Monday, July 27, 2026
FSSPX Does Not Equal Sedevacantism or Conclavism, There is a Difference of Approach
The German Bishops & Whataboutism
Christine Niles | 27 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJjS8sqjLnc
1:02 Nuance.*
If you can be legally deposed in due form in theory, and the guy who can do it (a k a the Pope) is in contact with you, like modern communications allow, at least since the telephone, well, you do not lose your office automatically for promoting heresy. This is the case at least since the 1917 code, which on this point a certain Fr. Paul Natterer, back then FSSPX, quoted on a four part Lenten sermons series entitled "Wie müssen wir zum Pabst stehen".
Why? Because the Pope can supply the jurisdiction that ontologically would be missing from your own person, if you are outside the Church, and therefore, the automatic deposition is suspended, so to say, until you are legally deposed, and then he steps in and sees that none of your nominations to a parish, none of your admissions to matrimony, are disasters due to your heresy.
Or dito if you're just a parish priest and your superior who can depose you is the bishop or his superior an archbishop.
This is not the text itself in the canon, but it is my theological analysis of it given, as per St. Robert Bellarmine and Pope St. Coelestine I in 430, that a man cannot be head of what he is not even a member of.
However, this practical solution doesn't work in case of a person assuming and assumed to hold Papacy, if he's promoting heresy. Therefore this, as it really is, exception, is inapplicable.
3:09 "Because they think that the Roman Pontiff has lost the faith"
Wojtyla, Ratzinger, Bergoglio and so far Prevost has not clearly broken the trend, they have put up a very good show of losing the faith since 1992.
For Assisi 86, that could be a one time thing. But the 1992 speech was immediately backed up with § 283 of the CCC. It remains in the second edition. 2002.
His successors have not taken a distance from that.
Therefore, the huge doctrinal weakness of SSPX is believing, like Salza, promoting heresy does not lose you your office. Like ever, even outside circumstances when a superior could in theory easily step in.
* 0:55 to 1:02 "someone doesn't lose his office or his jurisdiction, even if he's publically promoting heresy, as the German bishops are."
A Novus Ordo Gave Advice
Rogue Catholicism: 6 Obscure Catholic Sects That Rejected The Pope
Purely Catholic | 27 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv8JmRlGhWE
"What these groups failed to realize is that the change they envision can be accomplished from within the church. Just look at the Second Vatican Council. The preparatory documents entering the council were fairly traditional and upheld the status quo."
The problem from Pulvermacher's pov, just as from that of Pope Michael I or his now successor Michael II, is, it didn't stay that way.
The problem is this:
"But when a group of motivated modernists got together during the deliberations, they were able to usher in many changes to the Catholic Church. They couldn't have done that outside of communion."
Pulvermacher shares the exact same pov on this as the also late Mgr Lefebvre. Or SSPX. This pov being, a communion with modernists is tainted.
But there is a huge problem when you concentrate on Pulvermacher who's already died, RIP, while ignoring the guy he plagiarised, Michael I, who died somewhat later, but got a successor within a year, Michael II. And especially as Pulvermacher was just Michael I ter.
So, far from the success story of the modernists being a reason to stay in communion with that Vatican (Michael I called his seminar and site The Vatican in Exile), it is instead a reason to get out of her.
Again, Pulvermacher was the second* guy to plagiarise Pope Michael I.
* "Pope Michael bis" was Linus II, who stepped back, "Pope Michael ter" then Pulvermacher / Pius XIII.
A Reflection by Mother Miriam (Who I Think Has the Wrong Pope)
Why I Changed My Stance on the SSPX | Mother Miriam Live
Mother Miriam Highlights | 16 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDmxkXCbMok
5:30 If we can point out a definite heresy, and it's not a momentary mistake, we must conclude he's not the Pope.
CCC § 283.
6:40 "Paul had to correct Peter"
Some say Paul mentions Peter, the Pope, in Galatians 1, but Cephas in Galatians 2 is someone else.
- ⚡️tonitrua⚡️
- @tonitrua4711
- 😂
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @hglundahl
- @tonitrua4711 You can find that version in St. Clement's Stromata.
- ⚡️tonitrua⚡️
- It is deeply ironic to see you champion the concept of 'Authority' and 'Tradition' only to discard them when they do not suit your personal narrative. You are leaning on a single, isolated remark from Clement of Alexandria’s Stromata—a fringe opinion never adopted by the Church—and using it to bypass the overwhelming consensus of the Church’s greatest intellects, including St. Thomas Aquinas.
St. Thomas Aquinas, the Doctor Angelicus, explicitly states in his Commentary on Galatians: 'James and Cephas, i.e., Peter.' He does not entertain the idea of two different people; he recognizes the historical reality.
By dismissing the unanimous testimony of the Church Fathers and the Scholastic tradition simply because it contradicts your preferred theory, are you not engaging in the very 'private judgment' you usually criticize? If you are willing to discard the authority of Aquinas to protect your own hypothesis, my question to you is this: When you reject the giants of the Church to favor a historical anomaly, on whose authority exactly do you stand—the Church's, or your own?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @tonitrua4711 Since St. Clement is a Father, the sentence of St. Thomas is not "the unanimous" one.
- ⚡️tonitrua⚡️
- Being a Church Father doesn’t make every private thought a binding dogma. If this were truly 'Tradition,' there would be a consensus throughout history.
Here is the challenge: Name just one Pope or one Church Father, from the 3rd century to the present day, who supports Clement's isolated view.
If you cannot, then you aren't defending Tradition; you are simply cherry-picking a rejected historical outlier to shield your personal opinion.
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @tonitrua4711 Given it is in a publically known work, the Stromata is not a private thought.
There are simply subjects on which tradition is not unified. NEITHER St. Thomas NOR St. Clement represent all of tradition, the Church has not infallibly decided between them.
However, no, it is not isolated to St. Clement, first because he is still read, but second, because Eastern Orthodox and presumably also Byzantine Catholics agree with St. Clement and even give an account of who this other Cephas is.
- ⚡️tonitrua⚡️
- @hglundahl still “stromata” , book II
“But the knowledge of those who think themselves wise, whether the barbarian sects or the philosophers among the Greeks, according to the apostle, “puffeth up.” But that knowledge, which is the scientific demonstration of what is delivered according to the true philosophy, is founded on faith. Now, we may say that it is that process of reason which, from what is admitted, procures faith in what is disputed. Now, faith being twofold—the faith of knowledge and that of opinion—nothing prevents us from calling demonstration twofold, the one resting on knowledge, the other on opinion; since also knowledge and foreknowledge are designated as twofold, that which is essentially accurate, that which is defective. And is not the demonstration, which we possess, that alone which is true, as being supplied out of the divine Scriptures, the sacred writings, and out of the “God-taught wisdom,” according to the apostle?”
Does the Church teach that Scripture is the sole authority?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @tonitrua4711 He didn't even say that the "God taught wisdom" was only in the Scriptures.
He did say that the supernatural faith (Scripture plus God taught wisdom) was the sole certain demonstration.
- ⚡️tonitrua⚡️
- “THAT ALONE WHICH IS TRUE”
Not clear for you ?
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @tonitrua4711 Yes, he excluded rational demonstration from it, but did not limit it to Scripture alone.
You seem to think that "alone" and "Scripture" appearing at a distance in the same sentence allows you to diagnose "Scripture alone" ... which by the way is a formulation that the Catholic Church has never condemned and some Church Fathers (St. Augustine, but I think St. Thomas too) have used.
- ⚡️tonitrua⚡️
- @hglundahl It is deeply ironic that you use Stromata to support your view, because Clement wrote it specifically to combat the Gnostics. The Gnostics were the very people who claimed to possess 'secret revelations' or 'extra-biblical knowledge' to bypass the public Apostolic Tradition of the Church.
By claiming that there is 'revelation outside the Bible' which gives you the authority to contradict the consistent consensus of the Church on Galatians 2, you are doing exactly what the Gnostics did—which is the very thing Clement fought against. You are behaving like a Gnostic while trying to cite a Father who died fighting Gnosticism.
The reality is that you clearly do not understand the historical background or the purpose for which Stromata was written; you are simply cherry-picking quotes to suit your narrative
- Hans-Georg Lundahl
- @tonitrua4711 There certainly is simply NOT a consistent consensus of the Church on Galatians 2, since St. Clement is outside it.
It has nothing to do with Gnosticism to say that people in the area recalled, and could name the Church where that Cephas was later a decent bishop, that Mark who knew Peter could transmit to Clement that Peter was not that culprit.
You are dreaming that your own simplified Reader's Digest summary of Tradition is equal to The Tradition.
And on top of that, you hide behind a very anonymised account. No, I'm not behaving like a Gnostic, you are behaving like a nervous hysteric and on top of that, against me, as a scoundrel. Because I can't tell my readers where the finger you try to point at me is pointing back to you, because you gave no name.
Or if you like, you named yourself Baal Hadad ... Satan.*
- * footnote
- My take on Mark 3:17 is "Boanerges since Sons of Thunder" implies their relative had played the role of Thor up in Sweden (or Swabia) and that is a very bad one. The teasing on this issue provoked moans like those of oxen, hence Boan- (moan like an oxen) -erges (doers)
Sunday, July 26, 2026
In Answer to Phil Stilwell / Tokyo Taboo
Phil Stilwell Gets Remedial Philosophy (quora) · In Answer to Phil Stilwell / Tokyo Taboo
In the previous post, namely: |
"Your argument currently has this structure:"
Let's see how he analyses me.
"1. You assume that Catholicism is divinely protected.
"2. You treat Catholic traditions and miracle reports as confirmation of that protection.
"3. You then use the alleged divine protection of Catholicism to certify those same traditions and miracle reports."
No.
Tradition by itself even non-Catholic, even not divinely protected, is a prima facie argument. It could be overridden, but it is not to be dismissed just because it is tradition.
Dito for miracle reports.
"You may continue calling Pentecost 'objective history,' but repeating that label does not produce independent corroboration."
A) Such things (independent corroboration) are a bonus, not a necessity. Not outside periods that are both welldocumented enough and wellpreserved enough for the absence to be conspicuous.
B) There actually is independent corroboration of the Church existing, which leaves the question since when and how, and leaves the Church's tradition about it a prima facie evidence about its origins. As with any other community.
Before you try pretending I need remedial logic from the likes of you, try learning sufficient logic to not misanalyse how my argument stands.
"You accuse me of “atheistic prejudice” because I do not accept miracle stories at face value."
We should take any story at face value unless a factor overrides it. In many cases that factor can be, it's a joke. In your case, it's atheistic prejudice. I e, you hold a world view excluding miracles and that fudges your demands on how much confirmation it needs.
For a miracle, the procedure is not "how many other sources that don't believe the miraculous report the miracle" (at many times that would be zero, since none at the time systematically disbelieved miracles, plus, if it reported the miracle, it would presumably believe the miracle and therefore not count on your view), the procedure is: apart from the purported miracle, what else can it be, and can that be excluded, reasonably?
And the answer to very many miracles is, yes, it can be reasonably excluded. That's when a miracle is accepted.
"You have only demonstrated how thoroughly your prior commitment determines what you count as verification."
I have a prior commitment to believing any story unless there is a specific reason to disbelieve it. You have one to disbelieving specifically stories of miracles, unless there is on the spot presented an overwhelming amount of evidence, from other sources, even if that was not where you were pulling the debate. And even if all the other sources would be discounted as routinely as soon as they indisputably were reporting a miracle.
"You then demand that I reconstruct, step by step, exactly how the Pentecost story developed. That reverses the burden of proof. I do not need to produce the complete historical genealogy of a story before declining to believe its supernatural elements."
I was not asking "complete" and at that accurate. I was asking a reasonable alternative to the miracle.
For instance, a non-miraculus example, the German legend of the Rabenschlacht features Theoderic beating Ermaneric at Ravenna.
A reasonably alternative to this, and preferred for chronological reasons, is, first Ermaneric beat someone other than Theoderic, then Theoderic beat someone other than Ermaneric, both times at Ravenna, then the two battles became confused, only each winner was remembered and because Theoderic came to power after it, he was considered as the winner between the two. I do not know if this was the exact procedure or the sole factor, and given it is in and of itself reasonable, and Ermaneric meeting Theoderic would require a time machine, according to other sources, I'm satisfied that the story is so explainable.
For other instance, the miracle discussed, if the Apostles had been speaking so no one could understand anything, that would have reasonably excluded divine origin.
If they could speak so different people heard their own languages (verified as these converted hearing that preaching, and that in thousands) that would reasonably indicate at least some kind of supernatural origin.
If the story were made up later, you need to answer when.
Say "AD 50" and you need to account for how the community still holding people knowing the real story came to accept this instead. Say "AD 150" and you need to account how the community came to forget whatever story they had previously accepted.
"your dismissal of Islam exposes the special pleading. You readily devise natural explanations for Muslim miracle reports—social pressure, propaganda, retrospective invention and forced testimony—but resist applying those same categories to Christian reports."
The one Islamic miracle report I would do this for (and actually did this for in the discussion nine years ago) is the one Islam makes from its beginning: the split Moon.
IF the Moon split, it would have been seen over the world. The two testimonies we have are one from the original community and one from India. And the former one is dubious given how late the testimony is. And given the Indian king was submitting to conquerors.
A Muslim claiming supernatural healing, I would usually accept the supernatural healing and explain it as God granting him some reward for the basic goodwill of praying, even if he was wrong about whom to pray to. It didn't happen by Mohammed while he was active, not even claimed to, unlike supernatural healings in the career of Moses (taking away the leprosy given as punishment) and of Jesus (taking away many leprosies and other ailments, including death for some added time).
Your standard is: “Natural explanations are acceptable for rival religions but presumptively inadequate for mine.”
No. Natural explanations are acceptable when available. For many of the miracles in mine they aren't. If you want a natural explanation for Lourdes healings of Tuberculous peritonitis back before they were routinely cured by antibiotics, check out how much blue cheese and goat cheese was served in Lourdes, since these cheeses have molds that are of the penicillus genus. Like the one that's used to produce penicilline. It would still have been providential that so many came to Lourdes and ate goat cheese and blue cheese because of an apparition which presumably didn't come from someone who knew penicilline in advance and planned it ... unless that someone were God.
"Secular institutions, rival religions and political movements have also produced education, medicine, charity and social reform."
Like the one in National Socialist Germany which from 1933 was pushing loafers and vagabonds into camps like the one in Charlottenburg or the one in Oranienburg.
Islam as one rival religion has produced persecution of alcohol (and skyrocketting diabetis). Anglicanism as one rival religion has produced compulsory work houses after taking away monasteries that were voluntary ones. Judaism has produced pornography. Calvinism has produced Totalitarianism since Geneva and Cromwell. As have Anglicanism and Lutheranism since Gustaf Wasa and Henry VIII.
"Conversely, Catholic history contains violence, persecution, coercion"
Comparable to any of above named rivals.
"and credulous superstition."
Like not an objective fact prior to deciding the question we debate, but rather totally dependent on how it is answered.
Your argument is like complaining about non-Socialism allowing private property before the debate between private property and Marxism is closed.
Saturday, July 25, 2026
Exorcist on Mark of the Beast
Exorcist Warns of Possible Signs of the Mark of the Beast
Shawn Ryan Clips | 6 March 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gs_1fvkTnOk
4:46 Just in case anyone thinks I might be Elias or Henoch, nope.
I don't recall a childhood where people got to 8 feet tall or twice normal muscular breadth and ate other people, while a genius of metallurgy was fooling around with demons.
I don't recall a childhood under, say Nadab, Baasa or Amri (I looked up the predecessors of Ahab) I don't speek Hebrew and I don't read even part of the ancient Hebrew script.
I do recall a childhood in Vienna, on and off, as well as Sweden, Germany, vacations in US, UK and earlier on Romania, ending when in 1980 I had to move to Sweden at age 11, not the first time.
But, also, I never, ever claimed to be either of them.
9:16 What about a shot where the disactivated pathogen has been cultivated on cells from an aborted human fetus?
That's been seen during the first years since 2020.
The vaccinations and masks are currently no longer obligatory in France, but they are still sold.
The constraints could easily be turned on again
9:51 Is obeying someone who swore by Apollo over obeying a conscience that says no to abortion based vaccines religious?
Abolition of Man, Long form Essay by C. S. Lewis
There is also a standalone, the shorter essay "The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment" ...
CS Lewis Tried to Warn Us
Brian Holdsworth | 25 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULPJMOBb1v0
2:34 I'm also in favour of retributive justice.
I have been in prison, on a deed I still judge as legitimate defense, but the thing is, I have already served prison for it.
3 and 1/2 years (a pretty apocalyptic timespan) served two thirds before getting out, last third is reserved in case I should reoffend, so as to make a possible future punishment heavier.
On the theory of retributive justice, this is exactly what I would owe the Swedish justice had my act actually been culpable.
On the theory of humanitarian penalties, since my views haven't changed, I can still be interfered with to change me, and too bad if the legal system didn't allow for punishing me past last of June 2000, that's just something to get around.
I'm afraid certain evil men in your Catholic Church (I'm Catholic too, I just quoted Lateran IV against an Amish denying the identity of the risen bodies) have come out on the side of humanitarian justice. Continue to interfere with me, as long as I don't repent as if of a violent crime.
I'm not the least disputing that my act would have been one if unprovoked. A violent crime, that is. I'm just saying shrinks (and their "Catholic" hangers on) have proven me right that shrinks back on that day actually were in the act of destroying my life, so I actually did have a right to defend myself.
Recall, one part of what CSL said was, humanitarian penal theory was preferred as (back then) giving less likelihood of dangerous criminals getting back in the streets.
Oh, just in case you should change your mind, since 2000 I have been in garde à vue or otherwise in police custody more than one hour exactly twice. In 2006 or sth, a somewhat drunk girl went into a Restaurant to pee. She was thrown out, and someone not the owner followed her and manhandled her. He was not in uniform. I tried to step between and got beaten down to the street by him and also arrested over night, since apparently he was a policeman.
The other time was about a week starting with Wednesday August 15. In a library guards were standing over a girl who was lying down. I tried to step between, not by actual physical action, but shouting to people to defend her. I was told she was not being forcefully medicated, she had "tétanie" and I thought the French for tetanus was "tétanos" and didn't believe, and I was taken first to a mental evaluation, then to the psychiatric police cells and to a mental hospital. Within a week I was out.
Other than that, I have not been arrested though at times questioned, notably when sleeping in hallways. I have been mistreated in ways that make me dream of violent revenge, and I have not taken it.
Any "Catholic" who pretends I'm dangerous and should be observed and hampered the rest of my life is a crook of exactly the kind that C. S. Lewis warned against.
Mental hospitals were originally made for people who are suicidaln wantonly violent or in states where they obviously don't understand simple hygiene, like not deciding to lower pants when they have to shit (and have a place where they decently can lower their pants, bush or toilet). Part of my prison time I was in transfer to forensic psychiatry. One man I briefly saw had been there on false confessions to shrinks in cases of cannibalism (I didn't speak with him). He would not have been falsely condemned if not handled by shrinks and a cannibal is anyway not someone who psychiatry is made for. The people I regularly saw there and the people I had seen before the date when I defended myself convinced me, not one in ten, perhaps one in twenty of those who were being held were actually meant to be their. Diagnostics and preliminary diagnostics are so overdone that the patient corps becomes 10 to 20 times as big as it should be, meaning shrinks and their personnel get more jobs, if not more pay per hour.
The reason psychiatry is no longer functioning to keep a man like Decarlos Dejuan Brown Jr. out of the streets is, partly, perhaps it was not for him in the first place, and partly, it is overloaded and it is no longer sustainable. And the reason he hadn't stood trial on any of 14 previous occasions could either be he was being harrassed by police (and he came to think of himself as in a race war) or, if they were warranted, psychiatry had prevented him standing trial.
5:39 "no punishment is present here"
In Austria, Social Democrats and Nazis were in camps for political crimes. In Germany, tramps were in camps to reform them.
Hitler in the Tirpitz speech got out on the side of the Humanitarian theory of punishment when pretending the Austrian camps served "revenge" ... (he did have a few noteworthy things to say about England, though).
That speech is online, you can check it.
Mercy apart from justice is a suffocating tyranny with no limit to its imposition because the very authorities using it don't suffer any distress in doing so because they've been able to convince themselves of their own gentle humanitarian supremacy in the process.
14:07 Yes, a bit like the Apollo priests of Delphi (and some of the experts these days are descended from priests of Apollo and Aesculapius ...)
Have you checked what the five Greek cases of Apollo add up to in the gematria of the Greek Alphabet?
Cremation is Forbidden and Not an Obstacle to Resurrection
WILL JESUS RAISE THE CREMATED? (What the Bible ACTUALLY Says)
Bible with Elias et 6 autre(s) | 23 July 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOMBfVbQBZ8
The Church, East and West, has taken cremation (outside circumstances of grave necessity) as a testimony against the faith.
Slavonic priests used to call Lithuanians "musu sovitsa" back when they were Pagans. It means "our paganism" or more literally "our burning" / "our cremation" ... just as the community of believers was a Christendom, a Christian nation, so also the community of unbelievers was a "cremation" ...
15:48 Up to here, you were pretty tolerable. Actually good even.
What is sown corruptible that is raised incorruptible. St. Paul affirms the identity of the dead and the risen body.
Not "such as" and "similar" but "what" and "that" ...
Jesus still had the wounds, and if ever you go to Heaven, ask St. Thomas Didymus about it!
Here is Lateran IV:
He descended in the soul, rose in the flesh, and ascended in both. He will come at the end of time to judge the living and the dead, to render to every person according to his works, both to the reprobate and to the elect. All of them will rise with their own bodies, which they now wear, so as to receive according to their deserts, whether these be good or bad; for the latter perpetual punishment with the devil, for the former eternal glory with Christ.
17:39 Perhaps I'll let a dead Pope (Benedict XV) tell me it is:
The old Code of Canon Law (1917) prohibited cremation and required the bodies of the faithful to be buried. Again, an exception was given in times of mass death and the threat of disease. Those individuals who had directed their bodies to be cremated were denied ecclesiastical burial. In 1963, the Church clarified this regulation, prohibiting cremation for anyone who wanted it simply as some testimony against the faith.
A person has no right to decide cremation for oneself or a loved one outside cases of emergency, whether mass death or the case of Saul.
The code was started by Pope St. Pius X and completed and promulgated by his successor Benedict XV.
Now, the Bible actually had an answer about that Roman soldier.
"Now let your God raise you"
will have a reply:
"You said it, Centurion"
Or more literally:
And the sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and hell gave up their dead that were in them; and they were judged every one according to their works.
Sharing:
If It’s Called the Upper Room…Then What’s Below!?
24 July 2026 | SO BE IT!
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/SgLTKPPm6WQ
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)