Chesterton's Reasons for Catholicism

G.K. Chesterton - Why I am a Catholic
7th June 2012 | Holy Khan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9Yit5yoHeU

Apparently, I had nothing to mention on point 1. Here come points 2 to 4, with debates to 3 and 4. Note, ChesterKhan changed the screen name to Holy Khan since 2014 when most of this debate took place, recently revived by Pat Aherne. It can be mentioned that "Pope Krav" and "Pope Alexander IX" both seem to be merely media phenomena. Pope Krav was listed by an Orthodox who researched the phenomenon, not sure if he thought it was serious or whether he tried to imply they were all media hoaxes. The community of Alexander IX gave on their web presence what seemed to be quite a good base, unless Pope Michael was the Pope. Then it disappeared and months or a year ago, I heard from someone it was a media hoax.

2)

It is the only thing in which the superior cannot be superior, in the sense of supercilious ... has Bergoglio set about changing that?

3)

It is the only thing that frees a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age ... now Roncalli set about changing that one, didn't he?

And Bergoglio has very little sympathy for anyone trying to preserve that reason for Catholicism, has he?

Holy Khan

Oh, I dunno... being free of gay marriage, divorce, contraception, an entitlement mentality, the despair of the age, the idea that communism may actually belong in this society, the welfare state, eugenics 2.0 - being free of all that, actually seems like a good deal.

Why, are you one of the Latin Mass whiners?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ChesterKhan I indeed do prefer the Latin Mass.

I am not sure how that would make me a whiner.

I am sure that when it comes to things like pedophile priest scandals, the proper thing to do is to:

defrock any even slight offender
warn Catholics against defrocked priests and seminarians
NOT involve secular authorities

and quite as obviously NOT to allow homosexuals to become priests.

They should not be excluded from marriage - see Josh Weed and John Calvin - but they shoul[d] definitely not be priests.

Sounds like he is caving in too much to the age to me.

We will see how long Bergoglio stands for what you have just given the negatives of. Or how short.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ChesterKhan I also mentioned Roncalli. Now, he did NOT attack the Latin Mass (on the contrary if you look at Veterum Sapientia), BUT he poisoned Pacem in Terris with its § 6.

Which, very un-chestertonianly, says that stars, planets, coments and all that move by blind necessities and therefore laws totally other than the courteousy between themselves and foremost obedience to God which Our Lord called the whole Law.

Holy Khan

Oh ye of little faith. Pope Francis stood against gay marriage in his native country. He is utterly against abortion. Read his record.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Francis#Teachings

Wikipedia may not be a reliable resource. But it can't be too far from the truth, especially given the citations.

Pope Francis is, as he's said, "a son of the Church". And he's a good son.

Thank you for taking Pope John XXIII out of context, like a good fundamentalist Protestant would, and not a good Catholic. If you read the whole section you cite, instead of wasting time looking for the section sign, you will see Pope John XXIII said exactly the opposite.

Finally, as for the paedophilia scandal, I will sympathise with you there, because the Church asked the secular authorities of the time what the best course of action with paedophiles was. And it was the psychologists who, unwittingly, were lax.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I think the psychologists were very deliberately lax.

And the Church men (if such) who asked them were deliberately ignoring the Canons of 1568 by Pope St Pius V against such and even more lenient abuses, and favouring instead a consultation of ... a new priesthood of Apollo Delphicus. You know the Gnothi Seauton idol.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Where in section 6 does Roncalli say that stars and sun are ALSO ruled by the Moral law?

I recall the section as saying twice exactly the opposite, that human behaviour is exceptional in being so ruled. That the rest of the Universe is not moral. At least as far as material things and large scale is concerned.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Here it is:

6. But the mischief is often caused by erroneous opinions. Many people think that the laws which govern man's relations with the State are the same as those which regulate the blind, elemental forces of the universe. But it is not so; the laws which govern men are quite different. The Father of the universe has inscribed them in man's nature, and that is where we must look for them; there and nowhere else.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The point is, neither Chesterton nor St Thomas would have agreed that the Universe is basically blind elemental forces regulated only by mathematical constants and such types of laws.

Part I Question 110. How angels act on bodies
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1110.htm

Part I Question 70. The work of adornment, as regards the fourth day
Article 3. Whether the lights of heaven are living beings?
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1070.htm#article3

Holy Khan

And again, you are deliberately misreading Pope John XXIII when you infer that in Pacem in Terris. He says exactly the opposite.

But you, like a goddamn (and I mean, with every ounce of strength the word has, "cursed by God") Protestant, twist his words and take them out of context to "say" whatever makes you feel better for not giving him the respect he's due as a Pope.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

• a) whether I be like a Protestant or not, I am not one.
• b) if he DID say that stars also obey MORAL laws, what sentence makes that clear?

All sentences I read in this only made it out as if man, by the fact of obeying a MORAL law (or disobeying it) were totally exceptional in the universe.

So, prove me wrong.

Holy Khan

Pope John states very clearly that the universe is not merely a collection of blind, random elemental forces.

"That a marvelous order predominates in the world of living beings and in the forces of nature, is the plain lesson which the progress of modern research and the discoveries of technology teach us. ...Yes; out of nothing He made all things, and filled them with the fullness of His own wisdom and goodness."

God, one way or another, runs the whole of creation. All laws in it come from Him.

The difference Pope John is marking out isn't between us and the natural world, but between our relation to governments. It is not the same as the way nature relates to its ruler, God. Rather our rulers are men, too, and the moral law is within, because God placed it there.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"That a marvelous order predominates in the world of living beings and in the forces of nature"

A marvellous order does not equal a voluntary direction.

He considered Solar System as sth involving Earth as a planet and guided - in a marvellous order no doubt - by the continually displaced equilibrium between gravitation pulling inward and inertia pushing tangentially around a common centre of gravity for any two bodies. With Sun as the so much heaviest body that its mass surrounds the common centre of gravity.

If that is not rank heresy as per 1633, at least it is heterodox.

I consider Earth is inside the Solar System but not part of it, that God voluntarily keeps it still in the centre, that God voluntarily turns the Universe around it each less than a day, that an angel is making the Sun lag behind it so much it is rounded by the Universe (at a kind of equator called the zodiak) each year and rounds the Earth itself in precisely one day. That another angel is making the Moon lag behind even more. It is rounded by the Zodiak in only one month. That each of the planets (apart from Sun and Moon which are technically planets too) is carried by an angel so that it daily (with some tempo rubato as with stars going faster and moon slower) turns around the Earth while also making a periodic orbit around the Sun, which along with the orbit of the Sun around the Zodiak forms a florid pattern.

These angels might use gravitation but are not directed by it. Their marvellous order is, like the order in mankind, an order of Love for God and Neighbour, i e very obviously obedience to God as their Choreographer and courtesy to each other as dancers in the same ballet.

THIS rather than the Newtonian stuff is what I find when reading St Thomas Aquinas.

If in a moment quasi formally denying it Roncalli was perhaps nevertheless no heretic, profiting from a licence dating since the Settele case, he was nevertheless heterodox, lacking in Apostolicity of Doctrine, and hence not canonisable. Even with the one miracle, whatever it was. I do obviously not count Vatican II as a "second miracle". Any more than I would count Reformation as a miracle as to Martin Luther or defeating Segregation as a miracle as to Martin Luther King.

Pat Aherne

They're not intelligent viewpoints, are they?

Pat Aherne

@Holy Khan I'm so glad the pope, on advice for the bishops, has moved against those that sought to use the Latin mass as a means of schism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Pat Aherne Which ones are not intelligent viewpoints?

"has moved against those that sought to use the Latin mass as a means of schism."

If "schism" means not agreeing with the modernism of Bergoglio, the one reason to be glad for it is, his crackdown on what is often simply orthodoxy (not always, alas) will force some to come to terms where the papacy is located - exiled in Topeka.

4)

Don't mention Bergoglio in this context!

Holy Khan

Beg pardon?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ChesterKhan "4) It is the only thing that talks as if it were the truth; as if it were a real messenger refusing to tamper with a real message. "

Does that sound like the man who was prepared to welcome aliens as our friends and brothers and baptise them if they wanted it?

Meaning obviously clearny non-human such.

Do you remember why Pope Zachary (St Zachary, wans't it?) was on the verge of excommunicating one Irishman called Vergil?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01581a.htm

Holy Khan

And Pope Celestine III signed a confession of Arianism under duress. And Alexander VI - or Benedict IX, at any rate - was a corrupt jackass.

A Pope may have his own personal opinions without being the doom of the Church.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Sure ... but Bergoglio gave an indulgence for following "Pontifex" on twitter.

He WANTS people to attend more to his personal opinions than to the dogmas of the Church.

Alexander VI was perhaps corrupt, he was even at least temporarily a jackass to his son Cesare, when forcing him to accept a bishopric.

But he was a jackass as father of Cesare, not as Holy Father.

And when Bergoglio showed up on the phone basically forcing priests in Buenos Aires to give Communion to an adulteress (as if only an unfaithful party were guilty) that was perhaps not under duress. He did it Monday before "canonisation" of non-canonisables. Wednesday it was made official, possibly on a youtube. Same day the Crucifix fell over and killed a young man - who had lived on a street I prefer to call Roncalli street to the actual administrative name it has.

Some have claimed it fell down the next day - but that was when another frog of his was being publicised on youtube, his calling aliens "brothers" ... I mentioned your friend Robin Dude was being better than he on that one.

Holy Khan

The Pope should not even be a father of physical children!!!

Please s top playing games. The Pope is officially orthodox, whatever he may say to the press or otherwise.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"The Pope should not even be a father of physical children"

Take that one with Sts Peter and Petronilla when and if you get up to Heaven, will you.

"The LAJC executive director added that at the end of the luncheon, the Pope and the Jewish leaders together intoned Psalm 133 in Hebrew, which says, “How good and pleasant it is when G-d’s people live together in unity!”"

http://www.worldjewishcongress.org/en/news/14362/pope_francis_hosts_argentine_jewish_leaders_for_kosher_lunch%20

But of course, World Jewish Congress does not count, does it?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ordination sacerdotale 1468
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandre_VI
Naissance 13 septembre 1475 Rome
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesare_Borgia OK, considering the dates, you have a point.

Holy Khan

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
Out with it. Was Vatican II legitimate or what? If it was, you're barking up the wrong tree. If it wasn't, you are a Protestant with no Pope.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If Vatican II was legitimate, Protestants with no Pope are not all that badly off.

If it wasn't, considering it legitimate is not a test of Catholicism.

In my view, at the very least certain documents in it were not real documents of a real council in and of the Church, but contain Judaising errors. Gaudium et Spes heavily overvalues school education, for one.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ChesterKhan
"Pope Celestine III signed a confession of Arianism under duress"

I took time to check.

Not so, apparently:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Celestine_III

Holy Khan

Ah. Thank you for pointing that out. You're right. But there was a Pope who did: Liberius. (Although on further examination, it was nothing doctrinally serious anyway. Nevertheless, he was either a diplomat, or a coward.)

Nevertheless... "Protestants with no Pope are not all that badly off"? Are you mad? They have no sacraments! They have no episcopal authority nor apostolic succession! Their "gospel" is so diluted it hardly even acknowledges Jesus as the Son of God - or even there being a God among some!

Speaking of which, who gave you authority over bishops? Who gave you, a layman, power to say an oecumenical council is wrong? God Himself? Furnish proof, then.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Liberius did get himself in trouble. He did also clear himself later.

Between those two occasions in his life, Felix II was counted as Pope. As far as I know, he had previously been an Antipope - not the doctrinally bad kind but simply the usurping kind. Nevertheless, when Liberius resumed the papacy, that in-between papacy of Felix II counted as a real papacy. And Felix II is a Saint.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I did not say positively that "Protestants with no Pope are not that badly off", I said they are not that badly off if Vatican II is a legitimate council.

Text:

"It follows that the separated Churches(23) and Communities as such, though we believe them to be deficient in some respects, have been by no means deprived of significance and importance in the mystery of salvation. For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them as means of salvation which derive their efficacy from the very fullness of grace and truth entrusted to the Church."

Source:

Vatican site : Vatican II : Unitatis Redintegratio (English)
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19641121_unitatis-redintegratio_en.html

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"They have no sacraments!"

Except baptism and marriage and invalid sacraments.

"They have no episcopal authority nor apostolic succession!"

That is where your comparison between Catholics rejecting Vatican II and Protestants fail. Unless you would say that bishops not accepting it lack jurisdiction. Even so they have apostolic succession.

"Their "gospel" is so diluted it hardly even acknowledges Jesus as the Son of God - or even there being a God among some!"

That is very different from one Protestant sect to another. Even within certain greater ones, it is as different from one school to another as Mgr Lefèbvre is from Hans Küng.

C S Lewis was hardly comparable to Dean Inge, was he? And Kent Hovind is perhaps a bit more orthodox than Charles Templeton was even before his apostasy?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Speaking of which, who gave you authority over bishops?"

Over bishops in good standing with the Church? No one.

Over bishops apostasising from the faith? God. God gave that authority to every Catholic. And St Robert Bellarmine says so too.

Of course, so long as there is an UNDOUBTED Pope, he steps in to judge heretical bishops, and up till judging a bishop heretical he supplies the lacking authority of the heretical bishop for the latter's jurisdictional acts.

But basically, "if salt looseth its savour, it is good for nothing but to be cast out and trod under feet". And God said this to the Twelve after saying they were the salt of the Earth.

And they were the first bishops.

"But when either the Roman Pontiff or the Body of Bishops together with him defines a judgment, they pronounce it in accordance with Revelation itself, which all are obliged to abide by and be in conformity with, that is, the Revelation which as written or orally handed down is transmitted in its entirety through the legitimate succession of bishops and especially in care of the Roman Pontiff himself, and which under the guiding light of the Spirit of truth is religiously preserved and faithfully expounded in the Church.(45*) The Roman Pontiff and the bishops, in view of their office and the importance of the matter, by fitting means diligently strive to inquire properly into that revelation and to give apt expression to its contents;(46*) but a new public revelation they do not accept as pertaining to the divine deposit of faith.(47*)"

Vatican site : Vatican II : Lumen Gentium
http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

It seems this implies there could be situations where apparent Pope and Bishops in an apparent council were involved in NOT properly inquiring into the revelation and that then even a layman who had inquired a bit more properly would be in a situation to state so.

You know who first called Nestorius a heretic after he had denied Our Lady the title Mother of God and reserved for Her only Mother of Christ? A layman in his pew in Constantinople.

Except it seems back then pews were not yet invented in the Church. Even now Orthodox stand up during Holy Mass.

Holy Khan

"It seems this implies there could be situations where apparent Pope and Bishops in an apparent council were involved in NOT properly inquiring into the revelation and that then even a layman who had inquired a bit more properly would be in a situation to state so."

Here's the problem with that: WHAT OTHER POPE IS THERE?

Are you going to become one of those Palmarian heretics, who believe Jesus AND Mary are equally in the Eucharist, body, blood, soul, and in Jesus's case divinity?

Are you going to join Pope Michael? Who suddenly declared himself "Pope"?

When Our Lord says "the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the church" I think He also meant that Rock on which it was founded, Peter.

Now, there have been times where the legitimacy of a Bishop of Rome has been seriously challenged: the Western Schism, the Avignon Papacy, that sort of thing.

There is no such challenge to the Holy See right now. No one in the past 550 years has ever claimed that we have an illegitimately selected Pope - most importantly, none of the potential candidates for being the next Pope. No cardinal has come out and challenged that. I find that odd, if what certain "traditionalist" Catholics say is true.

Holy Khan

There are other problems with your exegesis of that passage, but I am short on time and cannot address them right now.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Are you going to join Pope Michael? Who suddenly declared himself "Pope"?"

He did not declare himself Pope, he declared a Sedisvacancy (when probably Krav was Pope in Zagreb - the real guy with a conclave, unlike the Palmarian guy whom I had previously joined), was elected (probably invalidly, since probably Krav was Pope), was much later (months before Krav died) ordained a priest and following day, Gaudete Sunday in 2011, consecrated Bishop.

When Krav died and Benedict resigned, Michael I and Alexander IX were left as conclvists, both having at least material apostolic succession as at least sacramental bishops. Of the two, Alexander IX is a Feeneyist. He has canonised Feeney. He has dognmatised the point and thus more or less declared Pope St Pius X was a heretic. So, Michael I would be my choice.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"When Our Lord says "the gates of Hell shall not prevail against the church" I think He also meant that Rock on which it was founded, Peter."

True, true, Trumpkin!

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Now, there have been times where the legitimacy of a Bishop of Rome has been seriously challenged: the Western Schism, the Avignon Papacy, that sort of thing."

Since 1950 there has not been one year in which there was only one Pope. I am not into the Canadian sect that ordains women, though, until I found that out about them, that was my first choice.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"There is no such challenge to the Holy See right now."

You are dreaming. There is.

You might consider it is less serious, but there is. In so far as you consider "Pope Francis" to represent the Holy See, that is.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"No one in the past 550 years has ever claimed that we have an illegitimately selected Pope"

That has not been true since Vatican II.

Heard of Pope in Red thesis?

Heard H. Holiness (in reasonable probability) Michael tell the story of Abbé Georges de Nantes?

Or, have you heard of Mélanie Calvat saying the Blessed Virgin told her that Rome will be the Seat of Antichrist?

If you have heard her book about that came on the index, look again. SEARCH editions of Index Librorum. There are scans on the internet of that of Leo XIII and a copy to table format of that of 1948.

Mélanie Calvat, as far as I could see, was NOT on either of them.

Holy Khan

Siri never subscribed to the hypothesis bearing his name. No one ever recognised it except a few fringe wackos. He died without a "successor". Jesus's promise contradicts this hypothesis because of that.

Public revelation trumps private. For the aforementioned reason, if that letter is real, either you are misinterpreting it, or it is not a real vision. This is exactly what Protestant Bible-thumpers do with the "whore of Bablyon" bit in the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse), BTW. Not a handsome comparison is it?

I have nothing to say about de Nantes, except that he sounds like all the dozens of other schismatics - and like Protestant Darbyists, the "Trail of Blood" hypothesis, or the "search for the historical Jesus" crowd of bible "scholars". That gives me reason to suspect him as off.

What all of these fail to do is offer a legitimate successor to the Pope. Like the Protestants, you offer divers dates, places, and Popes where the lineage could have broken off, but no good solid evidence that it did. And in an effort to nay-say the Papacy, you, like Protestants, are willing to throw away Jesus's guarantees to us (see Matthew 16:18ff).

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Siri never subscribed to the hypothesis bearing his name."

Never is a large word.

He can have subscribed to it for a time before selected confidants and then have denied it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"No one ever recognised it except a few fringe wackos."

There was a time when Catholics as such were considered a few fringe wackos.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"He died without a "successor"."

That is disputed. If he lost papacy by not speaking up when Abbé Georges de Nantes had filed the accusation against Paul VI (which Paul VI should be judging if he were the Pope and which Siri/Gregory XVII should be judging if he were so), and that in 1976, the papacy would have been vacant in 1978.

And the trads would have been correct in assessing the Vatican occupied by apostates and in electing Mirko Fabris who took the name Krav.

When the latter died in 2012, apart from Palmarians, who can be considered as following a false prophecy, pretty safely so on cosmological grounds (say I as an ex-Palmarian), there were two papacies outside the Vatican: as mentioned Michael and Alexander, so one of the previous to death of Pope Krav Antipopes would be able to become the real Pope (as Felix II after Liberius left papacy vacant by apostasy, as was thought, till he came back and claimed to have acted under duress).

Therefore there would not be any breach of the promises of Christ.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"This is exactly what Protestant Bible-thumpers do with the "whore of Bablyon" bit in the Book of Revelation (Apocalypse), BTW. Not a handsome comparison is it?"

Chesterton once said that Protestant reformers said things when they did not need saying. And that Catholics would have to state things when Protestants cease saying them - which would sound the same.

He said that in another context, namely of Puritanism.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"Public revelation trumps private. For the aforementioned reason, if that letter is real, either you are misinterpreting it, or it is not a real vision."

The Public Revelation given or completed by Christ to the Apostles certainly trumps all private revelation.

That is why I left Palmarianism when it was in conflict with Biblical Cosmology.

Though less directly so than the §6 of Pacem in Terris.

Now, Pacem in Terris does not claim to be an infallible document. However, it makes its author NOT perfect in Apostolicity of Doctrine.

Therefore NOT canonisable.

Therefore a claim to infallibly canonising HIM is a sure sign that who makes it is NOT Pope. The Papal lign must have been broken at some point before Bergoglio showed that side on 27th of April this year.

I am not sure what letter you refer to. Pope Leo's letter to Melanie Calvat was not my source. What I said about it - read me again more thoroughly and do not let a priest who reads me sloppily dictate answers you know are not to the point - was that it was the only way in which he forbade Melanie Calvat to speak up about "Rome will become the seat of the Antichrist". She had already done so in a book, the book was NOT condemned and NOT put on the index. Melanie Calvat was just put off the case. She had delivered the message and was to do no more. That ruined her life. BUT the French bishops thereafter pretended her booklet had been put on the index, which is not the case.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"And in an effort to nay-say the Papacy"

Neither I now nor Abbé de Nantes then naysaid what we recognise as Papacy.

If one though Montini was Antichrist or if one thinks Bergoglio is, the easy way out would be to join Protestants or certain anti-Ecumenical Eastern Orthodox.

Abbé de Nantes took a hard way and a risk.

My point is that then risk paid off. Paul VI betrayed the sovereignty of the Vatican, he called Italian police to get Abbé de Nantes out.

He had not claimed Montini was Antichrist. He had assembled files about his acts that could be seen as severely schismatical or heretical. He did not presume to judge the apparent Pope Paul VI while the latter was his apparent superior. What he did was give his apparent superior a chance to judge the case. Montini blew it.

Could Pope Paul VI (if he was Pope) have judged himself a heretic and thereby deposed himself? He was of course partial in the case? Yes, but he could have appointed judges to judge him. Pope Urban VIII was also partial in the 1633 trial of Galileo, since he had been insulted in the Dialogo. That is precisly why he stepped aside from judging and appointed judges. Only when they had judged without his direct interference did he as Pope confirm the judgement. Paul VI could have done a similar thing, if he had been Pope.

Holy Khan

Blah blah blah, you're still dodging that there is no reasonable contender to the See.

Benedict IX and Alexander VI killed any pretense that being Pope meant you were an heroically noble man, so excuse if I don't care in the slightest about your loudmouthed de Nantes's sob-story - which, incidentally, he continued bellowing at future Popes, like a good goddamn schismatic rebel. Like one of the Legions of Hell itself.

We have no reason to assume God abandoned the authority He established in Peter. You have no alternative but to accept Paul VI, John XXIII, John Paul I and II, Benedict XVI, and Francis as your Popes. Any alternative despairs of God's mercy, or is so irrationally insane as to make one wonder whether you are not merely an anti-Catholic dressed up as a "Catholic".

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"any pretense that being Pope meant you were an heroically noble man,"

I am not saying Bergoglio is not a noble man. I am saying he has not Apostolicity of DOCTRINE.

What about actually reading what I say?

Yes, when it comes to nobility of character, humanly speaking, Roncalli had some such too.

Now, the "sob story" of de Nantes was not something he "bellowed" as far as I know.

It was only these last weeks I even heard of it, and I have been around not just trads but even sedes for over a decade.

It was "Paul VI" saying about accusations against himself "who am I to judge?" precisely as Bergoglio did about homos wanting to join the clergy.

"Any alternative despairs of God's mercy, or is so irrationally insane as to make one wonder whether you are not merely an anti-Catholic dressed up as a "Catholic"."

Calling out "irrationally insane" has traditionally never been a judgement used by Catholics against even very certain Antipopes.

If Bergoglio, Bawden, and what ever the other Spaniard or Argentinian's last name was before assuming papacy, all condemn each other as Antipopes, the rational thing to do is to call a council to decide.

Which could work out against Bergoglio.

Your "irrationally insane" charge about Orthopapism reminds me a bit about Miraz in Prince Caspian. And not the least of anything that a real Catholic like Chesterton would have said.

"you're still dodging that there is no reasonable contender to the See."

Giving what I consider as reasonable contenders after "Paul VI" showed himself a a treasonable one against the Papacy is hardly dodging anything, is it?