbicarian see goes vacant, Cardinals in the presbyteral order who at the moment of the vacancy were present in the Curia or who were absent from it at that time due to a commission they had from the Roman Pontiff can opt for the vacancy in Consistory, observing the priority of promotion.
• 4. Cardinals assigned to one of the suburbicarian churches cannot opt for another; but when a Cardinal attains the rank of Dean, he adds to his diocese Ostia, which from then on, in the person of the Cardinal Dean, is joined with his other suburbicarian diocese.

Ad nauseam… no relevance.

237 – 

• 1. The Dean, that is, he who first was promoted to a suburbicarian see, presides over the Sacred College of Cardinals, [but] over the other Cardinals [he] has no jurisdiction, [although] he is considered a first among equals.
• 2. When the deanship falls vacant, the Subdean succeeds by law, whether at the time of the vacancy he is present in the Curia, or whether he is in his suburbicarian diocese, or whether he is absent for a time on a task committed to him by the Roman Pontiff.

More irrelvance.

238 – 

• 1. Cardinals are bound by the obligation of residing in the Curia, and it is fundamental that they not leave from there without the permission of the Roman Pontiff, with due regard for the prescriptions of §§ 2 and 3 of this canon.
• 2. This obligation binds even suburbicarian Cardinal Bishops, but they do not require this permission to go to dioceses committed to them whenever they judge it opportune.
• 3. Cardinals who are bishops in non-suburbicarian dioceses are exempt from the law of residence; but when they come to the City they shall present themselves to the Supreme Pontiff, nor shall they leave from the City until they have sought from him permission for leaving.

Irrelevant.

239 – 

• 1. Beyond the other privileges that are enumerated in this Code under various titles, all Cardinals from their promotion in Consistory enjoy the following faculties:

 1.° Of hearing confessions throughout the world, even those of religious, of either sex, and of absolving from all sins and censures, even reserved ones, excepting only censures reserved most specially to the Apostolic See, and those attached to the revelation of secrets of the H. Office;

 2.° Of selecting a priest confessor for his confession and that of his attendants who, if he lacks jurisdiction, obtains it by law, even in regard to sins and censures including those reserved, excepting only those censures described in n. 1;

 3.° Of preaching the word of God everywhere;

 4.° Of celebrating or permitting others to celebrate in his presence one Mass on [Friday] of the great week and three Masses on the night of the Birth of the Lord;

 5.° Of blessing anywhere, only with the sign of the cross, with all the indulgences that the Holy See is accustomed to grant, rosaries and other precatory crowns, crosses, medals, statues, [and] scapulars approved by the Apostolic See, and of imposing them without the requirement of enrollment;

 6.° Of erecting with a single blessing in churches or oratories, even private ones, and other pious places, the Way of the Cross with all the indulgences that are granted to those performing a pious exercise of this sort; and also of blessing, for the faithful who, because of infirmity or another legitimate impediment, cannot visit the sacred Way of the Cross, icons of Crucifixes, with the application of all indulgences attached by the Roman Pontiff to a devotional exercise of this same Way of the Cross;

 7.° Of celebrating on a portable altar not only in their own house of residence, but wherever they are; and of letting others with them celebrate another Mass;

 8.° Of celebrating on the seas, observing due precautions;

 9.° In all churches and oratories, of celebrating Mass in conformity with their own calendar;

 10.° Of enjoying a personally privileged altar daily;

 11.° Of gaining indulgences in their own chapels, for whose acquisition there is prescribed a visit to a temple or public building in the city or place in which the Cardinal is actually present, in which privilege those in his household may also partake;

 12.° Of blessing people everywhere as would a Bishop; but in the City only in those churches and pious or faith-filled places so allowed;

 13.° Of, just like Bishops, wearing a cross over the chest and even on the mozetta and of using the miter and pastoral staff;

 14.° Of celebrating Sacred [rites] in any private chapel without prejudice to those who enjoy an indult;

 15.° Of conducting pontificals with the throne and baldachin in all churches outside the City, having notified the Ordinary in advance if it is a cathedral church;

 16.° Of enjoying the honors wherever they are conferred that are typically given to local Ordinaries;

 17.° Of vouching in the external forum as witnesses of pontifical utterances;

 18.° Of enjoying a chapel exempt from visitation of the Ordinary;

 19.° Of freely disposing of the income of a benefice even by will, with due regard for the prescription of Canon 1298;

 20.° Of performing consecrations and blessings of churches, altars, sacred furnishings, abbeys, and so forth, with the exception of the consecration of holy oils if the Cardinal lacks episcopal character, in any place, observing those things that ought to be observed, with due regard for the prescription of Canon 1157;

 21.° Of taking precedence over all Prelates, even Patriarchs, even Pontifical Legates, unless the Legate is a Cardinal residing in his own territory; but a Cardinal Legate from the side takes precedence outside the City over all;

 22.° Of conferring first tonsure and minor orders, provided the one to be promoted has dimissorial letters from his own Ordinary;

 23.° Of ministering the sacrament of confirmation, with due regard for the burden of forwarding the names of the ones confirmed according to the norm of law;

 24.° Of granting indulgences of two hundred days, as often as they can be earned, in places and institutes and persons under their jurisdiction and protection; likewise indulgences in other places, but only to be earned by those present, on an individual basis.

• 2. The Cardinal Dean enjoys the privilege of ordaining and consecrating the Pontiff-elect, if he lacks ordination and episcopal consecration, and then of using the pallium; to which privilege, in the absence of the Cardinal Dean, accedes the Subdeacon, and in his absence, the oldest of the suburbicarian Cardinal Bishops.
• 3. Finally, the Cardinal proto-Deacon places the pallium on Archbishops and Bishops enjoying the privilege or on their procurators, in place of the Roman Pontiff; and he announces to the people the name of the newly elected Pontiff.

Very Long. Quite Interesting… but of course, TOTALLY irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

240 –

• 1. A Cardinal promoted to a suburbicarian see and placed in possession of it canonically is a true Bishop in his diocese and partakes of that power in it that a residential Bishop has in his own diocese.
• 2. Other Cardinals in their title or diaconate, after they have taken up canonical possession in same, can do all those things that local Ordinaries can do in their churches except in the judicial order and in jurisdiction over the faithful but with due regard for power over those things that pertain to discipline, the correction of morals, and service of the church.
• 3. Cardinals in the presbyteral order can in their own title conduct pontificals with the throne and baldachin, and Cardinals in the diaconal order can assist pontifically in their own deaconship, and no other one can do this without the assent of the Cardinal there; but in other churches of the City, Cardinals cannot use the throne and baldachin without the permission of the Roman Pontiff.

Yet again… you guessed it. Irrelevant.

241 – During the vacancy of the Apostolic See, the Sacred College of Cardinals and Roman Curia have no power beyond that which is defined in the const. of [Pope] Pius X, Vacante Sede Apostolica of 25 Dec. 1904.

I will in due course try and find a decent translation and particularise this point too, for completeness, but it again does not go against anything I said, nor invalidate the retroactive assumption of powers by the current Bishops once a valid Pope is elected. For the most part this refers to various duties and powers that are generally either assumed or specified to be in accordance with Papal directives or intents.

162 – § 1. With due regard for particular constitutions or customs, the president of the college, having determined a manner, place, and time convenient for the electors, shall convoke all of the college; this convocation, when it must be personal, is valid if it is done either in the place of the domicile or quasi-domicile [of the elector] or in the place of actual presence.

§ 2. If one of those to be called was neglected and therefore was absent, the election is valid, but upon his request, his omission and absence being proven, [the election] must be invalidated by the competent Superior even following confirmation, provided it is juridically shown that within three days of having notice of the election, [the objection] was transmitted.

§ 3. But if more than one-third of the electors are neglected, the election is null by law.

§ 4. A defect of convocation does not bar [validity] if the ones overlooked nevertheless were there.

§ 5. If it concerns election to an office that the elected one will hold for life, a convocation of electors before the vacancy of the office has no juridic effect.

Not really relevant as it is discussing the rules concerning election to various offices. It is interesting to note however that Canon 161 states that if an office goes Vacant for more than 3 months, the Superior has the right to appoint whoever he wants. Interesting within the context of Canon 233 above and the retroactive assumption of duties once a Pope says so upon election. Effectively this once again proves that my contention that in this time of crisis (and as has been done in the historical past of the Church throughout its existence) the assumption of various offices or duties by existing Bishops and priests can be presumed and will in due course be verified or not by an eventual valid Pope (assuming we are not at the end times and thus none might be elected before the Second Coming, which remains also as a possibility.

164 – Even though one has the right of casting several votes from [multiple] titles in his own name, he can cast only one [ballot].

Not really relevant to the discussion.

180 on _ I am not sure what “on” Means by Dyer, the rest of the code of canon law? Especially since Canon 180 reproduced below is really not relevant see for yourselves:

§ 1. In order that the postulation have force, it must have the majority of the votes; moreover, if it coincides with election, at least two-thirds are required.

§ 2. A vote for postulation must be expressed by the words “I postulate” or its equivalent; a formula “I vote for or postulate” or its equivalent is valid for election if an impediment does not exist, otherwise [it suffices] for postulation.

Again, essentially canon 180 has no relevance to the discussion. So what can we however postulate from all this?

I for one postulate that Jay Dyer is a dishonest sperg who simply spat out some numbers of various canons almost at random knowing full well that very few people even have or would ever get hold of a copy of the Code of Canon Law of 1917, for two reasons:

1) you can only get it as a physical copy for about $80 or online access for about $35 and far more importantly,

2) the bum-fight enthusiasts that drag around his channel can barely follow a conversation, never mind the intricacies of canon law.

So his strategy, as it has been throughout the debate was to PRETEND to know what he was talking about by “quoting” various rather obscure (for most people) documents whilst vociferously asserting what they said, but actually lying through his teeth about what they ACTUALLY said.

BUT…Green text here…I need to be properly charitable. To wit: It is in fact possible Dyer is a mental defective and really quite incapable of grasping any of these rather simple concepts and as such his crime is one of criminal stupidity rather than duplicitous intent fuelled by a massive ego and a complete terror of not being in control of every aspect of theology (Calvinist redux) as well as everything else in his rather unhappy life. I guess we’ll have a better idea if it turns out he in fact marries his Pagan, tarot casting “fianceè” and reproduces with her, instead of it/her flaming out spectacularly because broken people don’t mix well together.

 

PART III – Conclusion

As far as the debate goes, I believe I won on pure dialectic. I don’t care nor am I concerned with Rhetoric or “appearances” or an Internet Bum Fight, which seemed to be more the style of “arguing” Dyer was going for. As far as the actual arguments go, they are listed above and he was left without a single point that was valid. I probably however did not do a great job of explaining the last sticking point he kept hammering about, that being that it is the Curia who needs to elect a Pope and since all the ones in Rome are impostors the Curia doesn’t exist anymore and as such the Church no longer exists. This is what I call an autistic position.

There wasn’t time to explain why the fact that pretty much everyone in the Vatican currently is almost certainly an Apostate doesn’t mean the Church has defected. Dyer’s belief that this is somehow the case is absurd on its face. At a dialectic level it’s simple, and I did try to make the comparison, though Dyer’s emotional interruptions made it difficult. Assume The Vatican got nuked on 28th October 1958, what would have happened? The remaining Bishops, though not physically in Rome would have (once recovered from the shock) reconvened somewhere convenient and elected another Pope. Now, is this expressly written in Canon Law, no, because no one in 1917 envisioned Nukes and what they did envision of the Infiltration (which they did) they perhaps didn’t protect against as well as they should have. The point is Canon Law is followed always, and if a situation that is extreme and not specifically covered comes up you still use it as a guide to make the most reasonable decisions. Since ALL Bishops are part of the “head” of the Government of the Church, as it clearly states in Mystici Corporis, (See Paragraph 42, though I would read at least 39 to 44 so as to contextualise and put the lie to Dyer’s complete misrepresentation of this Papal Encyclical, and if you read the whole thing even better, it is quite a beautiful document). It is absolutely obvious to anyone who is not a box-ticking autistic monomaniac, that the remaining Bishops have every right to elect a new Pope. Doing so presently, for the very same reasons I explained in the debate would be imprudent and the Church is Prudent, so we’ll wait until we have educated a majority of nominal Catholic before this happens. Assuming Jesus doesn’t return first if we are indeed in the End Times, something no one can know, nor do we know what it would look like or how long it would take if we were. What we do know is that at the end even the Vatican will fall to Satan and only a remnant of the Church will be left, which is what we have currently, so we’ll see if we are there or not. The reason towards the end of the debate I had to keep asking Jay if Jesus had returned yet, is because he kept saying the Church didn’t exist anymore because the visible head of the Church (which he now switched to the Curia not just the Pope) was no longer visible and we are promised it would be until the end times. Well…are we at the end times? No. Do we have a mechanism to elect a new Pope? Yes we do. Is it prudent to do so now when most nominal Catholics are deceived into thinking Bergoglio is Pope? No, obviously not. Education of the masses must be the first step to recovery. And it’s happening at a growing pace, by the way. But what if there will BE no new Pope before Jesus returns? Well, then the promise has been fulfilled, because until the End Times would mean we are presently in those End Times. Exactly how these play out, how long they last and so in their specifics, no one truly knows, so it could be we are in them already. 

In other words, Dyer’s attempt to pretend there is no longer a visible, viable, living Catholic Church failed objectively on every one of his points.

Feel free to make logical arguments to the contrary in the comments. Rhetoric, personal insults, etc will be banned outright. Reasoned and well thought out arguments, if you have any, will be published and responded to, but do not waste my time stating things that have already been addressed in this post, or those too will be simply deleted. You can argue all you want, but doing it dialectically and paying attention is mandatory in my class.

ADDENDUM: I have recently come across a book by Griff Ruby, entitled Sede Vacante which takes a very detailed path through the arguments from both doctrine and canon law, in a way I would say is even more detailed, forgiving and willing to give benefit of the doubt wherever possible, which, however, substantially comes precisely to the same conclusion that the Seat of Peter being empty of a VALID Pope as well as the Current offices of the Vatican being filled (as far as we know) by complete apostates of invalid office, in no way means or implies the Living Church has come to an end. I have not yet read his second book, but I will in due course.

 

 

 

[ X ]

This entry was posted in Catholicism, Christianity, Fighting SJWs. RSS 2.0 feed.