Showing posts with label Dr G Ashenden. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dr G Ashenden. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 30, 2026

News from England


Is the King a 'Traitor?'
Dr Gavin Ashenden | 30 June 2026
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ovHW5mb6qUI


Obviously, in one sense an earthly king, just as an earthly high priest, can be a traitor.

Namely to God.

4:22 Given how little Queen Victoria did against Cambridge Liberal Theology (possibly the gateway for Marcan priority, a Kulturkampf horror), I wonder if she didn't commit a worse treason.

Her grandson (my King's grandfather) Charles Edward, the last prince of Sachsen-Coburg Gotha, has much more to do with Aktion T-4 than either of:

  • Austro-Bavarian folklore
  • Guido von List
  • even the Darwinist Rudolf Jung, founder of German National Socialism in Bohemia in 1905 (he wanted separation from Habsburgs and Anschluss to Hohenzollerns or to a Republican Great Germany)
  • the constitutional technicalities, according to some quirks, according to some breach of constitution in the Machtübernahme.


Because he was imbued with the Darwinism or even Galtonism, that Chesterton fought against. Because he was close to doctors. And because they were imbued with it as well.

11:03 In other words. 1688 and 89, the Parliament did too much. (The Irish are likely to recall that).

This time it is likely to not do enough ...

Plus, you have already described it as one of the aggressors (Left Wing Government corresponding to the Majority in House of Commons).

11:18 Parliaments regularly do or accept things the people have not been consulted about.

In 1842, the Swedish people wasn't consulted in any referendum about introducing the school obligation (those without schooling at home or on the expense of the home, had to attend a parochial school, like one which Haga in Westrogothia, presumably now Greater Gothenburg, built only by 1850).

King and Parliament cosigned the deal without consulting the people.

14:11 (offend Christians ...) It might of course offend God as well.

Or it is possible something else will.

I mean, as a Geocentric who considers the visible universe moved each day by one proving even to Pagans his everlasting or inexhaustible power by never failing to do so any day ... I take that somewhat seriously. Some Heliocentric Kantians may take it less seriously ... not by my advise, not that they care about it ...

Let me be precise, I mean the Triune God.

You know, the Son said sth about the Father keeping the Universe going even after Friday Nightfall in Jerusalem TZ (John 5:17 takes place some hours, less than 24, later).

Thursday, December 28, 2023

Two Videos on Fiducia Supplicans. Neither is, Thank God, Pro-Sodomy


New blog on the kid: Why I am not using the tip of Babylon Bee · Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Two Videos on Fiducia Supplicans. Neither is, Thank God, Pro-Sodomy · AiG commented on Fiducia Supplicans

From the latter of them:



Blessing Gay Couples? What Does it Mean? | Fr. Gregory Pine, O.P.
Pints With Aquinas | 23.XII.2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCmKsjwF0CA


6:12 Do you admit or do you not admit, that one of the sacraments open to people with SSA is marriage?

I e, a man of that inclination can and has to decide if his reluctance to be intimate with someone of the opposite sex is greater than his desire for sexual satisfaction, or whether his desire for sexual satisfaction is stronger than his reluctance for intimacy with the other sex?

Because, if you do not admit that, how is your theology not a doctrine of demons reading in tea leaves that certain persons just can't marry, not bc of physical impairment, but because of a quirk in their desires?

12:30 Sounds like a perfect cue for Bishop Chaput (if truly bishop, Novus Ordo orders are not universally recognised by Sedes and the late Pope Michael I did not explicitly recognise them), to bless some two male persons involved in a gay couple to look for a lesbian couple for a permanent partner exchange ...

They would cease to be to each other distractions from marriage, and become a peculiar form but still kind of wingmen leading each other to marriage. If they are open to that solution, that is.

22:33 "The call to chastity is not a rejection" ... always supposing the persons have a choice in which chastity to pursue.

Svante Pääbo, a countryman of mine, thought he was exclusively homosexual. His wife that she was exclusively lesbian.

Their son would not have existed if both had been:
a) Catholics and
b) up against a clergy affirming there is precisely one type of chastity that's open to "their kind" ...

23:14 Humani Generis in 1950 left clergy free to be perfectly orthodox, or to believe God was a monstrous child abuser against Adam while he was small and deprived of actually human parents, since his progenitors would have shared his biology, but not human soul.

Fiducia Supplicans (73 years later, perhaps a symbolic number) leaves clergy free to do the Chaput thing, not sure he actually used blessings in that pastoral, or to do the "Father" Martin thing ...

It seems both documents were drafted by men (not necessarily both Popes, not necessarily both Antipopes) who could not make up their mind on what the Church should do.

24:40 The comment seems to imply someone having SSA in order to be chaste — has to struggle.

The struggle for a person could like not be the difficulty to get a spouse with some acceptance for the difficulty, no, it has to be a struggle to be chaste?

Unfortunately sounds like you go, someone either self qualifies or is rumoured to be a man of SSA, you conclude from the tea leaves and Delphic oracles of modern culture, that unfortunately are now part of Seminary Education, I mean psychology, that they are "not called" or even "not qualified" to marriage.

II — II, QQ 92 and 95, please!

SHOCK, DESPAIR & REASSESSMENT: 'FIDUCIA SUPPLICANS'-THE THREAT TO CATHOLIC INTEGRITY
Dr G Ashenden | 22 Dec. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4O_KwO0WiYI


2:43 There was a pro-evolution lobby infiltrating the Church in the 1940's.
Like, pretending Adam had biological ancestors.

Back then and in Humani Generis, it appeared only permissible to such people to have this biological ancestry strictly non-human.

This obviously makes God into a child abuser. Hence, see Romans 1 for what could be expected to happen, and also did happen.

If Vatican II was not a council, the thing later on infiltrated by another type of evolutionists, to which Adam was not strictly the first human being, does not really concern the Catholic Church but a counter-Church. Either way, that even more pagan view of the matter has in Romans 1 manner actually got closer to "classical" homosexuality ... except of course the real classical model was in fact often youth abuse.

But given this, I actually marvel at so much even being OK in FS. I dreaded an import of "gay blessings" like in CoE ... its clear that the blessings of which there is a question are NOT precisely that, but vague enough to give room for priests who genuinely want to end a situation of sin, should a gay couple have the temerity to approach them for a blessing.

3:14 Indeed. That's precisely why certain sins of the mind can push one directly out of the Church.

Meaning for instance evolutionists are not really Catholics.

15:29 Pope Michael II neither has § 283 of the CCC, nor Fiducia Supplicans.

In the late 14th C. schism, the right pope was the one who was in Rome, when there was another one who wasn't ... but is this always the case?

16:47 Jeszcze Polska Nie Zginęła ...!

19:38 I have a sentiment that Chaput of Philadelphia would know a way to apply FS without heteropraxy.

"For the purpose of ending your sin and finding spouses you actually can marry, for the duration of 1 month from now, as long as you are faithful to this intention, ..."

The problem is, "Pope Francis" repudiates the praxis of casuistry. Thereby depriving the non-heterodox words from clarifications that would also make their application non-heteroprax.

21:50 Repudiation should take this form, namely:
  • ask for a clear rejection of the wrong kind of blessings
  • ask for a clear acceptance of the right kind of blessings, to people at least willing to try to end sinful relations, or who at the very least are not excluding it, more than St. Mary Magdalene excluded finding back to chastity.

    (which involves casuistry, sth a Jesuit is somewhat paradoxical in finding insupportable ...).


Similarily, the ambiguity of Humani Generis should be repudiated:
  • ask for a clear rejection of Adam having biological ancestors, either bestial (which would make God a child abuser to him) or human (which makes him not the first human and God an abuser in relation to original sin)
  • ask for a clear affirmation of Adam having been formed directly by God and being a real individual, not a figure of speech.


In this doctrinal thing, there is no human weakness of the flesh that should be pampered to, heretics and apostates, unlike sodomites, are not victims to strong appetitive impulsions that their will does not master.

22:45 When it comes to changing the mind, the §283 of the CCC, endorsed by Wojtyla and Ratzinger, was a "change of mind" (i e out of the Church and Her mind and into sth else) compared to all centuries of comment on Genesis 1 through 3, or Romans 5 or related matters in the Creeds and Decrees.

Bergoglio is more cautious than they.

23:21 Had already been there and done that.

On Pentecost 2009, I was at my last Orthodox service, at which Ratzinger was attacked as uncharitable for his remarks about condoms in Africa. I can't see how the Neohimerites are not "Father Martins" while promoting that as a charitable solution by "iconomya" as I suppose it's pronounced in Greek these days ... (οἰκονομία)

Took refuge in Pope Michael I, whom I already knew ordained and consecrated since Gaudete weekend 2011 (or Church year 2012), and, neither he, nor his successor, has so far endorsed either CCC § 283 or the heterodox interpretation of Fiducia Supplicans.

23:45 Sorry, but it seems you are buying their publicity without examination.

Neohimerites and Soviet era Patriarcate of Moscow (Paleohimerite on the eponymous calendar question, but Neohimerite on basically everything else) do not value Apostolic tradition all that much. They will more likely claim apostolic tradition for claims that are totally modernist.

Paleohimerites (except the Paleohimerites in Calendar only, already referred to) do usually not value Catholics. To them, and some Neohimerites, we need unconditional rebaptism, we need to repent for killing Peter the Aleut when he refused to communicate in Azymes, we need to repent for Stepinac and Pius XII plotting the genocide of Serbs in Jasenovac, which is a ridiculous reversal of the historic truth. If there is any truth to their suspicion that Stepinac got Nikolai Velimirovic into Dachau, it very certainly was to have him not get killed in Jasenovac ... and indeed, he got out of Dachau alive, as did major important political prisoners, like Kurt von Schuschnigg or Bruno Kreisky.

Lijepa nasa domovino!

Croatia — second lowest abortion rate in Europe after Poland.

Serbia — about as many abortions as the US ...

25:18 What about looking at the last papal election, Vienna, July 2023? A bit less than a year of Sedevacancy after the passing away of Pope Michael I?

25:46 What's wrong with Peronist?

Don't blame Juan Perón for the heterodoxy of a man who was 19 and probably a bar bouncer, when he was deposed by the Junta.

27:03 Are your Orthodox friends suggesting I'm demonised, and is it really because I refuse to demonise (more usual sense) Cardinal Stepinac?

Or because I refuse to believe in the martyrdom of Peter the Aleut?

Or are your Anglican friends (and the Catholic lawyer of Anglican moral views on Constitutions, James Bogle) stating I am demonised (your sense) because I refuse to demonise (more usual sense) Kurt von Schuschnigg or Juan Perón?

The attack on Peronism is to me an insult to Germany ...

Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Merit_of_the_Federal_Republic_of_Germany


Was carried by Juan Domingo Perón, while now he carries or will carry after Purgatory (RIP) greater glories than the Bundesrepublik could bestow.

Friday, October 20, 2023

Doctor Gavin Ashenden is Mainly Right


Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: Doctor Gavin Ashenden is Mainly Right · Taylor Marshall and a Franciscan are Discussing the Pseudo-Term Narcissist · New blog on the kid: At a Certain Time, Lots of People were Reading Thomas Anthony Harris

My bad memory, while I corrected the title, the URL still makes Dr. Ashenden my namesake ...

Is the Pope a Catholic? Continuity or Contradiction? Ashenden Scripted.
Dr G Ashenden, 5 Oct. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QJoUJj6CHc


4:28 Can one have a slight hope of him meaning sth like a gay couple approaching Chaput, emeritus of Philadelphia, with words like:

"We have decided to end our sin, but not by celibacy, we have decided to look for a Lesbian couple in a gay bar, to propose a partner exchange, then marriages of the so formed couples of man and woman, can you bless us"
and Chaput responding:
"For the hope of finding a Lesbian couple within a month, and ending your and their sin, this blessing is valid, now kneel and ..."

or need one fear he had sth very different in mind with sinister overtones to what was lurking around the corner in the CoSw when I left them?

5:27 I think a CoE was well looking back to a "traditional" prejudicate by a certain Cranmer about the marital status of a certain king, when it introduced same sex blessings in recent times, I think the CoSw did so even sooner.

Perhaps Bergoglio feels very close to that tradition?

Hint. He gave the modernist "bishop" Tony Palmer, a man not just ridiculed, but rightly ridiculed by Fundies, the funeral proper to a Catholic bishop. Not just the funeral as a corporeal act of mercy, no, all the pomp involved in burying a Catholic bishop. Had he died first, he would have wanted Palmer to give him the funeral proper to an Anglican bishop.

5:45 I tried to look Fernandez up, and fortunately, first hit was Leylah Fernandez -- a much more pleasant person, I am sure.

Indeed, Victor strikes an ominous note in my memory ...

7:05 Good, but this would also involve reaffirming that the Catholic positions on Genesis early chapters are:

  • one moment creation, six literal days creation, gap theory and day age theory, but NOT Theistic Evolution
  • in the misapplied generosity of Humani Generis reaffirm that Adam was created by God with no biological ancestry
  • a global or at least Old-World tricontinental Flood
  • a reasonably short period from Adam to Moses or at least Adam to Abraham, like at least not more than doubling the time span of Genesis 5 and 11 genealogies, definitely not inverting the proportooion of stated and omitted generations in Matthew one, on pain of losing historicity of Genesis 3, which is pretty key to more than one thing


which would lead to investigate the science part which:
  • excludes Gap Theory (no cataclysm found in Quaternary period)
  • excludes Day Age (no serialisation of Geologic periods will correspond to the order of the creation days)
  • excludes a continental only Flood (the strata found in the old world are basically the strata found in the New World, and you need more than one classified stratum to account for the Flood, since the Permian will be lacking here and the Cretaceous will be lacking there and so on)
  • however, allows (if geostratigraphic and K-Ar dating are allowed to be spurious) C14 to accomodate to a literally short number of generations in Genesis 5 and 11, no need to add a third, let alone a fourth or fifth Cainan, as Father Fulcran Vigouroux suggested


The last three men you would refer to as Popes have consistently since at least 1992 done the exact reverse of all of this, much like Bergoglio seems to be doing the reverse of Chaput when it comes to the pastoral of persons with SSA, some of whom may be in "couples" ...

9:21 I am sorry, but I think you are mistaken.

The Church has always defined Her repudiation of unmerited slave hunt of hitherto free people on this principle.

There are three allowable criteria for servitude.

  • the bondsman agreeing to it, if for instance he finds himself in starvation and finds the prospect of being a slave a relief (wage arrangements are a version "lite" of this, excluding perpetuality and stipulating that the remuneration allows for freely exchangeable things like money and usually living outside the precincts of the employer);
  • the bondsman deserving it by a crime, and we still have prisons (extreme form: the bondsman needing it by madness, we have mental hospitals and more slave hunt in that area than before, and the Church is not seen to duly stand up against this, calling sane fools and denying them freedoms);
  • the bondsman inheriting it ... we have no legal arrangement for perpetual and hereditary servitude in Christian countries, so, this is not an issue. Should Mauretania convert, it could be an issue.


The point is, the criteria exclude targetting me as a madman because I have "defended slavery" but do not exclude General Lee from keeping those born slaves on his farm, had he preferred that. However, the criterium of charity, and the observation that bondsmen being of a certain skin colour led to slave hunt being encouraged is precisely why the post-Medieval and colonial slavery have been opposed from the time of Gregory XVI on. Precisely as it was the criterium (imperfectly understood by a Calvinist perhaps) that encouraged General Lee to free all of his slaves, prior to 1860.

10:30 §283 as it now stands was arguably also of a very official nature, not just an off the cuff remark by Wojtyla ... (see my comment for timestamp 7:05 for why this is bad).

11:39 That remark* is hypocritic.
I may or may not be guilty in relation to my act on the day of St Agatha in early 1998, but I was certainly exonerated for "putative defense" in the first trial, one month later, and condemned to 3 and a half years in the second trial.

I would not have been involved in doing the act in the first place, if I had not been targetted by the slave hunt of certain modernist experts in detaining people, when it was apparent that courting (in non-obscene words) a girl 14 years my junior (starting when she was near 14) was not landing me in prison.

If one can stand for the provocations that led me to the act, one can also stand for the modern lenience of the sentence. 3 and a half years, of which I served 2/3.

It is not the judicial sentence which has ruined my life up to now, it is rather the "mental health check" follow ups.

The thing I knew was being done to me has been verified, amply. I have been targetted as possibly mentally ill. I have had people do check ups on my luggage as a homeless for suspicions of drug abuse. My favourite drugs are sugar, caffeine and alcohol, in decreasing order. I have had people, notably Muslims (who do not have the Christian views against slave hunt) ask me "how are you?" in so many occasions along the day that it becomes a positive annoyance.

15:05 I hope God provided a faithful shepherd, Michael II, when the previous Pope, Michael I, succumbed to biological entropy.

* Bergoglio's.

_____________________________

Update, 14 days after your video it seems Victor Fernández weighed in ...

// What the Church said is that the homosexual union is not blessed, because it [the Church] has the clear definition of marriage which is a union between a male and female open to new life.

Only that is called matrimony – marriage, only that reality is called that way.

So the blessing that could confuse and not make clear about this reality is not good for the Church.

But perhaps also [they] need blessings, not only one isolated person, but two persons who are asking for a blessing because they want to be faithful to God, they want to be better, they want to grow in their Christian life.

The blessing is not a sacrament. And we mustn’t ask the same conditions [for] a simple blessing that we ask for a sacrament.

Blessing is a sign of the “opera pastorale” [pastoral work], to every people in every situation, and we [need to] know nothing [about] the people with how is his Christian life, the morals and other things [in order] to give the blessing. //


LifeSiteNews : EXCLUSIVE: Cardinal Fernández says blessings are for ‘every’ person in ‘every situation’
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/exclusive-cardinal-fernandez-says-blessings-are-for-every-person-in-every-situation/


What do you make of that?

I think that such an unqualified blessing simply to a gay "couple" without the kind of qualifications I gave, or without other specifications, like the blessing referring to a house or a business deal or a retreat in a monastery (separate cells) or things could be misleading and in fact encourage some to feel encouraged to go on with the sin.

_____________________________

AFTERTHOUGHT

Due to two remarks in the video, I came to reflect on your moral theology.

When Ray Comfort quizzes people to whether they need a Saviour, you may know he asks "have you ever told a lie, ever looked at someone you weren't married to and lusted, ever ..." — the thing is, he gets the process of subjectively getting saved wrong, he mixes venial and mortal sins, but what he is talking about is at least sins.

Is your quiz to verify what someone needs to confess "do you have an addiction? are you pedophile? are you egostic? are you narcissistic?" or things like that?

Because each of these is per se not even a sin. That kind of mix-up in moral theology can be way worse than just getting "the mechanics of personal salvation" wrong.

May I suggest you consult Liguori or moral theologians up to 100 years ago?

Monday, March 20, 2023

On Calvin Robinson


Dr. G. Ashenden supports him:

"Cancelling Calvin Robinson at Easter:- A Catholic Choir strikes". 'Ashenden Scripted'
Dr G Ashenden, 19 March 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46prrod1C8w


4:33 "he has done a very good job of defending Christian marriage"

Not quite.

He has pretended homosexual persons cannot marry. Please note, I said persons, not couples, I agree same sex couples cannot marry.

Now, here is the question I posed him, on which he answered no:

Do you agree:
  • people with same sex attraction have the right to marriage, unless they have the gift of continence;
  • most of them have at least some ability to actual marriage, like Chaput of Philadelphia taught his flock and like Josh Weed practised (though that marriage has now ended in divorce)?


Note, on this, he said no.

That's not a good job of defending Christian marriage.

It's buying in to a determinist ideology which pretends, contrary to the faith, that homosexual people in general are people predetermined to be inable to normal and therefore marital sex. This idea of predetermination is a bit too Calvin-istic in my view.

In fact, the other Calvin, the Reformer, seems to have been homosexual, if he was the Calvin who was branded for sodomy in 1534, and even so, he actually did marry Ydelette de Bure and have children with her.

Guglielmo Marinaro
@Hans-Georg Lundahl Of course homosexual men can shoe-horn themselves into marriages with women (just as heterosexual men can shoe-horn themselves into gay relationships with men). I suspect, however, that those who approve of playing games of this kind with other people’s lives prefer the women chosen for the purpose to be OTHER people’s daughters, sisters, granddaughters etc., definitely NOT THEIRS.

Hans-Georg Lundahl
@Guglielmo Marinaro Look, if I had a lesbian daughter, I would prefer she married an otherwise decent gay man over her "marrying" a woman ...

I obviously prefer to not have the problem in my own family.

I also think the game of "you are homosexual, you should remain celibate then" is an even worse one, there are some who chose celibacy, not all do.

PLUS it's abused against people who are not homosexual.

Again, I don't recommend anyone pretending to be a heterosexual man to get married, and then the wife finds out too late. I do insist that in cases like these, the woman should know where the man is, and vice versa.

@Guglielmo Marinaro Plus, "shoehorn" suggests that homosexual means zero possibility of feeling attraction to the opposite sex - that's just the worst kind, and it still counts as homosexual, even if the same sex attraction is just stronger than the natural one.

Yes, there are men who could not feel attracted to women at all, and I don't think they should try marriage, as long as they feel like that. But I also don't think some other ones should be categorised as these in advance.

Plus, the few gay men heterosexually married I know of, Svante Pääbo and Josh Weed, that's not what happened, shoehorned is not the word.


8:05 There is a problem when "not in the marrying kind" becomes a euphemism for homosexual.

They are indeed less likely to chose marriage, but less likely is not the same as born a eunuch.

As I mentioned, Charles Chaput, former ordinary of Philadelphia, did encourage homosexuals to marry - and some did. Obviously, as he was attacked by a homosexual lobby, this meant real marriage. His action has been labelled "a form of conversion therapy" ... which, given, that marriage after the first good of offspring has a second good of remedy against concupiscence, is not totally off. It's awful his successor has been asking the gay lobby to excuse the diocese for his predecessor.

9:12 Looked up your catechism.

2357 is basically correct, except in so far as to identify "homosexuality" (it's a psychological term and in psychology refers to an inclination) with lived out sodomy (the classical term in moral theology and criminal justice).

2358 - "deep-seated" becomes a bit iffy. My country-man Svante Pääbo thought he was exclusively homosexual, until he met his wife. A lesbian, who had equally considered her lesbianism exclusive. Could these two people have joined fates and flesh and made a child, if they had been involved in your Catholicism, which would have arguably referred them to 2359 and not to Chaput?

Honorable mentions obviously to Philadelphia under Chaput.

This catechism is obviously also faulty in 283, which presents deep time, deep space and "big picture evolution" or "molecules to man evolution" or "microbes to man evolution" as scientific actual discoveries.

Just as in 283 the writers have caved in to superstitions of Galileo, Hubble, Lyell, Darwin, so in 2358 they have caved in to the superstition called psychology.

From Calvin Robinson's no, it is obvious that so has he.

That kind of cowardice is larger scale and therefore more damaging than the cowardice of that clergy in the face of that choir. It is also more direct and explicit.

Given your news, you cannot pretend that at present Catholic clergy are universally courageous and defiant of all error.

10:51 His offense was racism?

I quote the post:*

"There is an argument to be made that English is a nationality, a culture, and an ethnicity, but I argue against anyone who claims to be English, one has to be white."


Good point.

Too bad that to be English one has to be steeped in a culture of the superstitions that go under the label of science, or nearly has to ... but good point nevertheless.

15:18 When His Holiness Pope Michael died on Aug. 2 last year, he had not one time that I learned of backed me up as a blogger in public.

He had done so in private, telling me in PM that this or that post he had read was not objectionable, but never, as far as I know, in public.

As a result, some "well-intentioned" people (whose intentions aren't objectively that good) have been able to go on to treat my blogs as "private" when they are public ones and meant to be that. And as a result of that, I have not had one penny in royalties from books that could otherwise have been printed from them.

Did this stop me from adhering to Pope Michael? No. I didn't do so when I came to know him, back when I was Palmarian, but I did so when your communion "elected Pope Francis" or the months ensuing. Up to then I had been shilly shallying between "Pope Benedict" (both Ecclesia Dei and Novus Ordo), FSSPX, Romanian Orthodox Church.

I had the same problem with FSSPX as Calvin Robertson has with the ordinariate.

But I had one problem more. They were analysing me as perhaps homosexual (contrary to what I had stated myself) and praying to God for me to abide by 2359. Or if it was some other problem they considered as impediment against me marrying. I take this conclusion from the fact they several times over deflected from and joined hands to "keep a secret" every attempt I made both at getting a fiancée and at getting some money for my writing. Once they kind of tokenly opened up a possibility for me, but the one they probably hoped I could marry was one whose younger sister I found more attractive. I left the parish after this leading to an incestuous desire of both sisters, so I had to give up both.

Now, I'll admit, I did after this take the stance to first verify with the sedevacantists how they would support me before I joined them, and in fact, in the end, I didn't join them.

But they would probably say that it was materialistic and mortally sinful of me not to join them before making sure they would support me as a writer, which they didn't, and they would say so even after I had in fact suffered due to the SSPX, and here we have Calvin Robinson claiming this as his excuse for not converting at all, for remaining an Anglican heretic? Shall I find that innocent?

16:04 If you had read my blogs, you would have found me one of the most articulate defenders of the Catholic faith.

Unless of course you hold intensely to paragraphs 2358 and 2359 and obviously on the other issue 283.

* Note

Calvin Robinson's post is here:

Why Enoch was Right
Fr Calvin Robinson, Nov 30, 2022
https://calvinrobinson.substack.com/p/why-enoch-was-right