There is a popular series of books known as the "For Dummies" titles. The books are written on a plethora of topics, from the mundane to the esoteric, and their purpose is to educate people as simply as possible in the basics of said topic. For example, Bookkeeping For Dummies is written very simply by one or more experts on bookkeeping, so that a person completely uneducated in the field can understand the fundamentals. Notice that the books are to be written for dummies, not by them. This past week I had the misfortune of watching an approximately 14 minute long video produced by a Vatican II sect "theologian" and apologist named David L.Gray. I wrote a post regarding the very poor argumentation of Mr. Gray, which he displayed in his article entitled The Four Fatal Errors of Sedevacantism. (See http://introiboadaltaredei2.blogspot.com/2017/11/distorting-sedevacantism.html).
On his website, Gray presents his CV as follows:
Born in 1972, David L. Gray is an American Catholic Theologian and Historian, and the President and Publisher of Saint Dominic’s Media. He holds a Bachelor of Science in Business Administration from Central State University (Ohio) and a Masters of Arts in Catholic Theology from Ohio Dominican University. His published work, ‘Inside Prince Hall (Freemasonry)’ predates his conversion to Catholicism. He currently resides in the Greater Saint Louis area with his wife Felicia. They are active in Queen of Peace Catholic community on Scott Air Force Base. (See http://www.davidlgray.info/aboutme/). It's interesting to see what the Vatican II sect considers a "theologian." Pre-V2, only clerics with a Doctorate in Sacred Theology from an approved Catholic institution of higher learning could be considered true theologians, and only clerics with a Doctorate in Canon Law (also from an approved Catholic institution of higher learning) could be canonists (aka canon lawyers). Now a married layman with a Masters degree can apparently claim that once lofty title.
In his ridiculous article on the alleged "Four Fatal Errors" I critiqued above, I demonstrated how Gray purposely distorts sedevacantist arguments to tear them down. In logic this is known as "straw man arguments," i.e., "when an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument, and then concludes that the opponent’s real argument has been demolished. By so doing, the arguer is said to have set up a straw man and knocked it down, only to conclude that the real man (opposing argument) has been knocked down as well." (See Hurley, Patrick J. "Informal Fallacies." A Concise Introduction to Logic. 9th ed. Australia: Thomson/Wadsworth, , pg. 121).
Mr. Gray never attempted to answer me. Someone sent him my post via Twitter to which he replied, What a BRILLIANT exercise in making strawman and never responding to the crux of the issue. Sedes lean on their own understanding. They don't trust the Holy Spirit. They are like Martin Luther really, by setting up an outside sect.
I tweeted back:
I responded to each of the alleged "Fatal Errors." You are either culpably ignorant or lying about our positions regarding the Mass, etc. I demonstrated how each allegation was false. The only one attacking stawmen is you. I would LOVE to see you reply point by point to me! Needless to say, he never did. Moreover, when someone linked to my post in the comment section of his "Fatal Errors" post, all he had to say was: Sedevacantism is Protestantism. I[t] really doesn't really deserve a thoughtful reply. It's just a lie from the pits of Hell. My post didn't merit a "thoughtful reply" because in order to do so you must first be capable of logical thinking.
Now, on February 26th, Gray puts up a video on his site (also linked to YouTube) entitled How to Destroy Every Sedevacantist Argument, in which he demonstrates that his reason-challenged arguments sink even lower than I had originally believed. The caption to this video reads:
Are you tired of Sedevacantist bull? Want a quick way to destroy all of their arguments and expose them as being the Protestants they are? Then take a listen to this video (YouTube Link) and I’ll explain to you how to destroy every Sedevacantist argument with just Four Words. (See http://www.davidlgray.info/2020/02/26/sedevacantism/).
A man who purposely distorts what sedevacantism is about and can't make a sound, valid argument, now thinks he can "destroy all sedevacantist arguments" with only four words. I don't know if this guy is hubris on steroids or just plain delusional. In the first part of his video he clings tenaciously to the distorted and debunked Four Fatal Errors. I guess he believes if you ignore the actual position of your opponents and the laws of logic they will disappear. Then he reveals his "four (magic?) words" that can supposedly "destroy sedevacantism." Are you ready? Here they are: "Based on your authority." In other words, David Gray believes that sedevacantists lack authority to make any pronouncement about heresy, Vatican II, the post-V2 "popes," and anything else. This absurd proposition, and the equally absurd consequences which flow from it, will be the subject of this post.
No Black and White in the World of Gray
Gray's video is puerile to say the least; and that's actually a charitable characterization. After he references and reasserts his Four Fatal Errors (without the slightest change in their mis-characterizations and inaccuracies), he then announces his Four Words which, he assures us, will defeat every sedevacantist argument and "shut them down," i.e.,---"Based on your authority." He then attempts to demonstrate how his "magic words" work. The video cuts to Gray dressed in a tuxedo and top hat (looking somewhat like a cheesy African-American version of Fred Astaire minus the talent) and he speaks in a deep voice. This is supposed to represent a sedevacantist for some strange reason.
As the sedevacantist, he intones in an ominous voice that Vatican II is heretical. The video cuts back to Gray looking and speaking normally, and he says, "Based on your authority." The film goes back to "sede-David" who says, "No, the heresy is in the documents of Vatican II, it was not in continuity with the Councils before it." "Regular David" says, "Based on your authority." Sede-David says, "No, based on what other popes and councils have said about religious liberty, ecumenism, and salvation." Regular David says, "Based upon your authoritative interpretation of what those documents mean." You get the idea by now.
Here is the linchpin of his argument: "Only the Church can interpret anything that She decreed. Therefore, no one without Magisterial authority can ever discern what any Church teaching means apart from the pope and the bishops in union with him." This presents several salient problems, both in the area of theology and epistemology (the philosophic discipline that studies how we know what we know). He twists and misapplies a valid principle (only the Church can authoritatively pronounce what the correct interpretation of the Bible is and what is to be believed concerning Faith and Morals), which is what leads him to call sedevacantists-- a little further on in his video--"Protestants." Traditionalists allegedly do with Church decrees what Protestants do with Scripture; employ private interpretation.
Why Gray is Wrong:
1. No one could ever know what the Church really teaches.
Sedevacantism rightly acknowledges that the pre- and post-Vatican II teachings are virtually word for word contradictions. Since God is Truth and Truth doesn't change ("Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever." [Hebrews 13:8]), both teachings cannot be true. To give but one example:
Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, para. #3-4 teaches:But some are more easily deceived by the outward appearance of good when there is question of fostering unity among all Christians...Is it not right, it is often repeated, indeed, even consonant with duty, that all who invoke the name of Christ should abstain from mutual reproaches and at long last be united in mutual charity?...But in reality beneath these enticing words and blandishments lies hid a most grave error, by which the foundations of the Catholic faith are completely destroyed. (Emphasis mine).
Wojtyla ("Pope" "St." John Paul II), Ut Unum Sint, para. #42 teaches:
The "universal brotherhood" of Christians has become a firm ecumenical conviction. Consigning to oblivion the excommunications of the past, Communities which were once rivals are now in many cases helping one another: places of worship are sometimes lent out; ...(Emphasis mine).
The Church, prior to Vatican II, always taught through the constant teachings of Her popes, councils, Roman Congregations, catechisms, and approved theologians, that true ecumenism means converting non-Catholics to the One True Church, outside of which no one can be saved. All false sects lead to Hell and are a means of damnation. Yet Vatican II decreed in Unitatis Reditegratio, para. #3, "For the Spirit of Christ has not refrained from using them [false sects] as means of salvation..."(Emphasis mine). Which is it?
Now, if what Gray maintains is true, we have no authority to recognize the Law of Non-Contradiction which tells us that contradictory propositions cannot both be true in the same sense and at the same time, e. g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive. In order for the new teaching of Vatican II not to be heretical, Gray would have to believe that what Catholics were taught by the Magisterium since the Church was founded either (a) evolved into something new or (b) there is no objective meaning to words and ideas; what you thought something meant really means something altogether different.
In either case, objective truth and the ability to have a firm faith in a proposition is utterly destroyed. If truth evolves (as the Modernists teach), what was true today (e.g. abortion is murder) might be false tomorrow (abortion is not murder). If there is no objective meanings to the words and teachings of the past, the Assumption of Mary was true when defined by Pope Pius XII, but it could be interpreted as being not true by "Pope" Francis. Therefore, there is no black or white, right or wrong, true or false. You can never be sure what is objectively true and must always be believed. You are left with a Magisterium that is unable to teach.
2. Every conclusion is a matter of authority; the pope is an oracle.
As a logical corollary of Gray's four magic words, the pope and bishops can interpret anything in any fashion and it must be believed. If Bergoglio were to teach "Thou shalt not kill" means "suicide is wonderful," then you can go and take your life with no fear of damnation. You cannot protest against his teaching because whatever you say to the contrary would be "based on your authority" (of which you are devoid). Then you would be acting like a Protestant. There is no such thing as conclusions based on correct reasoning.
3. Faith is prior to authority.
As Bishop Sanborn so aptly put it:
Faith is metaphysically prior to authority, since authority consists in a relation of the public person to the community, the basis of which is the furtherance of the common good of the community. But it is the Faith which determines the common good, the finality, of the Church. Hence the profession of the true Faith is a condition sine qua non of the assumption of apostolic authority in the Church, and it (the Faith) must be verified before apostolic succession is verified. But Vatican II, the New Mass, and the New Code, contain contradiction to the teaching of the Church.
This contradiction is therefore an infallible sign that the material incumbent of the throne of Peter lacks or lacked the necessary qualities to assume apostolic authority, for we must believe by the virtue of divine and catholic faith that it is intrinsically impossible that apostolic authority contradict itself in faith, worship and discipline, whereas it is not impossible, either by faith or reason, that an incumbent pope lose his authority. (See http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=41&catname=10; Emphasis in original).
4. Laymen can and should discover heresy on their own.
Theologian Sarda y Salvany clearly teaches this in his theological work entitled Liberalism is a Sin. The book was published in 1886. It was endorsed and praised by the Vatican’s Sacred Congregation of the Index under Pope Leo XIII. Here's what Chapter 32, "Liberalism and Authority in Particular Cases" has to say:
Yes, human reason, to speak after the manner of theologians, has a theological place in matters of religion. Faith dominates reason, which ought to be subordinated to faith in everything. But it is altogether false to pretend that reason can do nothing, that it has no function at all in matters of faith; it is false to pretend that the inferior light, illumined by God in the human understanding, cannot shine at all because it does not shine as powerfully or as clearly as the superior light. Yes, the faithful are permitted and even commanded to give a reason for their faith, to draw out its consequences, to make applications of it, to deduce parallels and analogies from it. It is thus by use of their reason that the faithful are enabled to suspect and measure the orthodoxy of any new doctrine presented to them, by comparing it with a doctrine already defined. If it be not in accord, they can combat it as bad, and justly stigmatize as bad the book or journal which sustains it. They cannot of course define it ex cathedra, but they can lawfully hold it as perverse and declare it such, warn others against it, raise the cry of alarm and strike the first blow against it. The faithful layman can do all this, and has done it at all times with the applause of the Church. Nor in so doing does he make himself the pastor of the flock, nor even its humblest attendant; he simply serves it as a watchdog who gives the alarm. Opportet allatrare canes "It behooves watchdogs to bark," very opportunely said a great Spanish Bishop in reference to such occasions. (See http://www.sedevacantist.com/liberalism.htm for the book online; Emphasis mine).
Ad hominem attack at the end of the video.I would be remiss if I didn't make note of the fact that Gray has announced in advance that he will not engage any sedevacantists in debate. The reason he gives is because sedevacantists are "having a temper tantrum"(!) and "should not be treated as adults." The video shows Sede-David crying and saying, "He called me a Protestant mom!" (OK, and sedevacantists should not be treated as adults?). Why is sound reasoning based on Church teaching "having a temper tantrum"? What makes us "not adults" and Gray "mature"?
The real reason is apparent. I can't believe a man at his age and educational level could really be that obtuse. Rather, he knows he can't reason well and cannot even attempt a syllogistically sound argument against sedevacantism, so he merely calls names and pretends that his four magic words are really defeaters for all Traditionalist arguments. This gives him an out from having to defend his position in rational discourse without looking incompetent or being accused of cowardice.
David Gray has proven, once more, how pathetic the Vatican II sect apologists are in their feeble attempt to defend a false religion pretending to be Catholic. He calls himself a "theologian," and I wonder if that title is self-imposed. If he is officially recognized as such, it would show the Vatican II sect is not merely devoid of Faith, but even bereft of reasoning skills. Should you ever meet David Gray, and he tries to give you an argument against sedevacantism, use these four words: "Based on your stupidity."
Interestingly, this individual penned an article back in 2010 about why Catholics cannot be Freemasons: http://www.davidlgray.info/2010/09/19/catholicism-and-freemasonry-a-match-not-made-in-heaven/ReplyDelete
Well, "Fr." Weninger of the Vatican disagrees: https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/catholics-can-be-freemasons-claims-pontifical-council-cleric
Now, a cursory Internet search shows that Weninger was ordained by "Cardinal" Schonborn, appointed to the Pontifical Council on Interreligious Dialogue by "Pope" Benedict XVI, and is currently a member of the Roman Curia. As such, given that he is a relatively high-profile individual, the lack of public condemnation or reproval by the Vatican implies Weninger's view is at least tolerated.
So who am I to believe? Is it David Gray, or Weninger?
Using David's rationale, Weninger's authority trumps his own, therefore I can conclude that Catholics can, in fact, be Freemasons.
The tables, alas, are so easily turned.
As someone who discloses on their own website that they are a former Protestant, David should be more than aware how specious his argument is. A more proper equivalence would be as follows: a Baptist pastor starts his sermon using the Book of Mormon. A layman protests that he's not preaching from the Bible. The pastor retorts that he's been guided by the Holy Spirit to preach from the Book of Mormon instead of the Bible. The layman thereby condemns the pastor as no longer being a Baptist.
Was the layman wrong or incorrect to say his pastor was not a Baptist? I would say not, because the pastor exhibited **objective signs that he no longer professed the Baptist religion**.
In like manner, one can see objective signs that one does not profess the Catholic faith; furthermore, unlike laymen (who at least can be considered culpably ignorant prior to instruction or fraternal correction if they profess erroneous or heretical words without knowing they are in error), clergy - by virtue of their station and education - cannot rely upon ignorance as an excuse.
Pope Pius XII taught in Mystici Corporis that the sins of heresy, schism, and apostasy sever one from the Body of the Church **in and of themselves, due to the nature of those particular sins**. This principle was communicated clearly by St. Paul in the first chapter of his epistle to the Galatians: " I wonder that you are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ, unto another gospel.  Which is not another, only there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.  But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.  As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema."
In David Gray's world, we would be unable to recognize a heretic, a schismatic, or an apostate through our own duly-informed reason. We would be unable to differentiate between the Gospel of Christ and a false gospel.
According to David Gray, the Rule of Faith is no rule at all.
A Simple Man
You have pointed out several more problems with the likes of David Gray! Guys like him probably think the world is flat too! (Just kidding! Wink, wink).
Excellent observation A Simple Man. You and Introibo have revealed many problems: 1.) The Novus Ordo religion is divided against itself, while those in it accuse a sedevacantist of that very same thing. 2.) Having a masters in theology these days is as meaningful as the food I ate two weeks ago. 3.) The four "magic" words "Based on your authority" can be used against Mr. Gray himself. The "Four Fatal Errors" of a sedevacantist are errors "based on Mr. Gray's authority." Nobody can own the truth according to the authority of his pope but Mr. Gray has a Masters degree and we are to trust his judgement.ReplyDelete
You can be respected as an atheist, Hindu, or anything you else except a sedevacantist which is forbidden and not to be respected in the Novus Ordo.
Excuse my typos... Another thing I wanted to point out after watching Mr. Gray's video is he asks the question how does it feel to be Protestant towards the sedevacantist. His pretend church honors Martin Luther by calling him a witness to the Gospel and it issued a postage stamp in honor of the Reformation. Worst of all when Francis was asked what his likes and dislikes about the Lutheran Church were he said “I really like the good Lutherans, the Lutherans who follow the true faith of Jesus Christ." https://novusordowatch.org/2019/04/francis-lutherans-true-faith-of-christ/Delete
Everyone EXCEPT Traditionalists are to be “respected” and seen as a “means of salvation”! Turning ecclesiology on its head via Vatican II.
"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema." Galatians 1:8ReplyDelete
The above Bible verse, being one of my favorites, seems to apply to Mr."Grey".
Perhaps he would well to start to read his Bible!!
Poor guy can’t do anything by his authority!!
Gray doesn't see his hypocrisy. He bases his argument on his own authority which is not grounded in Catholicism.ReplyDelete
See Gray’s sad response below!!!
Cute rebuttal, but in being cute you missed the premise... it's people outside of the Church; namely Protestants (including Sedevacantists) that do not have the authority or purview to weigh in on matters concerning Catholic dogma, doctrine, or discipline.ReplyDelete
Thanks again for the effort though.
No, I did not miss the point.
1. You beg the question as to sedevacantists being outside the Church. We deny no dogma in rejecting a papal claimant. As theologian Salvany clearly teaches laymen CAN discover heresy. This was praised by Pope Leo XIII.
2. Once you have determined heresy has been taught based on the Law of Non-Contradiction, the Church teaches that a heretic cannot become or remain pope.
3. The putative pope either never attained to the office or lost it by profession of heresy as a private theologian.
4. As one commenter pointed out, you penned an article (citation above; anonymous @5:05) against Freemasonry. He rightly concludes:
“Well, "Fr." Weninger of the Vatican disagrees: https://www.churchmilitant.com/news/article/catholics-can-be-freemasons-claims-pontifical-council-cleric
Now, a cursory Internet search shows that Weninger was ordained by "Cardinal" Schonborn, appointed to the Pontifical Council on Interreligious Dialogue by "Pope" Benedict XVI, and is currently a member of the Roman Curia. As such, given that he is a relatively high-profile individual, the lack of public condemnation or reproval by the Vatican implies Weninger's view is at least tolerated.
So who am I to believe? Is it David Gray, or Weninger?
Using David's rationale, Weninger's authority trumps his own, therefore I can conclude that Catholics can, in fact, be Freemasons.
The tables, alas, are so easily turned.”
Yes, David the tables are turned... “By your own stupidity!”
It's sad when people like David Gray hail themselves as theologians and historians because of a master's degree. David doesn't even know the very basics of Catholic theology, which stains his degree and college. His self aggrandizement will cost him his soul if doesn't repent and humble himself. So sad.Delete
Yes. David Gray needs our prayers.
Hello Mr. Gray,Delete
Welcome to Introibo's blog!
I do have a particular question regarding your presupposition that sedevacantists are akin to Protestants (notwithstanding your categorical confusion, since Protestants reject the Papacy, whereas sedes reject the claims of particular men to be the Pope *because* of their devotion to the Papacy). To wit: when the priest Arius was proclaiming his heretical doctrines on Christ (even though they had not yet been condemned as such), there were many laity who did not follow him, even before a local council of bishops condemned Arius and his opinions (and this was well before a definitive judgment on Arianism was handed down at the Council of Nicea).
Were the laity who deemed Arius to be professing uncatholic doctrine equivalent to Protestants, for the simple act of reasonably judging for themselves prior to an authoritative decision?
A Simple Man
The Weninger comment is just silly. The man is an active Freemason, so LIME YOU he is not a member of the Church, excommunicated for heresy, and, therefore, as a Protestant or non Catholic, he has no purview to comment on Church dogma, doctrine, or discipline.Delete
Again, you're a Protestant on the basis that you reject councils and the Papacy. You claim you do not, because based upon YOUR AUTHORITY you claim that some councils and Popes were not true councils or popes, but, again, you have no authority to make such a judgment.
And let's be honest.... it's not worth hell to cling to pride. That's the difference between you and I. You lean on your own understanding and I trust God with His Church. It won't be long to find out if your pride was worth it.
You cling to your willful ignorance! Once more, you ignore the premises and inescapable conclusion:
1. CATHOLICS can, as explained by theologian Salvany (and praised by Pope Leo XIII) CAN discovery heresy.
2. Once you have determined heresy has been taught, based on the Law of Non-Contradiction, then Catholic teaching regarding loss of papal office applies. NO DECLARATION OR OTHER AUTHORITY IS NECESSARY—just like the case of Arius who was condemned by many laity PRIOR to his ecclesiastical condemnation. Were the laity wrong prior to his condemnation David??
3. We therefore reject the papal CLAIMANT and NOT THE PAPACY.
If Weninger is a Mason, why is he allowed to function by your “pope” and his “bishops”?
It is YOU that does not understand or accept Church teaching. You have made no attempt to refute the points above. I’ll be praying for your conversion David. This has everything to do with logic and Catholic teaching and nothing to do with pride.
When was Michael Heinrich Weninger excommunicated? Did you decide that BASED UPON YOUR AUTHORITY? So tell us is "Cardinal" Schönborn not a member of the Church also when he said that "Father" Michael Heinrich Weninger's book "Lodge and Altar: On the Reconciliation of the Catholic Church and Regular Freemasonry" was "Nothing but goodwill?"
From all appearances, Weninger is still carrying out his position and duties in the Roman Curia. If he is indeed an active Freemason, then why has the Vatican not removed him from his post and censured him? For that matter, why was he appointed to a position on a pontifical congregation by Benedict XVI?
The Curia seems to be of a different opinion than you with regards to his status.
But, since you declined to answer my question about Arius, here's a simpler one:
In matters not pertaining to mere ecclesial discipline (such as how long the pre-Eucharistic fast is), is it possible for the Catholic Church to change moral law (such that what was once considered a mortal sin is no longer so)?
A Simple Man
To Introibo's points above:Delete
1. True but that’s different from laymen declaring sees vacant. You have no authority to do so.
2. False. Again, laymen cannot declare that a cleric lost his office. You may recognize heresy but that is as far as you can go with it.
3. This is why sedes are rightly called protestants.
As for your question about Weninger, that’s for the pope and bishops to decide not you. That’s the point. If they tolerate them then so must you (if you want to be Roman Catholic).
1 & 2-- I've not declared any see vacant. I've recognized the FACT that heresy is taught and draw the conclusion from Catholic theology that heretics are outside the Church and cannot hold office. As St. Alphonsus Liguori teaches, "If ever a pope, as a private person, should fall into heresy, he would at once fall from the pontificate." (See "Oeuvres Completes" 9:232). One who teaches heresy is, IN FACT, a heretic just as a doctor who performs an abortion is IN FACT a murderer, even though there can be no legal declaration of that FACT in the United States since 1973. I don't need a legal declaration to tell me a "doctor" who murders an unborn child is a cold-blooded killer to be avoided and not to seek medical advice from him as he disdains human life.
If you recognize the cleric as a heretic, the loss of office is automatic by DIVINE LAW.
3. So the laity who refused to acknowledge Arius as Catholic and avoided him as a heretic prior to his condemnation were "Protestants"? Get real.
So, if Weninger declares "Christ is not God," exhorts people to join the Masonic Lodge, and performs "same-sex marriages"---with Bergoglio and his flunkies doing nothing, we must wait for "There is no Catholic God" Bergoglio to decide if he still retains the Catholic Faith? You must still acknowledge and follow him? Receive the "sacraments" from him? Let your kids go to him for catechism instruction?
If Bergoglio tolerates abortion--will YOU? If Begoglio tolerates sodomite "marriage" will YOU?
That's the (real) point. If Bergoglio teaches heresy he is a heretic. If he his a heretic, he is NOT part of the Catholic Church by Divine Law; with No Declaration necessary. His teaching heresy and spreading error is proof of the fact the Holy Ghost does not protect him, because he is not pope. The pope cannot give that which is heretical or evil to the Church. You must therefore condemn them (if you want to be logical and save your soul. Otherwise, give David Gray a call).
"If you recognize the cleric as a heretic, the loss of office is automatic by DIVINE LAW."Delete
Who recognizes? You? Luther? Calvin? John Smith in the pew? LOL, No that's not how it works. So what happens when I say a bishop is a heretic and you say he aint? Which one of us has authority to decide? What if 1.6 billion catholics all disagree on which pope or bishop is legit or outside the church? Then what? This illustrates why your statement is absurd.
Several theologians teach that popes must be deposed by roman clergy or council, not laymen in the pew.
Gray is right.
You confuse the power to make canonical decisions or legal declarations (which, yes, sedevacantists do not possess at current within the Vatican hierarchy) with the ipso facto loss of office that comes with committing the sins of heresy, schism, or apostasy (which is a matter of divine law, and applicable to all).
This is why so much ink was spilled over the centuries regarding the matter as to how exactly one could hypothetically "depose" a Pope if the Holy See was not subject to the judgment of any inferiors. The general consensus after Vatican I (greatly influenced as it was by the writings of St. Robert Bellarmine, the Doctor of the Papacy) thus became as follows: a Pope who commits such a sin that, of its nature, demonstrates an objective and public departure from the Catholic faith is ipso facto a non-Catholic (for there is no such thing as degrees of Catholicism as far as doctrine and dogma go). As it were, they are judged by God; having demonstrated their departure from the Catholic faith, they are considered to have tacitly resigned their office, for a non-Catholic cannot hold a religious office in the Catholic Church by definition. At *that* point, the sticky legal business of actually deposing them can begin, precisely *because* they forfeited their office (and the protections that come with it) as a result of their public sin.
In other words, although sedevacantists lack any legal power to enforce their conclusions on the entire Church, they can nonetheless point out objective reality, reason from what the Church has taught in the past, and therefore draw logical conclusions as to whether someone is Catholic or not, or whether the doctrines of Vatican 2 contradict the doctrines taught prior to it.
To use a secular example: suppose you witnessed a man rob a woman of her purse in the streets of Los Angeles, yet he managed to duck into an alleyway and escape law enforcement. Much later, suppose you enter a diner for supper, and you coincidentally encounter the same man, eating a meal purchased with ill-gotten gains.
My question is as follows: would you be out of place (much less in the wrong) to call that man a purse-snatcher, or a thief, even if you lack the legal power to indict, try, or convict him?
A Simple Man
You're the clueless one who has no idea "how it works" So, several theologians teach that a pope can be deposed? No, they don't since the First Vatican Council yaught dogmatically, "And since the Roman Pontiff is at the head of the universal Church by the divine right of apostolic primacy, We teach and declare also that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all cases pertaining to ecclesiastical examination recourse can be had to his judgment; moreover, that the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is not surpassed, is to be disclaimed by no one, nor is anyone permitted to pass judgment on its judgment. Therefore, they stray from the straight path of truth who affirm that it is permitted to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an ecumenical Council, as to an authority higher than the Roman Pontiff.
(First Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution Pastor Aeternus, Ch. 3; Denz. 1830). Got that?
"...the judgment of the Apostolic See, whose authority is not surpassed, is to be disclaimed by no one, nor is anyone permitted to pass judgment on its judgment." why is it that no one can judge the Pope? The simple truth is that judging — understood in the proper canonical sense — is an act that belongs by right only to a superior, and the Pope, being the highest authority in the Church, has no superior on earth.
As theologian Salvany teaches, the informed laity, like the ones who recognized Arius before his condemnation, can and must make that decision WHEN THERE IS A MANIFEST AND PUBLIC DEPARTURE FROM THE FAITH. Hence, "Mary was not taken body and soul to Heaven" is a manifest departure from the dogmatic definition of Pope Pius XII. Likewise, false sects being a "means of salvation" is contradictory to them being a "means of damnation." To say you can't tell that these propositions are manifestly false by means of the Law of Non-Contradiction illustrates why you--and David Gray--are not only wrong, but you have a "Church" that can't teach because no one can think clearly.
That would, however, explain a lot! "Based on your stupidity."
Truth is not a popularity contest, nor is objective reality. In like manner, one can recognize if someone has committed the *sin* of heresy even if they lack the power to prosecute the canonical *crime* of heresy.
You essentially render the laity doomed to follow whoever the claimant to the papal office is, even if that claimant were a false shepherd. In like manner, you render St. Paul's guidance and command from the first chapter of Galatians nonsensical. To illustrate:
Paul: If I, or an angel, preach a gospel other than that which was preached to you, let him be anathema.
The Galatians: Okay.
*an indeterminate amount of time later*
Paul: Hello brethren; I have a new word for you. *proceeds to preach*
The Galatians: This new word is different from what you previously taught us.
Paul: Well, I'm the Apostle to the Gentiles; I know what I'm talking about, so just trust me.
The Galatians: But it's a different gospel. You are now anathema.
Paul: You lack authority over me to do that!
Galatians: We're just doing what you told us to do. *throws him out*
It's an admittedly absurd example, but it bluntly illustrates the point: if St. Paul fully expected the Galatian Christians to recognize a false gospel and anathematize the ones spreading it (even if it were himself or an angel of God!), then why should we be expected to blindly follow or accept the authority of those who profess a non-Catholic religion?
A Simple Man
OK I can't respond to three people at once. Lots of errors here. But to make this easy, simple man stated, "At *that* point, the sticky legal business of actually deposing them can begin, precisely *because* they forfeited their office." If it were obvious that God deposed a pope for the sin of heresy why the need for the church to *start* a sticky legal process? What should be sticky? Why the need for a legal process? According to what you believe, the entire Church would already know he is deposed by God so that should be that, right? LOL. Here is another example. Hypothetically, if 1.6 billon Catholics recognized a certain man as pope,including the Roman curia and all the bishops and clergy, and a few thousands traditional catholics claim he can't be the pope because God secretly deposed him and stripped him of his pontificate, which side has the authority to decide the matter? As Gray correctly illustrated to you, by what authority do YOU claim God secretly deposed him? Then suppose other sedevacantist schismatics decide that the man you claim was secretly deposed by God was a legitimate pope and that the vacancy actually started with another pope. By what authority are YOU correct and the other sedevacantists wrong? Who has authority to definitively decide?Delete
There is no “sticky legal process” because THE FIRST SEE IS JUDGED BY NO ONE. (Canon Law). A Pope cannot be deposed!
Everyone has the basic logic (except you and Gray) to understand that false sects are a means of damnation and false sects are a means of salvation CANNOT BOTH BE TRUE.
By what authority did the laity reject Arius who denied the divinity of Christ??
Read theologian Salvany cited above. You obvious suffer, like David, from a lack of “Gray Matter” LOL
A pope cannot be LEGALLY DEPOSED. It happens when the heresy is manifest. Maybe that’s your confusion.
To David Gray or Anonymous (Which I think is the same person, but "who am I to judge"):Delete
When Francis says: "I think that the intentions of Martin Luther were not mistaken. He was a reformer. Perhaps some methods were not correct... And today Lutherans and Catholics, Protestants, all of us agree on the doctrine of justification. On this point, which is very important, he (Martin Luther) did not err." Would you agree with him or would you disagree with him? Link here: https://novusordowatch.org/2016/06/chaos-frank-brings-down-the-house-armenia-interview/
If you agree with him explain why Lutheranism is wrong when your pope agrees with Martin Luther on justification and even has gone as far calling Lutheranism the true faith of Jesus Christ in another instance. If you don't agree with him explain what authority you have to disagree with your pope on theological matters. After all Pope St. Pius X said, "When one loves the pope one does not stop to debate about what he advises or demands, to ask how far the rigorous duty of obedience extends and to mark the limit of this obligation. When one loves the pope, one does not object that he has not spoken clearly enough, as if he were obliged to repeat into the ear of each individual his will, so often clearly expressed, not only viva voce, but also by letters and other public documents; one does not call his orders into doubt on the pretext – easily advanced by whoever does not wish to obey one does not limit the field in which he can and should exercise his will... one does not oppose to the authority of the pope that of other persons, however learned, who differ in opinion from the pope. Besides, however great their knowledge, their holiness is wanting, for there can be no holiness where there is disagreement with the pope." (Pope St. Pius X, Address to the Priests of the Apostolic Union, Nov. 18, 1912; in Acta Apostolicae Sedis 4 , p. 695
I'll reply to a couple of points here that are more core arguments. You Sedes love going down rabbit holes and getting stuck in weeds. It's really not that complex.Delete
1. It was asked, when was Weninger excommunicated. He is excommunicated latae sententiae, per cannon law.
2. Inescapable conclusion: the authority to determine heresy is a right of the Catholic faithful. The problem here is that the determination of heresy cannot create another heresy. You being outside of the Church and not receiving the Sacraments is heresy. You're no longer Catholic.
3. It's too late for me, I've witnessed a Eucharistic miracle in what you call a NO Church. I know Jesus stil comes there and where Christ is, I am there also.
Again, I appreciate y'alls passion and righteous anger but you went about this all wrong. You went about it like children. The persecution came and you ran into your safe spaces. You're not soldiers - you're little bitches. You didn't stay to fight for Christ and His Church. You should be ashamed of yourselves.
You're not only going to be judged for not trusting Christ with His Church, but also for abandoning Him.
I keep seeing comments that I need prayer. LOL Thank you! Please pray for me. Humble men invite prayer! But while you are praying for me, please take off your panties, remove your pacifier, exit your safe space, and come join this war. We do need you. So stop being little bitches and come do battle INSIDE AT GROUND ZERO.
First, you can’t answer my questions. Why? Is it because you know that doing so can only amount to your subjective opinion? Remember, 1.6 billion Catholics, including the ones that really matter (Roman clergy and curia) disagree with you. And I can think of a few different sedevacantist sects that disagree with you on the so-called start date of the vacancy (among other things). By what authority do you resolve the disagreements? Second, theologians and even popes taught that popes CAN be deposed. Off the top of my head, Suarez, Cajetan, & John of St. Thomas are three.Delete
"If it were obvious that God deposed a pope for the sin of heresy why the need for the church to *start* a sticky legal process? What should be sticky? Why the need for a legal process?"
It's only proper according to the order of governance that there be a legal proceeding to recognize what was previously manifest. The point was that a true Pope cannot be deposed; only after tacitly resigning their office (such as by publicly manifesting their heresy) can that man be removed and deposed, for they would no longer be Pope.
"According to what you believe, the entire Church would already know he is deposed by God so that should be that, right? LOL."
You misunderstand my point. It is not by any legal action on the part of inferior clergy or a council that a Pope can be removed from their office, for "the first See is judged by no one." However, such can legally recognize what was already manifest previously (i.e. heresy), as that particular sin would be the *actual cause* of their loss of office.
"Hypothetically, if 1.6 billon Catholics recognized a certain man as pope,including the Roman curia and all the bishops and clergy, and a few thousands traditional catholics claim he can't be the pope because God secretly deposed him and stripped him of his pontificate, which side has the authority to decide the matter?"
No sedevacantist that I know of claims that occult (secret) heresy deprives anyone of their office, because that's not what the Church has taught through her approved theologians and canonists. The heresy must be public and manifest.
That being said, how many nominal catholics don't believe in the Real Presence? How many, following the ecumenical doctrine of Vatican 2, believe it's okay to attend the rites of another religion? How many support **abortion**?
Because of poor catechesis, ignorance, malice, or other reasons, how many in your example would even be able to recognize if something is even heretical, or that professing heresy (knowing full well it's erroneous) renders one a non-catholic?
"As Gray correctly illustrated to you, by what authority do YOU claim God secretly deposed him?"
There's nothing secret about it.
1) The Church has taught that public heretics are deprived of their office ipso facto.
2) Jorge Bergoglio (and other V2 clergy) have manifest their heresy in a public manner.
3) Therefore, having manifest themselves as non-catholics, they have no legal, religious, or authoritative right to their offices.
"Then suppose other sedevacantist schismatics decide that the man you claim was secretly deposed by God was a legitimate pope and that the vacancy actually started with another pope."
I suppose you refer to the example of those who accept JP2 or B16 as legitimate Popes while denying Francis is one?
A public heretic is a public heretic, regardless of what anyone says. Even if every single living human recognized a particular man as being the lawful authority, that would not erase or change the objective fact that that man publicly departed from the faith, rendering them a non-catholic. Your examples presuppose the idea that objective truth is determined by majority vote.
After all, we have untold legions who believe people can change their sex; that doesn't thereafter mean it is possible that you can change your sex.
A Simple Man
You wrote: "It's only proper according to the order of governance that there be a legal proceeding to recognize what was previously manifest."Delete
Why is it only proper? Shouldn't the church just immediately elect a new pope upon his manifest heresy? Isnt't that what manifest means? Please explain why a legal proceeding would be necessary if his loss of office was already manifest and understood by the faithful.
You also wrote: "No sedevacantist that I know of claims that occult (secret) heresy deprives anyone of their office, because that's not what the Church has taught through her approved theologians and canonists. The heresy must be public and manifest."Delete
I didn't say anything about occult heresy. According to your position, a man loses his office automatically for public manifest heresy. This implies that God removes him. So for example,you and a small group of people say Pope John XXIII never became pope because he was removed from his office by God for public manifest heresy. No declaration was necessary remember? But the problem is no one in authority in the Church knew this, including the college of cardinals and today, 1.6 billion Catholics don't agree with you or your evidence. So who decides the matter? If it is you, then please explain by what authority you decide?
Nice to see your sect uses such nice language! I usually refuse to publish profanity, but I want my readers to see what the Vatican II sect produces.
1. Canon 2335 of the 1917 Code was not renewed for automatic excommunication for Masons in your 1983 Code. If he joined prior to 1983, it’s BASED ON YOUR AUTHORITY of how that Canon is interpreted. Bergoglio and his flunkies don’t interpret it that way as they allow this cleric to function.
2. We are not outside the Church by refusing to follow a false papal claimant. We do not deny the papacy and we refuse to have anything to do with manifest heretics, just as the laity refused to have anything to do with Arius prior to his condemnation. We receive the valid sacraments from Traditionalist clerics who profess the True Faith, not the false sect of V2.
3. You’ve witnessed a miracle. Private revelations cannot be used as theological proof. As a “theologian” you should know that. Satan can also perform fake “miracles” to deceive. Has your bishop or “pope” approved this miracle as authentic or is it such BY YOUR OWN AUTHORITY?
You also misrepresent yourself. How are you an “historian”? Where did you receive your doctorate in history, David? Having a Bachelors degree in Business Administration and a Masters in Modernist theology no more makes you an “historian” than my Masters degree in science and Juris Doctorate make me a neurosurgeon! You’re an historian BY YOUR OWN AUTHORITY.
We are indeed soldiers for Christ David! We carry on the True Faith and Mass/Sacraments.
If you’re looking for real b*****s, look no farther than your sodomite filled sect !
How is Latae Sententiae (meaning ipso facto automatic) apply for somebody like Weninger, but it doesn't apply for your "Pope" Francis or "Cardinal" Schonborn when they speak manifest heresy as has been pointed out? He has said and done so much to reveal that he is an blasphemous apostate, making no secret about it. He knows people like you will keep defending him no matter what he does because he know your band wagon follower and will just recognize him, even if does say he's not infallible (which he has said).
You sound like a good grown up exemplary "Catholic" calling others "a little bitch." Maybe you'll be on the waiting list with Francis and Benedict XVI for sainthood (Francis thinks so). So since you witnessed a "Eucharistic Miracle" can you tell us where it happened and is there information about its approval?
For one who calls himself a theologian, you would think he'd be familiar with Church teaching on what constitutes, you know, schism, before claiming we are outside the Church:Delete
(i) “They cannot be numbered among the schismatics, who refuse to obey the Roman Pontiff because they consider his person to be suspect or doubtfully elected on account of rumours in circulation...” (Wernz-Vidal: Ius Canonicum, Vol. VII, n. 398.)
(ii) “Nor is there any schism if one merely transgress a papal law for the reason that one considers it too difficult, or if one refuses obedience inasmuch as one suspects the person of the pope or the validity of his election, or if one resists him as the civil head of a state.” (Szal, Rev. Ignatius: Communication of Catholics with Schismatics, CUA, 1948, p. 2.)
(iii) “Neither is someone a schismatic for denying his subjection to the Pontiff on the grounds that he has solidly founded doubts concerning the legitimacy of his election or his power [refs to Sanchez and Palao].” (de Lugo: Disp., De Virt. Fid. Div., disp xxv, sect iii, nn. 35-8.)
(iv) “Schismatics properly so called are those who, wilfully and intentionally separate themselves from the unity of the Church…” (Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiæ, II-II, Q. 39, A.1)
(v) The Bulla Coenae declared excommunicated: “… schismatics and all those who pertinaciously withdraw from obedience to the reigning Roman Pontiff”.
(vi) “Disobedience, no matter how pertinacious, does not constitute schism unless it be a rebellion against the office of the pope.” (Cajetan’s comentary on Saint Thomas’s article on schism, quoted by Cardinal Billot, De Ecclesia, Thesis XI)
Mr. Gray, by using the term b....s as he did above, has further clarified that the Vatican II sect and it's Freemasonic beliefs and cohorts are nothing more than heathens and spiritually bankrupt. Soon they will be physically bankrupt as well after they pay for all the damages for abuse their sect has incurred due to Sodomites and pedophiles. Mr. Gray has just confirmed by his disrespectful and despicable comment the very reason why so many have left and are fed up with the Novus Ordo posing as the real Catholic Church. Mr. Gray you are NOT a Catholic. You are a fake theologian, in a fake church, with a fake "Pope". Using profanity as you have is just confirmation of how much a fake you really are. I don't feel sorry for you in the least, you are right where you are supposed to be - in a fake Church with a fake "Pope"!Delete
With fake ordination rites too!Delete
It was stated that the 1917 excommunication was not renewed. See the 1983 CDF clarification, issued the day before the new canon was issued. Nothing has changed. Ratzinger clearly states it is a grave sin to be a Freemason and those who join the sect are not worthy to receive the Holy Eucharist. REF: 'The Catholic Catechism on Freemasonry' by David L. GrayDelete
I see I upset some of you buy calling you little bitches and you took my plain talk as evidence to used against a whole Church. By one all were made guilty? LOL That in itself is a logical error. Nevertheless... YES. I do not spare words to tell people exactly who they are. Don't be sensitive. Just man up, leave you mother's basements, put on your armor and come do real battle.
All of us faithful have a million reasons to run. None of like the Papacy of Francis, but we stay because it's not our Church. It's Christ's Church and we love Him and we'd be damned if we let the a fags, communists, and Freemason take it without bloodshed.
Again SHAME ON ALL OF YOU for running with your tail between your legs like a scared female dog.
All the other replies began with false premise or were strawman arguments and, therefore, did not deserve a reply.
Keep up the profanity! Spoken like a true “theologian” (does anyone actually recognize you as such in your sect?) and “historian” (with no doctorate in history).
1. Once more you cite.. YOURSELF. Your own book and BY YOUR OWN AUTHORITY you interpret that document. You own principle works against you David! Bergoglio doesn’t see it that way. Neither does Ratzinger. Being in a persistent state of mortal sin is NOT THE SAME AS EXCOMMUNICATION.
2. If you are a “theologian” you represent your sect. By using profanity (euphemistically “plain talk”). You are TYPICAL of what I’ve met in your sect—-dishonest (read: you lie), unable to reason and draw logical conclusions from sound doctrine, and adverse to the truth. But you are correct that it doesn’t apply to the whole Vatican II sect—-you haven’t been to jail like a large portion of your clerics.
Furthermore, there’s nothing from which to run. It is not the Catholic Church but a man-made sect. We fight to preserve Christ’s true Church.
“All the other replies began with false premise or were Strawman arguments and did not deserve a reply” TRANSLATION: I can’t argue with sound argumentation if my life depended upon it, so I will make empty assertions that I cannot back up.
Finally, I challenge you to debate me on a neutral forum like DEBATE.org. We can publish the agreed upon rules on our websites and we can let those who read the debate decide who has the strongest arguments.
Be a man David. Come out of your mother’s basement and debate me. Don’t try and back out because of ad hominem “you’re having a tantrum” nonsense.
If you refuse to respond and debate, I guess all my readers (and you) know who the real “female dog” is in this fight.
Unfortunately, I am not surprised by the offensive comments emanating by person's in the Novus Ordo. We are not running. We are refusing to attend a fake Mass, with fake Priests and recognize a fake "Pope". You are so steeped in apostacy you can't see or comprehend the truth if it hit you in the face. Hope you have fun in your fake circus of a church filled with Sodomites, transvestites, etc. Perhaps your next "Pope" will be transgendered.Delete
You assert flatly that another arguments mentioned were strawmen or based on false premises.
Out of many points I previously raised, please point out the straw man or false premise in this one question: "if St. Paul fully expected the Galatian Christians to recognize a false gospel and anathematize the ones spreading it (even if it were himself or an angel of God!), then why should we be expected to blindly follow or accept the authority of those who profess a non-Catholic religion?"
A Simple Man
When you say "all of us faithful" do you mean that all of those like you are faithful to Amoris Laetitia, Communion in the hand, "St." John Paul II (who prayed with Voodooist to their gods at Assisi), pro LGBT rallies and churches in each diocese which are united to Francis, etc. etc. etc.?
When you say "None of us like the Papacy of Francis" are you speaking on behalf of the whole Church? I know a lot of people who love Francis. In fact there is probably more people who like Francis in your church than those who don't. Such a United church you have. Is it because he is a blasphemous heretic that you don't like him? You must agree with St. Antoninus who said "In the case in which the Pope would become a heretic, he would find himself, by that very fact alone and without any other sentence, separated from the Church. A head separated from a body cannot, as long as it remains separated, be head of the same body from which it was cut off” and not Salza and Siscoe who say warnings and declarations are necessary first. You've already admitted Weninger is ipso facto not in the Church because of Freemasonry. Why not include John XXIII or Paul VI? Does it only apply when you say so BY YOUR AUTHORITY?
BTW vulgar language, pride, and repugnance of the truth offends God more than me. SHAME ON YOU for not acknowledging your sinful comments.
It was asked: "if St. Paul fully expected the Galatian Christians to recognize a false gospel and anathematize the ones spreading it (even if it were himself or an angel of God!), then why should we be expected to blindly follow or accept the authority of those who profess a non-Catholic religion?"Delete
Isogesis aider, the assumption here is that I agree with both your premise and your conclusions and consequences to that premise.
It's certainly a GREAT topic to explore after we flush out the premise and etcetera but not one I'd be interested in engaging via combox. This isn't a good forum to truly dialogue if TRUTH is what we are interested in moving towards. These comboxes are just for scoring points.
You deny the objectivity of truth and our ability to know it. If 1.6 members of your sect think 2+2=5, or that “false sects are a means of salvation” is the same as “false sects are a means of damnation” that wouldn’t make either correct, would it? If that many people can’t reason using the Law of Non-Contradiction, it’s no wonder the world is going to Hell in a hand basket.
If you accept these false popes do you:
Kiss the blasphemous Koran?
Believe proselytism is solemn nonsense?
Consider joining the Masons?
All were done, said, or tacitly approved by your “popes.” If you think that is “Catholic” it’s no wonder you believe no one can decide anything!
I have challenged you to debate on a neutral forum. Will come out of your mother’s basement or run away like a female dog? It would have rules and be a great way to see the respective merits of our positions especially for those who read it. A place like Debate.org would work (or any other neutral site not controlled by either of us with rules that we agree upon and post).
Don’t “bravely run away”!
It was said, "Being in a persistent state of mortal sin is NOT THE SAME AS EXCOMMUNICATION."Delete
All grave sin breaks communion with Christ and His Church, and in other words - excommunication. In Quaesitum Est Ratzinger states belonging to Freemasonry (Freemasonic is not a real word) is a grave sin. Next he sets the prohibition against Freemasonry apart from the broader ban in Canon 1374, when he states that the penalty for belonging to Masonic sects is no admittance to the Holy Eucharist.
The penalty in Canon 1374 for belonging to or leading some other groups that plot against the Church, such as Planned Parenthood or the Democratic Party, MAY incur a interdict or sone other just punishment.... thereby, it REQUIRES Prudential Judgment.... not automatic occurrence of grave sin or banning from Holy Eucharist.
In contrast, as Ratzinger affirmed, nothing has changed in regards to Freemasonry, and no prudential judgment is needed. It is ipso facto excommunication because it is a grave sin - all grave sin breaks communion with Christ and His Church and those in grave sin cannot receive Holy Communion. REF 'The Catholic Catechism on Freemasonry' pp 263 - 266.
It has been asked if I would debate on a neutral forum. I have NEVER debated a non Catholic, because we do not agree on enough to debate. Catholics debating non Catholics is just an exercise in indifferentism and false ecumenism. Sedevacantists are not Catholics to me. They are Protestants. Therefore, debating a Sedevacantist would be pointless. It would be like water debating air about who fire likes the most.Delete
David L. Gray is not a Catholic since he rejects Pope Pius XII teaching that the sin of heresy severs one from the Body of the Church by its nature and that only those who are baptized and profess the faith are to be recognized as members of the Church. Gray doesn't profess the Catholic Faith!!!Delete
Gray is a liar. He said he won't debate and yet is debating in the combox. He's really the female dog, too scared to defend his counterfeit religion.
Besides that fact that you beg the question as to Sedevacantists being “non-Catholic” (a falsehood according to the principles of Catholic theology of which you are woefully ignorant), what about the great PUBLIC DEBATE between Fr Frederick Copleston and atheist Bertrand Russell ? Many converted to belief in God and the Catholic Faith as a result!
Do you mean a Catholic priest has more in common with an ATHEIST than a member of your sect has with a Sedevacantist??
Once more, your assertion is proven a poor excuse for the fact that your incompetence in theological matters, poor argumentation, and false statements as to your qualifications.
Thank you for showing yourself the TRUE FEMALE DOG in all of this David! You’ve been exposed. Enjoy your dog food, and please respond with appropriate words from now on like “woof, woof, woof”
Hello Mr. Gray,Delete
You wrote the following: "All grave sin breaks communion with Christ and His Church, and in other words - excommunication." Notwithstanding that you apparently referenced your own bool yet again, this point is explicitly contradictory to Catholic moral theology, as exemplified (for example) from paragraphs 22-23 of Pope Pius XII's encyclical Mystici Corporis (On the Mystical Body of Christ):
22: Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed. “For in one spirit” says the Apostle, “were we all baptized into one Body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” 17 As therefore in the true Christian community there is only one Body, one Spirit, one Lord, and one Baptism, so there can be only one faith. 18 And therefore if a man refuse to hear the Church let him be considered — so the Lord commands — as a heathen and a publican. 19 It follows that those are divided in faith or government cannot be living in the unity of such a Body, nor can they be living the life of its one Divine Spirit.
23: Nor must one imagine that the Body of the Church, just because it bears the name of Christ, is made up during the days of its earthly pilgrimage only of members conspicuous for their holiness, or that it consists only of those whom God has predestined to eternal happiness. it is owing to the Savior’s infinite mercy that place is allowed in His Mystical Body here below for those whom, of old, He did not exclude from the banquet.20 For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy. Men may lose charity and divine grace through sin, thus becoming incapable of supernatural merit, and yet not be deprived of all life if they hold fast to faith and Christian hope, and if, illumined from above, they are spurred on by the interior promptings of the Holy Spirit to salutary fear and are moved to prayer and penance for their sins.
So your assertion that grave sin (in general) severs one from the Body of Christ is contradicted by the teaching of a Pope. The specific sins mentioned that sever one from the Church are schism, heresy, and apostasy; not all mortal sin in general. (This is a separate matter from being unable to partake of the Eucharist while in a state of mortal sin, which would he sacrilege if you did so; however, being in a state of mortal sin does not necessarily imply you are outside the Church until you go to confession and are absolved of your sins).
For your self-professed theologian, your aptitude thus far is reflected by your demeanor and conduct: quite poor.
Perhaps you should crack open the Baltimore Catechism (or, since you're a self-professed theologian, something meatier like the Pohle-Preuss Manual of Dogmatic Theology, or St. Alphonus Liguori's Manual of Moral Theology) for a refresher. It would certainly explain your reluctance to debate, because the notion that you don't debate non-Catholics because you don't "agree on enough" is simply laughable (and ignores the reality that debates with non-Catholics have been part and parcel of evangelization since Apostolic times).
Also, as one final bit, you wrote this: "Catholics debating non Catholics is just an exercise in indifferentism and false ecumenism." That you can write this with a straight face in light of Vatican II (particular decrees like Unitatis Redintegratio and Nostra Aetate) or the recent Amazon Synod is flabbergasting.
Apparently, the hierarchy of your sect care less about Freemasonry, indifferentism, and false ecumenism than you do. Something to think about.
A Simple Man
As to Feemasonry, you cite.. YOURSELF.
1. BASED ON YOUR AUTHORITY you interpreted that document. But wait! If that cleric is excommunicated he has no authority to offer Mass and his confessions and marriages he performs are all INVALID as excommunicated clerics LACK ALL JURISDICTION OUTSIDE SOMEONE IN DANGER OF DEATH. Bergoglio and the bishops accept him as a priest in good standing. Why should I believeYOU over Francis? How does it feel to be a Protestant David?
2. If a Catholic shacks up with his girlfriend he is in persistent mortal sin, yet still Catholic. He is not outside the Church as is the case with excommunication. Freemasons are no longer subject to ipso facto excommunication and in Ratzinger’s clarification he never claims that excommunication still applies. You assume that BASED ON YOUR AUTHORITY.
What is your "isogesis" of Lumen Gentium #16 (Vatican II) when it says "But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.”
How do Muslims worship the same God as Catholics if Muslims do not recognize the Trinity as God? Allah is the name of a moon-god of the Bedouins and even the Koran calls Allah the greatest deceiver. While they recognize Jesus Christ they only believe Him to be a prophet. So again how is this not heresy?
Also you keep saying sedevacantist are non Catholic (even though you have non Catholic teachings from Vatican II as quoted from the above) but this disagrees with your pope Francis who said this in an interview:
Gian Guido Vecchi, Corriere della Sera: "There have already been discussions about a communist Pope, now there are event those who speak of a Pope who isn’t Catholic. In the face of these considerations, what do you think?"
Francis: "A cardinal friend of mine told me that a very concerned woman, VERY CATHOLIC, went to him. A bit rigid, but CATHOLIC. And she asked him if it was true that in the Bible, they spoke of an antichrist, and she explained it to him. And also in the Apocalypse, no? And, then, if it was true that an anti-pope, who is the antichrist, the anti-Pope. But why is she asking me this question, this cardinal asked me? “Because I’m sure that Pope Francis is the ANTI-POPE,” she said. And why does she ask this, why does she have this idea? “It’s because he doesn’t wear red shoes.” The reason for thinking if one is communist or isn’t communist. I’m sure that I haven’t said anything more than what’s written in the social doctrine of the Church. On another flight, a colleague asked me if I had reached out a hand to the popular movements and asked me, “But is the Church going to follow you?” I told him, “I’m the one following the Church.” And in this it seems that I’m not wrong. I believe that I never said a thing that wasn’t the social doctrine of the Church. Things can be explained, possibly an explanation gave an impression of being a little “to the left”, but it would be an error of explanation. No, my doctrine on this, in Laudato si’, on economic imperialism, all of this, is the social doctrine of the Church. And if necessary, I’ll recite the creed. I am available to do that, eh."
(“Full transcript of Pope’s in-flight interview from Cuba to US”, Catholic News Agency, Sep. 22, 2015)
I know I've already written much on this matter Introibo, and have given much more than my two cents would have merited me at this point, but I just wanted to share my concluding thoughts on this most entertaining saga that has unfolded over the past few days.Delete
Firstly, I wanted to give you my personal thanks, Introibo, for having shown me just what the caliber of Vatican II "theology" has to offer. I never knew who this Mr. Gray person was before this article was posted, but now I know more than I would have ever wished to know about this "ex"-mason.
The man's vulgarity came as a complete shock to me. For someone who claims to be a member of the Catholic Church, to speak so uncharitably about honest traditionalists, despite whatever differences we may have, definitely awakened me to the true evil that lies in the heart of the Novus Ordo. Can anyone honestly imagine a Father Cekada, or a Bishop Donald Sanborn, speaking a fraction of the vulgarity Mr. Gray has spoken in this thread? The enemies of Christ will hate His flock, whereas Christ commands us to love our enemies as ourself. This thread has quite clearly demonstrated that I would say.
The lack of self awareness Mr. Gray has demonstrated time and time again, using scary sophist sounding language and spouting dictionary defenitions of terms like Isogesis (without actually demonstrating they apply in the context. No less, he goes on to commit this very crime himself in doing so!) is the saddest excuse of scholarship I think I've ever seen employed, and I don't say that lightly. Most, if not all of the claims and insults David has leveled against us Sedes he has committed merely right here in the combox, and this has only been up for like 3 days!
Challenging David to a debate was certainly the best thing you could have done. As is so typical with modernists and progressives, they will shout the nastiest things to their opposition, but when push comes to shove, it is revealed that they only came up with those insults from personal experience and self reflection! The man has cowered like is only seen in the stuff of movies, giving the shoddiest excuses imaginable. Not only does he lack the theological virtues it seems, but he clearly seems to be suffering from a notable absence of the Seven Gifts of the Holy Ghost (particularly the Gift of Knowledge).
Every day I give thanks to God for having given me the grace to break free from my intellectual pride and vices (although I know I still have much to overcome within me), and begin the long, arduous, but infinitely rewarding path towards the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, suffering though she may be during her passion. Your blog has been an indispensable tool in my spiritual growth and realization of the current situation the Church faces, especially in the early days when I was reeling from the implications of a Sede vacante. I know from experience that it's a very difficult transition period, but if you're reading this and still on the fence, know that through faith, prayers (especially to Our Lady and the traditional Rosary, no luminous mysteries!) God's grace will prove to be more than sufficient for you to make the right choices.
Finally, as to Mr. Gray's claim of witnessing a Eucharistic miracle, it would seem to me had he been in the court of Pharaoh, and seen Moses turn his staff into a snake, followed shortly by Pharaoh's court mages imitating the same miracle with their own staffs, David would falsly condemn Moses as a (girl dog) for having fled from Egypt instead of staying and fighting off more of Pharaoh's army, jump with jubilee at the false magic of the mages, and worship in the temples of Pharaoh all the rest of his days. Perhaps God has hardened David's heart, much like Pharaohs. If such a thing is the case, then the only thing we can really do is pray for the poor man.
Our Lady Queen of Sorrows, pray for us!
Vivat Christus Rex!
To the defenders of Freemasonry here:Delete
Someone stated: "So your assertion that grave sin (in general) severs one from the Body of Christ is contradicted by the teaching of a Pope."
I made no assertion. I NEVER said SEVERS. I never says IN GENERAL. I never said BODY OF CHRIST. PLEASE do try to score points through misrepresentation and strawman arguments. Don't be intellectually lazy.
Now, about grave sin, which I said breaks communion with Christ and How Church.
Catechism of the Catholic Church Para. 1463 Certain particularly
grave sins incur excommunication, the most severe ecclesiastical
penalty, which impedes the reception of the sacraments and the
exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts, and for which absolution
consequently cannot be granted, according to canon law, except
by the Pope, the bishop of the place or priests authorized by
them.98 In danger of death any priest, even if deprived of faculties
for hearing confessions, can absolve from every sin and
Now compare this paragraph with what Ratzinger wrote about Freemasonry.
Also, referencing your own work isn't a problem, especially if your work references the work of others, as my history books always do.
It was asked: "What is your "isogesis" of Lumen Gentium #16 (Vatican II) when it says "But the plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator. In the first place amongst these there are the Muslims, who, professing to hold the faith of Abraham, along with us adore the one and merciful God, who on the last day will judge mankind.”Delete
I agree that if LG is read outside of the 2,000 year tradition, it and most other V2 docs have a litany of insurmountable problems. But that's our point of departure isn't it? I read all ecumenical council documents in continuity with each other, but you all read V2 documents aside from all the others. I harmonize V2 with the others and you view V2 as a cacophony in contrast to a symphony.
The post conciliar documents and liberal revolutionary efforts does make the effort of justifying the effort of a contiguous view harder, but, again, we trust God with His Church, and, therefore, cannot justify any actions that allow Satan to prevail.
BY YOUR OWN AUTHORITY you interpreted those documents! How does it feel to be a Protestant, David? Seriously, Begoglio and his so-called bishops allow a Freemason to function. An excommunicated cleric has no jurisdiction for Penance and no authority to offer Mass and administer the Sacraments EXCEPT IN DANGER OF DEATH. This cleric functions on a regular basis. Therefore, your “pope” and his bishops do NOT consider him an excommunicated cleric.
Moreover, Ratzinger’s clarification states in full:
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH
DECLARATION ON MASONIC ASSOCIATIONS
It has been asked whether there has been any change in the Church’s decision in regard to Masonic associations since the new Code of Canon Law does not mention them expressly, unlike the previous Code.
This Sacred Congregation is in a position to reply that this circumstance in due to an editorial criterion which was followed also in the case of other associations likewise unmentioned inasmuch as they are contained in wider categories.
Therefore the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enrol in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.
It is not within the competence of local ecclesiastical authorities to give a judgment on the nature of Masonic associations which would imply a derogation from what has been decided above, and this in line with the Declaration of this Sacred Congregation issued on 17 February 1981 (cf. AAS 73 1981 pp. 240-241; English language edition of L’Osservatore Romano, 9 March 1981).
In an audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II approved and ordered the publication of this Declaration which had been decided in an ordinary meeting of this Sacred Congregation.
Rome, from the Office of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 26 November 1983.
Joseph Card. RATZINGER
+ Fr. Jerome Hamer, O.P.
Titular Archbishop of Lorium
There is NO MENTION OF FREEMASONRY BEING IPSO FACTO EXCOMMUNICATION NOR OF CLERICS INCURRING ANY CENSURE.
You make an assumption BASED ON YOUR AUTHORITY that there’s an excommunication yet your own “pope” gives the lie to that contention by allowing a Freemason-cleric to freely function.
We are not defending Freemasons, BERGOGLIO IS DOING SO. He’s your pope so follow him David! Our 1917 Code excommunicates Freemasons—Wojtyla’s Code does not.
There is nothing more intellectually lazy than your “Four Fatal Errors.” There is no “Mass Nostalgia” as a reason Traditionalists find the Novus Bogus “mass” invalid an evil. Strawman.
Now please comment like a cowardly female dog—“woof, woof, woof.”
The Law of Non-Contradiction gives lie to the “hermeneutics of continuity” nonsense. The ecclesiology of Vatican II and the Magisterium prior are mutually exclusive. If you’d like to debate me on that point, I STAND READY. I’M NOT A COWARD. I’ll prove your contention wrong.
Fr. Coppleston was a brave Priest who debated an atheist and won converts. Too bad a self-anointed “theologian and historian” who claims the title Catholic and doesn’t care about winning souls for his sect! Then again,
“Proselytizing is solemn nonsense.”
Yes, Gray has been exposed for the heretical coward he is and everyone can read it.
And now, ladies and gentlemen, the moment you've all been waiting for....
Refuting David L. Gray's comments with David L. Gray's comments! Brought to you by, David L. Gray's comments!!
On March 12, at 9:18 AM, our intrepid protagonist, David L. Gray, made the lofty accusation that our fellow commenter, "A Simple Man", had practiced the vile act of being intellectually lazy. Shocking, yes, I know. Here is the evidence:
David L. Gray (Yoseph M. Daviyd)March 12, 2020 at 9:18 AM
"...I made no assertion. I NEVER said SEVERS. I never says IN GENERAL. I never said BODY OF CHRIST. PLEASE do try to score points through misrepresentation and strawman arguments. Don't be intellectually lazy."
I'm sure the audience is just as curious as I am to see the intellectual RIGOR our brave David L. Gray must have clearly demonstrated throughout this long comment thread, since who on earth would be so crass and lacking self-awareness to accuse someone else of intellectual laziness while being replete with it himself? The answer to that will be revealed soon enough...
Our first piece of evidence:
David L. Gray (Yoseph M. Daviyd)March 12, 2020 at 6:11 AM:
"It has been asked if I would debate on a neutral forum. I have NEVER debated a non Catholic, because we do not agree on enough to debate. Catholics debating non Catholics is just an exercise in indifferentism and false ecumenism. Sedevacantists are not Catholics to me. They are Protestants. Therefore, debating a Sedevacantist would be pointless. It would be like water debating air about who fire likes the most."
Well now, wait a second. That can't be right. Hold on a second, we're getting a call from our producers. Mhm. Mhm. Yeah. Ok, got it.
Alright, after having talked to our producers, we've decided to look up the definition of the word "lazy" on Google, and cross check with the evidence we've just been given. A simple cursory search gives us...
la.zy - adjective - 1. unwilling to work or use energy
You heard it here first folks, but don't go out for your pitchforks and torches just yet, surely our Einsteinian protagonist can redeem himself in the next examples...
Our second piece of evidence:
David L. Gray (Yoseph M. Daviyd)March 11, 2020 at 8:42 PM:
"It was asked: 'if St. Paul fully expected the Galatian Christians to recognize a false gospel and anathematize the ones spreading it (even if it were himself or an angel of God!), then why should we be expected to blindly follow or accept the authority of those who profess a non-Catholic religion?'
Isogesis aider, the assumption here is that I agree with both your premise and your conclusions and consequences to that premise.
It's certainly a GREAT topic to explore after we flush out the premise and etcetera but not one I'd be interested in engaging via combox. This isn't a good forum to truly dialogue if TRUTH is what we are interested in moving towards. These comboxes are just for scoring points."
Now, you may be wondering, "what on earth is this man doing going through all this effort to type out these words, while saying absolutely nothing?" Wonder away, because we don't have an answer for you either.
On to our third piece of evidence:
David L. Gray (Yoseph M. Daviyd)March 11, 2020 at 1:05 PM
"...All the other replies began with false premise or were strawman arguments and, therefore, did not deserve a reply."
Well folks! There it is! The fearless crusader of truth and justice has singlehandedly destroyed the false workers of iniquity!! No citations, referencing, or context needed! Clearly a true work of intellectual rigor and scholarship if I've ever seen it! I don't know about you guys, but I'll be going first thing next Sunday to my local Novus Ordo sodomite cleric to have myself reconciled with Bergoglio! Maybe if I'm lucky, they'll clean up the reconciliation closet and take out the brooms and mops they store in there, but if we're being honest, the sodomite pastor will likely just absolve me on the spot in his lay clothes as is. Well, that's progress for you!
It was stated, by someone who needs to see the word 'excommunicated' to understand that grave sin and being orbidden from receiving Holy Eucharist means excommunicated (LMBO) that:Delete
"Yes, Gray has been exposed for the heretical coward he is and everyone can read it."
YAYYYYYYY YESSSSSSSSS You WON!!!! Good job! 😂😂😂😂😂
Adios fellas. It was almost fun. Pursue TRUTH and not points. Deum Verum.
You wrote the following at 9:18 AM: "I made no assertion. I NEVER said SEVERS. I never says IN GENERAL. I never said BODY OF CHRIST. PLEASE do try to score points through misrepresentation and strawman arguments. Don't be intellectually lazy."
To again quote precisely what you wrote today at 6:03 AM: "All grave sin breaks communion with Christ and His Church, and in other words - excommunication."
Point one: this statement is absolutely an assertion on your part by definition, as it is a 'confident or forceful statement of fact or belief.'
Point two: in this context of communion, "break" and "sever" are synonyms with similar meanings, as they both entail separation.
Point three: To speak of "all" grave sin is to speak of grave sin "in general", so this again is a case of identical meaning.
Point four: you specifically said that communion is broken with "Christ and His Church." Since it is a dogma of the Catholic faith that the Church is Christ's Mystical Body, this is again a case of identical meaning.
Conclusion: this was not a case of strawmen, or misrepresentation. Rather, this was actually intellectual laziness on *your* part. Shall we add projection to your attributes (since you also accuse us of being "defenders of Freemasonry" - an absolutely absurd statement that is trivially disproven by simply reading what's been written in this combox - you must also be in a bit of a mental pickle since your religion's authorities appear to have no issues with an active Freemason in the Curia speaking publicly).
In like manner, you speak of harmonizing Vatican 2 with Tradition; there can be no harmony between mutually exclusive positions. The very documents of V2 profess and promulgate doctrines which were previously condemned as erroneous or heretical; by the principle of non-contradiction, there can be no such thing as continuity between "Not A" and "A".
A Simple Man
"Catholics debating non Catholics is just an exercise in indifferentism and false ecumenism."
It's an exercise of proselytism which for once in your life you agree with your pope that it's "solemn nonsense" (indifferentism) because as he would say "nobody can say that he has the truth." We see how you are Mr. Gray. You don't want to lose followers and have them potentially believe in real Catholicism because they might own the truth.
1.) You know you cannot defend Francis-John XXIII as "Catholic popes."
2.) Your theology is pretty mediocre for someone who has a masters degree in it. For example you say, "All grave sin breaks communion with Christ and His Church, and in other words - excommunication." This is heresy. Mortal sin kills the soul and deprives it of heaven but it doesn't separate a man from the body of the Church unless he is sentenced to excommunication. In other words, it's not automatic excommunication every time a person commits a mortal sin as you say Proof below:
Pope St. Pius X Catechism #7 Q. Can those in mortal sin participate in the external goods of the Church?
A. Those in mortal sin can participate in the external goods of the Church, unless indeed they are cut off from the Church by excommunication.
Funny that you do believe that mortal sin is automatic excommunication because your pope commits it almost every time he speaks and yet you expect people to blindly stay united to him and call him "Holy Father" as if he is "pope" of what you think is the "Catholic Church."
I wish you had some laugh emoji like options for the comments Introibo. I was literally dying when you told him to bark like a dog lol I was gonna give my 2 cents but you guys have given him a whole dollar already. Great article and insightful comments here buddy.Delete
Gray has left one last comment that I’m waiting to publish until I get home and give it the response it deserves! This man is a disgrace plain and simple. Ironically, HIS last comment has “laugh emojis” (!) Well, they say ignorance is bliss so it’s no wonder he can be so happy getting an intellectual beat down. He did a better job of exposing the fraud of the V2 sect than I ever could!
Glad to hear from you, the intelligent David!
Introibo,"Now please comment like a cowardly female dog—“woof, woof, woof.”Delete
Must you stoop to Mr. Gray's level? It is most unbecoming and disconcerting.
I can see your point, but I think in this case it is deserved. Remember that even Our Lord called His enemies "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to Hell?" (St. Matthew 23:33). Not exactly sweet language now, is it?
David Gray comes on here using profanity and accusing Traditionalists of being cowards. He has shown himself as the coward, so "if the shoe fits..."
As a general rule I try to stay mild-mannered. However, there are times Christ's enemies (yes, Gray is an enemy) deserve a tongue lashing, just as Christ gave when He was in His public ministry.
That having been said, I'll try to be nicer.
It is not necessarily about being nicer. It is the profanity Mr. Gray used in comparing Traditionalists to b...s and your retort about "female dogs" referencing his profanity. Jesus did not use profanity when he referenced "You snakes", and "You brood of vipers". How dare you even begin to compare the two is beyond me. Jesus was not profane nor did he use profanity.Delete
Christ did not use profanity, NOR DID I. I allowed everyone to read Gray's profanity--which I threw back at him in a veiled reference. He accuses Traditionalists of being b*****s, yet HE runs from a one on one debate in a neutral forum. He thereby merits the very vulgar title for himself.
You can disagree, but that's where I stand.
David Gray @10:27Delete
Yes, thank you for your admission you can’t defend your position as it is intellectually indefensible.
Let me summarize for my readers that Mr. Gray:
*Makes a video that is both puerile and inaccurate against sedevacantists. In his article against sedes “The Four Fatal Errors of Sedevacantism” he distorts our positions and knocks down strawmen.
* In his video he announces that no one should argue against sedes because we are “having a temper tantrum” and should “not be treated like adults.” This is pure ad hominem claptrap and an excuse not to debate a position he cannot defend in rational discourse conducted on a neutral forum. We use sound, valid arguments with our premises from the teachings of the Church and Her approved theologians which Gray dismisses as a “temper tantrum”—whatever that means.
* He lies about his credentials. How does having a Masters degree in Vatican II theology make him a “theologian”? He never responded as to whether the Vatican or any V2 “bishop” recognizes him as such. He also refers to himself as an “historian” yet does not possess ANY degree in history, let alone a doctorate. He self-publishes his books, and his work, to the best of my knowledge and belief, does not appear in any peer-reviewed publications. He then calls sedes “prideful.”
*He comes on this blog and comments using vulgarities and accusing Traditionalists of being “cowards.” Yet, when I challenged him to a formal debate on a neutral forum, HE refuses using the pathetic excuse that he won’t debate “non-Catholics.” Well, the famous debate between Fr. Frederick Copleston and ATHEIST Bertrand Russell in 1948 won converts to the Faith. Gray tries to say that his sect and sedes are too different to debate. More different than a Catholic priest and an avowed atheist? Fr. Copleston and the Church didn’t see it that way! And who could be more different than a Catholic priest and an atheist? He knows he would be cut down in debate with me and be seen as incompetent. At least he knows that much.
*He claims to have witnessed a “Eucharistic miracle” yet he will not answer if the Modernist Vatican or any of its bishops have officially recognized it as such. It could be a deceit of Satan. He pronounces it authentic BASED ON HIS (non-existent) AUTHORITYDelete
* He claims that Freemasons are still excommunicated, but being in a state of mortal sin and not being able to go to Communion is NOT the same as being excommunicated. If someone shacks up with his girlfriend in unrepentant mortal sin, he may not receive the Eucharist, but is not excommunicated. His reading of Ratzinger’s “clarification” on Freemasonry is BASED ON HIS OWN AUTHORITY. Bergoglio and his “bishops” allow a cleric who is a Freemason to publicly function. This would mean he has no right to confect the Sacraments, especially Penance, since he is not part of the Church and lacks all jurisdiction outside the danger of death. Obviously, Bergoglio and his flunkies EITHER (a) allow an excommunicate to give unlawful and invalid (as to Penance and Marriage) sacraments. (I’m assuming ad arguendo that V2 clerics are validly ordained and offer valid sacraments—which they don’t) OR (b) Gray’s interpretation BY HIS OWN AUTHORITY is not shared by his own “pope” and “bishops”
* He concludes with laughing faces and another vulgarity referencing male genitalia. In order to laugh his b***s off, he would first need to get a pair. A man whomlies about both himself and his opponent’s has no business telling anyone but himself to seek the TRUTH
David Gray represents the Vatican II sect. A proven liar and coward who won’t “contend for (his) faith,” and uses vulgarities to express himself. Is it any wonder his sect is a pathetic joke? Please pray for David Gray’s conversion, as will I.
"YAYYYYYYY YESSSSSSSSS You WON!!!! Good job! 😂😂😂😂😂"
Let me ask you in all seriousness: since you're a self-professed theologian, winning souls for conversion should be of prime importance, yes?
In what world does such juvenile exclamations advertise the strength of your position, or attract non-Catholics to your point of view?
In like manner: "Adios fellas. It was almost fun. Pursue TRUTH and not points." Why assign ill motives? If pointing out your logical faults, your objective errors, and your non-Catholic theology is "pursuing points instead of truth", then what pray tell *is* pursuing truth in your worldview?
It certainly can't be what you've demonstrated here, because some of the things you've said were so swiftly countered that it's quite frankly embarrassing. To paraphrase St. Francis de Sales, calm and collected explanations can attract more people to your view than entire posts full of vulgar slang and high-handed self-aggrandizement.
I'd recommend stepping away from your own self-publishing for a while and brush up on actual Catholic doctrine and theology. I'd recommend the Baltimore Catechism, or the Catechism Explained by Fr. Francis Spirago.
And then, hopefully, you'll realize just who the hierarchy you've endeavored to protect are: non-Catholic usurpers.
May the Peace of Christ be with you.
A Simple Man
Fellas, I didn't intend to come back to this place, but a reader emailed and suggested that I should clarify a couple of things.Delete
1. I was accused of not answering questions about myself, and being, thereby a liar and a charlatan and etcetera. I purposely did not fall into those personal character insults and ad hominem attacks because I found them to be juvenile and not in good faith. Saying something someone has a non Catholic degree, is self published (of my seven books, seven were published by a publishing house - yes, I am the President and Publisher of Saint Dominic's, but we have been publishing other authors. If your employer publishes you, that does not make you self published LOL), not peer reviewed, self styled this and that, needs to prove a private revelation, isn't a theologian or historian based upon the attackers standards are all logical errors in debate and just childish. They aren't serious. That's why I did not answer any of those attacks. Just silliness.
2. A basic debate rule is clarifying terms..... Asking WHAT DO YOU MEAN by that word? Asking DEFINE THAT TERM. To not ask questions is to be intellectually lazy. Assuming is lazy. Of course grave sin breaks (eg damages, harms) communion with Christ and His Church. That's why it necessitates the Sacrament of P&R. But rather than clarify or ask, you kept trying to win points.
3. LMBO = laughing my butt off. Let's clarify before we assume.
4. Good point about father debating an atheist, but don't think so much of yourself to think that my reason for not debating is because I think I'd lose. Even if I would debate a Protestant, I honestly don't see anyone here who understands debate or can withstand the rigor it takes for a good debate. You haven't demonstrated that you are above personal attacks, ad hominems, staying on topic, or avoid trying to score points. You just aren't that mature. Good debates take patience and listening. I don't see that here.
If any of you want to have a PRIVATE conversation, please call me. Email me and set up a time to chat. People do that all the time with mmr. We don't need an audience. Come convert me LOL
Again, I appreciate the prayers. Humble men invite prayers. But while you are praying for me, please pray and ask God whether you are truly doing His work or are you doing your own.
Each time you comment here, you just make yourself look worse—if it can get any worse at this point.
Here we go again:
1. Gray does not even attempt an intellectual refutation using argumentation or bring to fore FACTS. Instead he calls names and makes poor excuses like, “it’s childish” “it’s silly” and so forth to not debate or answer pertinent questions. This coming from a man who uses street vulgarity and laughing faces in his responses. He refuses to answer simple questions like, “How does having a Bachelors degree in Business Administration and a Masters degree in theology qualify you as an “historian?” Gray is an ultracrepidarian, i.e., one who is presumptuous and offers advice or opinions beyond one’s sphere of knowledge. There are credentials one must have to claim expertise. To be a medical doctor, you must attend medical school, get your medical degree (approved by the AMA), do an residency, and pass the medical boards. Reading some books on medicine does not thereby make someone a “doctor” or give them the right to practice medicine. I did not “make up” these requirements. I’m a lawyer because I graduated from an ABA-approved law school, passed the Bar Exam, and was deemed fit by the Character and Fitness Committee. You don’t become a lawyer by reading some law books at home and watching every episode of “Law and Order.” All acknowledged historians have a doctorate in history. He does not claim any formal education and degree in the field. Reading some history books doesn’t make you an “historian.” If Mr. Gray thinks credentials are not important, when he needs to get his first colonoscopy at age 50, instead of a gastroenterologist, just call the Roto-Rooter man. He uses a hose too, and you might even get a big discount.
2. He admits he is the President and Publisher of St Dominic’s Media, but he is NOT self-published, because it’s by his “employer.” That’s the most disingenuous statement I’ve ever heard. Check out his publishing website at https://www.saintdominicsmedia.com/. They sell exactly five books—three by David Gray (surprise, surprise), and two by Nicholas Newman. Of course this publishing powerhouse couldn’t find any better author than David Gray who just so happens to be President and Publisher. So he’s not self-published. Yes, David and I also have a Bridge in Brooklyn to sell you real cheap. Interested? (Continued below)
3. Basic debate rules? From the guy who runs awayfrom his opportunity to show me up on a neutral forum? PLEASE.Delete
4. Oh, Ok. Laughing your BUTT off. That’s way better David! Do all “theologians” write as well as you?
5. “…but don't think so much of yourself to think that my reason for not debating is because I think I'd lose. Even if I would debate a Protestant, I honestly don't see anyone here who understands debate or can withstand the rigor it takes for a good debate. You haven't demonstrated that you are above personal attacks, ad hominems, staying on topic, or avoid trying to score points. You just aren't that mature. Good debates take patience and listening. I don't see that here.” You aren’t serious, right? You call sedes b*****s, but I’M guilty of ad hominem??? If a person claims to be an expert, it’s not ad hominem to have him prove his credentials. It’s done in court all the time. What member of your sect recognizes you as a theologian? NOT ad hominem. How can you be considered an historian with no degree in history? How do you know you witnessed a “Eucharistic miracle” and it was not a work of Satan? BASED ON YOUR AUTHORITY, or was it approved by a bishop or the Vatican (Francis, a Congregation, etc) NOT ad Hominem. I was captain of the debate team in law school, but I’ve just given you the PERFECT OPPORTUNITY to beat me in a debate and win souls for your sect!! Why not take advantage of my lack of intellectual rigor?
David, I’ll be praying for you. If nothing else, you’ve given both my readers and myself a look into the sad state of the Vatican II sect and their less than truthful “theologians.”
Hello Mr. Gray,Delete
Though I've not called you a liar, it's not exactly ad hominem to point out that you claim titles you objectively haven't earned. Especially with regards to the title of theologian, which traditionally came with training at a pontifical university, ordination, a doctorate of sacred theology (STD), and so on. To claim titles that you have not earned according to Catholic standards is not a mark of humility (unless your sect's standards for theology have fallen so low that a Master in Arts of Catholic Theology from a non-pontifical university is all it takes to qualify). Theology is a serious business, and the Church's approved theologians demonstrated that amply. You also keep saying that we are criticizing you by *our* standards; we have made more than enough references to traditional Catholic sources to demonstrate that we are arguing against you using the Church's own standards.
Next, it's rather interesting that you harp on us for not "asking questions" or "clarifying terms", because in all of your posts responding to Introibo's article (and the commenters), you didn't ask *any questions* to clarify terms, or to precisely understand what the sedevacantist argument is. Rather, you defaulted to the same tired "sedes are Protestants" argument that's been refuted so many times in so many places that to utilize it is a mark of...well, intellectual laziness. In like manner, when the topic was on ipso facto excommunication, don't be surprised if someone takes your assertion that "all grave sin breaks communion" in that context and proceeds to point out why it's incorrect; you're the one who introduced an ambiguous generality into the discussion, not I. As a theologian, precision of language is a must, yet you seem quite willing to get all bent out of shape when someone points out the errors that can be derived from your statements.
Likewise, *no one here* is talking about "winning points" **except you**. None of this has been about "points"; it all ties back to your religion's theological framework being incompatible with traditional Catholicism, and our attempts to show you that.
You also wrote: "I honestly don't see anyone here who understands debate or can withstand the rigor it takes for a good debate. You haven't demonstrated that you are above personal attacks, ad hominems, staying on topic, or avoid trying to score points. You just aren't that mature. Good debates take patience and listening. I don't see that here." Putting this side-by-side with your own posts renders this a stunning example of projection (even if other commenters have also been sharp-tongued in return, which I am not excusing). Your demeanor in most of your posts resembles what I saw on message boards as a teenager in terms of maturity.
Lastly: "If any of you want to have a PRIVATE conversation, please call me. Email me and set up a time to chat. People do that all the time with mmr. We don't need an audience. Come convert me LOL" But I thought you didn't 'debate non-Catholics'? Why would the lack of a public forum change that? It would still be a private exercise in false ecumenism, in your worldview, would it not? Besides, if you're *that* concerned about the standards of debate, then Introibo has already solved that for you, by offering it to be done with a public and neutral 3rd party like debate.org.
It's not like you'd have anything to lose, right?
A Simple Man
LOL I swear you guys are comedy, but I think you are really being serious. So, you expect a 2 1/2 year old specialized publishing company to have lots of titles by various authors? We are bringing one more author this year, so don't mind us if we don't accept every manuscript we receive.Delete
And you still don't see TNT logical error of trying to discredit an argument by attacking your opponents credentials? Dude, look, here's the thing, you can Google me. You can contact my diocese and my pastor. You can pull my transcripts and speak with all of my previous employees. You can send me mail. You can come hear me speak at conferences. If you see me PM the street you could recognize me.
You see, I have skin in the game. I have lost out on Jon's in the Church because my critiques of Francis are public. Before it was cool to call Francis out on heresy, I was that guy that was being blackballed.
So you are you? You want to debate me, but who are you? You're just anonymous. LOL You have no skin in this. You're a joke. You're playing games. Leading people away from Christ and His Church, and for all we know, you're a Protestant.
I'll make you a deal. If you come out of the shadows and start using your real name and image, I'll think about debating you in person. I'll fly you to Saint Louis and we film a debate. Deal?
I stay anonymous for two reasons:
(a) who I am is unimportant, all glory to God
(b) as a NYC lawyer, there could be serious repercussions for my family members and my friends who would suffer for my beliefs as Traditionalists are seen as a "hate group" by the likes of the Southern Poverty Law Center.
However, So you have no more excuses, I contacted my friend, Mr. Steven Speray. Mr. Speray is the owner of the sedevacantist blog “Catholocism in a Nutshell.” See https://stevensperay.wordpress.com.
Google Steve and you will see his picture and can read all about him. He also has self-published books. He has agreed to debate you on a neutral site, debate.org with agreed upon rules just as I have. I will even tell him about the offer to go to St. Louis. Since he is NOT anonymous, you might be able to tape it without paying for his airfare--maybe SKYPE, or some other technology.
Steve has debated John Salza, Robert Siscoe, and the Dimond brothers. In my opinion, he is a top tier debater.
If you refuse to debate him, you have now run out of ALL excuses, except for (a) an inability to defend your position because it is incorrect and (b) cowardice.
the fact that you may have incurred a certain loss (be it money, friendship or respect) does not automatically make your ideas Catholic. If one decides not to go with the Novus Ordo flow, it is only reasonable to expect being ignored, taunted or despised – and I believe this has been experienced by all of us commenting here. Some, like Steve Skojec, have managed to make a profitable business out of their dissatisfaction with the reality of Novus Ordo - does his being in the NO conservative, trad or whatever you call it spotlight automatically mean that his ideas are Catholic? Is worldly failure or success a proof of your Catholic integrity? I believe we have a right to stay anonymous as well as reveal our identity if we wish to – either of these approaches should not influence the way people respond to the claims we make: the principal criterion is the objective truth (found solely in the Catholic Church), or rather whether we comply with it or not.
People who respond each week to the posts authored by Introibo are treated with respect – no one here flaunts about their academic degrees, work experience or high self-esteem. It is what they say and the way they say it (no coarse language! taking offences is rather unbecoming of a middle-aged man like you) that keeps the discussion going and makes it meaningful. You, Mr. Gray, have tried to intimidate others with the expertise you claim to have; yet, this expertise of yours would not let you take part in an academic discussion some 60 years ago.
Let me recall a little anecdote: a sworn translator of over 22 years with an M.A. in romance languages and an excellent command of French and Italian (scholarships in both France and Italy), was a university student in the 1980s (no, Mr. Gray, it’s not me). She had been lucky to have had a pre-World War II professor as a lecturer. On the very first day he said this to his first-year students: “None of you would pass your high school’s final exams before the war!”. She was the only one to approach the professor privately after the class was over and ask him what to do if she wanted to pass these pre-war exams.
Many decades ago a linguist, someone with specialized knowledge of a given language, would not only have mastered the language of his study but also have at least good command of one, two or three other modern languages, as well as ancient Greek and Latin; that was not heroism – they called it an academic degree in those days. Today, most M.A. graduates badly need a tutor even in the principal language they ‘studied’ (talking ‘bout my home country, but I guess we can all relate). This is the reality of today’s university education and Novus Ordo theology is no exception.
Mr. Gray, you think very highly of yourself and attack those who dare question your credentials on serious grounds (no academic body in the world would ever consider you a historian without a proper degree, regardless of the overall lousy state of today’s science). Just be aware, that there might be people - right in this comments’ section – whose both educational and professional experience is richer than yours (again, I’m not talking about myself) – and no, they don’t need to throw it in your face. I’ve come to realize that those who’ve received a really solid education are the ones least likely to shout about it.
I hope Mr. Gray takes your words to heart!
I find it ironic how many Freemason's convert to the Novus Ordo. Those such as John Salza and Mr. Gray then become fervent apologists for the Novus Ordo. I guess the Novus Ordo appeals to such person's because the Novus Ordo is Freemasonic!
Good point! In my opinion, Salza never stopped being a Freemason. See my post
I have heard from here and there about Salza being a Mason, but it never really fully processed in my mind the implications of that. I think it's not at all imprudent to question whether or not his allegiances still remain to that occultist fraternity, especially given his virulent stance against SedevacantismDelete
My thoughts exactly.
Dear Introibo, what would be your response to this?ReplyDelete
"Cardinal Turrecremata says, "Although it clearly follows from the circumstance that the Pope can err at times, and command things which must not be done, that we are not to be simply obedient to him in all things, that does not show that he must not be obeyed by all when his commands are good. To know in what cases he is to be obeyed and in what not ... it is said in the Acts of the Apostles, 'One ought to obey God rather than man': therefore, were the Pope to command anything against Holy Scripture, or the articles of faith, or the truth of the Sacraments, or the commands of the natural or divine law, he ought not to be obeyed, but in such commands is to be passed over (despiciendus)."-Summ. de Eccl., pp. 47, 48."
(John Henry Newman, "A Letter Addressed to His Grace the Duke of Norfolk on Occasion of Mr. Gladstone's Recent Expostulation, Dec. 27, 1874)
Also, is it possible to contact you privately via email?
It is important to understand the context of both Cardinal Newman and Theologian Turrecremata.
According to Theologians McHugh and Callan, a command or decision of a pope can happen in one of three ways:
1. Rejection of the thing commanded. This occurs when one disobeys something (e.g., a fast or restitution enjoined by the Pontiff) because he considers it too difficult. This results in sin, but not separation through schism because he rejects a commandment of the Church, not the Head of the Church.
2. Rejection of the command when you regard the pope in his capacity as an individual. As the pope is not above human weakness, he might make a command moved by hatred, envy, or some other sinful motive involving an individual decision (not one affecting the whole Church). The pope might also command something sinful (e.g., kill someone he dislikes). In such a case neither sin nor schism is committed by this refusal to obey.
3. The rejection is based on his official capacity as pope. The person is guilty of schism and is no longer a member of the Church because he does not wish to submit to the authority of the pope who gave the command. (See theologians McHugh and Callan, Moral Theology 1:542-543)
The commands that Turrecremata refer to (and Newman) are of the SECOND category. If the pope is not teaching the Church and commands someone to do something EVIL, e.g., "desecrate the Blessed Sacrament," swear a false oath on the Bible," "murder someone," etc. you must disobey and no sin is committed.
Turrecremata definitely believed the pope would automatically cease to be pope by Divine Law for HERESY. "...the second opinion is that the Pope, in the very instant in which he falls into heresy, even if it is only interior, is outside the Church and deposed by God, for which reason he can be judged by the Church. That is, he is declared deposed by divine law, and deposed de facto, if he still refused to yield. This is of John de Turrecremata, but it is not proven to me." (See St. Robert Bellarmine, "De Romano Pontifice, Book II, Chapter 30.")
If you send me your email address via these comments, I promise not to publish it. I will then send you an email from an account that protects my identity, and in the Subject Line I will write "Hello From Introibo." We can then communicate via email.
Introibo, I don't know who "Simple Man" is, but his depth of thinking and knowledge, coupled with his ability to express himself so well, make him quite an asset in the comments section. This Man is anything but Simple! I, for one, have profited immensely from his erudition - as your readers have, I'm sure. Keep up the good work, SM! As for David Gray: I'm not sure whether to laugh or to cry at his efforts. The poor man has been shot down in flames, yet again, in most spectacular fashion. If this is the best that victims of the Novus Bogus apostasy can come up with, then the case for the Catholic position is strengthened immeasurably!ReplyDelete
I agree wholeheartedly! I always learn from all my readers and enjoy their comments. However, Simple Man has really added to the quality of this blog and I thank him for commenting here each week!
As for David Gray, has indeed strengthened our position with such ridiculous “arguments.” Pray for his conversion.
Your antidote to the "Four Horsewords of the Sedevacantist Apocalypse" (at least, that's what this Mr. Gray fellow would like to believe they are) at the end of this article is pure gold.ReplyDelete
Thank you my friend! It may sound harsh to some, but when you have someone purposefully distorting our position, and doesn't understand the basics of Catholic theology...Well, "if the shoe fits..."
He also misrepresents himself. He claims to be an "historian," yet nowhere on his website does he claim to possess a doctorate in history. A Bachelors degree in Business Administration and a Masters degree in Vatican II sect theology do not make him an "historian" anymore than my Masters Degree in Science and Juris Doctorate make me a neurosurgeon.
Excellent points! The intellectual beatdown Mr. Gray has received in this post and the comments will hopefully jolt him up from his intellectual stuppor to the light of the True Faith. I'm sure most, if not all of us have been there before.Delete
Thanks again for your work you do so selflessly in running this blog. I know I've benefited very much!
Thank you! Comments like yours keep me writing!
If anybody who is still on the fence about the current situation in the Church, I think this simple little example should speak *VOLUMES* as to where the One True Faith lies...ReplyDelete
A Sedevacantist reply:
"...if St. Paul fully expected the Galatian Christians to recognize a false gospel and anathematize the ones spreading it (even if it were himself or an angel of God!), then why should we be expected to blindly follow or accept the authority of those who profess a non-Catholic religion?"
A Novus Ordo reply (From a "theologian" no less):
"You're not soldiers - you're little bitches. You didn't stay to fight for Christ and His Church. You should be ashamed of yourselves."
Aside from the blatant scandal that such a "response" (if it can even be called such) can cause amongst the faithful, can anyone truly imagine a St. Alphonsus Liguori or St. Thomas Aquinas using so blatantly vulgar language against their enemies? A response on that level clearly lacks charity, plain and simple (and yes, it's far worse objectively than a retort using the word stupid).
I suppose Dr. Gray would consider Lot and Abraham for having abandoned Sodom and Gomorrha instead of staying and fighting like the TRUE SOLDIERS all the other sodomites clearly were.
And you shall be hated by all men for my name's sake: but he that shall persevere unto the end, he shall be saved.
We true Catholics pray for our enemies. Dr. Gray insults them. 'Nuf said.
I suppose Dr. Gray would consider Lot and Abraham *EXPLETIVES* for having abandoned Sodom and Gomorrha instead of staying and fighting like the TRUE SOLDIERS all the other sodomites clearly were.Delete
My friend, please don’t dignify a phony “historian” with a Masters degree in Modernist theology as “Dr.” I have formally challenged him to debate me on a neutral forum.(See my latest response to David above).
If he refuses to respond and debate, we will all know who Is the real “female dog” lacking courage!
Thank you for your notice! It would seem as if I confused Mr. and Dr. given his name "David" starts with the letter D.Delete
I apologize for that!
Challenging this crude man to a debate was a stroke of genius on your part. I can't wait to see how it all plays out. I will keep you in my prayers should Gray decide to come forth from the shadows and put his ego where his mouth is, though given what I've seen from him, you seem more than capable of disposing of him quite easily with the talents God has gifted you thus far.
Thank you! However, his kind will NEVER step up. This was apparent when he gave himself an out WITHIN THE VIDEO ITSELF! Sedevacantists are “having a temper tantrum,” and “not to be treated as adults,” etc.
It gives him an excuse to “bravely run away.”
I would also like to ask from where and in what field of study Mr. Gray received his advanced degrees. I hate to say it but his inability/refusal to answer questions, his poor writing skills and the hit and run ad- hominems directed at those who respond in disagreement to his arguments, are not exactly the marks of someone well trained in their claimed field of study.
He is out of his depth here. But I do hope he will thoughtfully consider the quotations and cited comments on this board, drop the angry talk, and pray to see clearly what the Church has taught throughout the centuries before V2, that robber council.
He asks that Sedevacantists join his army in destroying the enemy, but a soldier with integrity can't put on the uniform of the enemy to war against it. One can't become Novus Ordo to vanquish Novus Ordo.
What you say is so true! As to Mr. Gray, he does have a Bacheolors degree in Business Administration, and a Masters degree in theology, both from accredited colleges. Neither degree qualifies him as "an historian" and if he is recognized as a "theologian" in the Vatican II sect with a masters degree, I'd like to know what V2 prelate acknowledges him as such in an official capacity.
Jannie, to assist you, l have searched both classical and modern definitions of the term 'historian's and did not find one that met your criteria.Delete
Not to defend myself, but having being made a fellow in two academic research societies and having been commissioned by two organizations to write history books, and also having had published a work in the history of liturgy and the Masonic prohibition, it is no wonder why others call me a historian and promote and introduce me as such at their conferences. I was also a history teacher for many years.
I do not consider myself any longer to be an academic scholar because my profession is not in the University currently.
To assist YOU:
Although 'historian' can be used to describe both amateur and professional historians, it is reserved more recently for those who have acquired graduate degrees, according to the American Historical Association (www.historians.org).
You have no advanced degree or ANY degree in the field. You may certainly consider yourself an AMATEUR historian, but not a serious one.
Your answer is also vague two “academic research societies” (which ones?) “commissioned by two organizations” (which ones?), etc.
Steve Speray is awaiting your response to debate him. He has “skin in the game.” Steve is well known in his community, served in the US Navy, and worked for NASA. You can Google him and by his self-published books.
He attends Mass with Fr Oswalt who left the Vatican II sect diocese of Rockford, Illinois when he realized he was not a real priest because the Vatican II sect was not the Catholic Church. He was subsequently validly ordained by Bishop Pivarunas. You may read Father’s incredible story here:
I wonder what you excuse not to debate will be now!
*I only want to debate you!
* I Don’t think Catholics should debate anyone on a day ending in the letter “y”
Anonymous person, I asked YOU to come out of the shadows and stop being a coward. You are bearing NO witness to Christ Jesus by hiding. I have no respect for people like you. You don't want to pay the price for your words. You don't want your online vitriol to cost you anything. You're a coward! You're no martyr. You're hiding! You're the type of person who only speaks boldly because you have a mask in. In person you'd you couldn't even look me in the eyes. You're a beta and you know it. That's fine, but don't pretend otherwise.Delete
Also, you should know what logical error that is to rely on one definition and without being critical of the source.
Also, as I'm not anonymous and not a coward, all you have to do is Google me to see where I've been elected a fellow.
I'm no prophet, but see my predicted excuse #1 that you would use in my comment above.
I never claimed to be a "martyr," a "theologian," or an "historian." I'm a former NYC teacher and current NYC lawyer. I'm not looking for fame, to self-aggrandize, or make money off my books. I have never made a single cent off my blog.
My arguments stand on their own merit. It doesn't matter who I am. A good argument is a good argument, period. When someone makes claims about themselves that suggest special expertise in the debated area, it is not ad hominem. You are not a theologian. If you are recognized as such, you should have no problem telling me what prelate in your sect OFFICIALLY recognizes you as such.
"Beta" another "b-word" from David! If you want to bravely defend your faith like Fr. Copleston, I agreed to do it on a neutral forum. Instaed, you come on here an call names. When challenged to debate, it was because "I don't debate Protestants." Now, you WILL debate a Protestant, but only if you know his identity! Steve Speray has skin in the game. If you are now willing to debate "Protestants," then it shouldn't matter if the so-called Protestant is anonymous or not. You have Steve Speray (non-Anonymous), and me (anonymous) from which to choose.
Why do I need to Google the information? Why can't you just type it here?
Bottom line; David you have proven to my readers what an indefensible joke the Vatican II sect and thier self-anointed "theologians" are--marked by poor reasoning skills, poor writing skills, distorting your opponents arguments,and using street vulgarity replete with "laughing faces" and juvenile claptrap.
My readers and myself already know you are incapable of defending your position. You are afraid you will lose. The truth is not on your side, you seek only money and self-importance like $kojec.
YOU made the video, now defend it against myself or Steve. But you won't. YOU are the coward--and we all see that!
Thank you David!
One last point; you talk about the “logical error” to rely on one definition and without being critical of the source regarding your “historian” status. There is only one definition of an AMA recognized Doctor and the AMA is what counts. Ditto for lawyers and the ABA.
Likewise, someone cannot claim expertise in a field (history) with no formal education and degree in the field unless you are claiming Amateur status.
Here is the source I cited:
“ The American Historical Association is a nonprofit membership organization founded in 1884 and incorporated by Congress in 1889 for the promotion of historical studies. The AHA provides leadership for the discipline by protecting academic freedom, developing professional standards, supporting scholarship and innovative teaching, and helping to sustain and enhance the work of historians. As the largest organization of professional historians in the world, the AHA represents more than 12,000 members and serves historians representing every historical period and geographical area in a wide variety of professions.”
Doesn’t sound too shabby, David!
"Dr."? Gray sounds as educated in Catholicism as D.Armstrong.ReplyDelete
Where do these universities/colleges get off honouring such as the above with "doctorates". No doubt Theodore Hertzl (spelling?) would gain a doctorate in "catholic" theology at this rate.
Talk about the blind leading the blind!
He has no doctorate. He’s a pseudo-educated dolt. See my response to him where I challenge him to debate me. He will run—like a “female dog”
How would the Debate.org debate work if it does come to pass? Would it be a written or verbal debate? I've always had a distaste for verbal debates, since it's so easy to make the wildest of claims, and leave them unverified. They usually in my experience devolve into shouting matches and one-liner comeback shows.Delete
It is all written. One side writes (with a word limit agreed upon), then the other side is automatically notified and gets 48 hrs to respond. It usually goes back and forth 5 times.
Catholics have been kicked out the Novus Ordo with the implementation ofReplyDelete
"new Sacramental Rites."
You can't stay and fight if one doesn't have access to valid Priests Bishops Sacraments and Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Mr. Gray gives himself away. Using the profane profanity that he does, he more than likely is a woman hater.ReplyDelete
My comments got buried up there in the Gray exchanges. You stated emphatically that popes cannot be deposed. I mentioned some prominent theologians who teach that a heretical pope CAN be deposed. Even where opinions disagree, most concur that a process must be followed by the church. Thoughts? I also asked the simple man why a sticky legal process would be needed since according to the sede position, this would be completely unnecessary. No response on these points.ReplyDelete
This would require another post (which I plan on doing this year). The short response:
1. The theologians you cite were from before the full development of papal teaching expressed at the Vatican Council of 1870.
2. The reason you could “depose” a pope was not because it was the true removal from office, but rather a declaration that a pope was ALREADY REMOVED BY DIVINE LAW. That’s why he could be “removed” by clerics who would otherwise be unable to do anything. He’s just a non-pope due to heresy.
Hope this helped!
I don't agree with you.Delete
1. The axiom "first see is judged by no one" is ancient. None of the theologians agree with sedevacantism, whereby a guy in the pew can determine that a pope lost his pontificate. It doesn't work like that. Sedevacantists are wrong on this.
2. Number 2 is only an *opinion* but it is not unanimous. Other theologians said that the actual deposition itself would remove the pope from his office. Others say that heresy is the lone exception to the axiom "first see is judged by no one." There is no agreement on how a heretic pope can be deposed or removed from office. All are opinions. What is unanimous is that pope must be formally warned and anything that happens to him must happen through authorities in the church.
3. A formal declaration must happen before Catholics can know someone is not pope. Otherwise nobody would know with certainty who the head of the church is. Until the Church actually says otherwise he must be accepted as the pope otherwise there would be chaos.
I realize you are R&R so we do not agree. When my post on this topic comes out we can go into detail. For now I will leave you with this brief reply, and I will supply citations when I do that post (I’m currently at work without access to my library.
1. That norm applies only to CANONICAL forums. In other words, the pope cannot be put on trial for their is no earthly power higher than the pope who can judge him. However, for clear and manifest heresy, the pope is removed by Divine Law—God alone is above the pope.
2. There are no formal warnings required. I will write about that. The Vatican Council of 1870 rules out a removal or deposition. No approved theologians post 1870 ever taught such, and those prior were discussing the formal removal of one already fallen by Divine Law.
3. Ask yourself this question, “If Francis were to teach ‘Christ is not God’ do I need assurance such a man is manifestly non-Catholic”? Can you be sure he is not protected by the Holy Ghost?
Remember the Great Western Schism during which there were three papal claimants, and for approximately 40 years no one knew who, if anyone, was pope. As long as all accepted the True Faith, they remain Catholics, despite the chaos.
I cannot continue this particular topic until I finish my post. Please feel free to comment as much as you want on that post and I will respond as long as needed. I hope to have such completed sometime in the summer.
1. Again, some theologians disagree. Now whether the pope losing his office due to a formal deposition or by God, all are unanimous that the result must be made known to the church by the authorities in the church. In other words even if God strips a pope from his office for heresy, it is not official until the Church declares it. otherwise there would be confusion and chaos as sedevacantism perfectly illustrates. You cannot speak or decide for the church.Delete
2. Again, theologians disagree with you. Heretics must be warned because they must be given the opportunity to recant as pertinacity is required. Again, laymen in the pew do not have authority to decide if a pope is pertinacious in his heresy. This is strictly for the church to examine and decide.
3. I could recognize the heretical statement but I cannot judge that he is not the pope. Don't you see the difference? This is the job of the Church to declare him deposed, not individual laymen.
Your example of the GWS works against you. The papal confusion was only resolved by the church in council. No individuals in the pews had the power to correct the situation or declare who was the true pope. The matter had to be resolved by the Church in a council.
I tried to be polite in telling you to wait until I address this topic in a separate post. Here is why you are wrong put succinctly:
You're barking up the wrong tree. Bergoglio was a heretic PRIOR to his "election" and therefore NEVER BECAME POPE IN THE FIRST PLACE.
ALL THEOLOGIANS AND CANONISTS teach it is a matter of DIVINE LAW that heretics are barred from ever becoming pope.
CANONIST WERNZ-VIDAL: “Those capable of being validly elected are all who are not prohibited by divine law or by an invalidating ecclesiastical law… Those who are barred as incapable of being validly elected are all women, children who have not reached the age of reason; also, those afflicted with habitual insanity, the unbaptized, heretics, schismatics…” (Jus Canonicum 1:415)
CANONIST CORONATA: “III. Appointment of the office of the Primacy. 1. What is required by divine law for this appointment: … Also required for validity is that the appointment be of a member of the Church. Heretics and apostates (at least public ones) are therefore excluded.” (Institutiones 1:312).
Therefore, all of your nonsensical arguments go up in smoke as IRRELEVANT. Bergoglio routinely participated in Protestant and Jewish worship while "Cardinal." He was a manifest heretic.
The First See is judged by no one. OK, but even IF your faulty interpretation were true, BERGOGLIO never obtained the First SEE so we are not judging it.
Cardinals must give a pope two canonical warnings before he can lose office. Ans. BERGOGLIO was never pope so no warnings apply.
Theologians Suarez and Cajetan support the idea that a pope does not lose his office until the Church somehow issues a judgement that he has. Ans. They came before the Vatican Council of 1870, but it doesn't matter since BERGOGLIO was never pope from the start.
Kudos to Fr. Cekada for first bringing this DOGMATIC FACT to light! (Continued below)
Three additional points:Delete
1. The GWS did not resolve by the "deposition" of a pope, but by the claimants resigning and then a papal election (The great Bellarmine wrote on this point).
2. Confusion among the Church in a time of sedevacante is to be expected, for if the Shepard is struck, the sheep will scatter. What's the excuse of the V2 sect? There is differences of teaching on faith and morals (and in how the "mass" and "sacraments" are administered from Diocese to Diocese, from parish to parish within a Diocese and even from sodomite "priest" to "priest" within the same parish! Why all the confusion and discord if you have a pope to resolve things?
3. If you recognize Bergoglio he is YOUR RULE OF FAITH. Do you follow him?
the pope cannot give that which is evil or erroneous to the whole Church. According to theologian Herrmann:
"The Church is infallible in her general discipline. By the term general discipline is understood the laws and practices which belong to the external ordering of the whole Church. Such things would be those which concern either external worship, such as liturgy and rubrics, or the administration of the sacraments…. If she [the Church] were able to prescribe or command or tolerate in her discipline something against faith and morals, or something which tended to the detriment of the Church or to the harm of the faithful, she would turn away from her divine mission, which would be impossible."
(Institutiones Theologiae Dogmaticae, Vol. 1, p. 258)
Yet Wojtyla (JPII) can evil and invalid "mass" when he allowed members of his sect to receive "communion" with Eastern heretics, as recorded in the document "Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East." (2001). This sect's "anaphora" (the Canon which should contain the words of Consecration) never even contains the words "body" and "blood." This runs completely contrary to the Church's INFALLIBLE teaching on sacramental theology. Need I say any more? No. And I won't be commenting on this topic until my post on it goes up later this year.
I misread your previous post. I thought you said, please feel free to comment, meaning this thread. I look forward to refuting you when you address this subject in the future.Delete
Hello Introibo, the debate between Father Copleston and Bertrand Russell was brought up here a little while back, and I wanted to know if you had any sources to the debate in full for me to listen or read to. I'm quite interested in seeing it now, especially after all this haha. If you don't it's quite alright, I have a youtube excerpt of it that is around 18 minutes in length, but it seems to me that it's not the full debate.ReplyDelete
That transcript in its full original length is as rare as hen’s teeth! I have portions and the online clips, but not the whole debate. Sorry to disappoint you my friend. The “debate” here wasn’t as erudite, but much more entertaining—especially from Gray!!
Introibo, it's apparently been uploaded somewhere since you last looked:Delete
Googling "Copleston Russell debate transcript" shows its been uploaded in a variety of websites.
A Simple Man
Thank you for the information my friend! I’m going to read it myself!
This is off topic. What should be the appropriate Catholic response to the Coronavirus? Thanks much!
I don’t believe there can anything rightfully called a “Catholic response” to a health issue, but I will offer my opinion; which is all I can do.
1. I believe (after consulting doctors) that the coronavirus is overblown. The media is more deadly than the disease.
2. The numbers of deaths are inflated since they don’t take into account people who have it and never know because they are asymptomatic or they believe they have a flu and recover after a few days without going to the doctor and reporting anything.
3. While stronger than the common flu, most deaths only affect the elderly (75+), and those with underlying Heath problems like a bad heart.
So, keep extra sanitary, and go about your daily routine. Turn off the media hype. Pray to God, pray the Rosary, and always be in the state of Sanctifying Grace (as we always should anyway). Leave the rest up to God. I’m sure this “Zombie Apocalypse” will pass just like SARS, anthrax, bird flu, etc.
I have a slightly different tack on the whole coronavirus issue: for the first time in human history, the world is sufficiently interconnected at such swift speeds that people, companies, and nations can coordinate in the face of disastrous events to an unprecedented degree.Delete
However, in line with the lack of trust in authorities (whether media, government, medical, etcetera) being at record highs, you also have those trying to incite panic for mere political aims, which does not help matters either.
It's essentially a catch-22: do nations and institutions cooperate or work to try and mitigate a pandemic, at a cost (economic or otherwise) that citizens will find too onerous? Or, out of trying not to inconvenience their citizens, is their response thus lax enough that a pandemic actually takes its dread toll, thus resulting in criticism that the authorities didn't do **enough**? It's almost damned if you do, damned if you don't.
It brings to mind an interesting hypothetical: what if a similar level of panic would have prevented the Spanish Flu's deadly outbreak in 1918? The people at the time would never know what that sort of panic end up preventing. I'm trying to keep that same perspective about current events, as it's literally been generations since a plague-level illness ran through Western Civilization.
But to borrow a familiar motto: keep calm and carry on. God's in control.
The big lesson from this, of course, is that everyone should pull their factories out of China, pronto!
A Simple Man
This thread has been quite a ride! It's been a pleasure reading all of these insightful comments - Introibo, your site is a real gem!ReplyDelete
I doubt whether Mr. Gray is going to respond but I'd like to add one more thing:
Sorry, Mr. Gray, but you are just a small fish in a big Novus Ordo pond, and your M.A. in theology doesn't mean that much in the 'academic' circles of Vatican II sect. There are crazy feminist 'theologianesses' out there in your Novus Ordo land, blaspheming Our Lady, being awarded Ph.D. degrees or higher, pursuing prolific academic careers, lecturing at Novus Ordo seminaries and universities, influencing a new generation of distorted minds - and you, Mr. Gray, are a part of this mess, only you're somewhat at the bottom of this 'scholarly' ladder.
Why don't you grab "Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma" by Rev. Dr. Ludwig Ott, an actual THEOLOGIAN and read the whole thing diligently - just bear in mind that, when you're finished, you might not consider yourself a theologian anymore. After what you've shown us so far in your comments, you could definitely use some humbling experience.
Thank you for commenting--I couldn't have put it any better than you did!
@JoAnna Excellent well worded comment!Delete
God bless - Andrew
Introibo & Andrew,Delete
thank you so much for your kind words!
To my readers,ReplyDelete
David Gray came back one more time! Take a look at David @12:56 and my response below it. YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP!
On a different subject, I for one am so glad to see so many Novus Ordos shutting down. This virus has done what trads have been praying for, the cessation of the Novus Ordo. I guess there is a silver lining in every cloud.ReplyDelete
I wonder if the virus will put a permanent hold on the Novus Ordo Masonic handshake?Delete
Tom and Joann,Delete
You both make interesting observations!
Noticed Francis the fake "Pope", since the virus and the lockdown in Italy, has been quiet regarding open borders and leaving all the immigrants into the Country. Do you think this is just a coincidence?
No, it’s no coincidence. He wants to be popular and saying that now wouldn’t help the cause of his self-aggrandizement.
To My Readers:ReplyDelete
David Gray is coming back YET AGAIN. I'm going to close this thread out for David.
He claims he will not debate "Protestants" (his false and illogical appellation for sedes). Now he claims he WILL debate BUT only if I reveal my identity which he knows I won't do.
This enables David to SEEM willing to debate and defend his beliefs like Fr. Copelston, and charge ME with "cowardice." I told David that a debate on a neutral forum like debate.org with agreed upon rules is fair and the strength or weakness of an argument does not depend upon knowing who the person is who makes the argument.
Nevertheless, my friend Steven Speray offered to debate him in my place. Steve is the owner of the blog, "Catholicism in a Nutshell." His identity is well-known, and he has debated Siscoe and Salza as well as the Dimond brothers. If David wants someone with "skin in the game" as he called it, Steve's the man.
David NOW wants only ME to debate with my identity! So, if you're against debating "Protestants" identity is unimportant. If you're now in favor of debating "Protestants," identity is STILL unimportant. David has BOTH an anonymous and non-anonymous Traditionalist with whom he can debate. This shows he is disingenuous. He will not debate ANY sede of repute because he cannot defend his position, and it may hamper the sales of his books. Steve and I do what we do for the glory of God.
David seeks self-aggrandizement and to make money, like $teve $kojec. He claims to be an historian (but only qualifies as an ameteur) claims the title "theologian" yet no one from his sect Officially recognizes him as such (and he meets NONE of the pre-V2 requirements). You can buy his books published by his own company.
Mr. Gray made a video and an article attacking sedevacantism. Now he should defend them. If he is foolish enough to attempt another, I will be happy to demolish it in another post, at which time David may come back and comment to get another intellectual beat down. If he comments to accept the debate, THAT I will both accept and publish immediately--Butdon't hold your breath!
Mr. Gray says he doesn't debate non-Catholics. So, whom does he debate, other Catholics?ReplyDelete
A fascinating and truly enlightening post, Introibo! After watching Mr. Gray’s video twice, and a partial reading of his article on the four fatal flaws of sedevacantism, I must admit to being thoroughly underwhelmed and unimpressed by his vacuous and insulting “arguments.” His combox comments only reinforce my perception of him being disrespectful, uncharitable, insincere and mocking in tone. In addition, he comes across as fearful to debate either with Introibo or Steven Speray. What a true advocate of the Vatican II sect!ReplyDelete
Lastly, it’s clear to me that he didn’t convert from Freemasonry to Catholicism, but to an apostate sect. Freemasons are nothing but sympathizers of the devil.
David Gray is a sign of what is wrong with the Vatican II sect (not that there's anything right about it). Everything you say is true. Let's pray for his conversion. Thank you for commenting my friend!
Happy St. Patrick's Day!ReplyDelete
This post literally "made my day" and you may find a comment where I give consecutive links to all of your "When Strangers Come Knocking" - I would have been among the readers of those posts.