The Hidden Danger of Mel Gibson on Joe Rogan
Shameless Popery Podcast | 14 Jan. 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NDDrIn9ul2k
Is Mel Gibson Sedevacantist?
I thought it was his dad Hutton Gibson who was so. And he SSPX faithful. But that could be old news, he could have changed his mind.
Anyway, pretending that "Sedevacantism is poison" with no further qualification is going against Catholic doctrine, like doctrines on automatic loss of office on preaching heresy.
Sedeprivationism refrains from judging if such and such is really heretic (which is not strictly necessary, as long as he's preaching heresy) and substitutes the assumption that such and such by illwill is not giving the Church the needed pastoral. And concludes from that that: a) no new Pope can be elected, but b) no one needs to obey him as long as the illwill lasts.
This is suspiciously close to condemned Lollard errors. Conclavism is obviously against this.
I'm noting that the presence of Mel Gibson was not there in LA when the fire broke out.
Perhaps he acted like a human shield in LA, like Lot in Sodom.
5:46 Nuance.
Conclavist Pope Michael I thought you could be Catholic even if you accepted an antipope "displaced Catholic souls" ...
I have not heard his successor reject this tenet.
Obviously, there is a precedent in the idea of St. Vincent Ferrer.
6:50 I could mention some things which in retrospect seem fishy with the fall of Communism.
Most notably that lots of Communist tyranny which before 1990 was restricted to behind the Iron Curtain and Scandinavia (with a family resemblance between Communists and Social Democrats) have since then become pretty commonplace in Europe and I think even in Blue States of the US.
I could also mention that very obvious KGB criticisms of Catholicism have been met with what could be described as capitulation on the part of "John Paul II" ...
- "Antisemitism" and JP-II makes friends with Jews.
- "Exclusivism" and Assisi 1986.
- "Denial of mental care" and JP-II makes a kind of negotiated peace with psychiatrists around the time there is a peace prayer before the Srebrenica massacre.
- "Science denial" and 1992 JP-II raises Heliocentrism / Deep Space , Deep Time, Evolutionary Origin of Man, from the level of "licence of discussion" to basically the level of doctrine, in a speech, in CCC §283 and perhaps a few more
- "Biblical Fundamentalism" and 1994 you get Exegesis of the Bible in the Church, which is not just theologically problematic, not to say apostatic, but on top of that includes actual calumny against those "separated brethren" who happen to be Fundies.
7:25 "outspoken critic against Communism"
The same can be said of Alexander DubΔek.
Nevertheless, he was a Communist.
18:29 Let's recall that Freemasons sometimes have, if nothing more, at least a ritualistic appreciation of the supernatural.
They could have feared:
a) that a heretic was totally invalid (and could be easily replaced)
b) that a valid (if not sufficiently heretic) Pope could be protected by infallibility from doing their bidding.
To avoid the first, the secret real Pope, if Siri was that, would impede a replacement and also keep some kind of check on the Antipopes, so they didn't blow it by being too overtly heretical.
To avoid the second, they could have wanted an Antipope, with no supernatural protection at all.
It could however be noted, that there is a theological loophole for Catholicism here.
Once Siri was out of the way, i e dead, in 1989, this could not be repeated. No one can validly agree to assume the office of "secret Pope" as such an office is not there in Catholic theology, papacy being a public office. Siri could validly assume papacy, if he was elected, because he wasn't expecting to be forced to secrecy. The then forced secrecy would then not invalidate his already done election, if such. However, unlike what some Sedevacantists say in order to avoid Conclavism, Siri could have no successor in a similar role. If you know in advance you are keeping secret, and masquerading in a sham submission to someone you think a sham Pope, that would vitiate the assumption of office in a Siri successor of that type.
This means, if, on Siri's death, the Antipope appearing to be Pope did not repent of errors, did not take the chance of becoming a true Pope, then the see would be clearly vacant to all except those taking Wojtyla for a Catholic. And a conclave would be able to be held.
Whether Siri was elected Pope or not, by the way, not decided by Pope Michael I, he was already dead and could have no successors agreeing in advance to stay secret, and so, the election of David Bawden does not conflict with Siri still being Pope. A man who has already died isn't. Even St. Peter and St. Linus are more metapopes than actual Popes now.
I would also disagree on the sentiment that accusing the Vatican II Popes of error is a weak case. There is much for which structure and procedure can and should take precedence over content, but definitely not all.
22:09 Siri had previously been used to secrecy:
On 14 March 1944, Siri was appointed Auxiliary Bishop of Genoa and Titular Bishop of Livias by Pope Pius XII. He received his episcopal consecration on the following 7 May from Cardinal Pietro Boetto at the St. Lawrence Cathedral. He became vicar general for the archdiocese on 8 September 1944. During his tenure as an auxiliary, he was a member of the Italian resistance movement in World War II. He negotiated with the Nazi forces surrounding Genoa and met secretly with partisan leaders, eventually arranging a Nazi surrender that avoided further bombardment of the city.
The reason Siri goes along with it, if the theory is true, which I neither affirm nor deny, is, partly, he has heard very bad things will happen if he doesn't, but partly, he counts on being an active member of a secret resistance. That aspect would have some support in his actual acts, since he founded the Latin Mass only Institute of Christ the King Sovereign Priest.
It may be noted that two of the men supposed to have been covered by his secrecy had also been in the resistance, both Roncalli and Montini had been active saving Jews. Not a bad thing per se, but they may have rubbed off some of their theological often modernism.
22:33 The spiritual purity of the Assisi Cathedral was compromised for the bodily saving of hidden Jews.
When German soldiers were in they sung Gregorian, when they were alone, they sung the Amida prayer. You know, the seventeen prayers ... one or two of which are traditionally directed to the destruction of both Christianity and Christendom.
23:41 If Siri tried to resign, he may have been drugged for such an attempt.
You know, mental care and things like that.
In a kind of reflex from back in his time in the resistance, he may also have concluded that he was doing good as secret Pope.
25:13 No, it's not totally inexplicable.
Siri accepts, Siri steps towards the balcony, someone tells him in a chilly voice which will not be ignored "I would not do that if I were you" and starts explaining, like the threat and things, then it takes 30 minutes to persuade Siri to an invalid abdication.
- Anjfjgjigulorajjsjdiiisitipansdln*
- @Anjfjgjigul
- The Church can not universally and peacefully accept a man as pope without that man being pope. No matter what perceived imperfections in this or that election, the Holy Spirit guides the Church to infallibly proclaiming 'This man is the successor of Peter'.
- * Note
- yes, this is the actual user name of this channel:
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- @Anjfjgjigul True.
But by some decade into the Vatican II Popes, the people claiming to be Roman Catholics are not all universally and peacefully accepting these Popes. So, that sign is lacking for them.
Btw, X in so far as "such and such is Pope" / "was Pope", "such and such was a Council" is not dogma, but (when true) Dogmatic fact.
I'm not certain infallibility proper applies to these. They are however related to infallibility.
- Anjfjgjigulorajjsjdiiisitipansdln
- The spiritual purity of a Cathedral is not compromised by the presence or prayer of unbelievers. What did Paul write about eating meals prayed over by pagans?
Don't forget also that Christ explicitly calls us to works of corporal charity.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @Anjfjgjigul You forget that any act of non-Catholic worship in a Catholic Church building calls for a speedy act of exorcism and re-inauguration.
The question is not whether the Gregorian was compromised by the unbelief, it's about the Amida prayer. That's an act of non-Catholic worship.
I am not denying we are called to works of corporal charity. But I am saying this was in fact priorised over the spiritual purity of the location. King David being received in the tabernacle is a different story. He and Abimelech had the same belief.
27:59 I think he means "same name and number" ... and yes, he would actually be wrong.
Due to one Benedict in the Middle Ages being disputed for some time, people have during their lifetime born Benedict number such and such and then another took the same name and number, because the Medieval Benedict in question was finally considered an Antipope.
He might be making a point about never anyone taking the same name and number as a very undisputed Antipope. There was a very ruthless man named John XXIII who was basically immediately seen as an Antipope, and that's may be what Mr. Gibson tried to say.
28:47 Not fifth, but fifteenth. 1410 to 1415.
34:16 Your premiss 1 is actually a non sequitur, as any Conclavist
or Mysticalist would tell you.
34:35 "valid electors, valid electoral process"
As the electors have varied as to type and process over the centuries, no type is per se "de jure divino" meaning that not just a) a valid Pope, but also b) a real case for epikeia could dispense with every and any positive rule that's put in place by men, however so good willed they may be, even wielding the highest authority.
That a Pope needs to be Catholic is however de jure divino.
34:48 Yes, Popes will certainly lay out the normal electoral process, which holds provided nothing really unforeseen happens.
But they have not laid out in detail a roadmap for all the steps to take should a heretic be wrongfully seemingly "elected" to the papacy.
Even Cum ex Apostolatus by Paul IV only tells us what NOT to do, namely accept such a Pope. He actually went further, canonically, since to his mind it was sufficient to have been a heretic to be invalidly elected, as per his disposition. This is not de jure divino, a repented ex-heretic could be a valid Pope if fully Catholic while being elected. However a non-repented still-heretic couldn't and possibly, if that could happen, a Pope who lost the Catholic Faith could even lose office. St. Robert thinks this couldn't happen, St. Francis of Sales is less confident, both agree if it were to happen, he would lose office on manifesting his heresy.
So, your buttressing of Premiss 1 relies on "strict constitutionalism" in a sense that the Church doesn't know. Any more than the German Reich, prior to 1945. I'm not saying Hitler was a good ruler, but uniting ReichsprΓ€sident and Chancellor into one doesn't make him an usurper.
So, the answer is, improvisation is acceptable in such a case.
Now, if the case is wrongly perceived, the improvisation is wrong.
There would be Conclavists or Palmarians or Tremblayists who would at the very least need some time to stomach that "John Paul II" was a Catholic. If they did, they would normally renounce their position. Instead, there is a heavy talking down to us as if we didn't exist, in some cases sth like Communist political psychiatry may have been applied, I hope this wasn't the case for Michael I, but I certainly know there have been rumours of his being a nut case, and those rumours have been used to smear his adherents. Not exactly the approach you want in order to end a schism the human way, like with means resembling Constance Council.
So far, I do see some red flags with Conclavist pastoral, but they are nothing like the red flags in Novus Ordoists' and some SSPX-ers' doctrine and a very heavy-handed approach meant to basically silence this kind of opposition. Even with unfair means. For the record, I have never claimed to be a Mysticalist or a Conclavist Pope myself, but some have tried to get at me by "he thinks he is the Pope" ... which I do not. When I had some opportunities, not all of them, I submitted theologically relevant material to his scrutiny, he didn't find fault with my orthodoxy. I would not have done that if I had regarded myself as the Pope.
36:06 Siri died in 1989. 440 days or 441 days inclusive before the election of David Bawden in 1990, on Our Lady of Carmel's Day.
You are making a case for "the last Pope made these dispositions, but they are now impossible to comply with." Fine, you have proven that a papal election according to the provisions of Pius XII is no longer possible, if the 1958 election of Roncalli was invalid.
But that does not equate to no electoral process
other than his provisions ever being open to the Church.
1) If Siri was elected, prior to death or apostasy, he may have made a provision that anyone figuring this out could go about any way they saw fit, provided they were first in line and provided the candidate was per se eligible. The one thing he cannot have validly disposed is having continuing secret successors.
2) If he wasn't, the simple fact that the provisions of Pius XII were no longer applicable meant they were no longer validly conditions for the achievement of a valid papal election.
36:28 You know Church history well enough to know that cardinals are not a jure divino condition for a valid election.
Recall what I said about two things being able to dispense with any actual Church law?
1) A Pope.
2) Epikeia, if the act is really targetting a way to get out of the impass.
37:09 Pope Michael I. Now has a successor, Pope Michael II.
37:39 You are lying about his clerical status.
Ordination 2003
by Bishop Joseph V. Galaroza
Consecration February 6, 2010
by Archbishop Joel Clemente
This is from the wiki page:
Rogelio del Rosario Martinez
He was a bishop even before he was elected, for that matter even before he was reconciled to Pope Michael I.
Bishop Galaroza first filipino bishop under the Brazilian Catholic Apostolic Church for the Diocese of the Province of the Philippines
In other words, he was ordained from the Duarte Costa line.
I must admit I have some difficulty tracing the bishops mentioned. Doesn't mean they don't exist, doesn't mean they weren't or aren't bishops.
People have lied attributing lay status to Pope Michael I, after the Gaudete weekend of 2011.
This is a massive red flag in anyone trying to argue against Conclavism.
38:09 I do not recognise that legal electoral process trumps orthodoxy.
If anyone from "John XXIII" to "Francis" was otherwise legally elected, but was not a Catholic, he would not validly be elected if already outside the faith and would not validly remain Pope, if falling after election. "John Paul II" to "Francis" are prime candidates for this treatment, since all three have explicitly supported Evolutionism.
It's both scientifically impossible, but even worse, impossible to square with the Faith, once the details of the scenarios are scrutinised.
For instance, Jimmy Akin is on record as saying one theory acceptable to (their / your) Church is a collective fall. This involves Supralapsarian calvinism, since collective decisions are not under the control of any single human freewill. They are not willed acts as such, they are only preceded and followed by willed acts.
He's also on record as saying one theory that's acceptable is Adam was a representative, like Christ was later. No, before the fall, mankind didn't need a representative to face God.
But if you accept a literal Adam, literally ancestor and unique such of all of us, anything except Young Earth Creationism falls apart.
40:00 Michael Lofton noted, there actually was a conclave.
Benevacantists assembled and elected "Pope Francis" hoping this valid election (unlike the one in 2013) would give him the charism of infallibility and shoehorn him into becoming orthodox.
40:21 There is such a thing as not having legal authority, but still being authorised.
By the way, David Bawden didn't just claim he was the Pope, he called a conclave, as per epikeia. Necessity trumps law.
The presence of lay electors, of lay electors certainly outnumbering any clergy, of elections with only 6 electors (Innocent II, if I recall correctly), and receiving ordination and consecration after election all have precedent. The one question that does need an answer, to which has answer was no, is, was there not previously a Pope?
"John Paul II" heretic.
Gregory XVII of Palmar / John Gregory XVII of QuΓ©bec invalid process of nomination, since, while mode of election is de jure humano ecclesiastico, the fact of an election seemed to him de jure divino, since included in a legal definition of Pope.
Linus II / Pius XIII not yet around.
41:45 I have myself argued against how the Dimond Brothers try to get around this one.
They point to a thing comparable to perpetuous successores in Jeremias 30 or some of the closely following chapters, but forget that the terminus a quo is when Christ comes.
The terminus a quo for perpetuous successores is St. Peter on Pentecost or rather at Lake Genesareth.
Pope Michael I was pretty certain, when Christ returned, there would probably be a Pope. He assembled his emergency "conclave" to ensure this.
42:19 Notice what Vatican (I) is not saying. It is not saying only legal elections in normal and foreseen form assure the survival of the papacy.
Which brings me to the fact that your premise 1 is faulty.
43:07 Dimond Brothers may fall under that anathema.
Whatever excommunication a Conclavist
might fall under, if Conclavism were false, that anathema is not one of them.
43:50 Excellent syllogism as to form, but you have failed to show how premiss 1 holds.
Without it, your syllogism is false.
44:20 Conclavism is not built on Siri having been elected. To Pope Michael I, this was mostly a subject for agnosticism.
