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.”
On this very blog, you can find posts on how to not just survive clown world (in detail), but take them on and win.
And I have also written about Christianity, which I think is far more important… if only you really get it. Which apparently, quite a few people did, since, despite me being anything like a “theologian” and having lived most of my life as a Zen-Agnostic somewhat hedonist, over 100 (and counting) people converted to proper Catholicism (Sedevacantism) as a result of reading some of these works. And some are getting married in Church and soon will be making children too.
But despite all of that, the sheer volume of lies, the scale of the deception, and even worse of the neutering, and in some cases literal castration of everything male, starting with children, and the weakening of the entire human race as a result, is sickening.
I mean we literally have 100% confirmed pedophiles, with pictures and videos of himself with CHILDREN doing sexual things, being the son of the “president”. That “president” that can’t string a sentence together, is in all likelihood a pedophile himself, and worse, if some of the videos about “allegedly” him that were on that computer, are any indication, and apparently literally shits himself regularly. That guy, who supposedly got more votes, miraculously than Trump. That’s who’s supposedly “running” America.
And cocaine clown pretending to be president of Country 404, syphoning billions and grinding human beings to meat for the sake of his habit as well as the money that is all going to corrupt Ukis, Americans that all have their sons working for some gas giant there and just happen to be the sons of “president” and senators and so on.
And trafficked children, for sex, tortured for adrenochrome, and salt for organ transplants, all from the same hellhole. And the world slumbers on.
The Barons of the feudal age would have charged the ivory towers of their “rulers” and replaced them very swiftly. But today, the bovine pre-eminence of fat, hormonally challenged, intelligence stunted balls of lard pretending to be humans is such that any hint of having to think beyond their next Big Mac, or fizzy soda, or porn, or video game, is an intolerable pain and injustice.
So, what are the chances that you, yes you, dear reader, that tiny, sliver of consciousness that is still not completely brain-dead, come here, read this and pay attention to one sentence, just one, that is more important than all the others put together if only you would hear it. If only, you would take it on and use it.
If only.
Well, I can’t force you. And despite who I was for a long time, today, I would not want to force you to pay attention to it. I do, however, wish that all those who do not pay attention to it, keep well away from me. Please do. It’s unpleasant for both of us otherwise.
You ready for that one sentence?
Who am I to listen to, you say? No one. No one important. I have done and seen a lot more than most men ever will. I have travelled a lot, learnt of different cultures all over the world. From the Khoi-San of the Kalahari desert, who tracked for us and taught me how to find food and water in the desert as a child, to the semi-secular muslims of Kazakhstan, which are very pleasant people. To the happy, friendly, and often gullible and ignorant Americans, who, by and large, are simple, nice people, to the English. The Irish, the Scots, the Polish, the Russians, the Latvians, the Bulgarians, and many other people in between, from deepest Africa to the most exclusive gentlemen’s clubs of London. I have trained in karate and Systema until I could teach it and did, over some four decades. I changed countries and careers several times. I married and divorced twice and I am a father several times over.
I have learnt skills most never learn, and read more books than most people read in a few lifetimes over. I speak and read at least 4 languages and a smattering of others.
I have written books and planted trees, in case you were a Hemingway fan.
But in truth, none of that matters all that much. From one man to another I am just a man after all. I have made plenty of big errors and probably will do many more before I die. I try to learn from them, as I can, as everyone does.
But in all of that, the most important thing I found is one. Easily said in one phrase. But will you hear it? Will you take it on? Will you dig into it? Will you, in short, consider it truly and deeply?
I hope so. I do. I pray you do.
Here it is then:
The most Truth you can ever find will be found in the original Catholic Church, which today only exists as Sedevacantists.
That’s it. Now go dig. And don’t stop. Because even if you take it on, and even if you study it deep, and even if you become a full blown Catholic. If you keep studying. If you keep working at it instead of just sit on your butt because you think you’re done after baptism, then, my friend, you will find joy, and miracles, and literally a life you could Never have imagined filling your heart so full.
It has not gone unnoticed that I tend to be “unmerciful” in my descriptions of the liars, deceivers, and general gatekeepers we find ourselves surrounded by. Those who read my comments, after all, named me The Kurgan, precisely because of my happy-go-lucky attitude, mixed with a talent for taking heads, just like the maligned (real) hero of Highlander.
Those who pay attention however have noted a subtle but important difference between my criticisms and those of your average thunder and fire and brimstone “preacher” or critic.
That difference, difficult though it might be to see for those unfamiliar with truth, logic, reason and correct charity, is due to my subscribing, and submitting, to Catholicism. That is, in short, submitting not just to God, but to the rules of the Catholic Church. And, of course, as always, when I say The Catholic Church, I mean exactly that, not the current usurping impostors sitting in the Vatican or anything related to Vatican II and their false Popes, false clergy, false mass, false ordinations, false faith and literally satanic practices. As always, remember that Sedevacantism is the ONLY Catholicism left and Sedevacantists the ONLY Catholics left. It doesn’t matter if you like it, if you believe it, if you understand it or not. Just like the sun rising in the East, it is a fact of reality and one that can be verified fairly easily by anyone honest enough to investigate it, whether briefly as I did in BELIEVE! or thoroughly as I did in Reclaiming The Catholic Church. So, for the remainder of this post, this “aside” —which I have to keep hammering on because of the level of deception fostered on the average person— is simply deemed axiomatically accepted.
Rigidity of mind without divine grace becomes Calvinism. And Calvinism is not just retarded, illogical and demonstrably false, but it results in the kind of twisted puritanical nonsense that runs totally counter to human natures not just in the negative aspect of those natures, but in the positive aspects too. The kind of mental rigidity that supposedly “follows Jesus”, in typical Protestant fashion, is binary, black and white in nature not just in baseline principles, but in every aspect of its limited imagination, meaning that beauty, charity, compassion and so on, simply become casualties of the (limited) intellectual strife that such attitudes foster internally on people.
There are always two classes of theological concepts one can look at: The high-minded, detailed, intended aspects of a religion or faith, and the actual general effects it has on a population.
Now examine the high-minded versions of Calvinism… well… ok, what passes for high-minded in those mental cripples. Ultimately, it reduces to a sort of Islam. God already knows everything and already determined everything, so you are either one of the elect or not. You have to do everything exactly right as one of the elect, otherwise you are not one of them, but you can’t really know which one you are because only God knows for sure.
It is literally a lose-lose, retarded way to go through life. The “opposite” of Calvinism, the “Jesus is my boyfriend” TV-Evangelist style of “faith” is just as retarded, if in the opposite direction “Well, I follow Jesus, so I am saved”. The Once Saved Always Saved (TM) Franchise is just as moronic, in fact, perhaps more so than puritanical Calvinism. While Calvinism is the metal equivalent of living in a constant mental prison of guilt, shame, inflexibility and (essentially) existential terror, the libertine version of “christianity” fostered on people by the once saved always saved crowd is essentially total debauchery with a religious stamp of approval. And between these two extremes you get all sorts of colourful (as in rainbow striped) nonsense.
Catholicism has a difference from all of these intellectually unsatisfying (because ultimately false and falsifiable) positions. What you will notice in Protestantism, from Calvinism all the way to Jesus is my boyfriend, is that for all its supposedly vaunted “individualism” —after all, it’s all: interpreth as thou will— the aim is always to homogenise the masses. The individual, despite the lip-service paid to him or her, is really never actually considered. Nor can be. Since, by its very core, Protestantism is “unique” to every single person reading it, the illogical nonsense of Sola Scriptura being the mind-warping stick by which they live.
This “Sola Scriptura” nonsensical position is actually a very clever total inversion of individualism. Since every Protestant is theoretically capable of interpreting scripture all by himself (yes, it is as absurd as it sounds, given that the average person can’t even read two paragraphs of an article and rewrite it in their own words without crippling the message) you can’t possibly have a doctrine for it, which means that ultimately it all reduces to one grey oozing mass of “I am a Jesus follower!” with some within it, sticking absolutely inflexibly to some supposed “tenet” that they personally ascribe to, or that their sub-cult has brainwashed them into accepting as such.
Catholicism, instead, has always had the individual human person at its core. The core of Catholicism —as perfectly described even by the last valid Pope we had, Pope Pius XII, in his Mystici Corporis— is the lay family man or woman. The husband or wife that compose a family that makes children. The little guy is the guy in Catholicism. Yes, of course we have priests, and bishops, and a Pope, and it is a hierarchy, and there are also temporal secular leaders (emperors and kings and barons in times past) because even Heaven has a hierarchy, but the entire edifice is there for the purpose of serving the common man.
Catholicism has very clearly defined dogmas and rules, in fact they are all written down in the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law of 1917. So it certainly doesn’t lack intellectual rigour. But correct intellectual rigour deals with reality, not a fantastic lie of how man beings “should” be (but never have been). Puritanical Protestantism tries to force human beings to act, behave and think like automatons. Perfect machines that should never stray from the correct path. Or, alternatively, imperfect humans who will do all sorts of sin, so there is nothing to do other than say you follow Jesus and you’re saved anyway, so, you know…try to be “good” whatever “good” means to you specifically.
Catholicism is very clear on what is good and what is not good. It does not deviate from this. What it does is also recognise that as flawed humans, we are going to fail in some measure in trying to be perfect. In fact, it is practically guaranteed, since we are told none of us are perfect. This is why we have confession. The act of telling your priest your errors, weaknesses and bad deeds, within a context where the confessional seal will not be broken by the priest even on pain of death (which has been sadly tested throughout history and found to hold true) forces you to confront yourself weekly. To consider your actions before you do them in light of the having to confess them later. And gradually helps you become a better human being. Your sins are forgiven because you accept you have done them and try to not to them again or at least in the same way or to improve the length between your lapses, and your intent to do this is, must be, honest, lest your own self-deception begins to eat away at you.
And if you are of the high-minded variety and want to know the detailed ins and outs of Catholicism, well, you have entire libraries full of historical details of how this or that dogma and doctrine was interpreted, clarified and finally summarised in Canon Law. If you are legalistically, logically minded, Catholic dogma (and Roman Law) are an autist’s delight, because they are rules that follow a clear, bright, logical path, and that path is also humane. The more you investigate why this or that rule exists, the more the wisdom and charity and logic of the rule come to the fore, and slowly, you begin to realise that such perfect ruling does not derive from any human being, but can only be the purview of divinity. And that, as the Church teaches, the Church is merely the handmaiden of the Divine Grace that God gives us.
All the flawed humans that comprise and have comprised the Church have not been able to pervert or corrupt the truth, because the Church is indeed supernaturally protected from error. The Magisterium of the Church, int he form of Canon Law, is infallible because God has protected it from corruption. Even as the church was infiltrated and usurping freemasons satanists took over the Vatican, the Code of Canon Law was created and is the most vetted document in human history. Even as the Papacy was overrun by impostors, the truth of Catholicism was forever enshrined in writing. And even, as prophesied, Satan entered the Vatican, actual Catholics remain and continue to practice the same religion with the same Mass and the same ordinations and rituals as has been done for nearly two millennia. Yes Sedevacantists are the only remnant of Catholicism left, but this is not a shock, or even a surprise. If you read your Bible, it literally states this will be the case.
If you look at the high-minded sample of Catholics, you will not find any lack of logic, reason and reality-based factual, objective practices.
If you look at the overall common man and the mass experience of Catholicism, today, you will not see much evidence of it because in order to become Sedevacantists, most have actually got good powers of reading comprehension and tendencies to high-minded aspects of truth and faith, but luckily we have an abundance of historical facts to draw from. Even when most Catholics may have been illiterate, Catholic communities were the ones that had the best systems of justice, and societies that were safe, produced happy children and happy life-long marriages. Catholicism literally created the modern Western world and invented the scientific method (which we now have mostly lost to politics and lies).
Your average illiterate catholic peasant was a happier, free-er and more serene than your average protestant peasant by far. And the societies they created reflect this. Even today, almost 70 years since we had a valid Pope and the Church was so deeply and widely infiltrated by Satanists, those countries that used to be Catholics still have remnants of behaviour, even in their legal systems, that tend to concern themselves more with the individual and his real, human nature, than with he legalistic loopholes best suited for robots that the protestant nations have mechanised into creation.
The “loopholes” of Catholicism, like Baptism of Desire, say, are not loopholes at all, but rather realities based in truth, justice and divine grace. Not created by human minds trying to escape reality, like the nonsensical concept of “once saved always saved”.
A rule or law that does not consider the reality of human beings, is not based in reality, and as such is either useless or tyrannical, but can never be just. Catholicism has always, and will always be for the death penalty. Because some crimes deserve it and require it. Similarly, Catholic believe that yes, God can forgive any truly repentant soul. Yes, including a child-rapid mass-murderer. It is possible that at the last minute such a soul truly repents and instead of eternal hell is relegated to a long time in purgatory and eventually will also be in heaven and share in the beatific vision. It is absolutely possible. But, in Catholic thought, such a person would still be burnt at the stake. For his crimes demand it. And of course, while he is burning to a crisp, he may, indeed have time to reflect and actually repent, and God may well save him from eternal hellfire for it. But we, as mere mortals, can only ensure he is put to the fire, here on Earth.
It is perfectly logical, even if to the average protestant it may seem illogical or hypocritical, because such is the perspective when you can only see things in two-dimensions. To a 2D thinker, a line on the floor is an impassable wall, but to a 3D thinker, it is merely alive and one that can easily be traversed without any fault.
Consider then, the intellectual rigour required, for logic to be done correctly in the human context.
It may be salutary to have an example of this, and I may do a blog post on it soon.
I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth. You say, ‘I am rich; I have acquired wealth and do not need a thing.’ But you do not realize that you are wretched, pitiful, poor, blind and naked.
It is possibly the biggest source of personal frustration when I encounter the lukewarm, which frankly, seems to be literally everyone, with exception of my children, and most pure being the littler ones.
I understand that obstinacy, especially given the average human monkey, leads to nothing good, of course.
And yes, we all see through a glass darkly. Every one of us.
Even so, some things are obviously true. Obviously clear to anyone who cares to look.
Two plus two is, and always will be, four.
It is also a sad fact that I doubt if there are even a handful of people that would be willing to die over that fact. If faced with the prospect:
“Defend that two and two is four to death, or, allow all of humanity to forego the very concept of mathematics, calculation and so on.”
Put that way, it would mean either you sacrifice yourself, or, humanity will literally be forever reduced to about the same level as bonobos, and in fact, possibly lower, in fact, almost assuredly lower; though I don’t expect most people reading this to have the imagination necessary to envision why unless they put some serious thought into it.
I also appreciate that the argument for Sedevacantism takes a certain level of ability and education. You not only need to be able to read, but have the intelligence, will and desire to do so, in the specifics of the details of Church history, law, dogma and credo. I understand that too. I know it is a minority that can do that and the rest tend to follow for the usual reasons, because their family or friends have done so and humans are at times essentially herd animals.
However, if you are one of them; and you have taken the time and effort to learn why Sedevacantism is the only valid Catholicism left, why on God’s green Earth would you give a second’s time to obvious heretics?
If you have understood and accepted that the Novus Orcians are impostors, fake “Catholics” then it is absolutely impossible that you should make any exception for any of them.
“Oh but…” just doesn’t come into it.
It doesn’t matter if on this particular Tuesday afternoon, of the blue Moon, he told the truth on this one point.
It doesn’t matter if he calls out Bergoglio.
It doesn’t matter if he saves starving orphans in Africa.
It doesn’t matter if “he makes so much sense”.
This is not about a “bad” Catholic that is badly catechised, or a weak one that fails. Or a bad one that is in mortal sin every week through a retinue of bad character traits. It’s about fake clergy pretending to be of a religion they patently are not.
They are, in essence, spiritual mass-murderers.
Would you extend the same “benefit of the doubt” to a serial killer? Does it matter if he had a really bad childhood? Or he hears voices? Or he really doesn’t realise the evil he is doing?
Are you going to be buddies with Ted Bundy because he really knows how to get women close to him?
And if you are an actual believer, spiritual mass-murderers are worse than mere physical ones. Physical mass murderers take your life on Earth and your body, but spiritual ones are trying to throw your soul into hell for eternity.
So, if you are a Sedevcantist, that is, an actual Catholic, you do not accept, in any way, shape or form:
Una-cum masses, they are a blasphemy and a heresy.
Novus Ordo anything.
Vatican II anything.
That includes ALL the fake clergy and pomp of the fake “Catholic” Bergoglian Church and ALL their members.
Because they are not Catholics. Just as two plus two is not five.
I have covered the knowing heretics, fake Catholics, and Freemason Satanists several times, and by now, I should hope it is clear that I give no “clergy” that doesn’t specifically reject Vatican II and the Fake Popes from 1958 on any kind of pass. They are knowing heretics, and to be treated as such, as per Cum Ex Apostolato Officio; to wit (emphasis added):
(iii) that all such individuals also shall be held, treated and reputed as such by everyone, of whatsoever status, grade, order, condition or pre-eminence he may be and whatsoever excellence may be his, even Episcopal, Archiepiscopal, Patriarchal and Primatial or other greater Ecclesiastical dignity and even the honour of the Cardinalate, or secular, even the authority of Count, Baron, Marquis, Duke, King or Emperor, and as such must be avoided and must be deprived of the sympathy of all natural kindess.
But… but… what about some poor wanna-be Catholic “priest” that is ignorant of the whole Vatican II issue, and the rampant sodomy in the seminaries, and the utter manifest heresy of Bergoglio in real-time, never mind all of it since 1958, you say?
Yeah… that’s like saying that an adult, who takes all the courses to be a firearms instructor, then points a loaded gun at a child and pulls the trigger and then claims he didn’t know the gun was loaded when he did it. Even if you assume he’s telling the truth, and even if you could somehow determine it with absolute certainty (impossible), the fact remains that such an idiot would and should, go to jail, or preferably the death penalty, for what is known legally as criminal negligence. Or as I prefer to call it, criminal stupidity. Yes, being stupid enough is a crime. Because really stupid people should not be allowed to take certain jobs. You don’t want a 50 IQ retard trying to fly a plane. And I don’t care whose feelings it hurts. Ditto these fake “idiot” “priests”. If they are that stupid, they have no business being priests, and no, I do not give them the benefit of the doubt, and neither should you. Why? Because it is Church dogma to not do so. If you act like a heretic, practice like a heretic, promulgate heresy, regardless of your possible retardation, we are to treat you like a heretic. And must be deprived of the sympathy of all natural kindess. See above.
So that deals with the intentional, knowing heretics.
But what about the laymen who are also trying to lead people to Hell? Well, once again, I have detailed some of these grifting liars, Emo Jones, Tay-Tay Marshall, Michelle Voris, Milo Yankmypoleus and their kind. And one hopes it is now relatively easy to spot them. And we have a generic witch test for all who profess to be “Catholics”, it’s really simple:
“Do you reject Vatican II and all those who promulgate it?“
Anything other than a resounding YES! means you are dealing either with a knowing impostor, an egomaniacal fame or status hungry “smartboi”, or, at best, a deceived, lazy, ignorant.
Yes, yes, I know, charity and all that, but let me point something out here: It is by using and appealing to your charity when they have absolutely no right to do so, that these snakes enter your home and pervert it. And the Catholic Church also dogmatically explains that one should use prudence and avoid anything suspect.
Great. We got that cleared up. What then of the autistically persistent laymen? And here I add a couple of warnings:
First of all assure yourself as best you can that they actually are simple laymen. The example of note here is John Salza. Who has written a retinue of lies against Sedevacantism, supposedly in defence of Catholicism as a simple, pious layman. Except… that Salza was (is) a self-confessed freemason. Oh, oh, but he’s not anymore… right, because Satanists are such paragons of truth-telling. Get it through your head, freemasons are Satanists, that is literally what Freemasonry is. The literal worship of Lucifer. The fact the lower echelons might not be immediately aware of it… again… see criminal stupidity above. And if a freemason did honestly convert and became a Catholic (there are historical examples) then the only thing they may continue to do is explain how freemasonry is Satanic. That’s it. And that is the only legitimate thing they might be allowed to speak on as laypeople. Because once you have been a Satanist, it’s really quite obvious you should never be allowed to say anything at all about Catholicism, other than it is the absolute truth and you were absolutely wrong. And should such a person go on to write long tracts on why this or that theological position is better or worse, they are to be immediately assumed to be simply continuing their Satanic mission. These people, once you discover they are in fact freemasons or associate with such, etcetera, can safely be dismissed as liars at the very least, and heretics almost to a certainty.
But let us now assume you have satisfied yourself that they are not intentional deceiver or gatekeepers. And further (somehow) satisfied yourself they are not grifters either, making a buck from their “preaching”. And by making a buck I mean, literally making their living, or a substantial part of it from it. Because if they are, well, then their intent might not be consciously Satanic, but they are certainly at least useful idiots for Satan.
Ok then, assuming they even pass the Satanists/Grifter smell test, what are we left with? The smartbois. The Gammas who do it for personal ego/stature/status.
Are there honestly deceived people who believe they are “Catholics” when instead they are just fooled, lazy ignorants? Yes. Plenty of them. Millions. maybe even over a billion of them. Certainly.
Why do I call them lazy ignorants? Because they are. Is it harsh? Not really, it is a statement of fact. If I decided to call myself a prince of the blue garter belt of Liliputz, or whatever, you can bet I would not do so until I have studied with care what and how one becomes or is born as a Prince of Liliputz, and even if I fit those requirements, I would then delve deeply into what it takes to belong to the order of the blue garter belt, and why that isn’t gay somehow, if indeed it is not!
And how much more important is your claim to belong to a specific religion, to a specific God, with specific rules, because after all, if God is real, and Good, and Loving, then he MUST have, at a minimum, a Way for you to find Him and His rules and a way for you to KNOW what those rules are. And indeed there is: The Catholic Church. And it is your minimum duty to ensure you are actually in it, and not fooled into some travesty of it through your laziness of not bothering to learn your own religion.
So, if you’re one of the lazy ignorants, either get offended, flounce off in flamboyant fake indignation, or, get your lazy ass off the couch, and start reading. And learning.
But what about the smartbois?
Ah yes.
And here we encounter one such: Michael Lofton (because I am still being charitable here and still investigating him). He appears to have spent a LOT of time and effort to defend the heretic, fake, impostor riddled “Catholic Church” headed by the Vicar of pedophiles himself, Bergoglio. Now, why would that be?
If we give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he’s a true believer (in the Novus Orco, fake Church) and not a grifter (but he does make considerable revenue from his podcasts) or an intentional deceiver, then we need to assess what he is, and why he’s doing it.
At first glance, what I can say so far is that he certainly likes to use the sophist’s method preferred by Bill Clinton when asked if he had sex with Monica Lewinsky. For those young-uns among you, here is the detail:
During his grand jury testimony, Clinton questioned the exact meaning of the word ‘is’ in an attempt to defend a false affidavit in which Lewinsky claimed ‘there is no sex of any kind, in any manner, shape or form with president Clinton’. When asked by former Deputy Independent Counsel Sol Wisenberg, to confirm the affidavit was ‘utterly false’, the former president gets into semantics. ‘It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is. If ‘is’ means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement,’ Clinton said with what seems like a smirk on his face.
I remember watching that on TV and seeing the lawyer take him to task on it, saying effectively: Wait…what? Are you saying that your statement was “true” because you weren’t physically having sex with Monica Lewinsky at that specific time the question was asked?!
It was truly baffling and absurd. Well, Michael does quite a bit of this.
When cornered on certain topics he tries to dodge by becoming absurdly “specific” about certain words.
For example, watch this video from 53.20 on, where he admits that Bergoglio said that Proselytising is a sin. But, he goes on to “explain” that what Bergy-the-Oleous means by that, is “to use force” to convert people to Catholicism.
Which is, of course, abject nonsense. “What does he mean by Proselytism?” he says, “the question is, is proselytism the same as evangelisation?” And he goes on to say that “convincing people” of the truth is evangelising, and fine, but Proselytism is, according to him, understood by Bergoglio to be the use of “coercion and force”. He doesn’t explain how he knows this, or what evidence he has that Bergy-the-Olous uses this word this way, of course. But does it matter? No. Because we know very well what words mean around here.
But hey, don’t take my word for it. Let’s go to my 13 volume set of the Oxford English Dictionary and look them both up.
Evangelise means:
to preach the gospel or
to bring under the influence of the gospel
the state or condition of being evangelised or converted to the Christian faith
And Proselytise means:
To make proselytes
To make a proselyte of
What is a Proselyte?
It is defined as:
One who has come over from one opinion, belief, creed or party to another; a convert
A gentile convert to the Jewish faith
to convert form one religious faith or sect to another
In short, they are perfectly synonymous of each other, and if anything evangelise is the one that could potentially have some “force” attributable to it since in definition 3 it simply states to be “converted to the Christian faith”. And in definition 2 one might be “brought under the influence of” by having a gun pointed to one’s head with a command to convert. One (if autistic) might try to argue that in this case, the presumption is that perhaps it’s okay to do it by any means, including against the individual’s free will.
While in the definitions of Proselyte the implication of free will of the convert is clearly always grammatically present.
So, it is, of course a lie. Nonsense. And it is said to run cover for the never-was-Catholic, protector of Pedophiles on Earth, Bergy-the-Oleous, fake “pope” and grand vizier of Moloch.
He does this in other ways and in other videos. He in fact tried to dismiss the entirety of the Code of Canon Law using similar subterfuge, I forget now the detail and I can’t be bothered to look for it presently, but the case is clearly made, if you listen to him for any length of time on the topic of Sedevacantism, that he is dishonest.
So WHY is he dishonest? Is he getting paid for it? (I don’t know)
Is he funded by some rich heretic interested in funding gatekeepers like the money man behind both Emo Jones and Church Militant’s ex(sure)gay guy Voris, Marc Brammer? (I don’t know)
Does he make a substantial amount of money from his podcasts? Yes. Is it enough to keep him in the level of luxury he wants? I don’t know but I doubt it, these guys tend to be greedy.
So can I definitely point at him and scream “KNOWING HERETIC! BURN HIM!” Well, I certainly will treat him like one, because he is, but no, I can’t quite yet do that, because he may just be stroking his own ego instead of have a vested interest in sending souls to Hell for a third party.
But what we can be certain of is that the he is a sophist. And I mean that in the EOD version n. 3:
One who makes use of fallacious arguments; a specious reasoner.
And by specious, here they mean EOD definition n. 2:
Having a fair or attractive appearance or character, calculated to make a favourable impression on the mind, but in reality devoid of the qualities apparently possessed.
And, without surprise, he not only never argues Sedevacantism honestly, but he is absolutely terrified of even beginning to have an argument with someone that (though ultimately wrong) knows enough to prove him to be absolutely flawed in all his reasonings concerning Catholicism.
Peter Dimond is ultimately wrong because he doesn’t not recognise Baptism of Desire and of Blood, which the Church and Canon Law in fact do recognise, and as a result of that error he then rejects the few remaining valid Priests and Bishops (sedevacantists).
That said, Dimond would wipe the floor with Lofton, because autistic though Dimond is about baptism of desire (he literally twists the meaning of the black on white word of Canon Law of 1917 to “make his case”, not unlike Lofton himself) he is pretty rock-solid on most other aspects of Catholicism. In fact, barring that (serious and unfortunate error) and a few other points which are really so far-out as to be literally non-issues for almost anyone at all, Dimond is sound in his Catholicism. But note how Lofton resorts to specious ad hominem instead of answering the question.
If I were tasked with arguing Dimond I would say that we essentially only have one main point of contention, and it is baptism of desire and baptism of blood. I would have to research the various places this was clearly stated by multiple Popes etcetera, which would be pointless, because it is addressed in the canon Law of 1917, and Dimond has already shown that his approach to it would be autism redux with no ability to objectively evaluate the relevant code. So, arguing with him would be pointless and fruitless for us both. But I have no doubt he would be able to recite the various passages from Papal Encyclicals that he uses (erroneously) to make his case, from memory. I certainly could not.
Lofton instead, tries to side-step the entire major point of the Sede vs Heretics arguments, and never really addresses them in his own “takes”.
Tell us Michael, where is the Code of Canon Law, or the Dogma, that says 70 years is too much for an interregnum? Oh wait…what is that? There isn’t one?
Right.
And the Church has been without a Pope for a few years before and for over 70 with no clear way of knowing who was Pope because there were up to three at a time claiming it. But that was fine was it?
Oh and, no one judges the Pope… yet… there have been more than 40 antipopes before 1958, so… SOMEHOW we must be able to know when a Pope is a heretic, eh Michael? And definitely judge it so. Why don’t you explain that one away too.
But I want to now address those who get affected by specialbois or deceivers, whichever he is, like Lofton.
That is, those who get convinced by him on the basis that he introduces right at the start of the linked video, and that is, that oh, well, if there are only a few actual Catholics left (i.e. if Sedevacantism is true and there are “only” 200,000 to a 1,000,000 catholics left) then one should despair and become oh… he doesn’t know… Say Eastern “Orthodox” or a Copt or maybe a Syrian Catholic… (are there even 200k of those guys?!) because, you know, as Jesus Himself and all the Apostles clearly stated, Christianity is a popularity contest!
If you don’t have the numbers you just don’t play, right?
Go to a “winning” team like Russian Orthobros. Or stick with the Molochian usurpers LARPing at being “Catholic” clergy, because, hey, they have the numbers!
Right. Sure.
If you go along with hat argument, then, it is patently obvious, that your flaw here is not just your ability to do logic, perceive truth, or understand objective reality, but also, that you are supremely weak, and more akin to a herd animal than a reasoning, thinking, human being.
And, at best, that’s the type of “Catholic” Michael Lofton is, Ladies and Gentlemen, by his own admission at 18.10 or so of his video.
So I rest my case.
Matthew 7:13-14
“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.
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:
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.
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.
You might be interested in the following posts:
By G | 11 November 2023 | Posted in Catholicism, Reclaiming the Catholic Church, Sedeprivationism, Sedevacantism, Social Commentary